Freethought & Rationalism Archive

popgoestheweasel · 08-05-2010, 11:12 PM

I agree with Russellonius on this one. It's hard to imagine going from the Hasmonean high priesthood in a sacrificial religion to Paul. Just one example. Jewish Christians seemed to be vegetarians. The Hasmoneans had no interest in vegetarianism. They sacrificed animals. The Ebionites abhorred animal sacrifices. If you turn around and say the Hasmoneans weren't Jewish Christians then what were they? It's hard to imagine what's specifically Hasmonean about Christianity.

maryhelena · 08-06-2010, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Should someone correct that wikipedia article?

It does appear that being tied to a "stauros" and scourged is close to being crucified as far as some modern readers go, but is it close enough?

Toto, I see no reason for Wikipedia to ‘correct’ it’s account of the crucifixion of Antigonus. After all; it is referencing an ancient Roman historian, Cassius Dio. The issue does not relate to the ‘correct’ crucifixion terminology - the issue relates to the historical accuracy of Cassius Dio.

And as regards a victim being taken down from the cross, or stake or whatever implement of suspension was used - the example Josephus provides, as quoted above - indicates such a possibility could have occurred in the case of the crucifixion of Antiginous - leading to his death by beheading. Perhaps there might have been an outcry re letting a King of the Jews die upon a cross - thus turning him into a martyr figure - and it became more politically advantageous to execute Antigonus by beheading....

On the crucifixion issue:

The book that I referenced earlier, ‘Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion’ has a lot to say re this issue of crucifixion - along with all the Greek and Latin terminology involved. I can’t type the Greek words - but the material is easily accessed from page 8 of his book. (page 70 re the extended footnote on the quotation from Cassius Dio). I will type a few interesting points from the amazon preview of this book - I will have to put ****in some places re the Greek words.

Quote:

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Pages 8 - 12

Latin Terminology

The English terminology has roots in the Latin verb crucifigo........to fasten to a crux. A crux was a wooden instrument of execution upon which a person was suspended. Other terms may be used to refer to the victim or to indicate verbally the action of crucifixion. It is common for modern authors to distinguish four shapes of crosses: crux immissa......crux commissa....the Greek cross...and crux decussate or St Andrew’s cross. The cross bar of the crux, a kind of yoke, is sometimes designated a patibulum. Criminals can also be spoken of as being fixed to a pole/stake (palus, sudis) or to a piece of wood (lignum).

However, even the so-called technical terminology could give the misleading impression that execution via the crux had only a limited range of shapes and practices. A well-known quote from Seneca indicates otherwise........(“I see there crosses, not merely of one kind, but fashioned differently by others: a certain one suspends (a person)with his head upside down towards the ground, others impale a stake through the sexual organs, others extend the arms by a yoke (patibulum)".. Understanding the three clauses beginning with capite as explications of “video istic cruces...”, then even impaling of the genitals on a stipes (“tree, branch”) can be considered affixing to a crux. That Seneca distinguished what he “saw” from any possible expectations to a unity of appearances of the cross (“non unius quidem generis”) may show both (1) that under the Romans in this time execution on the cross tended to follow a fairly common routine, and (2) that there could be significant exceptions that are designated by the same terminology. Indeed the affixing of a dead body to a crux could also be described as a crucifixion in Latin.

Thus a variety of words could be used to speak of crucifixion, and even the most technical Latin terms could refer to the suspension of humans in ways only vaguely resembling execution on a crux immissa. This relative flexibility in terminology is all the more obvious in the extant Greek sources.

Greek Terminology

Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term to be confined to “crucifixion”. For example a******appears originally to have referred to an upright pole. ......Hence it naturally follows that both. **** and **** can refer to the building of stockades as well as to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on *****). Elsewhere a ****can be used as a place of scouring, with the death following from some other method.

A ****likewise generally refers to “anything pointed” including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the plural) a palisade.

However, the “fundamental” references to an upright pole in ****and its cognates, and to pointy objects in **** and its cognates, does not rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion, invariable referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the “crucifixion” of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these Greek terms.

Perhaps most importantly, there is often ambiguity in crucifixion and suspension accounts as to whether the person is being suspended before or after death. So, Josephus, while most often utilizing **** to indicate a means of execution, can also say that the Philistines “crucified” the dead bodies of Saul and his sons “to the walls of the city of Bethsan”.

Unfortunately, amazon preview runs out at this point - but I think there is enough here to demonstrate that what Cassius Dio referenced in regard to the Hasmonean Antinonus was indeed a crucifixion.

Living bodies were suspended upon crosses, stakes, poles etc. Dead bodies also. Did living bodies ever get to come down from the cross, stake or pole - Josephus indicates that they sometimes did....survival rate extremely low. And Josephus has one friend who survived a crucifixion....

An interesting point is that while crucifixion most often leads to death - the placing of dead bodies upon crosses, stakes and poles and labeling such as crucifixions - does suggest that the primary focus of crucifixion was not the death of the victim, in and of itself - it was the public humiliation, the shame and degradation - the death then becomes a release, a 'salvation' from the horrendous pain and mental anguish.

maryhelena · 08-06-2010, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes - IF Josephus had recorded the crucifixion of Antigonus - the game was up....

The death of Antigonus occurred about 75 years before the birth of Josephus so unless you think Josephus made up the story of Antigonus it is almost certain that he used some earlier source.

You cannot show that Josephus used the same source as Cassius Dio.

And I never tried to do so.....

maryhelena · 08-06-2010, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

If it was the Hasmoneans who developed Christianity, with its illegal blood drinking, lack of circumcision requirement, welcoming of pagans and having no use for Temple tradition, then the deposed Hasmoneans behaved very much like Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his Israelite allies:

Quote:

It was then that there emerged from Israel a set of renegades who led many people astray. 'Come,' they said, 'let us ally ourselves with the gentiles surrounding us, for since we separated ourselves from them many misfortunes have overtaken us.' This proposal proved acceptable, and a number of the people eagerly approached the king, who authorised them to practise the gentiles' observances. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, such as the gentiles have, disguised their circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant, submitting to gentile rule as willing slaves of impiety. (1 Maccabees 11-15)

Christianity is very much against the spirit of Judas Maccabeus as well as against the policies of later Hasmonean rule:

Hasmoneans had compelled their neighbors to be circumcised, but Christians said, hey, no big deal. We don't have to do that anymore so why should you? I wonder why the Hasmoneans would have gone so directly against their inherited ideals. Christianity seems very un-Hasmonean in its details. Why would they suddenly turn against the very principles for which they had previously stood?

That Rome was the ultimate victor detracts greatly from maryhelena’s argument. Victors write history. Rome allied with two Jewish groups: The Pharisees during the Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodians later. Rome allowed the Pharisees to gather at Yavneh, then later Galilee, to develop Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity solved problems that the Herodians had been experiencing with theologically conservative semi-compatriots. ('Semi-' because Herodians had Idumean blood and had been compelled to convert to Judaism under Hyrcanus. How sincere is forced conversion?)

Why does the story show Roman soldiers recognizing that Jesus was such a big holy deal and his 'Jewish' followers repeatedly throughout having eyes that do not see, and having ears that do not hear and not remembering that Jesus fulfilled all those prophesies? Why is salvation offered to Agrippa, Berenice, Drusilla and her husband Felix? Are any Hasmoneans recorded as being eligible for salvation though Christ?

Quote:

When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" Mark 15:39

Why do we find Mary, called Magdalene and her friend Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward at the foot of the cross and at the tomb, witnesses to the resurrection? This is the event that changed everything! According to the story, Jesus' disciples did not believe the women associated with the court of Herod Antipas when they told them he was risen.

I'm finding lots of Herodian and Roman characters in the mythology - soldiers, tax collectors and sinners are good people! - and lots of Jewish buffoonery. The NT exudes a spirit much more like Jason and Menelaus than their ideological opponents.

Why would loss of power cause Hasmoneans to abandon their traditionalist ideals? There are still Jews today who have not.

I think 'bacht' got the sense of what I am trying to articulate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So we're looking at a death and resurrection story for Israel, but not a kingdom "of this world", is that right? A new king/high priest but not on an earthly throne?]

Or perhaps to be a bit more specific - a death and resurrection story re the Hasmoneans....

The old Hasmonean ways of being - whatever the good and bad therein - are, in their 'resurrection' experience, not unlike the gospel crucified Jesus - no-one recognized him in his new post-resurrection appearances. Doubting Thomas wanted to see the nails in the hands of the resurrected Jesus before he believed........

As for the Herodians.......well, lets not forget that the Herodians that are given a lot of space within the gospel account are Herodians with Hasmonean blood. To be correct one should use the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline where necessary. Even the non-Hasmonean, Antipas, is involved in a Hasmonean/Herodian storyline re Herodias and her daughter. Archelaus, another non Hasmonean/Herodian - was guilty, in Josephus, of taking his dead brother's wife - Glaphyra - who had been married to the Hasmonean/Herodian Alexandra - and bore him two Hasmonean/Herodian sons (Glaphyra already re-married at this stage - and another brother marry brother's wife scenario...).

And who is it that is writing all this Hasmonean/Herodian history? Josephus. A figure who is himself of royal Hasmonean blood through his mother.

As I wrote in another post - consider the cuckoo in the nest syndrome - what is important here is not the Herodian cuckoo but the Hasmonean bloodline. Take the story re Herodias and John the Baptist. What is being degraded or mocked or slighted with the involvement of Herodias, is not the Hasmonean bloodline but the Herodian bloodline. A dualism if you like - that enables the Herodian cuckoo, from a "vulgar family" and with "no eminent extraction" to be lambasted...

jgreen44 · 08-06-2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Interestingly, this Sumarian mythology is thought to have been based upon or connected, in some way, with a king named in the Sumerian King List - Damuzi. (Actually two such named Kings - one a shepherd and the other a fisherman....).

And a carpenter...

In the Eridu Genesis man was made from the blood of Lamga, the craftsman, the god of carpenters.

“Lamga, Lamga, we will overthrow;
From his blood mankind we will make,”

Lamga is a common name of Tammuz (aka Damuzi) as the name means ‘artisan, carpenter’, ‘Tammuz who binds together broken ligaments (as god of healing). Tammuz, the god who “died that man might live”. Another moon god, Sin, is ‘the great carpenter of heaven’. Here are a number of puzzling associations to be elucidated.

- W. F. Albright
Some Cruces in the Langdon Epic
Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 38

maryhelena · 08-06-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Interestingly, this Sumarian mythology is thought to have been based upon or connected, in some way, with a king named in the Sumerian King List - Damuzi. (Actually two such named Kings - one a shepherd and the other a fisherman....).

And a carpenter...

In the Eridu Genesis man was made from the blood of Lamga, the craftsman, the god of carpenters.

“Lamga, Lamga, we will overthrow;
From his blood mankind we will make,”

Lamga is a common name of Tammuz (aka Damuzi) as the name means ‘artisan, carpenter’, ‘Tammuz who binds together broken ligaments (as god of healing). Tammuz, the god who “died that man might live”. Another moon god, Sin, is ‘the great carpenter of heaven’. Here are a number of puzzling associations to be elucidated.

- W. F. Albright
Some Cruces in the Langdon Epic
Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 38

I was unable to gain access to any pages from the link...
The carpenter connection is interesting...

Mythology is of course relevant in regard to it's use in the Jesus dying and rising god storyline. I've only made reference, in the OP, to the mythology because the Sumarian myth might have been connected, in some way, with an actual king. (although its a another matter if the Sumarian King list is historically accurate.....). Thus my interest in viewing the 37 bc crucifixion of Antigonus as a model for the later gospel Jesus crucifixion story. In other words, the gospel writer looked to history and took from an historical event elements that could be worked into a symbolic or figurative gospel storyline.

Obviously, if one believes in a historical Jesus then all of this is just meaningless. A mythicist perspective should be striving to understand how the Jesus story was put together - certainly from interpreting OT prophecies - but also from an interpretation of the historical events that are connected to the time frame of the gospel storyline.

Russellonius · 08-06-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

...lets not forget that the Herodians that are given a lot of space within the gospel account are Herodians with Hasmonean blood. To be correct one should use the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline where necessary. Even the non-Hasmonean, Antipas, is involved in a Hasmonean/Herodian storyline re Herodias and her daughter.…And who is it that is writing all this Hasmonean/Herodian history? Josephus. A figure who is himself of royal Hasmonean blood through his mother.

I had an a-ha moment. I think I have already admitted that you know the genealogy better than I do.

This is starting to line up for me.

Quote:

I wote:
If it was the Hasmoneans who developed Christianity, with its illegal blood drinking, lack of circumcision requirement, welcoming of pagans and having no use for Temple tradition, then the deposed Hasmoneans behaved very much like Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his Israelite allies… The NT exudes a spirit much more like Jason and Menelaus than their ideological opponents. Why would loss of power cause Hasmoneans to abandon their traditionalist ideals?

I think I can answer this now. Hasmoneans were not deposed due to their bloodline ties to the Herodians. Over the course of two centuries they had experienced sect to church transformation.

Building on Niebuhr’s observation “that when a sect includes a sufficient amount of middle- and upper- class members, they will successfully initiate reductions between the organization and the secular society", Rodney stark theorizes that “…once in control, the privileged will seek to lower a sect’s tension with the world, because the privileged pay a higher cost for strictness.”
"Acts of faith: explaining the human side of religion" By Rodney Stark, Roger Finke (or via: amazon.co.uk) both quotes p. 203

So I think we can say that yes, the Hasmoneans behaved very much like the Israelite allies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It was the result of holding power so long, and we can trace the amplification of the Hellenizing influence in their dynastic history.

We can see the cost of strictness in the accusations of John the Baptist. It seems clear that Herodias and Salome got pretty tired of that shit.

So the ones getting themselves beheaded and crucified in the first century, the ‘JtB/Jesus’ story, were the ones opposed to the perceived accommodations of the Herodian/Hasmonean rulers to the outside world, analogous to the Maccabees of two centuries prior. The Maccabees>Hasmoneans experienced a complete cycle of sect-to-church transformation but this time the assimilationist rulers won.

I wonder if you agree with this assessment. And could you elaborate on this:

Quote:

As I wrote in another post - consider the cuckoo in the nest syndrome - what is important here is not the Herodian cuckoo but the Hasmonean bloodline. Take the story re Herodias and John the Baptist. What is being degraded or mocked or slighted with the involvement of Herodias, is not the Hasmonean bloodline but the Herodian bloodline. A dualism if you like - that enables the Herodian cuckoo, from a "vulgar family" and with "no eminent extraction" to be lambasted.

'Cuckoo in the nest' does not ring any metonymic bells for me. Could you spell it out more, please?

maryhelena · 08-06-2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

Quote:

...lets not forget that the Herodians that are given a lot of space within the gospel account are Herodians with Hasmonean blood. To be correct one should use the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline where necessary. Even the non-Hasmonean, Antipas, is involved in a Hasmonean/Herodian storyline re Herodias and her daughter.…And who is it that is writing all this Hasmonean/Herodian history? Josephus. A figure who is himself of royal Hasmonean blood through his mother.

I had an a-ha moment. I think I have already admitted that you know the genealogy better than I do.

This is starting to line up for me.

I wish I could say that I know the Hasmonean/Herodian history around the relevant time of the gospel storyline. Unfortunately, Josephus has been cooking the books - so it's not a straightforward study at all.....

Quote:

I think I can answer this now. Hasmoneans were not deposed due to their bloodline ties to the Herodians. Over the course of two centuries they had experienced sect to church transformation.

Building on Niebuhr’s observation “that when a sect includes a sufficient amount of middle- and upper- class members, they will successfully initiate reductions between the organization and the secular society", Rodney stark theorizes that “…once in control, the privileged will seek to lower a sect’s tension with the world, because the privileged pay a higher cost for strictness.”
Acts of faith: explaining the human side of religion (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Rodney Stark, Roger Finke both quotes p. 203

So I think we can say that yes, the Hasmoneans behaved very much like the Israelite allies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It was the result of holding power so long, and we can trace the amplification of the Hellenizing influence in their dynastic history.

Now - in this case you do know much more than I do....

. If you can see some type of connection with social theories re religion - then I don't know enough to say otherwise. I do think that social and political situations impact upon how we think about things - conflict being a motivator to re-evaluate etc....

Quote:

We can see the cost of strictness in the accusations of John the Baptist. It seems clear that Herodias and Salome got pretty tired of that shit.

So the ones getting themselves beheaded and crucified in the first century, the ‘JtB/Jesus’ story, were the ones opposed to the perceived accommodations of the Herodian/Hasmonean rulers to the outside world, analogous to the Maccabees of two centuries prior. The Maccabees>Hasmoneans experienced a complete cycle of sect-to-church transformation but this time the assimilationist rulers won.

The gospel Herodias and Antipas story: In the first place I don't believe the gospel story re Herodias and Antipas is historical. (I doubt very much that she married Antipas. The gospel writer is just replaying the historical tape here - albeit with a bit of a twist....re Herod the Great and his Hasmonean bride Mariamne ). Nor do I believe John the Baptist was historical. Secondly, if the Hasmoneans/Herodians were involved with early christianity, this gospel storyline is sure making a dog's dinner out of that involvement with connecting Herodias and her daughter to the death of John the Baptist...

OK - here is another way to look at the story. What is being denigrated or slighted here is not the Hasmonean bloodline but the Herodian bloodline. Yes, of course, Herodias can't help her mixed bloodline - but that mixed bloodline does allow for a dualism for the gospel writer to develop his storyline...It's the Herodian involvement in the death of 'John the Baptist' that is at issue here - not the Hasmonean bloodline.

The gospel writers have used the historical crucifixion and beheading of the Hasmonean Antigonus as a model. Using elements from that history to 'flesh' out the passion/crucifixion story of Jesus (not the rest of the Jesus story) and the beheaded of John the Baptist.

Here is a link to an earlier thread on John the Baptist.

[John the Baptist]

Quote:

I wonder if you agree with this assessment. And could you elaborate on this:

Quote:

As I wrote in another post - consider the cuckoo in the nest syndrome - what is important here is not the Herodian cuckoo but the Hasmonean bloodline. Take the story re Herodias and John the Baptist. What is being degraded or mocked or slighted with the involvement of Herodias, is not the Hasmonean bloodline but the Herodian bloodline. A dualism if you like - that enables the Herodian cuckoo, from a "vulgar family" and with "no eminent extraction" to be lambasted.

'Cuckoo in the nest' does not ring any metonymic bells for me. Could you spell it out more, please?

It's only an analogy re how the cuckoo is brought up in a nest not of it's mother's making. The nest, in the Hasmonean/Herodian history is the Hasmonean nest, the Hasmonean historical King/Priest dynasty. Herod the Great drops his 'seed' into that nest by taking the wartime bride of the Hasmonean Mariamne. So the big question is - did the Hasmoneans manage to throw out the Herodian cuckoo - were they able to get a one up on Herod? Sure, Herod managed some Hasmonean/Herodian descendants - but what about the other eggs in that Hasmonean nest....

In time, with the eventual development of christianity with its philosophical ideal of neither Jew nor Greek, nor male or female - all this mixed blood stuff is of no consequence. However, it's the pre-Paul scenario - the situation on the ground re the gospel time frame - that is of interest re the early origins of christianity.

Russellonius · 08-07-2010, 09:23 PM

Quote:

The Blood Issue: The drinking of symbolic blood in connection with the crucified gospel Jesus and the New Covenant.

It is easy to view the blood issue as being applicable to a spiritual context. It is another matter to give the symbolic drinking of blood an interpretation that does not offend Jewish sensibilities, nor contradict the Noahide and Moaisic Covenants. It’s the switch over from the literal to the spiritual use of blood that is difficult to pin down. What is need is the missing link, the switch over that allowed for a symbolic use of blood to not be offensive.

…The basis of the OT view on not drinking blood was based upon the idea that “the life of every creature is its blood”. Pouring out the blood, drinking the blood, are actions that arise from killing. It’s not the blood in and of itself - it’s what is represented by that blood - life. To drink the blood is to take a life. (and of course the 6th Commandment – you shall not murder...). Lifeblood was sacred - whether human blood or the blood of animals- blood is to be poured out on the ground and covered with dust.

…The New Covenant is not a rejection of the Old Covenant but only a new spiritual interpretation of that Covenant. It would not, as Acts upholds, be advocating something that would be abhorrent to Jews. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled not rejected - fulfilled by being re-interpreted. (maryhelena)

maryhelena, you seem to have focused on the origin of the cross. I admire your efforts. I’ve been studying the blood.

The blood is sprinkled in Hebrews, 1 Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas. Elsewhere it’s poured out and/or drank. I think only the Johannine literature has washing in the blood. Sprinkling and pouring the blood are traditionally Judaic usages, washing in it is pagan, drinking it is Judaic as a violation of the two covenants.

Drinking the blood won the market battle of supply and demand- it was most in demand of the possible uses to which the blood could be put considering that the practice continues today. Although the others are also valid uses of the product figuratively for Christians, they are not so practical – messy if using real wine to sprinkle, pour or bathe. Besides being practical as a communal ritual, only the drinking of the blood of the Lord results in intoxication. Why waste good wine? So I have focused on the origin of the drinking of the blood.

Blood is prohibited to humans in the Law (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:14) because the life is in the blood. Blood is not prohibited because butchering animals involves killing – God expects that his chosen (and other) people will eat meat. The blood/life is prohibited because of the disobedience in the garden.

The rationale for the drinking of it goes: now that the age of the resurrection is upon us, the life is given to us and it’s OK for us to drink the blood. In fact, it’s the primary symbol of the changed status of humans now that God has started to resurrect people. If this particular law against drinking of blood is now repealed due to the fact that ‘Jesus Christ’ is the New Adam, the one through whom the life has been given to humans, undoing the prohibition in the Garden, then we would have to re-evaluate other laws as well under these new circumstances. God having repealed this one law – that the blood/life belongs only to God - opens the flood gates of re-interpretation of all laws.

I think the purpose of drinking the (allegorical) blood of the (alleged) crucified messiah is to call into question the appropriateness of continuing to be bound to Torah in the new age of the resurrection.

The developing resurrection tradition includes verses such as Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:11-14, Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, Daniel 12:2 and Hosea 6:1-2. Ancient reasoning regarding theodicy demanded that God be just, and since evil rulers were killing off the Righteous Ones, then justice must come in the afterlife. Otherwise God is unjust and that cannot be. Resurrection is presented in the OT as a reward for those righteous ones who were faithful to the Mosaic covenant and killed unjustly. It was a scarce product in the OT due both to its cost and the special conditions that had to accompany its acquisition.

Resurrection in the NT is presented as a reward for simply believing that it is no longer necessary to adhere to the Old Covenants thanks to the supernatural powers of Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Greatest Product Ever Sold has an extremely low cost compared to both the previous cost of salvation through the Law and the previous means of attaining resurrection. Two-for-one at an unbeatable price!

If the followers of a covenant renewal movement - opponents of the 'harlotry' of the corrupt rulers - made a resurrection claim it would have been a working out of the problem of evil in their favor. It could not have been their intention that their resolution of this problem would have resulted in a theology that promotes, as a primary symbol, violation of the covenant they were fighting to uphold.

It seems likely to me that the drinking of the blood was a legal rebuttal on the part of the rulers who wanted to modernize their religion to the claims of those who wanted to preserve the status quo: Oh, one of your guys resurrected? Then a previously taboo activity is now allowed – the drinking of blood. Because what had been forbidden previously, eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, is now granted to us. Jesus undid what Adam had done.

It had not occurred to me before reading your stuff, maryhelena, that the Hasmoneans might have been among the ‘Jews’ who claimed the traditional faith product was beyond its ‘use by’ date in the first century. I agree with you on that now.

But there are still Hasidim today, as there were then, who think the product has not yet reached its expiration date. Now the issue I’m having with your theory is that religion is a socially dynamic entity governed by market forces. How could rulers get the hoi polloi to go along with their mythical engineering? The effort made by Jason and Menelaus to impose a new mythology top-down, without regard to the demand side, two centuries earlier had been unsuccessful.

I can see no way that the blood drinking would not have been offensive to the sensibilities of covenant upholders. It seems so blatantly so. I suggest that the market for the new (proto-)Christian product did not include covenantal traditionalists.

Then there is the circumcision issue as well. A bottom-up approach is needed to explain the success of a product in the marketplace. There has to be demand as well as a supplier for there to be sales. Who do you think was buying the New Covenant?

maryhelena · 08-08-2010, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russellonius

Quote:

The Blood Issue: The drinking of symbolic blood in connection with the crucified gospel Jesus and the New Covenant.

It is easy to view the blood issue as being applicable to a spiritual context. It is another matter to give the symbolic drinking of blood an interpretation that does not offend Jewish sensibilities, nor contradict the Noahide and Moaisic Covenants. It’s the switch over from the literal to the spiritual use of blood that is difficult to pin down. What is need is the missing link, the switch over that allowed for a symbolic use of blood to not be offensive.

…The basis of the OT view on not drinking blood was based upon the idea that “the life of every creature is its blood”. Pouring out the blood, drinking the blood, are actions that arise from killing. It’s not the blood in and of itself - it’s what is represented by that blood - life. To drink the blood is to take a life. (and of course the 6th Commandment – you shall not murder...). Lifeblood was sacred - whether human blood or the blood of animals- blood is to be poured out on the ground and covered with dust.

…The New Covenant is not a rejection of the Old Covenant but only a new spiritual interpretation of that Covenant. It would not, as Acts upholds, be advocating something that would be abhorrent to Jews. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled not rejected - fulfilled by being re-interpreted. (maryhelena)

maryhelena, you seem to have focused on the origin of the cross. I admire your efforts. I’ve been studying the blood.

The blood is sprinkled in Hebrews, 1 Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas. Elsewhere it’s poured out and/or drank. I think only the Johannine literature has washing in the blood. Sprinkling and pouring the blood are traditionally Judaic usages, washing in it is pagan, drinking it is Judaic as a violation of the two covenants.

Drinking the blood won the market battle of supply and demand- it was most in demand of the possible uses to which the blood could be put considering that the practice continues today. Although the others are also valid uses of the product figuratively for Christians, they are not so practical – messy if using real wine to sprinkle, pour or bathe. Besides being practical as a communal ritual, only the drinking of the blood of the Lord results in intoxication. Why waste good wine? So I have focused on the origin of the drinking of the blood.

Blood is prohibited to humans in the Law (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:14) because the life is in the blood. Blood is not prohibited because butchering animals involves killing – God expects that his chosen (and other) people will eat meat. The blood/life is prohibited because of the disobedience in the garden.

The rationale for the drinking of it goes: now that the age of the resurrection is upon us, the life is given to us and it’s OK for us to drink the blood. In fact, it’s the primary symbol of the changed status of humans now that God has started to resurrect people. If this particular law against drinking of blood is now repealed due to the fact that ‘Jesus Christ’ is the New Adam, the one through whom the life has been given to humans, undoing the prohibition in the Garden, then we would have to re-evaluate other laws as well under these new circumstances. God having repealed this one law – that the blood/life belongs only to God - opens the flood gates of re-interpretation of all laws.

I think the purpose of drinking the (allegorical) blood of the (alleged) crucified messiah is to call into question the appropriateness of continuing to be bound to Torah in the new age of the resurrection.

The developing resurrection tradition includes verses such as Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:11-14, Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, Daniel 12:2 and Hosea 6:1-2. Ancient reasoning regarding theodicy demanded that God be just, and since evil rulers were killing off the Righteous Ones, then justice must come in the afterlife. Otherwise God is unjust and that cannot be. Resurrection is presented in the OT as a reward for those righteous ones who were faithful to the Mosaic covenant and killed unjustly. It was a scarce product in the OT due both to its cost and the special conditions that had to accompany its acquisition.

Resurrection in the NT is presented as a reward for simply believing that it is no longer necessary to adhere to the Old Covenants thanks to the supernatural powers of Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Greatest Product Ever Sold has an extremely low cost compared to both the previous cost of salvation through the Law and the previous means of attaining resurrection. Two-for-one at an unbeatable price!

If the followers of a covenant renewal movement - opponents of the 'harlotry' of the corrupt rulers - made a resurrection claim it would have been a working out of the problem of evil in their favor. It could not have been their intention that their resolution of this problem would have resulted in a theology that promotes, as a primary symbol, violation of the covenant they were fighting to uphold.

It seems likely to me that the drinking of the blood was a legal rebuttal on the part of the rulers who wanted to modernize their religion to the claims of those who wanted to preserve the status quo: Oh, one of your guys resurrected? Then a previously taboo activity is now allowed – the drinking of blood. Because what had been forbidden previously, eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, is now granted to us. Jesus undid what Adam had done.

It had not occurred to me before reading your stuff, maryhelena, that the Hasmoneans might have been among the ‘Jews’ who claimed the traditional faith product was beyond its ‘use by’ date in the first century. I agree with you on that now.

But there are still Hasidim today, as there were then, who think the product has not yet reached its expiration date. Now the issue I’m having with your theory is that religion is a socially dynamic entity governed by market forces. How could rulers get the hoi polloi to go along with their mythical engineering? The effort made by Jason and Menelaus to impose a new mythology top-down, without regard to the demand side, two centuries earlier had been unsuccessful.

I can see no way that the blood drinking would not have been offensive to the sensibilities of covenant upholders. It seems so blatantly so. I suggest that the market for the new (proto-)Christian product did not include covenantal traditionalists.

Then there is the circumcision issue as well. A bottom-up approach is needed to explain the success of a product in the marketplace. There has to be demand as well as a supplier for there to be sales. Who do you think was buying the New Covenant?

Both are needed for the product to sell. The top down and the bottom up. The market can only buy what is offered to it. So, it starts with the top down approach - as do all intellectual products. There is that old adage - an idea whose time has come - so it's back to the social/political situation on the ground. Whatever intellectual ideas, products, were in the melting pot prior to 70 ce - it's only after that time that a market is going to open up and be tempted to consider the new product. Dating 'Paul' early, ie as starting his ministry within a year or two after the crucifixion date of around 30/33 ce, is only to continue the gospel origin storyline - and Acts of course. The early christian documents are either dated very close to 70 ce or the years following. A much more realistic time period for 'Paul'. No ideas re a new covenant are going to sell prior to 70 ce. Probably the ideas were there pre-70 ce - but there would be no market for them.

So, two time periods, two markets for early christian ideas. Pre-Paul and the Paul era. The pre-Paul market would be an intellectual elite - probably Hasmonean, in-house with its restrictive niche market - and the Paul era with its attempt to break the ties to the past with its open-house, freemarket, appeal. My main focus is the early niche market....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2010, 11:12 PM	#41
popgoestheweasel Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast Posts: 18	I agree with Russellonius on this one. It's hard to imagine going from the Hasmonean high priesthood in a sacrificial religion to Paul. Just one example. Jewish Christians seemed to be vegetarians. The Hasmoneans had no interest in vegetarianism. They sacrificed animals. The Ebionites abhorred animal sacrifices. If you turn around and say the Hasmoneans weren't Jewish Christians then what were they? It's hard to imagine what's specifically Hasmonean about Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.