Llyricist

Mathetes,

In regards to your OP, I think the best example around here of someone reading the bible metaphorically would be the poster called Amos. Look him up, and read his posts if you want an idea of "what it means to read the bible metaphorically".

Doctor X

. . . or psychotically [Stop that!--Ed.] Okay . . . okay. . . .

That is the problem with symbolism . . . drawing the line at reasonable interpretation. The example I often use--stolen from a friend in high school, no less--involved reinterpreting Romeo and Juliet as Romeo and Julian the great homoerotic love-fest. Let us just say you have to bring in a few shovels.

Just because symbolism exists and the writer intends metaphor, does not mean you can then wander off into whatever caffeine-induced madness you have. A specific example is Mk--here with have the "loaves 'n the fishies" miracle. A page later in your RSV and the same connundrum faces Junior and His Merry Men. "What will we do?" the hapless disciples whine. With the patience not previously manefested in a biblical construct since some guy became involved in a supernatural wager, Junior reminds the fools of the previous miracle and recreates it step-by-step.

The disciples remain dumbfounded as to who Junior is.

So . . . did Mk "believe" Junior actually had to perform the miracle twice? I think more likely he used it as yet another demonstration that the "mainstream" conception represented by the disciples--methinks that Junior was a secular figure and not a god-man--was clearly wrong. I think he expects his audience to share in the laughter as the fools stare at the baskets of fish and bread . . . again!

This does not mean that the loaves and fishes represent the various ethic groups that comprised Yugoslavia, and the recreation of the miracle harkened to the reinstitution of ethic violence towards the end of the 20th century. . . .

--J.D.

Toto

What is the spiritually profound and nourishing message that the metaphorical tale of Noah is supposed to represent? [After every great flood comes a rainbow and then you have to get the old man drunk to perpetuate the species?] Why is it more profound than Romeo and Juliet?

Doctor X

. . . because Noah speaks normal English without all of those "prithees" and "methinks" and "anons" and "hey nonny nos!"

Silly.

Well . . . I cannot really argue with you Toto in that I do not see much that is "spiritually profound and nourishing message" in the OT flood myth. I frankly find the original myth more interesting--Gilgamesh learns he is mortal because that is his nature. Perhaps this myth was popular enough amongst the masses that the writers felt the need to incorporate it. It does not satisfy many of us now . . . but some people still enjoy it.

--J.D.

runnerryan

It shows that God takes sin seriously but still acts with mercy. If he saved people as screwed up as Noah's family then maybe there is some hope for the rest of us. But the punishment inflicted on those killed in the flood shows that better not take this mercy for granted and sit around thinking "I'll just keep sinning up a storm, I'm sure I'll quit way before God does anything about it."

Mageth

That's not a metaphorical interpretation of the Flood myth; that's a "moral lesson" taken from a literal interpretation of the Flood myth.

Toto

So this alleged God punishes sin in a random and disproportionate manner, and I'm supposed to feel spiritually nourished??

Doctor X

Indeed.

This proves a most evil deity if that is the message to believe.

--J.D.

Mathetes

So from your assertion that "if something not true is believed by a lot of people it acquires a deeper meaning" has changed into "if something not true in a religious context is believed by a lot of people and claims to be spiritually nourishing then it acquires a deeper meaning". And still you do not provide a justification of why this is so.

And besides, where in the Bible do these stories claim to be non-true but spiritually nourishing? They do not. They are never presented as metaphorical, other than Jesus's parables. Jesus himself did not refer to the flood as mythical, but as if it had actually happened, as in Luke 17

I do not think anybody thought the flood to be metaphorical, until it became obvious to XIX century archeology that it was impossible. Then believers started looking for a hidden meaning when it was evident that the literal reading sounded dangerously close to a Bronze Age legend.

Mathetes

Hum... But how can we know if this is true? And how do we distinguish the non-literal passages from the literal ones?

The example that you gave about the repeated miracle might be just a confusion from two successive redactors of the Mark gospel, and not a real metaphorical intent...