HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 by John D. Brey.
Unlike some who should know better . . . I’m not la-di-da about bris milah. --- For that reason I took the sagely authors of the Zohar at their word when they boldly proclaimed that the preeminent “sign” of the Covenant between God and Israel was literally “scribed” or “etched” (engraved) into the Jewish membrum virile:
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 by John D. Brey.
Unlike some who should know better . . . I’m not la-di-da about bris milah. --- For that reason I took the sagely authors of the Zohar at their word when they boldly proclaimed that the preeminent “sign” of the Covenant between God and Israel was literally “scribed” or “etched” (engraved) into the Jewish membrum virile:
My
covenant will be in your flesh (Genesis 17:13). For it has been taught: As long
as a person is inscribed with the holy inscription of this sign, through it he
sees the blessed Holy One, literally, and a sacred soul unites with him. . .
Sacred soul is linked to this site, and all depends on this sign, so it is
written: From my flesh I will see (Eloah), God, consummation of all --- from my
flesh, literally; from this sign, precisely! So happy are Israel --- holy ones
linked to the blessed Holy One!
The Zohar, Lekh Lekha 1:94a.
The Zohar, Lekh Lekha 1:94a.
When
I read this passage I believed it to be inspired by God so that for me this
verse was as authentic as any passage from the Canonic scriptures.. . .
Therefore, I began a search for what I considered to be the preeminent sign of
the Covenant between God and Israel: a Latin cross!
Notwithstanding the preposterous nature of the idea, for better than a year I remained confident that there simply must be a cross etched somewhere on the circumcised organ of the covenant.
I searched books and the web for every morsel of information I could find on the actual process of circumcision. I believed so strongly in the legitimacy of Lekh Lekha 1:94, that I persevered in searching for a cross etched somewhere on the male member.
The zoharist’s claim that God’s “sign” was hidden/covered by the foreskin so that only after circumcision could it be seen. ----- So I knew that since no one has claimed to have found a cross "inscribed" on the organ of the Covenant, the cross would not be readily apparent to anyone not obsessive enough to actually be searching for it in opposition to their own lyin eyes.
An important revelation in this vein occurred while reading a Rudolf Bultmann discussion concerning the fact that Christians believe the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit has already occurred, whereas Jews are still waiting for the pouring out of the Spirit. In that discussion Bultmann stated:
Notwithstanding the preposterous nature of the idea, for better than a year I remained confident that there simply must be a cross etched somewhere on the circumcised organ of the covenant.
I searched books and the web for every morsel of information I could find on the actual process of circumcision. I believed so strongly in the legitimacy of Lekh Lekha 1:94, that I persevered in searching for a cross etched somewhere on the male member.
The zoharist’s claim that God’s “sign” was hidden/covered by the foreskin so that only after circumcision could it be seen. ----- So I knew that since no one has claimed to have found a cross "inscribed" on the organ of the Covenant, the cross would not be readily apparent to anyone not obsessive enough to actually be searching for it in opposition to their own lyin eyes.
An important revelation in this vein occurred while reading a Rudolf Bultmann discussion concerning the fact that Christians believe the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit has already occurred, whereas Jews are still waiting for the pouring out of the Spirit. In that discussion Bultmann stated:
If Erich
Dinkler is correct in saying that the sign of the cross was an eschatological
sphragis already in Judaism, then it is easy to assume that the sealing was a
real act whereby the person sealed was marked with the sign of the cross.
As
I read this . . . a strange thought entered my mind. I went to the computer and
typed “circumcision frenulum.” ---- The first site that came up had images of
several circumcised organs showing the various ways that the foreskin is cut. I
copied the second photo on the page, pasted it into Photoshop, and inverted the
picture to a negative (ala the Shroud of Turin). To my amazement . . . there in
front of me was a glowing crucifix (a Latin cross) in no wise below the
standards one would expect should it be seen hanging in the Vatican.
It turns out that the “frenulum” (on the back of the site of circumcision) is a band something like the band attached to the bottom of the tongue. It stretches about half way down the organ of the Covenant.
If we look for the cross “on the backside” (per Exodus 33:23) of that organ said in the Zohar to represent the Holy One (and the Foundation of the Covenant), it turns out that the frenulum (along with the penile raphe) creates an aesthetically correct vertical in relationship to the horizontal lines formed where the glans (the crown/corona) intersect the frenulum forming the cross beam and the top of the cross I†I.
Justifying this theophany is the fact that until the foreskin is removed, the cross on the backside of the phallus is completely "obstructed" so that circumcision amazingly removes the covering that hides the fact that a Latin cross is literally engraved by God’s design on the backside of the organ said to reveal the “sign” of the Covenant between God and Israel.
Having stumbled upon the oddity that the frenulum (elongated by the penile raphe) on the backside of the male organ . . . when viewed in relationship to the frenular delta (where the frenulum crosses the corona) . . . creates a startlingly correct (aesthetically speaking) cross or crucifix (a crucifix since it's a cross juxtaposed and united, viewed, with Jewish flesh) . . . I decided to see if I could find anything even remotely corresponding to my theory within the annals of Jewish mysticism.
For me, the natural place to start such a search would be the writing of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, who is Director of Graduate Studies at the Skirkball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies (New York University). More than any other contemporary Jewish scholar, Professor Wolfson has taken up where Gershom Scholem left off in his in-depth examination of Jewish mysticism.
What an odd undertaking? . . . Scour the writing of a Professor of Judaic studies to see if he corroborates an absolutely outrageous Christological apologetic couched in bio-theological truisms?
I already knew that Professor Wolfson accepted the phallocentric nature of Jewish mysticism: ". . . I have argued that one could chart the history of mystical speculation in Judaism as a transition from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism connected especially to the visualization of God" (Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being).
I also knew that Professor Wolfson was keenly aware that on the anthropomorphic sefirothic tree, the male organ was the site not only of the “sign” of the Covenant . . . but also the representation of the Blessed Holy One Himself.
Furthermore, Professor Wolfson teaches that the Zoharic sages ascribed to the idea that hidden underneath the foreskin . . . and thus revealed through circumcision . . . was a literal sign (Heb. ot) whose very presence was thought capable of affecting a theophany of the Presence of God.
. . .What I hoped to find out was whether (according to Professor Wolfson) there was anything in the writing of the Jewish mystics pointing to the “sign” existing on the backside of the phallus . . . and more specifically, centered directly on the frenular delta??
It turns out that the “frenulum” (on the back of the site of circumcision) is a band something like the band attached to the bottom of the tongue. It stretches about half way down the organ of the Covenant.
If we look for the cross “on the backside” (per Exodus 33:23) of that organ said in the Zohar to represent the Holy One (and the Foundation of the Covenant), it turns out that the frenulum (along with the penile raphe) creates an aesthetically correct vertical in relationship to the horizontal lines formed where the glans (the crown/corona) intersect the frenulum forming the cross beam and the top of the cross I†I.
Justifying this theophany is the fact that until the foreskin is removed, the cross on the backside of the phallus is completely "obstructed" so that circumcision amazingly removes the covering that hides the fact that a Latin cross is literally engraved by God’s design on the backside of the organ said to reveal the “sign” of the Covenant between God and Israel.
Having stumbled upon the oddity that the frenulum (elongated by the penile raphe) on the backside of the male organ . . . when viewed in relationship to the frenular delta (where the frenulum crosses the corona) . . . creates a startlingly correct (aesthetically speaking) cross or crucifix (a crucifix since it's a cross juxtaposed and united, viewed, with Jewish flesh) . . . I decided to see if I could find anything even remotely corresponding to my theory within the annals of Jewish mysticism.
For me, the natural place to start such a search would be the writing of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, who is Director of Graduate Studies at the Skirkball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies (New York University). More than any other contemporary Jewish scholar, Professor Wolfson has taken up where Gershom Scholem left off in his in-depth examination of Jewish mysticism.
What an odd undertaking? . . . Scour the writing of a Professor of Judaic studies to see if he corroborates an absolutely outrageous Christological apologetic couched in bio-theological truisms?
I already knew that Professor Wolfson accepted the phallocentric nature of Jewish mysticism: ". . . I have argued that one could chart the history of mystical speculation in Judaism as a transition from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism connected especially to the visualization of God" (Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being).
I also knew that Professor Wolfson was keenly aware that on the anthropomorphic sefirothic tree, the male organ was the site not only of the “sign” of the Covenant . . . but also the representation of the Blessed Holy One Himself.
Furthermore, Professor Wolfson teaches that the Zoharic sages ascribed to the idea that hidden underneath the foreskin . . . and thus revealed through circumcision . . . was a literal sign (Heb. ot) whose very presence was thought capable of affecting a theophany of the Presence of God.
. . .What I hoped to find out was whether (according to Professor Wolfson) there was anything in the writing of the Jewish mystics pointing to the “sign” existing on the backside of the phallus . . . and more specifically, centered directly on the frenular delta??
The
author of Tiqqune Zohar likewise locates the [theophanic] forms or images in
the divine phallus, but the manifestation of those forms in specifically
visible images is effected through the medium of the feminine divine Presence,
which is, in fact, an aspect of the phallus, the corona of the penis. Moreover,
the tangible shapes that those forms assume are dependent on the mental
capacity of the recipient, especially his imaginative faculty.
Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 317.
Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 317.
Professor
Wolfson states that a mystic with a vivid imagination (and he claims that
imagination is the key ingredient of the mystic’s power over symbols) can look
at the corona of the penis and . . . if his imagination is up to par . . . he
can “see” the “visible” image, or form, of a theophany of God.
Even in
those passages, where the Shekhinah, the feminine potency of the divine, is
designated as the locus of vision, it can be shown that in the kabbalistic
literature in general, and the Zohar in particular, the Shekhinah is visualized
as only part of the male organ; indeed, in the visual encounter the Shekhinah
is the protruding aspect of the divine phallus, the corona of the penis, and
not a distinct feminine entity (Ibid. p. 339).
The vision of the Presence is ultimately a seeing of the corona of the divine phallus, the `ateret berit. That is the implication of the verse from Job, from the flesh – that is, the penis --- God is seen (Ibid. p. 342).
The symbolic correlation of the corona of the penis and the feminine Shekhinah is facilitated by the philological coincidence that the word `atarah, “crown,” is the technical name of that part of the male anatomy as well as one of the designation of the Shekhinah (Ibid. p. 358).
In light of the gender metamorphosis suggested above, the object of visualization, the Shekhinah, is identified as the corona of the penis (Ibid. p. 359).
The vision of the Presence is ultimately a seeing of the corona of the divine phallus, the `ateret berit. That is the implication of the verse from Job, from the flesh – that is, the penis --- God is seen (Ibid. p. 342).
The symbolic correlation of the corona of the penis and the feminine Shekhinah is facilitated by the philological coincidence that the word `atarah, “crown,” is the technical name of that part of the male anatomy as well as one of the designation of the Shekhinah (Ibid. p. 358).
In light of the gender metamorphosis suggested above, the object of visualization, the Shekhinah, is identified as the corona of the penis (Ibid. p. 359).