In Mircea Eliade’s The Myth of the Eternal Return, he discusses the sacredness of New Year festivals for “primitive” societies. New Year festivals served to remove all taboos from the previous year’s crops as well as set the fates for the coming year. The festivals occurred during the intercalary days, a period which served as both the end (eschaton) and beginning (genesis) time for those “traditional” cultures. In this period of chaos where eschaton and genesis merge, various rituals are performed that converts the community’s historical events and individuals into archetypes and symbols. In African Religions and Philosophy John Mbiti shows how the reckoning of time in traditional African cultures was according to the occurrence of events and not based on abstract linear time. A year into the future was only potential time, made concrete for a pregnant mother according to the number of lunar months of her pregnancy, for a traveler according to the number of days it takes to walk from one area to another, or for a community according to the length of the rainy and dry seasons. Communities living close to the equator might reckon a year with 350 days once and 390 days another. As if to confirm Eliade, Mbiti states “…Actual time is therefore what is present and what it past. It [time] moves ‘backward’ rather than ‘forward’; and people set their minds not on future things, but chiefly in what has taken place.”

While Eliade’s thesis is about certain important archetypes, symbols, rituals and myths of the “traditional

primitive,” his intent is rather to provide the “historical modern” with the ability see that his linear history is littered with the same symbolic inventory as the circular history of the “primitive.” In one of Eliade’s concluding essays, he states “…If we turn to the other traditional conception – that of cyclical time and the periodic regeneration of history, whether or not it involves the myth of eternal repetition- we find that, although the earliest Christian writers began by violently opposing it, it nevertheless in the end made its way into Christian philosophy…”

Stated differently, as Christianity, Islam and Judaism (the three religions at the basis of modern Western civilization, philosophy and history) re-oriented toward the straight line of history, they all retained ritual and archetypal inventory of the so-called primitive. The 12 days of Christmas, in which New Year’s Day is positioned midpoint between Christmas Day and the Epiphany or Three King’s Day, is a case in point. Biblical sources all indicate that Herod sent mercenaries to kill boys two years or younger, a period of time more in line with the number of days it would’ve taken the Magi to travel from Persia to Judah. My guess is that two years were shortened to twelve days for their ritual and archetypal significance. Those twelve days closely resemble the intercalation of earlier cultures where the fate of each month for the New Year was set, where eschaton of the past met genesis of the new, and New Years Day as the transition between the two.The rituals of fasting and feasting, confessions and resolution setting, celebrating and worshiping, etc., also occur in Islam (Sunni & Shi’a) and Judaism end of year rituals. These religions are so full of rituals and archetypes pointing to perpetual “death,” fate setting (resolving), and “rebirth” that one wonders why the over emphasis in our consciousness on that one Big Event or al-Naba’ al-Azim in Qur’anic parlance?

My atheist and humanist friends would no doubt chime in here that the problem is with religion itself, and the reliance on scripture for morality. As theologian Catherine Keller states in Face of the Deep, “Getting rid of ‘God’ won’t solve the problem. It only leaves ‘Him’ unaccounted for…we will have to leave feminist Sunday School: getting rid of ‘Him’ only puts God in drag…” with no trace or influence from “her.” Her argument is extremely profound in its simplicity, proposing a theology of genesis from primal, deep, and watery chaos. The theologians of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were influenced by Greek philosophy and rationalized a transcendent God who created the heavens and earth out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Christian and Jewish theologian neglected the second verse of Genesis 1 that “Darkness was on the face of the deep and the Spirit of God was vibrating on the face of the waters,” while the Muslim theologian neglected verses like verse 7 of Qur’an 11 that “His throne was on the water.” Their theologies assigned chaos, darkness, and watery depths to negative feminine, immanent status, set in contrast and opposition to order, light, spiritually high, masculine transcendence. Keller argues against simplistic dichotomies of “…order vs. chaos, solidity vs. flux, behind vs. face, One vs. nothing, and Christ vs. atheism.” To her, deep watery chaos must be recast as the origin of order and transcendence, a transcendence that doesn’t operate in opposition to depth, darkness and chaos, but is rather on the face, bosom, or womb of chaos. The wet, dark, turbulence of the womb need not frighten, representing as it does the intercalation period where death (eschaton) transitions into creation (genesis). This chaosmology serves as a bridge for “infinite interrelational” possibilities connecting the death of one eschaton and the creation of its genesis.

How would we live the present if we were assured of an eschaton that ended – either after circular or straight-line time– in the deep dark waters of infinite possibilities for the creation of a new genesis? Would the scientific community still interpret global warming in eschatological “the end is near” terms? Would the traditionalist or the literal scripturalists still interpret global warming in “drill-baby-drill,” long view of history terms?

Since the title of this entry is Mary-Jesus Theology Part 2, we cannot end without explaining its relevance Mary and Jesus. As mentioned in Part 1, wherever the story of the birth of Jesus appears in scripture, Jesus is always upon Mary’s bosom, effortlessly delivered and resting on her bosom, or speaking from within her womb. Jesus’ birth miracles do not operate independently of Mary’s but issues forth from her, even with God’s omnipotence. If mother, bosom, and womb represent additional feminine archetypes of deep watery chaos, and Jesus represents the word or spirit (as mentioned in the Bible and Qur’an), it can be reasoned that the Mary-Jesus relationship points to a theology of chaosmology, one that conforms to sound theology in Islam. The words womb (rahim) and mercy (rahma) share the same etymological root; and of the infinite divine aspects or Names, only Allah and Al-Rahman (The Merciful) are mentioned as having ‘mounted the Throne.’

How would we live if we were assured that mercy ended in Mercy to create a new mercy?