What Became of God the Mother? Elaine H.Pagels. - 2

[Guest guest]

What Became of God the Mother?

Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity

Elaine H.Pagels.

 

Taken from Womanspirit Rising pp107-119. Ed. Carol P.Christ and

Judith Plaskow. Harper & Row, 1979.

 

Elaine H. Pagels received her Ph. D. from Harvard University and now

teaches at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is author of The

Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis and The Gnostic Paul. Her

articles have appeared in Harvard Theological Review, Journal for

Biblical Literature, and Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

This essay originally appeared in Signs (Vol. 2, no. 2), c 1976 by

The University of Chicago, and is reprinted by permission of The

University of Chicago Press.

 

--

 

 

All of these are, of course, mythical explanations. To look for the

actual, historical reasons why these gnostic writings were suppressed

is an extremely difficult proposition, for it raises the much larger

question of how (i.e., by what means and what criteria) certain

ideas, including those expressed in the texts cited above, came to be

classified as heretical and others as orthodox by the beginning of

the third century. Although the research is still in its early

stages, and this question is far from being solved, we may find one

clue if we ask whether these secret groups derived any practical,

social consequences from their conception of God—and of mankind—that

included the feminine element? Here again the answer is yes and can

be found in the orthodox texts themselves. Irenaeus, an orthodox

bishop, for example, notes with dismay that women in particular are

attracted to heretical groups—especially to Marcus's circle, in which

prayers are offered to the Mother in her aspects as Silence, Grace,

and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with men; and

women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community

what " the Spirit " reveals to them.(33) Professing himself to be at a

loss to understand the attraction that Marcus's group holds, he

offers only one explanation: that Marcus himself is a diabolically

successful seducer, a magician who compounds special aphrodisiacs

to " deceive, victimize, and defile " these " many foolish women! "

Whether his accusation has any factual basis is difficult, probably

impossible, to ascertain. Nevertheless, the historian notes that

accusations of sexual license are a stock-in-trade of polemical

arguments.(34) The bishop refuses to admit the possibility that the

group might attract Christians—especially women—for sound and

comprehensible reasons. While expressing his own moral outrage,

Tertullian, another " father of the church, " reveals his fundamental

desire to keep women out of religion: " These heretical women—how

audacious they are! They have no modesty: they are bold enough to

teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures,

and, it may be, even to baptize! " (35) Tertullian directs yet another

attack against " that viper " —a woman teacher who led a congregation in

North Africa.(36) Marcion had, in fact, scandalized his " orthodox "

contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as

priests and bishops among his congregations.(37) The teacher

Marcillina also traveled to Rome to represent the Carpocratian group,

an esoteric circle that claimed to have received secret teaching from

Mary, Salome, and Martha.(38) And among the Montanists, a radical

prophetic circle, the prophet Philumene was reputed to have hired a

male secretary to transcribe her inspired oracles.(39)

 

Other secret texts, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the

Wisdom of Faith, suggest that the activity of such women leaders

challenged and therefore was challenged by the orthodox communities

who regarded Peter as their spokesman. The Gospel of Mary relates

that Mary tried to encourage the disciples after the crucifixion and

to tell them what the Lord had told her privately. Peter, furious at

the suggestion, asks, " Did he then talk secretly with a woman,

instead of to us? Are we to go and learn from her now? Did he love

her more than us? " Distressed at his rage, Mary then asks

Peter: " What do you think? Do you think I made this up in my heart?

Do you think I am lying about the Lord? " Levi breaks in at this point

to mediate the dispute: " Peter, you are always irascible. You object

to the woman as our enemies do. Surely the Lord knew her very well,

and indeed, he loved her more than us. " Then he and the others invite

Mary to teach them what she knows.(40) Another argument between Peter

and Mary occurs in Wisdom of Faith. Peter complains that Mary is

dominating the conversation, even to the point of displacing the

rightful priority of Peter himself and his brethren; he urges Jesus

to silence her—and is quickly rebuked. Later, however, Mary admits to

Jesus that she hardly dares to speak freely with him, because " Peter

makes me hesitate: I am afraid of him, because he hates the female

race. " Jesus replies that whoever receives inspiration from the

Spirit is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.(41)

 

As these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men,

they were revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers, traveling

evangelists, healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these

groups, they played leading roles and were excluded from them in the

orthodox churches, at least by A.D. 150-200. Is it possible, then,

that the recognition of the feminine element in God and the

recognition of mankind as a male and female entity bore within it the

explosive social possibility of women acting on an equal basis with

men in positions of authority and leadership? If this were true, it

might lead to the conclusion that these gnostic groups, together with

their conception of God and human nature, were suppressed only

because of their positive attitude toward women. But such a

conclusion would be a mistake—a hasty and simplistic reading of the

evidence. In the first place, orthodox Christian doctrine is far from

wholly negative in its attitude toward women. Second, many other

elements of the gnostic sources diverge in fundamental ways from what

came to be accepted as orthodox Christian teaching. To examine this

process in detail would require a much more extensive discussion than

is possible here. Nevertheless, the evidence does indicate that two

very different patterns of sexual attitudes emerged in orthodox and

gnostic circles. In simplest form, gnostic theologians correlate

their description of God in both masculine and feminine terms with a

complementary description of human nature. Most often they refer to

the creation account of Genesis 1, which suggests an equal (or even

androgynous) creation of mankind. This conception carries the

principle of equality between men and women into the practical social

and political structures of gnostic communities. The orthodox pattern

is strikingly different: it describes God in exclusively masculine

terms and often uses Genesis 2 to describe how Eve was created from

Adam and for his fulfillment. Like the gnostic view, the orthodox

also translates into sociological practice: by the late second

century, orthodox Christians came to accept the domination of men

over women as the proper, God-given order—not only for the human

race, but also for the Christian churches. This correlation between

theology, anthropology, and sociology is not lost on the apostle

Paul. In his letter to the disorderly Corinthian community, he

reminds them of a divinely ordained chain of authority: As God has

authority over Christ, so the man has authority over the woman,

argues Paul, citing Genesis 2: " The man is the image and glory of

God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman,

but woman from man; and besides, the man was not created for the

woman's sake, but the woman for the sake of the man. " (42) Here the

three elements of the orthodox pattern are welded into one simple

argument: the description of God corresponds to a description of

human nature which authorizes the social pattern of male domination.

 

A striking exception to this orthodox pattern occurs in the writings

of one revered " father of the church, " Clement of Alexandria. Clement

identifies himself as orthodox, although he knows members of gnostic

groups and their writings well; some scholars suggest that he was

himself a gnostic initiate. Yet his own works demonstrate how all

three elements of what we have called the " gnostic pattern " could be

worked into fully " orthodox " teaching. First, Clement characterizes

God not only in masculine but also in feminine terms: " The Word is

everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and

nurse.... The nutriment is the milk of the father. . . and the Word

alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who

suck at this breast are truly happy.... For this reason seeking is

called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father's

loving breasts supply milk.(43) Second, in describing human nature,

he insists that " men and women share equally in perfection, and are

to receive the same instruction and discipline. For the

name `humanity' is common to both men and women; and for us `in

Christ there is neither male nor female.' " (44) Even in considering

the active participation of women with men in the Christian community

Clement offers a list—unique in orthodox tradition—of women whose

achievements he admires. They range from ancient examples, like

Judith, the assassin who destroyed Israel's enemy, to Queen Esther,

who rescued her people from genocide, as well as others who took

radical political stands. He speaks of Arignole the historian, of

Themisto the Epicurean philosopher, and of many other women

philosophers, including two who studied with Plato and one trained by

Socrates. Indeed, he cannot contain his praise: " What shall I say?

Did not Theano the Pythagoran make such progress in philosophy that

when a man, staring at her, said, `Your arm is beautiful,' she

replied, `Yes, but it is not on public display.' " (45) Clement

concludes his list with famous women poets and painters.

 

If the work of Clement, who taught in Egypt before the lines of

orthodoxy and heresy were rigidly drawn (ca. A.D. 160-80)

demonstrates how gnostic principles could be incorporated even into

orthodox Christian teaching, the majority of communities in the

western empire headed by Rome did not follow his example. By the year

A.D. 200, Roman Christians endorsed as " canonical " the pseudo-Pauline

letter to Timothy, which interpreted Paul's views: " Let a woman learn

in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to

teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent,

for [note Gen. 2!] Adam was formed first, then Eve and furthermore,

Adam was not deceived, but the woman was utterly seduced and came

into sin. " (45) How are we to account for this irreversible

development? The question deserves investigation which this

discussion can only initiate. For example, one would need to examine

how (and for what reasons) the zealously patriarchal traditions of

Israel were adopted by the Roman (and other) Christian communities.

Further research might disclose how social and cultural forces

converged to suppress feminine symbolism—and women's participation—

from western Christian tradition. Given such research, the history of

Christianity never could be told in the same way again.

 

What Became of God the Mother?

Elaine H. Pagels

 

 

NOTES

 

33. AH, 1.13.7.

 

34. Ibid., 1.13.2-5.

 

35. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (hereafter cited as

DP), ed. E. Oethler (Lipsius, 1853-54), p. 41.

 

36. De Baptismo 1. I am grateful to Cyril Richardson for calling my

attention to this passage and to the three subsequent ones.

 

37. Epiphanes, De Baptismo, 42.5.

 

38. AH, 1.25.6.

 

39. DP, 6.30.

 

40. The Gospel according to Mary, Codex Berolinensis, BG, 8502,1.7.1-

1.19.5, ea., intro., and trans. G. MacRae, unpublished manuscript.

 

41. Pistis Sophia, ed. Carl Schmidt (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1925),

36 (57), 71 (161).

 

42. 1 Cor. 11 :7-9. For discussion, see R. Scroggs, " Paul and the

Eschatological Woman, " Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40

(1972): 283-303; R. Scroggs, " Paul and the Eschatological Woman:

Revisited, " Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 532-

37; and E. Pagels, " Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion, "

Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1972): 538-49.

 

43. Clement Alexandrinus, Paidegogos, ed. O. Stählin (Leipzig, 1905),

1.6.

 

44. Ibid., 1.4.

 

45. Ibid., 1.19.

 

46. 2 Tim. 2:11-14.

[Guest guest]

, " jagbir

singh " <adishakti_org wrote:

 

Elaine Pagels states:

 

" Further research might disclose how social and cultural forces converged to

suppress feminine symbolism—and women's participation—from western Christian

tradition. Given such research, the history of Christianity never could be told

in the same way again. "

 

 

Dear Jagbir and All,

 

As Elaine Pagel states, further research might disclose the social and cultural

forces that have converged to suppress the Divine Feminine in Christianity. Once

this reseach is done, Christians won't have to rely on blind faith so much, in

regards to the spiritual understanding of many topics.... and especially with

regard to the existence of God, the Mother.

 

As far as most Christians are concerned, there is " no God, the Mother " , though

there is God, the Father and God, the Son. However, who ever heard of a father

and a son, without a mother? There cannot be a son without the mother! God, the

Mother has just been disguised in Christianity as the " Holy Spirit " , but most

Christians do not know that the Holy Spirit is actually " God, the Mother! " This

is because Her Identity has not been declared, but it has been deliberately

hidden and obscured.

 

So, who has done that? It is the patriarchy who have done that. The Divine

Feminine, " God, the Mother " does exist in the Bible, but you have to know how to

find Her, as She has been shrouded in great secrecy and mystery. It is obvious

that She has been deliberately hidden. The question needs to be asked: Why did

they hide Her? Were they afraid of Her Power? Are patriarchists still afraid of

Her Power today?

 

i would answer that patriarchy are still afraid of Her Power, which is the Power

of Love. No force can withstand Her Power of Love. Even today, the patriarchy

are afraid of the power of the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit. They decline to

publicly declare Her Identitiy today too, however it is our Mission to do so. It

does not matter anymore that the patriarchy do not wish to declare Her Identity.

It is being declared to the public now!

 

It is at this Special Last Judgment and Resurrection Time, that the mass of

human beings are starting to awaken, and they are starting to realise that they

do not want to be tied to any patriarchal 'apron string' anymore, because the

Patriarchy have let them down once too often. The patriarchy have also ridden

roughshod over the feminine power... from individual woman to the Divine

Feminine Incarnate Herself. The ways of patriarchy have become so passe, so

outmoded, so boring. They are ever up to their age-old tricks of power and

domination. Everyone is just so sick and tired of them. They have been around

for thousands of years. It is time for a change!

 

The Patriarchy have also come to Sahaja Yoga, and have organised in and around

the teachings of Shri Mataji. How do we know they are a patriarchy though? When

the men collectively inform you that " they " are the Will of the Great Feminine

Divine Incarnation of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, then the warning bells should be

ringing really loudly. After all, what is their need to declare such a thing?

The Sahaja Yogis already know what is the Will of Shri Mataji. They have known

it for the last 30 years or so. Therefore there is no need to inform them!

 

Therefore, this tells us that their declaration is the perennial priestly farce.

We know very well that only those men and women who " live " what She has taught,

will also " know " Her Will " from within " . They will shine their Light for

everyone to see, and not hide it. They dedicate to Shri Mataji and not to Sahaja

Yoga, just as Shri Mataji asked them:

 

" You have to dedicate yourself completely to me, not to Sahaja Yoga, but to me.

Sahaja Yoga is only one of my aspects. Leaving everything you have to dedicate.

Complete dedication – otherwise you cannot ascend any further. Without

questioning, Without arguing, complete dedication is the only way you can

achieve it. " (Shri Mataji - Cheltenham, U.K. – 31 July 1982)

 

So, Christians can have new hope too, as the Holy Spirit of the western

Christian tradition is God, the Mother, and She is here, in our Scriptures, and

in our hearts, waiting to give us our Second Birth of the Spirit! People from

the Christian tradition will find joy, just as i did, when they realise that we

not only have a God, the Father, God, the Son... but that naturally we must have

a God, the Mother too!

 

 

In our work of populating the site of http://www.holyspirit-shekinah.org/ we may

yet find material, if the research has been done, which may disclose more about

the social and cultural forces that have converged to suppress feminine

symbolism—and women's participation—from western Christian tradition.

 

That said, these two articles (1 and 2) are excellent. Could you please upload

these to the Holy Spirit/Shekinah site for us too, Jagbir? i say " us " because

(as Jagbir already knows too) Nicole has agreed to work together on this site

with me. We have great expectations for this site, which is to become a place

where Christians from the western tradition will learn about their lost " God,

the Mother! "

 

So, welcome aboard Nicole. It will be a pleasure to work together with you!

 

love and best wishes to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

 

What Became of God the Mother?

> Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity

> Elaine H.Pagels.

>

> Taken from Womanspirit Rising pp107-119. Ed. Carol P.Christ and

> Judith Plaskow. Harper & Row, 1979.

>

> Elaine H. Pagels received her Ph. D. from Harvard University and

now

> teaches at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is author of

The

> Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis and The Gnostic Paul. Her

> articles have appeared in Harvard Theological Review, Journal for

> Biblical Literature, and Journal of the American Academy of

Religion.

> This essay originally appeared in Signs (Vol. 2, no. 2), c 1976 by

> The University of Chicago, and is reprinted by permission of The

> University of Chicago Press.

>

> --

>

>

> All of these are, of course, mythical explanations. To look for the

> actual, historical reasons why these gnostic writings were

suppressed

> is an extremely difficult proposition, for it raises the much

larger

> question of how (i.e., by what means and what criteria) certain

> ideas, including those expressed in the texts cited above, came to

be

> classified as heretical and others as orthodox by the beginning of

> the third century. Although the research is still in its early

> stages, and this question is far from being solved, we may find one

> clue if we ask whether these secret groups derived any practical,

> social consequences from their conception of God—and of mankind—

that

> included the feminine element? Here again the answer is yes and can

> be found in the orthodox texts themselves. Irenaeus, an orthodox

> bishop, for example, notes with dismay that women in particular are

> attracted to heretical groups—especially to Marcus's circle, in

which

> prayers are offered to the Mother in her aspects as Silence, Grace,

> and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with men;

and

> women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community

> what " the Spirit " reveals to them.(33) Professing himself to be at

a

> loss to understand the attraction that Marcus's group holds, he

> offers only one explanation: that Marcus himself is a diabolically

> successful seducer, a magician who compounds special aphrodisiacs

> to " deceive, victimize, and defile " these " many foolish women! "

> Whether his accusation has any factual basis is difficult, probably

> impossible, to ascertain. Nevertheless, the historian notes that

> accusations of sexual license are a stock-in-trade of polemical

> arguments.(34) The bishop refuses to admit the possibility that the

> group might attract Christians—especially women—for sound and

> comprehensible reasons. While expressing his own moral outrage,

> Tertullian, another " father of the church, " reveals his fundamental

> desire to keep women out of religion: " These heretical women—how

> audacious they are! They have no modesty: they are bold enough to

> teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake

cures,

> and, it may be, even to baptize! " (35) Tertullian directs yet

another

> attack against " that viper " —a woman teacher who led a congregation

in

> North Africa.(36) Marcion had, in fact, scandalized his " orthodox "

> contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as

> priests and bishops among his congregations.(37) The teacher

> Marcillina also traveled to Rome to represent the Carpocratian

group,

> an esoteric circle that claimed to have received secret teaching

from

> Mary, Salome, and Martha.(38) And among the Montanists, a radical

> prophetic circle, the prophet Philumene was reputed to have hired a

> male secretary to transcribe her inspired oracles.(39)

>

> Other secret texts, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the

> Wisdom of Faith, suggest that the activity of such women leaders

> challenged and therefore was challenged by the orthodox communities

> who regarded Peter as their spokesman. The Gospel of Mary relates

> that Mary tried to encourage the disciples after the crucifixion

and

> to tell them what the Lord had told her privately. Peter, furious

at

> the suggestion, asks, " Did he then talk secretly with a woman,

> instead of to us? Are we to go and learn from her now? Did he love

> her more than us? " Distressed at his rage, Mary then asks

> Peter: " What do you think? Do you think I made this up in my heart?

> Do you think I am lying about the Lord? " Levi breaks in at this

point

> to mediate the dispute: " Peter, you are always irascible. You

object

> to the woman as our enemies do. Surely the Lord knew her very well,

> and indeed, he loved her more than us. " Then he and the others

invite

> Mary to teach them what she knows.(40) Another argument between

Peter

> and Mary occurs in Wisdom of Faith. Peter complains that Mary is

> dominating the conversation, even to the point of displacing the

> rightful priority of Peter himself and his brethren; he urges Jesus

> to silence her—and is quickly rebuked. Later, however, Mary admits

to

> Jesus that she hardly dares to speak freely with him, because

" Peter

> makes me hesitate: I am afraid of him, because he hates the female

> race. " Jesus replies that whoever receives inspiration from the

> Spirit is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.(41)

>

> As these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men,

> they were revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers,

traveling

> evangelists, healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these

> groups, they played leading roles and were excluded from them in

the

> orthodox churches, at least by A.D. 150-200. Is it possible, then,

> that the recognition of the feminine element in God and the

> recognition of mankind as a male and female entity bore within it

the

> explosive social possibility of women acting on an equal basis with

> men in positions of authority and leadership? If this were true, it

> might lead to the conclusion that these gnostic groups, together

with

> their conception of God and human nature, were suppressed only

> because of their positive attitude toward women. But such a

> conclusion would be a mistake—a hasty and simplistic reading of the

> evidence. In the first place, orthodox Christian doctrine is far

from

> wholly negative in its attitude toward women. Second, many other

> elements of the gnostic sources diverge in fundamental ways from

what

> came to be accepted as orthodox Christian teaching. To examine this

> process in detail would require a much more extensive discussion

than

> is possible here. Nevertheless, the evidence does indicate that two

> very different patterns of sexual attitudes emerged in orthodox and

> gnostic circles. In simplest form, gnostic theologians correlate

> their description of God in both masculine and feminine terms with

a

> complementary description of human nature. Most often they refer to

> the creation account of Genesis 1, which suggests an equal (or even

> androgynous) creation of mankind. This conception carries the

> principle of equality between men and women into the practical

social

> and political structures of gnostic communities. The orthodox

pattern

> is strikingly different: it describes God in exclusively masculine

> terms and often uses Genesis 2 to describe how Eve was created from

> Adam and for his fulfillment. Like the gnostic view, the orthodox

> also translates into sociological practice: by the late second

> century, orthodox Christians came to accept the domination of men

> over women as the proper, God-given order—not only for the human

> race, but also for the Christian churches. This correlation between

> theology, anthropology, and sociology is not lost on the apostle

> Paul. In his letter to the disorderly Corinthian community, he

> reminds them of a divinely ordained chain of authority: As God has

> authority over Christ, so the man has authority over the woman,

> argues Paul, citing Genesis 2: " The man is the image and glory of

> God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman,

> but woman from man; and besides, the man was not created for the

> woman's sake, but the woman for the sake of the man. " (42) Here the

> three elements of the orthodox pattern are welded into one simple

> argument: the description of God corresponds to a description of

> human nature which authorizes the social pattern of male

domination.

>

> A striking exception to this orthodox pattern occurs in the

writings

> of one revered " father of the church, " Clement of Alexandria.

Clement

> identifies himself as orthodox, although he knows members of

gnostic

> groups and their writings well; some scholars suggest that he was

> himself a gnostic initiate. Yet his own works demonstrate how all

> three elements of what we have called the " gnostic pattern " could

be

> worked into fully " orthodox " teaching. First, Clement characterizes

> God not only in masculine but also in feminine terms: " The Word is

> everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and

> nurse.... The nutriment is the milk of the father. . . and the Word

> alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those

who

> suck at this breast are truly happy.... For this reason seeking is

> called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father's

> loving breasts supply milk.(43) Second, in describing human nature,

> he insists that " men and women share equally in perfection, and are

> to receive the same instruction and discipline. For the

> name `humanity' is common to both men and women; and for us `in

> Christ there is neither male nor female.' " (44) Even in considering

> the active participation of women with men in the Christian

community

> Clement offers a list—unique in orthodox tradition—of women whose

> achievements he admires. They range from ancient examples, like

> Judith, the assassin who destroyed Israel's enemy, to Queen Esther,

> who rescued her people from genocide, as well as others who took

> radical political stands. He speaks of Arignole the historian, of

> Themisto the Epicurean philosopher, and of many other women

> philosophers, including two who studied with Plato and one trained

by

> Socrates. Indeed, he cannot contain his praise: " What shall I say?

> Did not Theano the Pythagoran make such progress in philosophy that

> when a man, staring at her, said, `Your arm is beautiful,' she

> replied, `Yes, but it is not on public display.' " (45) Clement

> concludes his list with famous women poets and painters.

>

> If the work of Clement, who taught in Egypt before the lines of

> orthodoxy and heresy were rigidly drawn (ca. A.D. 160-80)

> demonstrates how gnostic principles could be incorporated even into

> orthodox Christian teaching, the majority of communities in the

> western empire headed by Rome did not follow his example. By the

year

> A.D. 200, Roman Christians endorsed as " canonical " the pseudo-

Pauline

> letter to Timothy, which interpreted Paul's views: " Let a woman

learn

> in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to

> teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent,

> for [note Gen. 2!] Adam was formed first, then Eve and furthermore,

> Adam was not deceived, but the woman was utterly seduced and came

> into sin. " (45) How are we to account for this irreversible

> development? The question deserves investigation which this

> discussion can only initiate. For example, one would need to

examine

> how (and for what reasons) the zealously patriarchal traditions of

> Israel were adopted by the Roman (and other) Christian communities.

> Further research might disclose how social and cultural forces

> converged to suppress feminine symbolism—and women's participation—

> from western Christian tradition. Given such research, the history

of

> Christianity never could be told in the same way again.

>

> What Became of God the Mother?

> Elaine H. Pagels

>

>

> NOTES

>

> 33. AH, 1.13.7.

>

> 34. Ibid., 1.13.2-5.

>

> 35. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (hereafter cited as

> DP), ed. E. Oethler (Lipsius, 1853-54), p. 41.

>

> 36. De Baptismo 1. I am grateful to Cyril Richardson for calling my

> attention to this passage and to the three subsequent ones.

>

> 37. Epiphanes, De Baptismo, 42.5.

>

> 38. AH, 1.25.6.

>

> 39. DP, 6.30.

>

> 40. The Gospel according to Mary, Codex Berolinensis, BG,

8502,1.7.1-

> 1.19.5, ea., intro., and trans. G. MacRae, unpublished manuscript.

>

> 41. Pistis Sophia, ed. Carl Schmidt (Berlin: Academie-Verlag,

1925),

> 36 (57), 71 (161).

>

> 42. 1 Cor. 11 :7-9. For discussion, see R. Scroggs, " Paul and the

> Eschatological Woman, " Journal of the American Academy of Religion

40

> (1972): 283-303; R. Scroggs, " Paul and the Eschatological Woman:

> Revisited, " Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1974):

532-

> 37; and E. Pagels, " Paul and Women: A Response to Recent

Discussion, "

> Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1972): 538-49.

>

> 43. Clement Alexandrinus, Paidegogos, ed. O. Stählin (Leipzig,

1905),

> 1.6.

>

> 44. Ibid., 1.4.

>

> 45. Ibid., 1.19.

>

> 46. 2 Tim. 2:11-14.

>

[Guest guest]

, " Violet "

<violet.tubb wrote:

>

> In our work of populating the site of http://www.holyspirit-

> shekinah.org/ we may yet find material, if the research has been

> done, which may disclose more about the social and cultural forces

> that have converged to suppress feminine symbolism—and women's

> participation—from western Christian tradition.

>

> That said, these two articles (1 and 2) are excellent. Could you

> please upload these to the Holy Spirit/Shekinah site for us too,

> Jagbir? i say " us " because (as Jagbir already knows too) Nicole has

> agreed to work together on this site with me. We have great

> expectations for this site, which is to become a place where

> Christians from the western tradition will learn about their

> lost " God, the Mother! "

>

 

They are done Violet. It is coming up nicely now. Anyway, today is

February 21, 2007 ......... so we have another 6 years to ocmplete

all the websites.

 

i too believe that the http://www.holyspirit-shekinah.org/ _will_ be

the place where Christians will learn about their lost/suppressed God

the Mother. Like fundamentalist Muslims, patriachal Christians will

have no choice but to accept Her unconditionally if they want to take

part in the Last Judgment and Resurrection. It will be the same too

for Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and others seeking the

eternal Afterlife. It is only when the web sites are completed will

there be enough articles and evidence to overcome centuries of

religious falsehood, distortion and indoctrination. But we will get

there eventually.

 

regards,

 

 

jagbir