PRINCIPLES OF THE CKITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 239 



goes on to say that in his opinion Dahse has laid the germs of a 

 very important development of criticism in reference to the 

 so-called P. source. Dr. Sellhi says the suggestion " is as novel as 

 it is striking, and may lead to a transformation of the prevalent 

 conception of the Priestly document ; it points in the direction of 

 our finding in P. not a single independent document, but a glossing, 

 and, indeed, liturgical, modification of the old documents." 

 This glossing or liturgical editing may be ascribed to Ezra, 

 and he may, in his revision, have introduced into the old text 

 other ancient records which seemed to him of importance, such, 

 for instance, as the opening account of the creation. P. would 

 thus be revealed as Ezra, to whom tradition has always 

 attributed a final revision of the law, and its arrangement for 

 liturgical use. 



But though Dr. Sellin thus rejects the suggestion that the 

 new criticism represented by Dahse involves the shattering of 

 the " four-source theory," he goes on to make admissions on the 

 subject which seem to go far in that direction. " I do not mean," 

 he adds, " to say that no such overthrow of the theory can 

 follow. I should be the last who would venture to maintain that the 

 results now dominant in Pentateuchal criticism are assured. Is 

 it possible, in fact, to speak of assured results in reference to 

 the time when the Jahvist or Elohist arose, so long as one group 

 of able investigators hold the Jahvist to be the earliest, and 

 another hold the Elohist ? or, in reference to the place of their 

 origin, so long as one independent inquirer like Smend, in his 

 recent book on the Hexateuch, holds the EloMst to be of Judaic 

 origin, in opposition to the majority who hold him to be of 

 North Israelitish origin ? or again when it is in dispute whether 

 J.E. and the rest are to be regarded as individuals, or as whole 

 schools, so that the four great sources have to be again broken up into 

 several strata ; and again whether they are independent literary 

 personahties or mere compilers ? As long as such questions, and 

 many similar ones, are answered by one man in one way and by 

 another in another, it is obviously mere nonsense to speak of 

 assured results." That is the judgment, be it observed, not of an 

 Enghsh conservative critic, but of a leading German Professor, 

 who himself still upholds, in the main, the dominant hypothesis. 

 " The one thing," he adds, " which for me personally remains 

 settled is, that a fourfold main course of tradition extends from 

 Genesis i to Joshua xxiv, and further .... through the 

 historic and legislative literature, and that its historical order 

 and development finds its best expression in the scale J.E.D.P." 

 Yet after this personal declaration of his adherence to the 



