|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Cleanness should be merged with Cleanness (poem). Both are on the same text.
- I have merged the two articles. If you see this sort of thing again you should probably list it at Category:Articles to be merged, where, hopefully, the issue will be resolved much quicker. Rje 17:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote Cleanness (poem), there was a Wiktionary-like article at Cleanness. I have no objection to the merger. Geogre 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Legend and myth
Show me where, in the Bible, the fall of Satan is described. It isn't. Is there any place in the Bible where the rebel angels are named? No. So, the story of the fall of the angels comes from some other source. Now, are these other sources legends or "myths?" Well, I'd say they're legendary material: narratives constructed and passed down to explain a lacuna in one's understanding, rather than "myths," which are stories constructed to explain natural phenomena. No natural phenomenon is explained by the rebel angels. Where did the Pearl Poet get his information? He got it from the pseudopygrapha. Where else was it? It was in Islamic holy text. In neither the case of pseudopygrapha nor Islamic holy text can these be called "Christian mythology." Therefore, any attempt to call the source such will be reverted until there is a compelling justification for it. Geogre 22:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be a little confused regarding the definition of "myth". A myth is a traditional story or narrative, taking place before the beginning of time or recorded history(and often involving the supernatural), which is held to be sacred and true by the group which tells it. It's not just a story "constructed to explain natural phenomena", although I don't deny it to be commonly held as such(and by extension, as meaning fictious or half-truth, although that's not the correct definition). A legend follow much of the same definition as a myth, though it takes place within recorded history, does not necessarily involve the supernatural(and doesn't necessarily need be believed to be true). For comparison, the creation story in Genesis(or even most of Genesis, in fact) is a myth, and a story about, say, a saint, for example Saint George, is a legend.
- The story of the Fall of the angels isn't just pseudopigraphia, as it's held to be "correct" by most Christians and Muslims, and by Rastafaris(though not necessarily by Baha'is and Jews), and is seen as tradition. The Great Fall essentially is Abrahamic mythology, and is part of both Christian and Islamic mythology.
- There has been an extensive discussion on the definition and use of "myth" on Talk:Mythology, and is explained in Abrahamic mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology and Religion and mythology. Please see those if you still disagree. Lemegeton 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree. I'm aware of the rather precious redefinition of "myth" to a hypercorrective Hellenism, but it is without basis. The Greeks themselves used "myth" to mean "untrue, fanciful story," so the feigned "original meaning" touted by those hostile to religion does not move me. Finding Greek authors before the 4th century BC using "myth" to mean "just a story" is very difficult. Finding them using it to mean "fanciful story" is very easy. Regardless of that, there is no reason, no compelling reason to offend the religious in a hagiographic article or a literary article by inserting a displayed "myth" into an article. What are the advantages of it? What are the disadvantages? When this article is not about the subject, there is no reason to go out of one's way to insert the incendiary language. As for what is there now, I see no reason whatever to use a canting term "Great Fall" instead of "Fall of Satan." The former is the language of a particular group. The latter explains what's being discussed clearly. This is especially true given the fact that the actually linked text is "fallen angel." Please explain why an article on one of the Pearl Poet's works has to have "myth" in it and why it should use "Great Fall" instead of the actual article, "fallen angel." I have no interest in fighting the pseudointellectual battle over "myth" speakers, but there's no reason for it here. Geogre 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Two statements and a question:
- The statement: as a non-Christian non-academic, I must confess "myth" and "legend" have exactly the same connotation to me. Probably reflects on my ignorance, but there you have it. So worrying over that point is a bit foreign to me. Avoiding the issue seems sensible though.
- I don't know what the "Great Fall" is and the term isn't mentioned in fallen angel, so I'd venture the term isn't useful here either.
- Does the poem discuss Satan's fall in particular, fallen angels more generally, or both? (I looked at the untranslated poem and, surprise!, my Middle English wasn't good enough to help me answer the question.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- On the first, I wasn't interested in fighting the "myth" battle (else I'd have gone to the myth page and done so), but, as you say, I thought it would be well to avoid the language, and so easter egging the link would have been the best solution. On the second, that was my point: it appears to be a specialized term, and I don't know whose usage it is. The rebellion of Satan is called all sorts of things, and, for all I know, that may be the most common term at a particular point or for a particular audience, and I'll only say that I've never heard of it. On the third, the answer is both, but more Satan. The poem was written before the full influx of Islamic legend that came with the fall of Grenada -- the stuff that Milton would have at hand for Paradise Lost. Geogre 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)