www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Pre-flood ages, centuries?

I see some people are having trouble with the conception of myth, not to mention that of metaphor.

The challenge is that we are a modern people with modern notions of how history is to be read. However, those accounts were written by an ancient people with ancient notions of how history is to be understood.

I think that needs to be considered when reading the Hebrew Scriptures.

The problem is more, on what basis does one distinguish between myth, metaphor and fact?

Is the burning bush a myth? Passover and the plagues? Jesus giving sight to the blind and rising from the dead a fact or metaphor?

How are you making the distinction?

I'm not a literalist, as I've said previously, so I'm not trying to make a roundabout point. I am just curious as to how you are making the distinction.

The power of myth is that so much can be said in so few words. Myth must be read as myth not history. The first several chapters of Genesis are telling us of the primeval world, its creation, and the primordial relationship of God with His creation.

Consider the task: In 11 short chapters, roughly 11 pages, explain the creation of the world, of life, and give an account of the development of that creation up until the beginning of history (taking Abram/Abraham as the first historical person in scripture), and thereby convey the actual purpose of the account: the revelation of the profoundest religious/theological truths about God's work of creation and about the beginnings of Divine-human interactions.

We must read scripture with the most careful attention to detail, to the letter (literal), and take from it(exegesis) what is the proper sense, what it says [and not what we read into it that we want it to say (eisegesis)] so that the correct meaning and interpretation (hermeneutic) can result. The medieval Latin mystical theologian Hugh of St. Victor said it concisely: litteram legimus sed non secundum litteram [“De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris,” PL 175, c13]. We read the letter, but not according to the letter.

What does scripture say? That there may have been local floods, or other contemporary, "parallel" accounts, etc. is informative and should be consider. But what is the message? I'd say some of the message is this.

The Fall and sin took its course, the situation was deteriorating. God had not scrapped Mankind and started over at the Fall; that would have been to deny Adam his free-will/self-determination/autoexousia, and that is how he was created. Even in the Fall, God loves Man and does not curse him, but He curses the earth instead (Gen 3:17; cf. Gen. 8:21 after the Flood). But now, in words that should make one shiver, (following the Hebrew text) God repented/was sorry He had created us (Gen.6:6). And then, in clear words: ESV Gen. 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

But one man, Noah, finds favor/grace in God's eyes, Gen. 6:8; he was righteous (a very rich word theologically), Gen.6:9. He is a type of Adam and Christ.

Others are saved with Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives, to replenish the earth with humans; likewise, the male and female of all creatures that have "breath of life" (cf. Gen. 6:17) so that they too may replenish the earth after the Flood. Thus with Noah, another, somewhat fresh start, but still using the old material. So all of us are children of Noah, and scripture tells us "explicitly" his lineage from Adam (Gen. 5:1-30).

When I was in high school and studied Latin, I had to translate parts of the Aeneid. It begins at the end of the Trojan War and tells the story of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus. It proceeds to go through several centuries of mythical accounts. By the later parts, the Aeneid has transitioned to history and has become a work of propaganda for Caesar Augustus. Although this offends our modern sensibilities, the ancients thought nothing of telling history like this. It's the way they did it. Until the Enlightenment, no one thought anything of it.
I understand your question regarding the dilemma that if some of Scripture is myth, how do we know that other parts are actual historical events. I used to wonder about this too. I think the answer is simply that we know the events of Christ's life are historical because the Church teaches it. Like anything else, it is a matter of accepting it on the authority of the Church.
Additionally, by the time the NT was written, the discipline of history existed.

Gregg

The best definition of myth I know is "truth in allegorical form".

But I don't see a problem in believing that, for instance, the world is 6000 (or so) years old.

If God had no problem with creating already old wine at the wedding in Cana, he can surely made a world that looks as if it was millions of years old.

True, although nobody would claim that the wine at Cana was only 1 minute old. Although no grapes were actually pressed to make that wine, it wouldn't be wine if it hadn't come from grapes, whether or not it *actually* did or Christ simply made it to appear that way. It certainly wouldn't look or taste a minute old. Appearance of age means it may as well actually be that old in terms of our understanding of it (wine or the universe).

So are you submitting that all of the Old Testament is open to being myth rather than fact? At what point are you making a distinction? The things that you can't readily explain must be allegories?

Not lost in this, I hope, is my original question, which is beyond each of our individual speculations: What is/are the official teachings/viewpoints of the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches? Are all of the "myth/allegory" speculations contrary to church doctrine, east or west?

Actually, we know the events of Christ's life are true because, when subjected to the strictures of historical analysis, they ring true.

According to whom?

And what of Old Testament miracles/myths? Do talking donkeys and burning bushes ring true?

According to my historians judgment. If I did not think that the Gospels were true history, I would not have become a Christian in the first place. Remember--these were books written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events they recount. They might disagree in the details, but they agree in the essentials, and if Jesus had not risen from the dead, someone would have said something about it.


Depends entirely on what you mean by "true". If you mean literally factual, I have no way of knowing. If you mean do they reveal God's mystery of salvation, then yes, they ring true.

If anyone goes to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site and does a search there are hundreds of documents discussing this subject. None of them support the literal interpretation of the Bible. Here is a document, with references, that discusses the senses in which scripture is interpreted in Catholic theology. Senses of Scripture [usccb.org] Of course if you want the literal side you can get some proof from this site. Dinosaur and human foot prints fossil. [bible.ca]

Fetch, Dino! Yabba dabba doo!

I recommend, as a good place to start an inquiry, the book The Old Testament: A Byzantine Perspective, John S. Custer,(Pittsburgh: God With Us Publications, 1994). He has an introductory section entitled "THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION," with sub-headings of "Prophecy Fulfillment," "Typology," and "Allegory." As an example, he comments in part:
p 25

And more generally:
p 26

That's fine, but it's not objective evidence. Even if we considered you an expert witness. It's subjective, and plenty of historians would and do disagree. Of course it's good enough for you, but you can't expect another to take your word for it (even if we happen to agree).


I mean factual, because it's presented as fact. Unless there is a consistent methodology of distinguishing between factual truth and allegorical truth, it seems that we are all free to make up our own criteria.