Is all history mythology?

[SeattleUte]

"History" is as organic and everchanging as the present. Yes, more evidence of what happened once upon a time is always being discovered in our enlightened times. More significant, however, is the phenomenon that we constantly regard and re-evaluate history with our contemporary eyes, which are by definition ever changing with the benefit of experience including but not limited to the discovery of new evidence. Each generation must venerate and create its own take on history. (Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. has written eloquently about this phenomenon.) Moreover, "histories" from antiquity or late antiquity or the Middle Ages were composed sometimes decades or centuries after the events in question. Particularly in the Middle Ages there was not placement of a high intrinsic value on empirical truth that characterizes our modern times. Thus, there is much reason to be skeptical about histories written before the printing press.

Nevertheless, I have read here from time to time an assertion that all "history" is just mythology by a different name in any event, that is just wrong. The motivation for this is easy to see, and the assertion is just plain nonsense and even harmful. At best it's a poor rationalization for the inadequacies of scripture as history or the patently false information in canonized works. (Those of us who do not regard the Bible as "history," but as the best available written evidence of the comings and goings of certain ancient peoples on a macro level that must always be cross-referenced with physical evidence, feel no compulsion to rationalize while greatly valuing the Bible on its own merits, including as a great literary work.) At worst this assertion creates a lack of respect for or rigor in truth seeking, and even tolerance for patent falsehood.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nevertheless, I have read here from time to time an assertion that all "history" is just mythology by a different name in any event, that is just wrong. The motivation for this is easy to see, and the assertion is just plain nonsense and even harmful. At best it's a poor rationalization for the inadequacies of scripture as history or the patently false information in canonized works. (Those of us who do not regard the Bible as "history," but as the best available written evidence of the comings and goings of certain ancient peoples on a macro level that must always be cross-referenced with physical evidence, feel no compulsion to rationalize while greatly valuing the Bible on its own merits, including as a great literary work.) At worst this assertion creates a lack of respect for or rigor in truth seeking, and even tolerance for patent falsehood.

Using this logic, what Old Testament events are mythical? Are events such as the exodus, flood, tower, etc. merely figurative and intended as teaching tools?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"History" is as organic and everchanging as the present. Yes, more evidence of what happened once upon a time is always being discovered in our enlightened times. More significant, however, is the phenomenon that we constantly regard and re-evaluate history with our contemporary eyes, which are by definition ever changing with the benefit of experience including but not limited to the discovery of new evidence. Each generation must venerate and create its own take on history. (Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. has written eloquently about this phenomenon.) Moreover, "histories" from antiquity or late antiquity or the Middle Ages were composed sometimes decades or centuries after the events in question. Particularly in the Middle Ages there was not placement of a high intrinsic value on empirical truth that characterizes our modern times. Thus, there is much reason to be skeptical about histories written before the printing press.

Nevertheless, I have read here from time to time an assertion that all "history" is just mythology by a different name in any event, that is just wrong. The motivation for this is easy to see, and the assertion is just plain nonsense and even harmful. At best it's a poor rationalization for the inadequacies of scripture as history or the patently false information in canonized works. (Those of us who do not regard the Bible as "history," but as the best available written evidence of the comings and goings of ancient peoples on a macro level that must always be cross-referenced with physical evidence, feel no compulsion to rationalize while greatly valuing the Bible on its own merits, including as a great literary work.) At worst this assertion creates a lack of respect for or rigor in truth seeking, and even tolerance for patent falsehood.

I think there's a fundamental importance to define myth. At its root, the word just means story, but today it has the implication of untruth. Religion and religious history are fuzzy, since the historical agents operate under a belief in the truth of mythic foundations. In these contexts, myth and history are clearly connected, but - as you wrote - are not identical.

Please correct me if I've misread your intent, but I think you take issue (as do I) with those who discredit all modern, honest historical inquiry by applying postmodernist "we can't know anything for sure" rhetoric. That approach is so 90s.

As long as people keep trying to shove history into religion and religion into history, I'm going to be grumpy. The history of religion is something I'm comfortable with. The religion of history is not.

[Indy Coug]

What makes me grumpy is when people try to deny any historicity whatsoever from scripture, essentially rendering scripture as pure allegory.

Just because the history is often incomplete or inaccurate, it shouldn't exclude the possibility that the events even in their most general terms actually occurred.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Using this logic, what Old Testament events are mythical? Are events such as the exodus, flood, tower, etc. merely figurative and intended as teaching tools?

I think reason tells us, for example, the Adam and Eve story is mythical. The story of the Exodus provides a good example of what bits of history can be fruitfully gleaned from the text. It may well be that a group of Jews emigrated from Egypt in response to authoritarian oppression or persecution, and wandered in the Sinai for a time before settling in Canaan. They may well have been or probably were led by a great leader; perhaps his name was Moses, perhaps not. (Freud hypothesized he was an Egyptian and his followers murdered him in the desert, and he was in future generations given the status of a martyr; hence the "Father" being the focus of Judaism. But there's no evidence for any of this other than phsychoanalyzing the text.) But reason tells us there was no parting of the Red Sea or burning bush.

Humans' impetus to create myth and the value of myth to humans may be the most facinating subject to study ever (in my opinion). You have identified some purposes of mythology. I would not limit it to that; some may be difficult to articulate or even identify. The need for myth seems to be in our very DNA (Waters has said the same thing about religion; we're probably talking about the same thing at the end of the day).

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What makes me grumpy is when people try to deny any historicity whatsoever from scripture, essentially rendering scripture as pure allegory.

Just because the history is often incomplete or inaccurate, it shouldn't exclude the possibility that the events even in their most general terms actually occurred.

I don't disagree. I think history and historicity are different. Certain elements of the Bible are historical. The book, however, as a whole isn't history. Using archaeology to prove the Bible to be true is a dicey proposition, IMO.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What makes me grumpy is when people try to deny any historicity whatsoever from scripture, essentially rendering scripture as pure allegory.

Just because the history is often incomplete or inaccurate, it shouldn't exclude the possibility that the events even in their most general terms actually occurred.

Holy shit! I agree with Indy (if we're talking about the Bible).

I do, however, dismiss the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham as utterly devoid of historical content.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Holy shit! I agree with Indy (if we're talking about the Bible).

I do, however, dismiss the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham as utterly devoid of historical content.

Well, if you're going to stick to your apostate guns, I would expect no less from you.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think there's a fundamental importance to define myth. At its root, the word just means story, but today it has the implication of untruth. Religion and religious history are fuzzy, since the historical agents operate under a belief in the truth of mythic foundations. In these contexts, myth and history are clearly connected, but - as you wrote - are not identical.

Please correct me if I've misread your intent, but I think you take issue (as do I) with those who discredit all modern, honest historical inquiry by applying postmodernist "we can't know anything for sure" rhetoric. That approach is so 90s.

As long as people keep trying to shove history into religion and religion into history, I'm going to be grumpy. The history of religion is something I'm comfortable with. The religion of history is not.

I agree.

[SeattleUte]

By the way, I think Freud may have nailed it. Just my opinion.