I think I'd rather say that Paul uses Adam typologically.

The point of every conversation that we have is to communicate...correct?

One of the dangers for conversing theology is that people often do not have the same basic framework of meaning for their language.

If their never can be a simple understanding of what "myth" meanings then it makes our conversation extremely difficult (not just our conversation but also our conversation with LAITY IS HUGE).

One thing that I have to be conscience of "Illegitimate Totality Transfer" of the word myth.

Casey

Bob,
I think you should define what is meant by "a natural reading." I have heard this phrase thrown around a lot without any definition or qualification.

Bob, you said,

"What it really comes down to is that you don’t like my position so you try to say it is just my interpretation and not any more valid than saying Adam was a cyborg, both result from our cultural conditioning. So you try to pigon hole me as “modernist”, that’s getting rather old, there is nothing inherently modernistic about seeing texts that claim to be historical as historical.

This cultural conditioning talk is an irrefutable argument, that invalidates all forms of argument as “modernist”. Well, if that is the case why are we even discussing this Cheapham, just go plunge into your POMO subjectivist abyss and stop debating."


Just because I'm pointing out cultural difference doesn't mean I'm "invalidating" anything. There's nothing inherently wrong with an historicist reading of biblical texts. It's not that I think your reading is fundamentally bad, I'm not "pigeon holing" anything. I'm merely trying to explain the motivations and criteria by which we judge things, which obviously has had an affect.

What's wrong here is when one tries to lord an historicist reading over others, especially over those who likely were the orginal writers and readers of such texts. It's done under the guise of "objectivity," an objectivity which I feel I've done a pretty adequate job of dispelling. Just like you yourself (and JR) said, many modernist scholars make a great deal of claims about the dating of the gospels or the divinity of Jesus based on sound objective scholarship, natural readings, etc. They have very base assumptions about the way the world works that they really aren't honest about. I'm personally highly critical of such scholarship because of the work they claim to be doing under the banner of objectivity. What I'm saying is, there is no such thing...and realizing that will do us all a great deal of good.



"Well, ok. So if you can give any reason WHY we should read the genologies in the Bible in a way that says these individuals are a-historical then you make your case other than that you just muddy the waters with your subjectivist appeals. So WHY should we interpret the geneologies differently than what I have said is the natural reading?"

First off, I'm merely pointing out that what you're doing isn't a "natural reading" because no such thing exists. Reading Hagar and Sarah as covenants of flesh vs. spirit by no means seems anywhere near "natural" to us, yet Paul seemed to be just fine with it. The writer(s) of Genesis seemed to have no problem with two accounts of creation that are in completely different order, yet such a thing seems incredibly unnatural to us. The biblical writers seemed to not have much of an issue of both God and Satan provoking David to sin (2 Sam. 24.1 & 1 Chron. 21.1), yet such a contradiction seems very wrong to us. Luke didn't seem to have a big problem with Paul's conversion accounts containing directly contradictory information (Acts 9.7 & 22.9), yet such contradictions jump out as wrong to us...it's just not natural.

My point: judging by the biblical texts themselves, the writers and intitial readers of our most sacred texts possessed a radically different hermeneutic than we do. Being that I hold the Bible as sacred, I find it very important to work toward a better understanding of the worldview(s) in which our biblical writers were operating. Part of this endeavor is realizing the problems that come up when we try to force these texts to conform to our expectations of them.

Bob -
if you'll notice, I also called the Declaration of Independence a mythic document.  And I've seen that in person.  So...

As for the Documentary Hypothesis, you're absolutely correct that it grew out of modernist scholarship.  However, that doesn't mean we should discount things that it can teach us.  In fact, little JEDP scholarship revolves around matters that have anything to do with supernatural (i.e. prophecy, etc.) - Gospels scholarship is a better example of what you're saying.  JEDP is actually based much more on a 'natural' reading of the Torah - especially with respect to clear doubling and contradictory passages throughout.

JEPD is only arrived at when you approach the scriptures with a certain set of presuppositions. Like prophecy can't happen, so you late date books because of prophetic elements which were fulfilled. That's how the modernists approached the scriptures, you aren't going to arrive at a late date for the gospels other than presupposing that prophecy doesn't happen (ie 70 AD in the synoptics) , there simply is not other reason.

Cheapham states:

"What some of us are trying to point out in this discussion is that what you call a “natural reading” is actually very conditioned. There’s no such thing as a “natural reading,” because reading takes place within culture/society, which in turn gives you a set of guidelines and criteria with which to view texts. Our modern values tell us that when we read a story that seems to take place in a historical setting with historical figures…it should be “historically accurate.”"

Well, ok. So if you can give any reason WHY we should read the genologies in the Bible in a way that says these individuals are a-historical then you make your case other than that you just muddy the waters with your subjectivist appeals. So WHY should we interpret the geneologies differently than what I have said is the natural reading?

What it really comes down to is that you don't like my position so you try to say it is just my interpretation and not any more valid than saying Adam was a cyborg, both result from our cultural conditioning. So you try to pigon hole me as "modernist", that's getting rather old, there is nothing inherently modernistic about seeing texts that claim to be historical as historical.

This cultural conditioning talk is an irrefutable argument, that invalidates all forms of argument as "modernist". Well, if that is the case why are we even discussing this Cheapham, just go plunge into your POMO subjectivist abyss and stop debating.

JR:

Your speech betrays you:

"Hank -

There are plenty of myths in American creation history; i.e., George Washington and the Cherry Tree, throwing the dollar across the Potomac, Paul Revere’s midnight ride, Betsy Ross sewing the American Flag, etc."

So the point is that we know there are FALSE stories that are made up to prove points...we call them "myths".

So should we talk about the Bible that way? You say yes.

Also your understanding of OS is pretty crude:

"Unless you understand sin to be genetic, Adam-as-historical-figure cannot pass sin along to everyone else."

It is both partly genetic (through curse of death), and imputed by God into our immaterial nature. It is the same as how Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I don't understand the mechanics (Bible doesn't divulge that) however it is clear that God is in the business of imputing righteousness to the descendents of Christ, likewise to those of Adam. So it is not an either or, genetically transmition of sin vs well I don't know what you even think about OS (probably deny it no doubt), but rather both genetic and and imputation done by God.

Hank,

Unless you understand sin to be genetic, Adam-as-historical-figure cannot pass sin along to everyone else.  Rather the typology of Romans 5 (which is a mythological term - myth often - if not always - deals in types) shows us that we have 2 types of humanity - those who are in Christ and those who are in Adam.  Each person represents a type of person - the old-creation humanity or the new-creation, resurrected humanity.  While Paul certainly understood Jesus as a real, historical figure (cf. 1 Cor 15), he is not discussing Jesus as a real, historical figure here.  He is discussing him as a Type.

This may be a terrible analogy, so if it doesn't help, then forget it.  But comparing Adam to Jesus is like trying to compare apples to oranges.  You can't do it b/c one is a pre-historic (and therefore unknowable figure) and the other is clearly a historical figure.  So while we can't compare apples and oranges, we can compare fruit.  And this is what Paul does.  Ignoring historical questions, he uses mythological language to discuss what the two new types of humanity are (old-creation vs. new-creation), as opposed to the former categories operating in the Roman church (Jew vs. Gentile).

Cheapham,

First, I would agree that Paul is using Adam typologically in Romans 5. The main difference between Romans 5 and Galatians 4 is that Paul is using Midrash on the story of Hagar and Sarah. But I don't see the same thing being done in Romans 5. Adam's act of disobedience produced this result, namely that all of humanity sinned (however you want to construe that). Jesus' act of obedience produced that result, namely justification and righteousness for all who will believe (Romans 5:1). I don't see how one act does not have to be a real act and yet one does, the parallel would break down. Both acts have to had occurred. Jesus death had to be a historical reality and Paul is contrasting that act with Adam's act, a real and historical act. Adam introduced sin into the world, Jesus introduces perfect righteousness to the world. Those who are in Adam are sinners, those who are in Christ are righteous. I am only saying that to be consistent in this passage, both Adam and Christ are either mythological or not. My vote is that since Paul wants us to understand that Christianity is based upon the historical reality of the crucifixion and resurrection. He views the introduction of sin into the world based upon historical events, namely Adam's transgression.

And I am not certain that typology and using a character "mythically" are the same thing. Could you show me how they are?

I feel that this discussion should be its own post though, that is the exegesis of Romans 5:12-21.

Hank,

To say that Paul is "reading Adam mythically" doesn't necessarily make Adam a mere myth. It's more of a statement of the methodology that Paul is using. He is citing Adam as a type-case, an example...and then juxtaposing Jesus in response to this prior textual example.

Just because Paul engages Adam mythically doesn't require that his engagement with Jesus is the same...in fact it's quite common to use a mythic reading of a past event/character and use it to teach us something about the present (just look at my discussion on Gal. 4 above), and for Paul Jesus was a very present reality.

For Paul, Adam is the mythic type-case for sin. Paul is only using Adam's story as part of his argument for Christ's atonement, as something to work off of. He says quite clearly that Adam's example brought sin into the world and death with it, but "death spread to all because all have sinned" (Rom. 5.12). It's not a historical argument, it's a rhetorical one. Did Paul think Adam was a real historical figure? Maybe, probably...but that's not how he engages him.

The same cannot be said for Jesus, for while Paul is definitely dealing primarily with the risen/exalted Christ that reigns in heaven, he goes to significant links to establish Jesus as a historical figure (Rom. 9.5; 1 Cor. 15.3-8; Gal 4.4; etc.). I'd say there's a distinct difference.

I'm gonna stop now...Paul isn't an area I have made myself as well-versed as I should be. I don't want to overstep my bounds. JR has done much more work and reflection on Paul's reading of Adam's story, hopefully he can contribute. Similar for JEPD and the Post-Exilic final formation of the Torah. I can certainly contribute to the discussion, but there are others here much more well-versed in such issues than I. I will say this, while Wellhausen is an important scholar...he's a product of his time, that being working as a German Orientalist scholar in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. In my opinion, his documented anti-semitism should be taken into account when assessing his handling of Jewish scripture.

JR,

I would like to see another post that further expands the idea of multiple authors/redactors of the Pentateuch that date as late as the Post-Exilic community.

As for Adam (knowing this has already been covered), if Paul's claims about Adam only work if he is a myth, then the same must apply to Jesus. He has to be a mythological character like Adam to be able to say the same things about justification as Paul does about Adam's disobedience. I just don't think it works. But that's already been done.

Hank,

You are a part of the people of God.  This is a story (not 'just' anything ;) of that people that teaches you (and me) how to be God's people.  I find the historicity of the story less relevant than you for that reason.

As for the Pentateuch, you should definitely check it out... there are some pretty big problems with taking Moses as the author of what we have now.  I don't think many doubt that parts of it can be traced back to Moses, but the evidence of multiple authors/documents is pretty overwhelming even from a casual reading of the narratives (the repeated doubling in the flood narratives of Gen 6-9 being just one example).

Paul doesn't use Adam as a historical figure - he can't make the kind of claims about Adam's affect on humanity unless he's reading Adam mythically.

JR,

I'd like to see a more fully developed view of Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch?) being written in the Post-Exilic community. I have always seen the Pentateuch as Moses writing to the Hebrews to confirm to them that Yahweh is the only true God that created the world and all the nations in it, promised Israel the land of Canaan on an oath to their father Abraham, and to encourage them to take the land of Canaan and submit themselves under God's law in the land. I am very curious , is this based upon JDEP and Wellhousen (SP)?

As to your comment on myths being in American history, the "myths" you point to are not routed in history. But they are anchored to people who are rooted in history, which maintains their authority. But if Adam is not history, the authority that comes from his story is gone, in my mind. There is nothing to anchor him to me and I can write him off very easily. I do not have to allow all of God's self-disclosed revelation to be binding upon me because it is just a story, not part of the meta narrative that explains the human condition and its relationship to its creator, YHWH. But I would agree with these stories you point out as being myth. And I would agree with your assessment about the Declaration of Independence.

Oh, hope you will come to the thing with Schreiner, the Universalist, and the Imam lecture on Friday.

Hank -

There are plenty of myths in American creation history; i.e., George Washington and the Cherry Tree, throwing the dollar across the Potomac, Paul Revere's midnight ride, Betsy Ross sewing the American Flag, etc.

For that matter, the Declaration of Independence itself is one big ole fat myth - it sets up a bunch of stuff that's not historically demonstrable (like the idea that America guarantees 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to all children of the creator, e.g. humans) to call us into a world where those things are possible (yeah yeah, we're still working on it).

And what if - as I've suggested elsewhere - Genesis 1 was not composed just for the heck of it, but was written as a Jewish parody of the Enuma Elish in order to undermine the Babylonian cultural ideals taking root in the post-Exilic Jewish community?  Then they would have known that this wasn't historically factual, but also that it wasn't meant to be; to interpret it literally rather than mythologically would be to miss the point.

And to everyone: if you're not already aware, you should be that Jews do not consider Genesis 3 to be a 'Fall' from anything.  In fact, that reading is not really very popular until Paul.  And of course from there it's become the only allowable interpretation in Christendom.  For better and worse.

My vote is to take back the term Myth.  It's a good word, and an accurate word.

"I think it is fairly clear in the internal witness of the Bible (I do not inted to speak for all cultures) the scriptures were seen as historical accounts. Adam and Eve were real people in time and space with real children and a definite lineage, at least that is the natural reading when one looks at a geneology. Apart from any other presuppositions (like say evolution or some other psuedo-science) this is what one would conclude from the texts. So I would say this is what one would conclude from the texts. So I would say this is how the authors of the Bible viewed the writings of the other inspired authors."

What some of us are trying to point out in this discussion is that what you call a "natural reading" is actually very conditioned. There's no such thing as a "natural reading," because reading takes place within culture/society, which in turn gives you a set of guidelines and criteria with which to view texts. Our modern values tell us that when we read a story that seems to take place in a historical setting with historical figures...it should be "historically accurate." If it isn't "true history," then it is not legitimate and should be discarded. These are the "presuppositions" that our culture gives us to view history and historical texts.

The problem comes when we project those standards upon antiquity. When one assumes that the people reading and writing in the 1st centure CE are using the same exact standards and guidelines that we are...well that's just absurd. This is especially so when we look at how the ancients read and interacted with texts.

Consider Galations 4.21-31. This is Paul's reading of the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar (Gen. 16-21.7). He reads it as Hagar and Sarah representing two covenants, one being of the flesh and slavery, the other being spirit and freedom. He's making the case that we are the children of Sarah...the children of the promise, of freedom.

Now, does Paul's reading depend on these women being true literal historical figures? Absolutely not (not that I'm saying they weren't or that Paul didn't think they were, this is simply an example). Paul's hermeneutic does not care about the "historical validity" of this story, what's important is how he can use the elements of the story to teach in the here and now. This type of hermeneutic was quite popular for centuries before and after Paul. Many of our texts that we hold has "history" were in fact written and read during this period of history. Think about how our standards and guidelines impact the way we write and read history. Don't you think that their standards and guidelines would have a dramatic affect upon how a culture reads and writes their history?

It's not about "believing" or "disbelieving." It's about admitting that the way we read history involves a huge amount of these dreaded "presuppositions," presuppositions that likely just wouldn't have made any sense to the people writing and reading our Biblical texts. It's about coming to terms with cultural differences that span millenia, so we can better understand our earliest witnesses to God and Jesus Christ. The point is that we shouldn't be so arrogant to think that our modern way of reading and writing history is the only and best way.

Part of me thinks that using the term "myth" as the way the Hebrews viewed the creation account in Genesis 1-2 leads me to think that the Hebrews themselves didn't really believe that is what happened. It leads me to think that they really didn't think that is how God created the world or that is how man was exiled from God's presence and the break in relationship with man and God started. The term myth makes me think that they don't believe what is supposed to be their own history, like George Washington really didn't lead the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War or Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Declaration of Independence or Paul Revere's Ride. The term "myth" just seems to imply it was something to tell the kids at night to draw morals from and nothing more. It didn't shape them as a people who worshiped Yahweh. Those are just my initial thoughts on the word "myth" especially as it relates to Genesis 1-11.

I understand the definition, but that just isn't the natural meaning to "myth" that everyone understands. It cuts off at the knees the whole idea, when I just think of the word "myth," that the Bible is the meta narrative that explains all of human history in relationship to Yahweh, humanity's Creator. There has to be a better word to use that does not damage (I guess) the Bible being the meta narrative of humanity. I'm just not sure.

Well, to the first two questions I would state that again as I cited the dictionary definition of myth the implied meaning is "untruth". So no to one. I understand that academics use the word more technically but conscious of its dismissive baggage.

"When looking at texts that were written by the ancients, what perspective should we assume? Should we view the texts as they did, or should we approach the text in the same manner as we would one with similar features that was written today? (i.e. it looks like history, it is history)"

I think it is fairly clear in the internal witness of the Bible (I do not inted to speak for all cultures) the scriptures were seen as historical accounts. Adam and Eve were real people in time and space with real children and a definite lineage, at least that is the natural reading when one looks at a geneology. Apart from any other presuppositions (like say evolution or some other psuedo-science) this is what one would conclude from the texts. So I would say this is how the authors of the Bible viewed the writings of the other inspired authors.

"If myth, in its technical usage, is too problematic of a term for use with the laity, what can be done about it? New term? Better educated laity?"

I would say Yes. I think academic buffs consciously use it being fully aware of it's negative baggage as a back hand against the Bible. So, yes to a new term (or just an abandoning of "myth" in reference to the Bible).

"Most importantly, what is at stake in using the term myth?"

Well, the authority of scripture itself is at stake. To say that belief in part of the Bible is sort of optional, psuedo-historical logically undermines the whole book. Because the rest of scripture presupposes the historicity of Genesis. It is fine discussing the mechanics of the Genesis account, literal 6 days etc. However, you can't logically reject the historicity of these events and hold to any form of innerancy and therefore authority of Scripture.

"There are just some starter questions - feel free to address any or none of the points."

Hehe, I thought that was pretty funny Henry.

Travis, the way I usually use the word myth follows from the following definition:

In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. (from the evil wiki)

Genesis 1-11 falls into that pretty easily. Do you not think it does?

Also, myth is a literary term, by using it, I am classifying what type of literature it is. You do this by comparing the text with other contemporary texts - you look at mythological literature and then you compare it with whatever text you are wanting to classify. What exegetical criteria are you expecting?

Here are some jumping off points:

Comment on "The Other Brother" by JR - Reasons why Gen 1-11 should be considered myth.

History in the Eyes of Ancients - What the people who were writing "history" in antiquity thought history was.

Thoughts on Origin Stories - The real purpose of origin stories for the people that wrote them (and shouldn't that be our starting point?)

Real Myth - Danger of mistaking myth for history


Genesis 1 as "True Myth": 5 Possibilities @ Opensource Theology - Overall excellent discussion of this issue.

Honzo,

I am wondering how exactly do you know that Genesis 1-11 is myth? By saying so you are making an epistemically positve claim on a certain text of the Bible. In doing so, I am sure you have a reason for saying this.

I feel that to truly understand this text, one would have to know Hebrew (which I do not yet). So you can give an internal reasons (i.e. exigetical) reasons for this?

-Travis

Casey, Thanks for jump-starting the convo. I'm writing this as I await everyone being ready to go to a movie, so this will be jumbled and incomplete.

I had the same experience as you with the word myth. Growing up it meant accounts that were obviously false. Since my belief in the Bible as the Word of God meant that it must be historically accurate (God can't be a lying, can He?) there had better not be any myths in the Bible. Otherwise the Bible is reporting what seems to be true (i.e. Historical, as we use the term now), but is not really true (happened in History).

Imagine my dismay when the term Myth was applied to the Genesis accounts my freshman year of college (I would have been my own worst enemy: TA-Henry and Freshmen-Henry).

But, as they were using it, it was a technical term, it did not mean untrue (first Historically, and then, through a collapsing of a card house, morally, because the historical basis had been underminded), but that it did not address the historical question....

now I have to go - peace.

Well, I won't have many answers. But I will start the debate.

Most of your questions are beyond my abilities to answer.

But I can describe my usage of the word.

In high school, myth was taught as folk lore. Aseps stories, Greek mythology, and Paul Bunyan were indeed myths.

When I started college, people changed the meaning of Myth (but seemed to imply folk-lore, untrue stories). Higher critics used the word very differently from the average joe.

A good question might be WHY? Why would higher critics do this?

Honzo, I really like your questions, especially the question of the impact it has on laity and the difference laity and higher critics have.

20-30 years ago...the same problem arose with the word STORY. Story seems to be folk lore...untrue. Now, it doesn't have the same connotations and many use the word story to describe events in the bible (the story of David).
casey