What do you think?
Rate this book
In The Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth
Exploring the rich and powerful symbols of religion and culture that have shaped Western thought, In the Wake of the Goddesses shows how conceptions of gender and sexualtiy developed and changed from the goddesses of ancient Mesopotamian civilizations to the one God of Biblical monotheism. 8-page insert.
292 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
About the author
Tikva Frymer-Kensky
12 books11 followersDr. Tikva Frymer-Kensky was a professor of Hebrew Bible and the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School, Law School, and the Committees on the Ancient Mediterranean World and Jewish Studies. She held an M.A. and Ph.D. from Yale University.
Frymer-Kensky's areas of specialization included, in addition to Bible studies, Assyriology and Sumerology, Jewish studies, and women and religion. Her feminism was deeply grounded in the ancient world and, as a Jew, she used that extensive knowledge to argue for monotheism and dialogue between Christians and Jews, to give voice to ancient women, and to advocate for a mending of halakha.
Frymer-Kensky's areas of specialization included, in addition to Bible studies, Assyriology and Sumerology, Jewish studies, and women and religion. Her feminism was deeply grounded in the ancient world and, as a Jew, she used that extensive knowledge to argue for monotheism and dialogue between Christians and Jews, to give voice to ancient women, and to advocate for a mending of halakha.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 15, 2024
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE YOU ATE THE HOUSE BOOTS DOWNNNNN
November 16, 2021
An absolutely fascinating look at the Bible in the context of the ancient world in which it was written. Obviously, Frymer-Krensky and I operate from different assumptions in places and I did not find all of her arguments wholly convincing, but In the Wake of the Goddesses made great food for thought and stimulated my reading of women in the Hebrew Bible. The chapter on “The Gifts of the Greeks,” primarily regarding how Greek ideas of sex and gender influenced Israel in the intertestamental period, is especially worth reading, particularly given the biblical paradigm of sex and gender Frymer-Krensky set up in the previous chapters. In lieu of a review, below are some of the interpretations and arguments I found most thought-provoking.
“God’s role in childbirth extends beyond conception to all functions previously under the supervision of the mother goddesses. God oversees the entire process of gestation and childbirth: God forms and shapes the child in the womb, God takes note of the child in the womb, cares for it there, and may call the child into service there; God is midwife, bringing on the labor and bringing forth the child. There is no more need for a mother goddess, or for divine midwife-assistants and divine labor-attendants. God, the master of all the other elements of the natural world, is master of human reproduction as well.” (98)
“The absorption by God of all the forces of nature leads humanity onto center stage. Biblical monotheism is essentially anthropocentric, though not in the sense that the world exists to serve humanity. Rather, in the absence of other divine beings, God’s audience, partners, foils, and competitors are all human beings, and it is on their interaction with God that the world depends.” (107)
“The picture of biblical women presented by a close study of biblical texts is dramatically different from what we have been led (by our religious and cultural traditions) to believe the Bible says, and from past cultural imperatives that have used the Bible as a basis for support of particular edicts. In fact, there is no real ‘woman question’ in the Bible. The biblical image of women is consistently the same as that of men. In their strengths and weaknesses, in their goals and strategies, the women of the Bible do not differ substantially form [sic] the men. This biblical idea that the desires and actions of men and women are similar is tantamount to a radically new concept of gender.” (121) Yes and amen. The Bible does not present women as lesser beings in morality, intelligence, and reason, like the ancient Greeks did. I can hear Dorothy Sayers clapping from here.
“However, this devotion to foreign gods and disapproved cults is not a uniquely feminine act. The men of Israel and some of its kings are also reported to have worshipped the Asherah or the Ba’als, the host of heaven, Moloch, and the Queen of Heaven. These heterodox beliefs and actions were not any more frequent among the women than among the men.” (127)
“The biblical writers do not express a ‘battle between the sexes,’ and there is no motif of female rage.” (127) especially interesting given certain debates surrounding the translation of Genesis 3:16
“[The Bible] does not attribute women’s subordination to any innate organic reason, nor does it require that women act in ways that justify, support, or prolong their subordination. The Bible has no expectation that woman [sic] will be passive or submissive, no prescription that they should be so. Officially, authority and wealth resided with the men. Within the confines of this system, however, biblical women formulated their own goals and acted to achieve them.” (129)
“Such guilt-producing tactics remind us of the classic ploys of the exaggeratedly portrayed and much mocked ‘Jewish mother.’ Nevertheless, the guilt-provoking introduction is a standard form of Biblical rhetoric, and was not the particular property of women. Moses presents the classic paradigm of such tactics.” (131)
“The conversation between Abigail and David casts light on the Bible’s conception of the proper relationships between men and women. David did not know her, and could not know her wisdom, yet he paused in the middle of a battle march to have a serious discussion with her. He did not dismiss her as a foolish woman or as a distraction. Abigail did not implore David with tears, nor arouse his pity for the innocent men he might kill. Instead, she applies her skill at reasoning and argumentation to convince David by those arguments most likely to succeed.” (132-133)
“It takes a wise man like David to listen to Abigail and perceive the quality of her arguments. When the party with whom one argues has no discernment, speech has no power. The rape of Tamar is a classic story of the confrontation between a wise girl, arguing rationally, and a strong and privileged male intent on acting badly. Tamar, David’s daughter, tries to talk her half-brother Ammon out of raping her with words couched in the language of traditional learning….This story [of Tamar] shows us why the Bible preserves so many intelligent speeches by women: they contribute to the glory of Abraham, Jacob, and David, who had an ear receptive to the wise words of the women.” (134-135)
“There is nothing distinctively ‘female’ about the way that women are portrayed in the Bible, nothing particularly feminine about either their goals or their strategies. The goals of women are the same goals held by the biblical male characters and the authors of the stories. Conversely, those goals which might be considered female-specific, such as female solidarity and rage, are completely absent from the biblical record….The Bible does not attribute to women several strategies and powers that became associated with women in Western cultural tradition. Most conspicuously, beauty is never portrayed as a woman’s weapon. The beauty of women is a mark of divine favor, as is the beauty of men. Sometimes a woman’s beauty can set her up to be a victim, in that men of power might desire and take her….The biblical tales of women’s persuasion also ignore erotic attraction. There are no stories of sexual enticement, no femmes fatales, no figures like Mata Hari who use sex to seduce and then to deceive men….The Bible does not present beauty and lust--both of which might tend to emphasize the differences between male and female and to codify the woman as ‘other’--as part of a woman’s toolkit at all.” (140-141)
“As far as the Bible presents humanity, gender is a matter of biology and social roles, it is not a question of basic nature or identity.” (141)
“In contrast to such gender-specific thinking [in the Gilgamesh and Ishtar stories], the biblical story of Adam and Eve presents women and men as the true suitable companions to each other. The same gender ideology also underlies the other biblical tale of the creation of humanity, Genesis 1. Male and female are created at the same time, and they are both created in the image, the likeness of God….This view of the essential sameness of men and women is most appropriate to monotheism. There are no goddesses to represent ‘womanhood’ or a female principle in the cosmos; there is no conscious sense that there even exists a ‘feminine.’ Whenever radical monotheism came to biblical Israel, the consideration of one God influenced and underscored the biblical image of women.” (142-143)
“The rabbinic system represents a dramatic change from the Bible in the conceptualization of women and of sex. In place of the Bible’s portrayal of women and men as fundamentally similar, the rabbis express a gender-polarized view of humanity. In place of the Bible’s silence about sexual attraction, the rabbis portray sexual attraction as a mighty, at times dangerous and irresistible, force. The Church heir to both the Bible and Hellenism, went further than the rabbis…” (211) A dash of nuance would be helpful here.
“God’s role in childbirth extends beyond conception to all functions previously under the supervision of the mother goddesses. God oversees the entire process of gestation and childbirth: God forms and shapes the child in the womb, God takes note of the child in the womb, cares for it there, and may call the child into service there; God is midwife, bringing on the labor and bringing forth the child. There is no more need for a mother goddess, or for divine midwife-assistants and divine labor-attendants. God, the master of all the other elements of the natural world, is master of human reproduction as well.” (98)
“The absorption by God of all the forces of nature leads humanity onto center stage. Biblical monotheism is essentially anthropocentric, though not in the sense that the world exists to serve humanity. Rather, in the absence of other divine beings, God’s audience, partners, foils, and competitors are all human beings, and it is on their interaction with God that the world depends.” (107)
“The picture of biblical women presented by a close study of biblical texts is dramatically different from what we have been led (by our religious and cultural traditions) to believe the Bible says, and from past cultural imperatives that have used the Bible as a basis for support of particular edicts. In fact, there is no real ‘woman question’ in the Bible. The biblical image of women is consistently the same as that of men. In their strengths and weaknesses, in their goals and strategies, the women of the Bible do not differ substantially form [sic] the men. This biblical idea that the desires and actions of men and women are similar is tantamount to a radically new concept of gender.” (121) Yes and amen. The Bible does not present women as lesser beings in morality, intelligence, and reason, like the ancient Greeks did. I can hear Dorothy Sayers clapping from here.
“However, this devotion to foreign gods and disapproved cults is not a uniquely feminine act. The men of Israel and some of its kings are also reported to have worshipped the Asherah or the Ba’als, the host of heaven, Moloch, and the Queen of Heaven. These heterodox beliefs and actions were not any more frequent among the women than among the men.” (127)
“The biblical writers do not express a ‘battle between the sexes,’ and there is no motif of female rage.” (127) especially interesting given certain debates surrounding the translation of Genesis 3:16
“[The Bible] does not attribute women’s subordination to any innate organic reason, nor does it require that women act in ways that justify, support, or prolong their subordination. The Bible has no expectation that woman [sic] will be passive or submissive, no prescription that they should be so. Officially, authority and wealth resided with the men. Within the confines of this system, however, biblical women formulated their own goals and acted to achieve them.” (129)
“Such guilt-producing tactics remind us of the classic ploys of the exaggeratedly portrayed and much mocked ‘Jewish mother.’ Nevertheless, the guilt-provoking introduction is a standard form of Biblical rhetoric, and was not the particular property of women. Moses presents the classic paradigm of such tactics.” (131)
“The conversation between Abigail and David casts light on the Bible’s conception of the proper relationships between men and women. David did not know her, and could not know her wisdom, yet he paused in the middle of a battle march to have a serious discussion with her. He did not dismiss her as a foolish woman or as a distraction. Abigail did not implore David with tears, nor arouse his pity for the innocent men he might kill. Instead, she applies her skill at reasoning and argumentation to convince David by those arguments most likely to succeed.” (132-133)
“It takes a wise man like David to listen to Abigail and perceive the quality of her arguments. When the party with whom one argues has no discernment, speech has no power. The rape of Tamar is a classic story of the confrontation between a wise girl, arguing rationally, and a strong and privileged male intent on acting badly. Tamar, David’s daughter, tries to talk her half-brother Ammon out of raping her with words couched in the language of traditional learning….This story [of Tamar] shows us why the Bible preserves so many intelligent speeches by women: they contribute to the glory of Abraham, Jacob, and David, who had an ear receptive to the wise words of the women.” (134-135)
“There is nothing distinctively ‘female’ about the way that women are portrayed in the Bible, nothing particularly feminine about either their goals or their strategies. The goals of women are the same goals held by the biblical male characters and the authors of the stories. Conversely, those goals which might be considered female-specific, such as female solidarity and rage, are completely absent from the biblical record….The Bible does not attribute to women several strategies and powers that became associated with women in Western cultural tradition. Most conspicuously, beauty is never portrayed as a woman’s weapon. The beauty of women is a mark of divine favor, as is the beauty of men. Sometimes a woman’s beauty can set her up to be a victim, in that men of power might desire and take her….The biblical tales of women’s persuasion also ignore erotic attraction. There are no stories of sexual enticement, no femmes fatales, no figures like Mata Hari who use sex to seduce and then to deceive men….The Bible does not present beauty and lust--both of which might tend to emphasize the differences between male and female and to codify the woman as ‘other’--as part of a woman’s toolkit at all.” (140-141)
“As far as the Bible presents humanity, gender is a matter of biology and social roles, it is not a question of basic nature or identity.” (141)
“In contrast to such gender-specific thinking [in the Gilgamesh and Ishtar stories], the biblical story of Adam and Eve presents women and men as the true suitable companions to each other. The same gender ideology also underlies the other biblical tale of the creation of humanity, Genesis 1. Male and female are created at the same time, and they are both created in the image, the likeness of God….This view of the essential sameness of men and women is most appropriate to monotheism. There are no goddesses to represent ‘womanhood’ or a female principle in the cosmos; there is no conscious sense that there even exists a ‘feminine.’ Whenever radical monotheism came to biblical Israel, the consideration of one God influenced and underscored the biblical image of women.” (142-143)
“The rabbinic system represents a dramatic change from the Bible in the conceptualization of women and of sex. In place of the Bible’s portrayal of women and men as fundamentally similar, the rabbis express a gender-polarized view of humanity. In place of the Bible’s silence about sexual attraction, the rabbis portray sexual attraction as a mighty, at times dangerous and irresistible, force. The Church heir to both the Bible and Hellenism, went further than the rabbis…” (211) A dash of nuance would be helpful here.
April 5, 2017
Provides an excellent overview of goddess worship from Sumerian times to the Hellenistic period, with particular emphasis upon understanding mythological narratives, polytheism in Ancient Israel, the status of women in the ancient Near East, and debunking certain myths about temple prostitution and Israelite idol worship. Her analysis is very helpful in understanding biblical culture. She suggests that the more misogynistic attitudes which developed in Judaism had more to do with later Hellenistic influences than what is found in the Torah and earlier chronicles, though the status of women in Canaan and Mesopotamia was certainly subordinate and oppressive by today's standards. I came away with a more even-handed impression of how women were dealt with in biblical times, and admired the author's erudition. While this is an older work, I suspect that many of her observations are still timely and worth re-reading.
November 2, 2011
As the man said, how much sand can you put in the sugar bowl before it isn't sugar anymore? There's a lot of sugar in this book, but I repeatedly found myself needing to rinse out my mouth.
April 17, 2023
Very well written book overall. The reader can get glazed over if you have no prior knowledge of the bible. I did think the ratio of pre-Christianity and Christanity was not equal. I have no familiarity with the bible so I did have to skip a couple of chapters. It's also somewhat misleading to use the bible to state women were treated like men and then in a later chapter use the bible to refute that. The best chapter(s) was on Inanna.
October 16, 2024
For an exam book it was pretty good and also a big deal in the field when it came out so can’t complain
Read
October 3, 2022Going along with my "how do you even rate theory", this book was absolutely fascinating, both in what it successfully does, in what it thinks it's doing and doesn't, and in what it has no interest in doing.
Frymer-Kensky's argument is two-fold:
1) Paganism was still patriarchy and goddesses is not the same as agency so you can't rediscover God's wife and think you've found egalitarianism.
2) While Tanakh upholds patriarchal structures, the women of tanakh are neither models nor stereotypes of femininity.
I feel like she's a little too willing to let some things slide, but overall makes a very intriguing and compelling case. She's also absolutely uninterested in justifying or condemning the text, which means she'll just analyze things like Pilegesh B'Giv'ah and then go on without feeling the need to opine that it's bad. Which is so odd to me even though I understand why she, as a critic of what the text is doing, doesn't feel obligated to comment when she agrees with the moral position the text is taking.
Frymer-Kensky's argument is two-fold:
1) Paganism was still patriarchy and goddesses is not the same as agency so you can't rediscover God's wife and think you've found egalitarianism.
2) While Tanakh upholds patriarchal structures, the women of tanakh are neither models nor stereotypes of femininity.
I feel like she's a little too willing to let some things slide, but overall makes a very intriguing and compelling case. She's also absolutely uninterested in justifying or condemning the text, which means she'll just analyze things like Pilegesh B'Giv'ah and then go on without feeling the need to opine that it's bad. Which is so odd to me even though I understand why she, as a critic of what the text is doing, doesn't feel obligated to comment when she agrees with the moral position the text is taking.
September 14, 2014
I'm not sure I entirely buy this author's premise, that the Greco-Roman image of woman as temptress and evil-doer corrupted the Israelites' original more positive ideas about women.
July 1, 2022
This was both a fascinating and puzzling book. Fascinating, because Frymer-Kensky brings expertise in ancient Sumerian and Akkadian religions to the topic: an exploration of the differences between ancient polytheistic religions and radical monotheism, especially in the different ways that goddesses function in the former. As a comparative study of the differences between the Bible's worldview and ancient near eastern alternatives, this book was fascinating.
It was also puzzling because Frymer-Kensky concludes that there is a major "gap" in the Bible's understanding of sexuality and gender, because it does not "conceptualize" the sexual drive in a way analogous to the role of the goddess Ishtar in Sumerian religion and so leaves an unfinished task for the development of monotheism. Yet she has multiple chapters that discuss how the Bible treats sexuality and portrays men and women! Somehow (perhaps from her evolutionary view of religion and its necessary concomitant belief in the unreliability of the Bible's creation narrative or its vision of sin) this extensive discussion of the Bible's view of sexuality still amounts to a "gap." Perhaps we might employ an Ockham's razor here: the simplest explanation is the right one. The Bible links marriage, family, and sexuality in an unbreakable complex, and then explains all other sexual desires as the result of sin. This is only a "gap" if one believes this vision is too simplistic and needs to be brought into conversation with Freud, Kinsey, Money, Butler, or any other of our (post)modern pantheon of authorities on sex and psychology. In the wake of the goddesses come the gurus - but I don't think humanity has been better off under either of them.
It was also puzzling because Frymer-Kensky concludes that there is a major "gap" in the Bible's understanding of sexuality and gender, because it does not "conceptualize" the sexual drive in a way analogous to the role of the goddess Ishtar in Sumerian religion and so leaves an unfinished task for the development of monotheism. Yet she has multiple chapters that discuss how the Bible treats sexuality and portrays men and women! Somehow (perhaps from her evolutionary view of religion and its necessary concomitant belief in the unreliability of the Bible's creation narrative or its vision of sin) this extensive discussion of the Bible's view of sexuality still amounts to a "gap." Perhaps we might employ an Ockham's razor here: the simplest explanation is the right one. The Bible links marriage, family, and sexuality in an unbreakable complex, and then explains all other sexual desires as the result of sin. This is only a "gap" if one believes this vision is too simplistic and needs to be brought into conversation with Freud, Kinsey, Money, Butler, or any other of our (post)modern pantheon of authorities on sex and psychology. In the wake of the goddesses come the gurus - but I don't think humanity has been better off under either of them.
January 16, 2022
How the Bible did--and didn't--deal with gender and sexuality. Many of the misogynist attitudes now seen mostly in the "western" world are of Greek and/or Roman origin, rather than being from the bible, according to the author. The bible was much more egalitarian in theory, but didn't deal well with the gender inequality that the bible itself shows existed. Not exactly "beach reading"--I read part I in the spring and summer of 2021 and the rest in December 2021 and January 2022--but worthwhile for those interested in the development of religion.
February 4, 2025
This work looks at how Christianity and Judaism both got rid of the Goddess and replaced them with; NOTHING. We start in Summer and their gods, both male Enki Enili et all and female Ishtar as the last, but other more minor hearth and home goddess. We then travel forward and read how these female powers were changed into the fallen, bad, sensuous, temptress who also or can be the queen of the household. The last chapters deal with how Greece and Rome changed the image of women even more to fit the patriarchal theology that we read in the Bible today. Lots of good info.
May 7, 2021
Erudite and entertainingly written, but unfortunately vitiated by the author’s feminist conspiracy-theory view of Israel’s history: she blames Israel’s patriarchy on Hellenism, and claims, with tendentious and selective misreadings of the Hebrew Bible’s laws and narratives, that the Tanakh is a millennia-old promissory note of sexual egalitarianism that can only now be fulfilled thanks to technological modernity.
May 18, 2023
What an interesting and informative read that makes you think differently about the bible.
February 21, 2025
Section 3 was a bit rushed but the introduction was everything and more
February 24, 2018
Am currently reading this book, bought during Thanksgiving trip to Chicago, found at the Seminary Bookstore. Surprisingly easy to understand, for a laywoman. Reading again about the Sumerians it has sparked me to do additional research at the same time as I am reading this. The book is now into the Old Testament discussion on the aspects of women in the Pentateuch. One of the biggest realizations I have so far is the agelessness of the subservient role of women, how it has been that way across cultures and time. This made me see how revolutionary the women's movement is/was- especially when one looks at the very beginnings of the rise of women fighting for equal rights. Talk about overturning the social and cultural structure of human relationships!
Finished. Once she gets away from Sumerian analysis her level of detail diminishes. She goes through the monotheism of early Judaism and then the changes under Hellenist and Roman influences. but these are not fully explored. Most likely left to many other writers, but this is the only book on the subject I have read. I would appreciate more of a specific look at the effects on women in our culture due to the changes in monotheism she talks about.
Finished. Once she gets away from Sumerian analysis her level of detail diminishes. She goes through the monotheism of early Judaism and then the changes under Hellenist and Roman influences. but these are not fully explored. Most likely left to many other writers, but this is the only book on the subject I have read. I would appreciate more of a specific look at the effects on women in our culture due to the changes in monotheism she talks about.
February 12, 2009
This is one of my all-time favorite books about the goddesses of the Ancient Near East. Frymer-Kensky, a Jew and a scholar of Ancient Near Eastern history and literature, is able to avoid both the wishful thinking of many goddess-worshippers and the patriarchal biases of earlier male scholars, to create a compelling look at the actual role of the goddesses of ancient Sumer and the transformations recorded by the Hebrew Bible.
Her scholarship is easily accessible to lay readers, and she has a great deal of respect for her ancient sources, even though they lie outside her own faith tradition.
Her scholarship is easily accessible to lay readers, and she has a great deal of respect for her ancient sources, even though they lie outside her own faith tradition.
August 16, 2011
The first part of the book contains very good and provable history about the Goddesses of Sumer. The second part contains the transition from Goddesses to monotheism. The history is the YHWH of Israel and how he made the old gods into mortal and then killed them off. Then the author follows the progression through the Israel/Judaic, Greek and Roman cultural that degrades the value of women. The ending points back to following the Christian "one" God. I was impressed with the information, but not the conclusion. There is no metaphysical or spiritual direction in this book.
April 16, 2010
awesome read
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews