how did Philo see allegory?

[Ruth]

I have begun reading this book, not very fast, I am now at paragraph XIII.
But one question that just popped up for me is how did he view allegory?

I'm asking, because I have just come to his explanation of the burning bush, where he says the fire stands for the tribulations their people suffered from the Egyptians.
Now I had always heard that the fire stands for the Holy Spirit, and the burning bush for our fragile human nature, that is set on fire but not hurt by the Holy Spirit.

This raises the question for me if such allegorical interpretation was ever thought of as a precise encrypted way of saying something else, or more as in art, for example a painting or poem, that can raise all kinds of feelings, and it depends a bit on who is looking, what you see in it.

In other words: would Philo say that this fire must mean the oppression, and cannot mean anything else, or does he only use this as a nice figure of speach in order to clarify his point, and would he also allow different applications.

Do any of you know how people in those times viewed allegory?

[Nemo]

Ruth wrote: "I have begun reading this book, not very fast, I am now at paragraph XIII.
But one question that just popped up for me is how did he view allegory?...."

I think it is safe to say that ancient Greeks and Jews were familiar with allegories and metaphors. Philo tried to reconcile Greek philosophy and Jewish theology, so to speak, in his writings, and that's partly why he influenced many early Church Fathers.

[Clark]

Ruth said, "Do any of you know how people in those times viewed allegory? ... would Philo say that this fire must mean the oppression, and cannot mean anything else, or does he only use this as a nice figure of speech in order to clarify his point, and would he also allow different applications?"

This is a super cool background question.

I did some poking around. The material I looked at uses the terms "allegory" and "allegorical" in a general way that includes both single-meaning and multiple-meaning interpretation.

Here are some words about the context and about Philo:

"A narrative which uses symbolic figures and actions to suggest hidden meanings behind the literal words of the text. It is similar to riddle and parable genres, which use figurative language and images to convey a truth hidden behind the literal meaning of the words. The word 'allegory' originated in the Greek world and was used most frequently by authors who wished to retain the truths of traditional worldviews when ancient traditions were being challenged by new knowledge. The Homeric stories of the gods were interpreted allegorically by later Greeks who wished to 'demythologize' the tales of the capricious and immoral deities of Olympus and make them more intellectually meaningful and ethically acceptable to a people whose worldview was becoming more scientific and sophisticated. The word 'allegory' itself was first used in Hellenistic times by Stoics and Cynics seeking to counter the attacks on the Olympian pantheon which had been made by Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Plato.

"In Hellenistic Judaism ca. the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E. Aristobulus of Alexandria used an allegorical interpretation of the OT extensively as he sought to reconcile the Hebrew Scriptures with Greek culture. Philo of Alexandria became the Jewish theologian who used the allegorical interpretation the most extensively and was able to maintain a balance between the allegorical and literal reading of the Law."

Goodman, W. R., Jr. .. (2000). Allegory. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers, & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (pp. 43–44). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

[Ruth]

Thanks, that is helpful background.

Allegory is often used by the church fathers, I have been wondering about this process more often.

For the past three years I have been slowly working my way through the great book Morals on the Book of Job by saint Gregory, who is also using allegorical explanations extensively.

It surprised me that Saint Gregory is so very flexible. Sometimes he explains a few lines of text allegorically one way, and then he says something like "but you can also take it to mean... " and that is then the complete opposite of what he said before, but still supports the general attitude that he wants to explain.

[Clark]

Ruth said, 'Sometimes he explains a few lines of text allegorically one way, and then he says something like "but you can also take it to mean... " and that is then the complete opposite of what he said before ...'

That matches my (limited) experience reading exegesis by the Church Fathers -- "You can read it this way, but you can also read it that way."

Which is why I stressed that merely saying a reading is "allegorical" doesn't in itself tell whether the writer is claiming it's the only correct interpretation, or one among several possibilities.