Ordo Antichristianus Illuminati^®

Inanna/Ishtar, Sa.Zi.Ga, Asherah, Sarah, and Abraham's Sons
by Soror Inanna ©  ^A.D.2004-2008 All rights reserved.

Two authors I will rely upon heavily are Judith M. Hadley who wrote "The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess," and Savina J. Teubal, who wrote "Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis." Hadley is both a Hebrew scholar and an archaeologist, and her book contains a great deal of archaeological evidence that during the time of the Hebrews, the goddess Asherah was worshipped. Her thesis is that the Bible includes evidence of this goddess as well, but that over time Asherah was obscured and became a "pole" called the asherah, which was included in the temple of Yahweh. Over time this pole was destroyed which obviously occurs in the Hebrew Bible through iconoclasm (see my review of Hadley's book for more complete information on this theory). Teubal's work includes both anthropological kin-theory of the Mesopotamian area as well as Biblical and archaeological evidence that Sarah, discussed by Carol Delaney above, was in fact a priestess, a matriarch and came from a matrilineal family at Ur.

The third article I will use heavily is Robert D. Biggs' "The Babylonian Sexual Potency Texts" in the XLVII Roncontre Assyriologique Internationale conference papers. The reason I will utilize this text for my theory is that, although it only includes interpretations of Babylonian potency texts associated with the cult worship of Inanna, it expresses how men could have become marginalized in a matrifocal system. Based on these texts and artifacts, as well as interpretations of the Bible, I will provide an alternative theory that deconstructs the idea of a kind, matrilineal or matrifocal culture and instead illustrates how such a culture could have marginalized men, how marginalized men may have reacted by attempting to subvert this system (rightfully so), and how a matrilineal culture not only harmed men but was hierarchal and oppressive in its ability to exclude some women (and their offspring) who were not matrilineal heirs.

We begin our story with Inanna and Ishtar, who were unified as the same deity by the time of Sumerian Sargon (approx. 2300 BCE) to include and suppress the Akkadian rebellion (Teubal: 1984: 77). In Old Babylonian texts, Inanna is described as a sex goddess, "Queen of Heaven," who was involved in religio-sexual ceremonies that included her mystical marriage, or heiros gamos with the priest (who was identified with the god). Teubal ulilizes this information to present her theory that Sarah, wife of Abraham, actually traveled with him from Ur, the place where Inanna was worshipped. She uses a variety of evidence throughout her book to illustrate precisely why Sarah was a priestess of Inanna (from page 99):

Teubal interestingly illustrates a storyline of how Sarah traveled with Abraham to Mamre and lived at the terebinth grove, which was a "sacred grove" associated with Asherah in the Bible. Inanna, as discussed by Hadley, was not the same as Asherah (Asherah was a mother goddess and Inanna a sex goddess); however, according to Hadley, Asherah was the predominant goddess of the Hebrews, going back to 1000 BCE (see review, attached). It is plausible that if Sarah were a priestess of Inanna, she would've taken on the Hebrew goddess Asherah at her new home.

Teubal reiterates what Hadley says regarding Sarah being a priestess of Inanna and not necessarily associated with the mother goddess Asherah because, "she remained childless. Like Inanna, the priestess was to remain childless also. Only in a much later time we are told that if the priestess should conceive, the child of the sacred union was to be exposed to the elements and left to its fate, which was usually death" (83).

This is one of the most interesting parts of the story considering the mortuary archaeology. Sarah was buried here, also at the terebinth grove, with her husband Abraham. However, his other wives were not included. Her son, Isaac, was included along with his chosen wife (Rebekah). The story of Rebekah also illustrates that the family came from a matrifocal group in Mesopotamia. Isaac had to travel there to retrieve his wife, and she only left with him according to her own will. Rebekkah's firstborn child was expelled in a similar way that Hagar (who bore Ishmael to Abraham before Sarah conceived) was expelled, mainly for marrying a "local" wife. Teubal uses all this as evidence that Sarah's lineage was matrilineal, her family of origin was matrifocal, and that she therefore was following her culture.

The story of Hagar is also interesting: Teubal provides evidence that Sarah expelled Hagar (unlike Carol Delaney says, the Bible clearly shows that it was Sarah who expelled her and Abraham obeyed) because Sarah was rejecting Ishmael. Babylonian evidence shows that a woman may take on a slave in her stead to bear a child with her husband to carry on her lineage if she herself can't bear a child, but when Sarah bore her own son, she expelled Ishmael (and Hagar) mainly to keep him from gaining an inheritance. The expulsion of Ishmael, according to Teubal, is not because Abraham was cruel, but because Sarah demanded he was expelled.

Inanna magical incantations pointed out by Julia Assante, who presented a paper on the subject, show interesting gendered violence. One of which is to revert a straying lover to a woman's will, "I have hit you on the head, I have deranged your reason; Set you will to my will; Set your decision to my decision; I hold you fast as Ishtar held Damuzi; (As) beer (lit. Zeras) binds her drinker; I have bound you with my hairy mouth; With my vagina (full of) wetness (lit. urine); With my mouth (full of) saliva; With my vagina (full of) wetness; No female rival shall go near you!" (Assante, 2002: 33). The article illustrates a variety of iconographical images of women's bodies being showed frontally nude, in most cases, engaging in "drinking" during sex in a variety of positions and symbolic images of their vulvas.

(Assante, p. 45)

The sexual imagery is profound, showing that indeed these existed as subversive pornography or the culture was far more accepting of women's sexuality than even our own culture. The religious literature is rife with sexuality such as, "When they erect my lustrous bed for him; may they spread it for me with my wet lapis lazuli grass; May they make the man enter my heart!; May they make enter for me there my Ama-ushum-galanna; May they place is hand in my hand for me; May they place his heart with my heart for me!" (41). (Heart is many times, when describing a man's, interpreted as penis).

"The Babylonian Sexual Potency Texts" (or Sa.Zi.Ga) illustrate Sumerian and Akkadian love charms intent specifically to "make" a man potent. Sa.Zi.Ga means "rising of the heart," or penis (Biggs 2002: 72). Throughout reading them, one discovers that men are desired for potency and hunting capabilities:

"Wild ass who has an erection for mating, who has dampened your ardor? Violent stallion whose sexual excitement is a devastating flood, who has bound your limbs?" (73).

"Wild ass! Wild ass! Wild bull! Wild bull! Who has made you [fall limp] like slack cords? Who has blocked your [way] like a road? Who has poured cold [water] on your 'heart'?" (73).

"Get an erection like a wild bull!" and "At the head of my bed is tied a buck. At the foot of my bed is tied a ram. The one at the head of my bed, get an erection, make love to me! The one at the foot of my bed, get an erection, caress me!" (73).

Compounding this with Hadley's discussion on the "Deuteronomical polemic" (or the idea that Asherah as a goddess was in fact removed or edited out of the Bible, discussed in her chapter "Asherah in the Bible," on pages 54-83) I am curious as to why men would decide, in fact, to eliminate a goddess. This has introduced a new theory to me which is quite contrived from the evidence, in the same way that other narratives are. I am curious though, is it possible that strict worship of a goddess who only valued men for potency and sexuality, assigning them to a masculine "animal" state of being was resented by men? I can't think men would've preferred being valued only for their sexuality. How did this exclude men who were impotent?

When reading some Bible passages regarding Asherah, it seems clear that men may have felt some level of "hatred" for the asherah(s). What is the reason? (For example, Hadley says in II Chronicles xv. 16, "Here Asa removes Maacah his mother (or grandmother?) from the position of Queen Mother because she made a 'horrid thing'…for the asherah. It is then this 'horrid thing' which Asa cuts down…") (2000: 64). Why would they want to cut down the symbol of an ancient religious tradition? Is it possible that the matrifocal and matrilineal society in which they lived was actually oppressing them sexually?

We can ask questions such as, "Yes, but who had control of the resources?" Perhaps control over economic resources is not everything to a person's well-being and life, and it is plausible that sexual discrimination (only valuing men for potency) would create not only resentment but also damage to their self-esteem. It could've been this very thing that they were reacting to when "male priests" edited out the goddess from the texts. Perhaps it specifically made them feel insecure or inferior.

Further, the idea that Sarah had the ability to designate Hagar a slave and expel her along with her son illustrates that matrilineal culture is not all about peace, love and harmony. People are still being marginalized (slave women, specifically) and a hierarchy of resource distribution still apparently occurs. Therefore, Hagar and Ishmael could be legitimately excluded and perhaps sent into poverty while feminist advocates for a matriarchy would condone this as peaceful and harmonious to all. It seems quite apparent to me that in fact it wasn't harmonious for that woman or her son. And, how did Abraham feel about that? Perhaps he loved his firstborn son, Ishmael. Certainly, it is Ishmael who is considered by Islam rather than Isaac.

This alternative interpretation only illustrates that there can be other interpretations based on the same evidence, and that these other interpretations should be included as possibilities for the lives of Biblical Hebrews, those we teach our kids about in Sunday School.