HEXATEUCH
forcible,
familiar
language
which
earlier
writers
employed
without
scruple.
Anthropomorphisms
are
rare,
angels
and
dreams
are
not
mentioned.
On
the
other
hand,
P
nowhere
deals
with
those
deeper
spiritual
problems
—
the
origin
of
evil,
the
purpose
of
election,
the
idea
of
a
universal
mission,
the
Messianic
hope
—
which
were
so
marked
a
feature
in
Israel's
religious
consciousness,
and
which
both
claimed
and
received
sympathetic,
if
not
systematic,
treatment
from
the
other
authors
of
the
Hexateuch.
The
style
of
P
Is
scarcely
less
distinctive
than
that
of
D.
It
is
'stereotyped,
measured,
and
prosaic'
There
is
a
markd
absence
of
the
poetical
element;
and
a
no
less
marked
repetition
of
stated
formulae.
Even
the
liistorical
sections
are
marked
by
a
quasi-legal
phraseol-ogy,
while
the
methodical
completeness
with
which
details
are
described,
and
directions
given,
tends
at
times
to
degenerate
into
monotonous
prolixity.
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
P
with
its
systematic
chronology
furnishes
the
historical
and
literary
frame-work
of
the
Hexateuch;
but
the
obvious
deduction
that
it
was
therefore
the
earliest
document,
to
which
the
others
were
in
process
of
time
attached,
has
been
proved
erroneous
by
a
comparison
and
combination
of
historical,
literary,
and
theological
considerations.
We
must,
however,
remember
that
'
although
there
are
reasons
'
—
and
reasons
which
cannot
seriously
be
controverted
—
'for
supposing
that
the
Priests'
Code
assumed
finally
the
shape
in
which
we
have
it,
in
the
age
subsequent
to
Ezekiel,
it
rests
ultimately
upon
an
ancient
traditional
basis.
.
.
.
The
laws
of
P,
even
when
they
included
later
elements,
were
still
referred
to
Moses
—
no
doubt
because
in
its
basis
and
origin
Hebrew
legislation
was
actually
derived
from
hira,
and
was
only
modified
gradually'
(Driver,
op.
cit.
154).
(3)
JE
.
—
We
now
come
to
the
remaining
portions
of
the
Hexateuch
—
which
for
convenience'
sake
are
known
as
the
work
of
JE.
One
is
naturally
suspicious
of
any
needless
multiplication
of
writers
or
documents;
but
the
critical
analysis
of
JE
forces
us
to
the
conclusion
that
it
is
really
a
composite
work,
embodying
two
distinct
traditions
combined
with
no
little
skill
by
a
subsequent
editor.
From
a
literary
no
less
than
from
a
linguistic
standpoint,
diversities
and
even
divergences
appear
which
convert
doubt
into
certainty.
Yet
the
compilation
has
a
character
of
its
own,
and
principles
of
its
own,
which
may
be
termed
prophetical
in
distinction
from
those
which
find
expression
in
the
Priestly
Code.
Both
the
documents
from
which
JE
was
compiled
traverse
pretty
much
the
same
ground,
and
were
probably
composed
at
about
the
same
time.
This
would
largely
account
for
their
frequent
similarities;
and
of
course
it
would
have
been
the
editor's
aim
to
remove
any
glaring
dis-crepancies.
We
thus
find
the
whole
narrative
char-acterized
by
a
kind
of
superficial
homogeneity,
and
also
by
the
same
general
religious
beliefs
and
hopes.
But
notwithstanding
these
considerations,
the
original
independence
of
the
two
documents
is
so
manifest
in
the
greater
part
of
the
narrative
that
it
has
become
an
almost
unanimously
accepted
conclusion
of
Hexateuchal
criticism.
The
two
sources
are
distinguished
in
three
ways.
They
often
tell
a
different
tale;
they
employ
different
language;
they
proclaim
a
different
message.
It
is
in
the
history
of
the
patriarchs
that
we
first
become
aware
of
different
accounts
of
the
same
trans-action
(neither
of
which
can
be
referred
to
P)
standing
side
by
side,
although
the
independence
is
so
marked
that
it
passes
into
irreconcilable
divergences.
Similar
phenomena
abound
throughout
the
Hexateuch.
When
once
the
possibility
of
two
documents
was
suspected,
stylistic
distinctions,
themselves
hitherto
unsuspected,
began
to
confirm
this
conclusion.
The
use
of
'
Jahweh
'
by
the
one
writer,
of
'
Elohlm
'
by
the
other,
furnished
a
simple
criterion,
which
was
not,
however,
uniformly
available,
especially
after
Genesis.
But
other
differences,
not
sufficient
in
themselves
to
prove
diversity
of
author-
HEXATEUCH
ship,
were
yet
collected
in
sufficient
numbers
to
lend
strong
support
to
the
hypothesis
which
had
been
arrived
at
on
quite
different
grounds.
But
the
distinctions
are
by
no
means
merely
literary
artifices.
While
E
arose
in
Northern
Israel,
as
is
evidenced
by
the
interest
the
author
manifests
in
the
Northern
sanctuaries,
J
appears
to
have
originated
in
the
kingdom
of
Judah
(cf.
the
prominent
part
that
distinctively
Southern
stories
occupy
in
the
course
of
the
patriarchal
history,
and
the
pre-eminence
of
Judah,
rather
than
Reuben,
among
the
sons
of
Jacob).
J
is
a
patriot,
and
takes
a
loving
pride
in
Israel's
early
history;
but
he
is
not
content
with
the
mere
facts,
he
seeks
a
philosophy
of
history.
He
embodies
in
his
narrative
his
reflexions
on
the
origin
of
sin,
and
on
the
character
of
Israel's
God.
He
not
merely
recounts
the
election
of
the
patriarchs,
but
realizes
that
the
election
is
according
to
purpose,
and
that
God's
purpose
embraces
humanity.
The
whole
patriarchal
story
is
'instinct
with
the
consciousness
of
a
great
future'
(Driver),
which
takes
the
form
of
a
mission
in,
it
not
to,
the
world.
The
style
of
J
is
free
and
flowing,
vivid
and
picturesque.
His
delineation
of
character,
his
introduc-tion
of
dialogue,
his
powerful
description
of
scenes
from
common
fife,
if
somewhat
idealistic,
are
yet
so
natural
and
graceful
as
to
give
the
impression
of
unsurpassable
charm.
Speaking
of
Jahweh,
he
is
untrammelled
by
theological
scruples,
and
uses
anthropomorphic
and
even
anthropopathic
expressions
with
frequency
and
without
reserve.
E
—
the
Elohist
or
Ephraimite
source
—
is
more
restrained
in
his
language,
more
didactic
in
his
history,
more
theological
in
his
reUgious
beliefs.
The
prophetical
element
is
strongly
brought
out.
Abraham
is
expressly
called
a
prophet,
Miriam
a
prophetess.
The
function
of
Moses
is
prophetic
in
all
but
in
name;
the
seventy
elders
receive
prophetic
inspiration;
Joseph
receives
the
spirit
of
Elohim;
and
Balaam's
prophetic
ofiBce
is
recognized.
E,
moreover,
both
in
his
historical
and
in
his
legal
sections,
emphasizes
the
importance
of
a
high
ethical
standard.
God
speaks
through
angels
and
human
agents,
reveals
Himself
in
dreams.
By
this
means
the
bold
but
forceful
language
of
J
is
toned
down
in
conformity
with
the
demands
or
fears
of
a
more
timorous
orthodoxy.
It
is
a
curious
fact
that
E
ignores
Israel's
mission
to
the
world;
indeed,
the
author
takes
little
or
no
interest
in
the
affairs
of
other
nations,
or
in
the
universal
significance
of
Israel's
history
or
Israel's
hope.
It
is
the
theocracy
in
Israel
that
engages
all
his
attention,
and
his
work
may
be
considered
as
drawing
from
the
early
history
of
the
national
ancestors
a
much
needed
lesson
for
the
age
in
which
he
wrote
—
a
lesson
of
the
importance
of
high
ethical
standards,
and
of
the
reverence
and
worship
due
to
the
exalted
Being
who
was
Israel's
God.
Which
of
those
two
histories
was
the
first
to
be
com-mitted
to
writing
is
a
subject
upon
which
critics
are
not
agreed;
but
there
is
a
general
consensus
of
opinion
that
both
authors
wrote
after
the
estabUshment
of
the
monarchy.
The
usual
date
fixed
is
the
century
before
B.C.
750.
It
must
not,
however,
for
a
moment
be
imagined
that
the
date
of
an
event
being
recorded
in
a
regular
historical
work
is
contemporaneous
with
its
actual
occurrence,
and
there
is
no
vaUd
reason
for
throwing
discredit
upon
the
narratives
or
representations
of
JE
because
it
was
not
till
many
years
later
that
oral
tradition
concerning
them
became
crystallized
in
a
written
record.
It
may
legitimately
be
asked
to
what
extent
the
criticism
of
the
Hexateuch
affects
our
belief
in
the
inspiration
of
the
sacred
books.
Our
answer
Is
that
we
have
gained
immeasurably.
(1)
Assuming
the
whole
Hexateuch
to
have
been
composed
by
Moses,
the
divergences
and
alterations
throughout
the
entire
legislation
are
so
numerous
and
manifold
as
to
lay
the
work
of
the
great
lawgiver
open
to
the
charge
of
endless
inconsistency
and
'
arbitrary
experimentaUzing.'
(2)
The
history
of
the
chosen
nation
was,
on
the
traditional
