or, more seriously, I am entirely intrigued - where's a midrash like that come from? How does the snake get involved?
― portrait of velleity (woof), Monday, 6 June 2011 13:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've always kinda wondered why circumcision became so popular in the US during the 20th century, while it was/is much rarer in Europe. Wikipedia says it was because of doctors promoted it as healthy, and because it was thought to stop boys from masturbating, but why didn't those same justifications apply in Continental Europe? And why was/is the practice still continued in the US, even though neither of those justifications is hardly relevant today? Is it only because parents didn't/don't want their kids to be different from the majority?
― Tuomas, Monday, 6 June 2011 13:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp This particular story is from the Exodus Rabbah which was compiled around 12th century which was itself developed from various midrashic traditions (primarily Tanhuma iirc). The Tanhuma parts at least come from the amoraic generation (200 CE in Israelish). So it's probably from there. It may be an oral tradition that developed alongside the written tradition, or it may have been invented as a homiletic in 200 CE. Also look here for a fuller description (and some exegesis): http://books.google.com/books?id=nAfUF2_ClqgC&lpg=PA18&ots=nM-k4VWX_K&dq=haberman%20foreskin%20sacrifice&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
― Mordy, Monday, 6 June 2011 13:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm spitballing here bc I've never studied this particular midrash in depth but I'd guess the serpent/snake angle is related to Moses' staff turning into a snake since that's a huge motif for him. (Obv other snake references could be the healer staff + the Eden snake, but it strikes me as more likely that it'd be referring to Moses' personal experience with snakes.) Also there's the obvious phallic imagery, etc.
― Mordy, Monday, 6 June 2011 13:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Mark book I linked to, btw, claims that the snake is mirroring the Eve narrative. Eve was naive but Zipporah "immediately grasps life and death confronting her in one instant. She is fuly conscious of her position of power and responsibility at the nexus of her intersecting erotic connections with God, her son, and her lover." Also of note, the Talmud derives from this narrative (again IIRC, it's been years since I looked at this partic passage) that if a father does not circumcise his son, a mother become obligated in the commandment.
― Mordy, Monday, 6 June 2011 13:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't really have much useful to say to this but reading this thread has made me realise that this is going to be a huge issue if I ever have a son :(
― Gravel Puzzleworth, Monday, 6 June 2011 14:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp thanks for the links & info Mordy, totally fascinating.
― portrait of velleity (woof), Monday, 6 June 2011 14:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
why didn't those same justifications apply in Continental Europe?
long honourable tradition of massive anti-Semitism
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Monday, 6 June 2011 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think that fully answers it, anti-semitism wasn't that strong everywhere in Europe. (Also, there were anti-semites in the US too: did they leave their kids uncut?)
― Tuomas, Monday, 6 June 2011 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
why didn't those same justifications apply in Continental Europe?long honourable tradition of massive anti-Semitism― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Monday, June 6, 2011 4:03 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Monday, June 6, 2011 4:03 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
lol was about to post more inflammatory version of this but i don't think it's true. i had never heard the 'anti-masturbation theory', daaaaamn.
― if xtm & dj chucky ft. annia could fly something something love (history mayne), Monday, 6 June 2011 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
If the idea of infant circumcision was to prevent masturbation in later life, I can tell you that the theory is not empirically sound.
― Aimless, Monday, 6 June 2011 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
As opposed to all the other early 1900s theories about sexuality?
― Tuomas, Monday, 6 June 2011 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
the non-religious uses of circumcision seem to be more related to old school "hey here is this bit of the body that doesn't really do anything and sometimes it can get infected let's just chop it off eh?" just like appendix tonsils adenoids etc. prophylactic surgery just seems to have been more of a thing back in the day
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Monday, 6 June 2011 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Some early 1900s sexual theorists actually believed that sexual repression was bad for humans. Mainstream culture professed to be shocked, but were seceretly fascinated.
― Aimless, Monday, 6 June 2011 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mainstream culture professed to be shocked, but were seceretly fascinated. horny.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Monday, 6 June 2011 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
His first comic, released last summer, featured an evil Doctor Mutilation, who circumcised boys for medical, not religious, reasons.
"Nobody came out and complained about doctor bias," Hess said. There's "no difference" between portraying an evil doctor and an evil religious figure, he said.
fuck this douchebag
― S'cool bro, I only cried a little (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is it only because parents didn't/don't want their kids to be different from the majority?
I've come across more than a few women who initially thought the idea of an uncircumsized penis was gross or weird.
― kind of droll but mostly rad (Kerm), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 17:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Most women I've come across profess a fascination with it.
― e-drinks @ the smart bar (kkvgz), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh word?
― an actual guy talking in an actual rhythm (history mayne), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision
this always baffled and fascinated me too -- it's like a 'twin peaks' style dream interlude in the middle of an otherwise straightforward narrative.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
even if you can figure out what's going on, here's the logic of the story:
god (i repeat: GOD) tries to kill somebody, and FAILS because someone performs a CIRCUMCISION.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
god was a new hire back then. he used to fuck shit up all the time.
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Love the Old Testament -- lots of weird, unexpected shit.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
god, squeamish at sight of blood. Hence new testament departure more aimed at his strong points.
― ♪♫ hey there lamp post, feelin' whiney ♪♫ (darraghmac), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 23:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah for reading pleasure/surprise per minute I vote Pentateuch over Epistles any day.
― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
one good thing about not having a foreskin is your foreskin will never rupture and bleed during sex
― dayo, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 01:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
there's also the jarring leap from the previous verses where God is all tasking up Moses with this important task.
GOD: Moses, get thee to EgpytMoses: Ok yoGOD: Die motherfucker!
― England's banh mi army (ledge), Wednesday, 8 June 2011 08:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh god my brain merged abb and d's post into for reading pleasure/surprise per minute I vote Pentateuch over Epistles any day during sex
o_0
― “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs (Trayce), Wednesday, 8 June 2011 08:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
russell crowe weighs in: http://twitter.com/#!/russellcrowe/statuses/79006376482967552
― ☂ (max), Friday, 10 June 2011 02:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
looking forward to Russ's visits to every maternity hospital in the world to remind new parents that every baby is perfect
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Friday, 10 June 2011 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://twitter.com/#!/russellcrowe/statuses/79016516829462528
― ☂ (max), Friday, 10 June 2011 02:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Russell Crowe is barbaric and stupid
― buzza, Friday, 10 June 2011 03:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
racist Australian idiot OTM
― unmetalled world (wk), Friday, 10 June 2011 04:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
*coff* NZ idiot.
― “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs (Trayce), Friday, 10 June 2011 04:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg russell crowe's twitter is killing me right now, thank u max
― (.づ☀‿☀)づ ~da post-modernist struggle~ (.づ☀‿☀)づ (Princess TamTam), Friday, 10 June 2011 04:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
oi m8. ur an idiot if u cut ur kid's pee-pee
― (.づ☀‿☀)づ ~da post-modernist struggle~ (.づ☀‿☀)づ (Princess TamTam), Friday, 10 June 2011 04:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
oops. One of the few cases where kiwis might actually be glad to have australia steal the credit though, right?
― unmetalled world (wk), Friday, 10 June 2011 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, and also why we remind people the cockhead isnt aussie! :)
― “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs (Trayce), Friday, 10 June 2011 05:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mel Gibson is one of yours though, isn't he?
― sarahel, Friday, 10 June 2011 05:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sadly yes.
― “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs (Trayce), Friday, 10 June 2011 05:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
mel gibson was born in new york
― caek, Friday, 10 June 2011 08:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
was gonna say
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Friday, 10 June 2011 09:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13957476
jeremy corbyn is crying :D
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Wednesday, 29 June 2011 16:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Marcus Brigstocke this week. "Oh wait you mean Jews *don't* drink children's blood? Maybe I should have done some basic research before spouting my mouth off"
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Use your goy for sausage-meat,. lol@ Talmud Cookbook
Picking Persia over the Arab invasion, & making peace with Israeli politics is hard as a raisin in the desert.
Ultimately I pick the remnants of Qabala-descended Nazi psychology in European-American lineage as divided by the Capran school of Mystic-inspired science
― z (a you), Friday, 1 July 2011 15:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
in terms of Jews
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/telling_it_it_wasnt
― Mordy, Thursday, 11 August 2011 13:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
im sympathetic to goldman's complaint but he doesn't seem particularly interested in the "complex dynamics of the conflict" despite citing the conaway piece? tho i suppose its not in the scope of what hes writing...
― max, Thursday, 11 August 2011 14:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
fwiw, i don't think the NYT was being anti-semitic. i think this piece falls into the greater complaint about the NYT (made by pretty much every media critic ever) that they're obsessed with telling all the sides of the story even when that kind of paradigm fails to get at larger truths -- exemplified by their political coverage which is often he-said she-said with very little authoritative voice.
― Mordy, Thursday, 11 August 2011 14:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14833259
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Thursday, 8 September 2011 12:13 (1 year ago) Permalink