Through the mythic lens

  

August 27, 2019

I’m leaning toward seeing the Christian narrative as “myth.” But there is this nagging question: Could those Jewish fishermen have been literate enough to write mythic narratives? There is obviously some artistic craft being practiced by the authors of the Gospels. Which calls into question the traditional identities of “Matthew and John.” But were the authors not people known by the early church? They were trusted. And the actual witnesses to those events were around. They would question writings that were not accurate, wouldn’t they? Or accept the form of the writings. Anyway, I beginning to see the Gospels through the mythic lens these days, and it feels right. Backing away from them, having more distance, I can see the mythic form as a legitimate way to convey the impact of Jesus.

 

If we didn’t have John’s Gospel, would there be a dogma of Incarnation? Even Paul, though he infers incarnation, doesn’t come out and say it. The Philippians 2 passage on “emptying” may not be a metaphysical statement, but an ethical one. Paul’s talk of Jesus of the New Adam is clearly the use of archetypal language. I keep coming back to the importance of accepting “symbolic” language as the only way to speak of God and divine activity.

 

I also continue to inhabit the perception of the “gap” between the Biblical world and the present world. How do I connect them? Do I toss the Biblical world out as irrelevant? Do I connect them by way of metaphor? Do I accept the Biblical world as literal-but-unique-history? I lean toward the second option. Metaphor retains relevance.