Customer Reviews

The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Any student embarking upon academic study of the first five books of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible will immediately find that the amount of secondary literature to sort through is overwhelming! For some 200+ years, academics have begun theorizing, hypothesizing, reworking and updating different approaches of describing the processes involved in shaping the Pentateuch into the final form of the Masoretic Text. In light of this overwhelming amount of literature, where does one begin? Ernest Nicholson has provided the reader who is interested in understanding the state of the Historical-critical question regarding Pentateuchal composition with an outstanding summary of the research that has been done over the centuries.

In Part 1, Nicholson begins with the original questions asked by Wellhausen, Graf, DeWette, Vatke et al. He thereby describes the beginnings and subsequent development of the documentary hypothesis. He then surveys the approach of the early form critics like Gunkel who sought to understand the pre-textual traditions which are reflected in the final form of the text. In the final section of his historical overview, he describes the approaches of vonRad and Noth in an effort to better understand how scholars assessed the work of the "Yahwist" - recognized as a creative theologian in his own right.

In Part 2, Nicholson proceeds to describe more recent developments in Pentateuchal studies. Working through the views of such scholars as Rolf Rendtorff, John VanSeters, Erhard Blum and others, he clearly describes their views, summarizes the textual arguments used to support their views, and offers his own nuances and critiques. He spends an entire chapter devoted to the question of whether or not "P" can be considered an independent source, another important matter in present day Pentateuchal studies, and concludes with a chapter moving back toward synchronic questions, now better informed by an understanding of the preceding diachronic discussion.

This book is not for everyone. If one is looking for a simple overview of the first five books, any number of introductions to the Pentateuch are available that can assist in such studies. Introductions by Terence E. Fretheim, R.N. Whybray, Robert Alter and Joseph Blenkinsopp will provide readers with scholarly approaches that will not bury the non-technician in the labels and jargon required for students in academic settings. Furthermore, many readers hold to the approach that the Pentateuch is a single document, written by Moses sometime in the late bronze age. Any number of homiletical and confessional commentaries will meet the needs of these readers.

For the new scholar who needs an introduction to academic work done on the Pentateuch over the past several centuries, Ernest Nicholson's volume is simply a must read. One will find that they are better prepared to dive into the important works of Wellhausen, Noth, von Rad and Gunkel (to name a few) simply by a close read of Nicholson's critical summary. Though the price of this volume may seem a bit steep, it is worth every penny for this thorough summary. By making concise such a vast corpus of secondary literature, Nicholson has saved students an inestimable amount of time.

This was a great book that served me well while writing a paper during a graduate class on the Pentateuch. It was hard reading and the transition between sections was lacking but if you have the time to read thru several times (I read it 4 times while at the beach), then the book will prove worthwhile.

I used this book in a paper and it was absolute rot. At the end Nicholson tries to pretend that Wellhausen's legacy is an actual scientific theory, tried and proven.

Unfortunately Wellhausen started with tenets that have been overturned by archaeology -- a subject cited only once in this book and not inclusively of all its results.

Further having read Cassuto (see my review) I find Nicholson scientifically illiterate. Having just read A.H. Sayce's The "Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of the Monuments in 2011, I find he shares this opinion. He goes further; he charges that the work that led up to Wellhausen's Prolegomena was a deliberate attempt to put Bible scholarship on a scientific basis that equally deliberately ignored every archaeological find going on in southwest Asia and northwest Africa within 30 years after the Prolegomena -- except the Mesha stone. See my review of Sayce.

This book talks a lot about the hypothesis but says little about Pentateuch.

Beginning with a rejection that the Bible is inspired, this extremely liberal view proposes "Higher Criticism" be exalted above ancient texts. The arrogance of this position is astonishing!