after the manner of Egypt," by an author who, on any theory, cannot possibly have known P2, does not refer to J and may be seen when compared with vs. 24 to refer, beyond all reasonable doubt, to E. This, with the fragments remaining in Ex. xiv., and Jos. xxiv. 6f., is amply sufficient to prove that E's account was much nearer to P2's than to J's.

The second great feature of this section, wherein the elements of actual history may be recognized, is the Visit to Sinai. Here beyond doubt we must recognize as most nearly related to the actual facts the representation which describes the law as received by Moses in solitary communion with Yahweh on Sinai, and engraved by his human hand upon stones, rather than that which describes a voice resounding from the mount in trumpet tones announcing to all the people the moral code in articulated words, and which afterward declares that God himself on Horeb wrote the Words with his finger upon the stone tables of his own making.

Nor is the relation essentially different in the narrative of the journey in the wilderness. In E Israel depends from the outset on miraculous provision for food and drink. The manna is "bread rained from heaven,” xvi. 4; in J it is only referred to subsequently, in passing, as one of the meagre resources of the desert, the occasion of the peoples' complaint. The author speaks of it in just the same terms a modern manna gatherer of the same region might employ of the manna of to-day, the mann es shema or "gift of heaven" of the Arabs. In E water is miraculously supplied by "the rod of God." In J the people depend upon the wells along the route.

Let it not be considered that in drawing this contrast in historical value between E and J we are depreciating the former. On the contrary, the moral and religious standard of E is as much higher than J's as the historical accuracy is lower, and for the same reasons. Still less let it be imagined that critical estimates of this kind constitute an attack" upon the Bible. The reverse is the case. If the historical value of the story of the Exodus depends upon the acceptation of the monstrosities of P, Colenso has given the Pentateuch its death-blow. If

66

further the Bible is of no value unless a particular post-Reformation doctrine of inerrancy can make shift to lump all parts. together as equally divine and equally accurate for all purposes, then the Bible is doomed. But the separation of earlier from later, historical from unhistorical, late and religiously developed from early and religiously primitive, will preserve all elements, and make each valuable for its appropriate function and teaching. The present attempt to extricate the primitive account of J, if successful, will go far to vindicate the Tradition of the Exodus as in its most essential features historical. It constitutes the true answer to Colenso's formidable indictment.

1. Chh. xiii. 17–XV. 21.

THE CROSSING OF THE RED SEA.

ANALYSIS.

God leads the people to the Red Sea, where they encamp. Pharaoh pursues and overtakes them. Moses encourages the people; the waters are divided, allowing Israel to pass through dry shod, but engulfing the pursuing Egyptians. Israel's song of triumph.

In this subsection the marks of compilation are as conspicuous as ever. We need not dwell upon such as merely repeat inconsistencies of view of the different sources already alluded to, such as the improbability of 600,000 fighting men (xii. 37) “armed” (xiii. 18) and defiant in the face of the Egyptians (xiv. 8) recoiling from an encounter with the Philistines (xiii. 17), in abject despair before a detachment of Pharaoh's army (xiv. 1off.), and put to their utmost by the petty desert clan of Amalek (xvii. 8ff.); or such as the orderly preparation and mobilization which xiii. 18f. presuppose, in contrast with xii. 37-39, where not even victual could be prepared in advance. Apologetic ingenuity can perhaps discover also a reason why in xiii. 17-19 the story of the divine guidance should be told with the use (four times) of Elohim exclusively, but in vv. 21f. with the name Yahweh. It is more important to examine at once ch. xiv. as traditionally received, the story of the crossing of the Red Sea to which subsequent allusion is made in portions assigned to all the documents, and which, if the documentary theory is correct, should therefore probably exhibit traces of all three. Is ch. xiv. a unit?

In vv. 15-22 we meet a difficulty analogous to that encountered in the story of the plague of locusts. If Moses' rod extended over the sea divides it, what use of the strong east wind blowing all night? Did

Moses stretch out his hand with the rod over the sea on the evening before, and nothing happen for several hours? Or did the strong east wind drive back the sea, exposing the shallows, and afterward Moses extend his rod and divide what remained of it? What sort of "wind" nad the writer in mind who describes the waters as cloven in twain, so as to leave a "wall" of waters on the right and left of the pursuers and pursued? and how could the Egyptians “flee against it "after “the sea returned to its wonted flow"? Again, we may ask the question, was it the writer's understanding that the crossing took place by daylight, or in the night? He seems to vacillate between the two. The dramatic gesture of Moses dividing the sea with the rod of God certainly seems to presuppose daylight, both for the beginning and end of the crossing. But according to vs. 24 when the morning watch appeared Israel is safe on the further shore, and the Egyptians have already engaged in conflict with them, and are embarrassed in the shoals and quicksands of the sea. Yet the former part of vs. 20 again seems to indicate that the barrier between the Egyptians and Israel was darkness, and this is confirmed by Jos. xxiv. 7 (E), "Ye cried out unto Yahweh, and he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them and covered them." Then the event must have taken place in the daytime; but cf. vs. 20b.

In ch. xv. there are no such decided contrasts in point of view. But neither is there the apparent relation between vv. 20f. and the preceding which the R. V. would establish. In vs. 21 we should translate simply "And Miriam sang (responsively) with them" (i. e. the women; Vulg. quibus præcinebat) as in the exactly analogous passage 1 Sam. xviii. 7 (Budde J). Vv. 20f. then appear in their true light as a duplicate of vs. I. Duplicates in xiii. 17-xiv. 31 are numerous. We need instance only the following: xiv. 5–7=vv. 8f.; 19a=19b; 27=28; 23, 28f.=xv. 19.

In this confusion we have only to apply the principles of analysis already found so successful, and the three independent narratives reappear, self consistent and characteristic as usual, though in the case of E less complete; while all discrepancies and dissonances vanish.

The most easily identified is as usual P2. "The passages assigned to P," says Prof. Driver (Lit, of the O. T., p. 27), “will be found to be connected both with each other and with other parts of the Pentateuch belonging to the same source: thus 'harden (harag) the heart,' vs. 4, recurs vv. 8, 17, and is the same term that is used by P in the narrative of the plagues; get me honor' ib. recurs vv. 17, 18; Lev. x. 3; comp. also vv. 4, 18 and the Egyptians shall know,' etc., (cf. vi. 7; vii. 5; xvi. 12); vv. 9. 23, and the Egyptians pursued'; vv. 22, 29, the dry land'

and the wall'; vv. 16, 21, ‘divide'; the repetitions (in the manner of P) in vv. 17f. as compared with vs. 4, in 28a as compared with 23, in 29 as compared with 22."

As xiv. 1-4, 8f. is thus unquestionably from P, vs. 20 of the preceding chapter must be from the same writer, since it is presupposed by vs. 2 ("turn back ").* The motive for this gratuitous return from the wilderness to Egyptian territory seems to be, as usual in P, purely ad majorem Dei gloriam; cf. xiv. 4, 8, 17 with vii. 3–5; xi. 9f. It also appears from the above that the representation of the dividing of the sea by the stretching out of Moses' hand is P's, in contrast with the associated, but really incompatible, representation of a driving back of the sea by an east wind blowing all night (cf. x. 13, 19 and Num. xi. 31f.). This latter representation is very easily recognizable as J's from the references just given. It forms really a part of the cycle of plague narratives of this document, in which first the announcement is made of what Yahweh will do, thereafter Yahweh himself intervenes, not by the agency of Moses nor of the rod, but by natural means, and brings about the result. Here the announcement is made in vv. 10a, 11-14, where vs. 12 refers either to v. 21 (J) or else to something now wanting, and the style and language are characteristic of this document (see refs.), and the story of Yahweh's intervention during the night and on the following day (cf. x. 13b; Num. xi. 31f.) ensues. In vs. 25b the fulfilment of the promise in vs. 14 is given verbatim, and vs. 30 is similarly connected with vs. 13. It thus appears with great positiveness that the narrative in which the crossing is effected during the night is J's; for "in the morning watch," vs. 24, Yahweh looks forth from the pillar of fire and cloud upon the pursuing Egyptians. The mention of "the pillar of fire and cloud proves that it is this same writer whose story we have in xiii. 21f. (cf. also “ Yahweh " in contrast with "Elohim" in the parallel vv. 17-19); and it is a further necessary conclusion that xiv. 19b, 20b, from "yet gave it light" (¿. e. lightnings?), where the pillar of cloud" becomes a barrier of fire “all night," "standing" between the Egyptians and Israel, is from the same account; whereas the parallel verses, 19a, 20a (to “darkness "), in which 'the angel of God" (Elohim), is the guiding manifestation which went before the camp of Israel are necessarily from another source, since the barrier here is not light (or lightnings) but darkness. Hence it contemplates a passage by day. The further extrication of the J source

66

66

*This verse xiii. 20 is in a J context (vv. 21f.) and seems to connect with xii. 37 (J); but the form of expression in xii. 37 in the Hebrew is different from that of xiii. 20 and nowhere employed by P, while xiii. 20 belongs to a regular series of this writer identical in form (xvii. 1; xix. If. etc.).

after the establishment of this peculiarity is a matter so simple as to be readily left to the reader; but further details of evidence for the analysis of the chapter will be found in Art. III.

Turning to the third source which has become apparent in vv. 19a, 20a it is quite obvious that we have here no mere fragment of P, although the writer seems to coincide with P's representation of a passage by day. On the contrary, to say nothing of the most remarkable characteristic, "the angel of God" (cf. Num. xx. 16; E), these clauses are inseparable from xiii. 17-19, a passage whose derivation from E is established beyond the possibility of doubt by its style and language, but particularly by the connection with Gen. v. 25 and Jos. xxiv. 32 (E). It is clear then that at least some fragments remain of that story of how "they came to the Red Sea, and the Egyptians pursued after your fathers with chariots. and horsemen unto the Red Sea; and when they cried out unto Yahweh, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them and covered them," which E himself thus subsequently refers to in the speech of Joshua, Jos. xxiv. 6f. Vs. 1ob, first of all, is shown by this reference to be from the E narrative. Next vs. 16a is certainly from E, for no other document knows anything of such a use of Moses' rod; but more particularly this is proved by Is. x. 26 ("His rod was over the sea ”), and even E's agreement with P as to the division of the waters follows from the reference in Is. lxiii. 11f. which is older than P2, and cannot refer to J. Finally, there is some reason (see Art. III.) for attributing also vs. 3 and a few other clauses, including vv. 25a and 31, to the same document.

In ch. xv. there is no trace of P2, a document entirely devoid of poetic material. Only vs. 19 appears to be constructed on the basis of xiv. 23, 28f., and serves as a colophon to the psalm xv. I-18, whose incorporation (in its present form) would accordingly be brought down to a late date. The inappropriateness of the poem itself to the circumstances, at least from vs. II onwards (cf. vs. II praises," literally "psalms," 12 “earth" 13, the temple, 17, translating verbs in the past), is additional reason for thinking that the poem from vs. 2 onward is an independent incorporation. This view is strongly corroborated by the fact that the author of Is. xii. a postexilic writer, apparently refers to this song among others, speaking of it as if it began with vs. 2, and not with the preceding lines, which are identical with vs. 21. Had the poem been written, as assumed by many critics, as a development of vs. 21 the lines of this verse would not have been repeated, but simply vv. 2ff. attached to it. The independence of the poem 2-18 is further shown by the striking inappropriateness of its latter part to the situation; while it is at the same time

1

(