Second Temple Authority Structure

1798 Words4 Pages

Authority, borrowed or earned, is a currency of influence, the power to provoke cognitive shifts or physical action. Darrow, the I in Pierce Brown’s dystopian tale of stratified culture and revolt, recognizes he borrows authority from Mustang, the leader of House Minerva, but in this recognition comes his submission. To borrow authority from another person is to submit to that person’s authority; consequently, stray from borrowed authority, and authorization no longer exists. This model, called a Complex Authority Structure, begins with a primary person of authority allowing a second person to borrow that authority. In turn, the borrower then holds that authority over a third party.
This model is important to studying authority in Second …show more content…

Traditionally, this question is some form of, “from which culture, cultures, or Hebraic movements did Second Temple apocalyptic authors borrow concepts, ideas, and imagery for their material?” The answer to that question is then posited as the source for Second Temple apocalyptic material. The problem, however, is this question invites correlation fallacies; older literature correlating with apocalyptic literature are assumed to be sources. To avoid that fallacy, the work herein incorporates comparative literary studies, but such comparisons are focused solely on lines of authority in Second Temple apocalyptic material and its possible source in the Tanakh or literature from the external ancient world (EAW). To be considered a source, however, the authority in the Tanakh or EAW literary passage must be in a parent-child relationship (as defined in the glossary) with the same topos in Second Temple literature. How, then, is this study …show more content…

As result of this understanding, a review of Second Temple history grounded the study in the historical and cultural milieu in which the authors wrote. Once completed, the following step was a literary review that resulted in two main observations: (1) an a priori acceptance of sources was introduced into Apocalyptic studies through the History of Religions school, best exemplified in the Babel-Bible controversy beginning in 1903; (2) apocalyptic studies concerning sources used comparative studies concerning the text itself, not on uses of authority that evidence a parent-child relationship. The result of the Second Temple historical and review of scholarship was a methodology derived from postmodern historiography. The first key element of this method affecting this study was the realization that true scientific objectivity is not possible in subjective studies such as literary comparison. As such, “loops” or temporary returns to earlier parts of a step were introduced to the process in order to control for human error and bias (as explained below). The second key element of this method affecting this study was a text-first approach that recognized no a priori acceptance of sources between Second Temple apocalyptic literature and Tanakh or EAW

Open Document