What do you think?
Rate this book
The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch
Serves as a valuable introduction to Cassuto's illuminating commentaries on the Pentateuch, in which he emerges as one of the most original modern biblical exegetes.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1941
27 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
September 8, 2024
Second DH book.
Cassuuto's language is hard to read, but I'll summarize his 5 main points that explain away the 5 main pillars of documentary hypothesis
1) Different names of Hashem.
The names Adonay and Elohim are not interchangeable- Adonay is used for a personal, national God, Elohim for a wordly, theological God. Hence the reason for divergence of usage.
2) Different grammarical choices.
The difference in particular grammaticalizations of verbs such as ילד vs הוליד, הקים ברית and כרת ברית, "bring up" and "brought forth", אני and אנכי are due to the particular specific meaning within that sentence and have an internally consistent purpose.
Pointing out that passages that talk about genealogy and measurements are dry and contrasting them with the story portion of the Bible and saying on the basis of style that it must be a different writer is ignoring that different subject matters lend themselves to different writing styles. Dividing text by subject matter/writing style is begging the question.
3) Content differences in the Bible.
There are varied versions of this and Cassuto addresses a few.
Differences in describing God's nature (personal, distant): God is multi faceted and those with different relationships with Him will describe different aspects of Him. He is still one person.
Morality: Those sections that describe someone doing immoral things actually show how that person gets punished later. Ie, Jacob deceiving his father, Lavan later deceiving him.
He goes through a few more seeming differences and shows them to not be different within context.
Explicit contradictions like Esau' wives: Cassuto is comfortable saying that the oral history of the Jews had multiple variants and the author inserted both. Pushing it to a redactor doesn't solve the issue especially since documentary hypothesis sometimes has the redactor snipping and editing at will and sometimes not daring to touch the text for holiness.
4) Duplications and repititions.
Creation story: one is more general and describes how the world was built, one is more personal and mythical and talks about Adam and Eve and their sin and banishment.
Cassuto says that when the Torah was written, the Israelites were inheritors to varying accounts of how the world came to be. The Torah versions refine them according to its own moral spirit and theology, and both tales serve different purposes- one philosophical and one moral.
He then addresses 5 specific seeming contradictions:
A. On the day when God made heaven and earth vs in 7 days- "day" in this case does not mean a day- it's a moment in time. Don't be so literal, yall.
B. World begins with waters of the deep vs water being created on a different day- not a contradiction, that primordial water is not the same and was there first.
C. Male and female He created them vs man being created first then woman- first case is a general class, second case is the more detailed account.
D. Plants were created on the third day but on day 6 when man is made, the siach and esev had not yet grown and God also then makes pleasant trees for them.
A. Siach and esev are specific types of plants- the other plants are still around.
B. Esev and thorns and thistles aka siach are what grow at the end of the story as punishment for the sin. So they are directly connected.
C. The vegetarian that was created on the third day were seed vegetation, aka those that regenerate naturally. Siach and esev are those that require Man's labor to grow, aka the curse.
Other repetitions in the Bible (such as the kidnapping of wives, and specific words) are literary devices used to show parallels between children and parents and other symbolic meanings.
5) Supposed composite sections of the Bible such as Isaac's blessing to Jacob.
DH divides this text into 2 based on a supposition that whenever it talks about Jacob wearing goat skin, it is one source, and whenever it talks about Esav's clothes, it's another text. (Pretty unnecessary division, imo.)
Cassuto shows how if you divide the story the way they do, the story makes no sense.
Overall case: He brings in The Divine Comedy multiple times, which used varied writing styles and descriptions of people and places but is still one unified work.
My assessment:
This is a very basic book pointing out the obvious flaws in documentary hypothesis. Cassuto has more work on this subject and on analyzing Genesis in general which seem interesting.
Excellent point about Jacob being punished for his deceit by Lavan' deceit.
Cassuuto's language is hard to read, but I'll summarize his 5 main points that explain away the 5 main pillars of documentary hypothesis
1) Different names of Hashem.
The names Adonay and Elohim are not interchangeable- Adonay is used for a personal, national God, Elohim for a wordly, theological God. Hence the reason for divergence of usage.
2) Different grammarical choices.
The difference in particular grammaticalizations of verbs such as ילד vs הוליד, הקים ברית and כרת ברית, "bring up" and "brought forth", אני and אנכי are due to the particular specific meaning within that sentence and have an internally consistent purpose.
Pointing out that passages that talk about genealogy and measurements are dry and contrasting them with the story portion of the Bible and saying on the basis of style that it must be a different writer is ignoring that different subject matters lend themselves to different writing styles. Dividing text by subject matter/writing style is begging the question.
3) Content differences in the Bible.
There are varied versions of this and Cassuto addresses a few.
Differences in describing God's nature (personal, distant): God is multi faceted and those with different relationships with Him will describe different aspects of Him. He is still one person.
Morality: Those sections that describe someone doing immoral things actually show how that person gets punished later. Ie, Jacob deceiving his father, Lavan later deceiving him.
He goes through a few more seeming differences and shows them to not be different within context.
Explicit contradictions like Esau' wives: Cassuto is comfortable saying that the oral history of the Jews had multiple variants and the author inserted both. Pushing it to a redactor doesn't solve the issue especially since documentary hypothesis sometimes has the redactor snipping and editing at will and sometimes not daring to touch the text for holiness.
4) Duplications and repititions.
Creation story: one is more general and describes how the world was built, one is more personal and mythical and talks about Adam and Eve and their sin and banishment.
Cassuto says that when the Torah was written, the Israelites were inheritors to varying accounts of how the world came to be. The Torah versions refine them according to its own moral spirit and theology, and both tales serve different purposes- one philosophical and one moral.
He then addresses 5 specific seeming contradictions:
A. On the day when God made heaven and earth vs in 7 days- "day" in this case does not mean a day- it's a moment in time. Don't be so literal, yall.
B. World begins with waters of the deep vs water being created on a different day- not a contradiction, that primordial water is not the same and was there first.
C. Male and female He created them vs man being created first then woman- first case is a general class, second case is the more detailed account.
D. Plants were created on the third day but on day 6 when man is made, the siach and esev had not yet grown and God also then makes pleasant trees for them.
A. Siach and esev are specific types of plants- the other plants are still around.
B. Esev and thorns and thistles aka siach are what grow at the end of the story as punishment for the sin. So they are directly connected.
C. The vegetarian that was created on the third day were seed vegetation, aka those that regenerate naturally. Siach and esev are those that require Man's labor to grow, aka the curse.
Other repetitions in the Bible (such as the kidnapping of wives, and specific words) are literary devices used to show parallels between children and parents and other symbolic meanings.
5) Supposed composite sections of the Bible such as Isaac's blessing to Jacob.
DH divides this text into 2 based on a supposition that whenever it talks about Jacob wearing goat skin, it is one source, and whenever it talks about Esav's clothes, it's another text. (Pretty unnecessary division, imo.)
Cassuto shows how if you divide the story the way they do, the story makes no sense.
Overall case: He brings in The Divine Comedy multiple times, which used varied writing styles and descriptions of people and places but is still one unified work.
My assessment:
This is a very basic book pointing out the obvious flaws in documentary hypothesis. Cassuto has more work on this subject and on analyzing Genesis in general which seem interesting.
Excellent point about Jacob being punished for his deceit by Lavan' deceit.
December 31, 2018
When he isn't ripping on the Documentary Hypothesis, Cassuto is actually a good writer. Warning: spoilers ahead!
I did give this book 3 stars because Cassuto does make good points when he isn't trying to dismantle the Documentary Hypothesis, and because I believe that it is good to read both sides of an argument. Just because I do not agree with an author doesn't mean that the book isn't worth reading. In fact, I believe that we must read things that are contrary to our own views in order that we may see our views in a different light. For me, this made Cassuto's book well worth the read (except for chapter 7, see below).
Cassuto states that the Documentary Hypothesis (the DH from here on) rests on 5 pillars, then he goes to point-by-point, pillar by pillar work to dismantle these pillars, in fact making a point to state that these pillars do not exist.
Suffice it to say that his arguments are weak. He spends much of chapter 7 attacking the DH and his example for this is Genesis 27, which is not a composite record! The only portion of Genesis 27 that isn't J is the last verse, which comes from P. So the whole story of the birthright blessing of Jacob is a Yahwist source and Cassuto goes on and on about how this is one source. He is right! It is J, and therefore his argument is invalid. This was probably the worst part of the book for me, because it just seemed like he hasn't read the scholarship on this.
Several times in the book Cassuto makes claims that the "Torah chose to do" this or that. The Torah is a literary piece of work. Inspired? I believe it is. Is it self published? I think not. The Torah is not a person. It is a text. Texts need authors, therefore logic concludes that someone (or some people) put this text together. The DH is the best explanation for the many evidences of multiple authorship. A good start for those new to the DH is the introduction to "The Bible with Sources Revealed" by Richard Friedman.
Cassuto finds a problem with the duplicates and divergences in the text, and he realizes that they occur, but his argument against the DH is that the DH has no way of explaining why they are in the text. He writes:
At first blush, it would seem that the documentary hypothesis enables us to explain all these incongruities without the least difficulty; one of the discrepant passages emanates from one source, the other from another source. But in truth this explanation fails to explain anything; for by exculpating the author from the responsibility for the contradiction and putting the blame on the redactor, we gain nothing. We have merely shifted the problem from one place to another without solving it. (notice he is giving ground here, by acknowledging that these duplicates and divergences exist!) An editor who does his work conscientiously is obliged to avoid inconsistencies not less than the author, possibly even more so. (p. 67)
There is an answer to this of course. Just because Cassuto doesn't have an answer doesn't change the fact that we have these doublets, inconsistent narratives, divergent texts, multiple views and names for God, divergent theologies, rules and laws throughout the Pentateuch. There are literally hundreds of these examples in the 5 books. I am always writing on this subject and have a small collection of these here: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The answer to why the redactor kept the doublets, contradictions, different theologies and names of Deity, etc. is a complicated one. But it is a fun one! Read chapter 13 "The Great Irony" in Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" - this answer will fascinate readers. This is scripture. Scripture and its production are rooted in cultural history. The Bible came out of this culture. The person or scribal school that produced this first attempt at history had a reason for keeping the contradictions, and Friedman explains this well in his book.
For example you have divergent slave laws: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Doublets (over 30 exist in the Pentateuch): https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Divergent beliefs on who owned Moses' staff (Moses, Aaron, or God?): https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Divergent beliefs about God and his name: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The composite nature of the Flood narrative: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
I wish Cassuto would have dealt with a composite instead of writing an entire chapter about his argument about composites in the Pentateuch while not citing a composite. This was tough to sit through!
I did appreciate his final thought on Torah:
It is no daring conjecture, therefore, to suppose that a whole world of traditions was known to the Israelites in olden times, traditions that apparently differed in their origin, nature and characteristics. Some of them preserved memories of ancient events, and some belonged to the category of folk-lore; some were the product of the Israelite spirit and some contained elements that emanated from pagan culture; a number of them was handed down by the general populace and others were subjected to the close study of the exponents of the Wisdom literature; there were stories that were given a poetic and consequently a more fixed form, and others that were narrated in prose that was liable to suffer changes in the course of time; there were simple tales and complex, succinct and detailed, lucid and obscure, unpretentious and most sublime. From all this treasure, the Torah selected those traditions that appeared suited to its aims, and then proceeded to purify and refine them, to arrange and integrate them, to recast their style and phrasing, and generally to give them a new aspect of its own design, until they were welded into a unified whole.
Of the elements that were not accepted, some sank slowly into oblivion and were completely lost. But others continued to exist for generations, and although in the course of time their form changed considerably - they were elaborated or emasculated, and much new material was grafted on them- nevertheless they were preserved in the Jewish national tradition till a late date. The stream of this tradition may be compared to a great and wide-spreading river that traverses vast distances; although in the course of its journey the river loses part of its water, which is absorbed by the ground or evaporates in the air because of the heat of the sun, and it is also increasingly augmented by the waters of the tributaries that pour into it, yet it carries with it, even after it has covered hundreds of miles, some of the waters that it held at the beginning when it first started to flow from its original source. (p. 102-103)
I loved this part of his book, and would wholeheartedly agree here. I also see Cassuto acknowledging multiple "voices" of Torah in this part of his book. (insert smiley face here) The Torah is complicated. Acknowledging that we have contradictions doesn't make it uninspired, rather, it shows us complexity that exists and needs to be recognized. How we apply this teaching is something for a lifetime of study, deep thought, and living a life of action in the service of God and man. To me, this is living Torah.
I did give this book 3 stars because Cassuto does make good points when he isn't trying to dismantle the Documentary Hypothesis, and because I believe that it is good to read both sides of an argument. Just because I do not agree with an author doesn't mean that the book isn't worth reading. In fact, I believe that we must read things that are contrary to our own views in order that we may see our views in a different light. For me, this made Cassuto's book well worth the read (except for chapter 7, see below).
Cassuto states that the Documentary Hypothesis (the DH from here on) rests on 5 pillars, then he goes to point-by-point, pillar by pillar work to dismantle these pillars, in fact making a point to state that these pillars do not exist.
Suffice it to say that his arguments are weak. He spends much of chapter 7 attacking the DH and his example for this is Genesis 27, which is not a composite record! The only portion of Genesis 27 that isn't J is the last verse, which comes from P. So the whole story of the birthright blessing of Jacob is a Yahwist source and Cassuto goes on and on about how this is one source. He is right! It is J, and therefore his argument is invalid. This was probably the worst part of the book for me, because it just seemed like he hasn't read the scholarship on this.
Several times in the book Cassuto makes claims that the "Torah chose to do" this or that. The Torah is a literary piece of work. Inspired? I believe it is. Is it self published? I think not. The Torah is not a person. It is a text. Texts need authors, therefore logic concludes that someone (or some people) put this text together. The DH is the best explanation for the many evidences of multiple authorship. A good start for those new to the DH is the introduction to "The Bible with Sources Revealed" by Richard Friedman.
Cassuto finds a problem with the duplicates and divergences in the text, and he realizes that they occur, but his argument against the DH is that the DH has no way of explaining why they are in the text. He writes:
At first blush, it would seem that the documentary hypothesis enables us to explain all these incongruities without the least difficulty; one of the discrepant passages emanates from one source, the other from another source. But in truth this explanation fails to explain anything; for by exculpating the author from the responsibility for the contradiction and putting the blame on the redactor, we gain nothing. We have merely shifted the problem from one place to another without solving it. (notice he is giving ground here, by acknowledging that these duplicates and divergences exist!) An editor who does his work conscientiously is obliged to avoid inconsistencies not less than the author, possibly even more so. (p. 67)
There is an answer to this of course. Just because Cassuto doesn't have an answer doesn't change the fact that we have these doublets, inconsistent narratives, divergent texts, multiple views and names for God, divergent theologies, rules and laws throughout the Pentateuch. There are literally hundreds of these examples in the 5 books. I am always writing on this subject and have a small collection of these here: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The answer to why the redactor kept the doublets, contradictions, different theologies and names of Deity, etc. is a complicated one. But it is a fun one! Read chapter 13 "The Great Irony" in Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" - this answer will fascinate readers. This is scripture. Scripture and its production are rooted in cultural history. The Bible came out of this culture. The person or scribal school that produced this first attempt at history had a reason for keeping the contradictions, and Friedman explains this well in his book.
For example you have divergent slave laws: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Doublets (over 30 exist in the Pentateuch): https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Divergent beliefs on who owned Moses' staff (Moses, Aaron, or God?): https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
Divergent beliefs about God and his name: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The composite nature of the Flood narrative: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
I wish Cassuto would have dealt with a composite instead of writing an entire chapter about his argument about composites in the Pentateuch while not citing a composite. This was tough to sit through!
I did appreciate his final thought on Torah:
It is no daring conjecture, therefore, to suppose that a whole world of traditions was known to the Israelites in olden times, traditions that apparently differed in their origin, nature and characteristics. Some of them preserved memories of ancient events, and some belonged to the category of folk-lore; some were the product of the Israelite spirit and some contained elements that emanated from pagan culture; a number of them was handed down by the general populace and others were subjected to the close study of the exponents of the Wisdom literature; there were stories that were given a poetic and consequently a more fixed form, and others that were narrated in prose that was liable to suffer changes in the course of time; there were simple tales and complex, succinct and detailed, lucid and obscure, unpretentious and most sublime. From all this treasure, the Torah selected those traditions that appeared suited to its aims, and then proceeded to purify and refine them, to arrange and integrate them, to recast their style and phrasing, and generally to give them a new aspect of its own design, until they were welded into a unified whole.
Of the elements that were not accepted, some sank slowly into oblivion and were completely lost. But others continued to exist for generations, and although in the course of time their form changed considerably - they were elaborated or emasculated, and much new material was grafted on them- nevertheless they were preserved in the Jewish national tradition till a late date. The stream of this tradition may be compared to a great and wide-spreading river that traverses vast distances; although in the course of its journey the river loses part of its water, which is absorbed by the ground or evaporates in the air because of the heat of the sun, and it is also increasingly augmented by the waters of the tributaries that pour into it, yet it carries with it, even after it has covered hundreds of miles, some of the waters that it held at the beginning when it first started to flow from its original source. (p. 102-103)
I loved this part of his book, and would wholeheartedly agree here. I also see Cassuto acknowledging multiple "voices" of Torah in this part of his book. (insert smiley face here) The Torah is complicated. Acknowledging that we have contradictions doesn't make it uninspired, rather, it shows us complexity that exists and needs to be recognized. How we apply this teaching is something for a lifetime of study, deep thought, and living a life of action in the service of God and man. To me, this is living Torah.
July 10, 2009
I gave it four stars not for entertainment value so much as that it was a necessary book; although considering the subject, Cassuto makes it about as entertaining as it can be. He goes over a lot of Hebrew grammar and literary rules to show how unnecessary and ultimately nonsensical the "Documentary Hypothesis" (The theory that the Pentateuch is composed of four different sources/redactors {YHWHist, Elohistic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly} who cut and pasted it together over a period of a millennium) is.
He deconstructs the Doc. Hypothesis respectfully, convincingly, and fairly thoroughly for such a small book, showing that ancient Hebrew literary rules and techniques can account for all the data much more easily and believably than the D.H. can. He gives plenty of examples and knows enough to stop beating the horse when it's obviously dead. After reading this book, I can't think of any reason why the Documentary Hypothesis is still taught and believed, unless it's the plain stubborn defensiveness of Academics whose precious paradigms are threatened.
Lecture 1 explains the origins of the Doc hypothesis, it was born in a disreputable part of the enlightenment characterized by a strong desire to deconstruct things into their composite parts even if they didn't have any. He shows how the same impulse was applied to other literature during that period, such as the Iliad.
Lecture 2&3, the Divine Names, explains the reasons for the use of different names for God throughout the book of Genesis.
Lecture 4, Language and style, is very impressive but somewhat excruciating if hebrew grammar's not your thing. He goes through the supposed different usage of the "sources" and shows that it's better explained by Hebrew grammatical conventions.
Lecture 5 6 &7 (Contradictions/Repetitions/Composite Sections) are downright fun in places, and you even get a bit of biblical commentary and a little allegory thrown in on some accounts as examples of the general refutation.
Lecture 8, "conclusions" I might almost recommend reading first, because it's a quick overview that might make it easier to follow the flow of the rest of the book. In it he goes over the documentary hypothesis' vitals following his general examination, and pronounces it not just mostly, but all dead. Go through it's pockets for loose change if you like, but it's broke.
I recommend it for anyone who's interested in biblical studies as a good vaccine against being brainwashed by the Doc. Hypothesis' devotees to "see" their emperor's new clothes.
He deconstructs the Doc. Hypothesis respectfully, convincingly, and fairly thoroughly for such a small book, showing that ancient Hebrew literary rules and techniques can account for all the data much more easily and believably than the D.H. can. He gives plenty of examples and knows enough to stop beating the horse when it's obviously dead. After reading this book, I can't think of any reason why the Documentary Hypothesis is still taught and believed, unless it's the plain stubborn defensiveness of Academics whose precious paradigms are threatened.
Lecture 1 explains the origins of the Doc hypothesis, it was born in a disreputable part of the enlightenment characterized by a strong desire to deconstruct things into their composite parts even if they didn't have any. He shows how the same impulse was applied to other literature during that period, such as the Iliad.
Lecture 2&3, the Divine Names, explains the reasons for the use of different names for God throughout the book of Genesis.
Lecture 4, Language and style, is very impressive but somewhat excruciating if hebrew grammar's not your thing. He goes through the supposed different usage of the "sources" and shows that it's better explained by Hebrew grammatical conventions.
Lecture 5 6 &7 (Contradictions/Repetitions/Composite Sections) are downright fun in places, and you even get a bit of biblical commentary and a little allegory thrown in on some accounts as examples of the general refutation.
Lecture 8, "conclusions" I might almost recommend reading first, because it's a quick overview that might make it easier to follow the flow of the rest of the book. In it he goes over the documentary hypothesis' vitals following his general examination, and pronounces it not just mostly, but all dead. Go through it's pockets for loose change if you like, but it's broke.
I recommend it for anyone who's interested in biblical studies as a good vaccine against being brainwashed by the Doc. Hypothesis' devotees to "see" their emperor's new clothes.
October 6, 2007
Public Reviews Written by You
Reviewer Rank: 8115 Page: 1 | 2
The Documentary Hypothesis (Contemporary Jewish Thought)
by Umberto Cassuto
Edition: Paperback
Price: £7.59
Availability: Usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks
A gentle but potent act of demolition, 4 Aug 2007
A short series of lectures to teachers, given over 50 years ago, the book crystallises Cassuto's scholarly work on Genesis.
Mildly and politely he butchers the documentary hypothesis. His exposure of parallel historical developments in studies on Homer is telling, the simple but potent critiques of overreading Hebrew idiom are especially revealing, given that the lectures were themselves given in Hebrew, and he displays the hollow unravelling of 'composite passages' by showing the nonsensical narratives that result from a strict dissection by 'author'.
Critics and teachers who think the hypothesis retains any credibility who haven't read at least this popular introduction should take their heads out of the sand.
Yet it would be a mistake to consider this a critical or negative book. Whilst he doesn't here formulate an alternative, his affection for the warmth and captivating charm of Genesis is infectious. Despite his mistrust in a Mosaic authorship, his awe for its majesty and distinctive characteristics from contemporary literature is also evident.
A highly recommended and surprisingly easy read.
Reviewer Rank: 8115 Page: 1 | 2
The Documentary Hypothesis (Contemporary Jewish Thought)
by Umberto Cassuto
Edition: Paperback
Price: £7.59
Availability: Usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks
A gentle but potent act of demolition, 4 Aug 2007
A short series of lectures to teachers, given over 50 years ago, the book crystallises Cassuto's scholarly work on Genesis.
Mildly and politely he butchers the documentary hypothesis. His exposure of parallel historical developments in studies on Homer is telling, the simple but potent critiques of overreading Hebrew idiom are especially revealing, given that the lectures were themselves given in Hebrew, and he displays the hollow unravelling of 'composite passages' by showing the nonsensical narratives that result from a strict dissection by 'author'.
Critics and teachers who think the hypothesis retains any credibility who haven't read at least this popular introduction should take their heads out of the sand.
Yet it would be a mistake to consider this a critical or negative book. Whilst he doesn't here formulate an alternative, his affection for the warmth and captivating charm of Genesis is infectious. Despite his mistrust in a Mosaic authorship, his awe for its majesty and distinctive characteristics from contemporary literature is also evident.
A highly recommended and surprisingly easy read.
June 24, 2015
Straightforward, simple, and fairly easy to understand introduction to the documentary hypothesis and the arguments against it. I do have some background in theology and Biblical languages, but I really think that most people could wade through this little book and come out the other side a whole lot more informed about this issue. There is some Hebrew words and grammar, but my solution to that would be to just skim over those parts.
The theory of the documentary hypothesis is that "the Pentateuch was composed by the amalgamation of sections and subsections derived from four independent source documents, J, E, P, D." (page 15) Cassuto picks out the five pillars of the documentary hypothesis, and goes through them one by one, endeavoring to show from the Biblical text that the features which cause scholars to claim that the Pentateuch comes from four different sources can actually be explained by rules and style of writing of the day.
As I said, I enjoyed how easy this was to read, and took away a much better understanding of the documentary hypothesis, as well as a few other gems of understanding (particularly about the differing uses of Elohim and YHWH in the OT).
The theory of the documentary hypothesis is that "the Pentateuch was composed by the amalgamation of sections and subsections derived from four independent source documents, J, E, P, D." (page 15) Cassuto picks out the five pillars of the documentary hypothesis, and goes through them one by one, endeavoring to show from the Biblical text that the features which cause scholars to claim that the Pentateuch comes from four different sources can actually be explained by rules and style of writing of the day.
As I said, I enjoyed how easy this was to read, and took away a much better understanding of the documentary hypothesis, as well as a few other gems of understanding (particularly about the differing uses of Elohim and YHWH in the OT).
May 28, 2014
Professor Cassatu debunks the conclusions of Julius Welhausen in a series of lectures written out clearly comprehendible by any one of the Christian or Jewish Faiths
He overviews and disproves each of the 5 pillars of the Documentary Hypothesis.
a) the use of different names for the Deity;
b) variations of language and style;
c) contradictions and divergences of view;
d) duplications and repetitions;
e) signs of composite structure in the sections.
His phrase 'irretrievably doomed' distinguishes him from others who have critiqued this century old thesis—still being tweaked and taught. He shows that no academic face lifting or support will keep this building from collapsing in on itself.
If you have read that Moses is not the author of the Torah/Penteteuch but it was authored by 5 others: Jehovist, Elohist, a scribe who wrote the priestly code, the Deuteronomist and a redactor (or 2 or 3 ) that put these together.. and if you are beside yourself with rage or concern, this book is for you!
He overviews and disproves each of the 5 pillars of the Documentary Hypothesis.
a) the use of different names for the Deity;
b) variations of language and style;
c) contradictions and divergences of view;
d) duplications and repetitions;
e) signs of composite structure in the sections.
His phrase 'irretrievably doomed' distinguishes him from others who have critiqued this century old thesis—still being tweaked and taught. He shows that no academic face lifting or support will keep this building from collapsing in on itself.
If you have read that Moses is not the author of the Torah/Penteteuch but it was authored by 5 others: Jehovist, Elohist, a scribe who wrote the priestly code, the Deuteronomist and a redactor (or 2 or 3 ) that put these together.. and if you are beside yourself with rage or concern, this book is for you!
Read
January 9, 2022Chciałem lepiej poznać "hipotezę źródeł", a spotkałem wściekły atak na nią. Miejscami zapewne słuszny, ale nie wszędzie i nie zawsze. A przede wszystkim bezcelowy. Autor uważa, że jego celem było wyłącznie obalenie hipotezy, czego (swoim zdaniem) dokonał. Jak widać mam wątpliwości.
Problem z moją oceną jest taki, że ja już znam przyszłość. A przynajmniej wiem, że "hipoteza źródeł" dominuje w USA, ale w Europie dominuje "hipoteza fragmentów". Innymi słowy, ta hipoteza bywa uważana za obaloną, a nawet jeden z argumentów Cassuto jest stosowany (trudność z rozróżnieniem E i J). Ale nie pozostałe. Generalnie Cassuto ma pewną wizję bardzo starej Tory -- z "hipotezą źródeł" walczy by odsunąć od siebie myśl, że spisywano ją w czasach perskich -- ba! (oj, lubi wykrzykniki w tekście...) -- chciałby widzieć w Mojżeszu kompilatora starszych dokumentów... W tej mierze nauka nie poszła ani o krok w kierunku jego tezy.
Problem z moją oceną jest taki, że ja już znam przyszłość. A przynajmniej wiem, że "hipoteza źródeł" dominuje w USA, ale w Europie dominuje "hipoteza fragmentów". Innymi słowy, ta hipoteza bywa uważana za obaloną, a nawet jeden z argumentów Cassuto jest stosowany (trudność z rozróżnieniem E i J). Ale nie pozostałe. Generalnie Cassuto ma pewną wizję bardzo starej Tory -- z "hipotezą źródeł" walczy by odsunąć od siebie myśl, że spisywano ją w czasach perskich -- ba! (oj, lubi wykrzykniki w tekście...) -- chciałby widzieć w Mojżeszu kompilatora starszych dokumentów... W tej mierze nauka nie poszła ani o krok w kierunku jego tezy.
February 16, 2009
Wow... "Classic" doesn't do this book justice. With seven swipes of his historical-literary sword, Cassuto beheads the Documentary Hypothesis. As we stare in disgust on the bloody corpse which once was the greatest knight of the realm, we suddenly find ourselves experiencing that historical shift in biblical studies which began here. Short, powerful, and easy to read--Cassuto's lecture series is a tour de force for the layman and scholar alike.
August 1, 2018
Cassuto’s defense of the Pentateuch’s authorship is phenomenal. He brought about many points in these compiled lectures that would’ve never crossed my mind. Very cool to see a book that so easily defeats the DH arguments from a literary-grammatical perspective. Would Recommend to any higher critical sympathizers.
October 30, 2022
Cassuto's book is an excellent response to the prevalent Documentary Hypothesis. He not only shows the weakness of the theory but also how it does not answer the fundamental questions it poses about the texts of the Pentateuch. Cassuto shows that a literary approach that upholds the unity of the text is able to explain the data far better than the Documentary Hypothesis. He explores the five foundational arguments for the theory and shows them to be baseless when approached, not as a 19th, 20th, or 21st-century reader, but when approached on the texts own terms. It seems the advocates of JEDP often read the Torah through their own lenses rather than trying to understand it on its own terms. This is a great introduction to the issues and should be more widely read.
May 31, 2022
Skim read this book in an hour. Quite interesting. A questioning of the supposed axioms of the Documentary Hypothesis which then demolishes them. Cassuto shows how features such as the two main divine names mirror other cultures’ uses, and the narrative artistry of repetition. Rather than proving the four sources, they point to purposeful composition. The discussion has moved on in the last 70 years since these lectures were given, but this is nonetheless an important read.
March 2, 2023
inchresting
December 14, 2024
Very good overview of how faulty the DH is
April 25, 2015
I was looking for a rigorous approach to learning more about the Documentary Hypothesis and it's shortcomings and I was hoping this would be the book to do that! It was not. While I learned quite a bit about the DH through Cassuto's attempt to debunk it, almost all of the 'evidence' he provides is nowhere near what could possibly be considered evidence. While the lectures are easy to read and flow well, the foundations of his conclusions are purely from a theological view and not a scientific. The opening line of the first lecture is "One of the most important attributes of Science is its perpetual restlessness." The following paragraphs expand on science as constantly changing with old hypothesis replaced by new by describing them as 'toppled walls or pillars'. So from this opening one might expect the lectures to be actually based on science, but alas that would be a large mistake. These lectures are entirely and exercise in apologetics.
If you're looking for a book to dismiss the DH and reinforce a (mistaken) belief in an 'inspired' book then have at it. However if you're looking for a book that'll honestly explore the literary history of the Torah/Old Testament then don't waste your time.
If you're looking for a book to dismiss the DH and reinforce a (mistaken) belief in an 'inspired' book then have at it. However if you're looking for a book that'll honestly explore the literary history of the Torah/Old Testament then don't waste your time.
January 8, 2020
"The documentary Hypothesis" est un ensemble de conférence du rabbin Umberto Cassuto qui offre une approche critique de la théorie documentaire, qui stipule que le pentateuque est un assemblage éditorial de plusieurs sources qui aurait été assemblées après l'exil et non par Moïse.
Il balaie avec rigueur chaque "pilier" de la théorie, montrant par des outils principalement linguistiques qu'ils sont tout simplement infondés, et que cette théorie peut au final être jetée.
C'est un travail sérieux, rigoureux, et très accessible (sous cette forme). Il s'appuie sur un livre qu'il a publié en italien qui reprend l'intégralité des détails de sa thèse, et a su sélectionner uniquement les éléments nécessaire. Une bonne lecture pour comprendre pourquoi la théorie documentaire ne mène nulle part.
Il balaie avec rigueur chaque "pilier" de la théorie, montrant par des outils principalement linguistiques qu'ils sont tout simplement infondés, et que cette théorie peut au final être jetée.
C'est un travail sérieux, rigoureux, et très accessible (sous cette forme). Il s'appuie sur un livre qu'il a publié en italien qui reprend l'intégralité des détails de sa thèse, et a su sélectionner uniquement les éléments nécessaire. Une bonne lecture pour comprendre pourquoi la théorie documentaire ne mène nulle part.
July 15, 2018
This was hard to evaluate, because I'm not very aware of the details of the DH, and so it's difficult to evaluate the strength of Cassuto's rebuttals. But I think Cassuto did a good job of making his points. These were transcribed lectures, so they didn't have the thoroughness of a written work, but as far as an introduction to the problems in the DH goes, these were helpful. I'm curious to learn more about the DH and what the original arguments are. I'm always wary of linguistic and psycho-linguistic and forensic-linguistic arguments, because I think it's easy to construe them towards multiple and contradictory conclusions.
April 7, 2025
Umberto Cassuto tore apart the (traditional) Documentary Hypothesis limb by limb— and boy was it fun to watch.
November 22, 2021
Great high level critique of the documentary hypothesis. Important and short read for anyone interested in the topic. Cassuto shows how literary and linguistics sensitivity to the text undermines all of the key claims of the Documentary Hypothesis.
May 11, 2020
First Read
Nov 2015
While I have a hard time accepting his arguments, the lectures were well written and easily understandable.
Nov 2015
While I have a hard time accepting his arguments, the lectures were well written and easily understandable.
September 12, 2014
Phenomenal.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews