Ask the Box

07 jul 06

"Do the Old Testament, New Testament, and/or Koran fall under the category of MYTHOLOGY?"

strictly, "no", but when we examine more closely, "yes and no". i'd say that this body of text contains myth, but doesn't all belong in the "myth" category. the most crucial elements of a religion is its creed; its system of belief. a creed isn't a myth, but rather instructions, whether they're baseless and silly or not.

the new testament's focus is on the gospel, or the passion of christ: the crucificion, absolvement, and resurection, which is a well-known myth found in many cultures. c.s. lewis, in his christian apologistics, contends that christianity is the conveyance of mythology into history -- that jesus's death, absolvement, and rebirth is an example of that myth coming into being.

if you don't believe in resurrection and think that the absolvement was all in jesus's head, then the historicity of the mythology gets called under question. but the new testament's tale of what happened to jesus -- death and rebirth -- is a well-known and cross-cultural myth, whether it happened or not.

there's myth within, say, christianity (creation of the world, stories of the crucifixion, daniel in the lions' den, etc), but that doesn't mean that the whole belief system falls under "mythology". furthermore, myths aren't necesssarily falsehoods -- they're just stories that contain meaning.

a "mythology" constitutes a metaphoric summation of a people and a culture, presented in stories. a lot of the old testament is just dietary laws and forbidding you to sleep with your sister. likewise, the koran is full of rules and ways to behave; it overall doesn't constitute a mythology (although i know almost nothing about the koran).

the new testament is more literary, but it doesn't try to explain or convey a world-view through metaphor, or deliniate the values of a cohesive culture; it's just about jesus wandering around and talking. there isn't a "myth of jesus going to the mount of olives to preach" -- whether or not he actually did, the story of his doing so doesn't convey anything important in and of itself -- it was the content of, or the story of the content of, his sermon on the mount that is important for christians to consider.

jesus's parables might make a better case for being myths, since they're stories intended to illustrate something deeper. but the new testament only describes the telling of these myths; it isn't itself "mythological".

if you don't think jesus existed, then you might more easily call the new testament "myth". but even then, i hestiate to apply the term; the book "superfudge" isn't a myth -- it's fiction.

you might argue that these texts present some things that are probably not true, and that that makes them mythological. but "myths" are different from "lies", "fiction" or "error". in fact, myths can be "true". "mythology" seems to be needed by some as a pejorative term to discredit those monotheistic beliefs, but a better word might simply be "nonsense". it's important to distinguish between "beliefs" and "mythology".

the koran and old testament contain "creation myths" -- stories about the creation of the world. providing an answer to "where did this all come from?" is something all cultures attempt. and, interestingly enough, all creation myths are scientific in nature -- ie, they were based on observations, and explanations for observed phenomena. in a sense, there's no difference between god creating the heavens and the earth on the seventh day and the "big bang" hypothesis, even if one set of observations might be more precicely measured than the other.

somene might say that abrahamic tradition is mythological because the truth-value comes out of interpretation rather than literality, just like an unambiguous myth such as the tale of prometheus and his stolen fire. but this is the end-result, and doesn't describe the subject matter.

it's tempting to call desert monotheism "mythology", because so much of it is obviously nonsense and just objectively wrong. but i would hesitate to apply the term, myself, because these texts don't entirely comprise a series of stories about people and events with a clear moral, message, or explanation of reality attached to them.

you might be thinking "hell is a myth" or "transubstantiation is a myth", but these are concepts -- they aren't stories. it's fun to apply the term mythology, because it seems like by doing so we're banishing contemporary belief systems to the nonsense-void along with the greek, assyrian, and african pantheons, which don't enjoy a contemporary following of literalists. but i don't think we need the word "mythology" to convey that a spirit in the sky is any less silly than mount olympus.

i feel that the only perfect category under which abrahamic text falls is "religion" -- ie, anti-science. it's anti-science because it's creed, and dogma -- instead of inviting you to discover the nature of reality, it spells it out for you -- tells you how to interpret what you see and feel. religion discourages observation.