[b-hebrew] Mythoi kai Kerygmata

Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Wed Jul 21 16:16:45 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr>
To: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>; <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Mythoi kai Kerygmata


> I don't think there is any world view clash here.
> You wrote: "You have precisely the reaction that many students give when 
> faced with the
> assertion".
> I perceived this wording and analogy as disparaging and contemptuous. As 
> far as "facts" go, the fact is I did perceive it that way.

So you didn't like being compared to a student.  My apologies.

> Your assertion, your big claim, that "the theory of evolution amounts to 
> mythology" remains to be substantiated.
> This was the initial "bone of contention" and this issue, the real issue, 
> remains unaddressed.
> Maybe we can move to the real issue of sorting myths, mythology from 
> knowledge.
> This does have a bearing as regards the forum's topic.

I never said that "evolution amounts to mythology."  Carefully reread what I 
did say.


> The last sentence makes little to dismiss the general perception I have of 
> contempt and disparagement on your side.
> What exactly makes you think that  "Some of the ideas may be new to [me]"?
> Please explain.
> Many thanks.

Your reaction to the whole concept is what made me think that the ideas were 
new to you.  Most people who have studied the subject to any degree would 
not have had that reaction.

> Well
> I tend to think that myth can be defined through lexical and linguistic 
> features and its contents.
> I'm not sure "use" whatever that means is a secure or necessary criterion.
> What's the need for a "functional" extrinsic definition of myth?
>
> I tend to think that an internal and intrinsic definition is possible.
> In all cases, I'm not ready to buy the idea that "Myth isn't so much about 
> content, but use."
> This claim stands completely unproved, as far as I'm concerned.

There is no such thing as an "internal and intrinsic definition," IMO.

> I must say that for the time being there is little clarification in sight, 
> on several counts.
> Who is "our" for example?
> Please explain.

"Our" is a possessive first person plural English pronoun that modifies 
"understanding."  In this case, it includes "me" and "any other 
readers/interpreters" of the Hebrew Bible, "we who read the Hebrew Bible."

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)
Mentor, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list