Talk:Christian mythology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Original Discussion

I find it rather odd that this article has no problems linking to and quoting biblical scholars and christian-biased authors in trying to prove that Christianity is somehow above other myths or is itself not a myth; for example, a link to "Tryggve N.D. Mettinger" and quoting directly from his book about why the Jesus resurrection is purely unique is absurd. If you look at it that way, EVERY resurrection is unique because you'll find some aspect of the resurrection unique, but you're missing the point. The resurrection of some man-god or deity was a common story that many religions shared and that each religion added their own twist to it to make it their own, including the Christian story of Jesus' resurrection. Also, this entire article is pussyfooting around and should get straight to the point and be objective about writing about Christianity as a mythology. You, the writers, have no problem with other religions as myths but from reading the arguments in this thread it's clear to me that many of you cannot be objective about writing Christianity as mythology because you are biased; therefore, you should not be the stewards of this page.

I suggest reading the scholarly books from Acharya S. Why is it that there are no quotes or citations from any of her five books? But I see citations and quotes directly from books from Christian-biased writers?

Here...is a link to one of her books: http://www.amazon.com/Suns-God-Krishna-Buddha-Unveiled/dp/1931882312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262456175&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.134.68 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

'See talk:Christian Mythology for earlier debate

---

Oh, come on. This is basically the same article from three hours ago, which started all the fuss.

---

No, wait! It's not! It has no mention of sacred texts! It doesn't interfere with anyone's beliefs! Who believes in Santa Claus? In Narnia? In King Arthur?

If anyone objects to the Saints, or to the Vudon, or to anything else, please remove THAT PART or tell us here what is objectionable.

I REALLY don't want to label anything that Christians believe to be a sacred and divine truth as mythology. Surely a devil represented with a red suit and horns doesn't qualify, does it?

I specifically did NOT link to Bible stories, either!

-- Cayzle

We have an article on Norse Mythology despite Neopaganists believing in it. I don't think it's really a neutral point of view if we classify one group's sacred and divine truth as mythology but not another group's.

-- 69.231.222.235 03:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

168.184.220.6 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I think that this is strange. I am very confused. At least if I am to read this to the and grasp this with the fullest of my knowledge, someone please explain this to me and other people so that they do not become confused, so as to place this under the area of "religious discrimination" or think that people are downing Christianity. This is definitely not an attack, but the above stated is highly advised.

---

I'm staying out of it, this time. Enjoy. Ed Poor

hee hee! maybe we should let it rest for a few days and let things cool off. -- Cayzle

---

Can I ask what Rudolph, Frosty and the Easter Bunny have to do with Christianity? Santa Clause I can see, the Little Drummer Boy I can see... I just don't get it. -Wesley

I guess Rudolph and Frosty were added onto a Christian holiday, but I don't know if that makes them Christian either, Wesley. The Easter Bunny is most decidedly *not* Christian, except by adoption. It's a very old fertility symbol going back to Egypt as well as the Celts, who held Samhain at the same time of the year as Easter. Probably they came from that, but I don't know. --Dmerrill

If one considers for inclusion as "Christian Mythology" a range of stories with Christian themes and with close ties to Christian allusion or tradition, then in addition to stories such as Narnia, one can interpret the Rudolph story (with its "Love your neighbor as yourself" theme of tolerance and brotherly love, not to mention its fantastical elements (talking and flying animals, not to mention its link to the Santa Claus / St. Nicholas tradition) as both mythic and Christian, I think. Similarly, Dr. Seuss's Grinch story is a (newly invented) Christian myth on the same order, in my opinion. -- Cayzle

So is "A Christmas Carol", but even more so. --Paul Drye

---

Boy, that minor edit is going to trigger a whole discussion again.

I, too, was puzzled by the bizarre inclusion of kids stories into Christian mythology. I don't know anyone who would consider Rudolph to be a Christian myth. I think it fails on both counts - it's neither Christian nor myth.

One question we have to ask is whether a myth is different from a story. If not then pretty much anything could be included here, and we have no need to distinguish Christian myth from Christian fiction. However I would want to propose that anything that is known, and always was intended, as a work of pure fiction (Narnia, Rudolph) is not a myth. Interestingly mythology was one of C. S. Lewis' areas of study. Maybe someone could do some research on what he thought about this subject. I believe there is something in the introduction of 'Till We Have Faces' about it. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have considered Narnia to be a myth.

The other question is what makes a myth a Christian myth. I would contend that it must in some way concern the central elements of Christianity. Just because the message of a story is 'be nice to people', that doesn't make it Christian. Christianity agrees with the message, but so do lots of other beliefs. Once again Rudolph doesn't make the grade. Shakespeare's Richard III for example (which could conceivably pass the first test - it's certainly been taken to be a historical account on occasions) has messages like "Don't start civil wars for your personal gain" which Christianity would agree with, but it's not a Christian Myth.

In fact, if you go any look at our own definition in mythology we find that modern stories of pure fiction are pretty much excluded. And Rudolph does not have 'deep explanatory or symbolic meaning'.

DJ Clayworth 14:00, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The working definition would appear to be that Christian mythology includes:

• a legend involving saints or Biblical figures;
• legends of ecclesiastical origin or that involve relics, crusades, and other actions by Christian churches; and
• stories that have become attached to Christian holidays.

This last category seems to be how Rudolph and the Easter Bunny come in.

I doubt that things like Frosty the Snowman constitute mythology, myself; they're too recent and too obviously commercial in origin. On the other hand, there is a rich vein of wonderlore in mediaeval hagiography, the tales of the paladins of Charlemagne, and similar material that does.

(The Easter Bunny page needs work; there's a more than 1000 year gap between the Saxon goddess Eostre and the Pennsylvania Dutch, and it isn't explained how the Saxon goddess survived all that time; the role of the chocolatiers is also unmentioned. And some notice needs to be taken of Robert Devereaux's novel Santa Steps Out.)

At any rate, I'd be happy to lose the Easter Bunny here. But if so, a stricter working definition of "Christian mythology" needs to be taken. Also, it probably needs to be mentioned that non-Christians probably find Biblical miracle tales mythological themselves. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite to take account some of the above. What do you think? DJ Clayworth 15:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ihcoyc: I purposely split stories believed at one time to be true from stories always known to be fictional or allegorical, and put Milton (and would have put Dante if I'd thought of him - good addition) in the second. I still think that's the right split. Why do you think Dante is different from Narnia, except for the age? DJ Clayworth 16:47, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Towards a better definition of mythology

"However in common usage a myth is a story that is not true"

I don't believe this is the common usage. When someone calls something a myth or just a myth, he is not saying it is false. I think the proper meaning is that the story is not proven true. (unsigned)

That's a nice, if minor distinction. The point of the passage (which I've just replaced) is that many Christian theologians consider the Bible to be 'myth' in the technical sense because it is explanatory and symbolic, but that it is also true. However if you call the bible a 'myth' to a Christian you are normally going to be disagreed with. This has caused a certain amount of rancour between theologians using the word in its technical sense and ordinary Christians taking it in its common sense. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A better definition of "Mythology" than our anonymous contributor offers might be provided by someone who has read some, or has simply looked at the Wikipedia entry Mythology. Many folks who deny that there could be any Christian mythology are equally unable to define "mythology". --Wetman 19:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings?

I'll be removing this mention unless someone speaks up w an sufficient explanation. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would back this up. While LotR has a lot of Christian themes, it doesn't really cut it as mythology. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some people would include J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings or George MacDonald's At the Back of the North Wind, Lilith, and Phantastes in this category.

I removed the above. I suspect that in all the centuries of Christianity, better examples of Christian mythology might be found. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Replication

An ancient version of this page (with Larry Sanger edits in the last 20 of the history) exists at The stories of Christianity - merge or simply delete? --Oldak Quill 18:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much there that isn't already here; this one has a better title. I would just redirect that to this page unless someone strongly objects. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"There is no Christian mythology"

Wikipedia's vandals express this POV best:

18:10, 6 Feb 2005, User:66.134.0.228 erased all text and substituted: Bull. Thats all I have to say. Bull. There is no "christian mythology" never has been never will be. I mean COME ON. Porn becoming every day life is more likly than there being Christian mythology. The whole idea of mythology is basically all about multiple gods, giants, monsters, and the like. But if you were to say Christian Proverbs you would be right on the money. Cristian proverbs were used all the time by Jesus to show the meaning of a specifice metaphor.

I agree! How can anybody say anything is mythology, whether talking animals, or giants, unless someone who was around at the time the so-called Christian Myths were said to have taken place could reveal that they were infact myth. I think the title Christian proverbs should be the replacement title, and that their little snippets about Frosty,Rudolph, and Santa should be removed, because on a religious basis, many people could find this offensive. RandyS0725 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I submit that porn has become a part of every day life.
• Wow. Sometimes quoting some people at length almost verges on violating the "No personal attacks" policy, doesn't it? Perhaps it is not helpful to hold up this example as a straw man. Dystopos 05:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• (Be assured that it doesn't ever come near violating any policy accurately to quote any edit ever. --Wetman 07:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • If the person or statement were notable it would be important to see it here, but as far as I can tell, the quotation has been copied here purely as a rhetorical device meant to discredit other, more rational arguments against the article. Dystopos 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • We await with anticipation 1000 rational words from Dystopos on the theme "There Is No Christian Mythology", added to the article rather than the Talkpage. I overhear talk radio in taxicabs only, needless to say, but I recognize that the authentic quote I produced is quite sufficiently recognizable in style and tone to everyone, and quite worth displaying here. I would not have displayed it, if it had not been representative of a genre so widespread that even I am aware of it. --Wetman 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well of course there is Christian Mythology. That's not my point. I just don't see the reason this quote has been added to the talk page as it contributes nothing to rational discussion. Dystopos 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worthwhile responding here, but all I'm going to do is quote what is said elsewhere. Mythology is not "all about multiple gods and the like". It is stories with deep explanatory or symbolic significance. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precisely so. --Wetman 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hows not agreeing that there is or is not Christian mythology relevant?

Christian mythology clearly has the supernatural in it-IE, Lazarus coming back from the dead, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, all of these are mythological in nature. Significant, yes, but nevertheless mythological. Noah? Moses? Old Testament Jewish stuff is mythological too. The Book of Revelations is one big myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 (talk) 08:57, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Conscious falsification?

• Suppressed text: "Even describing those beliefs of folk Christianity that are not based in Scripture as myth may be taken by some Christians as an attack on Christianity in general." Is this text not accurate, as demonstrated even in the edit history of Christian mythology? This concerns non-Scriptural elements folk Christianity characterized as myth.
• User:DJ Clayworth's substitution: " Describing Christian histories thought to be true, especially Bible accounts, as myth is generally taken by Christians as an attack on Christian belief." Does everyone see the twist that has been given? Of course this is true, but it has no bearing on Christian mythology, as User:DJ Clayworth is doubtless perfectly aware. the question is: are other posts by this User as dishonest as this one? I have not reverted this edit yet, in the hopes that its author may wish to retract it. --Wetman 22:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of this as a 'twist'. I believe the version I wrote is more accurate (though I could be wrong here). My experience is that most Christians don't get the slightest upset about describing non-scriptural stories as 'myth'. The legends about Pontius Pilate, to use the example from the article. I've never heard anyone complain when they are described as 'myth'. The exception I guess might be Catholics who would probably complain about the Assumption of Mary being described as myth, since that's church doctrine for them. But again I may be wrong. Which edits did you think showed Christians taking categorisation of non-doctrinal stories as myth as an attack? DJ Clayworth 13:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stock expressions of modesty aside, the subject of the entry is Christian mythology. Clayworth has substituted a Red herring, one that is in itself a true statement, thus acceptable to the desultory reader, but which is irrelevant to this subject. Indoctrinated Christianists do in fact turn discussions of Christian mythology into rightly resented attacks on "Christian histories thought to be true." Clayworth's trick shows one subversive technique by which they do so.

I have returned both statements to the text, in an attempt to disambiguate the two, as follows:

"Though describing as myth essential Christian mysteries and New Testament narratives considered true by Christians is generally taken as an attack on Christian belief, even describing in terms of myth those beliefs of folk Christianity that are not based in Scripture, nor in Church history nor in developed doctrine may sometimes be taken by some Christians as an attack on Christianity in general."

I trust that is sufficiently colorless and accurate. --Wetman 14:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll let that stand because I don't think it's important, but to say that my sentence is "irrelevant to this subject" and then expand it to two sentences seems to be somewhat contradictory. Your experience of Christians must be very different from mine, because I've never met anyone who objected to the legends about Pilate, or Paradise Lost, or St George, or any of the things we list as 'myth' here being described as such. Do you have specific categories of Christians in mind (fundamentalist, Catholic, non-Euopean or whatever)? If so maybe you could be specific. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most extraordinary, to say "I'll let that stand" but actually quietly delete it. No doubt this was an oversight, however, and DJ Clayworth will in truth be content to "let that stand".

(As an aside 'indoctrinated' is a somewhat loaded term, don't you think?) DJ Clayworth 15:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a simple difference between education and indoctrination. One is self-critical and takes a stand outside the subject. The other does not, but concentrates on doctrine. Nothing loaded about either term. By labelling "indoctrination" as a "loaded" term, one seeks by a roundabout route to forbid its use, as a "pejorative", thus making it difficult even to discuss the phenomenon. Is that not the tactic? The indoctrinated are the ones who deny that a Christian mythology exists, or attempt to confuse discussion of it with attacks on core belief from Scripture. But I think that's been cleared up in the entry as it now stands. --Wetman 06:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you added the double sentences back in a different place, thus meaning that my original statement is still there as well as your 'combined' version. Do you want to fix that or shall I? DJ Clayworth 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I merged the double statement, so it now reads "Describing as myths histories that Christians believe to be true, especially Bible accounts, is generally taken by Christians as an attack on Christian belief.". I hope this is acceptable. DJ Clayworth 21:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merged? The text appears to have been suppressed, under the Edit Summary "merge duplicate statements" Is there any genuine problem with the factual nature of this compromise text, as I have returned it to the entry? The disingenuous substituted sentence about describing Christian truths as myths, "especially Bible accounts" is not what this article is about. --Wetman 06:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It actually is closely related to what the article is about. My point was this: 1) Academics use myth to mean a symbolic and explanatory story. 2) In this context symbolic and explanatory stories can be true 3) Most people don't realise this, so when a (Christian) academic describes something like the incarnation as a myth, they think that academic is implying that the story is false, and thus denying their Christian faith. It's actually an important point. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rename this page "Christian Archetypes"

I think the crux of this issue is the word "mythology." Before we vote, I want to hear what enyone has to say about renaming this page. Christian Mythology --> Christian Archetypes. What do y'all think? MPS 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Archetypes and mythology are very different. A myth is a story; an archetype is a character. Mythological stories may or may not involve archetypes. More to the point in many cases it is the stories that carry the meaning in Christian mythology, and not the characters. Also 'mythology' is a relatively well-understood work, and 'archetype' is not. If you want to write an article on Christian archetypes that would be fine with me. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I checked out the Wikipedia archetype article, and characters can be defined by archetypes, but "Archetype is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated." (my emphasis added) This says to me that Original Sin, The Judges, Logos, sacrifice, communion, Suffering servant, Christ Figure and agape feasts would be some archetypes (concepts and objects, or as you would call them, myths) that are fundamental in defining Christianity. In this sense, Rudoph, Santa Claus, and The Golden Rule would be derivative of, or at least distant from, the concepts that actually define Christianity. MPS 20:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that some Christians resist the very existence of a Christian mythology is not nearly prominent enough in the article. --Wetman 17:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the above statement. Can you please explain who these people are, and in what way they "resist the very existence of a Christian mythology". DJ Clayworth 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that we call them 'mythologies' has undertones that imply Modernist POV. (I use Modernism here in the sense of "we used to have primitive religions but now we have the power of rationality and science to progress us from the Dark Ages of superstition to the Modern Age of rigorous scientific fact.") As much as I respect science, I want to challenge the use of the term 'myth' by pointing out a common scientific myth: "GENERIC SCIENTIST was a brilliant and eccentric innovator who caused a stir within the scientific community of his era with a controversial and paradigm-shifting discovery. Technically, this is a myth that shows up in many biographies of scientists. Saying that the history of science is filled with myths makes it sound made up. quod erat demonstrandum Maybe we should call them themes. MPS 20:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If we call them "archetypes," we import the paganizing Jungian mummery, which is perhaps far worse than the "modernist" scientism you describe. On the other hand, no Christian body continues to endorse belief in dragon-slaying saints and similar medieval wonderlore. "Mythology," even in the semi-pejorative sense of "legends we know are not true," accurately describes such beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church purged its saints calendar of dozens of legendary figures on the grounds that they likely did not exist. Smerdis of Tlön 21:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I just reread the article and I think I overreacted. I am ok with calling things Christian mythology as long as most people don't actually attribute it to the orthodox Christian canon. Calling stuff that's in the Bible (The Last Supper) mythology would be verboten, but talking about the purported powers of drinking from the Holy Grail would be perfectly kosher. But what about the Apocrypha? Is that legend or what? (See Aggadah for Jewish analogue) Also, I am not sure if Jung coopted the term archetype and made it his own. If the term archetype is not too offensive, I think I will start a separate article on Archetypes of Christianity since I think there's some merit to listing these. MPS 21:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea, but you might also want to look at Christian symbolism to make sure you don't overlap too much. DJ Clayworth 15:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the Apocrypha, the apocryphal books accepted by some Christian denominations are all Old Testament apocrypha, and their contents range from relatively straightforward historiography (the Maccabees books) to tales IMO rightly characterized as mythology (Judith, Tobit) — but all of this would be Jewish mythology in any case. The New Testament apocrypha contains some pretty bizarre stuff — the child Jesus committing murders using his Jesus powers, in one of the infancy Gospels — and this too belongs in Christian mythology. Smerdis of Tlön 11:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In the sense used here, Myth does NOT just mean untrue story. A myth is a story with powerful symbolic or explanatory significance. I.e. they are stories people tell to help understand something. The statement about Mr GENERIC SCIENTIST would not be a myth. It's just someone oversimplifying. Christian mythology is Christian stories which explain or symbolise the Christian faith. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the Pali canon a work of mythology? The Baghavad Gita? The Ramayana? If we consider them mythological, is not the resurrection or virgin birth a mythological event? Mythology would absolutely include scripture, it would be a double standard to not use scripture. The death and resurrection are absolutely powerful symbolically, regardless of their truth, just as Krishna's revelation to Arjuna is symbolically powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 (talk) 09:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Christian and I think 'myth' best describes Christianity. That's not why most religious people are religious, it's because of the morals. Someone had good morals and put them in a book (although seemed to slip in some porn as well) and Christians adopted them to live a moral life. Not to argue weather or not God exists... jeesh! 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Mother Nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk)

Witchcraft

There could be more on this page concerning the mythology and propaganda (the very etymology of which is to "propogate the faith") preceding and surrounding the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, etc. Particularly since it is still pervasive to this day in more subtle and diluted forms. Not only with unabashadly confusing Wicca with Satanism, but the Satanic cult hysteria of the 80's, etc. You can even add Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz as byproducts! However; I'm not gonna force the point, just put it out there. Its a complex subject on its own. But one thing is sure: Incubi and succubi, and ugly hags riding through the night on their broomsticks (I'm not even going into the implied metaphor there - just look at some mediæval woodcuts on the subject) were either the perverted delusions of so-called "holy men", or folk tales and/or religion put through the proverbial religio-political spin cycle -- they didn't exist before some (*note for the record I'm not bashing all Christendom) Christians created them (and don't give me the old "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" translation). In modern times; though Halloween may be an ancient Celtic festival, its modern form is more Christian archetype than Celtic pagan (or Satanic!) fact. Though witches and Satan may not be separated in this historical context (thanks to the very mythology thus inculcated), the figure of Satan himself is far from any of the few oblique references given in the Bible - but the Apocrypha comes in here (including many other factors such as the horned gods, Dante, Paradise Lost, etc.), and that has been discussed already above.

Though I firmly believe that "myth" is by no means pejorative, especially if you have read any Joseph Campbell; - in this sense, the stories had little more purpose than to scare the tithing and tax paying population into submission. At least that's my admittedly POV take on it. In any case, there could be more on the subject, no matter what your view is. Merely making a small mention of Faust doesn't cut it. And does the LOTR's footnote need to be there? It seems to me, that whenever you believe in anything strong enough, you start "seeing" things anywhere - 'if you listen long and hard enough you'll eventually hear what you want to hear', to paraphrase the saying. Virgin Mary in a Tortilla anyone? Khirad^talk 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Stories (true or false) propagated by Christians about others do not come under the definition of myth used here. What we mean here is symbolic or explanatory stories which are relevant to the Christian faith. I expect the whole question of witchcraft and wicca is covered in plenty of other places. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Relatedly, the footnote on the LOTR probably shouldn't be here. But long experience has shown that if we don't mention it, someone will come in a few weeks and add LOTR to the list of Christian mythological stories; so rather than reverting this every few weeks it's easier to keep a note there saying that LOTR isn't mythology. DJ Clayworth 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

New Sections Added

Hello everyone. As you can see (if its still up--just revert to earlier version if its been reverted), I've added a section on the origins of christian mythology, its adoption and spread. I've done lots of reasearch on the topic and felt it might be more apropos here than in the Christianity page itself, where this has been an ongoing debate. I welcome feedback about adding these sections, the content, help with any issues regarding NPOV language, and to help make it fit in the resst of the flow in this interesting article per a consensus of other editors here. I didn't mean any disrespect by adding the sections myself, as it can be easily undone, but did it more so we can all have a look at what it looks like within the article overall (instead of placing the text here first). I think it look good and welcome input. Thanks! Giovanni33 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) p.s. I have references for anything that needs to be cited.

I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the second and third paragraphs of the 'Legacy' section. They are not about Christian mythology at all, but about the place of Christianity in the Western World (and with some very doubtful statements - try telling the Republican Party that Christianity has 'been reduced to private spirituality'). If no-one objects I'll remove them. DJ Clayworth 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe legacy is not the right word. I say legacy because its dwindled so much from what it use to be only a hunded years go. Yes, we have the republican party but we are talking about modern society, not just the US (and even so this is a minority of the republican party). Notice I say that certain subgroups within modern society still retain a strong element of Christian mythology in their understanding of life, and I say it is also true that Christian values often inform law and other official elements within different Western societies. But the main point is that nowhere today do we find biblical mythology providing both the popular and official myths of modern industrial society as it did in centuries past. This mythological construct is no longer the accepted dominant mythology glueing together modern society; what we do have is hanger-ons, who are very active yes, but they are seeking to bring back the past. And, everyear the percentage of our population (within industrial societies) who subscribes to these myths gets less and less, as evidencec by the continual increase in those who describe themselves as agnostic or atheist. Giovanni33 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The more I read the second and third paragraphs of the "legacy" section, the more I think they need removed. "Since the end of the eighteenth century, biblical stories have ceased to provide the central mythology of Western society." Really? I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise; or, at least, they now share status with other mythical ideals (such as, in America, the cowboys of the Old West, Superman, or Star Wars). So, perhaps it would be better to say they now share their previously central status. KHM03 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth or falsehood

The section concerning the truth or falsehood of myth is there because, while strictly applicable to all myths, is of special significance to Christianity. In general people do not get upset because Norse stories are called 'myth' because they are generally believed to be false. The same is not true of Bible stories, and calling them 'myth' (which academics do) can cause upset. That's why the section is there. DJ Clayworth 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

here is a good source for myth being regarded as 'true' in academic circles. DJ Clayworth 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know why its there. I gave my reasons for ditching the section in my edit summary. If there is consensus something should be there, strongly propose some re-write and cleanup. Btw, thanks for the clear explanation, etc. Well done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to amend the wording. DJ Clayworth 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins sections

I'm starting to have real trouble with the sections about "Origins of Christian Mythology". They give a summary of (one theory of) Christian belief structure, but they don't seem to be talking about the origins of Christian mythology specifically? Why are they here, and what is their relevance to Christian mythology specifically? Is someone intending to expand on them soon? DJ Clayworth 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say...have at it...edit away. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

copied from my talk page - DJ Clayworth You asked about the background section of the article. Since the article in general is about the stories of Christianity, it does make sense to have some discussion of where those stories came from. Rather than move or remove it, I would probably just add to it, things like alternative sources for the stories Martin thinks came from Osiris, and the obvious connections with Jewish stories and prophecies , and later hagiographies and other stories. So much to do, so little time. That's my initial take anway, I'm open to other suggestions. Wesley 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

After a lot of discussion it was decided that this was not about 'the stories of Christianity' but about mythology in the non-academic sense - specifically excluding Bible stories etc. Is there really not another place where the 'origins' of Biblical stories can be considered? DJ Clayworth 13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section for the following reasons:

• It was agreed a while back that this article would not consider bible stories and other Christian doctrine under the category of mythology since it is a contentious naming. There are plenty of other places where the origins of Christianity are discussed, and any information we have on the subject should be there.
• The section discussed the origins of Christian philosophy and theology, neither of which fall under even the broadest definition of mythology. At the very least a myth must be a story, not an academic statement.
• The section give effectively only one researcher (and a marginal one at that) credence on Christian origins. Since there are much better sections in Wikipedia on the subject I suggest we let people read those rather than a hugely incomplete account here.

DJ Clayworth 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations and expert

I've added these flags purely as the sections read as OR currently. The first thing I thought when reading them was - who says? I'm interested and as it's new to me I would like to see references and links to read more. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology"?

I can't spot the diff, but it looks like somebody changed the intro to put in "Christian Mythology" what ever that means. Wouldn't being the central figure of Christianity sort of make saying the "Center of Christian Mythology" redundant? And when did that neutrality tag appear, who wants to debate whether the article is neutral or not? Homestarmy 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Rossnoxin encountered our editor friend there, who hasn't showed up here yet.... Homestarmy 05:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no direct link to Christian mythology in the article, it is only in the "see also" section which i think is insufficient, I came here to find out about the centrality of jesus in christian myth and lore and found it exceedingly difficult to locate the information. Beyond that I think it is not redundant but only natural because other articles about various gods and prophets mention their relation to the mythology very early in the intro to that article.

The one who added the neutrality tag wrote:

"Because to use the word "mythology" comes from the word "myth" which means passed down by oral tradition. This is simply untrue in reference to Jesus, for his teachings were passed down via manuscripts. Mythology is one sided, and completely opposed to the neutrality that has made Wiki so great. The article itself is not the place to discuss whether or not Jesus lived. If we leave the word mythology, we do a drastic and unfortunate disservice to our readers. If we need to link something, link to [[Christian worldview]"

I wrote: Myth can be written as well. Please read up on your definitions and your anthropology. If you even read the Christian mythology article you will see that there is both biblical myth and folk myth. Please stop misrepresenting words and positions. from the christian mythology article:

Christian mythology is a body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance. Christian mythology can also be taken to refer to the entire mythos surrounding the Christian religious system, including the various narratives of both the Old and New Testaments.

I linked it directly to the Christian mythology article, precluding it from one sidedness, this does not at all imply jesus was a mythological figure and didn't live, it merely points to the fact that jesus is central to the christian mythology, not that he was a myth himself, please read the sentence before copy pasting and being critical.

it is a compound entry "christian mythology", you cannot simply remove one part of it and mix things up as you see fit. If you think Jesus isn't an integral part of christian mythology your are sorely mistaken, I suggest you read either the article on christian mythology, or the new testament (what I think many would consider one of the most appropriate sources of information on jesus. If you feel it is necessary then link to Christian worldview as well! Solidusspriggan 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An idea I thought of would be to make a new section in this article, detailing how Jesus has been rendered in several different works in Mythology, principally from middle age works which, of course, most Christian do not take seriously, (Or anyone else for that matter) such as the Infancy Gospel and other things like that, I mean, some of those things are somewhat notable and might be interesting to report on. Im a bit concerned that the article is bloated enough already, but it could be important. Besides, I was being critical because the introduction was settled on after like 4 months of debate and just got changed randomly, these sort of things look suspicious. And what exactly is not neutral about the introduction/article that warrants the tag? Homestarmy 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Mythology article is full of weasel words, and refers mainly to stories about the "saints". Jesus, therefore, is not the central character of these stories. That is why comments on Christian Mythology do not belong in this article. ^rossnixon 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see the debate already going on here; I would suggest commentary be moved here from the pink "to-do list" section at the top. Jesus is clearly the "central figure" in Christian mythology (which includes the vast body of folktales and traditions that have grown up around Christian belief and practice over the last two millennia, but which have no solid scriptural basis). Attempts to deny this seem to be based in the mistaken notion that "admitting" Christianity has a mythology somehow weakens its claim to Truth. — JEREMY 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Christian mythology" falls under the category of "Christianity" itself. Mentioning both "Christianity" and "Christian mythology" is, firstly, redundant. Also, it seems as though it may be an intentional attempt to include the term "mythology" to anger people and assume that Christianity is "mythological" and false. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to me that it would be much easier (And certainly would alleviate the "Myth" part) to simply create a sub-section in this article on the many, many times in which Jesus is refereed to in mythology, after all, the Medieval times were pretty weird, there's the infancy gospel which in my opinion is worth the most noting, I think a couple other things, there might even be some Catholic visitation-type deals, hey, even Islam might have a say on this, though I suspect they'd probably think it blasphemy to make up stories about Jesus that aren't true, ah well. Then, with this section, we can fully enunciate on how these myths are most certainly not accepted by Christianity at all (or most other people I figure for that matter), which would, in my opinion, not only justify putting an otherwise loaded "Christian Mythology" term at the beginning, but getting a chance to take pot shots against fake stuff, (With NPOV language of course) in addition to making the term "myth" be far more easily understood to the reader as not in any way implying that Christianity today is somehow based on fake junk, and of course, adding some content which I think might be interesting. If we have 2 footnotes, maybe one from the Mythology article and another pointing towared a future section, I think this can totally work. Homestarmy 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about changing the phrase to "Christianity and Christian folk culture" and linking to a section rather than to Christian mythology? Still, you're probably right about the undue weight of mentioning the mythology in the opening, although the fact that there's no mythology section in this article looks suspiciously POV to me. At bare minimum one would expect a subarticle linked from the rather crowded "Cultural impact of Jesus" section, although I think the subject deserved its own section, given how much of what many people "know" about Jesus is in fact non-scriptural. — JEREMY 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, I don't know what "Christian folk culture" means, is that like the wild west and family feuds and stuff? Homestarmy 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you don't like that terminology. I just felt it might be less confrontational. — JEREMY 08:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that I don't like the idea of a different word, its just I can't understand that particular word :). Homestarmy 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lives of the saints type material might constitute "Christian mythology". Canonical material, whether or not it is true, is not usually considered mythology. john k 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two uses of the word "myth" which is causing this confusion. Obviously, Christianity, like any other religion, has a body of mythology. And this isn't just the "medieval folk tales" about the Saints. The problem is that there is a use of the word myth that implies a fictional story. "I heard that Washington chopped down the cherry tree." "Oh yeah, that's just a myth!" In addition, a lot of world mythologies include stories that obviously seem like fiction to our modern sensibilities. Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Native American, Aztec, Indian, Egyptian, etc. That said, Christianity is not excempt from having beliefs and stories about their central figures and that explain origins. Just because one POV is that the these stories are historical, does not make them any less part of mythology. Surely there are Hindus that believe their myths are historical, but do we stop using the phrase Vedic mythology because we feel it may offend Hindus that are using a different connotation of the word "myth"? Just because most of us come from English speaking countries that are Judeo-Christian, does not mean we can point to Hindu mythology and call them "myths", but tip toe around Christian mythology in order not to offend a POV. In fact, it is biased and really POV to imply that Christianity doesn't have myths, but all other world religions do.--Andrew c 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In support, let me quote my dictionary's definition of "myth":

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

Christianity is very clearly a myth, according to this definition. Of course, being a myth doesn't automatically make it false. Al 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? This is the Jesus article, all the text said was that Jesus is often referred to in "Christian mythology". Christianity is not the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.... Homestarmy 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "Hindu mythology" and "Christian mythology". Hindus don't actually believe that Shiva literally chopped off Ganesha's head and replaced it with an elephant head. If they did, they'd be pretty dumb. It is acknowledged to be a symbolic story. The same is true of ancient Greek and Roman attitudes to stories about the gods. Christianity is different. Its truth claims are related to literal belief in the historical accuracy of eventsas a fulfilment of prophesy. Not all Christians insist on this of course, but it is an important aspect of Christian tradition. Using the word "mythology" is problematic for this very reason. It automatically implies a POV countering this aspect of Christian belief.Paul B 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect as we have been discussing above, some muslims would think anyone believing in the trinity was stretching things somewhat. This argument happens all the time at the mythology page - myth does not mean falsehood. Anyway if we are talking literal truth how many Christians really believe Noah put two of each kind on a boat (what a food chain that would have been) or that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. These stories are all part of Christian mythology which is centred on Jesus. We have to be careful that we are not showing systemic bias by thinking it's ok for other religions to be classed as mythological but Christianity can't be. Sophia 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I made it absolutely clear that I was not talking about an opposition between truth and fasehood, but about a distinction between literal and symbolic meaning. I don't know what your point about the Trinity is intended to imply. Of course Muslims don't believe it. Trintitarian Christians typically believe that it is factually true. Muslims don't. In Christianity (and in Islam) the distinction between fact and fiction has been important in ways that they are not in "pagan" cultures, as I have just tried to argue. Incidentally, that's one reason why Classical paganism was so easily appropriated by Christianity in the Renaissance. In some Christian traditions stories like Eden are accepted as mythological, but others are not (e.g. the Resurrection). In some all Biblical stories are accepted as literally true, in a few none are. But for most distinguishing between fact and fiction has been crucial. Paul B 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to the "pretty dumb" charge above. Sophia 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no "pretty dumb" charge. The point is that Hindus dont believe that. They would be dumb if they did, but they dont. Only some really dumb Christians and Muslims believes that they do! Paul B 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV, Paul B, but keep in mind that it is just a POV. There are fundamentalist sects of Hindism (namely ISKCON, for one) that believe all Hindu scripture is literal. I mean, I could similary say that "No one who doesn't have a brick for a brain honestly believes a human being died and then literally came back from the dead. For one, it is physically impossible. The resurrection story is obviously symbolic," but that would be just as much a POV as claiming all Hindu myths are symbolic. I think the key point to keep in mind is that mythology doesn't mean fiction (even though there is a connotation of the similar word 'myth' that does). Looking through other articles of mythological figures, they seem to name the mythology in the opening or have a template about the mythology at the bottom of the page. The problem here isn't that Jesus Christ isn't a part of Christian mythology, the problem is that this article covers more than just the mythological figure. It covers different religious and historical POV, where a historical Jesus suggested by someone like Crossan is different from the mythological Jesus of Christianity. That said, I think it would helpful to include the wikilink to Christian mythology in the paragraph about the Christian POV in the lead.--Andrew c 20:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Mythology" being referred to here has anything to do with the Bible, I was under the impression it was just stuff like the Infancy Gospel and all that medieval stuff and whatnot that was floating around. Isn't that what the "Christian Mythology" article has in it anyway? Homestarmy 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Hindus typically believe in the truth of the Vedas, which BTW gnever even mention Ganesha. Neither does the Gita, which ISKON accepts as divine truth. They are Vaishnavites, so they don't care about poor old Ganesha. None of this affects what I said, which is that no Hindu believes that Shiva literally chopped off Gansha's head and replaced it with an elephant's. This is because they are not dumb. Lots and lots of Christians believe that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead. 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with referring to Biblical stories as "mythology" is that it makes it hard to talk about the actual mythology that developed later among both Jews and Christians. Whether or not the events of the Book of Genesis actually happened, they are not normally discussed under the rubrik of "Jewish mythology" - although later elaborations of the stories based on non-biblical material might indeed constitute mythology. But at least there it's arguable. The Gospels simply aren't mythology. Their account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus may or may not be accurate, but they aren't in any way similar to mythology, in that they were written about near contemporary events set in a specific historical time. Whether or not Hindus actually believe that Shiva cut off Ganesh's head, or that Krishna did all the things legends say about him, or whatever, the fact remains that writings about Ganesh, or Krishna, were written in a time long, long after whenever those events were supposed to have occurred. The same goes for classical mythology - the earliest example is Homer's epics, which were probably written down about five centuries after the Trojan War, and were set in a hazy epic of which there were no written records. Whatever we think of the Gospel narrative (and I do not, in fact, believe that Jesus was resurrected), it still does not contain the characteristics of any undisputed mythology. john k 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, is the mythology article there dealing with the Bible or various outside sources? I was under the impression it was limited to non-Biblical accounts mostly, besides, its sort of a, well, lousy looking article anyway, if we make our own section here we can make it better and just mention stuff like the infancy gospel and medieval things and whatnot. Homestarmy 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate, but from my perspective the Gospels are mythology. Of course, it doesn't matter whether I think this, just as it doesn't matter that John Kenney thinks they are not mythology. The question is, are there credible historians, students of comparative literature, and folklorists who call the Gospels mythology? If so, we need to acknowledge this, state whose POV it is and provide some context. If no such specialist calls them mythology, it is a moot point. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After a huge and somewhat acrimonious debate, spread over several articles, it was decided not to include Bible stories as part of mythology. In common usage the word is offensive to many, and they probably deserve their own articles anyway. DJ Clayworth 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, this article uses a definition of myth that differs from the mythology article? Doesn't seem like a good idea. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RandyS0725 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Personally, for those of you who do not believe that Christian mythology is an inappropriate term for one's still-established beliefs, I agree whole-heartedly with you, as it is quite offensive to the people (including myself) who are still apart of this religious faith.

Perhaps if you applied yourself a bit more to a complete understanding of the meaning of "mythology" rather than trumpeting that your personal bias against this word causes you to be offended, it would be more productive. You seem to labor under some kind of misapprehension that myth implies false. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RandyS0725 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)I would only believe so because I've been told so. How can you say what you just said and not feel like a complete idiot??? Mythology is a collection of stories, particular to one or more cultures, known to be false (hence Mythology, "the study of stories). Don't cross me on definitions, because you are wrong when you say that statement. And no it is not a bias, I simply feel that publicly having my beliefs being exploited as "Mythology" like the Greeks' works or something else widely known to be fictitious, is offensive. I don't see atheism being widely disputed and the people who commit themselves to that belief aren't ridiculed and mocked. At least if you are going to put Christian Theology under observation by those who already may not accept it, please name it appropriately, not perscribing your own name to it as though it was even apart of your belief, to give it a name anyway. How dare you tell me I have no knowledge of what mythology is? I immensely study Greek, Nordic, Egyptian, and Roman Mythology, and I am a devout Christian, so don't give me that bunk about how my own bias toward the word mythology cause me to be offended. I know what mythology means, and there is a difference. Although Wikipedia will probably do nothing about it, as they are probably all atheists anyway, I will stand by my view that the article altogether, goes against the policy of not being one-sided, or not expressing one view as being ultimately right or wrong. Killer Chihuahua, you have been graced by the presence of a Child of the King.

I wrote my own section and everything but I decided to delete and jump into this one. In defense of RandyS0725 (so to speak), adding the term mythology to Christianity is offensive. Mythology in the literal sense is already implied within Christianity as with all other religions. The problem is is that with many other words (like pagan and cult) the word "mythology" has evolved into having negative connotations. Everyone realizes that using the word "mythology" in conjunction with Christianity or any other religion will illicit a confrontational response. It is self-evident, like our rights in the Constitution.

As for you Randy, I have a couple problems with what you said. First, you are ALMOST on point with the definition of mythology. The only part thats off is the "known to be false". Thats not the definition but the negative connotation that it has evolved into. Secondly, in the defense of your faith, which is your right as a human and duty as a spiritual individual, you in turn insult my own. From what I gathered from your writing (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are offended because Christian Mythology puts your religion on lower level with other religions labeled "mythology" as if Christianity was on a higher level than the Greek Faith. (this is what I gathered from your following sentence "I simply feel that publicly having my beliefs being exploited as "Mythology" like the Greeks' works or something else widely known to be fictitious, is offensive.") We can go round 'n round about who's religion is the right one 'til we're both dead and get nowhere. We all feel that our religion is the righteous path, but when we air those feelings in a public form of discourse we dishonor our own faith with preteniousness and hubris. In accordance with my sensebilities and the Wikipedia standards of assuming good faith, I will not take it personally.

Lastly, everyone's spouting off different definitions of mythology and I'm amazed that there can be so much contention. So with that in mind I went to the dictionary and will re-print it here:

Mythology: 1. A body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person 2. Myths collectively 3. The science or study of myths 4. A set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered.

If anyone has any of the three C's for me, feel free to let me have it. "Total salvation suffers from inflation" - Otep - - - User:MrFuchs 12NOV06

POV

Why is this article so POV? 71.135.65.235

How is it POV? And how could it be improved? I just added a bunch of stuff on modern Christmas movies that uses Christian themes without calling them such. MPS 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, the article looks like it has been written in a christian pov and I quote:

Stories which were once taken as true but are no longer accepted by most Christians are most easily identified as Christian mythology, such as the tale of Saint George or Saint Valentine.

but isn't all christian storys mythology?71.135.57.112 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed some stuff about movies and TV. Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman and Home Alone are certainly not Christian mythology. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What the crap?!?!?! they certainly are. MPS 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian Mythology Includes Jesus

How can this article suggest that Biblical texts do not constitute mythology? So it's okay to call Zoroastrian or Buddhist beliefs mythology in the Mythology article, but NOT Christianity? Come on. As I understand it, the term myth as used by scholars in the field does not connote falsehood, so what's the problem? And therefore the entire Christian tradition is part of a Christian mythos, including Jesus, including the Bible, including all of it. How can you call SOME religious beliefs "myths" and others not? Keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely NPOV. So either all religious belief is objectively to be considered myth, or NONE of it is. Since there is a field of study called mythology, the Wikipedia artcile on mythology must also mention "Christian mythology" along with all the other religions of the world. And this particular article should not attempt to suggest that only zany Medeival texts or Christmas cartoon characters constitute Christian mythology.207.216.49.234 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. There is a link at the bottom to Jesus as Myth, but there is no mention of it in the body of the article. Sparsefarce 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While there are plenty of sources at the end of the article, most of the examples in Jesus as myth are unsourced, and the sources they have come from atheist websites... IMHO, If you decide to incorporate the "Jesus was just a myth" critique, you'd better have unassailable sources and make sure to attribute the opinions to the sources you cite. MPS 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is confusion the link is to a page which is about Jesus is a myth in the sense of a fiction-- and that Sprasefarce looks like he just wants this article to expand the mythology of Jesus life and death. Goldenrowley 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy Section

This page asked for mythology expert help in this section so I have a very good book here and I have done my best to make this section better. I hope all agree, there are now more examples and a new reference. Goldenrowley 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Core beliefs?

I wonder… would the core beliefs of Christianity really be considered Christian myth, or just the more unbelievable stories that surround some of it? MacGuy 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can readup on definitions of mythology....there are several meanings and "unbelievable" stories is not one of them. Goldenrowley 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mythology vs Biblical Texts and Faith

Shouldn't we differentiate between mythology, and the religious traditions of the old and new testaments? Shouldn't mythology be the term used to describe the apocrypha and other non-biblical beliefs? As written, this article stinks of religious intolerance. 76.186.106.159 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can readup on the complete definitions of mythology... and the first few sentences of this artice. Aprocrapha and non-biblical stories are interesting, but they do not make up the entire mythology of a people, they are by definition not the "core" values they are side interests outside of the bible. I am thinking the "core" mythology story to Christians is Christs birth in a manger and his death and then his resurrection, and what that means to Christians. Goldenrowley 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is what Christian "Mythology" is supposed to be, then this is just a tract of intolerance. 76.186.106.159 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what's intolerant. Goldenrowley 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing the core of the Christian Faith as mythology is intolerant. The Wikipedia articles on "Jewish Mythology" and "Buddhist Mythology" are much more respectful, and maintain a line between religion and mythology. 76.186.106.159 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving this article to Christian religious beliefs or Christian beliefs would be more neutral in my opinion. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article uses the correct neutral and NON-negative definition of "mythology" as follows: "Christian mythology is a body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance. Christian mythology can also be taken to refer to the entire mythos surrounding the Christian religious system, including the various narratives of both the Old and New Testaments. /Christian mythology includes the core beliefs of Christianity, the body of legendary stories that have accumulated around New Testament figures and elaborates upon the lives of the saints, to emphasize, explain, or embody Christian beliefs"

also, this is fairly accurate to the way the Wikipedia mythology project uses "mythology" Goldenrowley 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Goethean is correct. 76.186.106.159 02:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, I agree we should always attempt to stay neutral but I do not see that move as a solution, articles exists on Christian beleifs already - then people will just wonder what is "Christian mythology" and replace it with another attempt to write this article. I think it is far better to work on this page until team Wikipedia answers that question correctly with adequate sources, etc. Plus, it would need a radical restructure (and lose half the things on it) if you'd cancel all mythology sections of this article, in other words, you'd prod the article. I might consider a move to call it "Christian traditional narratives" but it is not ready for the prime time of being an article named "Christian religious beleifs" which is actually a redundant phrase. Goldenrowley 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should keep a strict line between religion and mythology. This page although highly relevant and necessary, it should have a disclaimer of some sort explaining that for one's mythology is another's religion - maybe? ForrestLane42 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Gnostic Faith

Shouldn't we include a section of gnostic christian mythology? That sect had many interesting mythological beliefs on the more traditional belief system. ForrestLane42 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I think so, yes, and it might help counter-balance all the Roman Catholic mythology with some others. Do you know of some Gnostic pages to link to? Goldenrowley 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the idea that we categorize the "story list" by denominations or period that way people can at a glance get a feeling for the genre.Goldenrowley 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Categorization by denominations (if by that, you mean Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Protestant denominations) won't necessarily work, however. For example, most all of these denominations use the same set of scriptures (with slight variations). However, we definitely should add a bit on Gnostic Christian myths, particularly the Gnostic accounts of Jesus (i.e., that he wasn't God incarnate, but rather God with the illusion of a body) and the Gnostic creation myths. Check out the Gnostic Society Library here. I'll probably add some Gnostic info to this article shortly... --Phatius McBluff 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Canon Idea

I am going to ask the contributor that thinks myths are "ouside Biblical canon" are the "key point" to verify and cite some scholarly references on the phrase "outside canon" if you must insist on it. If you do it can be worked in as an opinion of a scholar, as a counterpoint to all the other scholars that think mythology are the core stories no matter what book they come from. In addition when you read the Biblical canon page it says canon differs by different denominations ... so which canon are you speaking about?? Please note: articles in Wikipedia need to be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. Goldenrowley 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Myth vs. religion?

Christianity is not a myth, it is theology and is a living religion with more then 2 billion members. religions called mythology are not practiced anymore. I take great offense that this site should call my beliefs of the world and life a myth. If Christianity is to be called mythology, then evolution should be called mythology as well, since it is an unproven theory.Preator1

I think that you are looking for our article on Christianity. This is (should be?) an article on Christian myth and folklore. Jkelly 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this page calling Christianity a "myth" rather it calls it a "theology." per first few sentences. Goldenrowley 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

hm, it is the entire point that it is a "living tradition". "religions called mythology are not practiced anymore" is mistaken, as you can read up on the mythology article: What distinguishes a myth from a mere story is that it is, or has been at some point, a living tradition of deep significance. If your worldview is affected by Christianity, you should properly object to anyone not calling Christian scripture mythological. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well explained, thank you. Goldenrowley 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can poster explain why "neutrality is disputed" so we can work with your concerns? Otherwise it is hard to identify the element of concern. Goldenrowley 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Poster dd not explain so I removed after 2 weeks. Seemed tohave an issue with the word "myth" which this talk page has gone over, several times.Goldenrowley 06:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you! It is a great offense indeed not just for Christians but also for Catholics. --Pirateer011

Christian myth template idea (new)

The below template idea is being discussed at Wikiproject Mythology talk page. You may see this infobox change a few times before we're finished with it, but I thought people who work on this page may want to be part of the consensus on its final wording and usage: Goldenrowley 06:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on religion and mythology:
In its academic sense, the word myth means "a traditional story", especially one that is held as sacred or important in a specific culture. Unless otherwise noted, the words mythology and myth are here used in this sense, with no implication as to the factuality or historicity of the events related within the story.

Should that explanation be more specific than just a traditional story? Most dictionary definitions seem to say something along the lines of a "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." (-MW) Is a traditional story always truly myth? Jjmckool (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no scholarly consensus about the proper definition of the word "myth" (as the article mentions). Thus, we went with "traditional story", because it's the only definition broad enough not to exclude anything that could be deemed "myth". The article gives an in-depth discussion of the various genres within Christianity's traditional stories, including legends, folktales, and what folklorists would regard as "true" myths (stories about a fabulous past, the creation of the world, etc.). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, if that's agreed upon, then cool. Jjmckool (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No thoughts on the specific wording, but I think having a tag's a great idea - people in general use "myth" to mean not true. This will greatly help. 86.151.166.213 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Linear time

The thing that sets Judeo-Christo-Islamic narratives apart from many other traditional narratives is their sense of linear, historical time. In, say, Australian Aboriginal mythology, time falls into two categories, the mythical age and the present, between which there is no continuity. If you want to know why we do such-and-such nowadays, you just have to look back at a certain mythical event. We cook food this way because so-and-so did it that way in the mythical age. Everything that happens now is a direct output of the mythical age. All "history" happened in the very beginning, and since then nothing important has taken place.

In contrast, for modern secular man, history stretches all the way from the beginning, through the present, into the unbounded future. What happens now is not a direct result of primordial events. Rather, primordial events led to other events, which led to other events, and so on, until we finally reach the present.

That's precisely the view of history we get in the Bible. There history isn't limited to a handful of primordial events. Biblical history is a vast interwoven series of events stretching from the Creation to the Exodus to the Hebrew Prophets to Christ's birth to the Church-founding acts of the Apostles to the battle of Armaggedon.

Should we devote a section of the Christian mythology article to this fact? I can quote some books on this topic. --Phatius McBluff 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added stuff on linear time. --Phatius McBluff 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

These are nice additions Phatius thank you. I think I may remove the expert needed request because you've been one. Goldenrowley 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you! I wouldn't call myself an expert, but this is one of my major interests. --Phatius McBluff 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Personal essay"?

If you go to the edit screen for the "Progress is possible" subsection, you'll see that someone has left a note saying, "The following personal essay has nothing to do with Christian mythology." I find this confusing.

• First, that subsection is not a "personal essay": it's a critical analysis of a trend in Christian thought, and it cites scholarly works. If it (or its title) is worded too casually, then fix that; but please don't label it a "personal essay".
• Second, it emphatically does relate to Christian mythology. The subsection immediately above it discusses the view of history presented by Christian mythology. It, in turn, discusses the attitudes and trends that directly follow from that view of history. Moreover, it's hardly an analysis of theology or ritual; rather, it draws specifically on Christian traditional narratives (that is, mythology).
• Third, this subsection is rather necessary to the article's relevance. Much of the Christian mythology article's material can be found elsewhere (at Bible, for instance).
• Fourth, the subsection titled "Western progressivism" is undeniably relevant to Christian mythology, and it would have made no sense without the subsection on "Progress is possible". It's the progressive view of history promoted by Christian mythology that continues to influence Western culture long after many Westerners stop reading the Bible or going to church. As we all know, myths keep shaping culture long after the religion that produced them has ceased to be paramount. That's what I was trying to get across by creating the subsection on "Western progressivism".

Does the person who put up that notice think "Progress is possible" is too pro-Christian? I'm afraid I'm getting a bit exasperated here. First someone creates an article on "Christian mythology", and conservative Christians get mad. Then I write a section about one of the (arguably) positive influences Christian mythology has on Western culture, and I'm told my view is purely "personal".

I understand how both sides feel, but Wikipedia's job is to report what professional researchers say. And professional researchers do discuss the concepts covered in "Progress is possible". Does the subsection need more "subjectification" (e.g., "According to scholar X ...", "Scholar X believes ...")? Okay. Then add it. Please. I just want this article to be as good as possible. --Phatius McBluff 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What do others think? I'll merely point out that the Christian myth of history is that these are the End Times, that the Second Coming is imminent and that the natural world is corrupted by Man's Original Sin. That's the essence of Christian mythology of history. It's not directly reflected in the wholly personal essay edited into the article. --Wetman 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU overwrote my comment Wetman.... I imagine you did it by mistake. I don't know if you have a source for that if you do, consider helping to add some. In the meantime Phatius has been adding a lot of into from a book that I read as well (Myths and Reality by Eliade) tjis source was not an essay. Goldenrowley 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I just tweaked a word here and there. I think now it sounds more documentational and less like an "essay" now. Hope that helps. Goldenrowley 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining the purpose of this article

Just last night, I added 3 new sections on the major events in Christian mythology: creation/fall, Christ/atonement, and the end-times. However, I'm already starting to regret it. A few days ago, I added the section on "Time in Christian mythology" because it was an important discussion that didn't really fit anywhere else, and I don't (yet) regret that decision. However, this article needs to have a specific (neutral) direction and purpose; it can't just be a dumping-ground for all important tidbits about Christian mythology.

"Christian mythology" is a HUGE category. In principle, it encompasses everything Christian that isn't pure theology, ritual, or mystical experience. We need to decide exactly what we want to cover, and how we want to organize it in the article. If we could come up with some sort of outline...

I'm thinking of 2 directions this article could go in. On one hand, the article could continue in the same direction it's already going in: we could keep it to discussions about Christian mythology (the categories, etc. of Christian mythology). The sections would include:

• Categories of Christian mythology
• Controversy about the term "myth"
• Mythology in secular Christmas stories

... and so on.

On the other hand, the article could contain less discussion about Christian mythology, and it could contain more Christian mythology itself. Then the sections would include:

• The Mythological Period (Genesis)
  • Cosmogony
    • 7 days of creation
    • Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man narrative
  • Origins
    • Fall of Man and the Origin Sin doctrine
    • Noah
    • Tower of Babel
• Legends (as distinguished from myths by the folklorists)
  • Abraham
  • The Exodus
  • The conquest of the Promised Land
  • etc.
• Fables and folktales
  • Jesus' parables
    • Lazarus the rich man
    • Prodigal son
    • etc.
  • Medieval lore
    • Harrowing of Hell
    • Hagiographies of saints
    • etc.

That's actually more what I think of when I see the phrase "Christian mythology". However, it would take forever to put up, the article would look odd until it was all put up, the material is already covered in other articles, etc.

What do people think? --Phatius McBluff 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, that doesn't need to take forever to put up; we could make it mostly just as list, with links to articles on each specific myth. I'm going to put a rudimentary version up right now. If you strongly disagree, feel free to revert it. --Phatius McBluff 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A list is a step backwards from even a jejune text. To think "mythology", find Christian examples and analyze the purposes to which myth has been put would result in "original research" however. One might search "Christian mythology" to see what mainstream statements have been published and build upon them, perhaps: what have Freud and Jung- especially- said directly of Christian myth? A clear understanding of the nature, structure and uses of mythology might be thought a pre-requisite for competent edits in this article, of course. --Wetman 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep what's here so far which includes a discussion then a list of suggested myths... touching on some of the main myths (shortly), with links to a fuller page on each subject. There already exists a list at end of suggested myth stories - to cover the entire group would make for a book, but maybe they can be formatted up in a menu style. I also really, really LIKE Wetman's suggestion above to report what Freud and Jung and philosophers say re. Christian mythology. Goldenrowley 01:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, I agree with you and Goldenrowley that Jung's and Freud's views would be good topics for this article. I'm far from being an expert on either, though. I may do some research on them for this article, but later. Right now, I'm mainly concerned with adding a section about Gnostic Christian mythology.

I also agree that the article shouldn't be a list: that would make the article largely pointless. However, my idea wasn't to turn the whole article into a list. My idea was simply this: Since we obviously can't discuss every major example of Christian mythology in this article, we should have a section that lists many diverse examples of Christian mythology, but according to a definite organizational principle. I decided to "be bold" and create such a list (in the section titled "Important examples of Christian mythology"). Please note that such a list of Christian myths already existed in this article; I simply added to it and reorganized it a bit. --Phatius McBluff 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks and sounds good to me, thanks. Some thoughts were getting split up. I just put them together. Goldenrowley 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparative mythology section

I just added a section on comparisons between Christian mythology and other mythologies. That section's potential for expansion is unlimited, but I think I got most or all of the essential points and a good number of the major points. --Phatius McBluff 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of the flood motif, Goldenrowley! --Phatius McBluff 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Its the only comparison I know.... my own concern (now) is here the old testament should not be the focus and may be move some of those sections on old testament to "Jewish mythology" article since that's where they originated. Goldenrowley 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon

Why does the Christianity and mythology box have a picture of a Welsh dragon in it? What does this have to do with Christian mythology?212.140.167.98 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, we've been using dragon for all mythology sort of as a logo. However it is worth looking into if it applies to the religion ... it's a good question. Goldenrowley 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Dragons it makes people think of mythology right away, but according to the dragon article in Christianity they may symbolize serpent or evil that oppose Christianity. So I elect a dove (holy spirit symbol) to replace the dragon for Christian articles, unless someome have another better idea ? Goldenrowley 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're thinking along the right lines, but your idea has a problem: a dove is not an immediately recognizable symbol of either Christianity or mythology. (It more belongs on a logo for Pacifism articles.) Since the mythology "info box" for Christian mythology is different from the generic mythology "info box", I suggest we use a Christian symbol instead of a mythology symbol: how does a plain old cross sound? --Phatius McBluff 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I selected a Holy Spirit dove in a church stain glass window. I think people know the dove, or else he would not be in church windows. 1 in 3 of the trinity. The cross is easy to identify as Christian but its been done so many times and seems more of a theology synbol. Plus I like symbols of sacred creatures. Goldenrowley

All right. I saw how the logo looks now, and the dove is fine. --Phatius McBluff 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic Christianity

Should we add a section on Gnostic Christian mythology? I mean, it's obvious we should add something, but how much? Just as I don't want to duplicate easily-accessible info in the Jewish mythology article, I don't want to duplicate easily-accessible info in the Gnosticism article. Should we give a few important examples of Gnostic myths as "case studies", or should we just give an overview of how Gnostic mythology differed from canonical Christian mythology? --Phatius McBluff 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the first thing that comes to mind is, if we cover the lesser accepted branches (Gnosticism) we had better cover the "sanctioned" branches equally well, for example, that would mean equal time spent on Catholic examples and Puritan and Eastern Orthodox. I reviewed the Gnostic sections last night and because they have their own literature (the apocrapha are quite unique their point of view and were not accepted as "canon", I suggest Gnostic mythology be started as a seperate but linked page; however it seems clear reading the Gnosticsm page what the myths are from the apocrapha getting a page for each manuscript (I see one about Shem, another about Seth, another about Thomas, another Mary Magdalene). You're doing a great job on these articles Phatius, I am really impressed. Goldenrowley 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest Gnostic mythology be started as a seperate but linked page." This seems like a reasonable course of action. After all, "Gnosticism" wasn't a single denomination within Christianity. Rather, it is a blanket term for a wide variety of related religious movements, many of which incorporated Christian elements. Thus, to even speak of "Gnostic mythology" as a subcategory of Christian mythology doesn't really make sense.

"The apocrapha getting a page for each manuscript." By "apocrypha", I assume you mean Gnostic scriptures not accepted in the Christian canon. Giving each Gnostic scripture its own page sounds like a good idea. It's a bit ambitious, but most of the work is already done. A lot of the Gnostic scriptures (e.g., Gospel of Thomas) already have their own Wikipedia articles. Please note, however, that expanding Wikipedia's info on Gnosticism would not require us to discuss all "apocryphal" scriptures. Some Christian apocrypha (the story of Bel and the Dragon, for instance) have little to do with Gnosticism.

"That would mean equal time spent on Catholic examples and Puritan and Eastern Orthodox." I'm a little confused about what you mean here. Do you mean that we should make separate articles or sections about "Catholic mythology", "Methodist mythology", "Baptist mythology", etc.? That doesn't seem practical to me. Despite the diversity within Christianity, most denominations hold so many myths in common that separating them out by denomination would be pointless. However, we might note that Catholics embrace some scriptures, and many hagiographies and traditions about saints (e.g., the Assumption of Mary), that Protestants tend to regard as apocryphal or outside their denomination.

--Phatius McBluff 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"You're doing a great job on these articles Phatius, I am really impressed." Thank you for your kind words! --Phatius McBluff 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was supposed to be it would be "fair" but terribly impractical to load every single Christian variation by denomination onto one page (if we were going to do Gnosticism). I agree with you, I think Gnostic mythology can be on its own. However I also beleive there is such a thing as Eastern Orthodox mythology, and it would be ok for someone to add that article as well.Goldenrowley 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Eastern Christianity has a number of significant differences from Western Christianity. An article on "Eastern Orthodox mythology" or "Eastern Orthodox narratives" would be a fine idea. --Phatius McBluff 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

I am not sure his ideas are always taken seriously by all, but he's heavily used in this article as it stands, so we should be careful to also quote more current scholars and counter points to his views. Goldenrowley 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I'm not exactly a Campbell fan. And I'm well aware that many academics (except high school English teachers) either dislike or choose to ignore his ideas (e.g., the supposed universality of the "Hero's Journey" sequence). However, on the topics for which I cited him in this article, I think he's completely correct. The Campbell ideas cited in this article have been voiced by other scholars as well; I simply found Campbell to be the source that expressed these ideas the most clearly and concisely. If you have counterarguments for Campbell's points from other scholars, feel free to add them, of course. --Phatius McBluff 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough...! Goldenrowley 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with first paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads:

A neutral approach must take it as an axiom that Christian mythology is neither more nor less true than, for example, Greek mythology.

In modern, secular psychology and philosophy, it is a highly controversial assertion that one can be "neutral" about any statement, in the sense of making no judgment with regard to its truth or falsity (and Wikipedia avoids such an assertion by using a much weaker form of "neutrality" in policy; q.v., WP:YESPOV). Furthermore -- given that several Christian schools of philosophy (Reformational philosophy, Presuppositional apologetics, Reformed epistemology, Fideism) hold, for various reasons, that one not only should, but must begin by assuming the truth of the Christian mythos -- this claim is not only controversial, it is also "biased" (i.e., asserting opinion as fact; q.v., WP:ASF).

The sentence should either be removed, reworded to remove the controversial assertion about "neutral approach," or reworded and sourced to indicate that "neutral approach" is an opinion. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"it is a highly controversial assertion that one can be "neutral" about any statement, in the sense of making no judgment with regard to its truth or falsity" - All this means is that it is difficult to hold a neutral stance, not that it is difficult to identify one.

"given that several Christian schools of philosophy (Reformational philosophy, Presuppositional apologetics, Reformed epistemology, Fideism) hold, for various reasons, that one not only should, but must begin by assuming the truth of the Christian mythos [...]" - Do they claim that this is a neutral approach? Ilkali (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is superfluous, and should be removed on that basis, if it is simply making the tautological assertion that a "neutral approach" entails approaching neutrally. However, it seems more likely that it is intended to assert the correct / best approach, the practical possibility of which is controversial, and the assertion of which is biased. Either way it should be removed. The view of the philosophers I mentioned is not "neutral" in the controversial sense (though it is in the sense used by WP policy: an opinion stated as a sourced opinion). 64.234.1.144 (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"The sentence is superfluous, and should be removed on that basis, if it is simply making the tautological assertion that a "neutral approach" entails approaching neutrally" - Tautology does not entail superfluity. Ilkali (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true -- if you're trying to define or clarify a concept. Here, however, it is as superfluous as the inverse sentence would be: "A non-neutral approach does not take it as an axiom that Christian mythology is neither more nor less true than, for example, Greek mythology." Neither sentence adds any encyclopedic content with regard to the meaning or explication of "Christian mythology." At best they are superfluous. At worst, they are veiled POV pushing for certain investigative methodologies or ideals. Whatever the case, there is no reason for either of them to be here. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The requirement for inclusion is roughly that the perlocutionary force of the content be appropriate and beneficial to a degree commensurate with the content's length. It doesn't need to give new information. The point of the content in question, as I see it, is to:

• Remind the reader that their own beliefs may need to be put away for the following content to be examined in a neutral way.
• Prime the reader for encountering content that might not, in his opinion, give his beliefs the reverence they deserve.

In other words, I don't think it is either purposeless or intended to push a POV. Nonetheless, I do think it is out of place. I'll agree with your position (if not your reasons) and remove it. Ilkali (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. I'm not out to "win" or anything; I just really feel that it is a slight-of-hand to push a certain POV as "neutral," when that POV is itself based on a whole system of thought and world-view which may be alien to the reader. I understand the reasoning you offer, and I mostly agree, I just can't get past "neutral" as a buzzword for "best," but maybe that's just me being trapped in my own cultural box. Thanks for your patience. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Very important quote added

I stumbled upon this jem of a quote from none other than current Pope Benedict XVI:

"The Lord mentioned its deepest mystery on Palm Sunday, when some Greeks asked to see him. In his answer to this question is the phrase: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (Jn 12: 24). [...]

Mediterranean culture, in the centuries before Christ, had a profound intuition of this mystery. Based on the experience of this death and rising they created myths of divinity which, dying and rising, gave new life. To them, the cycle of nature seemed like a divine promise in the midst of the darkness of suffering and death that we are faced with.

In these myths, the soul of the human person, in a certain way, reached out toward that God made man, who, humiliated unto death on a cross, in this way opened the door of life to all of us."[1]

I added it to the section on Christianity and comparative mythology. Coming from the top of the Catholic hierarchy, this quote definitely deserves to be in the article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam and Eve?

Quote:

"Genesis 1-2:3 In the creation myth in Genesis 1-2:3, the Creator is called Elohim (translated "God"). He creates the universe over a six-day period, creating a new feature each day: first he creates day and night; then he creates the firmament to separate the "waters above" from the "waters below"; then he separates the dry land from the water; then he creates plants on the land; then he places the sun, moon, and stars in the sky; then he creates swimming and flying animals; then he creates land animals; and finally he creates man and woman together, "in his own image". On the seventh day, God rests, providing the rationale for the custom of resting on the sabbath.[12]"

This section of the article has a link where it says "man and woman" which links to Adam and Eve. Some beliefs hold that it was Adam and Lilith who were created in this verse, then Eve created later. Should that link be removed?

Also, I think the only topic which should be in this article are the topics which aren't canon in the Christian religion, and I don't think anything that has to do with the Jewish religion should be in here. Yes, topics such as the holy grail or the story of the fall of Satan mentioned in the book of Enoch, but why topics such as the creation story, which are held by most christians to not be myths but truths?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.54.182 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs Work

I just wanted to weigh in and voice an opinion about the Christian Mythology article. It kinda bothers me a bit that the article exists in the first place. Much of the material is already covered in Christianity, Christian theology and related articles. There is a note at the top of the page that defines myth as a sacred story whether true or false, but I think myth is still generally taken in a negative sense. We would do well to review Religion and mythology to understand the difference between the two.

Short of deleting the article (which I'm not sure if it could be approved anyways), I think the article is a mess and it needs a lot of work. Works by John Bunyan and C.S. Lewis are not Christian myths, but allegories and stories written by modern Christian writers. There is a difference. Comic book stories are not myths either (as is mentioned in the history section). I think we can make the case for Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost being mythology because what he wrote about has been adopted as acceptable interpretation of Christian theology to an extent. The Other Examples section under Important Examples of Christian Mythology are what is actually myth - Dante, Milton, stories of saints, the holy grail, etc. The other things on the list under The Mythological Age and the Legendary Age (who came up with those titles anyways?), for example the virgin birth and resurrection are Theology.

Besides this, I think the sections need to be organized a bit better, as they appear pretty haphazard in their current form. First canonical Scripture is discussed, then non-canonical, then literature, and then it goes back to canonical examples out of Genesis. And then it goes into other mythology. In the middle of everything is a bit about controversy involving the definition of myth. This should be at the top of the article in definition of what is being discussed as a whole. I think the history section as a whole is almost irrelevant as it refers to all of Christianity as mythology and tracks its growth into a world religion. Maybe there should be a link at the bottom to History of Christianity instead. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mythology in secular Christmas stories

I'm not sure why this section is even here. None of the things in it are remotely connected with Christianity. Remember that 'be nice to people' or 'be yourself' are not specifically Christian messages (though Christianity may often agree with them). Does anyone have any reason why this section is here? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think because theres a few kernals of mythology in some secular Xmas stories, and people are interested in seeing what is and what isn't from mythology. Perhaps whats missing is to be clear where that line may be (although that could be hard to find, since there are so many kinds of Christianity). Does that make sense? Goldenrowley (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is they don't have any Christian mythological elements. For Santa it's possible to trace the mythology back to some Christian roots. For Rudolph, Frosty, the Grinch, Charlie Brown and the rest there is no mythological element - and the tiny amount of moral or meaning in there is not Christian-derived. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of objections I'm going to remove most of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was sort of on the fence but willing to go with your idea to remove it. But as good material worth keeping, I have actually resurrected it as a new article called Secular Christmas stories. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd line in intro

The introduction now contains the following sentence: "The term 'mythology' refers in context to belief". The sentence that this sentence relaced was only marginally less confusing: "The term mythology is used in reference to belief and belief only".

I don't know what these sentences mean. This could just be stupidity on my part, but it at least indicates that the intro needs to be reworded for clarity. Are these sentences just saying that the word "mythology" is here being used in a supposedly "neutral" way, to describe beliefs, without implying that these beliefs are false? If so, they're redundant. The article already goes out of its way to make that point clear.

Anyway, the sentence is distracting and unaesthetic. Could we just remove it? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not at all clear what it means. Ilkali (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally on Wikipedia, one is supposed to wait for a full-fledged discussion to happen before acting on the belief that led him to start the discussion. However, given that the sentence in question is obviously unhelpful, and that the one response I've gotten so far (Ilkali's) agrees with me, I'll just remove the sentence for now. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole intro is bad. For a start it seems to assume that Christian mythology is synonymous with the Bible, which simply isn't true, and it fails to introduce the breadth of the subject. I suggest an entire rewrite. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the intro doesn't assume that Christian mythology is synonymous with the Bible. The intro explicitly states that "these traditional narratives include, but are not necessarily limited to, narrative portions of the Christian scriptures." Perhaps "Christian scriptures" should be changed to "Christian Bible"? Anyway, also note that, for some Christians (i.e. hardline fundamentalist Protestants), Christian mythology is limited to stories in the Bible. I'll change "scriptures" to "Bible" (to make more explicit the point that Christian mythology doesn't equal the Bible), but otherwise I think the intro is fine. And, yes, I agree that the article could use a heavy re-write. See below for my comments on that point. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing title from mythology to beliefs

It would be better if we can change the title from "christian mythology" to "Christian Beliefs" if possible because term "mythology" hurts many Chirstian and Catholic followers. --User:Pirateer011 —Preceding comment was added at 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

'Beliefs' is not as specific, and does not properly identify the topic of the article. Ilkali (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the term "beliefs" is more acceptable to BILLIONS of followers around the world. --GuardianAngelJohnael —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Using proper academic terminology and descriptive titles is more important than protecting overly fragile sensibilities. Ilkali (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for academic terminology. When people thinks it's offensive for their religion, this creates argument which may lead to war; the same reason why some people blew up their selves for their religion, this same misunderstanding. Terminology doesn't count in heaven. --GuardianAngelJohnael

This article is NOT about Christian beliefs - it is about mythology in the technical sense: "stories with deep explanatory significance". There is a big notice at the top right of the article explaining that 9and pointing out that including something in this article does not imply the falsehood of that myth). Beliefs that are not "mythological" in nature belong elsewhere. Looking over the article I find that there has been some "content creep" where people assume they are writing about anything to do with Christian beliefs, and that stuff should be excised from the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to go to war over a Wikipedia article. Ilkali (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, I thought the content creep was not as bad as you did when you deleted it, (Mythopoeia does tie in, secular stories do bridge in as modern recreations of myth) so I re-added and updated the sections you deleted, but farther down thinking it belongs more at the end. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for re-writing the article

I don't have time to re-write this article right now (although I will in a couple of weeks). However, I'd like to make some proposals regarding how we could improve the article. Although I was one of the major editors involved in getting the article into its current form, I have to say that I'm not very happy with it.

I don't agree with DJ Clayworth that there's been much "content creep" in this article. (See this comments above.) If you take "Christian mythology" in its broadest sense, as all the traditional Christian material that takes the form of narratives, then I think you'll see that most if not all of the material in this article falls squarely within the category of mythology. The only exception is the "mythopoeia" stuff; however, I think the article should at least mention mythopoeia, only because the authors of Christian mythopoeia themselves chose (correctly or incorrectly) to label their work as "mythical".

However, I admit that the article, in its current form, reads more like an introduction to Christian material in general (albiet with an emphasis on narratives) than like an article on Christian mythology. I think the current article on Jewish mythology is a good example of what we should be aiming for in this article: it's concise, orderly, consistently focussed on mythology, rather than doctrine or theology.

Here are some proposals I have for this article:

• Radically condense the section on "In-depth discussion of representative examples", especially the sub-section on "The Narrative of the atonement" (which shades more into theology than mythology).
• Add more material on medieval Catholic and Eastern Orthodox legends (for example, hagiographies of saints). Without a substantial section on medieval legends, this article hardly deserves to call itself a discussion of Christian mythology. Unfortunately, medieval legends aren't my area of expertise.
• Expand (if possible) the section on "comparative mythology". Everyone at least agrees that there's such a thing as pagan mythology; so if a comparison of Christian material with pagan mythology doesn't belong in a discussion of "Christian mythology", I don't know what does.

Comments? Criticisms? Questions? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Phatius I reviewed your concerns and I do not think the article needs a rewrite, you can't fit everything in these general articles, perhaps a branch to medieval mythology would be better than fitting it all in here. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should set the creation of a separate medieval mythology article as a long-term goal. That would be better than trying to fit in a huge section on medieval mythology. I still think Jewish mythology somehow turned out better than Christian mythology, but since I can't articulate precisely what the problem is, I'm willing to let the issue go. I do, however, plan to do a bit of "cleanup" and editing for conciseness on this article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with most of what you write, Phatius. My main issues are that far too much of the article is re-hashing Christian doctrine and not adding anything substantial that's not in other articles. And you have correctly identified places where the article is deficient - hagiography, medieval legend. Unfortunately I'm not an expert in that area either, so we may have to add only some very basic things.

I do disagree about Mythopeia; I think Tolkien and Lewis are just too recent to be considered myth. My preference would be to see a very brief mention and a link to another article. But I don't feel that strongly about it, and if you think there should be more I'll bow to your judgement. I'll confess to a little bias here - I had to severely edit this article a while back to cull out a long discussion about Rudolph the Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman, so I tend to dislike adding anything modern.

I would also like to see the sections about biblical stories cut down, ideally to make room for the other stuff that should be in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, JD Clayworth. I agree with your first point completely: it's not that this article isn't a good article when considered in isolation; it's that it spends too much time discussing stuff that isn't specifically mythological and that's covered in other articles. The only material that's specifically mythological (as opposed to doctrinal/theological) and that isn't heavily covered elsewhere is medieval legendry in general (there is an article on hagiography, but not all medieval legends are hagiographies).

As for your second point-- I don't think anyone's arguing that Narnia is mythology. But it is partly inspired by mythology and by Christianity, which means that it's "relevant". I'd leave in a brief mention. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest the problem is that sections are repetitive and sometimes (forgive me) saying the same thing in several ways. In just one subsection it mentioned the same concept/theme 2 or 3 time (before I edited it). I suspect other sections do the same. I suggest to copyedit looking for repetition and balance, rather than rewrite. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would in fact argue that Narnia (and The Lord of the Rings) is mythology. But then I would also argue that Star Trek is mythology. The point is that these are sacred narratives, i.e. "sacred" to a considerable group of people who have absorbed the narrative during childhood and adolescence. This isn't OR either, I can refer to academic literature arguing along these lines, but I am of course not suggesting we include a substantial section on Narnia etc. into this article. It is still fair to mention the Inklings and their Christian "mythopoeia" as notable to the discussion of Christian myth in the 20th century. I agree that "In-depth discussion of representative examples" needs to go: this is {{essay-entry}} material that simply rehashes the Biblical narratives already covered in the articles about the narratives in question. This article focusses far too much on scripture. The Christ myth is of course central to Christianity (and has its {{main}} article too. What this article should focus on is Christian mythology that developed within Christianity, i.e. medieval hagiography, angelology, eschatology and stuff like the Grail and Prester John narratives. The biblical myths can well be delegated to the articles about the various biblical narratives. --dab (𒁳) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann,

Good comments! I agree that there's too much emphasis on scripture in the article. However, in focussing more on "mythology that developed within Christianity", we should be careful not to "water down" the meaning of "myth". Defining "myth" as any sacred or traditional story may be a useful "official" definition for answering those who find the term pejorative. But I think we can all agree that some Christian narratives would simply look odd under the heading "mythology". The doctrine of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, and the fringe idea of the KJV as a "new revelation", may technically be "narratives": they describe processes or events, rather than mere static principles (e.g. "God is omnipotent"). But they aren't narratives that people would ever write a play or epic poem about. They don't have enough narrative "meat" on them: they're right on the borderline between narrative and mere theory. In contrast, the medieval embellishments of the harrowing of hell (which the article already mentions) are a perfect example of what we should be looking for: vigorous, rather anthropomorphic narratives that developed within popular Christian tradition. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To treat Star Trek as 'mythology' is to take far too wide a definition of sacred, to the point where we are removing it of its meaning. LOTR and Narnia may be borderline.

One thing I would totally agree with is that the article needs to focus on the things not covered extensively elsewhere, which User:Dbachmann mentioned above. Of course information on those is harder to come by, which is why everyone seems to want to write about Tolkien and Star Trek. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik's recent edits

Erik the Red 2 recently removed the first section dealing with the meaning of the word "myth". He gives the following reasons: (1) although the section may be accurate, having an entire section devoted to defending the article's use of the word "myth" is POV; (2) the section is unnecessary because the infobox at the top provides a summary of that section; (3) [implicit reason:] having a section about the meaning of the word "myth", when people could easily look at the mythology article, is redundant.

Here are my responses to Erik's reasons:

1. I admit that some parts of the deleted section looked like some secular-academic apologist's lame attempt to avoid attacks from fundamentalists who can't stand seeing the words "Christian" and "mythology" anywhere near each other regardless of how either is defined. However, the deleted section contains more than apologetics, which brings me to my second response....

2. The infobox doesn't cover everything mentioned in that section. The infobox says (1) that "myth" in its broadest sense means a traditional or sacred story, and (2) that we're not calling Christian stories false by calling them mythology. But the deleted section mentioned more than this. Let me suggest that at least the following items from the deleted section should remain in the article:

• Contrary to the definition used in this article ("traditional or sacred story"), many scholars define "myth" more restrictively. (For example, folklorists specifically use "myth" to refer to a subgroup of traditional stories distinct from legends and folktales.)
• The popular definition of myth ("falsehood") has specifically Christian roots. (Early Christian writers used Greek muthos to mean "false story".)
• Some prominent Christians (e.g. C. S. Lewis) have specifically chosen the term "myth" to refer to Christian narrative.

By themselves, these aren't POV statements. They're straightforward facts that are relevant to an article titled "Christian mythology". If we can find some way of incorporating these facts into the article so that they don't read like a long-winded defense, I'm willing to give it a try. But they do belong in the article.

3. The section isn't redundant insofar as it applies the general defintion(s) of "myth" to Christianity. For a scholar trained in religious studies, the term "myth" will cut out a different chunk of Christian narrative than it will for a folklorist. In fact, a folklorist, coming to the Christian mythology article, might be horrified to see the term applied to everything from medieval hagiographies to historical accounts of prophets. Here's where the mythology article falls short. Whoever wrote that article must have been a folklorist, because it explicitly defines mythology as stories that a culture "believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". Depending on what kind of Christian one is, that may rule out a whole lot of what we cover in this article. Unlike Protestants, Catholics accept the Book of Tobit as part of their mythology, but, like Protestants, they don't have to accept that delightful folktale as historically true. Non-fundamentalist Christians need not accept stories in Genesis as literally true, and many liberal Christians doubt whether some of those stories are even "spiritually" true (at least in the sense of communicating "revealed" truths). For example, some Christian scholars discuss whether some of those stories evolved from pagan myths. (See the discussion of the Old Testament "Watchers" myth in the Jewish mythology article.)

Erik and others: what do you think? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would very strongly argue against removal of this section. I was one of the people responsible for forming the consensus that got it inserted several years ago, and I am not a secular-academic apologist, nor (as far as I know) lame. But the paragraph above was arrive at after a lot of thought and a lot of argument, and we remove it at our peril. The section is clearly not POV, and is in fact very neutral. The argument above does get to the nub of it's reason for being there, however with an emphasis that I wouldn't agree with.

The word myth is commonly understood to mean "something false". That's true whatever the origins of the meaning. Therefore most people coming to this article will read it as an implicit statement by Wikipedia that the Christian stories are false. If that were true it would be a HUGE violation of NPOV and so not allowed. Many people already read it like that, despite the disclaimers that we have. People who don't consider Christianity to be false (2 billion of them, remember) are going to have one of two reactions 1) spend a lot of time editing the article to make it more neutral 2) abandon Wikipedia altogether, concluding that it doesn't live up to its claims of neutrality. We don't want either.

I would approve a slight change to the 'academic' definition used in the section; remember though that we don't need to get into a deep discussion of all the differences used - for this section's purposes all we need to do is indicate that academics use the term to include stories that might be true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth,

Thanks for your input. I suppose I was a little harsh in calling it "apologetic" and "lame" (although I only said that some parts sounded that way). But I felt OK using those expressions because, as far as I could tell, the actual wording of that section was largely mine. Sorry if you felt I was insulting you. However, whether or not the section was "lame", I feel that that's one of Erik's major gripes against it.

I agree that the infobox won't be enough to deflect some criticism, and that the section may help a bit. I haven't seen as many angry people attacking this article since we put up that section.

I disagree with your last point. The variety of scholarly definitions is relevant. Remember, we're using "myth" simply to mean "narrative" or, at most, "traditional narrative" — which is actually contrary to most academic usage. The Mythology and Myth articles don't help, because they both use variations of the folkloristic definition. Myth defines a myth as "a sacred story usually concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be their present form". Mythology defines mythology as stories that a culture "believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". Does any Christian nowadays think the story of Saint George killing a dragon is true and explains the nature of the universe? Is the Grail legend a sacred story that describes the origins of the world? The only justification (albiet a good one) for our broad use of the word "myth" in this article is that scholars don't agree amongst themselves about how to use the word. The article needs to explain that. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The writing in the section was not lame, in my opinion. However, the fact that we cannot take criticism to the point where we need to construct a defense section to intercept potential attacks is lame. There will always be someone who will argue, if not for any other reason then just for the sake of argument. Such people should be dealt with on the talk page, rather than turning the article into a battleground. Second of all, nature and origin are not synonyms. I think the best solution is to rewrite the infobox text to incorporate your main arguments in your first post. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I understand your feeling; I feel somewhat the same way. At the very least, it seems awkward to have that section at the top of the article, when no such section exists for Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc.

The attacks are not merely potential, though. As I pointed out, even with the infobox, the talk page was getting bombarded with complaints. One editor made a specific point of suggesting that we move the material on "controversy", etc. (which had previously been scattered throughout minor sections lower down in the article) to the top of the article. Who can blame her? If there's obvious controversy about the very phrase being used as the title of an article, then that controversy is one of the first things the article should discuss. Maybe I'm just experiencing a placebo effect, but those complaints seem to have deminished ever since the deleted section was put into its current form, at the top of the article.

So why don't we rewrite the infobox to "incorporate [my] main arguments in [my] first post"? What is there to rewrite? As you noted, the infobox already provides a concise summary of our justification for the expression "Christian mythology". What the infobox does not include are the 3 points I noted above.

Actually, I'm perfectly open to trying out your idea of letting the infobox do all the defense for us. However, those 3 legitimate and informative points still need to go somewhere in the article. Do you have any suggestion about where we should put them? I want to try my hand at rearranging the article a bit. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad wording on my part. By "main arguments" I actually meant your three necessary points. If you are strongly objected to using the infobox only, I say put the points in with the "in canonical scripture" or "important examples of christian mythology" sections. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I tried to incorporate the points in a way that you might like. Let me know what you think. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! It's great to have an editor like you that incorporates constructive criticism and suggestion. The article now has all necessary information in a way that flows better, is better organized, and doesn't have the bias of the lengthy separate section. Thanks and hope to work with you on some later issue. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. Thanks for voicing your concerns about this article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like by the time I got here you've agreed to a solution. My personal opinion is the info box is a definition aid, but one should not have an info box do all the explaining, the article should define words as they are used. Keep it concise so it does not become "apologetic", just informative. Goldenrowley (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Goldenrowley, I agree that the info box should not do all the defining. In my revision of the article, I've tried to define words (and describe differences in academic terminology) as they come up in the ordinary flow of the text. If you have concerns about the article's new format, let me know. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should not do all the defining but all the defending, leaving the defining to a more suitable location in the normal flow of the text. I believe we have achieved this at least somewhat in this article.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)