Talk:Sacred king

The title of this page should be "Rex Sacrorum" with an English translation of "Sacred King" being provided. This is because most of the other titles are not translated from Latin (namely Rex Nemorensis).

I had to remove Heracles, but I added Attis in his place. --Wetman 17:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Split

The material on the Roman republican office belongs in a separate article. Clearly they're two distinct topics. The article on Pontifex_Maximus references this article in relation to the office, and the material on The Golden Bough is confusing in that curcumstance. Perhaps the article on the Roman religious office should use the title "Rex Sacrorum" and the article on The Golden Bough should use the title "Sacred King"?

The Critique of Frazier

The critique of Frazier is not good, and should be removed or improved. The author's charge seems to be that the hypothesis is so vague that any myth can be accommodated to it. But that clearly is not true. The hypothesis is that the sacred king dies and is reborn. Thus, the hypothesis would seem to preclude the assimilation of any myth regarding a god that is eternal or immortal or undying. Also, the author's tone in dealing with Frazier's hypothesis is unduly dimissive snide. What is the factual basis that justifies the use of this tone? If the point that the author is trying to make is that no myths exist exemplifying the hypothesis, then he should say so, and cite his sources. To do so, of course, would contradict the bold assertion that just about any myth can be accommodated to Frazier's hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoktorMax (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of babble has permeated this text. "Kings of England who died in office" is too funny to delete. --Wetman 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Frazer has ‘identified’ many sacred kings in myth which do clearly not conform to his own definition. In that sense the definition may be clear, but it is applied so loosely and/or metaphorically by Frazer that really any character could be made to fit. And Frazer uses this to construct a panmondial king root myth, which would be sensational, were it believable. But Frazer brings no concrete evidence to the table, instead supporting this claim with the literary equivalent of seeing shapes in the clouds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unscholarly article

This is a pretty poor article really. For example: the author doesn't cite a source for his suggestion that the Bible suggests God was angry at the Israelites due to Moab's sacrifice of his eldest son (which does indeed seem illogical, and I doubt that this is generally agreed upon by Torah/Biblical scholars). Moreover "inthronisation" is a pretty obscure term: what about "enthronement"?

Agreed. It's unsubstantiated original research and personal opinion. Proceeding to delete the section.

--Archestrategos (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sacral - sacred

The adjective 'sacral' has been used a number of times in this article, alternating with 'sacred'. Unless there is a very good reason for retaining it, I propose that all instances of 'sacral' be replaced with 'sacred'. 'Sacral' in normal usage means 'pertaining to or of the sacrum' which is part of the human anatomy. In Slavic languages, however, the Latin import 'sacral' does mean 'sacred' and is the only Latin import with that meaning. Native speakers of Slavic languages, even when their English is otherwise perfect, can occasionally make mistakes of this kind. --Ligia Luckhurst (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Transferrance of "Savior" title?

This sounds like fashionable atheist talk to me. I have no problem with atheists being atheists, but when bias affects reality, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Proceeding to delete the unsubstantiated biased personal claim.

--Archestrategos (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)