RE: Myth

Scientists who write books on science for a general, non-scientific audience do not use the mathematical description underlying their presentation. Can that be viewed as myth? A reader who knows the math behind the writing can understand the text and know that what the author is writing is truly correct. However, a reader who does not know the mathematics cannot deduce from the writing the scientific models underlying the writing and must take it on faith.

Moorad

        -----Original Message-----
        From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Peter Ruest
        Sent: Wed 12/31/2003 12:38 AM
        To: george murphy
        Cc: asa@calvin.edu
        Subject: Re: Myth
        
        

        george murphy wrote:
> 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.<
        
        I accept these statements, as you formulate them here. I still doubt the
        relevance of myth in the Bible in the context of your statements I
        shortly comment below.
        
> 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 Outdated pictures of the physical world are used by the biblical writers (sense a) but I think it's confusing to use "myth" for this essentially non-religious use of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.<
        
        PR: Whether or not an "outdated picture" of the world is found in the
        Bible would have to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. On a
        practical level, it doesn't make much difference if you call it "myth"
        in a technical-theological sense or "cosmology". What is crucial is:
        what is the point of its being used as a vehicle of God's revelation
        (instead of a less offensive interpretation of the same text).
        
> 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."<
        
        See below under Child's definition (b).
        
> (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.)<
        
        I don't think henotheism is anywhere to be found in a biblical text as
        describing what God is communicating in the text. References to deities
        of other nations can easily be understood as a reference to _their_
        belief, not to real "gods" (1 Chr.16:26; cf. 1 Cor.8:5), unless the
        reference is to real demons behind their names and spheres of influence
        (1 Cor.10:19-22).
        
> 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.<
        
        It's no help to talk of "mythological aspect". Are angels and demons
        real or aren't they? I grant that there are many or most aspects about
        the angels and demons we don't understand, but that's no argument
        against their reality, which, I think, the Bible presents as factual,
        not mythological in any sense.
        
> 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.<
        
        I agree. But this eliminates these cases as "myth" in any meaningful
        sense.
        
> (e) is in a sense an expanded form of (d). Myth in this sense occurs in the Bible in the form of broken myth.<
        
        Again, the crucial question is whether God wanted to communicate such
        stories as factual or as metaphors: the context would have to make this
        clear to any ancient or modern reader. In either case, I don't see the
        point of talking about 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. Due 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.<
        
        This would be morally acceptable if it were completely clear to any
        ancient or modern reader that the "myth" related is a "just-so story"
        which never happened. But what I was talking about was the possibility
        of substituting a plainly understood formulation (in whatever literary
        form) for the myth. Paul, in his Areopagus address referred to what
        presumably were Greek "gods" (Acts 17:23,28), but the way he did so made
        it abundantly clear what was his intention. It would be an unnecessary
        muddling-up here to talk of "broken 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.) <
> >
> > 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.<
        
        This doesn't illuminate what he might have thought about myth in the
        Bible. In the novels, of course, it's he himself who inserted the
        "unfocussed gleam of divine truth".
        
> > ...
> > > 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.<
        
        No matter what you call it, "myth" or "obsolete scientific description",
        I am not convinced that this is what is _nescessarily_ in the text. At
        least, I don't think the possibility of an alternative interpretation
        (even as just one of two or more meaningful interpretations) can be
        categorically ruled out. The prophetic literature of the Bible teaches
        us that the Lord of history sometimes places more than one
        interpretation/fulfillment into a single prediction.
        
> > > 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"<
        
        See my comment above about an "outdated picture" of the world.
        
> > 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.<
        
        Some interpreters see in this text a prophecy intended to have two
        interpretations, one referring to the king of Babylon, the other to
        Satan (as a backwards-directed prophecy). The motivation for talking of
        myth here would seem to be an unwillingness to consider the possibility
        of such a double prophecy also referring to Satan.
        
> > > 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.<
        
        See my comment above about an "outdated picture" of the world.
        
> > > 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.<
        
        Neither of these, if found in the Bible, qualify as myth in any
        meaningful way.
        
> > > (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."<
        
        What the people in the ancient or Australian aboriginal culture believed
        is beside the point, as we are talking about the possibility of myth in
        God's written Word. Is the "living reality, believed to have once
        happened", something that has _in fact_ happened? Or is it abundantly
        clear from the context of the story that it has not? The formulation
        "believed to have once happened" in this context seems to imply a false
        belief. Therefore, I don't think I have falsely inserted "falsely".
        Again, talking about myth (with respect to _biblical_ texts) just
        muddies the water.
        
> > > 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.<
        
        Hosea, in this poetical passage, is using a metaphor, but in a way which
        makes his intention very clear, and also makes it very clear what about
        this story is real history and what is figurative language. But "myth"
        makes no sense here.
        
> > > 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,
        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)
        
Received on Wed Dec 31 09:44:11 2003