Julius Wellhausen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:26, 28 January 2015

Julius Wellhausen (May 17, 1844 - January 7, 1918), was a German biblical scholar and orientalist.

He was born at Hamelin in the Kingdom of Hanover.

Having studied theology at the University of Göttingen under Georg Heinrich August Ewald, he established himself there in 1870 as Privatdozent for Old Testament history. In 1872 he was appointed professor ordinarius of theology at the University of Greifswald. Resigning in 1882 for reasons of 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.

Major works

Wellhausen was famous for his critical investigations into Old Testament history and the composition of the Hexateuch, the uncompromising deductive attitude he adopted in testing its problems bringing him into antagonism with the older school of biblical interpreters. He is perhaps most well-known for his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels of 1883 (first published 1878 as Geschichte Israels), in which he advanced a definitive formulation of the Documentary hypothesis, arguing that the Torah or Pentateuch had its origins in a redaction of four originally independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of Moses, their traditional author. Wellhausen's hypothesis remained the dominant paradigm for Pentateuchal studies among non-conservative scholars until the last quarter of the 20th century, when it began to be challenged by scholars who saw more and more hands at work in the Torah, ascribing them to periods even later than Wellhausen had proposed.

His work on the New Testament, in which he argued for the priority of the Gospel of Mark over the hypothetical source known as Q, was not so well received. (Das Evangelium Marci, übersetzt und erklärt, 1903.)

Evaluations of Wellhausen's methods in recent scholarship

Wellhausen's deductive method has come under criticism as inappropriate for the reconstruction of ancient history. Deduction is "inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises."^[1] The "general or universal premises" behind Wellhausen's scholarship were the theories of social Darwinism and Hegel's dialectic, which Wellhausen used to craft an interpretation of Israel's history and the literary development of the Scriptures.^[2] Recent criticism has maintained that such a deductive approach to historical reconstruction is fundamentally unscientific, since the "science" of Wellhausen and those who followed his methods

was not the science that brought about the scientific revolution of modern times, because the method of true science starts with observation, whereas these writers started with a theory and then used that theory to reconstruct history. They either trampled on or ignored such observations as were beginning to come from archaeological findings in the ancient Near East.^[3]

Some archaeologists, such as Kenneth Kitchen, have criticized any approach that starts with presuppositions rather than the evidence gathered from archaeology and the interpretation of ancient written records.^[4] Other recent scholarship has stated that Wellhausen's dating of the hypothetical Priestly source 'P' as post-exilic cannot explain the demonstration that the Jubilee and Sabbatical legislation, an essential part of the 'priestly' laws, was known all the time that Israel was in its land, starting in 1406 BC.^[5] Wellhausen's statements that the priestly portions of the Pentateuch necessarily were composed after Ezekiel's writings^[6] has been challenged by Risa Levitt Kohn^[7], John Bergsma,^[8] and other scholars who maintain that a comparison of similar passages in Ezekiel and Leviticus shows that it is impossible that the Ezekiel passages could have been written before the parallel passages in Leviticus. Gordon Wenham's analysis of the chiastic structure of Genesis 6:10 to 9:19—probably the finest example of chiasm in the entire Bible—has been presented as an argument in favor of the artistic unity of the Bible's Flood narrative, in contradiction to its division by Wellhausen (and others) into "J" and "P" sources.^[9] The ancient literary device of the chiasm was unknown to Wellhausen, as were the later archaeological findings from Ugarit and Egypt that showed that inscriptions from the ancient world used, in the same original document, more than one name for their deity.^[10] The Quran, which unquestionably had but one author, also uses different names for God. Therefore the basic assumption of Wellhausen that different names for God necessarily imply different source documents can no longer be held. Kenneth Kitchen has stated that it is not only these and other post-Wellhausen findings by archaeologists and historians that have refuted Wellhausen's ideas, but even such discoveries from Egypt and Assyria that were being made in Wellhausen's day were ignored by him because they conflicted with his deductive (presupposition-based) approach to history.^[11]

Despite such criticisms, the deductive method espoused by Wellhausen continues to find support among a few scholars. Examples using Wellhausen's deductive approach are the fairly recent studies of the history of Israel's divided kingdom period by Christine Tetley and Jeremy Hughes.^[12] Hughes in particular (ibid., p. 2) recognizes his debt to the earlier scholarship of Wellhausen.

It has been alleged that Wellhausen's scholarship had an antisemitic ^[13] (and anti-Catholic) component. Wellhausen openly expressed his hostility to the legal (i.e., Jewish) and priestly (i.e., Catholic) portions of the Torah. On learning of Karl Heinrich Graf's hypothesis of the Mosaical law as a late addition to the original spiritual religion of the prophets, Wellhausen was ready to accept Graf's hypothesis "almost before I heard his reasons." ^[14]

The best known of his works are:

De gentibus et familiis Judaeis (Göttingen, 1870)
Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht (Göttingen, 1871)
Die Phariseer und Sadducäer (Greifswald, 1874)
Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1882; Eng. trans., 1885; 5th German edition, 1899; first published in 1878 as Geschichte Israels, English translation Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Forgotten Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1606202050)
Muhammed in Medina (Berlin, 1882)
Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1876/77, 3rd ed. 1899)
Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894, 4th ed. 1901)
Reste arabischen Heidentums (1897)
Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz (1902)
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1884-1899)
new and revised editions of Friedrich Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament (4-6, 1878-1893).

In 1906 appeared Die christliche Religion, mit Einschluss der israelitisch-jüdischen Religion, in collaboration with A Jülicher, Adolf Harnack and others. He also did useful and interesting work as a New Testament commentator. He published Das Evangelium Marci, übersetzt und erklärt in 1903. Das Evangelium Matthäi and Das Evangelium Lucae in 1904 and Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien in 1905.

References

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Wellhausen, Julius". [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica]] (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

^ Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989).
^ R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969, 22,23; Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964) 79.
^ Rodger C. Young, "Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology," The Master's Seminary Journal 18 (2007) 100.[1]
^ Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2003) 494–497.
^ Rodger C. Young, "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom," Andrews University Seminary Studies 45 (2007) 173-179.
^ Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (English translation: New York: Meridian Books, 1957) 107.
^ Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002).
^ John Sietze Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) 56-59.
^ Gordon J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative," Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978), 336-348; Duane A. Garrett, "The Documentary Hypothesis," Bible and Spade 6 (1993) 42-46; Richard M. Davidson, "The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate," Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004) 51-53.
^ Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1st ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1964) 110-111.
^ Kitchen, On the Reliability 494-497.
^ M. Christine Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1990).
^ See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=119&letter=W , especially the last line, read retrospectively through the experience of National Socialism which came to dominate Germany within years after Wellhausen's death:
Although his works are monuments of marvelous scholarship, they may be said to be marred by an unmistakable anti-Jewish bias and a consequent ignoring of the labors of Jewish writers.
^ Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) The Pentateuch

External links

[1] Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989).

[2] R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969, 22,23; Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964) 79.

[3] Rodger C. Young, "Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology," The Master's Seminary Journal 18 (2007) 100.[1]

[4] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2003) 494–497.

[5] Rodger C. Young, "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom," Andrews University Seminary Studies 45 (2007) 173-179.

[6] Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (English translation: New York: Meridian Books, 1957) 107.

[7] Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002).

[8] John Sietze Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) 56-59.

[9] Gordon J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative," Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978), 336-348; Duane A. Garrett, "The Documentary Hypothesis," Bible and Spade 6 (1993) 42-46; Richard M. Davidson, "The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate," Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004) 51-53.

[10] Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1st ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1964) 110-111.

[11] Kitchen, On the Reliability 494-497.

[12] M. Christine Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1990).

[13] See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=119&letter=W , especially the last line, read retrospectively through the experience of National Socialism which came to dominate Germany within years after Wellhausen's death:
Although his works are monuments of marvelous scholarship, they may be said to be marred by an unmistakable anti-Jewish bias and a consequent ignoring of the labors of Jewish writers.

[14] Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) The Pentateuch

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Image:Julius Wellhausen 02.jpg|thumb|right|Julius Wellhausen]]
-{{Infobox clergy
+'''Julius Wellhausen''' ([[May 17]], [[1844]] - [[January 7]], [[1918]]), was a [[Germany|German]] [[biblical studies|biblical]] scholar and [[orientalist]].
-| name        = Julius Wellhausen
-| image       =Julius Wellhausen 02.jpg
-| image_size  = 125px
-| caption     =
-| birth_date  = {{birth date|1844|05|17}}
-| birth_place = [[Hamelin]], [[Kingdom of Hanover|Hanover]], [[German Confederation|Germany]]
-| death_date  = {{death date|1918|01|07}}
-| death_place = [[Göttingen]], [[Province of Hanover|Hanover]], [[German Empire|Germany]]
-| church      = [[Lutheran]]
-| education   =[[University of Göttingen|Göttingen]]
-| offices_held =Professor of Old Testament at [[University of Göttingen|Göttingen]], [[University of Greifswald|Greifswald]], [[University of Halle-Wittenberg|Halle]] and [[University of Marburg|Marburg]]
-| title       = Doctor
-}}
-'''Julius Wellhausen''' (May 17, 1844 – January 7, 1918), was a [[Germany|German]] [[biblical scholar]] and [[oriental studies|orientalist]], noted particularly for his contribution to scholarly understanding of the origin of the [[Pentateuch]]/[[Torah]]. He is credited with being one of the originators of the [[documentary hypothesis]].<ref>http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_cardozo.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html</ref>
+He was born at [[Hamelin]] in the [[Kingdom of Hanover]].
-==Biography==
-Born at [[Hameln]] in the [[Kingdom of Hanover]], the son of a Protestant pastor,<ref>Clements, R.E. ''A Century of Old Testament Study'' (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1994), 7.</ref> 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#Main positions 2|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:<ref>Cited in Robert J. Oden Jr.,"The Bible Without Theology", Harper and Row, 1987, ISBN 0-252-06870-X</ref>{{quote|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 [[university of Halle|Halle]], was elected professor ordinarius at Marburg in 1885, and was transferred to Göttingen in 1892 where he stayed until his death.
+Having studied [[theology]] at the [[University of Göttingen]] under [[Georg Heinrich August Ewald]], he established himself there in 1870 as ''[[Privatdozent]]'' for [[Old Testament]] history. In 1872 he was appointed [[Professor#Main positions|professor ordinarius]] of theology at the [[University of Greifswald]]. Resigning in 1882 for reasons of conscience, he became professor extraordinarius of oriental languages in the faculty of [[philology]] at [[university of Halle|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 five 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]], remains the dominant model among biblical scholars.
+==Major works==
-==''Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels'' and documentary hypothesis==
+Wellhausen was famous for his [[Biblical criticism|critical investigations]] into Old Testament history and the composition of the ''[[Hexateuch]]'', the uncompromising deductive attitude he adopted in testing its problems bringing him into antagonism with the older school of biblical interpreters. He is perhaps most well-known for his ''[[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels]]'' of 1883 (first published 1878 as ''Geschichte Israels''), in which he advanced a definitive formulation of the [[Documentary hypothesis]], arguing that the [[Torah]] or [[Pentateuch]] had its origins in a redaction of four originally independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of [[Moses]], their [[Mosaic authorship|traditional author]]. Wellhausen's hypothesis remained the dominant paradigm for Pentateuchal studies among non-conservative scholars until the last quarter of the 20th century, when it began to be challenged by scholars who saw more and more hands at work in the Torah, ascribing them to periods even later than Wellhausen had proposed.
-{{main|Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels|documentary hypothesis}}
-Wellhausen was famous for his [[Biblical criticism|critical investigations]] into Old Testament history and the composition of the ''[[Hexateuch]]''. He is perhaps best known for his ''[[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels]]'' of 1883 (first published 1878 as ''Geschichte Israels''), in which he advanced a definitive formulation of the [[Documentary hypothesis]], arguing that the [[Torah]] or [[Pentateuch]] had its origins in a redaction of four originally independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of [[Moses]], their [[Mosaic authorship|traditional author]]. Wellhausen's hypothesis remained the dominant model for Pentateuchal studies until the last quarter of the 20th century, when it began to be challenged by scholars who saw more and more hands at work in the Torah, ascribing them to periods even later than Wellhausen had proposed.
+His work on the New Testament, in which he argued for the priority of the [[Gospel of Mark]] over the hypothetical source known as [[Q document|Q]], was not so well received. (''Das Evangelium Marci, übersetzt und erklärt'', 1903.)
-==Other works==
+==Evaluations of Wellhausen's methods in recent scholarship==
-A select list of his works are as follows:
+Wellhausen's deductive method has come under criticism as inappropriate for the reconstruction of ancient history. Deduction is "inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises."<ref>''Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary'' (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989).</ref> The "general or universal premises" behind Wellhausen's scholarship were the theories of [[social Darwinism]] and [[Hegelian dialectic|Hegel's dialectic]], which Wellhausen used to craft an interpretation of Israel's history and the literary development of the Scriptures.<ref>R. K. Harrison, ''Introduction to the Old Testament'' Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969, 22,23; Gleason L. Archer, Jr., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,'' (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964) 79.</ref> Recent criticism has maintained that such a deductive approach to historical reconstruction is fundamentally unscientific, since the "science" of Wellhausen and those who followed his methods <blockquote>was not the science that brought about the scientific revolution of modern times, because the method of true science starts with observation, whereas these writers started with a theory and then used that theory to reconstruct history. They either trampled on or ignored such observations as were beginning to come from archaeological findings in the ancient Near East.<ref>Rodger C. Young, "Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology," ''The Master's Seminary Journal'' 18 (2007) 100.[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18e.pdf]</ref></blockquote> Some archaeologists, such as [[Kenneth Kitchen]], have criticized any approach that starts with presuppositions rather than the evidence gathered from archaeology and the interpretation of ancient written records.<ref>Kenneth A. Kitchen, ''On the Reliability of the Old Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2003) 494–497.</ref> Other recent scholarship has stated that Wellhausen's dating of the hypothetical [[Priestly source]] 'P' as post-[[Babylonian captivity|exilic]] cannot explain the demonstration that the [[Jubilee (Biblical)|Jubilee]] and [[Shabbat|Sabbatical]] legislation, an essential part of the [[Priestly Code|'priestly' laws]], was known all the time that Israel was in its land, starting in 1406 BC.<ref>Rodger C. Young, "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom," ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 45 (2007) 173-179.</ref> Wellhausen's statements that the priestly portions of the Pentateuch necessarily were composed after Ezekiel's writings<ref>Julius Wellhausen, ''Prolegomena to the History of Israel'' (English translation: New York: Meridian Books, 1957) 107.</ref> has been challenged by [[Risa Levitt Kohn]]<ref>Risa Levitt Kohn, ''A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah'' (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002).</ref>, [[John Bergsma]],<ref>John Sietze Bergsma, ''The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation'' (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) 56-59.</ref> and other scholars who maintain that a comparison of similar passages in [[Ezekiel]] and [[Leviticus]] shows that it is impossible that the Ezekiel passages could have been written before the parallel passages in Leviticus. [[Gordon Wenham]]'s analysis of the [[chiastic structure]] of Genesis 6:10 to 9:19—probably the finest example of [[Chiasmus|chiasm]] in the entire Bible—has been presented as an argument in favor of the artistic unity of the Bible's [[Noah's Ark|Flood narrative]], in contradiction to its division by Wellhausen (and others) into "J" and "P" sources.<ref>Gordon J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative," ''Vetus Testamentum'' 28 (1978), 336-348; Duane A. Garrett, "The Documentary Hypothesis," ''Bible and Spade'' 6 (1993) 42-46; Richard M. Davidson, "The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate," ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 42 (2004) 51-53.</ref> The ancient literary device of the chiasm was unknown to Wellhausen, as were the later archaeological findings from Ugarit and Egypt that showed that inscriptions from the ancient world used, in the same original document, more than one name for their deity.<ref>Gleason Archer Jr., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'' (1st ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1964) 110-111.</ref> The Quran, which unquestionably had but one author, also uses different names for God. Therefore the basic assumption of Wellhausen that different names for God necessarily imply different source documents can no longer be held. [[Kenneth Kitchen]] has stated that it is not only these and other post-Wellhausen findings by archaeologists and historians that have refuted Wellhausen's ideas, but even such discoveries from Egypt and Assyria that were being made in Wellhausen's day were ignored by him because they conflicted with his deductive (presupposition-based) approach to history.<ref>Kitchen, ''On the Reliability'' 494-497.</ref>
+Despite such criticisms, the deductive method espoused by Wellhausen continues to find support among a few scholars. Examples using Wellhausen's deductive approach are the fairly recent studies of the history of Israel's divided kingdom period by [[Christine Tetley]] and [[Jeremy Hughes]].<ref>M. Christine Tetley, ''The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom'' (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Jeremy Hughes, ''Secrets of the Times'' (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1990).</ref> Hughes in particular (ibid., p. 2) recognizes his debt to the earlier scholarship of Wellhausen.
+It has been alleged that Wellhausen's scholarship had an antisemitic <ref>See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=119&letter=W , especially the last line, read retrospectively through the experience of [[Nazism|National Socialism]] which came to dominate Germany within years after Wellhausen's death:
+<blockquote>Although his works are monuments of marvelous scholarship, they may be said to be marred by an unmistakable anti-Jewish bias and a consequent ignoring of the labors of Jewish writers.</blockquote></ref> (and anti-Catholic) component. Wellhausen openly expressed his hostility to the legal (i.e., Jewish) and priestly (i.e., Catholic) portions of the Torah.  On learning of [[Karl Heinrich Graf]]'s hypothesis of  the Mosaical law as a late addition to the original spiritual religion of the prophets, Wellhausen was ready to accept Graf's hypothesis "almost before I heard his reasons." <ref>[[Encyclopaedia Judaica]] (2007) ''The Pentateuch''</ref>
+The best known of his works are:
 *''De gentibus et familiis Judaeis'' (Göttingen, 1870)
 *''Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht'' (Göttingen, 1871)
-*''Die Phariseer und Sadducäer'', a classic treatise upon this subject (Greifswald, 1874)
+*''Die Phariseer und Sadducäer'' (Greifswald, 1874)
-*''[[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels]]'' (Berlin, 1882; 3rd ed., 1886; Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1883, 1891; 5th German edition, 1899; first published in 1878 as ''Geschichte Israels''; English translation ''Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel'', Forgotten Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-60620-205-0. Also available on [[Project Gutenberg]] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prole11.txt])
+*''Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels'' (Berlin, 1882; Eng. trans., 1885; 5th German edition, 1899; first published in 1878 as ''Geschichte Israels'', English translation ''Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel'', Forgotten Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1606202050)
-*''Muhammed in Medina'', a translation of [[Al-Waqidi]] (Berlin, 1882)
+*''Muhammed in Medina'' (Berlin, 1882)
 *''Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments'' (1876/77, 3rd ed. 1899)
 *''Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte'' (1894, 4th ed. 1901)
 *''Reste arabischen Heidentums'' (1897)
+*''Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz'' (1902)
-*''Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz'', in its time the standard modern account of Umayyad history (1902), English translation ''The Arab Kingdom and its Fall'' (1927)<ref>{{citation | title = The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661–750 (2nd Edition) | last = Hawting | first = G.R. | publisher = Routledge | year = 2000 | isbn = 0-415-24072-7 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=KNczPUUdTbsC | page = xxi}}</ref>
-*''Skizzen und Vorarbeiten'' (1884–1899)
+*''Skizzen und Vorarbeiten'' (1884-1899)
+*new and revised editions of [[Friedrich Bleek]]'s ''Einleitung in das Alte Testament'' (4-6, 1878-1893).
-*''Medina vor dem Islam'' (1889)
-*New and revised editions of [[Friedrich Bleek]]'s ''Einleitung in das Alte Testament'' (4–6, 1878–1893).
-*''Die kleinen Propheten'', a critical brochure (1902)
-*“The Book of Psalms” in ''Sacred Books of the Old Testament'' (Leipzig, 1895; Eng. trans., 1898)
-In 1906 appeared ''Die christliche Religion, mit Einschluss der israelitisch-jüdischen Religion'', in collaboration with A Jülicher, [[Adolf Harnack]] and others. He also produced less influential work as a [[New Testament]] commentator, publishing ''Das Evangelium Marci, übersetzt und erklärt'' in 1903, ''Das Evangelium Matthäi'' and ''Das Evangelium Lucae'' in 1904, and ''Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien'' in 1905.
+In 1906 appeared ''Die christliche Religion, mit Einschluss der israelitisch-jüdischen Religion'', in collaboration with A Jülicher, [[Adolf Harnack]] and others. He also did useful and interesting work as a [[New Testament]] commentator. He published ''Das Evangelium Marci, übersetzt und erklärt'' in 1903. ''Das Evangelium Matthäi'' and ''Das Evangelium Lucae'' in 1904 and ''Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien'' in 1905.
-==Notes==
+==See also==
+*[[Origin and development of the Qur'an#Collaborative Effort]]
-{{more footnotes|date=January 2014}}
-{{Reflist}}
 ==References==
+*{{1911 |article=Wellhausen, Julius |url=http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_demo&vol=28&page=ED8A525 }}
-*{{Cite NIE|wstitle=Wellhausen, Julius |year=1905}}
+{{Reflist}}
-*{{EB1911|wstitle=Wellhausen, Julius}}
 ==External links==
-{{Commons category|Julius Wellhausen}}
 * {{gutenberg author| id=Julius+Wellhausen | name=Julius Wellhausen}}
-* [https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator:wellhausen+(j+OR+julius) Works by Julius Wellhausen] at the [[Internet Archive]]
+* [http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:wellhausen+(j+OR+julius)) Works by Julius Wellhausen] at the [[Internet Archive]]
-{{Authority control|VIAF=81950780}}
-{{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. -->
-| NAME              = Wellhausen, Julius
-| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
-| SHORT DESCRIPTION = German theologian
-| DATE OF BIRTH     = May 17, 1844
-| PLACE OF BIRTH    = [[Hamelin]], [[Kingdom of Hanover|Hanover]]
-| DATE OF DEATH     = January 7, 1918 age 73
-| PLACE OF DEATH    = [[Göttingen]], [[German Empire|Germany]]
-}}
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Wellhausen, Julius}}
-[[Category:1844 births]]
 [[Category:1918 deaths]]
-[[Category:20th-century German people]]
+[[Category:1844 births]]
 [[Category:Biblical scholars]]
-[[Category:German biblical scholars]]
-[[Category:Old Testament scholars]]
 [[Category:Documentary hypothesis]]
-[[Category:German orientalists]]
+[[Category:German theologians]]
-[[Category:19th-century German Protestant theologians]]
+[[Category:Orientalists]]
-[[Category:Arabists]]
+[[ar:يوليوس فلهاوزن]]
+[[cs:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[da:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[de:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[es:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[fr:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[ko:율리우스 벨하우젠]]
+[[it:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[he:יוליוס ולהאוזן]]
+[[hu:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[ja:ユリウス・ヴェルハウゼン]]
+[[pl:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[pt:Julius Wellhausen]]
+[[ru:Велльгаузен, Юлиус]]