Authorship of the Pentateuch and Mormon Doctrine

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Documentary Hypothesis which Friedman is summarizing has its supporters, but also legitimate detractors.

Take for example an old one but legitimate one, Umberto Cassuto, who endeavors to explain away the Jawist versus Eloihist usage into distinctive types of usage.

Take for example Kitchen, a noted biblical scholar who defends the authenticity of the OT based on real good work.

I'm not stating I accept these positions, only that if we read a summary we will receive a distorted view of what the scholarship really is. For example, in NT scholarship, Q is generally acceptd but Mark Goodacre makes a convincing argument without Q.

Cassuto was a rabbi, Kitchen is an evangelical.

[ChinoCoug]

I'm not a historian, but historians posit alternative theories all the time, don't they?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Cassuto was a rabbi, Kitchen is an evangelical.

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.

[SeattleUte]

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.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Take for example an old one but legitimate one, Umberto Cassuto, who endeavors to explain away the Jawist versus Eloihist usage into distinctive types of usage.

Take for example Kitchen, a noted biblical scholar who defends the authenticity of the OT based on real good work.

Thanks for the info. Admittedly I am a neophyte regarding this topic. Do you have any titles of works by either Cassuto or Kitchen?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Thanks for the info. Admittedly I am a neophyte regarding this topic. Do you have any titles of works by either Cassuto or Kitchen?

Cassuto wrote in the thirties and forties and later, an Italian Jewish Rabbi. If you google his name with Documentary Hypothesis, you will be able to find a link. I have it at home.

Kitchen still lives, I believe, and is a chair at one of the English universities. His work centers around verifiable names, dates, events based on archaeological discoveries and existing liturgical and nonliturgical evidences. His work is quite technical, and for the most part, difficult to read, unless one is well-versed in the technicques of archaeology.

There are others that address these others, but they are notable because their scholarship is of good quality, and in Cassuto's case helped cause scholars to relook at how the Documentary Hypothesis should be accepted.

At first, scholars fell in love with the DH, using four sources, and the splitting into almost dozens of sources. Cassuto uses rabbinic traditions and an intimate understanding of the ancient languages to arrive at a conclusion supporting the Orthodox Jewish view that Moses compiled the Pentateuch.

[Archaea]

Here is a recent work by Kitchen that I have.

http://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Ol.../dp/0802849601

In some respects, the arguments are too technical for me to comment upon, other than to observe what they are.

Here's a blog on him.

http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot...nt-in-its.html

Here is a review critisizing Kitchen for his late dating of the Exodus.

http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=41

Here is a review.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0100/0102

[Archaea]

An outline of Cassuto.

http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comment...Hypothesis.htm

The book I have.

http://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hy.../dp/9657052351

wiki article on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Cassuto

One feel no shame in citing his work in one's arguments.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

I believe Cassuto addresses the issue about how scientific theories become the favorite godchildren of their originators and it requires the death of the originators before future scholars will adequately challenge them or reexamine them. We fall often beholden to our pet theories, even if the evidence around us suggests otherwise.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I believe Cassuto addresses the issue about how scientific theories become the favorite godchildren of their originators and it requires the death of the originators before future scholars will adequately challenge them or reexamine them. We fall often beholden to our pet theories, even if the evidence around us suggests otherwise.

You know, rarely does a committee generate a lasting work of literature. Scholars have speculated for a long time that the Iliad and Shakespeare's works were written by multiple people. But the overwhelming consensus has endured that they weren't. It wouldn't suprise me if the Pentateuch was the same; one fellow or woman (Bloom believes J was a woman) just made up all the fantastic stuff at some point.