The Bible is Electricity 3

How do non-Christian scholars, in particular Jewish scholars, find the Bible of use about women in society? We are looking at a new book by Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky called The Bible Now. They examine this topic in a long chapter, and I would rate this chp among the finest chapter-length studies on women in the Bible. They can’t cover everyone, and I’d have liked more on Esther, Ruth and Huldah, but they provide an exceptional sketch of the matriarchs (often neglected) and women in the legal portions of the Bible.

Friedman-Dolansky conclude with this important observation: “In the Bible’s picture, women are created with equal worth to men, but men come to have superior status to them through a variety of mechanisms. That is not just a Bible story. That is really what happened on this planet. Where do we go from here? The Bible opens various doors that point to an eventual return to balance between women and men. And that, too, is not just a Bible story. That is what is happening in our age” (125). Put differently, Friedman-Dolansky have what Webb calls a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” theme in their approach to the Bible now.

Their way of putting it is that the Bible is in one stage that took millennia – forty stages is their number — and they see the Bible at stage sixteen.

I would describe their method in these words: Respect in context. That is, they urge us to “respect” what the Bible says and not to use violence against it; but genuine respect comes only by reading the Bible “in its historical context.”

What do you think of this “respect in context” idea? What about “descriptive” vs. “prescriptive”? [Is the Bible teaching hierarchy in marriage or describing such?]

But they are honest about the Bible and not trying to gloss over the rough spots: they see both Genesis 1:27 where we have equality, and they see Genesis 3:16 where they see male domination. This is the “stage” at which the Bible comes into existence. [They don’t explore the New Testament, of course.]

They begin with a wonderful sketch of the songs of Deborah (“the first time in which we find Israel as a people existing in its land, it is led by a woman” [69, all italics, assuming a historical-critical conclusion that the song is the earliest thing in the OT]. Then the Song of Miriam, too.

They examine Proverbs 31 under the theme of a woman of “substance.”  Thus, a woman of worth and benefit to others. It is not the “ideal” woman but a woman of value.

They examine Genesis 2 — ezer kenegedo — woman as a “strength corresponding to him [Adam].”

Perhaps the highlight of this chp is their discussion of Sarah and Rebekah, one of whom is the one through whom God will establish his line (Isaac) and the other who determined who the line would go through (Jacob, not Esau), and God confirmed her choice. What Friedman-Dolansky demonstrate is that in a patriarchal society, these women are depicted as powerful and influential and women who got what they wanted. Women are agents with pivotal roles. And speaking of pivotal roles, they proceed to the two Tamars who both were pivotal in the messianic line. And then Bathsheba (who is not said to be bathing on a roof but that David saw her from his roof), who determined it would be Solomon.

Their discussion of law illustrates the equality theme, the male perspective theme, and also a profound sensitivity toward women in historical context, but they don’t want to say that this is the ultimate ethic but instead a stage on the way.

A very important theme for Friedman-Dolansky: women are not depicted as property in Israelite laws; they could not be sold (slaves could be sold).  They sketch Deut 21:10-14, on the taking of a bride in war, but observe that she could not be sold. Their comment: “This is evidence against the claim that women are property in biblical law. People commonly assert this, but no one every lays out the evidence for this claim. You can sell property. You cannot sell a woman, not even one who is captured in war” (103).

So again, “respect in context”: “These biblical laws … are frequently more nuanced, less blatantly sexist, than readers have imagined” (113).  Yes, plenty of male favortism, too.

But the Bible’s depictions are “descriptive” and not “prescriptive.”