The female identity in the bible.

[Azvanna]

Today I was considering how the female identity is portrayed in the Bible. I couldn't think of an example of a sacred story where the female was presented in any other way apart from her attachment to a male. For example, Esther was championed as a hero of her generation among preachers when I was a teenager. They would talk about an "Esther generation" who were willing to take risks for the sake of the gospel, but even she was simply taking orders from her Uncle Mordecai. Ruth is another one, though the success of her story depends on her becoming the bride of Boaz. Can anyone think of any tales where the female is celebrated out of her own right? It might be a theme too out of context of the culture.

There may not be stories of particular individuals, but there might be attributes you can think of that are given a feminine pronoun. For example, Wisdom.

[Gleb]

I don't know about the Bible, Az, but in the Old Testament, women were very influential. In the good meaning of the word. :)
There are many examples. I don't remember accurately, but Yael helped Kind David when he was chosen and later on chased by king Shaul, later on with David the king there was some kind of story when a woman helped the military general capture a traitor that was hiding in the city and she saved the city from starvation. The general wanted the city to starve and make the traitor come out.

Plus, Tamar - king David's wife helped him escape when king Shaul came after him...

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and the Old Testament treats women with a lot of respect, I must say.

[Tylluan Penry]

I always liked the story of Judith.

[Azvanna]

I don't know about the Bible, Az, but in the Old Testament, women were very influential. In the good meaning of the word. :)
There are many examples. I don't remember accurately, but Yael helped Kind David when he was chosen and later on chased by king Shaul, later on with David the king there was some kind of story when a woman helped the military general capture a traitor that was hiding in the city and she saved the city from starvation. The general wanted the city to starve and make the traitor come out.

Plus, Tamar - king David's wife helped him escape when king Shaul came after him...

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and the Old Testament treats women with a lot of respect, I must say.

You have given me a few names to look up. I don't remember Tamar being married to King David. There might be two, but the Tamar I know of was King David's daughter and the victim of savage rape who was never granted justice by her father. I will read further into her story. When I looked up Yael, she is connected to Deborah who is the only recorded female Judge of Israel.


I always liked the story of Judith.

I'm not familiar with any books in the Apocrypha, but I'll read that book.

[Gleb]

Maybe it wasn't Tamar. But the name is similar. Maybe Michal?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I think it was Michal, the daughter of Shaul.

[Munin-Hugin]

From what I recall from a book called "The Bible As It Was", there was an interesting point made regarding various passages in Genesis. The book itself was an exploration into the centuries of word manipulation, mistranslation, and expungement of sections, and how if one were to go back and attempt to piece together from the most reliable sources, there would be quite a different set of stories. The one I'm referring to here is the passage that read "And we shall make man in our image". In later editions, the "we" and the "our" were eventually capitalized to indicate the Royal Plural, but in the original Hebrew, there were no instances of a plural used to indicate royalty. Therefore, it was actually meant to mean "we", as in more than one deity creating man.

This becomes more and more interesting as either through removed passages or changes in translation (I forget which at this time, it's been a while), there was reference to God separating from Himself his Wisdom, followed by a few references to that Wisdom as being female. Now, while it still begotten from the masculine and acts in accordance to that male power for the most part, there are numerous instances of mention of this Wisdom as a separate, influential, and very female divine entity. If you wanted to make a few great stretches, this duality can be applied to the veneration of the Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism.

Also, one could cast Mary Magdalene as the strong, rebellious female figure in the Bible who has been later venerated as a saint. In fact Augustine gave her the honorific as the "Apostle to the Apostles", creating a prominent and powerful role of a woman in a male dominated world. She was also the first person to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection, and became the messenger of such.

That's about all I've got. I may be Northern Trad, but I was raised Roman Catholic and have always found religions in general fascinating and so did a lot of reading.

[Medusa]

Lilith was pretty cool.

[Wenny]

Shiprah and Puah in Exodus 15 saved baby boys from death by lying to the Pharaoh. .

[Nue]

Lilith was pretty cool.

I second this, though for some reason some verions take her out entirely

[Wenny]

Shiprah and Puah in Exodus 15 saved baby boys from death by lying to the Pharaoh. .

I am not sure of why it isn't showing up but Shiprah and Puah saved baby boys in Exodus .

[gelman66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Is actually a pretty good article on the subject of the feminine aspects of the Judeo-Christian God, known by most Christians as the Holy Spirit

[AntonBRaxas]

I second this, though for some reason some verions take her out entirely

In the oldest of the Tanakh Scrolls, the only mention of the Lilitu is found in the Book of Isaiah making reference to the dwellings of the Lilitu, which were demons who would kill children and harm pregnant mothers. Tess Dawson on her website canaanitepath.com(for some reason I am not allowed to post links yet) makes some great point from many scholars in regards to Lilith from a Canaanite perspective on the topic of the recent Lilith explosion happening in the last 40+years.

Tess Dawson wrote "In popular thought today, Lilith is often viewed as a misunderstood dark goddess of sexuality, but this simply is not true in ancient lore. There was no male conspiracy that demonized a poor, misunderstood Lilith just because she was a strong female. She is not a poster-child for sexual discrimination, women's rights, or sexuality. She does not hearken back to a fictitious era when matriarchy was the rule, and she is not a part of a secret, forgotten mythology that patriarchy distorted.
Lilith is best known now from Jewish lore in the Talmud as the woman who refused to lie beneath Adam. Before she was cast as this character, she was known in Jewish lore as a demon--not as a liberated woman. The only "male conspiracy" here is not a smear on Lilith's character since she was evil from the beginning, but that she--known earlier as a demon--was deliberately cast in the role of Adam's rebellious first wife.

Before she was known as Adam's first wife, she may first appear as the demon Lilitu in Sumerian lore around 2400 BCE. A Bronze Age fragment of a text written in Akkadian was found in Ugarit: this text mentions Lamashtu, and describes her as a wolf. The characters of Assyrian Lilitu and Babylonian Lamashtu or Lamashshu may have been absorbed into each other to become known as the same entity by the Middle Babylonian period (circa 1150-900 BCE). Lamashtu, a daughter of Anu, was thought to cause illness in babies and small children; Lilitu was also thought to harm babies and children. (Anu is a Sumerian god of the heavens and the king of his pantheon.)

Later ideas of Lilith may also have been influenced by images of the Greek lamiae and the Roman striga."

[MaskedOne]

As an anti-spam measure links are restricted till after you've made 15 non-game, non-intro posts (game and intro are defined by subforum in this case). Under normal conditions, I'd probably kill off the quasi-link in your post but it sounds relevant to the topic and historically I've allowed exceptions there. Plus you've gone on a posting spree and if you haven't passed the threshold by the time I'm done typing, you will soon.

[AntonBRaxas]

Thank you for the information, MaskedOne.

On another note to topic, the name of Mary/Miryam/Miriam, as they are all the same name in Hebrew all translate to mean "Rebellion."
So, the Christian Theotokos, the Mother of God Mary, and the woman who was considered the thirteenth Apostle Mary of Magdala are all named "Rebellion."

[thalassa]

Thank you for the information, MaskedOne.

On another note to topic, the name of Mary/Miryam/Miriam, as they are all the same name in Hebrew all translate to mean "Rebellion."
So, the Christian Theotokos, the Mother of God Mary, and the woman who was considered the thirteenth Apostle Mary of Magdala are all named "Rebellion."

The etymology of the name Miriam is fairly ambiguous. (http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Miriam.html)

[AntonBRaxas]

True. However, from an unusually large amount of Judaic sources in reference to the names Miriam and Mary, most often than not, the Rabbinical intention is to apply the definition to mean "rebellion." The Rabbinical basis is usually in regards to the bias against the Christian Theotokos, which surprisingly many admit.

But you are correct in the ambiguity, as the traditional meanings are mostly lost in the ages. Much can be said of the name Rivkah, my second oldest daughter's name which translates modern day to mean "Unfettered, unbound beauty" but can also mean "relentless."

[Torey]

Today I was considering how the female identity is portrayed in the Bible. I couldn't think of an example of a sacred story where the female was presented in any other way apart from her attachment to a male. For example, Esther was championed as a hero of her generation among preachers when I was a teenager. They would talk about an "Esther generation" who were willing to take risks for the sake of the gospel, but even she was simply taking orders from her Uncle Mordecai. Ruth is another one, though the success of her story depends on her becoming the bride of Boaz. Can anyone think of any tales where the female is celebrated out of her own right? It might be a theme too out of context of the culture.

There may not be stories of particular individuals, but there might be attributes you can think of that are given a feminine pronoun. For example, Wisdom.

I would encourage you to examine Qabbalistic texts for a wealth or empowering feminine figures and concepts assigned a feminine aspect. There are far too many for me to delve into at present, but as has already been touched upon here (I believe), the feminine "presence" of "God" (the Shekhinah) is perhaps at the forefront of my thoughts on the matter.

For your reading list, if you like:

On The Wings of the Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine by Rabbi Leah Novick (http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Shekhinah-Rediscovering-Judaisms-Feminine/dp/0835608611/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434712624&sr=1-11&keywords=feminine+kabbalah)

[Azvanna]

I would encourage you to examine Qabbalistic texts for a wealth or empowering feminine figures and concepts assigned a feminine aspect. There are far too many for me to delve into at present, but as has already been touched upon here (I believe), the feminine "presence" of "God" (the Shekhinah) is perhaps at the forefront of my thoughts on the matter.

For your reading list, if you like:

On The Wings of the Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine by Rabbi Leah Novick (http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Shekhinah-Rediscovering-Judaisms-Feminine/dp/0835608611/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434712624&sr=1-11&keywords=feminine+kabbalah)

This right here is what PF is about: A Theistic Satanist is helping a Christian to grow in her faith.

I will buy that book, Torey. I hate buying books because I have too many already and am really stingy. lol. But I'll buy this one.

I had forgotten about women being the first to proclaim 'He is risen!' I can't believe that.. I think I have mentioned it on these boards at least twice. I know that in the Hebrew culture of the time, a woman's word could not be considered a trustworthy testimony. However, I really believe that when the women were chosen to be the first to proclaim 'he is risen,' it was an affirming of the worth of a woman's testimony.

- - - Updated - - -

Hate is too strong a word. I avoid buying books. Except if they are by Robin Hobb :D

[thalassa]

not precicely on topic, *and* I haven't read it, but this (http://www.amazon.com/Kabbalistic-Teachings-Female-Prophets-Ancient/dp/1594772274/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0FA7SJ1F08V218JZ69EQ)looks interesting....

[Azvanna]

On The Wings of the Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine by Rabbi Leah Novick (http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Shekhinah-Rediscovering-Judaisms-Feminine/dp/0835608611/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434712624&sr=1-11&keywords=feminine+kabbalah)

Bought this book today ^.^ Found it for just over $24. XD

[Tylluan Penry]

Personally I think Ruth is a strong character. So was Esther.

[Azvanna]

Personally I think Ruth is a strong character. So was Esther.

I think so too, but they both have men strongly linked to their purposes. Ruth's happy ending was that she married a rich Jewish guy and Esther was under the direction of her uncle Mordecai.

[Tylluan Penry]

I always read the story of Ruth as her being a strong woman in her own right. She looked after her mother-in-law, she gathered their own food. Boaz was a bit of an aside really... at least that was how I always read it.

And Esther was strong too - despite the seemingly passive start, she prevented the slaughter of her people. Yes, Mordecai enlisted her help, but he couldn't have done anything to prevent the genocide without her.

The fact that Ruth and Esther loved men didn't make them any weaker in my book. I love Mr Penry, but nobody who knows me would ever describe me as a weak woman. ;)

[DragonsFriend]

Both women were very strong leaders in the early church. Their "male counter parts" were mostly uninvolved. The stories were rewritten to remove the focus on strong women which was required by the blossoming church. Women in the priesthood was an unthinkable future. Even in their day Ruth and Esther were out of the generic role of women in Judaism. (though it was not as uncommon as scripture would lead you to believe.) It is considered most likely that Jesus had called for Mary of Magdeline was to lead the church. It was said several times in the gospels that she was the most beloved of Jesus and it is thought that her children were the offspring of Jesus although there was never a marriage document found in the Jewish or Roman records of the time. Mary was from a wealthy family and she served her year as a Temple Maiden (holy harlot) but discovered in that year that sex was fun and was nearly stoned for her promiscuity. There is no doubt that she and Jesus shared a special relationship and that it was removed from the bible. Jesus is, in more than one place, referred to as "Rabbi" which required a man to be married and have children at that time.

[Azvanna]

Both women were very strong leaders in the early church. Their "male counter parts" were mostly uninvolved. The stories were rewritten to remove the focus on strong women which was required by the blossoming church. Women in the priesthood was an unthinkable future. Even in their day Ruth and Esther were out of the generic role of women in Judaism. (though it was not as uncommon as scripture would lead you to believe.) It is considered most likely that Jesus had called for Mary of Magdeline was to lead the church. It was said several times in the gospels that she was the most beloved of Jesus and it is thought that her children were the offspring of Jesus although there was never a marriage document found in the Jewish or Roman records of the time. Mary was from a wealthy family and she served her year as a Temple Maiden (holy harlot) but discovered in that year that sex was fun and was nearly stoned for her promiscuity. There is no doubt that she and Jesus shared a special relationship and that it was removed from the bible. Jesus is, in more than one place, referred to as "Rabbi" which required a man to be married and have children at that time.
No offense, but there's so many hypotheses out there regarding Jesus' marital status and many more conspiracy theories about how, why and who changed the Bible overnight or over time. I don't take the Bible literally, but I also don't read what's not there... If that makes sense. It doesn't matter to me if Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife or not, it does not diminish or embellish her contribution to early Christian heritage.

As far as Ruth goes, I see Boaz as her reward and Esther as subservient to Uncle Mordecai. Agreed, they both achieved. In my original question, I'm looking for the female identity celebrated in her own right. In both these stories, the identities of the women are tied to the men in their lives.

The idea of the feminine Shekinah or Sophia is the thread i'm pursuing currently. A bit mystic, it is what is most relevant to my spirituality at present.

When I'm finished there, I'll look at Judith and Wenny's suggestions. I'm also interested in Miriam, Deborah and Zipporah.

[B. de Corbin]

In early Christianity, actually, Christians drew lots to decide who would be priest (as well as other rolls). This could just as well be a woman as a man. The anti-female thing didn't come about until much later.

Whether Jesus had a wife or not will depend on who is doing the talking. There are Gnostic texts which pretty clearly suggest an intimate relationship. This recently discovered fragment actually quotes Jesus quoting his wife:

'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' Papyrus Is Ancient, Not Fake, Scientists And Scholars Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/jesus-wife_n_5124712.html)

Gnostic texts, with the exception of John, are not considered valid by many Christian denominations. For others, they are.

Truth is, but what it is is subject to interpretation.

[Azvanna]

So I've been thinking this topic over tonight and in particular why I felt so opposed to Esther and Ruth being satisfactory examples of the divine feminine.

When I read the Bible, I'm looking for principles primarily. Ruth is a foreigner who has remained dedicated to her deceased husband's mother. The two have a strong bond and even when Naomi lets Ruth off the hook, Ruth replies your God shall be my God, your people shall be my people. She provides for herself and her mother-in-law as a pauper foraging in the fields until she marries Boaz. So it seems like the moral of the story is to stay faithful to your husband's family and you'll be rewarded by marrying well or something to that effect. Maybe the heroine here is Naomi who grooms her foreign daughter-in-law to become an enviable figure in Jewish culture.

The whole book of Esther is full of wisdom. Esther's story is but one thread. She is portrayed as very beautiful and very obedient. Her wisdom is in who to obey in what circumstances. Her bravery is in acknowledging her identity even though it puts her life at risk... Maybe I do have something to learn from her about being honest.
The attributes that place her in a position of influence are beauty, obedience and not being demanding. The attributes that cause her to fulfil a destiny are respect for authority, obedience, authenticity, selflessness.

So both these stories have their strengths but I'm looking to know the attributes of the Devine feminine devoid of social hierarchy and male attachment. Maybe it doesn't exist and the Devine feminine operates solely under the influence of the masculine. Maybe neither feminine nor masculine exist and I'm creating unnecessary categories.

Looking forward to the arrival of that book!

- - - Updated - - -


In early Christianity, actually, Christians drew lots to decide who would be priest (as well as other rolls). This could just as well be a woman as a man. The anti-female thing didn't come about until much later.
I remember this... This is how Barnabus was chosen as one of the twelve to replace Judas. I can't verify if women were to be included, but the criteria simply was 'one who was with us from the beginning.'


Whether Jesus had a wife or not will depend on who is doing the talking. There are Gnostic texts which pretty clearly suggest an intimate relationship. This recently discovered fragment actually quotes Jesus quoting his wife:

'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' Papyrus Is Ancient, Not Fake, Scientists And Scholars Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/jesus-wife_n_5124712.html)
I really need to include the apocrypha in my reading list.


Truth is, but what it is is subject to interpretation.
All I can do is be open to possibilities. When I do that, all information gets sifted down to principles that are relevant to my whole life up to the present moment. I can't see too far ahead. Facts are helpful, but they're not necessarily what I'm seeking.

[B. de Corbin]

Azvanna, for what you're looking for, some of the gospels from the Gnostic might be just the ticket. In mainstream Christianity, Peter is the select one on whom the future church is founded (he da rock). In the Gnostic gospels, it is usually somebody else (Thomas - the doubter, even Judas - the betrayer). One of those people is Mary M. There is a Gospel of Mary (http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm), and in several others I've read (but can't remember which ones).

But if your interest is specifically in the divine feminine as a thing all of it's own, my preference is for Thunder/Perfect Mind (http://gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html). Here is a part - it is beautiful, as poetry, in-and-of-itself:


For I am the first and the last.
I am the honored one and the scorned one.
I am the whore and the holy one.
I am the wife and the virgin.
I am <the mother> and the daughter.
I am the members of my mother.
I am the barren one
and many are her sons.

[Azvanna]

Thanks! Those are interesting links. I have to go to the library today anyway so I'll see if there are any books on the gnostic gospels there. The gospel of Thomas has dramatically shifted my interpretation of other parables in the gospels. Looking forward to this!

I'm really embarrassed these last few posts I've been spelling Divine [i]devine[i] like the yoghurt Ski Devine. Haha! Oops.

[monsno_leedra]

You might be interested in the book WOMEN AND WORSHIP at PHILIPPI by Valerie A. Abrahamsen (ISBN 1-885349-00-9) it starts out with goddess material found in the area but also goes into the early Christian era at the site and discusses some interesting idea's and speculation of women's importance in the early church and at Philippi in northern Greece.

[Rae'ya]

So I've been thinking this topic over tonight and in particular why I felt so opposed to Esther and Ruth being satisfactory examples of the divine feminine.

When I read the Bible, I'm looking for principles primarily. Ruth is a foreigner who has remained dedicated to her deceased husband's mother. The two have a strong bond and even when Naomi lets Ruth off the hook, Ruth replies your God shall be my God, your people shall be my people. She provides for herself and her mother-in-law as a pauper foraging in the fields until she marries Boaz. So it seems like the moral of the story is to stay faithful to your husband's family and you'll be rewarded by marrying well or something to that effect. Maybe the heroine here is Naomi who grooms her foreign daughter-in-law to become an enviable figure in Jewish culture.

The whole book of Esther is full of wisdom. Esther's story is but one thread. She is portrayed as very beautiful and very obedient. Her wisdom is in who to obey in what circumstances. Her bravery is in acknowledging her identity even though it puts her life at risk... Maybe I do have something to learn from her about being honest.
The attributes that place her in a position of influence are beauty, obedience and not being demanding. The attributes that cause her to fulfil a destiny are respect for authority, obedience, authenticity, selflessness.

So both these stories have their strengths but I'm looking to know the attributes of the Devine feminine devoid of social hierarchy and male attachment. Maybe it doesn't exist and the Devine feminine operates solely under the influence of the masculine. Maybe neither feminine nor masculine exist and I'm creating unnecessary categories.

Looking forward to the arrival of that book!

Az, I'm wondering if part of your issue with Ruth and Esther is that the ideals they are celebrated for are tied up with outdated social standards? To me, what you've described above is not about feminine and masculine... it's social standards that are no longer held up as ideal in modern Australian culture. Even in Aussie forms of Christianity, when we talk about being a good wife it's not about obedience and subservience anymore... so those things are a big turn off for a lot of modern women (even Christian ones).

If you try to keep cultural context in mind when you consider these women, rather than focusing on men vs women... you might find that your frame of reference changes slightly. Yes, men vs women was something that was integral to the social standard of the time, but that shouldn't lessen the importance of these women. Sure, their strengths may not be strengths by modern standards, but they were still strengths, and these women were still celebrated in their own right for those strengths. Just because the strengths were being obedient to their menfolk doesn't mean that they were not celebrated in their own right.

It still means that they are perhaps not good role models for the modern woman. Except maybe for Ruth's ability to adapt and embrace a new situation, her loyalty to her friends, and her ability to provide for her new family even when there are no menfolk around. But that's where it comes down to the dangers of holding up ancient people as role models (and I think where some branches of Christianity fall down)... ancient people must be judged by THEIR social standards, not ours. Cultural context is important here. Things change. Social standards change. That doesn't mean that ancient peoples are to be ignored, it just means that we have to judge them within their own social context, not ours.

[magusphredde]

I like ^ Very articulate ...

[Azvanna]

That doesn't mean that ancient peoples are to be ignored, it just means that we have to judge them within their own social context, not ours.

I didn't even realise I was doing this. Of course I was >.<

I really think the Shekinah topic is the thread I need to follow. It's not that I think Ruth and Esther seem weak or not good role models - I'd probably find fault with all characters in the Bible. The Bible tends to show both the strengths and weaknesses of their characters. I know to learn from weaknesses as well, but I don't think biographies are what I'm looking for. I'm seeking something to interact with that offers direct experience.

[Rae'ya]

I didn't even realise I was doing this. Of course I was >.<

I really think the Shekinah topic is the thread I need to follow. It's not that I think Ruth and Esther seem weak or not good role models - I'd probably find fault with all characters in the Bible. The Bible tends to show both the strengths and weaknesses of their characters. I know to learn from weaknesses as well, but I don't think biographies are what I'm looking for. I'm seeking something to interact with that offers direct experience.

In that case I would definitely look at the Shekinah then. Of course, now you're getting into the Apocrypha and pre-or-veryvery-early-Christian ideas... but there are some really interesting things to be found there.

[kalynraye]

Hate is too strong a word. I avoid buying books. Except if they are by Robin Hobb :D

Off topic completely but I LOVE Robin Hobb and I can't believe I missed this before

[Azvanna]

Off topic completely but I LOVE Robin Hobb and I can't believe I missed this before

Oh my goodness I love you!!! I was beginning to think I was the only person on the forum who knew who she was.

[kalynraye]

Oh my goodness I love you!!! I was beginning to think I was the only person on the forum who knew who she was.

No ma'am not at all!!!!! Its really nice to see someone else enjoys her as well. Alright back on topic.

[DragonsFriend]

What about Joan of Arc or other single heroic women of history? would that fit what you are looking for?

[Azvanna]

What about Joan of Arc or other single heroic women of history? would that fit what you are looking for?

I'm so fussy :( I don't think so. It's definitely the Shekinah topic. I'm just waiting on that book.

Meanwhile, for anyone else who is interested in commentary of women of the Bible, I found this page while looking up Miriam and Zipporah: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Chapter-2-Alphabetical

Under Mary Magdalene's name, there was an excerpt of a poem:


Not she with traitorous kiss her Master stung,

Not she denied Him with unfaithful tongue;

She, when Apostles fled, could dangers brave,

Last at the Cross, and earliest at the grave.

Seems a pretty good example of the faithful love of the divine feminine to me!

[Briton]

Deborah is a terrible example of women in Judeo-Christianity.

She is the first judge of Israel, and a woman! Great, oh except that she is only in this position is because the men are "too weak" and cowardly to do the job, rather than because she'd be a good choice.

As for Ruth, I know her story culminated in how important it is to get married, but I'm not convinced it's about the importance of men to women, rather that having children is important to the continuity of the Hebrew people which was the prerogative of a small breakaway group from the Canaanite pantheon, they needed to put child making first, and it was as important for women as it was for men.

I think the general Jewish and early Christian relationship with women generally is a mixed bag, like at times they value women for being the vessel of the unborn, and at other times fear the menstrual cycle, possibly rightly so in times before proper sanitation which may have put women at risk and by extension the community.

The early Christian church was, definitely, influenced by Manichaeism which was possibly one of the worst cults of the ancient world, primarily because of its influence on Christianity, it hated life, sex, it was very negative and one of the Church Fathers was converted from it and, whilst he called it a heresy, he still projected his views of sex, and women, in his Christianity and was very influential. If Manichaeism had never existed, womens rights, particularly in the near East, may well be a LOT better.

[Azvanna]

The early Christian church was, definitely, influenced by Manichaeism which was possibly one of the worst cults of the ancient world, primarily because of its influence on Christianity, it hated life, sex, it was very negative and one of the Church Fathers was converted from it and, whilst he called it a heresy, he still projected his views of sex, and women, in his Christianity and was very influential. If Manichaeism had never existed, womens rights, particularly in the near East, may well be a LOT better.

I've never heard of Manichaeism, but I'll look that up. Not knowing much about the Jewish attitude towards women at the time of the early church, it does seem that an outside influence could possibly have muddied stuff up a bit. I have always thought of the desire to leave this life, the suppression of sexuality and the suppression of women in church leadership as Pauline teaching, so I pinned it back on Jewish culture of the time.

I received the book On the Wings of Shekinah today!!! I have another book I'm working through at the moment, but I will try to read a bit from it tonight. If anything really life changing crops up, I'll type it out here.

[Briton]

Well, Paul fully turned his back on his Jewish culture, it was a point of contention with people like James who didn't even want gentiles to be socialized with.

Manichaeism was Persian in origin. Speaking of which, Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and that's quite clear too, but I am not sure if attitudes towards women were involved.

[thalassa]

The attitudes towards women in ancient Greece and Rome were already quite terrible, so it should be of no surprise that none of the early Church leaders did anything to change that...

[Briton]

Just to confuse things, they really admired widows who stayed independent in the early church.

[Azvanna]

Well, Paul fully turned his back on his Jewish culture, it was a point of contention with people like James who didn't even want gentiles to be socialized with.



Which is such a shame, Peter's vision in Acts 10 should have cleared that up. That aside, I believe his teaching on women being quiet in church etc comes down to how women were treated in Judaism. I remember hearing somewhere that there was a special court for women and gentiles on the fringes of the inner court where the Jewish men could worship, but I'm not sure if that was in Paul's day.


The attitudes towards women in ancient Greece and Rome were already quite terrible, so it should be of no surprise that none of the early Church leaders did anything to change that...

I wish I could remember where I read this, but I know there was a certain school of thought (maybe Plato??) that only men could reach divine perfection or something along those lines.

[Azvanna]

So reading On the Wings of Shekinah last night, I came across this paragraph:
'...Jewish women who came to pray at the women's side of the wall during the new moon (the new moon is when the seven promises of the covenants are remembered). Because the women wore traditional prayer shawls and read from the Torah, they were attacked physically by very Orthodox worshippers who regarded the voice of women in prayer as a violation of tradition.' Pg3
Brackets mine. This happened in 1988. So maybe that thinking has been entrenched for thousands of years and it's not too far out to believe that this is where Paul's opinion on women's conduct in church stems from:
1 Cor 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

There's been a lot of speculation about those verses, that Paul didn't really mean for women to be quiet in church, he just meant they should only speak when the time is right. It's an explanation I can't swallow taking into consideration his other views. Romans was written a few years after 1 Corinthians, so maybe over time his views changed as he began to commend the likes of Phoebe who is mentioned as a deacon in Romans.

On a positive note, there was a gorgeous prayer right at the start of On the Wings of Shekinah that I want to share with you all:


Appeal to the Matriarchs


We call upon Sarah the priestess, co-founder of Judaism, who gave us the candle-lighting ceremony.
Beautiful and holy princess, she celebrated in sacred groves and a simple tent, bringing the light of the Shekinah where ever she traveled.
Laughing mother of ageless beauty, bless our way.

We call upon Rebekah, who traveled courageously while still a teenager, leaving the shelter of her family to journey toward a new life.
Guided to the spiritual path begun by Sarah, she too merited the presence of the clouds of glory and insights into the future of her children.
Courageous mother of difficult choices, bless our way.

We call upon Rachel, whose poignant memory is cherished as the advocate of Israel.
Her short life on earth has become a permanent vigil. Forever young, she is always present on the road to exile, watching over her children like the winged Shekinah.
Romantic and beautiful mother, bless our way.

We call upon Leah, visionary mother of many tribes, progenitor of priests and kings.
Like the primal mother of creation, she was blessed with fertility, giving life, giving names, giving nurturance. Great Lady, Mother Binah, Ha'G'veret Elyonah.
Mother of creativity, who sees the future, bless our way.

As we acknowledge the revered Hebrew Matriarchs, we also call to our mothers Bilhah and Ziilpah, co-parents of the emergent Jewish family.
We honour your contributions to our spiritual life and include you in our ancestral prayers.
Tribal mothers, bless our way.

We call upon Hagar, mother of the desert life, to whom God's angel spoke directly and who was blessed with the promise of greatness at the Well of the Divine Seeking.
We ask you to help us heal the wounds between the children of Abraham and mend the torn garment of our interwoven destinies.
Wandering mother, bless our way.

[B. de Corbin]

I don't know a lot about very traditional Judism, but I seem to recall that there are prohibitions against women coming into contact with men, particularly rabbis, except under specific conditions.

You want to remember, though, that the rules are not necessarily adhered to in private, and that women, despite their classical second-class citizenship, have always had techniques for exerting power.

They raised the children, for one thing, and could have effected changes if they wanted to, simply by using that "in."

In addition, well, read & enjoy Lysistrada. It is filthy-hilarious in the way only Greeks could do well.

Neitszche, although his views are very out of date where women are concerned, spent cosnsiderable brainpower in looking at how women - in his time, and his location, and the conditions conditions of his culture - exercised power over men. His big mistake was in not realizing that this was a time/place/culture thing - he mistook it as a universal.

[Briton]

So reading On the Wings of Shekinah last night, I came across this paragraph:
Brackets mine. This happened in 1988. So maybe that thinking has been entrenched for thousands of years and it's not too far out to believe that this is where Paul's opinion on women's conduct in church stems from:
1 Cor 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

There's been a lot of speculation about those verses, that Paul didn't really mean for women to be quiet in church, he just meant they should only speak when the time is right. It's an explanation I can't swallow taking into consideration his other views. Romans was written a few years after 1 Corinthians, so maybe over time his views changed as he began to commend the likes of Phoebe who is mentioned as a deacon in Romans.

If it's any consolation, the Greek New Testament (which I looked into a lot as I nearly became Orthodox Christian) doesn't use the suggestive language that the English does. The word used is an ancient one, I can't specifically remember what the Greek word was, but it means prayerful, contemplative quietness. If you have ever been to an Orthodox liturgy, which has changed little since the first church in Jerusalem, everyone is silent except for the priest.

Furthermore one could postulate that European culture has not changed THAT much, insofar as in the UK and USA (heavily influenced by British sensibilities) we have much stricter ideas of what is rude and impolite. On the continent, queueing is not a thing. People will queue jump like it ain't no thang. It is not entirely surprising to believe that people were talking during the service, and it happened to be women that were the problem, that it happened frequently enough to be worth writing about. Th men likely did talk but just so infrequently that it wasn't worth a part of the letter. It's not like men are allowed to talk and women aren't. Nobody talks except on one or two occasions. Call it sexist if you wish to call women out on talking but not men, but if men had been talking, they would have had their knuckles rapped too. When my wife and I attended Orthodox services here in the UK we were attending a church serving a 99% Greek immigrant contingent. People did talk during the service when they shouldn't have and it was very annoying. It was also ALWAYS the older women. It's not a 'woman' thing, it's a Med woman thing.

Lastly, they had not long had this new religion, so were not used to the rules. I don't know how the Greek pagans practiced their faith before Christianity came on the scene, but I imagine it was quite different.

[Bard A Madsen]

BTW, before the Bible in Mesopotamia women had plenty of rights, which is strange because in the same area 6,000 years later they don't.

[DragonsFriend]

In Sumer they lost their rights shortly after inventing the written language. As soon as men found a way to track valuables and their offspring the women were robbed of their birthright. That happened between 3500 and 3000 BCE as near as I can tell. In the same time period a lot of the goddesses had their names changed to male and became gods. As society goes, so goes religion.

[thalassa]

these aren't women mentioned in the bible, but I thought it might be of interest anyhow: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-rebel-virgins-and-desert-mothers-who-have-been-written-out-of-christianitys-early-history

[Marradin]

My Mother studied a bachelors in Theology after she retired from teaching So, now that I'm back I'll give you some things you should look at

First the bible was originally in Greek - The modern bible in English is predominately from the King James translation - which is possibly the one of the worst examples of translating a text around. First it was translated from a Latin bible (Not the original Greek and/or Hebrew) so it is a translation of a translation (possibly of a translation again) Small errors snowball in that kind of situation. My Mother learnt Ancient Greek for that reason, and found many misconceptions in what many Christians (Even priests!) read from the English bible.

Second - St Paul, In balance of evidence, was probably a mysoginist. He also had an ENOURMOUS influence on the early church. He was also an apostle, although NOT one of the 12 apostles.

Third - The Council of Nicea. Cartharge and others. This is actually something I brought up to my mother just after she graduated..... It's also what eventually (amongst other things, Like both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops of Sydney at the time) lead to her becoming agnostic. The councils more than halved the books considered part of the Bible. Some papers found seem to imply that not only did they take out many of the named Gospels (Thomas, Mary Magdeline ect.) They also burned every copy, across both halves of the empire, of some writings that were left unnamed in the council discussions. This means that we cannot know how much was lost or what it said. It also means we cannot definitively say that Paul ( point 2 ) was a mysoginist. After all, what was in these writings and were, perhaps, some of Paul's letters in it? and if so what did they say about women?

Fourth. Finally I would like to point to the fact that there were female bishops in the Celtic church before it returned to communion with Rome. Not just priest but bishops. It is thought by some feminist Christians, that knowing that the head of the final synod that confirmed the reunification of the Celtic Church with that of Rome, was to be a younger female bishop, the pope sent as his envoy a priest that had several complaints against him for breaking the vow of chastity with orders to seduce her if necessary to get her to agree to Rome's terms. It is also know that several times in Ireland, Kings threw out Rome's Emissarys and Priests for 'Fomenting Violence' ; I'm sorry, but it's been a while I can't remember the chronicles that mention this and they were fairly obscure.

Fifth and final point. Modern Catholicism is closest to the Arian heresy of the original Orthodox Church. The predominant believers in the Arian Heresy at the time were the Goths. They adopted many Gothic traditions, including that of the subservience of women in the Early Roman church because the goths were the defacto rulers of Rome at the time. Simple survival dictated it!

Note: I am giving you the facts with some personal interpretation; particularly in points 4 and 5 (no I'm not really sure that St Paul is a misogynist - as mentioned in point 3 with so much lost from the excised bible we can never know. it is however important to note that from his writings that are available he would be considered such) There is no existing complete bible from the second century AD or indeed from before the Council of Nicea. It is entirely possible there was NEVER a truly complete copy, that books used by one arm of the church were never used by the others.

Hope some of this helps.

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. Oh and forgot a very important note - neither english nor latin are particularly good languages to translate Ancient Greek or Hebrew. in both the latter languages each word has a number assosciated with it I have been told - not the case in either latin or english

[Briton]

My Mother studied a bachelors in Theology after she retired from teaching So, now that I'm back I'll give you some things you should look at

First the bible was originally in Greek - The modern bible in English is predominately from the King James translation - which is possibly the one of the worst examples of translating a text around

Most of the King James Version is actually taken from the earlier version by the Englishman Tyndale. Just worth noting that considering his extreme persecution by the church, it's amazing he managed to translate anything at all.


First it was translated from a Latin bible (Not the original Greek and/or Hebrew) so it is a translation of a translation (possibly of a translation again) Small errors snowball in that kind of situation. My Mother learnt Ancient Greek for that reason, and found many misconceptions in what many Christians (Even priests!) read from the English bible.

I don't know who said this, but a council of the Eastern Orthodox church agreed that the King James is the best translation of the Bible into English. Sure, might not be great, but if the earliest church condones its use, it can't be that bad.


Fourth. Finally I would like to point to the fact that there were female bishops in the Celtic church before it returned to communion with Rome. Not just priest but bishops. It is thought by some feminist Christians, that knowing that the head of the final synod that confirmed the reunification of the Celtic Church with that of Rome, was to be a younger female bishop, the pope sent as his envoy a priest that had several complaints against him for breaking the vow of chastity with orders to seduce her if necessary to get her to agree to Rome's terms. It is also know that several times in Ireland, Kings threw out Rome's Emissarys and Priests for 'Fomenting Violence' ; I'm sorry, but it's been a while I can't remember the chronicles that mention this and they were fairly obscure.

Can you name some of these female bishops? I know of Abbesses, even the one who led the male section of the monastery, but not female bishops.


Fifth and final point. Modern Catholicism is closest to the Arian heresy of the original Orthodox Church.

Just curious, on what basis? Is there anything in the Roman Catholic catechism that suggests this?


P.S. Oh and forgot a very important note - neither English nor Latin are particularly good languages to translate Ancient Greek or Hebrew. In both the latter languages each word has a number assosciated with it I have been told - not the case in either Latin or English

I am aware that they use letters, in Greek, to denote numbers, by adding a ' after the letter, is that what you mean?

- - - Updated - - -

It's also worth noting that the plural "elohim" for God doesn't necessarily suggest that the Hebrews were talking about a number of gods, particularly in the instance of the Creation story.

Firstly, the word "elohim" is also used for people (Exodus 21:6) and false gods (Psalm 82:6). The reason I put Psalm 82:6 in with this is that I believe the fact that God is telling the others they are gods but will die like men suggests that he is not talking about men but rather condemning some high spirits.

Secondly is the Subject-verb agreement. In all but a few cases, the fact elohim is plural doesn't matter, the fact is that the verb is singular. Although an anomaly in Hebrew grammar (of which I know very little about, I confess), it is a feature referred to as the Majestic plural.

What's more interesting are the instances were there is Subject-verb agreement and that the verb is plural, particularly in Genesis 20:13 and Genesis 35:7, where the writer acknowledges a true plurality with Abraham and Jacob.

[MaskedOne]

Err, granting that wikipedia is flawed as a source but it describes Arianism as explicitly not Trinitarian. Since the RCC is Trinitarian, I have issues with declaring them Arian. Jehovah's witnesses might classify as Arian but you've got an interesting case to make before I take the idea of the RCC as Arian.

[Marradin]

Err, granting that wikipedia is flawed as a source but it describes Arianism as explicitly not Trinitarian. Since the RCC is Trinitarian, I have issues with declaring them Arian. Jehovah's witnesses might classify as Arian but you've got an interesting case to make before I take the idea of the RCC as Arian.

Arianism's core disagreement yes - however other parts of the disagreement were that there was no FEMALE aspect to god- denigration of the female role. I agree that In the aspect of the trinity - RCC not Arian. But heresies are complicated things and here is almost always many differences. In the lessening of the female role in the trinity and in the church these are the aspect of Arianism I was talking about. Also - the RCC historically - DID have an Arian phase. Just because it isn't NOW doesn't mean that for a portion of it's early history it never was.

Until the Arian heresy women were priests and bishops in the early church - after Arianism it Fades fast. This is, in my opinion, (It happened for ever ago, so give me a break here) an example of the underling tensions caused by a heresy causing minor aspects of it to be adopted by the mainstream in an effort to neutralize the heresy.

"Can you name some of these female bishops? I know of Abbesses, even the one who led the male section of the monastery, but not female bishops." briton

Hilda was at the very least Considered to have a Bishop's authority. evidence: She was the head of the Celtic Church's Delegation to a Synod. it was already grounded that the Head of a delegation to a synod was a bishop. Also Abbots and Abbesses could be considered bishops in the Celtic church as the performed the same roles outside their monastic communities for the communities in their vicinity for that church. Reason? The Celtic church was far more Monastic at the time than was the RCC. Senior monks (and nuns) could be considered often to be priests and often performed priestly duties outside the monastery. They were not Recognized as such by the RCC but the Defacto recognition can be seen in that they recognized Hilda for the delegation head. Indeed part of the problem in what you are asking is the different structures of these two churches.

Finally this might be helpful to the discusion

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid8JWGpsbKAhUEIqYKHeHQAygQFggmMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fromancatholicwomenpriests.org%2FR CWP_Resource.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGr6G_fYH0joe1TXy2f2k4Q2YxZ9w&sig2=Tp2TfuyL3erq1EMnkcAkzA

(pdf link. just warning)

[Medusa]

This page is why I side eye the Christian religion. I mean it's scary how interpretation just goes off the charts.

[Briton]

OK can we please stop saying 'Celtic church'? There was no such thing. There was a British and an Irish church. There are no 'Celts' to steal the hard work of Britons and the Irish. Protestant churches aren't referred to as Germanic churches, despite most of them speaking English, so let's stop crediting an imaginary group with the efforts of real people.

Yes, she was an Abbess, but not a bishop. Roman Catholic catechism states that even a child can administer the Eucharist if necessary, but nobody would believe you if you then said that makes the child an officially sanctioned priest. Yes, she may well have performed actions of a bishop, and bishops were frequently drawn from monastic orders, but taking the place of a bishop now and again makes a bishop not. If they didn't call her a bishop, they never recognized her as a bishop, and if they never recognized her as a bishop, that's as good as saying the church did not have female bishops.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure the main issue of Arianism I that it states Jesus was neither God nor man, but somewhere in between, when the church had decided he was simultaneously fully man and fully God.

[thalassa]

I'm pretty sure the main issue of Arianism I that it states Jesus was neither God nor man, but somewhere in between, when the church had decided he was simultaneously fully man and fully God.

Plus, its not Trinitarian...

[Marradin]

Briton - Interesting belief there but there was a church in Briton and Ireland that has been (and still is) refereed to as the 'Celtic Church' - You denying this does not change that. It is a reference to a historical church in Ireland, Scotland and Northumbria up until the Synod in which Hilda was head of their delegation that renewed full communion with the RCC. You saying that a term referring to a historical grouping 'Doesn't and never existed' Doesn't change that. It may not have called itself that but many historians REFER to it as that.

Nice dodge. I gave you evidence that Hilda was considered a bishop - you rant that she was 'only' an abbess without even touching the differences between how the historical organization I'm referring to was organized and the RCC was organized. Also looks like you COMPLETELY ignored the link I posted.

Yes Arianism was a non-trinitarian sect/heresy. What that means is they viewed that God, Jesus and the holy spirit were one being, and many Arians extended this to god having only one manifestation, the male. This was the point I was trying to get to but seem to have been unclear about (don't know how people missed that point but hey I suppose 'Denigration of the female role' isn't as clear as 'Only one manifestation, the male'). If you cannot see how having an Arian dominated Patriarchal warrior society controlling Rome MAY have affected the early RCC then I'm not gonna try further - I don't like pounding my fist into brick walls anymore.

Also Saying the RCC NEVER followed an Arian interpretation because it isn't today is like saying the Eastern Orthodox church was NEVER Iconoclastic because it isn't today. Saying such Doesn't make it true. Organizations Change over time and both have been round for 1500+ years.

We could both be right in part. We could both be wrong. one of us could be right and the other wrong. I am giving you the interpretation I believe best fits the facts and accepted practices of the time from my studies and personal research. For you to say -your wrong and not give evidence AT ALL to conflict with the evidence I gave is somewhat childish to say the least. Show me ONE synod before the reformation where a delegation Head was not a Bishop (other than Hilda) and I might consider your opinion. Otherwise ....

[Azvanna]

Can I just say it is really hard to moderate a thread on a mobile. So consider this in teal.
Show me ONE synod before the reformation where a delegation Head was not a Bishop (other than Hilda) and I might consider your opinion. Otherwise ....

Don't do this, it's not on topic. The topic is the Female Identity in the Bible. Discussion surrounding church history and women in leadership is okay as long as it doesn't become the main point. If you'd like to discuss women in leadership in church history in depth, another thread is welcome. However, I'd like to remind everyone to maintain a tone of enquiry and mutual respect while you're posting on my boards. It is no one's job to enlighten or discredit another. Useless one-liners that don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way are not welcome, Medusa. They are a waste of everyone's time.

Thanks.






Thank you Thalassa for your

[Marradin]

I apologize for getting off topic like that I should have left my post as


Yes Arianism was a non-trinitarian sect/heresy. What that means is they viewed that God, Jesus and the holy spirit were one being, and many Arians extended this to god having only one manifestation, the male. This was the point I was trying to get to but seem to have been unclear about (don't know how people missed that point but hey I suppose 'Denigration of the female role' isn't as clear as 'Only one manifestation, the male'). If you cannot see how having an Arian dominated Patriarchal warrior society controlling Rome MAY have affected the early RCC then I'm not gonna try further - I don't like pounding my fist into brick walls anymore.

Also Saying the RCC NEVER followed an Arian interpretation because it isn't today is like saying the Eastern Orthodox church was NEVER Iconoclastic because it isn't today. Saying such Doesn't make it true. Organizations Change over time and both have been round for 1500+ years.

We could both be right in part. We could both be wrong. one of us could be right and the other wrong. I am giving you the interpretation I believe best fits the facts and accepted practices of the time from my studies and personal research.

[Azvanna]

I apologize for getting off topic like that I should have left my post as

Thank you for the apology. I'll pm you later on :)

Thanks Thal for the link to desert mothers!! I'm part way through reading it.