Non-Literal approach to Bible interpretation = Greek Gnosticism?

[Syele]

  			Originally by **Tim McHide**

The allegorical approach [to Bible interpretation] arose out of a need to reconcile Biblical teaching to Greek Gnosticism as the Church was coming under criticism and persecution from Greek philosophers. The church fathers Clement and Origen advocated this approach two hundred years after Christ taught using the literal method—and the church has not been able to completely shake its negative influence ever since …

I don’t know this guy, didn’t buy what he was selling and didn’t agree on some theology, but this comment got me thinking about the differences between Catholic and Protestant Bible interpretation. He was referring to eschatology but I was thinking more about interpretation of Genesis (specifically Creation).

I’m not looking to debate Creation vs. Evolution or eschatology but I’m interested on the opinions of Christians on this forum about literal Bible interpretation.

 

[Steadfast]

Very early in church history two hermeneutical schools developed in the east, with one in ANtioch and one in Alexandria.

The former was committed to a more literal exegetical method and the latter admitted of some allegory and analogical rendering.

It is significant that of the two episcopal sees, Alexandria fostered and had a much harder time dealing with gnosticism than Antioch ever did.

 

[Steadfast]

The classical Protestant position is that the Bible can have an allegorical or analogical sense but the only safe use of analogy for purposes of rendering doctrine is to refer to analogies or allegories given within Scripture itself (the flood as baptism, Christ the last Adam, etc.).

Correspondingly, analogies or allegories developed outside Scripture; i.e. which are not developed and given in Scripture are dangerous because they can lead people into all kinds of error.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that leads some to believe that Michael and Jesus are one and the same or that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brethren” or more properly that necessary provision is made in the Atonement for our material health and wealth.

 

[Syele]

Correspondingly, analogies or allegories developed outside Scripture; i.e. which are not developed and given in Scripture are dangerous because they can lead people into all kinds of error.

I know the protestant sense, but how do Catholics divide the allegory from the literal? I have noticed since I’ve been here that the Catholics on this board seem to consider some things allegory that I reguard as fact.

 

[utunumsint]

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   …
   119…For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In a nutshell, all interpretation of scripture has to be based on the litteral meaning. However, in determining the litteral meaning, you have to take into account the mode of writing, the historical circumstances. All of these interpretations are subject to the authority of the Church, when the Church feels necessary to make a pronoucement on things.

If you want more information, take a look at Dei Verbum, a document from Vatican II.

I hope it helps.
God bless.
Ut

 

[Gnosis]

Because I found my spirituality impoverished by a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament I do look at them largely from an allegorical perspective. As mythology that, in many cases, has grown out of certain historic events to become much larger and more relevant, as though a great tree coming from a tiny seed.

In any case, the end result has been the pursuit of a Gnostic centered spiritual path that continues to value both cannonical and extra-biblical literature. It is this allegorical approach that has transformed me from biblical literalist into Christian mystic.

I have noticed since I’ve been here that the Catholics on this board seem to consider some things allegory that I reguard as fact.

Of course, to say something is allegory is not to deny it as fact. It is to determine that a certain truth has been expressed through a certain symbollic means, that is to say, it is no less true because it is not thought to have historically happened.