Blood | Pagan Anti-Morality
How is blood regarded in Pagan orthodoxy; and is it an example of anti-morality?
Part of a series on Pagan Anti-Morality | read more.
“!The dragons' war raged underground
Red against white, without a sound…”
- extract from ‘Y Ddraig Goch (The Red Dragon)’, an ancient Welsh poem
When looking at blood - or ‘human syrup’1 - as a potential case of Pagan anti-morality, we must first take the mood of the room, so to speak. To some, blood is a profanity without cause for its spilling or use. To others, it is an incontrovertible blessing without limit to its benefits nor flow. To the vast majority, however, it is just a red liquid that keeps man alive.
Blood is the most controversial element of contemporary religious practice, and, somehow, the most common in pre-Christian sacrificial rites. It is a fluid - thicker than water and as significant a factor in the continuation of livelihood. It is a carrier of genetic code, the core vessel of oxygenation, a marker for health and vitality, and, of most consequence to Pagans, an ensign of one’s clan; the divine family unit, and ancestral wrapper of the soul.
This essay will highlight the role that blood plays in Christian orthodoxy, the necessity of Christian adherence to its use, and how Christians are expected to regard blood in general. This will be contrasted with common Pagan orthodoxies, as derived from the outlined praxis of our holy texts, in order to demonstrate a clear separation between the two faiths. Special emphasis will be given to this split as it relates to anti-morality, with guidance for how Pagans should treat blood as part of an affirming morality.
Christian Orthodoxy: Blood
A fundamental exists between almost every scientific and philosophical tradition - that blood is a signifier of one being alive. It is almost amusing to have to pen this concept, for how much it borders on being common sense; that not having any blood in your body has a 100% chance that you are dying, or already dead, The essence of life cannot exist without blood, for it is the means by which our cells remain alive; no blood, no oxygen, no life.
Genesis 9:4
It is in this vein2 then, that Christianity first shows its hand; that its orthodoxy does not consider blood and sin as being inherently the same. While it is often misattributed to Christianity that blood-fear creates a fear of the flesh,3 it is more nuanced than simply asserting blood to be an ‘evil', which begets another evil in turn.
In truth, the hemophobia of Christianity is actually due to its essentialism as a life force. This stance is presented as early as Genesis 9:4:
“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”4
Being a verse of Genesis, this position is profound in its importance to Christians, pre-dating not only the New Testament, but also the laws of Moses - commonly called Mosaic Law. In challenging misconception, it lays out that the consumption of blood is considered taboo, judging it as a consumption of the lifeblood of the consumed. In this, the flesh and blood are one and the same.
Leviticus 17:14
This belief was compounded in the time of Moses - specifically, in the laying down of Mosaic Law - with a restriction on blood consumption found in Leviticus 17:14:
“ […] because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”"5
We again see here this restriction on blood consumption justified for its possession of life, as opposed to any reason of blood being sinful or wrong. The presence of this within the Mosaic Law is of particular interest, as it forms an expectation for Israelites6 to adhere to it as literal law - not just as best practice. This reinforcement serves to make blood consumption something illegal - for all intents and purposes - for practicing Israelites post-Egypt.
Book of Acts 15:20, 29
Lastly, there is a notable reference to blood in the New Testament. The Book of Acts describes a taboo against the practice, outlined by the elders of Jerusalem, in establishing early Christian orthodoxy. The declaration of such is found in Acts 15:20:
“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”7
… as well as in Acts 15:29:
“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”8
Twice over we see this command to abstain from blood. This appears in a more general sense of quite literally avoiding blood altogether; implicit nonetheless in its condemnation of blood consumption. We can therefore see a continuation of this moral stipulation: from the primordial command of God in Genesis, to the Mosaic Law of Leviticus, and on to the New Testament via the Book of Acts. The three form a very concise framework for Christian blood orthodoxy:
Blood is an essence of life. (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:14)
Blood consumption is a taboo due to this. (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:14)
Blood should be avoided altogether. (Acts 15:20, 29)
AN: it is of interest to consider that this belief - of the imbibing of blood being sinful or wrong - is likely the foundation for the controversy surrounding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ objection to blood transfusions. Food for thought in understanding where they may derive such beliefs, and how they regard blood.
Pagan Orthodoxy: Blood
As it is regarded, blood plays a vital role in Pagan praxis and, ultimately, the rebuilding of authentic orthodoxy. It is often the case that we overlook the most self-evident examples on a given point; taking it for granted, or sometimes dismissing it out of sheer ignorance. This is, fortunately, not the case as it relates to blood for our generation of Pagan educators and thinkers, who sincerely recognise blood as a supreme virtue in volume and use.
Linguistics
The most evident case of this self-evidence, therefore, is in common linguistics, largely found in our practice of sacrificial offerings. The namesake rite itself - the blót - is further evident to this in literally meaning ‘sacrifice’:
Old Norse blót (‘ceremonial offering’)9, ultimately from Proto-Germanic blōtą (‘offering, sacrifice’).10
There is further correlation, with a strong case that the term has relevance in the Old English blōd (‘blood’).11 Pagan sacrifice was typically undertaken by Goðar (in public rites) or the house-father (in private rites), and possessed this blood characteristic by involving the sacrifice of a living entity: always animals, and, in older days, included humans as well.
Völuspá 18
The reason for this can be found in the first poem of the Elder Edda, in the verses that detail the forming of man and woman. Specifically, in Völuspá 18:
“Spirit they possessed not, sense they had not,
blood nor motive powers, nor goodly colour.
Spirit gave Odin, sense gave Hœnir,
blood gave Lodur, and goodly colour.”12
From this verse, we see the three essential essences that were provided in forming mankind: spirit, sense, blood, and goodly colour. Goodly colour can be argued as not an essence in itself due to the effect blood has on hue13. Regardless, the presence of blood here is similar to that found in the Christian orthodoxy—that it is a life-force, here used to carve man from wood.
This verse can be used in contextualising the blót, affirming that the blood being offered is a considered life-force. Blood used in this ritual context is called hlaut (sacrificial blood, literally ‘to pick’)14,15, with further references to the hlautbollar (sacrificial cup, from hlaut + bolli; literally ‘the pick(ed) cup’)16 and the hlautteinar (sacrificial twigs).
Hákonar saga góða Ch. 16
These are, respectively, the bowl used to collect blood and the stick used to distribute the blood from the bowl. The presence and use of such are found in Chapter 16 of the Saga of Hákon the Good:
“It was an old custom, that when there was to be sacrifice […] where the temple stood […]. To this festival all the men brought ale with them; and all kinds of cattle, as well as horses, were slaughtered, and all the blood that came from them was called "hlaut", and the vessels in which it was collected were called hlaut-vessels. Hlaut-staves were made, like sprinkling brushes, with which the whole of the altars and the temple walls, both outside and inside, were sprinkled over, and also the people were sprinkled with the blood […]”17
Blood is here used to bless the sacred space; namely, the temple. The sacrifice of animals is performed in order to collect their blood in the hlautbollar, to then ‘sprinkle’ everywhere - across the altar, the walls, and the attendees - using the hlautteinar. Further reference is made later in the account of the flesh of the sacrificed being cooked for the ritual feast—linking again this idea of the flesh and the blood being interlinked, as seen in Christian orthodoxy:
“[…] but the flesh was boiled into savoury meat for those present. The fire was in the middle of the floor of the temple, and over it hung the kettles, and the full goblets were handed across the fire; and he who made the feast, and was a chief, blessed the full goblets, and all the meat of the sacrifice.”
The use of blood here—in ritual use—elaborates its role as a sacred conduit, containing the life-force of the slain and the use of whose essence establishes the sacred space. It is not that blood is just a carrier of divine essence, used in the blessing of all gathered men, but that it is used as a marker of the space as being sacred.
Hyndluljóð 11
This draws parallels with other Eddaic verses; notably found in Hyndluljóð 11:
“An offer-stead to me he raised, with stones constructed;
now is that stone as glass become.
With the blood of oxen he newly sprinkled it.
Ottar ever trusted in the Asyniur.”18
In this account, the figure of Ottar—a devotee of Lady Freyja—is described as establishing an altar to Her. He does so by establishing a stone-circle—or hǫrgr—and reddening it with the blood of slain cows. This bears common process to that observed in Hákonar saga góða in establishing the sacred space within the temple. It is again made clear that the use of blood in this ritual context, is in establishing the sacred space by way of blessing it.
Fáfnismál 32
While no prohibition is explicitly made, there is no mention of blood being consumed in any of these sources. In the case of The Saga of Hákon the Good, there is even clear distinction made in where the flesh of the sacrifice goes (prepared for consumption) and where the blood goes (distributed as hlaut) - indicating that the latter is not consumed ritually. Nonetheless, there are particular accounts of blood consumption in the Eddas.
In the account of the slaying of the serpent Fafnir, we see the hero Sigurd speak these words in Fáfnismál 32:
“There sits Sigurd sprinkled with blood;
Fafnir’s heart at the fire he roasts.
Wise methinks were the ring-dispenser,
if he the glistening life-pulp ate.”
In the consumption of the heart, he gains a clairvoyance in being able to speak to birds. While interesting in itself, is it notable that reference is made in particular to the ‘life-pulp’; itself a kenning for blood. We see again in this the property of blood as it pertains to the essence of life and, possibly, a property that relates it to fate.19 This is made clear when the birds surrounding his camp begin to warn him of treachery by his travel companion.
Skáldskaparmál Ch. 57
Lastly, we find implied blood consumption in the formation of the Mead of Poetry—a boon of skalds and poets. This is recounted in a section of Skáldskaparmál Ch. 57:
“Then said Ægir:
“I deem that well concealed in secret terms.” And again said Ægir: “Whence did this art, which ye call poesy, derive its beginnings?”
Bragi answered:
“These were the beginnings thereof. The gods had a dispute with the folk which are called Vanir, and they appointed a peace-meeting […] the gods took that peace-token and would not let it perish, but shaped thereof a man. This man is called Kvasir […] they [dwarfs] called him into privy converse with them, and killed him, letting his blood run into two vats and a kettle […] they blended honey with the blood, and the outcome was that mead by the virtue of which he who drinks becomes a skald or scholar. […]””20
In using blood as an ingredient of this dwarf-made concoction, it is affirming blood consumption as not only permissable but desirable, should you wish to receive divine inspiration. Whether intended as literal or metaphorical, we can regard it as an example of blood consumption being something that, in some contexts, is allowed—if not encouraged.
To this end, we can see a clear series of statements that make up the general Pagan orthodoxy regarding blood:
Blood is an essence of life. (Vol. 18, Faf. 32)
Blood is used in establishing a sacred spaces. (Hákonar saga 16, Hynd. 11)
Blood consumption is permissible in general; (Faf. 32)
and advisable in some contexts. (Skálds. 57)
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can see a simplistic, yet concise, summary of Christian orthodoxy in the three provided sources. The baseline command of blood being possessive of life, and therefore immoral in its consumption, is reinforced in the later Mosaic Law of Leviticus. This is further defined in the Book of Acts, prohibiting blood interaction altogether for early Christian believers.
The sole point of consensus to this in Pagan orthodoxy is the role of blood as a life-force, as seen in Völuspá. Further sources present a clear-cut case of blood being used in the establishment of holy spaces - both in the context of the temple and the stone-mound - with a general permissiveness of consuming blood, and a specific desirability in the practice in the particular context of divine inspiration.
In this, we can see how Pagan anti-morality may present itself if a Pagan were to exhibit a blood-fear. It is entirely understandable how this may occur, considering the general misconception of blood being an ‘evil’ (entirely untrue as we have demonstrated), especially for Pagans with more structured Christian backgrounds. Should a Pagan find blood to be distasteful; to express an apprehension, dislike, or even fear and hatred of blood; and a general unwillingness to interact with blood in any way, they are certainly engaging in Pagan anti-morality.
Pagan orthodoxy lays out that blood is the life-force that imbues our fair colour, with practical use in both rite and personal esotericism. It is a sacred tool of establishing the sacred space, as well as receiving blessing, with a reverence of desire in some to use it in poetic revelation. It is a positive, therefore, for the orthodox Pagan to engage in blood as permitted, in accordance with the practices detailed. If you encounter blood-fear, reassure the fearful with a dose of blood-hope; it is, after all, a lively blessing granted by the Gods.
Much like syrup, blood contains sugar, serves a vital role in the sustenance of its host, and can be tapped for its delicious flavour.
You knew this would be in here somewhere, don’t pretend otherwise.
This quote is actually from Silent Hill 1 - not Biblical canon.
Genesis 9:4 (KJV): “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
Leviticus 17:14 (KJV): “ […] because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”"
It is debated by Biblical scholars whether Christians should still be following Mosaic Law. This is largely due to the Christ fulfillment of it. (Matthew 5:17, Hebrews 8:6-13)
Acts 15:20 (KJV): “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
Acts 15:29 (KJV): “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Old Norse blót | Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bl%C3%B3t#Old_Norse.
Proto-Germanic *blōtą | Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bl%C5%8Dt%C4%85.
Old English blōd | Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blod#Old_English.
Völuspá 18 (Thorpe transl.) | “Spirit they possessed not, sense they had not, blood nor motive powers, nor goodly colour. Spirit gave Odin, sense gave Hœnir, blood gave Lodur, and goodly colour.”
Bellows’ 1923 translation of the Elder Edda used the term ‘hue’ in place of ‘goodly colour’.
Old Norse hlaut | Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hlaut.
The picking may be in reference to being the ‘pick’ of the animal i.e. the blood being chosen in particular. This is just my initial guess, however, and should not be considered an argument.
Old Norse bolli | Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bolli#Old_Norse.
Hákonar saga góða Ch. 16 (Sacred Texts Archive) | “Sigurd, earl of Hlader, was one of the greatest men for sacrifices, and so had Hakon his father been; and Sigurd always presided on account of the king at all the festivals of sacrifice in the Throndhjem country. [ect]”
Hyndluljóð 11 (Thorpe transl.) | “An offer-stead to me he raised, with stones constructed; now is that stone as glass become. With the blood of oxen he newly sprinkled it. Ottar ever trusted in the Asyniur.”
This subject is enough of a tangent that it has been passed over. It diverts too far from the concept of anti-morality, and is by and large a topic for a different time.
Skáldskaparmál Ch. 57 (Brodeur transl.) | “Then said Ægir: “I deem that well concealed in secret terms.” And again said Ægir: “Whence did this art, which ye call poesy, derive its beginnings?” Bragi answered: “These were the beginnings thereof… [ect]”