[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MMT
Moshe Shulman wrote concerning my post on MMT:
"He is only saying that he thinks the authors
of MMT could have been in charge of the temple,
and that they did not separate themselves. (I
have answered him that I think the wording used
there could not have that meaning . . .)"
Moshe, you misstate me. I do think the authors
of MMT separated themselves from the multitude of
the people. That is what MMT says, and that is what
I said in my post at all times. Since this has
been repeated in posts of yours perhaps five times
now, I would like to get this detail straight and not
be misrepresented.
The expression PRSNW of MMT is equivalent, as the
editors of MMT noted, to SWR MDRK H'M of CD 8.16, 19.29.
Ian has framed the issue admirably: these phrases can well be
understood as the rhetoric of priestly separation from
non-observant people. What happens when such a disciplined
observant party is in power? At this point the terminology of
"sectarian" begins fracturing. The insight I hoped to
introduce was that the issue and rhetoric of group discipline
and cohesion needs to be distinguished from the
separate issue of political and social marginalization.
There is no necessary linkage. The terminology of
"sectarian", unless more carefully defined, may be
counterproductive.
Greg Doudna
gd@teol.ku.dk