Difference between revisions of "Allegory"

<p> The word is derived from the Greek ἀλληγορία, used of a mode of speech which implies more than is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the language. This method of interpreting literature was practised at an early date and among different peoples. When ideas of a primitive age were no longer tenable, respect for the ancient literature which embodied these ideas was maintained by disregarding the ordinary import of the language in favour of a hidden meaning more in harmony with contemporary notions. The word ‘allegory’ has come to be used more particularly of a certain type of [[Scripture]] interpretation ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ) current in both Jewish and [[Christian]] circles. Its fundamental characteristic is the distinction between the apparent meaning of Scripture and a hidden meaning to be discovered by the skill of the interpreter. In allegory proper, when distinguished from metaphor, parable, type, etc., the veiled meaning is the more important, if not indeed the only true one, and is supposed to have been primary in the intention of the writer, or of God who inspired the writer. Jewish interpreters, particularly in the Diaspora, employed this means of making the OT acceptable to Gentiles. They aimed especially at showing that the Jews’ sacred books, when properly interpreted, contained all the wisdom of Greek philosophy. This interest flourished chiefly in Alexandria, and found its foremost representative in [[Philo]] ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ), who wrote early in the 1st cent. a.d. His <i> Allegories of the [[Sacred]] Laws </i> is one of his chief works, though all his writings are dominated by this method of interpretation. Similarly [[Josephus]] ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ), a half-century or so later, says that Moses taught many things ‘under a decent allegory’ ( <i> Ant </i> . Proœm. 4). [[Allegory]] was used freely also by Palestinian interpreters, though less far apologetic than for homiletic purposes. They were less ready than Philo to abandon the primary meaning of Scripture, but they freely employed allegorical devices, particularly in the Haggadic <i> midrâshîm </i> . </p> <p> When [[Christians]] in the [[Apostolic]] Age began to interpret Scripture, it was inevitable that they should follow the allegorical tendencies so prevalent at the time. Yet the use of this method is far less common in the NT than in some later Christian literature, <i> e.g. </i> the <i> [[Epistle]] of [[Barnabas]] </i> ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ). St. Paul claims to be allegorizing when he finds the two covenants not only prefigured, but the validity of his idea of two covenants proved, in the story of [[Hagar]] ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ) and [[Sarah]] (&nbsp;Galatians 4:24-30). Allegorical colouring is also discernible in his reference to the muzzling of the ox (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:9 f.), the following rock (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:4), and the veil of Moses (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:13 ff.). The Epistle to the Hebrews is especially rich in these features, which are much more [[Alexandrian]] in type than the writings of St. Paul ( <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Hebrews 8:2; &nbsp;Hebrews 8:5; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:23; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:1; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:1; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:8; &nbsp;Hebrews 12:27 f.). [[Certain]] Gospel passages also show allegorical traits, where in some instances the allegorical element may have come from the framers of tradition in the Apostolic Age ( <i> e.g. </i> &nbsp;Mark 4:13-20=&nbsp;Matthew 13:18-25=&nbsp;Luke 8:11-15; &nbsp;Mark 12:1-12=&nbsp;Matthew 21:33-46=&nbsp;Luke 20:9-19; &nbsp;Matthew 13:24-30; &nbsp;Matthew 13:36-43, &nbsp;John 10:1-16; &nbsp;John 15:1-8). </p> <p> Literature.-See list appended to articleInterpretation. </p> <p> [[S. J]]  Case. </p>

<p> A popular form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning. Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning. The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory. The best allegories are interesting, coherent stories in their own right and through the story provide new insight into the realm they depict (e.g., <i> Pilgrim's [[Progress]] </i> and <i> The Narnia Chronicles </i> ). Semitic parables, including the Gospel parables, have varying amounts of allegorical elements. Those with many corresponding elements in both realms are properly called allegories. </p> <p> Allegorical interpretation, sometimes called allegorizing, is interpretation of texts that treats them as allegorical, whether or not their author intended them to be allegories. Allegorical interpretations even of true allegories can be misleading, either in incorrectly identifying the corresponding elements in the referent or in identifying corresponding elements where no correspondence was originally intended. [[Either]] allegorizing error usually detracts from the coherence of the message the author intended. Such unwarranted allegorizing was prevalent in the later church fathers and often ludicrous in gnostic circles. </p> <p> Nathan's parable of the rich man who slew a poor man's beloved pet lamb in &nbsp;2 Samuel 12:1-4 has allegorical reference to David's actions in causing Uriah's death in order to take his wife. But it was just different enough that David did not initially recognize the referent and pronounced judgment on the wicked rich man. Nathan's "You are the man!" struck David to the quick precisely because he recognized the parallels between his actions and the rich man's, between [[Uriah]] and the poor man, and between Uriah's wife and the ewe lamb. The allegory told by the wise woman of [[Tekoa]] in &nbsp; 2 Samuel 14:4-7 similarly opened David's eyes to a new perspective and caused him to spare the life of Absalom. (Other Old Testament allegories include &nbsp; Isaiah 5:1-6; &nbsp;Ezekiel 17:1-24; &nbsp;24:3-14; &nbsp;Daniel 2:31-45; &nbsp;4:10-33; &nbsp;7:1-28; &nbsp;8:1-27 .) </p> <p> The parables of Jesus have a wide range of degrees of allegorical reference. The parable of the sower is followed by an allegorical interpretation (&nbsp;Mark 4:14-20 ) that has been widely criticized, but on examination, the common objections turn out to support authenticity. For example, birds as a symbol for Satan, rather than being alien were commonly used to depict Satan in rabbinic literature (e.g., Jub 11:5-24), where birds devour seed in the process of sowing. If the Gospel tradition progressively allegorized the parables, as many allege, it is surely odd that the earliest [[Gospels]] (Mark, Matthew) contain the most allegorical elements, whereas the later Gospels contain progressively less (Luke, John). </p> <p> In Galatians 4:21-31Paul uses the story of the children of Sarah (Isaac) and Hagar (Ishmael) and the images of [[Jerusalem]] above and Mount [[Sinai]] as a double allegory, both pairs contrasting the covenant of freedom and the covenant of slavery. This allegory adds an earthy, emotional appeal to Paul's arguments for freedom in Christ. </p> <p> [[Philip]] Barton Payne </p> <p> <i> See also </i> Parable </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . [[P. B]]  Payne, <i> Gospel Perspectives, </i> pp. 163-207. </p>