Chapter ?
For the purposes of this paper myths are defined as stories that are based on tradition. It is my understanding that a myth is a story that has the feel and look of actually recounting history. Although a myth may use an historical event as the basis of the story (sometimes more correctly seen as a legend), it is however less of a recounting of an historical event than it is a way of explaining an event, belief, or practice. Though many myths are considered to be fictional many are based on factual historical accounts. We often look at myths as stories from bygone years, mostly from ancient cultures. But myths, as defined here, are an important part of modern culture. Myths, whether fact or fiction, are stories that that can help explain and understand the world we live in, and our historical experiences.
I will consider three philosophies of the Bible, and how they interact with the concept of myths. These three philosophies, in broad terms, are “fundamentalist,” “liberal believers,” and “secular humanists.”
To the fundamentalist the word “myth” would be irrelevant, since to them the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and given to mankind by the inspiration of God. It is their belief that each story in the Bible is based on an accurate historical account showing how God has worked and does work in the lives of men and women, and therefore should be taken literally. So, even though by our definition myths can be based on factual accounts, the fundamentalist goes at least one step further to claim that the account is not only based on fact, it actually is fact.
The liberal believer is also convinced that God inspired the Bible, but used human authors to relay His message in a way that was mostly meaningful to each particular author. They feel these human authors used various literally methods to relay the Word of God. At times the method used was in the relating of a myth. They believe this method was used by the author to explain his beliefs by writing as though he was recounting and actual historical event. According to the liberal believer this does not take away from the importance nor the impact of the message. It is simply a way for the human author to get God’s message to His creation in a way they can comprehend. It is not necessary for the liberal believer to believe that the Bible is a strict accounting of an historical fact; it is only necessary that these stories, or myths, help explain and bolster his or her own beliefs and convictions about God.
The secular humanist believes the same as the liberal believer, with one important distinction. Many humanists believe in the Bible only as a book of good teachings, but see no proof in its many stories, poems and myths, that they are based on actual historical events. Or, that God is in any way author of the Bible. They do not even see any evidence in the Bible that gives proof of the existence of God. To them the myths of the Bible are simply each author’s way of relating their beliefs in such a way as to win converts to their way of thinking. The secular humanist sees the stories of the Bible as myths designed, written or told, so as to explain mankind’s existence, or at least his or her beliefs. They do not look for God in these myths, and don’t even believe any of these myths offer proof there is a God.
While the fundamentalist insists that our beliefs, moral code, and so forth, were given by God and therefore never changes, the liberal believer and the secular humanist hold that our beliefs, practices, and so forth, have evolved over the centuries. To the liberal believer and secular humanist these myths are a way of explaining the beginnings of that evolution. If the myth does have some historical basis, it is still apparent to these believers that the event being recounted has been embellished in order to emphasize the reason why they believe the way they do.
The following are example passages from the Bible as explained by a Fundamentalist, a Liberal Believer, and a Secular Humanist.
- The Story of Issac and Sons (Genesis 25:19 – 27:40)
a. Fundamentalist: This is the actual story of how Jacob became the father of the chosen race of Israel, and how his brother Esau became the ancestor of a second nation. Throughout this story we see how Jacob, even though he was younger, was able to receive the blessing and inheritance that should have gone to his brother Esau. Esau, in anguish, begs for a blessing from his father after realizing Jacob had stolen his blessing through deception. Issac gives the blessing but adds that Esau’s people will be in submission to Jacob’s people for a long time. Thus the hatred and conflict between the two nations,.
b. Liberal Believer: Yes indeed there has been conflict between these two nations, and it is certainly possible that the lineage of each can be traced back to a common ancestor. But this is just a myth told to make a point that two nations, or two people, can have the same heritage but take entirely different paths in their lives. Through this myth God is saying that only by choosing the godly path does one receive the benefits and blessings of God. Greed and weakness will only bring destruction and loss of everything you hold dear.
c. Secular Humanist: The people of this story were historical, but the story itself was made up to explain their beliefs and practices. Choosing a good path often has the natural result of blessings and benefits. When one becomes greedy and self-centered one usually loses much of what he or she already has. This is not proof of God, rather it is a well constructed story to show just how the choices people make can affect their lives.
- Balaam’s Donkey (Numbers 22:21-41)
a. Fundamentalist: This story actually happened as written. God told Balaam to not go to Balak. At first Balaam agreed, but when money was offered he decided to seek God’s direction one more time. This time God told him to go with Balak’s messengers, but He was displeased with Balaam who was enticed by the promised rewards. Rather than believing God meant what He said, Balaam went back to Him in the hope that he heard God wrong the first time. Because of His displeasure God used a donkey to speak to him and show him that he was foolish not to believe God the first time. God was showing Balaam that even a donkey has enough sense to know God when he sees Him. God used the donkey to humiliate Balaam. God’s will will be done no matter how we might try to change it. Sometimes we suffer humility when we go against His will.
b. Liberal Believer: God does require us to follow His will. There is always a price to pay when we go against His will. Although this story is not based on an actual event, it is God’s way of telling the reader that He is a powerful and mighty God. His will cannot be changed by any one person; and, when that person does try to change he or she will often be placed in a humiliating situation. A situation designed by God to both show His sovereignty, and to bring the unbeliever back to a right relationship with God.
c. Secular Humanist: Donkeys do not talk. That seems to be a physical impossibility, but whatever happened there is no need to explain it by a deity. This story is nothing more than a means by which those who wish to hold people in line can show that, if they try to go against the so called word of God, they will be humiliated. They have crafted this somewhat ingenious story to convince fellow followers that one cannot change the will of God so you shouldn’t even try. This type of story is a very clever way of getting believers to follow their leaders no matter how strange or unconventional the path the leader wishes to take.
- The Flood and the Beginning of Races (Genesis 7:1 – 10:32)
a. Fundamentalist: There actually was a flood, and God really did instruct Noah to build an ark that served to save him, his family, and the various animals of the earth. All else was destroyed by the flood. Therefore, after the flood, only Noah, his three sons, and their wives were left. Obviously all of mankind can trace their descendants back to these three sons, since they were the only ones who could procreate and once again inhabit the earth. Chapter 10 of Genesis is the account of the descendants of the sons of Noah.
b. Liberal Believer: God is the creator of mankind. All men are equal in the sight of God. The claim of a flood inundating the entire world is likely a myth or legend, but what better way to show the equality of mankind than through a myth that says that all races came from the seed of one man, Noah.
c. Secular Humanist: All members of mankind are equal, but that doesn’t prove they were created by God. If it we’re possible to trace each person’s lineage we would all be surprised by who some of our ancestors are. This story is a very simple but effective way to show us that we all can very likely be related to the very people we may hold prejudices against today. Equality is a fact of mankind’s existence. Again, however, this does not prove that humans are the creation of God.
I am not aware of any notion that the liberal believer or the secular humanist sees the story of Noah and his sons as a myth about the equality of all mankind. I just feel the need to point out that these believers might interpret this type of story in this way so as to emphasize such a belief. To them, historical accuracy is not necessary as long as the myth helps us to understand why we believe as we do. Therefore to the fundamentalist the Bible is history only; that is, there is no myth being told. To the liberal believer the Bible is Salvation History; that is, history as interpreted from faith. Myth may help in that interpretation. To the secular humanist the Bible is biased history; history embellished by myth to lead the potential believer to a defined (biased) belief.
All three philosophies, fundamentalist, liberal believers and secular humanists might claim that the biblical story of the flood, whether myth or actual history, is a way to reinforce the idea of the equality of mankind. And, more importantly, that God treated all equally. Many of the world’s cultures are able to recount a myth that speaks of a great flood. In the biblical version it is necessary to keep the idea of the equality of mankind from creation to the present. Therefore, it is necessary to create a myth that included the idea of one beginning for all mankind.
It is true that the story (or myth) of Adam and Eve should have met this need. If, however, there was a natural catastrophic event that, to these ancient people, appeared to destroy much of creation, as each culture’s myth proposes, then those who believed in the God of the Bible needed to ensure there was a reasonable explanation for equality in the creation of mankind. Thus the story of the flood; which included Noah and his sons.
- Peter Walks on the Water (Matthew 14:28 – 21)
a. Fundamentalist: Jesus is the Son of God, and as such He has rule over the laws of nature and physics. Jesus truly did walk on water, and Peter was a witness to that actual event. Upon seeing this miracle, Peter too wished to walk on water. When Jesus invited Peter to “come” Peter jumped at the chance and began walking toward Jesus; on water. This took an act of faith, but his faith was shallow. When he actually got onto the water his faith began to falter, resulting in his sinking into the water. Jesus did chastise Peter for doubting, but this actual event underscored for all present that Jesus truly was the Son of God.
b. Liberal Believer: It is not necessary to believe that Jesus actually did walk on water; or that Peter also began to do so but began to sink when he actually felt the wind and waves. The point of this myth is that our faith must not falter. Often we find it easy to have faith when things are going well, but once trouble starts brewing, and the wind and waves start to overwhelm us, then we tend to lose our faith. By adding to the story of Peter’s plea to save him, and Jesus’ reaching out His hand to do so, the writer of this story points out that God is always there for us. Our faith does not need to falter.
c. Secular Humanist: This is not a story about God (Jesus) walking on water. Rather this is a very creative story to get people to believe in the power of Jesus, and to hang in there when the going gets tough. Yet it does not prove the existence of God, but shows us that man has within him the resources to get through the tough times.
- Paul and Silas Freed From Prison by an Earthquake (Acts 16:16 – 34)
a. Fundamentalist: Paul was a man of God, and God had a purpose for his life. This particular prison experience actually happened and was God’s way of showing the prison guard, and all those he talked to thereafter, that God is real and wishes all to be saved.
b. Liberal Believer: There may or may not have been an earthquake that freed Paul and Silas. It is not necessary to take this story literally. It is only necessary to see from this story that by believing in God one can be freed from the chains of sin.
c. Secular Humanist: Once again an ingenious storyteller has contrived a literary legend that serves to encourage people to follow His way. The implication is, “If you believe as I believe you will not suffer the chains of defeat, sorrow, and so forth. This story also points out that when one keeps on smiling, or singing as did Paul and Silas, you will get through tough times. These tough times will not seem as much of a burden as they would if you maintained a defeated attitude.
The story of Paul and Silas, and the earthquake, is a good illustration of how any biblical story can be taken literally, or interpreted simply as a myth created to make a point.
- Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1 – 11)
a. Fundamentalist: This is an historically true story recounting the Church coming together and sharing their possessions. This was a voluntary act by all involved. They were asked to give as they felt led to give. Some gave more than others, but no one measured one’s giving against another’s. Yet this is what Ananias and Sapphira did. They wanted everyone to believe they were giving all the proceeds from the property they just sold. This was a slap to God’s face because He did not ask them to give it all. They wer attempting to attain righteousness through lies and deceit. For that reason God struck them both dead on the spot.
b. Liberal Believer: The church is coming together at that time, and they were no doubt sharing their possessions with each other. After all, that is what much of the New Testament encourages believers to do. God did not strike these two dead where they stood. Instead there was a more universal point to this myth. We as Christians must be careful when we promise God that we will do this or that. If we say we will give of our time and flaunt our “holiness” by bragging about how much we give, yet we waste our time on other things, we may have to account for that promise at the judgment. Eternal death, as opposed to eternity in heaven, will be the result of this kind of deceit.
c. Secular Humanist: It is true that we should mean what we say, and say what we mean. Only heartache and disappointment come from lies and deceit. This does not prove the existence of God, it is only a story meant to emphasize a fact of life.
The fact of life emphasized by the story of Ananias and Sapphira might, according to the secular humanist, be that greed, lies and deceit is not an acceptable lifestyle in many societies.
We can often see in our own society that when someone practices this kind of lifestyle they are ostracized through punishment, which may include imprisonment. The death of Ananias and Sapphira would, in this case, not be seen by the secular humanist as God’s way of threatening people, rather they would possibly interpret this as a myth meant to show that this kind of behavior causes society in general to turn its back on this type of offender. He or she may still be accepted by some, but the society as a whole has deemed it appropriate to ostracize this type of offender by imprisonment, banishment or some other punishment. As far as society is concerned this person is dead; no longer a vital part of their society.
It is true that the liberal believer does believe in the redemption story, whether told through the accurate recounting of actual events or through myth. Yet once you begin to question the veracity of any part of the Bible, you open the doors to the legitimacy of questioning all of the Bible; in particular the meaning behind the words (stories). Including the redemption plan. Certainly there is nothing wrong with opening doors to new interpretations, but they should always be based on the belief that the biblical account is accurate both historically and consistent with biblical truth.
This may not seem important for the secular humanist who only sees the Bible as some writer’s way of getting others to believe as they believe. Yet even the secular humanist must be careful not to pick and choose only passages of the Bible that support what he or she wishes to believe is beneficial for mankind. Behavior in a society must be based on some absolute standards. We have seen in our society today what happens when we change the standards, seemingly on a whim. When this occurs, society as a whole tends to suffer since there is no absolute on which to judge and be judged.
If the Bible does not have some absolute truths then the secular humanist cannot say that these stories help us as a society to better ourselves by taking these so called myths as rudimentary outlines or guidelines for the way we should conduct ourselves. They cannot because they must then make a judgment as to which myths are good, and which are bad. These kinds of judgments are subject to each person’s proclivities, which may change during the course of a person’s life. Therefore, what is good today might be judged as bad tomorrow. With this kind of uncertainty ruling a society’s morality that society would be in constant upheaval, and likely not last.
There must be moral absolutes. Something cannot be and not be at the same time. If the Bible is used as a moral compass, then it cannot be open to pick out truths as one feels there is a need. If this is done, the Bible becomes less trustworthy as a book that holds lessons for mankind. If we can ask which myth shall we toss out and which do we use today to better ourselves, then we cannot depend on any of them. It does not matter, in this case, whether one is a fundamentalist, liberal believer, or secular humanist.
This brings us back to the redemption plan found throughout the Bible. If any part of the Bible can be questioned concerning its legitimacy, then all of it can be called into question. Even though the fundamentalist will argue that we should not question the fact that some story in the Bible actually happened, this does not mean we are unable to re-examine the interpretation of any biblical passage. Yet the liberal believer may have the tendency to go a step or two too far, and argue that we have to responsibility to self determine what we are reading as we study any one passage in the Bible.
The secular humanist claims that the stories of the Bible offer no definite proof of God. But, if God is not the reason for these stories, then what is the point of the redemption story? In response the secular humanist might argue that all of mankind needs hope that they have the power to make a better place to live; a better society. To them, the myths of the Bible give us that hope.
The truth, however, is that there is no realistic hope of redemption, including any hope of a better society, if we cannot accept that the Bible is from God. Once we label a story as an account meant to explain a belief, but stop short of calling the story a truth being revealed, then we place suspicion on the reality of the hope the Bible is meant to offer. In other words, if one is given the latitude to choose what one believes to be true, then there is no guarantee that any of the Bible is valid. This is true even for the secular humanist, since his or her assumptions about what is good or bad for a society may be wrong. Thus, any hope based on this approach is invalid. It is not really hope, it only meets the level of wishes. Hope is based on the belief that something is true. Only if one believes in all of the Bible as truth can one have real hope; because believing only parts of the Bible makes all of the Bible suspect.
Time Magazine
In a Time Magazine article (December 30, 1974) Phil Beck was quoted as saying “If you start questioning it [the story of Jonah], where do you stop?” This story in the Bible is one that shows the love of God through His plan of redemption. This plan is shown throughout the Bible beginning from the fall of man, to the saving sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God, on the cross. This is the Christian’s hope. This hope is based on the truth of His Word. For the Fundamentalist if any part of His Word can be seen as untrue, then that hope is lost. The truth that the Bible presents must be entirely the truth, even historically. If any verse is doubted then every verse in the Bible can and must be viewed with the suspicion that they too may not be true. One cannot pick and choose what he or she wants to be true To maintain a realistic hope one must maintain a belief in the absolute truth of the Word of God.
The Liberal Believer does not doubt the theology of the story, he only questions the belief that he passage is historical. They believe God the Holy Spirit is now enlightening and thereby revealing that some passages are now better understood when you see the point of the story. For example, you don’t have to believe the first female came from Adam’s rib, but that she is the “same flesh and bone” as the story concludes. The Secular Humanist urges the believers to see the Bible as a bunch of stories promoted by a “cult” with no evidence of a God involved. (Taken from side notes by Dr. William Hagan, University of California, Dominguez Hills)
Liberal Believers and Secular Humanists would respond to the Fundamentalist by choosing to believe that if God wrote a book it would be straight history only. Believing that God would not utilize stories as Jesus did. To them the Fundamentalist is merely expressing the opinion that all stories must be read literally.
“What is the reason for the revival today of such fierce fundamentalism? Perhaps the cause is and increased need for spiritual security in a troubled world.” (Time, p. 78) Once again the Bible offers hope to those who find no hope in a world where nothing is absolute. Whereas the world’s moral and ethical standards no longer merely fluctuate with each generations, but do so with each passing whim or what is politically fashionable, the Bible offers a rock solid standard that has not changed throughout history. It does indeed offer security in a troubled world.
The Time article reports that, “Some critics suggest, [the wise men’s] existence is questionable, possible merely a preaching device used be the evangelist to suggest the import and universality of the astonishing event: God became man. (Time, p. 77) This leaves out some facts about these wise men. Why did they go to Herod? And why did they feel it important to return home without reporting their findings to Herod, as they promised? This detail of the story does not add to the idea of the “universality” of the event. It does, however, give credence to the story. Why would Herod be interested in this birth? And why would three wise men make fools of themselves in front of Herod if they did not believe they were following a star that was leading them to this holy birth?
I do not agree with the article’s statement that, “An occasionally fallible Bible, therefore, is a Bible that paradoxically seems more authentic.” (Time, p. 78) How can one believe in the Bible if they believe there is a possibility that any part of it is fallible? The Liberal Believer may believe that the Bible has no errors, but this belief is in the overall idea of what the Bible is revealing, and does not necessarily therefore mean there are no errors in the telling of the stories or individual ideas.
Certainly one could argue that, as an historical document, mistakes in the Bible would not diminish the overall accuracy of the story. For example, the male and female human are basically the same creature, but that is not saying they came from the same rib. Therefore, to the fundamentalist a story is a lie if it does not depict an actual event from God. However, if one is to read the Bible as a story of man’s redemption, and take that story as a means of personal hope of redemption, then fallibility must necessarily diminish that hope. Otherwise how can one be sure God sent His Son to redeem man?
Newsweek Magazine
I agree with the Newsweek article that claims “. . . knowledge of the historical Jesus in inadequate for salvation without faith in the crucified Christ.” (Newsweek, p. 50) If one reads the Bible for its historical fact, he or she has done nothing more than read fine literature. This includes the story of Jesus. This is why the Liberal Believer says the Bible is salvation history, that is, history plus interpretation of faith. But to overlook the meaning of His death on the cross is to overlook the common thread that weaves its way through the entire Bible. Jesus came, not as an historical figure, but as the culmination of God’s plan of salvation.
I also agree with Professor Carl Holliday who was quoted as saying, “But scholars must leave it up to believers to evaluate the claim that [the miracles of Jesus] were really the work of God.” (Newsweek, p. 52) Ultimately it can be said it is the responsibility of each person to either accept or reject the message of the Bible. Both the Fundamentalist and the Liberal Believer believe in the same God, they simply characterize Him differently.
Scholars, theologians, ministers and teachers can expound unendingly on the Bible, but if the individual does not accept the God of the Bible then all their rhetoric is meaningless. This is the important difference between the Liberal Believer and the Fundamentalist, and the Secular Humanist. Both the Fundamentalist and the Liberal Believer believe the Bible is from God. The Secular Humanist does not. However, only the Fundamentalist believes that the stories in the Bible are historical facts. The Liberal Believer and the Secular Humanist do not necessarily believe they are more than just stories meant to enhance the characterization of God.
I disagree with the article where it claims, “. . . while there were eyewitnesses to his public ministry, it is highly unlikely that any of them can be identified with the authors of the four Gospels, which were written 40 to 60 years after his death.” (Newsweek, p. 48). In the Book of John, chapter 21, verses 20 -24, we read that Peter asked Jesus a question concerning one of the other disciples who happened to be “the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper. . . .” (v. 20, NIV) In verse 24 we see that this person is the one who wrote this Gospel. “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. (v. 24, NIV)
I also disagree with the comment, “Nicodemus, a secret admirer, does not understand that disciples, too, must be ‘begotten from above’— a reference to Divine election that modern evangelists still sometimes interpret, instead, as requiring ‘born again’ experiences.” (Newsweek, p. 52) God is both a loving God and a just God. He cannot be both and divinely select a chosen few. He can, however, be both by requiring a born again experience. By this requirement He has given mankind the freedom of choice, while at the same time offering a way of redemption. This plan also allows Him to be just by condemning the sinner, and loving him by allowing the sinner to choose a way to escape that condemnation.