Talk:Umberto Cassuto

message: Rather than rely on a secondary source, I read parts of Cassuto's commentary on Genesis.  The Documentary Hypothesis, by definition, asserts that someone (known as the Redactor) took several documents covering similar subjects and edited them together.  Thus Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are two different accounts of the creation that allegedly were edited together in this way.
Cassuto did not accept the Fundamentalist position that the Pentateuch as we have it was written by Moses and has never been substantially modified.  He seems to believe that different parts had different authors.  However, equally he rejected the idea of documents edited together.  He argued very strongly that Genesis 1 and 2 were by the same hand.  Thus it is misleading to deny that he rejected the Documentary Hypothesis.
:I'm not following you. You say that he believes that "different parts had different editors", yet you also say that "he rejects the idea of documents edited together."  Are these not contradictory statements?  Please clarify. RK 00:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I dodn't say "different editors"; I said "different authors".  What I mean is that according to Wellhausen and his successors, there were originally two accounts of say the Flood, which the Redactor skillfully wove together to make one account.  Cassuto denies this, saying that the editor of the torah only had one account of the Flood, which he presumably used with little if any revision.  The Wellhausen school scour the text for inconsistencies, and use these to "prove" that there were two sources.  Cassuto rejected this philosophy and produced arguments for the essential unity of each story.
:Don't mean to butt in but the thing about Cassuto is he gets attacked from both sides.  Fundamentalists disapprove of his denial of the literal Mosaic authorship of the Torah.  I suspect Jewish fundamentalists are doubly outraged that an orthodox Rabbi should do so.  Dogmatic followers of Wellhausen don't like his strong arguments against the existence of JEPD.  Haven't read Wenham's commentary but it's nice to see some modern scholars are in the middle on this.
::Just edited the Cassuuto-on-Wellhausen section to maake it tighter. But no need to alter anything - the thrust and assessment are right. Cassuuto had the misfortune to be ahead of his time; if he were arund today he'd be mainstream. The DH, by the way, is one of a number of models for looking at the origins of the Torah - Wellhausen and Moses aren't the only alternatives.PiCo 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the Cassuto-on-Wellhausen section to make it a bit less dismissive.  It is not satisfactory as it stands, not only because of its clear POV, but also because it gives a misleading account of The Documentary Hypothesis and ignores entirely La Questione della Genesi and his other works relating to the same subject.  It hardly deals with The Documentary Hypothesis at all, e.g., omits the basic framework of analyzing the "five pillars" of the DH.  It has clearly been written by someone who advocates some version of the Documentary Hypothesis, and considers Cassuto chiefly in terms of the historical question of when the Pentateuch emerged or was finally edited - which was very much secondary to his purpose in The Documentary Hypothesis.  This work was instead almost entirely given over to a detailed examination and refutation of the thesis that there were separate and distinct documents later patched together into one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.235.121 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Documentary Hypothesis 

message: "His research showed that the printed Bibles generally have an accurate text...where he differs from other Bibles in any of these respects, it is likely that Cassuto has better authority." 
This seems like quite an extraordinary claim - that a scholar, working alone, would have better authority than the various groups of scholars who have produced the other translations. They would surely have the benefit of differing viewpoints that could be thoughtfully considered - he would have no one to be accountable to but himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.89.235 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassuto and the text of the Hebrew Bible 

message: A notable omission from this article is some account of Cassuto's contributions to a wider understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures impinging on Biblical Israel.  He was one of the world's leading authorities on Ugaritic culture and literature, for example.  In fact, that is what he is chiefly cited for in Christian Biblical research, and his more significant work in Biblical documents and in understanding the Pentateuch has been ignored, as pointed out in the article.  It would be good if a specialist in Ugaritic Studies and other ancient Near Eastern cultures contributed a section to the article on Cassuto dealing with this topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.235.121 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugaritic Studies 

message: "In the 1990s he was for some years deputy mayor of Jerusalem" ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.192.91 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life and career 

message: I've been trying to clean up this Neutrality-Disputed section, which does present some valuable material, but paints with too broad a brush, and tends mightily in the direction of rhetorical flourish. Numerous changes designed to tone down the Tendenz have been effected already (e.g., "Cassuto's refutations above all rather devastatingly demonstrated..." → "Cassuto argued first of all...") in an attempt to save this section; but paragraph #7 just stumps me, and I am inclined just to delete it.  How is the reader reasonably supposed to be able to evaluate whether the book being dwellt on here most chiefly, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, "can only present a few choice and representative instances to buttress each of the major points Cassuto makes", or whether "La Questione della Genesi ... provides ... a much more detailed examination ... and extends the analysis also to all other significant instances in Genesis used to justify the [Documentary Hypothesis]" (←emphasis mine)?
Anyone who can contribute solutions here, please do so in a timely fashion. Otherwise, after a reasonable wait and when I've got the time, I'm just going to delete the whole paragraph, since it seems to me to represent more of just an apology (i.e., for anyone who still remains unconvinced by the actual support already offered), than it does anything else. Kind regards, and thanks in advance. IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Cassuto and higher biblical criticism": ¶7 needs major substantiation or speedy deletion 

message: * Oppose. The page has become too long, and the contributions unwieldy. But deleting is not a proper remedy. Cassuto has a lengthy entry at the Biography at the Jewish Virtual Library with 5 secondary bibliographic references. He is alluded to in the Documentary Hypothesis pages, and with good reason he has had a profound influence on thought in the area, according to the testimony of the proponents of the theory. Another list of secondary sources is found at S.E. Loewenstamm, ed., Studies in Bible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), pp. 9-42. Though in Hebrew, since he finished his days in Jerusalem.  Cpsoper (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Deletion on grounds of notability