[This New Republic article touches upon some of this stuff too.]
I saw a book in the library that provided a revisionist look at the last week of Jesus' life (for those in the know, the co-author -- John Dominic Crossan -- suggests the approach), which looks interesting, but that is skipping a few steps.
Don't know if we are a couple weeks from a (to cite a comment) "undeniably" Christian holiday (see my comments with a cite to another small book* that helpfully sums things up). It can be a general holiday for which Christians have the dominant presence in this country. Either way, I myself was raised from that perspective -- secular or otherwise. So, though wanting to read more about Hanukkah and the historical story there (doing a quick search, all the library books directly about that were children books or one of cat themed holiday songs), did want to do some reading on that subject. Instead, found a few biblical themed books.
This short book argues that women were in effect removed by the powers that be as active religious beings during the first few centuries of Christianity. As a whole, the book had a graduate school feel though the general reader probably could get some value from the book. It did as things went along start to seem to presuppose you took intro classes on the subject and had the annoying tendency at times to assert** things that at best are reasonable theories. For instance, saying the Gospel of the Hebrews (which we only have excerpts of) is earlier than other canonical gospels, which we are repeated reminded are late glosses on earlier material. This is not repeated three or so times for this work.
I was drawn in by a good first chapter that provides evidence that there was a feminine presence in early Jewish religious practice. The book begins the theme -- what we have now, including in the final texts of the Bible (the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures greatly influenced those who wrote the gospels, the Hebrew at times providing different meanings -- see, e.g., Bart Ehrman). The texts are late glosses on events, such as post-exile Jewish writers framing Jewish "history" with the results in mind. This would include once mainstream polytheism or the understanding that there are other gods besides Yahweh ("no gods before me" doesn't necessarily mean there are no other gods). Tribes having their own dominant god was normal practice at the time (Greek/Zeus etc.).
This included a feminine deity such as a consort for Yahweh himself. There also was a feminine theistic presence expressed as "Sophia" (wisdom) or the like. The word for "spirit" was feminine in the local language. So, "holy spirit" would originally be seen as a feminine presence unlike Greek or Roman usage which would be neuter or masculine. This makes some sort of sense -- "father, son and holy spirit" would in effect be "father, son and mother." For instance, the Gospel of Thomas has this saying:
The book explains that one way this was handled was that Jesus brought salvation so that we all were reborn -- neither man or woman, to allude to Paul, are we, but one in Christ. In effect, women were no longer feminine, so could preach, not wear veils (opposition to those by some Muslims never seem to address how Paul supported usage of veils) and so forth. They might be asexual beings (though some groups supported sexual intercourse, at times providing symbolic religious meaning akin to ancient gods and their consorts) but they should be seen as valid religious actors. At worst, women were like the first "man" (Gen. 1:27), before male and female as separate beings were created from him. Truly in the image and likeness of God, so able to be a religious actor and teacher. A type of imperfect equality. [see update]
The powers that be however took another approach -- women were inferior beings, those who tempted Adam (there are various ways to understand the text) from which they came -- Adam came from God, Eve from Adam's side. Christianity gave women more of a role to play, such as to help the poor, but it had to be done in a restrained fashion. So, e.g., Paul supported the practice of women wearing veils, but later Pauline epistles (written in his name) have name unable to even speak out in church. There was potential in the Christian movement for a more egalitarian role for women, some took advantage in various respects, but ultimately "holy misogyny" won out.
This is now standard stuff in various writings -- see, e.g., Pagels, and for those familiar with the material, it is not overly surprising. It helpfully summarizes things in less than two hundred pages. The book as noted does eventually bog down in academic language (the chapter on gnosticism is hard to slog thru) and theoretical references. Stuff about early Christian communities that at best summaries possibilities come off as fact and lack of time clues (we are covering hundreds of years of history here) will confuse the uninitiated. This is unfortunate, especially since it started off on a better footing.
Overall, it shows the various possible implications of Christian thought and how what is currently seen as orthodox is not some given, but at times a problematic specific take on various options. The Protestant Reformation involved some trying to go back the original text, before all the damn Catholic gloss ruined things. But, the text itself is a gloss, a mixture of traditions involved that then itself was given various meanings. Readers of the gospels can tell this fairly easily with the same events given notably different glosses, from the beginning to the end.
And, what this all means, including some pretty confusing things (you know, because of the angels!), is open to interpretation. Through a glass darkly indeed. Thus, the final chapter ends on a feminist note, The Woman's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in effect given the final word. In part:
I continue to think this informed look at religious texts is the best way even for those who believe they are inspired writings from God. Personally, I think they are in effect symbolic expressions of human need to provide life meaning. As with other types of prose and poetry, this does not rob them of importance or worthiness. It just provides a different type of meaning and importance to them. This is how I would use books of this nature, part of a more comprehensive analysis of things.
A final thing. The Bible, including books that different religions do not deem canonical, is in part a pleasure to read as literature. This would include certain things that are just good stories. Sometimes, the Bible is remarkably thin in this respect -- the movie Ten Commandments aside, Exodus does not provide much detail about some major events in Moses' early life. And, at times, there are some real gems. Judith, which Catholics include in their version, has what might be one of my favorite verses:
Update: A comment notes that there are two creation stories in Genesis, one which treats the sexes in a more equal fashion. The first one, which in the famous creation poem ("In the beginning") alluded to in the text here with the citation of 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
As suggested, this was taken in different ways, with some using the myth cited in Greek philosophy of a hermaphrodite creature that was later divided in two. The language still has a male leaning -- the "man" created first, the pure original, is a "him," even if it is different from a "male" human in its current imperfect form. Some later suggested that this "first" woman was named Lilith and ran away because she wanted equal billing.
The second creation story, which is not only much more anthropocentric (animals created for man's sake, after man), but also has Eve coming from Adam's side. But, I take from the book here that by Christian times, the two stories were in effect blended together. As Bart Ehrman notes with those who do this with the gospels, this changes things, each account having its own special meanings. I have two bibles and the Catholic version even has a note directly giving a Christian gloss on this text.
There can be different interpretations of the second creation myth (some gnostics, I take it, saw Eve gaining "wisdom" from eating the fruit as a good thing, thinking the god cited there was inferior and jealous), but it is more misogynist in tone or at least more open to such very negative connotations -- a woman took the initiative and look what happened!
But, that is but one way to look at things -- the Oxford Companion to the Bible and Karen Armstrong's In The Beginning, for instance, both suggest that the special blame some give to the woman is not mandated by the text, it is not what believers in general took from the account. "Original sin" was a later gloss. The very idea of a "Satan" was also a fairly late development, but in the few hundred years before Jesus, one that grew in popularity -- by his time, there was a feeling that evil corrupted the world somehow and a redeemer was particularly necessary to deliver us from it. Time was ripe for Christian developments.
---
* Christmas: A Candid History by Brian David Forbes.
** The word "assert" to me has an implication that the person is stating something without appropriate evidence. It to me is inappropriate if the person is reasonably providing a theory -- that would be "arguing" -- and at times, I think the word is overused.
I saw a book in the library that provided a revisionist look at the last week of Jesus' life (for those in the know, the co-author -- John Dominic Crossan -- suggests the approach), which looks interesting, but that is skipping a few steps.
Don't know if we are a couple weeks from a (to cite a comment) "undeniably" Christian holiday (see my comments with a cite to another small book* that helpfully sums things up). It can be a general holiday for which Christians have the dominant presence in this country. Either way, I myself was raised from that perspective -- secular or otherwise. So, though wanting to read more about Hanukkah and the historical story there (doing a quick search, all the library books directly about that were children books or one of cat themed holiday songs), did want to do some reading on that subject. Instead, found a few biblical themed books.
This short book argues that women were in effect removed by the powers that be as active religious beings during the first few centuries of Christianity. As a whole, the book had a graduate school feel though the general reader probably could get some value from the book. It did as things went along start to seem to presuppose you took intro classes on the subject and had the annoying tendency at times to assert** things that at best are reasonable theories. For instance, saying the Gospel of the Hebrews (which we only have excerpts of) is earlier than other canonical gospels, which we are repeated reminded are late glosses on earlier material. This is not repeated three or so times for this work.
I was drawn in by a good first chapter that provides evidence that there was a feminine presence in early Jewish religious practice. The book begins the theme -- what we have now, including in the final texts of the Bible (the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures greatly influenced those who wrote the gospels, the Hebrew at times providing different meanings -- see, e.g., Bart Ehrman). The texts are late glosses on events, such as post-exile Jewish writers framing Jewish "history" with the results in mind. This would include once mainstream polytheism or the understanding that there are other gods besides Yahweh ("no gods before me" doesn't necessarily mean there are no other gods). Tribes having their own dominant god was normal practice at the time (Greek/Zeus etc.).
This included a feminine deity such as a consort for Yahweh himself. There also was a feminine theistic presence expressed as "Sophia" (wisdom) or the like. The word for "spirit" was feminine in the local language. So, "holy spirit" would originally be seen as a feminine presence unlike Greek or Roman usage which would be neuter or masculine. This makes some sort of sense -- "father, son and holy spirit" would in effect be "father, son and mother." For instance, the Gospel of Thomas has this saying:
Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [...], but my true [mother] gave me life."The "true mother" refers to the "holy spirit" (the Sophia or "spirit" or "mighty wind" seen in different forms back to the first verse of Genesis) which in the Aramaic language has a feminine form. This all conflicts with an understanding that on the level of perfection, the line is female-male-spirit. So, icky animal stuff like sexual intercourse was looked down upon by Paul, though he accepted it as a lesser evil to get married to restrict the chance of abuse there. Jesus also was not big on marriage since he was ultimately concerned with the end of the world. Unlike you might think from reading Family Circus or something, his view that in heaven, we are not married, but spirits without search human institutions. This explains who those who marry more than once (e.g., if their spouse died) will hook up with in heaven.
The book explains that one way this was handled was that Jesus brought salvation so that we all were reborn -- neither man or woman, to allude to Paul, are we, but one in Christ. In effect, women were no longer feminine, so could preach, not wear veils (opposition to those by some Muslims never seem to address how Paul supported usage of veils) and so forth. They might be asexual beings (though some groups supported sexual intercourse, at times providing symbolic religious meaning akin to ancient gods and their consorts) but they should be seen as valid religious actors. At worst, women were like the first "man" (Gen. 1:27), before male and female as separate beings were created from him. Truly in the image and likeness of God, so able to be a religious actor and teacher. A type of imperfect equality. [see update]
The powers that be however took another approach -- women were inferior beings, those who tempted Adam (there are various ways to understand the text) from which they came -- Adam came from God, Eve from Adam's side. Christianity gave women more of a role to play, such as to help the poor, but it had to be done in a restrained fashion. So, e.g., Paul supported the practice of women wearing veils, but later Pauline epistles (written in his name) have name unable to even speak out in church. There was potential in the Christian movement for a more egalitarian role for women, some took advantage in various respects, but ultimately "holy misogyny" won out.
This is now standard stuff in various writings -- see, e.g., Pagels, and for those familiar with the material, it is not overly surprising. It helpfully summarizes things in less than two hundred pages. The book as noted does eventually bog down in academic language (the chapter on gnosticism is hard to slog thru) and theoretical references. Stuff about early Christian communities that at best summaries possibilities come off as fact and lack of time clues (we are covering hundreds of years of history here) will confuse the uninitiated. This is unfortunate, especially since it started off on a better footing.
Overall, it shows the various possible implications of Christian thought and how what is currently seen as orthodox is not some given, but at times a problematic specific take on various options. The Protestant Reformation involved some trying to go back the original text, before all the damn Catholic gloss ruined things. But, the text itself is a gloss, a mixture of traditions involved that then itself was given various meanings. Readers of the gospels can tell this fairly easily with the same events given notably different glosses, from the beginning to the end.
And, what this all means, including some pretty confusing things (you know, because of the angels!), is open to interpretation. Through a glass darkly indeed. Thus, the final chapter ends on a feminist note, The Woman's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in effect given the final word. In part:
The only points in which I differ from all ecclesiastical teaching is that I do not believe that any man ever saw or talked with God, I do not believe that God inspired the Mosaic code, or told the historians what they say he did about woman, for all the religions on the face of the earth degrade her, and so long as woman accepts the position that they assign her, her emancipation is impossible. Whatever the Bible may be made to do in Hebrew or Greek, in plain English it does not exalt and dignify womanThis late 19th Century bit of scholarship (female ministers are cited among those who helped put it together) is a remarkable piece of work. I never read it though have read of it before now. The link provides a chance to read it online and it shows much perspective on the material, one of then centuries long attempts to put the Bible to the test as if it was just some other work of literature. Thomas Paine also did some of this as did others.
I continue to think this informed look at religious texts is the best way even for those who believe they are inspired writings from God. Personally, I think they are in effect symbolic expressions of human need to provide life meaning. As with other types of prose and poetry, this does not rob them of importance or worthiness. It just provides a different type of meaning and importance to them. This is how I would use books of this nature, part of a more comprehensive analysis of things.
A final thing. The Bible, including books that different religions do not deem canonical, is in part a pleasure to read as literature. This would include certain things that are just good stories. Sometimes, the Bible is remarkably thin in this respect -- the movie Ten Commandments aside, Exodus does not provide much detail about some major events in Moses' early life. And, at times, there are some real gems. Judith, which Catholics include in their version, has what might be one of my favorite verses:
Her sandals ravished his eyes,This also led to some good art. Yes, no matter how they are degraded, women have some good material to mine from here.
her beauty captivated his mind, the sword cut through his neck!
Update: A comment notes that there are two creation stories in Genesis, one which treats the sexes in a more equal fashion. The first one, which in the famous creation poem ("In the beginning") alluded to in the text here with the citation of 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
As suggested, this was taken in different ways, with some using the myth cited in Greek philosophy of a hermaphrodite creature that was later divided in two. The language still has a male leaning -- the "man" created first, the pure original, is a "him," even if it is different from a "male" human in its current imperfect form. Some later suggested that this "first" woman was named Lilith and ran away because she wanted equal billing.
The second creation story, which is not only much more anthropocentric (animals created for man's sake, after man), but also has Eve coming from Adam's side. But, I take from the book here that by Christian times, the two stories were in effect blended together. As Bart Ehrman notes with those who do this with the gospels, this changes things, each account having its own special meanings. I have two bibles and the Catholic version even has a note directly giving a Christian gloss on this text.
There can be different interpretations of the second creation myth (some gnostics, I take it, saw Eve gaining "wisdom" from eating the fruit as a good thing, thinking the god cited there was inferior and jealous), but it is more misogynist in tone or at least more open to such very negative connotations -- a woman took the initiative and look what happened!
But, that is but one way to look at things -- the Oxford Companion to the Bible and Karen Armstrong's In The Beginning, for instance, both suggest that the special blame some give to the woman is not mandated by the text, it is not what believers in general took from the account. "Original sin" was a later gloss. The very idea of a "Satan" was also a fairly late development, but in the few hundred years before Jesus, one that grew in popularity -- by his time, there was a feeling that evil corrupted the world somehow and a redeemer was particularly necessary to deliver us from it. Time was ripe for Christian developments.
---
* Christmas: A Candid History by Brian David Forbes.
** The word "assert" to me has an implication that the person is stating something without appropriate evidence. It to me is inappropriate if the person is reasonably providing a theory -- that would be "arguing" -- and at times, I think the word is overused.
2 comments:
You might note that there are two stories in Genesis about the creation of humans. One is more equal about the sexes than the other.
Yes, it is rich for interpretation.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!