Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00190)

In message <v0153050eaf7093d30ee3@[206.184.204.246]>, Thoa Tran
<thoa@withoutwalls.com> writes
>Yep!  I read everything with the knowledge that a person wrote it.  Even if
>the person did get divine inspiration, I would think that it has to go
>through the person's ego.  Oh, and that Bible!  So sexist!  Luckily I
>didn't know that us women were condemned for starting that apple fiasco by
>having to go through that painful birth process and having to serve men for
>the rest of our lives.  Talking about negativity of the birth process, and
>negativity of women in general.

Too true, alas!  Scholars of course are aware that the story (and many
other bible tales) is a reworking of earlier Babylonian material, and
not specifically "Jewish" in origin, although the denigration of women
recurs all too frequently in certain periods.  However, some biblical
material is probably re-working of earlier Great Mother goddess stuff.
In the same way the later Christians superimposed Christian "saints" -
sometimes fictional - on earlier pagan deities of personages (often
female ones - there are a few in this part of the world, including my
own local church of St. Buryan, otherwise unknown but generally believed
to be a woman of antiquity, who may or may not have originally been a
Christian).

There is a passage in the bible (can't recall chapter and verse) where
the women are to be found outside (King Solomon's) Temple in Jerusalem
"weeping for Tammuz."  This activity was part of the worship of the
ancient Mother Goddess of antiquity from pre-Israelite times, and casts
some doubt (as do other passages) about the genuineness of the
supposition that Solomon was a patriarchal Israelite.  If he allowed
this sort of thing, he may have kept his options open (at the very
least) by keeping the worship of Ashtoreth or Astarte on the go ...

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk