Talk:Hexateuch
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Removed sentence
[edit]I removed the final sentence of the article ("The Torah has always consisted of only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.[citation needed]") as it was phrased as a factual assertion despite the fact that the concept of Hexateuch is here presented as an alternative interpretation. The preceding sentence ("...the majority of traditional scholars follow the older rabbinic tradition, as it was expressed by the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia a century ago, that the Pentateuch is a complete work in itself.[citation needed]) already covers the argument, making the cut sentence redundant. --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
History of traditions
[edit]The theory that Joshua completes the Torah in a 'Hexateuch' is advanced by critical scholars in the new field of "history of traditions"
There's no such thing as the 'new field of "history of traditions"'. I can assume only that the contributor meant to refer to the not so new fields of Form criticism or Tradition history or History of religions (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) of which Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) was a leading protagonist. In general, all three terms applied to the biblical scholarship conducted by a group of German Lutheran theologians based around the University of Göttingen in the 1890s. Hence, the fields in question are at least a century and a quarter old. Indeed, the scholarship goes back much earlier, to the beginning of the 19th century and before in the Netherlands, Germany, Scotland and England. I am amending the text accordingly. 124.185.122.155 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- NB In the Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878) by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), there are three main parts:
- A. HISTORY OF WORSHIP.
- B. HISTORY OF TRADITION.
- C. ISRAEL AND JUDAISM.
- Hence, perhaps Part B: HISTORY OF TRADITION, written by Wellhausen in the years leading up to its publication in 1878, so written at least one hundred and thirty-five years ago, was what the contributor had in mind when referring to the 'new field of "history of traditions"'. 124.185.122.155 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)