No Myth: A Reflection on the Feast of St. John

John and Peter approaching the Empty Tomb in fear and trembling

Contemporary culture abhors a myth. It is losing patience with fiction. We may tolerate legends, only because these quite often contain a seed of "truth" that the fantastic springs from. In general, though, our scientific age wants verifiable truth born from facts and data. This insistence on realism extends to our entertainment. Countless movie trailers today boast that the film being previewed either "IS the true story of" such and such, is "based on a true story," or at the very least is "inspired by true events," whatever that's supposed to mean. Producers are convinced that audiences are more interested in seeing "true stories" instead of fiction, which are increasingly regarded as well crafted lies - the very modern definition of a myth. 

In the area of literature, we had the James Frey controversy a decade ago, when the author tried to pass a work of fiction off as a memoir. As one commentator at the time put it, it only got published because the editors thought it had to be true, it was, in his opinion, such awful fiction: and it was only the idea that it was "all true" that got the book promoted by uber-taste maker Oprah Winfrey. 

I never read A Million Little Pieces, the book in question, but I did read, and appreciated greatly, Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner. The 2003 novel about an Afghan refugee's journey from his home country to the U.S. after the Taliban takeover, reads like a memoir. In fact many confuse it for autobiography, though the author wasn't trying to deceive anyone on that point. Truth be told, I was about a quarter of the way through before I figured out it was a novel. Knowing that this wasn't a "true story" didn't keep me from finishing and enjoying the book, but in subsequent years I've heard more than one person mention that they loved The Kite Runner because it "really happened." Not one to burst bubbles, I keep my mouth shut at these encounters. But such an attitude does reveal  the prejudice of our age - that truth can only be conveyed through works of nonfiction, be they documentaries, docudramas or some form of journalistic or confessional prose. 

The truth is that all works of fiction, to one degree or another, are based on true events, or at least the perceptions of the author are drawn from lived experience. All fictional characters are based on someone, or a combination of personalities of people who walked planet earth. All historical works, even the most rigorous, are influenced by the point of view of the author. Most documentarians begin their work with a thesis, and build a case that supports it using their skills as film makers. Very few begin thinking one thing about their subject, and then have their mind changed radically by what they encounter during the course of production. They are advocates trying to sway an audience, not necessarily truth seekers on a journey. In other words, all fiction, at least all good fiction, communicates truth. All nonfiction, even the most well meaning and straightforward, will contain some lies, even if unintentionally so. 

This brings me back to the idea of myth. Today the word is used pejoratively. Myths are to be uncovered and rejected, in favor verifiable, scientific truth. But this negative judgment on myths is of relatively recent vintage. Up until about 1830 myths were simply defined as stories of the gods. The pre-Enlightenment mind had no problem with them. Not that people back then thought that myths were necessarily true in the scientific-historical sense, but that they contained a different truth about reality than what could be seen and measured. They took into account the spiritual realm of which the material world is a shadow. 

When we go back 2,000 years, we see that the Apostles and Evangelists came directly out of a world drenched in myths and legends. While they didn't share the negative attitude of the post-moderns, in their writings they anticipated the objections that many of our contemporaries make concerning the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life, death and Resurrection. Far from being well crafted myths, John tells us in his First Letter that:

Beloved: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life—for the life was made visible; we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim now to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; for our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing this so that our joy may be complete. (1 Jn 1:1-4)

John goes to great lengths to stress that what he and his companions are sharing are things that they saw, heard touched and, experienced directly. There is no doubt that the Gospel accounts are well crafted, and they aren't constructed with an eye toward chronological accuracy - at least not until we get to the Passion and Resurrection narratives. They do have a point of view, and a bias: that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God who was incarnated, lived among us, died and rose from the dead. But this isn't something they made up, it was something they saw, heard touched and lived - now they are passing these experiences on so we may come to belief as well. 

Elsewhere, in 2 Peter 1: 16, we read the Apostle state quite directly that, "We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty." 

On the Feast of St. John the Gospel passage proclaimed at Mass describes Peter and John inspecting the Empty Tomb on the Sunday of the Resurrection. (Though contemporary scholars believe they are separate people, the Church traditionally identifies John the Apostle, the Evangelist and, the Beloved Disciple as the same person. For the sake of clarity, I'll do the same.) What should strike the the reader is that John - as in the other accounts - only records what he actually saw. We get no description of the actual Resurrection, because he wasn't there to see it. All he knows is that the last time he saw Jesus he was literally dead and buried. Now the tomb is empty, the burial cloths folded neatly. Mary Magdalene told them so, but they had to see for themselves. In Mark Mary tells the Eleven that she had seen the Lord, but they don't believe her, due to the prejudice of the age against women as reliable witnesses. But he does see the tomb empty, and later he does see the risen Jesus when He enters the upper room through the locked doors. He reports what he sees. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no problem with myths, as long as we understand that that's what they are. Like any form of communication, be it writing or art, the truth is transmitted in different ways, and understanding the form being employed tunes us in on how to take it in and analyze it. Myths, lab reports, social science studies, epic poems and haikus can all convey truth or spread lies. We can grasp this if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Jesus used parables to communicate His teachings, and no one worried about if the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son or Lazarus and the Rich Man were real people, but Christ's listeners understood the truth when they heard it.

I admit that there are portions of Scripture that raise questions, like the stories of Jonah or Tobit. Are these parables, like Jesus would have told, or meant to be taken as historical fact? What is more important for me in such situations is the theological truth God wants to communicate more than worrying about historical accuracy. But the Gospel accounts are very clear in their intentions: 

"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received. (Lk. 1:1-4)

So no, my faith is not based on myths. Myths, legends, parables fables, and whatever other kinds of folktales there are are ok with me. But just in case you're wondering, I believe because I believe the witnesses. I believe because of what they saw, what they touched, which is what they testified to with their lives. Faith is a gift, a grace we don't merit, true. But we still wouldn't know what faith to ask for if it wasn't for John and Peter, Mary Magdalene and Luke, who passed the stories on. What they testify to is no myth, neither in the ancient sense, nor in its modern corruption. What they testify to is the Truth: the Word made flesh, who made His dwelling among us, dying to redeem us, rising in Glory.