Feminist Interpretation and Biblical Theology 1

Feminist Interpretation and Biblical Theology Portions of this chapter are taken from a broader essay entitled “Old Testament Theology and the God of the Fathers: Reflections on Biblical Theology from a North American Feminist Perspective,” in Biblische Theologie: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässig des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (Altes Testament und Moderne 14; ed. Bernd Janowski, Michael Welker, and Paul Hanson; Münster: LIT, 2005 forthcoming), [pp. ]. Phyllis A. Bird Introduction For most Christians, particularly those of Protestant or Evangelical heritage, theology is biblical theology, and the Bible is a theological book. In fact, for most of the Christian era, theologians were biblical scholars and biblical scholars were theologians. Jewish biblical interpretation has a distinct, and equally complex, history in relationship to theology. One of the new features of contemporary biblical theology is interaction between Christian and Jewish biblical scholars, drawing upon their distinct theological traditions (see below). With the rise of modern historical study of the Bible, however, biblical theology became a separate discipline or subject within the field of biblical studies. This chapter explores the relationship between this specialized form of biblical scholarship and feminism. Two observations guide our exploration and determine the shape of the discussion: 1. The subject of biblical theology has been contested since its origins, with ever new attempts to define its nature and aims. In some periods and circles it has been viewed as the essential core of biblical studies and the crown of the discipline; in others it has been deemed an illegitimate child, incompatible with scientific biblical scholarship, to be banned from the discipline. Yet it has played a critical role in the history of modern biblical scholarship and informed countless preachers, teachers, and theologians. It has also experienced a resurgence in recent years, with a flurry of new publications and a broadened arena of engagement, including significant Jewish participation. 2. The entire history of the subject, including the most recent period of expanding boundaries and debate, has been marked by a glaring absence of women and apparent lack of feminist interest—a neglect made more striking by the fact that the first major work of feminist Old Testament interpretation was offered as a contribution to biblical theology. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), with precursor, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” JAAR, March 1973, 30-48. The relative absence of women I do not equate woman with feminist, but where women are not present, feminist perspectives are rarely represented, or seriously engaged. from the discipline of biblical theology has occurred during a period in which feminists and feminism have made profound and far-reaching changes in the field of theology Registered in the title of Uwe Gerber’s 1987 publication, Die feministische Eroberung der Theologie (The Feminist Conquest of Theology). and had substantial impact on many areas of biblical studies, forging new fields, such as feminist hermeneutics and women in the biblical world, and penetrating deeply into others, such as literary, rhetorical, and ideological criticism. See [chapter(s) in this volume on the history and state of feminist biblical scholarship]. But large areas of traditional biblical scholarship seem little touched, including the field of biblical theology, where tomes can be written, reviewed, and debated with minimal involvement of feminist scholars or interaction with feminist scholarship. A few examples from the field of Old Testament (OT) I use the expression Old Testament as the traditional Christian designation. There is no common term for the scriptures shared by Christians and Jews when they are viewed from within the two traditions that hold them sacred, although Hebrew Bible (HB) is now widely used in academic and inter-religious contexts. When the dual religious claims on this corpus are accented, I use the compound OT/HB; I substitute biblical theology for OT theology when referring to the general idea or category of work. theology will serve to illustrate the current state of the discipline. Biblical theology generally takes the form of either OT theology or NT theology. This chapter focuses on the theology of the OT/HB, which presents distinct problems and accounts for the majority of scholarly activity. A 1992 anthology designed to represent “the flowering of Old Testament theology” in the past century contained selections from 25 authors, of whom only one was a woman (Phyllis Trible Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990 (ed. Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 448-464.). Revised and updated in 2004 to reflect a revival of activity in the field, the new edition includes nine new authors among a total of 28, but Trible remains the sole female. Ollenburger, ed., Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004). The disproportion is even greater in Gerhard F. Hasel’s Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). An initial survey of the 43-page bibliography revealed fewer than 10 recognizable female names among well over 400 authors, and only two of these deal specifically with biblical theology or hermeneutics. Trible’s name does not appear. The same gender profile is replicated in collections of essays relating to biblical theology. See, for example, the 1997 Festschrift for Rolf Knierim, entitled Problems in Biblical Theology (H.T.C. Sun and K.L. Eades, eds.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), whose 25 contributors are all male. Additional examples in Bird, “Old Testament Theology,” [13]. But the pattern of minimal female representation is not confined to publications, which typically lag behind current activity; it also characterizes the professional meetings of biblical scholars and teachers as they present and critique their latest work. At the 2000 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), the major association of biblical scholars in North America, the large audience assembled for a discussion of James Barr’s The Concept of Biblical Theology Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: an Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). virtually mirrored the all-male panel on the platform. And although the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Section of the SBL (which organized the panel) was chaired through most of the 90s by a feminist scholar (Alice Ogden Bellis), who sought to encourage women’s participation, her seven-year effort found little response. In 1993 Bellis was the first woman to serve on the steering committee of the section and was chair from 1995 to 2000. Although her efforts to increase women’s participation began to bear fruit in later years, she acknowledges resistance of women to present papers in the section, as well as failure of the section to address feminist concerns (email, 23 July 2001). The 2004 SBL meeting showed increased participation of women in the audience as well as the panel that reviewed John Goldingay’s Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1 (the panel included two women). It would appear that feminists have a problem with biblical theology, but where does it lie—and is this the whole picture? One could argue that the relatively recent entry of women into the field of biblical scholarship has meant that few feminist biblical scholars have the range and depth of exegetical experience needed to write the kind of encompassing Old Testament Theology that has characterized past efforts in the field. Among OT scholars, Phyllis Trible alone seems to possess the necessary experience, as well as interest, to produce—or at least conceive—such a work. But she has no obvious followers in this enterprise. The evidence above suggests that conversation between feminists and biblical theologians is not taking place. But if the discipline of biblical theology appears to hold little interest or priority for feminist biblical scholars, this does not mean that feminists have no interest or engagement in theological interpretation of the Bible. It is rather to be explained by the nature of the discipline and the history of theology and biblical studies in North America, as well as the complex relationship of feminism to theology and the Bible. Some feminists, responding to the theological legacy of biblical patriarchy, want to cut theology free from the Bible, or at least the OT, while others want to cut the Bible free from theology. For those feminists who (still) view the Bible as a source of continuing theological claims, the discipline of biblical theology has offered little promise. Preoccupied with debate over its own identity, it has shown little awareness of the issues that are paramount for feminists. A Question of Identity The question of identity, purpose, and aims stands at the heart of ongoing debate concerning the subject of biblical theology. Put simply, What is it? and Who needs it? See Bird, “OT Theology,” [3, 28-31]. The term itself is ambiguous. It can refer on the one hand to a theology based on the Bible, or in accord with the Bible—a constructive and normative work (that is, a formulation of what the Bible compels us to believe). But it can also refer to the theological ideas contained within the biblical texts, as historical affirmations of faith, described without normative claims (that is, a description of what the biblical writers believed). Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible ( Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 3. The latter sense has generally prevailed in biblical studies, but the boundary between historical and constructive understandings has never been absolute. In practice, the ways of defining biblical theology have not been limited to these two types. Thus Barr (Concept of Biblical Theology, 5-17) identifies six different definitions. Shifting over time, it has left uncertainty about the legitimacy and goals of the discipline and whether it is primarily a concern of theologians or biblical scholars, as specialization drives them ever further apart. Biblical theology was born with the rise of modern historical study of the Bible. Historical criticism attempted to read the biblical texts against the background of the times in which they were written, as ancient literary documents, sharing the language and thought forms of other writings of their day. It distinguished the views of the biblical text and its authors from the dogmatic (doctrinal) interpretation of the church, which had made the Bible subservient to church doctrine. The idea of a biblical theology distinct from dogmatic theology was first articulated by Johann Philipp Gabler in his inaugural lecture as professor of theology at the University of Altdorf (Germany) in 1787. In his oration “On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” Gabler emphasized the distinct nature of the two forms of theology with respect to their sources, methods, and aims—giving priority to biblical theology. Dogmatic theology, he argued, was normative and prescriptive; its task was to formulate and teach what was to be believed. While it used the Bible, it also depended on philosophy and church tradition. In contrast, biblical theology was historical and descriptive; its task was to give a “true and accurate description of the religion of the Bible in its various periods and contexts.” John H. Hayes and F. Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 63, cited by Barr, Concept of Biblical Theology, 62. It was concerned with what the biblical authors believed in their own times. But Gabler added a further aim to the task of biblical theology: the ultimate goal of this description was to formulate a pure biblical theology, understood as “a systematic presentation of God’s eternal truths or the unchanging ideas found in the Bible which were valid for all times.” Ibid. Thus the descriptive enterprise was to serve a normative end. Biblical theology in its original conception embodied a tension between descriptive and normative aims that underlies its entire subsequent history. What triumphed in the following century was the historical and descriptive effort, offering new insight into the religious world of ancient Israel and the early church, and highlighting the striking similarities of biblical beliefs and practices to those of surrounding peoples. It increasingly took the form of histories of the religion of Israel and early Christianity, rather than theologies. A backlash occurred in the early 1920s, rejecting the descriptive approach and stressing a theocentric (God-centered) reading and the uniqueness of biblical faith. Some OT scholars attempted to combine a historical treatment of Hebrew religion with a systematic presentation of “the timeless truth of OT revelation;” others rejected a two-fold approach. Otto Betz, “Biblical Theology, History of,” IDB 1:433-435. In 1933-38 Walter Eichrodt published a three-volume Theology of the OT organized around the idea of covenant as the center of OT theology, emphasizing that the idea derived from the OT itself (rather than Christian dogma) and tied the OT and NT together. A new flowering of biblical and Old Testament theology followed, with a variety of attempts to integrate affirmations of timeless truth revealed in the Bible with recognition of the historical nature of the revelation. It climaxed with the publication of Gerhard von Rad’s Old Testament Theology (2 vols., 1957-60), which rejected Eichrodt’s notion of a center and his method of systematic synthesis as alien to the Israelite mental world and the OT’s own presentation of the faith of Israel. Von Rad argued that the theological witness of the OT took the form of a Heilsgeschichte (saving history), and the task of an OT theology must be to re-tell that history. Thus it must have an historical form—not as a history of Israelite religion, but rather as a sequential presentation of the Bible’s theological witnesses to God’s action in history. Ibid., 435; Barr, Concept of Biblical Theology, 32-37. Few new attempts at writing an OT Theology were made in the period immediately following, though the Biblical Theology Movement, which had flourished in North America in the 40s and 50s continued into the 60s. This movement promoting a Bible-centered approach to theology was centered in the churches (especially Presbyterian), rather than the academy, and found expression in programmatic works, word studies, and journals such as Theology Today and Interpretation, rather than Biblical Theologies. Despite its impact in the churches, it had little lasting effect on biblical studies as an academic discipline. Throughout the 70s and 80s biblical theology as traditionally conceived was in decline, though works of OT Theology continued to be written, mostly in Europe. In the SBL, participation in the Old Testament Theology Section was so low in 1982 that its termination was anticipated. See Bird, “OT Theology,” [9]. But it did not terminate, though it changed its name, as new activity began to manifest itself, in new places and in new directions. Theology and Academic Study of the Bible in North America, 1960-1990 One factor in the crisis of biblical theology in North America was a dramatic growth in biblical and religious studies that accompanied the establishment of religious studies programs in state colleges and universities, “freeing” study of the Bible from the exclusive domain of theological seminaries and church-related institutions. In public institutions and private universities that had severed church ties, the Bible was taught alongside other religious traditions and writings, without claims to authority. As biblical studies was cut loose from the church, the profile and program of the SBL was transformed by an expanded base and orientation toward a broader public. Ernest W. Saunders, Searching the Scriptures: A History of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1880-1980 (SBLCP 8; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). By the late 1960s scholarly interpretation without theological presuppositions or aims had become the accepted norm in the Society, and suspicion or rejection of theological interests continued to define the general ethos during most of the following decades. But new developments in the 80s and 90s brought a widening of interest in theology under the banner of hermeneutics, The activity and theory of translating biblical ideas and affirmations into contemporary idiom, in order to produce (or reveal) a message that speaks to current needs. as well as renewed vigor in the “classical” field of OT theology. Bird, “OT Theology,” [8-9]. Increasing numbers of women in the SBL and a small African American presence led in the 70s and 80s to the formation of program units concerned with the particular hermeneutical interests of these groups. These units emphasized the role of experience and religious tradition as well as culture in interpretation of the Bible. The growing force of postmodernism, with its rejection of the ideals of objectivity and distance (associated with historical criticism), fostered interest in the subjectivity and social location of the interpreter, while increasing globalization encouraged efforts of contextual interpretation. Religious identity could resurface in this pluralistic milieu at the same time that the theological imperialism of supposedly neutral historical scholarship was denounced. The question, “Whose Bible is it anyway?” was being raised from a number of different directions, including that of Jewish interpretation. Cf. Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible is it Anyway? (JSOT.S 204; Sheffield, 1995). Of the various new interests it was Jewish perspectives, rather than feminist concerns, that impacted biblical theology in the academy. The OT Theology Section changed its name in 1995 to Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, and in 1996 it featured a panel on Jewish and Christian interpretation; in 1998 it added a Jewish co-chair. But although one of the two Jewish panelists in 1996 was a woman (Tikva Frymer-Kensky), feminist interests, and participation, remained largely invisible in the section. See n. 13 above and Bird, “OT Theology,” [9]. It would appear that “biblical theology,” however defined, has been viewed by feminists as alien or infertile ground. Clearly the center of their work was elsewhere. Ibid., [13-15]. Yet the feminist silence has not been total, though the single prominent voice was not sounded in the OT Theology Section of the SBL. Phyllis Trible’s Overtures for a Feminist Biblical Theology Trible’s essay in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, entitled “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology,” is excerpted from a 1989 article in the journal Theological Studies. Thus her original audience was theologians, rather than biblical scholars. She begins with an overview of feminism, and then sketches the history of biblical theology to a climax in 1933-1960, a period framed by the works of Eichrodt and von Rad. Beginning in the early 60s, she sees the discipline in decline, with few new works and none dominating the field. Yet she maintains that the subject had “grown through experimentation,” identifying “conversation between sociology and theology, discussion of canon, and development of bipolar categories for encompassing scriptural diversity” as elements of this growth. “More broadly,” she concludes, “biblical theology [had] begun to converse with the world.” Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics,” 453. It is in this expanded conversation with the world that she situates her feminist approach to the subject, setting it over against a 200 year history which she summarizes as follows: First, biblical theology (more often OT theology) has sought identity, but with no resolution . . . Second, guardians of the discipline have fit a standard profile. They have been white Christian males of European or North American extraction, educated in seminaries, divinity schools, or theological faculties. Third, overall, their interpretations have skewed or neglected matters not congenial to a patriarchal point of view. Fourth, they have fashioned the discipline in a past separated from the present. Biblical theology has been kept apart from biblical hermeneutics (emphasis added). Ibid., 454. Trible’s emphasis is on the final point. It is the separation of biblical theology from hermeneutics that she wishes to challenge as a feminist, joining feminist critique to challenges coming from many other directions. Ibid. Cf. Bird, “OT Theology,” [18]. With this emphasis on hermeneutics, she surveys the state of feminist hermeneutics and feminist biblical studies before turning to the task of envisioning a feminist Biblical Theology. Though not yet ready to write one, she declares the time ripe to make “overtures.” Arguing that “feminists do not move in the world of Gabler, Eichrodt, von Rad, and their heirs,” she begins her sketch of a feminist alternative by identifying three points of contrast with the “classical discipline.” First, it will be “primarily constructive and hermeneutical, not just descriptive and historical.” Second, because the discipline belongs to diverse communities, it is “neither essentially nor necessarily Christian.” And third, “no single method, organization, or exposition harnesses the subject.” Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics,” 458. The first step of her feminist theology is exegesis, “the descriptive and historical task . . . [of] explor[ing] the entire picture of gender and sex in all its diversity,” a step she illustrates by examples from her earlier studies. Her second step is constructive and hermeneutical: envisioning the contours and content of a “theology that subverts patriarchy.” Ibid., 458, 464. Rejecting the systematic-covenant model of Eichrodt and the tradition-historical model of von Rad, she chooses a focus on the “phenomenon of gender and sex in the articulation of faith.” Six tentative proposals provide content to this step. A feminist theology would begin, she suggests, with Genesis 1-3, “explore the presence and absence of the female in Scripture,” reflect theologically on Israelite folk religion (including worship of the Queen of Heaven and the relationship between Yahweh and Asherah), expose idolatry by showing how the language for God “guards against a single definition” or final statement of faith, defend the altering of words and meaning in wrestling with patriarchal language, and consider the question of authority as critical for biblical theology. Centering authority in readers and appealing to Deut 30:15-20, she suggests that “feminism might claim the entire Bible as authoritative, though not necessarily prescriptive.” Ibid., 462-464. A Feminist Future for Biblical Theology? Trible’s “overtures” whet our appetite for the work she envisions—to take its place alongside the models she rejects, as an alternative theological reading of the Hebrew scriptures, and an invitation to other reassessments, including other feminist approaches. See Bird, “OT Theology,” [20-36]. What distinguishes the theology she envisions from those of her male forerunners and colleagues is not simply her choice of gender analysis as its key, but her recognition that the “blessing” sought from the text (or its Subject) comes only through struggle, because it is bound in patriarchal language and structures. With every other feminist theologian, Trible knows the Bible as a source of pain as well as promise. Insisting on the promise, she demands a hermeneutic, and a theology, that acknowledges the pain. Trible stands alone thus far in proposing a feminist Biblical Theology, but she is not the sole feminist engaged in biblical theology. The field (biblical theology) is wider than the genre (a book, such as von Rad’s or Goldingay’s Old Testament Theology, setting forth a particular exposition of the Bible’s theology). Feminist theological reflection has found expression in a variety of forms of biblical scholarship, as well as interpretive efforts outside the academy. Feminist biblical theology is found in commentaries and word studies, exegetical essays and studies of selected problems, themes, and images. It is also found in sermons and Bible studies, by lay women as well as biblical scholars. One of the distinguishing features of feminist biblical scholarship is its awareness of a larger sisterhood of interpreters, from which it draws insight and impetus for its work and to which it is accountable. Much of the feminist biblical interpretation described elsewhere in this volume is deeply theological, whatever its particular subject or concern. Whenever feminists address biblical texts with questions of truth and justice, they are engaging in biblical theology. Among OT/HB scholars, the honoree of this volume, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, stands out as one who has consistently incorporated theological reflection informed by feminist sensitivity into her writings. See list of publications [in this volume]. While some titles immediately signal a theological concern (e.g. “The Problem of Divine Forgiveness in Numbers 14” and “Feminist Perspectives on Bible and Theology”), theological insights enrich many other works, including her recent Just Wives? Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today. To name other names runs the danger of identifying a limited group of scholars as “feminist biblical theologians” when a much larger number is engaging issues of biblical theology. In addition, feminist biblical scholars who are not directly involved in theological interpretation—and may have no theological interests—have contributed greatly to our understanding of the theology of the OT/HB through their studies of female figures, images, and metaphors; women, cults, and deities in the biblical world; gender constructions and literary theory. See Bird, “OT Theology,” [15-16]. A major reason for the relative invisibility of women in circles of biblical theology is that other subjects have had greater immediacy and urgency for women entering a male-dominated profession. Much of feminist contributions to biblical scholarship has been cultivated in groups with specifically feminist interests and agendas. But the structures that have served to stimulate and support feminist scholarship have also served to isolate feminist discussion from the larger debate, especially in traditional subjects, such as OT theology. On the tensions in women’s scholarly commitments and agendas, see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (SBLSBNA 10; ed. A. Y. Collins; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press) 3-5. In light of this pattern, we may ask, What will it take for feminist contributions to move from the ghetto of feminist studies into the “mainstream”—or for the “mainstream” to realize that it is only a current in the turbulent waters of the discipline? Whatever the contributions of feminists to theological reflection on the OT/HB, the challenge of feminist engagement with a biblical theology that attempts to comprehend the full witness of the OT/HB (or the Bible as a whole) remains. If feminists are not participants in the ongoing discussion and production of such works, how will their insights and critique be incorporated? Trible has caught the attention of the “mainstream” of biblical theologians—by standing outside it and critiquing it. Other, less visible feminist scholars have worked within the tradition, willing to claim the heritage of Gabler and von Rad, if not (yet) to make overtures for a feminist biblical theology. For suggestions of alternative approaches, see Bird, “OT Theology,” [23-35]. Whatever form their efforts may take and whatever direction the discipline may move, feminists will insist that a biblical theology that fails to address the androcentric distortions and patriarchal skewing of the Bible’s theological witness cannot be true to its historical testimony or to its contemporary readers. PAGE 12