You're moving your horsey wrong

[pelagius]

so what do you do about sections like the opening of Genesis, where you have two different creation stories? Even if the text had been intended as allegorical or figurative, why would we have two different versions?

Babs, I am not trying to be cute here. Can you spell out the tension for me? Is it that the two accounts may express theological diversity or is it the existence of two stories?

[Babs]

Babs, I am not trying to be cute here. Can you spell out the tension for me? Is it that the two accounts may express theological diversity or is it the existence of two stories?

Well, it depends on what you're trying to resolve by opting for a metaphorical interpretation. In the tradition I was raised in, Scripture is not only supposed to be inerrant, but wholly internally consistent. A figurative interpretation may lend itself to inerrancy, but doesn't help when trying to resolve two differing accounts.

[pelagius]

Well, it depends on what you're trying to resolve by opting for a metaphorical interpretation. In the tradition I was raised in, Scripture is not only supposed to be inerrant, but wholly internally consistent. A figurative interpretation may lend itself to inerrancy, but doesn't help when trying to resolve two differing accounts.

Right, I see ... internally consistent is just not something I expect out of scripture. To me the relevant question is what do things like theological diversity tell us about God and about ultimately about the nature of scripture? I do want to keep a relatively "high view" of scripture just not as high as some forms of evangelicalism. But I do envy traditions with a "high view" of scriptures.

[SeattleUte]

I don't believe I am implying this but maybe I just using allegorical different than you.

Is this a game of semantics? "Allegorical truth" in this context is like a way to save it from just being good fiction. But obviously, there are powerful truths embedded in the OT; you could make a case that the OT gave rise to everything around us, at least was a but for cause of everything to us.

I agree with your points about genre and setting. So, you seem to agree that Noah didn't put male and female of all the animals in the face of the world into his boat. We are talking about 1) fantasy 2) symbolism, or both. I think both.

You disavow being a biblical literalist; yet you and I both agree there are powerful truths in the Old Testament. The truths are embedded in the stories; they are not essays or lectures. They are stories; the truths are poetic truths. You may quibble with "allegory" as being a precise description. But I think when poeple say allegory they mean what I just described.

So what kind of truth are YOU talking about? You're being needlessly eliptical.

This is not an unimportant question. As we've seen, sloppy thinking about what kind of truth the OT represents can lead to generations of morons, and much hate.

[pelagius]

Is this a game of semantics? "Allegorical truth" in this context is like a way to save it from just being good fiction. But obviously, there are powerful truths embedded in the OT; you could make a case that the OT gave rise to everything around us, at least was a but for cause of everything to us.

I agree with your points about genre and setting. So, you seem to agree that Noah didn't put male and female of all the animals in the face of the world into his boat. We are talking about 1) fantasy 2) symbolism, or both. I think both.

You disavow being a biblical literalist; yet you and I both agree there are powerful truths in the Old Testament. The truths are embedded in the stories; they are not essays or lectures. They are stories; the truths are poetic truths. You may quibble with "allegory" as being a precise description. But I think when poeple say allegory they mean what I just described.

So what kind of truth are YOU talking about? You're being needlessly eliptical.

I think under your definition I agree with your assertion.

[wuapinmon]

I know you've expressed a mea culpa about the "horsey" comment, but as soon as I read your initial post in tandem with the thread title, I thought, "Well, this is one man's preference," and it kind of turned me off to your message.

There are many methods for interpreting Scripture: literal, allegorical, hermeneutic, Midrashim, grammatical-historical, folkloric, rational, etc. Jesus chided the Pharisees for their exhaustive interpretations of the Law of Moses and their strict adherence to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law, in Matthew 23:32:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin [sic], and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Along with Wolfgang Iser, Hans Robert Jauss was one of the foremost apologists for the Reader Response Theory. In the late 1960s in his Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, Jauss said the following:

Literature and art only obtain a history that has the character of a process when the succession of works is mediated not only through the producing subject, but also through the consuming subject--through the interaction of author and public. (15)

He argued that neither process was independent from one another and that the “historical essence of the work of art lies not only in its representational or expressive function but also in its influence” on the (reading) public (15). Now, some of you may object to my framing Genesis as a work of "art" since its essence as Scripture pushes it beyond the fictive creation of man, but unless we're going to believe the Wiseman Hypothesisse viewpoint that God Himself wrote the Torah via Moshe's hand (Joshua 1:7-8 & 1Kings 2:3).

I find that a Hermeneutical interpretation is my preference for Scripture. Since I don't necessarily subscribe the JEDP belief of Torah authorship, and since these words were not really written by God Himself, then if I'm going to derive any meaning out of them, I feel I have to look at the historicity of the text as key to my understanding the points it is trying to convey.

In Roland Barthes’s landmark essay, “The Death of the Author,” Barthes attacks the Classic focus of the “writer as the only person in literature,” claiming that “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing” (147). Barthes saw the language of a text as a fabric of quotations drawn from “innumerable cultures of centre” rather than from one individual (the Author’s) experience (146). He further argued that a text’s unity lies in its destination rather than its origin (148). The essential meaning of a text, then, according to Barthes, would depend on the impressions of the reader rather than the intentions, biography, or psychology of its author. Michel Foucault seems to agree with Barthes when he writes that the role of the author will eventually disappear and the “one who spoke” will no longer seem as important as the answers to these questions:

What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where has it been used, how can it circulate, and who can appropriate it for himself?... And behind all these questions, we would hardly hear anything but the stirring of an indifference: What difference does it make who is speaking? (138)

After reading the essays by Barthes and Foucault it follows that an individual could easily be convinced of the separation of the historical author from his or her text. They would argue that this is because our perceptions of the author might unduly influence our reading of it as belonging to that author instead of allowing the reader to arrive at his or her own understanding of the symbols in a work.

Mikhail Bakhtin closely associated God with the author. He argued that the silencing of the authoritative discourse of God Himself in modern literature is echoed in the prose fiction author’s tendency to hide his or her own voice in their creations (Coates 23-24). He believed that the modern age had “no room for the direct word” and viewed irony as having entered “all the languages of the modern times” and as a “special kind of exchange for silence” (119). Yet, this silencing did not signify to him the death of God, nor of the author:

We find the author ... in every work of art ... but we never see him as we see the images he depicts. We feel him in everything as the pure representing origin (the representing subject), but not as the represented visible image. (qtd. in Coates 124)

For Bakhtin, God would inhabit the same position for mankind. His existence is unprovable, unknowable, but whose “existence is nevertheless felt in the world, particularly in the human world, since man is His partial image” (124). God, like the author, would not be dead; his presence could be felt in the spaces between words.

Linda Hutcheon, in A Poetics of Postmodernism, feels that the author may “very well be dead” but that “it is possible to argue that this position of discursive authority [the author] still lives on, because it is encoded into the enunciative act itself” (77). She cites Foe by Coetzee as an example when a narrator finds herself at the mercy of both Daniel Defoe and Coetzee himself. The novel’s dynamics makes Hutcheon worry that just like the narrator, “so too the receiver of any text could be seen to be at the mercy of an agent provocateur/manipulateur, the producer. This is the postmodern ironic and problematizing play of enunciation and context” (78).

In an effort to recuperate the author (pelagius will like this), Jorge García postulates that if a monkey were to type “FIRE!” on a typewriter there are several incompatible meanings that could be attached to the text (“shoot!,” “careful,” “bring water quickly”). He claims that “Context is essential for meaning and a typescript that lacks context must essentially lack meaning” because:

“…for entities to acquire meaning and become signs, and for signs to compose texts, they must be picked and endowed with meaning in certain arrangements at some point in history. Otherwise they are no more than the entities they are. Texts outside history are not texts. (179)

He adds that texts “need historical authors” because one without an author is without history “and texts without history are texts without meaning” (179-80). He concludes ultimately that the imposition of the Author’s Proper Name on a text and the limitations that that knowledge causes are “not necessarily bad and, consequently, neither are the limitations that the consideration of its author may impose” because they may add to our understanding of the text (184). But, this still doesn't help us with pelagius's example, because we don't have a proper name on the Torah, unless we buy the Wiseman or JEDP theory.

Alexander Nehemas sees the author and writer as two distinct entities and says that the writer owns the work as one might own property, meaning that the work can be taken from him--as when someone rewrites or translates a text. The author however “owns a work as one might own one’s actions. Their works are authentically their own” an idea that Gilles Deleuze credits to Nietzsche’s theory of the truthful man and the forger (Deleuze 134-38, Nehemas 113). According to Deleuze, the artist is neither of the two, but is “the creator of truth” because “truth is not to be achieved, formed, or reproduced; it has to be created. There is no other truth than the creation of the New” (146-47).

No author, no matter how clever or adroit with words, can completely control the reader’s mental text, the mental response to a text. In the case of erotic literature, the authorial intent might be to cause a stimulus response to the text. This may be accomplished, but the author cannot control the mental images, the express content of each reader’s mind, something we can term “the mental text” or, along with Wolfgang Iser, “passive synthesis” (The Act of Reading 135). In the case of Scripture, I feel we HAVE to assume that there is authorial intent. To me though, knowing that authorial intent is unknowable, so I side with Iser, Jauss, Barthes, Wimsatt, and Gadamer.

The Scriptures have meaning when they mean something to me. Allegory, literal, whatever.

[wuapinmon]

I think I should add, in fairness, that Tim, or anyone who reads my blog, will know, the above statement is ignored when I analyze texts by a certain author. Jonathan Safran Foer; no me gusta.

[pelagius]

I know you've expressed a mea culpa about the "horsey" comment, but as soon as I read your initial post in tandem with the thread title, I thought, "Well, this is one man's preference," and it kind of turned me off to your message.

The Scriptures have meaning when they mean something to me. Allegory, literal, whatever.

Yes to the preference thing. I have no desire to limit your ability to draw meaning from the text. This was not my goal, and maybe it is just poor writing on my part that you can away with that impression.

Scriptural interpretation is not entirely a private matter. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. My post is about how the community (Mormons) as a group should derive meaning from the text collectively. My post was a bid for how "Mormons" should negotiate the Old Testament. I think it is consistent with LDS norms of scriptural interpretation but solves some problems relative to the typical approach. Now maybe it actually is outside of the bounds of LDS interpretive norms. If so it should be discarded and someone should suggest something better.

Based on CUF discussion it appears some people want LDS Sunday School and Priesthood classes to be more accepting of other interpretations. I agree this might be quite valuable. However, it seems like many believe that "normal" members should be understanding of that need. Maybe, but also isn't there a need to show "normal" members how your interpretation fits into LDS norms of interpretation or if it doesn't why LDS norms of interpretation should be changed, extended or modified?

[wuapinmon]

Based on CUF discussion it appears some people want LDS Sunday School and Priesthood classes to be more accepting of other interpretations. I agree this might be quite valuable. However, it seems like many believe that "normal" members should be understanding of that need. Maybe, but also isn't there a need to show "normal" members how your interpretation fits into LDS norms of interpretation or if it doesn't why LDS norms of interpretation should be changed, extended or modified?

My experiences in the Church have been in small branches and big heterogenous wards outside of Utah (save my five year sojourn in Utah). But, it doesn't really matter; there is a global Mormon culture that Robin is absolutely right and justified in calling his cultural heritage. What I've seen in my 19+ years as a member is that there is this norm and that questioning that norm will get you ostracized, quickly. In about 2000, my wife and I lived in the Grandview 1st Ward in Provo. It was massive (e.g. 2 EQs). We had two Gospel Doctrine classes. We went to one, and the lesson was from the Book of Mormon when Laman and Lemuel see an angel and still misbehave. The class began to heap scorn and damnation on the two men, and I said, "Look, we don't know what it was like to be them. They were children of privilege, and their dad says 'let's leave everything we have here and go off and live in the desert, NO SPOUSES (at first), all because I had a dream.'" I went on to add that unless we're in that situation, we cannot just ignore John 8 and condemn them. Surely they could've done better, but it's not ours to damn them to hell over what Nephi wrote.

Well, you would've thought I had shot President Hinckley by their reaction. I don't think that there is a need to show people how they fit. In matters of interpretation, we've been groomed to believe (and I do) that Moroni's promise is that honest and sincere prayer is the best way for you to know something, and that's what we do in Sunday School. We follow Moroni 6 in that "we come together oft to fast and to pray and to talk one with another concerning the welfare of our souls."

You can't teach interpretation of things that have no discernible or measurable truth to them because it's all a matter of faith. Therefore, bearing testimony is the only way; because when it comes to faith, really, truly, in this man's opinion, only the Spirit can teach.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I use "allegory" very particularly and am influenced in my usage by Walter Benjamin's analysis of Baudelaire.

To me, allegory isn't just a fancy word for fiction.

[UtahDan]

Too much discussion to follow it all, so I'll just add my two cents (I'll try to be brief).

1. I think the creation story, particularly the garden story, works very well as allegory. The fall of man, his relationship to God, the consequences of the law, the need for an atonement, the mercy of God, temptation, sin, the relationship of men and women, tons more. I don't think that requires a rejection of all literalism, however.

2. To me the question is not whether the "allegorical view" is a perfect or even functional alternative to literalism. To me it is whether literalism is at all satisfying or makes sense and whether there is any alternative to it.

3. I see the problem with Ernn's quote as being that it could be used to justify almost anything. Racism, misogyny, etc. I prefer to think that people sometimes misunderstand God because of their culture rather than thinking that God adopts cultural moors that seem wrong or even evil to the modern mind. I understand I bring my own bias to that, but my mind can't overcome the dissonance created by a question like "what if God really is a bigot?" (Just as one example).

[wuapinmon]

I use "allegory" very particularly and am influenced in my usage by Walter Benjamin's analysis of Baudelaire.

To me, allegory isn't just a fancy word for fiction.

I apologize if I gave that impression. I think allegory is a very special class of work, and that it is oft-overused to describe things that aren't truly allegorical. I think for something to be an allegory, it has to try to teach something to its audience via symbolical representations that have limited potential interpretations:

Animal Farm
A Christmas Carol
The Chronicles of Narnia

[pelagius]

Well, you would've thought I had shot President Hinckley by their reaction. I don't think that there is a need to show people how they fit. In matters of interpretation, we've been groomed to believe (and I do) that Moroni's promise is that honest and sincere prayer is the best way for you to know something, and that's what we do in Sunday School. We follow Moroni 6 in that "we come together oft to fast and to pray and to talk one with another concerning the welfare of our souls."

First, I am sorry for the mistreatment by other ward members. I hope it is clear I am not trying to justify such behavior.

Second, I see what you are arguing for as "we should" use a different norm than the current for LDS interpretation. This is admirable, but different than what I was doing. In economic parlance, I view each of us price takers. I can't really change the interpretive norm and I don't try. Within those restrictions I am trying to suggest an approach.

Also, I am not arguing the current LDS interpretive norm is optimal. Maybe yours is much better and much closer to the true spirit of Mormonism. There are certainly things I wish were different about the norm but I can live with it and try to work within it (I think).

[pelagius]

I apologize if I gave that impression. I think allegory is a very special class of work, and that it is oft-overused to describe things that aren't truly allegorical. I think for something to be an allegory, it has to try to teach something to its audience via symbolical representations that have limited potential interpretations:

Animal Farm
A Christmas Carol
The Chronicles of Narnia

That's how I was using it as well basically. Then into the thread I realized many on here were using it much more generally than me.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I apologize if I gave that impression. I think allegory is a very special class of work, and that it is oft-overused to describe things that aren't truly allegorical. I think for something to be an allegory, it has to try to teach something to its audience via symbolical representations that have limited potential interpretations:

Animal Farm
A Christmas Carol
The Chronicles of Narnia

It's all good, wuap.