User talk:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon

• Feel free to use this page for commenting on the associated user page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been dreading the day I'd have to do a point by point discussion on your little project but here goes:

Your Rajak source discusses informal use and suggests we "tread with care" which we've done (see citations, footnotes, FAQ etc...)

So why would she be discussing "informal use" while writing about de Thucydide? When there are like twelve disputed definitions of myth that scholars continually debate over? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your entire "New Testament Usage" section refers to informal usage of myth and it's from the primary source which we are discussing (not to mention the bible is hardly a reliable / neutral source in this discussion). Not to mention that you cherry pick the passages and take them out of context. They all basically "any belief that is not that of christianity is a myth" which is expected but totally moot considering the discussion is about formal usage.

Those are all the passages in the Bible that use the word "myth", this demonstrates that the word is used in its original pejorative sense and is thus only pejorative, from a Biblical POV. Given that the New Testament has many believers throughout the world, it should surely count as among all the significant POVs, at least in articles about Christianity, but in a few articles involving Christianity, like this one it does not. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Quran's arabic word is a synonym for the informal use, and as such is apples and oranges as your own source clearly states in the second paragraph. This is english wikipedia and mistranslations / lack of formal / informal translations of myth in other languages isn't valid.

Paine's "attacks" were using informal derogatory usage which we do not use and in fact shun.

Reading further into Bultmann as opposed to cherry picking one sentence you'll see a clear case made for making clear seperation between perjorative usage of "myth" and formal, academic usage.

I don't have easy access or any prior knowledge of Boer so I'll leave this one for later

What point are you trying to make with the Ricker quote? He's simply stating that he doesn't believe in the biblical flood and then says that it is part of biblical mythology which is a perfectly true statement that is not used in a perjorative way (see deluge myth)

I suspect he may in fact be using it in a pejorative way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

your Judaism views basically both say "Jews believe the hebrew bible is factual history". Thank you master of the obvious. What point are you trying to make here? Obviously writing the article here on WP as factual history isn't an acceptable alternative so what point are you trying to make?

If they reject that it is mythology, that's another significant POV on Hebrew Bible topics we should be taking into account. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Hamilton quote is the first good point your page makes. He says that people may assume usage of the word "myth" to be in a perjorative sense even if it is not meant to be and further says that there are conflicting definitions. Both of which I 100% agree with, but due diligence to avoid the first issue has been performed and because we use a proper term "Creation myth" that has only one definition the second point is moot. This would carry a lot more weight as a source if "myth" was being used as a standalone term.

He clearly states that scholars disagree whether or not the Bible is a myth, and that's what we should be reporting. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bultmann's second quote regarding Miegge's assumption of alterior motive assumes there's some grandiose conspiracy theory amongs academics, lexographers and so on to weasel acceptable usage out of the word and again the only alternative posited is the historical / factual views of the new testament.

Actually, that is a quote from a book about Bultmann, not by him. If you are into mythology, you've encountered Bultmann's name before; he is the one who proposed that "myth" be expanded to include the Bible, which in truth was never accepted in full by all of academia, as the debate still rages on, and many of the quotes you see are part of the continued response to Bultmann. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wright quote starts out with weasel words and considering that he's a borderline apologist I'm not suprised. He also is referencing the informal usage of the term.

G. Ernest Wright was a leading expert in Ancient Near Eastern archeology, according to his article. I think he was discussing the formal term in his quote, you mean "the absence of the modern scientific view of the universe scarcely makes the literature in itself mythology." As are all the other scholars who are peer-reviewed in Carl F. H. Henry's work, in a discussion clearly about academic or formal use of the term. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Packer is clearly in favor of "the bible as history" and says that we should use the bible as a primary source for it's own historicity.

J.I. Packer is another theologian peer reviewed by Henry. He argues against formal use of "myth" because he defines it as a story about celestial goings-on of multiple gods to explain nature, not history. Myths do not present themselves as historical, chronological accounts. Genesis does, and even at the latest date ascribed to it, would be the most detailed such work of that age. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Stahlin's essay says that any alternative aside from "Truth and reality" is inacceptable. We clearly can't write this article in terms of "truth and reality".

No, what he actually says is "No matter how the term is understood, and no matter how it is extended", the concept of myth involves "an inherent antithesis to truth and reality". Yet another discussion about the formal academic definition of "myth" peer reviewed by Henry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hughes makes the same assertion and also clearly is using "myth" informally.

Your paraphrase once again is inaccurate. How could he possibly be talking about informal usage? Hughes states the word myth "is in complete harmony with the term which from the time of Pindar onwards always bears the sense of what is fictitious, as opposed to the term logos, which indicated what was true and historical....". Yet another significant view peer-reviewed by Henry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From what you write about Ramm it seems like he'd be happy with our hard work to give "Myth" a good name and unmuddy the waters.

Wait, I didn't write that about Ramm. That is a quote from Henry where he peer-reviews Ramm. But that's again not quite what he said, that's spin. If nothing else it should be a pretty good indication of just how controversial this is, which means we have to describe it as a controversy, not as some artificial unity that never really existed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Grelot's point supports biblical literalism and sets the bible above other "pagan" writings which we can't (and shouldn't) do.

Of course we can't, shouldn't, and I have never been suggesting we should, but this quote should still be valid for purposes of establishing that there is a significant or widespread point of view as expressed by a theologian pointing out that the peoples around Israel always differed with them as to the veracity of their texts, versus their own, calling one another "mythology" which is obviously polemic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nwachukwu's quote boils down to "Since the Hebrew point of view is that Genesis is historical fact and not Mythology we should follow suit"

She talks a lot about why Genesis is not the same as a traditional myth and that sentence is from her conclusion. Maybe I should have included more of her for context. And of course, even if you or I might dispute her reasoning, she is still a reliable source for a widespread POV existing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother with the "Bible Teacher's Commentary (for pastors)" quote...

Or the "Bible Knowledge Commentary" feel free to read my thoughts on "It's not myth because it's different from what the pagans believe" above

Barnett's assumption of Biblical Truth isn't a valid counter arguement to usage of "Myth".

So what, it is still reliable evidence for the extent of a significant POV existing in society. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Somers and Christmyer simply state "Bible is history and not myth" any reason why?

I don't know, but possibly because that is a widespread point of view that exists at significant levels - one of several points of view about the controversy, in fact. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bynoe (see above post)

Stocker's quote amounts to "The bible is true! it's not a lie! the bible says so!"

I particularly like his lengthy quote that you just strawmanned with 3 pre-K level sentences, because he points out that this has been an ongoing controversy for 2000 years. So unless the controversy has now suddenly been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and I didn't hear about it, then we must strive not to be one-sided. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greidanus makes a good case against using myth informally (defined as "a fabulous and untrue story") which I (and more or less everyone including policy) agree with yet doesn't discuss formal usage and furthermore argues that it can't be a myth because it demythologiezes other myths. {Not to mention I don't think "Preaching Christ from Genesis" makes for a very neutral reliable source)

What, there is no reason to call this definition of myth "informal" when it is used in so many scholarly discussions about Genesis. Even dictionaries often disagree about the definition; who decided it is strictly an "informal" definition anyway? As Greidanus states in this quote, myth in academia is a "slippery term", and he specifically peer reviews the scholarly opinion of McCartney and Clayton that the term "myth" is "totally inadequate for Genesis". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The NLT Study Bible section basically says "Genesis isn't a myth because the God of Isreal is better than the pagan gods" and then further more favors factual literal history.

Brigham Young's quote amounts to "I think it is literally true, I don't think it is a myth" which would be expected for the head of a religion but doesn't amount to a whole lot in this case.

The whole Hinduism section either uses "Myth" informally or takes offense to it's use on the grounds of "What we believe is 100% true"

Ugh, i'm getting tired. the rest of it is just repetition of what is above. Pull out sources that discuss why it's bad to use "myth" informally, sources that support a literal historical fact and sources that just don't like it because it offends them and the page is more or less blank. Nefariousski (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The understanding of Myth/Reality, I have been studying from a different field, that of Carl Gustav Jung, he sees Myth/Reality in a very different way, in a very deep reality way. I have been trying to write the article page Answer to Job and have made an entry in the talk page. Nobody yet has attempted to write this article page (for good reason).

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the thinking behind the page, but point out that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology pretty explicitly states that the way the word "myth" is used in that project, and possibly in wikipedia, does not necessarily mean that things are mythic/untrue, but rather something else. I think we are, pretty much, honor bound and policy and guideline bound to say that anything which is described as being a "myth" or "mythic" by a significant number of reliable sources in agreement with the now-current definition which does not necessarily indicated any degree of falsehood is something we can describe here by those terms. This is not saying that using a perhaps less "weighted" word might not be acceptable as well, but there is valid reason to use some such word if a number of the more reliable sources use it, whether we feel annoyed at the possibility of the use of the word being interpreted by some as indicating falsehood or not. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a comparison between a Christian debating other religions and an atheist debating theology, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY . If you ask believers, other religions than their own are largely based upon myths, while their own is based upon the Truth. Hardly surprising. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. "Myth/ology" is usually used in a polemical or pejorative fashion, hardly anyone says "I believe in a myth", it is an external and subjective application, as far from a neutral term as you can possibly get since everyone defines it differently to apply to "others", and should be scrupulously avoided in a supposedly "neutral" areana like this one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To be sure, not all believers are that radical. Non-fundamentalist Christians see the truth of their own religion as different from Biblical inerrancy, they often see the Bible text as parable, metaphor and myth. See The creation of Creationism, John Habgood (former Archbishop of York), The Times, July 23, 2008. Quote: „The main motive for risking this potential conflict has been to uphold belief in the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, and the literal interpretation of its statements about creation, which most mainstream theologians and biblical scholars have long read as myth, or poetry, or doctrine, rather than as history.”

Definition of MYTH

1

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

— Merriam-Webster online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

This is a neutral definition of "myth", one which denies its polemical meaning. So "myth" has a neutral meaning, and we use it to describe the stories of all religions, regardless of which religion we embrace (if any). Otherwise Neo-Pagans would have problem with describing stories about Zeus as myth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise Discovery's MythBusters do not judge a priori "It's a 'myth', therefore it is false!", but they say "confirmed", "plausible" or "busted" after testing such ideas. Equally, Shakespeare's portrayal of the Tudors is mythical, although it is also historical. Historians have busted it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Page

I like it a lot. Reminds me, since the word 'myth' here on Wikipedia is supposed to be used in its academic sense, and its academic sense is 'a fabulous or imaginary statement or narrative, conveying an important truth, generally of a moral or religious nature.' (Webster, 1865) Therefore whatever is being designated as myth must be 'fabulous or imaginary'. Put simply, a sufficient quantity of evidence must show it to be false. Since no current world religion has been shown to such, but is rather a matter of personal conviction, Wikipedia should not use the term applied to any one. Wekn ^TAKN