[Avodah] Fables and Lies

[Chana Luntz]

RTK writes:

> 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. 

Actually, the author - who is in fact a she, is a devout Roman Catholic (the
introduction mentions that her first book "Through the Narrow Gate"
described her seven years as a nun in a Roman Catholic order").  One of the
reason I rather like her book is because it is unquestionably written from a
theistic (if not completely our theistic) perspective.

 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.

I don't think if you read the book in its totality is it condescending at
all.  Here is a passage from towards the end:

P141 "We must disabuse ourselves of the nineteenth century fallacy that myth
is false or that is represents an inferior mode of thought.   We cannot
completely recreate ourselves, cancel out the rational bias of our
education, and return to a pre-modern sensibility.  But we can acquire a
more educated attitude to myth making.  We are myth making creatures and,
during the twentieth century, we saw some very destructive modern myths.
These myths have failed because they do not meet the criteria of the Axial
Age.  They have not been infused with the spirit of compassion, respect for
the sacredness of all life, or with what Confucius called "leaning".  ...
We cannot counter these bad myths with reason alone, because undiluted logos
cannot deal with such deep-rooted, unexorcised fears, desires and neuroses.
This is the role of an ethically and spiritually informed mythology."

> "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.

That is precisely the attitude that thinkers like the author of this book
want to disabuse people of.  I am not suggesting that you would say such a
thing to the children you are teaching. As you say, the word myth does carry
these connotations (according to this author, since the nineteenth century)
but carry them they do.  

It may be, therefore that the word myth has become too difficult to use (in
the same way that one cannot, today, use the word "gay" instead of the word
"happy", particularly when teaching children).  But if we have no other
words, then we may have to, in a discussion like this one, revert to using
such words and explaining what we mean by them, or what was meant to be be
meant by them, instead of what modern parlance tells us we are supposed to
understand by them.
 
> 
> 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.

Yes, but note that this is precisely what happened, in effect, to RAM.  He
believed (and may still believe) the modern understanding that truth is
contained fully in historical fact (and felt Judaism was superior to
Xtianity based on this).  Then he realised that the Asarah Harugei Malchus,
as set out in the Yom Kippur davening, did not meet this criteria, and it
caused him great pain.  If he had never been set up for the fall in this
way, by assuming that the modern chronological understanding was the only
true way of understanding things, he would not now be finding himself in the
position of criticising the Yom Kippur liturgy and those who put it together
- when he discovers that the formulation as there written does not
correspond with chronological fact as demanded by modernity.

> 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.

Well this writer would ask whether the myth of Romulus and Remus was infused
with the criteria of the Axial Age (by which she inter alia, means the
Naviim).  Obviously we would put it somewhat differently.  The question is,
is such a myth infused with Torah and emes or sheker and the sitra achra (or
whatever particular formulation you feel comfortable with).  If on some
level with torah and emes, then Romulus and Remus could presumably be told
by Chazal as a midrash, if not, then obviously not.

> --Toby Katz

Regards

Chana