Formulation of the Claim
The modern method integrates myth as a historical given
Explanation
The text argues that modern understanding does not treat myth as the opposite of history, but as part of its substance. This shift is presented as going beyond an older method that was unable to accommodate the historical function of myth.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This idea belongs to the line of argument that links the modern reading of the text to awareness of the history of its formation, and opens onto a broader understanding that brings myth into historical analysis rather than excluding it from it.
What the Atom Does Not Say
The atom does not here draw a sharp separation between myth and history, nor does it present myth as an element detached from the conditions of its formation and its function in time.
Brief Evidence Passage
Modern understanding does not treat myth as the opposite of history, but as part of its substance. The text sees this shift as part of a move beyond an older method that was unable to accommodate the function that myth performs. In this way, the mythic given is integrated into historical understanding rather than excluded from it.
Related Links
Text and History, Critique of Islamic Reason, Critique of Reason