Assertive Biblical Women (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Assertive Biblical Women Recent Titles in Contributions in Women's Studies Verging on the Abyss: The Social Fiction o...

Author: William E. Phipps

110 downloads 963 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Assertive Biblical Women

Recent Titles in Contributions in Women's Studies Verging on the Abyss: The Social Fiction of Kate Chopin and Edith Wharton Mary E. Papke The Feminization of Poverty: Only in America? Gertrude Schaffner Goldberg and Eleanor Kremen, editors The Dominion of Women: The Personal and the Political in Canadian Women's Literature Wayne Eraser Successful Career Women: Their Professional and Personal Characteristics Cecilia Ann Northcutt The Life of Margaret Fuller: A Revised, Second Edition Madeleine Stern The Sea of Becoming: Approaches to the Fiction of Esther Tusquets Mary S. Vdsquez, editor Gender Differences: Their Impact on Public Policy Mary Lou Kendrigan, editor The World of George Sand Natalie Datlof, Jeanne Euchs, and David A. Powell, editors Women of the Grange: Mutuality and Sisterhood in Rural America, 1866-1922 Donald Marti Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views Barbara Garlick, Suzanne Dixon, and Pauline Allen, editors Women, Men and Time: Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework and Leisure Beth Anne Shelton Black Women in the Workplace: Impacts of Structural Change in the Economy Bette Woody

Assertive Biblical Women William E. Phipps

Contributions in Women's Studies, Number 128

Greenwood Press Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Phipps, William E. Assertive biblical women / William E. Phipps. p. cm. — (Contributions in women's studies, ISSN 0147-104X ; no. 128) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-313-28498-9 (alk. paper) 1. Women in the Bible. 2. Assertiveness (Psychology)—Biblical teaching. I. Title. II. Series. BS575.P48 1992 220.9'2—dc20 92-3026 [B] British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 1992 by William E. Phipps All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-3026 ISBN: 0-313-28498-9 ISSN: 0147-104X First published in 1992 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Copyright Acknowledgments Copyrighted material from "A Woman Was the First to Declare Scripture Holy," previously published by this author in Bible Review (6:2, April, 1990), has been used in revised form. Quotations from the Bible are usually the author's own translation, but indebtedness to a variety of versions can be found.

To Catherine Sara Engh, my beloved grandchild. May she come to maturity displaying assertiveness blended with graciousness in the mode of her mother, Anna, her grandmothers, Martha Ann and Eleanor, and her great grandmothers, for whom she is named.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Preface

ix

1.

Introduction

1

2.

The Saga of Sarah Exploitation by Spouse Troubles from Children

9 10 11

3.

Tamar and Irregular Parenting Infertility Remedies Subsequent Parallels

19 19 25

4.

Women Saviors In the Exodus Era In the Judges Era

31 31 42

5.

Naomi and Ruth The Ruthless Era Interethnic B onding

47 48 51

Contents

Vlll

6.

Bold and Unscrupulous Rulers Queen Jezebel Other Royalty

69 69 77

7.

The Impact of Huldah The Search for Authentication The Prophet's Influence

83 83 86

8.

Feminist and Feminine Queens Feminist Vashti Feminine Esther

93 93 96

9.

Self-Assured Women in the Gospels An Unnamed Gentile and a Jewess Two Marys

105 105 112

10.

Women Leaders and Paul Greek Women Co-workers in Romans

119 120 123

11.

Women in Eden Bisecting the Androgyne Paradise Continued

133 135 139

Notes

147

Selected Bibliography

167

Index

169

Preface Much of my writing has grown out of my interest in gender issues. In Influential Theologies on Wo/Man (1980) and in Genesis and Gender (1989) as well as in this study, I have examined some past successes and failures pertaining to male/female equality in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I regard myself as a feminist in that I am devoted to equal opportunity and justice between the sexes. Due to the lack of a good gender-neutral term for a person with such an outlook, many assume that being female is prerequisite to being a feminist. I find it disconcerting that most writings pertaining to male/female equality are by women, even as most writings pertaining to black/white equality are by blacks. Likewise, mainly women are involved in women's study courses as are blacks in Afro-American departments. Accusations of self-serving advocacy would be mitigated and dialogue would be enriched if the issues were more widely addressed by those who have traditionally been the oppressors as well as by those who have been the oppressed. I am grateful to President Dorothy MacConkey and Dean Abbott Brayton for granting me a sabbatical from teaching in the Religion and Philosophy Department of Davis and Elkins College. I am also

X

Preface

indebted to Union Theological Seminary in Virginia for inviting me to be a Research Fellow. The library resources provided have enabled me to complete this study in a most stimulating setting.



1 Introduction In the two main parts of the Christian Bible, a variety of assertive women stand out. Some of them are heroines whose deeds were pivotal to the events of their time. All of them embody, to different degrees, character traits in women that have been perennially undervalued. I will analyze the stories of those women from the perspective of their distinctive individual personalities, particularly from the point of view of their assertiveness. While the fresh analyses may challenge biblical scholars, the treatments are written mainly for educated persons who may have no previous knowledge of the historical or literary issues related to scriptural texts. In an effort to throw light on the character of certain biblical women, I occasionally compare them with persons in subsequent times. Placing one foot in biblical culture and the other in modern society will ideally enable the reader to recognize the continued relevance of ancient female/male interaction. Assertiveness has been a central concept in the women's movement of the past generation.1 This term will be defined here as self-expression that enhances both individual freedom and social responsibility. Assertiveness implies neither self-centeredness nor belligerence. Because it is different from haughtiness, its antonym

2


is not humility but rather passive acquiescence and self-effacement. Both assertiveness and humility can be integrated into the same personality. Gandhi, for example, combined in himself an unobtrusive lowliness with a persistent resistance to rulers who treated some ethnic groups as morally superior to others. In South Africa and in India, he displayed personal determination without arrogance. In Western culture, assertiveness has been a personality trait traditionally assigned to males. Whether human or animal, the male "naturally" leads and the female is led. Edward Gibbon, the eminent eighteenth century historian, expressed the prevailing male chauvinism of our civilization: "Female courage . . . can be only a faint and imperfect imitation of the male valor that distinguishes the age or country in which it may be found."2 In the nineteenth century, Alfred Lord Tennyson summed up the prevailing assumption regarding innate traits: Man with the head, and woman with the heart; Man to command, and woman to obey; All else confusion. 3

In our own time, Webster's Third International Dictionary defines "manly" as "bold, resolute, and open in conduct." "Womanly" is defined circularly in that standard dictionary as "marked by qualities characteristic of a woman" and is illustrated by this quotation: "Drawing was a waste of time, if not downright womanly, like painting on China." A generation ago, neo-feminism arrived with a wrecking ball to use against the rigid gender stereotypes that had been erected centuries earlier. The movement has been supported by social scientists who have demonstrated that nurture more than nature causes patterns of male dominance.4 This contemporary milieu has motivated historians to look for alternative patterns of socialization in previous cultures. By piecing together mythological and archaeological data, some scholars have speculated that women had more importance than men in certain cultures prior to the past three millennia.5 Some have also argued plausibly that women were

Introduction

3

largely responsible for the revolution from hunting to agriculture in the preliterate era. Those studies and interpretations have effectively called into question a bias pertaining to time. Progressionists have persistently presupposed that nothing in the past has matched the excellence of the pattern that they perceive in the present or of their ideal for the future. All varieties of the progress theory of history are loaded with the theorists' own unspoken commitments. There are examples of progressionism in many disciplines. When the science of anthropology began in the nineteenth century, Lewis Henry Morgan fit field data about male/female relationships onto a continuous ladder of ascent, from promiscuity through polygamy to monogamy. At the same time, Edward Tylor adopted a similar evolutionary scheme to assist in understanding religious change. He convinced many students of world religion that there had been a global development from animism through polytheism to monotheism. Georg Hegel's philosophy of history naively posited a grand march toward perfection, from Asian tyranny through Greek democracy to German constitutional monarchy. In economics, Karl Marx heralded the dogma that the stream of history was flowing inevitably from feudalism through capitalism to communism. Similarly, some feminists have described how women have moved from their slave condition through patriarchy to equality, or even matriarchy. Bonnie Bullough has concluded a widely read book, The Subordinate Sex, by asserting that women in the past "have never held a position of equality with men nor have they been viewed either by themselves or by their menfolk as entitled to such a position."6 Those progressionists have overlooked evidence of monogamy, monotheism, limited monarchy, and egalitarianism in ancient society. In many disciplines, writers have enhanced what they admired most by placing it last in an elegant pattern of development claiming that it was not found in earlier cultures. This study will point out examples of gender egalitarianism in ancient societies, challenging the temporal provincialism that equates later with better. I join with other biblical scholars who are exegeting texts without regard to a scheme of historical progress. Phyllis Trible, Professor of Sacred Literature at Union Theological

4


Seminary in New York, has especially stimulated my reexamination of glib assumptions about the powerlessness of biblical women outside the home. In 1975, she argued compellingly that women began the movement of Israelite liberation from Egypt.7 Because of the prudence and resolve of several slave women and a king's daughter, a revolt was begun that their children brought to fruition. Those women were assertively devoted to human rights of freedom and justice. Talk of "biblical feminists" is not an oxymoron! More recently Carol Meyers, Professor of Biblical Studies and Archaeology at Duke University, has demonstrated the significant interdependence among early Israelite women and men. Cross-cultural anthropological studies convinced her that there was little hierarchical control of males by males in Palestine before the Iron Age. The population there was threatened by famine, disease, and warfare during the Late Bronze Age. Consequently, women were desperately needed to breed and to labor alongside men in agriculture. When population later increased during the Israelite monarchy, the crucial importance of women decreased and patriarchy became powerful. Only after the rise of literacy in the period of the monarchy did recorders begin to view the earlier oral tradition through a patriarchal filter.8 Andre LaCocque, Director of the Jewish-Christian Study Center at Chicago Theological Seminary, has found Meyers' thesis plausible and has shown how the "inferiorization" of Israelite women followed earlier egalitarianism.9 Consider, for example, what happened to the Ten Commandments. Originally there were the "ten words" of Yahweh's covenant, allegedly inscribed on two slabs of stone.10 Two of the injunctions especially pertain to gender matters: the one about parents displays equal honor to mother and father; likewise the one proscribing adultery is addressed to both men and women. In a later century, however, explanatory comments were added to some of the original "words."11 No longer addressed to both genders, the anti-coveting command has come to specify what composes a male neighbor's household. Thus, a man should not covet his neighbor's property, consisting of domestic animals, slaves, and wife.12 Had that commandment been written from the perspective of both

Introduction

5

genders, it would have included, "Do not covet your neighbor's husband." The deterioration in the status of women can be further traced within the biblical period. At the end of the Hebrew Bible era, Jesus ben Sirach joined others of this Hellenistic period in making sexist remarks that went beyond what had been recorded previously. An especially ugly example of his misogyny is contained in this invidious comparison: "A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace."13 Before considering particular women who displayed assertiveness in some significant manner, the general situation of an Israelite woman should be examined. Perusing the Book of Proverbs will help in understanding her role. There we see her function as more educational than biological. In her dissertation on Proverbs, Claudia Camp has noted: "The mother's equality with the father in the handing down of wisdom is repeatedly emphasized by parallelism."14 Here is an example: "My child, keep your father's commandment, and do not forsake your mother's teaching."15 The Book of Proverbs is an anthology of maxim collections, and one of the collections is attributed to a mother.16 Proverbs begins with odes depicting divine wisdom personified as a woman and ends with a twenty-two verse acrostic poem describing the ABCs of a vigorous, capable woman. Both the actual and the ideal woman are "more precious than jewels."17 As would be ~>ected in most societies, and especially in a rural, preindustrial one, the virtuous woman is involved with children, charity, and cooking. She imparts her God-given wisdom to those for whom she is responsible. Planning ahead for bad weather, she spins and weaves enough cloth to keep her family warm. She is also praised, however, for roles that are usually considered masculine in patriarchal societies. As a businesswoman, she sells garments that she and her assistants have spent long hours making. Her managerial ability is apparent in the way she organizes her household so that she can have time to work in the public sector. She appraises real estate and uses earnings from her marketing operation to make land purchases. Her abounding energy also enables her to cultivate that land.

6


Some commentators on the last poem of Proverbs have grasped well the type of woman who is there admired. Coert Rylaarsdam has stated succinctly: "Initiative, inventive ingenuity, and industry characterize her life as a far-sighted manager."18 Tamar Frankiel's comments are also on target: The woman is praised for her part in the continuing work of creation: providing, planting, caring and nurturing, compassion, and providing for the future. Deeply involved in the daily life of family, community, and world, she creates bounty and plentitude. Always active, weaving and moving, in a vigorous beauty that comes from inner strength, she also speaks and teaches wisdom to those around her.19 In order to sharpen the image of the highly valued woman, Proverbs also describes her opposite. Held in contempt is the wisdom-barren temptress who exploits male companions—married or unmarried—in order to indulge in immediate gratifications. With honeyed speech, she entices men from the streets to her perfumed bed while her husband is on a long journey.20 The contrast concludes by disparaging the seductive woman and affirming that the woman of worth is religiously oriented: "Charm is treacherous and beauty is transitory, but a woman who reveres Yahweh is praiseworthy." Today, by contrast, the Virginia Slims cigarette advertising campaign conveys to modern Americans a very different image of the ideal woman. Usually portrayed as frivolous, Virginia appears to admire most her slim figure, slim cigarettes, and expensive party clothes. She is called "baby", perhaps because she is a playgirl who does not have enough mature judgment to protect herself from lung cancer. Virginia's slinky attire is hardly designed for a person who is interested in business transactions, unless they involve the seduction of the wealthy. Presumably she is dependent on a man for her affluent lifestyle because there are no signs of her productivity in the marketplace. Also absent are any signs of her concern for the family or of her teaching wisdom and kindness. The slogan, "You've come a long way, baby," illustrated by background scenes of outmoded farm chores, pig selling, and strenuous housekeeping,

Introduction

7

points up Virginia's disdain for the wonder woman of Proverbs who "puts her back into her work and makes her arms strong."21 Have some American women really come this far in their loss of ancient womanly virtues? In reality, the advertisers of Virginia Slims may be wrong in assuming that she represents the ideal image for a large group of women today. As in ancient biblical culture, many women today do not live on the favors of males, and they assert themselves in community roles outside the home. In any case, the comparison of the ideal woman of Proverbs with the ideal woman in the Philip Morris ad series highlights the lack of progressive liberation of women through history. Granted, most of the women described in this study were atypical biblical women. As might be expected, women in a patriarchal society usually conformed to their expected homemaking role. Israelite women, like women in most cultures of world history, had status principally within the home. Due perhaps to their silent submissiveness, they were not even mentioned in the genealogical listings. "Begetting" usually appears to have been exclusively a male activity! Still, exceptional women in the Bible occasionally have prominent and varied roles outside the home. Those iconoclastic ones are interesting because they dare in some ways to assert themselves. Miriam and Huldah engage in important prophetic activity; Deborah rules the Israelites well, while Athaliah rules Judah poorly. Some women stand out because of their keen perceptions. King Saul finds a woman medium who provides insight into the outcome of a battle with the Philistines.22 Abigail is deemed a woman of "good understanding," especially in contrast to her foolish husband.23 Her sound advice to Saul's anointed successor so impressed an American woman that she took the diminutive form of Abigail for her pseudonym in the "Dear Abby" column. When David is king, a "wise woman" of Tekoa is emboldened to describe to him one of his foolish judgments. Interceding for David's rebellious son, Absalom, she uses a graphic means to persuade the king to champion life rather than vengeance.24 Similarly, a sage of Abel initiates a diplomatic settlement that protects her people from military destruction.25 The association of some

8


extraordinary women with wisdom may have given rise to Proverbs' depiction of wisdom as a woman close to Yahweh. In ancient Israel, the main area from which women were excluded was the priesthood. According to Levitical law, a woman was taboo during her menstrual period and for a week afterward; throughout that time, everything she touched became contaminated. In addition, childbirth was defiling, especially when the offspring was a daughter.26 The Israelites seemed to have held, as the Eastern Orthodox Church still believes, that women could not be priests because their ritually unclean blood flow would contaminate the holy altar.27 In the following chapters, biographical sketches of some two dozen women will be presented. These biblical women were, at crucial times, sagacious in decision making and skillful in executing their decisions. Beginning with Sarah of Ur and ending with Priscilla of Rome, the women in this book belong to an era of nearly two millennia. Although the chapters are arranged chronologically, little is lost if they are considered apart from the historical order. Each chapter tells of dynamic women who were able to swim against the strong currents of patriarchy. In order to make explicit the relevance of this study, their brief biographies are related to such contemporary feminist issues as surrogate parenting, gender stereotyping, and civil disobedience against unequal treatment by governments. This study does not attempt an exhaustive (or exhausting) treatment of all assertive biblical women. Little attention will be given to such well-known assertive women as Rebekah, Delilah, Hannah, and the Queen of Sheba from the Hebrew Bible. Elizabeth, Dorcas, and the Samaritan woman who questions Jesus will likewise be passed over, even though the New Testament records the distinctive marks they made. Nor will we look at lesser-known women who stand up for their rights or speak out against authorities; among these are Mahlah, Hoglah, Noah, Tirzah, Milcah, Achsah, and Noadiah.28 The more important assertive women from the Bible have been selected, come commendable and some not.

2 The Saga of Sarah The story of Sarah and Abraham has been of utmost significance to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, who together compose a large portion of the global population. Isaiah portrays the pair as "the rock" from which the Israelites were hewn.1 In a letter to gentile Christians, the apostle Paul eulogized Abraham and Sarah as the father and mother of all.2 The Quran refers more often to them than to any other biblical couple because they exemplify submissiveness, the literal meaning of "Islam". Abraham and Sarah deserve to be honorary parents internationally because they mirror both sides of human nature. Far from displaying a one-dimensional nobility of character, they show an intriguing mixture of fidelity and fickleness, courage and cowardice. To obtain a fresh understanding of the first Hebrews, I will direct the spotlight toward foremother Sarah rather than toward her better-known spouse. Sarah's life is largely a saga of suffering, even though one must read between the lines of the patriarchal narrator to discover it. Although she is sometimes denigrated by Abraham, she does not always accept the doormat role.

10


EXPLOITATION BY SPOUSE In the first of three Genesis episodes that involve Sarah significantly, she and her husband are in Egypt as famine refugees. Sarah's beauty makes Abraham anxious—not so much over her safety as his. His prejudice against the Egyptians convinces him that they will kidnap his attractive spouse and kill him in the process. Abraham believes that the powerful Egyptians will take a woman whom they consider to be either a new widow or his unmarried relative. Relying on human trickery rather than divine fidelity, he advises Sarah: "Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account." Fear for his own future is paramount. To protect his life, he sacrifices the honor of the spouse who had accompanied him on the long trek from Mesopotamia. Sarah is a voiceless and choiceless object as she is transferred to another master. Apparently, her attitude is that the best way to get along in Egypt is to go along. Were our knowledge of Sarah limited to this sojourn, she would provide a counter-example for the theme of this book. Indeed, the account of Sarah's willingness to be trampled upon by her husband might today be used to show her need for assertiveness training. Abraham's scam works to his short-term advantage: Pharaoh marries the presumably unattached alien, and her previous spouse is handsomely rewarded with gifts of domestic animals and slaves. Yahweh then intervenes to release Sarah from the royal harem. Far from defending Abraham's action, the narrator paints its wrongfulness in bold relief by portraying Pharaoh's integrity. With indignation, the king asks: "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her as my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her and be gone."3 Pharaoh upholds the Egyptian moral code, which had long regarded adultery as unacceptable behavior.4 Abraham offers no excuse, and royal officials expel the deceivers from Egypt. The pretense resurfaces later in the saga, presumably a variation of the same episode; the only alternative explanation is that Abra-

The Saga of Sarah

11

ham learned nothing from the Egyptian experience about trusting God. Abraham unscrupulously passes off Sarah to a Palestinian king named Abimelech. While Abraham is far from laying down his own life for others, he is quite willing to lay down his wife for others! He rationalizes the appropriateness of calling Sarah his sister by pointing out that she was the daughter of his father but not of his mother. Both Abimelech and Pharaoh discern the immorality of adultery more clearly than Abraham. The ancient Jews elaborated on the Genesis account of Abraham in Egypt in order to justify the actions of their revered ancestor. An Aramaic scroll found at Qumran contains a dream of Abraham that presumably conveys divine revelation. In it, he is informed that Pharaoh will try to kill Abraham because he finds Sarah delectable. To show that her charms surpass those of all other brides, this head-to-toe description is given: How beautiful was the expression on her face; . . . how lovely were her eyes; how delectable her nose; . . . how lovely her breast; how beautiful all the whiteness of her; her arms how beautiful, and her hands how perfect; . . . her feet how beautiful; and how perfect her legs.5 One night, the midrash continues, Sarah is forcibly taken by the king's agents. Brokenhearted, Abraham prays for God's punishment on Pharaoh, and the king and his household receive "crushing afflictions" for two years. Throughout that time, Sarah is not sexually defiled. After Pharaoh returns Sarah, Abraham efficaciously prays for the plagues to end and for the monarch's health to recover. In gratitude, the king gives Abraham fine clothing as well as silver and gold. Typical of the tendency to make heroes larger than life with the passage of time, Abraham becomes more righteous than in the Genesis record. TROUBLES FROM CHILDREN Moving the spotlight to the second Genesis episode involving Sarah and Abraham, a reversal of conniving roles is apparent. Sarah takes a turn at relying on prudence rather than providence and uses

12


her ingenuity for personal enhancement. She is in despair over her infertility, the most demeaning thing imaginable in her culture. "Give me children, or I shall die!" one Hebrew woman exclaims to her husband. Presuming her situation to be hopeless, Sarah develops assertiveness to deal with the greatest tragedy of her life. She speaks for the first time in the narrative and gets Abraham to agree to impregnate Hagar, her personal slave from Egypt; the child by such an arrangement will be the legal child of Abraham and Sarah. After conceiving, the concubine becomes contemptuous of her mistress. The liaison has given her power, something that she had never had in her bondage. Sarah, in turn, makes life so miserable for her young, fertile, and insolent rival that Hagar attempts to flee from the household. Cheryl Exum has commented on the woman-against-woman exploitation in Genesis: "Sarah must oppress Hagar in order to assert herself. It is a vicious circle in which women are played off against each other in the quest for status."6 The same pattern of conflict exists between Rachel and Leah.7 Sarah is then informed by Yahweh that her barrenness is not permanent and that she is destined to be "a mother of nations." Knowing that she is beyond the usual reproductive age, she and Abraham laugh in derision. Consequently, when Sarah does give birth, they name the boy Isaac, meaning "laughter." After bearing her own child, Sarah regains status and becomes determined to evict her adopted son Ishmael. She is so consumed by feelings of superiority that she cannot tolerate seeing her biological son play with the offspring of a slave from the African continent. Abraham is distressed when Sarah demands that his elder son be cast out. Still, he is convinced that God has said: "Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you." Accordingly, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael permanently into the wilderness. This separation prevents Isaac's rival heir from receiving the large portion of Abraham's wealth that would ordinarily come to a first-born. The narrative shows that Sarah's suffering with regard to Hagar is largely self-inflicted. Hagar receives at least as much sympathy as Sarah from the narrator. Angelic annunciations assure the assertive Egyptian

The Saga of Sarah

13

woman that Yahweh has given heed to her affliction. The outcasts are cared for in the wilderness, and Hagar is assured that her offspring will "multiply greatly." There is no parallel of any other Genesis woman receiving a revelation or promise similar to what Abraham and subsequent patriarchs received. According to Muslim legend, Hagar and Ishmael settled in Mecca and initiated true worship in Arabia that would eventually radiate across continents. Apparently, the promise to Hagar has been fulfilled for her offspring have outnumbered those of other Semitic peoples. The children of Sarah also established a covenantal bond with Yahweh when they fled from Egypt to a wild area south of Canaan. The third episode is the literary masterpiece called "The Binding of Isaac" in Jewish tradition. Abraham receives an alleged revelation that this son ought to be sacrificed. Although God had earlier promised that Isaac is the one through whom Abraham will become the ancestor of a large people, Abraham expresses no qualms over heeding an incompatible message. With unthinking devotion, he follows what he believes is the latest divine guidance. Apparently, neither Isaac nor his mother have a choice in Abraham's crucial decision. The motivational aspects of the sacrifice story have been considered by Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard. The famed German philosopher faulted Abraham for not placing priority on the certain "categorical imperative" to preserve his son's life, rather than on the supposed divine voice. Kant found it outrageous for Abraham to presume that the prompting of an individual's conscience should supplant the moral law.8 By contrast, the noted Danish existentialist treated the episode as a superb example of the "absurd" and irrational qualities of true faith. Kierkegaard fancied that acting for God's sake requires blind obedience to the exclusion of all human loves. Consequently, he felt obligated to renounce his intense love for Regina Olsen, his fiancee, and become a celibate. Like Isaac, Regina had no say in the matter, and she was permanently cast off.9 The Genesis narrator lessens the dreadfulness of the sacrifice story by forewarning the reader that it is only a test. But Abraham fully believes that God is demanding the sacrifice of one he now

14


regards as his only child. He may not have discussed with Sarah his compulsion to kill what is truly her one and only son because she is so marginalized in her patriarchal culture. Abraham loads wood for the holocaust on Isaac, and they go up a mountain in the region of Moriah to build an altar for worship. The father then ties up his docile son, lays him on the wood, and raises his knife for the slaughter. Providentially, Abraham comes to realize at the last second that God does not want the boy butchered and incinerated. If Sarah had known about the plan to sacrifice Isaac, she might have assumed that her husband had gone mad. Some ancient Christian sermons emphathized with Sarah's plight. Apprehensive questions are placed on her lips: "What is it that you are doing, splitting wood with your own hands? Is it that you are going to sacrifice your son with that knife you are brandishing?" Irony is conveyed in the advice Sarah gives Isaac: I want to teach you how to pray to God.. . . First of all, bend your knees before him, and bow your face to the ground. Place your hands behind your back, like someone bound, until the good God looks upon you from heaven. Then utter a cry, like that of a sheep led to the slaughter, that in his mercy he may hear you and send his mercy back with you.10 A medieval English drama imaginatively conveyed Sarah's agony by having Isaac say on the altar of burnt offering: "Now I would to God my mother were here on this hill! She would kneel for me on both her knees to save my life."11 Since the Genesis account of Sarah's death follows the Moriah episode, ancient Jewish tradition has plausibly conjectured that she dies brokenhearted when she learns of Abraham's presumed sacrifice of Isaac. Midrashim tell of the sword that pierces her heart: When Abraham returned from Mount Moriah to Beersheba he found the door of Sarah's tent shut. . . . Abraham went to the neighbors and asked: "Have you seen my wife Sarah, and do you know where she is?" And th neighbors replied: "While you were gone an old man came to Sarah's do and told her that you had taken your son Isaac to Hebron to be sacrificed

The Saga of Sarah

15

on the altar as you would sacrifice a lamb. And Mother Sarah remembere that you had left with wood for a fire and the sacrificial knife, but without a ram for the altar. Then she left for Hebron to seek her son—her only so Isaac." Abraham rushed to Hebron and there he learned that when Sarah came and could not find her son, her soul fled. . . . As Abraham was bowing over the body of his dear wife, he heard the loud laugh of the ange of death. . . . "Wherefore dost thou weep," mocked the angel of death. "The blame of her death is thine. For hadst thou not taken her son from her, she would certainly be alive now."12 Typical of woman's role in pernicious patriarchy throughout most of history, Sarah passively endures much indignity from her husband. In a clever but cowardly scheme, he seeks to disown her to save himself. Subsequently, in responding to an alleged oracle, Abraham almost destroys the person on whom the future of God's covenant rests. Abraham risks the loss of one of his sons, but Sarah nearly loses her only natural son. Thus, Sarah may have experienced at least as much grief as her zealous husband when he went to the mountain with Isaac. There have probably been examples in every generation of mentally disturbed individuals who hear allegedly divine voices that command atrocious deeds even toward those whom they admire. Abraham bears some similarity to Charles Guiteau, the fanatic who shot President James Garfield in 1881. Guiteau explained that he, like Abraham, was following the command of God.13 More recently, another American admitted stabbing his mother to death, saying that "the Lord told me to kill her."14 Of course, Abraham did not carry through on his determination to sacrifice Isaac, so comparisons with mentally disturbed assassins fall short. Had Abraham killed Isaac, he would be no better than the Moabite king who offered his son as a burnt offering to appease his brutal god. Israelites were taught that they should not tolerate this "abominable" way by which some pagans proved their religious devotion in a time of crisis.15 In contrast to child sacrifice in cultures surrounding the Hebrews, the narrator of the Binding of Isaac has the true God say, "lay not your hand on the lad." In the monotheistic tradition from Western Asia, Abraham and Sarah have come to epitomize spiritual submission par excellence.

16


This has often obscured their feet of clay. Two writers who lived nearly 2000 years ago illustrate the tendency to substitute adoration for truth. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, regarded the founding parents of the Israelites as paragons of virtue. Sarah is portrayed as an unpolluted wife whose trust in God results in her deliverance from the lecherous and cruel Egyptian king.16 Josephus, a Jewish historian, also interpreted Abraham and Sarah as having perfect piety. Thus, when Pharaoh learns of Sarah's married status, he returns the chaste Sarah and begs Abraham's pardon. The king then invites Abraham to converse with the wise men of Egypt who learn from him a new subject called mathematics.17 Sarah has been evaluated in different ways by Christians. One writer in the New Testament notes that she calls Abraham "my lord," the same term that is used for deity. This expression of reverence is held up as the ideal for those who belong to "the weaker sex"18 in subordinating themselves to their husbands. Ironically, the Genesis passage in which Sarah refers to Abraham as "my lord" shows assertiveness, not obedience. In response to the announcement of her forthcoming pregnancy, she laughs to herself and asks skeptically: "Now that I have grown old, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?"19 Another writer in the New Testament states that Sarah's faith gives her power to conceive.20 Along with Rahab the harlot, Sarah is singled out as a woman with exemplary religious faith. Samuel Driver, an outstanding modern Hebrew scholar, has called Sarah a typical arrogant and resentful woman—"Imperious, hasty in her judgments, and jealous."21 Assessments of Sarah over the past two millennia may reveal more about the men making the judgments than about Sarah. One feature that elevates the Bible to great literature is that its writers expose the unattractive as well as the attractive sides of their heros and heroines. The characters of the Genesis saga realistically display the common human faults of spouse exploitation, headstrong determination, and religious fanaticism. The Hebrew foreparents are not glamorized at the expense of truth. Far from being consistent models of faith in a merciful and just God, each becomes involved in expedient conduct that briefly enhances his or

The Saga of Sarah

17

her position. They appear to feel no guilt for their meanness toward others in the household. If Sarah and Abraham are friends of God, then the divine circle of friendship must be quite broad.


3 Tamar and Irregular Parenting INFERTILITY REMEDIES From ancient history to the present day, infertility within a marriage has often been a major cause for personal unhappiness and religious concern. While many modern couples choose not to have children, the lack of such choice is still often regarded as devastating. The United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights affirms "the right to marry and to found a family" as an essential need. Thus, customs have arisen in all cultures for overcoming barren marriages. Certain types of irregular parenting have become socially approved. The Genesis saga tells of two different ways of having offspring when the ordinary means fail. After reviewing the method associated with Sarah, I will focus attention on Tamar. The Yiddish term chutzpa is especially apt for these women, because they have exceptional gall in pursuing alternative ways of becoming mothers. Sarah and Abraham illustrate one way of arranging for mutual fulfillment when a wife is presumed to be infertile. Numerous descendants are one provision of their covenant with God. They are convinced that they will have social immorality by means of generation after generation of offspring. Hence, the aged Hebrew

20


pioneers agonize and laugh over how God's promise can be fulfilled when they do not have a single child. To resolve their dilemma, Sarah suggests that Abraham impregnate her maid Hagar, knowing that the slave's offspring will be regarded as the legitimate child of her master. Two generations later, Rachel likewise arranges for her husband to procreate by means of her maid. The Genesis narrative does not suggest that these women are wrong to use surrogates. Bigamy was another prevailing custom to which Hebrew husbands resorted for obtaining offspring. For example, the Book of Samuel begins with the story of Elkanah who has two wives. He loves Hannah, who is presumably infertile, but his other wife bears children for him. The Jewish Mishnah advocates that a husband resort to either multiple wives or divorce after a decade with a childless wife.1 Knowing nothing of ovulation, people through most of history have thought that human reproduction resembles grain reproduction. Seed planted in soil containing the proper water, minerals, and sunlight will produce essentially the same fruit, no matter which field is selected. Accordingly, potential human life was thought to be contained exclusively in the semen; the husband could scatter "seed" in any womb and the uterine development would be the same. Moreover, noting the similarity of plants produced by seed from a parent grain stalk, ancients presumed that any male sibling could generate a child of similar nature. What particular customs have arisen when the cause for infertility lies with the husband rather than the wife? Many tribes, past and present, sanction having the brother of an infertile husband become a surrogate procreator. This custom is called the levirate, from the Latin word for husband's brother. Among the early Hebrews, it was especially associated with relieving the shame of a young childless widow. In order to perpetuate the name of the dead husband, a brother-in-law would cohabitate with her, even if he already had a wife. The first son of the union became the legal offspring and heir of the deceased man. The Mosaic levirate law required a widow with no male offspring to assert her rights when a brother-in-law resided with her on the same family land. If he was uncooperative, she was to say to the community elders, "My husband's brother

Tamar and Irregular Parenting

21

refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me."2 The first and most instructive illustration of the levirate in the Hebrew culture is found in a complex story in Genesis that focuses on the plight of the daughter-in-law of Judah, the patriarch. Tamar, probably a Canaanite, becomes the wife of Er, Judah's eldest son. Er dies for an unspecified wickedness against Yahweh, leaving Tamar without children or a long-term means of support. Judah directs his second son, Onan, to assist Tamar by performing the levirate. Onan only pretends to carry out his fraternal obligation. He repeatedly makes use of the powerless Tamar for sexual enjoyment but he avoids ejaculating in her vagina. The intercourse is described in this quaint way: "Since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife."3 Like his grandfather, Jacob, Onan seems to covet his brother's inheritance. He probably realizes that if his sister-in-law remains childless, he will obtain more of Judah's property. Displeased by Onan's exploitation of Tamar's trust, Yahweh slays Onan. Perhaps he dies from an illness or an accident that the narrator interprets as an act of God. Judah then becomes fearful that Tamar is a femme fatale who may be causing his sons to die. He deceitfully instructs Tamar to return to her father's house and wait for him to arrange a marriage for her after Shelah comes of age. Actually, Judah does not want this unlucky woman endangering the life of his last son. Tamar obeys her father-in-law but when the third son becomes mature he is unwilling to carry out his promise. Tamar concludes that Judah has directed her to return to her parental home in order to get rid of her permanently. As a childless widow who has been deprived of her rights, her situation is exceedingly distressing. Tamar realizes that patriarchal authority needs to be subverted in order to overcome the injustices shown toward her by Onan and Judah. If she is ever to have legitimate children, she must take the initiative to become properly pregnant before menopause. Becoming fed up with Judah's duplicity, the indomitable Tamar schemes to obtain semen secretly from a member of Er's family.

22


She does not plead for divine intervention, but uses her own resourcefulness to devise a clever plan. She disregards propriety and revolts against the ominous authority of her father-in-law. After Judah's wife dies and the mourning period is over, Tamar decides that it is a good time to act. Figuring that her father-in-law might like to have a sexual outlet, she temporarily exchanges her widow's weeds for the brighter attire of a Canaanite sacred prostitute. To avoid recognition by Judah, she disguises her face with a veil. Then she positions herself enticingly along the path where she knows he will be traveling to visit his sheepshearers. When Judah encounters this presumed prostitute, he propositions her. They agree on a kid from his flock as an appropriate payment for the liaison. Being unable to make settlement at the time, he offers to send her the goat later. Tamar shrewdly obtains his signet and staff as security for the oral promise. In the Middle East, it was customary for a man of importance to wear a cylindrical seal suspended from his neck by a cord; with it he could roll out his signature on soft clay. The signet thus served as a kind of identification card, ordinarily of value only to the person for whom it was made. Soon after the liaison, Judah has a friend assist him in finding the woman and exchanging a goat for the signet and staff. Combing the countryside turns up no such prostitute, and residents of the area have no knowledge of any. Judah becomes concerned that people will laugh at him in ridicule if the search is continued. He soon dismisses the matter, counting as lost the things that he left as a pledge. Phyllis Bird's sociological description of prostitution in the Hebrew culture assists in interpreting the story at this point: The harlot was the primary symbol of the double standard in Israel. She was in every period a figure of disrepute and shame, at best merely ostracized, at worst subjected to punishment of death. But the harlot was also tolerated in every period by men who incurred no legal penalties—o even censure—for the enjoyment of her services. Her status and image gained nothing, however, from this tolerance.4


23

To continue with Tamar's story, Judah is informed several months later that she has "played the whore" and become pregnant. Expressing righteous indignation, he condemns her even before hearing her testimony. "Bring her out and let her be burned," Judah commands. Even though he had released her from his family, he now assumes the role of judge and orders her grisly execution. Tamar then outwits Judah by producing his signet and staff as evidence of his paternity. Confronted with tangible evidence, he makes an honest confession. Regarding Tamar's persistence in pursuit of the levirate, Judah admits, "She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her my son Shelah."5 Judah's hypocrisy is expressed in two ways. Even had he not been sexually involved with Tamar, his pronouncement of a death sentence displays a gap between his actions and what he knows he should do. As the head of a family, he ought to have carried out his responsibility of arranging to fulfill the levirate for his daughter-inlaw. Alternatively, if he relinquishes that duty, he has no right to punish her as though she were still betrothed to Shelah. Although prudish moderns may consider Tamar despicable for seducing her father-in-law, the narrator exposes Judah as the shameful and insincere person. Not only does he refuse to carry out his obligation to provide for the posterity of his family but he pronounces a cruel judgment on one who is doing just that. In contrast to this disgraceful behavior, Tamar risks her life to continue Judah's family into the future. The story ends happily, with Tamar producing bountifully. She lives up to the meaning of her name, "date-palm," a symbol of fruitfulness. She obtains more than the one kid that Judah offered for her favors and becomes the mother of twins, Perez and Zerah. Rather than her previous stigma, she now has a status that will increase with the passage of time. Tamar bears the ancestors of most of the Judahite clans.6 She does not become Judah's wife but she may finally have become Shelah's. If so, all of Judah's grandchildren are produced by her. The tribe of Judah is especially significant since it alone, among the dozen original tribes of Israel, has survived over the centuries. Jane Shaberg has commented:

24


For Tamar the twins replace, as it were, the two lost husbands, in that they secure for her a place in the patriarchal social structure, in the role at least of mother if not of wifected of bringing death and disgrace, she dfjksdfide has in the end brought life.... Tamar is willing to risk her life in order to bear a son who would continue her husband's name, . . . showing more loyalty to the name of Judah than Judah himself? Gerhard von Rad has also written perceptively: Tamar, in spite of her action which borders on a crime, is the one justified in the end. Judah states it at the climax of the story, and only Tamar is unmistakably praised by the narrator.... Onan is the negatively contrasting figure to Tamar. She, the woman, accomplishes by an unbelievable detour what he, to whom the obvious way was open, refusedThis path opau of hers through profound shame and guilt has something splendid about it.8 Literary critic Harold Bloom has recently called attention to Tamar as well. He has considered her to be "the most memorable character" in the entire pentateuchal saga composed by "J," the Yahwist storywriter. Bloom has extolled Tamar in this way: "It is she alone who guarantees the heritage of vitality that runs from wrestling Jacob to the truly heroic and charismatic David." "Boldness and resourcefulness" are qualities of this "fountainhead" of Judah's surviving offspring. "J"s sympathetic treatment of Tamar and other formidable women has prompted Bloom to accept Richard Friedman's speculation that "J" was a woman. 9 Why did the Genesis editor insert the self-contained story of Tamar in the midst of the Joseph narrative? He may have interrupted the story of Judah's half-brother to contrast examples of irresponsible sexual passion—Onan in one story and Potiphar's wife in the other—with the responsible way in which Tamar and Joseph handle sexual situations. The account of how Tamar's good end justifies a normally immoral means is followed by the story of Joseph who shows commendable virtue in fleeing from a woman who is tempting him to commit adultery. The latter story displays the ordinary way in which Israelite sexual standards were expressed; the former


25

shows that, in exceptional circumstances, conduct usually evaluated as immoral can be given religious sanction. SUBSEQUENT PARALLELS In several ways, the story of Tamar parallels the later story of Ruth. Both come from an alien culture to become Hebrew wives and then young widows. Both are in need of community acceptance and family support that can only be obtained by becoming mothers. Both seduce a relative of their deceased husband in an unexpected way. By their ingenuity, the fulfillment of the levirate is hastened. When Boaz makes arrangements with the Bethlehem town council for marrying Ruth, the elders compare his situation to one in patriarchal times: "Through the children that Yahweh will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah."10 Both Tamar and Ruth become ancestresses of the most famous offspring of Judah, namely David and Jesus.11 A common thread also ties Tamar with Susanna of the Apocrypha. In both stories, a woman is accused of sexual misconduct. Each faces scandal and risks execution in order to be faithful to what Hebrew custom demanded. The lechery and hypocrisy of some male Hebrew leaders is vividly described. In the end, the courageous women are vindicated. Furthermore, the Tamar story has features similar to the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman—even though stoning has replaced burning as a death penalty.12 In both cases, indignant men hold a double standard: women, but not men, are to be held accountable for sexual misconduct. The Genesis story ends with Judah acknowledging that he is more guilty than Tamar. In the Gospel story, the men discard their stones on realizing their own lack of purity and their hypocrisy toward the exploited unnamed woman. The definition of major sin held by the Genesis narrator and by Jesus are also similar. With respect to the Tamar story, Walter Brueggemann has commented:

26


Judah has spumed the claims of his daughter-in-law. By his indifference, he has violated her right to well-being and dignity in the community. The narrative juxtaposes his prudent but self-serving withholding and her deceptive harlotry. . . . The story may give us pause about the usual bourgeois dimensions of sin. What is taken most seriously is not a violation of sexual convention, but damage to the community which includes a poor, diminished female.13 Among some Christians, the levirate custom has continued. Martin Luther, for example, advised that a woman with an impotent husband had the right to obtain his permission to be impregnated by a close relative.14 This practice should in theory be accepted by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who believe that God revealed to Moses infallible and unchangeable laws of conduct. Contemporary evidence that the levirate has not been totally discarded in America is revealed by this letter: Dear Abby: We are having a big mix-up in our family. A cousin of ours recently died and left a young widow. A brother of the dead man is doing double duty and has been acting like a husband to this widow. He is married. He says the Bible says it is all right. Where in the Bible does it okay such goings on? Abby responds by referring to the passage in Deuteronomy 25:5. She also suggested that the cousin might be rationalizing adultery. In modern civilization, neither slave surrogates nor bigamy is considered legal or moral. Our monogamous ideal has caused the levirate custom to fall out of use. The levirate entails intimate personal involvement, and that shows insensitivity toward the exclusive sexual rights of the brother's regular wife. Still operative today, however, is the principle of providing for family continuity, which was behind the traditional practices for irregular parenting. During the past generation, medical technology has developed procedures for enhancing fertility that are becoming morally acceptable. Approximately 10,000 American women annually choose to be artificially inseminated by donated sperm because they believe that they have a right to have a child. In Great Britain, that method is supported by the government and is called "virgin birth"!


27

Semen is deposited in the uterus by an instrument when pregnancy through ordinary sexual union is unlikely or impossible. Two safeguards are usually imposed: first, that the sterile husband consents to the procedure and second, that the third-party donor is anonymous. With the establishment of frozen sperm banks, it is possible to obtain semen in a completely impersonal manner. What religious responses have there been to this irregular method of parenting? One response is contained in a document entitled "Respect for Human Life in Its Origins," which was issued by Pope John Paul II in 1987. The Vatican has reiterated its moral opposition to all non-natural fertilizations, insisting that marital intercourse should always precede conception (excepting, presumably, the conception of Jesus). The Roman Catholic Church opposes artificial insemination by an anonymous donor because it normally involves collecting semen through masturbation. For many centuries, masturbation has been condemned by the Church as prohibited by God. Since masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible, considerable eisegesis is needed to concoct such condemnation. The Catholics are indebted to medieval Jews who regarded masturbation as a grave offense. Since it was believed that human life was contained in the semen, the wasting of such was a kind of homicide. In the Talmud, masturbation is associated with Onan who allegedly is slain by God for ejaculating when his penis was not in Tamar's vagina. This interpretation provided Judaism a biblical basis for treating the "wasting of nature" as a capital crime.15 The term onan in modern Hebrew means masturbate, and for Orthodox Jews, it continues to be a serious sin. Thus, the Code of Jewish Law states: It is forbidden to cause in vain the effusion of semen, and this crime is severer than any of the violations mentioned in the Torah. . . . It is analogous to the killing of a person. See what Rashi wrote concerning Er and Onan. . . . Occasionally as a punishment for this, children die while young. A man should be very careful to avoid hardening himself. Therefore it is forbidden to sleep on one's back with his face upward. . . . It is forbidden to hold the penis while urinating. If he is married and his wife is in town and she is clean, it may be permitted.16

28


There is, however, no basis for relating the story of Tamar and Onan to masturbation. That term is generally defined as sexual arousal caused by self-stimulation, but Tamar was having intercourse with Onan before he ejaculated outside her body. Onan's sin of emission was actually coitus interruptus, which he did to avoid fulfilling his levirate responsibilities. To use this Genesis passage as justification for not sanctioning masturbation is no less ridiculous than attempting to encourage it by appeal to this verse: "Whatever your hand finds to do, work hard at it."17 In spite of the false Judeo-Christian medieval interpretation of the story of Tamar and Onan, the name of Onan has continued to the present day to be associated with matters altogether separate from the levirate. In the eighteenth century, Catholic neurologist Samuel Tissot wrote a widely circulated treatise entitled Onania, which claimed that masturbation causes an excessive blood flow from the brain that can result in impotence and insanity. Tissot's views have had an immense cultural impact in subsequent centuries.18 An illustration from the latest edition of The Oxford English Dictionary will suffice. Onanism is defined as "self-abuse," and among the usages quoted is this: "Onanism is a frequent accompaniment of insanity and sometimes causes it." Walt Whitman is also quoted: "The sick-gray faces of onanists."19 A fallacy in inductive reasoning is responsible for the easy acceptance of Tissot's view. Since the insane are less inhibited about nonconformity with social standards, attendants of the insane can observe with comparative ease that most of them masturbate during periods when they are institutionalized and deprived of sex partners. There are few opportunities for observing whether or not most of the sane indulge in masturbation in similar circumstances. In our own era, the Catholic-edited Dictionary of Moral Theology says this about onanism: "Direct voluntary pollution is properly called masturbation.... In the Holy Scriptures it is condemned as a sin which excludes a person from the Kingdom of Heaven."20 The moralist is here relying not on the Bible but on the writings of the foremost Catholic theologian. Thomas Aquinas held that onanism deserved damnation more than rape, incest, and adultery. His reason was that the former is a sin against nature because it denies the


29

possibility of procreation. By contrast, pregnancy may follow the "natural" sexual sins of rape, incest, and adultery.21 Stories of Genesis women show that fruitfulness in marriage was such a high value among the Israelites that some irregular means were sanctioned to overcome natural problems. This value continues. With the rise of medical technology, new fertilization possibilities have emerged. Tamar's determination to honor her Hebrew heritage and dignify herself caused her to trick the perpetrator of an injustice into impregnating her. For a virtuous woman to feign being a prostitute was a perilous venture, but she succeeded in having offspring from the right family stock and in becoming reinstated as a legitimate member of the family of Judah.


4 Women Saviors The Bible refers to some humans as saviors, even though most Jews and Christians associate "savior" exclusively with God or the God-man. While this record affirms that Israel's security rests ultimately with Yahweh, certain human leaders have been instruments for accomplishing the divine purpose. Sometimes these saviors have been women. In the opening chapter of Exodus, two midwives who "saved" Israel's male babies from being slaughtered set the stage for a slave rebellion. When Ezra reviews the history of the Jews, he notes unnamed human "saviors who rescued them from the hands of their enemies."1 Miriam and Deborah are elsewhere identified as among those who liberated their people. They are thus saviors—that is, God's agents for delivering the Israelites from perils that could have destroyed their community. This chapter looks closely at women saviors during two critical times at the beginning of the Israelite nation. IN THE EXODUS ERA In the Book of Exodus, the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah are probably in charge of a group of midwives, for they can hardly

32


have delivered all the babies for the large number of Israelites in Egypt. They may be called situational ethicists who decide to bear false witness to Pharaoh rather than carry out his mandate to kill the innocent. On their own initiative, they decide to lie to the brutal king in order to protect their covert operation. Their alibi for the undiminished number of male Hebrew newborns is that the vigorous Hebrew women are delivering their babies without assistance. The Exodus record indicates that the midwives' "fear" of God is greater than their fear of the mighty monarch who holds them as slaves. Their defiance of Pharaoh, who was generally accepted as god by his subjects, is the first step toward the Hebrew rebellion and exodus in the next generation. The tradition gives more importance to the two midwives than to the Egyptian king, for they are named individually but his name has been forgotten. In his review of civil rights leaders in history, ethicist Burton Leiser has noted: The Hebrew midwives who deliberately disobeyed Pharaoh's express command were the earliest civil disobedients on record. . . . The midwives . . . had a solution that has appealed to many people in later ages: there is a higher law, God's law, that transcends any merely human command, no matter how exalted the human legislator may be.2 Adolf Hitler unwittingly spoke a truth when he judged women who wanted to break away from traditional male dominance as part of a subversive plot begun by Jews! Ironically, Yahweh's approval of disobedience to a government decree begins a book that contains the world's most influential law code. At the center of the Book of Exodus are the Ten Commandments, which include a prohibition against lying. Still, the midwives are, in effect, commended for giving higher priority to preserving innocent lives than to truthtelling. Terence Fretheim has paid the midwives this tribute: Women are here given such a crucial role that Israel's future is made dependent upon their wisdom, courage, and vision.... These women are not leaders of the community, persons in a position of influence who coul have an impact on governmental policy. Yet such persons are not power-

Women Saviors

33

less. In the process of carrying out their rather mundane responsibilities they are shown to have had a profound effect on the future of their people. Those Hebrew midwives' response to their power structure is similar to the responses of some American women millennia later. Harriet Tubman, a Maryland slave in the first half of the nineteenth century, revolted against government laws that were morally intolerable. As a pioneering conductor on the "underground railroad," she increased the length and quality of life for many black fugitives.4 She was active as a peaceful abolitionist before the more noted John Brown began his bloody liberation raids. In our own time, a protest begun by Rosa Parks has also resulted in the protection of basic human rights for many. She resisted an inhumane public policy in a quiet but determined manner in her city of Montgomery, Alabama. The middle-aged seamstress sparked a bus boycott when she refused to yield her seat to a white person and move to the back of the bus. A generation later, Time magazine gave her this tribute: "When Rosa Parks said no, the lives of black Americans changed forever."5 Most Americans identify the Montgomery bus boycott with Martin Luther King—even as they identify the exodus from Egypt with Moses—but it was a resolute woman who set the stage for King and other blacks to carry the revolt to successful completion. Pharaoh is foolish as well as vicious in ordering that only Hebrew females should be kept alive, for they eventually cause his undoing; the compassion and intelligence of some midwives undermine the baby butcher. Moreover, he is unwise not to kill Hebrew girls as well if he truly wants to end the burgeoning slave population. As any forest game manager knows, the most effective way to decrease overpopulation is to declare an open season on the females of a species. Jochebed is another unsung "she-ro" of the Bible. Along with the named midwives, she is little recognized even by biblical scholars. Still, two biblical books refer to Jochebed as the mother of three outstanding Israelites.6 One child is Aaron, the first high priest, who presides over the establishment of the tabernacle. The second is Miriam, one of the few females in biblical history who is

34


recognized as a channel for divine revelation. The third is Moses, whose life is saved when Jochebed cleverly thwarts Pharaoh's edict to drown in the Nile every Hebrew boy who survives birth. Through a prophetic oracle, the God of Israel singles out this triumvirate: "I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam."7 The religious excellence of these three siblings suggests that their mother profoundly influenced their basic religious and social values. The only tie that young Moses has to the traditions of his Hebrew people may have been that with his mother. After Jochebed successfully schemes to avert the killing of her baby by the Egyptians, she nurses and nurtures him before he goes to live in the royal palace. In ancient societies, nursing usually continued for years, so she probably gave Moses not only milk but also a taste of Hebrew history. During those formative years, she probably told her son stories of God's covenant with the extended family of Abraham and Sarah. Had Jochebed not instilled in Moses an identification with the Hebrews, how could he have known when he grew to manhood that he was not an Egyptian prince? Would not a palace aristocrat assume that slavery is an economic necessity for increasing the Gross National Product of the most powerful kingdom on earth? Moses' mother most likely implanted in her son an urge to help the dispossessed Hebrew people. That early childhood training was strong enough to offset the subsequent conditioning he received as an adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. Cecil B. DeMille's movie, The Ten Commandments, fails to portray Jochebed's central role in forming Moses' social conscience. The script is not credible: Moses becomes the leader of a people with whom he has had no contact from infancy onward. Were it not for his maternal link with the Hebrew heritage, however, Moses would probably assume he was a member of the Egyptian royal family. It is surely implausible for a labor organizer to come from the aristocracy to lead his bricklayers' union on a walkout! Religious awareness comes through one's parents and community. As theologian Waldo Beach has stated: "The voice of God is always transmitted through culture, but something more than culture may be transmitted."8 While our parents may not be the ultimate originators of our conscience, as atheist Sigmund Freud

Women Saviors

35

maintained, they usually serve as the primary carriers of culture from one generation to the next. In Moses' situation, his father apparently has little effect on him, apart from the transmission of genes. From infancy onward, the palace-reared Moses is separated from his father. Even though Jochebed had contact with her son only through her secluded position in the private sphere, she must still have had considerable influence over him. The typical impact of mothers is well put by one unknown wit: "All that I am I learned at my mother's knee or some other low joint!" When Moses delivers the command, "You shall not commit adultery," he may be recalling a story told to him by his mother of another Hebrew boy. To inculcate moral principles, the Israelites transmitted dramatic accounts of their forebearers orally from parent to child. The story of Joseph as a slave on a plantation in Egypt would have been particularly appropriate. In that account of a youth refusing to succumb to the temptation by Potiphar's wife to commit adultery, the point is made that such conduct is unacceptable because it violates personal integrity, breaks the marriage bond, and ultimately is a sin against God.9 The influence of Jochebed over Moses may resemble that of subsequent mothers. Consider, for example, the maternal influence on some sons who effected basic religious and social changes. Helena was already a Christian when her son Constantine was growing up in the third century, and her assertiveness later resulted in her planting churches at sites in Palestine associated with Jesus.10 Her pagan husband divorced her, so she took most of the responsibility for her son's limited education. Constantine told the church historian Eusebius of a vision that caused him to become the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire. He saw a flaming cross in the sky bearing the inscription "Conquer by this" prior to the battle in which he secured his position as emperor.11 Had Helena not told stories about Jesus' life to Constantine, would he have had such a religious experience? Perhaps at that time he was reflecting intensely on the founder of Christianity as a source of help. Similarly, had Jochebed not told Moses about the ancestral Hebrews, would he have had a vision in which he hears: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?

36


Moses' mother may also be compared with an American foremother who has only recently been adequately acknowledged for her role in steering the course of our emerging nation. Abigail Adams has joined the few dozen women who have been honored on our postal stamps. How was she significantly assertive with respect to her family? She was born into the home of a Massachusetts minister and was self-educated in the heritage of liberty by reading books from her father's library. When her husband John was in Philadelphia participating in the Continental Congress, she wrote him in March 1776: In the new code of laws ... do not put such unlimited power into the hand of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.12 She shared the Puritan (and Exodus) conviction: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Her revolutionary fervor extended far beyond independence from the British. In her day, the rule of husbands over wives was generally more oppressive than the rule of King George III over the colonies. Like Jochebed, Abigail Adams was convinced that God did not side with tyrants, whether they were called Pharaohs or husbands. She was a solitary voice crying in the colonial wilderness. John Adams dismissed her comments with a laugh, and her letters were not published until long after her death. But through her son, John Quincy Adams, she accomplished her aim to dignify woman's role. She has the distinction of being the only woman to be wife of one President of the United States and the mother of another. After her son completed one term as president, he returned to Washington as a powerful member of Congress. In 1834, he became the first congressman to argue for women's right to take part in public affairs and, in particular, to petition the government to abolish slavery. He asked:

Women Saviors

37

Why does it follow that women are fitted for nothing but the cares of domestic life, for bearing children and cooking the food of a family . . . [that is,] promoting the immediate personal comfort of their husbands, brothers, and sons? ... [For a woman to depart from domestic duties,] far from being a reproach to her, is a virtue of the highest order.13 John Quincy Adams was part of the movement that eventually resulted in the vote for women and other expressions of gender equality. His mother, like Moses' mother, initiated social liberation that transformed the subsequent culture. According to the Bible, two women, apart from his mother, assist in saving the infant Moses from a cruel Egyptian edict. Pharaoh's daughter finds the papyrus basket that Jochebed has left for her to discover when she comes to bathe in the Nile. On opening the basket, she takes pity on the crying baby, who is identified as a Hebrew. His ethnicity is probably evident by his circumcision, since the operation was not performed on Egyptian males until puberty. Flouting her father's decree that Hebrew infants be thrown into the Nile, Pharaoh's daughter has him drawn out of that river. She names him Mosheh, meaning "drawn out" in Hebrew, to commemorate how he became known to her. After rescuing Moses, she risks being ostracized at the palace by adopting him as her son and arranging for his care.14 Jochebed's daughter, presumably Miriam, is also part of the mother's shrewd plan for saving a baby who can no longer be hidden from the Egyptian police. Miriam is left to watch over her younger brother and negotiate for his safety. After the Egyptian princess discovers and appreciates the baby she presumes is abandoned, Miriam approaches to provide help. Her offer to find a slave wet nurse to care for the child is accepted, so Miriam fetches her mother. Ironically, the princess arranges for the child's nurture without realizing that she is actually dealing with the baby's mother. Jochebed then has the satisfaction of receiving child support from a member of the royal family, even though the king is determined to exterminate such boys. Miriam has a subsequent significant role in the exodus from Egypt, even though the editors of the Pentateuch have successfully

38


minimized her position. After Pharaoh's chariots become mired in the Sea of Reeds in pursuit of the escaping Israelites, she officiates at a victory celebration. The following vignette commemorates the Hebrews' relief at the vanquishing of what appeared to be an overwhelming military power: The prophet Miriam, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine and all the women followed her, dancing to the rhythm of tambourines. Miriam led them in this refrain: Sing to Yahweh who has triumphed gloriously; Horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.15 The exuberant body movements here described were probably of Egyptian origin; tomb art of the same dynastic period as the Israelite exodus certainly shows women dancing with tambourines and castanets.16 Women musicians had high status in Egyptian worship,17 and presumably this was also the case among the early Israelites. When Miriam directs women in jubilant song and dance to commemorate deliverance, she thus begins a tradition that the Israelites occasionally repeat after other battles. Jephthah's daughter rejoices over the return of her victorious father, and Israelite women celebrate the heroic deeds of David.18 On each occasion a simple instrument of stretched animal skin, like a tom-tom, is beaten with the hand to provide a pulsating rhythm. Over a millennium later, Philo of Alexandria described a Jewish feast where the dance of Miriam was imitated. Some of the details of that gala ceremony follow: "They celebrate the sacred festival during the whole night... . They all stand up together,... moving their hands and dancing in corresponding harmony, and uttering in an inspired manner songs of thanksgiving."19 Scholars have recognized Miriam's song as one of the oldest compositions in the Bible, dating back to the second millennium before the Christian era.20 Since the song is one of praise to Yahweh, Miriam should be acknowledged as the first Israelite psalmist. What she began became her culture's greatest contribution to the arts.

Women Saviors

39

Subsequent Israelite worship was more like a boisterous Israeli hora than a solemn occasion. One psalm, composed to commemorate the exodus, describes a processional dance: "Singers lead and the musicians come last; in the middle girls play on tambourines."21 Psalms specialist Sigmund Mowinckel has commented on the role of dance in Israelite worship: "The dance is a spontaneous human expression of the sense of rapture, and hence it is regarded and utilized as a means to bring about this rapture and an experience of holy powers and the presence of the divine."22 Miriam's influence is evident in the religious content of the psalter, for both she and the psalter give little credit to Moses while emphasizing the role of Yahweh the warrior. For example, one psalm mentions no human savior in crossing a papyrus marsh (inaccurately called the Red Sea) but extols the divine savior: He saved them from the hand of the foe, and delivered them from the hand of the enemy. The waters covered their adversaries; not one of them was left.23 The story of Judith in early Judaism shows the impact of Miriam. After vanquishing male oppressors, Judith directs a victory parade: "At the head of all people, she led the women in the dance; all the men of Israel, bearing their armor and wearing garlands, followed them singing hymns."24 In the early church, Judith's valor inspired Clement of Rome. He appealed to her example in this way: "Many women have been enabled by the grace of God to perform deeds worthy of heroic men."25 The mother of Jesus shares Miriam's prophetic and joyful outlook. This similarity is especially appropriate, since "Mary" is the English spelling for Miriam or Maria in the biblical languages. The most adored woman in Christianity is a carrier for the socioreligious revolution of the exodus. Both Miriam and Mary trust in the powerful and merciful God who puts down pompous potentates

40


while raising up the downtrodden. In her Magnificat song, Mary rejoices in Yahweh: who has stretched out his mighty arm and has scattered the arrogant-minded; who has brought down kings from their thrones and has raised high the humble; who has satisfied the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty-handed.26 First among the female prophets is Miriam, who uses a musical mode for conveying an inspired message. The probable etymology of nabi, the main Hebrew term for referring to a prophet, shows that the divine messenger is not just a mouthpiece for reciting God's words. Nabi may come from the verb bo, meaning "enter," suggesting that the human prophet's whole body is possessed by God.27 Thus, Ezekiel describes his call in this way: "A spirit entered (bo) me."28 On entering Miriam, the Spirit prompts a joyful dance. Miriam's prophetic role subsequently causes controversy because some presume—as in Orthodox Judaism—that Moses is the unique intermediary between Yahweh and the Israelites. Miriam and Aaron ask, "Has Yahweh spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?"29 According to that passage in Numbers, Moses' supremacy as a divine revealer is allegedly demonstrated by Miriam's being smitten with a dreaded skin disease. The editors of the Pentateuch make it appear that Miriam is a subordinate channel of revelation. In telling of the celebration after crossing the Sea of Reeds, they precede Miriam's song with a much longer one by "Moses and the Israelites." Moses' song begins with the very prophecy that originated with Miriam. Anachronistic references in the song to the Philistines and the Jerusalem Temple disclose that the poetry was composed centuries after Miriam's prophecy for use at annual festivals.30 Readers of the Pentateuch who are unaware of the layers of traditions tend to read history backward. The bias of the final writers and editors of these scrolls is presented so forcefully by the arrangement of the texts that it is

Women Saviors

41

difficult to realize that Miriam's prophecy was once as authoritative as that of her younger brother. In order to highlight Moses, the song of his sister is treated as an echo of his litany. Male bias is also apparent in other biblical writings vis a vis Miriam. Eileen Schuller has shown that the women of the exodus saga have generally been deleted from subsequent accounts.31 For example, Jesus ben Sirach, who was the first to claim that women caused the fall of humanity,32 omitted women from his eulogy on the pivotal personalities of biblical history. The only women whom that misogynist mentioned are those who stained Solomon's honor. He recounted the virtues of Moses and Aaron at length, but overlooked their sister.33 Many modern male interpreters of the exodus event have continued the distortion of history by assuming that Moses was the exclusive leader of the Israelites. Major articles in standard reference works leave the impression that the exodus can be comprehended without consideration of any of the women who were associated with Moses.34 Robert Davidson, an esteemed Old Testament scholar, has called Miriam and Aaron "mere colourless foils" in comparison to the "towering personality" of Moses.35 In his influential book on the Israelite revolution, Michael Walzer, of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, virtually ignored the crucial role that women played in the liberation.36 Rita Burns has rehabilitated the historical role of Miriam in Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses?. This work is the most thorough study of Miriam ever made. Burns has pointed out that in most of the texts that refer to Miriam, she is acknowledged as a leader.37 Burns has concluded: The fact that she is linked with nothing less than the foundational event of the Hebrew religion would seem to indicate that she was viewed as having been quite a prominent person in Israel's pre-Conquest community. ... It is striking that according to the earliest writers she, not Moses, leads the cultic celebration of the Sea event. . . . Miriam is firmly portrayed as a mediator of God's word.38

42


IN THE JUDGES ERA Apart from Miriam's song, Deborah's song is the oldest victory ode in Hebrew literature. The Book of Judges contains both this poetic masterpiece and the later prose narrative about Deborah. She has three distinctive roles: prophetic, military, and legal. Presumably she also has a domestic role because of her husband, Lappidoth, is mentioned once. In several ways, Deborah fulfills her prophetic role. Similar to the manner in which the prophet Samuel commissions Saul to fight an oppressor, she is guided by Yahweh to select a defender for her tribal confederacy. She interprets as divine providence the weather phenomenon that has made victory over the Canaanites possible. Even as Yahweh allegedly used the wind to incapacitate Egyptian chariots a century earlier, so the God of Israel sends a flood to make the Canaanite chariots useless.39 All of the so-called "judges" are primarily military saviors of the Israelites. The separate stories of each leader are prefaced with this description: "Yahweh raised up judges who saved them [the Israelites] from those who plundered them."40 Deborah's authority also comes from the popular consent of her people. Deborah orders Barak to muster on Mount Tabor the soldiers from tribes threatened by the Canaanite king Jabin. She outlines battle strategy for him to use against the enemy chariots and troops in the Kishon river valley. Since the Israelites have a poorly armed infantry and no chariots, Deborah's plan is to lure the enemy into a muddy area where chariots cannot operate. Fearful of the overwhelming weapon superiority of the enemy, Barak accepts the command, on the condition that Deborah accompany him. She not only goes with him to the battle area but she also decides on the day for assault and spurs him to fight.41 Before the battle, Deborah forecasts that Barak's refusal to go to battle without her will result in a woman destroying Sisera, the Canaanite commander. The prediction is fulfilled after Sisera leaves his chariot on the battlefield and flees to the home of Heber, a presumed friend. Jael, Heber's wife, comes out to meet Sisera. The retreating warrior makes the fatal mistake of assuming—as did

Women Saviors

43

most in patriarchy—that a wife necessarily shares the outlook of her husband and that either of them will provide him sanctuary. Jael finds herself in a dilemma: As a woman alone, she can hardly risk turning away the defeated general and provoking his retaliation. But if, following her husband's lead, she allies herself with Sisera, how is she likely to be treated by the Israelite men when they arrive at the tent in hot pursuit of the enemy? And what if she were to be found hiding Sisera? . . . Her best bet for survival for herself, and no doubt for her family, is to turn Sisera's presence in her ten into proof of her own personal allegiance to the victors. The body of Siser in her tent will be her trump card. And so it transpires: her desire for survival drives her to wield the authority of violence.42 Jael risks the anger of her Canaanite husband by working on her own initiative to entangle the weary Sisera in her web. When he asks for water, instead she serves him milk in her finest dishes. She expresses willingness to protect him from pursuers while he rests in the hiding place she provides. By offering Sisera food, shelter, and rest, she acts in a motherly way. Then, with consummate audacity, Jael instigates a savage action while he sleeps. Every blow is accounted for in these dramatic lines of Hebrew poetry: She put her hand to the tent peg, her right hand to the workman's mallet; She struck Sisera a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple.43 Norah Lofts has wryly commented regarding Jael: "She refutes the age-old belief that no woman can drive a straight nail."44 This deed is as audacious as David killing Goliath, but the unladylike slaughter has been given little attention by Bible readers. Women are prominent on both sides of the Israel-Canaan conflict. Not only do Deborah and Jael have major roles, but attention is called to Sisera's mother and her wise female friends. The distress of the Canaanites is greater because their general is slain not only on the battlefield but in a woman's bedroom. Another story in Judges reiterates that the ultimate humiliation is to be killed by a

44


woman. When a woman drops a millstone on a warrior's head, he requests that his armor bearer kill him.45 To die by a sword in an assisted suicide is thus not a disgrace but to die by a missile from a woman is mortifying! The charismatic Deborah is first in peace as well as in war. She is the only woman among the judges and the only leader in the Book of Judges who settles controversies. Under a particular tree in the hill country, she holds court and "Israelites seeking a judgment went up to her."46 Deborah's personality is a jewel with many facets: she expresses her religion as a politician, a strategist, an adjudicator, a poet, and, possibly, as a mother. Deborah's stature is heightened by comparing her to those who succeed her in the Book of Judges. She is portrayed as having a variety of worthy accomplishments, but each of the others has major faults. Gideon collects gold booty taken from the Midianites, makes it into an idol, "and all Israel prostituted themselves to it."47 Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to Yahweh because of a rash vow that he made on the eve of a battle against the Ammonites.48 Samson, whose aim is making personal mischief, has no ability to lead his own people. Without a fight, the men of his tribe turn him over to the Philistine enemy for imprisonment.49 Even though Deborah is the iron lady of ancient Israel, she is not named in the Bible outside of the Book of Judges. Ironically, when a writer in the New Testament lists famous ancestors, stouthearted Deborah is not cited although timid Barak is among such heroic judges as Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson!50 Surely the most amazing words ever uttered by Barak are the ones he makes to Deborah before battle: "If you will go with me, I will go."51 The prejudices of the masculine tradition make it exceedingly difficult to ferret out the distinctions of women in patriarchy. After telling of Deborah's distinguished work, Elizabeth Cady Stanton commented on the nineteenth century American scene in The Women s Bible: We never hear sermons pointing women to the heroic virtues of Deborah as worthy of their imitation. Nothing is said in the pulpit to rouse them from the apathy of ages, to inspire them to do and dare great things, to

Women Saviors

45

intellectual and spiritual achievements, in real communion with the Great Spirit of the Universe. Oh, no! The lessons doled out to women, from the canon law, the Bible, the prayer-books and the catechisms, are meekness and self-abnegation; ever with covered heads (a badge of servitude) to do some humble service for man.52 The gender inequality of the past centuries, which Stanton perceptively described, has diminished significantly. Deborah is today one of the most popular women's names in Israel and in America. No doubt some infants have been given that name in honor of the Joan of Arc of Hebrew history. Many women, regardless of name, have been inspired by the first woman judge and head of state in Israel. Whereas Deborah "arose as a mother in Israel,"53 Golda Meir arose as a grandmother in Israel and united factions within her country to withstand enemies from adjacent nations. At the age of seventy-five, the first woman prime minister of modern Israel saved a relatively poorly armed nation from the combined forces of Syria and Egypt. Minister of Defense Moshe Day an was like Barak in his reluctance to respond on his own. Although a seasoned military officer, Dayan hesitated to act on the judgment of his commanderin-chief that full mobilization was needed to prepare for an invasion. Even so, Meir was able to bring about the victory in the Yom Kippur war of 1973.54 She was also tough-minded in debate and determined in negotiations. As for Jael, she may have inspired the author of the Book of Judith. That fictional writing in the Apocrypha tells of a woman who beguiles Holofernes, the commander of an army that is attacking the Jewish people. She prays: "Your strength is not in numbers nor your might in strong men. You are the God of the lowly, the helper of the oppressed."55 Judith entraps Holofernes so that he trustingly goes to sleep when alone with her. Like Jael, the stalwart assassin then wields a weapon against the enemy and murders him. The book concludes with a song of triumph to Yahweh. In the earliest years of the Israelite commonwealth, assertive women came to the fore. The egalitarian social revolution that they helped to lead was without parallel in the ancient world.56 Although

46


not mentioned in the roll of heroic figures in the Book of Hebrews, the names of Shiphrah, Puah, Jochebed, Miriam, Deborah, and Jael were indispensable for the liberation from Egypt and the settlement in Canaan. The women saviors did not take personal credit for the deliverances in which they were involved. They humbly praised Yahweh whose power enabled their people to triumph. The conclusion of Deborah's song is an appropriate refrain for all of them: So perish all your enemies, Yahweh, But let your friends shine like the rising sun!57

5 Naomi and Ruth The ancient editor who provided the title for the Book of Ruth overlooked that another woman is equally prominent in the short story. From beginning to end, the spotlight is divided between Naomi and Ruth, so a joint title for the "book" would have been more appropriate. In the Hebrew canon, Ruth is placed at the end of the scriptures among some other brief writings. They were simply called the Megilloth, meaning "scrolls," and were read at annual festivals in this order: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The first scroll ends with the "sealing" of constant love between a man and a woman, whereas the second scroll describes the unshakable devotion of two women. The Ruth scroll is appropriately associated with the Shabuoth (or Pentecost) feast, a time for celebrating the grain harvest. The placement of the story of Naomi and Ruth among other writings that are not focused on the chronicling of events suggests that the historicity of the contents was not a main concern. Scholars are more undecided on the date of the Book of Ruth than for any other book of the Bible. A five-century range in dates has been suggested, covering the whole period of the composition

48


of the books included in the Hebrew canon.1 Obviously, it cannot have been composed before the time of David, for the book concludes with his name. Moreover, the Book of Ruth may have been based on a folk tale that was handed down for generations by oral transmission. There is no compelling internal evidence for placing it in any particular century, from the united monarchy era to the post-exilic era. The Israelite author was certainly interested in countering ethnic chauvinism, but that social disease was endemic to the entire biblical period. The difficulty of dating itself implies the timeless relevance of the Book of Ruth. After the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, editors placed the story of Naomi and Ruth in the midst of the Deuteronomic history that encompasses the rise and fall of the Israelite monarchy. The record thus begins with the Book of Deuteronomy and ends with the Books of Kings. The decision by the Septuagint (Greek) editors to have it follow the Judges scroll was probably due mainly to its opening phrase: "In the days when the judges ruled." The editors may also have wanted to provide moral and religious relief for those who had completed reading the bloodthirsty Judges' tales. THE RUTHLESS ERA The treatment of both women and foreigners was generally demeaning through most of Israelite history, but during the times of Naomi and Ruth, it was especially horrific. Without a full description of the background of the period, much of the significance of the story is lost. Consider first the fate of two women who are described in the Book of Judges. The unnamed daughter of Jephthah is a victim of her father's rash vow. He assures Yahweh that if help is forthcoming to enable him to win a battle, he will sacrifice whoever comes out of his house to greet him on his return home. Alas, the victorious chieftain's only child comes to meet him. According to the law of Moses, "when a man makes a vow to Yahweh... he shall not break his word."2 Consequently, Jephthah slaughters his daughter after her final request is granted. She asks for time to grieve over having to die before becoming a mother. The amazing part of this story is

Naomi and Ruth

49

that Jephthah is not criticized for engaging in child sacrifice and that he is accepted as Israel's ruler for several years to come.3 Moreover, that headstrong man is lauded in the New Testament as one "who through faith conquered kingdoms."4 An account in the concluding chapters of Judges of a gang rape and the dismemberment of a woman from Bethlehem may also explain the location of the Book of Ruth in the European Bibles. The Deuteronomic narrator evaluates the brutal killing as the foulest crime in Israelite history.5 To punish the offense against one woman, many women and children are killed in addition to the men who were involved.6 In the writings that immediately follow, the Septuagint editors offset this brutality by finding a place for a serene story about other poor women of Bethlehem. The Book of Ruth stresses that Ruth is a native of Moab. The reader needs to grasp how the Israelites generally felt toward neighboring peoples. Some of the Genesis narratives provide insight into relationships between nations. For example, Yahweh informs Rebekah when Esau and Jacob are born that "Two nations are in your womb." One is Edom, and the other is Israel.7 The saga of the twins was written by the "J" writer in the first millennium, long after those nations were formed. The stories reflect attitudes toward the Edomites that were held by Israelites living during the time of the monarchy. "J" 's tale of the incestuous conception of Moab and Ammon likewise echoes the outlook that had developed in Israel toward those trans-Jordan nations. To justify the Israelite enmity toward those people, "J" alleges that their founding fathers were the offspring of survivors of wicked Sodom. Lot's two daughters, whom Lot has earlier attempted unsuccessfully to give to potential rapists, get him to impregnate them after dissolving his rationality in alcohol. According to the Septuagint, Lot's eldest daughter calls her child Moab because the name means "from my father."8 Thus, when the word Moab was mentioned to the Israelites, "J'"s revolting story created fresh contempt. While the Israelites were seeking a place to settle after their emancipation from slavery in Egypt, they encamped temporarily on the plains of Moab. This encounter did not increase their

50


appreciation of the Moabites, and the Israelites referred to them as enemies whose "vine springs from Sodom stock."9 In the book of Numbers, this taunt is spoken against the Moabites and their main god: "Woe to you, Moab! You are undone, O people of Chemosh!"10 Before invading Canaan, the Israelites receive severe punishment from Yahweh because they have had sexual relations with Moabite women. The men are persuaded by those women to sacrifice to their gods, including the widely worshipped Baal of the Canaanites. The hostility of the Israelites toward the people who lived in the trans-Jordan region resulted in this law: "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of Yahweh even to the tenth generation."11 Evidently its enforcement must have been lax, for otherwise Ruth could not have become part of Yahweh's people in Bethlehem. According to the Bible, after the Israelite tribes settle in Canaan, Moab becomes the enemy they most love to hate. King Eglon of Moab is assassinated by the deliverer Ehud, whose troops then kill thousands of Moabites.12 Generations later, David massacres a large number of Moabites, and the rest bring tribute to the king.13 Israelite prophets direct dirge after dirge against Moab. Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel all engage vigorously in Moab bashing.14 According to Jeremiah, Yahweh proclaims, "I have broken Moab like a vessel for which no one cares."15 According to Zephaniah, "Moab shall become like Sodom . . . a waste for ever. . . . My people shall plunder them."16 The Moabite Stone, which was discovered in 1868, shows that Israel's hatred of Moab was fully reciprocated and that the spokespersons for both nations engaged in hyperbole. King Mesha wrote on a basalt slab that King Omri and his son oppressed Moab, "but I saw my desire upon him and upon his house, when Israel perished utterly for ever."17 This actually means that Moab broke away from the vassal status that it had had since the time of David, more than a century earlier. The meanspirited attitudes did not cease even with the destruction of the Israelite and Moabite kingdoms by invaders from Mesopotamia. Xenophobia was prominent in the post-exilic community. Denouncing mixed marriages is a main interest of Ezra in

Naomi and Ruth

51

fifth century Judah. He is aware that Solomon's apostasy is due in part to marrying women from Moab and other nations, as well as building places of worship in Jerusalem for Chemosh and other "abominations."18 Seeking to avoid such contamination, Ezra decrees that foreign wives, including those from Moab, be divorced and that Israelite men separate from children born to them.19 Nehemiah also uses vitriolic words and vicious actions toward men who have wives from Moab and from other adjacent pagan communities: "I reprimanded them and called down curses on them," he acknowledges: "I struck several of them and tore out their hair."20 With this record of scorn, it is surprising that any foreign women would be attracted to Jewish men. Today, the Israelis residing around Jerusalem and the Palestinians around Amman occupy approximately the same areas on plateaus divided by the Jordan Valley as did the Judahites and the Moabites. The mutual disdain for marriages between Palestinian girls and Jewish boys parallels the ancient attitude. Much attention is directed toward erecting and patrolling rigid boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Cultural walls—in any society—provide identification and security for those within, so efforts to breach them are often viewed as threatening to the social framework. It is against the perennial background of national and religious prejudices that the assertiveness of both Naomi and Ruth has abiding significance.

INTERETHNIC BONDING In the opening paragraphs of the story of Naomi and Ruth, the author provides clues that she or he is writing a piece of fiction full of symbols. The giveaway for those who understand Hebrew are the names of Mahlon, meaning "sickly," and Chilion, meaning "weakness." Both of these brothers die some time after becoming married to Moabite women. Their wives, Orpah and Ruth, are introduced; their names may mean "returner" and "faithful," respectively. The woman whose husband and sons have died then calls attention to her change of circumstances by explaining why

52


her name is no longer fitting. She requests that her name, Naomi, or "sweetness," be changed to Mara, or "bitterness." Also rich in suggestiveness is the name of Elimelech, Naomi's husband, which means "God is king." Theocracy is considered the ideal form of government from the time of the exodus from Egypt to the time of the prophet Samuel. The heroes of Judges generally accept the direct rule of God through inspired prophets, and Gideon explicitly rejects hereditary monarchy because it would establish rival sovereignty.21 The Deuteronomic historian, however, who collected those accounts about people whom he inappropriately calls "judges," finds mostly exploits showing human depravity. The last sentence of Judges emphasizes a judgment he has made before: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes." The narrator implies that people usually did what was wrong because there was no one powerful enough to keep them from violating the basic commandments of the Mosaic covenant. The writer of the Book of Ruth, however, shows that in Elimelech's family, where there is personal commitment to the divine ruler, the best of Mosaic morality can be found even though there is no human monarch. The storyteller first presents Naomi's dilemma. After her family emigrates to Moab because of a famine in Judah, all of her menfolk die. Moreover, even though her sons have been married for some years, no grandchildren have been produced. Bereft of her extended family in the country of exile, the widow Naomi is completely destitute. There are no government relief or organized charities to take care of widows. Naomi realizes that the only sensible thing to do is to return to relatives and to the family property in her hometown. The famine there is over, and Bethlehem is again living up to its name, "place of bread." Her daughters-in-law Ruth and Orpah start out with Naomi as she goes down the road to cross the Jordan River. Realizing that their extended families are in Moab, Naomi advises them to stay where they are more likely to find new husbands. The Old English root for "husband" (house+bond) carries the patriarchal meaning to which she appeals: without attachment to one who holds together a dwelling, there is no security for a woman. In patriarchy, family

Naomi and Ruth

53

arrangements center in the male head of the house. For example, the Book of Ruth begins by telling of Elimelech's migration to Moab, accompanied by his two sons and wife. Naomi pleads: "Return, my daughters, why should you come with me? Can I bear any more sons to be husbands for you?" She alludes to the levirate law that requires a brother to sire a child with his widowed sister-in-law in order to continue the name of the dead husband. Naomi had only two sons, and there is no possibility that she can give birth to another one who can fulfill the levirate for Orpah and Ruth. Naomi's experience in a foreign country has also made her aware of the ethnocentricity that is intrinsic to human societies, but her daughters-in-law are naively unaware of the anti-Moabite prejudice in Judah that might make their remarriage impossible. Their Moabite speech and manners could well be a source of ridicule. Although Naomi has nothing negative to say about any human, she expresses disappointment toward Yahweh. Finding more faithful love in human relationships, she asks Yahweh to do for her daughters-in-law as they have done for her and her menfolk. Naomi feels as though she has received the back of "Yahweh's hand" more than Orpah or Ruth because they can still realistically hope to have children. Orpah displays wrenching ambivalence, deciding first one way and then another. She finally takes Naomi's common-sense advice and, after an affectionate goodbye, returns "to her people and to her gods." Her life is difficult enough without taking responsibility for an older widow in a land presumed to be governed by a deity different from the ones she worships (the Moabite Stone refers to Chemosh and to goddess Ashtar, or Ishtar). For Orpah, adopting a foreign god and a new land would be like undergoing the trauma of an identity change. She does the prudent thing and heads for her family home to await an arranged remarriage. The skillful storyteller relates Orpah's practical decision in order to set up a contrast. Without belittling her obedience, the narrator juxtaposes the different response of the other young widow. Whereas Orpah leaves, Ruth cleaves; the same Hebrew verb is used here as for Adam, who "cleaves" to Eve. Confronted

54


with essentially the same situation, Ruth does not do the normal thing. In loving disobedience, she subordinates her individual agenda to assist someone more desperate than herself. To Naomi's third plea that she remain in Moab, Ruth responds with this solemn oath: Do not urge me to turn back and leave you. Wherever you go, I shall go, and wherever you stay, I shall stay. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Wherever you die, I shall die, and beside you be buried. May Yahweh's worst punishment come upon me if I let anything but death separate you and me. (Ruth 1:16-17) Naomi is rendered speechless by Ruth's independence of judgment and by her willingness to forsake what would be in her best interests. Ruth lets the value of personal companionship override the risk of insecurity in a strange land. Although her father and mother are still alive in Moab, she affirms that she will leave them and the land of her birth in order to care for an elderly widow. Thus, a covenant of friendship can be stronger than blood ties. Ruth's single-minded commitment, which goes beyond tilldeath-do-us-part, stands out in several ways. A wife often finds the main rival for her husband's affection to be his mother. Yet this paradigm expression of human friendship is between a woman and her mother-in-law, and a Jewish one at that! Mothers-in-law have long been the butt of jokes in the Jewish community. The stereotype is captured in this one-liner: the difference between a Jewish mother-in-law and a vulture is that one waits until you're dead! Although Ruth's expression of devotion is often quoted at Jewish weddings in reference to bonding between those of the same generation but different genders, the relationship here is between those of different generations but the same gender. The covenant between Ruth and Naomi parallels the one between Jonathan and David. Since King Saul expects his son Jonathan to succeed him, and since Samuel anoints David to be the next king of Israel, jealousy rather than affection would ordinarily be the normal expectation. Rivalry might also be expected from the fact

Naomi and Ruth

55,

that both are military heroes. Yet, the historian in the Bible states that "Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because each loved the other as dearly as himself." David eulogizes Jonathan this way: "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."22 The relationship does not appear to have been homosexual, since David lusts after Bathsheba and both men impregnated their wives.23 The bonding between Naomi and Ruth seems to transcend sexuality. In addition, the tie between Ruth and Naomi goes beyond the letter of the law; neither widow has a formal obligation to support the other. The bond is forged in freedom, for Naomi makes it clear that her daughter-in-law should not remain attached because of filial duty and that fewer hardships are likely if they separate. Theological courage is at the foundation of Ruth's pledge of fidelity. The culture in which she has been nurtured relies principally on the god Chemosh to protect the land of Moab, but other deities are presumed to control other areas. Becoming an expatriate makes one doubly vulnerable because of the anticipated hostility of both foreigners and their gods. Ruth might well conclude that Yahweh is powerless because the three male worshipers of Yahweh whom she knows all died. Ruth's faith and hope in Yahweh corresponds to the belief of the Hebrew founding parents, in that tangible confirmation is lacking.24 Like Sarah and Abraham who give up their kindred and gods beyond the Euphrates,25 Ruth makes fundamental cultural changes as she sets out to the unknown land west of the Jordan River. Her decisions have been well described by Phyllis Trible: She has disavowed the solidarity of family; she has abandoned national identity; and she has renounced religious affiliation. In the entire epic of Israel, only Abraham matches this radicality, but then he had a call from God. . . . No deity has promised her blessing. . . . Not only has Ruth broken with family, country, and faith, but she has also reversed sexual allegiance. . . . One female has chosen another female in a world where life depends upon men. There is no more radical decision in all the memories of Israel.26

56


Passing through the waters of the Jordan at the boundary between the two countries is like becoming baptized into Yahwism. Henceforth, the convert links her destiny to that of the Hebrew God. The decade of aging and suffering in Moab has taken such a toll on Naomi that on her return to Bethlehem, the townswomen ask, "Can this be Naomi?" Regarding God, she says: "The Almighty has dealt bitterly with me. I went away full, but Yahweh has brought me back empty." Trible has traced Naomi's emptiness in this way: "From famine on the physical level to famine on a familial level to famine at the very core of her being." Naomi has a personal theodicy problem similar to that of Job. After suffering calamities and heavy grief, they both eventually accuse God of injustice. Naomi feels that God has condemned her and stripped her of all that gave her dignity. Like Job, she retains fidelity to Yahweh in spite of her bitterness. Naomi and Ruth continue to be in desperate circumstances on returning to Bethlehem because no one offers to help them. Ruth takes advantage of a work-fare law permitting the poor to glean in fields. The Israelites were required to leave sheaves that had been dropped and corners of fields for diligent aliens and widows to harvest.27 John Keats imagined that Ruth might have been like a sorrowful but resilient nightingale: Perhaps the self-same song . .. found a path Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home, She stood in tears amid the alien com.28 The forlornness dissipates after Boaz, "a rich and influential man," notices a strange woman toiling in his field during the barley harvest. He learns that she is a Moabite and realizes that she has been assisting his kinswoman Naomi. Through her previous marriage, Ruth has learned how to charm a man of Bethlehem. She speaks to Boaz with much deference; he responds by offering her protection and by inviting her to lunch. Realizing that his menservants might molest her, Boaz advises her to stay with the women reapers where there is safety in numbers. Ruth's courteous manner also results in Boaz making it easier for her to glean productively

Naomi and Ruth

57

throughout the weeks of the barley and wheat harvests. Each day she beats out what she has gathered and takes home a large basket of grain. Naomi is delighted with the prospects of security, not only because of the food to satisfy immediate needs, but also because of the hope that Boaz may assist in fulfilling her need for posterity. In contrast to her earlier theological alienation, she how praises Yahweh "whose steadfast love [hesed] has not forsaken the living or the dead." Naomi is now convinced that, for those who are patient, Yahweh keeps promises. She expresses the central theme of biblical literature—that Yahweh is bound by a covenant with the Israelites and will remain loyal regardless of the situation. The doctrine pervades the Hebrew psalms, in which Yahweh's hesed is rendered as "loving kindness" in the King James Version. Ruth learns from her mother-in-law that Boaz is a relative of Elimelech. Naomi decides to assist Yahweh's cause by using the levirate principle as a ruse to entrap Boaz into providing posthumous descendants for her late husband. Boaz is ideal because he is not only of the right stock, but he is also well-to-do. She knows that the law obligates insemination only from a brother-in-law. In cases where there is no living levir (brother-in-law), however, it appears that the nearest male kin of the dead son's father has the right but not the requirement to assist in providing for bloodline continuity. The next-on-kin of Ruth's father-in-law takes no initiative to offer his services. Is the indifference due to his dislike of foreigners? No comment is made regarding Ruth's appearance, so perhaps he does not find her attractive. Whatever the reason for the reluctance of the next-of-kin prospect, Naomi decides to inveigle a more distant kinsman into matrimony. She may have known of Tamar in her own tribe of Judah who used an irregular way of applying the levirate principle. Naomi surely realizes that if she were to die, even the marginal security that Ruth has in Bethlehem will be jeopardized, for an alien childless widow with no neighboring relatives has virtually no place in this patriarchal society. Although men commonly think that they select their wives, women often select their husbands—even in a patriarchal culture. There may be some truth in the saying that it takes two to make a

58


marriage, a mother and her daughter! The challenge is great, for Boaz is of an older generation—he probably already has a family of his own, since marriage was expected of all Jewish men, from priest to peasant. A single adult was so unusual that there is no word in the Hebrew Bible for "bachelor." Naomi skillfully manages a liaison between Ruth and Boaz without even meeting him. She observes when he is winnowing barley in the evening breeze on a distant hill. She advises Ruth to wash, perfume herself, put on her best clothes, and encounter Boaz after supper when he is feeling mellow from drinking wine. The place of meeting will be the threshing floor, because Boaz will be spending the night there to protect his crop from thieves. Once you get there, Naomi predicts to Ruth, "he will tell you what to do." Under the cover of darkness, Ruth sets out stealthily on her risky venture. While hoping to capture Boaz's affections with her alluring aroma and seductive manner, she may lose the respect he has given her. Having been married before, she does not actually need to wait for Boaz to tell her what to do. Ruth takes charge by quietly lying down on the grain shocks where he is asleep. Lifting up whatever is covering the lower part of his body, she stretches out beside him. Boaz is startled in the middle of the night when he turns over and discovers a woman's body next to his. Ruth identifies herself and, combining boldness with modesty, asks Boaz to claim her as his maidservant and take her into his household. The Hebrew Bible states that Ruth lies at Boaz's "feet" until morning. "Feet" is sometimes a euphemism for genitals. For example, birth occurs between the "feet," and prostitutes open their "feet" to clients.29 Isaiah compares Assyria's humiliation of Judah with the act of shaving the hair off a persons "feet."30 The narrator leaves to the reader's imagination how much sexual response is forthcoming after Ruth uncovers Boaz's legs. Flattered by Ruth's proposal to an older man, Boaz responds, "I will do everything you ask," and spreads his cloak over her. Boaz is as inclined to accept Ruth's offer as Adam was to take Eve's offer of fruit. His action is described elsewhere in the Bible as the ritual of marriage: "I came by and saw that you were ripe for love. I spread

Naomi and Ruth

59

the skirt of my robe over you and covered your naked body. Then I plighted my troth and entered into a covenant with you."31 In a reversal of traditional gender roles, Ruth initiates the intimate contact while Boaz is anxious about public appearances. He has more discretion, or guilty conscience, because he suggests that she return home before daybreak in order to protect their reputations. Ruth arises from the straw and returns home undetected so that Bethlehemites will not gossip about their sleeping together. Boaz goes to the city elders the day after the affair on the threshing floor in order to obtain permission to include Ruth in his household. Finding that the closest kinsman of Elimelech does not want to take responsibility for the Moabite widow, Boaz arranges to marry Ruth. The kinship settlement must be a relief to Ruth as well as to Boaz, for her escapade represents potentially scandalous conduct. By throwing herself at Boaz's "feet," Ruth increases her vulnerability in a new land. If Boaz were unable to obtain permission to marry her and she became pregnant by him, she might receive the execution that Tamar managed to avert. Andre LaCocque has compared the subversive way that Ruth and Tamar go about providing issue for Israelite families from which they have been cut of: Ruth is a second Tamar—foreign, childless, widowed, transplanted withi the people of Israel—who, like her model, goes to considerable lengths, indeed to prostituting herself, to obtain justice: the levirate marriage to which she is entitled. But Ruth is respected by the counterpart of Judah; she does not have to go through the shame of public denunciation and condemnation.32 The marital covenant is concluded by Boaz's testimony: "I have acquired Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife, to perpetuate the family line of her late husband." The Bethlehem witnesses express the hope that Ruth will be like Tamar who provided continuity for Judah's family by bearing twins. The focus upon raising the house of Elimelech from the dust is characteristic of Hebrew patriarchy. Belief in individual immortality had not yet

60


developed, but the everlasting life of the family by means of offspring was of consuming interest. In her study of the feminine personification of Wisdom in Hebrew scriptures, Claudia Camp has discussed a similarity germane to this study, regarding the clever and clandestine conduct of two women: The figures of Tamar and Ruth . . . are clear examples of the aggressive use of female sexuality in public places, which can meet with approval— indeed, even canonical approval—when done in the interest of preserving a valid and life-serving social order.... Both Tamar and Ruth display utter pragmatism in their efforts to secure their goals, calculating the small but precious resource at their disposal and spending it prudently. Similarly Wisdom, who is both righteous and powerful, is also said to "dwell in prudence." .. . The narratives thus reveal how pragmatic wisdom can be understood to work in God's interest and, further, how God's direction and purpose need not be mentioned to be assumed.33 Obed, the first child of Ruth and Boaz, restores the family name of Elimelech and Mahlon. Friends congratulate grandmother Naomi with these gracious words: "He shall renew your life and support you in your old age." Bearing a child is also exceptionally gratifying for Ruth, for she must have wondered if she were fertile after having no children by her first husband. Ruth may live long enough to greet the arrival of her grandson Jesse, but certainly has "gone the way of all flesh" before her great grandson David becomes the anointed king. Our story ends with both Naomi and Ruth center stage. Recalling Rachel and Leah "who together built up the house of Israel," the Bethlehem elders contemplate what Ruth and Naomi might accomplish. Although only one is married to Boaz, the interdependent roles of the Moabite and her mother-in-law are evident throughout the book. Similar suffering from childlessness and widowhood bind them together. Their symbiotic relationship is evident: Naomi offers her wise advice on how to succeed in the Israelite culture, while Ruth gives her younger and stronger body to aid in the present and future survival of the family. Neither woman can function effectively without the other.

Naomi and Ruth

61

Holiness and hustle are combined in Ruth and Naomi. While the presence of God is a strong motivational factor, their actions can also be seen as a response to practical considerations. The end of the famine in Judah is interpreted as a "visitation" from Yahweh, but the emigration by the women is not due to a divine prompting to leave Moab. After arriving in Bethlehem, the women do not wait for God to intervene. Ruth vigorously gleans a field that happens to belong to Boaz. Naomi responds to Ruth's initial success by thinking of Yahweh's kindness [hesed] and by taking responsibility to attain ultimate fulfillment. A play on the word "wing" (kanaf) in the Book of Ruth conveys the way God's protection can be allied with a human scheme. In the harvest field, Boaz expresses the pious wish that Ruth may find refuge under Yahweh's "wing."34 The image is a familiar one and is used by the psalmist who prays: Guard me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings.35 When Ruth seeks Boaz's assistance on the threshing floor, she asks him to spread his "wing" over her.36 The narrator suggests that Boaz understands that his arms or his cloak are the means for expressing Yahweh's care. At the end of the story, reproduction is seen as a result of the free choices of procreators meshing with the intentionality of the Creator. A dual casualty is affirmed with the claim that Yahweh is responsible for Ruth becoming pregnant. God thus works through natural happenings rather than through direct miraculous intervention. From the Genesis saga of Joseph to the letters of Paul, the theology expressed in the Book of Ruth is prominent. Ronald Hals has contrasted the presence of God in the Book of Judges and the Book of Ruth. In Judges, God steps in directly to punish or deliver; in Ruth, God is frequently mentioned but operates in a hidden manner without curtailing the freedom of human struggle.37 Paul affirms that bad things will not overwhelm those who cooperate with God.38 To the Philippian Christians, Paul gives this paradoxi-

62


cal injunction: "With reverence and awe keep working on your own salvation, for it is God who works in you, inspiring both the will and the action."39 For those Christians and for the characters of the Book of Ruth, God is present in human interaction when there is caring and sharing between persons. The blending of earnest assertiveness and humility toward God is the hallmark of those biblical stories. The dramatic movement in the story of Ruth and Naomi parallels that in the story of Joseph in Egypt. In spite of the slavery and imprisonment inflicted upon him as a foreigner, Joseph eventually becomes free and amazingly successful. A Jewish aphorism applies here: "Gold is tested in fire and humans in the furnace of humiliation."40 Joseph, Naomi, and Ruth do not think of their personal adversity as thwarting God's providence. After enduring deprivation, Ruth has a child whose prominence will exceed her dreams and those of her mother-in-law. Literary critic D. F. Rauber has demonstrated that excellent artistic craftsmanship is displayed in the contrast of Naomi's situation in the first and last episodes of the short story.41 Whereas she at first is running on empty, at the end she is fulfilled, in spite of her personal tragedies, when she takes her grandchild to her bosom. The narrator of the Book of Ruth resembles the creator of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Both are dismayed by their cultures' traditions of hatred and slaughter of the outsider. Both take a member of a detested nation and show that the morality of that individual is superior to that of the typical person of their own country. In rising above tribalism, the narrator of the Book of Ruth portrays religion as a force for reconciliation among all peoples, native and foreign, wealthy and poor. The ethical principle of the writer is condensed in Leviticus 19:34: "The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself." Throughout the story, the narrator emphasizes that Ruth is an outsider, yet concern for the well-being of each other is prominent in the relationships among two Jews and a gentile— Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth. Like virtually all the books of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ruth was written anonymously. Even the gender of the writer is a

Naomi and Ruth

63

matter of speculation, for there are touches that suggest that the writer may have been a woman. In a patriarchal society, would a man be aware of the subtle, behind-the-scenes designs of women? Would a male be likely to put these words in Naomi's mouth when she is advising her daughters-in-law: "Go back each of you to your mother's house"? At least one male priestly writer states that a widow "returns to her father s house."42 Moreover, would it not be more likely for a woman writer to evaluate Ruth as worth "more than seven sons"? Jewish readers of the Book of Ruth have been amazed that a Moabite becomes the great grandmother of the greatest of all Israelite kings. That the royal line contained a gentile might be like our learning that George Washington's great grandmother had come from Africa. The implication is that if some forebears of the nation's most respected person have accepted interethnic marriages, the nation to which they belong should be more inclusive and less obsessed with ethnic purity. The one reference to Ruth in the New Testament is on the first page. Although it is unusual for women to be included in biblical genealogies, Ruth is among several women who are listed in the Gospel of Matthew as ancestors of Jesus. The compiler of that record of descent tells something new about Boaz—that his mother was Rahab. The only parent of Boaz named in the Hebrew Bible is Salmon, the progenitor of the people of Bethlehem.43 In taking a foreign wife, Salmon follows the examples of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses.44 Ethnic intermarriage thus does not seem to have been a major concern of the Hebrew patriarchs. If Boaz's mother was a Canaanite prostitute, this could help explain why he is more magnanimous to a poor outsider than others in Bethlehem. Consider the background of the woman who might have become Ruth's second mother-in-law. Rahab collaborates with Israelite spies who are learning about Jericho, which has been targeted for attack by Joshua's army. As a result of her initiative, she and her relatives are rescued before the city is destroyed. The story of Rahab concludes with this statement: "Her family has lived in Israel ever since."45

64


Why does Rahab become a traitor and defy the king of Jericho who is searching for spies? Why does she risk her life by befriending the invaders of her well-fortified city? Norman Gottwald has suggested a sociological answer: Rahab is convinced that the Israelites have the power to take the city, and she is willing to help them provided she is assured of safety for herself and her kin. But was fear her only, or even her primary, motive in siding with Israel? . . . Rahab's susceptibility to participating in a conspiracy to overthrow the city's mling class is understandable when we note that in the typical ancient city harlots formed one of several groups of occupational outcasts whose services were greatly desired but who, because of their demeaning work and the social taboos, codes, and conventions whic they breached, bore a scapegoating stigma and worked under decided disabilities. . . . It is probable, therefore, that Rahab had social-class reasons for resenting the ruling class in Jericho and for gambling on an improvement in her lot by siding with the rebel movement.46 The genealogy in Matthew, which is taken in part from the end of the Book of Ruth, has more of a moral purpose than a strictly historical one. The mention of Rahab and Ruth hints at a theme to follow—that significance is determined more by personal commitments for the future than by past life and lineage. Although declared by the Mosaic law to be enemies who should be liquidated, a Canaanite and a Moabite become assimilated into the people of Yahweh because of their individual qualities. Through their personal assertiveness, two outsiders become loyal insiders. Rahab and Ruth thus show immorality of the stereotypes regarding foreigners generally held by the Israelites. By introducing ancestors of Jesus from different nations, the editor of Matthew may also be preparing readers at the outset for the commission in the last chapter of his gospel. There, Jesus urges his apostle to "make disciples of all nations." Ruth becomes the foremother of the ecumenical church described in the New Testament. She can be likened to those "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" who became "members of the household of God."47 In recent centuries, some Christians have extracted from the Book of Ruth a sanction for intimacy during courtship. Ruth's

Naomi and Ruth

65

forwardness has been cited by some Protestants to justify a custom known as "bundling." With parental permission, couples getting to know one another would lie together in bed without undressing completely. To be beneath a quilt in a poorly heated cottage could also provide warmth during cold weather. A Britisher in the early nineteenth century provided this description: When a girl, that was old enough to be married, had a suitor who had be a few times to see her, the parents, if they approved of the connection, would bundle them: which bundling implied, putting them to bed togeth the lady with only her under-petticoat on, and her sweetheart with nothin but his breeches.48 The bundling custom can also be traced to Holland. Featured on the cover of a pamphlet entitled Origin ofBundling is an illustration from Bybel Printen showing Ruth clad in a see-through dress, stretching out alongside Boaz on the threshing floor of a Europeanstyle barn. In her effort to share his cloak, she has uncovered his legs and exposed his night-shirt. "The Original Bundlers" is the caption of an etching done in 1650 by Dutch artist Matthew Meriensa. Henry Stiles wrote a book to explain the history of bundling in Britain, Holland, and Switzerland, as well as its practice in some American colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.49 An early American name for this type of endearment exchange was "tarrying,"50 defined as "the practice of unmarried couples, partly undressed, occupying the same bed."51 The term "tarrying" may come from an effort to anchor the courting practice in Holy Writ. One of the few uses of "tarry" in the King James Version is when Boaz invites Ruth to "tarry this night." Victorian historian Daniel Dorchester stated: The mode of courtship known as "bundling" or "tarrying" then prevalent in certain portions of New England, and which delicacy forbids us to explain, doubtless promoted unchastity. It was brought over by some of the early emigrants, and strangely flourished side by side with Puritan morals through a considerable part of the colonial era. . . . Besides the

66


Connecticut Valley, it prevailed in Pennsylvania among the people of English and German extraction.52 Jonathan Edwards and other ministers thundered from pulpits in Massachusetts against bundling. Their attack brought this response from some assertive women, young and old: It shant be so, they rage and storm And country girls in clusters swarm, And fly and buzz like angry bees, And vow they'll bundle when they please. Some mothers, too, will plead their cause, And give their daughters great applause, And tell them, 'tis no sin nor shame, For we your mothers did the same.53 During the nineteenth century, badly bungled bundling resulted in its being banned in Wales and in other countries. Yet remnants of the custom have subsequently been found on both sides of the Atlantic. At the turn of the twentieth century, Scottish pastor Robert Watson inveighed against any who would act like Ruth on the threshing floor, for they might not encounter someone as honorable as Boaz. Watson said: We cannot acquit Naomi of resorting to a stratagem with the view of bringing about what seemed most desirable for Ruth and herself. . . . These secret, underhanded schemes are not to our liking; they should in no circumstances be resorted to. 54 In 1931, Rev. Gilbert Moore of the Scottish presbytery of the Orkney Isles expressed the hope that the "fairly common" bundling custom would cease. 55 Ernest Turner has found evidence of the continuation in the twentieth century of bundling both in the Orkneys and in Wales. 56 In the 1960s, the Society to Bring Back Bundling was formed in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, to provide an alternative to the exchange of affection at drive-in theaters or on dead-end streets. 57 There may have been fewer undesired outcomes from imitating the encounter recommended by Naomi than from

Naomi and Ruth

67

unmarried couples' current practices that are unrelated to parental suggestions. The Book of Ruth is a bright spot in Israel's darkest age. Like an oasis in a desert, Naomi and Ruth stand for vital religion and ethics in a time of bigotry and mayhem. They are quietly assertive in domestic situations. Starting with the tragic emptiness of death and despair, the timeless story ends with triumphant fullness of life and hope. In Jewish tradition, Ruth has become the model of a proselyte.58 Appropriately, someone with both Jewish and gentile roots supplies one of the more popular names in the two religions. In my own Christian family, the Moabite inspired my grandmother to name my mother Ruth; my sister, daughter, and several nieces have all been named after both Ruths.


6 Bold and Unscrupulous Rulers Assertiveness is not an intrinsic good; its virtue depends on the goal being pursued. A serial killer would rank high on grit and determination but would generally be judged a criminal and a psychopath. An exception to this would be in wartime when a uniformed killer could receive an award for heroic action against enemy invaders. The stories of Jezebel, Athaliah, and Herodias—all royal women— display various ways in which boldness, power, and wickedness have been combined. QUEEN JEZEBEL Blaise Pascal's witticism that the face of world history was affected by the loveliness of Cleopatra's nose contains insight, but a better case can be made that the course of national histories in Palestine was changed by Jezebel's assertiveness. Historically, Jezebel had influence in three kingdoms of the ninth century B.C.E. Jezebel's father was Ethbaal, a priest of the Phoenician goddess Asherah. He usurped the throne of Tyre from the tyrant Phelles and began a powerful dynasty. Sidon, another city-state in Phoenicia (also known as Canaan or Lebanon), was also under Ethbaal's

70


domination. Like the Phoenician tyrants who preceded him, he developed international commerce. With a fleet of merchant ships, he established colonies in North Africa; the port of Carthage was later founded there by members of his royal family.1 Athalya Brenner, whose doctorate is in Near Eastern Studies, has surmised that Jezebel might have been a high priestess. In ancient fertility cults, there was customarily a chief priest for the temple of a goddess and a chief priestess for the male partner of the goddess. Since Ethbaal functioned as the high priest of Asherah, he may have trained his daughter to perform corresponding ceremonies in a temple of Baal.2 In addition to maritime trade, Ethbaal renewed the profitable alliance that King Hiram of Tyre had formed a century earlier with David and Solomon of the united monarchy of Israel. Israel exported grain and olive oil in exchange for Phoenician cedars and craftsmen. The rulers of those adjacent nations found the intermarriage of royalty to be an effective way of perpetuating a treaty. Solomon had princesses in his harem from Sidon and other kingdoms with which he traded.3 Ethbaal no doubt recognized the considerable abilities of Omri, who had newly usurped the throne of the northern Hebrew kingdom. Both men realized that if a daughter of Ethbaal should live in the new capital of Israel as the wife of crown prince Ahab, there would be more stability for both new dynasties. Not only would favorable commercial deals be facilitated, but anxiety over an invasion from Damascus would also be allayed. The power of neighboring Syria threatened both Phoenicia and Israel, as it continues to do even to the present day. Thus, Ethbaal and Omri arranged a political marriage between their royal houses. One of the Hebrew psalms was probably composed to celebrate a wedding between a Phoenician princess and an Israelite prince. The poem boasts that the bridal gown is decorated with gold from Ophir, an African port with which the Phoenicians traded.4 The bride is assured that Tyrians will send her expensive gifts after she leaves her father's house to get married in Israel. The groom is associated with "ivory palaces," which fits with an Israelite historian's note that Jezebel's husband, Ahab, constructed an "ivory house."5

Bold and Unscrupulous Rulers

71

King Ahab continued the aims of his father Omri, who bought the magnificent site of Samaria in order to develop a fortress capital. They wanted their hilltop city to rival Jerusalem, whose grandeur was due in part to Solomon's employment of skilled Phoenician workmen. Ahab's palace was not constructed literally out of ivory, but hundreds of carved ivory fragments have been found at the site. Archaeological excavations have revealed that ivory carvings had long been a Phoenician art form.6 The elegant style of cherub decorations found on the furniture and the quality of the masonry indicates that skillful Phoenicians were employed to build and furnish the grand home of Jezebel and Ahab.7 In the Bible, Hurricane Jezebel sweeps inland from the coast of Lebanon to the hills of Israel. The priest's daughter does not heed the words in the wedding psalm to "forget your people and your father's house" nor does she view Ahab as her "lord." Jezebel is quick to import the practices of her culture, religious as well as artistic. Even as foreign wives persuade the tolerant Solomon to build places of pagan worship in Jerusalem, so Jezebel pressures prince Ahab to erect a sanctuary for Baal that contains an image of Asherah in the Israelite capital.8 A zealous foreign missionary, Jezebel personally supports 850 prophets of Baal and Asherah. "Baal" is a general Canaanite term signifying ownership by a god or human, but Melkart, the patron deity of Tyre, is probably the local god connoted by that term in the biblical account here. Unlike her spouse, Jezebel opposes patronizing both Baalism and Yahwism. She seeks to eliminate competition by killing the prophets of Yahweh, and she causes many to hide in caves.9 Jezebel imitates the ferocious nature of the goddess she worships. The mythology of Asherah, or Anat, is similar to that of Ishtar, a principal goddess of the earlier Babylonians, who was devoted to orgies of slaughter and sex. The sadistic fury of Baal's partner, whom the Hebrews called Asherah or Ashtaroth, is displayed in clay tablets excavated from Phoenicia that were written before Jezebel's time; the goddess obtained pleasure in this way: "Her liver swells with laughter... for she plunges knee-keep . . . into the gore ofheroes."io

72


A chapter about her in The Phoenicians, a history, is entitled "The Tyrian Whore."11 Asherah was commonly represented as a holy whore (qadesh)ridingnude on a lion. In an Egyptian sculpture, a god with an erection gazes at her while she holds out a lily (symbolizing her charm) in one hand and a snake (symbolizing the phallus) in the other.12 For Asherah devotees, engaging in promiscuous heterosexual or homosexual activity at hilltop cultic sites was presumably both pleasurable and agriculturally beneficial. According to Canaanite doctrine, the copulation of Asherah and her earthy surrogates guaranteed the fertility of fields and flock. There were, therefore, sexual practices at the Baal temples in Phoenicia and in Israel.13 Due to the nature of Jezebel's gods, the Israelites also associate their queen with "many whoredoms and sorceries."14 While the Hebrews historically held a positive attitude toward marital sexuality, they did not associate worship with erotic ecstasy, nor did they link farming success with imitating the kinky behavior of Baal and Asherah.15 Yahweh was garbed with stern commandments, not with the voluptuous figure of a fertility goddess. Israelite law prohibited the ritualistic prostitution of men and women.16 Indeed, the Hebrew scriptures often condemn those who "prostitute themselves with the Baals."17 Moral discipline was required, and exploitative uses of sexuality were curbed. In the Bible, Elijah, a prophet of Yahweh, arises to challenge the religion that Israel's first lady is promoting. Elijah and Jezebel agree on several basic matters: that religion is indispensable to a culture, that peaceful coexistence between Yahweh and Baal is impossible, and that killing spokespersons of the other's religion is justifiable. By contrast, Ahab is a pragmatic pluralist who is willing to endorse a syncretistic religion, which may promote the success of his schemes and provide bounty for his people. His vacillation can be seen in his building a pagan temple and still consulting prophets of Yahweh regarding a battle against Syria.18 Elijah, however, urges an either/or selection between the rival religions rather than "limping first on one leg and then on the other."19 Since the Baalists recognize the broad popularity of their religion and its association with art and trade, they presume that they will win in a national


73

preference contest. Thus they accept Elijah's generous offer to conduct an elimination contest on turf sacred to Baal. A fair test for the real god is arranged at Mount Carmel. Both sides agree that the one who can end the long drought will be accepted as the lord of rain and fertility. Each team places a sacrificed bull on a pile of wood for the genuine divine power to ignite. Confident Elijah, although the solitary prophet on Yahweh's side, encourages the 450 Baal prophets to go first. They pray and dance around their altar on the Carmel promontory all morning. At noon, Elijah taunts them: "Call louder, for surely he is a god! Maybe he is meditating or relieving himself; or perhaps he has gone on a journey or is asleep and must be awakened!"20 The Baal prophets then attain their customary orgiastic climax of worship by shouting and slashing themselves with daggers until blood gushes out. After they fail to call down the lightning-god Baal to perform his specialty, Elijah's turn comes. After his calm prayer, lightning allegedly strikes his sacrificial pyre and soon a life-giving storm erupts. This ends the dramatic contest, and the crowds chant, "Yahweh alone is God." Elijah naively presumes that the people have rejected both Baalism and syncretism. In the exuberance of victory but without divine guidance, he has all the Baal prophets seized and slaughtered. When Ahab tells Jezebel of the contest, she is enraged by the liquidation of the Baal prophets. Unimpressed by Carmel fireworks, she sends Elijah a note in which she swears by her gods that a sword will do to him what he has done to her prophets. According to the ancient Greek translation, she prefaces her message with the clause, "As sure as you are Elijah and I am Jezebel." A play on the meaning of their names may be involved here. Elijah's name means "Yahweh is god," so it conveys his profession of faith. By contrast, Jezebel's name may be derived from z-b-l, a title for Baal in Phoenician texts. Zebul Baal, or Baalzebub ("Lord of Flies") as corrupted in the Hebrew Bible, means "Chief Baal." According to the New Testament, a designation for Satan in ancient Judaism was "Beelzebul", the prince of demonic powers.21 Z-b-l has been denigrated to mean "dung" in Jewish folklore.

74


Elijah responds in a totally different way to the Israelite queen than to the king. He is not fearful of Ahab because of the tradition of freedom of speech between a prophet and a monarch in his culture. The confrontations of the prophet Samuel with Israel's first king and of Nathan with David established a pattern of no vindictiveness toward the bearer of a severe message from Yahweh.22 Elijah denounces the king to his face as the scourge of Israel, and he orders the king to assemble his people on Mount Carmel.23 The culture from which Jezebel has received her values, however, has absolute kings unbounded by constitutional law or prophetic interpretations. Elijah probably realizes that he is risking his life to criticize this queen. Therefore, he prudently takes Jezebel's threat seriously, but there is a panic in his action that goes beyond rationality. He flees hundreds of miles beyond the bounds of Israel and becomes so depressed that he prays to die. Forgetting that there are thousands who have not been converted to Jezebel's religion, he thinks of himself as the only one left on God's side. Eventually, he regains strength in the Sinai desert and is inspired to return to his crucial responsibilities in Israel.24 A subsequent episode reveals much about Ahab and Jezebel. Apparently they do not consider their ivory-decorated palace in Samaria to be adequate, so they acquire another estate at Jezreel. They then seek to expand their land there, perhaps for royal chariots or to house the palace guard. Ahab respectfully requests the farmer Naboth to sell his adjacent vineyard or to consider exchanging it for a better one. Naboth rejects the offer on the land that he has inherited because he feels obligated to pass it on to his children. He shares the vision of land found in Leviticus 25:23, that the land ultimately belongs to Yahweh and that humans are not its possessors but rather temporary sojourners on it. Naboth thinks of that land as something he is borrowing from his posterity rather than as something he owns and can dispose of as he pleases. Ahab recognizes that under Israelite law, not even the chief of state can force a peasant to sell, no matter how much is offered. A king is not permitted to confiscate land because he is charged to hold up "a scepter of equity"25 and show justice toward the common people.


75

Jezebel, however, is more attuned to the despotic tradition of her native land. In Phoenicia, as in Egypt, the king is a priest-tyrant26 who has the divine right to possess anything he wants. People or land can be exploited at the whim of the ruler. Responding to such abuse of power, an Israelite prophet denounces a King of Tyre in this way: "You may pretend to be a god, but you are only a mortal."27 Like a cunning Lady Macbeth, Jezebel manipulates her husband to accomplish her evil will. She is contemptuous of Ahab for becoming emotionally sick over something as minor as a farmer's opposition. Recognizing Ahab's unwillingness to act, she audaciously declares: "Are you or are you not the King of Israel? Get out of bed, eat and cheer up; I will get you Naboth's vineyard."28 Thereupon Jezebel forges letters in Ahab's name, ordering the leaders of Jezreel to call an assembly and to confront Naboth with charges from two scoundrels. A large opal signature seal like the one mentioned in the Bible has been found at an archaeological site in Israel; it dates from the century when the queen lived and is inscribed y-z-b-l.29 After Jezebel falsely accuses Naboth of blasphemy and treason, he is sentenced to be stoned to death. Jezebel's commands are quickly carried out and his property is annexed to the royal estate. To eliminate other claimants on the desired vineyard, Naboth's children are also executed in a bloody manner.30 Historically, seizing the property without paying for it was not so tyrannical as violating a commoner's privilege of keeping it within the family. Moreover, contempt for property values was a relatively small matter in comparison to the loss of life. Elijah is incensed by such treacherous violations of basic human rights under a pretext of legality. He realizes that the essence of Israelite ethics in the Ten Commandments is meant to be as binding on monarchs as on subjects. Yet four prohibitions have been violated: coveting a neighbor's field has been followed by false witnessing, theft, and murder. Speaking as the conscience of his nation, Elijah assures Ahab that Omri's dynasty will soon come to a violent end. Even as dogs have licked up the blood of Naboth, so they will do for Jezebel and Ahab.

76


Jezebel's cruelty eats like a cancer through both Hebrew kingdoms and infects more than her own generation. Ahab and Jezebel continue the alliance policy of their fathers and arrange for their daughter Athaliah to be married to Prince Jehoram of Judah. Athaliah has grown up in Samaria where her mother dominates much governmental and religious life. Athaliah is so schooled in her mother's religion that the name she has received from her father, which means "Yahweh is strong," is almost laughable. After Ahab dies in battle, Jezebel remains influential as queen mother for a dozen years. Her son Ahaziah, a chip off the maternal block, practices Baalism during his brief reign as King of Israel. After the accident that eventually kills him, he requests a judgment about whether he will recover from the oracle of Baalzebub.31 To her dying day Jezebel remains both imperious and flamboyant. When Jehu, a hostile cavalry officer, approaches the aged queen, she attacks him with her sharp tongue rather than beg for mercy. He has recently usurped the throne and killed her son on the site of Naboth's vineyard (since he is also credited with massacring seventy sons of Ahab, Jezebel's husband must have had many other wives). Jezebel infuriates Jehu by asking: "Is it peace, you Zimri, murderer of your master?" She sarcastically calls Jehu by the name of an upstart army commander who assassinated a king of Israel and became monarch for a week; Jezebel's father-in-law then besieged his home, and Zimri committed suicide. Jezebel thus suggests that Jehu's revolution will also be futile. Although she must realize that she is now powerless against Jehu, she boldly declares the way she honestly feels. Knowing that Jehu has not come on a peaceful mission to Naboth's town of Jezreel, the undaunted Jezebel attempts to face death with dignity. She wants to be laid away looking her best, so she paints her eyes and fixes her hair. Jehu has her thrown out of the window from which she had mocked him, and her blood splatters on the palace walls. The horses of Jehu's chariot trample down her body, which becomes meat for dogs and fertilizer for the field.32 By not having a proper funeral, Jezebel endures the ultimate disgrace for a person in the Israelite culture.


77

OTHER ROYALTY Although Jehu uses deep surgery in an effort to cut out all the malignancy that Jezebel has transmitted, he is unable to purge her influence from his capital. "Asherah remained in Samaria" even after Jehu's son, Jehoahaz, becomes king. 33 Fifty years later, when Samaria is on the brink of destruction by the Assyrians, the Israelites are still participating in orgies at the sacred pole that represents Asherah. An oracle of Hosea describes the idolatry: My people consult a piece of wood.. .. They have played the whore, forsaking their God. .. . The men go aside with whores, and sacrifice with temple prostitutes; Thus a people without understanding comes to ruin.34 The influence of Jezebel is still apparent a century after her death when the prophet Amos denounces the indulgent King Jeroboam and his nobility. Regarding sacred prostitution, Amos asserts: "Father and son have intercourse with the same temple girl." 35 Before the fall of Israel, he also thunders against those "who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, 'Bring me something to drink!'" 3 6 He describes the palace built by the Phoenicians who came from the land of Jezebel and condemns the smug attitude of those who continue to live there: Woe to those who feel secure on the mount of Samaria. .. . Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory, and lounge on their couches.37 Archaeologists have sifted through the ruins of Samaria, which the Assyrians destroyed, and have found ivory inlay that may have decorated those beds. The prophet Micah, a contemporary of Amos, also denounces the injustice of the rulers of Samaria. He may have the descendants of Jezebel and Ahab in mind when he declares:

78


Woe to those who lie awake and plot wickedness! When the morning dawns, they have power to carry it out. They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them. They oppress people and their inheritance.38 Meanwhile, in the surviving kingdom of Judah, the ghost of Jezebel stalks in the person of her daughter. Athaliah persuades her husband to act contrary to the requirements of the Hebrew covenantal religion. Jehoram dies after an eight-year reign, and another Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram and Athaliah, reigns for one year. "His mother was his counselor in doing wickedly," reports the Jewish chronicler.39 After her son is murdered, the diabolical queen mother massacres her grandchildren in order to secure the throne for herself. While she is sovereign, her re-Canaanization program for Jerusalem results in the appropriation of treasures from the Temple of Solomon for the worship of Baal.40 The fact that Athaliah is able to exercise royal authority despite hostility from the well-established priests of Yahweh has prompted Brenner to conclude: She was clever and tough.... Her behavior implied that, until her downfall, she enjoyed a power base whose components were her royal origins; her previous roles as king's wife, king's mother, intimate adviser to her son Ahaziah and regent after his death; her control of the religious establishment; and, like Jezebel, her personal capabilities and education.41 In order to preserve the Davidic dynasty and religion, Athaliah's infant grandson is kidnapped by her stepdaughter Jehosheba when potential heirs to the throne are being liquidated. Jehosheba and her husband, the high priest Jehoiada, secretly raise the royal child with an appreciation of the traditional Israelite religion. After six years, Jehoiada effects a coup detatwith the aid of mercenary soldiers. l The boy Joash is brought out of hiding and crowned. When Athaliah hears the blare of trumpets from the Temple, she goes there and finds the Judahites shouting, "Long live the king!" In response to the boy's coronation, she screams, "Treason! Treason!" After those words, Athaliah is taken outside the Temple and killed with a sword. Mattan, her priest, is then executed, and the Baal shrine in Jerusalem


79

is demolished. But the Asherah cult only lies dormant in Judah until it reemerges when Manasseh becomes king.42 In spite of her atrocious behavior, Athaliah has contributed one thing to the status of women, by becoming the one and only woman to rule as sole monarch in either of the two Hebrew kingdoms. The criticism of Athaliah by Israelite historians is not related to her gender; it is for conduct that would be equally reprehensible in a king. Still she establishes the precedent for women sovereigns in European nations that regarded the Bible as high authority. For example, John Calvin referred to Athaliah when John Knox was condemning women heads of states. Calvin was not offended by either Mary Queen of Scots or her sister, Queen Elizabeth I, because of the biblical practice.43 Jezebel is the only royal woman of antiquity who has left an indelible mark on European languages. She lives on in infamy in the Greek New Testament, where the name lezabel is symbolic of a false prophet who lures Christians into adulterous practices.44 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Jezebel" referred to a woman with a painted face in the eighteenth century. In the lower case, "jezebel" now means a vicious and shameless woman. Because of these later usages, Jezebel may be the best known female name from the Hebrew Bible in secular culture. The German historian Gerald Herm, for example, has called her "a merciless dictator, a wily intriguer, and a shameless trollop."45 The Hebrews believed that "Your sin will find you out,"46 but the retribution might be delayed until a later generation. Unlike the Greeks, they attributed personal failure to improper decision making, not to inescapable fate. Thus, after King David violates basic Mosaic commandments, he receives a series of punishments through the unethical conduct of his sons.47 The New Testament also contains a striking illustration of the degrading influence that a corrupt parent can have on a child. Herodias marries Herod Philip but finds him to lack wealth. Therefore, she discards him to marry his brother, King Herod Antipas, who has greater power and dominion. John the Baptist courageously condemns the marital scandal, even though he is preaching in an area under the king's authority. Herodias bitterly hates the prophet who has given her

80


second marriage such a stinging rebuke. One day an opportunity for revenge arrives after her daughter, Salome, has danced before Herod. The monarch has promised to give her anything she asks, even to half of his kingdom. Her mother advises her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. The ghastly request is granted, and his head is brought to her on a platter. Herodias uses her daughter as a tool to commit a horrible crime against a fearless prophet.48 This study of notorious and unscrupulous biblical mothers should make one wary of the twentieth-century adulation of all mothers. Philip Wylie coined the term "momism" to describe the tendency of grown Americans to rely unduly on maternal guidance, regardless of the values advocated.49 Wylie wrote a generation after Mother's Day had become nationally enshrined. Annually, placing all mothers on pedestals is promoted by sellers of flowers and cards. Politicians give sentimental tributes to motherhood, as though it were a virtue in itself. A pervasive rhetoric flows from the media and pulpits: "God could not be everywhere, so he invented mothers"; divine omnipresence is diminished in order to magnify the individual concern that all mothers presumably possess. "Behind every honorable person there is a mother," it is said, without acknowledging the equal truth that every criminal has a mother too. "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world" is likewise part of the Mother's day litany, but those who recite this are probably not thinking of Jezebel, Athaliah, and Herodias. A glimpse of the other side of the truth is given by a delinquent in West Side Story. In "Gee, Officer Krupke!" she explains: "Our mothers all are junkies, our fathers all are drunks; golly Moses, naturally we're punks!"50 Modern psychology has confirmed what the Bible affirms: that maternal nurture—whether good or evil— has a powerful influence on adult behavior. The royal women under consideration go beyond assertiveness into aggressiveness. They not only firmly insist that their positions be recognized but they force unwilling persons to carry out their evil schemes. Coercion is recognized as a legitimate power of government, and it can be a positive force. The cases we have examined, however, illustrate that women, as well as men, can be


81

abusive. When given absolute power, they often use it to ride roughshod over the rights of others and to carry out atrocious acts.


7 The Impact ofHuldah The Prophet Huldah holds a unique place in history as the first person to designate a written document as Holy Scripture, thus beginning the process that culminated nearly a millennium later in the final canonization of the Christian Bible. Similar accounts of her work are found in two books on the history of the kingdom of Judah.1 THE SEARCH FOR AUTHENTICATION According to the Bible, Huldah lives during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century before the Christian era. After the Israelite religion has been contaminated by paganism for half a century, Josiah leads a campaign to restore its purity and to centralize the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Under the direction of Hilkiah, the high priest, carpenters and masons set about repairing the Temple that King Solomon had built. Contributions for the restoration are collected in a large trunk at the entrance to the Temple. On payday, Josiah sends Shapan, his secretary, to the Temple to pick up the donations and distribute the money. On arriving one day, Shapan finds Hilkiah eager to show him an old

84


scroll that has been uncovered when the offering container was emptied. Hilkiah realizes that the scroll contains laws, but no one knows their significance. When Shapan returns to the royal palace with this unusual discovery, Josiah has the scroll read to him. The king grows distressed when he contrasts what the laws require with the prevailing practices in Judah. He is unaware of much of the content of the scroll because he has received little education in the covenantal history of Israel. His father, King Amon, followed Josiah's grandfather, King Manasseh, who had little interest in the religion of Yahweh. Why is a message from an earlier time written down and then hidden in the temple? Few people could read in the ancient world, so word of mouth was usually relied on for communicating history and current events. Written records were made in Israel when oral transmission was threatened. During the reign of Manasseh, Yahweh's worship was imperiled. Manasseh was not only the worst king in the entire history of the Judean kingdom but also the one who ruled the longest. As the puppet of powerful Assyrian tyrants for fifty-five years, he did all he could to please his foreign bosses. The Book of Kings states that "Manasseh shed very much innocent blood."2 According to Jewish tradition, it was during his rule that the troublemaking prophet Isaiah was gruesomely "sawn asunder."3 The Assyrian religion featured the worship of the planets, so Jerusalem became a center for astrology. Statues to foreign gods and goddesses were erected in the Temple. In the midst of that disintegration of the Mosaic religion, a few faithful Israelites decided to write down what their memories recalled of the requirements that Moses had declared centuries earlier. They then hid the scroll in a protected place where a future generation could discover it and learn what the true God expected of the Israelite nation. Centuries later, there was a similar hiding of precious writings by those committed to preserving the Jewish religion. When the Roman army threatened a community of Essene Jews, scribes hid holy scrolls in jars and placed them in caves near the Dead Sea. Those scrolls were discovered 2,000 years later. Scholars of Judaism have judged the scrolls to be authentic, so we now have writings

The Impact of Huldah

85

that provide much information that had been lost about the ancient Jewish religion. Although impressed by the scroll, Josiah is unsure of its divine authority. If the scroll contains an authentic revelation from God, he will need to embark on much more sweeping reforms than he has anticipated. The king commissions his top officers to ascertain whether the scroll is authoritative. The five men realize that a prophet can best discern whether or not a scroll expresses the word of God. Several male prophets live nearby at the time: Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum. All of them are assisting Josiah in his efforts to eradicate the Assyrian astral religion and return to the best Israelite traditions. Despite the availability of those able prophets, however, the royal delegation turns instead to Huldah. Huldah's gender is apparently irrelevant; the biblical text does not suggest that seeking the divine revelation from a woman is in any way unusual. Modern readers, who are aware of the strong male chauvinism throughout most of recorded history, are amazed that a male high priest and a male secretary of state would seek expert knowledge from a woman, but the ancient chronicler does not express surprise at the situation. The cabinet officials go to Huldah's home to confer with her, and they accept without question her right to state authoritatively, "Thus says Yahweh." 4 She verifies that the scroll contains God's message and then provides an interpretation. What this Jerusalem woman declares to be of unique importance is, scholars now agree, the core of the Book of Deuteronomy. Huldah did a momentous thing at her home that day in 62lB.CE. Until then, no writings had ever been declared to be Holy Scripture. Manuscripts about the past had been accumulating since the rise of Israelite literacy several centuries earlier, but none had been singled out as a witness to God's will. Huldah starts the process that, after another nine centuries, results in the gathering of dozens of scrolls into what we now call the Word of God. Arlene Swidler has noted: "The authority to pass judgment on this initial entry into the canon was given to a woman. At the beginning of the Bible we find Huldah; in her we discover the first scripture authority, the founder of biblical studies."5 Another scholar, Samuel Terrien, has consid-

86


ered this story of Huldah to have "a landmark value" and hailed her as "the certifier of the first Bible."6 THE PROPHET'S INFLUENCE The significant historical role that Huldah played has both inspired and puzzled subsequent leaders of synagogue and church. According to Jewish tradition, Huldah was prominent enough to be commemorated by the Huldah Gates at the southern entrance in the Temple.7 She was also thought to have conducted an academy in Jerusalem.8 This rabbinical presumption is based on the word m-sh-n-h (meaning "repeat" or "second"); it is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe where Huldah lived. The main method of learning in a Jewish school was by oral repetition of what was taught. Thus, the main body of post-biblical rabbinical judgments is called the Mishnah. If Huldah operated a school, then this is the earliest reference to such an institution in Judaism. The Jewish translation of 1917, however, renders the sentence as other modern versions do: "She dwelt in Jerusalem, in the second quarter." Rabbis have discussed why Josiah's men consult Huldah rather than Jeremiah. Looking backward centuries later, the rabbis realized that Jeremiah is certainly one of the most outstanding Israelite prophets. As a close adviser to the royal court, Jeremiah leads the national mourning when the young king is killed. The rabbis have decided, however, that Josiah's officials may have felt that a woman would be more compassionate and more likely to report a positive message from God.9 My own guess is that Huldah is consulted, rather than Jeremiah, because she is literate. Jeremiah needs a professional scribe, Baruch, to write down his message.10 Most prophets were recognized as speakers of oracles, not as interpreters of scrolls. In light of the fact that some in Israel were literate throughout the era of the monarchy, there has been surprisingly little said about how and by whom literacy was taught. Instruction was evidently done by parents in their homes.11 On the basis of excavated material and passages in the Book of Proverbs, archaeologist Roland de Vaux has written: "It was the mother who gave her children the first


87

rudiments of education."12 Literacy in ancient Israel was therefore not exclusively a skill of males.13 Some women probably shared with men the responsibility for teaching reading and writing as well as for using those skills to assist the governmental leaders. Thus, the historical Huldah may have functioned as a scribe, whether she established a Jerusalem school or not. The example of Huldah and other prophets encouraged the early church to ordain women to sacred office. The New Testament tells of four daughters of Philip the evangelist who were prophets.14 The Apostolic Constitutions, dating from the fourth century, contains this ordination prayer: "Creator of man and woman, who filled Deborah, Anna, and Huldah with the Spirit . . . look upon your servant who is chosen for the ministry and grant her your Holy Spirit."15 In the Reformed Church, the witness of Huldah has provided biblical authority for accepting women in a role of authority Qver men. John Calvin disputed with his Scottish student, John Knox, over whether God would accept a female head of government. Calvin recorded his position in a letter to a friend: Two years ago John Knox asked me, in a private conversation, what I thought about the government of women. I candidly replied ... that there were occasionally women so endowed, that the singular good qualities which shone forth in them made it evident that they were raised up by divine authority; either that God designed by such examples to condemn the inactivity of men, or for the better setting forth his own glory. I broug forward Huldah and Deborah.16 Calvin went on to express his keen displeasure over a book that Knox had just published, entitled The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Knox bitterly denounced powerful women because he hated the royal women in his native British Isles. Queen Elizabeth I was so offended by Knox's bigotry that she refused to let him enter England. In his First Blast, Knox also expressed anger toward Calvin. He wrote that "carnal and worldly men" who are "ignorant of God" cited the examples

88


of Deborah and Huldah as evidence that God sanctions women in high office.17 When Calvin was a pastor in Strasbourg, he probably knew Katherine Zell who defended a woman's right to made her ideas public. She pointed out that the prophet Joel predicted that women as well as men would prophesy and that Peter had declared that the prophecy had been fulfilled at the first Christian Pentecost.18 Joel probably recalled that Huldah was among the notable prophets of his Judahite country. A century after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, the Society of Friends became the first Christian denomination to advocate the equality of men and women. George and Margaret Fox, who organized those nicknamed Quakers, pointed to the biblical status of women prophets to give credence to their radical outlook. Margaret Fox stated: "God hath said that his Daughters should Prophesie as well as his Sons. And where he hath poured forth his Spirit upon them, they must prophesie."19 In his advocacy for women preachers, George Fox cited Huldah along with other assertive biblical women: There are elder women in the truth as well as elder men in the truth; and these women are to be teachers of good things; so they have an office as well as the men. . . . Deborah was a judge; Miriam and Huldah were prophetesses; old Anna was a prophetess. . . . Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first preachers of Christ's resurrection to the disciples. . . . They received the command, and being sent, preached it.20 American colonist Mary Dyer was convinced by the Quakers that there was biblical precedent for women to exercise freedom of speech. She was confronted by the Puritans who had crossed the Atlantic to find a place where they could express their dissent from the established Anglican Church. In spite of that persecution that they themselves had endured, they were at least as intolerant of deviant opinions as their opposition in England. The power elite of the Massachusetts Bay Colony felt highly threatened by women who were inspired by God's "inner light" to prophesy. In 1660,


89

Dyer was hanged in the Boston Commons.21 At that place, there is now a statue of a young woman in Quaker dress to honor her. In nineteenth century America, a Quaker and a Calvinist worked together to change the world. Lucretia Mott, a Quaker minister, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a brilliant Presbyterian, organized the world's first women's rights convention. In 1848 at Seneca Falls, New York, a manifesto was approved that has been at least as revolutionary as the one that Karl Marx wrote that same year. The women drew up a Declaration of Principles that mainly lists grievances against masculine tyranny. Stanton drafted this ringing paraphrase for its preface: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal."22 Stanton found, as Thomas Jefferson had earlier, that publishing a declaration is much easier than winning the battle to guarantee the agreed-upon rights. She noticed that many opponents of women's rights retreated to the biblical fortress and hurled out proof-texts to demonstrate that males alone have been commissioned by God to dominate public life. After forty years of promoting woman suffrage, Stanton concluded: "The most bitter outspoken enemies of woman are found among clergymen and bishops of the Protestant religion."23 She realized that her campaign for women's rights would not succeed until Americans discovered that the Bible does not consistently teach the inferiority of women. From her early religious training, Stanton was aware of biblical women who had positions of high public authority. She formed a committee of women scholars to assist her in providing an alternative interpretation of the Bible. Stanton wrote most of the commentary herself at the age of eighty. Drawing on biblical history and rabbinical tradition, Stanton responded to her critics in this manner: The greatest character among the women thus far mentioned [in her survey of the Bible] is Huldah the prophetess, residing in the college in Jerusalem. . . . Her wisdom and insight were well known to Josiah the king; and when the wise men came to him with the "Book of the Law," to learn what was written therein, Josiah ordered them to take it to Huldah. . . . We should not have had such a struggle in our day to open

90


the college doors [to women] had the clergy read of the dignity accorded to Huldah. People who talk the most of what the Bible teaches often knod the least about its contents.24 Stanton relied on the King James Version for her assumption that Huldah belonged to a college. That translation follows the rabbinical reading of the Hebrew text that indicates that she was associated with a place of instruction. Thus, the King James Version's only use of "college" is in the statement that Huldah "dwelt in Jerusalem in the college." Stanton went on to observe that "marriage does not appear to have been any obstacle in the way of individual freedom" for her heroine. There may have been a gender role reversal, for nothing is said about Huldah's involvement with the traditional "four C's": cooking, cleaning, children, and clothing. Noting that Shallum, Huldah's husband, is mentioned only as "keeper of the wardrobe," Stanton offered this wry comment: "I suppose his business was to sew on the royal buttons."25 This interpretation of Huldah by a leading emancipator of women had little effect on her own generation or the subsequent one. Rev. Dr. George Hughey referred to Huldah as "the head of the Prophetic College in the Kingdom of Josiah" in his unsuccessful effort in 1888 to admit women to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.26 Most twentieth century scholarly studies on the period of the Judahite monarchy disregard Huldah. For example, no mention is made of her in Arthur Herbert's contribution to Peakes Commentary or in The Prophets by Abraham Heschel.27 Similarly, John Bright did not mention her in his History of Israel, even though he stated that finding the law scroll was the most significant event of Josiah's reign.28 Writing in The Interpreters Bible, W. A. Elmslie displayed both male bias and factual ignorance in this comment about the discovery of the scroll: "Why did the chief priest not consult the very numerous male prophets in Jerusalem? ... Little did Josiah and Hilkiah and Huldah realize that four miles distant from Jerusalem a lad was growing up . . . Jeremiah of Anathoth."29 Actually, the adult Jeremiah had begun to prophesy some years before the scroll was discovered.30


91

James Montgomery, in his scholarly treatment of the historical era of the Hebrew kings, has commented on the comparative impact of Jeremiah and Huldah. In his own day, Jeremiah had little influence, but his disciples honored him with an exceptionally long book of prophecy. We learn of Jeremiah mainly by reading the book bearing his name and are tempted to think of him as having a strong sway over the kings and priests who controlled the Judahite capital. By contrast, consider Huldah's extraordinary leadership role in Jerusalem and what subsequently happened. If a Hebrew book of history can be used to measure contemporary influence, then there is significance in the fact that her ministry is described, while Jeremiah is not mentioned in 2 Kings. Presumably, she had no adoring disciples who were eager to preserve what she said and wrote. It is easy for those who know of events only through what was recorded after the fall of Jerusalem to make the wrong judgment that Huldah was of lesser importance than Jeremiah during the generation they shared. Montgomery has observed: "Judgments upon personalities and their part in history vary between that of contemporaries and their part in posterity."31 A modern illustration of Montgomery's point is relevant to our assessment of Huldah. An American black named William Sheppard, sponsored by a predominantly white Southern Presbyterian Church, became a pioneer missionary in the Congo Free State a century ago. He made a spectacular impact on governments in Africa, Europe, and America when he disclosed, from his own observations, the atrocities of King Leopold's officials in pursuits of quick profits from rubber resources in the Congo (now Zaire). He conferred, for example, with a number of American presidents about his concerns for the Congolese. Leopold was forced to give up his throne largely because the Belgians, on receiving proof of his inhuman policies in the Congo, would no longer tolerate him as head of state. Still, the story of Sheppard's role has been generally overlooked until recent years.32 This has been due mainly to the Jim Crow mentality that became strong in the southern United States after Sheppard returned from Africa. The white men who controlled the media in the segregated generation that followed Sheppard's had little interest in telling of a black who was the equal

92


of any white and who denounced the white power structure. Consequently, his immediate posterity gave him the silent treatment, and histories of the region focused more on what Henry Stanley, a white employee of Leopold, did to develop the Congo basin. Although Huldah, the first canon-eer, was on target with her judgment long ago, we are only now fully aware of who was behind the first canon. It is high time to recall the exciting story of Huldah and to celebrate her groundbreaking position. She was the first to place a seal of approval on a scroll, certifying that it contained Yahweh's genuine message. She deserves to be honored as the patron saint of textual critics across the ages who seek to validate what is divinely inspired. Huldah reminds me of Phyllis Trible, Elisabeth Fiorenza, and other distinguished women textual scholars of today. There are also thousands of other women ministers who deserve recognition for their expert scriptural evaluations and expositions. Huldah is being emulated after twenty-six centuries, but few husbands of today's prophetesses can be found tending wardrobes!

8 Feminist and Feminine Queens A tale in the Hebrew Bible illustrates well two types of women. Named for the one more admired by the writer and his people, the Book of Esther is a literary masterpiece filled with dramatic irony. Probably living in a later era, the unknown writer places the largely fictional story at the center of the Persian empire, which stretched from Ethiopia to India. FEMINIST VASHTI The story first focuses on Queen Vashti. Before introducing her, the narrator portrays the opulence of the royal court. Dazzling imperial wealth is displayed for six months to impress noblemen from the provinces who gather in Susa, the winter capital. Finally, there is a one-week banquet at the palace, to which both poor and rich men are invited. They relax on couches decorated with silver and gold in a courtyard where splendid stones are embedded in the pavement. Colorful cloth streams from the marble columns to give a festive air to the stag party. Participants drink without restraint from golden goblets bearing exquisite designs.

94


While the Persian men are having a wild party in the garden pavilion, Vashti takes the initiative to give a banquet for women. No details are given as to the purpose of this gathering inside the palace. Perhaps she thinks it unfair that women are excluded from the other banquet. She may be interested in developing solidarity among those who belong to King Ahasuerus' large harem, for they may be unwilling inmates who view their life there as a kind of imprisonment. On the last day of the male banquet, the tipsy king issues a command to his eunuchs. Those personal servants are asked to bring forth his queen "wearing her royal crown, in order to show off her beauty to the officials and all the guests." Ancient Jewish interpreters presumed that she wears nothing but her crown to distinguish herself from a nude slave.1 In his account of Persian history, Herodotus tells a similar story about a ruler of Lydia. In this version, King Candaules wants to show off the surpassing beauty of his wife to Gyges, acourt official. The king arranges to have the reluctant Gyges hide in the queen's bedroom where he can watch her disrobe. Responding as any proper woman in the Persian empire would, the Lydian queen is exceedingly humiliated when someone other than her husband gazes at her nude body. She cleverly plans revenge on him and has him assassinated.2 Vashti is also incensed by her husband's plan to exhibit her like a prize mare from his stable. She has the feminist characteristics of assertiveness and independence, and she risks her life by refusing to be a sex object and a spectacle for intoxicated men. She bravely counters the patriarchal assumption that faithful wives should, when insulted by carousing husbands, swallow their pride and smile. Elizabeth Cady Stanton paid tribute to Vashti's virtue by quoting a poem she attributes to Tennyson: Oh Vashti! noble Vashti! Summoned forth, she kept her state, And left the drunken King to brawl In Shushan underneath his palms.

Feminist and Feminine Queens

95

Also in The Woman's Bible, which Stanton edited, are Lucinda Chandler's insights: The command to the chamberlains was to bring Vashti. It was such an order as he might have sent to the jester, or to any other person whose sole duty was to do the King's bidding, and whose presence might add to the entertainment of his assemblage of men. . . . But Vashti refused to come at the King's command! An unprecedented act of both wife and queen ..... She had a higher idea of womanly dignity than placing herself on exhibition as one of the King's possessions, which it pleased him to present to his assembled princes. Vashti is conspicuous as the first woman recorded whose self-respect and courage enabled her to act contrary to the will of her husband. . . . She stands for the point in human development when womanliness asserts itself and begins to revolt and to throw off the yoke of sensualism and of tyranny. . . . That every living soul has an inherent right to control its life and activities, and that woman equally with man should enjoy this opportunity, had not dawned upon the consciousness of the men of the times of Ahasuerus.3 Unlike the disgraced queen of Lydia, Vashti has no opportunity to vindicate herself. The Persian King and his noblemen find her disobedience threatening to the fabric of their society and demand that she be punished. The writer suggests that Persian wives were on the verge of rebellion from patriarchy and were only awaiting the leadership of an uppity first lady. If Vashti is not censored, then—perish the thought!—wives might begin to exercise their own moral judgment on how to conduct themselves. Consequently, an edict is proclaimed through all the vast kingdom that Vashti has been deposed and that her royal position will be given to a "better" woman. Husbands throughout the realm are relieved, for they can again, without anxiety, continue to dominate in their homes. To the writer of this ancient story, Vashti is not a heroine but a queen to be dismissed before a Jewess can take her place. Accordingly, Vashti disappears after the opening episode. As might be expected, she is not admired in the Jewish tradition. On the contrary, she is represented as a woman of low morality. Indeed, rabbis have judged that she would have consented to appear naked at the banquet had not God punished her with disfiguring leprosy! 4

96


In the Christian tradition, Vashti has also been little admired. This is understandable, since the apostle Peter allegedly gave this unconditional command to wives: "Be in subjection to your husbands."5 Martin Luther had a low opinion of the Book of Esther, in part because it contained "pagan impropriety."6 His dislike of Vashti's independence was one reason for his evaluation. Luther advised husbands to rebuke disobedient wives: "If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did."7 That Protestant reformer presumably admired only conscientious males who protested against the powers that be. After the king's fury toward his insubordinate spouse subsides, he accepts the suggestion of his attendants that a contest be conducted to find a replacement queen. Commissioners go to every province of the kingdom to bring lovely virgins to the capital. To augment their natural beauty, the harem attendants give them cosmetic treatment. Then the candidates are taken one by one to the king's chambers to spend the night. Evidently Ahasuerus enjoys judging the contest, for four years elapse from the time that Vashti is deposed until someone is selected to take her place. He perhaps deflowered hundreds of virgins before deciding which damsel had given him the most pleasure. FEMININE ESTHER A Jewish orphan in Susa named Hadassah is among those taken to the palace. Mordecai, her uncle, has adopted her as his daughter and trained her to obey his directives. Following his counsel, she does not reveal her Jewish identity and takes the Persian name Esther. That word comes from stareh and is the source of the English word star. For a year, she and other contestants receive massages and perfume treatments. Her edge in the competition is due to the favor of Hegai, who is in charge of the harem. She adheres to the advice of that eunuch on how a virgin should charm the king when afforded her single opportunity to titillate him. Ahasuerus becomes captivated by Esther and judges her to be the winner of the Miss Persia contest. He proclaims her queen and declares a public holiday so that there can be a grand celebration. That


97

occasion makes all aware that Vashti has been replaced by a model of gorgeousness and submission. Meanwhile, Mordecai is appointed to a court position, which enables him to maintain communication with his foster child. He may have been one of the eunuchs who guarded the harem entrance. While serving as a Persian official, he refuses to bow down to Prime Minister Haman, an Agagite. Presumably Haman is a descendant of King Agag of the Amalekites, a people who were never on friendly terms with the Israelites; King Saul was allegedly commanded by God to destroy all Amalekites—including women, children, and flocks.8 Haman becomes infuriated by the disrespect of one whom he discovers to be a Jew. Evidently he wishes to retaliate toward Mordecai for the wrongs that Haman's ancestors received centuries earlier from the Israelites. He devises a scheme that he thinks will not only exterminate Mordecai, but also all Jews of the kingdom. Haman declares to the king that Jews subvert the king's laws and should not be tolerated. He proposes a large bribe to the king in order to have him set aside a day for an ethnic massacre. The easily swayed king readily agrees to this brutality, and the decision is publicized in all the provinces. After learning of this plan of destruction, Mordecai expresses mourning in the traditional Hebrew manner by tearing his clothes, by putting on sackcloth and ashes, and wailing loudly as he goes through the capital. Initially, Esther is insensitive to Mordecai's grief, but is distressed by his looks—an understandable concern for one whose external appearance has given her high status. She tries unsuccessfully to get him to replace what he is wearing with the clothes she sends. Somewhat tardily, Esther decides that she should learn what is disturbing her father so deeply. By means of a messenger, Mordecai informs her of the royal decree that Haman has prepared. All Persians are told that a certain day has been set aside to "destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children . . . and to plunder their goods." Mordecai directs Esther to beseech the monarch to have mercy on her people. Feeling insecure in her position, Esther is initially reluctant to respond to Mordecai's charge. In spite of being the top beauty in

98


the harem, the king has not requested her favors for a month. She realizes that he may kill her if she takes the initiative to confront him about his edict against the Jews. Mordecai convinces her that she and her father's family will perish if she remains silent. Therefore, Esther resolves to use her wiles to protect her people. Not only does the queen have the feminine charm of sexual attractiveness, but she also knows how to catch a man with food. To get the king into a receptive mood for rejecting Haman's anti-Semitic pogrom, she invites Ahasuerus and his prime minister to a meal she will prepare. She effectively deceives the manipulator, for Haman is unaware that Esther is Jewish, not to mention that she plans to have him killed. He brags to his wife and friends that only he and the king will be sharing the queen's banquet. Spider-like, she lures them to her quarters. Devoted to belly and other low satisfactions, the king offers to approve a large request from his queen after partaking of her tasty dishes. With feminine coyness, she merely invites the two men to a similar dinner the next day. For as long as patriarchy has prevailed, the preparation of delectable food has been an uxorial tactic for accomplishing goals. Rebekah uses that means to obtain special status for her favorite son.9 Angelina Grimke, an early modern American feminist, lamented that women often have to appeal to those with power through physical rather than rational means. Speaking in 1838 before the Massachusetts legislature, she observed: The Queen of Persia—if Queen she might be called, who was but the mistress of her voluptuous lord—has studied too deeply the character of Ahasuerus not to know that the sympathies of his heart could not be reached, except through the medium of his sensual appetites.... She felt that if her mission of mercy was to be successful, his animal propensities must be still more powerfully wrought upon—the luxurious feast must be prepared, the banquet of wine must be served up, and the favorable moment must be seized when, gorged with gluttony and intoxication, the King's heart was fit to be operated upon.10 In recent years, Claudia Camp has also commented on the way in which Esther achieved her purpose:


99

Esther daringly undertakes a direct and life-risking audience with the King. Although he offers to fulfill any request, Esther is apparently cognizant of her precarious status in that situation, which was so heavily dependent on the whim of the King. Rather than making a direct request of Ahasuerus at that moment, she invites him and her enemy Haman to dinner where she is in greater control of events. At that meal she again avoids making her petition, proposing instead a second repast. This circuitousness, this cushioning of direct confrontation with the pleasantries of the comfortable home, must be seen as a classic maneuver of the traditional woman to gain her ends when the hierarchies of power are closed to her. . . . Esther's meals, then, provide the proper setting where her own persuasive talents can be used to their best effect.11 On the second day of feasting, the tipsy king rashly announces to his queen: "What is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom it shall be fulfilled." Esther vigorously asserts: "What I petition is that my own life and the lives of my people be spared. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, massacred, and exterminated."12 A comic scene follows. When the king demands to know who has devised the genocidal plan, Esther exclaims: "A foe and enemy, this wicked Haman!" Haughty Haman then panics, and the angered king stomps out by himself into the palace garden. Then, ironically, Haman bows before a Jew to plead for his life. On returning, King Ahasuerus sees that Haman has thrown himself on the couch where his wife had been reclining. Interpreting his posture as attempted rape, he orders Haman's execution. He is strung up on the seventyfive foot gallows that had been prepared for Mordecai; the latter, who has earlier uncovered a conspiracy to assassinate the king, is given Haman's position. The king then gives Esther and Mordecai the authority to write whatever they please regarding the Jews and to seal it with the king's ring. Mordecai issues an edict that allows the Jews throughout the kingdom to defend themselves from any enemies who might attack them on the unchangeable date set for the massacre. Since Haman is the only Jew-hater who is explicitly mentioned in this story, the likelihood that many Jews might be slaughtered is slim. When the appointed day passes, no Jews are reported killed, but

100


500 Persians are killed in the capital, including Haman's ten sons. The principle of self-defense appears to have been replaced by "Do unto others before they do unto you." Esther does not consider that overwhelming retaliation sufficient, so the king permits a second day of carnage. The Jews kill 300 more in Susa, although no Jewish casualties are reported. Outside the capital, some 75,000 more of those whom the Jews regard as enemies are slaughtered. Haman's bigotry has stirred up an abiding feeling of contempt in the Jewish community. A gleeful Purim carnival offers annual commemoration to those two days of vengeance. Over the centuries, a winter holiday has continued when the destruction of Jewish enemies is celebrated. Esther's accomplishment illustrates a bit of ancient Jewish folklore. According to this story, Persian guards established a contest in which participants were asked to write on the question, "What is strongest?" One insightful essay was on wine and another was on the king. King Darius judged the winner to be a Jew named Zerubbabel who focused on the power of women and truth. Women, he argued, not only bear, nurture, and clothe all humans; they also wield great authority even over the king. Zerubbabel pointed out that men place a lower value on gold or silver than on beautiful women, inasmuch as many silly men have been ruled by them.13 The Book of Esther can be classified as historical fiction, if emphasis is placed on the noun rather than the adjective. Ancient histories by Greek writers and the findings of modern archaeologists confirm that the writer was knowledgeable about some Persian practices. For example, golden drinking vessels with exquisite designs have been excavated; the kings commonly used eunuchs to protect themselves and their harems; and the Persians established a postal service that provided for rapid communications throughout the vast empire.14 At the same time, it is improbable that the Persians would choose prime ministers who were non-Persians. Moreover, if Mordecai was born before the Babylonian exile, as alleged,15 he would have been more than 120 years of age when he served as prime minister! In addition, Persians were permitted to select queens only from aristocratic Persian families, and Amestris is the name given in a


101

historical record for the queen of King Ahasuerus (or Xerxes).16 Again, it would probably have been as difficult for the small minority of Jews to accomplish such mass killings of the ancient Persians as for the persecuted Bahais to do the same against the well-armed Shiites of modern Iran. There is no record in Persia or in other ancient empires of orders to liquidate the Jews. The Persians were actually more tolerant of the Jews than were other ancient foreign powers. The Hebrew Bible is appreciative of King Cyrus of Persia who freed the captives taken from Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The Book of Ezra begins with his proclamation of liberty to the Jews. By contrast, there are biblical accounts of orders to annihilate the Amalekites and all members of some other gentile groups. The Book of Esther is only marginally religious. No mention is made of God; absent are prayers for deliverance or thanksgiving after providential deliverance. Other than the mention of fasting, the orientation of the book is completely secular. Instead of the prophetic themes of mercy and justice, the story reeks of resentment and revenge. The indestructibility of the Jews is the leading motif. The monstrous heads of anti-Semitic and anti-gentile prejudice rear up in the story. The book is better examined for its sociological and literary significance than, as is customary, for its religious and historical importance. The Book of Esther was translated into Greek within decades of when it was written in Hebrew. The translators attempted to correct the lack of religious piety by adding both a prologue and an epilogue, as well as some other paragraphs. Thus, there are frequent references to divine providence in the expanded Septuagint version. God approves of the vengeance, so one may question whether this doctoring of the original text is a religious improvement. The story of Esther, especially in the Greek modification, shows a society in which neither the Hamans nor the Mordecais extend love and forgiveness to people who have different customs. Contemporary emphasis on women's rights draws the Book of Esther to our attention for its insight into the differing roles of influential women. We see queens who attempt to counter the dominant male power structure when dehumanizing acts are pur-

102


sued, but then as now, the means for making a realistic witness vary according to the circumstances. Vashti asserts her dignity even though it results in her dethronement. Esther draws on her feminine charms to exploit a monarch who has displayed ruthlessness toward her predecessor. She effectively uses traditional wiles to save herself and her people. Then as now, women who operate in the private arena are not powerless in Middle Eastern cultures. Even from their secluded purdah, they may have much sway on public policymakers. Sidnie White, who has treated Esther as an unblemished heroine, has concluded her study in this way: Her conduct through the story has been a masterpiece of feminine skill. From beginning to end, she does not make a misstep. While in the harem, she earns the favor of Hegai, and follows his advice and the advice of Mordecai, both experienced in the ways of the court. She wins the King's heart, becomes queen, and then when danger threatens, skillfully negotiates her tricky course.17 The problem with Esther is that once she gains power, she also becomes vengeful. She uses intrigue to redirect the genocide toward the Persians. Nancy Tischler has insightfully sketched the ugly as well as the admirable facets of Esther's character: Esther... knew the tactics of female guerilla warfare. Not the hard-pressing of Samson's women, but the subtle pressure of the harem girl who had to rely on the munificence of a strong man for her own survival and pleasure. . . . One sees little difference between power-hungry men and blood-thirsty women. Only the modes of winning vary; one displays his brute force openly, the other manipulates her advantage subtly. But both are selfish and vengeful in their human relationships. Esther became a heroine to the Jews, not for her wise sayings, her virtuous life, or her intellectual depth, but for one moment of self-protective heroism and a lifetime of shrewd conniving. Her victory was the victory of a powerless underling against impressive odds.18 Mary Ellen Chase, a Bible-as-literature specialist, has perceptively evaluated the Book of Esther. In symmetry of plot episodes


103

and other literary excellences, she has ranked the author with Thomas Hardy. While admiring the form, she has faulted the book for its lack of "genuine religious feeling." Chase has attributed to the writer the invention of Purim, the annual gloating over the destruction of alleged gentile enemies. Because of the fanatical patriotism of Esther the author encourages, Chase has called him "a good writer but a small man." Chase has explained: His book is as sadly disappointing in the narrowness of its purpose as it is in the characters whom he has drawn with such vividness. Not one of them, except Vashti, who possessed the courage of good convictions, is admirable. All are self-seeking, designing, and revengeful.19 A comparison of the biblical books of Ruth and Esther is instructive. Both books are named for women who marry men from other cultures. Both women skillfully manipulate their men to achieve personal security for themselves and for their families. But the writer of the story of Ruth has a more inclusive attitude toward outsiders than does the writer of Esther. The two books illustrate that there were quite varied outlooks toward other ethnicities within ancient Judaism. Tolerance is promoted as vigorously in Ruth as intolerance is in Esther. The content of the Book of Esther causes all serious students of scripture to face this dilemma: Does the book belong in the sacred canon? Jews and Christians have discussed this question across the centuries. The book illustrates well the psychology of prejudice. The writer imagines that there are persons who so despise the customs of his group that they will wipe out his entire group if the opportunity arises (Adolf Hitler is a poignant reminder that occasionally such individuals actually exist). The writer delights in devising a story in which various schemes and coincidences result in massive vengeance against those persons. The question remains whether insights such as these justify inclusion of the book in the Judeo-Christian Bible.


9 Self-Assured Women in the Gospels Few Gospel stories have more of a genuine ring than those telling of the interaction of assertive women with Jesus. There is little in the Palestinian social environment of the generations immediately before or after the advent of Christianity to explain why anyone would have desired to invent these stories. From the occasion when Anna prophesies at the presentation of the infant Jesus in the Temple to the steadfast women who attend to his burial, the Gospel accounts of male-female relationships often transcend pervasive patriarchy prior to Jesus in the Jewish culture and after Jesus in the Christian congregations. Four women are remembered in the tradition of the early church for their assertiveness in encounters with Jesus. Two are not identified by name, and two share the common name of Mary. Each displays qualities that are valued by Jesus but not appreciated by some other persons in his society. AN UNNAMED GENTILE AND A JEWESS A consciousness-raising experience for Jesus pertains to an unnamed Greek living in Phoenicia—or Canaan, to use Matthew's

106


obsolete designation.1 Jesus is caught with his compassion down in his confrontation with her. His initial response to this woman in a foreign land shows both ethnic and gender prejudice. Luke omits the story, probably because that gentile philogynist wants to stress Jesus' appreciation for people other than Jewish males. When the Phoenician begs for help, Jesus first gives her the silent treatment, because Jewish men shun talking with women in public.2 He then explains to this disciples, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He insults her further by saying that one should not throw to gentile "dogs" what belongs to Jewish "children." To Jesus' contemptuous remark, the gentile woman responds in this courteous but argumentative manner: "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." That feisty exchange causes Jesus to realize her depth of determination. With amazement, he declares: "Woman, great is your faith!" He treats the Phoenician's deranged daughter after recognizing that females in a foreign land are as worthy of his concern as males in Israel. What Jesus commends in the woman is not opposed to forwardness. He appears to have associated her "faith" with her boldness in affirming her human rights, regardless of nation or gender. After Jesus classifies her with an animal species that the Jews held in contempt, she does not silently accept his attempt to strip her of proper pride. She cleverly takes his demeaning remark and uses it to shame him. In effect, she contends, for the sake of argument, that humans have an obligation to allow their domestic pets to satisfy their basic needs. Jesus is humble enough to admire the criticism she gives to his prejudiced remarks. He comes to see her not as a bitch but as a dignified person who is unwilling to tolerate a put-down because of her gender or nationality. An appreciation of her indomitable spirit is contained in his final evaluation of the woman. Jesus' interaction with this woman may have reminded him of an occasion nine centuries earlier when Elijah and a widow from that same Phoenician area mutually assist one another.3 The prophet provides for the needs of the woman and her child even though she belongs to the Baal culture of Jezebel, his greatest enemy. Jesus notes that Elijah presumably helps only gentile widows since no

Self-Assured Women in the Gospels

107

mention is made in scripture of his assisting widows in Israel also suffering from severe deprivation.4 That journey outside of the Jewish culture enlarges Jesus' sense of mission. Indeed, his dialogue with the Phoenician woman provides the only example of anyone causing Jesus to change his mind. This can be seen through a comparison of his outlook toward people of other nations before and after the Phoenician episode. In Matthew, the most Jewish-oriented Gospel, Jesus first sends out his disciples to spread his teachings only among the Jews. "Go nowhere among the ethnics (ethnoi) and enter no Samaritan town," he charges. But later he commissions them to "go and make disciples of all ethnics."5 The historical Jesus was raised in an environment in which gentiles and women were disparaged. Xenophobia was especially prominent in Galilee, where Jewish zealots occasionally staged uprisings. Yet, if we take seriously Luke's statement that Jesus grew religiously and socially,6 then his development involves breaking out of the cultural shell in which he has been reared. Caregivers of every society tend to tattoo certain tribal markings in children's brains, including what inferior groups to avoid. Such slurring is often done indirectly with ethnic jokes. Jesus struggles to transcend the regional and gender chauvinism intrinsic to humankind, and in so doing, he internalizes Isaiah's vision for Israel. That prophet urges his people to endure suffering as "the servant of the Lord" in order "to bring justice to the nations."7 As Jesus moves beyond an ethnocentric mentality, he becomes a "light to the gentiles."8 Another unnamed woman also takes the initiative to obtain healing from Jesus. She has a gynecological hemorrhaging that probably has a psychosomatic dimension. She has been treated by doctors, but none of their prescriptions has helped. Her pitiful condition after twelve years of sickness is described in this way: "She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse."9 The illness of that Jewish woman may have been due in part to her religion. Women who believe menstruation to be a religious "curse" display more symptoms of cramps and distress than oth-

108


ers.10 Historically, Jewish priests regarded even regular menstruation as defiling, and this woman had continual bleeding. Leviticus states of a menstruant: "Whoever touches her shall be unclean."11 Special body bathing and laundering were needed if one came in contact with anything which touched a woman with a discharge of blood.12 Women during their periods were thus presumed to have an uncleanness so contagious that it could be transmitted indirectly without their being present. A healthy, natural function was treated as a filthy, unnatural process. Menstruants were the only people excluded from all of the courts of the Jerusalem Temple, the place that Isaiah and Jesus call "a house of prayer for all people."13 Because of menstruation, there was no office of high priestess, even though women were not excluded from the public roles of monarch, judge, prophet, or sage. The rabbis devoted a whole tract, entitled Niddah, to the menstruant. They loaded restrictions on "contaminated" women that were even more burdensome than those in the Mosaic law.14 Sixty more days a year were added to the official menstrual defilement, during which spouses were to sleep in separate beds to avoid body contact. Menstrual discharge appears to have been regarded as the birthmark of woman's sin. The Jewish oral tradition introduced the requirement of the ritual bath at the end of a menstruant's twelve days of "uncleanness." In defiance of scriptural legislation, Jesus rejects the demeaning blood taboo. He displays his independence of Jewish purification laws by interacting with a woman who is presumed to be perpetually untouchable. They confront one another while he is on an emergency call to a home where a girl is seriously ill. The woman has the notion that the rabbi's clothing is magical and that touching it could stop her hemorrhaging. She seeks Jesus out among the crowd that is following him and touches the fringe of his garment. He stops to show concern for a person from whom others withdraw. They view her as religiously polluted, incurably ill, and financially destitute. Having been ostracized so long, she has acquired a negative self-image and is embarrassed further when her furtive act is discovered. Mark reports that the woman "came in fear and trembling, fell down before him, and told him the whole truth."15


109

Rachel Wahlberg has opined that the woman reacts in fearfulness because she has internalized the judgment of her religion: She had dared to touch a person whom she was not supposed to touch. Her conditioning was thorough. You bad, soiled, unclean, despised woman, her conditioning said. You cannot touch any man—or else you will cause him to be unclean. You have contaminated this Jesus. He will have to observe certain washing rituals because of you. And here you not only have touched him, you have taken some of his healing power. How dare you be so presumptuous? How audacious of you!16 Jesus conveys to the woman that he does not find her disgusting or consider her an outcast. In listing conditions that make for defilement, he does not include menstruation and other physical conditions.17 Jesus is not offended by her brashness in confronting him while he is in a hurry to attend to an important matter. Jesus wants to inform her that healing comes not from external physical contact but from the inward disposition of an individual's will. "Daughter, your faith has made you well," he declares.18 Her eagerness proves effective in combatting her illness. Strictly speaking, Jesus does not cure people but provides mental therapy to assist their healing from within. Here as in other situations, he shows himself to be holistically concerned with integrating the physical organism with the psychological personality. He links spiritual holiness with bodily wholeness. No woman of the Gospels has left more of an impact on early Christian art than that hemorrhaging woman. A third century Roman catacomb artist painted her anxiously holding onto the fringe of Jesus' toga while he turns to assist her.19 According to Eusebius, an early church historian, she was honored in the Palestinian city from which she came; erected at her house in Caesarea Philippi was a bronze statue showing her resting on one knee with arms outstretched. Facing the woman was the figure of Jesus who reciprocally has his arms reaching outward toward her.20 Three significant churchmen were influenced positively by the episode of Jesus and the hemorrhaging woman. Origen, an ancient biblical scholar, compared her favorably with Peter, whose faith

110


occasionally petered out.21 A third century Syrian Christian encouraged menstruants to disregard Old Testament laws that would exclude them from full participation in religious ceremonies. This gracious injunction is given: Separate not from the menstruant; for she who had the flow of blood was not rejected when she touched our Savior's clothing.. . . Cleave to your wife during her menstruation in a manner that is right; for you know that she is your member. Love her as you love yourself.22 In a similar manner, Gregory the Great criticized those who would deprive a menstruant of the right to community worship. That seventh century pope observed that the only defilement pertaining to menstruation is in the minds of those who consider a menstruant contaminated. "If she who had an issue of blood might commendably touch the Lord's garment," Gregory asked, "why should it not be lawful for one who is menstruating to enter into the Lord's church?"23 A recent monograph by Maria Selvidge has thoroughly investigated the interpretation history of the story under consideration. She has concluded: The miracle story of the hemorrhaging woman touches at the core of the cultic discrimination within the Hebrew cult. She stands as a symbol for all Hebrew women. Biologic differences prevented her from experiencing initiation rites, from serving at the sanctuary, and even from participating in the feasts. Her religious activity appears to be only personal except in cases of mourning, dancing, and praying. This healing story focuses upon the woman and consciously details that she has physical, emotional, and social worth to the community and the cult. Her involvement with the divine is no longer peripheral, but central.24 Throughout Western culture, the gospel story of the hemorrhaging woman has been viewed as a classic illustration of the centrality of psychic outlook in the destruction or improvement of life and health. An evaluation by Erik Erikson has illustrated the contemporary influence of the episode in the medical field. That famed psychoanalyst has called it "the decisive therapeutic event in the


111

Gospels." Erickson has commented: "This story is an exalted illustration of that dynamic element, that electric force which has always fascinated the healing professions."25 The crucial role of expectation in the improvement of health has been confirmed. From a scientific study of the placebo effect, this judgment resulted: "Faith, hope, trust... can at times heal wounds, alter body chemistry, even change the course of the most relentless diseases."26 In a widely circulated book, physician Bernie Siegal has conveyed that disease can often be diminished and the quality of life can be enhanced by a change in a patient's mental mood.27 Norman Cousins has also investigated psycho-neuro-immunology, the study of ways in which brain secretions affect the body's immune system. He has culled numerous scientific studies that show that a large portion of patients seeking medical help are suffering from self-limiting disorders that are within the range of their body's own healing powers.28 In the Gospels, there is also one unnamed fictional woman who expresses independence. In one of his parables, Jesus commends a widow who is badgering a crooked town magistrate. Being too poor to provide a bribe, she keeps pleading with him for protection from a man who is trying to ruin her. As Jesus puts it: "For a while he refused; but afterward he said to himself, 'Though I care nothing for God or man, yet because this widow pesters me, I will uphold her rights. Otherwise she may come and beat me up!' " 29 Eventually the magistrate hears her case and provides a just remedy. By encouraging various deprived women, Jesus makes it obvious that he thinks that society needs uppity women. He admires the persistence of the unnamed women we have considered. Apropos of their assertiveness is his injunction that contains three Greek verbs in the present imperative. For communicating with God and with others, Jesus advises: "Ask repeatedly, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; continue to knock, and the door will be opened for you."30 When the women are not accorded their full human deserts, they do not meekly retreat. Rather they state their deprivations firmly and their perseverance brings them positive benefits.

112


TWO MARYS The third assertive woman of significance in the Gospels is Mary of Bethany. Luke's brief account of Jesus' visit in the home of Mary and Martha contains explosive sex role criticism. In Palestine, a woman was historically admired principally for her abilities in food preparation and baby production. Accordingly, Martha is preoccupied with housekeeping routines and is determined that her sister should also conduct herself in the traditional manner. Mary, however, has less interest in hustling to serve a fancy meal than in learning from an intriguing rabbi. Disturbed by Jesus's acceptance of Mary's iconoclastic interest, Martha confronts both of them. Moving in on their session together, she rudely blurts out to her guest: "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me!"31 Some sibling rivalry may be behind Martha's irate words. She may be envious that she has to spend her time baking bread and frying fish while her sister attends to her own spiritual needs. Perhaps Martha resents being boxed into a domestic role, but she does not feel free to be introspective. In Luke's account, Mary communicates only through her body language, by sitting at Jesus' feet. By assuming the customary posture of a student receiving instruction, she is subtly asserting her violation of social mores.32 The taboo surrounding the education of women is evident in the disdainful comments of ancient rabbis. One of them gravely warned: "He who talks much with women brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end will go to hell." Another enjoined: "Let the words of the Torah burn up but let them not be transmitted to a woman."33 The ancient Jewish anxiety about giving male-type educational opportunities to females parallels master-slave relationships. American slaveowners feared that educated blacks might learn too many of the white people's ways, acquire the information needed to run for freedom, and stimulate rebellion. Consequently, it was illegal to teach a slave even to read and write. Likewise, those who loathed uppity women realized that, without literacy and intellectual training, they would be more tractable and deferential.


113

Jesus counters a rigid custom that the Jews shared with most traditional cultures, namely that a woman's fulfillment is inseparable from her homemaking role. He encourages Mary and other women to become disciples—that is, students. Some of the learners are later sent out as apostles—that is, agents to convey his message.34 Those women are the forerunners of Susan B. Anthony, who exclaimed, "What an absurd notion that women have no intellectual and moral faculties sufficient for anything but domestic concerns!"35 Jesus strongly encourages both men and women to engage in lowly acts of service, so there is no reason to think that he objected to Martha's busyness with kitchen tasks. Indeed, the episode of Mary and Martha in the Book of Luke immediately follows a parable praising a Samaritan who uses his hands to perform acts of practical service. Still, Jesus does not like to see one person infringe upon another person's aspiration to act independently. He does not favor seeing the "brother's keeper" role becoming a zookeeper's role. Martha is unable to see that Mary, as a responsive listener, is performing an important service also—to Jesus and to herself. Jesus inspires Mary to break out of the cage of conventions and realize that a woman can be something other than a homebody. He admires her eagerness for learning and, in effect, her desire to be liberated from the limitations of her gender-defined role. By contrast, Martha's horizons do not seem to extend beyond preparing the perfect meal. She cannot entertain the iconoclastic notion that all three in the home might assist in simple food preparation while discussing ideas of mutual concern. Martha requests that Jesus reprimand Mary, but he admonishes Martha and commends Mary. He gently says: "Martha, Martha, you fret and fuss about many things; one thing is needful. Mary chose the right thing and it shall not be taken from her."36 Constance Parvey has shown that the Mary-Martha episode encourages women to choose between their traditional roles "as domestic servants and deliverers of hospitality" or the new role as a student of religion. She has considered this story to be "the keystone of the changed status of women that it reflects." Parvey

114


has pointed to women in the early church who were students of scripture following the "Mary" rather than the "Martha" model.37 To assume that the Mary type has held its own with the Martha type would be to misrepresent church history. Even now, the potential Marys are often pressured in subtle ways so that they will not stray from an exclusively housewifely role. With some overstatement, Wahlberg has described the 1970s: In society as well as the church, Martha is the projected image for women. Women's magazines, run by male staffs, have encouraged the modem woman to be an expert Martha, a buyer, decorator, gourmet cook—"busy about many things." Her socialization through school texts, her image in the media, the expectations she is fed by family, friends, and teachers—all is directed toward achievement in the domestic realm.38 Some writers in the area of existential psychology and philosophy have been fascinated by the Mary and Martha cameos. Robert Leslie has described in contemporary terms what Mary is rejecting: "She refused to be cast into the commonly accepted role of homemaker. She insisted on being a person and not only a woman; she refused to fit into the stereotype which has been characterized as the 'feminine mystique.' " 39 Paul Tillich has found in the story of those sisters a quality central to authentic maturity. He perceived two contrasting attitudes toward life. Compared with Martha, who is seriously concerned about many finite, preliminary, and transitory things, "Mary is concerned about one thing, which is infinite, ultimate, lasting." Martha is compulsive about work routines that rightly demand attention, but she overlooks that one does not live by food alone. Tillich has described Mary as being beyond anxiety, listening as a participant, freed from the tyranny of the mundane. He is impressed with the power and passion of her involvement in an unconditional relationship that transcends the ordinary. Tillich called the chapter dealing with Martha and Mary "Our Ultimate Concern."40 The title is a key concept in all of the writings of this leading twentieth century philosopher of religion. Mary well exemplifies a celebrated definition by Tillich: "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned."


115

It enables a person "to transcend the flux of relative and transitory experiences."41 The last self-assured woman under consideration is Mary from the town of Magdala on the Sea of Galilee. She is distinguished from the many other biblical Marys by the name Mary Magdalene, or simply Magdalene. In several Gospels, she leads the list of women associated with Jesus,42 even as Peter, who is usually shown as a leader in his group, heads the list of apostles. Thus she was evidently recognized by her contemporaries as an outstanding female friend of Jesus. Magdalene first encounters Jesus, so it appears, when she is seriously ill. Luke introduces her as among the women who receive treatment (therapeud) from him for a severe physical or mental disorder. Some plausibly surmise that she is the unnamed woman who had the continual flow of blood.43 She is among those loyal women who remain with Jesus at the Crucifixion. Whereas his uncomprehending male disciples desert him during the last hours before his execution,44 Magdalene stays with him until his agony is ended. Fearful for their own lives, those other disciples do not stay in Jerusalem, even to arrange for his burial. Magdalene sees where his body is buried and returns to that place after the sabbath is over to anoint the corpse with funeral perfumes. The attitude of Magdalene and her women companions has been eulogized by Irishman Eaton Barrett: Not she with trait'rous kiss her Saviour stung, Not she denied him with unholy tongue; She, while apostles shrank, could danger brave, Last at his cross, and earliest at his grave.45 Magdalene's notable place among Jesus' female followers is not limited to his public ministry. She is most remembered for her Easter testimony, because she is the only woman present in the resurrection stories of all the Gospels. What is the nature of her experience? Numbed by grief, she comes to the tomb where the body of Jesus has been hastily buried without the customary ointments and spices. While in the graveyard, she exclaims, "I have

116


seen the Lord!"46 Magdalene's visionary experience is similar to that of the apostle Paul. He asks rhetorically: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?"47 Paul is probably referring to what is elsewhere described as his "vision" of a risen Lord on the road to Damascus.48 Although Magdalene does not dream up the presence of Jesus, neither is the event a "bolt out of the blue" for which there has been no inward preparation. Her close ties with Jesus over a period of years give her a readiness to believe that the love she has known is not defeated. In the bewilderment following Jesus' death, Magdalene is probably desperately attempting to reconcile his crucifixion with what he taught her about his mission. While trying to puzzle through all of this, she goes to visit Jesus' tomb. There she has a deeply moving experience that results from a divine disclosure interacting with her troubled mind. After "seeing" Jesus and "hearing" him call her name, she becomes convinced that he is not dead but altogether alive, albeit in a different form. In John's Easter story, Jesus commissions Magdalene to proclaim the victorious word to other disciples. She relates to them the revelation that has transformed her sorrow to gladness. When Magdalene and the other women who have been with her at Jesus' tomb testify authoritatively to his living presence, they face male prejudice. The apostles initially dismiss the story as women's nonsense.49 Their response is understandable because the testimony of a woman was unacceptable in Jewish courts. Josephus, for instance, wrote, "Let not the testimony of women be admitted."50 Accordingly, in the Easter tradition transmitted to Paul, the testimony of women has been omitted.51 In the early centuries of Christianity, some church leaders recognized the prominent position of Magdalene. She was acknowledged with the male apostles as a co-witness of the resurrection in its proclamation. In the Latin church, she was known as apostola apostolorum ("an apostle to the apostles") because she was the first to convey the good news to the male apostles.52 Gnostic Christians also defended the high status of women in the band of disciples by pointing to Magdalene as the one who experiences Jesus' resurrection. The third century Gospel of Mary contains an exchange between Mary and the other disciples. Peter says:


117

"Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember." "I saw the Lord in a vision," Mary responds, and she relates her conversation with him. On realizing that Jesus has given a woman more intimate revelations than he himself has received, Peter is upset. Then Matthew says: "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us."53 In Pistis Sophia, a fourth century manuscript, Magdalene dominates the discussion throughout the book.54 Thirty-nine of the forty-six questions put to Jesus are by her. Peter vents his frustration over this by complaining to Jesus: "My Lord, we can no longer stand this woman. She has not let any of us speak, but talks all the time herself."55 Jesus informs Mary that she is closer to understanding him than the others are.56 In subsequent centuries, John Calvin was among the few prominent church leaders to acknowledge the assertive role of Magdalene and the other women with her in Jerusalem. That Protestant reformer was impressed by the way that the resurrection stories of the Gospels tell of Jesus sending women to witness. Calvin commented: He [Jesus] began with the women, and not only presented himself to be seen by them, but even gave them a commission to announce the gospel to the apostles, so as to become their instructors. .. .[Jesus} bestowed on them [the women] distinguished honor, by taking away from men the apostolic office, and committing it to them for a short time.57 Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel has related the biblical and Gnostic accounts of Magdalene to the recent Catholic treatment of women: Testimony by witnesses both early and late indicates that Mary Magdalene, who played an important role among Jesus' followers, became one of the primary examples of this apostleship. As the Vatican today is agitated by such issues, so too Peter, as predecessor of the popes became insecure and angry that a woman should usurp what he regarded as a masculine position.58

118


Both Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are exceptional in another way. In a patriarchal society, the main way in which a woman could achieve authority was by bearing children who might express her will. Rebekah, for example, uses Jacob, her favorite son, to get what she wants out of her blind husband.59 Interestingly, if these gospel Marys had children, no mention is made of them in historical tradition. While having no significance as mothers, they have been productive in inspiring Christian women to think and act independently. The four women who have been treated in this chapter are the most striking examples of assertiveness in the Gospels but they are not the only ones with that trait. Even the mother of Jesus, a model of submissiveness, occasionally takes the initiative in dealing with a disturbing situation. For example, when Jesus remains behind in Jerusalem, she uses strong words on behalf of herself and her husband: "Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety."60 Again, Mary along with her other sons attempts to rescue the adult Jesus from the crowds when he seems to be beside himself.61 Within decades of Jesus' teachings, there came a patriarchalization of the Gospels. The androcentricism that was endemic to ancient Mediterranean cultures continued in the Christian church almost as strongly as in Judaism. Questions of gender liberation in the Gospels were nearly obliterated. Male interpreters of the Bible cited those texts that enhanced patriarchy and conveniently overlooked the equality advocated by Jesus. Only in recent years has consciousness been sufficiently raised for the typical Christian to recognize that the biblical drama contains her-story as well as his-story. Hymns using nonsexist languages are being composed to commemorate the fulfillment of both genders in the Gospels. In the third millennium of Christianity, this paraphrase of the psalm of Miriam may be appropriate: Sing to the Lord who has triumphed gloriously, Patriarchy and its riders are being cast in the sea!

10 Women Leaders and Paul Through most of Christian history, it has been assumed that the apostle Paul could not tolerate assertive women. Some might therefore assume that this could be the shortest chapter ever written! George Bernard Shaw thought Paul deserved to be called "the eternal enemy of woman" because he placed her in a servile role.1 To offer another example, Elizabeth Davis has written that "Paul, the first spokesman for the Christian Church" was "bred in the Hebraic tradition that women were of no account and existed solely to serve men." Davis has maintained that Paul continued to stress woman's inferiority in his writings.2 The belief that Paul excludes women from leadership roles is based largely on a judgment expressed in one of his letters. To Christians in Corinth, he writes: "Women should be silent in the churches."3 Following Catholic medieval tradition, Pope Paul VI cited that statement to add authority for this declaration in 1970: "Woman is not meant to have hierarchical functions of teaching and ministry in the Church."4 Protestant fundamentalists usually take a similar position because they are certain that Paul would not have permitted the ordination of women to church offices.

120


GREEK WOMEN What does Paul mean by his attempt to silence women? In the same Corinthian letter, he states that women may publicly prophesy and pray.5 Paul regarded prophesying as inspired preaching and gives prophets a status second only to apostles.6 Although Paul is open to the idea of women as well as men speaking to a congregation, he is concerned that this may get out of hand during a spontaneous "speaking in tongues." Accordingly, he criticizes Christians of either gender who allow worship to become transformed into a meaningless babble. In his advocacy of order, Paul recommends to both men and women: "If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and all be encouraged."7 Historically, women in the Greek culture found ecstatic religious activities especially appealing because they provided an outlet for frustrations that had otherwise been socially repressed.8 That may explain why Paul specifically directs some of his remarks to women. Perhaps Chloe, the source of Paul's information about difficulties in the Corinth church, emphasized the commotion of fellow women during community worship.9 Paul's criticism of some disruptive women in Corinth should not be used to demonstrate that he believed in female inferiority. Constance Parvey has concluded that he does not intend to exclude women from participating by his insistence on individual restraint. In her extensive discussion of women in the Corinthian church, she has argued that Paul "did admit a public role for women in worship that had not previously existed in Jewish tradition" and that "women played a vital role in the congregation."10 To rip 1 Corinthians 14:23 out of its context to prove that women cannot be church leaders is as unwarranted as using another verse from that letter as proof-text for domestic matriarchy. After all, in 1 Corinthians 7:4, Paul writes: "The husband does not rule over his own body, but his wife does." A large portion of the people with whom Paul works are women. Many women, as well as men, are merely mentioned in passing,

Women Leaders and Paul

121

and they have no special significance. There are, however, several women whom Paul recognizes as leaders. Lydia, one of these outstanding women, is known only by the record of the beginnings of Christianity in Philippi in Acts. After arriving in that city as a missionary to Greece, Paul and his companions search for the place of Jewish worship. They find women gathered by a river outside the city on a sabbath. Since gentile men generally regarded the circumcision requirement as appalling, most Jewish converts were historically women. Among those Jews is Lydia who "listened eagerly" to Paul and becomes his first European convert. She is baptized along with her "household," which may refer to her family and/or her servants. That ceremony of Christian initiation probably contained an affirmation of new status, in words similar to the following: As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.11 Lydia has come from Thyatira in Asia because she is engaged in international trade. As "a dealer in purple cloth",12 she operates a luxury shop in Philippi (it was so expensive to extract purple fluid from a particular shellfish that clothing dyed with it was associated with royalty). Lydia lodges Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke for an extended period, so she must have a sizable home as well as a hospitable disposition. At the probable risk of a loss of business, Lydia courageously receives the dissident Paul and Silas back into her home after they are released from jail. Since new Christian converts meet with them at that place, Lydia's home is probably the usual meeting place of the church in Philippi. Thus her home may have been the cradle of European Christianity. After Paul's departure, Lydia is the obvious person to take charge of the continued development of the Philippian church—even as Mary operates a house church in Jerusalem and Nympha is in charge of a congregation in Laodicea.13 Lydia

122


may even preside over the sacramental service for those who "devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching and fellowship, to breaking bread and to prayer."14 Paul's friendships at Philippi are closer than those in any other city he visits. He later writes a letter of gratitude to Christians there, including some church officers, and probably Lydia. He extols those Philippians as ones "whom I love and long for, my joy and crown."15 Lydia must deserve the same tribute as two other Philippean women, Euodia and Syntyche. Paul refers to them as women who "shared my struggles in spreading the gospel," with no hint that their labor has differed from that of the male evangelists.16 Indeed, Paul may have Lydia in mind when he requests that his loyal "yoke-partner" [suzugos] counsel with Euodia and Syntyche. Otherwise, it is puzzling that no mention is made of the most important Christian convert in Philippi when he is greeting women there. The earliest Greek interpreters of Paul's letters thought that he is referring to his wife when he uses the word suzugosl They realized that such had long been the common meaning of the term. In commending marriage, Clement of Alexandria wrote of various church leaders who had wives. As pertains to this consideration, Clement wrote: "Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his suzugos. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry."17 The famed French literary critic Ernest Renan cautiously endorsed the interpretation of Clement and speculated that Lydia is Paul's wife.18 In light of Paul's affirmation that he is no longer married when he writes to Corinth,19 however, it is doubtful that Paul ever married Lydia. That he calls Lydia or some other woman by a term that can be misinterpreted as his spouse shows that a Philippian woman was a close companion of his. In Thessalonica and Beroea, the two Macedonian cities that Paul and Silas visit after Philippi, they again find responsive women of high standing.20 Like Mary of Bethany, the Beroean women display keen theological interests. Both Jewish women and men were attentive to what the Christian missionaries say and "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so."21 That


123

congregation was composed of critically minded and independent individuals. Some of those "leading women" of Macedonia become persuaded that Judaism is fulfilled in Christianity. In a letter that Paul writes to the Christian sisters and brothers in Thessalonica, he displays appreciation for those who scrutinize carefully and encourages them to question prophets who claim to be divinely inspired. Paul advises: "Test everything; hold fast to what is good."22 As one who enjoys arguing with inquirers in the various cities he visits, Paul admires men and women who are not disposed to believe blindly, even when being instructed by an alleged religious authority. CO-WORKERS IN ROMANS During Paul's time, some women were among the prominent and well-educated Romans. Women held negotiations as shipowners, and many administered other businesses.23 At Pompeii, women were engaged in a variety of businesses, ranging from selling exotic purple dye to owning construction companies.24 Such influential women were attracted to those religions from the eastern provinces that dignified the role of women. The Isis cult had many women members because it focused on the Egyptian goddess whose myths told of her control. But there was one religion popular with the Roman army that excluded women: the Mithra cult from Persia gave devotion to a youthful Sun-god who was skilled with his sword. In the midst of such competing religions, the early appeal of Christianity was to some extent due to the status that it gave to both genders. Living prior to the development of an exclusively masculine hierarchy in church administration, Paul encourages talented women as well as men to carry responsible roles. In Romans 16, he commends women for their courage, hard work, friendship, and leadership. On the basis of that chapter, Pauline scholar Arthur Nock has stated that "Paul had no objection to women holding administrative offices and welcomed their activities."25 Phoebe, the first person mentioned, is probably entrusted to be the courier for delivering the exceptionally important Romans letter

124


to its destination.26 Diakonos is one of the terms by which she is designated. It does not have a feminine ending here or elsewhere in the New Testament, so there is no basis for presuming that there was in the church at that time a subordinate female order of deaconesses. In Romans 13:4, diakonos is used to refer to a state officer, and in Philippians 1:1, the term is used in tandem with the office of bishop. At the beginning of the second century, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch frequently referred to the office and described its importance. He defined diakonoi as "not ministers of food and drink but servants of the church of God. . . . Let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ. . . . Nothing can be called a church without these."27 A century later, this tribute was given to those who shared the office in the Syrian church: "The deacon stands in the place of Christ,... and the deaconess shall be honored by you as a type of the Holy Spirit."28 In the manual of the Syrian church, the deaconess office is listed before the priestly office. English versions of the New Testament reveal that diakonos has not been translated consistently. In the King James Version, it is translated eighteen times as "minister" in Paul's letters but as "servant" only here and in reference to a woman. The same term, diakonos, is used in 1 Corinthians 3:5, but no translation of that verse reads: "What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Deacons through whom you believed." It is apparent that deliberate attempts have been made over the centuries to diminish Phoebe's role as minister by placing her in a separate subordinate order, or in no order at all. The Revised English Bible, published in 1989, has finally followed the 1534 translation by William Tyndale, the greatest genius in the history of English versions. Phoebe is at last recognized as a "minister," sharing in English as in the original Greek the same designation that Paul gives to himself. Due in part to Paul's endorsement, both men and women shared the office of minister {diakonos) for generations after his death. According to one of the last of the New Testament letters, seriousness, self-control, and faithfulness were qualities expected of churchwomen selected as deacons.29 Pliny, the Roman governor of Asia, in a Latin letter written to Emperor Trajan in 112 C.E., described torturing two women whom Christians called "ministers"


125

(Latin, ministrae).30 Origen asserted that Romans 16 gives apostolic authority for recognizing women ministers in the church.31 Arthur Ide has found in that chapter evidence that women served in the early church "with full equality beside men as ministrae (priests, bishops, and deacons) of the faith." This shows, he has claimed, that "the 1983 statement by Pope John Paul II that 'women will never be priests' is ludicrous."32 The high value placed on women in earliest Christianity was ultimately due to Jesus' perspective toward them. According to W. D. Davies, the reference in Mark to women who "minister" (diakoneo) should be understood as an office that the women held.33 That same verb is used in a pastoral letter to designate a church office for either gender.34 Prostatis is the other term by which Phoebe is designated by Paul. It literally means "one who stands over" and is associated with high authority. In the standard classical Greek lexicon, definitions given for prostatis are: "a front-ranked man," "a chief, especially of a party," and "a protector, guard, champion."35 The noun does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is used in a first century letter to refer to Christ's role as guardian and protector.36 Prostatis is virtually equivalent to episkopos, overseer, which designates the office of bishop in the New Testament. The verb form proistemi means "to rule" or "to manage" in Paul's letters.37 Therefore, translations of prostatis as "friend" or "helper" in Romans 16:2 are obviously degrading.38 It seems that Paul appoints Phoebe to be a supervisory minister. She is given authority, for Paul asks the letter recipients to "help her with anything she needs." A recent archaeological discovery has confirmed that women served as bishops in the early church. One Latin tombstone inscription reads feminaepiscopal939 Thus, the first of Paul's personal comments to the Romans is to introduce the prominent letter bearer. His sentiments are conveyed by this translation: Give a Christian welcome to our sister Phoebe, a minister [diakonos]n the church at Cenchreae. Stand by her in any matter she may request for she has been a protector [prostatis] of many, including myself.40

126


In her excellent treatment of the role of women at the beginning of Christianity, Elisabeth Fiorenza has noted: "Although Phoebe is the only person in the Pauline literature to receive an official letter of recommendation and although she is given three substantive titles—sister, diakonos, and prostatis—her significance for the early Christian mission is far from acknowledged."41 Fiorenza has shown how Phoebe continues to be disparaged. Paul next greets a couple, mentioning Prisca before Aquila (she is usually known as Priscilla, the diminutive form of her Latin name, because of Luke's usage). When Paul encounters them, they are in a business as well as marital partnership. The apostle shares their tentmaking trade and stays with them in Corinth.42 But it is because of their church activities that Paul commends them in Romans. He calls them his co-workers (sunergoi), the same term he uses elsewhere for his male colleagues, Timothy, Titus, and Luke.43 Priscilla and her husband are with Paul for years, first in Corinth and then in Ephesus. Their home becomes a meeting place for the church wherever they go as missionaries.44 Archeological findings suggest that the Church of St. Prisca on the Aventine Hill in Rome was built over the home of Priscilla and Aquila.45 In addition, the catacomb named for Priscilla—one of the oldest in Rome—contains a fresco showing women celebrants.46 Paul expresses thanks to Priscilla and Aquila because the couple have "risked their necks" for him, probably in Ephesus.47 They may have assisted the apostle in that provincial capital of Asia when he "fought wild beasts" and was "unbearably crushed," possibly in the aftermath of the silversmiths' riot.48 Whatever the situation, Paul believes that the boldness of Aquila and Priscilla have saved his life. At Ephesus, they also become involved with Apollos, an eloquent scriptural scholar from Alexandria who knows more about the message of John the Baptist than of Jesus. Apollos has no full knowledge of the Christian Gospels, especially the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.49 Regarding him, Luke states: "He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately."50 The same verb here translated as "explained" is used


127

to describe Paul's style of teaching in Rome.51 Samuel Terrien has commented: Priscilla and Aquila were teachers' teachers. They took it upon themselve to direct this brilliant but still misguided expositor of the gospel. It was they who completed his theological education in the formal sense. And since the name of Priscilla, here again, is placed before that of Aquila, it is reasonable to conjecture that she assumed the major responsibility in the task of enlightening Apollos.52 Luke does not indicate that Priscilla and Aquila were converted to Christianity in Corinth, so it can be presumed that they were Christians in Rome before being exiled by Emperor Claudius' edict in 49 C.E. The Roman historian Suetonius suggested that the expulsion was due to a potentially riotous controversy between Jews and Christians.53 Indeed, Priscilla and Aquila may be among the founders of the church in Rome, for that church was well established when Paul wrote his letter. Perhaps it was started two decades earlier by some Jews from the Diaspora who are mentioned as present for the first Christian Pentecost in Jerusalem. Luke indicates that people from Aquila's home state of Pontus participate in the birth of the church in Jerusalem.54 It is plausible to conjecture that Aquila and Priscilla come to Jerusalem as Jewish Pentecost pilgrims and then go to Rome as Christian witnesses. Due to Paul's recognition of Priscilla's abilities, she may be the writer of the letter to the Hebrews. If so, she might have the singular distinction of being not only the sole female biblical writer but also the only woman whose book has survived from the classical era. Adolf Harnack, a distinguished German church historian, has argued that Priscilla is the probable author of Hebrews but that her name was obliterated a century later from the now anonymous letter. After orthodox Christianity became established, it did not like to admit the prominent position of women during the apostolic era.55 Harnack's opinion has been defended by such outstanding British and American biblical scholars as Arthur Peake and Samuel Terrien.56 It is at least as plausible to conclude that Hebrews was

128


written by Priscilla as to accept Martin Luther's assumption that the letter was written by Apollos, who Priscilla instructed in theology. The witness of Priscilla helped to inspire Anne Hutchinson to become the first woman preacher in the American colonies. Recognized as having a "ready wit and bold spirit," she taught a Pauline doctrine of grace that was widely accepted by the common people. Hutchinson believed that the gift of God for teaching was bestowed on women as well as men. At well-attended weekly public meetings, she shared biblical interpretations that she and the learned preacher John Cotton held. She also audaciously questioned some theology that was being proclaimed as God's word from the pulpits of the colony by the male clergy.57 Having become a thorn in the side of the androcentric Puritan establishment, Hutchinson was tried for heresy in 1637. Governor John Winthrop was the prosecutor for this important case, and he later wrote a book about it. He charged that this "American Jesabel" had dared to teach men as well as women. She responded in this manner: "Here is my authority: Aquila and Priscilla tooke upon them to instruct Apollos, more perfectly, yet he was a man of good parts, but they being better instructed might teach him." Thomas Shepard commented that Hutchinson had "seduced many" by "her fluent tounge [tongue] and forwardness in expressions." The court in Boston disregarded her brilliant appeal to the Bible and banished her from the colony.58 Even in the American culture that now officially accepts gender equality, Priscilla is not accorded the status she deserves. Although her name generally precedes her husband's in the New Testament, the one-line entry under her name in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible directs the reader to the article under Aquila. This is about as appropriate as referring to Britain's first female prime minister as Mrs. Denis Thatcher! Denise Carmody has found a contemporary challenge in the assertiveness of Priscilla: The authority Priscilla shows in dealing with Apollos suggests that she enjoyed high status in the Pauline community at Ephesus. Far from being a back-bencher, she took the lead and set a talented, most likely strong-


129

willed man straight. It does not matter whether she had a formal authorization to decide matters of doctrine. In the early church existential authority, charismatic power, usually was the deciding factor. If she manifested wisdom about the Christian gospel and clearly spoke in the power of Christ's Spirit, she was likely to get a respectful hearing. I think she would challenge her present-day sisters to follow her lead, lamenting the ways that church structures tend to constrain women's gifts but arguin that no one finally can constrain the Holy Spirit.59 Junia is the third woman of special significance whom Paul greets in Romans 16. She is named along with Andronicus, who is probably her husband. She is given the name of Junia or Julia in the earliest manuscripts. In a single verse, Paul states that the two are "outstanding apostles," that they are fellow Jews, that they became Christians before his conversion, and that they have been imprisoned with him. Paul believes that apostles are distinguished from other Christian missionaries by their having received a vision of the resurrected Jesus.60 He rejects the Jerusalem church's contention that the apostleship is limited to twelve. Paul calls Junia, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, and himself apostles because of that Easter experience.61 Wayne Meeks is among the few male specialists in early Christian culture who has written about the importance of women such as Junia in the communities that Paul develops. Meeks has asserted: "Women did play a very large part in the mission and patronage and leadership of the Pauline groups. . . . In Rome, for example, there was a certain Junia who, with Andronicus (her husband?), was 'foremost among the apostles.' " 62 Throughout most of church history, it has been unthinkable that a woman could be an ordained minister, priest, or bishop—much less an apostle. That stance displays the self-serving male power structure of the institutional church rather than the preservation of Jesus' alleged judgment that women should be excluded from leadership roles. Although most contemporary churchmen are still unwilling to consider a woman for the highest rank and honor in the church, some patristic commentators have acknowledged that Junia was an apostle. John Chrysostom, a fourth century patriarch

130


of Constantinople, was often gynophobic in his statements, yet he had the honesty to admit that Paul named a woman as an apostle. That leading authority in Eastern Orthodoxy expressed his amazement regarding Junia in this way: There is something great about being an apostle. But to be pre-eminent among the apostles—think what marvelous praise that is. They were pre-eminent by virtue of their work and their honest tasks. How great the wisdom (philosophia) of this woman must have been for her to have be found worthy of the title apostle!63 Until recently, most modern biblical translators have not been nearly as charitable as that Greek father. Most of them have assumed that Andronicus' companion must have been a male and thus have fabricated for Iounia a masculine ending. Their creation, lounias, although masculine in form, is not a name found elsewhere in ancient records. Contemporary translators who make this name error have even less excuse because only they can know of the earliest text of this letter that has been discovered this century. According to the Chester Beatty papyrus, Julia is the name of the first female apostle on record. That Junia, the preeminent apostle, and Phoebe, the supervisory minister, are not mentioned again in Christian tradition does not necessarily mean that they were slighted because of the gender. For the majority of the male apostles, known as "The Twelve," there is also virtually no historical information. Even in the New Testament listings, there is no full agreement of what their names were. The "Acts of the Apostles" tells a lot about Peter, a little about John and James, and nothing about the rest of the twelve. The women we have examined took seriously this emancipating proclamation: "There is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." For Paul, this statement pertained not to a unisex situation but to sexual equality. The apostle doubtless received that principle from Jesus, who upset the proverbial apple cart of patriarchy. In the generations following Jesus and Paul, their vision was lost and traditional patriarchy was restored. This shift was first indicated in a pseudepigraphal second century letter to


131

Christians that declared that no woman was permitted to teach or to have authority over men. The writer claimed that women are more susceptible to sin than men; although they are eligible for salvation if they bear children and have Christian virtues. 64 Robin Scroggs, in a prestigious scholarly journal, has cogently argued that Paul promoted the liberation and equality of women, but that his efforts were soon forgotten. Scroggs has concluded: The evidence seems incontrovertible that women worked along side of men in the Pauline churches, and there is absolutely nothing in the text which would suggest that the work was of subordinate character Few subsequent Christians (except on the "heretical" fringes) were able to accept this radical vision of Paul, and he was quickly reinterpreted. . . . The reluctance of the church even in modem times to read Paul afresh . . . simply suggests that the modem church has been as fearful as the early of the liberty inherent in the Pauline gospel.65


11 Women in Eden The creation story of Adam and Eve has a central place in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; consequently, it has been the most frequently told story in human history. According to the prevailing androcentric interpretation of that Eden story, the archetypical woman was fashioned from an insignificant portion of the masculine frame to serve under the one from whom the rib was taken. Following a Jewish midrash, Jesuit Francis de Sales wrote: "God . . . has willed that woman should depend on man, since she is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and that she should be made of a rib taken from beneath his arm to show that she must be under her husband's hand and guidance."1 John Milton, a Protestant of the same seventeenth century, imagined Adam contending with "a Rib crooked by nature." Milton may have been indebted to Muslim tradition, which represents Muhummad as advising husbands, regarding the alleged creation of woman from a rib: "You will break her if you try to straighten her out, so use her with her crookedness."2 Thus, in several world religions, the message that males have usually found in Genesis 2 is that woman was created not to assert a mind of her own but to be dominated by the male from whom she came. Moreover, sin originated when she used her

134


own judgment and failed to be subservient to her husband. Man's Humpty-Dumpty-like great fall was caused by the disobedience of Eve and her daughters. Contemporary feminists have often accepted the traditional male interpretation of Genesis 2 and then expressed contempt for the myth. For example, Eva Figes has scorned the writer for reversing nature in order to have a male produce someone who is "submissive and weak."3 Merlin Stone has accused the Eden mythmaker of regarding women as "mindless, carnal creatures" who are an afterthought of God 4 Phyllis Trible's bold challenge to this prevailing view has had a significant impact on biblical scholarship. Calling her approach "depatriarchalizing," she has examined the Hebrew text without regard to subsequent patriarchal interpretations. She has argued convincingly that the narrator has more sympathy for the assertive Eve than for her wimpish spouse. Trible has commented on how Eve confronts temptation: She contemplates the tree, taking into account all possibilities. The tree i good for food; it satisfies the physical drive. It pleases the eyes; it is aesthetically and emotionally desirable. Above all, it is coveted as the source of wisdom. Thus the woman is fully aware when she acts, her visi encompassing the gamut of life. She takes the fruit and she eats. The initiative and the decision are hers alone. There is no consultation with her husband. . . . By contrast the man is a silent, passive, and bland recipient: "She also gave some to her husband and he ate." The narrator makes no attempt to depict the husband as reluctant or hesitating. The ma does not theologize; he does not contemplate; he does not envision the full possibilities of the occasion. His one act is belly-oriented, and it is an act of quiescence, not of initiative. The man is not dominant; he is not aggressive; he is not a decision-maker. . . . He follows his wife without question or comment, thereby denying his own individuality. If the woman be intelligent, sensitive, and ingenious, the man is passive, brutis and inept.5 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in a milder manner, has written: "Eve is portrayed as the spokesperson for the couple, and during her talk with the serpent she presents theological arguments. She is never

Women in Eden

135

portrayed as wanton, or as tempting or tempted sexually, nor does the biblical author single her out for greater blame than her partner."6 BISECTING THE ANDROGYNE The interpretation of Eve by Trible and her followers has stimulated a fresh and careful examination of the entire myth. For the Hebrews, Eden connoted an environment in which humans and animals were in perfect harmony with their creator. The noun "Eden" comes from a root meaning "delight." Ezra uses the word in reference to his land of Judah. In a prayer, he speaks to Yahweh of "vineyards, olive orchards, and fruit trees in abundance" by which the Israelites "delighted themselves in your great goodness."7 Isaiah thinks of Eden not as a geographic place but as a state of "joy and gladness," of "thanksgiving and the voice of song."8 In the first translation of Genesis, "paradise" (paradeisos, from a Persian word that designates a lovely enclosed park) was used by Greek scholars to express to the Mediterranean cultures what the Garden of Eden symbolized. The Eden paradise is the setting for an Israelite's androgyne myth. The myth aims at conveying truth through fiction about the way gender relationships should be.9 The teller is called the Yahwist by scholars, because Yahweh is the preferred name for deity. His or her story of a divine potter who inspires a mud figure has become the most mistranslated, the most misunderstood, yet the most influential myth ever told. In hopes of understanding the background of Eve, who first speaks in Genesis 3, an abridged version of the Eden story of Genesis 2 follows: God Yahweh formed the human from the humus [the Hebrew pun is ha-adamfromha-adamah].On receiving the breath of life, the human became a living being. Then Yahweh planted a park in Eden and placed the human there to enjoy it and to care for it. "You may eat fruit from ever tree of the park except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," Yahwe advised; "if you eat from that tree, you will die the same day." Yahweh said, "Solitary living is not lovely; I will make a suitable partner for the human." So out of the soil Yahweh formed every animal;

136


but not one of them proved to be a peer of the human. Then Yahweh cause the human to fall into a hypnotic trance in order to remove a body part. Closing up the flesh, Yahweh fashioned the part into a woman. When she was brought to the man, he exclaimed: "At last, this fe-male [ish-ah] an male [ish, a Hebrew pun] share bone and flesh!" That is why an andros leaves his father and his mother and clings to his gyne [using the translations for groom and bride in the Greek Septuagint, from which "androgyne" is derived], so that the two become one flesh. Now they were both naked, the husband and his wife, but they were unashamed.10 That enchanting Eden fantasy is not intended to be interpreted as matter-of-fact hominid history. In the paradaisal story, haadam—a compound of potter's clay and divinity—is placed first in the sequence of created things. The Hebrew word a dam has posed a problem for interpreters because, like the English word "man," it can refer either to the human species or to an adult male human. The use of the definite article ha explicitly indicates when adam is not a personal name. Since adam is not a proper name in Genesis 2, the "Adam" capitalization in the King James Version—which follows the Septuagint's implausible omission of the definite article—fails to convey its primary meaning. At the beginning of the story, ha-adam is an androgyne containing both sexes. Its physical components come from the soil of mother earth [adamah, feminine]. The earthling begins to live when inspirited by the Creator. The Yahwist deals with the question, why is the human created? The mythmaker affirms that the first purpose of human creation is the enjoyment and preservation of nature. After Yahweh causes the desert to bloom, the inspired dust is placed in an oasis filled with delights for eye and palate. That perennially verdant garden is at the headwaters of the earth's rivers. The human works as a caretaker to keep the flora continually productive and beautiful. The second purpose of creation is associated with "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The Hebrew idiom here is difficult to translate, but it refers to omniscience—a quality presumed to be an attribute of God alone. The human is confronted with a simple choice for demonstrating responsibility. Temptation is placed

Women in Eden

137

within the ideal environment to convey that choice is basic to paradise; it is a state where humans act voluntarily on standards that optimize life. The consequences of the exercise of moral freedom are awesome: If humanity is obedient to God and humble in its assumptions about the attainment of knowledge, the fruit of "the tree of life"—representing everlasting life—will be given; if humanity is disobedient and hubristic, spiritual death and the loss of Eden will ensue. Companionship is the third purpose of human creation. Yahweh has made an environment that is tob (that Hebrew term has an esthetic as well as moral connotation, so "good"—the standard translation—is not adequate) and is determined to have beauty in human relationships as well. Celibacy is declared to be not tob. Various animals are created to correct the deficiency, but the human feels too different from the fauna to find full partnership with a member of any other species. Although the story does not indicate why there is a discontinuity between humans and other animals, sexual behavior is one significant difference. Rutting is primarily for venereal relief, and a female animal receives a male only when in heat. In most species, these infrequent physiological encounters are largely devoid of individual affection. Because of incompatibilities between humans and beasts, Yahweh acts as a surgeon to create a partner who is truly fit. A section is performed on the sleeping androgyne, and sexual division results. Even as soil is made into the proto-human, so the separated parts of the latter are made into female and male. The surgical image in this myth may explain the etymology of the word "sex," which comes from the Latin verb secare, to cut. Sexuality becomes simultaneous for both parts when the surgery is performed. A key word in the cutting episode needs to be examined. Tsela is presumed in translations to mean "rib," even though the Hebrew does not suggest a specific part of the body. Apart from the Eden story, the other biblical uses of tsela have a nonanatomical reference and usually mean "side." In Exodus 26:20, for example, it refers to "the side of the tabernacle." The assumption that a rib was extracted

138


is due to a guess by the Greek translators. It seems that the original story tells of the removal of one side of a composite human. A theme pervading this profound psychological and theological myth is that the sexes share a fundamental equality. Yahweh makes no ranking of superiority or inferiority about the pristine human's parts that become sexually separated. God forms other creatures, according to the story, so that the human could associate with an ezer neged (ezer, when joined by neged, refers to a similar counterpart). These Hebrew words have commonly been rendered as "helpmate" or "fit helper," but a better translation would be "a suitable partner." In contemporary parlance, a helper refers to a person in a menial position who does unskilled work. An examination of the twenty other biblical usages of ezer, however, displays that it never connotes someone in a servile role. Ezer often refers to a superior person and is frequently associated with divine assistance. For example, a psalmist proclaims, "Happy are those whose helper [ezer] is the God of Jacob."11 The success of the second experiment for providing companionship is displayed when the postoperative residual male breaks out in a love song. As he responds to the woman, he understands his own sexuality. Loneliness is overcome, and intimacy has finally been found. The bond between them is so strong that parental ties become secondary, and the man leaves his home on becoming wedded. Amazingly, this marriage in Eden is unconstrained by the ancient conventions of patriarchy, which required the bride—but not the groom—to leave the parental home. The androgyne myth pictures not only an original wholeness and a sexual separation, but also a voluntary splicing. The main purpose of sexual intercourse among humans is love-making, not babymaking. The myth expresses the powerful compulsion that lovers experience to overcome their sense of fragmentation and to unite by means of mutual embracing. There is joy when the bisection is bonded into a totality. The creation story culminates with spouses entwined, achieving a guiltless satisfaction. Medieval Judaism was aware that Genesis tells of dividing a primeval androgyne. The Talmud conceives of the human prior to severance as being Janus-like, having a face looking in two direc-

Women in Eden

139

tions.12 Mircea Eliade, the eminent interpreter of religious mythology, has commented: "This is the unity of primal creation, before the making of Eve, when 'man' was neither male nor female."13 Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman has explained that the human had "a double face which was then severed in two."14 When God splits the sleeping androgyne with an ax, woman becomes the right side and man the left side. The story is similar to one from Greek mythology in which Zeus slices an androgyne longitudinally, causing each part to yearn for its other half.15 PARADISE CONTINUED The Song of Songs shows that some within ancient Israel treasured the outlook of the narrator of the Eden creation myth. Around 500 B.C.E., some love poems were composed and then later preserved with a title indicating excellence. "Songs of songs," like "king of kings," was the Hebrew idiom for expressing superlative degree. Rabbi Akiba was of the opinion that "all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies."16 Israel's loveliest song can be viewed as a midrash on the concluding portion of Genesis 2, especially expanding on the words "cleave" and "unashamed." A midrash is an imaginative interpretation that broadens and deepens a portion of the Torah. Liberties are taken with the biblical text in order to provide treatments that are both entertaining and morally edifying. Francis Landy has argued that "the Song transforms the images and motifs of the story of the Garden of Eden, so that it can be seen as a commentary on it."17 Landy has been influenced by Karl Barth, a leading twentieth century theologian, who called Genesis 2 the first "Magna Carta of humanity" and the Song of Songs the second. Barth found in the Song a reaffirmation of the original intent of creation and a prospectus of the goal of a new creation.18 How is the Song of Songs a continuation of those purposes of human creation found in Genesis? First, the Song describes the sensuous delights of the plants of paradise:

140


The fig tree puts forth green figs, And the vine blossoms give forth fragrance.19 The Song focuses on a couple who live mainly in rustic nature, where the wooded countryside forms the walls and roof of their dwelling: Our couch is green; The beams of our home are cedar, Our rafters are pine.20 The folk lyrics are especially sensitive to the way in which Palestinian springtime mirrors the awakening of love: Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; Look, the winter is past! The rain is over and gone; The flowers appear in the field; The time of singing has come, And the turtledove's cooing is heard in the land.21 According to the Song, this delightful environment is not intended to be a place of endless, idle indulgence. Humans work in their particular marvelous settings to take care of domestic plants and animals. The woman is tanned by the sun while cultivating grapes. Both genders share the labor of pasturing flocks.22 A dominant motif of the Song is that humans are created for close companionship. Animals are frequently mentioned, but not as sharers in the social community—or even as pets. The Song refers to foxes and other wild animals, often because they provide picturesque analogies: Roam, my beloved, like a gazelle, Or a young stag upon spice mountains.23 Her lover responds, also using animal imagery:

Women in Eden

141

Your eyes are doves behind your veil, Your hair is like a flock of goats. .. Your breasts are like two fawns.24 While treating animals as lovely and useful, the Song does not speak of them as an adequate cure for loneliness. When the pain of separation is described, it is evident that only a human companion of the opposite sex can relieve the agony. The bride tells of a dream in which she searches for her lost lover: When I found him whom I love I clung to him, and would not let him go Until I had brought him into my mother's house, And into the chamber of her that conceived me.25 The lyrics carry the common theme that fulfillment can be found in an intimate male-female relationship. Two naked bodies "cleave" together without shame, not primarily to reproduce but to express their mutual love. The fact that procreation is not mentioned in the Song indicates that the bond between the lovers has an intrinsic value apart from the possibility of reproduction. Both the Eden story and the Song romance have overtones of a wedding celebration. Some lines of the Song also suggest that the bridal couple engages in some role-playing during the days of the festivities. The groom pretends to be a king and the bride a queen in accord with Near Eastern custom.26 In ancient Judaism, crowns were worn at weddings, probably in imitation of royalty.27 Since Solomon was the greatest lover in Israel—at least on a quantitative scale—some of the nuptial activity probably consisted in carrying the groom down the street in a palanquin resembling the luxurious solomonic throne chair that is imagined to have silver posts, gold back, and purple seat. The wedding guests sing: Go forth .. . and behold King Solomon, Wearing the crown which his mother placed on his head On the day of his wedding.28

142


The bride is honored by her maids as a Solomoness (the probable meaning of "Shulammite").29 This female counterpart of the solomonic bridegroom sings: My king has brought me into his chambers; We will rejoice together.30 The Song evokes both negative and positive memories of Solomon. The king was a notorious polygamist who possessed an enormous harem. That historical fact conflicts with the high value placed on pair-bonding in the Song, so Solomon himself is treated with ambivalence. "You, O Solomon, may have the thousand," may allude to his 700 wives and 300 concubines.31 The Song's groom compares those queens and concubines invidiously to his own unique bride. He boasts: "My dove, my perfect one, is only one."32 Solomon and all his glory is not arrayed like his "lily of the valley."33 In the Song, as in Eden, the partnership is genuine. Nowhere in ancient literature can such rapturous mutuality be paralleled. The maiden initiates the erotic exchange: Let me drink the kisses of your mouth; For your caresses are better than wine.34 From that ardent opening onward, she more than holds her own in the recorded lines. She admires his radiant and ruddy complexion, his wavy raven-black hair, and his firm ivory-smooth body. His combination of strong muscles and delectable speech stimulates her desire.35 The groom affectionately reciprocates by giving a toe-tohead description as she dances. Her feet are graceful, her thighs rounded, her breasts ripe, and her breath aromatic.36 Thus, without subservience, each admires certain sexy qualities in the other. Recent interpreters have noted the egalitarian quality of the Song. Michael Fox has written: "Each lover invites the other to come away, each goes out to find the other, each knows moments of hesitation, each desires the culmination of their love as intensely as the other."37 Feminist scholar Carol Meyers has commented: "The Song of Songs,

Women in Eden

143

standing virtually alone among the biblical books . . . reveals a situation of gender mutuality. There is no trace of subordination of female to male, and there is a presence of power images for the female and not the male."38 Examples of the latter compare the woman to a military fortress and link her with the lion and leopard.39 The last way in which the Song echoes the affirmations of Genesis 2 on the purposes of human creation is in responsible choice-making. The Song is not intended as an expression of undisciplined sexuality. There is a note of moral commitment throughout the Song. The bride is proud of having been a strong "wall" in her youth and not an open "door."40 She restricted her sexual freedom and did not let down her defenses until she found the man of her dreams. Caution is advised in a constant refrain: "Do not awaken passion before it is ready to stir."41 The groom is proud that his bride has been "a garden locked, a fountain sealed."42 He looks forward to an exclusive and permanent relationship in the private park, when the bride removes the "no trespassing" sign: Let my love enter his garden, And partake of its choicest fruits.43 The monogamous bonding is "till death do us part." In the final chapter of the Song, the theme of steadfast love leaps to a blaze: Stamp me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, And passion is as unyielding as the grave. Its flashes are bolts of lightning, A holy flame. Raging rivers cannot quench love, Nor can floods drown it.44 Now that the long night of allegorical interpretations of the Song is over,45 it is again praised for its insights into how men and women should relate to one another. For example, Marcia Falk has commented:

144


The Song is special not only as a book of the Bible but as a classic of Western civilization. In the Song of Songs, women speak as assertively as men, initiating action at least as often; men are free to be as gentle, as vulnerable, even as coy as women. . . . Domination and subordination between the sexes, or, for that matter, sexual stereotyping of any kind, have no place in the Song. Remarkably, the Song seems to describe a nonsexist world, and thus it can act for us as an antidote to some of the themes of biblical patriarchy.46 The composers of the Song were probably realistic enough to know that life is no continuous honeymoon. Recognizing the fragile status of paradise, they nevertheless suggested that humans can be motivated better by pointing to life's raptures than to its torments. Biblical writers, from the Yahwist onward, were fully aware of human alienation. Beginning with Genesis 3, there are accounts of male domination, slavery, and other expressions of hostility in human relationships. Yet these writers were still convinced that humans can ally themselves with forces more powerful than Eden's serpent. The last picture of Eden in the Bible is like the first one, in that its setting is on the verdant earth. As in the Song of Songs, wedding imagery is used to describe its grandeur. Attributed to John of Patmos is this vision: "I saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride for her husband." Several times, John calls attention to the descent of this ideal city.47 In the midst of that city is the "tree of life," symbolizing the everlasting life that the Eden couple never received.48 That renewal of a primordial paradise will provide opportunities for intimate relations between men and women and for the appreciation of abundant and beautiful nature. John envisions the transformation of the current corruption into a holy community. Some church fathers endorsed John's outlook on the future. Tertullian, for example, associated the vision of a new Jerusalem with forecasts by Hebrew prophets of an altogether changed earthly kingdom.49 Still, most Christians living centuries later have presumed that evil is too imbedded in the social order to be eradicated. Consequently, the concluding chapters of Revelation have generally been interpreted as pertaining to a final blissful home for the

Women in Eden

145

blessed far removed from the perennially unholy earth. Augustine, for example, thought that John was describing immortal and incorruptible citizens in a heavenly Jerusalem.50 In mainline Christianity, little consideration has been given to the paradaisal pictures of Eden, the Song of Songs, or the New Jerusalem as providing a pattern of living that can affect present relationships. Contemporary theologian Shirley Guthrie's interpretation of the concluding symbolism of the Book of Revelation stands out from traditional Christian thought. He has found there a picture of the fulfillment of human life here and now, not the annihilation of creation. Guthrie has related the glimpses of paradise at the two ends of the Christian Bible in this way: In the "New Jerusalem" there will be community without uniformity, individuality without irresponsibility Does not this image of a perfect city draw together everything we are told that God the Creator willed from the beginning when he created men [that is, women and men] to find their individual fulfillment as they live not alone, but together (Genesis 1:2731; 2:18)? Does it not summarize the new humanity of Christ which frees us to be ourselves as we are reconciled with God and with people who used to be strangers or enemies?51 The myths of one era can contribute to the establishment of social practices at a later time. Significantly, the historical Jesus was one of the first Jews to state that he regarded the Eden creation story to be normative. This was done in the context of criticizing the androcentric Mosaic law that made divorce the exclusive prerogative of men and permitted it even on trivial grounds.52 After quoting the conclusion of the Eden story about marital oneness, Jesus commented: "What then God has joined together, let no one separate."53 He saw divine activity in the mutual synthesis as well as in the initial creation and in the sexual separation. Like the Hebrew mythmaker, Jesus himself associated full human life with a blending of characteristics from both genders.


Notes CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. E.g., Stanlee Phelps and Nancy Austin, The Assertive Woman (San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Impact Publishers, 1987); Robert Alberti and Michael Emmons, Your Perfect Right (San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Impact Publishers, 1986). 2. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 9 in Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), Robert Hutchins, ed., 40, 93. 3. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "The Princess," 5, 437-440. 4. E.g., Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (New York: New American Library, 1950); John Money and Anke Ehrhardt, Man and Woman (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press, 1972). 5. Denise Carmody, Women and World Religions (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1979), 25-31; Elizabeth Davis, The First Sex (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1972), 33-96. 6. Vem and Bonnie Bullough, The Subordinate Sex (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1974), 335. 7. Phyllis Trible, "Biblical Theology as Women's Work," Religion in Life (Spring 1975): 11.

148

Notes

8. Carol Meyers, "The Roots of Destruction," in The Bible and Liberation, Norman Gottwald, ed. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983), 289306; Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 169-176. 9. Andre LaCocque, The Feminine Unconventional (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 4. 10. Exod. 34:28. 11. Harold Rowley, ed., Peake s Commentary on the Bible (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 227-229. 12. Exod. 20:3-17. 13. Sirach 42:14. 14. Claudia Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield, England; JSOT Press, 1985), 85. 15. Prov. 6:20; see also 1:8, 4:1-3, 10:1, 15:20, 23:22-25. 16. Prov. 31:1. 17. Prov. 3:15, 31:10. 18. Rowley, Peake's Commentary, 457. 19. Tamar Frankiel, The Voice of Sarah (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), 60. 20. Prov. 5:3-4, 7:6-21. 21. Prov. 31:17. 22. 1 Sam. 28:8-19. 23. 1 Sam. 25:2-42. 24. 2 Sam. 14:1-23. 25. 2 Sam. 20:16-22. 26. Lev. 12:2-5, 15:19-24. 27. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1956), 14:600; William Phipps, "The Menstrual Taboo in the Judeo-Christian Tradition," Journal of Religion and Health 19(1980):300. 28. Num. 26:33; Judg. 1:11-15; Neh. 6:14. CHAPTER 2: THE SAGA OF SARAH 1. Isa. 51:1-2. 2. Gal. 3:7,4:26. 3. Gen. 12:18-19. 4. "The Wisdom of Ptah-Hotep" in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. James Pritchard (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955), 413.

Notes

149

5. Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, in Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1958), 388-389. 6. Letty Russell, ed., Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 77. 7. Gen. 29:31-30:24. 8. Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (New York: Harper, 1960), 175. 9. Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939), 119-182. 10. Sebastian Brock, "Genesis 22: Where was Sarah?" The Expository Times 96 (19M):\5-16. 11. Arthur Cawley, ed., Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays (London: Dent, 1956), 58. 12. Joseph Gaer, The Lore of the Old Testament (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951), 100; Angelo Rappoport, Myth and Legend of Ancient Israel (New York: Ktav Publishers, 1966), 1:307. 13. Charles Guiteau, The Truth and the Removal (Washington: 1882), p. 132. 14. United Press International, Bluefield, West Virginia, Feb. 12, 1962. 15. Lev. 20:2; 2 Kings 3:27, 16:3, 21:6. 16. Philo, On Abraham 19, in T. E. Page, ed., Philo (The Loeb Classical Library) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935). 17. Josephus, Antiquities 1, 8, in G. P. Goold, Josephus (The Loeb Classical Library) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928). 18. 1 Pet. 3:6-7. 19. Gen. 18:12. 20. Heb. 11:11. 21. "Sarah," in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1902).

CHAPTER 3: TAMAR AND IRREGULAR PARENTING 1. The Mishnah, Yebamoth 6:6. 2. Deut. 25:7. 3. Gen. 38:9. 4. Phyllis Bird, "Images of Women in the Old Testament," in Religion and Sexism, ed. Rosemary Ruether (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974), 66-67.

150

Notes

5. Gen. 38:26. 6. Num. 26:19-22. 7. Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 23-24. 8. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 357. 9. Harold Bloom, The Book of J (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 220-223; Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 86. 10. Ruth 4:12. 11. Matt. 1:3-16. 12. John 8:3-11; Deut. 22:23-24. 13. Walter Bmeggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 311. 14. Helmut Lehmann, ed., Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962), 45:20. 15. The Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 13a; Louis Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1948), 144-146. 16. Solomon Ganzfried, ed., Code of Jewish Laws (New York: Hebrew Publishing, 1927), chap. 151, sec. 1-2. 17. Eccl. 9:10. 18. See William Phipps, "Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?" Journal of Religion and Health 16(1977): 185-188. 19. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1989). 20. "Onanism," in Dictionary of Moral Theology, ed. Pietro Palazzini (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1962); the same judgment is expressed in "Masturbation," New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967). 21. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: McGraw Hill, 1963), 43:242-249.

CHAPTER 4: WOMEN SAVIORS 1. Neh.9:27. 2. Burton Leiser, Liberty, Justice, and Morals (New York: Macmillan, 1986), 368-369. 3. Terence Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1991), 33-34. 4. Henrietta Buckmaster, Let My People Go (Boston: Beacon, 1941), 214-215.

Notes

151

5. Time, Feb. 12, 1990, p.45. 6. Exod. 6:20; Num. 26:59. 7. Mic. 6:4. 8. Waldo Beach, The Christian Life: Teacher}s Book (Richmond, Va.:CLC Press, 1966), 91. 9. Gen. 39:8-9. 10. Theodoret, Church History 1, 17, in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, 3:54; Will Durant, Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1944), 655. 11. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1, 28. 12. Quoted in Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 15. 13. Flexner, Century of Struggle, 51. 14. Exod. 2:5-10. 15. Exod. 15:20-21. 16. James Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1954), 66. 17. A. Blackman, "On the Position of Women in the Ancient Egyptian Hierarchy," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 7 (1921): 8. 18. Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6-7. 19. Philo, On a Contemplative Life 11, in Page, Philo. 20. E.g., William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 14. 21. Ps. 68:25. 22. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship (New York: Abingdon, 1962), 1:10. 23. Ps. 106:10. 24. Jth. 15:13. 25. 1 Clement 55:3, in Robert Grant, The Apostolic Fathers (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965), 2:87. 26. Luke 1:51-53. 27. Robert Pfeiffer, Religion in the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1961), 83. 28. Ezek.2:2. 29. Num. 12:2. 30. Exod. 15:14, 17. 31. Peggy Day, ed., Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 178, 182, 189. 32. Sirach 25:24.

752

Notes

33. Sirach 44-50. 34. E.g., "Exodus," Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1962); "Exodus from Egypt," New Catholic Encyclopedia. 35. Robert Davidson, The Courage to Doubt (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989), 58-59. 36. Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1985). 37. Rita Bums, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 121. 38. Bums, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken, 40,123. 39. Judg. 4:6, 5:20-22. 40. Judg. 2:16. 41. Judg. 4:6-8, 14. 42. Danna Fewell and David Gunn, "Controlling Perspectives," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 58, n.3 (1990):396. 43. Judg. 4:9, 17-22; 5:24-27. 44. Norah Lofts, Women in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 47. 45. Judg. 9:53-54. 46. Judg. 4:5. 47. Judg. 8:27. 48. Judg. 11:30-39. 49. Judg. 15:3-13. 50. Heb. 11:32. 51. Judg. 4:8. 52. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ed., The Woman's Bible, (New York: European Publishing Company, 1895), 2:21. 53. Judg. 5:7 54. Golda Meir, My Life (New York: Dell, 1975), 409-414. 55. Jth. 9:11. 56. Norman Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979), 593-596, 643-647. 57. Judg. 5:31. CHAPTER 5: NAOMI AND RUTH 1. See Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 562-563. 2. Num. 30:2.

Notes

153

3. Judg. 11:1-12:7. 4. Heb. 11:32-33. 5. Judg. 19:22-30. 6. Judg. 21:11. 7. Gen. 25:23, 30; 32:28. 8. Gen. 19:37. 9. Deut. 32:31-32. 10. Num. 21:29; 25:1-5. 11. Deut. 23:3. 12. Judg. 3:12-30. 13. 2 Sam. 8:2. 14. Amos 2:1-3; Isa. 15-16; Ezek. 25:8-11. 15. Jer. 48:38. 16. Zeph.2:9. 17. D. Winton Thomas, Documents from Old Testament Times (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958), 196. 18. 1 Kings 11:1-8. 19. Ezra 9:1-10:44. 20. Neh. 13:23-25. 21. Judg. 8:22-23. 22. ISam. 18:3; 2 Sam 1:26. 23. 2 Sam. 3:2-5, 11:2-3. 24. Heb. 11. 25. Gen. 12:1; Josh. 24:2. 26. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 173-174. 27. Lev. 19:9-10; Deut. 24:19. 28. John Keats, "Ode to a Nightingale," 7. 29. Deut. 28:57; Ezek. 16:25. 30. Isa. 7:20. 31. Ezek. 16:8. 32. LaCocque, Feminine Unconventional, 105. 33. Claudia Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine, 128, 132. 34. Ruth 2:12. 35. Ps. 17:8. 36. Ruth 3:9. 37. Ronald Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 18-19. 38. Rom. 8:28. 39. Phil. 2:12-13.

154

Notes

40. Sirach 2:5. 41. D. F. Rauber, "Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth," Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970):34-35. 42. Lev. 22:13. 43. IChron. 2:54. 44. Gen. 25:1, 38:2, 41:45; Exod. 2:21; Num. 12:1. 45. Josh. 2:1-21; 6:22-25. 46. Norman Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 556-557. 47. Eph. 2:12-19. 48. Robert Wilson, The Travels of that Well-Known Pedestrian (London, 1907), 92. 49. Henry Stiles, Bundling (Albany, N.Y., 1871). 50. Andrew Bumaby, Travels Through the Middle Settlements in North America (London, 1775), 144; Thomas Anburey, Travels Through the Interior Parts of America (London, 1781), 49. 51. Mitford Mathews, A Dictionary of Americanisms (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951). 52. Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1888), 218. 53. Arthur Calhoun, A Social History of the American Family (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1945), 1:130-131. 54. Robert Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (New York: Doran, n.d.), 1:848. 55. Quoted by Monroe Aurand, Origin of Bundling (Harrisburg, Pa.: Aurand, 1938), 32. 56. Ernest Turner, A History of Courting (New York: Dutton, 1955), 234. 57. Time, Dec. 12, 1969, p. 68. 58. "Ruth," Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972).

CHAPTER 6: BOLD AND UNSCRUPULOUS RULERS 1. Apart from biblical translators, Ithobaal is the usual transliteration of this king's name. An account of this ruler is contained in the history written by Meander of Ephesus. This record was preserved by Josephus; see Antiquities 8, 13, and Against Apion 1, 18. 2. Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985), 23-24.

Notes

155

3. 1 Kings 5:6-11, 11:1. 4. Ps.45:9; 1 Kings 9:27-28. 5. Ps.45:8; 1 Kings 22:39. 6. John Gray, The Canaanites (New York: Praeger, 1964), 168— 169. 7. Magnus Magnusson, Archaeology of the Bible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977), 163. 8. 1 Kings 11:7-8; 16:31-33. 9. 1 Kings 18:4, 19. 10. Pritchard, Ancient New Eastern Texts, 136. 11. Gerhard Herm, The Phoenicians (New York: Morrow, 1975), 102-123. 12. Pritchard, Ancient Near East In Pictures, 163-164. 13. W. B. Fleming, The History of Tyre (New York: Columbia University Press, 1915), 151-152. 14. 2 Kings 9:22. 15. William Phipps, Recovering Biblical Sensuousness (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 22-23, 100-101. 16. Deut. 23:17. 17. E.g., Judg. 8:33; Deut. 31:16; 1 Chron. 5:25. 18. 1 Kings 16:32, 22:8. 19. 1 Kings 18:21. 20. 1 Kings 18:27. 21. Mark 3:22. 22. 1 Sam. 15:10-35; 2 Sam. 12:1-15. 23. 1 Kings 18:18-19. 24. 1 Kings 19:1-18. 25. Ps.45:6. 26. Herm, Phoenicians, 128-129. 27. Ezek. 28:2. 28. 1 Kings 21:7. 29. Naham Avigad, "The Seal of Jezebel," Israel Exploration Journal 14 (1964):274-276. 30. 2 Kings 9:26. 31. 1 Kings 22:52; 2 Kings 1:2. 32. 2 Kings 9:30-37. 33. 2 Kings 13:6. 34. Hos. 4:12-14. 35. Amos 2:7. 36. Amos 4:1.

156

Notes

37. Amos 6:1,4. 38. Mic. 2:1-2. 39. 2 Chron. 22:3. 40. 2 Chron. 24:7. 41. Brenner, Israelite Women, 29-31. 42. 2 Chron. 22:10-23:17, 33:19. 43. Georgia Harkness, John Calvin (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1948), 154-155. 44. Rev. 2:20. 45. Herm, Phoenicians, 102. 46. Num. 32:23. 47. 2 Sam. 11-15. 48. Mark 6:17-29. 49. Philip Wylie, A Generation of Vipers (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1942), 184-193. 50. Stephen Sondheim, The Stephen Songheim Songbook, comp. Sheridan Morley (N.Y.: Chappel, 1979).

CHAPTER 7: THE IMPACT OF HULDAH 1. 2 Kings 22:3-20; 2 Chron. 34:8-28. 2. 2 Kings 21:16. 3. Heb. 11:37; Yebamoth 49b. 4. 2 Kings 22:15. 5. Arlene Swidler, "In Search of Huldah," The Bible Today 16 (November 1978): 1783. 6. Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 81-82. 7. The Mishnah, Middoth 1:3. 8. Martin McNamara, ed., The Aramaic Bible (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987) 10:309. 9. The Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14g. 10. Jer. 36:4, 32. 11. James Crenshaw, "Education in Ancient Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 104(1985):614. 12. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), 1:49; Prov. 1:8,6:20,31:1. 13. 1 Kings 21:8. 14. Acts 21:9.

Notes

157

15. Apostolic Constitutions 8, 20, in Alexander Roberts, The AnteNicene Fathers (New York: Scribner's, 1925) 7:492. 16. Cited in David Laing, ed., The Works of John Knox (Edinburgh, 1855), 4:357. 17. William Phipps, Influential Theologians on Wo/man (Washington, D. C : University Press of America, 1980), 85-90. 18. Roland Bainton, Women of the Reformation in Germany and Italy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1971), 55; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17. 19. Margaret Fell, Women's Speaking Justified (London, 1667), p.13. 20. George Fox, A Collection of Many Select and Christian Epistles (London, 1698), 2:324. 21. Carol Berkin and Mary Norton, Women of America: A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979), 120. 22. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle, 71-75. 23. Stanton, Woman s Bible 1:13. 24. Ibid. 2:81-82. 25. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More (London: Unwin, 1898), 446. 26. Donald Gorrell, ed., Woman's Rightful Place (Dayton, Ohio: Union Theological Seminary, 1980), 21. 27. Rowley, Peake's Commentary, 357-369; Abraham Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). 28. John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 317-319. 29. George Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Bible (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1954) 3:539-540. 30. SeeJer. 1:2; 2 Kings 22:3. 31. James Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (Edinburgh: Clark, 1951), 525. 32. Stanley Shaloff, Reform in Leopold's Congo (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1970); William Phipps, The Sheppards and Lapsley (Louisville, Ky.: Presbyterian Church USA, 1991).

CHAPTER 8: FEMINIST AND FEMININE QUEENS 1. Jacob Neusner, Esther Rabbah I (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholar's Press, 1989), 94.

158

Notes

2. Herodotus, History 1, 8-12, in T. E. Page, ed., Herodotus (The Loeb Classical Library) (London: Putnam, 1931). 3. Stanton, Woman's Bible, 2:86-88. 4. "Vashti," Encyclopaedia Judaica. 5. 1 Pet. 3:1. 6. Martin Luther, Tischreden (Weimar, 1912) 1:208. 7. Walther Brandt, ed., Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962), 45:34. 8. 1 Sam. 15. 9. Gen. 27:5-17. 10. Gerda Lemer, The Grimke Sisters from South Carolina (New York: Shocken Books, 1971), 371-372. 11. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine, 135-136. 12. Esther 7:3-4. 13. lEsd. 3:1-42. 14. Xenophon, Cyropaedeia 6, 17-18; 7, 60-5, in T. E. Page, ed., Xenophon's Cyropaedia (The Loeb Classical Library) (New York: Macmillan, 1914). 15. Esther 2:5^6. 16. Herodotus, History 3, 84; 9, 109-110. 17. Day, Gender and Difference,^. 173. 18. Nancy Tischler, Legacy of Eve (Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox, 1977), 88-89. 19. Mary Ellen Chase, The Bible and the Common Reader (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 200-203. CHAPTER 9: SELF-ASSURED WOMEN IN THE GOSPELS 1. Mark 7:24-30; Matt. 15:21-28. 2. The Mishnah, Aboth 1:5. 3. 1 Kings 17:8-24. 4. Luke 4:25-26. 5. Matt. 10:5,28:19. 6. Luke 2:52. 7. Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6. 8. Luke 2:32; Matt. 12:15-21. 9. Mark 5:26. 10. Karen Paige, "Women Learn to Sing the Menstrual Blues," Psychology Today, September 1973, p.46.

Notes

159

11. Lev. 15:19. 12. Lev. 15:27. 13. Josephus, Against Apion 2, 103; Isa. 56:7; Mark 11:17. 14. William Phipps, "The Menstrual Taboo in the Judeo-Christian Tradition," Journal of Religion and Health, 19 (1980):299300. 15. Mark 5:33. 16. Rachel Wahlberg, Jesus According To A Woman (New York: Paulist, 1975), 36. 17. Mark 7:18-23. 18. Mark 5:34. 19. Reproduced in Gerald Gassiot-Talabot, Roman and PalaeoChristian Painting (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1969), 79. 20. Eusebius, Church History 1, 18 in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890)1:304. 21. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 11, 7 in Allan Menziee, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Scribner's, 1925) 9:436. 22. R. H. Connolly, ed., Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929) 255. 23. Gregory the Great, Letter 64, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina (Paris, 1896)77:522. 24. Maria Selvidge, Women, Cult, and Miracle Recital (Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1990), 83. 25. Erik Erikson, Dimensions of a New Identity (New York: Norton, 1974), 48-19. 26. Laurence Cherry, "The Power of the Empty Pill," Science Digest, September 1981, p. 60. 27. Bernie Siegal, Love, Medicine, and Miracles (New York: Harper & Row, 1986). 28. Norman Cousins, Head First (New York: Dutton, 1989). 29. Luke 18:1-6. 30. Luke 11:9. 31. Luke 10:40. 32. Luke 10:39; Acts 22:3. 33. The Mishnah, Aboth 1:5; Sotah 3:4, The Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 19a. 34. John 20:17-18; Rom. 16:6. This latter verse should be translated: "Greet those outstanding apostles, Andronicus and Junia."

160

Notes

35. Quoted in Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1944), 431. 36. Luke 10:41-42. 37. Constance Parvey, "The Theology and Leadership of Women in the New Testament," in Religion and Sexism, ed. Rosemary Ruether (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 141, 144. 38. Wahlberg, Jesus According to a Woman, 84. 39. Robert Leslie, Jesus and Logotherapy (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1965), 85-86. 40. Paul Tillich, The New Being (New York: Scribner's, 1955), 152160. 41. Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper, 1958), 1, 9. 42. Mark 15:40-41; Matt. 27:56; Luke 8:2, 24:10. 43. Carolyn and Joseph Grassi, Mary Magdalene and the Women in Jesus' Life (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1986), 60-63. 44. Mark 15:40-41. 45. Eaton Barrett, "Woman," part 1, line 141, in Burton Stevenson, The Home Book of Quotations (New York: Dodd & Mead, 1967), 2183. 46. John 20:18. 47. 1 Cor. 9:1. 48. Acts 26:12-19. 49. Luke 24:11. 50. Josephus, Antiquities 4, 219. 51. ICor. 15:3-7. 52. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina (Paris, 1844-1866), vol. 112, col. 1474b; vol. 183, col. 1148. 53. Gospel of Mary 10-18 in James Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 472-473. 54. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 1:250, 257. 55. Pistis Sophia 1:36, in Carl Schmidt, ed., Pistis Sophia (Leiden: Brill, 1978). 56. Pistis Sophia 1:17, 19. 57. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Edinburgh, 1846), 3:338-339. 58. Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, Humanity in God (New York: Pilgrim, 1983), 6. 59. Gen. 27:5-17. 60. Luke 2:48. 61. Mark 3:21, 31-32.

Notes

161

CHAPTER 10: WOMEN LEADERS AND PAUL 1. Bernard Shaw, Selected Plays (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1948), 1:825. 2. Davis, First Sex, 230. 3. 1 Cor. 14:34. Although some scholars hold that this judgment was not written by Paul but was inserted by a second century editor, there is a paucity of textual evidence to support this wishful thinking. 4. The Pope Speaks, 15 (1970):221; Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2-2, q. 177, 2. 5. ICor. 11:5. 6. 1 Cor. 12:28. 7. ICor. 14:30-31. 8. Ross Kraemer, Ecstatics and Ascetics: Studies in the Functions of Religious Activities for Women in the Greco-Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1976), 117-132. 9. ICor. 1:11. 10. Parvey, "The Theology and Leadership of Women," 130131. 11. Gal. 3:27-28. 12. Acts 16:14. 13. Acts 12:12; Col. 4:15. 14. Acts 2:42. 15. Phil. 4:3. 16. Phil. 4:1. 17. Clement, Miscellanies 3, 53. 18. Ernest Renan, Saint Paul (New York, 1875), 115. 19. 1 Cor. 7:8; see William Phipps, Was Jesus Married? (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 104-106. 20. Acts 17:4, 12. 21. Acts 17:11. 22. IThess. 4:21. 23. John Balsdon, Roman Women (London: Bodley Head, 1963), 276-277. 24. Sarah Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York: Schocken, 1975), 200. 25. Arthur Nock, St. Paul (New York: Harper, 1963), 199. 26. Some ancient Greek texts note at the end of Rom. 16: "Written to Romans from Corinth; [carried] by Phoebe the minister of the church in Cenchreae."

762

Notes

27. Ignatius, Trallians 2:3-3:1 in Helmut Koester, ed., Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 140. 28. Didascalia Apostolorum 2, 26. 29. 1 Tim. 3:11. 30. Pliny, Letters 10, 46. 31. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca (Paris, 1857-1866), vol. 14, col. 1278. 32. Arthur Ide, Woman as Priest, Bishop and Laity (Mesquite, Tex.: Ide House, 1984), 39-40. 33. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 422^23. 34. 1 Tim. 3:10, 13. 35. Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940). 36. 1 Clement 36:1; 61:3; 64. 37. E.g., IThess. 5:12. 38. The Revised English Bible; The New Jerusalem Bible. 39. Dorothy Irvin, "Archaeology Supports Women's Ordination," The Witness, 63 (Feb. 1980):6. 40. Rom. 16:1-2. 41. Elisabeth Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 170. 42. Acts 18:1-3. 43. Rom. 16:21; 2 Cor. 8:23; Philem. 24. 44. ICor. 16:19; Rom. 16:5. 45. Terrien, Till the Heart Sings, 176. 46. Irvin, "Archaeology Supports Women's Ordination," 6. 47. Rom. 16:3. 48. 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8; Acts 19:23-41. 49. Acts 18:24-25, 19:1-4. 50. Acts 18:26. 51. Acts 28:23. 52. Terrien, Till The Heart Sings, 179. 53. Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25, in G. P. Goold, ed., Suetonius (The Loeb Classical Library) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979). 54. Acts 2:9; 18:1. 55. Adolf Hamack, "Probabilia uber die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebraebriefs," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1, (1900): 16-41.

Notes

163

56. Arthur Peake, The Century Bible: Hebrews (London: Caxton, n.d.), 37-38; Terrien, Till The Heart Sings, 177-83. 57. Perry Miller and Thomas Johnson, The Puritans (New York: Harper, 1963), 134. 58. John Winthrop, The Short Story of the Rise, Reign, and Ruine of the Antinomians, quoted in The Female Experience, ed. Gerda Lemer (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977), 465-469. 59. Denise Carmody, Biblical Woman (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 122. 60. ICor. 9:1. 61. 1 Cor. 9:6, 15:7; Gal. 1:19. 62. Wayne Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 113. 63. Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 31 in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889) 11:555. 64. 1 Tim. 2:12-15. 65. Robin Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972):294, 302-303; Scroggs expands on this position in "Woman in the New Testament," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1976).

CHAPTER 11: WOMEN IN EDEN 1. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life (New York: Harper, 1966), 181; Genesis Rabbah 18, 2, in H. Freedman, ed., Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1939). 2. John Milton, Paradise Lost 10:884; Al-Bukhari, Sahih, quoted in part from Arthur Jeffery, ed., A Reader on Islam (The Hague: Mouton, 1962), 83. 3. Eva Figes, Patriarchal Attitudes (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1970), 38-39. 4. Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman (New York: Harcourt, 1976), xi, 224. 5. Phyllis Trible, "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (March 1974):40. This insight came from Samuel Terrien, "a learned scholar but hardly a feminist." While enrolled in his Old Testament theology course, Trible took these notes: "The portrayal of the man in the garden is not the

164

Notes

portrayal of a patriarch. Whereas the woman is depicted as alert, intelligent, and sensitive, the man comes off as passive, bland, and belly-oriented." "The Pilgrim Bible on a Feminist Journey," The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 11, no. 3 (1990), p. 236; compare Samuel Terrien, "Toward a Biblical Theology of Womanhood," Religion in Life 42(October 1973):327. 6. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "Women," in Harper's Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul Achtemeier (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1140. 7. Neh.9:25. 8. Isa. 51:3. 9. William Phipps, Genesis and Gender (New York: Praeger, 1989), xi-xvi. 10. Gen. 2:7-25. 11. Ps. 146:5. 12. The Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 18a; Berakhot 61a. 13. Mircea Eliade, The Two and the One (London: Harvill, 1965), 106. 14. Genesis Rabbah 8,1. 15. Plato, Symposium 189-193. 16. The Mishnah, Yadaim 3:5. 17. Francis Landy, "The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden," Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):513, 528. 18. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: Clark, 1958-59), vol. 3, pt. 1:312-329; 3, pt. 2:291-300. 19. Song of Sol. 2:13. 20. Song of Sol. 1:16-17. 21. Song of Sol. 2:10-12. 22. Song of Sol. 1:6-8. 23. Song of Sol. 2:17. 24. Song of Sol. 4:1,5. 25. Song of Sol. 3:4. 26. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 487. 27. The Mishnah, Sotah 9:14. 28. Song of Sol. 3:11. 29. Song of Sol. 6:13. 30. Song of Sol. 1:4. 31. Song of Sol. 8:12; 1 Kings 11:3. 32. Song of Sol. 6:9. 33. Song of Sol. 2:1-2; Matt. 6:29.

Notes

165

34. Song of Sol. 1:2. 35. Song of Sol. 5:10-16. 36. Song of Sol. 7:1-9. 37. Michael Fox, "Love, Passion, and Perception in Israelite and Egyptian Love Poetry," Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983):228. 38. Meyers, Discovering Eve, 180. 39. Song of Sol. 4:4, 8. 40. Song of Sol. 8:9-10. 41. Song of Sol. 2:7,3:5,8:4. 42. Song of Sol. 4:12. 43. Song of Sol. 4:16. 44. Song of Sol. 8:6-7. 45. See William Phipps, "The Plight of the Song of Songs," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 42 (1974): 82-100. 46. James Mays, ed., Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 528. 47. Rev. 3:12,21:2, 10. 48. Gen. 3:22; Rev. 22:2. 49. Tertullian, Against Marcion 3, 25 in Alexander Roberts, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Scribner's, 1899) 3:342. 50. Augustine, The City of God 20, 17 in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner's, 1887) 2:436. 51. Shirley Guthrie, Christian Doctrine (Richmond, Va.: CLC Press, 1968), 393. 52. Phipps, Was Jesus Married? 82-83. 53. Mark 10:8-9.


Selected Bibliography Carmody, Denise. Biblical Woman: Contemporary Reflections on Scriptural Texts. New York: Crossroad, 1988. Day, Peggy, ed. Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schusler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Meyers, Carol. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth. Humanity in God. New York: Pilgrim, 1983. Phipps, William. Genesis and Gender: Biblical Myths of Sexuality and Their Cultural Impact. New York: Praeger, 1989. Ruether, Rosemary, ed. Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Tradition. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974. Russell, Letty, ed. Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, ed. The Woman s Bible. New York: European Publishing, 1895; reissued by Amo, 1974. Terrien, Samuel. Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.


Index Abigail, 7 Abraham, 9-17, 19-20, 34, 55, 63 Adams, Abigail, 36 Adultery, 4, 10-11,25 Ahab, 70-77 Amos, 50, 77 Anna, 87-88, 105 Anthony, Susan B., 113 Aquinas, Thomas, 28 Archaeology, 2, 4, 71, 77, 100, 126 Asherah, 69-72, 77, 79 Athaliah, 7, 69, 76, 78-80

Boaz, 56-66 Brenner, Athalya, 70, 78 Brueggemann, Walter, 25 Bundling, 65-66 Bums, Rita, 41

Baal, 50, 70-73,78 Barak, 42,44-45 Barrett, Eaton, 115 Barth, Karl, 139 Bird, Phyllis, 22 Bloom, Harold, 24

David, 7, 25, 38,43, 50, 54-55, 60, 70, 74, 79 Davis, Elizabeth, 119 Deborah, 7, 31,A2-A6, 87-88 Deuteronomic history, 48^1-9, 52 Dyer, Mary, 88

Calvin, John, 79, 87-88, 117 Camp, Claudia, 5, 60, 98 Canon, 48, 83, 85, 92 Carmody, Denise, 128 Chase, Mary Ellen, 102-103 Chrysostom, John, 129-130 Clement of Alexandria, 122 Cousins, Norman, 111

170 Egalitarianism, 3 ^ , 45 Egypt, 4, 10-13, 16,32 Elijah, 71-75, 106 Erikson, Erik, 110-111 Esthen, 96-103 Ethbaal, 69-70 Ethnocentricism, 53, 107 Eusebius, 35, 109 Eve, 53, 58, 133-139 Exum, Cheryl, 12 Ezekiel, 40, 50 Ezra, 31, 50-51, 101, 135 Falk, Marcia, 143-144 Fiorenza, Elisabeth, 92, 126 Fox, George, 88 Fox, Margaret, 88 Frankiel, Tamar, 6 Fretheim, Terence, 32 Freud, Sigmund, 34 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, 134 Gideon, 44, 51 Gottwald, Norman, 64 Gregory the Great, 110 Grimke, Angelina, 98 Guthrie, Shirley, 145 Hagar, 12-13,20 Haman, 97-101 Hannah, 8, 20 Hamack, Adolf, 127 Helena, 35 Herodias, 69,79-80 Hitler, Adolf, 32, 103 Hosea, 77 Huldah, 7, 83-92 Hutchinson, Anne, 128 Ignatius, 124

Index

Infertility, 12, 19-21 Isaac, 12-15 Isaiah, 9, 50, 58, 84, 107, 135 Islam, 9, 13, 133 Jacob, 21, 63 Jael, 42-43,45 Jephthah's daughter, 38, 44, 48 Jeremiah, 50, 85-86, 90-91 Jesus, 25, 35, 63-64, 105-118, 130 Jezebel, 69-80,106 Job, 56 Jochebed, 33-37 John Paul II, 125 John the Baptist, 80 Joseph, 24, 35, 61-63 Josephus, 16, 116 Judah, 21-25 Judith, 39,45 Junia, 128-129 Kant, Immanuel, 13 Kierkegaard, Soren, 13 Knox, John, 79, 87 LaCocque, Andre, 59 Leslie, Robert, 114 Levirate, 20, 23, 25-26, 53, 57, 59 Luther, Martin, 26, 96, 128 Lydia, 121-122 Martha, 112-114 Marx, Karl, 89 Mary of Bethany, 112-114, 122 Mary of Magdala, 88, 115-118 Mary of Nazareth, 3 9 ^ 0 Masturbation, 27-28 Meeks, Wayne, 129

Index

Meir, Golda, 45 Menstruation, 8, 107-108 Meyers, Carol, 4, 142-143 Micah, 77 Midrash, 11, 14, 133, 139 Milton, John, 133 Miriam, 7, 31, 33-34, 37-42, 46,118 Mishnah, 20, 86, 108 Misogyny, 5, 41 Moabites, 15,49-56, 59-61, 6 3 64,67 Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, 117 Montgomery James, 91 Mordecai, 96-101 Moses, 26, 33-41,48, 63, 84 Muslim traditions, 9, 13, 133 Naboth, 74-76 Naomi, 47-48, 51-63, 67 Nehemiah, 51 Origen, 109, 125 Parks, Rosa, 33 Parvey, Constance, 113, 120 Paul, 9, 61, 116, 119-131 Peter, 88, 96, 109, 115-117, 130 Philo, 16, 38 Phoebe, 123-126, 130 Potiphar's wife, 24, 35 Priscilla, 8,126-128 Prostitution, 22, 64 Proverbs, 5-7 Psalms, 57,70 Rachel, 12, 20, 60 Rahab, 16, 63 Rebekah, 8,49, 98, 118

171 Ruth, 25, 47-67, 103 Samson, 44, 102 Samuel, 42, 52, 74 Sarah, 8-17,19-20, 34, 55 Saul, 7, 42, 54, 97 Schaberg, Jane, 23 Scroggs, Robin, 131 Selvidge, Maria, 110 Septuagint, 48-49, 101, 136 Shaw, George Bernard, 119 Siegal, Bemie, 111 Sirach, 11,41 Solomon, 41, 70-71, 141-142 Song of Songs, 47, 139-145 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 44-45, 89-90, 94-95 Susanna, 25 Swidler, Arlene, 85 Talmud, 27 Tamar, 19-29, 57, 59-60 Ten Commandments, 4, 32, 75 Terrien, Samuel, 85, 127 Tillich, Paul, 114 Tischer, Nancy, 102 Trible, Phyllis, 3-4, 55-56, 92, 134 Vashti, 93-96,102-103 Von Rad, Gerhard, 24 Wahlberg, Rachel, 109,114 White, Sidnie, 102 Women's role, 2, 5-14, 45, 59, 101,112-114,138 Zell, Katherine, 88 Zephaniah, 50, 85


About the Author WILLIAM E. PHIPPS is Professor of Religion and Philosophy and Department Chair at Davis and Elkins College, Elkins, West Virginia. He is the author of six books, including Genesis and Gender (Praeger, 1989) and, most recently, The Wisdom and Wit of the Rabbi Jesus.

Assertive Biblical Women (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Be Assertive

Biblical Women Unbound: Counter-Tales

Daily Life in Biblical Times (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology, 16)

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology 16)

Elusions of Control: Biblical Law on the Words of Women (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Literary history womens writing britain

gynecology and womens health

Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Silent Voices: Forgotten Novels by Victorian Women Writers (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature)

Contributions in numerical mathematics

Women in the Biblical World. A Study Guide Women in the World of Hebrew Scripture

Women and Citizenship (Studies in Feminist Philosophy)

Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Scientific american presents womens health

Botanical Medicine for Womens Health

Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek. Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice (Linguistic Biblical Studies)

Irish Political Studies Reader: Key Contributions

Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, Volume 16)

Women and Violence: Seal Studies

Centrality Practiced (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies

The Gospel of Paul (Studies in Biblical Literature, V. 56)

Assertive Biblical Women (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Be Assertive

Biblical Women Unbound: Counter-Tales

Daily Life in Biblical Times (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology, 16)

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology 16)

Elusions of Control: Biblical Law on the Words of Women (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Literary history womens writing britain

gynecology and womens health

Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)

Silent Voices: Forgotten Novels by Victorian Women Writers (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature)

Contributions in numerical mathematics

Women in the Biblical World. A Study Guide Women in the World of Hebrew Scripture

Women and Citizenship (Studies in Feminist Philosophy)

Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Scientific american presents womens health

Botanical Medicine for Womens Health

Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek. Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice (Linguistic Biblical Studies)

Irish Political Studies Reader: Key Contributions

Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, Volume 16)

Women and Violence: Seal Studies

Centrality Practiced (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies

The Gospel of Paul (Studies in Biblical Literature, V. 56)

Recommend Documents