Ostroeuropa wrote:Aelbica wrote:
But in many ways great literature isn't supposed to be clear and straight to the point. If it was than it wouldn't be so easily applicable to so many people's lives over thousands of years.
You're crediting these people with far too much.
It's incredibly poorly written already, adding on the implication that they secretly mean something else and are using metaphors and stuff is simply beyond credibility.
It simply isn't consistent with the level of talent contained in the writing.
These were uneducated people having a go at writing. And you expect me to believe they were using complex metaphors and shit?
ESPECIALLY in an age where Interpreting religion differently was grounds to get you killed? They mean EXACTLY what they said.
It's simply hilarious that anyone suspects otherwise.
All in all, it's really the same level of analysis that goes for the Epic of Gilgamesh (I personally know professors of ancient Meditteranean/Near Eastern studies.) People interpret the theological meanings differently because they believe it as still scripture.
People in the ancient world were, more or less, as smart as we are today. The only difference is the level of information they had access to. Also saying that people weren't using complex metaphors then is akin to saying that indiginous cultures don't do the same with their oral traditions; which is untrue as well when you look into the past century or so of anthropological analysis.
I'm not Christian, but I think it's important to recognize the level of secular analysis of these texts, and texts and the concept of "text," in general before you make what really are rash judgments.