Conference taveng::bagels

    Did you try Genesis Chapters 1-4? This is one case where the book is
    better than the movie.
    
    Ephraim
     

At a gathering of ten Jews discussing a subject you will have at least 
twenty different opinions.  Which version do you want?  From what branch? 
These vary from literal (very few) to "apologetic" (see other threads for 
the interpretation of htat term -- not my term to symbolic to etc. etc. 

Shelly

PS  Yes, read Genesis and get into numerous small group discussions -- 
then draw your own conclusions.  For me, a scientific person, they are 
symbolic.

    I did read the Boof of Genesis on King James verison of the Bible.  The
    discussion is God create man first and create woman with a rib from the
    man.  ..Adam said "she shall be called Woman".. Like Adam called other
    living creature, and that was name therof.  Adman shows superiority
    over other living creature and .. woman ..  Is that myth lead to the
    patriarchy society today?  
    
    I don't have any other background other than the Christian version, so
    I would like some input from other culture.
    
    Justina

Jewish interpretation of Genesis is quite different than Christian
interpretation. Jews do NOT find "original sin" in the story. Instead,
the story speaks of the relationship of G-d to human-kind, of the origin
of sexuality, of free will, and of the nature of marriage. We read that
although man and wife are of one flesh (i.e. marriage makes a man and
woman as though they were of one flesh), G-d has assigned different roles
to each -- man to work, woman to bear children. Basically, I don't think
there's much here about patriarchy.

Later on in Genesis, however, there is some "good stuff" about patriarchy.
Look carefully at the story of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
G-d's first commandment to Abraham is to leave home. Later, Abraham sends
a servant back home to find a wife for Isaac. Why doesn't he send Isaac
himself? I think the answer is found in the story of Jacob. Jacob goes
back home to find a wife (and to get away from Esau). It takes 20 years
and another act of G-d to get Jacob away from Uncle Laban. A resonable
interpretation of this is that in Aram (Syria), a husband was expected
to come and join his wife's family; i.e. society in Syria was matriarchal.
Perhaps patriarchy was one of Abraham's innovations.

Dave

    .5
    
    Thanks Dave.  That's some good background on the Patriarch and
    Matriarch.
    
    So is the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, God create man and woman
    equally and it's just a matter of taking a different roles in the
    society and there is no sense of one superior over the other?
    
    

In my first reply I didn't quite realize where you were coming from.  In 
a serious note let me say that there are several branches of Judaism - 
each with (somewhat) differing beliefs and (more than somewhat) differing 
practices.  There is no "Jewish" answer.  Rather, there is a spectrum.

The beliefs expressed previously lean more to the traditional ones of 
Orthodox Judaism.  The vast majority of Jews in the world belong to the 
Conservative or Reform movements.  These people, for the most part, 
believe more in scientific explanations and do not "literally" interpret 
the Bible (what you call the Old Testament).

In fact, the position of Reform Juadaism is that of (absolute) equality 
of the sexes.  This has been translated into revision of some of prayers 
to explicitly mention some of the matriarchs.  Of course there are 
biological differences but there is no pigeonholing into "roles" that 
comes with the movement.

Conservative Jewish congregations fall between these two poles of Jewish 
belief.

Don't get me wrong.  There is still a VERY strong commonality of belief 
among all three (and other smaller sects) branches so that we all call 
ourselves Jews.

What is common (and from here I speak from my understanding of a Reform 
Jew who was brought up in an Orthodox environment) is the respect for the 
individual, the sanctity of life and the need to improve ourselves so 
that we may be better in our eyes and in God's eyes.

This response has wandered a bit from your original question.  In is 
important, however, for you to fully comprehend that there is no "one 
Jewish belief" on most subjects.  We are a composite of people who, more 
or less, believe alike - with an empahsis on the more or less.  So be 
carefull in stating "This is how Jews believe".

Sheldon

    Justina,

    There is an author, an Orthodox Jewish woman named Blu Greenberg,
    who has written a couple of books that may interest you.  I don't
    know if they tie directly to the creation narative in Genesis or 
    not, but they do talk about women, roles, and marriage relationship,
    and Orthodox practices as they relate to the home.  I have the books
    at home and will try to remember to look them up for you tonight.
    I think I may have another book by someone else that relates to the
    subject as well.  I'll check on that too.

    Also, I feel the need to point out that there are varieties of opinions
    on the roles and relationship of men and women within Christianity
    just as there is within Judaism.  Not all have the same view of the
    Genesis account as you described.  However, I think Christianity was in-
    fluenced much more heavily by the cultures in which it grew - such 
    as Helenistic and Roman cultures, and perhaps by attitudes about men 
    and women that were existing in central and northern Europe as well,
    These classed women into a lesser position than men, and also did 
    not affirm the desirability of the marriage relationship including sex
    the way the Jewish culture did.  Christianity would have done well to 
    hold tighter to its Jewish beginnings.  Judaism has a wonderful 
    emphasis on affirming life - especially in the area of marriage, home, 
    and family, which I think the saying or blessing, "May you be for Torah, 
    *the marriage canopy*, and good deeds" illustrates well.  

    Leslie

[Disclaimer:  I recognize and acknowledge that many Jews regard 
the Torah (first five books of the Jewish Scriptures) as given directly 
from the deity to Moses, and accurately transcribed by Moses, and accurately
copied for the past ~4000 years.  I personally don't believe this.]

If you are interested in concepts of Patriarchy in ancient religions,
I highly recommend the book, "In the Wake of the Goddesses".  I'm sorry
that I don't recall the author right now.  This book is a partial
answer to the charge by some that Judaism "killed the Goddess" -- that is,
that Judaism introduced Patriarchy into a previously egalitarian or
matriarchal Goddess-worshipping culture.

In any event, I strongly recommend that you find a copy of the Jewish
Publication Society's translation of the Jewish Scriptures, as the
King James version contains many errors of translation from the Hebrew, and
also suffers from the fact that the meaning of many *English* words has
changed since King James's time.

Bobbi

Here are a few minor points on the last three replies.

re .7:

>                   The vast majority of Jews in the world belong to the 
>Conservative or Reform movements.

It would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of Jews are not
Orthodox.  Most Jews today are unaffiliated and have little connection
with Judaism as a religion (as opposed to Jewishness as a culture).

>                                   These people, for the most part, 
>believe more in scientific explanations and do not "literally" interpret 
>the Bible (what you call the Old Testament).

Orthodox Jews do not interpret the Bible literally either.  If they did,
they'd be eating cheeseburgers and poking each other's eyes out.


re .8:

FWIW, Blu Greenberg is far from the mainstream of Orthodoxy -- she's at
the leftmost edge.

re .9:

If you're referring to the old JPS translation (from the '20s?), it's not
very accurate either.  I believe there's a newer one, but I haven't seen it.
I recommend Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's "The Living Torah" for a modern translation
within the Jewish tradition.

    Thanks Lesile, the books that you mentioned would probably give me some
    background from the Jewish point of view of women's role in the
    historical contexts.  My study is more focus on the
    portrayal of women in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and
    Islam.  Since I don't have any background knowledge on the subject
    other than from the Christian side, I turn to the notes file
    to explores more on the other two areas
    
    Some traditional portrayal of women as sinners, evil, inferior, slave,
    property, and object etc.  How's that throught affected by the
    scriptures of different religions?
    
    Say for examples:
    
    Eve roles in the Genesis.
    Jezebel and the Queen of Sheba from the Book of Kings
    Hagar and the Anonymous Concubine from the Book of Judges
    
    These women were subjected to be blamed, hated, suffered and abused with
    influence directly or indirectly from Lord.  Did these scriptural
    stories be related to the women status in the society at that time? and
    Why?
    
    Tell me more of your view please.
    
     

Someone asked for an explanation of my comment:

   Orthodox Jews do not interpret the Bible literally either.  If they did,
   they'd be eating cheeseburgers and poking each other's eyes out.

The Torah prohibits cooking a kid in its mother's milk.  A literal
interpretation of this would allow one to eat a cheeseburger.  The
halachic interpretation is to disallow cooking, eating, or profiting
from any kind of mixture of milk with meat or poultry.

The Torah says "An eye for an eye..."  According to a literal interpretation,
the punishment for poking someone's eye out would be to poke the perpetrator's
eye out.  The halachic interpretation is for the perpetrator to pay the
victim restitution.

re: JPS

There is a JPS translation much much later than the 1920's. I assume
that is the one being referred to.

    I had hoped that someone would point Justina to the story of Lilith,
    and to other stories which are part of the oral tradition.
    
    Nit alert:  "... a husband was expected to come and join his wife's
    family; i.e. society in Syria was matriarchal." should be "... society
    in Syria was matriLOCAL".  Anthropologists have found no indications
    of any matriARCHAL society ever, although they've found lots that
    are matriLINEAL, matriLOCAL, and/or matriFOCAL.  It's just easier to
    lump these concepts together as "matriarchal".
    
    							Ann B.

>    Nit alert:  "... a husband was expected to come and join his wife's
>    family; i.e. society in Syria was matriarchal." should be "... society
>    in Syria was matriLOCAL".  Anthropologists have found no indications
>    of any matriARCHAL society ever, although they've found lots that
>    are matriLINEAL, matriLOCAL, and/or matriFOCAL.  It's just easier to
>    lump these concepts together as "matriarchal".
    
	Just to pick another nit :-)

	I was in central China this past summer, at Xi'an.

	A few km outside of Xi'an, there is a paleolithic village
	called Ben Pu, which was only recently (i.e., less than
	ten years ago) excavated, and which we visited.

	A stunning wealth of very well-preserved relics have been found there.
	So many and so well-preserved, in fact, that a cogent history of 
	the village for about a 300 year period has been constructed.
	The archaeologists / anthropologists were able to make many 
	conclusions about their music, overall work structures, fabrics, 
	tools, housing materials, sculpture, paints and painting, fish and 
	fishing, hunting, recreation and toys, etc.

	And: there is now no doubt whatever that this village was matriARCHAL.
	
	You can walk through the remains of the actual ancient village,
	which is under a pavillion. The Chinese have reconstructed the 
	village on a site nearby. The entrance is, let us say,
	somewhat unusual:

	It is a large, reclining, nude woman, carved in red stone (large:
	height about 25 meters, breadth about 4 meters!). The
	entranceway to the restored village is in a most symbolic
	place...

don feinberg

Don,

Can you explain why you say (how they determined) that it is matriARCHAL
rather than just matriLINEAL, matriLOCAL, and/or matriFOCAL?

TYVM/john

>             <<< Note 1433.16 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>       -< That you enter by the matri-arch would not seem to be enough >->>
>
>Don,
>
>Can you explain why you say (how they determined) that it is matriARCHAL
>rather than just matriLINEAL, matriLOCAL, and/or matriFOCAL?


	No, I can't really explain it -- we only spent 1/2 day there
	and that wasn't enough to do it intellectually "in depth"
	(besides, it was 36+ deg. C and 90% humidity...)

	I was only repeating what I saw/heard.

	Sorry.

don