« PreviousContinue »
ably to Ex. xvi. 4 and 15, which accordingly must be reckoned to JE; and, since vs. 4 is connected with xv. 25b, and contains a play upon the name Massah, which in J (xvii. 7) is ætiologized quite differently, we may be certain that the JE basis of ch. xvi. is E's Massah story. But it is further abundantly apparent in Dt. viii. that in this original Massahstory, the “testing' of Israel was not the external and formal one of obedience to a rule laid down, but a testing of Israel's disposition in view of certain commandments which are afterwards to be made known. Yahweh acted for the purpose of “knowing what was in their heart,” to know whether they could be depended on to receive and keep a divinely given law with the right spirit of humility and trustful obedience; and for this purpose he took away their usual supply of food and drink, and suffered them to hunger and thirst. Then he gave them manna, of which neither their fathers nor they had ever known, and “ brought them forth water out of the rock of flint ” (viii. 15), “ that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything which Yahweh ordains." Of course the moralising, parenetic spirit of D is plainly evident here ; but how comes he to say that this is the lesson and purpose of the Massah incident, if in the story as it lay before him a law of the Sabbath, or a sample ordinance explicitly laid down in regard to quantity of manna to be gathered, was the test? By the analogy of his treatment of JE elsewhere we are constrained to think that D does not misrepresent his source, but that this was the real sense of the original E story; and that the external tests of various kinds, Sabbath law (Rp), or ordinance in regard to mode of gathering (P2), are the attempts of later hands unable to appreciate the “ prophetic ” idea of a moral test of disposition, without a positive commandment, to supply what they judged to be an omission. We must also acknowledge the accuracy of D in bringing together the story of the supply of food, and of water, as belonging in the same connection, and both preliminary to the giving of the law (viii. 15f.). The E elements of Ex. xv. 25-xvii. 7 are in fact not only connected by their subject matter, but the Massah and Meribah stories belong together geographically, and are certainly in place where they stand.
With this understanding of the meaning of E it becomes clear at once that the verses in which a humble dependence upon God is the spirit sought for in the “test,” are original with E ; and these are easily identified in xv. 25b: xvi. 4 (vs. 5, introducing the idea that the “ ordinance" was the law of the Sabbath is Rj's), 15a, 16a (not a fixed amount, in contrast with 16b, and consequently not an amount which could be doubled, as in vs. 22, but enough only for the satisfaction of one day's re
quirement), 19b (no provision for the morrow), 20f. (Israel show their in. eradicable disposition toward self-sufficiency, refusing here already to be taught the lesson of the sermon on the mount, but God compels them to look to him for daily bread), 35a. Then follows xxii. Ib, 2, 4-6, 7, in part, (at Meribah the same lesson is taught in the supply of water. See below.)
Alongside of this story of E's runs the narrative of the sending of manna and quails of P?, built on the unvarying model of this writer, and principally concerned with the miraculous power of Yahweh. The ele
are taken from Num. xi. (J) and are easily recognizable from style and language. The story of Israel's murmuring in vv. 2-12 is in the unmistakable style of P’ (see refs.) and has only suffered in consequence of a transposition, perhaps accidental. No words are wasted in the dry and laconic statement of the marvel, vv. 13f., nor in the directions for gathering, which to this writer are indispensable and constitute “ the ordinance ”; these verses, 156, 16b, 19a (?), are sharply distinguished from " the ordinance” in E, in that characteristically) the amount to be gathered is defined as an omer a head,” requiring a harmonistic adjustment (vv. 17f.) by Rp. Vv. 31 and 35b are each duplicated by E material, and are hence manifestly from P2, completing the story.
The rest of the chapter takes a different view of “the ordinance," and is devoted to an emphasizing of Rp's favorite theme, the Sabbath. In its simultaneous dependence and independence of both the other accounts, as well as in its explanatory, and harmonistic character, and its style, combining the language of JE, D and P, it is clearly the work of this redactor. For the evidence in detail see Art. III. There remains the passage xvii. 1–7 whose confusion of localities, and duplication of Num. xx. 1-13 has already been referred to. Here vs. la is simply the regular formula of P. But the mention of Horeb, the use of the rod of Moses, the reference to his smiting the river (cf. vs. 5 with vii. 17), all show that vv. 4-6 are certainly from E, and undoubtedly in their original position, since “ Horeb” is the station immediately before the people.” But the duplication of vs. 3 by ib, 2 is undeniable (see above, p. 81), and in vv. 2b and 7 we have traces of a Massah-story quite different from E's. Moreover the present narrative contains no allusion whatever to the rebellious words the people are accused of uttering in vs. 7. The portions (vv. 2b, 7 in part) which have to do with the etymology of Massah may therefore be assigned with confidence to J. Moreover, as only J speaks of Israel's taking 'flocks and herds' with them from Egypt, and is constantly mindful of them (cf. ix. 6 ; x. 9, 26 : xii. 32, 38 ; xix: 13 ; xxxiv. 3) whereas E seems to conceive Israel as burdened with a quite different species of wealth, xii. 35f. ; xiii. 17-19, at least until their arrival in Kadesh, we may count vs. 3 (“our cattle”) with J, especially as it strongly resembles xiv. II ; Num. xi. 5, 20 ; xvi. 13; XX. 5. Cf. also ch. xv. 24 and Nu. xiv. 2. The duplicate of vs. 3, viz. Ib, 2a, critics have endeavored to derive from J; because, regarding vs. 7 as a unit, it seemed necessary to connect vs. 2 as a whole with it. In order to do this Cornill, in his acute discussion of this chapter in 2. A. W., xi. 1, (1891), is obliged to suppose a double recurrence of the Meribah story in the same document, so far at least as concerns the key-clause, “and the people strove with Moses,” once here and once again in Num. XX,. the repetition being supposed to be accidental and due to transposition of material by Rp from Num. XX. to this place. E had then no aetiology of Meribah, and J had two identical ones, one explained as a duplication by Rp. The explanation seems no less far-fetched than the supposedly displaced material. But independently of this vs. 7 seems to me to indicate a composite character. There is no trace elsewhere of a place Massah-Meribah. On the contrary, Deuteronomy always separates the two. In the nature of the case it seems to me improbable that J should have represented Moses as giving to a single place, on a single occasion, and because of a single occurrence, two different names simultaneously. All things considered, the probability seems immeasurably stronger that we have, as the “ prophetic” element of Num. xx. J's Meribah-story, and in Ex. xvii. 16-7 E's. To this latter have been added fragments of J's story of Massah, vv. 3, 2b, 7 in part, which of course must have stood in proximity to E's in ch. xvi. For details see refs, and Art. III. above cited.*
We have thus, as the order of journeying in E, first Massah, then, a little beyond, Meribah (xvii. 5), which appears to be at the foot of Horeb (xvii. 6 ; xxxii. 20 : Cf. Dt. ix. 21, “the brook that descended out of the mount ”). In J they pass from Marah to Elim, and thence to (Rephidim ?), where the well (discovered ?) receives the name Massah, and this correspondingly appears to be at the foot of Sinai, which may, or may not, be the same as Horeb. At least the story of J in chh. xxxiiif. affords an appropriate answer to the rebellious demand of xvii. 7.
(J) 18 And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, 22 and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and 18Cf. 13:17f.
* In Art. III. the analysis offered is somewhat closer than the above to that of Cornill. Since the first effect of the arguments of this acute and scholarly critic I have felt constrained to return in some respects to my original id no
they went 19three days in the wilderness, and fo 23 water. And when they came to Marah, they could
not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: 24 20therefore the name of it was called Marah. And the
people 4murmured against Moses, saying, What shall 25 we drink? And he cried unto Yahweh, and Yahweh
shewed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters, (E) and the waters were made sweet. [...] »There
he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he 26 (Rd) proved them : [. ] 24and he said, If thou wilt diligently
hearken to the voice of Yahweh thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his eyes, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I 25 will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyp
tians : for I am Yahweh that healeth thee. * 27 (J) 26 And they came to Elim, where were twelve
21springs of water, and threescore and ten palm trees : 16 (P) and they encamped there by the waters. [. . . ] And
they took their journey from Elim, t 'and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between
Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their 2 departing out of the land of Egypt.—And the whole congregation
of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against 3 Aaron in the wilderness : and the children of Israel said unto
them, Would that we had died by the hand of Yahweh in the lang of Egygt, öwhen we sat by the flesh pots, when we did eat bread
to the full, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to 4 (E) kill this whole assembly with hunger. Then said Yahweh
unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you ; 193:8; 5: 3 etc. 20Gen. 11:8; 16 : 14 ; 19:22 etc. 2117:3; Nu. 14 : 2a.
23 Gen. 22:1 ; Ex. 16:4 ; 20 : 22 ; Nu. 14 : 22etc. cf. 17:7; Dt. 33 : 8. 28 :1. 2523 : 25.
27 Gen. 16 : 7. 117 : 1 ; 19: 1etc. 'Nu. 14 : 2 ; 20 : 1ff.
Sam. 30 : 25.
22 Jos. 24:25; I
26V s. 23.
* Vs. 26 is regarded by critics generally as from Rd. The motive would be the separation of vs. 25b from its original context. It is possible that we have here some original material, the last clause suggesting a possible ætiology of the name Rephidim (rapha “heal ”). The verse as a whole is certainly redactional. See Analysis, p. 81, and observe the confusion of subject.
† For “Elim” read “ the Red Sea,” and cf. Nu. xxxiii. 11, and Art. III. Rp was of course obliged in xvi. I to bring the data of P into harmony with the preceding.
and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my (Rp) law, or no. And it shall come to pass on the sixth duy, that they 5 shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they (P) gather daily.—And Moses and Aaron said unto all the children 6 of Israel, At even, then ye shall know that Yahweh hath brought you out from the land of Egypt: and in the morning, then ye shall 7 see the glory of Yahweh ; for that he heareth your murmurings against Yahweh ; and what are we, that ye murmur against us ?(Rp) And Moses said, This shall be when Yahweh shall give you in the 8 evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full, for that Yahweh heareth your murmurings which ye murmur aguinst him ; and what are we? (P) your murmurings are not against us but against Yahweh.* And Moses 9 said unto Aaron, Say unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, Come near before Yahweh : for he hath heard your murmurings. And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole 10 congregation of the children of Israel, that 'they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud. 8 And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the 11-12 murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread ; and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God. And it 13 came to pass at even, that the "quails came up, and covered the camp : and 12in the morning the dew lay round about the camp. And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of 14 the wilderness a small round thing, small as the hoar frost on the (E) ground. [...] And when the children of Israel saw it, 15
11 Nu. 11 : 316
Nu, 16:11; vs. 7.
7 Nu. 16:42.
8Cf. vs. 6f.
4Dt. 8:2, 16. 12 Nu. 11:9.
* Vv. 6f. must obviously come after, not before, vv. nf. Verse 8, which repeats vv. 12 and 7, appears to be explanatory of vs. 7. Wellhausen (Comp. p. 325) suggests that the displacement of vv. 6f. may have been caused by the marginal gloss vs. 8 drawing 6f. into the margin with it.
† “ Wilderness" (midbar) is an impossible reading, since Israel is encamped in the midst of the wilderness. Repeated analogy (see refs.) suggests that the original was mishkan“ tabernacle,” the regular place for the appearance of the shekinah. This would of course strike Rp as an anachronism positively requiring alteration, though he has left others (vv. 9, 33f.), less conspicuous but no less positive, as evidence of the displacement of the P element of this narrative.