Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 11-19-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Mathetes
Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is so.

And evidence to support your assertion that "I do not think anybody thought the flood to be metaphorical"? Note that such exclusive claims are virtually impossible to support - it's quite reasonable to believe that someone if not many people in the distant past recognized the flood story (and other such stories) as myth and not necessarily literal history. (I'm not arguing that many people in the past interpreted the myths as literal history, or even that some mythforgers didn't intend their myths to be accepted as literal history by their audiences).

If this was the intent, it has failed miserably: the history of Christianity is full of examples where the literal interpretation has been defended at all costs.

I'm not arguing that the Flood story hasn't been (wrongly) interpreted literally for most of Christian history. But failure of the intent does not disprove the intent.

Not only geocentrism and evolution. In our century hundreds of thousands of Americans defend that the flood indeed happened, and that a metaphorical reading is erroneous.

Again, I'm not arguing that that's not the case. That doesn't indicate that the originators of the myths, and perhaps many other individuals in the past, didn't originally recognize myth as myth.

I've been dabbling around studying mythology for a year or so now, and from what I've read so far, many if not most mythologists (those who study mythology for a living) would agree that the mythforgers (and their people) did not necessarily subscribe to or intend a "literal" interpretation of the myths. The metaphorical interpretation, "truth", or purpose of a myth was generally considered to be more important than a literal translation. Many myths were stories with metaphorical content ("truths", if you will) that were created and handed down with the primary intent of teaching those metaphorical "truths", rather than teaching literal history, to the listener or reader. The fact that many people today (or even in the past) have mistakenly taken the intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history does not change that. (That (that people see the primary intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history) in itself, is a bit of a myth

)

In other words, I believe my argument agrees with the consensus of our scholarly understanding of mythology. I'll admit that's a bit of an argument from authority, but there it is nonetheless.

Doctor X · 11-19-2003, 12:10 PM

Mathetes:

Quote:

I did not understand your example about the repeated "breads and fish" miracle.

Ye have ears . . . but you do not see. . . .

Here, with a faster connection:

Quote:

And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, "This is a lonely place, and the hour is now late; 36 send them away, to go into the country and villages round about and buy themselves something to eat." 37 But he answered them, "You give them something to eat." And they said to him, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?" 38 And he said to them, "How many loaves have you? Go and see." And when they had found out, they said, "Five, and two fish." 39 Then he commanded them all to sit down by companies upon the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. 41 And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. 42 And they all ate and were satisfied. 43 And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. 44 And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.

RSV Mk 6:35-44

now, a page later . . . after Junior tries to ignore his disciples trouble:

Quote:

47 And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 48 And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, 49

RSV Mk 6:47-48

. . . nice guy . . . we have:

Quote:

1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him, and said to them, 2 "I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; 3 and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come a long way." 4 And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?" 5 And he asked them, "How many loaves have you?" They said, "Seven." 6 And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. 7 And they had a few small fish; and having blessed them, he commanded that these also should be set before them. 8 And they ate, and were satisfied; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 9 And there were about four thousand people. . . . 14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. . . . 16 And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread." 17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve." 20 "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven." 21 And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?"

RSV Mk 8:1-21

The second highlights the cluelessness of the disciples. This seems quite intentional on the part of the author.

As for whether or not the OT writers believed in the truth of the myth . . . well, the redactor who combined the J with the P version of creation had to have known the discrepencies--same with the Flood Myth. Now, did the the authors of the individual stories believe in them literarly? I am not convinced because the narrative has too much of a literary flavor--generic "man" and "woman" upon which you can render puns. A god that has to wander about the garden looking for people. A god that has to ask what happened to Abel. This seems to me just part of another "just-so-story."

runnerryan:

Quote:

How does this prove an evil deity or that sin is punished in a disproportinate manner? Serious sins deserve serious consequences.

What sin did an infant commit that justified its drowning?

--J.D.

11-19-2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathetes
I think if would help the discussion if you could explain why God chooses to tell us fairy tales instead of telling the simple truth. (Fairy tales that look disturbingly similar to other civilizations' myths.) And why subsequent religious figures take these fairy tales as truth.

Because you won't believe the simple truth or you would believe the fairy tale which is an accurate description for this particular non rational event. The only reason why people are misled by the words is because they are borrowed from conventional (rational) language to describe the details of the event.

The reason why they are similar is because the events described are archetypal, native to man and therefore beyond theology.

Subsequent religious figures agree with them because they are such a wonderful description of the event. In other words they went through them and agreed in retrospect.

Would you feel better if you were told that the flood story explains the the metaphysics of menopause? Meno here is the Greek for " I remain" as in "I become eternal" and so the flood is the period of time when we are most likely to gain eternal life.

Adora · 11-19-2003, 10:54 PM

Amos: Do you have some sources I could access on that one? I'm always interested in the symbolism of such things, and would be forever in debt to you if you could suggest some books, urls, journals where I could find such information.

As for the topic, if you don't know the meaning of Context, you should not be allowed to read anything.

11-20-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adora
Amos: Do you have some sources I could access on that one? I'm always interested in the symbolism of such things, and would be forever in debt to you if you could suggest some books, urls, journals where I could find such information.

Sorry Adora I would love to but I can't. I am not much of reader myself and I think it is more from the way I read things or perceive them in every day life. But you right, symbolism is interesting and maybe that is where literate comes alive in the mind of the reader who so becomes a particpant in the story.

runnerryan · 11-20-2003, 10:35 AM

Mageth you wrote

"The metaphorical interpretation, "truth", or purpose of a myth was generally considered to be more important than a literal translation. Many myths were stories with metaphorical content ("truths", if you will) that were created and handed down with the primary intent of teaching those metaphorical "truths", rather than teaching literal history, to the listener or reader. The fact that many people today (or even in the past) have mistakenly taken the intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history does not change that. (That (that people see the primary intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history) in itself, is a bit of a myth )"

Great point. This makes me ask, what exactly have you and I been arguing about? This is pretty much the point I have been trying to get across.

Mageth · 11-20-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by runnerryan
Great point. This makes me ask, what exactly have you and I been arguing about? This is pretty much the point I have been trying to get across.

Well, I don't think you and I have been arguing much about the "big stuff" on this thread. All I can see is that I disagreed that the interpretation you gave for the flood myth was a metaphorical interpretation. No big deal, really.

Doctor X · 11-20-2003, 02:12 PM

Okay . . . Group Hug everyone!!

Seriously, I do wonder if the writers of the Flood Myth did not consider it rather metaphorical in that they rewrote an earlier myth. Did they intend it to be a real as in "scientific" explanation, or did they just like the "message?" Of course, some of us have groused at this "message," but we cannot retroject our disgust back to the writers.

Did they "incorporate" a popular myth? Were they like Christians who did not "believe" in a pagan holiday but were happy to take it over--"yeah, that was they day His horse got gelded! Yeah!"

Or was it just a mythunderstanding? HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . Ha! . . . Ha . . . heh?

--J.D.

Mathetes · 11-20-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
And evidence to support your assertion that "I do not think anybody thought the flood to be metaphorical"?

Hey, of course I cannot prove that nobody thought that. But if I can show you some evidence that whenever Scripture quotes itself it is taken as literally, this is a good argument for my case. Would we agree?

The author of Exodus believed that Abraham and Isaac had indeed existed (Exodus 32:13):

Quote:

Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.'

The Chronicler believed that Moses had been real (1 Chronicles 15:15):

Quote:

And the Levites carried the ark of God with the poles on their shoulders, as Moses had commanded in accordance with the word of the LORD .

...as did Daniel (Daniel 9:13):

Quote:

Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth.

Isaiah believed in the "impossible" flood (Isaiah 54:9):

Quote:

"To me this is like the days of Noah,
when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you,
never to rebuke you again.

...in Abraham (Isaiah 29:22):

Quote:

Therefore this is what the LORD , who redeemed Abraham, says to the house of Jacob: "No longer will Jacob be ashamed; no longer will their faces grow pale.

...and in Moses (Isaiah 63:11):

Quote:

Then his people recalled the days of old,
the days of Moses and his people-
where is he who brought them through the sea,
with the shepherd of his flock?
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,

Ezekiel believed in Job, and even I would admit that Job looks like a metaphorical story (Ezekiel 14:20):

Quote:

as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.

As mentioned before, Jesus believed in Noah. He does not seem to be taking the flood very metaphorically in Matthew 24:38:

Quote:

For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

He also believed in Jonah and the fish (Matthew 12:40):

Quote:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

...and in king David - well, maybe kind David was somewhat historical (Mark 2:25):

Quote:

He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?

Peter (or whoever wrote 2 Peter) believed in Balaam's prodigious donkey (2 Peter 2:15-16)!:

Quote:

They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey-
-a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

Is there anywhere in the Bible where an old story is recounted, with a warning like "you know, this did not really happened, but it is intended to show us a deeper truth about God, etc."? That would destroy my case.

I can think of another hint that the first books in the Bible are intended to be taken literally: the genealogies. What is the point of running pages and pages of "Methuselah begat Zorobabel", if they are not intended to be taken as history? Where is the metaphore?

Quote:

Many myths were stories with metaphorical content ("truths", if you will) that were created and handed down with the primary intent of teaching those metaphorical "truths", rather than teaching literal history, to the listener or reader.

(skip)

In other words, I believe my argument agrees with the consensus of our scholarly understanding of mythology. I'll admit that's a bit of an argument from authority, but there it is nonetheless.

Since it is a self-confessed argument from authority, could you give some references/quotes?

Mathetes · 11-20-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Mathetes:
Ye have ears . . . but you do not see. . . .

Thanks for taking the time for the lengthy explanation, didaskale.

Quote:

I am not convinced because the narrative has too much of a literary flavor--generic "man" and "woman" upon which you can render puns. A god that has to wander about the garden looking for people. A god that has to ask what happened to Abel. This seems to me just part of another "just-so-story."

I agree that both this and your explanation from Mark seem like literally construction. My own feeling is that the authors were providing some "ornamentation" to a pre-existing story.

Mark's Passion narrative also seems constructed... Too many dramatic elements put together (the Last Supper, Jesus prayer, Peter's denial...). But was it intended to be taken as a construction or not? I, personally, do not think so. It was meant to be taken literally.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2003, 11:46 AM	#51
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Mathetes Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is so. And evidence to support your assertion that "I do not think anybody thought the flood to be metaphorical"? Note that such exclusive claims are virtually impossible to support - it's quite reasonable to believe that someone if not many people in the distant past recognized the flood story (and other such stories) as myth and not necessarily literal history. (I'm not arguing that many people in the past interpreted the myths as literal history, or even that some mythforgers didn't intend their myths to be accepted as literal history by their audiences). If this was the intent, it has failed miserably: the history of Christianity is full of examples where the literal interpretation has been defended at all costs. I'm not arguing that the Flood story hasn't been (wrongly) interpreted literally for most of Christian history. But failure of the intent does not disprove the intent. Not only geocentrism and evolution. In our century hundreds of thousands of Americans defend that the flood indeed happened, and that a metaphorical reading is erroneous. Again, I'm not arguing that that's not the case. That doesn't indicate that the originators of the myths, and perhaps many other individuals in the past, didn't originally recognize myth as myth. I've been dabbling around studying mythology for a year or so now, and from what I've read so far, many if not most mythologists (those who study mythology for a living) would agree that the mythforgers (and their people) did not necessarily subscribe to or intend a "literal" interpretation of the myths. The metaphorical interpretation, "truth", or purpose of a myth was generally considered to be more important than a literal translation. Many myths were stories with metaphorical content ("truths", if you will) that were created and handed down with the primary intent of teaching those metaphorical "truths", rather than teaching literal history, to the listener or reader. The fact that many people today (or even in the past) have mistakenly taken the intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history does not change that. (That (that people see the primary intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history) in itself, is a bit of a myth ) In other words, I believe my argument agrees with the consensus of our scholarly understanding of mythology. I'll admit that's a bit of an argument from authority, but there it is nonetheless.

11-19-2003, 10:54 PM	#54
Adora Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,743	Amos: Do you have some sources I could access on that one? I'm always interested in the symbolism of such things, and would be forever in debt to you if you could suggest some books, urls, journals where I could find such information. As for the topic, if you don't know the meaning of Context, you should not be allowed to read anything.

11-20-2003, 10:35 AM	#56
runnerryan Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mundelein, IL Posts: 23	Mageth you wrote "The metaphorical interpretation, "truth", or purpose of a myth was generally considered to be more important than a literal translation. Many myths were stories with metaphorical content ("truths", if you will) that were created and handed down with the primary intent of teaching those metaphorical "truths", rather than teaching literal history, to the listener or reader. The fact that many people today (or even in the past) have mistakenly taken the intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history does not change that. (That (that people see the primary intent of the myths to be as recording a literal history) in itself, is a bit of a myth )" Great point. This makes me ask, what exactly have you and I been arguing about? This is pretty much the point I have been trying to get across.

11-20-2003, 02:12 PM	#58
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Okay . . . Group Hug everyone!! Seriously, I do wonder if the writers of the Flood Myth did not consider it rather metaphorical in that they rewrote an earlier myth. Did they intend it to be a real as in "scientific" explanation, or did they just like the "message?" Of course, some of us have groused at this "message," but we cannot retroject our disgust back to the writers. Did they "incorporate" a popular myth? Were they like Christians who did not "believe" in a pagan holiday but were happy to take it over--"yeah, that was they day His horse got gelded! Yeah!" Or was it just a mythunderstanding? HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . Ha! . . . Ha . . . heh? --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.