<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, February 28, 2004


Report on Phyllis Trible's "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality"

So, I ended up not only learning a lot from her book, but I actually enjoyed it. "Enjoyed" in that academic sense of the word that means I wouldn't pick it up for summer beach reading. Below is my report on what I learned and how it affected me. Read only if you're really interested because it's kinda long...

-R

When presented with the list of books from which to select for the reading week assignment, Phyllis Trible’s God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality was last on my list, I assure you. Feminist criticism is, by and large, not my favorite methodology and Trible is well known as being a leader in Feminist theology. Given the title of her book, I was already predisposed not to like it. Despite all that, I decided to challenge myself; I decided I would read her book with as much of an open mind as was possible for me and to try and really hear her arguments. The ‘surprise’ ending, of course, is that it turned out to not be all that bad. In fact, not only did I hear her arguments, but eventually agreed with many of them in the face of her superior scholarship and rhetorical study.
Trible divides her book into three main sections, focusing each argument, respectively, on the Genesis creation narrative, the Song of Songs, and the Book of Ruth. Using the Genesis creation narrative, Trible seeks to review popular understanding of the role of “woman” (‘iššâ) in relation to “man” (‘îš). Her discussion centers around the idea that before there was gender differentiation (that is, before ‘iššâ was created) there was only the earth creature, hā-‘ādām. It was not until after ‘iššâ was created (whom we popularly call Eve) that hā-‘ādām took on a male identification, and became ‘îš. Trible furthers her argument by discussing the fact that ‘iššâ was cited by hā-‘ādām as being “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh” and was unique in all creation. God gave hā-‘ādām dominion over the animals by giving hā-‘ādām the power to name them. God gave also dominion over the plants by his directive that hā-‘ādām was “to till and to keep” them. This was done, according to Trible, because both the zoological and botanical worlds were created from hā-‘dāmâ (the earth) but Eve (‘iššâ) was created from hā-‘ādām, unique in all creation. Refuting popular understanding that woman was created from man, Trible explains that there was no gender differentiation in the language until woman was created. Only after the creation of ‘iššâ from hā-‘ādām do the terms ‘îš and ‘iššâ arise. Neither does God does not give hā-‘ādām the power to name this new creation, nor dominion over her. Indeed, hā-‘ādām does not claim either of these potential authorities, but instead praises the new creation. Given all of these facts, dug from deep within the language, there is no basis for the subjugation of woman by man based upon this text. Both male and female, created in the image of God, are unique creations and of equal standing with one another.
Even though the above described love story “went awry”, in Trible’s words, it is redeemed in her chapter on the Song of Songs. Creation found its fullest expression in the origin of sexuality, which the Song of Songs celebrates. Trible divides the song into five movements, which are differentiated by the ending verse of each of the first four movements: “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem”. Seeing in this a cyclic pattern of ebb and flow, Trible spends time with each movement. Careful attention to structure leads a close reader deep into the text, revealing a poem rich in pattern and parallelism. She spends significant time identifying themes of searching for the lover and finding the lover, longing and fulfillment. Concluding her study of the structure, Trible states that just as we, the readers, were invited at the beginning to join in the search for intimacy, we also are excluded from love’s consummation at the end. That, thankfully, is for the lovers alone.
Not only does Trible find in the Song of Songs redemption of Eros, but also a redemption of other themes befouled in Genesis. Chief among them is the garden; in Genesis the humans disobeyed the commandment from God and were kicked out of the garden permanently. Yet, in the Song of Songs, there is much garden imagery and in it is taken much delight. In the original Garden of Eden the lovers first united in intercourse, and now in the garden of delight, intercourse seems to be the end of all means. Another theme redeemed by the Song of Songs, according to Trible, is botanical in nature. In the Garden of Eden, there were restrictions placed on which fruits could be eaten and which were to be left untouched. Not only are there no such prohibitions in the Garden of Song, but every aspect of flora are praised as being “pleasant to the sight and good for food”. Tension between the animal kingdom and humanity established is Genesis is also not present in this utopist garden. Identifying the Genesis creation narrative as tragedy and the Song of Songs as ecstasy, Trible turns in her final chapter to the trials of everyday life by looking at the Book of Ruth.
Ruth is an unusual story told about an unusual woman. Trible is quick to point out that it is a male world which is forced to be the setting for a female story. Paying close attention to rhetorical detail, Trible’s trademark for this book, she identifies many chiastic structures that focus the attention of the reader on the women. In the opening sequences wherein Ruth makes her decision to remain with Naomi, the chiastic structure is designed at once to highlight the similarities of all three women involved and separate Ruth out from the other two, marking her as unique. Trible remarks that this will become Ruth’s calling card, choosing the unexpected path. The language of sexuality is strong in the book of Ruth and is immediately apparent when Boaz first encounters the foreign Ruth in the field. His question, “Whose maiden is this,” according to Trible, draws attention to the strongly patriarchal setting of the story. In response, the servant is unable to answer with an answer Boaz would expect, but instead identifies Ruth, not by name or husband, but by her own foreignness. The next time Boaz questions Ruth’s identity is under quite different circumstances: when he discovers Ruth in his bed, with his lower body uncovered. Then, his question is for her name and real identity. As Trible states, in both occasions a woman has taken a man by surprise by taking initiative on her own. It is this quality that sets Ruth apart as a true heroine in the patriarchal world.
When I first approached this book, I was under the impression Trible’s work would seriously challenge me in my way of thinking. It turned out this was not the case. The way Trible structures her book and her arguments fits my mold of learning perfectly, so the book ended up enhancing my understanding of these texts significantly. Whenever I have something new to learn, particularly if it is difficult, I have to be led through it in logical steps of progression, not giant or even small leaps of logic. My mind works in a very logical way when I engage this mode of learning and have to know each step of the way both where it was from which I came and where it is I am going. Trible’s style in this work is exactly that; she took me by the hand and carefully articulated each step of her analysis of sexuality.
Even though the assignment called for me to focus on chapters five and six (Song of Songs and Ruth) in the book, the argument I found most fascinating was in chapter four (Genesis creation narrative). I was very intrigued by the way the Hebrew language and rhetoric worked - how it was structured to imply, mean, or allude to certain things. I was particularly interested in her assertion that before woman was created there was no sexual differentiation; there was just the “earth creature”. Not only had I never heard this idea before, but it, at first, sounded outlandish to me. However, through her careful arguments and authoritative command over both the Hebrew and English languages, she persuaded me to continue reading and eventually reach the same conclusions with her. Now, I have never been one for using this biblical (or any biblical) text for the purpose of oppressing women, but I think that deep down, that was how I read the text. Armed with this new understanding, I recognize I was not reading the text to it fullest extent. At the same time though, I am irritated that this meaning does not come through in English translations. How can we expect people (the general populace) to understand these concepts when they are unavailable in the vernacular? Perhaps that is part of my job as a future priest.
The Song of Songs has never really interested me that much, but I found Trible’s understanding of it to be engaging. Again, the context in which I think I learned the most was how the Song of Songs “redeemed” the damage done in the Genesis account. I’ve never really looked at the Genesis account as damage done which could be redeemed through the human act of love. My understanding has always been that only through Jesus Christ could the the damage done in the Garden of Eden be redeemed. The Letter to the Hebrews explains that just as by one person all people were born into sin, so to by one person will all people be saved from sin. Even after reading Trible, I still cling to this understanding. I believe that the human act of love is in and of itself a good thing, but cannot go so far as to say it can redeem the sin of the Garden of Eden.
Trible’s reading of the Book of Ruth did not alter my understanding of it at all. Rather, I believe it bolstered it. I have always read Ruth as a story about a great heroine who not only challenged her times but also, likely, her own way of thinking in order to overcome what could have been a hopeless situation. The story has always been an enjoyable one for me, because the lessons of Ruth can be applied to all of our lives, men and women. Challenge the system. Do not roll over under the pressure. Strive for what you really want and never be totally hopeless. These lessons are universal and the real power of the Book of Ruth, for me, is that they were applied by a woman (perceived as a weak person in a patriarchal) society in what was considered to be a near hopeless situation (husbandless and childless in a foreign land). If she could do it, then anyone can do it. Trible’s explanations and carefule readings of the text enhanced my understanding of this remarkable woman and only furthered my respect for her.
Overall then, despite how I thought it would turn out, I think it is safe to say I enjoyed this book. Now, it certainly was not an easy book to read. I had to trust that Trible was being faithful to the Hebrew language as my knowledge of it is minimal to none. She could have said anything and I would have no choice bu to believe it, but as she is a respected scholar and a Demon Deacon, I found trusting her easy. The style of the book does not make for light reading and I often found myself lost and having to retrace some important steps. Certainly not eveyone who picks up her book off the shelf will make it all the way through, but I am glad I did and feel I have really learned a lot.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?