Talk:Myth (form criticism)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Myth (form criticism)" by nominator 18:10, 4 November 2012‎. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Demythology → Myth (theology) – The current title is not only not a generally recognized word, it refers specifically to a secondary concern regarding this topic, the "demythologization" of religious texts. I believe the article would be more reasonably and accurately retitled to allow for inclusion of material regarding the nature of "myth" as Bultmann uses the term, with a subsection on the "demythologization" he believed to be necessary regarding some religious texts. John Carter (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Those who know of Bultmann's ideas would seem to be more familar with the term "demythologization" than "myth" (as he used the term), but "Demythologize" could be a better name. Even "Myth (Form criticism)" would seem better than "Myth (theology)" since it is more a presuposition of form criticism than a result of the theology field. tahc ^chat 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• comment But is there content in the article to non-Bultman / non-Christian concerns? If not then per Evans 1989 "S. M. Ogden, "Bultmann's Project of Demythologizing and the Problem of Theology and Philosophy," JR 37 (1957) 156-73. Concludes that R. Bultmann's demythologizing hermeneutic is inconsistent and ought to be modified or altogether ..." demythologization might be better. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In ictu, we must stop agreeing with each other all the time... kidding. But I agree. Demythologization is the proper term,and as another source that supports the other statement Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond pages 14-15 refers to it. And as Tahc said, it is usually bundled with form criticism - old ideas really. The text in Rahner's book about it was actually written by Rene Marle well before 1975, so it is pretty old. Bultmann's ideas are pretty outdated now, and I think this page should really refer to (if not merge with) Quest for the historical Jesus, the 2nd phase of which was of course started by Bultman student Ernst Käsemann based on the idea that the gospels include "historical memories" regardless of the theology, etc. I am really, really (this time it is for real) avoiding major edits as of yesterday, so I will not even attempt to fix, but the whole issue can be cleaned up and handled in the 2nd quest phase there. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the title "Myth" was suggested chosen based on the subject broadly being covered by three articles in Rahner's Encyclopedia of Theology (which only has about 400 or so articles) dealing with the topic. These include the primary article "Myth" of about 4 pages as well as two articles in a set of about 6 pages on "Demythologization" by Marle. Also, another reference work on the topic, the rather fundamentalist 2002 Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns discusses the broad idea in its "Myth" article. While I do not disagree that Bultmannish "demythologization" is not the same as "Myth," it seems to me that the definition of "Myth" he uses in "demythologization," which was since been taken up to various degrees by others, is a rather different one than the definition of "myth" in terms of, say, Greco-Roman mythology, and the article dealing with that broad conceptually different meaning of the term might well be able to include material on the "demythologization" Bultmann suggested. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry John, but I think you will be buying yourself long term trouble by mentioning myth (theology). If you look at Jesus in comparative mythol that I recently touched up and the mess that persisted before you will know what I mean. You are right that Bultman had different ideas, but this is Wikipedia and every loony bin character with a modem can type into that page. It will be an invitation for lunacy. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood. The proposal "Myth (form criticism)" would at least to my eyes be an acceptable one as well. I really only chose "theology" as a differentiation title because it was in two reference works on "theology" that I found the subject as a separate article. Also, I think Eliade's "sacred time" and "profane time" pretty much cover the same basic idea, although I admittely haven't read him in some years. But those two terms seem to be to be perhaps a bit more, well, unusual, and maybe less than clear, than "myth" with some qualifier would seem to be. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with myth (form criticism). It is a focused, well defined issue. By the way, unwatching now that I have said more than I wanted to... History2007 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.