The Five Loaves and Two Fishes
When Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fishes, most of us are led to ponder the miracle, to ponder how so many people could be fed by so little. Some think the miracle is that people shared what they brought with the rest of the crowd, while others think Jesus physically multiplied the loaves and fishes to make sure the populace was well fed. However, is this the right question to ask? Is this the point we are to get from this story? We are so led to read the stories as history and to ask historical questions, we ignore the broader picture. We ignore all the fine points we can learn from our holy stories.
One of the most denigrated forms of scriptural analysis today is the allegorical method of interpretation. Much can be said how it can be abused. Nonetheless, even if it can be abused, it is a time-honored and important way to read scripture, and we should at least consider how it was done in the past and what people learned from it as we consider the meaning of scripture. We should not find ourselves limited to one form of scriptural analysis, nor to one time period’s understanding of scripture. It is in this light I find St Anthony of Padua’s interpretation interesting.
The five loaves represents the five books of Moses, in which we find five refreshments for the soul. The first loaf is the rebuking of sin by contrition; the second is the laying bare of sin in confession; the third is the abasement and humiliation in satisfaction; the fourth Is zeal for souls in preaching; the fifth is the sweetness of our heavenly home in contemplation.[1]
The five loaves represent, to Anthony, the five books of Moses, but the five books of Moses, themselves, are also revealed to hold allegorical meanings. We can both see the strength and weakness of the allegorical method here. On the one hand, it allows for many parts of scripture to connect, one to another, but on another hand, it makes one wonder why these connections and points are not so succinctly put so they are easily discerned by the average reader. How, for example, does Anthony see Deuteronomy as being about the “sweetness of our heavenly home in contemplation”? He sees that Moses is given a vision of the land of promise:
Concerning the fifth loaf, we read in the fifth book, Deuteronomy, that Moses went up from the plains of Moab upon Mount Abarim, and there died before the Lord [cf. Dt 34.1,5]. Moses the penitent, should go up from the plains of Moab (‘from the father’, meaning the conversion of carnal folk, that comes from their father, the devil), to Mount Abarim (‘going over’), the excellence of contemplation, so that he may pass from this world to the Father [cf. Jn 13.1].[2]
Here, we see, the answer lies in yet another allegorical interpretation. With allegorical interpretations, one might wonder how many allegorical interpretations one needs to use until one has the meaning of the text. Perhaps the answer is that there is no limit, and this is one of the ways scripture can contain an infinite number of secrets. Indeed, there seems to be truth in this, and Anthony’s use of the meaning of names does seem to be of value for us as we try to wrestle with the meanings contained in scripture. The problem, of course, is that one seems also to have no means by which to know if one’s allegorical journey has taken a wrong turn and is leading one astray. With allegorical interpretations of scripture, one must have a living authority to declare whether or not one’s interpretations are acceptable or not, and this authority, because it existed in history, is what prevented the allegorical interpretation of scripture from becoming relativistic nonsense. In the modern era, with our distrust of authority, it is perhaps a grace that this important form of scriptural interpretation is not generally in use. This is not to say, however, we should overlook allegorical interpretations of the past; rather, we must read them and study them and learn from them, because they were made at a time when such an authority was accepted and helped keep the interpreter in check. But we must be very careful if we try to follow their example today, and do such interpretations ourselves: we must put ourselves under some authority who will be able to comment and judge our ideas, and willingly modify them if they are shown to err.
The two fishes also have their meaning, and Anthony provides the following interpretation:
The two fishes are understanding and remembrance, with which the five books of Moses should be seasoned. What you understand of the Law, you should also keep in the storehouse of your memory. Alternatively, the two fish which were brought up from the depths of the sea to the King’s table are Moses and Peter. Moses was taken from the waters, and Peter was promoted from fisherman to Apostle. The Synagogue was entrusted to Moses, the Church to Peter.[3]
Here, we find that those who follow the allegorical interpretation of scripture allow for many paths by which we can provide allegorical interpretations of a given text. This, once again, is a valuable insight, for it helps us understand that scriptural interpretation is not univocal, and that if you offer one correct interpretation, it does not prohibit other equally valuable and correct interpretations. One of the things we are so used to is to think of things as having only one value, one meaning, or, if you allow multiple meanings, each method for extracting meaning should provide only one meaning. This, however, is not the case, and Anthony helps point this out with his interpretation of the fish. Even within a given method of interpretation, one can find many meanings, each equally valid and worthwhile to ponder.
Looking to the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and what it tells us, we find a different way of understanding the miracle of the breads and fishes. The miracle is with the multitude. The five loaves and two fishes are not what is being multiplied in history. The multitude is. We want to be in that multitude, a multitude which is understood at once to be five thousand and yet – indeterminate. It was five thousand, at one historical moment, but it continues to grow, continues to expand, so that is more than five thousand which is fed. We want to be fed by the Lord, by Christ, by the five fishes and two loaves, to have our spiritual needs met by them. Those who are joined with this multitude become the heavenly assembly before the Lord, those who receive the beatific vision.
You who are members of the Church and citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, form this heavenly assembly, excluding the tares of discord, the madness of disobedience, the greed of simony, the leprosy of avarice and the uncleanness of lust. In this way you will be counted among the five thousand, and fed with the five loaves and two fishes, perfected with a thousand-fold perfection. May he grant this, who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.[4]
[1] St. Anthony of Padua, Sermons for Sundays and Festivals. Volume I. trans. Paul Spilsbury (Padua: Edizioni Messaggero Padova, 2007), 180-1.
[2] Ibid., 182-3.
[3] Ibid., 184.
[4] Ibid., 187.
Comments are closed.
Nice work Henry.
It seems that biblical interpretation is in a bit of turmoil these days. The hegemony of historical-critical method is threatened and new proposals seek to gain wider acceptance. Are you aware of the new Brazos commentaries that are consciously theological-narrative rather than historical-critical? What do you think of them?
My school, Regis College in Toronto, just had a symposium on Verbum Domini last week. (http://www.regiscollege.ca/VerbumDomini) It was very interesting to have member of the hierarchy (Archbishops Wuerl, Collins (Toronto) and Prendergrast (Ottawa), Archbishop Fabbro (London, ON)), lay leaders (Carl Anderson), theologians (from Regis, St. Michael’s, St. Augustine’s Seminary and Wycliffe College) and lay faithful all gathered to think about the Word in the life of the Church.
Wycliffe College (just across the park from us) will is having their own do (on the Brazos commentary) next month:
http://www.wycliffecollege.ca/event_details.php?eid=324×tamp=1305259200
Something is afoot.
Actually, I wasn’t familiar with them, so I can’t comment. The authors involved with them seem to be good ones, but I would have to see how they deal with the text to comment. So many commentaries, so little time and money to get them all. I try to keep up with some of them, but all of them is too much, especially with my other interests.
I have no problems with the historical critical method, and I learn quite a bit from it. The thing is it must be understood as one aspect of a whole. The problem is it seems to be reduced to the whole. I admit, I have a thing for the allegorical method, in part because it is far more widely used in history than now, and it makes me wonder if we are losing something by ignoring it (and also because historical theology has a major impact on my own theology).
I’ve been amazed reading Anthony’s commentaries to see how allegorical (and analogical) they are. I expected something far more “literal. I thought these reflections of his interesting and so worthy of bringing up a discussion on the allegorical method (it goes with his commentary on the Sunday of Lent for this week, using the ancient Roman calendar for texts). It was a new way of looking at this story, and I liked it; so I decided it would work for this week’s reflections on Anthony of Padua. I chose him for my Lenten reading, and I am glad I did.
I don’t see the point in interpreting biblical passages or stories allegorically unless they were written as allegories. It may be clever, and the “interpreter” may wind up saying something worthwhile. But it’s not really interpreting the Bible. It is one thing to discover possible eucharistic allusions in the story of the feeding of the crowd, but unless I am unaware of something, there is no justification at all for equating the five loaves with the Torah. It is certainly not a foolish question to ask why the story specifies five loaves instead of some other number, but to the best of my knowledge, the reason (if known or if there is one) has nothing to do with the five books of Moses.
I don’t think the historical-critical method necessarily excludes theology. Often the Gospel stories are theology, and analyzing them using the historical-critical method lays bare the intended theological meaning.
David
That is a very modern take on the text, however. If one looks to earlier takes, allegory was where it was at, long before Nicea. This should make us ponder. The printing press has turned texts into literal truths, but this is not how the ancient world understood such texts, and I think the ancient view is important for understanding Christianity and is own use of its own texts.
I don’t see the point in interpreting biblical passages or stories allegorically unless they were written as allegories. It may be clever, and the “interpreter” may wind up saying something worthwhile. But it’s not really interpreting the Bible.
If you hold as a premise that the author of the Bible is God (in addition to the human authors), then there is much reason to interpret biblical passages allegorically. Not only would the words of the human authors have secondary and tertiary meanings and be making allusions to other parts of the Scripture that the human authors may or may not have been aware of, but the actual literal events that the human authors were recording would be signs and allusions intended by God. If God is the ultimate author of the Bible and is all-knowing when it comes to the events of history, both the figurative words and stories of the Bible and the actual literal events of the Bible might have multiple meanings intended by God.
Thales,
I have no objection to finding multiple meanings that were actually intended. But unless you can point out a plausible reason why the five loaves represented the five books of Moses, and unless that interpretation can be discovered by others, then it must be an invention of St. Anthony’s. Even if it is a very good invention, it is not an interpretation of the text.
I have no objection to finding multiple meanings that were actually intended.
David, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying that the five loaves represented five books might be an actually intended interpretation – an interpretation intended by God as the ultimate author of the Bible.
Consider a more obvious example: Jesus dying on a cross. If you have the premise that God is the author, then it’s possible to interpret Jesus dying on a cross of wood as being an intended allusion to the story of Adam and the tree on the garden: by means of one living tree in the garden, sin came into the world; by one dead tree on Calvary, sin was conquered. In other words, God intends “the cross is an allusion to the tree in Eden”, just as God intends “the five fish is an allusion to the five books”.
Of course, if you don’t have the premise that God is the author, it’s a mere coincidence that a cross is made out of wood and Adam ate from the tree or it’s a mere coincidence that there were five books and five fish.
Henry,
You are much more knowledgeable here than I am, but it seems to me that the historical-critical method is actually trying not to be a modern take on a text, but rather an attempt to find out what the authors and editors of the text were trying to communicate. I don’t doubt that what earlier Christians came up with in allegorizing texts is well worth studying, but I still don’t see how allegories can illuminate the text unless it was written as an allegory or written to be allegorized.
The thought did occur to me that certain composers (e.g., Handel) sometimes wrote music that they expected performers to repeat with ornamentation, variation, and improvisation. If Gospel texts were written to be used that way, then to allegorize would be a legitimate approach. Matthew and Luke certainly felt free to “improvise” with the text of Mark. But they are supposed to have been divinely inspired, so it seems to me that for others to take liberties with texts as they did would not be a legitimate approach for believing Christians.
What do you think, though, of the analogy of a text to a piece of music that the composer intended the performer to ornament, embellish, and vary?
David
The problem is the historical-critical method is a very modern method; it might claim it is finding out what the original authors were trying to communicate, but it does so with methodologies which run contrary to the thinking processes behind the text itself. That is one of the paradoxes. They didn’t think in a historical-critical way as we do now, and not in a literal way as we do now; the historical-critical, however, uses too many assumptions from post-printing press ways of thought to read the past. It creates problems. It does tell us some good things, but it is far more limited, imo, than people who follow it understand.
And actually, I think the way ancient music was written is to the point. I do think ancient texts were more fluid like that. Indeed, Paul himself famously shows this with his interpretation of “thou shalt not muzzle the ox.” Our understanding of texts have changed. It is for this reason I think reading those who predate the printing press have more affinity with the text and should be heeded more than those who try to tackle it in our modern ways of thought. It is not that I deny we learn something, but I fear how reductionist we become through such conclusions.
As I understand it, within the Jewish tradition is a practice of biblical interpretation known by its acronym “pardes” (orchard or paradise). I don’t know the Hebrew words that spell out the acronym – you could look them up if you want to – but it refers to four levels of biblical meaning. First is the literal meaning, then the implications, then the symbolism, then the mystery. So first, Jesus did literally feed the people. Second, Jesus wants us to take care of other people’s physical health. Third, Jesus indicates his role as the Bread of Life. Fourth, the kind of meaning that St. Anthony of Padua finds in the text.
The important point to remember is that the rabbis believed that all four levels of meaning are true. Just because a text has a symbolic meaning doesn’t mean that it didn’t literally happen. That’s the point that Thales is making. The existence of deeper layers of meaning doesn’t negate the immediate truth of the text. This also ties into Henry’s point of studying the Bible as the human creators of the Bible would have understood it.
David asks a good question: how do we know if the more obscure meaning we may extract from a text is correct? The rabbinic answer would be through study and prayer. There are some symbolic meanings that we all agree upon, like the fact that Jesus’ fast reflected the Exodus story. There are some that we argue over: does 666 refer to a proper name, did it mean Nero, or was it a triple invocation of the Jewish number of incompleteness and ungodliness? You can easily get lost in the mystical meanings; the Kabbalah nonsense is an example of that. When Madonna wears a string around her wrist but forgets about the biblical injunction against adultery, she’s illustrating the worst possible thinking.
I said that the rabbinic answer is study and prayer, and I think that’s the Catholic answer as well, with the Holy Spirit leading us forward and humility preventing us from going to excess.
A few comments re: anxiety about spiritual exegesis (including, but not limited to, allegorical interpretation), namely, why do it, or, what justifies our reading the Scriptures this way?
First, the Scriptures already read themselves this way. That is, the Old Testament can in many ways be seen as a repeated rehearsal and rereading of itself in ways that cannot be reduced to what a putative original human author might have meant but nonetheless are taken to be what God meant in the wording of the text (or else in the event or thing itself spoken of in the text). This is even clearer in the New Testament (e.g. Jesus’ own appeal to the Old Testament as speaking of him, Paul on Sarah and Hagar or on the reading of the Exodus in light of Christian baptism and Eucharist, most of Peter’s first sermon in Acts, etc.).
Second, we hold God to be the principal author of the Scriptures. Since it is the (not uniquely) Catholic conviction that everything God wanted to be in the Scriptures is there, and that nothing he dd not want to be in them is in them, it also follows that the resonances and correspondences between different parts of the Bible, even those written in radically different contexts, are deliberate. We may not always know what to make of them, but we cannot take them to be accidental.
Third, and related to the point above, the Catholic reading of Scripture is not rooted in the search for the meaning (singular) but the meanings of the text. So long as one does not violate the regula fidei or the law of charity (i.e. does not offend against the love of God and neighbor), and so long as one’s mode of reading is in line with the received patterns and modes of spiritual exegesis handed on in the Church (some from Christ himself, cf. Luke 24:27 and Luke 24:44-45), then there is at least a prima facie case for the authenticity of spiritual reading which arises from a prayerful engagement of someone who is otherwise evidenced as being holy (or at least knowledgeable of the exegesis of those who are themselves holy readers of the Scriptures). This is why inter alia the Church privileges the interpretations of the Fathers, as well as those (e.g. the notable Medieval and early modern Doctors) whose spiritual exegesis follows the pattern and content of their Patristic predecessors.
Finally, as alluded to above, those who read the Scriptures this way were themselves aware of the possible pitfalls and dangers of false readings, even as faithful practitioners of historical-critical reading are aware of its evident abuses. We best respond to the fear of misuse by seeing how these, e.g. the Fathers, approached the question than by ruling the method out of court. Likewise, we do well to check our own readings against the Fathers to be sure that we (who may well not be as attuned to the moving of the Spirit in our lectio divina) are in line with the understanding of the Scriptures given by Christ to his apostles.
David,
I saw your Lincoln-Kennedy comment on the other post. You’re right: if you don’t hold the premise that God is the author of the Bible and that God is the “author” of history, then what I suggest with Adam’s tree and Jesus’s cross, and what St. Anthony suggests with the five loaves, is just a parlor trick — finding funny similarities and coincidences.
But if you go from the premise that God is the author of the Bible, then noticing allusions and parallelisms in the text of the Bible is just like noticing allusions and parallelisms in the text of Iliad that were fully intended by Homer. Moreover, since God is omnipotent and omniscient and history happens according to God’s plan – and so God is the “author” of history – one can even notice allusions and parallelisms between actual historical events that were intentional: for example, Jesus’ staying in the tomb for three days is an intentional allusion to the story of Jonah; or God sending manna from Heaven (assuming this is an actual historical event) is an intentional allusion to Jesus himself as the “Bread of Heaven.”
I’m not trying to argue the merits of the premise “God is the author of the Bible and that God is the “author” of history.” You don’t have to accept it — and if you don’t accept it, I agree with you that what St. Anthony is doing is silly. But realize that this is the premise that St. Anthony is coming from, and that if you have that premise, then St. Anthony’s speculations are legitimate.
A final comment: You talk about God putting “hidden meanings in scripture and divinely revealing them to, say, St. Anthony, and we must take them on faith.” There is no need to take anything on faith. Biblical interpretations aren’t articles of faith that must be believed by Catholics. I don’t know how St. Anthony got the “five loaves=five fishes”. It didn’t need to be divinely revealed; he could have come up with it on his own. But regardless of whether it was divine revelation or not, we don’t have to accept his interpretation as true – we can make of it what we will – but on the other hand, we can’t dismiss his interpretation as illegitimate.
Sorry, I meant to say: I don’t know how St. Anthony got the “five loaves=five books”.
My only point, really, is that for an interpretation of a biblical text by analogy to be an authentic interpretation, the evidence for the analogy must be discernible to intelligent and informed readers. It must be in the text or in something we know about the history and culture of those who wrote the text. From what I can tell, St. Anthony of Padua got the idea that the five loaves represented the five books of Moses from St. Augustine, and Augustine basically invented it.
Now, perhaps somehow, somewhere, a case can be made based on another biblical text that the five loaves represent the five books of Moses. But Augustine has not made that case here. He has simply said it. And not that some of the other analogies he makes are offered tentatively. “Perhaps” the boy with the loaves and fishes is the people of Israel. The two fishes don’t represent, but appear to us to signify.
In the hands of Augustine, this kind of meditation on the scriptures can be edifying. In the hands of a lesser mortal, it could just be silly. But barring evidence that has not yet been produced, I think it is unwarranted to claim that God intended readers to make a connection between the five loaves and the five books of Moses, or that God intended readers to make something out of the structure of barley.
Now, Raymond Brown notes that in the specific mention of barley loaves there may be an allusion to 2 Kings 4:42-44
My only point, really, is that for an interpretation of a biblical text by analogy to be an authentic interpretation, the evidence for the analogy must be discernible to intelligent and informed readers. It must be in the text or in something we know about the history and culture of those who wrote the text. From what I can tell, St. Anthony of Padua got the idea that the five loaves represented the five books of Moses from St. Augustine, and Augustine basically invented it.
If we take the premise that God is the author, then there may be many, many interpretations and layers of interpretation. Sure, there can be interpretations that come “from the history and culture of those who wrote the text.” But there may be additional interpretations that come from the mind of God. Again, assuming our premise that God is the author, who are you to say that God didn’t intend the five loaves to represent the five fishes?
the evidence for the analogy must be discernible to intelligent and informed readers.
If I correctly remember my reading of “On Christian Doctrine” by Augustine, he talks about biblical interpretation. He says that there are many interpretations in the Bible — some that are accessible to the simple reader, some that are accessible to the highly intelligent reader, and even more that are incomprehensible to most readers and perhaps all readers. And that this is a good thing, because it provides a rewarding experience to every level of reader, it provides the reader with incentive to delve more deeply into the Bible because there are even more interpretations which he hasn’t figured out, and it provides the reader with occasions of humility, as the reader realizes that there are innumerable mysteries that God intended but which still remain hidden to him.
Again, assuming our premise that God is the author, who are you to say that God didn’t intend the five loaves to represent the five fishes?
Thales,
Who are you (or Saints Augustine and Anthony) to say that he did? If nobody can point to any indication in the Bible that the five loaves do indeed represent the five books of Moses, then they must have gotten the interpretation directly from God. How would we know whether or not someone who says something about the Bible invented it himself or herself, or wither it is an inspiration from God?
Suppose I say the five loaves represent the Pentagon and the two fishes represent the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Who are you to say that God did not intend that? It’s possible, isn’t it?
Your approach would allow just about any interpretation of the Bible. It would allow people to make an assertion and claim that they got their interpretation directly from God. Suppose I say that the five loaves and the two fishes represent the five-pointed stars on the American flag and the red stripes and blue stripes. This proves God loves America.
If nobody can point to any indication in the Bible that the five loaves do indeed represent the five books of Moses, then they must have gotten the interpretation directly from God.
I’m not sure why you say it this way. St. Augustine and St. Anthony don’t say that God spoke to them directly and told them that the meaning for the five loaves is the five books. They’re speaking in the context of homilies, and yes, I know that our translation sounds like they’re speaking definitively, but I wonder whether the sentiment is getting lost in translation because I just don’t think this is the case. As I said, the premise Augustine and Anthony are coming from is that there are layers upon layers of interpretation in the Bible; for some reason, they had a particular insight that they think the five loaves can represent the five books. It sounds simply like an insight they came to after reflecting on the Bible. They are speculating. I don’t know how they got the insight — it probably stems from the long-held idea that there is a parallelism between Moses and Jesus: Moses gave the Old Law to God’s chosen people; Jesus is the fulfillment of Moses because he gives the New Law to God’s people. With that kind of parallel, I suspect that Anthony and Augustine started trying to find other parallels between both their lives: for example, Moses sent down bread from heaven – Jesus is bread from Heaven; Moses brought his people out of slavery to Pharoah – Jesus brought his people out of slavery to sin and death, etc. Jesus used 5 loaves to feed the people— did Moses do anything of 5 that fed the people? Well, Moses wrote the Pentateuch that was the spiritual basis or “food” for the Jewish religion. Boom. A parallel.
It’s not an insight that a Catholic needs to accept as true; instead, it’s simply an idea that is interesting, but one can take it or leave it. To me, it certainly sounds a little strange at first, and I agree it sounds a little like Anthony and Augustine are just pulling the parallel out of thin air, kind of like your Twin Towers. So, I would have to read more about why they think there is this parallel and I’d have to think about their parallel a little bit more. But maybe there is something to it, because as I said, they’re probably coming from the “Moses prefigures Jesus” idea.
Your approach would allow just about any interpretation of the Bible. Sure, anyone can make any interpretation of the Bible. That’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that. And then we can weigh the interpretation to see if it makes sense. Augustine and Anthony are saints and they’re thoughtful people who have studied the Bible at great length, and as I said, they’re probably coming from the “Moses=Jesus” idea. So I’m going to give their interpretation some consideration; you’re welcome to reject it. Your interpretation that the fives loaves are the five stars of the flag is another interpretation, and we can similarly weigh its value.
Thales,
I don’t have too much of a problem with what you say. My point remains that if a person makes a claim about what scripture says or means, he or she has to make a case for it. I have tried to be somewhat careful about saying the five loaves absolutely cannot represent the five books of Moses, because somewhere, somebody may have made a convincing case for it. I haven’t found it yet, though. But I think there are certain interpretations that can be dismissed out of hand (especially for Catholics) like mine about the five loaves representing the Pentagon and the two fishes representing the Twin Towers. And omnipotent, omniscient God can do anything he wants, but I think it goes well beyond how Catholics regard the scriptures to claim to find in them specific references to events in American history. This is not to say, however, that something can’t come up in American public life that a particular Gospel story would be very relevant to.
There’s no question that Jesus is sometimes seen in the New Testament as the new Moses, but that in itself wouldn’t justify claiming that the five loaves represented the five books of Moses.
My point remains that if a person makes a claim about what scripture says or means, he or she has to make a case for it.
I agree.
But I think there are certain interpretations that can be dismissed out of hand (especially for Catholics) like mine about the five loaves representing the Pentagon and the two fishes representing the Twin Towers.
I agree.
And omnipotent, omniscient God can do anything he wants, but I think it goes well beyond how Catholics regard the scriptures to claim to find in them specific references to events in American history. This is not to say, however, that something can’t come up in American public life that a particular Gospel story would be very relevant to.
I agree. I actually think that I would go a step further: I don’t like the idea of coming up with Biblical interpretations that refer to things/events that are outside the revelation given in the Bible. In fact, I think it may be an altogether inappropriate and incorrect method of Biblical interpretation. It’s one thing to interpret one part of the Bible in light of another part of the Bible (which is what Augustine/Anthony are doing), and it’s something altogether different to interpret one part of the Bible in light of something outside the Bible. The first type makes sense because, assuming that God is the author of the Bible, then this means that there is good reason to think that there are internal consistencies/allusions/etc. within the Bible. In the second type, the Bible is taken to have allusions to things outside and there is a much weaker reason for thinking that such allusions exist.
I think we are now in almost perfect agreement, for which I believe we deserve some kind of award! How often do two commenters on a blog start out disputing one another and end up agreeing?
Agreed! It’s exciting. Cheers!