" '...we who are educated, do not take ancestral myths for literal truth, as if we were Christians. They are symbols. As different languages, or different words in one language, may denote the same thing - albeit with subtle variations of aspect - so, too, may different Gods represent the same Being. They change with time as languages do, They develop according to the evolving needs of their worshipers. The very heavens change through the aeons; nevertheless, the reality of Heaven endures.' " (p. 326)
I agree with most of that. In particular, the resurrection of a deity is a symbol, not a literal truth. In that context, we learn that in the Beginning, Tiamat, the Serpent of Chaos, Who threatened to destroy Creation but was slain by Taranis, had been the mother of Lir who therefore killed Taranis, plunging heaven and earth into darkness, until Belisama descended into the underworld to ransom Taranis and brought Him back to make peace with Lir. Taranis dies and is reborn every year until the End of All Things. Ysans enact this mystery because Taranis dies in the defeated King and is resurrected in the victor who fathers new life on the Nine who are chosen by the Goddess. It all makes sense, almost.
-copied from here.
I am reading a book called The Myth Of God Incarnate. Chapter 8 is "Myth in Theology" by Maurice Wiles, who proposes to consider the meaning of this term. Tomorrow, I will read Chapter 8 and will learn whether it helps to elucidate the Ysan understanding of myths as symbols. This evening, I will watch an episode of the Smallville TV series which is one contribution to a major American myth.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Where I differ, of course, from those who insist Our Lord's resurrection was only a myth, is that I believe He truly died on the cross and truly rose from the dead. And that no other gods exist or can exist. So, I respectfully disagree with the Ysan astronomer/philosopher.
Sean
Sean,
There is a third position: that the resurrection is both history and myth, i.e., meaningful story. Some historical events are mythologized, i.e., they happened (history); they are transformed into meaningful stories (myths). Also, falsehoods are believed about them (another meaning of "myth.") I think that important historical events like the French and Russian Revolutions come into this category.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
While I find this "third" position interesting and worthy of serious thinking over, it also puzzles me. The "turning [of historical events] into meaningful stories (myths)" would seem to be simply another way of saying "theological reflections" entered into the gospel accounts, esp. the Gospel of John. If so, I certainly agree with that. I think something like "theological reflections or conclusions" is less likely to cause confusion than has occurred from using terms like "myths."
And I certainly agree a good deal of falsehood, nonsense, and sheer propaganda (in the bad sense of the word) has accumulated around the French and Russian Revolutions! Many, many people who initially supported or sympathized with the Jacobins or Bolsheviks were eventually and bitterly disillusioned with both. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO made it impossible for any honest person to continue supporting the USSR.
Sean
Sean,
CS Lewis commented that, when God became Man, myth became history. Thus, resurrections had occurred in myths and now, he believed, one had occurred in history.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And it was possibly from C.S. Lewis that this use of "myth" entered theological reflections? And I do agree with Lewis in believing resurrections of pagan gods occurred in myths while Christ's resurrection actually occurred in history.
Sean
Sean,
I am reading that a guy called Strauss introduced this use of "myth."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The name "Strauss" is familiar, albeit only because Aycharaych enjoyed the music composed by Richard and Johann Strauss (in Chapter II of WE CLAIM THESE STARS). But I knew there was another well known Strauss, either a physician or theologian.
Sean
Sean,
SF Strauss, THE LIFE OF JESUS CRITICALLY EXAMINED, 1835.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll be looking up SF Strauss, esp. in THE NEW JEROME BIBLICAL COMMENTARY, a copy of which I have.
Sean
Post a Comment