tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post6181857307484159301..comments2024-03-29T15:13:35.193+02:00Comments on Kotzk Blog: 347) ABRAVANEL’S HYPOTHESIS:Rabbi Gavin Michalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14410541880380752479noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-76185807610192577922021-08-16T09:11:32.558+02:002021-08-16T09:11:32.558+02:00Thank you Unknown. As you would know, there are ma...Thank you Unknown. As you would know, there are many approaches besides the Documentary Hypothesis, such as the Fragmentary Hypothesis (where different traditions were later woven together) and the Literary or synchronic approach (where one interprets the final shape or form of the redaction and attempts to extract meaning). Contemporary scholars like Wohrle and Levenson are examples of those approaches respectively.<br />But, without minimizing any approach, for those interested in the “structure” and “form”, what the text “says” is as important than what the text “tells”. For these people, especially if they want to remain with the parameters of Torah Judaism, Abravanel may be of great value in that he speaks – ahead of his time – of notions such as editors, documents, compilation dates and redactions. And he encourages future student to build upon these ideas (as R. Chaim Hirschensohn say “as part of Talmud Torah”!).<br />Granted, in this article, the focus was on Nach, but to the best of my knowledge, he does not specify anywhere that these processes may not to applied to other texts as well. In fact, as with Hayyun's Hypothesis, we see how Abravanel questions the provenance entire book of Deuteronomy.<br />Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-90946809452917857212021-08-15T21:30:56.108+02:002021-08-15T21:30:56.108+02:00There is a difference between what Abarbanel says ...There is a difference between what Abarbanel says about Nach and what the documentary hypothesis posits about the Chumash.There were others who said similar things about Nach, f.e. Netziv.in the beginning of Rinah Shel Tora and Intro to Sheiltos, Shaagas Arye about DIVREI Hayomim and others. Torah is another thing altogether. At most, some kind of very limited supplementary hypothesis may he supported, limited to words or phrases here and there. <br /><br />In my podcast, Hebrew Bible to the World: What it tells, not what it says, I propose a unified approach to Torah as a work of argument, and the peculiarities of language, repetition and style as a sophisticated intentional <br /><br />Hebrewbibletotheworld@gmail.com<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13965088769665891796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-32406047555791861772021-08-09T07:02:30.327+02:002021-08-09T07:02:30.327+02:00Good math. Thank you.Good math. Thank you.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-74261266182777319322021-08-09T03:14:05.470+02:002021-08-09T03:14:05.470+02:00"a century and a half earlier"
actually ..."a century and a half earlier"<br />actually 250 years earlier.<br />Great post in any event, as usual.yidlmitnfidlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03148828502066600722noreply@blogger.com