After basically adopting Child's definition of myth (in Myth and Reality, pp. 27-28), Oswalt goes on to say:
Thus, myth is a form of expression, whether literary or oral, whereby the continuities among the human, natural, and divine realms are expressed and actualized. By reinforcing these continuities, it seeks to ensure the orderly functioning of both nature and human society...The fact is that the Bible has a completely different understanding of existence and of the relations among the realms. As a result, it functions entirely differently. Its telling does not actualize continuous divine reality out of the real invisible world into this visible reflection of that reality. Rather, it is a rehearsal of the nonrepeatable acts of God in identifiable time and space in concert with human beings. Its purpose is to provoke human choices and behavior through the medium of memory. Nothing could be farther from the purpose of myth.—The Bible Among Other Myths, pages 45-46
<idle musing>
Sounds like myth is a Platonic construct, doesn't it? We have the “idea” in the divine realm which we want to make real in the human realm. Does this definition of myth still make sense? Is it still commonly accepted? I don't know; the date on Childs is 1960. Can somebody help me out here?
</idle musing>
No comments:
Post a Comment