There are no answers in Genesis

[emjay]

Where I said elsewhere that I took the Bible literally - both when I was a Christian, 20, 30 years ago, and now as a critic - I meant with the exception of where it is explicit or obvious that it was not intended to be taken literally, such as Psalms or parables for instance. But where Genesis is concerned, I'm not convinced; to me, if something includes lots of specifics... names, places, details... that usually implies that it is intended to be taken as a literal, historic account of something. Genesis is full of such details. Why for instance would there be the need to describe the names and locations of specific rivers in the Garden of Eden? ...when such details are completely superfluous to any obvious allegorical reading?

It seems pretty clear that the Bible is edited together from lots of different writers with lots of different intentions. Genesis in particular is a collage of different styles and levels. It's entirely possible that some part was believed by the author to be true history, and other parts are legend, myth, or extended metaphor. 

And you know, I'm sure, that it's a very old tradition to say that every verse should be interpreted at four levels simultaneously. There are easy meanings and difficult meanings, and secret, kabbalistic meanings. 

When Augustine talked about the "literal" meaning, he means the meaning that the original author intended. So if the verse was originally meant as a metaphor, then, confusingly, the literal meaning is metaphorical. But for people who believe that the text is inspired, the full meaning may not be known to the original author. It unfolds and reveals itself through time.

I can accept Augustine's usage of 'literal' and also accept that there are many different writers with different intentions represented in the Bible... and like he appears to be, I'm also interested in the intentions of the original authors...

As for detail, I don't see why a symbolic reading would necessarily need to have less. The more propaganda/history parts of the OT about the kings of Israel, for example, might give place names for verisimilitude, but if they're talking about Eden, which is full of symbolism, more detail might just mean more symbols.

...I just don't find the sort of hybrid symbolism you seem to be suggesting for the Eden story very plausible (as a likely original intention)... 

Think about a famous non-biblical text that's been interpreted allegorically, for example. The chapter in the Odyssey where Odysseus finally arrives in Ithaca describes in great detail a cave where he goes to hide his stuff and disguise himself before going to his house. Whether Homer (or whoever made it up) intended it or not, every little detail of the description has been given Neoplatonic readings by later writers, most famously Porphyry. In this case, greater detail in the literal description corresponds to greater detail in the metaphysical meaning. Spenser imitated it, in part, for his description of the Garden of Adonis, where souls go in transit between the ideal and material worlds. He describes in exhaustive detail what he imagines such a place to be like. 

Or the famous "pageant" section at the end of the Purgatorio, is another example. Dante describes dozens of characters and a strange beast and lots of other stuff, in great detail. It has kept readers busy interpreting its meaning(s) for 700 years.

... because I see the sort of detail in the imaginative writings of Dante for instance, as very different from the sort of detail I was talking about of just cold, hard facts and figures, geneologies etc. The former is artistic licence let's say, but the latter, to me at least, is an implicit claim to being a factual/historical record of something.

Whether any part of Genesis was intended to operate this way originally or not isn't really important, except as a historical detail. The fact is it's been read that way, and so that's what it has come to mean.

This is where we differ the most I think, because to me, the only thing that's important is the original intention, not whatever other interpretations have built up around it over the years... because as far as I'm concerned the original intention is the claim that needs to be evaluated, so if it's claiming to be a historical record, which I believe is most probable for the Eden story, then that's how I think it needs to be judged.