Calvin Theological Seminary the Mythos of Sin: C. S. Lewis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY THE MYTHOS OF SIN: C. S. LEWIS, THE GENESIS FALL, AND THE MODERN MOOD A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY JEREMY G GRINNELL GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN MAY 2011 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 3233 Burton SE • Grand Rapids, Michigan • 49546-4301 800388-6034 fax: 616957-8621 [email protected] www.calvinseminary.edu This dissertation entitled THE MYTHOS OF SIN: C.S. LEWIS, THE GENESIS FALL, AND THE MODERN MOOD written by JEREMY G. GRINNELL and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy has been accepted by the faculty of Calvin Theological Seminary upon the recommendation of the undersigned readers: .i:»: Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Ph.D. Ron~~ Calvin P. Van Reken, Ph.D. {il!;\ Alan JacobS~ David M. Rylaarsda ,Ph.D. Date Acting Vice President for Academic Affairs Copyright © 2011 by Jeremy G Grinnell All rights reserved To, for, and mostly because of Denise Could God Himself create such lovely things as I have dreamed? Answers Hope, “Whence then came thy dream?” —George MacDonald, Lilith CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 The Nature of the Project ............................................................................ 4 Method of the Exploration .......................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE GENESIS FALL AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY CONTEXT ............................................................................................................ 10 The “Traditional” Approach ..................................................................... 10 Modern Discussions on the Fall Narrative: A Change of Premise ........... 17 The Immediate Context: Mid-Twentieth Century .................................... 29 CHAPTER 2. C. S. LEWIS ON HISTORY, SCIENCE, AND THE TRADITION ........ 60 Question 1: Lewis, Science, History, and Origins .................................... 61 Question 2: Lewis the Churchman ............................................................ 87 Question 3: Lewis and Higher Criticism .................................................. 92 Question 4: Lewis on the Genre of the Genesis Fall .............................. 106 CHAPTER 3. NO MERE MYTH: LEWIS ON THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF “MYTH” ............................................................................................................. 110 Navigating the Slough of Despond: Comments on Method ................... 110 The Epistemological Problem—Contact with Reality ............................ 113 The Form of Things Unknown—the Language of Myth ........................ 148 Past Watchful Dragons: How Myth Works on the Imagination ............. 168 Suspending Disbelief: The Role of the Reader in Myth ......................... 185 Lewis’ Theory Considered ...................................................................... 203 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 214 CHAPTER 4. LEWIS’ TREATMENT OF THE FALL NARRATIVE......................... 217 “What Really Happened”: Lewis and the History behind the Fall ......... 219 “What to Believe”: Lewis and the Doctrine of the Fall .......................... 232 “What of Experience”: Lewis and the Myth of the Fall ......................... 256 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 275 CHAPTER 5. LEWIS MEETS THE THEOLOGIANS ..................................................278 Trajectory 1 Considered: Lewis Meets the Tradition ............................. 278 Trajectory 2 Considered: Lewis Meets Kant and Niebuhr ..................... 281 Trajectory 3 Considered: Lewis Meets Higher Criticism ....................... 288 The Myth of Demythologization: Lewis Meets the Barth-Bultmann Debate ......................................................................................... 291 Lewis’ Contribution Considered ............................................................. 301 v APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 312 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................. 314 vi ABSTRACT This dissertation wrestles with the question how to profitably and theologically handle the Fall narrative of Genesis 3 once it has been classified as “myth,” as was the conclusion of the Formgeschichte school. The dissertation begins by establishing the theological conversation of the mid- twentieth century, which marks a zenith in the discussion. Beginning with a survey of the traditional interpretation of the narrative as historical account, which dominated pre- Enlightenment churchly thought, the survey then summarizes the change of tenor that Enlightenment and higher critical voices brought to the question. The survey concludes with consideration of Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, and Rudolph Bultmann on the definition and role of myth in the Bible. At this point C. S. Lewis is brought into the conversation in the belief that his expert status as a literary critic and Medievalist would have given him a unique position from which to help theologians wrestle with the question. Lewis is thus introduced as a literary authority with deep commitments to traditional Christianity, yet with a healthy respect for the conclusions of the modern sciences. In addition Lewis’ thoughts on modern theology and higher criticism are parsed along with his agreement on the mythic quality of the Genesis Fall narrative. Following this comes an extended survey of Lewis’ theory of myth. Good myth attempts to communicate truth by by-passing the abstracting intellect and addressing itself immediately to the imagination. Close consideration is given to the epistemological role of the imagination and the reader’s response to mythic literature. vii These efforts afford two levels of consideration. First, Lewis’ own views on the Genesis narrative are presented under the following heads: (1) the possible history standing behind the narrative, (2) the meaning and appropriate use of the doctrine resulting from the narrative, and (3) the implications of its status as myth —how such a narrative ought to be read and what it produces within the willing reader. Second, Lewis is compared with the aforementioned theological trajectories and persons to consider how his robust literary theory of myth might help clarify or critique the theological conversation of his period. The dissertation concludes with some suggestions for further application of Lewis’ ideas. viii INTRODUCTION Ever since the Formgeschichte school of the nineteenth century suggested that the narratives of early Genesis should be classified under the literary genre of “legend” or “myth,” rather than direct “historical account,” questions have been rife regarding the nature and function of these narratives as well as their relationship to history. If a narrative is in some sense mythological, does this mean its events never happened, or happened other than as represented? And if it did happen in differently than recorded, in what sense can it still be considered true? In particular, the text of Genesis 3 describes the event known as the Fall. This story of a forbidden fruit eaten under temptation stands almost without exception as the gateway to the Christian explanation of all the evil the world has known. Playing such a role, it lies near the center of Christian ontology and provides the narrative impetus for the redemptive events that follow. This narrative is then one of the great hinges on which the Christian interpretation of the world swings, sharing its central place with such beliefs as a divinely accomplished creation, the singularly redemptive work of the Christ, and ultimate eschatological justice. Being told, however, that such a foundational story was a “myth” was problematic for many who held dear the history of churchly interpretation. For prior to the Enlightenment, the Christian Church held overwhelmingly that the human Fall into sin 1 2 was at least an historical event that grounded the redemptive acts of the historical Christ. 1 Could it be that the Church had simply been in error about how to best understand this narrative? If so, could one affirm at the same time both the historical veracity of these texts and the documentary sciences that asserted their mythological character? And if not, with whom ought one to side? Even where one feels less concern over traditional exegesis, questions still press of how to handle a story so central to the heart of Christianity. What is a theologian to do with a mythical Fall into sin? Is its mythological form something to be gotten past or something to be embraced? Are its significance and role in the Christian mind diminished or enhanced because of this categorization? Does the theologian even know what it means to call something a “myth?” Beyond the particular exegetical details of Genesis 3 or even the historical treatment the story has received in the past, the larger question is the status of the entire narrative. On the assumption that it is indeed mythological