Thanks for the post. IIUC, your judicial analogy sounds a lot like 'legal interpretivism', so it's not obvious to me that we shouldn't consider it interpretation.
Yes, Gadamer's argument is meant as an argument against the notion that there is such a thing - beyond by name - as legal interpretivism. "Truth and Method", Supplement I, Hermeneutics and Historicism.
1) Christianity and Islam both enacted profound revolutions against established dogma, fundamentally rebelling against previous legal and scholarly traditions. Their very founding acts involved challenging the established order that had conveyed and maintained these earlier religious laws.
2) As rebellious traditions, Christianity and Islam naturally developed tendencies to challenge establishment structures. This revolutionary character manifested in their missionary nature—actively seeking to spread their alternative vision beyond traditional boundaries and convert others to their new understanding.
3) Over time, these revolutionary movements inevitably developed establishments of their own, complete with institutions, scholarly traditions, and diverse interpretational approaches. However, despite establishing their own orthodoxies, the rebellious character remains fundamental to their nature even today. This tension between revolutionary origins and institutional development continues to shape their evolution.
That seems to me largely correct. But this open up a whole door to why I think Kaufman's reading of the Hebrew Bible is highly misguided, a conversation which perhaps we'll save for another opportunity.
Thanks for the post. IIUC, your judicial analogy sounds a lot like 'legal interpretivism', so it's not obvious to me that we shouldn't consider it interpretation.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Yes, Gadamer's argument is meant as an argument against the notion that there is such a thing - beyond by name - as legal interpretivism. "Truth and Method", Supplement I, Hermeneutics and Historicism.
1) Christianity and Islam both enacted profound revolutions against established dogma, fundamentally rebelling against previous legal and scholarly traditions. Their very founding acts involved challenging the established order that had conveyed and maintained these earlier religious laws.
2) As rebellious traditions, Christianity and Islam naturally developed tendencies to challenge establishment structures. This revolutionary character manifested in their missionary nature—actively seeking to spread their alternative vision beyond traditional boundaries and convert others to their new understanding.
3) Over time, these revolutionary movements inevitably developed establishments of their own, complete with institutions, scholarly traditions, and diverse interpretational approaches. However, despite establishing their own orthodoxies, the rebellious character remains fundamental to their nature even today. This tension between revolutionary origins and institutional development continues to shape their evolution.
That seems to me largely correct. But this open up a whole door to why I think Kaufman's reading of the Hebrew Bible is highly misguided, a conversation which perhaps we'll save for another opportunity.
Looking forward