Well you said even if we do read it, we can't know what the author intended to say. This is saying that trying to understand the text is useless.
I disagree that the two are the same thing. It may very well be a worthwhile endeavor to gain an understanding of your favorite ancient text. I'm just pointing out that usually one's understanding of the text may not be what the writer's intent was (and this is true, by the way, even for texts where the author is still living).
Also, I should think that it is obvious that in the case of texts that are or may be poetic, metaphoric, and heavily redacted over the course of several centuries and where the writers and redactors are long dead, their intents might be difficult or impossible to discern. Is that really so controversial?
That doesn't mean that it's impossible in each and every case, or that you can't come to your own understanding of the texts, or that such an endeavor is not worthwhile.
To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
™ Version 4.2