When did the Bible begin to be labeled as mythology?

[Sandkicker]

Pretty simple question. When did the Bible begin to be called mythology by Roman Catholics? It seems like past saints, especially St. Jerome defended the validity of the bible with the Vulgate (the books he didn’t include, he claimed as non-inspired).

 

[edward_george]

When something is referred to as “myth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s untrue. Another definition of the word “myth” can be a story having to do with the supernatural. The Bible has mythology in it, but that doesn’t mean that we believe it to be untrue–simply that it’s talking about things which are not natural, but beyond the natural.

-ACEGC

 

[tarboy]

As long as catholics believe it is the inspired mythology of God, I don’t see an issue .

I’m more concerned about christians who believe the bible is the ultimate science manual, or record of history. I think their belief causes many non-christians to reject the bible outright. The focus should be on the spiritual teachings and not implied science or accurate recordings of historical events.

 

[patg]

Pretty simple question. When did the Bible begin to be called mythology by Roman Catholics? It seems like past saints, especially St. Jerome defended the validity of the bible with the Vulgate (the books he didn’t include, he claimed as non-inspired).

To answer the “when” part of your question, these are some of the primary official documents which allowed Catholic scripture scholars to investigate and describe the various literary forms (such as myth) found in the bible:

• Divino Afflante Spiritu, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII, 1943: This is the most important official document that inaugurated modern Catholic critical exegesis of the Bible. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals, but it also respects the human dimension of the Word of God. Catholic scholars are urged to concentrate on the literal meaning of Scripture while being sensitive to the many other deeper senses that expound its spiritual meaning.
• Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "On the Historical Truth of the Gospels;’ 1964: This document is significant for its acknowledgment of the multilayered traditions that are found in the canonical Gospels. It explains the threefold process by which the Gospels came into being: oral, written, and edited (redacted) traditions. Each of these corresponds to specific time frames: the time of Jesus and the apostles, the time of the preaching and collecting of traditions of later disciples, and the time of the evangelists who finally collected and edited the traditions for their individual communities. This process helps to explain why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it. Careful discernment of the layers of the tradition and their theological intent is required to answer historical questions.
• Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 1965: This is the most fundamental document because it is a dogmatic constitution of the Church formulated by an ecumenical council. Its extensive teaching affirms basic Catholic doctrine on the Bible, e.g., inspiration, lack of error in matters of faith and morals, the human dimension of the Scriptures that nonetheless communicates the divine message as God intended, and the fact that Scripture is "the soul of theology:’ It also notes the complex relationship of Scripture and Tradition as the fountains of divine revelation which give life to the Church, and it gives encouragement to Catholic biblical scholars for their important work.
• Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church;’ 1993: This is the most extensive official treatment of the many different modern methods of scientific biblical study that flourish in our day, both historical-critical methods and newer approaches. It reviews each of them, affirming what is positive and warning against what is negative in each method. Only fundamentalism is sharply criticized as incompatible with a Catholic approach to Scripture.

The above is taken from Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D Witherup, S.S. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur).

As mentioned by someone else, labeling a passage a “myth” is not a statement of truth or falsehood, rather, it defines the literary form of the story.

 

[Publisher]

Scripture as myth can be existentially true…without be historically true.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t provide an exact date, but it began to be rejected, by my observation, starting in the 1970s. There are certainly writings prior to that that while not directly stating we should regard the Bible as mythology, some believed it was just another book among many religious books and was no more valid than any other. In the last ten years or so, among some Catholics, there have been efforts to promote either a misunderstanding of parts of the Bible or to propose that parts of the Bible are either stories that never actually occurred but that are meant to teach a lesson. This is especially true of the book of Genesis.

Which raises some very important questions.

1. Was Adam and Eve the parents of all human beings alive today?
2. Did an individual Adam and individual Eve exist? And if so, did they commit the Original Sin which is passed on to all of us?
3. Was Jesus Christ born and meant to die as a sacrifice for all so that sins may be forgiven and did He establish his Church (His Bride) on earth with the mission to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?

The biggest problem I see among Catholics and non-Catholics who primarily label the Old Testament, but rarely parts of the New Testament, as mythology or mostly mythology, is this.

The exact same people often believe two completely contradictory things.

1. The Bible is not a science book and should not be treated as a science book, although it may make the occasional historical reference.
2. The Bible, especially Genesis, should be treated as a science book. This is often linked to events in Genesis being described as impossible.

So, for Catholics, did Jesus actually raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, stop the wind and waves by verbal command, and rise bodily from the dead without the aid of science? Or did the God of the Old Testament have no power at all to perform any miracles?

The other problem comes directly from textbooks that make philosophical conclusions such as man appeared as part of no plan or purpose (references on request).

Peace,
Ed

 

[patrick457]

When something is referred to as “myth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s untrue. Another definition of the word “myth” can be a story having to do with the supernatural. The Bible has mythology in it, but that doesn’t mean that we believe it to be untrue–simply that it’s talking about things which are not natural, but beyond the natural.

-ACEGC

I’ve thought of that as well. Why is it that today the word ‘myth’ seems to have this connotation of ‘utterly untrue fiction only kooks take seriously, the discussion of which would be an utterly stupid and pointless waste of one’s time’?

In its true sense, ‘mythology’ denotes a sacred narrative that tells how the world or mankind came to be in its present form, and which typically involves gods and heroes. They may rise as (usually overelaborated) accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. Myths are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach. Hence, we can say that yes, the Bible is in many ways, a ‘mythology’ par excellence.

Heck, the Greek word mythos simply meant (among other meanings) ‘tale’ or ‘story’.

 

[edwest2]

When something is referred to as “myth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s untrue. Another definition of the word “myth” can be a story having to do with the supernatural. The Bible has mythology in it, but that doesn’t mean that we believe it to be untrue–simply that it’s talking about things which are not natural, but beyond the natural.

-ACEGC

This is not the common meaning of the word myth. There are some here who do their research and understand what the Church teaches about Bible interpretation. I have also read posts here that refer to myth as myth - it never happened, and it’s only a story, but not in a Catholic sense, but in a general children’s storybook sense.

I have studied the supernatural as a general subject and the word “myth” is never associated with the word supernatural. In every case I can think of, supernatural events are events witnessed by either one or more highly credible people. Miracles and appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary are carefully examined and certified by the Church as worthy of belief, i.e. they actually occurred and there were witnesses whose state of mind, truthfulness and words were carefully evaluated.

Can you provide an example where “The Bible has mythology in it?”

Thank you,
Ed

 

[patrick457]

This is not the common meaning of the word myth. There are some here who do their research and understand what the Church teaches about Bible interpretation. I have also read posts here that refer to myth as myth - it never happened, and it’s only a story, but not in a Catholic sense, but in a general children’s storybook sense.

And that’s exactly what I’m talking about: the bastardization of the word ‘myth’ in our modern world to mean (again) ‘totally untrue fiction which only backward, mentally-juvenile kooks can appreciate or take seriously’.

 

[lampstand]

About the same time as all those crummy Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman books started to come out, and the History Channel went from documentaries to “anyone can make a tabloid special to incite speculation.”

 

[edwest2]

As long as catholics believe it is the inspired mythology of God, I don’t see an issue .

I’m more concerned about christians who believe the bible is the ultimate science manual, or record of history. I think their belief causes many non-christians to reject the bible outright. The focus should be on the spiritual teachings and not implied science or accurate recordings of historical events.

This is regarded as a problem only by some. Those who paint with a broad brush and make these claims also use this to attempt to frighten people. This accusation, in my view, also includes things God actually did in the Old Testament, and is harmful.

We read in the Bible of those, in the Old Testament, believing there is no God, and in the New Testament, of those who didn’t believe Jesus was God while He was among them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And that’s exactly what I’m talking about: the bastardization of the word ‘myth’ in our modern world to mean (again) ‘totally untrue fiction which only backward, mentally-juvenile kooks can appreciate or take seriously’.

Take Bill Maher asking a person: “Do you actually believe in a talking snake?”

Or search the many posts here that treat parts of the Bible as “flying in the face of science.” That is why the recent spate of books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens has removed any other meaning of myth as being other than a bunch of fairy tales. I mean, when you see a book on sale titled, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," or “The God Delusion,” do you think it won’t influence people?

I watched on TV as Bill Maher interviewed Richard Dawkins and asked him if something actually happened in the Bible in Genesis as literal. His answer? “No.” Now this is a professor and his words, once again, influence no one?

That’s why I saw a published photo of a man carrying a sign in Washington, D.C. that read: “America! Get off your knees!”

So I ask anyone reading this, Catholic and non-Catholic, do we pray to no one? Is the same Jesus Christ going to return as recorded in the Bible?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sandkicker]

This is not the common meaning of the word myth. There are some here who do their research and understand what the Church teaches about Bible interpretation. I have also read posts here that refer to myth as myth - it never happened, and it’s only a story, but not in a Catholic sense, but in a general children’s storybook sense.

I have studied the supernatural as a general subject and the word “myth” is never associated with the word supernatural. In every case I can think of, supernatural events are events witnessed by either one or more highly credible people. Miracles and appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary are carefully examined and certified by the Church as worthy of belief, i.e. they actually occurred and there were witnesses whose state of mind, truthfulness and words were carefully evaluated.

Can you provide an example where “The Bible has mythology in it?”

Thank you,
Ed

A big example of where the bible is mythological is the 2 creation stories. One of them HAS to be a tale, and i understand the point in the creation story is to establish God created the bible (meaning it has a true moral truth and a false literal truth), i’m just saying physically, only one can be true, which makes the other one a tale.

Here’s a link that compares the differences:
bible-wonderings.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-creation-stories.html

I would also like to point out, when i say “Mythological” i don’t mean 100% fake, i just mean that the moral truths is the purpose and the truth of the bible, and the literal truths are not always accurate or true.

 

[Sandkicker]

To answer the “when” part of your question, these are some of the primary official documents which allowed Catholic scripture scholars to investigate and describe the various literary forms (such as myth) found in the bible:

• Divino Afflante Spiritu, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII, 1943: This is the most important official document that inaugurated modern Catholic critical exegesis of the Bible. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals, but it also respects the human dimension of the Word of God. Catholic scholars are urged to concentrate on the literal meaning of Scripture while being sensitive to the many other deeper senses that expound its spiritual meaning.
• Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "On the Historical Truth of the Gospels;’ 1964: This document is significant for its acknowledgment of the multilayered traditions that are found in the canonical Gospels. It explains the threefold process by which the Gospels came into being: oral, written, and edited (redacted) traditions. Each of these corresponds to specific time frames: the time of Jesus and the apostles, the time of the preaching and collecting of traditions of later disciples, and the time of the evangelists who finally collected and edited the traditions for their individual communities. This process helps to explain why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it. Careful discernment of the layers of the tradition and their theological intent is required to answer historical questions.
• Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 1965: This is the most fundamental document because it is a dogmatic constitution of the Church formulated by an ecumenical council. Its extensive teaching affirms basic Catholic doctrine on the Bible, e.g., inspiration, lack of error in matters of faith and morals, the human dimension of the Scriptures that nonetheless communicates the divine message as God intended, and the fact that Scripture is "the soul of theology:’ It also notes the complex relationship of Scripture and Tradition as the fountains of divine revelation which give life to the Church, and it gives encouragement to Catholic biblical scholars for their important work.
• Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church;’ 1993: This is the most extensive official treatment of the many different modern methods of scientific biblical study that flourish in our day, both historical-critical methods and newer approaches. It reviews each of them, affirming what is positive and warning against what is negative in each method. Only fundamentalism is sharply criticized as incompatible with a Catholic approach to Scripture.

The above is taken from Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D Witherup, S.S. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur).

As mentioned by someone else, labeling a passage a “myth” is not a statement of truth or falsehood, rather, it defines the literary form of the story.

Absolutely awesome response, really gave me the “when” i was looking for!

 

[edwest2]

A big example of where the bible is mythological is the 2 creation stories. One of them HAS to be a tale, and i understand the point in the creation story is to establish God created the bible (meaning it has a true moral truth and a false literal truth), i’m just saying physically, only one can be true, which makes the other one a tale.

Here’s a link that compares the differences:
bible-wonderings.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-creation-stories.html

I would also like to point out, when i say “Mythological” i don’t mean 100% fake, i just mean that the moral truths is the purpose and the truth of the bible, and the literal truths are not always accurate or true.

Church teaching is quite clear on this:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers library

Regarding the claimed differences in the Genesis accounts, more from Catholic Answers:

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401sbs.asp

Peace,
Ed