From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Nature of Myth
Date: 29 Sep 1992 21:21 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BvAz5n.Lzz@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes...
> 
>Why do you think that the words of Genesis were intended by the author to be
>interpreted primarily as actual historical events? Example: When I read that
>Eve was created FROM Adam, I see that as a mythical construct.

Well, I guess it's not as clearly historically-intended as some of the 
rest of the Bible (like the book of Mark or Acts), but I suppose the
genealogical connection from the Adam and Eve of Eden to Abraham
and Moses who were (I think) considered actual historical persons by
the Hebrews gives the sense that the events of the story are viewed
as having taken place by real people at an identifiable time in the
past.   

>>[...]
> 
>Right, it is myth by my definition. But, as for the intention of the authors,
>hmm. If they intended a factual, historical account of the ancient Hebrews,
>it appears to me that they failed much more than they succeeded. That is,
>they let their imaginations run away with themselves. And this free running
>of the imagination is the source of myth. Why do you think that the
>authors did not intend to write a myth? Note that a myth is often based on

Oh, they probably did intend much deeper significance to the story than
just "historical reporting";  the story describes the origin of Mankind,
the origin of Evil and its nature, etc.  But I thought the "literal
historical narrative" aspect also came through loud and clear (IMO).

>actual historical account and often contains historical fact, but myth
>writers are never constrained by having to stick to the facts or make clear
>when they are only speculating.

Sure, OK.

>>I don't think this supports the idea that the story was intended to
>>be read as myth since it is not clear that its author considered the
>>literal reading of the story to be untrue.
> 
>But, in Genesis, it says that Eve was created FROM Adam. How can that be
>literal? I guess the way I look at it is that if the authors were trying to
>write a factual, historically accurate account, they failed. But if they
>were trying to write myth, then they did quite well, certainly one of the
>top ten myths.

Maybe I have seen too many special effects in movies, but I don't see 
why the authors who believed in an active, omnipotent deity couldn't
themselves envision the literal formation of Eve from a rib of Adam.
But I suppose your question could be posed, "WHY would the authors have
thought such an event literally happened EXCEPT for its mythical 
significance?"  (The wording of that is a little ambiguous but I'll
let you interpret it however you like. :-)  

Anyway, all this depends on WHOM exactly we consider to be the authors
of the Eden story:  the originators of the (Sumerian?) creation story
from which it was derived, or the last editors of the book of Genesis
as we have it today, or someone else?  A moot point, probably.  Also
what the authors knew, believed, or intended is now difficult or
impossible to determine, making many of my assumptions irrelevant.  :-)

I feel I have made the point I was trying to (clarification of the 
possible ways of interpreting myth), and I would be happy to let
this discussion draw to a close, if you want.  You seem to be keeping
busy on other threads and newsgroups!!

**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17182 alt.atheism:18034