|
This entry is part of the Blogging-the-Bible series. To see a list of passages, covered so far click here. |
I missed my blogaversary a few days ago. This year I want to add something new to the mix and blog the Bible from a Jewish atheist perspective. Not in order of course (that would be too boring). But I thought it would be nice to have a closer examination of the emperor’s garments. So, onward:
Proverbs ends with an odd chapter. It starts with advice given to King Lemuel (traditionally this is Solomon) by his mother. Amongst other things she tells him “do not give your strength to women, your vigour to those who destroy kings”. Now, this is probably a deliberate reference to the fact that Solomon had hundreds of wives and was supposed to have been enticed into idolatry by them. A thread that runs very clearly through the Bible is that women are corruptors, destroyers of good (but only when they are actually doing something as opposed to being utterly servile). Thus, conniving Eve is apparently able to take away Adam’s free will by convincing him to eat fruit, Delilah schemes against Samson etc.
Then comes a famous passage — the Eshet Chayil. Without missing a beat (or seeing the irony?) this acrostic poem describes the ideal [Biblical] woman. “She looks for wool and flax, and sets her hand to them with a will…She sets her hands to the distaff, her fingers work the spindle.” To be fair, her character isn’t entirely passive. She has business and agricultural acumen (”she sets her mind on an estate and acquires it, she plants a vineyard by her own labours”) and moral qualities (”she gives generously to the poor, her hands are stretched out to the needy”). But as expected this is praised largely because it brings honour to her husband:
Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her[...]Her children arise up, and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praiseth her.
This is an important passage for many Christians. In Jewish liturgy it’s recited by a husband in praise of his wife. Even this is clouded: the Rabbinic interpretation is that this whole poem is allegorical. It’s about the Torah not a real woman! Although it’s standard Rabbinic practice to allegorise as much of the Bible as possible, it’s still incredibly sad to see the woman in the poem relegated to a metaphor.
To a certain extent the poem is a triumph. The wife in the poem is business partnership with her husband — to a much larger extent than say the 50’s ideal of the stay-at-home-wife. It also highlights how she makes her own freedom within the confines of her home, because public life is forever closed to her. Still, it’s telling that no passage in the Bible offers a more positive image of women. This is the best the Bible has to offer: the virtue and valour of a housewife stereotype.
12 comments ↓
This bible deconstruction thing is an interesting idea but can I just make a suggestion? I think first off, you should do a post on what a “jewish atheist” is exactly
oh no, not your jewish thing again!
a jewish atheist is an atheist who was born of a jewish mother as outlined in the talmud (kiddushin 68b) by the sages of blessed memory and of course god himself.
Except you don’t believe in god himself, so do you really need to call yourself Jewish?
As for teh subject – nice idea. You should juxtapose with the Koran as well.
Agree with Alan, and also, since you don’t believe in god, shouldn’t the fact that some ancient manuscript (which itself would therefore have no particular significance for you) classifies you as “jewish” be a completely arbitrary and meaningless taxonomy to you? …Just stirring you up!
On another topic (but still related to atheism), this is brilliant! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4
i was recently embarrassed in mistaking sarcasm for serious comment. now the baton has been passed!
i don’t see it much different to being armenian — it’s tied very closely to the armenian orthodox church but you can be an atheist armenian, right? i guess jews are even more tightly coupled with judaism but not for long if i have my way…
i’ve seen the video before — it’s a good one
don’t know enough about the koran. plus it’s being done as we speak quite well: http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/
Oh, boy. You need to keep reading, friend. Let us get to the Song of Deborah, for example. You know, Deborah? Prophetess of God? Fierce warrior? *Ruler of all Israel*?
Yeah – public life was closed to women. Sure. You need to read the bible more carefully. There are a lot of strong female leaders and plenty of examples of ‘and then this young girl schooled the stuck-up male leader’.
Also, track down a rabbi or cantor to get to the Hebrew. The first passage is really “Do no waste your energy on unmarried women” i.e., ‘don’t sleep around, it will ruin you just like it did Solomon’.
Get it? The comparison between a layabout, no-good mistress and a kick-a$$ wife? Further, it is speaking of women as partners, not eye-candy. As earners, people in charge of the home, people with their own realms of control within the family that the husband was only an observer of.
The resonance of this in America was quite strong until the ’50’s because until then for the majority of Americans the women earned most of the cash.
You read that right. For most of American history the majority of Americans were rural agriculturalists. Traditionally the men built things, raised food, etc. But when it came to earning cash, that was done by the wives and daughters unless the husband was particularly prosperous. And this was often true in Europe and the Middle East, as well. So this passage, where the wife’s labor was integral to the success of the family, was timely praise within the lifetime of my own father.
And as far as ‘public life being closed to women’, how very modern Western of you. In the time this was written unless you were from a priestly or Levite family, or from royal blood, there WAS NO ‘public life’ for any man, either.
If you think that specific counterexamples of women you think are strong trumps my statement that public life was closed to women, would you then accept that if I come up with some counterexamples they would trump your last bit about there not being public life for any non-distinguished family?
Michael,
See, this came up last time I commented here. You seem to stop reading comments after 2-3 sentences.
I specifically stated that in ancient Israel public life was closed to almost *everyone*, men included. I mentioned Deborah and alluded to other strong women characters to show that this is not indicative of a hatred of women in general. This was an attempt to show that your statement;
A thread that runs very clearly through the Bible is that women are corruptors, destroyers of good (but only when they are actually doing something as opposed to being utterly servile).”
is incorrect.
It was also a refutation of your statement;
“This [psalm 31] is the best the Bible has to offer: the virtue and valour of a housewife stereotype.”
Neither is a true statement; Deborah is highly praised and held up as an exemplar of rectitude, showing that psalm 31 is far from ‘the best’ the bible offers about women. And the treatment of women life Miriam, Sarai, Abigail, Hannah, and Esther by the bible shows that shows that “women” aren’t bad, just some women. Just like some men are shown as good and some as evil – refuting your statement that ‘women are shown as corrupters’. No – *some* women are shown as corrupters – others are shown as pious leaders to emulate.
sorry for the typos – I didn’t re-read before submitting.
On the contrary, I read the whole comment, I just wanted to respond to the first part first. I’ll expand so it’s more clear what I meant.
You stated specific counterexamples of women you think have had important roles in the Bible, presumably against my position of women as being generally denigrated. If a few notable counterexamples work, then I can similarly trump your argument (that men were also largely shut out of public life) by finding a few counterexamples of non-royals + non-priests that had a role in public life.
Both examples aren’t really proper refutations: it’s better to look at more general trends. I don’t think a few special cases change the extent to which life was closed to ordinary women in Biblical times compared to the life of ordinary men (ie. ignoring any elite).
The thread of women as corruptors is not the only thread but it can definitely be experienced in many many places. And I’d say the fact that the “some” women who are bad are prostitutes and others who don’t fit in the standard ancient Near Eastern mainstream only highlights the disparity further. These are the same women Lemuel is warned to stay away from. I realise it’s probably not talking about a wife but that’s the point. What’s supposed to be a contrast between a “bad” woman and a “good” woman is from my perspective evidence of a deeper limitation in the passage.
Finally in terms of whether this psalm is the best the Bible has to offer, that was obviously my personal opinion. I certainly think the woman in the 2nd part of the chapter is “better” than Sarah (portrayed as a conniving scheming woman in the story of Isaac’s blessing), Miriam (portrayed as ungrateful and slanderous in the leprosy incident) etc. But that one is more a matter of aesthetics, there are plenty of stories about say either of these 2 women that are more inspiring than the examples I gave that might make their portrayals more important to you.
Of course I had a brainfreeze and got Sarah confused with Rebeccah, but Sarah suffers a similar fate of bad portrayal in her treatment of Hagar and Ishmael
[...] presents The Valour of Housewifery (Prov 31) posted at a [...]
Leave a Comment