Against LSM's Allegorizing

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And Joseph's brothers were also filling some psychological archetype to be villains? How about Potipher, or Potipher's wife, of the Pharoah, or the baker, or the butler? Sorry, I believe that any observations that would seem to correspond with this theory are because we have a human spirit, not learned mythology.

The human spirit doesn't explain the use of typology, allegory, analogy, and metaphor in the Bible. The theory of archetypes does. Jesus fulfilled, sometimes paradoxically, the messianic expectation of Judaism. The messiah is a sub-category of the hero archetype which is found throughout world mythology. The hero-savior-messiah obviously fills a deep seated universal human need.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The human spirit doesn't explain the use of typology, allegory, analogy, and metaphor in the Bible. The theory of archetypes does. Jesus fulfilled, sometimes paradoxically, the messianic expectation of Judaism. The messiah is a sub-category of the hero archetype which is found throughout world mythology. The hero-savior-messiah obviously fills a deep seated universal human need.

First of all, the discussion was quite specific and focused on what mechanism is operating that a person's life in the OT would be a type of Christ. I was not discussing allegory, analogy or metaphor.

Second, I am well aware of the theory of "The Messiah" as an archetype which is found throughout mythology.

The question I raised was how is it that the life of a man like Joseph, who lived long before Jesus did be such a precise type of Christ? And I do not believe that Joseph and all of the other characters involved in his life were creative fiction, rather I believe the OT is a fair representation of history. That is my belief, you are free to believe what you will.

I am well aware of how mythology, not just ancient, but especially recent comic books, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. use these archetypes, resurrection, salvation, messiah, "chosen one", etc. If you would like to start a thread on that, believe me, I would have a lot to say, but I am not sure it would be on topic for this forum.

But I do not view the OT as mythology, sorry. I find it very misleading to try and characterize the OT as Mythology when that term is equated with fantasy, regardless of how one tries to bend the definition. There is no reason why one wouldn't use the term history other than to imply that it is not in fact an accurate history. I do not view prophecies of the Messiah as a work of fiction, nor do I consider the stories of David, or Joseph, or Moses etc are fiction. There was no OT writer who was using an archetype to fashion or mold his stories, in my opinion.

So the question was, by what mechanism does Joseph have these dreams, these experiences, this life, that becomes such a beautiful type of Christ, even to the experience of his bones after death? Ultimately I believe that it is probably something akin to a shadow. So Christ is the reality, and many of these lives are merely shadows of this reality, which is why they look so much like the reality.

Instead I would argue that the use of Archetypes by all of these fiction writers is a demonstration of what Paul said "Every knee shall bow at that great name". Why do all of these stories have to use resurrection? Because there is no greater story. Why do they talk of redemption and sacrificing oneself to save others, because Jesus has been given the highest name. Jesus did not get that name by following the Fiction writers formula for a masterpiece. He got that because He worshipped God in spirit and reality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

First of all, the discussion was quite specific and focused on what mechanism is operating that a person's life in the OT would be a type of Christ. I was not discussing allegory, analogy or metaphor.

Second, I am well aware of the theory of "The Messiah" as an archetype which is found throughout mythology.

The question I raised was how is it that the life of a man like Joseph, who lived long before Jesus did be such a precise type of Christ? And I do not believe that Joseph and all of the other characters involved in his life were creative fiction, rather I believe the OT is a fair representation of history. That is my belief, you are free to believe what you will.

I am well aware of how mythology, not just ancient, but especially recent comic books, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. use these archetypes, resurrection, salvation, messiah, "chosen one", etc. If you would like to start a thread on that, believe me, I would have a lot to say, but I am not sure it would be on topic for this forum.

But I do not view the OT as mythology, sorry. I find it very misleading to try and characterize the OT as Mythology when that term is equated with fantasy, regardless of how one tries to bend the definition. There is no reason why one wouldn't use the term history other than to imply that it is not in fact an accurate history. I do not view prophecies of the Messiah as a work of fiction, nor do I consider the stories of David, or Joseph, or Moses etc are fiction. There was no OT writer who was using an archetype to fashion or mold his stories, in my opinion.

So the question was, by what mechanism does Joseph have these dreams, these experiences, this life, that becomes such a beautiful type of Christ, even to the experience of his bones after death? Ultimately I believe that it is probably something akin to a shadow. So Christ is the reality, and many of these lives are merely shadows of this reality, which is why they look so much like the reality.

Instead I would argue that the use of Archetypes by all of these fiction writers is a demonstration of what Paul said "Every knee shall bow at that great name". Why do all of these stories have to use resurrection? Because there is no greater story. Why do they talk of redemption and sacrificing oneself to save others, because Jesus has been given the highest name. Jesus did not get that name by following the Fiction writers formula for a masterpiece. He got that because He worshipped God in spirit and reality.

Well sure. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't expect you to accept mine. It seems reasonable to me to base my opinion on knowledge otherwise I feel like I'm just whistling in the wind. To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical evidence for Joseph whatsoever. So the Biblical account is uncorroborated. I'm not saying that it didn't happen exactly the way it is written. I'm saying there is no way to KNOW one way or the other if it did or not. An allegoric interpretation is essentially agnostic about the issue. It doesn't matter if the actual event occurred or not. What is essential to an allegorical interpretation is the MEANING of the text not it's historical accuracy.

Be that as it may, it does not rule out the possibility that real historical persons live out archetypal patterns to some extent. Archetype refers a universally understood symbol or term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. According to the Gospel of John, Christ is the Logos, the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. If the Logos is a divine prototype, godly persons may more or less live out the the prototype of which Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth is the full realization.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well sure. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't expect you to accept mine. It seems reasonable to me to base my opinion on knowledge otherwise I feel like I'm just whistling in the wind. To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical evidence for Joseph whatsoever. So the Biblical account is uncorroborated. I'm not saying that it didn't happen exactly the way it is written. I'm saying there is no way to KNOW one way or the other if it did or not. An allegoric interpretation is essentially agnostic about the issue. It doesn't matter if the actual event occurred or not. What is essential to an allegorical interpretation is the MEANING of the text not it's historical accuracy.

Be that as it may, it does not rule out the possibility that real historical persons live out archetypal patterns to some extent. Archetype refers a universally understood symbol or term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. According to the Gospel of John, Christ is the Logos, the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. If the Logos is a divine prototype, godly persons may more or less live out the the prototype of which Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth is the full realization.

That is also my point as well. Jesus is the prototype. According to the Archetype theory Jesus should come first, not Joseph. So for Joseph's life to be recorded in such detail as a type of the "Archetype" is not part of the theory. That theory, whether they admit it or not, says that the writer of history embellishes, adjusts, and erases to make his character fit the archetype. Joseph preceded Jesus so that no writer could have used Jesus as the archetype in writing that history.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is also my point as well. Jesus is the prototype. According to the Archetype theory Jesus should come first, not Joseph. So for Joseph's life to be recorded in such detail as a type of the "Archetype" is not part of the theory. That theory, whether they admit it or not, says that the writer of history embellishes, adjusts, and erases to make his character fit the archetype. Joseph preceded Jesus so that no writer could have used Jesus as the archetype in writing that history.

Brother Z, you sound like you are in a loop ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Z, you sound like you are in a loop ...

took you long enough to joint the fray, isn't this your favorite theory as well?