Judaism ForumOffended, or just complex questionsHello Webmaster Well Professor Green seems happy to miss out the crucial points about the numerous schools of thought that existed in the second temple era. I suspect you may find the acedemics of his school of though just bruash past that era, as such thier views are misleading. I can think of another area, totally unrelated where acedemics form poor opinions and the consequences are unpleasant. I have endured that personally. On this however, if some acedemic is going to try to understand the meaning of the four narrative styles, avoiding how these were understood during the second temple era, they may as well admit that they are just peddling half truths. I can understand therefore how you would find my initial post unsettling. I apologise for not being clearer. the problem for me is how to explain that the four narrative styles the acedemics have observed, have been misinterpereted by them to mean something that they believe they can use to deny the authorship of the text. It does not mean the styles were not there, it means the acedemics of Green's school wildly missed the point. And this is possibly why they tend to skip past the second temple era, or if they do tackle it they do so by missing out the bits that would bring thier "Not moses" model into question. Shalom Sophie. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame