I would be happy to answer those questions.
But you first.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: My post implied that I cannot answer those questions. I'm certain there isn't enough information to do so. The rational thing to do when insufficient information is available is to withhold making conclusions. I could offer opinions but that's all they would be.
Feel free to jump to conclusions if that's your thing.
So you were asking rhetorically and assuming that since you can't answer no one can.
OK
Quick quiz. My answers to your rhetorical question.
Q1. Any/all of the [Rig Veda] writers knew that their writing contained deliberate falsehood?
No I don't think they told deliberate untruths. People who respect divine authority are the least likely to lie/blaspheme in the name of such an authority. Sincerely mistaken maybe. But not lying.
Q2. Any/all of the [Rig Veda] writers lunatics?
No. That is not my first instinct. I believe they were, at worst, reporting real experiences of a dream state or hallucination.
See Lobsang Rampa, Jidda Krishnamurti, Mouni Sadhu.
Q3. Any/all of the [Rig Veda] authors wrote historical/scientific truths and we can't account for how they learned such?
Yes. This is well known.
Bonus question - can the historical critical method provide objective proof/evidence that Moses or David or Luke were lunatics, liars or plagiarists?
No. Because its very method is its limitation.
I wasn't assuming that nobody could
produce what they claim are answers to those questions. But I'm certain there is insufficient information to produce a methodology to validate/invalidate those answers which you gave. I, like you, could proffer answers, and my answers might differ from yours. What neither of us can do is substantiate those answers.
However, since you gave your opinion I am disposed to point out a few things about them.
First, it is almost universally accepted that several of the "Pauline" epistles were written by one or more individuals
pretending to be Paul. This
seems like a deliberate falsehood, but I'm willing to wait for better evidence before passing judgement. It is nearly dead certain that whoever wrote the epistles of Peter was a forger. That individual claimed to have met Jesus and claimed to have been "with him on the mountain top" (probably an allusion to the transfiguration legend). If this is the case that individual was lying. Whoever wrote "Matthew" included a bullshit story about King Herod having all male children under the age of two slaughtered. There's no way this happened in real life because if it did it would have been reported by secular sources. Whoever wrote "Luke" included a bullshit story about a "musical chairs" census that required people to return to the land of their ancestors to be counted. Never happened. There are many other untruths contained in the Buybull. What isn't completely obvious is whether the writers were deliberately making these things up or if they simply believed them to be true because they read it somewhere on the Internet. It is also undeniably true that there are a great many books that are considered
Pseudepigrapha that claim to have been written by one or another figure from religious lore. These appear to have been written by people hoping that (like whoever wrote the non-authentic Pauline epistles and the epistles of Peter) they'd make it into the big time. I feel like the evidence falls squarely against your implication that nobody would try to contribute to the bible while being purposely deceptive.
On the second count I simply re-assert my position that a diagnosis of mental illness based on nothing else besides a few pages written at one point in a long-dead individual's lifetime is a fool's errand. Trained psychiatrists actually
meet, talk with and observe their patients for what might turn into many sessions before they are able to feel comfortable coming to a diagnosis. But hey, who are we to let a little thing like a lack of years of medical school, training, specialized studies, internships, etc., get between us and coming up with accurate diagnoses of people we'll never meet?
Regarding the third question it once again comes down to a lack of information. Not knowing how someone came into a particular epiphany or bit of knowledge is nothing more than that. I notice that none of these writers ever came up with such epiphanies as nuclear fusion, germ theory, the existence of the asteroid belt or electromagnetic telecommunications theory. Whatever knowledge these people wrote about is invariably limited to the capacities of technology of their day. There might have been a few wild guesses that just happened to be right, but blind pigs do get the occasional acorn.
Regarding the "bonus" question I just feel like it's incumbent to point out that we really don't know much about the various characters that are part of religious lore. It's impossible to know if Moses was fictional or real. It's damn certain the Exodus never happened as described. There may have been a king David, but how much of that story is legend as opposed to actual events is subject for much spirited debate.
You mention Luke as if there is some universal certainty that Luke was the writer of the gospel traditionally attributed to him along with the book of Acts. This is just not true and I for one am highly skeptical of that assumption. Willing to be convinced but haven't seen any evidence to back it up.
Determining the motivations of religious people when making claims pursuant to their beliefs is extremely difficult no matter what age or level of technology is available at the time. Is Kenneth Copeland sincere or is he a charlatan? Creflo Dollar? Jim Bakker? Was Jim Jones a beliver or did he make all that shit up? Marshall Applewhite? Sun Myung Moon?
What about Joseph Smith? The Book of Mormon contains an epilogue called the "Witness of the Eight" with the sworn and signed testimony of eight men who claimed they handled the golden plates and witnessed first-hand the translation process by which the book of Mormon was translated out of "Reformed Egyptian." They "swear to God" that the plates are of ancient origin, curious workmanship, etc. After the translation was complete these alleged golden plates were given back to the angel Moroni, never to be seen by humans again.
Were these people intentionally lying? Were they crazy? I might have an opinion on the matter but in spite of the copious literature that has been written on the subject since it happened I don't know that anyone can say with certainty now. They never recanted their story even though many of them parted ways with the Mormon church.
If one wants to apply any degree of scholarship to the methodology of historical criticism one must be aware of its limits as well as the wealth of information about what people can and will do. I fully understand the desire to think of the writers of the Bible as being above any hint of deceitfulness. But I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that they might not have been completely honest. Anything less is borne of confirmation bias.
