Once again I want to make it clear I'm just an interested layman, not a historian and claim no expertise on all this. I think the problem is you are picking and

Once again I want to make it clear I'm just an interested layman, not a historian and claim no expertise on all this. I think the problem is you are picking and choosing what you think is true from a given text, and then offering up an explanation that you can neither prove nor falsify. To use a less touchy example let's say I wanted to come up with a Euhemeristic explanation for the Minotaur. Well obviously Pasiphaë didn't really get pregnant from a bull, so maybe instead she just gives birth to a deformed child. And the child can't literally have horns, so maybe he just had gigantism and some sort of weird growths on his head. And Athen's presumably wasn't really sacrificing 14 youths to be eaten by this person so maybe the king just demanded Athens supply a bride for his deformed child. And the Minotaur couldn't have really lived in an elaborate maze so maybe Theseus just sneaked into the palace and stabbed the dude. Well now I have a reasonablish explanation of the "real story" behind the myth, a deformed child is born to a king who rejects him, an unwilling bride is almost forced to marry him, and then Theseus sneaks in and stabs him. But someone else could come up with a fairly different "real story" for all of this based on what they picked and chose from. And neither of our stories would have any real proof, or provide any real insight in the lives of the ancient Greeks. The story itself does provide insight on what the people who told it thought about the world, what they thought was moral and immoral, heroic and cowardly etc. So the myth/religious text on it's own does have historical value.