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

George,
thank you for these definitions of "myth". But after having read them
carefully, I still don't see clearly how _you_ understand myth in the
Bible. Do you see different types in different places? Which of these
types are not to be found in the Bible? You seem to indicate that 1) to
3) are your own conviction regarding "myth" wherever you find it in the
Bible. And (a) to (e) [or (b) to (e)?] apparently are the types of
"myth" Childs distinguishes. Have I understood this correctly? And are
(a) to (e) various aspects of "myth" which may partly or fully overlap,
depending on the particular text considered? Or are they mainly
alternatives? And which ones do _you_ find in the Bible?

George Murphy wrote:
> 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." <

They cannot be ruled out, unless there are additional considerations,
such as the possibility of God making certain choices. Of course, not
being ruled out does not yet prove their existence. Do you consider the
two ifs in your point 1) as given? First, how do you determine whether
myth formed an important part of the culture of biblical writers? From
biblical and/or extrabiblical sources? And how (in both cases) do you
avoid misinterpretations? I don't doubt that it is true for the cultures
surrounding Israel, as well as for many Israelites who let themselves be
influenced by these. But how about the "culture" (or habits) God and his
prophets tried to impress on Israel (and on us - as all was also written
for our benefit, Rom. 15:4)? Second, I agree with the statement that God
worked with those writers within their cultural framework setting. But
the crucial point is whether he used _all_ of these cultural contents
and trappings or just selected parts. Duze to the concept of divine
inspiration, we certainly have to consider _some_ kind of divine
guidance of the thinking of a prophet when he went about writing a text
which, by God's providence, was intended to find the way into our
canonical scriptures.

> (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.) <

I don't know how Lewis understood "myth" in the Bible. I don't have his
"Miracles" here. I believe I once read it, probably in a German
translation. Anyway, "chosen mythology" sounds strange to my ears. I
very much enjoyed Lewis's Narnia stories and the space trilogy, as well
as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. But there, it is very clear that these
are fiction. In these cases, the metaphors for spiritual truth contained
therein, which I appreciate very much, would by themselves almost
indicate that they must be fiction. But this does not apply to history
arranged by the Creator, who is free to provide didactical history.

> 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.) <

I don't understand your parenthesis. What would not be true with (a)?

> 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. <

I understand that this is your interpretation of Gen.1, but I am not
aware of any other examples in the Bible where an apparent historical
narrative could be interpreted as a broken myth (where do you find the
example you mention?).

> 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. <

Are you saying that definition (a) is not useful in connection with the
Bible? Or that any religious thoughts contained in Kepler's,
Newton's,... works make Newtonian mechanics sort of a myth?

> 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". <

This would eliminate such "myths" from God's revelation (except in
relating things God opposes), as these animistic/polytheistic aspects
would have to be "broken out" in a "broken myth".
 
> (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). <

Same as with (b). Does Childs exclude, for the Bible, legends and fairy
tales?

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

Where would this apply in the Bible? I don't understand what Malinowski
or Childs intend to say with this. "A living reality" and (falsely)
"believed to have once happened" appear to contradict each other.

> 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." <

This sounds rather magical. Is there any biblical example for this, not
with respect to human deviations from God's ways, but with respect to
God's revelation of his will?

> 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

This would certainly be very helpful, but only if, for any given case,
it is clearly stated what the interpreter understands to be (1) the
theological meaning, (2) the relationship to historical/factual reality,
(3) the origin of the myth, (4) the reason for using a myth as a
vehicle, (5) which are the aspects of the myth being "broken".

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)