Great summary! I would like to add something to the following thought of yours:
"Ah, now it becomes more clear. Paul is opposed to religious literalism -- an ancient analogue of modern Fundamentalism."
Exactly! This extends to exegesis, too. Creationists should shudder outright when they read Galations 4:21-25, with an emphasis on verse 24:
[Galatians 4:21] Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. [23] His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. [24] These things may be taken figuratively [emphasis mine], for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
I just cannot understand how this is not a death-blow to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is--I think--a foundation of much of their heretical theology and Christology. Paul speaks figuratively many times and is interpeted literally--or perhaps it is better to say that he is simply interpreted wrongly.
Note that some translations of verse 24 are stronger than the NIV I quoted: instead of the effect of "they may be taken figuratively" it is more "these things are symbolic" or "these things should be interpreted allegorically".
no subject
"Ah, now it becomes more clear. Paul is opposed to religious literalism -- an ancient analogue of modern Fundamentalism."
Exactly! This extends to exegesis, too. Creationists should shudder outright when they read Galations 4:21-25, with an emphasis on verse 24:
[Galatians 4:21] Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
[22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
[23] His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
[24] These things may be taken figuratively [emphasis mine], for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
[25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
I just cannot understand how this is not a death-blow to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is--I think--a foundation of much of their heretical theology and Christology. Paul speaks figuratively many times and is interpeted literally--or perhaps it is better to say that he is simply interpreted wrongly.
Note that some translations of verse 24 are stronger than the NIV I quoted: instead of the effect of "they may be taken figuratively" it is more "these things are symbolic" or "these things should be interpreted allegorically".