Originally posted by Nemesio
This is silly. Of course we think we have a better idea today than we
did then, otherwise we would still be using the KJV. We have access to
more manuscripts which give us a broader context for interpretation,
we have access to more commentaries and contemporary theological
and secular literature, we have a better sense of the historical millieu
in wh ...[text shortened]... that we don't necessarily have a better
idea of what the words/expressions mean?
Nemesio
Let's look at the reasons you give:
We have access to more manuscripts which give us a broader context for interpretation
1. Do we actually have access to more manuscripts? After all, isn't it possible that translators back then had access to manuscripts that have been lost/destroyed since?
(This is mostly a hypothetical with the KJV, but we certainly know this happened with St. Jerome's Vulgate.)
2. Is a broader context for intrepretation necessarily a good thing?
After all, language is always employed in a local context. Using the meaning of the English word "lash" (for instance) as it is used in the majority of the English-speaking world is only going to obfuscate its meaning if the document you're translating comes from the East Midlands region of England.
we have access to more commentaries and contemporary theological and secular literature
So? "Contemporary" does not mean better. I know the idea that we're all evolving as a society to a better form of living seems to be the popular philosophy these days but (paraphrasing Chesterton) is there any reason to assume that Wednesday is better than Tuesday simply because it's Wednesday?
we have a better sense of the historical millieu in which the texts were written
I'm not sure we do. The modern mind has imbibed so many metaphysical and epistemological suppositions that would be completely alien to the medieaval or ancient mind - what makes you think we'd be better at putting ourselves in their shoes (which, as you say, is a goal of translating) than people closer in time to them?
and we are much more responsible about not imposing a priori assumptions about the intent of the authors than in any previous time.
Again, not sure about that. In our attempt to be "impartial" we often tend to disregard available evidence (including oral tradition) about the intent of the authors in the search for elusive, secret, revolutionary intentions.