The Jews Were Cannibals, Wtf?

[Guest]

From The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. Pg 308

 

Furthermore, according to Josephus, the Alexandrian historian Apion accused the Jerusalem Jews of being cannibals, relating that when Antiochus opened the temple he found being fattened a Greek captive whose entrails were to be shared among the Jewish elders, a ritual they were alleged to have performed annually with kidnapped foreigners. This story is possibly true, as according to Lord Kingsborough and others the Judeans were "horrible cannibals," which would explain why they were despised by their neighbors. However, this particular episode may also be an anti-Judean tale originating with any number of enemies, including the Samaritans.

 

Other than Josephus, she uses no references to this claim at all. Nothing I can check about this besides reading Josephus, and since there are people on here who have read him (iirc), I'd like to ask if this is a true claim. I find it a little disheartening to read such an obnoxious claim anywhere, let alone with such a flimsy evidence to back it up...

[Vixentrox]

Well just because one segment of the population may have done it, doesn't mean it was a widespread or even accepted practice. Not all Catholic priests are pedophiles....but in 2000 years maybe a historian might think so.

[Ouroboros]

From The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. Pg 308

 

Furthermore, according to Josephus, the Alexandrian historian Apion accused the Jerusalem Jews of being cannibals, relating that when Antiochus opened the temple he found being fattened a Greek captive whose entrails were to be shared among the Jewish elders, a ritual they were alleged to have performed annually with kidnapped foreigners. This story is possibly true, as according to Lord Kingsborough and others the Judeans were "horrible cannibals," which would explain why they were despised by their neighbors. However, this particular episode may also be an anti-Judean tale originating with any number of enemies, including the Samaritans.

 

Other than Josephus, she uses no references to this claim at all. Nothing I can check about this besides reading Josephus, and since there are people on here who have read him (iirc), I'd like to ask if this is a true claim. I find it a little disheartening to read such an obnoxious claim anywhere, let alone with such a flimsy evidence to back it up...

In Josephus defense, if he said this (which I think is possible), he is only making a reference to that Apion is the one accusing the Jews. In other words, Josephus himself is not making the accusation; he is only bringing the fact about Apion's accusation. Josephus doesn't say it's true either (it seems like), so Josephus isn't the only making the mistake here.

 

The one making a huge mistake here is the person who makes the claim "This story is possibly true," which is Acharya. Her only support for the claim to be "possibly true" is that Lord Kingsborough and "others" thoughts so. Wow! That's bad. Really bad. Her support is based on the opinion of some 18th century crackpot? And who are those "others"? Can we use the "others think so" argument too? "Others think" that Acharya is an antisemitic witch. So there. It's proven.

 

I'm sure Thor would say we're just a misogynists for bringing this up, and that Archary S is right because she's always right, and everyone hates her, yada yada... But I know from "others" that he (she?) is wrong. (Sometimes I suspect Thor is a sock-puppet for Archarya herself.)

[Ouroboros]

Well just because one segment of the population may have done it, doesn't mean it was a widespread or even accepted practice. Not all Catholic priests are pedophiles....but in 2000 years maybe a historian might think so.

I wouldn't trust Acharya's claim here. Her support or evidence for this to be "possibly true" is that a crackpot Lord Kingsborough "thought" so. Kingsborough also thought that the native Indians in Mexico were a lost tribe of Israel and spent a lot of time trying to prove it. Unfortunately for him, his crazy idea was wrong. We know he was wrong since scientists have mapped the human migration though DNA markers. He was just guessing stuff.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for pointing out the faulty argumentation. When I just saw the title, my thoughts went to OT passages that say people in Jerusalem ate their kids when their city was besieged and they were starving. But I think we can dig up stories of any people, European included, who in desperate situations sometimes killed one or more of the party to extend the lives of the remaining members.

 

If I remember correctly, this happened in recent centuries (within the past two to five hundred years) on exploration voyages in extreme climates of either the hot desert or frozen polar regions. Horrible topic. I've given some thought to it recently and asked myself what I would do. I think I would rather die. Usually, the rescue teams never found them in time anyway. Sometimes not for decades or centuries.

 

Without instant communication, too often no one knew they needed finding. Not to mention where. Failing to show up as expected was a difficult mark because the "time to show up" could range from several months to several years if the trip was through the Northwest Passage (from the Atlantic to the Pacific or vice versa) across the top of North America, a trip of several thousand miles I think.

 

Besides, the rescue party had to be prepared for all the dangers of an unexpected summer blizzard, thawing ice burgs, an early winter, and all the other hazards of Arctic sea travel that possibly stranded the lost party to begin with.

 

The same hopelessness applied to the situation in besieged OT Jerusalem. The case was hopeless.

 

I'm sure Thor would say we're just a misogynists for bringing this up, and that Archary S is right because she's always right, and everyone hates her, yada yada... But I know from "others" that he (she?) is wrong. (Sometimes I suspect Thor is a sock-puppet for Archarya herself.)

 

Until I came to the "sock-puppet" line, I thought you were pretending to have a word from the Norse god Thor.

 

Acharya S. is a woman.

[Ouroboros]

Until I came to the "sock-puppet" line, I thought you were pretending to have a word from the Norse god Thor.

 

Acharya S. is a woman.

I know she is.

 

But you know, you and I we sometimes suspect foul play and people pretending to be someone they're not. Acharya is actually a male name. Acharya is just a pen-name, and her real name is Murdock. She intentionally picked a male name for her books because she believes that she is persecuted and that someone is out to kill her. And also that male writers have an easier time to be published than female, especially in the theological scene.

 

It's possible that "Thor" is another poser name by her. But it's also possible that it's just a crazy fan of hers. You never know.

[R. S. Martin]

Until I came to the "sock-puppet" line, I thought you were pretending to have a word from the Norse god Thor.

 

Acharya S. is a woman.

I know she is.

 

But you know, you and I we sometimes suspect foul play and people pretending to be someone they're not. Acharya is actually a male name. Acharya is just a pen-name,

 

I knew it was a pen name but I didn't know it was a man's name. I've always known that she was a woman.

 

and her real name is Murdock.

 

I was watching her blog off and on before she decided to use her real name but I always knew she was a woman. I don't think the reading public knew what her real name was, but her publisher pushed her to use it for one of her books that was coming out a few years ago.

 

She intentionally picked a male name for her books because she believes that she is persecuted and that someone is out to kill her. And also that male writers have an easier time to be published than female, especially in the theological scene.

 

I figured that the reason she didn't want to use her real name was that she was afraid of what Christians would do to her for saying the things she was saying. We all know it's not funny, and that it's not safe in some places for atheists to come out. Nor has the liberal Christian Tom Harpur had an easy time of "coming out" with saying Jesus was a myth.

 

Harpur been seriously attacked (verbally) by fellow theologians. I know because I tried getting more info from him while my profs were fighting him. I did not know about the heat of the battle and made the mistake of introducing myself as such-and-such's student.

 

It seems all of these guys--my profs and he--got their degrees at the University of Toronto, so there was local competition in the mix--something I did not understand.

 

What I'm saying is that for all I knew, Acharya S. had practical safety reasons for using a pen name. But I never dreamed she used a man's name. I don't approve of that. Though George Elliot, I understand, was a woman too. I guess it's been done traditionally. My preference is to use initials in a world that might reject women. It does make a difference in certain situations. But Acharya posts her very feminine picture at the link I posted, which contradicts the idea that she does not want people to know her gender.

 

I'm still looking at that name. Are you sure it's a man's name? It ends with the letter "a." For Western names, men's names hardly ever end with the letter "a." Names like Jeremiah end with an "h." Mario is a man's name and Maria is a woman's name. For the record, I'm not sure that she is a West European descendant, but her real name sounds like one and so does Acharya.

 

It's possible that "Thor" is another poser name by her. But it's also possible that it's just a crazy fan of hers. You never know.

 

I've been trying to remember how or where I first met or found her. I think it was on an MSN forum and MSN deleted all its forums in Feb. 2009. It was so long ago (that we met) that I forget how she wrote on the forums but I think Thor on these forums is just a crazy fan.

 

I'll have to see if I can get one of her books through the local public library and see how her work actually looks in hard copy. I find it seriously difficult to believe that anyone would do the work she is accused of doing and claim to be a scholar. Anyone short of evangelical Christians, that is.

[mwc]

8. He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us. In reply to which, it would be enough to say, that they who presume to speak about Divine worship ought not to be ignorant of this plain truth, that it is a degree of less impurity to pass through temples, than to forge wicked calumnies of its priests. Now such men as he are more zealous to justify a sacrilegious king, than to write what is just and what is true about us, and about our temple; or when they are desirous of gratifying Antiochus, and of concealing that perfidiousness and sacrilege which he was guilty of, with regard to our nation, when he wanted money, they endeavor to disgrace us, and tell lies even relating to futurities.

 

Apion becomes other men's prophet upon this occasion, and says that "Antiochus found in our temple a bed, and a man lying upon it, with a small table before him, full of dainties, from the [fishes of the] sea, and the fowls of the dry land; that this man was amazed at these dainties thus set before him; that he immediately adored the king, upon his coming in, as hoping that he would afford him all possible assistance; that he fell down upon his knees, and stretched out to him his right hand, and begged to be released; and that when the king bid him sit down, and tell him who he was, and why he dwelt there, and what was the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set before him the man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs, and tears in his eyes, gave him this account of the distress he was in; and said that he was a Greek and that as he went over this province, in order to get his living, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought to this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was fattened by these curious provisions thus set before him; and that truly at the first such unexpected advantages seemed to him matter of great joy; that after awhile, they brought a suspicion him, and at length astonishment, what their meaning should be; that at last he inquired of the servants that came to him and was by them informed that it was in order to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell him, that he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every year: that they used to catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up every year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails, and take an oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be at enmity with the Greeks; and that then they threw the remaining parts of the miserable wretch into a certain pit."

 

Apion adds further, that "the man said there were but a few days to come ere he was to be slain, and implored of Antiochus that, out of the reverence he bore to the Grecian gods, he would disappoint the snares the Jews laid for his blood, and would deliver him from the miseries with which he was encompassed."

 

Now this is such a most tragical fable as is full of nothing but cruelty and impudence; yet does it not excuse Antiochus of his sacrilegious attempt, as those who write it in his vindication are willing to suppose; for he could not presume beforehand that he should meet with any such thing in coming to the temple, but must have found it unexpectedly. He was therefore still an impious person, that was given to unlawful pleasures, and had no regard to God in his actions.

 

But [as for Apion], he hath done whatever his extravagant love of lying hath dictated to him, as it is most easy to discover by a consideration of his writings; for the difference of our laws is known not to regard the Grecians only, but they are principally opposite to the Egyptians, and to some other nations also for while it so falls out that men of all countries come sometimes and sojourn among us, how comes it about that we take an oath, and conspire only against the Grecians, and that by the effusion of their blood also? Or how is it possible that all the Jews should get together to these sacrifices, and the entrails of one man should be sufficient for so many thousands to taste of them, as Apion pretends? Or why did not the king carry this man, whosoever he was, and whatsoever was his name, (which is not set down in Apion's book,) with great pomp back into his own country? when he might thereby have been esteemed a religious person himself, and a mighty lover of the Greeks, and might thereby have procured himself great assistance from all men against that hatred the Jews bore to him. But I leave this matter; for the proper way of confuting fools is not to use bare words, but to appeal to the things themselves that make against them.

mwc

[Ouroboros]

What I'm saying is that for all I knew, Acharya S. had practical safety reasons for using a pen name. But I never dreamed she used a man's name. I don't approve of that.

I can understand her reasons and, personally, I have no issues with it.

 

I'm still looking at that name. Are you sure it's a man's name? It ends with the letter "a." For Western names, men's names hardly ever end with the letter "a." Names like Jeremiah end with an "h." Mario is a man's name and Maria is a woman's name. For the record, I'm not sure that she is a West European descendant, but her real name sounds like one and so does Acharya.

The word is from Sanskrit, and it means "teacher" or "guru." I did read somewhere that this name is traditionally a male name in those countries. It's not a western name so the "-a" doesn't work the same way in India. I'm sure she took it because of her knowledge in Sanskrit and other Eastern languages.

 

I'll have to see if I can get one of her books through the local public library and see how her work actually looks in hard copy. I find it seriously difficult to believe that anyone would do the work she is accused of doing and claim to be a scholar. Anyone short of evangelical Christians, that is.

It's strange, isn't it?

 

The thing I keep coming back to is that there are many things that she's right on, there are many parallels and similarities between pagan, Egyptian religion, Buddhism, and so on, and Christianity. What's irritating is that it's impossible to have a balanced and reasonable debate about what she's right or wrong about without her followers go nuclear bomb. If they didn't show so much fundamentalist attitude, her books could maybe even have more impact in theological circles.

[Ouroboros]

Source?

[mwc]

Source?

Josephus. Against Apion. For context.

 

It's a little like a Hansel and Gretel story.

 

The thing about cannibalism is it usually only happens during times of duress. So it seems unlikely that they'd just pick a guy and eat him. The druids didn't do this even though similar accusations were made against them as well (cannibalism is a common accusation to make). Josephus does note a woman eating her baby during the siege on Jerusalem (which is probably not true) and the druids were noted for engaging in cannibalism while under siege as well (as are many other peoples). So if this could be connected to Antiochius and his war with the Jews it would make far more sense but it is portrayed as a commonplace ritual that took place before, and up to the time, he ultimately came into the temple (effectively ending the practice at the time when we might expect it to start up).

 

This sounds like the type of propaganda that went around and is doubtful to have any substance to it given the circumstances.

 

mwc

[JadedAtheist]

Source?

 

Apion 2.88 of The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition (at least that is the reference my Logos software gives me for it, maybe his is different).

 

EDIT: Just noticed he replied before I did, so never mind

[Ouroboros]

This sounds like the type of propaganda that went around and is doubtful to have any substance to it given the circumstances.

Exactly.

 

The early Christians were accused of the same thing, weren't they?

[mwc]

The early Christians were accused of the same thing, weren't they?

Yeah. It was something that got tossed around a lot.

 

The thing about (some) xians of the day, however, is they actually did eat a persons body and blood (symbolically for all sects we presume) during a ritual meal. So I can see how this could lead to the accusation more readily than if you didn't have that practice at all.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

The early Christians were accused of the same thing, weren't they?

Yeah. It was something that got tossed around a lot.

 

The thing about (some) xians of the day, however, is they actually did eat a persons body and blood (symbolically for all sects we presume) during a ritual meal. So I can see how this could lead to the accusation more readily than if you didn't have that practice at all.

 

mwc

That's right. And according to the Catholic transfiguration theory (or whatever it's called), the Eucharist is supposedly literally the blood and flesh of Jesus.

[R. S. Martin]

The early Christians were accused of the same thing, weren't they?

Yeah. It was something that got tossed around a lot.

 

The thing about (some) xians of the day, however, is they actually did eat a persons body and blood (symbolically for all sects we presume) during a ritual meal. So I can see how this could lead to the accusation more readily than if you didn't have that practice at all.

 

mwc

That's right. And according to the Catholic transfiguration theory (or whatever it's called), the Eucharist is supposedly literally the blood and flesh of Jesus.

 

I think the word you want is transubstantiation.

 

n.

• Conversion of one substance into another.
• In many Christian churches, the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same.

FROM answers.com

[R. S. Martin]

I'm still looking at that name. Are you sure it's a man's name? It ends with the letter "a." For Western names, men's names hardly ever end with the letter "a." Names like Jeremiah end with an "h." Mario is a man's name and Maria is a woman's name. For the record, I'm not sure that she is a West European descendant, but her real name sounds like one and so does Acharya.

The word is from Sanskrit, and it means "teacher" or "guru." I did read somewhere that this name is traditionally a male name in those countries. It's not a western name so the "-a" doesn't work the same way in India. I'm sure she took it because of her knowledge in Sanskrit and other Eastern languages.

 

Okay. I don't know Sanskrit at all but I know Indian names can be very seriously different from anything European so I'm sure you're right.

[Guest Marty]

 

The one making a huge mistake here is the person who makes the claim "This story is possibly true," which is Acharya. Her only support for the claim to be "possibly true" is that Lord Kingsborough and "others" thoughts so. Wow! That's bad. Really bad. Her support is based on the opinion of some 18th century crackpot? And who are those "others"? Can we use the "others think so" argument too? "Others think" that Acharya is an antisemitic witch. So there. It's proven.

 

That is what struck me too. I know Josephus was just reporting what he had been told, what shocked me was the claim that this could "possibly be true" with nothing to back it up with. I never for a second thought the claim could be true. I know enough about history to understand the Jews have been accused of tons of horrid things, eating xtian babies, drinking baby blood, controlling the world banks or controlling just Hollywood. I roll my eyes reflexively anytime I hear someone slandering the Jews like that...

 

But it was the best example of the level of research that I have found in her book. I read this book originally years ago, when I first started out on my de conversion. She was literally one book in a stack of many, and I remember not feeling it was a very satisfying book. Funny how Thor has actually got me on a course to really look hard at his idol...I had almsot forgotton about her...

[Ouroboros]

I'm glad you did.

[Loren]

The thing I keep coming back to is that there are many things that she's right on, there are many parallels and similarities between pagan, Egyptian religion, Buddhism, and so on, and Christianity. What's irritating is that it's impossible to have a balanced and reasonable debate about what she's right or wrong about without her followers go nuclear bomb. If they didn't show so much fundamentalist attitude, her books could maybe even have more impact in theological circles.

I had a similar problem with her work. It didn't have to do with her followers so much as the processes of her work. Some of it I felt was pretty darned reliable. But so much of it was so sloppy, particularly with cases of her, in a very un-scholarly way, putting the cart before the horse in the process of reaching a pet conclusion, and then digging up supporting evidence for it.

 

Not only does she undermine her own credibility as a scholar with that sort of thing, but also begs the question in the reader, "Just how much pertinent information is she omitting as irrelevant or unimportant because it doesn't fit her pet hypothesis?"

 

How much information does she have that the reader simply can't evaluate because she never lets it see print?

 

She can be an interesting and entertaining read, but the, "Take with a mouthful of salt," caveat applies here.

 

Other authors whose pursuits are along the same lines but who have genuine scholarly integrity and are fascinating to read are:

 

The Gnostic Gospels (And others) by Elaine Pagels

The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler

 

Pagels and Eisler really are what Acharya S. claims to be.

[R. S. Martin]

Loren, thanks for your post and for the reading list. Your, and Hans's, reviews of Acharya S. are very similar to my professors' reviews of Tom Harpur. Hence the comparisons on my part.

 

Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ is the one and only "mythical Christ" book I've read. But for my "after the New Testament" course I read much of the Gnostic Library, collected in Robinson (?), plus other authors including a book by Elaine Pagels. My profs absolutely rejected Harpur but somehow, the ideas I got from him were not in the least shaken by what I read in the Gnostic literature.

 

Another thing that struck me hard in that course was that the orthodox Christians and the heretic groups each accused the other equally hard for not being true to what Jesus really meant, or something to that effect. We used Bart Ehrman's "After the New Testament" for a text and it was in one of those readings.

[Vomit Comet]

or controlling just Hollywood.

 

There's actually a grain of truth to that one. It was classic "paraiah capitalism", as back in the late 19th century, entertainers were considered little better than whores, and Jews have been involved in the entertainment industry for as long as anyone can recall. Low-level Jewish financiers, and Jewish artistic talent, were able to get in on the ground floor before anyone knew the film industry would amount to anything. They took a big risk and won big.

 

As for today. I remember hearing this story told by a certain notable Jewish studio executive who said "I started out as a carpenter making props. My boss's boss happened by, and then came up to me and asked 'what's a nice Jewish boy like you doing work like this? I'm used to overall-wearing rednecks.'" And by next week he was showing up to work in a suit.

 

The same is true for Las Vegas, although that had more to do with the Jewish mob out of Chicago. (Which, as well, could be called "paraiah capitalism.") Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky, and Mo Dalitz are pretty much considered the founding fathers of the Vegas we know and love today. Sunrise Hospital, the biggest hospital in town, was built by Dalitz who was quite the local philanthropist. Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn are some of the current kings of this town. Adelson was the richest man in the world just before the crisis hit, IIRC. The local political/legal elite are largely Jewish as well.

 

To say that Jewish people enjoy at least a partial hegemony over Las Vegas wouldn't be a non-truth, nor would it be a bad thing either. This place would be a slightly bigger version of Pahrump or Winnemucca were it not for them. The other most powerful group are the Mormons; they dominate much of the Vegas area and they certainly dominate the rest of Nevada. Here's the thing about Mormons: they sure don't let their weird beliefs get in the way of making money!

[pitchu]

Claims of cannibalism have been made for centuries by various factions to demonize and dehumanize others with whom they had a quarrel or against whom they wished to gain advantage. There's an excellent book, "The Man-eating Myth," which debunks these claims.

 

Isabella of Spain decreed that Spanish colonists could only legally enslave native populations if they were cannibals. Luckily for these scrupulous Spaniards, the natives of territories abundant in riches turned out to be exactly that!

[R. S. Martin]

 

Isabella of Spain decreed that Spanish colonists could only legally enslave native populations if they were cannibals. Luckily for these scrupulous Spaniards, the natives of territories abundant in riches turned out to be exactly that!

 

I suppose there was a way for them to bring irrefutable proof before the monarch???

 

Oh, let's see. "Territories abundant in riches" would have contributed sufficiently to the coffers of said monarch to stave off suspicion. Or the desire to investigate. Yes, I think that is how human nature works, whether a crowned monarch or starving peasant. "Riches" have a way of buying off human integrity.

 

I get your point, Pitchu. It's an interesting and insightful one. If people wish to denigrate the Jews, no matter how subtly, all they have to do is slip in a rumour that their ancestors were cannibals.

 

This raises the question: Is the idea of the inhabitants of Jerusalem eating their babies in time of siege in the original Jewish texts? Or does it appear only in the Christian Old Testament? Anyone, beginning in the first century AD, could have revised it to denigrate those Jews who was against the Jesus movement.

[mwc]

This raises the question: Is the idea of the inhabitants of Jerusalem eating their babies in time of siege in the original Jewish texts? Or does it appear only in the Christian Old Testament? Anyone, beginning in the first century AD, could have revised it to denigrate those Jews who was against the Jesus movement.

The story of the woman eating her baby in the siege comes from Josephus as does the story of the Greek man (though he's repeating Apion here). There are no Jewish texts from Josephus and should never have been (based on the internal evidence). The copies of his writings that we have are very late, from about the 10th century(?), which is why many passages get questioned. This one looks to be legit but it would simply be based on nothing more that hearsay since Josephus, at this time, would have been nowhere near Jerusalem. So it's entirely possible, given the conditions he describes, that people had turned to cannibalism to survive, but that this particular story is not true. There's just no way to prove either way since there's no actual first-hand evidence to support the claim.

 

mwc