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 13^th 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]

The Cherubim [93] of the Temple:

Patai [94] notes that there was one exception to the commandment that demanded uncompromising condemnation of the worshiping of "graven images or any manner of likeness."  This exception was the "winged human figures which were an integral part...the most important part, of all the Hebrew and Jewish sanctuaries and temples."  These "graven images" were The Cherubim.  Patai notes that these Cherubim figured "prominently in the Temple ritual down to the very end of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (70 C.E.)."  Patai notes that Hebrew-Jewish literature in its entirety "contains not a word that could in the remotest be construed as a condemnation of the Cherubim."  The Cherubim were present in the Holy of Holies, which was the innermost sanctuary of the Temple, and for the most part considered "off limits" to any but priests and then the priests only at very specified times of the year.  Yet as his discussion proceeds, Patai has some astonishing information regarding these Cherubim as iconic figures, who was allowed to view them, under what circumstances such viewing was allowed, and their inclusion of the female principle, "which was considered legitimate at all times."  It seems that over the centuries the symbolism of these Cherubim evolved; so, this paper will briefly discuss the Cherubim.  These Cherubim are important to an understanding of the feminine in the Hebrew religion. 

The Ivory Cherubim:

Patai [95] notes that as far back as 873 B.C.E. the palace of King Ahab of Israel contained "a number of small ivory plaques"; these plaques gave the royal palace the name "Ivory House."  These early figures depict two women in profile, "crouching female figures" that face each other.  Their arms are outstretched toward each other; underneath these outstretched arms is a wing that seems to be attached to the "lower contours" of the outstretched arms of the respective female crouching figures.  Each of these outstretched hands holds a "large flower, probably a lotus."  The upper bodies of these figures that face each other are erect, the legs of each figure are bent, with knees touching each other, and the buttocks of each figure "rest on their upturned heels."  These figures are naked but have about their shoulders "wide, fringed collars...breast-plates hang down from their necks."  The heads of these figures are "covered by Egyptian-type head-cloths" that flow down "behind the ears and over the shoulders"; the heads are "crowned by a hollow, ring-like ornament" that rises "vertically upward."  Patai notes that a "vertical ritual object" with a ring on top of it is similar in type to the ornament on the heads of the two figures; this ring-like ornament rests between the two figures.  This round figure has "under it a four-tiered structure [that is] supported by slender, out-turned legs."  This ritual figure that is positioned between the two Cherubim "engages the attention of the two figures who seem to shield or fan it with their wings." [96]  

Patai notes that this "ivory plaque" is the "closest illustration" to the Cherubim that shielded the Ark in the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple; it is "closest not only in general arrangement and detail, but also in time of provenance and place of discovery as well as origin." 

The Cherubim of the Desert Tabernacle: [97]

The "desert tabernacle" will be considered the one that was carried by the Hebrews through their 40 year journey in the desert in the 1200s B.C.E.  There are varying opinions among scholars concerning whether this 40 year journey actually took place: 

·        The story of this journey was a depiction of the "ideas of the post-exilic Judeans about the early history of their ancestors after their liberation from Egypt." 

·        The story of the 40 year journey was a later myth developed by a "confederation of tribes in the Canaanite highlands who were opposed to the oppression of the tributary system of the coastal cities." [98]  

Regardless of which of these opinions is correct, it is also "taken for granted" that there were earlier prototypes to the Cherubim of Solomon's Temple and that these prototypes existed in a place that the Hebrews used for their worship in early times.

Patai [99] notes that "according to the Biblical tradition, in both the desert Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple, the only supernatural beings represented were the Cherubim."  Patai goes so far as to describe the Cherubim as the "religious leitmotif of both sanctuaries."  He notes that tradition holds that the Tabernacle contained "two figures of Cherubim" who "stood on both sides of the ark-cover," were made of "beaten gold, and, together with the ark-cover, formed a single piece."  The rest of the description of these figures follows closely the above detailed description.  Patai, however, notes that from the supposed time of the Desert Tabernacle there was a veil that "hid the Ark and its two Cherubim from all eyes"; this veil was made of fine linen with "blue, purple and scarlet" colors that reproduced the image "on the outside" of "what it concealed within."  In other words the veil that concealed the Ark and the Cherubim had either woven into the fabric or printed on the fabric of the veil. 

The Cherubim in Solomon's Temple, as "Yahweh's Mounts," and in the Temple of Herod:

Patai [100] in a long and extended discussion notes that the Cherubim leitmotif followed down through the ages and stages in all the temples:  The Desert Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and the Temple of Jerusalem. [101]   Patai gives extensive descriptions of the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, on the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple, on the walls of the Temple, and on the various curtains that adorned parts of the Temple other than the Holy of Holies.  These descriptions vary somewhat, mostly in the grandeur of the depictions; but it is likely that as time went on and repairs inevitably had to be made in the Temple, the repairs "improved," the temple or made it "grander."  However, all the descriptions of the Cherubim remain basically the same as has already been described; [102] the only "changes" are in gold, jewels, fine tapestries, etc., being added. 

Symbolic Importance of the Cherubim:

"Yahweh's Mounts":

One thing that has not yet been discussed and is extremely important is the symbolism of the Cherubim.  Patai [103] notes the "symbolic import" changed over time in what he calls the "successive reinterpretations" of the symbolic import of the Cherubim.  He notes that the "earliest symbolic meaning" the Hebrews attributed to the Cherubim was that they stood for the "tangible" representation of the "clouds of the stormy winter sky upon which God was supposed to ride."  This symbol can be found in various forms "among many peoples:  It was found among the Canaanites in the "14^th century B.C.E. and among the Ugaritic myths" where the " 'Rider of the Clouds' " was "one of Baal's" titles.  Patai notes two Psalms in which this expression is used of Yahweh:  "lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds; his name is the LORD" (Psalm 68.4); the other is Psalm 104.1, 3-4: [104]   Bless the LORD, O my soul!....who makest the clouds thy chariot, who ridest on the wings of the wind, who makest the winds thy messengers."  In addition Patai notes that references to this same expression (or variations on this expression) referring to Yahweh as "Rider of the Clouds" are found in Isaiah and Habakkuk. [105]

Patai notes that, "in connection with the desert Tabernacle there was an explicit mythical tradition according to which God descended onto and into it in a cloud"; [106] Patai notes that the term "Tabernacle," is from the Hebrew word meaning "dwelling place...because of the divine cloud that abode over it and in it."  He notes that, "God's presence in the Tabernacle was indicated by a cloud," elaborating that God's presence was represented by a cloud during the day and a fire at night.  Patai further states that this cloud was "the palpable sign of God's presence in Solomon's Temple" also. 

Patai notes that it was Ezekiel's visions that emphasized the "connection between clouds and Cherubim as the vehicle of God." [107]   In Ezekiel 10, there are numerous references to the connection between the Cherubim and a vehicle as a means of riding on the cloud, the wheels of the vehicle, and the glory of God.  Patai notes that "the Cherubim, the wheels, the throne [of Yahweh], and the glory of God [form] one unit."  He concludes that in both the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple "the Cherubim were...unmistakable" symbols of the "clouds [from which] God Spoke and which served also as His mount or chariot." 

Shekhina:

Elizabeth Johnson [108] notes the gender of the word for "spirit" in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.  She states that the "Hebrew word for spirit, ruah, is of grammatically feminine gender, that the "biblical Greek term for spirit, pneuma, is grammatically neuter," and that the "Latin term, spiritus, is grammatically masculine."  She states that the grammatical gender of a word [in the these languages] "does not necessarily indicate the maleness or femaleness of its object." 

Patai [109] notes that in the "earliest use of the term Shekhina" the "fact that the noun Shekhina had the feminine gender (Shekhinta in Aramaic) had no significance at all" [emphasis added].  But then Patai [110] notes later that it "should be emphasized...that both in Hebrew and Aramaic, the gender of the subject plays a much greater role in the sentence structure than in Indo-European languages."  He elaborates:  "In Semitic languages, the verb as well as the adjective have separate male and female forms" and that in any sentence involving the Shekhina all the verbs and adjectives surrounding the noun "impress the reader (or hearer) with the femininity of the Shekhina by taking...feminine forms."  He then emphasizes that "even without any explicit pronouncement...the Shekhina was a female divine entity, her sex was kept in the forefront of consciousness by every statement made about her." 

Johnson [111] notes that, "In the Jewish trajectory that developed after the close of the biblical canon, the Spirit of God typically came to be spoken of in the female symbol of the shekinah." [112]   She notes that this word "quite literally means the... 'one who dwells.' "  She states that shekinah came be to used as a synonym "for divine presence among the people....that God or God's Spirit descended on the Holy of Holies."  She goes on to state that the shekinah was "manifest in the symbols of cloud, fire, or radiant light" that descended, overshadowed, or led the people. 

Patai [113] notes in an extended discussion of "The Shekhina" [114] that while "Wisdom...had all the prerequisites for developing into a veritable female deity, no such development took place within Judaism."  He states that "a new concept of feminine divinity in the figure of the Shekhina" was developed.  Patai notes that the figure of "the Shekhina...first appears in the Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the Bible" and further notes that, while there is disagreement concerning the development of this figure, the first century C.E. is most likely when this "Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the Bible" was written. [115]   Patai also notes [116] that the "Shekhina was the direct heir of the Biblical Cloud of Glory which had dwelt in the sanctuary and had been the visible manifestation of Yahweh's presence in His House."

Lastly, Patai notes [117] that Philo discerned "two aspects of the deity" and notes that Philo "assigned masculinity to one, and femininity to the other, aspect of the godhead." [118]   Patai goes on to note that Philo's concept is "not too far removed from [the] old Biblical indeterminacy as to the number of persons in the deity," [119] referring to a masculine aspect and a feminine aspect to the Jewish Yahweh.  Patai then seems to settle on this statement:  

the very fact that all names of God (Yahweh; Elohim; the Holy One, blessed be He; etc.) were masculine, while the name Shekhina was feminine (as were other manifestations of the deity, such as the Holy Spirit, the Word, [120] Wisdom, etc.) inevitably point in the direction of...sexual differentiation.

Jeremiah and the Jews in Egypt and the Worship of the Goddess: 

Patai [121] notes that the "last Biblical reference to Astarte-Anath" does not contain either of these names."  The last Biblical reference is to the "Queen of Heaven" [122] and occurs in (of all places) Jeremiah.  Jeremiah was among the first deportees to Babylon at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.  He was likely a captive on his way to Babylon when there was a revolt among the Jewish captives.  Jeremiah was in this group that freed themselves from the Babylonians, but they ended up wondering where they should go once they had escaped.  Jeremiah himself counseled against fleeing from the Babylonians.  However, the leaders of the group of which he was only one member completely disregarded his advice and decided to flee to Egypt.  It is presumed that these refugees who included Jeremiah and Baruch joined a Jewish colony in Egypt. 

However, Jeremiah was extremely unhappy to be in Egypt and generally held a low opinion of Egypt; in fact, he seems to have loathed Egypt. [123]   It soon becomes apparent exactly why Jeremiah so loathed Egypt:  It was Jeremiah's opinion [124] that the "great national catastrophe" that had befallen Judah occurred because Judah had failed Yahweh and had resorted to idolatry; his opinion was that the Jews needed to return to their covenant with Yahweh.  However, the people strongly disagreed with Jeremiah.  They believed that their problems were caused by a sin that "had been committed against the Queen of Heaven and not against Yahweh."  The "Queen of Heaven" here referred to is none other than Anath/Astarte.  The scene depicted in Jeremiah is a dramatic one:

Then all the men who knew that their wives had offered incense to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people...in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah:  "As for the word which you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you.  But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her... for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil.  But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."  And the women said, "When we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out libations to her, was it without our husbands' approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out libations to her?" (Jeremiah 44.15-19). [125]  

Patai further notes [126] that these same rites of worship to Astarte were performed in the Temple in Jerusalem.  He cites Jeremiah 7.17-18 which he calls a "unique passage."  Patai points out that this passage describes an actual ritual of Astarte worship.  These rites to Astarte were led by the kings and princes of Judah; those who participated were the men, women, and children of Jerusalem and other cites in Judah.  He notes that there were several features to this ritual worship of Astarte:

ˇ        Children gathered wood for the fire that was part of this ritual.

ˇ        Fathers lit the fire.

ˇ        Women "kneaded dough and made cakes."

ˇ        These cakes were baked over the fire. [127]

ˇ        Women, assisted by men, burned incense.

ˇ        The people also poured out libations to other gods.

ˇ        The people believed that this worship of Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, provided the people with "plenty of food" and secured their "well-being in general."

ˇ        It is assumed that these rites were led by the king in Jerusalem and by princes in other cities.

ˇ        These above-mentioned ritual acts of burning incense, offering up cakes, pouring out libations all presuppose altars.  These altars were either in sanctuaries in the cities or in "high places" [so often mentioned in the Bible] in the countryside.

Patai notes [128] that the "controversy between Jeremiah and the people about the Queen of Heaven must have taken place within a year or two after the arrival of the Judaean refugees in Egypt" and that although Josiah had forbidden the Astarte ritual just 36 years before the arrival of this group of Jews in Egypt, the older members of the group could easily have remembered the ritual.  This writer speculates that likely, although the ritual had been forbidden for some years, it may simply have "gone underground" and never really been abandoned. 

Patai [129] also notes that "the last mention of the name of the old goddess in a Jewish environment comes some 175 years after" the above situation and confrontation with Jeremiah.  This "last mention of the old goddess" is contained in letters written by "Yedoniah, the son of Gemariah who was the priest and head of the Jewish community" in Egypt.  The "Letters of the Jews in Elephantine" [130] are a list of "contributions to the cult of Yaho" (Yahweh).  Three gods are mentioned for whom contributions are collected; these Gods for whom contributions were collected are Yaho, Ishumbethel, and Anathbethel.  Patai points out that this last name is obviously a female Aramaean [131] god.  He notes that this female name is composed of "Anath" and "Bethel" and that the "two elements" composing this name "are unmistakable."  Pritchard [132] says "The monies for the other two deities were doubtless contributed by non-Jews" and that Yedoniah was simply acting as "treasurer or banker for all the Arameans of Elephantine."  However, Patai disagrees with the note in Pritchard for two reasons:  He notes that members of competing or rival religious sects would not trust their cultic donations to the care of a priest of another group because of "keen religious rivalries" in Elephantine.  Second, he notes that in another letter, "Settlement of Claim by Oath" [133] that Yedoniah as part of the truth of the settlement of this claim swears by the "goddess Sati."

It is clear then that 175 years after the Jews of Jeremiah's time, the Jews that were descendants of the people who were determined to return to the worship of Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, still continued to worship the goddess.

The Cherubim in Embrace:  Patai [134] notes according to "one school of thought, the Cherubim were the most important feature in the entire Temple." [135]   He quotes Midrashic teaching: [136] " 'They were the head of everything that was in the Temple, for the Shekhina rested on them and on the ark, and from there He spoke to Moses.' " [137]   Patai cites another "detail" concerning the Cherubim: [138]   " 'When strangers entered the Sanctuary, they saw the Cherubim intertwined with each other."  In relating this description Patai notes that, "According to Biblical command, every male Israelite was duty-bound to make the pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year"; [139] these times were at the Passover in the spring, on the Feast of Weeks which was seven weeks after the Passover, and on the Feast of Booths (also called Sukkoth) which feast fell in autumn.  He notes that the one most "enthusiastically celebrated was the last one" when "the populace was commanded to rejoice."

Patai describes this feast in some detail that is significant for our discussion in this paper: [140]   He notes that this feast was not reserved only for the men; both men and women participated in this feast.  On the seventh day of this feast it seems the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was lifted by the priests so that all the people could observe the Cherubim who were "intertwined with one another" [141] and the priests said to the people, "Behold! Your love before God is like the love of male and female!" [142]   Patai then notes [143] that the men and women mingled and "commit[ed] what is euphemistically referred to a 'lightheadedness.' "  Patai states, "We can only surmise that the showing of the Cherubim representing a male and a female figure in marital embrace...incited the crowds to this 'lightheadedness,' which could have been nothing but an orgiastic outburst of sexual license."  He goes on to note that such "ritual license" was not unusual, rather it was "in accordance with both old Hebrew practice and the religious customs of other ancient Near Eastern peoples." [144]   Patai notes, though, that by the "last century of the existence of the Second Temple of Jerusalem" [145] (which would be from 30 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.) the described "popular enthusiasm" of earlier times "became intolerable" as far as the sages were concerned.  They, therefore, likely "put an end to the festive 'lightheadedness' " and confined the women to "special galleries" of the Temple, separating them from the men; however, even confining the women in this measure met with "stubborn popular resistance" to the traditional practice of "imitatio dei called for by the momentary glimpse of divine mystery."

The Goddess from the First Century B.C.E. through the First to Third Centuries C.E.:

The Cherubim and Philo and Josephus: 

Patai notes both Philo and Josephus show "remarkable reticence" and "extreme reticence" [146] respectively in regard to the Cherubim.  Immediately, the question comes to mind:  Why? 

Philo: 

Patai notes that Philo gives a "different view" of the Cherubim than that cited above.   It is clear from the descriptions given in Philo's own works [147] that Philo himself must have visited the Temple in Jerusalem; his descriptions of the Temple are so detailed and precise that it would have been impossible for him to have "made up" these detailed descriptions.  Another possibility is that Philo had access to detailed descriptions and possibly even maps of the Temple he could have found in any of the several synagogues of Alexandria.

According to Patai, [148] Philo [149] gives three interpretations of the Cherubim.  Patai notes [150] that, "as long as he speaks of the courtyards and the exterior of the Temple, his description is detailed and even verbose."  However, when Philo mentions the Cherubim, he does two things. 

·        First, Philo interprets the Cherubim in three ways.  He states the Cherubim were the symbols of God's goodness and authority. [151]   Elaborating in describing the "covering of the ark," Philo says

o       The ark is the "foundation for two winged creatures...which are called, in the native language of the Hebrews, cherubim, but as the Greeks would translate the word, vast knowledge and science." 

o       He then says that some people would describe the Cherubim as symbols of "two hemispheres, placed opposite to and fronting one another." 

o       In yet another description he says he himself would describe the cherubim as the "two most ancient and supreme powers of the divine God, namely, his creative and kingly power." [152]  

·        Second, regarding the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies specifically:

o       He states this "innermost shrine" was "inaccessible." [153]  

o       Yet in another place he does describe the Holy of Holies but then within that very statement, Philo contradicts himself:  He states, "what is innermost is invisible to every human creature except the high priest alone."  However, in the very next sentence he describes the high priest who carries "a brasier full of coals and frankincense"; he then notes that "a great smoke proceeds from it...everything all around is enveloped in it, then the sight of men is clouded, and checked, and prevented from penetrating in, being wholly unable to pierce the cloud." [154]   But it may be that Philo does not necessarily contradict himself.  Moore [155] notes that "the grammar of the original Greek implies that the general sight of 'men' is clouded, not the sight of the high priest who has permission to enter God's presence once a year."

So, it seems clear from these passages that Philo does two things: 

·        First, he gives what this writer calls a "Greek" interpretation to the Cherubim rather than a "Hebrew" interpretation.  Yet this Greek interpretation is not as "odd" as it may seem at first thought.  Moore [156] points out that Philo was, after all, a Hellenized Jew who did not know Hebrew.  It would be quite natural that, in the syncretistic atmosphere of Alexandria, Philo would absorb much of pagan learning and exegetical practice. 

·        Second, Philo contradicts himself, saying initially that only the high priest saw the Cherubim and then saying that the high priest, even though he entered the Holy of Holies, could see nothing of what was in the Holy of Holies because of all the smoke from the burning incense.  It has been claimed that Philo meant here that the smoke was meant to blind the eyes of any who dared to attempt to physically view God or the Cherubim and that the vision of the high priest was a spiritual vision.  But it seems to this writer that if, as noted above, the Greek grammatical meaning was that the sight of "men" was clouded and not the sight of the high priest, then either Philo was contradicting himself or at the very least was unsure of what he meant.  This writer agrees with Patai's interpretation given below.

In Philo's interpretation of the Cherubim, Patai notes there seems to be an "uncertainty in Philo's mind" concerning the Cherubim. 

·        Philo admits, that on occasion his "own soul" was "seized with a certain divine inspiration, even concerning matters which it could not explain even to itself; which now, if I am able to remember it accurately, I will related....the third thing which was between the two [Cherubim that] had the effect of bringing them together was reason, for that it was owing to reason that God was both a ruler and good." [157]  

·        Philo in another place states, "but of the father and mother...their powers are different....we say that that the Creator of the universe is also the father of his creation; and that the mother was the knowledge of the Creator." [158]  

In an extended discussion of what this writer calls Philo's "Greek" interpretation of the Cherubim, Patai notes that in these two separate interpretations of the Cherubim, Philo hints at or implies "an idea of bisexual symbolism"; yet Patai notes Philo "stops short...of saying anything about a female aspect of God." [159]   But Patai, [160] however, also notes that "Philo had in mind one and the same dichotomy" of a masculine God represented by God (Elohim) and Lord (Yahweh).  (See footnote above on the masculine/feminine inconsistencies in this dichotomy.)  Patai notes significantly that this dichotomy is the "earliest indication [emphasis added] of the idea that one of the Cherubim in the Temple represented a male and the other a female figure" and that "the Cherubim couple was shown in marital embrace in a sculpture which stood in the Holy of Holies of the Second Temple." [161]  

Josephus: 

Patai [162] notes that Philo's lack of concrete information regarding the Cherubim might lead one to think Josephus would have the information on the Cherubim that is lacking in Philo.  Scholars generally agree that Josephus lived from C.E. 37-100. [163]   Since Josephus would have been in his thirties when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in C.E. 70, one could presume that Josephus would have been able to accurately describe it.  In fact, Patai [164] states that Josephus was himself a priest and would have had "a thorough, firsthand familiarity" with the Temple and its complete environs. [165] In fact, Josephus has extensive information on the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple (which he would have had to have gleaned from Biblical writings); he also has extensive information on the Temple that existed in his time, including information on the priesthood, the rituals and services conducted at the Temple, and even the vestments worn by the priests during rituals.  However, on examining Josephus' works describing the Cherubim, one finds that one might describe the Cherubim as "conspicuous by their absence." 

In fact, the "reticence" noted above that Josephus exhibited concerning the Cherubim extends not only to the Cherubim in the Temple of his own time but also to his descriptions of the Cherubim in both the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple. 

·        Patai notes two points in Josephus' description of the Tabernacle: [166]

o       Regarding the Cherubim in the Tabernacle, Josephus states:  "Upon its [the Ark of the Covenant's] cover were two images, which the Hebrews call Cherubims; they are flying creatures, but their form is not like to that of any of the creatures which men have seen, though Moses said he had seen such beings near the throne of God." [167]   Patai notes that there "seems to be an intention here to deny all similarity between the Cherubim and any living creature, and to assert that they were supposed to represent divine beings." [168]   Patai also "corrects" Josephus, noting that where Josephus refers to Moses, he should have referred to Ezekiel, 9.3 and 10.1-22 as "it is in the latter's prophecies and not in the Pentateuch, that the Cherubim surrounding the throne are described."

o       Patai further notes that even "more remarkable is the omission by Josephus of any reference to the Cherubim which adorned the curtains and Veil in the desert Tabernacle." [169]

·        Regarding the Cherubim in Solomon's Temple, Josephus describes not only the Holy of Holies but also the other parts of the Temple. [170]   Images of the Cherubim were known to have been woven into the curtains and veil of the Temple.  (See above.) 

o       With regard to the curtains and veil of Solomon's Temple, Josephus, however, notes, "veils of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and the brightest and softest of linen, with the most curious flowers wrought upon them." [171]   The Cherubim here again are "conspicuous by their absence."

o       With regard to other parts of Solomon's Temple, namely the walls where "alternating figures of Cherubim and palm trees as well as...flowers" [172] are known to have been carved in the walls and even covered with gold, Josephus notes, "He [Solomon] enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them:  so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them." [173]   Once again, any mention of the Cherubim is "conspicuous by its absence."

o       Regarding the Cherubim in Solomon's Temple specifically, Josephus states that in the Holy of Holies there were "two cherubims of solid gold...they had each of them two wings stretched out...but nobody can tell, or even conjecture, what was the shape of these cherubims." [174]   Patai notes regarding this passage that Josephus "flatly contradicts Biblical texts, [and] one begins to suspect that he must have had a definite purpose in mind in omitting to mention the Cherubim so ubiquitous in the Solomonic Temple." [175]

·        Regarding the Cherubim in the Second Temple, the Temple of Josephus' time, Josephus has this to say:

o       He notes specifically that the women were confined to their own space:  "there was a partition built for the women...as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity of a second gate for them....the women were not allowed to pass through them [other gates, presumably for the men]; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall." [176]   So here is evidence that the women had been separated from the men to preclude any "lightheadedness" described above.

o       Regarding the walls, the curtains, and the Veil, Josephus says:  "the house was...all over covered with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines about it, from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man's height...there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors.  It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful." [177]   He further states that this "curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens." [178]   Again, Josephus simply omits any mention of the Cherubim.

o       With regard to the Holy of Holies, Josephus says:  "the inmost part of the temple...was also separated from the outer part by a veil.  In this there was nothing at all.  [Emphasis added.]  It was inaccessible and inviolable, and not to be seen by any; and was called the Holy of Holies." [179]   Once again, any mention of the Cherubim is "conspicuous by its absence" in Josephus' very extensive description of the Temple of his time.

Summary of Philo and Josephus: 

Philo is inconsistent and contradictory in his writings regarding the Cherubim.  He seems to vacillate between "wanting" to acknowledge the two Cherubim and their significance yet stopping short of "coming right out and saying so."  This vacillation may be evidence of another consideration in Philo's work:  It may be that Philo was in the process of formulating his thought regarding the masculine/feminine aspects of God.  Patai admittedly acknowledges that Philo was the first to express the "earliest" indication of the idea that the Cherubim of the Temple may have represented the masculine/feminine aspects of God.  Since it could be that Philo had not fully formulated his thought, perhaps he chose to omit reference to the Cherubim for that reason.  But in the end, all such consideration is speculation.  What is certain is that Philo was inconsistent and contradictory in his statements about the masculine/feminine aspects of God.

Josephus, for his part, totally denies that anybody knew anything at all about the Cherubim.  When he does even admit their presence in the Temple, and he should have been most cognizant of their presence as he was a priest, he states that nobody can "figure out" what they might possibly mean, if, indeed they were there.  In addition he goes out of his way to mention that the women had their own place in the Temple totally separate from the men, which seems an attempt to "ward off" any hint of "lightheadedness" being attributed to the ceremonies in the Temple. 

In another place Josephus notes [180] that, "while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple."  Here Josephus was responding to what happened during and after the destruction of the Temple.  He states that after "our temple" was "spoiled," much gold "worth a great deal of money" was found.  It seems there were rumors that the Jews "found that ass's head...made of gold."  Josephus is extremely offended by these rumors.  He notes:  "none of them found any such thing there, nor indeed any thing but what was agreeable to the strictest piety; although what they found we are not at liberty to reveal to other nations."  In noting the Holy of Holies he states "there is nothing...there, nor are there any mysteries performed that may not be spoke of."  So, while he attempts to refute the false rumors that were spread about what was found in the temple and that was not there, it is clear he is omitting what was there, stating that what the pillagers of the Temple did find, "we are not at liberty to reveal"--once again, Josephus deals with the Cherubim with a "conspicuous by their absence approach."

In conclusion, then, it seems that both Philo and Josephus for their own possible reasons avoided any reference to the Cherubim of the Temple. 

§         Josephus may have been trying to (in what may be considered today's terms) "minimize damage" that may have been done to the general concept of Jewish monotheism and any scandal that resulted when the Temple was destroyed and the objects and materials in the temple were paraded through the streets of Jerusalem.

§         Philo, as Patai points out above, was the first to grapple in some kind of specific intellectual manner with the concept of the masculine/feminine in God; by "specific intellectual manner" is meant that Philo may have been the first to start to grapple with actually putting into words the non-verbalized, sense perceptible, subjective, behavioral responses to the masculine/feminine aspects of God that were discerned by the people up to that time.

It may be noted that the reluctance of these two scholars was part of a general trend in the era--to spiritualize or intellectualize aspects of ancient religious expression that had come to be seen as primitive.  (See Part II for Word/Logos section of this paper.)