You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

SoberSecondThought ago

I think you've misread a source here.

It has been cured with a transfusion of pure umbilical blood, a full replacement of all blood within the child, though historically, it was done through, again, bibens sanguinum (which is the Hebrew translation of the word "Damascus", because it was where Cain slayed Abel), or literally, drinking blood, done every so often.

Okay, so what I see are some widely scattered Christian sources -- Orthodox Byzantines, Anglo-Saxons, and Italians -- each seizing on the very rough etymology that "dam" = "blood" and "shaqa" = drink, thus Damascus means "drinking blood" in Hebrew. But what I don't see are any Hebrew scholars saying that, and for fairly good reason.

Damascus is something like 5,000 years old, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. The earliest written reference to the name is in Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1500 BC, as "dimasq". There is a huge scholarly literature on this. Those wanting the short version can look at the intro-level Wikipedia article, or at this other Wikipedia article listing all the different languages with names for Damascus.

The point is, the name for Damascus was established hundreds of years before the Exodus or the establishment of ancient Israel. The Hebrew pronunciation is dahm-MEH-sehk, which is just their way of adopting the foreign place name. The various Old Testament scholars from the 6th, 11th, or 15th centuries who thought it had something to do with blood drinking were, well, rationalizing in the absence of solid archeological data.

This doesn't mean that I don't find Marina Abramovic and her blood rituals incredibly creepy. I think there really are elites sacrificing children and drinking their blood. But this argument needs to be way stronger before it can withstand criticism by anyone not already sold on PG. I'm not an Old Testament scholar, just a guy who retains random facts from history. I knew that Damascus got its name very early on, and so do lots of other people.

ferfrendongles ago

I think you've misread a source here.

I did! You have a keen eye, and a discerning mind.

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/archives/chasing-a-cure-for-tay-sachs/article_1c2aaaff-aa4d-55f8-8584-99e5111d5805.html

Here is my source on the origin of the word Damascus https://books.google.com/books?id=DkDFec14veQC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=damascus+bibens+sanguinum&source=bl&ots=XKt7ey0JVm&sig=WFH1WdJJ4caEJidRDHl8ll9urUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_ldCt7I3WAhXm7oMKHZLkA1oQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=damascus%20bibens%20sanguinum&f=false

It was named as such for the rampant Jewish sacrifices which ruled their temples and society at large until the coming of Christ. I'm sure you can understand why I value histories over wikipedia, in today's world.

Thank you for your challenges, and for remaining civil while doing so! It is a breath of fresh air, in all honesty.

SoberSecondThought ago

Okay, I don't disagree that ancient Israel engaged in human sacrifice. The story of Jephthah, among others, proves that they did.

But it still doesn't make sense for them to name a foreign city, one that ancient Israel never controlled, for blood drinking. The Egyptians called it "dimasq" centuries before Israel was even founded, because that was what the inhabitants called it.

The Old Testament scholars you cited wanted to see a deeper meaning in the name. They wanted to see God's hand behind it. So they suggested that Cain murdered Abel there, before there even was a city, and that while the local inhabitants who arrived later thought they were coming up with their own name, they were drawn to the name Damascus because it had this secret Hebrew meaning.

The problem with that is that not even most Christians will go along with that reasoning. It's a medieval heresy, something that got dropped long ago from mainstream theology.

I think it is reasonable and appropriate to look again at the blood libel, and see if possibly something important got missed. But if you put this kind of detail into something meant for normies, you will lose them. I don't see the necessity of doing this.

Can you see what I mean?

ferfrendongles ago

Oh, come now. It's only etymology, on sound footing, no different than any other place named for a historical event. I think that that word's history would be the last thing that a person might take issue with in reading all of this. lol

Are you Jewish, by chance? I only ask because you seem very familiar with a realm of things that I myself found to be exceptionally occulted, and I cannot imagine that one would come to such a defensive position of such information without an invested interest in it. I mean no offense in asking, but only to say that I am 1/4 Jewish, myself, and I know that all this hiding is going to bring nothing but pain, so it is good to bring light to those of our heritage who commit atrocities.

SoberSecondThought ago

I'm not Jewish. I'm also not being defensive.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you meet a man named Pilchuck. You remark that Pilchuck originates from a Chinook Indian term meaning 'red water' or 'red creek' (which it does) and that the existence of people named Pilchuck proves that there were Satanists hiding among the Chinook Indians who carried out human sacrifices (which is nothing but an arbitrary assertion on your part).

Damascus wasn't named for blood drinking. It isn't a clue. It doesn't lead anywhere.

Anyway, I've had my say. Thanks for being polite.

ferfrendongles ago

You're welcome, and thank you as well! I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement, but I take your argument to heart.