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 to each other as J and E, for the literary efforts represented
by these documents are but the reflection of religious movements.
They testify to the affection which the people cherished for the
story of their past; and when we have arranged them in chronological
order, they enable us further, as we have seen, to trace the
progress of moral and religious ideas. But, for several reasons, it
is not unfair, and, from the beginner's point of view, it is perhaps
even advisable, to treat these documents together as a unity:
_firstly_, because they were actually combined, probably in the
seventh century, into a unity (JE), and sometimes, as in the Joseph
story, so skilfully that it is very difficult to distinguish the
component parts and assign them to their proper documentary source;
_secondly_, because, for a reason to be afterwards stated,
beyond Ex. iii. the analysis is usually supremely difficult; and,
_lastly_, because in language and spirit, the prophetic
documents are very like each other and altogether unlike the
priestly document. For practical purposes, then, the broad
distinction into prophetic and priestly will generally be
sufficient. Wherever the narrative is graphic, powerful, and
interesting, we may be sure that it is prophetic,[1] whereas the
priestly document is easily recognizable by its ritual interests,
and by its formal, diffuse, and legal style.
[Footnote 1: If inconsistencies, contradictions or duplicates appear
in the section which is clearly prophetic, the student may be