¹ The use of the word ‘covenant’ () to signify the bond uniting Yahweh and the Israelites dates from the promulgation of the Code found in the Temple in 621 B.C. No prophet before Jeremiah (in passages later than 621) describes the relajtion between Yahweh and his nation as a ‘covenant’ (B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1905, Vol. I, pp. 254 f.). Rd's account of the covenant in the 18th year of Josiah (2 Kings 23, 1–3) must be regarded as the prototype of the redactional account of a similar covenant in the time of Moses (Ex. 24, 3–8); in both cases the body of laws that was solemnly ratified as the charter of the covenant is called ‘The Book of the Covenant.’ See further J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 6th edition, 1905, pp. 416 f. The word ‘covenant’ is not used by J and E in this religious sense: the occurrences of the word in Ex. 19; 24; 34 are redactional.

² The vast bibliography includes the works on the literature, history, and religion of the Old Testament, the commentaries on Exodus and Deuteronomy, the critical studies of the Pentateuch (A. Westphal, H. Holzinger, Carpenter-Battersby, in particular; O. Eissfeldt is chiefly concerned with the narrative sections). For the special literature on the Book of the Covenant up to 1900, see the bibliography appended to the important article ‘Exodus (Book)’ by G. F. Moore in Encyclopaedia Biblica, II, 1440–1451. Among the later monographs the following may be mentioned: E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 1906, pp. 542–561; A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament, 1987; A. Menes, Vorexilische Gesetze Israels, 1928; J. Morgenstern, The Book of the Covenant, 1928; W. Caspari, ‘Heimat und soziale Wirkung des alttestamentlichen Bundesbuches’ (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgendländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 88, 1929, pp. 97–120).

³ ‘The Oldest Decalogue,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, XLIII, 1924, pp. 294–310.

⁴ J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte, 7th edition, 1914, p. 47.

⁵ Read of course ‘in every place’ in 20, 24b.

⁶ Compare Ex. 22, 20a.22 (expanded later with the addition of vss. 20b. 21. 23) with Deut. 10, 18f.; 14, 29; 16, 11.14; 24, 17–22; 26, 12f.; 27, 19: Ex. 22, 24a with Deut. 15, 11; 24, 12–15 (conversely 22, 24b is derived from Deut. 28, 20f.): Ex. 22, 25f. with Deut. 24, 6.10–13.17b: Ex. 23, 1 with Deut. 19,16–19: Ex. 23,4f. with Deut. 22, 1–4 (these verses of Exodus are out of place and may be a gloss later than Deuteronomy): Ex. 23, 8 with Deut. 16, 19.

⁷ It should be noted that the following additions were made to the ritual decalogue in 650: 23, 12b. 15aβ b; also 23, 11aβ. The philanthropic motive for the sabbath (23, 12b) was incorporated in Deut. 5, 14 but not in Ex. 34 because during the exile (when Ex. 34 was compiled) the sabbath was rather a sacred day than a day of rest; the other additions are found in both Deuteronomy and Ex. 34. That Ex. 34 modified the terminology and ideas of Ex. 23 on the basis of Deuteronomy can be shown from the following facts: (1) Ex. 23, 12a: ; Deut. 5, 13; Ex. 34, 21: . (2) The sacrifice of the first-born of men (Ex. 22, 28b) is omitted by both Deuteronomy and Ex. 34; the law on the sacrifice of the first-born of animals in Deut. 15, 19–23 is earlier than in Ex. 34, 19f. (identical with the late text 13, 12f.). (3) The change of ‘feast of harvest’ (23, 16) into ‘feast of weeks’ (34, 22), the name current in later times, is due to the fixation of the date of this festival in Deut. 16, 9 (the new name occurs for the first time in Deut 16, 10.16). (4) The mention of the passover in Ex. 34, 25b (contrast 23, 18) is to be explained by the identification of the feast of unleavened bread with the passover made for the first time in Deut. 16,1–8 (see W. R. Arnold, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXI, p. 9). (5) The use of (Ex. 34, 25), the technical term for sacrifice in the levitical legislation, instead of (Ex. 23,18; Deut. 16, 2), the term used in the older texts (and only once in P), is evidence for the post-deuteronomic date of the decalogue of Ex. 34.

⁸ 23, 9a has the verb in the singular, but it is taken from 22, 20a with minor changes in the wording.

⁹ The influence of Deuteronomy on this redactor (Rd ?) is manifest not only in the realm of religious conceptions, as illustrated above, but no less conspicuously in the phraseology. The code of 650 enjoined the equitable treatment of the resident alien (22, 20a.22); he supplements the law with the Deuteronomic motive that the Israelites themselves had been aliens in the land of Egypt (22, 20b; repeated by him in 23,9b; cf. Deut. 5, 15; 10, 19; 24, 18.22); to the alien he adds the widow and the orphan (22, 21.23), which are always mentioned by Deuteronomy (10, 18; 14, 29; 16, 11.14; 24, 17–21; 26, 12f.; 27, 19), with the resident alien as representing the weaker members of the community. The prohibition of interest on loans (22, 24b) is derived from Deut. 23,20.

¹⁰ 22, 27 forbids abuse of deity and ruler (, ‘ruler,’ is used scores of times by Ezekiel and the P-code; I have been unable to find a single occurrence in pre-exilic literature). 22, 28a enjoins the payment of agricultural offerings ( is used, as in Num. 18, 27P, in the sense of ‘overflow', in contrast with the earlier meaning of the word in Deut. 22, 9). 22, 29b orders the sacrifice of the first-born of animals eight days after birth: this rule has no parallel in Deuteronomy and Ex. 34, but Lev. 22, 27 forbids the sacrifice before the eighth day. 22, 30 emphasizes the holiness of the people (cf. the Holiness Code), and, in harmony with P (Lev. 11, 39; 17, 15; 22, 8; cf. 7,24), forbids human consumption of animals dying in the field; the earlier law (Deut. 14, 21) allowed this meat to be given to the resident alien or to be sold to foreigners. 23, 13, forbidding the mere mention of the names of foreign gods, has no parallels except in late texts, such as Josh. 23, 7; Zech. 13, 2; Ps. 16, 4. 23, 14 seems to be a title for the following section (the three annual pilgrimages), and is superfluous before 23,17 (which is old, since we find it in Ex. 34, 23 and Deut. 16, 16a). 23, 14 could conceivably have been added in 550, although it seems unlikely.

¹¹ The following list contains the instances in which Deuteronomy made use of the laws of Ex. 21, 1 – 22, 16: 21,1–6, cf. Deut. 15, 12–16; 21, 12–14, cf. Deut. 19, 1–18; 21,16, cf. Deut. 24, 7; 21, 22, cf. Deut. 15,11; 22,15f., cf. Deut. 22, 28f. For a sensible and illuminating discussion of the variations introduced in Deuteronomy, see S. R. Driver's Commentary on Deuteronomy (1909) under the several passages. In general it is clear that “the law of Dt. springs from a more advanced stage of society than the law of Ex.” (Driver, pp. 182f.). In the following instances the similarity between the two codes is far less striking: 21, 15.17, cf. Deut. 21, 18–21; 21, 23, cf. Deut. 19, 21; 21, 38f., cf. Deut. 22, 8.

¹² See, for instance, Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch, pp. 59–73.

¹³ Kuenen thinks therefore that the Covenant Code was the law given by Moses before the crossing of the Jordan, in the plains of Moab, occupying the place in which we now have Deuteronomy. Holzinger (Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893, p. 179), followed by O. Procksch (Die Elohimquelle, 1906, p. 229), conjectures that it was the law given by Joshua, 24, 25–27 (a view criticized by E. Meyer, Die Israeliten, 1906, p. 558). In any case most critics agree that the Book of the Covenant was inserted in its present place by a redactor.