The Dissenting Reader

Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible

Eryll Wynn Davies

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138710825
• eBook ISBN: 9781351775267
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Feminism & Feminist Theory
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2003. Few would deny that the Bible is an overwhelmingly patriarchal book that, over the centuries, has exercised considerable influence on the way in which women are perceived in society. From the opening chapters of Genesis, where woman is created to serve as man's "helper", to the pronouncements of Paul concerning the submission of wives to their husbands and the silencing of women in communal worship, the primary emphasis of the Bible is on woman's subordinate status. Feminist biblical critics raise the obvious question: how should women in communities of faith respond to the Bible's largely negative appraisal of women and oppressive patriarchal emphasis? Eryl Davies introduces the wide range of feminist approaches to the Hebrew Bible: from critics who recover neglected perspectives in the biblical tradition and argue that the Bible is not oppressively patriarchal, to others who reject biblical traditions, arguing that they are so immersed in a patriarchal culture that no parts are worth redeeming. Davies suggests that the most promising approach deploys a reader-oriented literary approach to the Hebrew Bible: by focusing on the literary representation of women through plot, dialogue and characterization, some of the subtle ways in which biblical authors sought to reinforce patriarchal values and endorse women's inferior status are highlighted. Davies argues that readers of the Hebrew Bible must be prepared to question and challenge the values and assumptions inherent in the text: they must don the mantle of the "dissenting reader" and apply what feminist biblical critics have termed a "hermeneutic of suspicion" to its content without denouncing the authority of the Bible as a sacred text.

Chapter 1
The Patriarchal Bible

Few would deny that the Bible is an overwhelmingly patriarchal book. The opening chapters of Genesis (Gen. 2–3) strike the keynote of woman’s inferiority, and it is a note that subsequently resonates throughout Scripture. The biblical traditions reflect a predominantly androcentric world-view which relegates women to the margins and assigns to them a subordinate role in the religious and social life of Israel. The patriarchal ethos is reflected in various complexes of tradition, ranging from the legal texts to the narratives, and from the prophetic texts to the sayings encountered in the wisdom literature.

The Legal Tradition

The laws contained in the Pentateuch appear to be addressed to a society in which only the male was regarded as a legally responsible person. The commandments of the Decalogue, for example, are framed in the second person masculine form,¹ and their content suggests that they were directed at the adult male heads of households who possessed children, cattle, land and servants (Ex. 20:1–17).² It was only in exceptional cases that women became the subject of legislation (cf. Ex. 21:7-l 1, 22–5; 22:16–17); for the most part the law did not address them or even acknowledge their existence.³

That the Pentateuchal laws reflect an exclusively male perspective is evident from several enactments. The laws concerning vows, for example, presuppose that women were under the authority of their father before marriage (Num. 30:3–5), and under the authority of their husbands after marriage (Num. 30:6–15), for the vow made by a daughter or a married woman needed the consent of the father or husband to be valid, and if such consent was withheld the vow was regarded as null and void. The inferior position of women is also clear from the laws pertaining to inheritance in the Hebrew Bible, for property was regularly transmitted through the male line, and daughters were permitted to inherit the property of their fathers only if there were no male heirs (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12).⁴ That the male was treated more favourably than the female is also evident from the slave laws, for the Hebrew male slave was automatically released after six years of service (Ex. 21:2), but no such freedom was permitted the female slave (Ex. 21:7).⁵

The subordinate position of women was equally apparent in Israel’s cultic legislation, for only males were entitled to serve as priests, and although women were not excluded from cultic observances (Deut. 12:12; 31:12), they were generally regarded as inferior participants in the worshipping community.⁶ Central to Israel’s cultic laws was the concept of ritual purity, and here, too, significant distinctions were drawn between men and women. According to Lev. 15:16–24, all bodily discharges of males and females were unclean; however, whereas the discharge of a man’s semen rendered him unclean only ‘until the evening’ (v.16), a woman’s menstrual discharge rendered her unclean for seven days (v.19). Moreover, after the period of uncleanness was over, both men and women were expected to bring offerings to the priest at the sanctuary, but whereas the men could bring their offerings ‘before the Lord’ (v.14), the woman who brought an offering was restricted to the entrance of the tent of meeting (v.29), the implication being that only men could come into the divine presence. Also only the male was required to ‘wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water’ (v.13) before approaching the sanctuary; such symbolic cleansing was not required of the female, presumably because she would not be appearing directly before God.

The distinction between male and female was also evident in the laws concerning purification after childbirth, for a woman who had given birth to a son was regarded as unclean for only seven days, whereas if she had given birth to a daughter she would have been regarded as unclean for fourteen days; moreover, in the former case, the mother had to wait for a further thirty-three days before she could participate again in the worship of the sanctuary, whereas in the latter case she was debarred from the sanctuary for twice as long (Lev. 12:2–5).

That the male was more highly regarded than the female is further confirmed by the law of Lev. 27:2–8, which places a monetary value on persons who had dedicated themselves to God. The ruling prescribed that men aged between twenty and sixty were required to pay fifty shekels in order to be released from their vow to perform cultic service, whereas women of the same age were required to pay only thirty shekels. Such monetary discrimination applied to other age groups, too, and a consistently lower value is assigned to the female as opposed to her male counterpart. How the Priestly writers arrived at their calculations is not known, but the discrepancy between male and female is usually taken as a tacit statement of the relative values assigned to each in the culture of ancient Israel.⁷

But nowhere is the woman’s inferior position more apparent than in the laws governing marriage and sexual relations, for these are clearly formulated from a male perspective and reflect male interests. For example, in the laws concerning the rape of a virgin who was not engaged to be married,⁸ the real victim was considered to be her father, and it was he who received the appropriate monetary compensation.⁹ His daughter’s plight was further aggravated by the fact that she was required to marry her assailant and – to make matters even worse – he was subsequently prevented from divorcing her (Deut. 22:28–9).¹⁰ That a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions were regarded as the legal property of her father or husband is also implied in the law contained in Ex. 21:22, which concerns a pregnant woman who was accidentally hurt and who suffered a miscarriage as a result; in this case it was the husband who was to be compensated for the loss of the unborn child.

The inequality between male and female was further emphasized by the fact that a man was entitled to expect his future bride to be a virgin, though there was no indication that his own virginity had to be intact when he married.¹¹ If the bride, on her wedding night, could not establish her virginity, she was regarded as having shamed her father and was liable to be stoned to death for her sexual misdemeanour (Deut. 22:13–21).

The double standard applied by the biblical law to men and women was particularly evident in the regulations concerning adultery. Adultery was defined by the law as sexual relations involving a married woman. A husband who had extramarital relations with an unmarried woman, a concubine or prostitute was not regarded as an adulterer; his action constituted adultery only if he had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife.¹² Such extramarital relations were regarded as so serious that a jealous husband who merely suspected his wife of infidelity could subject her to a humiliating ordeal that was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Num. 5:11–31).¹³ Significantly, the husband suffered no penalty if he was found to have accused his wife unjustly,¹⁴ and no parallel ritual was prescribed if a wife suspected her husband of being unfaithful. The laws governing divorce were similarly weighted in favour of the husband, for the dissolution of marriage was regarded in Israel as an exclusively male prerogative.¹⁵ Deut. 24:1 placed the initiative entirely in the hands of the husband, and the law permitted him to repudiate his wife and write her a bill of divorce for no reason other than that he had found in her ‘some indecency’.¹⁶

It is clear from the above résumé that the laws in Israel presupposed a social system in which women were disadvantaged and in which they did not generally possess rights commensurate with those of their male counterparts. Before marriage, the woman appears to have been under the authority of her father, and after marriage she was under the authority of her husband. Biblical legislation seems to confirm that ‘from childhood to old age, the Hebrew woman belonged to the men of her family’ (Trible, 1976, p.964). It seems highly ironic that the very law codes which demanded such high standards of justice and fairness for the poor and defenceless, and which seemed particularly concerned to protect the vulnerable and underprivileged, appear to have done so little to uphold the dignity, status and self-esteem of women in Israel.

Biblical Narratives

In its emphasis on women’s inferiority and submissiveness, the narratives of the Hebrew Bible in many ways complement the biblical laws. In Gen. 2, God is depicted as creating man first, then all the lower animals, and finally – almost as an afterthought – he creates woman to relieve man’s loneliness and to serve as his helper (vv.20–23). Thus, from the outset of the Hebrew Bible, the male is regarded as ‘the original human prototype’ whereas women are viewed as ‘secondary and auxiliary beings’.¹⁷

The subsequent story of Israel is narrated from a predominantly male perspective. Women are often mentioned in the biblical narratives in a perfunctory manner, and usually appear as minor characters in a plot that revolves mainly around the male protagonists. It is almost invariably the men of Israel who are assigned positions of power and influence in society, while the woman is usually mentioned only in her capacity as wife or mother, her primary value residing in her ability to produce (preferably male) offspring. It is true that a few characters, such as Miriam and Huldah (both of whom are regarded as ‘prophets’) and Deborah (who is depicted as a ‘judge’ and military strategist), did manage to achieve positions of preeminence, but they were very much the exceptions that proved the rule. By and large, the narratives reflect a society in which women were perceived as secondary citizens who were excluded from positions of status and authority.

On the domestic front, the biblical narratives confirm the impression gleaned from the biblical laws that marriage in Israel was far from being a partnership of equals. The wife was expected to remain monogamous, whereas similar fidelity was not required of her husband, who was entitled to take a second wife or a concubine (as did Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and others). A man’s wife was expected to address her husband as ‘master’ or ‘lord’ (cf. Gen. 18:12), the implication being that he ‘owned’ her in much the same way as he owned his slaves, herds and land (cf. Ex. 20:17; 21:4). Significantly, the word used in the Hebrew narratives for ‘marry’ is lāqaḥ (lit. ‘to take’), implying that the bride was viewed as a possession to be ‘acquired’ by her husband. That women were viewed in terms of their ‘property’ value appears to be confirmed by their presence in lists of booty commonly taken in war (cf. Deut. 20:14; 1 Sam. 30:2, 5; 1 Kgs 20:3, 5, 7; 2 Kgs 24:15) and by the fact that wives were counted along with concubines, silver and gold as an index of a man’s wealth (1 Kgs 10:14–11:8; cf. Bird, 1974, p.64).

Many biblical narratives confirm that the father exercised complete authority over his daughter. For example, Lot offered his two daughters to the men of Sodom in order to save his male guests from their lust (Gen. 19:8); Reuel, the Midianite priest, gave Moses his daughter, Zipporah, as a wife (Ex. 2:21), without any suggestion that she was consulted; Caleb promised to give his daughter in marriage to whoever succeeded in destroying Kiriath-sepher (Judg. 1:11–15); and Jephthah sacrificed his daughter in order to keep an oath which he had made to God (Judg. 11:29–40). That daughters were regarded as the possession of their fathers is evident from the fact that they could be bartered for economic gain; their marriage was a matter of negotiation and financial arrangement between the groom and the father of the bride (cf. Gen. 29:18–20; 34:12). Even among royal families, marriage was often a matter of political expediency, and the woman does not appear to have had any role in the negotiations (cf. 1 Sam. 18:17–29).

The biblical narratives also appear to confirm the subordinate position of women within the religious realm. The covenant community was defined as the community of the circumcised which constituted ‘every male among you’ (Gen. 17:10), and it was the male heads of household who normally represented their families in matters of religious ritual, such as the offering of sacrifice. Thus, for example, in Judg. 13:19 it is Manoah who prepares and offers a sacrifice on behalf of his wife, and in 1 Sam. 1:4 it is Elkanah who sacrifices at the shrine of Shiloh, distributing portions of the sacrifice to his wife and children. Moreover, it is quite in keeping with the male bias of the Israelite cult that the priestly office was confined to males.¹⁸ Although women were not excluded from participating in the worship of the community, the narrative tradition suggests that they assumed only a marginal role. They served ‘at the entrance of the tent of meeting’ (Ex. 38:8; 1 Sam. 2:22) and, while the precise nature of their service is unclear, it is probable that they functioned as temple servants, performing various kinds of domestic tasks.¹⁹

Of course, care must be taken not to overemphasize the inferior role assigned to women in the biblical narratives, for there are certainly instances where they appear to have acted with considerable courage, independence and initiative (cf. Num. 12:1–2; 2 Sam. 6:12–23). Moreover, there were probably subtle changes in the status accorded to women over the period during which the Hebrew Bible came to be written. Nevertheless, the biblical narratives do tend to confirm and amplify the inferior role attributed to women in the legal tradition.

The Prophets

The prophets of Israel and Judah often single out women as especially responsible for behaviour which they deemed to be unworthy or morally unacceptable. Amos, for example, castigated the upper-class women of Samaria (‘the cows of Bashan’, as he called them) for enjoying a comfortable, luxurious and self-indulgent lifestyle at the expense of the poor and helpless (Am. 4:1–3). His contemporary, Isaiah, likewise condemned the flamboyant, ostentatious behaviour of the wealthy women of Jerusalem, who walked around displaying their finery for all to see (Is. 3:16–17). Two centuries later, Ezekiel inveighed against women who prophesied ‘out of their own imagination’ and who ensnared the people with their lies and divination (Ezek. 13:17–23). Significantly, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah regarded women as the main culprits in the religious apostasy of the people: it was they who wailed for Tammuz outside the temple (Ezek. 8:14), and it was they who presented offerings to false gods and who worshipped the queen of heaven (Jer. 44:15–23).

Further, the prophets deploy female imagery in such a way as to affirm the traditional gender stereotyping of women as physically weaker than men and as dependent on them for their protection and support. Jerusalem (the ‘daughter of Zion’), for example, is depicted as a helpless female in need of male rescue (Lam. 1:17; 2:1, 10, 18–19). She is depicted as vulnerable and destitute without a husband and ashamed of being without children (Is. 54:1–6).²⁰ Babylon is similarly personified as a ‘virgin daughter’ who is foolish, weak and completely at the mercy of an omnipotent and all-powerful deity (Is. 47:1–15; cf. Darr, 1994, pp. 169–74).

Moreover, when the prophets use the marriage metaphor to depict the nature of the relationship between God and his people, the husband (God) is always viewed in a positive light whereas the wife (Israel) is almost invariably viewed negatively (Brenner, 1995b, p.26). In Hosea, for example, God is described as the steadfast, supportive, loving husband, while the Israelites are depicted as his sexually promiscuous and wayward wife. While God (the husband) had fed, clothed and protected his wife (cf. Hos. 2:8–9), she had turned to other lovers for support and had abused the marriage relationship that should have been based on mutual loyalty and trust (Hos. 2:5). In a similar vein, Jeremiah describes the nation’s religious apostasy in terms of the once faithful bride who had dishonoured her husband (Jer. 2:1–3:5). The marriage metaphor is also used to depict the people’s attempt to forge alliances with foreign countries, and images related to female sexuality are deployed to denounce policies that the prophets deemed to be foolish or dangerous. In two lengthy orac...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 The Patriarchal Bible
• Chapter 2 Feminist Models of Reading
• Chapter 3 Feminist Criticism and Reader-response Criticism
• Chapter 4 Unmasking the Text’s Ideology
• Chapter 5 Ideological Critique
• Chapter 6 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Biblical References