In "The Structural Study of Myth" Levi-Strauss notes the widespread occurrence of myths which deal with the opposition "autochthonian"/sexual reproduction, autochthonian meaning springing to life from the earth and not from the union of two individuals. He says:
"A striking example is offered by the fact that our interpretation may take into account the Freudian use of the Oedipus myth and is certainly applicable to it. Although the Freudian problem has ceased to be that of autochthony versus bisexual reproduction, it is still the problem of understanding how _one_ can be born from _two_: How is it that we do not have only one procreator, but a mother plus a father ?"
In the history of life on earth, cloning (autochtony) was the original form of reproduction and for the first two-thirds to 5/6s of the three billon years of life. Sexual reproduction arose about 600 million years ago, according to Stephen Jay Gould in "The Pentagon of Life" in _Ever Since Darwin_.
Charles Brown
>>> "Frances Bolton (PHI)" <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> 05/16 5:31 PM >>>
Well, actually, I was wrong, if it's Maimonides it's not the Talmud;
Maimonides was an early medevial (sp?) writer, and his texts are not _as_
central as the Talmud.
There is some other, more interesting translational hanky-panky with the Bible. The Jesus story comes immediately to mind. In the original, Mary, (mother of jesus) was a "young girl." It got translated as "virgin." This mistranslating has had some... far-reaching effects. It's kind of amazing, actually. A hegemonic theological structure built around a single mistranslated word.
Yours, Frances Bolton
On Sat, 16 May 1998, William S. Lear wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 13:21:40 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
> >...
> >Here's the excerpt; the article is available on the Nation's web site
> >(www.thenation.com):
> >...
>
> Ok, so this clearly is referring to the Talmud. Was there any similar
> translational hanky-panky done with the Bible?
>
>
> Bill
>