"Eve did not have a separate function apart from Adam...see this insidious blog post about saving Christian women from work

[DillyTante]

"Eve did not have a separate function apart from Adam. Eve's function was defined perfectly in terms of Adam's function. When we understand what Adam was doing then we can understand why Eve was created...The purpose that God had in bringing Eve out of the side of Adam was so Adam would have a helper for his job, for his vocation...not a separate vocation of her own."

This from a speech in a blog post linked by excellent blogger Gloss Watch glosswatch.com/2012/08/09/bigging-up-the-office-in-the-name-of-choice/

To attempt to bring it back to the original subject though...

One if the reasons I first became interested in Lilith was because it made me wonder what the global view of women and faith would be like if her character had been left in.

I like to think that women would bot have been so driven down if their original identity had not been the weak and subservient eve.

Yes, I think that would have been interesting.

I would also like to know what would have happened if women deacons and perhaps priests had continued in the early church - or if, say, St. Paul's letters hadn't survived.

It's fascinating how much leeway people find to change the stories so they fit social codes.

The most incredible thing that will never happen, is that all the texts in the Vatican library were made public.

I'm concinced it could change the world.

Wow. Just wow. Having read the blog and looked at the pictures of Rebecca's "homecoming", I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. It beggars belief that people still think like this in the modern era. If they are genuinely happy, good luck to them. Personally I could find no happiness in the belief that my own life was without purpose, and that I only existed to support someone else's "vocation". Shocking!

I like to think that women would bot have been so driven down if their original identity had not been the weak and subservient eve

That point makes me wonder if Lilith was a bigger figure in the pre agricultural era faith (or a scare lesson to later women about how bad it all was), and Eve was brought in as the Agricultural era model (it seems the subjugation of women really started when agriculture did)

Oh, yes, that makes sense - there's all the stuff about Adam needing to get his food by the 'sweat of his brow' from farming, which would fit in.

I'm rubbish at references, but there's meant to be a correlation between agriculture and nuclear families, and I guess Adam and Eve are a sort of model for that, too?

Also, if you look at the early church its extarordinary how many women, and how many powerful women there were, but it all got rammed down in the 3rd century.

And speaking of Femme Fatales, Theodora didn't quite do an Archangel but a Byzantine Emperor's not bad for runner up spot.....

...and she got made a saint for her efforts :o

What happened in the third century, do you reckon? It's odd, isn't it, being saintly comes later on to be associated with being a virgin, but obviously not for Theodora! I just looked her up and read she died of breast cancer, which somehow seems to bring her closer to us - obviously people always must have had the same illnesses we have, but so often you read about weird and wonderful diseases, and breast cancer's still one that feels familiar.

FWIW, the snake that tempted Eve used to be seen as female, too (though I'm not sure this is exactly what we want as a role model! ).

DH reckons (FWIW) that Constantine being converted, and the Romans becoming officially Christian through the 4th century is probably where it went wrong for women ....Romans like naice, traditional, matronly women not scary, powerful ones.

(Not sure I believe this but he knows his stuff better than me, so it's possible.)

I wonder if there's a link between having a really powerful empire/state and having a really shit attitude towards women? Because this thread started out with a religious movement that is pretty popular in the US, didn't it? And I guess women didn't have the best deal in Victorian times, either.

DH reckons (FWIW) that Constantine being converted, and the Romans becoming officially Christian through the 4th century is probably where it went wrong for women

Sounds plausible - an ordinary woman's lot in those ancient agricultural societies was not a great one, and it seems like early Christianity promised a higher degree of freedom - not the sort of thing wanted in the new State religion.

I wonder if there's a link between having a really powerful empire/state and having a really shit attitude towards women?

Not just women - the peasants (ie c 95% of the population) were basically fucked over in every way until they died early.

True.

Great. Mumsnet has just cost me £17 because I was daft enough to look at The myth of the Goddess on Amazon...
If you look in the Pagan/spiritual section of a bookshop you'll generally find some good books on Goddess mythology btw.
I do actually know someone who believes she is inferior to her husband because she is his 'wife', there's no talking to her about it though, she defers to him on everything and spouts the Bible (Proverbs I think) if you argue the point with her. I just feel sad for her really..

Lilith was one of many pagan goddesses worshipped through the centuries. The theory is that as more places became converted to Christianity and a patriachal society the female aspect was overlooked, played down or condemned as wrong by those in power.
I suspect that linking the patriachal beliefs evolved over generations to accusations of witchcraft is a whole other thread....