A couple of years ago, I was having a discussion with my SO about something or other. I used the term “Christian mythology” to describe something about the New Testament (I am not Christian). My SO, who is a devout atheist and who takes pride in rejecting his Catholic upbringing let me know that I should not use the term “mythology” in conjunction with Christianity, as he found it offensive.
I have to say, that floored me. I greatly enjoy studying ancient religions, and “mythology” is a pretty natural word for me. I therefore used it to describe a feature of the Christian notion of reality in the same way that I would in the ancient Greek, or Egyptian context.
I can, however, see where this is coming from. “Mythology” implies that the religion is not true. On the other hand, this is not part of the academic definition (really, when studying religion, who cares whether or not it’s true?) and I feel, in some ways, “mythology” would be an appropriate word to use.
If, however, we reject the use of the word “mythology” in conjunction with Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, for that matter), shouldn’t we reject it in conjunction with any religion that has current believers? We commonly talk about Hindu mythology and, to stretch it a bit, Norse and Greek and Celtic mythology which does have some, albeit vastly modified, devotees.
I guess it depends how you define “myth”, and what connotation it has for you. If you dig through your religious studies typology manuals, you will find a wide variety of definitions for the concept of “mythology.”
Personally, I just boil it down to the webster definition: “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon”
This, to me, applies to all religious traditions. Including Christianity.
Some people associate the word mythology to something which is akin to a fairytale - i.e. a form of fabricated reality as opposed to the Truth (with a capital T). They will have no hesitation in applying the term to ancient religion like that of Greece or Rome… because they write off the contents as being fabricated, unfounded, “untrue” or “unenlightened.” This may be why some give it that negative connotation.
My guess is that people equate myth and legend… but the two are VERY different beasts.
To me, Myth is a perfectly acceptable term.
Elly
(Years of anthropology and religious studies have warped my mind. I apologize in advance.)
A myth is an ancient story which can be used to explain natural phenomena, customs etc.
There are many myths in the christian bible as well as any other religious text. These myths build up a mythology. So there is definately a christian mythology.
Different people find different things offensive. Ask your friend why he found it offensive.
Personally, I am offended by eminem, but hey, each to their own.
Of course, when the subjects of religion and mythology show up together, I generally head for the anthropological definition. Certainly the word, in casual conversation, is frequently linked to the meanings “outdated beliefs” or “invented stories,” so one does have to know the audience (or declare the definition early in the discussion) in order to avoid either missed communications or bad feelings.
(It does not help that the word that the anthropologists captured for their meaning was used by St. Paul in his epistles to denigrate the beliefs of the Greeks before him. That meaning certainly lingers, especially when used by Christians to denigrate other beliefs, today.)
I’m a pretty staunch atheist. I don’t have a lot of respect for religion at all, but, by means of terminology, I tend to think the difference is Mythology has no current believers whereas religions has current believers.
To me, it’s just so people know what I’m talking about. Offensive? Not too much, but as what was expressed above, some may find it offensive. I had a neighbor who was offended when I said “Gosh” because it was almost saying “God” and that was blasphemy enough for him.
The only problem with that is that what is commonly thought of as “Classical Mythology” (Greek, Roman, Norse, etc) is still being used in religious beliefs today. So either they are mythologies like Christian mythologies or Hindu mythologies, or they cannot be called mythologies at all.
I not only accept, but embrace the idea that mythology is an integral part of modern religions. This is, in my opinion, the only way to combat the evils of religious fundamentalism.
Well, not to get too off topic here…but…
Man evolved from ape. When I see an ape, I call it an ape, when I see a man, I call it a man. Religion evolved from mythology. This is just a shorthand rationale as to why I call what what. I hope that better explains my thinking.
Sometimes people react to associations that they have with particular words, rather than what the words actually mean. I can remember a silly argument I had with a fundamentalist christian co-worker, when I accurately described a philosopher as a “christian mystic.” (Context-- I thought she might find the fellow interesting, and was trying to describe him as positively as I could.)
She was very adamant that Christians couldn’t be Mystics, because she held a firm belief that “Mystic” was just about equivalent with “Satanist” or “Pagan.” Mystic=Bad Christian=Good. That sort of thing. Never mind that mysticism is defined as “the belief that it is possible to directly obtain truth or achieve communication with God or other forces controlling the universe by prayer and contemplation,” which doesn’t seem terribly threatening to christian fundamentals to me. To her, it had dubious associations.
Similarly, a lot of people hear “myth” and read a negative value judgment into it.
I respect your opinion. I just think that by your rationale, what we consider “classical mythologies” could no longer be categorized as such. There is a part of me that wouldn’t see anything wrong with that.
IMO, her line of thinking is idiotic. Mysticism, to me, is another one of those hallmarks of religion. To deny the existence of mysticism in a religion is to deny its purpose of getting the individual closer to deity, and all that is left are a clergy of unspiritual jellyfish.
Not really, by any definition of the word myth. Using the anthropological definitions (provided in the links I posted, above), mythology is a component of human belief that is used by religion as it is used by other human social systems. Using the “popular” notion of “fairytales,” myth did not evolve into religion, but was replaced by the divine revelation of whatever “true” religion one believes.
Another interesting point that hasn’t been raised is that there is also mythology within the traditions of Christianity. I have seen a few pretty credulous reports of what some of the saints were up to a thousand or 1500 years ago that fit most of the definitions of what I’d call a myth. (Some of them probably weren’t even real people!) Would it be insulting to call those myths?
More likely, they would be legends. From the perspective of anthropolgy, a myth must be a story that expresses a truth. While the story if Christopher wading through the storm-swollen river carrying the child Jesus, who gets heavier with each step (because of the weight of the world’s sins that He is carrying) may make a point about how much Jesus did to save us, it does not really address any central truths of Chrsitianity. No Christian is expected to bear Jesus bearing the world’s sins.
On the other hand, the mythology surrounding the creation narrative does re-assert truths we hold: God is the author of all; Humanity has turned away from God, in sin, from the very beginning.
If myth is used to mean “wonder tale,” then a lot of the early lives of the saints could be considered myths, but you have to be sure that everyone knows which definition you are using.
Joseph Campbell defines a myth as a sacred story. The literal truth of a myth is not geramaine to its classification as a myth. In other words, a story can be true and still be a myth. The American revolution is a myth. Babe Ruth is a myth. It is not insulting to speak of Christian mythology, because it does not have to imply that it is not literally true.
I wonder, though, how many Christians have any objection to speaking of Buddhist or Hindu mythology.
Larry, your co-worker doesn’t seem to know what the word “mystic” means. Mysticism is a time honered part of Christianity. The Acts of the Apostles describes early Christians working themselves into ecstatic states (being overcome by the “holy spirit”). The medievel period is full of mystics, including Francis of Assisi. Modern Christian mysticism includes speaking in tongues, taking up snakes or any other ecstatic Christian practice. All mysticism really means is any attempt to commune directly with God.
As a person with great fondness for anthropology generally and Campbell’s work in particular, and married to an anthropologist, I’ve never had a problem with the idea of Christianity as myth. It’s important to recognize that “myth” does not describe truth value but rather genre of explication. As I had occasion to say in a Pit thread two years ago, even if six-day creationism were true and Genesis 1 were a literal account of what happened, it would still be a myth – because that’s the style of writing it is. If Moses had cranked out a monograph detailing the techniques that God used in creating the Universe, we’d have a much different and longer account than Genesis 1.
On the PBS program The Journey of Man last night a Navaho man objected to the use of “myth” for his beliefs.
I have no problem with using “myth” for anyone’s beliefs, but the word certainly seems to have acquired the connotations of “obsolete and/or outmoded fanciful beliefs”, which it will not lose despite the protestations of folklorists and anthropologists.
I’m on board with those who perceive an equivocation.
Unfortunately, the term “myth” is often used in American Heritage’s fourth sense: “A fictitious story, person, or thing: ‘German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth’ (Leon Wolff).”
It’s the same way that I feel when someone says that evolution is a “theory”. I want to know exactly what they mean.