The Documentary Hypothesis Eight
Lectures
Umberto
Cassuto
Trans.
Israel Abrahams
(Magnes
Press, Jerusalem, 1983)
An
Outline
[[Cassuto’s book does not represent the
position of Traditional Judaism. Some of his remarks would be considered false
textually, and objectionable religiously. Nevertheless, his critique of the
methods and results of “Biblical Criticism” are devastating and deserve to be
known.
A friend made this summary for me many
years ago and I have forgotten his name. I will be very happy to hear from him
and give him the credit he deserves. – D.G.
I am now informed that the original book can be accessed here http://b-ok.xyz/book/
I am now informed that the original book can be accessed here http://b-ok.xyz/book/
Lecture 1: Introduction and History
The
Documentary Hypothesis:
-Prevailing
theory of origin and authorship of Torah:
-Torah
compiled in Second
Temple
-“J”: Jahwist, source using divine name
Y-H-W-H
-“E”: Elohist, source using divine name
`Elo-him
-“P”: Priestly code, from priestly
circles
-“D”: Deuteronomy, main part of book of
Deuteronomy
(E, P
refrain from using divine name J)
-Scholars
often disagree about details of sources: age, assigning, strata, divisions
-but
general agreement about basic principles
-but
some beginning to criticize theory seriously
History
of DH:
-Witter
(1711): poetic compositions served as source for Moses
-Astruc
(1753), father of Documentary Hypothesis (DH): two principle documents
-Eichhorn
(1780-3): German professional better than Astruc, French amateur
-Vater(1802-5):
Torah composed of many scrolls
-Graf
and Wellhausen
-Parallelism
of development of ideas, criticism and method with Homeric Studies, Why:
-reciprocal
influence
-progress
in techniques of research
-trends and demands of the time
-suspicion
that investigators not objective
Cassuto’s
Project:
-Approach
text objectively
-not
with aesthetic and literary criteria of modern time
-but
of ancient East and Israel
-Mainly
focus on narrative, mainly Genesis (as does DH), not statutes or Deuteronomy
- if
DH on Genesis is refuted a fortiori the
rest
-Attacks
five pillars of DH:
1. Use of different divine names
2. Changes of language, style
3. Contradictions, divergences
4. Duplication, repetition
5. Composite structure in sections
Lecture 2: God’s Names
As
Evidence for DH:
-Historically
main evidence for DH
- Torah uses different divine names: J, E and others
-Examples:
Genesis 1:1=E
E
always until G2:4=J+E, then
J+E
almost (but G3:1,3,5) always until G4, then
J
often in G4 until G4:25=E
Flood:
sometimes J, sometimes E
Etc.,
etc.
-DH
explains this:
-Documents
JEP (D not in Genesis)
-Redactor selected sources, fused
extracts
-but
leaves each extract in original form and names
Cassuto’s
Response:
-READ
the verses
-
notice that variation in choice of name
is not accidental
-but intentional, by design
-Why
we may not expect it to be accidental:
-Torah’s
aim to guide man in knowledge of God
-Language
of Torah is otherwise scrupulous in tiniest details
-in
most important and exalted respect - Divine names - will not be careless and indiscriminate!
-So
what is method of choice of name?…
Character
of the Names:
-Names
of different type:
-E originally common noun, applied to both
One God of Israel and to others (as
was
`El).
-J is proper noun, specific name of Israel
-Israel
-common
substantive E acquired signification of proper noun=J.
-but J
for particular Israelite God; E also for gods of gentiles (note Zechariah 14:9)
-Analogy:
certain city called Jerusalem
Usage
of Names:
-reflects character of Names
-Cassuto
interested in their use throughout scripture, but also only in reference to Israelite
God, proper noun (not simple appellative, pagan deities, in construct state,
possessive
suffix, stereotyped composite phrases)
-Prophetic writings E never used in place of
J
-exceptions
Jonah (exception proving rule):
-content
not prophetic but narrative literature
-also note second part of Isaiah usage of `E-l (lecture 2)ile:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(4 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Legal Literature (Torah and Ezekial) always J as name of God
-Poetic Literature always use J (except
for Wisdom-Literature-like poems…)
-Wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes) almost always E
-Ecclesiastes
always E
-Proverbs
E (and `Elo-ah) sometimes
-Poetic
portions of Job always E (but 12:9, and some MSS read E here)
-2nd, 3rd books of Psalms (Wisdomlitera ture
influence) and Samuel I 23:1-7
-Narrative Literature (in Torah, Joshua
to Kings II, Jonah, narrative portions of
Job) E and
used
Usage of names outside Israel
-Wisdom literature of ancient East usually
refer to gods by appelltive r ather than
proper name (as in Israel
-Examples:
Egyptian ancient texts, only use proper name when (a) quoting
traditional
sayings in fixed forms or (b) refers to particular attributes of the god
Babylonians,
only use proper names similar to (b) above
Aramaic
literature
-Universal
character of Wisdom literature
Explanation/Method
of Usage:
-J used when Israelite character
-peronal
cile:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(5 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
part
of Isaiah see later)
-Legal
Literature, J gives laws, chosen for Israel
-Poetic
literature, expressing love for Israelite God J in personal way
-E used when universal or abstract character
-Wisdom
literature
-
influenced by neighbours?
-Proverbs
exception
-scribes
wanted to give it an Israelite flavour (?)
-Wisdom
literatre-lik e Psalms
-influence
of Wisdom literature
-poet
conveys general/universal idea of
God or describes Him as God of
whole
world, all peoples
Example
Psalm 68, 47
- P47,
eg., has both J and E: nations know E, but not as J; but J
reigns
over all
-E
used for specific reason often, so
eventually used without special
reason
(so some E psalms not wisdom literature-like)
-Sometimes
J replaced by E since sme thoile:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM (6 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-for Israel
Cassuto’s
Strategy (or what I think it should be):
Criteria
whether evidence (e) confirms hypothesis
(h):
Explanatory
Power: 1. Would we expect e given h? (hopefully, yes)
2.
Would we expect e given not-h? (hopefully, no)
Prior
Probability : 3. Simplicity of hypothesis? (hopefully simple; also scope)
Bayes’s Theorem: Pr(h/e.k) = Pr(h/k) x
Pr(e/h.k)/Pr(e/k) (k
is background knowledge)
Compare
h=DH with h’=Cassuto, Pr(h/k) x Pr(e/h.k) vs. Pr(h’/k) x Pr(e/h’.k)
Lecture 3: More on Divine Names
Usage
of Names (cont.):
-Post-Biblical
-Different
character of names maintained
-Sadducees
(Minnim) v. Pharisees
-Sadducee
aristocracy influenced by international (esp. Greek) wisdom literature
-Sadducee
see general designation of God E as more progressive
-Book
of the Covenant of the Damascus
-theology
close to Sadducee
-Uses
`El even in Biblical verses with J (re Psalm emendation above)
-Pharisee
lower class support national outlook
-Pharisees/Rabbis
preserve national form J
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(7 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Even
in greetings J used (not innovative, even in Lachish Letters)
-Midrashic
literature
-Many
names for God (Master of Universe, Holy One Blessed be He, Father in
Heaven,
etc.)
-But
not E (only in construct state as common nouns, or gentile gods)
-Aramaic
targums (Rabbinic)
-Tetragrammation
as double Yodh even where E
-Liturgy
(Rabbinic)
-Proper
name is J (pronounced `Ado-nai)
-E
used as common noun, construct or with possessive suffixes
-Middle
Ages Philosophical literature
-E as
proper name
-international
culture of time
-philosophical/abstract
conception of God
-Modern
Hebrew
-Hashem
personal
-E
impersonal/abstract/universal/philosophical
-Narrative literature
-intermediate
between literature of E and of J
-not
entirely national-Israelite content
-Stories
about/relevant to whole world
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(8 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-incorporated
with Israelite-monotheistic twist (re Cassuto’s commentaries)
Details
of Use of Names in Narrative Literature:
J used when: E used when:
Israelite
conception of God
-especially
ethical attributes
International/abstract
conception of God
-Creator/Ruler
of universe
Theme
concerns Israel Theme concerns whole world
Relative
to Israel and Israelite Ancestor’s Relative to non-Israelite
Personal,
direct relations with people Transcendent
Divine
attributes appear clear, more concrete Divine attributes appear superficial,
general,
obscure
Direct
sense of God by multitude of simple
faith
and prophetic spirit
Philosophical
sense of God and problems
Wants
to arouse sublimity, sense of Divine
majesty/glory
More
ordinary, to avoid possible irreverence
with
Holiest Name (J)
-context
may make it possible to use either J or E (more relevant prevails)
-Examples
(confirmation):
Genesis,
Creation = E
Creation
of universe
(possibly
also similar - but non-monotheistic - traditions of East)
Possible
objection: Sabbath relevant to Israel
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(9 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Response:
Sanctity for cosmic reasons predating Israel
(Sabbath
common knowledge to whole world?)
Story
of Eden=J (J+E)
God as
lawgiver, Moral content
Personal,
direct relations with man
Not in
conversation between Eve and evil snake, reverence
J+E,
to identify for first time J=E
Creator
of universe is Law-giver
See
similar pattern in Psalm 19
Eve’s
Birth of First Child=J
Partnership
with God in creation (G4:1)
Nearness
of God
Birth
of Third Child=E
Bereaved
of two children (note Amos 6:10)
But
solace upon grandchildren=J (G4:26)
Cain
and Abel’s Sacrifices=J
Offerings
only to personal God (G4:3,4)
Sages
note E or Shad-day or Se-baoth never used regarding
sacrifices
(Sifre Numbers 143). Exception in Exodus 18:12
stresses
that stranger brought sacrifice, lacks knowledge of J
Rest
of story God in ethical role=J
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(10 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Irreverent
Expressions=E
In
likeness of E (G1:27, 5:1)
Walked
with E (G5:22,24- 24 ends with E since begins with E)
But
walk before J (G24:40)
Son’s
of E (G6:2, 4)
Lamech
(G5:29)
Alludes
to J’s curse on ground (G3:17)
Story
of Flood
Universal,
involves whole world (traditional story too?)
Almost
always E
Parallel
in covenants between Adam and Noah=E
Regarding
punishment of wicked and salvation of righteous Noah=J
Regarding
sacrifices, command regarding clean animals on Ark=J
Moral
judge, Lawgiver
Direct
personal relationship with God, fatherly mercy=J (G7:16)
Regarding
curse upon the ground=J (G8:21)
Noah’s
Blessings
Shem=J
(G9:26)
Descendants
of Shem attain knowledge of J
Japheth=E
(G9:27)
Nimrod
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(11 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Proverb=J
(G10:9)
folk
saying of Israel (who used J constantly in speech, see above)
The
Tower=J
Character
of story Israelite
Material
is not foreign (re reworked creation and flood?)
Opposition
to arrogance of man
Relationship
between man and God
[also,
moral judge?]
Abraham=J
Only J
from G12 to G16
Abraham
is father of Israel
J’s
paternal protection and providence
But E
in Circumcision
Abaham
is to be father of many nations (G17:2-8)
Circumcision
for all Abrahams sons (eg. Ishmael) (G17:9-14)
Sarah
also mother of nations (G17:15-16)
E
parallels covenant between Adam and Noah (where E used)
Note
10 generation leaps
Similar
wording in blessings, etc. G1:28, 9:1,7, 17:2,6,
47:27,
Exodus 1:7
Sign of
covenants, G9:12,13,17, 17:11
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(12 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Establishing
of Covenant, G9:9, 17:7,
Everlasting
covenants, G9:16, 17:7,13,19
Same
day, G7:13, 17:23,26
Cutting
off, G9:11, 17:14
E in
Promise of Land (G17:7, 8)
Common
noun
J
appears to Abraham in G17:1
J is
to be Israel’s God, E (note Ezekiel 37:27)
Alien
Peoples=E
Founding
G19:29, 21:8-21,
Revelation
of God to, G20:3,6, 31:24,
God’s
conversations with, G20:11,13 21:22,23
Non-Israelite
reference to God of Israel=J
G26:28,29,
30:27
Etc
etc etc
Cassutos’
Conclusion:
-Names occur as required by their
signification and rules
-not
mechanical redaction work
-First pillar of DH crumbles
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(13 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Lecture 4: Style and Language
Second
Pillar:
-Changes in style and language
-vocabulary
and grammar
-DH explanation: each source has unique
style and language
-Example:
sometimes “holidh” (“begot” in hiphil form);
but
sometimes “yaladh” (“begot” in Qal form)
(Qal
is usually of mother begetting, but
occurs with respect to father in
J,
where Hiphil is expected)
Cassuto’s
Response:
-DH
determines source by language differences, then determines language difference
by
source (circular)
-DH
amends verses to fit with theory
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(14 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-DH fails to consider context of language
differences
-Example
1: Begot in Qal (=J):
Irad
begot Mehujael, and Mehijael begot Methushael, and Methushael
begot
Lamech (G4:18)
Bethuel
begot Rebekah (G22:23)
Seventy
Nations’ genealogy (G10)
Begot
in Hiph’il (=P)
Genealogy
of Adam to Noah (G5)
Genealogy
of Noah to Abraham (G11:10-26)
-Response: Circular Reasoning: passages
assigned to J because of Qal,
then
Qal supposed to be peculiar to J (?)
The
name J not present in genealogy of Cain (in G4), only in
previous
story of Cain and Abel
Similarly
J not in Seventy Nations’ genealogy (in G10), only
in
previous story of tower
DH
connects preceding narratives with J to genealogies and so
assigns
genealogies to J (but DH could have divided sections) (?)
Alternative Explanation: Usage/Rules in Hebrew:
-Yaladh
occurs in sense of holidh (father)
only in
perfect
(past) and participle (present), not
imperfect
(future)
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(15 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Qal in imperfect used only of mother
-For father in imperfect only holidh (but
Proverbs
27:1 has different sense of Qal
imperfect)
So
Torah could not be otherwise in genealogies of
Adam,
Noah (where father, imperfect with Waw
conversive)
But
for perfect where both Qal and Hiphil allowed:
-If
passage starts with Niphal or Qal of mother, it
will
continue with Qal even for father (Niphal has
affinity
to Qal)
-If
passage starts with Hiphil, it continues with
Hiphil
Changes of language here is not
peculiarities of various authors, but
language rules applying to all
-Example
2: Hekim/Nathan berith (“he established/gave a covenant”)=P,
vs.
Karath berith (“he cut a covenant”) in other sources
-Response: Idioms not identical and used in
different contexts
-Karath
berith=give assurance/promise
-Hekim
berith=fulfill assurance/promise
Examples:
God promises covenant with Abraham (G17:4)
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(16 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Soon
after promises to establish (wahakimothi, of hekim)
covenant
(G17:7)
Not
redundant here, Hekim means to fulfill covenant
previous
promise (G17:4)
Later
God says he will establish (hakimothi, ‘akim) covenant
through
Isaac not Ishmael (G17:18-21)
Clearly,
God will fulfill previous promises
through Isaac
-Example
3: Bring up Israel from Egypt=E, vs.
Bring forth Israel from Egypt=J
-Response: Idioms not identical
-Bringing
up emphasises their coming to Israel, (goal in mind)
-Bringing
forth emphasises their leaving Egypt, (liberation from
bondage
in mind)
Examples:
Jacob descending to Egypt fear loss of the Land
Reassured
that he will have possession of the Land
So
“bring up” used (G46:4)
Joseph
says that God will bring up to Israel,
And
his bones to Israel (G40:24)
In
Covenant between the Pieces- go forth
Liberation
from bondage is emphasis (G15:14)
-Example
4: Different personal Pronouns (I)
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(17 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
`Ani=J, E
`Anokhi=P
In P
`ani occurs about 130 times, but `anokhi only once (G23:4)
-Response: Context not considered
Statistics
don’t consider context, sometimes unfair
Note
“`ani Y-H-W-H” is stereotype expression, so counts as one case
even
though used many, many times
Also
`anokhi 3 syllables, `ani 1 or 2 syllable, so effects rhythm
[and
emphasis]
-All Genesis
shows the following rules of usage of pronouns:
1. If
subject of verbal-clause, `anokhi is used (examples G
16:5,
30:3). Single exception (G14:23) is sentence of
unusual
rhythm
2. If
pronoun is in compound subject, following the verb,
always
`ani (G37:10)
3. If
pronoun in nominativus pendens, and
subject of rest of
sentence
is that pronoun, `ani is used (G17:4); if subject of
rest
of sentence is someone else, `anokhi is used (G24:27)
4. If
pronoun emphasises pronominal suffix in verb then `ani
used
(G27:34, 38)
5. In
noun-clauses, if wants to emphasise subject, `anokhi
(G15:1);
if does not want to emphasise subject, `ani (G41:9)
Use of
pronoun depends on rules of language not sources
-Example
5: Terem=J, vs.
B’terem=E
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(18 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Response: Meaning not identical
-Terem means “not yet”, adverb
Example:
Pharoah does not yet understand Egypt is ruined
(Exodus10:7)
-B’terem means “before”, conjunction
Example:
Isaac to bless before he dies (G27:4)
-Example
6: order in numerals changes
Compound
numerals sometimes have units, tens, then hundreds etc.
sometimes
have hundreds, tens, then units etc.
-DH:
descending order (e.g. two-hundred and fifty) =J,E and D
-DH:
ascending order (e.g. fifty and two-hundred)=P
-Response: Consider context again, ordering
based on rules
-When statistical or technical data offered,
ascending order
preferred
-exactness
needed and smaller numbers prominent
Examples:
Numbers 7:86, 7:13, Kings I 9:23
-When in narrative or poem, natural
descending order preferred
Examples:
G6:3, Deuteronomy 31:2, D34:7, Kings I 9:14
But can it be a coincidence that
ascending order occurs in passages
assigned to P?
-DH
has P contain and characterized by statistical, technical
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(19 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
genealogical,
chronological data
-Unsurprisingly,
ascending order expected for these
-In
(few) narratives assigned to P, descending order appears
Example:
G17:24
As for
Style:
-Difference
in style between sections
-DH: P is dry
-meticulous
with details
-stereotyped
expressions
-DH: J, E are exciting and colourful
Response:
- Of course, statistical, chronological,
technical, genealogical data, etc. ascribed to
P, will be dry!
-The
(few) narratives ascribed to P are as exciting as J, E
-The
(few) genealogical record in J are as cold as P
Cassuto’s
Conclusion:
-Differences in style and language are
reasonable in context and for rules of
language
-Second pillar of DH crumbles
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(20 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Lecture 5: Divergences and
Contradictions:
Inconsistencies
in text:
-in ethics
-in
national/political issues
-in
methods of worship
-in customs of time
-conflicting/contradictory passages
- DH
explains by different sources/authors’ outlook
Example
1: Inconsistency in Conception of God
-Source
J has God as God of Israel, righteous judge, personal being having
relations
with humanity, accepting their prayers, humanlike attributes, revealing
Himself
to man etc.
-Source
E has greater distance between man and God, appears in dreams, less concrete,
reveals
Himself to people awake through angels , etc.
-Source
P has even greater distance between man and God, transcendental, etc.
Cassuto’s
Response:
-All explained by the character of the
Divine Names and their contexts, see lectures
2 and 3
-With
respect to differences in P and E, note E occurs in narrative, P in doctrinal,
technical,
etc. sections
-Analogy:
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(21 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-author
writes biography of father, a scientist, academic
-describes
father:
-at
home
-with
students
-as
scientist
-writes
book chronologically, different aspects occur together
-calls
father “father”, when describing private life
-calls
father “professor”, when describing scientific work
-Will
later reader reason according to DH as describe different sources/authors to
explain
different names and aspects father given?
-Similarly,
Torah describes different aspects of God as relevant, God’s acts or the
perspectives
He is viewed change, but God does not change.
-Compare
Dante’s Divina Commedia
-colourful
tales besides doctrinal sections
-but a
single author
Example
2 (related to 1): Different Types of Divine Revelation
-Three types of theophanies:
-God
revealed as more concrete, corporeal=J
-God
revealed in dreams/night visions=E
-Speech
only=P
Seven
instances before Moses and Cassuto’s response:
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(22 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
1. At
covenant between Pieces (G15:1)
-Use
of Name J here contradicts DH
-So DH proponents (Gunkel) alter text,
remove word “vision” (!) so text fits
with E (circular reasoning).
2.
Revelation to Isaac (G26:24)
-Use
of Name J here, again
-DH
proponents remove whole verse!
3.
Jacob’s (ladder) Dream (G28:12)
-Use
of Name J, again (G28:13)
-DH
proponents cut up entire section to produce parallel J section with more
corporeal
revelation of J and E section with dream
4.
& 5. Dreams of Abimelech (G20:3) and Laban (G31:24)
-Abimelech
and Laban both strangers (King of Gerar and Aramean, respectively)
and do
not know J (see lecture 3)
6.
Jacob’s (flock) Dream (G31:10-11)
-irreverent
to use J in context
7.
Jacob’s (Egypt) Dream (G47:2)
-In
all utterances related to Egypt,
story of Joseph and brothers, Jacobs leaving
for
Egypt and Israel’s settling and enslavement in Egypt, until revelation of J to
Moses
at Horeb, J not used, only E
-J
used in narrative of Potiphar’s wife, but not in utterances
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(23 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-used
only once in Jacob’s Blessing (G49:18), which is a poem with different
rules
-In
Egypt Israel in alien country, and oppressed not in Land given by J;
knowledge
of J decreased
-Moses
helps rehabilitation here (Exodus 6:2)
-So DH has to reconstruct text to fit with
theory
-better consistent, explanation of text
possible
Example
3: Differences in Ethical Standards
-J and E show morality and righteousness of
Fathers, but also some questionable
cases
Example: Jacob’s deceit in obtaining
Isaac’s blessing (G27)
-P, in contrast, is never morally defective
Cassuto’s
Response
-Jacob
and Rebecca do sin
-What
is the Torah’s judgement?
-Scripture tells narratives in an objective
style; we learn God’s judgement in
subsequent events
-Consequences
of Jacob’s deceit, Jacob & Rebecca’s punishment:
-He
goes into exile
-Punished deed for deed:
-Jacob
exploited father’s blindness; Laban exploits Jacob’s “blindness” in
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(24 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
substituting
sisters in marriage
-Jacob
substituted in his brother’s place; sisters substituted
-Note:
G29:26 Laban says not custom in his country to marry younger before
first-born;
just as not custom for younger to usurp blessing of first-born
-Rebecca’s
Punishment:
-To
send son away
-Note
parallelism in command to deceive father, as to son to flee (G27:8, 27:43)
(other
problems, G12:10-20, 20, 26:7-11, 25:29-34, 30:25-43, etc. see Cassuto’s La
Questione della Genesi)
-But why
no problems/sins in P at all?
-P
assigned little narrative (only Machpelah and Circumcision), but only dry
records
Example
4: Differences in Customs of Family:
-In P new-born named by father; in J & E
named by mother
-DH: P
and J & E come from different times, when custom of who names was different
Cassuto’s
Response:
-In J
& E mostly mother names
-but a number of exceptions (14) versus rule
(19 or 20)
-also
note majority changes to father in J & E since naming of Jacob’s children
is
one
section
-In P only four cases
-but
two assigned to P because father
names child
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(25 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-third
instance is unclear whether father names son
-Better
explanation of naming:
-if etymology of name relates to father,
then father names
-if etymology of name relates to mother,
then mother names
-if no
etymology given, one case naming by father, another by mother, sometimes
indefinite
who names
Example
5: Conflicting Passages
-Names
of Esau’s three wives differ in two records
-G26:34,
28:9 Esau’s wives:
-Judith,
Beeri’s (the Hittite) daughter
-Basemath,
Elon’s (Hittite) daughter
-Mahalath,
Ishmael’s daughter
-G26:2-3,
Esau’s wives:
-Adah,
Elon’s (Hittite) daughter
-Oholibamah,
Anah’s daughter, Zibeon (Hivite’s) daughter
-Basemath,
Ishmael’s daughter
(other
cases also, but some examined under duplicate narratives, Lecture 6)
-DH
differences from different authors
Cassuto’s
Response:
-DH
does not help here, explain inconsistency (?)
-Blame shifts to redactor
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(26 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Redactor/Editor
should be more careful
-Redactor
is often claimed to tamper with sources elsewhere
-Both records assigned to P
-So DH
has redactor change one account in P and introduce inconsistency by
substitute
another source
-Another explanation:
-Israelites
have different traditions, include both, not favouring either, but for reader
to
decide
-Many
Talmudic instances of this(?)
Cassuto’s
Conclusion:
-Most
prominent evidence here; many more instances, see La Questione della Genesi
-DH ignores context, offers poor explanation
and alters text
-No inconsistencies or better explanations
for apparent inconsistencies than DH
-Third pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 6: Repetitions and Duplications
Duplications:
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(27 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Same story reappears, different in form,
details
Example:
G1, 2
Repetitions:
-Stories describe different events, but are
very similar (in themes/motifs)
Example:
Matriarchs at kings
-Sarah
(G12:10-20; G20)
-Rebecca
(G26:7-11)
DH on
Duplications and Repetitions:
-Different
sources told same story differently
-Redactor keeps repetitions and conflicting
stories
Duplication:
G1, 2, Creation Story(ies)
-First
section:
-uses
E, assigned to P
-describes
creation of whole world, orderly
-God
as transcendant
-Second
section:
-uses
JE, assigned to J
-vivid
narrative
-ethical
theme
-J’s
direct relations with man
Cassuto’s
Response:
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(28 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Different traditions in ancient east of
philosophers v. masses
-of
world’s origin, mysterious speculations v. folk-tales
-Torah maintained both, useful accounts, but
refined with monotheism
-First
section describes how entire world created by One God
-Second
for moral teachings
-But
details of sections conflict?
1.
First section has creation in six days; second talks about “The day” God
made
world (G2:4)
-Day is expression, means the time God made
the world
Examples:
Day mean time generally
-Day
when God spoke to Moses on Sinai (Numbers 3:1); but
forty
days
-Day
when David delivered from all enemies (Psalm 18:1,
Samuel
II 12:1)
2.
First section creation begins with primordial waters; second section dry land
-Problematic only if assumed to be
independent sections
-If we
assume unity, then sections continuous
3.
First section male and female created together (G1:27); second Adam first
(G2:7),
Eve later (G2:21-22)
-General statement followed by detailed
account
-First
is general account, man within world
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(29 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Second
is how created
4.
First section plants are created before man on third day; second after man
(G2:5,
9)
-Plants
in second section are “siah” (shrubs) and “esev” (herbs) of field
-But other plants existed, and (contra
Dillman) shrubs, herbs not most
important
-Negation
implies that other plants existed
-Note
G3:18, thorns and thistles produced, and man punished to eat of “esev”
of
field
-these species are consequence of man’s sin,
-“siah”
of field is thorns and thistles; “esev” of field, wheat and barley,
etc.
for food instead of fruit of Eden
But
all plants created on third day including these?
-First
section talks repeatedly about plants that yield seed (G1:11-12, 29)
-Plants
of third day can so reproduce
-But
“siah” and “esev” fields require God’s rain and Man’s tilling (which
is
consequence of sin)
-As
for G2:9, this explains earlier statement G2:8, general followed by detail
5.
First section, beasts and birds before man; second formed from ground
(G2:19)
-God
showed man all animals to name, and find helper
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(30 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Cattle,
important helper, not mentioned in G2:19
-Cattle
already in garden (G2:20)
-But
other animals throughout world, not in garden, so God forms them for
man
there
-Second
section does not offer detailed description of cosmology as first, only
heaven
and earth incidentally
-Second section is detail of creation of
man, detailed follows general as style
of Torah
-So
unified, continues sections. Also note: first tells of how good world of God
(G1:31),
second of how evil comes from sin (G3:16-19)
Repetitions:
Matriarchs and Kings
-Sarah
in Egypt (G12:10-20) assigned to J
-Story parallels Israel going down Egypt (noted
in Bereshith Rabba
40:8)
-compare
G12:1, 43:1, 47:4;
G43:1,
47:4;
G12:12,
Exodus 1:16, 22;
G12:14-15,
Israel as slaves in Egypt;
G12:16,
13, 2, jewellery at Exodus;
G12:17,
E11:1;
G12:18,
E12:31;
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(31 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
G12:19,
E12:32;
G13:1,
Numbers 13:17, 22;
G13:3,
E17:1, 40:36, 38, Numbers 10:6, 12, 33:2, 2
G13,3,
4, Israel fights first here in conquest west of Jordan
-also
compare G12:1-9, Abram’s went to Canaan, story of descendants
entering
land
Abram
comes from north to Shechem (G12:6-7), to
Bethel-Ai
(G12:8), note alter, to Negev (G12:9) and
Hebron
(G23:17-20),
Jacob
comes from north-east to Shechem (G33:18-20,
24:25-29),
to Bethel, note put away idols (G35:2, 4), to
Negev
and Hebron (G35:27)
Joshua
conquers Ai (east of Bethel) first (Joshua 8:9), note
builds
alter after battle (near Shechem J8:30), in Shechem
Israel
to put away idols and builds sanctuary (J24:23, 25-
26).
Same tripartite land division
-Parallels teach that fathers signs for
children, symbolically conquered
land fulfillment of promise in
children, God helps children as helped
fathers
-Similarly
three stories of mothers advance Torah’s message here
-Something done repeatedly is established,
confirmed and fulfilled
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(32 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-note
doubling of dream of Pharaoh proves that matter fixed, God
will
bring it about (G41:32, Torah explicit
of method here)
-Compare
Roman historian Livy who incorporates similar stories
Cassuto’s
Conclusion:
-DH has
strange redactor repeating and contradicting himself
-But
duplications explained, as details, contradictions re/desolved
-Repetitions
easily explained in method, intentions of Torah
-Fourth pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 7: Composite Sections
Composite
Sections:
-Internal parallels between verses
-Superfluous, contradictory
-DH: redactor culls from different sources
on same story (sometimes own comments)
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(33 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Particular
example (as method in previous lectures):
-Example:
Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (G27)
-DH prizes this example
-DH
attributes to J and E
-DH dissects for sources
-Gunkel
from verses 15, 16 and throughout:
-15,
Esau’s garments (noting God’s names, language, style)=J
-16,
Kid’s skins (etc.)=E
The
Story (read verses carefully):
-Jacob,
Esau contending for blessing belonging to chosen one (G25:23)
-Don’t
know which is chosen; doubt which is elder (G25:22, 26, both strive for first)
-but
clear who deserves it (G25:27, and tenor of whole section)
-Isaac
likes/weakened by influence of Esau (G25:28)
-Rebecca
likes Jacob, mother understands character (G25:28, no reason given, contrast
Isaac
for Esau)
-Each
brothers believes he is worthy, strives; Jacob also attains legal right
(G25:29-34)
DH and
Cassuto’s Response:
-Isaac
invites Esau (G27:1-4, dimness symbolic, not recognizing Jacob’s right)
-G27:1, DH deletes “and he said unto him,
‘My son’ and he said unto him ‘Here I
am’”, since verse assigned to J and
such expression in opening conversation of E
-Cassuto:
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(34 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-But
so simple expression peculiar to an author?
-Even
though sometimes found with E name (not used by J), also found where no
divine
name, and where J name (G22:1 but DH delete J here and substitute E!)
-If
words are deleted we need a new “elaw” (to him) in verse 2, showing verse not
conversation’s
beginning
-G27:2-4, DH deletes “and make me savoury
food…that I may eat”, attributes to E
since parallels “game/venison” and
“savoury food”, showing two sources
(“savoury food” connected with Kid’s
skins=E, “game”=J)
-Cassuto:
-New reconstruction of J and E strange:
-J=Now
therefore take, I pay thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go
out to
the field, and take (hunt/prepare) me venison, that my soul may bless
thee
before I die.
-main
point is that he bring and prepare food for father
-E=And
he said unto him, “My son”, and he said unto him, “Here I am.” He said,
make
me savoury food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat
-valiant
hunter is now a housewife
-but
passage as is, is clear and understandable
-Rebecca
overhears, can’t convince Isaac, so uses deception
-She
prepares food; Jacob will offer it and say he is Esau to receive the blessing
-Blessing
is rightfully Jacob, but should have trusted in God to intervene, not deceptionfile:///
G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(35 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Sin
-G27:5-10,
to “…bring me venison” assigned to J; “and make me savoury food…before
his
death” assigned to E. Venison/game attributed to J; Savoury food to E.
-In E here J’s name occurs (G27:7), but DH
deletes it
-Cassuto’s
Response:
-At
beginning of Rebecca’s words, assigned to J, is “Behold” (hinne); and in
following
portion
ascribed to E, is “Now therefore” (we’atta)
-but expressions “hinne-we’atta” are
inseparable correlatives;
premise/conclusion;
antecedent/consequent
-Check
G27:2-3
-Jacob’s
hesitation (G27:11-17):
-afraid
to seem a mocker (G27:12; note seem a
mocker, Jacob is genuine, thinks
he is
really not a mocker, compare G19:14)
-not
afraid of deception (sin here; but Jacob does not doubt his right)
-Words
quick/short (G27:13-14) showing swiftness and exactness
-Rebecca
dresses Jacob in clothes and skins, each assigned by DH to different source and
divide
paragraph here
-Cassuto’s
Response:
-Both clothes and skins necessary
-Blind
person compensates lack of sight with all other senses
-Esau from Jacob differed in odour of the
field and hairy
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(36 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-Clothes
and skins needed to counteract this
-Other
senses also appear; taste- savoury food (Rebecca must prepare domestic animal
to
taste as wild animal, and hearing- Jacob failed to imitate brother’s voice
(G27:22))
-Also note G27:16, “hilbisha” (she dressed,
perfect) in middle; why not
“Wattalbesh” (she dressed, imperfect
with conversive waw) at beginning of
sentence?
-When in biblical narrative prose verb is
twice in succession, Bible changes its
tense and place:
-first it is imperfect converted to perfect,
next it is perfect
-first it is at beginning of sentence, next
afterwards
-Examples: Wayiqra-qara (G1:5)
Wayehi-haya
(G4:2)
Wayave-hevi
(G4:3-4)
Wayisa-sa’a
(G5:4-5)
Watehi-haya
(G11:3)
Etc.
Watalbesh-hilbisha (G27:16)
-Verses are clearly linked, inseparable:
-hilbisha because previously Wattalbesh
-Jacob
brings food to father (G27:18-20)
-Isaac
first doubts, after convincing blesses
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(37 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-DH
divides between J and E
-Seems
redundancy in parts
-Cassuto’s
Response:
-No redundancy, every word is careful
-Opens
(G27:18), “My father…here I am”
-parallelism with G27:1 shows
antithesis/tragedy, Isaac’s original plan foiled,
father does not know which son, so he
asks “Who art thou, my son?” (G27:18)
-Jacob
answers “Anokhi Esaw”, recall Ani/Anokhi usage depends on emphasis:
-Usually
at introduction is “ani”, since will want to emphasise predicate (note
G27:32)
-but
here is anokhi, Jacob will not emphasise his ‘name’
-Jacob
says he’s done as father told him (G27:20), very vague, afraid to get caught
in
details; only later Jacob has surer flow, “Arise, I pray thee, eat of venison,
that that
thy
soul may bless me” (G27:20)
-Isaac
uneasy, unconvinced, Jacob replies that he is firstborn Esau, Isaac then asks
how
he
found, prepared food so quickly (G27:20)
-Jacob
insists God gave him success (G27:20) (maybe alludes that Providence guided
events
so he’ll get blessing)
-Isaac
still troubled, so feels son (G27:21, climax of tension 22, release 23)
-Lingering
doubt (G27:24)- response ‘ani, Jacob cannot emphasise in deceit
-G27:25,
Isaac accepts food
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(38 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
-G27:26,
kissing and blessing of son
-Kissing
of son not as confirmation, Isaac’s already accepted food, but for blessing
-But smell of Esau’s clothes reaches father,
confirms further, and so Isaac blesses
son with reference to smell of field
(G27:27)
-But
isn’t narration after already told “Then he blesses him” (G27:23) a
duplication?
-Rather, general statement followed by
detailed, tension reduced for details of
blessing
-Also
blessing is not to be divided among sources, unity evinced by:
-for
example, seven benisons upon Jacob (G27:28-29, each verb a
benediction),
as in blessings of Abraham (G12:2-3) and Isaac (G26:3-4) before
him
(seven is number of perfects, re Cassuto’s commentaries)
-Same detailed reasoning, new exegetical
method, applicable to rest of section as
well as to other putatively composite
sections
Cassuto’s
Conclusion:
-Fifth pillar of DH crumbles
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(39 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
Lecture 8: Conclusion
Conclusion:
-Critics
suggest DH must be refined, add detail change theories slightly
-but
arguments for entire theory fail
-No
cumulative argument possible:
-arguments
together don’t make theory more probable than not
-each
argument has no (?) explanatory power, so no cumulative force
New
Directions:
-New
theory
-different
ancient traditions present in Israel
-Evidence:
allusions to things not discussed in detail, but which Israel presumably
understood:
Examples:
“The” cherub and sword of flame (G3:24)
G5:24
G11:29
(Milcah and Iscah well known but no details given)
G36:24
Etc.
(re Cassuto’s commentaries)
-Also
consider Midrashim (preserves some of these traditions in some form; also
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(40 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
The
Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures - Umberto Cassuto
note
Shemoth Rabba 5:22)
-Recognise
Torah’s unity
-Compare
Dante’s Divina Comedia; many sources, themes, style changes, but work
is
fused and unified
-Recognise
Torah precedes prophetic writings
-Recognise
Torah and Prophets are continuous
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/
file:///G|/DOC/GOTTLIEB/PRINT/CASSUTO.HTM
(41 of 41)1/28/2007 7:39:38 PM
Posts
