Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924075226229 
 
-^/^-CCQ^C 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 075 226 229 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES 
 IN GENESIS 
 
 BY THE REV. 
 
 JOHN SKINNER 
 
 D.D. 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON 
 
 LIMITED lCjf<eV. LONDON 
 
6S 
 
 ■1 
 
 ':.vy 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THIS volume requires little more in the way 
 of preface than is said in its introductory 
 pages. It is mainly a reprint of six articles which 
 appeared under the same title in the Eocpositor 
 from April to September, 1913. These articles are 
 here reproduced with a few unimportant changes, 
 and with the addition of a passage (pp. 136-157 ; 
 also a note on p. 164 f.) written for the Expositor 
 but omitted in publication. They were occupied 
 exclusively with questions raised by the first 
 section of Johannes Dahse's Textkritische Mate- 
 rialien zur Hexateuchfrage, in which he deals with 
 what he considers the foundation of the docu- 
 mentary theory of the Pentateuch, " the Names 
 of God in Genesis." It seemed to me that that 
 subject was sufficiently distinct and sufficiently 
 important to be treated by itself, apart from the 
 other matters discussed in the same volume. I 
 need hardly say, however, that I had read the 
 whole book, and satisfied myself that it advanced 
 no consideration against the general critical 
 theory which I was not prepared to meet, or 
 which would invalidate any position I had taken 
 up. In a reply to my criticisms in the December 
 issue of the Expositor Dahse complains that I had 
 taken no notice of his new hypothesis regarding 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 the Priestly Code, which he conceives to have a 
 vital bearing on his equally novel explanation of 
 the distribution of divine names. Whether the 
 complaint be reasonable or not, that defect is now 
 supplied in section VII of the present treatise. 
 I have added a chapter (VIII) in reply to Dahse's 
 December article, which I take leave to char- 
 acterize as a well-meant attempt to "entangle 
 me in my talk." It will be seen that I have found 
 no occasion to modify in any way the opinions 
 set forth in the original articles. 
 
 The idea of republishing the articles was first 
 recommended to me by the weighty advice of 
 Dr. Driver, who took a keen interest in the dis- 
 cussion up to the verge of his fatal illness. While 
 I alone am responsible for the views expressed 
 in the following pages, I put them forward with 
 the greater confidence from knowing that they 
 met with the general approval of one whose 
 accurate and comprehensive scholarship and sound 
 judgment are so universally recognized and es- 
 teemed. It is with a deep sense of personal loss 
 that I here record for the last time my indebted- 
 ness to him, not merely for suggestions that have 
 strengthened my argument at many points, but 
 for the wise and helpful counsel and encourage- 
 ment which he was always ready to impart to 
 fellow-workers in the field of Old Testament study. 
 
 Tbevonb, Cornwall, 
 1914. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Intboductoby 
 
 PAQES 
 
 1-11 
 
 Exodus vi. 2, 3 
 
 12-32 
 
 II 
 
 The Pebicope-Hypothesis 
 
 . 33-58 
 
 HI 
 
 Ebcensions of the Sbptoagint 
 
 59-85 
 
 IV 
 The Hebeew Text 
 
 1. Hebrew Manuscripts 
 
 2. The Samaritan Pentateuch 
 
 . 86-135 
 . 89-111 
 . 111-135 
 
 Othee Ancient Veebions . 
 
 . 136-145 
 
vm 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 VI 
 
 The Limits op Textual Unceetainty 
 
 PASES 
 
 146-187 
 
 VII 
 The Problem of the Priestly Code 
 
 188-228 
 
 VIII 
 
 Last Words with Dahse . 
 
 229-252 
 
 Tables 
 
 Additional Notes . 
 
 List of Scripture Passages 
 
 Index 
 
 253-266 
 267-295 
 297-300 
 301-303 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 THE question which I propose to discuss in 
 the following pages is one of great in- 
 terest, but at the same time of almost un- 
 manageable complexity. It is matter of general 
 knowledge that for many years back Old Testa- 
 ment scholars have adopted what is known as the 
 documentary theory of the Pentateuch, and that 
 that theory originated in observation of the names 
 for God used in different places of the Pentateuch, 
 and especially in the Book of Genesis. Most 
 readers are also aware that of recent years this 
 aspect of the theory has been subjected to per- 
 sistent, and sometimes embittered, attack on the 
 lines of textual criticism. We have been told in 
 every accent of assurance, from the cool emphasis 
 of Berdmans to the superheated invective of 
 Wiener, that the " higher " critics have built their 
 house on a rotten foundation. They have worked 
 with a blind faith in the inerrancy of the Hebrew 
 text, and have been too slothful to examine the 
 evidence for and against the soundness of that 
 text. The assailants on their part have certainly 
 not been slothful. They have striven with might 
 and main to discredit the Hebrew text, and 
 have not been backward in proclaiming their 
 own success. They believe their hour of com- 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. a 
 
2 THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 plete triumph is at hand. Insinuations have 
 not been wanting that nothing but the arrogant 
 and disingenuous perversity of a feiv individuals, 
 whose scholarly reputation is at stake, keeps an 
 exploded theory in being before a deluded public. 
 But the imposture cannot endure much longer! 
 The linch-pin has been removed from the axle, and 
 the collapse of the cart is momentarily expected. 
 It must be allowed that under a heavy bom- 
 bardment the fire of the besieged has been slack. 
 The critics have seemed to say in effect that 
 since the enemy's shells were falling wide there 
 was no need to waste powder merely to add to 
 the noise. Their silence has evidently been mis- 
 understood. It has not been due to a dishonest 
 and cowardly shirking of a discussion in which 
 they knew that they would be worsted, and from 
 which they would emerge as " broken men " ! 
 As one of the incriminated persons, I protest 
 that Wiener's war-whoop has not struck one 
 instant's terror into my soul, and that I have 
 even read the temperate arguments of Redpath 
 and Eerdmans with unruffled composure. And I 
 rather think that critics generally have had a 
 better knowledge of the text than their assailants 
 give them credit for. The great quarry in which 
 those who impugn the Hebrew text have been 
 digging of late is the Septuagint. Now every 
 Old Testament scholar is aware that the MSS. 
 of the LXX simply teem with various readings 
 of the divine names, as of many other thino-s 
 besides, and that an immense number of these 
 variants are of no value. Critics had a well- 
 founded suspicion that those on the divine names 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 3 
 
 in Genesis were no better than the rest. If they 
 have not ceased their work and come down to 
 inspect the supposed foundation of their theory, 
 they have only acted as reasonable men might 
 be expected to act. For one thing, the textual 
 evidence as to the divine names (as I shall show 
 later on) has much less importance than certain 
 writers imagine. In the next place the Hebrew 
 text possesses credentials to which no version, 
 and perhaps the LXX least of all, can pretend. 
 Moreover, the criticism of the LXX is even now 
 not sufficiently advanced to enable us to deter- 
 mine in any scientific manner what the original 
 Greek text w^as ; and until that stage has been 
 approached the mass of variants is merely so 
 much evidence of confusion in its text. It is 
 true that while on the whole the LXX is 
 inferior to the Hebrew it can often be used 
 to correct the Hebrew in virtue of the intrinsic 
 superiority of isolated readings. But in dealing 
 with the divine nanties this resource fails us, 
 because it is very rarely the case that one name 
 is more suitable to the context than the other. 
 Therefore it is unscientific trifling to cite a 
 number of MSS. which differ from the Hebrew, 
 as if any one of these threw doubt on the 
 accuracy of the Hebrew. So that unless the 
 whole business of criticism was to be suspended 
 until LXX scholars had completed their task, the 
 only practical course to follow was to rely on the 
 general soundness of the Hebrew text, and see 
 whether it led to important results. That that 
 confidence has occasionally been pushed too far I 
 am not concerned to deny, but that in the main 
 
4 THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 it has been justified by its fruits remains for me 
 an indisputable fact. When it is added that in 
 the attack textual work has often been associ- 
 ated with improbable explanations and arbitrary- 
 theories, as in the case of Redpath and Eerdmans, 
 or with hastily improvised scholarship, as in 
 the case of Wiener, there is little to wonder 
 at in the attitude of reserve which upholders 
 of the documentary hypothesis have hitherto 
 mostly observed in regard to this matter. 
 
 But there are obvious reasons why an attitude 
 of defensive silence cannot be indefinitely pro- 
 longed. We must frankly acknowledge that the 
 trustworthiness of the Hebrew text in its trans- 
 mission of the divine names calls for more tho- 
 rough investigation than it has yet received at the 
 hands of critical scholars. Whether the impulse 
 to that investigation comes from one side of the 
 controversy or the other is, or ought to be, a 
 matter of indifference : provided the question is 
 raised in a judicial and scholarly manner, it is 
 right and proper that it should be examined. It 
 may be a regrettable circumstance that the ini- 
 tiative has been left to opponents of the critical 
 position ; but they at least need not complain if 
 the advantage of the attack has fallen to them. 
 It is none the less the duty of the critics to put 
 before the public the grounds on which they with- 
 hold assent from the conclusions so confidently 
 urged upon them. 
 
 The immediate occasion of these remarks is the 
 appearance of a new book by Johannes Dahse * 
 
 * " Textkritische Materialen zur Hexateuchfrage " : I 
 Die OoUesnamen der Genesis ; Jakob und Israel ; P in 
 Genesis ISSO (1912). 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 5 
 
 a German pastor who has already done excellent 
 work in the department of LXX criticism. In 
 many w^ays the hook marks a great advance in 
 the treatment of the question hefore us. The 
 author is a competent scholar who has devoted 
 many years to the investigation of the subject. 
 He has contributed a number of acute and in- 
 teresting observations on the minutiae of the 
 text ; and has collected and tabulated the textual 
 data of the LXX in a form which, though unfor- 
 tunately not free from errors and defects, never- 
 theless represents an approach to completeness 
 which has never been realized before. He has 
 sought to establish the existence of recensions 
 of the LXX which rest on earlier recensions of 
 the Hebrew. A still more important advantage 
 is that he does not confine himself to negative 
 criticism, but brings forward a positive solution 
 of the problem which has at least the charm of 
 novelty. Over against the documentary hypo- 
 thesis he will set a " pericope-hypothesis," worked 
 out with great ingenuity. Last, but not least, he 
 maintains a tone of uniform respect and courtesy 
 towards his opponents. I do not mean that Dahse 
 is the first on his side to exhibit these qualities, 
 but we have had enough of their opposites to 
 make us feel that we could do with a little more 
 of them. 
 
 I wish, then, to take this opportunity to explain 
 and defend the sceptical attitude which I hold as 
 regards this whole movement to undermine the 
 foundation of the documentary theory by destruc- 
 tive criticism of the Hebrew text. Dahse's work 
 has raised many new points, and though I shall 
 
6 THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 not be able to deal with them all, I shall try to 
 meet the issues new and old impartially and 
 candidly. But I will say at once that I have seen 
 no reason to modify appreciably the opinion I 
 expressed in writing on Genesis a f ew^ years ago. 
 I may find occasion as I proceed to reply to some 
 of the strictures which Dahse passes on positions 
 I then took up ; but that is quite a subordinate 
 interest. The main issue as between Dahse and 
 me is wrapped up in his acceptance of a challenge 
 which I ventured then to throw out. He writes, 
 "Skinner hat mir auf meinen ARW-Aufsatz 
 erwidert, nur dann sei meine Hypothese von dem 
 Einfluss der Vorlesungspraxis auf den Gebrauch 
 der Gottesnamen bewiesen, wenn sie im einzelnen 
 sich durchfiihren lasse. Ich denke, im vorste- 
 henden ist das nunmehr zur Gentige geschehen 
 und fiir Gen. 12-50 dieser Einfluss endgiiltig 
 nachgewiesen " (p. 97). I will try to show that 
 he has not succeeded. 
 
 It may be necessary at the outset to put the 
 reader on his guard against a misleading assump- 
 tion which underlies much of what is written on 
 the opposite side of this controversy. It is usually 
 asserted, and constantly taken for granted, that 
 the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch 
 depends on the distinctive use of the divine names 
 in different sections to such a degree that if this 
 criterion can be shown to be unreliable the whole 
 edifice crumbles to the ground. That is a very 
 great exaggeration. Dahse ought to know this, 
 for he quotes no fewer than four passages from 
 various writers (one of them friendly to his 
 enterprise) in which the case is stated with 
 
THE DlVII^iJ J^AMES IN GENESIS 7 
 
 perfect precision and clearness. Yet he sets these 
 aside as " shilly-shally " (" halb ' Ja' halb ' Nein ' ") 
 evasions ; and roundly asserts (p. 121) that " im 
 Grunde genommen auch heute noch die ganze 
 Quellenscheidung von dem Gebrauch der Gottesna- 
 men abhangt " ! * There is really no cause for 
 evasion : the issue is very simple and easy of 
 apprehension. It is true to say that the use of 
 the divine names was the critical fact first 
 observed (by Astruc in 1753) which furnished a 
 positive clue to the separation of documents in 
 Genesis, and that it is still regarded as a valuable 
 aid to the analysis. It is untrue to say that it 
 is the sole criterion, or that apart from it there 
 would be no evidence of diversity of authorship 
 in the Pentateuch at all. A moment's reflection 
 might convince any one that if Astruc's discovery 
 
 * Dahse devotes nearly five pages of his book (116 fE.) to a 
 series of extracts from Gunkel's commentary, to show that 
 the analysis still depends on the names for God ; and he does 
 me the occasional honour of associating my name virith his. 
 There I believe he does a grave injustice to Gunkel, as he 
 certainly does to me. It is an injustice to Gunkel to cite 
 the words which refer to the divine names and omit nearly 
 all the other criteria adduced in connexion with them. As 
 for my own observations, I should hope that any one with 
 eyes in his head will see even from the sentences quoted that 
 I am. utterly sceptical of any analysis that depends solely 
 on isolated occurrences of Yahwe or Elohim. If he had had 
 occasion to read my book through, Dahse would have found 
 that on p. 155 I have ventured to suggest a division of 
 sources which sets aside a universally attested occurrence of 
 Elohim. The paragraph in which he professes to sum up the 
 effect of these citations (p. 121) contains misunderstandings 
 or misrepresentations of the plain meaning of language 
 which are difflcult to reconcile with a dispassionate regard 
 for an opponent's position. 
 
8 THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 had never led to anything beyond itself — if no 
 difference could be observed between documents 
 except their use of the names for God — it would 
 have lost all its interest long ago. Its whole 
 value springs from the fact that almost immedi- 
 ately it led on to the discovery of characteristic 
 differences in the documents— " clearly marked 
 and distinctive linguistic character," "numerous 
 differences in subject matter, and distinguishable 
 varieties of religious and historical points of 
 view" (as Dahse's friendly correspondent puts 
 it). These characteristic features were of course 
 not all perceived at once ; but having been worked 
 out by patient and minute research they now 
 afford criteria of authorship sufficiently striking 
 to enable us in many important cases to dispense 
 with the evidence of the divine names. That this 
 is no empty vaunt is capable of experimental 
 proof from two incidents in the history of the 
 problem, (a) There was a stage of Pentateuchal 
 criticism when practically only two writers were 
 recognized in the Book of Genesis, an Elohist 
 and a Yahwist. In 1853 Hupfeld showed to the 
 ultimate satisfaction of all critics that there were 
 really two writers using the name Elohim, and he 
 succeeded in separating them with a very remark- 
 able approach to finality. This important critical 
 operation was necessarily carried through without 
 assistance from the names for God ; and in fact 
 it turned out, as Hupfeld himself perceived, that 
 the general affinities between the two Blohists 
 were not nearly so close as those between one of 
 them and the Yahwist (J). Yet every critic would 
 admit that the achievement ranks with the surest 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 9 
 
 results of literary analysis. (6) After Exodus 
 vi. 2 the divine name ceases to be a criterion of 
 the three sources distinguished in Genesis. One 
 Elohistic document (now called the Priestly Code 
 [P]) regularly uses Yahwe henceforward, and the 
 other (E) uses sometimes Yahwe and sometimes 
 Elohim. But, although this fact increases the 
 difficulty of distinguishing J from E, it does not 
 in the least affect the separation of P from J, 
 which can be performed with as much certainty 
 in Exodus and the following books, without the 
 criterion of the divine names, as in Genesis, where 
 that test is available. It is clear, then, from these 
 examples that in the division of sources which 
 is accepted by the majority of critics the divine 
 names have not the exclusive importance which 
 is attributed to them in the ill-considered utter- 
 ances of controversial writers on the subject. 
 Similarly the style and character of Deuteronomy 
 stand out clearly from the rest of the Pentateuch, 
 and are entirely independent of the divine name 
 used. In fact the only part of the documentary 
 theory w^hich is largely dependent on the names 
 for God is the separation between J and E.* 
 
 * It is noteworthy that the quotations from Gunkel and 
 others referred to in the last note are confined to the JE 
 sections of Genesis— the only sections within which the 
 divine names are important for the analysis. On p. 53 
 Dahse quotes from Driver the remark that if the untrust- 
 worthiness of the MT were established ' ' it would leave 
 untouched what is after all the most important element in 
 the critical analysis, viz. , the separation of P from JE " ; and 
 calmly takes this as an admission that apart from the divine 
 names, J and E could no longer be distinguished ! Driver's 
 words certainly imply that the internal analysis of JE would 
 
10 THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 
 
 There the analysis is often uncertain even with 
 the help of the divine names ; and of course it 
 would in such cases be still more precarious if 
 that test were proved to be worthless. Now the 
 distinction between J and E is certainly an 
 element of the accepted documentary theory, but 
 it is by no means its most important element. It 
 ought to be clearly recognized that the really 
 vital points in the critical position are the rela- 
 tions to each other of the combined JE, of 
 Deuteronomy, and of the Priestly Code. These 
 relations are established, as we have seen, on 
 grounds which are independent of the use of 
 the divine names by the various writers ; and 
 therefore the critical theory would still in all 
 essentials remain intact even if it could be proved 
 that the distribution of the divine names has 
 nothing whatever to do with diversity of docu- 
 ments or of aiithorship. 
 
 After this lengthy explanation the reader vsrill 
 perhaps understand how an adherent of the docu- 
 mentary hypothesis can examine the question of 
 the divine names in Genesis with an easy mind, 
 and without feeling that he is entering on a 
 combat pro arts et focis. At the same time it is 
 my purpose to meet Dahse squarely on his chosen 
 field of textual criticism. 
 
 I have only to add in the way of introduction 
 that I shall endeavour as far as possible to bring 
 the various matters in dispute within the com- 
 prehension of general readers, whose judgment 
 
 be "touched" (by the removal of one criterion); he has 
 never said or implied that there are no other criteria by 
 which an analysis might still be effected. 
 
THE DIVINE NAMES IN GENESIS 11 
 
 is otherwise apt to yield to the loudest pre- 
 tensions and the most assiduous assertion. With 
 this aim in view I have thought it advisable 
 to introduce explanations of technical points 
 which Dahse quite rightly takes for granted as 
 understood by the specialists whom he addresses. 
 Fortunately, in England it is not only specialists 
 who are interested in these discussions ; and 
 the more this unprofessional interest can be 
 cultivated the better it will be for the cause 
 of truth. For it remains true that the common 
 sense of mankind, when fairly enlightened, is 
 the "ultimate solvent" of all critical and specu- 
 lative theories whatsoever. 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 DAHSE begins with an examination of the 
 text of Exodus vi. 2, 3, quoting from 
 Dr. Carpenter a sentence to the effect that 
 these verses contain the real key to the com- 
 position of the Pentateuch. In the Hebrew text 
 they read as follows : 
 
 "And Elohim spoke to Moses and said, I am 
 Yahwe; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and 
 Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahwe 
 I did not make myself known [or ' I was not 
 known'] to them." 
 
 The crucial importance of these words must 
 be apparent to the least critical reader. Three 
 names for the Deity are used : Elohim, which 
 is the generic narae for God, applied alike to 
 the true God and to heathen deities ; Yahtoe, 
 the proper name of the God of Israel, and in 
 fact the name par excellence of the true God ; 
 and El Shaddai, a somewhat rare title of the 
 Deity, whose etymology and historic origin are 
 obscure. And the verses distinctly state (1) that 
 God had revealed Himself to the three patriarchs 
 under the name El Shaddai; (2) that He had 
 not disclosed to them His true name Yahwe ; 
 and (3) that this name is now (for the first 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 13 
 
 time) made known to Moses. It is evident that 
 the author of these statements cannot have 
 written any passage which implies on the part 
 of the patriarchs a knowledge of the name 
 Yahwe, and in particular any passage which 
 records a revelation of God to them under that 
 name. It is conceivable that the writer himself 
 might have used the name Yahwe in speaking 
 of God, just as a historian might speak of the 
 childhood of Charlemagne, although no one could 
 have thought of applying that honorific title to 
 him during his early years. But it would not 
 be a very extravagant assumption to expect 
 that the author of Exodus vi. 3 would avoid 
 the anachronism of calling God Yahwe before 
 that name was known, and restrict himself to 
 the use of Elohim or El Shaddai. How far 
 these observations will carry us in the analysis 
 of the Pentateuch we shall see presently. 
 
 According to the generally accepted docu- 
 mentary theory of the Pentateuch, the verses 
 Exodus vi. 2, 3 belong to what is called the 
 Priestly Code. As the result of minute and 
 protracted investigations, critics have arrived at 
 an almost perfect consensus of opinion regarding 
 the contents of this document, and it is important 
 here to note that in the course of these investi- 
 gations the distinctive use of the divine names 
 has come to play a very secondary part. The 
 analytic process has been guided by a number 
 of characteristic features of language and style 
 and thought which make it a comparatively 
 easy thing to detect a fragment of this docu- 
 ment even if no divine name occurs at all. If 
 
14 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 now we take the Priestly Code as it has emerged 
 from the hands of the critics, we find some 
 remarkable correspondences with our reading 
 of Exodus vi. 2, 3. We find, in the first place, 
 that the name El Shaddai actually occurs in 
 the histories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob : twice 
 in self -revelations of God (xvii. 1, xxxv. 11) and 
 twice in utterances of Isaac (xxviii. 3) and Jacob 
 (xlviii. 3).* It appears nowhere else in this docu- 
 ment. We note next that the writer himself, 
 when speaking of God in the third person, up to 
 Exodus vi. 2 invariably uses Elohim, save in two 
 instances (xvii. 1, xxi. 16) — by a scribal error, as 
 some think ; after Exodus vi. 2 he regularly uses 
 Yahwe. Moreover, the first disclosure of the name 
 El Shaddai to Abraham (xvii. 1) is in the form 
 " he said to him, I am El Shaddai," exactly 
 corresponding to the " he said to him, I am 
 Yahwe " of Exodus vi. 2. This careful distinction 
 of three stages of revelation, marked by the 
 names Elohim, El Shaddai, Yahwe, is in strict 
 harmony with the affirmations of Exodus vi. 2, 3 : 
 the name El Shaddai was revealed to the patri- 
 archs, while the name Yahwe was reserved for 
 the crowning revelation to Moses. Whether the 
 critical construction be sound or not, we see 
 that there is ample justification for the state- 
 ment of Dr. Carpenter that Exodus vi. 2, 3 has 
 proved the "key" to the analysis of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 But to meet Dahse on his own ground, we must 
 of course start anew from the foundation. We 
 
 * Outside of the Code it occurs twice : for details see 
 below. 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 15 
 
 must try to obliterate from our minds all that 
 we have heard about a Priestly Code, about the 
 sources of the Pentateuch, or about its composite 
 authorship. We must take the bare words of 
 the text by themselves, and inquire whether 
 they be consistent with the supposition that the 
 Pentateuch is a literary unity and the work of 
 a single author. Now we observe (still using our 
 Hebrew Bibles) that the name Yahwe is freely 
 used in Genesis and the first five chapters of 
 Exodus. I have already admitted that this fact 
 does not prove that the writers were ignorant 
 of the theory that Yahwe was first revealed to 
 Moses. But when we see that there are whole 
 sections of Genesis where Elohim alone is used, 
 and others in which Yahwe is used, there is surely 
 a presumption that those who held that theory 
 are likely to be the authors of the former and 
 not of the latter. But not to press that point, 
 we look again at our Hebrew text and find the 
 express statement that from the days of Enos 
 men " began to call by the name of Yahwe," i.e., 
 to invoke the Deity under that appellation (Gen. 
 iv. 26).* The very same phrase is used of Abraham 
 (xii. 8, xiii. 4, xxi. 33) and of Isaac (xxvi. 25). 
 And that is not all. The name Yahwe is con- 
 stantly found on the lips of the patriarchs (more 
 than forty times) and (to crown all) it is twice 
 used by Yahwe Himself in self-revelations to 
 Abraham (xv. 7) and to Jacob (xxviii. 13). t The 
 
 * See Note II, p. 269. 
 
 + It is a not unimportant confirmation of the critical 
 theory that these two passages are duplicates of two self- 
 disclosures of the Almighty to the same two patriarchs in 
 
16 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 inference is irresistible that these passages can- 
 not have been written by the same author as 
 Exodus vi. 2, 3, if the Hebrew text he correct. The 
 Pentateuch, therefore, is not a unity ; and even 
 if we should never be able to' take another step 
 in disentangling its sources, we have to recog- 
 nize that the axe is already laid at the root of 
 the tree. 
 
 We can now understand how Dahse, in his 
 perfectly legitimate attempt to discredit the 
 documentary theory of the Pentateuch, is laid 
 under a necessity to undermine the authority 
 of the Hebrew text. He must either challenge 
 the accuracy of the Hebrew transmission of the 
 divine names throughout Genesis, or make out 
 that the passage in Exodus means something 
 diiferent from what the Hebrew most undoubtedly 
 says. As a matter of fact he essays both ; and 
 we have now to examine his treatment of the 
 text of Exodus vi. 2, 3, to which he devotes the 
 first five pages of his book. It is impossible to 
 follow all the windings of his argument, which 
 indeed occasionally leads us up a blind alley, 
 where we have simply to retrace our steps. But 
 I will try to deal fairly and candidly with the 
 really material points on which his whole position 
 seems to hinge. And I do so with sincere respect 
 for the thoroughness of his research and the 
 acuteness of ^his reasoning. 
 
 1. His first point is that the word »ni?niJ, " I 
 made myself known " or " I was known," is repre- 
 
 the PC, the nin» ''JK of xv. 7, xxviii. 13 corresponding to 
 the nE5* '^N '')N of xvii. 1, xxxv. 11. See Gunkel, Genesis, 
 Ed. 2, p. 342 f. 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 17 
 
 sented in all texts of the LXX by IgjjXaxTa, which 
 is the equivalent of ^nrnin, " I made known." Thus 
 for the statement, " by my name Yah we I was 
 not known," we obtain the sentence "my name 
 Yahwe I did not make known." Now I propose 
 for the sake of argument to make Dahse a present 
 of this reading. Not that I consider it to have 
 any claim to be preferred to the Hebrew. True, 
 it is supported by the Targum of Onkelos, the 
 Peshitta, the Vulgate, and one Hebrew codex. 
 But there is an almost equal array of external 
 evidence in favour of inynj : the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, the Targum of Jonathan, and all 
 Hebrew codices except one. I believe that an 
 impartial textual critic would say that the 
 external evidence of the MSS. and Versions is 
 pretty evenly divided between the one reading 
 and the other. My preference for the Massoretic 
 reading, however, rests chiefly on the considera- 
 tion that there is an obvious reason why 'nrilJ 
 should be rendered by a causative verb, but none 
 at all that I can think of for changing an original 
 'nnin into tiutij. The clause »nvil2 ''DK', although 
 perfectly unexceptionable in syntax, is neverthe- 
 less a somewhat subtle Hebrew idiom, and one 
 which a translator might naturally evade without 
 being unfaithful to his text. That the translators 
 actually found 'nrnin in their original is certainly 
 possible, but it is not proved ; still less is it shown 
 to be a superior reading to the Massoretic TWWi ; 
 for if Timn had been the authentic text it is 
 difficult to account for the change to »nniJ. If 
 it be set down as a copyist's slip, we have to ask 
 which is more likely: that the clerical error is 
 
 The Dioine Names in Genesis 3 
 
18 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 on the side of the overwhelming majority of 
 Hebrew MSS. or on the side of the single codex 
 which reads >ni;nin. The agreement of a single 
 codex with one or more versions is not sufficient 
 evidence that the variant reading was once wide- 
 spread in Hebrew, or that it lies behind the 
 versions in question. There are such things as 
 chance coincidences. But I do not insist on this 
 point, because I am prepared tO argue that it 
 makes not the slightest difference to the critical 
 implications of the verse whether we read 'nnin or 
 
 2. Nor, again, is it necessary for our immediate 
 purpose to join issue with Dahse on the soundness 
 of the text at the beginning of verse 2, " and 
 Elohim spoke to Moses," where he thinks that 
 Yahwe stood originally instead of Elohim. The 
 former, it appears, is attested by five Greek 
 cursives (bw np f),* by the Old Latin version, and 
 by a citation in Justin. It is also the reading of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Old Latin and 
 Justin are fairly taken as presumptive evidence 
 that the reading is pre-Hexaplaric ; i.e., it was 
 found in LXX MSS. before Origen undertook the 
 task of bringing the LXX into closer correspon- 
 dence with the Hebrew in the monumental work 
 called the Hexapla. It does not follow that it is 
 the older reading, or even that it existed in 
 Hebrew MSS. Many errors had crept into the 
 LXX text before Origen ; and for what we know 
 this may be one of them. It seems to me, indeed, 
 
 * It will be seen that the MSS. represent three different 
 recensions, but that in the last two cases they are opposed 
 by the majority of the group to which they belong. 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 19 
 
 that Dahse is much too ready to assume a 
 Hebrew original for any Septuagintal variant 
 which strikes him as significant. On the other 
 hand we must admit that in this case there is 
 one consideration that pleads in favour of nin^ 
 being original. The tendency of the LXX is to 
 substitute 6 Osog (wrhn) for KvpioQ cnin'') rather than 
 vice versa; hence, as Dr. Buchanan Gray has 
 remarked, " wherever (6) Kvpiog appears in LXX it 
 deserves attention as a possible indication of the 
 original text." * Let us grant, then, that the 
 KvpioQ of the Old Latin and Justin and the nin* of 
 the Samaritan Pent, in Exodus vi. 2 is a possible 
 indication of the original text, and that all the 
 remaining LXX evidence, as well as the Massoretic 
 text, may have to be set aside ; how would this 
 affect the use of the passage as a key to the 
 analysis of the Pentateuch? Would it inflict a 
 very deadly blow on the documentary theory if 
 its supporters had to admit that a writer who has 
 avoided the name Yah we up to this point had 
 anticipated by half a verse the disclosure of the 
 name which he is about to record? I hardly 
 think so ; and for that reason I w^aive the point 
 here, and pass on to others of more impor- 
 tance, t 
 
 * The sentence is taken from Dr. Gray's Commentary on 
 Numbers, the Preface to which is dated January, 1903. It 
 is right to point out as against Dahse (Reply, p. 484) that, 
 so far as Dr. Gray is concerned, the statement is in no sense 
 a " concession." It was written before Dahse had appeared 
 on the field of criticism and before (so far as I am aware) 
 there was any acute controversy about the critical value of 
 the divine names. 
 
 t Dahse is entitled to make the most of the circumstance 
 
20 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 3. We come now to issues of really vital interest. 
 The first is the genuineness of the name El 
 Shaddai in Exodus vi. 3. Dahse seeks to prove 
 by a somewhat intricate line of argument that 
 the name is not original, but was introduced into 
 the text by an editor at a comparatively early 
 date (before the time of Origen) and he reaches 
 the same conclusion regarding five out of the six 
 cases where the name appears in Genesis, It is 
 necessary to examine this position very carefully ; 
 but the questions raised are extremely complex, 
 and the reader may be prepared for a rather 
 tedious discussion. 
 
 Let us look first of all at the actual occurrences 
 of the name. The Hebrew reads El Shaddai in 
 Genesis xvii. 1, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xliii. 14, xlviii. 3, 
 xlix. 25. The LXX renders 6 fltoe aov in xvii. 1, 
 xxxv. 11, 6 Aeoc fiov in xxviii. 3, xliii. 14, xlviii. 3, 
 and 6 Qtog 6 hfiog in xlix. 25. In Exodus vi. 3, it has 
 0EOC wv avTwv. There are traces of pre-Hexaplaric 
 readings : omission of (roO in xvii. 1, xxxv. 11, of 
 fiov in xlviii. 3, and of wv in Exodus vi. 3 ; but as 
 these do not materially affect Dahse's final con- 
 clusion we shall do him no injustice if we neglect 
 them here. 
 
 Now the first thing that strikes us is that the 
 LXX invariably renders El Shaddai by 6 Otog 
 followed by a possessive pronoun in the person 
 
 that in Gen. xvii. 1 nilT' stands (by error, as I believe) in an 
 account of the self-revelation of God ; and so in xxviii. 13 ; 
 and to argue that from analogy the same name should be 
 read in Bxod. vi. 2. But what of xxxv. 11, where D'n^N is 
 all but unanimously supported by the LXX, or xlvi. 2, where 
 no LXX variant is recorded at all ? 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 21 
 
 appropriate to the context. It looks as if the 
 translators had not understood the word nK', but 
 had the notion that somehow it expressed a close- 
 ness of personal relation between the Deity and 
 His worshippers. I confess that I have no satisfy- 
 ing explanation to offer of this strange idea — 
 that ''^C' was equivalent to a possessive pronoun. 
 Eerdmans thinks that the LXX pronounced the 
 name as ''W ^K (El Shedi), " God my demon," and 
 understood El Shaddai as the special guardian 
 deity of the individual patriarchs. That explana- 
 tion is not quite convincing, because it fails to 
 account for the change of the first personal pro- 
 noun or adjective to the second or third where the 
 circumstances required it ; but I can suggest 
 nothing better. Anyhow, I am in no worse case 
 than Dahse himself ; for the difficulty has to 
 be faced in xlix. 25, the only passage in which 
 Dahse allows the name to be genuine. If he 
 can produce an explanation of the 6 sfio^ in that 
 verse, it will probably suit all the other cases 
 as w^ell. In the meantime I think that we are 
 entitled to hold by the prima facie impression 
 which the usage of the LXX makes upon us, 
 viz., that Shaddai was a puzzle to them, and 
 that they concealed their embarrassment as 
 best they could. 
 
 But let us see how Dahse succeeds (or does not 
 succeed) in eliminating El Shaddai from all these 
 passages except one. The writer of Exodus vi. 3, 
 he argues, must have found in Genesis three separ- 
 ate self -revelations of God, to Abraham, Isaac and 
 Jacob ; and if he wrote ntJ* bxa he must have found 
 the name in each of these. Now we find such 
 
22 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 revelations in the case of Abraham (xvii. 1) and of 
 Jacob (xxxv. 11) ; but there is none in the history 
 of Isaac. The only passage which the writer of 
 Exodus vi. 3 could have had in view, according to 
 Dahse, is xxvi. 24 ; and there El Shaddai does not 
 occur. Therefore it cannot have stood originally 
 in Exodus vi. 3 ! Further, in xxvi. 24 God calls 
 Himself " the God of thy father," and similarly to 
 Jacob in xxviii. 13. But the God vrho is to Isaac 
 and Jacob the God of their father must have 
 named himself to Abraham " thy God " ; and this 
 is how we read in the LXX of xvii. 1. Conse- 
 quently their Hebrew text must have read yrhii, 
 " thy God," and we must accept this as original ! 
 In the same way we must read in xxviii .3, in|?x, " my 
 God," in xxxv. 11 yrha (or simply i^x), in xliii. 14 
 *n'?K, in xlviii. 3 m^n (or"?}*), and in Exodus vi. 3, nn'n'px 
 "their God." The only genuine instance is xlix. 
 25. A " theological redactor " [Bearbeiter) found 
 the name here, and proceeded to insert it in the 
 other passages. Fortunately for Dahse's detective 
 pursuit, he overlooked xxvi. 24. 
 
 Such arguments carry no conviction. But since 
 this hypothesis of a theological redactor is an 
 essential part of Dahse's main contention, I will 
 point out some of the difficulties under which it 
 labours. 
 
 (1) One would like a better reason than Dahse 
 gives for retaining El Shaddai in xlix. 25 * while 
 deleting it in all other cases. To be sure the 
 theory would break down unless the name were 
 left in one case ; for the supposed theological 
 
 * The received Hebrew text has nti' HN, but of course I 
 agree witji Dahse that hn is the true reading. 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 23 
 
 redactor must be allowed a little capital to start 
 operations with. But that is not a reason that 
 can be seriously advanced ; and Dahse does not 
 advance it. What he says is that the LXX 
 rendering in xlix. 25 is unique. But is it so very 
 unique ? Is the difference between fiov and 6 IfioQ 
 so great that a translator who rendered nty by 
 the one might not also have rendered it by the 
 other? One would have thought that a passage 
 in which El Shaddai stands in poetic parallelism 
 with " God of thy father " is the place of all others 
 where we might suspect that it stands for an 
 original in'pK) if one were to indulge such suspicions 
 at all. 
 
 (2) The procedure attributed to the redactor is 
 arbitrary and irrational in the extreme. How 
 could it have occurred to any man to manipulate 
 the text by multiplying instances of a most un- 
 usual divine name? How does it happen that 
 he confines his operations to the histories of the 
 three patriarchs? Why did he select these 
 particular passages and leave others untouched? 
 Why did he pass over such revelations as xv. 7, 
 xxviii. 13, as well as xxvi. 24? It cannot have 
 been to give an air of reality to the statement 
 in Exodus, for, according to the theory, he was 
 himself responsible for the insertion of the name 
 in Exodus vi. 3. What could have suggested its 
 insertion there ? Was it because he took ex- 
 ception to such empty phrases as "my God," 
 " thy God," " their God " on solemn occasions like 
 those before us ? That motive would be credit- 
 able to his religious instinct, but it is certainly 
 not a probable one. In any case it would not 
 
24 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 explain his choice of the particular name El 
 Shaddai as a substitute. Dahse may reply that 
 he is not bound to answer such questions as 
 these : he has satisfied himself that the LXX has 
 the superior text, and has suggested an explana- 
 tion of the Hebrew, and that is enough. But 
 with all respect I submit that the questions are 
 pertinent. Those who do not share Dahse's con- 
 fidence in the LXX have a right to ask which 
 of two theories is more reasonable : that the 
 strong, clear-cut sense of the Hebrew is the result 
 of redactional action for which it is impossible 
 to find any adequate motive, or that the com- 
 paratively weak and pointless LXX reflects the 
 ignorance of Greek translators making the best 
 they could of an unintelligible original. 
 
 (3) We have to consider the time at which 
 such a redaction w^ould have been possible. 
 Dahse is at some pains to show that El Shaddai 
 must have been found in the Hebrew text in 
 most of the passages in the time of Origen. We 
 may safely assert that it was found in all of 
 them long before then. The Massoretic recension 
 had been fixed by the middle of the second 
 century A.D., and there can be no reasonable 
 doubt that in all essential respects it lay before 
 Origen in the form in which we now have it. 
 But more than that : the Hebrew is supported 
 by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Hence if any 
 such redaction as Dahse supposes ever took 
 place, it must have been at latest in the fourth 
 century B.C., nearly 100 years before the Greek 
 translation was made. I will not deny the possi- 
 bility that Hebrew MSS, of an older date may 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 25 
 
 have been in the possession of the Alexandrian 
 translators ; but surely the hypothesis that their 
 MSS. had escaped a redaction which must have 
 been carried out at least a century earlier is too 
 incredible to be entertained on such slender 
 grounds as Dahse has produced. 
 
 (4) Expressions like " my God," " thy God " are 
 extremely rare in the patriarchal history (xxvii. 
 20 being the only case at all parallel to those 
 imagined by Dahse) : and that should make us 
 cautious in substituting them for a well authen- 
 ticated Hebrew reading. Still, if there had been 
 a redactor on the look out for opportunities of 
 inserting HK' "?« there is no apparent reason why 
 he should have passed over xxvii. 20 any more 
 than xxviii. 3, especially if, as Dahse thinks, the 
 original LXX of xxvii. 20 was simply 6 0eoc aov 
 (without Kvpiog). 
 
 (5) It is by no means clear that Exodus vi. 3 
 presupposes a separate revelation of the divine 
 name to Isaac. It is perhaps enough that Isaac 
 knew the name El Shaddai ; and that we learn 
 from xxviii. 3. At all events xxvi. 24 is a broken 
 reed for Dahse to rely on. We read there cer- 
 tainly of a revelation of God to Isaac ; but it is 
 neither as JEl Shaddai nor as " thy God," but as 
 the God of Abraham. Therefore, if " their God " 
 were the right reading in Exodus vi. 3, it must 
 be understood not distributively of each separate 
 patriarch, but collectively, the revelation to 
 Abraham covering the case of Isaac and (if need 
 were) of Jacob also. In precisely the same way 
 we may hold that the Hebrew reading HE' ha is 
 to be taken collectively, i.e., that the disclosure 
 
26 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 of the name to Abraham includes its disclosure 
 to Isaac ; and we may accept this sense all the 
 more readily because the name is actually used 
 by Isaac (xxviii. 3) in passing on the blessing to 
 Jacob.* 
 
 I hold, therefore, that Dahse has entirely 
 failed to dislodge the name El Shaddai from 
 Exodus vi. 3.t It stands there, the signature of 
 
 * From the standpoint of the critical theory it would be 
 natural to explain the omission of Isaac by the supposition 
 that the section of the Priestly Code in which the revelation 
 to Isaac was recorded had been suppressed in the course of 
 the redaction. I do not myself believe, however, that that 
 is the true explanation. In the older Yahwistic tradition 
 there are two disclosures of the divine name Yahwe, one 
 to Abraham (xv. 7) and the other to Jacob (xxviii. 13), 
 but none to Isaac. The authors of the Priestly Code 
 adhered to this tradition of a twofold revelation of the 
 name ; only, in accordance with their theory, they changed 
 Yahwe into El Shaddai. See the footnote on p. 15 above. 
 
 t Dahse promises (p. 5) that the reason why El Shaddai 
 was inserted in the 6 passages mentioned, and not in 
 xxvi. 24, will be explained in the last part of the volume. 
 He seems to refer to p. 157, where he points out that in 
 xliii. 14 it occurs at the beginning of a new Seder 
 (pericope of the Synagogue leotionary), and adds that the 
 Seder-division shows us why it stands just here : it was 
 inserted here as in xvii. 1, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11 and xlviii. 3, 
 "after the reading-lessons had been introduced!" Rarely 
 has a point of exclamation concealed such looseness of 
 argument. How in the world do we see that the inter- 
 polation is later than the Seder-division? Is it because it 
 never occurs twice in one Seder ? Surely that is not very 
 wonderful, seeing there are 37 Sedarim in which it does 
 not occur at all. Moreover, as far as that goes it might 
 just as well have been inserted in xxvi. 24. I suppose that 
 what Dahse would have liked to say is that it never occurs 
 except at the beginning of a Seder ; but he could not put 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 27 
 
 an incomplete revelation under which the 
 patriarchs lived. It stands also as the contrast 
 to the name Yahwe, which is now for the 
 first time made known to Moses. But here we 
 have to meet another contention of Dahse, 
 directed this time against the very citadel of 
 the critical position, viz., the genuineness of 
 the reading Yahwe in verse 3. 
 
 4. Dahse thinks it doubtful if the word nin' stood 
 after <db' in the original text, so that possibly -we 
 may be right in reading simply " my name I did 
 not make known." The evidence he adduces is 
 of the slightest. The word is omitted only in 
 two unimportant cursive MSS. of the LXX, a 
 MS. of the Ethiopic version (which is derived 
 from the LXX), and in citations of Justin, Philo, 
 Eusebius, Theodoret, and a few later writers. 
 Dahse appears here to be conscious that he 
 stands on weak ground, for he proceeds to 
 strengthen it by urging that the authority of 
 Justin's citation is much better attested in regard 
 to the Kvpiog at the beginning of verse 2, which 
 we have already discussed. I must leave it 
 to expert students of the LXX to say whether 
 all this is sufficient to prove that the omission 
 
 it that way in view of xxviii. 3, where the name stands 
 in the middle. If he means that it is too remarkable to 
 be a mere accident that in 5 cases (including Exod. vi. 3) 
 out of 6 it stands at the beginning, we must remind him 
 that the phrases "my God," etc., which are supposed to 
 have invited the interpolation, must have stood (on his 
 view) in precisely the same places before the Sedarim were 
 instituted, and nowhere else (except in xxvii. 20). The 
 coincidence is no more remarkable in the one case than 
 in the other, 
 
28 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 of Kvpiog points to a pre-Hexaplaric text, although 
 I cannot think that a decision in this sense will 
 be very confidently pronounced. In any case it is 
 not the only pre-Hexaplaric text, the Kvpiog being 
 supported by the consensus of all other LXX 
 codices. The question is, which of the two re- 
 presents the original LXX, and again, whether 
 the original LXX or the Massoretic text (sup- 
 posing the two to differ) represents the original 
 Hebrew. And these questions can only be decided 
 by considerations based on the meaning of the 
 passage. 
 
 Hence it is of importance to note the use 
 which Dahse would make of the shorter reading, 
 supposing it to be established. If, he says, the 
 Yahwe be not original here, then Exodus vi. is 
 not a parallel to Exodus iii., but a continuation 
 of it. He alludes to another part of the documen- 
 tary theory : viz., the recognition of a third 
 document (known as the Elohistic), which records 
 the first revelation of Yahwe to Moses in Exodus 
 iii. 14, 15, and consistently avoids the name up 
 to that point. On that view Exodus iii. 13 f. 
 and vi. 2 f. are parallel accounts of the same 
 incident by two different writers (E and P). 
 Dahse's reading of vi. 3 enables him to repudiate 
 that analysis, and to hold that vi. 3 refers back 
 to and presupposes iii. 13 ff. But what follows ? 
 Simply this : that the " name " revealed to Moses, 
 and not revealed to the fathers, is Yahwe after 
 all : only, the revelation was not made on this 
 particular occasion but a short time previously. 
 In other words, Dahse will have succeeded in 
 overthrowing one particular point in the docu- 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 29 
 
 mentary theory, but he leaves intact the key 
 to the position, in the statement that the name 
 Yahwe was first made known to Moses. 
 
 5. But in order to appreciate the full force 
 of Dahse's contention, we must take account of 
 another assertion which he makes. He will not 
 admit that the formula nin* *JX at the end of 
 verse 2 is a new self -manifestation of God. That 
 depends entirely on whether or not the name 
 had been revealed before. Critical writers hold 
 that it appears here for the first time in a 
 particular document ; Dahse denies this ; and 
 until that point is settled it is idle to discuss 
 whether the phrase in the instance before us 
 marks a new disclosure of the divine name. It 
 is at least a very solemn re-affirmation of it. 
 But look at the verse again. Dahse, if I 
 understand him aright, concedes that " my name " 
 means Yahwe even if the writer did not 
 expressly say so. Thus we cannot get behind 
 the statement that God did not reveal the name 
 Yahwe to the patriarchs, whereas He does reveal 
 it to Moses. The only advantage that Dahse 
 can derive from his two contentions is the oppor- 
 tunity of maintaining that the revelation did not 
 take place in Egypt but a short time previously 
 at Sinai. And that leaves the main critical 
 position untouched. 
 
 6. We can now see how utterly irrelevant is 
 the distinction between TirTiJ, " I was known," and 
 Timn, " I made known." Dahse apparently thinks 
 it important. He remarks in a footnote on page 2, 
 after citing two examples of the use of Yahice 
 in Genesis, " not however in words of God Him- 
 
30 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 self, cf. LXX Genesis xv. 7, xxviii. 13." I suspect 
 that he has in mind an ingeniously futile notion 
 of his lively confederate, H. M. Wiener, who has 
 learned from the anthropologists that "many 
 savages " have an intense aversion from uttering 
 their own name, while making no objection to 
 being accosted by it, or even to its being divulged 
 to a stranger by a third party. The Israelites 
 of the Mosaic age being in a " very rudimentary " 
 intellectual condition, we may believe that Moses 
 was capable of attributing this superstitious 
 feeling to his God ; and there you have the wide 
 difference between ^nnin and '<WT\: in Exodus 
 vi. 3. We need not discuss this solution : it will be 
 time to do that when some evidence is produced 
 of the existence of the superstition in question 
 amongst the Hebrews at any stage of mental 
 development. Here it is enough to say that it 
 does not meet the real difficulty, which is to 
 know how, without a previous revelation, the 
 patriarchs were in a position to " accost " the 
 Deity by His true name. For surely Dahse, as 
 a Christian theologian, knows that in the thought 
 of Old Testament writers a knowledge of the 
 divine name can only be gained through a self- 
 revelation of the Deity. It is neither a human 
 invention, nor discoverable by human guess-work. 
 Therefore if he admits the use of the name Yahwe 
 by the patriarchs (and I do not understand him 
 to deny this), he must allow us to postulate such 
 a revelation, even if it were not recorded. And 
 if, as I believe to be the case, his assault on the 
 integrity of Exodus vi. 2 f. has demonstrably 
 failed, the only resource by which he can save 
 
EXODUS VI. 2, 3 31 
 
 the unity of the Pentateuch is to follow the 
 example of two Catholic writers* whom he 
 mentions, and maintain that in the original text 
 of Genesis i.-Exodus iii. 12, Yahwe never occurred 
 at all. 
 
 My reply to Dahse, as regards Exodus vi. 2, 3, 
 may be summed up under three heads. I claim 
 to have shown (1) that he has failed to make 
 good his objections to the Hebrew text of the 
 verses ; (2) that if we grant some of his positions 
 the evidential value of the passage for the pur- 
 pose of critical analysis is not greatly affected ; 
 
 * Hummelauer and Hoberg (see p. 21 f.). Another Catholic 
 writer. Professor Schlogl of Vienna, has arrived at the same 
 conclusion. He has published in the Expository Times (Sept- 
 ember, 1909, p. 563) a " zusammenfassende Statistik" of the 
 results reached by himself and his pupils in Seminar ; and 
 winds up with the following Machtspruch : " When we con- 
 sider that the tendency to use mn* for or along with DTI^N 
 was incomparably greater than the contrary, those few 
 passages which support mn' as against D^n^X are of little 
 account. The conclusion is therefore justified that the name 
 nin' did not originally occur in Genesis i. 1-Bxodus iii. 12. 
 It is consequently quite unscientific to determine the analysis 
 of a source by the names of God." His reasoning comes 
 to something like this : in 118 cases where MT has Yahwe, 
 "other texts" (no matter what I) have Elohvm or Yahwe 
 Elohim : therefore, in all read Elohim. In 30 passages all 
 the texts read Yahwe : therefore change it to Elohim. In 
 69 places where MT has Elohim the ' ' other texts " have 
 Yahwe and in 47 Yahwe Elohim, : therefore, read Elohim. 
 "Those texts which have the name DTIPX instead of nini are 
 less important " : nevertheless still read Elohim. Could 
 arbitrariness further go ? I have no doubt that the work 
 of the Hebrew Seminar at Vienna is very thorough and 
 meritorious ; but it is really a little too much to expect 
 independent students to invest its decisions with a Papal 
 infallibility. 
 
32 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 and (3) that if we grant all his contentions he 
 gains his end only by emptying the words of 
 definite meaning and significance. They would 
 read thus : " And Yahwe spoke to Moses and said, 
 I am Yahwe : and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac 
 and Jacob, being their God ; but my name I did 
 not make known to them." So we are left with 
 the following bald and jejune statement as the 
 gist of the communication imparted to Moses on 
 a solemn occasion : that Yahwe had appeared to 
 the three patriarchs but without giving His name ! 
 Whether the meaning be that, while the patri- 
 archs knew the name, it was not Yahwe who 
 revealed it ; or that, they being ignorant of it, 
 it had been revealed to Moses at an earlier time ; 
 or that it is now revealed for the first time ; or 
 that the name is something other than Yahwe — 
 something ineffable, which had not been disclosed 
 before and is not disclosed now — we cannot tell. 
 Such is the plight to which we are reduced by 
 a textual criticism which is divorced alike from 
 exegetical intelligence and historical and religious 
 insight. ' 
 
 * See Note III, p. 270. 
 
II 
 
 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 THE main thesis of Dahse's treatise cannot be 
 more succinctly stated than in his own 
 words (p. 99) : " The divine names have nothing 
 to do with this or that document, but are variable 
 elements of the text." His most original contribu- 
 tion to the investigation of the subject is an 
 attempt to trace this variation through successive 
 redactions of the text based upon the divisions 
 of the Law in the lectionary of the Synagogue. 
 The general idea that the distribution of the 
 names for God is somehow influenced by the 
 Synagogue reading is, indeed, not new ; but so 
 far as I am aware Dahse is the first who has 
 w^orked it out in elaborate detail, and constructed 
 a theory by which the perplexing phenomena of 
 the present text may be explained. It is this 
 theory w^hich I now proceed to expound and to 
 criticize. Its complexity is such that I almost 
 despair of carrying the attention of the reader 
 with me through the labyrinth of discussion into 
 which we must enter. 
 
 Perhaps a short preliminary explanation will 
 be found useful. For the purposes of the Sabbath 
 reading in the Synagogue, the Pentateuch was 
 divided into sections on two different, systems. 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 4 
 
34 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 On one system, which was introduced in the Syna- 
 gogues of Palestine, the Law was read through 
 in three (or three and a half) years, and was 
 divided into short sections called Sedarim. The 
 other scheme, which seems to have originated in 
 Babylonia, contemplated a reading of the Law 
 in one year ; consequently its sections, called 
 Parashas (nVK'na, pi.), are on an average three times 
 as long as the Sedarim. Thus the number of 
 Parashas is 54, and that of the Sedarim is normally 
 154, although it is variously given as 161, 167, 
 and even 175. In Genesis there are 43 (or 45) 
 Sedarim and 12 Parashas. Now Dahse's theory, 
 very roughly stated, is that the LXX text, as 
 regards the divine names, is regulated by the 
 Seder-division, while the Hebrew is influenced 
 by the Parasha-division. And since the former 
 division is known to be older than the latter, he 
 concludes that the LXX represents an earlier 
 stage of the text than the Hebrew. That, by the 
 way, is a pure assumption. From the fact that 
 the Seder-division is the older, it by no means 
 follows that any problematical influence of that 
 division on the divine names is prior to the fixation 
 of the Massoretic text. 
 
 But here we must digress for a little to consider 
 a question which Dahse has not thought it worth 
 while to discuss, although it is surely vital to 
 the argument, viz., the antiquity of the Synagogue 
 lectionaries. On this point we have no certain 
 information. Jewish tradition, which on such 
 matters is utterly unreliable, attributes the system 
 partly to Ezra and partly to Moses. Dahse 
 assumes that the Sedarim were arranged by Ezra 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 35 
 
 in connexion with the final redaction of the 
 Pentateuch (p. 161) ; but he has no proof of this 
 apart from his own speculative combinations.* 
 An eminent Jewish scholar, Dr. Biichler, who 
 has discussed the subject with great learning in 
 the Jetoish Quarterly Review,^ arrives at the con- 
 clusion that the system was slowly developed 
 under definite historical influences extending over 
 four centuries. The earliest stage was the reading 
 of prescribed portions of the Law at the three 
 annual Feasts, which was introduced, as the 
 result of a dispute with the Samaritans, about 
 200 B.C. The next was the selection of lessons 
 for four special Sabbaths, and this dates from 
 the time of the victory of the Pharisees over the 
 Sadducees in B.C. 79. As to the completed Sedarim- 
 lectionary, with which we are here concerned, all 
 he ventures to say is that it was in use before 
 the Christian era, and that it was considered 
 ancient by Josephus in his time (c. 100 A.D.). He 
 thinks the Parasha-division may have been 
 introduced in the Synagogues of Babylonia by 
 Rab about 200 A.D. Now these views may be 
 right or they may be wrong ; but the fact that 
 they are advanced by a distinguished authority 
 makes it very hazardous to build a hypothesis 
 on the assumption that the Sedarim are of great 
 antiquity. But, further, I think we can with 
 great probability assign a superior limit for their 
 introduction. The Samaritan Pentateuch has a 
 division into sections (D'vp) which is entirely 
 different from the Jewish. Is it likely that if 
 
 * See pp. 225 ff. below. 
 t Vol. V. p. 420 ff. 
 
36 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 the Triennial Cycle had been known from the 
 time of Ezra the Samaritans would have ignored 
 it and devised an independent system for them- 
 selves ? We may reasonably infer that the 
 Sedarim are of later origin than the time when 
 the Samaritans took over the Pentateuch from 
 the Jews. 
 
 This is not the only inconvenient fact with 
 which IJahse deals in too summary a fashion. He 
 is aware that the division of the Sedarim varies 
 in different MSS. ; that, e.g., while his authority, 
 Baer, gives 43 in Genesis, the standard Massoretic 
 authority, Jacob ben-Hayyim, gives 45, and that 
 the latter has sections beginning at xi. 1, xxii. 
 20, xl. 1, xlix. 27, where the former has none ; and, 
 on the other hand, that the former has beginnings 
 at xii. 10, xvii. 1, where the latter has none.* 
 Dahse says this is immaterial to his system 
 (p. v) ; and indeed I am disposed to agree with 
 him, for his theory seems elastic enough to fit 
 a great many divisions of the text. But a theory 
 to which it makes no difference whether or not 
 a new Seder begins at xii. 10, or whether chaps, 
 xvi. and xvii. form one Seder or two, may surely 
 be suspected of undue laxity of principle. + But 
 let us now resume our exposition. 
 
 If Dahse's hypothesis were, as a superficial 
 reader might be apt to imagine, that the LXX 
 and the Hebrew keep to one divine name through- 
 
 * On the different divisions which obtained in different 
 Massoretic schools, see Ginsburg, Introdtiction, pp. 33-35. 
 The diversity is much greater than I have stated above. 
 
 + As a matter of fact, Dahse makes a great deal of the 
 division between xii. 1-9 and xii. 10-xiii. 18, and also of 
 the fact that xvii. 1 is the commencement of a Seder. 
 
THE PERICOPB-HYPOTHESIS 37 
 
 out a Seder and a Parasha respectively, the issue 
 would be simple. It would be easy to test the 
 theory, and if it were found correct it would be 
 all over with the documentary analysis of Genesis 
 in so far as it depends on the use of the divine 
 names. But the system is much more complex 
 than this. (1) The editors had a mixed text to 
 start with, i.e., one in which nin'' and wnha occurred 
 in irregular alternation. Of course it is this mixed 
 original text that we want to get back to in order 
 to see whether it affords any clue to a division 
 of sources. Dahse's theory bars the way. He 
 assures us that the original text is hopelessly 
 obscured by subsequent editings, more hopelessly 
 in the Massoretic text than in the LXX (p. 95). 
 Still it is something to know that there was an 
 original mixed text, and, though we can no longer 
 be sure, we may surmise that it had something 
 to do with a diversity of authorship to which so 
 many independent circumstances point. (2) The 
 editors of the Hebrew text underlying the 
 Septuagint (who operated with Sedarim) were 
 guided by the following rules : They never 
 (practically) change an Elohim into Yahwe ; but 
 in certain circumstances they change a Yahwe into 
 Elohim. If they found either name used con- 
 sistently throughout a Seder, they allowed it to 
 stand. But if a Seder contained both Yahwe and 
 Elohim,, their practice was to let Yahwe stand at 
 the beginning or end, and elsewhere to change 
 it to Elohim,.* (3) The editors of the Massoretic 
 
 * P. 93 : "... die Stellen wo nin'^/cv|Otoe immer den 
 Anfang und Schluss (resp. ersten und letzten Gottesnamen) 
 eines der alten Sedarim . . . enthalten." 
 
38 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 text (operating with Parashas) were " influenced " 
 by the Parasha-division to this extent that they 
 replaced " the Elohims standing in the middle of 
 the Sedarim by Yahwe," but only in " Elohimstellen 
 . . . die mitten zwischen Yahweabschnitten lagen" 
 (p. 94) — Tv^hatever that may mean. Whether they 
 are supposed to have worked on the original 
 mixed text, or on the recension already prepared 
 for the LXX, Dahse nowhere expressly informs 
 us, and I have been unable to discover for my- 
 self. These appear to be the leading features 
 of the hypothesis, so far as they can be made 
 out from Dahse's not very lucid or consecutive 
 description. 
 
 Now before proceeding to test the theory in 
 detail, I think it is not unfair to raise at once 
 the question of its inherent credibility. There 
 are three points to consider : — 
 
 1. We have to ask what time can be allowed for 
 these postulated redactions. The Samaritan text 
 agrees with the Massoretic as regards the divine 
 names in all but eight or nine cases,* so that, 
 on Dahse's theory, both the assumed redactions 
 must have been completed in the Synagogues of 
 Palestine before the two texts parted company. 
 We have seen reason to believe that the Seder- 
 division of the Law is much younger than the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, and therefore the redac- 
 tions could not even have been commenced until 
 
 * According to the text of Walton's Polyglot, Sam. reads 
 'K for '' in Genesis vii. 1, xiv. 22, and xx. 18 ; '' for 'N in 
 vii. 9, xxviii. 4, xxxi. 7, 9, 16 ; and adds 'N in xxxv. 9. The 
 Sam. reading in vii. 1 is not quite certain. In xiv. 22 the 
 names are a late addition to the text. 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 39 
 
 a long time after the separation had taken place. 
 And apart from that, is it credible that the LXX 
 translators had got hold of an obsolete Palestinian 
 recension, which must have had a very short lease 
 of life, and made it the basis of their version ? 
 That by itself is not absolutely impossible ; but 
 it will require pretty clear evidence to establish 
 a theory in the teeth of so many improbabilities. 
 2. We must have some respect for the psycho- 
 logy of the supposed redactors. We are not at 
 liberty to attribute to them any course of action 
 that might bring about the actual result, as if they 
 were dilettante triflers amusing themselves by 
 inventing an elaborate cipher to tax the ingenuity 
 of twentieth-century critics. We must treat them 
 as reasonable human beings, working from intelli- 
 gible motives for intelligible practical ends. In 
 short, we must be able to see that their modus 
 operandi is directed to some useful purpose con- 
 nected with the public reading of the Law. How 
 does the theory stand this test ? To take one 
 example : what could have induced the LXX 
 editors, in a " mixed " Seder, to leave the first and 
 last nin' standing, and to change the rest? Ob- 
 viously, thinks Dahse, it was to indicate that 
 Yahwe and Elohim are one God (p. 97). Granted 
 that the hearers needed that reminder, one fails 
 to see how this device would help them. It would 
 no doubt ensure that on the Sabbath when a 
 " mixed " Seder was read they would hear both 
 names ; but when the lesson was an " unmixed " 
 Seder they would be left to their own untutored 
 reason. Why should the suggestion of identity be 
 more necessary in the one case than the other? 
 
40 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHBSIS 
 
 Would not consistency rather demand that at 
 least in "unmixed" lessons marked by Elohim 
 this name should be once changed to Yahwe to 
 avert polytheistic misconceptions ? All very trivial 
 finical questions, no doubt ! but a textual critic has 
 no right to avoid triviality by vague and uncon- 
 sidered generalities. 
 
 3. It is a most unwarranted assumption that 
 editors of the text would have deliberately altered 
 the divine names from any such artificial motive 
 as that on which Dahse's hypothesis rests. The 
 close agreement of the Jewish and Samaritan 
 Pentateuchs in this respect, as contrasted with 
 their frequent differences in other matters, seems 
 to me a conclusive proof that the most scrupulous 
 attention was paid to the divine names in the 
 transmission of the text. Nor am I prepared to 
 admit that even the LXX editors and copyists 
 ever introduced wanton changes of the names of 
 God. In comparison with the Jews and Samari- 
 tans they w^ere somewhat careless, and they may 
 often have substituted what they believed to be 
 the better reading ; but that they would have 
 made systematic alterations of the kind here sup- 
 posed I see no reason to believe.* 
 
 * Dahse will no doubt appeal to the Elohistic redaction 
 of an entire section of the Psalter, and perhaps also to the 
 regular use of Yahwe in the Targum of Onkelos, as evidence 
 of a free handling of the divine names in authoritative Jewish 
 circles at a late period in the history of the text. I deny the 
 force of either analogy. The regular substitution of one 
 divine name for another in writings not yet canonized affords 
 no ground for the supposition that at a much earlier time 
 sporadic changes might have been made in the oldest and 
 most highly venerated part of the Canon, the Law. Still 
 less is the levelling tendency of a translation (the Targum) 
 
THE PERICOPB-HYPOTHESIS 41 
 
 But it will be said that these historical and a 
 priori objections must give way to literary evi- 
 dence, and that if the pericope-hypothesis shows a 
 reasonable correspondence with the facts it must 
 be accepted as proved. That will depend on what 
 we consider to be a reasonable correspondence. 
 The discoverer of a new theory is apt to be satisfied 
 with a degree of approximation to fact which a 
 less interested person finds disappointing ; so that 
 unless the correspondence be exact (which in this 
 case it is not) there will be room for difference of 
 opinion as to the value of the discovery. We must 
 make the best of it, however ; and I will now go 
 on to examine how far Dahse's solution accounts 
 for the distribution of the divine names in the 
 different sections of Genesis. 
 
 We may first of all dispose of the very excep- 
 tional cases where an D*n'?N in the Hebrew is 
 represented by (6) mpiog in the LXX. It seems 
 to me that Dahse here somewhat misunderstands 
 the position of his opponents. He constantly 
 argues as if the only possible explanation of the 
 rarity of the instances where Kvpio^^^n'^rhii were 
 the shrinking of copyists from the use of the 
 sacred tetragrammaton. For my part I have 
 never believed that that is the chief cause of the 
 
 an index to what would have been permitted in dealing with 
 the sacred text itself. In any case one fact is not annulled 
 by another. The agreement of the Heb. and Sam. is a 
 critical fact which is explicable only by extreme care in the 
 handling of the names from the time when the two texts 
 diverged ; and that is surely a more reliable indication of the 
 feeling of the earliest editors than any preferences which may 
 have asserted themselves in a later age. [See pp. 149 f., 153 
 below.] 
 
42 THE PEEICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 phenomenon in question. I hold that the differ- 
 ences between the LXX and the MT in either 
 direction are due to errors that have crept in 
 during a long series of transcriptions, and that the 
 main reason why 6 6s6q is substituted for KvpioQ 
 so nauch more frequently than KvpioQ for 6 Oeog 
 is simply that 6 diog came more readily to the pen 
 of a Greek scribe than the Hebraic Kvpio^. Be 
 that as it may, there are only three cases in 
 Genesis xii.-l. where Dahse admits that Kvpio^ 
 stands for ninha, xxi. 2, 6 ; xxviii. 20 (he 'might 
 at least have mentioned xix. 29, if not also xvii. 
 15, XXX. 17, xlviii. 9 [O.L.]. It is important for 
 him to show either that nini is the original 
 Hebrew, or that 6 0eoc is the original LXX. I 
 will not here pause to discuss the readings. It 
 is enough to say that as regards xxviii. 20 he 
 seems (pp. 96, 106) to make out a good case for 
 nin» as the original text ; but as regards xxi. 2, 
 6 his reasoning (pp. 102, 111) appears to me 
 utterly weak and inconclusive. 
 
 We come at last to the crucial test, a com- 
 parison of Dahse's theory with the facts that 
 lie before us in the two texts, the Massoretic 
 and the Greek. And here ray observations are 
 so opposed to Dahse's generalized statements that 
 I find it necessary to visualize them, in order 
 that the reader may see at a glance how the 
 matter stands. In the following synopsis* I 
 register the occurrences of the names mn' and 
 D*n^K (J = nins E = d^hIpk) for each Seder in 
 Genesis xii.-l., first according to the MT and 
 then according to the LXX. The second line 
 * Pp. 44-47 below. 
 
THE PERIOOPE-HYPOTHESIS 43 
 
 gives the readings of the larger Cambridge 
 LXX, except in a few cases where another 
 reading seems better attested : but in a third 
 line I have noted those readings which are 
 expressly claimed by Dahse as original. The 
 material is taken from his own table, save in 
 the few places where I have happened to detect 
 an error. For the present I confine the exami- 
 nation to chaps, xii.-l., because in the first eleven 
 chapters the frequent occurrence of the double 
 name Kvpiog 6 9e6g in the LXX creates a special 
 and complicated problem. 
 
 I do not know whether Dahse will maintain that 
 these statistics bear out his pericope-theory, or 
 whether he will challenge them. If he elects 
 for the latter alternative, there is certainly a 
 whole jungle of problematical restorations of 
 the original LXX in which he may take refuge, 
 and through which it will be difficult for a 
 non-expert critic to follow him. I will deal 
 with some of his ventures in this field in other 
 connexions ; in the meantime I will only say 
 that he has no right to make capital of our 
 ignorance by subjective speculation as to what 
 the original LXX Tnust have been. His theory 
 must be judged in the light of the textual data 
 which we possess ; and behind the readings best 
 established as original no theorist is entitled to 
 go. For it is not a readjustment here and there 
 that will save this theory, but a wholesale re- 
 construction on a scale which no sane scholar will 
 either attempt or justify. 
 
 The plain truth is that between Dahse's 
 observation of the facts and mine there are 
 
44 
 
 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 
 .HOI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Od 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-4 
 
 
 
 
 
 cf 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 CM 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 i-l 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 r-T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 y-t 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 gf 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 
 P4 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 
 ^_^ 
 
 m 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 Ot 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 Oh 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 S" 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P< 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 lb 
 rH 
 
 s 
 
 rH 
 
 "2 
 
 o 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 3i 
 
 rH 
 iH 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T-t 
 
 !i 
 
 
 
 
 £j 
 
 ^ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C- 
 
 -:H 
 
 
 
 »o 
 
 
 to 
 
 t- 
 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 T-i 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 1-i 
 
 
 rH 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HS 
 
 1-5 t^ 
 
 
 1 Ha 
 
 
 
 hah-. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t?!:? 
 
 
 P^^ 
 
 5S 
 
 
 HH 
 
 DO 
 
 S 
 
 l-s 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 Ht> 
 
 H 
 
 e^- 
 
 f?t? 
 
 H 
 
 HH 
 
 St? 
 
 
 [^>^H 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1-0 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 
 
 l-Ol-B 
 
 <>. 
 
 ^S 
 
 
 WW 
 
 1-5 hs 
 1-5 1-5 
 
 
 tit? 
 [2 12 
 
 to 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 5S 
 
 
 
 
 Ha Ha 
 
 t?t? , 
 
 
 Ha 
 
 l->H 
 
 «■ 
 
 i-s 1 
 
 1-3 l-S 
 
 
 ni-5 
 
 
 nK 
 
 i-=Hi-5 
 
 1-5 1-53 
 
 
 -1^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ••!><' 
 
 
 >< 
 
 
 ■■!>^' 
 
 
 ■■>< 
 
 ••X 
 
 
 ••X 
 
 
 ^M 
 
 EH 
 
 ><! 
 
 
 &Ht<! 
 
 E-< 
 
 M 
 
 
 ax 
 
 
 Eh fx^ 
 
 ^X 
 
 
 &|><1 
 
 
 aa 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 g^q 
 
 ^ 
 
 t:i 
 
 
 §13 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 Sh^ 
 
 
 SS 
 
 09 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 t- 
 
 00 
 
 
 OS 
 
 •g 
 
 r 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 i-t 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 ■g 
 
 
 s' 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 jd 
 
 
 
 JJ 
 
 
 -d 
 
 ja 
 
 
 ji 
 
 o 
 
 
 oq 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 o> 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 iH 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 •«:» 
 
 lO 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 l-l 1-4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 b"? 
 
 
 
 PM 
 
 "a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— t h' 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 (9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 ^.-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :3 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -♦a 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rji 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_^ 
 
 "g" 
 
 fi 
 
 CO 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5j 
 SI 
 
 .s 
 
 P4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-H 
 
 <D 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 -*3 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 Oi 
 
 :3. 
 
 T^ 
 
 
 
 1-t 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 'T^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pa 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 -♦3 
 
 
 
 p4 
 
 
 0» 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 a" 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 (S 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 *" 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 CM 
 
 «■ 
 
 (M 
 
 cq 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 Ha 1-8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hfi) 
 
 
 N|3Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nl^ 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 Hsl-S 
 
 Hl-aM 
 t-a h^ 
 
 Ha ha 
 l-al-a 
 
 l-af-» 
 l-al-a 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 l-al-s 
 h-al-» 
 
 fit? 
 
 l-al-a 
 HaH 
 
 w 
 
 i 
 
 •43 
 
 CO 
 
 l^|x| 
 
 i-ai-s 
 
 
 1^1^ 
 
 l-al-a 
 
 
 l-» 
 
 H 
 
 l-aha 
 
 
 l-a 
 
 ^>< 
 
 ••X 
 
 
 ••« 
 
 ■•i^' 
 
 
 ■■Yi 
 
 ■•X 
 
 ..f^' 
 
 
 ••« 
 
 %ix 
 
 ^M 
 
 
 ^« 
 
 Hjx! 
 
 
 E-i« 
 
 ^X 
 
 E^M 
 
 
 E^><! 
 
 sS 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 S3 
 
 ^!3 
 
 
 sS 
 
 sS 
 
 SS 
 
 
 s3 
 
 
 
 
 OT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 i-i 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 00 
 
 m 
 
 
 FN 
 
 cq 
 
 oq 
 
 
 of 
 
 7" 
 
 
 n 
 
 Y 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 T 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 IN 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 oi 
 
 
 s 
 
 t~ 
 
 CX) 
 
 
 o> 
 
 o 
 
 
 iH 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 
 '* 
 
 i-f 
 
 rH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 <M 
 
 
 o» 
 
 « 
 
 tM 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 .'— ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 cq 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 M ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >h' 
 
 
 
 
 >s! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cq 
 
 
 
 
 Si- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 ■a J. 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 il-S I 
 m|^ r 
 
 •rH O -f3 ^^ 
 
 03 .S s " 
 
 :S« ° -^ 
 
 *»'"', O 
 
 "^fi: ''^ 
 
 <D -CJS CO 
 
 ij| i 
 
 g CS S . M 
 
 2 -^ -*^ -t^ 
 
 <D bo fl .^ pJCl 
 
 -4— -t-fWWr^ = 
 
 3 
 
46 
 
 THE PEEICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 ,5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 pQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 •w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 *+ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 P< 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m a> 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO '^ 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 in 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oq * 
 
 
 » 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 IH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -J— 
 
 HH 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 l^eq 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 0} 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^13 
 
 1 
 
 HIS! 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 1-»S 
 
 
 -|3 
 
 HH 
 
 B^ 
 
 
 1-3 1-3 
 
 gg 
 
 CO 
 
 1 s 
 
 13 
 
 l-jl-= 
 
 
 .^ — ' — . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 't 
 
 
 
 ■•X 
 
 "M 
 
 ••M 
 
 ••X 
 
 ••X 
 
 ■•X 
 
 ••X 
 
 ■•X 
 
 ''B 
 
 ^X 
 
 
 E-ilx! 
 
 ^M 
 
 EHt<l 
 
 EHX 
 
 EH!x| 
 
 EH><j 
 
 ax 
 
 EHIxJ 
 
 o 
 
 EjX 
 
 
 Slq 
 
 ShJ 
 
 gs 
 
 sl3 
 
 Sh^ 
 
 ^3 
 
 sa 
 
 ss 
 
 !zi 
 
 sl3 
 
 a 
 
 ■a 
 
 f 
 
 OS 
 
 5? 
 
 * 
 
 2h 
 
 7 
 
 i 
 
 CO 
 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 ■4S 
 
 [3 
 
 « 
 
 =' 
 
 I 
 
 
 A 
 
 J 
 
 »' 
 
 o! 
 
 ji 
 
 ,d 
 
 o 
 
 
 S 
 
 m 
 
 § 
 
 " 
 
 55 
 
 CO 
 
 s? 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 lO 
 
 CD 
 
 t- 
 
 GO 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 CI 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 (M 
 
 cq 
 
 (M 
 
 (M 
 
 <M 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rT^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■— ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 .5 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 
 
 (H 1 
 CO 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tS 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ® 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -*» 
 
 
 
 .«3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -M 
 
 
 
 -*a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 w 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 ■43 
 
 09 
 
 
 1 H 
 
 1-3 1-0 
 
 l-af-a 
 fit? 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 H 
 
 +3 
 
 W3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 *> 
 
 .. 
 
 .. 
 
 ••« 
 
 ■■X 
 
 ■•« 
 
 ••>^ 
 
 •■« 
 
 ••« 
 
 !3 
 
 ••tx! 
 
 •■« 
 
 ^X 
 
 lj« 
 
 EjX 
 
 £|« 
 
 ^x 
 
 Ej« 
 
 
 
 EjM 
 
 ijM 
 
 1^3 
 
 1^13 
 
 1^2 
 
 s3 
 
 %^ 
 
 Bk^I 
 
 !zi 
 
 i^S 
 
 SS 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 R 
 
 Is 
 
 m 
 
 tH 
 
 & 
 
 & 
 
 00 
 
 « 
 
 g 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 'i*! 
 
 % 
 
 n 
 
 ^ 
 
 OD 
 
 ? 
 
 A 
 
 
 >d 
 
 
 S 
 
 cq 
 
 CO 
 
 ?« 
 
 «5 
 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 o 
 
 
 -<* 
 
 •<* 
 
 •* 
 
 ■* 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 ^ 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 C5 
 
 
 
 i-( 
 
 eq 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 •* 
 
 ■* 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^0^ 
 
 
 
 xy 
 
 
 
 
 X4 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-l 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 t* 
 
 
 
 ■<»< 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 >o 
 
 s 
 
 (ii 
 
 3 
 
 P< 
 
 .£) 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 
 ;§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 DS 
 
 
 
 "3^ 
 
 
 
 T) 
 
 
 a> 
 
 .■ 
 
 CO 
 
 ° a 
 HO 
 
48 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 irreconcilable and sometimes unaccountable 
 discrepancies. A good many of his generaliza- 
 tions appear to be simply loose and inaccurate. 
 The number of "mixed" Sedarim is not 9 but 
 18; "mindestens ein nin' = Kvpiog" (p. 92) being 
 enough to constitute a mixed section. It is not 
 true (p. 93) of Seder 26 that elsewhere than xxviii. 
 13a, 16 we have 'n = 6 0£oc, for there are two 
 Js (xxviii. 20, 21) for the originality of which 
 in the LXX Dahse has expressly argued (see 
 above). The statement on p. 94 that Par. VI, 
 has " at the beginning purely J passages, and at 
 the end three more," if true, would be fatal to 
 the theory, and is contradicted on the next page ; 
 as a matter of fact the Parasha ends with two 
 Es. In S. 16 it is not only the last, but the last 
 two, names that are E in the MT. Ss. 17, 18, 19, 
 even apart from " specially motived passages," 
 were not purely Elohistic in the LXX (see J in 
 xxi. 16, xxi. 2, xxi. 4 ?, xxi. 6 ?) ; and even if they 
 had been they would have been none the less 
 " mixed " by the presence of " motived " Js, and 
 there would have been nothing to prevent MT 
 from regularly changing E to J. S. 10 has two 
 Js (xiii. 4, 18), not " only one," as stated on p. 95. 
 S. 23 is Yahwistic (p. 95) in MT, but not entirely so 
 in the older (?) LXX form (xxv. 216). S. 35 contains 
 two Es ; therefore is not Yahwistic (ibid.). — Other 
 statements are justified only by operations on the 
 text which seem to me doubtful and arbitrary. 
 S. 12 is brought under the theory (p. 92) by no 
 fewer than four changes of the text (xv. 2, 4, 
 8, 18), all precarious, and the last seemingly in 
 opposition to what Dahse has himself said on 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 49 
 
 p. 41. Similarly S. 13 is manipulated not only 
 by the change of J to E in xvi. 11 (for which 
 as the earliest Septuagint reading there is a 
 good deal to be said), but also by neglecting (nicht 
 angefiihrt !) " fiinfmal ayyeXoe Kvptov " (p. 92), for 
 which there is no real justification (see below). 
 Chap, xviii. (S. 15) is excluded from the mixed 
 Sedarim by twice changing B to J, on very 
 weak evidence, amounting in the case of xviii. 
 1, even in Dahse's estimate, only to a " vielleicht " 
 or a " wohl." Pars. VIII and XII are classed 
 as Elohistic (p. 94) by explaining away the two 
 Js (xxxii. 9 (10), xlix. 18) through the rule that 
 " sacrifices, prayers and praises are offered only 
 to Yahwe, not to Blohim " (p. 96), which again is 
 an unreal restriction (see below). Indeed, the 
 variety of motives assigned for the retention of 
 J by the LXX in particular cases is such as to 
 discount heavily the value of a theory which 
 requires to appeal to them all. And lastly it is 
 an absolute non sequitur to argue (p. 93) that 
 because there are " mixed " sections in the MT 
 as well as in the LXX, therefore all the mixed 
 Sedarim of the LXX must have been mixed in 
 the Hebrew basis of that version. I do not 
 profess to know all that Dahse may have had 
 in his mind in writing these pages (92-95) ; but 
 taking the statements as they stand I find them 
 utterly untrustworthy and misleading. Probably 
 few wUl take the trouble to check them in detail 
 as I have done ; but having done so I repeat 
 that to the best of my judgment the facts are 
 as I have given them above, and at any rate 
 not as stated by Dahse. And I might fairly 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 5 
 
50 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 decline to debate a question on fundamental 
 data which I conceive to be wrongly reported. 
 
 It is needless, then, to discuss minutely whether 
 Dahse's theory fits the facts tabulated above; 
 it manifestly does not. But I will point out one 
 or two things. Taking first the recension sup- 
 posed to lie behind the LXX, in the 14 " unmixed " 
 Sedarim the rule is observed that the LXX has 
 made no change on the original, and so far the 
 theory may be said to be vindicated. Yes, but 
 only on the assumption that here the original text 
 has been preserved by the Hebrew ; otherwise we 
 cannot tell what havoc the LXX may have made 
 of sections originally mixed. Again, in the 
 " mixed " Sedarim, it is true that there are only 
 two (19 and 26) which do not either begin or end 
 with J, and of these two it may be said that the 
 first or last J of the original has been retained. 
 I w^ill not absolutely deny that there may be evi- 
 dence of design here (though I greatly doubt it) ; 
 but even if it be so it is quite as explicable on the 
 supposition that the LXX is dependent on the 
 MT as on the reverse assumption. I fear this is 
 the only triumph that Dahse can claim for his 
 hypothesis. In all other respects it is plain as 
 day, from the synopsis above, that the treatment 
 of the mixed Sedarim is governed by no principle 
 whatever, unless it be the negative principle of 
 making as few mistakes as possible. 
 
 Coming next to the alleged Massoretic recen- 
 sion, we find it encumbered with still greater 
 difficulties. What is conceived to have taken place 
 is a Yahwistic redaction, confined to mixed 
 Sedarim, and applied to these only under peculiar 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 51 
 
 conditions. It is of course possible to represent 
 that the uniform use of J in six out of the eighteen 
 originally mixed Sedarim (Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 23, 34) 
 is due to an operation of this kind ; but what of 
 the remaining twelve ? Dahse tells us that we 
 are not to look for the alteration except in " EIo- 
 himstellen die mitten zwischen Yahweabschnitten 
 lagen" (p. 94). The language is studiously am- 
 biguous. What is a Stelle ? what is an Abschnitt? 
 If Abschnitten means Sedarim, the absence of the 
 redaction in the majority of mixed Sedarim would 
 no doubt be explained ; but then the operation 
 ought not to have been performed in any one of 
 the six just enumerated. If, on the other hand, 
 Yahweabschnitten are sections beginning or ending 
 with an isolated J, the conversion of Nos. 10, 12 
 and 13 {not 15, 23 or 34) would be accounted for, 
 but its absence in other instances (e.g. Nos, 14, 17, 
 29) becomes inexplicable. Again, if Elohinistellen 
 means (as apparently it must) individual occur- 
 rences of B within the Seder, the rule will be 
 found to be frequently violated on both sides 
 (Nos. 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 35) ; and it rarely 
 makes any difference to the working of the theory 
 what position the names occupy in the Seder, or 
 the Seder in the Parasha. It would seem, in fact, 
 that the Parasha-division could only affect the 
 treatment of the opening and closing Sedarim of 
 the Parasha ; of these it could never be said that 
 they stand " mitten zwischen " J-sections. Now 
 that consideration would have prevented the 
 redaction in S. 34 ; and there are only three other 
 cases (Nos. 14, 29, 43) in which it could have had 
 any influence on such an editorial process as is 
 
52 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 here imagined. It is time to ask whether it be 
 really conceivable that any man or body of men 
 should have been governed by the whimsical 
 notions attributed to the Massoretic editors. We 
 could understand a systematic alteration of E to J 
 throughout the Pentateuch ; we could even under- 
 stand such an operation being restricted to mixed 
 Sedarim ; but a Yahwistic redaction which refused 
 to touch a mixed section unless it was flanked on 
 both sides by the Tetragrammaton is too remote 
 from the normal practical working of the human 
 mind to be received as a credible explanation of 
 the distribution of the divine names in the Hebrew 
 text, even if it could show a much closer corre- 
 spondence with the facts than is actually the case. 
 I submit then that no case has been made out for 
 a Yahwistic redaction of the basis of the LXX by 
 Hebrew editors governed by a regard to the Para- 
 shas. If there had been a redaction at all, the 
 facts would be much more naturally explained by 
 a tendency to assimilate isolated occurrences of E 
 to the Js on either side of them, than by the com- 
 plex system elaborated by Dahse. And finally one 
 would like to know why the MT is to be accepted 
 as having preserved the original in the " unmixed " 
 Sedarim, and to be regarded as secondary in the 
 "mixed." Does not this amount to assuming 
 that it is to be trusted when it tells in favour 
 of the hypothesis, and discredited when it makes 
 against it ? * 
 
 * Even Dahse's own theory, untenable though it is shown 
 to be, works out in a manner eminently favourable to the 
 MT. For in the first place it involves the admission, as 
 we have seen, that in all unmixed Sedarim the MT has 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 53 
 
 We have not by any means exhausted the list 
 of vaguely arbitrary statements for which Dahse 
 makes himself responsible. I propose to folio-w- 
 him point by point through his analysis of Parasha 
 VII (p. 95 ff.), which seems to have caused him 
 more difficulty than any other in chaps. xii.-l. 
 It extends from ch. xxviii. 10 to xxxii. 3, and 
 includes Sedarim 26-29. He commences with 
 what seems the irrelevant remark that no one 
 has yet noticed how this Parasha begins and ends 
 " artificially " with the " angels of God " (xxviii. 
 12 ; xxxii. 1). This statement is not quite correct. 
 The last phrase is not in xxxii. 1, but in xxxii. 3, 
 and it is not DTha ''3N^D but 'x n:na- Wherein the 
 artificiality of the commencement and ending 
 consists, and how the theory is affected by it, 
 does not appear. — In xxviii. 13 he rejects the 
 second J (with the LXX) as an interpolation in 
 the Hebrew text. It makes no difference to the 
 argument whether it be rejected or retained. 
 But it is read not only by Hexaplaric MSS. of 
 the LXX, and by the Sahidic and Ethiopic ver- 
 sions, but also (in place of 6 flsoe) by the Old Latin ; 
 so that it has a good claim to be regarded as the 
 original reading of the LXX. We cannot, in view 
 of xxvi. 24, say that the sense demands it ; but 
 at least the sense is better with it than without.— 
 In xxviii. 20 I have already admitted the force 
 
 preserved the original names. Further it implies that in 
 mixed sections every J of the LXX must have stood in the 
 original text, so that where MT and LXX agree in reading J. 
 the MT is again true to the original. These two maxims 
 between them account for about 126 names out of 216. 
 Why should we suspect the soundness of the MT in the 
 remaining 90 cases ? 
 
54 THE PERIOOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 of his contention that J is the original reading 
 (LXX, Kvpioc 6 Osoc or Kvpiog).—We come next to 
 xxix. 31, 32, 33, 35. Dahse allows that in all four 
 instances J is the oldest attested LXX reading 
 (as MT), but says he has already shown that in 
 the first three crhtt or ^k is the original. Of w. 
 31 and 33 I can discover no previous discussion, 
 and I see no reason for going behind the common 
 tradition of MT and LXX. On v. 32 he has argued 
 that the real form of the name of Jacob's eldest 
 son Reuben (baiNi) "proves that nin' cannot be 
 original." I hope to deal with that type of 
 argument in another connection, and will only 
 say here that it rests on a complete misconception. 
 It is true, however, that the Peshitta here reads 
 Elohim, and to that no answer can be made 
 except that the Peshitta is much younger than 
 the original LXX, and that a reading of that 
 version unsupported by Greek evidence is no 
 sufficient reason for questioning the soundness of 
 the MT.* In ■;;. 35 he allows that J is the true 
 text, but on the inadequate and erroneous ground 
 that it speaks of the " praise " of Yahwe, and 
 that " one offers sacrifice, prayer and praise only 
 to Yahwe, not to Elohim" (but see xx. 17, cf. 
 xxii. 8, xxvii. 28). — Again, we have differences in 
 XXX. 24, 27, 30. In v. 24 the textual evidence for 
 E (against MT) is stronger than usual (LXX, 
 Aquila, Symmachus, Peshitta) ; on the other hand 
 all Hebrew MSS. and Sam. have J, so that the 
 
 * On p. 27 we find the statement that xxii. 11, 15 are 
 the only cases where a J of MT, rendered by E in Pesh., 
 is translated by icvpioQ in the LXX. Dahse must have been 
 nodding here. 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHBSIS 55 
 
 external evidence is by no means decisive against 
 MT. We will leave it at that in the meantime, 
 and return to the passage in another connexion 
 (p. 185 f). In V. 27 the LXX is supported by the 
 Peshitta alone ; but Dahse adds the purely sub- 
 jective consideration that Laban would not be 
 likely to speak of the blessing of Yahwe ! Why 
 not ? He does that very thing in xxiv. 31, where 
 there is no dispute as to the text, and where (the 
 Seder being " unmixed ") J must, on Dahse's own 
 theory, be regarded as original. In v. 30 he 
 accepts J as original. — Lastly, on xxxi. 3-xxxii. 3 
 he declines to discuss xxxi. 49 because of the 
 notorious corruptions of the text. — He adds the 
 general remark that after " name " and " angel," 
 Yahwe is always represented in LXX by Kvpiov. 
 The former statement is true, but has no bearing 
 on Par. VII, where the expression does not occur. 
 The latter is incorrect (see Num. xxii. 22-35 pass.), 
 and in any case it is clear from Gen. vi. 2, xxi. 
 17, xxxi. 11 that the LXX cannot have had any 
 aversion to substituting B for J in this connexion. 
 But let us adopt all these suggested amendments, 
 and see how far the result bears out Dahse's 
 theory. We have to distinguish three stages of 
 the text : the original Hebrew ; the original LXX 
 (which proves to be almost identical with our 
 present LXX) ; and the Massoretic text. We get 
 the following scheme : — 
 
 Seder 26 (xxviii. 10-xxix. 30) Orig. EJ-J E JJE 
 
 LXX EJ-J E JJE 
 MT EJJJEEJE 
 27 (xxix. 31-xxx. 21) Orig. BBEJEEEEEE 
 LXX JJJJEBEBBE 
 MT JJJJEBEBBE 
 
56 THE PEEICOPE^HYPOTHESIS 
 
 Seder 28 (xxx. 22.-xxxi. 2) Orig. BEBEBJ 
 
 TjX.^ EdBjiaEiEjJ 
 MT BEBJJJ 
 29 (xxxi. 3-xxxii. 3) Orig. JEB ?EBBBE ? ?EB 
 LXX JBEJBEBBEB?EE 
 MT JEEBEBBE-JBBE 
 
 Compare this with Dahse's summary (p. 96) : — 
 
 " Seder 26 is Blohistic, only the 1st (and connected there- 
 with the 3rd) name is J ; 
 27 Beginning (xxix. 31 ff.) Yahwistic, then Blo- 
 histic ; 
 , , 28 Blohistic, the last name (xxx. 30) Yahwistic ; 
 ,, 29 Beginning (xxxi. 3) Yahwistic, then Blo- 
 histic." 
 
 It would seem that Dahse's generalizations 
 are as wide of the mark as ever, and that after 
 all these adjustments of the text he has come 
 no nearer to a proof of his hypothesis. We note 
 in particular (1) that the MT exhibits the 
 tendency to substitute J for E only in three 
 passages at most (xxx. 24, 27, xxxi. 49), while in 
 two (xxviii. 20, xxxi. 11) it changes J to E, and 
 in one (xxviii. 136) it supplies J for a blank in 
 the LXX. (2) That the LXX, in violation of its 
 alleged principle, has three times changed an 
 original E into J (xxix. 31, 32, 33). (3) That 
 the characterization of a Seder as " anfangs 
 jahwistisch, dann elohistisch " is merely a device 
 to save the theory by breaking up a mixed Seder 
 into two unmixed sections. It holds good of S. 
 27 only after the LXX redaction, and therefore 
 cannot be appealed to in explanation of the 
 perfectly arbitrary treatment of the divine names 
 
THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 57 
 
 in the LXX of this section. Further comment 
 is superfluous. 
 
 I refrain, for the reason already given, from 
 following Dahse through his discussion of the 
 first eleven chapters. It is besides quite un- 
 necessary to do so ; for if the theory breaks down 
 (as I believe I have proved that it does) as 
 regards chaps. xii.-l., it fails entirely. I wiU now 
 ask the reader to dismiss it from his mind and 
 to look once more at the tables given above 
 to see what light they shed on the relations 
 between the LXX and the Massoretic text. It 
 will be found that in 23 out of the 35 Sedarim 
 there is perfect agreement between the two 
 texts ; that in 6 there is only one divergence ; 
 in four there are 2 ; and only in two are there 
 so many as 3 and 5 respectively. In all, the 
 divergences number 22 if we exclude cases where 
 a name in one text stands for a blank in the 
 other, or 30 if we include such cases. The total 
 number of occurrences of Yahwe and Elohim in 
 these 39 chapters is 216 in one text and 219 in 
 the other. Here I venture to reaffirm the 
 opinion expressed by me in the International 
 Critical Commentary on Genesis (p. xxxv), that 
 that proportion of differences (from one-tenth 
 to one-seventh of the whole) is not so great as 
 to invalidate any critical conclusions properly 
 deduced from the Massoretic text by itself ; and 
 further, that the variations are quite adequately 
 explained as accidental aberrations of the LXX, 
 usually in the substitution of 6 diog for Kvpioc, 
 but occasionally in the opposite direction. Let 
 us only conceive (what the solid agreement of 
 
58 THE PERICOPE-HYPOTHESIS 
 
 the Hebrew and Samaritan — differing, it will be 
 remembered, only in some eight or nine cases — 
 fully justifies us in assuming) that the MT has 
 preserved the original names with substantial 
 fidelity, and that the LXX is dependent upon 
 it,* and I think that any one not obsessed by a 
 predilection for fine-spun theories and circui- 
 tous solutions will perceive that the facts are 
 suificiently accounted for in this simple way, 
 as they certainly are not by the arbitrary and 
 unintelligible pericope-hypothesis with which this 
 chapter has dealt. It is really carrying a prejudice 
 in favour of the LXX too far to throw the 
 whole textual tradition into the melting-pot, and 
 then to bring out "this calf." I am not now 
 discussing the merits of the documentary theory ; 
 my concern is with the Massoretic text. But one 
 remark may be made : whatever may be urged 
 against the documentary theory of the Penta- 
 teuch, it cannot be said that on textual grounds 
 it is demonstrably false. I believe I have shown 
 that the pericope-theory of Dahse may be so 
 characterized. 
 
 * But see p. 240. 
 
Ill 
 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 IN support of his contention that the divine 
 names are a variable element in the textual 
 tradition, Dahse naturally attaches great import- 
 ance to various recensions of the Greek and 
 Hebrew text which he claims to have discovered, 
 and in which he thinks the names were deliber- 
 ately altered under the influence of certain recog- 
 nizable tendencies. Two such recensions we have 
 already had before us : one the assumed Hebrew 
 basis of the LXX, whose existence I have 
 shown to be highly problematical,* and the 
 other the Massoretic text itself. To these he 
 now adds two more, which he identifies first 
 of all in the Greek text of two groups of MSS. of 
 the LXX. If he had stopped short at this point 
 it would hardly have been necessary to examine 
 his argument very minutely. But he endeavours 
 to prove that each of these groups " goes back " 
 to a recension of the Hebrew text, which may 
 have an authority equal to, or even greater than, 
 the Massoretic recension ; and that is a position 
 which evidently requires very careful considera- 
 tion. In order to put the reader abreast of 
 
 * See pp. 50 and 239, 
 
60 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 the discussion, I will again commence with 
 some explanatory observations. 
 
 1. The word "recension," as used by Dahse, 
 is somewhat ambiguous. In its strict sense it 
 denotes a text established by a systematic revision 
 according to certain critical principles consciously 
 adopted and applied by the editor. Three such 
 recensions of the LXX are known to have been 
 produced in the end of the third and beginning 
 of the fourth century, by Origen, Lucian and 
 Hesychius. Of these the most important and the 
 best understood is that of Origen (the Hexapla). 
 Its character, and the critical lines on which its 
 author proceeded, are sufficiently known from 
 statements of Origen himself, of Jerome and of 
 other patristic writers ; and its text is preserved 
 in a number of codices which can be recognized 
 as Hexaplaric by unmistakable external indica- 
 tions. As to the Lucianic and Hesychian recen- 
 sions there is no reliable tradition beyond the 
 bare facts that they existed, and that at one 
 time they circulated in specified geographical 
 areas. Their text has been lost sight of in the 
 general stream of MS. transmission, and can only 
 be recovered by investigations which are amongst 
 the most delicate and precarious processes of LXX 
 criticism ; while the principles that guided their 
 editors are matter for conjecture based on the 
 characteristics of the text thus provisionally 
 ascertained. It is true that some progress has 
 been made in the identification of a certain type 
 of MS. text as Lucianic for a limited number of 
 Old Testament books; but as regards the Hesy- 
 chian recension only the most tentative steps have 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 61 
 
 as yet been taken towards the recognition and 
 characterization of its text. Now the recensions 
 to which Dahse here introduces us stand on an 
 entirely different footing. They are hypothetical 
 recensions, about which we have no historical 
 information, their existence being merely inferred 
 from the typical textual features observed in 
 particular groups of Greek MSS. No exception 
 need be taken to the use of the term " recension " 
 for a typical text of this kind, provided the pro- 
 blematical character of the revision be clearly 
 kept in view. It must be understood that the 
 discovery of a family likeness in a MS. group 
 does not warrant the inference that we have to 
 do with a recension of the same kind as, say, 
 that of Origen. All that we are entitled to 
 conclude is that the MSS. in question have trans- 
 mitted the peculiarities of some earlier single 
 codex (called the " archetype " of the group) which 
 may itself have perished. Whether the archetype 
 embodied a deliberate revision of the text, or 
 whether its distinctive readings were merely 
 accidental, is a separate question, which can 
 only be answered, if it can be answered at all, 
 by a demonstration that the text has been treated 
 in accordance with definite canons, implying 
 a conscious purpose of revision. That demon- 
 stration, as regards the divine names, Dahse of 
 course attempts to give ; but it is clear that he 
 has failed to grasp the significance of the distinc- 
 tion which I have just pointed out. In previous 
 publications * he has sought to identify his two 
 
 * Zeitschrift fiir die alttest. Wissenschaft, 1908, pp. 18 
 ff., 164. 
 
62 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 recensions, egj and fir (see below), with those 
 respectively of Hesychius and Lucian ; and he 
 still holds to this opinion* in spite of weighty 
 arguments to the contrary advanced by Hautsch f 
 a,nd others. It is an arguable position. But 
 there is a curious argument on p. 153 (cf. p. 113) 
 of the work before us which shows how little he 
 is prepared to realize the possibility of a wide 
 difference between his recensions and the three 
 great historical recensions of which we have 
 knowledge. It had been urged against his iden- 
 tifications that fir is more likely to represent the 
 Hesychian recension than the Lucianic. To this 
 Dahse replies pertinently enough that the 
 Armenian version, which cannot be supposed to 
 have any connexion with Hesychius, has frequent 
 agreements with fir. The instructive thing, how- 
 ever, is that he regards this as a confirmation 
 of his view that fir is Lucianic. He is blind to 
 the possibility that it may be something different 
 from both, and much less important than either. 
 When a scholar like Dahse deals with the affilia- 
 tion of LXX MSS. his opinion is that of an expert, 
 and it might be presumptuous for me to question 
 it. Nevertheless it is the truth that, while his 
 grouping of the MSS. has been accepted by other 
 workers in the same field, his identifications of 
 the groups with the historical recensions have 
 met with no support. Professor G. F. Moore, of 
 Andover, who speaks on this subject with an 
 
 * Ibid., 1910, p. 281 ff. 
 
 t Mitteilungen des Sepl.-Untemehmens. I, Der Lukian- 
 text des Oktateuch, p. 4 f. Oomp. Moore, AmeHcan Journal 
 ofSem. Literature, October, 1912, p. 37 ff. 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 63 
 
 authority second to that of no living scholar, 
 says in the article referred to above that Dahse 
 "has attempted a classification of the codices 
 in Genesis on a very slender basis, and the 
 identification of his groups on a stiU slenderer 
 one." * 
 
 2. In the second place, it is obvious that the 
 establishment of internal Septuagintal recensions, 
 of however comprehensive a character, does not 
 bring us any nearer a proof of the variability of 
 the divine names in the general transmission of 
 the text. It may prove that certain editors of the 
 LXX manipulated the names with great freedom ; 
 but that only tends to weaken confidence in the 
 LXX text as a whole, w^ithout affecting the 
 stability of the Hebrew tradition which has 
 hitherto been all but universally accepted by 
 commentators and critics of all schools. It is 
 therefore essential to Dahse's argument to show 
 that behind the Greek recensions postulated by 
 him there lie corresponding recensions of the 
 Hebrew text, in which the divine names were 
 already handled with the same freedom and on 
 the same principles as are revealed by the families 
 of Greek MSS. which are supposed to reflect 
 
 * On this quotation Dahse remarks (Reply, p. 493) that 
 Moore "did not consider that the value and the grouping 
 of the MSS. in Genesis is totally different from that in 
 Judges." I presume that here "did not consider that" 
 means "has not taken into consideration the fact that." 
 That is for Professor Moore to say ; but I fail to see 
 how the retort meets the point of his criticism, which is 
 that Dahse has built his conclusions on a too narroT7 
 foundation. On the whole of the above paragraph, see 
 below, p. 246 f. 
 
64 EECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 their characteristics. That step also Dahse takes 
 with full assurance. But it is a step on which 
 a judgment may be formed by any one with a 
 competent knowledge of the textual history of 
 the Old Testament, even if he lack the technical 
 training acquired in the minute comparison of 
 LXX MSS. 
 
 These, then, are the two points on which atten- 
 tion must be mainly concentrated in what now 
 follows : (1) We must inquire whether there is 
 sufficient evidence that the hypothetical Greek 
 recensions observe recognizable principles in their 
 treatment of the divine names ; and (2) we must 
 efxamine very carefully the reasons assigned for 
 postulating a Hebrew recension behind the 
 Greek. We approach these questions with an 
 open mind, though perhaps with more circum- 
 spection than Dahse thinks called for in the 
 circumstances. 
 
 But before coming to that, we must look at 
 a very valuable chapter of the book, in which 
 Dahse discusses the influence on the divine names 
 of Origen's Hexapla — a recension about which, 
 as we have seen, there is nothing hypothetical, 
 but one whose importance for the study of the 
 LXX text can hardly be overrated. 
 
 1. The Hexapla of Origen. 
 
 The importance of the Hexapla depends mainly 
 on two facts. In the first place, its influence on 
 the current text of the LXX has been very 
 pervasive. All our extant Greek MSS. are of 
 later date than the time of Origen; and there 
 are few of them, if any, that have wholly escaped 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 65 
 
 the impress of his recension. Some of the most 
 important codices are distinctly Hexaplaric, and 
 most others, even when their fundamental text 
 is different from the Hexapla, exhibit traces of 
 its peculiar readings. But secondly, it is known 
 that the aim and tendency of Origen's critical 
 work was to assimilate the Greek text to the 
 Massoretic. He did not, indeed, wish to lower 
 the authority of the LXX, which was the accepted 
 canon of the Christian Church in his time ; but 
 he sought to indicate the " Hebrew verity " in a 
 way that would be intelligible to a student of 
 his recension. Accordingly, where the LXX 
 differed from the Hebrew he did not venture 
 as a rule on a simple alteration of the Greek ; 
 but he gained his end by the use of two critical 
 signs : one (the obelus -7-) to mark a word or phrase 
 in the LXX which was not in the Hebrew, and 
 the other (the asterisk *) to signify an addition 
 made by himself to bring it into harmony with 
 the Hebrew. When the LXX differed from the 
 Hebrew, not by a simple plus or minus, but by 
 having a variant text, Origen did not follow any 
 consistent rule, but sometimes he used both 
 asterisk and obelus to show that one phrase was 
 to be deleted and the other substituted for it : 
 that is, if one wished to read according to the 
 Hebrew. Thus, to take a simple illustration 
 from the divine names : if Origen found in the 
 LXX 6 deog where the Hebrew had Kvpiog he 
 would obelise 6 Oeog and insert Kvpiog with the 
 asterisk, thus: * Kvpio^^^b BmqA,* showing at 
 
 * The sign X (metobelus) marks the end of the passage 
 governed by the previous sign. 
 The Divine Name* in Qmeaia. Q 
 
66 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 a glance what the exact reading of each text 
 was. Now there is a large number of MSS. which 
 Dahse happily designates " crypto-hexaplaric," in 
 which the text of the Hexapla is preserved, but 
 the signs are omitted : hence the reading * Kvpiog 
 -7-b QtoQ appears in them as the compound name 
 KvpioQ 6 Bboc- And that is only a particular 
 example of a process of accommodation which 
 has affected the transmission of the LXX text 
 to an indefinite extent; and through the far- 
 spread influence of the Hexapla has introduced 
 into the MSS. a degree of conformity to the 
 Hebrew which has greatly obscured the original 
 character of that version.* There is thus a 
 certain danger that owing to the influence of 
 the Hexapla the ordinary text of the LXX may 
 exhibit, in its use of the divine names, a closer 
 agreement with the MT than the earlier LXX did. 
 Now on this point I have found a perusal of 
 Dahse's chapter immensely reassuring. He dis- 
 
 * It may be mentioned in passing that Dahse tries to 
 show that the Hebrew used by Origen differed in one or 
 two instances from our Massoretic text. If the difference 
 could be proved in several cases, it would certainly be an 
 important fact ; but it would not prove that Origen's Hebrew 
 text was independent of the Massoretic. It might only 
 jnean that he relied on a carelessly written t MS. of that 
 text. That he followed a 7-ecension different from the 
 Massoretic, or even a text materially at variance with it, 
 is a position which I do not think any authority on the LXX 
 would maintain. 
 
 tl leave the expression "carelessly written" because 
 Dahse in his Reply (p. 492) makes it the object of sarcastic 
 remark. It would have been better to say "divergent." 
 See p. 77 f. below, 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 67 
 
 cusses in all about forty-four readings out of 
 some 320 divine names in Genesis. In the great 
 majority of cases the Hexaplaric influence appears 
 in the conflate reading Kvpiog 6 deog which is 
 found in different MS. groups. Dahse clearly 
 shows that in several instances this reading arises 
 through copying the Hexapla with omission of 
 the critical signs, in the way illustrated above; 
 and of course in all such cases the presumption 
 is that the name which differs from the MT 
 represents the original LXX. If we may assume 
 that the examination is fairly exhaustive of the 
 traces of Origen's work in the divine names (and 
 I see no reason to suppose otherwise) the influence 
 of the Hexapla has been much more restricted 
 than might have been expected. But we can 
 go much further than this. After all, it is of 
 little interest to us in the present controversy 
 to know that the effect of Origen's work can be 
 traced in this or that MS. or group of MSS., 
 or in this or that secondary version. The 
 real practical question is how far it has affected 
 what may be called the standard text of the 
 LXX, as represented say by the Cambridge 
 Septuagint, which always follows the best avail- 
 able uncial. Not, be it observed, because that 
 uncial is necessarily the best witness to the 
 original text of the LXX ; but because the edition 
 affords a convenient standard of primary refer- 
 ence in all comparisons of the various types of 
 text. Or, coming nearer home, the question is 
 whether the statistics given in the synopsis in the 
 last chapter are vitiated by uncertainty as to the 
 extent to which the readings there adopted have 
 
68 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 been assimilated to the MT through Hexaplaric in- 
 fluence. And here Dahse's results are still more 
 reassuring. He examines only twenty-four read- 
 ings * in chaps. xii.-L, and in sixteen cases he 
 decides in accordance with the standard LXX. 
 Only in seven or at most eight cases does he 
 prefer another reading: viz., in xiii. 4 (?), xv. 4, xvi. 
 11, xviii. 1, xviii. 14, xxi. 4, xxiv. 40 (?), xxvii. 20. 
 I am bound to say deliberately that in my opinion 
 the reasons given for the preference are in every 
 instance (except xvi. 11) of negligible value ; but 
 even if we accept them all the difference is in- 
 appreciable. Moreover the eight passages were 
 all noted in the third line (or in the footnotes) 
 of the tables in the article referred to. It would 
 appear, therefore, that no misgiving need be 
 entertained as to the possible effect of the 
 Hexapla in invalidating the argument already 
 advanced against the pericope-hypothesis. With 
 that satisfactory finding our present interest in 
 the Hexapla of Origen ceases. 
 
 2. The Recension egj. 
 
 We come now to a group of MSS., bearing 
 evidence of descent from a common archetype, 
 which Dahse identifies with the Hesychian recen- 
 sion. The leading representatives of the group are 
 three cursives, dating from the tenth to the four- 
 teenth century, whose symbols in the apparatus of 
 the Cambridge LXX are the letters e, g and j. The 
 
 * xii. 17 ; xiii. 4, 10, 13, 14 ; xv. 4, 7 ; xviii. 1, 14 ; xix. 
 16b,c ; XX. 11 ; xxi. 2, 4, 6 ; xxiv. 40 ; xxv. 216 ; xxvii. 2(1 
 xxix. 31, 32, 33 ; xxx. 30 ; xxxviii. lb, 10a. 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 69 
 
 main stock of the recensions, we are told, is ej ; g 
 frequently parting company with these two. But 
 there is also a considerable number of MSS., more 
 or less closely affiliated with the group, which can 
 be used by an expert critic to ascertain the dis- 
 tinctive readings of the lost archetype. With 
 regard to these, and the general character of the 
 recension, we get no information in the volume 
 before us ; but are referred to an earlier paper of 
 Dahse's in the Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche 
 Wissenschaft for 1908 (p. 13 ff.). It will be seen 
 how impossible it is for any one who has not 
 minutely worked over the whole ground to control 
 or verify the readings assigned by Dahse to this 
 recension, and I frankly confess my inability to do 
 so. For my present purpose it will be sufficient if 
 I accept provisionally his determination of the text 
 of the recension. Needless to say, however, I am 
 not prepared to extend even a provisional con- 
 fidence to all the conclusions which he deduces 
 from the data I shall assume him to have estab- 
 lished. 
 
 1. Let us inquire, then, in the first place, what 
 are the characteristic tendencies of the recension 
 in regard to the use of the divine names. We 
 read (p. 107) that in our recension the tendency is 
 observable " to use only one and the same name 
 for God in one section." Two readings (iv. 5 
 and vi. 3) are expressly excluded on account of 
 their uncertainty ; and then we get lists of cases 
 where (1) Kvpiog 6 diog, (2) Kvpiog and (3) 6 0eoe occur 
 in accordance with this principle of assimilation. 
 (1) Kvpiog 6 Osog is quoted as characteristic of the 
 recension in ten passages: iii. lb, iii. 11, iv. 13, 
 
70 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 vi. 13, vi. 22, ix. 17, x. 9a, x. 96, xiii. 4, xvi. 7. But 
 in iv. 13, vi. 13, vi. 22, x. 9a, b, xvi. 7 the double 
 name is the reading of the general text of the 
 LXX (in iv. 13, vi. 13, x. 96, xiii. 4, perhaps vi. 22, 
 it seems clearly Hexaplaric), so that from these 
 instances nothing can be inferred as to the special 
 tendencies of egj. Hence there remain only three 
 clear cases (iii. 16, iii. 11, ix. 17) to support Dahse's 
 sweeping generalization. Then what is meant by 
 a "section" (Abschnitt)? It cannot be a Seder, 
 for in Seder 2 (ii. 4-iii. 21) 6 0£oc occurs no fewer 
 than six times in our recension (ii. 46, ii. 9, ii. 19, 
 ii. 21, iii. 3, iii. 5), while Dahse himself only cites 
 two cases of Kvpio^ 6 Otog (iii. 16, 11) as character- 
 istic of it. In Seder 3 (iii. 22-iv. 26) against one 
 case cited (and that not distinctive) of Kvpiog 6 Oeoc 
 (iv. 13) we have 6 Oeoq five times (iv. 1, iv. 4, 
 iv. 10, iv. 16, iv. 25) and Kvpiog once (iv. 3). We 
 need proceed no further on that trail. Perhaps 
 Dahse's real meaning is better expressed by the 
 vaguer phrase " in the same context " (p. 107). 
 He says (p. 106) that " between vi. 12 and vii. 1 
 6 deog never occurs alone in ej, but only Kvpiog 6 
 dtog." Considering that between vi. 12 and vii. 1 
 the divine name occurs only twice (vi. 13, 22), and 
 that in vi. 22 Kvpiog 6 Seog is the common reading 
 of the LXX (as also in vi. 12, vii. 1), it does not 
 seem a very impressive exhibition of consistency 
 that once (vi. 13) ej, following the Hexapla, reads 
 the double name. Again, "a solitary Kvpiog 
 appears in the group only once (iv. 3) in the first 
 ten chapters of Genesis." And how often does 
 the reader imagine that (6) Kvpiog occurs alone in 
 these ten chapters in the standard text of the 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 71 
 
 LXX ? Just three times (iv. 3, iv. 13, x. 96),* and 
 in the last two of these the double name is 
 probably Hexaplaric, and is at any rate the most 
 prevalent LXX reading. So much for Kvpio^ 6 fltoc- 
 We are invited further to find illustrations of the 
 tendency (2) in the Kvpioc of xii. 17, xix. 29a, 6, and 
 (3) in the 6 Otog of viii. 20, xv. 4, xx. 18. (2) It 
 is true that in xii. 17 the group changes 6 Osog 
 into Kvpiog between two readings of Kvpioc (xii. 8 
 and xiii. 4) and similarly in xix. 296 ; but in xix. 
 29a the Kvpiog is common to all MSS. of the LXX 
 except 9 (E omits). In this last case the change 
 does bring about a uniform use of Kvpiog through- 
 out a whole Seder ; but apart from xix. 296 the 
 uniformity exists already in the LXX : in xii. 17 
 no such consistency results, 6 Oeoq remaining in 
 xiii. 10a, 6, 13, 14. (3) On viii. 20, we read (p. 104), 
 "the MT after three times D^nSs" (viii. la, 16, 15) 
 has in v. 20 nin% which our group changes to 6 0£oc-" 
 True, but "our group" in viii. 15 has not 6 deog but 
 (in common with the entire LXX except one MS.) 
 Kvpiog 6 0£oe, which breaks the sequence. In xv. 4 
 Dahse holds, on the evidence of six cursives and 
 the Old Latin, that no name stood after fwvri in 
 the original LXX, that Kvpiov was inserted by the 
 Hexapla (in spite of the fact that rov 9tov is read 
 by two daughter versions of the LXX, the 
 Armenian and Sahidic.t of which the former is 
 strongly Hexaplaric), while egj with others insert 
 
 * Dahse (p. 38) omits iv. 13, but adds viii. 20. The truth is 
 that both in iv. 13 and viii. 20 the reading is very vreakly 
 attested. See the Note on o Kvpioc readings at the close of this 
 section. 
 
 t Not the Etliiopic, as Dahse says. 
 
72 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Tov daoii. If we accept his view the name corre- 
 sponds with the two which follow (6 Otot;) and differs 
 from the three which precede {Kvpiog) : we see that 
 whichever name was inserted it could not fail to 
 agree with either the one or the other. In xx. 18 
 Kvpioc is changed to 6 Osoq in harmony with all 
 the other names of Sed. 17. To the same effect we 
 read (p. 104 f.) that in ix. 17 " members of our 
 group have Kvpiog 6 Osog following the double name 
 in ix. 13, just as in iii. 11 between iii. 10 and iii. 
 13, and vi. 13, 22 between vi. 12 and vii. 1." This 
 is true (but on vi. 13, 22 see above) ; but the next 
 statement is misleading ; " in xi. 5 begins in it (the 
 recension) the continuous appearance of the 
 solitary Kvptog." In the very next verse (xi. 6) ej 
 have Kvpioi 6 Otog ; and although with that excep- 
 tion the reading Kvpiog is continuous to the end of 
 Sed. 8 and throughout Sed. 9, the recension simply 
 follows the main current of the LXX text.* 
 
 Dahse further calls attention to the fact that 
 the group has important readings in v. 29, xx. 4, 
 xxvi. 29, xxviii. 20, xviii. 27, xxxii. 9. In v. 29 its 
 peculiarity is the addition of Tifiwv to the KvpioQ 6 
 Oeoc of the ordinary LXX, and I do not know in 
 what its importance consists. In xx. 4 for the 'jns 
 of the MT the recension has Kvpu 6 deog, which 
 Dahse very arbitrarily holds to imply a double 
 name ^nx nin' or mn' <31N f in the original, xxvi. 29 
 
 * xi. 8, 9a, 9b ; xii. 1, 4, 7a, 76, 8a, 8&. 
 
 t In XV. 2, 8 the rendering of nin* »31X is HtriroTa Kvpu, 
 or (with insignificant exceptions) liavoTa alone. In xv. 2 
 the Kvpie is marked as a Hexaplaric insertion. And why it 
 should be necessary to postulate the double name as Hebrew 
 basis of Kc 6 Oq in this solitary instance (xx. 4) passes 
 comprehension. 
 
RECENSIONS OP THE SEPTUAGINT 73 
 
 should have been mentioned as a glaring exception 
 to the general tendency of the recension, inasmuch 
 as it breaks a long sequence of Kvpiog by a solitary 
 6 OeoQ : its supposed importance lies in the fact 
 that in the speech of a heathen king, Abimelech, 
 eg] substitute Elohim for Yahwe of the MT and 
 LXX. In xxviii. 20 the group preserves the Kvpioc; 
 (see above, pp. 42, 53 f.) which Dahse regards as 
 the reading of the original LXX (MT Elohim: 
 LXX Kvpiog 6 Otog). In xviii. 27 it omits (in 
 common with the great majority of LXX MSS.) 
 after rbv Kvpiov a fiov which is read by the Bohairic 
 and Sahidic versions and eight cursives. Dahse 
 infers that it represents not 'ilK (MT) but nin' in 
 the Hebrew. If so, must we not conclude that 
 the main text of the LXX does the same ? 
 Finally in xxxii. 9 the recension adds 6 0eoc to the 
 Kvpii (MT nini) of the ordinary LXX, to which how- 
 ever the MSS. present variants Kvpit 6 9s6g /lov, 
 6 0EOC, and others. It should be stated that in 
 XX. 4, xxviii. 20, xviii. 27 (also iii. 16, vi. 13 (?), 
 xviii. 31, xix. 29) there are variants in Hebrew 
 MSS. which are thought to enhance the sig- 
 nificance of our recension. To this subject we 
 shall return presently. 
 
 It is difficult to form a clear judgment on these 
 conflicting phenomena as evidencing a special 
 tendency of the recension egj. In order to do so 
 we should have first of all to isolate the group 
 from the common text of the LXX, and then 
 to understand how the influence of the Hexapla, 
 which Dahse expressly emphasizes, was brought 
 to bear on the recension ; and in neither 
 direction is Dahse's work helpful. I will state 
 
74 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 only two impressions. (1) It seems fair to say 
 that this recension goes a little, but only a little, 
 beyond the ordinary LXX in assimilating a name 
 to those in the immediate context. I can recog- 
 nize this leaning in at most seven passages (x. 
 96, xii. 17, XV. 4, xviii. 27, xix. 296, xx. 18, xxviii. 
 206) ; but the opposite also occurs (xi. 6, xviii. 
 20, xxvi. 29). Here the question arises whether 
 these instances are sufficient to prove deliberate 
 purpose on the part of the author of the recen- 
 sion. It seems to me that they are adequately 
 explained as unconscious adaptations to the 
 nearest divine names. One cannot help wonder- 
 ing whether Dahse has ever considered this 
 possibility. (2) The peculiarities of the recension 
 in the use of the divine names are entirely 
 explicable on the supposition that it originated 
 within the sphere of the Greek text. In other 
 words, apart from agreements with Hebrew 
 MSS. (which we have yet to consider), there 
 is nothing whatever to suggest that the 
 changes are determined by reference to a 
 Hebrew original different from that which lay 
 behind the LXX. I do not admit that the 
 addition of /xov is a criterion for 'jiN as distinct 
 from nin» in the Hebrew (xviii. 27, xviii. 31) : it 
 can be naturally accounted for as an inner- 
 Greek insertion suggested by the invariably 
 vocative use of the word,* and in any case 
 
 * The ten cases (lilN in xviii. 3, 27, 30, 31, 32 ; xix. 2 
 (pi.) ; xix. 18 ; xx. 4 : nin> 'JIK in xv. 2, 8), where ''ilH 
 occurs in MT, are all literally or virtually vocatives ; and 
 the IJ.OV is never found in the prevalent text of the LXX. 
 But it occurs four times in Boh. and Sah. (xviii. 3, 27, 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 75 
 
 xviii. 27 would be the only instance of the kind 
 where egj agrees with Hebrew MSS. against 
 the MT. 
 
 2. This brings us to the most important 
 question of the supposed Hebrew basis of the 
 recension egj. As we have seen, the proof of 
 this is sought in agreements of the recension 
 with a group of Hebrew MSS. With the general 
 subject of variants in Hebrew MSS. I shall 
 deal more fully in the next chapter : here it is 
 only necessary to consider the coincidences 
 between egj and the particular MSS. which are 
 said to support it. 
 
 We may start from xx. 4, where nine MSS. 
 of Kennicott (9, 81, 132, 150, 152, 199, 227, 239, 
 601) and five of De Rossi (419, 455, 507, 766, 
 primo 248) read nin' instead of MT 'JiN. Now 
 it is certainly a most unusual thing to find a 
 nest of Hebrew variants like this to any 
 Massoretic reading of the divine name in 
 Genesis. But it must be observed that it is 
 just in the case of mn' || *J1K that variations 
 in Hebrew MSS. most frequently occur. The 
 reason is not far to seek, 'jnx and nin'' were 
 pronounced alike by later Jews (Adonay), and 
 the scribe, whether writing from dictation or 
 (according to a copyists' rule) pronouncing each 
 word before setting it down, very readily con- 
 
 31 ; xix. 2) ; twice in Eth. (xviii. 3 ; xix. 18) ; and four 
 times in a few cursives other than egj (xviii. 27, 31 ; 
 xix. 2, 18). Dahse may of course maintain either (a) that 
 the original LXX read nin' in all these places, or (6) that 
 the fiov is original and has dropped otit of the current 
 text ; but neither view is probable. 
 
76 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 fused the two names in writing. But curiously 
 enough in xx. 4 the MSS. cited do not support 
 egj, for ej read Kvpts 6 0eoc,* which, according to 
 Dahse, implies an original nin' ':iN or "'iia nin% 
 while g (with all other MSS.) reads Kvpu. That 
 is not a very promising beginning for the 
 theory of a Hebrew basis. But we must 
 inquire further whether these nine MSS. of 
 Kennicott form a true "group," as Dahse says 
 they most assuredly do. The presence of nine 
 men in a tavern on one occasion is scarcely pre- 
 sumptive evidence of a conspiracy, though if 
 they are frequently found in company the 
 suspicions of the law may be aroused. Now (1), 
 so far as Dahse's tables inform us, no two 
 of these nine MSS. are ever found together 
 again leagued against the MT except in xv. 2, 
 where 150, 152 read d'h^k nin', for MT nin* *3lN,t 
 and in xviii. 31, where 227, 239 read nin* for 
 ^3nx ; and in neither case does egj support them. 
 (2) Only two of them ever support egj even 
 singly against MT anywhere : viz., 132 in iii. 1&, 
 xviii. 27, and 199 in xix. 29a. j (3) Over against 
 
 * See footnote, p. 72. 
 
 t Observe again that both these phrases were pro- 
 nounced alike : Adonay Elohim. 
 
 I I exclude vi. 13 because I do not believe it is a 
 genuine case. K152 there reads W'TVH ni, and Dahse, 
 following "Wiener, takes the first word to be shortened 
 form of nini : this would agree with the icvpioQ 6 dtoc of 
 ej. I have not seen the MS., but I have little doubt 
 that the ni is a copyist's error : the scribe had begun 
 to write nin\ but after forming two letters he noticed 
 that the right word was D'nPN, which accordingly he 
 wrote without removing the traces of his mistake. A 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 77 
 
 these three coincidences of egj with this 
 alleged group of Hebrew MSS. against MT, there 
 are about thirty cases * where e(g)j differ from 
 MT without any support from the group, and 
 except in xxviii. 20& without any Hebrew sup- 
 port at all. If that be sufficient to prove 
 that a recension "goes back" to a Hebrew 
 original, textual criticism ceases to be an exact 
 science. 
 
 There are some other matters that require clear- 
 ing up. What is meant when it is said (p. 107) 
 that the recension " goes back ' to a Hebrew 
 original? Dahse cannot possibly mean that it 
 is a fresh translation from the original, though 
 his words might convey that impression to an 
 uninstructed reader, t All that can be intended 
 is surely a correction of the Greek text by com- 
 parison with the Hebrew recension in question, and 
 we have seen how slight is the evidence that any 
 such comparison was ever made. But supposing 
 for the sake of argument that it did take place, 
 a single Hebrew MS. would suffice for the pur- 
 pose, and it is unlikely that the reviser will 
 have used more. We should, therefore, in the 
 assumed case have a parallel to what we have 
 conceded as possible in the case of Origen's 
 Hexapla : viz., the use of a MS. representing the 
 
 similar confusion in K109 (on oh. xviii. 27) will be con- 
 sidered in the next chapter. 
 
 * iii. 11, iv. 13, V. 29, vi. 13, vi. 22, viii. 20, ix. 17, x. 
 9a, X. 9b, xi. 6, xiii. 4, xv. 4, xvi. 7, xviii. 13, xviii. 20, xviii. 
 22, xviii. 26, xix. 16a, xix. 296, xx. 8 [xx. 18], xxi. la, 
 xxi. 2, xxi. 4, xxi. 6, xxvi. 24a, xxvi. 29, xxviii. 206, xxxii. 
 10. In XX. 18 ej agree with Sam. 
 
 t See p. 243. 
 
78 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Massoretic recension, but containing variations 
 (such as virtually all MSS. contain) which might 
 be either superior or inferior to our pre- 
 sent Massoretic text. There is no occasion to 
 call in the theory of an independent Hebrew 
 recension. 
 
 Another point to be noticed is that on p. 107 
 Dahse puts this recension egj between the original 
 of the LXX and the MT, implying that the 
 hypothetical Hebrew basis of egj is older than the 
 latter. But if it be older than the MT it must 
 represent a distribution of the divine names older 
 than the Samaritan Pentateuch ; and the first 
 literary trace of it is in Greek codices of the tenth 
 century. What likelihood is there that an 
 unoificial recension should have retained its 
 characteristic features in a recognizable degree 
 of purity through twelve centuries of transmission 
 in Hebrew and Greek MSS., especially in so 
 variable an element of the text as Dahse supposes 
 the divine names to be? 
 
 3. The Recension fir. 
 
 These three MSS., assigned respectively to the 
 15th, the 11th, and the 13th century, form the 
 " groundstock " of a recension which, as we have 
 seen, Dahse identifies with that of Lucian. We 
 have also seen that this identification is considered 
 by other scholars to rest on very precarious 
 grounds. In the chapter now before us Dahse 
 seeks to prove that the group represents an 
 "Elohistic edition of Genesis" (p. 114); and we 
 have to try and see how far that description is 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 79 
 
 appropriate. The statistics given below* are 
 based on Dahse's examination, and are at least 
 approximately correct. It will be seen that in 
 about half the passages examined the recension 
 agrees with the common reading of the LXX. 
 Although we must not assume in argument that 
 the prevalent form of the LXX is older than the 
 recension, it is at the same time impossible to 
 investigate the peculiarities of a particular 
 recension otherwise than by comparison with the 
 general characteristics of the LXX ; and until 
 these have been finally ascertained we must use 
 some standard of reference, such as the Cambridge 
 edition. Bearing this in mind, we find that 
 though the recension does show a very decided 
 preference of 6 fltoe to Kvpiog, it shows a still 
 greater partiality for Kvptog 6 Otoe over KvpioQ and 
 
 * In the cases in which Dahse comes to a definite con- 
 clusion the recension reads : — 
 
 
 In 
 
 agree- 
 ment 
 with 
 LXX 
 
 For 
 Kvpioe 
 
 For 
 6 daog 
 
 For 
 
 KVplOQ 
 
 + 
 
 — 
 
 1. u Osoe 27 times, viz. 
 
 2. KvpioQ 44 ,, ,, 
 
 3. Kvpiog BioQ 45 ,, ,, 
 
 14 
 35 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 28 
 
 1 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 lis 
 
 56 
 
 37 10 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 The MSS. of the recension are frequently at variance, and 
 even Dahse has often to confess himself uncertain what name 
 really belongs to it. That he is invariably right when he 
 expresses no hesitation is probably more than he himself 
 would claim. 
 
80 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 even over 6 dtog. Thus while Kvpiog 6 6i6g is only 
 three times changed to 6 flsoc and never to Kvpiog, 
 it is tvirenty -eight times substituted for Kvpiog and 
 nine times for 6 Otog. Further, though Kvpiog is 
 nine times changed to 6 6e6g and twenty-eight 
 times to Kvpiog 6 dtog, in thirty-five cases it is 
 allowed to stand. These facts are a serious set 
 back to Dahse's theory of an Elohistic recension. 
 It is of no avail to point out, as Dahse does, that 
 in five passages the retention of Kvpiog is explained 
 by its occurring at the end (xviii. 33, xxvii. 27) or 
 beginning (xxxviii. 7, xlix. 18) of a Seder, or (xxi. 
 6) at the end of a pericope in an ancient Christian 
 lectionary (!) ; or again, that in some half-dozen 
 instances it follows " angel " or " name " : there 
 are thirty-five to be accounted for. If finally it 
 be alleged that the predominance of Kvpiog 6 flsoc 
 is itself evidence of an elohistic tendency (6 6s6g 
 being added to an original Kvpiog), we have to ask 
 why Kvpiog, though changed to 6 Osog in nine cases, 
 is nevertheless retained alone in no fewer than 
 thirty-five, and further how it comes about that 
 Kvpiog 6 Biog appears nine times in place of 6 deog. 
 It seems clear that no principle is consistently 
 followed by the author of the recension in his 
 use of the divine names, or, if there be, that Dahse 
 has not detected it. So far as the interchanges 
 of 6 Oaog and Kvpiog are concerned, the facts could 
 be adequately explained by the natural predilec- 
 tion of Greek writers for 6 6s6g being carried 
 somewhat further in this case than in the main 
 text of the LXX. But it must be admitted that 
 the preference for Kvpiog 6 flsoc cannot be satisfac- 
 torily accounted for in this way. It might no 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 81 
 
 doubt have come in through conflation at a later 
 stage of the text than the recension fir ; and if so, 
 it seems impossible with our present knowledge 
 to determine which component was found in that 
 recension.* 
 
 The grounds on which Dahse postulates a 
 Hebrew basis for the recension fir in its use of 
 the divine names are as unconvincing as could 
 well be imagined. In the first place, he points to 
 a single agreement with K650 in xlii. 5. It is true 
 that Kennicott cites 650H as reading nn "ilK'^ for the 
 Massoretic ilC5'^ ; and similarly fir read (with the 
 Sahidic version) ayopaZttv mrov for the bare ayopaZtiv 
 of the LXX. But na latJ''? occurs immediately 
 before in v. 3, and there also the atrov appears in 
 all LXX codices. It would not have been very 
 wonderful if one Greek and one Hebrew copyist 
 had both supplied the accusative from the pre- 
 ceding context without collusion or interdepen- 
 dence. And even if dependence of the one on 
 the other were probable, would that be sufiicient 
 evidence for the existence of a whole Hebrew 
 
 * Dahse (p. 114) promises a fuller discussion of the Kvpwe 
 v deoe readings in a further volume of his textual studies. 
 Meanwhile he appears to hold to the opinion, based on a 
 doubtful interpretation of a statement of Jacob of Edessa, 
 that it was the practice of Lucian (the supposed author of 
 our recension) to combine the marginal reading of the divine 
 names with that of the text of the MSS. which he followed. 
 In that case there would have been over sixty readings to 
 which he found no margin ; and we are left with thirteen 
 absolute substitutions of one name for another which are 
 only explicable by the tendency of Greek scribes spoken of 
 above. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that 
 either text or margin lepresented a Hebrew original. 
 
 The Divine Name» in 6feiie»is. 7 
 
82 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 recension in which the divine names were treated 
 on different principles from the MT? But it is 
 really wasting time to speculate about such prob- 
 abilities ; for the fact is that K650 is not a MS. 
 at all, but a printed edition, and that not of the 
 Pentateuch but of the Talmud ! (see Kennicott, 
 Dissertatio generalis, p. 108). The reading has no 
 value whatever; it is simply one of those cases 
 of inexact citation from memory which abound 
 in the Talmud, and for which there is no reason 
 to assume any MS. authority. But in the second 
 place, Dahse asserts that " the Elohistic tendency 
 has had regard to the Sedarim-division, while the 
 author of the recension ignores this." It is difficult 
 to apprehend so very refined a distinction. It 
 would appear to be Dahse's view that in fir we 
 have to do with a double recension : first a recen- 
 sion of the Hebrew text, in which some attention 
 was paid to the Sedarim-division, and then a Greek 
 recension in which the Sedarim were ignored. 
 How does he manage to accomplish such an extra- 
 ordinarily subtle critical operation? (a) As an indi- 
 cation of regard to the Seder-division he has pointed 
 out the occurrence of a Kvpiog ticice at the begin- 
 ning and twice at the end of a Seder. We have 
 seen already how little importance can be attached 
 to that observation. But even supposing it to be 
 significant, does it prove the existence of a Hebrew 
 original ? Were we not given to understand at 
 an earlier stage of the argument that in Dahse's 
 opinion a regard to the Sedarim was characteristic 
 of the original LXX as a whole ? How then can 
 he tell that the text which the "author of the 
 recension " had before him was anything but h 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 83 
 
 Greek MS. of the LXX? (6) How does he know 
 that the " author of the (Greek) recension " dis- 
 regarded the Seder-division ? He says that when 
 the reviser supplies out of his own head a name 
 not found in his oi'iginal (vii. 23, xviii. 19c, xxii. 9, 
 xxvi. 25a) he is careless what name he chooses, 
 and thus betrays indifference to the prevalent 
 usage of the section before him. Again, I am 
 unable to perceive in that any ground for believing 
 that his original was in Hebrew. But whether 
 it was Hebrew or Greek, so long as it was a 
 recension independent both of the MT and the 
 original LXX, who is to tell us that in the pas- 
 sages cited the names were not found, but were 
 supplied by the second reviser? We know what 
 names were in the MT and in the current LXX ; 
 and in all the four passages here referred to * 
 these two texts agree in having no divine name at 
 all. But as to what names were or were not in a 
 speculative Hebrew recension of which not a trace 
 has survived, Dahse can have no knowledge what- 
 soever. There is no conceivable reason why the 
 alleged recensional additions should not have been 
 made to the Greek text of the LXX ; and the 
 whole argument merely shows on how frail a 
 foundation Dahse builds his imposing but unsub- 
 
 * We might add iii. 24, xx. 8, xxviii. 136, 20a. Dahse 
 also instances vi. 14 (p. 108) ; but that must be a mistake : 
 there is no name in that verse. It detracts considerably 
 from the form of Dahse's generalissation when we observe 
 that fir goes its own way only in vii. 23, xviii. 19a. In 
 iii. 24 it agrees with (practically) the entire LXX, in xx. 8 
 with c(g)j, in xxii. 9 with b al., in xxvi. 25 with Edpt al., in 
 xxviii. 13 with the Hex., and in xxviii. 20 with dp. 
 
84 RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 stantial theory of Hebrew recensions diifering 
 from the Massoretic text.* "It is true, in general," 
 writes Professor Torrey, of Yale, " of the modern 
 use of the Greek Bible for text-critical purposes, 
 that recourse is had far too often to the hypothesis 
 of divergent Hebrew texts, while there is far too 
 little appreciation of the extent to which the 
 Greek texts themselves have been corrupted in 
 transmission." t Certainly in Dahse's critical 
 practice we see that tendency carried to most 
 unwarranted extremes. I 
 
 * For a further discussion of these two recensions, see 
 p. 246 ff. ; and Note IV, p. 271. 
 
 t Ezra Studies, p. 109. 
 
 t Note on the o Kvptoe readings — The name nin' is ordin- 
 arily rendered in LXX by Kvptoc without the article. In 
 nearly a score of instances, however, we find o kvoioc ; and 
 the question suggests itself whether the distinction has any 
 significance. In regard to three cases (iv. 3, 13 ; viii. 20) 
 Dahse (p. 38 f.) offers the explanation that o Kupioc is used 
 to signify that ' ' in matters of cultus one addressed oneself 
 not to any Blohim indifferently, but to Yahwe." That is an 
 echo of Eerdmans' theory of a polytheistic phase of the 
 Genesis legends, of which Dahse makes a somewhat unfor- 
 tunate application. He appears to overlook the fact that the 
 presence or absence of the article is a peculiarly Greek 
 feature which has no expression in Hebrew, and therefore 
 must be traced to the translators or later copyists. But the 
 translators of the LXX were far removed from the stage of 
 thought at which it might have been necessary to guard 
 against a polytheistic sense of Elohim. Dahse does not 
 inquire whether the principle holds good in all or most of the 
 other cases ; nevertheless his general idea has some justi- 
 fication in actual usage. The facts are these : (a) 6 kq is 
 used for 'ilN twice (xviii. 27, 31) : now in all other instances 
 of *nN it is represented by a vocative ; hence we may say 
 that 6 If is the regular equivalent of 'DIN wherever the art. 
 
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 85 
 
 is admissible. (6) For nin», o kq stands in iv. 3, 13, viii. 20, 
 xii. 8a, xiii. 4, 18, xvi. 2, xviii. 17, 33, xxiv. 16, 48a, 52, 
 xxviii. 13a, xxxix. 23a. Of these iv. 13, xviii. 33 (and 
 perhaps viii. 20) may be set aside as insufficiently attested, 
 but as illustrating a tendency they are here reckoned. Of 
 the fourteen cases no fewer than nine (iv. 3, iv. 13, viii. 20, 
 xii. 8a, xiii. 4, 18, xxiv. 26, 48, 52) refer to acts of worship ; 
 and we may add xxii. 9, where a few authorities supply 
 rw Kft> after "altar." On the other hand there are many 
 references to worship (e.g., xii. 86 I), where o kc is not used. 
 The result can hardly be set down to chance ; although at the 
 same time the element of chance appears in the five cases 
 above, which have nothing to do with worship (xvi. 2, 
 xviii. 17, 33, xxviii. 13, xxxix. 23), as well as in several 
 variants which are not included. — Dahse does not point out 
 that a slight tendency to favour o kq is observable in egj. 
 The fact goes to show that that recension is not based on 
 a Hebrew original.— See Note V, p. 273. 
 
IV 
 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 IT has already become apparent that the dis- 
 cussion in which we are engaged involves a 
 conflict between two diametrically opposite points 
 of view. Dahse, bringing to the investigation the 
 prepossessions natural to a student of the LXX, 
 is profoundly impressed with the instability of 
 the textual tradition as regards the transmission 
 of the divine names. In the LXX, fluctuation is 
 indeed a conspicuous feature of the apparatus 
 criticus; and it is perhaps true to say that in 
 the Greek Pentateuch no element of the text is 
 so liable to variation as the names for God. But 
 Dahse seems to realize, more clearly than other 
 writers of his school, that the diversity of the 
 Greek text does not go far to prove the unre- 
 liability of the names as a whole, unless he can 
 succeed somehow in drawing the Hebrew tradition 
 into the vortex of confusion which exists in MSS. 
 of the LXX. Hence he has laboured to show in 
 the first place that the peculiarities of the Greek 
 version are due not to accident or caprice, but 
 to systematic alterations governed by a regard 
 to the divisions of the Synagogue lectionary ; and 
 secondly, that its variations are based in part on 
 different Hebrew recensions, which are entitled 
 
 66 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 87 
 
 to quite as much consideration as the standard 
 Massoretic recension. These positions of his have 
 been examined at some length in the two pre- 
 ceding chapters, where I venture to think I have 
 shown that he is wrong all the time. If the 
 arguments there adduced are conclusive, we might 
 almost at this point wash our hands of the LXX 
 altogether. It might safely be left, with its multi- 
 formity of text, in Dahse's hands to make what 
 he can of it; and whether he discover a method 
 in its madness or not is henceforth of very little 
 consequence to us. It is purely a matter of the 
 internal condition of the Greek text, which in 
 np degree affects the question of the stability and 
 trustworthiness of the Hebrew tradition. 
 
 The view represented in this volume, on the 
 contrary, is that the divine nanies are a remark- 
 ably stable element of the text. It is fair to 
 admit that this impression rests in the first in- 
 stance on the solidarity of the Hebrew text, 
 although it is decidedly confirmed when we take 
 into account the evidence of all versions other 
 than the LXX. No one contends that the Hebrew 
 text enjoys perfect immunity from error, or that 
 it preserves with unfailing accuracy the names 
 as they occurred in the original autographs of 
 the sources of Genesis. The possibility of error 
 in the Hebrew text must be recognized ; all that 
 is necessary for the justification of the critical 
 use of that text as a guide to the separation of 
 documents is evidence that the range of error is 
 restricted within such narrow limits that it cannot 
 seriously affect conclusions based on the assump- 
 tion that the MT is correct, "We shall see at 
 
88 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 a later stage that the versions, always excepting 
 the LXX, difPer so little from the MT as to con- 
 firm the impression that the divine names have 
 been transmitted with peculiar fidelity. We may 
 not be sure in regard to each particular name 
 that it stands as it did in the primary document ; 
 but we may nevertheless find reason to believe 
 that this must be the case in a sufficient number 
 of instances to furnish a sound basis of induction, 
 and to form the starting-point for a documentary 
 theory of the Pentateuch. It will be the chief 
 object of the remainder of my argument to 
 uphold the thesis that in the MT we have a 
 recension of the divine names which possesses this 
 character of stability in a remarkable degree, one 
 which has undergone no material variation for 
 more than two thousand years, and which there- 
 fore may fairly claim to represent, at least approxi- 
 mately, the names that stood in the original 
 Genesis, or in the documents of which it was 
 composed. The direct vindication of this position 
 must, from the nature of the case, follow two 
 lines of argument. We cannot hope to reach an 
 absolute demonstration that the Hebrew text 
 never varied in its transmission of the names of 
 God, or that in the unknown earlier stages of 
 its history it possessed the rigid uniformity which 
 is observed in its more recent development. But 
 (1) we can show that the evidence adduced by 
 Dahse and others in proof of its variability is of 
 no value, because it ignores the fundamental 
 canons of Massoretic criticism; and (2) we can 
 point to facts which give a reasonable assurance 
 that the present distribution of the divine names 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 89 
 
 goes back in the main to a time not very much 
 later than the final redaction and canonization 
 of the Pentateuch. In the first line of proof we 
 are concerned with the evidence of Hebrew MSS. ; 
 in the second with the problem of the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 1. Hehreio Manuscnpts. 
 
 The received text of the Hebrew Bible lies 
 before us in a considerable number of printed 
 editions, and in some two thousand extant MSS. 
 of the Old Testament in whole or in parts. All 
 these exhibit substantially one and the same text. 
 As regards the divine names of the Pentateuch, 
 I do not know whether in the printed editions 
 there are any variations at all. In the extant 
 codices occasional variations do certainly occur ; 
 and it is the importance of these that we have 
 now to consider. It is the unscholarly practice 
 of writers like Wiener and Schlogl, unfortunately 
 followed by Dahse, that while reproaching the 
 higher critics for their neglect of MS. evidence, 
 they cite MS. variants indiscriminately, without 
 apparently having taken the least pains to inform 
 themselves (and certainly no pains at all to in- 
 form their readers) of the date and value of the 
 codices in question, and without even considering 
 the proportion of difPerences to agreements which 
 are found amongst them as compared with the 
 standard text. Now, in point of fact, there is 
 some excuse for disregarding Hebrew MSS. en- 
 tirely ; but there is none for arguing as if one 
 , MS. were as good as another, or as if a single 
 variant in one or two MSS. were enough of itself 
 
90 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 to throw doubt on the soundness of the received 
 text. To make this clear it is necessary to explain 
 at some length certain facts about the history of 
 the Hebrew text which are constantly overlooked 
 by the class of writers to whom Dahse adheres. 
 
 1. How, it may be asked, can it ever be right, 
 or even excusable, to ignore the evidence of ac- 
 cessible manuscripts ? A general answer to that 
 question might be that the MSS. vary so slightly, 
 and in such unimportant minutiae, that it is hardly 
 worth while, except in special cases, to consult 
 them or to investigate their differences. But that 
 is not the main reason for assigning a relatively 
 small importance to the variants found in codices 
 of the Hebrew text. 
 
 (1) The leading fact is that for the last eighteen 
 centuries at least there has existed a recognized 
 standard text, which has been the norm by which 
 the correctness of all MSS. has been judged. Of 
 course the standard text is represented only by 
 MSS. and (since the fifteenth century) in printed 
 editions ; but the consensus of MSS. does not 
 constitute its sole or chief authority. Its trans- 
 mission has been carefully guarded by a succession 
 of official custodians, at first by the Sopherim or 
 scribes, and later by those known as the Mas- 
 soretes ; and these authorities have sought to 
 regulate it and maintain its purity, not merely 
 by extreme care in the copying of MSS., but still 
 more by the invention of the elaborate system 
 of rules and observations which is called the 
 Massora (= "tradition"). Many of these observa- 
 tions go back to a remote antiquity (some prob- 
 ably to pre-Christian times) ; most of them perhaps 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 91 
 
 date from the flourishing period of the Massoretes, 
 from about the sixth to the tenth century ; but 
 the development and expansion of the system 
 was not arrested till the introduction of printing 
 towards the end of the fifteenth century. That 
 the scheme was not entirely successful appears 
 in the fact that in spite of it slight differences 
 do occur in MSS. ; that it was very nearly success- 
 ful is shown by their surprising unanimity. The 
 result is that in countless cases we know quite 
 certainly, apart from MSS. altogether, what was 
 the text which was deemed correct by the authori- 
 tative exponents of the Jewish textual tradition ; 
 and since extant MSS. are all of later date than 
 the great age of the Massora, we can be sure 
 that where any MS. violates a Massoretic in- 
 junction it goes against the best Jewish pro- 
 fessional opinion, and is therefore presumably a 
 clerical mistake. Now this standard text, guar- 
 anteed by the Massora, is represented with 
 substantial fidelity, and in the case of the divine 
 names with perfect fidelity, in all printed Hebrew 
 Bibles ; so that whatever edition the student 
 happens to use he may feel a practical certainty 
 that he has before him the divine names in the 
 most authoritative form of the Hebrew text which 
 we can now by any possibility attain.* 
 
 * In illustration of the bearing of the Massora on the use 
 of the divine names I may here instance two rules which 
 Dahse quotes on p. 11, and which in his opinion should have 
 prevented me from writing as I did in a brief note on the 
 occurrences of Hin' 'JIN {ICC. p. 278). The first is, " In the 
 Pentateuch and the Hagiog^rapha the reading is always nin'' 
 O'ln^N, only in 8 cases nin' 'jnN " (Genesis xv. 2, 8 ; Deuter- 
 onomy iii. 24, ix. 26 ; Psalms Ixix. 7, Ixxi. 5, 26, Ixxiii. 28). 
 
92 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 (2) This standard text has existed in several 
 forms which by courtesy are called " recensions," 
 although their almost imperceptible divergences 
 scarcely entitle them to that designation. First 
 of all, nearest to our own time, we have the two 
 divergent " recensions " of Ben Asher and Ben 
 Naphtali, dating from the tenth century, the 
 former of which is followed almost exclusively 
 by European MSS. and in the printed editions. 
 These, however, differ only in the vowels and 
 accents, and agree in the consonantal text. Some- 
 w^hat more important is the older rivalry between 
 the Eastern (Babylonian) and Western (Palestinian 
 
 The other is, "In the Prophets nin' 'JIK is always to be 
 written except in five passages, where the reading is mn'' 
 D'n?X." It is of course true that such rules tended to suppress 
 variants in MSS. — that is what the Massora is for — and if 
 amongst these variants there were one older than the 
 standard recension it would be suppressed along with the 
 rest. On the other hand it must be remembered that these 
 regulations were not constructed by the Massoretes out of 
 their own heads. They are based on the MSS. which seemed 
 to the Massoretes most authoritative, as representing the 
 standard text which they wished to propagate ; and their 
 object is to guard against the mistakes into which copyists 
 were apt to fall because of the identical pronunciation of 
 these two phrases (see below, p. 99). The selection of MSS. 
 may not always have been judicious, or the standard text 
 itself may be at fault ; and therefore it is perfectly in order 
 to argue (as Dahse here does — although I do not admit that 
 he proves) that a different text from the Massoretic is to 
 be preferred. But at present we are dealing simply with 
 the evidence of Hebrew MSS. ; and when it is a question 
 between the deliberate judgment of the Massoretes on one 
 side, and the variations of one or two MSS. on the other, 
 there can be no doubt that the former is an infinitely better 
 authority for the official Hebrew text than the latter, 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 93 
 
 and European) "recensions." Of the former, 
 many MSS. have come to light during the last 
 seventy years ; but besides these we have ancient 
 Massoretic lists of the readings in which the two 
 differ. It is found that in the Pentateuch there 
 are practically no consonantal variants : in Genesis, 
 for example, the only discrepancy is in the 
 spelling of Tubal-Kain as one word or as two 
 (see Baer's Genesis, p. 81) : there are of course 
 none in the divine names. Thus from the un- 
 known time when the Eastern and Western 
 texts divided, there has been no authorized 
 variation in the transmission of the names for 
 God. In view of this astonishing uniformity, 
 what weight can we attach to the aberrations 
 of a few fourteenth or fifteenth century MSS. 
 belonging to the Western " recension " ? Is the 
 presumption not overwhelmingly strong that 
 they are simply scribal errors, which have eluded 
 the precautions taken by copyists, and escaped 
 the vigilant eyes of the Massoretes ? 
 
 (3) But here a still more surprising and signifi- 
 cant fact comes into consideration. The standard 
 text contains stereotyped errors and defects 
 which were recognized as such by those respon- 
 sible for its maintenance ; and also eccentricities 
 which, though not exactly errors, are purely 
 accidental, and have no value in themselves apart 
 from some traditional prejudice.* There are 
 words omitted which are necessary to the sense, 
 and which were accordingly supplied in the 
 reading ; and others inserted where they make 
 nonsense, and omitted in reading ; words and 
 
 * See Note VI, p. 274. 
 
94 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 letters marked hy peculiar dots (jouncta extraordi- 
 naria) ; letters written too large or too small, or 
 suspended over the line ; vacant spaces in the text ; 
 and so on.* Yet the scribes and Massoretes, 
 though perfectly aware of these errors, never- 
 theless endeavoured to perpetuate them with 
 the same assiduous fidelity as the essential 
 elements of the text. How can this singular 
 procedure be accounted for? It is plain that 
 the eccentric phenomena just described must 
 have originated as accidental peculiarities of a 
 single imperfect codex, which for some reason 
 was regarded with such veneration that its very 
 faults w^ere canonized. We are thus driven to 
 the conclusion that some one defective MS. has 
 been adopted as an " archetype " by the authors 
 of the standard Hebrew recension, and that a 
 persistent effort has been made to bring the 
 whole MS. apparatus into mechanical conformity 
 with it. Since the standard text can be traced 
 back to the middle of the second century, it 
 follows that the archetypal codex is at least of 
 
 * Thus (to take a few examples at random), in Jer. 11. 3, 
 the word for "bend" is erroneously written twice in all 
 Hebrew Bibles, and similarly the word for "five" in Ezek. 
 xlviii. 16 : w^hile in Jer. xxxi. 38 the word for " are coming " 
 after ' ' days " has been accidentally omitted : all such 
 irregularities were rectified in the public reading, but the 
 text itself was never corrected. In Genesis iv. 8 the official 
 Hebrew text has an empty space in the middle of the verse, 
 which several of the versions fill up with the words "let 
 us go into the field " : this clause, which seems necessary 
 to avoid a hiatus in the sense, has apparently been dropped 
 from the Hebrew text. On the meaning of the extraordinaiy 
 points, suspended letters, etc., see the next note. 
 
Ttibl HKBiiKW TEXT 95 
 
 older date than that. Probably it was some 
 highly venerated MS. which had survived the 
 storm of the Roman wars and the rebellion of 
 Bar Cochba, and was accepted on account of its 
 antiquity as the best available norm for the 
 sacred text at the time when the scribes were 
 engaged in forming an official recension of the 
 Old Testament scriptures. 
 
 From these facts many of the most distin- 
 guished of recent scholars have drawn the very 
 plausible conclusion that all existing Hebrew 
 M8S. have been produced by a succession of 
 slavishly literal transcriptions from the original 
 codex which chance or necessity had elevated to 
 the position of an archetype for the whole 
 authorized recension.* Now, even if we do not 
 accept the archetypal theory in this extreme 
 
 * The following passage from Lagarde states the theory 
 in its most complete and rigorous form : ' ' Holding it 
 probable, as I do, that peoples living in close contiguity, 
 like the Greeks, Syrians and Jews of the first Christian 
 centuries, had the same clerical usages, I am led to explain 
 the graphic peculiarities which appear in Hebrew docu- 
 ments precisely as I should explain them if I encountered 
 them in Greek or Syriac books. That is to say, I con- 
 sider dotted words as deleted, letters standing over the 
 line as inserted afterwards ; from empty spaces I conclude 
 that a hole in the parchment or defective tanning had 
 made the skin unfit to be written on, or else that the 
 copyist had been unable to read his exemplar. ... If now 
 puncta extraordinaria and literae suspensae in the Hebrew 
 text prove that the copyists had made a slip, and if the Pesdk 
 {lacuna) is due to some accident that had befallen the 
 scribe or the material on which he was writing, it follows 
 that all MSS. which show these points, suspended letters, 
 and empty spaces in the satne places, must necessarily be 
 slavishly accurate transcriptions of the same original." 
 
96 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 form, it is of great importance, in view of its 
 partial truth, to trace its consequences in the 
 region of textual criticism. It is plain that, in 
 so far as it is true, variations in existing Hebrew 
 MSS. have arisen through mistakes in copying 
 directly or mediately from the archetype. It 
 follows further that in the best event we can never 
 gain more from a comparison of Hebrew MSS. 
 than the readings of a single imperfect codex, 
 to whose authority all earlier types of Hebrew 
 text have been ruthlessly sacrificed. It is con- 
 ceivable, no doubt, that a minority of MSS. may 
 in some cases have preserved the text of the 
 archetype, while the majority have departed 
 from it. But as regards the divine names that 
 consideration hardly comes into play ; for here 
 the variants are so feebly attested that it would 
 be sheer perversity to assert their superiority to 
 the immense preponderance of MS. authority. 
 
 For myself, however, I am free to confess that 
 I am not so satisfied of the truth of the extreme 
 form of the archetypal hypothesis as I was at 
 one time. For reasons which need not here be 
 gone into, I have come to think that, while the 
 influence of a single archetype is undeniable, it 
 has been brought to bear on the current text not 
 solely by the way of slavish copying, but partly 
 through the operation of a set of Massoretic rules 
 taken from the archetype and applied in the 
 writing and correcting of MSS. Hence we must 
 allow for the possibility that some readings which 
 are older than the official recension have survived 
 as MS. variants; and it is possible that some of 
 these have managed to slip through the ever 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 97 
 
 narrowing meshes of the Massora and appear in 
 late codices. That must he admitted as a possi- 
 bility. But on the other hand, there is usually 
 a greater probability that the variations have 
 come in through mistakes in transcription since 
 the establishment of the standard recension. 
 Unfortunately, in the case of the divine names, 
 we rarely have any criterion by which the two 
 kinds of variants can be distinguished. Apart 
 from the occasional support of ancient versions — 
 a point to be considered below — there is always 
 a presumption (considering the general stability 
 of the transmission of the names) that a difference 
 is due to the error of an individual scribe. Thus 
 in this case we are for the most part shut up to 
 one or other of two alternatives : either we must 
 maintain the variant of an insignificant minority 
 of MSS. as the original reading of the standard 
 text, or we must dismiss it as of no importance 
 whatever. Seeing that we very seldom have more 
 than fronx one to five MSS. agreeing against the 
 majority, there can be little hesitation in deciding 
 on the latter as the only reasonable course. 
 
 2. After this lengthy but I hope not irrelevant 
 disquisition on the general problems of the 
 Massoretic text, we must now condescend to 
 particulars. And to give my opponents the 
 benefit of every possible doubt, I have set out in 
 Table VI all the Hebrew variants which I have 
 been able to collect. I do not guarantee the 
 completeness of the list ; but I think I can vouch 
 for its accuracy so far as it goes.* The references 
 
 * The material is drawn from the two great coUettions of 
 Kennicott (Oxford, 1776-80) and de Bossi (Parma, 1784-88). 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 8 
 
98 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 enclosed in square brackets are those which, 
 for reasons stated in the footnotes, ought not in 
 my opinion to be counted at all ; and accordingly 
 I have not counted them. The last column gives 
 the versional and other support that can be cited 
 for the variant Hebrew reading ; and as that 
 column is not likely to be examined except by 
 those familiar with the subject, I need not occupy 
 space in explaining the symbols and abbreviations 
 there employed (see Dahse, p. 52 f.). 
 
 At first sight, perhaps, it looks an imposing list. 
 But it will be observed that it is almost wholly 
 made up from Kennicott's collations. Now 
 Kennicott made it his business to register every 
 variant in the MSS. at his disposal, whether good, 
 bad, or indifferent. De Rossi, who had Kennicott's 
 work before him and used it, proceeds on the 
 principle of recording only those readings "quae 
 gravioris aut ullius saltem momenti mihi visae 
 sunt, quae sensum vel mutant, vel afficiunt, et 
 praesidium aliquod habent non modo in MSS. cod. 
 sed etiam in Sam. textu, et in vers, antiquis." 
 Accordingly of the above passages de Rossi con- 
 siders only seven to be worthy even of mention 
 viz., vii. 1, viii. 15, xvi. 11, xviii. 27, 31, xx. 4. And 
 it will be seen that of the seven three are Adonay- 
 readings, which were peculiarly liable to confusion, 
 
 These works were produced at a time when it was hoped that 
 important results for the textual criticismi of the Old Testa- 
 ment might accrue from the examination of Hebrew codices. 
 The effect of the publications was to dispel all such expecta- 
 tions. It was found that the variations amongst MSS. were 
 so few and insignificant as scarcely to reward the labour 
 of coUation. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 99 
 
 and which at any rate in no way affect the literary 
 analysis. 
 
 But let us go back to the longer list. It gives 
 51 variants to 37 names. But of the 51, one 
 (xxxv. 10) is absurd; 11 are omissions which hardly 
 count for anything ; 29 are read only by a single 
 MS., 12 by two MSS., 4 by three, and only 6 by 
 four and upwards. Kennicott had collations of 
 nearly 320 MSS. of Genesis in whole or in part 
 (although little more than one-third of these had 
 been completely collated). Even if we were to 
 suppose that all the MSS. were fairly accurate 
 a reading supported by certainly less than 
 4 per cent, of all available codices is not 
 entitled to serious consideration on MS. evidence 
 alone. 
 
 Further, it will be noted that of the 6 read- 
 ings supported by more than 3 MSS. all are 
 Adonay-passages save one (i. 286), and that one 
 an omission. There must be some reason for the 
 preponderance of variants in these cases ; and in 
 the last chapter we have seen that the reason is 
 the identical pronunciation of *:nN and mni as 
 Adonay. It is a very instructive proof of the 
 extent to which the MS. variations are caused 
 by clerical errors. 
 
 But, once more, it is necessary to consider the 
 value of the different MSS., as tested by their 
 general accuracy and by their age. Now of the 
 Kennicott MSS. in the above list, de Rossi affixes 
 a stigma to the following : K9 (thirteenth century 
 " mendis et rasuris scatet "), 89 (fifteenth century 
 " muitis scatet variationibus, multisque mendis ") 
 and of his own MSS. to the following : R15 
 
100 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 (fourteenth century : " scriptus indiligenter "), 18 
 (thirteenth or fourteenth century : " sed negli- 
 gentissime scriptus "), 419 (thirteenth century : 
 " sed negligenter admodum exaratus "), 669 (thir- 
 teenth century : " scatet tamen omissionibus nee 
 diligenter est scriptus "). K65G we have seen * 
 to be simply a printed edition of the Talmud. 
 I think that all these might fairly be ordered to 
 stand down, as also K103, a fifteenth-century MS. 
 notorious for its accidental omissions. On the 
 other hand, de Rossi gives certificates of excel- 
 lence to : K4 (twelfth century : " codex bonae 
 notae "), K69 (fifteenth century : " pretiosus codex, 
 etc."), K109 (fourteenth century : " insignis in re 
 critica usus "), K150 (thirteenth century ex. : " in 
 hoc solo vel fere solo codice servantur optimae 
 nonnullae var. lect. Samar. T. vel antiquarum 
 vers."), K155 (thirteenth century ex.: "melioris 
 notae codex "), K170 (thirteenth century : " codex 
 magni pretii "), K193 (twelfth century : " optim. 
 et antiquus cod."), K248 (thirteenth century : 
 " bonae notae "), K686 (thirteenth century in. : 
 " opt. cod. ac sing. . ."), R197 (fourteenth century : 
 " diligentissime scriptus"), R592 (thirteenth cen- 
 tury : " singularis in re critica usus. . ."), R469 
 (fifteenth century : " accuratus, nitidus "), R507 
 (thirteenth century : " sat diligenter conscriptus "). 
 On the great majority he makes no comment ; 
 and we are left to estimate their importance 
 from their probable date. De Rossi (p. xv.) lays 
 down the maxim that for a Hebrew codex to be 
 accounted in any sense old it ought at latest to 
 be of the end of the thirteenth or beginning of 
 
 * P. 82. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 101 
 
 the fourteenth century. It might be interesting 
 to see how matters would stand if we adopt it as a 
 working rule to strike out of our list (1) all MSS. 
 of whatever age against which De Rossi has 
 placed a bad mark, and (2) all MSS. later than 
 the beginning of the fourteenth century, unless 
 specially certified as good. This would leave the 
 panel of acceptable MSS. somewhat as follows: 
 K4, 69, 80, 109, 150, 155, 157, 170, 185, 191, 193, 199, 
 227, 229, 239, 248, 252, 384, 601, 686 : R16, 197, 245, 
 248, 251, 266, 296, 412, 464, 507, 592, 754, 766.* If 
 any reader should be at the trouble to revise the 
 list of variants on these lines, he would find that 
 it shrinks to less than two- thirds of its former 
 dimensions ; that if we take out omissions and 
 the Adonay-passages (where the literary analysis 
 cannot be affected) there remain but 16 confusions 
 of J, E and JE ; that of these 10 f are supported 
 only by one MS., and only one (xxx. 28) by so 
 many as three. What the proportion of chaff 
 to wheat might be in this sifted list we need 
 not try to guess ; but even if it were all wheat 
 together (which it certainly is not), I can hardly 
 think that the most aggressive " textual " critic 
 would claim the result as a signal refutation 
 of the pretensions of the documentary theory. 
 When we take into account the general con- 
 siderations set forth in the preceding pages, we 
 shall hardly be disposed to assign any weight 
 whatever to the indiscriminate citation of variants 
 
 * I have now italicized them in Table VI ; though it was 
 hardly worth while. 
 
 t ii. 18, iii. 23, vi. 5, vii. 9, viii. 15, xix. 29a, xx. 11, xxxi. 
 9, xlv. 5, xlv. 7. 
 
102 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 in Hebrew MSS. in which the " textual " critics are 
 wont to indulge. 
 
 3. But in justice to my opponents I must now 
 go on to note that they rely not so much on the 
 unsupported evidence of Hebrew MSS. as on the 
 agreements of many of their variants with readings 
 found in one or more of the ancient versions. 
 This, they think, is a very strong proof that the 
 readings in question are derived from a Hebrew 
 original independent of the MT. Now in so far 
 as the Samaritan Pentateuch and versions other 
 than the LXX are concerned, the matter will be 
 considered in Chapter V below ; and it is enough 
 for the present to point out that corroborations 
 from these quarters are very rare (Sam. 3, Pesh. 
 1, Vulg. 2), and do not all told amount to a 
 serious challenge to the soundness of the 
 Massoretic text. 
 
 But in respect of the LXX, with its plethora 
 of variants, the case is naturally different. If, 
 indeed, we take only those readings which are 
 supported by the bulk of LXX authority, we 
 find that there are only two or at most three 
 cases to consider (i. 28a, xix. 29a, iii. 22?) — a 
 negligible quantity. It is of course admitted that 
 in these cases it is a question whether the LXX, 
 backed by Hebrew MSS., may not have the 
 original text ; but they are so few that even if 
 in each case the MT should happen to be wrong 
 its general authority as against isolated MS. 
 divergences would not be impugned. But if we 
 are to reckon up all the instances where a Hebrew 
 variant has some support from LXX MSS. 
 or daughter-versions or citations, no doubt the 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 103 
 
 number is considerable. I have noted in the last 
 column of Table VI the LXX evidence for the 
 various readings — not very carefully, but mostly 
 trusting to the statistics furnished by Dahse. 
 It will be seen that 22 Hebrew variants agree 
 with some form of LXX text. But here the 
 so-called " textual " critics seem to blunder egregi- 
 ously. They argue that even a solitary Greek 
 MS. acquires importance, as indicating an original 
 Hebrew text, if it be in agreement with a single 
 Hebrew MS. ; and of course a fortiori if there be 
 two or three on either side. To reason thus is 
 to perpetrate a gross mathematical fallacy. The 
 doctrine of probabilities comes into play. Our 
 opponents overlook the fact that the limits of 
 possible error are extremely narrow, while the 
 chances that an accidental error in a Hebrew 
 MS, will coincide with a reading in the apparatus 
 of the LXX are remarkably good. That is to 
 say, if a Hebrew^ scribe went astray from the MT 
 in copying a divine name, he could only substitute 
 E for J or J for E (in rare cases a JE might afford 
 a wider choice of error) ; and in either event he 
 would be pretty sure to find his mistake " con- 
 firmed " by some MS. of the LXX. I calculate 
 roughly that in about two-fifths of the names 
 contained in Dahse's tables hoth the alternative 
 readings occur in LXX MSS. or daughter- versions, 
 or citations ; so that if a Hebrew MS. differs from 
 the MT it has two good chances in five of finding 
 some kind of support in the LXX. In all but 
 two (i. 28, xix. 29a) of the 22 actual instances of 
 agreement between Hebrew and Greek MSS. the 
 Massoretic reading is also represented in MSS. 
 
104 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 of the LXX, and in the vast majority of cases 
 far more strongly attested than the variant. In 
 these circumstances it is mere pretence to speak 
 of coincidence as corroboration, or to argue that 
 a variant derives importance from the fact of its 
 occurring in two unrelated series of documents. 
 We can now measure the importance of Dahse's 
 assertion (p. 51), " Die Varianten der LXX werden 
 geschiitzt (a) durch hebr. MSS."* 
 
 * I would here call attention to v. 22, which sheds a lurid 
 light on the value of Hebrew " corroborations," and also on 
 the incredible perfunctoriness with which such variants are 
 cited by writers like Wiener and Dahse. (See Table VI.) 
 The facts are these : (1) K151 omits the entire verse : I 
 presume that Dahse will not defend that text. But his 
 statement that " K151 stimmt niit B " is wholly erroneoxis. 
 B (a Greek uncial) simply substitutes kuI 'li^rjaev Ej/w^ fJ-tra 
 i^tX. for tvripicrTrjaev ck Evw)^ rw Otif /xerix kt\., in conformity 
 with the stereotyped formula used throughout the chapter. 
 If Dahse should maintain that this is the original text, I 
 should not object ; but that is neither here nor there : it is 
 not the text of K151. (2) The Greek cursives HP 73, 74, 134 
 (= t) read practically as E {ei^ijae Se), and to cite them (as 
 Dahse does) as simply omitting rw Stw is thoroughly inaccu- 
 rate and misleading. (3) K191 omits D*n'?Nn"nK, yielding the 
 impossible sentence, ' ' And Bnoch walked after he begat, 
 etc." The only LXX MS. that appears to confirm this non- 
 sensical reading is HP 79, which has evripeanqae Ik 'Evi^x )"£'"« 
 kt\., " And Bnoch pleased after he begat, etc.," which is just 
 as absurd as the text of K191. But (a) it is to be observed 
 that £i/jjp£(7rj)(7£ he corresponds not to the bare "jbrUT'l but to 
 -DK ■jSniT'l, so that it does not agree with K191. (6) The 
 agreement is not merely superficial, but clearly accidental. 
 At least it is presumable that the peculiar reading of 79 was 
 brought about by a secondary correction of the koX e^rjaev 
 of E to the evrip£aTri(Te Si of the ordinary LXX, the copyist 
 not perceiving that he was making nonsense of the verse by 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 105 
 
 4. Lastly, it is alleged by textual critics that 
 there are passages where the MT is on internal 
 grounds "demonstrably" wrong in its use of the 
 divine names, and where the true reading has been 
 preserved in a small minority of Hebrew or Greek 
 MSS. I reply that I do not believe any such case 
 exists, and that certainly none of those that have 
 been adduced will be found on examination to 
 bear out the contention. 
 
 The passage most persistently cited in this 
 connexion is Genesis xvi. 11. From the time of 
 de Rossi at all events it has passed from hand to 
 hand as a palpable proof that the MT cannot have 
 preserved the original name. Dahse, supporting 
 Wiener's philippic against the present writer, 
 says (p. 32) : " mit Recht . . . macht Wiener mit 
 allem Nachdruck geltend, dass nicht bloss, wie 
 Skinner es tue, die 49 Falle der Abweichungen, 
 die Redpath und Eerdmans nach Swete anfiihren, 
 zu beriicksichtigen seien, sondern auch zahlreiche 
 (?) andere Stellen, wie z.B. Genesis IQ", wo die 
 Handschriften bw (mit OL, arabs uterque, und 
 hebr. MS.) offensichtlich mit ihrem 6 Seoc das 
 Richtige boten." Let us then consider the import 
 of xvi. 11. It gives an etymology of the name 
 Yishma'-el (^NrDB'''="may El hear") in the words 
 " for Yahwe has heard, etc." ("iJi nin'' m<£^ 13). This, 
 we are told, is a glaring and impossible con- 
 tradiction. Wiener, with characteristic presump- 
 tion, says that the name Yishma'-el must have 
 been explained by a sentence containing Elohim, 
 for if the explanation had contained the name 
 
 overlooking the tm deo) which followed. Many MSS. exhibit 
 conflation of the two readings. 
 
106 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 Yahwe the name must have been Yishma'-yah ! 
 He seems to imagine that Ishmael is a fictitious 
 name, whose form could be changed according to 
 the taste and fancy of the speller. In reality it 
 is the historic name of a tribe which no writer 
 could alter from merely literary motives. That 
 is a confusion of ideas which is extraordinary even 
 in a mind untrained to exact philological thinking; 
 and I have not observed that any other writer 
 has put the matter quite so crudely. But they 
 all alike labour under the illusion that El and 
 Elohim are convertible terms. It is a wonder 
 that none of them have thought of taking up a 
 hint of the cautious de Rossi, who, after defending 
 Elohim as "conformior" to the name Ishmael, says 
 "huic affinis ac congruentior est lectio cod. mei 
 754 ex prima manu TW ^S VOB' ''3 " ; although he adds 
 " Sed Jeoah ipsa, ut videtur, primi scriptoris manu 
 ad margineru restitutum est." We must suppose 
 that there was a time when the interpretation 
 of such a name as Ishmael would have been 
 expressed in a sentence like "^Z hears"; and the 
 courage of our textual critics might well have 
 proved equal to the advocacy of the claim of R754 
 to be the sole representative of that primitive 
 etymology. However, they have not done so ; 
 and we have simply to insist, against their 
 contention, that El is no more Elohim than it is 
 Yahwe. It is an archaic name for the Deity 
 which had ceased to form part of the ordinary 
 spoken language * before these narratives were 
 reduced to writing, and which had to be replaced 
 by one of the two names for God current in 
 
 * For details, see Driver, Genesis, p. 403. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 107 
 
 common speech. There is absolutely no reason 
 except usage why one of them should he used 
 in preference to the other. If a writer habitually 
 used Yah we he would naturally say nin* VDC '3 ; 
 just as readily as another who habitually used 
 Elohim would write Q'n^N VOB' ''3. The latter 
 phrase actually appears in the parallel passage 
 xxi. 17, where the Elohist is giving his etymology 
 of the name Ishmael. So that instead of xvi. 11 
 weakening the evidence for the documentary 
 theory, it furnishes in reality one of its most 
 striking detailed confirmations.* 
 
 The case is on all fours with the explanation of 
 the name Samuel (^xidb') in 1 Sam. i. 20, where 
 the MT has mSKC nin^D o : " for from Yahwe I 
 asked him." This reading is supported by all 
 Hebrew MSS., by the Peshitta, the Vulgate, and 
 even the LXX. For although a good many MSS. 
 vary from the chief printed editions (Swete, after 
 A, B: irapa Kvpiov Otoxi aa^au)6), there is not one 
 which omits the Kvpiov.^ Will the "textual" 
 
 * The other 10 cases of "demonstrable" inferiority- 
 adduced by Wiener (Essays, pp. 16-19) are unworthy of 
 serious notice, except xiv. 22, where a combination of external 
 and internal evidence makes it probable that Yahwe is a 
 gloss. In xxxi. 42, 53, and probably also in xlviii. 15, God 
 is used appellatively, and has nothing to do with our 
 problem. With xxx. 24, 27, I have dealt above (p. 54 f.). 
 How any man could have the assurance to adduce either 
 these two passages or iv. 1, 26, xv. 2, xxviii. 13, as cases 
 where MT is demonstrably wrong on internal grounds, is 
 to me incomprehensible. If there be a case where MT is 
 demonstrably right, I should say it is iv. 26. 
 
 t The principal variants are the following : Kvpiov aajiauQ 
 (9 MSS.) ; Kvpiov (Ta/3. TzavTOKparopoQ (4 MSS.) ; Kvpiov <ra/3. 
 
108 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 critics maintain, in the teeth of all textual 
 evidence, that Yahwe is there an impossible 
 reading, and must have been substituted for 
 Elohim? If not, their argument in the parallel 
 instance of Ishmael completely breaks down. And 
 if they do, they so stultify their own method 
 that we need no longer give heed to their opinion. 
 At all events, I hope we shall hear no more of 
 Genesis xvi. 11 as an instance where the MT is 
 " demonstrably " wrong.* 
 
 A very similar, but even weaker, instance cited 
 by Dahse is the etymology of Reuben in xxix. 
 32 (p. 44). He says it is "allbekannt" that the 
 name was originally Ruhel; whence it follows 
 that Yahwe in xxix. 32 ("Yahwe has seen my 
 affliction") cannot be original. Well, one would 
 like to hear what was original there. Dahse does 
 not even tell us how he understands the name 
 SaiNn : he rather gives the impression that he holds 
 the utterly impossible view that it is a compound 
 of 3iNn and ^k. I will assume, however, that he 
 takes its second component to be bl=^V3 (Baal), 
 used as a generic title of the Deity ; and that its 
 signification is "seen of Baal" (see ICC. p. 386). t 
 Supposing that to be the correct name, and the 
 etymology intended, we must again assume that 
 in early times the interpretation was expressed 
 
 deoii iravT. (3 MSS.) ; Kvpiov Kvpiov aafi. irai'T. (1 MS.) ; Kvpiov 
 alone (1 MS.). Kvpiov irayr. (Oomplutensian Polyglot). — 
 iravTOKpaTiap is the usual rendering in the LXX of niN35f 
 ( = <7a/3aw0), "Hosts." 
 
 * See Note VII, p. 275. 
 
 t The ordinary explanation supports the form piX"l : 
 "JJ?3 nN"]=:]31N"l^ a mere verbal assonance. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 109 
 
 in that form, like the explanation of " Jerubbaal " 
 m Jud. vi. 32. Now when Baal ceased to be used 
 as an epithet of the national God and was 
 appropriated to a strange deity, the name could 
 be retained in Jud. vi. 32, because it implied in 
 that connexion no recognition of the false god. 
 But in Genesis xxix. 32 its retention would have 
 attributed heathenish worship to the patriarchal 
 family, and it was necessary to replace it either 
 by Yahwe or by Elohim. And when it was 
 exchanged for a name of the true God, it was just 
 as legitimate and natural to replace it by Yahwe 
 as by Elohim. There is therefore not the slightest 
 internal ground for questioning the correctness of 
 the Massoretic reading. 
 
 Amongst the passages where Dahse tries to 
 show that the Yahwe of the MT cannot possibly 
 be right for internal reasons, there are two 
 which he thinks are proved to have been originally 
 Elohim-passages by independent tradition or by 
 allusions in Hebrew literature. The first is the 
 account of Jacob's wrestling at Peniel (Genesis 
 xxxii. 24 ff.). This, he says, is known to be attri- 
 buted to J. That is not quite so. It has also 
 been attributed to E ; and the drift of recent 
 criticism has been to regard it as a composite 
 narrative in which J and E have been amalga- 
 mated (see ICC, p. 407). But however that may 
 be, it is certain that the only divine name which 
 occurs in the MT is Elohim {vv. 29, 31). What 
 then is the sense of citing Hos. xii. 4 (with Elohim) 
 and arguing that if Hosea had read it in a 
 Yahwistic book he would certainly not have used 
 Elohim here ? We do not even know that Hosea 
 
110 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 read it in any book ; if he did, there is no reason 
 why it should not have been an Elohistic book ; 
 but even if his written source was our present 
 Yahwistic document, he would surely use the 
 divine name which occurs in that document, 
 which, as we have seen, is Elohim. The argument 
 thus turns round into a singular confirmation 
 of the scrupulous accuracy of the tradition of 
 the divine names in the Hebrew text. And Dahse 
 might at least have mentioned that the critics 
 who assign the passage to J are guided by some- 
 thing else than a slavish regard to the divine 
 names of the MT. The second example is the 
 story of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah 
 in Genesis xix. (cf. xiii. 10). According to the MT 
 this is a Yahwistic passage, and is therefore 
 assigned by critics to J. But in three prophetic 
 passages (Am. iv. 11, Isa. xiii. 19, Jer. 1. 40) it is 
 referred to as a destruction wrought by Elohim. 
 Now, to begin with, the force of these three 
 passages is neutralized by Deut. xxix. 33 and 
 Ezek. xvi. 48 ff., where Yahwe is used. But the 
 root of Dahse's error lies deeper. "If there was 
 a version of the story which favoured a particular 
 designation of the Deity ... it must have been 
 an Elohistic narrative, and not the Yahwistic 
 which we now find in the MT" (p. 42). No one 
 denies that the oldest version of the story may 
 have been Elohistic : indeed the whole point of 
 the contention that it was so is that it was a 
 foreign myth imported into Israel, in which the 
 name Yahwe could not possibly have been used. 
 But that is not the question that Dahse has to 
 face. The question is not of how the narrative 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 111 
 
 read in its primitive form, but of the literary 
 shape into which it was cast by the author of 
 the account we have in Genesis. If for the true 
 God who was the author of the catastrophe 
 that writer habitually used the name Yahwe, 
 why should he not do so in this instance as in 
 every other? As for the prophetic allusions, 
 Amos lived at a time when the primitive form 
 of the myth may well have been a living memory, 
 and there is no reason to suppose that he had 
 no authority other than our present Yahwistic 
 document. And if late prophets like the authors 
 of Isaiah xiii. 19 and Jeremiah 1. 40 still continued 
 to use Blohim in connexion with this incident, 
 that does not mean that they read Elohim in 
 the Genesis narrative. It is much more probable 
 — it is, indeed, all but certain — that they had in 
 their minds the unusual phrase of Amos,* which 
 they reproduce verbatim et literatim. Again the 
 Massoretic reading in Genesis comes unscathed 
 out of the text-critical ordeal ; and the occasional 
 Elohims of the LXX have no greater probability 
 than they acquire from purely textual evidence 
 (here sufficiently slender), as in all other cases. 
 
 2. The Samaritan Pentateuch, 
 
 The Samaritan Pentateuch is a recension in 
 Hebrew of the books of Moses, as used by the 
 schismatic community whose religious centre was 
 and still is the temple on Mount Gerizim at 
 
 * may riNi mo nx d'h^n naanna, where the nx shows 
 
 that the noun TID has the force of an infinitive. 
 
112 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 Shechem, Its MSS. are written in the Samaritan 
 script — a degraded form of the original Hebrew 
 alphabet ; but otherwise they are simply a special 
 group of Hebrew codices, and are in fact often 
 treated as such by writers on the Old Testament 
 text. The characteristic features of the recension 
 appear in a series of intentional alterations of the 
 parent text, due to editorial motives and ten- 
 dencies. The most striking of these are, of course, 
 the few changes introduced in defence of the 
 legitimacy of the Samaritan temple and worship, 
 such as the command to build an altar on Mount 
 Gerizim after Exodus xx. 17, Deuteronomy v. 18, 
 and the substitution (or retention) of Gerizim for 
 Ebal in Deuteronomy xxvii. 4.* Many alterations 
 spring from the desire to produce a smoother, 
 more intelligible and more consistent text : archaic 
 or abnormal grammatical forms are eliminated, 
 discords of gender and number are avoided, 
 exegetical difficulties are removed by glosses and 
 emendations, and inconsistencies are reconciled by 
 corrections or short interpolations frora other 
 contexts. Besides these there are a number of 
 lengthy insertions from parallel passages, which 
 form one of the outstanding peculiarities of the 
 Samaritan text. Some of these alterations are 
 clearly of Samaritan origin ; but in other cases it 
 must remain uncertain whether they are the work 
 of Samaritan editors or were found in the Jewish 
 MSS. on which the Samaritan Pentateuch is based. 
 Taken together, however, they impart a distinctive 
 complexion to the Samaritan text, which is 
 
 * It is immaterial to the present discussion whether the 
 Jews or the Samaritans have here kept the original text. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 113 
 
 recognizable as far back as we can trace its 
 history. 
 
 If now we set aside these characteristic differ- 
 ences, we find in Samaritan MSS. a consonantal 
 text which very closely resembles the MT. The 
 variants are for the most part of the same kind 
 and the same order of magnitude as those found 
 in extant Hebrew MSS., and the majority of them 
 scarcely exceed in importance those which seem 
 to have existed in Jewish MSS. of the Talmudic 
 age. The interesting and perplexing fact is that 
 where the Sam. does vary from the MT it often 
 agrees with the LXX. The LXX never supports 
 the Sam. in its polemical variations in defence 
 of the Samaritan cult ; nor does it reproduce the 
 long harmonizing supplements referred to above. 
 But in minor interpolations, in glosses and emen- 
 dations, as well as in many readings not due 
 to any tendency, it often follows the Sam. The 
 agreements are often in minutiae, and acquire 
 importance from their very minuteness ; but in 
 certain cases the combined LXX and Sam. text 
 is on internal grounds to be preferred to the MT 
 as the superior and, therefore, the original reading. 
 
 These relations of the Sam. to the MT on the 
 one hand and to the LXX on the other, constitute 
 a textual problem of great intricacy, and have 
 given rise to the most diverse theories of the 
 probable connexion between the Samaritan and 
 Greek recensions. Some scholars have gone so 
 far as to maintain the opinion, now generally 
 recognized as untenable, that the LXX is a direct 
 translation from the Sam. ; while others have been 
 driven to the most complicated hypotheses of 
 
 The Divine Names in Gmeiis. 9 
 
114 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 porrection and revision of one text by the others 
 in order to account for the phenomena which 
 confront us here. To enter upon such questions 
 is quite beyond the scope of this article. In what 
 follows I will adopt the view which seems nxost 
 plausible in itself, and at the same time is most 
 favourable to those who would use the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch as a witness along with the LXX 
 against the MT : viz., the theory of Richard 
 Simon and Gresenius,* that Sam. and LXX are 
 both derived from a group of Hebrew MSS. con- 
 taining a text which, while not quite homo- 
 geneous, differed as a whole (and occasionally 
 for the better) from the official Jewish recension 
 which is the parent of our Massoretic text.t 
 
 * A good account of Gesenius's essay and arguments may 
 be read in the art. "Samaritan Pentateuch," by Emmanuel 
 Deutsch, in Smith's Diet, of the Bible, vol. iii. 
 
 t Before entering on the somewhat involved discussion that 
 lies before us, it is right to point out that a critical edition 
 of the Samaritan Pentateuch does not as yet exist. It is 
 understood that two are in contemplation : one by the 
 English Text and Translation Society, and the other in 
 Germany under the editorship of von Gall. It may be 
 expected that when such an edition appears, its prolegomena 
 will shed new light on some of the problems which at 
 present beset the path of the inquirer. It is not improbable 
 that a critically revised text will remove some uncertainties 
 which cannot now be cleared up ; and it is extremely pro- 
 bable that it will at least provide data for a more precise 
 determination of the afiSnities between the LXX and the 
 Sam. than we can yet fornaulate. We must therefore be pre- 
 pared to find that the best solution of the problem that we 
 can compass with our imperfect material may be upset or 
 modified by the improved critical apparatus which will one 
 day be at our disposal. But unfortunately we cannot wait 
 for this. We must make the best of an obscure situation, 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 115 
 
 In the light of these facts, we proceed to con- 
 sider the evidence of the Samaritan Pentateuch as 
 bearing on the transmission of the divine names. 
 We have already seen (p. 38) to how slight an extent 
 it diflfers from the MT in this respect in the book 
 of Genesis. There are only at most nine passages 
 where it has a different reading, viz., vii. 1, 9, 
 xiv. 22, XX. 18, xxviii. 4, xxxi. 7, 9, 16a, xxxv. 96, 
 the last being an Elohim supplied where MT has 
 no name at all. We have also found that only 
 three of these variants (vii. 1, 9, xxxi. 9) appear 
 in Hebrew MSS., and we shall see later that only 
 two (vii. 1, 9) find support in any of the younger 
 versions (Pesh., Vulg.) How, then, does the case 
 stand as between Sam. and LXX ? In five out of 
 its nine divergences from MT (xiv. 22, xxviii. 4, 
 
 and be satisfied if we can exhaust all the reasonable proba- 
 bilities that come within oiu- view. The text that we have 
 mainly to rely upon is that of Walton's Polyglot Bible, 
 reprinted separately by Blayney in Hebrew square characters 
 in 1790. This is anything but a critical edition. It is 
 merely the text of the Paris Polyglot of 1645, freed from 
 typographical errors ; and that again was carelessly edited 
 by Morinus from the first MS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 that came under the eyes of Em'opean scholars. Kennicott 
 collated the text of the London Polyglot with 16 other 
 MSS., whose readings of the divine names are identical with 
 those of the printed edition, except in four places (ii. 5, iii. 14, 
 xxvi. 24, xxxi. 16) where a Yahwe or Elohim is omitted 
 by one or other of two MSS. (61 or 64). In 1S68 Petemiann 
 published a list of variants from MT of the famous Torah- 
 roll of the sanctuary at Nabnlus, in which one Sam. variant 
 to a divine name (Genesis vii. 1) does not appear. These are 
 our accessible sources of information as to the text, and it is 
 evident that for the purpose in hand it is needless to go 
 beyond the London Polyglot. 
 
116 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 xxxi. 7, 9, 16a) the Sam. is unsupported by a single 
 MS., citation, or daughter-version, of the LXX. 
 In three (vii. 1, 9, xx. 18) it agrees with a slenderly- 
 represented Greek text.* Only in one passage is 
 the Sam. backed against MT by the united 
 authority of the LXX : viz., the addition of Elohim 
 in XXXV. 96 ; a difference by which the docu- 
 mentary analysis is in no way affected. Now it 
 seems to me that in dealing with this matter our 
 text-critical opponents show a singularly ill- 
 balanced judgment. When they light upon a 
 discrepancy between Sam. and MT they rejoice 
 like men who find great spoil ; but an agreement 
 between these two appears to be in their eyes 
 of no significance. Especially are they delighted 
 when they discover a coincidence of the Sam. 
 with something else against the MT. When 
 Dahse can point to a solitary correspondence in a 
 divine name between one of his Greek recensions 
 (egj) and the Sam., it is an " auffallende Erschein- 
 ung " (p. 106) ; but the 310 (or so) correspondences 
 of Sam. and MT are not deemed worthy of 
 mention. I have explained above (p. 103) why I 
 refuse to consider an isolated agreement between 
 a Hebrew MS. and some form of the LXX as in 
 the least surprising ; and the same argument holds 
 good as applied to a casual agreement of the Sam. 
 with some form of the LXX. On the other hand, 
 the agreement of the Sam. with the MT in more 
 than 300 cases is a remarkable phenomenon — 
 perhaps, all things considered, the most remark- 
 
 * The details, as given in the apparatus of the Cambridge 
 LXX, are : vii. 1, Sam. supported by CW Arm.-codd. ; vii. 9 
 by E ; xx. 18 by bw ej Boh., Phil. -Arm. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 117 
 
 able phenomenon in the history of the Hebrew 
 text. We shall see presently what that means. 
 In the meantime let us be clear on this point, 
 that just so far as a discrepancy between Sam. 
 and MT throws doubt on the correctness of the 
 latter, precisely to that extent does a correspon- 
 dence of the two guarantee the soundness of the 
 MT. And since there are over 300 agreements in 
 the divine names to 9 differences, it is surely well 
 within the mark to say that the Samaritan 
 recension as a whole is on the side of the MT and 
 immensely strengthens its claim on our confidence. 
 It would really be difficult to exaggerate the 
 importance of this fact. It means that through 
 two independent lines of descent the divine 
 names in Genesis have been transmitted with 
 practically no variation. That, in the first place, 
 is a very strong confirmation of the view several 
 times expressed in the course of this vokime, 
 that Jews as well as Samaritans exercised the 
 most scrupulous care in the transcription of 
 the name of God. But it implies, further, that 
 at the time when the two texts became inde- 
 pendent of one another, the distribution of the 
 divine names represented in each was already 
 established. We may not assume that other 
 distributions were not in existence in MSS. of 
 that period ; but we are sure that at all events 
 this distribution must have been represented 
 in MSS. of sufficient authority to be accepted 
 as the basis of the two most important recen- 
 sions of the Hebrew Pentateuch. The question 
 now is, how far back does the point of diver- 
 gence lie? In other words, what is the age 
 
118 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 of the Samaritan Pentateuch as a separate 
 Law-book, distinct from the Jewish Pentateuch 
 from which our present Massoretic text has 
 descended? Since this is a matter on which 
 some difference of opinion obtains, it may be 
 well to state pretty fully the grounds for 
 determining this date. 
 
 Amongst modern critical historians the pre- 
 valent view has been, and probably still is, 
 that the Samaritans received the Pentateuch 
 from the Jews in the time of Nehemiah, about 
 430 B.C. It would be extremely convenient for 
 my present argument to accept that date ; for 
 it would carry back the testimony of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch to within a short interval 
 of time from the final redaction and promul- 
 gation of the Law by Ezra (at the earliest, c. 
 444 B.C.). But it seems to me that the evidence 
 points to a date about a century later. The 
 conclusion of the critical historians is reached 
 by combining a brief enigmatic notice in the 
 book of Nehemiah with a circumstantial narrative 
 found in the eleventh book of the Antiquities of 
 Josephus (§§ 302-324). In Nehemiah xiii. 28 we 
 read of the expulsion from Jerusalem of a 
 grandson of the High Priest Eliashib, because of 
 his marriage with a daughter of Sanballat the 
 Horonite. Josephus also tells us of a priest 
 (named Manasse), who was a grreai-grandson of 
 Eliashib, and who was excluded from the 
 succession to the high-priesthood because he re- 
 fused to be separated from his wife, a daughter 
 of Sanballat the governor of Samaria. Thus far 
 it certainly looks as if we had here two versions 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 119 
 
 of the same story. But Josephus goes on to 
 relate how Manasse seceded from the Jews, on 
 the promise of Sanballat that he should be High 
 Priest of the Samaritans, and that a temple 
 should be built for him on Mount Gerizim, as 
 soon as the permission of Darius, the last 
 Persian monarch, could be procured. He adds 
 the important statement that many disaffected 
 priests and Levites in Jerusalem joined Manasse 
 in his secession. In the meantime the Persian 
 Empire was overthrown by Alexander the 
 Great ; and it was he who granted the firman 
 under which the temple was erected on Gerizim, 
 and Manasse was installed as High Priest 
 (c. 330 B.C.). The common opinion, then, has 
 been that the notice of Nehemiah xiii. 28 is to 
 be supplemented by the account of Josephus ; 
 so that the building of the schismatic temple, 
 the definite organization of the Samaritan sect, 
 and the establishment of a regular priesthood 
 and cultus at Shechem are to be assigned to 
 about 430 B.C., instead of a century later, as 
 Josephus states. But this is obviously a very 
 unsafe combination. Whatever may have taken 
 place under Nehemiah, the names of Darius and 
 Alexander are too closely and explicitly associated 
 by Josephus with the building of the temple 
 to be set aside as unchronological. While there 
 may have been some confusion in the mind of 
 that writer with events of Nehemiah's time, we 
 have no right to transfer his narrative bodily 
 to a date 100 years earlier ; and it is reason- 
 able to allow that he was probably well informed 
 in assigning the building of the Samaritan 
 
120 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 temple to the early reign of Alexander. If so, 
 we must infer that the final constitution of the 
 Samaritan community on a religious basis, with 
 priesthood and ritual, belongs to that time. 
 
 It will be observed that neither Nehemiah 
 nor Josephus says anything about the adoption 
 of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans. We are 
 thrown back, therefore, on general considerations 
 to decide whether its introduction is more probable 
 at the earlier or the later date. Such consider- 
 ations seem to point clearly to the latter alterna- 
 tive. For one thing, a Law-book such as the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch is would have been a useless 
 and inconvenient possession to the Samaritans in 
 the absence of a Levitical priesthood and a regular 
 sanctuary, and the latter at least they had not 
 secured before 330. Another consideration, which 
 must weigh with those who hold the critical 
 theory of the Pentateuch, is that the redaction of 
 the Law-book cannot be put earlier than the year 
 444 ; and a much longer time than fourteen years 
 must be allowed for the rise of such variations 
 of text as appear in the Jewish and Samaritan 
 recensions. The time of Alexander, on the other 
 hand, is the latest period to which the adoption 
 of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans can with any 
 plausibility be assigned. For if a separate Mosaic 
 Law-book would have been an encumbrance to 
 the Samaritans before the building of their 
 temple, it would have been impossible for them 
 after that event to maintain their sectarian posi- 
 tion without a Law-book adapted to their 
 separatist pretensions. This view appears to be 
 gaining ground amongst the most recent writers 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 121 
 
 on the subject, and it would be easy to quote the 
 opinion of several scholars in favour of it. We 
 will therefore accept the year 330 B.C. as the 
 proximate date when the Pentateuch passed into 
 the possession of the Samaritan community. 
 
 If this conclusion be correct, the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch is still the oldest external witness we 
 have to the state of the early Hebrew text. It 
 takes us back to a date within a century of the 
 final redaction of the Law. There is no doubt 
 whatever that even at that early period errors had 
 crept into the Hebrew text. Where the Sam. and 
 MT agree (as they not infrequently do) in a reading 
 which is manifestly corrupt, we are sure that that 
 corruption had taken place before the two texts 
 had parted company, i.e., by about the middle of 
 the fourth century.* It is, therefore, conceivable 
 that mistakes had occurred in the transmission of 
 the divine names before that time. What we 
 know for certain is that the common element of 
 the two texts, which includes the divine names 
 in Genesis, goes back to the fourth century, and 
 that from that time the exact distribution of the 
 names which then obtained has been preserved 
 with all but complete fidelity in two independent 
 series of MSS. down to the fifteenth Christian 
 century or later. And this, I repeat, is amongst 
 the oldest facts that textual criticism has estab- 
 lished in the history of the text. The LXX, which 
 
 * For while such frequent causes of erroi as confusion 
 of T and T or n and n saaight occasionally produce an 
 identical corruption in two texts independently, accidental 
 coincidences of this kind cannot be numerous ; and there 
 are cases of a more complex character where agreement in 
 error cannot be ascribed to chance. 
 
122 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 is our next oldest witness, only furnishes evidence 
 of the state of things about the middle of the 
 third century, when the Greek translation of the 
 Pentateuch was made. When we consider how, 
 in regard to the names for God, the value of the 
 LXX is depreciated by the notorious confusion of 
 its MSS., and the consequent impossibility of ascer- 
 taining (in many cases) its original readings, we 
 cannot hesitate to assign a decisive importance for 
 our present inquiry to the critical fact presented 
 by the agreement of the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 with the Massoretic text. 
 
 Thus far, however, I have argued on certain 
 current assumptions which until quite recently 
 hardly any one has ever thought of calling in 
 question. The argument assumes for one thing 
 that the Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs have 
 been uninfluenced by each other from the day 
 when they first parted company. It assumes 
 further that the LXX, even in cases where its 
 peculiar readings undoubtedly represent a Hebrew 
 original, only yields information as to the text 
 contemporary with the translation, i.e., for a text 
 at least half a century younger than that which 
 we reach by comparison of the Sam. and MT. It 
 is necessary now, in view of some recent discus- 
 sions, to test the validity of these and other 
 assumptions. For it is not to be supposed that 
 an experienced critic like Dahse has failed to 
 consider the serious and indeed insurmountable 
 objections which the ordinary view of the history 
 of the text presents to his attitude towards the 
 text in general, and in particular to several of his 
 speculative constructions which have been dealt 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 123 
 
 with in these articles ; such as the elimination of 
 El Shaddai in Exodus vi. 3 and elsewhere, the 
 Sedarim-hypothesis in more than one aspect, and 
 the theory of Hebrew recensions older than the 
 MT. All these make shipwreck more or less 
 completely on the fact of the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch as usually understood. He must, therefore, 
 have formed some conception of the relation of 
 Sam. to MT which to his own mind justifies the 
 very slight and unbalanced regard which he pays 
 to its testimony. We may expect that in some 
 future volume of his textual studies he will take 
 his readers into his confidence, and tell them what 
 he really thinks on this important matter. He 
 has not done so as yet; and we are left to con- 
 jecture what his position is likely to be. So far 
 as I can see there are just two courses open to 
 him. He must either (1) believe that the present 
 text of the Sam. has broken off from the Jewish 
 stem at a much later point than the first adoption 
 of a Law-book by the Samaritans, and later also 
 than the LXX, or (2) accepting the common 
 opinion as to the ages of the Sam. and the LXX, 
 he must hold that the Hebrew original of the LXX 
 is of greater antiquity than the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, although the translation into Greek was 
 not made till the time usually supposed. Both 
 these theories have been actually put forward, 
 and neither can be pronounced prima facie impos- 
 sible. We must consider briefly how far they are 
 defensible in themselves, and how far they affect 
 the conclusions arrived at above.* 
 
 * It will be said that there is a third possibility : viz., a 
 progressive assimilation of the Sam. text to the later Jewish, 
 
124 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 1. The first view has been advanced in a very 
 definite form by Professor Kennett in the Cam- 
 bridge Biblical Studies (1909, p. 126). He thinks it 
 probable that all copies of the Samaritan scrip- 
 tures were destroyed by the Jews at the capture 
 of Samaria and the destruction of the Gerizim 
 temple under John Hyrcanus (c. 107 B.C.), and 
 that the Samaritans restored their law on the 
 basis of Jewish MSS. of contemporary age. Thus 
 the witness of the Sam. to the text of the Old 
 Testament, instead of going back to the fourth 
 century, goes back at the earliest to the last 
 quarter of the second century. There is no doubt 
 that that theory would invalidate most of the 
 conclusions which we have drawn from the exist- 
 ence of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Is it an 
 admissible theory? It seems to me improbable 
 in a very high degree. It is admitted that the 
 Samaritans possessed a Pentateuch from the time 
 of Nehemiah. Now the entire destruction of a 
 sacred book is at all times a difficult operation. 
 In the case supposed it is an unlikely result of 
 the conquest, and the replacement of it by a new 
 Jewish Law-book is in the circumstances more 
 unlikely still. We can hardly think that at a time 
 of such hatred and resentment the Samaritans 
 would have easily reconciled themselves to the 
 
 due to the friendly relations subsisting between the heads 
 of the two communities. Of that position I can only say 
 that in the first place it is too nebulous to admit of dis- 
 cussion ; and in the second place that it seems so improbable 
 that it could only be accepted as a last resource to relieve 
 a problem otherwise insoluble. Either of the alternatives 
 mentioned above would be preferable. 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 125 
 
 adoption of a new code from their conquerors. 
 They would rather have fallen back on the most 
 imperfect copy of their own scriptures than have 
 started afresh from ground common to them- 
 selves and their foes. Nor can we readily suppose 
 that no such copy was to be found. We must 
 bear in mind that long before then there was a 
 numerous Samaritan diaspora in Egypt, if not 
 in other lands ; and even if the Jews had succeeded 
 in destroying all MSS. of the Pentateuch in 
 Samaria itself, it must surely have been possible 
 to procure one from the Egyptian colonists. 
 These are only conjectures, but the theory itself 
 is a conjecture ; a,nd I cannot think that the 
 balance of evidence is in its favour. 
 
 2. The second theory demands a somewhat 
 fuller examination, because it is more plausible 
 in itself, and because it opens up questions which 
 go to the roots of the textual problem of the 
 Old Testament. It is that while the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch is older than the Greek translation 
 of the Law, yet the Hebrew original of the LXX 
 had broken away from the Jewish line of trans- 
 mission at an earlier period than the Sam. To 
 put it more definitely, the LXX was translated 
 from the last of a line of Hebrew MSS. which had 
 had an independent circulation in Palestine or 
 Egypt from a time anterior to the separation of 
 the Samaritan text from the Jewish. This view 
 has been advocated with considerable ability and 
 unusual moderation of statement by Wiener in 
 the Expositor of September, 1911 ; and if it were 
 necessary to try conclusions with that irascible 
 controversialist, it would not be difficult to show 
 
126 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 that with all his logical acumen he has contributed 
 nothing of value to the elucidation of the question 
 he has raised.* But it is unnecessary to do that 
 
 * The article, it may be explained, is mainly devoted to 
 a demonstration, on the narrow and inadequate basis of four 
 short passages taken at random from the Pentateuch, that 
 the Hebrew original of the LXX differed far more widely 
 from MT and Sam. than these differ from one another. I 
 cannot here discuss the variants seriatim ; but after careful 
 examination it is clear to me that their significance is con- 
 stantly misunderstood and greatly exaggerated. I have found 
 very few which really point to a different Hebrew from MT. 
 Apart from cases of inner-Greek corruption, the great bulk 
 of the differences registered are clearly due to the freedom 
 of translators, who did not render word for word (after the 
 manner of Aquila), but often adjusted their rendering to 
 Greek idiom, assimilated expressions and grammatical forms 
 to the context, substituted synonyms, and made slight 
 explanatory additions. Moreover, in the few cases where 
 a divergent Hebrew may reasonably be suspected, there is 
 hardly one in which that Hebrew commends itself as superior 
 to the MT ; while there are several where it is distinctly 
 worse ; and this is true alike as regards the consonantal 
 text and the vocalization. Wiener overlooks the crucial 
 consideration that only where the Hebrew basis of the LXX 
 is obviously better than the Hebraeo-Samaritan does it 
 count as evidence that the former is nearer to the original 
 text than the latter. For if the original of the LXX is 
 obviously inferior to the Hebrew, then, w^hile it is certain 
 that the coiTuption is of more recent date than the separa- 
 tion of the LXX Hebrew from the parent stem, it must 
 always remain doubtful in such cases whether that separa- 
 tion was earlier or later than the severance of Sam. from 
 MT. Hence, on my reading of the facts, Wiener's very 
 restricted argument has failed to establish the thesis that 
 the LXX has a higher Hebrew ancestry than the Sam. Of 
 course I am aware that if even a few superior readings in 
 the LXX can be produced, they are sufficient to prove that 
 it depends in part on an older Hebrew than Sam. ; on the 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 127 
 
 in detail. The whole argument moves within this 
 syllogism: (a) The agreement of Sam. with MT 
 is greater than that of LXX with either ; now 
 (6) the more divergent text is the more ancient ; 
 therefore (c) LXX represents an earlier phase of 
 Hebrew text than Sam. or MT. The minor pre- 
 miss (a) will, I believe, be generally conceded ; 
 but the major (6) only with the qualification that 
 everything depends on the nature of the diver- 
 gence ; and hence the conclusion (c) remains in 
 suspense. 
 
 It is necessary to look very carefully at the 
 presuppositions of this argument, because there 
 are several points at which error is apt to creep 
 in through imperfect realization of the facts of 
 the case. It can be best stated by attending to 
 examples of corrupt text in the various recensions. 
 The MT contains a few undoubted corruptions 
 which are not in the Sam., and the Sam. contains 
 a greater number from which MT is free. These 
 must be assumed to have crept into either text 
 after the time when they went their separate 
 ways ; and on the other hand corruptions which 
 appear in both must have come in before that 
 time. But in the same way, the joint MT and 
 Sam. text has a few errors which the LXX does 
 not share, just as the LXX contains a number 
 of undoubted corruptions which are not found 
 in the Heb.-Sam. ; and again we infer that both 
 
 other hand the undoubted presence of inferior readings in 
 its Hebrew basis means that we cannot predicate a higher 
 antiquity of its text as a whole, or assume that in neutral 
 readings (i.e., those to w^hich no intrinsic test of value can 
 be applied) the presumption of antiquity is in its favour. — 
 See Note VIII, p. 276. 
 
128 
 
 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 these classes of errors are later than the diver- 
 gence of the Hebrew basis of the LXX from the 
 parent stock of the MT and Sam. But that 
 obviously means that the Hebrew basis of the 
 LXX has branched oif from the common stem 
 at a point nearer the origin than the bifurcation 
 of Sam. and MT. The assumed situation, then, 
 
 C. 330 B.C. 
 
 Heb 
 
 (MTl 
 
 Sam 
 
 C.28O-250B.C. 
 
 LXX 
 
 may be represented graphically by the accompany- 
 ing diagram; where the continuous lines denote 
 transmission in Hebrew MSS., and the dotted line 
 the succession of Greek MSS. O stands for the 
 common Hebrew original of all the texts, a for 
 the problematical point of separation of the LXX 
 from the Jewish texts ; h for the separation of 
 MT and Sam. ; and c for the point at which the 
 Greek translation was made. 
 
 Now, to the principle involved in this abstract 
 reasoning it does not seem to me that any ex- 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 129 
 
 ception can be taken. But unless I am greatly 
 mistaken, Wiener goes astray through over- 
 simplification of the very complex phenomena 
 we have to deal with. Divergences of the LXX 
 from the joint Sam. and Jewish text may be 
 of four kinds : (1) They may be readings of the 
 original text which have been lost in the Heb.- 
 Sam., but preserved by the LXX ; i.e., they may 
 go back to the line O — a in the diagram. Where 
 the LXX has clearly the better text we must 
 assume that its reading falls under this head. 
 
 (2) They may have originated in Heb. MSS. before 
 the Greek translation was made (in the line a — c). 
 
 (3) They may have come in in the translation 
 itself (at the point c), through actual errors, mis- 
 reading of the Hebrew, non-literal renderings, 
 explanatory additions, and so on. (4) In the 
 subsequent history of the Greek text of the LXX 
 (below c). I have pointed out in the last note 
 that in my view Wiener makes no sufficient 
 allowance for changes of the class (3). I have 
 now to add that he does not seem to recognize 
 at all the existence of class (2). He appears to 
 fancy that when he has proved that a reading 
 of the LXX rests on a Hebrew variant, he has 
 recovered a text which goes back to the point 
 a, where the Hebrew of the LXX parted from 
 the other line of descent ; and thus identifies the 
 text of a Hebrew MS. of say 250 B.c. with the 
 text common to all MSS. at the unknown period 
 when the LXX is believed to have broken away 
 from the joint transmission. Whereas it is only 
 where the LXX has preserved the intrinsically 
 superior text that such inferences are legitimate. 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. IQ 
 
130 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 Perhaps the fallacy lies in thinking of the LXX 
 as representing an older text than Sam., because 
 its Hebrew basis started on its separate course at 
 an earlier time. It is surely superfluous to remark 
 that the Heb.-Sam. diverged from LXX just at 
 the same time as LXX diverged from Heb.-Sam. ; 
 and that it is sheer inconsequence to think of the 
 one text as older than the other on this account. 
 It would be nearer the purpose to consider that, 
 properly speaking, all texts are of equal antiquity ; 
 that is to say, if we have three contemporary 
 MSS., a Greek, a Samaritan, and a Jewish, the 
 presumption is that each will have been the 
 result of as many successive copyings as the 
 others, and that consequently all have been 
 equally liable to the accidents of transcription. 
 As all living men trace their ancestry to Adam, 
 so all MSS. of the Pentateuch descend alike from 
 the edition of the Law promulgated in the fifth 
 century ; and the fact that the hypothetical 
 original of the LXX dates from an earlier period 
 than the original of the Sam. no more guarantees 
 the superiority of the actual text of the LXX 
 to the text of Sam. than a man's having an un- 
 known ancestor in the time of the Conqueror 
 would give him precedence over another man 
 who had a know^n ancestor in the reign of Charles 
 II. There is, in fact, no question of relative 
 antiquity, but only of relative soundness, of text ; 
 and that can only be determined by internal 
 considerations. If it were true that the LXX 
 is on the whole a better text than the Heb.-Sam., 
 and that the latter differs from it mainly in the 
 way of explicable corruption, then we should 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 131 
 
 certainly conclude that the LXX's text stands 
 nearer to the original than that of Sam. or MT. 
 But since the case is notoriously otherwise — the 
 readings peculiar to the LXX being in naost cases 
 inferior to those common to Sam. and MT, and 
 therefore corruptions of a text faithfully preserved 
 by them — the inference is irresistible that the 
 text of the LXX, whatever the age of its arche- 
 type, has undergone degeneration, either in 
 Hebrew or Greek MSS., since it parted from 
 the common tradition. 
 
 With that explanation, I think that the theory 
 under discussion has a claim to consideration as 
 a feasible solution of an intricate problem ; though 
 there are two reasons that make one hesitate to 
 accept it. One is that tradition and historical 
 probability are against it. What history tells us 
 is that the Samaritan Pentateuch is older than 
 the Greek translation. If we dismiss the state- 
 ments of the pseudo-Aristeas as unworthy of 
 credence, there is still a probability that the Jews 
 of Alexandria would not have been content with 
 a version derived from any less authentic source 
 than the official Palestinian text of the time. 
 StiU, if it should be found that the relations of 
 the three recensions can only be explained by 
 allowing a higher antiquity to the Hebrew arche- 
 type of the LXX, the historical presumption may 
 be overridden by literary evidence, and the view 
 we are considering may have to be adopted. But 
 in the second place we may hesitate to decide 
 that this is the only or the best solution of the 
 textual problem. We should have to inquire 
 whether the resources of the theory of Gesenius 
 
132 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 (see p. 114 above) are not adequate to the situation 
 with which we have to deal. In other words, 
 whether the history of the text is not more truly 
 exhibited by this diagram than by the one already 
 given : Sam. and LXX being both derived from 
 an unofficial Hebrew recension (a-b), which had 
 ramified into an indefinite variety of texts, of 
 which the Sam. and the LXX are the only 
 
 surviving representatives. The subject is too 
 large to be investigated here ; but it is not clear 
 to me that the textual facts might not be ex- 
 plained by some such hypothesis as this ; in which 
 case the common element of the Sam. and LXX 
 would take us back to a point considerably nearer 
 the original text than the actual adoption of the 
 Pentateuch by the Samaritans. For the present, 
 however, I will assume provisionally that the 
 truth lies in the direction of the hypothesis we 
 have been discussing. Let us see how this will 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 133 
 
 affect the evidence drawn from the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch for the original use of the divine 
 names. 
 
 (1) It is obvious that the positive testimony of 
 the combined Sam. and MT remains exactly as 
 before. It remains certain that the names for 
 God as they stand in MT (neglecting the nine 
 variants of the Sam.) were found in authoritative 
 Hebrew MSS. of the fourth century B.c. The only 
 new element is the assumed existence of still 
 earlier MSS. in which a different distribution of 
 the names occurred. (2) We have just seen that 
 this assumption only suggests a bare possibility 
 that the LXX has preserved the divine names 
 in a more original form than the MT. Undeniably 
 variations have occurred in one line of trans- 
 mission or the other, but whether these be due 
 to accident or caprice or deliberate tendency, 
 there is no presumption whatever that they are 
 on the side of the MT. (3) From the point of 
 separation of Sam. and MT, Jewish and Samaritan 
 scribes were exceedingly careful in transcribing 
 the names of God, while we have no evidence 
 that the same accuracy obtained in the Hebrew 
 ancestry of the LXX, as it certainly did not 
 obtain in Greek MSS. Are we to suppose that 
 this fidelity of Jewish scribes to the text dates 
 only from the time when the Pentateuch was 
 taken over by the Samaritans ? Is it not a reason- 
 able assumption that great care had been exercised 
 in this respect from the beginning by the central 
 authorities in Jerusalem ? (4) It is a legitimate 
 supposition — conceded in fact by Wiener, although 
 we can have no absolute certainty on the point — 
 
134 THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 that the Samaritan Pentateuch was derived from 
 the canonical text of Palestinian Judaism. On 
 Wiener's theory we are bound to suppose that 
 the MS. used by the LXX translators was not 
 an officially guaranteed MS., but a private codex, 
 distant (it may be) by many removes from the 
 central stream of tradition, though it happened 
 to conserve some readings superior to the standard 
 text. Now it is only the official guardians of a 
 canonized text who are in a position to exercise 
 an effective control over its transmission. We 
 know that the Jewish authorities did not succeed 
 perfectly — although they succeeded much better 
 than the copyists of the LXX — in maintaining a 
 pure text ; but it does not follow that their efforts 
 were wholly in vain, or that in what they re- 
 garded as an important feature of the text — the 
 divine names — they have not preserved the 
 original readings. (5) The LXX, even in cases 
 where we can be sure that its readings rest on a 
 Hebrew original, would only give us the text of 
 a Hebrew MS. extant at the time of translation. 
 We have no proof that it was then an ancient 
 MS., or that in readings like the divine names, 
 whose intrinsic value cannot be judged of, it did 
 not deviate widely from its assumed ancestor. 
 (6) Finally we have to remember that the LXX 
 in its best established text agrees with the MT 
 in about five-sixths of the divine names of Genesis, 
 that the remaining sixth may well be due either 
 to the translators not attaching importance to 
 literal exactness in their work, or to inadvertent 
 changes natural to Greek copyists, and that there 
 is not one which might not have been altered in 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 135 
 
 Greek more readily than in Hebrew : — when we 
 consider all this we shall not be disposed to rate 
 very highly the pretensions of the LXX, whatever 
 be the age of its archetype, to have preserved a 
 more reliable recension of the divine names than 
 the MT or the Samaritan. 
 
 It is right to say before passing from the subject 
 that neither this theory nor that of Dr. Kennett 
 has been before the minds of critics in investi- 
 gating the structure of the Pentateuch : their task 
 has been performed under the influence of a con- 
 ception of the text springing from the common 
 opinion as to the dates of the LXX and the 
 Sam. So far as I know these theories are both 
 recent arrivals. Now^ that they have arrived it 
 will be necessary t© examine them on their merits, 
 and in the light of all the circumstances of the 
 case. Such an examination is perhaps at the 
 present moment premature. We shall do w^ell to 
 await the publication of a critical edition of the 
 Sam. before committing ourselves to a final 
 judgment upon them. The general acceptance 
 of either view would certainly destroy or weaken 
 the confidence hitherto felt in the Sam. as the 
 earliest witness to the Hebrew text, and would 
 to that extent affect the textual argument for 
 the documentary theory. Even in that event, 
 however, it seems to me that the considerations 
 advanced above are sufiicient to dispel the notion 
 that by following the track of the LXX we shall 
 get nearer the original distribution of the divine 
 names than if we trust the Massoretic text. 
 
V 
 OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 BESIDES the LXX and the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, there are several versions of the 
 Old Testament or of the Pentateuch, made 
 directly from the Hebrew, vrhich can be cited 
 as collateral evidence of the condition of the text 
 at different points in its history. With perhaps 
 one partial exception (the so-called Targum of 
 Jonathan), they all belong to an age either 
 contemporary with or later than the fixation of 
 the textus receptus which we nov7 possess. Hence, 
 as naight be expected, their divergence from our 
 present Hebrew is slight ; and as a rule it is 
 only where they lend each other mutual support, 
 or agree with LXX or Sam., that any value what- 
 ever attaches to their variant readings. That is 
 true of the text in general, but it is conspicuously 
 true of their use of the divine names, in so far 
 as that can be regarded as textual evidence at all. 
 1. We may first of all dispose of the Jewish 
 Targums, from which little or nothing can be 
 learned as to the current text of the divine names. 
 These versions are based on the oral translation 
 into the Aramaic vernacular which accompanied 
 the reading of the Law in Jewish Synagogues. 
 We do not know when this oral translation 
 
 136 
 
OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 137 
 
 was first committed to writing ; but it is certain 
 that extensive changes continued to be made 
 long after it had assumed the written form. 
 Even a late reading may, however, through oral 
 tradition, attest an early form of Hebrew text. 
 Only two complete Targums of the Pentateuch 
 have survived, one used in the synagogues of 
 Babylonia, and the other of Palestinian origin. 
 
 The Babylonian Targum (commonly known 
 as the Targum of Onkelos) is of absolutely no 
 use for our present purpose. For the name of 
 God it employs indiscriminately a symbol of 
 the Tetragrammaton (") which completely obliter- 
 ates the characteristics of the Hebrew text on 
 which the translation is based. Whether this 
 represents the oral usage of the Synagogue we 
 cannot tell ; but it certainly does not reflect the 
 contemporary Hebrew text, and therefore it does 
 not concern us here. 
 
 The Palestinian Targum (Targum of Pseudo- 
 Jonathan) in its present form is a compilation 
 not older than the eighth century after Christ, 
 and composed of very heterogeneous elements. 
 In one place (Deut. xxxiii. 11) it introduces a 
 reference to the enemies of John Hyrcanus which 
 must date from the beginning of the first century 
 B.C. ; in other places it contains allusions to 
 Constantinople (Num. xxiv. 19) and even to the 
 wives of Mahomet (Gen. xxi. 21). Its rendering 
 of the Hebrew is highly paraphrastic, being of 
 the nature of a popular and Midrashic commentary 
 rather than a strict translation. Nevertheless it is 
 frequently possible to discover under its render- 
 ings traces of a Hebrew text slightly differing 
 
138 OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 from the MT. But again it is impossible to make 
 any use of its treatment of the divine names. 
 Its divergences from the MT, which are numerous, 
 are all in one direction ; i.e., it usually substitutes 
 J for E but never E for J.* In chap. i. 1-ii. 3 
 Elohim (d^p^k) t is consistently retained ; in chap, 
 ii., iii., Yahwe ('n for DS^n, " the Name ") is used 
 in iii. 3 for Elohim, and in iii. 5 for Yahwe 
 Elohim ; elsewhere in these two chapters the 
 double nanae is employed, and in iii. 1 takes 
 the place of E in the MT. From iv. 1 onwards 
 the use of J tends to become exclusive : but E 
 is retained in vii. 16a, ix. 1, 6, 8, 16, 17; after 
 ix. 17 J is invariably used except in chap. xx. 
 where (apart from an omission in xx. 13) the 
 divine names agree with those of MT. We can 
 clearly form no conclusion as to the distribution 
 of names in the Hebrew basis of the translation. 
 We may note in passing that it is here if any- 
 where that we might look for traces of a usage 
 governed by the Seder- or Parasha-division in 
 Palestinian synagogues ; but no such principle 
 can be discovered. No conclusion is possible 
 except that we have in this Targum an earlier 
 phase of the tendency to a uniform use of J which 
 reaches its culmination in the Babylonian Targum. 
 2. We have next the important Greek version 
 of Aquila. This is a mechanically literal trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament, in a form which 
 might have been intelligible, but could hardly 
 
 * I use Ginsburger's edition. 
 
 t The proper Aramaic name for God Nn?X is used for 
 7N and for D*n?t< where it has generic or appellative sig- 
 nificance. 
 
OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 139 
 
 have been readable, to a Greek. There is no 
 doubt that its intention was to supplant the LXX 
 in the hands of Greek-speaking Jews, and to 
 substitute a correct representation of the author- 
 ized scriptures. It aims accordingly at reproducing 
 every minute peculiarity of the Hebrew text — for 
 by that time Jewish exegesis had learned to 
 extract profound meanings from the letter and 
 even the accidental minutiae of the sacred text — 
 in conscious defiance of Greek grammar and 
 idiom. Its great importance lies in the fact 
 that it emanated from the circle of Jewish 
 scholars by whom the Old Testament canon was 
 finally determined and the standard text fixed : 
 Aquila is said to have been a pupil of Rabbi Aqiba. 
 Hence it possesses an authority second only to 
 that of the official text itself. Its variations from 
 the modern received text have never been 
 thoroughly explored, although enough is known 
 to assure us that they are very slight. How 
 then do matters stand -with regard to the divine 
 names? Unfortunately the version of Aquila 
 is known to us only from a few fragments, and 
 in citations and marginal notes taken mostly from 
 the third column of Origen's Hexapla. Of the 
 passages of Genesis where the name of God occurs 
 there are only about thirty-two* where the 
 reading of Aquila has been preserved. In all 
 of them it agrees with the MT, with the single 
 exception of xxx. 24, where, as we have seen 
 
 * i. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 26, 27, 28a, 286, 29, 31 ; ii. 7, 8 
 iii. la, lb; iv. 6, 25; v. 22, 24a; vi. 6, 9; viii. 21a 
 xviii. 30 ; xxiv. 31 ; xxx. 8, 24 ; xxxii. 10, 28 ; xxxiii. 5 
 xli. 16; 1. 19. 
 
140 OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 already (p. 54 f . : cf. p. 186), Aquila has the support 
 of the Peshitta and LXX, but not of the Sam, nor 
 of any Hebrew MS. We need not here discuss 
 the intrinsic merits of the reading ; the important 
 fact is that it is the only divine name in Genesis 
 where the authority of Aquila can be quoted 
 against the MT. It is, of course, only one instance 
 out of thirty-two ; but the evidence so far as it 
 goes entitles us to say that the discrepancies 
 between the MT and Aquila must have been too 
 rare to disturb appreciably the data employed 
 in working out the documentary hypothesis. 
 
 3. Our next witness is the Sybiac version, the 
 Peshitta. Of its origin nothing is certainly known, 
 but it is credibly believed to date from the second 
 century after Christ. The two leading facts as 
 to its character on which scholars are agreed are : 
 first that it is a translation made directly from 
 the Hebrew, but secondly that it has been partly 
 revised in accordance with the LXX. The most 
 difficult question is whether its Hebrew basis was 
 dependent on the archetype of our Massoretic text, 
 or distinct from it. In a recent monograph * this 
 point has been investigated for the book of 
 Genesis ; and the writer comes to the conclusion 
 that it is possible to distinguish between variations 
 due to the LXX revision and those native to the 
 Hebrew original, and that the latter prove the 
 Hebrew basis of the Peshitta to have been sUghtly 
 nearer that of the LXX than the MT is. t To put 
 
 * Hanel, Die aussermasoret. Uebereiiistimviungen eiois- 
 chen der Sept. und der Pesch. in der Gen., 1911. See also 
 Barnes in Journ. of Theol. Studies, II, p. 186 ff. 
 
 t Op. cit., p. 68. 
 
OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 141 
 
 the value of the Peshitta at its highest, we will 
 assume that this view is correct, so that the 
 Hebrew original of that version is a text indepen- 
 dent of (though closely akin to) the official Jewish 
 text of the second century. We will also allow 
 that the divine names are an element of the text 
 little likely to have been assimilated to the LXX 
 by revision ; and we will not raise the question of 
 the fidelity with which the Syriac text has itself 
 been transmitted. 
 
 The actual divergences of the Peshitta from 
 the MT, according to Dahse's tables, are as 
 follows.* 
 
 ?iii. 
 
 H 
 
 + J 
 
 ?iii. 
 
 13 
 
 J for JE {H.P. arabs 4) 
 
 iii. 
 
 24 
 
 + JE (fl" Ohr.) 
 
 ?iv. 
 
 10 
 
 +J 
 
 vii. 
 
 1 
 
 B for J (Sam. ? K601, 686 CW Arm.-codd.) 
 
 ? xiii. 
 
 10a E for J (LXX) 
 
 xiii. 
 
 106 B for J (LXX) 
 
 xiv. 
 
 22 
 
 Om. J (LXX) 
 
 XV. 
 
 6 
 
 B for J (LXX, Vulg.) 
 
 xxii. 
 
 11 
 
 B for J (K248, 601) 
 
 xxii. 
 
 15 
 
 Efor J 
 
 xxix. 
 
 32 
 
 B for J (Georg.) 
 
 XXX. 
 
 24 
 
 E for J (LXX, Aq., Sym.) 
 
 ?xxx. 
 
 27 
 
 E for J (LXX) 
 
 xxxi, 
 
 . 16& J for B 
 
 * In four of these passages the reading is doubtful. In iv. 
 10, xiii. 10a. the Axnbrosian Codex agrees with MT ; in iii. 13 
 MT is supported by all the leading editions (Ambrosian, Lee, 
 Urumiah, Mosul) except the London Polyglot ; and in xxx. 27 
 by all except the London Polyglot and Lee. Dahse further 
 queries iii. 11 : for what reason I cannot discover. It would 
 appear therefore that there are only ten undoubted variants 
 of Pesh. from MT. 
 
142 OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 How then does Dahse explain the phenomena 
 of the Peshitta? He regards it as representing 
 a transition stage between LXX and MT in a 
 progressive elimination of Elohim in favour of 
 Yahwe. The oldest translation (the LXX) con- 
 tains the greatest proportion of Es, the Peshitta 
 has fewer, and the MT fewest of all (p. 51 f.). It 
 appears to me that this view of a gradual substi- 
 tution of J for E is totally irreconcilable with his 
 Pericope-hypothesis. According to that theory 
 the preponderance of E in the LXX was brought 
 about once for all by an editorial operation, in 
 which many a J was deliberately changed to E 
 on principles determined by the Sedarim-division 
 of the Law. Similarly the substitution of J for 
 E in the MT was due to another instantaneous 
 redaction, influenced by the later Parasha-division. 
 And now we are told that there was an inter- 
 mediate stage, marked by the Pesh., at which the 
 Sedarim-division was abandoned and the Parasha- 
 system not yet introduced ! We are, of course, 
 not sorry to find the inconsequent Pericope-theory 
 so feebly rooted in the mind of its author ; but 
 unfortunately this new and contradictory sugges- 
 tion of a progressive elimination of E from the 
 text is equally at fault. In the first place it is 
 setting the facts in a wrong perspective to speak 
 of the Pesh. as having fewer {schon weniger) Es 
 than the LXX ; the truth being that it has only a 
 very few more than the MT (so Dahse on p. 26). 
 It is surely a thoroughly arbitrary and perverse 
 proceeding to treat the Pesh. as dependent on the 
 text to which it has least resemblance (the LXX), 
 and as independent of the MT, with which it was 
 
OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 143 
 
 nearly contemporary, and with which it so closely 
 agrees. Moreover, in one-third of the cases (three 
 out of nine) where E stands in the Pesh. for a J 
 of MT, E is not read in the LXX ; and in two of 
 the six places where E is supported by LXX the 
 Syriac text is doubtful: so that there is no clear 
 indication of tendency in the direction imagined 
 by Dahse. It is quite certain, therefore, that as 
 regards its use of the divine names the Pesh. is not 
 a stepping-stone from LXX to MT (or for that 
 matter from MT to LXX). We observe, further, 
 that Dahse, as usual, ignores the existence of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch. His view of the Pesh. 
 involves the tacit assumption that the Hebrew 
 basis of that version branched off from the official 
 Jewish text at a point later than the original of 
 the LXX, but earlier than the Sam. He has left 
 us in doubt whether he really entertains that 
 extravagant opinion — in spite of the fact that the 
 Sam. exhibits only a single agreement with a 
 distinctive divine name of the Pesh. in Genesis — 
 or whether he has never thought of the matter 
 at aU. 
 
 The obviously right course is to start from the 
 fact that the basis of the Peshitta was a Hebrew 
 text circulating in the first or second century 
 after Christ, and to compare that text with the 
 contemporary recension preserved in the MT. 
 Looking at the list of variants from this point 
 of view, the first thing that strikes us is the 
 preference for E over J which the Pesh. exhibits 
 in a much less degree than the LXX. There is 
 but one case where an E of MT is replaced by 
 J (Dahse, p. 26 f.), and only two doubtful cases 
 
144 OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 where J is added to the text. Next, we are struck 
 by the proportion of feebly supported readings. 
 In eight out of the above fifteen variants (iii. 11, 
 13, 24, iv. 10, xxii. 11, 15, xxix. 32, xxxi. 16) the 
 Pesh. has either no external corroboration or 
 none worth speaking of; it is rarely supported 
 by more than a single independent witness (vii. 
 1, XV. 6, XXX. 24) ; it has only one doubtful 
 agreement with a variant of Sam. ; and two with 
 Heb. MSS. If these be characteristics of a Hebrew 
 text of the first or second century, we must of 
 course admit that the official recension had not 
 then obtained the exclusive ascendancy which it 
 secured at a later time ; but, on the other hand, 
 they furnish a remarkable proof of the solidarity 
 of the Hebrew text of that age. They certainly 
 do not suggest that the text represented by the 
 Pesh. had had a separate history dating from 
 the time when the Sam. or the LXX branched 
 off from the Jewish stem, or that the agreements 
 with the LXX are other than accidental. The 
 only reasonable view is that if the Hebrew basis 
 of the Pesh. was not the MT itself, it was an 
 unauthorized offshoot of the official Palestinian 
 text of comparatively recent origin. And after 
 all we cannot altogether ignore the possibility of 
 errors in the transmission of the Syriac text. 
 
 4. The last version that requires notice is the 
 Latin Vulgate, produced by Jerome in the closing 
 decade of the fourth century and the first of the 
 fifth. By that time the Massoretic recension had 
 been established for 250 years — long enough for 
 many mistakes to have crept into MSS. derived 
 from a single archetype. Hence a divergence of 
 
«-^ J. J-LXUXIf ^tlV^TXXUXVX" 
 
 ^F^RSIONS 145 
 
 the Vulgate, unless it commends itself by its 
 intrinsic superiority, or is corroborated by textual 
 evidence, can never take us behind the sources 
 of the MT.* As regards the divine names, Dahse 
 cites only three variants : viz., vi. 5 E for J (= K 80) ; 
 vii. 9 J for E (= Sam., K155) ; xv. 6 B for J (=LXX, 
 Pesh.) : to these must be added vi. 3 (E for J). 
 
 I am well aware that the affinities of these 
 versions with one another and with the MT, and 
 their evidential value for textual criticism, are 
 questions that cannot be decided on the narrow 
 basis of the divine names. Their relations must 
 ultimately be determined by characteristic read- 
 ings whose inherent value can be estimated, and 
 whose lineage can be traced, with some assurance 
 that we are not dealing merely with accidental 
 coincidences. That investigation has yet to be 
 undertaken for the versions now in question. 
 Nevertheless the divine names do constitute to 
 some extent a special problem ; and I think we are 
 warranted in maintaining : first, that the Jewish 
 Targums count for nothing in this inquiry ; and 
 second, that Aquila and the Vulgate strongly 
 confirm the Massoretic text. The Peshitta alone 
 presents a doubtful aspect. But even if we 
 concede the utmost importance that can possibly 
 be claimed for its 10 or 11 or even 15 discrepancies, 
 they are too few to discredit the general soundness 
 of the Massoretic text, or to invalidate critical 
 conclusions founded on the assumption of its 
 trustworthiness. 
 
 * See Note IX, p. 281. 
 TTu Divine Namei in Oentsis, 1 1 
 
VI 
 
 THE LIMITS OF TEXTUAL 
 UNCERTAINTY 
 
 IT is now time to gather up the threads of this 
 protracted and sometimes, I am afraid, 
 intricate discussion, and to consider with unpreju- 
 diced minds how it fares with the documentary 
 theory of the Pentateuch, after the most elaborate 
 assault that has yet been made under the banner 
 of " textual " criticism. I have pointed out, in the 
 introductory paragraphs (pp. 6-11), that Dahse, 
 like others of his school, greatly exaggerates the 
 importance of the divine names for the analysis 
 of the Pentateuch,* but no one will deny that they 
 have a certain importance, or that if, as regards 
 the names for God, the text with which critics 
 have operated could be shown to be either 
 demonstrably wrong or hopelessly uncertain, the 
 evidence for the documentary hypothesis would 
 at some points (at least in the analysis of J and E) 
 be sensibly weakened. In succeeding sections I 
 have examined at great length the new and 
 positive suggestions that Dahse has brought to 
 bear on the problem, and hope I have convinced 
 my readers that he has failed to substantiate any 
 one of them. I have called attention incidentally 
 
 * See Note X, p. 288. 
 
 146 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 147 
 
 to certain fallacious assumptions, errors in reason- 
 ing, and misstatements of fact, which detract from 
 his argument, and seem to me to reveal a bias 
 in favour of anything that makes for the 
 strengthening of his own speculations. If it 
 were a mere matter of repelling a particular 
 attack, it would hardly be necessary to add 
 anything to what has already been said. But the 
 controversy raises a wider issue than that. It 
 will doubtless have left on the minds of some of 
 my readers an impression that after all said and 
 done the situation does not remain exactly as it 
 was before. It will be felt that even if every 
 specific argument has been fairly met and success- 
 fully refuted — and I do not assume that this will 
 be universally granted — yet the general pre- 
 cariousness of the textual data is so much greater 
 than has hitherto been realized that confidence 
 in the results of critical analysis must be seriously 
 shaken. I apprehend, in short, that the real effect 
 of Dahse's work will be rather the diffusion of a 
 vague uncertainty* as regards the Hebrew text 
 in general, than the solution of any problem by 
 the light of new constructive principles. I will 
 therefore endeavour, in this chapter, to sum 
 up the arguments for and against the trust- 
 worthiness of the Massoretic text, and to show 
 that within the margin of uncertainty which 
 admittedly exists, there is a solid and sufficient 
 working basis for the literary analysis of the 
 Pentateuch, and for such use of the divine names 
 in that analysis as a reasonable criticism requires 
 to make. 
 
 * See Note XI, p. 290. 
 
148 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 In order to clear the ground for such a state- 
 ment, I will first ask the reader's attention to 
 the following examination of Dahse's view of the 
 status quaestionis, which is given on pp. 51 f. of 
 his book. After a critical review of the history 
 of the controversy up to the present time, he 
 sums up the considerations that bear on the 
 rival claims of the MT and the LXX to re- 
 present the original names, under the following 
 heads : 
 
 A. In favour of the Massoretic text (and against 
 the LXX) : 
 
 1. The agreement of the Hebrew MSS. with 
 
 the Samaritan and with one another, 
 and the absence of any tendency to- 
 wards assimilation ; and, 
 
 2. In the LXX, errors and carelessness on 
 
 the part of translators and copyists, 
 alterations due to religious motives, 
 aversion to nins partiality for 6 Osoq. 
 
 "We shall see in a little that the case for the MT 
 and against the LXX might be put a good deal 
 more strongly than that. For my part, I lay no 
 stress on the " religious considerations " or the 
 deliberate avoidance of Yahwe in the LXX ; and 
 the phrase about "absence of tendency to assimi- 
 lation " conveys no meaning to my mind, and was 
 probably not intended by Dahse to carry nauch 
 weight. But in what remains — the unimportance 
 of Hebrew variants, the remarkable harmony of 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 149 
 
 Sam. and MT and the notorious confusion of the 
 LXX text — there are solid grounds for maintain- 
 ing the superiority of the Massoretic tradition, 
 and grounds which will not be easily neutralized 
 by the motley array of considerations which 
 Dahse marshals on the other side. Let us see 
 what these are. 
 
 B. Against the originality of the Massoretic text, 
 and in favour of the higher antiquity of the LXX, 
 we are asked to consider — 
 
 1. That there was no hesitation about 
 changing the name of God in Hebrew 
 writings, as is clear from 
 
 (a) the Books of Psalms and Chron- 
 
 icles, 
 
 (b) the testimony of the Talmud, and 
 
 (c) the Targum. 
 
 In Hebrew writings ! In another connexion 
 Dahse himself protests against citing the analogy 
 of the later books of the Canon as evidence 
 against the fidelity of the Greek translation of 
 the Pentateuch ; and says that in regard to the 
 originality of the divine names in the LXX each 
 book must be examined separately (p. 25). He 
 cannot run with the hare and hunt with the 
 hounds. If that is a good rule when the 
 accuracy of the LXX is in question, it surely 
 applies a fortiori to a question of the soundness 
 of the MT. But let us waive the point, and 
 look at his proof : (a) the Psalter contains 
 evidence that certain Psalms were subjected to 
 an Elohistic redaction, which of course means 
 
150 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 that no scruple was felt in altering the name of 
 God in the compilation of a part of the Temple 
 liturgy. On this subject it is enough to refer to 
 my note on p. 40, where it is pointed out that this 
 operation was performed on writings not yet 
 invested with canonical authority, and therefore 
 furnishing no presumption that a similar licence 
 would have been permitted in dealing with the 
 divine names in the Law. — The case of the 
 Chronicler is more pertinent, and I admit that 
 it gives us to think seriously, though not exactly 
 in the way that Dahse imagines. There appears 
 to be no doubt that the Chronicler allows himself 
 considerable freedom in the use of the names 
 Yahwe and Elohim. When writing indepen- 
 dently, he evinces a preference for Elohim, 
 especially in the phrase "house of God" (21 
 times) ; and — what is more to the purpose — in 
 making excerpts from Samuel and Kings, he 
 not infrequently uses Elohim where the MT of 
 these books has Yahwe.* It follows that either 
 the Chronicler or the compilers of the canonical 
 Samuel and Kings have in some cases altered 
 the names found in the original sources. Dahse 
 (p. 4A) quotes from Eerdmans a sentence to the 
 effect that the age of the Chronicler, " in which 
 Yahwe and Elohim were used promiscuously," 
 is the age from which " the older writings " have 
 been handed down to us ; the inference being 
 
 * 1 Ohron. xiii. 8, 12, 14, xiv. 10, 11, 14a, 15, 16, xvi. la, 
 16, xvii. 2, 3, 17, xxi. 8, 17 ; 2 Chron. i. 7, xviii. 5, xxxiii. 7, 
 xxxiv. 27 ; and eleven times in " house of God," 2 Chron. 
 iv. 11, 19, V. 1, 14, vii. 5, xv. 18, xxii. 12, xxiii. 3, 9, xxv. 24, 
 xxxiv. 9. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 151 
 
 that the text of these older writings was not 
 then handled with the same scrupulous care as 
 in later times. But against this we must observe 
 first, that the freedom exercised by a compiler 
 in making extracts from written sources is no 
 evidence that a similar licence was used by 
 scribes in copying a sacred text. Secondly, that 
 in the time of the Chronicler the books of Samuel 
 and Kings had not been admitted to the canon 
 of sacred scripture, and were therefore not 
 protected by an official censorship against irre- 
 sponsible changes of text. Thirdly, the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch proves that the transmission of the 
 divine names of the Law was not influenced by 
 the lax usage of the Chronicler ; for the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch had been in existence from 330 B.C., 
 while the books of Chronicles cannot be dated 
 earlier than about the year 300, and may have 
 been written even a century later. It is clear, 
 therefore, that the indiscriminate use of the 
 divine names in the third century B.C. has had 
 no effect on the text of the Pentateuch. The real 
 point at which the argument from the some- 
 what loose practice of the Chronicler touches the 
 problem before us is the misgiving (whatever it 
 may count for) that redactors of the Pentateuch 
 may have been as reckless of the distinction 
 between Yahwe and Elohim as the Chronicler 
 was in his day. That is a consideration to which 
 due weight must be allowed; but its importance 
 must not be exaggerated. We can never, of 
 course, find direct proof that the compilers of 
 the Pentateuch accurately transcribed the names 
 of God as they stood in the original sources ; at 
 
152 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 the same time the probability of their having 
 done so is not greatly lessened by our knowledge 
 of the inconsistent usage of a much later age. 
 The question is whether any presumption created 
 by the practice of the Chronicler (and the Elohistic 
 redaction of the Psalter) is not negatived by other 
 considerations to be advanced in the later part 
 of this chapter. — (&) We come to the alleged proof 
 from the Talmud. Dahse refers (p. 21) to the 
 statement in Sanhedrin (fol. 1036) that Manasseh 
 "cut out the divine names" (nnatxn) — not, 
 however, "from the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment," but (as is obvious from the context) from 
 the Law — and blandly asks, " Does not that point 
 to great alterations that had taken place in the 
 use of the divine names in course of time ? " It is 
 difficult to deal seriously with such a wild sugges- 
 tion. To cut out the divine Name means simply 
 to treat the scriptures as a heretical book (Sabb. 
 116a) ; and how the imaginary accusation of a 
 monstrous sacrilege like that could be alleged as 
 evidence of a well-known Jewish practice Dahse 
 will on reflection find it hard to explain.* — (c) The 
 
 * The connexion in which the statement occurs in the 
 Talmud is the following: "Ahaz abolished the worship, 
 and sealed up the Law, as it is written [Isa. viii. 16] . . . , 
 Manasseh cut out the divine names, and pulled down the 
 altar, Amon burned the Law and caused cobwebs to cover 
 the altar ; Ahaz committed incest, Manasseh went in to his 
 sister, Amon went in to his mother." There seems to be 
 some derangement of clauses in the ordinary editions ; but 
 the intention is clear. Ahaz, Manasseh and Amon represent 
 three grades of wickedness : Ahaz sealed up the law, 
 Manasseh desecrated it, Amon burned it. Unless Dahse 
 has some proof of the contrary in reserve, we shall hold 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 153 
 
 Targum is at any rate not Hebrew literature ; 
 and here again Dahse is answered out of his own 
 mouth. On p. 50 he remarks that it is " direct 
 falsch " to assume " on the ground of the Targums 
 that a Yahwe is original in the Hebrew text, for, 
 as has been repeatedly observed, in the Targum 
 Yahwe is also the equivalent of Elohim." That 
 is the common sense of the matter ; see the last 
 chapter, p. 137 f. But if " the citation of the Ara- 
 maic paraphrase by Ball proves nothing whatever " 
 (p. 50), how can it prove anything when cited 
 by Dahse ? — Let us proceed to the next head : 
 
 2. That the variants of the LXX are sup- 
 ported by 
 (a) Hebrew MSS., 
 
 (6) by Aquila, Symmachus, 6 'E^paiog, 
 6 Swjooe, Pesh., Vulg., 
 
 (c) by the witness of the prophetic 
 
 writings, 
 
 (d) by ancient proper names, 
 
 (e) by internal considerations. 
 
 (a) I have dealt fully with the variants of 
 Hebrew MSS. in the fourth chapter (pp. 89-104 
 above) and shown that the value of such corrobo- 
 rations is nil. (fe) It is true that a few LXX 
 variants in Genesis are supported by one or other 
 (very rarely by two) of the authorities here cited : 
 viz., one (xxx. 24) by Aquila * and Symmachus ; one 
 
 that the second assertion is just as destitute of traditional 
 warrant as the other two. 
 
 * Symmachus does not count as an independent authority 
 for the text of the divine names. There is reason to believe 
 
154 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 (iv. 1) by 6 EjSjoaTof * and 6 Swpoc ; six (xiii. 10a, 
 xiii. 106, xiv. 22, xv. 6, xxx. 24, xxx. 27) by Pesh. ; t 
 and two or one (iv. 1 ?, xv. 6) by Vulg.t That 
 is all. On the other hand, the MT. is supported 
 against the LXX : six times by Aquila ; four times 
 by Symmachus (i. 286, ii. 7, iv. 1, viii. 21), and by 
 Pesh. and Vulg. I in all cases where there is a 
 divergence, except the few mentioned above. — 
 (c), (d) and (e) have been examined on pp. 105 ff., 
 not exhaustively, indeed, but quite adequately by 
 way of example ; and I have simply to repeat 
 that there is no single reading of the LXX which 
 
 that his translation was a revision of that of Aquila. 
 Twenty-one of his readings containing a name of God are 
 recorded by Field in Genesis ; and I have found no case where 
 he reads a divine name differently from his predecessor. 
 Of the authorities cited as 6 'Ejipaiog and 6 Iivpog nothing 
 whatever is certainly known. If Field is right in con- 
 jecturing that they were individual translators from the 
 Hebrew, one a Jew and the other of Syrian nationality, 
 the question still remains whether they did their work 
 independently of the LXX. For our present purpose it 
 is of very little consequence ; for iv. 1, 2 are the only 
 cases where a divine name of the former is preserved, and 
 6 2vpoe is also represented by only two readings, viz., iv. 1 
 (see above) and xii. 8, where it agrees with both MT 
 and LXX. 
 
 * In iv. 26 the reading of 6 E/3p. is dubious. 
 
 + See p. 141. 
 
 J That is, in the ordinary text, as cited in Dahse's tables. 
 The MSS. of the Vulgate exhibit as great variations in the 
 use of the divine names as those of the LXX ; and it is 
 rather surprising that neither Dahse nor Wiener seems to 
 have explored this interesting realm of confusion. Still 
 more surprising is Dahse's ignoring of the Sam. See Note 
 IX, p. 281. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 155 
 
 can be successfully vindicated on any of these 
 grounds. 
 
 3. Yahwe is in certain places a later in- 
 sertion, so that the contention that the 
 LXX, out of a shrinking from Yahwe, 
 translated it by Kvpcog falls to the 
 ground. This insertion of Yahwe is 
 proved, 
 
 (a) by Origen, 
 
 (b) by the MT itself. 
 
 I confess that the reasoning of this paragraph 
 eludes my comprehension. Dahse has argued 
 (pp. 13, 40 f.) that in certain passages (xiv. 22, 
 XV. 2, xxiv. 40, 48, xxviii. 13, xxxii. 9) the Yahwe 
 is a later addition to the MT. I do not think 
 he has made this probable except in xiv. 22, and 
 perhaps xxxii. 9 ; * but even supposing he were 
 right in all the cases, how does that show that 
 the translators of the LXX did not shrink from 
 rendering Yahwe by Kvpiog ? I have never held 
 that they had any such shrinking ; but all that 
 the alleged facts can possibly show is that certain 
 late editors of the Hebrew text were not influenced 
 by the feeling in question. Nor do I see what 
 proof of the alleged additions can be drawn 
 either from the MT or from Origen. It appears 
 to m.e that any semblance of proof that is given 
 rests on MSS. or recensions of the LXX which 
 
 * In xxxii. 9 Kvpic is omitted only by dp. Dahse's state- 
 ment (p. 13) would lead one to suppose that these MSS. are 
 supported by egj and fir ; but egj and i*r differ from the 
 ordinary LXX (= MT) only by adding to Kvpie, 6 Beos (/uou). 
 
156 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 differ from Origen, and on Dahse's inveterate 
 tendency to assume an independent Hebrew 
 original for any reading found in LXX MSS. 
 which differs from the MT. 
 
 4. A comparison of the MT and Pesh. with 
 
 the LXX shows that the original 
 Elohim-passages have steadily dirain- 
 ished, inasmuch as 
 
 (a) the oldest translation contains 
 most of them, 
 
 (h) the Peshitta fewer, and 
 
 (c) the MT fewest of all. 
 
 That statement has been examined in the last 
 section (p. 142 f.), and shown to be entirely arbi- 
 trary and misleading. 
 
 5. The distribution of divine names in the 
 
 LXX of Genesis i.-ix. 26 proves the 
 existence of an Blohistic redaction, 
 which, however, is older than the 
 Yahwistic redaction in the MT, for 
 
 6. In the MT regard is had to the Parasha- 
 
 di vision. 
 
 7. From all this it follows that in respect 
 
 of the divine names there must have 
 been various editions of Genesis, on 
 which more light will be thrown in 
 the course of the following investiga- 
 tions. 
 
 These three propositions stand or fall with 
 Dahse's pericope-hypothesis, and his theory of 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 157 
 
 recensions, which have been dealt with in the 
 second and third sections of this volume. I have 
 there shown that the former fails to account for 
 the textual facts ; and that, while the existence 
 of the alleged recensions in the Greek text is an 
 open question, not the slightest evidence has been 
 produced that there were corresponding recen- 
 sions in the Hebrew. It thus appears that Dahse's 
 summing up of the case, when closely scrutinized, 
 leaves the balance of evidence decidedly in favour 
 of the MT. The thinly beaten-out argument for 
 the superiority of the LXX resolves itself for the 
 most part into a mixture of unfounded specula- 
 tions with exaggerated estimate of facts. The 
 only items of evidence to which any real weight 
 can be assigned are those numbered 1 (a) and 2 (6) 
 above; and even if one were disposed to allow 
 some indeterminate value to the other considera- 
 tions, their cumulative effect would be small. 
 Arguments require to be weighed as well as 
 counted ; and on any impartial estimate the two 
 solid grounds of confidence in the MT far out- 
 weigh the trivial and sometimes fantastic obser- 
 vations that are thrown into the opposite scale. 
 
 II 
 
 Textual criticism, as practised by Dahse, is a 
 combination of three processes : first, the deter- 
 mination of the oldest text by documentary 
 evidence ; second, the attempt to establish the 
 original reading by internal considerations ; and 
 third, the formation of hypotheses to explain the 
 variations which the text has undergone in the 
 course of its transmission. The second method, 
 
158 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 we have seen, is inapplicable to the case of the 
 divine names ; and the third, although a perfectly 
 legitimate process in itself, has so far proved 
 illusory even in the skilful hands of Dahse. It 
 remains to consider whether by, the first method 
 alone we can compass a solution of our problem, 
 or whether it leaves us in such uncertainty as to 
 render abortive ab initio any attempt to recover 
 the original readings of the sources of the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 (1) It is a sound critical maxim that the correct- 
 ness or originality of a reading is not to be 
 questioned when it presents no inherent difficulty, 
 and when all documentary evidence is united in 
 its support. It has already been shown that there 
 is no case where a reading of the divine Name 
 can be certainly accepted or rejected on internal 
 grounds ; it must now be added that a considerable 
 number of readings cannot rightly be challenged 
 on external or documentary grounds. In all such 
 cases the true text must be regarded as estab- 
 lished. But this principle is set at nought, if not 
 by Dahse himself, at least by his allies Wiener 
 and Schlogl. The former, it appears, is of opinion 
 that only in the rarest instances can it be ascer- 
 tained whether the original text of Genesis read 
 Yahwe or Elohim (Dahse, p. 32 f.) — just enough 
 instances, I suppose, to prove that the MT is not 
 to be trusted ! Schlogl carries his scepticism 
 so far that he feels himself at liberty to change 
 every J in Genesis into E, even in cases — some 
 thirty in number — where E is not read by a 
 single text (see above, p. 31, note). If the range 
 of uncertainty were really as great as these two 
 
iiiMiis UJ^' TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 159 
 
 writers imagine, there might be some excuse 
 for this drastic procedure ; but their uncritical 
 handling of the material leads them to over- 
 estimate the extent of the divergence. In any 
 case, it is surely the abnegation of textual 
 criticism to set aside the unanimous testimony 
 of MSS. and versions to a particular reading, 
 merely because the documents are at variance in 
 a certain number of other places. 
 
 (2) The area of uncertainty with which we 
 have to reckon is pretty nearly measured by the 
 divergence between the MT and the LXX. No 
 doubt the Sam. and the younger versions deviate 
 in a few cases (about fifteen in all)* from MT and 
 LXX, where these two are in agreement. But 
 these are mere family differences, which need 
 not be taken into account until we have settled 
 the much bigger question of the relation of the 
 LXX to the Hebrew text as a whole. Now the 
 " textual " critics seem to me to go astray by not 
 observing that the LXX counts only as a single 
 witness (whether for or against the MT), that its 
 original text must be recovered before it can be 
 cited as evidence against the MT, and that when 
 recovered it cancels all the variants in its MSS. 
 and daughter-versions. + That we are uncertain 
 in many cases what the original LXX was, does 
 not alter the fact that it must have been either 
 one thing or another, and not two things at once, 
 or three. It is the first business of the textual 
 critic to ascertain what the best reading of the 
 LXX is : if that reading turns out to be the same 
 
 * See Table V. 
 
 t See below, p. 241 fif. 
 
160 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 as the MT, he must obviously forego the liberty 
 of appealing to the weaker reading as evidence of 
 the uncertainty of the MT. If, on the other hand, 
 the true LXX proves to be irrecoverable, he must 
 remember that that result neutralizes the testi- 
 mony of the LXX, and does not directly affect 
 the credit of the MT. 
 
 (3) Here, however, we are confronted by the 
 supreme diflBculty of ascertaining in many cases 
 what the reading of the original LXX was. But 
 in this inviestigation the advocates of textual 
 criticism deliberately adopt principles which can 
 only be characterized as a loading of the dice 
 against the MT. Dahse (p. 31) quotes with strong 
 approval four rules laid down by Wiener for 
 determining the value of LXX variants. We 
 will examine them, (a) The first is to the effect 
 that where all LXX authorities agree in opposi- 
 tion to the MT, we may be certain that they 
 preserve the original reading of the LXX. I 
 venture to think that the unanimous reading of 
 all LXX authorities must be accepted as the 
 original LXX whether it differs from MT or not* 
 Thus we find in Dahse's tables over eighty divine 
 names (about one quarter of the whole number) 
 to which no internal variants of the LXX are 
 recorded ; and it is important to observe that there 
 are only five of these cases where the LXX goes 
 
 * It is true that there are cases where all LXX MSS. agree 
 in what is manifestly a Greek corruption, and therefore not 
 the reading of the original LXX. But if that has happened 
 in any of the divine names, we should never be able to find 
 it out. The documentary evidence is the final authority 
 in this case. 
 
-.LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 161 
 
 against the MT (iv. 4, iv. 26, xiii. 10a, 10&, xxx. 27). 
 By Wiener's rule the original LXX would only 
 be established for these five names. I maintain, 
 on the contrary, that in all the eighty odd places 
 the original LXX is as well established as in the 
 nature of the case it can ever be. — (6) We are told 
 that where some LXX authorities support the 
 Hebrew, while the variant is supported by 
 " strong " LXX authority, the variant will be the 
 original reading of the LXX. On this I remark 
 again that the variant will be the original LXX 
 reading, if the authorities in favour of it are 
 sufficiently " strong " to be decisive. But the 
 maxim involves, besides, a plausible abuse of a 
 critical canon which is vaUd only when it is clear 
 that the Greek variant rests on a Hebrew basis 
 different from the MT. If of two LXX readings 
 one comes under that description, and the other 
 is a close rendering of the existing Hebrew, so 
 that the former cannot have arisen through Greek 
 corruption from the latter, then it is obvious that 
 the first retains the true text of the LXX, and 
 the second is a later accommodation to the 
 received Hebrew text. (It is, of course, a further 
 question which of the two Hebrew readings is the 
 original.) But the rule cannot be applied at all 
 in cases (such as the divine names) where we can 
 never be sure that the variant presupposes a 
 divergent Hebrew, and where the liability to 
 inner-Greek corruption is at least as probable an 
 explanation as the tendency to assimilate to the 
 later Hebrew. — (c) The third rule, that where 
 Origen is known to have altered the text in con- 
 formity with the Hebrew, the unaltered text will 
 
 The Dwine Na/me» in CteneaU. -t 12 
 
162 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 be the original reading, even if all or most other 
 LXX authorities support the Hebrew, is a truism, 
 and therefore correct in substance ; although it is 
 not easy to see how we can know of an Origenic 
 alteration except through " other " LXX author- 
 ities.* — (d) The last rule, that where Lucian alone 
 goes against the MT his text represents an 
 original Hebrew variant, though not necessarily 
 the original text of the LXX, is simply a pre- 
 carious personal opinion.! So much for the four 
 critical principles to which Dahse has pinned his 
 faith, and which in his opinion vindicate Wiener's 
 claim to be taken seriously as an authority in 
 textual criticism. As for "other canons" which 
 were to emerge in the course of Wiener's inquiry, 
 
 * What Wiener is capable of meaning by such a state- 
 ment may perhaps be gathered from a flagrant example of 
 his carelessness or ignorance on p. 26 of his Essays. That 
 page is occupied with a list of "those readings in Genesis 
 ii., iii. for which Hexaplar information is available." In the 
 last line he boldly states, on the authority of Field's Hexapla, 
 that in iii. 23 Lord was added to the text (by Origen), 
 although he cannot cite a single MS. to that effect. A 
 glance at Field's additional note to chap. iii. reveals the 
 source of Wiener's error. There, sure enough, Field marks 
 the Kvpiog of iii. 23 as a Hexaplar addition ; and gives his MS. 
 authority for so doing. But unfortunately Field follows a 
 different numbering of the verses from Wiener ; and what is 
 there correctly said of iii. 23 is simply what Wiener has 
 already given in the line before, under iii. 22 ! The merest 
 tyro might have seen that he was on a false scent when he 
 failed to find an important reference of Field confirmed by 
 Brooke and M'Lean. I will add that if Wiener had read the 
 Greek before him he could not have made this colossal 
 blunder, for the word elirey would have showed him that our 
 V. 22, not V. 23, was referred to. 
 
 t See below, p. 244 f. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 163 
 
 Dahse does not refer to them ; and as I am not 
 now dealing with Wiener, but with Dahse's esti- 
 mate of Wiener, I will leave them unnoticed. 
 
 (4) In the present state of LXX criticism, we 
 have no more satisfactory means of discovering 
 the divine names in the original LXX than the 
 old-fashioned method of consulting the oldest 
 and best MSS. The study of minor recensions 
 may conceivably in the future bring us nearer 
 to a determination of the true LXX than we 
 are at present; but the results of such study 
 are as yet too problematical to help us in deal- 
 ing with so variable an element of the text as 
 the divine names of the LXX undoubtedly are. 
 And while Dahse's researches in this direction 
 are no doubt important, they would be more 
 promising if he did not allow them to be " side- 
 tracked" by his too facile and improbable 
 assumption of separate Hebrew originals. In the 
 meantime, at all events, if we are to raake any 
 practical use of the LXX at all for the text of 
 the divine names, we must be content to work 
 mainly on the basis of existing MSS. (whether 
 of the original Greek or of daughter-versions), 
 carefully eliminating those readings which are 
 marked as Hexaplaric alterations, and for the 
 rest following the guidance of the oldest and 
 most carefully written codices. Now, I fully 
 admit that this rule about the best MSS. imposes 
 a task of the utmost delicacy on the investi- 
 gator; and I have no pretension to speak on 
 such a question otherwise than with great 
 diffidence. Nevertheless, after the best examin- 
 ation I am competent to make of the MS. 
 
164 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 evidence supplied by Dahse, I will express the 
 belief that the readings of the divine names in 
 the Sixtine and Cambridge editions (which 
 seldom differ) * represent in the great majority 
 of instances the consensus of the best MSS. 
 Making allowance for some doubtful cases, I find 
 that there are about sixty passages where the 
 Camibridge edition reads a different name from 
 the MT.t The number of relevant occurrences of 
 one or other of the divine names in the MT of 
 Genesis is about 320 (in the LXX nearly 330); 
 hence the cases in which the standard LXX 
 throws any doubt on the accuracy of the MT 
 number three-sixteenths of the whole. Roughly 
 speaking, we may take it that that fraction 
 expresses the extent of the "margin of uncer- 
 tainty " with which criticism, if it had only docu- 
 mentary statistics to guide it, would have to 
 reckon in the divine names of Genesis. + But, as 
 
 * See Note XII, p. 290. 
 
 + See Table I. 
 
 t I take this opportunity of correcting an underestimate 
 of the ratio of differences to agreements which I published 
 in the ICC (p. xxxv), and of qualifying the conclusion 
 which I drew from that calculation. The error arose 
 partly from taking Redpath and Berdmans' figure (50) for 
 the divergences, and partly from reckoning the total occur- 
 rences as 340 instead of about 320. I suggested that the 
 percentage of variants (one in seven) was probably not so 
 great as to affect the result of literary analysis. I now 
 see, not only that the number of differences is somewhat 
 greater than I stated, but that I failed to allow for the 
 extraordinary concentration of the differences in the earlier 
 chapters (ii.-x.). There can be no manner of doubt that 
 in these chapters the divergences are so numerous that the 
 analysis would be altogether impossible if we held only those 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 165 
 
 we shall see immediately, there are other con- 
 siderations which enter into the problem, and 
 throw the w^eight of authority decisively on the 
 side of the MT. 
 
 (5) On general grounds, the MT has substantial 
 claims to be preferred to a variant of the LXX 
 in all doubtful cases, (a) The MT is the result 
 of successive transcriptions in one and, the same 
 language ; the LXX is a translation from one 
 language into another. It is not denied that a 
 version may represent a purer text than a recen- 
 sion in the original language ; but in the absence 
 of proof that this is the case, the presumption 
 is all in favour of the original, because it is 
 not subject to the uncertainty which inevitably 
 attends the mental process of translation ; espe- 
 cially when, as is abundantly clear in the case 
 of the LXX, word-for-word translation was not 
 aimed at. — (6) The MT is the lineal descendant 
 of the official Palestinian recension of the OT ; 
 the LXX represents at best an Alexandrian 
 
 readings to be established which are common to LXX and 
 MT, and if the analysis depended on the names alone. On 
 the other hand, the argument is, of course, all the stronger 
 as regards the later chapters, where the proportion of 
 divergences sinks at times to about one in eleven. There 
 is one curious and inexplicable circumstance which may be 
 mentioned here for what it is worth. The double name 
 Kvpiog 6 deog occurs almost exclusively in chaps, ii.-x. Now 
 these readings must have arisen in most cases through 
 conflation, and therefore, are not original ; and if we dis- 
 count them (i.e., if we suppose the MT to have preserved 
 the original names) we find that the proportionate occur- 
 rences of LXX variants to MT are pretty evenly distributed 
 over the whole book, although still considerably higher in 
 the early chapters than in the later. 
 
166 LIMITS OF TEXTJJAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 recension whose text was certainly not transmitted 
 with the same scrupulous fidelity as that of 
 Palestine.* For (c) as regards the divine names, 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch shows that the Pales- 
 tinian text has undergone practically no change 
 from a time prior to (or at all events not much 
 later than) the separation of the Palestinian and 
 Egyptian recensions. The LXX text, on the 
 contrary, has been in a state of perpetual flux 
 as far back as its history can be traced. It makes 
 no difference whether this be due to accident 
 or (as Dahse has tried to show) to deliberate 
 revision : on either view the fact remains that the 
 names of God have been handled with a freedom 
 which was not allowed to Jewish scribes. — 
 {d) While the LXX contains particular readings 
 which are shown by internal evidence to be 
 superior to the Hebrew, yet an examination 
 of its general text proves that on the whole it 
 is inferior to the Massoretic Hebrew. I do not 
 think that this will be disputed by any competent 
 Old Testament scholar. The MT is often emended 
 from the LXX, but practically never except for 
 some superiority, real or supposed, attaching to 
 the reading presupposed by LXX in particular 
 cases. — (e) The liability to error is far greater in 
 Greek than in Hebrew. In the original text we 
 have the distinction, not easily overlooked, 
 between a proper name nin'' and a generic name 
 Wrhi^. In Greek we have only the difference of 
 two appellatives Kvpiog and 0eoc (often contracted 
 in MSS. to Kg and Og), a difference without much 
 significance to a Greek-speaking writer, and there- 
 
 * See Note XIII, p. 291. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 167 
 
 fore apt to be effaced through the natural 
 predilection for Oeog. 
 
 (6) From these observations we may now deduce 
 the principles to be chiefly applied in using the 
 LXX as an instrument of textual criticism. They 
 are succinctly stated by Driver as follows (see his 
 Genesis, Addenda II, p. xlv f.).* It must be shown 
 
 * Comp., to the same effect but more fully, Swete, Intro- 
 duction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 444 f . : "In dealing with 
 such differences between the Greek version and the tradi- 
 tional Hebrew text the student will not start with the 
 assumption that the version has preserved the true reading. 
 It may have been preserved by the official Hebrew or its 
 archetype, and lost in the MSS. which were followed by the 
 translators : or it may have been lost by both. Nor will 
 he assume that the Greek, when it differs from the Hebrew, 
 represents in all cases another Hebrew text ; for the differ- 
 ence may be due to the failure of the translators to under- 
 stand their Hebrew, or to interpret it aright. His first 
 business is to decide whether the Greek variant involves a 
 different Hebrew text, or is simply another expression for 
 the text which lies before him in the printed Hebrew Bible. 
 If the former of these alternatives is accepted, he has still 
 to consider whether the text represented by the LXX is 
 preferable to that of the Hebrew Bible and probably original. 
 There is a presumption in favour of readings in which LXX 
 and MT agree, but, as we have said, not an absolute certainty 
 that they are correct, since they may both be affected by 
 a deep-seated corruption which goes back to the age of 
 the Ptolemies. When they differ, LXX will usually deserve 
 to be preferred when it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be 
 traced to homoioteleuton in the Hebrew, or (6) removes an 
 apparent interpolation, or (c) appears to represent a bona fide 
 variant in the original which makes better sense than the 
 existing text. Its claims in these cases are strengthened 
 if it has the support of other early and probably independent 
 witnesses such as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum, 
 or of Hebrew variants which survive in existing MSS. of 
 the Massoretic text, or in the Q'ri." 
 
168 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 (1) "that the (LXX) variant is not due to a 
 paraphrase or loose rendering on the part of the 
 translator, but really depends upon a various 
 reading in the Hebrew MS. used by him ; and 
 
 (2) that this variant reading in the Hebrew has 
 substantial claims to be preferred to the Mas- 
 soretic text as being the original reading of the 
 Hebrew," by " its yielding a better sense and its 
 being preferable for philological or grammatical 
 reasons." Now in the case of the divine names 
 neither of these conditions can be completely 
 fulfilled. If, indeed, the LXX is unanimous, or 
 nearly so, in reading a different name from the 
 MT, there is some slight presumption that its 
 Hebrew original was different, and so far the 
 first condition is complied with ; though even then 
 we cannot be sure that the variation is not due 
 to the translator's indifference to the distinction 
 between the two Hebrew names for God (comp. 
 the case of Job below), or to scribal or editorial 
 changes of older standing than the earliest extant 
 witnesses to the LXX text. But the second con- 
 dition can never, in the case of a divine name, 
 be realized, for the simple reason that neither 
 sense nor grammar is ever affected by the sub- 
 stitution of one name for another ; and I hesitate 
 to admit even an isolated instance here and there 
 in which the LXX reading is decisively to be 
 preferred on such grounds. If, therefore, a textual 
 critic gives the preference to LXX readings, as 
 such, he must be prepared to maintain the general 
 superiority of its text; and he is bound in con- 
 sistency to carry out his principle in his treatment 
 of the text as a whole. But if he essays this he 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 169 
 
 will speedily land himself in a reductio ad ab- 
 surdum of the critical axiom with which he starts. 
 It is notorious that the LXX contains many- 
 readings which presuppose a Hebrew text, not 
 only inferior to the MT, but absolutely inadmis- 
 sible ; i.e., one which no commentator with a 
 regard for the meaning of the passage could 
 possibly accept. Yet if the divine names of the 
 LXX are to be adopted in preference to MT, 
 merely because they are in the LXX, upon what 
 principle can the rejection of these other im- 
 possible LXX variants be defended? There can- 
 not be one law for the names of God and another 
 for other variants ; and a rule that leads to absurd 
 consequences in the latter case must be wrong 
 from the first. 
 
 Ill 
 
 The initial mistake of the Higher Criticism, 
 according to Dahse, was that its founders took 
 no pains to verify the text of the divine names 
 before using them as a clue to the structure of 
 the Pentateuch. We can now judge from the 
 result of our previous discussions what progress 
 they would have been likely to make if they had 
 laid that caution to heart. "He that observeth 
 the wind shall not sow " ; and it is just possible 
 that if the pioneers of the critical movement had 
 known all that Dahse and Wiener could now tell 
 them about the uncertainty of the MT, they would 
 have been deterred from an enterprise which has 
 done more to vitalize the study of the Old 
 Testament than any other contribution that has 
 ever been made. And I think that Dahse, and 
 
170 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 especially Wiener, would find life very unin- 
 teresting if they had to pursue the barren round 
 of textual studies without the joy of battle against 
 the imposing edifice which has been built on the 
 foundation laid by those rash and misguided men. 
 But, be that as it may, the question for us to con- 
 sider is not whether textual criticism ought to 
 have strangled the documentary theory at its 
 birth, but whether it is able to destroy it now — in 
 other words, whether the proved uncertainty of 
 the MT makes the use of the divine names value- 
 less as a criterion of diverse authorship. 
 
 I remark, in the first place, that apart alto- 
 gether from the soundness of the MT, the germ 
 of the documentary theory is contained in Dahse's 
 admission that the original (or at least the earliest 
 accessible) text of Genesis had a mixed distribution 
 of the names for God : i.e., there was an alterna- 
 tion of Yahwe and Elohim. This, he says, is the 
 conclusion at which all recent textual critics — 
 Redpath, Eerdmans, Wiener, as well as himself — 
 have independently arrived (p. 41). To be quite 
 fair, I do not know whether Dahse conceives the 
 original text to have been mixed in the sense 
 indicated ; but he certainly admits it of the oldest 
 text we can now imagine, and he cannot get his 
 own theories under way on] any other supposition. 
 And indeed it would be very difficult to account 
 for textual heterogeneity of this kind arising out 
 of a primary simplicity ; and we are entitled to 
 infer that the alternation of the names for God 
 was in the documents from the beginning. Now 
 I have already pointed out that this leaves open a 
 distinct possibility that the mixed distribution 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 171 
 
 may be an index to mixed authorship. But we 
 can go further, and ,say that it is not only possible 
 but certain that at least two writers are concerned 
 in the composition of Genesis. That is an inevit- 
 able inference — granted the alternation of the 
 original names — from the express statement of 
 Exodus vi. 2, 3. It was a wise precaution on 
 Dahse's part to try to clear his path of this 
 obstacle at the outset ; but if there be any sec- 
 tion of his book which has failure written over it 
 more legibly than another it is his treatment of 
 the text of these verses. I have dealt with this 
 matter at length in the first chapter, and argued 
 that the writer of Exodus vi. 2 f . could neither 
 have recorded previous revelations of the Deity 
 under the name Yahwe, nor have put the name 
 into the naouth of any of the patriarchs. It is 
 true that Dahse eliminates the name Yahwe from 
 the earlier self -disclosures of God ; but he has 
 never suggested that it ought always to be removed 
 w^here it occurs in human speech before Moses. 
 We see that such passages cannot have come from 
 the same source as Exodus vi. 2f. Therefore, to 
 put it at the very lowest, there are at least two 
 writers in Genesis : one who could not use the 
 name Yahwe under given , circumstances, and 
 another who could and did. But really that is 
 an absurdly narrow restriction of the inference. 
 The natural conclusion is that one writer will 
 have been consistently Elohistic and the other 
 consistently Yahwistic, however many more 
 writers there may be of either class. And with 
 that conclusion we are well on our way to a 
 documentary theory of the Pentateuch. What is 
 
172 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 to prevent us from following up the clue ? Is it 
 not worth while to make the experiment, whether 
 with the Massoretic text or any other? It is 
 playing King Canute over again for any school 
 of critics to interpose their veto, and say that the 
 attempt should never have been made, and must 
 not be made now. 
 
 The next point to be emphasized is that the 
 acceptance of the MT as a basis of operations by 
 no means iraplies the assumption of its infallibility. 
 No critic of standing has ever imagined that it is 
 immaculate, even in the matter of the divine 
 names. Criticism has gone to work on the pre- 
 sumption that it is substantially accurate, but at 
 the same time with a clear understanding that 
 errors may occur here and there. It is alleged, no 
 doubt, that while critics acknowledge the abstract 
 possibility of mistakes in the text, they take no 
 account of it in practice, but proceed to carve out 
 their documents with a solemn mechanical preci- 
 sion which would only be justified if the authen- 
 ticity of the divine names were absolutely guar- 
 anteed. Now it need not be denied that critics 
 are under a temptation to push their analysis 
 to an extreme in this direction. It is perfectly 
 natural that, having found the distinction of the 
 divine names in the MT a useful clue to the separa- 
 tion of sources, and having no reason to question 
 its correctness in any particular instance, they 
 should follow it out to its last consequences. But 
 there are few, if any, cases where a generally 
 accepted division of documents rests on the divine 
 names alone ; and critics would be the first to 
 admit that if any such case existed the uncertainty 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 173 
 
 of the text would be a consideration of serious 
 importance. The truth is that this objection 
 springs from that exaggeration of the dependence 
 of the documentary theory on the divine names 
 which seems ineradicable from the militant " text 
 critical " mind. It is never realized that the 
 divine names have served their purpose when they 
 have put criticism on the track of a distinction of 
 sources which approves itself by many other 
 characteristic differences, and which would have 
 no critical value if such differences did not exist. 
 When this is understood there will be no disposi- 
 tion to cavil at the notion that a true theory may 
 be extracted from an imperfect text. 
 
 But it will be asked, Is it credible that the MT 
 has preserved the original names with even the 
 substantial fidelity which is the necessary con- 
 dition of successful analysis? Granted that it is 
 the best text available, it is still a stupendous 
 assumption that any text can have retained even 
 approximately the names as they stood in the 
 hypothetical primary documents of Genesis ! It 
 would certainly be a very remarkable pheno- 
 menon. But before we pronounce it incredible, 
 w^e must reflect that the divine names have in 
 fact been transmitted with only the slightest 
 variation since the fourth century b.c. A century 
 more brings us to the redaction and promulgation 
 of the Pentateuch; and it is only reasonable to 
 suppose that during that century the preservation 
 of the canonical text was as carefully attended 
 to by the Temple authorities in Jerusalem as in 
 the ages that followed. The danger zone is un- 
 doubtedly the period from the seventh to the 
 
174 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 fifth century, when the oldest Yahwistic and 
 Elohistic documents had been amalgamated, but 
 were not (so far as we know) under ecclesiastical 
 control. That confusion of the divine names 
 might have arisen under these circumstances 
 cannot be denied, but that it was probable is 
 more than we have any right to affirm. We do not 
 know what precautions were taken to safeguard 
 the integrity of the text ; and we do know that 
 Jewish scribes w^ere capable of an astonishing 
 degree of accuracy in transcribing the names for 
 God. From the examples given below, it will 
 be seen that it is by no means an extravagant 
 assumption to hold that in the MT we have a 
 substantially correct reproduction of the divine 
 names as they stood in the original documents.* 
 
 * An interesting and, if I mistake not, convincing illus- 
 tration of fidelity of the MT to an original autograph comes 
 to hand as I write, in a paper by Joh. Herrmann on "The 
 Divine Names in the Text of Ezekiel " (AlUestamentKche 
 Studien, Rudolf Kittel zwm 60 Geburtstag dargebracht, 
 pp. 70-87). It is all the more surprising because the MT of 
 Ezekiel as a whole is often very corrupt ; and because several 
 of the most recent scholars had come to the conclusion that 
 the divine names in particular had been so tossed about by 
 transcribers that it was impossible to teU what the original 
 names were, while Cornill was of opinion that the LXX 
 is much nearer the original than the MT. The question is 
 as to the distinction between the names mn* *J1X and nin' 
 (D'n^N is used by Ezekiel only in a generic sense). Herr- 
 mann shows in a conclusive manner that Ezekiel's usage can 
 be reduced to a few simple and easily intelligible rules, and 
 that with insignificant exceptions these rules are strictly 
 observed in the MT. (1) The double name '*'X is used only in 
 three connexions, viz., (a) the introductory formula "IDX n3 
 "I'K ; (b) in the concluding formula, "I'N dNJ ; and (c) in address- 
 ing the Almighty by name. Now in the MT '*'N occurs 217 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 175 
 
 The final proof of the essential soundness of the 
 MT, as a guide to documentary analysis, is — the 
 documentary theory itself. Dahse on p. 14 quotes 
 a sentence from De Wette to the effect that the 
 
 times, and of these all but 9 are covered by the three condi- 
 tions just stated. In the formula (a) the double name appears 
 122 times, against 4 instances of '' IDS* n3. In (6) we have 
 81 times "''X and only 4 times "< DK3. Of (c) there are only 5 
 examples, and no exceptions. (2) '' alone occurs 218 times, 
 and regularly in the following cases ; (a) in the phrase '* ''JX 
 (87 times, against 5 examples of "I'X ''3N ; (6) after a construct 
 state (excluding ^^^) (94 times, against 4 exceptional occur- 
 rences of "• 'X in this connexion) ; (c) '' also occurs 37 times 
 in other connexions. The bare ''ilH, is used only 4 times, 
 and that in a proverb quoted from the mouth of the people 
 (xviii. 25, 29, xxxiii. 17, 20). It is impossible to resist the 
 inference that Ezekiel's own practice was regulated by the 
 principles here indicated ; and that the few exceptions noted 
 represent the amount of error that has crept into the 
 transmission of the Hebrew text. Ttirning to the LXX, 
 Herrmann finds that in its best text (that of B) 'S except 
 in XX. 38, is invariably rendered by icvpioc : on the other 
 hand, "''tt is represented 58 times by kq kc, twice by aSiovai kq 
 (but this may be a Hexaplar correction), 143 times by kc, 
 7 times by kq 6 Oq, and 9 times by cc ds. A few LXX 
 variants comply with the rules given above, and are there- 
 fore to be regarded as original ; but it can no longer be 
 maintained that the LXX is the better text, or that it 
 rests on a Hebrew basis differing from the MT. We 
 need not here enter into the question raised by the peculiar 
 distribution of the various renderings in the LXX ; but on 
 this and other points Herrmann's essay deserves careful 
 perusal. 
 
 A more familiar case is the indiscriminate use of the 
 divine names in the LXX of Job. It is well known that the 
 scene of that book is laid outside the land of Israel, and that 
 the problem of retribution is supposed to be discussed on 
 a basis of what we may call natural religion. Hence in the 
 Dialogue the name Yahwe is carefully avoided (it occurs 
 
176 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 correctness of the MT is vouched for by its careful 
 retention of " the characteristic features of the 
 various authors, and of the separate pieces of 
 
 only in xii. 9, in a passage which is obviously interpolated) ; 
 and archaic names for God are almost exclusively used : viz., 
 El (55 times), Eloah (41 times), and Shaddai (31 times) ; 
 {Elohim only six times). In the prose Introduction and 
 BpUogue, on the other hand, as well as in headings of 
 speeches, Yahwe is freely employed (30 times), along with 
 12 cases of Elohim, mostly in connexions where the general 
 name of God is alone suitable. It is again impossible to 
 doubt that here the MT has in the main preserved the 
 names used by the author, and that the translators of the 
 LXX have failed to reproduce the original readings. Thus, 
 if we take the B text of Swete, we find from Hatch's 
 Concordance that in the Prologue and Epilogue, while Yahwe 
 is regularly rendered by Kvpiog (once kq n de), Elohim is 
 represented 3 times by Kg and 4 times by de : in the 
 Speeches, Elohim is rendered once by deoe, 4 times by Kvpios, 
 and once by Kvpiog 6 dg ; El 37 times by ks and twice by 
 6g ; Eloah 19 times by Kg and 8 times by 6g ; and Shaddai 
 Q times by icg, and 16 times by iravTOKparap (once kc iravr.). 
 (I omit the cases where El is rendered by i<TX«poe and 
 Shaddai by iKavog, because these are peculiar to the text of 
 Theodotion, from which Origen supplemented the genuine 
 LXX. It is possible that some of the other renderings 
 given were also Theodotion's ; but enough will remain 
 to prove the indiscriminateness of the original LXX.). — 
 Dahse will hardly maintain that here the LXX has a purer 
 text of the divine names than MT, or that the book of 
 Job must have existed in several Hebrew recensions. He 
 says that in regard to the originality of the divine names 
 each book must be considered by itself. I agree. But that 
 does not at all affect the general principle here insisted 
 on, that Hebrew copyists were capable of a degree of 
 exactness in handling the names of God which was not 
 attained by Greek translators and copyists, because they 
 lacked the instinctive sense of difference which was native 
 to the Hebrew mind. See Note XIV, p. 294. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 177 
 
 which many books are composed " ; and comments 
 on it as foUows : " Thus the very point in dis- 
 pute — the originality of the MT — is taken for 
 granted, and the possibility is overlooked that 
 what are called characteristic features of the 
 various authors may be merely peculiarities of 
 the MT." That seems to me a very hasty and inept 
 criticism. Amongst the distinctive characteristics 
 which De Wette had in mind there are many 
 which no version could obscure, and which cannot 
 possibly be regarded as peculiar to the MT. 
 I will show this immediately; and it will be 
 found that De Wette's statement is perfectly 
 unimpeachable. What it means is simply this : 
 that the names of God in the MT have been 
 accepted as a tentative clue to the literary struc- 
 ture of the Pentateuch, that this clue has led to 
 the discovery of many characteristic differences 
 between different strata of the history and 
 legislation, and that these results by their co- 
 herence and mutual compatibility furnish con- 
 vincing proof that the initial assumption was 
 well founded. 
 
 Now to illustrate this proposition in detail would 
 be to write a critical commentary on Genesis. At 
 the close of an article already too long, it is not 
 possible to exhibit the full strength of the argu- 
 ment. But without attempting a demonstration 
 we may look briefly at a few selected examples 
 which will at least vindicate the principle of the 
 argument and show that it is not one to be 
 contemptuously dismissed as a mere petitio prin- 
 cipii. I believe they will also make it clear that 
 no theory based on the synagogue lectionary 
 
 The Divine Names in Oenesis. 13 
 
178 LIMITS OP TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 can explain the distribution of divine names in 
 Genesis. 
 
 (i.) One of the earliest, and now most familiar, 
 results of documentary analysis was the recog- 
 nition of two separate accounts of the creation 
 in Genesis i., ii.* They are distinguished not only 
 by material differences of representation — as 
 in the order of the creative works — but by stylistic 
 differences of the most penetrating kind, as well 
 as by a few technical characteristics in expression, 
 such as N-13 in chap. i. and nx' in chap. ii. No 
 one who has once had the contrast pointed out to 
 him, and is gifted with a feeling for literature, can 
 fail to perceive that in passing from one narrative 
 to the other we enter a new world of thought, 
 or to have conveyed to him an irresistible im- 
 pression of diversity of authorship. Moreover 
 the transition from the one account to the other 
 is clearly and even abruptly marked. It comes 
 in the middle of v. 4 of chap. ii. ; and just there 
 in the MT the name of God is changed : instead 
 of Elohim we have Yahwe Elohim. Is this to 
 be set down as an accidental circumstance? No, 
 replies Dahse, but it is due to the fact that just 
 at this point a new Seder commences. Well, let 
 us see. It is certain that the new Seder does 
 not explain the other and deeper differences that 
 are observed — differences of conception, of tone 
 and atmosphere, of language. These must have 
 been in the record before the Seder-division was 
 made; and why not the distinctive use of the 
 divine names as well ? What is the use of a 
 pericope-theory which deals only with a single 
 
 * See Note XV, p. 294. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 179 
 
 feature of the text, and leaves so many other 
 characteristics utterly unexplained ? Has it never 
 occurred to Dahse that instead of the divine 
 names being determined by the Sedarim, the 
 Sedarim may have been in part determined by 
 the divine names ? That is the obvious explana- 
 tion in this case. Or, to state it more accurately, 
 the lectionary is arranged in large measure in 
 accordance with the sense. The scribes saw that 
 there was a break at ii. 4, and therefore they 
 chose that as the place where a new lesson 
 should begin.* 
 
 That this is the true explanation appears when 
 we look at the end of the second Seder at iii. 21. 
 There we have an instance of unintelligent division, 
 for it is clear that the story of Eden is continued 
 to the end of the chapter. But we frequently 
 find throughout Genesis that in the Seder-division 
 a regard to the sense is interfered with by a 
 marked tendency to commence a lesson with a 
 divine utterance ; and that is why Seder 3 begins 
 unnaturally at iii. 22. Now in the MT the double 
 name for Grod is continued, past the Seder- 
 division, to the close of the Paradise-story. It is 
 evident, therefore, that in this case the use of the 
 divine names does not follow the lectionary, but 
 the literary affinities of the composition ; and 
 there is thus good reason to suppose that it was 
 established in the text before the latter was 
 divided into separate sections. 
 
 (ii) Chap. iv. is a section uniformly Yahwistic, 
 with the exception of Elohim in v. 2ib. I cannot 
 here enter on the discussion of the relation of 
 * See p. 223 f. below. 
 
180 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 this chapter to chap, ii., iii., or the significance 
 for criticism of the double name in the latter. If 
 the reader will refer to any good commentary on 
 Genesis he will learn that there is reason to think 
 that the facts of the MT, down even to the isolated 
 E of iv. 25, furnish a key to the literary com- 
 position of the sources. But I cannot adduce that 
 as evidence here. 
 
 (iii) At the beginning of chap. v. we come 
 upon reminiscences of the style of chap, i., 
 (" create," " likeness of God ") ; * and again the 
 change to Elohim marks the transition. The 
 genealogy thus introduced extends to the end of 
 the chapter, as does the use of E, except the one 
 J in V. 29, where again it has a critical significance 
 for the finer shades of analysis which cannot be 
 expounded here. In vi. 1-8 we have a section 
 of entirely different character, commencing with 
 a fragment of ancient mythology, in which the 
 name J alone appears (five times). Now in the 
 fourth Seder these verses are included along with 
 chap. V. ; and the change from E to J at v. 29 is 
 inexplicable by any plausible modification of the 
 pericope-hypothesis. On the other hand, it is ex- 
 plained by the hypothesis of different documents. 
 
 (iv) We come to the story of the Flood (Parasha 
 II = vi. 9-ix. 17), which is a crucial passage as 
 between the documentary and pericope theories. 
 On the one hand we have an alternation of J 
 and E in which the Sedarim-division is completely 
 ignored, t On the other hand, it is certain that 
 
 * And, it should be added, a great many other character- 
 istics of the Priestly Code. 
 
 t In Seder 6 (viii. 1-14) no doubt we have a uniform 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 181 
 
 in this section there is a dovetailing of two flood- 
 narratives, which can be separated with remark- 
 able precision. They are distinguished by a great 
 variety of characteristic differences : they assign 
 different physical causes for the flood (one a forty 
 days' rain, the other a breaking up of the foun- 
 tains of the great deep) ; in one the flood begins 
 to subside after 40 days, in the other the waters 
 continue to rise for 150 days ; one distinguishes 
 clean and unclean animals and brings the former 
 by sevens, the latter in pairs, into the ark, while 
 the other admits only one pair of each species 
 w^ithout ceremonial distinction ; one speaks of the 
 sexes as " man and his wife," the other more 
 prosaically as " male and female " ; and so on. 
 Again, portions of the story are duplicated (e.g., 
 vi. 17-22 II vii. 1-5 ; vii. 7 || vii. 13 ; and many more). 
 Now the analysis which has resulted in the dis- 
 covery of all these distinctions started from the 
 alternation of the names J and E ; and from first 
 to last it has never found occasion to discard 
 that clue as misleading ; that is to say, there is 
 no case where the use of J or E conflicts with 
 the other indications of authorship which have 
 emerged during the investigation. I do not say 
 that there may not be cases where the analysis 
 is determined solely by the divine names, and 
 where therefore a mistake in the transmission 
 of the name vitiating the analysis is a possible 
 
 use of E ; but there are only two instances ! In Seder 5 
 (vi. 9-vii. 24) the names are : BBBEEJJEEJ ; and in S. 7 
 (viii. 15-ix. 17) : EJJJEEBEEB— a distribution which from 
 that point of view is promiscuous, and irreducible to any 
 principle or rule. 
 
182 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 contingency. But if there be any such case it is 
 only where the other indications are indecisive,* 
 and admit of two equally (or almost equally) 
 feasible solutions of the literary problem. That 
 in every crucial instance the various lines of 
 evidence converge, and lead to the isolation of 
 two independent and almost continuous narra- 
 tives, is a strong proof that J and E are distinctive 
 of two primary documents, and that the MT has 
 preserved the peculiarities of these documents 
 with singular fidelity. 
 
 (v) In chap, x.-xvi. the only distinctive divine 
 name that occurs in the MT is J ; t and consequently 
 these chapters afford no illustration of our imme- 
 diate theme. But in chap. xvii. we come sud- 
 denly on an B-section interposed between two 
 J-sections, This chapter forms a Seder by itself 
 — another example of intelligent division of the 
 Law, assisted perhaps by the abrupt change 
 from J to E in the fundamental text. At first 
 sight it seems open to Dahse to claim that his 
 hypothesis gives at least as good an account of 
 the names as the documentary theory. But 
 that claim cannot be allowed. It is not at all 
 clear why the authors of the lectionary, or 
 those who manipulated the divine names in ac- 
 cordance with its divisions, should have kept up 
 the monotonous use of J through nearly six 
 Sedarim, or a Parasha and a half, and then all 
 at once have resolved to introduce a little variety. 
 
 * Thus in vii. 9 the indications are so conflicting that it 
 is difficult to say whether the QWH of MT, etc., or the 
 niiT' of Sam., Vulg., etc., is the true reading. 
 
 t ?N in chap, xiv., xvi. 13 does not count. 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 183 
 
 Besides, the diversity of authorship is a fact. 
 Chap. xvii. abounds in expressions which critics 
 have learned to recognize as peculiar to the 
 Priestly Code, and which on any view do not 
 occur even singly, not to say in such profusion as 
 here, in any of the passages marked by J. Unless 
 the pericope-hypothesis is prepared to face the 
 explanation of this phenomenon (which of course 
 it cannot do), it is idle to pretend that it is the 
 last word on the problem of the divine names. It 
 is true that the first name in the section is J, and 
 that its presence is not explained by the critical 
 hypothesis. But may it not fairly be set down as 
 the exception which proves the rule ? 
 
 (vi) The alternate use of J and E is resumed at 
 chap. XX. That chapter ( = Seder 17) is itself in 
 MT Elohistic (except v. 18) ; chap. xxi. (S. 18) and 
 xxii., xxiii. (S. 19) are mainly so (except xxi. la, b, 
 33 ; xxii. 11, 14a, b, 15, 16). Can the facts here be 
 explained on the theory of Elohistic authorship, 
 varied by occasional insertions from Yahwistic 
 sources ? The answer is that criticism, still follow- 
 ing the guidance of the divine names of the MT, 
 finds no reason to distrust it, but, on the contrary, 
 discovers that it is frequently confirmed by in- 
 dependent considerations. The detailed proof of 
 this assertion, however, cannot be given here ; 
 and I content myself with citing in conclusion 
 one or two instances of parallel narration ; i.e., 
 the occurrence of two (or three) different versions 
 of what is obviously a single incident or legend, 
 which have been kept separate without any 
 attempt to weld them (as in the story of the 
 Flood) into a connected composition. We will 
 take four examples. 
 
186 LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 
 
 besides those of Issachar, Zebulun and Joseph. 
 (There may be two in the case of Reuben, but in 
 the present state of the text the second is un- 
 decipherable). — We find, then, a recurrent dupUca- 
 tion (in some cases triplication) of etymological 
 fancies which in two clear cases follows a division 
 of sources unmistakably marked by other indica- 
 tions. It is surely the most reasonable assumption 
 that wherever a double etymology occurs, we have 
 to do not with the exuberance of " one and the 
 same writer " but with two of the writers of 
 whose work there is such clear evidence through- 
 out Genesis. And when we have such abundant 
 proof that one of these writers used Yahwe and 
 another Blohim as the name of God, we shall 
 certainly not be in haste to conclude that the 
 distinction of names in xxx. 23, 24, is due to an 
 error of the MT, even though there happens to 
 be a certain amount of textual authority against 
 it. It is on this ground that I hold that the 
 Yahwe of MT in xxx. 24 (with Sam. and all Heb. 
 MSS.) has the best claim to represent the original 
 text ; and that the Elohim of LXX, Pesh., Aq. and 
 Sym. is a mistaken assimilation to the name in 
 the preceding verse. 
 
 We cannot pursue this subject further. If we 
 were to extend our survey to all the cases where 
 two narratives have been worked into one, we 
 should find much additional ground for confidence 
 in the substantial soundness of the MT in its 
 transmission of the divine names. But I venture 
 to think that even the few illustrations that I 
 have been able to give are sufficient to show that 
 the Massoretic recension has led criticism on the 
 
LIMITS OF TEXTUAL UNCERTAINTY 187 
 
 right track in its effort to disentangle the sources 
 of Genesis. It is difficult to imagine that any 
 one who has fairly and carefully considered them 
 will endorse the confidently reiterated assertion of 
 Dahse, that the names of God in Genesis have 
 nothing whatever to do with the variety of docu- 
 ments of which the book is composed. 
 
194 PEOBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 gested the solution to Dahse, and in which we may 
 expect to find it most clearly illustrated. We shall 
 then follow him step by step through Genesis, in 
 order to see whether the view suggested by these 
 test-passages does justice to the structure of the 
 book as a whole. It will be a very tedious investi- 
 gation ; but the three leading questions to be kept 
 in mind throughout are these : (1) Whether the 
 indications on which Dahse relies for the identi- 
 fication of his Beiwerk are such as justify them- 
 selves on objective critical grounds. In so far 
 as his results agree with the ordinary delimitation 
 of P, we may safely assume that the analysis 
 proceeds on sound principles; for we cannot sup- 
 pose that two sets of critics occupying such 
 opposite standpoints would agree in their con- 
 clusions unless their observations were directed 
 to unambiguous phenomena of the text. But 
 when the two schemes part company we must 
 consider very carefully how far Dahse's analysis 
 rests on real literary criteria, and how far it 
 is dictated by the exigencies of the particular 
 hypothesis which he is concerned to uphold, 
 (2) Whether, taken all together, the isolated 
 passages represent a coherent and independent 
 view of the history as distinct from the earlier 
 tradition. (3) Lastly, whether there is sufficient 
 evidence that the operations of the redactor were 
 regulated by a regard to the divisions of the 
 Synagogue lectionary. 
 
 I 
 
 It would seem that the new solution first oc- 
 curred to Dahse while he was occupied with the 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 195 
 
 text of Genesis xxxv. 9-15. These verses stand at 
 the beginning of the 32nd Seder ; and, with the 
 exception of v. 14, are unanimously ascribed by 
 critics to the author of P. Now Dahse observed 
 that xxxv. 15 (naming of Bethel) is a repetition 
 of xxxv. 7, and concluded that it must have been 
 written by a different author. On further inspec- 
 tion he found that everything in vv. 9-15 is a dupli- 
 cate of something already narrated : xxxv. 10 
 (change of Jacob's name) is parallel to xxxii. 29 ; 
 xxxv. 12 (promise of the land) to xxviii. 13 ; xxxv. 
 14 (setting up the pillar) to xxviii. 18 ; while 
 xxxv. 11, 13 imitate the phraseology of xvii. 6, 22. 
 The whole passage is thus a recapitulation of 
 xxxii. 25 ff. plus xxviii. 13 ff. plus xxxv. 7 (not 
 xxviii. 19, which Dahse most arbitrarily deletes 
 as a gloss). It is therefore the work of an 
 " Bpitomator ' or "Kompilator" — we shall call 
 him " K " — who brings nothing new, but 
 emphasizes or elucidates certain points in the 
 older narrative.* 
 
 * Dahse's exposition, here and throughout, is encumbered 
 by a mass of textual detail, which seems to rae mostly 
 irrelevant to the main points at issue. I do not deny that 
 in some cases the LXX may yield a better text than the 
 Hebrew : where this is the case, and where the difference is 
 material to the argument, I shall take note of the facts ; but 
 where the only effect would be to obscure the outlines of 
 Dahse's own theory, I shall ignore it. I do not think that 
 by so doing I shall in any degree weaken my opponent's 
 case. I will say, however, that for the most part his criti- 
 cism of the MT means nothing more than a prejudice in 
 favour of certain recensions of the LXX — a prejudice which, 
 I need hardly add, I do not share. — In the case before us 
 Dahse's motive is to bring about a closer verbal agreement 
 between the parallels than the Hebrew shows. But accom- 
 
198 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 riages in xxviii. 1-9 brings into the same unity 
 xxvii. 46, and is held to be characteristic of " K." 
 But on the other hand the phraseological affinities 
 between xxxv. 11 and xvii. 6, and between xxxv. 13 
 and xvii. 22 are used to prove that " K " is not the 
 vrriter of xvii. 6, 22, but is reiterating what he 
 found there in the old Pentateuchal text. The 
 higher critics, of course, carry out the principle to 
 its consequences, and hold that P is the author 
 of chap. xvii. It will not be denied that here as 
 regards method their procedure is comprehensive 
 and self-consistent, while Dahse's is arbitrary and 
 inconsequent. 
 
 But let us come to the substance of the theory. 
 We have seen that in xxviii. 1-9 and xxxv. 9-15 
 Dahse's " K " agrees with P except as regards 
 xxxv. 14 ; * and hence the question of the right 
 to treat these sections as sui generis does not 
 arise. It would seem, therefore, that the com- 
 parison between Dahse's theory and the prevailing 
 critical view turns on two points : first, whether 
 these two passages are of the nature of rubrics, 
 recapitulating or emphasizing features of the main 
 narrative, or are excerpts from an independent 
 document; and second, whether they have any- 
 thing to do with the Synagogue reading-lessons. 
 
 * A difference of opinion as to this verse is the natural 
 result of the two different methods of analysis. Critics 
 refuse to assign v. 14 to P, not because it breaks the context, 
 but because it implies an approval of the Mazzebah or sacred 
 pillar and the rites connected with it : this is characteristic 
 of E and strongly opposed to the whole tenor of P. It is 
 accordingly regarded as a misplaced fragment of B, whose 
 original position in that document was either after v. 8 (so 
 Cornill and others) or in the middle of v. 7 (Procksch), 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 199 
 
 These questions may be considered together. Now 
 (a) it is a fact that one of these sections stands at 
 the end of Seder 25 and the other at the beginning 
 of Seder 32. But is it not already a suspicious 
 circumstance that one does occur at the beginning 
 and the other at the end? An editor with an 
 eye to the Seder-division would surely have ob- 
 served a consistent practice, and inserted his 
 observations regularly either at the beginning or 
 at the end of the various Sedarim, but not indif- 
 ferently, now in the one place and now in the 
 other. I will not press this objection at the present 
 stage, because it might conceivably be overcome if 
 in a sufficient number of cases throughout Genesis 
 a Seder should be found to open or close with 
 a P or " K " section. (6) It is true again that each 
 of these passages contains repetitions of what is 
 elsewhere recorded ; but it is impossible to show 
 that the repetition has any reference to the 
 Synagogue lessons. We could understand an 
 editor writing a summary of the contents of 
 each Seder at the beginning, or even at the end ; 
 we could understand his commencing a new Seder 
 with a resume of the preceding. But on Dahse's 
 theory " K " opens Seder 32 with reminiscences of 
 S. 31 (xxxv. 7), of S. 30 (xxxii. 29), of S. 26 (xxviii. 
 13, 18), and of S. 14 (xvii. 6, 22) ; and he closes 
 Seder 25 with anticipations of S. 26 (xxviii. 13, 14). 
 Translate this into practical terms and see what 
 it means. It means that on a particular Sabbath 
 the audience in the Synagogue was to be reminded, 
 in the most casual and haphazard manner, of what 
 they had heard two, six, or even eighteen weeks 
 previously ; and again that on another Sabbath 
 
200 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 their attention was diverted to matters which they 
 were not to hear about till the following Sabbath. 
 Could anything be imagined less helpful to the 
 reading of Scripture than that? Dahse (p. 162) 
 appeals to the chapter-headings in German (or 
 English) Bibles, and asks us to consider what 
 would be the effect if by any chance these headings 
 had come to be printed as part of the text. When 
 he can produce a parallel to the confusion and 
 overlapping which he is compelled to attribute 
 to his "Kompilator" we may begin to see some 
 daylight in his speculations, (c) The theory of 
 recapitulation does not account for the most 
 characteristic phenomena of the sections assigned 
 to " K." They exhibit all the marks of a duplicate 
 narrative, resting on an independent view of the 
 history. Dahse admits that the story of Esau's 
 marriages (xxvi. 34 f., xxvii. 46, xxviii. 6 fp.) is 
 quite peculiar to " K " ; he might have added that 
 the motive thus supplied for Jacob's journey to 
 Paddan Aram is entirely foreign to the main 
 narrative of Genesis. Can it, then, be fairly said 
 that xxviii. 2 is a repetition of xxvii. 43 ? In one 
 case (JE) the mother sends away the son that 
 he may escape his brother's vengeance for his 
 treacherous filching of the paternal benediction, 
 and without any hint that he was to find a wife 
 before he comes home in " a few days." In the 
 other (P) the father freely bestows his blessing 
 on Jacob and sends him away for the sole and 
 express purpose of contracting a marriage among 
 his mother's relatives. Is it not evident that the 
 author of this second account is rewriting the 
 history from a new point of view? {d) Critics 
 
PROBLEM OP THE PRIESTLY CODE 201 
 
 will agree with Dahse that the author of xxvii. 
 46-xxviii. 9 is animated by a strong antipathy to 
 intermarriage of Israelites with Canaanites. But 
 why should a mere " Epitomator " choose this 
 particular point in the story to emphasize his 
 opposition ? There was nothing in the original text 
 to suggest it. Why is he silent at chap. xxiv. — 
 the account of the choice of a bride for Isaac — the 
 one passage in the pre-Exilic Genesis where the 
 objection to such marriages finds expression? 
 Surely that is the opportunity which he could not 
 have missed if he had had any regard to the text 
 before him, or to the case of the Synagogue wor- 
 shippers ! (e) In XXXV. 9-15 the order of the main 
 narrative is reversed by the transposition of two 
 incidents, the revelation at Peniel (xxxv. 9 f . || 
 xxxii. 25) being placed before the revelation at 
 Bethel (xxxv. 11-15 i| xxviii. 13 ff.) — a scene from 
 Seder 30 before one from Seder 26. Such a trans- 
 position is intelligible on the part of a redactor 
 piecing together separate documents ; but it is 
 hard to justify in the case of an "Epitomator" 
 with nothing to influence him but the pre-existing 
 Pentateuch. Dahse only makes his case worse 
 by appealing to Hos. xii. 4, 5, where we find the 
 same order (Peniel — Bethel) as in " K " or P. For 
 if Hosea and "K" followed a different tradition 
 from the older Genesis, then " K " is to that extent 
 an independent writer, who freely reshapes the 
 history in accordance with what he deems a 
 superior tradition.* 
 
 * It may be right to mention that the order in Genesis 
 xxxv. 1-13, 15 has been felt as a difficulty by some recent ex- 
 ponents of the documentary theory. The word TW ("again ") 
 
202 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 I have dwelt on these two passages at perhaps 
 needless length, in order to show that they do 
 not afford even a promising " jumping-off place " 
 for Dahse's theory of the P-passages. I submit 
 that he has not made good a presumption in 
 favour of the hypothesis of a liturgical Beiwerk 
 composed of sporadic annotations intended as a 
 guide in the reading of the Law. All the pheno- 
 mena he has pointed out, so far as they are 
 relevant to the matter in dispute, are more satis- 
 factorily explained as characteristics of a separate 
 work than as idiosyncrasies of an editor, who read 
 lessons into the ancient history in no way sug- 
 
 in the MT of xxxv. 9 presupposes an earlier appearance of 
 God to Jacob, and none such is recorded in the docwment P. 
 Further, although P occasionally departs from the traditional 
 order of JE, yet as a rule he follows it as his chief authority. 
 Gunkel (with whom Procksch agrees) has accordingly con- 
 jectured that vv. 11-13, 15 are a misplaced fragment of P's 
 narrative, whose original position was after xxxv. 6a, and 
 this again immediately after xxviii. 9, on Jacob's outward 
 journey to Paddan Aram ; while vv. 9, 10 occupy their 
 present place. The solution is very plausible, and if the 
 "again" be genuine, perhaps necessary. Dahse rejects 
 the 111? on the ground that it is wanting in a few LXX 
 authorities ; and it is no doubt possible (we cannot allow 
 more) that it was inserted in the Hebrew text at a late stage 
 with reference to the previous revelations to Jacob mentioned 
 in the completed Pentateuch. If "again" be not original 
 another explanation of the order in P would be feasible on 
 the documentary theory. E distinguishes two visits to 
 Bethel, and connects the naming of the place with the 
 second, which took place after the return from Syria. The 
 author of P might have been led by this circumstance to 
 transfer the Bethel theophany of chap, xxviii. to E's second 
 visit, and run the two incidents into one. So, to be 
 sure, might "K"; but on that view he is not a mere 
 "Bpitomator,'' 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 203 
 
 gested by the immediate context. When we 
 consider that xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9 and xxxv. 9-13 
 form two solid blocks of continuous narrative, 
 united by phraseological and other affinities, re- 
 presenting a peculiar point of view, and having 
 no exclusive relation to the adjacent text, I think 
 we shall find little reason to f^ar that the docu- 
 mentary theory has been seriously discredited by 
 Dahse's halting criticism. 
 
 II 
 
 In proceeding to the second and more laborious 
 part of our inquiry, we may allow that Dahse has 
 still before him some prospect of saving a little 
 for his theory, even after his failure to establish 
 a basis for it in the two selected passages we have 
 just examined. For although there is sufficient 
 evidence of the existence of a separate document 
 P, from which passages like xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9, 
 xxxv, 9-13, 15, and many others are excerpted, it 
 does not follow that every fragment which critics 
 have assigned to that document really belongs 
 to it. It is conceivable that brief notices which 
 critics have taken to be connecting links between 
 the longer sections of P are in reality redactional 
 glosses supplied by an editor who had the whole 
 Pentateuch before him. If Dahse can show that 
 notices of this character frequently occur at the 
 divisions of the Sedarim, he will not have over- 
 thrown the documentary hypothesis, but he will 
 nevertheless have made a useful contribution to 
 the criticism of the Pentateuch. We will endea- 
 vour, therefore, to estimate quite fairly the evidence 
 he adduces. 
 
204 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 1. He begins with the portion of Genesis 
 intermediate between xxviii. 1-9 and xxxv. 9-15 : 
 i.e., with Sedarim 26-31. In Seder 26 (xxviii. 10- 
 xxix. 30) and Seder 27 (xxix. 31-xxx. 21) he finds 
 no trace of " K." He only ventures to affirm that 
 the last clause of S. 26 (" and he served with him 
 yet seven other years") is "the addition of a 
 glossator," solely on the ground of its omission 
 in three LXX MSS (E fp). The clause is in no 
 way suspicious ; and few would reject it on such 
 slight authority. But even granting that it were 
 a gloss, and that it illustrates a tendency to insert 
 such glosses at the end of a Seder, the observation 
 is still nothing to the point. We can readily 
 allow that very late glosses were more apt to be 
 written at the end of a Seder than elsewhere : 
 what w^e desiderate is evidence that " K " followed 
 this practice ; and confessedly such evidence is 
 not forthcoming here. — In Seder 28 (xxx. 22-xxxi. 
 2) Dahse detects the hand of " K " in the opening 
 sentence xxx. 22a. This, he says, is the " head- 
 ing " of the Seder. That is to say, the statement 
 " God remembered Rachel " is the " heading " of a 
 section which devotes three verses to the birth 
 of Joseph and twenty-one verses to the strata- 
 gems by which Jacob circumvented Laban and 
 the consequent alienation of Laban's sons ! It is 
 an interesting example of what a heading may 
 be in Dahse's criticism. But there is a more im- 
 portant question. By what right does Dahse 
 assign xxx. 22a to the same hand as xxviii. 1 ff. 
 and xxxv. 9 ff. ? There are absolutely no points 
 of contact between them. Some critics assign the 
 sentence to P, because of the name Elohim, and 
 
PROBLEM OP THE PRIESTLY CODE 205 
 
 the general resemblance of the clause to viii. 1 
 and xix. 29. These grounds seem to me (as to 
 Driver) somewhat indecisive ; but whether they 
 are cogent on the assumptions of the documentary- 
 theory or not, they can have no existence for 
 Dahse. The first he has cut from under his feet 
 by denying that the divine names have anything 
 to do with authorship, and the second vanishes 
 with the absence of any specific resemblances to 
 xxviii. 1 ff. or xxxv. 9 fp. There is thus no justifi- 
 cation on his principles for taking out a clause 
 firmly imbedded in the context and labelling it a 
 liturgical addition. With precisely as much right 
 he might break off the first verse or half -verse of 
 any Seder, call it a " heading," and use it as proof 
 of his theory. — In point of fact he does this in 
 the very next Seder (29 = xxxi. 3-xxxii. 3), where 
 he assigns to the Beiwerk a " solitary verse 
 (xxxi. 3) of the so-called J," because it "makes 
 the impression " of being a " heading " or intro- 
 duction to what follows. The verse reads : " And 
 Yahwe said to Jacob, Return to the land of thy 
 fathers, and to the place of thy nativity, and I 
 will be with thee." I venture to think that the 
 impression spoken of will be made only on a mind 
 dominated by a preconceived theory, and pretty 
 hard pressed for facts to support it. Both xxxi. 3 
 and XXX. 22a must be flatly disallowed as evidence 
 for the annotation theory. — On Seder 30 (xxxii. 
 4-xxxiii. 17) Dahse simply remarks on the fitness 
 of the division (which we are not concerned to 
 dispute) ; he can point to no trace of the handi- 
 work of " K."— Seder 31 (xxxiii. 18-xxxv. 8) yields 
 at last a slight apparent vindication of the theory. 
 
206 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 In xxxiii. 18 the words " in the land of Canaan 
 when he came from Paddan Aram " which occur, 
 not indeed at the very beginning of the Seder, 
 but near it, are regarded by critics as a fragment 
 of P; and Dahse appropriates them for his 
 BeiwerJc. That is reasonable enough : " K " shows 
 a partiality for the expressions " land of Canaan " 
 and " Paddan Aram." But unfortunately the 
 phrase as here used presents our "K" in an 
 altogether new light. He is no longer a recapi- 
 tulator of the older history, nor a writer of 
 headings to Sedarim, but a glossator, pure and 
 simple, of an established text. It follows that 
 the occurrence of the phrases near the beginning 
 of the Seder is purely accidental ; it was just 
 there that the opportunity for this gloss presented 
 itself. In fact, the same phenomenon recurs, as 
 Dahse admits, in the middle of Sedarim, at xxxi. 
 18 and xxxv. 6. It is therefore impossible to 
 admit even this as a confirmation of Dahse's 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Besides the passages hitherto mentioned, critics 
 find traces of P in xxix. 24, 28fc, 29, xxx. 4a, 96. 
 What does Dahse make of these ? As to the first 
 three, he says there is no need to detach them 
 from their setting, and no reason for assigning 
 them to " K." As to what may fitly be attributed 
 to " K," Dahse may be the best judge ; but critics 
 have quite as good grounds for assigning them to 
 P as xxxi. 18 or xxxv. 6, and in my opinion much 
 stronger grounds than in the case of xxx. 22a. And 
 as for the need for isolating them — " O reason not 
 the need ! " Was there any need to detach xxx. 22a 
 or xxxi. 3 ? In regard to xxx. 4a, 96, Dahse takes 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 207 
 
 refuge in a dissensus of critical opinion. The 
 point is not worth labouring here ; I will only 
 take occasion to remark that Dahse is mistaken 
 in supposing that " Gunkel and Skinner " assign 
 these half -verses to P merely to fill out the meagre 
 contents of that document. The suggestion is 
 absurd. 
 
 Looking back, then, over the last two para- 
 graphs, we find that the six Sedarim under con- 
 sideration have not furnished a particle of 
 substantial evidence in favour of Dahse's hypo- 
 thesis ; or, if we include the 25th and 32nd 
 Sedarim, that the theory is very partially verified 
 only in the two passages with which we started, 
 xxviii. 1-9 and xxxv. 9-15. It is with some sur- 
 prise that we read Dahse's own summing tip of 
 the case. " Thus we see how almost always on 
 the boundary of two pericopes, either at the 
 beginning or close of a Seder, the hand of our 
 Kompilator shows itself, and how^ this hand does 
 not show itself elsewhere in these chapters, with 
 the exception of the short additions xxxi. 18 and 
 xxxv. 6" (p. 148). Is that a fair statement of 
 results ? Why, even on his own showing there 
 are only five of the eight Sedarim (25, 28, 29, 31, 
 32) where the hand of "K" appears either at the 
 beginning or the end ; and by what arbitrary 
 devices he has made out even that number of 
 coincidences we have now seen. A little lower 
 down (p. 149) we read: "We have therefore no 
 passage of the so-called P which has not a relation 
 to the division of Genesis into reading lessons." 
 What of xxxi. 18 and xxxv. 6 ; to say nothing of 
 xxix. 24, 28&, 29, xxx. 4a, 96, which Dahse refuses 
 
208 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 to allow ? It may be easy to rush a hasty reader 
 into acceptance of an intricate critical hypo- 
 thesis by loose and inaccurate statements like 
 these ; but more care is required of one who seeks 
 to win over scholarly opinion. 
 
 2. Having now, as he believes, entrenched his 
 position in the centre of the book, Dahse proceeds 
 to extend his conquests over the rest of Genesis ; 
 and first of all backwards from chap, xxvii. to 
 chap. xii. (S. 24-8. 9). And we, on our part, having 
 gained some experience of his line of research, 
 need not follow his track quite so closely as we 
 have done, but may adopt a more summary treat- 
 ment of his results. But we shall retain the back- 
 ward order. 
 
 Of these sixteen Sedarim the following are 
 untouched by F or " K " : 24 (xxvii. 1-27), 21, 20 
 (=chap. xxiv.), 15 (xviii.) and 11 (xiv.). In the 
 following there is no divergence between P and 
 " K " sufficiently serious to greatly affect the 
 evidence for the theory : 23 (xxv. 19-xxvi. 35 : P = 
 "K" in xxv. 19 f., 266, xxvi. 34 f.), 13 (chap. xvi. : 
 P in la, 3, 15 f . : " K " 3, 16), 10 (xii. 10-xiii. 18 : P in 
 xii. 6 ; P and " K " in xiii. 116, 12) ; and 9 (xii. 1-9 : 
 P 46, 5 ; " K " 4 and part of 5). The remaining 
 sections, however, call for closer examination. 
 
 Seder 22 (xxv. 1-18) contains on the critical 
 theory two lengthy P passages, 7-1 la, 12-17. 
 According to Dahse " K " is responsible for vv. 7, 
 10, 11, 17. In his opinion the Seder originally 
 ended at v. 11, the genealogy of Ishmael (12-18) 
 being omitted by three Greek MSS. (19, 108, w).* 
 
 • In reality there are only two, 19 (= b) and W. The 
 verses are not wanting in 108 (= b), as Dahse will see from 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 209 
 
 That it is a late insertion in the text is ex- 
 tremely improbable. It opens with a formula 
 distinctive of "K," as of P: "And these are the 
 generations of " ; it is given by the Sam., its 
 excision would leave us with the shortest Seder 
 in Genesis, consisting according to Dahse of eight 
 verses (1-6, 8, 9), to which "K" supplied a Beiwerk 
 of three verses; while on a more scientific analysis * 
 P is responsible for no fewer than ii verses out 
 of the 11. And how little conscience Dahse makes 
 of his textual criticism at this point may be seen 
 from p. 165, where xxv. 17 — i.e., one of the spuri- 
 ous verses — is actually ascribed to the " Kom- 
 pilator '' Ezra ! We may therefore disregard the 
 assertion that vv. 10, 11 mark the end of Seder 
 22, which thus has nothing of " K " either at 
 
 the frequent citation of its readings to these seven verses 
 in the Cambridge LXX. And of the two W carries no weight, 
 because its text has evidently passed through the hands of a 
 scribe or editor who had a strong aversion to transcribing 
 long lists of proper names. The tendency is not so marked 
 in Genesis (though compare x. 2-32, xxv. 1-5, xxxvi. 9-43) ; 
 but it appears very unmistakably in Joshua (see Jos. xii. 2-6, 
 xiii. 8-xiv. 2, xv. 1-xvii. 18, xviii. 12-38, xix. 2-9, 106-16, 
 18-23, 25-31, 41-47, xxi. 86-40). It is true that in Joshua 
 W parts company with b, and falls in with another group 
 (K gin), but that does not strengthen the value of its own 
 evidence in passages full of proper names. (For this infor- 
 mation I am indebted to Mr. McLean.) 
 
 * V. 8 contains two distinctive expressions (l?13 and fpi<i 
 V12]l hit) never found in the Pent, except in P-contexts (see 
 Driver, LOT, p. 131 fC. Nos. 9 and 25) ; and in v. 9 
 "Machpelah" is just as distinctive of Dahse's "K" as 
 Paddan Aram (see Dahse on xlix. 29 and 1. 13). Moreover 
 vv. 7-1 la form a continuous section which there is certainly 
 no "need" to divide between two writers. 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 15 
 
210 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 beginning or end (although of course critics assign 
 12-17 to P). 
 
 We come next to Seder 19 (xxii., xxiii.). Neither 
 at the beginning nor at the end does Dahse claim 
 anything for " K." But at xxiii. i, where a new 
 Parasha begins, he recognizes the hand of " K " 
 in xxiii. la, and (tentatively) in xxii. 20-24. To the 
 second of these suggestions I entirely demur ; 
 the first, with its time-determination, would on 
 the ^eiioer/c-theory very naturally fall to " K." 
 Supposing then that " K " has interposed at this 
 point, what follows ? Obviously, in the first 
 place, that " K " ignores the (Seder-division. But 
 next, that he had regard to the ParasAa-division, 
 Since exactly the same thing happens in the only 
 other case where a Parasha begins in the middle 
 of a Seder (xlvii. 28) I do not see how on Dahse's 
 principles that conclusion can be avoided. Of 
 course it would prove too much for his purpose. 
 It would mean that the Parasha-division is as old 
 as the time of Ezra — much older, therefore, than 
 the LXX — and the whole ingenious construction 
 on which rests the proof of the superior antiquity 
 of the divine names of the LXX — namely, that the 
 LXX is influenced by the older Seder-system and 
 not yet by the Parashas, while the MT is influenced 
 by both — goes by the board. On p. 150 Dahse 
 evades this point, and fixes attention on the gloss 
 mtf "n '3^, which is not in the original LXX, and 
 which he thinks was added as a short summary (!) 
 to mark the new Parasha. But that is entirely 
 immaterial to the present issue. 
 
 In Seder 18 (xxi.) the hand of " K " appears in 16 
 (beginning) but also in v. 5 (neither beginning nor 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 211 
 
 end). On the critical theory 16, 26-5 belong to P. 
 The last verse of this Seder, xxi. 34, "And 
 Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines 
 many days," which is surely the natural sequel 
 to the treaty between Abraham and the Philis- 
 tines, is pronounced most arbitrarily by Dahse 
 to be a " concluding postscript," and without even 
 an attempt at justification, is assigned to "K" ! — 
 Similarly the last verse of Seder 17 (xx.), " For 
 Yahwe had closed," etc., which is generally re- 
 garded as a gloss, is appropriated for " K." But 
 we have already seen (on xxix. 306) that not every 
 gloss, even at the end of a Seder, is the work of 
 " K " ; and Dahse can produce no reason whatever 
 for thinking that this one betrays his hand. 
 
 In Seder 16 (chap, xix.) the only P-verse is 29 ; and 
 this is also the only verse claimed for "K." Dahse 
 surmises that it marked the close of the actual 
 lesson, the remainder of the Seder (30-38) being 
 deemed unfit for public reading. If Ezra deemed 
 it unfit for public reading, why did he not remove 
 it from the text, as Dahse supposes him to have 
 done with the sequel to xxxv. 22a (Dahse, p. 154 f.) ? 
 We decline however to accept a " vielleicht " as 
 proof; and insist on the fact that here "K" (P) 
 only interposes in the middle of the Seder. 
 
 This brings us to the important Seder 14 
 (chap, xvii.), the whole 6f which, as is w^ell Icnown, 
 is on the documentary hypothesis an extract from 
 P. Dahse, of course, cannot acquiesce in this view, 
 although it is based on linguistic, literary and 
 material evidence of the most convincing kind 
 (see ICC, p. 289 f .), which he has not even thought 
 it worth while to examine. That this is not a 
 
212 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 prejudice due to long familiarity with the teaching 
 of the critical school may be seen from the 
 emphatic verdict of Eerdmans, who says that in 
 style and subject-matter this chapter is akin to 
 XXXV. 9-15 (Dahse's " K " !), and that beyond all 
 doubt the two passages are from the same pen 
 (Komp, der Gen., p. 13). Nay more, it was Dahse's 
 own opinion in 1903, before his critical judgment 
 was altogether perverted by preoccupation with 
 the pericope-hypothesis. In the ARW for that 
 year (p. 317) he wrote as follows : " Der ganze 
 Character von Gen. 17 gleicht demjenigen voll- 
 standig, der uns sonst in der P genannten Schrift 
 entgegentritt." Now, by applying a very few 
 arbitrarily selected criteria, he detaches la (time- 
 specification), 8 ("land of Canaan," duplication 
 of 76 and xii. 7), 24 f. (time-specification) and 
 26 f . (Abschluss), and assigns them to " K " ; 
 leaving all the rest of the chapter to the "Grund- 
 stock " of the Pentateuch.* Such fitful and capri- 
 cious criticism is little likely to stand the test of 
 time. 
 
 Lastly, in Seder 12 (xv.), where there is nothing 
 of P, Dahse takes the three closing verses (19-21) 
 for the Beiwerk, referring to Neh. ix. 8. But 
 Neh. ix. 8 only shows that the composer of that 
 prayer had Genesis xv. before him with this inter- 
 polation already in the text. No reason is given 
 
 • But how Joshua v. 2-8 can be held to prove the early 
 date of Genesis xvii. I am at a loss to imagine. And would 
 it not be passing strange if Ezra (who is " K ") should write 
 exactly in the style of an author who must have lived so 
 many centuries before his day, even when there was nothing 
 in the context to suggest imitation ? 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 213 
 
 for assigning the verses to " K." This is but one 
 of a series of passages enumerating in similar 
 terms the peoples of Canaan, which are scattered 
 through the Pentateuch and Joshua (Exod. iii. 8, 
 17, xiii. 5, xxiii. 23, xxxiv. 11 ; Deut. vii. 1, xx. 17 ; 
 Josh. iii. 10, ix. 1, xi. 3, xii. 8, xxiv. 11). Does Dahse 
 claim all these for "K"? If he does, his theory 
 will suffer loss ; for not one of the others occurs 
 at the end of a Pentateuchal Seder ; and the 
 final position here is quite accidental. On the 
 critical theory all these passages occur in JE or 
 Dt. contexts, and never have any relation to P. 
 
 3. We turn now to the closing chapters, from 
 xxxv. to the end. Seder 32, commencing at 
 XXXV. 9, extends to xxxvi. 43. It contains a 
 P-passage, xxxv. 226-26 (the list of Jacob's sons), 
 which Dahse regards as a recapitulation of 
 chap, xxix., xxx., and assigns accordingly to "K." 
 Critics have pointed out two discrepancies between 
 JE and P in this matter: first, the order of 
 enumeration, and second, the statement (26fe) 
 that all, including Benjamin, were born in Paddan 
 Aram. Dahse gets rid of both these by textual 
 criticism. As to the order, he urges that the 
 recension fir has a different arrangement which 
 more nearly (but not exactly !) corresponds with 
 xxix,, xxx. The point is hardly worth discussing 
 here.* The more important discrepancy as to 
 
 * The extent of the difference is that fir puts xxxv. 24 
 after 26a, thus closing the list with the sons of Rachel. It 
 may be noted, as illustrating the facility with which such 
 transpositions were made, that codices of the Armenian 
 version (which belongs, according to Dahse, to the same 
 recension as fir) place the sons of Bilhah after those of 
 Zilpah. — And Dahse argues very rashly from the agreement 
 
214 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 the place of Benjamin's birth is dismissed very 
 summarily with the remark that 26& cannot have 
 stood in the same original text as 22 (why not?), 
 and is not found in the Armenian edition (?).* — 
 Dahse places the end of this Seder at xxxvi. 8. 
 He seems to have been the first to call attention 
 to the fact that vv. 9-43 are wanting in one 
 Greek MS. (w), and that in two others (19, 108) 
 the words of xxxvii. 1 come between xxxvi. 8 and 
 xxxvi. 9. The parent text of these two MSS. must 
 therefore have agreed with w in the omission of 
 this section, and the lacuna must have been 
 supplied in them from some other source. That 
 is undoubtedly an important textual fact, although 
 its significance is very easily exaggerated.! In 
 
 between the order of fir and that followed in the "Testa- 
 ments of the Twelve Patriarchs." That post-Christian work 
 is so freely interpolated in a Christian interest that it must 
 have been a favourite reading-book in Christian circles. If 
 it had any influence on the recension fir (which I do not 
 for a moment believe) that influence is just as likely to have 
 been exerted on a Greek editor as on a Hebrew recension. 
 
 * What authority he can have for this unsupported 
 assertion I do not know. No such variant is cited in the 
 apparatus of the Cambridge LXX. 
 
 t The omission by W, from what we have seen (footnote 
 on p. 208 f.) as to the tendency of that MS., is neither sur- 
 prising nor of any special moment. 108 (? fourteenth century) 
 is practically a transcript of 19 (= b : ? tenth century), so that 
 their united testimony is only that of a single witness. That 
 raises a very interesting text-critical problem, which I have 
 not leisure to work out. Can we suppose that all these 
 omissions occurred in the common original, of b and W, that 
 this original has been faithfully preserved in W, while in b 
 the missing passages were restored with the (accidental?) 
 exception of xxv. 12-18, and in 108 that last gap was filled 
 up at a still later time ? On any view I cannot see that two 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 215 
 
 any case the question has very little bearing on 
 the present inquiry. Let us suppose that Dahse 
 is right, and that the Seder ends at xxxvi. 8. 
 The whole of the later part of this section 
 (xxxv. 225-xxxvi. 8) is assigned to P; and in the 
 main Dahse agrees, reserving, however, for the 
 original text xxxv. 27, 29, and xxxvi. 6. He thus 
 burdens the original text with a glaring contra- 
 diction, when in xxxvi. 6 it puts the migration 
 of Esau after the death of Isaac, whereas in 
 xxxii. 3, xxxiii. 14, 16, it had taken place years 
 before. I will not further discuss the analysis ; 
 but the literary result is curious. We have now 
 an extremely short Seder of seven verses 
 (xxxv. 16-22a) which " K " has provided with a 
 Beiwerk of about nineteen verses on Dahse's 
 view, or twenty-two verses on the documentary 
 hypothesis (xxxv. 9-15 at the beginning and 
 xxxv. 226-26, xxxvi. 1-8 at the end). Why this 
 excessive annotation? To recapitulate portions 
 of the older narrative? But why should such 
 an amount of recapitulation be crowded into 
 one lesson ? And why in this remarkable order : 
 first Seder 30, 26, 31, then 27, 28, 32? And 
 whence the new material of xxxvi. Iff.? It seems 
 to me that this is the reductio ad absurdum of 
 the theory of chapter headings. 
 
 Seder 33 (chap, xxxvii.) commences with a P- 
 fragment xxxvii. 1, 2a. Dahse accepts for " K " 
 V. 1 and in 2a the words : " This is the genealogy 
 
 cursives (virtually one) prove that a peculiarity of this kind 
 belongs to a recension going back to the origins of the Greek 
 text, or that such evidence can neutralize the testimony 
 of all other textual witnesses. 
 
216 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 of Jacob : when . . . was seventeen years old " — 
 surely a peculiar form for a heading to take ! 
 In the MT of 2a the enmity to Joseph is confined 
 to the sons of the concubines, whereas in the 
 subsequent narrative it is shared by the sons of 
 Leah. Dahse gets rid of the discrepancy by 
 adding " Leah " to the text on the authority of 
 four cursives (dnyp). But this is to beg the 
 question. It is more likely that "Leah" is an 
 addition to the original text than that its omission 
 is due to error ; for, accident apart, there was 
 an obvious harmonistic motive for inserting it, 
 but none for deleting it. The presumption is 
 on the side of the MT. 
 
 The next seven Sedarim (34-40) call for little 
 remark. In 34, 35, 36, 38, there is no trace of 
 P or "K"; and in 37 (xli. 38-xlii. 17) P ("K") 
 appears only in the middle (xli. 466). Seder 39, 
 which begins inappropriately in the middle of 
 a speech of Jacob (xliii. 14-xliv. 17), contains near 
 the beginning the name El Shaddai, which as we 
 have seen (p. 22 above) Dahse regards as a late 
 substitution for Elohai (" my God "). I have dis- 
 cussed this view in another connexion, and since 
 the alleged gloss is not assigned to " K " the 
 question does not specially concern us here. 
 Seder 20 (xliv. 18-xlvi. 27) closes with a long 
 P-passage, xlvi. 6-27 (list of Jacob's descendants), 
 which Dahse assigns to " K " (except 6a) as an 
 addition to the older history. An addition, and 
 therefore not a recapitulation ! 
 
 In the middle of Seder 41 (xlvi. 28-xlvii. 31) 
 we come to a P-passage (xlvii. 5-11), where critics 
 adopt the LXX text in preference to MT, and 
 
PROBLEM OP THE PRIESTLY CODE 217 
 
 find in it a confirmation of their theory, Dahse, 
 of course, agrees as to the superiority of the LXX, 
 but denies that it favours the usual division of 
 sources. I try to explain his criticism in the note 
 below.* After all, the gain to his theory is nil. 
 For, granting that the presentation of Jacob to 
 Pharaoh is not a contrast (though it is uncommonly 
 like a parallel) to the presentation of the five 
 brothers {v. 2 ff.), but is a continuation of it, it is 
 at all events not a recapitulation of it : it is in fact 
 a fresh narrative, and cannot be the work of a 
 mere " Kompilator." Moreover, the verses stand 
 neither at the beginning nor at the end of the 
 
 * I will first of all quote Driver's succinct and lucid note 
 on w. 5, 6 {Genesis, p. 370) : ' ' Verse 5 is not at all a natural 
 reply to the request in v. 46 ; and there can be no question 
 that the arrangement of these verses in the LXX is prefer- 
 able to that of the present Hebrew text. After v. 4 the 
 LXX continues : ' 5a (J) And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Let 
 them dwell in the land of Goshen : and if thou knowest any 
 able men among them, then make them rulers over my cattle. 
 56 (P) And Jacob and his sons came into Egypt unto Joseph. 
 And Pharaoh king of Egypt heard of it. And Pharaoh 
 spake unto Joseph, saying. Thy father and thy brethren 
 are come unto thee : 6 Behold the land of Egypt is before 
 thee : in the best of the land make thy father and thy 
 brethren to dwell. 7 And Joseph brought in," etc. (as in 
 the Hebrew). Here the words forming 5a in the LXX are 
 a natiwal and suitable answer to v. 4. Now the essential 
 feature of Dahse's reconstruction is that he removes 56 and 
 6 (as given here by Driver) as a late interpolation. That 
 is to say, he practically agrees with Driver as to the old 
 (J) text, but in P he breaks a faultless sequence by dividing 
 it up between a late glossator and "K" ! And for this he 
 does not ofEer a shadow of textual justification. It is all so 
 plain to any one who does not look at the verses through 
 the "spectacles of the newer documentary hypothesis"! 
 
218 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 Seder ; although Dahse saves himself on this 
 point by putting forward a perfectly baseless 
 conjecture that " vermutlich " a new Seder once 
 began at xlvii. 13. — On xlvii. 28, where a new 
 Parasha begins, I will not dwell, but simply 
 refer to what I have said above on the similar 
 case of xxiii. 1 (p. 210). 
 
 Near the beginning of Seder 42 (chap, xlviii.) 
 critics recognize the hand of P in vv. 3-6. Dahse 
 claims for " K " the whole of vv. 1-6 except 26, " and 
 Israel strengthened himself and sat upon the bed," 
 which he leaves as the continuation of xlvii. 41, 
 " and Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head," 
 in the original text. That looks plausible so far ; 
 but when we resume the original text at v. 8 we 
 find Joseph's two sons present, and (without v. 1) 
 we have no knowledge how they came there. How 
 then can it be attributed to a Kompilator ? Dahse 
 has his answer ready. " K " observed the hiatus, 
 and filled it up in the margin ! But one does 
 not go to the chapter headings of English Bibles 
 to supply a hiatus in the Scriptural text. Would 
 it not be much better to leave vv. 1 and 2 to the 
 ancient text, and let it tell its own story ? These 
 verses contain not a single mark of P or " K." 
 
 * 
 
 * I will here call attention to the extraordinary conclusions 
 which Dahse draws from xlviii. 6 (p. 159 f. ; repeated in his 
 Reply, p. 502 f.). That verse, he says, speaks of sons, other 
 than Manasseh and Ephraim, who were to be born to Joseph 
 in Egypt ; and the Hebrew text knows of no such sons. But, 
 says Dahse, they are mentioned, though not named, in the 
 LXX of xlvi. 27, where we read that the sons of Joseph born 
 to him in Egypt were nine souls. Therefore we have here a 
 clear case where the MT presupposes a text which is only 
 preserved in the LXX 1 This is a truly astounding proposi- 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 219 
 
 The last Seder of Genesis (43 : chaps, xlix., 1.) 
 has fragments of P (on the documentary theory) in 
 xlix. la, 286-33, 1. 12, 13, which read consecutively. 
 Dahse must at all hazards break up the continuity ; 
 and he assigns to "K" xlix. 1, 28a, ba, 296, 30 
 (save glosses), 31 (doubtfully) and 1. 13 ; to the 
 original text, xlix. 29a, 33, 1. 12 (LXX.) ; and rejects 
 as glosses xlix. 286j3, parts of 29, 30, all 32 and 
 (doubtfully) 31. I confess I can furnish the reader 
 with no clue to this labyrinthine analysis. I will 
 only point out that " K " is still responsible for 
 the burial of Jacob in Machpelah (xlix. 29 f., 1. 13) ; 
 and that this is opposed not only to 1. 5 but still 
 more to 1. 10, where obviously the burial of Jacob 
 takes place somewhere east of the Jordan. It is 
 evident that here also " K " follows a different 
 tradition from the older Genesis, and is therefore 
 no mere annotator of the pre-Exilic narrative. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Let us now sum up the results of our ex- 
 amination. 
 
 (1) Dahse has in no instance produced valid 
 
 tion. Siirely Dahse must see that throughout the summations 
 of xlvi. 6-27 the word vloi means "descendants," and includes 
 sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and even great-great- 
 grandsons. Moreover these "sons" of Joseph are named 
 in the Hebrew of v. 20 ; and, except Manasseh and Ephraim 
 themselves, are all grandsons or great-grandsons of Joseph. 
 There are, it is trvxe, only seven of them in all, and xlvi. 27 
 (LXX) says "nine." But the ivria of the common LXX 
 text obviously rests on an error of calculation, for the ex- 
 planation of which I may refer the reader to the ICC, 
 p. 494 f. Has the German scholar no friends to warn him 
 against such pitfalls ? 
 
220 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 reasons for questioning the accuracy of the pre- 
 valent critical delimitation of P. In the main, 
 as we have seen, he follows the line of the much 
 decried documentary theory ; and (to change the 
 metaphor) as soon as he discards the use of its 
 borrowed " spectacles " his eyesight fails him. All 
 the positive criteria by which he distinguishes "K" 
 had been noted and consistently applied by critics ; 
 and whenever he goes beyond or ignores these his 
 analysis becomes arbitrary and capricious, and is 
 really special pleading for his own hypothesis. The 
 only question, therefore, which he has succeeded 
 in raising is the question of the character and 
 origin of those passages which critics have assigned 
 to P. 
 
 (2) Dahse has entirely failed to exhibit an in- 
 telligible and self-consistent modus operandi on 
 the part of his annotator. We find " K " now 
 engaged in adding a heading or postscript to a 
 Seder ; now in epitomizing and now in supple- 
 menting the older narrative, and sometimes feebly 
 echoing it ; now working in a chronological scheme ; 
 once making good a hiatus ; and again glossing an 
 established text. It may be said that this is just 
 what might be expected of an annotator ; but that 
 does not cover the case. The writing of headings 
 to Sedarim is a process which we must see carried 
 out with some regularity before we can believe 
 in it at all ; and we expect recapitulation to be 
 performed with some sense of proportion and 
 some regard to the adjoining text. We have 
 shown that none of these conditions is even ap- 
 proximately fulfilled. The truth is that there are 
 no pieces of the Beiwerk which can be fitly 
 
PROBLEM OP THE PRIESTLY CODE 221 
 
 described as headings, with the exception of those 
 consisting of the formula : " These are the genera- 
 tions of " (xxv. 19, xxxvii. 2) ; and this has always 
 been recognized as the heading to different sections 
 of P. But this heading occurs no fewer than four 
 times (xxv. 12, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2) where no 
 Seder begins ! 
 
 (3) Even on Dahse's analysis, "K" does not 
 simply emphasize points in the earlier record, but 
 introduces here and there new matter, and main- 
 tains throughout an independent view of the 
 national tradition. 
 
 (4) It follows from (1) that the question of the 
 original continuity of the P-sections remains ex- 
 actly as before. Dahse has not succeeded either 
 in extending or in contracting the limits of the 
 document. The only point that remains to be 
 considered is whether the fragments are inserted 
 at the divisions of the Synagogue lectionary. 
 
 (5) Here there is one allowance which must be 
 made in justice to Dahse's point of view. He 
 supposes the " K "-passages to have been originally 
 written on the margin of a codex, or at least in 
 some way distinguished from the body of the text 
 (p. 162). He must therefore postulate a subsequent 
 redaction, by which the Beiwerk was incorporated 
 in the text ; and he is entitled to assume that in 
 this process the ipsissima verba of the rubrics, etc., 
 may have been mutilated or effaced. Chap, xlvii. 
 5-11 shows that this is a very probable occurrence. 
 Hence we cannot require a perfect correspondence 
 between the theory and the facts of the present 
 text. If the theory holds good in a sufficient 
 number of cases to exclude the hypothesis of 
 
222 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 accidental coincidence, Dahse can rightly claim 
 that the exceptions are due to later manipulation 
 of the text. We will now consider whether a 
 sufficient number is made out. 
 
 (6) In Gen. xii.-l. there are 35 Sedarim and an 
 almost equal number (33) of P-sections, larger or 
 smaller ; on an average therefore one P-passage to 
 each Seder. How are these distributed ? We find 
 that (excluding chap, xvii., which forms a complete 
 Seder by itself) nine occur at or near the beginning 
 of a Seder, seven at or near the end, and sixteen in 
 other places. And again, that of the 35 Sedarim ten 
 have P near the beginning (Nos. 13, 14, 18, 23, 28, 
 31, 32, 33, 42, 43), seven at the end (13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 
 
 25, 40) ; therefore three (13, 14, 23) both at the 
 beginning and the end, and fourteen (13, 14, 18, 19, 
 22, 23, 25, 28, 31, 32, 33, 40, 42, 43) either at begin- 
 ning or end. On the other hand, eight (9, 10, 16, 
 
 26, 27, 29, 37, 41) have P only in the middle, and 
 thirteen contain no trace of P at all (11, 12, 15, 17, 
 20, 21, 24, 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39). Now, I give my 
 opinion with all diffidence ; but I confess I cannot 
 see that these statistics (showing 60 per cent, of 
 absolute failures !) are favourable to a theory 
 which asserts that the P-passages were composed 
 with a special regard to the division into Sedarim. 
 Dahse, no doubt, by very violent criticism con- 
 trives to add some half-dozen cases where his 
 " K " closes (or opens ?) a section : these I decline 
 to accept for reasons already given ; but even if 
 they were accepted his case would not be greatly 
 strengthened. At all events we are bound to see 
 if a more adequate solution cannot be found. 
 
 (7) While the facts are insufficient to bear out 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 223 
 
 Dahse's hypothesis, it would appear that the 
 number of coincidences between the P-sections 
 and the Seder-divisions is greater than can be 
 accounted for by the doctrine of chances. In 
 mere bulk about one-seventh of the text of 
 Genesis xii.-]. belongs to P, whereas a P-passage 
 opens or closes about two Sedarim out of five. 
 This fact calls for attention, and it is Dahse's 
 merit to have forced it to the front. Now it is 
 abundantly clear for one thing that in the great 
 majority of cases the Seder-division marks a new 
 start in the narrative. This is perfectly manifest, 
 e.g., at the beginning of chap, xii., xiv., xv., xvi., 
 xvii., xviii., xx., xxi., xxii., xxiv., xxv., xxvii., xxxvii., 
 xxxviii., xxxix., xl., xlviii., xlix., also at xxv. 19, 
 xxviii. 10, xxxii. 4, xxxv. 9, and perhaps some other 
 places. It will be found that, with perhaps two 
 exceptions (xxx. 22, xxxiii. 18), all the Sedarim 
 introduced or closed by P belong to this class : on 
 the other hand divisions which violently interrupt 
 the narrative (such as xxiv. 42, xxvii. 28, xxxi. 3, 
 xii. 38, xliii. 14) are never marked by P. Let us 
 suppose, then, that the arrangement of the lec- 
 tionary is much later than the final redaction 
 of the Pentateuch : the only fact that remains to 
 be explained is the frequent occurrence of P-sec- 
 tions at pauses in the narrative. But that is 
 surely the most natural thing in the world. The 
 redactor who so skilfully dove-tailed P into the 
 connection of JE naturally looked for the inter- 
 stices of the old narrative as the places where he 
 could most suitably insert the bulk of the new 
 material (see especially chap, xvii., xxiii., xxv. 7 ff., 
 xxvi. 34 f., xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9, xxxv. 9-13, xxxvi., 
 
224 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 xxxvii. 1 f., xlvi. 6-27, xlix. la and 286-33). And 
 not less naturally, the framers of the lectionary 
 frequently selected these same points as the places 
 where a reading might in most cases fittingly 
 close, just as nearly half of the modern chapter- 
 divisions coincide with divisions of the old Jewish 
 lectionary. The correspondence (such as it is) is 
 amply accounted for by the two processes being 
 guided by parallel aims, and we can understand 
 how the authors of the Sedarim-division would 
 find so often a suitable ending sometimes at 
 the beginning, sometimes at the close, and 
 sometimes in the middle, of a section from 
 P. That seems to me a much more probable 
 and adequate solution than Dahse's of a problem 
 to which he has rightly called attention, but 
 which he has obscured by an excess of learning 
 and perverse ingenuity.* 
 
 * The first eight Sedarim (chap, i.-xi.) are not included in 
 Dahse's survey. He merely (p. 152) states his opinion that 
 " K's " hand is recognizable at the head of each Seder (ii. 4, 
 iii. 22, V. 1, vi. 9, viii. 1, viii. 15, ix. 18) ; and promises a fuller 
 examination of these important chapters in a future publica- 
 tion. Some idea of the line he will take may be obtained 
 from the Wie erkldrt sich, etc. ?, p. 16 f. We there find 
 that iii. 22 is a heading to Seder 3, because it marks no 
 progress in the narration (! !), but contains a "reflection" 
 based on iii. 5, ii. 9 ; that v. 1, 2, are a recapitulation of 
 chap. i. ; vi. 9-12 of v. 32-vi. 8 ; and ix. 18f. of something that 
 has gone before. He does not explain on what principle 
 he treats viii. 1, 15 as headings or recapitulations : they stand 
 on the same level of unsuitability as xxx. 22a and xxxi. 3. 
 Thus there are four (Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7) of the eight Sedarim 
 which have nothing that by any stretch of courtesy can be 
 called headings ; and in three (2, 4, 5) of the rest the heading 
 contains the formula m?in TVH. — It is of some interest, how- 
 ever, to see how the case stands as regards the critical P. 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 225 
 
 Dahse in his Reply (p. 508) advances a crowning 
 proof of the correctness of his hypothesis, on 
 which it is necessary to say a few words. It rests 
 on a new exegesis of Nehemiah viii. 8, for which he 
 is indebted to Sellin. In our Revised Version that 
 verse reads thus : " And they read in the book, 
 in the Law of God, distinctly (mg. with an 
 interpretation) ; and they gave the sense, so that 
 they understood (mg. and caused them to under- 
 stand) the reading." Sellin renders, " And they 
 read out of the book of the Law of God, in 
 sections, and with explanations (^.?'^ oVci Knbl?), 
 so that they understood what was read " ; adding, 
 " Or, according to the LXX even, ' And Ezra 
 made sections and explained.' " He describes this 
 as an " almost staggering argument " for the 
 truth of the pericope-hypothesis. Well, one has 
 heard of staggering arguments derived from 
 Nehemiah viii. 8 before now. It is a verse which 
 
 Since more than half of these eleven chapters is assigned to 
 P, it is not surprising that twice (viii. 1, 15) a Seder-division 
 happens to fall in the middle of a P-section ; and ix. 18 does 
 not belong to P at all. Thus the only places where P starts 
 with a new Seder are ii. 4, v. 1, vi. 9 ; and in each case it is 
 with m?in n?N. But this formula also occurs three times 
 where there is no Seder-beginning, x. 1, xi. 10, xi. 27. The 
 last instance is enough of itself to condemn the whole Peri- 
 cope-hypothesis. For this formula is quite as characteristic 
 of Dahse's " K " as it is of P ; and if "K" had been the 
 author of the scheme of lessons, he would certainly have 
 made a new Seder commence at xi. 27 instead of xii. 1. 
 We come back to the only tenable position, that the phrase 
 "These are the generations of" is the heading of certain 
 sections of the Priestly Code, with which the framers of the 
 lectionary sometimes found it convenient to commence a new 
 lesson. 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 16 
 
226 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 certain mediaeval Jewish writers cited as evidence 
 that the Massoretic vowels and accents were intro- 
 duced by Ezra ! And I doubt if Sellin's exegesis 
 is much superior to theirs. It turns, as will be 
 seen, on the difficult word ^i^^ which Sellin 
 appears to take as a denominative from nt^is : 
 " E'lSD, i.e. in Parashiyyoth," is his comment. Now 
 (1) even if this exegesis were sound (which I 
 shall show to be highly problematical) we should 
 still lack proof that the sections in which the Law 
 was read were the long Parashas of the Annual 
 Cycle. The name Parasha was also given to the 
 shortest paragraphs into which the books of 
 scripture were divided ; and these would obviously 
 be more suitable for the purpose of a running 
 popular commentary than the unwieldy Parashiy- 
 yoth of the Synagogue lectionary. Moreover, if 
 the latter were meant, not merely the Seder- 
 division, but the Parasha-division as well, would 
 be as old as the time of Ezra, and so Dahse's whole 
 theory of the development of the pericope-system 
 would be knocked on the head. But (2) there is 
 no real ground for supposing that triBD has 
 anything to do with divisions of the Law at all. 
 It is true that some lexicographers (Siegfried, 
 Buhl, the latter with a " perhaps ") and Bertholet 
 in his Commentary have suggested the rendering 
 Abschnittiveise for Nehemiah viii. 8 ; but Konig in 
 his Worterbuoh rightly remarks that this has no 
 support in the other usage of the word. I am not 
 aware that the use of Parasha for a section of the 
 Law can be traced further back than the Mishna ; 
 and it is certain that in biblical Hebrew neither 
 the noun nor the verb goes beyond the idea of 
 
PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 227 
 
 precise definition* It is extremely hazardous to 
 depart from the contemporary usage of the verb, 
 and give it a technical significance which we do 
 not know that it ever acquired. But the verse is 
 textually unsound, and untranslatable aa it stands. 
 ^^'Q is a passive participle having nothing to 
 agree with in the Hebrew ; and to take it (with 
 most) as an adverbial accusative is questionable 
 syntax and at best a poor makeshift. The obvious 
 emendation is to insert "Ezra" with the LXX, 
 reading '73B' DIE'I EJ'nsp Nitvi ; I and rendering " they 
 read in the book of the Law of God, while Ezra 
 expounded clearly, giving the sense, so that they 
 understood what was read." That is an interpre- 
 tation which satisfies every requirement of 
 grammar, etymology and usage, and ought to 
 commend itself to Dahse because of its agreement 
 with the LXX. But even if, with Sellin, we were 
 to render " while Ezra made sections," the circum- 
 stantial clause would still denote something which 
 
 * Est. iv. 7, flDan 055*12, " the exact sum of money " ; x. 2, 
 '^TID ftny riB'IS "the eocact account of Mordechai's great- 
 ness." Similarly the verb, in the only two certain cases in 
 which it occurs: Numbers xv. 34, "it had not been dis- 
 tinctly declared (^^) what should be done to him " ; Leviticus 
 xxiv. 12, " tiU it should be distinctly declared (^"1?/) by the 
 mouth of the Lord." The reference in both cases is to deci- 
 sion by the sacred oracle, for which in Assyrian the same 
 word is used. So also in biblical Aram. : Ezra iv. 18, '^ISP, 
 "made plain." The LXX renders in Nehemiah viii. 8 
 eSiSaiTKev ; the SiitTTeWev which Sellin evidently has in mind 
 seems to answer to Di'tJ'. But if it is a duplicate rendering 
 of E'nDD, the translator must have read the verb blS (as 
 Psalm Ixviii. 14) and not E'lS. 
 
 t So Haupt, SBOT, Numbers, p. 51. 
 
228 PROBLEM OF THE PRIESTLY CODE 
 
 Ezra did on the spot and in public assembly, not 
 an intricate literary operation performed pre- 
 viously. 
 
 The other historical arguments by which Dahse 
 seeks to identify the " Kompilator " with Ezra are 
 of little account. The documentary theory has 
 no interest in denying that Ezra may have been 
 the author of the Priestly Code, or the redactor 
 who combined P with the rest of the Pentateuch : 
 both views have in fact been held by advocates of 
 that theory. The real question is not whether 
 Ezra was the author of this stratum of the Penta- 
 teuch, but whether it was he who compiled the 
 lectionary of the Triennial Cycle, and furnished 
 it with headings for the Sedarim. And that, I 
 submit in conclusion, neither Dahse nor Sellin 
 has made in the least degree probable. 
 
VIII 
 
 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 IN the Expositor for December, 1913, Dahse has 
 published a rejoinder to the series of articles 
 noTT collected in this volume. He does not profess 
 to offer a complete answer to my strictures on his 
 position ; and, indeed, in a reply limited to thirty 
 pages that was hardly to be expected. What he 
 has proposed to do is to set forth the result of 
 certain admissions which he supposes me to have 
 made as to the transmission of the names for God 
 in Genesis, to explain why he objects to my treat- 
 ment of the LXX, and to show the bearing of 
 the whole discussion on the development of Penta- 
 teuchal criticism (p. 482). I believe that in regard 
 to all these points my positions are already suffi- 
 ciently clear to those who may have read my 
 articles with an unprejudiced desire to grasp the 
 real issues of the controversy ; and if I had to do 
 only with readers of that class it would be un- 
 necessary for me to add anything to what I 
 have written. But when I find the Dean of 
 Canterbury calling the attention of his friends 
 of the Victoria Institute * to the fact that a 
 " leading English critic " — myself, to wit ! — has 
 "thought it necessary" to reply to an opponent 
 
 * In a paper read June 5, 1913. 
 
230 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 (Dahse) whose learning and ability he, the English 
 critic, is constrained to acknowledge ; and straight- 
 way drawing the inference that things must be 
 in a bad way with the Higher Criticism — when I 
 see this, I am made to realize that I have another 
 class of readers, who are not at all interested in 
 the scholarly matters under discussion, or the 
 weight of the arguments advanced on either side, 
 but simply enjoy the spectacle of a Higher Critic 
 fighting, as it pleases them to suppose, for his altars 
 and his gods. And for their sakes I have thought 
 it desirable to do something to prevent its being 
 said that the " leading critic " has been reduced 
 to ignominious silence by thirty pages of the 
 Expositor. I will proceed, then, with an eye on 
 that gallery, to consider how far Dahse has suc- 
 ceeded in demolishing my argument by pursuing 
 those three aims of his. I, too, disclaim the in- 
 tention of dealing with every point he has raised ; 
 but I shall deal with those that seem essential. 
 I shall have occasion to show that his dialectic 
 rests very largely on misapprehensions of my 
 position which are to me incomprehensible. At 
 times the travesty of my opinions is so grotesque 
 that when I first read it I began to wonder if I 
 had been writing in my sleep. On re-examination 
 I am more inclined to think that Dahse himself 
 was half asleep when he read my articles. I 
 readily acquit him of deliberate intent to mislead ; 
 and perhaps my language has not been always 
 as carefully guarded as it might have been : never- 
 theless, the case is such that I must beg my more 
 serious-minded readers not to trust any statement 
 of my position that appears in Dahse's pages until 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 231 
 
 they have read, or re-read, the passage in its 
 original connexion. 
 
 Now the points in Dahse's reply which seem to 
 me most worthy of notice can be brought under 
 the following three heads. He charges me first 
 with having made admissions as to the uncertainty 
 of the transmission of the divine names so ex- 
 tensive that they entirely invalidate my contention 
 that in them we have a reliable, though not in- 
 fallibly accurate, clue to the analysis of sources ; 
 second, with having expressed contradictory and 
 mutually destructive opinions about the general 
 soundness of the Massoretic text ; and thirdly, with 
 entertaining confused and antiquated ideas re- 
 garding the use and value of the LXX in textual 
 criticism. I will take up these three points in their 
 order (which is also the ascending order of their 
 importance), reserving for another place a notice of 
 some other arguments and objections which are 
 not susceptible of classification under distinct 
 heads. 
 
 1. Let us look first at the admissions which I 
 am alleged to have made as to the uncertainty 
 of the Hebrew divine names in individual cases. 
 I read on p. 484 of the Reply that I have made 
 the sweeping admission that in Gen. i.-x. " the 
 names of God are of little importance for the 
 separation into sources." This refers, I suppose, 
 to the note on p. 164 f., where I have withdrawn a 
 previously published statement, and allowed that 
 in chap, ii.-x. the discrepancies between MT and 
 LXX are so numerous that if all those readings 
 in which they do not agree were to be ruled out 
 of action, there would not remain enough names 
 
232 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 to be of any use in the analysis. That hypothetical 
 admission I was bound in honesty to make as 
 soon as I realized how the land lay. But I have 
 never made the practical admission that only those 
 names can be used for analysis which are authen- 
 ticated by the consent of LXX with MT. On the 
 contrary, I have argued (p. 178 ff.) that in these very 
 chapters (especially in vi.-ix.) an analysis starting 
 from the divine names of the MT is so strikingly 
 confirmed by a great variety of other criteria as 
 to furnish a very high guarantee of the accuracy 
 of the MT in its transmission of these names. 
 Anyhow that is not the kind of admission on 
 which Dahse professes to found his present argu- 
 ment. He was to take only those isolated variants 
 where uncertainty could be proved either from 
 " Eastern " witnesses to which I am supposed to 
 attach special importance, or from the unanimous 
 testimony of the LXX if supported by any 
 " Eastern " witness. Of such cases, in chap, i.-x., 
 he cites only three (vii. 1, 9, viii. 15). But as 
 Dahse does not follow up the result of these 
 admissions we must pass them by and go on with 
 him to chap, xi.-l. Here it would appear that I 
 have admitted 16 cases where a name of the 
 MT is doubtful. Dahse instances xiii. 10a, 6, 
 xiv. 22, XV. 6, xvi. 11, xviii. 27, 31, xix. 29a, xx. 4, 
 xxviii. 20, XXX. 24, 27, xxxii. 9 ; in all 13 : where 
 the other three are I do not know, unless he has 
 inadvertently counted in vii. 1, 9, viii. 15. Now, 
 strictly speaking, of these only three (xiv. 22, 
 xxviii. 20, xxxii. 9) are admissions of mine ; the 
 rest are only admissions which Dahse thinks (in 
 most cases wrongly !) that I am bound to allow 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSB 233 
 
 in accordance with general observations which I 
 have made. From that point of view I can only 
 thank him for his moderation : he might easily 
 on his methods have burdened me with a much 
 greater number. Only he should have pointed 
 out that in three of the cases cited (xviii. 27, 31, 
 XX. 4) the alternative is between Yahwe and 
 Adonai, and has no influence on the analysis. 
 On the other hand I must grant him xvii. 1 
 and xxi. 1 (Yahwe in P) where the name, though 
 not in my opinion textually doubtful, is at variance 
 with the division of sources by w^hich the current 
 documentary theory holds. The main thing is 
 that Dahse considers 16 exceptions enough for 
 his argument, and for my part I am not disposed 
 to quarrel about two or three more or fewer. 
 What, now^, is his conclusion? It is, once more, 
 that " the use of the divine names in MT can be 
 of little ifriportance for the division into sources " 
 (p. 484). Really? Although there are some 210 
 names . in these 39 chapters ? I should have 
 thought that a text in which only one divine 
 name in thirteen was doubtful or wrong ofFered 
 51 very encouraging field for the application of 
 Astruc's criterion. . But this is just one illustration 
 of the seemingly insurmountable barrier between 
 Dahse's reasoning faculties and mine. And another 
 immediately follows. Dahse regards the fact that 
 nit e uncertainties (for he does exclude xiv. 22, 
 xviii. 27, 31 and xxxii. 9 as not affecting the 
 analysis) are spread over seven chapters out of 40 
 (not in nearly every chapter, as Dahse asserts !) as 
 an additional drawback to my way of looking at 
 the matter. To my mind, on the contrary, that 
 
234 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 is precisely what saves the situation. If all 
 occurred in one chapter, I should have to admit 
 that so far as that chapter was concerned the 
 divine names were useless as a critical clue. But 
 it is surely obvious to common sense that when 
 they are scattered over many chapters the uncer- 
 tainty is neutralized, and the risk of error reduced 
 to a miniraum, by the immensely larger number of 
 uncontested names in the midst of which they 
 occur. 
 
 The following paragraph opens (p. 485) with a 
 very curious specimen of confused reasoning. I 
 maintain, Dahse says, that " we have them (the 
 names) ' in a sufficient number.' And these are to 
 be found in the parallel narratives." I really do not 
 know what idea Dahse meant to convey by these 
 sentences. Certainly I have written, in a par- 
 ticular connexion (p. 185), the words which he pro- 
 ceeds to quote : " The important point is that the 
 book of Genesis contains examples of dual narra- 
 tion, and that the names J and E closely follow the 
 line of cleavage marked out by the parallelism " ; 
 and of course that implies that J and E do occur 
 in these narratives " in a sufficient number ' ; 
 (there are 27 in the passages in question). But 
 that the sufficient number occurs only in the 
 parallel passages, or that those which occur else- 
 where have no significance for documentary 
 analysis, is a view which I do not think Dahse 
 can possibly mean to attribute to me. I simply 
 do not understand, and must pass on. A little 
 lower down we read : " Now the extraordinary 
 thing is that precisely these chapters of Genesis 
 (i.e., xii. 10-20 ji xx. and xxvi. 7-11 ; xvi. |1 xxi. 8-21; 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 235 
 
 xxi. 22-31 II xxvi. 26-33) are among those in which 
 we find Hebrew variants or uncertainties admitted 
 by Skinner." — I remark in passing that / have 
 never admitted these variants ; and if the reader 
 will look back to the list of uncertain names 
 attributed to me, he will see that xvi. 11 is the 
 only one which Dahse maintains that I ought to 
 have admitted. I do not even admit that in xii. 17 
 6 BsoQ was the original reading of the LXX ; * or 
 that in xxi. 176 the EloJiim of MT (and all other 
 witnesses) is rendered doubtful by six Greek 
 cursives ; or finally that in xxvi. 29 the Qiov of 
 egj discredits the Yahwe which is read by MT 
 (and all other witnesses). — But supposing all these, 
 and also xvi. 11, to be wrong in MT, how does it 
 affect my argument in the passage with which 
 Dahse is dealing? Let us hear his conclusion on 
 the whole matter (p. 486) : " So that it is just in 
 the vaunted parallel narratives that the use of 
 the Divine Appellations fails to act as a guide 
 for attaching the narratives in question to sup- 
 posed sources." Well, I might reply that it is 
 just in the vaunted parallel narratives that 'we 
 are not particularly dependent upon them. For 
 the parallelisra of the narratives shows that two 
 sources are in evidence, and there are enough 
 unquestioned names (23) to show that one pre- 
 dominantly uses J and the other E ; and if even 
 so many as four names were prima facie uncer- 
 
 * Even if there were evidence (which there is not) that the 
 KvpiOQ which precedes o deos in certain MS8. was a Hexaplaric 
 addition, that would only prove that o deoe was the reading 
 of Origan's LXX text ; and against it we have the Old Latin, 
 with bw, ej, al., in favour of an original Kvpioc. 
 
236 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSB 
 
 tain, a strong presumption would still remain 
 that the text whose readings correspond with the 
 division of sources has preserved the names of 
 the original documents. The plain truth is that 
 Dahse has taken no pains to understand the drift 
 of the argument he is criticizing. I am not at 
 this point attempting a direct proof that the 
 names of the MT are correct ; but I am arguing 
 inversely that a division of sources already esta- 
 blished by a variety of indications (among which 
 is parallelism of narration) guarantees the accu- 
 racy of the MT in cases which might otherwise 
 be doubtful, by its perfect correspondence with 
 the lines of division marked out by the broader 
 literary analysis. I think that most people will 
 recognize in this a legitimate case of the verifi- 
 cation of a working hypothesis by its results. But 
 if Dahse still refuses to distinguish between this 
 kind of argument and a circulus vitiosus (see p. 177 
 above), I have nothing more to say to him. 
 
 2. I come next to Dahse's attempts to prove 
 that I stultify myself and give away my whole 
 case by a vacillating estimate of the value of the 
 MT. "In his Expositor articles Dr. Skinner still 
 defends the principle of the Hebraica Veritas " — 
 that is absolutely untrue ! — " but it is otherwise 
 in his commentary on Genesis " (Reply, p. 499). 
 And within these Expositor articles I maintain 
 on the one hand that " the Hebrew text possesses 
 credentials to which no version, and perhaps the 
 LXX least of all, can pretend," that "the MT is 
 a solid and sufficient working basis for the literary 
 analysis of the Pentateuch " (Reply, p. 482), that 
 " the MT has substantial claims to be preferred 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSB 237 
 
 to a variant of the LXX in all doubtful cases " 
 (p. 499) ; but concede, on the other hand, that the 
 MT depends on an archetypal MS. which " contains 
 stereotyped errors and defects, eccentricities," 
 and so on. Now it is quite true that I hold both 
 these positions and I deny that there is any in- 
 consistency between them. What I mean is simply 
 that this archetypal MS., imperfect though it was, 
 nevertheless, on the whole, and particularly in regard 
 to the divine names, contained a better text than 
 can be obtained from the LXX without its help.* I 
 have given at great length the considerations on 
 which I base this judgment (pp. 165 f., 17.S ff.). 
 I can quite understand that my reasoning has 
 failed to convince Dahse, and that the claim 
 I put forward for the MT should seem to him 
 extravagant. But I think he ought to have 
 reminded his readers that when I speak of the 
 MT I speak not merely of the text of one MS., 
 but of that text as substantially confirmed by 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch, which in my opinion 
 goes back to 330 b.c. I have several times 
 (see p. 122 f.) had occasion to remark on Dahse's 
 persistent neglect of the evidence of the Sam. at 
 crucial points of his argument. I now learn 
 (Reply, p. 509) that in his opinion " It is not at 
 present opportune to investigate in detail the 
 mutual relations of LXX, MT, and Sam.," because 
 we may expect a critical edition of the latter from 
 von Gall within the next few months. I agree 
 (as I have said, p. 135) that it is premature in 
 the circumstances to form a final judgment on 
 this question. The critical edition may contain 
 
 * See Note VI, p. 274. 
 
238 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 surprises for all of us, and it is becoming in all 
 of us to adopt an attitude of judicial reserve. But 
 without investigating those relations "in detail," 
 I should have thought it incumbent on a textual 
 critic to have some clear conception of the general 
 bearing of the Sam. on the antiquity of the MT, 
 or at least to keep steadily in mind the possibility 
 that his whole system may tumble into ruin 
 through the commonly accepted date of the Sam. 
 turning out to be right. And whatever be the 
 duty of a textual critic, it is reprehensible in 
 a controversialist to leave out of account an 
 essential element in his opponent's case, and 
 to charge him with contradictions and extra- 
 vagances which have no existence from his point 
 of view. 
 
 This ignoring of the Sam. is again responsible 
 for the pointless polemic which we read on p. 487 
 of the Reply. Dahse says I admit " that there 
 were periods when little care was taken in the 
 transmission of the divine names" — he means 
 in the Hebrew text. I have admitted (p. 173 f.) 
 that there was one period (seventh to fifth 
 century B.C.) as to which we cannot have the 
 assurance that the names were transmitted under 
 all the safeguards that came into operation after 
 the canonization of the Law ; I am not aware 
 that I have anywhere admitted more than this. 
 Dahse, however, concealing the fact that in the 
 passage to which he refers I am speaking only of 
 the Pentateuchal text, manages to drag in an 
 allusion to " the indiscriminate use (by the Chroni- 
 cler) of the divine names in the third century," 
 which I have expressly stated to have "had no 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 239 
 
 effect on the text of the Pentateuch." What was 
 in his mind when he penned the rest of this page 
 it is difficult to make out. " Eastern witnesses," 
 we are told, prove that the " Hebrew testimony " 
 has not been so faithful in the transmission of 
 the names as I suppose. Are there any " Eastern 
 witnesses " older than the Sam. ? And what have 
 we to do here with Kennicott's incompletely 
 collated Hebrew MSS. ? Or with Nestle's emphasis 
 on the uncertainties of printed texts (which, by 
 the way, has nothing to do with the Pentateuch) ? 
 Does Dahse not see that my whole contention 
 turns on the agreement between the Sam. and 
 the MT? If the Sam. be the negligible quantity 
 which he appears to assume, then of course my 
 argument falls to the ground ; and there was 
 no need of all this display of irrelevant erudition 
 to demolish it. But if the antiquity of the Sam. 
 be a fact, then I conceive that my argument is 
 unanswerable. 
 
 3. This brings me to the last point — a question 
 of more than merely controversial importance, 
 viz., my conception of the place and value of the 
 LXX in textual criticism. 
 
 Let me first of all clear up certain ambiguities 
 of expression on my part, of which Dahse makes 
 a somewhat unchivalrous, not to say unscru- 
 pulous, use. On p. 59 I have spoken of " the 
 assumed Hebrew basis of the LXX, whose existence 
 I have shown to be highly problematical." That 
 sentence, detached from its context, Dahse quotes 
 on p. 498 f . as proof that in substance I deny " that 
 the original LXX has any value at all for the 
 restoration of the original text." Now Dahse 
 
240 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 knows very well that I never meant to deny that 
 there was a Hebrew basis to the LXX, or that 
 that basis differed from the MT, or that in certain 
 cases it contained a text superior to the MT. 
 What I did deny, as the context plainly shows, 
 is the existence of a Hebrew basis such as he 
 claims to have discovered, viz., a recension of 
 the Hebrew text in which the divine names had 
 been manipulated on principles regulated by the 
 divisions of the Synagogue leetionary. To that 
 I adhere. Then again I speak (inaccurately of 
 course) of the LXX as " dependent on the MT." 
 What I should have said, to avoid all possible 
 misunderstanding, is : " dependent, so far as the 
 divine names are concerned, on a Hebrew text 
 which, so far as the divine names are concerned, 
 is now correctly represented by the MT." Once 
 more, Dahse takes me to task for referring to 
 " the text of the Cambridge Septuagint as the 
 standard text." He marvels that anybody should 
 express such a view "at this time of day." The 
 sense in which I speak of a "standard text" is, 
 I think, sufficiently explained in the context from 
 which he quotes (p. 67), where I say that "the 
 (Cambridge) edition affords a convenient standard 
 of primary reference in all comparisons of the 
 various types of text," and where I expressly dis- 
 avow the idea that it is "necessarily the best 
 witness to the original text." In short, I use it as 
 representing sufficiently for the purpose in hand the 
 vulgar text of the LXX. What more does Dahse 
 want? Does he want to be reminded that it is 
 his own slipshod habit of not isolating readings 
 characteristic of a particular recension from the 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 241 
 
 vulgar text of the LXX that drives one to appeal 
 to a standard of reference? 
 
 But underneath all this purely verbal quibbling 
 there lies, I am now convinced, a real and vital 
 opposition of view regarding the character of the 
 LXX as a whole and the state of its text ; and 
 I desire to state this difference with all possible 
 fairness and moderation. As regards myself, then, 
 I have to avow that my conception of the LXX 
 is governed by two leading presuppositions. (1) In 
 the first place I have always held that the Greek 
 version of the Pentateuch (note the restriction !) * 
 
 * In the case of the historical books there is reason to 
 suspect that several more or less independent Greek trans- 
 lations were current side by side, and that their readings 
 have been combined in MSS. of the LXX (see Moore, Judges, 
 ICC, p. xliv ; Smith, Samuel, p. 402). These sometimes 
 represent different renderings of the same original ; but 
 considering the fluid condition of the Hebrew text of these 
 books at the time when the translations may have been made, 
 it w^ould not be in the least surprising to find (assuming the 
 translations to have been independent of one another) that 
 they follow divergent Hebrew exemplars. For the books 
 of Kings, on the other hand, Rahlfs appears to reject 
 absolutely the hypothesis of separate Greek versions, and 
 maintains the dependence of Lucian on the original LXX 
 so far as his Greek basis is concerned (.Sept. -stud., 3, p. 171). 
 But the point here to be insisted on is that the LXX version 
 of the Pentateuch stands on an entirely different footing 
 from the Greek translations of the historical books. The 
 latter belong, with the prophetic writings, to the second 
 division of the Jewish Canon ; and it is quite probable that 
 they had already been translated before a particular recension 
 of them had been ofScially canonized. Whereas the Penta- 
 teuch had been the acknowledged Sacred Code of Judaism 
 for a century and a half before it was turned into Greek, 
 and although it existed in slightly different recensions, there 
 is no evidence whatever that more than one of these recen- 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 17 
 
242 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 originated in a single translation made once for 
 all (except perhaps Exod. xxxv.-xl.) in the third 
 century B.C., and propagated in Greek MSS. 
 without (so far as we know) systematic revision 
 till the third century A.D. Sporadic emendation 
 in accordance with the Hebrew must have taken 
 place before the latter date ; and it is conceivable 
 that the Hebrew text employed for this purpose 
 may have differed both from the MT and from 
 the Hebrew of the original LXX. Whether any 
 such cases can be proved in the Pentateuch I do 
 not venture to say. But apart from such rare and 
 hypothetical cases, it follows from what I have 
 said that wherever a recension or MS. of the LXX 
 presents an undoubted Hebrew variant from MT, 
 that must be accepted as the reading of the Hebrew 
 text on which the LXX as a whole is based. I 
 consider it therefore an error in method, whenever 
 an interesting variant is found in the LXX text, to 
 fly at once to the assumption of a special Hebrew 
 recension, without at least exhausting the possi- 
 bility that — if it be a Hebrew variant at all — it 
 is the Hebrew of the original LXX. And that 
 is what Dahse constantly does. 
 
 That there is some confusion in Dahse's mind 
 at this point appears from his citing (p. 489) 
 
 sions was ever translated into Greek. It is obvious, there- 
 fore, that no inference from the analogy of any of the 
 historical or prophetical books holds good for the Pentateuch. 
 Dahse himself often appeals to the sound principle that each 
 book must be considered by itself ; and until definite proof 
 is forthcoming that different Hebrew recensions of the Law 
 were produced in Greek we must adhere to the position that 
 all the diversities in the LXX text of the Pentateuch go 
 back to the original translation, accommodations to the 
 existing Hebrew always excepted. 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 243 
 
 against Tne an opinion of Kittel which, if I mis- 
 take not, supports my view. Kittel says that 
 as early as the end of the fourth and beginning 
 of the third century B.C. there were already 
 groups or families of Hebrew MSS., each providing 
 "an independent and characteristic presentment 
 of the MS. tradition." There he seems to me to 
 go somewhat beyond the actual evidence ; but 
 that is not the point. He goes on to say : " We 
 learn to recognize two of these families in the 
 MT and the LXX" ; and again, "the LXX presents 
 an independent recension of the Hebrew text." 
 That is to say, the MT is one recension, and the 
 LXX represents another. Now that is exactly 
 what I hold, and what I have said almost in so 
 many words on pp. 114, 132. But according to 
 Dahse the LXX represents not one Hebrew 
 recension but a great many. And a further 
 question arises : In what way does it represent 
 them ? I have already put that question to Dahse 
 in the June Expositor (p. 508 : p. 77 above) where 
 I wrote : " What is meant when it is said that the 
 recension 'goes back' to a Hebrew original?" and 
 I went on to say that Dahse could not possibly 
 mean that it is a fresh translation from the 
 Hebrew. Is that after all what he does think? 
 He writes (Reply, p. 495) that his "conception 
 of separate Hebrew originals is not a too facile or 
 improbable assumption." That is still ambiguous. 
 But if he does not mean fresh translation, but 
 only systematic correction after a Hebrew text, 
 I reply that all the data he has hitherto published 
 are insufficient to show the use for that purpose 
 of any Hebrew text except the MT. And that 
 brings me to the second point. 
 
244 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 (2) The second factor which determines my 
 attitude to the LXX problem is the conviction 
 that the Hebrew text employed by Origen and 
 Lucian for the correction of the LXX was the 
 MT or an earlier Greek version which foUowed 
 MT. As to Origen this, I suppose, has never been 
 questioned save by Dahse. Nor, so far as I am 
 aware, does any other opinion prevail among 
 authoritative scholars in regard to Lucian. 
 Procksch, for example, whom Dahse strangely cites 
 as opposing this view (p. 495), plainly holds it ; for 
 the whole context |of the section from which the 
 extract is taken shows unmistakably that for 
 him " the Hebrew text " is simply the Massoretic. 
 It is true that Driver {Samuel, p. xlix) leaves it 
 an open possibility that Lucianic readings which 
 are self-evidently superior to the existing MT 
 " may be based directly upon Hebrew MSS., which 
 had preserved the genuine reading intact " ; but 
 there again we must bear in mind that even 
 if this should be the case as regards the books of 
 Samuel, the fact affords no presumption that the 
 same explanation can be applied to the Penta- 
 teuch. On the other hand, we find that Rahlfs, 
 in an exhaustive examination of Lucianic readings 
 in the books of Kings {pp. cit, pp. 170-191), not 
 only refrains (as we have seen) from tracing any 
 of them to an independent Hebrew recension, 
 but when he mentions (p. 185 f.) the suggestion 
 that Lucian might have corrected after a Hebrew 
 text different from MT, puts it aside as "wenig 
 wahrscheinlich," on the ground that the Hebrew 
 text was already "very constant" in the second 
 or third century after Christ. That seems to me 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 245 
 
 to mean that one of the foremost living authorities 
 on the LXX finds so little indication of Lucian's 
 having known any other Hebrew text than MT, 
 that when he comes to a particular difficulty 
 which might be solved by that theory he refuses 
 to entertain the suggestion. 
 
 Dahse of course dissents in toto from this 
 opinion ; but he has adduced nothing whatever 
 to make his view acceptable. Even the specu- 
 lation of Hoberg to which he refers on p. 495 — 
 that Lucian may have consulted the Targum of 
 Onkelos — if there were anything in it, would 
 but strengthen the presumption that his only 
 Hebrew authority was the MT. The toIq 'EfipaiKotg 
 of the well-known passage of the Pseudo-Athana- 
 sius has never yet been taken to refer to anything 
 but the MT ; and I cannot imagine how Dahse 
 could suppose that he found support for his view 
 either there or in the sentence from Suidas which 
 immediately precedes. The Lucianic text of the 
 Pentateuch has never yet been thoroughly in- 
 vestigated ; but when Dahse can produce a few 
 unambiguous instances in the Pentateuch where a 
 reading of any recension of the LXX goes back 
 to a Hebrew original differing both frora MT and 
 from the basis of the LXX, I shall acknowledge 
 that my views of the LXX are untenable. Mean- 
 while, I certainly do not stand alone when I say 
 that nothing short of the most searching and com- 
 prehensive induction — such as Dahse has not yet 
 attempted — will suffice to establish a dependence of 
 Origen or Lucian on another Hebrew than the MT. 
 
 Now I am not putting forward these views at 
 present as the absolute and incontestable truth 
 
246 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSB 
 
 about the LXX. I may be wrong, and Dahse 
 contra mundum may be right. But I do say that 
 they are not the obsolete and old-fashioned and 
 ridiculous notions that Dahse would fain have 
 his readers believe. They are in accordance with 
 all that I know of the facts of the case, and of 
 the practice of the best workers in the field of 
 LXX criticism. I put them forward here above 
 all as representing a consistent critical point of 
 view which has regulated all my effort and 
 thinking in this department of exegesis. I hope 
 the candid reader will perceive that when in 
 my commentary on Genesis I made extensive 
 use of LXX readings, I was not, as Dahse 
 insinuates, simply registering " scribal and acci- 
 dental errors," but was citing possible, or probable, 
 or certain, indications (as the case might be) of 
 the true original Hebrew text. 
 
 So much, then, for our respective estimates of 
 the LXX in general. There remains the question 
 of the value of the two recensions egj and fir, 
 which Dahse considers specially important in 
 relation to the problem of the divine names in 
 Genesis. Now here I would gladly retract any- 
 thing I have said on pp. 60 ff., or elsewhere, that 
 can justly be charged with minimizing the im- 
 portance of these recensions. All that I have 
 there said in ray zeal for popular explanation is, 
 indeed, perfectly true. Agreement of a group of 
 MSS. in characteristic readings does not of itself 
 prove systematic revision ; and systematic revision 
 does not prove that the group represents one of 
 the historical recensions. Dahse himself must 
 allow the existence of sub-recensions ; for he 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 247 
 
 recognizes (besides the Hexaplaric family) no 
 fewer than four important groups in Genesis ; 
 and only two at most can be the work of Lucian 
 and Hesychius. I learn, moreover, from Dahse 
 (p. 494) that Wiener has since actually charac- 
 terized egj as a " sub-recension on the basis of a 
 late Lucianic text." When Dahse now furnishes 
 me (p. 492) with a list of five passages to show 
 that the groups fir, egj and dnpt are true 
 recensions I fully assent to his conclusions ; and 
 only remark that there is nothing there that 
 militates against w^hat I have said above as to 
 the fundamental relations of the Greek and 
 Hebrew texts. Perhaps it was wrong in me 
 even to hint at the possibility that fir could 
 be something less important than Lucian or 
 Hesychius, although I do not yet see why that 
 might not be so, seeing there is such difference 
 of opinion as to which it is ! At all events I 
 have never categorically asserted that it is so ; 
 and Dahse might have had the fairness to acknow- 
 ledge that I expressly waived discussion of that 
 point in deference to his superior knowledge ; and 
 that I undertook on his own assumptions to in- 
 quire (a) whether these recensions observe recogniz- 
 able principles in their treatment of the divine 
 names, and (b) whether there is any evidence that 
 they rest on special Hebrew recensions. And I said 
 that the second of these questions was very much 
 more vital than the first. But let us see what 
 Dahse has to say in reply to my objections. 
 
 (a) In regard to the first question, Dahse does 
 not challenge any statement I have made ; but 
 he affirms that with all my polemics I cannot 
 
248 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 help admitting that he has hit upon the truth 
 in both cases. That is rather an overstatement 
 of the result of my inquiry. The tendency which 
 Dahse attributed to egj is "to use only one and 
 the same name for Grod in one section." In 
 summing up the evidence I say (p. 74 above) that 
 the recension goes a little, but only a little, beyond 
 the ordinary LXX in assimilating a name to those 
 in the immediate context ; that I recognize this 
 leaning in at most seven cases, while the opposite 
 appears in three ; and that the seven cases are 
 adequately explained as unconscious adaptations 
 to the nearest divine names. If Dahse is 
 content to take that as admitting the truth of 
 his observation I have no more to say, except 
 that he is remarkably easy to satisfy in the way 
 of admissions. — Again, fir is described as an 
 " Elohistic edition of Genesis," and I am said to 
 have admitted the truth of this description on 
 p. 79 f . I cannot argue the whole question over 
 again ; but I may observe that he has missed the 
 chief point of my criticism. I asked, as he truly 
 says, how on his hypothesis Kvpioc 6 0eoc appears 
 nine times in fir for 6 Oeog of the ordinary LXX ; 
 and that he answers by endeavouring to show by 
 one expedient or another that in such cases Kupiog 
 must or m.ay have been the original reading of the 
 LXX.* But he says that I have asked him how 
 it happens that in this recension 6 0£oc stands for 
 Kvpiog nine times, and why we do not find Kvpiog 
 
 * Except in xvi. 11, which, as a case where o Oeog is 
 " demonstrably " (?) original, demands special treatment. 
 Here the explanation offered is that Lucian, finding b Oeog 
 in his LXX and nin* in MT, combined the two in Kvpws 
 o Oeog. 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 249 
 
 6 0EOC in these instances too ; and that also he 
 answers in a way which I will not stay to criticize. 
 For really I should never have dreamed of asking 
 any such thing. It seemed to me that the sub- 
 stitution of 6 dtog for Kvpio^ was just what we 
 might expect in an " Elohistic edition " of Genesis ; 
 and my only difficulty was that it occurred so 
 seldom.* No ! my question was this : " why Kvpiog, 
 though changed to 6 Seoc in nine cases, is never- 
 theless retained alone in no fewer than thirty-five." 
 And to that question, which touches the weak spot 
 of his hypothesis, Dahse vouchsafes no reply what- 
 soever. So I hope his readers will not too hastily 
 conclude that I was wrong in saying " that no 
 principle is consistently followed by the author of 
 the recension in his use of the divine names, or, 
 if there be, that Dahse has not detected it." Of 
 course I allow that the 28 cases where Kvpioq 6 0£oc 
 replaces Kvpiog count in his favour: only I think 
 that 35 exceptions to his principle are too many. 
 (b) But I have already stated that I do not 
 attach extreme importance to that part of the 
 theory : the vital question is whether the recen- 
 sions had a special Hebrew basis. And Dahse 
 seems never to have perceived that when the 
 evidence is thoroughly sifted this issue proves to 
 be independent of the former. As regards egj 
 Dahse's contention was that there is a group of 
 
 * Dahse has slightly shifted his ground here. In his 
 Reply he says the chief characteristic of fir is Kvpioe v 6c6e. 
 But in his Textkrit. Mat., p. 113 (which I was criticizing), 
 the "Elohistic character" of the recension is seen in the 
 substitution of o deog for Kvpiog ; and this point he never 
 touches in the Reply. 
 
250 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 nine Hebrew MSS. (see above, p. 75) with which 
 egj is in frequent agreement. Against this I 
 urged that in the first place there is no sufficient 
 evidence that these MSS. form a true group of 
 interdependent documents at all ; and further that 
 only in three places does egj agree with them : 
 never with more than one MS. at a time ; whereas 
 in 29 (there are really 30) cases where egj diverges 
 from MT, it has no support from the Hebrew 
 group. Dahse now produces (p. 495 f.) five other 
 cases in which members of the group agree — not 
 with egj but — with the Sam. (and occasionally with 
 the Vulgate and Peshitta),* and points out that 
 the Sam. happens once (xx. 18) to agree with ej. 
 What does that prove ? Either that the Sam. is a 
 member of the group, or else nothing at all. I 
 will not spend time in examining the five passages, 
 because I wish to fix attention on the essential 
 fact that in not one of them does egj follow 
 the group. So that even if there be a group, and 
 whether Sam belongs to that group or not, egj 
 stands outside. And when Dahse asks me if I 
 consider the four agreements of egj with the 
 Hebrew group plus the Sam. to be "once again 
 fortuitous," I point to the 30 disagreements, and 
 answer that I most assuredly do. And I say 
 further that such evidence seems to me ludicrously 
 inadequate to establish the dependence of egj on 
 a special Hebrew original. — As to fir, Dahse 
 thinks I am anxious to believe that his theory 
 
 * Gen. ii. 12 : K9, Sam. Vulg. ? + nxD ; v. 32 : K9, 80, 
 Sam. Vulg. + m ; vii. 1 : K601, 686, Sam. Pesh. nin' for 
 D'n^N ; xxvi. 22 : K150, Sam. Pesh. nsn'T pi. for sg. ; 
 xxvii. 24 : K150, Sam. nriNH for nriN. 
 
LAST WORDS WITH DAHSB 251 
 
 depends on only one passage (Gen. xlii. 5). Well, 
 it was all he gave ! He omits to mention the fact 
 which I pointed out to him, that in that one 
 passage he had got hold not of a Hebrew MS. 
 but of a printed edition of the Talmud. He now 
 adds xxiv. 45, where fir partly agrees with Sarai. 
 Pesh.,* in an addition naturally supplied from v. 17 
 or V. 43 ; and points rather timidly to xviii. 19, 
 xxix. 3, where fir is said to show agreements 
 with "Eastern witnesses." t That is all. Thus we 
 are invited on the basis of four dubious agree- 
 ments to postulate a special Hebrew recension 
 for fir. It is not enough. Moreover not one 
 of the four cases produced touches the use of the 
 divine names ; so that even if we were to concede 
 the existence of the alleged Hebrew recension, 
 there is not an atom of evidence that its distri- 
 bution of divine names corresponds at all w^ith 
 what we have in fir, t 
 
 I do not think it would serve any good purpose 
 to pursue the discussion further. I have of course 
 omitted a great many details in Dahse's last pub- 
 lication ; just as he has refrained from treating 
 some details of my argument to which I attach 
 
 * Sam., Pesh. + IIDD D'» tSVO : fir + fiiKpuv vSuip. 
 
 t I find that in xxix. 3 Sam. Pesli. read D''jnn for DmVH 
 of MT, and Ir (with the OL and three other versions) have 
 TTOifisvee for TTOi/xvLa of LXX. But since in v. 8 the whole 
 LXX agrees with Sam. in reading D*l("l {T^oLfiivao), surely the 
 more natural explanation is that in both verses D*!?"! was the 
 reading of the common original of Sam. and LXX, and that 
 in V. 3 it was afterwards assimilated in the ordinary LXX to 
 MT.— In xviii. 19 MT has Vn5Jl\ LXX rjluv (= »nVT' Sam,) 
 fir ^Sft (= 5?T ?). Where is the agreement ? 
 
 I See Note IV., p. 271. 
 
252 LAST WORDS WITH DAHSE 
 
 the highest importance. He is a diligent " picker 
 up of unconsidered trifles," and I have commented 
 on a good many of these in the Notes to this 
 volume. His general line of argument — irrelevant 
 and inconsequent as I conceive most of it to be — 
 does not easily lend itself to consecutive discussion. 
 I have stated my own position as clearly as I could, 
 and w^ith almost needless fulness, in the preceding 
 pages ; and I hope I have now shown that it stands 
 clear of the misconceptions and misrepresentations 
 in which Dahse has sought to invest it. The one 
 great defect of which he complains (p. 501) — my 
 neglect of his Pericope-theory of the so-called 
 Priestly Code in Gen. xii.-l. — is now made good in 
 the supplementary chapter (VII) here published 
 for the first time ; a section which was in 
 writing before the Reply appeared. With that, 
 my task is finished. Dahse will doubtless go on 
 his way rejoicing, a mighty conqueror, tilting 
 against windmills, and thrice slaying his slain ; 
 but I shall be content to admire his progress 
 from afar. As for the wicked insinuation with 
 which he has thought fit to close his article, it 
 is a solitary lapse on his part from the amenities 
 of public debate, and is best left to the judgment 
 of the charitable reader. I will only say to him 
 that I know nothing of " situations " in this 
 matter. If either he or Wiener had convinced 
 me of material error, I should willingly have 
 acknowledged myself in the wrong. They have 
 not done so ; and it is unworthy of a scholar so 
 lightly to impute a dishonourable motive to an 
 opponent who may have caused him much trouble, 
 but who has hitherto treated him with respect. 
 
TABLES 
 
 TABLE I 
 
 PASSAGES WHERE THE CAMBRIDGE SEPTUAGINT HAS A 
 DIFFERENT DIVINE NAME PROM MT, WITH VARIANTS 
 OP THE LEADING UNCIALS 
 
 
 MT. 
 
 Camb. LXX. 
 (= Cod. A). 
 
 Uncial Variants 
 
 PROM Camb. 
 
 LXX. 
 
 Ageeeins 
 
 WITH— 
 
 2S 
 
 wnha nin» 
 
 6 9e6g 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 D'nbx nin' 
 
 6 OiSg 
 
 M"'S = MT 
 
 
 25 
 
 nin^K nin* 
 
 6 eaoc 
 
 
 
 2'5 
 
 Q»n'?N nin* 
 
 6 Oeog 
 
 
 
 2=1 
 
 D''nSK nin'' 
 
 b 9e6s 
 
 
 
 4- 
 
 nin* 
 
 row 9eov 
 
 
 Vulg. ? 6 'EjSp. 
 6 Sup. 
 
 ii 
 
 nin> 
 
 6 0£oe 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 mni 
 
 KvpioQ 6 0eoj 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 nini 
 
 6 Seoc 
 
 E Kvptog 6 0€Of 
 
 
 4.0 
 
 — 
 
 Biog 
 
 
 
 4>Sa 
 
 nin'' 
 
 KvpioQ 6 0s6g 
 
 
 
 4'Sb 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9e6g 
 
 
 
 416 
 
 nin' 
 
 TOV 9£0V 
 
 
 
 4.6 
 
 nini 
 
 KVpioV TOV 9cov 
 
 
 
 5'5 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvptog 6 9e6g 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiog Bmg 
 
 
 
 6S 
 
 nin» 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9Eng 
 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 nin* 
 
 6 9e6g 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 nin* 
 
 9e6g 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 nvT 
 
 Kvpiog 0eoc 
 
 
 
 6'= 
 
 nin^N 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9c6g 
 
 
 
 6'-= 
 
 D*n^N 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9t6g 
 
 
 
 7' 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpmg 6 9i6g 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 nin' 
 
 Kvpiog b 9B6g 
 
 
 
 716 b 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiog 9e6g 
 
 E 0EOC 
 
 
 8'5 
 
 D'n^N 
 
 Kvpiog 9t6g 
 
 
 
 820 
 
 nin» 
 
 T^ 9i<f 
 
 L = MT 
 
 
 8=ia 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9£6g 
 
 E = MT 
 
 {Hex. Kvpiog-r 
 6 BeoQ.) 
 
 gjib 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9e6g 
 
 
 (ditto) 
 
 253 
 
254 
 
 TABLES 
 
 TABLE I — continued 
 
 
 MT. 
 
 Caihb. LXX. 
 {=CoD. A). 
 
 Uncial Vabiahts 
 
 EBOM Camb. 
 
 LXX. 
 
 Agbeeing 
 
 Wil'U— 
 
 gi2 
 
 h^'rhti 
 
 Kvpiog 6e6g 
 
 D = MT 
 
 
 9.6 
 
 a^rha 
 
 inov 
 
 
 
 109a 
 
 nin> 
 
 Kvpiov TOV QiOV 
 
 D = MT 
 
 
 ll9b 
 
 nin' 
 
 Kvpiog 6 OeoQ 
 
 
 
 12"7 
 
 mn'' 
 
 6 Beog 
 
 B = MT 
 
 Pe. Din^X 
 
 1310a 
 
 nin» 
 
 TOV 9e6v 
 
 
 13.0b 
 
 nin» 
 
 TOV 6eov 
 
 
 Pe. QTha 
 
 13'3 
 
 niiT 
 
 TOV 6eov 
 
 
 
 13"t 
 
 nin* 
 
 eeoe 
 
 EM = MT 
 
 
 14^ 
 
 nin* 
 
 — 
 
 
 Pesh. om. 
 
 15« 
 
 nin' 
 
 T(^ Q^tfi 
 
 
 f e. Vulg. 
 
 157 
 
 nin' 
 
 9i6g 
 
 
 
 15'^ 
 
 nin' 
 
 6 Bsoe (D) 
 
 M Kvpiog b 9t6g 
 (A vacaf) 
 
 
 165 
 
 mn'' 
 
 6 9i6g 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 nin* 
 
 Kvpiov TOV 9eov 
 
 
 
 16^ 
 
 
 
 KVpioV 
 
 
 
 18- 
 
 nin^ 
 
 6 9i6£ 
 
 
 
 18-4 
 
 nin» 
 
 T(p 9u} 
 
 
 
 1929a 
 
 D'n^N 
 
 KVpiOV 
 
 E om. 
 
 K199 nin' 
 
 19=9C 
 
 — 
 
 KvpiOV 
 
 E Kvpiov TOV Beov 
 
 
 21= 
 
 D^nbt? 
 
 KvpiOQ 
 
 
 
 21^ 
 
 D'<rhii 
 
 Kvpiog 
 
 
 
 24<° 
 
 nin'' 
 
 Kvpiog 6 Q^og 
 
 X)MS = MT 
 
 
 25=-b 
 
 nin'' 
 
 9e6g 
 
 
 
 28*3b 
 
 nin'' 
 
 — 
 
 
 K103 om. 
 
 2820b 
 
 D'n^x 
 
 KvpLOQ 6 9e6g 
 
 E Kvptog 
 
 £193 nin' 
 
 293- 
 30=" 
 
 nin» 
 nini 
 
 Kvpiog 6 9a6g 
 b deog 
 
 
 Pe. D'H^K 
 Pe. D^rhti 
 
 30'7 
 
 nin» 
 
 6 9e6g 
 
 
 31« 
 
 — 
 
 6 9e6g 
 
 
 
 31'» 
 
 nin; 
 
 b 6eof 
 
 
 
 31=0 
 
 D''nbN 
 
 — 
 
 [The clause fo 
 Hexaplaric M 
 
 und only in 
 SS.] 
 
 32' 
 
 — 
 
 9eov 
 
 
 Sam. Wnha 
 
 359b 
 
 — 
 
 b 9e6g 
 
 
 387b 
 
 nin'' 
 
 6 eEoc 
 
 
 
 38™ 
 
 nin» 
 
 TOV Qeov 
 
 
 
 4328 
 
 — 
 
 Tt^ 0€^ 
 
 pb = MT 
 
 
 SO^-ic 
 
 
 9i6g 
 
 
 
TABLES 
 
 255 
 
 TABLE II 
 
 UNCIAL VARIANTS PROM MT ON PASSAGES NOT 
 INCLUDED IN TABLE I 
 
 
 MT. 
 
 Vabiant. 
 
 Agreeing with— 
 
 24 
 
 D''n'?N nini 
 
 M 6 etoc 
 
 
 3'b 
 
 D''n'?N 
 
 E KvpioQ 6 deoc 
 
 K132 D*n7N nin* 
 
 38b 
 
 Q^rha nin* 
 
 E 9£oe 
 
 
 39 
 
 D^n-sN nin' 
 
 L KVpWQ 
 
 
 3'3 
 
 crha nirr 
 
 L 6 0Ede 
 
 
 3=. 
 
 D'-n'px nin> 
 
 Mf^t eUe 
 
 K152 D*nSN 
 
 43 
 
 nw 
 
 E 6 9£of 
 
 
 413 
 
 nin'' 
 
 EM Kvpiog 6 OeoQ 
 
 
 6'3 
 
 
 D^i' KVpiOQ QtOQ 
 
 
 79 
 
 M Kvptog 6 06OC 
 
 
 
 D^nbiK 
 
 E KvpWQ 
 
 Sam. Vulg. ? K155 nin* 
 
 716a 
 
 DM KVplOQ 
 
 
 9« 
 
 D''n'?N 
 
 E KvpioQ 6 9s6g 
 
 
 9'7 
 
 DTba 
 
 D KvpiOQ OeoQ 
 
 
 9=6 
 
 nin* 
 
 L om. 
 
 
 109b 
 
 niiT 
 
 EM KvpioQ 6 fleof 
 
 
 118 
 
 nin* 
 
 E Kvpvog 6 0goc 
 
 
 119a ^ 
 
 nin'- 
 
 X) KvpioQ 6 QmQ 
 
 
 12- 
 
 nin* 
 
 M KVpiOQ 6 0£Of 
 
 
 13" 
 
 nin* 
 
 M KvpWQ 0Edc 
 
 
 15= 
 
 nin* 'JIN 
 
 L om., M ^fiff^ora 
 
 
 18== 
 
 nin* 
 
 M Kvpioe 6 0f6g 
 
 
 19=4a 
 
 nin* 
 
 E Kvpiog 6e6g 
 
 
 26= 
 
 nin* 
 
 EM 6 0£6f 
 
 
 26=» 
 
 D*n'?s 
 
 E KVpiOQ 
 
 
 28* 
 
 E KVplOQ 6 9^6q 
 
 
 293S 
 
 nin* 
 D*nbN 
 
 E KvpiOQ 6 ^EOe 
 
 
 30* 
 
 E KVpiOQ 
 
 
 303» 
 
 nin* 
 
 E fodf 
 
 
 35'b 
 
 ha 
 
 ha 
 D*nbN 
 
 EL (riji) KDptijJ 
 
 
 353 
 
 E Kvpit^ 
 
 
 35" 
 
 D — 
 
 
 459 
 
 D'nJpN 
 
 D KVpiOQ 
 
 
 48'Sb 
 
 D*n?Nn 
 
 B 6 KvpLO£ 
 
 
256 
 
 TABLES 
 
 EH 
 
 m 
 
 ^ CQ 
 
 O EH 
 
 X 
 
 rn B^ 
 
 H o 
 
 ■aj 02 
 
 Q^ 
 
 O 
 
 >Heh 
 
 ^ >-5 
 ^H 
 S« 
 
 O M 
 
 H te: 
 
 o « 
 ^ o 
 
 fe; OQ 
 
 Qh 
 <i o 
 gs 
 
 ft ^ 
 
 o 
 
 oa 
 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 CQ 
 
 d 2 
 o d 
 
 "I 
 
 CD 
 
 2 Jl 
 
 o« 
 -I 
 
 il 
 
 O CD 
 c3 c3 
 
 CU ID 
 
 ag 
 
 CO w 
 
 to tfl 
 
 ce eg 
 
 
 
 
 
 EH ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ g 
 
 ffi 
 
 
 
 1) II 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 CI, d) 
 
 [s 
 
 
 
 
 'CJ »« 
 
 p: 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 c3 cS 
 (D <D 
 
 
 
 
 h »^ 
 
 
 
 
 •r* bo 
 
 
 
 
 bO (D 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 oq 
 
 
 
 
 
 EhEhS fHEH 
 
 
 
 
 SSM Sg 
 
 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 — ^..-^ 
 
 cc 
 
 M -^ 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 .1^ 
 
 -5 
 
 ^ S -Tr" 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 .J2 JD P >> 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 ao o ^ n 
 
 
 > Jill/ 
 
 H 
 5 
 
 So" gw.g' 
 a 3 . a § § 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 S.9 
 
 .So 
 
 
 
 
 
 "3^ 
 
 ilXaH^xP 
 
 
 
 HQ 
 
 hi RQaa 
 
 to 
 
 03 
 
 •5?V5?'5r'5?'^'5?'5? 
 
 f-s? 
 
 « •s'wsr^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 IS o 
 
 
 tn tji tn Ot tti \® ^ 
 
 Oi CJ1 
 
 ^ ^ o o 
 
 
 
 
 'S , -2^^ 
 
 
 j^^^ 
 
 => 'g-^-s-s 
 
 i 
 
 -O -D -O -O -O §- O -O 
 
 3 -o -o 
 
 -o "^i -o o O 
 
 =i- tji <Ln 
 
 2 '^=ii 
 
 
 2 2 2 2 S 3.1 2* 
 
 S" o o 
 
 
 w -* 
 
 
 Q.Q.Q.Q-0,C5 O. 
 
 Q. Q_ 
 
 Q. Q_.2 w 
 
 
 -» -S 'p -S -» ** 5_-s 
 
 >»-» 
 
 ^» "3 Q_ ca. 
 
 
 w w S w y ^ Si 
 
 W W 
 
 ^^gg 
 
 
 
 
 l> 
 
 ^ ; 
 
 Cji eji 
 
 <Ln 
 
 <Ln O 
 
 M 
 
 '2 "* 
 
 ^O 
 
 ^s ,^ « 
 
 1^ 
 
 (Ji Oi Ot "^ . S "^ 
 
 -o^2 
 
 a 
 
 -^^^^'i-rts 
 
 tA^S 
 
 S t--0 § M 
 
 § 
 
 2-0 
 
 
 t'Hf 
 
 Q- 
 
 CL .2 
 
 u 
 
 
 ~g 1- 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 ^^^HNJJCT. 
 
 ro 
 
 o ^ » fi 
 
 
 cqoqcocQco-<*^o 
 
 cocb 
 
 CO &0J&O 
 
 
 1 
 
 * • * H 1— 
 
 ^-_ 
 
 
TABLES 257 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D-. 
 
 EH EH 
 
 §t^ s 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 t^EH 
 
 
 CO 
 
 s 1^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 S M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s;^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 _,-,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 ■a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 PM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 „ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s" ^' ■i 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 « . ^ 
 
 1 
 
 t8 
 
 ^ .a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 C3 >« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 g" -^S^-g 
 
 g* 
 
 m §■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 <! 
 
 
 
 
 -2- o""-<^ " 
 
 i. 
 
 .;- e 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 c3 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 ^•i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 .a cBnd 
 
 o 
 
 cS 
 t4 
 
 
 
 •a-5-ffa-av5?«^-;7 
 
 ■ff-s? 
 
 ?5?-§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 V 
 
 •S?!f3-3^-a-5? 
 
 ^ 
 
 '5? 
 
 V5? 
 
 'fl?---* 
 
 is> >;:> 
 
 
 ;= ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0> O O V tfl Oi 
 
 (ji 
 
 o-o 
 
 
 
 
 Cj) O) 
 
 ILA 
 
 trt 
 
 CJI 
 
 tn 
 
 
 t2£gdSg2222A 
 
 s> i s y 
 
 -o ,s 2 S 
 
 ^g 1 g g 
 
 
 g^ 
 
 »0 ^O -O *0 'O 
 
 -o-o-o-o-o ^S. 
 
 CD 
 
 -a 
 
 ,2- 
 
 o Q,-0 
 
 ^-g a 
 
 
 
 *s 
 
 'O 
 
 S. Q_ Q_ Q. 
 
 Q_-0-C 
 
 3. 
 
 Q- 
 
 « g g « ^ " 
 
 ^? i- 
 
 s s. 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 -S *S 
 
 -s 
 
 >s 
 
 *Sl 
 
 -s 
 
 *» 
 
 s 
 
 t^g 
 
 
 
 
 « ii 
 
 w 
 
 id 
 
 « 
 
 w 
 
 Ui 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <Ln 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ;k 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^O 
 
 2 2 ^® -2 v2 o S 2 2 
 
 i^~2 
 
 2 a a 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 CJ) 
 
 iL)) Oi 
 
 O) 
 
 SJ> 
 
 o> Oi CJl 
 
 U) 
 
 gdS 
 
 o Q. 
 
 Q. O O 
 
 'O 
 
 w 
 
 1 2 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 -o 
 
 2 '^ 2 
 
 o 
 
 O (w 
 
 S. Q.(£ ""q-^q- t- 3- q. 3, Q.'S 
 
 ~g S- l-oS 
 
 3. 
 
 1 ^g- Ol Q. Q.<S 
 
 1-5-3. 
 
 3. Q-7. 3. 1 
 
 ■3~g-= g g s~«~-'S 
 
 
 ^g~g 
 
 'O 
 
 s 
 
 -» 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 ■g 
 
 -o 
 
 "^V^ 
 
 -s 
 
 S s g 
 
 O- 
 
 1 
 
 t. 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -s 
 w 
 
 rHrHO^COiOCOGOCOaOCOCO 
 
 GO Oi Oi 05 
 
 1 
 
 -1- • • • 
 
 ■+-* 
 
 -1- 
 
 -*~ 
 
 
 Tft* Divine Names in Genesis. 1 8 
 
258 
 
 TABLES 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 P3 
 
 H 
 W 
 H 
 
 !-• CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 '3- 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 u II 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 « e8 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 -o .. 
 
 -o 
 
 3- 
 
 
 
 
 -3 
 
 1 a 
 
 M o 
 
 
 DD 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 H&H 
 
 E^E^ E-iEH 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 S^ 
 
 SS SS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 «■ 
 
 
 d 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 s ^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 00 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 •3^ M 
 
 
 >— ^ ^ 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 bw dgpdj aoxy Boh. P 
 LXX (except mr Sah. 
 Ey Arm. Sah. Phil. 
 E 17 ours. Arm. Boh. 
 bdt 
 ai*Sah. 
 
 O 
 
 ^1 
 
 ■Si's. ><} §• 
 
 q ca © F^ "^ 43 --^-^ 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 ah^h^l 
 
 *H!B'« 
 
 g-| «<«.&£«« * 
 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 »» 
 
 
 
 trt Cji p 
 
 O) 
 
 '3- Ol tn S 
 
 
 
 •o -= <S -o '^ o 
 
 "2 ■£ -=> 
 
 ,S-g-2cg,s 
 S ?■-= -o = og 2 S 2 2 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 -o-o S 
 
 
 
 <a_ 
 
 Q- <a, Q. S t- 
 
 
 
 »S -S Q. 
 
 ^s 
 
 »-'»-» Cl. 
 
 
 
 MM? 
 
 M 
 
 «M«g 
 
 
 
 t?i 
 
 
 113 
 
 
 
 " s 
 
 Oi <Ui 
 
 o 
 
 t 
 
 
 S 3. *is 
 
 1. 'g-=-l£ 
 
 
 'i^ Cji (Ji.-, S ^ ^ 5^ trt 
 
 
 J 
 
 -O -3 ^O 
 
 1 dD^£*2 o^2 2 S 2 2 
 
 
 a 
 
 2 2-= 
 
 
 . 
 
 J 
 
 -SO. 
 
 -S-», 
 
 "q- 
 
 
 
 M a 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 cbcb^ ^^cb 
 
 aia5&g.&s>&S£.;:i?H?H, ^ 
 
 
 
 • •*— » 
 
 -»- 
 
 O- -»~i-H rH rH rH rn r-i 
 * -t- -J — 1 — h- 
 
TABLES 
 
 259 
 
 2 X 
 
 CO »4 
 
 3S 
 
 r 
 
 a 
 
 EH 
 
 EH 
 
 Ph 
 
 EH 
 
 Is 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 1^ 
 
 00 0} 
 
 
 . O 
 
 ■^> 
 WES 
 
 DQ 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 .a 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 no 
 
 
 
 b fa fafa Sh j^^fafafa fafafafafafar^fafa ^S.&' 
 
 . '3- o 
 
 
 js 
 
 !» 
 
 =B u"* S" "la 'J'" 
 
 *o 'O *o «; 
 
 -O -O -5 O 
 
 2-0 2 *-o g 5 2 
 a. a. -So. 
 
 I. 
 
 
 \= 'S 9- -B 
 
 
 
 -o,2 
 
 Q. 
 hi 
 
 Cji tn Oi - ^« 5 Oi Oi 
 o o o _c* ^»® *o ^o 
 
 -a -a -» a ** a ^ 
 w S a M 13, E -o-» 
 
 a o 
 
 "o 2 "® o 
 w S w L 
 
 ^'.3-: 
 
 o> trt 5^" 2" s 5 
 2 '2 2 CD .§-.2 
 
 -a ^ -a '.3- 
 
 a. Q. 
 
 ^a a 
 
 
 i-trHi-lrHi-li-lrHrH'^ rH>H 
 
 ^DCOOOCOOOCDOOOOCO 
 
 •o (N. n n 
 GO CO 00 Ol 
 
260 
 
 TABLES 
 
 'a 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 § 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 • iM 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E< 
 
 &<EH B tH f^ E^ EH 
 
 
 US 
 1 
 
 1^:^ ;^ 1^ 1^ S 1^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -B- ^ 
 
 n 
 
 i 
 
 5- "" m 
 
 "o ® ■ ^ 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 do d d ■< d 
 
 
 
 <! 
 txi 
 
 M.^ M M « M 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 « § t«) .yX X'Ssd 5>< 
 
 
 h) 
 
 Sr sis S^^^^Sj-S h^ 
 
 •J3 PS -sca-js "3 "a -IT-PS o "a 3 ^Sn« 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 aaiS-aBaa-" •««=£****!*•««.& -SsiSia 
 
 
 IS "3 
 
 
 s .g> i-i'-^ .^.g- > -^-^ S-^ 
 
 
 
 'g 2 S-o,S<£-g,S 1 ~g-o-o 2-=-= S.2 e.2-=.-= | i "§-= 
 
 S4 
 
 1 -g +-rg -g-g + t-g fg 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 (A 
 
 scji;^us;:kcj, ^ ^ ijt ^ ijt (jt u sy eji^ ^ 5 y 
 
 p 
 
 SoSgoo-o, o ,-Sos="So„ , o22-o2,2S 
 -S_ a. 5. S. 3. S.;g 3. hS 5- S. S.;g S."§ PS. |- a. „ a. a. a. 
 
 
 g-g-g-g g-g-^ -g -^-g-g-g-o-gS §~rg 2'g g1 
 
 •g 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H— ^— •*- -4— -t- -*— -1— H 1— 
 
TABLES 
 
 261 
 
 '§ 
 
 EH EHEH EHEH 
 
 
 EH 
 
 EH EH 
 
 
 o 
 
 I i 
 
 MM 
 
 
 ! ^ 
 
 
 
 g (jj 
 
 I-] 
 
 i-i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■& ..as 
 
 
 II 
 
 '^a^^ 
 
 fi 
 
 '•S '-B 
 
 ai3|aaaa£|iS-ai:-a 
 
 
 aa5 
 
 -i-o-o-o S-o S-3-2 2-0 i_5.M-= 
 22S-=525 = S5S'',r2 
 -g^-g -g 'g -g ^+-g 
 
 .= .= §--S-=-o^ 2.S 2 
 
 <S-=.2 
 
 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2.2 2^2 i I 1 -= 
 
 f-KH'tftriri"' '2" 
 
 f 
 
 1.11 
 
 u S 
 
 cocDtocococococbt*t"Qboocoaocft 
 
 •4— -t— -(— ^~.4— 
 
 OlOCftOrHCqWOOOO « fl 
 (N CM OT CO CO CO 00 CO COOS „ 
 
 » -!-♦ CO J 
 
262 
 
 TABLES 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 
 « 
 
 H 
 !> 
 
 O 
 !2! 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 K 
 
 EH 
 
 n, . 
 ^^ 
 
 EH S 
 
 Q 
 O 
 
 EH 
 
 O 
 
 I 
 
 P3 
 > 
 
 ■a 
 •a 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^1 v^ 
 
 i 
 
 •i 
 
 pa 
 
 00 
 
 to 
 o o m 
 
 CO CO tH 
 
 M M W 
 
 > 
 
 bo 
 
 IS 
 
 to ™ 
 
 rfi ,J3 ^' s ^ ^ iP c-- ►^ -fl ra 
 fHPH Ph -®Ph > > 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,9 A 
 
 Si 
 
 . . _ .- g-S \ g '.. __ 
 
 d rt^^ ■Si'-" t'^"^''' 
 
 g H Ph Ph oqPh g cq CLi Ph 
 
 03 CQ PM 
 
 n 
 
 XX XXX XXX XX XX 
 
 n n n-fc n n n ir n n n r: g n n c n 
 EiEaaEaaanaaaoaaaa 
 
 EH 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \x 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 c 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 r: 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 ir 
 
 n 
 
 r 
 
 r: 
 
 ir 
 
 r. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 r: 
 
 rj 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 r. 
 
 r; 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 1. 
 
 
 •<* ■<*l CO !0 t- t- 
 
 Ss OS ■* 'Ss o g S3 
 
 r-l fH iH rH (N C9 <M 
 
TABLES 
 
 26S 
 
 OQ 
 
 I X! Ix! 
 O hi hP 
 
 X 
 Hi 
 
 05 
 
 to 
 M 
 
 
 ss as sj as 
 
 fc~n~i:"c r: n: fc n:~i: 
 n a a a En iziza 
 
 'A 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Yt, 
 
 y. 
 
 55 i 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 J^ 
 
 r 
 
 K 
 
 c 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 rr 
 
 n 
 
 i: 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 tz 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 u 
 
 Cl 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 
264 
 
 TABLES 
 
 fi 
 
 <a 
 
 
 w h. -^ 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 O "> 
 
 eo =~ Rj 
 O, " '*J 
 
 
 
 S^ 
 
 Si-jp* R M 03 
 
 S 
 
 pq 
 
 CO CO 
 CO CO 
 
 o 
 
 rHCq'-ICOCOOOrMrH 
 
 MM M MM M W M 
 
 2 -H 
 
 
 
 _f^ 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 a s ^ 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 x-^ 
 
 fc 
 
 
 „ § c fc n , 
 
 
 -i^-S° 
 
 n 
 
 
 l-ii fc fc n fc 
 
 > 
 
 
 ss ss 
 
 
 > a X X X X xx'- 
 
 ^ .J\.J\ 
 
 
 g d-i:-E-^fc-Efci:-i:« 
 
 iz n 12 
 
 rr 
 
 
 
 
 
 oowj^ocair 
 
 1: a a 
 
 no oaaananaa:^ 
 
 r: n 
 a CI 
 
 X 
 
 r 
 
 XX X X X X XX X XX x" 
 
 n n p n n 1: i: ir n n n*fc~n:T; n 
 aa aaaa aa Eafcaaan 
 
 « (N CO CO CO «3 
 
 CD CO t- t- t- 
 
 
TABLES 
 
 265 
 
 •a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PU 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 (9 
 
 ^ 
 
 l4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 OQ*M 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 §§ 
 
 
 
 
 oT 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 t* 
 
 <MCD 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 «o 
 
 
 f-i 
 
 •w 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 00 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 of 
 
 »< 
 
 
 
 -* 
 
 0^ 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 !5 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 r-i 
 
 it 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 rH 
 
 <S 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
 CD 
 
 ^§ 
 
 
 o'^. 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 :r= 05 tH 
 
 «i 
 
 ■^ 
 
 <M . 
 
 
 «og 
 
 tC 
 
 s 
 
 
 ,—,00 
 
 tC 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 -§ 
 
 S 
 
 03 
 
 
 * 00 >H 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 ^^- 
 
 &l Ol 
 
 
 "^"^K- 
 
 
 
 
 f^OS 
 
 ■*o» .to 
 
 
 COS 
 
 o" 
 
 Cl OS 
 
 
 .• t- - 
 
 
 T-l 
 
 00 ^ 
 
 . -t^QO 
 
 
 "-•s; 
 
 10 
 
 •000 s 
 
 |. 
 
 b rt OJOStO^ 
 
 >-* (N »0 OS 05 56 
 
 
 .®* 
 
 "^ 
 
 »«t c-oiSi 
 
 W4 .OlOO 
 
 1*1 
 
 
 
 ■* 00 w - 
 
 
 rH . 
 
 
 -■-1 'o . 
 
 
 ^ OS to '*^ * 
 
 
 ^5ecb<M « :.oi 
 
 CO 
 
 °»°°£; 
 
 oTi-t 
 
 2 -- -°^ 
 
 
 *C 00 *0 .Ob w 
 
 ^I 
 
 S-'OT 
 
 -rH 00 <=> CO 
 
 °> -S 
 
 r-t iH 
 
 Qoep oi'O 
 
 
 t^ tH rn 05 ^ tH 
 
 ^ *-*rH 
 
 CD T-H iH ^H 00 r-f 
 
 WW 
 
 -<J1 rH 
 
 MMMM P3 MMt«JMMrt 
 
 
 MrtW«MWW 
 
 (^t4 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 fc 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 z *" 
 
 X 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 F^^fc 
 
 -E 
 
 ?EErE 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 r 
 
 E ^ 
 
 a? 
 
 EE 
 
 a 
 
 nnpn 
 
 a-t:cirf«n 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 r: r> 
 
 OP 
 
 EE 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I- 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 1 
 
 
 S£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 fc 
 
 n 
 
 -pas 5S 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 r 
 
 i-x-Ox 
 !=J- Fr 
 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 as* J* 
 
 
 
 
 r} 
 
 n? 
 
 ap 
 
 
 
 
 1/, ,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 s , 
 
 
 U Ot 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 « H- 
 
 
 W3 S> 
 
 
 
 S-ob & 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 00 o> 
 
 OSO 
 
 
 tH iH 
 
 T-l 
 
 rH rH rH 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 r-l rH 
 
 rHeq 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 •a 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 OS ra 
 
 £1 
 
 ao 
 a 
 '3 
 
 o 
 cs 
 
 Si 
 
 3S 
 
 ■|0 
 •IS 
 
 c« O 
 
 § 
 
 © 5 a I 
 
 
 !. gSS 
 r-1 CD ••H **_,,-, 
 
 «il^ Si 
 go*: S^ 
 
 -•-—-2 Eis 
 .3 « o ^. 
 
 ti « Hi (53 
 
 IS 
 
 cS 3 
 
 > 5 
 
 d ■ 
 
 Si 
 ^ ^ p-( 
 
 
 bo r 
 
 ■a-g 
 
 >H r 
 o a 
 
 ° 
 
 55,3 
 
 — ^5 * 
 
 o ° a 
 
 « -H-C^ 
 
266 
 
 TABLES 
 
 -« 
 
 m 
 
 <! 
 EH 
 
 
 
 O Jj 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 «"§ 
 
 JS 
 
 
 
 S°3 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 "i 
 
 z 
 
 
 o dXI 
 
 CQ 
 
 m 
 
 
 K^m . 
 
 i . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 Q O 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 ev 
 
 
 
 iH 
 
 »o 
 
 
 
 
 i~( X5 ~l 
 
 »o 
 
 
 lO 
 
 5 OO . 
 
 *o 
 
 
 (M 
 
 «) « r-l C> 
 
 1-i 00 
 
 
 T-l 
 
 f-. - "« ^ 
 
 . « 
 
 
 - OJTJI 
 
 com CO o . ■*- 05 
 
 00 »^ 
 
 
 00 c>o 
 
 •WO 05 f. 0> Oj CO 
 
 CO CO C^ " 
 
 
 
 Sm asss^MM^ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3S' 
 
 H 
 
 IT 
 
 
 -rl 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 
 l: 
 
 >• 
 
 X 
 
 ss 
 
 a 
 
 -■ j^ . 
 
 -J^ . ^ . ' * * 
 
 
 •=Fa 
 
 £^9 E a Ei= £ 
 
 a a'EEE 
 
 
 
 n ao 
 
 no iro n n n o O i^n n 
 
 E^ 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 3S 
 
 X X X X X 
 
 32 32 XX 
 
 
 _|N 
 
 ' » j^_r-_rN_iN_f\ 
 
 _r._iN j\_r^ 
 
 
 r: 
 
 ^n r: j; r: i; r: 
 
 i: n r: r: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 EE a a a a a 
 
 ah ah 
 
 
 
 .o .a ^ 
 
 
 
 
 5i & 00 & £> ?i OS 
 
 tt o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 5i ia % ^ 
 
 
 CM 
 
 (MtM IN CO (TO m CO 
 
 03 00 -* Ttt 
 
 L ^ 
 
 a . 
 
 ^ a 
 o 
 
 ■" s 
 
 'Eoo 
 ^■° 
 
 --^ 
 
 bo Efl 
 
 ^.- 
 
 CS 
 
 _ ^ 
 
 0> o 
 (M »d 
 
 13 "^ 
 
 ft" 
 O 
 
 I— 1-" 
 EH H 
 
 I I(U 
 
 -♦3 
 
 .3 -^^ 
 
 •a 
 
 £k 
 
 to 
 
 a 
 '•3 
 
 •^ 
 
 M 
 
 5S 
 
 5 -^ o 
 
 a S's 
 
 .S c3.$ 
 m o ^ 
 
 .gM CD 
 
 o s a 
 
 O fi fl 
 
 2 
 
 *^ «5 a) 
 M*g 
 
 oj § ' 
 
 <M 5S 
 
 <M ^ 
 
 .3 r i3 & '^ 
 an: fc« 
 
 •gS-SEt 
 
 «i o'g 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 NOTE I 
 KITTEL ON THE DIVINE NAMES 
 
 DAHSE opens his reply with a series of quotations from 
 prominent scholars in " the most widely different uni- 
 versities of Germany," partly to show the profound impres- 
 sion which his own researches have made, and partly to 
 introduce an expression of his amazement at the reactionary 
 views to which I have given utterance (p. 481 f.). I have 
 no wish to rob Dahse of any legitimate satisfaction he may 
 find in the " admissions " or "concessions" of competent 
 authorities, or their acknowledgments of the value of his 
 work. But to prevent the general reader from being 
 grievously misled, I think it right to say that he greatly 
 exaggerates the extent of these admissions by partial 
 quotation ; and that the majority of the writers referred to 
 — Wellhausen, Ejttel, Sellin and Gressmann — still adhere 
 to the documentary theory, and even in their estimate of the 
 divine names are more nearly in agreement with my position 
 than with his. I will show this in one instance — that of 
 Kittel, to whose utterances Dahse several times appeals 
 (pp. 481, 484, 485, 489, 495). From Kittel's GescMchte des 
 Volkes Israel, Ed. 2, Bd. I, p. 255, Dahse (p. 481) quotes 
 the following sentence : " Dahse is quite right in complain- 
 ing that too little attention has been paid, on the part of 
 the commentators and documentary school, to the state 
 of the text." The best answer to that will be to translate 
 the remainder of Kittel's important Note. I merely take 
 the liberty of italicizing the points which support the views 
 
268 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 I have maintaiaed. After the sentence just cited, Eittel 
 proceeds : 
 
 " Yet I can accept his conclusions only to a very limited 
 extent ; for one thing, because they rest on too narrow a 
 foundation. It would require far closer attention to be 
 bestowed on the books outside the Pentateuch — especially 
 Chronicles, Isaiah, etc. — in order to arrive at secure results. 
 I will summarize my examination in the following proposi- 
 tions : (1) In general, apart from Genesis i.-x., Yahwistic 
 and Elohistic passages are easily recognizable even in the 
 LXX (in spite of many variations between LXX and MT), 
 c/. Genesis i. xvii. (also v. 1-28) with Genesis xii., xviii., 
 xxiv. — (2) In Genesis ii. Elohim seems originally to have 
 been wholly or in part the prevalent name ; so also in 
 Genesis iv., vi. 1-4, xv. 6f. [I take it that here, as in (1) 
 and (3), Kittel refers to the original LXX, but I admit 
 that the meaning is not clear : see further p. 294 below.] — 
 (3) In considerable sections of the Pentateuch we can per- 
 ceive in the LXX — or it may be (beziehungsweise), in the 
 Hebrew original of the LXX — the same tendency which 
 we observe in Chronicles, to substitute Elohim for Yahwe 
 (Exodus xvi. and xix. ; Numbers xxii.). Along with that, 
 to be sure, the tendency manifests itself to assimilate the 
 divine names to the prevalent (Yahwistic or Elohistic) usage 
 of a section. — (4) Yahwe-Elohim is occasionally, from the 
 same tendency which MT exhibits in Genesis ii., iii., 
 inserted in the LXX, or {beziehungsweise) in the Hebrew 
 original of the LXX, in longer sections of Genesis ii.-x. 
 From (l)-(4) it follows that in Genesis ii.-x., as also in isolated 
 portions of the Law (cf. No. 3), the divine appellations of 
 the MT are undoubtedly little decisive for the separation 
 of sources. On the other hand, Dahse's thesis in its 
 absolute generality rests upon serious exaggeration. For 
 (5) it appears that within the LXX itself, particularly in 
 Genesis ii.-x., there is great fluctuation in regard to the 
 divine names (cf. LXX^ in Genesis iii. 1, iv. 9, 13, vi. 22, 
 vii. 9, 16, viii. 21, ix. 8, 26, x. 9, xi. 8 : further LXX" in 
 Genesis vi. 13, vii. 16, ix. 12, 17, xi. 9) — obviously not as a 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 269 
 
 result of transcriptional errors, but of such a kind as to 
 show that the accommodation (? Angleichung) had been 
 differently carried out in different Hebrew originals, or was 
 carried out differently by Greek copyists. Further (6), the 
 retention of Yahwe alongside of Elohim is, in particular, 
 often wrongly explained by Dahse. That here we have 
 merely to do with a certain lack of consistency appears from 
 Chronicles. Finally (7) an immense number of cases of 
 QiOQ in Isaiah for Hebrew Yahwe shows how strong was 
 the tendency in certain later circles to avoid the Tetra- 
 grammaton." 
 
 Now, I do not subscribe to all these statements of Kittel — 
 in particular I demur to his too easy (though still tentative) 
 assumption of various Hebrew originals. But balancing 
 one thing with another, I think that on the whole the 
 passage yields as much general support to my contentions 
 as I could reasonably expect from an independent quarter. 
 
 NOTE II— Page 15 
 
 To break the force of the argument from Genesis iv. 
 26, Dahse has recourse to what is known as the Kenite 
 theory of the origin of the name Yahwe. On p. 509 f. of his 
 Eeply he writes : "I conclude from certain phenomena 
 that Genesis iv. 266 relates to Gain, and not to iv. 26a, 
 Enosh. Cain, the representative of the Kenites, begins the 
 invocation of Yahwe, but that is in entire harmony with 
 the statement, Exodus iii., according to which Moses learnt 
 to know Yahwe when in the service of Jethro the Kenite. 
 And so Genesis iv. 266 ceases to be a point d'appui of the 
 documentary theory, but becomes one for the Kenite hypo- 
 thesis." This is an excellent example of exegesis divorced 
 from historical and religious insight. The Kenite theory is 
 all very well in its own place ; and no doubt its advocates 
 will be duly grateful to Dahse for this surprising confirma- 
 tion of it. But he need not tell us that it was the theory 
 held by Ezra or any other biblical writer. Does he expect 
 a tolerably sane British public to believe that the Almighty, 
 
270 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 in proclaiming himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and 
 Jacob, should declare that he had concealed his true Name 
 from these patriarchs, after having revealed it to the seed 
 of Cain? And by what right does Dahse conclude from 
 " certain phenomena " (which, by the way, are remarkably 
 inconclusive) that iv. 266 has nothing to do with its actual 
 context, but refers to Cain, whose story is finished nine 
 verses back? And what of the exactly similar passages 
 xii. 8, xiii. 4, xxi. 33, xxvi. 25, where the patriarchs 
 are said to have continued the invocation of Yahwe 
 begun by Enosh? 
 
 NOTE in— Page 32 
 EXODUS VI. 2, 3 
 
 Dahse's answer to the arguments of this chapter is dis- 
 appointing in the extreme. Straitened as he was for space, 
 I think he might well have spared a few of the pages he has 
 spent in trying to convict me of inconsistency and ignor- 
 ance for the discussion of this important and crucial theme. 
 All that we get is the admission (Eeply, p. 508) that my 
 characterization of his reading is substantially just, along 
 with an attempt to ward off the stroke of my criticism by 
 interposing the impenetrable shield of the Pericope-hypo- 
 thesis. " If this is treated as an independent narrative 
 it is certainly meaningless ; but regarded as a recapitulation 
 it is in place." Exodus vi. 2 ff. is the " chapter heading " 
 to the 50th Seder of the Pentateuch, and "contains a recapi- 
 tulation of what is narrated in Exodus iii." (which stands, 
 by the way, in the last Seder but one). It belongs to the 
 character of these chapters that they "originally contained 
 nothing new " ; therefore, I suppose, they need not be 
 expected to make sense. To this I might reply, in the first 
 place, that one does not readily apprehend how a sentence 
 in itself meaningless becomes meaningful when regarded 
 as the reproduction of another writer's meaning, especially 
 when that writer's words had been read in the synagogue 
 two weeks before this commentator is allowed to be heard. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 271 
 
 Secondly, that its intrinsic meaninglessness is entirely due 
 to the arbitrary excision of the two names Yahwe and 
 El Shaddai and forms therefore a very strong argument 
 against such excision. Thirdly, that Exodus vi. 2ff. is 
 neither a recapitulation nor a repetition of Exodus iii. It 
 may refer to the same epoch-making event — the first revela- 
 tion of the name Yahwe — but the whole conception of that 
 event — of the manner in which the revelation came, of the 
 time, place and circumstances in which it was given — as 
 well as the terms in which it is described, sire totally 
 different. The writer who undertook such a radical trans- 
 formation of another narrative could not afford to write 
 meaningless sentences. I might go on to urge that I have 
 shown in general (Chapter VII) that the theory of chapter 
 headings does not come well out of a detailed examination 
 — that the passages classed by Dahse under that head have 
 only in the rarest instances the character of headings or even 
 of mere recapitulation, that they contain much that is new, 
 and that altogether they present the unmistakable aspect 
 of a thoroughly independent presentation of the national 
 traditions of Israel. But I am afraid it is of no use. The 
 obsession of the Pericope-hypothesis has a neck like an iron 
 sinew, and the logical weapon is not forged that will cut it. 
 There is nothing for it but to imitate my opponent's 
 obduracy of heart, and repeat what I have said before, that 
 there is no part of the Textkritische Materialien that has 
 failure and futility more legibly written on the face of it 
 than the discussion of Exodus vi. 2, 3. 
 
 NOTE IV— Pages 84, 251 
 
 A slight inspection of Tables III and IV suffices to show 
 how incomplete and undiscriminating Dahse's published 
 treatment of the recensions egj and fir is. It is obvious 
 even to the uninitiated in LXX criticism that the great 
 difficulty in such investigations is to determine how far 
 a given recension is based on the prevailing text of the 
 LXX, and how far the recension has imparted its peculiar 
 
272 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 complexion to that prevailing text. Two methods may be 
 attempted : we may either take account of all the readings 
 of the recension under examination and try to form a 
 rough idea of its general tendencies ; or we may consider 
 only those readings in which it stands alone, or is sup- 
 ported by but a few other MSS. The second of these 
 methods alone can lead to decisive results. But then 
 what are we to make of those passages where the recension 
 has the same name as the ordinary LXX? With regard 
 to these we are exposed to all the disadvantage of the more 
 sweeping method of study: we cannot tell whether these 
 readings belong to the recension, or whether MSS. of the 
 recension have been accommodated to the vulgar LXX 
 text. At all events, so far as I can judge, Dahse adheres 
 neither to the one method nor to the other. In dealing 
 with eg] he follows on the whole the stricter plan, and 
 cites mostly cases in which that recension departs some- 
 what markedly from the general LXX tradition. But even 
 there it would seem that he should have excluded the 
 majority of those readings which I have marked with t. 
 and have included many of those marked.* In fir, on 
 the other hand, he takes in a much larger number of 
 common readings ; and there again he has omitted several 
 which appear highly characteristic of the recension. The 
 result is that in the one case his survey covers rather more 
 than one-eighth, in the other rather less than one-third, of 
 the names of the LXX in Genesis. It seems to me that 
 both in quality and in quantity such data as are given 
 form a very precarious basis for ascertaining the charac- 
 teristics of a particular recension. If they point to any 
 conclusion at all, it is that the authors of these recensions 
 followed no consistent principle in their treatment of the 
 divine names, but yielded to different tcTidencies in different 
 sections of the book of Genesis. It also appears, I think, 
 that egj possesses far more the character of a Kvpioe 6 Oc6g- 
 edition of Genesis than fir : in the first case two-thirds, 
 in the second only about two-fifths, of the passages cited 
 have the double name. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 273 
 
 NOTE V— Paqe 85 
 
 With reference to this note, Dahse claims (Reply, p. 497) 
 that I too admit that 6 Kvpiog is equivalent to 'JIn. There 
 he mistakes my meaning, if not his own also. I have 
 allowed, on the positive evidence of two occurrences and 
 the negative evidence of a certain number of vocatives, 
 that an ijns in the Hebrew may pjausibly be said to be 
 represented by 6 KvpioQ in Greek, whenever the article is 
 admissible; but I have not admitted that every 6 KvpioQ 
 in Greek stands for <Jix in the Hebrew. Nor do I think 
 that this can have been Dahse' s own view when he wrote 
 as follows in the Textkrit. Mater., p. 38 f.: " Es wird also, 
 wenn in der LXX an diesen Stellen das urspriingUche niiT' 
 mit 6 Kvpwe (nicht wie spater gewohnlich Kvpiog) stehen 
 geblieben und nicht in Kvpwe 6 BeSg umgewandelt ist, Wert 
 darauf gelegt, dass man in diesen kultischen Dingen nicht 
 an irgevdwelche Elohim, sondern an Jahweh sich gewandt 
 habe." Perhaps he now sees the force of my contention 
 that in such eases, whatever be the difference between 
 Kvpwe and 6 Kvpiog, the presence or absence of the article 
 is a peculiarity of the Greek translation which can answer 
 to nothing in Hebrew. — On p. 488 of the Eeply he objects 
 to my description of the sentence above quoted as an echo 
 of Eerdmans' polytheistic theory, saying that he had put 
 forward this view as long ago as 1903, and that he " never 
 knew before that an echo could be heard as much as five years 
 before the actual sound ! " Of course, when Dahse assures 
 me that his position in 1912 is the same as in 1903 I accept 
 the correction and the rebuke. But I may be permitted 
 to remark that the nearest approach to it which I could 
 have found in the ABW for 1903 is in these words from 
 p. 312 : " Dann ware Jahwe nur stehen geblieben an den 
 beiden Stellen, wo von einem Opfer die Bede ist 4' und 
 8*, und in der sprichwortliehen Eedensart IC." If the 
 reader will compare the expressions italicized in these two 
 extracts, he will understand how the echo of Eerdmans' 
 
 The Divine Names in Genesis. 19 
 
274 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 which I seemed to detect in the more recent was not 
 audible in the earlier. 
 
 NOTE VI— Pages 93, 237 
 THE ABOHETYPAL MANUSOEIPT 
 
 This brief and summary description of the archetype is 
 quoted by Dahse on p. 499 of his Eeply, and followed up 
 by an interrogation which I should call quite pertinent 
 and legitimate if I did not know that he would seize on 
 these expressions, and say that I had yielded the point 
 at issue : " Granted, now, that the way in which this text 
 has been preserved shows that it was almost superstitiously 
 revered, do not those very peculiarities prove that even 
 before the Eoman period this text was not preserved in 
 its purity either?" The correct answer to that question 
 is that while as a matter of fact the text has not been 
 preserved in perfect purity, yet the fact is not necessarily 
 proved by the peculiarities here referred to. Since my 
 statement, however, is couched in terms which may suggest 
 wrong ideas to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, I will 
 here draw out its implications somewhat more clearly. 
 
 1. The description refers to the MT as a whole, and the 
 eccentric features spoken of are much less observable in 
 the Pentateuch (and especially in Genesis) than in other 
 parts of the Old Testament. It is well known that the 
 Pentateuch is the part of the Hebrew Bible whose text 
 has been best preserved ; and the phenomena on which the 
 present argument depends are there comparatively unim- 
 portant. In Genesis there are cases where the traditional 
 reading {Qeri) departs from the consonantal text {EetMb), 
 there are a few dotted words or letters, a couple of gaps 
 in the middle of a verse, and a few literae majusculae or 
 minusculae. The more serious cases, of inadvertent ditto- 
 graphy, or of omission of a word necessary to the sense, 
 do not occur there, or in the Pentateuch anywhere. Thus 
 while there were slips in the archetype, there is so far no 
 evidence that there were serious slips, or any that had 
 gone unnoticed and uncorrected. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 275 
 
 2. But the more important point is that the description 
 refers to accidents, and not to the substance, of the text. 
 The distinction can be made plai,n by a very homely illus- 
 tration. An author sends to the printer (such cases have 
 been known) a MS. full of corrections and other marks of 
 haste. Words are scored out and rewritten above, omis- 
 sions are marked by a caret and supplied in the margin ; 
 there may be a blot of ink on this page and an illegible 
 smudge on that. Yet in substance that may be a perfect 
 text — may, in fact, be the original autograph. But if the 
 printer proceeds to reproduce all these accidental pecu- 
 liarities of his copy, then we know that he has been guided 
 by some other motive than a desire to express his author's 
 meaning. Now, so far as the gist of my argument is 
 concerned, that is exactly the case of the MT, except that 
 the mistakes and corrections were not made under the 
 eye of the original writer but by subsequent copyists, and 
 that the reproductions are not due to a single printer, but 
 to thousand of scribes working separately. The phenomena 
 in question prove a superstitious regard for the eccen- 
 tricities of some one MS., but they do not of themselves 
 prove (at least as regards the Pentateuch) that the text of 
 that MS. was in substance corrupt. 
 
 Hence it can be rightly maintained that, in spite of this 
 strange episode in its history, the Massoretic recension has 
 preserved the ancient text with relative fidelity. That in 
 places it is corrupt we know from other considerations, 
 chiefly internal. Some of these can be corrected by help 
 of the versions, some by conjecture; others are irremedi- 
 able. But taking it as a whole, and in comparison with 
 other authorities, what I have elsewhere said remains true, 
 that " the Hebrew text possesses credentials to which no 
 version . . . can pretend." 
 
 NOTE VII— Page 108 
 
 On Gen. xvi. 11 Dahse calls attention to the fact that 
 Procksch in his recent commentary on Genesis takes sub- 
 
^76 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 stantially the same view as Wiener and himself, although 
 he says, without sufficient warrant, that the reading behind 
 the 6 Otos of bw and OL was El and not Elohim. 
 Similarly on xxxii. 31. I was not aware of this fact when 
 I wrote, but had noted it since. Of course I regret that so 
 excellent a scholar should countenance an opinion which 
 seems to me so indefensible ; but I think it is due to his 
 not recognizing the distinction between the original popular 
 etymology and the form into which that etymology would 
 naturally be cast by a writer habitually using Yahwe as 
 the name of the true God. If Procksch had said that this 
 was a case in which the Yahwist might use Elohim without 
 being untrue to his principle, I should have heartily agreed ; 
 but when he says (or implies) must, I entirely demur, for 
 the reasons I have already given. — As to the analogy of 
 1 Sam. i. 20, I do not see what Dahse supposes he gains 
 in argument by appealing to the opinion of Budde that the 
 LXX with its trafiaiid has preserved the original reading. 
 If the original name was Yahwe Zehadth, my argument is 
 rather strengthened than weakened ; for if the solitary 
 Yahwe is not equivalent to El, Yahwe Zehadth is so stUi 
 less ; and if the latter could nevertheless be substituted for 
 El in the explanation of an etymology, so a fortiori could 
 the former. — Dahse adds " by the way," and somewhat 
 naively, that he does not know any passage in Wiener's 
 writings in which he expresses the opinion " that Ishmael 
 is a fictitious name " ! I never supposed that Wiener 
 would be so far left to himself. But when he says that 
 under given circumstances Ishmael must have read Ishma- 
 yah, in what other sense can his words be understood? 
 
 NOTE VIII— Page 127 
 
 WIENER ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE 
 SAMARITAN AND THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 The freer scope afforded by this volume enables me to 
 enter a little more fully into the details of Wiener's argu- 
 ment on this subject. I have said that the great bulk of 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 277 
 
 the differences registered by him are due to the freedom 
 of translators who did not render word for word, etc. The 
 mistakes which vitiate his criticism are (1) that he makes 
 too little allowance for the licence natural to the work of 
 translation, and freely employed by the LXX, such as 
 non-literal rendering, substitution of synonyms, accommo- 
 dation to Greek idiom, adjustment of forms and expressions 
 to the context, explanatory additions, and so on, but tends 
 in all cases to assume a divergent Hebrew ; and (2) that he 
 has not recognized the necessity of showing that this 
 Hebrew is intrinsically superior to that of MT and Sam., 
 before his main argument can be sustained. It seems to 
 me that his critical method could be at once illustrated and 
 reduced to absurdity by applying it to the English Bible. 
 It is known historically that our authorized version was 
 based on the MT. But if that fact were unknown, a critic 
 setting himself on Wiener's principles to reconstruct its 
 hypothetical Hebrew basis might easily convince himself 
 that it was made from a text considerably different from 
 the Hebrew receptus. Suppose we try our hand on Isaiah 
 vi. — by no means a corpus vile for such an experiment. 
 
 V. 1. niD nitya : In the year of the death of ; A.V. " In the 
 year that . . . died" = n-1D n3B'3. 
 nKHKI, and I saw ; A.V. " I saw also " = dj »n»Nn. 
 \h^ti>'\, and his skirts ; A.V. " and his train " = I'pijyi. 
 D'sbD, were filling; A.V. " filled " = in^D. 
 V. 2. w'vya D'SitJ', seraphim were standing; A.V. "stood 
 the seraphim " = n'B^E'^ noy. 
 CSia B'B' D'SJ3 B'K' : a clear case of dittography ! 
 
 A.V. rightly, " six wings." 
 ^''T\V^, with two ; A.V. "twain": Heb. uncertain. 
 9[m\ he flew ; A.V. " did fly " = ^isiy* C|i5? (Inf. Abs.). 
 I). 3. nt^Nnt. this to this; A.V. "one to another "= c^'X 
 
 k'?D, the filUng ; A.V. "is fuH" = nN^D (an emenda- 
 tion already suggested : see Kittel, BH). 
 V, 4. Q'DDn. the thresholds; A.V. " the door " = n^nn. 
 
278 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 V. 5. and in the midst ... I dwell; A.V. reverses the 
 
 order. 
 V. 6. npV QTtpho^, with tongs he had taken; A.V. inserts 
 
 ityx and the art. 
 V. 7. VP.), made to touch; A.V. "laid" = dC'1. 
 
 And so one might go on finding traces of a variant 
 Hebrew in every clause, where we know that there are 
 only loosenesses of rendering, a regard for idiom and 
 rhythm in English, or slight misunderstanding of a word 
 or a construction. 
 
 Now it is quite true that Wiener allows in words for 
 the occurrence of such divergences between the Hebrew 
 and the LXX ; but in practice he does not carry the 
 admission nearly far enough, and I do not think that 
 what I have said is a very seriously exaggerated caricature 
 of his method. Let us look at some specimens; and I 
 will for the most part confine myself to those instances 
 where he has the strongest apparent case. 
 
 Genesis xiii. Here the following are claimed as clear cases 
 in which the LXX found different consonants from the MT : 
 
 V. 3. vyDD^, oflcv IiKBev; What is the variant Hebrew 
 here ? Not dbd l^n nt^N surely ? Is it vyODO ? Or vnsidd ? 
 In any case, if there be a consonantal variant at all, it is 
 certainly inferior to MT. In reality odev iiXQev is simply a 
 loose conjectural rendering ; the LXX are always at a 
 loss when they come to the noun VDO (see Exod. xvii. 1, 
 xl. 36, 38; Num. x. 2, 6, 12, 28, xxxiii. 1, 2 ; Deut. x. 11). 
 
 3J3D> eig rrjv 'iprjjxoy. It is just possible (though very im- 
 probable) that this represents a Heb. 2JJ3 (d and a being 
 frequently confounded) ; but if so it is certainly to be 
 rejected. Abram starts /row the Negeb (v. 1). 
 
 V. 4. nJt^xna, r^f aKiqi'riv. There can be no question as 
 to the inferiority of LXX here . But I think we can trace 
 the source of its error. itkj}vtiv is in fact the worst attested 
 of all readings to this passage; and the best is apx';»'i 
 which answers to MT. I venture to conjecture, on the 
 basis of the various readings in the Cambridge LXX, that 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 279 
 
 the original LXX, slightly paraphrasing the Hebrew, ran 
 thus : eIs rov TOirov oh kiroltfatv ekcI to dviriatrriipwv ttiv apxfiv 
 (of. Dan. ix. 21 [LXX] , viii. 1 [Theod]) ; t6 dvcriaaTfipiov 
 was then either accidentally dropped, or carelessly moved 
 to correspond with the Hebrew, and the nonsensical 
 text thus arising was afterwards amended in A ny by 
 changing apyrjv to (TK-qvrjv. 
 
 V. 9. thr\, KoX Idov. Is Wiener prepared to say that this 
 necessarily presupposes nini wherever it occurs (e.g., 
 Deuteronomy iii. 11, Joshua i. 9, Judges vi. 14 and often) ? 
 If so, what becomes of the idiomatic riT in Deuteronomy 
 ii. 7, viii. 4 ? Is this also to be changed to njn because of 
 ISov ? And would mr\ be in any way preferable to xVn ? 
 
 V. 9. Omission of kj. This is one of the commonest 
 things in the LXX : cf., xiii. 8, 14; xxiv. 2, 12, 14, 17, 23, 
 42, 45 ; XXV. 30 ; xxvii. 3, 21, 26 ; xxxi. 12, etc. Are we 
 really to suppose that in all these cases the LXX did not 
 find the h: in their original ? And that the omission (here 
 or elsewhere) improves the text ? 
 
 I vnll not discuss the four instances where the LXX has 
 deoQ for the Tetragrammaton of MT, because there can be 
 no proof either that the translators found Elohim in their 
 Hebrew exemplar, or that if they did it is a more original 
 text than Yahwe. 
 
 Exodus xvii. 
 
 V. 1. Dyn nriB'S rw Xaw Tielv. The Hebrew here is 
 (pace Kittel !) perfectly idiomatic : see 2 Samuel xvi. 2, 
 D'ii?Jn buN"? and t\v<n rwTwh ; Isaiah li. 10, qi^ikj -ar"?. 
 
 V.3. *nK, 1J2, iJpD. If the " our " of LXX., Vulg., Pesh., 
 Targ. Jon. for " my " of MT had been original, how does 
 "Wiener explain the change to sing, in MT? Evidently 
 these versions have accommodated to the iJiT'^yn of MT. 
 In Deuteronomy xxxi. 16-21, e.g., LXX has plurals for 
 sg. throughout, but so also have A.V. and E.V., exactly as 
 LXX. Yet we know that the EVV read the MT ! 
 
 m. 5, 6. rov \aov for hir\^'< and 6 Xa6e fiov for DVn are 
 changes as likely to have been made in Greek as in Hebrew, 
 and in neither is there a superiority on the side of the LXX. 
 
280 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 On the other hand »3pt (v. 6) is manifestly better than tUv 
 vl&v. There could hardly be a clearer case of careless 
 rendering than this. The trite phrase " children of Israel " 
 came to the translator's pen, and as it did not utterly spoil 
 the sense, it was never afterwards altered. In v. 7, on the 
 contrary, 'i3 is in place. 
 
 V. 16. The omission of -idk*i by the LXX is, we are told, 
 "doubtless the correct text." Why "doubtless"? If 
 the word is not essential, the omission is certainly no 
 improvement. 
 
 Leviticus xvii. Here we are told that " most " of some 
 twenty-three variants registered point to a different conso- 
 nantal Hebrew text, but that it is a better Hebrew Wiener 
 does not venture to assert. It seems to me that the only 
 cases where the suggestion of a divergent Hebrew can be 
 seriously entertained are (a) tUv vliiv for n'DD in vv. 3, 8, 
 10: here the presumption is strongly in favour of MT, 
 which keeps to nUD throughout, except in v. 13, where 
 MT has '':3d, but Sam. and 9 MSS. have the (probably 
 original) tvID- There is no reason why the substitution 
 should not have been made in Greek. (&) The addition in 
 W. 3 of t; riiv TrpoatiKvTiov i) tGiv itpotTKEiixiviav tv vfiiv. But 
 this is supplied from vv. 8, 10, 13 ; and, from the MS. 
 evidence, it is more than doubtful if it formed part of the 
 original LXX. It is therefore probably to be regarded as 
 an inner-Greek corruption, (c) In v. 8 kv vfTiv does not 
 necessarily imply a Hebrew D33ina, but even if it did, the 
 DDin3 (3rd person) of MT is undoubtedly right, {d) So in 
 V. 11 "ican of MT is decidedly preferable to the "1^3 '?3 of 
 LXX and one Hebrew MS. ; and this explains away at 
 the same time the twice added avTov of LXX to aifia in the 
 same verse, (e) The additions of ra Ifidria and of vSan in 
 V. 16 carry no marks of originality. 
 
 In Numbers xix. 1-7, Wiener only claims that certain 
 words wanting in the LXX are probably glosses. There 
 he gives expression to a fallacious assumption which 
 appears often in his writings, that the shorter text is 
 always to be preferred. The only case mentioned that 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 281 
 
 looka plausible at first sight is the second pan in v. 7. 
 But, unfortunately for Wiener, that is not omitted by LXX 
 (only by two cursives) ! 
 
 On Deuteronomy xx. 1-12 it is unnecessary to dwell, 
 since Wiener only |detects there evidence of " differences 
 of pronunciation of the same consonantal text." But there 
 is one case of mistaken translation which he ought not to 
 have passed over. In v. 6 i"?bn xbl and i:^^n'' are rendered 
 respectively by Koi ovk £V(j>pavdr) 'He, avrov and ti^porfl^irerat 
 E? airov. That is to say, the LXX read hhn as hhn. 
 
 I am really in doubt, even after reading Dahse's spirited 
 defence of Wiener, whether " transparent incompetence " 
 and "hastily improvised scholarship" be after all expres- 
 sions too harsh to describe textual criticism of this order. 
 At all events I am justified in saying that he has con- 
 tributed nothing of value in these investigations to clearing 
 up the relations between the LXX and Sam. He has in 
 no case proved that the LXX goes back to a Hebrew 
 original superior to the Sam. and MT. He has often 
 assiimed a Hebrew basis which is worse, and sometimes 
 impossible ; and to that extent his argument goes to show 
 that the ancestry of the LXX has undergone corruption 
 since the time when it parted from that of Sam. and MT. 
 At the same time, I draw a distinction between his de- 
 tailed criticism of the text and the general principle on 
 which his reasoning proceeds. If he would improve his 
 methods, and exercise greater circumspection, I do not 
 doubt that he will succeed in finding cases where the LXX 
 represents a Hebrew superior to either MT or Sam., or 
 both combined. His general theory is not proved, nor 
 do I accept it, but I still admit that it " has a claim to 
 consideration." 
 
 NOTE IX— Pages 145, 154 
 THE DIVnSTE NAMES IN THE VULGATE 
 
 Since writing these passages my attention has been 
 drawn to an article by the Eev. Hugh Pope, O.P., which 
 
/ / 
 
 282 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 appeared in the October number of the Irish Theological 
 Qtiarterly (1913, pp. 375-398). The writer takes a very 
 definite stand by the side of Wiener in the controversy 
 about the critical value of the divine names, and even 
 goes so far as to defend his most scurrilous diatribes as 
 being " necessary "I I vsrill not here deal with Mr. Pope's 
 view of the general situation, nor will I help him to 
 answer the question he has put at the head of his article : 
 " Where are we in Pentateuchal Criticism ? " I have 
 expressed my mind on every aspect of the case on which 
 he has touched; and he has contributed nothing which 
 moves me to reopen any part of the discussion. The 
 interest of the article lies solely in its attempt to use 
 the Vulgate to destroy confidence in the accuracy of our 
 present MT. I may congratulate myself on having 
 anticipated this line of attack. A considerable part of the 
 article is an elaboration of the hint which I dropped in 
 the note on p. 154, where I have called attention to the 
 variations in MSS. of the Vulgate as a quarter where Dahse 
 and Wiener would find some more grist for their mill. 
 Of course I am aware that Pope was in no way indebted 
 to that hint for the inception of his argument ; but I am 
 none the less grateful to him for having brought out 
 so clearly how very little is to be gained by following it 
 up. That, to be sure, is not his opinion; but I will 
 try to show in a few words that it is the true estimate 
 of his results. 
 
 The first point to be considered is the relation as a 
 whole of the Vulgate to the MT. It is the common judg- 
 ment of scholars that the Hebrew basis of the Vulgate, 
 while not absolutely identical with the present MT, very 
 closely resembles it. I believe that what I have said on 
 p. 144 f. expresses the truth. The proved deviations of the 
 Hebrew basis of the Vulgate from the MT are for the 
 most part well within the limits of probable scribal error 
 subsequent to the fixing of the standard text. It is only 
 where the Vxdgate presupposes a Hebrew reading intrinsi- 
 cally superior to the MT, or one supported by an older 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 283 
 
 version, that we have any right to look behind the 
 Massoretic recension, and suspect the survival of an 
 earlier type of text. In all other cases we must go on 
 the presumption that the divergence has come in through 
 mistakes in copying the standard text ; and of course in 
 each case of difference it is a question whether the Vulgate 
 or MT has preserved the original text as fixed by the 
 school of Aqiba in the second century. Now the actual 
 extent of this divergence is, I am convinced, greatly 
 exaggerated by Mr. Pope. He refers his readers to Bxod. 
 XXX., XXXV. 17-xxxvi. 16, xxxvii. 7-19, xxxix. 8-21, xl. 9-23, 
 as passages where " it will be seen at once that St. 
 Jerome has a consistently shorter text " (p. 385). Well, 
 I have read these passages ; and have formed the opinion 
 that even in these selected and highly technical and diffi- 
 cult sections the amount of probable divergence between 
 the MT and the underlying Hebrew of the Vulgate is 
 small. It would not be right to express a confident judg- 
 ment without more careful study than I can afford to 
 make of the subject ; but my strong impression is that, 
 while textual differences exist, the chief cause of variation 
 between the Vulgate and the MT is condensed paraphrase 
 in translation. And even if the textual difference should 
 be greater than I take it to be, the passages cited are 
 such as, from their technicality and redundancy, were 
 peculiarly liable to errors of transcription. Mr. Pope will 
 have to extend his investigations to a fairer field of 
 comparison before he can claim to have proved his thesis. 
 A much more serious question is raised by Pope's 
 attempt to prove that Jerome used widely different Hebrew 
 MSS. at different periods of his life. The argument is 
 to this effect : The Vulgate of Genesis (translated about 
 404 A.D.) gives us the text of a certain Hebrew MS. 
 which closely corresponded with our MT. But in 388 
 or 389 (I accept the date from Mr. Pope) Jerome wrote 
 a series of Qiuiestiones in Genesim : and here he uses a 
 Hebrew text which differs widely from MT and from the 
 Hebrew basis of the Vulgate. Now there is no use 
 
284 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 mincing matters : this reasoning is intelligible to me only 
 on one supposition, viz., that Mr. Pope has fallen into 
 the gross blunder of fancying that in the Qtiaestiones 
 Jerome is commenting on a Hebrew text. It is true that 
 Jerome's practice is not perfectly uniform in this respect. 
 On xlix. 22 ff., for example, he tells us that he translates 
 direct from the Hebrew, " quia LXX interpretes in plerisque 
 dissentiunt " ; and in a very few other instances we find 
 him tacitly doing the same thing, and whenever he does so 
 it is our MT that he uses. But apart from these very rare 
 and exceptional oases, it is as certain as anything can be 
 that the lemmata on which he bases his exposition are not 
 taken direct from the Hebrew, but (directly or indirectly) 
 from the LXX ; and the only doubtful question is whether 
 he is citing the Old Latin version of the LXX or translating 
 from the LXX itself. His own words are : " Bt quo 
 facilius emendatio cognosoatur, ipsa prirmim ut apud nos 
 sunt testimonia proponemus, et ex coUatione eorum quae 
 sequuntur quid in illis, aut minus, aut plus, aut aliter sit, 
 indicabimus." It has been too readily taken for granted 
 by scholars that the reference here is to MSS. of the OL 
 version ; and indeed readings are constantly cited as OL 
 which have no other authority than Jerome's Quaestiones. 
 On the whole, however, the evidence points to the con- 
 clusion that the text annotated is not mere transcription 
 of the Latin, but Jerome's independent rendering of the 
 Greek. But, be that as it may, any one who reads a few 
 consecutive pages of the Quaestiones will speedily be con- 
 vinced that whatever Jerome is doing he is not translating 
 from a Hebrew MS. His references to the Hebrew are 
 frequent and detailed, and in no case (except ona for nn3 in 
 xiv. 5) do they imply a consonantal text different from 
 our MT. The whole argument, therefore, crumbles to 
 pieces. It is human to err ; but it is idle to pretend 
 that an error of this magnitude leaves unimpaired our 
 respect for Mr. Pope's competence to deal with the 
 problem he has taken in hand. 
 Let us come now to the divine names in Genesis. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 285 
 
 Mr. Pope, it appears, has had access to 18 MSS. of Genesis 
 in the possession of the Papal Commission entrusted with 
 the Eevision of the Vulgate. Any one who has glanced 
 through the pages of Vercellone will be prepared to hear 
 that these contain numerous variants from the standard 
 Clementine edition. But the results, as given in this 
 article, are unexpectedly meagre. Pope gives a list of 
 16 readings in chap, i.-xi., where the Clementine Vulgate 
 differs from the MT. To seven of these there are MS. 
 variants ; and with one exception (ii. 16 : one MS.) the 
 variant MSS. confirm MT. Of the 16 divergences, twelve 
 are omissions of the name by the Vulgate (i. 4, 5, 17, 
 26, 28, ii. 3, 16, iii. 22, vi. 6, viii. 1, 21, xi. 9). In four 
 cases (iv. 1, vi. 3, 5, vii. 9) the Vulgate reads a different 
 name from MT. Let us dispose of these four first. They 
 were all allowed for and duly recorded in my Expositor 
 articles, except vi. 3, which, following Dahse, I had 
 inadvertently omitted. But we learn further that in iv. 1 
 and vii. 9 there is strong MS. support for the name which 
 agrees with MT, and that in both these cases the reading 
 of MT is preferred by Cardinal Carafa, the editor of the 
 Louvain Bible. The net result of the investigation, then, 
 is that I have added vi. 3 to the Table, and put a mark 
 of interrogation against iv. 1 and vii. 9, making the 
 necessary alterations in the text. 
 
 As to the twelve omissions of the standard Vulgate, 
 they were all known before ; the MSS. as cited by Pope 
 adding no new case. Since even Dahse does not record 
 them, we may conclude that he considers them of no 
 importance as textual evidence. There he is undoubtedly 
 right. The omissions are not textual, but are incidents 
 of the translation. Pope recognizes this as a possibility, 
 but asks (p. 388) who is to say that the omissions did 
 not occur in the Hebrew text that was being translated. 
 No one with any sense of Hebrew idiom, or who has 
 considered Jerome's practice as a translator, will have 
 any hesitation in answering that question. And here I 
 will make the general observation that I have long thought 
 
286 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 that in much recent textual criticism there is a tendency 
 to make too much of the minute differences of the Vulgate 
 from the MT. These, in a large number of instances, are 
 purely stylistic : such things, e.g., as substitution of the 
 passive for the active, of a relative for a co-ordinate 
 sentence, of a participial construction for the finite verb, 
 and so on. And hardly anything is more characteristic 
 of the style of the Vulgate than the omission of a proper 
 name, when the sense is clear without it. If Mr. Pope 
 will turn once more to Genesis xi. 9, he wiU see that 
 the " Yahwe " could not possibly have been wanting in 
 the Hebrew, and that its omission in the Vulgate is 
 due entirely to the substitution of the passive for the 
 active construction. And perhaps he will allow that 
 Jerome's words which he quotes on p. 386 : " Non debemus 
 sic verbum de verbo exprimere ut dum syllabas sequimur 
 perdamus intelligentiam," have a closer application to 
 the question in hand than he has realized. It is of no 
 avail to say that "he is only speaking of those turns 
 of expression which the idioms of the language used 
 demanded," when we see that Jerome was capable of 
 adopting a turn of expression that carried with it the 
 omission of a divine name. 
 
 Pope seeks to upset this explanation by instancing cases, 
 chiefly from the Epistle to Sunnias and Fretela, where 
 Jerome insists on the Hebrew text of a divine name as 
 alone correct. But what is Jerome doing in the letter 
 to Sunnias and Fretela? He is answering a set of 
 specific questions on the text of the Psalter propounded 
 by these two correspondents, who were troubled by the 
 discrepancies between the Latin Bible and the LXX, and 
 asked him which was most consonant with the Hebrew. 
 Jerome was not the man to put off such inquirers by 
 telling them that it did not greatly matter I He could read 
 the Hebrew, and naturally he told them exactly how it 
 stood. It is true that he occasionally insists on the import- 
 ance of the Hebrew, as in Ps. Ixxi. (Ixxii.) 18, where he 
 finds in the threefold divine name of the MT an allusion 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 287 
 
 to the mystery of the Holy Trinity. But it does not 
 in the least follow that where he saw no such important 
 meaning in the name he would have scrupled to omit 
 it in translation, for the sake of a more elegant Latin 
 sentence. I willingly grant that he would not wantonly 
 change one divine name to another ; but that he did 
 not consider a divine name per se to be inviolable is shown 
 by the fact that he did not think it necessary to correct 
 the OL by the Hebrew in those passages of the Quaestiones 
 where Mr. Pope supposed that he was quoting a divergent 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 Mr. Pope's overestimate of the significance of the variant 
 divine names of the Vulgate springs from the same lack 
 of circumspection (in the literal sense of the word) which 
 is so manifest in the work of Dahse and Wiener. He has 
 concentrated his attention on a small set of phenomena, 
 within a narrow field of vision, and appears to be totally 
 oblivious of facts outside that field which have to be taken 
 into account before we can justly appreciate the evidence 
 of the Vulgate. There are indeed a great many circum- 
 stances which conspire to reduce to a minimum the 
 probabihty that any reading of the Vulgate goes back 
 to a Hebrew independent of the Massoretic recension. 
 (1) It is a well-established fact that the standard text of 
 the O.T. was fixed by Jewish authority about the middle 
 of the second century. (2) It is equally certain that from 
 that time onward a determined effort was made in Jewish 
 circles to secure the universal ascendancy of that text ; 
 and the divine names are about the last element of the 
 text with regard to which laxity would have been permitted. 
 
 (3) "We know from the younger Greek versions and from 
 Origen that this type of Hebrew text was thoroughly 
 established in the third century after Christ : the trans- 
 lation of the Vulgate was not commenced until 390 a.d. 
 
 (4) Jerome is known to have put himself to great trouble 
 and expense to procure the most authoritative Hebrew 
 MSS. and the best Jewish instruction : it is incredible 
 that in these circumstances he should have been dependent 
 
288 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 on MSS. belonging to another than the standard recension. 
 
 (5) The Vulgate itself shows that its Hebrew basis belongs 
 to the same recension as our present MT, and seldom 
 varies from it beyond the limits of transcriptional error. 
 
 (6) Even the best text of the Vulgate does not accurately 
 represent the work of Jerome. It is weU known that 
 the two versions — the Old Latin and the Vulgate — were 
 current together, in a keen struggle for existence, in the 
 Western Church till the seventh century (in some localities 
 long after that) ; and it is the judgment of all authorities 
 on the subject that the purity of each text has been con- 
 taminated by intrusions from the other. How far this goes 
 to explain the slight divergences that exist in the divine 
 names it is impossible to say; for no form of the OL 
 is extant for any of the cases I have found except xv. 6, 
 and there OL (but also the entire LXX) agrees with the 
 Vulgate. (7) Jerome aimed even less than the LXX at 
 a word-for-word rendering, or a style of translation that 
 sacrificed Latin idiom to a slavish literality. When we 
 consider all this, and observe in addition that after all 
 there are only about three thoroughly attested variant 
 divine names in the Vulgate of Genesis — the omissions 
 being due to reasons of style — we shall not rate very highly 
 the contribution which the criticism of the Vulgate is fitted 
 to make to the controversy regarding the divine names 
 in Genesis. 
 
 NOTE X— Page 146 
 
 In this passage, and also on p. 6 ff., Dahse thinks (Eeply, 
 p. 505) that I seek to minimize the value of the divine 
 names for the division of Genesis, in order to escape the 
 consequences of the uncertainty of the text. No doubt! 
 If I say that Dahse " exaggerates " the importance of the 
 divine names, quite naturally, from his point of view, I 
 seem to be " minimizing " their importance. The question, 
 however, is one of fact : does Dahse assign to the names 
 for God a higher importance in the analysis of Genesis 
 than they actually possess in the critical process by which 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 289 
 
 that analysis has been carried out ? The answer to that 
 is not doubtful. On p. 7 I have quoted his words to the 
 effect that even to-day the whole division of sources still 
 depends on the use of the divine names ; and I have gone 
 on to show that that is absolutely untrue. I have further 
 pointed out in a note on the same page that he tries to 
 make good his assertion only by five pages of garbled 
 quotations from Gunkel and others, from which he omits 
 all the other criteria which are adduced along with the 
 divine names — a procedure which I am glad to see that 
 SelUn also has characterized as grossly unfair. And a 
 similar unfairness appears in Dahse's use of a quotation 
 from Gressmann on this same page (505). Gressmann is 
 there speaking of the analysis in the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch : he says that there is substantial agreement 
 on the delimitation of P, but that the separation of J from 
 E can seldom be effected with an approach to certainty, 
 because the criterion of the divine names which has 
 approved itself in Genesis fails almost entirely in the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch : all which is exactly what 
 I have myself said on p. 9 ! It is true that Gressmann 
 goes on to say that the demonstrative force of linguistic 
 usage is quite small in view of the poverty of the Hebrew ; 
 but Dahse has no right to assume that that remark applies 
 to Genesis, for on the previous page of his book Gressmann 
 has expressly spoken of the contrast between the masterly 
 redaetional work which we find in Genesis and the con- 
 fusion which prevails from Exodus to Numbers. And 
 when finally Gressmann speaks of J and E as in many cases 
 nothing more than " labels " (in Bxod.-Num.) which may 
 be exchanged at will, his meaning is quite plain from a 
 sentence a little lower down, which Dahse forbears to 
 quote : " Moreover, the contradictions and doublets remain, 
 even if one is in doubt whether a variant belongs to J or 
 to E." In other words, there are many cases where we 
 can be sure that two accounts are interwoven, although, 
 in default of the criterion of the divine names, and because 
 of redaetional confusion, we cannot determine which is 
 
 The Divine Nwmea in Oeneaia. 20 
 
290 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 J and which is E. It will be seen how far it is true 
 that in my estimate of the utility of the divine names in 
 Genesis I argue "quite oppositely to Dr. Gressmann." 
 
 NOTE XI— Page 147 
 
 THE UNCEETAINTY OF THE HEBREW TEXT 
 
 When I wrote this sentence, I thought that I was stating 
 a somewhat formidable objection to Dahse's critical work. 
 I expected him to repudiate my inference, and to claim 
 that he had done something positive to establish the true 
 text of the divine names. But it appears not. On the 
 contrary I have " rejoiced " him by these words : " Such 
 is, in fact, the case " (Reply, p. 505). Vague uncertainty, 
 it would seem, is what he aims at. And again (p. 506) to 
 Gressmann's assertion that the whole Pentateuch must 
 be corrected (i.e. altered) word for word before the ground 
 is cut from beneath the documentary hypothesis, he gaily 
 replies that such is indeed the fact. And many years must 
 elapse before this process is completed (p. 501). I tremble 
 to think what the effect on my more conservative friends 
 would be if they were told that the text of the Old Testament 
 is to go into liquidation for an indefinite period, and will 
 not obtain its discharge till it has been rewritten word by 
 word. I suspect that Dahse goes beyond his real meaning 
 in these repartees. Certainly " each verse " must be 
 " accurately ascertained by textual criticism." But if 
 Dahse imagines that it will be possible to obliterate all the 
 subtle and pervasive characteristics which distinguish, say, 
 the style of the Yahwist from that of the Priestly Code, 
 he possesses a faith in the resources of textual criticism 
 which is not " according to knowledge." 
 
 NOTE XII— Page 164 
 
 " Which seldom differ." To this Dahse retorts (Eeply, 
 p. 502) that in respect of the divine names (to which alone 
 my words refer) the Sixtine and Cambridge Editions differ 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 291 
 
 in about thirty passages of Genesis ; i.e., in half as many- 
 eases as the Cambridge LXX differs at all from MT. 
 The precise number, I believe, is twenty-two. But of 
 these, four are cases where a name is wanting in one 
 edition and not in the other ; six differ only in the presence 
 or absence of the article or a possessive pronoun; eight 
 are cases where Kvpiog 6 deoe stands in one text for Kvpios^ 
 or 6 Oeog in the other; only four present the absolute 
 opposition of Kvpiog to 6 deog. My statement is not so wide 
 of the mark after all. 
 
 NOTE XIII— Page 166 
 SUPERIORITY OF MT 
 
 Compare with the above Kittel, Ueber die Notwendigkeit 
 und Moglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der hebr. Bibel (1901),, 
 p. 46: 
 
 "Es steht noch die Beantwortung der oben offen 
 gelassenen Erage aus, welche der beiden Textgestalten als 
 Gauzes den Vorzug verdienen moge und darum zu Grunde 
 zu legen sei, die alexandrinische oder die massoretische. 
 Bei allem Werte, den man auf die LXX als hervorragendster 
 Hilfsmittel legen muss, kann doch kein Zweifel sein, dass 
 die Tradition der Synagoge vollkommen im Eechte war, 
 wenn sie jene Textgestalt, aus der der MT herausgewachsen 
 ist, alien anderen ehedem umlaufenden Eezensionen der 
 hebraischen Bibel, so auch derjenigen der alexandrin- 
 ischen Uebersetzer, vorzog. . . . Bs kommt dazu ' dass der 
 hebraisehe Text als unmittelbarer Textzeuge immer einen 
 Vorsprung vor dem indirekten Hiilfemittel behalten wird,' 
 sowie, 'dass keiner der alten Uebersetzer, hochstens mit 
 Ausnahme der Targumisten . . . einen so klaren Einblick 
 in den Textsinn gehabt und ihn bis in die feinsten Einzel- 
 heiten verstanden ' hat, ' wie die traditioneUe Lesung wie 
 sie im massoretischen Pimktationssystem vorliegt ' (Buhl). 
 AUe diese Thatsachen konnen uns nicht dariiber im Un- 
 klaren lassen, dass die Eichtung, in welcher wir uns beim^ 
 Suchen nach dem besten erreichbaren Bibeltextes zu. 
 
292 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 bewegen haben, keine andere sein kann, als diejenige, in 
 welcher der Massoretentext liegt." 
 
 NOTE XIV— Page 176 
 
 In the note on Herrmann's observations on Ezekiel, 
 Dahse (Eeply, p. 491) seizes on the fact that Adonai Yahwe 
 occurs 217 times and Yahwe alone 218 times ; and inquires 
 whether I consider this equality (?) fortuitous or a later 
 juggling with figures. I reply that I take the former view ; 
 and ask in return if Dahse thinks that later jugglers could 
 have brought about an artificial equality in strict obser- 
 vance of the rules pointed out by Herrmann. He then goes 
 on to ask what I make of certain remarkable facts brought 
 out by Hontheim in an article in the Zeitschrifi fiir katho- 
 lische Theologie (xxxiv. 625 ff.). I will answer that more 
 fuUy. I happen to have examined Hontheim's conclusions 
 when the article first appeared ; and although I was at first 
 greatly impressed by them, I saw reason to put them 
 aside. The following table exhibits the main features of 
 Hontheim's scheme sufficiently for my present purpose. 
 He divides Genesis into nine sections thus : 
 
 
 
 
 Elohim 
 
 Yahwe 
 
 
 I. 
 
 i. 1-iv. 26 ... 
 
 
 .. 40 
 
 30 
 
 = 
 
 70 
 
 II. 
 
 V. 1-ix. 29 ... 
 
 
 .. 24 
 
 13 
 
 = 
 
 37 
 
 III. 
 
 X. 1-xi. 26... 
 
 
 .. 
 
 7 
 
 = 
 
 7 
 
 IV. 
 
 xi. 27-xvi. 16 
 
 
 . 
 
 29 
 
 = 
 
 29 
 
 V. 
 
 xvii. 1-xx. 18 
 
 
 ,. 15 
 
 19 
 
 = 
 
 34 
 
 VI. 
 
 xxi. 1-xxv. 18 
 
 
 ,. 18 
 
 27 
 
 = 
 
 45 
 
 VII. 
 
 XXV. 19-xxviii. 
 
 22.. 
 
 . 6 
 
 18 
 
 = 
 
 .24 
 
 III. 
 
 xxix. 1-xxxvii. 
 
 1 .. 
 
 . 32 
 
 10 
 
 = 
 
 42 
 
 IX. 
 
 xxxvii. 2-1. 26 
 
 
 . 30 
 165 
 
 12 
 165 
 
 ^= 
 
 42 
 
 = 108 
 
 = 108 
 
 The two things that catch the eye here are (1) the 
 equahty in the total number of occurrences of E and J in 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 293 
 
 Genesis ; and (2) the agreement in the sum of both names 
 (108) in the history of Abraham (IV- VI) -with that in the 
 history of Jacob (VII-IX) ; as well as (42) in the two last 
 divisions of the history of Jacob (VIII and IX). " Is this 
 chance or intentional symmetry?" Well, as to (1) I 
 observe that when we have two series of parallel documents 
 (in chap, i.-xi. J and P ; in xii.-l. J and P + B) of 
 approximately equal extent, one using J and the other E, 
 we may expect an approximate equality in the occurrences 
 of these two names. But approximate equality is all that 
 can here be made out. Hontheim's list of names is very 
 correctly drawn up ; but in order to produce exact equality 
 he has to reckon the 20 instances of Yahwe-Blohim in chap, 
 ii. and iii. as equivalent to Yahwe alone. That seems an 
 unwarranted procedure : these ought surely to count both 
 as J and as E ; and if this is done the symmetry is destroyed. 
 Moreover, while Hontheim excludes in principle the appel- 
 lative uses of Elohim, he includes the following more or 
 less doubtful cases : vi. 2, 4, xxiii. 6, xxviii. 17, 22, xxxii. 
 2, 3, 29, XXXV. 7. We cannot tell where the supposed 
 authors of the scheme would have drawn the Une, or if they 
 would have drawn it at all ; and it appears to me that, 
 given an approximate equality to begin with, it would 
 probably always be easy to make the correspondence exact 
 by including more or fewer of such doubtful cases. — In 
 regard to (2) it is apparent at a glance that the table as a 
 whole exhibits great irregularity; and I am not prepared 
 to believe that two coincidences out of so many possible 
 manipulations are sufficient evidence of design. I believe, 
 in short, that "jugglers with figures" could and would have 
 gone much further. Hence my reply to Dahse's query is 
 that I consider it highly probable that the coincidences to 
 which he so vaguely refers are accidental. I have seen a 
 hymn-board in a church where the number of the last 
 hymn was exactly the sum of the other four ; but it did not 
 occur to me that the hymns had been selected with a view 
 to bringing out that result. I will make this offer, how- 
 ever : when Dahse can show that similar relations obtain 
 
294 ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 in the remaining books of the Pentateuch, I shall acknow- 
 ledge myself mistaken. 
 
 In view of the facts adduced in the second part of my 
 note, I do not understand how Dahse can speak (p. 490) of 
 the regular use of KvpwQ for El, Eloah and Shaddai, in the 
 •dialogues of Job. Such an assertion seems to me directly 
 contrary to the facts. As for his further proofs, on the 
 same page, of systematic alterations of the divine names in 
 the LXX, and a preference of KvpioQ to o Qeoq in certain later 
 books, I have not examined the data he brings forward; 
 and will only say that I am not after all greatly concerned 
 with the habits of LXX translators, but with the practice 
 ■of Hebrew scribes, and more particularly in the Pentateuch. 
 That 6 OeoQ came more readily to the pen of a Greek 
 scribe than the Hebraic cwpioc is, I think, true, even if 
 ■certain Greek scribes had a partiahty for Kvpws- 
 
 NOTE XV— Page 178 
 THE TWO ACCOUNTS OF CBEATION 
 
 With reference to this parallel, Dahse (Reply, p. 485) 
 quotes Kittel's observation that in Genesis ii. Elohim seems 
 to have been entirely or partly the prevailing name ; and 
 says that in that case it is impossible to speak of a 
 ■" Yahwistic " account of the Creation as distinct from the 
 "Elohistic" chap. i. As I have stated on p. 268,1 am 
 uncertain whether Kittel there means the original LXX, 
 or the common original of both LXX and MT. On the 
 former supposition (which seems the more probable), his 
 subsequent admission that in Genesis ii.-x. the divine names 
 have little analytic value, merely amounts to saying that a 
 •difference between the original LXX and the MT throws 
 some degree of doubt on the soundness of both — which of 
 course no one can deny (see p. 159 f. above). But if Kittel's 
 remark applies to the original Hebrew text, then I owe my 
 readers an explanation of how I can use the double name 
 Yahwe- Elohim as an indication of a new document. It is 
 just possible (though, from the general tenor of his criticism, 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 295 
 
 improbable) that Kittel has in view a critical theory, first 
 propounded by Budde, according to which Genesis ii., iii. 
 are mainly by a Yahwistic writer who avoided the name 
 Yahwe down to w. 26, where the worship of Yahwe is said 
 to have been inaugurated by (or in the time of) Enosh. 
 That would account for the use of Blohim (MT and LXX) 
 immediately before in iv. 25 ; it would imply further that 
 the rest of chap. iv. is the work of a different Yahwistic 
 writer who never used any name but Yahwe ; and lastly it 
 would imply that in chap, ii., iii. the prevailing name was 
 originally Blohim. How, then, it may naturally be asked, 
 can the double name be treated as a sign of Yahwistic 
 authorship ? Here, of course, everything depends on the 
 time and manner in which the Yahwe was prefixed to the 
 (supposed) original Elohim. Obviously, some explanation 
 of the insertion of the name must be found; and I have 
 argued on p. 178 that Dahse's Pericope-hypothesis cannot 
 explain it. The only satisfactory explanation in my opinion 
 is that the double name is due to a revision of the narrative 
 by a Yahwistic editor, who wished to carry back the name 
 Yahwe to the beginnings of human history, but at the same 
 time did not venture to remove the Elohim which he found 
 in the text. If this theory be correct, and if we suppose 
 the operation carried out before the amalgamation of the 
 Yahwistic and Elohistic documents, it is evident that 
 Yahwe-Blohim is the signature of the Yahwistic document, 
 although originally only Blohim stood in the narrative. If, 
 on the other hand, the Elohim is not original, then Yahwe 
 must be so ; and the application of the criterion is as simple 
 as in all other cases. The only condition which would 
 render the use of the divine name entirely nugatory as a 
 criterion of source would be the assumption that, Elohim 
 being the original name, the Yahwe was added at a late 
 stage in the history of the text, after the composition of 
 documents had been effected. But that, though of course 
 possible, is on several grounds improbable. For a fuller 
 exposition of the theory here outlined, see IGC, pp. 2 f., 53. 
 On any view, be it remembered, the separateness of the two 
 narratives is a fact. 
 
SCRIPTURE PASSAGES DISCUSSED OR 
 REFERRED TO 
 
 139, 154, 285 
 
 , 221 f. 
 
 Genesis. 
 i. 1-ii. 3 : 138 
 1: 139 
 4 : 139, 285 
 5 : 139, 285 
 6,8, 10: 139 
 17 : 285 
 26 : 189, 28S 
 27: 139,197 
 28: 99, 102 f. 
 29, 31 : 139 
 u. 3: 285 
 4: 70, 178 f. 
 5: 115 
 
 7 : 139, 154, 197 
 8: 139 
 9 : 70, 224 
 12: 250 
 16: 285 
 18: 101 
 19, 21 : 70 
 iii. 1 : 69 £., 
 268 
 3 : 70, 138 
 5 : 70, 138, 224 
 10: 72 
 
 69f., 72, 77, 141, 144 
 
 72, 141, 144 
 
 115 
 
 102, 162, 179, 197, 
 
 285 
 
 101, 162 
 
 83, 141, 144, 197 
 
 73, 76, 138, 139, 
 
 11: 
 13: 
 14: 
 
 23: 
 24: 
 
 224, 
 
 iv. 1 : 70, 107, 138, 154, 285 
 
 2: 154 
 
 3 : 70, 71, 84 f., 273 
 
 4 : 70, 161 
 
 5: 69 
 
 6: 139 
 
 8: 94 
 
 9: 268 
 
 H) : 70, 141, 144 
 
 13: 69, 70, 71, 77, 84 f., 268 
 
 16: 70 
 
 25 : 70, 139, 179 f . 
 
 26 : 15, 107, 154, 161, 269 
 V. 1: 224 f. 
 22 : 104, 139 
 24: 139 
 29 : 72, 77, 180 
 32: 250 
 vi. 2 : 55, 293 
 
 3 : 69, 145, 285 
 
 4: 293 
 
 5: 101, 145, 285 
 
 6 : 139, 285 
 
 9: 139, 224 f. 
 
 12: 70 
 
 13 : 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 268 
 
 14: 83 
 
 22 : 70, 72, 268 
 yii. 1 : 38, 70, 98, 115 f., 141, 144, 
 232, 250 
 
 7: 197 
 
 9 : 38, 101, 115 £., 145, 232, 
 268, 285 
 
 aar 
 
298 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES DISCUSSED 
 
 vii. 13 : 197 
 16 : 138, 268 
 23: 83 
 viii. 1 : 71, 77, 224 f., 285 
 
 15: 71,98, 100, 224 f., 232 
 20: 71, 77, 84f., 273 
 21 : 139, 154, 268, 285 
 ix. 1, 6: 138 
 8 : 138, 268 
 12 : 72, 268 
 16: 138 
 
 17: 70, 72, 77, 138, 268 
 18: 224 
 26 : 268 
 X. 1 : 225 
 
 9 : 70, 71, 74, 77, 268, 273 
 si. 1 : 36 
 5: 72 
 
 6 : 72, 74, 77 
 8: 72,268 
 9 : 72, 268, 285 t. 
 10, 27 : 225 
 xii. 1 : 72, 225 
 4: 72 
 
 8: 15,71,72,85,154,270 
 10-20: 184 
 10: 36 
 
 17 : 71, 74, 184, 235 
 xiii. 4 : 15, 48, 68, 70, 71, 77, 85, 
 270 
 10: 71, 110, 141, 154, 161, 
 
 232 
 13: 71 
 14: 71 
 18 : 48, 85 
 Xiv. 22: 38, 107, 115, 141, 1541, 
 
 232 
 sv. 2: 48, 72, 74, 76, 91, 107, 155 
 4: 48,68,71,74,77 
 8: 141, 144, 145, 154, 232, 
 
 288 
 7 : 15 f ., 23, 26, 30 
 8: 48,72,74,91 
 18: 48 
 19-21: 212 f. 
 
 xvi. : 184 
 2: 85 
 7: 70, 77 
 
 11: 49, 68, 98, 105 ff., 185, 
 232, 235, 248, 275 f. 
 xvii. : 182 f., 211 f., 222 
 
 1 : 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, 36, 233 
 6: 195 
 15: 42 
 17,20: 185 
 22: 195 
 xviii. 1 : 49, 68 
 3: 74 f. 
 12: 185 
 13: 77 
 14: 68 
 17: 85 
 19 : 83, 251 
 20 : 74, 77 
 22, 26 : 77 
 27: 72 f., 74 f., 76, 84, 98, 
 
 232 
 30 : 74, 139 
 
 31: 73, 74 f., 76, 84,98, 232 
 32: 74 
 33 : 80, 85 
 xix.: llOf. 
 2: 74 {. 
 16: 77 
 18: 74 f. 
 
 29 : 42, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 101, 
 102 f., 211, 232 
 XX.: 184 
 
 4: 72 f., 74, 75 f., 98,232 
 8: 77,88 
 11: 101 
 li: 138 
 17: 54 
 
 18 : 38, 71, 72, 74, 77, 115 f ., 184 
 xxi. 1 : 14, 48, 77, 183, 233 
 2 : 42, 48, 77 
 4: 48,68 
 
 6 : 42, 48, 77, 80, 185 
 8-21: 184 
 8: 54 
 
OR REFERRED TO 
 
 299 
 
 xxi. 17: 55,235 
 21: 137 
 22-31: 184 f. 
 33 : 15, 270 
 3xii. 9 : 83 
 
 11 : 54, 141, 144, 183 
 14: 183 
 
 15 : 54, 141, 144, 183 
 16: 183 
 17 : 107, 185 
 20-24: 210 
 20: 36 
 xxUi. 1 : 210, 218 
 
 6: 293 
 sxiv. 16 : 85 
 
 31 : 55, 139 
 40 : 68, 155 
 42: 223 
 45: 251 
 48 : 85, 155 
 52: 85 
 XXV. 12-18 : 208 f . v 
 
 12, 19 : 221 
 21: 48 
 xxvi. 7-11: 184 
 22: 250 
 
 24: 22f.,26, 53, 77, 115 
 25 : 15, 83, 270 
 26-33: 184 f. 
 29: 72f.,74, 77,235 
 2zvii. 20 : 25, 27, 68 
 24: 250 
 27: 80 
 28 : 54, 223 
 43 : 196, 200 
 46: 196 
 ixviii. 1-9 : 196-203 
 
 3 : 14, 20, 22, 25 ff. 
 4: 38, 115 
 10, 12 : 53 
 
 13: 15£., 20, 22 f., 26, 30, 
 48, 53, 56, 83, 85, 107, 
 155, 195 f. 
 14: 196 
 16: 48 
 
 xxviii. 17 : 293 
 18; 195 
 20: 42, 48,53, 56,72 f., 74, 
 
 77, 83, 232 
 21: 48 
 22: 293 
 xxix. 3 : 251 
 
 24, 28, 29 : 206 i. 
 
 31 : 54, 56 
 
 32 : 54, 56, 108 f., 141, 144, 
 
 185 
 33 : 54, 56 
 35: 54 
 XXX. 4 : 206 f . 
 8: 139 
 9 : 206 f . 
 16: 185 
 17: 42 
 18, 20: 185 
 22 : 204, 223 f . 
 23: 184 ft. 
 24: 54 f., 56, 107, 1B9, 141, 
 
 144, 154, 184 ff., 232 
 27: 54f., 56, 107, 141, 154, 
 
 161, 232 
 30: 541 
 xxxi. 3: 205, 223 f. 
 7: 38, 115 f. 
 9: 38, 101, 115 f. 
 11: 55,56 
 
 16: 38, 115 f., 141, 144 
 42: 107 
 49 : 55, 56 
 53: 107 
 xxxii. 1 : 53 
 2: 293 
 3 : 53, 293 
 9 : 72 f ., 155, 232 
 10: 77,139 
 24 fE.: 109 f. 
 28: 139 
 29 : 195, 293 
 31: 276 
 xxxiii. 5 : 139 
 
 18: 206,223 
 
300 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES DISCUSSED 
 
 XXXV, 6 : 206 
 
 7: 195 ff., 293 
 9-15: 195-203 
 9: 115 f. 
 10 : 99, 195 
 
 11 : 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, 195 
 22-26: 213 f. 
 xxxvi. 1, 9 : 221 
 
 9-43: 214 £. 
 xxxvii. 1, 2: 214 ft., 221 
 xxxviii. 7 : 80 
 xxxix. 23 : 85 
 xl. 1 : 36 
 xli. 16 : 139 
 38: 223 
 xlli. 5 : 81 
 
 xUii. 14 : 20, 22, 26, 223 
 xlv. 5, 7 : 101 
 xlvi. 2 : 20 
 
 6-27 : 216, 219 
 xlvii. 5-11: 216 f., 221 
 
 28: 210, 218 
 xlviii. 3 : 20, 22, 28 
 6: 218 f. 
 9: 42 
 15: 107 
 18: 80 
 xUx. 1, 28 ff. : 219 
 25: 20 ff. 
 27: 36 
 1. 5, 10, 12, 13 : 219 
 19: 139 
 
 ^ExODtTS 
 
 iii. 8 : 213 
 
 14, 15 : 28 
 vi. 2, 3 : 9, 12-32, 123, 171, 270 f. 
 xiii. 5 : 213 
 XX. 17: 112 
 xxiii. 23 : 213 
 xxxiv. 11 : 213 
 
 NUMBEKS 
 
 xxii. 22-35 : 55 
 
 Deutebonomy 
 iii. 24 : 91 
 V. 18 : 112 
 vii. 1 : 213 
 ix. 26 : 91 
 XX. 17 : 213 
 xxvii. 4 : 112 
 xxix. 33 : 110 
 
 Joshua 
 iii. 10, ix. 1, xi. 3, xii. 8, xxiv. 11 : 
 
 213 
 
 Judges 
 
 vi. 32 : 109 
 
 1 Samuel 
 i. 20 : 107, 276 
 
 1, 2 Cbbonicles 
 See p. 150 
 
 Neheuiah 
 viii. 8 : 225 ff 
 ix. 8 : 212 f . 
 xiii. 28 : 118 ff. 
 
 PSALHS 
 
 Ixix. 2, Ixxi. 5, 26, Ixxiii. 28 : 91 
 
 Isaiah 
 viii. 16 : 152 
 xiii. 19 : 110 
 
 Jebeuiah 
 xxxi. 38 : 94 
 1. 40 : 110 
 li. 3: 94 
 
 EZEEIEL 
 
 xvi. 48f. : 110 
 xlviii. 16 : 94 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 xii. 4, 5 : 109, 201 
 
 Akos 
 
 iv. 11: 110 
 
INDEX 
 
 Aqiba, R., 139 
 
 AquUa, 54, 126, 138-140, 153 f. 
 
 ArchetypalMS., 94, 140, 237, 274 f. 
 
 Archetypal theory, 95-97 
 
 Aristeas, 131 
 
 Aetruc, 7, 189, 233 
 
 Babylonian MSS., 93 
 Baer, 36, 93 
 Ball, 153 
 Bertholet, 226 
 Budde, 276, 295 
 
 Canterbury, Dean of — , 229 
 
 Carpenter, 12, 14 
 
 Chronicles, Divine names in — , 
 
 149 ff., 238, 268 f. 
 CorniU, 174, 198 
 Creation, double narrative of — , 
 
 178 f., 294 f. 
 
 Deuteronomy, 9 f. 
 
 Documentary theory, 1, 13, 19, 58 ; 
 origin of — , 7 ; essential features 
 of — , 10, 190; independent of 
 divine names, 6 ff., 13, 146, 
 173 
 
 Driver, 9, 106, 167, 191, 205, 209, 
 217, 244 
 
 Ebal : see Gerizim 
 'E(3patoc, 0, 153 f. 
 Eerdmans, 1, 2, 4, 21, 84, 105, 150, 
 164, 170, 212, 273 
 
 egj (recension), 62, 68-78, 83, 85, 
 
 116, 196, 247 ff., 256 f., 271 f. ; 
 
 Hebrew basis of — , 75 fi. , 249 f., 
 
 256 f. 
 El : archaic name, 106, 276 
 Elohistic edition of Genesis, 78, 80, 
 
 156, 248 f. 
 El Shaddai, 12 ff., 20-27, 123, 216, 
 
 271 
 Ezekiel, Divine names in — , 174 f. 
 Ezra, 34 ff., 118, 209 fi., 225 ff., 
 
 269 
 
 Field, 154, 162 
 
 fir (recension), 62, 78-84, 213, 
 
 246 ff., 258 ff., 271 f. ; Hebrew 
 
 basis of — , 81 ff., 250 f. 
 Flood, narrative of — , 180 ff. 
 
 von Gall, 114, 237 
 
 Gerizim, in Samaritan Pentateuch 
 
 112 ; Temple on — , 111, 119 f., 
 
 124 
 Gesenius, 114, 131 
 Ginsburg, 36 
 Ginsburger, 138 
 Gray, 19 
 
 Gressmann, 190, 267, 289 f. 
 Gunkel, 7, 9, 16, 202, 207 
 
 Hanel, 140 
 Hautseh, 62 
 Hayyim, J. ben-, 36 
 
 301 
 
302 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Hebrew MSS., 89-111, 153, 264 ff. ; 
 solidarity of — , 89 ; variants in 
 — , 66, 75 f . ; alleged corrobora- 
 tions of variants in — , 102 ff. 
 
 Hebrew text, 16, 86-135; trust- 
 worthiness of — , 3, 88, 236 f., 
 291 ft. ; alleged uncertainty of — , 
 147 ff., 172, 290 ; official recen- 
 sion of — , 114, 134, 144, 165 ; 
 see Massoretic text 
 
 Herrmann, 174 f., 292 
 
 Hesychius, 60, 62, 68, 247 
 
 Hexapla, 18, 28, 58, 60, 64-68, 70 f., 
 73, 77, 139, 162 
 
 Hexaplaric MSS., 60, 66, 247 
 
 Hoberg, 31, 245 
 
 Hontheim, 292 ff. 
 
 Hummelauer, 31 
 
 Hupfeld, 8 
 
 Ishmael, etymology of — , 105 ff. 
 
 Jerome, 60, 283 ff. ; ue Vulgate ' 
 Job, Divine names in — , 168, 
 
 175 f., 294 
 Jonathan, Targum of — , 17, 136 ft. 
 Josephus, 35, 118 f . 
 Justin, 18, 27 
 
 Kenite theory, 269 f. 
 
 Eennett, 124, 135 
 
 Kennioott, 75 f., 81 f., 97 ft., 115, 
 
 239 
 Kittel, 243, 267 ft., 291 f. 
 / Elostermann, 192 
 Konig, 226 
 
 Lagarde, 95 
 
 Law, Promulgation or redaction of 
 the — , 118 f., 120, 130, 225 ft. 
 
 Lectionary (Synagogue), 26, 33 ft., 
 138, 177 ft. ; antiquity of — , 34 
 ft., 193 ; Ezra's authorship of — , 
 225 ft., influence of — on 
 
 LXX and MT, 84, 37 f., 50 t., 
 86, 210; relation of — to P- 
 sections, 223 f . 
 Lucian, 60, 62, 78, 81, 162, 241, 
 244 
 
 Massora, Massoretes, 90 f., 92, 94, 
 97 
 
 Massoretic text, fixation of — , 24, 
 287 ; transmitted as standard 
 recension, 90 ft. ; minor recen- 
 sions of — , 92 f . : see Hebrew 
 text 
 
 Moore, 62 f., 241 
 
 Morinus, 115 
 
 Names of God in Genesis, number 
 of — , 57, 67, 164 f., 233; 
 "mixed" original text of, 37, 
 170 f. 
 
 Nehemiah, 118 ft. 
 
 Nestle, 239 
 
 Old Latin version, 18, 42, 53, 71, 
 
 105, 288 
 Onbelos, Targum of, 17, 40, 137, 
 
 245 
 Orlgen, 18, 20, 24, 66, 155 f., 
 
 161 f., 244, 287; see Hexapla 
 Orr, 192 
 
 Parallel narratives, 183-186, 
 
 234 ft. 
 Pericope-hypothesls, 5, 33-58, 68, 
 
 123, 142, 156, 190 ft., 270 f. 
 Peshitta, 17, 54 f., 102, 107, 115, 
 
 140-144, 145, 153 f., 156, 250, 
 
 262 f. 
 Petermann, 115 
 Polyglot (London), 38, 115, 141 ; 
 
 (Paris), 115 
 Pope, 281 ft. 
 Priestly Code (P), 9 f., 13 ft., 26 ; 
 
 Dahse's theory of — , 188-228 
 
INDEX 
 
 303 
 
 Frocksoh, 198, 202, 244, 275 {. 
 Psalter, Elohistio ledaotion of — , 
 40, 149 f., 152 
 
 BahUs, 241, 244 
 Beading lessons : >ee Leotionary 
 Bedpath, 2, 4, 105, 164, 170 
 Beuben, etymology of — , 54, 108 f . , 
 
 185 
 de Bossi, 75, 97 ff., 105 f. 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, 17, 18, 24, 
 35, 38, 40, 50, 54, 77 f., 102, 
 111-135, 140, 143, 151, 154, 166, 
 182, 250; date of — , 118 ff., 
 237 : editions of — , 114 f., 237 ; 
 characteristics of text, 112 ; rela- 
 tions to MT and LXX, 118 ff., 
 127 ff., 148, 276 ff. ; divergence 
 from MT in divine names, 38, 
 58, 115, 159 
 Samaritan Temple : see Gerizim 
 Samuel, etymology of — , 107 f., 
 
 276 
 Sohlogl, 31, 89, 158 
 Sellm, 189 f., 225 ff., 267, 289 
 Septnagint (LXX) : date of — , 
 122 ff., 128 ; recensions of — , 5, 
 59-85, 123, 246 ff. ; unity of — , 
 241 ff. ; variants of — , 2 f., 86, 
 102 ff., 122, 134; divergence 
 from MT, 57, 159 ff. ; Hebrew 
 ancestry of — , 63 f ., 75 ff., 81 ff., 
 125 ff., 240 ; Cambridge edition 
 
 of — , 43, 67 f ., 79, 116, 164, 209, 
 214, 240, 290 f. ; rules for use 
 of — , 167 ff. 
 
 Siegfried, 226 
 
 Simon, Bichard, 114 
 
 Smith, H. P., 241 
 
 Sodom, overthrow of — , 110 f. 
 
 Sopherim, 90, 94, 189 
 
 'SvpOQ, b, 153 f, 
 
 Swete, 105, 107, 167 
 
 Symmachus, 54, 153 f . 
 
 Tahnud, 81, 100, 149, 152 
 Targum, 149, 153; Babylonian: 
 
 see Onkelos; Palestinian: see 
 
 Jonathan 
 Torrey, 84 
 Triennial Cycle: 36, 228: see 
 
 Leotionary 
 
 Vulgate, 17, 102, 107, 115, 144 f., 
 153 f., 182, 250, 262 f., 281-288 
 
 Walton, see Polyglot 
 
 Wellhausen, 267 
 
 de Wette, 175 ff. 
 
 Wiener, 1 f., 4, 30, 76, 89, 104 f., 
 107, 125 f., 129, 133 f., 154, 158, 
 160 ft., 169 f., 247, 252, 276 ff. 
 
 Yahwe : name used by patriarchs, 
 13, 15 f., 30, 171, 270; first 
 revealed to Moses, 13 ff. , 28 £f., 
 269 
 
UNWIN BBOTHEES, LIMITED 
 WOKINS AND LONDON