As you'll note from the time stamp, this originally appeared in my first year as a Gather member. It garnered about 250 (mostly angry) comments and was flagged and re-flagged a number of times. I would happily have let it die a natural death, but after putting a link to it on Misty's recent post concerning the rape of Mary, it was revived and I received a request to resurrect and republish it to some groups that didn't see it the first time around. So here it is again. All protests should be directed to Selene.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of all the hundreds of variations in Biblical content, there is one glaring mistranslation that has had the most profound effect on the most people over the longest period of time. This is the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos".
In both the ancient and modern language, this word means "maiden", or "unmarried girl". It does not specifically mean "virgin". Although common mores would probably lead to an expectation of chastity in a nubile girl, there was no guarantee then, anymore than there is now, that a young woman would retain her virginity until marriage.
So we see that the whole story of the ghostly insemination of Mary, leading to the "virgin" birth of Jesus, is based on nothing more than one translator's interpretation of the Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then English word for "parthenos". The original text simply referred to Mary as "an unmarried girl", which she was at the time, although apparently sleeping with Joseph, (or maybe some horny village kid, Joe being kind of an old dude at the time and probably not much of a chick magnet).
Don't you find it incredible that two billion people base an entire belief system, and in some cases, their whole lives, on this one little hiccup? A universal mythos has been built on it, millions of people have been slaughtered because of it, trillions of dollars have been made on it, virtually every aspect of every life on the planet has been affected by it. And all because a couple of kids in a Jewish community called Nazareth decided to have a little premarital roll in the hay.
If the truth be told, I think this would be it: After some sneaky shtupping in the fields, Mary found herself thoroughly knocked up. Knowing that no nice Jewish girl could remain in the village in that condition, without suffering severe shame and probable banishment, the couple decided to cut their losses and arranged for a hasty elopement, sans rabbi, chupah or hora-dancing.
They wandered the countryside, hitching rides and taking odd jobs for food until Mary went into labor when they arrived at Bethlehem. They tried to check into the Best Mideastern Inn, but because they weren't married, the tightass desk clerk refused them a room and they were forced to bed down out in the stable, where Mary gave birth to a boy. Nobody knows how long she was in labor, nor who actually delivered the baby; however, if we believe the Genesis story, one has to wonder, in light of God's curse upon Eve that "in pain shall ye bring forth children" how many hours of kvetching the poor kid had to endure before delivering a son.
After the birth, the couple finally legalized their union, but realizing that as soon as they got home people would start counting on their fingers, they needed to devise a good cover story.
They did this by enlisting the aid of the local Mensa chapter, comprised of a group of well-educated mystics called "Magi" (add a "c" for a fuller picture of their talents).
Current translations say there were three of them, but there might have been as many as twelve. Whatever their number, they concocted a story so outrageous, it was impossible to refute. They threw the new parents a baby shower (myrrh, gold and incense, but no Diaper Genie). Then, to add veracity to their tale, they launched an amazing PR campaign to fill in the details. They chronicled a new star in the East, broadcast a story of a girl giving birth without having had sex, and declared that the baby must surely be the son of God, because who else could be born from an unfertilized egg?
The fact is, if the ovum actually did start to split without benefit of a spermatozoon poke, as in the experiment performed on frog eggs in every Bio 101 class (parthenogenesis, remember?) the resulting offspring would have been female, lacking a Y chromosome. So, either Jesus was a girl, or those Magi dudes were superb spin doctors.
In any case, the story spread, was told and retold so many times it became "truth". (We all know how that happens...see "Hitler, A" and "Bush, G.W."). And here we are, some 2000 years later, still telling and believing it, still shedding blood over it, still capitalizing on it, still swallowing a completely irrational premise based on an unknown writer's editorial error. Now, don't you feel silly?
Ho Ho Ho.


Comments: 101
There is a great Jesus story book called Lamb by Christopher Moore that chronicles the rest of the story. Seems there were a couple of Jewish moms pushing their kids back then - John the Baptist was runner up in the competition.
snickers
I don't blame you for turning off ratings...you would have been slammed by the Jesus freaks. I give you a 10+ anyway.
As for the stickuptherump would be protesters~they don't seem to really wanna tango with me much~must be the vibrating horns that scare them off~although it could also be a higher than usual capacity to detect bullsh**~
Truly~humans have been concocting theories and tales and fables and myths since the beginning of thought as to where we came from and where the he** are we going~why should one version take precednce over another unless it serves to benefit a group of people while excluding other groups~
Thanks for joining GutterGils my GutterDame~and for posting this to the group~
FEATURED and will be thoroughly pimped throughout the day~
I think I remember the first time this came out.
Isnt that when you coined the phrase "Flaming Flaggot" Dame?
I like this a LOT!
Ferosh
:) wishing you laughter
love it
and your bumper sticker to spell.........I came, I SAW
key to the moondom
Far more believable than what I read in the Bible.
Bean crud (aka toad food) ?
*no really, try me*
;)
1- That Jesus was a god and not human;
2- That Christianity was a masculine religion wherein women were secondary.*
These 2 concepts were initiated by excluding several worthy texts from the official Bible (known as the Aprocrypha), the inclusion of many gospels that were not so worthy and intentional mistranslations such as the one described above.
Had Jesus remained what he really was, A buddha-like HUMAN Jewish Rabbi revolutionary, Christianity would not have risen to be the spiritual justification for European domination of the rest of the world (Europe, and now America being just the latest iteration of the Roman Empire).
These types of mistakes were not accidential but perpetrated and perpetuated by the Catholic Church for the purpose of attaining power and social control.
DAME- PLEASE POST TO MY GROUP- THE BOOK OF THE CHURCH OF THER OMNIVERSE!!
*Mary of Magdala was not (as another mistranslation asserts) a prostitute but, rather, a "Co-Jesus", probably his wife, who funded his ministery and supplied much of the leadership of his disciples. She was relegated to a secondary figure by the process described above.
It is a fact in history that this church did go out of it's way to control and keep in the dark it's people.
(where it's just young maiden)
I wonder why this deliberate miss translation isn't talked about more at church.
*snickers*
Excellent article Ruth
I see the Flaming Flaggit is as vigilant (and virulent) as ever. Why am I not surprised?
Good information, Jericho, although those who need it generally have problems with reading comprehension, so it's probably a wasted effort. I will join and publish to your group, as well as to my own Church of Our Lady of the Perpetual Flag where it seems to belong. Again. *sigh*
for more serious biblical controversy
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (trailer)
(You forgot Marilyn.)
I think they all shot their wads the first time around, Bert. The vitriol and apoplexy exploded for days back then...maybe they tired themselves out. We can only hope.
I enjoyed your post.
I have a bible translated by a man named Lamsa, Assyrian, Aramic his native language,
I purchased this bible, because he was the uncle of a close friend. The point.
He also maintains the word "virgin" should have been maiden or young unmarried woman.
I don't remember this from before, but then I am not here very often.
Witty comments as well.
I declare this to be a religion free zone . . . .
Thanks, Cena. I try to keep my immediate vicinity clear of self-imposed ignorance and religious delusion.
So what's gonna happen? As long as the two groups, roughly divided into believers and non-believers, refuse to engage in any kind of discourse, we will all just continue to demonize the other side...or worse yet, demean their intelligence. I do it all the time, so I am not criticizing y'all in this thread.
But...I realize that we are not solving the problem...the cultural divide in the country.
So I will ask all of you...is it important to bridge that divide? Or is it okay for the nation to be divided into two camps who hate and disparage each other?
I dunno...
The growth of fundamentalist Islam...governments that condone or encourage Sharia. I said in a thread the other day...I do not see how the western world can ever accommodate and coexist with a religion that treats half of its subjects as if they were stable animals. The answer I got was that THIS NATION, until the Emancipation Proclamation, did exactly the same thing!
So...we don't have high moral ground from which we can condemn others.
How do we resolve such basic conflicts?
It seems to me that somehow, we need to start talking to the people on the other side. It may not accomplish much in the short term, but we have to start somewhere.
I know this will not help . . . but I find it irresistible fun.
The most amazing thing to me continues to be how the working class religious vote against their own well being and economic interests.
I do not know of a group (low income workers) who need health care more. People unable to work have Medicaid, People retired have Medicare,
People with better paying jobs usually have employer based plans.
Then. . .sometimes I just think I don't want to give them any points.
And prefer to have the discussions when they dare to venture into a "liberal" post.
And sadly, I see no hope for a rapprochement, simply because I see no meeting ground between logical reason and blind faith. I assume you believe what you do because you asked questions, thought it through and came to a decision that satisfies you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the same can't be said of the majority of your fellow believers who are, therefore, beyond the reach of reasonable discourse.
I have never accepted the excuse, "I can't help it, that's the way I was raised" for any mindless activity. As I have said elsewhere, if everyone followed that line of reasoning, we'd still be living in trees and eating from bushes. And those who willingly allow themselves to be herded together and led into the same pen of narrow thought rarely make the effort to open their minds to anything they were not "raised" to accept.
Needless to say, I could ramble on all night on this subject, but I'm getting tired. To be continued...maybe.
At the risk of appearing to dissemble: You are both right.
Ruth is right that the fanatically devout and ignorant are a lost cause. No dialogue is possible. I have tried to converse with them. They sit quietly, appearing to listen, as you lay out your facts and logic. Then, they spout their dogmatic, faith-based beliefs, and it becomes clear that they were NOT listening at all. They were merely waiting for you to stop to draw a breath so they could "witness" and proselytize with their canned monologues, memorized from their minister's preachings and/or the Bible.
But not all Christians fit this stereotype. There are many others...like marianne...with whom it is possible to carry on intelligent discussions from which both sides can learn.
Without such discussions, it seems to me that our nation will eventually be divided into two opposing factions that hate and fear each other. As I asked in an earlier post, is this okay? It's a rhetorical question, obviously. I think such a condition is very, very destructive to the social fabric of our nation.
Not all that I have found is as good as the stuff I tasted in Marlborough or Otago...the two big wine-producing areas on the South Island. But I have found some stunning bargains at a local store. Cheers!
I have written a few articles on our travels. If you are interested, you can visit my home page.
The best book I have read on Africa is "Dark Star Safari" by Paul Theroux.
I wrote an article several years ago that included an excerpt from this book called "A Converstation With A Missionary On A Train." You might find it interesting...and it will give you a taste of Theroux.
You are hope for reconciliation if there is ever to be any. It's an uphill struggle, but there are others like marianne (not many that I've encountered). One I have is my friend, DI, a Baptist minister from - honest! - Tennesee. DI regularly rails from the pulpit about intolerance, and the Bible as parable. Off the pulpit, he rails about the "fundies" who give Christianity a bad name. He often does his off the pulpit railing over a cold brew or a glass of sauvignon blanc. I'd use his real name, but I haven't cleared it with him. I can say that he preaches at the oldest Baptist church in America - and it's not in Tennessee.
Another mistake is the Mary Magdelene = ho thing but that can be traced to the first English translations. In the greek texts (the scriptures were first written in Greek then transposed to Latin and finally back to Aramaic) the woman at the well who is not Mary Magdeline is described as a "loose woman" which in the idiom of the day did not mean a Lady of Negotiable Affection but a woman who had neither husband nor father and brothers. She was alone in the world.
The English translators did not understand that because it was not unusual for a European woman to be unattached by either marriage or family so they interpreted loose woman as a woman of easy virtue, loose moralled. And then they dubbed her a harlot which at the time was not gender specific and meant a vagabond, a person without propety or place. And thus harlot came to mean a Lady Of Negotiable Affection, a whore. And how all that got attached to poor Mary Magdeline who only seems to have laid on lunch for Jesus and the boys (but actually was his wife) is a mystery.
All good stuff, the bible, isn't it?