Talk:Jewish mythology

message: This arcticle is as informative as it could possibly be without going into so much detail on judaism noone would be able to read through it. -Rafi Letzter
I hate to say it, but this is a really [bad] article.  It does not specify who has the views provided -- many people or few, scholars or non-scholars, critical or orthodox, clerical or lay -- so it is fundamentally uninformative.  The phrase "some people" in this particular context is laughable (ALL views are held by "some people").  Perhaps some narrow groups of people use "mystical vs. mythological" this way, but it does not seem to reflect sound schoalrship on Jewish mysticism, nor does it use the words "myth," "mythology," or "mythological" the way social scientists, historicans, or literary critics use the terms.  There are some people active here who know more about Jewish Studies than I do, but I am fairly well-read for a non-expert and none of this makes any sense to me, so what value does it have for a wider audience except to misinform them?  If there is some value to this article, then at the very least it needs much more context and specificity for it to make sense.  I can't begin to improve it without just deleting it and starting from scratch, so if I have misunderstood the article as intended by the contributers involved, I hope they will work on this, soon Slrubenstein
:Slrubenstein:Many Wikipedia articles have started off far worse than this one has. To sit on the sidelines and sling mud at an article, especially by using an "expletive" that should be "deleted", in the context of a scholarly discussion is very sad. Maybe you should clean up your own act and wash your figurative mouth out with some soap and water before passing judgment on a subject about which you admit you know nothing. However, be that as it may, yes, this article, like tens of thousands of others on Wikipedia needs work and polishing, which it will invariably get eventually. Cool your heels. IZAK 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I find myself agreeing with IZAK.  What a day. - Gilgamesh 11:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with SLR's comments in full. RK 13:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Let's face it. This is my religion, yet I consider the Torah and Tanakh to be rooted in mythology, same as any other religion. Just because those folks in the frum end of the religion call it mysticism, not mythology, does not change that fact. However, because some folks don't consider it mythology, my views obviously wouldn't be NPOV. Go figure. Oh yeah. And some of you would point out I'm writing on Shabbat, and you'd point out it was a mitzvah NOT to write on Shabbat. Whatever. Point is this: Mythology is mythology, whether it concerns Ragnarok or the worship of the Golden Calf.  Rickyrab 07:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: I don't think it makes any sense to have an article on Jewish folklore, aggadah and on Jewish mythology. Indeed, one might fairly say that Judaism has no indigenous mythology distinct from its theology and aggadah.  Of course, it is also fair to say that the Hebrew Bible is permeated with stories that have all the characterisitics of what is termed mythology. Yet the study of Biblical studies from the perspective of myth is far from the discussion of Kabbalah as myth. It seems to me that we need to remove this particular article on Jewish mythology altogether, as it attempts to combine far too many distinct topics into one article.  As such, I propose that we use this scheme:
:Jewish folklore - Studying Judaism's folklore from a historical perspective.
:Aggadah - About the non-legal teachings in classical rabbinic literature.
:Kabbalah - Our present article on Kabbalah can include scholarly studies of mythological tendencies and themes within Kabbalah. If this section becomes too long, it can be spun off into its own article.
:Biblical mythology - A new article that I just created, discussing how scholars analye Biblical themes and stories as myth. RK 02:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thats not a bad proposal. I think Jewish Mythology should point to the page on kabalah and on aggadah. StephenGoldmeier
After five months no one has disagreed.  I this will redirect this currently useless article to Jewish folklore, and make sure that this article links to the other articles mentioned above. RK 03:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Reasonable proposal. It seems to me that the Biblical mythology article might better be part of a more general article on modern critical approaches to the Bible, summarizing things like the Documentary Hypothesis, archeological and anthropological approaches, literary approaches, etc., which could always spin off sub-articles as needed. It seems to me that the very act of characterizing subject-matter as mythology reflects a POV and the article titles might better describe approaches (i.e. "ethnographic approaches to the Bible" rather than making what would appear to be claims about the content "Biblical mythology" --Shirahadasha 05:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new proposal

message: I just came across this article and was shocked by the amateurish approach to this subject. As a fairly knowledgeable Torah Jew, I know that what you read (in the Torah, Mishna, Talmud, etc.) cannot always be taken at face value. This article purports to "analyze" something called "Jewish mythology" on its face. That is, if the Talmud talks about flying dragons, it must mean that the Sages believed in flying dragons. Nothing can be further from the truth. Often these descriptions are analogies or oblique references to deeper teachings which the Rabbis of the Talmud preferred to keep hidden from the eyes of the general public. Thus, Talmud must be learned with a teacher; else you could come up with all kinds of crazy ideas like those espoused in this article. I agree with Slrubenstein and RK that something drastic needs to be done here. However, RK's very good suggestion of redirecting this to Jewish folklore has apparently backfired, because Jewish folklore is a redirect to Jewish mythology! I have put a notice for clean-up on the main page, but I would really like to submit this for AfD. Yoninah 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try, but I doubt it would pass.  You could always reverse the redirects. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The notion about "flying dragons" being coded proxies for other meanings revealed only to legitimate students has a parallel in medieval astrological practice where writings that are ridiculous on their face actually describe procedures meant to be understood only by adepts. Myron 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the redirect?

message: Article was discussed at Wikiproject Mythology today and page saved.. I put my 2 cents keep the page as in important topic on its own. Maybe some experts can  help it from the Judaism project. Goldenrowley 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page saved

message: I notice the comparative mythology section was deleted today and have a feeling Phatius plans a major rewrite which will vastly improve it, but if not, can we salvage at least some of it?  It wasn't all bad in my honest opinion. Goldenrowley 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I felt that the section (now) titled "Interaction with other cultures" is the real comparative mythology section in this article. The (now deleted) "Comparative mythology" section seemed to be all about customs, superstitions, etc., and it mentioned few or no actual traditional narratives. Instead of restoring that section, I suggest we expand the "Interaction with other cultures" section, using bits and pieces from the "Comparative mythology" section if they're helpful. In particular, Goldenrowley, feel free to add a subsection on Flood myths. --Phatius McBluff 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I moved the section I titled "Interaction with other cultures" and renamed it "Comparative mythology". Now we can get to work adding more comparative mythology info into it. --Phatius McBluff 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough! Thanks for explaining. Goldenrowley 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes that sounds logical. Goldenrowley 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comparative mythology

message: "The people's tendency to adopt the neighboring pagan myths, denounced as it had been by the Jewish prophets, returned with force during the Talmudic period, probably under the influence of the Babylonian and Persian" 
I'm a Persian Jew, who has studied Judaism and Persian history for years, and I could not believe it when I was reading the aforementioned statement. Even though there are no citations, for those historically illiterate people in regards to Jewish history, the Persians saved the Jews from the Babylonian rule, not once, but twice, to the happiness of many Jews and perhaps to sadness of a few Rabbi's. And ever since Arya Mehr right until the Islamic Conquest, Persians practiced Zoroastrianism to a level that surpasses the strict obedience most muslims show Islam. Not only is Zoroastrianism the oldest recorded dualistic religion, Iran (modern Persia) was also the home to all the Vedic scriptures that eventually resided in India. Please stop all this nonsense and defamatory anti-Persian writing that is starting to occur all over Wikipedia, not only defying archaeological evidence, but also deceiving readers. To all you Pyramid lovers who love to claim everything triangular, try to bring facts to the table and don't call yourselves Jews. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you find it offensive that Jewish prophets could have denounced Persian myths? I guess we can look at the scripture to see if it was historically denounced, or not. I think prophets denounced many things. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paganism 

message: What does "generally the sacred and traditional narratives that help explain and symbolize the Jewish religion" mean? Tanakh is not a "traditional narrative"--Meieimatai 12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition does not fit the subject 

message: I removed the image because one can not very well represent "mythology" of one culture with images from another culture, particularly created by a non-expert in the field--Meieimatai 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gustave Doré Elijah image 

message: "While use of "legend" in modern academia is assigned a low level of verisimilitude, this contradicts the practice by which Torah and its associated literature constitute a work with "a high degree of verisimilitude which means that the work is very realistic and believable; works of this nature are often said to be 'true to life'." That Torah is "true to life" is self-evident because it is practised as part of the lives of those Jewish families and communities that choose to do so."
This is clearly biased. First, who said the part in quotations? Or is it just another instance of a Wikipedia user putting their thoughts in quotations and pretending that it is a scholarly source? Second, just because there are millions of Jews in the world, the verisimilitude of the Jewish holy text is not suddenly raised to the status of "true to life", and is most definitely not automatically "self-evident". Nearly every single Ancient Greek practiced Greek Polytheism, yet nowhere in Wikipedia is Greek Polytheism called self-evidently true to life. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To avoid an edit war, I've refrained from reverting the changes made by the editor who wrote that section. However, he hasn't provided any citations, and I'm losing patience. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The painting shown at the beginning of the article is not relevant to the article itself. The article is titled "Jewish mythology". The painting is not at all a depiction of a myth. Saxophilist (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. No objections to removing the painting. Thank you. Saxophilist (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just removed it. The page would be better with some kind of picture at the beginning. Just make sure it's a pic of an actual myth this time. Any suggestions? Saxophilist (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting? 

message: So, this article reads like it was written from the modern narrative of Judaism, or at least the narrative of monotheistic, mystic Judaism.  Which is fine, but shouldn't it also include sections from Jewish myth's earlier incarnations?  For example, this article describes a monotheistic people who are, in some ways, "tricked" into worshipping neighboring gods.  This is ahistorical, which is fine for mythology, but before that revision of history occurred, the mythology consisted of something else.  Modern-day Jews have the authority, absolutely, to write their own historical account of Judaism to be taken as cannon.  But I think we do a disservice to the scholarship of Wikipedia by behaving as if the revisionist narrative of Jewish mythology (which is not identical to Judaism) is the only narrative.  169.231.35.176 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This critique (above) loses substantial claim to academic credibility with the use of "cannon" instead of "canon". (A simple "Show preview" and a proofreading before "Save page" would have been useful in catching the error, or typo, unless the writer was in fact unaware of the difference in meaning and spelling.) The article this date is by no means a "revisionist" treatment, rather it is an adequate introduction and exposure inviting further inquiry and study of the subject. The fact that not everyone will agree or disagree with everything in the article, and simultaneously from a widely divergent spectrum of different points of view, is a mark of its (currently) encyclopedic NPOV. Wikipedia is not intended to be a textbook vehicle for exhaustive treatment of any subject matter. As pointed out (above) substantial differences in understanding and use of the term "Mythology" as differently applied in different disciplines of research and particular fields of study is problematic when no specification is offered. I attempted to reduce the problem by addition of the Judaism sidebox, by some additions to the section "See also", and by linking the WP article "Mythology", which inclusively states that some cultures' mythologies relate "truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events" (sources for this assertion are cited there). This is my 2 cents worth, for what it's worth. I wish you well. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV versus historical revision 

message: The Hebrew Bible uses the ter. מלאכי אלוהים (malakhi Elohim; Angels of God), The Hebrew word for angel is "malach," which means messenger, for the angels are God's messengers to perform various missions. מלאכי י י (malakhi Adonai; Angels of the Lord), בני אלוהים (b'nei elohim; sons of God) and הקדושים (ha-q'doshim; the holy ones) to refer to beings traditionally interpreted as angelic messengers. Other terms are used in later texts, such as העליונים (ha-elyonim, the upper ones, or the ultimate ones). References to angels are uncommon in Jewish literature except in later works such as the Book of Daniel, though they are mentioned briefly in the stories of Jacob (who according to one interpretation wrestled with an angel). Daniel is the first biblical figure to refer to individual angels by name. It is therefore widely supposed that Hebrew interest in angels developed during the Babylonian captivity.Judaism: The Postexilic Period  International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 CE), specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon.
There are no explicit references to archangels in the canonical texts of the Hebrew Bible. In post-Biblical Hebrewism, certain angels came to take on a particular significance and developed unique personalities and roles. Though these archangels were believed to have rank amongst the heavenly host, no systematic hierarchy ever developed. Mikael, who serves as a warrior and advocate for Galilee (), is looked upon particularly fondly. Gabriel is mentioned in the Book of Daniel () and  as well as many Merkavah mystical texts. 
In the Kabbalah there are Twelve Archangels, each assigned to one sephira: Raziel (other times Jophiel), Zaphiel, Zadkiel, Khamael, Raphael, Haniel, Michael, Gabriel, and Sandalphon. Chapter 20 of the Book of Enoch mentions seven holy angels who watch, that often are considered the seven archangels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saraqael, Raguel, and Remiel.Metzger & Coogan (1993) Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 54,  The Life of Adam and Eve lists the archangels as well: Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael and Joel.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain_Knight (talk • contribs) 
:: you have cited no professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims, which is your responsibility.  Your personal beliefs, no matter how strongly you hold them, are not considered some divine truth that everyone else has to acknowledge -- neutrality is based on duly weighted summaries of reliable sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: In Hebrewism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jewish mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807181158/http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm to http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When reading the discussed Talmud page, it seems the Tigris is mentioned there as well as a Lion, but it seems that the Lion refers to Arieh Leib Liefshits
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/אריה_לייב_ליפשיץ
No other place repeats this mention of "Tigris", so the decision to make it a known legend is odd. Ymoran00 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lion named Tigris? 

message: In the "In popular culture" section, the fifth bullet point entry begins "The flood was a story of a world catastrophe, and the survivors," but there is no end to the sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.224.141 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfinished sentence