Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I'm reading this book. I was so moved by some of the stuff I actually READ in Jeremiah -- Israel as cheating Zion, Yahweh as put-upon husband, chastening her by sexually humiliating her -- I wanted to read more.

In setting the stage, the author says that the historical-critical ideas of the metaphors as words or ideas that represent other actual words or firm ideas (the substitionary approach) is too restrictive for how the metaphors should be understood.

She asserts that a cognitive approach, that is, seeing metaphors as cognitive devices with the power to transform perception and reorient perspective, in preferred.

It's traditional exegesis versus feminist exegesis.

I'm thinking that calling these ancient images "metaphors" in the first place is too limiting, and that "allegory" gets closer to the kind of thing that transforms perception and reorients perspective.

An allegory is greater than the sum of its metaphors and similes.

Zion/Israel is always a female and Yahweh is always a male, and both are always in what we today would consider a dysfunctional relationship.

As allegory, though -- something with the power ro transform perception and reorient perspective -- what we have is a story about a relationship between a powerful persona and a much less powerful (but not totally powerless) persona, which is, in fact, the nature of the Covenant.

It eliminates the gender baggage, which puts the power differential is sharper focus.

Discuss.

--ER