Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwlqi8k wrote

Reply to comment by AwfulUsername123 in Defending myth as truth - The Garden of Eden — The Unconscious Self and a Moral World by Melodic_Antelope6490

Sorry to be clear about the latter part - I'm not arguing Eden was seen as "just a myth" by bible authors, I also didn't say or don't think Paul didn't believe it was a real place. Simply that's its fundamental role is theological rather than literal. In such a time the distinction beyond that simply didn't exist.

1

AwfulUsername123 t1_iwlrz2x wrote

> Simply that's its fundamental role is theological rather than literal. In such a time the distinction beyond that simply didn't exist.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying people at the time didn't understand that something in the Bible could be false? That can't be right. The Bible itself gives commands for punishing people who don't believe it, and the New Testament complains about scoffers. 1 Corinthians 15:14 mentions the possibility that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Paul was not suggesting that was really the case, but it shows he understood the difference between literal truth and theology.

8

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwlv95z wrote

Paul's use of Adam in the NT is about his theological relationship to Christ, not say, where the garden of Eden is located or how if you travel there you can still see an angel with a flaming sword. As in, his argument hinges on symbolism not "I can prove it, travel to so and so and you'll see where it was".

It's really hard to make this explanation short but the true/false distinction in a text is a product of a separation of language into the 'literal' and the 'metaphorical' where the literal is objectively factual and the metaphorical is subjective and arbitrary which is illustrated by you saying at the start "You can interpret the story in a way that appeals to you, but that's not the same as it being true." Clearly Paul takes the old testament stories and 'interprets' Adam's typological relationship to Christ. That doesn't mean that he is exactly making an argument for Eden or Adam as literal in that context, but I don't think at the time he was writing this split was exactly conscious, in other words to use the text symbolically did not mean it had to first be separated as non-literal, partly because other explanations (e.g. darwinism) didn't really exist.

Your point about Christ however is true, I think clearly the early church were staking something on Jesus resurrection as a literal event, and there is no avoiding that. This would be where you get to Lewis and Tolkien's discussion of a 'true myth' in terms of the meeting of history and symbolism.

2

AwfulUsername123 t1_iwlwo1j wrote

> As in, his argument hinges on symbolism not "I can prove it, travel to so and so and you'll see where it was".

But doesn't that simply presuppose its truth, rather than disregard its truth? They all took the Torah as authoritative, so Paul didn't see the need to back up his claim that Adam and Eve were real people and their lives happened as described.

> the true/false distinction in a text is a product of a separation of language into the 'literal' and the 'metaphorical' where the literal is objectively factual and the metaphorical is subjective and arbitrary

Are you suggesting that the distinction is a product of our culture? I don't think that's right. The idea that a story can say something false isn't a novel concept. The Bible itself talks about people not believing in it.

> in other words to use the text symbolically did not mean it had to first be separated as non-literal, partly because other explanations (e.g. darwinism) didn't really exist.

It is certainly true that Paul believed Old Testament stories had hidden messages for Christians, but as you say, that isn't the same as believing they didn't happen. The literal meaning is important if you want to take the text as authoritative, because you can read meanings into whatever you want, as Paul himself demonstrated.

7

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwm0dot wrote

I think several things are going on here.

  1. I do believe the split is the product of our culture, of a scientific process being hypertrophied into an epistemological worldview thus 'literalising' the world into the true and the subjective, through postmodernity when the scientism of modernity that brought this about has been dropped by most people and we are left with absurd debates such as "I feel like a woman on the inside vs you're a man because of your body", or "a fetus is a life objectively" vs "it counts as a life based on my choice".

  2. We also have forms of knowledge from science itself (e.g. evolution, archaeology etc) that cause us to actually have to ask questions about what kinds of text we are dealing with directly, so as you pointed out, Paul wrote to people who took the Torah as authoritative so was just not interested in arguing about creation or Eden as symbolic or literal and did not have to, no one would question his taking it symbolically because they accept it as true. The poet T. S. Eliot said about poetry that "the surface reading of a poem is like meat thrown to a guard dog by a burglar" in other words, the distraction that allows the real work to be done. This is in some sense true of just taking a text as 'literal', it allows a door into its meanings without you having to first deal with this question of is it true and then ok what kind of truth is it, is it literal, is it arbitrary and subjective, etc etc.

If you're really bored or that way inclined I did write an essay series on this:

https://medium.com/atlas-writes/the-meaning-crisis-and-language-bf7200daf682

https://medium.com/atlas-writes/the-meaning-crisis-and-language-ii-do-we-need-to-believe-myth-and-metaphor-in-order-to-6544c07f826d

https://medium.com/atlas-writes/the-meaning-crisis-and-language-iii-myth-faith-ethics-and-aesthetics-c25b2b626076

5

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwm0k2z wrote

I am in no way arguing by the way that Paul thought it was not true. Just that the question does not occur to him.

6

AwfulUsername123 t1_iwm20bx wrote

I strongly disagree with the idea that it's a modern concept, but I'll check out your articles.

1

[deleted] t1_iwm4z53 wrote

[deleted]

0

WhittlingDan t1_iwm158d wrote

I think Jesus was probably a real person who preached and did good things. I think stories got added under his name. I don't believe he was resurrected and believe that was created to give the story real power. I say it jokingly but I really do mean it when I say I am a Jesus loving atheist. I would love to get a copy of the Jefferson Bible when I get some extra money.

2

schizboi t1_iwn01xh wrote

It seemed to me the whole point of the Bible was to not hoard wealth. I follow Jesus’s teachings, and believe the true corruption “or Satan” is the church itself. They worship the institution and use the word for personal gain. The true deceivers.

Jesus was just like, hey I’m god but also human but I’m also you and we are god and the Holy Spirit.

We are gods, mindfulness is enlightenment, distraction from self is sin.

Schizorantover

2

cowlinator t1_iwmaqfa wrote

...did you write the article or something? (if not, why defend it like this?)

> In such a time the distinction beyond that simply didn't exist.

It does now. We're reading the myth now.

1