innerlijke besnijdenis hoofddoekjes & aanverwanten
*
The "True Jew":
Romans 2:28-29 and
Post-Structuralist "jews":
FOR
he is not a Jew,
which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision,
which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men,
but of G D.
Jood
is men niet door zijn uiterlijk,
en de besnijdenis is geen lichamelijke besnijdenis:
Jood is men door zijn innerlijk,
en de besnijdenis is een innerlijke besnijdenis.
Het is het werk van de Geest,
niet een voorschrift uit de wet,
dus wie innerlijk een Jood is,
ontvangt geen lof van mensen
maar van G D.
'kie lo-haniereh
miechoets hoe hayehoedie
velo-hanierah michoets babasar hie hamielah:
kie iem-asjer biefniem hoe yehoedie
oemilah hie asjer balev kefie haroeach velo kefie haktav
asjer-lo miebnei adam thielato
kie iem-me'et
haelohiem:
~*~
~*~
Bultmann's,
K.'s, & HK's allegories of the Jews
represent the continuation of a kind of Christian discourse
that can be held parly responsible
for Nazi genocide.
However,
paradoxically,
there is a European practice of allegorization of the signifier "Jew"
that is a reaction against the Nazis but nevertheless, I argue,
also deprives "real" Jews
of existence.
I mean, of course, the "true Jew."
There is accordingly an enormous difference between the two tropes.
The "secret Jew" owes its very existence as a trope to the Reformation and its reading of Paul; the "true Jew" is explicitly inscribed in the Pauline text.
In the early parts of Romans 2, "O Jew" is indeed a trope,
but it is not metaphor or allegory.
The Jew whom PAUL addresses is a synecdoche,
e representative member of and corporate part of the "real" historical people Israel, who call themselves "Jews."
The Lutheran interpretative tradition
turned the synecdoche into a metaphor.
On the other hand,
PAUL,
by addressing the Jew as "You who call yourself a Jew,"
is already preparing the way for a different usage of "Jew" as metophor;
for a split between the material literal signifier of a body which belongs to historical Israel and its spiritual, allegorical referent,
"the true Jew" in the end
of his 'mydistory.'
~*~
THIS
other allegorical
appropriation of "Jew"
owes its origins to the final verses of Romans 2,
where Paul explicitly coins and uses the term.
Above I have read these verses closely,
and there is no need to do so again an again.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT to reemphasize is that in THIS passage
PAUL CLAIMS that being a "true Jew"
is NOT AT ALL a matter of genealogy, history, and practice
BUT a matter of inner
disposition!
"FOR he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
NOT is circumcision something external and physical.
HE is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the HEART,
SPIRITUAL and NOT literal!"
ANYONE
AT ALL CAN BE JEWISH,
and those who "call themselves Jews"
are NOT necessarily Jewish
AT ALL!
THIS
utterance of Paul's
has had fateful consequences for the Jews
in the Christian
West?!
ONCE
PAUL succeeded,
"real Jews" ended up being only a trope
and have remained such for European discourse even until today
and EVEN in the writings of leftists whose work is positioned as being opposed to anti-Semitism - and even in the writings
of Jews.
Similarly,
it seems, for some poststruturalist writers being a woman
is NOT a matter of having a certain body and the experiences that go with it BUT of an INNER DISPOSITION,
and therefore ANYONE AT ALL can be a woman
by merely CHOOSING
TO DO SO!
It is not surprising,
given all that I have been saying about Paul and "the Jews,"
that THIS allegorization of Jew is much less offensive than the Lutheran's "secret Jew," or Jew as religious man,
since the "true Jew" is at least a positively
marked trope.
Although
well intentioned,
any SUCH allegorization of "Jew"
and indeed of "woman" is problematic
in the extreme for the way that it deprives those who have historically grounded identities in those material signifiers of the power
to speak for themselves and
remain
DIFFERENT.
In this sense the "progressive" idealization of "Jew" and "woman,"
or more usually, "jew" and "Woman,"
ultimately deprives difference of the right to be different.
~
~
The "True Jew":
Romans 2:28-29 and
Post-Structuralist "jews":
FOR
he is not a Jew,
which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision,
which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men,
but of G D.
Jood
is men niet door zijn uiterlijk,
en de besnijdenis is geen lichamelijke besnijdenis:
Jood is men door zijn innerlijk,
en de besnijdenis is een innerlijke besnijdenis.
Het is het werk van de Geest,
niet een voorschrift uit de wet,
dus wie innerlijk een Jood is,
ontvangt geen lof van mensen
maar van G D.
'kie lo-haniereh
miechoets hoe hayehoedie
velo-hanierah michoets babasar hie hamielah:
kie iem-asjer biefniem hoe yehoedie
oemilah hie asjer balev kefie haroeach velo kefie haktav
asjer-lo miebnei adam thielato
kie iem-me'et
haelohiem:
~*~
~*~
Bultmann's,
K.'s, & HK's allegories of the Jews
represent the continuation of a kind of Christian discourse
that can be held parly responsible
for Nazi genocide.
However,
paradoxically,
there is a European practice of allegorization of the signifier "Jew"
that is a reaction against the Nazis but nevertheless, I argue,
also deprives "real" Jews
of existence.
I mean, of course, the "true Jew."
There is accordingly an enormous difference between the two tropes.
The "secret Jew" owes its very existence as a trope to the Reformation and its reading of Paul; the "true Jew" is explicitly inscribed in the Pauline text.
In the early parts of Romans 2, "O Jew" is indeed a trope,
but it is not metaphor or allegory.
The Jew whom PAUL addresses is a synecdoche,
e representative member of and corporate part of the "real" historical people Israel, who call themselves "Jews."
The Lutheran interpretative tradition
turned the synecdoche into a metaphor.
On the other hand,
PAUL,
by addressing the Jew as "You who call yourself a Jew,"
is already preparing the way for a different usage of "Jew" as metophor;
for a split between the material literal signifier of a body which belongs to historical Israel and its spiritual, allegorical referent,
"the true Jew" in the end
of his 'mydistory.'
~*~
THIS
other allegorical
appropriation of "Jew"
owes its origins to the final verses of Romans 2,
where Paul explicitly coins and uses the term.
Above I have read these verses closely,
and there is no need to do so again an again.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT to reemphasize is that in THIS passage
PAUL CLAIMS that being a "true Jew"
is NOT AT ALL a matter of genealogy, history, and practice
BUT a matter of inner
disposition!
"FOR he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
NOT is circumcision something external and physical.
HE is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the HEART,
SPIRITUAL and NOT literal!"
ANYONE
AT ALL CAN BE JEWISH,
and those who "call themselves Jews"
are NOT necessarily Jewish
AT ALL!
THIS
utterance of Paul's
has had fateful consequences for the Jews
in the Christian
West?!
ONCE
PAUL succeeded,
"real Jews" ended up being only a trope
and have remained such for European discourse even until today
and EVEN in the writings of leftists whose work is positioned as being opposed to anti-Semitism - and even in the writings
of Jews.
Similarly,
it seems, for some poststruturalist writers being a woman
is NOT a matter of having a certain body and the experiences that go with it BUT of an INNER DISPOSITION,
and therefore ANYONE AT ALL can be a woman
by merely CHOOSING
TO DO SO!
It is not surprising,
given all that I have been saying about Paul and "the Jews,"
that THIS allegorization of Jew is much less offensive than the Lutheran's "secret Jew," or Jew as religious man,
since the "true Jew" is at least a positively
marked trope.
Although
well intentioned,
any SUCH allegorization of "Jew"
and indeed of "woman" is problematic
in the extreme for the way that it deprives those who have historically grounded identities in those material signifiers of the power
to speak for themselves and
remain
DIFFERENT.
In this sense the "progressive" idealization of "Jew" and "woman,"
or more usually, "jew" and "Woman,"
ultimately deprives difference of the right to be different.
~
~
23 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 21 mrt 2008
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 01 jul 2026 Woensdag 1 juli 2026 Over de gehele wereld draagt
- O 29 jun 2026 29 juni 2026 Naarmate de vertrumpende & verder nog
- O 28 jun 2026 Verslaan? AKA Stanley Karnow/Saturday Evening Post
- O 27 jun 2026 Vervolg afspraak QQleQ Friday 26 juni-Sat. 27 juni
- O 27 jun 2026 Moderne geschiedenis? Twee Zuid-Vietnamese Ranger
- O 26 jun 2026 Over 30 symptomen van revolutie - de volkswil als
- O 25 jun 2026 27/28ZÓ vertelt ‘t Oude Testament ook hoe de muren 18+
- O 25 jun 2026 27/dinsdag 30 juni
- O 25 jun 2026 26 Ouwe Mor Asih de Chai was dus ‘n Zwerver en is
- O 25 jun 2026 25 TOEN de ouwe Mor Asih Chai nog jong was werd de
- O 24 jun 2026 24 De Verwoesting van Sodom lijkt elke dag nu alzo
- O 24 jun 2026 23 Asih Mor de Chai Salem Israel Petra
- O 23 jun 2026 22 Eigenlijk best wel ‘n beetje raar om daar heel
- O 22 jun 2026 21 Dezelfde reacties werden opgeroepen door de Gay
- O 20 jun 2026 20 In dit ozo diverse land is zelfs het