Myth (Was Re: concordance & genesis (edited))

I am separating the subject of "myth" here because, while I agree that a lot of
our disagreements have to do with differing definitions of the word, I don't think that
clarifying these differences resolves the real theological issues. My previous
references to "myth" made 3 points:
        1) The existence of mythical elements in scripture cannot be ruled out if myth
formed an important part of the culture of biblical writers and if God worked with those
writers within their cultural framework setting. That's the case however one defines
"myth."
        (The comments of C.S. Lewis in the long note on p.139 of _Miracles_ are relevant
here. He says, /inter alia/, "The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology; but as
they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology". Of course he
didn't understand the entire OT to be myth, though he does see Jonah as being toward the
myth end of the history-myth spectrum. Whatever one may think of Lewis' theology, his
opinions on literary matters certainly need to be taken seriously.)
         2) Obsolete scientific descriptions of the world are not in themselves
"mythological" if they do not in themselves contain any religious elements. (This would
not be true with definition (a) of "myth" below.)
        3) Where mythical elements occur in the OT they are often in the form of
"broken myth," the deliberate use of modifications of pagan myths to express aspects of
the faith of Israel - e.g., the use of the Canaanite myth of an attempt by a younger
god to rest control from the elder god to speak of the fall of Babylon.

        There are a number of definitions of "myth". It can be understood as

        (a) a model of the world that is taken to be a literal description of the world.
(E.g., Earl R. MacCormac in _Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion_.) With that
definition the flat earth & dome of the sky in Genesis 1 are indeed mythological - but
then so was the understanding of Newtonian mechanics in the 19th century.

        I have found Brevard S. Childs little book _Myth and Reality in the Old
Testament_ quite helpful. He distinguishes several concepts of "myth".

        (b) "A necessary and universal form of expression within the early stages of
man's intellectual development, in which unexplainable events were attributed to direct
intervention of the gods" (Heyne). (Note here the words "unexplainable" and "direct"
and the plural "gods".
    
        (c) "A literary form concerning stories of the gods, which was to be
distinguished from other literary types such as the legend and fairy tale" (Grimm).

        (d) "'A living reality, believed to have once happened in primeval times, and
continuing ever since to influence the world and human destinies'" (Malinowski).

        The final definition which Childs adopts is:

        (e) "Myth is a form by which the existing structure of reality is understood
and maintained. It concerns itself with showing how an action of a deity, conceived of
as occurring in the primeval age, determines a phase of contemporary world order.
Existing world order is maintained through the actualization of the myth in the cult."

        I suggest that people who use the term "myth" in speaking about the Bible give
some attention to the question of which, if any, of these meanings they have in mind. &
if none, state clearly what is meant.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Dec 15 08:52:58 2003