Clivedurdle

Comment in the Essene thread about Jewish and Greek attitudes got me thinking.

There may be something to test out here, and similar anathemas.

There is an assumption that xianity is a Jewish sect.

Is it?

Might it be a cuckoo?

What precisely is the DNA lineage, and are attitudes to celibacy very important clues?

maryhelena

Yes, and that assumption re "xianity is a Jewish sect" - is very similar to those gospel glasses that some people are using to interpret Paul. So, we have gospel glasses - and we have Jewish glasses. It's an assumption that runs so deep that it clouds all historical NT research.

Regarding Philo's Essenes. If these Essenes are philosophical and not historical - as Rachel Elior says - no way for a Jewish celibate group to exist in the land of Israel and not go unnoticed - because Jews are supposed to marry and produce children.

So, what could Philo be about when he is putting a non-Jewish idea within a Jewish context? Philo died around 50 ce (if my memory is working...) Perhaps, prior to his death, Philo did observe something unusual in Palestine and Syria - no not a celibate movement - but an un-Jewish movement that was of interest to him - and possibly other Jews interested in OT prophecy etc.

What we have with the gospels is a prophetic interpretation re a messiah/christ/annointed figure; a wholly Jewish idea. But the identity of that figure would not necessarily be Jewish - as in Cyrus and Josephus with Vespasian. Therefore, what we have is a mixture - history, not just Jewish history in and off itself, but history in a wider context. A history that has been interpreted with OT prophetic glasses. The history comes first, then the Jewish prophetic glasses. Thus, a non-Jewish and a Jewish element to early christianity.

The cuckoo in the nest? A take over - indeed! The gospel storyline is that takeover. A non-Jewish historical figure is the inspiration, the motivation, to create a wholly Jewish gospel, prophetic, storyline.

And Marcoin - not interested in an assumed Jewish genealogy for his Jesus. The Jewish Jesus storyline won out - a tradition, a heritage, having it's own value for a long term future. And of course, and most importantly, no human has any 'salvation' potential - no Jewish interest in going in that direction. Spirituality was the way to move forward - the 'mother' that provided the nest with food and shelter - had to be given short shift once the cuckoo baby could fly....

stephan huller

There certainly was a theological rationale for earliest Christian monasticism from the Jewish writings. It just isn't available to us now. As it stands all of it seems to appear as a 'new revelation,' suddenly and without explanation. Yet religions don’t behave this way. Even the most radical changes or innovations have to develop from the nature of the religion if they are to last.

Let's go back to the Syriac terminology related to Christian celibacy and castration rituals.

“Faithful” is a common way of referring to Moses in Samaritan usage, attested as far back as the records go. Note the words in John “My teaching is true”, or “his witness is true” in John. The word in Hebrew would be ne’eman. This is the same root as in Amen.

Mehayman in Syriac does NOT mean a eunuch in normal usage. This meaning in the SHORTER Payne-Smith is due to bad editing. Remember that the shorter dictionary is condensed directly from the enormous Thesaurus Syriacus. Meanings only applicable in a specific context and which are only connotations anyway are listed in the shorter version as standard meanings, quite unthinkingly. Also, some GUESSES in regard SINGLE BIBLICAL VERSES are listed as if they were certain and normal. As a general rule, ALWAYS DISTRUST THE LAST MEANING IN A LIST OF MEANINGS, unless a supporting example is quoted; and even then, be suspicious if the example is from ONE Biblical verse.

Mehayman translates the Hebrew ne’eman (NUN-ALEF-MEM-NUN), a standard epithet of Moses, “Faithful in all my house” (Numbers XII, first part). Note that Moses is called “my servant”, a technical term. I suggest a misunderstanding of an initiatory term in regard to BOTH words.

Consider also the old Rabbinic tradition that Moses didn’t need sex after the revelation at the Burning Bush or after the revelation at Sinai. The tradition is in the Tannaitic midrashim in the oldest layers, but as far as I know, is not mentioned later on. The argument is that the Shechinah was enough. There is, however, another approach. As the High Priest had to be ritually clean on the Day of Atonement when officiating in the Holy of Holies, and as Moses when in the Tent of Meeting was officiating in the Heavenly Tabernacle, Moses had to be ritually clean at all times. You know that the reason for the celibacy of some Essenes and some of the Qumran sect (I decline to decide whether they are the same) was to be ritually clean at all times. The narrow meaning of the term “kadosh” (holy) in Mishnaic Hebrew when applied to a Priest or a Priest’s wife is being for the moment completely ritually clean and thus able to eat the meat of the Priest’s portion of the sacrifices, which itself is “kadosh”. When applied to a permanent state, as when someone is termed “so and so the kadosh”, the term means being perpetually in this state and presumably celibate. The editor of the Mishnah was called “Rabbenu ha-Kadosh” our teacher or master the holy”. “Rabbenu Mosheh” is the normal way of referring to Moses. The question now is, are those that make themselves eunuchs or abstaining from sex simply those that are perpetually kadosh? If so, are the defences to literal cocklessness a misunderstanding of initiatory terms, with Moses as the initiate’s model? Such misunderstanding would have been easy at the time, with so many very strange approaches to sex or the absence of it in the environment. The misunderstanding could have become institutionalised and then projected onto earlier historical figures.

There is also Jacob's wrestling with the angel and subsequent inferences that he was left emasculated. But that's a whole other kettle of fish ...

avi

Thanks Clive, for an interesting thread.

In my opinion, there can be no DNA evidence introduced, based upon current populations. One would need to compare DNA from skeletons whose undisturbed remains had been monitored for a couple of millenia, to answer your question.

As Sheshbazaar pointed out to us, more than a year ago, there were many sects running about, in the second and third centuries of the common era. It is quite difficult today, to point to a population, and say: Those are the descendants of group xyz, while these folks over here, are the descendants of group abc.

Too many wars, too many massacres, too many enslavements, too much genetic interchange 2ry to rape, during the past two thousand years.

Thanks for this comment. My glasses are rather cloudy with a permanent fog, not unlike the late Al Capp's cartoon character Joe Blfstk, a guy who walked around with a raincloud over him at all times. Through my very strongly opaque glasses, christianity is not a jewish movement at all. yes, some features of Judaism were absorbed, but, isn't that also the case for judaism taking up some aspects of zoroastrianism, during the confinement in Baghdad, circa 500 bce? Or, am I confused about that?

I simply cannot imagine a jewish rabbi eating and drinking merrily along with non-jews==> eating non-kosher food, with "unclean" people, and women who were menstruating, and men whose genitalia had not been properly "doctored"...

christianity is a purely greek fairy tale, in my view. The references to the old testament are salt and pepper, but the main ingredient is flesh, for those christians were certainly carnivores.

Look at Islam, if one wishes to see a genuine jewish outfit, a revisionist outfit to be sure, but an overwhelmingly jewish outfit nonetheless, with all the same cockamamie protocols, gender segregation commands, childhood indoctrination rituals, and all the rest of the jewish crap, including the fuddy duddy cap, and praying a certain way, and visiting certain shrines, and not eating or eating in ritualistic fashion, instead of in accord with human physiology....

disgusting. homo neanderthal DNA has been identified in homo sapiens...I have a pretty good idea in which populations we can find a rich abundance of it.

avi

maryhelena

Islam is an interesting case. I often think of Islam and Christianity being the 'body' and 'spirit' of Israel/Judaism - taken to extremes as reflections of basic Jewish history and spirituality. Two offshoots from the parent root.

The pre-christian, pre-Paul movement/communities - that's a different issue! What does seem certain is that christianity has utilized the dying and rising god mythology - an un-Jewish idea, an un-monotheistic idea. The gospel Jesus was crucified for blasphemy - not for claiming to be a messianic pretender. The ideas of the gospel Jesus were contrary to Jewish thought. So, to take that idea a step further.....the mix that eventually became Christianity contained ideas that would be unacceptable to Jewish sensibilities. Paul says that he was the one 'persecuting' the early 'church. There was something there that, as a Jew, Paul was finding trouble accepting. (not necessarily, or simply, the dying and god mythology - as he did use this idea re his crucifixion/resurrection storyline - most likely it would be something he did not use in his own spiritual context). Eventually, he does see the 'light' - but not without re-casting the earlier 'church' into a wholly Jewish mold - a wholly Jewish spiritual mold. Not the usual Jewish mold of 'body' and 'spirit' - history and prophetic interpretation. Paul puts the history of the pre-Paul movement on the back burner and concentrates entirely on his spiritualization. (and history left it to Islam to be the counterpart - the rigid moralizing 'body'....)

So, to get back to Philo's Essenes and celibacy - all Philo is saying is that there was a particular, a specific, non-Jewish philosophical/spiritual understanding within certain communities in the land of Palestine and Syria prior
to his death in 50 ce. Philo's Essenes are philosophical not historical - there being no Jewish historical record of such people as Philo's celibate Essenes. (Josephus later used Philo's philosophical concept for his own prophetic musings....).

show_no_mercy

If you read Paul, he makes a certain assertion that "the Lord" says that people should get married and stay married. He then counters this with his own ideas that people should be like he is and never get married. As I see it, there's this assumption that Paul was a zealous Jew and try to fit his ideas into Judaism. I don't think that Paul was a Jew. I think the Ebionites -- the poor -- knew the true story about Paul. At least, some part of it.

They say that he was a Greek who converted to Judaism later in life and then regretted his new religion -- especially his circumcision -- and tried to go back to his Greek roots. Paul himself claims to have been a Pharisee (Phillipians 3:5-6) but as I understand it, Pharisees were highly dedicated to the spirit of the Law. Moreso, they studied the Torah in Hebrew. Paul shows know knowledge of Hebrew.

As a matter of fact, Paul betrays that he doesn't know Hebrew in Romans 10:9-13:

9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."(Isaiah 28:16)

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel 2:32)[

Paul here implies that the "name of the lord" that does the saving is "Jesus", using Joel 2:32 as his textual proof. However, Joel 2:32 does not have the word "lord" in it! It actually -- in Hebrew -- has the name of the god of the Jews: YHWH. It says "Everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved".

However, in the LXX the name of god is substituted with the Greek word for "lord". In other words, Paul's argument only makes sense if Joel 2:32 has the word "lord". It doesn't make sense if it actually has a name there instead of a title. Paul repeatedly does this, thinking that the unnamed "Lord" in the LXX is Jesus. But it's not an unnamed "lord": it's YHWH.

This makes me think that Paul not only lied about being a Pharisee, but lied about being originally Jewish. This, and the Ebionite claim that Paul was originally a Greek, makes sense of his disdain for Jewish law -- especially the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Paul's aceticism -- and his religion Christianity -- is a result of his pagan Greek upbringing.

Solo

You bet ! The most important correlate would be between celibacy and ecstatic experiences. There is a belief world over, in most cultures, that severe asceticism and self-denial (which includes the denial of one's sexuality) procures the mystical mind states associated with spiritual liberation, whether they are called 'nirvana' or 'unio mystica' or 'clear light of reality'. In India, the spirit-mongering, or pining for far-out spiritual trips, produced wide-spread lore about loss of spiritual prowess in males through loss of seminal fluid. But the situation with women is analogous: a desire to be free from males who rob them of their purity translates into sex segregation and demands for female celibacy in the Indian goddess (devi) worship.

Much as these ideas appear baseless, they may have a grain of insight in them ! At minimum, they attest to the universal link between dissatisfaction with life "as-is" and a desire for transcendence, or redemption from what is felt to be the thwarting of some essential life purpose. But there may be more to it than that: psychologically, the self-denial rigours exaggerate the state of want, and to an extent fuel the expectations of compensating "fullness". In this situation, it seems, the organism of some individuals does respond to the "stress" of physical want by producing the chemistry of the ecstatic experience.

Interestingly, there has always been a counterpart to to the sexless heaven of some mystics - the orgiastic heaven of other mystics. The Qu'ran heaven would be an example of a sex phantasy world (no doubt reflective of Muhammad's own sex appetite), and the Vedic texts are also known to have taken sensuality very seriously. Many of the gnostic and medieval challenges to the Christian Orthodoxy were orgiastic cults : e.g. the Carpocratians, Basilides, the Waldensians, and the Anabaptists.

In most situation, celibacy imposed on the cult followers and believers was not permanent but related to demands for spiritual purity in special circumstances. No doubt that this damming of sexual energy often had explosive effects, and compensation was sought not in the spiritual heights but in the realm of the senses.

Jiri

Clivedurdle

Another possibility....

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JesusJehovah.htm

Clivedurdle

But back to my op - sex!

My understanding is that Judaism has always been - how can one put this politely - quite open about these matters except there are some fascinating tweaks like ritual baths.

Most other people have as well, except various aesthetes but even that has clear counter examples - tantra and yoga and hinduism generally.

Is celibacy really - if not an invention of xianity, its main defining feature?

(And is the missionary position directly related? If sex does happen it must be strictly defined, much to the amusement of the rest of the planet!)

show_no_mercy

They don't realize that the Jews almost went to war with the Roman empire c. 40 CE because they refused to worship a human being who thought of himself as a god.

Thinking that YHWH himself would assume flesh is the most anti-Jewish thing about Christianity. Only more evidence that Christianity has very superficial ties to Judaism.