31 Asher drove not out the inhabitants of Acco, nor the inhabitants of Sidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob; 32 but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.

33 Naphtali drove not out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to taskwork.


Jg. 134-36

34 And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill-country; for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley; 35 but the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became subject to taskwork. 36 And the border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock and upward.


Jg. 21-5

1 And the angel of Jehovah came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you: 2 and ye shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall break down their altars. But ye have not hearkened unto my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. 4 And it came to pass, when the angel of Jehovah spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept. 5 And they called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there unto Jehovah.

64 vv. 16-5a Rd: We., E. Meyer, Co., GFM., Bu., Ki., et al.



a. Is E a Literary Unity?

The majority hold a view of E's unity analogous to their view of J (q. v.). Since Kuenen the majority have distinguished El and E?. El is, on the whole, prior to the literary prophets and certainly prior to the fall of Samaria 721. But Ex. 32 seems to presuppose that event, as punishment for "the sin of Jeroboam, son of Nebat.” Hence Ex. 32, the Decalogue of Ex. 20, and all allied passages (including Josh. 24) are assigned to E2 writing probably in Judah (although Cornill locates him in Israel) in the seventh century.

But Kittel, B. Luther, and Smend stoutly defend the unity of E, and its composition by a single literary personality, "who sketched the main plan and also wrote with reference to J, revising J's standpoint” (Kittel). E is "a thoroughly unified work” (Smend); it should be noted, however, that Smend's J? absorbs some of the difficult passages commonly assigned to E? And Proksch, who recognizes a large number of secondary elements in E, is impressed by its unity; "the plan is never lost sight of, and the pious tone of an ancient prophetic narrator determines the whole mood.” There is, then, rather more inclination to recognize a single dominating plan and personality back of E than back of J.

b. The Extent of E.

E is generally held to begin with the promise to Abraham, Gn. 15, and to end with the national assembly in Josh. 24 (so, e. g., Sellin). But some, as in the case of J (q. v.), trace it through Jg., Sm., and parts of K. Smend holds that E originally carried the history down to the fall of Samaria in 721.

c. The Literary Style of E. The literary style of E is, in general, much closer to J than


to Dt. or P. Indeed, so similar are J and E that critics concede that literary criteria alone would often not suffice to distinguish E from J.

Nevertheless, there are certain general differences. E is less vivid and concrete; more artificial and reflective than J (so most critics, from Bacon to Eichrodt; but Driver makes J more reflective). Yet, although more artificial and polished, E is regarded as less successful from an artistic standpoint than is J, especially in the effective structure of a series of related incidents (Proksch). E is at his best in the picturing of touching, pathetic, “teary” scenes, such as the sacrifice of Isaac, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, or Jacob's tenderness to his grandsons (Proksch, Gunkel, Eichrodt).

E is characterized by a "learned” or antiquarian interest. He seems to have a scholar's idea of system far more than does J, and also lays stress on minor details from antiquity. Steuernagel cites as instances of this tendency his use of the divine name, avoiding “Jehovah” prior to Ex. 3; his hints at a chronological system in Gn. 1513 2918.27 3138.41 456; his appeal to literary sources in Nu. 2114.27 (cf. JE, perhaps E, Josh. 1013); his familiarity with Egyptian names and local color; his mention of the names of relatively unimportant characters such as Eliezer, Deborah, Hur, Eldad, and Medad. Smend adds E's preference for Reuben (instead of Judah J) in the Joseph story; and the view that Manasseh was born before Ephraim.

d. E's Peculiarities in the Use of Proper Names.

E is guided by a definite theory that the name Jehovah was first revealed in Ex. 3. Hence he never uses that name prior to Ex. 3, but always calls the divine being simply God (Elohim). Gn. 2214 and 2821, the only apparent exceptions, are almost universally regarded as due to the hand of Rje. After Ex. 3, E is less consistent. In many cases he still says “God”; in others “Jehovah.” Many critics connect this difference in usage with the two strata, E' and E?.

Other proper names used characteristically by E are Horeb (instead of Sinai J); Amorites (as equivalent to J's Canaanites, the general term for the early inhabitants of Canaan)*; Jethro

• Dt. follows E in using the names "Horeb" and "Amorites." There are also other signs that Dt. preferred E.

(or Jether, instead of Hobab J); and probably E always spoke of Jacob, never of Israel as a man, although the redaction makes this relatively hypothetical. Characteristic is also the expression "the man Moses." Aaron appears in E, not in J; Joshua is much more prominent in E. The Hittites are absent from E (Proksch).

e. Other Characteristic Words and Expressions.

Certain formulæ are frequent in E, such as: “and it came to pass after these things”; "and he called” (name of person addressed is usually mentioned twice), "and he answered, Here am I, or I hear" (cf. 1 Sm. 310; Is. 68); "and he rose up early in the morning"; "lead out of Egypt"; "speak with”; "angel of God"; "mount of God"; "staff of God" (the last three rarely).

E (only) mentions massebahs (pillars) which are forbidden Dt. 1622; he—but not J—uses the word "prophet”* Gn. 207; Nu. 1129 126 and possibly Dt. 3410, cf. Miriam the prophetess Ex. 1520

He employs characteristic Hebrew words for: "be afraid," "handmaid," "harden" (of Pharaoh's heart), "master" (baal, meaning also "owner" or "husband"), "sack," "younger," and a few others. See lists as in J.


a. Aim of E.

E has a more specific aim than does J. Bacon, following Schrader, describes E as the “history of the theocratic succession." That God is the supreme ruler of Israel, her Lawgiver, guiding her destinies from Abraham to the promised land, is recognized as a central idea clearly distinguished from J's simpler, more nationalistic, ethical, and religious ideal. This trait is most clearly expressed in Gn. 378 Nu. 239.21.23 (Dt. 335 R), etc. (So Sellin, Cornill, Eichrodt, et al.).

b. Characteristic Religious Ideas.

E's conception of God is sublime and majestic, and nearer to the "moral monotheism” of Elijah (so Eichrodt) or Amos (so Smend) than was J. Like J, he is not a theoretical monotheist; that is, he does not deny the existence of other gods (cf. Baal Peor in Nu. 25). But his henotheism is for all practical purposes monotheistic in spirit. Smend holds that the very use of the name "Elohim” to designate Jehovah, God of Israel, is monotheistic—Jehovah is the God.

* Of the Hexateuchal sources, D is the only one to mention prophets freely; P uses the term only Ex. 71, in a special sense. J and E were written before the prophetic movement had reached its fullest expression; P after it had died away. D was a product of that movement at its height.

E's God is generally regarded as more spiritual, less anthropomorphic than J's. Kittel says that E tolerates no anthropomorphisms. This is extreme. Steuernagel points out that E is in a measure anthropomorphic. God speaks face to face with Moses Ex. 3311 Nu. 128. He writes the tables of the law with his own finger Ex. 3118 He speaks to Balaam Nu. 229.12.20. He is seen and heard Ex. 3 and 19, yet not in human form.

But all agree that E strives to suppress the anthropomorphic factors in the tradition as he molds it (Eerdmans alone denies this). E never has a concrete representation of God, as does J; the theophanies of E are "colorless” (Eichrodt). God is present in the pillar of cloud and fire; he is symbolized by the ark; he dwells invisible in the tent of meeting. On Horeb he is veiled in a cloud. He does not appear in physical form; a voice is heard but no form seen, angels appear frequently as God's representatives, the divine will is imparted through dreams and visions. But God himself is too exalted to walk in the garden in the cool of the day.

While E's conception is less human, more spiritual than J's, it marks at the same time in one sense a loss in religious value. E's God is more remote, distant, transcendent than J's. He is not found in the everyday course of events; he is not immanent in nature. E is philosophically a dualist and a deist. There is, truly, in E a conception of a Divine Providence, that causes all things—even man's sin—to work together for good (Cornill cites Gn. 5020). But probably E thought in terms of "special providences" rather than in terms of a God "in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”

E rejects the divineness of the natural, which had been J's view, in the interests of a marked supernaturalism. Cornill contrasts Gn. 1210-20 J with Gn. 201-17 E. The former is realis

« VorigeDoorgaan »