Rachel’s idols and the sons of blood

(not finished) 

To understand what is meant is not always easy, and the rules that establish whether the codes of interpretation used are correct or not, very weak. Considering the obvious problem arising from interpretation, we tended to accept the most general rule, as principle, of the possibility of deriving some kind of meaning of a given text, if we could ever establish a rational path that allows attaching the interpretation to the text in order to avoid arbitrary interpretation. As such we differentiate obviously a theory ‘inspired of’ of a theory ‘derived of’, and of the one ‘inherent to’. 

The following theory, which we first thought of as ‘inspired’, finished though, as considering the way it had been obtained, by showing some kind of determined character, as if the intelligence had been driven by a specific logic to obtain the given result. This observation led us to try reading other passages the same way, obtaining similar results. We finally concluded that we could even talk of something we finished by saying ‘cross reading’, which was nothing but the remark, that a certain number of fundamental teachings mainly in texts like the OT were embedded in a text in a certain way, in order to avoid temptation of doing something having bad side effects through the very fact of knowing that it could have such effects. Thus, only people who had gone through a certain moral process of education assuring that knowledge would not be used in a bad way, would have finally the clue to the understanding of the teaching in question. (Theses of support through indirect derivation without foundation.) 

The cross reading did seem to be extremely effective in the Pentateuch, as if it had been common at that time of the composition of the text, and offered a great variety of possibilities of reading, giving light on complex problems that could be considered from very different points of view. Whether these problems were actually treated this way at that time, is difficult to say, but it was of evidence that the very structures of composition did allow, without forcing the interpretation, finding an answer to serious problems ‘as if’ they were embedded in the text, phenomenon that gave further the ‘theory of crystals’ concerning the possibility of multiple interpretation through cross reading. 

What is cross reading? The cross reading, which seemed to be somehow linked to what we would call after the refracted lines, is the possibility of attaching what seems to be an accidental element of a story (it does not seem to essentially give meaning to the story in question) to another element of a different story, which is linked to a third story somehow. Taking all these elements together, they seem to form in their consequence a new causality, giving light to an unexpected problematic. 

Examples:
Sodom and GomorraThe easiest in appearance, this story does seem to use the first level in cross reading: the causal superposition. We read that angels arrived to Sodom, meet
Lot, while the citizens do ask for sexual interaction with the angels. Lot is warned of the coming disaster, leaves the town with his daughters and wife who does die on the way, hides away up in the mountains and … does have a sexual relationship, having as pretext a state of drunkenness, with both his daughters (tribes of Moab and ?). What is the cause of the disaster? Starting with an obvious contradiction with reality, that it is impossible to have a sexual relationship being drunk enough so as not to have awareness of the event, the story puzzles by the obvious ‘immoral’ behaviour of
Lot. Were it not easier to understand, that this marginal sexual encounter is at the origin of the disaster itself? If it is so, why is the story put as a consequence and not as the cause? We may say that eventually the immorality of the citizens of Sodom has already altered so much the structures of understanding, that cause is confused with consequence, or, as we have seen before (The fall of Constantinople), intention with finality. If we try to see what happens if we put the possible cause at the beginning of the story, and we think, that
Sodom’s citizens were committing some kind of generalized incest in paternal lines (father and daughter), may this help us to understand what has happened after? May incest be at the origin of erratic sexual behaviour going as far as not to respect laws of hospitality, and thus cause of the friction with the angels? How does incest then disturb moral and social understanding and what may be at the origin of it?What is incest? Incest is a sexual relationship with someone who we are linked by close boundaries of blood. It seems as if this could be related to an inherent interdiction to confuse in meaning similar or related words (incest among brothers), or even to fuse law and particular case or consequence (father and daughter). In the first case it becomes impossible to differentiate the same word having different meanings through tones or context (sisters), or to see the same meaning in different words (brothers), or to determine the meaning through the given tone in context (brother and sister). In the second, we can’t differentiate an accidental from an essential characteristic, or the consequence in its inherent relationship to a given law (mother to son, and father to daughter). If this were so, what kind of general disposition or thought may be at the origin of such a confusion, and thus of heavily dangerous sexual behaviour?“Is the foreigner going to tell us what we have to do?” The citizens of Sodom say to
Lot in his attempt to make them change their mind. Could it be that the incapacity of absorbing law as such by wanting to make it depend on it’s arbitrary use related to the fact that is made law what is ours despite reason or other rational criteria, is at the origin of incest, or vice versa, does incest have as consequence the incapacity of understanding law as such?