Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (review)

Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative uses feminist ideological criticism to argue that the biblical narrative functions prescriptively (not descriptively), so that it “legislates and authorizes the political supremacy of men over women” (p. 7). This thesis is supported primarily by analysis of type-scenes—literary scenes that repeat with variations in several contexts. Separate chapters deal with biblical mothers (type-scenes of annunciation and “temptation,” e.g., seduction of fathers), brides (betrothal), and wives (adultery; co-wives’ contests). The last two chapters deal with Jephthah’s daughter (Judg. 11) and the rapes of Dinah (Gen. 34) and Tamar (2 Sam. 13).

Many valuable insights are offered in support of Fuchs’ thesis. In one of these, she notes how female characters tend to disappear once they have played their role in advancing the interests of patriarchy or the story of the principal male characters. Hence, for example, Dinah and Tamar exit the narrative as soon as their brothers step in to avenge their rapes. It long has been noted that the biblical text often lacks direct speech by its female characters or narrative descriptions of their thoughts and feelings. Fuchs helps us to see that ideological purposes may be at work here. Why are Sarah, Rebekah and Bathsheba silent in their respective adultery type-scenes (Gen. 12.10–20, 20.1–18; 26.1–12; 2 Sam. 11–12)? Why doesn’t the narrator tell us how they feel when their husbands pretend they are their sisters? Because, Fuchs asserts convincingly, this implies they are their husbands’ adjuncts rather than autonomous beings. So it is their husbands who are the injured parties from whom a desired object has been taken (or almost taken). She also demonstrates that even when we do learn of a woman’s viewpoint through direct speech, sexist ideology may be at work. Her treatment of Tamar is particularly strong here. When her half-brother rejects her after raping her, Tamar tells him this is worse than the rape itself. This verse effectively validates biblical laws which compel the rapist to marry his victim (Exod. 21.15; Deut. 22.28–29). As Fuchs puts it, the words placed in Tamar’s mouth teach that “violating the law is worse than violating a woman” (p. 216).

Several progressions of type-scenes are identified in this book. Brides in betrothal scenes (from Rebekah to Zipporah) are less and less vocal, for instance. While a good case is made for patterns like these, it is rather less obvious that they represent patriar chal ideology. Are the three brides progressively more silent to make “[the Bible’s] later obliviousness to the fates of women as wives seem natural” (p. 106)? Or does this have more to do with the respective plots in which each case is embedded? For example, might Zipporah be less prominent because the main thrust of Moses’ story is national rather than domestic? After all, there is little emphasis on the birth of Moses’ sons either.

Other purported manifestations of patriarchal ideology are still more questionable. For instance, Fuchs claims that annunciation and temptation type-scenes focus on a woman’s inability to give birth in order to question maternity as a source of female power. But just as Elijah proved on Mt. Carmel that YHWH is in charge of rain, surely the main point here is that YHWH (and no pagan deity) is in charge of fertility. (Fuchs mentions this herself, almost as an aside, in her discussion of the Ruth narrative.) She argues that adultery type-scenes present wives as morally inferior to their husbands. But it strains credulity to imagine that the cowardly deceptions of Abraham and Isaac depict them as morally superior to the passive wives they pass off as sisters. There a number of other doubtful conclusions like these. Yet even when Fuchs finds questionable examples...