Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 1

message: ← :Category_talk:Christian mythology
While it is true that a myth need not be untrue, placing stories generally accepted as true by Christians in this category could easily be taken as POV, and insulting POV at that. Please think carefully. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Let me begin to explain why there is a problem of perception here, when the "Mythology" category is applied to biblical stories.  I'll use on-line resources if I can find them, so that you can look these up, if you want. But, I'll try to limit myself to one main point at a time (assuming the discussion needs to continue). BEDBT Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology makes the following points about "Myth" in a biblical context.  
: The word "myth" (Gk. muthos [mu'qo"]) only appears five times in the Bible, all in the New Testament, and all but one in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16). All of these were translated in the King James Version as "fable." 
It does little good to throw an evangelical (or anyone else whose view of the world is primarily biblical) the bone of "this doesn't mean that the story is false" when you use a word that to him means "false".  You may tell him he's wrong.  He will have a hard time believing that you know what you are talking about.  Help him by pointing out the following — the article goes on to say this:
:This unrelenting use of "myth" by the Bible as a synonym for lies and falsehood is ironic, given the present positive valuation put on the term. While the common person still uses the word as the Greeks did, to describe something that is untrue, this is not the way sociologists of religion use it.
The modern (post-modern) prevailing dictionary definition is the opposite of the old meaning of the word. "This point of view would argue that ultimate truth has no connection with historical facts":
:  ... Instead of being false because of its failure to conform to a scientifically derived view of reality, it is true precisely because it does not!
And as this view has grown in popularity, Christians have begun to use it.  It has seemed to them to be a decent compromise, which sets them free in several ways. First, it allows them to speak boldly of "biblical truth" (Creation, Christ, Salvation) in terms of Heilsgeschichte (Salvation history) without fear of contradiction by a geologist, a biologist , an engineer, or even an historian - so long as the Christian stands safely on his island of "spiritual truths" and so long as science behaves and does not transgress into territory where it claims it has no interest.  So long as the Christian speaks of the Bible as "Myth" he will be unmolested.  
This is very confusing, and a sad corruption of language.  But it has come about through the strange bifurcation of reality, which prevails in our times, that separates "Fact" and "Truth".  However, not everyone agrees with this schizophrenic approach to the Bible.  If the Bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin, this is not a "myth" to these Christians.  Quoting a modern dictionary does not solve this problem for him, not because he is "obtuse", but because he does not buy into the Kantian divide between facts and faith which forms the basis of this dictionary definition.  This applies also to any other Christian for whom the primary meaning of a story in the Bible is "historicity".  To him, if Jesus was resurrected - meaning, an historical reality - then the New Testament account is not "myth" in the old sense.  What does it mean for it to be called Myth in the new sense?  In either case, it is not what these Christians (myself included) believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, how is what you "believe" relevent when we are talking about facts? This is a fact based encycopedia, supposedly. The definition of the category fits, and it is the problem of the offended that he is offended, not the category. It does matter that someone believes that it is true, but for the exact opposite reason you state. It would NOT be a myth, if no one had ever believed in it. The classic Greek mythology would not be mythology had no one believed in it. So far you really have done nothing but make my case for me. FestivalOfSouls 19:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The disgreement as I'm trying to frame it here, is over whether Wikipedia should adopt the terminology of common usage (the common view, that "mythical story" is equivalent to "historically false") or the definition as used in academia (that a "mythical story" is not concerned with "facts", but rather possibly with "truth" in some other sense), when categorizing an article as "Myth".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What you are doing here, FoS, is the equivalent of going up to someone whose parents were not married and shouting "You're a bastard". From a dictionary definitional point of view you may be correct, but it is neither helpful nor likely to be understood in the way that you claim to intend. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it would be nice if people would be nice, that isn't the issue, in my view. The problem is that regardless of how "correct" the definition is said to be, "Myth" does not describe these Bible narratives as many of us understand them.  When these scholars use the word "myth" they do not mean what we mean when we interpret these stories.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You seem to miss my meaning whenever I speak of a group's "belief" or "understanding".  I'm not setting that over against facts. I'm explaining a fact that has to do with the way these stories are categorized - some in one way, others objecting. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When, if ever, is a Myth not a myth 

message: I think that the imprecision of the term, despite its academic pedigree, and the problem of a naturalistic assumption being pushed by the use of the term, will be aggravated if the label and the category are used ambivalently.  Does any academic call parables "Myth"? Or are the Parables labelled myth because they are attributed to Jesus, who is a character in one of the Bible's "(on some level) true narratives". Is there support for removing the sub-category "Christian Mythology" from the parables of Jesus? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point.  Parables are specific stories told to relay specific points.  Myths, to me, seem much larger, with much "bigger" meanings.  That's just my take.  KHM03 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so, Just remember that the myths that would no longer be in a subcat of mythology need to be recategoriezed. FestivalOfSouls 16:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which myths, if the parables are not myths? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrines and Parables are myths? 

message: In case you haven't noticed, I've put this category up for a "Call for Deletion" - follow the link on the Cat page and vote or leave comment... Thanks, Codex Sinaiticus 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't support that, Codex.  There are many Christian stories, especially extra-biblical, that are considered mythology (by everyone). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't support that either, for the same reason. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD 

message: : The ironic fact is that, academics often mean "true" when they say "myth".  I believe that most people hear "historically false" or "religiously invalid" when they hear "myth" - the first definition you pointed to, is the one most people intend.  Because haters of religion use the scholarly definition in a facetious way, and defenders of religion will take offense, the category or sub-categories of Mythology are not useful in a collaborative forum for describing articles on the Bible, (let alone doctrines, which is a misuse of the academic terminology).  In addition, the application of the term is not as simple as applying a definition.  From a naive point of view, academics who use it are double-minded about this: they are engaged in a project to de-mythologize the Bible - that is, to see the history behind the myths (see, they told you they didn't mean it was "unhistorical").  Some narrative elements they see as "myth" and other parts they interpret as "prosaic" or "historical"; thus: the "Search for the historical Jesus" uses narrative to find the non-mythical narrative!  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you...KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also. DJ Clayworth 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the clearest, least biased, consensus building categories 

message: : This category, per se, is not wrong however.  It must not be deleted, and its sub-categories must remain. But with the reader and amateur editor in mind, technical terminology should be avoided for first order categorization (the one that appears on the articles).  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're suggesting using the "common" definition of "myth" and not the academic definition...is that correct?  KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - but only for some purposes.  I'm sorry this is confusing, but I'm not sure that's all my fault.  We should use this category with consensus as the guide.  In some cases, it will be applied to Biblical stories.  I regret that, as it certainly is not my view.  However, it should not be applied presumptively, without regard to the common definition of "myth".  In most cases, it should be applied to articles which discuss the mytho-poeic elements of the story, and which express that interpretation as the prevalent one.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: So what stories would you include, and what stories would you not include (understanding that your theological preference is to exclude all of them)?  KHM03 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a toughy; but as I mentioned before, wherever tradition, scholarship and popular perception supports calling a story "myth", how can I object that this is not my point of view, or the point of view of most conservative Reformed or Evangelical people?  I would have to yield to the consensus (I can foresee this going completely out of my hands).  I am very hesitant to make a list, however.  My conscience has limits to how far I am able write for the enemy, and I'm approaching it, here - especially with regard to the narratives of the New Testament.  I suggest one that started all this - on so many levels I resist opening this Pandora's box - Christ killer, and the myth attributed to Christian tradition, beginning in the New Testament,  that "the Jews" (as an entire people) bear the guilt of Jesus's death.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with this also. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this category! 

message: : Create a different category for Bible stories - for example, "Biblical narratives".  Explain on that page why that page is sub-categorized as "Mythology".  Use a link to the Mythology page to explain the academic use, on the main category page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all Bible stories are mythological, however.  KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create new categories and sub-categorize them as "Mythology" 

message: : Doctrines also, like Original sin, are not mythology.  Parables are not mythology, although they are in narrative form.  If the academic terminology is going to be employed anywhere (and it should), it should be used appropriately. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly, and that's been my chief point.  The Garden of Eden story might be myth...original sin is not.  Doctrine is not equivalent to narrative.  That misunderstanding seems, to me, to be at the root of the issues folks have had with FestivalOfSouls.  KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the doctrine is NOT a myth. However it is based on a myth, and the article discusses a myth. When people are looking through a category, they do not JUST want articles that are about a myth, but those that DISCUSS a myth. Addionally, articles that are about the effects of a myth, which doctrine, is one, would be relvent as well. Original sin both is about a myth, but contains a significant portion of that myth it is about. As such, the categorization is appropriate. The categorization is not saying that the doctrine itself is a myth, but that the article has mythical content. 134.161.244.125 19:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should implement a categorization scheme that accomplishes the user-oriented usefulness (that's a good thing) that you are pointing to.  We should not use a scheme that could, either through malice or confusion, end up causing every article on religion being labelled "Mythology" (unhelpfully, and provocatively). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not misuse the academic definition 

message: ;Should be a disclaimer
# 
;No disclaimer
#~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for a disclaimer

message: I concur that "Christian mythology" and "Jewish mythology" should be retained as categories. Perhaps we should just add "New Testament stories" and "Tanakh stories" categories under Christianity and Judaism, respectively? And if we have to categorize the "Resurrection" page, for example, it goes in "New Testament stories" rather than the potentially controversial classification as "Christian mythology."  Codex, and everyone, what do you think about this? --Peter Kirby 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what WOULD go in christian mythology, if not articles about myths that christianity as a generic group believes in? FestivalOfSouls 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Articles about myths that Christianity as a generic group does not believe in, which were nonetheless written by Christians and related to Christianity.  An argument could be made that in the context of the New Testament, "myth" had a meaning that should be used in such a context: "a word that occurs in the NT, where it refers to false and foolish stories that are to be rejectd as misleading and dangerous: 1 Tim. 1:4 ('myths and endless genealogies that propmote speculations rather than the divine trainingthat is known by faith'); 4:7 ('old women's profane myths'); 2 Tim. 4:4 (opposite of 'the truth'); Titus 1:14 ('Jewish myths and commandments of those who reject the truth'); and 2 Pet. 1:16 ('cleverly devised myths')."  Since vocabulary should be used according to the subject matter on Wikipedia, calling a NT story a "myth" is tantamount to saying it is untrue, even foolish.   That is an editorial decision that is not for us to make as Wikipedians.  Further, it reeks of politics.  Who is going to look under "Christian mythology" hoping to find "Resurrection"?  I mean, besides those who would take pleasure in the decision to so characterize the Christian faith.  As Mark said, there is a complicity here between the academic and the wag who ridicules outmoded mythology. --Peter Kirby 21:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, OK, stop arguing that the term is bad, and start making suggestions. We all agree a better term can be used. You can argue until you are blue in the face, and even with any sort of negative connotations due to you thinking  people are too stupid to actually know the meaning of a word, no better term has been suggested or agreed on. Short of a better term, this is what we have. Anyone writing a paper, or reseaching the beliefs and myths of christianity would use the category as the navigational tool it is supposed to be. FestivalOfSouls 00:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section of the page is called "reiterating my suggestion".  I have made one. --Peter Kirby 02:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The answer to your question is that articles would go in there about stores that are generally accepted as mythological in all usages of the term, rather than just in the academic sense. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't work that way, bud. In order for an article to fit the definition of a word, it need only correctly fit one or more clauses of a definition. IE both the little box on a map and the story of King Arthur are both legends, they both meet one or more, but not all clauses of a definition. Conversly, however, in order for a article to NOT match a definition, it cannot meet ANY of the criteria or clauses. Just because the story of King Arthur is not a box on a map describing what the icons mean does not make it less of a legend. FestivalOfSouls 15:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And if you follow your own link, I support that motion, as I did the original motion that basically did the same, as long as the disclaimer is NPOV and points out that wiki is using the dictionary definition, and not using a definition wikipedian's made up like Codex originally implied.  FestivalOfSouls 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The legend example is not a perfect analogy, as it is impossible to be both a story about King Arthur and a little box on a map at the same time.  On the other hand, a myth can be a story about a belief that is historically true or a story about a belief that is historically false or simply an unfounded or false notion.  We are not defining a word; we are defining a category.  "What is a myth?" does not have a single answer.  "What is the defining characteristic of an article in the Wikipedia category :Christian mythology?", on the other hand, must have a single answer, which must be clearly articulated and not bear misinterpretation and which must not imply truth or falsehood. Hence the proposed disclaimer to be added to any article in the category (see Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#A_new_suggestion).  JHCC (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiterating my suggestion