"This was a Woman that taught": Feminist Scriptural Exegesis in the Seventeenth Century

"ThiswasaWomanthattaught": FeministScripturalExegesisinthe SeventeenthCentury MARGARETOLOFSONTHICKSTUN Inreadingcontemporarycriticismofseventeenth-centurywomenwrit- ers,Ihavenoticedthatcriticstendeithertoignoreortomisunderstand thefeministimplicationsofwomen'sclaimtoreligiousauthorityasinter- pretersofScripture.Itseemstomethatcontemporaryscholarship,oper- atingasitdoesinasecularculture,isnotsufficientlyawareofthe revolutionarynatureofawoman'sclaimtoreligiousauthority.Iwould liketocorrectthismisapprehensionbydiscussingtwowomenwritersof thelateseventeenthcenturywhoattemptedafeministcritiqueofScrip- ture,MargaretFell,inWomensSpeakingJustified(1667),andMary Astell,intheprefacetothethirdeditionofSomeReflectionsonMar- riage(1706).'ButIwouldalsoliketodistinguishbetweentheirargu- mentsinordertoidentifywhyAstell'swork,whichultimatelyretreats fromclaimingwomen'sequalityintheSpirit,figuressoprominentlyin recentdiscussionsofearlyfeminism,whileFell'spamphletdefending women'sreligiousauthorityreceivesonlypassingreference. Abriefsurveyofrecentscholarshiprevealstheintellectualbiasthat blindscontemporaryscholarstotheimportanceofthesewriters'feminist critiqueofScripture.HildaSmith'sReason'sDisciples:Seventeenth- CenturyEnglishFeminists(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1982) positsEnlightenmentideasastheefficientcauseforaburstoffeminist writingatthecloseofthecentury:"Inrationalismtheyfoundtheideol- 149 150 / THICKSTUN ogythatbestansweredtheirdesiretoassertequalityandtodevelopa frameworkforquestioningthestatusquo"(60).RuthPerry,inanessay onAstellinWomenandtheEnlightenment(NewYork:HaworthPress, 1984)commentsthat"whatstrikesoneaboutherlifeandworkasa whole,whatmarksherasawomanoftheEnlightenment,isherunquali- fiedbeliefinRightReasonandthefaithshereposed—bothpersonally andideologically—inthemind"(15).KatharineRogerstitlesonechapter inherbook,FeminisminEighteenth-CenturyEngland(Urbana:Univer- sityofIllinoisPress,1982),"TheLiberatingEffectofRationalism." Astell'ssecularargumentsappealtocontemporaryscholarsbecauseshe valueswhattheyvalue,educationandtheexerciseofreason,whileboth herScripturalcriticismandFell'simpassionedclaimsofinspirationdis- concertreaderstrainedtoequatereligiousenthusiasmwitheitherirra- tionalityorfundamentalism. Intheirdiscussionsofbothwriters,scholarsrevealtheirassumption thatreligiousfaithandfeministconvictionsarenecessarilyantithetical: Smith,forexample,saysofAstell'sASeriousProposaltotheLadies that"thestrongreligiousorientationofhercurriculumwouldnot,of course,allowforagenuinelyliberatingeducation"(126).Similarly,she dismissesthefeministimplicationsofFell'spamphletbecauseFelldoes notraise"theissueofwomen'sroleinthehouseholdorinsocietyin general"(95),assertingthatshe"askedmerelythataChristianwomanbe allowedtopracticeherreligionasfullyandvariouslyasaman"(96).But MargaretFell'sclaimingtherighttopreachisinitselfadefiantlyand expansivelyfeministactthattranscendsanyneedtopursueanargument aboutthedetailsofsocialchangethatmustnecessarilyfollow.Simplyby undertakingthetaskofinterpretingScriptureindependentlyofthemale clergy,thesewomenthreatentheverybasisofpatriarchy'ssocialcontrol. Thecontinuedresistancetowomenclergyamongthemoreconservative religiousbodiestoday—eventhoughwomenmembersofthosereligions arecollegeprofessors,corporatepresidents,andcongresswomen— illustratestheprofoundconnectionbetweenreligiousauthorityand patriarchalpower. BothFellandAstelldevelophermeneuticpracticesthatallowthemto challengereceivedinterpretationofScripturebyestablishinganextra- biblicalaccesstodivinetruth.Fellderivesherauthorityasaninterpreter ofScripturefromherbeliefinGod'scontinuingself-revelationinhis- tory,anideathatdestabilizestheauthorityofScripturaltexts.Addressingtheproblemthattwentieth -centuryfeministtheologiansdescribeas distinguishing"scriptfromScripture,"2Fellprivilegescharismaticspeak- ingofGod'swordoversilence:"thosethatspeakagainstthePowerof theLord,andtheSpiritoftheLordspeakinginawoman,simply,by FeministScripturalExegesis / 151 reasonofherSex,orbecausesheisaWoman...,suchspeakagainst Christ,andhisChurch,andareoftheSeedoftheSerpent"(116).Pas- sagesthatexhortsilenceandorder,then,mustbeinterpretedintermsof theoverridingcommandtowitnesstoGod'sloveandpower.Inthelight ofthisprinciple,Fellbelievesshecandetermine"howGodhimselfhath manifestedhisWillandMindconcerningwomen,anduntowomen" (Π5). MaryAstell'shermeneuticpracticeconfrontspriestlyauthorityby privilegingreason,orcommonsense,overerudition,"forSenseisa PortionthatGODHimselfhasbeenpleas'dtodistributetobothSexes withanImpartialHand,butLearningiswhatMenhaveengrossedto themselves"(78).Commonsenseleadshertoconcludethat"OneText forus,ismoretoberegardedthanmanyagainstus.BecausethatOne beingdifferentfromwhatCustomhasestablish'd,oughttobetakenwith PhilosophicalStrictness"(79).Shedistinguishesbetweenpassagesthat presentdivinerevelationaboutwomenandpassagesthatconformto humanpractice,arguingthat"Scriptureisnotalwaysontheirsidewho makeparadeofit,andthro'theirskillinLanguagesandtheTricksofthe Schools,wrestitfromitsgenuinesensetotheirownInventions"(74). HersubsequentcritiqueoftraditionalinterpretationsofScripturalpas- sagesaboutwomenassertsherownabilitytogetat"itsgenuinesense." Bothwriters,then,approachScripturethroughwhattwentieth- centuryfeministbiblicaltheologiansterm"ahermeneuticsofsuspicion." Theyrecognizeboththetextitselfandconventionalprinciplesofinter- pretationaspoliticaltoolsandcriticizeclergywhouseScripturalauthor- ityasanideologicalweaponagainstwomen.Astellunderscoresmen's powerastranslatorsandinterpreterswhensheobservesthat"women, withouttheirownFault,arekeptinIgnoranceoftheOriginal,wanting LanguagesandotherhelpstoCriticiseontheSacredText,ofwhichthey knownomorethanMenarepleas'dtoimpartintheirTranslations"(74). Withoutknowledgeoftheoriginallanguages,sheasserts,womenread nottheactualScripture,butatranslationthatisnecessarilyaninterpre- tationofit.Theconcernwhichtheclergydemonstratesinrestrictingwho canreadtheoriginaltextandhowthetextcanbeinterpreted"shew[s] theirdesiretomaintaintheirHypotheses,butbynomeanstheirRever- encetotheSacredOracles"(74-75).Astell'sconcernthatwomenbeable totesttheaccuracyofthetranslationsuggeststhatherreligiousconvic- tion,atleastasmuchasherreadinginphilosophy,informsherargu- mentsforwomen'seducation.Sheremarkswrylythat"whenanAdver- saryisdrovetoaNonplusandReasondeclaresagainsthim,hefliesto Authority,especiallytoDivine,whichisinfallible,andthereforeought nottobedisputed"(74).AshersubsequentScripturalexegesisdemon- 152 / THlCKSTUN strates,aneducatedfemalelaitywouldpossesstheabilitytodisputethe interpretationof"infallible"Authority. Fellestablisheswomen'sinspiredwitnessasgroundsfordisputing priestlyauthority.Shenotonlyexposesthehypocrisyofpriestswho "takeTexts,andPreachSermonsuponWomenswords,andstillcryout, Womenmustnotspeak,Womenmustbesilent"(124),butcallsinto questionthecompletenessofScripture.OfJesus'sexplicitself-revelation totheWomanofSamaria,shecomments,"thisismorethaneverhesaid inplainwordstoManorWoman(thatwereadof)beforehesuffered" (117).ThatparentheticalremarkindicatesthatFellquestionstheaccu- racyofthebiblicalrecorditself,notsimplyitsvernacularmanifestions. SheconteststheprivilegedstatusofScripturebecausesherecognizesthat thereceivedhistoryofJesus'sministryisnotafullaccountofthetruth, butatellingofthestorythatservesthepoliticalpurposesofthepriesthood .Byclaiminganauthorityderivedfromapersonalexperienceofthe Spirit,Fellisabletogroundthelegitimacyofherspeakingandher messageoutsidereceivedtraditionandconventionalauthority,whileat thesametimeappealingtotheultimatetruthitclaimstocontain. BothFellandAstelldemonstrateanacuteawarenessofthehistoricity ofbiblicaltexts,particularlythePaulineepistles.Theyinsistthatthe Paulinelettersbereadintheirhistorical,pastoralcontext.InFell'sdis- cussionof1Cor.14:34—"Letyourwomenkeepsilenceinthechurches, foritisnotpermitteduntothemtospeak"—shearguesthatPaul'sexhor- tationtosilenceappliestoaparticularepisodeinchurchhistory,notto theconductofChristianwomenthroughoutalltime.Applyingherher- meneuticprinciplethatspeakingtheGospeltakesprecedenceoversocial propriety,FellinterpretsPaul'ssubsequentqualification,"asalsosaith theLaw,"asfurtherevidencethatthiscommanddoesnotapplyto women'sinspiredspeaking:"forhespeaksofwomenthatwereunderthe Law,andinthatTransgressionasEvewas"(119).Thesewomenwho, Fellproposes,hadnotyetenteredthecommunityofgracecouldnot participateasfullspeakingmembersincommunalworship.Paul'scom- mandthendoesnotapplytobelievingwomen"thathavetheEverlasting Gospeltopreach,anduponwhomthePromiseoftheLordisfulfilled" (120).Shedefendsthisinterpretationbypointingto1Cor.11,which outlinesproperbehaviorforwomenwhoareprophesying—suchascov- eringtheirheadsandleavingtheirhairbraided—andPhilippians4.3, wherePaulentreatsPhilemon"tohelpthoseWomenwholabouredwith himintheGospel." Astellalsoemphasizesthepastoralcontextofthisinjunction.She argues"thattho'heforbidsWomentoteachintheChurch,...hedid notfoundthisProhibitiononanysuppos'dwantofUnderstandingin FeministScripturalExegesis / 153 Woman,orofabilitytoTeach;neitherdoesheconfinethematalltimes tolearninsilence"(77).ShepointstoPriscilla'steachingApollos,andto Paul'splacinghernamebeforeherhusband'sand"givingtoheraswell astohim,theNobleTitleofhisHelperinChristJesus"(78),asevidence thatPaulcannotmeanthisstatementtobeauniversalproclamation.She suggeststhatheforbadewomentoteachintheCorinthianchurch"for severalPrudentialreasons,likethoseheintroduceswithan/givemy Opinion,andnowIspeaknottheLord,andnotbecauseofanyLawof Nature,orPositiveDivinePrecept"(77).Astelldemonstratesthrough heranalysisofthispassagenotonlyhersenseoftheepistlesashistorical documents,butacarefulattentiontotheusesoflanguage,bothbyPaul andbyhistranslators,adding"thatthewordstheyareCommanded(1 Cor.14.24.)arenotintheOriginal,[as]appearsfromtheItaliccharac- ter"(77).Here,shesuggests,ideologydeterminesnotonlyinterpreta- tion,buttranslation. Inthelightofthisawareness,bothwritersrefutetraditionalreadings oftheGenesisstory,aswellasitsmanifestationsinthePaulinetextson women.FellprivilegesthefirstCreationstoryinGenesis1:27—"SoGod createdmaninhisownimage,intheimageofGodcreatedhehim;male andfemalehecreatedthem"—arguingthat"GodtheFathermadeno suchdifferenceinthefirstCreation,norneversincebetweentheMale andtheFemale"(116).ShereadsthepunishmentandprophecyinGene- sis3asanallegoricaldiscussionoftheenmitybetweenSatanandthe Church,anapproachwhichsheusestodiscreditsexistapplicationsof Ephesians,chapter5,and1Timothy,chapter2.Astellalsoreads1 Timothy,chapter2,allegorically,remarkingthatitis"averyobscure place,"butthat"ifitbetakenAllegorically,withrespecttotheMystical UnionbetweenChristandhisChurch,towhichSt.Paulfrequently accomodatestheMatrimonialRelation,thedifficultiesvanish"(78).She mocksargumentsforthesubjectionofwomenbecauseoftheGenesis story,commenting,that"theEarthlyAdam'sbeingForm'dbeforeEve, seemsaslittletoproveherNaturalSubjectiontohim,astheLiving Creatures,Fishes,BirdsandBeastsbeingForm'dbeforethemboth, provesthatMankindmustbesubjecttotheseAnimals"(78). Alongwiththis"hermeneuticsofsuspicion,"bothFellandAstell deploya"hermeneuticsofremembrance,"recoveringwomeninScripture aspositiverolemodelsforcontemporarywomen.Fell'sdiscussionof Hebrewwomenstressestheirspiritualauthority;sheincludesexamples ofwomenteachingandprophesying,followedbythepositiveresponse ofauthoritativefigures—patriarchs,elders,andprophets—totheir speech.AstellemphasizesHebrewwomen'spoliticalprominenceaslead- ersoftheirpeople.ShepointstoexampleswhereGodrevealedhimselfto 154 / THICKSTUN womenratherthantotheirhusbandsbecauseoftheirwisdom,prudence, orsuperiorpiety.LikeFell,sheemphasizesthepositiveresponseofmen inauthoritytowomen,althoughherchoiceofstoriessinglesoutpious ratherthanpropheticwomen.Shealsohesitatestousetheseexceptional womentoestablishprecedentsforotherwomen'ssubvertingthesocial order,commentingofonebiblicalpassage,"Iwou'dnotinferfrom hencethatWomengenerallyspeaking,oughttogovernintheirFamilies whentheyhaveaHusband"(82). BothFellandAstellemphasizethesuperiordevotionofJesus'sfemale followers,aswellashisspecialattentiontowardthem.AstelllistsMary, Martha,Elizabeth,Magdalen,theSyrophoenecian,andAnnaasexem- plarywomen;shepointsoutthat"whenourLordescap'dfromtheJews, hetrustedHimselfinthehandsofMarthaandMary"(84),ratherthan withhismalefollowers.Fellidentifiesapatternofspecialrevelationto womeninwhichJesusrevealshimselfastheMessiahandinwhichthe womendisciples—thewomanofSamaria,Martha,andthewomanwith thealabasterboxofointment—confidentlydeclaretheirbelief.Indis- cussingeachstory,sheemphasizestheintimacyoftheconversation,the unusualnessofJesus'sbluntspeaking,andtheconfidenceexpressedin thewomen'sresponse.OfMartha'sreadyaffirmationofJesus's divinity—"YeaLord,IbelievethouarttheChrist,theSonofGod" (117)—Fellcommentsthat"hereshemanifestedhertrueandsaving Faith,whichfewatthatdaybelievedsoonhim."Bothwomenpraisethe womenatthetomb,whowere"sounitedandknitintohiminlove,that theycouldnotdepartasthemendid,butsatwatching,andwaiting,and weepingabouttheSepulchre"(Fell,119).BothFellandAstellidentify thesewomen'sbeingthefirsttoreceivenewsoftheResurrectionasa rewardfortheirsuperiordevotion. Butinherdiscussion,Fellpresseswomen'spropheticauthoritymore aggressivelythanAstelldoes.Astelladmitsthat"GODHimselfwhois noRespecterofPersons,withwhomthereisneitherBondnorFree, MalenorFemale,buttheyarealloneinChristJesus[Gal.3.28],didnot denyWomenthatDivineGifttheSpiritofProphecy,neitherunderthe JewishnortheChristianDispensation"(83).SheidentifiesMiriam, Deborah,Huldah,andthefourdaughtersofPhilipasexamplesof inspiredwomenandpointstoPaul'sequaltreatmentofPriscillaasevi- dencethatwomendidteachwithauthority.Butsherefrainsfromusing thesemodelsortheeventsatthetombasameanstoencouragewomen's preaching,retreatingtowardmoreconventionaldefinitionsoffemale spirituality:"AndifitisagreaterBlessingtoheartheWordofGODand keepit,whoaremoreconsiderablefortheirAssiduityinthisthanthe FemaleDisciplesoftheLord?"(83).Fell,ontheotherhand,exploitsthe FeministScripturalExegesis / 155 revelationatthetombtoclinchherpointthatChristianwitnessrequires women'sactiveparticipation:assheaskstriumphantly,"whathad becomeoftheRedemptionofthewholeBodyofMan-kind,iftheyhad notbelievedtheMessagethattheLordJesussentbythesewomen[?]" (118).Shearguesthathumanredemptionrequiresacceptingtheauthor- ityofwomen'switness. Fell'sentirediscussioninsistsonaréévaluationoftheroleofJesus's womenfollowersasactivedisciplessothatshecanreclaimChristian discipleshipandreligiousauthorityforwomen.Inastrikinganticipation oftwentieth-centuryfeministbiblicalcriticism,Fellassertstheprophetic claimofthewomanwiththealabasterboxofointmentwhoanoints Jesus'shead,declaring,"thisWomanknewmoreofthesecretPowerand WisdomofGod,thenhisDisciplesdid,thatwerefilledwithindignation againsther"(117).Thisepisodehasbecomeacentralsymboloffeminist biblicalhistoricalreconstructionoftheChristianmovement,providing thetitleforElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza'sInMemoryofHer.Fiorenza explainsthatthiswoman'sanointingJesus'sheadnotonlywitnessesto hiskingshipandmessianicstatusbutalsoassertsthewoman'sownpro- pheticpower.IntheMark/MatthewtellingthatFellquotes,thewoman receivesfromJesuspraiseandthepromiseofcontinuedrecognition fromtheChristiancommunity,whichwillhonorherasasuperiordis- ciple:JesusdeclaresthatheractionshallberepeatedwherevertheGospel isproclaimed"foramemorialofher."IntheLukansource,sheispre- sentedasamodelofdiscipleshipagainstSimon,whohasnot"loved much."Fellusesbothversionsofthestorytounderscoreheropposition betweenwomen...