What do you think?
Rate this book
Prolegomena to the History of Israel: With a Reprint of the Article Israel From the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface.
We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface.
We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
570 pages, Paperback
Published October 11, 2018
5 people want to read
About the author
Julius Wellhausen
186 books17 followersa German biblical scholar and orientalist, noted particularly for his contribution to scholarly understanding of the origin of the Pentateuch/Torah (the first five books of the Bible). He is credited with being one of the originators of the documentary hypothesis.
Born at Hamelin in the Kingdom of Hanover, the son of a Protestant pastor, he studied theology at the University of Göttingen under Georg Heinrich August Ewald and became Privatdozent for Old Testament history there in 1870. In 1872 he was appointed professor ordinarius of theology at the University of Greifswald. He resigned from the faculty in 1882 for reasons of conscience, stating in his letter of resignation:
"I became a theologian because the scientific treatment of the Bible interested me; only gradually did I come to understand that a professor of theology also has the practical task of preparing the students for service in the Protestant Church, and that I am not adequate to this practical task, but that instead despite all caution on my own part I make my hearers unfit for their office. Since then my theological professorship has been weighing heavily on my conscience."
He became professor extraordinarius of oriental languages in the faculty of philology at Halle, was elected professor ordinarius at Marburg in 1885, and was transferred to Göttingen in 1892 where he stayed until his death.
He is best known for his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to the History of Israel), a detailed synthesis of existing views on the origins of the first six books of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's contribution was to place the development of these books into a historical and social context. The resulting argument, called the documentary hypothesis, remained the dominant model among biblical scholars until later in the 20th century.
Born at Hamelin in the Kingdom of Hanover, the son of a Protestant pastor, he studied theology at the University of Göttingen under Georg Heinrich August Ewald and became Privatdozent for Old Testament history there in 1870. In 1872 he was appointed professor ordinarius of theology at the University of Greifswald. He resigned from the faculty in 1882 for reasons of conscience, stating in his letter of resignation:
"I became a theologian because the scientific treatment of the Bible interested me; only gradually did I come to understand that a professor of theology also has the practical task of preparing the students for service in the Protestant Church, and that I am not adequate to this practical task, but that instead despite all caution on my own part I make my hearers unfit for their office. Since then my theological professorship has been weighing heavily on my conscience."
He became professor extraordinarius of oriental languages in the faculty of philology at Halle, was elected professor ordinarius at Marburg in 1885, and was transferred to Göttingen in 1892 where he stayed until his death.
He is best known for his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to the History of Israel), a detailed synthesis of existing views on the origins of the first six books of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's contribution was to place the development of these books into a historical and social context. The resulting argument, called the documentary hypothesis, remained the dominant model among biblical scholars until later in the 20th century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 2, 2024
A FOUNDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT “DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS” OUTLINES THE THEORY
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), was a German biblical scholar and orientalist, noted particularly for being one of the originators of the documentary hypothesis of the Old Testament.
He wrote in the Introduction to this book (originally published in 1878), “In the following pages it is proposed to discuss the place in history of the ‘law of Moses’; more precisely, the question to be considered is whether that law is the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of Judaism, i.e., of the religious communion which survived the destruction of the nation by the Assyrians and the Chaldeans… We come then to the Law. Here, as for most parts of the Old Testament, we have no express information as to the author and date of composition, and to get even approximately at the truth we are shut up to the use of such data as can be derived from an analysis of the contents, taken in conjunction with what we may happen to know from other sources as to the course of Israel’s history…serious difficulties beset the assumption that the Law of Moses came into existence at a period long before the exile, and did not attain the force of law until many centuries afterwards, and in totally different circumstances from those under which it had arisen… We cannot, therefore, peremptorily refuse to regard it as possible that what was the law of Judaism may also have been its product.” (Pg. 1-3)
He states, “With the Hebrews, as with the whole ancient world, sacrifice constituted the main part of worship. The question is whether their worship did not also in this most important respect pass through a history the stages of which are reflected in the Pentateuch… this must be regarded at the outset as probable… the Jehovistic portion of the Pentateuch also knows of no other kind of divine worship besides the sacrificial, and does not attach to it less importance than the Priestly Code. But we do not find many traces of the view that the sacrificial system of Israel is distinguished from all others by a special form revealed to Moses, which makes it the alone legitimate. Sacrifice is sacrifice; when offered to Baal, it is heathenish; when offered to Jehovah, it is Israelite.” (Pg. 52-53)
He observes, “The kingdom which bore the name of Israel was actually in point of fact in the olden times the proper Israel, and Judah was merely a kind of appendage to it… Israel was the cradle of prophecy; Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha exercised their activity there; what contemporary figure from Judah is there to place alongside of them?” (Pg. 188) He argues, “It is certainly the case that the grand figure of Elijah could not have been drawn as we have it except from the impression produced by a real character. But it is too much torn away from the historical position it belongs to, and is thereby magnified to colossal proportions.” (Pg. 292)
He summarizes, “What in the common view appears to be the specific character of Israelite history, and has chiefly led to its being called SACRED history, rests for the most part on a later re-painting of the original picture. The discolouring influences begin early… The prophets did not form the tradition at first, but came after, shedding upon it their peculiar light. Their interest in history was not so great that they felt it necessary to write it down; they only infused their own spirit into it subsequently. But the systematic recoining of the tradition was only effected when a firmer stamp had become available than the free ideas of the prophets, the will of God having been formulated in writing. When this point was reached, no one could fail to see the discrepancy between the ideal commencement, which was now sought to be restored as it stood in the book, and the succeeding development. The old books of the people… had to be thoroughly remodeled according to the Mosaic form, in order to make them valuable, digestible, and edifying, for the new generation… Thus in the question of the order of sequence of the two great bodies of laws, the history of the tradition leads us to the same conclusion as the history of the cultus.” (Pg. 293-294)
He says of the sources themselves, “Thus the agreement of the sources in the plan of the narrative is not a matter of course, but a matter requiring explanation, and only to be explained on the ground of the literary dependence of one source on the other. The question how this relation of dependence is to be defined is thus a much more pressing one than is commonly assumed. This, however, if not the place to attempt a history of the development of the Israelite legend. We are only to lay the foundation for such a work, by comparing the narrative of the Priestly Code with the Jehovistic one… the Jehovistic form of the legend is the earlier of the two.” (Pg. 296) Later, he adds, “The history of the pre-historic and the epic tradition thus passes through the same stages as that of the historic; and in this parallel the Priestly Code answers both as a whole, and in every detail, to the Chronicles. The connecting link between old and new, between Israel and Judaism, is everywhere Deuteronomy.” (Pg. 362)
He suggests, “When it is recognised that THE CANON is what distinguishes Judaism from ancient Israel, it is recognised at the same time that what distinguishes Judaism from ancient Israel if THE WRITTEN TORAH.” (Pg. 410)
Biblical criticism has come a long way since Wellhausen; but anyone studying the history of its development will find Wellhausen’s work to be a fascinating study.
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), was a German biblical scholar and orientalist, noted particularly for being one of the originators of the documentary hypothesis of the Old Testament.
He wrote in the Introduction to this book (originally published in 1878), “In the following pages it is proposed to discuss the place in history of the ‘law of Moses’; more precisely, the question to be considered is whether that law is the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of Judaism, i.e., of the religious communion which survived the destruction of the nation by the Assyrians and the Chaldeans… We come then to the Law. Here, as for most parts of the Old Testament, we have no express information as to the author and date of composition, and to get even approximately at the truth we are shut up to the use of such data as can be derived from an analysis of the contents, taken in conjunction with what we may happen to know from other sources as to the course of Israel’s history…serious difficulties beset the assumption that the Law of Moses came into existence at a period long before the exile, and did not attain the force of law until many centuries afterwards, and in totally different circumstances from those under which it had arisen… We cannot, therefore, peremptorily refuse to regard it as possible that what was the law of Judaism may also have been its product.” (Pg. 1-3)
He states, “With the Hebrews, as with the whole ancient world, sacrifice constituted the main part of worship. The question is whether their worship did not also in this most important respect pass through a history the stages of which are reflected in the Pentateuch… this must be regarded at the outset as probable… the Jehovistic portion of the Pentateuch also knows of no other kind of divine worship besides the sacrificial, and does not attach to it less importance than the Priestly Code. But we do not find many traces of the view that the sacrificial system of Israel is distinguished from all others by a special form revealed to Moses, which makes it the alone legitimate. Sacrifice is sacrifice; when offered to Baal, it is heathenish; when offered to Jehovah, it is Israelite.” (Pg. 52-53)
He observes, “The kingdom which bore the name of Israel was actually in point of fact in the olden times the proper Israel, and Judah was merely a kind of appendage to it… Israel was the cradle of prophecy; Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha exercised their activity there; what contemporary figure from Judah is there to place alongside of them?” (Pg. 188) He argues, “It is certainly the case that the grand figure of Elijah could not have been drawn as we have it except from the impression produced by a real character. But it is too much torn away from the historical position it belongs to, and is thereby magnified to colossal proportions.” (Pg. 292)
He summarizes, “What in the common view appears to be the specific character of Israelite history, and has chiefly led to its being called SACRED history, rests for the most part on a later re-painting of the original picture. The discolouring influences begin early… The prophets did not form the tradition at first, but came after, shedding upon it their peculiar light. Their interest in history was not so great that they felt it necessary to write it down; they only infused their own spirit into it subsequently. But the systematic recoining of the tradition was only effected when a firmer stamp had become available than the free ideas of the prophets, the will of God having been formulated in writing. When this point was reached, no one could fail to see the discrepancy between the ideal commencement, which was now sought to be restored as it stood in the book, and the succeeding development. The old books of the people… had to be thoroughly remodeled according to the Mosaic form, in order to make them valuable, digestible, and edifying, for the new generation… Thus in the question of the order of sequence of the two great bodies of laws, the history of the tradition leads us to the same conclusion as the history of the cultus.” (Pg. 293-294)
He says of the sources themselves, “Thus the agreement of the sources in the plan of the narrative is not a matter of course, but a matter requiring explanation, and only to be explained on the ground of the literary dependence of one source on the other. The question how this relation of dependence is to be defined is thus a much more pressing one than is commonly assumed. This, however, if not the place to attempt a history of the development of the Israelite legend. We are only to lay the foundation for such a work, by comparing the narrative of the Priestly Code with the Jehovistic one… the Jehovistic form of the legend is the earlier of the two.” (Pg. 296) Later, he adds, “The history of the pre-historic and the epic tradition thus passes through the same stages as that of the historic; and in this parallel the Priestly Code answers both as a whole, and in every detail, to the Chronicles. The connecting link between old and new, between Israel and Judaism, is everywhere Deuteronomy.” (Pg. 362)
He suggests, “When it is recognised that THE CANON is what distinguishes Judaism from ancient Israel, it is recognised at the same time that what distinguishes Judaism from ancient Israel if THE WRITTEN TORAH.” (Pg. 410)
Biblical criticism has come a long way since Wellhausen; but anyone studying the history of its development will find Wellhausen’s work to be a fascinating study.
Displaying 1 of 1 review