Abraham a myth?

[mommybug47]

Nita, the answer is quite simply …Yes Obama is a myth too, so are escalating gass prices and economic depression. But this thread has gone way past its intended goal. My Catechism tells me that we are to depend on Holy Scripture to lead us to Our Lord…
I just want my priest to do the same!

 

[Leopard]

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, all historical records of events, handed on to succeeding generations, can be called myth…

No. A traditional myth, according to to its technical definition as a particular kind of speech or writing, is a traditional story used to teach a religious truth. A traditional story is one that is repeated from generation to generation. The definition can be enlarged to include philosophical truths important within a culture in addition to strictly religious truths.

This is as opposed to the non-technical, popular definition of myth as an untrue or unproven story. (That is the sense that the word myth is used in the TV show Mythbusters.)

Historical records can be considered myths if they are handed down from generation to generation for the purpose of teaching religious (or philosophical/cultural) truth, but records not traditionally handed down for this purpose would not be considered myths.

…In other words, when history books record that Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform that promised liberalization of abortion restrictions, can those historical records be referred to as “myth”…

Maybe. If stories about this are told again and again as a warning to future generations to be on guard so that such evils never be allowed to happen again.

A situation like that exists today within Jewish cultures, where stories of the Holocaust are told again and again so that those who suffered under the Nazis might not be forgotten and that “Never Again” would such terrible thing ever be allowed to occur. As these stories have been repeated for multiple generations now, they can be considered to have reached the status of myth.

But just the fact that an event is recorded in a history book would not be sufficient to qualify as myth.

…Or are they myth only when they are used at some later time in human history as a means to show the final stages of devaluation of human life in the womb by a majority of U.S. citizens (that is, to communicate a cultural truth of that historical period)…

That could be considered myth. The longer a story is handed on, teaching truth from generation to generation, the more firmly it may be considered to have achieved the status of myth.

…Honestly, I am not asking this to be argumentative - I really want to know. Are the words “myth” and “historical fact” to be taken as synonymous?..

No. The terms may overlap or they may not. A historical fact that is handed on traditionally to teach religious (or philosophical/cultural) truth may be considered mythic. A fictional story that is handed on the same way to teach the same truth is equally as mythic. A historical fact or a fictional story that is not traditionally handed to teach such a truth would not be considered mythic.

…Assuming all the events recorded in Scripture involving Abraham literally happened as recorded, why would they be called “myth”?..

Yes, because they have been in the past and still are today traditionally retold to teach religious truths from generation to generation.

…Are there any events in Scripture that would not be called “myth”? Why?..

That’s a very good question! A strong case could be made that as the word of God, every event recorded in the Scriptures teaches religious truth, And as the whole of the Scriptures has been traditionally handed down to teach every generation since its inception, then the whole of the Scriptures may be considered to be myth.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to recognize that some events in the Scriptures signify greater religious truths than other events. I think most Christians would agree that the accounts of Christ’s Resurrection, for example, represent a greater religious truth than all the various genealogies and censuses in the Old Testament. Because of this, Christians might also be expected to retell the Resurrection story more often than the census stories. So the Christian might consider the Resurrection stories to be more mythic than the censuses.

But on the other other hand (to paraphrase Tevye) a Jew might consider those genealogies and censuses to be very religiously and culturally significant because those people are his own ancestors. So it is very important to take culture into consideration when deciding what is myth.

…(How would you like to have me for a whole year in a classroom? )

I think I would have enjoyed that.

 

[Nita]

No. A traditional myth, according to to its technical definition as a particular kind of speech or writing, is a traditional story used to teach a religious truth. A traditional story is one that is repeated from generation to generation. The definition can be enlarged to include philosophical truths important within a culture in addition to strictly religious truths.

This is as opposed to the non-technical, popular definition of myth as an untrue or unproven story. (That is the sense that the word myth is used in the TV show Mythbusters.)

Historical records can be considered myths if they are handed down from generation to generation for the purpose of teaching religious (or philosophical/cultural) truth, but records not traditionally handed down for this purpose would not be considered myths.

Maybe. If stories about this are told again and again as a warning to future generations to be on guard so that such evils never be allowed to happen again.

A situation like that exists today within Jewish cultures, where stories of the Holocaust are told again and again so that those who suffered under the Nazis might not be forgotten and that “Never Again” would such terrible thing ever be allowed to occur. As these stories have been repeated for multiple generations now, they can be considered to have reached the status of myth.

But just the fact that an event is recorded in a history book would not be sufficient to qualify as myth.

That could be considered myth. The longer a story is handed on, teaching truth from generation to generation, the more firmly it may be considered to have achieved the status of myth.

No. The terms may overlap or they may not. A historical fact that is handed on traditionally to teach religious (or philosophical/cultural) truth may be considered mythic. A fictional story that is handed on the same way to teach the same truth is equally as mythic. A historical fact or a fictional story that is not traditionally handed to teach such a truth would not be considered mythic.

Yes, because they have been in the past and still are today traditionally retold to teach religious truths from generation to generation.

That’s a very good question! A strong case could be made that as the word of God, every event recorded in the Scriptures teaches religious truth, And as the whole of the Scriptures has been traditionally handed down to teach every generation since its inception, then the whole of the Scriptures may be considered to be myth.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to recognize that some events in the Scriptures signify greater religious truths than other events. I think most Christians would agree that the accounts of Christ’s Resurrection, for example, represent a greater religious truth than all the various genealogies and censuses in the Old Testament. Because of this, Christians might also be expected to retell the Resurrection story more often than the census stories. So the Christian might consider the Resurrection stories to be more mythic than the censuses.

But on the other other hand (to paraphrase Tevye) a Jew might consider those genealogies and censuses to be very religiously and culturally significant because those people are his own ancestors. So it is very important to take culture into consideration when deciding what is myth.

I think I would have enjoyed that.

Thank you Leopard.

 

[RobbyS]

Mommybug47, I kind of understand why the priest said what he did. Seminaries have been teaching Genesis as “Myth” for many years now. What’s not always made clear is that this idea of myth implies that the story told teaches truth and contains elements of historical truth. I heard back in the 1970s from the Sisters of Notre Dame (then fairly conservative) that Abraham came from a people who practiced child sacrifice and that he probably assumed God expected him to sacrifice Issac.

And I would say that this is true.

You were right about the truth of scripture. It does teach that scripture is truth in history. But it is not history. To modern minds, any thing other than accurate facts of history is false. But Truth transcends facts and words. I can’t remember if you were raised Catholic or not. But the Catholic Church does not insist that every single word of scripture be historically accurate. She just requires it to be TRUTH.

The story of Abraham teaches TRUTH. The Church is concerned about that TRUTH, and not really so much about the facts of an event passed down orally for many generations before it was written down.

All this said, I think your priest showed some poor judgment. The story of Abraham did, no doubt, tell the Israelites that they should not sacrifice their children. But I don’t think that’s the most important Truth it teaches. It is also the case that archeology is actually backing up many of these Old Testament stories. It’s one thing to say we can’t verify the historical accuracy of something. It’s another thing entirely to insist it can’t be as accurate as the bible teaches.

Add this to your quiver: any modern biography is “mythical,” because it takes the known facts of a person’s life and makes up a story about the person. One can be certain that if that person were to read this story, he would probably think, if not say, well, not exactly, especially when it assigns motives ot a known action or ascribes certain meanings to them. There are many biographers of Lincoln and we should be cautious when we consider how different the “Lincoln” of John Hay is from the “Lincoln” of Bill Herndon.

 

[Leopard]

Add this to your quiver: any modern biography is “mythical,” because it takes the known facts of a person’s life and makes up a story about the person. One can be certain that if that person were to read this story, he would probably think, if not say, well, not exactly, especially when it assigns motives ot a known action or ascribes certain meanings to them. There are many biographers of Lincoln and we should be cautious when we consider how different the “Lincoln” of John Hay is from the “Lincoln” of Bill Herndon.

Well, not exactly.

A modern biography (meaning a recently written biography) Is probably not myth because it probably has not been traditionally handed on from generation to generation, depending on just how recent it is. The biography or parts of the biography may become myth in time or it/they may not. It may also draw from and include previous material that predates the biography. If this previous material consists of events, either factual or fictional, that have been traditionally handed on to teach religious (or cultural/philosophical) truth, then that previous material may be considered myth, but not necessarily the recent biography itself.

The assignation of motives or meanings by an author is not in itself a factor in whether or not a particular story is myth, although it can be a factor if those motives and meanings relate to the truth that the story communicates. The fact that a biography is a made up story is not a factor in whether that story is myth.