mydizandlopertjes: zout- & peperstelletjes ......

Given these definitions, the possibility of Christian origins for martyrology is, at least, intelligible.

I am not sure that the historical claim for precedence can be maintained. Nor am I sure that it can be refuted. Our argument is not with respect to the historical validity of chronological arguments, however, but with the model of historical relations between Christians and jews, Christianity and Judaism, and Jews and Rome that it presupposes. That model is based on the assumption of phenomenology, socially, and culturally discrete communities of Jews and Christians and of an absolute opposition between Judaism and Palestine on the other hand, Christianity and the Greco-Roman world, on the other. By posing the issue in a certain way, one is reinscribing a phenomenological boundary between jews and Christians, a sort of pure Christianity, pure Judaism, and indeed pure Greco-Romanness. Thus, "Christianity owed its martyrs
to the mores and the structure of the Roman empire, not to the indigenous character of the Semetic
Near East where Christianity was born. The written record suggests that, like the very word 'martyr' itself, martyrdom had nothing to do with Judaism or with Palestine. It had everything to do with the Greco-Roman world, its traditions, its language, and its cultural tasts!" Some maintain this model in the face of their recognition that the Smyrna {IZMIR} martyr Pionius's statement that he has been hearing the story of the Witch of Endor discussed by Jews since childhood contitutes "remarkable testimony to the inter-action of Jews and Christians in third-century Asia and to the significance of the Jewish population that knew Pio-nios!" The vector of these arguments throughout his {DB's} essay points in exactly the opposite direction -not to a history based on inviolable boundaries, but to a history based on border crossings so fluent that the borders themselves sometimes are hard to distinguish. Let's come back once again, to the story that was the leitmotif of these arguments, the story of when Rabbi Eli'ezer was arrested by and for Christianity. In the talmudic version of the story (ca. fourth century), which portrays the controversy between Rabbi Eli'ezer and the Christian, we see the point of the insepability of Christians and Jews even more clearly than in the earlier version.

DAT
bewaren we voor later:
het is te warm om te lang op
EEN
enkel punt door te gaan
[tot we erbij neervallen]!

Voorlopig
is 't strijdpunt
aan de ene kant 't langzame tijdsverloop &
aan de andere kant tweeduizend jaar oude {open} wonden,
wereldwijde hotspots, 'onoverbrugbare' tegenstellingen
& allerlei onbenulligheden!

Blijkbaar
worden er nog steeds babies,
kleuters & peuters gehersenspoeld
in golven van martelaarschap & onverzoenbare ellende
van de wieg af aan tot 't beruchte graf erop volgt: verplichte klederdracht,
bommengordels, haatpredikers
& shit!

Het is
EEN
ding om je leven op te offeren voor je vrienden
[& vijanden], maar heel andere koek om chaos te veroorzaken
uit totale blindheid, doofheid & achterlijkheid & zoiets te verkopen
als 't summum van "g d" & wat men daar achter
pleegt te zoeken of
in te leggen.

Mensenwerk
dus al met al verkocht
als ambrozijn
...