Myth Conceptions: Joseph Campbell and the New Age

As the author of this book, I would like to note that I did my Ph.D. dissertation on the kind of archetypal, mythological analyses that Joseph Campbell is known for. As I note in the book, Mr. Campbell's best work, and arguably his most influential work, is on the myth of the hero. That said, it is strange that Campbell does not give enough credit to Arnold van Gennnep, whose work on rites of passage Campbell clearly uses in his three-part structure on the basic plot of hero myths. Also, Campbell has an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic agenda that unfairly slants his interpretations of myths and archetypes. In the book, I also offer tests for truth on how you can judge Campbell's work, and the work of other scholars. Reason and logic show that Campbell often contradicts himself, and he gets facts wrong, or submits flimsy facts to support some of his statements, especially his attacks on the Bible and Historical Christianity. Mircea Eliade, another well-respected scholar of myth, does not make such errors. Finally, a lot of Campbell's research is out of date, as I prove in this book by citing facts, citing specific major sources and using logic. In that light, it would be nice if my critics would cite specific facts, buttressed by rational (not emotional) arguments supported by the basic laws of logic, before they trash this work.

I recall reading this book when it first came out over ten years ago. It was and still is one of the most influential books that I have ever read in terms of shaping my own Christian world view. Personally, I will openly admit that I have never read any of Joseph Campbell's books, but I have talked to a number of people who have read Campbell's books and I have read a considerable number of the books that Dr. Snyder is referencing in his own book. My conclusion is that when it comes to defending the Christian world view apologetically with contemporary research done by Christian and non-Christian scholars, some of whom are still living and producing their own works, few books have done a better job than "Myth Conceptions". After ten years, it's still a good read. After having a number of spirited discussions with people about the contents of this book, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a specific error that Dr. Snyder made rather than making blanket statements implying that Myth Conceptions' logic and references are no better than Campbell's. An important detail that I feel is worth noting is that Snyder's research is based on the scholarship of personalities like Mircea Eliade, Ronald Nash, Norman Geisler, and Phillip Johnson. The book can be read in any number of ways. It can be perused or it can be read from cover to cover. That flexibility is a plus for the people of various backgrounds that may read the book. I can also imagine that the book would be an uncomfortable read for anyone who is a fan of Joseph Campbell's. I had a discussion with a family member less than a couple of months ago who said that he liked Joseph Campbell's works, but when I started gently sharing the opposing arguments with him that Snyder uses, it became clear that Campbell is not using the most current research to support his conclusions. This family member ended up reading the book to find out what it had to say, but could not finish it because he couldn't stand seeing that he and Joseph Campbell are wrong about a few things. The family member would or could not get into specifics. In regards to the world of research, attacks abound of various sorts because people are going to have disagreements to find out who is right. The law of noncontradiction implies that everyone disagreeing cannot simultaneously be right in the same way even though everyone can be wrong, "transcendence" not withstanding. Snyder understands this. He demonstrates this on page 49 of his book. "Campbell's definition of the word 'transcendent' is too narrow. Transcendent does not always mean something that exists 'beyond all concepts' or 'beyond all categories of thought.' It can simply mean something that exceeds or surpasses certain limits." Further, I would also have to sympathize with Snyder for feeling attacked when Joseph Campbell in "Power of Myth" on page 228 says that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is "a clown act, really." The rest of Campbell's works either dire

Myth Conceptions is an interesting read, a good piece of work that is simple and to the point. Dr. Snyder clearly outlines the problems with myth theory, focusing on the a priori philosophical commitments on the part of Campbell and others. Campbell, in other words, rules beforehand that the biblical/traditional view of reality is wrong and then seeks to replace this with his own view. This is a clear error in logic, something that Snyder readily points out. Snyder does not in any way make the same mistake, he is in fact reinforcing the biblical tradition based on facts of an evidentiary nature. The biblical worldview has always been seen as a clear manifestation of human nature at its worst and best; outlining the main problem with the human condition, and the resultant need for redemption and salvation. Far from being "cleverly invented tales," events in the Bible are portrayed as paradoxically miraculous, but simple--a hallmark of biblical literature. The events are not akin to the grandiose embellishments that you find in Homer or Gnostic sources.Myth theory has its place in literary analysis, but it is plainly ad hoc, and replete with its own philosophical and logical axes to grind.Carmelo TropianoToronto, ON