[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Chronon]

Interesting points Krsqk. Here are a few counterpoints for discussion purposes.

Mostly, I think our disagreement comes from an undervaluing of mythology, which in my opinion is critical for the survival of any culture (American mythologies: the melting pot, manifest destiny, equality, etc.). Mythology, in my opinion, has an undeserved bad reputation in our modern, scientific culture - mostly because of its association with superstition (which is what the Enlightenment philosphes called religion). All cultures have stories to tell themselves (ie mythologies) or they wouldn't be unified cultures. In other words, I'm arguing that mythologies are critical to any culture; they are fundamental building blocks of the whole cultural belief system. So, in my opinion, there is no shame in comparing the Bible to mythology, it does, after all lay down the fundamental value system of Christian culture, and that is the basic function of a mythos.

The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions).

Good point, and in a metaphorical sense I think "Western Civ" is a secular mythology. It tells us stories about our beginnings that reinforce our value system, morals, and world view.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

Ah, here is the crux of our disagreement. I would argue that Greek religion, in it's time and place, was every bit as accepted as Judeo-Christian religion. It was neither superficial, nor superstitious (unless one believes, like the philosophes, that all religion is superstition). As Thucydides pointed out in The Peloponnesian War, Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial? It is essentially the same as saying that David defeated Goliath because he was favored by God.

Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.

So, I don't think one should dismiss Greek religion, or Homer, as superficial superstition. Yes, the Bible has other elements to it (Homer never claimed to be the voice of the Gods), but I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 12, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Chronon ]