Several postings have used the term "allegory" and referred to Origen. Let me point out that modern critical scholarship, and folks like Borg, aren't really using allegory in the sense it was used in pre-Reformation Biblical interpretation. That was an approach to passages that weren't edifying when read literally.
Today's critical scholarship doesn't quite work that way. It normally uses the plain sense of a passage. By plain sense I mean the way the passage would have been understood by a normal reader of the culture where the passage originated. When God told the Israelites to slaughter their enemies, an allegorical approach would turn that into a symbol of our struggle against sin, even though surely it was originally understood as referring to physical warfare. The modern critical approach would say take the passage as meant but say that not all of the Biblical authors fully understood God's message. But it would also take the passage as part of the history of how Israel's attitudes towards others changed over time, and would thus compare it with other historical passages and with the messages of the prophets. Critical scholars read Genesis for what it says about Israel concept of God, man, and Israel, but not as literal history. This is still not exactly allegory. It does start with the plain sense of the text, but it looks beyond a literal meaning.
Both approaches raise hermeneutical problems. In the allegorical approach, how do we know which passages to allegorize, and why is one allegory better than another? In the critical approach, how to do we know which authors and which passages reflect God's actual views?
My answer is that we can see in the OT a pattern of God revealing himself, so we look to the prophets, and we particularly look to see how peoples' ideas changed over time due both to their experience with God and to the messages of the prophets. In the NT, obviously Christ is our authority. Again, we look to Jesus' message and how that message and the church's experience with the risen Christ affected the writers. So with Paul, we look to how his letters embody the results of his encounters with Jesus, but realize that his writings may also include views that represent typical 1st Cent Judaism.
As to the original question, it depends upon how much time you want to spend and how interested in your in scholarship. I agree about N T Wright's commentaries. They are an excellent introduction to how a critical scholar views the Bible. Note that Wright is on the conservative end of critical scholarship, though I agree with most of what he says. Borg and Crossan are on the more radical end. Another good entry point is "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions". This is jointly written by Wright and Borg. It's a good introduction to how critical scholars approach Jesus. It also shows you the differences that exist among critical scholars.
I agree that the New Oxford Annotated Bible is useful. However the annotations tend to be on matters of detail (though there are articles at the end that are broader). It touches on the sorts of issues you're probably concerned with, but that's not its real purpose. That's why I suggest books that take a broader perspective such as Wright and Borg. For the OT, a good commentary on Genesis might be interesting. Genesis for Everyone is published by the same folks that publish Wright's New Testament "for Everyone" series, and the Genesis one looks good at first glance. It might be a place to start. There surely must be an OT equivalent of "The Meaning of Jesus", but I don't know it.
In response to another comment: It is true that Borg and others are panentheists. But it's not obvious that this is unorthodox. Panentheism says that God is not wholly separate from the world. It's not pantheism. God is distinct from the world, but he is also in it. Furthermore, there's a range of theological views among critical writers. Borg and Crossan seem to me to represent only one of several approaches in modern theology. (I do agree with another response in preferring Borg to Crossan.) It's not one that I wholly agree with.
Today's critical scholarship doesn't quite work that way. It normally uses the plain sense of a passage. By plain sense I mean the way the passage would have been understood by a normal reader of the culture where the passage originated. When God told the Israelites to slaughter their enemies, an allegorical approach would turn that into a symbol of our struggle against sin, even though surely it was originally understood as referring to physical warfare. The modern critical approach would say take the passage as meant but say that not all of the Biblical authors fully understood God's message. But it would also take the passage as part of the history of how Israel's attitudes towards others changed over time, and would thus compare it with other historical passages and with the messages of the prophets. Critical scholars read Genesis for what it says about Israel concept of God, man, and Israel, but not as literal history. This is still not exactly allegory. It does start with the plain sense of the text, but it looks beyond a literal meaning.
Both approaches raise hermeneutical problems. In the allegorical approach, how do we know which passages to allegorize, and why is one allegory better than another? In the critical approach, how to do we know which authors and which passages reflect God's actual views?
My answer is that we can see in the OT a pattern of God revealing himself, so we look to the prophets, and we particularly look to see how peoples' ideas changed over time due both to their experience with God and to the messages of the prophets. In the NT, obviously Christ is our authority. Again, we look to Jesus' message and how that message and the church's experience with the risen Christ affected the writers. So with Paul, we look to how his letters embody the results of his encounters with Jesus, but realize that his writings may also include views that represent typical 1st Cent Judaism.
As to the original question, it depends upon how much time you want to spend and how interested in your in scholarship. I agree about N T Wright's commentaries. They are an excellent introduction to how a critical scholar views the Bible. Note that Wright is on the conservative end of critical scholarship, though I agree with most of what he says. Borg and Crossan are on the more radical end. Another good entry point is "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions". This is jointly written by Wright and Borg. It's a good introduction to how critical scholars approach Jesus. It also shows you the differences that exist among critical scholars.
I agree that the New Oxford Annotated Bible is useful. However the annotations tend to be on matters of detail (though there are articles at the end that are broader). It touches on the sorts of issues you're probably concerned with, but that's not its real purpose. That's why I suggest books that take a broader perspective such as Wright and Borg. For the OT, a good commentary on Genesis might be interesting. Genesis for Everyone is published by the same folks that publish Wright's New Testament "for Everyone" series, and the Genesis one looks good at first glance. It might be a place to start. There surely must be an OT equivalent of "The Meaning of Jesus", but I don't know it.
In response to another comment: It is true that Borg and others are panentheists. But it's not obvious that this is unorthodox. Panentheism says that God is not wholly separate from the world. It's not pantheism. God is distinct from the world, but he is also in it. Furthermore, there's a range of theological views among critical writers. Borg and Crossan seem to me to represent only one of several approaches in modern theology. (I do agree with another response in preferring Borg to Crossan.) It's not one that I wholly agree with.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
