all, it must be by the hardening or deadening of the more sensitive parts of human nature. Marcus Aurelius' Diary is a sort of breviary of despair" (p. 68). "One thing has always stood out clearly sooner or later. Whenever the Church at large, or any church in particular, has committed itself to any scheme of thought that has lessened the significance of Jesus Christ, it has declined. Error always tells, and the error of over-estimating Jesus Christ ought to have told by now, but the experience of the church so far suggests that it has no real reason to dread any danger from overestimating Him, but rather that the danger has always come from obscuring or abating His significance. It is, I think, worth while to reflect upon what this involves. The faith has been tested in every compromise that Christian's have attempted, and if it is still held, it is with some warrant" (p. 86). Good apologetics, that! Can we have read Mr. Glover wrong, when we have read him as "obscuring and abating the significance of Christ," both in His Person and in His work? We could wish he had known "Jesus Christ and Him as crucified" better, and Wilhelm Herrmann less well!

The Swarthmore Lecture runs somewhat on the lines of the third of the Angus series. Its leading topic is the significance of the Christian Church, and its key note is perhaps struck in some such words as these. "We do not enough value the fact that the story of the Christian religion is the story of personality influenced by personality-rebirth constantly the product of the influence of the reborn" (p. 27). There may be an echo of Wilhelm Herrmann in this and we are glad therefore to read on the next page: "The blessing comes from a higher source, but the broken bread is given by human hands"-followed by some illuminating remarks. We do not wonder that surprise has been felt that this particular topic was chosen for a lecture addressed to Friends. Mr. Glover defends his choice of topic in an interesting preface, the upshot of it being (if we understand him) that Friends especially need instruction on the Church. This is probably true; at all events it is instruction on the Church that Mr. Glover gives them and he does it very well. Beginning with the inheritance we have in the Christian Church, he ends with the duty of the Church to the world, while between the two he expounds the relation of the individual to the Church. In the center of all, here too he sets Jesus Christ. "From the very beginning and ever onwards right in the center of all their thoughts, the Christian communities have had Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in whom God was, reconciling the world unto Himself. He has been the leaven within the Church, disruptive, propulsive, re-creating and stirring, the permanent life, the guarantee and promise of a future that shall progressively transcend the pastNo dead fact stranded on the shore

Of the oblivious years,

but the living Christ, always recognized, and owned and loved by the Church. The great function of the Church has been to witness to Him, and to bring the world face to face with Him" (p. 43). We

ask again, can we have misread Mr. Glover when we read him as holding to a "reduced" Christ? For the rest, we call attention to two small points. One is the comma in the first sentence we have quoted after the phrase "in whom God was." This gives a particular interpretation to 2 Cor. v. 19-an interpretation which, indeed, is wrong, but which seems notable on Mr. Glover's lips. The other concerns the allusion to the Parable of the Leaven, in which an interpretation of that Parable which Mr. Glover repeats in more than one of his series of Lectures, is adverted to. This interpretation conceives that parable as teaching not so much, as it has been customary to expound it, the hidden, pervasive growth of the Kingdom in the world, as the seething, fermentation of life which takes place in the Church of Christ,-in the individual man and in the community. The leaven, says Mr. Glover, works; and in its working bubble after bubble breaks; the breaking of the bubbles is not an indication that the end has come, but that there is life at work behind them. The interpretation again is wrong; but again it is not without its significance on Mr. Glover's lips.

We must not close without pointing to a passage in each of the Lecture-courses which has pleased us vastly. In the Swarthmore Lecture we point to the section on "Grace" (pp. 33-37).-"the greatest of all the Catholic doctrines,' Renan said" (p. 33). In the Angus lectures we point to the passage on the phrase "From the foundation of the World" (pp. 135-140),-in which is enshrined "the great fact of God's love as antecedent to all things,-of Christ as the embodiment of purposeful love-of the universe itself in all its range as a Cosmos indeed, inspired and achieved by love, and subservient in its last detail to love" (p. 139).

Princeton.

BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD.

EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY

Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage. Von JOHANNES DAHSE, Pfarrer in Freirachdorf (Westerwald). I. Die Gottesnamen der Genesis. Jacob und Israel. P in Genesis 12-50. Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann (vormals J. Ricker) Giessen. 1912. 8vo; S.viii, 181. Mark 4.80.

Pastor Dahse has already published studies bearing on the matter contained in this volume. Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik appeared in the Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 1903, S.305-319; Textkritische Studien in the Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1908, S.1-21 and 161173; Naht ein Umschwung in der Pentateuchkritik, in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, September 1912, reprinted by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in an English translation with the title, Is a Revolution in Pentateuchal Criticism at Hand?; and an article

entitled New Methods of Inquiry concerning the Pentateuch in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1912.

In the present work, arguing from the names Jacob and Israel the author concludes that these two names are valueless as indications of different literary sources. Regarding "P in Genesis 12-50," he holds that the book of Genesis, in the form in which it now lies before us, is an elaboration of an older narrative. This earlier work was supplemented in order to adapt it for use in public worship. These additions are found in most of the so-called P sections, but are not confined wholly to P. They originally stood on the margin or at least were separated from the rest of the text; and they may reasonably be ascribed to Ezra.

The portion of this book, however, which is devoted to "the divine names in Genesis" forms by far the larger part of the work, 121 pages out of 174; and it is particularly interesting because of the novel theory that is propounded, and because of the bearing of this theory on critical questions relating to the text and to the literary analysis of the book of Genesis. The subject is intricate in its nature, and the difficulty of following the discussion is increased by the author's habit of scattering his arguments for a particular reading in various parts of the book instead of setting forth the facts and reasons in one place once for all. An exposition of the theory, therefore, rather than a minute criticism of it, is about all that will be attempted at the present time.

Pastor Dahse points out, among other things, that 1. The translation of the word Jehovah, occurring in the Hebrew text, by ‘o theos, God, in the Septuagint, was not due to any awe for the Name felt by the Greek translators, seeing that they often reproduced by kurios, Lord, the word Jehovah, for which the Hebrews at that time read 'adonay, Lord. Accordingly it is quite probable that they followed the Hebrew text which they had before them, and with fair accuracy transmitted the divine names which stood in that text (comp. S.93; see also S.51, argument 3). 2. The LXX, when it diverges from the Massoretic Text in respect to the divine names, frequently has the support of other ancient versions, attesting the existence of an ancient Hebrew text that diverged from the MT and witnessing to the fidelity of the LXX to this ancient Hebrew text in the matter of the names (comp. S.51, argument 2). 3. The divergence between the present Hebrew text and the LXX in respect to these names is quite as likely to have originated in a revision of the divine names in the Hebrew text by the Jews themselves as to be due to the methods employed by the Greek translators; for the Jews did not hesitate to change the divine names, but at will substituted a different title of God for the one which appeared in the original documents of their Scriptures, as may be seen from duplicate psalms, parallel passages in the books of the Kings and the Chronicles, quotation in the Talmud, and the translation in the Targums (comp. S.51, argument 1).

The arguments advanced by Pastor Dahse may be strengthened by observing the fidelity of the LXX in representing accurately the divine names in test cases, where the name was discriminatingly used by the Hebrew writer. For example, 1. When Elohim is the only proper term to employ (as in Gen. 1, where God appears as the Creator of the universe, and not as the God of grace or the God of Abraham; and in Gen. 3:1-5,' in the conversation between the serpent and Eve) and in Gen. 39:9;' 40:8; 41:16-32, where Joseph speaks to Potiphar's wife, to the Egyptian prisoners, and to Pharaoh; and in Gen. 9:26f,1 where the word Jehovah in verse 26 and God in verse 27 mark a distinction and are used intentionally), and especially 2. In reproducing current expressions in which uniform Hebrew usage required the designation Jehovah and where the term God would be inadmissable: such as "to call upon the name of Jehovah,” Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25; and n'um 'adonay, "declaration of Jehovah," Gen. 22:16 (with Num. 14:28 the only occurrences in the Pentateuch). These names, as they appear in these passages in the MT, were unquestionably used in the primitive Hebrew text. In every case the LXX reproduces them accurately. Evidently the Greek translators are conscientiously following their Hebrew original in these typical instances. There is no carelessness here.

The sedarim, it will be recalled, are paragraphs, 153 in number, into which the Pentateuch was divided. They were designed for weekly lessons in the public worship; and, by being read consecutively on successive Sabbaths, the entire book of the Law was gone through once every three years. The parashiyyoth are longer sections of the Law, and number 54. Used as weekly lessons, they make it possible for the Law to be read through in the course of a single year. A table of the sedarim and parashiyyoth in the book of Genesis is given herewith for convenience of reference. The divine names most commonly used in Genesis are God and Jehovah, Elohim and Jhvh; and in the table the letter E or J indicates which of these two divine names occurs first and which last in the seder. A straight line shows that the two names do not interchange; a row of dots indicates that they do interchange; the perpendicular declares that one name, used regularly up to a certain point, yields there to the other.'

In a J environment.

The cycle of three years prevailed in Palestine, till the exiles from Spain brought their customs into the Holy Land (Jewish Encyclopaedia).

For various reasons, however, other divine titles are occasionally employed, either alone or appended to Jehovah or Elohim: for example, at the beginning or end of a seder 2:4b; 21:33; 33:20; 43:14; 46:3; 48:3.

Neither divine name is found in chap. 14, unless in verse 22; and no divine name is used in chaps. 34, 36, 37 or 47, nor in the thirty or more consecutive verses 29:1-30; 40:9-41:15; 42:29-43:13; 46:4-34. A divine name occurs only once in chap. 23, and there it is idiomatic, and without significance (v. 6, a prince of God = mighty prince); and only twice in chap. 10, both times in verse 9; and in three verses of chap. 49, namely verses 18, 24, 25.

Regarding the nearness of the two names to the beginning and end of the seder, it may be stated that in each of the first thirty-two sedarium the divine

Pastor Dahse propounds the general theory that "the use of the divine names [Elohim and Jehovah] is influenced in the Massoretic text (and in a different manner in the Hebrew text back of the LXX) by the practice of the synagogue in the public reading [of the Torah]" (S.32). In the MT the parasha is the present unit, within which the influence has been felt; in the Hebrew text back of the LXX the seder was the unit (S.94); and each underwent independent revision (S.39).

I. And, first, the theory of Pastor Dahse regarding the sedarim. The custom of reading by sedarim in public worship led, according to this theory, to a modification of the divine names in some of these paragraphs. The effect is seen, and the system which was followed is revealed, in the Hebrew text which was used by the LXX (S.107). If one divine name was used throughout the paragraph, it might remain unchanged; and of course it did remain unchanged, if no other divine name was equally appropriate. For example, in seder i Elohim is used throughout, since the creation of the universe is the topic. But "in those ancient sedarim in which a change of the divine names occurs," i.e., in which both Elohim and Jehovah are used, Jehovah customarily stands at the beginning or end of the paragraph" (S.97; cp.3). The different cases under this rule seem to be: 1. Where one of these divine names was used continuously in the first part of the seder; and the other in the latter part. No change was required, for the word Jehovah already stood either at the beginning or the end of the paragraph. 2. If Elohim were used throughout in the original narrative, Elohim might be changed to Jehovah on its first or last occurrence, or in both places, if the title Jehovah was suitable to the divine activity described in the verse. 3. If the two divine names were used frequently in the seder, Jehovah was desiderated as first or last.

What are the facts, when the text is examined? In two sedarim neither divine name occurs (xxxiii and xli). In the first seder and the last eight sedarim (i and xxxvi-xliii), except in chap. 49:18, Elohim only is used and for a special reason; and therefore, in the eyes of those who understood, was not susceptible of revision. Sedarim vi., xxii., xxxi. and xxxii. likewise of the two names contain Elohim only (with El twice in seder xxxi., Gen. 35:1 and 3); seder vi. but twice, and that in a single verse, and seder xxii. but once. Twentyeight sedarim remain. Of these ix., xx., xxi., and xxiv. have Jehovah only; viii. has Jehovah only, except once where Elohim is necessary (9:27), and xxxv. has Jehovah only, except twice where Elohim is necessary (39:9 and 40:8). There are left twenty-two sedarim (or twenty-three if seder xliii is included because of the occurrence of the name of Jehovah in chap. 49:18), in each of which the two name E or J appears in one of the first three verses, generally in the first verse, except in sedarim viii., X., xi., xvi., xxii., xxiv., XXX., and

xxxi.; and frequently so near the end of the seder that it is found in one of the last three verses, as in x., xxiv., and xxxi.