Replies

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).