Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 08-03-2010, 01:54 PM

I wouldn't necessarily look for Judaic roots to this. If anywhere is a melting pot, it is Alexandria.

Clivedurdle · 08-03-2010, 02:03 PM

For example

Quote:

Christian teaching on sexual purity
Abstract from chapter 17, Lessons in Depravity

Biblical teaching on sexual purity flows from the holiness that is central to the character of God. In his book The Beauty of God’s Holiness Thomas Trevethan declares that holiness is the fundamental attribute of God that conditions and qualifies all other attributes. ‘The true God is distinct, set apart, from all that he has made as the only truly self-sufficient Being. All his creatures depend on him; he alone exists from within himself. And the true God is distinct, set apart, from all that is evil. His moral perfection is absolute. His character as expressed in his will forms the absolute standard of moral excellence. God is holy, the absolute point of reference for all that exists and is good.’[i] In a vision of heaven, the prophet Isaiah sees the Lord seated on his throne and is overwhelmed by the holiness of God, as the seraphim call to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole world is full of his glory’ (Isaiah 6:2-3). The Lord God of the Bible lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16); his eyes are too pure to look on evil and he cannot tolerate wrong (Habakkuk 1:13).

The Bible makes it clear that holiness must be exhibited in the sexual realm. ‘It is God’s will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

I cannot see much stopping another oriental cult from taking holiness literally. And guess what the justification of fgm is? Purity!

I propose fgm is a xian invention.

http://www.belmonthouse.co.uk/biblic...al_conduct.htm

maryhelena · 08-03-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That some misguided individuals decided for a ritual castration is mind-boggling in its senselessness. Endeavors to turn a theology/spirituality movement into a bizarre and farcical side-show is deplorable. Mutilation is as sick a phenomena today as it was back then. To suggest that such a practice was ever an acceptable part of christian belief is to bring ridicule and dishonor upon that movement. Sure, interpretation is part of the equation re seeking to understand the NT. However, any interpretation that results in the degradation of our human nature displays not insight, not wisdom, but irrationality in the extreme. We do a disservice to those NT writers were we to be so short-sighted in our interpretation of their words.

A basic 'principle' of intellectual ideas is that not all of our intellectual 'furniture' is suitable for our physical home. Not all ideas can be translated, transformed, into physical practices that enable our humanity to flourish. Philosophically, psychologically, we can be whatever takes our fancy - like the angels in heaven, sexless - but the real world we live in lives by a very different code. The reality code. Male and Female as the necessary categories by which human life exists and continues to flourish. To imagine that the NT writers were seeking to negate this 'law' - by encouraging ritual castration - is a terrible reflection of a distorted mind.

I dunno Mary. Voluntary castration was already practiced before Christianity appeared. Dualism of spirit and body leads logically to devaluing of flesh and carnality. Admittedly we're probably talking about very small numbers of men.

The idea of purity was hardly new (eg ritual cleanness). It can be seen as a return to the sexless innocence of childhood or as a leap to the post-sexual spirituality of old age. In a similar way the apocalyptics sought a perfect world via divine cataclysm.

From a practical point of view discarding the irrational game of heterosexual mating has some appeal if one prefers a simpler existence. Modern feminism almost fits this description in its ambivalence towards pregnancy and motherhood.

I've not questioned the existence of such a practice as ritual castration. What I am questioning is the idea that ritual castration is a legitimate expression of christian ideals. As for the example I gave - is the assumption of a historical crucified Jesus a valid reflection of the gospel story. Mythicists would reply - no evidence to support a literal interpretation. Ritual castration might indeed have been practiced - I'm not denying that. However, the equation that such a practice was a genuine reflection of what the NT writers were writing about is unsupportable - however many crazy men were so interpreting NT texts.

Devaluing the flesh? Indeed that's ritual castration to a tee......But the christian counter measure is - the gospel story. A story not of a physical sacrifice, of devaluing the flesh for greater heavenly reward - but of a purely spiritual or intellectual sacrifice. No historical crucified Jesus = no devaluing of the flesh. A spiritual messiah figure. An intellectual 'world' in which devaluing of ideas, 'castrating' ideas, removing the power of outdated ideas, has some real value. To devalue the body, to devalue flesh - is a monstrous idea that should have no place among rational people.

It's not the "sexless innocence of childhood" or the "post-sexual spirituality of old age", that we should be seeking. It's the vigor of our maturity that has the potential to bear fruit....

We should not be setting our standards so low....

"Dualism of spirit and body leads logically to devaluing of flesh and carnality". Can do but not necessarily so. A positive dualism is also possible between the flesh and the spirit. We don't get very far in life if we turn everything into a negative context, a battle zone. Making peace with our dual nature is the way to go; accepting the limits and the benefits of both aspects of our nature enables a positive dualism to develop.

Sure, wanting a simple life could mean forgoing physical relationships. But it is a big loss. And no, that loss is not just a loss of a sexual component - it's the loss of a connection to another person. I'm not thinking of the 'soul mate', Bridges of Madison County type connection - but of something more realistic. The experience of knowing that one is not alone in the world - that one is visible to another not simply through the fact of ones existence. Validation of ones existence not simply the fact of ones existence. Seeing not just the flesh of another but seeing also the spirit - well, something like that...

Toto · 08-03-2010, 02:18 PM

Anti-Semites can quote the Talmud correctly. But they tend to misinterpret it or read things literally which were not meant to be literal, or otherwise miss the point. Or so I've been told. I don't claim to be an expert myself.

stephan huller · 08-03-2010, 02:22 PM

Charles, I think this is very important. Can I use this reference on my blog? I promise I will credit you as the discoverer.

A little background quickly - the tradition comes from the third century. 'Rab' is Abba Arika, student of Judah I and founder of the Academy at Susa.

That Rab's opinion appears first on the list makes explicit it is the authoritative interpretation. In other words, there is a tradition that Isaiah is saying that Jews would be taken and made into eunuchs in the 'court' of a 'king of Babylon.' All that follows is an attempt to argue AGAINST the accepted view RECOGNIZING THAT INDEED IT WAS THE AUTHORITATIVE VIEW.

Now a little background on the passage itself. The rabbis are connecting Isa 39.7 with the understanding that the tradition that the prophet Daniel and his friends were court eunuchs in Babylonia. The tradition is as old as Josephus (Ant 10.186) In Josephus' view Daniel and his friends were already considered relatives of King Zedekiah sentenced by Nebuchadnezzar to castration and service in his palace.

The Jerusalem Talmud opines "that they were eunuchs and were healed" and that the miracle happened in the fiery furnace. (YShab 6.8)

The point is that "the prevalent Jewish tradition was adopted by the Christian church, and is mentioned by Origen, Jerome, Theordoretus and their disciples and followers."[Studies in the Hasmonaean period p. 93] As Efron concludes while the question of WHICH eunuch at Nebuchadnezzar's court was Daniel is never solved "at any rate, one way or another, the eunuchization decreed for the sons of Zedekiah is fulfilled in the fate of Daniel and his friends. Similar views are scattered through midrashic literature" [ibid]

Now I can't say right now that the Jews of the first century are meant (i.e. those who survived the destruction of Jerusalem) are somehow connected to this tradition by the same rabbinic tradition. Nevertheless both Jewish and Christian traditions thought that the prophet Daniel and his companions mutilated themselves to prove their chastity in the court of the Babylonian king.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z9Q...s%20to&f=false

Let's just summarize for now that I have demonstrated in my list that Christian eunuchs were ALWAYS found in great numbers in the Imperial court in the third century. Did the eunuchs identify themselves in some way as 'latter day Daniels'? I certainly believe so. If you look at Ephrem's Against Marcion Book One the Marcionites favorably compare themselves with Daniel owing to their ascetic lifestyle.

The question certainly has to be at the bottom of the debate in the Talmud. How did Judaism manage to embrace the idea of the eunuch as 'righteous' individual?

stephan huller · 08-03-2010, 02:40 PM

Oh and I forgot to mention it in all the excitement. Your discovery provides a lot of excitement for me because I have long suspected that Demetrius was an Imperial appointee. This explains the hostility with Origen who is like the 'little Buddha' of Alexandria - i.e. a natural successor to the Episcopal throne who was pushed aside owing to the decree of an Emperor (like Arius a century later).

'Demetius' is identified as taking the Alexandrian Episcopal throne during the reign of Commodus in 189 CE. It was in this age that Irenaeus began railing against the Alexandrian 'heretical' groups and arguing that the 'true Church' was to be found at Rome as a result of a 'second Exodus' from Egypt (AH iv.30.1)

One of the reasons for the Church’s favored position had to with Commodus’ choice in ladies Marcia Cedonia Demetrias, Commodus’ favorite concubine and beloved confident (Cass. Dio, 73.4). She was a Christian (Philosophumena, IX, 12) who can be connected with the circle of Irenaeus. ‘St. Demetrius’ the man who oversaw the persecution throughout Egypt may well have been related to her.

Marcia was raised by a certain Hyacinthus, a eunuch presbyter who became the main liaison between the Emperor and the emerging Church. Her influence can be seen in the story that emerges of her ‘rescuing’ one of the future Popes from persecution. One day Marcia summoned Pope Victor to the imperial palace and asked for a list of the Roman Christians who had been condemned to forced labour in the mines of Sardinia, so that she might obtain their freedom. The pope handed her the list and Marcia, having received from the emperor the required pardon, sent the presbyter Hyacinthus to Sardinia with an order of release for the Christian confessors. Callistus, who had been among those deported, eventually sat in the Episcopal throne of St. Peter.

Irenaeus (AH, IV, 30, 1) points out that Christians were employed at this period as officials of the imperial Court. Among these officials was the imperial freedman Prosenes, whose gravestone and epitaph have been preserved (De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christ. Urbis Romae, I, 9, no. 5). Septimius Severus, also, during the early years of his reign, regarded the Christians kindly, so that the influence of Christian officials continued. The emperor retained in his palace a Christian named Proculus who had once cured him. He protected Christian men and women of rank against the excesses of the heathen rabble, and his son Caracalla had a Christian wet nurse (Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, IV). Christianity made great advances in the capital and also found adherents among the families who were distinguished for wealth and noble descent (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxi).

So it has to be recognized that the story of Christian persecutions in the period is very much a tale of two traditions. If you held fast to the tradition encouraged by the Roman cabal of Irenaeus, Marcia and Commodus you might view the period as a ‘golden age.’ At the center of this faith was a fourfold gospel. One can argue that continuing to maintain the original single, long gospel associated with the followers of Mark was taken to be a sign of being an ‘unrepentant heretic.’ If you were classified as belonging to this group you would likely see the age of the later Antonine Emperors as nothing short of hell on earth.

But getting back to 'Demetrius' I can't help but feel that there is some significance in the fact that - given that Commodus was very involved in the newly established Catholic Church of Irenaeus of Rome through his concubine Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetria(s?)- this woman's cognomen seems to have been 'Demetrius' i.e. she came from a family named of this name.

At the very same time we have papyri which indicate that at the very time 'St. Demetrius' was established as bishop of Alexandria (i.e. 189) Commodus established a certain Q Tineius Demetrius - i.e. a man who would have undoubtedly been identified simply as 'Demetrius' in the age - as his prefect in Egypt. In other words the man who governed Egypt AND ITS CHURCH ON BEHALF OF CAESAR shared the name of the bishop who persecuted Clement and Origen, reorganized the Church structure AND shared the same family name as Commodus' CHRISTIAN concubine (she became a Christian as she grew up).

I also suspect that the 'little Marcia' (i.e. Marcellina) the Alexandrian (viz. 'Carpocratian) who is mentioned in Hippolytus as coming to Rome at the time of Antoninus was one and the same with our Marcia.

Your reference is EXTREMELY significant as it provides a context for understanding the story in Severus al'Ashmunein PERFECTLY.

In the same way that Demetrius slandered Origen because he was a eunuch, there must have been a parallel hostile effort to discredit Demetrius from those aligned with the traditional Alexandrian church. They were saying - as the text in the History of the Coptic Church indicates - that Demetrius was invalidated as a true Patriarch of Alexandria because he was married.

An apologist for Demetrius - knowing full well that he wasn't a eunuch - nevertheless took the pro-Origenist propaganda as a parallel to the slight against the prophet Daniel which leads to his demonstration of virtue by means of fire. In other words, the story in Severus demonstrates that eunuchs were extolled BECAUSE OF DANIEL in Alexandria rather than proving that Demetrius was actually a eunuch.

The source pretends that Demetrius was castrated and proves it by having him behave like Daniel.

BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IT SHOWS THAT DANIEL WAS USED BY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANS TO JUSTIFY 'THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICE' - or perhaps better - their traditional attachment to ritual castration.

maryhelena · 08-03-2010, 03:24 PM

Oh for the days of long ago
When men were slaves
Their manhood denied
Oh for the days of long ago
When men lost their pride
And believed it their glory
Oh how small is the mind
That abandons its light

Quote:

http://everything2.com/title/eunuch

Derived from the Greek eunouchos and Latin eunuchus, Eunuch litterally translates as "keeper of bedchamber", a not so subtle reference to the Eunuchs historic and stereotypical role.

Even considering today's medical science, the process for making a Eunuch remains largely unchanged; the male is strapped spread-eagled to a table, a cord is tightly knotted around his genitals and the organs - penis as well as testicles - are removed using a sharp razor.

The wound was then cauterized by applying a red-hot poker. Next the Eunuch was buried up to his neck in hot sand, and deprived of water for three days to prevent urination which might infect the wound.

On the fourth day he was forced to drink an enormous amount of water until the pressure in his bladder forced a hole through his scar tissue. It was through this hole that he would urinate for the remainder of his life.

If he was lucky to survive this process - mortality rates in excess of 90% were documented - then he was ready for his new life as a docile slave.

Clivedurdle · 08-03-2010, 03:52 PM

I have somewhere a classic feminist text on the change from goddesses to gods, and actually quoted in the Robin Hood thread here something similar.

This site is fascinating.

Quote:

Anciently men's transvestism had its roots in the desire to attain female magic and powers and was common among the Pagan priests up to the time of St. Augustine who denounced the custom, saying that men who wore women's garments could never attain salvation, even if they were otherwise good Christians.

So the good Catholics simply made the women's gowns into Priests robes. They looked the same, had the same function, but a "robe by any other name, does not a transvestite make."

http://www.goddess.org/religious_sex.html

We are talking heaven and earth - androgynous sexless holy pure xians and the rest of us.

These holiness ideas have caused some fascinating responses, including current attitudes to homosexuality and sex.

It is very likely that we cannot see the damage puritanical ideas have done. Xianity was the main launching point, although these ideas are definitely in Judaism and Islam can be understood as clearly continuing what xianity started.

Solo · 08-03-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Origen's treatment of the castration metaphor in Commentary on Matthew. Origen's figurative interpretation of the third group, those who were eunuchs "because of the kingdom," is filled with masculine metaphors (Comm. Matt. 15.4). His starting point is that castration is performed by the word of God, which is "sharper than any two-edged sword" [Heb 4:12] The ideal eunuch is a man who takes this word, which the apostle also calls "the sword of the Spirit" (Eph. 6:17), so that he may cut out the passions of his soul. Since passions are gendered female, by cutting out the passions the masculine sword (word) of God turns the ascetic man into "a real man,"

I guess my point is that we can go back to the writings of Origen and ask - is Origen taking ritual castration and developing into a loose metaphor for a general 'spiritual' process OR is he disguising a continuing practice going on in Alexandria or at the very least which was maintained in Alexandria and Egypt throughout the second century (cf Justin Apology 1.49)?

I would argue again that it has to be the latter given that Eusebius EXPLICITLY says that Origen 'hid' his own physical state from the authorities. It is impossible to get around the implausibility of claiming that Eusebius LIED about Origen's status as a eunuch. It is easier to imagine that Origen lied OR DISGUISED his sympathies for the castrated state BECAUSE HE WAS A EUNUCH.

I see you are taking clues on techniques of persuasion from our resident savant aa3476 (sorry if I misnumbered his name). He believes that by capitalizing and/or bolding his conclusions they acquire the aura of final and unassailable truths. This however, you should know, impresses only the execrable idiots on this Board.

So,....we really have nothing material at hand to tell us whether Eusebius fell for a tripe (similar to the letter by Jesus to the Toparch Abgar) or whether the rumour of Origen's youthful self-mutilation had basis in fact. We only have Origen telling us: no the Matthew saying of those eunuchs who made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven is not to be taken literally. You choose to read that as 'cutting one's balls off means never daring to say I am sorry'. I am ok with that. Unless, of course you want to make a gospel out of that.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller · 08-03-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

I see you are taking clues on techniques of persuasion from our resident savant aa3476 (sorry if I misnumbered his name). He believes that by capitalizing and/or bolding his conclusions they acquire the aura of final and unassailable truths. This however, you should know, impresses only the execrable idiots on this Board.

LOL! Yes you know what Nietzsche says - "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." Aaah! I am Godzilla!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2010, 01:54 PM	#111
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I wouldn't necessarily look for Judaic roots to this. If anywhere is a melting pot, it is Alexandria.

08-03-2010, 02:18 PM	#114
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Anti-Semites can quote the Talmud correctly. But they tend to misinterpret it or read things literally which were not meant to be literal, or otherwise miss the point. Or so I've been told. I don't claim to be an expert myself.

08-03-2010, 02:22 PM	#115
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Charles, I think this is very important. Can I use this reference on my blog? I promise I will credit you as the discoverer. A little background quickly - the tradition comes from the third century. 'Rab' is Abba Arika, student of Judah I and founder of the Academy at Susa. That Rab's opinion appears first on the list makes explicit it is the authoritative interpretation. In other words, there is a tradition that Isaiah is saying that Jews would be taken and made into eunuchs in the 'court' of a 'king of Babylon.' All that follows is an attempt to argue AGAINST the accepted view RECOGNIZING THAT INDEED IT WAS THE AUTHORITATIVE VIEW. Now a little background on the passage itself. The rabbis are connecting Isa 39.7 with the understanding that the tradition that the prophet Daniel and his friends were court eunuchs in Babylonia. The tradition is as old as Josephus (Ant 10.186) In Josephus' view Daniel and his friends were already considered relatives of King Zedekiah sentenced by Nebuchadnezzar to castration and service in his palace. The Jerusalem Talmud opines "that they were eunuchs and were healed" and that the miracle happened in the fiery furnace. (YShab 6.8) The point is that "the prevalent Jewish tradition was adopted by the Christian church, and is mentioned by Origen, Jerome, Theordoretus and their disciples and followers."[Studies in the Hasmonaean period p. 93] As Efron concludes while the question of WHICH eunuch at Nebuchadnezzar's court was Daniel is never solved "at any rate, one way or another, the eunuchization decreed for the sons of Zedekiah is fulfilled in the fate of Daniel and his friends. Similar views are scattered through midrashic literature" [ibid] Now I can't say right now that the Jews of the first century are meant (i.e. those who survived the destruction of Jerusalem) are somehow connected to this tradition by the same rabbinic tradition. Nevertheless both Jewish and Christian traditions thought that the prophet Daniel and his companions mutilated themselves to prove their chastity in the court of the Babylonian king. http://books.google.com/books?id=Z9Q...s%20to&f=false Let's just summarize for now that I have demonstrated in my list that Christian eunuchs were ALWAYS found in great numbers in the Imperial court in the third century. Did the eunuchs identify themselves in some way as 'latter day Daniels'? I certainly believe so. If you look at Ephrem's Against Marcion Book One the Marcionites favorably compare themselves with Daniel owing to their ascetic lifestyle. The question certainly has to be at the bottom of the debate in the Talmud. How did Judaism manage to embrace the idea of the eunuch as 'righteous' individual?

08-03-2010, 02:40 PM	#116
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Oh and I forgot to mention it in all the excitement. Your discovery provides a lot of excitement for me because I have long suspected that Demetrius was an Imperial appointee. This explains the hostility with Origen who is like the 'little Buddha' of Alexandria - i.e. a natural successor to the Episcopal throne who was pushed aside owing to the decree of an Emperor (like Arius a century later). 'Demetius' is identified as taking the Alexandrian Episcopal throne during the reign of Commodus in 189 CE. It was in this age that Irenaeus began railing against the Alexandrian 'heretical' groups and arguing that the 'true Church' was to be found at Rome as a result of a 'second Exodus' from Egypt (AH iv.30.1) One of the reasons for the Church’s favored position had to with Commodus’ choice in ladies Marcia Cedonia Demetrias, Commodus’ favorite concubine and beloved confident (Cass. Dio, 73.4). She was a Christian (Philosophumena, IX, 12) who can be connected with the circle of Irenaeus. ‘St. Demetrius’ the man who oversaw the persecution throughout Egypt may well have been related to her. Marcia was raised by a certain Hyacinthus, a eunuch presbyter who became the main liaison between the Emperor and the emerging Church. Her influence can be seen in the story that emerges of her ‘rescuing’ one of the future Popes from persecution. One day Marcia summoned Pope Victor to the imperial palace and asked for a list of the Roman Christians who had been condemned to forced labour in the mines of Sardinia, so that she might obtain their freedom. The pope handed her the list and Marcia, having received from the emperor the required pardon, sent the presbyter Hyacinthus to Sardinia with an order of release for the Christian confessors. Callistus, who had been among those deported, eventually sat in the Episcopal throne of St. Peter. Irenaeus (AH, IV, 30, 1) points out that Christians were employed at this period as officials of the imperial Court. Among these officials was the imperial freedman Prosenes, whose gravestone and epitaph have been preserved (De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christ. Urbis Romae, I, 9, no. 5). Septimius Severus, also, during the early years of his reign, regarded the Christians kindly, so that the influence of Christian officials continued. The emperor retained in his palace a Christian named Proculus who had once cured him. He protected Christian men and women of rank against the excesses of the heathen rabble, and his son Caracalla had a Christian wet nurse (Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, IV). Christianity made great advances in the capital and also found adherents among the families who were distinguished for wealth and noble descent (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxi). So it has to be recognized that the story of Christian persecutions in the period is very much a tale of two traditions. If you held fast to the tradition encouraged by the Roman cabal of Irenaeus, Marcia and Commodus you might view the period as a ‘golden age.’ At the center of this faith was a fourfold gospel. One can argue that continuing to maintain the original single, long gospel associated with the followers of Mark was taken to be a sign of being an ‘unrepentant heretic.’ If you were classified as belonging to this group you would likely see the age of the later Antonine Emperors as nothing short of hell on earth. But getting back to 'Demetrius' I can't help but feel that there is some significance in the fact that - given that Commodus was very involved in the newly established Catholic Church of Irenaeus of Rome through his concubine Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetria(s?)- this woman's cognomen seems to have been 'Demetrius' i.e. she came from a family named of this name. At the very same time we have papyri which indicate that at the very time 'St. Demetrius' was established as bishop of Alexandria (i.e. 189) Commodus established a certain Q Tineius Demetrius - i.e. a man who would have undoubtedly been identified simply as 'Demetrius' in the age - as his prefect in Egypt. In other words the man who governed Egypt AND ITS CHURCH ON BEHALF OF CAESAR shared the name of the bishop who persecuted Clement and Origen, reorganized the Church structure AND shared the same family name as Commodus' CHRISTIAN concubine (she became a Christian as she grew up). I also suspect that the 'little Marcia' (i.e. Marcellina) the Alexandrian (viz. 'Carpocratian) who is mentioned in Hippolytus as coming to Rome at the time of Antoninus was one and the same with our Marcia. Your reference is EXTREMELY significant as it provides a context for understanding the story in Severus al'Ashmunein PERFECTLY. In the same way that Demetrius slandered Origen because he was a eunuch, there must have been a parallel hostile effort to discredit Demetrius from those aligned with the traditional Alexandrian church. They were saying - as the text in the History of the Coptic Church indicates - that Demetrius was invalidated as a true Patriarch of Alexandria because he was married. An apologist for Demetrius - knowing full well that he wasn't a eunuch - nevertheless took the pro-Origenist propaganda as a parallel to the slight against the prophet Daniel which leads to his demonstration of virtue by means of fire. In other words, the story in Severus demonstrates that eunuchs were extolled BECAUSE OF DANIEL in Alexandria rather than proving that Demetrius was actually a eunuch. The source pretends that Demetrius was castrated and proves it by having him behave like Daniel. BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IT SHOWS THAT DANIEL WAS USED BY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANS TO JUSTIFY 'THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICE' - or perhaps better - their traditional attachment to ritual castration.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.