[soc.religion.christian] Nativity Myths and Joseph Campbell

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]