Subject:
|
Re: Worthlessness
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:15:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1434 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
I also learned something else interesting. You think the Samaritan was a
woman... the King James version of the NT has the Samaritan as a man. I
wonder if there’s a message in there somewhere, or if that’s just one of
those translation idiosyncracies between versions that people always stumble
over.
|
As far as I can tell, the Samaritan is conventionally credited as a man, but the
earliest version I can remember hearing as a wee tot in Sunday School (yes, with
feltboard images and everything) was a woman (which is probably why I always
think of the Samaritan as female). It’s more believable as a man (single woman
wandering the roads with tons of cash on hand in that era? Not likely), but it
makes for a more powerful statement as a woman (since even Hebrew women were
considered to be inferior to male Gentiles, at least in part due to the blood
taboo laws that dealt with “that time of month”). Being a female Gentile in
ancient Israel/Judea was about as socially helpful as having the word “Loser”
tatooed on your forehead.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Worthlessness
|
| (...) Hey, thanks for clearing all that up. Don merely asked whether they were believers or not, but all that extra background is great stuff. I also learned something else interesting. You think the Samaritan was a woman... the King James version (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
