Logos, Mythos, and Ethos

I believe it was Aristotle that proposed that a speaker must have logos, ethos and pathos in order to communicate effectively. As I try to remember lectures from my college speech classes, it seems the logos was the appeal to logic and reason. Ethos was the general character of the speaker. The audience must feel that he has their best interest when he speaks. And pathos was the appeal to the emotions. (While writing I found this short explanation)

Recently, I have been thinking about three other -oses(technically -oi). Logos, Mythos, and Ethos, but in a very restrictive sense. (As a background note, this is not a well researched entry, just my opinion. My former profs will be horrified at my lack of scholarly application to Greek Word Studies.) While logos, mythos, ethos, and even pathos are in the Greek Bible, these words have evolved both into Koine language and out from Koine.

Recently, I was visiting a book store and ran across a book about Megatrends of Europe. Interesting theories, and besides, what do I know about trends and trying to evaluate them? But it got me thinking more about something I had been mulling over in my mind.

How do myths effect behavior? We all believe in myths (what I will call individual mythos and collective mythos). For example we all believe something about the origin of the universe as well as human origin. As Christians our collective mythos (of which our Jewish friends share) is the Genesis account.****Now, before I am hung up by the highest tree or burned at the stake for heresy, let me state that when I use the term mythos, I am using the term in a pretty strict sense, that is how one explains things around them. The mythos could be true or not. In the modern era, no one "believes" the Greek or Roman mythoi, but it was an explanation of things. But for the record I have no problem "believing" the mythos, stated in the book of Genesis, to be true***** One modern mythos would be the classic Darwin explanation of origins. And yes, I am calling Darwinism a myth, a modern myth though. I am not saying it is "true" or "false," I am just saying it is a myth. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Newton's "laws" of physics, which have been tested and assigned the name "law," are myths. They explain why things act in a certain way.

We are so used to understanding "myths" as pre-modern explanations of the world that to even suggest a myth exists in the modern or postmodern world is akin to blasphemy. So be it. This is why when one talks about the Bible containing myths, some feel uncomfortable. Myths=untrue. So to call anything in the Bible a myth usually means saying it is not true. Again, I am not saying anything about the veracity of myths, I am just defining them (And again, I have no problem believing the Creation story in Genesis to be true).

So, in community and as individuals we have and need myths.

How are the mythoi (plural of mythos) formed? Mythos come from the Logos. We get all sorts of concepts from the word logos. There are "logic," "reason," "word," "thought," and etc. etc. So, if one will, behind every explanation (mythos) of how things are is a reason (logos). Logos ,then, precedes mythos.

Since myths exist how should we then act, what is the ethos? If one deems the myths as logical, then one will act according. Behavior follows belief. Of course, I can not think of an example to illustrate this. Thereore, until I can, I will have to concede the point of any relationship between mythos and ethos.

But, if there is a connection, the logos (word, thought, reason) creates what we see and feel and touch and smell and hear (as well as what we can't see, feel, touch, and hear). Since, in the case of origin, we are what the Logos has created, we are allowed with our own logos to create the explanation (our mythos). Sometimes our "creation" is based on revelation, and sometimes not. The mythos does affect (and we can see its effects also) how we behave (our ethos).

If the natural world is all there is, let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

PS Realizing this is a pretty poor attempt at explaining what was in my head.

666

Oh yeah, all the buzz is about the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year of the 21st century.

But is there anything to really be buzzing about?

The number shows up in the Christian Bible in the Apocalypsis of John the apostle (known as the book of Revelation). Rev 13:18. It is equated with the number of the beast. The beast is against anything and everything of Christ.

But what is the reference? I've heard everything from Napoleon to Hitler to Kaiser Wilhem to Nero. All based on the number being 666. My favorite is the vav-vav-vav sequence in which the Hebrew becomes www. So, the internet is the devil. Haha.

Recently, earlier and better manuscripts indicate that the number of the beast is NOT 666 but in fact 616. And as of yet, I have not heard any new gematria games being played with the real mark of the beast (616).

Therefore, no knows who or what the mark of the beast refers, except that it refers to the one who comes in place of Christ, or simply the beast. That's all we know.

So, no need to fear 666 anymore. However, I have a feeling the world will be reeling from anything associated with 666 for many years to come. It's tradition.

Atheist's Mass

First, I turned in the exam. It was rather difficult, but now there is nothing I can do about it.

Afterwards, I decided to take in a short story by Honore de Balzac. I cheated because I read "The Atheist's Mass" in English (but the English seemed difficult also, who knows when it was translated). The title caught my attention, and when I started I had no idea what I would find. Would this be a sure slam against Christianity (religion) or what? Anyway, I enjoyed the story, but I am not quite sure what the main point was. Maybe you can help me? I always struggle with literature, just ask Lady R (and my mom who has helped me with a couple of my classics in high school).

Here is a somewhat short synopsis of the plot. There is a surgeon Dr. Bianchon who was the assistant to Dr. Desplein. Now, this Dr. Desplein was at one time famous but after his death, his fame faded. Dr. D was a hard core atheist and an excellent surgeon in his day. Dr. B became his assistance and the two men became great friends. One day Dr. Bianchon saw Dr. Desplein enter a church to what seemed to be for mass. This act confused Dr. Bianchon. Why was such an atheistic man going to church? So, the next year he noted also that Dr. Desplein went to mass on the same day. Dr. B went to the church leaders and found that Dr. Desplein had actually paid for this mass and four times a year he went to church when this mass was presented. One day Dr. B asked Dr. Desplein what he thought about the mass in general. Dr. Desplein said:

A farce,” said Desplein, “which has cost Christendom more blood than all Napoleon’s battles and all Broussais’ leeches. The mass is a papal invention, not older than the sixth century, and based on the Hoc est corpus. What floods of blood were shed to establish the Fete-Dieu, the Festival of Corpus Christi—the institution by which Rome established her triumph in the question of the Real Presence, a schism which rent the Church during three centuries! The wars of the Count of Toulouse against the Albigenses were the tail end of that dispute. The Vaudois and the Albigenses refused to recognize this innovation.

So, this response brought about more contradictions. Finally, Dr. B. asked Dr.Desplein about this. Dr. Desplein told a long story about the poverty of his youth. He poured himself into his scientific studies to become a surgeon. One day his neighbor Bourgeat informed him that they both were being evicted from their apartment. Bourgeat offered the use of his cart to move both men. They decided to try and find an appartment together. Even though Bourgeat did not have much money, he believed in what Desplein was doing and saved his money to invest in Desplein's studies. Later, when Desplein becomes a famous surgeon in Paris, Bourgeat fell sick. Bourgeat was a man of faith and asked if Desplein could secure the clergy for his death. Thus, out of respect for Bourgeat,Desplein went to mass four times a year.

The question with what the reader is left is did Desplein believe.

"Will not those who believe like to fancy that the humble Auvergnat came to open the gate of Heaven to his friend"

New Testament Textual Criticism

As a note of introduction and personal testimony, the following information is intended to encourage faith not take away from it. But at first it may shake your faith some. I know it did me at one time. It was like a demon to be avoided. With variant readings, could somebody have tampered with the text and changed it? Did we really have the Bible as it was meant to be? Or had someone or some groups changed the text? If this does cause us to feel slightly uneasy, it may a good thing. For the removing of those things which can be shaken [is] so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. However, after understanding textual criticism I am more confident than ever before that we have the revelation of God to us in the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. Our Bibles can be trusted. And even though not every translation is equally good, God has blessed us with translations that reflect his revelation. But before we can translate the Bible into our heart language, we must construct the text behind it. That is what textual criticism is.

This information comes from an article by Michael W Holmes New Testament Textual Criticism from the book entitled Introduction to New Testament Interpretation and class notes from my Greek classes. The subject concerns New Testament Textual Criticism, which is important in establishing the Greek behind the NT. Don’t get bogged down by the details.

There are many copies of the NT text but no original documents. And in these copies there are at times different textual variants. Therefore, the original text must be reconstructed in order to have a working text to translate from. In other words, you’ve got to have something reliable on which you translate.

Textual Criticism is the art (and science) of trying to account for the differences in various Greek manuscripts (MSS). And the method most often used allows for each variation to be assessed separately. This guards against extremism where on one side you have almost a pure internal investigation and the MSS are simply “storehouses of readings,” and the other side you have almost a pure external investigation that gives weight to what the majority of MSS say. The former is of little use since it does not fairly take into account other readings. The later is of little use since the majority of known manuscripts are simply reproducing more of the same (and that may be an inferior reading at times).

The variant that most likely explains the rise of the other is more than likely to be the original reading. This will be the guiding agent behind the work.

Usually the NA 26 will be used to examine variant readings. However, the USB 3 at times render solid listings (just not every variant is dealt with).

The various MSS come to us in several forms. There are papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic citations. By examining papyri, uncials, and minuscules, one can usually obtain a fairly good amount of evidence to determine which variant is original.

There are four major areas of inquiry. The Date of the witness, geographical distribution, genealogical relationships (i.e. Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine (or Majority Text), and the quality of the witnesses.

In order to find out which variant is likely to have produced the others, one has to look at the scribe’s errors. Obviously, most variant readings are due to scribal error either intentionally or unintentionally. Why would a scribe make an error? The unintentional error is easy to explain. If you have ever tried to copy a document word for word, you may have noticed how easy it is to skip a word. Or if the same word appears close together you may have skipped to the second word leaving out part of the text. But why would a God fearing scribe intentionally mess with the text? That is unimaginable to think. Or is it? First, the scribe was a God fearing man. This was not a job done by someone wishing to purposefully change God’s word. His desire was to preserve it. And because of his high regard for the word of God, there were safeguards that helped preserve the text. If a scribe purposefully changed the text, he may be trying to explain an archaic term or smooth out the text or even make it fuller or give clarity to the expression. Thus, the more difficult reading is usually preferred since it is more likely to be original. As well, the short is preferred unless there is obvious homoioteleuton (moving to the end of a word with the same beginning). If the more difficult reading is too difficult, then it can be eliminated as the original reading. But more often, people do not try to make their writings more difficult, they try to make them easier.

There are other guidelines, but this should suffice for the moment.

A word of encouragement. Out of the hundreds of variant readings, there is not a single one that affects a major doctrine of Christianity. So, if someone says to you that we can not trust the Bible because it has been copied by humans, you can say no major doctrine of Christianity has been affected by any possible human error. Then, turn the question around and ask about the Qu’ran. Could it stand the same kind of textual critique the Bible has? No. Because when variants were found they were destroyed in order to give the appearance of an unified text.