Remember what they told you in college about the Mother Goddess, and how all the ancient religions worshiped her, and how modern wiccans are actually carrying on her timeless cult? Remember those eminent theologians who complained that the Christian church had covered up the essential femininity of God?
Balderdash, says Philip G. Davis, in the new book, Goddess Unmasked, reviewed here at The American Spectator Online by the always readable Hal G. P. Colebatch.
(Colebatch, by the way, is an e-mail friend of mine. He’s co-written a book for Baen Books, and allowed me to read the beginning of an unfinished mystery he’s working on. I really look forward to reading the whole thing in print someday.)
I have a problem with this assertion:
Davis’s scholarship leaves nothing standing of the notion that goddess-worship is an authentic religion. It is the invention of latter-day crooks, cranks and creeps.
The test of a religion’s truthfulness is not in how old it is. At one point in time Christianity was new. At earlier point in time Judaism was new.
I think the operative point is that goddess-worship claims to be an ancient religion, one which goes back to the very beginnings of time. If that is false, as Davis contends, then their central doctrine is a fraud.
I balked at that word too, Ori, but I think Lars’ point resolves it. Any system of worship based on things which did not occur could be legitimately called inauthentic. Mormanism is a much more respectable system than Wicca, but if Joseph Smith made up or plagiarized the text he presented as a revelation, then his system is a fraud, an inauthentic religion.
One of the commenters quoted Chesterton on worshiping Moloch–chilling.
Any system of worship based on things which did not occur could be legitimately called inauthentic. Mormanism is a much more respectable system than Wicca, but if Joseph Smith made up or plagiarized the text he presented as a revelation, then his system is a fraud, an inauthentic religion.
I’m not so sure. God chose, for whatever divine reasons, to use imperfect human vessels to deliver His teachings to us. How can you tell if Joseph Smith made up something on his own, or was inspired to do so? If he plagiarized material, how could you tell if the plagiarized material was fake or an earlier revelation?
There are many similarities between Genesis and the Babylonian myth. Does that mean that Genesis is plagiarized from Babylonian myth? That the Babylonian myth is an imperfectly remembered echo of events that happened prior to the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai? Or that God has revealed some things to the Babylonians, and they tried to fit them into their polytheistic world view?
It’s not just that we don’t know. We can’t know.
I place a high value on claims of historical fact. I believe the historical claims of Christianity, and also (by extension) of Judaism. I reject Mormonism, in part, because I don’t believe its historical assertions. If it could be proven to me (I realize I’m being safe here, as such proof is hard to come by) that Jesus was not raised from the dead, I would–with great sorrow–abandon Christianity. All truth is one. That’s one implication of our scriptural motto, “The Word Became Flesh.” A religion that only makes truth claims in the spiritual realm does not meet my full needs and does not interest me.
At what point do you distinguish the religion from beliefs held by its followers? For example, AFAIK in 1300 almost all Christians(1) believed that having celibate monks is a good thing. As a Lutheran, I assume you don’t – yet as a Lutheran, you obviously believe in other Christian dogmas.
The resurrection of Jesus is inseparable from Christianity. Men cannot keep God dead. But the story of Noah’s flood is separable from Judaism – you can believe it is a parable designed to teach us something, without invalidating Judaism. Similarly, the ancient origin of Wicca is separable from the actual religions from what I know.
Not sure about Mormonism. I’d love to have an LDS chime in on this discussion.
(1) Both Catholics and Greek Orthodox have monasteries.
I don’t believe that God inspires lies. I don’t believe that something can be factually false but spiritually true. For an orthodox Christian, that would render the message of Christ’s resurrection utterly irrelevant.
I have no factual argument with those who believe in monasticism. Monasticism existed and exists; we all agree on that. Whether it’s God’s will is a disagreement of theology and interpretation, not of fact.
I believe in a literal flood, but would never say that believing that is necessary for salvation. There are central truths and secondary truths, I’ll grant.
But the point with Goddess Religion and Wicca is that it appears they were invented fraudulently by people who knew they were telling lies. So-called “scholars” who falsified the data. Perverts who were looking for sexual prey. If such allegations are true, then we’re dealing with plain deception, and not sincere mysticism (or even nuttery). I consider the qualifications of a religion’s founder a matter of genuine concern. If I sincerely believed in Bernard Madoff, and made over my money to him, no amount of sincerity on my part would save me from financial ruin. Belief in a lie, sincere or not, has consequences. I believe that this is true in the spiritual realm as well.
There were, though, goddess religions in the early period — even if they were not anything like what the Wiccans represent. Mostly they seem to have been sacrificial religions, sometimes making symbolic human sacrifices — but often actual ones. See Beowulf & Grendel, by John Grisby for a fairly good treatment of these early, and rather bloodthirsty, religions; their replacement by the Odhinnic cult of the Aesir in the north; and an account of how the Beowulf may have recorded that story in a form that the later monks did not quite fully appreciate.
A further consideration is the uses to which the “Mother Goddess” fallacy has been put. The theory has been used to attack orthodox Christianity (via goofs like Dan Brown and feminist theologians) and to provide a “historical, scholarly) foundation for the worst excesses of radical feminism in all areas of life. These amount to assaults on traditional beliefs and values. It’s worth pointing out how thin the foundations for these attacks are.
Ori, about LDS, the last time we had a discuss about it on this blog, a well-spoken defender showed up but did not care to argue the historical part. It didn’t matter to him.
But it should matter to everyone. God gave us so many historical details in the Bible it is as if he is daring us to question them. It’s important that King David was an actual person, that the Israelites really did leave Egypt all at once (after the biggest show in the world), and that the temple was built and destroyed. When people try to discredit some of it, they are working on the argument against all of it.
Another example has come up recently–the gnostic gospels. Early Christians rejected those letters for solid reasons, like the fact they were written a few centuries after Christ and that they conflicted with the rest of accepted Scripture, both in the factual claims and doctrine presented.
Lars, I fully agree with your last statement. While I respect some Wiccans as individuals, some of the ideology exists as an attack against Christianity – and not an honest attack.
I certainly agree with Phil’s last posting… However, I’ve never met a Wiccan that I appreciated as a person or as anything else. ANY that I have met/known for any length of time have displayed violent tendencies towards Christians, conservatives, or basically anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. Whether they look like conservative me or file their canine teeth to points and split their tongues… It is always the same.
I cannot, however, make the same point with Mormons, Shintos, Buddhists, Confusionist, (sp?)Hindus, etc…
I do hope this doesn’t sound like a hate message here!!! I am sincerely relating my personal history. No offense Ori.
John, no offense taken. I met a bunch of SCA people who were neopagan of various stripes and nice people – but either way it’s anecdotal evidence.
Phil: But it should matter to everyone. God gave us so many historical details in the Bible it is as if he is daring us to question them. It’s important that King David was an actual person, that the Israelites really did leave Egypt all at once (after the biggest show in the world), and that the temple was built and destroyed. When people try to discredit some of it, they are working on the argument against all of it.
Ori: The problem is that historical verification is often difficult to impossible. The first piece of biblical history for which we have independent verification is the Shishaq expedition. In some cases, such as the Mesha Stela, the evidence contradicts what the Bible says. Of the most important events, the Exodus and the Giving of the Torah, there is no independent evidence.
Therefore, it is hard for me to take as a given that all the historical information in the Bible is correct. I know the Greeks told each other stories that intertwined history and mythology, and I don’t see how I can be sure that the Israelites did not.
Historical novels are a way to convey moral lessons. If later generations get confused between history and a story that is based on history, that does not invalidate the moral lesson.
Maybe I’m just a coward, afraid that my whole world view would collapse because of new historical findings.
I know archeologists and historians have tried to make those findings in order to invalidate the Bible, but the document itself is a fantastic record with evidence showing it hasn’t been altered over the years. As a historical source, the Bible can’t be beat.
As for specific details, it will come down to faith for most of us. A while back, someone made a dig around Jericho and concluded the city could not have been standing when Joshua supposedly took it down. I’m sure some students were taught that in school, but since that time other digs have been made and the first claims dismissed as shallow. Jericho has been discovered, and it has walls fallen flat to the ground.
Another point which I think is still in play is the Bible’s reference to Hittites. If I remember correctly, no one has any idea who they are, so the folks who want to doubt the Bible say the never existed, and they will continue to say that until someone who trusts the Bible or is open to its accuracy finds a record of the Hittites.
I want to carry on what I was saying before. The Bible is such a fantastic historic document that the only reason people would doubt it without contradictory evidence is religious bias or a natural opposition the one, true God. From the stories I’ve heard, every time someone claims to have evidence refuting a big story in the Bible the claims are later rejected by better or new research.
What you say about moral lessons is good, but there’s a problem with it. If the Bible presents a story as factual, as actual history, then we should take it as such or else the Bible is lying. That’s what Lars is saying. We believe the whole Bible is inspired by God or “God-breathed” as a New Testament verse puts it. If it has presented fiction as fact in some of its stories, then God has lied to us.
Of course, it isn’t always clear cut. For instance, I’m willing to believe the book of Job is historical, that all the details are dramatically presented but nonetheless true. It’s possible that the book is not describing an actual event and discussion. That wouldn’t harm to the value of the book. But most of the OT would be harmed, if it weren’t true.
Phil, I have good news for you about the Hittites. We have independent verification of their existence in Turkey, and it’s not too far fetched to assume a small group immigrated to Canaan for some reason.
However, there are several reasons that could lead us to doubt the Old Testament, at least to the point of wishing for additional verification:
1. Some of the stories are fantastic. It is obviously in God’s power to make a donkey talk, for example. But God seems to prefer not to make donkeys talk most of the time. What was so special about Balaam that merited such a miracle? How does a star fight against Sisera?
2. People in the Old Testament itself do not seem to have paid it much attention. You’ve read the Bible, you know that putting up a golden calf to worship God is a really bad idea. How come Jeroboam didn’t know that? How come his people were perfectly willing to accept it, and did not rebel?
3. The stories are not consistent. In Kings, Solomon gives Hiram territory. In Chronicles, Hiram gives Solomon territory. If they exchanged territory, as some Jewish sources claim, how come neither source tells us the whole story?
4. Numbers appear to have been used less accurately in Biblical Hebrew. For example, did Gideon have 70 sons? Did he have 70 sons except for Abimelech? 70 sons except for Jotham and Abimelech? If we misunderstand 70, because it looks like it is used to mean “a lot” instead of a specific number, what else are we misunderstanding?
If the OT claims to be history, it would be harmed if it were untrue. But if it historical stories, which we’re too ignorant to recognize as such, the problem is with us, not the OT. Lars is not at fault if in a thousand years some scholar finds West Oversea stripped of its cover, and assumes it is true history.
Phil: but the document itself is a fantastic record with evidence showing it hasn’t been altered over the years.
Ori: I disagree, at least for the older parts. The custom of publicly reading the Pentateuch seems to have started with Ezra. This means that it couldn’t have been altered since that time. However, that’s early 2nd Temple. We don’t know how many Torah scrolls the exiles were allowed to take to Babylon, for example. Therefore, we don’t have good evidence that the Torah had not been altered prior to that point.
With the prophets and the writings (the non Pentateuch Old Testament) became scripture even later. We don’t have evidence they have been altered, but we don’t have evidence they haven’t been either.
BTW, I’m sorry if I appear awfully disrespectful. We are not a respectful people. The first identifiably Jewish man haggled with God. Later God named our direct ancestor “he who struggles with God”.
Being a good Jew doesn’t mean you don’t question God. It means you’re willing to listen to the answer and obey God’s laws. Of course, I’m not a particularly good Jew.
Ori, you’ve raised several issues, and I don’t know that I can discuss them all. Maybe I shouldn’t, because wishing for outside verification is different than suspending belief in the biblical account due to a lack of outside verification. And the Bible was written to testify of God. If a reader rejects His lordship, then he isn’t going to readily submit to its authority.
Still the Bible is an amazing historical document, and I don’t see what the start of its public reading has to do with it. The documents we have and their translations are profound in what they record and how they agree with each other. It’s better, I understand, than any other ancient record.
But it still an ancient record, not an account written by modern Americans, so some details like the numbers you mention are not used the same way we would use them. We have to work to understand what the text is intending to say before we can trust it as fully accurate. I don’t know how the numbers of Gideon’s sons work out, and I know of other places where numbers are intended as symbols or terms instead of an actual count of something. That doesn’t mean the Bible is inaccurate or deceptive, and that’s the point.
Take the Balaam story. Sure you have to take a talking donkey and angelic visitation by faith. Even if we found a stone with artwork depicting the biblical account in detail, we could easily say it was a made-up story because we didn’t believe in miracles. But the points of history in that story are that Balak, son of Zippor, was king of Moab, and Balaam was a sooth-sayer of some kind, and Kiriath Huzoth was an actual city. Those are details that could be verified in other ancient records, and the Bible is credible enough for archeologists to bank on it instead of trying to debunk it.
Interestingly, Balaam is one of the earliest biblical figures for whom we have extrabiblical attestation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
This is blowing up into a number of topics, so I’ll answer them in separate posts. That’s way we can refer to post number if we need to – OK?
Phil: Ori, you’ve raised several issues, and I don’t know that I can discuss them all. Maybe I shouldn’t, because wishing for outside verification is different than suspending belief in the biblical account due to a lack of outside verification.
Ori: My problem is that I got convinced that God exists primarily through reason. However, that doesn’t tell me what God wants me to do. That’s the big question, and many people claim they know the answer. However, they have mutually contradictory answers. Most of them must be wrong, at least on some particulars.
I try to check various authorities as best I can. That includes trying to verify the bible.
Phil: Still the Bible is an amazing historical document, and I don’t see what the start of its public reading has to do with it. The documents we have and their translations are profound in what they record and how they agree with each other. It’s better, I understand, than any other ancient record.
Ori: One of the reasons the Bible is such a consistent record is that for most things it records it is the only record. The geography mostly matches, but that’s partially because many of the locations were identified using the Bible itself as a clue.
For most other ancient histories we have either multiple pieces of evidence (say, the Roman Republic), or none (Gaul in the 10 century BC).
I thought that once public reading started it would have been nearly impossible to modify the Torah. However, the differences between the Jewish text we have and the one in the dead sea scrolls arguably gives the lie to that idea.
Phil: But the points of history in that story are that Balak, son of Zippor, was king of Moab, and Balaam was a sooth-sayer of some kind, and Kiriath Huzoth was an actual city.
Ori: It’s easy to weave together real facts and imaginary ones. There really was a Troy, for example. The Greeks really did attack it. However, Athena probably did not whisper suggestions to Odysseus to help the war.
All I can think to say is that reason relies on faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen–that’s what we’re talking about here. Is the Pentatuch, Old Testament, or the whole Christian Bible the very Word of God? We can’t verify that. It’s an original source which stands on its own feet. We can fact-check some of it, but the really important claims must be taken or rejected on their own terms.
So we either trust God has represented himself well in this text or his claims must be verified against our own research and common sense.