Talk:The stories of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See talk:Christian Mythology for some earlier talk on this subject.

on a question of method here, why did you use the see also link above as opposed to a simple redirect, or a cut and paste of the text ?

Because some people might want to talk about Christian Mythology per se and the old article on that subject, while others might want to talk about the story of David and Goliath, for example, not under the heading of "Christian Mythology." --LMS

Even on the (I believe true) story of David and Goliath, I expect there are mythical (untrue) elements. I admit I have to struggle to recall many of these. For example, that David used a slingshot (a wooden forked weapon, typically with an elastic band) and that he tricked Goliath into a ravine so he wouldn't be able to fight back.

I'm not denying that. In fact, I personally believe very many of these stories, particularly the ones with supernatural elements, are completely false and mythological. I just don't want Wikipedia to say officially (as it were) that they're mythological (unless everybody is agreed they're mythological)! --LMS

Just for the record, David didn't use a "slingshot", he used a sling (which is a very old weapon): a strap or rope with a pouch in the middle to hold a stone. A person holds both ends of the rope and swings the sling over his head. To hurl the stone, he lets go of one end of the rope at the right moment. Takes practice, but a sling can really hurl a stone. See this page] for a picture; scroll to the bottom. --STG

I don't think the apocryphal stories should be singled out as being mythical. If we use the definition that I think is prevailing on the Christian Mythology page, calling the stories mythical is not supposed to be saying anything about their historicity one way or the other. It merely means they are making a moral or theological point. With that definition, all or nearly all the stories on this page would be considered mythical. And no, I have no problem with that provided that's really the working definition.

For hagiographies, just point to List of saints and go to invididual saints from there. That's where their stories ought to be, I think. --Wesley

Yes, maybe those stories shouldn't be singled out as being mythical, you're right.

Re the saints, sounds good. Or maybe a page called lives of the saints would be good to have, that could discuss the lives of the saints in general, and that genre of literature. --LMS

Why use the word 'mythical' if you want to say they are making a 'moral' or 'theological' point? Why not just use the word 'moral' ? (or 'theological' ?) -- BenBaker

So let me see if I understand your point here, Larry. Because the word "myth" might be offensive to some who interpret it to imply falsehood, we shouldn't use that word for stories many currently-living people believe true, even if they are the same kinds of stories told for the same purpose, or even the very same story? So, then, the story about God instructing a worthy man to build a big boat, after which he sent a flood to wipe out everyone but the man he chose to save, that story is a Sumerian myth, and a Babylonian myth, but a Christian story. Hmm...

--LDC (With tongue only slightly in cheek)

Golly, you picked an embarrassing way of putting it--but yes. Exactly. --LMS

Moreover, I think it is very important that we say somewhere--I don't know where, perhaps even on the old Christian mythology page--that there are some people who do think it is important that we regard the stories of Christianity as nothing more than myth. (Attribution in this case would be nice.) --LMS

As the creator of the Christian Mythology page, I disagree strongly with the elimination of the page and with the redirect to "Stories of Christianity," for these reasons:

1) It is NPOV to have articles on Greek Mythology but not Christian Mythology.

I think you meant to say, "It is not NPOV..." I disagree, and I've explained why now I think in two different places. There aren't any Greeks about who believe the myths of ancient Greek religions, as far as I know. There are many Christians who do believe the stories (or, I'd agree with you, they're myths) of Christianity. It is completely biased to label those stories "the myths of Christianity."

(Also, totally irrelevantly: lower case, please!)

2) Christian Mythology exists, and "Christian Mythology" is the best way to describe it. Let me argue this point ...

The primary definition of Myth is "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." (From the Merriam-Webster dictionary). Using this definition, do stories that belong to the Christian tradition exist?

That's not a very good definition, insofar as it omits the what is very often conveyed and understood by the word, namely, that the myths are fabulous, false.

I cannot believe that anyone, using this definition, can disagree.

Obviously, the Christians who take issue with the use of the phrase do disagree--go figure.

The problem is that some people cannot help but use the 'secondary and derogative definition of myth. On the Christian Mythology page we debated this and resolved the issue by specifically spelling out the definition intended!

Well, I don't think that solves the problem. A lot of people won't care whether you've spelled out the definition.

Moreover, the newly invented term "Stories of Christianity" suffers from two fatal flaws, in my opinion. First, it is too generic.

More generic than "Christian mythology"? I don't think so.

Many stories that are about Christianity

The title isn't "stories about Christianity" but "stories of Christianity."

do not "serve to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." For example, Billy Bud, by Herman Melville, is widely held to be a Christian story -- but is it myth?

Well, I wouldn't put Billy Budd in the "stories of Christianity" category.

Even more clearly, Robert Heinlein's sci-fi story Job is undeniably a story, and it is undeniably about Christianity in that it address biblical plots and themes (in what many would consider offensive ways) -- is it myth? Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is a detective novel set in a monastary -- a story of Christiantiy? yes. myth? no.

Ditto.

The only way that these diverse words can be considered Stories of Christianity in the sense of Christian Mythology is if one redefines all stories as myths. If every myth is a story and every story a myth, why do we have any articles on mythology of any kind at all?

Please forgive the passion I bring to this topic. Frankly, I thought the version of the Christian Mythology page that was removed actually applied an NPOV approach to the topic, since it addressed the idea that mythology by its primary definition is not derogatory. -- Cayzle

Seconded. --Dmerrill

I can accept that you in perfectly good faith (no pun intended) believed that the "Christian Mythology" article was written from the neutral point of view, but I (also in good faith) totally disagreed. The main reason for this is simply (no more than) that it, without any discussion whatsoever, uncritically applied the words "Christian mythology" to the stories of Christianity, as if no one would have any objection to that. The one-and-a-half line statement that the term was being used "in a neutral sense" just doesn't hack it.

I think that what's really needed here is an article on the concept of religious mythology, which explores what has been written on the topic of regarding modern religions as having mythologies attached to them. There is a need for that discussion, and it would contain all the points you want to make. Simply, without further ado, listing the stories of Christianity, which many Christians regard as holy, under the heading "Christian mythology," is pretty obviously going to get the goats of a lot of Christians. And no one could blame them. --LMS

Let me ask the really relevant question, then: what do the PhDs who sit in their offices and study these stories, and write books about them, and compare them, etc. call them? If "Christian mythology" really is a common term of art among those who study the field, then I would agree that we should use it. But if it's not really that common (and frankly, I'm afraid Larry may be right that real academicians avoid the term for precisely the PC-reasons he suggests), then I'd be content to accept a half-hearted approach of having a "Christian mythology" page that simply explains that many people treat these things as myths, and which then points to the "Stories of Christianity" page to detail them. I might also suggest clarifying the title jst a bit to something like "Traditional Christian narrative", or "Christian cultural stories". --LDC

I pretty much agree with everything Lee says here, although even in the case where academics refer to the stories of Christianity under the "Christian mythology" heading, I think we should list them under the stories of Christianity. (I dislike the titles "traditional Christian narrative" and "Christian cultural stories," for reasons I will go into if necessary.) --LMS

Yeah, they're a bit wordy, but "stories" seems way too ambiguous without something to indicate that what we're talking about here isn't just stories in general, but mythical ones, i.e, part of the oral tradition that forms the foundation of the culture.

Yes, mainly just wordy. "Traditional Christian stories" would be good. --LMS

I agree that we should depend on modern scholarship for terminology. What do academics call this topic?

But forget about sacred texts. I still ask, are there no stories that are both mythological and Christian? Narnia really stands out in this regard. Remember that the Mythology page currently mentions invented mythologies such as Star Trek and Middle-Earth. (In fact, I would argue that Middle-Earth is in fact subtle Christian Mythology -- certainly it has been documented by Tolkien himself that Christian themes lie at the very heart of his work.) Does Christian mythology exist if one discards from consideration all texts that anyone would consider sacred? I would say yes, and that these, at least, should be on a "Christian mythology" page. -- Cayzle

I would agree with you, Cayzle. I still think the Christian mythology page was working out well, especially since it spelled out the working definition it was using up front. To me, that ought to clarify matters for both contributors and readers. Many wikipedia articles define their terms up front to avoid confusion. Perhaps Christian mythology and Christian stories should be two separate articles? They seem different to me. In the examples you cite, especially Narnia and Middle Earth, they aren't universally known in all Christendom the David and Goliath story is know, for example. But I still think they both count as a sort of Christian mythology. For that matter, C.S. Lewis' science fiction trilogy does too, and manages to weave in a bit of the King Arthur legend in the process. And no, it's not just that he happened to be a Christian writing allegories, it's that these works, especially Narnia, have been widely quoted from in Sunday Schools of many many groups of denominations and read to children by Christian parents as part of their informal religious instruction. Not many recent (last two centuries) books have achieved that, I don't think.

On a side note, I have to point out that not only do the Greeks no longer believe in the old Greek gods anymore, they all converted to Christianity many centuries ago. --Wesley, an Eastern Orthodox convert from Protestantism.

I'm suspicious of the old ploy of using a loaded term to talk about something that other people would rather you talk about respectfully. Simply defining the term up front does not remove the objection that many people would have to it, I think. --LMS

Maybe, although I'm not sure how widespread it is to regard Narnia or Tolkien as "Christian mythology." Surely the fact that some fiction is written by a Christian, or has Christian allegories, does not constitute it as Christian myth?

once again, please note this reference to Christian myth and Narnia in Christianity Today magazine. -- Cayzle

Again, let me reiterate as I did elsewhere that I personally do not have a serious objection to the phrase "Christian mythology," so long as it is suitably qualified and contains a lengthy discussion of the theory behind the very use of this term. Such a discussion (not long enough, but a start) already exists on the mythology page, by the way. I rather like my idea of a the concept of religious mythology or the concept of myth in the study of religion page--something like that. This gets explicit about the use of the word "mythology" when referring to extant religions, and about that I of course could not have any serious objection at all. --LMS

I guess I still don't understand why Roman stories are myths but Christian stories are not. On the Dianic Wicca page there are very serious references to ancient Roman gods worshipped in modern practice. But on the Diana page mythological and theological references coexist peacefully.

It seems to me that the only difference between the two examples is that Wikipedians who have seen these pages have objected to one but not to the other. To me, it seems unfair to treat these similar Roman and Christian topics differently just because Christians are more vocal/numerous than Wiccans. -- Cayzle

Well, of course, they are both myths. I never denied that! ;-)

The point is that many of our contributors and readers might strongly disagree that they are myths or, anyway, that they should be billed as such.

Show me one Wiccan who seriously objects to the term "Roman mythology," and I will be impressed. I can show you millions of Christians who would seriously object to the term "Christian mythology." --LMS

And it is also unfair to put things into Wikipedia that are 'fighting words'. I like Wikipedia. I want my friends to read Wikipedia. When it is easy to write words that are not attacking beliefs, why should we include the fighting words ? -- BenBaker I'll look at the Diana, and Dianic Wicca pages, now that you have pointed me there.

I can't even show you a Wiccan -- period! :-)

But if a term is objectionable, shouldn't it at least be addressed? Look at profanity. Moreover, search Google for "Christian myth" and you get a very large number of hits -- the great many in contexts that assume no objectionability at all. Try that with some of the words at Profanity!

In fact, the term "Christian myth" is in very common usage. As such, it deserves an article entry, I think. The terms at profanity are "fighting words, but they are in the Wikipedia. -- Cayzle

That's another relevant empirical question: if there really are millions of people who would be horribly offended by "Christian mythology", then perhaps it's justifiable to avoid the term even if it's otherwise a good term. But if it's just a few oversensitive ninnies, and most reasonable people can come to accept the non-pejoritive use of the term if it's explained, then I see no reason to avoid it. I rather like "Scientific mythology" personally, and wish it were restored. --LDC

Then, restore it, Lee. :-) I won't change it back. The issues I raised needed to be addressed.

I do think that there are a lot of perfectly good stories about science that it would be silly to include only under the heading of "scientific mythology," because they are perfectly true. --LMS

Please consider that after a very quick search, I found these links to academic citations (all from .edu) on Christian mythology:

"The primitive Christian 'myth' and the two basic values of primitive Christianity"

"...to actually achieve the Grail. However, this sublime Christian myth has much older roots amid the ancient Celtic tradition."

"This course explores the Judeo-Christian myth which has been at the core of the Western psyche for millennia."

"For though he knew that the gospels were Christian myth, they were the only texts he had."

"The Age of the Mother, published in 1992, includes personal experience with the mother and other feminine archetypes, as well as poetry on love, loss, death, mayhem, hope, faith, and many other subjects, some drawn from American Indian myth, Christian myth, East Indian myth, Greek myth, and many other sources."

Note that in my opinion, these are not nearly as culturally objectionable as terms found on the Profanity page are!! In fact, I would argue that the term "Christian myth" is a standard term used in academic circles. -- Cayzle

the audience that objects to the term "Christian myth" when used in describing the stories in the Bible rarely reads articles similar to the ones you cite. But that audience would be reasonably expected to read Wikipedia. My agreement that 'myth' and 'mythology' don't denote the same concept is directly related to my reading of articles such as these. Incidentally, I actually have known active Wiccans in the past, even some Dianic Wiccans. The articles you cited on wikipedia did not seem to be attacking their beliefs at all. -- BenBaker

Golly, I never intended to attack anyone's beliefs when I started this mess!! I apologize if anyone feels that I have attacked their beliefs. I would like to emphasize that I feel that myths can be true in both literal and figurative senses. I personally go by the definition that a myth is "a story that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." That's the first and primary definition from Miriam-Webster, and I do not belive that it precludes either factual or spiritual truth. Most of this debate stems from the idea that Myth = Lie, an idea with which I ferociously disagree!

Note that I do think there is a place for a Wikipedia page called Bible stories, a traditional term in common usage and with much overlap on this topic. -- Cayzle

but a page named 'Bible myths' would be objectionable to many people for no good purpose. -- BenBaker

But no one is proposing a page named that!

I propose that all the stories under Old Testament, New Testament, Parables, Acts, and Apocrypha (ie, those that derive from sacred texts) be moved to a Bible stories page, and that all the stories under "Other stories related to Christianity, but not sourced from the Bible" be moved to Christian mythology. Is this a reasonable compromise? I would do this myself, but being new to the Wikipedia, I don't know how! :-( A little help, someone? -- Cayzle

Just to add flavor to this debate, consider the new entry I just added on myth. -- Cayzle

Yes, many dictionaries do consider that a second sense of the word, so covering it that way is good. --LDC

I agree with Cayzle's last suggestion and have removed the list of Bible stories from 'The stories of Christianity' to the new page Bible stories --TK

As an illustration of Christian "[myth]", the article on Christian mythology died, was buried, and resurrected in three hours. Ed Poor

Yeah, but it is a very different Christian mythology page than it used to be -- hopefully one that Christians will not find offensive (or, fewer of them, anyway). -- Cayzle

LOL... --KA

If people refuse to apply the term 'mythology' to Christianity, then we should not apply it to the stories of any other religion either: which includes the religion of the ancient Greeks or Romans. Hence, if we are going to change Christian mythology into The stories of Christianity, to be NPOV we must change Greek mythology into The stories of the Greek religion, and Roman mythology into The stories of the Roman religion. -- SJK

That would need to be The stories of ancient Greek religion and The stories of ancient Roman religion. Today and for the last 1500+ years, the Greek religion has been Greek Orthodoxy, and the Roman religion has been Roman Catholicism, both Christian. Wesley

Talk:The stories of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search