ApostateAbe

Several times, I have seen good old boys of the IIDB speculate that the Jews at the time of the creation of the Hebrew Scriptures did not take their own holy scriptures literally, but instead metaphorically, which may explain some obvious nonsense in the the Bible. But I always studied the Bible under the assumption that the Pentateuch, for example, was indeed meant to be understood literally in that time. My two questions are:

1) What is the majority scholarly opinion on this matter?
2) What are the evidences in favor of each of the two sides?

rob117

Every culture back then believed its own myths were literally true. Maybe not down to the syllable like modern fundies, but the ancient Hebrews were certainly not evolutionists in disguise, as some liberal Christians and Reform Jews like to believe. The idea that the biblical authors meant Genesis to be taken metaphorically is basically an attempt to harmonize recieved scripture with scientific fact, an attempt that in my opinion is futile. Reinterpretation of this degree is generally in the realm of theologians, not critical scholars.

mdarus

There was an early and strong tendency to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures allegorically. This does not seem to be due to any doubt about the historicity of the writings. It seems to be motivated more by a desire to extract deeper meanings. Philo posited at least two meanings - the literal and the allegorical. Instead of viewing the issue as a dichotomy, he had no trouble embracing both. This is not the same as metaphorical. A metaphorical interpretation tends to assume a non-historical source. An allegorical approach tends to accept both the historicity and a deeper hidden meaning. We struggle to understand this because we tend to believe it has to be either literal or historical. They seemed to accept both without contradiction.


I don't think we can conclude that the tendency to allegory means that the Jews at the time rejected or questioned the historicity of the events. The stories happened in real places they knew. Their faith was grounded in their history. They worshipped "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." The existence of these ancestors was key to their understand of the God they worshipped. There were landmarks and monuments that still existed "to this day" that served as physical memorials to the events recorded.

One of the methods of biblical interpretation that holds great promise for expaining "some obvious nonsense" is identifying the chiastic structure of passages, books, and even groups of books. This method easily explains mysterious duplications and apparent contridictions. It makes it crystal clear why Abraham lied twice about Sarah being his wife and the differences in the two accounts.

pharoah

Would you mind expanding on that idea, using the Abraham story as an example?

countjulian

Read Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews". If Josephus can be taken as a representative of Jewish culture at the time, than most Jews accepted the Tanak as literal truth. Although Christians love him, Philo's combination of Platonism and Judaism, though very close to Christianity, did not make him many friends amongst the majority of Orthodox Jews. Ideas about each word of the scripture having 600,000 meanings and other mystical poppey-cock are later accretions not known to the Tanak's authors.

mdarus

Pharoah,
I don't have access to the book right now which would make the response easy, but I don't want to ignore your question.

This is a good introduction of the concept:
http://www.christviewmin.org/resourc...y.patterns.php
This illustrates the concept in the life of Abraham in Genesis 17:
A Abram's age (1a)
B The LORD appears to Abram (1b)
C God's first speech (1b-2)
D Abram falls on his face (3)
E God's second speech
(Abram's name changed, kings; 4-8)
X God's Third Speech
(the covenant of circumcision; 9-14)
E' God's fourth speech
(Sari's name changed, kings; 15-16)
D' Abraham falls on his face (17-18)
C' God's fifth speech (19-21)
B' God "goes up" from Abraham (22)
A' Abraham's age (24-25)

The X in the center of the story is the main point. The chiasmus serves several purpose including a memory aid for memorized oral tradition and the indicator of the main point. Genesis 12 and 20 are part of the frame that points to the importance of the covenant.

ApostateAbe

Thank you, mdarus, et al.

rob117

Or, for an explanation that makes less theological assumptions, read Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman.