My original purpose here was (a) to point out that there are a number of ways of defining "myth" & (b) to argue that there is no need to deny the existence of all myth in the Bible. Having said that, I use the term rather sparingly myself when talking about scripture. I've tried to answer a few questions briefly here but won't comment further on this thread.
Shalom,
Peter Ruest wrote:
> 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?
Basically, yes. (b) through (e) are in Childs. (a) is from MacCormac & corresponds to a good deal of popular use of the term "myth".
> 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?
Outdated pictures of the physical world are used by the biblical writers (sense a) but I think it's confusing to use "myth" for this essentially non-religious use of the term in a theological setting. When events in the world are pictured as due to God's direct, rather than mediated, action in the Bible we approach sense (b), with the very important qualification that we are talking about one God rather than "gods." (But this must be qualified by noting that in the earlier strata of the OT we are
dealing with henotheism rather than monotheism - i.e., while only YHWH is to be worshipped, the existence of deities of other nations - Chemosh &c - isn't actually denied.)
It should also be noted that even when we reach strict monotheism in the NT, angels & demons are participants in the story. Even though they are not "gods", their presence & activity give stories a mythological aspect.
There are phrases in the OT that suggest use (c) - YHWH walking in the garden in Gen.3 or coming down to see what's happening with the tower of Babel. But these could be considered simply as anthropomorphic uses of language. (e) is in a sense an expanded form of (d). Myth in this sense occurs in the Bible in the form of broken myth.
I should mention that what Bultmann meant by "myth" - z.B., at the beginning of "New Testament and Mythology" - combines several of the sense below of the term given below.
> 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?
Both - d.h., you do it by studying the culture. & of course for ancient cultures that may be difficult.
> 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 "breaking" of myth is one way in which this guidance takes place.
> > (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.
He's rather general here: Myth is "a real though unfocussed gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination." One example would be the way he pictures the deities of pagan myth as angelic beings in the space trilogy.
> 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)?
My first sentence. D.h., that sentence contradicts definition (a). Of course one is free to define as one pleases, but it seems to me confusing to use the language of "myth" in this sense in talking about the Bible.
> > 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,
No, I don't think Gen.1 is myth in this sense (though aspects of it are if one uses definition (a) below. Some have seen in the /tehom/ of Gen.1:2 an acho of Tiamat of the Babylonian creation story but this is debatable. If it were true it would be an example of broken myth"
> 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?).
Isaiah 14:12-20.
> > 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 think that the thing described here ("a model of the world that is taken to be a literal description of the world") is found in the Bible (e.g., Gen.1) but, as I said, it seems to me confusing to call it 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".
But as I said, we do have "unexplainable events were attributed to direct intervention of" _one_ God, & also the activity of demons & angels.
> > (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?
Pretty much.
> > (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 contradiction arises because you've inserted "falsely" into the definition. People in the culture in which the myth is accepted of course don't think their belief is false. An example (or set of examples) is the way Australian aboriginal religion explains features of the world, humanity &c in terms of things that various beings did in the "Dreamtime."
> > 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?
Yes, it is kind of magical. Mircea Eliade's _Rites and Symbols of Initiation_ gives examples of the way in which cults are supposed to enable actualization of primordial events like the Dreamtime.
An interesting example of the way such "myth" is broken" is Hosea 2:14-15. Here there is the idea of a re-actualization of an earlier period - but that "primordial time" or Urzeit is not some time before history, like the Dreamtime, but the historical events of the Exodus & Israel's time in the desert.
> > 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".
Shalom,
George
Received on Tue Dec 23 19:01:31 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 19:01:32 EST