John Frederick Stenning

“ 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. ”

“ As it stands, however, this chapter represents the legislation which it contains as a renewal of a former covenant, also written on tables of stone, which had been broken (1b, 4a) . But the document from which the chapter, as a whole, is derived, is certainly J, while the previous references to tables of stone and to Moses’ breaking them belong to the parallel narrative of E. Moreover, the covenant here set forth (v. 10 f.) is clearly a new one, and contains no hint of any previous legislation, nor of any breach of it by the people. ”

“ 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 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. ”

“ Moses’ Intercession.—The time for departure from the Sacred Mount had now arrived, and Moses is accordingly bidden to lead the people to the promised land. Yahweh himself refuses to accompany Israel owing to their disobedience, but in response to Moses’ passionate appeal finally consents to let his presence go with them. The account of Moses’ intercession has been preserved in J, though the narrative has undergone considerable dislocation. The true sequence of the narrative appears to be as follows: Moses is commanded to lead the people to Canaan (xxxiii. 1-3) ”

“ In view of these facts we are forced to conclude that 1b (“like unto the first . . . brakest”) , 4a (“and he hewed . . . the first”) and v. 28 (“the ten words”) formed no part of the original narrative, [7] but were inserted by a later Deuteronomic redactor. In the view of this editor the Decalogue alone formed the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb, and in order to retain J’s version, he represented it as a renewal of the tables of stone which Moses had broken. [8]
The legislation contained in xxxiv. ”

“ 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 ”

“ 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. ”

“ The evidence, however, afforded (a) by the parallel version of Deuteronomy and (b) by the literary analysis of J and E not only fails to support this tradition, but excites the gravest suspicions as to the originality both of the form and of the position in which the Decalogue now appears. For when compared with Ex. xx. 1-17 the parallel version of Deut. v. 6 ff. is found to exhibit a number of variations, and, in particular, assigns an entirely different reason for the observance of the Sabbath. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ Sinai (or Horeb) , followed by the Decalogue in xx. 1-17. Alongside of this code we find another, dealing in part with the civil and social (xxi. 2–xxii. 17) , in part with the religious life of Israel, the so-called Book of the Covenant, xx. 22–xxiii. 19. Ch. xxiv. contains a composite narrative of the ratification of the covenant. In chs. xxxii. and xxxiii. we have again two narratives of the sin of the people and of Moses’ intercession, while in ch. xxxiv. we are confronted with yet another early code, which is practically identical with the religious enactments of xx. ”

“ Closer examination also of P’s narrative of the manna shows that its true-position is after the departure from Mt. Sinai; cf. the expressions used in vv. 9, 10, 33, 34, implying the existence of the ark and the tabernacle. P’s account of the manna, however, can hardly have stood originally in close juxtaposition with his account of the quails (cf. Num. xi. 6) , but the two narratives were probably combined by RP before they were transferred to their present position. The same redactor doubtless added v. 8 (and possibly vv. 17, 18) by way of explanation, and vv. ”

“ They narrate how the commands of ch. xxv.–xxxi. were carried out, and practically repeat the earlier chapters verbatim, merely the tenses being changed, the most noticeable omissions being xxvii. 20 f. (oil for the lamps) , xxviii. 30 (Urim and Thummim) , xxix. 1-37 (the consecration of the priests, which recurs in Lev. viii.) and xxix. 38-42 (the daily burnt-offering) . ”