Of the succeeding legislation in xx.-xxiii., xxxii.-xxxiv., undoubtedly the earlier sections are xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 10-19, and xxxiv. 10-26, which contain regulations with regard to worship and religious festivals, and form the basis of the covenant made by Yahweh with Israel on Sinai-Horeb, as recorded by E and J respectively. The narrative which introduces the covenant laws of J has been preserved partly in its present context, ch. xxxiv., partly in xxiv. 1, 2, 9-11; the narrative of E, on the other hand, has in part disappeared owing to the interpolation of later material, in part has been retained in xxiv. 3-8. J’s narrative xxiv. 1 f., 9-11 clearly forms the continuation of xix. 20 f., 11b, 13, 25, but the introductory words of v. 1, “and unto Moses he said,” point to some omission. Originally, no doubt, it included the recital of the divine instructions to the people in accordance with xix. 21 f., 11b-13, the statement that Yahweh came down on the third day, and that a long blast was blown on the trumpet (or ram’s horn [יבל, as opposed to שפר E]). From xxiv. 1 f. we learn that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders were summoned to the top of the mountain, but that Moses alone was permitted to approach Yahweh. Then followed the theophany, and, as the text stands, the sacrificial meal (9-11).[5] The conclusion of J’s narrative is given in ch. xxxiv.,[6] which describes how Moses hewed two tables of stone at Yahweh’s command, and went up to the top of the mountain, where he received the words of the covenant and wrote them on the tables. 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 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. 10-26, which may be described as the oldest legal code of the Hexateuch, is almost entirely religious. It prohibits the making of molten images (v. 17), the use of leaven in sacrifices (25a), the retention of the sacrifice until the morning (25b),[9] and the seething of a kid in its mother’s milk (26b); and enjoins the observance of the three annual feasts and the Sabbath (18a, 21-23), and the dedication of the first-born (19, 20, derived from xiii. 11-13) and of the first-fruits (26a).
The parallel collection of E is preserved in xx. 24-26, xxiii. 10-19, to which we should probably add xxii. 29-31 (for which xxiii. 19a was afterwards substituted). The two collections resemble one another so closely, both in form and extent, that they can only be regarded as two versions of the same code. E has, however, preserved certain additional regulations with regard to the building of altars (xx. 24-26) and the observance of the seventh year (xxiii. 10, 11), and omits the prohibition of molten images (xx. 22, 23, appear to be the work of a redactor); xxiii. 20-33, the promises attached to the observance of the covenant, probably formed no part of the original code, but were added by the Deuteronomic redactor; cf. especially vv. 23-25a, 27, 28, 31b-33. The narrative of E relative to the delivery of these laws has disappeared,[10] but xxiv. 3-8 (which manifestly have no connexion with their immediate context) clearly point back to some such narrative. These verses describe how Moses wrote all the words of the Lord in a book and recited them to the people (v. 7) as the basis of a covenant, which was solemnly ratified by the sprinkling of the blood of the accompanying sacrifices.
In the existing text the covenant laws of E (xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 10-19) are combined with a mass of civil and other legislation; hence the title “Book of the Covenant” (referred to above, xxiv. 7) has usually been applied to the whole section, xx. 22-xxiii. 33. But this section includes three distinct elements: (a) the “words” (הדברים) found in xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 1-10; (b) the “judgments” (המשפטים), xxi. 2-xxii. 17; and (c) a group of moral and ethical enactments, xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9; and an examination of their contents makes it evident that, though the last two groups are unmistakably derived from E, they cannot have formed part of the original “Book of the Covenant”; for the “judgments,” which are expressed in a hypothetical form, consist of a number of legal decisions on points of civil law. The cases dealt with fall into five divisions: (1) The rights of slaves, xxi. 2-11; (2) capital offences, xxi. 12-16 (v. 17 has probably been added later); (3) injuries inflicted by man or beast, xxi. 18-32; (4) losses incurred by culpable negligence or theft, xxi. 33-xxii. 6; (5) cases arising out of deposits, loans, seduction, xxii. 7-17. It is obvious, from their very nature, that these legal precedents could not have been included in the covenant which the people (xxiv. 3) promised to observe, and it is now generally admitted that the words “and the judgments” (which are missing in c. 1 b) have been inserted in xxiv. 3a by the redactor to whom the present position of the “judgments” is due.[11] The majority of critics, therefore, adopt Kuenen’s conjecture that the “judgments” were originally delivered by Moses on the borders of Moab, and that when D’s revised version of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. was combined with JE, the older code was placed alongside of E’s other legislation at Horeb. The third group of laws (xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9) appears to have been added somewhat later than the bulk of xxi.-xxiii. Some of the regulations are couched in hypothetical form, but their contents are of a different character to the “judgments,” e.g. xxii. 25 f., xxiii. 4 f.; others, again, are of a similar nature, but differ in form, e.g. xxii. 18 f. Lastly, xxii. 20-24, xxiii. 1-3 set forth a number of moral injunctions affecting the individual, which cannot have found place in a civil code. At the same time, these additions must for the most part be prior to D, since many of them are included in Deut. xii.-xxvi., though there are traces of Deuteronomic revision.
Now it is obvious that the results obtained by the foregoing analysis of J and E have an important bearing on the history of the remaining section of E’s legislation, viz. the Decalogue (q.v.), Ex. xx. 1-17 (= Deut. v. 6-21). At present the “Ten Words” stand in the forefront of E’s collection of laws, and it is evident that they were already found in that position by the author of Deuteronomy, who treated them as the sole basis of the covenant at Horeb. 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 these variations are practically limited to the explanatory comments attached to the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th commandments; and the majority of critics are now agreed that these comments were added at a later date, and that all the commandments, like the 1st and the 6th to the 9th, were originally expressed in the form of a single short sentence. This view is confirmed by the fact that the additions, or comments, bear, for the most part, a close resemblance to the style of D. They can scarcely, however, have been transferred from Deuteronomy to Exodus (or vice versa), owing to the variations between the two versions: we must rather regard them as the work of a Deuteronomic redactor. But the expansion and revision of the Decalogue were not limited to the Deuteronomic school. Literary traces of J and E in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 10th commandments point to earlier activity on the part of RJE, while the addition of v. 11, which bases the observance of the Sabbath on P ’s narrative of the Creation (Gen. ii. 1-3), can only be ascribed to a priestly writer: its absence from Deut. v. 6 ff. is otherwise inexplicable. Thus the Decalogue, as given in Exodus, would seem to have passed through at least three stages before it assumed its present form. But even in its original form it could hardly have formed part of E’s Horeb legislation; for (a) both J and E have preserved a different collection of laws (or “words”) inscribed by Moses, which are definitely set forth as the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb (Ex. xxxiv. 10, xxiv. 3 f.), and (b) the further legislation of E in ch. xx.-xxiii. affords close parallels to all the commandments (except the 7th and the 10th), and a comparison of the two leaves no doubt as to which is the more primitive. Hence we can only conclude that the Decalogue, in its original short form, came into existence during the period after the completion of E, but before the promulgation of Deuteronomy. Its present position is, doubtless, to be ascribed to a redactor who was influenced by the same conception as the author of Deuteronomy. This redactor, however, did not limit the Horeb covenant to the Decalogue, but retained E’s legislation alongside of it. The insertion of the Decalogue, or rather the point of view which prompted its insertion, naturally involved certain consequential changes of the existing text. The most important of these, viz. the harmonistic additions to ch. xxxiv., by means of which J’s version of the covenant was represented as a renewal of the Decalogue, has already been discussed; other passages which show traces of similar revision are xxiv. 12-15a, 18b, and xxxiv. 1-6.
The confusion introduced into the legislation by later additions, with the consequent displacement of earlier material, has not been without effect on the narratives belonging to the different sources. Hence the sequence of events after the completion of the covenant on Sinai-Horeb is not always easy to trace, though indications are not wanting in both J and E of the probable course of the history. The two main incidents that precede the departure of the children of Israel from the mountain (Num. x. 29 ff.) are (1) the sin of the people, and (2) the intercession of Moses, of both of which a double account has been preserved.
(1) The Sin of the People.—According to J (xxxii. 25-29) the people, during the absence of Moses, “break loose,” i.e. mutiny. Their behaviour excites the anger of Moses on his return, and in response to his appeal the sons of Levi arm themselves and slay a large number of the people: as a reward for their services they are bidden to consecrate themselves to Yahweh. The fragmentary form of the narrative—we miss especially a fuller account of the “breaking loose”—is doubtless due to the latter editor, who substituted the story of the golden calf (xxxii. 1-6, 15-24, 35), according to which the sin of the people consisted in direct violation of the 2nd commandment. At the instigation of the people Aaron makes a molten calf out of the golden ornaments brought from Egypt; Moses and Joshua, on their return to the camp, find the people holding festival in honour of the occasion; Moses in his anger breaks the tables of the covenant which he is carrying: he then demolishes the golden calf, and administers a severe rebuke to Aaron. The punishment of the people is briefly recorded in v. 35. This latter narrative, which is obviously inconsistent with the story of J, shows unmistakable traces of E. In its present form, however, it can hardly be original, but must have been revised in accordance with the later Deuteronomic conception which represented the sin committed by the people as a breach of the 2nd commandment. Possibly vv. 7-14 are also to be treated as a Deuteronomic expansion (cf. Deut. ix. 12-14). Though they show clear traces of J, it is extremely difficult to fit them into that narrative in view of Moses’ action in vv. 25-29 and of his intercession in ch. xxxiii.; in any case, vv. 8 and 13 must be regarded as redactional.
(2) 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); he pleads that he is unequal to the task (Num. xi. 10c, 11, 12, 14, 15), and, presumably, asks for assistance, which is promised (omitted). Moses then asks for a fuller knowledge of Yahweh and his ways (xxxiii. 12, 13): this request also is granted (v. 17), and he is emboldened to pray that he may see the glory of Yahweh; Yahweh replies that his prayer can only be granted in part, for “man shall not see me and live”; a partial revelation is then vouchsafed to Moses (xxxiii. 18-23, xxxiv. 6-8): finally, Moses beseeches Yahweh to go in the midst of his people, and is assured that Yahweh’s presence shall accompany them (xxxiv. 9, xxxiii. 14-16). The passage from Numbers xi., which is here included, is obviously out of place in its present context (the story of the quails), and supplies in part the necessary antecedent to Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13; the passage is now separated from Ex. xxxiii. by Ex. xxxiv. (J), which has been wrongly transferred to the close of the Horeb-Sinai incidents (see above), and by the priestly legislation of Ex. xxxv.-xl., Leviticus and Num. i.-x.; but originally it must have stood in close connexion with that chapter. A similar displacement has taken place with regard to Ex. xxxiv. 6-9, which clearly forms the sequel to xxxiii. 17-23. The latter passage, however, can hardly represent the conclusion of the interview, which is found more naturally in xxxiii. 14-16. E’s account of Moses’ intercession seems to have been retained, in part, in xxxii. 30-34, but the passage has probably been revised by a later hand; in any case its position before instead of after the dismissal would seem to be redactional.
It is a plausible conjecture that the original narratives of J and E also contained directions for the construction of an ark,[12] as a substitute for the personal presence of Yahweh, and also for the erection of a “tent of meeting” outside the camp, and that these commands were omitted by RP in favour of the more elaborate instructions given in ch. xxv.-xxix. (P). The subsequent narrative of J (Num. x. 33-36, xiv. 44) implies an account of the making of the ark, while the remarkable description in Ex. xxxiii. 7-11 (E) of Moses’ practice in regard to the “tent of meeting” points no less clearly to some earlier statement as to the making of this tent.