Bible v. Mythology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clement
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clement

Guest
I recently had a conversation with my 14 year old son, about the similarities between biblical stories and greek myth (e.g. the fall from Edan/Pandora’s Box; Flood). My son wanted to know why I thought the biblical stories were true, while the greek stories were only myths. I did the best I could, but felt I could have answered better. Any suggestions?
 
Yes, acknouwledge that not all in scripture is to be taken literaly, there are many literary forms in scritpture and these literary forms are important to understand to better understand scripture…You will find many similarities between many religions because they all deal with the spirital realm…

The diference with scripture and Christianity is that the truths in scripture and tradition deal with spiritual and eternal truths, the “Legends and myths” for lack of better terms deal with thruths God reveal to us, scripture is inspired by God, Greeks myths are born from what they observed around them and and attempt to understand this, whithout the benefit of science and Gods revelation…
 
Thank you for the insight.

My son’s next questions continued. Though he didn’t articulate it so well, he also whated to know why we can rely on revelation; and why the Greeks couldn’t rely on their stories (didn’t they believe their stories came from their gods? or even through their prophet and oracals?)
 
One of the easiest ways is longevity…obviously the multitheistic greek society doesn’t exist in the same way today. Yet, people are still worshipping the God of Abraham, and in each generation, our faith is rewarded by revelation and continuing witness of truth.
 
40.png
Clement:
Thank you for the insight.

My son’s next questions continued. Though he didn’t articulate it so well, he also whated to know why we can rely on revelation; and why the Greeks couldn’t rely on their stories (didn’t they believe their stories came from their gods? or even through their prophet and oracles?)
Click to expand...
Of course everyone believes that what he or she believe is true. But ultimately everyone can’t be right. The bottom line answer is that the ‘proof is in the pudding’. Such facts as Christ promising that the Church would not be prevailed agains,t and in fact 2000 years later, it still stands (while every other EARTHLY institution has come and gone-sometimes more than once). The fact that the Judeo-Christian mindset laid the foundation for freedom, liberty and the good things that Western society has wrought. Contrast that with modern society and how as we move away from our Christian heritage, we are beginning to lose those things. These are some ‘evidences’ that Christianity is ‘right’.

Also, a fundamental difference of Judaism and Christianity is that for the most part, these two faiths while based in revelation, the revelation is always tied to the historical occurrences as salvation history plays itself out.
Mormonism for example is based almost solely on the ‘revelations’ of Joseph Smith. So you must put all your trust into whether his ‘revelations’ where trustworthy or not. The entire faith rests only on the revelations. Likewise Islam, and Buddhism. Almost all religions throughout history fall into this category (the notable exceptions being Judaism and Christianity).

For instance, the Christian faith rests squarely on the resurrection. Now this was not strictly speaking a revelation. It wasn’t one man saying I saw Jesus, and I had a vision and he explained everything to me. While it has elements of that as well (see Saint Paul), fundamentally it comes down to whether you believe the historical fact of the resurrection. This is something for which one can and must weigh the arguments involved and make a decision, but one need not SIMPLY believe a particular oracle.

In the case of the resurrection, We have the testimony of the apostles that they did in fact see him raised, and ate with him and touched him, and they were all willing to die for that fact. And the disciples of the apostles (the early fathers), attested that this is what they said. While you can’t definitively prove the resurrection, it either was or wasn’t and doesn’t rest on any one persons ‘revelation’.

Similarly, most of the faith rests on this dichotomy of revelation mixed with historical occurrences. This is, as far as I can tell, unique to Judaism and Christianity among religions.

Hope that helps

God Bless
 
Silmarillion:
In the case of the resurrection, We have the testimony of the apostles that they did in fact see him raised, and ate with him and touched him, and they were all willing to die for that fact. And the disciples of the apostles (the early fathers), attested that this is what they said. While you can’t definitively prove the resurrection, it either was or wasn’t and doesn’t rest on any one persons ‘revelation’.
Click to expand...
It was more than just his apostles who saw the Risen Christ. In 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul discusses who saw the Jesus: …After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living…

I agree that the resurrection was the crux of the issue for me. When I was able to accept the evidence that led to the logical conclusion Jesus really did rise from the dead, then one has to accept his divinity. After I accepted his divinity, then it became logical to accept his others miracles and teachings, as well.

From there, one accepts that Christ established his Church and promised the Holy Spirit will keep it safe.

Which gets us to the Bible. How do we know it is true? Because our Church tells us it is true, and our Risen Lord has told us we can trust his Church.

Also, read: catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
 
40.png
rfk:
It was more than just his apostles who saw the Risen Christ. In 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul discusses who saw the Jesus: …After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living…
Click to expand...
Oh, certainly I agree. I wasn’t laying out ALL the evidence. My point wasn’t to ‘prove’ the ressurection, but rather address his son’s original question of ‘Why our revelation is valid, but other religions aren’t?’ I was just trying to provide an example showing that Catholic revelation is different in nature by being linked to historical occurrences.

Good post.
 
Part of the problem is the phrasing of his question, in characterizing our view of Greek beliefs as “only” myths.

Myth is simply a literary form of conveying a belief. If you acknolwedge that, by that definition, the creation stories and much of the first part of Genesis can be considered “mythic”, then you’re not in a situation of comparing “true stories” to “only myths”, but rather, comparing two different beliefs and explaining why we hold one set of beliefs (i.e. the biblical) to be accurate and complete, and the other (i.e. Greek “mythology”) to be in various places more or less inaccurate or incomplete.
 
In the book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II discussed how some people reject the message of the gospel because of the way the message was delivered, and that is to say, through men.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published around 1990 says that Rudolf Bultmann is one of the theology giants of the 20th century. And, the Commentary discusses Bultmann’s assertions about myth and scripture.

You can get pulled deep into this discussion of myths. Bottom line is that Bultmann (liberal Lutheran pastor) said that although the scripture may contain myths, it is still useful for teaching what it tries to teach.

Bultmann was concerned that modern science-oriented people were rejecting Christianity because they couldn’t accept the supernatural parts of scripture. He says the teacher’s job is to de-mythologize scripture and teach the essentials contained therein. Be warned the Bultmann said it would take decades to do that job of de-mythologizing scripture. No one or group has done it
But, the influence of his ideas lives on. It’s OK to call parts of scripture myths (and he is referring to both the Old and New Testaments).

The late Fr. Raymond Brown, who’s name appears in other threads in this site, asserts that all the nativity narratives of Jesus are fiction. They are simply composites of the Old Testament prophesies, according to him.

The subject is deep, and the influence of people like Bultmann and Brown is widespread in the Catholic Church in the U.S. Fr. Benedict Groeschel of EWTN fame talks about the widespread skepticism that exists among American priests. His comment on the historicity of scriptures is “I don’t know, I wasn’t there.” I kind of like to leave the issue at that point myself. Scripture is inspired according to our view and that’s good enough for me.

I am critical of the ‘sketicism’ scholars because this skepticism has not produced a breakthrough in understand of the gospel (the whole Bible). This path of scholarship has not borne much fruit, as far as I can tell.

If you do a Google search on Bultmann ( you get different results if you use a single n), you will find a lot of pro and con on his views.
 
C. S. Lewis was fascinated by this issue. He saw the great similarities between pagan myth and Christian teaching as providential. He called Christianity “true myth”, and saw the pagan stories as an apprehension of universal truths, with the key to understanding them being present in the life of Jesus.

He learned this from his friend, J. R. R. Tolkien. Both were fascinated by myth, and on one occasion, Lewis described them as “lies breathed through silver”. Tolkien took exception, and outlined his own views. This was instrumental in Lewis’ conversion to Christianity although not, sadly, to Catholicism.

If your son is fond of books, he is probably old enough to start on Lewis. First and Second Things and Fern Seed and Elephants are two collections of essays, which are very accessible. They deal in part with these issues. Mere Christianity is a full length book (and requires more concentration), but it deals with it more fully. The Narnia books deal with it at length, in a format suitable for children, but the topic is not explicitly discussed.

The Lord of the Rings is, in part, Tolkien’s tribute to these ideas.

I hope that this helps!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top