Holy Translation! (RV: cross-eyed Sabastian and headless Mary)

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Saurio wrote:

> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Terrance <Lycidas at worldnet.att.net>
> Para: pynchon-l at waste.org <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Fecha: Jueves 15 de Junio de 2000 12:08 PM
> Asunto: Re: cross-eyed Sabastian and headless Mary
> 
> 
> >(...)
> >
> >Even without Luke Catholics would venerate the Blessed
> >Virgin Mary I think. Because she is the Mother of Jesus,
> >whom they believe to be God incarnate,
> >(...)
> >She is loaded with pagan holdovers, she is the queen, the
> >morning star, venus,  St. Bernard venerates  Mary as the
> >(...)
> >motherly nurturer, to whom they turned for sanctification.
> 
> Mary´s virginity is another case of mistranslation: the original (arameic?
> hebrew?) word to describe her was something that could be more accurately
> translated as "maiden", "young woman", even "teenager" (although that
> concept didn´t exist by that times), but, well, in the passage from
> hebrew(?) to greek and then to latin she became a virgin.
> And then, from giving a virgin birth (quite a task, enough for earning
> Heaven) she became a life-long virgin (poor Joseph!)


Seems like Aramaic had taken over from Hebrew. But once again I 
can't help demonstating the fact that I was a good little boy
and paid attention to my religion teachers (as I'm sure Terrance 
did as well)--my point being that Mary's claim to fame and bodily
assumption (without ever dying) into heaven has nothing to do with her
virginity  before during and after Jesus' conception but is due solely
to Mary's own conception which somehow occurred without her "catching"
Original Sin, the so called Immaculate Conception, a dispensation only
fitting for one chosen to be mother of God.

The virgin mother idea is one of the pagan holdovers Terrance refers to.
Saviors were supposed to be miraculously conceived by virgin mothers and
god fathers. Persephone and Dionysis by Zeus. The virgin mother idea was
accepted almost without question from the beginning because it was such a
traditional and obvious idea. There was no reason to contest it even
though in a very pedestrian way it doesn't make literal sense.  The
Immaculate Conception on the other hand took a millenium to take form and
wasn't defined as dogma until the 19th Century.

Sorry to be such a bore about this.

			P.