stephan huller

Well here's my new rule just for you Jiri - NO MORE OF MY WORDS WILL APPEAR IN BLOCK CAPITALIZED LETTERS. Still laughing.

I think the evidence is stronger for Origen having done the deed than claiming that Demetrius made it all up to hurt Origen. Besides I think Origen has a way of saying things which leaves open other possibilities. Look at the greater context of the commentary on Matthew. It's not as clear cut as you might think.

I think Origen's allegorical methodology is really an attempt to veil something which he and select readers know to be true through initiation. Even Eusebius says he was hiding his status as a eunuch.

The topic of castration was the ancient equivalent of a 'can of worms' especially in the fourth century. Origenism didn't include passing on castration rituals. Later Church Fathers focused on the heretical doctrine of Origen. His castration became less and less important.

charles

Hi Stephen

Of course feel free to use that material. You don't have to credit me. I am enjoying learning about all of this. There are some more references. You may be aware of them. I think they might be important. It's at that www.comeandhear.com but it makes searching for material easy. I won't quite their commentary if there is any. The material is quite funny really. The first is a discussion of testicles in a tesxt called

WHAT IS TERMED A PEZU'A? Our Rabbis taught: What is termed a pezu'a dakkah? A man both of whose stones were wounded or even only one of them; even though they were only punctured, crushed, or simply defective. Said R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka: I heard from the mouth of the Sages at the Vineyard46 at Jabneh that one having only one stone is a natural born eunuch47 and is, therefore, a fit person. How could it be said that such a person is a natural born eunuch!48 — Say rather, he is like a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, fit.

Is [a man whose stones are] punctured incapable of procreation? Surely, a man once climbed up a palm tree and a thorn pierced his stones, [his semen] issued like a thread of pus, and, [despite the accident], he begat children! — In that case, as a matter of fact, Samuel sent word to Rab, telling him, 'Institute enquiries respecting the parentage of his children'.
Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: A man whose stones have been injured by a supernatural agency1 is regarded as a fit person.2 Said Raba: This is the reason why the Scriptural text reads, Who is wounded3 and not 'the wounded'.4

In a Baraitha it was taught: It was said in Scripture. He who is wounded … shall not enter3 and it was also said, A bastard shall not enter,'5 as the latter is the result of human action, so is the former the result of human action.6

Raba stated: Wounded3 applies to all,7 crushed3 applies to all,7 and cut off8 applies to all.9 'Wounded applies to all': Whether the membrum, the stones or the spermatic cords of the stones were injured. 'Crushed applies to all': Whether the membrum, the stones or the spermatic cords were crushed. 'Cut off applies to all': Whether the membrum, the stones or the spermatic cords were cut off.

A certain Rabbi asked Raba: Whence is it inferred that the expression pezu'a dakkah8 refers to an injury in the privy parts; might it not be said to refer to the head? The other replied: As no number of generations is mentioned,10 it may be inferred that the reference is to the privy parts.11 But is it not possible that the reason why no number of generations is given in this case is because only he himself12 is forbidden,13 while his son and the son of his son are permitted! — [This must be] similar to the case of him whose membrum is cut off; as the latter involves the privy parts, so must the former involve those parts.

And whence is it inferred that the injury of the keruth shafekah14 himself involves his privy parts? Might it not be one involving his lips!15 — Shafekah16 is written, implying, 'at the spot where it discharges',17 But might it not refer to one's nose? — It is not written, '[Cut] at the organ that discharges', but 'a cut organ that discharges'; thus implying that organ which in consequence of a cut discharges, and in the absence of a cut does not discharge but flows out. This excludes the nose which in either case18 emits a discharge.19

In a Baraitha it was taught: It was said in Scripture. He who is wounded in his stones shall not enter,8 and it was also said. A bastard shall not enter,20 as the latter refers to the privy parts, so does the former refer to the privy parts.

In a case where a puncture beginning below the corona terminated21 at the other end of it above the corona, R. Hiyya b. Abba desired to declare the sufferer as fit.22 Said R. Assi to him: Thus ruled R. Joshua b. Levi, '[A perforation of] any size in the corona constitutes a bar [against fitness]'.

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud FilesThe College. 46. So called because the students were sitting in rows arranged like the vines in a vineyard.
47. [H] lit., 'a eunuch through heat', i.e., fever, illness (v. Golds.) or 'a eunuch of the sun', i.e., from birth when the child first saw the sun (v. Jast.).
48. The former surely might be the result of an accident!
49.The prohibition being restricted to the wounded or crushed.
1. Lit., 'by the hands of heaven', through lightning, for instance, or from birth.
2. He is not included in the prohibition to enter the congregation of the Lord. V. infra n. 9.
3. Deut. XXIII. 2.
4. The definite article would have implied that the incapacity was of long standing. (Cf. supra note 7).
5. Deut. XXIII, 3.
6. Not that of a supernatural force. (Cf. supra note 7).
7. The organs of procreation.
8. Deut. XXIII. 2.
9. The organs of procreation.
10. Forbidding them to enter into the assembly of the Lord, as is the case with a bastard, an Ammonite, a Moabite etc. V. Deut. XXIII, 2ff.
11. An injury which deprives one of the power of procreation.
12. Who is wounded.
13. To enter into the assembly of the Lord. V. ibid. 2.
14. Here rendered, 'one whose membrum is cut off'.
15. From which spittle may be emitted. Shafekah, from rt. [H] 'to pour out', emit'.
16. Cf. supra n. 8.
17. Spittle does not flow out of the mouth.
18. Even when it is not cut.
19. But does not ejaculate.
20. Deut. XXIII. 3.
21. By sloping upwards towards the body.

The second is more interesting. It introduces a castrated Sadducee. I have no idea what this might mean:

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.15 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 dead16 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;17 blessed be the Omnipresent, Who has denied you all these!' 'O quarrelsome baldhead,' he jeered at him. 'A castrated buck and [you will] reprove!'18 he retorted.

15. Both fictitious places, of course, playfully formed from their names and persons.
16. Lit., 'one for whom a grave is dug'.
17. Ps. CXXVII, 3.
18. Rashi. R. Han.: O castrated goat. I do but rebuke, not quarrel with thee.

I know absolutely nothing about Jewish history but could this last reference be a kind of story showijng that the Sadducees became Christians?

stephan huller

Charles,

I don't want to start taking no material from you until we properly digest your first great discovery. I really think this changes everything about our understanding of Origen's interpretation of Matthew 19:12.

I really don't think that previous studies have really understand what Origen is talking about. Let me break it down for you. We all know there are three categories in Matthew 19:12 and there can be no doubt that Origen dismisses the first two 'types' of eunuchs as having nothing to do with Christianity:

But we wish to preserve the consistency of the three eunuchizations, and we agree with the figurative interpretation of the third and will also say the same regarding the first two. Eunuchs in the metaphorical sense might well now include those who live in sexual abstinence and who do not indulge in such debauchery [2 Corinthians 12:21] and impurities or similar things. Among those who live abstinently in this regard, however, there are, in my opinion, three different groups. The first are so because of their nature; to them the word should be applicable: There are eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb. The others may well, for rational reasons, practice asceticism and have turned toward abstinence from the enjoyment of love and from any lack of restraint in these matters; but this intention and asceticism and (so to speak) good performance was not generated in them by the Word of God, but rather by human words, whether of those who practice philosophy among the Greeks, or of the heretics who "prohibit marriage and demand abstinence from certain foods" [1 Timothy 4:3]. These ones appear to me to be meant when it says: "There are eunuchs who have been eunuchized by human beings". [Comm Matt 15:4]

Both Origen and Clement before him know that it is this only the third category - the eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - that matters. As I already noted it is difficult to tell whether Origen (or a later editor) is hiding or transforming the traditional Alexandrian castration rituals with his allegorical language:

But it deserves our assent when someone takes in hand the living and efficacious Word, sharper cutting "than any double-edged sword" [Hebrews 4:12], and "the sword of the Spirit" (as the apostle calls it) [Ephesians 6:17] and cuts out the passion of the soul, without, however, laying a hand on the body, and does so because he understands the kingdom of heaven and understands that in order to inherit the kindom of heaven it is of the greatest assistance to cut passion out of his soul through the Word. It is to such persons, and not as those people think who interpret the verse literally, that the saying is applicable: There are eunuchs who have eunuchized themselves for the kingdom of heaven's sake.[ibid]

Why do I say this? Because most discussions of Origen's interpretation just stop at this point. They don't tell the reader that there is a whole paragraph that follows where Origen does indeed say that the physical eunuch (rather than the 'spiritual' type mentioned above) is indeed filled with a special connection with God.

That is why it is so important to cite ALL (sorry for the capitals) of Origen's commentary on Matthew 19:12 which conclude with the words:

But it is a great power to grasp the eunuchization of the soul through the Word, which not all can grasp, but only they to whom it is given. But it is given to all those who ask God for the rational sword and who use it as appropriate to eunuchize themselves for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

But if, along with their higher interpretation which has gradually become clear to us, it is necessary to cite stories from the Bible, then we will present the following: There are eunuchs of the Pharaoh who do not produce anything good, who were eunuchized in order to bring him his wine and food; but there are also people of God, who are eunuchs in order to rebuild demolished Jerusalem. The former are written about in Genesis [Genesis 40]; an example of the second kind, however, is the one about whom it is written in the second book of Ezra that he says: "And I was a eunuch of the king. And it occurred in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes" etc., up to "I found grace in the eyes of the king and he sent me on a mission" [Nehemiah 1:11 - 2:6]. When you come upon the second book of Ezra, you will find the entire text and consider why the eunuch is holy who was made the leader in the rebuilding of the temple of God. For the children of the Hebrews say that Daniel and his three companions Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael were eunuchized in Babylon and thus was fulfilled what Isaiah said to Hezekiah: "They will take from your seed and make of them eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon" [Isaiah 39:7]. They say that Isaiah also spoke the prophecy about them: "The foreigner who submits to the Lord should not say: The Lord will separate me from His people" etc. up to "better than sons and daughters" [Isaiah 56:3-5]. It is good, where it pertains to the secret meaning of the verse, not to produce children in Babylon, but rather to be without progeny in Babylon like Daniel, so that we, once we have received of the divine spirit (like Daniel and his companions), will give birth to visions and prophecies. But one must know that no small number of arguments to prove that the three eunuchizations are to be understood physically will be found by anyone who would like to prove that and would agree with those who have been mentioned before who teach this in their writings. But we did not want to present these arguments in order not to provide an occasion - simply by presenting these sayings as an exercise and offering a solution for each - for those, who do not grasp the saying on eunuchism the way Jesus intends it, to understand the word "grasp" in a different meaning than is necessary, i.e, to understand it physically, even though it is necessary that one who lives and moves in the spirit [Galatians 5:25] should be convinced that the three eunuchizations are also meant spiritually.[Comm. Matt 15:5]

In other words, Origen does emphasize that 'real eunuchs' have special powers from God. Yet the analysis that has come down to us almost seems schizophrenic. On the one hand there is the oft quoted reference - allegedly from Origen - that says that 'eunuch' is just meant to be allegorical, and then immediately following it there is a completely contradictory reference which says no physical eunuchs can be closer to God.

Then we remember the solution to the dilemma - the Latin text of the Commentary on Matthew is hopelessly corrupt. No serious study of the text has ever doubted this but in this particular case we happen to like the corrupt part of the Latin translation than the original part.

It makes Origen and Christianity seem, well, less kooky.

stephan huller

And that Origen again knew Daniel was a eunuch:

Daniel, who was handed over to the leader of the eunuchs with Ananias, Azariah, and Mishael, was a eunuch [cf. Dan 1:3, 6] , and in the present passage it is said: "Noah, Daniel, and Job will not deliver the sons and daughters" [Ezek 14:20] Homily Ezekiel

mountainman

This is Plate 13 -- "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome

It is summarily described by the author Graydon Snyder in "Ante pacem" as being "Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art", and a full description is given is as follows:

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young, nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral scene concludes the right end"

If we are to go by the above description in "Ante pacem" according to the plate, Jesus seems to appear in a dickless state. Perhaps Stephan is on to something - but he still needs to satisfactorily disambiguate the two Origens in antiquity.

stephan huller

Look at the source of this statement. Epiphanius. Need I say more? If I do, I will let Daniel Plooij do it for me "“I think Epiphanius ought to be the last witness we should trust uncontrolled, especially in his testimonies on heretics and heretical writings. He combines all kinds of notices, rumours, and calumnies into abracadabra often completely incomprehensible." [A Primitive Text of the Diatessaron p. 78]

Origen's interest in Daniel in Commentary on Matthew is paralleled curiously by a parallel interest in Daniel among the Marcionites (who were castration enthusiasts). Ephrem writes in Against Marcion Book One:

Why forsooth do they say that there was no fasting (in the world), seeing that when all the scattered groups (lit. fragments) of the followers of Marcion are gathered together they cannot keep the fast of Ezekiel, nor have they (ever) prayed, nor do they (now) pray, a prayer like that of the friends of Daniel ? 11 [P.68] If they say, 'We are praying the whole day,' let us see whether their prayer is accepted. But perhaps they will say, '(It is.) for how do you know that it is not accepted ?' I say, 'From the fact that He does not do for them here (?) anything at all.' And if they say that He does (something) for them, let them show (it) us, and we will accept (it) ! For Daniel used to pray three times a day and by means of his prayer he interpreted dreams and brought back the People from Babylon, and angels used to come to him at the time of his prayer. But the Marcionites, because they pray more than Daniel, as they say, will not accomplish more than he, nor even as much as he, but less than he. But since they pray more than the righteous, as they say, and yet are not answered even as much as sinners (are answered), it is clear that, because they pray to one who does not exist, on that account they are not heard or answered when they |xxxii pray. But if we pray concerning great and heavenly things, [P. 69, 1.6.] these are additions. . . . What is the new (kind of) prayer which he brought with him ?

If I had the time I would show everyone that the Marcionites clearly did use Daniel. In Adamantius's Dialogues the Marcionite curiously provides prophetic interpretations of various parts of Daniel. Here is Megethius citing

Daniel says, "I saw, and behold, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the image and made it like a cloud of dust, and it was blown away by the wind" (Daniel 2:34 - 35 Theodotion), e The stone was the Kingdom of God, appearing in glory, and the statue was the kingdom on earth. It is proven, then, through the Law and the Prophets, that Christ has not yet come, for if He had there would not be another kingdom on earth, as Daniel declared. That all the kingdoms do exist shows that the Christ announced through the Law and the Prophets has not yet arrived." [Adamantius Dialogue I.24] http://books.google.com/books?id=KI6...and%22&f=false

I will tell you all traditional scholars don't have a clue about Marcion and the Marcionites. According to their simple-minded acceptance of Irenaeus and those who followed him, the Marcionites 'hated' the Old Testament. Why then is Megetheus citing Daniel as proving Marcionite ideas?

And remember he is citing Theodotion's translation of Daniel. Theodotion is also connected with the Marcionite sect ... by Epiphanius.

(:

Solo

But I have not said it was clear cut (), I am only saying that The Commentary on Matthew, is evidence against Eusebius' claim that Origen interpreted 19:12 literally. That takes away the motive and IMO makes Eusebius unreliable as a source.

You might want to tell me that Origen became an allegorist later, but that would be a thesis in want of a proof.

Best,
Jiri

bacht

I don't disagree with your general point that voluntary castration is extreme and unhealthy behaviour. The Catholics thought so too. otoh self-mutilation is an ancient practice.

But the question is what was going on before the NT texts were written. Why was John the Baptist celebrated for his ascetic life in the wildnerness? Why were Jesus and his followers depicted as solitary vagabonds? Why did Paul forsake marriage?

There's the theory that Cynicism had taken root in Galilee, supposedly reflected in the Q document. The anti-social and subversive teachings in the gospels could be traced to such a source.

There's radical dualism, which seems to have arisen both in Zoroastrian Persia and Greece from thinkers like Plato. Maybe one Jewish reaction to Hellenism was to use this way of thinking, where the whole material world and its inhabitants were viewed as fallen and evil.

There's the idea that suffering increases holiness. We can see martyriology in Daniel and Maccabees, with resurrection as a reward for faithfulness.

There's the psychological diagnosis of self-loathing or extreme maladjustment to one's society, leading to fantasies of personal or communal rebirth.

charles

Hi Everyone,

I was just thinking that perhaps the Christians got the idea of a eunuch priesthood from the Egyptians. Were there any eunuch cults in Egypt before Christianity?

maryhelena

All the answers are, of course, interpretations. Is Josephus reliable as to the historicity of John the Baptist? Doubtful. Josephus was as much into this 'game' of prophetic interpretations as were the NT writers....I suppose we could put all the blame on the NT writers for being so ambiguous in their wording etc. But perhaps that's all part of the 'game' as well - seek and you shall find sort of thing... I think those NT writers were far more sophisticated than we give them credit for - one giant puzzle - and after 2000 years nobody has been able to put the pieces together in such a way as to create a realistically plausible historical picture.

I don't doubt the historical phenomenon of castration. I'm just doubting very strongly that such an ugly practice was what the NT writers would have had in mind when they were writing about the kingdom of god. A spiritual kingdom within which the physical reality of male or female, Jew or Greek, has no significance whatsoever.

Physical suffering as a means to an end, as a requirement for spiritual advancement - poppycock...

It is not spiritual enlightenment that is achieved but intellectual abdication; it's an unfocused mind, a void wherein monsters roam......physical and mental degradation are it's only outcome. Physical castration, as a chosen condition, can only be achieved by intellectual abdication.

So, to all the castrated 'holy' men out there - past, present and future - your a disgrace to your humanity. Shame on you all.....