Talk:Christianized myths of saints

This article, cut from Christianization, has not been provided with the usual first line with bolded phrase, nor is there any reference to its context in the opening. An innocent oversight I'm sure. The very subject has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedians who think this is unusual might vote to Keep or Delete. --Wetman 08:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saint Sebastian and Apollo

I cannot find anything else on the web to link Apollo and Saint Sebastian. Furthermore, the bases given for linking them are fallacious. Apollo used poisoned arrows while Sebastian was killed with poisoned arrows. I cannot find any other web source which indicates that Sebastian's death had anything to do with rejecting homosexual advances from Diocletian. On the contrary, sources consistently indicate that it was only in the Renaissance that Sebastian came to be implicitly linked with homosexuality, and only explicitly in the 19th century.

I am deleting this paragraph. If a user wishes to repost the Sebastian/Apollo content, please provide a more substantial link or a citation of a source.

Tpellman 13:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Page Name "Christianized myths and imagery" Page name is too broad and could be confused with Christian mythology and Christian icons. I suggest to rename this article "Christian myths featuring saints" else we're going to have overlapping articles. Goldenrowley 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Probably the best thing to do is merge what you can to Saint symbology.... I think literary and symbols seem to be the main focus (imagery=symbols) Goldenrowley 19:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral on page rename. This issue should be settled before a merger is proposed. --evrik ^(talk) 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "Christianized" and "Christian., so oppose.--Svetovid 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: A "Christian myth featuring a saint" would be St. Francis and the fishes, or the Navigations of St. Brendan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is one of a series of articles on aspects of Christianization. --Wetman 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose; I feel like the phrase "Christian myths" unnecessarily antagonizes the Falwell crowd, and besides, the point of the article seems to be that these are not Christian myths, but rather pre-Christian myths repurposed by folk Christianity. From a quick skim, it does seem like this article is focusing mostly on myths involving saints, so "Christianized myths involving saints" (or "about saints") might be an acceptable and less vague name, if the stuff on demons was merged out. I do think the current name is too broad, but I don't really like any of the alternatives. --Quuxplusone 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• The use of "Christian" and "myth" in the same title is risky, unless we are sure that no significant religious groups still believe in these saints. The majority of the Old Testament would be regarded as a Christianized myth by many people, so where do we draw the NPOV line? The word "scholar", repeated throughout the article, could also be considered a weasel word in the context of debates on Christianity. We really need a title like Saints rarely considered historical by modern Christendom (though this might suggest that the saints definitely existed and were forgotten). The section on demons should probably be moved to a separate page about art and imagery. There are plenty of other articles about ancient religions that became associated with Christianity, including a whole series on Gnosticism and the Gnostic Gospels; this article does not adequately cover the broad subject of "Christianized myths". Mtford 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

what's up with this article?

First of all, I'm not sure what the article is about: the article title doesn't appear in bold in the lede, perhaps because it's actually about the sources of saints' legends. It says little or nothing about traditional sources and analogues for Christian imagery, such what the serpent and the tree meant in the religions of ancient Greece and Rome, for instance. It seems misnamed. Second, virtually every statement in the article is potentially disputable and controversial, and yet none is attributed to a source. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I think it is not just unsourced, but confused, incorrect and frankly seems to have been written after 12 beers.... Will clean it up via deletions. No hope for correcting it, and needs an Afd, but I could not be bothered with that. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)