Iskander

Literature is not a myth. Very old writings are sometimes used as ‘sacred’ , very few of those works have survived, but what makes some more influential than others is not clear.

If there is no access to a myth then humans make another one.

Horatio Parker

You're saying that the OT is not myth?

Iskander

Yes,
I know that for some people it is a religion, for others it is a myth, etc.

For me it is ancient literature,

sotto voce

If myth is written, it must be literature. That does not make it great literature, or intended as literature for its own sake. If the word 'myth' is intended to mean 'foolish falsehood', as is usual on the ignorant or mendacious internet, it is hardly intelligent to have concern about its misuse. If myth is understood, as is scholarly, as means of preserving societal values between generations, therefore holding truth of a practical nature, then obviously myth must be both commonly known and protected by society. Oral transmission is efficient in achieving these qualities. Otoh, the priesthoods of Egypt and Babylonia had religious lore that was kept secret, the motivation for this not being to preserve the lore per se, but to preserve the priesthoods and the emperors who employed the priests (though sometimes it was the other way round). As this sort of lore was intended only for expedient, political purposes, one may reasonably suppose that its disappearance with its last priest is of no lasting importance.

The Hebrew Bible is a mixture of story myth (myth told in the form of a story), chronicle and other genres. The story myths of, for instance, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be said to have owners, because there is not and never was a discrete society that interprets them in the same way, or is known to have done so. If they have no owners, they can have no thieves. But what makes the Tanakh or OT unique is that the priesthood of the society that that preserved it had no political significance. It was not the tool of a monarch or emperor, because there was no monarch or emperor. There was no hierarchy at all. Priests were each personally subject to the written legislation, that was open to all. So there was no literary purpose, no political purpose to the Torah, which had religious significance only. It is remarkable that it has survived, despite the disappearance of all of the appurtenances that sustained it— nation, tribal organisation, homeland, covenant ark, priesthood, tabernacle then temple, and all personal official records required to perpetuate them. Not only has it and the prophetic and historical heritage generated by it survived, it is widely available throughout much of the world.

Horatio Parker

So what might a Myth be?

Iskander

It is a literary genre.

sotto voce

Lucky I just used that word, eh.

Except that it's nonsense, the way you use it. But never mind.

Horatio Parker

And ritual, I suppose, is a dramatic genre.

Juma

This gives rhe picture of christianity being a somewhat misguided (or hijacked) sceptical movement, saying "skip this nonsens: your rules are ridiculus. There is no sin that needs to be washed away" and then someone makes up this story of a final sacroficial lamb. (Or maybe that story started as a symbolic story just as jesus own stories, that wherent ment to be beleived, they just made a point)

The point beng: humans has a tendency to find scapegoats instead of the truth. Thats really the center of the christian message. The rest is rubbish.

semiopen

This is breathtakingly dubious on several levels.

From a strictly historical perspective, Judaism was clearly on its way to triumph over paganism at the time when Christianity started. Christianity won because it was a superior product for the pagan masses and probably some political machinations. It is safe to say that if Yoshke didn't exist that something else would have come along - in fact that is quite possibly what happened as the existence of Yoshke is hardly clear.

Secondly, confining the poetic/literary value of the bible to Job and the Song is absurd.

Finally, assuming that Yoshke existed, and that Christian theology is true, the old testament is hugely important as this was the actual convenant between the big guy and Israel.

The sins in sotto's post has to make one wonder if a temporary reprisal of burning at the stake might be justified.