stephan huller

I suppose to know Jewish history. You suppose to say 'this shows everything is false.' You make simple, I make complicated. Simple good, complex bad.

But I say gospel pretend to be from period BEFORE destruction. No breast cutting, no castration before. AFTER who knows. I think so.

You right. Removal of a woman's breast do not make the woman barren but celibate monks in Russia did it. Maybe goes back to earlier before before 12th century.

Sorry make convolution. Simple better. Everything false. You right.

bacht

I think most us have reached this conclusion. The arguments are about what sort of freaks we should be looking for behind the surviving texts.

charles

Just to get things here back to normal for a moment. I do think think, like clivedurdle, that the evidence seems to suggest something in the early period which has been covered up by later standards of orthodoxy. It would be interesting to follow aa5873's suggestion of looking at Jewish material to see if there is any evidence of similar castration rituals among the Jews of the period. I am not knowledgeable enough to pursue that but it might prove useful.

stephan huller

bacht,

But I guess the question is 'were the kooks easily discernable?' Was there a 'mark of Christ' which they bore on their bodies which made 'being Christian' easily discernible both for believers (and for the authorities which made persecuting Christians much easier)?

Look back at the story of Flavius Clemens (1st century) - how did they know he went over the cause of the Jews? They simply lifted up his robes.

IMO there is too much of an emphasis placed on texts. Look in our own age. When email first came out tainted companies and politicians were sending back and forth information that ultimately caused them problems. Now there is a conscious effort to avoid emailing embarrassing information.

The bottom line is that we aren't going to find a paper trail accompanying 'confessions' of castration and homosexuality and other behavior that in certain ages was deemed unacceptable.

You have to apply IMAGINATION and a familiarity with customs and interpretations in order to get beneath textual tradition and at the 'real ground' of Christian behavior.

It certainly is subjective in one sense - but the evidence for an acceptance of an ideal cockless state in the early period is so overwhelming it makes up for a lot of silence in Alexandria.

I would even go so far as to say that the ideal IS THE TRUE ESSENCE of Christianity.

Now, for those in this forum who have a discernible agenda to say that there was no such a thing as Christianity in any 'early period,' that it was all 'false' OR those who have their own ideas about 'Christian gnostics' as a kind of forerunner to the Theosophical Society in London - well - the discovery is the death knell of those erroneous beliefs.

I even think that the earliest Christians could be seen walking around in feminine attire. There is evidence to suggest 'cross dressing' among some Christian eunuchs.

bacht

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.

bacht

It seems a reasonable explanation to me, though the avoidance of normal sexuality is consistent with radical eschatology as well.

This problem has been discussed here before, the reliance on texts. It's all a bit like Jesus' words in the sand isn't it?

charles

There are some possible Jewish references to ritual castration which I just found on line at www.comeandhear.com. This one stood out:

And of thy sons which shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away: and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon.(II Kings XX, 18; Isa, XLIX, 7) What is meant by 'eunuchs'? — Rab said: Literally eunuchs. R. Hanina said: In their days the idols were sterilized.(i.e., their impotency was demonstrated) Now, according to the opinion that the idols were sterilized in their days, it is well to state, And there is no hurt in them.(Dan. III, 25; v. next note.) But on the view that 'eunuchs' is literally meant, what is meant by, And there is no hurt in them?(since castration itself, which eunuchs underwent, is a hurt) — No hurt of fire. But is it not written, nor the smell of fire had passed on them?(Ibid. 27, which renders the former verse on this interpretation superfluous). They were neither hurt [by the fire] nor even smelled thereof. Now according to the opinion that the idols were sterilized in their days, it is well to write, For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths.(Isa. LVI, 4) But on the view that 'eunuchs' is literally meant, would Scripture recount the shame of the righteous? — There were both among them(Among those who were exiled to Babylon, some were actually castrated for eunuchs, and others lived to see the 'sterilization of the idols', and Isa. LVI, 4 refers to the latter)

This discussion comes from a text called Sanhedrin 93b but what struck me as interesting is the manner in which Demetrios in the Coptic story is also identified as a eunuch and he too proves himself by withstanding fire. Could the Christian story be an adaptation from this same scripture? In fact, if you substitute 'Babylon' for 'Rome' the prophesy would seem to indicate that Jews were castrated by their conquerers in the same way.

Has anyone ever written about this possibility?

Toto

Warning - this is a rabidly anti-semitic site. (Look up Elizabeth Dilling.) I would not rely on any of its intepretations.

charles

I am not anti-Semitic. I just copied what was there on the section for the Sanhedrin. I will do a check for the same passage elsewhere on the web to see if it is correct.

charles

Here is what appears at Google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=bu8...ed=0CCUQ6AEwAA

And of thy sons which shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away: and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon. What is meant by 'eunuchs'?— Rab said: Literally eunuchs. R. Hanina said: In their days the idols were sterilized.* Now, according to the opinion that the idols were sterilized in their days, it is well to state, And there is no hurt in them. 5 But on the view that 'eunuchs' is literally meant, what is meant by. And there is no hurt in them?6— No hurt of fire. But is it not written, nor the smell of fire had passed on them?!— They were neither hurt [by the fire] nor even smelled thereof. Now according to the opinion that the idols were sterilized in their days, it is well to write, For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths.6 But on the view that 'eunuchs' is literally meant, would Scripture recount the shame of the righteous?— There were both among them.

In other words, the text is cited correctly. Thanks Toto for warning about the content of that site.