Abstract
This study offers a new approach for studying biblical myth in two directions: first, by expanding the scope of investigation beyond the clearly mythological elements to other areas of biblical literature, and second, by drawing comparisons to classical Chinese literature. This article thus reconsiders the relationship between myth and history in both biblical and Chinese literature, while seeking to broaden the endeavor of the comparative method in biblical studies. Two examples are offered: (1) the story of Moses’s call narrative and his relationship with Aaron in Exodus in light of the story of Xiang Liang and Xiang Ji in the Shiji; (2) the story of Saul and David in 1 Samuel compared with the story of Dong Zhuo and Lü Bu in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Both comparisons demonstrate the operation of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s inversion principle. Conclusions regarding each of these literatures are presented separately, followed by cross-cultural insights and shared aspects in the study of myth, historiography, and religion.
Highlights
Myth and HistoryMuch of the study of myth in the Hebrew Bible tends to focus on the primordial history of the world, namely Genesis 1–11 and parallels,1 and the patriarchal narratives of Genesis more broadly.2The modern rise of skepticism in regards to the historicity of those narratives caused them to be re-assessed as bearing a universal value that transcends historical narrative, intertwining primeval themes of violence, sex, and family
Comparative approaches to the study of the Hebrew Bible can be broadly divided into two trajectories: one direction is looking forward, namely, the study of “reception history” or “biblical exegesis,” covering a broad scope of literatures ranging from ancient Judaism and early Christianity, to modern literature and film
In a foundational methodological paper on the comparative method, he does not consider a single case, or even the option, of the benefits of comparison outside civilizations who were in close proximity to ancient Israel in time and place. Even for this limited scope of comparison, confined to the Near East, Talmon offers many cautions and limitations, lamenting his colleagues’ “disregard for internal analysis as a means to elicit from the biblical literature itself” relevant concepts for their study
Summary
Much of the study of myth in the Hebrew Bible tends to focus on the primordial history of the world, namely Genesis 1–11 and parallels, and the patriarchal narratives of Genesis more broadly.. The modern rise of skepticism in regards to the historicity of those narratives caused them to be re-assessed as bearing a universal value that transcends historical narrative, intertwining primeval themes of violence, sex, and family This entailed a common distinction often intuited in scholarship, and at times explicitly articulated, that there is a distinction between myth and history. He proceeds to argue against such a distinction, recognizing “the possible mythological use of history as well as the historical use of myth”.4. The comparison offered below does not seek to compare the more mythical narrative of Moses with the historical fiction of the Three Kingdoms and the historiographic narrative of the Books of Samuel with the Shiji. Since an appeal to Chinese classics is not a common course for comparative research in biblical studies, our rationale in this study requires some background and contextualization
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
