figuer

Yes it did, and very overwhelmingly so.

Here, I repeat the quote, in bold those parts that undoubtedly are applicable to the Bible:

Myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are accepted on faith; they are taught to be believed; and they can be cited as authority in answer to ignorance, doubt, or disbelief. Myths are the embodiment of dogma; they are usually sacred; and they are often associated with theology and ritual. Their main characters are not usually human beings, but they often have human attributes; they are animals, deities, or culture heroes, whose actions are set in an earlier world, when the earth was different from what it is today, or in another world such as the sky or underworld. Myths account for the origin or the world, or mankind, of death, or for characteristics of birds, animals, geographical features, and the phenomena of nature. They may recount the activities of the deities, their love affairs, their family relationships, their friendships and enmities, their victories and defeats. They may purport to "explain" details of ceremonial paraphernalia or ritual, or why tabus must be observed, but such etiological elements are not confined to myths.


They aren't, no one has claimed them to be.

I certainly agree they don't, and have previously said so (read my previous post where I mention their exclusion from a proposed compendium), although not because they are not narratives, but because of their content. You are mistaken, my case has been amply proved. Again, you return to ridiculous tangentialities without any bearing in the discussion. The Bible is a collection of different books, some prose narratives, some poems, some corresponding to other forms. The fact that some of the components of the Bible are not prose narratives is irrelevant to its preponderant mythological and narrative character (Actually, it is rather common for long narratives to be interspersed with poems and other literary forms). Nonetheless it is evident that Bascom made a small mistake by stating categorically "myth are prose narratives", since it is unfathomable why transcribing a myth into a poetical form would render it non-mythologycal. This limitation defies all logic. I consider that a proper interpretation of Bascom's use of the word "narrative" would be to understand it as 'a general exposition of a story', and not exclusively as the literary form per se. Since the Bible is in fact a general exposition of a story, then it is a 'narrative' in that sense. Since the story being exposed is the relationship of men to a mythical entity, and a general supernatural interpretation of nature and historical events, then it is a mythology.

I have, many times. Once, ages ago, I desired to be missionary.

But how considerate of you...I am delighted.

Lets see if everyone can understand the concept once and for all:

Not every part of the Bible is by itself mythological, but the Bible as a whole is an exposition of a mythological system, thus it constitutes a mythological text. The Bible therefore as a whole, can be described as Judeo-Christian Mythology.

Chris Weimer

LOL. Talk about cognitive dissonance. I thought only fundies use this logic.

Quoted for hilarity:

P1. Not all of the Bible is mythology.
P2. Some of the Bible is mythology.
P3. Therefore, all of the Bible is mythology.

:notworthy:

David

Regarding Campbell:


What is this? the ghost of Jeffrey Gibson.

Joseph Campbell is asked
"what do you think of the bible?"

Joseph Campbell replies:
"The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology"

I will leave it to the readers/lurkers of this forum to decide whether Joseph Campbell (rightly or wrongly) believed the bible to be mythology despite the fact that this was not a peer reviewed interview.

figuer

Let me help you with your homework:

P.1 Most of the Bible is mythological
P.2. The Bible has a mythological purpose
P.3 Therefore the Bible is mythology

Chris Weimer

Logic must not have been your strong point. Besides the fact that P2 is an unsupported assertion, if A doesn't have all of the characteristics of B, it is not B. If some of the Bible is not mythology, then the whole Bible is not mythology. Are you seriously this dense? How many people have to point out the gap in your logic before you realize that you're wrong?

Chris Weimer

Funny, since I was around before Jeffrey Gibson was a user here... :huh:

Yes, we should take interviews out of context of the larger body of a scholar's work and take what was said in that interview (dumbed down for the audience) as absolute characteristic of that said scholar's belief. I believe Fo News calls that being "fair and balanced".

Chris Weimer

PS - It's so funny that figuer has to remove sections of the quote he didn't like to make it fit with his preconceived notions of what mythology should be. Come on, Toto, not even you can deny the direct link to creationism in this one.

Spanky

Actually, I will do something I don't often do. . .give up!
Good luck.

David

As I said Chris, the readers/lurkers can decide.

figuer

My 140 IQ and my recently published book on analytical architecture amply demonstrate the contrary.P2 is a fact.According to your "logic" since some people in the U.S. are poor, the U.S. can not be classified as a rich country (which is absurd of course).

If A has most of the characteristics associated with B, and it functions as B, then it is describable as B. If most of the Bible is mythological, and the Bible has a mythological function, then the Bible is describable as mythology.

It is pertinent to notice that although parts of the Bible can be termed non-mythological, non is contra-mythological. How many people have to point out the gap in your logic before you realize that you are wrong?