Feminist Exegesis of the Old Testament: Some Critical Reflections
by Paul Joyce
First published as Ch. 1, in After
Eve,
edited by Janet Martin Soskice.
Collins Marshall Pickering
1990
Reproduced on our website with the necessary permissions
The question of how we are to understand
and interpret Scripture, in all its diversity, across a broad cultural divide
is one of the central and perennial issues of theology. One area in which this
is keenly felt in some contemporary Christian circles is that relating to women
and the feminine. Feminist exegesis of the Bible, though having roots at least
as early as the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the nineteenth century,(1)
has been an increasingly significant feature of the theological scene in recent
years. This form of criticism may seem rather alien to those accustomed to more
traditional approaches, but its challenges and insights need to be taken
seriously by all, not least because they often raise in sharp form many
questions which are of importance to biblical interpretation as a whole,
including those which relate to the authority of Scripture. In this short
essay, we shall consider some of the key issues raised, in specific relation to
the Old Testament.
There is, of course, much in the Old Testament which
presents a decidedly 'negative' view of women. As an example we may cite the
presentation of sinful Israel as a dissolute woman in Ezekiel chapter sixteen,
or again the image of the harlot as the embodiment of folly in Proverbs chapter
seven. There have been a number of different responses to such material.
Throughout much of Christian tradition, the tendency has often been for
'negative' biblical themes concerning women to be given prominence - for
example, the part played by the woman in the garden of Eden.(2) Such an
emphasis has often both been informed by and in turn sanctioned the assumptions
of Church and society regarding the place and role of women. Needless to say,
traditional views of this kind have generally gone together with an assumption
that a high degree of authority is to be attributed to the canon of
Scripture.
At another extreme, we find the so-called post-Christian
feminists such as Mary Daly or, in Britain, Daphne Harnpson.(3) Their position
shares with most traditional interpretation the general supposition that the
biblical witness with regard to women is essentially negative. Indeed, these
critics have helped us see much more clearly the extent of the subordination of
women in the biblical materials. But whereas much traditional interpretation
sanctioned this picture, the response of the post-Christian feminist is to say
that the biblical text must be rejected, as the irredeemable product of a
'patriarchal' culture, and with it any notion of scriptural authority in the
traditional sense.
However, there is (in spite of all) much in the Old
Testament that is more positive with regard to women than either most
traditional exegesis or post-Christian feminism has generally acknowledged. Two
examples can suffice here. One is the story of Ruth, the Moabite woman who
leaves her homeland out of loyalty to her mother-in-law Naomi and settles in
Judah, where she becomes the ancestress of David. The other is the remarkable
motif of the personification of the divine Wisdom as a woman in Proverbs
chapter eight. Indeed, one of the major contributions of what we might call
'mainstream' feminist exegesis of the Bible has been to demonstrate this more
positive side. A good example of the presentation of positive themes is Phyllis
Trible's God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, in which texts ranging from
Genesis chapter one to the Song of Songs are explored from a feminist
perspective.(4) This position certainly acknowledges the so-called 'patriarchy'
of much of the biblical witness, but it wrestles with the question of how this
may be related to those parts of the text which are more positive about women.
Because such 'mainstream' feminist writers attribute some distinctive authority
to the Bible (unlike post-Christian feminists), they engage in an important way
with issues of change and continuity within the Christian tradition and with
questions relating to the authority of Scripture.(5)
Among the important questions of interpretation highlighted by the work
of these feminist critics are the following: How are we to respond to the fact
that both 'positive' and 'negative' themes concerning women are to be found
side-by-side in the Bible? Should we give greater weight to one or the other,
and, if so, on what grounds?
One response is the attempt to make the most of the
'positive' themes concerning women and the feminine in the biblical tradition,
thereby counteracting the 'negative' bias of much traditional interpretation,
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld identifies two aspects of such an approach. One
involves giving renewed emphasis to texts in which women play a prominent,
positive role; a notable example would be the stories about Deborah, the
deliverer of Israel, recounted in Judges chapters four and five. The second
aspect involves the positive reinterpretation of texts, finding 'positive'
themes in material which has traditionally been thought to present a 'negative'
view of women. An example of the latter would be the attempt of some critics to
emphasise the co-responsibility of woman with man in the Eden narrative as a
positive theme.(6)
This approach, which we might call 'maximising the
positive', has many attractions; it is certainly illuminating to be helped to
read with new eyes a narrative such as that of Moses' infancy in Exodus
chapters one and two, where we discover the important role played by women as
the agents of God's saving activity.(7)However, there are also reasons to be
cautious here, two of which we shall briefly examine.
First, there is the danger of attempting to reclaim too
much, trying to redeem the irredeemable. Occasionally, one feels that eisegesis
rather than exegesis is at work; this criticism is certainly made by some of
those who study the place of women in the biblical world from a more strictly
historical viewpoint.(8) Moreover, one detects in some feminist exegesis a
certain lack of clarity with regard to what is being claimed. At times, it is
not quite clear whether the reader is being offered a historical-critical
judgment about the original meaning of the text or a free reading for our own
day, which does not necessarily claim to tally with the original meaning;
indeed, some feminist critics appear to slide between the two.(9) We must
beware of being simplistic in our criticism here, for the relationship between
exegesis of an ancient text and its appropriation in a modern situation is, of
course, always a complex one. Nevertheless, more consistent clarity about what
is being claimed by feminist exegetes would undoubtedly help others weigh the
value of their contribution.
Second, even when it is employed appropriately, the
approach which we have dubbed 'maximising the positive' has obvious
limitations. For there will inevitably remain texts for which no
reinterpretation seems possible, a significant residue of what some have called
'irredeemably sexist material'. Integrity and honesty demand that such
'negative' texts be acknowledged for what they are. But how then are we to deal
with them?
The approach of Phyllis Trible in her book Texts of
Terror is a sophisticated attempt to grapple with this very question.(10)
She reviews four particularly gruesome narratives. The first is the story of
Hagar, the Egyptian maid who bears Abraham's son Ishmael but becomes the
innocent victim of rejection (Genesis 16.1-16; 21.9-21). The next is the
account of the rape of Tamar, princess Judah, by her brother Amnon (2 Samuel
13.1-22). Trible's third text is the harrowing tale of the betrayal, rape and
dismemberment of an unnamed concubine from Bethlehem (Judges 19.1-30). And
then, finally, there is the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, in
fulfilment of the father's foolish vow (Judges 11.29-40). Trible is not
concerned to rehabilitate her 'texts of terror', in the sense of demonstrating
that they are positive after all. On the contrary, she presents them in all
their darkness, calling the reader to identify with biblical women both in
their oppression and in their struggle for freedom. These four texts are
themselves undeniably 'negative', and yet Trible enables an engagement with
these biblical narratives which is both profound and challenging.
We have mentioned the attempt to discern and highlight
more 'positive' themes. We have also seen that even 'negative' passages can, in
a sense, be used positively. But given that both 'negative' and 'positive'
themes are to be found, how are they to be related? Can we find any criteria
which might help us to order these diverse biblical materials?
The approach of Rosemary Radford Ruether attempts to
address this question by looking beyond those texts which speak explicitly of
women. She claims to discern in the Bible a more general theological
perspective which is the key to the whole. She finds this in what she calls
'Prophetic Principles'. These, she says, 'imply a rejection of... every use of
God to justify social domination and subjection'.(11) Within the Old Testament,
these principles are found in, for example, the Exodus tradition and the
Classical Prophets. This strand of the biblical witness is given normative
status - and all biblical 'sexism' (to use Ruether's word) is subordinated to
its critique. Whilst many passages make no reference to the situation of women,
they give a scriptural charter for the liberation of women in our own day.
Consciousness of oppression is contextual, Ruether stresses, and the
appropriate response in the modern context is to make explicit the critique of
sexism which is implicit in the 'Prophetic Principles' of the Old
Testament.
This approach is, in many ways, attractive. But why
should we elevate these 'Prophetic Principles' to normative status? The Old
Testament presents us with a very 'mixed bag' of materials on most issues of
major concern, including those of power and justice. There are, of course,
legitimate debates about what is central and what is marginal, but it is by no
means clear on what grounds 'Prophetic Principles' could conclusively be shown
to be normative in the Old Testament.(12) There are indeed many texts which
might be used to support feminist concerns (and these might well include some
which contain no explicit reference to women), but there are clearly also many
other texts which point in a different direction. Some feminist critics weaken
their case by failing adequately to address this question of the criteria upon
which selection is to be made and emphasis given.(13)
This is ultimately, of course, an issue of authority.
The Christian may wish at this point to bring in the New Testament and ask
whether it can yield the key to our problem. We have, after all, been using the
term Old Testament (rather than Hebrew Bible), which implies a Christian
theological context. Cannot the New Testament show us what should be the
normative, authoritative emphasis within the diverse materials of the Old? But
here we face the difficulty that the diversity of the New Testament witness on
the place of women and the feminine is comparably complex to that of the Old
Testament. How, for example, are we to reconcile Jesus' apparently positive
attitude towards women with the so-called subordinationist texts in Paul, both
of course much debated? No more than the Old Testament does the New Testament,
in its own right, give us unequivocal grounds for attributing greater authority
to one emphasis rather than another.(14)
One way forward seems to lie in broadening the scope of
our inquiry still further. Our principles of discrimination can be drawn only
in part from within the Bible; we have to go outside Scripture too. Ruether is,
in practice, quite evidently drawing on a whole range of extra-biblical
considerations when she chooses to give primacy to her 'Prophetic
Principles'.(15) And this is surely nothing new; throughout the centuries,
whatever interpreters have claimed they were doing, they have in fact
operated with their own 'canon' within the biblical canon, conditioned by their
own theological, confessional and ideological perspectives.(16) Today we see
the range of factors involved to be broad indeed (certainly including
philosophical, sociological, political and psychological factors). Robert
Morgan has reminded us recently just how multi-faceted is this task of biblical
interpretation.(17) It is important that we should acknowledge that we are all
engaged in a broadly-based theological endeavour such as this when we read
Scripture. Such a recognition will compel us to reflect self-critically upon
this task and upon the difficult question of how we can appropriately express
the authority of the Bible within such a process. Moreover, we shall find
ourselves forced to think hard about a host of closely-related questions,
concerning revelation and natural theology, change and continuity within a
religious tradition, the development of doctrine and the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, issues of objectivity and subjectivity, committed reading and
detachment, and the importance of the context of interpretation. In short, we
shall be required to think theologically.
Feminist exegesis not only poses an important challenge
to many of our assumptions about the Bible and about ourselves with regard to
the place of women and the feminine; it also highlights, as we have seen, many
issues which are central to all interpretation of the Bible. If we have raised
several critical questions concerning the method of feminist exegesis, this is
in the recognition that these issues are being addressed by a number of
feminist critics themselves, and also that these methodological observations
have a bearing upon most other forms of biblical interpretation too.
In closing, we shall summarise the main general issues of method which
have been highlighted.
1. It is important to strive for clarity about what is
being claimed in biblical interpretation. Above all, we should avoid any
tendency to imply in a merely casual or covert way that our reading coincides
with the original meaning. If historical-critical judgments are offered,
they must be defended with exegetical rigour.
2. The diversity of Scripture on most important issues
must be acknowledged; where the 'centre' of the biblical witness on any
particular theme lies is rarely, if ever, self-evident; as we sift the biblical
resources we must reflect self-critically on the criteria upon which selection
is made and emphasis given.
3. It is to be acknowledged that, in practice, these
criteria are usually drawn from a wide range and that interpretation is always
influenced by many extra-biblical factors; that it is indeed shaped, to a
significant degree, by the entire context of interpretation. We must strive to
express our understanding of the authority of Scripture in such a way as to
take seriously the fact that the Bible is but one factor (albeit of
foundational importance) in the complex business of finding meaning and
identity as Christians in a changing world.
NOTES
1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's
Bible (London, 1985; first published 1895); cf. Elizabeth Griffin, In
Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (Oxford,
1984).
2. Of the wide range of examples which might be cited,
we note: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 22, 4; Tertullian, On the
Dress of Women, I, 1, 1-2; Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis,
XI, 42; Ambrose, On Paradise, XII, 56.
3. Mary Daly's influential contributions Include:
Beyond God the Father (London, 1985; first published 1973);
Gyn/Ecology (London, 1984; first published 1978). Cf. Daphne Hampson,
'The Challenge of Feminism to Christianity', in Theology September 1985,
pp. 341-50; 'Is There a Place for Feminists in the Christian Church?', in
New Blackfriars January 1987, pp. Iff.
4. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality
(Philadelphia, 1978).
5. The focus of my concerns in this short essay is with
change and development within the Christian tradition and its
implications for hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture within that
tradition. This is in no way to overlook important work being done in this area
by those who stand within the Jewish tradition. See, for example, Judith
Hauptman, 'Images of Women in the Talmud', in Rosemary Radford Ruether (ed.),
Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions
(New York, 1974), pp. 184-212.
6. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 'Feminist Uses of Biblical
Materials', in Letty M. Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible
(Oxford, 1985), pp. 55-64.
7. This feature of the narrative is attractively
highlighted in Hans-Ruedi Weber, Experiments with Bible Study (Geneva,
1981), pp. 67-74.
8. I am grateful for the observations of Leonie Archer
here. As an example of her written contribution in this area, see 'The Virgin
and the Harlot in the Writings of Formative Judaism', History Workshop
24 (1987), pp. 1-16; cf. also Leonie Archer, Her Price is Beyond Rubies:
The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine (Sheffield, 1990).
9. Such ambiguity is an occasional feature even of
Trible's valuable treatment of Genesis chs 2-3: Phyllis Trible, God and the
Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 72-143.
10. Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror:
Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia, 1984).
11. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk:
Towards a Feminist Theology {London, 1983), p. 23; cf. 'Feminism and
Patriarchal Religion: Principles of Ideological Critique of the Bible', in
the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982), pp. 54-66.
12. Among valuable recent treatments of the diversity of
the Old Testament, see: Paul D. Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture: A
Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia, 1982); John Goldingay,
Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1987).
13. When Ruether asserts that the 'prophetic-liberating
tradition of Biblical faith . . . can be fairly claimed, on the basis of
generally accepted Biblical scholarship, to be the central tradition' she is
surely underestimating the problematic nature of this question (Rosemary
Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, pp. 23-4).
14. On the New Testament, see Robert Morgan's essay in
the present volume.
15. Ruether's formulation of 'Prophetic Principles'
would seem to reflect the influence of Marxism, Liberation Theology and secular
Feminism, among other factors.
16. Cf. John H. Hayes and Frederick C. Prussner, Old
Testament Theology: Its History and Development (London, 1985).
17. Robert Morgan (with John Barton), Biblical Interpretation
(Oxford,
No comments:
Post a Comment