This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Nobodyand Noone: I've removed the stuff about Ahriman, since it's not relevant to the topic. Ahriman has always been considered the source of evil in Zoroastrianism.
Lale: "The story of The Holy Grail and the Spear of Destiny were likely Christianized versions of older myths." Is this the editor's theory or some scholarly theory? If the latter, examples?
Hollow49: The 4 Hallows, the sword, spear, stone (or crown in some versions) and cauldron, are an old celtic myth. The spear of Lugh and the Cauldron of Ceridwen (kept in Caer Sithi, the castle of the dead) bear a striking resemblance to elements of the Fisher King legend (wounded by the spear, cured by the cauldron). The Cauldron, in particular, could raise the dead and an older version of king Arthur and his knights did quest for it - and failed. Trying to obtain the cauldron resulted in the deaths of all but 7 of the knights who attempted it. (The Aesop was that death comes to all, and that some things just can't be attained, no matter how noble the goal.) The books Elidor and The Prydain Chronicles (especially The Black Cauldron) draw on this concept.
Lale: Off-topic, but I can think of another book that draws on those concepts...
Getty Le Fou: Easter's etymology was half-right - it is indeed connected with the old Germanic deity, whose name has about eight billion variant spellings - so I took out the incorrect bit. Despite sounding similar, Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar - it does, however, have to do with the word east, the direction from which the sun rises. (English is, in fact, Germanic, while the name Ishtar comes from Akkadian, an Afro-Asiatic language.) And to think they told me that a linguistics major wouldn't be useful!
Erica MZDM: Tweak to the entry about easter: it's based on fertility/Spring/rebirth/'hooray winter is over!' festivals(or whatever the proper term is for those), not harvest ones.
Elfey: Meh. Easter eggs and bunnies are English cultural traits that don't map to almost every other European and Occidental Christian culture. Heck, most other Christian cultures have Easter name either Resurrection day, or Passion Sunday...
Mikintosh: Deleted the Mithra and Bacchus parts, as those are pretty galling claims to be posted as fact with no evidence to back them up. Christians don't claim December 25th was when Jesus was actually born, anyway.
Freezair For A Limited Time: Cut:
- Most of what is claimed about pre-Christian holidays being made over into Christian holidays is the product of Victorian folklorists who firmly believed that folk customs always lasted unchanged for millenia and many of whom were bitterly anti-Christian. Much of what they have propounded is impossible. Christmas trees, for instance, weren't even invented until well into the modern era. And Samdhein can not have been the source of Halloween (All Hallows' Eve, meaning All Saints' Eve) because it was an Irish holiday, and the Irish celebrated All Saints' Day in April; the November holiday came from Germany. (And much of it was circular logic: Christians celebrate this, therefore there must have been a pagan custom to survive into Christian practice.)
- The christmas tree thing evolved from pagan traditions and practices over several centuries but can be traced back to norse yule tree. Samdhein is something of a generic 'autumn/harvest festival' with traditions overlapping eachother all over Europe for millenia, not just in Ireland. Also, few of the traditions of any christian holiday came out of no where, though the holiday itself may have been original, most were derived from earlier pagan practices.
- Christmas trees can not be traced back to any "yule tree" because between any such pagan custom and the modern Christmas tree lie over a thousand years without any such tree. Samdhein is a purely Irish festival; the Welsh, who were also Celtic, did not celebrate it. And many traditions of many Christian holidays demonstrably came out of nowhere because they appear only in late medieval, or even modern, times.
- The christmas tree thing evolved from pagan traditions and practices over several centuries but can be traced back to norse yule tree. Samdhein is something of a generic 'autumn/harvest festival' with traditions overlapping eachother all over Europe for millenia, not just in Ireland. Also, few of the traditions of any christian holiday came out of no where, though the holiday itself may have been original, most were derived from earlier pagan practices.
That's only going to go bad places. Let's nip it in the bud before it does. If anyone else thinks it's not as potentially flamebait-y, I suppose they can restore it, but I'd be wary...
Goldfritha: You should have seen the stuff that cut just before this. . . but if we can keep the controversy out, that would be better.
T Beholder: To be fair, "Gautama aka Josaphat" conversion did most likely appeared a bit to the East from Europe. And AFAIK it has counterpart "Jesus the Marichi incarnation". Sort of compatibility conventions. Thus, technically one could even claim in the terms of both to be follower of both, thus being counted as Buddhist and Orthodox (Catholics and Nestorians has other issues with Buddhism) at the same time without conflict of interests — that is, if such combination could have any sense at all. As it was, they just has an option to view each other as another trend of their own doctrine.
Truec: I strongly question the presence of Saint Seiya, though I'm not certain enough to go crazy deleting. I just really don't think it fits the trope. Saori/Athena isn't presented as Jesus-like (other than a tendency to be turned into a human sacrifice), and nobody is really portrayed as Satan-like, with godly politics and power struggles seeming to form more of the plot than the struggle of good against evil. I just don't see it.
Ulti S.: I don't see it either, so I'm cutting it.
- In Saint Seiya, several of the Big Bad enemies that oppose Saori aka Athena and her Saints are either gods (like Hades, Poseidon, Artemis or Eriis) or priests of other gods (like Hilda, priestess of Odin)
- To add to the mix, Virgo Shaka is refered as a reincarnation of Bhudda and the spin-off prequel manga Episode G has bonus stories where Leo Aiolia is seen fighting the Egyptian god Anubis and his brother Sagittarius Aioros defeating soldiers of Horus. It is important to note that Masami Kurumada, creator of Saint Seiya, is an admitted atheist.
And cutting some natter.
- Of course, I hear Cupid (or was it Eros, I always get those confused) had a hand in the whole kidnap thing.
- Even the "Rape of Persephone" is adaptation decay. In ancient Greek the word translated as rape refers only to forcible seizure. So Hades worst act in the mythology was to become so desperately lonely he had to kidnap a wife.
- In fact, the Disney version can be considered a reversal of the mentioned gods' roles. Whereas Zeus was out smiting random mortals or fathering children only to have them cursed by Hera, Hades was a pretty decent guy. Except for the Persephone incident, of course.
- Disney could have handwaved the wedding by saying that it took place when much of Arabia was controlled by the Byzantine Empire, but noooooo.
- With the discussion about Aladdin about not being more "Islamic", I should note that the original version of the Aladdin character was a West Chinese/East Turkestani Muslim. Yes, that's right: Did Not Do The Research is one of The Oldest Ones in the Book.
- Setting a story in "China" may have been a rhetorical device, rather than an indication that the teller of the story even thought that research should be involved. Sort of like a pre-modern "in a galaxy far far away."
- But portraying Kali as an evil goddess opposed to Shiva is crazy nonsense.
- Maybe I gave them too much credit, but I thought they were supposed to be Kali-worshipping Thuggee types who betrayed Shiva by thieving his stones from his believers, rather than because of any inter-divine imbroglio. I may have known too much Hindu mythology going in to get the full flavour...
- Uh, they are Thuggees - their cult returns after supposedly being wiped out many years before. Besides, who says they'd follow traditional Hinduism anyway?
- Especially since Set is one of the few gods that is evil in the original mythology.
- That's progress for ya.
This sentence about the Cthulhu Mythos is cut for being left unfinished.
- however, Derleth, more than Lovecraft presented humans as having a
This is clearly Crystal Dragon Jesus or Fantasy Counterpart Culture.
- The David Eddings Elenium trilogy has the Elene Church, in which most of the main characters are heavily involved. The Elene Church, with its single god, esoteric rituals and high-handed morality, is almost certainly supposed to represent Catholicism. It even has a supreme head, the Archprelate, who operates out of a basilica in the city-state of Chyrellos and is aided by a large council of cardinal-like men called Patriarchs.
Matthew The Raven: Took out everything but the first bullet point.
- The Trope Namer, the hijacking of the Tanakh to become "The Old Testament".
- Your Mileage May Vary, and almost certainly will, as Christianity arose from Judaism, was almost exclusively Jewish for a good 2-3 decades, and Jesus Himself being Jewish and a Jew sent to Jews, well, you know...
- All of which tends to get handwaved by those Christians who talk about Jews needing to "purify" themselves and acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. And Jews do not think Jesus was "sent to them". That's the whole point.
- Unless you missed it, one of the primary themes of the New Testament writings is that the Jewish leadership of that time rejected wholesale (with notable exceptions) the possibility of the ancient prophecies, which they TAUGHT, coming true and rendering their intercession unecessary. Same thing happened with the Roman Catholic/Protestant schism within Christianity itself. Although it was more of a "keeping the peasants in the dark" kind of thing, that time. AND all of this goes back to examples from the Old Testament of the people not recognizing, time and again, that human-centric leadership would inevitably fail them.
- Hell, in old Roman documents dating from the first century, they mention Christianity as a sect or tribe of Judaism.
- Your Mileage May Vary, and almost certainly will, as Christianity arose from Judaism, was almost exclusively Jewish for a good 2-3 decades, and Jesus Himself being Jewish and a Jew sent to Jews, well, you know...
None of the natter really affects the fact that the Tanakh was regulated to the position of the Old Testament in the Bible, and frequently denigrated as barbaric. None of it actually contributes anything other than a Judaism vs. Christianity hermeneutics debate.
Teufelchen: For similar reasons to the previous removal, I'm also removing the paragraphs quoted below. The idea that the text now known as the Old Testament was put together as an anti-Christian tool is obviously nonsense (and worrying anti-Semitic) since the Septuagint (containing the OT and the Apocrypha) was translated as more-or-less one text into Greek in Alexandria is about 200BC.
- This is particularly ironic as the Old Testament in its official form was actually created as an anti-Christian document. A lot of Jewish leaders during the early Christian period were alarmed at the way Christians treated their own apostolic epistles and histories as scripture on par with the ancient writings of the prophets, tried to draw the line. They selected a group of sacred writings, carefully edited out some of the prophecies that most closely fit the life of Jesus, and proclaimed the results the only canonical scriptures.
- This anti-Christian Old Testament eventually became formalized as the Masoretic Text, which is now the basis for the Old Testament in practically every Christian Bible in existence.
- Or not, seeing as unlike most of these examples Christianity was actually a direct outgrowth of Judaism, rather than a foreign religion assimilating the Tanakh into its own beliefs.
- The whole point of this page is that Christianity is as much a blend of pagan traditions as a descendant of Judaism. Theologically and culturally, Christianity is quite alien to Jewish beliefs, which is why early Christians weren't too popular with the conservatives.
- This is particularly ironic as the Old Testament in its official form was actually created as an anti-Christian document. A lot of Jewish leaders during the early Christian period were alarmed at the way Christians treated their own apostolic epistles and histories as scripture on par with the ancient writings of the prophets, tried to draw the line. They selected a group of sacred writings, carefully edited out some of the prophecies that most closely fit the life of Jesus, and proclaimed the results the only canonical scriptures.
Teufelchen:...and I've also removed the following from the discussion of Beowulf, seeing as the bits of Christianity that another troper has asserted the medieval church 'didn't have'' are, er, direct quotes from Jesus, in the gospels. You know, the gospels that were famously translated into Anglo-Saxon at about the same period, or somewhat earlier.
- It helped that Christianity at the time was very different from what it is like today. Back then there was no "turn your other cheek" and "love thy enemy:" Christ was seen as a strong and wise king who fights and defeats evil often literally, and Christian values were basically not much different from traditional warrior virtues. It is recorded that in England Christian monks actually liked to hear stories about "pagan" heroes.
Barano: ...Oookay. Yes, parts of the Bible were translated to Old English, but that doesn't mean that people aside of the clergy were particularly well-versed in it, even the New Testament (remember, we're talking about the Early Middle Ages). If you look at Anglo-Saxon Christian literature (or continental Germanic, for that matter) it's quite apparent that they had their own popular interpretations of both Testaments and God and Christ that were closer to their traditions, their mindset and their world view. We have epithets of Christ likening him to a warrior, the protector of his people, "Lord of Victories," etc. Christ and Satan even includes an actual battle of sorts in which Christ brings down God's "avenging wrath" on the demons. And so on, there's hardly any mention on his compassion, his love for mankind, etc. (Even in art, early depictions of Christ on the cross show him as victorious, as one who has defeated death. Hell, Dream of the Rood depicts him standing strong and firm in front of the cross. Depictions of Christ actually suffering were almost nonexistent until later in the Middle Ages.) And it may be surprising but traditional Germanic warrior ideals were in fact surprisingly similar to contemporary Christian values (Beowulf himself being the perfect example of this), which was one of the reasons why Anglo-Saxons had taken relatively well to Christianity. And it is in fact recorded that in England Christian monks liked to listen to stories about pagan heroes. Not all of them, obviously, but the phenomenon existed. In one of his letters to the bishop of Lindisfarne (sometime in the 790s) Alcuin chastised the monks' interest in pagan heroic legends. This is what his famous line "What has Ingeld to do with Christ?" refers to. (I wrote my thesis on this stuff and I'd like to think that I researched it quite meticulously.)
Teufelchen: Now that makes sense - and I agree. (I'm a theologian, amongst other things.) That wasn't what the excised paragraph said, though. The paragraph said that some of the key moral teachings of the NT weren't simply overlooked in the early middle ages - but that they just weren't there, which is obviously untrue. But my main problem is that this page is way too forum-like. Academic arguments about the extent to which inculturation militarised Christianity in western Europe between the Council of Whitby and the beginning of the First Crusade don't really count as examples of 'Hijacked by Jesus'.
Red Shoe: Removed
- , and considering how Catholicism especially seemingly elevates Mary past the other saints to almost co-God status
Because, while a popular misconception about Catholicism, Catholics do not actually "elevate mary to almost co-God status".
The sentence, "The hijacking of the Tanakh to become the Old Testament." I deleted it—Christianity began as a school of Judaism, they had just as much right to the Tanakh as any other school, and TV Tropes is not qualified to take sides on which school was right. So someone comes, and, oh so huffily, adds it back, but this time adds that it was misinterpreted and taken out of context—one of their older edits actually said "twisted"—to justify the deification of Christ. Again: TV Tropes should not be taking sides in religious debates like this. I mean, one could just as easily say that the fact Kabbalah (the majority school in modern Jewish theology) is a form of Hermeticism, means that Judaism has been Hijacked By Thoth the Triply Great. But even if it were true (it's not, merely a plausible half-truth), it would have no place here: TV Tropes is not a place for Complaining About Religions You Don't Like.
Tricksterson: Actually Tom In AZ I don't dislike Christianity any more than any other organized religion. But nonetheless it's a fact that from any perspective but the Christian and certainly from a Jewish perspective the renaming of the Tanakh to "The Old Testament" is a hijacking. In fact the very term "Old Testament" was given to imply that it and thus Judaism has been superceded and made obsolete by the New Testament and by C Hristianity. As for the evagelists, it's probable that Mark and Matthew, or whoever wrote the gospels ascribed to them were Jews. Luke, by tradition was a Greek disciple of Paul and noonethehellknows who John was but with his gospel being the latest and the most antisemitic (When referring to Jesus' enemies the other evangelist refer to the head priests in Jerusalem or "the Pharisees and Saducees" or "the crowd", John invariably calls the "the Jews".) it's unlikely that he was Jewish. Again, if you check The Other Wiki the identification of the Evangelists weren't really fixed until the second century CE.
- Leaving textual criticism to one side, it being completely irrelevant, * the form of Judaism that wrote the Tanakh no longer exists. It split into Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity, both of which can make a case for their continuity with the Tanakh. TV Tropes has no authority to decide which of them (if any) is right, and should not even try. The phrase "than any other organized religion" is very telling: your beef is not with Christianity, but religion as such. You're still Complaining About Religions You Don't Like; the fact there aren't any you do like is immaterial. It's like saying "I'm not a racist, I'm a misanthrope." Am I supposed to be impressed? Maybe we should just delete the whole Truth In Television section, since it really doesn't add anything but vitriol.
Majin Gojira: I'd give that option a vehement "No" simply because only a few (one) example causes strife is no reason to nuke the whole section. Also, I do have issue with the idea that someone who is a-religious has no grounding to speak on religion. It's an Ad Homium fallacy and utter BS. If you wish to be taken seriously (as I have no qualms with the rest of your statement), never employ such an argumentative tactic again.
