Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magdlyn · 08-08-2007, 10:13 AM

4 points:

1) NoRobots, I see you are enamored of Brunner, but I think his arguments are a bit silly and irrelevant to this discussion.

2) figuer, I think your argument makes perfect sense. Just ignore that buzzing mosquito.

3) The segment of the Jos Campbell interview cited above is quite in line with his "formal position." I know, bc I have read several of his books. Some of his books are transcripts of his college lectures. They are all consistent.

4) In ref to the mention of the book of Ruth not being mythological, I'd like to point out Ruth was fiction, written post-Exile, at a time when the returning elite were forcing the peasantry to give up their "foreign" wives and the children from these marriages (a death sentence). The author of Ruth, being a moral person, was horrified at this and wrote a moral tale, Ruth, to suggest the great king David (a "culture hero" as per the definition of myth) was descended from a Moabite. This was pure fiction, speculation, made to protest the genocidal tendencies of the ruling elite of Judah. The ruling elite, believing superstitiously in a wrathful and punitive god, demanded the "putting away" of dependent wives and children. Their belief in a god like that was a belief in a tribally mythological idea. Ruth was written to protest the particular cruelty of this myth/idea.

Reference: Introductory essay to Ruth in the New Oxford Annotated Bible.

Quote:

This insistence on an inclusive attitude towards foreigners suggests to many scholars a date of composition in the 5th century BCE when the issue of intermarriage between Israelites and non-Israelites [sic: I'd call them Judahites] had become extremely controversial (see Neh 13.1, Ezra 9:1).

figuer · 08-08-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

In ref to the mention of the book of Ruth not being mythological, I'd like to point out Ruth was fiction, written post-Exile....The author of Ruth...wrote a moral tale to suggest the great king David (a "culture hero" as per the definition of myth) was descended from a Moabite. This was pure fiction, speculation, made to protest the genocidal tendencies of the ruling elite of Judah....

This being the case Ruth would definitely be, apart from a moral story, a mythological tale, as it participates of the following characteristics of a myth:

1. A fictional story
2. Dealing with a heroin/ancestress
3. Explains ideals and social customs of a people
4. Responding to a supernatural conception*

* Ruth's merits respond to her acceptance of the god of Israel. The story itself was crafted in order to modify a supernatural conception (god's demand for purity of blood).

IvanJames · 08-08-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanJames

There seems to be a fundamental communication problem here. Just as the word "theory" has different meanings in science and in everyday life, perhaps the word "mythology" does too?

That is the origin of the debate, but its continuity is due to sheer denial of facts (for no apparent reason).

Consider the following definitions of myth (posted in the first page of this thread):

• A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

• Stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

The Bible, as a whole, clearly corresponds to these definitions. It deals with a series of supernatural beings, ancestor, and heroes. It serves as the foundation of a world view of a people. It explains aspects of the natural world, delineates the psychology customs, and ideals of a society, using the supernatural. Every book in the Bible partakes in at least some aspect of these definitions. All, in variable degree, contribute to the formation of a world view centred on a mythical entity, god, or help in the delineation of the customs and ideals of a people. In top of that, the Bible is a mythical entity, the word of god himself. Thus the Bible has a mythological function, for it not only preserves and exposes the various aspects of the mythological system, but is itself, as an object, a component of that system.

Yeah, I know. I'm totally with you on this particular subject.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.