Pages

Saturday, August 12, 2023

Genesis and Mythology

The most radical view for some will be that of mythology in the Bible. This is a difficult concept for most Christians to grasp, because most of us are taught that "myth" means a lie, that it's a dirty word, an insult, and that it is really debunking the Bible or rejecting it as God's word. The problem is in our understanding of myth. "Myth" does not mean lie; it does not mean something that is necessarily untrue. It is a literary genre—a way of telling a story. In Genesis, for example, the creation story and the story of the Garden are mythological. They are based on Babylonian and Sumerian myths that contain the same elements and follow the same outlines. But three things must be noted:

1) Myth is not a dirty word, not a lie. Myth is a very healthy thing. 2) The point of the myth is the point the story is making--not the literal historical events of the story. So the point of mythologizing creation is not to transmit historical events but to make a point. We will look more closely at these two points. 3) I don't assume mythology in the Bible out of any tendency to doubt miracles or the supernatural, I believe in them. I base this purely on the way the text is written.

The purpose of myth is often assumed to be the attempt of unscientific or superstitious people to explain scientific facts of nature in an unscientific way. That is not the purpose of myth. A whole new discipline has developed over the past 60 years called "history of religions." Its two major figures are C.G. Jung[1] and Marcea Eliade.[2] In addition to these two, another great scholarly figure arises in Carl Kerenyi.[3] In addition to these three, the scholarly popularizer Joseph Champbell[4] is important. Champell is best known for his work The Hero with A Thousand Faces. This is a great book and I urge everyone to read it. Champbell, and Elliade both disliked Christianity intensely, but their views can be pressed into service for an understanding of the nature of myth. Myth is, according to Champbell a cultural transmission of symbols for the purpose of providing the members of the tribe with a sense of guidance through life. They are psychological, not explanatory of the physical world. This is easily seen in their elaborate natures. Why develop a whole story with so many elements when it will suffice as an explanation to say "we have fire because Prometheus stole it form the gods?" For example, Champell demonstrates in The Hero that heroic myths chart the journey of the individual through life. They are not explanatory, but clinical and healing. They prepare the individual for the journey of life; that's why in so many cultures we meet the same hero over and over again; because people have much the same experiences as they journey though life, gaining adulthood, talking their place in the group, marriage, children, old age and death. The hero goes out, he experiences adventures, he proves himself, he returns, and he prepares the next hero for his journey. We meet this over and over in mythology.

In Kerenyi's essays on a Science of Mythology we find the two figures of the maiden and the Krone. These are standard figures repeated throughout myths of every culture. They serve different functions, but are symbolic of the same woman at different times in her life. The Krone is the enlightener, the guide, the old wise woman who guides the younger into maidenhood. In Genesis we find something different. Here the Pagan myths follow the same outline and contain many of the same characters (Adam and Adapa—see, Cornfeld Archaeology of the Bible 1976). But in Genesis we find something different. The chaotic creation story of Babylon is ordered and the source of creation is different. Rather than being emerging out of Tiamot (chaos) we find "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Order is imposed. We have a logical and orderly progression (as opposed to the Pagan primordial chaos). The seven days of creation represent perfection and it is another aspect of order, seven periods, the seventh being rest. Moreover, the point of the story changes. In the Babylonian myth the primordial chaos is the ages of creation, and there is no moral overtone, the story revolves around other things. This is a common element in mythology, a world in which the myths happen, mythological time and place. All of these elements taken together are called Myths, and every mythos has a cosmogony, an explanation of creation and being (I didn't say there were no explanations in myth.). We find these elements in the Genesis story, Cosmogony included. But, the point of the story becomes moral: it becomes a story about man rebelling against God, the entrance of sin into the world. So the Genesis account is a literary rendering of pagan myth, but it stands that myth on its head. It is saying God is the true source of creation and the true point is that life is about knowing God.

The mythological elements are more common in the early books of the Bible. The material becomes more historical as we go along. How do we know? Because the mythical elements of the first account immediately drop away. Elements such as the talking serpent, the timeless time ("in the beginning"), the firmament and other aspects of the myth all drop away. The firmament was the ancient world's notion of the world itself. It was a flat earth set upon angular pillars, with a dome over it. On the inside of the dome stars were stuck on, and it contained doors in the dome through which snow and rain could be forced through by the gods (that's why Genesis says "he divided the waters above the firmament from the waters below”). We are clearly in a mythological world in Genesis. The Great flood is mythology as well, as all nations have their flood myths. But as we move through the Bible things become more historical.

The NT is not mythological at all. The Resurrection of Christ is an historical event and can be argued as such (see Resurrection page). Christ is a flesh and blood historical person who can be validated as having existed. The resurrection is set in an historical setting, names, dates, places are all historically verifiable and many have been validated. So the major point I'm making is that God uses myth to communicate to humanity. The mythical elements create the sort of psychological healing and force of literary strength and guidance that any mythos conjures up. God is novelist, he inspires myth. That is to say, the inner experience model led the redactors to remake ancient myth with a divine message. But the Bible is not all mythology; in fact most of it is an historical record and has been largely validated as such.

The upshot of all of this is that there is no need to argue evolution or the great flood. Evolution is just a scientific understanding of the development of life. It doesn't contradict the true account because we don't have a "true" scientific account. In Genesis, God was not trying to write a science text book. We are not told how life developed after creation. That is a point of concern for science not theology.

How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Not because it contains big amazing miracle prophecy fulfillments, not because it reveals scientific information which no one could know at the time of writing, but for the simplest of reasons. Because it does what religious literature should do, it transfors people's lives.

NOTES

[1] Carl Jung, Britaica,2023,https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Jung

[2] Mircea Elide, Ibid. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mircea-Eliade

[3] Karoky Kerenyi, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1roly_Ker%C3%A9nyi

[4] Joseph Campbell, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

16 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:04 AM

    Joe: I base this purely on the way the text is written.

    Do you mean that there are indicators in the way the text is written that allow us to determine myth from history without reference to scientifc discoveries? Or do you assume it is myth if it has subsequently been refuted?

    Joe: How do we know? Because the mythical elements of the first account immediately drop away. Elements such as the talking serpent, the timeless time ("in the beginning"), the firmament and other aspects of the myth all drop away.

    So you assume it is myth if it has subsequently been refuted. Thanks.


    Joe: The chaotic creation story of Babylon is ordered and the source of creation is different. Rather than being emerging out of Tiamot (chaos) we find "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Order is imposed. We have a logical and orderly progression (as opposed to the Pagan primordial chaos).

    All these creation myths have order being created from chaos. The Babylonian story is itself not chaotic. The Biblicasl story is just the same; God creates order from the chaos of the pre-existing waters.


    Joe: We find these elements in the Genesis story, Cosmogony included. But, the point of the story becomes moral: it becomes a story about man rebelling against God, the entrance of sin into the world.

    You are forcing a later interpretation on the text. There is nothing about sin in the first three chapters of Genesis; it is only later that people decided that that was sin entering the world.


    Joe: The NT is not mythological at all.

    So you think the dead were walking around Jerusalem after Jesus died?

    Mat 27:52 Also the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the [ag]saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

    Pix

    ReplyDelete
  2. hey Px good to hear from you again.

    Anonymous said...
    Joe: I base this purely on the way the text is written.

    Do you mean that there are indicators in the way the text is written that allow us to determine myth from history without reference to scientifc discoveries?

    yes


    Or do you assume it is myth if it has subsequently been refuted?

    It has nothing to do with refutation, non mythical things get refuted.


    Joe: How do we know? Because the mythical elements of the first account immediately drop away. Elements such as the talking serpent, the timeless time ("in the beginning"), the firmament and other aspects of the myth all drop away.

    So you assume it is myth if it has subsequently been refuted. Thanks.

    you are trying to look at it like facts of science. Such elements are not mythological because they have been refuted but because they are earmarks of way of looking at things.


    Joe: The chaotic creation story of Babylon is ordered and the source of creation is different. Rather than being emerging out of Tiamot (chaos) we find "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Order is imposed. We have a logical and orderly progression (as opposed to the Pagan primordial chaos).

    All these creation myths have order being created from chaos. The Babylonian story is itself not chaotic. The Biblical story is just the same; God creates order from the chaos of the pre-existing waters.

    As indicated above the Babylonian story uses chaos as a story element, creation emerges from chaos.


    Joe: We find these elements in the Genesis story, Cosmogony included. But, the point of the story becomes moral: it becomes a story about man rebelling against God, the entrance of sin into the world.

    You are forcing a later interpretation on the text. There is nothing about sin in the first three chapters of Genesis; it is only later that people decided that that was sin entering the world.

    It is totally foolish not see the sin which all over the Gensis story. the eating the forbidden fruit is a sin a priori it desn't matter if it doesn't use the term they are clearly being punished when put out of the garden for disobedience to God that is the every essence of sin.


    Joe: The NT is not mythological at all.

    So you think the dead were walking around Jerusalem after Jesus died?

    mythology is not a Synonym for miracles, having miracles doesn't make it mythological.



    Mat 27:52 Also the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the [ag]saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.


    what I just said. I suggest you read the guys I discuss in the second paragraph

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the OP: "Myth is, according to Champbell a cultural transmission of symbols for the purpose of providing the members of the tribe with a sense of guidance through life. They are psychological, not explanatory of the physical world. This is easily seen in their elaborate natures.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  4. I submit that though the story of Christ is historical, it also parallels Cambell's hero's journey. This is why scholars like CS Lewis said Christ's story was mythic and historical at the same time .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:23 PM

    Pix: Do you mean that there are indicators in the way the text is written that allow us to determine myth from history without reference to scientifc discoveries?

    Joe: yes

    What are those indicators? Can we use them to determine if the destruction of Sodum and Gomorrah was true, or the fight between David and Goliath or the exodus from Egypt?

    Joe: you are trying to look at it like facts of science. Such elements are not mythological because they have been refuted but because they are earmarks of way of looking at things.

    So you can state what those earmarks are, right?

    I think the various authors believed tht what they recorded was true, was actual history. They really believed there was a firmament, for example.


    Joe: As indicated above the Babylonian story uses chaos as a story element, creation emerges from chaos.

    So like the story in Genesis where God creates the world out of the chaos of the primordeal waters.


    Joe: It is totally foolish not see the sin which all over the Gensis story. the eating the forbidden fruit is a sin a priori it desn't matter if it doesn't use the term they are clearly being punished when put out of the garden for disobedience to God that is the every essence of sin.

    The idea of sin entering the world is a later interpretation forced on the text. Sure, eating the forbidden fruit was a sin, but the idea of sin being a thing that can enter the world is a later invention.


    Joe earlier: The NT is not mythological at all.

    Pix: So you think the dead were walking around Jerusalem after Jesus died?

    Joe: mythology is not a Synonym for miracles, having miracles doesn't make it mythological.

    So answer the question. Do you think the dead were walking around Jerusalem after Jesus died?

    If that really happened, if it was not myth, then that would have been an incredible event witnessed by many - and the text explicitly says that. So why is it not mentioned in other documents? Josephus mentions Jesus, but not the dead coming out of their tombs when he died. Even the other gospels do not mention it.

    To me, it is pretty clearly made up.

    Pix

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:57 PM

    Joe: If the author does not use mythical elemenets then it's not mythology even if it's not true.

    So if there is nothing in it that has been refuted by science, you assume it is not myth? How is that different to "assume it is myth if it has subsequently been refuted"?

    Joe: Eliade and Champbell can

    And you cannot? Maybe you should read your own references.

    Joe: Yes so they believed mythical aspects.

    So to the person writing the text it was all the same. He believed it was all true, both the parts considered historical and the parts historical mythical.

    Joe: where in Genesis?

    Genesis 1:2. The modern interpretation is God created from nothing, but the reality is that the text says there were primordial waters there before hand (see also Gen 1:6-7).

    Joe: Maybe they didn't the word "sin" yet but they had the concept and it is there in the story,

    Sure.

    But this is about idea of "sin" being a thing that could enter the world, as opposed to (in addition to) a transgression against God. Genesis 3 describes a sin, a transgression against God. But there is nothing there about sin entering the world. That is Christianity forcing a new interpretation on it.

    Joe: No, it was after he rose.

    No, before he supposedly rose. It was when Jesus died.

    Mat 27:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

    51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

    Joe: Yes I think some were

    And yet no one else recorded it. Josephus recorded many events from that time - why not the dead rising from their tombs? Why did the other gospels not mention it?

    It was made up.

    Joe: I can live with taht aspect beimg embellishment

    Now we just need to work on the appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem after he died. It is pretty clear Mark was not aware of them.

    Pix

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lots of literature transforms people's lives. Does that make it all the word of God?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How do we separate out myth or mythologised history from actual history?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cuttlebones said...
    Lots of literature transforms people's lives. Does that make it all the word of God?
    9:13 PM

    Not to the same extent. thus argument was not about what makes it the word of God,


    Cuttlebones said...
    How do we separate out myth or mythologised history from actual history?

    9:27 PM

    If its part or the historical record then it's historical. If it fits the criteria for myth then its mythical

    ReplyDelete
  10. I never said determine myth by refutation of science, I always said by the criteria of myth Now ,any of those mythical criteria have been refuted by science but they were myths long before science existed that is not what makes them myths.


    As for the tomb thing it just doesn't matter to me. I believe it but it proves false I will not be downcast or lose my faith or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not to the same extent. thus argument was not about what makes it the word of God,
    Not to the same extent, because not all literature is as loaded with presupposition.

    You said "How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because...it transforms people's lives"
    That sounds like the argument was about what makes it the word of God.


    If its part or the historical record then it's historical. If it fits the criteria for myth then its mythical.

    What does this mean? What historical record? What is the criteria for myth?
    How clear is the demarcation between the two?





    As for the tomb thing it just doesn't matter to me. I believe it but it proves false I will not be downcast or lose my faith or anything.

    Is there anything that would make you loose your faith?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cuttlebones said...
    Not to the same extent. thus argument was not about what makes it the word of God,
    Not to the same extent, because not all literature is as loaded with presupposition.

    You said "How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because...it transforms people's lives"
    That sounds like the argument was about what makes it the word of God.

    seemed important to me to say that


    If its part or the historical record then it's historical. If it fits the criteria for myth then its mythical.

    What does this mean? What historical record? What is the criteria for myth?
    How clear is the demarcation between the two?


    The historical record, the one historians worry about. Criteria of myth I have discussed before. Yu should read those science of mythology guys I named in the OP, criteria is myth is a psychological message aimed at helping the individual find his/her way trough life.It's made up of cultural symbols.


    As for the tomb thing it just doesn't matter to me. I believe it but it proves false I will not be downcast or lose my faith or anything.

    Is there anything that would make you loose your faith?

    ReplyDelete
  13. myth is a psychological message aimed at helping the individual find his/her way trough life. It's made up of cultural symbols

    So what makes the Jesus story more than myth? Or mythicised history?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because he really existed, really died on the cross, and really rose from the dead. How do we know? Take the writings of clement. Not only did Clemet know the apostle John but he studied with John and two other students like himself who became friends and they link us to the world Jesus and apostles through their teacher John. I have to look them up but it's in my writings on Doxa.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A.Paul
    B.Clement of Rome
    C.Philip of Hireopolis
    D.Papias
    E.Polycarp

    B,D,E are the one's i was thinking of They all knew Paul so that links together, and Philip of H also add a historical voice.

    ReplyDelete