Taking a step back, a question here is: how do you read more correctly? Do you need to take into account someone's entire work to know what they intend when they write something? Or is it adequate to take a passage, isolating it from the author's larger text?Adler, The Origins of Judaism, p. 7 (highlighting added)To reiterate a crucial point from above, the present study does not seek to explore the origins of the notion of a Mosaic “instruction” (tôrāh), the origins of the Pentateuch, or the origins of the Torah as a legal system. All of these are certainly vital questions, but their focus is on the history of ideas whereas my interest here is in the entirely distinct realm of social history. A Mosaic “tôrāh,” the Pentateuch, and the Torah may all have manifested as ideas in the minds of a small cadre of individuals, who might even have decided to put these notions into practice in their personal lives. What concerns us here is when and by what historical processes the rules and regulations of the Torah—once these mental constructs had come into existence—came to be widely known and put into practice as a way of life by an entire society.
That seems obviously not adequate. But the presumption inherent in the attempt to negate the second post in this thread has been that brutishly head in the sand. See quote, interpret out of that quote, the end. But that's not the end. There are many plausible alternatives for authorial intent of a given quote, and the rest of the author's work is relevant.
If the author somewhere explains:
"I use the 'If P then Q' methodology."
And elsewhere explains:
"It's important that A obtains as well when using the 'If P then Q' methodology, otherwise the argument would be flawed."
Then the author's intent is more clearly and fully stated:
If (P and A) then Q
And using the author to support all arguments of the mere form if P then Q would be perverse.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:36 am