spamandham

Abraham, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses....

The idea that any of these were historical is preposterous, yet the ancients (and even a lot of moderns) believed them to be.

Toto

William Tell was accepted as historical for a while, but is now considered to be a myth.

Confucius is probably mythical.

The Trojan war might be myth or history - who knows?

But take an example closer to home. Much of what people believe about American history is probably mythical. We were not founded as a Christian nation, George Washington didn't kneel in prayer, and probably didn't add "so help me God" to the presdential oath. Historians have a difficult time separating the myth from historical facts.

Elijah

None of those are preposterous to assume a historical core. It’s how literal you take the trappings of the story.

spamandham

You're expectation is not reasonable. A myth-turned-history is very unlikely to leave hard evidence that it started as a myth. The best we can hope for is soft evidence that makes "myth" more reasonable than "historical core".

If you think there's a historical core to Adam, then I think the word "myth" no longer has any meaning at all.

Elijah

There should be evidence not only in the culture of the myth prior and after to the supposed event but in surrounding cultures of the myth remanifesting under different historical settings.
Of course there is a historical core to the first man and woman. Did they appear in a magic garden and the lady sprang forth from a rib? No, obviously not but there for sure was a historical first man and woman or we wouldn’t be here now.

Elijah

The tales of Tell are fiction but that doesn't disprove a historical core. Like the legends behind King Author, Robin Hood and George Washington are generally added to historical cores not mythological origins confused for historic accounts. That’s the natural way of things. What you are proposing is a rare to very rare occurrence and should be supported before believed in.

Who knows on the accuracy of the statements regarding the Trojan war but to think there wasn’t a war that it was based on is kind of farfetched IMO.

What are you basing the Confucius is mythical on?

spamandham

That isn't how evolution works, nor even if it did, could that reasonably be considered a historical core.

I don't think you understand what a myth is.

Elijah

Yea it is. Someone had to go from monkey to man or lady first and whatever it could reproduce with was the other first. Regardless of the trait or divide you place between us and our genetic ancestor there was still a first.

I don't think the problem is with my understanding of myth but maybe your understanding of historical core.

spamandham

Wrong. That isn't how evolution works. It's impossible for there to have been a first man or a first woman, because in nature, one generation does not beget a new species in the next. The concept of a species is an artificial categorization that does not actually exist in nature. This is the same type of faulty thinking that led to the Adam myth in the first place.

Since there can not have been a first man, Adam can not have a historical core. But worse, that isn't even what 'historical core' means in this type of discussion. 'historical core', means there was an actual theoretically identifiable person who was admired enough for stories to be spread about them, and those stories became blown all out of proportion.

Elijah

Yea but the random genetic mutations that differentiate us pass from one to the next. Unless you are using a less then conventional model of evolution. Which I'm all for but you should explain. Species do exist in nature by our ability or inability to reproduce viable offspring with other organisms.

There is the man with the first genetic trait that distinguishes us from our genetic ancestor... that is the first man... that could be identified and admired or admonished depending on your view of the world.