https://www.jpost.com/judaism/article-743505
This extensively researched, clearly written book is thus an interesting read, but one needs to be able to think for themselves and enjoy the information while being healthily skeptical about the author’s conclusions.
Interesting that he does not discuss Adler's strongest chapter, on ritual purity.
ReplyDeleteI would note that Prof Adler is quite careful and intellectually honest in separating between what's speculation (his conclusions, which he openly acknowledges to be speculation) and that which he has evidence for.
ReplyDeleteI invite interested readers to view his academia.edu page for examples of his work.
From the article:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jpost.com/judaism/article-743505
As illustrated, his arguments often suffer from major flaws, and his many intriguing sources and artifacts often provide little support for his thesis. Finding a suggestion of lack of observance is not definitive proof of ignorance of the laws nor of lack of observance among other contemporaneous Jews. Even a cursory reading of the Bible paints a picture of the masses not always following the Torah’s rules; thus it is not surprising to discover evidence of laxity among the Iron Age II or Persian-era masses.
What is Adler's thesis about ritual purity?
ReplyDeleteSee his academia. Edu page, for instance his papers on mikveh. Ritual purity is a primary focus of his academic publishing.
ReplyDeleteSee his academia.edu page.
ReplyDeleteIf you admire Adler; and characterized his chapter on "ritual purity" as his strongest chapter, then you should be able to synopsize his general thesis in a small nutshell, like 1-3 sentences.
ReplyDeleteIf you're sufficiently interested, you should be willing to read his full presentation and see his evidence. And BTW, my admiration is for the arguments and evidence, which I find interesting. Neither I nor Adler himself think that his conclusions are anything more than speculation. As Adler himself emphasizes, this is not about a hypothesis, but about gathering data.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I want to waste my time on an "academic", whose "arguments often suffer from major flaws, and his many intriguing sources and artifacts often provide little support for his thesis.?
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't.
I recommended it for those who find such things interesting, no t or those who do not.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't.
I recommended it to people who are sufficiently interested, not to people who are not.