That simply isn’t true. If a group of people make claims about history that are provably false, not just about supernatural stuff but about actual events which feed into their attitudes towards modernity, then the availability of accurate information about what really did or didn’t happen is quite relevant to people that deconvert, or oppose that group and their positions, etc.
The idea that there’s a dichotomy of either “believe in BS” or “don’t care” cedes the claims over history to the fanatical.
Personally, I care about knowing my real ancestral history. I care about knowing my real cultural history. To me, the historical reality of the book of Joshua being anachronistic BS that flies in the face of the archeological reality of the Israelites cohabitating peacefully with Philistines and Canaanites has quite profound implications for a major modern world news topic, and recontextualizes phrases like Leviticus’s “love thy neighbor as yourself” and “love the alien residing among you as yourself.”
A historical reality of an early history of cohabitation with ethnically different neighbors as opposed to the claimed history of conquering those neighbors is relevant in opposing the dogmatic claims of justified oppression of others and in interpreting the tradition that history left behind. Even if it gets ignored by the ‘faithful’ it’s a useful context for those standing in opposition to their claims and dogma.
You’re asking how discoveries in the past few decades have impacted millennia old traditions? Your evaluation may be a bit premature.
But as one example we’ve seen more progressive religious groups who learned ‘Lucifer’ was a mistranslation of Isaiah turn away from the Enochian interpretations of those passages and a distancing from the Milton-esque portrayal of sinister forces still present in things like American evangelical circles.
Analyses like Idan Dershowitz’s of Leviticus’s homosexuality bans that reveal it as a later addition to earlier laws have been a source of solace to many religious folk who felt at odds with a presumed Mosaic law.
Also – a rigorous understanding of the underlying history of the text and its circumstances relies on far more than just ‘translations.’
And there too, the work is still ongoing.
There’s going to be serious upsets in what people think they know about the Old Testament period and history in the next few decades given emerging research trends - but just like how in medicine it takes 17 years from research to broad awareness in practice, it’s going to take some time for discoveries in the past few years to snowball to broader awareness and perspective shifts.
But as one example we’ve seen more progressive religious groups who learned ‘Lucifer’ was a mistranslation of Isaiah turn away from the Enochian interpretations of those passages and a distancing from the Milton-esque portrayal of sinister forces still present in things like American evangelical circles.
Considering evangelicals and other Christian extremists are gaining power in many countries, I’m not sure that this is a good example.
There’s going to be serious upsets in what people think they know about the Old Testament period and history in the next few decades given emerging research trends
I’m not sure what ‘emerging research trends.’ If you mean trends of fewer people going to churches or identifying themselves as religious, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe whatever translation of the Old Testament they happen to believe is anything but history.
but just like how in medicine it takes 17 years from research to broad awareness in practice, it’s going to take some time for discoveries in the past few years to snowball to broader awareness and perspective shifts.
They were saying the same thing during the Enlightenment. They were wrong then too.
I’m not sure what ‘emerging research trends.’ If you mean trends of fewer people going to churches or identifying themselves as religious
No, more things like the increased number of Ashkenazi users of ancestry sites including ancient samples confused by their closest genetic match being 3,700 year old Minoan graves or Iron Age Anatolian samples in parallel to archeology finding increased prevalence of early Iron Age Aegean style pottery made with local clay in supposed Israelite ancestral sites or the discovery of previously unknown Anatolian trade lines around honey production and four horned altars.
A lot of the ancient Greek and Roman historians of antiquity are going to be vindicated a bit for unanimous assertions that have been dismissed by modern perspectives heavily influenced by anchoring and survivorship biases from our sources.
And as I said, the academic matters.
It matters to other people interested in the academics. It has no significant impact on the world.
That simply isn’t true. If a group of people make claims about history that are provably false, not just about supernatural stuff but about actual events which feed into their attitudes towards modernity, then the availability of accurate information about what really did or didn’t happen is quite relevant to people that deconvert, or oppose that group and their positions, etc.
The idea that there’s a dichotomy of either “believe in BS” or “don’t care” cedes the claims over history to the fanatical.
Personally, I care about knowing my real ancestral history. I care about knowing my real cultural history. To me, the historical reality of the book of Joshua being anachronistic BS that flies in the face of the archeological reality of the Israelites cohabitating peacefully with Philistines and Canaanites has quite profound implications for a major modern world news topic, and recontextualizes phrases like Leviticus’s “love thy neighbor as yourself” and “love the alien residing among you as yourself.”
A historical reality of an early history of cohabitation with ethnically different neighbors as opposed to the claimed history of conquering those neighbors is relevant in opposing the dogmatic claims of justified oppression of others and in interpreting the tradition that history left behind. Even if it gets ignored by the ‘faithful’ it’s a useful context for those standing in opposition to their claims and dogma.
What measurable effect has learning about the original translations of Biblical texts had on the world?
You’re asking how discoveries in the past few decades have impacted millennia old traditions? Your evaluation may be a bit premature.
But as one example we’ve seen more progressive religious groups who learned ‘Lucifer’ was a mistranslation of Isaiah turn away from the Enochian interpretations of those passages and a distancing from the Milton-esque portrayal of sinister forces still present in things like American evangelical circles.
Analyses like Idan Dershowitz’s of Leviticus’s homosexuality bans that reveal it as a later addition to earlier laws have been a source of solace to many religious folk who felt at odds with a presumed Mosaic law.
Also – a rigorous understanding of the underlying history of the text and its circumstances relies on far more than just ‘translations.’
And there too, the work is still ongoing.
There’s going to be serious upsets in what people think they know about the Old Testament period and history in the next few decades given emerging research trends - but just like how in medicine it takes 17 years from research to broad awareness in practice, it’s going to take some time for discoveries in the past few years to snowball to broader awareness and perspective shifts.
Considering evangelicals and other Christian extremists are gaining power in many countries, I’m not sure that this is a good example.
I’m not sure what ‘emerging research trends.’ If you mean trends of fewer people going to churches or identifying themselves as religious, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe whatever translation of the Old Testament they happen to believe is anything but history.
They were saying the same thing during the Enlightenment. They were wrong then too.
No, more things like the increased number of Ashkenazi users of ancestry sites including ancient samples confused by their closest genetic match being 3,700 year old Minoan graves or Iron Age Anatolian samples in parallel to archeology finding increased prevalence of early Iron Age Aegean style pottery made with local clay in supposed Israelite ancestral sites or the discovery of previously unknown Anatolian trade lines around honey production and four horned altars.
A lot of the ancient Greek and Roman historians of antiquity are going to be vindicated a bit for unanimous assertions that have been dismissed by modern perspectives heavily influenced by anchoring and survivorship biases from our sources.
What are you even talking about?
Don’t worry about it. It’s just academic stuff.