tic, human, natural. The latter is equipped with the full apparatus of miracle, vision and divine intervention. Instances of this supernaturalism may be multiplied; so, in E's account of the birth of Issachar and Joseph, Gn. 30176.; the increase of the herds of Jacob, Gn. 319ff.; the fact that even angels sometimes speak from heaven, Gn. 2117 2211 instead of coming down in human form to earth, as in J; the magical properties of Moses's rod; the heightening of the miraculous in the accounts of the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea; and the writing of the tables of law by the finger of God. God intervenes, as in Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, in Jacob's experience at Bethel, in the wrestling with the angel (or God), in Sarah's relations to Abimelech, and in the dealings of Jacob with Laban.

With reference to the cultus, E is more friendly to sacrifice and ritual than is J (cf. Gn. 22, substitution of animal for human sacrifice). The appearance of Aaron in E indicates a tendency toward the priestly conception of religion, although Smend views the mention of Aaron as an involuntary concession on E's part.

E, and especially EP, is hostile to all forms of idolatry. E's mention of massebahs is not an exception to this; for he interprets them as mere memorial stones, not as images or cultobjects. He rejects the teraphim, and the worship of any other god than God. He condemns idolatry in general in the Decalogue, and the worship of the golden calf in Ex. 32, cf. 1K. 1228. Smend points out that the serpent of Nu. 21 is not an idol, but merely a means of grace.

E's relation to prophetism (cf. the use of the word "prophet, already mentioned) is generally regarded as even closer than J's. Bacon, for instance, views E as a man of the type of Hosea. The great ideas of E are those of the prophetic movement, except that most of the prophets laid little or no stress on the miraculous. Proksch, Kittel, et al., trace the influence of Elijah; Smend of Amos and Hosea.

Characteristically prophetic is the idea of an individual relation to God Gn. 207.17 Nu. 217-8, which Proksch compares to the attitude of Micaiah ben Imlah, 1K. 22. Prophetic also is E's conception of faith Ex. 314, and in particular of God as trying or testing man's faith, Gn. 22; Ex. 2020; Dt. 338.

C. Characteristic Ethical Ideas.

E has a decidedly more keen moral sense than has J. In numerous instances E's version of a story removes or softens the morally offensive features of J. Eichrodt compares Gn. 166 J with Gn. 21111f. E; Gn. 3028ff. J with Gn. 314. E; Gn. 1210ff. J with Gn. 20 E. He is thus more didactic than J.

Smend sees in Hosea and E Nu. 23° Josh. 24 Ex. 20 the origin of the concept of heathenism of the Gentile as opposed to the Jew. E's Abraham assumes that the heathen have no morals, Gn. 20.

Stade, Holzinger, et al. detect a tendency to pessimism, which Proksch admits in E? but denies in E1.

d. Attitude toward Culture.

J's friendliness to civilization and the arts is entirely missing in E. The prohibition of all images in religion acted as a deterrent to art.

e. Attitude toward History.

For all E's moral monotheism, he thinks of God's interest as rather narrowly confined to Israel. “The idea of world-history is missing" (Proksch). The absence of a creation-narrative, of "tables of nations," etc., is significant of this tendency. Smend, however, notes that Abraham's home was in Mesopotamia Josh. 242-3.14-15.

Sellin points out certain characteristic historical standpoints of E. He viewed the patriarchs as polytheists, Josh. 242ff.. He lays more stress on the epoch-making work of Moses than does J, but he also introduces important subordinate figures, such as Aaron and Miriam, who play an influential part.

J had represented the conquest of Canaan as a slow and painful process. E, on the contrary, seems to hold that Canaan was conquered by the cooperating tribes under the leadership of Joshua in a few years, by the aid of divine intervention Josh. 146-16

E's great heroes are Joseph and Joshua. 3 HOME OF AUTHOR. We may speak with very little qualification of another assured result of criticism, namely, that E-at least in its original form—was written in the northern kingdom, not in Judah. Smend is the only advocate of the view that the home of E was in the south. He admits E's interest in north Israel, but explains it on the ground that a southern author might entertain a hope for the future restoration of north Israel. He uses Dt. 198 to prove that the Jews considered themselves the spiritual successors of Israel. He asserts that Abraham, “a specifically Judahite hero,” plays a larger part in E than in J; and E has the patriarchs reside in Beersheba, a southern shrine. This fact he regards as especially significant of the southern origin of E, inasmuch as J makes Jacob dwell in Shechem and Bethel, conspicuous northern shrines. Smend, however, admits that a large part of the content of J and E comes from the ancient common saga-tradition; and not every detail can be traced to the special interest of the writer. It may be that the Judahite features in E come from that tradition.

Over against Smend, the overwhelming majority of scholars since Wellhausen take the position that E's home is to be found in the northern kingdom (hence Ephraimitic). But Wellhausen, Kuenen, and many others have felt that E?, especially Ex. 32, may have been written in Judah. Cornill, Steuernagel, et al. are not convinced of this; they hold that such condemnation of the calf-worship could easily emanate from a north Israelite, like Hosea.

Let us survey the evidence for the northern origin of E. The great heroes of E are Joseph (father of the northern tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, cf. Gn. 378_and Rachel, the mother of Joseph, is Jacob's favorite wife) and Joshua, an Ephraimite, Josh. 1949-50

Numerous graves, all in the territory of the northern kingdom, are mentioned: of Deborah, Rachel, Joseph, Joshua, Eleazar (Gn. 358.19-20 5024-25 Josh. 2430.33).

E has a special interest in the shrines of the northern kingdom: as Bethel (where tithes were to be paid Gn. 2822), Gilgal, Ebal, Mahanaim, Penuel, and Shechem (Kittel's list). Shechem is especially important Gn. 3319 34. 354 Josh. 241.25-26.32

[ocr errors]

There are plain indications of the prosperity and predominance of the northern kingdom in Gn. 4822 and Dt. 3313-17,

One peculiarity of E constitutes a problem for the theory of its north Israelitic origin. The principal residence of Abraham in E is Beersheba, Gn. 201 2114.31 2219. E is, indeed, silent regarding Hebron, Abraham's home in J and the chief ancient sanctuary of Judah. Nevertheless, Beersheba is in the remote south of Judæan territory, and Smend cannot see why a northern writer should thus glorify this shrine. Other critics offer an explanation, which is probably satisfactory: Beersheba is proven by 1K. 19% Amos 55 814 (Ho. 415 "swear,” in Hebrew suggests Beersheba also) to have been a favorite shrine for north Israelites and the goal of their pilgrimages. It would thus be quite natural for E, the northerner, to hallow it by associating it with the name of Abraham.

4. THE DATE OF E—750.

The great majority of critics date E in its original form about 750. So Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Holzinger, Cornill, Proksch, Steuernagel, B. Luther, Kittel (since 1912), George Foote Moore, McNeile, Bacon, and many others. Most of these hold that E in its present form is a revised edition, published after the fall of Samaria in 721. Smend's view of the unity of E leads him to bring the entire document down to 700-650. But it is questionable whether Ex. 32 and Josh. 24 presuppose the fall of Samaria any more than do the prophecies of Amos and Hosea. If Cornill and Steuernagel are right in holding that E2 was a north Israelite, and Smend is right regarding the unity of E, perhaps most of the E2 passages were written by E in 750.

The only important difference of opinion regarding the date of E comes from Sellin, who discovers an E1 written in the reign of Solomon. But his E? comes down to 800, and so he does not differ substantially from the consensus; for everyone would admit that E contains material that originated at least as early as the united kingdom.

a. Evidence for the terminus ad quem of the Composition of E.

i. Like J, and for similar reasons, E must have been written before Dt. Contrast the law permitting worship anywhere Ex. 2024 E with Dt.'s centralization of worship in Jerusalem Dt. 12. E must have been written before Dt. 1622, with its prohibition of massebahs (cf. Josh. 4, and Ex. 243-8 E).

ii. Again, E, while more prophetic than J, must have been written before the work of Amos and Hosea had exerted much influence. On this all scholars except Smend agree. The year 750 becomes our terminus ad quem.

iiiIts north Israelitic origin implies that E was written before 721.

b. Evidence for the terminus a quo of the Composition of E.

i. E's use of ancient sources proves that it is not one of the oldest of Hebrew writings. Such sources are the Song of Miriam, Ex. 1520-21; the Book of the Wars of Jehovah Nu. 2114; the parables (taunting poems) of Balaam; the "book” mentioned in Ex. 1717; and the Code of the Covenant, Ex. 20222333. In this connection should be mentioned the Book of Jashar, cited Josh. 1013 (JE, probably E). 2Sm. 118 says that David's lament in the Song of the Bow was taken from the Book of Jashar. The LXX attributes the blessing of Solomon 1K. 812-13, to the same source. The Book of Jashar, then, was written during or later than the reign of Solomon: and E, which quotes Jashar, must have been still later.

ii. E was probably written after the division of the kingdom in 933. Proksch cites in proof of this statement Gn. 378 Nu. 2321 Dt. 337—and yet none of these passages is certainly a reference to the divided kingdom.

iii. E was written after J 850, as has already been proven under J (q. v.).

iv. E's Egyptian names (such as Potiphar, Zaphenathpaneah, etc.) are found in Egyptian records as far back as the XXII. dynasty, tenth century B. C., but not earlier (so Brugsch, Steindorf, Max Müller, Barton JBL., vol. 28, p. 153). Hence E was not written before B. C. 1000-900.

c. The Closer Determination of the Date of E.

In dating E at 750 (the terminus ad quem), scholars take into account the following factors:

« VorigeDoorgaan »