Daniel Boyarin and the Jewish Problem of Hermeneutics.

[John D. Brey]

Accurate Translation only was required. After that no interpretation was orvis necessary. All is clear. . . If you doubt this then please show a verse from either Leviticus or Deuteronomy for review.

Genesis is closer to the signature. Take a verse implicitly noted already in this thread: Genesis 17:17. The naked Hebrew text says God tells Abraham that Sarah is going to be his mother in the new covenant. He's going to, get this, have to be born-again to enter the covenant established through circumcision.

In verse 17, Abraham falls on his face not "laughing" as the false translation implies, but in utter disbelief:

Then Abraham fell on his face confused 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 . . . 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

 

[oldbadger]

One of the first isagogics of proper exegesis, and thus interpretation, is that we must understand the historical zeitgeist, and practices, as they existed at the time the text in question was written. The number of glaring, even embarrassing errors, that come from reading an ancient text according to modern understanding are almost innumerable.

In the ancient world most persons were illiterate so far as the written word was concerned. Nevertheless, they, no less than we, wanted to archive important beliefs, events, and sayings, just as bad as we do. So they developed a process known as oral transmission and memorization that functioned in a manner the modern mind wouldn't believe.

In a form of evolution, functioning in every way like the science of natural selection implies, after Jesus spoke, say the Sermon on the Mount, groups would gather together in homes and those members known to have a phoneme-graphic memory (there is even an ancient name for these people, of whom there were many in the ancient world) would all stand and recite from memory what Jesus said.

As the recitation took place, the members of the audience would note which recitations agreed on what Jesus said, and where, such that through a process of trial and error, natural selection, evolution, each group would develop the oral tradition for what had occurred earlier in the day.

Later, various groups would compare their oral tradition, with other groups, and the same natural selection, evolution, would weed out the weaker oral tradition, until a more perfect version of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was archived not by the pen, not on inert, dead, matter, the scroll, but in the living material, the mind, the living, oral, tradition, that was highly privileged in the ancient world.

In truth, it was only when the persons who contained the living tradition, the oral tradition, in their memories, began to age and die out and become few in number from persecutions and death, that the undesired process of archiving a living tradition in dead letters, on dead skin, became a necessary evil.

In Paul's day, he wrote commentary on the living tradition and not the tradition itself. Anyone who's studied Paul can see that he repeatedly refers to the living tradition received from John, Peter, and the other Apostles, implying, repeatedly, that his letters are commentary on what they had already received orally, verbally: his letters were written commentary on the oral, living, tradition.

It was after Paul's letters that the oral, living, tradition, was crucified again. This time not with iron nails, per se, but by the pen, on pressed wood, so that it couldn't speak, but could only lie their on the page, inert, like Jesus laid there when the wooden cross was laid down to take his dead body from it. . . Unless a person has access to the living tradition, they're painting a picture of Jesus not from his actual life and spirit, but from his corpse. Most Jews and Christians have a mental picture of Jesus painted from his corpse. His image is cruci-affixed in their mind.

Do you (the editorial you) have any other portraits in your home painted from the person's corpse? Or is Jesus the only one so dogged and of ill-repute so as to be treated that way?

John

Thank you for the time and care that you spent in delivering that info.

Yes....... I expect that nearly all ancient communities relied upon Oral Tradition to hold on to their history.
Yes, the working classes (there was no middle class) of the Galilee used Oral Tradition.
But we are fortunate in that one gospel author was almost certainly a partial witness who also wrote down the memoirs of Cephas, who was very unhappy with the religion that Paul was spinning out of the mission that he had once been a part of. We know that Cephas faced up to Paul.

Our worlds tend to be partially filled with the lives of those who we take interest in. They aren't corpses, they are past lives.

It's not that hard to discover, say, that the authors of G-John were not there, were not witnesses.
Try this........ Ask yourself, 'What was one of the most intense and amazing experience's that disciples John and Cephas experienced with James and Jesus? ' That's easy....... The Transfiguration! Something never to be forget by any of those disciples.
Cephas certainly Wrote about that experience (PeterII) and certainly told the author of G-Mark about it. But G-John? Nothing! He knew nothing about that or anything about disciple John's part in the campaign which Jesus (and the Baptist) had led. But he inserted all manner of lies in G-John instead!

Another simple investigation.......... Why did Jesus and his friends 'do' a night run across the lake down to the Gadarene shore? Why? The folks there were mostly pagan.
1. Because they didn't want to be seen?
2. ,,,,,BY authorities?
3. Did they want to trade with pagans? They didn't go because they liked night sailing.
4. What would they trade in?
Have you figured this out yet?
Have a look at the laws on what fish could be eaten by Jews, and what fish are/were in the Lake.

You don't need to think and communicate with complexity to unravel simple truths and suspicions, one at a time. Indeed, complexity is lost in its own spin, methinks.

 

[oldbadger]

Genesis is closer to the signature. Take a verse implicitly noted already in this thread: Genesis 17:17. The naked Hebrew text says God tells Abraham that Sarah is going to be his mother in the new covenant. He's going to, get this, have to be born-again to enter the covenant established through circumcision.

In verse 17, Abraham falls on his face not "laughing" as the false translation implies, but in utter disbelief:

Then Abraham fell on his face confused 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 . . . 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

I can understand why translators decided upon 'laughing', John. The idea of great age giving birth is both confusing and laughable. Confusion can laugh at a situation. Perceiving that is not a problem.

The 613 OT laws are amazing, whilst they were followed they produced a healthy, strong, expanding and cohesive people .... whilst all around were weaker, unhealthier, more dispersed, etc etc. I love looking through them, even today can see how the weak and less able had a place in that community....everybody had a place.

 

[oldbadger]

When orthodoxy finds a tough nut it's unable to crack it typically camouflages the problem as best it can so that it not create a complication orthodoxy is unable to open up and deal with transparently. Unfortunately, as Thomas Kuhn points out, it's often someone outside orthodoxy who, having dealt with the problem single-handedly, offers orthodoxy a solution that tends to burst the wine-skin of the current orthodoxy therein requiring the hard work of establishing a new orthodoxy. Scholem considered Saul of Tarsus the quintessential example of someone single-handedly handing orthodoxy a solution to a their problem which, the solution, causes more headaches than the problem itself.

Saul spoke of himself as a Jew prematurely born into the Christian epoch. If the spirit of this thread is correct, Talumdic scholar Daniel Boyarin might very well be a Jew prematurely born into the post-Christian zeitgeist of the rapidly approaching age.

John​

Jesus would never have recognised Paul's Creed.

Paul was clever, for sure....... having been contracted to put down and remaining hostile groups and uprisings Paul had a blinding idea as he travelled North.

The Roman system punished revolution and serious crime by lashing and pinning it to a stake or cross in a way that the convict would keep self alive for as long as possible, up to three days of self-supported torture, during which time his naked body would carry on urinating and defecating, his sex organ activating at times........... not only incredibly painful, but a laughing stock to any who watched. A good deterrent .......!

But Paul's Christianity beat the hell out of that. If any person might upset any part of the plan, the most dreadful hellfire and torture would await them, after death.......... Eternally! And it has worked for thousands of years......admittedly, a good burning to end a convicted life did help to keep the others in tune with the vrules.

Jesus knew nothing about any of that, and any gospel references suggesting that he did were manipulations.

 

[John D. Brey]

Jesus knew nothing about any of that, and any gospel references suggesting that he did were manipulations.

It's difficult to debate and exegete scripture with persons who have such a sharp exegetical scalpel that they cut out the verses I might use in my defense since if those verses aren't useful to their interpretation they must clearly be manipulations.

In my opinion, it's not a great debating technique to claim the verses that don't support your supposition are added, or manipulated, precisely since they don't jibe with your exegetical vibe.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

You don't need to think and communicate with complexity to unravel simple truths and suspicions, one at a time. Indeed, complexity is lost in its own spin, methinks.

Imo, complexity for complexities sake is a sham. Anyone who wants to move the ball forward surely knows the importance of stating an idea in the simplest, most transparent way.

But there's a catch.

If the idea is indeed a doozy, requiring some level of complexity, then using a complex word that condenses lots of stuff within it ---though it appears complex ---is actually a simplification. Which is to say that there are ideas that are genuinely so complex that using simple language would draw the examination out ad infinitum and actually do more damage than flinging around big words.

John

 

[oldbadger]

It's difficult to debate and exegete scripture with persons who have such a sharp exegetical scalpel that they cut out the verses I might use in my defense since if those verses aren't useful to their interpretation they must clearly be manipulations.

In my opinion, it's not a great debating technique to claim the verses that don't support your supposition are added, or manipulated, precisely since they don't jibe with your exegetical vibe.

John

Well put up some sample verses, John.
Let me see some examples of verses that are of import to you.

 

[John D. Brey]

Well put up some sample verses, John.
Let me see some examples of verses that are of import to you.

I thought I'd saved us both some time and effort by conceding I will lose if you can just shoot down my arguments dogmatically by pointing out that my verses, my interpretation of the verses, and thus my worldview, is based on manipulated scripture?


John

 

[oldbadger]

Imo, complexity for complexities sake is a sham. Anyone who wants to move the ball forward surely knows the importance of stating an idea in the simplest, most transparent way.

But there's a catch.

If the idea is indeed a doozy, requiring some level of complexity, then using a complex word that condenses lots of stuff within it ---though it appears complex ---is actually a simplification. Which is to say that there are ideas that are genuinely so complex that using simple language would draw the examination out ad infinitum and actually do more damage than flinging around big words.

John

I agree with you about unnecessary complexity being a sham, a deception.
And I do acknowledge that a large amount of info can be delivered in a single but more complex sentence.

But a sharp investigator can detect written lies and deceptions, even long after the times that these were written in.

And truth can be discerned as well.

For example..... The authors of G-John did have a bundle of documents, records and reports of great value to the historical investigator. Tiny snippets of info are of great value if they are no where else to be found. I know much more about Judas as a result, for instance.

But those authors had no clue about where to place the incidents on a timeline, nor how long the timeline was! Hence we read about Jesus causing mayhem in the temple a few days after the Cana wedding rather than during that last week. Etc etc....
So I use lots of info from G-John without trusting the authors' personal claims .

 

[oldbadger]

I thought I'd saved us both some time and effort by conceding I will lose if you can just shoot down my arguments dogmatically by pointing out that my verses, my interpretation of the verses, and thus my worldview, is based on manipulated scripture?


John

John, you are presuming how I might react to verses ......
Why don't you tell me about your opinions and beliefs regarding Jesus and his disciples, and of course the Baptist.

Let me offer an idea for you to judge, then.

That coin! I don't think it was a denarius. I have reasons to believe that it was indeed a temple 'sheckel'.
The Temple sheckel, half a sheckel weight of fine silver, was the same diameter but nearly twice the thickness of a denarius, but if I would hold one in hand for a group or multitude to see I don't think anybody would tell which coin I held. The sheckel was a filthy insult to Judaism back then, it's obverse was struck with the features of Melgarth Heracles, known to the Jews as Baal, on their Temples coin! It's reverse was struck with the raven image of a raptor, another insult, and the name of Caesar in abbriavated Greek. And ever grown Jew would have to handle it. I think Jesus would have been infuriated about that.
So when some clever headed priest asked his nasty question Jesus asked for a coin, and the head on obverse did look like a Caesar so the reply was deadly......'Whose features and name'? I love it! If the priest had answered honestly the crowd would have torn him to pieces.

Yep......Jesus must have been laughing with joy over that one, though calm as can be on the outside.

Anyway, that's what I think.

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . follow the one handed down by our righteous Sages. We can rely perfectly on them. . . Our Sages were true; all their words are true. May the true God guide His servants on the true path.
​

Ibn Ezra's final rule for correctly interpreting the straightforward, literal, text, is, just read the Sage's interpretation. Don't interpret; there’s no further interpretation, and thus no need for five paths to correct interpretation, since the five-fold rules that guide correct interpretations lead to the truth that interpretation is no longer needed: Don't read the Torah text at all; read the Jewish interpretation of the text since the duality between text and interpretation has be subsumed in the Sage’s interpretation. Ibn Ezra's final word on the path to correctly interpreting the Torah-text is don't.

Exegeting Genesis Chapter 17:17.​

Seemingly seeing the problem through the same lens, Boyarin says:

For midrash, however, in its final development, there is no transcendental signified. God himself can only participate, as it were, in the process of unlimited semiosis and thus of limited interpretation. The result will be not simply a multiplicity of interpretations that we cannot decide between, nor even a plethora of interpretations that all stand in the Pleroma of divine meaning, but finally a rabbinic ascesis that virtually eliminates the practice of interpretation entirely. Midrash, in its culminating avatar, eschews not only allegory and a discourse of true meaning but renounces "interpretation" altogether . . .​

Ibn Ezra's admonition to follow the Sages wherever they lead is ensconced in traditional Jewish thought as emunat Chachamim which translates as trust or faith in the Sages:

According to Meshivas Nefesh, one will succeed in understanding the words of the Sages only if he or she trusts that they were infinitely greater than he. Then, even if a particular statement of the Sages seems unclear and incomprehensible, one will realize that one's failure is due to one's own deficiency, and will exert oneself to understand. Only if we trust the Sages, can we, as humans, perceive their wisdom.

There is another interpretation of this particular middah (virtue) that translates emunat chachamim to mean "the faith of the Sages." It explains that although the wise are skeptical of what they hear and read, they accept the Torah's teachings with unquestioning faith. Thus, one must have the type of faith that the Sages themselves had. (Pirkei Avos Treasury, p. 417).

Reform Judaism.org.​

This faith in the Sages is part and parcel of the hermeneutical problem discussed in this thread. I.e., if there's no real exegetical means of determining one interpretation from another, that is, if there's no transcendental signifier that lends itself like a microscope to see deeply into the truth content of a given text, then the authority of a traditional interpretation of text is willy nilly such that even an opaque understanding of emunat Chachamim makes it clear that Judaism, and her faithful, are codifying the Jewish Sages as the transcendental signifiers (absolute guarantors) of the truth of the interpretation of the text.

Precisely as noted in the thread become essay, Every Rabbi is Jesus, the very form of blasphemy that got Jesus in trouble with the Rabbis of his day is clearly and undeniably contained in emunat Chachamim since the authority Jesus assumed for himself as the transcendental signifier of the truth of the Torah (its absolute guarantor of interpretation), Judaism transfers not to a singular Jew, Jesus, but nevertheless to a group of Jewish men, the Chachamim, so that they're allowed to speak for God in precisely the manner that Jesus claimed to speak for God.

Knowing precisely what's going on in this shell-game played with the transcendental signifier, Jewish thought goes so far as to concede that if there's no temporal, living, visual, audible, transcendental signifier for God's truth (which is an idea that's part and parcel of Jewish monotheism) then even God must abide by the Sages of Judaism, the Chachamim, since without a means to establish his intention in the text of the written Torah over their interpretation, i.e., without a transcendental signifier signifying his precise thoughts (as recorded in the text) there's no way God could not himself abide by the substitute-transcendental-signifiers in Jewish thought known as the Chachamim.

All traditional Judaism does is transfer the very claim that got Jesus crucified, i.e., the claim that since he's the transcendental signifier of God's intent in the written Torah he must then be speaking directly for, as, God's direct authority on earth (the transcendental signifier of God), to the Chachamim rather than Jesus. In other words, Judaism has no problem with Jesus' claims; they're not blasphemous at all, after all, within the nature of Jewish thought. It's Jesus the person, not anything he said, or claimed, that's rejected by Judaism and Jewish tradition.

According to Meshivas Nefesh, one will succeed in understanding the words of the Sages only if he or she trusts that they were infinitely greater than he. Then, even if a particular statement of the Sages seems unclear and incomprehensible, one will realize that one's failure is due to one's own deficiency, and will exert oneself to understand. Only if we trust the Sages, can we, as humans, perceive their wisdom.

Reform Judaism.org.

Jesus said, he that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

John 12:44.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

All traditional Judaism does is transfer the very claim that got Jesus crucified, i.e., the claim that since he's the transcendental signifier of God's intent in the written Torah he must then be speaking directly for, as, God's direct authority on earth (the transcendental signifier of God), to the Chachamim rather than Jesus. In other words, Judaism has no problem with Jesus' claims; they're not blasphemous at all, after all, within the nature of Jewish thought. It's Jesus the person, not anything he said, or claimed, that's rejected by Judaism and Jewish tradition.

According to Meshivas Nefesh, one will succeed in understanding the words of the Sages only if he or she trusts that they were infinitely greater than he. Then, even if a particular statement of the Sages seems unclear and incomprehensible, one will realize that one's failure is due to one's own deficiency, and will exert oneself to understand. Only if we trust the Sages, can we, as humans, perceive their wisdom.

Reform Judaism.org.

Jesus said, he that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

John 12:44.​

In another of his essays, Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Oral Torah, Daniel Boyarin grapples with something stated earlier in this thread, i.e, that there are, in fact, cases where the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Torah text (an interpretation based on the Gospel of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth), appear to be clearly, undeniably, transparently, and objectively, more akin to the naked Hebrew consonants than what Jewish tradition, based on the Chachamim's interpretation, does with the text.

In numerous cases, Jesus says, "You've heard it from the written text that," and then goes on to give his interpretation as it diverges from the Chachamim's interpretation of the text.

Many of those present realize that Jesus' interpretation of a given text from the Law is, on the surface at least, exegetically, logically, transparently, superior to the interpretation of the Chachamim, such that when the experts in the Law claim that the seemingly inferior interpretation, come from the Chachamim, is, nevertheless, superior to Jesus' interpretation, based on emunah Chachamim, i.e, belief that the Sages are the transcendental signifiers of God's truth in the Hebrew text, Jesus rightly calls them hypocrites for the most transparent and objectively true reason: they deny and attack Jesus' claim to be the transcendental signifier of the Law based on his humanity, he is a mere man, and then turn around and quote the interpretation of the Chachamim, who, like Jesus, are mere men, as proof that Jesus is a blasphemer.

Jesus' claim that the Pharisees are hypocrites appears justified on the basis of the fact that Judaism, and religious Jews in general, must, so far as epistemology and hermeneutics is concerned, camouflage the fact that their faith is devoid of a carnal transcendental signifier (as well as a divine transcendental signifier). When brilliant Jewish exegetes, even men of the stature of Ibn Ezra, intuit the fact that Judaism has no carnal transcendental signifier, their Jewish mind must camouflage that reality until such a day that that incarnate transcendental signifier is found.

There's reason to believe a Talmudic scholar of some significance, Daniel Boyarin, has in fact located Judaism's incarnate transcendental signifier; and for that reason is being circumscribed here as a Jew prematurely born into the post-Christian era.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

There's reason to believe a Talmudic scholar of some significance, Daniel Boyarin, has in fact located Judaism's incarnate transcendental signifier; and for that reason is being circumscribed here as a Jew prematurely born into the post-Christian era.

As fate would have it, Jewish thought situates the transcendental signified (which is also the signifier) as messiah. In parashat Chukas (Numbers 19) the Torah reader encounters the narrative associated with the Decree of the Law. As Rashi and the sages point out, this so-called Decree of the Law (Numbers 19:1) is presented as nothing less than the transcendental signifier of all the signs and decrees throughout the Torah:

Ohr HaChayim: Why does the verse use the expression, "This is the suprarational commandment of the Torah," as if to say that this mitzvah is representative of the entire Torah? . . . For observing a mitvah which makes no sense at all demonstrates a person's strong faith and commitment to observe all the other mitzvos too.

The Gutnick Edition Chumash, Parashas Chukas.​

In further explanation for the oddity of one commandment directed toward one decree, the parah adumah, or red heifer, being key to all the other decrees (or chukim), ala a transcendental signifier, Jewish tradition claims that whereas prior to the arrival of messiah, a person's strong faith must be the stand-in for lack of understanding concerning the nature of the decree(s) (which have no known reasoning), nevertheless, at the arrival of messiah, the meaning of all the decrees, starting with parah adumah (the red heifer) will be knowable and known.

In this sense, messiah (or at least his arrival) is the transcendental signifier (and signified) required to give meaning, rationality, to the irrational decrees, beginning with the most important of all, parah adumah, the red heifer.

The fact that Rambam mentions the tenth red heifer that "will be made by King Mashiach" in his legal Code (the Mishneh Torah) is understood, since Rambam included in his Code many laws that will only be applicable in the future era. What is difficult to comprehend is why he concluded this law with a prayer: "May he be speedily revealed! Amen, may this be your Will!" Surely a legal Code is not the place for the author to record his personal emotions and feelings, or to lapse into prayerful wishes?

The Gutnick Edition Chumash, Parashas Chukas.​

Maimonides is perhaps aware on some level of his psyche that the final red heifer (parah adumah), said to be offered by messiah (at which time the meaning of the first red heifer ---parashas chukas --parah adumah ---is laid bare), is messiah himself, so that when messiah is himself offered as the final parah adumah, the final red heifer, the meaning not only of the first parah adumah, the first red heifer, will be understood, but therein every other decree will fall into place such that the parallel between the first parah adumah (parashas chukas) and the last, the sacrifice of messiah, will establish the Jewish transcendental signifier and signified, that will, according to Jewish thought, lay bare all the other irrational decrees of the Law:

The Lord hath laid bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

Isaiah 52:10.
​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Maimonides is perhaps aware on some level of his psyche that the final red heifer (parah adumah), said to be offered by messiah (at which time the meaning of the first red heifer ---parashas chukas --parah adumah ---is laid bare), is messiah himself, so that when messiah is himself offered as the final parah adumah, the final red heifer, the meaning not only of the first parah adumah, the first red heifer, will be understood, but therein every other decree will fall into place such that the parallel between the first parah adumah (parashas chukas) and the last, the sacrifice of messiah, will establish the Jewish transcendental signifier and signified, that will, according to Jewish thought, lay bare all the other irrational decrees of the Law:

As death is the result of Adam's sin, purification from the corpse (which "corpse" Rabbi Hirsch says represents not a dead man, but death itself), comes from the parah adumah (red heifer). In this sense, the final (tenth) parah adumah represents the final redemption from sin and death which occurs at the start of the messianic age:

Both the "red heifer" and the Messianic redemption effect purification. The ashes of the "red heifer" are used for removing a legal state of impurity. The redemption will purify the entire people of Israel (including those who halachically are pure) from any trace of deficiency in the bond with our Father in Heaven. One of the Messianic prophecies thus says of that time, in terms analogous to the "waters of purification" of [or from] the "red heifer": "I shall sprinkle pure waters upon you that you be purified. I will purify you from all your impurities and from all your idols!" (Ezekiel 36:25).

Chabad.org.​

In Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's, Waters of Eden, he quotes Mishneh, Yoma 8:9, saying:

Rabbi Akiba said: Happy are you, Israel. Before whom do you purify yourselves? Who purifies you? Your Father in heaven! It is thus written (Ezekiel 36:25), "I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be clean." And it is written (Jeremiah 14:8), "God (HaShem) is Israel's Mikvah." Just as the Mikvah purifies the unclean, so God purifies Israel.​

To this strange statement, Rabbi Kaplan responds:

Even though we have delved quite deeply into the concept of Mikvah, Rabbi Akiba's statement still seems quite puzzling. How are we to understand his declaration that "God is Israel's Mikvah?"

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Waters of Eden.​

Just a few verses after Isaiah (52:10) claims God will lay bare his holy one before all the nations of the world, the prophet adds (52:15): "So shall he sprinkle many nations." It appears to be the holy one, messiah (whom Judaism claims will sacrifice the final red heifer), who is himself, as the holy one of God, sacrificed (as the final red heifer) to produce the purifying waters of niddah through which the unclean are cleaned and the final redemption from death secured. The holy one of God is Israel's mikvah. It's the waters of niddah directly associated with him by which death will be dealt more than a ritual or symbolic elimination, and the righteous will be more than ritually clean; they will be clean as the driven snow and white as bleached wool.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Just a few verses after Isaiah (52:10) claims God will lay bare his holy one before all the nations of the world, the prophet adds (52:15): "So shall he sprinkle many nations." It appears to be the holy one, messiah (whom Judaism claims will sacrifice the final red heifer), who is himself, as the holy one of God, sacrificed (as the final red heifer) to produce the purifying waters of niddah through which the unclean are cleaned and the final redemption from death secured. The holy one of God is Israel's mikvah. It's the waters of niddah directly associated with him by which death will be dealt more than a ritual or symbolic elimination, and the righteous will be more than ritually clean; they will be clean as the driven snow and white as bleached wool.

The parenthesis from Chabad.org, “(including those who halachically are pure),” highlights a significant problem that segues back into the discussion of Daniel Boyarin’s post-Christian Jewish apprehension. The statement made in the parenthesis of Chabad.org’s discussion of parah adumah is seemingly patently incorrect in such a manner as to highlight the Freudian nature of the slip: parah adumah (the red heifer) cleanses only the unclean; those who halachically are pure already, are neither left in that state of “ritual” purity/cleanness, nor made “actually,” really, clean, but are, get this, made ritually, and or really, unclean.

Before the final parah adumah, the tenth red heifer, could purify and redeem Judaism, which, Judaism, is in some sense the worldview of those practicing ritual purity, Judaism would needs be made impure, unclean (since the sacrifice only purifies the unclean while it makes the clean unclean), not for a day, or an hour, or a year, but through and through. To be redeemed in the final redemption Judaism will need to become unclean not as some bizarre inversion of status taking place for a moment or a short time, unbeknownst to her practitioners, but it will need to be really, ritually, truly, utterly, unclean from toe to head.

Just as at the final redemption, where those who are required to be ritually clean in order to offer the final parah adumah (which begins the messianic-age), are, paradoxically, made unclean, through the required sacrifice, so too, from an Archimedean Point of view, Judaism as a whole, i.e., the priestly tribe, must all be made unclean at the final sacrifice of the final parah adumah in order to affect the sacrifice (the sacrifice makes them unclean) which makes the unclean peoples of the world (the non-priestly tribes) clean. The people of ritual cleanliness, ritual purity (the priestly people, the priestly worldview: Judaism), must ---will ---become impure, and that by the very nature of the sacrifice of the organ through whom the naturally unclean peoples of the world (the goyim) become clean and pure.

If indeed the secret to the mystery of the final parah adumah is that messiah himself is both the offerer and the offering, then we have cause to ponder where we've heard such a story? And why does this narrative reverberate so transparently as though it were a well-worn kind of good-news?




John

 

[John D. Brey]

If indeed the secret to the mystery of the final parah adumah is that messiah himself is both the offerer and the offering, then we have cause to ponder where we've heard such a story? And why does this narrative reverberate so transparently as though it were a well-worn kind of good-news?

The idea that messiah is himself the final parah adumah lends itself to answering the question of how the persons overseeing the sacrifice can be clean ---already----if the parah adumah is the means of obtaining ritual cleanliness?



John