No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2016
In the first edition of his now fabled Golden Bough, James George Frazer began with the tale of an unnamed priest-king waiting for his slayer and successor in the sacred grove at Nemi. “A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest,” wrote the armchair anthropologist, “and having slain him he held office till he was himself slain by a stronger or a craftier.” Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have often cast their own history in these terms: if the established August Dillmann or Franz Delitzsch fell to a trailblazing Julius Wellhausen, Wellhausen himself succumbed to a pathfinding Hermann Gunkel. For the period after “the triumph of Wellhausen”—to use language from John Rogerson's classic history—the scope then usually narrows, with Wellhausen and Gunkel forming legendary foils. Which of them, exactly, has rightful claim to the crown or represents the true hierarch of the Hebrew Bible muse depends upon the narrator's own disposition. Indeed, experts in biblical studies have long juxtaposed the two as intellectual opposites. In the process, they appear, ofttimes, as almost mythic figures, largely bereft of context—historical milieu otherwise being a crucial component of biblical scholarship for well over a century.
This essay began as a paper delivered at the 2014 SBL Annual Meeting (San Diego), in the section titled Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship. Thanks to a 2015 research fellowship from the Leibniz Institute of European History (Mainz), I was able to revise the presentation for proper publication. Insightful comments on earlier drafts came from Walter Brueggemann, Reed Carlson, Malika Dekkiche, Michael Legaspi, Nathan MacDonald, Dan Pioske, Harald Samuel, Hermann Spieckermann, and TJ Thames, with Paul Allen and Cathy Bronson providing me with necessary sources, and an anonymous reviewer along with the journal's production team saving me from several solecisms: I am grateful to all of them. Responsibility is mine for all deficiency and error.
1 Frazer, James George, Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion (2 vols.; 1st ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1890) 1:2 Google Scholar. For a penetrating study of this work, see Smith, Jonathan Z., “When the Bough Breaks” HR 12 (1973) 342–71Google Scholar, repr. in idem, Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1978; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993) 208–39. Page numbers taken from the 1978 edition. Cf. his dissertation “The Glory, Jest and Riddle: James George Frazer and The Golden Bough” (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1969).
2 Such a characterization appeared early on: cf. Kittel, Rudolf, “Die Zukunft der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft” ZAW 39 (1921) 84–99 Google Scholar; cf., e.g., Baumgartner, Walter, “Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft” TRu n.s. 2 (1930) 287–307 Google Scholar; Smend, Rudolf, “Richtungen. Ein Rückblick auf die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert” ZTK 97 (2000) 259–75Google Scholar; Greßmann, Hugo, “Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung” ZAW 24 (1924) 1–33 Google Scholar; cf. Gunkel, Hermann, “Die Richtungen der alttestamentlichen Forschung” ChW 36 (1922) 64–67 Google Scholar; idem, “Was will die ‘religionsgeschichtliche’ Bewegung?” Deutsch-Evangelisch. Monatsblätter für den gesamten deutschen Protestantismus 5 (1914) 385–97 [ET: “The ‘Historical Movement’ in the Study of Religion,” ExpTim 38 (1926/27) 532–36]; see further Klatt, Werner, Hermann Gunkel. Zu seiner Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der formgeschichtlichen Methode (FRLANT 100; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 157 n. 8Google Scholar; Hammann, Konrad, Hermann Gunkel. Eine Biographie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 321–22Google Scholar.
3 Rogerson, John W., Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany ([Philadelphia]: Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar.
4 The language of cognitive and non-cognitive inquiries stems from Novick, Peter’s That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Cf., e.g., Van Seters, John, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (London: T&T Clark International, 2004) esp. 43–45Google Scholar; Voegelin, Eric, Order and History, Volume 1: Israel and Revelation (ed. Hogan, Maurice P.; vol. 14 of The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin; Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2001) esp. 190–206 Google Scholar; Knight, Douglas A., Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 16; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 57–66 Google Scholar; Muilenburg, James, “Form Criticism and Beyond” JBL 88 (1969) 1–18 Google Scholar; Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf (VTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 109–11Google Scholar; Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) esp. 14–15 Google Scholar; Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) esp 341–42Google Scholar. For an investigation of a shared intellectual quandary, see Kurtz, Paul Michael, “Axes of Inquiry: The Problem of Form and Time in Wellhausen and Gunkel” SJOT 29 (2015) 247–95Google Scholar. I would like to thank Werner Klatt for discussing the historical opposition of these two figures by scholars of the Hebrew Bible, especially those who share in their intellectual and institutional heritage.
6 Römer, Thomas, “Tracking Some ‘Censored’ Moses Traditions Inside and Outside the Hebrew Bible” HeBAI 1 (2012) 64–76 Google Scholar, at 64; cf. O'Neill, J. C., “Gunkel Versus Wellhausen: The Unfinished Task of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule” Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995) 115–21Google Scholar. On the often overlooked O'Neill, see his autobiographical passage in idem, “New Testament,” in Disruption to Diversity: Edinburgh Divinity, 1846–1996 (ed. David F. Wright and Gary D. Badcock; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 73– 97, at 95; see his obituary in The Scotsman, 17 April 2003.
7 Smend, Rudolf, “Gunkel und Wellhausen,” in Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) (ed. Waschke, Ernst-Joachim; Biblisch-Theologische Studien 141; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2013), 21–40 Google Scholar, at 22. Smend's essay marks the most focused discussion of their specific impact and exchange.
8 Brueggemann, Walter and Wolff, Hans Walter, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (2nd ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 20 Google Scholar.
9 Gunkel, Hermann, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen. Einige principielle Eröterungen” ZWT 42 (1899) 581–611 at 611Google Scholar. For extended discussion of this exchange, see Paulsen, Henning, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Methode und religionsgeschichtliche Schule” ZTK 75 (1978) 20–55 Google Scholar, esp. 29–33; Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 70–74; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 72–84; and already Siegfried, Carl, “Literatur zum Alten Testament” ThJber 19 [enthaltend die Literatur des Jahres 1899] (1900) 1–104 Google Scholar, at 72; Holtzmann, Heinrich, “Literatur zum Neuen Testament” ThJber 19 [enthaltend die Literatur des Jahres 1899] (1900) 105–69, at 160Google Scholar.
10 While the title page lists 1895 as the years of publication, the foreword dates to October 1894. In fact, dissemination already began in 1894, as evident in Eduard Meyer's review (13 December 1894), Wellhausen's letter to Harnack (21 December 1894), and Gunkel's own letter to Zimmern (17 November 1894): see Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 52 n. 9; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 60 n. 47, 76 n. 131; Wellhausen, Briefe (ed. Smend, Rudolf; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 326, 715Google Scholar. Earlier that year, Gunkel had intended to title the book “Schöpfung und Chaos in AT und NT,” and just before publication, he had decided to deviate from his initial plan and remove the potential series title “Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,” of which his Schöpfung und Chaos was to be the first (Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 52).
11 Cf. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 70 n. 2; Wellhausen, Briefe, 462; the letter first appeared in Hoffmann, Christhard, Juden und Judentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 160 n. 40Google Scholar; cf. Wellhausen's appraisal of a different essay in his letter to Adolf Harnack, 13 December 1910, in idem, Briefe, 587.
12 Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur” Skizzen und Vorarbeiten 6 (1899) 215–49Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., 225–26.
14 Ibid., 233. The proton pseudos stems from Aristotle's Prior Analytics (Book 2, Chapter 18), referring to a false conclusion reached by a fallacious premise. For a fine analysis of Wellhausen's own thinking in terms of method, see Machinist, Peter, “The Road Not Taken: Wellhausen and Assyriology” in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (ed. Galil, Gershon, Geller, Mark, and Millard, Alan; VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 469–531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur,” 234.
16 Ibid.
17 Gunkel, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 603–04, cf. 601–02; see also Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur,” 233.
18 Ibid., 607.
19 Ibid., 607–08. Gunkel did assert, however, that the value of such inquiry was by no means a priori.
20 Ibid., 604; cf. idem, “Ziele und Methoden der Erklärung des Alten Testamentes” repr. in idem, Reden und Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 11–29, at 24.
21 Gunkel, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 604.
22 Ibid., 605, 608–09. Gunkel cites his forthcoming work on Genesis in the footnote, which would demonstrate the pursuit of distinctiveness all the more.
23 Ibid., 605
24 Ibid., 594, 595, 596, 597, 602, 603, 605, 606, 610, 611; cf. idem, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments (FRLANT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903) 39–40 n. 1 [ET: “The Religio-Historical Interpretation of the New Testament” The Monist 13 (1903): 398–455].
25 Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur,” 216 n. 2, 226; Gunkel, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 599, 605–06; cf. Wellhausen to Adolf Harnack, 13 December 1910, in Wellhausen, Briefe, 567. Gunkel himself provided rather little documentation and downplayed the significance of others’ contributions: see Buss, Martin, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (JSOTSup 274; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 229 n. 67Google Scholar; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 240.
26 Rollmann, Hans, “Zwei Briefe Hermann Gunkels an Adolf Jülicher zur religionsgeschichtlichen und formgeschichtlichen Methode” ZTK 78 (1981) 276–88, at 287Google Scholar.
27 Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments, 10–11; cf. Gunkel to Adolf Jülicher, 3 April 1906, in Hans Rollmann, “Zwei Briefe Hermann Gunkels,” 278–80.
28 Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis, 10–11. On the history of FRLANT, see Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 156–57, 378.
29 Gunkel, review of Max Reischle, Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 25/18 (1904) 1100–1110, at 1101.
30 Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 72; cf. Gunkel, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 603, 609, 610.
31 Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 73.
32 Gunkel, Genesis (1st ed.; [Göttinger] Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), lxxii Google ScholarPubMed (“Ausgewählte Literatur zur Genesis”); idem, Genesis (2nd. ed.; [Göttinger] Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), lxxii (§5); idem, Genesis (1st ed.), lxiv–lxv (§6). Gunkel hailed as Wellhausen's “most inspired work” the first volume of Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1884), which contained “Geschichte Israels und Juda's im Umriss” (also titled “Abriss der Geschichte Israels und Juda's”), a text that postdated the others: Gunkel, “Die ‘Christliche Welt’ und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft” in Vierzig Jahre ‘Christliche Welt’. Festgabe für Martin Rade zum 70. Geburtstag 4. April 1927 (ed. Hermann Mulert; Gotha: Klotz, 1927) 151–56, at 152: see Rudolf Smend, “Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte. Zur Entstehung von Julius Wellhausens Buch,” in Judentum (ed. Peter Schäfer; vol. 1 of Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 35–42; idem, “The Work of Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, Vol. III/1 The Nineteenth Century–A Century of Modernism and Historicism (ed. Magne Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 424–53, at 443–50.
33 Gunkel, “Ziele und Methoden der Erklärung des Alten Testaments” [originally “der alttestamentlichen Exegese”] repr. in idem, Reden und Aufsätze, 11–29, at 22.
34 Gunkel, Ausgewählte Psalmen (1st ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), viGoogle Scholar; cf. idem, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 582, 591–92; idem, Die Psalmen (4th ed.; Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament II/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929), 444. Friedrich Baethgen had written the first through third editions: see Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 218–28; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 347–59.
35 Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 230 n. 9. Gunkel's son also recalled the portraits of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, David Friedrich Strauß, Paul de Lagarde, Ernest Renan, Adolf Lasson, Theodor Mommsen, Meyer, Harnack, and Stade and perhaps those of Leopold von Ranke and Albrecht Ritschl as well (ibid.).
36 Smend, “Gunkel und Wellhausen,” 28–29.
37 Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 263 n. 7, cf. 167 n. 4; see also Smend, “Gunkel und Wellhausen,” 33.
38 See Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 169–70Google Scholar. [ET: From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in three Centuries (trans. Margaret Kohl; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 127–28].
39 Cf. Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 32, 57, 157–60, 202, 209–14, 217–19, 222–23, 232, 252, 291–92, 341–36; Buss, Biblical Form Criticism, 218–19 n. 29; Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 51–52 n. 5. Buss provides one of the most insightful explorations into Gunkel's academic undertakings, connecting them to contemporary human science more broadly.
40 Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 324.
41 See Rollmann, “Zwei Briefe Hermann Gunkels an Adolf Jülicher.”
42 Ibid, 281; cf. the drafted letter to Budde (Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 179).
43 E.g., Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 133–36Google Scholar; Machinist, Peter, “Foreword” in Gunkel, Hermann, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton (trans. Whitney, K. William Jr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) xv–xx Google Scholar, at xix; Reventlow, Henning Graf, From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century (trans. Perdue, Leo G.; vol. 4 of History of Biblical Interpretation; SBLRBS 63; Atlanta: SBL, 2010) 340 Google Scholar. Robert A. Oden, Jr., is exceptional in both denotations: idem, The Bible Without Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) esp. 33–34; cf. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context, 209–62. Importantly, however, Suzanne Marchand presses, “the scholars and intellectuals subsumed under this ‘generation’ still represented a very small slice of the male population of the Kaiserreich, the slice that attended elite schools, consumed large quantities of specialized literature (as well as, increasingly, modern art, philosophy, and literature) and sought academic jobs” (idem, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship [Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2009] 213).
44 Gunkel, “Aus Wellhausen's neuesten apokalyptischen Forschungen,” 597.
45 Ibid., 610–11; cf. 587–88, 600–01; see also Wellhausen to Adolf Harnack, 21 May 1891, in Wellhausen, Briefe, 267.
46 Ibid., 611.
47 Cf., e.g., Gunkel, “Bernhard Stade. Charakterbild eines modernen Theologen,” repr. in idem, Reden und Aufsätze (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 1–10, at 9–10, cf. 2–3, 5; idem, “Stade, Bernhard,” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 5 (1st ed.; ed. Friedrich Schiele and Leopold Zscharnack; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1913) 882–83, (2nd ed.; ed. Hermann Gunkel and Leopold Zscharnack; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1931) 744; idem, “The History of Religion and Old Testament Criticism,” in Fifth International Congress of Free Christianity and Religious Progress, Berlin, August 5–10, 1910 (ed. Charles W. Wendte; Berlin: Protestantischer Schriftenvertrieb, 1911) 114–25, at 115–16; idem, “Was will die ‘religionsgeschichtliche’ Bewegung?” 388–90; idem, Genesis (1st ed.), foreword; idem, Genesis (2nd ed.), foreword. In addition to Stade, Gunkel also numbered Duhm and Budde, inter alia, among the school of Wellhausen. In the second edition of his entry on Budde for Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Gunkel designated him as “one of the chief representatives of the old Wellhausian School” (idem, “Budde, Karl,” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1 [2nd ed; ed. idem and Leopold Zscharnack; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1927] 1310). Although Duhm received less dubious designation in the second edition of Gunkel's RGG entry on him, he did name Duhm among the “old Wellhausians” in earlier correspondence with Martin Rade, on 10 June 1904, during deliberations on article assignments for the first edition of RGG (in Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 209). On Gunkel's relationship with Duhm, see ibid., 15, 25–26, 29–30, 38–39, cf. 83.
48 Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze, 9–10. A year after Wellhausen's quietus, Gunkel suggested the so-called Wellhausian School actually owed its success more to Stade than its eponym: see n. 65 below. On the relationship between Stade and Gunkel, see esp. Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 18–20, 199–200, 204–06.
49 Gunkel, “Wellhausen,” Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1st ed.; ed. Schiele, Friedrich Michael and Zscharnack, Leopold; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1913), V:1888–89Google Scholar; cf. Gressmann, Eichhorn, 26: Wellhausen and Harnack “cannot deny paternity.”
50 Klatt, Werner, “Ein Brief von Hermann Gunkel über Albrecht Eichhorn an Hugo Greßmann” ZTK 66 (1969) 1–6 at 5Google Scholar; cf. Greßmann, Hugo, Albert Eichhorn und die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914) 5 Google Scholar. For Greßmann's own sentiment, see, for instance, the correspondence published in Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 44, 73–74. Gunkel drew Greßmann away from Wellhausen (see Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 169–70; cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, 352). Hammann further observes how Greßmann's appreciation of Gunkel, to put it mildly, fostered their close relationship (idem, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 292). I am grateful to Peter Machinist for guiding me to Greßmann.
51 In Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 179. Although the draft has no date listed, Gunkel penned it on the back of correspondence from Budde, which bore the date 15 April 1920 (cf. ibid., 178).
52 The quote comes from Gunkel's own letter (ibid.); see Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 81, cf. 323–34.
53 Wellhausen to Harnack, 21 May 1891, in Wellhausen, Briefe, 267.
54 Wellhausen to Enno Littmann, 21 December 1915, in ibid., 630.
55 Wellhausen to Theodor Nöldeke, 18 October 1905, in ibid., 466–67.
56 Wellhausen to Helene Justi, 15 May 1897, in ibid., 348–49.
57 Wellhausen to Harnack, 13 December 1910, in ibid., 567.
58 Wellhausen to Harnack, 21 December 1894, in ibid., 326; cf., as only one example, Wellhausen to Harnack, 25 December 1896, in ibid., 346–47.
59 On Meyer's relationship to universal history, on the one hand, and mid-century liberal historicism, on the other, see Suzanne Marchand, “From Liberalism to Neoromanticism: Albrecht Dieterich, Richard Reitzenstein, and the Religious Turn in Fin-De-Siècle German Classical Studies” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46, Supplement 79: “Out of Arcadia” (2003) 129–60; cf. idem, German Orientalism, esp. 206–11.
60 See Kratz, Reinhard, “Die Entstehung des Judentums. Zur Kontroverse zwischen E. Meyer und J. Wellhausen” ZTK 95 (1998) 167–84Google Scholar [repr. in idem, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT II/42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 6–22]; idem, “Eyes and Spectacles: Wellhausen's Method of Higher Criticism” JTS n.s. 60 (2009) 381–402; Marchand, German Orientalism, 178–88, 206–11; cf. Greßmann's unsigned, undated petition in Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 73–74; cf. Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 80–81. Kratz's own preferences may emerge in his incisive portrayal, however, when he labels the disposition of Gunkel et al. as bias and offers no such evaluation for Wellhausen's approach (idem, “Eyes and Spectacles,” 395).
61 Gunkel to Meyer, 16 March 1901, in Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 81.
62 See Schreiber, Johannes, “Wellhausen und Wrede: Eine methodische Differenz” ZNW 80 (1989) 24–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Rollmann, Hans, “ Paulus alienus: William Wrede on Comparing Jesus and Paul,” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare (ed. Richardson, Peter and Hurd, John C.; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984) 23–45 Google Scholar. I would like to thank Hans Rollmann for providing me with bibliography on Wrede.
63 Cf. Paulsen, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Methode und religionsgeschichtliche Schule,” 29 n. 37; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 82.
64 Wellhausen to Heinrich Weinel, 10 October 1905, in Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 103. In a 1919 memorandum, Gunkel declared the Wellhausen School “enjoyed a disproportionately long period in which it could develop its thoughts, establish an entire system and promote [it] in handbooks, train students, and place [them] in newly vacant positions” (see n. 71 below). Hammann rightly observes the myopia of this assertion, however, which neglected due consideration of government concerns.
65 Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 30–40.
66 Ibid., 49–58.
67 The faculty did avoid, however, appointing him associate professor at once (ibid., 50–52).
68 Ibid., 93–105.
69 Ibid., 199–206, 309–21, cf. 290–91.
70 This 1919 statement, entitled “Über die gegenwärtige Lage der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft in Preußen,” was never published, however: see Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 312–14. I owe thanks to Konrad Hammann for kindly offering access to this missive. With respect to Becker's role in promoting cultural history, see Marchand, German Orientalism, 361–67.
71 Greßmann benefited from Becker's efforts the following year, receiving an open post in Berlin: cf. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 223–26. According to the plan, however, Greßmann was to go to Halle and Gunkel to Berlin—“to be rewarded for his merits. It was supposed to make atonement for his poor treatment earlier” (ibid., 224).
72 Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 288, 323–24. On Gunkel's relationship with Budde, see also ibid., 173–74, 196–97.
73 Although Wellhausen did abandon Greifswald's theology faculty and assumed a position of lower rank on Halle's philosophical faculty, the initiative was his own. On greater structural shifts, see, inter alia, von Ferber, Christian, Die Entwicklung des Lehrkörpers der deutschen Universitäten und Hochschulen, 1864–1914 (Untersuchungen zur Lage der Deutschen Hochschullehrer III; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956)Google Scholar; McClelland, Charles E., State, Society, and University in Germany, 1700–1914 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980) esp. 288–321 Google Scholar; and Jarausch, Konrad H., “Universität und Hochschule,” in 1870–1918: Von der Reichsgründung bis zum Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs (ed. Berg, Christa; vol. 4 of Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte; Munich: Beck, 1991) 313–45Google Scholar, which provides substantial bibliography.
74 Cf. Wellhausen to Reimer, 4 February 1884, in Wellhausen, Briefe, 140–41. In an earlier letter to Smith, he had considered the title “Beiträge zur Erforschung der Geschichte und Literatur der Hebraeer und Araber” (6 February 1883, in ibid., 117–18).
75 Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur ältesten Geschichte des Islams (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten 6; Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 146 Google Scholar.
76 Program of “Quellen der Religionsgeschichte,” 1 July 1913, in Archiv der Göttinger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Unternehmungen der Akademie Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Herausgabe der “Quellen der Religionsgeschichte,” 1913–21 (Sign. Scient 167, Vol 1).; see also Deines, Roland, Die Pharisäer: ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 406 n. 5Google Scholar; cf. Wellhausen, Briefe, 837. Kind thanks go to Peter Porzig for granting me access to this program. For fuller discussion on how Wellhausen conceived of his own endeavors, see Paul Michael Kurtz, “Kaiser, Christ, and Canaan: The Religion of Israel in Protestant Germany, 1871–1918” (PhD dissertation, University of Göttingen, 2016).
77 Liebeschütz, Hans, Das Judentum im deutschen Geschichtsbild von Hegel bis Max Weber (SchrLBI 17; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 250 Google Scholar.
78 Wellhausen to Ernst Reimer, ca. January 1886, in idem, Briefe, 190–91; [italics in original].
79 Wellhausen to Harnack, 26 May 1907, in Wellhausen, Briefe, 517–18. He also disliked the colleagues.
80 On Wellhausen's position within the circles of power, see Kurtz, Paul Michael, “The Way of War: Wellhausen, Israel, and Bellicose Reiche ” ZAW 127 (2015): 1–19 Google Scholar.
81 On this aspect of his undertakings, see, specifically, Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 81–90; Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, esp. 148–61; more generally, see Marchand, German Orientalism, 259–67; Janssen, Nittert, Theologie fürs Volk: Der Einfluß der Religionsgeschichtlichen Schule auf die Popularisierung der theologischen Forschung vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Studien und Texte zur Religionsgeschichtlichen Schule 4; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999)Google Scholar; idem, “Popularisierung der theologischen Forschung. Breitenwirkung durch Vorträge und ‘gemeinverständliche’ Veröffentlichungen,” in Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule in Göttingen: Eine Dokumentation (ed. Gerd Lüdemann and Martin Schröder; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 109–36; for a particularly rich investigation, see Conrad, Ruth, Lexikonpolitik: Die erste Auflage der RGG im Horizont protestantischer Lexikographie (AKG 97; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Wolfes, Matthias, Protestantische Theologie und Moderne Welt: Studien zur Geschichte der liberalen Theologie nach 1918 (TBT 102; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999) 29–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The consumption history of such theological/biblical literature merits far more attention, from price points and print runs through intended and actual audiences to advertisements featured on publications and distribution locations.
82 See Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 100–01, 151, cf. 394–99.
83 Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 150–51. Throughout his private correspondence, Wellhausen persistently bemoaned his own income, as well. His contributions to Encyclopedia Britannica had financial motives, too: see, e.g., Wellhausen to Charlotte Limpricht, 12 January 1883, in idem, Briefe, 113–14; Wellhausen to Theodor Mommsen, 12 January 1881, in ibid., 80.
84 Gunkel to Harnack, 17 May 1917, in Hammann, Hermann Gunkel, 150.
85 The journal altered its name on numerous occasions: see Jantsch, Johanna, ed., Der Briefwechsel zwischen Adolf von Harnack und Martin Rade: Theologie auf dem öffentlichen Markt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996) 21–26 Google Scholar; Wolfes, Protestantische Theologie und Moderne Welt, 51–56; see further Rathje, Johannes, Die Welt des freien Protestantismus: Ein Beitrag zur deutsch-evangelischen Geistesgeschichte dargestellt an Leben und Werk von Martin Rade (Stuttgart: Klotz, 1952) esp. 96–97 Google Scholar; Rühle, Oskar, Der theologische Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Rückblicke und Ausblicke (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926) 48–50, 73Google Scholar.
86 Though sharing editors and authors, these publishers—and others—often worked in competition rather than in tandem: see Conrad, Lexikonpolitik, esp. 213 n. 124, 224–28, cf. subsequent dynamics at 436–43; see also Janssen, “Popularisierung der theologischen Forschung,” 125.
87 Gunkel to Ruprecht, 15 April 1910, in Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, 84. The quote continued, “for one may not, of course, leave the field alone to charlatans.”
88 The locus classicus is Hübinger, Gangolf, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik: Zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994)Google Scholar; see also Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, “Protestantische Theologie in der Gesellschaft des Kaiserreichs,” in Profile des neuzeitlichen Protestantismus II/1: Kaiserreich (ed. idem; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1992) 12–117 Google Scholar.
89 Gunkel, Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (Das erste Book Mosis) (SAT I/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911) v, cf. esp. viiGoogle Scholar.
90 Gunkel, “Ein Notschrei aus Anlaß des Buches: Himmelsbild und Weltanschauung im Wandel der Zeiten. Von Troels-Lund, Leipzig, Teubner 1899” ChW 14 (1900) 58–61, at 60; [italics in original]. See also Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, “Rettung der Persönlichkeit,” in Kultur und Kulturwissenschaften um 1900: Krise der Moderne und Glaube an die Wissenschaft (ed. vom Bruch, Rüdiger, Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Hübinger, Gangolf; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989) 103–31Google Scholar.
91 See Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire, esp. 212–51; idem, “Philhellenism and the Furor Orientalis” MIH 1 (2004) 331–58; idem, “From Liberalism to Neoromanticism”; cf. idem, “Popularizing the Orient in Fin De Siècle Germany” IHR, Special Issue: “An Empire of Vision: German Art and Visual Culture, 1848–1919” 17 (2007): 175–202; idem “German Orientalism and the Decline of the West” PAPS 145 (2001): 465–73. Marchand provides the clearest lens for understanding any Wellhausen–Gunkel dichotomy.
92 Idem, “From Liberalism to Neoromanticism,” 130.
93 Ringer, Fritz K., The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969; repr. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990) 304Google Scholar. Page numbers taken from the reprinted edition. Elsewhere in this radiant volume, Ringer writes, “the mandarins were never content to cultivate their own gardens. They thought of themselves as a priestly caste, and they meant to legislate ultimate values to a peasant population. That was their model; it has to be assumed, if any of their fin de siècle anxieties are to be understood” (ibid., 268); cf. Graf, “Rettung der Persönlichkeit”; see also Iggers’, Georg G. classic The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present (rev. ed.; Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.
94 Oden, The Bible Without Theology, 33–34; cf. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context, 210 n. 6; [italics in original].
95 Foucault, Michel, Herculine Barbin: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-Century Hermaphrodite (trans. McDougall, Richard; New York: Pantheon, 1980) xiii Google Scholar.