Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/86

 21, 22), represents them as living among the Egyptians, and so few in number that two midwives satisfy their requirements. It is to this latter source that we owe the account of the birth of Moses and of his education at the court of Pharaoh (ii. 1-10). On reaching manhood Moses openly displays his sympathy with his brethren by slaying an Egyptian, and has, in consequence, to flee to Midian, where he marries Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian (ii. 11-22). In this section the editor has undoubtedly made use of the parallel narrative of J, though it is impossible to determine the exact point at which J’s account is introduced: certainly ii. 15b-22 belong to that source. The fact that the father-in-law of Moses is called Reuel in v. 18, as contrasted with the name Jethro, which occurs in iii. 1 f. and in all subsequent passages from E, cannot be taken as conclusive on this point, since critics are agreed that “Reuel” in this verse is a later addition: had it been original we should have expected the name to be given at v. 16 rather than at v. 18. But, if no argument can be based on the discrepancy between the two names, we may at least assume that the namelessness of the priest in v. 16 f. points to a different source for those verses from that of iii. 1 f. Elsewhere J speaks of “Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Num. x. 29); the addition, “the priest of Midian,” only occurs in the (secondary) passages iii. 1, xviii. 1 (E). Probably RJE omitted the name in ii. 16 and added “the priest of Midian” in iii. 1, xviii 1, from harmonizing motives. Further, vv. 15B-22 speak of one son being born to Moses at this period, a statement which is borne out by iv. 20, 25 (“sons” in iv. 20 is obviously a correction), whereas ch. xviii. (E) mentions two sons. means uniform, and shows obvious traces of twofold origin (J iii. 2-4a, 5, 7, 8, 16-18; iv. 1-12 (13-16), 29-31; E iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-14, 21, 22; iv. 17, 18, 20b, 27, 28). These two sources present striking points of difference, which reappear in the subsequent narrative. According to E, Moses with Aaron is to demand from Pharaoh the release of Israel, which will be effected in spite of his opposition; in assurance thereof the promise is given that they shall serve God upon this mountain; moreover, the people on their departure are to borrow raiment and jewels from their Egyptian neighbours. According to J, on the other hand, the spokesmen are to be Moses and the elders; and their request is for a temporary departure only, viz. “three days’ journey into the wilderness”; their departure from Egypt is a hurried one. Yet another difficulty, which disappears as soon as the composite character of the narrative is recognized, is that of the signs. In J three signs are given for the purpose of reassuring Moses, only one of which is wrought with the rod (iv. 1-9), but in iv. 17 (E) the reference is clearly to entirely different signs, probably the plagues of Egypt, which according to E were invariably wrought by “the rod of God.” Further, it is questionable if the passage iv. 13-16 really forms part of the original narrative of J, and is not rather to be ascribed to the redactor of JE. The name of Aaron has certainly been introduced by a later hand in J’s account of the plague of frogs (viii. 12), and the only passage in J in which Aaron is represented as taking an active part is iv. 29-31, where the mention of his name causes no little difficulty. In E, on the other hand, Aaron is sent by God to meet Moses at Mt. Horeb, after the latter had taken leave of Jethro, and, later on, accompanies him into the presence of Pharaoh. The succeeding narrative (v. 1–vi. 1) is mainly taken from J, though E’s account of the first interview with Pharaoh has been partially retained in v. 1, 2, 4. Moses and the elders ask leave to go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, a request which is met by an increase of the burdensome work of brick-making: henceforward the Israelites have to provide their own straw. The people complain bitterly to Moses, who appeals to Yahweh and is assured by him of the future deliverance of Israel “by a strong hand.”

With the exception of the genealogical list (i. 1-5) and the brief notices of the increase of Israel (i. 7) and of its oppression at the hands of the Egyptians (i. 13, 14; ii. 23b-25), the narrative so far exhibits no traces of P. But in vi. 2–vii. 13 we are confronted with a narrative which carries us back to ii. 23b-25 and gives practically a parallel account to that of JE in ch. iii.–v. Thus the revelation of the divine name, vi. 2f., finds its counterpart in iii. 10f., the message to be delivered to Israel (vi. 6f.) is very similar to that of ch. iii. 16f., while the demand which is to be addressed to Pharaoh is identical with that which had been already refused in ch. v. No allusion, however, is made by Moses to this previous demand; he merely urges the same objection as that put forward in iv. 10f. With the resumption of the story in vi. 28f. Moses reiterates his objection, and is told that Aaron shall be his “prophet” and speak for him, and shall also perform the sign of the rod (cf. iv. 2-4). The sign, however, has no effect on Pharaoh (vii. 13), and we thus reach the same point in the narrative as at vi. 1. Apart from the literary characteristics which clearly differentiate this narrative from the preceding accounts of J and E, the following points of variation are worthy of consideration: (1) The people refuse to listen to Moses; (2) Aaron is appointed to be Moses’ spokesman, not with the people, but with Pharaoh; (3) one sign is given (not three) and performed before Pharaoh; (4) the rod is turned into a reptile (tannīn), not a serpent (nāhāsh).

(2) vii. 14–xi. 10. The First Plagues of Egypt.—In this section the analysis again reveals three main sources, which are clearly marked off from one another both by their linguistic features and by their difference of representation. The principal source is J, from which are derived six plagues, viz. killing of the fish in the river (vii. 14, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 24, 25), frogs (viii. 1-4, 8-150), insects (viii. 20-32), murrain (ix. 1-7), hail (ix. 13-18, 23b, 24b, 25b-34), locusts (x. 1a, 3-11, 13b, 14b, 15a, c-19, 24-26, 28, 29), the threat to slay all the first-born (xi. 4-8). The most striking characteristic of this narrative is that the plagues are represented as mainly due to natural causes and follow a natural sequence. Thus Yahweh smites the river so that the fish die and render the water undrinkable. This is succeeded by a plague of frogs. The swarms of flies and insects, which next appear, are the natural outcome of the decaying masses of frogs, and these, in turn, would form a natural medium for the spread of cattle disease. Destructive hailstorms, again, though rare, are not unknown in Egypt, while the locusts are definitely stated to have been brought by a strong east wind. Other distinctive features of J’s narrative are: (1) Moses alone is bidden to interview Pharaoh (vii. 14 f.; viii. 1 f., 20 f.; ix. 1 f., 13 f.; x. 1 f.); (2) on each occasion he makes a formal demand; (3) on Pharaoh’s refusal the plague is announced, and takes place at a fixed time without any human intervention; (4) when the plague is sent, Pharaoh sends for Moses and entreats his intercession, promising in most cases to accede in part to his request; when the plague is removed, however, the promise is left unfulfilled, the standing phrase being “and Pharaoh’s heart was heavy ,” or “and Pharaoh made heavy his heart”; (5) the plagues do not affect the children of Israel in Goshen. E’s account (water turned into blood, vii. 15, 17b, 20b, 23; hail, ix. 22, 23a, 24a, 25a, 35; locusts, x. 12, 13a, 14a, 15b) is more fragmentary, having been doubtless superseded in most cases by the fuller and more graphic narrative of J, but the plague of darkness (x. 20-23, 27) is found only in this source. As contrasted with J the narrative emphasizes the miraculous character of the plagues. They are brought about by “the rod of God,” which Moses wields, the effect being instantaneous and all-embracing. The Israelites are represented as living among the Egyptians, and enjoy no immunity from the plagues, except that of darkness. Their departure from Egypt is deliberate; the people have time to borrow raiment and jewels from their neighbours. E regularly uses the phrase “and Pharaoh’s heart was strong ,” or “and Yahweh made strong Pharaoh’s heart” and “he would not let the children of Israel (or, them) go.” In the priestly narrative (P) the plagues assume the form of a trial of skill between Aaron, who acts at Moses’ command, and the Egyptian magicians, and thus connect with vii. 8-13. The magicians succeed in turning the Nile water into blood (vii. 19, 20a, 21b, 22), and in bringing up frogs (viii. 5-7), but they fail to bring forth lice (viii. 15b-19), and are themselves smitten with boils (ix. 8-12): the two last-named plagues have no parallel either in J or E. Throughout the P sections Aaron is associated with Moses, and the regular command given to the latter is “Say unto Aaron”: no demand is ever made to Pharaoh, and the description of the plague is quite short. The formula employed by P is “and Pharaoh’s heart was strong ,” or, “and Pharaoh made strong his heart,” as in E, but it is distinguished from E’s phrase by the addition of “and he hearkened not unto them as Yahweh had spoken.”

(3) xii. i–xiii. 16. The Last Plague, the Deliverance from Egypt, the Institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the Consecration of the First-born.—This section presents the usual phenomena of a composite narrative, viz. repetitions and inconsistencies. Thus J’s regulations for the Passover (xii. 21-23, 27b) seem at first sight simply to repeat the commands given to Moses and Aaron in xii. 1-13 (P), but in reality they are a parallel and divergent account. In vv. 1-13 the choice of the lamb and the manner in which it is to be eaten constitute the essential feature, the smearing with the blood being quite secondary; in vv. 21 f. the latter point is all-important, and no regulations are given for the paschal meal (which, possibly, formed no part of J’s original account). Similarly the institution of the Feast of Mazzoth, or Unleavened Cakes (xiii. 3-10J), does not form the sequel to the regulations laid down in xii.