The books 1 and 2 Chronicles deal with the history of God from the time of the creation to the 6th century B.C. The genealogies don't mention Cain and Able but do mention Seth. The reason for this is because it intentionally focuses on the lineage of Abraham, who is considered “the father of faith” for Hebrews, Christians and Muslims.
You see the same selective history with regard to the Southern Kingdom, Judah, vs. the Northern Kingdom, Israel. Though there were 19 kings in both the Southern and Northern Kingdoms, the Chronicles focus on the Southern Kingdom which is where Jerusalem was established as a capital by David and where the Hebrew temple was built. All in all, you see that there is a thread of history which becomes the main focus and this relates directly to the redemption of mankind. The literal translation of the Hebrew name Chronicles is
Divrei Hayyamim, meaning "matters of the days." The book literally chooses “what matters” historically, to focus on. People’s lives are summarized in a few sentences as they relate to this thread of redemption. 1 Chronicles 2.7 describes how Achar, or Achan, was more interested in silver and gold than the true and living God. 1 Chronicles 4.9-10 describe a simple prayer by Jabez, which revealed his deep faith in God.
The True Myth
Aside from the scriptures, you find many ancient myths and legends that contain aspects similar to the Judeo-Christian redemption account. The documentary film
Zeitgeist tries to use these examples to prove that Christianity is just another false legend, like all the other ancient myths. But great minds such as J.R. Tolkein (Lord of the Rings) and C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia) have argued the opposite, that these ancient myths point to the one “true myth,” the truly incredible manner in which God has pierced through the time-space continuum to impact the world and its history.
C.S. Lewis was challenged by fellow Oxford peer J.R. Tolkien and friend H. Dyson regarding this very subject of ancient myths and ended up becoming a dedicated Christian three days later. Lewis had told Tolkien that myths were
"lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver." "No," Tolkien replied.
"They are not lies." “Tolkien explained to Lewis his belief that “the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality.” (
J. Pearce, J.R.R. Tolkien: Truth and Myth) The word "myth" is defined mainly as a "falsehood" or as "an archetypal story." In this article it refers to the latter.
One of the overlaps of myth and religion is the idea that there is a process of revelation, unique from the process of pure analytical thinking. Because science cannot explain this phenomenon, or other spiritual phenomena, this does not mean these things are not real. It may just mean that God is simply operating on a whole different level, soaring above our limited four senses (Isa 55.9). This idea offronts the prideful human intellect, but once you consider that it is in fact true, it makes humanistic pride and reasoning appear quite foolish in comparison to the higher wisdom of God (1 Cor 3.19). C.S. Lewis described his own spiritual revelation and salvation in his book
Surprised by Joy. He was riding in his brother’s motorcycle side car on the way to the Whipsnade zoo when the following occurred:
"When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. Emotional perhaps is the last word we can apply to some of the most important events. It was more like when a man, after a long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake." After his Conversion, Lewis allowed his creative mind to become a channel for God’s redemptive truths. Christian History magazine listed him as one of the
10 most influential Christians of the 20th century. The following quote sums up his ability to put complex ideas into poetic and easily understood form:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”Sehnsucht
One thing Lewis saw clearly was the fact that we humans are born with unique longings. Lewis thought the German word Sehnsucht summed up this mystical reality. Sehnsucht means "longing," or in a wider sense, "intensely missing." In his classic bestseller,
Mere Christianity, Lewis describes this sense of longing as a kind of heavenly GPS that God has endowed us with:
“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” Solomon also hinted at this ineffable something found inside all of us: "
He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Ecc 3.11b NIV)Heaven, the Kingdom of God, a Place Called Home
This other “world” Lewis described and that we all long for is none other than Heaven, also known as “the Kingdom of God.” According to scripture, this world and this earthly life are but mere shadows of our true home which is in the presence of our Creator. According to Jesus Christ, the essence of Heaven and eternal life is simply to know God (Jn 17.3). The intimate experience of God, in reality, is intense pleasure, as the Psalmist wrote:
“You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.” (Ps 16.11 NIV) According to Moses, God’s glory is His goodness, and it’s so intense, we humans can only experience a small taste of it without becoming completely overwhelmed (Ex 33.18-20). In his insight, Lewis saw that ancient myths were simply an attempt to explain and regain that which was lost in the Garden of Eden:
“Myth does not equal the non-historical; myth equals the non-describable. The outline of the mythological story is analogous to the metaphor in poetry. …The distinction of mythology and history must be a result of The Fall.” (Carnell 124-5; cf. Perelandra 45)
Lewis said he wrote
The Chronicles of Narnia because he felt this style of narrative was best suited for the understanding of God's redemptive process. Unlike
The Chronicles of Narnia, the names and events in the chronicles of scripture relate to historical people and places. King David was a real King through whom God established a real kingdom, both physical and spiritual. This is one of the highlights of 1 Chronicles. David had wanted to build God a house, a physical temple in Jerusalem but God basically said
“No, instead of you building a house for me, I will build my house through you; I will establish my spiritual, eternal kingdom through your family.” (1 Chron 17.1-14) David was overwhelmed; the man who wrote hundreds of songs was speechless.
“What more can I say? You know what I am really like, Sovereign LORD.” (2 Sa 7.20, 1 Chron 17.18)
David was aware of his sinful nature and was filled with awe that God would bring redemption and the Messiah through his family line. But this is exactly what happened. After David was established as king, his family dynasty continued to reign in Israel through a total of 19 successive kings. Even after the captivity in Babylon, the lineage of David’s family continued and is traced to Jesus Christ (Mat 1). Though Jesus Christ has fulfilled the spiritual aspect of the Davidic Covenant, to establish an eternal kingdom, this is still incomplete, as the doors to the kingom are still open and people are still being saved. Additionally, the nation of Israel has yet to fulfill the territorial aspect promised to David: “And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning” (2 Sam 7:10 NIV). A sign that this will eventually be accomplished is the manner in which Israel has been miraculously spared from aggressive warmongers since its independence in 1948, among other things.
The books 1 and 2 Chronicles describe historical events that have happened while the prophecies in the scripture describe predicted events, which to this day continue to unfold. These prophecies are signs that the Judeo-Christian God is the one true and living God. There are no real comparisons in terms of the quantity and quality of prophecies in any other religion in all of history. Isaiah 46.10 describes this unique aspect of God’s inspired word: “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.'”
Do you believe history can affirm the existence of God? What do you think about the term "true myth" used by Tolkien and Lewis?
Recommend
Comments (36)
Do you believe history can affirm the existence of God?
No. I think it can provide possible evidence which is open to interpretation, but it can't affirm God's existence.
Great post. Thank you.
People are always taken back when I mention the flood myth or creation myth in the Bible. They get upset as if I'm saying those accounts are merely fictional stories with no truth. I appreciate you writing this. It's inspiring and informative.
When are people going to understand that proving God's existance removes the need for faith? I'd like to know for a fact if God exists or not as much as the next person, but really, is this the best use of our time?
Most facts and figures and whatnot that people use to either prove or disprove God go straight over my head anyways.
Zeitgeist was an absolutely awful take on history. It claimed knowledge of religions dating thousands of years before any sources of that religion had been found. My seminary prof wrote a very good (but long) blog about it. Many of the "similarities" between Christianity and other ancient religions are unsubstantiated and anachronistic claims.
And by definition, most of scripture is mythical. A myth can be defined as "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society."
"it's an endevour"
@Theophilus166@xanga -
Thank you for that link. I've been looking for such.
Both
Don't forget Zeus and his human son Hercules.
Well written and researched. Very informative!
The more Lewis and Tolkien quotes we get on here, the better. Good show!
Funny thing about words-- they don't always mean what the dictionary says they do; if I used the phrase "Christianity is mythological", 90% of people I talk to would assume me to mean that it is composed of lies.
So, I think that it is important to know who you're speaking to and not use words that are above their comprehension.
History... and even science (in my opinion) points to a God, but it does not confirm our Fathers existence.
Interesting post.
Nice post.
I agree with musterion99. Evidence and affirmation isn't quite the same thing. But really, it doesn't matter. Even if the evidence for God was overwhelming, there would still be those that believe and those that do not. At the end of the day, you need to have faith to believe in God.
No, I think history affirms the opposite: religion originates from (and is) myth.
Myth is a society's attempt to explain concepts it does not yet understand. The Greeks didn't understand weather so they created Zeus, a god who controlled the sky and storms. When they discovered meteorology, they also discovered that 1) there was no Zeus and, more importantly, 2) they no longer needed the myth to explain weather.
Every civilization develops myths to explain the unknown. Today's cultures understand a lot more than earlier ones and don't need weather gods or gods of the seasons. Yet we still use religion as a myth to explain what we don't know.
Another way history affirms that religion is manmade is that all deities or supernatural beings have been personified. They are either human or animal. None of them are beings that humans have never seen before, just familiar creatures that already inhabit the planet. Elephants (Ganesha), snakes (Satan), cats (Bast), humans, etc.
2. What do you think about the term "true myth" used by Tolkien and Lewis?
I agree that all religions point to a truth, but not a spiritual one. They all attempt to explain science. Genesis is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe (which we don't fully understand yet).
I also think "true myth" is an oxymoron; myth is not truth but a story designed to comfort people with an explanation, even if it's discovered to be false. That's why mythology in general is dangerous. We create stories claiming that nature is a sentient being, compassionate and familiar. We don't like the thought of nature being different from us: an insentient force with no emotions or soul.
But gravity isn't alive, temperature has no emotions, evolution feels neither hate nor pity. Society resorts to painting these forces as controlled by fellow beings because we need to feel safe and loved by the world. But nature is impersonal and pretending it is controlled by something with intentions is dangerous. Because then we think we can manipulate it by appeasing whatever deities "control" it.
Try sacrificing animals or babies to "appease" hurricanes, or praying to your god to stop floods and tornados. They aren't controlled by supernatural beings but by natural forces we already have the technology to understand. Mythology, including religion, is dangerous.
@wizexel22@xanga - But what does that say about religion? Faith is "belief without evidence," and how intelligent or safe is it to believe something that has no proof? It sounds gullible and dangerous to me.
@Ex_Adyto_Cordis@xanga - Faith is "belief without evidence
It depends on what is considered evidence. Obviously what Christians and atheists consider as evidence, are not the same.
Religious people and non-religious people do have different ideas of what is "evidence" - but that's because they disagree on reality in general.
@Ex_Adyto_Cordis@xanga - Religious people and non-religious people do
have different ideas of what is "evidence" - but that's because they
disagree on reality in general.
Right.
@gene546 - i would hardly call Eusebius an unbiased source. i'm surprised you didn't mention Tacitus or Suetonius, though. in terms of historical references to Jesus, they are far more credible.
and i'll believe that the Gospels were written as eye witness accounts when we find a copy dating from before 30 AD.
@Ex_Adyto_Cordis@xanga - I guess its a matter of perspective. Gullible? Perhaps....but being gullible and being incorrect have nothing to do with each other. Likewise, not being gullible doesn't necessarily make that person any more or less correct. Dangerous? Again....perhaps. But that is just the nature of faith. But to me, is it that much more significantly dangerous than trusting in the limited scope of evidence and reason of human beings? I mean, how intelligent are humans really?
I think your point in your other post is interesting. How most religions personify the supernatural. I totally agree. And I think its the one difference in the Christian religion as opposed to any other major religion. (Btw, I should add here that I'm not actually religious by any means.). You can argue that Christianity did that with Jesus.....but there is enough there that seperates it from being a "manmade" conception of personifying a diety. Such as the idea that he was 100% God and 100% man at the same time. Or the entire idea of the Trinity...how God is three...but also one. The entire nature of Chrisitanity is paradoxical and doesn't really conform to "manmade" teachings or rationale.
So to me, it doesn't require true faith to think some dude with an elephant head created the world or that some buff dude that throws lighting bolts rules from some mountain in the sky. The entire lack of depth to most religions turns me off from them. At the same time....in my own view.....I see it as entirely foolish to put my trust in something as weak as human knowledge or "evidence". Humans will always think they are so intelligent....that they can rationally answer questions that are so ridiculously beyond the scope of human knowledge or rationale.
In the late 1800s, scientist thought that physics would soon be dead.....that they had answered just about any question that could be posed to man about the universe. Yet now we are realizing how infinitely litte we know about the universe, and recent developments in biochemistry show us how little we even know about the human body itself. So while it may seem ridiculous to believe in a God based on faith........given how tiny the scope of human knowledge is.......doesn't it take just as much faith, if not more faith, to believe with absolute certainty that there is no diety or supernatural being that exists?
So is faith dangerous? Sure. But the truth is.....when it comes to metaphysics everything is based in faith.......whether you are the most fanatical Christian or the most stauch atheist. It really all comes down to faith either way.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Interesting condition.
Let's say for the sake of argument that today I were to write an account of my father's stories about his childhood and family. So about 50 years after the events occurred, I would be relating them in written form as told to me by my father.
Would you have any great reason to doubt that my father's stories about his childhood were eyewitness accounts? If so, what would it be?
It's quite normal in human societies for an account of events to be part of an oral tradition before it is written, so how would holding the expectation that an account would have to be written so temporally near to the event be a rational expectation?
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga -
"Would you have any great reason to doubt
that my father's stories about his childhood were eyewitness accounts?
If so, what would it be?"
if the only thing i had to go on is your word, i'd have some doubts. but i'm assuming it wouldn't be too hard to get a statement from your father either verifying or condemning the stories you wrote, or from other individuals present.
but you're also forgetting intent. what's your purpose of writing the stories down? are you intending to portray your father in a certain way? or to provide evidence of any arguments? is your entire family's reputation riding on what your father did as a child? or are you just writing for the sake of preservation?
a better example i've heard was provided to me by one of my Bible instructors. imagine trying to write down an exact, hour-by-hour account of what you did today... including accurate quotes from everyone who spoke to you, what they were wearing, the inflection of their voices... about sixty years from now. how accurate do you think you'd be? or maybe you did something absolutely awful today... do you think you could avoid putting your own spin on it, so you look a little better?
"It's quite normal in human societies for an
account of events to be part of an oral tradition before it is written,
so how would holding the expectation that an account would have to be
written so temporally near to the event be a rational expectation?"
do you believe everything you read?? Homer wrote of the gods' involvement in the fall of Troy... do you think that was accurate? what about Virgil's Aeneid?
but perhaps, my requirement is because of the intent of the writing. no one (to my knowledge) bases their entire moral compass on the events of the Illiad. its meaning doesn't rely on it being historically accurate.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Frankly, I'm not forgetting intent so much as deeming it irrelevant because my question had nothing to do with it.
What I'm getting from your response is that the issue is about the accuracy of the account more so than its status as an eyewitness account. Is that fair?
I admit to being a bit confused by your insistence that the account be written so near the event because it seems irrelevant to accuracy. As your Bible instructor's example illustrates, it's difficult to write an accurate account of events years after you experienced those events. I would contend that it's also difficult to write an accurate account of events a few hours or days after they occurred, partially for reasons you mentioned relating to an unconscious desire on the part of the person writing the account to put a spin on it so that it would look more favorable. Even with all the fact-checking and grainy security camera videos and eyewitness testimony available, it's often difficult for a court of law to get an accurate account of a crime that occurred very recently. Accuracy is a serious problem regardless of the time frame.
I don't particularly think it would enhance the credibility of the Gospel writings enough to make them fully believable as accurate historical accounts if they had been written at or shortly after the events in question.
I found the Aeneid rather dull, actually. The Illiad and the Odyssey were much more enjoyable for me. And no, I did not deem them historically accurate when I read them.
Do not like the word "myth" for reference to the Bible. History affirms the existence of God, but some ("many" may be more like it) simply will not agree and seek to finds answers to the unanswerable.
I think its truth.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga -
"What I'm getting from your response is that
the issue is about the accuracy of the account more so than its status
as an eyewitness account. Is that fair?"
definitely. i don't mind eyewitness accounts... it's better than reading something by an "armchair" historian, for sure. but at the same time, the likelihood of something being an eyewitness account decreases when the earliest copy of the text was a generation after the events. factor in motivation, and it just raises too many doubts for me.
"I would contend that it's also difficult to
write an accurate account of events a few hours or days after they
occurred, partially for reasons you mentioned relating to an
unconscious desire on the part of the person writing the account to put
a spin on it so that it would look more favorable."
that depends. the way you want to spin it can change with time. to me, the best example is the Beatitudes. Matthew's Jesus blesses those who are poor in spirit, hungry for righteousness, etc. in Luke, those who are blessed are just flat out poor and hungry, with no spiritual connotations whatsoever. i have no doubt that the historical Jesus said something resembling the Beatitudes. but which gospel got closer to the original meaning? and why did the author of one of them change it? was he aware of the first version at all?
in my opinion, accounts written closer to the actual event are less biased simply because not enough time has passed for a bias to be needed. i don't think any of Jesus' followers could have predicted the importance of his simple statement, "Turn the other cheek," and the numerous debates that would follow for centuries about exactly how pacifistic a Christian should be. but i'm sure that the early fathers of the Church had a definite portrait of the Messiah that they wanted Scripture to conform to. and it was a long-standing tradition in Greco-Roman historiography to alter what a person says to across a message that the author believes is absolutely right.