Mageth

That's a problem we still have to deal with today, with our own history as well as the history of civilizations in general.

A difference, however, is that, in the modern, scientific, prosaic world, we are much more interested in knowing "real history", in knowing facts, figures, names, numbers and dates, and in overturning the myths of our history and past histories, than anyone was, say, 2000, or even 1000, years ago. And we, of course, have developed many tools and techniques for doing so.

In the past, for example in Israel in the First Century, people in general were much more open to mythos, to accepting, and not questioning, poetic, mythologized interpretations of the past. They were not much if at all concerned if those poetic versions of their history were literally true or not. Very few if any people were interested in "literally true" histories. What was important to them is that their myths of history (their mythos) gave them and their society a past, present, and even future in which they could live their lives, and a "story" that explained where they came from, where they were, and where they might be going. And, typically, a religious mythos to go along with it, and intertwined with the "history" of the people. For example, one that says a certain God created the earth in a certain way, later chose the (founder of the) nation, and gave them (the founder's descendants) the land they live on to be theirs forever. And, of course, over time that mythos (historical and religious) evolved and grew to include and explain new happenings in the history of the people. Significant events (like the turmoil of the First Century for the Hebrews) typically resulted in significant additions or modifications to the mythos.

Thus, it was not considered wrong to embellish, poeticize, and even create histories for nations, societies, and even individuals. If Jesus needed a birth narrative to fit him into the Hebrew mythos, one could be created for him. It was an accepted and commonly-used practice. Few if any at the time would have given it a second thought; few if any cared if it was literally true or not. It was mythos, after all.

But, over time, "histories" like the Gospels (which are really "faith documents"), written as mythos, tend to be accepted "literally". For a long time, however, whether the Gospels, or the Old Testament stories, were myth or literal history was not important to most. The literal truthfulness of the accounts was not what was important. What was important was the "metaphorical" truths they portrayed. Who cared if Noah's Flood really happened? That was not the important thing about the story.

"Biblical literalists" are apparently ignorant of this. The notion of "biblical literalism" is a relatively recent development, a reaction to the "Enlightenment", the "Age of Reason", the rise of Science, Modernism, or whatever you want to call it. In "Biblical literalism", I'm talking about the notion that the Old Testament and New Testament stories must be accepted as literal, linear histories. In so doing, Biblical literalists are insisting on something that the authors of the stories did not intend. Their intent was to create mythos, not literal histories.

The intent of the writers of the Gospels was not to record literal, linear accounts of the birth, life and death of Jesus; they were not biographers. The intent was to create a mythos around Jesus, a mythos that "put into history" what their interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' life and death were. The importance of the stories wasn't and isn't in recording literally true events, but of creating a mythological interpretation of the events concerning Jesus (assuming he is an actual historical figure). In so doing, midrash was a commonly used method that was available to them. Events portrayted about other key figures in the Hebrew mythos, events, sayings, prophecies and writings from the Hebrew scriptures, were weaved into the accounts of Jesus' life and death to fit him into the mythos of the Hebrews.

Chili

And they were beautiful stories, artistic, colorful and eternally alive.

Here is such a story about an event that occurred in recent history.

The Titanic is the human persona (ego) that was set on course with the iceberg that represents the true identity of man. They were twain but unknown to each other and therefore twin until the collision jarred these two hemispheres into one undivided mind -- with the ego left behind as if it was the vainglory needed for this to happen.

Beautiful imagery, just gorgeous and worthy to be added to any bible.

B_Sharp

Nice posts, articulate.

However, there is another alternative that is difficult ot swallow. Let us list them for a particular story.
A STORY
1) Myth - the story is all or nearly all a fictional myth
2) Fact - it is all or nearly all, based upon literal fact, per the documentation standards at that prior time
3) Partial Myth/Fact - this story is based upon a real event but greatly embellished with exagggggeration. Like a modern movie or TV movie "based upon actual events".

The 3rd alternative, partial fact/myth, would give us the most distress because of it's unknowns AND it is the most probable based upon people natural tendancy to exaggerate fact over time.

Mageth

Yes, it's to be understood that such ancient stories can be entirely mythical, partly mythical (either based on real events and people or including real events and people), or even mostly factual; somewhere on that continuum.

JEST2ASK

:wave: :huh:
I agree the Titanic fits
3) Partial Myth/Fact - this story is based upon a real event but greatly embellished with exagggggeration. Like a modern movie or TV movie "based upon actual events".

However what do the passengers represent .... both those that perished and thos who survived ...

Chili

4) myth is metaphysical fact and therefore real.

Notice that Hardy knew the "story" and used the imagery of the Titanic to present the story. Therefore, neither history nor literal fact can be part of "the story" but they are the imagery used to present the story. It is this same concept that makes all mythologies transparent but not necessarily all religions because some religions are galloping in the wrong direction.

jonesg

I find Life of Brian to be extremely funny, and probably closer to the truth than most would care to admit, obviously ther JEsus figure ( Brian) didn't deny who he was, but the larger context of how desperate everyone was back then for a messiah...any messiah ..I think that is true and he had his share of blind followers.
EVen the bit about the spaceship can be interpreted into the bible.
I thought at first it was just brilliant comedy, but it was probably well researched.
The Christians were up in arms over it when it was released, I had a Jewish girlfreind at the time and her mother didn't think it was a good thing, if all the organized religions were against it, it had to be good.
It was and still is. Thanks for the reminder BIG NOSE.

Chili

Who cares about the passengers in this context.

It is all myth and the story is real . . . at least it was for Hardy and JC. The Titanic was just the sum-total of vainglory and human pride now left behind.

There was no greater effort to be admired then the Titanic which therefore is a perfect image of the enormous human courage that builds the ego, which in Golding was called the "Spire" that was built upon the "cross-roads" of the human chest that resembles the rugged cross upon which it must be crucified.

So it was real for Golding too.

rationalOne

Could you please define a "metaphysical fact"? How do you test for the "factuality" of a myth?

Can I just make up anything and call it metaphysically real?

Chili

Not until you encounter it in real life (but it is a good question and now I have a problem). So the test is that a myth remains myth until you recognize it in your own life as a real event.

The problem here is that not all myths are real and those who are not real I would call diluted, perverted or Disneyfied. Many or most touch upon reality and therefore appeal to our imagination wherein only that which is real can be conceived to exist. For example "pink elephants" do not exist but the color pink and the shape of an elephant can be conceived to exist.

I am not sure if we can test for the factuality of myth and must accept the factuality of myth by faith as contained in the basic articles of faith until we may, or hope to, encounter them in life. Notice that Hardy made it clear that "The Immanent Will prepared a sinister made . . . for the time far and dissociate . . . that no mortal eye could see."

The extent of religion is to reinforce this basic indoctrination (repetition) with the unleavened bread (communion), so that 'they' will remain pure and 'on' track towards this collision that must be unexpected (thief in the night) on its maiden voyage in untraveled territory (virgin birth). In this sense is frolicking much better than bible studies . . . for a drunken sailor is never lost until the church bell calls him to be reminded of his mortality.