Judaism: Book of Exodus neither written by Moses nor dictated by him

[Shad]

That you think that Cassuto's "use" of archaeology drove his argument shows your ignorance of his work and your willingness to ignore his literary bent. I have the book open. On what page does he "use" archaeology? I have a 2005 edition, 117 pages long. The word "archaeology" doesn't appear at all in the text of the lectures or the notes. He does approach it in his commentary on Genesis, but he does so to support his understanding. If you dismiss his "use" of archaeology because it disagrees with you then you are left with his literary analysis (which you cannot counter, being out of your depth). If you accept it then you have a problem because then archaeology "proves" you are wrong. But anyway, based on what you have said, that point is moot. Was Cassuto an archaeologist? No, so you reject him outright anyway...

He does not need to use the word... His research his based on texts which were confirmed, corrected and/or have additions based on cross-references of older texts like the Aleppo and Leningrad Codecs along with cross-referencing other Latin and Greek versions. Let not pretend in his own biography are not full of authors which used this as well. Let also not pretend that the Aleppo Codex was flawless since the Dead Sea scrolls showed this was not the case. Lets not pretend various manuscripts were never found by archaeologists.

Now when it comes to his books many of his arguments are guilty of the very claim he throws at DH. On page 16-17 he states the DH regarding the Divine Names and that there was a redacting. His counter is that that the author changed these name for a subjective reason the reader is unable to comprehend. Apparently only Cassuto is able to comprehend this change despite his claims of lack of comprehension. Thus this becomes nothing more than an assertion and special pleading. This is evident when he provides the reasons for doing so based on, /drum roll, the same text along with the cultural shift he sites as Kings which would make it an anachronism. This is further emphasized by his reliance on later texts regarding Jersulem. A major problem is that Kings is at 5 centuries later .He is ignorant of boths names uses in the Canaanite religion so only assume the shift is based on Jerusalem and the evolution from Hebrews to Israelite which as pointed out is to read anachronism into the text. He continues with his anachronisms only reinforcing the view that DH is correct since his first basis is that of special pleading. On page 23 he finishes countering his own argument by reinforcing the anachronism while also refuting his earlier argument for YWHW in Genesis by identifying the name as strictly within the Israelite character but the context of Genesis is of the Hebrew character. This, again, only reinforces the anachronism within the text and contradicts his own claims. If you wish I can go into more detail but it will have to be later tonight.

Your single minded adherence to some vain belief that archaeology can definitively prove or disprove every historical claim is another example of the blinders you choose to wear. Your are a fundamentalist of the worst kind -- arrogant in both your attitude towards your field and to the place of your field in a broader intellectual construct. It is just plain sad to watch you try to spin everything to conform to some limited world view instead of seeing that there are fields that simply aren't part of your purview. You are a joke.

Archaeology is the study of history and your text is a part of history as are it's content. Considering archaeology has refuted much of the Exodus and Conquest narratives you reliance on a text as which is not accurate is absurd to say the least. Archaeology only reinforces the anachronisms with the Bible making your view untenable and strictly ideological motivated which is based on your religion. Unlike yourself archaeology takes textual evidence and uses it to create an accurate representation of history. While you only use your text as evidence while ignoring archaeology completely. You have isolated your text from any source which contradicts it. While for Cassuto he can not be guilty of ignoring evidence he was not aware of since it was not discovered during his time I can not extend this to you. Keep your religious fundamentalism going, it shows you willingly ignore evidence for the sake of your ideology.

 

[rosends]

He does not need to use the word... His research his based on texts which were confirmed, corrected and/or have additions based on cross-references of older texts like the Aleppo and Leningrad Codecs along with cross-referencing other Latin and Greek versions. Let not pretend in his own biography are not full of authors which used this as well. Let also not pretend that the Aleppo Codex was flawless since the Dead Sea scrolls showed this was not the case. Lets not pretend various manuscripts were never found by archaeologists.

Ah, so now I see. Anyone who uses anything that is part of history is IMPLICITLY using archaeology. So no statement in any field is outside of archaeology. Any textual argument is necessarily about archaeology because all texts had to be read by someone after they were written so that's history which is archaeology. Makes perfect sense. I am constantly "using" archaeology when I explicate texts because my research is based on texts and they were found by archaeologists! Heck, we're ALL archaeologists. If only you had any idea of how ridiculous you sound. Keep back tracking.

Now when it comes to his books many of his arguments are guilty of the very claim he throws at DH. On page 16-17 he states the DH regarding the Divine Names and that there was a redacting. His counter is that that the author changed these name for a subjective reason the reader is unable to comprehend. Apparently only Cassuto is able to comprehend this change despite his claims of lack of comprehension. Thus this becomes nothing more than an assertion and special pleading. This is evident when he provides the reasons for doing so based on, /drum roll, the same text along with the cultural shift he sites as Kings which would make it an anachronism. This is further emphasized by his reliance on later texts regarding Jersulem.

Then you completely misunderstand both the method of literary analysis and the specifics of his argument, and of course, the reason he is part of this thread. And the irony of your contention.

A major problem is that Kings is at 5 centuries later .He is ignorant of boths names uses in the Canaanite religion so only assume the shift is based on Jerusalem and the evolution from Hebrews to Israelite which as pointed out is to read anachronism into the text. He continues with his anachronisms only reinforcing the view that DH is correct since his first basis is that of special pleading. On page 23 he finishes countering his own argument by reinforcing the anachronism while also refuting his earlier argument for YWHW in Genesis by identifying the name as strictly within the Israelite character but the context of Genesis is of the Hebrew character.

You have completely lost me. Your presuppositions run wild and your conclusions (and bizarre interpolations) boggle the imagination. It is like you have never actually read Cassuto.

Archaeology is the study of history and your text is a part of history as are it's content.

Ah, so not only is all literary study actually archaeology, but all archaeology is actually textual study. The alpha and omega it seems. But only an archaeologist can perform this special literary analysis because when anyone else with a literary bent does, he is using archaeology and is therefore um...wait...what are you talking about?

Considering archaeology has refuted much of the Exodus and Conquest narratives you reliance on a text as which is not accurate is absurd to say the least. Archaeology only reinforces the anachronisms with the Bible making your view untenable and strictly ideological motivated which is based on your religion.

What I like most about this section is how irrelevant it is. Nothing in this subthread is about what I believe or what I claim about accuracy. That you still can't see this is the most pathetic point of all.

Unlike yourself archaeology takes textual evidence and uses it to create an accurate representation of history. While you only use your text as evidence while ignoring archaeology completely.

It is sad that you believe this.

. While for Cassuto he can not be guilty of ignoring evidence he was not aware of since it was not discovered during his time I can not extend this to you. Keep your religious fundamentalism going, it shows you willingly ignore evidence for the sake of your ideology.

You have completely lost sight of the entire point of bringing in Cassuto. You are hopelessly lost here.
Maybe in a couple of years you can review this and see all the mistakes you have made.
Have fun being convinced of your own genius. I'll just stick with the "you are an idiot" suggestion and move on with my life.

 

[Shad]

Ah, so now I see. Anyone who uses anything that is part of history is IMPLICITLY using archaeology. So no statement in any field is outside of archaeology. Any textual argument is necessarily about archaeology because all texts had to be read by someone after they were written so that's history which is archaeology. Makes perfect sense. I am constantly "using" archaeology when I explicate texts because my research is based on texts and they were found by archaeologists! Heck, we're ALL archaeologists. If only you had any idea of how ridiculous you sound. Keep back tracking.

Considering in his book in Genesis predates text we are talking about use the Ugartic text, the Ugartic texts influence in his field and my own it is completely reasonable to state this since it is historical accurate. Unlike you he didn't ignore archaeology, he was outdated by it.

Then you completely misunderstand both the method of literary analysis and the specifics of his argument, and of course, the reason he is part of this thread. And the irony of your contention.

You completely miss the special pleading, reading the intent of the author by using fallacious reasoning. Providing evidence for (R)ecompiler by stating the shift in divine language to the Kingdoms period. Cassuto just couldn't see his argument was for the DH the whole time due to his faith, nothing more. Cassuto in the end had no effect on the field outside of fundamental Christian and Jewish views

You have completely lost me. Your presuppositions run wild and your conclusions (and bizarre interpolations) boggle the imagination. It is like you have never actually read Cassuto.

No I had his book up the whole time in my kindle app on my PC. Perhaps you should read you outdated author's book again.

Ah, so not only is all literary study actually archaeology, but all archaeology is actually textual study. The alpha and omega it seems. But only an archaeologist can perform this special literary analysis because when anyone else with a literary bent does, he is using archaeology and is therefore um...wait...what are you talking about?

No. I said archaeology is a field of history. Any literary study that isolates the text from fields of history, which your sources previous to Cassuto do, will be error prone. You can only assume a cultural shift from the text while archaeology provides evidence of that shift. This is why Cassuto's arguments fails, he is outdated by over half a century. Hence why DH is still taught outside of religious institutions. Archaeology is a supporting field which can not be ignored as it provide evidence that there are contradictions, anachronisms, errors and mistakes.

What I like most about this section is how irrelevant it is. Nothing in this subthread is about what I believe or what I claim about accuracy. That you still can't see this is the most pathetic point of all.

Any person that think archaeology is irrelevant to the Bible is doing so due to ideology.

I do think it is about your belief since you have only linked, /drum roll, sources from Rabbis and religious institutions. It is easy to follow your line of thought when you only cite members of your religion as support.

It is sad that you believe this.

Considering you dismiss archaeology and isolate your text it is an accurate statemented

You have completely lost sight of the entire point of bringing in Cassuto. You are hopelessly lost here.

What was your point? So far you cite sources so out of date I wonder if you have any modern knowledge regarding my field or your own. Cassuto is not even talking about the current models of DH, he is arguing against a version no one uses anymore.

Maybe in a couple of years you can review this and see all the mistakes you have made.

No mistake since DH has been become stronger as time goes on, as evidence mounts for many sources under one (r)compiler.

Have fun being convinced of your own genius. I'll just stick with the "you are an idiot" suggestion and move on with my life.

Does not mean much coming from a fundamentalist that has yet to cite a source that is made in the last 30 years. Keep your nose is the work of people using knowledge that is out of date that Cassuto is merely a footnote as an outdated critic using outdated information. Considering acrhcaeology has produced evidence of the previous Canaanite religion as the foundation of Judaism, its gods, its customs, many of which are within Judaism. What the Golden Calf actually rather than the redeacted idol emphasis found in the Bible produced by the Southern Kingdoms rivalry with the North. The conflict over Jacobs heirs which is found in this conflict. So go head and keep your outdated views. It has had no effect on Biblical scholarship nor archaeology.

Too bad you couldn't restrain yourself from comments while contradicting your finally comment.