From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Nature of Myth
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:23:55 GMT
	<29SEP199221214657@juliet.caltech.edu>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <29SEP199221214657@juliet.caltech.edu> 
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>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.   

I agree, and this is one of the tricks of myth. By basing a myth on historical
events and people, the author makes the myth more believable. So if you
actually knew Moses and I tell you a myth about Moses, then you are more
likely to listen and think about the myth. But, this is just a trick, right?
Does it really matter to the meaning of the myth whether Moses was an actual
person or not? If it does, why? Is there some need to believe that a myth
is actually historically correct? Why? Why can't myth stand on its own?
Fiction stands on its own, why can't myth?

>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).

Hmm, OK. For me it is a non-issue, or an issue separate from myth.

>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, Eve was a woman, right? Do you know any women who were not born of
their mother? Your comment about special effects is interesting, maybe modern
special effects make anything seem possible thus nothing seems mythical
anymore. Maybe one day scientists will be able to make a woman from the rib
of a man. Will that ruin the myth?

>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. :-)  

Well put. I agree with what I think it means and I agree with what I think
you think it means. This is the "device" or trick I mentioned above, right?
The idea of literal history comes first then once you conceed to that, the
myth comes. There is a connection there, after all myth is different than
fiction and that's why. Myth is often based on historical fact.

>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.  :-)

Right. There were many authors. I wonder if there was a battle between those
who wanted literal history and those who wanted myth? And some context may
help: What we call logic, ie true/false reductionism, is a relatively modern
invention of the Greeks.