POST ONE OF TWO
REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :
From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (in purple)
Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace…..
In the Haggadah.
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).
I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.
The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”
The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1). The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.
In the Halakah.
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."
Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.
This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.
For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"
I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement.
How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
Perhaps this Jewish insistence on metaphorizing and re-defining and contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and its associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagogues instead, or why he took away their active priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.
There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).
How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.
1) GODS ANGER AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT “MEANINGS” AND TRADITIONS
As I explained in my last post, there was an underlying cause to God’s anger against the Jews which resulted in his taking away their prophets and prophetic gifts, leaving them only with texts and teachers, something which caused him to remove his temple from their midst, which left them with synagogues instead, and something which motivated him, in his anger, to remove the priesthood from their midst and leave them with rabbis (teachers without priesthood) instead.
Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.
For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".
The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that though this system did not alter the written word a great deal, the Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.
Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement).
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
