Allegorical interpretation

[Ray Moscow]

On some other threads, a liberal theist or two have alleged that religious texts like the Bible were intended to be read allegorically, and therefore all who interpret them this way are merely following the original intent of the authors/redactors/editors.

A corollary of this hypothesis is that any literal reader of the Bible, Quran or whatever is simply reading it wrong.

Browsing around the internet I find that this idea seems to be pretty common -- among liberal theists.

Personally, I think this is just a salvage operation, an attempt to find meaning in texts whose literal meaning has been shown to be wrong -- which is pretty much what I tried to do in my journey from being a fundie to a liberal Christian. In the end, I think it's a lost cause, because the authors/redactors/editors had very different agendas for creating those texts than the allegorical interpretor "finds" in them.

However, I'd like to hear what others think on the subject.

[lpetrich]

The writers of their favorite sacred books did not exactly say "This part is literal" and "this part is allegorical". However, they sometimes react indignantly whenever someone proposes to be allegorical something that they want to believe is literal. Consider many Xians' response to a common Jesus-myth hypothesis, that the Gospels are allegories.

And literal vs. allegorical sometimes becomes blatantly self-serving: "If I like it, it's literal; if I don't like it, it's allegorical."

I think that liberal Xians are desperate to hang on to the authority of the Bible, even as they try to argue away the parts of it that they dislike.

More broadly, even pagans have done allegorical interpretation. Plutarch writes in On Isis and Osiris (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/home.html) (section 11) that
Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related.

[seebs]

Historically, people have always understood the text to have at least some of both components. Literal interpretations of passages have always existed -- but they were understood as one of the alternatives. Augustine believed in a literal Genesis, but in his discussion of it, he recognized and considered alternatives.

Literalism, the dogmatic belief that of necessity all the text is literal (or all of it is literal unless explicitly stated otherwise) is a modern invention of the last couple of centuries.

lpetrich's view starts by assuming that the literal view is "true" and everything else is not:

If I like it, it's literal; if I don't like it, it's allegorical.

This starts with the assumption that the real "it" is literal, and that it is only when people "dislike" that that they turn to allegory. But this is starting from the modern fundamentalist view; it's not consistent at all with the history of interpretation.

As an example of early allegorical interpretation, I point you to an early Christian writer:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Chapter 4, Verses 22-25
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

I think it is ludicrous to suggest that Paul's motivation here is that he "dislikes" the claim that Abraham had two children. It is also very hard to justify calling him a "liberal theist" or to claim that his writing is influenced by the mores of 21st-century America.

The notion that the text has allegorical and poetic meanings has been there all along. It is not new, it is not revolutionary, and it is not particularly contrary to the understandings of the writers at the time. It is possible that a particular interpretation is contrary to the writer's intent, true -- but this happens in nearly all communications.

I think a great deal of the problem comes from the casual assumption that, since the text is now distributed as a single "book", it should be read as all being written in the same genre by the same people. This assumption, once considered even for a moment, is obvious nonsense.

[Ray Moscow]

I think the most important Paul(ine) allegory is that between Adam and Christ:

Romans 5:12-21: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is tremendous amount of Christian doctrine that hangs on this analogy/allegory.

However, what are we to make of such an idea now that we know that there was no such person as Adam and that a "sin" did not bring death into the world?

Also, consider that Paul's allegory is, as I understand it, very much at odds with most Jewish interpretations, who do not regard the world as fallen at all. That's just Paul's idea, and it's apparently not consistent with Genesis as viewed by nonChristian interpreters nor (probably) with the original authors/redactors.

In this case (as in many), Christian doctrine comes from a misinterpretation of older writings.

So, I'm again questioning the wisdom of applying allegory to these ancient texts to reveal their "true meaning".

[Barbarian]

Literalism, the dogmatic belief that of necessity all the text is literal (or all of it is literal unless explicitly stated otherwise) is a modern invention of the last couple of centuries.I find this hard to believe. The common rural uneducated Christians I knew definitely believed the Bible to speak the literal truth, and they decidedly haven't received any influence from semi-modern doctrines - I am talking a mix of Calvinists, Catholics and Ortodox here. Therefore, I'd guess the majority of Christians at any time considered Scripture to be literally true.

In b4 only the opinions of the educated theologians count. That's not exactly true: rather, only the educated ones are embarrassed to hold a literalist view. Christianity is what Christians actually believe, regardless of the wishes of a select few educated ones who try to dream a rational Christianity into existence.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's the bit that bothers me:

* A literal interpretation is silly, for it conflicts with What Christianity Is Really About. (WCIRA hereafter)

* WCIRA is (A | B | C).

* Valid interpretations of the bible are therefore those functions Qn(x), that map text x to (A | B | C)

* I know that WCIRA is (A | B | C), because Q237.432(bible) produces the statement "WCIRA is (A | B | C)"

[mac_philo]

It's just a historical accident that this view of scripture is currently associated with liberal theists.

This type of view was commonplace thing in medieval theology---Islamic, Jewish, and Christian. See people like Maimonides, Averroes, Al-Farrabi, Al-Ghazali, the Mutazilites, etc.

What is ironic is that in the contemporary climate, many atheists agree with the most unreflective theists in thinking that scripture should be read literally. Why would reading a text non-literally be a salvage operation, something that is inferior or a last resort? Medieval thinkers were happy to acknowledge that the very idea of a literal reading was ludicrous. I don't know why the current climate is so unsophisticated.

[mac_philo]

Literalism, the dogmatic belief that of necessity all the text is literal (or all of it is literal unless explicitly stated otherwise) is a modern invention of the last couple of centuries.I find this hard to believe. The common rural uneducated Christians I knew definitely believed the Bible to speak the literal truth, and they decidedly haven't received any influence from semi-modern doctrines - I am talking a mix of Calvinists, Catholics and Ortodox here. Therefore, I'd guess the majority of Christians at any time considered Scripture to be literally true.

The influence of modern doctrines is the very air they breathe. It has nothing to do with being educated or not.

[Ray Moscow]

Why would reading a text non-literally be a salvage operation, something that is inferior or a last resort? Medieval thinkers were happy to acknowledge that the very idea of a literal reading was ludicrous. I don't know why the current climate is so unsophisticated.

The first and most logical reading of any document is to suppose that words, sentences, etc. have meanings that correspond to their ordinary usage.

For example, a simple narrative from the gospels, such as

Mark 16:1-3: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" (NASB)

contains a series of easily understood statements that one (lacking allegorical sophistication) might suppose to be factual.

It's only when, for example, at least two of these characters are shown mythological, or the statements to contradict other accounts, or to be otherwise highly unlikely or impossible, that allegorical interpretations of these (non) events might be rolled out to reveal the "true meaning" of the text.

[His Noodly Appendage]

If the meaning of the text is not factual, from whence do we derive the key to its meaning?

How do we know it's not all ridiculously involved allegory for the finer points of constructing the perfect cheese sandwich?

[mac_philo]

Nonliteral meanings are constructed from the ordinary usage of terms. That is what makes the interpretation of figurative language possible.

When you have a religion like Islam, with an essential belief that God is One, God has no body, God has no parts, combined with a Koran that talks about God's "face" and "outstretched hands", it's just bizarre to think that everything should have a literal interpretation. Of course you have an abundance of similar examples for Christianity and Judaism.

You are right that figurative interpretation is a second option after literal interpretation does not work, though I don't think that means it is inferior or a salvage operation.

It seems quite reasonable to me to think, along with Maimonides and others, that scripture attempts to convey truths in the language of man, truths couched in terms that are accessible to us via interpretation. Scripture on this view is constrained by our mental capacities.

Of course I don't think that, since I'm an atheist, but nor do I think we should approach scripture as though it is some sort of obsolete science textbook.

[Ray Moscow]

Another objection I have to using allegories as a primary interpretation is that there are few if any controls to check their accuracy. This becomes indistinguishable from "making stuff up to suit my/my group's position/beliefs/history/politics/propaganda/ideology".

With allegory, you can make any text "mean" nearly anything you want it to.

I think of it as "channeling" with a different woo-woo justification.

[Barbarian]

The influence of modern doctrines is the very air they breathe. It has nothing to do with being educated or not.The ones I am talking about are Central European peasants who received more or less - but always basic - religious education, then went on with believing and going to church every two or three weeks. They simply have no reason to think that the scriptural recounting of events is not true. The whole modern Western protestant fundamentalism has completely bypassed these countries.

[fundie]

Everyone seems to be missing some important distinctions. Bible scripture is of different types. Some passages are historical, describing events, others tell us things about God, some are prophetic, some about how we should live, etc. The question of literal vs. allegorical is mostly about historical passages. These have a plain meaning, about events they describe, and also they can have a spiritual meaning. Like Romans 5:12-21 about Abrahams children. Paul gives a spiritual interpretation of the passage, but that does not mean he is saying that the events did not take place! Scripture tells us that the events of the old testament were written for our benefit, that they have important lessons in them.
Christians may disagree about the correct spiritual interpretation of a certain historical passage, but that is a seperate issue from the question did the events described actually take place.
I agree with HNA that if events which are described as happening didnt then the whole text becomes unreliable. A common claim among some christians is that Genesis chapters 1-11 are not historical, and that only starting around chapter 12 do we get actual events. But there is nothing in the text to support that claim. Genesis 11 it tells us how old Abrhams father Terah was when Abraham was born, and also How old Terahs father Nahor was when Terah was born, and so on back to Noah. It seems arbitrary to claim that yes Terah was a real person, so he must have had a father who had some name, but no, his name was not Nahor as Genesis claims, or no, Nahor was not the age given when his son Terah was born.
Christians that say they interpret Genesis 1-11 allegorically do not in fact really come up with any particular allegorical meaning about Nahor and the others back to Noah, they just mean they dont think that the text is accurate in its geneology beyond Abraham.

[seebs]

Literalism, the dogmatic belief that of necessity all the text is literal (or all of it is literal unless explicitly stated otherwise) is a modern invention of the last couple of centuries.I find this hard to believe. The common rural uneducated Christians I knew definitely believed the Bible to speak the literal truth, and they decidedly haven't received any influence from semi-modern doctrines - I am talking a mix of Calvinists, Catholics and Ortodox here. Therefore, I'd guess the majority of Christians at any time considered Scripture to be literally true.

I'm curious. How many of these Christians that you've spoken to lived prior to the Enlightenment era? Because unless they were a significant number, I'd guess that your sample space is pretty poor for making that assertion.

I would point out that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches have long taught many things to be allegorical -- and by "long" I mean centuries back.

There is some drift over time, but the notion that there was at least one allegory that was not intended to be taken as literal is older than the organized church.

[seebs]

The first and most logical reading of any document is to suppose that words, sentences, etc. have meanings that correspond to their ordinary usage.

Any document?

Even a poem?

It's only when, for example, at least two of these characters are shown mythological, or the statements to contradict other accounts, or to be otherwise highly unlikely or impossible, that allegorical interpretations of these (non) events might be rolled out to reveal the "true meaning" of the text.

Nope.

Look at the parables. Every parable is understood to be allegorical from the beginning. It's not that we doubt that there has been at some point a prodigal son; it's that we understand that the characters in the story are representative.

Symbolic use of language is not a new invention.

[Barbarian]

I'm curious. How many of these Christians that you've spoken to lived prior to the Enlightenment era? Because unless they were a significant number, I'd guess that your sample space is pretty poor for making that assertion.I thought it was pretty obvious that I talked about people, old people, whom I knew personally. However, unless you have a good reason to think that they became literalists due to modern influences of 19th century Anglo-Saxon preachers (despite belonging to older and more traditional denominations, and despite no one having ever even heard about them over here), I would stand by my claim that they are representative of Christians back all the way to the christianization of Hungary. Why would peasants ever have had more religious education that these people got? and yet, they kept referring to the existence of Adam, Eve and the serpent, the Flood and the tower of Babel as obviously true facts.I would point out that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches have long taught many things to be allegorical -- and by "long" I mean centuries back.It does not matter what the Church teaches or thinks it teaches; what matters is what the masses believe. And Christian masses at all times held Adam and Eve to be truly the first couple of humans, held the Flood to be literal etc. etc. for lack of knowing better. Do you have any example of a popular initiative claiming that these are fictional? It's always the theologians who argue over such things; masses are literalists.

[seebs]

I thought it was pretty obvious that I talked about people, old people, whom I knew personally.

It seems likely, but it seems very odd to me that you would offer people alive in the last century or so as evidence for a claim about medieval people.

However, unless you have a good reason to think that they became literalists due to modern influences of 19th century Anglo-Saxon preachers (despite belonging to older and more traditional denominations, and despite no one having ever even heard about them over here), I would stand by my claim that they are representative of Christians back all the way to the christianization of Hungary.

I don't buy it. Everyone's been influenced by little details like the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Why would peasants ever have had more religious education that these people got? and yet, they kept referring to the existence of Adam, Eve and the serpent, the Flood and the tower of Babel as obviously true facts.

So? That's not the same thing as the doctrine of literalism.

I know many people who believe those things to be literal, but not some other things they are familiar with.

It does not matter what the Church teaches or thinks it teaches; what matters is what the masses believe. And Christian masses at all times held Adam and Eve to be truly the first couple of humans, held the Flood to be literal etc. etc. for lack of knowing better. Do you have any example of a popular initiative claiming that these are fictional? It's always the theologians who argue over such things; masses are literalists.

I don't really see how that's relevant. Christianity does include people who take those passages literally, and may always have done so, but it has also always included people who were aware that many passages were best understood as allegory.

My claim is not that there has been a time at which no one took these things literally. It's that there has never been a time at which everyone thought it was a matter of dogmatic principle to take them literally.

[Barbarian]

It seems likely, but it seems very odd to me that you would offer people alive in the last century or so as evidence for a claim about medieval people.My point was that they were uneducated in religious matters, so any newly invented doctrine was unlikely to have influenced them. And yet, they were literalists - implicit literalists, not doctrinaire ones, but literalists nonetheless. These are characteristics they were likely to have shared with their ancestors; after all, any uneducated person who hears Christian stories but no general theory about how to read the Bible becomes a literalist by default.Why would peasants ever have had more religious education that these people got? and yet, they kept referring to the existence of Adam, Eve and the serpent, the Flood and the tower of Babel as obviously true facts.

So? That's not the same thing as the doctrine of literalism.

I know many people who believe those things to be literal, but not some other things they are familiar with.It's confusing by now. Is this last sentence an explanation on why believing in a literal A&E is not the same as the doctrine of literalism because those people might not have believed all the stuff in the Bible? Or is it just a side remark with no ties to the context, in which case "believing in A&E does not equal the doctrine of literalism" means that believing the literalism of the Bible is not the same as (holding) the doctrine of literalism (because the latter has to be explicit)?

If the former, I haven't come across any instance where they did not believe something to be literally true in the Bible; of course they knew precious little about the Bible itself, but that should really not matter since they believed everything they heard about it to be literal truth, and did not know there was more to it; they held their knowledge about the Bible to be complete, since no one bothered to check what was written in there.

If it is the latter, then I just don't see the importance of the distinction, because an explicit doctrine would not be needed until opposing views were raised. In a society where no one doubts the literal reading of the Bible, there is no need to mandate such a reading by a doctrine. The attitude codified in the doctrine could have been around, and that's what counts - it matters if people thought the Bible was literal truth, not whether they were also told that they have to think so.

[seebs]

My point was that they were uneducated in religious matters, so any newly invented doctrine was unlikely to have influenced them. And yet, they were literalists - implicit literalists, not doctrinaire ones, but literalists nonetheless.

Doesn't count. My claim was that the doctrine was new.

Furthermore, they were presumably taught some of this by people who certainly did learn their theology within the last century or so.

These are characteristics they were likely to have shared with their ancestors; after all, any uneducated person who hears Christian stories but no general theory about how to read the Bible becomes a literalist by default.

Well, any uneducated person raised in a society which assumes text to be literal. But that's the very point I was getting at -- our assumption that "truth" and "literal truth" are the same category is modern.

It's confusing by now. Is this last sentence an explanation on why believing in a literal A&E is not the same as the doctrine of literalism because those people might not have believed all the stuff in the Bible?

No.

It's because the doctrine of literalism is a meta-statement. Conflating it with holding a particular literal belief is a simple error.

Literalism as a doctrine implies literal interpretation of passages. Literal interpretation of passages does not imply literalism.

If someone says "the sun usually rises in the east", and I tell you that I believe the sun usually rises in the east, you have no basis at all for concluding that I believe him to be an honest man.

If it is the latter, then I just don't see the importance of the distinction, because an explicit doctrine would not be needed until opposing views were raised.

And yet I've already pointed out that these opposing views have been around all along. They predate Christianity.

The fact that the text of the Bible itself contains an explicit claim that a story in the Bible is an allegory is sufficient to make my case.

[Rilx]

On some other threads, a liberal theist or two have alleged that religious texts like the Bible were intended to be read allegorically, and therefore all who interpret them this way are merely following the original intent of the authors/redactors/editors.

Personally, I think this is just a salvage operation, an attempt to find meaning in texts whose literal meaning has been shown to be wrong -- which is pretty much what I tried to do in my journey from being a fundie to a liberal Christian. In the end, I think it's a lost cause, because the authors/redactors/editors had very different agendas for creating those texts than the allegorical interpretor "finds" in them.
I've read stumpjumper's thread and, though I don't agree all his/her interpretations, I do agree his/her general idea. I've never been religious, but I've always been interested in myths, fables and narratives - especially interpretations of their content - Bible included.

I don't like the fuzzy word "allegory", instead I use "metaphor" defined as a "concept taken from a different culture". In Genesis, metaphors are concepts taken from author's everyday life: God created world in six days, and because of the hard work he needed one day to rest. "In the sweat of his face God created the heavens and the earth."

I see ancient scriptures - like the books of Moses - as a continuously updated archive, the memory of a people. They included everything: science, philosophy, history, genealogy, law, ... and that's why different parts must be interpreted differently. There are facts, metaphors, rules, beliefs, ... . When knowledge developed, new versions were written.

The beginning of Genesis is a contemporary Big Bang theory; its metaphors are not essentially weaker than in the theory of our time. Sure no one think that "Big Bang" is a scientific concept. - In last centuries scientific explanations have become so strong that Pierre Laplace could respond to Napoleon: "God, Sire? I don't need that hypothesis." But the authors of Genesis needed it. They didn't have better framework to build a coherent worldview.

The creation of life in Genesis is excellent reasoning. I think it must have taken hundreds of years to finish. The observation of growing nature has produced a sequence of evolution of life which essentially conforms present views. If we leave aside the functional assumption, Genesis says that life begun in the sea. :cool:

[His Noodly Appendage]

Oi seebs,

How do you personally know that the concepts of a sky-father and his son - or hell, even some kind of senient primum mobile - are not themselves hopelessly naively literal readings?

Why, as I asked before, should we not conclude that the entire text is an allegory for the finer points of sandwich construction?

What are the bones of the text - the actual assertions that really mean what they actually say?

How can they be identified?

[lpetrich]

This reminds me of Sam Harris's claim that he can find deep allegorical meanings in the recipes of a cookbook, if he tries hard enough and has enough imagination in doing so.

Seebs seems to think that there was some sort of Golden Age of Allegorical Interpretation, when the Bible was believed to be 100% literally false and only allegorically true.

However, past theologians, while endorsing lots of allegorical interpretation, also endorsed lots of literal interpretation, and they sometimes claimed that parts of the Bible are both literal and allegorical. Thus, the Old Testament would be both (1) literal history and (2) a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ.

And theologians would calculate the age of the Universe using the Bible's genealogies; efforts to do so go back as far as the Septuagint's translators, who calculated a creation date of around 5500 BCE. The Jewish and Ussher dates of around 4000 BCE are based on the Masoretic text, which makes some of the early patriarchs have successors a bit faster than the Septuagint text does.

As far as I know, there weren't any theologians who claimed that the Genesis creation stories describe timeless processes in allegorical fashion and that the Universe could just as well be eternal. In fact, one of seebs's favorite theologians, Augustine, had harrumphed at the idea that the Universe is older than the idea that the Universe is more than 6000 years old; City of God, Book 18, Chapter 40 is titled "About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years." And in the rest of City of God, he treated the Bible's history as a literal documentary, trying to match it up against pagan history.

The literalism that seebs was talking about is a response to the willingness of the more mainstream churchmen and theologians to accept that the Universe is older than one would calculate from the Bible, something that started to happen in the 18th and 19th centuries with the development of geology. It seems to the more strict sort of Xians that they were sacrificing important parts of the Bible, so those Xians decided to emphasize that those parts are literal history. So contrary to seebs's claims, they were following traditional sorts of interpretation.

Furthermore, fundies aren't necessarily the absolute literalists that they often seem like -- they often construct elaborate allegorical interpretations of the Book of Revelation, for instance.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Would the "not literally true" part also apply to corpses reanimating themselves, floating round the city then zooming off into space?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Barbarian]

Well, any uneducated person raised in a society which assumes text to be literal.Why would a pre-scientific society not assume it to be literal? Do you think that until the explicit doctrine of "the bible is literally true" came along, people would have replied to "do you think the bible is literall true" with shrugs and "I dunno, really .."?But that's the very point I was getting at -- our assumption that "truth" and "literal truth" are the same category is modern.That's new to me. So there is "truth" and there is "literal truth", and your claim would be that they are different? I have only one such notion, whose meaning is "literal truth", so presumably what you call "truth" is in fact this alternative notion, probably something with all the glory of truth, except it's not fair to demand that it be actually literally true? Are you sure this construct is not just a product of the mental contortionism required to hold a Christian faith without being ashamed of it?The fact that the text of the Bible itself contains an explicit claim that a story in the Bible is an allegory is sufficient to make my case.I don't get this part. There are parts of the Bible claiming that the Flood, the whole creation story etc. are allegories and nothing else?

[Ray Moscow]

The creation of life in Genesis is excellent reasoning. I think it must have taken hundreds of years to finish. The observation of growing nature has produced a sequence of evolution of life which essentially conforms present views. If we leave aside the functional assumption, Genesis says that life begun in the sea. :cool:

No, it says that plants appeared on land first.

Genesis 1:11-13: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was
in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then, the sun and moon were created later (fourth day). Light and darkness had already been created on the first day and the "firmament" on the second.

Then the fishes and birds (fifth day).

Then the land animals and humans (sixth day).

It might be "excellent reasoning" -- though I'm not so sure it was a good idea to create plants before the sun -- but it's pretty much fact-free.

[Rilx]

The creation of life in Genesis is excellent reasoning. I think it must have taken hundreds of years to finish. The observation of growing nature has produced a sequence of evolution of life which essentially conforms present views. If we leave aside the functional assumption, Genesis says that life begun in the sea.

No, it says that plants appeared on land first.

It might be "excellent reasoning" -- though I'm not so sure it was a good idea to create plants before the sun -- but it's pretty much fact-free.
Heh, you are right, plants appeared first. But I don't think the authors counted them "life" but belongings to necessary circumstances for "the moving creature that hath life", as well as the sun.

I don't find any reason to believe that Genesis were meant factual truth. It was meant a theory, it based on observed facts of nature which were bound to a theory, and the hidden processes of nature were explained by the creator hypothesis. The religious claim of "factual truth" has nothing to do with Genesis.

[lpetrich]

I'm reminded of how Richard Dawkins once did a swipe at allegorical interpretation. If one later concludes that the double-helix structure of DNA is in error, does one nevertheless defend it by calling it a metaphor for a loving embrace?


Also, I'd posted in another thread about how the Genesis 1 creation story follows a certain schema:

First three days: God creates environments
Second three days: God creates inhabitants for those environments
Seventh day: God takes the first day off in the history of the Universe

The environments are, for each day, celestial (day and night), far-terrestrial (sea and sky), and near-terrestrial (land and plants).

The inhabitants are, for each day, celestial (day: Sun and night: Moon, stars), far-terrestrial (sea: aquatic animals and sky: flying animals), and near-terrestrial (land: land animals, humanity and plants: "You may eat these").

This schema successfully explains certain of the absurdities that creation story; God hadn't gotten around to creating the Sun when he created plants.

It also explains why the order is all wrong compared to what one finds in the fossil record.

Evolution goes on continually; after land animals emerged from aquatic ones, those still in the water continued to evolve. Also aquatic animal / land animal / flying animal are not sharp categories -- there are lots of in-betweens. Furthermore, fruit trees emerged well after land animals and insects did, and a little after birds did.

So Genesis 1 does not show any great insight into the history of the Earth and its biota.

[hecaterin]

A point of order: the pre-renaissance general masses of people would definitely not be taking the bible as literal truth - because they would never have read it in the first place.

Even if they could read, it wasn't available to commoners because books were hand copied and expensive. Even if they could read and could afford one, they still needed to have learned Latin before proceeding...

They would have heard the bible stories as anecdotes from the priests, or as retellings of such anecdotes, or in the mystery plays. And they'd probably have picked up some extra nonBiblical parts as the stories morphed around in popular culture, like Xmas carols.

[Ray Moscow]

And lots of pictures, on the walls of churches -- where later "saints" are mixed in with the biblical characters.

[lpetrich]

As to allegorical interpretation, I'm reminded about some of the speculations about the mathematician Pythagoras's forbidding the eating of beans.

He founded a religious cult for which mathematics was a way to enlightenment; he believed that numbers had lots of mystical properties. He also believed in reincarnation, vegetarianism, and the wickedness of eating beans.

"Once, they say, he [Pythagoras] was passing by when a dog was being ill-treated. 'Stop!' he said, 'don't hit it! It is the soul of a friend! I knew it when I heard its voice.'" -- Xenophanes


But why did he forbid the eating of beans? Did he mean literal beans, as in the seeds of plants of family Fabaceae? Or did he mean some allegorical or metaphorical kind of bean?

There were a lot of speculation about that in antiquity, like how beans would give you intestinal gas and keep you from contemplating, that beans look like human embryos, that beans got used as ballots in elections, etc. Porphyry wrote about how Pythagoras supposedly convinced an ox to stop eating beans, which also suggests a literal meaning.

Some modern people have pointed out that broad beans (Vicia faba) can interact with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, causing a form of anemia. Pythagoras might have suffered that, and his followers might have imitated him so they could be like him.

But Pythagoras's Beans (http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=15) mentions a metaphorical interpretation of this possibility. "Beans" can be a euphemism for testicles, making the prohibition of beans a prohibition of sexual indulgence. This might also explain why Empedocles was so forceful about saying

"Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans!"

Another metaphorical interpretation I've seen is related to to beans as ballots. In this interpretation, one ought to stay out of politics, because engaging in politics meant voting, and one would vote with beans.


So we have three possibilities: literal beans, sex (beans as testicles), and politics (beans as voting).

[Rilx]

Also, I'd posted in another thread about how the Genesis 1 creation story follows a certain schema:

First three days: God creates environments
Second three days: God creates inhabitants for those environments
Seventh day: God takes the first day off in the history of the Universe

The environments are, for each day, celestial (day and night), far-terrestrial (sea and sky), and near-terrestrial (land and plants).

The inhabitants are, for each day, celestial (day: Sun and night: Moon, stars), far-terrestrial (sea: aquatic animals and sky: flying animals), and near-terrestrial (land: land animals, humanity and plants: "You may eat these").I see it essentially same way. And your schema shows the common nominator, anthropocentrism: the process is all the time approaching man. Even the seventh day shows anthropocentric God, AFAIK the only god who ever needed rest.
So Genesis 1 does not show any great insight into the history of the Earth and its biota.No, but it still has scientific nature. It is an evolutionary theory which predicts the appearance of man. IMO Genesis has not been meant as religion, no more than ToE.

[Ray Moscow]

I heard it was that Pythagoras thought that farting caused a loss of consciousness or some such -- as this reference (http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=15)to Cicero's comments says.

To me that makes little sense from someone as clever as Pythagorus, so I lean toward the "they just misunderstood him" camp.

[lpetrich]

Ebonmuse recently blogged on a weird allegorical interpretation in Little-Known Bible Verses VIII: Priestly Celibacy (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/priestly-celibacy.html)

In the Bible, we find
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher... (1 Timothy 3:2)
I checked on the original Greek (μιας γυναικος ανδρα, mias gunaikos andra), and "husband of one wife" is indeed the most straightforward translation.

But the Catholic Church interprets this as an allegorical marriage between a priest and the Church. :dunno:

For my part, I don't think that its author thought it through very carefully. Did he mean "married exactly once"? "The husband of exactly one wife"? "At most one wife"?

[Barbarian]

For my part, I don't think that its author thought it through very carefully. Did he mean "married exactly once"? "The husband of exactly one wife"? "At most one wife"?I had some mild fun with that quote at the expense of my Catholic friends since the Catholic translation in Hungarian is unambiguously saying "exactly one wife", i.e. the bishop - presumably unlike regular believers, or why the explicit injunction? - was forbidden from having a harem, given that "married exactly once" would have been rendered differently in Hungarian. Interestingly, the Protestant (Károli) translation from 1590 renders it as "a married man". Some nuance was probably lost in translation there.