Course: Magic & Religion
Title: Blood of My Blood
Year: 2003
Grade: 12/12
Blood in the Judaeo-Christian culture is both a cross-gender and multifaceted symbol of life and death. Blood, depending on if it is male or female, can represent many aspects of the religious identity of the Hebrews. While original doctrine taught that only through blood association could one become a child of God, i.e. an Israelite, doctrine and cultural taboos on women's blood led to the act of circumcising any male into the group. This expression of legitimatizing someone through blood left grave differences in the gender roles of the followers and led to a splitting of the two aspects of Judaism: it and Christianity.
The ritual qualities of blood in the Judaeo-Christian cultural tradition is exemplified in the statement that "the blood always belonged to God, for 'I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls...whosoever eateth any manner of blood, I will set me face against that soul...and will cut him off from among his people' (Lev. 17.10-11)" (Archer, Leonie J. 237). In this respect, blood is both a condemnation and approbation to those who follow this belief. Here blood is a damnable symbol, that if anyone dares to take that which is rightfully God's, they shall be cast out and shunned by all who knew them. The Judaic covenant with God was purified with blood, and therefore none shall be redeemed without the spilling of more blood. This has the effect of making blood an all-powerful demigod in and of itself, for if the culture cannot progress without it, it will not progress as all but shall be sent back into barbarism and darkness.
However, blood also brought forth life, and therefore was given to saving its people in their times of need, thus did sacrifice come to be an important aspect of the culture. When the Israelites were striving to be free of Egypt, one of the plagues sent down by God "...involved the smearing of the blood of the Passover lamb on the door-posts and lintels of the Hebrews' homes...as a sign to the Angel of Death to leave them in safety (Exod. 12.7, 13, 23)" (Archer, Leonie J. 236). But not all blood was equal. Male blood was the superior of the two bloods (i.e. male and female) and used in major festival sacrifices, offerings, and purifications; female blood was used only in relation to certain rituals, but always dealt with outside of the sacred areas and camp, and the officiating priests had to then cleanse themselves after the offering (Archer, Leonie J. 238).
Women in Judaic teachings during the early centuries were considered the source of all evil, being that their times of menstruation were considered unclean, tainted, and full of all the negative aspects of humanity. Men on the other hand, were bound to God by their own blood in childhood, through circumcision. In the exilic priestly tradition, "...unless several drops of blood were seen to issue from the wound, the operation was deemed invalid and valueless. Later it was even specified that should there be for any reason no foreskin to sever, blood must still be made to flow for a rite to be effected and for the individual to enter into the covenant" (Archer, Leonie J. 243). Even the animals sacrificed were male, and their blood, like men's, was used to pay tribute or in the forgiving of sins to their God.
This difference in blood by gender is exemplified by the rights accorded to women, who during their menstruation were excluded from any religious of community group activity, and during childbirth they were sequestered for forty days be it male, eighty for female. This serves to show us that blood is not only that which is biological, but also spiritual and in the early 6th and 7th centuries, also legislative in nature; being that all of the aforementioned activities were declared laws under the State of Israel.
In modern times, orthodox Jews still practice laws set down in the 7th century, women still "...follow through the ritual purification at the mikva every month and abstain from physical contact with their husbands during their times of bleeding and for seven days thereafter" (Archer, Leonie J. 246). Non-orthodox women have a less strict blood taboo, however the male's circumcision still plays a central part in all Judaic practices. These continued practices have shaped not only a religion, but a people and that people's attitude towards men and women.
Christianity, on the other hand, has tried to make as clean a break with the Judaic beliefs as possible, relinquishing its need for circumcision. However, Christ was born again and brought into the Holy Place not through the blood of animals, but by his own blood. He being both male and circumcised. As Archer states: "...the old blood covenant had gone. A new one rose to replace it" (247).
As stated in the beginning of the chapter, "...religious ideology...regulates self-preservation" (Hicks, David 203). In the Jews' case, the religious ideology is preserved through blood, it has two poles: positivity through life, fertility, and abundance, and negativity through death, infertility, and want (Hicks, David 203). These two poles are the cornerstones of Judaic teachings with the positive side being male, and the negative side being female. For only males may be circumcised and therefore become one with God, and only females can contaminate the Holy with their blood, therefore causing the downfall of any man they may come in contact with whist 'impure'.
This multi-faceted nature of blood as a symbol is neither unique to Judaic teachings alone, nor is it incomprehensible being that many cultures see women's blood being expelled by even their own bodies as a sign of contamination, and to a nomadic group as the Israelites were in the early centuries, any form of contamination in regards to their limited supplies could bring death. In relation to the history of the people, this viewpoint is understandable and exceptable.
Bibliography
Archer, Leonie J. "In thy blood live": Gender and Ritual in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. Ritual and Belief: Readings in the Anthropology of Religion. Ed. David Hicks. McGraw-Hill Companies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 235-251.
Hicks, David. Ritual and Belief: Readings in the Anthropology of Religion. Ed. David Hicks. McGraw-Hill Companies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 203.
-------------
Commentary:
Looking back on this paper, I could have reworded and expanded upon some sections. I personally think the treatment of women was abhorrent, but I do understand the general beliefs. What I don't understand is that in modern times there are people who still believe this. I understand that in a desert environment you don't eat anything that taints quickly, because you don't have refrigeration. I understand that if there are wolves or jackels following you, blood could bring them right to camp. I even understand that if there is sand and grit flying around you'd want to cover up and not get scoured and burned, but seriously, it's 2017, expand your horizons a bit folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment