How do you understand the word "myth"?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

For me it is a hill to die on. There is no alternative value-neutral term that holds the complexity of meaning that "myth" does. Exploring the myths of the worlds cultures is, and has been for thousands upon thousands of years, an important part of understanding those cultures and civilizations. It is an import part of a Classical Education.

 

It is "relativism" to say say, just because many people misuse the term, that "wrong" is the new "right". Embrace your die-hard traditionalism, we need you, or the barbarians win. :D

 

Bill

 

Is it really value neutral? Or is myth a term that is only applied by an outside observer who doesn't really believe that the story could be the truth, even if he does value the literary or cultural lessons of the story?

 

What I mean is that I've heard scholars refer to ancient stories as myths, recognizing the central importance they had for that culture, but with no thought that they should therefore make offerings to the gods mentioned in the stories. Significance did not equal truth.

 

And I can't think of any circumstance where I've heard a scholar who was a practicing (vice cultural) Christian refer to the stories in scripture as myth. Would a practicing Jew refer to the story of the Macabees as a myth? Would a Hindu refer to stories of Ganesh and Vishnu as myth?

 

(I've been sparring a lot lately over literary terms. I guess I'll have to hope that I really did store my Norton anthologies and didn't just get rid of them before the last move. Time to move on to the pre-rhetoric stage and bone up on all the stuff I've forgotten.)

[Peela]

To me a myth is both A story of primary significance to a culture, and Ancient fiction. but with roots in a real event, which has been distorted and exaggerated over time.

so I voted other.

 

:iagree: To some extent anyway. I think the term myth is commonly used to mean something that is purely fictional. But I dont think that myths are the purely fictional dreamings of barbarian cultures who needed to give names to things we can now scientifically explain (which is how the term myth was always explained to me). Myth can be a fairly dismissive term.

I think they are often based in real events and very deep understandings, including supernatural events and an understanding of things we have long since lost the capacity to understand.

I was at a full day seminar run by an australian aboriginal elder, a couple of months ago. He took us to the beach near the seminar rooms, and explained some aboriginal dreaming stories (which would be considered myths once upon a time but are now just called dreamtime stories in schools here, in respect to our aboriginal culture)....then he explained how science backed them up. It involved the rising of the sea level and things that happened at that time. Very interesting and gave us such a sense of how long these people have been here, and how much history they have compared to our measly 200 years.

I do think "religion" can be quite different from myth.

 

Sorry, my brain couldnt follow the preceding posts...it gave up trying.

[MelanieM]

Myth is neither. It is a scared tale that explains the origin of things. Genesis is a Judeo-Christian myth. The term "myth" gives no value judgements to the truth or falsity of the tales as "history" it merely acknowledges the high importance placed on these tales by the cultures that believe them. To be called a "myth" elevates a sacred story to a position of high cultural honor.

 

Bill

 

Yes!

 

In all fairness, though, when I was growing up, I thought "myth" meant the religion of a culture that had died out. So while I also thought "myth" meant a kind of untrue, made-up story, I never heard a *living* religion referred to as a myth. I would have been just as shocked to hear someone say that Genesis is a myth as I would have been to hear them say the story of the Buddha is a myth.

 

There are still people alive today that practice a religion based on ancient mythologies. Some of them are here on this forum. So if the standard was not to call a religious story a myth if it was a living religion, we'd have to give up on the term Greek mythology, for example.

 

I'm trying to follow the conversation, forgive me for any misunderstandings. The most common way myth is used in the world around me definitely includes value judgements. I understand your definition, but isn't language fluid? The nuances change whether we want them to or not. I use to be a diehard traditionalist, but now I'm wondering if the struggle to maintain definitions is a battle worth fighting. I'm all for understanding the origins and histories of words, but is usage one of those hills to die on?

 

I think this one is a battle worth fighting. Especially after some conversation around here where I learned that some people really do use the term myth as a way to elevate their religion over the religious beliefs of others. (I.e. my religious stories are truth, but those religious stories are false and therefore we'll call them myths.) I think myth is a lovely word without a true replacement, and it shouldn't be lost to this lesser, essentially divisive, meaning.

 

And to get your dh to ponder the subject more, this was how it was used by a professor of mine to refer to an aspect of Christian theology when we were discussing the allegory Pearl. I think his words were, "Well, according to the Christian myth . . ." [Of course it didn't help the class discussion that he then made a statement that I've never seen a Christian claim and that he was then jumped on by half of the class, who happened to be active in a variety of Christian student groups of several different flavors. He did not choose to use that phrasing again. :lol:]

 

Too bad he didn't use that opportunity for a more indepth conversation on the usage of the term, and perhaps further educate those offended class members on what the word truly means! I bet it would have been a wonderful conversation.

 

In a similar way, I think that there is a history in missions of referring to something as myth in order to dismiss it as irrelevant.

 

 

Right. And doesn't it seem wrong to use a word that describes a sacred story and then give it a new definition to mean "falsehood" as a way to dismiss that story?

 

I don't really see how you can escape the realization that when you label something as myth, you are making a value judgement on the veracity of that story. But your judgement may not at all be the opinion of those whose story it is. If you don't realize this difference of perspective, then you will be less prepared for the ensuing conflict.

 

Actually, I think sometimes people use the word myth without a value judgement and other people assume judgement where there is none, based on their values. That's an entirely different thing.

[mommaduck]

I voted the first one.

 

Imo, a myth is simply a collection of stories (real or fiction) that a culture uses to explain their origins, beliefs, etc.

:iagree: Which is different from "legend" where there may be some actual facts within or based upon a real event and elaborated out of proportion.

[Aubrey]

Is it really value neutral? Or is myth a term that is only applied by an outside observer who doesn't really believe that the story could be the truth, even if he does value the literary or cultural lessons of the story?

 

What I mean is that I've heard scholars refer to ancient stories as myths, recognizing the central importance they had for that culture, but with no thought that they should therefore make offerings to the gods mentioned in the stories. Significance did not equal truth.

 

And I can't think of any circumstance where I've heard a scholar who was a practicing (vice cultural) Christian refer to the stories in scripture as myth. Would a practicing Jew refer to the story of the Macabees as a myth? Would a Hindu refer to stories of Ganesh and Vishnu as myth?

 

(I've been sparring a lot lately over literary terms. I guess I'll have to hope that I really did store my Norton anthologies and didn't just get rid of them before the last move. Time to move on to the pre-rhetoric stage and bone up on all the stuff I've forgotten.)

 

Actually, yes. This all started because of a review I read regarding a Bible I'm interested in buying. The editor gives a lot of cultural information & at some point refers to the myths of the Bible & of other cultures. Some of the reviewers were really offended by this. I was delighted at the idea of a Bible that takes an academic approach.

 

While I don't *use* the word often, its use w/ regard to Bible stories doesn't bother me at all--it's an accurate use of the term. (And I believe the stories.)

[Parrothead]

A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology [provides causation], or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

 

Bill

:iagree:This.

[Spy Car]

And I can't think of any circumstance where I've heard a scholar who was a practicing (vice cultural) Christian refer to the stories in scripture as myth. Would a practicing Jew refer to the story of the Macabees as a myth? Would a Hindu refer to stories of Ganesh and Vishnu as myth?

 

 

When I went to University I studied Comparative Mythology with a brilliant Classicist (who I knew to be a practicing Catholic) and he spent a good deal of time comparing Judeo-Christian myths (his term) with those from other cultures. Myth was used as a term of high respect, and not one that implied derision.

 

Where would the alternative definition leave us? If we accepted myth = falsehood, how could a University offer a course in Hindu Mythology (as they do)? Hindu Falsehoods 105 would be an unacceptable course offering.

 

That is why we need to maintain (and fight for) the proper, historic, traditional, classical meaning of the term.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

When I went to University I studied Comparative Mythology with a brilliant Classicist (who I knew to be a practicing Catholic) and he spent a good deal of time comparing Judeo-Christian myths (his term) with those from other cultures. Myth was used as a term of high respect, and not one that implied derision.

 

Where would the alternative definition leave us? If we accepted myth = falsehood, how could a University offer a course in Hindu Mythology (as they do)? Hindu Falsehoods 105 would be an unacceptable course offering.

 

That is why we need to maintain (and fight for) the proper, historic, traditional, classical meaning of the term.

 

Bill

This would fall more under legends, if one wants to be technical, as there is an actual historical basis. At least that's how I would classify it for a college course.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

 

There are still people alive today that practice a religion based on ancient mythologies. Some of them are here on this forum. So if the standard was not to call a religious story a myth if it was a living religion, we'd have to give up on the term Greek mythology, for example.

 

I was actually thinking of instances like those who worship the Old Norse or Greek gods. My question was if those practitioners would use the term myth for their canon of stories of if they would use a different term. I think that few people who use the term Greek mythology would believe that there was efficacy in sacrifices to Athena; while they would have definitely conceded that for the ancient Greeks it was taken quite seriously.

So my idea wasn't that nothing could be labeled a myth if it were a living religion, but that we only label things as myth that are not our religion.

 

Too bad he didn't use that opportunity for a more indepth conversation on the usage of the term, and perhaps further educate those offended class members on what the word truly means! I bet it would have been a wonderful conversation.

 

I don't think that it was just a case of his usage and our understanding of the word myth not lining up. He was using the term to put Christianity into the same realm as other myths that some people believed and cherished but were ultimately untrue. It was a situation where he was trying to explain a confusing passage by explaining it as something arrising from the rather irrational beliefs of the author.

It didn't help his case that he was discussing a Christian allegory and then had a very poor understanding of the Christian theology that applied to the passage in question. When the students in class presented a more nuanced explanation of the theology, he had no response (He did not, for example, refer back to a pre-reformation/counter reformation understanding of the Biblical texts or theological points in question.) [All in all, he was one of my least favorite profs in the department. Not because I didn't always agree with him; he would have been in fine company there. But because he displayed a thinly veiled contempt for the students; for example, often not arriving to the senior level seminar course until the period was already half over.]

 

 

 

I will grant that myth as it was used in its original language may well have referred to "our stories of the gods", but I think that it has long been used in English to refer to the stories of those other people (either in distant lands or distant times) as in the phrasing "myths and legends".

 

(I might draw a distinction between the words myth and mythos with the later seeming to refer more to the body of stories that comprise a religious or traditional understanding of the world, especially of early times.)

[MelanieM]

I was actually thinking of instances like those who worship the Old Norse or Greek gods. My question was if those practitioners would use the term myth for their canon of stories of if they would use a different term. I think that few people who use the term Greek mythology would believe that there was efficacy in sacrifices to Athena; while they would have definitely conceded that for the ancient Greeks it was taken quite seriously.

So my idea wasn't that nothing could be labeled a myth if it were a living religion, but that we only label things as myth that are not our religion.

 

 

 

This has come up here before and it is my understanding that there are people here who refer to the religious stories of their own faith as myths, just as they do the stories of other religions. I am fairly certain that we have a Helenic Pagan here that uses the term Greek mythology, and that she believes the Greek Gods and Goddesses to be real entities that exist(ed?), not fictional stories from an ancient culture.

 

I do not personally subscribe to one particular set of religious stories over another, but have a deep respect for all of them. I am perfectly ok with calling sacred stories mythology, and it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I feel the story is factual or fictional. I don't think I'm alone in this, though of course I can see that this viewpoint is the minority and more people use the term as you describe.

[Aubrey]

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=672&sid=398216

 

This was the headline article on Yahoo this morning, & given this thread, it really made me laugh.

[Spy Car]

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=672&sid=398216

 

This was the headline article on Yahoo this morning, & given this thread, it really made me laugh.

 

:banghead:

 

These people are not helping :lol:

 

Bill

[IsabelC]

It's all very well to hold on to the "correct" meaning of a term, but you can't change the fact that language evolves. If 90% of the population believes that a word means x, then that is now the new/alternative meaning of the word. It is hardly an indication of stupidity if a person is able to remember more than one definition of a word, and apply those definitions according to the context. It's not unusual for a word to have meanings that oppose each other, either. If you can't tell whether somebody is using the word myth respectfully or derisively, you have a communication issue, not a terminology issue.

 

I agree that much misunderstanding can come from bad definitions taught in schools, though. I was taught that a myth is a story that is totally untrue, and that this should be differentiated from a legend, which was a story that is based on the truth. (Both definitions were of no use or value to me later on.)

[lionfamily1999]

LOL! That's a great answer! (But what about when *you* are using it?)

I very rarely use it. When I do, I'm referring to Greek/Celtic/Roman/&tc myths, so I'll go with the traditional defintion (rather than modern). Otherwise, I feel like there's plenty of other ways to say myth that don't come with all the baggage and misunderstanding.

 

Sorry so late in responding. We've had no internet for a bit ;)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

From the OED:

 

A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitious elements.

The earliest quote examples are from the 1800s. Earlier uses are defined as "to show, to mark or notice, and to measure".

 

Related definitions include Mythical-"having no foundation in fact".

 

 

I would take this to mean that there is an implication of absence of fact in a myth but not necessarily an implication of falsehood. As this word comes to popular use during the Victorian age (origin/usage quotes range from 1830-1905) I would hazard a guess that there is a value judgment implicit in the usage of the word myth. However-I don't think that it is at all clear that myth must strictly be used in reference to ancient texts only.