Poll: Myth versus historical account

[laptoppop]

Where do you draw the line? What part of the early accounts are myth, and what are historical? Where do you draw the line in the genealogies? Note: by myth, I am NOT making a judgement on our ability to learn spiritual truth through the telling of the story. Also, I am not claiming that a historical account is devoid of spiritual lessons.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm more interested in what God's word means than what it says literally. Having said that I believe most of it is literally true, but I'm not going to spend too much time trying to prove it to anyone. The real value lies in the deeper meanings anyway.

 

[Mallon]

Now there's something I can agree with oldwiseguy on (mostly).

 

[artybloke]

I voted other. Myth and historical are not neccessarily contradictory. The whole of Christianity is based on a historical myth (the birth/death/resurection of Christ.)

 

[chaoschristian]

All scripture is myth.

 

[jereth]

Whilst I agree with artybloke that "Myth and historical are not neccessarily contradictory", in the spirit of laptopop's question I voted for Gen 1-3 as myth. This is because I believe that Gen 1-3 is predominantly mythical and non-historical, whereas the following chapters (while certainly containing mythical elements) have more of a historical element.

But I disagree that you can simply "draw a line" between myth and history in Genesis. I feel that the highly mythical creation accounts blend gradually into the historical accounts of the Patriarchs.

This is yet another area where the popular YECist organisations/publications constantly misrepresent TEism -- by saying that we draw an "arbritrary line" between history and non-history. As the TEist responses clearly demonstrate, very few of us believe in such a "line", most of us feel there is an admixture of myth and history throughout all of Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

Other. I have a problem with the word myth, but I think Gen 2&3 are allegorical, a parable. Gen 1 on the other hand is a poetic description of the creation which I read fairly literally.

So the 'one size fits all'

Gen 1-3 (the creation, the garden) are myth

choice doesn't work for me

 

[Deamiter]

I agree strongly with jereth. I voted that up to Abraham is a myth... but I should clarify that as I don't think there is any hard line where you can say, "historical starts."

I think all of it is true. Every bit. But as an oral history, I think much of it has changed from what us (in our post-modernist world) would call historical account. As the accounts become closer to the time they were written down, they become more factually accurate simply because more people remember the event (or tellings of the event) and there's less time for storytelling to alter the accounts. I personally think (note: not believe -- this is an opinion) that much before Abraham is allegory -- the message in the story has been preserved, but the facts surrounding the events have not.

Note that I also agree with chaoschristian that much of the Old Testement IS myth -- not in the common sense of "lie" but in the historical sense of "a story describing origins." I wouldn't agree that "all of scripture is myth" but that discussion is a bit off topic so I won't go there. Just be aware that "myth" does not mean "lie" when you're talking about stories regarding origins, although it does often imply that the story is not factually or historically accurate.

 

[Melethiel]

I voted "Other", simply because I don't think there is a concrete line. I certainly think that after Abraham it's pretty much historical, but I won't go as far to say that the preceding chapters are a "myth". I prefer more to think that there are historical elements in there, but that many of the details have been lost in time, and that the earlier chapters are somewhat "mythified".

 

[Pats]

Part of the difficulty in answering this question is that everybody is going around defining "myth" differently.

Here's what one dictionaries top deffinition states:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

By this deffinition "myth" does not take away from historicity.

In the spirit of answering the question that I feel is being asked here, I agree with much of how Deamiter has phrased it. I would say that the Scriptures contain some stories that were written purely from oral tradition and not documented by scribes during a time when any one who remembered the events was alive. Therefore, some of the stories became more "legendary" than literaly historiclly accurate.

I would also agree with Oldwiseguy that the meanings of the stories are more important to me than historic accuracy. I think that is why the canon of scripture contains so many eyewhitness account of Christ, for better documentation of his historicity. I would agree that stories written by those who saw them in scripture are clearly going to contain more historical accuracy than those that do not.

 

[jereth]

Reposted from a previous thread -- my personal opinion about the transition from non-history to history:

Genesis 1 is totally non-history, I think the passage's elaborate structure and rhythmic/formulaic nature make that clear. New Bible Dictionary (http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1439) describes it as a theological hymn of praise.

Genesis 2-3 are highly mythical, that is clear from the elegant narration style, as well as the multitude of symbolic elements -- paradise garden, tree of life, tree of knowledge, forbidden fruit, serpent, fig leaves, flaming sword, cherubim etc.

Genesis 4 might be based on a historical murder, but I feel the story is also couched in semi-mythical elements (eg. the "mark" of Cain and the sevenfold vengeance).

Genesis 6-9 (story of flood) is probably based on a historical event, though the story is given elaborations (especially the elohist version). The main point is theological not historical.

Genesis 12 and onwards (abraham etc.) is definitely based on solidly historical figures and events, although retold with theological emphases.

As you can see, the "switch" from non-history to history is probably gradual, but even the so-called "historical" narratives are primarily there to teach theology, not just provide a historical account. Abraham, Moses and David are all historical figures, but their stories are told to us not as biographies (in the modern sense) but as religious/theological accounts. Remember that the Jews never considered there to be a "historical" section in their Bible -- there was only Law, Prophets and writings. The concept of "books of history" is alien to the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[laptoppop]

I appreciate the answers, folks! This has turned into a great flow of info and helped me to understand some of the positions much much more clearly. I hadn't considered the "partially historical" point of view. More later, -lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

Once again, 'other' wins the poll.

 

[laptoppop]

Once again, 'other' wins the poll.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Genesis transitions from myth to legend at Abraham. Legends share many characteristics with myths due to their shared reliance on oral traditions, but unlike myths, legends have a historical context.

 

[AvgJoe]

It is all historical.

 

[Jadis40]

I was leaning towards selecting 1-11 as myth, but decided on other.

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is mythological, but serves to convey an important truth that at some point sin entered this world. I don't believe that there was a literal garden with a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil a literal tree of life or a talking snake. I do believe that the actual historical record picks up with Abraham, and continues on from there.

 

[shernren]

Genesis describes historical events ... even though at points it does so in a non-historical manner. The creation of the universe by God was a historical event. Its happening in six days is a non-historical description.

 

[chaoschristian]

Genesis describes historical events ... even though at points it does so in a non-historical manner. The creation of the universe by God was a historical event. Its happening in six days is a non-historical description.

Ahh, welcome back shernren.

 

[vossler]

Other probably equals its all myth.