How important are sources for paganism?
I decided to conduct a little thought experiment on the topic of paganism and sources. We know that many pagan traditions lack the latter which often causes a lot of sadness. This issue is both interesting and important. I will now try to explore t as best as I can.
First and foremost let us answer a question. What are the consequence of having a lot of authentic textual sources? Those are rather self-evident. They helps preserve and share the tradition. The first thing all new age religions do is writing their holy scripture(s). But, this phenomenon can be explained as abrahamic influence and in fact it is, at least partially.
Speaking of abrahamism, all main cults within it have piles of sacred literature, yet despite this fact we see a wast contrast between e.g. modern christians and medieval ones. Even compared to the 20th century, modern christianity is a very different different beast. And don’t even get me started on first christians all of whom were jews both by faith and blood and would be surprised (to say the very least) seeing goyim from all over the world emulating them.
Why is that? Some will try to rationalize by noting that the Bible, or rather biblical texts (as it is indeed an amalgamation of different texts) wasn’t even a thing when christian movement began and as the latter matured many once canonical parts were removed and substituted by new additions. Translation is also an issue. As a professional interpreter myself I can assure you that there is no such thing as one text in two different languages. It will inevitably turn into two different texts with the similarity level between them ranging a lot depending on countless factors. But, again, I will bring up the fact that even as recently as 20th century christianity did change even thought the Bible already existed and had canonical translation.
This is but one example, but I think it demonstrates an issue. If you still don’t get it I will bring up Socrates or rather Plato. In his «Phaedrus» Socrates recalls (actually invents) a story about Thoth (Theuth), an Egyptian God of wisdom and science visiting a king (pharaoh) Thamus and presenting different arts he created. Here’s the quote:
«It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.»
I decided to conduct a little thought experiment on the topic of paganism and sources. We know that many pagan traditions lack the latter which often causes a lot of sadness. This issue is both interesting and important. I will now try to explore t as best as I can.
First and foremost let us answer a question. What are the consequence of having a lot of authentic textual sources? Those are rather self-evident. They helps preserve and share the tradition. The first thing all new age religions do is writing their holy scripture(s). But, this phenomenon can be explained as abrahamic influence and in fact it is, at least partially.
Speaking of abrahamism, all main cults within it have piles of sacred literature, yet despite this fact we see a wast contrast between e.g. modern christians and medieval ones. Even compared to the 20th century, modern christianity is a very different different beast. And don’t even get me started on first christians all of whom were jews both by faith and blood and would be surprised (to say the very least) seeing goyim from all over the world emulating them.
Why is that? Some will try to rationalize by noting that the Bible, or rather biblical texts (as it is indeed an amalgamation of different texts) wasn’t even a thing when christian movement began and as the latter matured many once canonical parts were removed and substituted by new additions. Translation is also an issue. As a professional interpreter myself I can assure you that there is no such thing as one text in two different languages. It will inevitably turn into two different texts with the similarity level between them ranging a lot depending on countless factors. But, again, I will bring up the fact that even as recently as 20th century christianity did change even thought the Bible already existed and had canonical translation.
This is but one example, but I think it demonstrates an issue. If you still don’t get it I will bring up Socrates or rather Plato. In his «Phaedrus» Socrates recalls (actually invents) a story about Thoth (Theuth), an Egyptian God of wisdom and science visiting a king (pharaoh) Thamus and presenting different arts he created. Here’s the quote:
«It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.»