A Copernican Revolution in Judeo/Christian Gender-Dynamics.

[John D. Brey]

Contemporary Western civilization is more dependent, both for its everyday philosophy, and for its bread and butter, upon scientific concepts than any past civilization has been. But the scientific theories that bulk so large in our daily lives are unlikely to prove final. The developed astronomical conception of a universe in which the stars, including our sun, are scattered here and there through an infinite space is less than four centuries old, and it is already out of date. . . most of [the older scientific beliefs] received in their day the same resolute credence that we now give our own. Furthermore, they were believed for the same reasons: they provided plausible answers to the questions that seemed important. Other sciences offer parallel examples of the transiency of treasured scientific beliefs.

Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p. 3.​

For the entire history of Judeo/Christian thought and philosophy it seemed important to propound the treasured scientific belief that the male, because of his seemingly undeniable superiority of strength, intellect, and potential for genius, had to be antecedent to the female. Heck, wasn't it all males who wrote the writ that's writ so large as the basis of Judeo/Christian thought and philosophy in the first place? For these and a multitude of other reasons, the female is treated as secondary, as something like an after-thought. The fact that there are reams of factual data, scientific, as well as exegesis from the seminal theological writ itself, proving that the female is in fact first, seemingly seminal, never seemed important to the epistemology, and world-view, that predominated for thousand and thousands of years. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on one's worldview, that time has past.

The general fact of the first-ness of the female has been covered in these parts ad nauseum. And though it's the thorn-in-the-flesh of orthodox Judeo/Christian thought par excellent, it's already been shown to be the case in too many case studies to retrod that path. What's in the crosshairs here is a more in-depth examination of legitimate gender dynamics in general, in the scripture, as corrected by science and more precise exegesis of texts too heavy-handedly effected by interpretations that almost seem designed to act as a prophylactic covering up the spirit of the seminal scroll.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Contemporary Western civilization is more dependent, both for its everyday philosophy, and for its bread and butter, upon scientific concepts than any past civilization has been. But the scientific theories that bulk so large in our daily lives are unlikely to prove final. The developed astronomical conception of a universe in which the stars, including our sun, are scattered here and there through an infinite space is less than four centuries old, and it is already out of date. . . most of [the older scientific beliefs] received in their day the same resolute credence that we now give our own. Furthermore, they were believed for the same reasons: they provided plausible answers to the questions that seemed important. Other sciences offer parallel examples of the transiency of treasured scientific beliefs.

Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p. 3.​

For the entire history of Judeo/Christian thought and philosophy it seemed important to propound the treasured scientific belief that the male, because of his seemingly undeniable superiority of strength, intellect, and potential for genius, had to be antecedent to the female. Heck, wasn't it all males who wrote the writ that's writ so large as the basis of Judeo/Christian thought and philosophy in the first place? For these and a multitude of other reasons, the female is treated as secondary, as something like an after-thought. The fact that there are reams of factual data, scientific, as well as exegesis from the seminal theological writ itself, proving that the female is in fact first, seemingly seminal, never seemed important to the epistemology, and world-view, that predominated for thousand and thousands of years. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on one's worldview, that time has past.

The fact of the first-ness of the female has been covered in these parts ad nauseum. And though it's the thorn-in-the-flesh of orthodox Judeo/Christian thought par excellent, it's already been shown to be the case in too many case studies to retrod that path. What's in the crosshairs here is a more in-depth examination of legitimate gender dynamics in general, in the scripture, as corrected by science and more precise exegesis of texts too heavy-handedly effected by interpretations that almost seem designed to act as a prophylactic covering up the spirit of the seminal scroll.

In one of the most seminal passages in the entire scripture, Abraham becomes perturbed by God when God appears to be telling him that he will be reborn as Sarah's firstborn, and that after that happens, Sarah's womb will be restored so that she will not only give rebirth to Abram as the new man Abraham, but giving rebirth to Abram will allow her to mother the new man, Abraham's, firstborn Isaac (Abram already had a firstborn בכור לנחלה).

Although all of this is covered up in the prophylactic version stretched over the seminal text by the Masoretes, anyone with a working knowledge of Hebrew grammar can be brought along, perhaps kicking and screaming, as the literal text is exegeted properly to bring out the interpretation above.

Nevertheless, again, that's all old hattan. It's all been covered in some depth. We shant retrod old sod סוד.

What's new to chew on here is what's going on in the text when we realize that Abram is reborn to Sarah as Abra-h-am (ergo the name change)? What does it mean for Abram to be reborn to Sarah? What's the theological impetus for that strange affair?

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart, Shall a hundred year old be born and shall Sarah, barren ninety years, do the bearing? . . . How can a man be born when he's old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? . . . "Marvel not that I said you must be born again" . . . [For] circumcision is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but . . . marks the second, higher birth . . ..

Genesis 17:17; John 3:4-6; The Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

In one of the most seminal passages in the entire scripture, Abraham becomes perturbed by God when God appears to be telling him that he will be reborn as Sarah's firstborn, and that after that happens, Sarah's womb will be restored so that she will not only give rebirth to Abram as the new man Abraham, but giving rebirth to Abram will allow her to mother the new man, Abraham's, firstborn Isaac (Abram already had a firstborn בכור לנחלה).

Although all of this is covered up in the prophylactic version stretched over the seminal text by the Masoretes, anyone with a working knowledge of Hebrew grammar can be brought along, perhaps kicking and screaming, as the literal text is exegeted properly to bring out the interpretation above.

Nevertheless, again, that's all old hattan. It's all been covered in some depth. We shant retrod old sod סוד.

What's new to chew on here is what's going on in the text when we realize that Abram is reborn to Sarah as Abra-h-am (ergo the name change)? What does it mean for Abram to be reborn to Sarah? What's the theological impetus for that strange affair?

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart, Shall a hundred year old be born and shall Sarah, barren ninety years, do the bearing? . . . How can a man be born when he's old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? . . . "Marvel not that I said you must be born again" . . . [For] circumcision is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but . . . marks the second, higher birth . . ..

Genesis 17:17; John 3:4-6; The Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

Adding intrigue to the injury that correct exegesis does to the beloved myth of the Masoretic text is the fact that Abram's rebirth is symbolically situated in ritual emasculation, brit milah, since the crux of the issue in the crosshairs of the chapter (Genesis 17) has Abram ritually emasculating himself (verses 10-11) prior to being told that his ritual emasculation prepared for his own rebirth to his wife Sarah. It's revealed to him, though we don't know if he got the memo, that his rebirth is asexual, and thus not based on normal gender-dynamics. His rebirth is situated in the blood of the male organ (דם ברית) responsible for the sin of of his first birth therein requiring rebirth.

Jewish bumper-stickers in the Bible-belt often read: I was born just fine the first time. Unfortunately, Abram is told otherwise before he becomes Biblically wise'ned in Genesis chapter 17. And for what it's worth, "dam brit" דם ברית means the "blood of the covenant" and is not a slander against the British mohel who cuts the royal goyim.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Adding intrigue to the injury that a correct exegesis does to the beloved myth of the Masoretic text is the fact that Abram's rebirth is symbolically situated in ritual emasculation, brit milah, since the crux of the issue in the crosshairs of the chapter (Genesis 17) has Abram ritually emasculating himself (verses 10-11) prior to being told that his ritual emasculation prepared for his own rebirth to his wife Sarah. It's revealed to him, though we don't know if he got the memo, that his rebirth is asexual, and thus not based on normal gender-dynamics. His rebirth is situated in the blood of the male organ responsible for the sin of of his first birth therein requiring rebirth.

Jewish bumper-stickers in the Bible-belt often read: I was born just fine the first time. Unfortunately, Abram is told otherwise before he becomes Biblically wise'ned in Genesis chapter 17.

It’s true that before you have Jewish faith, you need to have Jewish identity. And it’s true that the nature of that identity is as knotty as any chok (any irrational statute of Jewish faith). Nevertheless, no matter how knotty the question of Jewish identity, it must be untangled before engaging the question of Jewish faith: What is Jewish identity?

The answer comes down to one extremely important question: Which came first, a Jewish woman or a Jewish man? ---- Jewish law states that to be Jewish is to be born from a Jewish woman. So it would appear that according to Jewish law there must be a Jewish woman before you can have the first Jewish man. Jewish law confirms that this must be the case since even if a Jewish woman procreates with a Gentile man, the offspring will be Jewish, while if a Jewish man procreates with a Gentile woman, the offspring will be Gentile.

A Token Jew.​

In the sense that to be Jewish requires being born to a Jewish mother appears to situate the correct exegesis of Genesis 17:17 within Jewish law. Abraham can't be Jewish without a Jewish mother. The bumper-sticker Jew noted previously objects that Yes Abraham can be a Jew without a Jewish mother since Judaism accepts converts. But in that case Abraham would still have to convert to something already extant, which means Sarah would still be his mother and the Jewish person he's born from or converted to. Sarah still appears to be the first Jew.



John