Don't take it literally

[zipplewrath]

45. So little you know

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2018, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

It would not have been considered "lying" when these people wrote these stories. A stories "truthfulness" would have been judged by whether the "conclusion" or "lesson" was correct. Historians long ago figured out that any history text that was written much before the 20th century has to viewed in a different light. It's the whole "Washington never told a lie" problem. People weren't "lying", they were expressing an idea (or probably more accurately, an "ideal" ). When you read any document that predates "modern" science, you have to read it understanding that the concept of "being consistent with the facts" didn't really exist. Heck, for many "ancient" documents one has to be careful about "numbers". The vast majority of people, even people who could read and write, knew little about math or numbers. Any number much bigger than about 12 wasn't a quantity so much as an adjective. They were often used to express concepts associate with numerology.

Generally speaking the people that wrote these original stories (and quite honestly, the true "original" stories are probably long lost. What we read today are probably the results of retelling, copying and expanding upon the originals) did not write to "deceive" generally speaking. To a great degree they knew what they were doing and thought it was the "right" thing to do. And the listeners understood as well. Just because today we have judged this a poor way of communicating information, doesn't mean you can stop putting the original story tellers in the proper context. To do so is a deception.