LP675

True.
True. (well he didn’t, anyway)

True

Very true.

dado

oh the irony of a literalist making such a statement...

Magdlyn

Deeper meaning is all that matters but if the foundation is myth you have gnosticism.

dado

not true. culture is demonstrably self-referential, Paul's story "works" because the myth (literally) exists even though it is not (literally) true. all that is required is that Paul's readers be familiar with the myth - the truth of the myth is not necessary for Paul to make his point.

with respect to transmission of meaning, it is no different than a movie sequel: the original only has to exist to lay a foundation for the follow-on, it does not have to represent historical fact. mere existence is enough to lay foundation for future meaning.

Mageth

NOGO, with all due respect, you appear to be projecting a modern, rationalistic worldview (logos) back onto the people of the First Century, who generally viewed the world, and religion, through mythos.

ichabod crane

Hays is writing for a Christian audience and argues that Christians should not interpret the Old Testament "literally", but in the manner which he thinks Paul used. Now we might disagree with the finer details of how Hays characterises Paul's use of the Old Testament (Hays is fairly postmodern). But the great value of Hay's book is that he really does show just how non-literally Paul read the Old Testament.

Same deal. He's talking to a Christian readership, and saying that instead of reading the Old Testament literally, they should read it in view of the cross of Christ. Again, it's easier to show that Paul doesn't read the OT literally, then it is to agree on how he does read it.

To clarify for everyone: I was not recommending Hays book because I necessarily agree with him on everything or most things. I recommended it because he does a great job of showing just how non-literally Paul read the Old Testament. That's all!

I'm not sufficiently up in my reading of Diodorus to say. But certainly, most of the early Christian writers interpreted the Old and New Testaments allegorically. Read Tertullian's interpretation of the Good Samaritan parable some time; it's a classic in imaginative allegory.

LP675

I don’t know about all these claims as to what was important to a person of the first century. Whether it is true of first century worldviews held widely, I don’t know, but it seems to me clear that Paul did care about the historical authenticity of theologically significant events.

Paul seemed very concerned for example that Jesus death and physical resurrection had occurred, as a literal historical occurrence, and seemed to think it was absolutely vital to the Christian message (in 1 Corinthians).

Mageth

For someone supposedly very concerned with the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Paul's writings are strangely devoid of specific details of the events, wouldn't you say?

And it's questionable as to whether Paul was arguing for a physical resurrection or a spiritual/metaphorical resurrection, IMO.

In any case, whether Paul thought the events were literally true or not, he certainly mythologized them - he interpreted them through mythos, not logos.

CX

Burgle flickle!

NOGO

This does not do a thing for me, dado.

I do not need to look far to see examples of what you are talking about.

I showed you a clear prophecy made in the Bible which is attributed to Yahweh and which predicts an event which took place many years later.

You deny it or deny its implications.

Ok, but would you go as far as saying that the events described are false and never took place and therefore the writer was a liar.

I bet that you wont. You want your cake and eat it too.

But in case that you do admit that the writer was a liar then how, pray tell, do you pick statements which are true and which are lies. And does not this imply a free for all where statements which are contrary to ones beliefs are dismissed, reinterpreted, or made to state the exact opposite.

Most beliers that I have talked to both Jewish and Christians believe that the statements in the Bible are true. They, however, interpret them as they wish, to fit they beliefs. That is the pattern that I see.

If something is made to mean the exact opposite of what it says then one of the two is wrong. Something and it's opposite cannot both be right. So the person in question either disagrees with the Bible or knowingly states something that is wrong. We are no longer talking about allegorical devices here. Unless the whole thing is a joke.