238 VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY, ON POSITION AND 



But the importance of tlie textual facts nov/ forced on our 

 attention can be no longer disguised. Dr. Dahse's own theory, 

 indeed, for accounting for the varying use of the divine names, will 

 evidently require much further discussion. His suggestion is that 

 in the portions, or as we should say, the lessons, into which the 

 w^hole law was divided for the purpose of public reading, one of 

 the divine names was given a predominance, so that the names 

 Elohim and Jehovah would mark, not different documents, but 

 different lessons. Those lessons differed in the Septuagint and 

 in the Hebrew, and it is suggested that the variation of names 

 in the Septuagint w^as determined by the older . division into 

 the so-called Sedarim, and theva riations in the Massoretic text 

 by the later division into Paraschahs. This theory is powerfully 

 criticised by Dr. Skinner, and as it is not thought tenable even 

 by Mr. Wiener, who devotes a friendly article to Dahse's work 

 in the January number of the Bibliotlieca Sacra, it would seem 

 that in this respect Dahse has not yet made out his special 

 view. But his theory to account for the facts is one thing, and 

 the facts themselves, which he has brought to light, are another ; 

 and that these remain of great importance is illustrated by 

 another important contribution to the discussion which must 

 now be mentioned. 



I have already referred to Dr. Sellin, Professor at Eostock, 

 who holds an important position among the moderate critics of 

 Germany. I have mentioned his very useful Introduction to 

 the Old Testament, published in 1910, and he has now under- 

 taken the editorship of an important Commentary on the Old 

 Testament, of which the first volume, on Genesis, by Dr. Procksch, 

 has just appeared. Dr. Sellin is an adherent of the hypothesis 

 of the four sources, but with much modification in detail. 

 There is consequently much interest in a long review by him of 

 Dahse's new book, which appears in the February number of the 

 valuable German monthly review, the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 

 He, too, after a careful discussion of Dahse's special hypothesis, 

 does not consider it tenable ; and lie also maintains that, even if 

 it were, it would not involve the overthrow of the dominant 

 hypothesis of the four sources. His arguments on these points 

 are similar to those of Dr. Skinner in the Ex'positor, and seem 

 forcible. He considers that the positive result of Dahse's 

 two first discussions, except for some weighty observations on 

 particular points, is simply that, for the future, the criticism of 

 the Pentateuch must exert greater caution in the use of the 

 criterion afforded for the division of documents by the use of 

 the divine names, or of the names of Jacob and Isi'ael. But he 



