o you think it is legal for a textbook to mention things like "The mythology of Christianity".?

[LilyM]

hockeyfan,

I taught ancient history and classical mythology in a medium-sized university on the East Coast for many years. Your history professor either doesn’t understand what myth is or was trying to mislead you. Myth means today what it always has: stories created man, perhaps with a “germ of truth”, but not actual, faithful retellings of real events. The Bible is not myth, and anyone who says that calling it mythic material isn’t insulting Scripture is mistaken.

My own history professor, if I recall correctly, used terms like ‘the myth of Elizabeth I’.

Elizabeth I of course was a very real person who did a lot of vey real things, some of which were spun for political purposes, but no more so than the doings of today’s politicians are.

He certainly did not remotely imply by his use of the word ‘myth’ that she didn’t exist, or that the majority of what was reported about her was untrue and could be ignored. Or was fairytales. Or anything like.

Besides which, there are certainly what I would call Christian myths, in the historically-unverifiable-and-probably-untrue-story sense of ‘myth’.

The story of ‘Pope Joan’, a female who supposedly disguised herself as a man and was elected to the Papacy, is one such myth.

St Peter being crucified upside down is another myth (we don’t really know that he was crucified at all, let alone how).

Then there are saints like Christopher about whose real historical existence we know next to nothing. Virtually everything told about them can be regarded as myth.

 

[ltwin]

The problem is with the approval. The State is approving a textbook for use in its schools which is promoting a particular religious view. Whether is uses the book or promotes it in its schools or other schools the State is voicing an opinion on religious views. I understand this is a contentious issue in your country? Or is separation of church and state something else?

In America, “separation of church and state” refers to the relationship between the government and religion expressed in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. A textbook treating Christianity (or any religion for that matter) from a historical as opposed to religious perspective does not violate the First Amendment as it has been interpreted by the courts.

Now, if the textbook said, “Christianity is wrong” then that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Anniejoe]

LilyM

*My own history professor, if I recall correctly, used terms like ‘the myth of Elizabeth I’.
Elizabeth I of course was a very real person who did a lot of vey real things, some of which were spun for political purposes, but no more so than the doings of today’s politicians are.
He certainly did not remotely imply by his use of the word ‘myth’ that she didn’t exist, or that the majority of what was reported about her was untrue and could be ignored. Or was fairytales. Or anything like.
Besides which, there are certainly what I would call Christian myths, in the historically-unverifiable-and-probably-untrue-story sense of ‘myth’.
The story of ‘Pope Joan’, a female who supposedly disguised herself as a man and was elected to the Papacy, is one such myth.
St Peter being crucified upside down is another myth (we don’t really know that he was crucified at all, let alone how).
Then there are saints like Christopher about whose real historical existence we know next to nothing. Virtually everything told about them can be regarded as myth
LilyM,
None of your example come from Scripture. I was responding to a poster who said his history professor told him the Bible is mythology. “Pope Joan” is not a real person. Adam and Eve were. That’s my point.