What fascinated me about this post was the non-intuitive (for me) connection between the snake and the female. Until reading this, I always thought of snakes as phallic (although, admittedly, rather limp). The German word for snake, Schlange, is also slang for penis. But you make an excellent case for snakes representing the female.
Yes, indeed, this is very interesting! It also reminded me of Brian Muraresku's theory about psychedelics being used in early religious rituals, including the first Christian sacraments. His book is a little long and redundant, but still an interesting read.
Incidentally, I recently submitted a paper to a journal (currently in review) that applies Girard’s scapegoat mechanism on a Balinese myth where the battle is between witches on one side and a collaboration between the king and the dragon on the other. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x-PiQXN_DeSEntyocSgaPBTKMOFD2xHCRf4lmdE1Jc/edit
1) "1689: The Glorious Revolution ends Catholicism in England". Da fuck? FWIW, Catholics appear to have increased slightly as a proportion of the population 1680-1720 before falling again.
2) "In the Torah, the Witch of Endor" The witch of Endor does not appear in the Torah.
This is not a disrespectful comment! Positive vibes!!!
Honestly, how to categorise the Book of Samuel in historical context is a tough question. 'Tanach' is a much, much later designation that comes into being after Rabbinical authorities went through the corpus of inherited writings and decided what was in and what was out. The truth is we have no real idea what kind of cultural authority the Book of Samuel had during the 1st temple period, and not all that much idea for the 2nd temple. Certainly, the corpus of legends around King David seem to have been more or less completely detached from what the Book of Samuel says.
I know you said you didn't want to cover the Documentary Hypothesis during the podcast but I hope we can do a deep dive into Jewish textual criticism at some point.
No! Dryden was elite, Alexander Pope was elite. As far as I know, all of the aristocratic recustant families that had made it to 1688 (Arundells, Vaughans, Blundells etc) continued to be so. Nothing actually changed except that any plans for Catholic toelration were abandoned.
There's no maybe about it, but that's still a very misleading way of putting it. There had been a Catholic king for a precise total of 3 years, and he hadn't even succeeded in making his religion legal, nor had he got close. Again, the accurate way of putting it is 'put an end to prospects for Catholic toleration'.
Christianity is a social technology which borrowed parts from previous ones,especially Greek myths,and had a broader appeal so it propagated succesfully.You cannot separate its influence on people from prior religions or cultures,same way you cannot eat fruit without eating sugar as well.In regards to how pro-witch or anti-witch Christian puritans were.
"It is commonly held that witch-burning was an attempt by the Christian patriarchy to kill 'uppity' women. This is the opposite of the truth."
Maybe I'm just not the target audience for this (a mutual linked this to a note I posted), and maybe you were talking about specific witch hunts, but for someone from a country that was colonized and converted to Christianity by Spain, the statement I quoted is just hard to believe. Pre-Spain, the Philippines had "babaylans," women and queer spiritual priestesses who were respected and held high rank in society. The only reason societal attitudes changed against them is that they were labeled by the Church as witches and devil worshippers.
But, like I said, maybe this piece wasn't intended to consider that perspective. Still, coming from that background, it's really hard for me to give Christian patriarchy the benefit of the doubt because kings and bishops did not fight against witch hunting on our soil at all.
1. I never said that Christians didn't exterminate competing religions. They absolutely did that. But my article is focused on the role of women within Christian societies. The evidence is clear that witch-hunts were instigated by women against women, and Christian kings and bishops protected Christian women from being victimized by other Christian women.
2. Witch-hunting is part of the Indo-European religion, which existed in Europe prior to Christianity, which we call "paganism." It persisted like many other aspects of European paganism, like Halloween, Easter, and the Winter Solstice. However, not all paganism is the same. In the Philippines, "paganism" might be as you describe: queer, female, or transgender priestesses who rule over a matriarchal cult. This wasn't the case in Europe. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that such women should be put to death, long before Christianity came around. Witch-hunting is a much older tradition than Christianity and probably goes back 6,000 years. Indo-Europeans were patriarchal long before the Abrahamic religions were invented. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Abrahamic religions were strongly influenced by Indo-European migrations into the Middle East. But that's for another article.
That's why I said maybe you were just talking about a specific type of witch hunt. My only point is that the part I quoted is not true everywhere. Because it is absolutely true in my nation's history that the Christian patriarchy used witch hunting to kill "uppity" women. The whole nation back then was governed by bishops and friars, who were all men. They represented not just the church but also the government (including law enforcement). They were the only ones with the power to persecute someone labeled as a witch. Regardless of the type of paganism involved, it was still women who were labeled as witches and persecuted (a witch hunt) by Christian men of power.
As I said, considering that perspective, I personally find it hard to believe that the witch hunts in European colonies (during a time when Christianity was already established, not prior) were not influenced or heavily weaponized by Christian patriarchy. But I emphasize "personally." You don't need to convince me; I just thought it would add to the conversation to show a different lens through which others might read this.
Very interesting!
What fascinated me about this post was the non-intuitive (for me) connection between the snake and the female. Until reading this, I always thought of snakes as phallic (although, admittedly, rather limp). The German word for snake, Schlange, is also slang for penis. But you make an excellent case for snakes representing the female.
You might enjoy Andrew Cutler's work: https://www.vectorsofmind.com/p/the-snake-cult-of-consciousness
Yes, indeed, this is very interesting! It also reminded me of Brian Muraresku's theory about psychedelics being used in early religious rituals, including the first Christian sacraments. His book is a little long and redundant, but still an interesting read.
Incidentally, I recently submitted a paper to a journal (currently in review) that applies Girard’s scapegoat mechanism on a Balinese myth where the battle is between witches on one side and a collaboration between the king and the dragon on the other. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x-PiQXN_DeSEntyocSgaPBTKMOFD2xHCRf4lmdE1Jc/edit
Interesting parallel between drug dealers and witches.
1) "1689: The Glorious Revolution ends Catholicism in England". Da fuck? FWIW, Catholics appear to have increased slightly as a proportion of the population 1680-1720 before falling again.
2) "In the Torah, the Witch of Endor" The witch of Endor does not appear in the Torah.
This is not a disrespectful comment! Positive vibes!!!
1. Elite Catholicism, not popular Catholicism, which persists to this day (Peter Hitchens I believe is a Catholic).
Edit: mixed up Torah and Tanakh, will fix, thank you.
Honestly, how to categorise the Book of Samuel in historical context is a tough question. 'Tanach' is a much, much later designation that comes into being after Rabbinical authorities went through the corpus of inherited writings and decided what was in and what was out. The truth is we have no real idea what kind of cultural authority the Book of Samuel had during the 1st temple period, and not all that much idea for the 2nd temple. Certainly, the corpus of legends around King David seem to have been more or less completely detached from what the Book of Samuel says.
I know you said you didn't want to cover the Documentary Hypothesis during the podcast but I hope we can do a deep dive into Jewish textual criticism at some point.
No! Dryden was elite, Alexander Pope was elite. As far as I know, all of the aristocratic recustant families that had made it to 1688 (Arundells, Vaughans, Blundells etc) continued to be so. Nothing actually changed except that any plans for Catholic toelration were abandoned.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say "ends Catholic rule" rather than "ends Catholicism"
There's no maybe about it, but that's still a very misleading way of putting it. There had been a Catholic king for a precise total of 3 years, and he hadn't even succeeded in making his religion legal, nor had he got close. Again, the accurate way of putting it is 'put an end to prospects for Catholic toleration'.
🤘🏿
Christianity is a social technology which borrowed parts from previous ones,especially Greek myths,and had a broader appeal so it propagated succesfully.You cannot separate its influence on people from prior religions or cultures,same way you cannot eat fruit without eating sugar as well.In regards to how pro-witch or anti-witch Christian puritans were.
Use space bar after periods
Snake is always an interesting animal because it's also so phallic. But the motion vibes feminine.
"It is commonly held that witch-burning was an attempt by the Christian patriarchy to kill 'uppity' women. This is the opposite of the truth."
Maybe I'm just not the target audience for this (a mutual linked this to a note I posted), and maybe you were talking about specific witch hunts, but for someone from a country that was colonized and converted to Christianity by Spain, the statement I quoted is just hard to believe. Pre-Spain, the Philippines had "babaylans," women and queer spiritual priestesses who were respected and held high rank in society. The only reason societal attitudes changed against them is that they were labeled by the Church as witches and devil worshippers.
But, like I said, maybe this piece wasn't intended to consider that perspective. Still, coming from that background, it's really hard for me to give Christian patriarchy the benefit of the doubt because kings and bishops did not fight against witch hunting on our soil at all.
There are two parts to this:
1. I never said that Christians didn't exterminate competing religions. They absolutely did that. But my article is focused on the role of women within Christian societies. The evidence is clear that witch-hunts were instigated by women against women, and Christian kings and bishops protected Christian women from being victimized by other Christian women.
2. Witch-hunting is part of the Indo-European religion, which existed in Europe prior to Christianity, which we call "paganism." It persisted like many other aspects of European paganism, like Halloween, Easter, and the Winter Solstice. However, not all paganism is the same. In the Philippines, "paganism" might be as you describe: queer, female, or transgender priestesses who rule over a matriarchal cult. This wasn't the case in Europe. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that such women should be put to death, long before Christianity came around. Witch-hunting is a much older tradition than Christianity and probably goes back 6,000 years. Indo-Europeans were patriarchal long before the Abrahamic religions were invented. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Abrahamic religions were strongly influenced by Indo-European migrations into the Middle East. But that's for another article.
That's why I said maybe you were just talking about a specific type of witch hunt. My only point is that the part I quoted is not true everywhere. Because it is absolutely true in my nation's history that the Christian patriarchy used witch hunting to kill "uppity" women. The whole nation back then was governed by bishops and friars, who were all men. They represented not just the church but also the government (including law enforcement). They were the only ones with the power to persecute someone labeled as a witch. Regardless of the type of paganism involved, it was still women who were labeled as witches and persecuted (a witch hunt) by Christian men of power.
As I said, considering that perspective, I personally find it hard to believe that the witch hunts in European colonies (during a time when Christianity was already established, not prior) were not influenced or heavily weaponized by Christian patriarchy. But I emphasize "personally." You don't need to convince me; I just thought it would add to the conversation to show a different lens through which others might read this.
Happy to platform your perspective on my podcast if you're looking to give my audience a different take from me.