True Myth

[MagusYanam]

The great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once posited that there was something wrong with the way both liberals and conservatives viewed Genesis. To him it seemed that neither was taking Genesis 1 and 2 seriously. With the conservatives, the problem was self-evident. Genesis was meant to be a religious text conveying deep spiritual truths, not scientific and not historical, and conservatives still wanted to reduce it to one or both of the latter two. This precludes (as we have seen) any serious discussion of the deep metaphysical implications of the Genesis views of human nature or good and evil.

With the liberals, the problem was not as apparent, but just as serious. When approached from the standpoint of 'it's just a myth', some would tend to dismiss it on those grounds and replace it with a myth of their own - a myth of progress, for example. They would accept the external (empirical) scientific realities while again brushing over the metaphysical discussions of the actual creation myth itself.

I don't agree with Niebuhr on a lot of things, but this is one area Niebuhr seems to have gotten right, IMHO. Niebuhr's approach was this: we should not take Genesis as literal scientific or historical fact, but we should also not dismiss it as a superstition, since obviously it was held to some other purpose. We should instead take it seriously, on its own terms, and regard it as 'true myth' - a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin.

So, is Niebuhr right? Is the paradoxical 'true myth' a good way to approach the reading of Genesis, and have both sides been going about it the wrong way?

[micatala]

Good question Magus.

My initial reaction is that Niebuhr has a valid point. I certainly agree that the conservative literalist interpretation is not good, both theologically and certainly scientifically.

I had not thought much about the 'liberal' position, other than that many who criticize the literalist interpretation, then leap to the conclusion that there is no 'truth' there and we should conclude that not only Genesis, but the entire bible, has no value. This is not a valid conclusion, in my view.

Certainly many physicists and others early in the 20th century did not like the idea of a universe that was 'finite in time', that is, having a beginning in the big bang, not always for scientific reasons but often for more subjective (religious?) reasons.

[juliod]

regard it as 'true myth' - a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin.

Um, but isn't that the same as calling Genesis literary fiction?

Wouldn't "a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin" describe most novels? Particularly moralists like Dickens?

BTW, I don't know who these "liberals" are in the original post. Liberal theists do not generally regard Genesis as "just a myth". That's the stance of we atheists, liberal, conservative, or other.

The problem is really with only one group: the conservatives (i.e. creationists). It's a problem because they want to insist something is true when it has been clearly shown to be false, and everyone else accepts it.

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

Um, but isn't that the same as calling Genesis literary fiction?

Wouldn't "a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin" describe most novels? Particularly moralists like Dickens?

Not exactly. Dickens didn't go about writing 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'Oliver Twist' specifically in order to propagate a particular philosophy, but primarily to entertain. There are some interesting parallels, however. Genesis is, after all, a literary work - I won't disagree with you there. There are definitely portions of Genesis which are not verifiably factual, and others which most scholars of the field can be pretty sure have a solid basis in fact. You can't read Genesis as straight history or as straight fiction.

The portion in question, however, is of interest because of its non-literal, metaphorical meanings and religious significance (that was Niebuhr's material point). It seeks to address the relationship between God and man in light of man's inherent egotism and moral confusion. The interactions between Adam, Eve and God are symbolic for human relations with each other and with their Maker.

BTW, I don't know who these "liberals" are in the original post. Liberal theists do not generally regard Genesis as "just a myth". That's the stance of we atheists, liberal, conservative, or other.

Yes, it would be a good idea now to establish that Niebuhr was doing his thing back in the '30's, when liberal theists in general tended largely to ignore Genesis. Niebuhr himself was a liberal theist, and he was really trying to get his fellows to rethink this approach, which (as we can see) many did. Thanks for catching me on that one.

The problem is really with only one group: the conservatives (i.e. creationists). It's a problem because they want to insist something is true when it has been clearly shown to be false, and everyone else accepts it.

For me, it's not as simple as 'true' or 'false'. Most liberal theists now believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are true in a philosophical sense, where conservatives will usually try to defend Genesis' historical truth. I would argue that in a proper philosophical context, the creation myth can ring very true for most people, theist or atheist. Niebuhr's point was that we should take the creation myth seriously, not literally, and realise that there is a paradoxical element to all of the Bible, whether that being discussed is poetry, allegory, myth, popular literature of the times, proverbial anthology, history, epistle or Gospel.

[Jose]

I agree with juliod that it is incorrect to state that "liberals" claim that Genesis is "just a myth." It is a complex mix of atheists and followers of other equally-valid religions who state that Genesis is a myth, while many Christians who accept Genesis as a form of truth are themselves quite liberal.

I had not thought much about the 'liberal' position, other than that many who criticize the literalist interpretation, then leap to the conclusion that there is no 'truth' there and we should conclude that not only Genesis, but the entire bible, has no value. This is not a valid conclusion, in my view.

I don't think that it is the "liberal" position that comes to this conclusion. Rather, it is the Christian fundamentalists' caricature of the liberal position. They claim that liberals jump to the conclusion that the bible has no value, apparently out of fear that any scientific truth that conflicts with Genesis will nullify the entire bible--starting with the basic notion of Truth. In reality, the "liberal" position holds that there are many truths, but that they must be sought in more places than merely the bible.

It is true, however, that sometimes these other truths contradict the presumed truths that fundamentalists infer from their strict interpretation of the bible--and it is here that the conflict arises. The liberal position recognizes that the bible was written at a time when human knowledge was far more primitive than it is now, and therefore presents solutions to human problems that are based on the limited understanding of that time. We can do much better for some of these problems if we incorporate a little bit of learning...say, about 2000 years' worth. Somehow (and I cannot conceive of how, myself) fundmentalists seem to deny this 2000 years' worth of human experience.

[ST88]

Niebuhr's approach was this: we should not take Genesis as literal scientific or historical fact, but we should also not dismiss it as a superstition, since obviously it was held to some other purpose. We should instead take it seriously, on its own terms, and regard it as 'true myth' - a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin.

So, is Niebuhr right? Is the paradoxical 'true myth' a good way to approach the reading of Genesis, and have both sides been going about it the wrong way?

I'm not sure I understand the liberal point of view correctly. Do you mean secular or liberal Christian? Niebuhr's interpretation doesn't seem to be sufficiently different from any liberal interpretation to be worth the differentiation, however. Either it's a story or it's a history. To say that it's somewhere in between doesn't represent the story for its purpose.

The logical conclusion to the idea that it's a history is that God did everything because He's God, God=Truth, God=Universe, etc. The purpose of laying out such a history is to show just how powerful God is and what kind of caretaker He has intended to be.

The logical conclusion to the idea that it's a story is that the folk tales/oral tradition of the culture from which it was taken had to do with expulsion and suffering. The truth of the story lies not in its spiritual component, but in its interpretive component of these tales.

To say that there's a middle ground is not a position that accepts both sides of the argument, but instead denies both. If the story is a "true myth", then we are left without a concrete example of what God is. An attempt to lay an interpretive framework like this on the story is post hoc deonstructionism. It assumes that God survives the myth aspect when the actual history aspect is removed. That is, the "true myth" interpretation is indistinguishable from the secular humanist interpretation (which may or may not accept it as a manual or a description of human behavior) -- but with the previously held idea of a God stuffed back into it.

Like the liberal interpretation, this brings the entire Bible into question. If there is no evidence for the Exodus -- and a good bit of evidence against it -- is this story also to be treated as a "true myth"?

[MagusYanam]

I don't think that it is the "liberal" position that comes to this conclusion. Rather, it is the Christian fundamentalists' caricature of the liberal position. They claim that liberals jump to the conclusion that the bible has no value, apparently out of fear that any scientific truth that conflicts with Genesis will nullify the entire bible--starting with the basic notion of Truth.

I'm not sure I understand the liberal point of view correctly. Do you mean secular or liberal Christian? Niebuhr's interpretation doesn't seem to be sufficiently different from any liberal interpretation to be worth the differentiation, however.

Okay, firstly I would like to emphasise that it was Niebuhr's understanding of the theology of History of Religion scholars like Shailer Mathews which led him to criticise the 'liberal' point of view on the subject of Biblical myth. It is most definitely not representative of all or even most liberal points of view, since Niebuhr himself was a left-winger both theologically and politically in his own time and it is certainly not representative of mine (I consider my own position to be a liberal one).

That being said, I think Jose's point is also a good one. The conservative stereotype of the liberal position is that we want to 'throw out' Genesis, which is (as I have pointed out) simply not true. Instead, we value Genesis from a different angle while still accepting rational and empirical scientific evidence for processes like evolution. Niebuhr wasn't denying evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, he was trying to strengthen the existing liberal view by giving it a firmer Biblical basis. I'm sorry if there was some confusion over my use in the current context of the term 'liberal' - I should probably have been more specific.

To say that there's a middle ground is not a position that accepts both sides of the argument, but instead denies both. If the story is a "true myth", then we are left without a concrete example of what God is. An attempt to lay an interpretive framework like this on the story is post hoc deonstructionism. It assumes that God survives the myth aspect when the actual history aspect is removed.

Then I suppose we must make St. Augustine a post hoc deconstructionist, and after him, the entire theology of the Christian Church must be based on a post hoc deconstructionism. He did, after all, say that the literal meaning of the text was only the most superficial, and went on to formulate an entire doctrine of original sin based on a deeper reading of the text.

The authors are dead, both literally and figuratively. We have the text itself; we cannot refer to the authors' intent(s). So the question remains, not how did the author intend it, but how can it be relevant to our time? Niebuhr was trying (from a theistic standpoint, granted) to make a case for an interpretation of Genesis which would remain true to the text while at the same time being relevant to and accessible by modern civilisation.

[Vladd44]

Like the liberal interpretation, this brings the entire Bible into question. If there is no evidence for the Exodus -- and a good bit of evidence against it -- is this story also to be treated as a "true myth"?

I think this is a move we can expect to see more of. As some shortcomings of the biblical texts become more obvious to a larger portion of the population, christianity will be forced to adapt.

The current regime in the limelight of xtianity in the USA considers itself a moral authority, while decrying the relativism of the "unbelieving world". Irony is, their movement will only survive the next century if it embraces a less dogmatic concept and accept a less literal interpretation of their entire doctrine.

[BeHereNow]

Theistic evolution would be a liberal Christian belief that sees Genesis as myth.
Theistic evolution has two branches. One for Darwinism (man came from apes), and one for non interspecies evolution (man was started fresh by God). Both branches allow for an old earth.
In either case it happens like evolution, but with the hand of God present at critical points.

[ST88]

To say that there's a middle ground is not a position that accepts both sides of the argument, but instead denies both. If the story is a "true myth", then we are left without a concrete example of what God is. An attempt to lay an interpretive framework like this on the story is post hoc deonstructionism. It assumes that God survives the myth aspect when the actual history aspect is removed.

Then I suppose we must make St. Augustine a post hoc deconstructionist, and after him, the entire theology of the Christian Church must be based on a post hoc deconstructionism. He did, after all, say that the literal meaning of the text was only the most superficial, and went on to formulate an entire doctrine of original sin based on a deeper reading of the text.

Absolutely he was a deconstructionist, overlaying a Greek philosophical framework onto decidedly un-Hellene documents.

My point was that without a reference to a literal God, it wouldn't make sense to ascribe a mythic action in mythic terms to the same literal God.

The authors are dead, both literally and figuratively. We have the text itself; we cannot refer to the authors' intent(s). So the question remains, not how did the author intend it, but how can it be relevant to our time? Niebuhr was trying (from a theistic standpoint, granted) to make a case for an interpretation of Genesis which would remain true to the text while at the same time being relevant to and accessible by modern civilisation.

This is exactly how deconstructionism works in works of fiction. Lady Chatterley's Lover, for example, is a Marxist document if looked at using a Marxist framework. D.H. Lawrence claimed it was all about sex. Sherlock Holmes is a homosexual character if looked at using a homosexual framework. Arthur Conan Doyle was silent on the subject. Modern literary criticism, as it applies to past works of fiction, is partly based on reader-response theory. Whatever it means to you is what it means. This is much of the reason for the production of edited versions of Huckleberry Finn, cutting out the N-word (even now, I feel compelled to write "the N-word" instead of the N-word because of its modern context).

Author's intent is a matter of biographical psychology and political leanings. Absent these, like you say, the text is all we have. This is why deconstructionism is so attractive. We don't have to bother with intent or actual contextual textual analysis, we can use a framework like tinted plastic against a colored background to see things that weren't visible before.

However, with a concept like God, whose unchanging nature is extolled throughout the Bible, such fictive interpretations don't work. He doesn't mean to you what you think he means to you (I use the figurative "you"). He is He. And that's all that He be. I think a lot of people have a problem with this. "God is good, so why is there evil?" & other such questions betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the description of God, and only show how powerful childhood indoctrination is. It's not enough to believe that God acts in a certain way -- the way that you think he means to you. People have spent lifetimes trying to figure out what that way is & it can't be summed up in a pithy sentence.

Does it make sense to "update" the meaning of the Bible for a modern audience if it means mythifying it to the point where it becomes fiction? The "higher truths" that Niebuhr is going after are only present because at one time the story was taken as literal truth. This expression of the literal truth of Genesis has filtered through our culture over the many years into such concepts as original sin, the subservience (& necessary suffering) of women, the evil snake, etc. And now that these concepts are part of our history, do we have the right to change the meaning of the story? Wouldn't that also have changed these cultural concepts if we had interpreted it in this way in the first place?