ph2ter

Something more about Cerinthus (by Stephen C. Carlson):

bacht

Stephan should we include the report that Simon bar-Kosiba had his soldiers amputate a "finger"? What about the anti-castration edicts of Domitian and Nerva? (sorry I don't have the references, I got the cites from Y. Yadin's account of the recovery of material in the Dead Sea caves)

arnoldo

Roger has some info on anti-castration edicts in the link below.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2307

stephan huller

Thanks everyone, really enlightening stuff from everybody.

Bacht yes I have noted somewhere that I think that the Bar Kochba finger cutting has some relationship to ritual castration. But look also at the bizarre reference in Josephus to the cross-dressing Jewish rebels in the first revolt. Talk about weird. Jerusalem is surrounded by Roman armies but apparently Ed Wood is encouraging the revolutionaries to put on make up and women's clothes - maybe it was supposed to relax them!

In the rabbinic literature there is a clear sense that as the revolts against Rome continued the ascetic tone of the religion increased. Could it be that when the temple was destroyed Jews were taught not only to abstain from meat and alcohol but sex too. The abstention from fornication is referenced in the narratives of Moses' reception of the Torah. The Jews have many anecdotes about how Moses's wife was growing impatient with his preparations.

This tradition was known to early Christians. Ephrem makes reference to it. Ephrem also references Joshua the successor to Moses as 'the virgin.' I don't know if this has a Jewish source. The tradition that Daniel was a eunuch does.

I have always wondered - and this is just idle speculation - not whether the destruction of the temple led to asceticism (that is well supported) but whether the conquering Roman armies castrated SOME Jews as war captives. I have never found any evidence to support his notion but one thing is worth pointing out.

Josephus in Vita does acknowledge that the Jewish rebels were forcibly circumcising their war captives. Apparently the one side was attempting to impose its inherited notion of 'cutting' on non-Jewish residents of Palestine. Could the Romans have initiated the castration of the Jewish war captives to make some equally vulgar statement to humiliate their enemies? Again, I have no proof to support this notion. Just putting it out to see which way the wind blows.

There are intimations that Titus LOVED eunuchs. Domitian apparently began the repeated ban on ritual castration which extends through Hadrian, Antoninus Pius etc. But I wonder again whether as an added humiliation against the Jewish captives in Jerusalem Titus made it impossible for them to be circumcised and thus FORCIBLY ended their covenant with Yahweh.

Again just a thought. But it is worth noting that the Talmud clearly emphasizes that Titus was on a mission to end Judaism:

Vespasian sent Titus who said, Where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted? This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. He then took a sword and slashed the curtain. Miraculously blood spurted out, and he thought that he had slain himself, as it says, Thine adversaries have roared in the midst of thine assembly, they have set up their ensigns for signs. Abba Hanan said: Who is a mighty one like unto thee, O Jah? Who is like Thee, mighty in self-restraint, that Thou didst hear the blaspheming and insults of that wicked man and keep silent? In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught; Who is like thee among the gods [elim]? Who is like thee among the dumb ones [illemim]. [Gittin 56b]

There are also reports of castrated Sadducees in the post-Temple period which are difficult to explain.

For whatever its worth, I would suspect that the Christian interest in ritual castration MIGHT have been rooted in an original IMPOSITION on Jews and Judaism. Indeed IF this could be proved or demonstrated it would be the beginning of Marcionite Christianity - i.e. that the Marcionites argued that they came from a second but better covenant fulfilling the promise of Jacob and having each of them (the presbytery) transformed into angels.

Please don't crucify me for engaging in idle speculation. There is no proof for any of these thoughts about an alternative model for Christianity. I know absolutely nothing about what happened to war captives during THAT period in Roman history. I do know that castration CAN follow a long and bitter war (at least that it could be imposed on the defeated). Under this scenario the gospel was written to explain that even this humiliation was ultimately 'part of God's plan' to make the first Christians 'like Jesus' - i.e. like the angels.

Again, just a thought. Don't crucify me for thinking out loud.

spin

I know, I know... it's got nothing to do with any reality, just the buzz that was going around in the post-Temple period. "[C]astrated Sadducees"... who in their right minds came up with that gem? Such a report would be either politics or stupidity. The Sadducees were part of the priestly class. A castrated Sadducee in temple times would have been an abhorrence.


spin

stephan huller

I know, I know, that why it is so strange to come across this in the Talmud:

A certain eunuch [gawzaah] said to R. Joshua b. Karhah [Baldhead]: 'How far is it from here to Karhina [Baldtown]? 'As far as from here to Gawzania [Eunuchtown],' he replied. Said the Sadducee to him, 'A bald buck is worth four denarii.' 'A goat, if castrated, is worth eight,' he retorted. Now, he [the Sadducee] saw that he [R. Joshua] was not wearing shoes, [whereupon] he remarked, 'He [who rides] on a horse is a king, upon an ass, is a free man, and he who has shoes on his feet is a human being; but he who has none of these, one who is dead (Lit., 'one for whom a grave is dug') and buried is better off.' 'O eunuch, O eunuch,' he retorted, 'you have enumerated three things to me, [and now] you will hear three things: the glory of a face is its beard; the rejoicing of one's heart is a wife; the heritage of the Lord is children;(Psalm 127.3) blessed be the Omnipresent, Who has denied you all these!' 'O quarrelsome baldhead,' he jeered at him. 'A castrated buck and [you will] reprove!' he retorted.[Shabbath 152a]

Rashi cites the last sentence as "R. Han.: O castrated goat. I do but rebuke, not quarrel with thee." I wouldn't have mentioned the story if it wasn't interesting. How do explain that one?

And then there is the weird story in the Mishnah about Onias the founder of the Alexandrian temple/altar being a cross-dresser (or being dressed up in women's clothing by his brothers). I could go on but you'll start saying things about me ...

BTW just to make clear for those following along at home R. Joshua b. Karhah is a contemporary of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel who lived AFTER the destruction of the temple.

arnoldo

I like the KJV of Deuteronomy 23:1 which speaks about this subject.

stephan huller

Yes, that's very nice but it has nothing do with this discussion. A break clearly occurred between the old and the new in the 'black hole' historical period which stands between the two great revolts (70 - 135 CE). Daniel was a eunuch but also a great prophet - some would say the one of the greatest. How do you reconcile this in JUDAISM?

With Christianity the argument is a lot easier. God tells the Patriarchs 'be fruitful and multiply' which is generally interpreted in its most banal expression as all men to get rich and make lots of babies (the values promoted in rap videos). But as Celsus notes:

Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did--as Moses says--threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite op posed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger with counter instructions?" [Against Celsus 7:18]

As such the idea that Christianity was developed from a SUPERIOR REVELATION to a gnostikos (or gnostikoi) - a truth that the ancient Israelites weren't ready for because of their carnality - and which could have included ascetic ideals and included castration rituals (to imitate Jacob at Peniel) is hardly difficult to justify. It existed - IMO - in Marcionitism and various other forms of the religion which were deemed heretical in the late second and third centuries.

The question is whether this was invented LATE among 'aberrations' (i.e. sects and heresies) in short forms that were subsequent to the official Church we assume started with the apostles or is our existing tradition bullshit - a mythical narrative developed from Acts and other spurious texts which was essentially a way of transforming a bizarre freak show Alexandrian messianic tradition which mixed Platonism, castration to develop a radical equality among all humans (i.e. no more males or females etc) into something more acceptable with traditional 'middle class Roman values.'

I tend to suspect the latter because I think the Marcionites came first but others are free to disagree of course.

spin

As I said, either politics or stupidity. In this case politics, Pharisaic politics, of the level of Gamaliel comparing Sadducees with gentiles (Erub. 68b). Sukkah 48b has a story of a Sadducee pelted with ethrogs. Were Sadducees apostates or idol-worshippers (Horayot 11a)? The victors get to write the scurrilous lies, half-truths and the smears. Did christians really worship asses?


spin

stephan huller

See this is the kind of conversation we should be having - the kind of discussion which bears fruit. To be certain 'Sadducee' became a meaningless term in later rabbinic texts because it came to mean things as wide ranging as Samaritan, heretical Christian, Gentile/Epicurean. And there are certainly 'politics' lurking in the background in way stories are reported or developed in the rabbinic literature.

Was a Samaritan really responsible for the victory of the Romans over the Jews? Certainly not. But that said THIS story is just plain bizarre and difficult to place exactly. It's not like the Pharisee is the only one who gets the insult megaphone. The castrated Sadducee seems to imply that R. Joshua and his tradition are 'dead.'

Indeed if I was to characterize the context it seems to be a reflection of the oft cited idea that there were 'two Torahs' in Israel:

When the arrogant in their intelligence increased, then disputes in Israel increased. When the number of students of Hillel and Shammai who did not study with their teachers sufficiently increased, then disputes in Israel increased and the Torah was made into two Torahs. [TB Sotah 47b]

Rashi explains, “The arrogant did not listen carefully enough to their teachers’ traditions because they relied on their intelligence to make explicit the traditions.” I think that this idea is explicitly confirmed by the example of Elisha b. Abuyah who seems to have a separate tradition associated with him which seems to anticipate Marcionitism. Strangely his opinions make their way into the Mishnah and he is included among the four who make it to Paradise.

Surely his reputation was preserved by "Meir" (which isn't even his name either." His real name מישע the af’el participle and the Hebrew hif’il participle מושיע both mean “one who saves” or “saviour”, from the root ישע in both cases. The names יהושע Yehoshua’ (Samaritan pronunciation Yê’ûsha) and its shortened form ישוע Yeshua and the name הרשע Hoshea’ (anglice Hosea) all mean “the Lords saves” or “the Lord is salvation”, and allude to the last verses of Deuteronomy XXXIII (עַם נוֹשַׁע בַּיהוָה)

This is the passage Jesus had in mind when he said to the Samaritan woman in John 4 “Ye venerate what ye do not know (i.e. are not familiar with by direct acquaintance, since the Sanctuary vanished in the time of the High Priest ‘Azzi, when the Râ’ûta (Favour) ended and the Fânûta (Turning away [of the face of God] started. We venerate what we know. THE Salvation (see Deuteronomy) is from the (tribe of ) Judah (not Levi, not Ephraim)”.

Note well: the verb means both” venerate” (a place) or “worship”(God” according to the case of the following noun, whether accusative or dative. See the neighbouring verses for the distinction. All commentators have missed this.

Why did Misha change his name to a title - 'Meir'? I don't know but his name is rooted in the very same reason that 'Jesus' is the name of the Christian god/hypostasis.

Again I think there was another 'Judaism' (for lack of a better term but it was in my mind a tradition which transcended being identified as 'Jewish,' 'Samaritan' and Gentile' - it was 'messianic') in this black hole period (70 - 135 CE) which the Romans had second thoughts about allowing to perpetuate into the future. A renewed conservatism took hold in the Antonine period culminating in Commodus's persecution of the Samaritans and the 'heretical' forms of Christianity. This continued into the Severan Emperors. By the fourth century the Palestinian religious milieu had been completely transformed with rabbinic Judaism having the most favorable position among the other 'heresies.'