5 The continuity in the employment of the same divine title is here unbroken, except
where the use of a different divine name was unavoidable.

divine names are used, and by which the theory must be tested. It is the Hebrew text reflected in the LXX, not the Massoretic text, that is now under review. What are the facts? Seder ii. closes and perhaps opens with Jehovah; seder iii. closes with Jehovah in 4:26, where, however, the title Jehovah could not be avoided (for Elohim at the beginning, 2:4° and 3:22[23] see Dahse, S.35, "Zeugniss de Origenes," with S.58 and 98); sedarim iv. and v. also close with Jehovah; seder vii. opens with Jehovah four times, in the first verse taking the place of Elohim found in MT; seder x has Elohim (see Dahse, S.40, 102), except in 13:4; where no title save Jehovah could be used, and in 13:18, the last verse of the seder, the final word of the paragraph being Jehovah. Seder xi. contains Jehovah once, Elohim not at all; and even this occurrence of Jehovah is rejected by Dahse as an ancient interpolation (S.39, citing Eerdmans). The passage records the interview between Abraham and Melchizedek, who worshiped in common the most high God ('el 'elyon). The addition of the word Jehovah to this title in verse 22 is proper enough, but is quite unnecessary. If not original, its presence in the text may be due to the practice of the reader in the synagogue of distinctly identifying the most high God with Jehovah. Seder xii. begins and perhaps ends with Jehovah; seder xiii. begins and ends with Jehovah; seder xiv. begins with Jehovah (which Professor Skinner ascribes to redactional change or scribal error), and has Elohim and once El Shaddai elsewhere; seder xv. opens with Elohim and closes with Jehovah; seder xvi. has Jehovah seven times, followed by Elohim twice in one verse (19:29), Elohim being original in this verse (Dahse, S.106 f, III; cp. Skinner, p. 310) and explicable. In addition the LXX shows Jehovah in verse 29°. Seder xvii. uses Elohim, and with discrimination as far at least as verse 16, since the narrative concerns a foreigner. The final verse of the seder (20:28) contains Jehovah. Here, however, the Samaritan and certain texts of the LXX represent Elohim; perhaps due to the influence of the preceding names. Professor Skinner remarks of this verse that it is "universally recognized as a gloss." Seder xviii. opens with Jehovah, and closes with Jehovah, the Everlasting God (El). On 21:2 and 6, see Dahse, S.102. The opening Jehovah is readily accounted for as it concerns the birth of the heir; whereas 21:8-32 correctly have Elohim, because Hagar has been cast off by Abraham. Seder xix. closes with Jehovah (22:16). The name occurs in the phrase "a declaration of Jehovah"; and is original, since in that phrase Elohim would be contrary to usage. In this chapter, according to the Syriac, Elohim was used everywhere except in verses 14 and 16. This seder (but not Parasha 4) includes chapter 23, in which neither divine name occurs, except in verse 6 where Elohim is part of an idiom (prince of God = mighty prince) and without significance in relation to Pastor Dahse's theory. Seder xxiii, opens and closes with Jehovah, having this name everywhere except in 25:21. Seder xxv. has Elohim twice; but in place of the second Elohim the Samaritan has Jehovah (28:4). Seder

xxvi. perhaps uses the title Jehovah at the first opportunity." Seder xxvii. begins with Jehovah (29:31). The presence of this name in verses 32 and 35, and perhaps 33, is proper, according to a principle which characterizes Genesis, Jehovah being the name used in connection with the birth of the legal or actual heir. Thenceforth Elohim. Seder xxviii. closes with Jehovah (30:30), Elohim is used previously, and has the support of the Syriac which with the LXX reads Elohim in verses 24 and 27. Seder xxix. begins with Jehovah. Thenceforward Elohim is used, and properly; though in 31:7, 9 and 16a Samaritan, and in 16 Syriac, have Jehovah. Seder xxx. may be regarded as beginning with Jehovah in 32:9 [Heb. 10], although compound epithets containing Elohim preceded it in this verse. It is attested by the MT LXX uncertain. Dahse regards it as "interpolated later" (S.13). Seder xxxiv, begins with Jehovah in 38:7a, Elohim in 7 and 10. The divergence from the MT existed in Origen's day (Dahse S.103). In seder xxxv. Jehovah is used, except in speech to a foreigner (39:9; 40:8). In seder xliii. the title Jehovah appears in 49:18, the first occurrence of the divine name in the seder; but it is in a quoted poem and need not be regarded as significant in relation to Dahse's theory. In several of these sedarim the title Jehovah, where it occurs at the opening or close, is necessarily employed, and therefore proves nothing as to the correctness of the theory. Its presence, however, satisfied that desire of the directors of the synagogue worship which the theory presupposes. The facts are that the name Jehovah is found at the beginning or close of practically every seder, where this word with its connotations could be appropriately used. Whether the facts are sufficient in number and character to justify and sustain the theory concerning the divine names in the sedarim is a delicate question. Intention may especially be assumed whenever textual criticism can prove that Jhvh takes the place of an original Elohim at the beginning or end of a seder (cp. 2:4 and 3:22, Dahse, S.35 and 98, Z 13 ff; 8:15′). In regard to sedarim xii., xiii., xiv., in parasha 3; and xv. and xviii. in parasha 4; and xxiii. in parasha 6; and xxvii. in parasha 7; and xxxiv. in parasha 9, eight sedarim in all, several possibilities demand consideration. 1. The initial Jehovah in 15:1; 16:2; 17:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:21; 29:31-35; 38:7" may be the characteristic of one of the sources from which material was drawn for constructing the narrative contained in the Pentateuch, this particular source being one in which God was regularly mentioned by the title Jehovah. Thus, in general, the divisive critics, who denote this source by the letter J. 2. The initial Jehovah in these passages

The paragraph, Gen. 28:10-22, is difficult from the standpoint of textual criticism. If Jhvh is due to dittography in verse 21 (the clause then reading: "and will be God to me"), the name Jehovah is attested in verses 13 and 16 only. There was reason for using Elohim in the phrases "angels of God" and "house of God." The designation "angels of God" occurs but twice in the Old Testament, in Gen. 28:12 and 32:2[Eng. 1], beginning and ending the parasha (as Dahse remarks, S.95); never "angels of Jehovah," although "his angels" are mentioned (e.g. Ps. 91:11; 103:20).

may be due to the intention of the writer to begin each account of the birth of the presumptive heir to the Abrahamic blessing with the title of the God of Israel, the author, maker of the promise, and its guarantee (see subsequent remarks). 3. The initial Jehovah may be due to the desire for this name at the beginning or close of a seder. The fact that the LXX, without variation in the transmission, attests Elohim in 18:1, the first divine name in seder xv., makes for the theory that the use of initial Jehovah in the Hebrew of these narratives is due to a change introduced into the original text either in order that each of these particular narratives may begin with the name Jehovah or else in order to the symmetry within the parasha (see below).

II. The theory regarding the parashiyyoth. The Hebrew text of Genesis, known as the Massoretic text, is more recent in respect to the divine names Elohim and Jehovah than is the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint (S.97). The divine names which are found in the MT represent the rule followed in the synagogue at public service when it had become customary to read the Pentateuch according to the annual cycle of fifty-four large divisions called parashiyyoth (S.32). When the law of Moses was divided into fifty-four sections in order that by reading them consecutively on successive Sabbaths the whole Torah might be covered in one year, and when as a result the sedarim became merged in these larger divisions, the divine names God and Jehovah were sometimes found to intermingle in a manner distracting to the worshiping audience. When such was the case, a slight revision of these names was undertaken, so Dahse holds, in order to secure a comfortable symmetry in the parasha (cp. S.107). The revision was more extensive than had been required when it was desired merely to obtain the name Jehovah at the beginning or end of a seder. To secure the desired uniformity in the parashiyyoth various methods were employed: the word God was changed to Jehovah, when it stood between Jehovah-passages (S.94), and the name Jehovah might be changed to God, when it came between verses in which the word God was used (S.99 Z 12 f; cp. S.38); or the one name might be added to the other (S.98, Z. 13 ff). The object aimed at, whatever the method of revision, evidently was to allow one name to be used continuously for a stretch, avoiding the distraction of repeated change from one to the other, and linking consecutive topics together. Of course, though Dahse does not seem to mention it specifically, revision was not in every case necessary, since symmetry sometimes existed already; and in several cases where symmetry did not exist revision was impossible or undesirable, because no other divine name was so suitable as the one originally employed in the narrative; for example, God and not Jehovah was the proper title to use in referring to the Creator of the universe, in the conversation between Eve and the serpent, and where foreigners are speaking of the deity without special reference to the God of the Hebrews. The avoidance of revision in these cases, and the resulting lack of symmetry, made the distinction of thought more noticeable.

Of Parasha a comparison of the MT with the earliest readings of the Greek indicate a revision. Thus, read as a parasha, a symmetry altogether lacking in the text attested by the LXX has been secured in the MT: God, I: 1-2:4", where God is the only appropriate divine name to use; then Jehovah God, 2:4-3:25, except thrice, where Eve and the serpent are talking together; then Jehovah alone, 4:1-4:16; then God, 4:25-5:24, except once, 4:26, where the retention of the word Jehovah was unavoidable; finally Jehovah, 5:29-6:8, with the exception of 6:2 and 4 where the title Jehovah was inadmissible. This revision (and critics of the text generally admit a revision) ignored the boundaries of the sedarim. In Parasha 3 also the MT shows a symmetry in the use of the two divine names that is lacking in the earlier constituent sedarim. The word God no longer stands between passages in which the divine name is Jehovah. The designation Jehovah is used consecutively about thirty times, followed by Elohim nine times. In Parasha 5 likewise the name God does not occur between Jehovah passages; the sequence being Elohim once, then Jehovah twelve times, then Elohim once. The Greek and Hebrew agree, no adjustment was made. In Parasha 6 Elohim is not found between Jehovah passages; Jehovah being used fourteen times consecutively, then Elohim twice. This unbroken sequence, exhibited by the MT, is not shown by the Greek texts. In Parasha 8, Elohim does not appear between Jehovah passages. Barring compound titles, the parasha opens with Jehovah in 32:10[9], thenceforth Elohim only. In this respect there is no divergence between the Hebrew of the LXX and the Hebrew of the Massoretes. In Parasha 9 Elohim occurs once between Jehovah passages, (39:9), where, however, the title of Elohim is unavoidable. The last divine name in the parasha is Elohim (40:8), where also its use was unavoidable. This symmetry is lacking in the Greek. Parashiyyoth 10 and I have Elohim only. In this the MT and LXX agree. Parasha 12 has Jehovah but once, and that in a poem with other divine titles; Elohim continuously. In only four of the nine parashiyyoth just noticed, namely in 1, 3, 6 and 9, is there divergence between the MT and the Hebrew text represented by the LXX, but in these four the symmetry of the MT in comparison with the Hebrew of the LXX is striking. In all nine, moreover, the MT uses the two divine names in the symmetrical manner which Dahse has observed and seeks to explain by his theory.

Parasha 2 has Elohistic character (S.38), due to revision. It is difficult to prove, by the critical apparatus at present available, whether in several instances the divine names which appear in the MT in sedarim v.-vii., Gen. 6:9—9:17, are original or have undergone a change. In the MT Elohim occurs five times in succession, then

On the assumption that the names have been subjected to an Elohistic revision (S.38), it is necessary to account for the presence of Jehovah in 7:1, 5, and 16. Concerning 8:15 the general concurrence of the Greek texts for Jehovah against Elohim of the MT may be interpreted either as the change of an original Elohim to Jehovah at the beginning of a new seder; or the change of an original Jehovah to Elohim in carrying out an Elohistic revision (as Dahse holds).