I'll just make a few brief points:
1. After reading your comments, it appears you're working with a false or erroneous definition regarding allegory and symbolism (or typology). More often than not, you seem to use the terms "symbolism" and "allegory" interchangeably. By definition, an allegory is not literal or real. Symbols, however, can be either literal or not. But you've conflated the two together. Or perhaps mistaken them entirely.
For example, you cited Animal Farm. To answer your question, yes, I believe we can agree the novel is an allegory. George Orwell himself indicates this. Animal Farm tells a story involving talking pigs, cows, and other barnyard animals. The main allegory is an association with communism as it plays out in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. But the story itself is not real. It did not literally take place as George Orwell relates it to us. The talking barnyard animals are not real. There are no real life pigs named Napoleon or Snowball. Or a horse named Boxer in real life. These are imaginary animals created for the purposes of the allegory.
However, they do relate to real figures. Napoleon and Snowball are symbols. Most obviously, they are symbolic of Stalin and Trotsky. But they might also be symbolic of those persons who are Stalinistic or Trotskyite, who share their ideals, temperament, etc. And Boxer is a symbolic of the average working-class Russian proletariat. Or perhaps all proletariats in a socialist or communist nation.
These are some of the differences between allegory and symbolism.
2. Regarding the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
a. Your initial words on the topic were quite firm that the trees should be regarded as literal trees. But now it appears you've shifted your position to a vaguer one that they could be either literal or literal and symbolic:
I don't see a case either way as to whether the tree of life was primarily symbolic (described as a "tree" in scripture, but actually a kind of, I dunno... a special kind of crop with super life-giving grain?), or both symbolic and literal. In either case, the important truth is the symbolic, metaphysical one: eating of it had "cosmic consequences" - defiance of the natural decay and aging processes.
b. Speaking for myself, I can take the trees as literal trees imbued with Scriptural symbolism.
c. If you take the trees as both literal and symbolic, you've still previously noted you believe Gen. 1-3 to be allegorical. An allegory is not a literal, real life story. What you're saying, then, is you believe in a literal and symbolic tree (which I, too, would affirm), but you believe the tree exists in a passage which is allegorical (which I would deny).
That's like saying you believe Sherlock Holmes is a literal, flesh and blood detective who symbolizes intelligence (or whatever), and who is found in a work of fiction. It's true the Sherlock Holmes stories are fictional, and it's true Sherlock Holmes is symbolic of certain things, but it's not at all true that he is a real life, flesh and blood detective (although he could be based on a real life detective, but obviously that's not the same thing as saying he is a real life detective).
d. Of course, I'll gladly accept if you concede that what you really meant was that Gen. 1-3 should be read literally and symbolically, not as allegory. Because then we'd be in agreement.
3. This doesn't mean that the Scriptures cannot be read allegorically. But the question is, does the text exegetically warrant an allegorical reading?
Again, to take Animal Farm as an example, we know it does warrant an allegorical reading. For one, because its author, George Orwell, has made it known he wrote Animal Farm as allegory. Likewise the form of the book itself is allegorical.
In regard to Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11, however, you've yet to prove your case that the text does exegetically warrant an allegorical reading.
At this point, insofar as I can tell, all you've proven is that there are symbols in Genesis. Adam and Eve, the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, etc. are symbolic of certain things. What you seem to have done, though, is noticed the symbolism and immediately assumed that this must then imply the Genesis account of creation is therefore allegorical.
But it's not enough that there's symbolism in the text for the text to be allegorical. The form of the text itself must be an allegory. In other words, you have to demonstate that the text itself (Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11) is an allegory, not that parts of the text make use of symbols.
Again, the question is, on what exegetical grounds do you read read Gen. 1-3 as allegory?
4. Regarding your question about systematic theology:
However, I believe you’re resistance to the allegory and broader symbolism in God’s word is likely tied to the culture context of contemporary conservative evangelical Christianity. You’re exegetical assumptions are perfectly reductionist, so far as I can see – would you endorse a systematic theology for the Bible? Post-enlightenment? I think you are approaching the bible from a post-enlightenment cultural context? Do you say you are not? These are artifacts of the Protestant Reformation. If you would consider yourself “Reformed”, then you’re very much approaching this from that angle, I suggest. But no matter, I don’t know if you subscribe to Reformed theology/exegesis or not. You haven’t said, or if you did, I missed it.
However, the “no argument”, “can’t be”, “perfectly lines up” clues are definitely there, as I see it, that you bring a set of expectations to scripture that are reductive, exhaustive, and systematic. That’s no more perjorative than saying you’re “Reformed”. That’s not an epithet at all to Reformed people.
a. Would I "endorse a systematic theology for the Bible"? I would endorse understanding the Bible on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words, and forming a systematic theology out of this.
b. Yes, I happen to be Reformed in my systematic theology. But I don't necessarily allow my systematic theology to dictate my exegesis of Scripture. Actually, it's the other way around. One's exegesis of Scripture should dictate one's systematic theology.
c. It's true I bring a set of expectations to Scripture. As I just mentioned, one expectation is that Scripture should be understood on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words. Another is that Scripture should be internally consistent as a whole.
Among other problems, your position that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read allegorically is inconsistent with your position that the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam and Eve (possibly) literally existed.
d. But you, too, bring a set of expectations to Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you're also working with certain assumptions and expectations when you approach the Bible. Such as that certain parts of the Bible should be read as allegory without argument. While I don't doubt that certain parts of the Bible can be read allegorically, if they should be is another question which depends on whether the text warrants it.
But without an exegetically sound argument for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory, you're at best only engaging in a ruse. It's all smoke and mirrors.
In short, you've not proven on a fair exegesis of the text that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory. You've only assumed it should.
5. I see Steve has weighed in on the topic. His thoughts are well worth considering.
Thanks again for your thorough response.
ReplyDeleteI'll just make a few brief points:
1. After reading your comments, it appears you're working with a false or erroneous definition regarding allegory and symbolism (or typology). More often than not, you seem to use the terms "symbolism" and "allegory" interchangeably. By definition, an allegory is not literal or real. Symbols, however, can be either literal or not. But you've conflated the two together. Or perhaps mistaken them entirely.
For example, you cited Animal Farm. To answer your question, yes, I believe we can agree the novel is an allegory. George Orwell himself indicates this. Animal Farm tells a story involving talking pigs, cows, and other barnyard animals. The main allegory is an association with communism as it plays out in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. But the story itself is not real. It did not literally take place as George Orwell relates it to us. The talking barnyard animals are not real. There are no real life pigs named Napoleon or Snowball. Or a horse named Boxer in real life. These are imaginary animals created for the purposes of the allegory.
However, they do relate to real figures. Napoleon and Snowball are symbols. Most obviously, they are symbolic of Stalin and Trotsky. But they might also be symbolic of those persons who are Stalinistic or Trotskyite, who share their ideals, temperament, etc. And Boxer is a symbolic of the average working-class Russian proletariat. Or perhaps all proletariats in a socialist or communist nation.
But these are some of the differences between allegory and symbolism.
Patrick, an allegory is type of symbolism. Do I have to paste in the dictionary definition, again? Animal Farm is commentary on a real dynamic in a real place with real people. Yes, it’s symbolic, specifically an allegory!
I’m disappointed that you declined to tell me how you determined it *was* an allegory, or even symbolic. How did you determine that it *was* allegorical? What were the key clues?
2. Regarding the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
a. Your initial words on the topic were quite firm that the trees should be regarded as literal trees. But now it appears you've shifted your position to a vaguer one that they could be either literal or literal and symbolic: "I don't see a case either way as to whether the tree of life was primarily symbolic (described as a 'tree' in scripture, but actually a kind of, I dunno... a special kind of crop with super life-giving grain?), or both symbolic and literal. In either case, the important truth is the symbolic, metaphysical one: eating of it had 'cosmic consequences' - defiance of the natural decay and aging processes."
Patrick, I’ve consistently maintained that I don’t have a firm belief one way or the other as to whether the “Tree of Life”. I made that clear in my last response. As for the link here, you’ll note that I put “Tree of Life” in parentheses – that’s supposed to be clue that I’m affirming the symbol without declaring what specifically is being symbolized. If there’s any doubt to this, it is definitely clarified in my subsequent words.
b. Speaking for myself, I can take the trees as literal trees imbued with Scriptural symbolism.
That may well be just what they were. I don’t know. It’s definitely a possibility.
c. If you take the trees as both literal and symbolic, you've still previously noted you believe Gen. 1-3 to be allegorical. An allegory is not a literal, real life story. What you're saying, then, is you believe in a literal and symbolic tree (which I, too, would affirm), but you believe the tree exists in a passage which is allegorical (which I would deny).
That's like saying you believe Sherlock Holmes is a literal, flesh and blood detective who symbolizes intelligence (or whatever), yet who is finds himself in a work of fiction. It's true the Sherlock Holmes stories are fictional, and it's true Sherlock Holmes is symbolic of certain things, but it's not at all true that he is a real life, flesh and blood detective (although he could be based on a real life detective, but obviously that's not the same thing as saying he is a real life detective).
Are you saying that because there’s really no pig named “Napolean”, that Josef Stalin wasn’t real? I’m saying the “Tree of Life”, whatever it was – tree or no – was definitely something quite real, as real as Josef Stalin, and more. If you can affirm that Josef Stalin was real, and was portrayed as Napolean the totalitarian pig in Animal Farm, then you have understood me with regard to the “Tree of Life”. I’m sure there are allegories (never thought of Sherlock Holmes as allegorical, but I suppose that might be the case) that do *not* symbolize real people or things. But I’m not concerned with such; I’m asserting that Genesis is an allegory that symbolizes very real and extant people and things.
d. Of course, I'll gladly accept if you concede that what you really meant was that Gen. 1-3 should be read literally and symbolically, not as allegory. Because then we'd be in agreement.
Well this is a bit frustrating, then. I’ll say it once more: allegory is a type of symbolism!
3. This doesn't mean that the Scriptures cannot be read allegorically. But the question is, does the text exegetically warrant an allegorical reading?
Again, to take Animal Farm as an example, we know it does warrant an allegorical reading. For one, because its author, George Orwell, has made it known he wrote Animal Farm as allegory. Likewise the form of the book itself is allegorical.
That’s precisely what I’m interested in, and which has bearing on how we might look at Genesis. How do you identify the book’s form as being “allegorical”. I used this example, having had a college class that focused on just this book for half the semester. I don’t expect *that* level of treatment, but I’d like to understand how you would identify the allegorical form from the text itself. What are the structural elements that give it away? Is it a certain set of attributes in the characters that are the giveaway? What? This is an important question.
In regard to Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11, however, you've yet to prove your case that the text does exegetically warrant an allegorical reading.
At this point, insofar as I can tell, all you've proven is that there are symbols in Genesis. Adam and Eve, the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, etc. are symbolic of certain things. What you seem to have done, though, is noticed the symbolism and immediately assumed that this must then imply the Genesis account of creation is therefore allegorical.
Oh, I don’t suppose I can prove *anything*. You have Steve here who can explain that the hand your typing with isn’t really there, or at least not in such a way that we can prove it. Demands for proof are for neophytes Patrick. I realize I haven’t convinced you, and I’m not surprised. I don’t expect there’s much I can say that will. All I’d like to do is present the case, the analysis of the facts and evidences as I see it. You’ll do with it as you will. If you’re waiting for “proof” of anything, you can stop now, as all you get from me is my best argument, and a commitment to my faith. It’s all I can offer you.
But it's not enough that there's symbolism in the text for the text to be allegorical.. In other words, you have to demonstate that the text itself (Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11) is an allegory, not that parts of the text make use of symbols.
Ok, so by this, you’re showing that there *must* be some discrete test for allegory in the “form of the text”. I’ve asked you about Animal Farm and how you determine the allegory from the form of the text. You’ve asserted that “the form of the text must be an allegory”. If that’s the case, then I’d like you to tell me what that heuristic is. If there is such a heuristic, we should be able to apply it to all sorts of texts, and have that heuristic sort them in to “allegory” and “no allegory” piles. If it isn’t clear here, I believe you are simply waving your hands about the “form of the text itself” giving automatic rise to the identification of allegory. You can persist in saying “The form of the text itself must be an allegory”, but without a way to test a text, it doesn’t mean anything. Animal Farm is a great example to start with, I think.
Again, the question is, on what exegetical grounds do you read read Gen. 1-3 as allegory?
Should I post the previous message again? I can, but won’t – it’s there to re-read if you’d like. I took a good bit of time instead of doing something else to type that up. Supernatural trees, talking snake, water without light(heat), etc. We just went over this.
4. Regarding your question about systematic theology:
However, I believe you’re resistance to the allegory and broader symbolism in God’s word is likely tied to the culture context of contemporary conservative evangelical Christianity. You’re exegetical assumptions are perfectly reductionist, so far as I can see – would you endorse a systematic theology for the Bible? Post-enlightenment? I think you are approaching the bible from a post-enlightenment cultural context? Do you say you are not? These are artifacts of the Protestant Reformation. If you would consider yourself “Reformed”, then you’re very much approaching this from that angle, I suggest. But no matter, I don’t know if you subscribe to Reformed theology/exegesis or not. You haven’t said, or if you did, I missed it.
However, the “no argument”, “can’t be”, “perfectly lines up” clues are definitely there, as I see it, that you bring a set of expectations to scripture that are reductive, exhaustive, and systematic. That’s no more perjorative than saying you’re “Reformed”. That’s not an epithet at all to Reformed people.
a. Would I "endorse a systematic theology for the Bible"? I would endorse understanding the Bible on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words, and forming a systematic theology out of this.
b. Yes, I happen to be Reformed in my systematic theology. But I don't necessarily allow my systematic theology to dictate my exegesis of Scripture. Actually, it's the other way around. One's exegesis of Scripture should dictate one's systematic theology.
c. It's true I bring a set of expectations to Scripture. As I just mentioned, one expectation is that Scripture should be understood on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words. Another is that Scripture should be internally consistent as a whole.
Ahh, so you prefer to “interpret correctly”! Well I applaud that goal, and share it. But understanding it “on its own terms” is the whole trick, isn’t it? Internal consistency? Another important goal. But you haven’t told us anything here besides you’d like to do the best you can. I might as well say I try to just accept the true meaning of the text. Does that fly as a quality approach to you?
Among other problems, your position that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read allegorically is inconsistent with your position that the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam and Eve (possibly) literally existed.
I don’t know that it *did* exist as a tree. The tree may be as real as “Napolean” the totalitarian pig. The referent – the thing symbolized by the tree – I assert is perfectly real, as real as Josef Stalin (was). It may even be that the “Tree of Life” is both a tree in allegory and a tree in the literal story behind the allegory. I don’t know, but that could be the case.
d. But you, too, bring a set of expectations to Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you're also working with certain assumptions and expectations when you approach the Bible. Such as that certain parts of the Bible should be read as allegory without argument. While I don't doubt that certain parts of the Bible can be read allegorically, if they should be is another question which depends on whether the text warrants it.
Again, we don’t have a deterministic way to determine what “warrants it”. You’ve simply pushed the problem back one level. It remains an intractable problem. If Genesis really *was* intended to be an allegory, then the “text warrants it”. If it is a literal account of events, the text does not warrant it. That is, the warrant proceeds from the intended meaning, and the intended meaning is exactly what’s at issue here. It’s tautologous.
I believe I’m aware of the assumptions I bring to the text, and the limitations I have as a fallible follower, reading the text, considering it in prayer, and discussing it endlessly with fellow believers, some who have more to offer in sharing their views than others. It also is quite useful to try out my interpretations in real life, as an experiment.
But without an exegetically sound argument for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory, you're at best only engaging in a ruse. It's all smoke and mirrors.
In short, you've not proven on a fair exegesis of the text that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory. You've only assumed it should.
I don’t suppose I’m going to prove anything here, and am not trying to do so. Thinking about “proof” I suggest is a sign that your paradigm needs retooling!
5. I see Steve has weighed in on the topic. His thoughts are well worth considering.
Could be, but there’s apparently little point, given his communication challenges. I think I’ve made adequate attempts. I learn slowly, but I do learn eventually.
Thanks Patrick,
-Touchstone
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to make three points please:
1. You said: Well this is a bit frustrating, then. I’ll say it once more: allegory is a type of symbolism!
And you refer me to the previous post wherein you cite the Webster definition of allegory:
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM
Even based on the Webster definition, an allegory is not merely "a type of symbolism." You're forgetting a key component of the definition: an allegory itself is "fictional." It does not exist in reality. It is not real. Yes, it is figurative. Yes, it is symbolic. Yes, it is representative of certain truths. But the allegory itself as an allegory is not real!
As I wrote above about Animal Farm:
To answer your question, yes, I believe we can agree the novel is an allegory. George Orwell himself indicates this. Animal Farm tells a story involving talking pigs, cows, and other barnyard animals. The main allegory is an association with communism as it plays out in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. But the story itself is not real. It did not literally take place as George Orwell relates it to us. The talking barnyard animals are not real. There are no real life pigs named Napoleon or Snowball. Or a horse named Boxer in real life. These are imaginary animals created for the purposes of the allegory.
However, they do relate to real figures. Napoleon and Snowball are symbols. Most obviously, they are symbolic of Stalin and Trotsky. But they might also be symbolic of those persons who are Stalinistic or Trotskyite, who share their ideals, temperament, etc. And Boxer is a symbolic of the average working-class Russian proletariat. Or perhaps all proletariats in a socialist or communist nation.
In other words, Animal Farm is not a real, literal tale which actually took place. It is an allegory, and thus, by definition, fictional. It has in mind real events and people, as I noted, but the story about talking barnyard animals is not itself real.
If you still don't believe me, here's a fuller definition:
Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy. Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.
I'll reiterate the last bit: "Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning" (emphasis mine). In an allegory like Animal Farm, the literal meaning would be the facts and events of the story as it is told: Old Major dies; Napoleon takes over; Snowball flees; Boxer dies; etc. The symbolic meaning would include the following: Old Major represents Lenin or those in his mold; Napoleon represents Stalin or those in his mold; Snowball represents Trotsky or those in his mold; Boxer represents the proletariat or those in this mold; etc.
Again, I believe you're working with a faulty definition of allegory and symbolism.
2. Therefore your argument that the Genesis creation account is both literally true and real and at the same time allegory is inconsistent.
3. You said: I don’t suppose I’m going to prove anything here, and am not trying to do so. Thinking about “proof” I suggest is a sign that your paradigm needs retooling!
But your suggestion that one should read Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 as an allegory in itself is an attempt to "prove" something. I'm merely asking you to back up your claim.
At any rate, thanks again for the interaction.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI've answered all your questions -- quite a lot of them. In return, I'd like to know:
1. How do you identify allegory from the "form of the text"? Given a text, how do you determine if in allegorical in form.
2. How do you reconcile this:
2. Therefore your argument that the Genesis creation account is both literally true and real and at the same time allegory is inconsistent.
With Paul speaking on this very subject in Gal. 4:
22For, it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from his handmaid and one from his freewoman. 23But whereas the one from the handmaid was born according to the flesh, the one from the freewoman through a promise; 24these things are said allegorically. For these women are two covenants . . .
So now you have a problem: either a) Paul is wrong in identifying a story allegory *cannot* be simultaneously literally true and also allegorical, or b) Paul is trying to tell us that the Sarah/Isaac-Hagar/Ishmael story in Genesis isn't literally *true*.
So Patrick, which is it?
Your formula for identifying allegory from the "form of the text" is really very key to all the complainst you're making. If there *is* such a process, then your pursuit here if very powerful; if we put Animal Farm into your process and get "allegory", and then apply the same process to Genesis, we have something useful to discuss.
Repeatedly, you've asserted that allegory must be determined from the text. If you are right, then show how that is determined.
Also, as for "proof", an argument it not proof. I understand that many here might think so, but an argument is... just an argument.
Thanks for answering the above, if you so choose.
-Touchstone
Hi Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your questions:
1. You said: How do you identify allegory from the "form of the text"? Given a text, how do you determine if in allegorical in form.
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. Originally, you were the one arguing for an interpretation of Gen. 1-3 as allegory. So I asked you to backup your claim. I did indicate that you'd need to look at the form of the text in order to determine whether it's allegory. But it's not my job to do the leg-work for your argument.
2. You said: So now you have a problem: either a) Paul is wrong in identifying a story allegory cannot be simultaneously literally true and also allegorical, or b) Paul is trying to tell us that the Sarah/Isaac-Hagar/Ishmael story in Genesis isn't literally true.
So Patrick, which is it?
a. I've never denied the Bible could be allegorical or symbolic in certain parts.
b. When you talk about allegory and symbolism, you're equivocating. You're treating symbolism as allegory and allegory as symbolism. But the two are not the same. As I've noted in my above post and comment.
c. What's more, you've not merely been arguing for understanding certain elements of Scripture as allegory (or symbols), but you're taking it one step further and arguing for understanding the entire text itself (e.g. Gen. 1-3) as allegory.
d. For the sake of elucidation, let me contrast the term "allegoroumena" (often translated "allegory") in Gal. 4:24 with another Greek word in the NT: "pornia." Literally, "pornia" might be translated "porn" or "pornography." When we think of pornography today, however, we mean something very specific. But the actual meaning of the Greek word itself is not so restricted as our modern definition. The Greek word "Pornia" could refer to any illicit sexual intercourse (e.g. adultery, homosexuality, bestiality). Or it could be a metaphor for idolatry. Similarly with the term "allegoroumena." As we would understand it today, the term "allegoroumena" could mean to speak allegorically or symbolically (figuratively, typologically; cf. the NIV translation).
e. Finally, here is scholar Moises Silva on the topic:
Much discussion has surrounded the meaning of v 24, "These things may be taken figuratively." Paul uses the Greek term "allegoroumena," and so a more literal translation might be, "These things are written allegorically," or "These things may be interpreted allegorically." Paul certainly is not making use of the allegorical method made famous by Philo of Alexandria, which strongly downplayed (or even denied) the historical character of the OT narrative and which served as the vehicle for formulating complex philosophical systems. In view of the somewhat specialized meaning that the term allegory has today in the minds of many (the corresponding Greek term could be used in several, more general, ways), it is probably misleading to use it in describing what Paul is doing in the passage. ... Some scholars prefer to use the term typology (rather than allegory) to describe Paul's method here.
3. You said: Your formula for identifying allegory from the "form of the text" is really very key to all the complainst you're making. If there is such a process, then your pursuit here if very powerful; if we put Animal Farm into your process and get "allegory", and then apply the same process to Genesis, we have something useful to discuss.
Repeatedly, you've asserted that allegory must be determined from the text. If you are right, then show how that is determined.
I hate to belabor the point, but this would not be my burden of proof to discharge, but yours, since you're the one arguing for allegorizing the Gen. 1-3 passage.
4. You said: Also, as for "proof", an argument it not proof. I understand that many here might think so, but an argument is... just an argument.
Again, you're equivocating. The point is not to prove something like one might prove that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. The point here is in fact the soundness of your argumentation.
Thanks again.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteOk, now you're starting to sound like Steve, and that's unfortunate. If you made the claim that allegory is determined by an examination of the form of the text.
I deny that a deterministic method exists, and am asking you to demonstrate how that method operates.
So on one hand you require me to show allegory from the "form of the text", and on the other you won't show that such a requirement is even possible. If it is possible, show your work!
I've been over my argument for allegory, numerous times:
+ Trees with supernatural powers
+ Talking snake
+ Chronological problems
+ Anthropomorphism of God
+ Transition from oral tradition to written
+ Similarity to neighboring ancient myths
And I'm sure I've forgotten a bullet or two.
I understand you're not convinced, but I've provided my rationale. I've not claimed there is a "textual form" that denotes allegory -- I don't think there is one.
So if you think there is, and you've said so repeatedly, you ought to produce your algorithm for identifying allegory. If you can't I have to assume you are simply waving your hands. You've taken plenty of time to respond on things I *haven't* requested, and now deny the one or two requests I *do* make.
You made the claim, and the claim places a burden on me. So I'm asking for substantiation of the claim. Do you have an algorithm that will identify whether or not allegory is present in a "textual form", or not?
Why would you be unwilling to support this claim?
Please don't make me guess.
-Touchstone
Hi Touchstone,
ReplyDelete1. You said: Ok, now you're starting to sound like Steve, and that's unfortunate. If you made the claim that allegory is determined by an examination of the form of the text.
Among other things, I take it this means I'm becoming a wiser debator.
2. You said: I deny that a deterministic method exists, and am asking you to demonstrate how that method operates.
As I've pointed out above, whether you realize it or not, you, too, bring certain expectations in your approach of the Bible. Whether you like it or not, even if you deny that a certain method exists (e.g. "deterministic"), you are using a certain method. It may be an inconsistent method, but it's nevertheless a method.
3. You said: So on one hand you require me to show allegory from the "form of the text", and on the other you won't show that such a requirement is even possible. If it is possible, show your work!
Again, it's not my work to show. It's yours. You're shifting the burden of proof. Wasn't it your original contention that Gen. 1-3 should be interpreted allegorically? And now you're asking me to prove your argument for you? Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't bite.
4. You said:
I've been over my argument for allegory, numerous times:
+ Trees with supernatural powers
+ Talking snake
+ Chronological problems
+ Anthropomorphism of God
+ Transition from oral tradition to written
+ Similarity to neighboring ancient myths
And I'm sure I've forgotten a bullet or two.
a. You're not merely arguing for understanding certain elements of the text as symbols or allegory in and of themselves, but you've been arguing for understanding the entire text or passage as allegory.
b. Many of these would fit in quite nicely with a symbolic understanding of the text -- which is what I've consistently maintained.
c. Steve has more than adequately dealt with the apparent chronological problems. You've still yet to respond to his points. See here; here; here; here; and here.
d. This is the first time I recall you mentioning anthropomorphism as well as a transition from oral to written tradition.
e. But be that as it may, regarding the anthropomorphism of God, there are evidences found throughout Scripture. Somehow I doubt you'd allegorize every instance of anthropomorphism of God found throughout the various passages of Scripture. If you do, well, then one wonders what there's left of the Bible to believe.
f. Regarding "transition from oral tradition to written," I don't see how this would then mean Genesis should be read as allegory. Where's the connection? You'll have to spell out your argument for me. Just because something which has been orally transmitted and is now transcribed in writing does not mean it should be automatically taken as allegory. For example, many fairly accurate histories of various peoples have been orally transmitted.
g. Regarding "similarity to neighboring ancient myths," why should we assume Genesis is analogous to a neighboring ancient myth (e.g. Gilgamesh)? Again, where's the argument that Genesis is analogous to such and such an ancient myth?
5. You said: I understand you're not convinced, but I've provided my rationale.
I'm not trying to sound disrespectful here, but honestly, I'm not convinced simply because your rationale has not been very persuasive.
6. You said: I've not claimed there is a "textual form" that denotes allegory -- I don't think there is one.
Notwithstanding your claim to the contrary, you've nevertheless argued that the first few chapters of Genesis should be read as allegory.
7. You said: So if you think there is, and you've said so repeatedly, you ought to produce your algorithm for identifying allegory. If you can't I have to assume you are simply waving your hands. You've taken plenty of time to respond on things I *haven't* requested, and now deny the one or two requests I do make.
You made the claim, and the claim places a burden on me. So I'm asking for substantiation of the claim. Do you have an algorithm that will identify whether or not allegory is present in a "textual form", or not?
Why would you be unwilling to support this claim?
Please don't make me guess.
Again, sorry, but I'm unwilling to support the claim that I need to argue your position that Gen. 1-3 should be read as allegory for you.
Thanks.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Again, sorry, but I'm unwilling to support the claim that I need to argue your position that Gen. 1-3 should be read as allegory for you.
Establishing the algorithm doesn't prejudice the case one or the other. It's a test that will produce evidence, evidence that can go one way or the other. If you can't substantiate that we even *can* perform the test you require -- to see if the form of the text identifies allegory -- then you've not got any reason to ask if the text indicates allegory.
This was a request for a test that was useful for both sides, it would have shone light on the central question.
-Touchstone
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi Touchstone,
ReplyDeletePlease allow me to spell this out as best as I can:
1. I've never said there is no heuristic for determining what is an allegory and what is not.
2. Let's not forget that you're the one who's been arguing for reading Gen. 1-3 as allegory.
3. Also, let's not forget that in this very post I've corrected you on the basic differences between allegory and symbolism.
4. And let's not forget that inherent in these differences between allegory and symbolism is in fact a definition of what constitutes one or the other.
5. More than that, in this very post I've corrected you on how to apply and how not to apply allegory and symbolism to works like Animal Farm (which you yourself originally brought up) and the book of Genesis itself.
6. Thus, in this very post I've supplied you with all the prerequisite material to determine what is and what is not allegory or symbolism, and how it applies or does not apply to places like Gen. 1-3.
7. If these things are not sufficient grounds for establishing a good starting point for you to determine a heuristic to better support your own argument, then I honestly don't know what would be.
8. As it is you keep asking for more and more and more when more than enough has already been given to you. Sorry I can't help but feel flabbergasted at such requests.
Anyway, I'm really bending over backwards for you here, but hopefully it now makes better sense.
If not, I'd humbly advise you to perhaps bookmark this page; take a couple of weeks off so that you're no longer in the heat of the moment or in the thick of it, so to speak, and can thus hopefully step back and clear your thoughts; come back to this post with better clarity of mind; ignore as best as you can the quirks and other issues of personality one way or the other (and please forgive me if I have indeed stepped on your toes wrongly); and focus on the arguments presented here to determine whether what I'm saying is valid.
Kind thanks.
8. As it is you keep asking for more and more and more when more than enough has already been given to you. Sorry I can't help but feel flabbergasted at such requests.
ReplyDeletePatrick,
I think if you look at all of my posts and identify what I've concentrated my requests on, throughout, it's simply the substantian of your algorithm for determining allegory from the "form of the text". I've made "more and more" requests, but repeatedly for just this one thing.
Anyway, I'm really bending over backwards for you here, but hopefully it now makes better sense.
Now I'm becoming convinced that you are being dishonest. If you were committed to "bending over backwards", even a little bit, it would be trivial to tell me *how* you determine whether allegory is indicated by the "form of the text". Just a few sentences would be all it takes to give me the flavor of what you meant by that claim.
I'm not one to think such easily, but putting myself in your shoes, I'm thinking "how can I give Patrick the response he wants as a matter of driving the discussion?" I can't think of *any* scenario where I would refuse to attempt to substantiate claims I've made, and then call it "bending over backwards".
The only hypothesis I can come up with an attempt to beg off a claim I can't back up, without having to admit it.
I'm fine if you want to assume Steve's Napolean Dynamite karate pose and satisfy yourself that you are thus becoming a "wise debat[e]r". But you can skip the "bending over backwards" schtick, that just makes you look bad.
If not, I'd humbly advise you to perhaps bookmark this page; take a couple of weeks off so that you're no longer in the heat of the moment or in the thick of it, so to speak, and can thus hopefully step back and clear your thoughts; come back to this post with better clarity of mind; ignore as best as you can the quirks and other issues of personality one way or the other (and please forgive me if I have indeed stepped on your toes wrongly); and focus on the arguments presented here to determine whether what I'm saying is valid.
Patrick, I run into this kind of stuff all the time. Steve just pulled this on me a few days ago. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the experience. I don't get honked off about. I make a couple direct requests, along with my reasons for making them, and hope for the best. If you don't oblige, all I can do is shrug, move on and adjust accordingly.
There's nothing I can see that warrants a bookmark or a revisitation here. Either you will or you won't, and apparently, it's "won't". I'm happy to just chalk it up to another one of those experiences and continue on.
-Touchstone
Sigh.
ReplyDelete1. Well, as I've explained time and time again, because it was your original contention that Gen. 1-3 should be read as allegory, the burden of proof is on you to discharge.
Imagine that you've accused me of murder. As such, it's up to you to prove that I committed murder based on the facts of the case, the evidence, etc.
Likewise, you contend Gen. 1-3 should be read as allegory. Now you need to prove your case.
What you've done instead is to ask me to prove that I committed murder.
Is that really fair? Of course not.
By the way, it's probably a bad sign that you started out not knowing the differences between allegory and symbolism in the first place. (And have never admitted your error. Although I do notice you now use the terms more or less correctly in future comments. At least there was some headway made here.)
In short, your attempt to shift the burden of proof as well as your recasting the terms of the debate is less than fair.
2. I won't reciprocate with some of the harsh words you've had to say about, for example, YECs.