Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation PHYLLIS TRIBLE new. In this context 1 propose co examine interactions between the Hebrew Scriprures and the Women’s Liberation Movement. I am aware of the risks. Some claim thar the task is impossible and ill-advised. The two phenomena have nothing ro sty to each other. As far as the East is from the ‘West, so far are they separated. To attempt to relate them is to prostitute chem, Others aver that the Bible and the Women's Movement are enemies. “Patriarchy thas God on its side,” declares Kate Miller, introducing her sexually-oriented dis- ‘cussion of the Fall. She maintains that this myth is “designed as it is expressly in order to blame all this world’s discomfort on the female"! Making a similar point from within the Christian faith, Mary Daly writes of “the malignant view of the man-woman relationship which the androcenttic myth itself inadvertently ‘reveals’ and perperuates."2 For her this story belongs to a patriarchal religion oppressive to women. Itis superfluous to document patriarchy in Scripture® Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well as of Jesus and Paul, ‘The legal codes of Israel treat women primarily as chattel. Qoheleth condemns her “whose heart is snares and nets and whose hands are fetters,” concluding that although a few men may seck the meaning of existence, “a woman among all these I have not found” (7:23-29). In spite of his eschatology, Paul considers women subordinate 10 their husbands, and, even worse, I Timothy makes woman responsible for sin in the world (2:11-15). Considerable evidence indicts the Bible 2s a docu- ment of male supremacy. Attempts t0 acquit ic by cokens such as Deborah, Hul- dah, Ruth, or Mary and Martha only reinforce the case. Bz FAITH CHALLENGES the faithful to explore treasures old and *Kate Millett, Sexwal Politics. Garden City, N-X.: Doubleday & Company, 1970, pp. 51-54, "Mary Daly, “The Courage to See,” The Christian Censwry, September 22, 1971, p. 1110. See also The Church and the Second Sex, New York: Harper & Row, 1968, pp- 3242, "On the status of women ia the male dominated society of Israel, see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Istash, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961, p. 396 J. Pederson, Israek I, Ouford, 1959, pp. 60-81; 231-233; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1, Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1961, pp. 80-82. “1 Cor. 14:34.35; Col. 3:18; ef. Epb, 5:22-24. "On Paul sce Krister Stendshl, The Bible and she Role of Women, Philsdelphis: For- PHYLLIS TRIBLE (Ph.D, Union Theological Seminary, Columbia University) is As- sociate Professor of Old Testament at Andover Neweoa Theological School. JAAR XLI/1 (March 1973) @ AARDEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 31 If these views are all which can be said or primarily whar must be said, then Tam of all women most miserable. I face a terrible dilemma: Choose ye this day whom you will serve: the God of the fathers ot the God of sisterhood. If the God of the fathers, then the Bible supplies models for your slavery. If the God of sisterhood, then you must reject patriarchal religion and go forth withour models to claim your freedom. Yet I myself perceive neither war nor neutrality between biblical faith and Women's Liberation. The more I participate in the ‘Movement, the more I discover my freedom through the appropriation of biblical symbols. Old and new interact. Let me not be misunderstood: I know thet Hebrew literature comes from a male dominated society. 1 know that biblical religion is patriarchal, and I understand the adverse effects of that religion for women. 1 know also the dangers of eisegesis. Nevertheless, ¥ affitm that the intentionality of biblical faith, as distinguished from a general description of biblical religion, is neither to create nor to perpetuate patriarchy but rather 10 function as salvation for both women and men. ‘The Women's Movement errs when it dismisses the Bible as inconsequential or condemns it as enslaving. In rejecting Scripture women ironically accept male chauvinistic interpretations and thereby capiculate to the very view they are protesting. But there is anocher way: to reread (not rewrite) the Bible without the blinders of Israelite men or of Paul, Barth, Bonhoeffer, and a host of others” ‘The hermeneutical challenge is to teatislate biblical faith without sexism. ‘THEMEs DISAVOWING SEXISM ‘One approach co translation is through themes which implicitly disavow sex- ism, Istael’s theological understanding of Yahweh is such a theme. Here is a deity set apart from che fertility gods of the ancient Near East; a deity whose worship cannot tolerate a cult of sexuality; a deity described as one, complete, whole, and chus above sexuality (cf. Deut 6:4). To be sure, the masculine pro- noun regularly denotes this God, but just as faithfully the Hebrew Scriprures pro- claim that Yahweh is not a male who requires a female. There is no bieros tress Press, 1966; Madeleine Boucher, “Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11, 11-12 and Gal 3, 28: The NT on the Role of Women,” Catbolic Biblical Querterly, January, 1969, pp. 50-58. For efforts to exonerate Paul, see Robert C, Campbell, “Women's Liberation and the Apostle Paul,” Bepsist Leader, Januasy, 1972; Robin Scroggs, or Liberstionist?", The Christian Century, March 15, 1972, pp. 307-309; the Fechatological Woman,” Journal of she American Academy of Ri No. 3 (September, 1972), pp. 283-303; G. B, Caird, “Paul and Women's Liberty,” Bulletin of the Jobo Rylands Library, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Spring, 1972), pp. 268-281. “Happily, the paradigm in Josh. 24:14-15 resolves the predicament. It poses a choice berween competing gods only if che people sre unwilling to serve Yahweh. "CE Peggy Ann Way, “Aa Authority of Possibiliry for Women in the Church,” Women’s Liberation and she Church edited by Sarah Beatley Doely, New York: Associa- tion Press, 1970, pp. 78-82.32 PHYLLIS TRIBLE amos in Yehweh religion’ Moreover, the danger of a masculine label for Deity is recognized. While depicting Yebwch ss a man, Israel repudiates both an- thropomorphisms and andromorphisms. God repents, we read in some passages” ‘According to others, God is not a man that he should repent In his poem on Israel the faithless son and Yahweh the loving deity, Hosea beautifully presents this paradox of affirming while denying anthtopomorphic language (11:1-11). Yahweh is the parent who teaches the child to walk, who heals tender wounds, and who feeds the hungry infant. Strikingly, these activities belonged to the mother, not to the father, in ancient Israel! Like a human being, Yahweh agonizes, struggles, and suffers over the wayward child. Then os love overcomes anger, this Deity accounts for a verdict of mercy by denying identification with the male, ‘Thus comes the wonderful climax, “for I am God (’e!) and not man (ish), the Holy One in your midst” (11:9). Feminine imagery for God is more prevalent in the Old Testament than we usually acknowledge? Ic occurs repeatedly in tradicions of the Exodus and ‘Wanderings. ‘The murmuring themes focus often on hunger and thirst?® Pro- viding food and drink is woman's work, and Yahweh assumes this role, Even as women fetch water for their families) so the Lord supplies water in the desert for the people® As mothers feed their household,"* so Yahweh prepares manna and quail for the children of Israel” But the children continue to complain, and an angry Moses reproaches God in a series of rhetorical questions: Did I conceive all this people? Did I bring them forth, thar thou shouldst say 10 me, “Carry them ie your bosom, as # ourse catries the sucking child, to the land _ which thou didst swear to give their fathers"? (Nam. 11:12) ‘This extraordinary language indicates that Yahweh was indeed mother and nurse of the wandering children3® Further, the recital of Heilsgeschichte in Nehemiah 9 introduces Yahweh as seamstress: ichtodt, Theology, J, pp. 121, 151f; cf, Helmer Ringgren, Lireelite Religion, Phila- deiphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 197f. "Bg, Gen. 6:6; Ex, 32:14; I Sam: 15:11, 35; Joush 3:10. Eg, Num. 23:19; 1 Sam, 15:29. “Ct, Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man, New York: Abingdon Press, 1956, p. 38ff. For much of this matecial I am indebted to an unpublished papet, “Yahweh's Re- lationship 23 Mother to Israel” (June, 1972), by Ms. Toni Craven of Andover Newton ‘Theological School. We have only begua to explore the topic. Martin Noth, Exodus, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962, pp. 128-140. For a technical discussion of che murmuring theme, see George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wildernass, New York: Abingdon Press, 1968, pp. 47-127, 249-254, , 24:11, 13.20, 43.46; Exod. 2:16Hf, 1 Sem. 9:11; 1 Kings 17:10. Num. 20:2-13; Neh. ™Prov. 31:14-15; Gen. 1 ** Brod. 16:436 Num. 1 81:10, 16. Martin Noth comments tellingly on this passage in Numbers, Philadelphia: The ‘Westminster Press, 1968, p. 86f.DBPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 33 Forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, and they lacked nothing; “their clotbes did not weer out and their feet did not swell. (Neh, 9:21) “The role of dressmaker is not unique to the God of the Wilderness. ‘This same Deity made garments of skin t0 clothe the naked and disobedient couple in the Garden (Genesis 3:21). As a woman clothes her family,” so Yahweh clothes the human family. Second Isaiah boldly employs gynomorphic speech for God. Yahweh speaks of her birth pangs:2° Now I will ery out like © woman in travail, T will gasp and pant, (42:14b) ‘The Deity compares her loving remembrance of Zion to a mother oursing her child: Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have 00 compassion ‘on the son of her womb? ‘Bven these may forget, yet I will aot forget you. (49:15) ‘Third Isaiah continues the maternal picture. Yahweh is like Zion in Inbor, bringing forth children: Shell 1 bring to the birth and not cause to bring forth? says the Lord; shall T, who cause) to bring forth, shut the womb? says your God. (66:9) ‘Yahweh is a comforting mother: * As one whom his mother comforts, so I willl comfort you. (66:13) ‘The maternal Deity may also be a midwife:** ‘Yet thou sre he who took me from the womb; ‘Thou didst keep me safe upon my mother's bresst. Upon thee was I cast from my birth, (Psalm 22:9-104; cf. Psalm 71: 3 Job 3:12) Prov, 31:216. See James Muilenburg, “Isaish 40-66," The Interpreter's Bible, V, New York: Abingdon Press, 1956, p. 473. "= Muileoburg, oP. ot. p. T65E. ™ See the discussion on birth ia deVaux, op. cit, p. 42f. Whether or not fathers were present at birth is debamble (cf. Jer. 20:15 and Gen, 50:23); certainly midwives were present (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15). While Sarnuel Tertien sees paternal imagecy underlying Ps. 22:9-10, it is more likely thet the metaphor is maternal (S. Terrien, The Pialras end theie Meening for Today, New York: Bobbs- Merrill, 1952, p. 154f).34 PHYLLIS TRIBLE Midwife, seamstress, housekeeper, nurse, and mother: all these feminine images characterize Yahweb, the God of Israel. ‘To summarize: Although the'Old Testament often pictures Yahweh as a man, it also uses gynomorphic language for the Deity.** At che same time, Israel tepudiared the idea of sexuslity in God. Unlike fertility gods, Yahweh is neither male nor female; neither he nor she. Consequently, modern assertions thar God is masculine, even when they ate qualified? are misleading and detrimental, if not altogether inaccurate. Cultural and grammatical limitations (the use of masculine pronouns for God) ated not limit theological understanding. As Creator and Lord, Yahweh embraces and transcends both sexes. To translate for our immediate concern: the nature of the God of Israel defies sexism. ‘The Exodus speaks forcefully to Women's Liberation. So compelling is this theme of freedom from oppression that our enthusiasm for it may become ua- faithfulness to it? Yet the story does teach that the God of Israel abhors slavery; that Yahweh acts through human agents to liberate (agents who may not even acknowledge him; agents who may be personae non gratae not only to rulers but also to slaves); chat liberation is a refusal of the oppressed to participare in am unjust society and thus it involves a withdrawal; and that liberation begins in the home of the oppressor. More especially, women nurture the revolution, ; The Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh. His own daughter thwarts him, and her maidens assist. ‘This Egyptian princess schemes with female slaves, mother and daughter, to adopt a Hebrew child whom she names Moses. As the fist to defy the oppressor, women alone take the initiative which leads to deliverance (Exod. 1:15-2:10)2 If Pharaoh had realized the power of these women, he might have reversed his decree (Exod. 1:16, 22) and had females killed rather than males! At any rate, a patriarchal religion which creates and preserves such fem- inise eraditions contains resources for overcoming patriarchy. ‘A third theme disavowing sexism is corporate personslity2% All are em- braced in the fluidity of transition from the one to the many and the many to ™ See James Muilenburg, “The History of the Religion of Israel,” The Interpreser's Bible, I, New York: Abingdon Press, 1952, p. 301f. “Eg, John L. McKenzie, The Two-Edged Sword, Garden City, NY: Image, 1966, p. 116; Bishop C. Kilmer Myers, United Church Herald, January, 1972, p. 143 Albert J. du- Bois, "Why I Am Against the Ordination of Women,” The Episcopalien, July, 1972, p. 22. * For instance, the exodus theme is not « paradigm for “leaving home” and developing + commuaity without models (40 Mary Daly, “The Spiritual Revolution: Women's Libera tion 43 Theological Re-education,” Andover Newton Quarterly, Macch, 1972, p. 172f.) ‘The Exodus itvelf is a return bome, with its models drawn from the traditions of the Fathers (eg, Exod. 3:15-17; 6:2-8). Cl, Hans Walter Wolff, “The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,” Interpretation, Vol. XXVI, April, 1972, p.'165: "... it is women whose actions are decisive for the formation of God's people.” *H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” Werden snd Wesem des Alton Testaments, edited by Paul Volz, Friedrich Scammer and Johannes Heiipel, Berlin: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1936, pp. 49-62.DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 35 the one. Though Israel did not apply this principle specifically to the issue of women, in it she bas given us a profound insight ro appropriate. “For the wound of the daughter of my people is my heart wounded,” says Jeremih (8:21). To the extent that women are enslaved, so too men are enslaved. ‘The oppression of ‘one individual or one group is the oppression of all individuals and all groups. Solidarity marks che sexes. In sexism we all die, both victim and victor. In liberation we all live equally as human beings. EXEGusis: GENESIS 2-3 ‘Another approach to translation is the exegesis of passages specifically con- cerned with female and male. With its focus on the concrete and the specific, this method complements and checks the generalizing tendencies of theses. Hence, I propose to investigate briefly the Yahwist story of creation and fall in Genesis 2-3. Many feminists reject this account because they accept the tradi- tional exegesis of male supremacy. But interpretation is often circular, Be- lieving that the text affirms male dominance and female subordination, commen- tators find evidence for that view. Let us read with an opposing concera: Does the narrative break with patriarchy? By esking this question, we may discover a different understanding. Ambiguity characterizes the meaning of ‘adhant in Genesis 2-3. On the one hand, man is the firse creature formed (2:7). The Lord God puts him in the garden “to till it and Keep it,” a job identified with the male (cf. 3:17-19). On the other hand, “adbam is a generic term for humankind. In commanding ‘adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the Deity is speaking to both the man and the woman (2:16-17). Until the differentiation of female and male (2:21-23), ‘adbam is basically androgynous: one creature incorporating two sexes. Concern for sexuality, specifically for the creation of woman, comes last in the story, after the making of the garden, the trees, and the animals. Some com- mentators allege female subordinetion based on this order of events#® They con- trast it with Genesis 1:27 where God creates ‘adbam as male and female in one act® ‘Thereby they infer that whereas the Priests recognized the equality of the sexes, the Yahwist made wonian a second, subordinate, inferior sex* But CE. E Jatob, Theology of the Old Torsansent, New York: Harper & Row, 1958, p- 172f; S. H. Hooke, “Genesis,” Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London: Thomas Nelson, 1962, p. 179. c Eg, lizabeth Cady Stanton observed that Gen. 1:26-28 “dignifies woman ss a0 important factor ia the creation, equal in power and glory with man,” while Gea. 2 “makes her a mere afterthought” (The Women's Bible, Part 1, New York: European Publishing Company, 1895, p. 20). See alto Elsie Adams end Mary Louise Briscoe, Up Against the Wall, Mosher . . . Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971, p. 4, and Sbeila D. Collins, “Toward 2 Feminist Theology,” The Christian Century, August 2, 1972, p. 798. "CE. Eugene H. Maly, is," The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Eaglewood Hills: Prentice Hall, 1968, p. 12: “But woman's existence, peychologically and in the social otder, is depeodent on msn.”36 PHYLLIS TRIBLE the last may be first, as both che biblical theologian and the literary critic know. ‘Thus the Yahwist account moves to its climax, nor its decline, in the creation of woman! She is not an afterthought; she is the culminstion. Genesis 1 itself supports this interpretation, for there male and female are indeed the last and truly the crown of all crearuses. ‘The last is also first where beginnings and end- ings are parallel. In Hebrew literacure the central concerns of a unit often ap- pear at the beginning and the end as an inclusio device®® Genesis 2 evinces this structure, ‘The creation of man first and of woman last constitutes a ring composition whereby the two crearures are parallel. In no way does the order disparage women, Content and context augment this reading, ‘The context for the advent of woman is a divine judgment, “It is not good that ’adbam should be alone; I will maake him a helper fie for him” (2:18). ‘The phrase needing explication is “helper fit for him.” In the Old Testament the word helper (‘ezer) hes many usages It can be a proper name for a male In ‘our story it describes the animals and the woman, In some passages it charac- terizes Deity. God is the helper of Israel. As helper Yahweh creates and saves. ‘Thus ‘ezer is a relational cerm; it designates a beneficial relationship; and it per- tains to God, people, and animals, By itself the word does aot specify positions within relationships; more particularly, it does not imply inferiority. Position results from additional content of from context, Accordingly, what kind of re- lationship does ‘ezer entail in Genesis 2:18, 20? Our answer comes in two ways: 1) the word neged, which joins ‘exer, connotes equality: a helper who is a coun- terpart.®® 2) The animals are helpers, but they fail to fit ‘adbars, ‘There is physical, perhaps psychic, rapport becween ‘adham and the animals, for Yahweh forms (yasar) them both out of the ground (‘adbamab). Yet their similarity is not equality. ’Adbam names them and theteby exercises power over them. No fit helper is among them. And thus the narrative moves to woman. My tans- lation is this: God is the helper superior to man; the animals are helpers inferior to man; woman is the helper equal to man. "See Joba L. McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Gen. 2-3," Theolo Studies 15 (1954), p. 559; John A. Bailey, “Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gil- gamesh and Genesis 2-3,” Journal of Biblical Literature, June, 1970, p. 143. Bailey ‘writes emphatically of the remarkable importance and position of the woman in Gen. 2-3, “all the more extraordinary when one realizes that this is the only account of the creation of woman as such in ancient Near Eastern Literatur He hedges, however, in seeing the themes of helper and naming (Gen. 2:18-23) as indicative of a “cermin subordination” of woman to man, These reservations are unnecessary; see below. Cf. also Claus Wester- mana, Genesis, Biblischer Kommentar 1/4, Neukirchen-Vluyo: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970, p. 312. “James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism aad Beyond,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Match, 1969, p. 9f; Mitchell Dahood, Pralmr I, The Anchor Bible, New York: Double- day $ Company, 1966, psi and es. p. 5. 1 Chron. 4 ™ Psalms 121: 1; Exod, 18:4; Deut. 33:7, 26, 29. "1. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon im Veseris Testamenti Libros, Leiden: E. J Brill, 1958, p. 591s,DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 37 Let us pursue the issue by examining the account of the creation of woman (21-22). This episode concludes the story even as the creation of man com- mences it As I have said already, the ring composition suggests an interpreta- tion of woman and man as equals. To establish this meaning, structure and con- tent must mesh. They do. In both episodes Yahweb alone creates. For the last creation the Lord God “caused a deep sleep (tardemab) to fall upon the man.” Man has no part in making woman; he is out of it. He exercises no con- trol over her existence. He is seicher participant nor spectator nor consultant at her birth, Like man, woman owes her life solely to God. For both of them the orgin of life is a divine mystery. Another parallel of equality is creation out of raw materials: dust for man and a rib for woman. Yahweh chooses these fragile materials and in both cases processes them before human beings happen. ‘As Yahweh shapes dust and then breathes into it co form man, so Yahweh takes out the rib and then builds it into woman** ‘To call woman “Adam's rib” is to misread the text which states carefully and clearly that the extracted bone required divine labor to become female, a datum scarcely designed to bolster the male ego. ‘Moreover, to claim that the rib means inferiority or subordination is to assiga the ‘man qualities over the woman which are not in the narrative itself. Superiority, surength, aggressiveness, dominance, and power do not characterize man in Gen esis 2. By contrast he is formed from dirt; his life hangs by a breath which he does not control; and:he himself remains silent and passive while the Deity plans and interprets his existence. ‘The rib means solidarity and’ equelity. “Adham recognizes this meaning in a poem:*? ‘This at last is bone of my bones sod flesh of my flesh. She shall be called ‘éshsbab (woman) because she was taken out of 'izb (man). (2:23) ‘The pun proclaims both the similarity and the differentiation of female and male. Before this episode the Yahwist has used only the generic term ‘adbam. No ex- clusively male reference has appeared. Only with ehe specific creation of wom ‘words, sexuality is simuleaneous for woman and man. The sexes are interrelated and interdependent. Man as male does not precede woman as female but hap- pens concurrently with her. Hence, the first act in Genesis 2 is the creation of an (“ishshab) occuts the first specific term for man os male (“ish). In other androgyny (2:7) and the last is the creation of sexuality (2:23). Male em- ™The verb bab (to build) suggests considerable labor. It is used of towns, towers, ‘altars, and fortifications, 'as well as of the primeval woman (Koehler-Beumgartner, p. 134). In Gen, 2:22 it may mean the feshioning of clay around the rib (Ruth Amiran, “Myths of the Creation of Man and the Jericho Statues,” BASOR No. 167, October, 1962, p 24f). * See Walter Brucagemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2, 23a),” Catholic Biblical Querterly, October, 1970, pp. 532-542. “In proposing 8 primary an androgynous interpretation of ‘adbams, I find victually ‘no support from (male) biblical scholars. But my view stands a8 documented from the38 PHYLLIS TRIBLE bodies female and female embodies male, ‘The two are neither dichotomies nor duplicates, ‘The birth of woman corresponds to the birth of man but does not copy it. In cesponding to the woman, man speaks for the first time and for the first time discovers himself as male. No longer a passive cteature, ‘ish comes alive in meeting 'shsbab. Some read in(ro) the poem a naming motif, ‘The man names the woman and thereby has power and authority over her®? But again I suggest that we re- read, Neither the verb nor the noun name is in the poem. We find instead the verb gard, to call: “she shall be called woman.” Now in the Yahwist primeval history this verb does not function as a synonym or parallel or substitute for name. "The typical formula for naming is the verb to call plus the explicit object name. This formula applies to Deity, people, places, and animals. For example, in Genesis 4 we read: Cain built 2 city and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch G17). ‘And Adam knew his wife agsia, and she bore a son and called his name Seth W235). To Seth also a son was born and he called his name Enoch (v. 26a). ‘At that time men began to call upon the mame of the Lord (v. 266). Genesis 2:23 has the verb call biir does not have the object name, Its absence signifies che absence of a naming motif in the poem. ‘The presence of both the verb call and the noun name in the episode of the animals strengthens the point: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to sce what he would call them; and what- ever the man called every living creature, that was its neme. ‘The man gave ‘memes to all cattle, and to the bicds of the air and to every beast of the field. (2:19-20) In calling the animals by name, ‘adbam establishes supremacy over them and fails to find a fit helper. In calling woman, ‘adbam does not name her and does find in her a counterpart. Female and male are equal sexes. Neither has suthor- ity over the other.” ‘A further observation secures the argument: Woman itself is not a name. It is a common noun; it is not a proper noun. Ic designates gender; it does not specify person. *Adhams recognizes sexuality by the words ‘isbsbab and ‘ish. ‘This recognition is not an act of naming to assert the power of male over female, text, and I take refuge among a remnant of ancieot (male) rabbis (see George Foot ‘Moore, Judairm, 1, Cambridge: Hasvard University Press, 1927, p. 453; also Joseph Campbell, The Hero with « Thossand Paces, Meridian Books, World Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 152ff, 2798). * See, e.g,, G. von Rad, Genesis, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961, pp. 80- 82; John H. Marks, "Genesis," The Interpreter's Ona-Volume Commentary on the Bible, ‘New York: Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 5; John A. Bailes, op. cit, p. 143. CE, Westermann, op. cit, pp. 316DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 39 Quite the contrary. But the true skeptic is already asking: What about Genesis 3:20 where “the man called his wife's name Eve"? We must wait to consider that question, Meanwhile, the words of the ancient poem s well as their con- text proclaim sexuality originating in the unity of ‘adbam, From this one (an- drogynous) creature come two (female and male). ‘The two fetura to their original unity as “ish and “ishshab become one flesh (2:24):4* another instance of the ring composition. ‘Next the differeaces which spell harmony and equality yield to the differences of disobedience and disaster. The serpent speaks to the woman. Why to the woman and not to the man? The simplest answer is chat we do not know. ‘The ‘Yahwist does nor tell us anymore than he explains why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the garden. But the silence of the text stimulates specu- lations, many of which only confirm the patriacchal mentality which conceived them. Cassuto identifies serpent and woman, maintaining that the cunning of the serpent is “in reality” the cunning of the woman.'? He impugns her further by declaring that “for the very reason chat a woman's imaginstion surpasses a man’s it was the woman who was enticed first." ‘Though more gentle in his as- sessment, von Rad avers thar “in the history of Yahweh-religion it has always been the women who have shown an inclination for obscure astrological cults” (a claim which he does not document).4® Consequently, he holds that the woman “confronrs the obscure allurements and mysteries that beset our limited life more directly than the man does,” and then he calls her a “emptress.” Paul Ricoeur says that woman “represents the point of weakness,” as the entire story “gives evi- dence of a very masculine resentment."* McKenzie links the “moral weakness” of the woman with her “sexual attraction” and holds that che latter ruined both the woman and the man.1® But the narrative does not say any of these things. It does not sustain the judgment that woman is weaker or more cunning or more sexual than man, Both have che same Creator, who explicitly uses the word “good” to introduce the creation of woman (2:18). Both are equal in birth. “Verse 24 probably mirrors « matriarchal society (so von Red, Genesis, p. 83). If the myth were designed to support patriarchy, it is difficult to explain how this verse survived without proper alteration. Westermann conteads, however, that en emphasis ‘on matriarchy misunderstands the point of the verse, which is the total communion of woman and man (op. cit, p. 317). U, Cassuto, A Commentery on the Book of Genesis, Part 1, Jerusslera: ‘The Magnes Press, n.d., p. 142. von Rad, op. cit, pp. 87-88. “Ricoeur departs from the traditional interpretation of the woman when he writes: ‘Bve n'est donc pas la femme en tant que “deuxitme sexe"; toute femme et tout homme But the fourth clause of his sentence obscures this complere identity of Adam and Bye: “toute femme peche “en” Adam, tout homme est seduit “en” Bve.” By switching from en active to a passive verb, Ricoeur makes only the woman directly responsible for both sinning and seducing. (Paul Ricoeur, Finitwde & Culpsbilite, Il. La Symboligue du Mal, Aubier, Bditions Montaigne, Paris, 1960, Cf, Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, Boston: Beacon Press, 1969, p. 255.) McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Gen 2-3," p. 570.40 PHYLLIS TRIBLE ‘There is complete rapport, physical, psychological, sociological, and theological, ‘between them: bone of bone and flesh of flesh. If there be moral frailty in one, it is moral frailty in two. Further, chey are equal in responsibility and in judgment, in shame and in guile, in redemption and in grace. ‘What the narrative says about the nature of woman it also says about the natare of man. ‘Why does the serpent speak to the woman and not to the man? Let a female speculate. If the serpent is “more subtle” chan its fellow crearures, the woman is more appealing than her husband, Throughout the myth she is the more in- telligent one, the more aggressive one, and the one with greater sensibilities.4® Perhaps the woman elevates the animal world by conversing theologically with the serpent. Ar any rate, she understands the hermeneutical task. In quoting God she interprets the prohibition (“neither shall you touch it”). The woman is both theologian and translator. She contemplates che tree, taking ino account all the possibilities. The tee is good for food; it satisfies the physical drives. Ik pleases the eyes; it is aesthetically and emotionally desirable. Above all, it is covered as the source of wisdom (Aaskil). ‘Thus the woman is fully aware when she acts, her vision 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. She seeks neither his advice nor his permission. She acts independently. 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 seluctant or hesitating. The man does not theologize; hhe does not contemplate; he does not envision the full possibilities of the oc- casion. His one act is belly-oriented, and it is an act of quiescence, not of initia- tive, The man is not dominant; he is not aggressive; he is not a decision-maker, Even though the prohibition nor co eat of the tree appears before the female was specifically created, she knows that it applies to her. She has interpreted it, and now she struggles with the tempration to disobey. But not the man, to whom the prohibition came directly (2:6). 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, brutish, and inept. These character portrayals are truly extraordinary in a culture dominated by men. I stress their contrast not to promote female chauvinism but to undercut patriarchal interpre- tations alien to the text. ‘The contrast between woman and man fades after their acts of disobedience... ‘They are one in the new knowledge of their nakedness (3:7). ‘They are one in hearing and in hiding. They flee from the sound of the Lord God in the Garden (3:8). First to the man come questions of responsibility (3:9, 11), but the man fails to be responsible: “The women whom ‘Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (3:12). Here the man does not blame the wom- an; he does not say thar the woman seduced him;‘" he blames the Deity. ‘The See Bailey, op. cis, p. 148. So Weseermana (op. cit, p. 340), contre Gunkel.DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION a verb which he uses for both the Deity and the woman is nin (cf. 3:6) as I can determing, this verb neither means nor implies seduction in this context or in the lexicon. Again, if the Yahwist intended to make woman the temptress, he missed a choice opportunity. ‘The woman's response supports the point. “The serpent beguiled me and I ste” (3:13). Only here occurs the strong verb nib’, meaning to deceive, to seduce. God accepts this subject-verb combination when, immediately following the woman's accusations, Yahweh says to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed ate you above all animals” (3:14). ‘Though the tempter (che serpent) is cursed,!* the woman and the man are not. But they are judged, and che judgments are commentaries on the disastrous effects of their shared disobedience, ‘They show how terrible human life has become as it stands between creation and grace. We misteed if we assume that these judgments are mandates. ‘They describe; they do not prescribe. ‘They pro- test; they do not condone. Of special concern are the words telling the woman that her husband shall rule over her (3:16). ‘This statement is not license for male supremacy, but rather it is condemnation of that very pattern? Subjuga- tion and supremacy are perversions of creation. ‘Through disobedience the woman has become slave. Her initiative and her freedom vanish. The man is corrupted also, for he has become master, ruling over the one who is his God- given equal. ‘The subordination of female to male signifies their shared sin® ‘This sin vitiates all relationships: between animals and buman beings (3:15); mothers and children (3:16); husbands and wives (3:16); man and the soil (3:17, 18); man and his work (3:19). Whereas in creation man and woman know harmony and equality, in sia they know alienation and discord, Grace makes possible a new beginning. ‘A further observation about these judgments: They are culturally conditioned. Husband and work (childbearing) define the woman; wife and work (farming) define the man. A literal reading of the story limits both creatures and limits the story. To be faithful translacors, we must recognize that women as well as men move beyond these culrurally defined roles, even as the intentionality and function of the myth moves beyond its original setting. Whatever forms stereo- typing takes in our own culture, they are judgments upon our common sin and disobedience. ‘The suffering and oppression we women and men know now are marks of our fall, not of our creation. Ie is at this place of sin and judgment that “the man calls his wife’s name Eve” (3:20), thereby asserting his rule over her. ‘The naming itself faults the man for corrupting a relationship of mutuality ond equality. And so Yahwch For a discussion of the serpent, see Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Beil, pp. 253-260. “CE. Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testement, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965, p. 84, note 4: “Is it not surprising that, in a culture where the subordination of woman to man was a virtually unquestioned social principle, the etiology of the sub- ‘ordination should be in che context of man’s primal sin? Pechaps woman's subordination was not unquestioned in Israel.” Cf. also Henricus Renckens, Isreel's Concept of tbe Beginning, New York: Herdet and Herder, 1964, p. 2176 Conira Westermann, op. cit, p. 357.42 PHYLLIS TRIBLE evicts the primeval couple from the Garden, yet with signals of grace. Interest- ingly, the conclusion of the story does not specify the sexes in flight. Instead the narrator resumes use of the generic and androgynous term ’adham, with which the story began, and thereby completes an overall ring composition (3:22-24). ‘We approached this myth by asking if it presages a break with patriarchy. Our rereading has borne fruit, Remarkable is the extent to which patriarchal patterns fade; the extent to which the Yabwist stands over ageinst his male dominated culture; the extent to which the vision of a transsexual Deity shaped an understanding of human sexvaliry. EXEGESIS: SONG OF SONGS On this issue the Yabwist is not alone in Israel. Among his companions are the female and the male who celebrate the joys of erotic love in the Song of Songs. This poetry contains many parallels to the Yahwist narrative. Perhaps the Paradise described in Genesis 2 and destroyed in Genesis 3 has been regained, expanded, and improved upon in the Song of Songs. At any rate, its words and images embody simultaneously several layers of meaning. ‘The literal, the meva- phoric, and the euphemistic intertwine in content and nuance.‘ Canticles begins with the woman speaking." She initiates love-making: ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is sweeter than wine (1:2). Tn this first poem (1:2-2:6) she calls herself keeper of vineyards (1:6). In the last poem (8:4-14) she returns to this motif (8:12), even as she concludes the unit by summoning her beloved (8:14). ‘Thus the overall structure of the Song is a ring composition showing the prominence of the female. Within this design another énclusio emphasizes women. The daughters of Jerusalem com- mence and close the second poem (2:7 and 3:5). ‘As in Genesis 2-3, the ring composition of the Song of Songs encircles a garden? Person and place blend in this imagery. Let my beloved come to his garden ‘and eat ics choicest fruit (4:16). ™ [hold a natural (rether than an allegorical, typological, mythological, or cultic) in- terpretation of the Song of Songs as erotic love poetry. For various views, see Oxto Hiss- felde, The Old Testement, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, pp. 483-491, and Ernst Sellin and Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testaments, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968, pp--299-303. A recent exposition of the cultic view, which revives the general theory of ‘T. J. Meek, is Samuel Noah Kramer, “The Sacred Matriage and Solomon's Song of Songs,” The Sacred Masrisge Rise, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969, pp. 85-106. For structure I am dependent on the forthcoming article by J. Cheryl Exum, “A Literury and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” Zeiticbrifs fir die Alsen Testa. menium. See also L. Krinetski, Das Hobelied, Ditseldorf, 1964. "In addition to the riag composition, Gen. 2-3 and the Song of Songs share other literary and shetorical features: (1) Chissmus: eg, the order of serpent/wemsn/man,DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 43 ‘The woman is the garden (4:10-15), and wo the garden her lover comes (5:1, 6:2, 11). ‘Together they enjoy this place of sensuous delight. Many trees adorn their garden, trees pleasant to the sight and good for food: the apple tree (2:3; 7:8; 8:5), the fig tree (2:13), the pomegranate (4:3, 13; 6:7), the cedar (5:15), the palm (7:8) and “all trees of frankincense” (4:14). Spices give pleasure as does the abundance of fruits, plants, and flowers: the meadow saffron (2:1), the lotus (2:1f, 16; 4:5; 5:13; 7:2), the mandrake (7:13), and others (2:12, 13; 4:13, 16; 6:11), Fountains of living water enhance furthet this site (4:12, 15), inviting comparisons with the subterranean stream watering the earth (Gen. 2:6) and with the rivers flowing out of Eden to water the garden (Gen. 2:10-14). Animals inhabit two gardens. In the first they were formed, both beasts and birds, and received theit names. As foils they participated in the creation of woman and provided a context for the total joy of ‘ish and 'ishsbab, In Canticles their eames become explicit as does their contextual and metaphorical participa- tion in the encounters of lovers, ‘The women describes her mate: ‘My beloved is like « gazelle ora young stag (2:9) beside springs of water (5:12). ‘The man also uses animal imagery to desctibe the woman: Behold, you are beautiful, my love behold, you ate beautifull Your eyes are doves behind your veil. ‘Your hair is like a flock of goats, moving down the slopes of Gileed. ‘Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, Each having its twin, tand not one of them is bereaved (4:1-2) ‘Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies (4:5). man/woman/serpent, serpent/woman/man (Genesis 3); face/voice, voice/face (Song 2:14) as well as the structre of Song 2:8-17, (2) Paranomasia: ef. ‘adams and 'ad- bemab (Gen. 2:7); ‘ish and 'ishsbab (Gen. 2:23); shemen and sb'meke (Song 3% and bojso'n and #°% and bero'im (Song 1:8). For rhetorical devices in Canticles, see op. cit. “CE. Gen, 2:9 and Song of Songs 2:3.“4 PHYLLIS TRIBLE The mate (1:9), the foxes (2:15), che turtedove (2:12), the lions and the Teopards (4:8) also dwell in this garden where all nature extols the love of fe- male and male. ‘The sensuality of Eden broadens and deepens in the Song, Love is sweet to the taste, like the fruit of the apple tree (2:3; cf. 4:16; 5:1, 13). Fragrant are the smells of the vineyards (2:13), of the perfumes of myrrh and frankincense (3:6), of the scent of Lebanon (4:11), and of beds of spices (5:13; 6:2). The embraces of lovers confirm the delights of touch (1:2; 2:3-6; 4:10, 11; of. 5:15 7:69; 8:1, 3). A glance of the eyes ravishes the heart (4:9; 6:13), as the sound of the beloved thrills it (5:4). ‘Work belongs both to the garden of creation and to the garden of eroticism. Clearly man works in Eden and implicitly woman too. ‘The Song alters this emphasis, The woman definitely works. She keeps vineyards (1:6; cf. 8:12), and she pastures flocks (1:8). Her lover may be a shepherd also (1:7), though the text does not secure this meaning ®* By analogy he is a king (1:4, 12; 8:11, 12), but he neither rules nor dispenses wisdom. He provides luxury for the sake of love (3:9-11).8° ‘Together Genesis 2 and the Song of Songs affirm work in gardens of joy, and together they suggest fluidity in the occupational roles of woman and man. In Canticles nature and work are pleasures leading co love, as indeed they were before the primeval couple disobeyed and caused the ground to bring forth thorns and thistles and work to become pain and sweat (Gen. 2:15; 3:16, 18, 19). Neither the primeval couple nor the historical couple bear names, but both are concerned with naming. When ’adhem names the animals, it is an act of authority consonant with creation, When he names the woman, it is an act of perversion preceding expulsion. In the erotic garden roles reverse, authority vanishes, and perversion is unknown. ‘The woman names the man: For your love is better than wine, your anointing oils are fragrant, ‘Your meme is oil poured out; therefore the maidens love you (1:263). Her act is wholly firting and good, Naming is ecstasy, not exercise; it is love, not control. And that love marks a new creation. Song of Songs extends beyond the confines of Eden to include other places, people, and professions. We move from the countryside (2:14; 4:11; 6:11; 7:12) to the city with its squares, streets, and walls (2:9; . We “Jn Song of Songs 1:7 the verb 1'b (to feed or to pasture) has no direct object, there- by producing ambiguous meanings, Some translators supply the object flock (or sheep) © make the man s shepherd (so RSV, NEB, JB, NJV). More likely, che verb is double entondre for erotic play, In 2:16 and 6:3 the same verb occurs, again without objects in (MT: the man pastures among the lilies. In 2:1,2 the woman is the lily. See Albert Cook, The Root of the Thing, Bloomington: Indiena University Press, 1968, pp. 106, 125.DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 45 ‘hear of kings (1: :4) and warriors (3:75 6:4 maidens (6:8, 9); watchmen (3:3; 5:7) and merchants (3:6); brothers (1:6), sisters (8:8), mothers (6:9; 8:1, 2,5), and companions male (1:7) and female (2:2, 7). Paradise expands to civilization. History, like narure, contributes t0 the encounter of the sexes Parental references merit special attention. Seven times the lovers speak of mother, but not once do they mention father°" The man calls his beloved the special child of the mother who bore her (6:9), even as the woman cites the travail of che mother who bore him (8:5). ‘This concern with birth is also reminiscent of the theme of creation in Genesis 2. In yearning for closeness ‘with her lover, the woman wishes he were a brother nursing at the breast of her mother (8:1). But these traditional images do not exhaust the meaning of mother. It is his mother who crowns Solomon on the day of his wedding (3:11). ‘The female lover identifies her brothers as sons of her mother, not of her father (1:6), And most telling of all, the woman leads her lover to the “house of her mother” (3:4; 8:2). Neither the action nor the phrase bespeaks patri- srchy.*® ‘This strong matriarchal coloring in the Song of Songs recalls the primeval man leaving his father and his mother to cleave to his wife (Gen. 2:24; cf. Gen. 24:28; Ruth 1:8). Like Genesis 2, Canticles affirms mutuality of the sexes. There is no male dominance, no female subordination, and a0 stereotyping of either sex. The woman is independent, fully the equal of the man. Her interests, work, and words defy che connotations of “second sex” Unlike the first woman, this one is not a wife. Her love does not include procreation®* At times the man ap- proaches her, and at other times she initiates their meetings. In one poem the man moves vigorously and quickly over che hills and mountains to stand at her window. He calls her to join him outside: Arise, my love, my fair one and come away; for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone (2:10,11). ‘Next the woman actively seeks the'man (3:14). Upon her bed she desires him. She rises to search in the streets and squares. Her movements are bold and open, She does not work in secret of in shame. She asks help of the night watchman: “Have you seen him whom my nephesh loves?” Finding him, she clasps him securely: Cook, op. cit p. 103. Cr. de Veux, of. "It is a moot question whether or aot procreation is implied in the relationship of the primeval couple before their fall. Cervainly it is not specified. Von Rad holds that “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) signifies progeny (op. cit, p. 824). Guokel maintsins chat the46 PHYLLIS TRIBLB T held him and would not let go vontil T had bronght him into my mother’s house, and into the chember of her thae conceived me (3:4). This theme of alternating initiative for woman and man runs throughout the poetry.® Further, each lover exalts the physical beaury and charm of the other in language candid and covert. ‘Their metaphorical speech reveals even as it conceals, They treat each other with tenderness and respect, for chey are sexual lovers, not sexual objects. They: neither exploit nor escape sex; they embrace and enjoy ic® Both are naked and they are not ashamed (cf. Gen. 2:25). On occasion the woman expresses their relationship by the formule, “My beloved is mine and I am his” (2:16; 6:3). Once she says, “I am my beloved's and his desire is for me” (7:10). ‘This word desire occurs only three times in the Old Testament: once in Canticles and twice in the Yahwist Epic (Gen. 3:16; 4:7). “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” is the divine judgment upon the woman. As we have seen, its context is sin and perversion. Desire in the Song of Songs reverses this meaning of the male- female relationship. Here desire is joy, not judgment. Moreover, the possessive reference has switched from the wife's desire for her husband to the desire of the male lover for the female. Has one mark of sin ia Eden been overcome here in another garden with the recovery of mutuality in love? Male dominance is totally alien to Canticles. Can it be thar grace is present? Let us stress chat these lovers are not the primeval couple living before the advent of disobedience. Nor are they an eschatological couple, as Karl Barth would have us believe.®® ‘They live in the "terror of history” (Eliade) but their love knows not chat cerror. To be sure, the poetry hints of threats ro their Para- dise, If the first garden had its tree and its serpent, the second has its potential dangers too, ‘There is the sterile winter now past (2:11); the little foxes which spoil the vineyards (2:15); the anger of the brothers (1:6);** a knowledge of jealously (8:6); and the anxiety of the woman secking her beloved, finding hhirm not (3:1-4; 9:6-8; 6:1), and suffeting at che hands of the watchmen (5:7). In addition, death threatens eroticism even as it haunted creation (Gen 2:17); 3:3, 4, 19). Bue all these discordant notes blend into the total harmony of love. phrase means sexual intercourse (Genesis, HAT, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1902, p. 10). Westermann claims neither view is adequate; “one flesh” means the total communion of woman and man (0p. cit., p. 317). * Ct. Cook, op. eit, pp. 131-146. See Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970, pp. 191-193. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1960, pp. 291- 300. © The meaning of the word anger (nbr) is uncertain; see Kéhler-Baumgartner, op. cit., p. 609.DEPATRIARCHALIZING IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 47 If death did not swallow the primeval couple, neither does it overpower the his- torical couple. “Love is strong as death” (8:6). ‘The poetry speaks triumphant- ly to all terror when it affirms that not even the primeval waters of chaos can deseroy love: Many waters cannot quench love, (ababab) acither can floods drown it (8:7). Ia many ways, chen, Song of Songs is a midrash on Genesis 2-3. By vasis- tions and reversals it creatively actualizes major motifs and themes of the prime- val myth. Female and male are born to mutuality and love. They ate naked without shame; they are equal without duplication. ‘They live in gardens where nature joins in celebrating their oneness. Animals remind these couples of their shared superiority in creation as well as of their affinity and responsibility for lesser creatures. Fruits pleasing to the eye and to che tongue are theits to enjoy. Living waters replenish their gardens. Both couples are involved in naming; both couples work. If the first pair pursue the traditional occupations for wom en and men, the second eschews stereotyping. Neither couple fits the rhetoric of a male dominated culture. As equals they confront life and death. But the first couple lose their oneness through disobedience. Consequently, the woman's desire becomes the man's dominion, The second couple sffitm their oneness through eroticism. Consequently, the man’s desire becomes the woman's de- light. Whatever else it may be, Canticles is a commentary on Genesis 2-3, Paradise Lost is Paradise Regained. ‘Yet the midrash is incomplete, Eveo though Song of Songs is the poetry of history, it speaks not at all of sin and disobedience. Life knows no prohibi- tions. And most strikingly, no Deity scts in that history. God is aot explicidly acknowledged as either present or absent (though eroticism itself may be an act of worship in the context of grace). Some may conclude that chese omis- sions make the setting of Canticles a more desirable paradise than Eden, But the silences portend the limits. If we cannot return to the primeval garden (Gen. 3:23-24), we cannot live solely in the garden of eroticism. Juxtaposing the two passages, we can appropriate them both for our present concern. CONCLUSION: A DEPATRIARCHALIZING PRINCIPLE Suffice it to conclude that the Hebrew Scriptures and Women's Liberation do meet and that their encounter need not be hostile. Contrary to Kate Millets, the biblical God is not on che side of patriarchy, and the myth of the Fall does not “blame all this world’s discomfort on the female.” Indeed, this myth negates patriarchy in crucial ways; it does not legitimate the oppression of women. It % 1 use midcash here to designate a type of exegesis, not w literacy gente. See Addison G. Wright, Midrash, New York: Albe House, 1967, pp. 43-45, 143, and Roger Le Deaut, “Apropos a Definition of Mideash,” Interpretation, Vol. XXV, July, 1971, pp. 259-282.48 PHYLLIS TRIBLE explores the meaning of human existence for female and male. Ie reveals the goodness yet frailty of both creatures; their intended equality under God and swith each other; their solidarity in sin and in suffering; and their shared need of redemption. ‘Thereby its symbols illuminate a present issue, even as they exer- _ cise a sobering check on it. In Yahwist theology neither male nor female chau- vinism is warranted. Both are perversions of creation which sigaify life under judgment. Song of Songs counterbalances this “undertone of melancholy” (von Rad) by showing woman and man in mutual harmony after the Fall. Love is the meaning of their life, and this love excludes oppression ead exploitation Ie knows the goodness of sex and hence it knows not sexism. Sexual love expands existence beyond the stereotypes of sociery. It draws uato itself the public and the private, the historical and the natural. It transforms ell life even as life en- ances it. Grace returas to female and male. ‘Alongside Genesis 2-3 and the Song of Songs we place the themes of the nature of Yahweh, of the Exodus, and of corporate personality, In various ways they demonstrate a depatriarchalizing principle at work in the Hebrew Bible. Depatriarchalizing is not an operation which the exegete performs on the text. Ic is a hetmeneutic operating within Scripture itself. We expose it; we do not impose it. ‘Tradition history teaches that the meaning and function of biblical materials is fluid. As Scripture -moves through history, it is appropriated for new sectings. Varied and diverse traditions appear, disappear, and reappear from occasion to occasion. We shall be unfaithful readets if we neglect biblical passages which break with patriarchy or if we permit our interpretations to freeze in a patriarchal box of our own construction. For our day we need to perceive the depatriarchalizing principle, co recover it in those texts and themes where it is present,** and to accent it in our translations. Therein we shall be explorers who embrace both old and new in the pilgrimage of faith. “Cook, op. cit, p. 103F. "The task of recovering the depatriarchalizing principle in Seriprure has only begua. For enother recent effort, see William L, Holladay, “Jeremiah and Women's Liberation,” Andover Newton Querserly, March, 1972, pp. 213-223.