The words spoken by Jesus, as recorded and interpreted in the gospels, as Crossan has asserted, may not be literally true, to varying degrees, and in different passages of text. However, might these words, in some sense, reflect with great accuracy the intent of Jesus, or at the very least, the impressions he had on his followers?
Operating on Crossan's core premises, would the "true myths," in the gospel be more effective at conveying the intent of Jesus? Of course, I realize that the authors may have misinterpreted Jesus' teachings, so I guess my question is more along the lines of, simply, assuming that there is no amount of substantial misinterpretation, can "true myths" be more powerful and directive than say, a literal and recorded dialogue?
The authors of the gospels were able to relate what they belived were the actions of Jesus to the everyday people of the world, not just the scribal elite. By using comparisions between the old testement and the actions of Jesus, peasents were able to draw the conclusions and understand his greatness by comparison, rather than just actual deeds.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I would day that myths are myths by their own nature. The way we percieve it is interpretation because our intellect applies our knowledge to understand it. If we see it as being more powerful content wise we will follow it more so than something we see as being weak. I am by no means implying that it is indeed more powerful then literal or recorded dialogue; rather, I believe it is up to the beholder to decide.
ReplyDeleteRemember that the idea of literal quotation is fairly recent. In a largely oral culture, you accurately report a person's words not verbatim, but by recounting (largely in your own words) what you took the speaker to mean.
ReplyDeleteSome of what Jesus said survives nearly verbatim because it was so odd -- kingdom and mustard seed, good Samaritans -- though each telling of course it gets framed and interpreted differently.
Myth is powerful, hence true, in a different way from the literal, because it shapes our lives and future choices. Myth thus becomes the organizing principle within which we select which literal facts to take seriously.
but what happen when a myth is taken to be seen as a fact? How then can the balance of its importance shift?
Delete