the immediately preceding, contains the natural advance upon the narrative in the close of the sixth chapter. There (it is said) we have what God spake to Noah when he commanded him to make the ark; here (vii. 5, etc.) what God said to him after the ark was made. But the sixth chapter relates that God not only commanded Noah to make the ark, but to go into it when it was made (vi. 18); so that the command to enter the ark is the same in both; and it is wrong to separate a solitary verse or part of one from its context, in order to make out the semblance of historical continuity in the narrative. Let the surrounding verses be taken along with the commandment addressed to Noah in vi. 18 and vii. 1; and it will appear that the latter is a repetition of the former; not a natural advance upon it. It is true that vii. 1-5 contains no directions about making the ark, but merely pre-supposes its construction. Yet the injunction to enter is the same in both; which is repetition not advance.

It would be superfluous to give other examples. One writer may repeat the same particular substantially, in different connexions and for different purposes. But in doing so his identity will be seen. The diversities of his narratives will not be characteristic ones. His accounts will scarcely be constructed on a different plan. They will not present forms fundamentally unlike; or be regularly pervaded by two lines of expression. Above all, they will not commonly present discordant aspects, the one excluding the other. Discrepancy will never become irreconcilable contradiction.

VI. While it appears that two documents may be distinctly traced by the aid of Exodus vi. 2, 3, and the separation of the names up to that time, especially on the part of one writer, it is by no means certain that others were not employed. It is pretty clear that there were one or more writers between the Elohist and Jehovist; though there is great difficulty in determining particularly who they were. Ilgen1 discovered another Elohist, whom Hupfeld has recently endeavoured to trace. Knobel3 has found two documents which he describes very fully, pointing out all their characteristics, and the respective pieces the Jehovist took from them. It is improbable that the Jehovist was a mere supplementer, piercing his own matter here and there into the Elohist, and expunging or altering as he thought fit. That presupposes a very subordinate part. By giving him one or more important documents far exceeding his own materials in compass, the improbability of his position as a mere supplementer is lessened.

1 Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses, 1798.

2 Die Quellen der Genesis, 1853.

3 Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua erklärt, p. 524 et seqq.

The first document used by the Jehovist, Knobel calls the book of Jashar-a work cited in Joshua x. 13, and 2 Sam. i. 18, and interpreted the book of right or justice; a juridical work containing laws, as its name imports. According to this critic it began with Genesis xx. 1-17, i.e. the sojourn of Abraham and Sarah at Gerar, and their relations there to Abimelech. That this paragraph belongs neither to the fundamental document nor to the Jehovist is obvious. But why give it to the book of Jashar? The only existing evidence respecting Jashar is, that it was a poetical anthology relating to the most remarkable occurrences of Hebrew history during a certain period; as the two places in which alone it is quoted indicate. Why then convert it into an extended document containing laws and history as well as poetical pieces? It appears to us that the Jehovist did not incorporate into the Pentateuch a lengthened, independent prose document called Jashar. Many of the pieces attributed to it by Knobel belong to the junior Elohist. The second document, which this critic supposes the Jehovist to have used, is that referred to in Num. xxi. 14, as the book of the wars of the Lord. Here is a disjointed fragment torn from its connexion so as to be unintelligible--a thing which would not probably have been done had the Jehovist given most of its contents. The document respecting the wars of the Lord's people appears to have been a collection of poems or songs relative to the contests in which the Israelites were engaged, beginning with their deliverance from Egypt, proceeding with their march through the wilderness, and terminating with their conquest of the promised land. We cannot therefore perceive the propriety of assigning to it such pieces as those describing the birth of Esau and Jacob, and the transference of the birthright to the latter (Gen. xxv. 21-23, 25-26a, 29-34). Knobel makes it a lengthened document, containing both history and legislation like the book of Jashar. This is precarious; nor can his extended description of all its parts and features be regarded otherwise than as an ingenious hypothesis. Why the Jehovist himself should be robbed of the honour of writing what is supposed to have belonged to the book of the wars, we confess our inability to perceive.

The authors of these two documents are put into the Assyrian period and the time of Jehoshaphat respectively. The writer of the wars of the Lord is also thought to have employed both the Elohim document and Jashar. This complicates the problem. Both are traced, not only through the five Mosaic books and Joshua, but also in Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings. Thus the criticism of the Pentateuch has greatly advanced in the hands of the learned critic; whether safely is a questionable

matter. We cannot follow him in assuming two such documents as he has given to the Jehovist; but abide by the junior Elohist; and assign to the Jehovist himself much more than the fragments left him from Knobel's right- and war- books. It is not likely that the two documents contained what he has given them; or that the Jehovist's materials should be so distributed. He has made the Jehovist lean too much on other compositions, and draw too little from tradition.

How have traces of a junior Elohist been detected?

Certain portions of the Pentateuch belong to neither of the two documents exclusively, but present peculiarities resembling both. Though Elohim occurs in them, they are not what are termed Elohistic. Their tone and manner more resemble the Jehovist's. Such phenomena appear in the history of Jacob and Joseph. They are less observable in the narrative of Abraham's life. Thus there is no doubt of Gen. xxxv. 9-15 belonging to the fundamental document. It relates that the name Israel was given to Jacob as he returned from Mesopotamia, on which occasion the patriarch erected a pillar of stone, dedicating it by a drink-offering and oil, and calling the place Bethel, house of God. But according to the preceding history of Jacob (chapter xxxii.), he received the name Israel from his night-wrestling with God (xxxii. 28). Hence different traditions were employed in the two chapters, as is clear from the contents. In conformity with this twofold tradition, relative to the name Israel, is the double origin of Bethel; for while in the fundamental Elohim document (xxxv. 9-15) the place is said to have got that name from Jacob as he returned from Mesopotamia; it was so styled from a much earlier manifestation of the Deity there, according to xxviii. 11, etc. and with the latter agrees xxxv. 1-7, stating that the patriarch fulfilled his previously-made vow, on returning from Mesopotamia, by erecting an altar. Hence xxviii. 11, etc., and xxxv. 1-7, though marked by the same name Elohim, are of later origin than xxxv. 9-15. And if chapter xxxi. be minutely examined in connexion with xxxv. 1-7, it will be found that, though partly Elohistic, it does not belong to the primitive document, from whose genuine parts it varies, but to a later Elohim document agreeing more nearly with the Jehovistic parts of Jacob's history.

The history of the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt, which is largely interwoven with Elohistic materials, belongs, in a great degree, to the junior Elohist. This is shewn by the contents, manner, and style. The narrative is too diffuse and minute to harmonise with the summary notices of the primitive Elohist, unless the occurrences bore a particular theocratic and legal significance, which they do not. Great stress, too, is laid

on dreams; which is unlike the original document. Hence the Elohistic parts of Gen. xxxvii., Exodus i. 7-22 point, for the most part, to the younger Elohist.

Nor is the history of Abraham without indications of the later Elohist, particularly in the twentieth chapter of Genesis. The difficulties of this chapter are perplexing, especially those arising out of its connexion, inasmuch as it stands between the promise of a son's birth to Abraham within a year (xvii. 21), and the fulfilment of the promise (xxi. 2, etc.) That it cannot belong to the primitive document is shewn by the commencement, "Abraham journeyed from thence, D," implying a definite locality in Canaan; whereas no such abode is given before in the Elohist, who speaks vaguely of the land of Canaan (xii. 5, xiii. 12, xvi. 3). Indeed its entire spirit and tone are inconsistent with the older Elohist. Besides, the manner of expression approaches that of the Jehovist; as where Abraham is called a prophet; the coming of God in a dream to Abimelech ; Elohim with the plural; "My land is before thee” (xx. 15); "thou shalt surely die" (7); "the south country" (1);

(13), etc., etc. The eighteenth verse of the chapter was added by the Jehovist.

To the same Elohist must be referred Gen. xxii. 1-13, 19, etc. Apart from the use of Elohim (verses 1, 3, 8, 9), the entire conception and point of view shew a higher development of the religious idea than that which belongs to the primitive Elohist. The sacrifice of an only son is remote from the conception of the first writer; who studiously kept sacrifices away from the time of the patriarchs. The call of the angel from heaven (11), the formula of the call and the reply (2, 11), with the reference of the proverb to the name Moreh (8), are of later and Jehovistic tendency. God is also represented too anthropomorphically for the primitive Elohist; since he tries Abraham; is convinced that the patriarch fears him (12), etc. Verses 14-18 are evidently a Jehovistic appendix, loosely added to the preceding.

The third chapter of Exodus belongs to the same; for not only does the title Elohim appear in it seven times along with Jehovah, but an explanation of the latter name is given, which cannot belong to the Jehovist, because of vi. 3. The old Elohist would not use Jehovah as is done by the writer of the chapter; and therefore it belongs to the junior Elohist.1

Whatever conclusion be drawn from the sections just referred to, one thing must be allowed, that they belong to some other document than the two leading ones already described. A third source of tradition shines through them. And it will be gene

1 See Hupfeld's Die Quellen, u. s. w., p. 167 et seqq.

rally found that the so-called younger Elohistic pieces form parallels to the Jehovistic. The point of view from which they look at history is much nearer the Jehovist's than the Elohist's. They occupy a position between the two prominent documents. In relation to time, the junior Elohist was much nearer the Jehovist than to the primitive Elohist, because things are described in their leading features very much as the Jehovist depicts them. Like motives appear. The principal traits in him and the Jehovist resemble one another. He is distinguished from the latter, not only by the use of Elohim, but also by the absence of strong expressions of hatred against neighbouring tribes, and a milder apprehension of sin. In many particulars he has an analogy to the Elohist; in more to the Jehovist.1

His mode of writing is easy, clear, flowing, exact. Many peculiar words and expressions occur in him, as

a wife. God is described with a strong anthropomorphic colouring and very human qualities. He commands the act of spoiling the Egyptians, and even promotes it; comes to men in dreams, and speaks to them. He even wrestles with Jacob; and talks with Moses face to face, as a man converses with a friend. The lawgiver sces His back parts; his face being covered with the hand of the Almighty passing by. Compare Ex. xxxiii. 11, 19, etc., xxxiv. 5, etc., Num. xii. 8, in chapters prominently Jehovistic, but with materials from the junior Elohist incorporated. The spirit of this Elohist is not so strictly religious as that of his predecessor.

Ewald has pointed out the evidences of writers prior to the Elohist, the chief of whom is the author of the document termed the book of the covenants. Proceeding on this foundation, Vaihinger has attempted to shew the various pieces belonging to the writer, whom he calls the fore-Elohist, and assigns to the 12th century B.C.3 His work, it is said, appears in a fragmentary and unconnected state. Even at the Jehovist's time, it was incomplete; but he worked upon its basis, using it to supplement the narratives. The evidence is hardly sufficient to justify the hypothesis. The peculiar words and expressions, supposed to characterise the fore-Elohist, are scarcely adequate. Very much of what is thought to belong to him is the Jehovist's; some is the Elohist's. It is probable that the Elohist used several brief documents besides oral tradition. So the Jehovist too may have done. For this reason various traces of older documents appear in these two. But it is an

1 Hupfeld's Die Quellen, u. s. w., p. 167 et seqq.

2 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, second edition, vol. i, p. 80 et seqq.

3 Herzog's Encyklopædie, vol. xi., p. 335 et seqq.