Comment

Christian Patriarchy Movement Shackles Daughters to Fathers, Homes

104
Nyet12/01/2010 2:07:30 pm PST

re: #96 LudwigVanQuixote

The supreme court’s understanding of the US constitution might not be be binding to a person from Tibet. However, if you want to understand the US constitution, you don’t ask the Tibetans what it all means.

The US constitution is a poor analogy. We have enough contemporary documents explicating in detail as to the framers’ intent. The situation with the Torah could not have been more different. It would be like the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers and other primary documents did not survive, and a bunch of leaders (political, religious, legal - whatever) gathered centuries after the Constitution had been written, and compiled and structured all the oral traditions about the Constitution as they were present at their time. The corresponding “oral constitutional law” would not necessarily have anything to do with the famed “original intent”.

Further, unlike the US Constitution, the written law came with a built in commentary in the Oral Law and it was written in a way that Demanded the Law.

That’s your religious assumption, that the Oral Law was somehow built-in, probably given on the Sinai even. There is no historical data to support this.

2. You can look at the textual analysis and the archeological records, at which point, you must conclude that the majority of the Oral Law is OLDER than the written law.

Now you’re talking! Let’s see some sources supporting this.