Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

June 18th, 2013

Excerpts from “Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth — with Bill Moyers” – The Ascension

Joseph Campbell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For discussion… Would Bultmann be proud?

Excerpts from “Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth — with Bill Moyers”

MOYERS: But aren’t many visionaries and even leaders and heroes close to the edge of neuroticism?

CAMPBELL: Yes, they are.

MOYERS: How do you explain that?

CAMPBELL: They’ve moved out of the society that would have protected them, and into the dark forest, into the world of fire, of original experience. Original experience has not been interpreted for you, and so you’ve got to work out your life for yourself. Either you can take it or you can’t. You don’t have to go far off the interpreted path to find yourself in very difficult situations. The courage to face the trials and to bring a whole new body of possibilities into the field of interpreted experience for other people to experience – that is the hero’s deed.

CAMPBELL: The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy; astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility, But if you read “Jesus ascended to heaven” in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.”

(spotted on FB)

Does Christ “look down” upon us from heaven? (newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com)
The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell (the-labyrinth.com)
All Religions Are True, But None Are Literal (discoveringwisdom.com)

Tags: Bill Moyers, Joseph Campbell, myth
Posted in Scholarship | 1 Comment »

October 1st, 2011

How to tell literal fact from myth in the bible

Via Mike and Arni on Facebook.

Tags: biblical literalism, humor, myth
Posted in Other Posts | 2 Comments »

June 18th, 2011

Jason, C. John Collins, and the need to have Adam

Jason has reviewed a book which fits into the recent discussion on the historical Adam:

C. John Collins, (Phd, University of Liverpool) professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, St Louis, has written a good book on the subject of the historical Adam. From the very beginning, he lays out plainly what he believes. The introduction declares that the historical belief was that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people and that creation occurred in six days. He then states that we may change our views on the length of time in which creation took place without changing our core beliefs, but that we are in danger of disrupting the story line of the Bible…..

via Book Review: Did Adam And Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins | Pastoral Musings.

Here’s the issue as I see it – one which those who need an identifiable Adam, singular, fail to resolve. Why is it that their ‘story line of the Bible’ is the only one considered? If their story line is in danger of collapsing, is their story line valid?

I’ve read the accolades given to Collins and his work and the are impressive, but it seems to me, from reading Jason’s review and others, that Collins set out to prove something which he already believed. While he makes allowances for science and evolution, he needs the historical Adam and because he sees Adam as historical, he then reads others as seeing it as well.

For me, I don’t think that a singular individual needs to have existed in order for the narrative of the Text to remain true. We know that singular individuals have represented whole lands, etc… in Scripture and other literature of the time. So why is is that so many still insist that a singular, identifiable person exist? There is a lot of interplay here – check with a Hebrew Scholar – with number in Adam. Adam may mean one person or many.

Also, I am still interesting in Paul’s use of tupos in describing Adam. I hope that I’m able to get it it later.

Anyway, read Jason’s review (formatting, Jason!) as it is one which made me interesting in the book.

Tags: C. John Collins, Historical Adam, myth
Posted in Genesis | No Comments »

June 13th, 2011

Tim Keller, ANE Myths, τύπος, and the Mythological Adam

Tim Keller – THE GOSPEL COALITION – supports the allowance of science to teach about God’s Creation. Further, he understands the nature of myth:

Kenneth Kitchen, however, protests that this is not how things worked. The prominent Egyptologist and evangelical Christian, when responding to the charge that the flood narrative (Gen 9) should be read as “myth” or “proto-history” like the other flood-narratives from other cultures, answered:

The ancient Near East did not historicize myth (i.e. read it as imaginary “history”). In fact, exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to “mythologize” history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.

In other words, the evidence is that Near Eastern “myths” did not evolve over time into historical accounts, but rather historical events tended to evolve over time into more mythological stories. Kitchen’s argument is that, if you read Genesis 2-11 in light of how ancient Near Eastern literature worked, you would conclude, if anything, that Genesis 2-11 were “high” accounts, with much compression and figurative language, of events that actually happened. In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.

He goes on to speak about the use of Adam in Paul’s writings, specifically, Romans 5. He is correct, that for the bible to retain the authority traditionally assigned to it, that we must allow the authors to retain their authority of interpretation:

When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority.

But, again, what if we are applying to Paul the strict literalism of a physically identifiable pair when his rhetoric may in fact imply something different? Do we continue to force Paul to abide by our understanding of him, or allow that we may not completely understand him? Paul calls Adam a tupos,

ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδὰμ ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος.

That particular word is used in the Maccabean books to represent a pattern or an example (3 Maccabees 3:30; 4 Maccabees 6.19). Why then would a pattern need to be ‘real’ any more than some of the opponents in Galatians and the letters of Ignatius need to be? What? You say you don’t know rhetoric or the criticism in this field being used to reach into the mind of Paul who was arguably, the greatest rhetorician of his day? What if Paul was using the story of Adam as a pattern or an example? Does a physical identifiable pair, etched forever in history, need to have actually existed for Paul to have used it to show to the Jewish readers the pattern fulfilled by Christ?

Paul was using history, of that I am assured of; however, he doesn’t need to be a literalist in the modern sense.

Click here for another response to Keller.

More on Infallibility and the Mythological Adam (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Infallibility and the Mythological Adam (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Genesis 2 (genesisjournal.wordpress.com)
ἀποστροφή in Genesis 3:16 – Thoughts? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)

Tags: Adam and Eve, myth, Tim Keller, τύπος
Posted in Genesis, Maccabees, Rhetoric | No Comments »

June 8th, 2011

More on Infallibility and the Mythological Adam

Image via Wikipedia

Begin with this post here. Jason has replied here. I understand that is post is perhaps clarifying his position more than anything and setting a goal for himself. Knowing Jason just a little, this is how he works. He has a goal to know something and he will. So, this is a reply of sorts.

First, I want to push Jason, in regard to the early views of Genesis to look at Justin, Origen and others who struggled with the fact that others were pushing a literal 6-day event. Keep in mind, that this is a struggle which arose after the Apostolic Fathers, not to mention Second Temple Jewish interpreters. What is interesting is that some, like Barnabas, needed the literal 6-day event to prove that God was working eschatologically in 6000 years, which for them, was in their life time. It wasn’t just with Barnabas that this view was taken, but others, even others centuries after him. I would contend that it was a the latter (eschatology) influencing the former (creationism). We see this today, and have seen it since we have began once again to misinterpret the Book of Revelation.

Jason writes:

I am using foundation in the sense that this is the beginning of the story, and all of Scripture builds upon this story until it comes to its completion in the New Heavens and New Earth. I think Joel and I actually will be more in agreement there than not.

Agreed. He goes on:

Now, if the beginning of the narrative is mythical, and it shows us that it all began with a person who did not exist, how and when are we to see that it becomes literal?

He also writes, “If the beginning story is a fictitious parable…” Two things here. It is impossible to have this conversation if one doesn’t understand what ‘myth’ means in light of Scripture. Let us try to reconcile the fact that myth does not mean fiction (nor is a “figment of one’s imagination”), but instead, using our words to explain an unnatural event, or even an event beyond of our scope. As I said, I do not believe that Paul was speaking about the same Adam which Creationists do. He was speaking about the Scriptural Adam, which I read as an Adam which was not physically identified. Doesn’t mean that Adam didn’t exist or that the story in Genesis 2-3 is fiction. Instead, it means that we are not left with the theory of motivated reasoning, but with allowing the Text to speak for itself. This, of course, is tied in many ways to literalism, which in my opinion is what I am trying to preserved – and Jason in his opinion is as well. Literalism doesn’t always mean that when the text says black, it means black. It may in fact mean evil. Literalism is properly understanding and employing the literary devices found in the text to allow the Text to speak for itself.

In regards to rejecting the ‘literal Adam’ (I reject that statement as it has no reality in the conversation) which leads to rejecting the ‘literal Jesus’, it is equal to saying that those who reject a ‘literal six-day event’ must reject a ‘literal resurrection’ when many of the Creationist group will take great strides to remove the ‘literalist’ reading of ‘this is my body/blood’ and ‘baptism is what saves’ from Scripture. If you reject a ‘literal’ Jesus because Adam may not be a physically identifiable person some 6000 years ago (although for Barnabas, it is now 8000 years and counting) then you never accepted the physically identifiable Jesus and your faith has always been counterfeit. This is the problem with many. Their faith is not built upon Christ, but upon themselves and their own understanding of Scripture. What if the doctrine of original sin, which is not found in Judaism or the Eastern Orthodox (at least not the Reformation-type), is not accurate? Would that undermine an individual’s faith to the extent where they disbelieve Jesus? Hardly. If one allows themselves to reject God because they have discovered that their image of God was not accurate, then they deserve the fiery fundamental a-theism which they receive.

To sum:

Myth does not equal fiction
The Early Church Writers were all over the map and had different agendas in their interpretation of Genesis 1-3
Myth does not equal fiction
Literalism is not always a black and white thing
Myth does not equal fiction
If one rejects Christ because of their own faulty interpretation, they get what they deserve
Myth does not equal fiction
Jason is still a good guy
Myth does not equal fiction

Tags: Historical Adam, myth
Posted in Inerrancy | 6 Comments »

June 4th, 2011

A Mythical Adam? Yup

Easy enough – if you understand that myth doesn’t equal Zeus. And if you can except that storytelling is inspired, whether literal or not.

Frankly, while studying the history of the presentation of the beginning of the monarchy, it appeared to me that their is an deeper connection between this period in history and the story of Adam and Eve. We already know that the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are different. Why, then, would we not accept that the story of Israel begins here?

Jason is pondering -

A Mythical Adam? | Pastoral Musings.

Peter Enns has answered.

Alright – is Jesus is said to be Israel (read Isaiah and Hosea and the application of specifically intentioned passages about Israel redirected to Christ) then why isn’t Paul doing saying that about Adam too? Jesus represents Israel. So does Adam.

Tags: adam, myth, Peter Enns
Posted in Genesis | 11 Comments »

December 31st, 2010

in Response to Dr. West’s rant on Mark Stevens

: Image via Wikipedia

As someone who is planted within the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Methodist traditions, and eminently perhaps a bit fundamentalist in the eyes of some, I have been irked by some things concerning this time of year. Permit me to explain

I was driving on the south end bridge to perform in my church’s Xmas Cantata in a town in southern Massachusetts. The ranklings I have been dealing with, that I deal with every year around this time, have to do with many of the traditional trappings many of us ascribe to the life of Christ, markers of a perverted Christology.

For example, we are not told directly when Jesus was born, though we many have a strong case from evidence provided in the context of the birth narrative.

Then I got to thinking this, as posted on Dr. West’s blog:

I…think I have found a use for Bultmann, especially with the amount of myth with which many Xians have surrounded the birth narrative of Christ (that he was born on 12-25, that he was a carpenter, that his parents could not afford a room at the inn, that Caspar, Belthazar, and Melchoir brought the gold, frankincense, and myrrh, that the birth of the Messiah was anything other than a military invasion reminiscent of the eschaton of 1 Thess 4:13-16 and other passages that deal with trumpets, clouds, shouts, and angelic singing). We really need to demythologize the life of Christ that the pulpits present us ever December, and some of the irrelevant, unnecessary, and clutural baggage we append to the narrative.

I trust, Jim, this makes you somewhat proud of me.

If not, I hope I do not find myself on that list.

Either way, I should like to know what you think of my comment.

Who knows, I am still ignorant about Bultmann in many ways, and yet I think I am starting to get a bit of the gist of what he taught. At least from an application standpoint, there may be uses for the demythologyzation program (the program by which we remove the myth aspects from the birth traditions of our Savior). We need to know what really happened, and to be grounded in as much truth and revelation by the Holy Spirit as possible. We need to seen the fullness of the redemption that Jesus provided us, and we need desperately to know as much of his character as it really was and is, and not this papper cutout, flannelgraph, holes in palms, born-on-a-silent-Saturnalia-night-to-a-poor-carpentry-family-in-a-stable-because-his-parents-could-barely-afford-a-stable-on-their-meager-income-Savior.

If we take the information Paul gives us about the second coming in 1 Thessalonians, and cross that with Acts 1 (that He will return in the way he was lifted up, and cross that with the other places in the New Testament and Old Testament that associate the manifestation of the Lord (usually found with clouds, trumpets, loud voices, angelic armies, earthquakes)) then we might get an accurate picture of what his birth might have been like and what the narrative in Luke 2 really means to say by things like “a multitude of heavenly hosts.” This was not a meek and mild quiet and calm birth. This was a military invasion, the Kerygma, and it was that way because the kingdom of heaven forcefully advances, in offensive posture, standards raised against a dark and evil set of forces.

Consider this, and consider Revelation and Matthew 24 next time you read the birth narrative.

Just some thoughts, but I would say there is a use for Bultmann, and we should not be afraid to question the text when it does not make sense, trusting that God is big enough and capable enough of giving us an answer in our frail. humanity.

It would make sense to me to apply some apocalyptic to the narrative of the birth and not this meek and mild garbage given Bultmann’s work was extensive in the area of the Johannine corpus, which was highly apocalyptic, including some marratives related to Sukkot, which we may consider as a possible candidate for the time of Jesus’ birth, given some internal linguistic evidence in John’s Gospel, and the centrality of the feast itself in apocalyptic literature, most notably, Zechariah.

A bit of rambling, but maybe I am on to something.