once I saw a 'child of g*d' walking along the road


*

IF
on the one hand
the allegorization of the commandments
on the part of a Christian like Justin
creates the attractive possibility of a universalizing discourse
it also contains within itself
perhaps inevitably
the seeds of a discourse of contempt
for the Jews?

~*~

~*~

THUS
Justin's universalism becomes,
Jonathan's felicitous phrase,
"a particularist claim
to universality":

"FOR
the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Avraham,
was given for a sign;
that you may be separated from other nations,
and from us;
and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer;
and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire;
and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence,
and not one of you go up
to Yerushalayim."

OR
precisely phrased in
another way:

"THE
call to sameness
[with PAUL] in [1 Corinthians] 11:1
is paradoxically bound up
with the call to exclusivity [difference]
from the rest of
the world.
The action of imitation
again has no special content,
but refers rather to a gesture which would set Christians
apart as Christians.
[And certain Christians
apart from other Christians as certain Jews set themselves apart
from other Jews?!]
Unity and exclusivity
are two sides of the same coin in the economy of Christian
[Jewish & Moslim a.s.o.?!] formation.
EACH quality
is a function of the mimetic relationship,
insofar as each is played out
in the polarity of sameness
and difference."


~*~


ULTIMATELY, then,
it is seems true & right
that PAUL's main problem with Jews is
that they are not
Christians?


THIS is,
however, not nearly so weak
as it might appear,
because the not-being-Christian
[or Greek or Roman or any universal human]
is, in s sense, the very essence
of the signifier Jew,
and the insistence on difference
was also [and remained]
a positive content of Jewish self-definition
as well?


IF
the "content"
of Pauline Christianity is a drive toward sameness,
the Jew is the very site of difference
which both constitutes and threatens that sameness,
and the circumcision
of the male Jew's penis
is precisely a
diacritic?


THE
Pauline critique of one kind of particularism
leads to a particularism of another sort,
which threatens ideologically and in practice
to allegorize the Jews
out of existence
entirely?



ON THE ONE HAND,
Justin argues that Chavel,
Noach, Lot, and Melchi'Tsedek,
all uncircumcised,
were pleasing to "G*D",
a message of universalism,
BUT ON THE OTHER,
"to you alone this circumcision was necessary,
in order that the people may be
no people,
and the nation
no nation."



IT IS HERE,
building on PAUL,
that "Christian" becomes, then, reinscribed as universal,
and "Jew" becomes the realm of the particular,
in almost the very same hermeneutical move that inscribes male as spirit
and female as the realm
of the senses.



"The Jew"
in the world becomes demoted
precisely to the extent that signifiers are disavowed
vis-a-vis signifieds.



The
last
human
Rose
in the Garden of Eden
left
blooming
alone?



Ships
that pass in the night
and greet each other while
passing?



Will
The True Believer
stand up
please?



Jew,
Christian or
Moslim?



AND:
what kind of jew,
christian or
moslim?



And
what
about
all those
"OTHER" believers
or 'non-
believers'?

~verliefdliefdesverdrietverliefd~
engel


18 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 20 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende