't Begon ging door & stopte niet meer met sneeuwen

Eenmaal
op pad via
zandbakken, zandpaadjes, klaphekken,
kleuterscholen & wat daar allemaal op volgt,
rest je niet veel anders dan door te gaan op die
ingeslagen wegen & verder te gaan
met tijdruimte~
reizen?!

The
"new"
constituent
that is encapsulated in the declaration
of the
nomen
"Christianus sum"
& that
played a crucial role in the development of the
martyria
would seem to be a Christian product of the second century.
It is present and central in all of the martyr acts accepted by the consensus
of scholars as authentic and pre-Decian. We find it in the martyrdom of Polycarp,
in the Letter of Lyons and Vienne, and in the North African martyrology of 180, the Martyrs of Scilli.
This distribution and this consistency suggest an element of martyrology
that had taken root firmly in the
earliest Christian tradition
of martyrdom
itself.

In
the Jewish
texts,
we have no such invariability
for this principle.

Indeed,
if the discourse
of provoked martyrdom
is a particularly striking innovation
among the Rabbis (and
"provoked martyrdom"
is a better term, in my opinion, than
"voluntary"
martyrdom -
if martyrdom is not voluntary, it is not martyrdom), it is easy to explain the irony and
near mockery that we find in e martyrology parallel to that of Rabbi Akiva, the martyrology of Rabbi Hanina from Tractate Avoda Zara 17b. In a very stimulating, but finally (to me) not entirely convincing reading some have argued that the sanctification of "G d's name", as constructed in this sugya {of TB Sanhedrin 74a-75b & parallels}, is only passive. Not engaging
in adultery {= idolatry!} is
kiddush hashem.

There is no way
of active kiddush hashem
since the sanctifier is constructed as Esther is - if he has
no pleasure he has sanctified
"G d's name".

If he is like
"natural soil"
he resists the impurity
of idolatry/adultery.

The
idea of
an active sanctification
of "G d's name" is foreign,
since that pleasure [of actively
sanctifying G d's name], like the pleasure
of sexual intercourse, is given only to transgressors.
If they are right in this reading, this talmudic text would stand
in direct opposition to the line of thought that is developed in the Rabbi Akiva texts,
an opposition much more implacable & univocal that that in our
Avoda Zara intertext. This, by itself, of course, would be
an entirely plausible result. This reading hangs, however,
on the assumption that according to one voice there,
Esther managed to resist successfully Ahasueros's
attempts to have intercourse with her, & it is
this crucial moment in this reading that
fails to produce conviction. When, like
Rabbi Akiva, the good Rabbi engages
in the provocative teaching of Torah,
Rabbi Yose ben Kisma challenges
him, to which Rabbi Hanina
replies,
'From heaven they will have mercy,'
which occasions Rabbi Yose's sardonic:
"I say logical things to you, and you answer me:
'FROM HEAVEN THEY WILL HAVE MERCY!'
I will be surprised if they do not burn you
and the Scroll of the Torah
with you."

In this martyrdom of Rabbi Hanina ben Tradyon, we do not find the identification with the "Name" at all ...

In its stead,
we find in answer to the question of the judge,
"WHY DO YOU TEACH TORAH?":
"Because so my G d has commanded me!"
Moreover, in the talmudic versions of the story of the martyrdom of the women and her seven sons,
only one of the sons quotes the verse
"HEAR O ISRAEL!,"
while all the others quote other verses entirely,
and neither is the quotation of the
HEAR O ISRAEL
at a particularly marked point in the story.
Lamentations Rabbah I & Babylonian Talmud Gittin 57b:
each of the martyred children cites a verse, and the
"HEAR O ISRAEL,"
later the sine qua non of martyrdom right up until the Nazi genocide,
is the fifth out of the seven, suggesting that the particular usage
of the Unification of the Name had not yet formed
at the time of the midrash. It seems, then,
reasonable to assume that the Unification
of the Name, brought to the fore in the latter-day narratives
of the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva ~ if indeed as we have suggested,
it is a functional parallel to the
"Christianus sum"
to that crucial declaration of the
nomen,
the "public
identification with
the Christian name [that]
is the last word, followed
by death."

This becomes
the definitive moment in Jewish martyrology
in the post-talmudic period. There is, moreover, something peculiarly Roman
in this particular enactment of a
"moment of truth,"
peculiarly Roman, also, in these early martyrologies: the occasional theme of
"being a man,"
found both in those of Polycarp and Perpetua.

Thus it is made clear as well that
"virtus,"
being a man, was as much for women as for men. We can see the ways
that this theme of manliness is reflected in rabbinic literature {
'TRY TO BE A MAN'}:
so
I am not arguing for its absence, but rather that it was a highly contested motif in rabbinic literature,
particularly at certain crucial junctures like this one, a motif of standing up & being killed
"like a man"
which Polycarp is urged to do by a
'heavenly voice'!

Others, to be sure, relate this motif to the Hellenic element of
andreia
in "Greco-Roman" society, rather than seeing it
as somthing particularly Roman.

Kortom,
om 't toch maar zo simpel &
eenvoudig mogelijk te houden
na al die uitstapjes her en der in de verre
wilde woestijnen van het Nabije Midden Oosten
waar ooit de bronnen van onze huidige beschavingen
schijnen te hebben gelegen: het gaat in feite
om het recht van de mens
op een eigen mening &
'n daaraan verbonden
individuele manier van leven
zonder anderen nog schade toe te brengen
of te beduvelen!

Overal
waar de zogenaamde
'status quo'
ons dwingt tot 't verloochenen van onszelf &
anderen is er sprake van heiligheidsschennis &
schending van
'de rechten van de mens':
nog steeds is 't in sommige landen verboden om
'te geloven & te leven'
als [bijvoorbeeld] jood en/of christen.
Je speelt met je leven als je bekent iets anders te geloven
dan 'wat algemeen aanvaard schijnt te zijn'
&/of opgelegd door gewelddadige
heersende autoriteiten
...

Zodra
men ontdekt
dat je
'anders'
bent ga je voor de bijl &
ligt totale verdoemenis op de loer
door extreem fanatieke
'betweters',
ziekelijk
'achterdochtigen',
legio
'hypocrieten'
& allerlei andere huichelaars
die klaar staan om ons
't leven te benemen
['n "spuitje"
te geven e.d.] als
we niet willen
geloven zoals
zij?!

In
't groot
& klein is
dat 't Probleem:
de mens voor de
andere mensen als 'wolf' ~
wie niet wil 'gehoorzamen' bijt men de strot af
als 'gevaar voor de z.g.
samenleving'.

'n Overblijfsel
uit onze instinctieve{r}
oertijden?

'n
Moderne{r} tendens
tot 'eensgezindheid'?

Wat
het ook
moge zijn
in de grond van
de zaak gaat 't om
vrijheid & dwang,
openheid &
geslotenheid,
jezelf kunnen zijn &
't verbod
daarop!

In dienst
van dit principe
kunnen we wel 'martelaar' zijn,
maar nooit zelf 't z.g. "recht in eigen hand nemen" &
uit eenzaamheid, verdwazing & massapsychose of
zinsbegoocheling
OOK
anderen gaan
ombrengen in woord
en/of
daad.