aa5874

Well, what part of the lump is not mythical? Is it being the son of the holy ghost, is it the incident where Jesus was put on the roof top of the Temple by the Devil and asked to jump, the raising of a four day old dead, his transfiguration, his resurrection or ascension?

But, upon reflection you may be right, the Bible appears to be part myth and part fiction, to be honest.

figuer

It has already been explained that the concept of a mythological collection includes stories and legends about heroes and ancestors , specially if they operate within a larger context of a collection (such as the Bible) that is completely mythocentric in character. Why would the genealogies of mythological characters like Noah, Abraham, David or Jesus be excluded from the mythology?

As I have previously indicated, the point isn't that every single component of the Bible is being defined as a standard myth. The point is that the Bible as whole has a mythological purpose, and is perceived as a whole as a mythological object (the true, inspired word of a god). Those sections contained which have a low mythic value operate as complements and buttresses to the overtly mythical parts. Their inclusion would represent simply the maintenance of the historical integrity of a book which by itself is a mythic entity.

But I repeat, I am inclined towards a shortened compendium, whose basic structure I already have delineated in two previous post (Ruth for example could easily be excluded).

David

For what it's worth,

The late Dr. Joseph Campbell, perhaps the most well known scholar in the area of myth, frequently referred to the bible as mythology in his books, television appearances, and articles. Here is a short excerpt from an interview with Tom Collins:


Tom: I gather you're not terribly fond of the Bible.

Joseph: Not at all! It's the most over-advertised book in the world. It's very pretentious to claim it to be the word of God, or accept it as such and perpetuate this tribal mythology, justifying all kinds of violence to people who are not members of the tribe.

The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a certain people at a certain time. The Christians magnified it to include them. It then turns this society against all others, whereas the condition of the world today is that this particular society that's presented in the Bible isn't even the most important. This thing is like a dead weight. It's pulling us back because it belongs to an earlier period. We can't break loose and move into a modern theology.

One of the great promises of mythology is, with what social group do you identify? How about the planet? To say that the members of this particular social group are the elite of God's world is a good way to keep that group together, but look at the consequences! I think that what might be called the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is one of the curses of the planet today.

Tom: There's a lot of interesting material in the Old Testament, isn't there? For instance, it says that God created everything except the water.

Joseph: You've put your finger on it. The water I is the goddess. You see, what happens in the Old Testament is that the masculine principle remains personified and the female principle is reduced to an element. The first verse says when God created, the breath of God brooded over the waters. And the water is the goddess.

Tom: I assume you don't believe in an actual, literal seven days of creation.

Joseph: Of course not. That has nothing to do with the actual evolutionary story as we now get it.

Tom: How do you reconcile these two accounts?

Joseph: Why should one bother to, any more than you would try to reconcile the Navajo story?

Tom: I remember hearing a wonderful lecture by the late Louis Leakey in which he insisted that there was no conflict between the Genesis account of creation and what he had discovered.

Joseph: Well, it is in conflict because he didn't read it carefully enough. There are two Biblical accounts, one in the first chapter and one in the second, and they're quite contrary to each other.

It's about time we stopped feeling that we have to believe in the Bible. I'd just as soon try to work out the Navajo thing, where they come up through four worlds. One is red, one yellow . . .

Tom: But if you throw out the Bible as history, don't you also throw it out as a moral imperative?

Joseph: Yes. I don't think the Bible is anybody's moral imperative, unless you want to be a traditional Jew. That's what the Bible tells you.

Tom: Doesn't it tell you how to be a good person?

Joseph: No.

Tom: Lots of people think so.

Joseph: Just read the thing. Maybe it gives you a few hints, but the Bible also tells you to kill everyone in Canaan, right down to the mice.

SOURCE to copyrighted material

Chris Weimer

I smell shifting goalposts here. Perhaps it'd be best to remind certain users to actually read what I initially wrote:

I daresay, I said that there was mythology in the Bible! figuer was trying to claim that anything which interacted with mythology automatically became mythology. For example, the book of Jeremiah has no mythological narrative to it, yet since he refers to God, it is de facto myth. I called bullshit and provided a definition. Anyone who actually read the entire thread would have known that.

But if certain users want to create a strawman and think I said that there was no mythology in the Bible, I guess I can't help that delusion.

And please, will people stop referencing Joseph Campbell. His work isn't all that great, to begin with, being well outside mainstream, and is highly influenced by his incessant parallelomania.

And to take a generalized quote for an interview (a non-scholarly publication) and pretend that it's his formal position is downright disingenuous.

David

Back off <edit>,

All I did was post a quote from a well known scholar that seems to contradict what a number of people have posted here. It doesn't mean he's right and they're wrong it's just something else to consider/discuss for everyone reading. As for Campbell's formal position, feel free to provide examples if it differs from what he said above, but until then I will assume he knows what he believes and can articulate to that effect in an interview.

Chris Weimer

Until you provide a source outlining his formal position, everyone should remain skeptical of this informal interview having any value in this discussion.

khalimirov

The Bible as a whole a myth? :rolling: Yeah, sure there are some mythical stories in the Bible, but calling the entire bible mythical is absurd. The genre of each book gets debated. Hey, for your project you might also want to include all Jewish and Christian non-canonical books. Why stop at the Bible? It is after all, just a collection of (extremely diverse) books. Don't forget about the Gnostic Gospels and all that other stuff. Just lump it all together and call it all mythical.

openlyatheist

I've always theorized that the reason The Bible is just called "The Bible," meaning "The Book," is that no one could ever figure out WHAT genre it should be put into. What else would you call a book that has practically every type of genre contained in it?

figuer

Well said.You are mistaken. I affirm that any section of a narrative whose purpose is describing and upholding a general mythological world view, constitutes a part of that particular mythological collection.
Lets see:

Jeremiah I; 7: But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. 8: ... for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah XIV; 11: Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law;

Now do the following exercise, substituing 'Zeus' for 'the Lord':

But Zeus said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I Zeus shall send thee,...for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith Zeus.

Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith Zeus, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law;

Describing the actions of a god (like speaking), is mythological, but that is not the main point. The important thing is that this book operates within the context of a broader mythological world-view, describing the consequences for "the chosen people" (a myth), of disobeying their God (a myth), and is narrated by a prophet (a mythical character). The book of Jeremiah proposes a supernatural explanation for historical events, which falls within the definition of mythology. You would be more effective if you used more polished language, and adopted dialogue instead of hysterical confrontation as your tactic.Everyone is aware that you provided a definition of myth that applied perfectly to the Bible.You don't get to decide these things. You do get a chance to refute any scholarly quote which you find lacking.

Chris Weimer

No it's not. Why can't you get that through your skull?

Shifted goalposts, yet again. "When you can't beat them, move the goalposts!"

Apparently not, since some users said I pwned you, and other users were sorely mistaken about what I actually said, and in fact when explaining how I was wrong actually agreed with me from the get go, presumably since they were under the false impression that you were actually representing my opinion accurately, instead of giving a strawman. But this is what happens when n00bs don't read the whole thread.

Too bad the quote wasn't a scholarly quote to begin with. It was an informal interview. But that doesn't seem to matter to you.