Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:18:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "William E. Arnal" <wea1@is7.nyu.edu>
To: james covey <jrcovey@cochran.com>
cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Thomas and allegory


On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, james covey wrote:

> gotta second you on this one.  you're quite right that
> a story doesn't need to contain an explicit interpretative
> key in order to count as an allegory (finally!  i get to
> make a grandiose pronoucement!  now we're withing *my* area
> of "scholarly expertise"...).

Quite right James, but this wasn't my point and Antonio is
here to be congratulated only for vanquishing a straw man.
Reread my post. My point was that part -- maybe all -- of
the reason we KNOW Mark to have read the sower allegorically
is because he tells us he does. How does he tell us? He
appends an interpretation. In other cases one can tell
allegory from parable by the presence of details that can
only have symbolic reference and which do nothing to
further the essential point of the narrative.

> so i guess i'd be curious to know what sort of definition
> of "allegory" that arnal and/or davies are using.

Parable, or, if you want, example story: a realistic
narrative, drawing from common sense or general experience,
to illustrate or provide an example for a basic point. Such
account MAY have surprising conclusions, a la Crossan, but
not necessarily. An allegory: an extended symbolic account
which need not be realistic, the point of which is to
represent in another set of terms the basic contours of,
usually, some aspect of salvation history, whether this be
the death of Jesus and its consequences, or God's extending
salvation to teh Gentiles, etc.

> cosulting one rather non-specialized source, i note that
> the concise OED defines "parable" as 1. a moral/spiritual
> example story, and 2. "an allegory."  ha!

Well, the usage of the term is itself influenced by the
biblical materials. I'm not sure what this proves. Maybe the
distinction is completely bogus in teh first place, in which
case there is no more point to showing that Thomas' parables
ARE allegorical than that they are NOT. It's interesting,
though, that Antonio is being forced to completely chuck the
whole appartus of biblical criticism -- bit by bit -- in
order to maintain the single position that Thomas is
depedent. Fascinating.
	My own view on parable/allegory is that the
distinction IS relatively artificial, but it is a functional
distinction that is useful, in our material, for determining
secondary characteristics of the material. Jesus, it would
seem, told stories to make general wise points about living.
The Christians who inherited those stories show a TENDENCY
to interpret those stories in such a way that they become
self-referential. Allegorical (re-)interpretation is the
main device they use to this end.

	And a p.s. re. two points Antonio made in his post: 
First, Thomas does NOT refer to the vineyard owner as
"good": there is a hole in the MS here, and the text has
been reconstructed under the influence of the synoptic
parallels. And second, the absence of ONE set of details in
Luke does not make his version cease to be an allegory. It
is clear that he regards the "son" as as Jesus. It is
equally clear, I think, that Thomas does not.

Bill
________________________________________
William E. Arnal		19 University Place, #503
Religious Studies/Classics	New York, NY 10003
New York University		(212) 998-8990 (o)
wea1@is7.nyu.edu		(212) 995-5036 (h)

"Dominance, or power in itself, is evil; but it takes power
to counter it. The categorical imperative must carry a gun
wherever and for so long as power can be crushed by no other
means." -- Ernst Bloch