Combo of 2-3-4. I'd like my prize ASAP, please.
Interesting how I got pretty much your same question thrown at me when I dismissed Avigdor Miller, Shalom Shrebrenik, and Tzvi Imbal's views regarding evolution as "crap".
Or Hoyle's views for that matter.
Well, question still stands.
LOL
Tzvi Inbal. I remember him.
"Interesting how I got pretty much your same question thrown at me when I dismissed Avigdor Miller . . . "
I dunno, but that sounds kind of like #4 to me.
I would imagine for most Skeptics they haven't really read all that much of Cassuto, similar to Believers not having read much about the DH.
I would also imagine that those who have read Cassuto don't really take it too seriously b/c they have a whole wealth of academic scholars to reply upon (the XGH's response, no doubt).
You did, however, ask for a very specific group of skeptics. Those who have honestly approached DH with an open mind, and have read Cassuto.
Curious, as you, to hear the responses . . .
Haven't read him, sorry.
"I dunno, but that sounds kind of like #4 to me."
It's actually a combination of #1 and #4, with a great deal of utter frustration thrown in the mix.
When I see all the rabbis exclaiming how they have "refuted" evolution, to some extent, the past is evaluated. After all, all the other rabbis that claimed to "refute" evolution turned out to be a bunch of clowns, why should I assume this guy is any different.
Yet, despite this, I do understand their arguments which "refute" evolution, and I also understand why their arguments are either wrong, or just plain apologetics.
Also, if you do this long enough, you start to get really frustrated. You go over the same old arguments and need to explain to them how their "proofs" against evolution are just misconceptions of evolution (Irriducible Complexity) basic biology(viral integrations), science in general (Falsification), and even logic. (Carbon dating doesn't work on shellfish, therefore it doesn't work on anything else). After you do this enough times, you don't have much desire to waist your time with these guys anymore. So what do we do? We become quick to dismiss their views as nonsense.
Maybe it's the same thing for the DH.
>Maybe it's the same thing for the DH.
I can be, if you are talking about Rabbi Bruer for example, but can you say it for Cassuto?
Interesting how I got pretty much your same question thrown at me when I dismissed Avigdor Miller, Shalom Shrebrenik, and Tzvi Imbal's views regarding evolution as "crap".
Yeshivish Atheist | 05.14.09 - 2:14 am | #
I think what Yeshivish Atheist is saying here and your question HH is one in the same. People believe in things. OJ believe in the validity of the bible and skeptics believe in the non-validity of the bible. Both are beliefs. Therefore, when OJ encounters something that they think goes against the bibles validity they write it off as crap. Also, when the skeptics find something that they believe is a step that proes the validity of the Torah they write it off as crap.
Therefore, I would say it has nothing to do with 1,2,3 or 4, but rather it has to do with this idea contradicting their belief. This is why I think little fox on daas hedyot's better know a kofer post said that originally when he read the DH books he thought they were absolute crap. Thsi was when he was wholeheartedly OJ. However, when he became a skeptic not only did he believe in the validity of these books that he previously thought were crap, but he thought any answer to them was crap. Making the transformation from believing in the Torah to believing in the non validity of the Torah.
E-mail m so you can know where to send the picture.
HH,
As I've stated elsewhere, I find the particular models of the DH to not be very persuasive. Perhaps I have not studied it sufficiently but they seem to be often built on far too much supposition and unwarranted extrapolation. There is too much reliance on guesswork for the political and social situations of the relevant time periods as well as the whimsically just-so behavior of the variously proposed source-writers and redactors.
That said, I do agree that in the text there appears to be the work of different voices from different eras but beyond that I don't believe there is sufficient data to come up with extensive and detailed theories. Modern DH scholarship appears to be more imagination than substantiation.
I have not read Cassuto but from what I know of him I think he makes some decent points against the assumptions of the DHers, even while I think his model is just as fantastic as some of the more popular ones.
Thanks OP
I think I agree with most of what you said.
I really want to hear from people that HAVE read Cassuto and toss him aside as crap.
i feel there is very little value in what he has to say. attacking
every point in the book well, is too time consuming so my options are
to limit my scope or to dilute the force and I chose the former. the
specific topic i will address is the ani/anochi problem. Arguments
that are similar in force can be made to most of the rest of the book.
I find 7 problems with cassuto's approach to ani/anochi.
1. cassuto first correctly notes that many of the ani's in p are in
the phrase "ani Hashem." while this is so, it does not answer the
question. Ani appears 123 times in P and Anochi only once. Anochi
appears 53 times in D and ani only twice. While the 50 or 75 ( i
don't remember which) or so Ani Hashem's certainly reduce the counts,
it is not sufficient to answer the problem. 50 to 2 is better than
123 to 2, but it is still unacceptable. Moreover, some of those Ani
Hashem's should not count as "Ani Hashem's." For example, if one
chooses to consider Num 15:41, Lev 25:38 Lev 26:13 as "Ani Hashem's"
the one has a serious problem with Deut 5:6
2. More importantly, "Ani Hashem" just reformulates the question.
The question now is why is "Ani Hashem" always appearing in P. While
i agree this is a less forceful question, it still is one.
Cassuto then attempts to give a "grammatical" distinction that answers
the question. There are many problems with this.
3. . From the outset, any attempt to establish rules governing
ani/anochi only reformulates the question. If a given set of
circumstances educe an Ani, then, whatever they are, be them
grammatical, the whim of the Author etc., it is a problem that they
appear 123 out of the 124 I's in P and only 2 out of the 55 I's in D.
If it is a grammatical distinction, then that implies that Lev has a
different writing style than Deut which is equally problematic. It
only reformulates the question
4. This is not so much a question on Cassuto, but on the fact that
yeshivesh people quote him as a defense for the divinity of the Torah
(e.g. http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/com...Hypothesis.htm)
Cassuto was not saying that the torah has one Author, but rather that
the way the DH divides it up is wrong. But, using this to say that
there is one Author is silly. Cassuto's approach only holds for Gen
(e.g. Ex 33:19). He himself admits this.
5. Cassuto himself admits that his rules don't even hold in all of
Gen. He quotes 14:23 as the one exception. But, honestly, either i
am missing something or the entire rule is ridiculous because i see
tons of exceptions. Two examples are 18:13, 48:22, but the list goes
on.
6. Even if the rules do hold they are ridiculous. Cassuto lists it
as "5" rules but in reality he lists 7 because two of them have 2
contingencies.
7. Cassuto's rules aren't even relevant to most of the cases.
Cassuto's last rule says that if there is no verb, then the rule is
that if the po
7. Cassuto's rules aren't even relevant to most of the cases.
Cassuto's last rule says that if there is no verb, then the rule is
that if the point is to emphasize the word "I" then "anochi" is used,
else, "ani" is used. This is most of the cases since Hebrew doesn't
have the verb "is" and in Hebrew the present tense is a nominal form.
But, how to apply this rule is entirely subjective. Compare, for
example, Gen 27:32 and Gen 27:19. I pick these because Cassuto actually
talks about them in the book and claims that in the first the emphasis
is on the "Bincha bechorcha esuv" and in the latter the emphasis is on
the "anochi." Whether you like his p'shat as to why is not the issue.
What is the issue is that it is clear the p'sukim have the same exact
layout and so you could have said the exact opposite about the
emphasis. He says it this way to defend his theory. But, if one is
using this sort of after the fact explaining, one can explain anything
and the explanation is thus meaningless.
When you are done with the cases that he's wrong and the cases that
are subjective, you have few left. As a sample, let's look at the
first 15 ani's
You've got the Nominativus pendens where cassuto is right: (6:17, 9:9, 17:4)
You've got the cases he's wrong: (14:23, 18:13, 22:5)
and you've got the cases that are subjective: (9:12, 15:7, 17:1, 18:17
(x 2), 27:8, 27:24 27:32)
The 15th is 24:45 which I have deliberately left out bec i think he's
wrong but i could see one arguing that it is Nominativus pendens so i
am not sure where to put it. The point is, of the first 15 ani's, his
rule addresses less than 1/2 of them. Of those he addresses he's only
right around 1/2 of the time which isn't very good when you consider
that just saying that every single time is ani in all of Chumash makes
you right 56% of the time (182 to 141). And this sort of pathetic
showing is not limited to the first 15 ani's but is true throughout.
Similar problems plague the rest of the work. I don't have time to go
through it all here.
So I garner that your reason is #1 then.
You seem to have caught many errors. I am surprised that he didn't catch them himself.
BTW- I have always understood Cassuto as thinking that it was written done as a unified text and NOT by seperate documents. You seem to be saying his only problem is HOW the text is seperated, but that he DID think it SHOULD be seperated.
This I got from here.
http://www.experiencefestival.co...suto/id/
2039783
But of course, you are right that yeshivish people are wrong to use him to show divinity of the Torah.
Cassuto did accept in general the idea of applying higher criticism to the Torah. He postulated a redaction to a school around the 10th century BCE., who assembled a number of early sources to create the text of the Torah that we now know today, and developed his own theory of how the Torah was edited. [2]. This is not the same as the Documentary Hypothesis; for example, Cassuto explicitly rejected the idea that there are two different and even contradictory accounts of the Creation (a cornerstone of Wellhausen's thesis); on the contrary, he argued at length that the two accounts are from the same author.
by the way, i can't help but wonder if i, at least in part, helped promted this post, given that i recently posted something on DH in which I used the word crap to describe cassuto
You would be correct.
It seems to me that the common error made by both skeptics and super-frummies alike is to hold that either the DH is right, in which case Judaism is false, or it is wrong,in which case Judaism is true. The basis for this error is an overly narrow reading of Rambam's 8th ikkar. The gemorah itself postulates multiple authorship for the end of devarim. Several Rishonim hold that portions of the Torah were added/edited after Moshe. One author does not necessarily a Divine revelation make, nor does multiple authorship exclude such revelation. You fellows are missing the forest for the trees. It is a matter of faith.
As an aside, if the DH is correct, why can't its proponents remotely agree on exactly who wrote what? Plausible conjecture does not a proven theory make.
>>>> As an aside, if the DH is correct, why can't its proponents remotely agree on exactly who wrote what? Plausible conjecture does not a proven theory make.
Moshe,
Of course the details of The DH are totally speculative. I don’t think anybody claims otherwise. Hence it is impossible to have complete agreement on these detail. But what matters, as far as traditional Judaism and the 13 ikkarim are concerned, is that the basic concept of the DH, i.e.multiple authorship is likely true. One does not need to hold of THE DH to see that the author of, say devari-im, could not reasonably have been the same author who wrote many other parts of knumash, unless he was schizophrenic or a dissembler.
"could not reasonably have been the same author who wrote many other parts of knumash, unless he was schizophrenic or a dissembler."
But why is it impossible that one "person" intentionally wrote it differently?
* impossible should probably read: "unreasonable"
Moshe
I tend to agree with you. Judaism, via the Rishonim, agree that more than one hand touched the Torah. The fact that the Rishonim spoke about only specific cases is irrelevant. Different Rishonim thought different sections were of different hands. Hence, even today we can add to that list.
>>>>> But why is it impossible that one "person" intentionally wrote it differently?
by differently, i think you are focusing only on language and style. and its true that many commentors have recognized this difference and explain it by saying that moshe wrote devarim and hashem wrote the rest of the khumash, in different languatge and style. A reasonable idea to explain these differencess. but, the problem is much deeper. devarim consists of various components; theology/hashkafa, narratives, and commandments. a close analysis of the literal text of each of these themes shows that they often contain many outright contradictions to their corresponding themes/commandments/narratives in the other parts of khumash.
nobody ever bothers, but do the exercise and you'll see what i mean.
and even after that you still have dozens of questions on the text that can at best be explained by lame kvetches and at worst left as open questions.
and the response to all the problems above, saying that "2 or more authors, who had different hashkafa, source legends, religion, wrote the torah" easily in one fell swoop explains almost all of the questions. to me its extremely compelling.
"one fell swoop" is really in the eyes of the beholder to a certain extent because then goes in the much harder task of having to get into nuances of explaining that "one fell swoop."
To a religious person, the "one fell swoop" can be explained by God writing everything and it looks like that because that's how he wanted it to look like it. It's not necessarily true.
HH,
why would He write a document that contains hashkofot and laws and narratives that contradict the rest of His book. i'm not talking "form" (style and language), I'm talking literal content. Devarim reflects a different "reality&religion" than other parts of chumash. why would the same author do this?
look at the narratives. open a devarim and read. nearly every recollected event has elements in it that contradict or are different than the corresponding narrative in exod, lev. or numbers. even the description of matan torah does not correspond. compare the 2 versions of the spies story.
look at the theology/hashkafa. (ahavat Hashem, kedusha, kapporah)there are enough significant differences in these thems to support the argument that it just wasn't the same author writing and proposing both.
even some of the mitzvot are outright contradictions (maaser, shmittah, yomtov)
and major oddities..no yom kippur, aaron's part reduced to nothing while in the rest of chumash he is mentioned 250 times and stands at moshe side at every major event, no mention of the mishkan at all, references to karbonat minimized, etc.
also, to me its odd is how could the text of the ten commandments be so different. the torah is supposed to a document of incredible precision. further, compare the text of forbidden animals. it has so many textual and legal differences. where did these come from and why.
obvious answer: 2 (or more) authors
HH,
Here is another intriguing oddity and itt refers to belief in divine reward/punishment. In the Torah portion outside of Devarim, not one single positive mitzvah (except for honoring ones parents given within the 10Com.) does the Torah promise the individual a reward for his performing the mitzvah. Yet in devari-im, we find a dozen times or more that the torah tells the person if he performs the matzo it will be good for him or he will have long life.
On the other hand, for specific negative commandments, Devarim never promises any kind of divine punishment, while the opposite is true in the R O Ch, koret is mentioned dozens of times. The author of Devarim never heard of Koret.
Tell me that the authors of these books didn’t have different beliefs about divine reward/retribution as due to an individual.
correction: the word 'matzo' should be 'mitzva'
"there are enough significant differences in these thems to support the argument that it just wasn't the same author writing and proposing both."
So, here's something I don't get, and admittedly it could simply be b/c I haven't delved into the DH seriously, but what was the redactor's "intent" on coupling these separate recorded histories.
Was his intent to sell it as one document, or did that message simply get perverted over time by people who wanted to believe?
And was there a large conspiracy to destroy all evidence of the separate writings pre-unification?
I think part of my issue is if it was all eventually accepted as one narrative, why didn't they make it more alligned/paralleled/less-contradictory . . .
Like why would the redactor publish 2 separate accounts of the 10 commandments if not intentionally.
I imagine the theory is that he had no intent of them being taken as anything other than 2 distinct & separate accoutns of the same old myth . . . but I guess I'm missing the history between the binding of Tanach and the Talmud . . . and how it fits with the Temple.
David A.,
"why would He write a document that contains hashkofot and laws and narratives that contradict the rest of His book. i'm not talking "form" (style and language), I'm talking literal content. Devarim reflects a different "reality&religion" than other parts of chumash. why would the same author do this?"
Traditional Answers: 1) The contradictions are only apparent and are resolved by the oral law. 2)Devarim is essentially Moshe's speech to by after 40 years in the desert. Thus we would expect it to be stylistically different then other portions of the Torah. As for any apparent substantive differences, they are more additions/clarifications, not contradictions, and are due to the fact that Moshe was addressing a new generation that had never been enslaved and and had needed a different message than their parents.
And if those answers do not satisfy you, then, as stated, please note that a theory multiple authorship is neither incompatible with the Torah being divine revelation, nor with the views of some of our greatest rabbis. Indeed, if those views are correct,one could argue that you might even expect some variation in content, since every prophet receives the message differently. The prophesy may come from the same Source, but it is filtered through human beings. And, again, any practical differences are resolved via the oral law in halacha.
Another theistic approach to the problem, that of R. David Weiss-Halivni, is to posit that the Torah is was indeed originally Mosaic, but that the contradictions you see crept in over the years, due to the fact that the text was not fully and accurately transmitted, given the lapses of BY into idolatry at various time. The present Torah text represents a reconstruction of the original Torah through prophesy [ to Ezra]. This theory also explains the apparent divergences between the halacha [oral law] and our present written text as being due to the fact that the former was based on the original text.
Here is another intriguing oddity and itt refers to belief in divine reward/punishment. In the Torah portion outside of Devarim, not one single positive mitzvah (except for honoring ones parents given within the 10Com.) does the Torah promise the individual a reward for his performing the mitzvah. Yet in devari-im, we find a dozen times or more that the torah tells the person if he performs the matzo it will be good for him or he will have long life.
On the other hand, for specific negative commandments, Devarim never promises any kind of divine punishment, while the opposite is true in the R O Ch, koret is mentioned dozens of times. The author of Devarim never heard of Koret.
Tell me that the authors of these books didn’t have different beliefs about divine reward/retribution as due to an individual.
David A.
So what am I supposed to understand from this? That one theology never had a concept of reward, while another theology never had a concept of punishment? And when the redactor came along, he slapped himself on the head and said: "of course, we need BOTH reward and punishment to make a successful religion. Duh!"
That doesn't hold much to a realistic POV.
>>>> 1) The contradictions are only apparent and are resolved by the oral law.
agreed, the talmud knew the chumash well. the oral law (which i, of course, believe is also NOT from Sinai) does resolve legal differences by simply interpreting and NOT reading the text literally, which is fine “l’halacha” but that does not eliminate the fact that the literal text tells us that the laws were originally different.
And of course this does not explain the differences in hashkofot as i indicated and also in the many details within the repeated narratives.
>>> 2)Devarim is essentially Moshe's speech to by after 40 years in the desert. Thus we would expect it to be stylistically different then other portions of the Torah. As for any apparent substantive differences, they are more additions/clarifications, not contradictions, and are due to the fact that Moshe was addressing a new generation that had never been enslaved and and had needed a different message than their parents.
OK, its fine to explain that the style is different, but again, content is what i’m concerned about. Devari-im, if it’s a review (i.e. mishna torah) is an odd review in that it has 70 plus new laws. I wouldn’t call that a review. Are you saying that these new laws were not applicable to the previous generation of the wilderness and hence they didn’t know or need to know any of them. And what about "what is not in devari-im", were the laws not mentioned because they were NOT applicable to the new generation. Thing like kappora and yom kippur, the concept of koret, the holiness of the festivals, rosh hashano, simchat torah, etc. and you would figure that land-related laws would be in devari-im, as the nation was about to enter the land…so where is shmittah, yovel, partitioning, mustering of troops, etc. There simply is no good explanation that reasonably addresses the issue: why Devarim included and/or excluded mitzvot nor why some of the historical narrative is omitted.
>>> And if those answers do not satisfy you, then, as stated, please note that a theory multiple authorship is neither incompatible with the Torah being divine revelation, nor with the views of some of our greatest rabbis.
But if i were to believe this view (i.e. moshe didn’t write all, or almost all, of it as dictated by God) am i not a kofer??
>>> Another theistic approach to the problem, that of R. David Weiss-Halivni,
But his is not at all normative, and isn’t he also considered a kofer.
Ari,
There is no question that the most difficult aspects of multiple authorship is how were the pieces put together, how did the peeople come to accept the final document and didn’t the redactor note the discrepancies? I don’t have an answer, but the fact is, it worked. We have the document in front of us and we do know for a fact that it was accepted as a unified document for many many centuries.
As to discrepancies and duplications, the only suggestion i could make is that the editor had many “sacred” documents that needed to be included to satisfy and honor them and likely thought that including recognized text was a must.
>>>> Like why would the redactor publish 2 separate accounts of the 10 commandments if not intentionally.
As said earlier likely he couldn’t delete one, since both were already in “circulation”. maybe written, or maybe only orally and were considered sacred by its group.
>>> So what am I supposed to understand from this? That one theology never had a concept of reward, while another theology never had a concept of punishment?
HH,
No, you misunderstood... they both held of consequences for one’s actions. i.e reward and punishment. They just had different views on how it functions. both agreed on R&P on a national level. i.e. do mitzvot things will go well for the nation, do avairot things will go badly and you will be exiled. Where the two differ substantively is mitvot on a personal level. D held that punishment for a particular aveira only came from the human courts, no divine punishment while only rewards were divine. While the author of the RofCh seems to have no opinion on rewards for positive commandments on a personal, while for negative commandments punishment came either from human courts or as divine retribution(i.e. through koret)
IMHO, it appears that the author of D did not know or believe in a concept of koret. It is not credible to me that “koret’, such an important concept in Judaism should not even be mentioned once by moshe in his “departing summary”. It makes a lot more sense that the reason it’s not in Devari-im is because the author either never heard of it or just didn’t believe in it.
What can I say, it just doesn't tickle me at all. A lot of suppositions.
I don't mean to sound petty, these are just my questions on "your" approach.
- "As said earlier likely he couldn’t delete one, since both were already in “circulation”."
But if they were in circulation we would expect to find seperate Bible-like books around ancient Israel. They don't exist.
Again, if specifically these recollections were so well-established in the region that the redactor had to use them you would expect some of them, or any of them, to exist as a separate document somewhere. How could they have intitiated a silent revolution to eliminate all evidence of separate documents?
- "IMHO, it appears that the author of D did not know or believe in a concept of koret. It is not credible to me that “koret’, such an important concept in Judaism"
But it is credible to you that koret, such an "important concept to Judaism", wasn't even known to the scribe D who knew all those other facets of Jewish religion/culture?
How could such a scribe have been so important to have his words included in the compilation yet be completely unaware of such an important concept?
David A.,
"There simply is no good explanation that reasonably addresses the issue: why Devarim included and/or excluded mitzvot nor why some of the historical narrative is omitted."
Perhaps those mitzvot were given, just not recorded until devarim. There is a theory in the gemoreh that the Torah was given Scroll by Scroll. Respecting the historical narratives, the traditional answer is that they are complementary, not contradictory.
"But if i were to believe this view (i.e. moshe didn’t write all, or almost all, of it as dictated by God) am i not a kofer??"
Not IMHO. That's my whole point, based on Rishonim. But admittedly yes according to what apparently most frummies believe today.
">>> Another theistic approach to the problem, that of R. David Weiss-Halivni,
But his is not at all normative, and isn’t he also considered a kofer."
Same answer as preceding.
>Not IMHO. That's my whole point, based on Rishonim. But admittedly yes according to what apparently most frummies believe today.
Ya, seems in the past. Judaism had a good body of differences of opinions. Now, there is a def. of being orthodox as to believe in the 13.
>>>>But it is credible to you that koret, such an "important concept to Judaism", wasn't even known to the scribe D who knew all those other facets of Jewish religion/culture?
Absolutely. The author of D probably never heard of the concept. The idea of “korat” was likely introduced and become normative some time after Devarim was written. Devraim was most likely the first complete book of the Torah that was compiled and disseminated as a “sefer” and reflected beliefs and hashkofot of its time. also, it was likely written by a person(s) with biases that explain its attitudes.
Ari,
I think you fail to understand or even consider the whole idea that Judaism evolved. WADR to our tradition, the idea that all of Judaism goes back to moshe is just not true. And that mitzvot and beliefs were added over time and of course details of existing ones and beliefs were changed over time.
and one doesn't need to be a biblical scholar or historian. Much of this can be "seen" by reading Tanach objectively.
A most glaring example is yom kippur. Nechamiah 8 clearly and un-equivocally tells us that yom kippur did not as yet exist for normative Judaism in his time (maybe it was known earlier and only practiced by some priestly sects).
Similarly I-Kings 8 implies that yom kippur was not a holiday (as yet), although here the Midrash claims that it was and only that it was cancelled for that year. similarly the theology of Kapporah (a fundamental of jewish religious belief) became part of Judaism some time well into the second temple period (and its likely that this coincided with the time of acceptance of the final version of the 5 books). Devarim never heard of it, yishayahu and yirmiyahu never heard of it. many other of nach's books never heard of it.
Another absolutely unmistakable example is the Kehuna. The torah say that only benei aaron could be priests. Devarim tells us that all levites were eligible for kehuna. Almost all of Tanach tells us that non-descendants of aaron were priests. This exclusivity is then logically later and appears in Torah text likely written much after Devarim and probably by the controlling “Aaronide” priests of the second temple period.
i could give dozens of examples.
all of this of course is easily acceptable to those who accept later authorship and multiple hands in writing the Torah.
>>>> But if they were in circulation we would expect to find seperate Bible-like books around ancient Israel. They don't exist.
i think no scrolls exist of ancient israel...that's part of the problem.
nobody has found a complete torah that's old either.
What can I say, it just doesn't tickle me at all.
have you ever done the exercise of comparing each verse in Deut. with the corresponding verse in the Rof Ch. Its time consuming and maybe tiresome, but to me it was compelling.
>>>>>> A lot of suppositions.
The aforementioned compartson reveals many, many differences, odd omissions, and outright contradictions.
that’s a fact.
The supposition is attempting to explain this.
I don't deny contradictions, the suppositions come in to paint a a particular portrait of ancient Judea and Israel and how an xacto knife was taken to copy and paste competing beliefs together.
Later authorship, and DH are two different things. That was Cassuto's whole point.
HH,
"Ya, seems in the past. Judaism had a good body of differences of opinions. Now, there is a def. of being orthodox as to believe in the 13."
1. So it therefore follows that all the Rishonim who hold otherwise were apikorsim? I don't recall them being put in Cherem.
2. I note that Rambam himself states in his peirush hamishnayos that, where chazal differ over an issue that is theoretical, i.e. does not affect practical conduct, then we do not say that "the halacha is like so and so". So if we're going to cite Rambam, let's follow him consistently.
3. When Copernicus' theory first appeared, many Rabbis opposed it as heretical. It took a while, but times have changed. My point being that, even if it should be determined conclusively that the Torah is not 100% Mosaic, that fact could be dealt with in an intellectually honest manner within a traditional theistic revelatory framework. And if it were so dealt with, there would be a lot less people going OTD or becoming Orthoprax after being exposed to the DH.
>1. So it therefore follows that all the Rishonim who hold otherwise were apikorsim? I don't recall them being put in Cherem.
No, my point is that TODAY, OJ is defined by the 13. Alevai that we could return to those sort of days.
I honestly don't understand anybody (i.e. somebody who looked into the facts ) who doesn't recognize that the Five separate books of the Chumash were sealed as one book at the time of Joshua after the conquering of Israel.
Nothing else makes sense to me.
What makes even less sense to me, is why Joshua is separated from the rest of the Chumash. (I'm lying of course, It makes perfect sense to me. But not from a "secular" perspective)
"No, my point is that TODAY, OJ is defined by the 13. Alevai that we could return to those sort of days.
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 05.24.09 - 3:28 am | #"
It's easy. Move to Irvine 
Halevai, not Alevai.
Commenting by HaloScan
