Scholars seek to correct Christian tradition on Mary Magdalene

Catholic News Service ^ | May 1, 2006 | Jerry Filteau

[danalaina]

Quote from Ptaz:
"I think what worries me about articles like this and books like the DaVinci Code is that people who are too lazy to study and learn the truth for themselves are tempted to believe such bunk."

The people too lazy to try to learn the truth for themselves aren't likely to have been much of a credit to the cause anyhow. I'm speaking, of course, of any (perhaps wavering or weakened) christians who read TDVC and are somehow miraculously converted to believe in its words more strongly than in the bible or church. It sort of begs the question, though, do you think that this sort of person is correct in believing the bible, the RCC, or any other authority without question? It's logical to expect that the type of person who would accept the one on faith alone would do the same for the other, and that strikes me as laziness too - no matter how many authorities are shouting it.

[AlaninSA]

"Mary was just another sinner in need of Jesus."

"If she was so "sinless" then she wouldn't have need Jesus too. As best I know, Jesus is the ONLY sinless person that ever walked the earth."

---

Wow...so aggressively anti-Catholic that you don't even bother to know whom you're posting about...

Impressive.

[Ptaz]

We have lazy people who believe slanted truths every day and it's almost by osmosis. Just look at the slanted reporting of the evening news. It's so slanted sometimes it's almost a work of fiction and look how polarized it's made this country.

[af_vet_rr]

My point was, we are not reading it in the original languages it was written. The phrase "lost in translation" is very apt, as when you read a translation, you lose little bits of information here and there. It may not seem important, but anybody who speaks two or more languages can tell you that it can add up to quite a bit.

[A.J.Armitage]

we are reading a translation of a translation of a translation

Why do you insist on expounding your views even though you don't know what you're talking about?

[af_vet_rr]

Why do you insist on expounding your views even though you don't know what you're talking about?

Why do you insist on attacking me, rather than the issue I brought up? I know that mentally, it's far easier to attack someone than to try to pick apart their argument, but I've read some of your other posts, and you seem like a fairly intelligent individual capable of an intelligent response.

I will apologize because I did not go into detail about why I thought a major issue was translation, and I will do so now.

In my intial post in this thread, I should have asked the question how much of the view that we have of Mary Magdalene and/or Mary of Bethany is based on what's been passed down, and how much of that is based upon what we read as opposed to others who read the Bible in a different language (i.e. you read it in Greek, I read it in English, we both take away a fairly similar overall meaning, although along the way you may see two individuals or three where I see one or two).

If I've been taught a certain thing, and then I read something that was written almost 400 years ago (interesting to think that we are about to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the KJV) and it contains words and phrases I don't use everyday, or that have changed in meaning slightly since the 1600s, chances are I'm going to comprehend it in a certain way. If there is a named individual and an unnamed individual, and I've been taught that both are one and the same, when I read about them, my mind is going to see the same person.

If I read it in another language, such as Greek, and it's very clear they are distinct individuals, or I have not been taught they are the same individual, then I'm liable to believe they are distinct individuals, such as what the Greek Fathers and the Orthodox see and believe.

Why is that? Language has to play a part of that at some point, seeing as how they are very adamant that there were three different women, whereas those in the West were taught and read something slightly different - while the Textus Receptus may have been in Greek and maybe considered a solid foundation, at some point we've had some meaningingful information changed, even if only slightly.

It's very easy to put the bulk of the criticism for the debate on St. Gregory the Great, or rather those who followed him, but at some point you also have to consider the fact that while the New Testament in the KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, it was also written to "flow" very well. Putting aside the religious aspect, the KJV is a beautifully written book, and to accomplish that, it's probably safe to assume that certain words/phrases were subtly altered to fit better.

I have a tendency to question things like this, because during my life, I've read a lot of translated information in two different ways - I've seen raw translations, I guess nowadays the closest equivalent would be one of the Babelfish/Language sites where you can translate from one language to another. I've also read the information after it's been "massaged" into a more readable format, and I've seen the problems that can crop up between a raw translation and a human-readable translation.

The article brings up some interesting points, however one thing did disappoint me - they left out Hippolitus, who associated Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany many years before St. Gregory the Great (although St. Gregory the Great's sermon was more influential in combing the two or three women into one).

[A.J.Armitage]

Uh huh.

1) There are lots of translations other than the King James.

2) The King James and all other translations except a few Catholic ones are translations from the original languages, not translations of translations of (however many "of a translation" you erroneously listed).

[af_vet_rr]

1) There are lots of translations other than the King James.

Very much true, but in this instance they are discussing Greek and Greek Orthodox views/interpretations in the East as opposed to those views/intrepetations in the West (most people in the West refer to either the KJV or the NIV). They specifically point out: "the great theologians of the early church in the East, who wrote in Greek".

2) The King James and all other translations except a few Catholic ones are translations from the original languages, not translations of translations of (however many "of a translation" you erroneously listed).

As I said in #26, I phrased my point poorly.

My point is/was, and you make this point for me, is that we are reading translations, and there was interpretation done to make these translations fit the writing style of the era, i.e. as well as to be easily understood by the intended audience.

Putting aside the beliefs that arose or were taught after St. Gregory the Great's sermon, and really Hippolitus as well, and that may or may or may not have influenced the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and English scholars/translators of that time, there is still the issue of the language(s) itself.

As I said, I think it's very important to understand why the Greeks feel that we are discussing three seperate women, and why some in the West feel that we are discussing one or two women at the most.

I tend to take the Greek/Eastern Orthodox view, because I feel they are "closer" to the original versions of the New Testament. Most English versions that I've read and studied were written in a style and form of English that I don't use everyday, and that may have changed in meaning since the 1500s and 1600s, or that I'm predisposed towards interpreting a certain way.

The more "modern" versions, whether it's the NIV or one of the more obscure ones, I also question, because they could differ enough from the KJV to cause me to doubt both.

[A.J.Armitage]

Explain how the English versions make all three look like one woman. I've never seen it in any I've read.

The more "modern" versions, whether it's the NIV or one of the more obscure ones, I also question, because they could differ enough from the KJV to cause me to doubt both.

"Could".

[danalaina]

Ptaz said:
"We have lazy people who believe slanted truths every day and it's almost by osmosis. Just look at the slanted reporting of the evening news. It's so slanted sometimes it's almost a work of fiction and look how polarized it's made this country."

i honestly worry less about left or right leaning media than i do about how pervasive advertising is becoming from what are supposed to be news outlets - it's *really* bad here in SoCal. i can tolerate just about any sort of opinion, so long as there's thought behind it - even if it challenges what i believe. it's the sort of vapid, vacuous people that you're mentioning of whom i expect next to nothing and tend to receive just that. i'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about TDVC winning such converts...the next shiny new conspiracy theory will be along soon enough to turn their attention.

[Ptaz]

There's always another crazy conspiracy theory. I have a hobby of collecting conspiracy theories because it makes me laugh. It took me a long time to get to the point where I was basically secure in what I believed enough to not feel threatened when it was challenged, but I do welcome the challenge and then I can choose whether or not to feel if the debate is worth my energies. Most of the time it's not. The latest conspiracy theory that makes me giggle is that the anti-christ is supposed to be revealed on 6/6/06. I think it's just marketing for the remake of THE OMEN.