The Sacred Feminine

[Raksha]

Contrary to popular mythology, Jews never resisted Greek culture. Jewish culture developed as an asiatic expression of hellenism. It embraced, and was itself transformed in its enthusiasm for hellenist humanism, universalism, and literary expression. Jewish centers of learning rivaled those of the Greeks themselves, and Jewish philosophy and discursive arts achieved a level of sophistication on a par with Greek traditions centered on Homer and Plato. This was no exclusivist, ethnocentric monotheism.

Chris,

I'm pretty sure you know this already, but this seems like as good a time as any to let BB and everyone know I've been in love with Hellenistic culture ever since I read The Alexandria Quartet (a series of four novels by Lawrence Durrell) when I was in my late teens. There was a deep and immediate sense of affinity that only became stronger over the years, to the point where I consider Alexandria my true spiritual home, even more than Jerusalem.

You'll never hear me bad-mouth Hellenism or consider it decadent, with the sole exception of the enforced top-down "loyalty oath" worship that is the basis for the Chanukah story. The Romans were also famously known for forcing that kind of thing on the Jews and Christians. I'd have a hard time even pretending to worship an egomaniac emperor as a god! I'd only go along with that if my life were in danger, but even then I'd choke on it.

Thanks for a wonderful job of research and synthesis. That post is definitely a keeper!

--Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Chris was making a distinction between *Judea* and *Israel," the north kingdom, meaning his reference to "Israelites" was to be understood as referring to the people of that kingdom who intermarried with the Assyrians--and we know they did, because recent DNA tests prove it. The Samaritans show DNA evidence of Israelite fathers and Assyrian mothers.

perhaps a slight miscommunication. the samaritans spoken of at the time of "classical" sources of judaism", ie about 500 years later, would be the descendants of these "imported" assyrians, who did of course intermarry with the local israelites (those that weren't deported to assyria as part of the "ten lost tribes") - hence there would be an issue about whether they counted as jews or not for the technical purpose of marriage. moreover, if they subsequently *also* intermarried with the seleucids, this would further drive a wedge between them and those who remained traditionally-minded.

however, the bad blood between them and us was on account of their true loyalty to assyria, which caused them to side with our enemies against us and modify their beliefs away from those of the original israelites - their position on gerizim vs jerusalem was therefore a case in point; they modified the agreed position that jerusalem was the unified capital of all twelve tribes, as it was under david and solomon, in favour of moving the capital and the approved sacrificial location, thus perpetuating the tragic schism between the northern and southern kingdoms. this clearly appears to be a case of political convenience over religious principle, as otherwise they would have been perceived by the assyrians as siding with the southern kingdom of judah over that of their *real* compatriots, the assyrians. they chose a side - and the side they chose was *not* the jewish one. as we can see, it might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but where are the assyrians nowadays? it seems that you've actually provided exactly the historical evidence to bear out the jewish sources on this and for this i must thank you.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Contrary to popular mythology, Jews never resisted Greek culture.

again with the categorical statements. it is strange how you view historical documents (such as philo or josephus) that disagree with your point of view, to say nothing of discounting the clear objections found in the classical jewish sources. if hellenism was quite so uncontroversial as you state, it seems strange that a popular uprising should gain any support.

Jewish culture developed as an asiatic expression of hellenism. It embraced, and was itself transformed in its enthusiasm for hellenist humanism, universalism, and literary expression.

if by this you are saying that these hellenist outlooks enhanced jewish expressions of humanism, universalism and literary expression, then i suppose you have some case, philo again being a case in point. if, however, you are saying that jewish sources exhibited none of these prior to hellenist influence, i would have to strongly disagree. i'd also have to point at some very, very chauvinist and xenophobic positions in greek thought ("barbarians", anyone? how about the "aristoi"? women as "men with breasts"?) which were *not* reflected in jewish universalism, to say nothing of jewish personal morality.

Jewish centers of learning rivaled those of the Greeks themselves, and Jewish philosophy and discursive arts achieved a level of sophistication on a par with Greek traditions centered on Homer and Plato. This was no exclusivist, ethnocentric monotheism.

you seem to ignore the possibility of monotheism reaching this "level of sophistication" on its own as it does in the Tanakh and the classical rabbinic texts. in other words, the jews would have been a bunch of peasant thickies without the greeks. and this i cannot accept. jewish "centers of learning" already existed throughout the middle east and, to be honest, if you don't appreciate what was taught in them, you have no right to cast such aspersions. another thing you seem quite unaware of is the fact that at the time jews engaged in quite a bit of proselytisation, so it wasn't nearly as "ethnocentric" *or* as "exclusive" as you seem to think; that came centuries later. the issue of hellenisation could only have been exacerbated by the background of the converts, however.

The effect of the ideological propaganda created to fuel the Maccabean rebellion against the Seleucids, that of nationalistic particularism and ethnic identification through rejection of all things Greek, as caricaturized by the hated Antiochus, essentially created a Taliban-ized version of Judaism, now recast as a theocratic, ethnically particular, exclusivist monotheism.

one of the things you may not appreciate, chris, is that the sages actually rather disapproved of the maccabees, in rather similar terms to those you use. this is why the eventual festival of hanukkah emphasised the miracle of the oil rather than the military victories - it was transformed into a spiritual victory instead, in order to avoid glorifying what was essentially also a civil war between the non-hellenised jews and the hellenisers. certainly later on the classical sources have not a lot of nice things to say about the hasmonean dynasty, nor does josephus.

Originally Posted by Raksha

It is NOT the "ethics of the playground" and I'm very offended that you trivialized my position that way. I was referring to what’s likely to be true, assuming that Deborah was an actual person living at that period.

perhaps i was rather too flippant, sorry. let me restate: what you appear to be saying is that deborah *necessarily* would have been happy with goddess worship, because she was a woman. i personally find that patronising, as if female solidarity were more important than principle. moreover, i fail to see why you are in a position to base this on "what's likely to be true", without giving any evidence. surely if deborah was in a position of power as a judge and prophet, it is unlikely that she gained and maintained it through being soft on the practices that the judges and prophets condemned.

Now either there is a valid and legitimate expression of the Sacred Feminine, by women and for women, within Judaism or there is not!

indeed there is and i am keen to make it so. what you should NOT do, however, is ASSUME that this "valid and legitimate" expression is therefore NECESSARILY the very idolatry of which it is so clear that all the prophets and sages disapproved so vehemently. it's like saying that because islam was run by men, the only way to get back to the historical wellsprings of it is to put the idols back in the ka'aba! that's turning the clock back, not discovering a legitimate expression. you and i may well differ on this, but there is absolutely no future in finding an expression of the Sacred Feminine that alienates the male half of the sketch. can i ask if you've investigated some of the gender-neutral and female expressions of the Divine Name, such as "Ha-MaQOM", "Ha-RaHaMaN" and "E-L ShaDaY"? have you investigated the "royal you" construction which is often used (in sephardic prayer at any rate) to address G!D and addresses the second person in the *female* gender? if you haven't, you should. defaulting back to the very behaviours and short-cuts that characterised the most objectionable tendencies of the biblical israelites is quite simply not a solution; it's the first stop on a very long journey.

Either women are just as much--not "almost" as much but just as much created in the image of God as men are or they are not.

well, "man" was created from mud, after all, whereas "woman" was created from something much more impressive, a proto-human. moreover, the Torah says "in the Divine Image [G!D] Created *them*", so that is beyond dispute.

I can't stand the apologetic line that goes something like this: "Oh yes, goddess worship and fertility rituals are natural and understandable enough, but you still shouldn't do those things because God said so. As a matter of fact, if you participate in such things you are an abomination and deserving of death. Because God said so."

look, linda, "goddess worship" per se cannot be compatible with judaism if it is not clearly seen to be an expression of *monotheism*. we cannot worship "god and mrs god", G!D forbid, because that is quite simply a denial of the Oneness of the Infinite Divine and, moreover, historically, it has always, always led to dualism, just as maintaining that G!D Is only "love", or "good", is a denial of the necessity of stern judgement or evil. it restricts the role of G!D and this cannot be acceptable. surely it would be better if, when G!D "acts", as it were, as Mother or Wife or Lover, to have a vocabulary for that, just as in the case of Father, King or Judge? and why should the latter two even be seen as "male" attributes? and why should men be restricted to the latter expressions and women only to the field of fertility or motherhood. as i often say, moving beyond the "Big Beard In The Sky" mindset requires avoiding replacing it with the "Big Tits In The Earth" - they're both just as simplistic and wrong.

you'll love THG, by the way! and, seeing as you're understandably sensitive on this part, i'd like to apologise in advance for any offence i may give.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

look, linda, "goddess worship" per se cannot be compatible with judaism if it is not clearly seen to be an expression of *monotheism*. we cannot worship "god and mrs god", G!D forbid, because that is quite simply a denial of the Oneness of the Infinite Divine and, moreover, historically, it has always, always led to dualism...

BB,

Quick off the top of my head, gut-level answer here: It has NOT led to dualism!!! Never has, never will. Does the Song of Songs lead to dualism? What has always and inevitably led to dualism is seeing light and dark, good and evil as being under the jurisdiction of two opposing gods or forces, without recognizing their hidden or not-so-hidden kinship. It's seeing "heaven" and "earth," that is to say the spiritual and physical, as being opposed or at war with each other.

That probably sounds pretty strange coming from someone with a lifelong attraction to Gnosticism, but I reject the dualism in Gnosticism, i.e. Manichaeanism, every bit as much as I reject it in orthodox Christianity. It's the anti-authoritarian tendency I relate to, as well as the focus on initiation and direct experience.

just as maintaining that G!D Is only "love", or "good", is a denial of the necessity of stern judgement or evil. it restricts the role of G!D and this cannot be acceptable. surely it would be better if, when G!D "acts", as it were, as Mother or Wife or Lover, to have a vocabulary for that, just as in the case of Father, King or Judge?

In the kabbalistic system it's the other way around. It's the "feminine" side of the Tree of Life that is called the Pillar of Severity and is equated with strict justice, and the "masculine" side that is the Pillar of Mercy.

Sometimes you act like you're think I'm in freakin' kindergarten!

--Linda

[Raksha]

Everyone,

There's a typo in my last post that unfortunately I can't fix because I'm past the editing period. It should read: "Sometimes you act like you think I'm in freakin' kindergarten!"

Obviously.

--Linda

[Raksha]

The effect of the ideological propaganda created to fuel the Maccabean rebellion against the Seleucids, that of nationalistic particularism and ethnic identification through rejection of all things Greek, as caricaturized by the hated Antiochus, essentially created a Taliban-ized version of Judaism, now recast as a theocratic, ethnically particular, exclusivist monotheism.

Chris,

"A Taliban-ized version of Judaism." There is no point in pretending that this hasn't always been a standing danger within Judaism...AS IT STILL IS! The tendency has always been there, and sometimes it gets the upper hand. I don't need to tell you that this is what scares me more than anything.

--Linda

[China Cat Sunflower]

BB,

Neither Philo nor Josephus are reliable sources. One can use them for color and that's about it.

What I wrote reflects a minimalist position. It's a skimpy thumb nail sketch at best. I didn't bother adding any caveats about how this or that is arguable because really, the whole thing is arguable- that's kind of the point. If I stop to work around all the hot button words like Palestine and try to make everyone happy I won't get it written. Just look at it as a kind of stock minimalist position to argue against if you're so inclined. My only motive is to try to figure out what really happened using up-to-date archaeological and historical analysis. Beyond that I don't have an axe to grind. I have no hidden motives or grand conspiracy theory to unveil.

Chris

[dauer]

I have no... grand conspiracy theory to unveil.

Wow.

That is such a let-down.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, I do have this theory about gay Chinese Jews trying to take over the world. It's not what you think. More of a gradual process beginning with the Beijing Olympics. A minor prophecy really.

Chris

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Raksha

but I reject the dualism in Gnosticism, i.e. Manichaeanism, every bit as much as I reject it in orthodox Christianity.

I would be interested to know on what impression you consider 'orthodox Christianity' as dualistic.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Quick off the top of my head, gut-level answer here: It has NOT led to dualism!!! Never has, never will.

pantomime answer: ohhh, yes it has!

but seriously, that's a categorical statement too. you can't possibly say it "never" has and "never" will when the first is clearly indicated in scriptural, historical and archaeological sources (a rare case of agreement - here a reading of "the hebrew goddess" will be most helpful) and the second i can contradict from my own experience!

Does the Song of Songs lead to dualism?

there are *controls* on this sort of interpretation. firstly, it may be the Qudsha-Brich-Hu we-Shekhintehh, but the Shekhinah, in this context, is also conflated with the keneseth yisra'el - in other words we, the jewish people are the "female" Beloved and G!D Is the "male" Lover. this, interestingly enough, implies that prayer is some sort of inherently *female* modality, which would certainly explain the common (although by no means universal in traditional prayer) habit of addressing the Divine using masculine pronouns. and, yes, even the SoS can and has led to dualism, when these controls are not applied.

What has always and inevitably led to dualism is seeing light and dark, good and evil as being under the jurisdiction of two opposing gods or forces, without recognizing their hidden or not-so-hidden kinship. It's seeing "heaven" and "earth," that is to say the spiritual and physical, as being opposed or at war with each other.

absolutely. this is why adversarial forms of gender politics are counterproductive. and yes, that is an odd thing for someone who likes gnosticism. but there's a difference between gnosticism and judaism. also, historically, gnostics aren't terribly keen on sex, because the world is the domain of the evil "demiurge", so we're better off restraining ourselves - a position which tends to be ignored by many self-described new-age gnostics. i am not saying that your anti-authoritarian tendencies are a bad thing - in fact, you can back it straight up from the Torah - tzedeq, tzedeq tirdof: "justice, you *must* pursue justice." however, anti-authoritarian is not to be conflated with antinomianism - it is about the pursuit of justice, morality and equity, not merely removing laws for the sake of it.

In the kabbalistic system it's the other way around. It's the "feminine" side of the Tree of Life that is called the Pillar of Severity and is equated with strict justice, and the "masculine" side that is the Pillar of Mercy.

i know this. suffice it to say that i am well aware of the female connection with the left pillar, which is why you get such conceptions as morrigan, kali and athena, all goddesses of war and wisdom. i seem to remember there being a chapter on this in baring and cashford's "the myth of the goddess", which i enjoyed very much in spite of the fact that the bits on judaism were basically lifted from THG without much evidence that they'd understood the context.

i don't know what you know and what you don't know - remember, we don't know each other very well and are early on in the dialogue process. also, the web is a brusque medium and does not convey tone well. obviously you are an intelligent woman with a great deal of life experience and for this you deserve respect. however, i'm addressing the argument, not the person and i'm sure you wouldn't wish for me to sugarcoat my objections.

"A Taliban-ized version of Judaism." There is no point in pretending that this hasn't always been a standing danger within Judaism...AS IT STILL IS! The tendency has always been there, and sometimes it gets the upper hand.

indeed, just as the antinomian/individualist/self-indulgent tendency has always been a standing danger, which has often got the upper hand, as it did in the case of shabbetai tzvi and indeed the reform movement itself! the solution, as i have said elsewhere, is maintaining a *balanced portfolio* within the religious ecosystem. this is in many ways the key lesson of the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Neither Philo nor Josephus are reliable sources. One can use them for color and that's about it.

they're no less reliable than other historical sources, as long as you are aware of their contexts, strengths and weaknesses. i might rely on josephus for an accounts of how he saw history (or would have liked history to have been) with the caveat of his trying to suck up to his roman audience, but i wouldn't go to him for religious insight. same with philo, he's instructive insofar as insight into the challenges of reconciling plato and other greek philosophy with contemporary judaism was concerned, but not much more. however, i don't see how other sources cannot be challenged on similar grounds.

I didn't bother adding any caveats about how this or that is arguable because really, the whole thing is arguable- that's kind of the point.

it's good of you to say so - the original points appeared to be written as a sort of oracular statement of fact, which was what i was quibbling with.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I would be interested to know on what impression you consider 'orthodox Christianity' as dualistic.

perhaps the unwarranted magnification of ha-Satan into a sort of rebellious anti-god, as well as the general identification of the world and the flesh with evil and sin, whilst G!D Is restricted to the good and to "love", G!D forbid (contradicting isaiah) so all the good stuff is spiritual and all the bad stuff is physical. come on, thomas, surely you can see this impression might encourage dualism a bit, even if it is an error.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

perhaps the unwarranted magnification of ha-Satan into a sort of rebellious anti-god, as well as the general identification of the world and the flesh with evil and sin, whilst G!D Is restricted to the good and to "love", G!D forbid (contradicting isaiah) so all the good stuff is spiritual and all the bad stuff is physical. come on, thomas, surely you can see this impression might encourage dualism a bit, even if it is an error.

Indeed I can, but as you say, they are generalisations, and they are erroneous ...

Thomas

[bananabrain]

so catholics don't believe that the "devil" is a "rebellious angel"?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Oh we do ... but we don't believe he's an "anti-god".

Thomas

[bananabrain]

the concept of a "rebellious angel", to me, suggests a less than omnipotent G!D, which doesn't sound very monotheistic to me.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

there are *controls* on this sort of interpretation. firstly, it may be the Qudsha-Brich-Hu we-Shekhintehh, but the Shekhinah, in this context, is also conflated with the keneseth yisra'el - in other words we, the jewish people are the "female" Beloved and G!D Is the "male" Lover. this, interestingly enough, implies that prayer is some sort of inherently *female* modality, which would certainly explain the common (although by no means universal in traditional prayer) habit of addressing the Divine using masculine pronouns.

BB,

I am familiar with both of these interpretations, which aren't in opposition but are both operative at the same time...different levels of meaning. When I was fifteen the Song of Songs was without a doubt my favorite book of the Bible...but I have to tell you it wasn't because of either one of 'em!

yes, even the SoS can and has led to dualism, when these controls are not applied.

I don't believe you. In fact, I'm going to get back up on my soapbox again, because I want to let you know in NO uncertain terms that I don't buy the "equivalence" argument that is such a big favorite with conservatives, and you've used it more than once.

It is such a glib, facile argument that liberals are "just as intolerant" as conservatives, or that liberals are prone to the same ideological excesses from the opposite direction. The only problem with this "mirror image" argument is that it simply isn't true. I have NEVER known it to be true, although I wish I had a dollar for every time a conservative has accused me or other liberals of "intolerance." If liberals are intolerant of anything it's intolerance...and THAT'S ALL!

That's hardly the same the same thing as being intolerant of the beliefs and behavior of others simply because you're offended, or because you believe their behavior is a violation of God’s will or whatever. If it isn't hurting you or other people--or other countries, for that matter—then it’s basically none of your business. I have exactly ONE rule of morality for myself and other people, and that's the Golden Rule. I truly believe that's all anyone needs, provided you're careful to apply it in every possible circumstance, which I try to do. Granted, I don't always succeed but better late than never!

That's an absolute with me and it's non-negotiable. I just took the BeliefNet religion test last night and I ended up 100% Unitarian/Universalist, 94% Neo-Pagan. Those were my two highest scores and I'm perfectly happy with them. Reform Judaism ended up at only 67%, and that kind of surprised me.

For that reason I would never even consider voting for anyone who isn't basically a secular humanist, regardless of what other religious beliefs the individual did or did not profess. I would never vote for a fundie or theocrat or true-believer of any religion. I won't even give them the benefit of the doubt, because I'm terrified of theocrats and religious fanatics. There is NO upper limit, no built-in brake to the outrages a person is capable when he believes he's doing God's will, and history has proven that over and over again.

But my point is that we have absolutely NO comparable phenomenon on the left side of aisle, either in religion or politics. At least not in America we don't. The only comparable phenomenon on the Left are the communist ideologues like Stalin, but in their case their ideology has become a "religion" and operates the same way as a fundamentalist religion. I see hard-line Marxist communism as merely another flavor of fascism, and it also embodies some of the more demonic aspects of theocracy.

As for feminism...I'm happy to refer to myself as a radical feminist, which is kind of an inside joke with me, because how can there be such a thing as radical equality? I have zero interest in matriarchy even as an ideal, because that ISN'T my ideal. I guess what I mean by "radical feminist" is that I'm not an incrementalist I'm unwilling to put up with a "kinder, gentler patriarchy." I want it ALL and I want it NOW!

I still don't understand how the Song of Songs could liead to dualism any more than the concepts of Chokmah and Binah, or Yang and Yin could lead to dualism. They aren't opposites but complementaries. Likewise the so-called 'battle of the sexes" isn't a natural condition (how could it be?) but a highly artificial one brought about by 5000 years of patriarchal domination and women's totally justified resentment of same.

YES, there is a lot of anger, and YES, that anger is going to go beyond your comfort level as I'm sure it has in the past. That’s inevitable. It’s the totally natural and predictable result of what is basically a very unnatural situation. But nature will also keep that anger within bounds, so that it never escalates into full-blown hatred. After all, it’s totally counterproductive from a biological POV to hate the other half of your own species!

B'shalom,
Linda