Both those books (well, all those books) look fascinating. Thanks for the reading-list additions.
The mythos/logos duality still does exist in modern religions, for some people. I know Catholics who absolutely believe that Communion is the body and blood of Christ - truly, not metaphorically - at the same time as they have no problem acknowledging that it’s a wafer and supermarket wine.
The King James version describes a tower ascending “to heaven,” but most other translations speak of a tower ascending to “the heavens” or “the sky.” What I think most interpretations believe is that what God objected to was not that the Tower would actually reach Heaven, but that it was a massive expression of earthly human pride.
I’m pretty sure that’s official Catholic doctrine, and that one of the significant theological differences among various Christian denominations is what they believe/teach about Communion.
I wonder (and I’m not snarking here, I’m genuinely wondering) how far that goes: do some Christians absolutely believe that Jesus turned water into wine – truly rather than just metaphorically – while of course acknowledging that it was still actually just ordinary water? *“And we also believe he literally walked on water – though if asked, we have no problem acknowledging that he was in fact swimming underwater at the time.” *
The mythos/logos duality could explain rather a lot, actually.
Not that I know of.
For more elaboration on the Communion thing, see Wikipedia on Transubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
One wonders why the Christians never flew into the heavens to see that there was no god there.
No, actually, it’s the opposite: when the priest performs communion, the wafer and wine transform into the very body and blood of Christ and cease to be the wafer and wine, even though they maintain that outward appearance. This is the opposite of what I mention: it has to be one or the other, if it’s blood it can’t be wine and vice versa, rather than believing, in a certain way, that the person in the centre of the circle is God, while knowing that he’s just your neighbour.
What I understood from Eclectic Wench is that despite official doctrine, there are Catholics and other Christians who understand communion in the mindset I mentioned, without requiring things to be either literal truth or utter falsehood.
What matt_mcl said. Going by my very vague memories of school religion class, we were taught that the bread and wine *literally *become the body and blood of Christ, but I know Catholics who believe that they truly become that body and blood on the level of mythic truth, but remain bread and wine on the level of literal truth.
None that I know (although I don’t know all that many serious Christians of any denomination, so this doesn’t mean much). I’ve known people who believe in the miracles literally, and some who believe in them as metaphors. For example, one guy I knew way back believed that, in the loaves-and-fishes miracle, what actually happened was that Jesus and the little kid’s generosity inspired people who’d brought lunch to share it with people who hadn’t, so everyone got fed - and the true miracle was the outpouring of generosity, which is a much deeper miracle than ‘Check it out, five thousand tuna sandwiches’ anyway. But I haven’t known any who believed that the truth of the miracles inhabited that other level, if that makes sense.
I just thought of a book where the mythos/logos duality plays a huge part. The whole plot of C.S. Lewis’s Till We Have Faces turns on one character’s inability, or unwillingness, to accept that there might be any other kind of truth than logos.
Yes. Catholics officially believe in transubstantiation, while what is being described here is consubstantiation, a position that was taken by Martin Luther.
I wonder how far that guy takes it. “Come and see: he is risen, back from the dead, having triumphed over – wait, literally? No, he’s literally still a lifeless corpse; the miracle is that some folks now believe otherwise. Truly, this was the Son of God, except, of course, (a) he wasn’t, and (b) there isn’t actually a God.”
Well… (Highjack, but…) Why not? If the belief actually made people behave better, made them more loving, more caring, more giving – if they truly loved their neighbors as themselves – then, fable or not, it would be a very nice religion indeed.
To turn the question back around, how far do we have to take the literal truth of the stories for them to be worthwhile or meaningful? Young-Earth-Creationists have one answer, but is it the best answer?
But my point is that it’s not a fable; if they truly believe a miracle takes place each time wine literally and not metaphorically turns into blood – while the stuff of course keeps looking and tasting like ordinary wine, remaining chemically indistinguishable from what, to all appearances, it still is – then maybe I’ve been wrong about 'em; they may well be correctly recounting what actually happened back when.
If I’m at a wedding next week, and someone announces that he’s literally and miraculously turned the water into wine – well, shucks, I’d usually disregard the claim upon noting that, er, no, as far as I can tell, it’s still water. But now I’d genuinely wonder: did folks circa 30 AD believe Jesus had just now worked a literal miracle, even while each of 'em noted the still-oh-so-watery properties of the substance in front of them?
This is something I’ve been wondering too, but I can’t find any answer.
If there’s no timeline for the exploration of Mt Olympus, would the ancient Greeks have been able to climb it? Are there any reports of ancient attempts?
Secondly how strong is the identification with the present-day Mt Olympus with legendary mountain? Are there any ancient sources that seem to identify the two?
Climbing it is described as a non-technical hike, except for a section that requires scrambling (use of hands). It was more than a simple walk, but should have been within the abilities of the Greeks if they chose to do it.
Ultimate answer, to both questions: it’s impossible to know.
If the wafer and wine behave, to all scientific tests, as…merely wafers and wine, then the claim that they are miraculously also flesh and blood is ordinary scientific nonsense. (The technical term, more than the term of derision.) We can’t tell. It remains a matter of faith, and that’s none of my business.
Ditto for what actually, historically happened at Cana, A.D. 30 give or take a few years one way or the other. Did the congregants actually see, feel, and taste bread and fish? Or did they share in the conviviality without, while enjoying the pretense of plenty? Did it all actually happen, or is it a tale that grew in the telling? We don’t know. We have no means of exploring the question, save only by the shining light and resolving lens of faith.
In matters of faith, more than in almost any other aspect of human life – save perhaps aesthetics – Your Mileage May Vary. Mine certainly does!
More seriously, the inner court of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem is a good case in point. (I can’t think of the name in Hebrew; it is, in Latin called the sanctum sanctourum, the Holy of Holies.)
IIRC, the High Priest, and only he, was permitted inside (only on Yom Kippur?).
Isn’t there a (Talmud? Josephus?) story–which seems entirely likely in concept–that upon its destruction by the Romans an Emperor eagerly marched into it with such-and-such results?
Nicely said.
You know, it’s true Wiki is not always a super-great source or cite. However, so far it is about 1000% better than your cites, which are non-existent.
Do you have a cite for any of these opinions you are posting?
Isaac Asimov wrote a charming essay, “Pompey and Circumstances,” where he gives a thumbnail sketch of Pompey’s life and career. Basically, he was the golden-haired boy; everything he did went right. He even captured Jerusalem, a very difficult nut to crack. Once master of the city, he toured the Temple, and even went in to the Holy of Holies. What he saw there, nobody knows.
But… From that point onward, everything he did failed. Lost battles, lost sieges, etc. Died murdered on a beach near Alexandria.
Cause and effect? Circumstance? God knows…and ain’t tellin’.
Funny you should mention the Tower of Babel. I asked a Catholic priest why God was opposed to the tower’s construction. According to Father Rau, he said that the humans were building the tower to protect themselves in case God ever sent another flood to destroy them. True, God said that He would never wipe out mankind with water again, but that didn’t mean that flooding still wasn’t a threat.