Came across this in a book I'm reading for teaching: It would be absurd to see the New Testament as only a work of literature: it is all the more important, therefore, to realize that it is written in the language of literature, the language of myth and metaphor. The Gospels give us the life of Jesus in the form of myth: what they say is, "This is what happens when the Messiah comes to the world." One thing that happens when the Messiah comes to the world is that he is despised and rejected, and searching in the nooks and crannies of the Gospel text for a credibly historical Jesus is merely one more excuse for despising and rejecting him. Myth is neither historical nor anti-historical: it is counter-historical. Jesus is not presented as a historical figure, but as a figure who drops into history from another dimension of reality, and thereby shows what the limitations of the historical perspective are --Northrop Frye, from Northrup Frye on Religion Frye's a major literary scholar and theorist who was also an ordained minister. And here, it is almost as if he was responding to Bloom's book, which was still pretty far into the future when he wrote these words.
That is a very meaningful paragraph. As I was reading the gospel of John, not long ago, I was trying to look at it that way, (Although I didn't have it conceptually as clear as Dr. Frye puts it), and it really did help me to get a lot out of the book. It is a very valuable way to approach the NT, for a reader who's an agnostic and doesn't look at it through the magnifying lense of his faith.
Is that the best kind of person to be giving a literary analysis of the Bible? It would be like asking me the literary value of William Shatner's novels. BTW.. William Shatner's novels are beyond awesome.
Well, he's a smart guy whose mastered close to a half dozen languages, and has written excellent studies of Shakespeare and Blake as well as on biblical matters, so he's in a pretty good position to 1) see how its literary elements work and 2) study the Bible as a cultural document and 3) know how the bible works (or is supposed to work) in a religious setting. I'm not saying he's in a better position than Bloom, but both of them are going to bring their predispositions to the task... I just suspect that Frye might be more open about his. You know they were ghost written by Patrick Stewart, don't you?
We believe in one Roddenberry, the Father, the Almighty Maker of Star Trek and Andromeda, shows both seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, William Shatner, the only modern Renaissance man, eternally connected to the Father, Actor, Writer, Singer, Director, Philosopher, kick-ass Paintball Player, With hair that was begotten, not manufactured. Through him Star Trek was made. For us nerds and for our salvation he came down from Canada. By the power of his emotive acting ability he became the star of the best two episodes of Twilight Zone. For our sake he was cast in the lead of Barbary Coast; he suffered, died, and was buried in the press. In 1979 he rose again in fulfillment of the script of Star Trek:TMP. He ascended into the heavens and is seated at the center of the bridge. He came again in glory to sing Rocketman, And through re-runs his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Deep Space 9, the Voyager and the Enterprise, Who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) With The Next Generation they are worshipped and glorified He has spoken through his novels. We believe in Denny Crane and TJ Hooker. We acknowledge Stargate, new Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 (but not Star Wars). We look for the resurrection of the the Star Trek franchise, and the life in the world of fandom. "Get a life".
Credo in unum Roddenberrium? Even if you didn't come up with this yourself, it ranks up there with the Friedel Manifesto. Bravo, Sir! Bravo!