Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AwfulUsername123 t1_iwlnn8f wrote

You can interpret the story in a way that appeals to you, but that's not the same as it being true. If we take the story as representing the invention of agriculture, as the article suggests, then it definitely isn't true. Humans were not immortal egalitarian vegetarians before the invention of agriculture. Not remotely to any of those adjectives. It's also very strange that the author suggests Paul didn't believe Eden was a real place, and though he acknowledges that Paul made several references to Adam as a person, he seems to say that Paul somehow didn't really mean it as referring to a real person? He appears in Jesus's genealogy in Luke, so the idea of him as a person was around in early Christianity. The narrative in Genesis describes real world rivers in relation to Eden. Josephus referred to Adam and Eve as real people and Eden as a real place. It seems like the author is projecting his view onto ancient people.

64

Spebnag t1_iwlrzfc wrote

> You can interpret the story in a way that appeals to you, but that's not the same as it being true. If we take the story as representing the invention of agriculture, as the article suggests, then it definitely isn't true.

The only 'truth' one can wring out of this myth is how the jewish religious elite somewhere around the time of king Hezekiah thought about the relation between humanity, human culture and nature.

Anything beyond that is just a reflection of the author's opinions projected on a text that has nothing to do with it. I don't think myths mean very much by themselves, they are just a canvas for us to paint our own pictures. It very much works like any fanfiction, in that it simplifies writing your own stories because they are supported by a canon shared between you and the people you want to communicate your ideas with.

18

davtruss t1_iwmijyo wrote

I'm about to read the article, but your comment about the religious elite and King Hezekiah made me think of the notion that much of what was recorded for that time and times many centuries and millennia before, was a reflection of the scholarly assembly and authorship of these materials during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE.

The idea I've seen proposed was that the wealthy and elite in exile were presented with an opportunity to recover their heritage and homeland if they demonstrated they had a heritage/ Does this sound right?

I've always accepted that to mean that anything passed on or shared prior to that time was strictly an oral tradition.

3

Spebnag t1_iwn7fln wrote

> The idea I've seen proposed was that the wealthy and elite in exile were presented with an opportunity to recover their heritage and homeland if they demonstrated they had a heritage/ Does this sound right?

I'm not qualified to say anything with certainty of course, but from what I know it is pretty clear that the Torah is not a singular, constructed narrative. It is compiled from at least four, relatively easily distinguishable sources who conflict in many aspects of the histories and theologies they present.

Exactly when and why these sources got combined into one text is highly debated, but from what I have heard it likely happened in multiple stages from the destruction of the northern kingdom 720BC onward until -and maybe even after- the babylonian exile. It has not been composed for one specific reason, or at one point in time.

One of the early main reasons could have been to integrate refugees from the north and their culture into the south. Another later on, that most of the traditional leadership in judaism had been destroyed, -the Levites, the house of David and the north-, and the priests of the remaining house of Aaron that ruled during the theocratic phase of judaism, sponsored by the persian kings following the exile, making adjustments to legitimize their power.

One thing that is also rather clear though, is that whatever the Bible says is not a accurate description of the religion of the common people. It's strictly a religious text by and for the political elites of the country, and what they would have liked their countries religion to be. The vast majority of the people could not read it and never visited Jerusalem, much less the Temple, and likely never heard an official priest speak. There are loads of archeological evidence that monotheism and worship in only Jerusalem was not as prevalent as the writers of the bible would like you to believe, for example. They lived their own lives with their own problems, and so they had their own faith apart from whatever the elites were doing. Worship of a female god and wife of Yahweh, Asherah, seems to have been prevalent for quite a while. That makes perfect sense to me: why would a peasant worship a patriarchal god of kingship when his wife is in labor and the rains fail to arrive? He would naturally pray to Asherah for a healthy birth and Baal for the rain instead. That's why the bible condemns such things all the time, because it no doubt happened A LOT.

5

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwlqi8k wrote

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

[deleted] t1_iwlj9i0 wrote

Me, using myth as a heuristic for understanding the world around me: lol

The universe, which does not give a fuck about myth: lol

30

Call_Me_At_8675309 t1_iwmowd8 wrote

Are you saying the reason child birth is painful and that women have periods is not due to sin? There possibly can’t be any other explanation. /s

3

[deleted] t1_iwmsdcc wrote

(working backwards from weirdly specific shit that I already want to be true) FOOL, I HAVE DEDUCED THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF ALL KNOWLEDGE

2

dihydrogen_m0noxide t1_iwkzzkz wrote

Defending Myth as Truth is also the subtitle of all of reddit

21

BarbequedYeti t1_iwl7na3 wrote

True. True.. But we also have the waffle stomp and that isn’t myth. So we got that going for us.

11

Prineak t1_iwl3cv8 wrote

Yep.

The mythology we share is the framework of our metaphorical understanding.

There’s a reason the surreal is a recurring theme.

19

julioseizure t1_iwlohl3 wrote

There is no defense for myth as truth. That's like the defense of cheese as bullets.

9

DrarenThiralas t1_iwlphqj wrote

That's a good analogy. Just like anything can be a "bullet" if it goes fast enough, so can anything be "truth" with enough mental gymnastics.

6

julioseizure t1_iwlpy24 wrote

I suppose if the cheese is hard enough, but I would imagine the heat of ignition would take away a fair amount of mass, structural integrity and aerodynamic value

6

RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_iwmbvcu wrote

you won't think that cheese is mental gymnastics when you feel the kinetic energy of mozzarella at 0.2c

5

julioseizure t1_iwmnr11 wrote

I could chuck a cold polly-o and hurt somebody with it.

1

RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_iwlpdmw wrote

I mean, at a high enough velocity cheese could work. Cheese railguns maybe?

5

TheCaffeinatedPanda t1_iwlqapv wrote

How would you make a cheese railgun? Would you wrap the cheese in magnetic foil?

1

TreesAreReal473 t1_iwm8v54 wrote

“Christianity is the correct mythology”

8

Call_Me_At_8675309 t1_iwmp9kr wrote

Ironic thing is they still use mythology, a collection of myths: a widely held but false belief.

0

Lencor t1_iwmgeif wrote

"(...)engaging with a language structure that does not have to be literal to be profoundly true, a point already accepted by most believers in most arenas outside of the scientific..."

What? lol, scientist in some degree apply this too.

Newton invented a force that he couldnt see, or touch but "feel" and create all his "world" around it. Years after his dead with Einstein we learned that it's not a force but a consequence of the bind of space-time, but the force itself dosnt exist.

But for Newton until his dead Gravity was like god.

So, to some degree scientist apply this too.

3

BernardJOrtcutt t1_iwlqslv wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

davtruss t1_iwmk6qa wrote

I'm determined to enjoy this entire article, but I see this type of thing on reddit all the time, and that's the notion that what academics call "modernity" in terms of agriculture, tool use, abstract thinking, and singing/dancing, is somehow related to the emergence of conscience and the metaphorical concept of Adam and Eve.

I'm pretty sure that the appreciation of God by some occurred long before what we would more accurately describe as culture.

1

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iwmn9g2 wrote

Not so sure that's true, if God is an abstraction of self-representation in some form, then surely culture and representation come first?

2

davtruss t1_iwnw1fs wrote

I was just thinking in terms of first man, first woman. Surely there was enlightened "first" who not only became self aware, but also aware of something bigger than himself or herself. I don't know that the obvious evidence of cultural advancement would have instantly flowed freely. Heck, many may have thought such a person was crazy.

2

Expensive_Internal83 t1_iwobsd1 wrote

Our conscious faculty was very much shaped by hunting in community by plan. That movement from hunting to agriculture would free the mind for thoughts of self, ... seems likely.

I was searching for truth and looking for literal truth, so i left the Church at an early age. When i decided to look at Christianity, in order to debunk the lies, i found the only way I could continue was figuratively: if woman was made "from Adam's rib", then a literal reading was out. ... However! if removing a "rib" from Adam made Eve then, i can work with that figuratively; cuz if someone showed me the particular mutation event that created mammalian gender, i might just say something like that. Only later did i learn that the hebrew precluded my reading; to late, what's done is done.

In October of 2000, on an e-mail list called Alexandria, i was chatting with people about mythology and the nature of idea and such, and started an ajin with a Rabbi from Calgary. After a day or two meditating on Kabbalah i started seeing little flashes of light. Now, full disclosure, I'm a chronic weed smoker. It was dry that summer and for the time of the discussion and ajin i did not partake; about two months. Just before my experience, we got some weed and i had some.

It was a week long meditative experience. I'm not given to visions or hallucinations. This was on and off like a tap, like someone threw a switch. I first found myself in a verdant valley, the next day inside the Trojan horse, the next burried under Roman cobblestones. Seven days; i had no idea such a thing was possible.

Articulating the nature of consciousness is difficult. Constraining it to us human individuals is all too easy. If the Church is a body, then maybe truth is a person. Maybe. There's no need for the supernatural; only for unconstrained sense-ability. I vote binding energy for the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I think there's a driving function/transfer function relationship between the cortex and the rest of the brain, and my experience is what happens when the transfer function drives; i was a spectator, a witness.

1

Expensive_Internal83 t1_iwpxt78 wrote

Interestingly, Judas is alleged to have had "seven days of secret sayings". I suspect that, at least occasionally, "secret sayings" means meditative experience.

1

anthony_is_ t1_iwltyee wrote

Eden is part of a symbolic worldview, and the literal-materialist interpretation that 19th-20th century fundamentalists have applied to it did not exist until fairly recently.

Read Genesis symbolically.

−2

AwfulUsername123 t1_iwluosd wrote

> the literal-materialist interpretation that 19th-20th century fundamentalists have applied to it did not exist until fairly recently.

The Hebrew Calendar is based on a literal reading of the story.

7

codyd91 t1_iwmbt49 wrote

And why not? People out here saying it's allegory, which is kinda fckin rude to say about a culture's creation myth. Pretty sure Genesis is just the Jewish story of creation.

Interpretation is how we get Christian absurdities like Satan in the Garden. It's just a snake.

1

RyeZuul t1_iwlxqsd wrote

They didn't distinguish between material and mythical back then. However, they did have parables which were understood to be fictive morality tales and the origin story was not to be understood simply as a parable, but a depiction of the cosmology of a bronze age people. Biblical and traditional theism involves an active god in world events, not simply a detached symbolic god and parables. Josephus referred to various events in Genesis as real and authentic in his histories of the Jews, for instance.

5