[Avodah] Fables and Lies

[T613K at aol.com]

From: "Chana Luntz" _chana at kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:chana at kolsassoon.org.uk) 


 

>>Um, Ayleh Rzk'rah is a myth, not a lie. ....
I quote from "A short
History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong  p7-8:

"Today the word "myth" is often used to describe something that  is
simply not true. ... Since the eighteenth century, we have developed  a
scientific view of history; we are concerned above all with  what
actually happened.  But in the pre-modern world, when people wrote  about
the past they were more concerned with what an event had meant....  


An experience of trancendence has always been part of the  human
experience.  We seek out moments of ecstasy ... Like poetry  and music,
mythology should awaken us to rapture, even in the face of death  and the
dispair we may feel at the prospect of annihiliation.  If a myth  ceases
to do that, it has died and outlived its usefulness.....

....Our modern alienation from myth is unprecedented.  In  the pre-modern
world, mythology was indispensible.  It not only helped  people make
sense of their lives but also revealed regions of the human mind  that
would otherwise have remained inaccessible ... "

I tend to think  there is still quite a bit of value in these studies,
because they are able  to explain in modern language something that I
think we moderns sometimes  forget, which is how to more fully understand
some of our own  texts.

>>>>>
I totally reject the formulation "Eilah Ezkarah is a myth." 
 
I reject this whole line of thought, that all our midrashim and so on are  
the same as Greek and Roman myths, all human creations "like poetry and music"  
and so on.  
 
The person who wrote the book about myth from which R'n CL quotes clearly  
does not believe in G-d or in anything Out There besides the amazing workings of 
 the human brain, which seeks the "experience of transcendence" and  
"ecstasy."  He does not believe there is an Afterlife (death =  "annihilation") , but 
thinks "myth" helps us overcome despair.  And  look at this passage:  "In the 
pre-modern world, mythology was  indispensable.  It...helped people make sense 
of their lives."  There  is the most incredible condescension there, on the 
part of a modern  person with scientific training who does not need mythology 
to make sense  of our lives, but nevertheless thinks that mythology is sweet 
and  meaningful on an emotional, creative level. 
 
"In the pre-modern world, mythology was indispensable."  In actuality,  in 
the pre-modern (non-Jewish) world, it would not have been possible to  say, 
"Mythology is indispensable" because they didn't think they /were/ teaching  
"mythology" -- i.e., made-up stories.  They believed their founding stories  were 
true.  Mythology is pretty stupid and useless if you consciously  think, "These 
things I believe in are just myths."  Only /we/ looking back  at the ancients 
can say, "They believed in myths, and they just couldn't  have survived 
without their comforting stories."
 
If you consciously considered your own beliefs to be "just  myths", that 
would render your entire belief system redundant and  stupid.  It would be absurd 
for ancient Greeks and Romans, and al  achas kamah vekamah for Jews, to say, 
"Well most of what's in our traditional  texts is just myth."
 
I never, never use the word "myth" when discussing midrashim or  piyutim.  
Regardless of this passage in a textbook, the word "myth" will  always carry 
connotations of 1. falsehood  2. created by people  3.  not historically based  
4.  not scientifically based     5.  childish, primitive    6.  something  that 
modern man has outgrown and can afford to smile at indulgently.
 
 
When I teach that some midrashim are not necessarily meant to be taken  
literally, I never say "this is not true" or "this is a myth."  Words are  powerful 
and must be used with care.   Never do we want our children  to smile 
indulgently at the foolish false beliefs of the primitive and childlike  Tannaim and 
Amoraim, considering themselves to be in possession of superior  knowledge and 
wisdom to that of those who came before us.
 
I don't think Chazal /meant/ for all the midrashim to be taken literally,  
and they indeed might be smiling indulgently at /us/, for taking them so  
literally!  But nor do I believe that these stories are "myths."
 
The story of the Asarah Harugei Malchus, in particular -- even though  
discrepancies have crept in -- is based on totally true history and nothing  
mythological at all.   You cannot compare the stories of Roman  persecution of great 
Torah leaders to, say, the Romulus and Remus founding  stories of Rome.
 
As I wrote those words I remembered that Chazal themselves also mentioned  
that very story, which Rashi somewhere quotes.   Nevertheless I do not  believe 
that Chazal believed in the literal historicity of the Romulus and Remus  
story, which, as told by the Romans, WAS myth, but as told by Chazal  was--midrash.





--Toby  Katz
=============



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071128/9674ffa0/attachment-0001.htm>