Introduction to the Old Testament | Page 6

P.
Here also ritual interests play a part in the tithes paid to the priest of
Salem, v. 20 (i.e. Jerusalem). In spite of its array of ancient names, xiv.
1, 2, which have been partially corroborated by recent discoveries, this
chapter is, for several reasons, believed to be one of the latest in the
Pentateuch.]
When we examine what is left in Genesis, after deducting the sections
that belong to P, we find that the word God (Elohim), characteristic of
P, is still very frequently and in some sections exclusively used. The
explanation will appear when we come to deal with Exodus: meantime
the fact must be carefully noted. Ch. xx., e.g., uses the word Elohim,
but it has no other mark characteristic of P. It is neither formal nor
diffuse in style nor legal in spirit; it is as concrete and almost as graphic
as anything in J. Indeed the story related--Abraham's denial of his
wife--is actually told in that document, xii. 10-20 (also of Isaac, xxvi.
1-11); and in general the history is covered by this document, which is
called the Elohist[1] and known to criticism as E, in much the same
spirit, and with an emphasis upon much the same details, as by J. In
opposition to P, these are known as the prophetic documents, because
they were written or at least put together under the influence of
prophetic ideas. The close affinity of these two documents renders it
much more difficult to distinguish them from each other than to
distinguish either of them from P, but within certain limits the attempt
may be successfully made. The basis of it must, of course, be a study of

the duplicate versions of the same incidents; that is, such a narrative as
ch. xx., which uses the word God (Elohim) is compared with its
parallel in xii. 10-20, which uses the word Jehovah, and in this way the
distinctive features and interests of each document will most readily be
found. The parallel suggested is easy and instructive, and it reveals the
relative ethical and theological superiority of E to J. J tells the story of
Abraham's falsehood with a quaint naïveté (xii.); E is offended by it
and excuses it (xx.). The theological refinement of E is suggested not
only here, xx. 3, 6, but elsewhere, by the frequency with which God
appears in dreams and not in bodily presence as in J (cf. iii. 8).
Similarly the expulsion of Hagar, which in J is due to Sarah's jealousy
(xvi.), in E is attributed to a command of God, xxi. 8-21; and the
success of Jacob with the sheep, which in J is due to his skill and
cunning, xxx. 29-43, is referred in E to the intervention of God, xxxi.
5-12. In general it may be said that J, while religious, is also natural,
whereas E tends to emphasize the supernatural, and thus takes the first
step towards the austere theology of P.[2] [Footnote 1: In this way it is
distinguished from P, which, as we have seen, is also Elohistic, but is
not now so called.] [Footnote 2: A detailed justification of the grounds
of the critical analysis will be found in Professor Driver's elaborate and
admirable _Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_, where
every section throughout the Hexateuch is referred to its special
documentary source. To readers who desire to master the detail, that
work or one of the following will be indispensable: _The Hexateuch_,
edited by Carpenter and Battersby, Addis's _Documents of the
Hexateuch_, Bacon's Genesis of Genesis and _Triple Tradition of the
Exodus_, or Kent's _Student's Old Testament_ (vol. i.)]
J is the most picturesque and fascinating of all the sources-attractive
alike for its fine poetic power and its profound religious insight. This is
the source which describes the wooing of Isaac's bride (xxiv.), and the
meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well, xxix. 2-14; in this source, too,
which appears to be the most primitive of all, there are speaking
animals--the serpent, e.g., in Genesis iii. (and the ass in Num. xxii. 28).
The story of the origin of sin, in every respect a masterpiece, is told by
J; we do not know whether to admire more the ease with which
Jehovah, like a skilful judge, by a few penetrating questions drives the
guilty pair to an involuntary confession, or the fidelity with which the

whole immortal scene reflects the eternal facts of human nature. The
religious teaching of J is extraordinarily powerful and impressive, all
the more that it is never directly didactic; it shines through the simple
and unstudied recital of concrete incident.
It is one of the most delicate and not the least important tasks of
criticism to discover by analysis even the sources which lie so close