stephan huller

And by the way there is nothing in the Genesis narrative that prevents Jacob from having been castrated in Genesis 32. In case you have no knowledge about such matters it takes nine months generally for conception to occur. There is only one event which stands between Peniel and the birth of Benjamim (son of old age). The coitus necessarily occurred long before (unless you propose a miraculous birth). This is all that is said about the birth of Benjamin the last of Jacob's children:

Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, "Don't be afraid, for you have another son." As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamim (son of days i.e. old age).

Again Jacob wrestles the angel, the angel squeezes his balls, Jacob runs to meet Esau, he goes to Shechem, and then he goes to Bethel (which according to the Samaritans is the Sanctuary at Gerizim i.e. 'right there' in the immediate environs).

Not nine months work of activities even for a lazy ass like me ...

stephan huller

And if I remember correctly there is something in the Samaritan tradition about Benjamin's birth being significant and not just because his parents were old.

stephan huller

And do you always have to be so rude? The implications are that you already know all the answers. You were wrong with the time line for Jacob. It is possible that some groups might have thought that he was castrated. If you had kept an open mind you wouldn't have made those rash statements.

spin

When you drop clangers such as the one about Jacob, you certainly need to contextualize the statements you make. I made a simple statement about Jewish thought and you give this wacky interpretation about Jacob being castrated. It should be obvious to you that in Jewish contexts at the turn of the era the interpretation of Jacob being castrated is off the wall, out their with the leprechauns, flip-city, in ga-ga-land. Given the reaction to any ordinary bodily impairment (check out Jeremias, for example) self-mutilation would be considered worse.

The question "is it possible" is of little help to you here, as it is in most places. A lot of crap history is based on possibilities. A lot of crap interpretations go the same way. The question you need is "what does the evidence show?" It seems that if it is possible, it must be.


spin

spin

W h a t . a . s t r e t c h !

Now you are trying to defend what the original text meant, when you disavowed such as your purpose. God has just told Jacob to be fruitful and multiply (35:11a) and what happens? Rachel gives birth. It is still your desire, not the text.


spin

spin

Don't confuse directness with rudeness.

With the sort of desire you're putting into it, I'm sure you believe that.

It's possible that they wore pink pajamas as well. Drank intoxicating mushroom based drugs. Worshipped asses. Sacrificed babies. (Well, maybe not pink pajamas.) What is possible needs to be whittled back to what can be shown to be relevant.

If you weren't falling over your desires you'd be able to recognize an open mind.


spin

stephan huller

You know we always get into these disputes and I think I have determined what the problem is - you find one interpretation of a text and argue that everyone else agreed with your interpretation otherwise they were (or are) wrong. Let's look at the section again:

And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you." Then God went up from him at the place where he had talked with him. Jacob set up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him, and he poured out a drink offering on it; he also poured oil on it. Jacob called the place where God had talked with him Bethel.

Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, "Don't be afraid, for you have another son." As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin.

It's absurd to argue that 'be fruitful and multiply' means fuck your wife and make kids. Over nine months have not elapsed since the announcement. 'Then they moved on from Bethel [and] while they were still some distance' implies an immediate birth after these words.

You're a sophist in the worst sense of the word.

stephan huller

And here girl is Rashi's interpretation of the passage:

'Be fruitful and multiply' - Since Benjamin was not yet born even though she was already pregnant with him.

Grow up

There is NOTHING in the Genesis narrative WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE UNDERSTANDING that Jacob was castrated AND THUS became (or exchanged places with) the angelic hypostasis Israel/Sariel. Indeed there is a strong resemblance to things said and interpreted from the NT (i.e. an interest in becoming 'like the angels' etc.).

stephan huller

I also think the Marcionite/heretical title Chrestos has something to do with what happened at Peniel as chrestos = yashar in the LXX. 'James the Just' might be a reflection of an interest in the experience of the Patriarch Jacob and the transformative experience that made him Israel. http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=291871

You know we Jews do. There isn't a right interpretation to the Torah just 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' ones. The idea that SOME early Christians MIGHT have interpreted the story of Jacob as a castration narrative is at the very least possible - in my mind VERY LIKELY.

spin

You are supposed to be working with the text, not old opinions. What in the text requires you to think that Rachel had already conceived?? That's where you should be starting. If you weren't constrained by the text you could conclude anything you fancied.

Another kettle looking for a pot to implicate?

As the NRSV doesn't clarify the significance enough, read the latest JPS translation. Principal phrase being "wrenched Jacob's hip at the socket".

Putting it another way: there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify your desired reading. It's basically pure conjecture, though not your conjecture, as it's an old eisegetic approach of the text.


spin