Greek Mythology

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Much of Greek mythology reads like stories told to children as entertainment and "explanation" for the environment in which they lived. Could have this been the origin with the gods and legends becoming more and more "real" as the stories passed from generation to generation? Seems like later generations would take them literally without question.

I disagree. I see a huge difference between Greek mythology and the OT. In Greek mythology, there are several gods. These gods experience jealousy and lust. Kronos eats children; Zeus has sexual liasons; Hera his wife curses his bastard children. There is rape and incest everywhere. To some extent the God depicted in the OT shows similar fury, destroying cities at whim (like Sodom). But this is not a God who becomes lustful and commits rape and fosters illegitimate children.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Nonetheless, the title need not be interpreted as some kind of pagan derivative.

Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Perhaps Jehovah would be an archetype that had eliminated or repressed the memory of the other archetypes -- and consequently lost his mental balance. Certainly he does talk to himself a lot and often behaves in a paranoid fashion. The Son (another archetype, like Horus) therefore has to 'incarnate' and restore the balance. Along comes Mary later on to further balance the equation ... Various pagan deities are restored as saints ... Catholicism begins to display the traits of a functional psychic operating system ... The best in the West -- until the Counter-Reformation.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree. I see a huge difference between Greek mythology and the OT. In Greek mythology, there are several gods. These gods experience jealousy and lust. Kronos eats children; Zeus has sexual liasons; Hera his wife curses his bastard children. There is rape and incest everywhere. To some extent the God depicted in the OT shows similar fury, destroying ci ...[text shortened]... ). But this is not a God who becomes lustful and commits rape and fosters illegitimate children.

No doubt making God disembodied was a shrewd move on the part of the monotheistic mythographers. Still, OT God outdoes all the Greek gods in terms of ferocity. I haven't heard of Zeus ordering the destruction of an entire city.

Of course, we don't really know what the Greeks actually believed; the Mysteries were not widely divulged, and they certainly didn't treat Hesiod or other such authors as religious authorities.

Originally posted by Conrau K

Actually, early Christians used to think that the myths of Greece and Rome were 'foreshadowings' of Christ -- not a deviation from the truth but a prepatory glimpse. Medieval scholars used to read Virgil's Aeniad to glean some hidden Christian message. Even Pope Benedict suggested the same in his book Jesus of Nazareth. It shall take some ti ...[text shortened]... re of this and see the connection between 'Star of the Sea' and 'Queen of sorrows'.)

They would, wouldn't they?

Neoplatonic thought is a nice synthesis of pre-Christian philosophy and Christian belief, though.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So the mother of Jesus is understood also as Stella Maris and amongst else she is the symbol of the experience of the Sorrow that it is caused from virtually from Life and Death (cause-effect, therefore karma). And of course on the other hand, another “star of the sea” was Venus, who was born on the surface of the waves. Why she was born from the ocean? ...[text shortened]... and see the connection between 'Star of the Sea' and 'Queen of sorrows'.)

Hey Conrau K!

It is not sketchy although I just offered a mere reference, and I do thing that the wiki articles are still not reliable. But we can go a bit deeper

Also I do not believe that “Stella Maris” is of pagan derivative; I merely believe that it is stunning (for me, that is) to notice how the symbols are so easily diluted within the products of the Human that are known as myths, religions, metaphysical systems and philosophical systems and theological systems too.

In fact I brought up a specific QBLH approach (not a Christian approach) over the third sephira (referred as Binah/ Beth/ Yod/ Noun/ He). The names that are attributed to that sephira are “Ama, the Dark Barren Mother”, “Aima, the Lucid Prolific Mother”, “Korshia the Throne” and “Mara the Huge Sea”. The ruler of Binah is Jehova Elohim, the archangel on duty is Jafkiel from the Aralim/ Thrones order and the cosmic centre of the sephira is Sabathai/ Kronos. Well, I offered my comment about the similarity of Stella Maris and Aphrodite because the motherly aspect of Binah is titled “Mara” (sea) by a specific ancient QBLH system.
I do think that the origins of the definition “Stella Maris” are related to the 9th century “Ave Stella Maris”, which it proclaims Gabriel’s Ave spoken long ago reversed Eve’s name, which it was Eva. Maria was declared “Theotokos” on 431 during the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and due time she was also named Morning Star, Beauty of Heaven, Queen of Life, Seat of Wisdom, Mirror of Justice etc etc; and all this, it is at least awkward because the specific QBLH doctrine that I offered is far more ancient than Marias’ birth.

Furthermore, during the 9th and the 10th century every respectful (Western and Eastern) QBLH meditator was quite well versed about the ancient Greek mythology and religion, and surely he knew perfectly the Eastern traditions and the main Bhuddist schools. The Eastern and the Western meditators were well aware of the others’ philosophic and theological systems. Mind you, even the Athenians of the 5th century BC were perfectly aware of the Eastern philosophic systems (for example, Plato was not a naturalist as his fellow Greeks and his system is Eastern); and during the 2nd century BC the Greeks of Bactria were perfectly balanced with the Eastern philosophy -and I think that you will really enjoy the “Questions of King Milinda” once you google it (in case you ignore them). I am sure that you will be fascinated by both Kink Menander and Nagashena! But I would propose you to avoid wiki as much as you can!
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Perhaps Jehovah would be an archetype that had eliminated or repressed the memory of the other archetypes -- and consequently lost his mental balance. Certainly he does talk to hims ...[text shortened]... functional psychic operating system ... The best in the West -- until the Counter-Reformation.

This is the case in my opinion too;

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Perhaps Jehovah would be an archetype that had eliminated or repressed the memory of the other archetypes -- and consequently lost his mental balance. Certainly he does talk to hims ...[text shortened]... functional psychic operating system ... The best in the West -- until the Counter-Reformation.

Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Not necessarily. Jungian psychology might provide a good account for the recurrence of certain figures i.e. the sorrowful mother. I don't buy it though.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Not necessarily. Jungian psychology might provide a good account for the recurrence of certain figures i.e. the sorrowful mother. I don't buy it though.[/b]

Why not?

What do you buy?

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Conrau K!

It is not sketchy although I just offered a mere reference, and I do thing that the wiki articles are still not reliable. But we can go a bit deeper

Also I do not believe that “Stella Maris” is of pagan derivative; I merely believe that it is stunning (for me, that is) to notice how the symbols are so easily diluted within the produc ...[text shortened]... both Kink Menander and Nagashena! But I would propose you to avoid wiki as much as you can!
😵

The Catholic encyclopedia provides an alternative explanation for the origin of the title:

Most interpreters derive the name Mary from the Hebrew, considering it either as a compound word or as a simple. Miryam has been regarded as composed as a noun and a pronominal suffix, or of a noun and an adjective, or again of two nouns. Gesenius was the first to consider miryam as a compound of the noun meri and the pronominal suffix am; this word actually occurs in II Esd., ix, 17, meaning "their rebellion". But such an expression is not a suitable name for a young girl. Gesenius himself abandoned this explanation, but it was adopted by some of his followers, e.g. by J. Grimm (Das Leben Jesu; sec. edit., I, 414-431, Regensburg, 1890) and Schanz (Comment. uber d. Ev. d. hl. Matthäus, p. 78, Freiburg, 1879). One of the meanings assigned to the nameMary in Martianay's edition of St. Jerome's works (S. Hier. opp., t. II, Parisiis, 1699, 2°, cols. 109-170, 181-246, 245-270) is pikra thalassa, bitter sea. Owing to the corrupt condition in which St. Jerome found the "Onomastica" of Philo and of Origen, which he in a way re-edited, it is hard to say whether the interpretation "bitter sea" is really due to either of these two authorities; at any rate, it is based on the assumption that the name miryam is composed of the Hebrew words mar (bitter) and yam (sea). Since in Hebrew the adjective follows its substantive, the compound of the two words ought to read yam mar; and even if the inverse order of words be admitted as possible, we have at best maryam, not miryam. Those who consider miryam as a compound word usually explain it as consisting of two nouns: mor and yam (myrrh of the sea); mari (cf. Daniel 4:16) and yam (mistress of the sea); mar (cf. Isaiah 40:15) and yam (drop of the sea). But these and all similar derivations of the name Mary are philogically inadmissible, and of little use to the theologian. This is notably true of the explanation photizousa autous, enlightening them, whether it be based on the identification of miryam with me'iram (part. Hiphil of 'or with pronominal suffix of 3 plur.), or with mar'am (part. Hiphil of ra'ah with pron. suffix of 3 plur.), or again with mar'eya (part. Hiphil of raah with Aramaic fem. termination ya; cf. Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Matt., pars prior, Parisiis, 1892, p. 43).

Here a word has to be added concerning the explanation stella maris, star of the sea. It is more popular than any other interpretation of the name Mary, and is dated back to St. Jerome (De nomin. hebraic., de Exod., de Matth., P.L., XXIII, col, 789, 842). But the great Doctor of the Church knew Hebrew too well to translate the first syllable of the name miryam by star; in Isaiah 40:15, he renders the word mar by stilla (drop), not stella (star). A Bamberg manuscript dating from the end of the ninth century reads stilla maris instead of stella maris. Since Varro, Quintillian, and Aulus Gelliius testify that the Latin peasantry often substituted an e for an i, reading vea for via, vella for villa, speca for spica, etc., the substitution of maris stella for maris stilla is easily explained. Neither an appeal to the Egyptian Minur-juma (cf. Zeitschr. f. kathol. Theol., IV, 1880, p. 389) nor the suggestion that St. Jerome may have regarded miryam as a contracted form of me'or yam (cf. Schegg, Jacobus der Bruder des Herrn, Munchen, 1882, p. 56 Anm.) will account for his supposed interpretation stella maris (star of the sea) instead of stilla maris (a drop of the sea).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464a.htm

Vowel change, nothing to do with archetypes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why not?

What do you buy?

Do we see it in all cultures?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Do we see it in all cultures?

Do we see what in all cultures?

According to archetype theory, yes, archetypes, being structuring mental principles, are expressed in all cultures. They are not expressed in the same way, of course. Interpreting UFOs archetypally is great fun.

Originally posted by Conrau K

Vowel change, nothing to do with archetypes.

Yet (following archetypal thought) in the popular imagination the venerable archetype becomes 'Stella Maris', a much more radiant image than a drop of salty water (which remains, however, bitter).

The point is that Jerome might have got it right, but the meaning was deliberately changed, with archetypal consequences. Alternatively: the new use of stella coincided with a new view of Mary nicely aligned with the archetypal feminine.

Popular imagination and high theology frequently diverge, don't you think?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do we see what in all cultures?

According to archetype theory, yes, archetypes, being structuring mental principles, are expressed in all cultures. They are not expressed in the same way, of course. Interpreting UFOs archetypally is great fun.

Sure, if you define archetypes as 'structuring mental principles', I will concede that archetypes exist. But under such a definition, I might as well say that arithmacy, language and formal logic are also archetypes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yet (following archetypal thought) in the popular imagination the venerable archetype becomes 'Stella Maris', a much more radiant image than a drop of salty water (which remains, however, bitter).

The point is that Jerome might have got it right, but the meaning was deliberately changed, with archetypal consequences. Alternatively: the new use of st ...[text shortened]... ypal feminine.

Popular imagination and high theology frequently diverge, don't you think?

The point is that Jerome might have got it right, but the meaning was deliberately changed, with archetypal consequences.

No. If this really was just a vowel change, then no meaning has changed. Only the form, which is arbitrary, has changed. Perhaps over time, the meaning changes with the form, but that could not be characterised as 'deliberate'.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Some would say that the figure of Mary was a resurgence of a feminine archetype. This would make her not a derivative but an archetype. Now do you believe in archetypes?

Perhaps Jehovah would be an archetype that had eliminated or repressed the memory of the other archetypes -- and consequently lost his mental balance. Certainly he does talk to hims functional psychic operating system ... The best in the West -- until the Counter-Reformation.

It is interesting and makes we wonder what all this tells us about the mindset of the tribe of Israel. Perhaps this is the product of a downtrodden and oppressed people that are ultimately in need of salvation.