able coincidence of representation with Gen. xviii. 20-33, but a marked resemblance to J2 in language (cf. e. g. Ex. xxxii. 12, 14 with Gen. vi. 6f.; Ex. xxxiii. 13, with Gen. xviii. 19, and Ex. xxxiv. 9 with Gen. xviii. 30, 32.). Dt. xxxiii. 13ab-16 also impresses me as interpolated by J2, and the legislative sections bear still clearer evidence of supplementation. Nevertheless, I have thought it wiser to refrain as yet from the attempt to systematically distinguish between J and J2, and even in E, where the discrimination is easier, the present volume makes but little use of the theoretic typographical distinction.

In the later books it is E which gives the clearest indications of having undergone revision and supplementation, as in Genesis we found it the case with J. In fact those portions of E which most strongly affect its present form and character, bear positive marks of the terrible period of depression after the fall of Samaria, whereas the great mass of the work has too much of the proud consciousness of national glory to be derived from that period of humiliation and gloom. Moreover, there is no explanation of E's use of the name Elohim in long, connected passages after Ex. iii, except from habit, independent of the theoretical grounds on which Elohim is made uniform up to Ex. iii., while Yahweh is generally used thereafter. The hand which follows the latter course cannot therefore be the same as that with which the use of Elohim is habitual, or rests on unknown grounds. The Book of the Wars of Yahweh did not follow this elohistic practise; hence it cannot well be derived from any other than the older element of E, an element which in at least one instance lies plainly embedded in the later material, viz. I Sam. i-viii. where chh. iv.-vi. are required by, but do not themselves presuppose chh. i.-iii. viif. An admirable discussion of their relation may be found in Budde's Richter und Samuel, Giessen, 1890, p. 193–198. As to the evidence for a revision of E we cannot do better than to quote here the synopsis of one of the clearest, keenest and most judicious of analytical critics :

:

"It is the merit of Kuenen to have first propounded this problem for the whole extent of E, and to have carried it into detail: he reaches the result,

·

Hex. § 13 n. 25 and 26, that in the 7th century an edition of E was prepared for Judaea (E2), because the substance of the work, E1 could not permanently satisfy the requirements then existent there and gradually changing. It is not necessary to assume that this E2 was prepared by a Judaean hand, since not all of Ephraim was deported in 722, and nothing compels us to assume the complete extinction of intellectual life among those left in the land: it would seem to me more natural to look for the origin of E2 in these very circles. Kuenen claims first for E2 the entire first Decalogue [Ex. xx.] with the kindred narrative parts belonging to it in Ex. xix.-xxiv. and the inseparable story of the golden calf Ex. xxxii. 1-xxxiii. 6. The latter offers the true point of departure. In this narrative there appears a palpable prophetic rejection of the cultus of Ephraim, the calves of Dan and Bethel,' given in the name of Moses himself. But this is insupposable at the hand of the same writer who takes such religious delight in relating the theophanies at these ancient sanctuaries, subsequently abhorred by the prophets, and who in particular connects the consecration of the sanctuary at Bethel with a glorious theophany, and manifestly regards Bethel as the proper central sanctuary of Jacob, at which all Israel should pay tithes of what Yahweh has given them. Above all if the words Ex. xxxii. 34b refer to the Assyrian Exile as a punishment for the calfworship of Samaria, this trait at least would necessarily form part of a revision later than 722. It is self-evident that the story of the golden calf stands in inseparable connection with the legislation of the first Decalogue, whence the latter also could not be from E1. When now we observe that none of the older prophets who inveigh against idol-worship appeals to the Decalogue, and that the sole trace in the older literature of acquaintance with this Decalogue, in Hos. iv. 2, is robbed of significance by its diverse order and terminology for the sins, we must admit the force of Kuenen's reasoning. Other signs corroborate. The representation of the departure from Horeb to the promised land as a punishment, and the sanctuary of the ark a substitute, because Israel was not yet ripe for the pure religion of the Decalogue, cannot possibly have been the sense of the original tradition, to which the ark was the visible pledge of Yahweh's gracious aid [cf. I Sam. iv.-vi.] and their bringing in to Canaan a kindness of the mighty national Deity [cf. Ex. xiii. 17-19] . ... Kuenen further attributes to E2 Num. xi. 14, 16f. 24b-30, and ch. xii. in its present form. The story of Num. xi. 14ff. has no connection whatever with its present context, and is also difficult to reconcile with Ex. xviii., the more so, if, as would appear from Dt. i., Ex. xviii. originally stood after the breaking camp from Horeb [but cf. xviii. 5], therefore in almost the very spot of Num. xi. The 70 elders are derived from Ex. xxiv. 1f. 9-11 E1, and the dependence on Ex. xviii. is also manifest; cf. Nu. xi. 14 with Ex. xviii. 18b, 22b. Accordingly we have in Nu. xi. 14ff. a specifically prophetic parallel to, or rather modification of Ex. xviii., E1; and by this assumption all difficulties are removed. Nu. xii. also is not a uniform story. After Miriam and Aaron have found fault with Moses because he had married a Cushite, we do not expect a settlement of the question

whether Moses alone is possessed of the prophetic spirit: vv. 2-8 accordingly must also be attributed to E2, and in these and Nu. xi. 14ff. we have "two mutually related studies of prophetism." Kuenen further adduces Nu. xxi. 3235, as an expansion of E1, though perhaps not derived from E2, a passage which Wellhausen, Comp. p. 111, had recognized as supplement: it developed from the idea that the whole country east of Jordan had been conquered by Moses, whereas in El only the tribes of Reuben and Gad are concerned. I should myself attribute to E2 the E form (Z. A. W. xi. 1–15) of the story Gen. xxxiv. It is hard to reconcile with Gen. xlviii. 21f. (certainly E1) and on the other hand this very question of social and connubial relations between Israelites and heathen was of great practical significance to the north-Israelites left behind in a land flooded with foreign colonists. One is tempted, in spite of Jos. xxiv. 2, to attribute Gen. xxxv. 1-4 also to E2; since it scarcely agrees with the original character of the tradition, to conceive Jacob's wives, who even in E, ch. xxx., give names to their sons after the manner of genuine, devout mothers in Israel, as practical heathen: this is scholastic reflection, on the same plane with Laban's use of a foreign tongue xxxi. 47. It agrees with these results when Lagarde maintains, Mittheilungen III. 226-229, on the ground of the uniform employment of Elohim, and the Egyptian names occurring in Gen. xli., that E belongs "in the seventh century," and was a contemporary of Psammetichus I. 664-610 B. C. These portions of Genesis also would then be attributable to E2. We reach therefore the result, that E1 was written in the time of Jeroboam II. ca. 750, and about a century later was revised either by a Judean, or by one of the remaining north-Israelites, on the basis of that development of theological views effected by the great literary prophets (Cornill, Einl. p. 48ff.),

It seems to me probable that further investigation will reveal a more drastic revision on the part of E2, particularly in the legislative sections; and if we may attribute to it the systematic use of Elohim in Genesis and Yahweh after Ex. iii., it determined the present form of Ex. iii, 10-14. The character of this redaction, however, is clear. It intensifies the theocratic. and prophetic tendenz of E1

The amalgamation of J with E soon after the unification of Ephraim with Judah under the Davidic kings in Jerusalem was most natural. The cause of prophet and priest was substantially the same, and Judah gained quite as much from the infusion of the prophetic spirit of Ephraim, as Ephraim from the more priestly religious feeling of Judah.

It is apparent from the use made of JE in both D and P

that the two primitive documents had already been interlaced previous to 620 B. C.; hence we are safe in attributing in general the passages whose sole object appears to be the adjustment of J and E to one another to this early redactor Rje. When we come to set them side by side we gain a curious insight into his method. The process of harmonization was of the simplest and most transparent. J's work was of course made the basis, both as fuller, and generally as more suited to the Judean feeling of Rje; though in Gen. xxxiv., Ex. xix.xxxiv. E2, whose work represents the thought of Rje's own period, was naturally preferred. Examples of Rje's "harmonistics" in Genesis are xxvi. 15 and 18, xxxix. 1ba, 20ag. Strikingly similar in simplicity of design are the clause "after he had sent her away" Ex. xviii. 2, the curious verse xix. 23, and the generally successful interlacing of the J and E versions of the Balaam-story. But if we accept the very probable conclusions of Cornill (p. 81), by far the most radical part of Rje's work affected the Sinai-Horeb chapters from Ex. xviii, to Num. xii. It was the omission of J's version of the Covenant in Ex. xxxiv. (save for the enrichment of E's version in xxiii. 15–19) and the interweaving of J and E in Num. xi. with its consequences. In our Analysis 3 of § iv. we have endeavored to follow the intricate processes of omission and combination, reincorporation and readjustment, which have involved these chapters in such strange confusion.

The work of Rje does not affect Deuteronomy, but reappears of course in the further course of the narratives J and E. This indicates as the necessary date of the revision the period between E2 (650 ?) and the origin of Deuteronomy (620 B. C.). Cornill and other critics generally, including Dillmann, maintain that the phenomena of Deuteronomy and its two envelopes, Dh and Dp prove that these writers still possessed, in addition to JE, the separate document E. We have, however, a different explanation of the E tinge in Deuteronomy, which does not require the rather improbable assumption that the Deuteronomists took the pains to compare JE with one of its original

Sources.

The appearance of Deuteronomy in 621 B. c. and the tremendous revolution it effected in the life of the nation through the reforms of Josiah and the prolonged influence of the Exile, marks an epoch but little, if at all, inferior in importance to the Yahwistic revolution of Elijah and his successors. By the time of the first return under Joshua and Zerubbabel in 555 the whole life of the nation had been transformed by it, the great exilic prophets having continuously labored from its standpoint. For still another entire century the Deuteronomic law continued to be the sacred canon of the Jews, and it was inevitable that this all-important legislation should ultimately attract to itself the preëxisting sacred history, precisely as the Priestly Code, once canonized, was soon amalgamated with JED. The history of the Deuteronomic Code from 621 to 444 B. C. would almost parallel in importance the history of the nation and of its great prophets during this, the critical period of its life. Here we can of course only present an outline of what appears from the present structure of Deuteronomy and from the socalled Deuteronomic redaction (Rd).

During the Exile the Deuteronomic Code seems to have circulated simultaneously in two different settings, each of which in its own way served to give it the necessary historical background, though they agreed in the representation of the whole as a farewell discourse of Moses to Israel on the plains of Shittim, communicating the oral law received on Horeb. That form of Deuteronomy which enclosed the code in a parænetic or preaching envelope, refers to it as an already written and published book. This introduction and appendix is designated Dp; the discussion of it is here inappropriate. Its rival makes the discourse of Moses a recapitulation of the history, strongly tinged by E's phraseology and ideas, though based upon JE as combined (cf. Dt. i. 23-26 with JE and E in Num. xiii.f.), and represents Moses as speaker throughout. Our own theory of the E tinge is that both Dp and Dh took the idea of a farewell discourse of Moses as the true setting for the Code, from the fact that JE's Story of the Exodus then concluded with a recapitulatory farewell discourse of Moses of the usual form of E (cf.