Thoughts on the Judean Pillar Figurine

Over 3,000 fired clay pillar figurines in female form with pinched or molded heads, bare breasts supported by arms, and a pillar-like lower body, have been found in archeological contexts in Israel, mostly from the southern kingdom of Judah, and mostly from the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. The most common theory regarding their identification and function is that they represent a goddess like Asherah or Ashtart and were a focus of domestic cult for child birth and lactation (cf. W.G. Dever 2005 - Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, and R. Kletter 1996 - Judaean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah). Recently, much has been made of the clay fabric, the domestic refuse context of the majority of the figurines, and lack of distinctive attributes to argue that they could not represent major deities (cf. E. Darby 2014 - Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual). Instead, it has been suggested that they represent minor guardian figures used in specific rituals for healing and protection.

That clay could be used for major deities is suggested by Egyptian rituals that likely represent Isis in clay figurines (cf. E.A. Waraksa 2009 - Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct: Context and Ritual Function). Logically, refuse contexts would be a problem for even minor divine or semi-divine guardian figurines unless the figurines no longer contained that presence. After the ritual has been completed, the presence would be gone and the figurine could be discarded. But in such a case, there is no obstacle to a major deity having been present in or through the figurine during ritual.

The lack of distinctive attributes may be explained by seeing them not as representing a deity, but as expressions of Y-H-V-H's “feminine” aspect or activity of life force (“Ruach” or breath), which I associated in a previous post with the Freedom to assume any definition, not as a separate personality with its own attributes. Given that women are the ones in whom a new form grows and from whom new life emerges, it would have been only natural to characterize this aspect of the Divine as "feminine".

The only attributes of the figurine are its feminine form, breasts, and the red and yellow colors of paint applied to it (along with black paint for certain details).  Most are connected to the life force – the “feminine” breath of G-d, breasts as source of life sustaining milk, and the red color of blood as a vehicle for the life force. In addition, the red color may have symbolized, along with the yellow, the terebinth tree - designated as "elah" ("goddess") in Hebrew since the flowers and fruit of that tree are red and its resin yellow.

The presence of these figurines in tombs need not be regarded as evidence against them as representatives of the Divine life force. The Tanach provides ample evidence for G-d's presence even in Sheol (e.g., Tehillim 139:8) and the hope for being raised back to life from Sheol (e.g., 1 Shmuel 2:6). And the reference to G-d and His Asherah in the inscription at the Khirbet el-Qom tomb (8th century BCE) show this as well. To place a figurine of this type in a tomb, an apparently rare occurrence, would reflect a hope for being returned to the realm of the living by G-d's “feminine” life force that remains available even in Sheol for such a restoration.

Finally, it is worth noting that a now lost seal from Judean Lachish shows a feminine figure with hands at the breasts like the figurines but which certainly had major Divine status since the seal shows an adjacent worshiper, branch or tree, and solar disk (cf. T. Romer, 2015, The Invention of God, p. 171), but the figure itself lacks any attributes beyond a diadem, which also appears painted on some of the figurines.

Ruach-Chochmah-Malchut

In previous posts, two aspects of the Divine “Feminine” have been discussed – Ruach and Chochmah.  There is a third aspect that is the focus of much of Medieval and contemporary Kabbalah – Malchut or “Kingdom” (for example, http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48971776.html and http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380807/jewish/Malchut.htm).  In an earlier post, it was noted that “the understanding that limitation, that creation, is an aspect of G-d’s ‘Ruach’/‘Chochmah’, and that G-d’s ‘Ruach’/‘Chochmah’ is an aspect of G-d is a two-fold process that is the birth of the ‘Kingdom of G-d on Earth’, the realization of Oneness with G-d even in the diversity of our own existence.”  Thus, a connection between the three aspects was alluded to.  But here, let us look at this in more detail. 

Each of the aspects presents its own unique step in this process.  With Ruach (breath), there is the freedom to assume any limitation, and there is continuity of the “inner” with the “outward” flow.  Then, with Chochmah (wisdom) there is an initial step in that free limitation, with a distinction between the intuitive knower, act of knowing, and objects of that knowledge, but no actual separation, since the objects remain within the mind.  Finally, with Malchut (kingdom) there is an ultimate step in that free limitation, with not only distinction but with actual separation that can yield a sense of Ruler and ruled.  In one sense, in Ruach, there is the most complete experience of Oneness with G-d since the freedom to assume limitation is essentially rooted in Divine Infinity (freedom from any limitation), an embedding that is readily evident in the continuity between “inner”/”outer” breath.  But in another sense, in Malchut, there is the most fulfilling experience of Oneness with G-d since even in the furthest extent of G-d’s free limitation, in our separateness as individuals, our individual freedom to choose full surrender to the Ruler is found to be nothing but G-d’s very own freedom to be us, and G-d is realized as nonetheless still free from any limitation, hence not separated from us, even in this ultimate limitation. 

Together, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion.  A “feminine” or “motherly” nature to this compassion can be imputed from the female anatomical association of the womb.  There are two aspects to this “motherly” compassion – that which is G-d’s compassion in allowing us this path to realize Oneness with G-d and that which is our path to that Oneness through practice of compassion to all that G-d manifests.

Is There Really Divine Permission to Eat Animal Flesh?

In the previous post information was presented on the Nasareans, a Jewish group of the late Second Temple period (ca. 200 BCE – 70 CE), which abstained from animal flesh, opposed animal sacrifice, and regarded portions of the Written Torah as having been falsified.  They appear to have had their own traditions regarding the Torah that had been given to Moshe at Sinai that were at odds with the Torah in writing at their time and with that which has passed down to us. 

Among the variety of writings preserved in part or in full among the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls”, which date from the time when the Nasareans were active, there is an intriguing confirmation of the Nasarean perspective.  Scroll 1Q20 represents an Aramaic translation and interpretation apparently intended to be read alongside and to interpret the Torah Book of B’reishit (Genesis).  Much of the preserved text deals with Genesis 6 – 15.  In the section (Column 11, Lines 16-17) that presents Genesis 9:3-4, which is the cornerstone in the “canonical” text of Genesis for permitting the consumption of animal flesh, which had not been included in what human beings could eat in Genesis 1:29, 1Q20 reads in translation:

“Behold, I give to you and to your children everything for food among the greenery and the herbs of the land. But all blood you shall not eat.”

There is no permission to eat animal flesh here; instead, only a reaffirmation of the original vegetarian diet.

Perhaps, 1Q20 reflects a tradition or even a text at variance with that of the received text of Genesis 9:3-4 and in line with that of the Nasareans. The fact that earlier in 1Q20 (Column 10, Lines 13-17) there is mention of Noach’s sacrifice of animals, as in Genesis 8:20 but in more detail, makes it untenable that 1Q20 itself is a Nasarean text, given their rejection of and hostility to animal sacrifice.  This fact thereby increases the likelihood that variant texts or traditions regarding Genesis 9:3-4 were not merely confined to a single sectarian entity during the late Second Temple period nor simply the product of such a sect.

For more on 1Q20, please see:

Daniel K. Falk, 2009, Anatomy of a Scene: Noah’s Covenant in Genesis Apocryphon XI.  In Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003-2006, edited by Aandres Klostergaard Petersen, et al., Brill Academic Publishers.

And 

http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07022007-205251/unrestricted/MachielaD072007.pdf

Ancient Jewish Vegetarianism - Part 2

Epiphanius, a Christian writer of the fourth century CE, discusses a Jewish group that he dates to before the time of Jesus.  Translations below are adapted from A. Kampmeier, The Pre-Christian Nasareans (1913).

In Anakephalaiosis 134 C he says: "The Nasareans forbid all flesh-eating; they do not partake of that in which there is life generally; previous to Moses and Joshua the son of Nun they make use of the holy names of the patriarchs in the Pentateuch and believe in them, I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those before them, as also Moses himself and Aaron and Joshua. But they teach that the writings of the Pentateuch are not of Moses and affirm to have others besides these."

In the Epitome he says: "Concerning Nasareans, these accept the patriarchs contained in the Pentateuch and Moses. That Moses received a law, they say. However, the law itself and the whole Pentateuch they do not accept, but believe that another law had been given him. They do not partake of that in which there is life, nor do they offer sacrifices. They say that the books have been falsified and that none of them took their origin from the fathers.”

In Panarion XVIII he says: "The Nasareans are of Jewish ethnicity, have circumcision, observe the Sabbath and the same feasts, but they do not admit fate and astronomy. They accept the fathers in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses, those glorious in the deeds of fearing God, I mean Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methusalah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac. Jacob, Levi, Aaron, Moses and Joshua, the son of Nun. But the Pentateuch itself they do not accept. Yet they confess Moses and believe that he received the law though not this one but another. Wherefore they observe everything of the Jews, being Jews, but they do not offer sacrifice, nor partake of that in which there is life, but it is considered unlawful with them to eat flesh or that they sacrifice. They say that these books are falsified and that nothing of them has originated from the fathers.” 

Dark Beauty

Shechorah Ani veNa’vah

“Black I am, and beautiful” – Shir haShirim 1:5

This verse is one of great esoteric importance.

Kabbalah connects the color black with Ein Sof – G-d in “Himself,” apart from any relationship to the created world (for that characterization of Ein Sof, cf. http:www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_

0006_0_05655.html).  For example, regarding the initial Sefirah (Keter) that emanated from Ein Sof, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (Or Ne’erav 6:4) states, “by virtue of being with the Emanator, it is black.”  Daniel Matt (The Essential Kabbalah p. 171) comments, “Since Keter is joined with Ein Sof, it partakes of the unknowability of the infinite, symbolized by the color black.”

The association of the color black or of darkness with the Infinite Depth of G-d is not confined to Jewish esoteric sources.  In Christian mysticism, G-d, considered not in relation to creation or any other activities, is regarded as a “super-essential Radiance of the Divine Darkness,” not an absence of light but a superabundance of light that is “a deep but dazzling Darkness” (cf. http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Volume II/MysticalTheology.html).  In Islamic Sufi mysticism, night represents the Unmanifest, the Divine Essence, as in the story of Laila and Majnun, in which the feminine beloved Laila (the Arabic word for night) represents the Divine Beloved, a blackness that absorbs all light, a beauty that is above manifestation, That which lies beyond Being (cf. http://psychspiritual.blogspot. com/2012/04/islam-divine-feminine.html).  Similarly, for Shakta Hinduism, Kali is depicted as black because black is the color in which all other colors merge – “Just as all colors disappear in black, so all names and forms disappear in Her” (Mahanirvana Tantra).

Thus, we have here in Shir haShirim a mystical statement regarding the Divine Essence, and the words used are feminine in form, thereby evoking the “Femininity” of that Essence.  As previously explained, one can legitimately regard either the “masculine” or “feminine” aspect of G-d as including both aspects.  In this verse, we see the “feminine” aspect as the very Essence of G-d.  It is worth noting that “Atzmut” and “Mahut,” the Hebrew words for the Divine Essence, are feminine.  Such is also the case in Arabic, where the word for the Divine Essence, “al-Dhât,” is feminine.  The Sufi master Najm al-Din Kubra wrote of “al-Dhât” as the “Mother of the divine attributes” and  Ibn al-‘Arabî wrote that “I sometimes employ the feminine pronoun in addressing Allah, keeping in view the Essence.”  So, the Jewish esoteric perspective should be regarded as fully in consonance with the Islamic one, with the role of Laila in Sufism being that of the Shulamit here.

Ruach and Chochmah

The extra-Biblical book called “Wisdom of Solomon” equates Sophia (“Chochmah”) with the “Holy Spirit” (9:17) and characterizes “Her” as Divine “Breath” (7:25).  The extra-Biblical book “Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)” states that Sophia (“Chochmah”) came out of the mouth of G-d (24:3).   Thus, it would appear that there is good reason to consider “Chochmah” of the Biblical book “Mishlei (Proverbs)” as equatable with G-d’s “Ruach” from Gen. 1:2 and elsewhere.  Some have raised the objection that while G-d’s “Ruach”, like breath in humans, must be regarded as essential (inherent) to G-d, not a creation by G-d, “Chochmah” appears to have been created (Prov. 8:22-25; Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9).  In fact, in one case, an attempt has been made to consider Sophia (“Chochmah”) as a created angelic nature of G-d’s “Ruach” existing in “hypostatic union” with “Her”, akin to the relationship of human and Divine natures in Jesus per Christian Nicene theology (cf. Sophia, The Holy Spirit: The Divine Feminine p.16).  However, a careful examination of the verses said to assert the creation of Sophia (“Chochmah”) suggest that “She” is not a creation.  First, the Hebrew verbs used in Proverbs 8:22-25 are a qal form of “qanah”, a niphal form of “nasak”, and a pulal form of “chul”.  The first word can mean “create” but in the Tanach much more commonly means “possess or acquire”.  The second word means “installed” or “anointed”, and the third means “born” or “brought forth”.  So, a plausible translation of Proverbs 8:22-25 is:
 
Y-H-W-H possessed me as the beginning of His way,
   before His works of old.
I was installed from everlasting, from the beginning,
   or ever the earth was.
When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth;
   when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills,
   I was brought forth.
 
Turning to the ancient Greek translation of Proverbs (the so-called “Septuagent”), we find that the Greek words used to translate Hebrew “qanati” are “ektise me”, with “ektise” from the verb “ktizo”.  Forms of this very same Greek verb appear in both of the other verses under consideration (Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9).  In addition to “qanah”, the Greek verb “ktizo” is used to translate a variety of Hebrew verbs in Greek translations of the Tanach, some relate to creation (“bara”, “yatzar”), but others have a variety of meanings, such as “yasad” (found or establish), “kun” (set up), and “shakan” (dwell or settle).  So, while some are eager to use the Greek verb as evidence for the creation of “Chochmah” (Sophia), the matter is not so simple, and one can legitimately understand the Greek as “The Lord established me as…”.  Furthermore, some have pointed to the linguistic relationship of “ktizo” and “ktaomai”, which means “acquire” or “possess”.  With that relationship, we may consider that the forms of “ktizo” used to translate Proverbs 8:22 and the two Ben Sirach verses (no Hebrew version of these verses has yet been discovered) are expressing “possess” just like “qanah”.

So, we are left with no legitimate reason to regard “Chochmah” (Sophia) as created.  Instead, like G-d’s “Ruach”, we should understand “Her” as something inherent (essential) to G-d, which is “brought forth” in the process of creation, as with the “breath” in creating “words”.  So like “Ruach”, there are two aspects – the one that “comes forth” (the “outward breath”, “Chochmah” as “brought forth from G-d”) and the one that is “within” (the “inward breath”, “Chochmah” as “possessed by G-d”).  The latter reflects the essentiality of the “Ruach”/ “Chochmah” to G-d, the Divine Freedom to assume limitation that is inherent in the Divine Freedom from any limitation, while the former represents the sense of separateness/distinction from G-d that marks the actualization of the Freedom to assume limitation and constitutes the very finitude of creation itself and concomitantly defines G-d as “Creator”.  The understanding that limitation, that creation, is an aspect of G-d’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah”, and that G-d’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah” is an aspect of G-d is a two-fold process that is the birth of the “Kingdom of G-d on Earth”, the realization of Oneness with G-d even in the diversity of our own existence.  This process starts with love for the Beloved, including reverence for all “Her” forms (e.g., harmlessness to all creatures as the cornerstone of daily living), and culminates in the realization that “He is She and She is He”.    

Another Pasuk (Biblical Verse) Evoking the "Feminine" Aspect of God

Job (Iyov) 33:4, in English:
"The Spirit (Breath) of G-d made me, the Breath of the Almighty (Breasted One) keeps me alive".

Two different words that both mean "breath" are used as synonyms here, with slightly different nuances - "ruach" (as we saw in a previous post, conveying the idea of soft, involuntary breathing, but also associated with speaking the things of the universe into existence) and "neshamah" (which in Gen. 2.7 is associated with the more voluntary action of G-d blowing the breath - neshamah - of life into Adam and not with speaking things into existence).  One may envision the usage here as conveying that the Divine Breath both has been used to speak a creature into existence in the first place and also to silently continue to keep the creature alive.  These two facets of the Divine Breath are presented as aspects of G-d since they doing the actions of making and life-sustaining here, and they are explicitly "Feminine", given the feminine nouns and verbal forms.  This verse thus evokes the "Feminine" aspect of G-d.  

Additionally, the verb "made" ('asah) here literally conveys acting or doing - a making from oneself, as in acting or doing in a certain way.  So, the assertion is that the "Feminine" Breath of G-d is the "material" cause, which is particularly apt since the Divine Breath is the very substance of the all-formative Divine Word, just as ordinary spoken words are comprised entirely of breath driven through the vocal apparatus to create sound.

One may also add that "Shaddai", usually translated as "Almighty", has been credibly understood as "Breasted One" (cf. http://www.academicroom.com/article/god-breasts-el-shaddai-bible) and even has been plausibly seen as an archaic West Semitic grammatically feminine word (cf. Harriet Lutzky’s 1998 Vetus Testamentum article “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet”), thereby reinforcing the "feminine" emphasis here.  In fact, if these interpretations of “Shaddai” are correct, then one may comprehend that its use here is a reflection upon the truly “androgynous” nature of the G-d Who possesses a “Feminine” Breath, i.e., this essential (inherent) “Feminine” activity of G-d manifests the reality of G-d as El (“Masculine”) Shaddai (“Feminine”).  “He is She and She is He”, which is to say:  the Divine Freedom from any limitation is the Divine Freedom to be all limited things and vice versa, for without the freedom to be all limited things, there is no freedom from that limitation, and without the freedom from any limitation, there is no freedom to go beyond the limits of self.