In this book (1941, 1960, 2006) I’ve borrowed from University of Detroit Mercy, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Eight Lectures Umberto Cassuto challenges the theory that the Pentateuch is an amalgam of fragments taken from the four (or more) source documents. He examines each criteria – authority, date, style, outlook; and explains in short but thorough detail how it goes wrong. For example, he views and elucidates how the divine names is not a matter of two distinct authors but is two concepts expressed by one author. Elohim being the name of the god of all nations; YHWH the name of the god of Israel. BUT, the same God. The copy (1960) I borrowed is a hardcover book of only 100 pages. It’s a neat little book from a valuable authoritative resource on antiquity.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Interesting. It’s been a while since I heard someone simply deny some form of the documentary hypothesis altogether. But I do note that Cassuto was writing mid-20th century when that was still a serious viewpoint among many. The documentary hypothesis has undergone serious critique in the last couple decades. It is now questioned whether the so-called “Yawhist” and “Elohist” sources even really exist separately. What scholars tend to do now is compare parallel narratives. If you’ve got two accounts of the Creation and the Flood, then it seems safe to assume these accounts originated as divergent sources. Some of these divergent sources are simply placed side by side. Others betray an effort by some editor to amalgamate the sources into one semi-coherent narrative. A good example of the latter is the appearance of kingship in Israel. There can be detected a source that opposes this idea and another source that supports it. The two have been more or less skillfully combined in the text of the books of Samuel.
I particularly like the Cassuto book because it is so concise. It’s written for school teachers with limited knowledge of Hebrew; drawing from his commentary on Genesis. He critiques the text as a whole by literary analysis; to make his case he takes areas marked by adherents to the DH as indicators of breaking points and draws on his extensive knowledge of languages, language arts and ANE to explain the purpose and meaning behind the perceived breaks. The library book I borrowed contains a translators forward (Israel Abraham) and what I especially like – a table of the Alef-Bet with corresponding key to transliteration. Because I’m now up to the tops of my toes in the language, I’m finding this book a treat!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)