Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

← 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)

Yes. I'm inclined to think though, that it might be an avenue for forming a basis of agreement, if general categories are sub-categorized here, which to most ways of reckoning (maybe not in particular instances mine or yours, but "most ways") at least contain myths. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

When, if ever, is a Myth not a myth

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Um, again, how YOU understand them really does not matter. This is supposed to be an encyclopidia. Do we misrepresent physics because YOU don't understand it? NO. We present the factual truth. Period. FestivalOfSouls 16:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Removal of categories discouraged

The following was pasted by FestivalOfSouls, copied from a relevent discussion on this topic:

_ _ You wrote at Talk:Noah's Ark#As'm't to Cat "Mythology" in relevant part, and referring to your multiple removals of the Category:Mythology tag:

 As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or 
 offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia.

I urge you to let go of your focus on

   * our uses of differing senses of "vandalism",
   * what you "happen to think" in general,
   * what, in your perceptions, "happens all the time on wikipedia", and
   * your confidence that you (despite others' disagreement) have definitively identified an "offensive category".

None of these are facts, and continuion of your demanding, for your PoVs, status deserved only by facts (and apparently status even beyond what you accord the undisputed facts) can only end badly.

_ _ In particular, you need to keep clearly in mind that a Cat tag is, both primarily and to a much greater extent than any other MediaWiki mechanism, a reverse navigational device. By that i mean that a lk, e.g., is placed in an article as a forward navigational device, taking the reader from where the lk is to some other page; in contrast -- even tho it does have a secondary effect of informing readers of the article (Noah's Ark in this case) where the Cat tag appears -- the most important fact about a Cat tag is that it enables navigation to the article it appears in, from the Cat page (Category:Mythology in this case). A link is an on ramp; a Cat tag is an off ramp. Complaining about a Cat tag stigmatizing an article is like complaining about your muffler or anti-pollution device lowering the power of your engine: they're not there for power, but for their affect on other car's drivers, and taking them off for more power sacrifices the major function for a minor benefit; that's not called vandalizing your car, but it's as much vandalism (against the environment) as is tagging a stop sign with your graffitti. (And, in contrast to your car, don't ever confuse yourself by thinking about "your article".)

" _ _ If you've really been paying attention to what happens here all the time, you should know that some grievances have no solution, and many that have one have no quick one. You've been shown the start of the clear responsible path for pursuing a remedy to your grievance. (FYI, if you are successful, that path will lead -- if the Cat is simply misnamed -- on to WP:CfD, where some new title(s) (that you and your colleagues will have to come up with) can be offered as the replacement Cat(s) to obviate the existing Category:Mythology by filling the roles it currently fills.) There may be other outcomes , unforeseeable now, that will meet you concerns.

_ _ Get on with it. --Jerzy·t 19:42 & 19:45, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Christian myths vs. doctrines

Myths and doctrines are not the same thing. Definitionally, they are different. One is often derived from another.

For example, the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden (see The Fall of Man) is a myth. This doesn't mean that it isn't true on one or many levels, and it doesn't mean it absolutely wasn't historical. It means that it is a story told to relate a point, to explain something.

From that Judeo-Christian myth, the doctrine of Original sin was developed (and ultimately its children, such as Total depravity). Original sin is not the same as the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden...one is derived from another.

Therefore, given that understanding (which is pretty much accepted by most mainstream scholars), it would be inappropriate to put "Original sin" in the category "Christian mythology". It would be entirely appropriate, however, to put "Garden of Eden" (or "Fall of Man" or whatever) in this category.

Things like transubstantiation, prevenient grace, or the Trinity are doctrines, not myths. They may be based on or related to myths, but they are not myths in any technical sense. Incarnation is a doctrine; the Virgin birth is a myth related to that doctrine (a myth I happen to believe is historically accurate). A myth is a story...a doctrine is an explanation.

I just think we need to be clear as to our terms here. Hope this helps a bit. KHM03 20:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there no ground on Wikipedia at all for incorporating the widely held view, that certain biblical stories are only true because they are historical - otherwse they would be myths? For example, Keith, how would you deal with 2Peter 1:16:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Here Peter is saying that "cleverly invented stories" are different from what they made known as "eyewitnesses". Does the term "Myth" apply to what he says they saw? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to have moved here, let me try to summarise and maybe make some points, User:FestivalOfSouls seems to be insisting that major Christian doctrines are put in this category. Several editors disagree. Festival's arguments for this seem to be that any 'explanatory story' is a myth according to the definition of myth, and in this he is technically correct. Lets review some reasons why adding articles which describe Christian doctrine (like Resurrection of Jesus) to this category is not a good idea.

1. While technically calling a story a myth does not imply it is untrue, in popular usage it does. This means that readers of Wikipedia will be misled into believing that Wikipedia advocates the position that Christianity is untrue.
2. If you add all articles on Christian doctrine to this category, then the category is useless. You might as well make Category:Christian mythology a subcategory of Category:Christian theology. The category then becomes hardly any use at all, while multiplying all the problems above.
3. If we insist that some category (other than the perfectly usable Christian theology) is created for these sorts of articles, then let's come up with a name for it that doesn't sound like we are biased. How about Christian defining stories or Christian explanatory stories. These mean the same as the sense of myth that FoS claims to mean, but don't carry the same overtones. DJ Clayworth 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying all the doctrine articles belong in the myth category, only the ones that discuss the myth in them. IE if original sin contains part of the story of Adam and Eve, then it contains a myth. If it only referenced it, then it does not belong. Each of these articles discuss the myth in them, not JUST the doctrine. FestivalOfSouls 16:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with you here, FestivalOfSouls. Garden of Eden or Fall of Man...that's a legitimate "myth". But putting original sin in the category is inaccurate. Should Hey Jude be listed under the category "Beatles members" because it makes a lot of reference to, and is utterly dependent upon Paul McCartney? Or would "Beatles songs" be the better choice? The two are not the same. That's an important distinction. KHM03 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark - 2 Peter 1:16 does indeed use the root word for "myth" (in your translation "stories", in the KJV "fables")...but the definition of "myth" is a story or a narrative which can be true or can be invented (see here). It is an imprecise term, to be sure, with several meanings. But in an NPOV encyclopedia such as this, given the academic definitions, things like the Garden are indeed myths. (Incidentally, Barth disliked the term "myth" so much he used "saga" for the Christian metanarrative...not a bad idea). There is a difference between a myth that is true (such as the Virgin birth) and one that is false (say, Pandora's Box). But both are - in 2005 technical usage - myths. KHM03 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DJ - Again, I would say that something like Fall of Man - which is a narrative - is a Christian myth. Original sin is a doctrine. One belongs here, the other in Category:Christian theology. That's my take, anyway. KHM03 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that, exept for Orininal sin the article contains the myth and a discussion about it. FestivalOfSouls 16:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

All biblical doctrines will contain some part of the narrative, and some discussion of it. They are still doctrines, not myths or mythology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The Original sin article needsto speak about the Garden of Eden "myth", because doctrines are often developed from those mythic stories (or, as some scholars say, the myths are constructed to support the doctrines). At any rate, "Original sin" is not a myth, whereas - given the academic definition of "myth" - the Garden of Eden is. KHM03 17:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

2 categories?

Perhaps we could solve the problem by having a category for "Biblical narratives" or "Biblical stories" (Garden of Eden, Virgin birth, etc.) and another for "Extra-Biblical Christian mythology" (St. Veronica, the Holy Grail, etc.). Just a thought. KHM03 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never argued that the use of myth is technically incorrect. I have argued whether or not it is helpful. We have two things here that we would like to achieve. One is the avoidance of the appearance of bias to the casual reader who associates myth with untruth (and who won't read the description in the category). The other is to distinguish between myths that even Christians agree are probably false from those that they consider true. Both these would be well served by not using the word myth for Biblical stories and the like. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just read what I edit-conflicted with and I totally agree with that solution. A category Bible stories would solve this nicely. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My prediction is that this would only be acceptable if "Bible stories" is sub-categorized as "Mythology". It pushes the problem onto a narrower arena - which is beneficial - but it might not really address the problem. My assumption is that this is a long-term-unresolvable disagreement, and that all of our measures should be oriented to managing the disagreement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not every Bible story is a myth, but some are written as myth (and, some scholars say, had "mythic-type" development). "Bible stories" shouldn't be categorized as myths, since some are not. I wonder what FestivalOfSouls thinks of this suggestion. KHM03 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(Postscript: Would unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints qualify as both "myth" and "doctrine"? Just wondering! :P Keith 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC) )

I can't think of a witty rejoinder to that cut. I haven't had as much practice, I guess ;-)

Several stories in the Bible have been traditionally regarded as "myth" - the stories of Genesis 1-11, Job, and Jonah example, seem to be interpreted that way by Roman Catholics, traditionally even. Catholics seem to have an easier time accepting the notion of "mythology" in the Bible, than I (or conservative Protestants) do - I'm thinking of G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien (but maybe compare that "orthodox" Catholic idea of myth, with the weirdness of Charles Williams) - not just in the sense that they wrote fables; but in their idea of "truth" as opposed to "facts" being the main stuff with which religion has to do. But, is it only Protestants who have difficulty with calling the resurrection a "myth"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historic fact. Now, I understand that non-Christians have difficulty with that, and will clearly view Christ's Resurrection as mythological in nature. That's fine with me. It certainly has the "ring" of myth...it just happens to be the most important truth in history. Now, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead at the parousia...that's doctrine, not myth. Keith 00:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how that doe not fit the definition of a myht. I am very interested in that.FestivalOfSouls 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Doctrines and Parables are myths?

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)

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)

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)

Which myths, if the parables are not myths? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

CFD

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)

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)

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

Definition of "Myth"

We all agree that Mythology is the "study of myths". The real question here is, what is the definition of a "myth"...

I have just looked the word "myth" up in every dictionary I can find, including Webster's Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, and the American College Dictionary... Every last one of them defines "myth" with words like "imaginary" and "fictitious".

That is also my understanding of "myth" as well as the understanding most people share, and I think everyone here also knows this full well.

This specious attempt to redefine the word "myth" on wikipedia to mean something that "may or may not be true", or to claim that "academics" (whoever they are) are "now" using the word that way, does, in my opinion, not even merit serious consideration, and noone here should be taken in by such facetiousness. This is a word redefinition campaign reminiscent of George Orwell's writings; but this is the real world, not "1984". "Myth" means what most people think it means, AND what the dictionary says it means, not what the article "Christian mythology" says it means. Codex Sinaiticus 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not "specious", really. This is a conspiracy between those who use the word "correctly" (in its peculiar, academic sense), and those who use it facetiously (who mean just what the word says in its ordinary sense). The design of the new definition is to separate belief from fact - the classic nutshell summation of the Enlightenment. Welcome to modernity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it you're being tongue in cheek... (or playing 'devil's advocate' yet again? ;o) ) You're not seriously trying to say that the dictionaries are all wrong, and these "modern academics" are correct... are you??? Codex Sinaiticus 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish that I was. No. I have to concede the point that this is the result of modern theology - it attempts to save the Bible's credibility by drawing a line between naturalistic and supernaturalistic elements, and then sets to work trying to discern "history and fact" from "truth and belief" - that is, it accepts the "Bible as Mythology". They use Ernst Cassirer's idea, that mythology is always politics (for example). It fits nicely with their view that even if the Bible is full of falsehoods, there's nothing childish or silly about it - politics is serious stuff! No, regrettably, this is indeed a legitimate academic use of the word - but I very much agree with you, that regardless of the old or the new definition, both definitions mean what conservative Christians mean by "historically false" or at least "historically dubious" and certainly "irrelevant as historical fact". A prime example: the resurrection as myth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As regards "modern theology" I really don't know what "modern theology" in YOUR Church says, but I would consider that to be a point-of-view if I ever heard one, because nobody has authority to dictate theology to every single Church. I don't feel any personal need to "save the Bible's credibility", so I guess I'm not included in whoever you were describing. But all this theological talk aside, these "modern academics" still lack the authority to re-define an English word like "myth" as it appears defined in every major dictionary; ie, implying that something is "fictitious" or "imaginary"... If we were to credit these self-styled "academics" on wikipedia with having the power to redefine words from what the dictionary says they mean, it just looks like something straight out of George Orwell. Welcome to reality. Codex Sinaiticus 23:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Codex, you're not equating "modern" with true, or right, or better, are you? What we are dealing with here though is a reality - it is an anomalous reality, but a fact nevertheless. Many Christians do not believe in the Bible as history. As preposterous as that sounds, it's true. Are you saying that this is the first time you realized that? They have constructed a new way of believing the Bible, which they think is less fragile than the old one.

And whether we like it or not, people do have the power to swap labels on the bottles. If today, "vicarious atonement" has come off the crucifixion bottle, and "potent political metaphor for the ideal of decentralized democracy" has been put in its place — or whatever — then "divine revelation" can be called "myth".

Anyway, my church and my beliefs don't require that other people agree with me on Wikipedia. Most of the time I am interested in seeing if I am able to correctly understand what others here believe and think, and think they know - and I offer to do the same in return. I don't have to win. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If only more religious people were as noble as you. FestivalOfSouls 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend the writings of those in the field of Narrative theology to you both. Narrative theologians (Hauerwas is pre-eminent) maintain that when we argue too much over whether or not Abraham actually existed or whether or not Moses actually led the Hebrews out of Egypt or whether or not a man really walked on water, or whatever, we miss the most important point...for Christians, this is our story...not the American Revolution or World War 2 or the Hundred Year's War or whatever...the Bible is our narrative, the story of who we are as a people. And anything the world says is subservient to that. At any rate, it might juice up the discussion. Keith 00:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There are better ways of saying this than "Myth". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's probably true..."narrative"..."metanarrative"...Barth's "saga"...these and others might be better. But "myth" is still with us. Thank Bultmann for that. Keith 00:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to Mark's statement "Many Christians do not believe in the Bible as history" - this only raises more complex theological questions, like What is the true definition of a "Christian"? For example, there is the definition that Christ Himself used - and then there might also be other conflicting or more inclusive definitions too. By the "definition that Christ Himself used", I of course refer to His Words in Matt 7:21 -

It is those who do the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven, yet not all who tell Me "O Lord, O Lord", who shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

From this definition, it could easily be argued that anyone claiming to call themself by Christ's Name, while not believing the Word of God to be true, is one of those referred to who is only crying out "O Lord, O Lord"...

I mention this only as an aside, because the real issue here of course is not who believes or doesn't the Bible to be true, but solely whether or not the word "myth" implies "fictitious" and "imaginary". Every dictionary of the English language affirms that it does, and it doesn't matter how many "modern" revisionists you line up who come up with some "new" meaning - 10 or 1000 - - the fact remains that every dictionary of the English language affirms that it does. There's no getting around that point. For this reason, "speedily renaming" the cat to something more NPOV like "Christian legends" or even "Christian sagas" or "Christian folklore" would be infinitely more acceptable. Codex Sinaiticus 02:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop acting like you can't read a dictionary. It really is frightening that you don't seem to understand the concept of multiple definitions. FestivalOfSouls 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Festival, while you're looking up words, why don't you look up the word "ambiguous"? As has been noted numerous times on this page, the word "myth", because it does have "multiple definitions" as you put it, is what we refer to as "ambiguous". Almost everyone posting to this page has agreed that a less ambiguous term would be less likely to antagonoze. Your most recent comments only reveal your attitude, that antagonism is your whole point here. Codex Sinaiticus 16:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed, I am fine with finding a different category name, as long as it fits as well, and ontains the same meaning. I would like to correct the ambiguosity, but in the meantime, since you are unable to accurately read the definition of a word and insist on spouting off lies and falshoods, I will continue to correct you. Until you are open and honest, someone will have to. FestivalOfSouls 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it does matter how many modern revisionists you line up. They have established a new definition. That really can't be the question - it's a done deal for a while at least. The issue is only this: does this slippery and esoteric, disingenuous definition serve the purpose best, of representing Biblical stories for what they are in an NPOV fashion? "A few biased religious nuts" as one eloquent user put it, think that perhaps this label is prejudicial to their point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A few modern revisionists may very well have "established" a "new deefinition" but at what point do you recognise it as a "done deal"? I don't recognise it at all, precisely because it is slippery, esoteric and disingenuous. I wouldn't call it a fait accomplis so hastily, until the new definition of "myth" passes into common parlance, and not the jargon of only a few revisionists, plus maybe of the people like yourself who for whatever reason, choose to give such revisionists undeserved recognition. Codex Sinaiticus 03:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are more people in the world who disagree on some level, than who agree with me, about almost anything I might say. If you don't give them "recognition" you cannot see what you are confronting, and fighting blindly, you may end up attacking people on your own side. Common parlance is only one measure. Scholarly definitions are another. I happen to think that, if usefulness to the public is a criterion, then scholarly definitions are not useful when they suggest such a counter-intuitive evaluation of historical narrative as to seem ridiculous - when the resurrection is called "Myth", and we are assured that it this does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen - you will be called "obtuse" and your "fanatical religiousness" will be blamed for not accepting that the label is neutral. Why can't you see that the definition is what it is, but that doesn't mean that it's best? Why do you need to have things the way they once were, to know how to go on from here? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it takes a little more than that to change the definition of a word as it appears in all the major dictionaries. And that's really the bottom line -- no matter how you or anyone else spins the "doctrinal" questions that may be involved. Codex Sinaiticus 05:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

and that is the whole freaking point. Regardless of your efforts, the dictionary does NOT say all "myths" are fictious, no matter how hard you want it to, or how many times you misread a dictionary. FestivalOfSouls 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty then. But you're really pretty much on your own, that way (and I have no idea what you mean about my "spin" - are you sure you read what I wrote closely enough to say that?) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not on my own. Let me break it down for you one more time, to make sure it's really, really clear:

This has NOTHING to do with my theology, your theology, or anyone else's. This is about two competing definitions of the word "Myth".

1. The definition appearing in Oxford Dictionary, Websters' Dictionary, American College Dictionary, and every other major dictionary, and also the definition used by 99% of the populace, namely, implying that something is "imaginary" or "fictitious".
2. Then there is the competing definition used by a tiny number of so-called "academics" (mostly on the internet) who imagine themselves on the "cutting edge", which means when they "redefine" a word, they expect everyone else to start using their definition instead of the dictionary definition. In this case, their definition is so slippery, I couldn't even give you a clear, precise explanation, because they're just playing word games for the sake of pov-pushing. An older name for these "academics" would be "scribes". Woe to them, who put one thing for another.

Now you, Mark, have made it absolutely crystal clear whose definition it is you support: That of the academics or scribes, not that of everyone else. I strongly urge you to reconsider throwing your weight behind their "definition", since it seems like you of all people should know better than to fall for that one. But it scarcely follows from this that I am "on my own", because my definition of a "myth" is the same as the dictionaries, and the same as most peoples'. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 14:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. Now I'm arguing against both sides. Terrific. I need a vacation.

You, Codex, have made it absolutely crystal clear that this debate is a waste of time. You don't even read what you are responding to. You are trying to put back on the table for discussion, an issue that I am constantly trying to take off the table. It is not the issue. You are flailing against the wind, when you try to defeat "academia" on Wikipedia. The issue is not whether Myth is defined by scholars this way. The fact is that for their purposes, it is. This is not the point - For the point, read every word of the following:

HERE is the point: The issue is, we must decide which definition is the one that should be used for categorizing articles concerning biblical theology and stories of the Bible. I have consistently, without wavering, every time, argued that "definition number 1" is what I support (the same one that you support).

I will no longer respond to you if you do not reflect what I just said. To interact with you in this forum, you must read what I write to you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if we have been in agreement all this time, I offer you my sincerest apologies... I will try to reread what you wrote more carefully, because I admit I was left with the wrong impression on what definition you support. I am happy to work with you to assure that NPOV is respected and nobody's sensibilities are offended. What do you think about the compromise renamings I proposed, that are all less apparently-POV than "Christian mythology"? I would have no problem if the cat were renamed to any of the following: "Christian Legends" "Christian sagas" "Christian folklore". I especially like "Christian legends", because the real definition of "legend" is already pretty close to what these internet-academics proclaim "myth" is going to mean in the future; ie it does not imply whether or not the story is true or false, hence it is unassailanbly NPOV. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A comment from your own request for deletion that is relevent to that last suggestion by Mr. Codex:"Comment you should know that besides Category:Christian mythology, there is also Category:Islamic mythology, Category:Jewish mythology, Category:Hindu mythology, and Category:Buddhist mythology. So, in the interests of NPOV, you either keep them all or delete them all. --Revolución (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) "

Codex Sinaiticus, I'm glad we're past that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Myth used in Biblical Studies Since the sticking point seems to be whether any biblical stories qualify as "myth," and since it has been insinuated that the wiki definition is predominantly the creation of Internet writers, I thought I might quote the discussion of two Bible dictionaries (meant to explain the meanings used in biblical studies) on the word. Here is Robert A. Oden, Jr. in The Anchor Bible Dictionary:

To qualify as a myth, scholars are beginning to agree, the material has to be (1) a story, and (2) traditional—that is, transmitted, usually orally, within a communal setting; further, these traditional stories must (3) deal with a character or characters who are more than merely human. In light of the apologetic use to which the older, 19th-century definition of myth was put (to deny the presence of myths in biblical text), note that this third criterion can be met by the presence of a single superhuman being in a tale. In addition, several of the above definitions suggest the addition of a final criterion, that myths (4) treat events in remote antiquity. That these three or four elements are the key criteria is indicated by the current definitions upon which many folklorists rely. A sample of two of these will demonstrate this: (1) “myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. . . . their main characters are not usually human beings” (Bascom 1965: 4); and (2) myths are “the traditional tales of the deeds of daimones: gods, spirits, and all sorts of supernatural or superhuman beings” (Fontenrose 1966: 54–55). Because of its brevity and yet its conclusion of three of the criteria listed above, Fontenrose’s definition is perhaps the most adequate and stands the greatest chance of commanding wide assent. (Freedman, D. N. 1996, c1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday: New York)

Here is The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

Scholars use "myth" in a more general sense to refer to stories about supernatural beings or events, etiological stories about origins, stories that embody a group's ideals or sentiments, and the like. (Achtemeier, P. J. 1996. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. HarperCollins Publishers: New York)

Here is definition one in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY

I note that there has been no move to delete the Hindu deities from Hindu mythology, even though millions believe such deities to be real and to have actually participated in past events. --Peter Kirby 19:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If, in theory, a follower of the Hindu deities took offense at having his beliefs summarily declared "mythical", we could address that when that time comes. The fact that I have not (as yet) taken up that cause is a red herring. These "Biblical scribes" you have just quoted do not speak for me or my beliefs. There are millions of adherents around the world who bristle at having their doctrines classed as "mythical", and you can't just simply brush them away as if this were undisputed. It IS disputed. Codex Sinaiticus 19:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• The Neutral_point_of_view page says that cultural bias is undesired. It is cultural bias to treat "Christian mythology" differently from every other subcategory of "mythology". But it is useful to have a "mythology" category and subcategories. The question is, how should an encyclopedia use the words "mythology" and "myth"? Your beliefs about the meaning of "myth" are not determinative here. That many people would bristle or take offense at, for example, Genesis 1-11 being placed in a "mythology" category, is also not determinative. Some people bristle at all kinds of things, including common practices on Wikipedia, such as references to "Anno Domini" and "Old Testament." What is determinative is whether it is encyclopedic to use the word "myth" in such a way (in the sense as it is defined on the wikipage). --Peter Kirby 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A categorization scheme for Biblical mythology

Thanks to all of you, and to those who are following along, for taking time to consider this problem. Please look over the following and interact. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Use the clearest, least biased, consensus building categories

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)

I'm with you...KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. DJ Clayworth 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this category!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with this also. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Create new categories and sub-categorize them as "Mythology"

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)

Not all Bible stories are mythological, however. KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral is not equivalent to "academic"

I admit that there is some imprecision in the scheme I'm proposing. It is not perfect, but it is a good faith step toward conforming the presentation of the articles to NPOV, with NPOV explained this way:

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

Academic technical language must be used in an academic and technical way. Natural language should be used in its natural way, and in ordinary contexts. To use it otherwise is the promotion of bias through the unintentional (or intentional) conflation of terms. We must know full well that "myth" has a common meaning different from, and almost precisely opposite to, its academic meaning. Using the academic definition outside of its special context, intentionally or unintentionally, "implies, insinuates and subtly massages the reader into believing" that the stories so labeled are in some sense "false".

And as noted, the academic term is neither precise nor stable. As is appropriate in academia, the term is used in various ways depending on the thesis of the scholar. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. KHM03 17:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

From the [WP:NPOV|page]]

If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

I think we will all agree that just about every expert will agree with the academic definition and that it is applied correctly, since that was never the issue, only that a religious minority is trying to push their view. Since pretty much every historian is an academic, and pretty much all academics use a permutaion of the academic definition, and wiki policy is to go with the majority of experts, it is quite clear that yet again, the anti-factual-categorization group is without a leg to stand on, again. FestivalOfSouls 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not misuse the academic definition

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)

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)

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)

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)

Myth Disclaimer

IMPORTANT NOTICE: While most English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" by the dictionary definition of "fictitious" or "imaginary", these terms, as used on wikipedia, have been agreed by consensus to have a different meaning, that does not imply this. Therefore, for wikipedia purposes, a story that is 100% factual may be described as a "myth".

Either we rename "Christian mythology" and similar categories to "Christian legends", or explanatory templates like the above should be applied to many, many pages... Codex Sinaiticus 18:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit behind this, but I think that this would have a tendency to be abused. Disclaimers and notices have a strong, established tendency to be used for advertising objections and point of view, instead of doing the work to write neutrally. The focus should always be turned toward making the content of the articles both informative and comprehensible. I don't think that such a notice would help to do that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a disclaimer is appropriate. This isn't a category stating that Christianity is a myth, but that Christians have some myths, e.g. Saint Nicholas (i.e Santa Claus) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, -Ril-, there is a Santa Claus! KHM03 20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The only argument against such a notice would be to say "It isn't necessary, because everyone already knows that a factual story can be a 'myth'."

I don't think everyone does know that. So it is entirely in order to explain to them the terminology we're using insofar as it differs from the norm.

Just out of curiousity, what would be an example of a story that you, or everyone feels is unquestionably true, that could be labelled as a "myth"...???

Let's see.. I don't dispute that the Earth revolves around the Sun in one year... So, presumably, a true and factual explanation of how the Earth revolves around the Sun in one year, could therefore be a "myth", on grounds that it is an "explanation", right? Sorry, but I just don't get this "new" definition of "myth", I think its just word play and totally facetious and doesn't belong here at all... Codex Sinaiticus 19:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How about certain aspects of American history: the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Old West...all have mythic elements to them now, retold through the eyes of historiography or sociology or even theology...various POVs. Some contemporary "myths" (which are not true) would include Star Wars or Superman or Batman. "Myth" is not a bad word, and has been used academically for some time. I guess it just doesn't bother me; for the Resurrection of Jesus to be labeled as myth doesn't bother me a bit...that has no bearing on its veracity. But you all are correct in that the average encyclopedia reader probably is unaware of that distinction. KHM03 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's one that you'll applaud. Would this be Mythology: a narrative featuring superhuman and sovereign forces (albeit, impersonal) called Kronos and Kaos, who together have created the entire cosmos and all that is in it. From this narrative, all of existence personal and impersonal, all of life and every object in it, every issue of human existance including racial superiority and inferiority, the principles of economics and indeed of thought itself, all derive their ancient explanation. It is complete with its own eschatology, and its saints and villains. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My edit just got lost in an edit conflict (but the gist of it was, that "disclaimer" was very biased and misleading. Wikipedians are not creating a new meaning of the word, infact, we are using the existing dictionary definitions. I had an alternate disclaimer typed out..:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: While many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean "fictitious" or "imaginary", these terms, as used on wikipedia, are being used by the dictionary defintion, which does not imply this. Therefore, a story that is 100% factual may be described as a "myth".

• That would be great, except that every dictionary I've sen says that "myth" does mean fictious or imaginary. What dictionary are you using??? Codex Sinaiticus 19:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Every dictionary I have looked at has had multiple definitions of a word, and only SOME of them mean fictious. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. [1] A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. [2] 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon[3]  : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion [4] Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster just being the most convieniet, but I find it hard to believe you ONLY have dictionarys that ONLY have the fictious definitions, and not multiple, including both meanings. 134.161.244.126 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if anyone is going to quote a dictionary entry for "myth", I'm glad you're going to quote the entire entry, and not just the select parts of that entry that agree with your view. Every dictionary I have seen, without exception, makes the distinction quite clear somewhere in the definition that "myth" is a word used to imply "imaginary" and "fictitious". Therefore, it cannot by any stretch be called NPOV. Codex Sinaiticus

Just pointing out to those following at home that both definitions exist, as opposed to what you are trying to mislead them into thinking. I have never said that these are the ONLY definitions that exist, like what you are trying to do. FestivalOfSouls 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Since we seem to be agreed that the word is ambiguous, why don't we try finding a category for Bble stories and the like which is not ambiguous? DJ Clayworth 21:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, DJ Clayworth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've already suggested two... Renaming the cat to "Christian legends" or "Christian folklore"... Another that has been suggested is "Christian sagas", but that has drawbaks, because like "mythology", it is a word more generally associated with something else that is not Christian.

PS I've still yet to see anyone come up with an example of a "true myth". Anyone saying a "myth" can be true, can surely provide at least one example of something everyone agrees is a "true myth". If not, you're only kidding yourself that the term is not controversial. Codex Sinaiticus 21:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

We gave you several above that fit that description. Stop thinking "history" and start thinking "literature" or "legend", and you'll think of some yourself. What do you think of, when you think of "George Washington, the father of our country"? Which stories come to mind, that lionize him, make him appear grand in your eyes? Does the picture of "George Washington crossing the Delaware" come to mind? Now think, "myth". Does the "wooden teeth" story inspire a sense of pity, or a kind of populist attachment to the man? If the latter, now think, "myth". Do you see it yet? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• So you're saying that Washington crossing the Delaware is a "true myth"? Codex Sinaiticus 22:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, would you say that it isn't ? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Mark. Washington did indeed cross the Delaware, but the event has since come to embody the bravery and devotion of the early American leaders, the danger they were willing to face, and the greatness of Washington himeslf. Now, whether the leaders were actually brave and Washington truly great is another story, but the Delaware crossing has become myth. Excellent example. KHM03 22:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say it's a "historical fact", and therefore, in no sense is it a "myth". Codex Sinaiticus 22:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's because, even though you are quoting portions of the defintion of "myth" all your comments point out to the fact that you never botehred to really read it, nor understand it. FestivalOfSouls 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

But this historic event has become intertwined with meaning, and has become "mythic" in nature. Moreso than, say, something by George Bush or Bill Clinton or even than another event in Washington's life (his farewell speech, for example). It's iconic. That's the difference. KHM03 22:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So would you support putting a "mythology" category on an article about Washington's crossing the Delaware then? I doubt it, because it definitely happened. I think it might be fair to say the Crossing has achieved "mythic proportions". But "mythic proportions" ain't the same thing as "mythology", nooooo, no at all... Codex Sinaiticus 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a category of "American mythology" wouldn't be a bad idea! Washington's crossing of the Delaware (though not Washington himself), the "Old West", etc. Seriously...that's a good idea! KHM03 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

After this category war is over, I plan to take a break and do something easy like that. FestivalOfSouls 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Washington's wooden teeth are another example; but of a slightly different kind. They were carved from hippopotamus ivory and inset with gold. Does that matter to the meaning of the story? The man had no teeth - and out of this fact, a small adjustment to the known facts was made which makes his toothlessness an endearing aspect, distinctly American, where all of our real larger than life heroes are "ordinary folk". There is no "romance" in hippopotamus ivory; but that little detail can come or go. We can know the truth, and Washington still has wooden teeth - an exaggeration, which presents the facts in their mythical frame. The "Myth" part does not come from the fudging of facts, but from the richness of the story. Now do you see it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See what? The fudging of facts? Yeah, I sure do...

Seriously, I just now looked at the entries in the actual category right now, and while I still think "Christian Legends" would be more NPOV, I have to concede most of the current entries are kind of "iffy"... (like Santa Claus for example)... Codex Sinaiticus 22:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Legends is anemic. It doesn't do the job. The difference is subtle, but significant - and if anything, it implies even more strongly, that the story is a grandiose fabrication (legend of King Arthur, legend of Roland, legend of Robin Hood). BTW, I'm surprised that you made no comment at all on my mythologized presentation of atheistic evolution. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Doesn't do the job"? And may I ask what "the job" is? "Myth" implies fabrication, "legends" does not - that's the difference. Codex Sinaiticus 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, codex, little snag here.... one of the defintions of "legend" is ... *drumroll* " A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times" uh oh, the dreaded "myth" word!!!! oh and since you seem to think that ALL definitions of a word have to apply for it to be accurate, Legend would not work, as none of these stories is " An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart." shucks... FestivalOfSouls 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you read my list? The Legend of King Arthur is quite a bit of made up stuff. The Myth of the Holy Grail, or the Legend of King Arthur and the Holy Grail - these are very like one another as to their factuality. The "Legend" idea is more focused on the complexity of the story - many myths, many real and imaginary persons conflated, many deep meanings, its like a kind of world unto itself. But it's not any less "made up". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for a disclaimer

Should be a disclaimer

No disclaimer

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Please do not use votes to decide complex issues issues like this one. There can be no substitute for discussion in this case. I object to the vote. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Ditto
3. What Mark says. --Peter Kirby 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Switching vote to agree with mark on this one. FestivalOfSouls 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

---

1. Me too. DJ Clayworth 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible as Myth

Through pervasive use of the preposition "as" ("Luke as theologian," "Mark as hypertext," "Genesis as dialogue," "Job as Greek tragedy"), it has come to indicate consideration of a subject (e.g., Genesis, Job) under a particular aspect or metaphor (e.g., dialogue, Greek tragedy). This will tend to suggest a different meaning from a vulgar "Bible myths" (taken to be false stories) interpretation. Rather, a category "Bible as Myth" will suggest that this is an interpretive matter (i.e. that people view the story "as myth" in some sense), not a statement of fact that the stories are false, and thus would satisfy the Wikipedia principle of neutrality.

For further clarification, appropriate pages could also have the "Christian history" category tagged, in addition to the "Bible as myth" category, where the text has been taken as containing historical narrative, notably Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and John (John might be controversial there, but then they all are to a given degree). This would make it absolutely clear that the "Bible as myth" category and the history category are compatible.

These are two distinct proposals. --Peter Kirby 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This makes it clear, in my opinion. Although I can't abide "Bible myth", I can "get it" when I'm pointed to the "Bible as Myth". I still don't like it, that people speak of the Bible this way; but I can more immediately grasp what is intended. This is not a merely "clever" solution, it hits the problem spot on, in my opinion. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And your other proposal (which came first in our private discussions, and made the other one seem plausible to me) is a perfectly natural way to balance the presentation of the articles - not eliminating controversy, but making peace. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but no amount of dancing around the definition changes what all the dictionaries say. They ALL say "Myth" means "fictitious". And calling a category "Bible as Myth" is pushing the pov of those who see the Bible as Myth. Categories should not be used to push POV's. I think I'm starting to like "Christian mythology" better, compared to that awful idea. Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No amount of repeating that will cover the fact that all dictionaries have multiple definitions of myth, not all of which are "fictitious". Just because one of the multiple definitions means that, doesn't mean they all do. I am ashamed for you that you never learned how to use a dictionary, and I see why you have trouble with this encyclopedia. FestivalOfSouls 15:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to note with some sad amusement, that this debacle started when User:FestivalOfSouls applied a dictionary definition with wooden insensitivity to the actual uses of the word. Now, you are doing the same. I regret that you aren't able to see this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I think that I have some grounds, for the sake of enhanced disambiguation, to ask that the Category would use a capital initial, for as Myth. Is that acceptable? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely NOT acceptable, and I'll tell you why. I don't know what your Church teaches, Mark, but mine, the Eastern Orthodox, which has hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide and is official in at least a dozen nations, categorically teaches that the Bible is not myth. Now Mark, your Church may be a different story. Now since my Church teaches that the Bible is not Myth, by any definition, and since I believe that several other Churches could be added that also agree with the Orthodox position on this, for instance Roman Catholic and Baptist, then to have categories like "Bible as Myth" is basically for a small cadre of wikipedians to fly right in the face of these Churches and use a term that is deliberately contradictory and offensive to the teaching of these said Chuches that have hundreds of millions of adherents. Now note that I'm not insisting that wikipedia teach that the Bible is "Truth". Leave that to the Churches to teach their followers, or anyone who chooses to listen to them. But surely it is not necessary for wikipedia to antagonize those Churches deliberately by stating that their beliefs and doctrines are "myth", while pretending to be a "neutral point of view encyclopedia". If wikipedia is going to become that kind of farce, I will have nothing more to do with it. Codex Sinaiticus 23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. Since you seem to think "I take offense" is a good reason to do things on wikipedia, try THIS on for size. I take offense at the use of personal opinion and church teachings as opposed to hard fact when writing this encyclopedia. On a more serious note, who cares what your church teaches? Is this a religious encyclopedia? Are the articles in contention about what your church believes? is the category? No? oh, well then, lets leave church dogma out of this and stick to facts, hokay? Feel free to include a category, or even text ont eh relevent articles as to what your church believes, but leave the categorization out. Surely it is not wikipedia's place to cowtow to your religion and throw "neutral point of view" out the window because you feel that accuracy and inclusiveness is a farce and that bias and personal opinion is more important. FestivalOfSouls 15:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls, Wikipedia doesn't pretend that there is a correct and objective perspective, as opposed to religious ones. This project would not work, if it were operated that way. Church dogma does count. I do care what his church teaches, in deciding whether the use of this category is prejudicial, and so should you.

Because, as you say, this is not "religious encyclopedia", the teaching of any church is not going to be presented as though it were simply the way things are. But neither is it an "anti-religious" encyclopedia. It is neutral, with regard to religion, and religious claims. Beliefs will be presented without prejudice either for or against them. Perhaps this is all you meant, when you said (" lets leave church dogma out of this and stick to facts, hokay? "). And I don't think that Codex has behaved any more provocatively than you have. Please avoid personal attacks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that since this is an encyclopedia, only facts should be allowed, IE the sun is the center of the solar system(outdated, but clear example), and that the church disagrees or disagreed is a minor side bar. The disagreement on the issue would be ok to include, but the article on the solar system should not be censored due to an earth-centric religious person saying they were offended. The church dogma should not dictate which facts are included. If it is a fact, then dogma cannot touch it. The only thing it CAN do, is if it is relevent, have a sentence explaining the dogma, not censoring the fact itself. The heliocetric example is a good case of this, where there was major historical relevence in including that the church argued with the model. An exaple of were dogma has no relation in an article on Diabetes. It would NOT be relevent to have in this article that some religious people think that it is wrong to take insulin, and that only prayer can heal you. Even then, adding a sentence saying just that is preferable to omitting the section on insulin due to political pressure. The dogma only has a place to increase the content of wikipedia, not decrease or censor. FestivalOfSouls 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What we are talking about is a neutral description of facts, not censorship. Writing neutrally requires selecting terms that are not prejudicially favorable to one interpretation over others, or at least not limiting ourselves to prejudicial terms. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But that is the issue. For someone to say "You can't add that, it may be factually accurate, but it offends me" is EXACTLY that, censorship! I will be the FIRST to agree to another category, or category name, as long as it covers the same topics mythology does. By refusing to call and apple an apple, you are prejudicially favoring the christian dogma based view over the fact based acedemic view. Feel free to find another term that is as accurate as this one that you feel is less predjudicial and we can talk. Until you offer a workable, acceptable, feasable aternative, all you are doing is complaining. As soom as you have CONSTRUCTIVE comments, then we are moving forward. Until then the ommission is POV, the reasons for the POV are unacceptable, and the blatent christian bias is disgusting. I'm working for a neutral,fact based wiki... are you? FestivalOfSouls 16:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It offends because it is not perceived as factually accurate. You've made it perfectly obvious that this religious perception is disgusting to you; there is no need to keep repeating it. Anyway, I don't know why you're yelling at me; I've worked on providing just what you are asking for - a "workable, feasible alternative". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean to come off as attacking you. I am tired of people using red herrings and irrelevent arguments and not being constructive. The problem with what you just said, however is that people being offended because they don't understand a word doesn't mean you should not use the word. The problem is not with the use of the word, but the ignorant complaining that they don't know what the word means. Their offense, due to their ignorance is none of my, nor should it be any of wikipedias consern. That is an issue for them, their dictionaries, and their elementry school teachers. FestivalOfSouls 18:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, FOS; this line of attack comes across as being very disingenuous. The offense comes not from ignorance of the meaning of the word, but from knowing what the word means in its ordinary sense. Some academics or sociologists of religion use the word differently; and that's why there are two definitions (the common use, and the academic use) in any complete dictionary. But just as Codex shouldn't pretend that the academic definition does not exist, neither should you pretend that the common usage doesn't exist. The word myth most commonly means "historically false". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not pretending that they don't exist, I am just admitting that they don't apply. Any intellegent adult can do so. Taking legend as an example again, one does not confuse the little box of images and descriptions on a map with a story, intellegent people can make the distinction beween multiple definitions, and i take offense that you say they can't( and by Codex's logic, that means you are not allowed to say that anymore, since someone s offended). In the absence of any more appropriate, and less "offensive" category,(which short of making a "category:absolute TRUTH" page, i doubt we will find, for some of these people will argue against anything that even HINTS that there religion is not the ultimate, unaltered, factual, word-for-word history) christian mythology is the best we can do. On this WHOLE page no one has suggested a better category, or a good reason NOT to use this one. Sure it might offend a few people, but that does not make it any less accurate, it doesn't make it any less appropriate, or even any less needed. An encyclopedia is a scholarly work, hence a scholarly definition is appropriate. It is disturbing how political this issue is. Offense does not make something wrong or incorrect in and of itself.

Anyone else tired of this debate? we keep going around in circles, lets just agree to disagree, move on, and stop wasting time arguing. We could have got so much PRODUCTIVE done on the 'pedia that was wasted on this page. In the absence of any real objections, I am going to do just that. Discussion is good and all that, but when one side refuses to compromise, or even make an effort it is just wasted effort. I have bent over backwards for you people to no avail and am sick of it. Fillibustering and avoiding any real work on the issue just to outlast the other side should not be a valid form of argument on wikipedia. I have made every effort here. Now your turn. (freaking intarweb..... post this time dang it!) FestivalOfSouls 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember that the academic definition of "myth" is not the same as the common definition, which generally does mean "fiction". I am a United Methodist Christian, an ordained pastor and committed Wesleyan evangelical (that's a lot of wiki links!), and I believe the Bible wholeheartedly. But I have no problem with folks using "myth" in the academic sense to refer to Biblical stories. Used in this regard, I (and others) are not making a judgment as to the veracity of the stories...only their structure and "type". KHM03 00:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Codex, this doesn't represent what my church teaches. I do have a problem with academics speaking of the Bible as Myth. But I understand what they mean, when they do this. And I know for certain that many times, they mean exactly what you think they mean: that the Bible is just like Greek mythology, or some sort of folk-tale on the level of, not of Washington crossing the Delaware but, Washington and the cherry tree - a fiction that no one should take for a fact. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

However, and this is the tricky part, even though I believe that you are right to say that Category:Bible as Myth is a contradiction of orthodoxy, it is not prejudicial to orthodoxy on two accounts:

1. the academic definition of Myth does not preclude the use of the Bible as history - the very use of this terminology arises from the theory that it very well may have historical (as well as transcendent) meaning. There are all kinds of reasons that I think that this view is weak, and wrong. But I recognize the difference between saying "Bible as Myth" and saying "Bible myths". All of the problems of ambiguity are still there, however, they are lessened if the word appears in that peculiar academic phrase. However, this is not what is decisive (and in fact, I would be glad if a different word would be chosen than "Myth" "Saga"? I don't know).
2. The issue that makes it decisive for me, however, was suggested by Peter and it was embarrassingly simple. He asked whether I would consider using both categories: Myth, and History, to show that the two are at least in theory or pretense, compatible. Frankly, I have no answer to that. I don't think that you do, either.

It is very refreshing to see that a non-Protestant is standing for the truth and authority of Scripture, without reservation. God bless you for that. I hope that you've met one of my favorite Wikipedians, User:Wesley, who also is Orthodox. However, Wikipedia is not a pulpit or the table of thanks, where God is exalted in undisguised terms. It is a public square. And in the public square, God is pleased to be despised and rejected by men, and unesteemed. I don't know why. I assume that it is in order to seek and to save those who are lost. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a theological debate here on whether or not "God is pleased" or anything like that... I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself... You know perfectly well that "myth" conjures up images like this:
This mythology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
You see that little picture? Now THAT is a "myth". Not appropriate for this category. Codex Sinaiticus 04:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, change the image. Go ahead, you CAN do that. The selection of an image for a stub has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE CATEGORY!!! FestivalOfSouls 15:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see exactly what you are talking about. If it were up to me, I wouldn't permit anyone to make such an insulting and false association. In fact, it is not even permitted to me as a Christian to want anything short of God's name being hallowed, and his will being done, on earth as it is in heaven. It isn't given to me to grant or to withhold permission. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wikipedia is not a religious institiution, and we need to leave bias such as that out. FestivalOfSouls 15:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that at least this part of the debate revolves on the definition of "Christian mythology." In my opinion, Biblical figures do not belong in Christian mythology if the sole source of narratives about them is the Bible. Rather, this category, and Christian mythology in general, is for extra-Biblical narratives which may or may not have a historical basis, but which certainly have become a foundation for legend: f.e. Saint Christopher, the Holy Grail, or the Seven Sleepers. Whether these tales are in fact fictional, they certainly have a mythic character. Biblical figures and incidents may find their way in here, but only if significant accretions of non-Biblical legend have attached to them: f.e. Dismas, Martha, the Biblical Magi. Debate on the appropriateness for inclusion within the category probably belongs on a case by case basis on any categorized and disputed article. Still, "Christian mythology" is the name usually given to these sorts of legends, and there should be a category to collect them in. Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible as sacred tradition

Peter, FestivalOfSouls, Keith, Codex, DJ, and all, I'm wondering if the effrontery of "Myth" could be removed, if we used the phrase "sacred tradition" instead. No ambiguity, no insinuation of falsehood, and not original with us. Does this manage the disagreement better? What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• That compromise sounds much more strictly accurate, and far less offensive, to me, so I'd have to give that one a "thumbs up"...! Great job, yet again! Codex Sinaiticus 15:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• • For acceptance of this category to satisfy NPOV, the articles on Mythology, JEDP and any other textual critical articles which treat the Bible as Myth, including the prominent textual critics, must be part of the category either directly or via a clear path of sub-categories. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Christian sacred tradition would be more neutral than the current Category:Christian mythology- and could remain as a sub-cat of Category:Mythology, which should hopefully be an acceptable compromise for most people. --G Rutter 17:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My proposal is to have a separate category, which would be applied to Biblical narrative accounts, and those who study those sacred traditions. This would include both, Christian and Jewish texts of the Bible; so that Christian sacred tradition would be a different category, and a different proposal. Do you support my proposal or, are you offering an alternative? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I submit "tradition of the sacred" or "tradition about the sacred" instead. It is not the tradition that is claimed sacred here, but rather that the content of the narrative treats the subject of what is sacred. --Peter Kirby 19:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the arguments on Category:Jewish mythology I think that the creation of both Category:Christian sacred tradition and Category:Jewish sacred tradition would be useful. It would be possible to include the relevant articles in both these sub-cats and would probably save arguments about exactly what should be in a Biblical sacred tradition category. It is therefore a modification of Mark's original proposal.

Peter Kirby, I think that "sacred tradtion" is useful shorthand, and enables either of your suggestions to be understood. --G Rutter 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point, Peter - I can see the difference. But I'm concerned that the phrase might be too wordy. Can it be shortened - is there a well-used, concise, fairly jargon-free phrase that would serve the purpose better - or is that it?

I'm considering your proposal, G Rutter. I can't think of an objection, right away. I have an uncomfortable feeling about not having a top-level category focused on the Bible texts - but it might not amount to anything. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish symbolic stories

Okay, then I submit "symbolic stories". A symbolic story exhibits a symbol, a significant idea. This captures the "meaningful" aspect of the academic "myth" definition without using the word myth (and without suggesting falsehood in any way). So we would have "Jewish symbolic stories" and "Christian symbolic stories." --Peter Kirby 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's admittedly a significant idea. It is a little different though, than the "Sacred tradition" notion - perhaps implying a particular approach to that tradition. Do you disagree? Christian traditional stories? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Both of the above are improvements on Mythology. I'd be happy with either. What I strongly suggest is a special category for Bible stories (maybe one for Jewish/Old Testament and one for Christian). If we feel strongly we can include them as a subcategory of Sacred Tradition or Symbolic Stories. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your reason for feeling strongly that there should be a special category for Bible stories? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• My main reason disliking the phrase "sacred tradition" here is that sacred is an adjective modifying tradition and saying that the tradition is sacred, instead of that the tradition is about the sacred. I would be happy with either "traditional stories" or "symbolic stories", although the latter is more specific. Also, I would be happy with either "Jewish"/"Christian" prepended or with "Biblical" in front. --Peter Kirby 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for your help with this, Peter. My preference is Category:Christian traditional stories and Category:Jewish traditional stories. DJ Clayworth recommends that these would contain the subcategories for Category:Tanakh narratives and Category:Gospel narratives, which is fine with me, too. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No: to make "Gospel narratives" a subcategory of "Christian traditional stories" contains an intrinsic theological bias. It makes tradition the source of the Gospel, rather than the Gospel being the judge of traditions. Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Does it? I wouldn't have interpreted it that way. I would have taken it as "a story that is passed along by tradition". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy with including Category:Gospel narratives in Category:Christian traditional stories, and I would not read it as implying that the Gospels derived from tradition. (Of course since the Gospels were oral before they were written, and before they were canon, there is a sense in which it is true - but either way I don't think it make 'tradition' pre-eminent). However I would urge that we use Category:New Testament narratives rather than Category:Gospel narratives so that stories from Book of Acts are included. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be happier with keeping the Christian mythology (or Christian traditional stories) out of each other's tree. "Gospel narratives" should be a subcategory of "New Testament narratives," of course, as should Category:Parables of Jesus and no doubt a couple others. I seem to remember that there used to be a Category:Bible stories that was deleted some time ago; not sure if I remember why.

But there are some articles that will belong in both the Christian mythology/legends/whatever category, and another category in the "Christian traditional stories" tree. For example, Saint Martha is a New Testament figure; mythology has her tangling with a monster in France. Dismas is a dubious name that was fastened to the good thief crucified alongside Jesus. Saint James the Great is a real New Testament person: it is highly doubtful he ever was in Spain. My understanding is that the category tree structure discourages articles from appearing in both parent and daughter categories, or multiple times in the same structure. This stricture would not work with the many figures from authentic, Scriptural history who have been the subject of dubious legends or pious frauds. Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem

Gentlemen (& Calvinist), here's the problem...

Hindu stories are listed under Hindu mythology...Muslim stories under Islamic mythology...etc. What you're doing is setting Christianity apart. Now, there are a few things to be said about this...

• As Christians, we believe that Christianity has already been set apart by God, because it is true...other faiths are not. I would agree with that. HOWEVER...
• Wikipedia is an NPOV, secular encyclopedia in which all faiths are to be treated equally, from an NPOV perspective. So, to make all these new categories isn't completely in keeping with the spirit of this (albeit imperfect) encyclopedia.
• Of course, you could also argue that Hindu stories, Muslim stories, etc., ought to be in other categories rather than listed as "mythology". But I think in order to do all this properly, you ought to enter into a dialogue with folks who troll those pages...or look into a big WikiProject for Religion.

Now, I say all of this as someone who doesn't have a problem with the term "myth"...granted. As I've stated before, we just have to be careful not to confuse doctrine with myth, as FestivalOfSouls seemed to be doing (with all due respect).

My suggestion is...and I defer to the community here...leave the mythology category as is. Certainly, there's a place for post-Biblical myths there, if nothing else. There's nothing wrong with a "Bible stories" category, but to do much more gets awfully close to being POV and perhaps unfairly favorable to Christianity.

Just some advice. KHM03 12:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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." --Peter Kirby 12:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with retaining the category of Christian mythology. I basically agree with what Keith (KHM03) said above, especially the statement "we just have to be careful not to confuse doctrine with myth, as FestivalOfSouls seemed to be doing." Regards, Jim Ellis 14:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Kirby's suggestion...but note that someone may want to put Resurrection of Jesus in both NT Stories and Christian Mythology...and, in an NPOV encyclopedia, there may not be much to do about it. KHM03 16:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mythology" has already been amply demonstrated to be an ambiguous term, as per the dictionary, it is not NPOV because of its dictionary definition, as well as common understanding of the word that agrees with the dictionary definition. Let's not be obtuse here and pretend the dictionary doesn't say what it says. Any of the alternatives proposed so far that avoid this unfortunate and misleading term, would be infinitely better and less antagonistic. As for "Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist mythology", campaigns to rename them might well be in order, but the calls for change to rename them should probably arise in their own camps, since we have to understand that each situation might be different and different faiths might have different problems with different terminologies, which should all be respected. If there were a certain word that bothered Hindus only, but didn't bother the other faiths when applied to them, then I would say, by all means, take it out of articles about Hinduism. Let's just pick an example out of the air, let's say a word like "Dispensationalism". Since this word is traditionally associated with Christianity, and not Hinduism, it would be most inappropriate to start filling articles on Hinduism with words like "Dispensationalism" -- just as it would be inappropriate to fill articles on Christianity with words like "Samsara". "Mythology" is a word like "saga", it is traditionally used for certain specific belief systems other than Christianity, such as "Greek mythology", and the meaning should noyt be muddied through ambiguity. If it turns out Hinduism has a problem with the term "mythology" too, then I would say, by all means, accomodate them, but unfortunately I am not enough of a scholar on Hinduism to know whether or not this is the case. Codex Sinaiticus 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For consistiancies sake, before you bias wiki by moving ONE religions category around, I feel that you should have concencious with all the major religions to do the same. To say that it is not "Christian mythology" due to the possible misunderstanding and potential bias in the word "mythology" then that should apply to ALL religions equally. FestivalOfSouls

This is fine with me; if we know that someone is offended by the "mythology" category being applied to a story, then why should we wish to offend? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with treating all the religions the same, changing the other religious categories as necessary. Of course we should check with people who are more familiar with those religions - I wouldn't dream of arbitrarily imposing an improper categorisation on either of these areas. Let's make the change here and then suggest it at the other religion's categories. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Seen this?

Biblical mythology

Any suggested alternatives yet?

All of them above seem to have been shot down. Any ideas on what to rename the category?Codex, I am looking at you, since you are the most vocal critic of, well, being honest and accurate on wiki. FestivalOfSouls 18:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've understood the drift of opinion so far, this category should not be renamed. There are stories that are without controversy called "Christian mythology". New categories should be created which more unambiguously, and less controversially describe the contents of these stories. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And the alternative categories are...? That is what I am asking. No one is really suggesting any, just saying that they are needed and picking apart others suggestions, leaving us at a standstill, which is not acceptable. it basically defaults to leaving the existing POV and not allowing NPOV edits due to one person, Mr. Codex, refusing to make any effort to compromise. FestivalOfSouls 19:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the discussion above, a scheme very roughly something like the following is starting to look acceptable to those who have expressed views so far, but we aren't done, yet:

 [[:Category:New Testament miracle narratives]]   
    |			          
    `-- [[:Category:Christian history]] 
           |NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.
           `-- [[:Category:History]]
    |			          
    `-- [[:Category:Biblical folklore]]    
	   |
	   `--[[:Category:Mythology]]
 

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the "history" pages can contain mytholical elements (read George washinton and the cherry tree)... FestivalOfSouls 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing the problem. They aren't washington and the cherry tree myths, as far as Christianity has been concerned. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the above diagram articles would not be able to be placed in mythology, since no matter how mythical a story is (adam and eve, ect) people would scream and cry if it was mythical and not historical, and if you tried to do both, people would scream and cry.... kinda like they are now... Only then they would have the additional ability to argue a atricle being in 2 sub-categories of the same category.... FestivalOfSouls 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Half right. In order to conform to the NPOV, "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." This is harder to do with categories. That's what makes them clumsy and controversial. But, I think that there is a way to do this without falling into the misunderstanding that "the policy says something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not." Wikipedia's policy is to present conflicting views without asserting (or implying, insinuating or subtly massaging the reader into believing) that any of the disputed views is correct. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That makes this embarassingly simple. Since Codex argues that since the stories are facts based on his religion, they cannot be myths (ignoring the definition of myth and mythology) and my point is that they may or may not be true, and stiull be a myth(based on the definition of the word) it seems blatently obvious that NPOV would be to go with allowing the categorization, since it is more open minded, as is the reasoning behind it. FestivalOfSouls 17:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just spent the last 30 minutes making a sub-page to this page, that is getting kind of long, where I rehash every suggested alternative made so far (though I must say Mark that you've added a couple more new ones with the above!!)

The developing consensus, that I ought to explicitly state at this time that I concur with, is that the "mythological" category should be retained, but only for extra-biblical stories, and that we need to find a separate, less ambiguous name for a category of biblical stories. I have now listed all names that have been proposed over at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises, so if you are truly interested in compromise, take another look. Contrary to what has been summarily declared, they have NOT "all been shot down". (I was going to make a smart comment about Mr. Krushchev, but decided not to ;o) ) Codex Sinaiticus 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant, you are just going to ignore the biblical myths. Great. Nice and unbiased, just like we expect from you, Codex!!! Always good for a laugh. I cannot believe you think that that is unbiased, as if being in the bible automatically makes a myth not a myth, or that it changes the definition of the word.... FestivalOfSouls 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your views can be expressed without any need for ridicule or bullying, and a more or less "neutral" solution can be arrived at without requiring people to change their point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to be synthetic in my summary above, instead of cumulative. That's where the new categories come from. See the discussion at Category_Talk:Jewish mythology and Talk:Jewish mythology, and the article Biblical mythology as an extension relevant to the discussion here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Reiterating my suggestion

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)

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)

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)

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)

This section of the page is called "reiterating my suggestion". I have made one. --Peter Kirby 02:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I concur with this, and nearly all the proposals on Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises are also improvements. I submit that since this page is getting kind of long, we ought to work from the proposals listed on that page, maybe make a chart showing who will accept what, or something... Codex Sinaiticus 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter's proposal is being picked up at Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises. It's got quite a bit of support. maybe we can bring these two pages together to discuss the idea. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)