Believing Mythology

[Pappa]

I was reading something about these Buddhist discussing the Buddha's life and all the things he did, and thinking about the historicity issues relating to religion and it got me wondering...

I accept that myths can have value even if you don't believe they are historically true. Some myths have excellent allegorical power, etc.

Most religious people seem to feel the need to know their myths are historically accurate (or at least mostly accurate).

I've read a lot of South American anthropology (mostly Colombian Amazon tribes) and various other bits of Australian aboriginal anthropology and also about lots of tribal peoples around the world. I'm fairly sure that at least some of the time, they don't think their myths are historically true, particularly the shamans who tell the stories.

How about other peoples. Did the Ancient Greeks believe their myths were historical events? Did they think there was actually a Medussa or was it simply a powerful story? Did the Vikings really believe Thor flew round the sky in a chariot or was that a metaphor for a less anthropomorphic sky god?

In medieval times people had to be believers for pragmatic reasons, they'd be risking a lot of they denied the existence of god... but is it possible some of then thought of god in the same way we think of Santa nowadays, some story the kids are told but the adults don't take seriously.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is frequently discussed by historians and the consensus is that the ancients had no reason to believe that those stories were not true. We could cite such things as mammoth skulls "proving" cyclopians existed, leg bones "proving" giants were in the Earth in those times, etc.

[Theophilus]

As a "myth believer" this is a topic that interests me.

I wonder though whether we are imposing too rigid a structure saying that an ancient myth is either "false" or "true". Could it be more complex than that (I'm expecting a large number of replies saying "no" )?

But for example, when I read the Genesis account of creation I think I'm reading a myth. But that doesn't mean I therefore say "this has no value". For me the creation account is exploring and explaining the creation in relation to God. It tells me that God created and creates, and that mankind has a special role to play in creation.

Now of course, I have a problem that I will freely admit to (before people start telling me I have lots of problems). When I read scripture I can't tell what is mythical and what is a simple fact, and I don't have the tools and knowledge to make that distinction (if anyone has). I believe that scripture is a mix of historical fact and allegorical myth and I can't be sure which is which (though I believe that the evidence points to a historical Jesus who worked miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead). So what's a boy to do? I can say what I do, I read it all and accept it all as a "spiritual truth". I become absorbed in it all as if it were a historical truth (as one may when one is reading a fantastic novel), but that is not really the level that I believe scripture is working at, because I believe the prime purpose of scripture is formation rather than information. Now I may be accused of compartmentalism (indeed I have been) and that is an accusation that I accept, but I would say the two "compartments" (let's call them science and faith) are not contrary but are complementary.

So I think all myths are worth engaging with rather than taking a purely scientific and rational approach and dismissing them out of hand. Indeed I think the more myths that are looked at the more common threads are seen weaving through them. Did anybody watch around the world in 80 faiths with the hippy Anglican priest Peter Owen Jones? I think you could come away either thinking that because there are so many faiths they're all rubbish, or you could come away with a sense of this great diverse exploration of the numinous (I'm obviously in the latter camp).

[cowiz]

But for example, when I read the Genesis account of creation I think I'm reading a myth. But that doesn't mean I therefore say "this has no value". For me the creation account is exploring and explaining the creation in relation to God. It tells me that God created and creates, and that mankind has a special role to play in creation.

Why would Genesis be a myth? If the Bible is the word of god, why can't god simply state how he did it? Why does it need to be wrapped in allegory and myth? And I understand that you do not take the New Testament to be mythological, so that would demonstrate that the word of god can indeed be specific and to the point of how god did it.

[FedUpWithFaith]

You sound like Karen Armstrong Theo.

Answering the original OP, my understanding, with the Greeks and Nordics, is that the majority really believed those myths were true, at least for a significant period of time. There are historical writings to back that up. There was, as now, an intelligentsia that rejected or questioned the myth's literal truth and a at various times some of the stories were seen as more allegorical. Then, as now, priests and oracles did not stay in business by reducing the religion to mythology. They usually tried to enforce orthodoxy for power and control and the leaders, then as now, could not question this.

[Theophilus]

Why would Genesis be a myth?

Well, it is not new to consider the "days" of creation as perhaps ages. For example in the 2nd century Justin Martyr wrote "'The day of the Lord is a thousand years' [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject [days of creation]". And Augustine of Hippo pointed out the (obvious) fact that in the Genesis account the sun and moon do not appear until day 4, so the days being described cannot be our usual days marked by day and night. And of course we have modern science informing us more about the age of the earth.

And I understand that you do not take the New Testament to be mythological, so that would demonstrate that the word of god can indeed be specific and to the point of how god did it.

Goodness, the Apocalypse must be the most mythical and mystic book in the Bible, so the New Testament can certainly be mythical. But I imagine you were referring more to the Gospels. Well, there are things there that I would suspect are intended more as prophetic rather than literal, for example Matthew 27:52 appears to me to be eschatological and prophetic in nature. I think the tearing of the veil in the temple (Mark 15:38) is perhaps also pedagogical and symbolic telling us that God is no longer separating himself from us in the Holy of Holies, but rather that the Kingdom has broken through into this world for all of us (though it may be literally true as well as having that symbolism). But to be honest I can't be sure, and so I do not get too exercised about trying to finely dissect allegory/symbolism from mundane fact, rather I absorb it all and try and absorb the message that it is portraying.

[virphen]

I think you have to be very, very careful with distinguishing between myth and literature with mythical themes and elements.

Much of what we call Greek mythology isn't that at all. It's stories made up using the Gods as characters - in a way we don't see today, because you'd have been burned or stoned for heresy for even thinking about doing it for most of the last couple of millennia.

I doubt very much that many who read Homer when he was committed to paper would have seriously believed that Ares had manifested on the plains of Troy and gone into battle for real, for example. Nor would many in Rome have taken the Aeneid as in any sense more than an allegorical account of the journey of Aeneas - they would have recognised the presence of the gods in it as part of a story, not as anything remotely dogmatic.

[Feck]

We all know hares do not race tortoises but we all also know of the fable and understand it's message .

[Rum]

Its easy to forget how damned ignorant people were. I read an account of some peasants in Somerset in the UK in the mid 19th Century who found some old armour in a field they were ploughing and decided it was left over from the battle of Jericho!

I suspect people in pre-enlightenment times didn't give it a thought. Fairies, gods, touching your nose twice to keep away bad luck, sowing seed when the larks appeared, ...you name it - was all jumbled up. There was probably no separation of fact and myth, certainly of rationality and what we might call analytical thinking.

And of course they adapted as new myths, gods, and cultures moved around. They were all driven by huge levels of ignorance, yet with that fantastic thing we have - a passion to fill the gaps and have explanations - even if they are they aren't sustainable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We all know hares do not race tortoises but we all also know of the fable and understand it's message .

Fables aren't myths, they're teaching devices. Myths were once indistinguishable from legends.

[JimC]

It's interesting how the word "myth" has shifted its meaning in a modern context. We speak of urban myths, and we have mythbusters... In this context, it has become a label for incorrect, blind assumptions which can be demonstrated as false by some form of rational enquiry. Used in the context of Norse or Greek myths, they have the qualities of epic fantasy tied to religious beliefs.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Its easy to forget how damned ignorant people were. I read an account of some peasants in Somerset in the UK in the mid 19th Century who found some old armour in a field they were ploughing and decided it was left over from the battle of Jericho!

I suspect people in pre-enlightenment times didn't give it a thought. Fairies, gods, touching your nose twice to keep away bad luck, sowing seed when the larks appeared, ...you name it - was all jumbled up. There was probably no separation of fact and myth, certainly of rationality and what we might call analytical thinking.

And of course they adapted as new myths, gods, and cultures moved around. They were all driven by huge levels of ignorance, yet with that fantastic thing we have - a passion to fill the gaps and have explanations - even if they are they aren't sustainable.

Right on. You don't have to study Mormonism or Scientology long to see that there are a lot of gullible twits even today,

[Woodbutcher]

There is nothing wrong in reasonable belief, literal belief is the one that troubles me. Religions are full of good guidelines, but if taken as THE TRUTH they can be dangerous.