[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion Mishnah as History
>Dear Paul: I had difficulties to understand what you mean with first
>source's, second source's etc..Are the apostrophes in the right places?
> And which sources are you referring to?
> Do you imply that religious faith is frequently based upon folk legends
>rather than historic data-events?
I presume you refer to the following quote in the recent post.
> The former
>> requires certain rules of evidence in order to declare something
>> historical. I like to use the newspaper editor's rule (which is of course
>> not even a good historical test), do you have two independent sources
>> saying the same thing?
>You are still dealing with folk beliefs,in fact you are dealing with four
>folk beliefs, the first source's, the second source's, the interpreters
>and the reader's.
I couldn't agree more.
The comments about the 4 sources were actually made by Bradley Harrison, my
remarks were the >> and the no >. But this is what I understood BH
saying: When someone goes to interpret a text, particularly one that was
edited out of diverse sources, there are a number of layers of folk beliefs
(which I equate with saying that people have different perspectives, that
writers write out of different social, religious and cultural contexts,
etc.) Thus to explain in reverse order. A reader reads and interprets out
of their cultural and historical location, the interpreter (which I took to
mean editor of the book, but if one assumed a teaching situation, then it
could refer to the teacher) has his/her own perspective and beliefs, and
the sources the interpreter draws upon (whether the editor or the teacher)
each were composed in their own cultural/historical context.
If I am way off base in my interpretation, perhaps Bradley will clarify it
I hope this helps.
Paul V. M. Flesher, Director
Religious Studies Program
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071-3353