The Myth of Jesus’ Parables
In Mythologies, Roland Barthes describes and offers several examples of a type of rhetoric he refers to as myth. Myth is a second-order semiological system. This creates an abstraction that obscures the intended message initially but causes the receiver to come to the conclusion that the message is natural. The character of Jesus in the bible engaged in rhetoric to convince the Jewish people living in the first-century of the common era that living as citizens of the “kingdom of God” was a better way to live. To do this he told stories called parables that utilized Barthes’ idea of myth to convey his message.
Summary
At its most basic level, Roland Barthes’ states that “myth is a type of speech” (Barthes, 1991). Myth is a mode of communication that uses signs and is not constrained to linguistics. Anything can be used to construct a myth but myth is not inherent to anything. Mythical speech is an intended use of signs to convey a message that goes beyond the meaning of the signs that construct the myth.
Semiology is the study of signs (Barthes, 1991). Signs are messages that communicate something other than the contents of the message itself. Barthes uses Saussure’s model of the sign which refers to the message as the signifier and the concept the message refers to is called the signified. The relationship between the signifier and signified is called the sign. The sign connects the signifier and signified and generates meaning through the association. Neither the signifier or signified alone can be a sign for the sign requires a relationship between the two. Myth is a second-order semiological system where a signifier and its signified form a sign that then becomes a signifier that is associated with another signified creating a second-order sign (Figure 1). Even though myth exists above the first-order of signs it is still a semiological system. Barthes calls the first-order sign, which is also the second-order signifier, the form and its signified the concept. This is a reversal from how signs work, the meaning of the first-order sign is being utilized as a signifier. Myth distances itself from the form and takes a portion of the form’s meaning and uses it to point to the concept. Nothing is obscured from the form but myth only uses a portion of the form to construct its message. Myth can utilize one or many signifiers, which are the first-order signs to convey its meaning.
While Barthes’ myth is a form of speech, it is, more specifically, a type of rhetoric. Barthes (1991) notes that motivation is a necessary ingredient for myth to exist. It is a subtle form of rhetoric. The receiver can understand myth in three ways. The signifier, the first-order sign, can be ignored and all focus can be on the concept itself. This is a simple system where the form becomes an example of the concept. The sender of mythical messages starts with a concept and looks for a form to represent the concept. The signifier can also receive full attention and the meaning of the first-order sign is understood along with how it presents a form for the mythical concept. This allows the receiver to fully grasp the myth maker’s intent and the form becomes the “alibi” of the concept. This occurs when the receiver sees through the myth and fully understands the distortion the sender added to the first-order sign. Finally, the second-order signifier can be understood as a whole containing meaning and form. This unified whole becomes the very essence of the concept that is conveyed. The first two ways of interpreting myth rob myth of its power, the receiver analyzes the form and comes to an understanding of how it contributes to the concept. The final understanding of myth is where the rhetoric is most powerful. The form, somewhat mysteriously, naturally represents the concept which strips the form of its original meaning.
As a semiological system, myth can utilize anything and everything to convey its message. Myth can even create meaning out of a form containing no meaning. Barthes (1991) asserts that all language can be a form for a mythical concept. There is always room for further interpretation or “reading between the lines”. Even languages that leave no room for further interpretation like math or poetry can be used by myth. Math and poetry are simply turned into signifiers for more general concepts. “1+1=2” becomes a signifier for simplicity, “E=mc2” becomes a form for the heights of complexity. Barthes suggests that the only way to combat myth is with myth. Creating artificial myths to expose myth.
Part of the power of myth is its connection to a specific point in history. The form gives myth credibility and points to the concepts of reality at the time as natural and pure, myth strips away the story of how that reality came to be. This justifies and clarifies the concept presenting a clean version of the concept that leaves no room for questioning.
Politically, Barthes (1991) declares that myth primarily serves the “right” and while it exists on the “left” it is easily unmasked. He goes on to categorize the various rhetorical forms myth takes on as utilized by the political right. The inoculation conveys a small evil in order to obscure a larger and more egregious evil. The privation of history occurs when myth takes the concepts of the current time and removes the story of how they arrived at the present moment and presents them as natural outcroppings of culture. Identification is the myth accepted by those who cannot comprehend those who are different from himself. The Other becomes a pure concept of difference. Identification allows men to neatly categorize those who are different from him so he can feel safe in their own identity. Tautology is the laziest form of myth. This form of myth denies all opposition through explicit assertions that things just are. Neither-norism reduces two concepts to forms that oppose one another and make it easy to reject both concepts. The quantification of quality reduces essence to a collection of numbers. This provides a simple means to grasp qualities that are really unable to be measured. Finally, the statement of fact is a higher form of tautology that usually manifests itself as a proverb. These proverbs validate experience. These are just a few rhetorical categories that Barthes observes myth occupying. They all boil down to myths that affirm that which is or myths that find a way to measure in ways that benefit the myth maker.
Myth is a subtle form of rhetoric. It can make use of anything and everything to communicate its concept. This form of rhetoric can range from simple and easy to analyze to mysterious and difficult to make out why a concept has appeared in the receiver’s consciousness. Because myth is a second-order semiological system, it relies on preexisting signs and meaning in order to communicate its message. Therefore it tends to reinforce things that already exist and has difficulty communicating that which does not yet exist.
Response
The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the bible focus on one character named Jesus (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Jesus often talks about the “kingdom of God”, and how the people around him should seek to be a part of that kingdom and live according to its customs. When Jesus engages in this rhetoric he often does so through stories called parables. The parables are simple stories that point to a specific aspect of the kingdom of God and Jesus explains the meaning he intended after the story. The parable itself and the principle of how the kingdom of God works creates two semiotic systems with the second order system containing the message that is intended. This two-layered system fits Barthes definition of myth. The stories contained within Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are set in the Middle East during the Roman empire. While myth is historical and only lasts for a limited time, the context around the parables often contain words from Jesus explaining the meaning of the parables and we also get a sense of what the culture surrounding Jesus was like. We will look at specific parables from the books of Matthew and Luke to see in detail how these stories exhibit the features of Barthes theory of myth. For readers of the bible today, it is easy to analyze the myth contained within the parables, but for the original audience I suspect that after some reflection, the myth of the parables became profound and provided solid reference points for what the “kingdom of God” was like in ways that felt natural. Matthew 13 contains multiple pairs of parables that are multiple forms that point to the same concept (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). There are parables about the value of the “kingdom of God” with stories about treasure and a valuable pearl and people who go to great lengths to obtain and keep ahold of the treasure. Other parables compare the “kingdom of God” with a mustard seed and leaven which are small items but make a big impact on their environment. Finally there are stories about good and bad fish and crops being separated. All of these provide examples to communicate a myth while embracing the forms that act as signifiers for the myth. Jesus offers multiple paradigms to communicate attributes of the “kingdom of God”. Instead of using myth to hide his intentions, Jesus is trying to bring clarity to something that is not tangible by speaking about it in forms his audience can understand.
The parable of the good Samaritan is found in Luke (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Luke 10:25-37). A lawyer is conversing with Jesus and a summary of the law, love your neighbor as yourself, raises the question of who is one’s neighbor. Jesus tells the parable where a man (presumably Jewish) is attacked on the road and left for dead. A priest and a Levite pass by the man on the road and do not help him. These two characters represent respected people within the Jewish community who were seen as representative of goodness so there is a surprising element that these two do not help. After the priest and the Levite comes a Samaritan who tends to the man who was attacked and takes him to an inn to be cared for. This builds upon the surprise of the priest and the Levite not helping by having a class of person who the Jews considered to be subhuman be the representative of goodness within the story. Jesus uses the form of the story to make the myth clear that social or religious status does not represent goodness within the “kingdom of God”. Jesus asks the lawyer which character within the parable acted like a neighbor to the beaten man. The lawyer answers “the one who showed him mercy” demonstrating that the concept of the myth came naturally even though he could not bring himself to name the character who showed mercy as a Samaritan. The “good Samaritan” still stands today as a symbol of helping others who are in need.
The parable of the good Samaritan invites a reading of the myth where focus can be placed on the fullness of the form. I believe Jesus intended to make the Samaritan an example of a loving neighbor to make it clear that the “kingdom of God” was not limited to the Jews. The priest and Levite also invite deeper analysis to show how the religious leaders of Israel were not living in accordance with the standards of the “kingdom of God”. This parable as myth stands as an antithesis to Barthes’ identification category. The story forces the Jewish lawyer to recognize the humanity and capacity for good contained within the Other, the Samaritan.
While parables were a form of mythical speech, I think Jesus used them to invite the Jewish people who heard them to think about and come to conclusions about the “kingdom of God” for themselves. His parables embraced the history of the forms chosen to represent the concepts that were conveyed which invites analysis of the myth being told. The meaning of the form added depth and nuance to the concept and invited the audience to become mythologists. Jesus used these rich forms to make the difference between the “kingdom of God” and the present reality clear.
Conclusion
Barthes’ notion of myth is easy to understand but can be difficult to pick up on when it is employed as a form of rhetoric. Operating as a second layer of meaning signified by other signs with their own meaning allows it flexibility in the forms that it takes. This also creates confusion since different people can use the same forms to convey different mythical concepts. Despite all of this, Jesus used myth through stories called parables. While the parables did have an inherent subtlety in their indirect nature, Jesus selected forms that were well known to his audience and carried a rich history that enhanced the mythical concepts he was trying to convey. I believe this provides an example of how myth could be used by the political left to illustrate how culture could be, told through forms of what already is.
References
Barthes, R. (1991). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.; 25. [print.]). The Noonday Press.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. https://esv.literalword.com/