Umberto Cassuto - Documentary Hypothesis - Lecture 1
In Lecture 1, Cassuto lays out his case - to analyze the Documentary Hypothesis as of that point in time and to evaluate its soundness.
He goes through a very brief history of the DH, focusing specifically on the similarity between the ideas of decomposing the Bible into multiple source and the parallel theory of Homeric analysis, focusing on the Illiad and the Odyssey. He tries to make the case that there was a particular bias at this time to view certain works as composites.
He then makes a broad and somewhat bold statement for an ordained rabbi in his time:
"We must approach this task [a study of the validity of the DH, and hence composite authorship] with complete objectivity marred by no bias - either towards the views of one school or the opinions of another. We must be prepared, from the outset, to accept the outcome of our inquiry, be it what it may, and feel no anxiety in regard to the honor and sanctity of the Torah."
In the blogosphere, we have seen many cases where "rational" Modern Orthodox Jews have been backed up against the wall, and had to state, even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence, should this evidence ever be presented, they would choose to believe "irrationally". Therefore, if Cassuto is being honest in his position, this seems quite a powerful statement.
On the other hand, we know that Cassuto was giving these lectures after he had made up his mind, after years of research, about his opinion on Torah authorship. So, bedieved, his position is not very brave.
As a final point, Cassuto states that he will focus only on the narratives in Genesis to analyse how the DH holds up because according to him, this is where the crux of the DH is hinged upon. I am not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this is a valid restriction, so I will trust for now that it is.
He goes through a very brief history of the DH, focusing specifically on the similarity between the ideas of decomposing the Bible into multiple source and the parallel theory of Homeric analysis, focusing on the Illiad and the Odyssey. He tries to make the case that there was a particular bias at this time to view certain works as composites.
He then makes a broad and somewhat bold statement for an ordained rabbi in his time:
"We must approach this task [a study of the validity of the DH, and hence composite authorship] with complete objectivity marred by no bias - either towards the views of one school or the opinions of another. We must be prepared, from the outset, to accept the outcome of our inquiry, be it what it may, and feel no anxiety in regard to the honor and sanctity of the Torah."
In the blogosphere, we have seen many cases where "rational" Modern Orthodox Jews have been backed up against the wall, and had to state, even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence, should this evidence ever be presented, they would choose to believe "irrationally". Therefore, if Cassuto is being honest in his position, this seems quite a powerful statement.
On the other hand, we know that Cassuto was giving these lectures after he had made up his mind, after years of research, about his opinion on Torah authorship. So, bedieved, his position is not very brave.
As a final point, Cassuto states that he will focus only on the narratives in Genesis to analyse how the DH holds up because according to him, this is where the crux of the DH is hinged upon. I am not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this is a valid restriction, so I will trust for now that it is.
posted by e-kvetcher at 6:30 PM
1 Comments:
"Cassuto states that he will focus only on the narratives in Genesis to analyse how the DH holds up because according to him, this is where the crux of the DH is hinged upon. I am not knowledgeable enough to determine whether this is a valid restriction"
It's at least debatable. Is the distinctive of D more central than the divisions in Genesis? Or is D simply less easy to argue against?
Post a Comment
<< Home