Chili

Self-mutilation is a typical thing that wannebe's would do to gain a sense of belonging. What they fail to understand is that "essence precedes existence," again, and here also in that our mind is in charge of our body and not our balls . . . the Idealist would say, which now becomes a confession that they are just wannebe's and stupid on top of that.

In Catholicism it is a natural consequence of MENO-pauze that takes place in the human mind (not in his balls) wherein the veil is rent between the left and right brain to make eternity a reality wherein we so 'remain' (MENO = I remain). With the opposites missing between the left and rigth brain (Gen. 3:15) wherein we are 'human and woman' respectively, it is obvious that the physical attraction will end in this now called 'marriage of true minds' wherein she will be crowned queen of heaven and earth to never be violated again (if only on account of at-one-ment that was foreshadowed already with the passified ox and mule present only to provide body-heat when Christ was born onto us that here now is annihilated).

It is actually a necessary condition for the Perpetual virginity of Mary not to be confused with the Immaculate Conception.

arnoldo

Wiki has the following snippet of Tertullian which you cited

From this brief reading it's not clear if Jesus/Paul were actual physical eunuchs or just lived as such. This distinction is importance since if Jesus was a physical eunuch this would make him blemished; thereby not eligible as a sacrificial atonement for sins according to Leviticus 22:24.

If Tertullian was in fact advocating physical castration, rather than an ascetic lifestyle, then his refutation of Marcion's alleged stance towards castration would be puzzling.

stephan huller

Everyone

I recognize that there are many ways to examine this fascinating paradigm. I tend to focus only on the underlying logic of the early Christians. How did they justify this or that as a legal argument.

Mother always said I should have been a lawyer.

Anyway a couple of things stand out:

1 Daniel was a eunuch
2 Daniel was regarded as something special within the Jewish prophetic tradition (ie only he knew the secrets of the end of Judaism, the coming of the messiah etc)
3 Christians seemed to connect 1 and 2 ie Daniel was special and had a higher degree of knowledge because he was castrated

I even think that the way Jews place the book of Daniel outside of the prophetic writings might be connected to an older tradition that Daniel was special.

Remember, the orthodox understanding in Judaism since the destruction of the temple that sacrifices are dead and gone never to come back held by all rabbinic authorities comes exclusively from Daniel chapter 9. Christianity develops the same argument. In a very real sense the authority of Daniel trumps the authority of Moses.

This is a messianic formulation. Think about it. It continues to this day insofar as the Jews say that where the Torah and the Gemara disagree, the Talmud trumps the authority of Moses.

They never teach you that in Judaism 101.

This led to the establishment of the Karaite sect.

The point is that the Marcionites are not as radical as they are portrayed in the Church Fathers. Their interest in Daniel might be paralleled by Origen's formulation (Daniel represented a higher form of prophesy because he was a eunuch). It might also mean that when they put the Law and the prophets on a level subordinate to their revelation (the Evangelium) it has something to do with their interest in Daniel).

After all, the gospel is built around the revelation of the eunuch Jesus and his solution to the mystery of Daniel 9:24 - 27 in the coming destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

Want to be like Jesus? Want to have the superior gift of Daniel? Snip, snip, dunk.

bacht

I won't disagree with your view of these behaviours, but the challenge is to get into the minds of these ancient people. Heightening spiritual awareness by abusing the flesh is an old idea, for instance in primitive initiation rituals (we still see piercing and tattoos). Fasting can lead to trances. Voluntary castration isn't much more outrageous than other suggestions like organized drug-taking.

If we're talking about marginal Jews living in a volatile society then they may have felt they had no option except extreme behaviour. The Qumran dissenters chose monastic isolation, the Zealots chose violence.

The NT editors have given us a distorted picture of Christian origins. Catholicism is a mainstream set of teachings, just as rabbinic Judaism sought to minimize extremism. As Stephan suggested, the first followers of the Way might have been absolute nutcases.

I'm a bit surprised at your bourgeois take on this issue. Surely every religious tradition has its spiritual 'heroes', misunderstood and barely tolerated by the rank and file. Many Catholic saints went through various ordeals voluntarily. A Moses or Elijah or John the Baptist might be impossible to live with, but these are the kinds of people that religions cluster around.

stephan huller

And bacht

Your formulation at the end here about Elijah and John is anticipated in terms of the eunuch ideal in Tertullian's Monogamia. Both are eunuchs, the one the forerunner of the other. I should put up the English translation of chapters 7 and 8

charles

arnoldo,



I think Stephen's point is that all of these traditions he cites are reflections of a 'cockless ideal' in Christianity. The Leviticus argument is Jewish. Christians as I remember were priests after the line of Melchizedek who was an angel and presumably 'cockless'

bacht

Thanks Stephan. This concept has had a lot of resonance in the Christian tradition, not literal castration but social isolation, like the hermits or missionaries, not to mention the celibate clergy. I like your suggestion that this was originally a physical marker, maybe a twisted interpretation of circumcision?

stephan huller

bacht,

Tertullian identifies both Elijah and John as spadones:

while, in the revelation of His own glory, He prefers, from among so many saints and prophets, to have with him Moses and Elias ----the one a monogamist, the other a eunuch [prophetis Moysen et Heliam secum mavult, alterum monogamum, alterum spadonem] [de Monogamia 9]

The same argument is made in Ephrem regarding John.

I think you are on the right track with the idea of a new form of circumcision (remember the Christian interest in 'spiritual circumcision' or 'circumcision of the heart'). I can't believe that previous studies of Origen just looked on the surface of his writings. I think you're right about the bourgeois attitude of people generally. Everyone seems to forget that there was good reason Origen hid his state. There was a thing called 'an Imperial edict' forbidding the castration of others. As such Christians clearly claimed that they did it themselves but even then I think there was a later prohibition on this. I will have to check.

Anyway here is Origen's 'disguised' reference to castration in his discussion of 'spiritual circumcision' (at least as I read it). Others are free to disagree with my interpretation. First the connection with Secret Mark from Colossians

In Christ you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands in the stripping off of the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism [baptismê], in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in your trespasses and uncircumcision of your flesh,God made you alive with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. (Col. 2:11-13)

I connect this with Origen's interpretation of 'spiritual castration' ('spiritual' because God it was done not with hands but through some strange 'drug' or chemical? - see Epiphanius's recounting of various strange stories associated with Origen's deed). Anyway the frequent references to a 'baptism of the dead' only suit LGM 1. There is nothing in the traditional John baptizing Jesus narrative (unknown to the Marcionite gospel) that would suggest to the Apostle this was a 'baptism of the dead.'

I connect this instead (sorry Jiri) with the narrative of a dead youth (the 'him' in Colossians raised from the dead before baptism):

And after six days Jesus gave charge to him; and when it was evening the (dead) youth comes to him donning a linen sheet upon his naked body, and he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God.[to Theodore III.7 - 10]

This then is also the 'spiritual circumcision' making a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God/heaven which Origen writes about in one of lectures.

All that we have do is identify the neaniskos of LGM 1 as 'little John' and connect that act as the 'sign of Jonah' (Matt 16:1 - 4). I have always felt that Smith was onto something when he argued that Secret Mark knew the Aramaic original to the gospel. The word siman as Jastrow's Jewish Aramaic Dictionary notes took on a meaning like 'the mark' or 'sign of the removal of organs' especially with regards to slaughtered animals.

I have supposed that the 'sign of John' (Yonah is a diminutive form of 'John') must have meant something like - John's ritual castration before baptism. This is the siman which came from heaven which made a man perfect and which was the actual context of LGM 1.

The way we start to prove such an assertion is by looking at Origen's understanding of the 'sign of Jonah' story in his Commentary on Matthew. He begins by noting that:

and when tempting Him, they [the Jews] ask Jesus about a heavenly sign, let him know that we plausibly say that they were drawn away to the end that they might not believe in the miracles of Jesus; but not as to deserve forgiveness; for they did not look to the words of the prophets which were being fulfilled in the acts of Jesus, which an evil power was not at all capable of imitating. But to bring back a soul which had gone out, so that it came out of the grave when already stinking and passing the fourth day, [John 11:39] was the work of no other than Him who heard the word of the Father, Let us make man after our image and likeness. [Genesis 1:26]

To me it seems very intriguing that Origen should connect the 'sign of Johnny' with the raising of Lazarus and - as we shall see - the idea of a death baptism. Indeed in what immediately follows, Origen furthermore explicitly connects the 'sign of Johnny' with a superior form of circumcision which is the completion - even the perfection - of what was originally introduced by Moses:

Next let us remark in what way, when asked in regard to one sign, that He might show it from heaven, to the Pharisees and Sadducees who put the question, He answers and says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet, ” when also, “He left them and departed.” But the sign of Jonah, in truth, according to their question, was not merely a sign but also a sign from heaven; so that even to those who tempted Him and sought a sign from heaven He, nevertheless, out of His own great goodness gave the sign ... And the Saviour seems to me to conjoin the sign which was to come from Himself with the reason of the sign in regard to Jonah when He says, not merely that a sign like to that is granted by Him but that very sign; for attend to the words, “And there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.” Accordingly that sign was this sign, because that became indicative of this, so that the elucidation of that sign, which was obscure on the face of it, might be found in the fact that the Saviour suffered, and passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. At the same time also we learn the general principle that, if the sign signifies something, each of the signs which are recorded, whether as in actual history, or by way of precept, is indicative of something afterwards fulfilled ... and that which is called circumcision is the sign of that which is indicated by Paul in the words: “We are the circumcision.” Seek you also every sign in the Old Scriptures as indicative of some passage in the New Scripture, and that which is named a sign in the New Covenant as indicative of something either in the age about to be, or even in the subsequent generations after that the sign has taken place. [Origen Comm. Matt. XII.3]

It should be remembered that Marcus Julius Agrippa is remembered in rabbinic literature for stressing that circumcision was not one of the ten commandments and therefore was not a heavenly commandment.

For those of my Gentile readers who can't understand why Origen would connect 'siman' with circumcision, let me give them a little history.

The following is a literal translation of the liturgy that is recited in Hebrew at a traditional bris. Any portion may be translated into English for your guests during the ceremony. We provide the translation to allow you to better understand the ceremony and to give you the option of choosing a section to be recited in English for your guests.

1. The infant is brought into the room by the Kvater, and all in attendance welcome him by saying: "Baruch HaBa!" - "Blessed is the newcomer!"

2. The baby is then placed on Kisay shel Eliyahu - The Seat of Elijah, and the mohel recites his prayer: "This is the seat of Elijah the Prophet, who is remembered for the good. I have longed for Your salvation, O God. I have hoped for Your salvation, O God, and I have performed Your commandments. Elijah, angel of the bris: What is yours is before you; stand to my right and support me! I have hoped for Your salvation, O God. I rejoice over Your statements as a person who finds a great treasure. May there be abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and may there not be any obstacle before them. Fortunate is one whom You choose and bring close; such a person will dwell in Your courtyards..." Everyone responds: "We will be sated by the goodness of Your abode, the holiness of Your sanctuary."

3. The father turns to Mohel and states: "I am hereby prepared to fulfill the positive commandment that the blessed Creator has commanded me, to circumcise my son. I hereby appoint you, the Mohel, to be my proxy to fulfill this commandment."

4. The Mohel recites: "The Holy One, Blessed is He, said to Abraham our patriarch: 'Walk before me and be complete.' I am hereby prepared to fulfill the positive commandment that blessed Creator has commanded me to fulfill, that of circumcision. Blessed are You, God our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and has commanded us regarding circumcision."

5. As the Mohel circumcises, the father recites: "Blessed are You, God our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and has commanded us bring this child into the covenant of Abraham our patriarch."

6. All in attendance recite loudly, "Amen! Just as he has been inaugurated into the bris, so may he be inaugurated into Torah, the wedding canopy and good deeds!"

7. After the mohel finishes the procedure, the baby is diapered and wrapped, and is then held by one of the honored guests. Another guest takes the cup of wine, and recites the following blessing: "Blessed are you God, our Lord, King of the universe, who creates the fruit of the vine. Blessed are you God, our, King of the universe, who sanctified the loved one [Abraham] from the womb. He placed a mark in his flesh, and made a seal on his descendants with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, in this merit, Living God, our Rock, give charge to save the beloved soul within our flesh from destruction, for the sake of the His covenant that He placed in our flesh. Blessed are You, God, who contracts the covenant."

8. The baby is then passed to another guest, and another guest recites the naming of the baby: "Our Lord, and Lord of our ancestors: Establish this child for his father and mother, and may his name be called in Israel ___________ the son of _______________. May the father be happy with the issue of his loins, and may his mother rejoice in the fruit of her womb. As it says (Proverbs 23:25): 'May your father and mother be happy, and may those who gave birth to you rejoice.' And it says (Ezekiel 16:6): 'I passed over you and I saw you wallowing in your blood; I said to you, "By your blood shall you live!" I said to you, "By your blood shall you live!"' And it says (Psalms 105:8-10): 'He eternally remembers His covenant, the matter which He commanded to a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, and the oath He made with Isaac. He established it as a statute for Jacob, for Israel an eternal covenant.' And it says (Genesis 21:4): 'Abraham circumcised his son, Isaac, at the age of eight days, just as the Lord had commanded him.' Give thanks to God, for He is good, for His goodness endures forever! Give thanks to God, for He is good, for His goodness endures forever! ______________ the son of ______________: May this young child become a great adult! Just as he has been inaugurated into the bris, so may he be inaugurated into Torah, the wedding canopy and good deeds!"

9. The attendees answer, "Amen." At this point, the mohel will bless the child and will say sometimes say some additional prayers. The ceremony ends in joyous singing, usually with the song, "Siman tov umazal tov."

Absolutely every phrase and concept that we have run across in the gnostic writings - the 'bridal chamber,' the gnostic throne, you name it - comes from an early Christian adaptation of the ancient rites associated with being established in the community of Israel. The same song is sung at traditional Jewish weddings.

There is a great deal written about the mystical significance of the 'siman tov' but the regular reader of this blog should realize what must have originally went on in Alexandria.

The Markan ritual demanded the true circumcision that transformed Jacob into Israel - i.e. castration. Just look at the narrative:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him. And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh.' And he said: 'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.' And he said unto him: 'What is thy name?' And he said: 'Jacob.' And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.' And Jacob asked him, and said: 'Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.' And he said: 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.' And the sun rose upon him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh. Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh-vein. [Gen 32:25 - 33]

I have noted a number of times in this blog that the Marcionite title for Jesus - viz. 'Chrestos' - actually derives from the name 'Israel.' Jewish tradition has always maintained that the angel here gave his name to Jacob. The angel wrenched the "hip" or "thigh" (Hebrew kaf-yerech, Gen 32:26) that was the symbolic source of his fertility. When the same word reappears in Gen 46:26 - "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were three score and six" - clearly underscore that the word here means 'sexual organ' or the part of the body which is responsible for fertility.

Again I want to stress the Markan tradition must have originally stressed that the true circumcision - not the poor imitation which was given to the Israelites after they had worshiped the Golden Calf - was castration. This is why Jesus came from heaven as a eunuch. This is why Mark 'mutilated his finger' and so all those of the Alexandrian tradition and most notably Origen and attributed also later to the contemporary Pope of his age, Demetrius I.

Indeed if we turn to the next chapter in Origen's Commentary we can see the clear context of LGM 1 lurking in the background. Origen goes from (a) talking about Jesus raising of Lazarus to (b) spiritual circumcision and then finally to (c) Paul's interest in baptism as not only developing from a 'death state' but specifically death 'to the Law' as we read in what immediately follows:

and He called them, indeed, an evil generation, because of the quality arising from evil which had been produced in them, for wickedness is voluntary evil-doing, but adulterous because that when the Pharisees and Sadducees left that which is figuratively called man, the word of truth or the law, they were debauched by falsehood and the law of sin. For if there are two laws, the law in our members warring against the law of the mind, and the law of the mind, [Romans 7:23] we must say that the law of the mind — that is, the spiritual — is man, to whom the soul was given by God as wife, that is, to the man who is law, according to what is written, A wife is married to a man by God; [Proverbs 19:14] but the other is a paramour of the soul which is subject to it, which also on account of it is called an adulteress. Now that the law is husband of the soul Paul clearly exhibits in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, The law has dominion over a man for so long time as he lives; for the woman that has a husband is bound to the husband while he lives, to the husband who is law, etc. For consider in these things that the law has dominion over the man so long time as the law lives—as a husband over a wife. For the woman that has a husband, that is, the soul under the law, is bound to the husband while he lives, to the husband who is the law; but if the husband— that is, the law die— she is discharged from the law, which is her husband. Now the law dies to him who has gone up to the condition of blessedness, and no longer lives under the law, but acts like to Christ, who, though He became under law for the sake of those under law, that He might gain those under law, [1 Corinthians 9:10] did not continue under law, nor did He leave subject to law those who had been freed by Him; for He led them up along with Himself to the divine citizenship which is above the law, which contains, as for the imperfect and such as are still sinners, sacrifices for the remission of sins. He then who is without sin, and stands no longer in need of legal sacrifices, perhaps when he has become perfect has passed beyond even the spiritual law, and comes to the Word beyond it, who became flesh to those who live in the flesh, but to those who no longer at all war after the flesh, He is perceived as being the Word, as He was God in the beginning with God, and reveals the Father. Three things therefore are to be thought of in connection with this place— the woman that has a husband, who is under a husband— the law; and the woman who is an adulteress, to-wit, the soul, which, while her husband, the law, lives, has become joined to another husband, namely, the law of the flesh; and the woman who is married to the brother of the dead husband, to the Word who is alive and dies not, who being raised from the dead dies no more, for death has no more dominion over Him. [Romans 6:9] So far then because of the saying, But if the husband die she is discharged from the law, the husband, and because of this, so then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be joined to another man, and because of this, but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress though she be joined to another man. [Romans 7:2-3][ibid Comm Matt 12:4]

Is it just me or is it obvious that Origen is identifying the siman of Johnny with a new circumcision from a state of death which frees one from the Law? Is it just me or does Origen sounds absolutely like a Marcionite?

maryhelena

Perhaps I'm more interested in getting behind the nutcases - and wanting to uphold the idea that intellectual insights are more likely to come from intellectuals than from nutcases. Why should one buy into the idea that spiritual ideas come from nutcases but, for instances, philosophical ideas come from intellectuals. Theology, after all, is simply a handmaiden of philosophy. Nutcases are more likely to run with some interpretation of an existing 'truth' than become the creators of something new.

Clivedurdle

On moderate attitudes, how is it that the above description of child abuse is acceptable and many churches have human bodies on crosses outside and in them??