Vorkosigan

yes, but like so many of your posts it contains a gratuitous, ignorant insult towards mythicists. Whatever for? Why not go directly to the main thesis of your post?

BTW, there's a whole strain of mythicism that is concerned with reforming Christianity, not with extinguishing it, or with alternative Christianities.

If you want people to listen to you, why insult them?

stephan huller

Didn't Miles Davis play with his back to the audience? He did when I saw him. Why'd he do that? My guess is that it was to say - I'm not like those people, those people who have to please an audience. Something like that I guess, probably misguided.

stephan huller

And I hate being part of a club. I hate being seen as 'arguing for something' trying to prove something to be true.

stephan huller

In any event back to the thread. I am not sure if people are aware of it or not but the linguistic trail with regards to the names Horaia/Norea is very confusing. As noted Oraia means 'beautiful' and there is a Hebrew tradition which Stroumsa and others have noted which lends weight to 'beautiful' being the original term. But I don't buy it. I think she was called something like Norea or Nahiyra. It is also worth noting that Hora in Aramaic means 'mother.' Here is an article on the subject http://www.haverford.edu/relg/course...AM%20Norea.pdf

Again the basic framework is that Jesus was supernatural and I think Mary was supernatural. She was the eternal feminine being from the beginning thus making the gospel narrative entirely mythical.

stephan huller

The Canticle of Mar Jacob is another such reflection of the original mythical narrative:

Notice the word 'enlighten' at the beginning of the narrative. That's the Samaritan woman's name.

stephan huller

Another interesting corollary of the re-establishment of the Samaritan woman as a hypostasis is that Christianity really isn't as 'friendly to women' as is sometimes pretended. In other words, 'the woman' is not a woman at all but a mythical being. It isn't at all shocking that Jesus 'would be talking to a woman' because she isn't a woman. There is nothing 'progressive' in the act of communication. If anything the narrative seems misogynist and in keeping with the misogyny of the age.

It would also stand to reason that the ending of the woman's period is symbolic as well - something akin to the statement found in Clement's recounting of the Gospel according to the Egyptians (= 'destroy the works of the female'). When you make the switch from literal interpretation of the narrative to an entirely figurative one the Alexandrian exegesis (= Julius Cassian, Clement, Origen etc) doesn't seem as out of place.

Horatio Parker

"I turn my back because I play better," Davis says. "Some notes you get better in a specific spot on the stage. If I play a high note, and don't hear it, I'll move."

stephan huller

Another indication that 'the Samaritan woman' is a pre-existent Hebrew feminine hypostasis is her association with 'the well' - in this case the well of Jacob. The legend of Miriam travelling with a well to feed the Israelites is well established in the literature:

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jud...aspx?id=140016
http://www.miriamscup.com/miriamswell.htm

My thinking is that 'Mary' is Miriam and that there may be some correlation with the Therapeutai and their interest in Miriam.