Are the Gospels a Myth?

[LA Ute]

We've talked before on various threads about the mythical aspects of true religion, and how "myth" doesn't necessarily mean "fairy tale." Fr. Dwight Longnecker, an interesting guy who has moved from Evangelical Christian to Anglican priest to Catholic priest (complete with wife and kids) has an interesting Patheos post up on that very subject:

Are the Gospels a Myth?

He expresses the Christian apologetic point of view on the subject much better than I have ever been able to here, and a bit less ponderously than good old James Faulconer does in the Sunstone piece I have linked to from time to time, Scripture, History and Myth.

Two of the twentieth century’s greatest myth makers–C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien had a famous conversation about this very topic. Lewis was, at this point, not a Christian. Tolkien, as a Catholic, had engaged him in a discussion about the topic of myth and how it functions. Lewis said that the Christian story was a myth a lie, but a lie “breathed through with silver”–in other words, a beautiful and useful fiction. He then went on to understand that the gospel story works on us just like the other myths, except that this myth was true and historical.

Does the gospel story connect with the myths of other religions? To some extent it does–but that’s because it is dealing with the same themes and symbols of dying and rising, light and darkness, good and evil. Does the similarity of the gospel story mean that it is therefore just a made up fairy tale or fable? No. The historical evidence for the essential facticity of the gospels is sound–what it does mean is that this story of Jesus Christ(because it is historical) not only works like a myth and connects with the deepest, shared aspects of humanity but it also gathers up all the myths that came before it and followed after it and fulfills and completes them.

To me (when I am in my speculative mode), all this ties in well with what UtahDan and I were chatting about in another thread, regarding Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and the related archetypes. Fun stuff to contemplate.

[wuapinmon]

Do we have a Summon SIEQ card?

[LA Ute]

[CardiacCoug]

Yes.

[LA Ute]

Yes.

The writer agrees with you and so do I. But "myth" doesn't mean "fairy tale," which I suspect, based on your body of work here, is what you mean.

The reason this subject interests me is that I think understanding the mythical nature of religion (ours, in particular) helps us explain it to ourselves and others, and ultimately helps us believe it.

[Moliere]

I still need to read the article as I don't fully understand the what is meant by myth. I think it's pretty clear the gospels, while somewhat historically accurate in some cases, are likely an exaggeration of actual events. By exaggeration, I mean to say they are told in a specific way to make a specific point(s). They are in many cases like the way that the church tells its own history, whitewashed and portrayed in a certain light.

[LA Ute]

I still need to read the article as I don't fully understand the what is meant by myth. I think it's pretty clear the gospels, while somewhat historically accurate in some cases, are likely an exaggeration of actual events. By exaggeration, I mean to say they are told in a specific way to make a specific point(s). They are in many cases like the way that the church tells its own history, whitewashed and portrayed in a certain light.

What Fr. Longnecker and others are talking about is not historical accuracy but themes. You're missing the point.

[Moliere]

What Fr. Longnecker and others are talking about is not historical accuracy but themes. You're missing the point.

Wouldn't be the first time.

I just read the article. Seems like they aren't arguing that its a myth, but that it has myth-like qualities. I can get behind that.

[LA Ute]

Wouldn't be the first time.

I just read the article. Seems like they aren't arguing that its a myth, but that it has myth-like qualities. I can get behind that.

Well. I've never missed a point in my life. I think you are right.

[DapperDan]

Yes (to both definitions).

The Iliad and the Odyssey are other classic myths (in both senses).

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm glad to see we are thinking today. I'll make a few comments, but be warned--I have the flu and am warbling through a medicated buzz.

I accept that Longenecker is making an epistemological claim: He asserts what we may know and therefore what we are. I have advanced a possibly compatible claim here on CUF, when I asserted that human consciousness is embedded in narrative, and that such an epistemology is taught in the temple endowment.

Longenecker hasn't elaborated the relationship between his idea of myth and a notion of language. He says that a myth is a useful story ("a 'myth' can refer to any story that works on us in this vicarious, 'mythical' manner," that enables (?) causes (?) encourages (?) a journey toward enlightenment and redemption). Do myths work on us through language? Through image? Through the grunts beyond utterance that Paul mentions in Romans 8? Only through linear notions of progress suggested by the notion of a story? Through discernible verbs, nouns, subjects, and objects? Through the assertedly transcendental blur of glossolalia? Is the "work on us" (linguistic functionalism?) the Spirit of God that respirates through all true stories? Is it necessarily supernatural?

I don't expect him to answer such questions in a short post on Patheos, but I wanted to share some of my initial thoughts about the importance of language to his epistemology.

One thing I like in his comments is that he links meaningfulness (myths) with truth (enlightenment). This suggests to me that he may actually have skin in the game--that he may not be caught in the usual CUF trap that 1) people either give reasons for their premises (and make them ipso facto not terminal) and the argument continues until Lebowski's Law is affirmed, or 2) people are not willing to give reasons for their premises, and are thus being "mullahs" (dogmatic and arbitrary). Put another way, 1) if someone relies on external authority, he is abdicating his agency or 2) if someone says no external proof is available, or is unwilling to make it available, he is being capricious.

Linking meaningfulness to truth suggests that he might not fall into the modern philosophical problem of meaning.

An example might be helpful:

Imagine that a contest of truth between religious absolutists and scientific absolutists is like a game of basketball. The two titans are to play, and the victor will have the truth! Except that both sides have decided that instead of playing basketball, they will attempt to disqualify the other team. They can't play because the referee is someone's neighbor, or someone has the wrong shoes, or the rules are not agreed upon, ad naseum. The disqualification game--not to show that the other side is untrue, but to argue that it is meaningless--is a postmodern intrusion on the "game" between fundamentalisms and modernisms.

So if Longenecker can expound the truth of his position in a manner that isn't circular--If enlightenment is a "real" notion and not just a discursive one--like a unicorn--and can do it in terms that address my above questions about language, then he would be worth a read. The idea of myth certainly has academic currency in the humanities and is not the "simple falsehood" it is frequently assumed to be.

Back to the pharmaceuticals....