n e w c h u r c h l i f e : m ay / j u n e 2 0 1 6
In order to claim that a mythic image or motif is “universal,” one must
first prove that it appears with consistency in a number of disparate cultures,
and then disprove any historical or anthropological explanations for this
consistency.
This approach has a number of unforeseen consequences. First and
foremost, the desire to show consistency in mythic imagery inevitably
leads to what anthropologists might call “cherry-picking” – the arbitrary
selection of evidence based solely on the degree to which it fits our own
preconceived pattern. Indeed, why would a mythologist waste time studying
counterexamples when there is all of time and the entire globe to search for
the perfect prototypes?
Next, apart from it being unfeasible to satisfactorily disprove all possible
historical or anthropological connections, the perceived need to do so
encourages students of myth to select only the most disparate examples.
Perhaps most important of all, this approach inadvertently saps mythology of
much of its power by valuing only its universal elements.
Mythic images and motifs are beautiful, entertaining and thought
provoking even when we can clearly trace their origins through cultural
diffusion and religious syncretism. In fact, it is often the historical context and
the stylistic particularities of a myth that make it most worthy of study.
It is not without a sense of irony that now, after preaching the dangers
of universalism, I shift to the core focus of this study. As I stated, the field of
mythological studies has largely moved past the romantic universalism of the
Campbell-Era. But though I was not alive for it, I often get a feeling of nostalgia
for that golden age of mythological studies. And it was this very feeling of
nostalgia that hit me in waves as I read the Mayan text, the Popol Vuh.
This text – first translated from its ancient hieroglyphic form in the 16th
century and left in obscurity until the mid-19th century – bears seemingly
impossible resemblance to some of the writings of 18th -century Enlightenment
philosopher and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg.
It is not my intent to identify a universal mythic theme, but rather to
compare and contrast these disparate texts in their particulars. Though I
believe that my exploration of the historical contexts of each text will show
them to be about as heterogeneous as is likely on this shared planet, it is not my
aim to disprove the possibility of a direct connection. In fact, the unearthing
of a previously unknown intercontinental connection could be of equal, or
perhaps greater, value.
After briefly studying the origins and historical context of each text, I will
compare what each has to say about the early stages of humanity – what we
might describe as a Golden Age and a Silver Age. I will explore how the two
stages differ from one another; how the beings of each interact with each other;
262