Keep the Myths Simple Stupid

[Merlin]

I would say that we have lost sight of the truth within the myths. Every culture has a myth about the origin of life. They each hold with the thought of some powerful force that governs the ways of this life.

It is absolutely amazing how many of the ancient religions and cultures had exactly the same sort of creation myths and flood myths that occur in the old Testament. Even the obsession with going up the mountains to talk to God seems to have been passed down from earlier religions. I cannot remember which of the Middle East and religions it was, but one of them has an exact copy of the Moses floating down the river in the basket myth. Of course it predates the one of the old Testament by several hundred years.

There is a very good book 'ancient near Eastern texts'. It is not for the fainthearted

 

[lilithu]

But, if from the study of a culture, we discover, that the authors of a myth had no concept, of say dualism, then to read dualism into a myth would be wrong as it was not belonging to the original spirit of the text in the first place. If for example, we learned that a group of people believed in many gods, then to read a "one true god" or simply a dual, male/female god, into the myth would be incorrect (as many neo-heathens and wiccans have done with Norse Myth). It does not correspond to the spirit of the text.

Are we agreed here? If we are, then I am misunderstanding the context of your posts.

Honestly, again I would say yes and no. For example, Hindu myths are full of gods and goddesses (devas) and I highly doubt that the original authors of those myths meant for them to be anything other than stories about many gods and goddesses that control the natural elements. In that respect, Hinduism is polytheistic. However, if you say that Hinduism is polytheistic, many Hindus will disagree with you, and some may even be offended. Vedantic philosophy has reinterpreted and incorporated these stories such that these many devas are subordinated to a higher "God" - Brahman or ParamAtman. The devas are just created beings, like us, except that they live a really long time and have extra powers. Brahman or ParamAtman, otoh, has many of the metaphysical aspects that we associate with the monotheistic concept of God. In that respect, Hinduism is monotheistic. I can make a similar argument for Judaism, where the evidence suggests that they used to be polytheistic and then developed the concept of monotheism, editing and reinterpreting their own texts to fit their changing concepts of God.

And so, these people themselves did not uphold the "original meanings" of their scriptures. But I don't see how one can criticize them, because they were honestly and sincerely interpreting their own texts within their own traditions in response to the their changing understandings. And I think that's perfectly valid, which is why I've been arguing in this thread.

However...

I must confess that I do not know much about Heathens so I won't speculate there. But in the case of Wiccans, we have a unique situation in that, objectively speaking, it is both a very old and a very new tradition. Wiccans are drawing from ancient traditions but Wicca itself has only been around since the middle of the last century. So instead of this continuously evolving (in the sense of change, not necessarily "progress") understanding coming from within its own tradition, we have people who are reclaiming a tradition from the "outside." I know I'll probably offend some Wiccans by saying this, but I see no way around it. One cannot rightly claim that one has inherited a continuous uninterrupted tradition - instead, most neoPagans have grown up steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview - and thus any reinterpretation, no matter how sincere, is being done as an outsider.

Being the warm-n-fuzzy liberal that I am, I personally would not condemn anyone for overlaying their monist or dualist worldviews on Norse mythology. But factually speaking, I would tend to agree with you that I don't see a basis for it in these ancient myths. In fact, I was surprised when some self-identified Pagans in RF said that they were ultimately monotheistic, or henotheistic, believing in "the Source." My own understanding of Paganism (as an interested observer not a believer) was that, while it is polytheistic in that there are many gods and goddesses, it is atheistic with respect to some unifying underlying all-encompassing God. I did not get the impression that there is some ultimate plan or higher purpose being orchestrated.

Darkdale, I must admit that it is much more pleasant to talk with you than to argue.

 

[Darkdale]

And so, these people themselves did not uphold the "original meanings" of their scriptures. But I don't see how one can criticize them, because they were honestly and sincerely interpreting their own texts within their own traditions in response to the their changing understandings. And I think that's perfectly valid, which is why I've been arguing in this thread.

Hindu theology is the most complex thing I have ever studied (maybe with the exception of logic). In fact, I would have gone through all the work it would have taken for a white European to become Hindu, had I not discover Asatru. Regardless, Hindu myth is filled with the most sophisticated mythology in human history and if you wanted, I would love to discuss, or as Pah would say, debate, Hindu theology with you; mainly because, it is the most beautiful and interesting theological system in the history of theological systems, as far as I am concerned. It isn't as theological sophisticated as Christianity, but it is more inspiring. I love my ancestors and I love their religion, but they were not philosophers. Their myths were simple. Their myths were based on the most basic understanding of life and nature. Yet, for some reason, they were about 2,000 years behind their brethren who went south to India.

Darkdale, I must admit that it is much more pleasant to talk with you than to argue.

I think that you and I share the same personality. Therefore, you and I, having opposite opinions, are going to be equally annoyed by the other.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is the real heart of our disagreement. I believe that the myths are important because of the worldview that is expressed in the story. Coming to understand the worldview and the culture of the people who wrote the myths is the reason for reading the mythology in the first place. You seem to be coming from the perspective of "what potential for spiritual and religious development does a myth contain"? If it is the potential of the myth that is important, then I would certainly agree with your position and would consider it our responsiblity to allow a myth to reach its' maximum potential and thus encourage its' natural evolution. So I suppose, were I to begin with your assumptions, I would agree with you; but I simply do not agree with your assumptions.

The myth itself is an expression of the worldview of the people that wrote it and by studying, not only the myth, but the people, the culture, the environment and social structures of the folk who wrote the myths, we can better understand the nature of those reconstructed religions and can offer people of today an alternative worldview. I suppose if you aren't looking at the myths in a religious context, you certainly cannot draw the same conclusions as I have; and if you are comfortable with the Western/Judeo-Christian worldview then the worldview of the people that wrote the mythologies isn't really valuable to you.

However, I think there is a hint of intolerance in the idea that we should dismiss the worldview of the people that wrote the myths, just because we think we know better or that we have a more developed spirituality now.

Yes, it is clear that we are primarily looking for different things which is the heart of our disagreement. Looking for a worldview within the myth (and finding this worldview is exclusively in the historical-critical method that you have shown great affinity for, and this historical critical method can be inspired by re-interpretations) is but a small portion of the study of mythology in general, and it looks to me like you have been frustrated by both popular and scholarly re-interpretation to find contemporary meaning in ancient myths. Not everyone is looking for worldview, and when the myth is applied in religious contexts, there quite literally are no rules except the rule of the community, which is continually subject to the whims of those in power.

You are also correct (as much as you can be with the amount of information that is here) in part in another point -- I do not hold the ancient worldview nor the contemporary worldview superior to one another. However, the myth must be made to speak to the contemporary worldview(s) in one of two ways: explaining the ancient worldview to the contemporary "hearers" of the myth so they can understand the myth or (2) interpret the myth while making purposeful adaptions to make the myth make sense to the contemporary worldview. With you, I agree that the first choice is far better, but it is not my intention at all to impose an ancient worldview on the contemporary mind. The myth itself is what is important to Christianity, and the rationale behind that point should be abundantly clear.


I still do not understand why you want people to make up their own myths, and yet reject the re-interpretation of the old myth as a method by which the community can create the "new myth."

 

[Bennettresearch]

Craig, I have not been giving examples because I've bee arguing in favor of the rule, not the exception. Your two examples are exceptions. I am arguing that the vast majority of interpretations are modernized interpretations, made without any problems, and any examples that I give would only serve to limit what we're talking about, which is exactly what I don't want to do. But if you want an example of "modern" interepretations of old myths that do not violate the original meaning of the myth, there is no better example than that of Adam and Eve.

Hi Lil,

You gave a fine example of my point. This is not a re-interpretation of Adam and Eve, it is a corrected interpretation of Adam and Eve. Old interpretations did not parse out the meaning of the Hebrew words and adopted a chauvinistic interpretation from Genesis. I also don't consider this interpretation to be revisionist either. There is no changing of the story or total reinterpretation of it, only a correction about what was meant by the author of this book. By the way, my examples aren't exceptions to your "rule". I could fill up this entire thread with more examples if I felt like doing all of that work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bennett,

It is pretty late for me here, so pardon me...

Are you saying that Phyllis Tribble is not re-interpreting the Genesis story? Without feminism, her interpretation would never have existed. She is presupposing feminism and reading it into an exegetical possibility, presenting an interpretation that has never before been done. It is not re-interpretation in a loose, uninformed sense, but a fine example of the contemporary mind internalizing the myth and shaping it to the modern context. No rabbi, no Hebrew teacher, no church father, or commentator read it like this before.

EDIT: Does this mean that the pre-feminist scholars missed something? Not really, except that they possibly took Plato's view of the female as a dumb, mutilated male. Or they were simply the product of their own worldview like Tribble, only they were male-centered instead of feminist. Does that mean that the text itself is feminist or male-centered. More than likely, the text was written by men for a man-centered culture, but the exegetical possibilities do allow for the feminist re-interpretation that Tribble suggests, giving deep meaning to men and women of our enlightened age.

 

[lilithu]

Hi Lil,

You gave a fine example of my point. This is not a re-interpretation of Adam and Eve, it is a corrected interpretation of Adam and Eve. Old interpretations did not parse out the meaning of the Hebrew words and adopted a chauvinistic interpretation from Genesis. I also don't consider this interpretation to be revisionist either. There is no changing of the story or total reinterpretation of it, only a correction about what was meant by the author of this book. By the way, my examples aren't exceptions to your "rule". I could fill up this entire thread with more examples if I felt like doing all of that work.

In short, I agree with AE.

Of course the reinterpretation did not change the story; if it did it would not be reinterpretation, it would be telling a new, different story. I also doubt that the original authors consciously intended to allow for this feminist interpretation. I'm sure that the ancient Israelites, who were familiar with Hebrew, did not necessarily read the text this way. But somehow the text was written in a way where this interpretation was not only possible but even made sense (divine inspiration?), and things like that are why the story has survived as a myth, instead of just being a story that was told and then forgotten. Myths are stories where many different peoples across time can see personal truth in them, not just the authors and their own cohorts. Myths transcend particulars, and yet are deeply personal because the reader/listener always brings a little of him or herself to it.

We all reinterpret, all of these stories. As I said, the only difference is whether we recognize that's what we're doing. Therefore, there are too many examples of the rule to list (but I'll be the first to say that Phyllis Trible's is exceptionally noteworthy). You could fill the entire thread with examples of bad reinterpretations and it still would not match the reinterpretations that you think are good, the ones that you don't call reinterpretations just because you happen to agree with them.

 

[Bennettresearch]

In short, I agree with AE.
We all reinterpret, all of these stories. As I said, the only difference is whether we recognize that's what we're doing. Therefore, there are too many examples of the rule to list (but I'll be the first to say that Phyllis Trible's is exceptionally noteworthy). You could fill the entire thread with examples of bad reinterpretations and it still would not match the reinterpretations that you think are good, the ones that you don't call reinterpretations just because you happen to agree with them.

Hi Lil,

I can see that we are stuck in a semantics issue. I am using re-interpretation to mean a total change in how the story is interpreted as opposed to a corrected interpretation based upon how each word was translated and how it might change the meaning of a verse, even slightly. You seem to be defending the projection of one's personal desires or agenda into an old myth. I find this to be folly. Anyone can interpret anything however they want. The issue is whether they have gotten it right or not. If Phyllis' parsing of the words to show that it implied equality is true, then so be it. But her argument, hypothetically, could be discounted by someone who might disprove her translation. That is the academic standard. I am in support of the academic standard and not in favor of popular reinterpretation.

Case in point. Even if it were ultimately proven that the story af Adam and Eve represented man's superiority over woman, so what? We are enlightened and know this isn't true, but it does no good to try and change the story. It is best to leave it as it is and just say that the author was mistaken. As a christian I have no problem with possible mistakes like this in the Bible. If I were to defend every word and verse as being totally true, then I would be stuck in a dusty past the does not exist anymore.

 

[lilithu]

It's not just a semantic argument. You think that there is one objectively correct way to read a myth, depending upon what the original authors intended. I disagree. There are limitations to what's possible that are set by the text, and for me there are limitations due to morality (I reject any interpretation that is not life-affirming). But other than that, I don't see how you ever know what the original authors intended, especially since most myths have multiple authors over time. They have already been revised numerous times before we ever see them. And even if we did know what the authors intended, I don't think that's as important as what the reader brings to it. More than once I've heard the author of a poem complain because their readers read something that was unintended into the poem. When I look at what was supposedly intended and what was read into it, more often than not I think the author is the one who doesn't "get it." (Perhaps they tapped into something subconsciously that their own biases prevent them from seeing consciously. I dunno.) People recognize spiritual truth when they see it; that is the power of scripture/myth. That's the power of poetry. And "objective" truth is usually far less interesting than what people recognize.

 

[Bennettresearch]

It's not just a semantic argument. You think that there is one objectively correct way to read a myth, depending upon what the original authors intended. I disagree. There are limitations to what's possible that are set by the text, and for me there are limitations due to morality (I reject any interpretation that is not life-affirming). But other than that, I don't see how you ever know what the original authors intended, especially since most myths have multiple authors over time. They have already been revised numerous times before we ever see them. And even if we did know what the authors intended, I don't think that's as important as what the reader brings to it. More than once I've heard the author of a poem complain because their readers read something that was unintended into the poem. When I look at what was supposedly intended and what was read into it, more often than not I think the author is the one who doesn't "get it." (Perhaps they tapped into something subconsciously that their own biases prevent them from seeing consciously. I dunno.) People recognize spiritual truth when they see it; that is the power of scripture/myth. That's the power of poetry. And "objective" truth is usually far less interesting than what people recognize.

Hi Lil,

None of this poetic inspiritation would be possible if we continually revised these myths. And this seems to be what you are advocating. Revisionists don't seem to hold as much respect for the originals as some others do. Like I said earlier, if someone writes a book describing their inspired interpretation of this myth it is far different than actually changing it, which has been the subject of this thread throughout.