From "Book on line", supplement 1

Meanings of Women’s names;
Sari- essence
Scarlet- flaming red

The above word meanings are to some degree just someone’s opinion, but like most of history as we know it today, it is all “just someone’s opinion!” But for my purposes it will do well.

Sari- essence! And what is commonly called the “essence” of a person? Well I offer you that our blood, (or all of the bodies natural fluids, including tears) is most often considered our “essence!”, and as such, when we see Scarlet, meaning “flaming red”, can we not think of the colour of blood? Interestingly, these two names are in order as I found them.

Sarah, Sarra, on the other hand is commonly referred to as “princess” Thus in naming, at least, the Sari of the Bible, is changed from “essence”, possibly meaning blood and possibly meaning “tears!”, into “Princess!” It is like she was suddenly conferred with the protection of royalty. Maybe,that is exactly what happened?

In the Bible, the name Mary is considered or thought to mean “bitter” or “bitter waters!”, or even “rebellious”. In the Bible we have these considerations; Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene or of Magdalene; Mary, the wife of Cleopas; Mary, the sister of Lazarus; Mary, the mother of John Mark; Mary (Biblical, Romans 16:6; and Miriam, the sister of Moses! So what do other, so called well respected sources have to say about the meaning of Mary?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, written by what I assume were well respected experts says this;

“The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God.

The Hebrew form of her name is miryam denoting in the Old Testament only the sister of Moses. In I Par., iv, 17, the Massoretic text applies the same name to a son of Jalon, but, as the Septuagint version transcribes this name as Maron, we must infer that the orthography of the Hebrew text has been altered by the transcribers.

The same version renders miryam by Marian, a form analogous to the Syriac and Aramaic word Maryam. In the New Testament the name of the Virgin Mary is always Mariam, excepting in the Vatican Codex and the Codex Bezae followed by a few critics who read Maria in Luke, ii, 19. Possibly the Evangelists kept the archaic form of the name for the Blessed Virgin, so as to distinguish her from the other women who bore the same name. The Vulgate renders the name by Maria, both in the Old Testament and the New; Josephus (Ant. Jud., II, ix, 4) changes the name to Mariamme.

It is antecedently probable that God should have chosen for Mary a name suitable to her high dignity. What has been said about the form of the name Mary shows that for its meaning we must investigate the meaning of the Hebrew form miryam. Bardenhewer has published a most satisfactory monograph on the subject, in which he explains and discusses about seventy different meanings of the name miryam (Der Name Maria. Geschichte der Deutung desselben. Freiburg, 1895); we shall be able to give only an outline of his work. Fr. von Hummelauer (in Exod. et Levit., Paris, 1897, p. 161) mentions the possibility that miryam may be of Egyptian origin.

Moses, Aaron, and their sister were born in Egypt; the name Aaron cannot be explained from the Hebrew; the daughter of Pharaoh imposed the name Moses on the child she had saved from the waters of the Nile; hence it is possible that their sister's name Mary was also of Egyptian origin. This seems to become even probable if we consider the fact that the name Mary was not borne by any woman in the Old Testament excepting the sister of Moses. But the question why was not the name Mary more common in the Old Testament, if it was of Hebrew origin, is answered by another question, why was the name Mary chosen by the parents of Our Blessed Lady and by a number of others mentioned in the New Testament, if the word was Egyptian?

Though the meaning of Mary as derived from the Egyptian Mery, Meryt (cherished, beloved), is most suitable for an only daughter, such a derivation is only possible, or at best barely probable.

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 name Mary 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. Dan., iv, 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 Is., xl., 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).

It was Hiller (Onomasticum sacrum, Tübingen, 1706, pp. 170, 173, 876) who first gave a philological explanation of miryam as a simple word. The termination am is according to this writer a mere formative affix intensifying or amplifying the meaning of the noun. But practically miryam had been considered as a simple noun long before Hiller. Philo (De somn., II, 20; ed. Mangey, II, 677) is said to have explained the word as meaning elpis (hope), deriving the word either from ra'ah (to see, to expect?) or from morash (hope); but as Philo can hardly have seriously believed in such a hazardous derivation, he probably presented Mary the sister of Moses as a mere symbol of hope without maintaining that her very name meant hope.

In Rabbinic literature miryam is explained as meaning merum (bitterness; cf. J. Levy, Neuhebraisches und chaldaisches Wörterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midraschim, Leipzig, 1876-89, s.v. merum); but such a meaning of the word is historically improbable, and the derivation of miryam from marar grammatically inadmissible.

Other meanings assigned to miryam viewed as a simple word are: bitter one, great sorrow (from marar or marah; cf. Simonis, Onomasticum Veteris Testamenti, Halae Magdeburgicae, 1741, p. 360; Onom. Novi Test., ibid., 1762, p. 106); rebellion (from meri; cf. Gesenius, Thesaur. philol. critic. ling. hebr. et chald. Beter. Testamenti, edit. altera, Lipsiae, 1835-38, II, p. 819b); healed one (cf. Schäfer, Die Gottesmutter in der hl. Schrift, Münster, 1887, pp. 135-144); fat one, well nourished one (from mara; cf. Schegg, Evangelium nach Matthäus, Bd. I, München, 1856, p. 419; id., Jacobus der Bruder des Herrn, München, 1882, p. 56; Furst, Hebr. und chald. Hanwörterb. über d. alte Test., Leipzig, 1857-1861, s.v. miryam); mistress (from mari; cf. v. Haneberg, Geschichte d. biblisch. Offenbarung, 4th edit., Regensburg, 1876, p. 604); strong one, ruling one (from marah; cf. Bisping, Erklärung d. Evang. nach Matth., Münster, 1867, p. 42); gracious or charming one (from ra'am which word does not have this meaning in the Old Testament; cf. v. Haneberg, 1, c.); myrrh (from mor, though it does not appear how this word can be identified with miryam; cf. Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Matth., pars prior, Parisiis, 1892, p. 44); exalted one (from rum; cf. Caninius, De locis S. Scripturae hebraicis comment., Antverpiae, 1600, pp. 63-64).

In 1906 Zorrell advanced another explanation of the name Mary, based on its derivation from the Egyptian mer or mar, to love, and the Hebrew Divine name Yam or Yahweh (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1906, pp. 356 sqq.).

Thus explained the name denotes "one loving Yahweh" or "one beloved by Yahweh". We have already pointed out the difficulty implied in an Egyptian origin of the name Mary. Probably it is safer to adhere to Bardenhewer's conclusions (l. c., pp. 154 sq.): Mariam and Maria are the later forms of the Hebrew miryam; miryam is not a compound word consisting of two nouns, or a noun and an adjective, or a noun and a pronominal suffix, but it is a simple though derivative noun; the noun is not formed by means of a prefix (m), but by the addition of a suffix (am). Presupposing these principles, the name miryam may be derived either from marah, to be rebellious, or from mara, to be well nourished.

Etymology does not decide which of these derivations is to be preferred; but it is hardly probable that the name of a young girl should be connected with the idea of rebellion, while Orientals consider the idea of being well nourished as synonymous with beauty and bodily perfection, so that they would be apt to give their daughters a name derived from mara Mary means therefore The beautiful or The perfect one.” End of Catholic Encyclopedia.

What a story huh? The church could not accept “rebellion” to be worthy of Mary, so they settled on two more acceptable meanings. Also note all of the various connections to the sea and sea water, water that we know to be salty!

So, just what does the Catholic Encyclopedia have to say about Sara / Sarah / Sarai?

“Sara (Hebrew for "princess"; another form, Sarai, the signification of which is doubtful, is found in passages occurring before
Genesis 17:15).

Sara was the wife of Abraham and also his step-sister (Genesis 12:15; 20:12). We do not find any other account of her parentage. When Abraham goes down to Egypt because of the famine, he induces Sara, who though sixty-five years of age is very beautiful, to say that she is his sister; whereupon she is taken to wife by the King of Egypt, who, however, restores her after a Divine admonition (Genesis 12). In a variant account (Genesis 20), she is represented as being taken in similar circumstances by Abimelech, King of Gerara, and restored likewise to Abraham through a Divine intervention.

After having been barren till the age of ninety, Sara, in fulfilment of a Divine promise, gives birth to Isaac (Genesis 21:1-7). Later we find her through jealousy ill-treating her handmaiden Agar the Egyptian, who had borne a child to Abraham, and finally she forces that latter to drive away the bond-woman and her son Ishmael (Genesis 21). Sara lived to the age of one hundred and twenty-seven years, and at her death was buried in the cave of Macphelah in Hebron (Genesis 23). Isaiah 51:2 alludes to Sara as the mother of the chosen people; St. Peter praises her submission to her husband (1 Peter 3:6). Other New Testament references to Sara are in Romans 4:19; 9:9; Galatians 4:22-23; Hebrews 11:11.”

Not too much, huh? But, we do know that God had already changed Abram’s name to Abraham, in honor of the “covenant” that had been established and that he also changes her name. And, as we already know, in those days, as today in some places, a covenant or contract is blessed or made holy by the use of salt!

But, isn’t it likely that Sara / Sarai would have been a “bitter” wife when she realizes that the son of her “handmaiden” Agar / Hagar would bear the son of her husband? Would not she shed tears of salt, or bitter tasting for her loss? And, would not she be bitter because her “essence” or her “royal?” blood line would not be continued? But God gave her back her essence, as her blood was passed on to a son with Abraham, a son who was to be blessed for all times!

The above is just a predicate for one of the works of Charles which is found on this site (supplement 10 and on the Daily Grail web site.

Here is part of his supplemental work;

“There are a number of obvious indications in the Book of Joshua that the description of Rahab as a harlot is only a ruse. To begin with, the name Rahab was a carefully selected epithet, and like that of Joshua (“God saves”) was symbolic of a designated role, as are the names of so many other Biblical characters. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the name Rahab (“pride, belligerence, enlargement”) is used to represent Egypt, the traditional domain of the Sun-god Ra. It is also applied to the unbounded watery depths (Heb. tehom) of creation that were divided by YHWH in order to form dry land. Similarly, in the Babylonian Creation Epic the oceans are personified by the “resplendent” goddess Tiamat, who is further described as “risen up” and “haughty.” Tiamat had formerly given birth to the gods, but after being stirred to rage by her consort Kingu (associated with the Moon) she determined to kill her divine children.
1. In response, the god Marduk (associated variously with the Sun, Mars, Jupiter or a rogue gravitational body) engaged Tiamat (Tehom/Rahab) in battle and split her into two parts. Her surging waters were in this way transformed from an unpredictable menace into calm seas under a kind sky. Moreover, the instigator Kingu was defeated by Marduk and his blood used to fashion mankind. By association, Rahab of Jericho is revealed not only as a great queen but also one who represented a deadly threat to Joshua and the Israelites. Further, she is specifically associated with the royal court of Egypt from which Joshua, Moses, and the Israelites had earlier fled.

Our Lady of Jericho does not live and work along a cramped alleyway, but in a lofty tower built over the city wall. Rahab therefore occupies a critical element in the city’s defenses. Such a tower would be a privileged place suitable as the living quarters of a queen, and not a common whore. What’s more, even though Rahab harbors suspected spies, the king of Jericho refrains from accusing her of treason, and her residence is not subjected to a search. Rather, Rahab speaks directly to the king and with complete impunity. The king even takes direction from her, or should we say misdirection. At her urging, a posse is sent by the king of Jericho to chase after the spies, but these spies are still with Rahab and hidden on the roof of her penthouse suite. After night falls, they escape, Rapunzel style, out a window of the tower and using a rope provided by Rahab. She even instructs the men on how to evade detection in the countryside so that they can safely return to Joshua with the information she has given them.

En route to Jericho from his encampment at Shittim (meaning, “Acacia,” from its scourging thorns), Joshua (ala Biblical YHWH and Marduk-Ra) divides the floodwaters of the Jordan and the Israelites cross over on dry land. For seven days the army of Joshua marches around Jericho, and on the seventh day marches around it seven times. This would have offered the time and diversion needed by Rahab (and those at her own command) to undermine the city’s defenses. Upon completing the seventh and final lap on the seventh and final day, Joshua signals for a long blast of trumpets. At that same moment it follows that Rahab orchestrated a cacophony of tumbling stones. The wall of Jericho “fell flat,” that is, collapsed under its own weight due to sapping or internal pressure. Jericho was not conquered so much by King Joshua from without, but by Queen Rahab within.

As a sign of her diplomatic immunity, Rahab hung a “scarlet thread” outside a window – perhaps the same window from which she had earlier flung a cord for use by the spies. Scarlet was the color of royalty and is another obvious clue to the high status of Rahab as queen.

Therefore, if Queen Rahab plied any trade it was the manufacture of cordage and textiles, for upon the roof of her tower there were large quantities of valuable processed flax. Flax was used not only to make the rope that saved the men of Joshua, but also the red linen fabric that protected her from harm when Joshua stormed the city. When the bloody conflict was finished, the power of Jericho (a place name derived from the Hebrew word for “the Moon”) over Rahab was broken, and any former hostility toward Joshua subsided. Her former patron the king of Jericho was also “sacrificed” in the creation of Israel, and as Kingu had been in the creation of mankind.
The Wedding in Canaan

Much is made of Moses placing the “mantle” (of kingship) on Joshua son of Nun. Strangely though, the succession of Joshua is afterwards not even mentioned. Instead we get the impression that with the death of Joshua there was no recognized king in Israel until Saul and then David. In the interim, the Israelites “did what was right in their own eyes” and were governed more or less by “judges.” In the Old Testament, the predecessors of King David are named as Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon and Nahshon. It is only in the Book of Matthew that the “harlot” Rahab of Jericho is identified as the mother of Boaz. Armed with this new intelligence about Rahab, we might boldly advance that the mantle or birthright passed from Joshua son of Nun to Salmon son of Nahshon. However, the Hebrew name Salmon (also written Sala) literally means “mantle” and the root sal connotes “salvation.”

Therefore, it can be trumpeted long and loud that Salmon son of Nahshon was more commonly referred to as Joshua son of Nun. The name Nun is also written as Non and was consequently a short form of Nahshon.

If Joshua and Salmon were two epithets of the same person, then it follows that Rahab became the wife of Joshua and Joshua the father of Boaz. Indeed, we are told in the Book of Joshua (6:25) that Rahab “dwelled in Israel” after the conquest of Joshua. The Hebrew word translated as “dwell” (yashab) can also be translated as “marry.”

However, if the hero Joshua had been the direct ancestor of King David, then why would this not have been fully recorded and celebrated? First of all, the former marriage(s) of Rahab made her nuptials with Joshua something less than right in the eyes of Israelites. Perhaps more disturbing, the future heir Boaz may not have been a true offspring of Joshua, but a child born to Rahab by a former husband, that is, a son of a rival or foreign king who was only adopted by Joshua!

Thirdly, Rahab herself may have been considered a non-Israelite, and a hated Egyptian queen at that.

The Hebrew word for harlot, zonah (zaw-naw’), makes a ready play with the Hebrew word for queen, that is, sarah (saw-raw’). Both before and after her name was changed from Sarai (“domineering”) to Sarah, the sister-wife of Patriarch Abram also found herself in a compromising position and her reputation in considerable danger. While trying to become pregnant, she was first taken into the harem of a pharaoh of Egypt and then a king of the Philistines in Canaan. As a result, Sarah like Rahab was subjected to a stereotype and prominent double standard of her time. Women of common birth were considered to be the property of their husbands and could be punished by death for adultery. On the other hand, royal women (such Sarah and Rahab) emulated the great goddesses in their sexual freedom and virtual equality with gods.

Like Isis in Egypt, Inanna and Ishtar of Mesopotamia, and Asherah in Canaan, women of high birth were actually encouraged to seek out and have children by multiple partners - with or without the covering of marriage. In the Egypt of Rahab, a leading queen was designated as the “God’s Wife.” She could have numerous children (“holy births”) by various kings (“gods”) and still be considered a virgin. Outside the context of the royal court however, these ladies would have been thought of as no better than whores, and the Biblical authors often found it a convenient artifice to model them as such.
Redeeming Magdalene

The epithet Magdalene has the Hebrew meaning of “tower.” By virtue of this glaring allusion to Old Testament precedent, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is not only to be suspected but also completely expected. As Jesus is patterned after Joshua, so Mary Magdalene is typecast as the incarnation of Rahab. Consistent with this, Mary Magdalene (“Mary of the Tower”) must be rescued by Jesus even as Rahab was by Joshua. Joshua marches around the city of Jericho seven times. Similarly, Mary Magdalene is delivered from the influence of seven “evil spirits.” That is, before becoming the disciple, patroness, and especially bride of Christ, she would first have to be divorced from a number of encumbrances, not the least of which was a “bad marriage.” Joshua kills the king of Jericho and liberates Rahab. Therefore by association, Jesus must kill, at least figuratively, those who wanted to confine Mary Magdalene in a tower, that is, to negate her power by engaging her in compromise with the present overlords of the land.

Ironically, the much-criticized union with Mary Magdalene actually served to make the Messianic claim of Jesus more legitimate from a Scriptural perspective. Tradition held that kingly Joshua was married to a harlot, or at least to a woman who had assumed the literary guise of one. And this is the context in which we must consider the depiction of Mary Magdalene. As with her Old Testament archetype Rahab, Mary Magdalene in reality would have been of the highest social standing, a veritable “queen” and “goddess” within Jewish society of the time. And like Rahab, the true status of Mary Magdalene is downplayed in Scripture but not fully suppressed. Her wealth and influence were not only helpful to Jesus, but actually a necessary part of her prophetic profile that needed to be documented. Moreover, her class distinction in turn unveils that of Jesus himself.

Rehab is the second of four women listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (not including his mother), but is the most important as far as the Gospel presentation is concerned. She is the only woman associated with Joshua son of Nun, the namesake of Jesus, and a type of “secret wife.” For effect, Rahab is also placed in the company of three other women who were renowned for assertiveness, Ruth, Tamar, and Bathsheba. They were chosen because of all Old Testament women they along with Rahab most nearly captured the heart and mission of Mary Magdalene. To varying degrees, all four “played the harlot” in order to improve their marital satisfaction and the welfare of their children. For taking courtly initiative each risked the painful stigma of adultery. Ultimately all were rewarded with greater status in their lifetime and recognized by posterity as integral to the Messianic line.

The motherhood of Rehab is only made explicit in the Gospels for the purpose of explaining to those who had “ears to hear” why believers were not to proclaim from every housetop the good news of Jesus’ marriage along with his saving message. There were very practical reasons for hiding the family life of Jesus under a bushel, and it also honored precedent. The marriage of Joshua and Rahab is disguised in the Old Testament. Moreover, after Joshua and Rahab there is a perceived latency or incubation period of the “judges” before the advent of a renewed native kingship in Israel under King David. Again, this provided a blueprint for Jesus and his inner circle to follow. In the short term, the Messianic successors of Jesus would need to guard their plan and cultivate belief in Jesus among the masses. However, within a few generations a Davidic figure would be expected to emerge from this Messianic line, and in the manner of both David and Joshua, he and his army of zealous followers would “take up the sword” and “take the kingdom by force.”

Considerable understatement and indirection is used in the Book of Joshua account of Rahab. Yet, her royalty (and therefore also that of Joshua) can be easily recognized by the pseudonyms and symbols masterfully woven as Biblical textile. This narrative style inspired the later Gospel accounts in which an imperiled royal line is again not only revealed in Jesus but also re-concealed to those who were not fully initiated into the “mysteries” of the new religion.

Christianity was from its conception thrust into the world as a two-edged sword.

The fact that Mary Magdalene is strongly typecast in the Gospels as Rahab is certain proof that privileged leaders of the early Christian Church fully acknowledged her role as mother of a new ruling house. To wit, the basis for that role is easily established from canonized Scripture alone. If Jesus were intended to be a Messiah to end all Messiahs, then there would have been no point in even mentioning Rahab, or Tamar, Ruth and Bathsheba for that matter, in the genealogy of Christ. However, they are, and with the realization that Jesus had a regal wife comes the knowledge that he also had an underlying political agenda. Therefore, Rahab of the Old Testament represents the cherished New Testament “Bride of Christ” in more than one sense. She prefigures the body of believers who were to be “saved” and “sanctified” by Jesus, but more tangibly foreshadows Mary Magdalene as the liberated woman of Christ and a willing accomplice in dynastic intrigue.”

As you might have been able to see, Charles has effectively combined a number of Biblical women together. Thus Mary of Magdala or the Magdalene , whose so called name may only describe the city of Magdala, which has another name (Migdal) which reportedly means a “tower”, or a “fortified tower!” Whether rightly or wrongly, she is represented as a harlot in much current and past Biblical writings so we can use this description here. Compare her to Rahab, of Jericho! This woman is also considered a harlot and might have lived in a tower on the wall of Jercho! On her rooftop, drying flax was used to hide the spies, and since flax is used to manufacture thread, and thread to manufacture cloth, then we may understand why she would hang a scarlet red thread / line / banner from her tower as a sign of protection, and the color itself might well have signified that she was due the respect of royalty. It is not well known but without salt most cloth could not be dyed and the royal Phoenician color represented Royal colours for centuries. Strange also is the allegation that it was the Phoenicians who dominated the salt and salted fish market in the ancient world, much like the Venetians did centuries later.

Maybe our Biblical writers confused things years ago. First of all, Islam (the Koran) says that Aaron and Moses were uncles of Jesus! And maybe we can assume the same relationship of Joshua / Jesus to them also. Second, maybe?, just maybe, Jericho is really the same as Magdala? Or at least had a similar name at one time. The town that Mary Magdalene was reportedly from is or was called Migdal El (Migda-el), which reportedly meant “tower or fortress of God”; and then there was Migdal Gad, and I assume that the word Migdol, also means fortress, so it is possible that the city was called Jericho, but the fortress / tower of the city, inhabited by Rahab, was just commonly called a Migdal / Migdol, meaning fortified tower, etc.

Charles also successfully makes the Jesus / Joshua connection, but he possibly does not make the Mari, Goddess of the Sea connection with our multiple Mariam’s. That is Isis as Stella-Maris, Star of the Sea. It appears that Diana Lucifera, the Goddess of the Morning Star, was assimilated into the myth as the Mother of Mary. As some churchmen are reported to have written Mary was the “queen of heaven, empress of hell, lady of all the world.” The "Speculum beatae Mariae”, allegedly written by St. Bonaventura in the 13th century, describes her in the same words.

The recently (1940) found Gnostic Gospels, have one gospel called “the Gospel of Mary”, which identified or considered Mary as part of a trinity, since the author identified all of the Mary’s present at the crucifixion with one another. This identification was at one time allowed by the church as dogma, but was later eliminated from the canon of books. And of no surprise to those of us who have been there, she was closely associated with the Great Goddess of Ephesus, whose temples she took over. Even the connection of the Ava of Mary with Eve of Adam’s time was once venerated. A manuscript in French contains an illustration of Mary enthroned besides God on Judgement Day, weighing souls in her balances like her prototype, the Goddess Maat!

In many ancient documents it seems that Mary, like Rahab, was the one concerned with fighting the evil found in her city, since she seemed to have balanced the good and bad found there, and thru her acts, she judged them and delivered them to their destruction at the hands of Joshua. In many varied acts and indications, one can make the assumption that Mary, in all of her forms, made the connection back to a time before men took control of society. She represented the Matriarchal Age, which is shown in one attempt to trace the lineage of Jesus thru her line and not that of Joseph, as well as other indications such as her designation as “the Queen of Heaven!”, just as the beautiful Sara / Sarai became the Great Mother of a Great Nation.


Ronald Hughes