@Crom-Cruach said:
As well much of what we know of ancient cultures is based on writting of times after said civilization or from outsiders (romans in the case of Palestine). This in addition to the fact that none of the versions we have of the bible are current. The oldest complete bible we have (holding the new testament bible and the old testament) in existence that has been been dated to the 4th century, the Codex Sinaiticus. By then it had already passed through multiple hands, reeditions and translations (which were often full of errors).Saying we have little information on the intent of the individual who wrote/translated/altered a portion of a religious text is a euphemism.
We have evidence of ancient cultures we can interpret and say "this is what we think they believed based on XYZ evidence". But trying to debate what is the true meaning of a religious text is stepping into a quagmire.
Th fact that the "Bible" as we know it today is a product of the 4th century Roman empire is pretty well known among most people who study the Bible seriously (both secular and religious). It wasn't until Constantine legalized Christianity that the compilation of a Bible into a single codex even became possible. Codices were quite expensive (very large ones containing thousands of pages even moreso), so imperial funding was needed to before compiling the books into one.
"Saying we have little information on the intent of the individual who wrote/translated/altered a portion of a religious text" may indeed be a euphemism, but if you've read manuscripts of religious texts in the original language you would know that it isn't entirely true. Even if we can't pin their reasons down with 100% certainty, the intentions lying behind changes made by a Greek speaker in 3rd-century Asia Minor are likely quite different from those of an 8th-century Latin speaker in northern England. The latter venerated the biblical text almost as much as moderns do, while it was likely much more fluid to the former.
"trying to debate what is the true meaning of a religious text is stepping into a quagmire:" Depends on what sense. With religious texts you deal with problems you don't have in other genres. Personally, I treat them the same way as any other document. When the Gospels say the Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea (and nothing contradicts them), I take it to mean Pilate was prefect of Judea. When the Torah enjoins restrictions on the practice of slavery, I assume there are socio-economic motives driving this. Whatever "higher meaning" someone wants to take out of such texts I leave to the theologians.
Log in to comment