highly anthropomorphic. He represents Jehovah not only (as the prophets generally, even the latest, do) as expressing human resolutions and swayed by human emotions, but as performing sensible acts. Some illustrations from J's narrative in Gen. 2-3. 7-8 were quoted above (p. 7); but the instances are not confined to the childhood of the world. Thus He comes down to see the tower built by men, and to confound their speech, 11, 5. 7 (so 18, 21. Ex. 3, 8: rather differently Nu. 11, 17. 25. 12, 5), visits the earth in visible form Gen. 18-19, meets Moses and seeks to slay him Ex. 4, 24, takes off the chariot wheels of the Egyptians 14, 24. Elsewhere, He is grieved, repents (Gen. 6, 6 f. Ex. 32, 14), swears (Gen. 24, 7. Nu. 11, 12), is angry (Ex. 4, 14 al.); but these less material anthropomorphisms are not so characteristic as those just noticed, being met with often in other historical books and in the prophets (e.g. 1 Sa. 15, 11. 2 Sa. 24, 16. Jer. 18, 8-10. 26, 19).

How far other sources were employed by J and E must remain uncertain, though the fact that such are sometimes actually quoted, at least by E, makes it far from improbable that they were used on other occasions likewise. The sources cited are mostly poetical no doubt in Israel, as in many other nations, literature began with poetry. Thus E cites the "Book of the Wars of Jehovah" (Nu. 21, 14 f.), and the "Book of Jashar" (Josh. 10, 12 f.), from each of which an extract is given. The former book can only have been a collection of songs celebrating ancient victories gained by Israel over its enemies.1 The poems themselves will naturally, at least in most cases, have been composed shortly after the events to which they refer. At what date they were formed into a collection must remain matter of conjecture: the age of David or Solomon has been suggested. The Book of Jashar, or "the Upright" (in which David's lament over Saul also stood, 2 Sa. 1, 18), was probably of a similar character,-a national collection of songs celebrating the deeds of worthy Israelites. This, at least, was not completed before the time of David, though the nucleus of the collection may obviously have been formed earlier. E, moreover, on other occasions, quotes lyric poems (or fragments of poems), viz. the Song of Moses (Ex. 15, I ff.), the Song of the Well (Nu. 21, 17 f.), and the Song of triumph over Sihon (ib. vv. 27–30). There is no express state1 For the expression, cf. 1 Sa. 18, 17. 25, 28.

ment that these were taken by him from one of the same sources; but in the light of his actual quotations this is not improbable, at least for the first two: the Song of Deborah, Jud. 5, 1 ff., may also have had a place in one of these collections. Further, the command to write "in a book" the threat to extirpate Amalek (Ex. 17, 14), makes it probable that some written statement existed of the combat of Israel with Amalek, and of the oath sworn then by Jehovah to exterminate His people's foe. The poetical phrases that occur in the context may suggest that this too was in the form of a poem, reminiscences of which were interwoven by E in his narrative. And the Ten Commandments which E incorporates, of course existed already in a written form. The Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49) may have been derived by J from a source such as the Book of Jashar: the Song of Moses in Dt. 32 (which is very different in style) was taken probably from an independent source. The ordinances which form the basis of the "Book of the Covenant" must also have existed in a written shape before they were incorporated in the narrative of J; as well as the "Words of the Covenant," which, probably in an enlarged form, are preserved in Ex. 34, 10 ff. (cf. v. 27 f.). The existence of written laws c. 750 B.C. is implied by Hos. 8, 12.

Critics of different schools-Dillmann, Kittel, and Riehm, not less than Wellh. and Kuen.-agree in supposing that E was a native of the Northern kingdom. His narrative bears, indeed, an Ephraimitic tinge. Localities belonging to the Northern kingdom (see above) are prominent in it, especially Shechem and Bethel (the custom of paying tithes at which—cf. Am. 4, 4 -appears to be explained in Gen. 28, 21 f.). Hebron is subordinate: Abraham is brought more into connexion with Beersheba. Reuben, not Judah (as in J), takes the lead in the history of Joseph. Joshua, the Ephraimite hero, is already prominent before the death of Moses; the burial - places of famous personages of antiquity, as of Deborah, Rachel, Joshua, Joseph, Eleazar, when they were shown in Ephraimite territory, are noticed by him (Gen. 35, 8. 19 f. Josh. 24, 30. 32. 33). Jis commonly regarded as having belonged to the Southern kingdom.

1 Heb. 0, of which, however, the English equivalent is “in a book :' comp. Nu. 5, 23. Job 19, 23. The Hebrew idiom is explained in Ges.Kautzsch (ed. 25), § 126.;; or in the writer's Notes on Samuel, pp. 5, 123.

The general Israelitish tradition treated Reuben as the first-born; but in J's narrative of Joseph, Judah is represented as the leader of the brethren. Gen. 38 (J) records traditions relating to the history of Judahite families which would be of subordinate. interest for one who was not a member of the tribe. Abraham's home is at Hebron. The grounds alleged may seem to be slight in themselves, but in the absence of stronger grounds on the opposite side, they make it at least relatively probable that E and J belonged to the Northern and Southern kingdoms respectively, and represent the special form which Israelitish tradition assumed in each locality.

On the relative date of E and J, the opinions of critics differ. Dillm. Kittel, and Riehm assign the priority to E, placing him 900-850 B.C., and J c. 750 (Dillm.), 830-800 (Kittel), or c. 850 (Richm). Welihausen, Kuenen, and Stade, on the other hand, assign the priority to J, placing him 850-800 B.C., and E c. 750.2

The grounds of this difference of opinion cannot be here fully discussed. It turns in part upon a different conception of the limits of J. Dillm.'s "J" embraces more than Wellh.'s "J," including, for instance, Ex. 13, 3-16. 19, 5 f. 32, 7-14, and much of 34, 1-28, which approximate in tone to Dt., and which Wellh. ascribes to the compiler of JE. Dillm.'s date, c. 750 (p. 630), is assigned to J largely on the ground of just those passages which form no part of Wellh.'s J. It is true, these passages display a tone and style (often parenetic) which is not that which prevails generally in J; and as the anthropomorphisms of J favour, moreover, an earlier date, it is possible that they are rightly assigned to the compiler of JE rather than to J (as, indeed, is admitted by Dillm. (p. 681) for the similar passages, Gen. 22, 15-18. 26, 3-5. Ex. 15, 26. Nu. 14, 11-23). Dillm. allows the presence in his “J” of archaic elements, but attributes them to the use of special sources; his opinion that E is one of these sources is not probable.

Although, however, critics differ as to the relative date of J and E, they agree that neither is later than c. 750 B.C.; and most are of opinion that one (if not both) is decidedly earlier. The terminus ad quem is fixed by the general consideration that the prophetic tone and point of view of J and E alike are not so definitely marked as in the canonical prophets (Amos, Hosea, &c.), the earliest of whose writings date from c. 760-750. It is

1 So most previous critics, as Nöldeke (J c. 900), Schrader (E 975-950; J 825-800), Kayser (c. 8co), Reuss (J 850-800; E" perhaps still earlier").

In the same order, H. Schultz, Alttest. Theol. (ed. 4) p. 60 f. (J to the reign of Solomon; E 850-800).

probable also, though not quite certain (for the passages may be based upon unwritten tradition), that Am. 2, 9. Hos. 12, 3 f. 12 f. contain allusions to the narrative of JE. The terminus a quo is more difficult to fix with confidence: in fact, conclusive criteria fail us. We can only argue upon grounds of probability derived from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though. plausible arguments, on one side or the other, may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed. Nor does the language of J and E bring us to any more definite conclusion. Both belong to the golden period of Hebrew literature. They resemble the best parts of Judges and Samuel (much of which cannot be greatly later than David's own time); but whether they are actually earlier or later than these, the language and style do not enable us to say. There is at least no archaic flavour perceptible in the style of JE.1 And there are certainly passages (which cannot all be treated as glosses), in which language is used implying that the period of the exodus lay in the past, and that Israel is established in Canaan.2

The

1 On some of the supposed archaisms of the Pent., see DEUTERONOMY in the Dict. of the Bible, § 31; Delitzsch, Genesis (1887), p. 27 f.

* See (in JE) Gen. 12, 6; 13, 7; 34, 7 ("in Israel: " comp. Dt. 22, 21. Jud. 20, 6. 10. 2 Sa. 13, 12); 40, 15 ("the land of the Hebrews"); Nu. 32, 41 (as Dt. 3, 14: see Jud. 10, 4).

In the other sources of the Pent. comp. similarly Gen. 14, 14. Dt. 34, I ("Dan" see Josh. 19, 47. Jud. 18, 29); Gen. 36, 31; Lev. 18, 27 f.; Nu. 22, 1. 34, 15 (p. 79); Dt. 2, 12o; 3, 11 (Og's bedstead a relic of antiquity); as well as the passages of Dt. quoted p. 77 &c. Dt. 2, 12. 3, 11. 14 might, indeed, in themselves be treated as glosses (though they harmonize in style with the rest of Dt. 1-3); but the attempts that have been made to reconcile the other passages with Moses' authorship must strike every impartial reader as forced and artificial. The laws, also, in many of their details, presuppose (and do not merely anticipate) institutions and social relations, which can hardly have grown up except among a people which had been for some time settled in a permanent home. Cf. Dillm. NDJ. 593-6; Riehm, Einl. § 12. It must be remembered that there is no passage of the OT. which ascribes the composition of the Pent. to Moses, or even to Moses' age; so that we are thrown back upon independent grounds for the purpose of determining its

manner also in which songs are appealed to (Nu. 21, 14. 27), in support of historical statements, is scarcely that of a contemporary. All things considered, a date in the early centuries of the monarchy would seem not to be unsuitable both for J and for E; but it must remain an open question whether both may not, in reality, be earlier. The date at which an event, or institution, is first mentioned in writing, must not be confused with that at which it occurred, or originated: in the early stages of a nation's history the memory of the past is preserved habitually by oral tradition; and the Jews, long after they were possessed of a literature, were still apt to depend much upon tradition.

Space forbids here an examination of the styles of J and E. They have much in common; indeed, stylistic criteria alone would not generally suffice to distinguish J and E; though, when the distinction has been effected by other means, slight differences of style appear to disclose themselves; for instance, particular expressions are more common in J than in E, and E is apt to employ somewhat unusual words.1 Whether, however, the expressions noted by Dillm. NDJ. pp. 618, 625 f., are all cited justly as characteristic of E and J respectively, may be questioned; they depend in part upon details of the analysis which are not throughout equally assured. Both J and E bear a far closer general resemblance than P does to the earlier narratives of Jud. Sam. Kings: J especially resembles Jud. 6, 11-24. 13, 2-24. c. 19.

P, both in method and literary style, offers a striking contrast to either J or E. P is not satisfied to cast into a literary form what may be termed the popular conception of the patriarchal and Mosaic age: his aim is to give a systematic view, from a priestly standpoint, of the origin and chief institutions of the Israelitish theocracy. For this purpose, an abstract of the history is sufficient to judge from the parts that remain, the narrative of the patriarchal age, even when complete, cannot have been more than a bare outline; it only becomes detailed at important epochs, or where the origin of some existing institution has to date. The "law of Moses" is indeed frequently spoken of; and it is unquestioned that Israelitish law did originate with him: but this expression is not evidence that Moses was the writer of the Pent., or even that the laws which the Pent. contains represent throughout his unmodified legislation. Dt. 31, 9. 24 may be referred reasonably to the more ancient body of law which forms the basis of the Deut. code. Comp. Delitzsch, Gen. p. 33 f.

1E.g. np Gen. 33, 19. Josh. 24, 32 (Job 42, 11)†; D'D Gen. 31, 7. 41†; Ex. 18, 9 ; 21 in (very uncommon in prose); 32, 18 numbn;

.in a local sense כה ; (poeticalן) לשמצה בקמיהם 25