Talk:Abrahamic mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Abrahamic mythology: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Move non-mythological content to appropriate pages
  • Attribute sources and claims (specific archaeologists, historians, etc)
  • Create section outline
  • Move Luciferian Satanism to more appropriate article
  • Add images

purge cache
Priority 6

"Critics believe that it was derived primarily from Sumerian mythology and influenced by other sources such as Zoroastrianism."

This statement is just plain wrong. Abrahamic mythology is, I repeat is derived from Sumerian mythology, among other belief systems. This is not a "critical" viewpoint, it is historical fact. Just because adherents don't choose to accept it does not mean that those who accept this historical truth are "critics". It is a scholarly, indifferent, completely neutral fact that has absolutely nothing to do with being either for or against these religions. Those who accept it are not attempting to debunk the Abrahamic religions nor are they criticizing it. They are merely attempting to put it in historical perspective.

"Critics believe..." has about as much academic merit as creationism. Stop the Abrahamic POV nonsense. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedic entry, and is the place for objective facts -- not proselytizing. --Corvun 03:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove that Abrahamic Mythology is based upon Sumerian mythology. It can speculated, but it cannot be proven that it was (or wasn't).--Josiah 03:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, this certainly isn't the place for original research, nor for anyone trying to "prove" something. --Viriditas 06:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Let's focus on the topic, please

Anything deviating from discussion about mythology needs to be removed from this page. Content about adherents, creationism, etc, is probably not relevant to mythology, however it is relevant to the Abrahamic religion page. Although, we should definitely include creation myths. --Viriditas 04:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...While this is the view currently held by a majority of researchers, such was not the case before the secularization of academia. Even today, there are a great number of theologians belonging to the Abrahamic religions who consider much of Abrahamic mythology to have come from historical fact, rather than earlier religions.'

While this generalization is interesting, it has nothing to do with the mythology and borders on original research. Perhaps I could find a place for it in a section called "Modern views" or something, but at the moment it has no place in an article about mythology. However, I could see it being moved to a page about Abrahamic religion. --Viriditas 00:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic

For purposes of clarity, when we speak of Abrahamic religions, are we also discussing pre-Abrahamic narratives that exist within the Abrahamic faiths? (Such as Noah, Adam, Eve, etc.)--Josiah 05:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good question! IMO, I think we are speaking of the mythologies of three religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But, we are not talking about religion itself. --Viriditas 06:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, another reason I ask this is because some Hindu narratives share similar characters as the Biblical ones. For example, Shem = Shem, Sham = Ham, Jyapeti = Japhet, Adamis = Adam, and Hevas = (C)havvah (Eve). I haven't studied it much, but here's one "fringe" site that goes into it http://www.viewzone.com/noah.story.html --Josiah 05:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very interesting! --Viriditas 06:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lucifer - Roman god?

When I read this page, I was unaware that one of the Roman gods were named "Lucifer". According to the Lucifer page, "Lucifer does not appear in Greek or Roman mythology; it is used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess."--Josiah 13:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page on Lucifer is simply wrong. Lucifer is the Roman equivalent of the Greek god Phosporus. A pre-Christian version of Lucifer was originally cast in proto-Stregheria, so at least some Roman religious sects personified the "Light-Bearer" as a deity, even if this was relatively obscure in comparison to Venus.
As an aside -- I apologize for my hostility earlier. The reverts and deletions just got on my nerves. No hard feelings, I hope. I (and probably most others) would actually be very much interested in seeing an "internal" view of Abrahamic mythology on this page, describing the meaning of the folklore and the mythology to adherents of the Abrahamic religions. In fact, I'd say the page is quite naked without it, and I think it would deserve a section all its own, as this is a rather important aspect of the mythology. Think you could come up with something? --Corvun 18:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not quite sure what I would write. I'll have to take a look at how the other mythology pages are written.--Josiah 02:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cool. Again I'd like to say I'm sorry. I'd just had the mother of horrible days and was taking it out on people. Not very cool of me. --Corvun 02:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate links

Please stop adding duplicate links. Sumerian mythology is a duplicate link of Chaldean mythology. Visit the link before you add it again. It is merely a redirect to Chaldean, not an actual article. Good editing requires the removal of duplicate links. Why else would I have removed it? Please review Manual of Style. --Viriditas 02:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chaldean mythology includes Sumerian mythology and Babylonian mythology, among others. If Sumerian mythology is just a redirect to Chaldean mythology, then we have another problem that needs fixing. The mythologies are very similar, but not quite the same. Last time I visited the Sumerian mythology page it was an article all its own, and did not redirect to Chaldean mythology. If this is the case now, then good job on the edit. --Corvun 18:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Luciferian Satanism

Luciferian Satanism does not belong on Abrahamic mythology. A similar page already exists at Luciferians, and is categorized as Category:Ancient Roman Christianity. Your content might be better suited for that page, and I recommend a move, unless you think a separate page needs to be created. If indeed that is the case, then please create that page with a Category:Satanism and link it to the appropriate Christian mythology page. Abrahamic mythology is a top-level topic, and as such should only deal with the top-level branches. As for content on the page, I'm sure the mythology of "satan" or the adversary should be mentioned if it's relevant. Otherwise, the links should be moved to the appropraite articles. --Viriditas 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Luciferean Satanism doesn't belong here, as it is a religion and not a mythology. However, contrary to what you've said, Luciferean Satanism is a "top-level" branch of Abrahamic religion. It is not a form of Judaism, it is not a form of Islam, and it is not a form of Christianity, yet it definately is an Abrahamic religion. Just because it isn't instantly recognizable like the "big three" does not mean it is a subset of one of those three. It isn't. It can't be accurately described as anything but a "top-level" branch of the Abrahamic religions. Remember, it's NPOV, not MPOV (Majority Point of View), and facts are not decided by a majority vote. Most Christians, Muslems, and Jews would probably like to shove Luciferean Satanism into a corner and pretend it isn't a part of the Abrahamic religions. Many of them would probably like to see Satanism and Paganism lumped together. But this is not an accurate reflection of reality. Satan is an Abrahamic deity, and as such, those that worship him (the Luciferean Satanists) are members of an Abrahamic religion. The point of Wikipedia is to educate, to inform, and to provide people with accurate information -- not to reinforce the misconceptions and misinformation they already have and are most comfortable with.
At present no article exists on Luciferean Satanism, so I will be creating one shortly. Once this is done I'll put a link to it on the Abrahamic religion page and create a link on this page (something like "Luciferean Satanic mythology") that goes to the section on the Luciferean Satanism page describing the religion's mythology. --Corvun 17:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me try to be as brief as possible and directly address your points. If I miss something, or misinterpret something you've said, let me know:
  1. Please define your terms. What exactly do you mean by Luciferian satanism? And why doesn't this belong on the Satanism page?
  2. You have claimed that Luciferean Satanism is a "top-level" branch of Abrahamic religion, but I fail to see any evidence classifying it as such. I see it as a form of Christianity - as a reaction to that religion. More importantly, since it is your claim and not my own, what substantiating sources can you provide? I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm wrong.
  3. We are in agreement that Luciferian satanism is most likely a subset of Abrahamic religion. But my question is simple: what is the difference between Luciferian satanism and Satanism? Either way, that's a discussion for the appropriate religion pages, not a mythology page.
  4. You wrote, Most Christians, Muslems, and Jews would probably like to shove Luciferean Satanism into a corner and pretend it isn't a part of the Abrahamic religions. I doubt that's true, as most of these people have probably never heard of it. Again, what do you mean by Luciferian Satanism? The only reference to this idea that I've ever seen was on a number of anti-Jewish web sites. Also, noted anti-semite David Icke makes mention of this concept. Is this the person you are using as a source?
  5. You wrote:Many of them would probably like to see Satanism and Paganism lumped together. I think you are making blanket generalizations. Can you name names or sects? "Many" seems to be somewhat extreme. Most people have probably never given the idea any thought.
  6. You wrote:Satan is an Abrahamic deity, and as such, those that worship him (the Luciferean Satanists) are members of an Abrahamic religion. That is incorrect. For example, the Temple of Set would claim that Set was one of many pre-Abrahamic deities, in this case Egyptian. Guess what, he had a forked-tail. The Greeks described him as Typhon. Better yet, take a look at Puck, the Horned God. Then of course, there is Cernunnos, Pashupati and Shiva. Notice the pitchfork that Shiva carries? You can find manifestations of the trickster deity that you call "Satan" in every culture. In hindsight, this has more to do with human psychology than with "abrahamic religions". What we need to focus on is the mythology of the trickster entity within abrahamic mythology in that context, and leave the religious stuff to the the religious articles. I am temporarily moving your content to this sub-page. --Viriditas 08:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to reply. I lost my internet connection for a few months and when I got it back, it took a while for this page to show up on my watch list. My replies below:
  1. You wrote, "What exactly do you mean by Luciferian satanism? And why doesn't this belong on the Satanism page?" Luciferean Satanism is the actual worship of the Abrahamic deity known as Satan. The term is used to contrast "real" Satanism from LaVeyan Satanism, which is not Abrahamic but a form of spiritual humanism.
  2. You wrote, "I see it as a form of Christianity - as a reaction to that religion. More importantly, since it is your claim and not my own, what substantiating sources can you provide? I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm wrong." It is not my responsibility to refute your claim that religion which worships not Christ but an entirely different Abrahamic deity is a form of Christianity. Luciferean Satanism may be a reaction to the Christian religion, but there's no reason to think that it's actually a Christian denomination.
  3. You wrote, "what is the difference between Luciferian satanism and Satanism?" As I've explained, there are two main branches of Satanism; Luciferean Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism. LaVeyan Satanism is a form of spiritual humanism, Luciferean Satanism is a religion that revolves around the Abrahamic deity known as Satan. You also wrote, "either way, that's a discussion for the appropriate religion pages, not a mythology page." The discussion is trivial. Unless you can support your assertion that "Satanism", whatever you think it is, is a form of Christianity, then that makes it just as much a "top-level" branch of the Abrahamic religions as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
  4. You wrote, "[a]gain, what do you mean by Luciferian Satanism?" Again, Luciferean Satanism is the actual worship of the Abrahamic deity known as Satan. It is distinct from LaVeyan Satanism, which is a form of spiritual humanism, and Lucifereanism, which is a Pagan religion that sees Satan/Lucifer as but one of many manifestations of the universal "trickster deity" you mention. You also wrote, "noted anti-semite David Icke makes mention of this concept. Is this the person you are using as a source?" No, and I would appreciate you not making personal attacks based solely on your own ignorance of the subject matter.
  5. You wrote, "I think you are making blanket generalizations. Can you name names or sects? 'Many' seems to be somewhat extreme. Most people have probably never given the idea any thought." It seems you really do have very little knowledge of the Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, for example, particularly among the charismatic denominations, there exists the belief that "anything not from God is from the Devil". They see all forms of Paganism (non-Abrahamic religion) as having come from the Devil, and therefore view it as one and the same with Satanism.
  6. You wrote, "That (Satan is an Abrahamic deity, and as such, those that worship him are members of an Abrahamic religion) is incorrect. For example, the Temple of Set would claim that Set was one of many pre-Abrahamic deities, in this case Egyptian. Guess what, he had a forked-tail. The Greeks described him as Typhon. Better yet, take a look at Puck, the Horned God. Then of course, there is Cernunnos, Pashupati and Shiva. Notice the pitchfork that Shiva carries?" While these deities may bear a certain resemblance to Satan, I must ask: What does this have to do specifically with the Abrahamic deity known as Satan? What point are you attempting to make? You do realize these are all very different deities, don't you?
  1. You also wrote, "[y]ou can find manifestations of the trickster deity that you call 'Satan' in every culture." Right, but Satan himself is found only in Abrahamic mythology. Those who worship him are therefore practicing a form of Abrahamic religion. Those who worship some generic trickster deity are practicing a form of Pagan religion. That's the difference between Luciferean Satanism (an Abrahamic religion) and Lucifereanism (a Pagan religion).
  2. You also wrote, In hindsight, this has more to do with human psychology than with "abrahamic religions". What we need to focus on is the mythology of the trickster entity within abrahamic mythology in that context, and leave the religious stuff to the the religious articles. And I agree with you to an extent. But Abrahamic mythology is the shared mythology of the Abrahamic religions, including Luciferean Satanism. This mythology is not shared by Lucifereanism or LaVeyan Satanism.
This is all rather basic stuff. That you fail to understand what Luciferean Satanism is, and what distinguishes it from LaVeyan Satanism and Lucifereanism, and that you use the term "Satanism" as though to imply it is a single religion rather than a generic term used by Christians, indicates to me that you have poor knowledge of the subject. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and admit that this may only be "common knowledge" to those of the occult persuasion, though I really can't imagine that would be the case. --Corvun 03:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic religions

Even today, there are a great number of theologians belonging to the Abrahamic religions who consider much of Abrahamic mythology to have come from historical fact, rather than earlier religions.

This statement might be appropriate for the Abrahamic religions page, but not for a page on mythology. Not only is it a blanket statement, but a mythology article is not interested in debating whether or not these myths are historically accurate. As such, the statement borders on original research. I am temporarily moving it to this sub-page. Perhaps it can be reworded for NPOV. I think it's important to discuss what historians have to say about the relationship between earlier myths and religions, but making unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations about "theologians" isn't going to help the page explain mythology. --Viriditas 08:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] There is no such thing as "Abrahamic mythology"

The notion of "Abrahamic mythology" is itself a PURE myth created by some modern-day myth-maker/s it seems, who then seek/s to attribute and project all sorts of weird unreal ideas into it and imagining that they have been able to summon "proofs" from the religious literature and faith/s of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, when all they have done is just spouted incomprehensible, unscholarly, stupid neologisms or worse, that are a pure insult to human intelligence. This article should be removed. IZAK 05:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this article should have a VfD held. In any case, it would be good to document when the term was first used and just how well accepted it is in academia. Wesley 17:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hold up. IZAK, are you actually claiming that the story of Adam & Eve, Noah and the Flood, and all of the stories that make up the shared mythology of the Abrahamic religions, don't exist? That there are no such stories/myths? I would have to argue with you there, since you can open up any religious text that incorporates into it the pentatuch and find these myths/stories right there in black and white. I don't know what you're trying to argue, but your argument thus far is completely illucid. --Corvun 03:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think what IZAK is trying to say is that the term Abrahamic mythology is a modern one, and the contents of the mythos are the product of comparative scholarship. An apt analogy might be to the so-called Indo-European language, which is really a scholarly construct based on comparative linguistics, and not a real "language" as such (though there undoubtedly was some kind of original language that approximates the scholarly understanding). Clearly there are myths that the Abrahamic religions share in common, either genetically (i.e. both Christianity and Judaism share the myth-laden Book of Genesis) or by parallel adaptation from a common source (the figure of Satan in Christianity and Iblis in Islam) or undoubtedly by more complex means. But the notion that they can be fit together and described as a coherent "mythos" is certainly the product of the modern, organization-minded world and not the ancient and medieval world whence they came.
I do not believe this warrants removal, but Wesley has the right of it: An article on "Abrahamic mythology" should have a section on history of scholarship. --Ben

This concept is an invention and a neologism. I'm sure it will attract an appropriate response on VfD. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you on crack? --Corvun 04:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, even if it were a neologism, it was not one made here on Wikipedia. Secondly, the concept is no more "invented" than what it refers to -- the mythology of the Abrahamic religions. I suspect, Jfdwolff, that you probably belong to one of the Abrahamic religions, and therefore object to their collective mythology being referred to as "mythology". Just because you're offended by it doesn't give you the right to try and censor it. GROW UP --Corvun 06:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I take both responses as a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
PLONK --Corvun 08:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify: The words "Abrahamic mythology" are new-fangled inventions, no different to slang that arises on street corners. The contents of the Hebrew Bible are NOT "myths" in any sense/s of the word, since to classical Judaism, and to almost all of Christianity, they are perfectly true events that have withstood the test of time and many onslaughts to "debunk" them. Just because someone is an avowed atheist or a "believer" in scientism (a realm that goes beyond science), does NOT give them the right to come along here and start calling everything that they cannot fathom and that cannot enter their closed-minds as "myths", Abrahamic or otherwise. IZAK 08:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
A parallel discussion is taking place on Category_Talk:Christian mythology. I'm not sure that I can speak for a consensus, but what I've recommended is to have two separate categorization tracks - one track represents the comparative religion perspective, which looks at all explanatory or symbolic stories in the Bible as mythology comparable to the stories in other religions and folklore; the other track would represent the perspective that the Bible presents explanatory histories, in contrast to myths.
Sometimes, when a single "neutral" description cannot be found, the better NPOV alternative is to find a way of representing both points of view. This approach, of trying to acheive a neutral result by presenting multiple views, is already done in most of the articles on the Bible. The difference here is in the difficulty of fairly representing multiple points of view when using categories. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \
The issue is not whether there should be an articlecalled Abrahamic mythology (there should be), which explains the perspective that the Bible contains myths, as represented by the story of Creation and Paradise, the genealogies, the account of the Flood, the story of Abram's call and paternity of many nations, etc. That perspective obviously exists. The issue is whether this is a "neutral" category; and I would argue that of course, it is not. It is an interpretation of the Bible that is held by some, and firmly rejected by many others. The issue concerns the use of categories without pressing a point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
This whole thing is ridiculous. IZAK has no foundation for his argument, and his rantings are insane. To him, all the mythologies of the entire world (except for his own) are false, which to him means that mythology automatically equals falseness, so he gets a stick up his nose about it and comes here whining like a child. He needs to take his illucid, irrational, insane rantings to the Creationism page where they belong. The article was fine the way it was. NPOV doesn't mean pandering to crackpots. There's a saying on Usenet: Don't Feed the Trolls. I normally follow that saying as a personal rule, which I mistakenly broke when responding to IZAK and JFW. They should have been ignored altogether, rather than being "fed" and encouraged to keep trolling here. To sum up, here's my belated plonk. PLONK --Corvun 06:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Corvun old chap: Firstly I am no "troll" -- I just speak my mind, I have been editing and writing Wikipedia articles for Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism since 2002 (about three years now, I am a Wikipedia veteran by all definitions). Secondly, why are you "Plonking" all over the place? Do you have Diarrhea?, if so here is --> some toilet paper to help you clean up your act! Thirdly, listen bud, I am not "irrational" at all, and I did not "invent" what classical Judaism, and particularly Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism, have and continue to believe for thousands of years. I am sorry that it upsets you to "discover" that some people still go by the "gold standard" of understanding the Torah, Tanakh, and Talmud. If you would just consult with the average person who has attended a normal yeshivah you will discover that what I have stated so far is basically standard normative scholarship as taught by most learned rabbis for over two thousand years or more. Do you mean they should be ignored and that we should all listen to your own beliefs in the false new-fangled fairy tales of "Abrahamic doo-da" whatever? Every day people make things up using their imaginations, but we don't have to be so gullible as to buy into their obvious stupidities! You seem to think that perhaps God is some kind of "glorified" "Walt Disney-figure" making up unreal characters (maybe you are angry at all those cartoons you were exposed to as a kid and now you want to "take it out" on the Hebrew Bible and other religious texts?) Back off mister, you won't win because nobody has ever won this fight in the end. The Torah and its true contents stands forever, and all its critics disappear into the dust. Finally, maybe you should go get a (little) Jewish education first and then we can talk. Until then, it's you that's needs to "grow up" (to use yet another of your insulting "phrases".) This is not "whining" this is called a debate which you cannot seem to handle. Now why is that exactly? Makes you think doesn't it? IZAK 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
"illucid, irrational, insane rantings", "crackpots", "Trolls"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Corvun, ignoring the very unreasonable personal attacks against me above, this page introduces a concept that may exist (the combined narratives of the major monotheistic religions) but certainly not by that name. Googling from "Abrahamitic mythology" yields about 280 pages, with this page at the top and a large number of the remainder Wikipedia mirrors. I am not opposed to the concept that you are discussing, nor am I completely opposed to the use of mythology. Mythology is a complex of narratives of a large group of people which have become larger-than-life and archetypical. Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims will insist that these narratives actually occurred, while anthropologists and other scientific folk will generally insist they are stories that are often based on more than one real event but embellished by years of storytelling.

IZAK is not completely wrong to discard the use of myth, which has become loaded and means an invented story. Mythology, in contrast, is much less loaded, however odd this may appear.

I think your use of the terms "troll", "on crack", "censorship" is not warranted. If you are attacked you should be defending your cause, not retalliate. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

PLONK --Corvun 08:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

This is, again, not an appropriate response to my fairly serious response. IZAK, would you agree a request for comment would be helpful here? JFW | T@lk 10:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Using this term as a category is POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, while Corvun is PLONKing, we should file a RFC on this issue. It is POV, original research and generally rather hopeless. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC

I have now filed an RFC on this issue here. The issues under discussion: (1) Should the Biblical narratives be called "mythology"? (2) Is it reasonable to use the invented term "Abrahamic" for these combined narratives? I also hope Corvun's conduct will receive some scrutiny, because DNFTT is not the answer to a reasonable challenge. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The worst abuse of this term is in applying it through categories to virtually every article on Judaism, Christianity and Islam - as though it were standard, agreed-upon and neutral terminology, and as though it applies not only to the narratives but to everything in the narrative, or derived from it. Thus, Trinity ends up on Category:Abrahamic mythology; and the category page refers to this page for explanation, which is under dispute. If this is not POV pushing, then what does POV pushing look like? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. JDR 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (BTW, I moved trinity to the christianity mythology cat) (PS., see mythology)
Regardless, categorizing a story as myth does imply that it is a story. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That does not mean it is fiction. It can be non-fiction (eg., facts, true or untrue). JDR 21:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The term is an invention. It is also loaded. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It's unclear by whom the term "Abrahamic mythology" is used. There is a dispute over whether Wikipedia is being used to push fringe terminology.
  • Furthermore, this article has been used as the explanatory justification for the use of the category, while the issue is in dispute.
  • There is a further problem in equating "religion" with "mythology". A mythology is a collection of related stories, or the study of those stories. It is the perspective of some scholars that mythologies undergird religions, but who says that those religions are equivalent to mythologies?
  • On top of that, the term, "mythology" is ambiguous. Regardless of recent use, the word traditionally and also in comman parlance means "made up" and "false". Disclaimers notwithstanding, this is not a word that woould be used by those who adhere to that tradition. When applied to the Bible or to Bible stories, it contradicts what the Bible and tradition says. The Bible and trandtion says that the stories are not myths, Wikipedia says that they are. That's another POV problem.
  • Finally, a myth is a narrative. "Myth" or "mythology" can't be used to categorize whatever is religious in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. At a bare minimum, only narrative stories are myths. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:52, 31 August 2005

(UTC)

my suggestion:

I suggest renaming the area but keeping it.

Here is an article for the non-myth people:

Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?, Biblical Archeological Review 21:02, Mar/Apr 1995

signed, the gentleman who thinks the topic should be renamed.


[edit] made article more POV

Here is what I inserted in the opening paragraph:

It should be pointed out though that a leading archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen, who authored the work On the Reliability of the Old Testament, believes the Abrahamic narrative is historical (Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?, Biblical Archeological Review 21:02, Mar/Apr 1995). In addition, the prominent Yale archaeologist, Millar Burrows stated the following: "On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record...Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. [1]. Many scholars believe that archaeology greatly corroborates the Bible. [2][3][4]

signed the gentleman who made the article more POV

There is no need to reproduce here what you have posted there. It's all a matter of history. Please do not put statements like this in the lead. For one thing, you are mixing terms when you quote evangelical archaeologists who are arguing for the historicity of the Bible, when the topic as defined in the opening paragraph is not primarily interested in the historicity of the Bible. This article concerns the theory that there is borrowing and sharing of mythological themes that are found in the so-called Abrahamic religions. I'm not even sure that your quotes are relevant. And would you please be a gentleman, sir, and drop the anonymity? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

to: Mark

I have no problem with the subject area theory of "abrahamic mythology". I do think, however, to make the article POV it should be allowed to be pointed out that the theory is invalid. I also suggest renaming the topic to a more neutral term. How about Abraham Myth hypothesis. This way there is an opening to falsify the hypothesis. I do not think the notion was carved in stone with the finger of God! LOL

Signed, the gentleman who prefers to be anonymous.

I think that you probably mean that you intend to make the article more NPOV, and less POV. There are two problems. First, your citations did not address the hypothesis. The citations addressed historicity, and the hypothesis concerns borrowing. Second, details of any counter-argument belong in the body of the article, not in the description. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If y'all take this article in the direction you're talking about, and re-name it "Abrahamic mythology hypothesis", or "Abrahamic mythology theory" or whatever, there will still need to be a page on the collective myths of the Abrahamic religions, entitled "Abrahamic mythology". If y'all want a page on the historicity of the Bible, I'm betting you're too late. This page was not created to be a forum to debate whether or not Abrahamic mythology is true or false, only to address the subject of the mythology itself.

Just because something is part of a "mythology" doesn't necessarily make it false. That's why I plonked that troll who started pitching a fit about this article. It's ridiculous. Abrahamic mythology is Abrahamic mythology, whether it's 100% true or 100% false, it's still Abrahamic mythology either way. --Corvun 11:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this topic should be renamed 'Semitic mythology,' or (since the Sumerians and other assorted players in the ANE weren't semitic) perhaps 'Near Eastern mythology.' --Ben

The final paragraph of the article is not only entirely POV, it is not even relevant to the article. I think it should be deleted.Makerowner 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the plonking...

Okay, I'm sorry for the plonking. I realize now JFW and IZAK were being genuine, as alien and strange as their POVs seem to be to me. Now being that I'm a Pagan, I have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would want to take something as amazing and inspiring and emotive and evocative and meaningful and beautiful as a mythology and reduce it to just plain ol' boring history. Please enlighten me as to how the use of the word mythology is objectionable. All I'm hearing is that you believe that the mythology is true, that the myths actually happened. And I'm totally cool with that. I mean, if it makes the myths speak that much stronger to you to believe they're true, then more power to you. That's awesome. I have nothing but respect for that kind of faith. But why get rid of the words myth and mythology? Why deprive your faith of all its beauty and meaning? Why try to turn it into just another history book? You'll have to forgive me, but being a Pagan, I find the terms myth and mythology very powerful, and I see absolutely no negative connotations to them. Why trade thousands of years of myth and legend for something as mundane and vanilla as literal historicity? --Corvun 11:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't anything objectionable about the terminology except when applied to what is represented in our religion as history. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
But at least you can understand that the people who use the term "mythology", especially in reference to the hard-to-swallow parts, like talking snakes, world-wide floods, fire raining from the sky, etc., aren't doing so out of disrespect for your religion. The fact is that with the secularization of science and the need to treat all religious beliefs as potentially true/untrue, and for the sake of NPOV on Wikipedia, we can no longer refrain from refering to what is represented as history in your religion, as mythology, or else we'd likewise have to do the same across the board: Greek mythology, Etruscan mythology, Celtic mythology, Norse mythology, Zorastrian mythology -- we'd have to stop calling all of them mythologies as well. We can't hold a double standard here; that wouldn't be ethical. And, as I pointed out above, there's nothing to say that a mythology can't be true. Unlikely from the secular point of view as it may be, something can be historically true and still be part of a mythology. I still see no reason to object to the term "mythology", unless you're willing to object to the term as applied to the mythological histories of all religions from the ancient past up to the present. --Corvun 16:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do follow you; but I think that you've already acknowledged the fact here that un-ravels your argument that all religions should be treated the same. You've said "as a Pagan" you don't understand why we would "trade thousands of years of myth and legend for something as mundane and vanilla as literal historicity?"
That's underlines a difference. It is the nature of these religions, in contrast to whatever meaning might be found in "thousands of years of myth and legend", to find meaning in history that cannot be found in myth and legend; just as it's your view that there is a contrast between this rich meaning, and "vanilla history".
Myth, as all of the definitions of it that we are using here make clear, has no interest in historicity as such. It is interested rather in meaning and symbol. The Bible is quite a contrast to that. There is parable, symbol, metaphor, yes. But there is history above all. More than anything, the Bible (and Judaism and Christianity accordingly) is concerned with history - with events, acts, family, people of blessed memory. We talk about the incarnation of Jesus not as a parable, a rich metaphor, a symbolic story, a "myth" of profound significance in the academic sense. It is all of those things. But it is, in our religion, above all history, in contrast to fable. History is its deepest, most important, most powerful religious meaning.
It would be dishonest to say that this emphasis on historicity also typifies the mystery and "pagan" religions. They should not be levelled with one another, as though they all were merely varieties of the same thing; or regarded as though reasonable discourse were irrelevant to their meaning; or contemplated as mere models and products of humanity. Neutrality does not mean that these fundamental differences ought to be ignored, for the sake of "fairness". Rather, it means that the differences that we both have acknowledged here, need to be represented in an accurate and unbiased manner. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Very well said, and an admirable goal. Though one view neither of us have addressed is the number of believers (especially Christians) in recent years who've begun to view the Abrahamic myths (pardon the term) as spiritually-truthful allegory rather than literal fact. Something that I wanted to eventually get at here on the talk page is that regardless of literal historicity, stories like the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden resonate powerfully within the hearts of almost all people, and have a mythic quality that extends beyond whatever literal truth there is to the story. How it speaks of humankind's innate selfishness and need through humility and penitence to break the fetters of fleshly desires is something that can be both powerful as a mythology and, if you believe so, literally true as well. "Abrahamic mythology" as a term doesn't necessarily have to imply that the mythology is fabricated rather than historical, nor is it by any means a value judgement; one could take it simply as an admission of the mythic power of the history rather than as an attack on its historicity. It's not written in stone that mythology and history must be mutually exclusive.
Now that it seems we've come to a respectable understanding, let's do right by our respective gods and work together to make this as fair and unbiased a treatment of all sides of the issue as we can. In the words of my people, so mote it be. --Corvun 00:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's a good start. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
No thanks necessary, but for what it's worth: Thank you, too. We both have a responsibility to represent our faiths and our gods the best we can. And today, I'd like to think our gods would be proud of us, for we've taken one more small step toward ending the millennia of bad blood between our peoples. And while this may not be appropriate for a talk page, I'd like to say Blessed Ye Be; you've represented your God well today, and I'm certain you've made Him proud. --Corvun 01:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to interject, but I have disagree with the contention that mythology and history are two diametrically opposed phenomena. They are simply two different ways of relating experience; history focuses on reality in a diachronic way and myth focuses on it in a synchronic way. It is really a question of genre more than "truth value."
To put it another way: just because something really happened doesn't mean it can't also be thought of mythically. The mind has more than one way of searching for patterns of meaning. --Ben
I agree with this fully. So fully, in fact, I'm a bit surprised I hadn't said it first. You took the words straight out of my mouth! No... on second look I already said something to that effect. Looks like we're all starting to turn to the same page here. This is EXCELLENT! --Corvun 09:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The contention is not that they are opposed phenomena, but that they are opposed messages. The issue is whether the truth is in the "happening" or in the "telling"; or rather, the happening is what is told, in contrast to 'searching for patterns of meaning' (2 Peter 1:16). The emphasis can be so strong on the "happened", that "God raised Jesus from the dead" would be considered blasphemy even by those who tell it, if it did not happen (1 Corinthians 15:15) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Judaism completely rejects the words "myths" and "mythology"

Sorry, I have been away for a while. I don't want Corvun to start thinking that I am "on the same page" with him. On the contrary, my concern is exclusively and purely on behalf of CLASSICAL Judaism, the Hebrew Bible (Torah and Tanakh) and all their contents, the related Midrashim and Aggadahs, the Talmud, indeed the entirety of all that is conveyed within Category:Jewish texts. It needs to be clearly understood (certainly for almost all serious Orthodox Judaism rabbis and scholars) that using the POV words "myth" and "mythology" to describe events in these texts would be tantamount to insulting and denigrating these millenia-old holy teachings of Judaism. IZAK 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What is POV is insisting that everyone else's religion is mythology, but yours isn't. Religious stories - even if true - are myths.--RLent 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I decided to consult dictionary.com to see what it had for the meaning of the word Myth:

  1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
    1. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
  2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
  3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
  4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

It appears to me that the controversy comes from the fact that while some people are using one meaning, others are using a different meaning. Strangely enough, Corvun appears to be using it in a polite context, indicating that it is the traditional, ancient story dealing with supernatural beings (Something not seen/verified in our modern world) of a fundamental world view... while IZAK and those who are actually of religious beliefs are automatically assuming its use is that of a ficticious story. I find it strange that the Pagan is being respectful in his use of the word, yet those of faith jump to the conclusion that he is not.

Oh and one more thing... History has always been said to be written by the winners, as the only records which are allowed to exist are those which generally favour the conquerer (Examples include the Phaeroh who was wiped from records because their successor did not approve). I would be more concerned about the use of History considering how flimsy it is. At least Myth means it is held in the beliefs of everyone (even those who are not of faith would still know the myths, you dont have to be the winner to carry on a myth)... whereas History is only held in the beliefs of those write the history books. I still find it strange you assume offense where it clearly wasn't intended. Enigmatical 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Biblical relationship between the people of Abraham and the people of God

The above-subject relationship can be typified as a difference in roles and role-tension. The people of Abraham typically cultivated crops for the community, and the people of God used the crops in specific ways which required community and food-grower consensus -- to travel, or to build. The tension occurs when the people of God assume a use of the food supply without the traditional social controls, and the mythological example of Ge and her son is documented as a type of Abrahamic family disapproval theme initiated.

Abrahamic mythology addresses food grower and food use issues, as well as social contract issues. Beadtot 10/19/2005 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/r/Talk%7EAbrahamic_mythology_2c5b.html"