Language And Texts: The Original Interpretation Versus Original Intention

As irrelevant as it plainly is, for it is an appeal to a historically probabilistic (and that is if they made no assumptions about the evidence, such as by avoiding all appeals to contemporary historians instead of primary sources) interpretation of a people group instead of the words themselves, many people will look to what certain people reportedly said about ancient texts instead of the texts themselves for interpretation.  In fact, many habitually look to secondary sources for clarity while neglecting primary sources, perhaps while also believing erroneously that things are only true or knowable by words in defiance of reason's intrinsic, self-necessitated veracity.  It is true by logical necessity that the only words a non-telepathic/non-omniscient being could know the meaning of with absolute certainty are their own, but this is seldom grasped, and while one cannot know the intentions behind another person's text with absolute certainty, one cannot know if there is evidence that a text says something apart from the document itself.

When considering the words of others, many people make assumptions, particularly with certain religious and historical documents.  It is not uncommon for non-rationalists to look to something other than a text, like a contemporary scholar or a secondary source from long ago (but not reason, which is neither any physical text nor the minds that produce or receive it!), to interpret it.  With the Bible, they might think that whatever the ancient Jews or early Christians believed must represent the actual philosophical ideas articulated in its words.  It is one thing to consult outside evidences for historical/sociological things unexplained in the text itself, though many scholars rely on sheer hearsay and tradition when doing this, yet this is not where they stop with this, nor do they do even this without making assumptions.

It is another thing to confuse interpretation of the original receptors for what is objectively the meaning that is/was behind the words.  It is not the interpretation of whoever first received the words of something like the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, or the American Constitution that metaphysically determines or epistemologically reveals their meaning.  Subsequent collective interpretations within a community are likewise irrelevant.  This does not follow logically, for it is about perception and potentially false belief instead of the text, and it is thus an obvious non sequitur.  Only a fool would ever be led astray by such blatant red herrings.  Secondarily, there is historical evidence for a variety of interpretations on the part of, for example, ancient Jews and early Christians, so although appeals to authority and consensus already have no validity, so even on the level of historical interpretation, there is often only an imagined consensus.

No, it is whatever is intended by all words, spoken or written, that dictates their linguistic meaning.  One can only know the true meaning of one's own words, for there are no epistemological barriers on the part of a rationalist to directly knowing what they mean by something.  As constructs that are not logically necessary truths nor scientific laws of nature nor the same thing as thoughts, words are contrived by people for the sake of communication or subjective interest.  They have no innate definitions that are not personally or socially created, for these only consist of other words, though the ideas behind them are either true or false independent of psychological constructs.  While one cannot know what other minds mean by their words, broader context can offer fallible clues, but this does not mean that the original audiences understood any of this correctly.  The ideas behind an original speaker or writer's intentions are the meaning of a text.  What any audience then or now believes is not relevant on any level.