"Sophia was also an important mythical figure for Jewish Gnostics, such as Philo. Although later rejected by Jewish Literalists, there had always been a Jewish Goddess tradition.
the thing to remember here is that philo is not really a religious authority in mainstream judaism. he's an interesting thinker but not to be relied upon to reflect normative jewish thought. he's too influenced by hellenism and ideas like gnosticism. the central gnostic idea, that separates between the "creator" and the "demiurge", is one to which judaism is absolutely and resolutely hostile. of course, the influence of "sophia", or "hokhmah" as she would be called in judaism, was quite widespread, particularly in mystically inclined circles, which dauer has already alluded to. what is a common misconception is that all "goddess traditions" are necessarily part of an ongoing shared stream of thought. this is by no means the case - if you want to look at the history of it, i suggest raphael patai's "the hebrew goddess" - but beware, either there's a lot of stuff he doesn't know about or his conclusions are completely wrong. i found it an excellent book for source material but completely disagreed with his interpretation - it is possible to draw entirely orthodox conclusions if you know the right interpretations from elsewhere. not that i expect most people to either understand them or agree with me as a result. far more likely for them to expect their own pre-judgements to be confirmed.
At one time Israelites had worshipped the goddess Asherah as the consort of the Jewish G!D." Page 23 Book Jesus and the Goddess by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
i certainly wouldn't argue with that - it is in fact the central problem of NaKh (the rest of the OT apart from the Torah) that the israelites persisted in trying to split the Divine into two and make a "mrs god" like all the other nations in the area. you could very easily summarise the writings of the prophets into "WILL YOU IDIOTS JUST GET OVER IT? THERE IS NO MRS GOD! THE DIVINE TRANSCENDS, OR INCLUDES, OR EMBRACES ALL NOTIONS OF GENDER THAT YOUR MEAN LITTLE MINDS CAN COME UP WITH! ALL THE DIVINE ASKS OF US IS THAT WE OBSERVE THE BLOODY COMMANDMENTS! NOW GET RID OF THOSE GROVES, BULLS AND ALL THAT FERTILITY-CULT RUBBISH BEFORE YOU REALLY, REALLY REGRET IT... OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
but, of course, as we know, the israelites were too stupid, ignorant, pig-headed and bloody-minded to listen to the prophets. what has never been the case is that it was OK according to judaism to do anything with asherah other than throw her the hell out of dodge. it is of course possible to argue that the theology of the Shechinah was a concession to contemporary ideas about religion - in fact, no less an authority than maimonides suggests that even the Temple sacrificial system was a concession to this very human frailty. the point was and always has been that the central idea of judaism is that G!D Is One and any departure from this is going to cause the ignorant and the stupid to make some obvious but nonetheless serious mistakes about theology.
sacredstar, do you actually know any sufis? all the ones i know would actually agree with me that any idea of "feminine energy" is simply our perception - G!D remains Beyond our conception.
I also noticed on a Jewish website how some of the teachings had been transposed from the divine feminine to the wife of the human husband
well, the classical response to this tendency is of course to refract all fertility-cult tendencies through the conjugal relation - that's why the "song of songs" is so important (rabbi akiba called it the "holy of holies") - in other words "you want a fertility cult? start in your own bedroom by treating your wife properly." it certainly works as a strategy.
But the divine feminine plays a passive role (like a woman in an earlier society) as the receiver, which corresponds to the role of the Jewish people in their relationship with G!D, the Giver.
what people misunderstand in this is that it seems to equate to a modern idea of how women were in these earlier societies, which is very far from the truth. the idea of the Divine Feminine as "passive receiver" is simply a reflection of the *mechanical* truth of womb-as-receiver-of-active-sperm. it is an appeal to biology, not sociology. the sociological aspects are better reflected by the mystical terminology which refers to the necessity of "arousing the female waters (mayim de'nuqvin)". but this is not really an appropriate place to discuss such matters, if you don't mind me saying so.
b'shalom
bananabrain
