Doug brought out a good point in his comment on the first "myth" post. He mentioned just ONE proposed theory about myth. Several theories have developed over time, with the earlier theories now judged to be greatly flawed, and one POPULAR theory so disdained that it's not even worth consideration by anyone in the field! So I thought it might be helpful to give a little background in Theory of Myth. All societies have myth, but they were MOST important in preliterate cultures.
1) Myths are a form of ALLEGORY: Max Muller (1823-1900) Also known as "Solar Mythology Theory" - myths are misunderstood statements about the battle b/w sunlight and darkness. Mythology is a "disease of language", as terms changed meanings people misinterpreted them. Thus, "maiden dawn" came to be seen later as a female deity. Too narrow a theory!
2) Myths are basically AETIOLOGICAL: Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Myth was driven by the same impulse that would later develop into science; myth is basically "primitive" science.
3) Myth is an explanation for RITUAL: Sir James Frazer (1854-1941) [his landmark work was "The Golden Bough"] and The Cambridge School. Myth originiated in primordial religious beliefs common to most human societies. Narratives of myth remain long after the rituals they are based on have disappeared. His methodology collecting world-wide myths was proven to be badly flawed & few scholars today accept his premises...except maybe Scully in X-files! "Mulder, I'm sure it's ritualistic..." ;)
4) The defining character of myth is FUNCTIONALITY: Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) Myth contributes to society by helping to maintain the social system. Its origin is less important than its functionality. He called them "CHARTER MYTHS" - they provided validation for social institutions.
5) Myths tell us the WHY: Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961) said myths are reflections of the human "collective unconscious" and contain archetypes such as the "Earth Mother" or the "Wise Old Man".
5) The popular myth theorist no one but the public takes seriously: Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) Often considered a Jungian, his approach might be better described as METAPHYSICAL. His method depends on gathering examples of narrative similarities in different cultures. The problem is that he is "selective" in choosing the myths that fit his theory and ignoring those that don't... something frowned upon by academics actually trained in the field!
There are lots more, of course, but most today would agree that there is no mono-theory. Personally, I believe there is often a thread of truth buried in myths. There have certainly been plenty of instances, for example, where characters in ancient Near Eastern myths who were thought to be purely fictional actually turned out to have been real people! Corroborating evidence is found, like a "King List", or a treaty between them and another king. Obviously all the fabulous exploits in the myth are accretions and make for a good "story", but it started with a real person, a hero or king. That kind of experience would be true to a particular culture, but I also believe there are cross-cultural myths related to a shared actual event or previous knowledge. [Romans 1] Creation myths and Flood myths would fall into this category. That's MY working theory, anyway, and I find many, many examples the more I study ancient civilizations.
There are some, of course, who would place the Bible in the category of myth. But it seems clear to me that they don't know much about the Bible, literature in general or archaeology at all if they can come to such a conclusion! I would certainly be happy to argue that point with anyone!
4 comments:
The thing that separates the Bible from myth, obvioulsy, is that it is all true. Not just "spiritually", but historically. We've been going through Daniel in Sunday school, and we talked about the apparent discontinuity between the Scripture's account of Nebuchadnezzar and the historical record up until about 50 yrs ago, I think it was 50 yrs ago. The leading opponent to the Bible's detail, and a leading archaeologist (who's name I can't remember) had written at length about how the Bible was wrong, but then, in the course of his own study, found archaeological proof (inscribed dedication "plaques") that Nebuchadnezzar had built much of, if not all of Babylon. You'd figure that as more and more such instances occur, more and more scientists would acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures.
It's so true that at least a great majority of myth have a tickle of truth in them. It makes me wonder where stories like that of King Arthur came from. I was watching 'Braveheart' the other night and your post reminds me of the scene after Wallace was betrayed by the Bruce and the other clans, killed the clan heads, and fled into the mountains; all the while the stories about him grew: "He killed 50 men as if they were 1!,"He killed 100 men!", etc. etc. And then of course, there's the line from the forst battle: "If I were William Wallace, I would consume the enemy with balls of fire from my eyes and lighting from my....," well, those that know the movie know the rest ;). It's like a multi-generational game of telephone.
Also, when reading the Scriptures, it is astounding how soon after the Fall pagan religion and myth come on the scene. It's amazing how quickly and severly sin wreaks havoc on the truth.
I remember that line from Braveheart! ;)Tim could probably hum the background music while someone quotes it. (He really loved the music from that movie.)
One of the coolest discoveries reinforcing a piece of Biblical truth was the discovery of Belshazzar and why he offered to make Daniel the 3rd man in charge of the Babylonian Empire. For years people [OK...the Germans and their "Higher Criticism" which seemed to infect just about every average person] thought the Bible was in error because there was no record of a King Belshazzar. Well...they discovered that Belshazzar was the SON of the Nabonidus, King of Babylon, which is why he could only offer Daniel #3 position... Belshazzar already had #2 spot. It turns out Dad (Nabonidus) had taken a chunk of the army and left the kindgdom, going to northern Arabia, I think it was, leaving his son, Belshazzar, in charge of the Babylonian part of the Kingdom. So there were TWO kings of Babylon when the Persians attacked...which is why Daniel was offered position #3.
Then there was the big thing about the term "politarch" supposedly never having been used in Thessalonica at the time Luke said it was. For years they used that in an attempt to disprove the historicity of the Gospel of Luke. And then they found an inscription from the time of Luke that said "politarch". What do you know? (Acts 17:5-9, translated "rulers of the city", but in Greek it's "politarch".) I've actually gotten to see it in the British Museum in London!
These kind of things happen ALL the time...I could go on and on. Everytime I hear someone say that the Pentateuch was written during the Babylonian captivity, I just smile. If they actually read it, it is plain that it was written by someone more familiar with Egyptian society than Near Eastern - there are Egyptian borrow-words, names of plants that ONLY grow in the Sinai, etc. There's no doubt in my mind that Moses wrote it. It would make an interesting post some time...hmmmm.
Oh...and as for King Arthur...I like the theory about his having been a Roman soldier who stayed behind when the Empire collapsed. I was really pretty excited when I saw the movie - they were pretty historically accurate of the time period... which you don't see much in movies.
I really DO think he was a real local king, but of course a lot was added to his story. Have you read some of the older versions? I used to read quite a bit about this time period, maybe I should reread some of it.
Oh, Ian...You'll like this. I've been reading about the history of Anatolia/Asia Minor for the past year and I just found out that during the Intertestmental Period, Celts from Central Europe migrated into Greece and a number of them were hired as mercenary soldiers by city-states in Anatolia. They created quite a bit of fear and havoc there (reports of big naked blue guys attacking - true barbarians). They ended up settling there and adopting the culture - they are the ethnic Galatians! I'm telling you...those Celts ended up everywhere! ;)
I just got the Jan./Feb. issue of "Biblical Archaeology Review" and what do I see? An article about how the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar helps to establish the veracity of the deeds of Solomon recorded in the Bible. There's a really good picture of a cuneiform cylinder [used as foundation deposits under the corners of temples, recording the deeds of the ruler who had the temple built] on page 53. It describes the three palaces (including the one in the city of Babylon) which Nebuchadnezzar built for himself - verifying the text in Daniel 4:30 which states Nebuchadnezzar built the palace in the city of Babylon. Ian, if you have access to a copy of the magaizine in the school library you ought to read the article!
Post a Comment