Religion: History or Mythology?

[river]

At Jesus’ crucifixion the NT reports that the heavens and earth affirmed his deity, causing a 3 hour eclipse of the sun over all the earth, an earthquake causing Jerusalem’s temple curtain to be split in two, and graves were opened with many Jewish saints resurrected and appearing to the people in Jerusalem. (no confirmation of this appears in Jewish writings) Within three days, the Son of God, defeated Satan the prince of darkness, rose from the dead, and appeared to his disciples, then ascended into heaven. On the Day of Pentecost Jews gathered from every nation to witness the Holy Ghost descending with tongues of fire, and the Christian church growth exploded with both Jewish and Gentile converts, signs and miracles being unleashed in abundance.

Why do objective-minded inquirers of history make no mention of this astounding story? In fact, non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers make no mention of such a story. It would seem that if such events really happened they would have spread throughout the Mediterranean world! Yet, the surviving writings of some 35 to 40 independent observers of the first one hundred years following the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus give virtually no confirmation nor mention of it at all. These authors were respected, well-traveled, articulate, thinkers and observers, the philosophers, poets, moralists, historians of that era. Yet no mention of the NT’s miraculous events were even noted in history.

Regardless of Rabbinic rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the historical impact of events surrounding Jesus would probably at least be noted in Israel’s Talmudic commentaries known as the Midrash. Remarkably, not a single early rabbinic source so much as hints at the events of the events alleged surrounding Jesus crucifixion and resurrection.

Another puzzle is Nazareth. It is not mentioned once in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Talmud mentions 63 Galilean towns, yet never mentions Nazareth. Josephus, the historian of those days mentions 45 Galilean towns or villages, yet never once mentions Nazareth.

Even Origen, a Christian historian and church father 182-254 CE who lived in Caesarea 30 miles from present-day Nazareth does not mention Nazareth. The first solid reference to Nazareth comes from the Christian evangelist Eusebius in the 4th Century. The best guess is that Nazareth did not come into existence until the 2nd Century, therefore the gospels title”Jesus of Nazareth” must have been put in centuries later. This historic evidence strongly suggests why no 1st Century non-Christian Roman, Greek, Jewish historian, or Rabbinic literature mentions a Jesus of Nazareth. There was no 1st Century Nazareth.

As to the strange happenings not mentioned outside of the NT about the crucifixion-resurrection story, I have read Christians write that those people were blind, or that only believers saw the strange phenomenon. That's an easy answer for something that imo, simply never happened.
__________________

[river]

I realize that I only brought up the NT before, but there are stories in the TaNaKh, that also sound like myths. The creation myth definitely is one, Jonah and the whale, Noah and his ark. But do Jews take the myths seriously or do we understand that they were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds and hundreds of years until finally they were written down sometime in the 7th century BCE.  (I think)  During that time, word of mouth stories could easily have been changed. For instance the invasion of Jericho, when the walls came tumbling down to the sound of a trumpet.  The truth is there was no invasion of Jericho. First of all, Canaan was a protectorate of Egypt. 

Archaeologists have found absolutely nothing to indicate Jericho even had walls, only an old fort has ever been found, and not for want of trying. But herioic myths are passed down from generation to generation as this one most likely was.   Archaeologists also discovered at the time the Israelites supposedly left Egypt and wandered into the Sinai for forty years, there were no traces of any large population in the Sinai desert at that time. But they did find relics of Egyptian garrisons all over that same desert at the same places mentioned in the Bible where the Israelites supposedly camped. The dating on those Egyptian artifacts and the places they were found were the same as those mentioned in the Bible where the Hebrews supposedly camped. So there's a lot of myth and legend mixed into that story

How many others?  David and Goliath? Samson and Delilah, How about that hair cut zapping his strength.  Questionable.  Solomon had 1000 wives?  I don't remember if I just heard that, saw it in the movies when I was a kid, or it was in the bible.  Questions.

The Jewish bible goes by many names, including "The Hebrew Scriptures," "The Hebrew Bible," and "The Old Testament" (a term used by Christians, but not accepted by Jews). Jews call it TaNaKh, which is a Hebrew acronym for the three sections it contains: Torah (the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). The TaNaKh contains the books found in what Christian call the OT.

In some ways the Jewish Talmud is considered as central to present Judaism as the Hebrew Scriptures. Orthodox Jewish tradition holds that Moses received two Torahs on Mount Sinai. One was a written Torah (contained in the Five Books of Moses known as the Pentateuch). The second was an oral Torah, which according to Jewish tradition was passed from Moses to religious leaders from century to century, (as obviously in those very early times writing was a very difficult pastime) therefore it was passed down by word of mouth. What do you think?

At the end of the second century of the Common Era (CE) this “oral tradition” was codified and written down. It was called the Mishnah (Hebrew for "instruction"). A discussion of the Mishnah took place in the academies of Babylonia between the years 200 and 600 CE. They were the collection of existing oral laws, traditions and folk wisdom.

The period during which the Mishnah was assembled spanned about 170 years, and five generations.
 
So, What do you think?   Is it history or mythology? 

[river]

Well, I suppose no one on this forum thinks religion is either history or mythology, or have no wish to question or discuss it.  So sorry to have taken up space. 

[Acumen]

I'll address your OP later on this evening.  I work today, so I won't be on much today.

[metis]

So, What do you think?   Is it history or mythology? 

I think that essentially almost all scriptures are a mixture of both. 

One of the things that Joseph Campbell said was that we should look upon all scriptures in all religions as "myth", not because they're untrue, but because these are rather subjective writings that are attempting to teach certain morals and values.  Because of that, it makes less of a difference as to whether these accounts are historically accurate than what the purpose of the author(s) was in writing about these accounts.  IOW, in general, what's the author attempting to convey?  In Judaism as you well know, we often talk about this in attempting to ascertain "the meaning behind the words". 

[Acumen]

At Jesus’ crucifixion the NT reports that the heavens and earth affirmed his deity, causing a 3 hour eclipse of the sun over all the earth, an earthquake causing Jerusalem’s temple curtain to be split in two, and graves were opened with many Jewish saints resurrected and appearing to the people in Jerusalem. (no confirmation of this appears in Jewish writings) Within three days, the Son of God, defeated Satan the prince of darkness, rose from the dead, and appeared to his disciples, then ascended into heaven. On the Day of Pentecost Jews gathered from every nation to witness the Holy Ghost descending with tongues of fire, and the Christian church growth exploded with both Jewish and Gentile converts, signs and miracles being unleashed in abundance.

Why do objective-minded inquirers of history make no mention of this astounding story? In fact, non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers make no mention of such a story. It would seem that if such events really happened they would have spread throughout the Mediterranean world!

A few different factors should be taken into consideration. 

• First, a lack of historical records should not be erroneously confused for a lack of historical events
• Second, perhaps the supernatural phenomena was only regional.  For instance, the 3 hour duration where "darkness came over all the land" may have been caused by a local overcast rather than an eclipse.  Why presume global effects rather than regional effects?  If these famous chroniclers were as objective as you allude, there would be no propensity to record events propagated by the local gossip of an isolated region already known for religious zealotry and fantastic stories
• Third, no religion in the world spread as quickly and widely as Christianity, which can be ascribed to many different factors including false rumors of cannibalism, known martyrdom in arenas, and of course, later on by Constantine's sword.
• And fourth, there would be no reason for the Talmud to record any supernatural events of first century Palestine for the rather obvious fact that it would validate the Christian movement via subsequent recognition.  In fact, there are suggestions that Talmudic commentary may have served as a tool to deepen the traditional divide between Rabbinic Judaism and the new growing movement of Messianic Judaism.
  

[Gillyflower]

I'm with Joseph Campbell. Myths teach through entertaining stories things that are important to that culture or religion and so it is with history books as well, only add in that they are usually written by the side that won the battle.

I'm into genealogy and if you want t clear idea of how the above works you need look no farther than your own family, in most cases. Uncle Fred will tell a story different than his grandpa told and it. Things are forgotten, changed completely, fabricated, you name it in only a generation or two. I see on a regular basis people trying to "prove" their family legends (myths) and sometimes are quite shocked to discover that it never happened or it happened very differently from the way it was told and if they poke very far into their family history they will find things that were hidden, quickly "forgotten" on purpose because they were shameful.

Religious myths are like that too. It may include a little bit of history. All good stories have some facts in them to make them more believable to their intended audience. After that it may have really happened like that (unlikely), sorta happened like that (more likely), or it's just a good story, oftentimes borrowed from or by other neighboring cultures and reworked to teach the lesson that is important to the religion/culture of the time. In any case, it doesn't really matter. The lesson is the important part and that it is one more thing to ties a group together.

[gluadys]

I'm into genealogy and if you want t clear idea of how the above works you need look no farther than your own family, in most cases. Uncle Fred will tell a story different than his grandpa told and it. Things are forgotten, changed completely, fabricated, you name it in only a generation or two. I see on a regular basis people trying to "prove" their family legends (myths) and sometimes are quite shocked to discover that it never happened or it happened very differently from the way it was told and if they poke very far into their family history they will find things that were hidden, quickly "forgotten" on purpose because they were shameful.

That is certainly true.  We grew up with the story that our great-great grandfather was the archbishop of Canterbury, his daughter having given birth to our grandfather.  There was a nice romantic story of how the daughter of an archbishop fell in love with a lowly gardener to go along with it.  But research showed the lady in question would have been only 11 in the year my grandfather was born.  What it also showed, however, is that the archbishop's name was a near duplicate of another name in the family tree, so the family legend probably started out as a joke playing on the similarity of names. 

In terms of religious "history" we need to remember that what we now call mythology was the ordinary way of telling history in those times.  It was entertaining, easy to remember, and exceptionally well adapted to teaching the concepts they really thought important.  And  there was a whole tool-box of handy mythological symbols that could be woven around any person of importance.  Miraculous birth stories, angelic messengers, portents in the sky, strange phenomena of all sorts surround not only the person of Jesus but many important figures of ancient history including Cyrus of Persia, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.  The big difference is that only academics read those old stories about Cyrus or Caesar while millions of people read the stories in the bible. 

[LeahOne]

One of my favortie Jimmy Stewart movies was "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" .... there's a character who's a writer come out to interview the hero (JS) about the big moment which was the start fo his political career.  As it develops, the person who really did the shooting was JS's pal, John Wayne (we don't need to know his character's name:  all he ever played was John Wayne).....  At the end, the wroter's left with two stories he could do.  And as he's advised -

"When the legend is more exciting than the truth, print the legend!"

I think much of our (Jewish and Christian) Biblical narrative developed in a similar way.  And as I see the Bible as a Book for moral inspiration, the idea of every detail of its narrative not being an actual event is not a troublesome thought.  For I've no doubt the sages who wroite it down were indeed inspired by GOD to do so.