andrewcriddle

I get the impression that serious scholarship is at least a litle more flexible than you imply. I agree that a serious academic scholar dealing with religion in the Late Antique Mediterranean is expected to be able to consult texts in the original Greek Latin and other core languages involved.

However a wide variety of languages are sometimes relevant here and it is not realistic to expect even minimal competence in all of them. This means for example that when a scholar is dealing with an ancient text originally Greek but where parts survive only in Armenian, then it seems permitted to use a translation of the Armenian into Latin or a modern language without requiiring the scholar to have any knowledge of Armenian itself. (An original Armenian work would be different.)

Andrew Criddle

Solitary Man

Andrew,

I never said that one had to be competent in them all. Indeed, secondary sources are very, very useful, and it's a strawman argument to think that I am forbidding them. But it should be noted that the sources used are secondary, they're dependent on translators and their interpretations of what they say.

andrewcriddle

Thinking this over the issues are probably different for different texts.

To take an example I know a little about: The Mishnah (and Tosefta) can be translated in a straightforward and pretty literal way into English and for many (definitely not all) purposes a good English translation can be regarded ias more or less equivalent to a primary source. The Gemara to the Talmuds are very different; a more or less literal translation is simply unintelligible to the non-specialist reader. An intelligible translation of either Talmud has to be so much of an implicit commentary that it is dangerous to regard it as equivalent to a primary source.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Just to be clear I am not arguing that translations should be considered equivalent to primary. I'm arguing for a special category all their own somewhere between primary and secondary. What you describe above suggests this category would be more of a continuum and a "non-literal" translation of the Talmud would fall much closer to a secondary source.

I suspect my tendency to over-categorize is an occupational hazard.

Malachi151

I think this is the appropriate view. Again, as far as I can see, this category is "Primary in translation" or "Translation of Primary".

Solitary Man

Just like a commentary is a "Commentary on a Primary Source". If it's one step removed from a primary source, then it's secondary.

I would agree with Andrew that a literal translation of the Mishnah is doable, but I still wouldn't consider it primary. It would be no different than a very detailed commentary.

Cesc

Yeah, the feminine is somehow always the dark side...
What I meant is that I believe the earliest Bible writers had very specific and concrete ideas about the precise practical mechanisms of the so-called "generative principle". The Miracle of Conception and the anatomical (and perceived agricultural and astronomical) mechanisms surrounding it. Approximately the same understanding as the rest of the world and exactly the same understanding as the Babylonians, Arabians and Egyptians. Creation is sex is plant growth = masculine+feminine. The divine principle of the Creator, the secret wisdom. Consequently, for any creational (divine) expression you need a womb, water, a phallos/seed and the force of generation (and sometimes blood)!

Columella (4 - ca. 70), the Roman writer, expressed the idea in a treatise on agriculture:
"It is the union of the universe with itself, or with the mutual action of the two sexes; the great secrets of nature, her sacred orgies, her mysteries, which have been portrayed in the initiations with innumerable emblems. From these are derived the ithyphallic feasts and the consecration of the phallus and cteis, or sexual organs, of man and woman in the ancient sanctuaries."

Up until modern times the whole world view and understanding of the universe has been centered upon the principle of sexual union of masculine/feminine (as typified by a hexagram). The divine knowledge/wisdom/principle of creation that Adam and Eve discovered they mastered thus becoming like the gods (creator gods), except for eternal life of course. The same principle expressed secretly in the sacred geometry of the temples by the priesthoods, architects and craftsmen. And as far as I can see, any holy process or ritual or temple or church of any kind whatsoever (incl. churches from the late middle ages and still today) is designed solely upon this single most anciently perceived “principle of creation”. Uniting male/female as the way of the divine. And the way to the divine.
Obviously, later in Judaism, as it evolved into an ethical religion, the more primitive obscene sex-worship of its surrounding cultures, such as hierodouloi, became regarded as uncivilised.

Yes! Episkiazo, thank you!
"Overshadowed by the Almighty" is a slight mistranslation then? I mean, shouldn't it rather properly read "enveloped by the Almighty"?
Surely we're talking about being enveloped by "the cloud" of God? Always with the damn cloud lol!
Just as the pillar of cloud (and the pillar of fire), and the cloud resting on the mountain. Moses being enveloped by it when communicating with God (Ex 24:15-18), and everyone else. Always the cloud, as God's mediator, agent, vehicle, taxi-cab service or general presence.
In 1Cor 10:1-2, being enveloped by the Cloud and the trip through the sea, is interpreted as a baptism.
Btw, consider Mark 9:7 compared to Ex 19:9.



Here's what I've gathered about the cloud and the Spirit, or my understanding as of this moment:

First of all, my understanding in this field is pretty basic! Nevertheless, I hope some will find my laying out interesting.
Its clear that from the very beginning of the Bible, God’s interaction with humans is often the cloud. I believe that in order to understand why, one must first understand the “Spirit of God” from the OT, or Shekinah.

Which I regard as the biblical equivalent of “the Creator’s wife”, the goddess, the female aspect of the Creator. Or rather, the universally regarded intangible feminine force of generation, the perceived force that makes the fertile ground interact with the seed, and – crucially - understood to be the very same force as sexual attraction/love/feminine beauty. In astral-theology the beautiful unique planet Venus nearly always embodies this "force genetrix".

And always erroneously understood as one and the same external force.

Apparantly flying magically in the air and all around (especially at spring time, eh), often symbolised by a bird, typically a dove (as with Aphrodite, Venus, Juno, Noahs dove of life, Holy Spirit etc) or as Cupid/Amor or most love-goddesses. Without this force "the bull does not mount the cow, the ass approaches not the she-ass, To the maid in the street, no man draws near, The man sleeps in his apartment, The maid sleeps by herself.” Thus, without this invisible force, life in the world cannot continue, litterally. Nobody wanting to have sex! It would be the end of all life, making this force the condition of all life and creation.

Though it is merely the catalyst, it is the very paramount catalyst of creation and life. It is expressed as the Ankh in Egypt and the “shaktis” (“energy”) in India, spurring on the creator gods to become active and create. The goddess Asherah probably had the same basic role aswell. In the OT it is originally “the Spirit of God” (and takes on other roles as God's mediator), therefore its presence in Gen 1, aswell as the other fertility contexts such as with the Ark of the Covenant, Noahs Ark dove (the ‘second creation’) or indeed the rebirth ritual of baptism.
In Christianity the spirit also encompasses warm and good feelings, inner happiness and joy in general, typifying the period's understanding of God (the Good) and Heaven with the nice angels playing nice music and such.
Shekinah (female) is a substantive from the verb shakan, “to dwell”, which is the verb used in Scriptures when the Spirit (or 'Glory') comes and “dwells” in the holy place. Shakan can also mean “to nest”, for birds building habitats.

And as the Creative Principle was seen as residing in water (particularly the primordial waters of Creation from Egyptian, Babylonian and biblical creation myths; fresh water, springs, wells, lakes, ocean, rain, waters below, abzu, temple lakes, temple/church fountains, holy water, mikvah, etc.), the “wisdom” of the Creator, I'd argue that the original reason the Spirit of God travels in a cloud is because a cloud contains water, a cloud being flying water as a matter of fact.

The two pillars, a pillar of fire (male) and a pillar of water (female), the androgyne Creator fully controlling the two forces of nature (Jah, maculine; havvah, feminine; = JHVH?).
The same idea as the stick/ring ruler symbol. Or the scepter/orb for that matter.

I also read that the word for "heaven" (Gen 1:1), aeshmim (אשטים) is sometimes used as a word for God. And that its composed of the male word fire (אש) and the female word water (טים).
That is heaven = "firewater"? Can anyone tell me if this is correct? (Im not sure I got the correct Hebrew spellings!)


I didnt mean to try and draw a parallel there with the cave, the moon and with Luke, as such. Remember however, that it was not uncommon to use caves as stables. Dunno if that means anything!
But I do think that both the authors of one and the other had pretty much the same views about Jesus being the "child of light".
Yours was prolly a retorical question, but what do think with the shepherds in the field at night? Is it astrological?
AFAIK, the Babylonians referred to the planets as lu-bat, meaning "wandering sheep" I believe. And that seven stars north and seven south of equator were prefixed with lu- to indicate they were shepherds guarding the planets. Just a thought.

Clivedurdle

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref363289

Alesiah

I just wanted to jump in to add some interest.. I've skimmed through but didn't see posted, what I'm going to express......
I want to show what the Northern Hemisphere ancient sun worshippers were celebrating and why...

As you know, there were SEVERAL December born sun gods..of virgin births...
Here is why the ancient pagans worshipped as they did..

In the spring, Mar/April or zodiac sign of Aries...was a time of fertilization.
"CONCEPTION" or immaculate conception of the sun man/gods..

Next was the "9 month period" between spring and winter or "GESTATION"
The period that the various Madonna's carried the solar man/gods. :frown:

In the winter solstice, or Dec/Jan of zodiac sign of Capricorn....was the time of new beginning, new year, new sun or "BIRTH" :notworthy:

In a since, these are simply ancient solar "goat" gods born under the sign of Capricorn constellation..
These were just myths to get the solar story across....and to stress the importance of predicting the solar seasons for ancient man's survival..
In Egypt, the astrotheolocial foundation was set long before the Greeks formulated the Zodiac...

The Jesus story is absolutely just a rewritting of the previous knowledge of the ancients.. That's all......

spamandham

Welcome to IIDB!

I actually don't disagree with you. Now prepare to be eaten alive.