[Galvanoidum]

I'm seeking reading recommendations on this topic, especially books or articles by Orthodox authors, preferably recent.

Thanks very much.

WT

[FailiaFelay]

I'm seeking reading recommendations on this topic, especially books or articles by Orthodox authors, preferably recent.

Thanks very much.

WT

OK, it is not a book, or an article, and merely a quote, and not by an "Orthodox" author per se, but G. K Chesterton did write in his book titled "Orthodoxy": "It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad."

FWIW,
Herman the Pooh

[Fetowip]

You don't think that the Gospels are legends, do you?

[Buyemae]

You don't think that the Gospels are legends, do you?

No, but neither do I consider them "history" in the sense that is accepted today, or rather, I believe them to be much more than merely "historical accounts".

[Anavaralo]

No, but neither do I consider them "history" in the sense that is accepted today, or rather, I believe them to be much more than merely "historical accounts".

OK. But as Orthodox we do believe that a man who was really dead really rose from the dead, and that anyone standing there would have seen it happen.

Some people claim that Christianity is merely one more mythology with merely one more creation myth, flood myth, and dying-and-rising god. I'm looking for a book written by an informed believer, preferably Orthodox, that deals with this topic. I don't know of any, but there must be something out there.

IC XC
NIKA

[Daleman1984]

Actually we do not believe that anyone standing there would have seen it. It is pretty clear and obvious from the Biblical account that that is precisely not the case, that Christ in His Resurrected state was seen by some and not recognized. He was only recognized by those who were prepared to see Him, or were chosen to see Him. In there are similar accounts in Acts. In fact, the entire basis of our theology is that not just anyone can see Christ for who He really is, that it requires a process of transformation of intellect and sense perception to do so, all of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise everyone on earth would be a Christian, just as everyone on earth believes that there are stars in the heavens, because everyone can see them.

What about the question of "myth" then? It depends a lot on what you mean by myth. In the conventional sense a myth is some story that is self-consciously made up, contrived, almost for the precise purpose of deceiving people into believing something that isn't true. A more generic definition would be that a myth is an intracosmic story of God's way with man. It is virtually impossible to have any kind of constructive conversation on the question of myth, with believers or non-believers, because of the conventional definition prevailing.

[RooxiaNof]

OK. But as Orthodox we do believe that a man who was really dead really rose from the dead, and that anyone standing there would have seen it happen.

Some people claim that Christianity is merely one more mythology with merely one more creation myth, flood myth, and dying-and-rising god. I'm looking for a book written by an informed believer, preferably Orthodox, that deals with this topic. I don't know of any, but there must be something out there.

IC XC
NIKA

The fact that Christianity has parallels in many ancient myths does not take away from our witness, it merely adds to it. The fact that different cultures have similar stories means they must have a common basis, yes? If there is, in fact, one Truth, there certainly could be many variations on a common theme by those who did not have the whole picture, adding things to fill in the holes, as it were. Therefore there is some element of truth in all these myths, since they too are based to some extend on the real story of Creation, imperfectly understood. The real differentiator with Holy Scripture, however, is how it differs from the other stories: the Creation out of nothing, the concept of God as more than merely a human with superhuman attributes, in fact the whole dynamic of salvation history sets us apart as truely unique.

You might want to check out the book The Power of the Word by Fr. John Breck. It has been a while and I don't have my copy at hand, but I think he talks to the subject to some extent. At any rate it is an excellent read, well worth the time.

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

Herman,

Thank you very much for this.

Owen,

I stand corrected. I just looked at some resurrection icons, and in each the Lord was in that almond-shaped thing, the name of which I forget; it signifies that only the eyes of faith can see what's in there.

Bill

[catermos]

Hi William,

I searched via internet the library of Theology (or Faculty of religion?) of my university but the only thing I found was a book about orphism and Christianity. Next time I go there I'll ask for more information.
Is there any specific mythology you are interested in? Anything about pagan symbols in our religion maybe?

Panayota

[kSmica]

Hi William,

I searched via internet the library of Theology (or Faculty of religion?) of my university but the only thing I found was a book about orphism and Christianity. Next time I go there I'll ask for more information.
Is there any specific mythology you are interested in? Anything about pagan symbols in our religion maybe?

Panayota

Panayota,

I guess what I'd be most interested in would be the Greek and Roman mythologies that were around when St. Paul was preaching.

I believe that CS Lewis addressed this subject in one of his books, but for the life of me I can't remember which one.

Much thanks,

Bill

ICXC
NIKA

[hauptdaunnila]

Herman,

I just looked at some resurrection icons, and in each the Lord was in that almond-shaped thing, the name of which I forget; it signifies that only the eyes of faith can see what's in there.

Bill

There are no icons of the Lord's resurrection. The usual paschal icon in fact depicts the Descent of Christ into Hades on the Saturday between His crucifixion and resurrection, and is the visual companion to the texts of Great and Holy Saturday, that Sabbath of Sabbaths. The 'almond-shaped thing' is usually called a 'mandorla' which is Italian for almond. A mandorla device is constructed from two intersecting circles within a third circle:

Mandorla.gif

In Orthodox iconography, this represents Christ's divine nature and heavenly glory which was seen: 'we beheld his glory' (John 1:14). The mandorla is also to be seen in icons of the Transfiguration, Ascension, and the Dormition of the Mother of God.

[investmentonlinev2006x]

You can make a cursory examination of some source works by going to "Christian mythology" in Wikepedia. Just don't take any of Wikepedia it too literally as source material! But I noticed this one statement by Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 54: "Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come [...] [the demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets."

So Justin, being fully aware of pre-Christian mythologies regarding a dying and rising god and a virgin birth, is giving his interpretation or explanation of that fact -- that they were deliberately fostererd by Satan.

There are a number of scholars and pseudo-scholars who have addressed what appears to be a kind of universality of mythology. The Golden Bough by Fraser kind of set it all off. Then you have Karl Jung who was a pro-Nazi psychoanalyst who attributed everything to a genetic fundament, and his epigone Joseph Campbell (also kind of vaguely pro-Nazi) who likewise treats the myth as our genes speaking to us. Then you have Mercea Eliade. The best scholar on the subject of myth is Eric Voegelin, who does not take a typological approach, but defines myth as God's way of revealing Himself to mankind. You can't just go to Voegelin and get a taxonomy of myth. But one example he uses is the Sumerian King list, in which you have a linear view of history culminating in the present with the present King (he would probably see the geneology of Jesus found in Luke in the same light). Voegelin was not a universalist in the same sense as these other scholars. He is a philosopher, not a theologian per se, but more credible than the typical philosopher of myth.

Then you have the so-called traditionalist school promoted by people like Fritjof Schuon who say that it really doesn't matter of you are a Muslim, or Tridentine Catholic, or Orthodox, as long as you are faithful to the most traditional elements. This represents a kind of modern gnostic myth that says that whatever is earlier is better, in reaction to modern progressivist mythology.

Thomas Mann's representation of the mythic world of ancient Israel can be found in Joseph and His Brothers, especially the introduction. It is a novel, of course, which does a much better job of entering the mindset than any academic work.

The Fathers are generally dismissive of what they term pagan myths, without going into any kind of deep analysis or comparison, as far as I can tell. They are not so foolish as to contrast Christianity in terms of its facticity alone, rather, everything is seen in terms of a fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecy. A few of the Fathers are somewhat receptive to the idea that Greek philosophy is really a search for Christ. And the Timeaus is recognized as Plato's discovery that there is one God. Some believed that it was because Moses was a teacher of Plato. The entire Platonic corpus can be seen as myth-making, with the implicit, sometimes explicit suggestion that God reveals Himself through the myth. This is probably stated most explicitly in The Symposium.

Studying myth can be helpful in the sense that one begins to recognize "modernity," not as a revolution in science but as a revolution in myth. You have this idea of social/historical/economic progress which is clearly a re-working of the Judeo-Christian idea of progress culminating in a heavenly kingdom. Only now it is something that man can achieve through scientific advancement coupled with political activism, by which we can take control of history and "human nature."

I personally believe that a very rich area of investigation that has never really been focused on is the idea of human freedom in terms of myth. And what are the earliest accounts of human freedom? Is it, indeed,
Genesis 1, coupled with the history of ancient Israel? God created Adam and Eve free, knowing that they would misuse their freedom, and the history of Israel is really the history of them surrenduring their freedom in exchange for some kind of security guarantee, or having their freedom stolen from them, while God continually intervenes to restore Israel to a state of freedom. For Christians, Israel represents this pure state of freedom, but is no longer a place on the map. And Christ comes to restore our freedom to choose Him, having been enslaved by Satan.

This "myth" of freedom has now been told in a very perverse way in which it is no longer Satan who is the enemy of man, and the enemy of freedom, but freedom itself is the enemy. Because we know that man chooses unwisely and abuses his freedom and uses his freedom to harm and exploit others, and this results in all manner of injustices and suffering, including death itself, the way in which to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven is to banish or at least to severely restrict freedom. And it would be interesting to know if this rationale has its precursors in any ancient myths.

[tattcasetle]

Andreas and Owen,

Much thanks for your responses.

It's good to hear the name of Voegelin again. I read three or so of his shorter books as an undergraduate, and they were very exciting. I've never taken on his magnum opus, but not I'm tempted. However, having started The Gulag Archipelago just last night, I may have to wait awhile.

Bill

[gMUVgw71]

I got a copy of G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man today. To judge from the table of contents, this is just the book I was looking for.

[jimbomaxf]

Panayota,

I guess what I'd be most interested in would be the Greek and Roman mythologies that were around when St. Paul was preaching.

I believe that CS Lewis addressed this subject in one of his books, but for the life of me I can't remember which one.

Much thanks,

Bill

ICXC
NIKA

C.S. Lewis addresses this directly in Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. He addresses it indirectly in Till We Have Faces.

[bataovady]

In thinking about this topic I had forgotten about Gerard. And this is an excellent encapsulation of Gerrad's life's work. Although it should be pointed out that his anthropological studies of myth, but particularly on what he calls mimetic violence, scapgoating, and violence and the sacred, was his own failed attempt to rationalize ancient myth, which in turn led to his conversion. At least I hope I have described it in a fair way that he would agree with. Of course, the myth of a sacrificial god is not the only ancient myth that the Gospel turns upside down. Far from it. I think the point worth considering is that, while the Gospels are not mythological in the conventional sense, it is still mythological in the sense that it takes myth seriously as the primary way that mankind conceptualizes, as well as experiences his world, including the world of divinity. The term "modern times" for example, is mythology.


But just as another example of ancient myth turned upside down, one only has to look at Kingship.

Gerard has done a service in debunking the notion that there is a virtual equivalency to all mythologies, something that people like Jung and Campbell fail to understand. But I think he has limited himself -- and Christianity -- by focusing only on violence.

[aaaaaaaabbbby]

Here's the piece by Girard that I posted earlier and which prompted Owen's response. Girard's approach may be "limited," as Owen says (I prefer to see it as "focused"), but it is most enlightening. I'm deeply grateful to Girard. This is the first of his writings that I've read, but it certainly won't be the last.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...ls-mythical-11

Bill

ICXC
NIKA

[wallyfindme]

I don't mean to diminish Gerard's contribution here. He is extremely helpful in enabling us to see the Gospel in much greater spiritual depth and power than just a recitation of historical facts. And yet, ironically, he seems to be committing a kind of rationalistic fallacy here. Can't quite put my finger on it.

[effenseshoora]

Humphrey Carpenter describes the pivotal conversation with C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien before Lewis's conversion to Christianity:

Usually his discussions with Tolkien took place on Monday mornings, when they would talk for an hour or two and then conclude with beer at the Eastgate, a nearby pub. But on Saturday 19 September 1931 they met in the evening. Lewis had invited Tolkien to dine at Magdalen, and he had another guest, Hugo Dyson, whom Tolkien had first known at Exeter College in 1919. Dyson was now Lecturer in English Literature at Reading University, and he paid frequent visits to Oxford. He was a Christian, and a man of feline wit. After dinner, Lewis, Tolkien, and Dyson went out for air. It was a blustery night, but they strolled along Addison’s Walk discussing the purpose of myth. Lewis, though now a believer in God, could not yet understand the function of Christ in Christianity, could not perceive the meaning of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. He declared that he had to understand the purpose of these events–as he later expressed it in a letter to a friend, ‘how the life and death of Someone Else (whoever he was) two thousand years ago could help us here and now–except in so far as his example could help us’.

As the night wore on, Tolkien and Dyson showed him that he was here making a totally unnecessary demand. When he encountered the idea of sacrifice in the mythology of a pagan religion he admired it and was moved by it; indeed the idea of the dying and reviving deity had always touched his imagination since he had read the story of the Norse god Balder. But from the Gospels (they said) he was requiring something more, a clear meaning beyond the myth. Could he not transfer his comparatively unquestioning appreciation of sacrifice from the myth to the true story?

But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver.’ No, said Tolkien, they are not.

And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their branches bent in the wind, he struck out a different line of argument.

You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a ‘tree’ until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

In expounding this belief in the inherent truth of mythology, Tolkien had laid bare the centre of his philosophy as a writer, the creed that is at the heart of The Silmarillion.

‘The account of this conversation is based on Tolkien’s poem ’Mvthopoeia’, to which he also gave the titles ‘Misomythos’ and ‘Philomvth to Misomvth’. One manuscript is marked ‘For C. S. L.’.

Lewis listened as Dyson affirmed in his own way what Tolkien had said. You mean, asked Lewis, that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened? In that case, he said, I begin to understand.

At last the wind drove them inside, and they talked in Lewis’s rooms until three a.m., when Tolkien went home. After seeing him out into the High Street, Lewis and Dyson walked up and down the cloister of New Buildings, still talking, until the sky grew light. Lewis later wrote in one of his letters:

Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths; i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of the poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things' ... namely, the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Neither Lewis nor Tolkien were Eastern Orthodox. I do not know if Orthodox Christians might have a different view of things.

[Woziwfaq]

Fr Al, it's a great delight to see your citation of Carpenter's account of that conversation between Tolkien, Lewis, and Dyson. However, I find myself having reservations when Tolkien comments that, "only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall."

While I deeply value and admire the ability to invent stories, specifically stories that provide deep glimpses into the truth, I wonder about the notion that Man is thereby ascribing "to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall." That seems to ascribe a bit too much (salvific?) power to the human imagination.

Does that strike anyone else as problematic?