@Harel13 Pretty much yes - the Torah reflects very clearly the ancient perception of the intrinsic hegemony of elites - priestly or royal. כי יפלא ממך דבר - you don't sit down and work it out intellectually - you go to the priests or judge(s) who are obviously out of your league, and they will tell you the right decision.

The Greeks introduced democracy, especially intellectual democracy where anyone could become a philosopher, not only priests or royalty. Thankfully, the Pharisees picked that up and continued the Greek tradition of Plato's academy - kind of "Beis Hilel" and Beis Shammay".

Regarding "looked for deeper meanings in religious texts", we can observe the development of commentaries to Homer's Illiad and Odyssey (c.8-7th centuries BCE) in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE Greece.

Tell me something, Adler writes that the Na"kh consistently mentions Bnei Israel sinning and NOT observing Mitzvos while never mentioning them spontaneously observing them. Do you agree? Why is that? Let's imagine there were some rabbis who studied Torah. How would they fit the narrative? Did you notice that in the Tanakh nobody wishes to find out Halachah? In some fringent cases, kings come to prophets or psychics, but never rabbis or "smart" guys. How does that make sense?

All I'm trying to do is to find the truth that reconciles/makes sense of our sources.