§ II. THE COMPOSITE STRUCTURE OF THE BIBLE.

THE JAHVIST-ELOHIST THEORY.

ONE of the most certain results of literary criticism is that the Bible is not an unity, but an exceedingly composite structure. There are different strata or layers of narrative, different elements coming each from its own source, which have been welded together by a series of redactions or editings. Ancient legends have been utilized and written over by later hands; a diorthosis (as it is technically called) has taken place: that is to say, the story or prophecy, or what not, has been accommodated to and regulated by the later tradition. If we ask on what grounds such an analysis is justified, the answer rests mainly on the following considerations. In the first place there is a difference in style, sometimes a difference even in the language (Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.) which is employed. In the second place there are numerous repetitions. For instance, Abraham twice pretends that Sarah is not his wife, but his sister, in Egypt and in the court of Abimelech of Gerar, and there are two somewhat contradictory versions of the Creation. These could scarcely come from the same hand. In the third place there are differences in point of view, for instance, whether Jerusalem and Judah or Samaria and the Northern kingdom be the main interest of the writer. And lastly-a consideration which includes a good many other points besides those already mentioned—we know that the faiths of Israel changed, or at least were developed, and that what was consistent with one phase was not necessarily consistent with another. The nomad faith took a different view of altars from that entertained by the peasant religion, when Israel was established in Canaan and the value of Sacrifice was divergently estimated by the prophetic and the priestly religion.

There are four such strata, previously referred to, which may be tabulated thus:

The Jahvistic writer (who need not be one but many), usually called J. The Elohistic

E.

D.

P.

These are arranged for the most part in temporal order, for the first (J.) is supposed to date somewhere about 850 B.C., in the reign of Jehoshaphat. E. has for its reputed date 750 B.C., in the time of Jeroboam II. The Deuteronomist clearly starts from the reign of Josiah, 621 B.C., while the Priestly writer has a large range from 570 B.C. (the end of Ezekiel's activities) to about 440 B.C. (the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem), and probably also to 250 B.C. The process of amalgamation was something of this sort. J. and E. were welded together by a redactor or editor (which produces what is called J.E.), perhaps by a Deuteronomist, perhaps by a Priestly writer. But after the date of Ezra it is tolerably clear that an extensive revision took place at the hands of P. which occupied the years between 440 and 400 B.C. It was not till some time after the Babylonian exile that the writings of the Old Testament began to assume their present arrangement. The Deuteronomist, who is active during Josiah's reform, is responsible for the Book of Deuteronomy. The Book of the Chronicles occupies a special position of its own, because it represents a deliberate attempt to rewrite the old memorials of the Kings. Probably it is due to the same authorship which produced the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Its style is quite distinct. It exhibits those half-musical, half-liturgical expressions which occur in the Book of Psalms. Indeed, it only knows David as a singer of psalms. The object of the Chronicler is always "to improve the occasion." He is consistently didactic. Thus he gives a reason why the pious Asa became diseased in his feet, why the pious Uzziah became afflicted with leprosy, and the pious Josiah was defeated by the heathen Necho. So, too, he seems anxious to show why sinners sometimes triumph; how it came to

pass, for instance, that Joash of Israel, who was a heretic, could capture Amaziah, described as a true believer, and above all, how that peculiarly wicked monarch Manasseh could not only have the longest reign of all the Kings descended from David, but actually die in peace. These are the conscious efforts of an obviously late writer, and some would even put the work of the Chronicler as late as 250 B.C., during the Greek period. The work of the Jahvist and the Elohist is to be seen principally in the Pentateuch, or rather the Hexateuch (that is to say, the five Books of Moses, together with the Book of Joshua). The Jahvist is so called because he most consistently uses the name Jahveh for the God of Israel, while the Elohist prefers El or Elohim. The one is translated Jehovah in our authorized version, the other appears as the Lord.

Let us put the matter dogmatically, for the sake of clearness. The Jahvist writer emanates from Judea, and represents the Judaic point of view. For instance, he makes Abraham dwell in Hebron, not in Beersheba. In the story of Joseph he makes Judah, and not Reuben, the spokesman of the brothers. Everywhere he magnifies Moses, and puts the North Israelitish figure of Aaron and the Ephraimite Joshua very much in the background. On the contrary, the Elohist narrative seems to have come from the Northern kingdom, and its author to have been an Ephraimite. The ancient holy places, such as Bethel, Shechem, and above all, Beersheba, are the central points of his narrative. Abraham is brought not to the Judean town of Hebron, but to Beersheba. Ephraim is the true heir of Joseph. Reuben is the tribal leader among the sons of Jacob, and Joseph is a royal figure, blest of heaven in his descendants in the Northern kingdom. But if we are to compare the two writers, there can be no question that J. is a good deal the more picturesque and literary. J. excels in delineating life and character and the painting of a scene. While E. makes God speak out of Heaven, J. makes God come down upon earth and move freely among his creatures, as in the second and third chapters of Genesis. Let any reader peruse, let us say, the

24th chapter of Genesis, in which is described the wooing of Rebekah by the intermediary of Abraham's steward. Here is a charming narrative full of Eastern colour and yet quite simple. There is no particular characterization, still less is there of psychological analysis. But for vivid descriptive power, and an eye for atmospheric effects, the recital is an admirable example of J.'s power. So, too, is the dialogue between Jahveh and the patriarch in reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the interview between Joseph and his brethren. I have selected a number of passages from J. because he is above all the literary artist. E. is not much inferior, but he has not the same assured and delicate literary touch, and he is anxious to make out the best case for the Ephraimites and the Northern kingdom. The Priestly writer (P.) is quite stereotyped in expression, quite formal, and with a constant pre-occupation with the Torah and the ordinances of the Law. J.E. taken together are distinctly prophetical in character-and J. is especially anxious to explain the origins of things, such as the division of the sexes, the cause of evil, marriage, etc.-and therefore anticipate prophets like Amos and Micah and Isaiah. The characteristics of P. are partly theocratic, partly liturgical, and throughout represent the formal organization of Hebraism as a ceremonial religion. J. again is the main element in the Books of Samuel. The Deuteronomic writer appears to some extent in both Joshua and Judges, but most of all in the Books of Kings-though these books are, of course, based on the old traditions. To speak technically, we should say that the author of Samuel is Rj., i.e. a redactor working on J.: while the authors of Kings are Rd, and Rd, that is to say, redactors working on two different layers of Deuteronomic work.

The story of Joseph, as told from Gen. xxxvii. onwards, affords a significant and interesting example of the kind of process which I have attempted to indicate in preceding paragraphs. As it stands in our Bible, it is a compilation by some late writer of two accounts, written respectively by J. and E., passages being taken from J. and E. alter

nately, and then-not always very successfully-harmonized. Let us take the version of J. first.1 Joseph, plotted against by his brethren, is rescued by Judah, and then sold by his brethren to the Ishmaelites. The latter sell him to an Egyptian of position, whose name is not given (xxxix. 1, is the work of the redactor). After being made his head servant, Joseph is charged by his master's wife, and is, in consequence, thrown into prison (bearing the remarkable name of "The Round House"), the keeper of the prison making him overseer of the other prisoners. In the subsequent narrative the brethren only after special inquiry tell Joseph about their younger brother: nothing is said about the detention of Simeon as a hostage in Egypt. The brethren open their sacks and find the money in them at a lodging-house by the way: Judah offers to be a surety to his father for Benjamin's return: and Goschen is the place named for Jacob and his sons. Now let us turn to E.'s account. Joseph is rescued from the brethren by Reuben and thrown into a pit, from which he is drawn up by Midianites without his brothers' knowledge. He is sold to Potiphar, captain of the guard, who makes him attend on the prisoners confined in his house. Later, when the brethren are taxed with being spies, they volunteer the information about their younger brother. Simeon remains in Egypt as a hostage: the sacks are opened at the end of the journey home. Reuben offers to be surety for Benjamin's return, and there is no mention of Goschen. Such being the two versions, what does the redactor do? He finds in both versions that Joseph is connected in some way with a prison, but that he is only described as a prisoner by J., while E. makes him wait on the prisoners. Further J. speaks of the Keeper of the Round House as committing the other prisoners into Joseph's charge, while in E., his own master, the captain of the guard, appoints him to wait upon the prisoners in his charge. The redactor, therefore, brings the versions into

1 I avail myself of the excellent analysis in Dr. Driver's Genesis, p. 332, 5th edition.