qualifications) a unity in main type of thought, expression, religious mood, social and ethical outlook and historical background; so that the J literature as a whole plainly belongs together, as contrasted with the E, D, and P types.

b. The Extent of J.

All are agreed that J material may be found in Gn., Ex., Nu., and Josh. There is no J in Lv. and probably none in Dt. Some of the J in Josh. is found, with other related material, in Jg. 11-25, which is also assigned to J.

Critics disagree as to whether J originally closed with this account of the conquest of Canaan, or whether it continued down to the founding of the kingdom, or even beyond that event. There is ancient material in Jg., S., and K. that has marked affinity with J, and is attributed to that source by Budde (to times of David), Bacon, Cornill, Sellin (J ending with 1 K. 246) et al. Most critics treat Jg. 25 as the last trace of J. Steuernagel and Kittel, for example, note the close relation between the older narratives in Jg. and J, but decline to identify the two.

Jc. The Literary Style of J.

In spite of the fact that the form of the traditions which J incorporates had in many instances been fixed long before his time (1200, Gunkel) by oral or written tradition (so also Steuernagel, E. Meyer, Smend), J has a remarkable and characteristic literary style. The agreement among critics is unanimous (always excepting the school of Eerdmans). "J is," says Kittel, "an artist in form and language such as few before or after him.” All describe his style as picturesque, vivid, concrete (often specifying the time of day, Bacon) living, naïve, natural, robust; as a story-teller he is unsurpassed.

A few especially happy accounts of J's style may be noted. Driver says that he "excels in the power of delineating life and character. His touch is singularly light: with a few strokes he paints a scene which, before he has finished, is impressed indelibly upon his reader's memory. . . . His dialogues especially (which are frequent) are remarkable for the delicacy and truthfulness with which character and emotions find expression in them."

Proksch finds something "sunny" in J's work, and charm and beauty in his characters in spite of the survival of primitive traits. Smend, thinking particularly of his J2, calls him "a poet who composes on a grand and connected scale; a fascinating narrator and an eloquent orator," combining the highest national enthusiasm with human feeling and spiritual outlook.

d. J's Peculiarities in the Use of Proper Names.

Turning to more specific traits of J, we find all critics agreeing that his usage with reference to proper names is marked by certain peculiarities.

Outstanding is the name "Jehovah" (Jahve). Through his entire narrative, beginning with Gn. 24, J uses, almost exclusively, the divine name "Jehovah," that E mentions first in Ex. 3, and P first in Ex. 6 (except that editors have introduced it in a few earlier passages). J does not, however, confine himself to this name; he says "God" (Elohim) "(1) When God is spoken of by those not in covenant with Jehovah, as by Adam and Eve before the time of Seth and by the Serpent. (2) When emphasis is laid on God's abstract nature, especially in contrast to man, Gn. 16133230. (3) In the construct state, when, with a following word, it is used descriptively of God, as 'God of Abraham,' 'of heaven and earth,' etc." (Woods in HDB).

*

It follows that the use of the divine names is by no means an infallible, or the chief, criterion for separation of the sources. Steuernagel says that there is no compulsion for a Jahvistic writer always to use the name "Jehovah." Eichrodt rightly calls dependence on this criterion the "baby-shoes" of criticism, that need to be taken off.

Other proper names used by J in contrast to E are: Israel (as a later name of Jacob), Canaanite (for E's Amorite), Sinai (vs. Horeb E), and Hobab son of Reuel (as father-in-law of Moses). The absence of Aaron from J in its original form is asserted by Wellhausen, Cornill, Holzinger, Stade, Gressmann, White, Addis, Cook, Kent, et al., vs. Kittel only, who finds. Aaron original in J.

A noun followed by another noun in the "possessive” is said to be in the construct state.

e. Other Characteristic Words and Expressions.

There are numerous words and expressions that are used either by J only or by him much more frequently than by other writers. Examples are: break forth, call on the name of, find favor in the eyes of, land flowing with milk and honey, three days' journey.

Many of the most striking stylistic peculiarities are apparent only to the reader of Hebrew. J employs characteristic Hebrew words for: before, beget, entreat, from the time that, ground, harden (of Pharaoh's heart), hasten, know, language, Lord (Adonai), maid, man and wife, oath, parts, this time, until.

Lists of such expressions may be found in Bacon, Driver, Carpenter and Harford, McNeile, Sellin, Woods, and in most introductions.

2. CHARACTERISTIC IDEAS.

a. Aim of J.

The aim of J is recognized to have been wholly ethical and religious to elevate and purify the ideals of the nation.

Although a skillful story-teller, "he does not aim to entertain, but, rather, to solve problems" (Kittel)—such as sin, evil, pain, labor, sickness, death, language, the antithesis of agriculturalist and nomad.

B. Luther draws an instructive parallel between the aims and characteristics of J and of the great literary prophets that followed him (from Amos on). J was a spectator of history; the prophets intervened in the life of their times. J was an optimist; the prophets inclined to pessimism regarding the nation. J's art was idealistic, portraying things and persons as they ought to be; the art of the prophets was realistic, portraying things and persons as they are.

b. Characteristic Religious Ideas.

The outstanding characteristic of J's religious thought is his anthropomorphic and anthropopathic conception of Jehovah. The Jehovah of the creation story walks in the garden in the cool of the day, and is very human. He comes down from heaven to observe the tower of Babel. He shuts Noah into the ark. He (or his angel) visits earth in visible form Gn. 18-19.

He meets Moses and seeks to slay him Ex. 424. He descends to Mount Sinai and is seen by Moses Ex. 249-113317-23. He is grieved, repents, covenants, makes oaths, is angry, and has many of the other traits of man's consciousness, as well as his form (so Driver, Carpenter, and Harford, et al.).

There are certain attempts on the part of J to modify or weaken this anthropomorphism (so Steuernagel). God appears as a flame of fire, Gn. 1517 Ex. 32; in a dream-somewhat more spiritual than an actual theophany, Gn. 2624 2813ff; through the mediation of angels-emphasizing the transcendence of Jehovah Gn. 167.191ff.247 Ex. 32. But such passages are relatively rare.

The predominance of the anthropomorphic is now very generally attributed either to the ancient sagas used by J (so Kittel), or to the earliest writer in the J school (so all who distinguish a J1 and J2). For, with all his anthropomorphism, J has many signs of an exalted and transcendent conception of Deity. Jehovah dwells in heaven, and usually rules from above; he is Lord of all the world, almighty, seeing into the hearts of men (Kittel). He is holy, unapproachable, perhaps even more majestic than in E (Eichrodt).

J's standpoint is very nearly monotheistic. He does not, indeed, deny that other gods than Jehovah exist; but "He tolerates no god beside himself in Israel" (cf. Nu. 251.5). J prepares the way for the "moral monotheism" of Amos (Smend). This monotheistic (more correctly henotheistic) tendency is revealed especially in the story of the plagues. Such monotheism is a naïve mood, not a theory (Kittel).

J's spiritual faith is revealed further in the fact that he bases his religion to a surprisingly small degree on divine interventions or miracles. In fact, B. Luther says flatly that J "rejects miracles and substitutes for them natural events" (contrast J's with E's account of the crossing of the Red Sea or the plagues). In harmony with this conception (not unrelated to the modern philosophy of the divine immanence, which sees God in every natural event), J holds to an "unbroken continuity of revelation of Jehovah, from Gn. 426 on" (Carpenter and Harford).

There is a question whether J looked forward to a future

Most

Three passages have a pos-
Gn. 315 has been viewed

Messiah or to an eschatological Messianic future. scholars, especially those of the "Wellhausen School," believe that J knew nothing of this hope. sible bearing, Gn. 3154910 Nu. 2417. traditionally as a Messianic prophecy, and has been called the Protevangelium, the first Gospel. But modern scholars agree in denying such exegesis; the verse speaks only of enmity between serpents and men-an allegory of the moral struggle of humanity. Perhaps there is a hint at the final victory of good (Dillmann, Driver, Kautzsch), but this is not clearly implied (Mitchell, Skinner, et al.). Gn. 4910 is regarded as Messianic by all except Skinner, who refers it to David and his dynasty. Many view it as an interpolation-Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, Kautzsch, Cornill(10b), Mitchell et al.-because it interrupts 9 and 11, because it would be the only case of a personal Messiah before the eighth century, and because Ez. 2127 seems to be the original from which v. 10 is taken. But many others hold with Skinner and Steuernagel that the interruption of vv. 9 and 11 is not evident (Cornill retains 10a); and that the other two arguments are inconclusive. Hence v. 10 (taken in connection with 11 and 12) is regarded as Messianic by Gunkel, Gressmann, Sellin, et al. Nu. 2417 is generally treated as a vaticinium ex eventu referring to David. Holzinger holds that it originally referred to David, but in its present form, to the Messiah. Sellin reverses the order and makes it originally Messianic, but Davidic in its present form. Gn. 4910 is then the only surely Messianic passage in J, and it may be an interpolation.

J's attitude toward the cultus is noteworthy. He reverences the ancient shrines at Hebron, Beersheba, Bethel, Shechem, Peniel, etc. He keeps the three annual feasts (Ex. 34). He recognizes the function of sacrifice (Abel, Noah, Ex. 34). But "his altars are more for prayer than for sacrifice" (Kittel, B. Luther). Like the great prophets, he is more interested in righteousness than in ritual. He "never mentions massebahs, asherahs, or images of any kind" (Luther). In contrast to P, he derives sacrifice and the distinction of clean and unclean not from God's command to Moses, but from the practice of antiquity.