Being a veteran blogger here (snicker), I have been perplexed about the rough treatment Umberto Cassuto has received in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis. Typically, skeptics shun him away, or simply call him crap. It's not like you can accuse him of being an OJ and simply trying to come up with ANY apologetics to keep his faith. My question is, why? Seriously. For the people that do this, I would honestly like to know, is it:
May 13, 2009
1) Really studying the matter and realizing his rebuttal to DH is wrong?
2) Some dogmatic allegiance to the majority of other scholars who hold by DH?
3) Not wanting to feel like you're not part of the intellectual crowd if you actually DID think Cassuto makes sense?
4) Since other rabbis have tried (unsuccessfully) to rebut the DH with apologetics in the past, an almost instinctual reply is to believe ANY attempt at rebutting DH is going to be
apologetics by definition?
Please answer below in the supplied comments section. Winners will receive a free autographed picture of me signing an autograph picture of myself. Thanks.