More Than Just Semantics

John D. Crossan parallels story to life. This essay will examine several aspects of story. First, I will examine the relationship between story and humans’ lives and how it is limited by language. Second, I will examine the differences between myths and parables and their polar opposition within the field of a story. Third, I will examine the Prodigal Son to illuminate the necessary elements of a parable. Stories serve to define humans’ reality and the use of specific types of stories evokes different reactions from their audience. Myths will seek to comfort but parables seek to challenge.

Crossan claims humans create the world they live in and reality they experience through language and story. Anything disconnected from humans’ imagination or language is unknowable. Asking what exists beyond the limits of the story should appear as strange as asking a sterile woman what occupation her child would have assumed. Reality exists as human knowledge shared amongst us. Or, as Crossan puts it, “I am not saying we cannot know reality. I am claiming what we know is reality, is our reality here together and with each other” (25).

Jus as our physical lives remain limited by death, a story is limited by language. Therefore our reality remains limited by our use of language. Nonetheless, one should not view life as simply a story. One should understand only story matters. Therefore, humans should stop lamenting of their inability to understand life outside the story and attempt to learn everything about the story itself. Crossan states, “My suggestion is that the excitement of transcendental experience is found that the understanding of the one is also the proper understanding of the other” (30).

When Crossan claims myths and parables exist as the poles of story, he means they act as the limits of story’s possibilities. In order to justify such a claim, Crossan defines the terms myth and parable in a strict sense. For example, Crossan’s myth is not synonymous with sophisticated lying, nor does it refer to stories with gods and goddesses simply by definition. The strict definitions and criteria use to define myth and parable allow for distinction and separation. Three concepts help structure and define Crossan’s myth: bundles of relations, binary opposition, and mediation or reconciliation.

Bundles of relations refer to the repetitive aspects or cultural patterns occurring throughout all myths. A myth’s bundle of relations is evidenced through an examination of a series of myths. Every myth contains a persistent sequence of binary opposition. Binary oppositions refer to the conflicting relationship between two opposing entities. They may occur between human and superhuman, mortal and immortal, male and female, and good and evil. This binary opposition is followed by a mediation or reconciliation between the aforementioned opposing entities, represented by fictional characters.

The reconciliation between the binary opposites serves to introduce the function of myths. Myths serve three functions. First, myths provide a comforting worldview. The myth’s moment of reconciliation seeks to ensure the audience that the conflicts in their lives will also be resolved. Second, myths provide order and structure. The repetitive structure myths follow seek to inform the audience that the