daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (12/07/89)
This stems out of my notes from an adult education workshop we had at church last Sunday. Since I hope these ideas were at least fit for human consumption, I decided to post them. I am very interested in any responses, as I have two more sessions with my group to discuss Campbell's ideas. ***** I think it useful for Christians in this society, at least those on an intellectual bent, to come to terms with Campbell and modern anthropologists of religion who have related ideas, because I find there are many folks admire his thought and think of it as a stopping-off place. I know he is well spoken of, for example, in talk.religion.newage. As Christians, I don't see that we have that option (I think we go beyond his affirmations), but it is beneficial to understand where folks that follow Campbell are coming from. >From The Way of the Storyteller: Moyers: So myth relates directly to ceremony and tribal ritual, and the absence of myth can mean the end of ritual. Campbell: A ritual is the enactment of a myth. By participating in a ritual, you are participating in a myth. We come right up against this mythic element. But, it is present every Sunday service. Now, perhaps because of the 'fictive' associations with the word myth, folks in church prefer will tend not to agree they 'this Sunday we participated in a myth.' One problem is that the meanings of the word slip around a lot, even within Campbell's 6 discussions. Here's a copied out dictionary usage that I can live with: --- Any real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideas... To get down to cases on the New Testament, Paul has some warnings about myths in the letters to Timothy and Titus. But, according to Luke, Paul cited a myth when speaking to the Athenians: "We are also his children." (BTW, Is this a fragment of Menander?) I think it an important distinction, that myths and stories can contain and convey truth, while not in some scientific or mathematical sense, but in a very *real* and non-subjective sense. With Campbell, its more like with other Buddhists: The god is within you- Don't get caught by the metaphor. I would rather say, Yes, fine- and "I Am Who Is" is out there, too! We can recognize the stories in Luke and Matthew *as stories* and still affirm their truth. Luke used a language, koine Greek, to convey & communicate - his audience had a way of hearing stories about 'the divine' and he used that. But he kept going. What Luke sits down to write is more like a history than a myth, and he makes this as clear as he can by naming real, datable people and events. We can go on from that and say, as Christians, that the truths contained and conveyed by the New Testament narratives are *real truths*, and not just reflections of our inner selves. I think we want to avoid the fallacy of reductionism: "This is *nothing but* that," but also avoid philistinism: "Other religions involve myths; *my* religion is not in any way comparable." This is the strongest difference between Luke's stories and more traditional 'myths' - these stories were told of a real person, who some of the people reading the Gospel had seen. At very least, this teacher taught in historic, not mythic, time. >From "Surprised by Joy" (CS Lewis): "I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion... was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be like this." Now, it is a fact that something like Luke's virgin birth is not unknown outside of Christian literature. Arnold Toynbee (somewhere) lists 87 correspondences between the stories about Jesus (in toto) and what he calls, 'the Hellenic saviors'. I have recently read one story from the legends of Buddha's birth which tells of his (natural) conception, but a pregnancy without 'fatigues and disorders', a miraculous birth from his mother's side, and a figure much like Simeon (of the Nunc Dimittis) who recognizes the child as a Savior. All is is totally pre-Christian. But these analogs don't explain the 'reporting' element in the Gospels away. IMHO, no speculative reason for Luke & Matthew to have included these stories is as likely as "that's the way they heard it." Rather, I would take the medieval tack, that God was trying to get through to the 'pagans' through all these prefigurements. So, this material is 'out there' And as with everything else, one has to make a choice with it; the Gospels assert what they assert; one can accept it, or attempt to reduce it. Or leave it alone. Dave Davis -These are my views, and not those of Concurrent Computer. daved@westford.ccur.com The answer, my friend {harvard,uunet,petsd}!masscomp!daved Is blowing in the wind. -------- [Of course logically one can also adopt the position that they contain a mixture of history and myth. --clh]