I’ve just noticed a very interesting quote from Luther’s famous "Table Talk.
“We should consider the histories of Christ three manner of ways; first, as a history of acts or legends; secondly, as a gift or a present; thirdly, as an example, which we should believe and follow.”
Fascinating that Luther thought the Bible recorded “acts or legends” about Christ…
That is interesting, I wonder how far he would take that… (assuming that’s a translation from German, it might be worth getting someone to check if that’s a good translation?)
Maybe you just need to call things “legends” rather than “myths” and people won’t get so upset 
I’d hazard an informed guess – and even bet money - that the word Luther uses in his Table Talk is actually the High German word ‘legende’ which like the English ‘legend’ comes from the Latin ‘legenda’. In the medieval Christian sense, ‘legenda’ (“things to be read [on a certain day, in church]”) were accounts of the lives of saints, often collected in a legendary (legendarium), interspersed with readings from the Bible.
So I think here Luther is using ‘legend’ in the sense of a sacred narrative of divine actions to be read in the Church. Of course Luther would not want to associate the ‘legend’ of Christ with the medieval legends of the Saints – but the polemical and dismissive Protestant use of ‘legend’ develops after Luther. The plain sense of Luther’s saying seems to be to do with God’ continuing revelation and saving acts; there is a sense here of acts that have happened in the past, a gift in the present, and believing and following in the continuous present stretching into the future
Because medieval saints’ lives – as found in Jacopo de’ Varazze’s ‘Golden Legend for example -are often farfetched miracle stories, and because the Reformers wanted to eliminate the adoration of the Saints – a new meaning of ‘legend’ as a non-historical, fantastic and spurious narrative emerged - first recorded in 1613. By emphasizing the unrealistic character of “legends” of the saints, English-speaking Protestants were able to introduce a note of contrast to the “real” saints and martyrs of the Reformation, whose authentic narratives, they were sure, could be found in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (orginally named Foxe’s ‘Acts and Monuments’ as opposed to ‘Acts And Legends’ - tellingly perhaps).
The meaning of ‘legend’ as spurious narrative is the main modern meaning – along with the typographical meaning of ‘inscription’. But the older meaning of the word still continues when we talk of someone being a ‘legend in their own lifetime’ because of their excellence in skill or in deeds.
Another related issue here is that Luther still used the method of scriptural exegesis of the early and medieval Church first codified by Origen – namely viewing scripture as having different levels of meaning – the historical, the moral, and the allegorical or spiritual. Now in a veyr broad sense the literal historcal meaning concerns what happened in the past, he morla meaning is about what implications a passage has for how we shodl act in the present, while the allegorcal/piritual meanig often points us towards ultimate hopes. It was Calvin who broke with this tradition by emphasizing only the literal/historical sense of scripture within a rigid framework of deductive logic.
All the best
Dick
When reading a map, the legend helps you to see the important things that will help you in your travel. It’s like a guide.
I hope that is the legend we are talking about since Sola scriptura would be meaningless if he meant legends as we think of the word today. Today, Legend= a highly dramatic but fictional story. At the time of Luther Legend= ??
Ooops I must have wittered on too much and become unclear 
-
At the time of Luther ‘Legend’ = true narrative of sacred events from the past for reading in Church. For Luther this meant scripture alone. For Catholics it still meant scripture and the lives of the saints. Later in the reformation as the Reformed tradition distanced itself even further from Catholicism than early Lutheran tradition did, ‘Legend’ took on a purely negative meaning.
I guess the on eof the modern meanings of ‘legend’ as a key to the symbols on a map, chart etc is tied up with the meaning of ‘legend’ as an inscription on a coin, a coat of arms, an illustration etc (inscriptions always name and explain the visual in some way). I don’t think Luther meant interperative key when using the word ‘legend’ (but it’s no big deal 
)
All the best
Dick
So on reflection Allan - yes I think the passage refers to the histories of Christ (history meaning narrative/istoria) as
The narrative of saving events that happened in the past
The gift/present to us of our salvation today
And in ‘the example for us to believe and follow’ the process of our sanctification from the present into the future.
ON refelction I’m not sure that the threefold method of intepreting scripture - which Luther did not reject outright - is implied in his qupatation. But perhaps the allegorical level of interpretation was what you had in mind regarding ‘legend’. I’ve certainly seen you giving an allegorical interpretation of the Book of Joshua recently of which Origen would have approved of greatly - and I liked it too. 
Thanks Dick,
Very helpful, as always.
Fascinating how words change their meaning. I had no idea that “legend” once was historically positive, but now is historically negative.
You mention Medieval miracle tales… (Shudder) They still call down a pall of gloom. Reading them for the first time long years ago shook me to the core. If intelligent people believed these wild tales back then, why didn’t they believe equal nonsense in 1st century Palestine, and before? Well… they almost certainly did. My fundamentalist citadel came crashing down round my ears, and I nearly died in the ruin. It took a huge effort to struggle free. I find it very hard not to feel resentment toward those who taught me for so many years, but they did mean well. For the most part, they lacked information and imagination (lamentable, but not malicious), though there was more than a sniff of power about it, and the need to control…
And speaking of interpretation, I’ve just read (but not checked) that “the far country” in the Prodigal Son is “chora makra”, literally “the great emptiness”. If so, the translators who hid this from us should be taken out and whipped.
Humanity has fled God to wander the chaos of the Deep, the great emptiness. We survive only by spending our inheritance, soon to be exhausted. Only then, in the hell of spiritual poverty and hunger, will we turn our minds back to our true home.
It’s a retelling of Jonah. We run from God, find ourselves overboard in the Deep, soon to be swallowed by the chaos monster. Again, in hell, we call out to God, and the monster sets us free at God’s command.
Hi Allan –
Lovely to have a chat with you again old friend
Yes it fascinating how words change their meaning. I only started to think about the meaning of ‘legend’ this Christmas when I was about to put the ancient carol ‘Dancing Day’ on a thread started by Ed/Matt here. I don’t know if you know the carol – but in it Christ as Logos addresses his beloved humanity with –
Tomorrow shall be my dancing day
I would my true love would so chance
To see the legend of my play
And call my true love to the dance
Sing O my love, O my love, my love, my love -
This have I done for my true love
The theory about the origin of this carol is that it once introduced the nativity in a medieval mystery play – so ‘legend of my play’ here means the story that my play will tell you
That must have been very distressing – being taught in that way while having a passionate and curious mind, and a serious reason for a sort of resentful bereavement when the walls of the citadel came tumbling down. Glad you came through 
The miracle legends of saints from the Middle Ages – I can see why they must have perturbed you - they really do take the biscuit. I always remember my shock at reading Chaucer’s Prioress Tale from the Canterbury Tales about the child saint Kenelem. He is allegedly killed and dismembered by Jews and buried in a dung heap – but his severed head, as if he were Orpheus, sings out accusations from the dung the pile and reveals his murderers ensuring their horrible doom. The heady mix of the fantastic, cloying sentimentality, and base hatred and cruelty is quite revolting; and this mix is found in many other miracle stories. If this was representative of the Canterbury Tales or of the entire output of medieval culture I’d lose interest. Certainly I’m none too sure that Chaucer approved of this Tale that is meant to also say something about the teller – a deeply sentimental, trivial and snobbish woman stuck in nunnery by her parents (but opinion is divided about whether Chaucer intends irony).
But perhaps in a religious age these stories satisfied an appetite that is satisfied today in other ways by contemporary popular culture – by conspiracy theories, urban myths, and lurid stories of the supernatural mixed up with the slush True Romance stories. So perhaps things change but also remain similar.
I love the mystery plays – which tell the story of creation, fall and redemption. They are very different from the miracle legends and miracle plays. There is a wonderful earthy realism that is expressed in them that seems truly incarnational – including the detail of a soldier complaining that he has ‘strained his stones’ heaving the cross into place, and the carpenters who make the cross being very proud of their workmanship in a back slapping self important way –as craftsmen are. All of these details of life going on as normal make the pathos of Jesus’ crucifixion very immediate and heart wrenching. I was far more moved than I was by Mel Gibson for example. And of course mystery plays – between the crucifixion and resurrection, include the harrowing of hell in all its wondrous drama.
That’s fascinating what you have to say about the Prodigal Son – do check up and let us know about ‘the great emptiness’. The typological association of the prodigal son with the Jonah story is very suggestive (as Jonah as a type/foreshadowing of Christ – but here is something much greater than Jonah - is very common in early Christian art and theology).
I noted your point on another thread about seeing the herem narratives of the conquest stories in the OT as allegorical –speaking primarily of our inner struggle against evil. That’s exactly what Origen argued and has also been a strategy adopted by the mainstream tradition of Jewish Rabbis since Talmudic times. And certainly the existence of these texts and the debate over their troubling implications has been an important factor in the development of humane traditions in both Christianity and Judaism which share a central concern for victims.
Another way of dealing with these stories is to say that God ways are not our ways. Who are to question his absolute judgement on the sins of the Canaanites and His order ‘to show them no mercy’ – man, woman or child. I don’t agree with this interpretation – but would not see the person holding it as in any way desiring genocide or loving violence as long as they consigned these acts to the past – as one offs not to be copied today. And I understand that this is the mainstream strategy for Biblical literalist of good conscience currently.
However, since the reformation when these stories became literalised for mainstream Protestants, it is very troubling and problematic that there are many well documented examples – during the wars of religion in Europe, the interminable conflicts in Ireland, the wars of European colonial expansion, and recently in the Rwandan genocide etc – where these texts have been used as a warrant for genocide against the ‘ungodly’ without any constraints from Christian just war theory. Well I can’t handle that and it has to be evil.
Yet another way of dealing with these texts is to look at the archaeological evidence – there is no evidence of genocide from the excavations of Jericho etc. Yes there is evidence of warfare but not of genocide. So these texts can be seen as drawing a moral out of ancient histories by emphasising the absolute demands and holiness of God (as is always the case with pre-modern histories and sagas). But we note that these texts were actually addressed originally to the Israelites – and Amos warns them that is they don’t obey the commands of Yahweh to live justly this will be their fate too.
Finally – and I find this very attractive – we can look at these texts in terms of typology as you have done with the Prodigal Son. In the miracle story of the healing of the gentile woman Mark gives her race as Syro-Phonecian, but Matthew gives it as Canaanite (Chananaia). Matthews’s term for her invites us to see this story in the light of the older biblical narrative. The names of Jesus and Joshua are the same in Hebrew. The second Jesus – far greater than the first – reaches out to the people that the first one was determined to kill. And as Philip Jenkins says in ‘Laying Down the Sword’ – ‘The Story comes full circle and the extermination order is repealed’.
Blessings old chum
Dick
I never noticed the Syro-Phonecian woman was a Caananite. How interesting… I think the extermination order was judged by the true Joshua, found unworthy and condemned. “You have heard it said etc, but I say to you…”
It is so - And here’s a link to a short article that looks at the Canaanite theme in Matthew in a little more detail - if you or any one else is interested. I liked the article
Looks in vain for link…
Whoops a daisy and whoops a daddy dingo
Here we go old chum -
Interesting article.
"The conqueror, the Davidic King, is himself conquered by the wit and faith of this Canaanite. As a consequence, a member of the peoples who were shown “no mercy” is now shown mercy, and becomes a kind of first fruits of the mission to the gentiles commanded in the so-called “Great Commission”.
Theologically, the presence of the conquest narratives in the scriptures is perhaps the most difficult of apologetic problems. This article does not solve the “problem” of the Canaanite genocide. I do hope that this reading of the story of the Canaanite woman allows us to see that, at least in this one place, the conquest has been turned on its head."
Hi Allan –
Yes I liked the bits you’ve highlighted too – and also I found the exegesis of the seven baskets left over after the feeding of the four thousand (contrasted to the twelve baskets left over after the feeding of the five thousand) suggestive. I hope you don’t mind if I pursue the theme a little more? I’m thinking about the Conquest narratives at the moment because in the traditional lectionary they are assigned for reading during Lent – the season of struggle against sin.
Here is Origen from his Homilies on Joshua (which you have implicitly endorsed on another thread)–
‘Within us are the Canaanites; within us are the Perizzites; here are the Jebusites
And concerning the annihilation of the city of Ai Origen writes –
‘Mysteries are truly shadowed in these words…We ought not to leave any of those demons deep within, whose dwelling place is chaos and who rule in the abyss, but to destroy them all…Therefore, all holy persons kill the inhabitants of AI: they both annihilate and do not release any of them…Let us thrust Ai through with the edge of the sword, and let us extinguish all the inhabitants of chaos, all opposing powers…Jesus came and struck down the kings who possessed kingdoms of sin in us, and he ordered us to destroy all those king and leave none of them’
I note incidentally the idea of ‘mysteries truly shadowed’ is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the Temple sacrifices being an imperfect shadow of the sacrifice of Christ. And this relates to a question about Plato and the New Testament broached elsewhere. I think that Plato clearly had some influence on the Hellenistic Jewish writers in the New Testament and his influence is apparent here. The Platonic idea in the Republic and elsewhere is that the things of our world are an imperfect copy/shadow of the ideal forms of eternity. Translated into a Hellenistic Jewish context the idea loses its context of cosmic dualism and rather refers to events in time that are ‘shadows’ of events in the fullness of time that are clear truth. I note that Philo the Jew of Alexandria argues that Plato via Pythagoras actually got his ideas about shadows truth from the Jews of the first temple – since the temple was meant to be a shadow/copy of the cosmos and the indwelling of divinity in the cosmos. (At least one contemporary scholar thinks Philo may have had a point)
Anyway, according to Philip Jenkins (in Laying Down the Sword’ pp 192-3) the first explicit Christian identification of Joshua as the shadow of the full mystery of Jesus is made in the Epistle of Barnabas (a very early Christian text – late first century/early second century). The anonymous author of the Epistle argues that Moses prophesies to Iesous-Joshua what Iesous-Jesus will someday do: ‘in the last days, the Son of God will chop down the entire house of Amalek at its roots’ – meaning the Son of God will deal definitively with death and sin.
All the best
Dick