Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 12-06-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory. A culture’s myths are usually closely related to its religious beliefs and rituals. The modern study of myth arose with early 19th-century Romanticism. Wilhelm Mannhardt, James George Frazer, and others later employed a more comparative approach. Sigmund Freud viewed myth as an expression of repressed ideas, a view later expanded by Carl Gustav Jung in his theory of the “collective unconscious” and the mythical archetypes that arise out of it. Bronisław Malinowski emphasized how myth fulfills common social functions, providing a model or “charter” for human behaviour. Claude Lévi-Strauss discerned underlying structures in the formal relations and patterns of myths throughout the world. Mircea Eliade and Rudolf Otto held that myth is to be understood solely as a religious phenomenon. Features of myth are shared by other kinds of literature. Origin tales explain the source or causes of various aspects of nature or human society and life. Fairy tales deal with extraordinary beings and events but lack the authority of myth. Sagas and epics claim authority and truth but reflect specific historical settings.

Main

a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.

As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith; an example would be the Marxist eschatological myth of the withering away of the state.

While the outline of myths from a past period or from a society other than one’s own can usually be seen quite clearly, to recognize the myths that are dominant in one’s own time and society is always difficult. This is hardly surprising, because a myth has its authority not by proving itself but by presenting itself. In this sense the authority of a myth indeed “goes without saying,” and the myth can be outlined in detail only when its authority is no longer unquestioned but has been rejected or overcome in some manner by another, more comprehensive myth.

The word myth derives from the Greek mythos, which has a range of meanings from “word,” through “saying” and “story,” to “fiction”; the unquestioned validity of mythos can be contrasted with logos, the word whose validity or truth can be argued and demonstrated. Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400920/myth

I suppose from the above, that Jesus is not mythological because we have a time stamp.

Except the Jesus tale may be defined as a story not at the beginning or end of the world but the fulcrum of the universe.

It is a liminal story.

maryhelena · 12-06-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory. A culture’s myths are usually closely related to its religious beliefs and rituals. The modern study of myth arose with early 19th-century Romanticism. Wilhelm Mannhardt, James George Frazer, and others later employed a more comparative approach. Sigmund Freud viewed myth as an expression of repressed ideas, a view later expanded by Carl Gustav Jung in his theory of the “collective unconscious” and the mythical archetypes that arise out of it. Bronisław Malinowski emphasized how myth fulfills common social functions, providing a model or “charter” for human behaviour. Claude Lévi-Strauss discerned underlying structures in the formal relations and patterns of myths throughout the world. Mircea Eliade and Rudolf Otto held that myth is to be understood solely as a religious phenomenon. Features of myth are shared by other kinds of literature. Origin tales explain the source or causes of various aspects of nature or human society and life. Fairy tales deal with extraordinary beings and events but lack the authority of myth. Sagas and epics claim authority and truth but reflect specific historical settings.

Main

a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.

As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith; an example would be the Marxist eschatological myth of the withering away of the state.

While the outline of myths from a past period or from a society other than one’s own can usually be seen quite clearly, to recognize the myths that are dominant in one’s own time and society is always difficult. This is hardly surprising, because a myth has its authority not by proving itself but by presenting itself. In this sense the authority of a myth indeed “goes without saying,” and the myth can be outlined in detail only when its authority is no longer unquestioned but has been rejected or overcome in some manner by another, more comprehensive myth.

The word myth derives from the Greek mythos, which has a range of meanings from “word,” through “saying” and “story,” to “fiction”; the unquestioned validity of mythos can be contrasted with logos, the word whose validity or truth can be argued and demonstrated. Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400920/myth

I suppose from the above, that Jesus is not mythological because we have a time stamp.

Except the Jesus tale may be defined as a story not at the beginning or end of the world but the fulcrum of the universe.

It is a liminal story.

No, the date stamp does not rule out a mythological Jesus of Nazareth! The gospel storyline is not just about mythological elements. It's date stamp indicates prophetic elements - assumed, fulfilled, prophetic elements. Mythology does not need a date stamp. The gospel writers added one. In other words - the gospel storyline is a combination, a 'marriage', between prophetic fulfillment (however understood) and mythology.

gurugeorge · 12-06-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Gal 1:12 can only evidence what the lawyers call a state of mind. Paul claims to have had a revelation of Jesus Christ that came from God. One cannot prove he had a revelation, that it was of Jesus Christ, even if one knew what that was, and that the assurances came from God, assuming there is one.

If you are evidencing his state of mind, then you accept that his report is of his state of mind - but that just means you accept his claim that he seemed to himself to have met and spoken with what seemed to him to be Jesus Christ.

But that's all you need - that is, (what we call now) a visionary experience as a basis for belief in a mythical entity.

None of the supernatural options are valid for a historian, who must proceed on the basis that the world is causal (for example, that ink and paper have physical/chemical properties that allow them to persist through time in a certain way). The only option that's valid for a historian is to understand Paul's state of mind as a naturally-caused event - i.e. a hallucination of the kind people have in these kinds of experiences of seeming-real spirits, gods, deities, etc.

If there were otherwise sound (Hume's-test-passing) scientific proof of supernatural events, then the historian might have to proceed differently, but there is none, so that option can be ruled out - the naturalistic option is the only viable option (granted you're ruling out lying/con-artistry, etc.)

Clivedurdle · 12-06-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Except

Quote:

Liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold"[1]) The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy.[citation needed] One's sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed - a situation which can lead to new perspectives.[citation needed]
People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality

The tale of the christ, of god becoming man, of life conquering death, of a new heaven and earth, of a cross, is entirely about thresholds!

Quite an impressive multi layered story really!

Us humans are pretty impressive at being able to construct a tale like this, and then continue the story with all the accompanying stuff of the classic cathedral , the baptistry, the main building and the tower, giving a complete life myth that continues into eternity.

Us atheists have some catching up to do!

gurugeorge · 12-06-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Spin, please explain, are you saying mythical entities have religious bits?

Myths are narratives created to explain or embody religious ideas or practices. (It might at times seems wider than this but in ancient times the religion controlled all aspects of life, so when Eve was created out of Adam's rib, it explained why a man and a woman belonged together in the sight of god.)

Yes, this is quite right - so long as "practices" includes "practices which give rise to visionary/mystical experiences".

But there are also accidental experiences of that kind which give rise to religion (so the myth isn't part of a community practice, but something an individual comes up with to explain their experience).

e.g. a humble goatherd who wasn't particularly religious might accidentally have such an experience.

Too much emphasis is "community" this and that clouds the issue: religion starts with charismatic people who galvanize communities. They are charismatic, nine times out of ten, because they've had powerful personal experiences (which they interpret as) "talking with God", or "being one with God" or whatever.

It's only later, when you get people involved in the religion who haven't had such experiences (e.g. sons of local dignitaries put in the monastery because the religion has social respect, and the bugger has to be put somewhere where he causes the least trouble) - that's when you get the more strictly sociological aspects of religion, and the more theological aspects, coming into play. People talk about an entity that the original founders (believed they) experienced (and charismatically convinced others of); they jockey for power in their organisations, using theology as a stick to beat others with.

And eventually, you get a situation where vast numbers of people are forced to give lip-service to the existence of said entity.

joedad · 12-06-2009, 07:48 AM

I had to surrender to the fourth definition of “myth” in my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language to get a definition that works for the layman like myself in all situations:

Any fictitious or imaginary story, explanation, person, or thing.

Using that simple definition, the Jesus story is a myth.

The first definition I found does not fit the case of either Jesus or Paul Bunyan:

A traditional story originating in a pre-literate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.

That definition would make Paul Bunyan and Jesus the continuation of a myth on the technical point that neither originated in a pre-literate society.

Clivedurdle · 12-06-2009, 07:59 AM

The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition, seems to be saying myth and prehistory are co - terminus.

Does anyone actually argue that any more? Is literacy relevant?

Somali was only written down in the 1970's!

Solo · 12-06-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Gal 1:12 can only evidence what the lawyers call a state of mind. Paul claims to have had a revelation of Jesus Christ that came from God. One cannot prove he had a revelation, that it was of Jesus Christ, even if one knew what that was, and that the assurances came from God, assuming there is one.

If you are evidencing his state of mind, then you accept that his report is of his state of mind - but that just means you accept his claim that he seemed to himself to have met and spoken with what seemed to him to be Jesus Christ.

But that's all you need - that is, (what we call now) a visionary experience as a basis for belief in a mythical entity.

None of the supernatural options are valid for a historian, who must proceed on the basis that the world is causal (for example, that ink and paper have physical/chemical properties that allow them to persist through time in a certain way). The only option that's valid for a historian is to understand Paul's state of mind as a naturally-caused event - i.e. a hallucination of the kind people have in these kinds of experiences of seeming-real spirits, gods, deities, etc.

If there were otherwise sound (Hume's-test-passing) scientific proof of supernatural events, then the historian might have to proceed differently, but there is none, so that option can be ruled out - the naturalistic option is the only viable option (granted you're ruling out lying/con-artistry, etc.)

We have trotted this ground before. Paul's witness of Jesus as a historical figure is indirect. He had no contact with the person, only with people who are asserted as Jesus' earthly companions in the gospels after Paul. Given Paul's apparent rivalry with them (and I read the James of Gal 2:9 as the other Zebedee) and disagreements over the theological significance of Jesus' crucifixion, Paul's Jesus Christ references manifestations which are both, generic and universal as phenomena, and specific in relation to Paul's eschatological here-and-now . In the latter application the references are most probably to a historical person which was Paul's near contemporary and of whom he held views divergent to those of his memorial cultic following in Jerusalem.

Jiri

spin · 12-06-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Myths are narratives created to explain or embody religious ideas or practices. (It might at times seems wider than this but in ancient times the religion controlled all aspects of life, so when Eve was created out of Adam's rib, it explained why a man and a woman belonged together in the sight of god.)

Yes, this is quite right...

If you thought that, you wouldn't have posted the ruminations that followed.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...so long as "practices" includes "practices which give rise to visionary/mystical experiences".

But there are also accidental experiences of that kind which give rise to religion (so the myth isn't part of a community practice, but something an individual comes up with to explain their experience).

e.g. a humble goatherd who wasn't particularly religious might accidentally have such an experience.

Too much emphasis is "community" this and that clouds the issue: religion starts with charismatic people who galvanize communities. They are charismatic, nine times out of ten, because they've had powerful personal experiences (which they interpret as) "talking with God", or "being one with God" or whatever.

It's only later, when you get people involved in the religion who haven't had such experiences (e.g. sons of local dignitaries put in the monastery because the religion has social respect, and the bugger has to be put somewhere where he causes the least trouble) - that's when you get the more strictly sociological aspects of religion, and the more theological aspects, coming into play. People talk about an entity that the original founders (believed they) experienced (and charismatically convinced others of); they jockey for power in their organisations, using theology as a stick to beat others with.

And eventually, you get a situation where vast numbers of people are forced to give lip-service to the existence of said entity.

joedad · 12-06-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition, seems to be saying myth and prehistory are co - terminus.

Does anyone actually argue that any more? Is literacy relevant?

Somali was only written down in the 1970's!

Not to sound paranoid but Christianity has always called itself a religion while calling Greek and Roman religions “myths.” So I think there’s some cultural bias in these definitions.

Interestingly, the first definition of religion using the AHD is:

The expression of man’s belief and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.

So when you need Joseph Campbell he’s dead.

The first definition of a legend is:

An unverified popular story handed down from earlier times.

That works for Jesus and Paul Bunyan.

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

12-06-2009, 07:48 AM	#156
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	I had to surrender to the fourth definition of “myth” in my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language to get a definition that works for the layman like myself in all situations: Any fictitious or imaginary story, explanation, person, or thing. Using that simple definition, the Jesus story is a myth. The first definition I found does not fit the case of either Jesus or Paul Bunyan: A traditional story originating in a pre-literate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world. That definition would make Paul Bunyan and Jesus the continuation of a myth on the technical point that neither originated in a pre-literate society.

12-06-2009, 07:59 AM	#157
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The American Heritage Dictionary, in its first definition, seems to be saying myth and prehistory are co - terminus. Does anyone actually argue that any more? Is literacy relevant? Somali was only written down in the 1970's!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.