How Important is Historical Accuracy?
I've been reading Mark Carter's book Stalking the Goddess for the last couple days, and I'm really digging it. It's a critical analysis of Robert Graves' The White Goddess (TWG), and it kind of reads like it was Carter's doctoral thesis. Not that there's anything wrong with publishing your thesis as a book, but it tends to be rather dry. I'm okay with dry, but for the average reader of Pagan books this probably not what you're going to want to sink into just yet. This is definitely advanced research into the literary roots of Graves' work, and the highly problematic historicity of the narrative that TWG purports. And this is kind of important stuff, because TWG sets up a lot of really important mythological paradigms that are the underlying structure of Wicca. But Graves isn't the only spurious foundational source for Wicca. Margaret Murray's Witch Cult in Western Europe and Frazer's Golden Bough deserve just as much credit and scrutiny as TWG.
But then I took a step back and asked myself, "really, though, how important is it that there be historical accuracy in these foundational texts?"
Wicca, like many religious movements, was designed by people who were so moved by these works that they developed this religious system that sparked a global spiritual change. Most people look to this mythological narrative of triple goddess, and the oak king/holly king, and they find meaning there for their lives. The fact that it was invented, rather than re-discovered as some ongoing ancient religion, is pretty much irrelevant to the system of faith, because the faith of Wicca does not look to these books as sacred or infallible. Rather it looks to the experience of the devotee, and her direct connection to the divine, in whatever form it reveals itself unto her.
In a previous post I wrote about Wicca (and Neo-Paganism more broadly) as a religion of "revealed truth." When I said that, I was speaking about this direct, experiential connection to the Gods. Each of us comes to understand The Mystery in our own, unique and beautiful way. It is that unique experience that is the Revelation of our faith. Graves, Murray, Frazer, and Gardner were all looking for something and they built a narrative to fit their belief. Academically speaking this is unacceptable, and must be questioned, analyzed, and replaced with a more accurate historic narrative. Theologically speaking, we can accept that this is historically inaccurate, and yet still spiritually relevant.
Should we continue to perpetuate the historically inaccurate narrative of matriarchal Goddess worship? No. But, we don't have to, because we don't need to. Goddess worship is alive, contemporary, and is bringing us new and valuable insights into the journey of the spirit all the time. The fact that it is a modern religion does not diminish its value. But it does underscore the necessity of judging it on its current activities, and the impact that it has in people's lives right now, versus criticizing it for being built on shaky scholarship.
Yes, it came from people. Empassioned, inspired, and somewhat misguided, but identifiable people. The problem with most every other religion is that we are so vastly removed from their origins that their twisted roots have grown miles of thickets and acres of forests and we can never really know their sources. With contemporary faiths, those with the misfortune of arriving on the scene after the mass trasmission written language and scholarly footnotes, we are able to see in plain sight the errors of our founders' ways. Frankly, I'm way more okay with that. We can't claim that our religion was inscribed in magical plates, or that it was God HIMSELF who transmitted this knowledge to some dude with a robe and a village to lead. Nope. It was people, and they believed this. Fallible, prone to confirmation bias, wanting so desperately for their belief to be true that they wrote these spurious works.
But they saw something; something beautiful, powerful, and worth finding. So they led us there.
And then we saw it too.
Goddess is alive.
But then I took a step back and asked myself, "really, though, how important is it that there be historical accuracy in these foundational texts?"
Wicca, like many religious movements, was designed by people who were so moved by these works that they developed this religious system that sparked a global spiritual change. Most people look to this mythological narrative of triple goddess, and the oak king/holly king, and they find meaning there for their lives. The fact that it was invented, rather than re-discovered as some ongoing ancient religion, is pretty much irrelevant to the system of faith, because the faith of Wicca does not look to these books as sacred or infallible. Rather it looks to the experience of the devotee, and her direct connection to the divine, in whatever form it reveals itself unto her.
In a previous post I wrote about Wicca (and Neo-Paganism more broadly) as a religion of "revealed truth." When I said that, I was speaking about this direct, experiential connection to the Gods. Each of us comes to understand The Mystery in our own, unique and beautiful way. It is that unique experience that is the Revelation of our faith. Graves, Murray, Frazer, and Gardner were all looking for something and they built a narrative to fit their belief. Academically speaking this is unacceptable, and must be questioned, analyzed, and replaced with a more accurate historic narrative. Theologically speaking, we can accept that this is historically inaccurate, and yet still spiritually relevant.
Should we continue to perpetuate the historically inaccurate narrative of matriarchal Goddess worship? No. But, we don't have to, because we don't need to. Goddess worship is alive, contemporary, and is bringing us new and valuable insights into the journey of the spirit all the time. The fact that it is a modern religion does not diminish its value. But it does underscore the necessity of judging it on its current activities, and the impact that it has in people's lives right now, versus criticizing it for being built on shaky scholarship.
Yes, it came from people. Empassioned, inspired, and somewhat misguided, but identifiable people. The problem with most every other religion is that we are so vastly removed from their origins that their twisted roots have grown miles of thickets and acres of forests and we can never really know their sources. With contemporary faiths, those with the misfortune of arriving on the scene after the mass trasmission written language and scholarly footnotes, we are able to see in plain sight the errors of our founders' ways. Frankly, I'm way more okay with that. We can't claim that our religion was inscribed in magical plates, or that it was God HIMSELF who transmitted this knowledge to some dude with a robe and a village to lead. Nope. It was people, and they believed this. Fallible, prone to confirmation bias, wanting so desperately for their belief to be true that they wrote these spurious works.
But they saw something; something beautiful, powerful, and worth finding. So they led us there.
And then we saw it too.
Goddess is alive.