"Priapus in a Cucumber Patch."

[John D. Brey]

Contextual exegesis of the verse (some of it still forthcoming) implies that the Hebrew word בת translated "daughter," should instead be translated "branch." Though the consonants בת usually refer to a "daughter," nevertheless the lexicons all note that it is in fact read, in the plural (נוות), in Genesis 49:22, as "branches." In Isaiah 1:8, context dictates that the consonants be translated "branch," thus speaking of the "branch of Zion."

And the Branch of Zion is left as a sukkah in a vineyard . . ..​

Not only is a "sukkah" constructed of twisted branches (בנות), and not only does it represent a reprise from the storm, a sanctuary or refuge, but the righteous are found inside. The statement found in the Gospel of Thomas, 77, was recently debated in the Scriptural Debates forum:

(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there.​

Split a Branch, cleave a Branch, and inside the Branch (inside the archetypal sukkah) you'll find what the exegesis of Isaiah 1:8 is looking for. What follows the fact that Isaiah 1:8 is speaking of the Branch of Zion as a macrocosmic, or archetypal sukkah (a shelter from the storm constructed of a broken branch or branches), has thrown even the best exegetes a good beatin.

And the Branch of Zion is left as a sukkah in a vineyard . . . a guardhouse, or scarecrow, in a patch of cucumbers.​

Even the best exegetes, and I have Keil and Delitzsch currently in mind, are dumbfounded about how a "scarecrow in a patch of cucumbers" relates to the "Branch of Zion"? In their commentary, they reference Isaiah 1:8 concerning their exegesis of Jeremiah 10:4. And the word that leads them to Isaiah 1:8 is precisely the word translated as a "patch of cucumbers" in Isaiah 1:8: מקשה. -----In Jeremiah 10:4 the word is linked with תמר such that they reference the apocraphal Letter of Jeremy in order to try to better understand what's being said in Jeremiah 10:4 and perhaps Isaiah 1:8?

(Note: Ew., Hitz., Graf, Näg. follow in the track of Movers, Phöniz. i. S. 622, who takes מקשׁה se acc. to Isaiah 1:8 for a cucumber garden, and, acc. to Epist. Jerem. v. 70, understands by תּמר מקשׁה the figure of Priapus in a cucumber field, serving as a scare-crow. But even if we admit that there is an allusion to the verse before us in the mockery of the gods in the passage of Epist. Jerem. quoted, running literally as follows: ω ̔͂σπερ γὰρ ἐν οἰκυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον οὐδὲν φυλάσσον, οὕτως οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν εἰσὶ ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι ; and if we further admit that the author was led to make his comparison by his understanding מקשׁה in Isaiah1:8 of a cucumber garden; - yet his comparison has so little in common with our verse in point of form, that it cannot at all be regarded as a translation of it, or serve as a rule for the interpretation of the phrase in question. And besides it has yet to be proved that the Israelites were in the habit of setting up images of Priapus as scare-crows.)​

It's amazing that the spirit of exegesis, if not the Holy Spirit, sees to it that the passage above is included in Keil and Delitzsch's exegesis and commentary even though they, Keil and Delitzsch, admit they can make nothing of it. Why then did they add the note above when they concede they can make nothing of it? The Holy Spirit often works that way in his undergirding of the spirit of prophesy. The note above, provided by Keil and Delitzsch over a hundred years ago, lends itself to a generation of exegetes who have the modern tools to cross-reference these things at the speed of light; or at least the speed of a good Mac computer, uncovering elements of the sacred word otherwise lost to the ravages of time.

The metaphor of a "Priapus in a cucumber patch" comes from the apocryphal Letter of Jeremy alleged to have been written by the prophet Jeremiah. Verse 70 of the letter (where the metaphor is found) relates directly to Jeremiah 10:5, a passage paralleling Isaiah 44:10-20, both of which deal with the concept of an idol being worshiped in place of God's true anointed. The "Priapus in a cucumber patch" is mocking criticism of an idol which looks so much like what it's suppose to be guarding (the similarity between Priapus and a cucumber) that no sane person would be taken to fear, or worship, the priapic god. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue in the crosshairs is dealt with extensively by Isaiah (44:10-20), Jeremiah (10:1-7), and the Letter of Jeremy (specifically verse 70), can be found out to be based on the paradoxical similarities between Priapus and God's actual anointed. This being the case, the description of the idol in all the noted prophetic works revels aspects of God's true anointed that not only focus a light on the vertiginous nature of the deceitful camouflage employed by the forces of evil in the erection of their idols, but on the fact that part and parcel of their brilliant subterfuge is in the manner in which their idol seeks to cause the true worshipers of God to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or cut off the organ of God along with Priapus and the organs serving him.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The metaphor of a "Priapus in a cucumber patch" comes from the apocryphal Letter of Jeremy alleged to have been written by the prophet Jeremiah. Verse 70 of the letter (where the metaphor is found) relates directly to Jeremiah 10:5, a passage paralleling Isaiah 44:10-20, both of which deal with the concept of an idol being worshiped in place of God's true anointed. The "Priapus in a cucumber patch" is mocking criticism of an idol which looks so much like what it's suppose to be guarding (the similarity between Priapus and a cucumber) that no sane person would be taken to fear, or worship, the priapic god. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue in the crosshairs is dealt with extensively by Isaiah (44:10-20), Jeremiah (10:1-7), and the Letter of Jeremy (specifically verse 70), can be found out to be based on the paradoxical similarities between Priapus and God's actual anointed. This being the case, the description of the idol in all the noted prophetic works revels aspects of God's true anointed that not only focus a light on the vertiginous nature of the deceitful camouflage employed by the forces of evil in the erection of their idols, but on the fact that part and parcel of their brilliant subterfuge is in the manner in which their idol seeks to cause the true worshipers of God to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or cut off the organ of God along with Priapus and the organs serving him.

The Milstein Edition, The Prophets (Isaiah 1:8), record that Rabbi Hirsch differentiates between "daughter of Jerusalem," versus "daughter of Zion." According to Hirsch, the latter refers to the temple, while the former refers to the nation. This being the case, the "Branch of Zion" (the Branch of the temple) could refer to no other Branch than the salvific-rod of Moses a.k.a. Nehushtan, which was once found between the cherub on the ark of the covenant and represents the very "face" or Presence of God. In this sense Nehushtan is the crux of the sacred shrine found in the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple. That shrine lends itself to the fact that the prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, both record a peculiar, even bizarre, relationship between the pagan's Priapus, versus the crux of the shrine in the most holy place of Jerusalem. The fact that Nehushtan is stationed directly above the two testemonial stones in the ark of the covenant (such that Nehushtan represents the delivery mechanism for what's writ large on the stones) lends itself in the most significant way to the parallel between Nehushtan and Priapus.

Even the form itself, under which the god was represented, appear to them a mockery of all piety and devotion, and more fit to be placed in a brothel than a temple. But the forms and ceremonies of a religion are not always to be understood in their direct and obvious sense; but are to be considered as symbolical representations of some hidden meaning, which may be extremely wise and just, though the symbols themselves, to those who know not their true signification, may appear in the highest degree absurd and extravagant.​

​

Richard Payne Knight, A History of Phallic Worship, p. 27.​

​

Not withsanding the third element of ritual circumcision (metzitzah), Judaism finds it difficult if not impossible to swallow the truths hidden in the signs of their symbols and rituals. Ditto for her daughter Christianity. So who will believe our report? To whom will this arm or Branch of the Lord be revealed? Who will see with their own eyes the reproductive organ cum Priapus of the Lord? -----When the Holy Spirit reveals it to Isaiah (44:10-20) and Jeremiah (10:1-7) even the mind of the great prophets turn away aghast at what the Spirit is trying to reveal to them, through them, even though traces of the Spirit's desired revelation are recorded for posterity in the passages noted.

Some of the Rabbis read circumcision as a necessary preparation for seeing God, the summum bonum of late-antique religious life . . . That is, circumcision here is not the sign of something happening in the spirit of the Jew, but it is the very event itself --- and it is, of course, in his body. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, for the rabbinic formulation, this seeing of God was not understood as the spiritual vision of a platonic eye of the mind, but as the physical seeing of fleshly eyes at a real moment in history.​

​

Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p. 126.​

​

​

John

 

[Bthoth]

I imagine that such teaching will cause a few to use that label as their forum identifier (name)

 

[John D. Brey]

I imagine that such teaching will cause a few to use that label as their forum identifier (name)

. . . It's more likely the 99.9% who can't spread the legs of their ears to receive the revelation in the seeder will consider the name of the thread the basis for an acronym labeling the inspiration for the thread: PCP.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Some of the Rabbis read circumcision as a necessary preparation for seeing God, the summum bonum of late-antique religious life . . . That is, circumcision here is not the sign of something happening in the spirit of the Jew, but it is the very event itself --- and it is, of course, in his body. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, for the rabbinic formulation, this seeing of God was not understood as the spiritual vision of a platonic eye of the mind, but as the physical seeing of fleshly eyes at a real moment in history.​

​

Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p. 126.​

Professor Boyarin's statement lends itself to this study. The Jew is seeing God when he's looking at a body part. The part he's looking at when he spies God is none other than the fleshly analogue to Priapus; and more than that, when he's allowed to look at this body part (the Talmud forbids looking at it all times other than ritual circumcision), i.e., brit milah, this priapic emblem of God is being ritually struck, bled, such that it's almost too much to point out that in Jewish ritual, blood, outside a body, particularly a sacrifice, always, every time (without exceptions), symbolizes death to the one being struck and bled. To say, as Professor Boyarin says, that the summum bonum of Jewish religious life is to see God, in the fleshly analogue to Priapus, and thus to see God being ritually bled, ritually killed/sacrified, is to careen so close to a Jewish kerygma that one could almost reach out and touch a Jewish/Christian God.

As I have suggested, moreover, a distinctive feature of the ocularcentrism in medieval Jewish mysticism is phallocentrism. . . The development of Jewish mysticism, therefore, can be seen as the move from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism. . . That is, common to the visionary accounts in the different mystical sources I examined in this work ---the writings of the Hekhalot mystics, German Pietists, and theosophic kabbalists---is the notion that the object of the mystical vision is the male deity and, more specifically, the phallus.​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 395.​

The statement of two brilliant Jewish Professors (Boyarin and Wolfson) lend themselves to the idea posited here, that in Isaiah 44:10-20, and Jeremiah 10:1-7, the mockery being directed at the pagan's Priapus is hiding the Jewish priapic God beneath a fore-skene that will have to be removed before Jews and Christian partake of a macrocosmic-metzitzah in a unified and brotherly love of one another based on a shared perception of a Jewish/Christian deity.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Professor Boyarin's statement lends itself to this study. The Jew is seeing God when he's looking at a body part. The part he's looking at when he spies God is none other than the fleshly analogue to Priapus; and more than that, when he's allowed to look at this body part (the Talmud forbids looking at it all times other than ritual circumcision), i.e., brit milah, this priapic emblem of God is being ritually struck, bled, such that it's almost too much to point out that in Jewish ritual, blood, outside a body, particularly a sacrifice, always, every time (without exceptions), symbolizes death to the one being struck and bled. To say, as Professor Boyarin says, that the summum bonum of Jewish religious life is to see God, in the fleshly analogue to Priapus, and thus to see God being ritually bled, ritually killed/sacrified, is to careen so close to a Jewish kerygma that one could almost reach out and touch a Jewish/Christian God.

As I have suggested, moreover, a distinctive feature of the ocularcentrism in medieval Jewish mysticism is phallocentrism. . . The development of Jewish mysticism, therefore, can be seen as the move from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism. . . That is, common to the visionary accounts in the different mystical sources I examined in this work ---the writings of the Hekhalot mystics, German Pietists, and theosophic kabbalists---is the notion that the object of the mystical vision is the male deity and, more specifically, the phallus.​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 395.​

The statement of two brilliant Jewish Professors (Boyarin and Wolfson) lend themselves to the idea posited here, that in Isaiah 44:10-20, and Jeremiah 10:1-7, the mockery being directed at the pagan's Priapus is hiding the Jewish priapic God beneath a fore-skene that will have to be removed before Jews and Christian partake of a macrocosmic-metzitzah in a unified and brotherly love of one another based on a shared perception of a Jewish/Christian deity.

Who hath formed a god or poured out a graven image profitable for nothing.​

​

Isaiah 44:10.​

Isaiah asks who it is who's poured out נסך a priapic-image good for nothing? The glaring problem is exemplified in that the corrected exegesis of Psalms 2:6 says that God himself has poured out נסך his Son (v. 7) on mount Zion. Therefore God himself is in the cross-hairs of Isaiah 44:10. God has poured out נסך his Son on Zion as a fleshly priapic God seemingly justifying the response of those who strike down the fleshly Priapus precisely because any uniqueness between God's Priapus versus the rest might get lost in a cucumber patch of seemingly identical priapic deities (the prophets are clear that Israel is a vast cucumber patch of priapic deities found on every hill throughout the land ---Jer. 2:20; Isa. 57:7-10).

Nevertheless there's one key distinction since the Jewish priapic deities are indeed poured out נסך into casts from which they thereafter obtain their sacerdotal-likeness whereas the Priapus in Psalms 2:6 is fleshly; it's his blood that's poured out on Zion and not the fact that he's being molded, created, manufactured, by being poured out נסך into a pre-formed caste-system (a patchwork of cucumber-like idols). In the Jewish cucumber patchwork of priapic deities the deity is being produced or born when he's poured out נסך whereas in complete contradistinction, in Psalms 2:6, the Priapus is being bled to death as the form of his anointing and purportedly the means through which he anoints his anointed ones.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Who hath formed a god or poured out a graven image profitable for nothing.​

​

Isaiah 44:10.​

In the context of all that's been said, we could say that Isaiah is asking who it is who's poured out נסך a priapic-image good for nothing? The glaring problem is exemplified in that the corrected exegesis of Psalms 2:6 says that God himself has poured out נסך his Son (v. 7) on mount Zion. Therefore God himself is in the cross-hairs of Isaiah 44:10. God has poured out נסך his Son on Zion as a fleshly priapic God seemingly justifying the response of those who strike down the fleshly Priapus precisely because any uniqueness between God's Priapus versus the rest might get lost in a cucumber patch of seemingly identical priapic deities (the prophets are clear that Israel is a vast cucumber patch of priapic deities found on every hill throughout the land ---Jer. 2:20; Isa. 57:7-10).

Nevertheless there's one key distinction since the Jewish priapic deities are indeed poured out נסך into casts from which they thereafter obtain their sacerdotal-likeness whereas the Priapus in Psalms 2:6 is fleshly; it's his blood that's poured out on Zion and not the fact that he's being molded, created, manufactured, by being poured out נסך into a pre-formed caste-system (a patchwork of cucumber-like idols). In the Jewish cucumber patchwork of priapic deities the deity is being produced or born when he's poured out נסך whereas in complete contradistinction, in Psalms 2:6 the Priapus is being bled to death as the form of his anointing and purportedly the means through which he anoints his anointed ones.

The manufacturer with his tongs works the coals and fashions with hammers and makes it like the strength of his arm זרוע . . . which is also hungry and its strength fails. The carpenter drinks no water and grows thirsty. He measures out a line on trees and with a compass he connects the lines using a radius to make the figure of a glorious male-organ fit for a shrine.​

​

Isaiah 44:12-13.​

The prophet's oracle mixes the metaphors of the pagan Priapus with the divine. Throughout Deutero-Isaiah the prophet speaks of the suffering servant as the right hand of God (using the same Hebrew consonants found above --- זרוע), even noting its analogue, Nehushtan, as a Branch lifted up in Moses' right hand. Channeling Isaiah 53, the passage quoted above speaks of the carpenter being thirsty and weak, fashioned with hammers, hung on a tree manufactured by a carpenter, and most importantly, Isaiah 53:9, becoming a shrine. Properly exegeted, with the help of Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 53:9 says the carpenter will, in his death, become a shrine where prayers and supplication for healing are brought. Rabbi Gikatilla (Gates of Light) translates verse 13 of Isaiah 44 to speak of the image of masculinity fit for a shrine.

After this, Jesus, the carpenter nailed to the cross he manufactured, knowing that it had all been accomplished, so that scripture [Isaiah 44:12] might be fulfilled completely, saith, "I thirst."​

​

John 19:38.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

The manufacturer with his tongs works the coals and fashions with hammers and makes it like the strength of his arm זרוע . . . which is also hungry and its strength fails. The carpenter drinks no water and grows thirsty. He measures out a line on trees and with a compass he connects the lines using a radius to make the figure of a glorious male-organ fit for a shrine.​

​

Isaiah 44:12-13.​

The prophet's oracle mixes the metaphors of the pagan Priapus with the divine. Throughout Deutero-Isaiah the prophet speaks of the suffering servant as the right hand of God (using the same Hebrew consonants found above --- זרוע), even noting its analogue, Nehushtan, as a Branch lifted up in Moses' right hand. Channeling Isaiah 53, the passage quoted above speaks of the carpenter being thirsty and weak, fashioned with hammers, hung on a tree manufactured by a carpenter, and most importantly, Isaiah 53:9, becoming a shrine. Properly exegeted, with the help of Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 53:9 says the carpenter will, in his death, become a shrine where prayers and supplication for healing are brought. Rabbi Gikatilla (Gates of Light) translates verse 13 of Isaiah 44 to speak of the image of masculinity fit for a shrine.

After this, Jesus, the carpenter nailed to the cross he manufactured, knowing that it had all been accomplished, so that scripture [Isaiah 44:12] might be fulfilled completely, saith, "I thirst."​

​

John 19:38.​

In light of context and exegesis, Isaiah 1:8 should read:

ונותרה בת–ציון כסכה בכרם כמלונה במקשה בעיר נצורה​

​

And the Branch of Zion is left as a sukkah in a garden, God's own priapic Branch hidden amongst a vast field of idol replicas forged of wood, the place of refuge עיר for the Nazarenes.​

​

John