Currently doing a quick read-through of Bishop Tom’s insightful little book Scripture and the Authority of God, and came across this comment on patristic interpretation:
“What the use of allegory highlights, of course, is the church’s insistence on the importance of continuing to live with scripture, the whole scripture, including the bits which appeared deeply problematic–for instance, some of the more shocking stories in the Old Testament. . . Allegorization, then, represents both an insistence that the church must go on living with and under scripture and a failure, at some levels at least, to understand how scripture itself actually works. . . it looks as though at least some uses of allegory constitute a step away from the Jewish world of the first century within which Jesus and his first followers were at home.
Allegory was in one sense, as is sometimes claimed, a way of ‘saving the Bible for the church,’ in the sense that with the other reading strategies available at the time the less savory passages of the Old Testament might have been jettisoned altogether. . . but allegorical exegesis always ran the risk of conceding a great deal at a more fundamental level by encouraging people to see the Bible in a de-storied and hence de-Judaized way. At this level, allegory was one symptom of a move away from the primacy of the scriptural narrative itself, foreshadowing those attempts in our own day to live under scripture which are in fact an appeal, not to the Bible itself, but to a particular tradition within the life of the church.” (67-8)
I actually quite like this: on the one hand, it recognizes the strength of allegorical interpretation in that it attempts to read the OT in a thoroughly christocentric way for the benefit and usefulness of the church. Surely, this way of reading the OT is to be preferred to the approach of my preaching classes and so much of evangelical Christianity, in which the OT is more or less a collection of quaint ethical stories (NTW: “cozy moral tales”), thus utterly failing to recognize what Scripture really is.
On the other hand, Wright correctly identifies a possible weakness of allegorical interpretation in its tendency to “de-story” and therefore “de-Judaize” the OT. No doubt this was the result of tension between nascent Christianity and ascendant rabbinical Judaism, as early Christians more radically sought to distance themselves from their Jewish heritage. Hence you have people like Marcion, who wanted to throw out the OT altogether as an “inferior” religion, and Ps.-Barnabas, who denied Israel any real place in God’s salvation-history. Even if catholic Christianity rejected these more extreme impulses, the tendency to allegorize may at times more reflect this historical situation than a proper understanding of how the entire scriptural narrative might function as a cohesive whole.