Allegory, poetry, etc in creation myths

[David B]

I've found http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=736 most interesting, but is there not as much scope for poetry, allegory, even wisdom, in the creation myths of cultures other than the early Jewish and the precursors odf early Jewish culture?

Why, apart from historical accident, are these creation myths treated more seriously (it seems to me that they are, anyway) than the creation myths of Polynesia, Australia, pre Columbian America, and all the other creation myths?

Are the Judeistic myth in some ways better poetry, better allegory, more historical, better in any way than any others?

David B

[Dlx2]

I've found http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=736 most interesting, but is there not as much scope for poetry, allegory, even wisdom, in the creation myths of cultures other than the early Jewish and the precursors odf early Jewish culture?

Why, apart from historical accident, are these creation myths treated more seriously (it seems to me that they are, anyway) than the creation myths of Polynesia, Australia, pre Columbian America, and all the other creation myths?

Are the Judeistic myth in some ways better poetry, better allegory, more historical, better in any way than any others?

David B

One of the authors in Genesis was really quite talented as a writer (not all of them, certainly).

That said, so was Ovid. So was Snorri Sturluson.

And, that being said, so was Milton.

[Lucretius III]

Ovid as a poetical teller of myths including Creation myths is in my opinion far superior to anything in the Bible (Metamorphoses Book 1) admittedly he wrote at a later date than the supposed authors of Genesis, but still far better.
You could even make a claim as Ovid (or at least the myths he repeats) being "more scientific" in some respects

Before there was earth or sea or the sky that covers everything, Nature appeared the same throughout the whole world: what we call chaos: a raw confused mass, nothing but inert matter, badly combined discordant atoms of things, confused in the one place

Ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum 5
unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,
quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles
nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem
non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum.

[Dlx2]

Ovid as a poetical teller of myths including Creation myths is in my opinion far superior to anything in the Bible (Metamorphoses Book 1) admittedly he wrote at a later date than the supposed authors of Genesis, but still far better.
You could even make a claim as Ovid (or at least the myths he repeats) being "more scientific" in some respects

Before there was earth or sea or the sky that covers everything, Nature appeared the same throughout the whole world: what we call chaos: a raw confused mass, nothing but inert matter, badly combined discordant atoms of things, confused in the one place

Ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum 5
unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,
quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles
nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem
non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum.


That's coming from the Mesopotamian tradition, though.

Enuma Elish:

When the skies were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name
Apsu, the first one, their begetter
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all
Had mixed their waters together
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds
When yet no gods were manifest
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed

[Ray Moscow]

I've found http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=736 most interesting, but is there not as much scope for poetry, allegory, even wisdom, in the creation myths of cultures other than the early Jewish and the precursors odf early Jewish culture?

Why, apart from historical accident, are these creation myths treated more seriously (it seems to me that they are, anyway) than the creation myths of Polynesia, Australia, pre Columbian America, and all the other creation myths?

Are the Judeistic myth in some ways better poetry, better allegory, more historical, better in any way than any others?

David B

I think the simple answer is that lots of people still believe that these stories are literally true -- or for more educated folks, that these stories are in some way accurately descriptive of God in ways that other mythologies are not.

[Preno]

Why, apart from historical accident, are these creation myths treated more seriously (it seems to me that they are, anyway) than the creation myths of Polynesia, Australia, pre Columbian America, and all the other creation myths?They are treated more seriously in our culture because they are a part of our culture. :dunno:

[lpetrich]

I think that it's pure historical accident.

If the writers and editors of the Bible had included some other creation stories instead, the theologians would be singing hosannas of praise about What Deep Meanings They Have and What Great Truths They Are.

Think of what they'd say if the Bible had described God creating the Universe by masturbating. Or if it had described God creating the Universe by cutting up a giant or a monster. Or if it had said that a primordial god had sacrificed himself to create the Universe and that the Biblical God is a Johnny-come-lately. Or if it had told us how God had overthrown some previous god who had ruled the Universe. Etc.

Sam Harris once claimed that if one has enough imagination, one can find allegorical meanings in the recipes in a cookbook.

[CelticChic]

Why, apart from historical accident, are these creation myths treated more seriously (it seems to me that they are, anyway) than the creation myths of Polynesia, Australia, pre Columbian America, and all the other creation myths?They are treated more seriously in our culture because they are a part of our culture. :dunno:

QFT

If Norse culture had become the dominant culture in the west then it would be their creation myths that would be treated seriously now. Or if a particular native American tribe had managed to control North America instead of western Europe it would be their myths we would hear (in NA anyhow). It was just historical accident that xianity became the dominant religious force in the western world. After all, the creation myths that predominate in most of Asia aren't (or at least weren't, I don't know what the actual numbers are now) going to be the jewish myth, the'll be whatever the culturally dominant stories are in the region.

[DMB]

I always liked the Ouranos/Gaia myth. Nice primordial gods.