Changing Horizons

Explorations in Feminist Interpretation

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780800698072
• eBook ISBN: 9781451426410
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Changing Horizons is the second of two volumes highlighting the ways in which Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza's work constructs a critical feminist theory and praxis of liberation, in relation to the biblical text and its legacy, and in relation to the theological and ecclesial setting of today.

Schüssler Fiorenza attempts to free both biblical studies and theology from disciplinary constraints and assumptions that have allowed them to acquiesce and even perpetuate forms of oppression—from racism and poverty to colonialism and gender equality.

While Schussler Fiorenza's feminist critical approach begins with the experience of women, that experience is appropriated through the lens of critical theory and a critical understanding of social and religious oppressions. It is, further, political in its aim to dethrone kyriarchal structures and foment genuinely egalitarian community in church and society.

Practicing Feminist Biblical Interpretation

In the early 1970s, women’s studies emerged as an independent discipline. In all areas of scientific knowledge, courses and research projects were developed to expand our knowledge of women’s cultural-scientific contributions as well as to challenge androcentric texts, scholarly frameworks, and scientific reconstructions that overlooked or marginalized wo/men. Women’s studies in religion participate in these intellectual and educational goals of the Women’s Studies movement, while feminist theology and feminist studies in religion share in the liberative goals of the feminist movement in society and church.

In the context of this two-pronged movement, feminist biblical studies have moved from the concentration on what men have said about women in the Bible and from the apologetic-thematic focus on women in the Bible to a new critical reading of biblical texts in a feminist perspective. In this process we have moved from discussing statements about wo/men by Paul or the “Fathers” and Rabbis to the rediscovery of biblical wo/men’s leadership and oppression as crucial for the revelatory process of God’s liberation reflected in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

In the past decade or so, I have regularly taught an undergraduate course on “wo/men in the Bible” at Notre Dame that seeks to integrate historical-­critical biblical scholarship, the intellectual Women’s Studies approach, and feminist-theological concerns. Over the years, this course has evolved into three basic sections that could easily be taught as separate courses or be integrated as a whole or in part into other biblical studies, religious studies, or women’s studies courses. The course presupposes that students have had an introductory course in the*logy and that both wo/men and men are enrolled in the class. Although the title announces that the course will discuss the whole Bible, I have come to realize that this is an impossible undertaking within the context of a single course, especially if students have no skills in historical-critical analysis and lack basic historical knowledge about biblical times and situations.

Since my own area of specialization is New Testament studies, I tend to discuss Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and “patristic” texts only selectively and to concentrate on New Testament texts. However, I suggest that my methodological approach can be employed equally well in the discussion of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts and early church writings.

It is obviously impossible to give even a detailed course syllabus and description in such a limited space. What I will try to do, therefore, is sketch the main sections of the course, make some suggestions for student learning processes and assignments, and mention some books that I have found helpful in teaching the course. Since I cannot develop here fully the theological rationale and exegetical content of each section, I refer those interested in a fuller theoretical development to my book In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Helpful general introductions are also Letty Russell, editor, The LiberatingWorld (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) and the papers of the 1980 Society of Biblical Literature panel on The Effects of Women’s Studies on Biblical Studies, which were edited by Phyllis Trible and appeared in the Journal for the Study of theOld Testament 22 (1982): 3–71.

The bibliography suggested is neither comprehensive nor paradigmatic. I simply mention the books and collections of essays that I have found helpful in preparing and teaching the course. The past decade has produced numerous articles and popular books on “Woman in the Bible,” but the available literature is very uneven in its scholarly quality and feminist the*logical outlook. For a comprehensive bibliographical review essay, see Ross Kraemer, “Women in the Religions of the Greco-Roman World,” which appeared in Religious Studies Review in 1983.

Issues in Biblical Interpretation

Despite having taken introductory level courses, students often have not acquired sufficient skills to read the Bible historically, nor have they learned to articulate feminist the*logical-critical questions with respect to biblical texts. They usually approach Scripture with a literalist understanding of inspiration and with very little knowledge of the historical world of the Bible or the literary forms and traditions found in it. It is necessary, therefore, to discuss general introductory questions of biblical interpretation as well as to explore general feminist the*logical perspectives before it is possible to introduce specific historical and the*logical issues.

This section of the course, therefore, addresses the following:

1. the problems of androcentric language, worldview, texts, and translations;
2. the question of who wrote biblical books and why they were written;
3. problems of contemporary interpretation, androcentric presuppositions, models, and prejudices; and
4. questions of biblical resources and historical reconstructions.

This whole introductory section or parts of it can also be taught as segments of general introductory Bible courses, as elements in general courses on religion/the*logy, and as sections in “wo/men in religion or Christianity” courses. Naturally these segments should also have a place in such specialized Scripture courses or seminars as the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Pauline letters, the Gospels, or church history.

Androcentric Language: Since biblical studies are concerned with the revelatory “word,” it is necessary to look carefully at the functions and distortions of androcentric language and male-biased translations. While some students might have been alerted to gender-inclusive language either in high school or earlier college classes, in my experience most students are not conscious of the problem.

The use of “reverse language” is helpful here in raising consciousness. Throughout a whole class period, for example, I will use wo/man (instead of man) in a generic/inclusive way, use the pronoun she instead of he, and speak about the “boys” on the faculty or in the administration. Since such an exercise will stir a lot of emotions, it is necessary to spend the last part of the class in articulating and discussing such emotions. Another helpful exercise is to read first an androcentric translation of a biblical text such as a psalm, and then to read the same text in an inclusive form of translation using wo/men and men, she and he, sisters and brothers, God and Godself. Another class period will be spent in a discussion of male-biased translation and the reasons for it. It is very helpful to compare four or five different translations of passages such as Gen. 1:27; Jer. 31:15-22; 1 Cor. 11:3; or Rom. 16:1. A further question to be explored here is the textual critical question of how our original text was established. Examples are Rom. 16:7 and the identification of “Junia” as a male or female name, or Col. 4:15 and its variant readings of “Nympha and the church in her house.”

The discussion of these texts can show how androcentric mind-sets and traditions influence the determination and definition of the original text. Do grammatically masculine words such as brothers, saints, elect, apostles, deacons, or elders refer only to men or also to wo/men? What inferences are made in the process of translation? Check the translations of the pronouns for the Holy Spirit in the Bible: Do scholars refer to her in the Old Testament and to it in the New Testament? How do they translate the term and on the basis of which language? I realize that such exercises require at least some rudimentary knowledge of the biblical languages on the part of the instructor. However, I have found that students can become passionately involved in such questions, and their exploration of these androcentric language issues in a “scientific” manner helps them to question their “literalist” Bible understanding that every word is dictated or inspired by God.

Female authorship: Most helpful in challenging our historical-the*logical frameworks and assumptions is the question of female authorship of biblical writings. Traditionally, all biblical books are believed to be written by male authors, although most of the biblical writings are anonymous or pseudonymous. Such an assumption of female authorship is supported by the suggestions of scholars that a wo/man could have written, for example, the “Song of Songs” (Trible), Mark (Achtemeier), Proto-Luke (Swidler), John (Schneiders), or Hebrews (Harnack). However, such suggestions often presuppose a “feminine” style, experience, or sensibility that is difficult to establish. Nevertheless such suggestions of female authorship bring to consciousness our unreflected bias that only males could formulate holy Scripture and could claim the authority to do so.

Moreover, the assumption of female authorship also has great value in engendering a different historical imagination. For instance, I find very helpful the creative exercise of writing “apostolic” letters to be attributed to Old Testament or early Christian wo/men leaders. Students can write, for example, an announcement of Deborah to the people of Israel, a letter of Phoebe to the community at Cenchreae, a sermon of the apostle Junia addressed to the church of Jerusalem, or a letter of the missionary Prisca to the church of Ephesus. Such letter writing requires students to discuss the form of the letter in antiquity, the situation of the recipients, the motives of the author, and the social-religious context of the time.

Feminist Hermeneutics: This discussion will lead the class into explorations of contemporary interpretations and their presuppositions and prejudices. One can compare different scholarly interpretations of biblical texts on wo/men and their presuppositions or implications. Another valuable exercise is role-playing. For example, choose Exod. 1:12—2:10: The birth of Moses and his adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter. Read the text aloud and have the whole class identify the main characters of the text; then break into smaller groups, each choosing one character to be discussed and impersonated. The smaller groups discuss the event, clarify historical questions, and imagine the scene by speaking in the first person: “I [the midwife or the daughter of the Pharaoh] thought, feared, hoped,” and so on. When the whole class comes together again, the small groups stay together and engage as “group-persons” in a dialogue raising questions, expressing their feelings in the situation, and acting out the story. At the end, take fifteen minutes to evaluate the role play and its assumptions with the whole class: Discuss the issues that remain open, elaborate historical aspects, and reflect on the attitudes, emotions, and insights generated by the role play. What kind of assumptions were made about the midwife, the mother of Moses, the daughter of Pharaoh, or God?

Among other texts that lend themselves to such role play and the exploration of presuppositions, attitudes, and feelings are Hosea 1–4 (Hosea and Gomer); Genesis 29–31 (Leah, Rachel, and Bilhah); Mark 7:34-40 (the Syrophoenician Woman); and Acts 12:12-17. It is important, how­ever, to alert students not only to anti-wo/man biases but also to class, race, or anti-Jewish assumptions that may also color their role interaction and come to the fore in the roleplay. Another suggestion: watch “Jesus Christ Superstar” and see how Mary Magdalene is portrayed, or discuss the liturgical readings for her feast day in different lectionaries.

Androcetric Sources: Not only contemporary interpretations but also scriptural writings themselves reflect an androcentric worldview and patriarchal structures. It becomes necessary, therefore, to speak about tradition and redaction as well as about literary form and purposes of biblical writings. It is important to elaborate, for example, that Genesis 2–3 is an etiological story that seeks to understand the origin of the world and the evil in it. Students must relinquish their preconception that this story is a historical record and accurate description of what happened. Similarly, they have to abandon their assumption that Acts gives us a comprehen­sive and accurate historical description of developments in the begin­nings of the church. It is thus helpful to compare the references to wo/men in the Pauline letters with those of Acts, or to compare the under­standings of apostleship in Paul and Luke-Acts.

Equally helpful is a comparison of the Gospel stories on wo/men to see which writer has more stories or how the different Gospels picture the leading wo/men and the leading men in the discipleship of Jesus. A careful comparison of one Gospel story found in all four accounts—the wo/man who anointed Jesus, for example—is also fruitful. Walter Wink has suggested a “socratic” method for dialoguing with the Gospel texts. However, rather than bringing the wo/man into a direct dialogue with Jesus or oneself, it is better to let students write a dialogue between the wo/man and the writer of Luke’s Gospel, asking him why he portrayed her as he did, why he made her a public sinner, and so on. This approach avoids a simplistic historicizing of the text and makes redactional deliberations conscious.

Another possibility is to rewrite the story of Miriam or Jezebel, the prophetess, from the point of view of one of her followers, or to let the wo/men who experienced Jesus’ miraculous feeding or the mother of Jairus’s daughter tell these stories from their own perspectives. How would one tell the story of the prodigal son from his mother’s perspec­tive? What the*logical implications come to the fore in doing so? Another way to raise questions of tradition and redaction is to divide students into small groups, giving each group the same materials (stories, sayings, songs, prayers, commands, folk sayings, reports, adver­tisements), and asking them to use these materials to compose a letter, a children’s-hour, a the*logical lecture, a commencement speech, or a sermon. At the end, discuss why the group selected certain texts and not ot...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Charting Critical Feminist Biblical Hermeneutics
• Practicing Feminist Biblical Interpretation