A problem with radical demythologizing of the Bible is that it seems to presuppose a pre-mythic understanding of human affairs in the light of which the myth is interpreted and its existential meaning extracted.
Or, is it possible that the myth has the power to evoke self-generating existential meanings; that is, interpretations of life and destiny which would not likely have existed had not the myth acted upon the imagination of the hearers and readers.
Liszkeh (1989) says in his book The Semiotic of Myth, “hermeneutics in this case it tautologous – it demonstrates what is already known” (p. 11). To illustrate: How shall we interpret the New Testament story of the transfiguration?
An obvious meaning for the hearers and readers of the story is that the appearance of Elijah and Moses means that Jesus stands in continuity with his Hebraic tradition; he does not make it up out of whole cloth.
Yet, he is not a scribe who only reproduces the tradition.
His appearance in the story in garments of extreme white meanings he is seen as a prophet who reinterprets and reshapes the tradition.
He assimilates it and then puts his own particular stamp upon it.
His moral style in the passage following the transfiguration account regarding the pharisaic teaching and practice ascribed to Moses on marriage and divorce is intended to bring out God’s original intention in creation.