One of the points a person takes away from Robert Wright's The Evolution of God is that much of what is written in the Bible reflects the political climate of the day. There were differing schools of thought as well as both internal and external political intrigue that helped to shape what was put down in written form. When modern believers of the Abrahamic religions read various tracts with modern eyes and sensibilities, they often do not understand the perspective of the authors themselves and conflate contemporary theology with the theological thought of ancient times.
Not surprisingly, many Christian fundamentalists in this country know little of the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East in antiquity. They read of Canaanites and Moabites without having a clear understanding of who these people were -- other than "enemies" of the tribe of Israel -- or how they lived. They know little of their forms of government, contributions to human knowledge and art or the specifics of their religious practices.
I don't mean to pick on the Christian religion alone. The very same charge can be leveled against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even philosophical Taoists! Most people who adhere to a religious or philosophic perspective know far too little of the historical ramifications that impacted the foundational texts. This omission of knowledge and understanding tempers our ability to comprehend what each author wanted to share.
There are scholars who specialize in history and/or literary analysis. While, unlike the common person, these individuals steep themselves in the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy and science of ancient times, they still are unable to see things completely for what they were at the time they were written. The reason for this is that human knowledge is built incrementally and we have progressed many layers beyond that of ancient thinkers.
Consequently, while scholars work very diligently to try to remove as much contemporary bias, prejudice and modern knowledge as possible in order to attempt to see life through the eyes of ancient humankind, there is too much of it to be entirely successful. Even if a person could somehow manage to remove each of these conscious aspects of comprehension from the equation, far more lies in each person's subconscious and, thus, the subconscious serves as an impediment we cannot bridge.
The upshot is that, while we may be able to understand the general gist of what an ancient author has attempted to impart, we must admit that we are unable to take in the complete picture. When we say that what I believe is exactly the same as author x believed, we sadly are fooling ourselves! When such beliefs then are institutionalized in a church doctrine or a philosophical stance, then millions of people are fooled!
Am I suggesting that we should throw ancient texts into the trash bin of history? Not at all. I'll address this issue in the next post.
Not surprisingly, many Christian fundamentalists in this country know little of the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East in antiquity. They read of Canaanites and Moabites without having a clear understanding of who these people were -- other than "enemies" of the tribe of Israel -- or how they lived. They know little of their forms of government, contributions to human knowledge and art or the specifics of their religious practices.
I don't mean to pick on the Christian religion alone. The very same charge can be leveled against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even philosophical Taoists! Most people who adhere to a religious or philosophic perspective know far too little of the historical ramifications that impacted the foundational texts. This omission of knowledge and understanding tempers our ability to comprehend what each author wanted to share.
There are scholars who specialize in history and/or literary analysis. While, unlike the common person, these individuals steep themselves in the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy and science of ancient times, they still are unable to see things completely for what they were at the time they were written. The reason for this is that human knowledge is built incrementally and we have progressed many layers beyond that of ancient thinkers.
Consequently, while scholars work very diligently to try to remove as much contemporary bias, prejudice and modern knowledge as possible in order to attempt to see life through the eyes of ancient humankind, there is too much of it to be entirely successful. Even if a person could somehow manage to remove each of these conscious aspects of comprehension from the equation, far more lies in each person's subconscious and, thus, the subconscious serves as an impediment we cannot bridge.
The upshot is that, while we may be able to understand the general gist of what an ancient author has attempted to impart, we must admit that we are unable to take in the complete picture. When we say that what I believe is exactly the same as author x believed, we sadly are fooling ourselves! When such beliefs then are institutionalized in a church doctrine or a philosophical stance, then millions of people are fooled!
Am I suggesting that we should throw ancient texts into the trash bin of history? Not at all. I'll address this issue in the next post.
I am eagerly awaiting your next post on this topic. It's something that has interested me for a long time.
ReplyDeleteAnother important factor I think is to consider how much the original meaning may have been lost in translation. Like the Bible for instance, someone mentioned in a commentary to one of your earlier posts, that the word translated in English as 'fear', in Hebrew actually was more akin to the word 'respect'. Which to me changes the meaning entirely.
ReplyDeleteSeems like it would be a good idea for anyone seeking a clearer understanding of the Bible, or even of any other book originally written in a different language, would probably be best off becoming fluent in that original language, such as in the case of the Bible, reading it in its original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I realize not everyone is able to do that, but for those that do, it would probably be a very eye opening experience, to see how much was actually lost in translation. For instance, I've read somewhere that in Hebrew the word that was translated as 'God', was not singular but was actually plural, as in Gods. Now I'm no Bible scholar by any means, haven't even read it in its entirety, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I did read that somewhere and thought it was pretty interesting.
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteIt's in the can and will post later this evening. Hopefully, it doesn't disappoint.
Cym,
Great point as usual. I actually read about the aspect you bring up in Wright's book. According to Wright, the Hebrew word can be translated as god OR gods AND as "god" in a generic form and "God" as a specific entity.
How it is rendered in English and other languages depends on each interpreter and, of course, a lot of them don't agree. :)