Obviously, what we call The Bible is a collection of writings grouped in two main sections. The New Testament and the Old Testament.
Within the Old Testament, there are various different genres of writings including; History, Poetry, Wisdom Literature, and Prophecy. It should go without saying that each genre should be dealt with according to the conventions for that genre.
In the case of the recent discussion, there is a difference of opinion about what exactly the books usually referred to as History actually are. The historical consensus throughout Jewish and Christian history is that these books are an accurate representation of actual events that occurred. They are not exhaustive, nor are they scientific. But the prevailing view is that they are historical. This view certainly allows for the fact that history was recorded and passed down over time, but it also allows for God to have superintended the process so that what we have is what was intended.
There is at least one more view which is certainly out there. This comes in two variations. Variation one, is that the entire OT is complete and absolute fiction, it is usually associated with the view that the New Testament is also virtually all fiction as well. The second variation is that the stories in the Old Testament are myth. That they may or may not be based in some degree of fact, but that the stories themselves have no claim to be considered as history.
A brief digression seems appropriate here. The reasons I have heard to support this view are 1. "It just sounds like myth to me." and 2. "The "modern" style of history recording did not exist until sometime within a 1000 year time span starting around 500 BC through 500 AD. 3. "There are other stories of the same general time period which we believe to be myth, therefore we must assume that everything from this time period is myth". There are others, but those certainly provide a sample of the rationale for this view.
So, we first need to establish what myth is. For that, it seems that we should look at a dictionary for definitions and synonyms.
MYTH; noun
"An idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true"
"A story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence"
" Such stories as a group"
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.
b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
SYNONYMS and RELATED WORDS
Synonyms; fable, legend
Related Words; allegory, parable, fabrication, fantasy, fiction, figment, invention, narrative, saga, story, tale, yarn
OR
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero
or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural
explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods
and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept:
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
As we look at the definitions and synonyms, it seems clear that one significant component of a myth is that it does not contain truth. Clearly the definition allows for some degree of truth as a basis, but the overall sense of the definition is that a myth is (almost by definition) not a true and accurate means of communicating.
This is not to suggest that myth is somehow bad, or wrong, just to point out what myth is.
The point of this post is that a transcript of a presentation by N.T. Wright was provided to me in support of the proposition that the Historical books of the Old Testament are myth.
One caveat. It is entirely possible that the views I have summarized here would allow that only parts of the Old Testament histories are myth, while others are history. So, understand that when I say that the position is that the Old Testament histories are myth, I am using that as a sort of shortened way to express the position. It should probably be expressed as a belief that "Some sections of the Old Testament are 100% myth, while others might be 100% true, with the remainder falling somewhere in between". Obviously it is easier to simply use a construct of "OT histories=myth" rather than to repeat the lengthy qualification.
Anyway, this is what the first in what may end up being a series of posts of the N.T. Wright piece and whether it supports the position it was offered to support.
26 comments:
One more note.
My use of the Wright piece is not a blanket endorsement of Wright or his theology.
There is much about Wright that I appreciate, especially how he can look at things and express them in new and interesting ways without undermining the historical context. I find some degree of similarity between Wright and C.S. Lewis in that they have many things to say that are valuable, yet each has things with which many people have issues.
Like all of us, they are imperfect people, and it's probably not helpful to suggest any differently.
it seems clear that one significant component of a myth is that it does not contain truth.
Not one definition says that myths don't contain Truth.
ONE definition says that they are not true, meaning in the context of that definition, factual.
That is, it IS by definition, fair to say that myths are not factual or explicitly factual stories. Truth is or can be a different thing from Fact.
By way of clarification.
I believe you are reading meaning into "myth" that simply isn't there. There is nothing inherently wrong or even untruthful about myths. Do you understand that?
They are simply fictitious stories told to explain something in a non-literally factual manner. Like parables. Exactly like parables.
Just to make sure you're understanding that distinction. You do go on to say that there is nothing wrong with myths, so it would appear that we agree.
Otherwise, if you're just making the point that myths are stories told that are not factual in nature, um, yes, that is correct. What of it?
As to NT Wright's essay I linked to, rather than trying to demonstrate based on your reasoning that Wright's position on the topic is one thing or another, why not just try to find a definitive answer from Wright?
Regardless, I'm not especially interested in Wright's position. Given what I've read of his position, I expect that he does not take the Genesis stories as literal history, but I could be mistaken. Either way, it is fine with me.
As long as he's not saying "those who believe that Genesis is mythic are factually mistaken and morally wrong to believe it..." and I do not believe he is.
"There is nothing inherently wrong or even untruthful about myths. Do you understand that?"
1. If one looks at all of the definitions in addition to the synonyms, it seems clear that neither Truth nor fact is a significant component of myth.
2. Since I clearly stated "This is not to suggest that myth is somehow bad, or wrong, just to point out what myth is.", then it might be reasonable to presume that I understand what I clearly stated.
In this case, it also seems reasonable to let the definitions and synonyms stand for themselves. All I have done is to provide definitions from two different sources (One being your favorite MW) and let them stand.
"Like parables. Exactly like parables."
Or not.
"As to NT Wright's essay I linked to, rather than trying to demonstrate based on your reasoning that Wright's position on the topic is one thing or another, why not just try to find a definitive answer from Wright?"
Actually, I thought I'd use Wright's own words to let he talk speak for itself. I really don;t need to do anything else.
"Regardless, I'm not especially interested in Wright's position. Given what I've read of his position, I expect that he does not take the Genesis stories as literal history, but I could be mistaken. Either way, it is fine with me."
Really, then why would you link to his piece to support your opinion? Why would you not actually read the entire piece? Why would you choose this one link as your only support for your position? Why would you use a piece about which you do not care to provide support for your hunch?
"As long as he's not saying "those who believe that Genesis is mythic are factually mistaken and morally wrong to believe it..." and I do not believe he is."
So, you do a cursory google search, find a piece which you don;t read, brandish it as if it supports your position, then when it becomes possible that it does not do what you thought, move the goal posts.
Look, you have a couple of choices.
You can admit that you didn't actually read the entire piece and chose to assume it said something that it didn't.
You can pretend that you really didn't intend for it to support your hunch. Which would mean that you would have to explain what you thought it would prove and how you thought it would help your hunch.
You can wait as I post using Wright's actual words from the piece you proffered as support, and then proceed to try to explain why they don't really mean what they say.
Honestly, if you'd just admit you overreached I wouldn't have to actually do any more work on this. But it might be more fun to see you dodge and try to twist his words.
Or, you can just ignore this, as you've done before.
Your call.
"A very good article worth reading. I am not alone in this."
So, it would seem that when you posted the link, you did care about what Wright said. You cared enough to presume that he agreed with your position.
"And, Craig, unlike your source pointing to multiple books, Wright sums up the problem with "biblical authority" on a freely viewable page and explains, very well, the problems in text that can be read in just a few minutes."
Unfortunately, you chose not to actually invest the few minutes to read the entire thing.
"I'd be interested to know where you think Wright has gone wrong (Ah! See what I did there?!), if you think that is the case."
If I proceed with this series, I guess you just might find out. Although I suspect that you will find plenty wrong with Wrights piece.
No Craig, I expecr what I'll find out is that your opinions of the meanings of Wright's commentary will differ from my opinions of the meanings of his commentary sometimes, sorta like we do with the Bible.
Just like you appear to hold different interpretations of the definitions of words than I do.
All I have done is to provide definitions from two different sources (One being your favorite MW) and let them stand.
You did not let them stand. You offered an extradictionary-al opinion, that they myths do not contain Truth. You are welcome to your opinion, but that is literally NOT what the definitions say. Not one of the definitions. That is your spin. Which is fine, I'm just noting that you're not simply letting them stand, you're adding a spin on them.
"Like parables. Exactly like parables."
Or not.
Does too! So, nyaa.
"Or not..." good rebuttal.
Why would you not actually read the entire piece? Why would you choose this one link as your only support for your position?
Craig, if you don't want people to call you on your BS, or to name your BS as BS, don't offer up BS. As a point of fact, I did read the entire article.
And as a point of fact, I explained why I offered the link: BECAUSE he was asking some of the same reasonable questions I am asking. NOT as support for my position, although, contrary to your hunches, I think Wright probably does come closer to agreeing with me on this, for what it's worth.
DT
"No Craig, I expecr what I'll find out is that your opinions of the meanings of Wright's commentary will differ from my opinions of the meanings of his commentary sometimes, sorta like we do with the Bible."
So, you are now saying that not only can we not understand the clear text of scripture for what it clearly says, but we can't understand the clear text of N.T. Wright.
This presumption is especially bizarre since you are basing it on something that I haven't actually written.
You've already dismissed anything that the other blogger might say as being a re-hash of something you heard 20 years ago. Now you're prepared to dismiss what I might offer from the Wright piece, before it even exists.
"You did not let them stand."
Except, I did. The dictionary definitions are there to read. You can see that the words used to describe myth are words that do not describe stories of fact. This may not fit your definition, but simply pointing out the actual words the dictionary uses isn't spinning anything.
"Craig, if you don't want people to call you on your BS, or to name your BS as BS, don't offer up BS. As a point of fact, I did read the entire article."
Then if you did read the entire piece (It's actually a transcript of a talk not technically an article), then you obviously missed the significant sections where he explicitly disagrees with your hunch. What is to be concluded from you offering a piece that you claim supports your position, when it doesn't actually support your position.
"And as a point of fact, I explained why I offered the link: BECAUSE he was asking some of the same reasonable questions I am asking."
Of course, the difference between the two of you is that he is providing answers to the questions asked, and ultimately arguing for a (what he believes to be) "proper" use of Biblical authority. He is not offering a rationale for abandoning the concept. You deny that the concept of Biblical authority even is a reasonable one, Wright argues for a way to look at Biblical authority that maintains the spirit of the term while as well as the application which doesn't succumb to the pitfalls of other efforts.
"I think Wright probably does come closer to agreeing with me on this, for what it's worth."
So, you didn't offer this as support for your position, except you are still confident that it does.
It's things like that that make me wonder if you read it.
Of course, you probably have by now, as it's become an issue.
you are now saying that not only can we not understand the clear text of scripture for what it clearly says, but we can't understand the clear text of N.T. Wright.
To be clear: I, for one, don't think I'm having any trouble understanding the Bible or Wright.
"To be clear: I, for one, don't think I'm having any trouble understanding the Bible or Wright."
So, you are suggesting that you correctly understand what both Wright and the Bible are saying?
"...your opinions of the meanings of Wright's commentary will differ from my opinions of the meanings of his commentary..."
So, you are suggesting that the only option is that there is an "understanding" of what people say. I am suggesting that I can and will demonstrate from the piece you linked to, using Wrights own words, that your use of the Wright piece does not support your hunch.
We're back to you having no support for your position other than your opinion.
Points that Wright makes in the referenced article with which I agree...
1. Speaking of "We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends...," Wright notes...
First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort.
This is simply naïve,
and actually astonishingly arrogant
and dangerous.
I agree with that point.
He continues...
2. Biblical Authority: the Problem
When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation.
'Authority’ is the place where we go to find out the correct answers to key questions such as these.
This notion, however, runs into all kinds of problems when we apply it to the Bible.
Is that really what the Bible is for?
Is it there to control the church?
Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?
The implied answer in these rhetorical questions is, "No," or so it seems to me. Thus "the problem" to which Wright refers.
In fact, he goes on...
3. As we read the Bible we discover that the answer to these questions seems in fact to be ‘no’.
Most of the Bible does not consist of rules and regulations—lists of commands to be obeyed. Nor does it consist of creeds—lists of things to be believed. And often, when there ARE lists of rules or of creedal statements, they seem to be somewhat incidental to the purpose of the writing in question.
One might even say, in one (admittedly limited) sense, that there is no biblical doctrine of the authority of the Bible.
The only place I disagree there is with his "admittedly limited..." caveat. As a point of fact, there is NO "biblical doctrine" that points to the "authority of the Bible." It simply isn't there, not directly.
Do some people infer that conclusion, extrapolate out that idea, beyond what the Bible actually says? Sure, but that doesn't mean the Bible insists upon it, and I would say it clearly doesn't, not in the pages of the Bible...
Continuing with where I agree, Wright states...
There are, of course, key passages, especially at transition moments like 2 Timothy or 2 Peter, where the writers are concerned that the church of the next generation should be properly founded and based. At precisely such points we find statements emerging about the place of scripture within the life of the church.
But such a doctrine usually has to be inferred.
It may well be possible to infer it, but it is not (for instance) what Isaiah or Paul are talking about. Nor is it, for the most part, what Jesus is talking about in the gospels. He isn’t constantly saying, ‘What about scripture? What about scripture?’ It is there sometimes, but it is not the central thing that we have sometimes made it.
He goes on to make many more points with which I agree, and reaches down to this paragraph...
The problem with all such solutions as to how to use the Bible is that they belittle the Bible and exalt something else. Basically they imply—and this is what I mean when I say that they offer too low a view of scripture—that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book and it is our job to turn it into the right sort of book by engaging in these hermeneutical moves, translation procedures or whatever.
which is not really hooked into our world at all
Thus, he is saying, God can't be reckoned with, reasoned to and understood aright in the context of the greater world at large or in our own reasoning, no, we must shun that and look to particular understandings of this ancient text which we consider sacred... it is a belittling of God and a misuse of Scripture. Again, points with which I agree and that I've made repeatedly.
Do you see thus far that Wright is indeed speaking of points that are rational and dear to my heart and important to my understanding? Do you see why I would post these well-rendered thoughts?
More...
(Sorry, I left out my number "4." in the previous - I'm just numbering the points as a way of helping identify what I'm speaking of...)
He continues in the second half of his commentary...
5. I want to suggest that scripture’s own view of authority focuses on the authority of God himself.
A point you and I agree upon.
6. If we think for a moment what we are actually saying when we use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’, we must surely acknowledge that this is a shorthand way of saying that, though authority belongs to God, God has somehow invested this authority in scripture. And that is a complex claim...
Authority is not the power to control people, and crush them, and keep them in little boxes. The church often tries to do that—to tidy people up.
Nor is the Bible as the vehicle of God’s authority meant to be information for the legalist.
This gets to my point of treating the Bible like a rule book or a "rulings book," where we simply need to compare rules and words to get the right ruling on how to behave.
more...
7. How does God exercise that authority? Again and again, in the biblical story itself we see that he does so through human agents anointed and equipped by the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is not "the primary authority" in the Bible, it is God and God exercises that authority through human community, by and large. Through the fallen, flawed and fallible human followers.
Again, a point I agree with (and probably you, as well). Humans who did what? I'd further ask. Humans who used their God-given reasoning to strive by God's grace to follow God's Way.
He continues...
8. And how much more must we say of Jesus. Jesus the great prophet; Jesus who rules from the cross in judgement and love; Jesus who says: all authority is given to me, so you go and get on with the job. I hope the irony of that has not escaped you. So too in Acts 1, we find: God has all authority . . . so that you will receive power.
Again, the irony.
How can we resolve that irony? By holding firmly to what the New Testament gives us, which is the strong theology of the authoritative Holy Spirit.
Jesus’ people are to be the anointed ones through whom God still works authoritatively.
Fallible, fallen, flawed followers. Using their reasoning, led by the Spirit, following God as best they know how. There is the authority, Wright is saying at this point...
9. Thus it is that through the spoken and written authority of anointed human beings God brings his authority to bear on his people and his world.
Thus far, we have looked at what the Bible says about how God exercises his judging and saving authority. And it includes (the point with which in fact we began) the delegation of his authority, in some sense, to certain writings. But this leads us to more questions.
In some sense, yes, but in a "rulings book" approach to the Bible? I think Wright is arguing precisely against that.
But I'm out of time for now. I'm still not seeing much that I disagree with or that doesn't fit in with my actual points.
If you think it does, perhaps it's the case that you are not understanding my actual points/positions?
In re-reading it, I'm just not seeing where you think I might disagree with Wright. Again, it makes me wonder if you understand my actual positions.
When I have time, I'll start posting.
Again, WHY do I think Genesis stories are largely mythic? Because they fit the definition (including the one you provided) of myth:
a usually traditional story...
Check!
of ostensibly historical events...
Check!
...that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people...
Check!
...or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
Check, check and check!
I mean, word for word these stories match the definition of myth... on what basis, then, would we NOT consider them mythic?
And that IS evidence, support.
"Q: In what sense do you mean to call that sandwich a 'hamburger...'"
"A: Because the definition of 'hamburger' is a slab of ground beef between two slices of a bun...' it is a hamburger, by definition... why wouldn't I call it a hamburger??"
Pointing out that an item/idea meets the very definition of a word is providing support, so really, Craig, what do you want by way of support more than "it fits the very definition of the word..."?
"Craig, what do you want by way of support more than "it fits the very definition of the word..."?"
I keep asking for some sort of actual evidence, you know like people who study these kinds of things who say "Genesis is myth" or whatever.
If you point is that you can pull some phrases from the definition to make your point, then it seems you have to accept the entire definition. So, you are also suggesting that if "it fits the very definition of the word...", that the OT histories are also;
"not true"
"invented story"
" fabrication"
"fantasy"
"fiction"
"figment"
"invention"
So, you can either have the entire definition or you need to stop suggesting that I am wrong to use words like "fiction" etc.
Look, I know that you have your hunch, and that you are committed to it. I even have a strong suspicion why, you have this hunch.
But, for this thread, I'm going to just be done.
When I get time I'll start posting the Wright stuff, but this is done.
If you point is that you can pull some phrases from the definition to make your point, then it seems you have to accept the entire definition.
That's not how definitions work, Craig.
God: Noun - MW
God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
Are you saying that you can't have your understanding of God unless it also includes a man who is greatly loved or admired?
Or do you recognize that, with definitions, there are often different senses or uses of the word and they don't all always apply?
That is how dictionaries work.
You're welcome.
I know that you have your hunch, and that you are committed to it. I even have a strong suspicion why, you have this hunch.
Yes, we both have our hunches. What of it?
And what is with the innuendo? Your "strong suspicion..."? If you want to say something, man, say it and be prepared to defend it, don't just imply something, it makes you appear weasly and spineless.
Say it or don't.
Sound reasonable?
Dan,
Unlike you, I have learned that it is not wise to engage in amateur psychoanalysis. So, while I have opinions as to why you have chosen to believe the things you believe, they are just that. I see no reason to simply engage is a conversation where I say, "It appears that you believe X for Y reason.", and you respond with "No I don't". It seems pointless. So, I will not go there. Feel free to continue to taunt and goad if it helps, but I think that, at least in this case, self control is a better option.
So, as far as I am concerned, were done here.
When I feel inspired and have time I'll start with N.T.
Again, WHY do I think Gospel's stories about Jesus are largely mythic? Because they fit the definition (including the one you provided) of myth:
a usually traditional story...
Check!
of ostensibly historical events...
Check!
...that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people...
Check!
...or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
And since the whole era of "modern history" telling (500BC-500AD)certainly is at least 400 years from being started, it makes perfect sense to read them as myth.
Of course we can provide some academic support for this as well.
German theologian David Friedrich Strauss. "While not denying that Jesus existed, he did argue that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical retellings of normal events as supernatural happenings. According to Strauss, the early church developed these miracle stories to present Jesus as a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies of what the Messiah would be like. This rationalist perspective was in direct opposition to the supernaturalist view that the bible was accurate both historically and spiritually."
Or
"In 2012, the Irish Dominican priest and theologian Thomas L. Brodie, holding a PhD from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick published Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. In this book, Brodie, who previously had published academic works on the Hebrew prophets, argued that the gospels are essentially a rewriting of the stories of Elijah and Elisha when viewed as a unified account in the Books of Kings. This view lead Brodie to the conclusion that Jesus is mythical."
So, it would seem that the position that the OT histories are myth while that gospels are not is virtually the same argument.
It would seem that it is just an arbitrary subjective decision to brand one myth and one mot.
One key difference is that the NT stories DO fall in the time period where stories were beginning to be told in the modern sense and they read like that. Luke begins his books with "Here, I'm laying out what happened..." for instance.
Additionally, there is more hard evidence to support there being an actual Jesus who actually had a following of believers and who was actually executed, so we have more hard data on which to form an opinion.
It all gets back to genre, literary devices and what is and isn't rational.
If you think the creation story or the tower of Babel sound like real history, go for it, believe it as real literal history.
I simply disagree with your opinion and believe that there is much more sound rational and hard data on which to make my case than there is for yours, but I have no problem at all if you want to believe it. Just don't insist that it is the only way for Bible believers to believe those ancient texts.
"I simply disagree with your opinion and believe that there is much more sound rational and hard data on which to make my case than there is for yours..."
OK, then let's see some hard data.
I'm just saying that your use of the 1000 year window for "modern history, seems a bit subjective and intended to support your position, rather than some actual evidence that can be provided.
You'll have to take that up with historians and scholars, friend.
"You'll have to take that up with historians and scholars, friend."
Please, by all means, provide some. I've done quite a bit of research and haven't been able to find anyone who will definitively date the advent of accurate history. Although I have found (and cited for you elsewhere) instances of accurate historical records from before 500 BC.
But, I know I've asked before, please provide me with the overwhelming scholarship that exists that is definitive on this issue. I'd be thrilled to se it.
Post a Comment