No Robots

The basic principle of textual analysis was articulated by Spinoza:

The method of interpreting Scripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature - in fact, it is almost the same. For as the interpretation of nature consists in the examination of the history of nature, and therefrom deducing definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so Scriptural interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and inferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its fundamental principles. By working in this manner everyone will always advance without danger of error - that is, if they admit no principles for interpreting Scripture, and discussing its contents save such as they find in Scripture itself - and will be able with equal security to discuss what surpasses our understanding, and what is known by the natural light of reason.

Amaleq13

Could you explain or demonstrate how this might answer Peter's question?

Riverwind

You know that no one has such a methodology, so aren't you simply saying that we cannot know for sure what any ancient figure said (or did)?

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that we can't have faith in the sayings of any ancient person, that we can't know anything they said?

No Robots

There does exist a method by which we can evaluate the likelihood that a particular statement by a literary figure like Socrates was in fact made by him. Does the statement accord with other things said by him? Does it fit with what was possible in the historical setting? And so on. I suggest looking at the entire chapter "On the Interpretation of Scripture" in Spinoza's TTP.