Abbildungen der Seite


.often occurs הִפְרָה וְהִרְבָה compound phrase

It is no argument against this that the phrase occurs once in a Jehovistic place, viz. Genesis vii. 9 (not 3), because a single exception cannot vitiate a rule. In classification, 17380 is used. The

The land in which the pilgrim abides is always D'un 78, and the possession of it 7:17. The writer terms Mesopotamia 72 or 170

as in the Jehovist. It is ineffectual for ,ארַם נַהֲרַיִם not ,ארָם

Keil to allege that the names Padan-aram and Aram-naharaim are not identical, and therefore their distinctive usage favours the hypothesis of one writer. Padan-aram is said to denote a district of Mesopotamia, that lying around Haran, while the other comprehends all Mesopotamia. There may be truth in this as far as the original meaning of Padan-aram is concerned, because the word Padan means plain, and the western part of Mesopotamia is especially referred to. But we deny that there was any difference between the two names in actual usage. Both were employed alike for the whole country. This is confirmed by

pnya, and N927. He utters poetical ideas respecting the structure of the world, as in Genesis i. 6, etc., vii. 2; and occasionally we meet with a poetical expression, as you 17:17, especially when he introduces solemn speech and 'poetical pieces not original.

, , ,

רָכַשׁ וְיִעתֵּק ויעל וירא the ancient versions, The Elohist has

כָּל־בָּשָׂר שֶׁרֶץ רֶמֶשׂ and רָמַשׂ Other words of the Elohist are and plurases like le and his sons ,עוֹלָם compounds with ,אָכְלָה

with him; you and your seed after you.

The Jehovist's was different from the Elohist's object, viz. to present the national history and laws in a favourable and imposing light. But he traces the genealogy of the Hebrews no farther back than Abraham, and does not come down so late as the Elohist. The popular traditions had not been exhausted by the latter and other writers prior to the Jehovist. There was still a considerable stock for the Jehovist's purpose. The ancient history of Israel had also received a new form from the prophetic point of view. Many laws had been changed, according as practice had pointed out necessary alterations. Hence the characteristic manner of the Jehovist differs from that of his predecesso He is fuller and freer in his descriptions; more reflective in his assignment of motives aud causes; more artificial in his mode of narration. He has not preserved the distinctions between Jehovah and Elohim, or between the earlier and later periods, as carefully as the Elohist. The patriarchal and Mosaic epochs are not strictly separated. Accordingly he puts the worship of Jehovah,

Einleitung, p. 87.



and therefore pure monotheism, into the earliest period, as into that of Seth (Gen. iv. 26) and the patriarchs. This is historically incorrect; for the primitive was not the true religion preserved in its genuine form only in one line, and divulged to the chosen people in successive regulations. In this respect there is a fundamental distinction between the views of the Jehovist and Elohist; because the latter represents the divine Being as manifesting himself in the primitive period only as Elohim, the Almighty and Omniscient One appearing immediately to men, and communicating his will by commands or promises. Thus no regular development appears in the Jehovist. The historical distinctions of different times are not exactly preserved. The current conceptions of the age he lived in, as well as the peculiar complexion of the language, are often transferred to primitive times. Arts, the building of cities, etc., are also transferred to the first generations of men. In like manner articles of luxury are put into the patriarchal time. (Genesis xxiv. 22, 30, 47, 53: xxxviii. 18.) Genesis xxxv. 4, where ear-rings are mentioned is no exception, because the verse is the redactor's. So also sacrifices are offered by Abel and Noah ; altars are frequently reared, and the name of Jehovah invoked. The distinction of clean and unclean animals appears even at the time of the deluge; Jehovah is consulted; and the Levirate is spoken of. Thus there is a Levitical tone which it is useless to deny by quoting a Levitism in Elohistic passages which are not Elohistic at all ; for cleansing, in Genesis xxxv. 2, belongs to the redactor ; the erection of altars, Genesis xxxiii. 20, xxxv. 1-7, is in the Jehovist and redactor ; burnt-offerings and drink-offerings, Genesis xxi. 13, xlvi. 1, are in the Jehovist and junior Elohist'; vous and tithes, Genesis xxviii. 20, 22, are in the junior Elohist; the appearance of angels, Genesis xxi. 17, 18, xxvii. 12, is in the redactor and junior Elohist. Theocratic consciousness appears in a much more developed state in the Jehovah-document. Mosaic conceptions had penetrated into the mind of the people, effacing the consciousness which characterized and separated different stages of the people's history. The whole style of thought and expression resembles the prophetic. Accordingly there is a much stronger feeling of the divine preference for the Israelites, with a proportionate lowering of their neighbours. The phenomena of the world and of nature are spoken of in a way shewing advanced reflection, as is apparent in the account of creation, of the introduction of evil, the origin of different languages and conditions, etc. The enlarged state of tradition is seen in ethnographical descriptions, and the mythology is richer. The media of intercourse between God and men are less simple and more numerous,

[ocr errors]

such as visions, dreams, oracles, and angels, sometimes in human form.

As the institutions and inventions of more civilized society are transferred to the earliest period, so the manners, customs, and actions which characterise human beings, are of the later type. Bad passions, vengeance for blood, murder, come into play; and these are even transferred to the first generations of men. Covenants and contracts must be attested with oaths and other impressive formalities. God is described in an anthropomorphic way, the human being attributed to Him; as when he is griered at the heart for having made man, etc. ; confirms his promises with an oath ; allows his threatenings to be kept off from stage to stage by intercession (Abraham); tempts or tries men; blesses, pardons, curses, etc., for the sake of another. Jehovah is even represented as appearing in human form, accompanied by two angels (Genesis xviii.) All this is made to consist with the free use of the name Jehovah applied to God, though it be the genuine theocratic appellation. At the same time the liberal employment of expressions properly belonging to the Jehovist's age is not indiscriminately applied to an anterior one.

Some disinclination to their transference may be detected; for example, in the rare occurrence of the phrase 1777? OX? (thus saith the Lord) so common among the post-davidic prophets (Genesis xxii. 16).

The Jehovist's manner is more elaborate than that of the Elohist. He evinces more fulness, throwing in traits which make a better picture, and secondary circumstances which add life to the description. Poetical pieces are inserted by him, of which there are examples in Balaam's prophecies, and Jacob's last address to his sons. He has also proverbs in a poetical form. Of etymologies he is a diligent seeker. The propensity to make or find etymologies is a prominent feature, of which there are many instances; as in Gen. v. 29, where the fragment of a Jehovistic verse is inserted by the redactor in an Elohistic chapter, and Noah is explained as comforter, from Day), to console, or

, to rest, to which Gesenius thinks the former verb cognate ;? but the true root is nd, which, though not now occurring in Hebrew, is seen from the analogous form X3 (Exodus xii. 9), meaning fresh, new. The name was given to express the idea of a renewed and better world.? Preston himself admits that the derivation given in Genesis v. 29, is incorrect. Another instance is in the forced etymology of Leri (Genesis xxix. 34). The name is from my, to hang upon a person, to belong to him ; because they were attached to the priests as their assistants. The Jehovist's mode of expression is usually lively, fresh, smooth, and flowing. His descriptions are full and graphic, and his writing is on the whole a masterpiece of Hebrew prose. Like the Elohist, he has a definite circle of phrases and images. Thus he uses

1 Thesaurus, p. 862. 2 Ewald, Geschichte des V. Israel, i. p. 360, second edition. 3 Phraseological Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis, p. 43.

The .נִבְרְכוּ הִתְבָּרְכוּ בְךְ כָּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה קָרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה

numerous posterity of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob is frequently compared to the dust of the earth, the sand of the sea, the stars of heaven, etc. When extension in all directions is indicated, 7911 1972 1973$ is used (Genesis xiii. 14); when victory is promised to posterity the formula 87 ur

צָפֿנָה וָנֶגְבָּה וָקֵדְמָה וְיָמָּה , stands for mdle and אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּו ,occurs. Again אֵת שַׁעַר איְבָיו

[ocr errors]

female. The Elohist employs 7722 instead.

It is no objection that Mux W x occurs in Numbers xxx. 17, which is Elohistic, because one exception does not spoil a rule. The difference of meaning conveyed by the two phrases, which Kurtz tries to find, is the offspring of his own ingenuity. Tinyn is used for to shift a camp, for which the Elohist has you; nay,

not ,ארָם נַהֲרַיִם הִתְפַּלֵּל to pray, for which the other has ; תְּשׁוּקָה תַּרְדֵמָה ;The Jehovisit uses the rare word .פַדַּן אֲרָם בָּרוּךְ לִקְרַאת עַל דְּבַר עַל אֹדוֹת בִּגְלַל הִפְרִיד נִפְרַד as also אַרְצָה הִתְבָּרֵך for נִבְרַךְ כָּרַת בְרִית הִבִּיט אִישׁ וְרֵעֶהוּ The mode of' יִסְגר בלְתִּי אוּלַי בַּעֲבוּר עָשָׂה חֶסֶד מָצָא הֵן

? , , ,

9, , , , reply adopted by Kurtz, Keil, and others, to the fact that there is a characteristic phraseology in the Jehovah and Elohim documents is unsatisfactory. If a phrase belonging to the one writer happens to occur in the other, it is immediately adduced as an objection. Some of the phrases that are considered peculiar to one writer, may be found, now and again, in the other. Our argument is based on the prevailing, not exclusive, usage in each. It is also incorrect to say, both that the phrases peculiar to the one document, often occur in the other; and that when they do, the use of this one or the other, is determined by a particular shade of meaning. Subterfuges like these betray a weak cause.

In biographies, the difference between the Elohist and Jehovist is remarkable. The former is briefer and more historical: the latter presents sacred persons in a more imposing light, so as to make everything subservient to the glorification of the nation. Tradition had invested the heroes with more dignity in his day. Thus he sets forth Abraham in prophetic activity, because prophetism had then attained its height. (Comp. Genesis xii. 1-3,

[ocr errors]

xxii. 14). On the other hand, the Elohist's description is simpler, and more consonant with the patriarchal time. The Jehovist depicts Moses as a great prophet. According to him, the lawgiver was favoured with such relationship to the Deity as none other enjoyed; and as the peculiar friend of heaven, he frequently interceded for the sinful people. But the Elohist never calls him a prophet, nor does he place him on the same elevation as the Jehovist does. According to the Elohist, Moses finds, at first, no recognition among his people. He is taken for their leader almost against his will; but the Jehovist makes the people recognise the divine commission he had received, and gladly fall in with his proposal. It is only the heads of the Israelites, the officers, who complain of Moses and Aaron causing additional burdens to the people by their request to Pharaoh. The Elohist represents the rod to be in Aaron's hand. It is he that is the worker of miracles and signs, though only Moses's subordinate. But the Jehovist makes Moses himself carry the rod, and do the wonders commanded by God. The difference between the two writers is clearly seen from Numbers xxvii. 20, 23, and Exodus xxxiv. 35. In the former, which is Elohistic, we read : “And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him (Joshua) that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.

And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.” In the latter, which is Jehovistic, we read : And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses's face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him (God).” The Elohist describes the Israelites as departing from Egypt with a high hand, having taken advantage of the embarrassment of the people. According to the Jehovist, they were forced by Pharaoh, his servants, and the Egyptians, to go out in haste, so that they took their unleavened dough with them, and baked on the journey. The Elohist speaks throughout of the entire liberation of the people by Pharaoh ; the Jehovist of a temporary absence in the wilderness to keep festival at Mount Sinai. In fine, the Jehovist presents a more developed theology. Thus while the unity of God is always presupposed in the Elohim document, but never prominently adduced; it is definitely presented by the Jehovist, in opposition to the gods of other nations. The immateriality of the Divine Being is also more decidedly expressed in the latter, the necessity of abstaining from idolatry being derived from the impossibility of making an image of the supreme Being. In the Elohist, idolatry is commonly regarded as disobedience. Manifestations of angels as representatives of God first appear in the Jehovist, growing

« ZurückWeiter »