Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Of course, but the quality of their scholarship is undisputed even if you dispute their conclusions.
I don't necessarily agree with all the tenets of Cassuto's arguments, but if you have read them, and I have, at least the English translations, they must be addressed if you want to engage in a meaningful modern discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis. If you want to remain mired in the turn of the 20th century debate then remain with the simplistic explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis.
You cannot ignore Kitchen if you wish to discuss certain archaeological and linguistic arguments as to OT historicity.
Dismissing somebody because they may have bias, may be a lawyer's parlor trick, but it's not always the best route to ensure an examination of truth or a review of scholarly work.
|
I agree. Religious apologists are so aften borderline fraudulent and/or hair splitting and clinging to such specious grounds that on the rare occastion when one or two of them generates quality scholarship that arguably supports orthodoxy it always surprises. FWIW Bloom is mired in the turn of the century.