|
|
Gender Issues Attendant upon the Transition from the Feminine Sophia to the Masculine Logos: Part I 8-1-2013
|
| 2013-09-12, 3:18 AM |
Gender Issues Attendant upon the Transition from the Feminine Sophia to the Masculine Logos: Part I
Mary C. Sheridan
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology (Ph.D. candidate)
Note: The section here published constitutes the "Sophia" section.� The "Logos" part will follow in a second part to be published later.� But the reader must be sure to keep in mind that the two parts are working to one conclusion to be seen at the conclusion of the second part to follow in a subsequent issue.
INTRODUCTION
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth;
before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then was I beside him, like a master workman;
and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.� (Proverbs 8.22-31. [1]
The book of Proverbs is dated from the "post-exilic period" [2] which means it was written some time after the end of the Babylonian captivity that ended in the 530s B.C.E.� Footnotes to The Proverbs in The New Oxford Annotated Bible indicate at least six references to the individual/ person referred to is "a woman," a "prophetess," a "gracious hostess," "lady wisdom," and "divine." [3] � All these references are feminine.
Approximately 700 years later when The Gospel according to John was written around C.E. 90‑100, the prologue to this Gospel reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything that was made.� In him was life, and the life was the light of men.� The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it....He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.� He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.� But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. (The Gospel according to John 1.1-5, 10-12, 14).
All the references to Word/Logos in this prologue to The Gospel according to John refer to "him," "he," "Son," "Word/Logos."� All of these references are masculine.
Four questions arise from the juxtaposition of these two Biblical references:
First:� If the Jews had a Covenant with YHWH and had a completely monotheistic religion, how is it that in The Proverbs Wisdom/Sophia, a feminine reference, is referred to in "divine" terms?� How is it that Wisdom/Sophia is referred to as "goddess"?�
· Second:� Albeit it 700 years passed between the writing of The Proverbs �and the writing of The Gospel according to John, which would allow plenty of time for growth or change in the thinking of the philosophers/theologians/sages of the times, how did the change from exclusively feminine references--"Wisdom/Sophia" in The Proverbs 8.22-31--become exclusively masculine references--"Word/Logos" in The Gospel according to John 1.1-5, 10-12, 14?� What was the process that allowed for/brought about this change?
· Third, and most importantly, can it be said that when the shift from Wisdom/Sophia to Word/Logos took place, did a paradigm shift occur?� This paper will attempt to answer this question in the positive--i.e., that a paradigm shift did take place.
· Fourth, Merlin Stone in his introduction to Patai's The Hebrew Goddess considers that the study of what he terms "Goddess reverence," the female aspect of the divine, has proved over the years since the publication of Patai's book to be of interest primarily to women; however, he also observes that men have become interested in "the recent Goddess reclamation" as it is "aligned with the sanctity of nature" and as "an ecological symbol." [4] �
Therefore, the answer to the first three questions will be the main object of this paper, while the observation in the fourth point above will be discussed in the "Coda" of this paper.�
WISDOM/SOPHIA
Background
First Evidence of Wisdom/Sophia in the Old Testament:�
Eleanor Rae [5] notes that the very "first appearance of a personified figure" of Wisdom is in Job [6] 28.12.� Job asks the question:� "But where shall wisdom be found?"� Verse 21 states:� "It [Wisdom] is hid from the eyes of all living"; but verse 22 goes on to state:� "Abaddon [7] and Death say, 'We have heard rumors of it.' "� Verse 27 states, "then he [God/Yahweh or as Rae notes, "The Divinity"] saw it [Wisdom] and declared it; he established it, and searched it out."� Rae notes that this verse 27 would "seem to give wisdom an independent existence apart from Yahweh, who discovers Her."� Rae [8] notes in the "Wisdom literature, there is no separation of the world from the creator....To see the world is to see the creator....Divinity reveals itself in creation."� She notes that as a result Job is transformed (Job 38 and 39); and at the end of the book of Job, because of his transformation by Wisdom, Job responds:� "I had heard of thee [Wisdom] by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee" (Job 42.5).� After an extended discussion, citing not only Job but also Psalm 19, Proverbs, and Ecclesiasticus, Rae, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the "language of the Wisdom literature may also be seen as the language of experience."
Early Evidence of Wisdom/Sophia (The Goddess) Outside of the Old Testament:�
Patai [9] notes that "Goddesses are ubiquitous....They stood by the cradle of Homo Sapiens, and testified to his earliest known appearance in Europe, some thirty to forty thousand years ago."� He notes that these female figures are "statuettes of nude women with enormous breasts and buttocks and protruding abdomens...representing...a highly stylized and exaggerated form of women in an advanced stage of pregnancy."� Patai comments that "strikingly paralleled" finds have been unearthed "in Mesopotamia and Syria" dating from 5000-4000 B.C.E.� These later figurines "served the same purpose:� to ensure fertility and delivery."
In what is a condensed discussion [but one far too extensive to elaborate on in this paper],� Ruether [10] notes archeological finds in Old Europe dating from between 6500 to 5600 B.C.E.; these archeological finds give evidence of both "domestic shrines scattered within...houses" and larger "shrine rooms" that existed in the habitats of the individuals in the period.� Ruether continues noting that it is possible to "examine the contested issue of gender in ancient Near Eastern prehistory" going as far back as "before the invention of writing," which was around 3500 B.C.E. [11] �
Considering these various millennia [Patai noting thirty to forty thousand years ago; Ruether 6500 to 5600 B.C.E. and 3500 B.C.E.] given as starting points for goddess study, this writer will arbitrarily "start" the tracing of the goddess with archeological evidence from approximately 6000 B.C.E. to give however brief a background to the goddess in prehistory.� Then this paper will attempt a background of "mythic thought in the ancient cultures of the Near East, Egypt, and Greece" [12] from approximately 2000 B.C.E. on.� Such a tracing of the feminine in worship will give a background to the Mesopotamian and Syrian cultures that are of concern in this paper and will allow for consideration of where/how the goddess was/is evident in the Old Testament and continued "side by side" with the Jews' monotheistic Covenant with YHWH.�
Ruether [13] notes that "divinity not as a male transcendent Other of dominating power, but rather as the energy of sustaining and renewing life" must be kept in the forefront of any thought or discussion of those who seek to uncover ancient traditions.� Patai [14] notes a similar but more specific point:� "One of the most interesting concepts that has arisen...is the idea or belief that the Goddess is immanent, i.e., within us, even within all life, as contrasted to the idea of a transcendent deity high above us." [15] �
It seems clear that a somewhat closer (though brief) examination of the evidence both Ruether and Patai present is necessary.
The Goddess in the Ancient Near East:�
A Word on Terminology:
Schüssler Fiorenza [16] notes that "an androcentric linguistic system and cultural mind-set that marginalizes women of all walks of life as well as disenfranchised men" have "contributed to and shaped culture, society, and religion." [17] � She argues that in an androcentric "linguistic system, masculine terms function as 'generic' language in which man/male/masculine/he stands for human and male, whereas women/female/feminine/she only connotes femaleness." [18] � She goes on to say:� "I argue...that women were not marginal in the earliest beginning of Christianity; rather biblical texts and historical sources produce the marginality of women." [19] � She supports her argument by quoting and commenting on "the famous text Gal.28 which states that in Christ there are 'neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free, male and female.' " [20] � She notes that this text is "usually interpreted as referring to three different groups:� Jew and Greek as religious ethnic characterizations, slave and free as socio-political determinations, and male and female as referring to anthropological sex-gender differences."� She then notes, however, that
such a reading does not take into account the obfuscating strategies of kyriocentric language when it tacitly infers on the one hand, that Jew, Greek, slave, and free are terms pertaining solely to men and, on the other, that only the third pair 'male and female' refers to women.
Schüssler Fiorenza is so firm in her opinion in this regard that in an earlier book [21] she used the spelling "wo/men to not only...include all women but also to speak of oppressed and marginalized men."� She goes even further in this same book writing "G*d" to "mark the inadequacy of...language" and to "destabilize our way of thinking and speaking about G*d."� It must be noted that Schüssler Fiorenza definitely has some valid points in her arguments and in the concept she tries to convey.� In fact, this writer is continuously aware of the "elites" that are always juxtaposed with all non-elites.� However, this writer also notes that Schüssler Fiorenza, while she has very valid points, at times is somewhat strident in her approach and vocabulary.�
Ruether, however, takes a much less "strident" voice and even a different point of view.� Her argument seems to this writer a more cogent one.� Ruether has a double caution:� She notes that scholars/students must be careful about presuming the "concept of the Goddess as a monotheistic focus of religion."� She asks:� "How do we know that these people separated the natural forces in and around them from some 'higher' or divine world of entities that they then thought of as 'gods' or 'goddesses'? [22] � Secondly, Ruether makes a point of noting and is at pains to stress a valid concept that will be kept in mind as this paper proceeds.� She points out in an extended discussion that "Prehistory...easily becomes a tabula rasa on which to project our own theories" and notes that "gender roles, in particular, have reflected the social assumptions of...archeologists." [23] �She further notes that one must be careful not to project "from our modern context" on to "what the creators of [goddess] images actually had in mind." [24] �
Archeological Evidence of the Goddess:
Citing the archeological work of James Mellaart, Ruether, [25] in an extended discussion of Mellaart's work, notes the discovery of the town of Catal Huyuk that flourished in the central plain of Anatolia (what is now central Turkey) between 6500 and 5600 B.C.E.� She notes that Mellaart describes "elaborate wall paintings and plastered reliefs...[of] domestic shrines scattered within the houses." [26] � In addition she notes that some archeologists [27] consider that this Anatolian town had as its center "worship of a Mother Goddess" [28] and that this "Mother Goddess worship" was "dominated by images of a goddess giving birth." [29] � However, Ruether notes the small and large shrines in this Anatolian town showed that, whatever the specifics of the worship, it showed a "complicated picture."� She notes that the "importance of the Mother Goddess was evidenced by the many small figurines of females with large breasts and buttocks.� However, larger shrine rooms were "dominated by the image of the bull" with "heads and horns," [30] suggesting that these bull-images were "highly important symbols for the culture."� She further notes that, "One sculpture features four figures, two of which appear to be a male and a female in sexual union and the other two a mother and a child." [31] �
Three points are important in the materials Ruether presents:� First, it seems clear from her discussion that goddess worship goes farther back than was once thought.� Second, the "bull" image she notes is reminiscent of the idol spoken of so often in the Old Testament, Baal.� Third, this writer particularly notes Ruether's point:� "Mellaart's reconstruction of the sculptured and painted decorations of the domestic shrine rooms presents a much more complicated picture" [32] than one might at first consider.� It seems clear from this paper's almost ridiculously short recounting of Ruether's explanation of this archeological find that individuals living as far back as the seventh millennium B.C.E. worshipped both male and female gods and that their worship was much more complicated than one would at first consider it might be.� It included both female and male gods or aspects of gods as the individuals of those times perceived them.� It is also important to keep in mind Ruether's cautions of not projecting twenty-first century thinking on to this discussion.
Goddesses in the Ancient Mediterranean (before the Old Testament): [33] �
The material in this section of this paper will basically follow an "historical" approach--or perhaps "chronological" approach would be a better term.� It will also include four separate areas of the Ancient Mediterranean--Mesopotamia (composed of Sumer, the northern section of the Tigris-Euphrates region which was originally non-Semitic; and Akkad, the southern section of the Tigris-Euphrates region which was Semitic), Canaan/Ugarit, Egypt, and Greece. [34] � Ruether [35] notes that these four areas also had four "goddesses":� Inna/Ishtar, Anat (Asharah/Astarte), Isis, and Demeter, respectively, and that the worship of these goddesses flourished from about 3000 to 1000 B.C.E.� Ruether further notes that the goddesses of Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt all were "closely related to a beloved--a male lover or husband"; Demeter was closely related to a daughter.� She further notes that these goddesses were "powerful and enduring female divine figures."
Inanna/Ishtar in Sumer/Akkad and Anant in Canaan/Ugarit:
In the fourth and mid-third millennia B.C.E., Sumer developed writing--that is, the first symbols that were a "representation of speech"; this writing, cuneiform, Ruether points out, was the "first glimpse into the thought of an ancient people."� The Sumerian culture eventually was subsumed into the Akkadian (Semitic) society where writing was taught in schools.� Ruether further points out, interestingly, that while the "divine patron of the scribal art was the Goddess Nisaba who was connected with grain storage", women were generally not admitted to these schools except for a few who became priestesses. [36]
Patai [37] points out that "the goddess who played a central role" in the consciousness of the Ancient Near Eastern people of Sumer, Akkad and Canaan was essentially the same one--only "her name varied from culture to culture--Inanna in Sumer, Ishtar in Akkad, Anath in Canaan."� Anath "must be considered the western variant of the...Mesopotamian goddess."� But the character of this goddess "remained the same for...millennia."� The "life domains in which she primarily manifested herself were love and war, and her personality exhibited everywhere the same four basic traits of chastity and promiscuity, motherliness and bloodthirstiness."
This goddess was "regarded as a virgin....she is most frequently called 'the maid Inanna' and 'the pure Inanna.' "� However, she was also the "goddess primarily responsible for sexual love, procreation, and fertility."� She was considered the wife of all Sumerian kings and the God Seth in Egypt. [38] � But in the Ishtar "variant" of this Goddess a "certain shift occurred in the balance between the virginal and promiscuous poles of her character:� her virginal aspect was underplayed, while her promiscuity was emphasized to the extent of making her a divine harlot."� In this aspect of the goddess, she was "impregnated by a 'restless young bull' " [known as Baal].� Descriptions of her intimate unions with the masculine gods are described as having a "graphic explicitness which is unique even among the unrestrained accounts of lovemaking usual in ancient Near Eastern texts."�
However, she had a human form in which her "love easily turned to hate.� She first loved then destroyed, a long line of divine, human, and animal paramours....She also was the wife of human kings," particularly Sargon. [39] � She had influence over all mankind, the entire animal kingdom, the Nether World, but was also considered the "mother of the country" and the mother of several gods.�
Yet Inanna/Ishtar/Anath was considered the Goddess of War [40] and "no ancient Near Eastern goddess was more bloodthirsty than she.� She was easily provoked to violence and...would go berserk, smiting and killing...with real pleasure."� The descriptions of her thirst for blood [not described here] are graphic, gory, and compare with the worst graphic violence of today's video games and movies.� As this Goddess of War, Anath's "worship penetrated Egypt some time prior to the 13th century B.C.E."� Yet for the Egyptians she was also " 'Anath, Lady of Heaven, Mistress of All the Gods,' " who "protected the Pharaoh."� In Egypt she was called " ' the goddess, the victorious, a woman acting as a man, clad as a male and girt as a female.' "
Ruether [41] makes several points that need to be considered in this discussion of the gods and their functions.� While she speaks principally about the Sumero-Akkadian religion, extensions can be made to the other areas of Canaan/Ugarit and Egypt.� She notes that, "the concept of the gods evolved through several stages that reflected changes in society." [42] � She notes that in the 3000s B.C.E. the "gods were seen primarily as the vital power in natural phenomena....Each local village and region had its own array of deities that embodied the natural powers around them," which practice led to a host of various names for gods.� In addition she notes that the "relations of the gods shifted as new cities rose to power and claimed supremacy" for their own particular god, and as cultural and social relations developed and became more complex other concepts emerged.
Ruether [43] describes "several key social metaphors" that helped shape the concept and/or the relations of the gods as people saw them in those times.� These social concepts were:
· The extended family with "equal numbers of female and male members in varying relationships of father and mother, sister and brother, daughters and sons."
· Estate management, similar to the concept of the main god being viewed as the "owner" of the estate, and the rest of the lesser gods who served as "a large bureaucracy of deities that mirrored human bureaucracy."� She also notes that as time went on "later myths had a tendency to marginalize the goddesses as wives.� They became shadowy auxiliaries to dominant gods" rather than having "distinct personalities in their own right."
· The political assembly in which "gods...came to be seen as a political and juridical assembly that appointed or dismissed kings and decreed the fates of cities in war."� Gods were imagined as "kings, warriors, and judges" with "wild and arbitrary" powers which then came to be seen as the "powers of storm and flood in nature."� Humans could only� "bow to the fate" the "gods decreed."
Noting that goddesses tended to become marginalized, Ruether emphasizes [44] that they "did not disappear from the imagination of divine power." [45] � She notes then that in one myth Inanna/Ishtar was considered the wife of Sargon. �(See above.) �Yet in another myth "Sargon was the son of a priestess and an unknown father....his mother put the baby in a basket of rushes and set it adrift on a river."� The baby was found and raised by "Akki, a drawer of water, who made the boy his gardener" and in "that capacity, Sargon became the lover of Ishtar."� (This story is obviously reminiscent of Moses, or more accurately, the story of Moses is reminiscent of this story of Sargon and Ishtar.)� Ruether notes that in this story it is only because Sargon is united with Ishtar that he is able to ascend the throne as king.�
Ruether points out that in this "kingship ideology" [46] Inanna incarnates "heated female sexuality," the "female side of courtship and sexual union, but never the dutiful wife or mother.� She does not patronize motherhood, child care, or weaving.� She establishes kings on their thrones" but she is never the "submissive wife."� Ruether [47] points out that although the figure of Inanna captures the attention of feminists interested in goddess role models and is admired for her "autonomy, sexual enjoyment, and power" Ruether carefully points out her earlier caution of not projecting on to the ancients twenty-first century thinking:� She notes that "Inanna's power and autonomy stem from her identity as a god, not as a human woman."� She notes that for the ancients of the times discussed "a vast gulf separated humans and Gods."� Ruether elaborates:� "Any human woman who might have attempted to emulate Inanna would have been a powerful queen or a royal priestess, not an ordinary woman"; [48] such a sexually aggressive woman "would be dangerous and inappropriate as a wife." [49]
Isis in Egypt:�
Ruether [50] discusses the "figure of Isis before her Hellenistic transformation" [51] and points out that the "Egyptian Goddess Isis developed over three thousand years from before...3000 BCE."� Ruether notes that the story of Isis was never fully developed until Plutarch "in the early second century CE" developed a heavily "hellenized version."� She notes that Isis with her twin Nephthys "represented the basis for kingly power, the house in which the pharaoh was enshrined" [52] and the "seat upon which he was enthroned."� Isis is contrasted to Inanna and Anat by her "wifely and maternal devotion" which were "central to the nature of Isis."� In fact, Ruether calls attention to the "favorite image of Isis" in which she suckles an infant pharaoh; Ruether notes that this image would later be "taken over into Christianity as the image of Mary suckling the baby Jesus on her lap."� Isis is considered the "wife of the dead king" Osiris who is "resurrected into immortal life," who "takes his seed into her and conceives the child Horus." [53] �
The original story of Isis/Osiris/Horus is very difficult to sort out because Plutarch later wrote a "syncretistic conflation of Osiris with Dionysus and Isis with Demeter."� What is clear is that "Isis, like Inanna and Anat, is a 'kingmaker' who sets the royal heir on the throne.� She does so as lover and faithful wife of the dead king and as devoted mother of the new king, her son." [54] � Her power lies not in "military vigor" as do in the stories of Inanna and Anat but in "magic powers guilefully employed."� She eventually resurrects Osiris...[and] learns the deepest secrets of the universe."
Ruether concludes that once again these "evocative symbols" of the story of Isis "make dramatically clear the ancient Near Eastern supposition that while men rule as kings and lords, it is the power of goddesses that puts them on their thrones."
Demeter in Greece: [55] �
The story of Demeter in Greece is unique among the goddess myths because of the depiction of a privileged "mother-daughter bond rather than the relation of a...goddess and king." [56] � In this story Demeter's daughter Persephone is raped� and captured by Pluto.� Persephone's cries go unheard by all except the goddess Hecate whose husband Helios advises Demeter to accept this situation as a fait accompli.� Demeter refuses to do so, becomes savagely angry, and eventually "calls down a blight on the land, causing no seeds to grow."� In effect, she withholds her reproductive capacity.� Eventually, a compromise is proposed in which Persephone will spend one-third of the year in the "underworld as Pluto's wife" and the other months she will live with her mother and the Olympian gods.�
Ruether points out that in some ways Demeter is "Greek woman writ large....As corn Goddess, she gives the gift of grain and the land's fertility...[she] provides cloth that clothes society....she is subject to rape [and] arbitrary male violence." [57] � Her response is to this "arbitrary male violence" is to withhold "the gift of fertility....Before this power, even the Olympian gods stand helpless."� Greek women may have been helpless in the face of male power, but they had the "weapon of last resort"--the withholding of their sexuality and fertility.�
Ruether notes that in the last two stories, those of Isis and Demeter, two keynotes "become increasingly central to ancient religion":
· Agricultural plenty and political stability were important but insufficient.
· Immortal life had been considered completely unavailable to humans in both the Babylonian and Canaanite cultures; but in the stories of Isis and Demeter, the hope for life after death for humans comes to the fore.�
The Goddess in the Old Testament:
At first thought, the concepts of "goddess" and "Old Testament" seem to be incompatible.� Patai notes that the
person of the deity as He appeared, first of all, in the Biblical and Talmudic writings...beginning with the earliest formulations of its belief-system by the great Hebrew prophets, down to its various present-day versions, (e.g., those of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism in the United States), has always been built upon the axiom of One God.� This credo had its complementary corollary in the denial of the very possibility of other gods. [58] �
Ruether notes in agreement that,
The traditional understanding of deity in Hebrew scripture has assumed that Yahwism was always monotheistic, that the Hebrews had a unique religious perspective totally different from and opposed to that of their ancient Near Eastern neighbors.� This view holds that they worshipped one god, male and transcendent, and rejected the validity of all other gods.� The disappearance of goddesses, then, is seen as a result of the male monotheism of Hebrew religion. [59]
Patai further notes that, "one factor, a linguistic one, defied all theological repugnance to the attribution of bodily qualities to God." [60] � He notes the very nature of the Hebrew language assigns every noun "either the masculine or the feminine gender."� He goes on to note that "The two Biblical names of God, Yahweh...and Elohim," the second of which was shortened to El and translated "God," are both words in Hebrew that are masculine.� He notes further that every verb used with these nouns and every adjective describing these words for God, "every verbal statement about God conveyed the idea that He was masculine."� He further states that the Hebrew God was "undoubtedly a father-symbol...possibly the greatest such symbol and image conceived by man."� He concludes noting that this concept was "the unique contribution of prophetic Judaism to mankind."� In addition, Patai also notes that official Judaism stressed "the moral and intellectual aspects of religion, to the relative neglect of its affective and emotional side."�
However, there is a "but" to the above statement by Patai.� He does note that among "the vast compendium" of religious laws in the Talmud there is "only one single significant addition to the realm of religious faith:� the loosely sketched, vague aspects of God's Presence, called Shekhena." [61] � He notes that in the late Midrash literature [62] "the Shekhina concept stood for an independent, feminine divine entity" who was a "direct heir" to "such ancient Hebrew goddesses of Canaanite origin as Asherah and Anath." [63] �
Ruether even more forcefully, citing various Jewish scholars, notes that,
Studies of early Israel have suggested that the Hebrews in the period of the judges and early monarchy [64] were not monotheists...These early people did not believe that Yahweh was the only god....The later war against the worship of Baal or Asherah does not reflect an Israelite fall into apostasy...but an effort by later reformers to purge plural elements from an earlier Yahwism. [65]
Patai further straightforwardly notes that "the earliest female deity known to have been worshipped by the Children of Israel" was Asherah. [66] � He continues by noting that the Hebrews as far back as the time of the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan [67] down to the Babylonian exile of the Jews in 586 B.C.E. only "intermittently" worshipped "Yahweh as the one and only god."�
Ruether, [68] points out that, "EarlyYahwism...identified Yahweh, like Baal, as a God of storm and fructifying rain and possibly identified Asherah, the consort of El, as the consort of Yahweh-El."�
Ruether [69] further points out that the early tribes of Israel likely followed the symbolism of the Canaanites which had the "early cult of Yahweh" including "high places" and referring to "hilltop cult sites," trees, or "wooden poles symbolic of trees."� It seems that the term "asherah" referred to this wooden cult object that was a separate concept from Asherah, which likely then became the name of the Goddess.� Ruether further notes that there is evidence of "popular veneration of a female figure" found in two sites, one near Jerusalem and another in Samaria--and both date from the 700s B.C.E.� These two areas near Jerusalem and in Samaria have produced "female figurines with molded heads and breasts, sometimes with arms holding the breasts, on pillar bases that flare at the bottom."� These same figurines have been found in "domestic settings" from the 1000s B.C.E.� Ruether concludes that, "some association of a female figure or her cult representation was common in Yahwism down to the sixth century BCE."�
Patai [70] notes that while little is known of Asherah before the 1300s B.C.E., there is "a Sumerian inscription...dating from ca. 1750 B.C.E." where Asherah is referred to as Ashratum.� He notes Asherah was known throughout Southern Arabia and even in Egypt where the names Asherah and Astarte were interchangeable.� Patai also notes that in Ugaritic mythology that can be dated back to the 1300 B.C.E. "Asherah figured prominently as the wife of El, the chief god."�
Both Patai and Ruether note that it was the prophets who berated the Jews for not adhering to a monotheistic, Yahwist religion:� Patai states, [71] "Only intermittently, although with gradually increasing intensity and frequency, did the prophetic demand for the worship of Yahweh as the one and only god make itself be heard."� Ruether, [72] more specifically, states:� "The reform movements of the ninth and eight centuries BCE, associated with the prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Hosea, insisted on a strict monolatry, the worship of Yahweh alone."� However, Ruether notes that these reform movements "did not take the form of an attack on the asherah...instead, they attacked the worship of Baals [the male God considered the son of Asherah [73] ] from surrounding peoples with whom Israel's kings were allying."� Thus, she notes that the concern of reformer prophets seemed to be primarily that of political alliances the Israelite kings might make with "powers outside Israel" that "would subjugate the people to those who would milk the Israelite peasantry for tribute and who would also bring in their cults and set them up side by side with that of Yahweh."�
Ruether [74] however, points out a dilemma that the prophets fell into in their zeal to eliminate the goddess in Israel.� The prophets replaced the concept of the goddesses being the wives of the kings and the power that bestowed the thrones on the kings.� This change in how goddesses were viewed occurred "when the culture shifted from seeing ...goddesses as deities...to seeing them as females in relation to dominant males."� In this view, she notes, "the goddesses could be derided as misbehaving women."� So in Israel, when the female deity was eliminated--especially when the prophets attempted such elimination, the motherly qualities of the goddess were taken over by the divine father.� However, this elimination of the goddess and the transposition of mother qualities to the divine father created a dilemma, to wit:� "a marital relation of a male god and a male king would be homosexual."� So to "assimilate this language heterosexually" there was a need to "feminize Israel as the bride or wife of God."� However, the prophets in addressing Israel as God's bride were "addressing the male elites, including kings and the leadership class of officials and priests."� She notes two results of this dilemma:
· The male elites had to "imagine themselves collectively as female in relation to God."
· The Hebrew females "were even more severely distanced from the places of power and communication with God, lest they imagine that they, and not the male leadership class, were the primary object of this spousal relationship of God and Israel."
As a result of this linguistic problem [75] in the imagery the prophets had substituted, the prophets then used this new imagery to condemn and aggressively attack "the male elites for their alliances with the foreign powers around them," specifically, Egypt, Assyria, and even smaller powers such as Tyre--which foreign powers "jeopardized the independence of Israel."� Ruether notes the vivid sexual metaphors used by the prophets to depict Israel as unfaithful, as a "willful, impetuous, and voraciously sexual" harlot have often been misinterpreted by some modern interpreters as denoting that the sin of Israel was sexual--a case of "Israelite men going to Canaanite temple prostitutes," or of "the primary activity being denounced" as "female sexual promiscuity."� Yet she emphasizes that Israel's sin was not sexual--it was "male elite political alliances" with foreign powers. [76]
In conclusion to this discussion about the attempt by the prophets to do away with the worship of Baal, it should be noted at this point that since only the God Baal was of issue here and not the Goddess Asherah, the question of paradigm shift was not even at issue at this time.
Asherah in the Time of the Judges and the Kings:
After an interesting discussion of Asherah in the book of Judges concerning the prophet Gideon and Gideon's attempt to do away with Asherah worship, [77] Patai somewhat astonishingly notes that "While the worship of Asherah was...a central feature of popular Hebrew religion in the premonarchic period...it remained for King Solomon to introduce her worship into his capital city of Jerusalem." [78] � Patai notes that Solomon's introduction of Asherah into the temple likely was the result of several considerations: [79] �
· First, Patai notes that Solomon's [80] political marriages were an "accepted means of strengthening alliances or friendly relations between states."� He notes that Solomon was noted to have married daughters of his Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, and Sidonian vassals"; 1Kings 7.8 also notes that Solomon married "Pharoah's daughter."� The book of Kings, after mentioning the above various wives from foreign countries notes:� Solomon "had...seven hundred wives...and his wives turned away his heart after other gods." [81] �
· Second, when a foreign princess was introduced by marriage into the royal household, her introduction "inevitably meant the admission of her gods as well."
· Third, Patai stresses that these marriages likely took place early in his succession and that the introduction of the various deities that "came along with" his various wives also took place early in his reign.
Patai also notes that "in polytheistic cultures the prevalent tendency...was to identify one god with another, substitute one god for another, combine one god with another, or call one god by the name of another."� Thus, he notes that various names are used--Ashtoreth, Asherah, Astarte--yet "there can be little doubt...it was the worship of Asherah, already popular among the Hebrews for several generations" that Solomon introduced into the royal household (as distinguished from the royal court) in Jerusalem. [82]
Asherah in Israel and Judah:
Patai then notes that the most infamous escalation--or perhaps the case that attracted the most attention--was the introduction of goddess worship in the form of the Goddess Asherah into the ritual of the royal court in Samaria, the center of Israel (as opposed to Judah).� King Ahab, king of Israel in the 800s B.C.E. married Jezebel.� Under her influence Ahab "built an altar to Baal in Samaria and 'made' an Asherah."� In an accompanying footnote Patai notes that Jezebel's father (thus Ahab's father-in-law, or at least one of his fathers-in-law) was a priest of Astarte (Asherah). [83] �
Elijah was the prophet who inveighed against this worship.� But of note is the "great public rain-making contest" on Mount Carmel that so dramatically was won by Yahwah to the extreme consternation of the 450 prophets of Baal.� However, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the 400 prophets of Asherah and "no further word is said in the entire detailed narrative about the prophets of Asherah." [84]
Patai summarizes Asherah in Israel by noting the "relatively great importance of the worship" of Asherah "among all the deities served by the Israelites down to their Assyrian exile" when the Kingdom of Israel was ended in 722/721 B.C.E. [85] �
Patai [86] notes that Judah, whose existence as a nation extended for about 135 years longer than that of Israel to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., followed a similar pattern, but with different prophets and kings; that is, Judah as a nation followed a similar pattern of Asherah worship alongside the worship of Yahweh; as in Israel there were also prophets in Judah inveighing against the sins of Judah that were similar to the sins of Israel.� Of note, however, are the sins of King Manasseh and his son Amon who followed Manasseh as king.� These two kings reigned for almost 50 years from approximately 687 to 640 B.C.E.� This father and son are noted for reverting "to old religious customs." [87] � Manasseh "rebuilt the high places" [reference to Asherahs--See above.], "erected altars for Baal, and made an Asherah" (2Kings 21.3).� In another place (2Kings 21.7) Manasseh is noted this way:� "And the graven image of Asherah that he had made" he set up in the temple of Yahweh. [88] � Patai states that it is "also noteworthy that the only image said to have been introduced into the Temple in the course of Manasseh's restoration of old forms of worship was that of Asherah." [89] �
Following Manasseh and Amon, Josiah [90] reigned from approximately 640-609 B.C.E.� He was a reformer who was "stimulated by the discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy."� His point of view was "unequivocal":� He ordered all the Asherahs to be destroyed, prohibited that they ever be again set up, had all the Asherahs burned, ground into powder, and had the dust of these burned Asherahs spread over the graves of those who worshiped this Goddess.� However, 11 years after Josiah's death in 609 B.C.E., Asherah was "again brought back into the Temple where she remained" [91] until the Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.E.
Patai sums up the period of the two kingdoms:�
Thus it appears that, of the 370 years during which the Solomonic Temple stood in Jerusalem, for no less than 236 years (or almost two-thirds of the time) the statue of Asherah was present in the Temple, and her worship was a part of the legitimate religion approved and led by the king, the court, and the priesthood and opposed by only a few prophetic voices crying out against it at relatively long intervals. [92]
1 дел од 1-от дел
|
|
Category: My files | Added by: Вељанко
|
| Views: 322 | Downloads: 0
| Rating: 0.0/0 |
|
|