Talk:Jewish mythology

This article

This arcticle is as informative as it could possibly be without going into so much detail on judaism noone would be able to read through it. -Rafi Letzter

I hate to say it, but this is a really [bad] article. It does not specify who has the views provided -- many people or few, scholars or non-scholars, critical or orthodox, clerical or lay -- so it is fundamentally uninformative. The phrase "some people" in this particular context is laughable (ALL views are held by "some people"). Perhaps some narrow groups of people use "mystical vs. mythological" this way, but it does not seem to reflect sound schoalrship on Jewish mysticism, nor does it use the words "myth," "mythology," or "mythological" the way social scientists, historicans, or literary critics use the terms. There are some people active here who know more about Jewish Studies than I do, but I am fairly well-read for a non-expert and none of this makes any sense to me, so what value does it have for a wider audience except to misinform them? If there is some value to this article, then at the very least it needs much more context and specificity for it to make sense. I can't begin to improve it without just deleting it and starting from scratch, so if I have misunderstood the article as intended by the contributers involved, I hope they will work on this, soon Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein:Many Wikipedia articles have started off far worse than this one has. To sit on the sidelines and sling mud at an article, especially by using an "expletive" that should be "deleted", in the context of a scholarly discussion is very sad. Maybe you should clean up your own act and wash your figurative mouth out with some soap and water before passing judgment on a subject about which you admit you know nothing. However, be that as it may, yes, this article, like tens of thousands of others on Wikipedia needs work and polishing, which it will invariably get eventually. Cool your heels. IZAK 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I find myself agreeing with IZAK. What a day. - Gilgamesh 11:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. As I wrote, I know something about this topic, and the article as it stands is at best misleading. It does not need "polishing," it needs massive correction, which will inevitably involve deleting much misleading or wrong material. Slrubenstein

• Slr: Well, since this is the discussion page meant to to serve for the improvement of articles, could you please list:

1. What is it in the article that is "misleading"?
2. Specifically what facts/issues/personalities in this article need "massive correction"?
3. What do you think needs to be deleted and why?
4. Which specific citations do you deem to be "misleading"?
5. What are the "wrong" points secifically?

Remember, this article was written as an "introduction" to a complex area concerning Judaism so I assume you have a fairly good background in that too and not just in the separate subject of "mythology" alone. I know you are concerned about the "purity" of how the subject of "mythology" is handled, but this is not merely about some past ancient abstract occult mythological phenomenon, this about a part of the living Jewish religion and way of life as based on the Torah, Tanak , Talmud and the Halakha AS WELL AS the vast area of Midrash, Zohar and Kabbalah and much more that is still avidly studied and understood by many leading Torah scholars AND lay people today. IZAK 06:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reread what I originally wrote, in which I specify what is wrong. Slrubenstein

I agree with SLR's comments in full. RK 13:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let's face it. This is my religion, yet I consider the Torah and Tanakh to be rooted in mythology, same as any other religion. Just because those folks in the frum end of the religion call it mysticism, not mythology, does not change that fact. However, because some folks don't consider it mythology, my views obviously wouldn't be NPOV. Go figure. Oh yeah. And some of you would point out I'm writing on Shabbat, and you'd point out it was a mitzvah NOT to write on Shabbat. Whatever. Point is this: Mythology is mythology, whether it concerns Ragnarok or the worship of the Golden Calf. Rickyrab 07:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should this article include both Jewish mythology and Jewish folklore? How do the parallel articles in Wikipedia (on other mythologies and folklores) handle the distinction (if at all?) RK 13:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page was false advertising. It did not discuss Jewish mythology. Rather, it only contained a series of religious polemics against anyone who studied Jewish mythology, claiming that they didn't understand Torah-true Judaism. None of the many other Wikipedia pages on folklore do this, and this page should not do so either. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. People don't come to an encyclopedia to be told that they are heretics are stuck in a Western mindset, even if they are told so politely. I have tried to improve the article slightly, but at present am focusing on the Aggadah article. RK 13:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

A new proposal

I don't think it makes any sense to have an article on Jewish folklore, aggadah and on Jewish mythology. Indeed, one might fairly say that Judaism has no indigenous mythology distinct from its theology and aggadah. Of course, it is also fair to say that the Hebrew Bible is permeated with stories that have all the characterisitics of what is termed mythology. Yet the study of Biblical studies from the perspective of myth is far from the discussion of Kabbalah as myth. It seems to me that we need to remove this particular article on Jewish mythology altogether, as it attempts to combine far too many distinct topics into one article. As such, I propose that we use this scheme:

Jewish folklore - Studying Judaism's folklore from a historical perspective.

Aggadah - About the non-legal teachings in classical rabbinic literature.

Kabbalah - Our present article on Kabbalah can include scholarly studies of mythological tendencies and themes within Kabbalah. If this section becomes too long, it can be spun off into its own article.

Biblical mythology - A new article that I just created, discussing how scholars analye Biblical themes and stories as myth. RK 02:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thats not a bad proposal. I think Jewish Mythology should point to the page on kabalah and on aggadah. StephenGoldmeier

After five months no one has disagreed. I this will redirect this currently useless article to Jewish folklore, and make sure that this article links to the other articles mentioned above. RK 03:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable proposal. It seems to me that the Biblical mythology article might better be part of a more general article on modern critical approaches to the Bible, summarizing things like the Documentary Hypothesis, archeological and anthropological approaches, literary approaches, etc., which could always spin off sub-articles as needed. It seems to me that the very act of characterizing subject-matter as mythology reflects a POV and the article titles might better describe approaches (i.e. "ethnographic approaches to the Bible" rather than making what would appear to be claims about the content "Biblical mythology" --Shirahadasha 05:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the redirect?

I just came across this article and was shocked by the amateurish approach to this subject. As a fairly knowledgeable Torah Jew, I know that what you read (in the Torah, Mishna, Talmud, etc.) cannot always be taken at face value. This article purports to "analyze" something called "Jewish mythology" on its face. That is, if the Talmud talks about flying dragons, it must mean that the Sages believed in flying dragons. Nothing can be further from the truth. Often these descriptions are analogies or oblique references to deeper teachings which the Rabbis of the Talmud preferred to keep hidden from the eyes of the general public. Thus, Talmud must be learned with a teacher; else you could come up with all kinds of crazy ideas like those espoused in this article. I agree with Slrubenstein and RK that something drastic needs to be done here. However, RK's very good suggestion of redirecting this to Jewish folklore has apparently backfired, because Jewish folklore is a redirect to Jewish mythology! I have put a notice for clean-up on the main page, but I would really like to submit this for AfD. Yoninah 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You could try, but I doubt it would pass. You could always reverse the redirects. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The notion about "flying dragons" being coded proxies for other meanings revealed only to legitimate students has a parallel in medieval astrological practice where writings that are ridiculous on their face actually describe procedures meant to be understood only by adepts. Myron 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Mythology" is such a loaded term

"Mythology" is such a loaded term, since myth as a label often refers to something the labeler doesn't believe in. The article is full of statements like "The classical rabbis themselves were at times not free from sharing in the popular beliefs. Yet there are found instances of exceptional freedom from mythological influences." This is an inherently POV claim, and the article should be careful to identify who is making such claims and cite sources. Likewise, casual unsourced comparisons to other cultures in ancecdotal fashion doesn't strike me as helpful, may be Original research, and could potentially be misleading. And customs (like the older sister marrying first) would seem to be different from "mythology". Likewise, phenomena in contemporary culture, such as fiction-writers' use of biblical themes, would seem to be yet another category. To mingle them all together is to risk serious subject-matter and POV confusion. The proposal for dividing the article up into separate domains makes sense. At the very least, there needs to be a clear distinction between things that classical judaism generally regards as being allegorical in character, things whose character represents a current disagreement in classical Judaism (i.e. the Kabbalah), and things whose legendary or mythological character is asserted by critical or anthropological scholarship. --Shirahadasha 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would adding a disclaimer like the one on the Jewish Mythology category page resolve the issue for you?Apofisu 17:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It would help --Shirahadasha 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. All religion is, objectively speaking, mythology. Therefore all Jewish religious beliefs are mythological. This DOES NOT connote the "falsehood" of Jewish beliefs. On the contrary, every religious belief system in the world is subject to study by mythologists --and they do not use the popular definition of myth, "something the labeler doesn't believe in."

Think about it this way. Almost every belief system in the world has some adherents who believe it to be literally true. That being the case, it would be impossible for Wikipedia to maintain its NPOV status if it discussed mythology at all, since to call any belief mythological would inevitably offend someone. But that is not the nature of myth. Myth, in the scholarly sense, is a body of stories/traditions (including Biblical stories, Buddhist teachings, etc.) that hold deep explanatory significance and meaning to a culture. By that definition, every religious belief is a mythos.207.216.49.234 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ms.207.216.49.234 biology is mythology then according because it is just stories of atheism so biology is mythology to your definition just kidding but you atheists quit it being aholes or will categorize under something really bad and you'll be the only article ha ha ha.

Message from:Hungrykiller- Someone needs to re-write this. It's not correct in many ways. I suggest a Rabbi should write this article, not a christian. And whoever wrote it sux because all the sources are based on folklore, and is quoting books that were written in the last century, which means his sources aren't that reliable. A Rabbi should write this and use the Gemara as a reference, where the books are at least 1500 years old. A christian should not be allowed to comment on any jewish page. In my opinion, i think a jew should write it.I dont think any of the above should be read because its invalid, being written by a non-jew. how are christians going to write about a religion they dont believe in? --Java7837 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Page saved

Article was discussed at Wikiproject Mythology today and page saved.. I put my 2 cents keep the page as in important topic on its own. Maybe some experts can help it from the Judaism project. Goldenrowley 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I did what I could last night to readjust the focus back on mythology as sacred and traditional narratives and to copy edit so that it is about mythology. Goldenrowley 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

comparative mythology

I notice the comparative mythology section was deleted today and have a feeling Phatius plans a major rewrite which will vastly improve it, but if not, can we salvage at least some of it? It wasn't all bad in my honest opinion. Goldenrowley 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I felt that the section (now) titled "Interaction with other cultures" is the real comparative mythology section in this article. The (now deleted) "Comparative mythology" section seemed to be all about customs, superstitions, etc., and it mentioned few or no actual traditional narratives. Instead of restoring that section, I suggest we expand the "Interaction with other cultures" section, using bits and pieces from the "Comparative mythology" section if they're helpful. In particular, Goldenrowley, feel free to add a subsection on Flood myths. --Phatius McBluff 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved the section I titled "Interaction with other cultures" and renamed it "Comparative mythology". Now we can get to work adding more comparative mythology info into it. --Phatius McBluff 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for explaining. Goldenrowley 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Goldenrowley-- Following your lead, I moved a lot of passages from "Comparative mythology" in Christian mythology to "Comparative mythology" in Jewish mythology (replacing them w/ minor summaries in Christian mythology, of course). However, I wonder if the "Comparative mythology" section should be at the end of Jewish mythology, as it is at the end of Christian mythology. I mean, the exposition of the main sources of Jewish mythology (Tanakh, medieval folklore, etc.) should come before a comparison of Jewish mythology with other cultures' myths, right? --Phatius McBluff 07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that sounds logical. Goldenrowley 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Paganism

"The people's tendency to adopt the neighboring pagan myths, denounced as it had been by the Jewish prophets, returned with force during the Talmudic period, probably under the influence of the Babylonian and Persian"

I'm a Persian Jew, who has studied Judaism and Persian history for years, and I could not believe it when I was reading the aforementioned statement. Even though there are no citations, for those historically illiterate people in regards to Jewish history, the Persians saved the Jews from the Babylonian rule, not once, but twice, to the happiness of many Jews and perhaps to sadness of a few Rabbi's. And ever since Arya Mehr right until the Islamic Conquest, Persians practiced Zoroastrianism to a level that surpasses the strict obedience most muslims show Islam. Not only is Zoroastrianism the oldest recorded dualistic religion, Iran (modern Persia) was also the home to all the Vedic scriptures that eventually resided in India. Please stop all this nonsense and defamatory anti-Persian writing that is starting to occur all over Wikipedia, not only defying archaeological evidence, but also deceiving readers. To all you Pyramid lovers who love to claim everything triangular, try to bring facts to the table and don't call yourselves Jews. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you find it offensive that Jewish prophets could have denounced Persian myths? I guess we can look at the scripture to see if it was historically denounced, or not. I think prophets denounced many things. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great article, but...

First, I should say that I think this is an excellent article overall. Compared to Christian mythology and Islamic mythology, it's much more concise, organized, and comprehensive. It also has a crisp, clean look to it. (Of course, I have little justification for criticizing this article, since I was heavily involved in getting it into its current form.)

However, I think it gets too technical and dense in some of the discussions of Jewish folk beliefs (not all of which are even narratives!). (In particular, I'm thinking of the sections "In post-Talmudic times", "In ancient folktales", "In the Middle Ages", and "Legends".) At some points, the jargon and inconsistent citation techniques make the passages nearly unreadable. I hesitate to edit or delete those passages, however, since I'm neither a Jew nor a professional folklorist, and I'm not sure I'd know what I was doing. But I think something should be done.

The sections on the term "myth", the Tanakh, the Talmud, and comparative mythology are excellent (although they may need more citations in some places). If we fix up the middle sections, then might the article qualify as at least B-class? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I was too harsh. The article never actually becomes incomprehensible. However, the sections I mentioned above as problematic are problematic. In particular, the "Legends" section seems (to me) like a hodge-podge of discussions of various Jewish legends, with no overarching organizational principle or "point" governing the section. The section fails to describe the dominant themes in Jewish legends, the historical trends in Jewish legends, or the reasons why the legends listed in that section are more representative than other Jewish legends. A simple remark such as "The legend of the golem has become one of the most well-known Jewish legends" (with proper scholarly citation, of course) would be helpful. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed your comments Phatus, I am not learned enough to make the edits myself. If I recall the "legends" section is the oldest part of the article, I left it alone myself as legends are part of mythology (i.e legends of heroic man) so I vote to leave in but force copy editing, perhaps by asking for citations and recruit a copy editor? Goldenrowley (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Goldenrowley. Yes, more citations would be good. I actually think much of the stuff in the article was paraphrased wholesale from the online version of the "Jewish Encyclopedia". (Some of the articles there look suspiciously familiar.) Anyway, people should be able to provide citations for this kind of material. Maybe we could ask for help on the Wikiproject Judaism's page?

Anyway, I don't think a lack of citations is the main problem. More importantly, the citation style is inconsistent and confusing. And even more importantly, the sections themselves are confusing. They need to be edited for clarity, and some of the stuff on non-narrative Jewish folk beliefs needs to go. Like you, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make the relevant changes. But no one seems to be volunteering to edit the page.... --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

definition does not fit the subject

What does "generally the sacred and traditional narratives that help explain and symbolize the Jewish religion" mean? Tanakh is not a "traditional narrative"--Meieimatai 12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

too many sections

If "Jewish mythology is generally the sacred and traditional narratives that help explain and symbolize the Jewish religion, whereas Jewish folklore consists of the folk tales and legends that existed in the general Jewish culture.", than why is there not an article called Jewish folklore, and instead folk tales and legends are included in with Jewish mythology? Currently the article so named is redirected to Jewish mythology, but Folklore is not same as Mythology. In fact the epistemological categorisation places Mythology within Mythography, and that within the larger area of Folklore, but Torah and the rest of Tanakh are neither. The vast body of the Torah is Law, and is used as such. The vast body of Prophets and Writings are historical records. The vast body of Mishnaic and Talmudic literature are dedicated to interpretation and elucidation of these. Some have elements of traditions, but by and large they are not. Even the aggadic literature is interwoven with the larger halachic content, so how can it be lumped with other populations' largely oral mythologies that never served the same purpose?--Meieimatai 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did some editing on the first few sections, and will continue tomorrow--Meieimatai 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Hi, Meieimatai. As one of the editors who has devoted some time to this article, I think I can explain why you found the article as you found it. First of all, there has been extended and unnecessary hassle on a number of talk pages (e.g. that of Christian mythology) over the exact meaning of the word "myth". (For example, some editors insisted that "myth" refers only to religious stories, which isn't true within all scholarly disciplines.) In a way, that's just silly. As the section on the term "myth" (which you removed) notes, scholars in different fields use the term differently. (The fact that the term "myth" originally evolved from a Greek term meaning "word of mouth" is, as far as I can tell, not really relevant. Many Greco-Roman stories that are commmonly called "myths" today (e.g. Cupid and Psyche) were, at least in the forms in which they've come down to us, not popular oral traditions but literary works that acquired a "traditional" status.) In the end, the only definition of "myth" we found that was broad enough to accomodate scholarly usage was "sacred or traditional story". Scholarly definitions at least agree in restricting "myth" to stories, rather than, say, theology (when presented in a non-narrative form) or ritual.

By this definition, the Tanakh most definitely contains mythology. As you say, the Tanakh itself is not mythology. But of course, it doesn't even make sense to say that a text, in and of itself, is mythology. The Greek poet Hesiod's Works and Days is a poem that relates myths (or particular versions of myths), along with a lot of other stuff (e.g. folk practices and wisdom sayings); it isn't a myth itself. Although it contains material besides mythology (e.g. law), the Tanakh most definitely contains sacred and traditional stories. (As I recall, the section on the term "myth" acknowledged that not all of the Hebrew Bible was mythology.) I'm not sure what their "historical" status has to do with it. The story of Moses is presumably historical (or largely historical), and it's also a traditional story.

As for the introduction that strictly distinguishes "Jewish mythology" from "Jewish folklore"-- I'm not sure where that came from, and I don't much like it myself.

I admit that there's been some "content creep" into this article, and it currently contains some stuff (e.g. the stuff about dream interpretation and the evil eye) that isn't really mythology. (The evil eye is a traditional belief but not a traditional story, although there may be some traditional stories involving the evil eye.) We can work on sorting out that kind of material.

Given all this potential for confusion, why, you may ask, should an article called Jewish mythology even exist? The answer partly has to do with the section on "comparative mythology". A culture's mythology has a life of its own, evolving with partial independence from other areas of culture. As the section on comparative mythology shows, Jewish mythology may have absorbed elements from pagan mythology even while Judaism resisted pagan theology and rituals. This alone sets "Jewish mythology" apart as a field of its own.

Anyway, you really shouldn't have deleted that entire thickly-referenced section on the term "myth". To avoid an edit war, I won't revert your edits. But please discuss your concerns more fully here, and we can move from there.

By the way, I note that Jewish folklore redirects here. That's incorrect, because folklore is much broader than mythology. Mythology is a form of folklore, but folklore also contains rituals, dances, etc.

Anway, sorry this ran so long.

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanakh does not contain mythology, and I will explain why. Mythology is usually decontextualised, because if it was contextualised, it would be history. Tanakh is history, and the reason other societies have myths is because they had no writing. This is the fundamental difference that makes application of comparative mythology to Jewish texts about as valid as comparing apples and oranges. This point of comparison is often lost on the academics who "assume" that the multi-source origin of Torah theory is a given fact.

Yet another issue I take is with the use of Greek sources and terms to describe other cultures, in this case that of ancient Israel. Please note that the Greeks borrowed a Semitic writing system and not the other way around. Would you say that if they borrowed a writing system they may also have borrowed a few words and concepts? The Japanese language is 60% of Chinese origin though at one stage the Chinese mainland was occupied by Japanese troops. Somehow this is never voiced by the linguists, but the fact is that the Greeks migrated to the coastal regions of the Eastern Med at about the same time the nation of Israel conquered Canaan. For the next seven centuries the Greeks had no written system, and did not possess widespread means of seafaring. This last point is often lost on students of Ancient history. Earliest Greek navigation of the seas is derived from the Trojan War, but that is undated and the best guesses have placed it no earlier than 10th century BCE. This is fully two centuries after the arrival of Israelites in Canaan with knowledge of shipbuilding from Egypt (never mind possible link to Phoneticians during Patriarchal period over 400 years prior) so much so that one of the tribes had a ship for a symbol. Earliest Greek literature, or for that matter consistent use of writing dates to 8th century BCE. By this time in Israel it was the time of Omri! All this is recorded and dated history, not myth. Just so we are clear on the direction of borrowing, while there was no widespread Jewish immigration to Greece, there was a Greek immigration to Israel which eventually caused Hellenisation of the Jewish population.

Based on this line of thought, consider that the word "myth", though ostensibly Greek, is of uncertain origin, but has the meaning of oral transmission. (warning: the following is original research) The Hebrew Mi ET (written Aleph-Tav) is a common abbreviation of the "from Torah", it having been written with the letters Aleph to Tav, the letters the Greeks would adopt for their own system of writing. Because Aleph is silent, what you will get phonetically is mi(A)Th, or eventually myth. However, the meaning has obviously changed during the transmission from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to Vulgar Latin, Old French, and eventually Old English. This would have been repeated a lot in answers to Greek questions until it assumed the sort of oral heading to any discussion that led to the Tanakh content in conversations with the Hebrew-speakers.

So, what we are left with is application of a term, originally misunderstood, and misapplied to concepts that can not be compared, used out of context, to satisfy academic careers of modern scholars. This is why I had decided to address this article. I will of course add references and citations, although obviously not to the redefinition of myth since I would have to publish that first before using it in Wikipedia (fat chance of that)--Meieimatai 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gustave Doré Elijah image

I removed the image because one can not very well represent "mythology" of one culture with images from another culture, particularly created by a non-expert in the field--Meieimatai 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

"While use of "legend" in modern academia is assigned a low level of verisimilitude, this contradicts the practice by which Torah and its associated literature constitute a work with "a high degree of verisimilitude which means that the work is very realistic and believable; works of this nature are often said to be 'true to life'." That Torah is "true to life" is self-evident because it is practised as part of the lives of those Jewish families and communities that choose to do so."

This is clearly biased. First, who said the part in quotations? Or is it just another instance of a Wikipedia user putting their thoughts in quotations and pretending that it is a scholarly source? Second, just because there are millions of Jews in the world, the verisimilitude of the Jewish holy text is not suddenly raised to the status of "true to life", and is most definitely not automatically "self-evident". Nearly every single Ancient Greek practiced Greek Polytheism, yet nowhere in Wikipedia is Greek Polytheism called self-evidently true to life. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To avoid an edit war, I've refrained from reverting the changes made by the editor who wrote that section. However, he hasn't provided any citations, and I'm losing patience. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Painting?

The painting shown at the beginning of the article is not relevant to the article itself. The article is titled "Jewish mythology". The painting is not at all a depiction of a myth. Saxophilist (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good. No objections to removing the painting. Thank you. Saxophilist (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just removed it. The page would be better with some kind of picture at the beginning. Just make sure it's a pic of an actual myth this time. Any suggestions? Saxophilist (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV versus historical revision

So, this article reads like it was written from the modern narrative of Judaism, or at least the narrative of monotheistic, mystic Judaism. Which is fine, but shouldn't it also include sections from Jewish myth's earlier incarnations? For example, this article describes a monotheistic people who are, in some ways, "tricked" into worshipping neighboring gods. This is ahistorical, which is fine for mythology, but before that revision of history occurred, the mythology consisted of something else. Modern-day Jews have the authority, absolutely, to write their own historical account of Judaism to be taken as cannon. But I think we do a disservice to the scholarship of Wikipedia by behaving as if the revisionist narrative of Jewish mythology (which is not identical to Judaism) is the only narrative. 169.231.35.176 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This critique (above) loses substantial claim to academic credibility with the use of "cannon" instead of "canon". (A simple "Show preview" and a proofreading before "Save page" would have been useful in catching the error, or typo, unless the writer was in fact unaware of the difference in meaning and spelling.) The article this date is by no means a "revisionist" treatment, rather it is an adequate introduction and exposure inviting further inquiry and study of the subject. The fact that not everyone will agree or disagree with everything in the article, and simultaneously from a widely divergent spectrum of different points of view, is a mark of its (currently) encyclopedic NPOV. Wikipedia is not intended to be a textbook vehicle for exhaustive treatment of any subject matter. As pointed out (above) substantial differences in understanding and use of the term "Mythology" as differently applied in different disciplines of research and particular fields of study is problematic when no specification is offered. I attempted to reduce the problem by addition of the Judaism sidebox, by some additions to the section "See also", and by linking the WP article "Mythology", which inclusively states that some cultures' mythologies relate "truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events" (sources for this assertion are cited there). This is my 2 cents worth, for what it's worth. I wish you well. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page move to Hebrew Mythology

User:Owain Knight i appreciate your being bold and moving the page to Hebrew Mythology but the new name broke with MOS (should be Hebrew mythology if it is going to be moved) and more importantly, I don't see this is an improvement. "Hebrew" is a language; the culture from which the mythology arose is generally called "Jewish". You didn't provide a rationale so I am not sure what your reasoning was. But this is already contested (from me) and likely to from others, so please initiate a page move proposal. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, the Ancient Hebrews Were Noble Spiritual Pagans! The Jews stole and corrupted Hebrew Mythology and Culture! There should be two separate pages! This page is Filled More with Hebrew Mythology and Jewish mythology and Hence Should Be Renamed! Adam, Eve, Lilith, Archangel Mikael, Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raziel (other times Jophiel), Khamael, Raphael, Haniel, Sandalphon!

User:Jimmy Wales, you must enforce Wikipedia's Policy of Neutrality Strictly! Wikipedia Must Be Purified of All Distortions, Thefts of History and Culture and Perversions! Wikipedia Must Become Crystally Noble Encyclopedia Filled with Art, Beauty, Wisdom, Truth and Spirituality!!!

This is a Hebrew text:

In Hebrewism

Suggested article material by Owain Knight that doesn't seem to bear any relevance to the rest of us
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jacob wrestling with the Angel by Gustave Doré 1885 The Hebrew Bible uses the ter. מלאכי אלוהים (malakhi Elohim; Angels of God), The Hebrew word for angel is "malach," which means messenger, for the angels are God's messengers to perform various missions. מלאכי י י (malakhi Adonai; Angels of the Lord), בני אלוהים (b'nei elohim; sons of God) and הקדושים (ha-q'doshim; the holy ones) to refer to beings traditionally interpreted as angelic messengers. Other terms are used in later texts, such as העליונים (ha-elyonim, the upper ones, or the ultimate ones). References to angels are uncommon in Jewish literature except in later works such as the Book of Daniel, though they are mentioned briefly in the stories of Jacob (who according to one interpretation wrestled with an angel). Daniel is the first biblical figure to refer to individual angels by name. It is therefore widely supposed that Hebrew interest in angels developed during the Babylonian captivity. According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 CE), specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon. There are no explicit references to archangels in the canonical texts of the Hebrew Bible. In post-Biblical Hebrewism, certain angels came to take on a particular significance and developed unique personalities and roles. Though these archangels were believed to have rank amongst the heavenly host, no systematic hierarchy ever developed. Mikael, who serves as a warrior and advocate for Galilee (Daniel 10:13), is looked upon particularly fondly. Gabriel is mentioned in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 8:15–17) and as well as many Merkavah mystical texts. In the Kabbalah there are Twelve Archangels, each assigned to one sephira: Raziel (other times Jophiel), Zaphiel, Zadkiel, Khamael, Raphael, Haniel, Michael, Gabriel, and Sandalphon. Chapter 20 of the Book of Enoch mentions seven holy angels who watch, that often are considered the seven archangels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saraqael, Raguel, and Remiel. The Life of Adam and Eve lists the archangels as well: Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael and Joel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain_Knight (talk • contribs)

@Owain Knight: you have cited no professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims, which is your responsibility. Your personal beliefs, no matter how strongly you hold them, are not considered some divine truth that everyone else has to acknowledge -- neutrality is based on duly weighted summaries of reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't think black supremacist propaganda should be tolerated on talk pages any more than white supremacist propaganda, which would be immediately revision-deleted. These so-called "Black Hebrew Israelites" are the type of people who murder Jews in New Jersey and carry out pogroms against Jews in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldcable (talk • contribs) 08:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807181158/http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm to http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A lion named Tigris?

When reading the discussed Talmud page, it seems the Tigris is mentioned there as well as a Lion, but it seems that the Lion refers to Arieh Leib Liefshits https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/אריה_לייב_ליפשיץ No other place repeats this mention of "Tigris", so the decision to make it a known legend is odd. Ymoran00 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence

In the "In popular culture" section, the fifth bullet point entry begins "The flood was a story of a world catastrophe, and the survivors," but there is no end to the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.224.141 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)