How is it relevant to ask what an author's intentions are? We're not even talking about one author, but several, writing in different times and places, none of whom we have so much as a name for aside from Jesus himself, let alone a biography from which a psychological profile could be drawn and precise intentions deduced. We have at our disposal a few thousand texts from the same century as the works in question; those scant resources and archaeological data are our only resources for knowing anything about that century of time anywhere in the world. Your claim of certain, objective knowledge about what given authors truly meant is absurd. That would be hard to do for an author who was still alive and available for interview let alone an ancient one about whom nothing is known except the text.
And even if we were talking about just one author, who we know exceedingly well, living in "ancient days" does not give them some sort of free pass on writing rationally and ethically, nor change
our responsibility to engage with texts in a rational and ethical fashion.
They may have lived in the 1st century, but
we do not.
Except, the theology the Bible doesn’t morally condemn slavery is not “bad theology.” It is a strong theology for the reasons above. Same argument for gender inequality, working conditions, etcetera.
You are so lost in fundamentalist propaganda you don't even realize how fully they have defined the Bible, theology, and all the rest in incredibly biased terms that overtly favor themselves. How can you, an atheist, not realize that being "slavishly devoted to the supposedly literal meaning of a text (as interpreted by Victorian street preachers)" is not the only possible definition of being "good"? Who told you that in the first place, and what were their intentions? Were they trustworthy? Or did they want you to turn your brain off and do as you were told? I know you know better than this. You must approach other books than the Bible more critically, or you wouldn't be able to function in our mostly literate world. I'm well aware that I disagree with the Biblical authors on this issue. Why do you care more about that than I do? If they were wrong, they were wrong. Logically inconsistent, likewise.
Suppose we were analyzing a recent tweet of Donald Trump's in which he claimed that he is "the least racist person in America". Ten years later, a Trump fan living in New Zealand tweets that "Native Americans have been mooching off the federal government for too long and should be penalized". If we accept your agument that writing in the same tradition as someone else means we can analyze the writings of the founder on the basis of the writings of his followers, it follows that when Trump wrote his tweet, he must not have meant that it was wrong to make racial slurs when he referenced not being racist (just as your Jesus must not have meant to challenge slavery when he lectured about loving his neighbors sixty years before the composition of Timothy). So the question becomes, are you obliged to
agree with Donald Trump that it is not racist or inconsistent with rejection of racism to say obviously racist things, since he clearly did not intend to exclude uttering racist slurs from his personal definition of being the least racist person in America?
How is it relevant to ask what an author's intentions are? We're not even talking about one author, but several, writing in different times and places, none of whom we have so much as a name for aside from Jesus himself, let alone a biography from which a psychological profile could be drawn and precise intentions deduced. We have at our disposal a few thousand texts from the same century as the works in question; those scant resources and archaeological data are our only resources for knowing anything about that century of time anywhere in the world. Your claim of certain, objective knowledge about what given authors truly meant is absurd
I’m not inquiring into the intent of an author or authors. I do not care what an author(s) meant to say, intended to say, or what meaning they intended.
What I am looking for is the meaning of a text. Texts, contemporary texts, texts a few centuries old, such as the U.S. Constitution, or older, such Plato’s “Republic,”and ancient religious texts, have a meaning of their own. Words, after all, have a limited range of meaning, and context, syntax, and other factors communicate a meaning, a meaning that was present at the time of the communication, whether the communication is written or spoken.
“My car is parked in the driveway. Please move and park my car in the bay,” has a meaning. I’m not discussing what the author/speaker meant to say but didn’t, or intended to say. The limited range of the meaning of those words, the word choice, word placement, allows one to reasonably understand the meaning is to park the car into a compartment, as opposed as to parking the car into the San Francisco Bay or some other bay of water.
Indeed, our exchange is made possible by factors such as the selection of words, words having a limited range of meaning, word placement, context, has permitted us to understand, generally, what the other is saying and responding.
When interpreting a text I begin with a plain text meaning. If a plain text meaning doesn’t offer a meaning resolving an issue or question, I then proceed to discern the meaning of the text that existed at the time by seeking to know how the text was understood by the people at or near the time the text was written. So, by way of example, a plain reading of the free speech clause is not going to yield an answer as to whether the wearing of black armbands to school as expressive speech on an important societal/political issue, the Vietnam War is indeed “speech” in the 1st Amendment. An exploration as to what the word “speech” meant in the late 1700s, what it meant under English common law, what people said in their writings, treatises, other writings statements as to what is “speech,” is needed to understand how the word “speech” was understood to mean and from there an informed opinion can develop as to whether the wearing of armbands in such a context is “speech.”
The word “adultery” meant a married or bethroed woman having sex with a man she wasn’t married/bethroed to, in the OT. Regardless of what meaning assigned to adultery today, the meaning of the word in the OT has its own meaning.
The issue between you and I is what is the meaning of love your neighbor as yourself in relation to laws allowing slavery in the OT. You assert a particular meaning, not rooted in any facts or evidence.
Rather, you begin with an unstated premise of the meaning of love, the meaning comprised of, at least, of exclusion, excluding behaviors, and leap to the conclusion “love your neighbor as yourself” cannot be consistent with owning someone, i.e. slavery being inconsistent with the verse and therefore, morally forbidden. There’s no evidence, presently, your contemporary, unstated understanding of the word “love” in the phrase “love your neighbor as yourself” was the meaning back then when the command came into existence, specifically a meaning understood to exclude slavery.
But your 21st century common sense approach with your 21st moral compass doesn’t tell me your meaning IS the meaning. Just as a 21st century understanding of the word adultery doesn’t inform anyone whether such a meaning today IS the meaning in the OT/and or NT.
For me, the evidence indicates back then it was understood the command of love your neighbor as yourself didn’t forbid slavery. Regardless how bizarre, irrational, unethical, and immoral you think such a meaning to be today is irrelevant.
Some of the evidence, and this is by no means exhaustive, has me skeptical of your explanation of why slavery is not explicitly forbidden but implied to be forbidden under the command of love thy neighbor as thyself. One such piece of evidence is for a people obsessed with the law, whose identity is tied to the law, and the authors and people painstakingly and assiduously documented a long list of what the people couldn’t do, but slavery didn’t make Santa’s naughty list. As I said before, the list of do not do X extended to the seemingly asinine command of not mixing fabrics when sewing, but according to you failure to list the moral sin of slavery as proscribed conduct was an oversight. This single example can be amplified by other similar OT verses. The OT is littered with similar prohibitions seemingly mundane.
The authors and people took the time to, at some point, ostensibly contemplate and promulgate by oral tradition these perceived mundane prohibitions and subsequently place the prohibition on parchment, but the moral sin of slavery was mistakenly missed. The procedure for a wife suspected of infidelity, inter alia, consuming some dusty water and a curse by the priest, is spelled out, but the immorality of slavery was missed.
Of course, there is also the evidence of all the accompanying rules the religious leaders and lawyers promulgated for a purpose of telling the people the nuances of implementing and compliance with some Biblical command. Essentially, this can be thought of as the equivalent of the U.S. administrative bureaucracy, which promulgates rules to implement a statute and illuminate what conduct is/isn’t compliance with a federal statute. There were many rules for what specific conduct would and would not comply with the sabbath day of rest.
There is the Talmud, which has quite a bit of explications, statements, opinions, made over the centuries, as to what some command means, says, allows, doesn’t allow, conspicuously does not, as I recall, render slavery as immoral.
Neither does the Talmud, as I recall, construe the command of love thy neighbor as thyself as morally inconsistent with slavery, despite the fact the Talmud does include a comments about love thy neighbor neighbor as thyself. Neither did Jesus, or the apostles, condemn slavery, as far as the NT goes, and they didn’t assert the command of life thy neighbor as thyself as morally inconsistent with slavery.
I find it rather difficult to think, based in part on the above, that your meaning IS the meaning of the verse love your neighbor as yourself. That’s your meaning, I’m doubtful your meaning is the meaning.
You are so lost in fundamentalist propaganda you don't even realize how fully they have defined the Bible, theology, and all the rest in incredibly biased terms that overtly favor themselves. How can you, an atheist,
Who are you addressing? I’ve never been an atheist a day in my life.
I'm well aware that I disagree with the Biblical authors on this issue. Why do you care more about that than I do? If they were wrong, they were wrong. Logically inconsistent, likewise.
The issue isn’t whether you disagree with the authors. The issue is whether your meaning is the original meaning of love your neighbor as yourself. This was never about, for me, your agreement or disagreement with the authors.
I care as to whether your meaning is the meaning of the verse.
the least racist person in America". Ten years later, a Trump fan living in New Zealand tweets that "Native Americans have been mooching off the federal government for too long and should be penalized". If we accept your agument that writing in the same tradition as someone else means we can analyze the writings of the founder on the basis of the writings of his followers, it follows that when Trump wrote his tweet, he must not have meant that it was wrong to make racial slurs when he referenced not being racist (just as your Jesus must not have meant to challenge slavery when he lectured about loving his neighbors sixty years before the composition of Timothy).
This is a poor analogy. The latter tweeter isn’t commenting upon what he understood Trump’s tweet to mean. In fact, he isn’t commenting upon Trump’s tweet at all. I’ve never espoused your tenuous notion of “writing in the same tradition as someone else means we can analyze the writings of the founder on the basis of the writings of his followers.” There needs to be a connection of the latter person is commenting upon a the prior statement.
I did reference Jesus, and others, but not because of any “writing in the same style,” but because Jesus directly quoted to the verse at issue and in doing so, didn’t bother to tell the listeners to love your neighbor as yourself means no slavery. Regardless of the command, Jesus didn’t condemn slavery at all. I have no idea what Jesus “meant to say” and I couldn’t care less what he “meant to say.” I’m interested in what he said and what he didn’t say.
But it isn’t merely what Jesus failed to say alone, it is him and several others, men who discussed the verse and didn’t say the command was inconsistent with slavery. In discussing the command, some, in the Talmud, took the view the verse didn’t apply to a wicked person, or enemies, or was limited in its application to Jews. No mention of slavery as conflicting with the command. The apostles, including Paul, who mentioned slaves, didn’t say slavery was immoral or conflicted with the command.
These religious lawyers, rabbis, Jesus, the apostles, pulling no punches in telling people what not to do, didn’t mention slavery, and the idea it was a mistake, a oversight by all of them, is possible but not plausible.
