Artículo C Osiek
Artículo C Osiek
Artículo C Osiek
Hermeneutical Alternatives
Carolyn Osiek
Department of Biblical Literature
Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, USA
Visiting Professor: Department of New Testament Studies (Sec A)
University of Pretoria
Abstract
Amid the varieties of feminist interpretive methods in biblical scholar-
ship, this article suggests a general typology of approaches: rejection of
the claims of biblical authority; acceptance of those claims with critique
of oppressive interpretations; revisionism, which holds to the possibility
of reconstructing the lost experience of women in the texts; reliance on
symbol and image of the feminine to convey meaning; and finally, the
liberation critique of oppressive structures. An appreciation and critique
is offered for each alternative.
1. INTRODUCTION
Literature on feminist method is growing at such a pace that it has rather quickly
become an extended field of inquiry in itself, of which the present volume is adequate
testimony!. It is not the purpose of this chapter to attempt a documented history of the
feminist movement as it deals with biblical literature. For that reason whatever docu-
mentation is given is intended to be not exhaustive but representative. Rather, the
intent of the present essay is to explore some of the ways in which feminists, in particu-
lar feminist biblical scholars, are meeting the challenge of adequately and sensitively
interpreting biblical texts and the biblical tradition in the light of experience. Nor is it
my intention to attribute superiority to anyone, but rather to 'objectively' describe and
interpret each, bearing in mind of course the axiom of contemporary hermeneuticists
that no interpretation is purely objective but is always conditioned by the presupposi-
tions and prejudices of the interpreter.
With that in mind, it would probably be no waste of paper to briefly set out the
presuppositions and prejudices that I consciously bring to the undertaking. The careful
reader will no doubt detect others of which I am not aware. Thus the interpretive pro-
cess goes on. First, I belong to a large institutional church with an amazing amount of
diversity in its membership and a firmly entrenched patriarchal leadership. Although
that should not determine the direction of my critical scholarship, it inevitably affects
my experience; and the two cannot be totally separated. Second, I take note that the
very fact that we spend so much time and energy wrestling with biblical texts and tradi-
tions, the very fact that there is such a thing as 'biblical scholarship', means whether
we care to acknowledge it or not that the Bible is more for us than a curious piece of
history. It is part of our own living history, a power to be reckoned with in the com-
munities of faith to which we belong or from which our students and friends come.
Even those who assume a rejectionist stance toward the Bible admit by their position
that there is not much middle ground; indifference to the Bible is a difficult path for the
serious student of Christianity to tread.
Third, I judge as the result of my own investigation and reflection that it is
unnecessary to throw out the baby with the bath water. The biblical tradition contains
enough of lasting and universal value that it is worth salvaging, in spite of the
tremendous problems entailed in the salvage operation. Fourth, issues such as author-
ity, inerrancy, revelation, and inspiration must be handled with careful nuances, their
theoretical frameworks constructed not in the abstract but in constant interplay with the
lived experience of whole communities of faith. Finally, it is my conviction that the
elusive entity that we call 'tradition' is the all-encompassing movement that contains
within itself the biblical text and the factors leading to its production. It contains as
well the reflective interpretation of that articulation in subsequent generations, includ-
ing our own, as persons in concrete life situations bring the text to bear on their own
experience and, no less important, their experience to bear on the text. In other words,
tradition is not a boundary but an open road that connects us with the past and points us
in the direction of the future.
A discussion of feminist alternatives in biblical interpretation cannot be undertaken
in isolation from either recent currents in feminism or in biblical interpretation; hence a
few summary remarks about both by way of establishing a context for what follows.
Rosemary Ruether (1983:41-45, 216-232) has admirably summed up the three major
directions in contemporary feminism as liberal, socialist/Marxist, and romanticlradical.
Liberal feminism takes the model of progress within a capitalist society and works
for political reform, equal rights, and improved working conditions, with the assump-
tion that the present social and economic system of Western countries is still
redeemable and reformable. It thus carries within it the tendency to classism, to the
identification of the rights of upper-middle-class white women with 'women's rights',
to the neglect of the plight, interests, and needs of women who are caught in the eco-
nomically oppressive web of the working classes, minorities, and the poor. Much of
the accusation that has been leveled against the feminist movement by working and
minority women has identified feminism with this 'liberal feminism', which seems to
have little to offer them. It is an indictment of the middle-class feminists of recent
years for their failure to see beyond their own horizons.
Essentially the five options listed above can be reduced to three: focus on women
(1) and (4); situate women within a broader context (3) and (5); give up on the Bible
altogether as hopeless (2). Teaching and research on women in the Bible in recent
years has played on all five. In the following remarks I would like to suggest yet
another way of examining the alternatives for feminist biblical hermeneutics, one that I
believe is thematically more inclusive and deals with all options previously discussed.
Some may question use of the word 'feminist' for some of these alternatives, but the
term is to be taken here in its broadest sense, as concern for the promotion and dignity
of women in all aspects of society, and in this context especially inasmuch as that
promotion and dignity are conditioned by biblical interpretation. Some too may ques-
tion the appropriateness of 'hermeneutic' as a classification in some cases. Again, I am
taking the term in its broadest sense, as a principle of interpretation, while still confin-
ding it to interaction with biblical data. Others may consider that one or other of what
are proposed here are hardly acceptable as alternatives or options, either within the
range of what is life-giving to women or within the limits of possible responses that
would remain true to theological premises or contemporary assumptions. I would
argue that such judgments are subjective and that as long as a significant number of
women in or on the margins of the Western Christian tradition find one or other of
these alternatives to be their way of functioning meaningfully within their context - as
indeed they do in every case - it is a valid alternative for those who would take it.
Bear in mind once again that what follows is description, not advocacy. (These con-
siderations are deliberately limited to the Christian experience in the West, since I do
not claim sufficient knowledge of other religious traditions. I leave it to those who do
to respond out of their own experience.)
The question proposed then is: When women today in Christian communities
become aware of their situation within a patriarchal religious institution, and, more-
over, when they recognize that the Bible is a major implement for maintaining the
oppression by the patriarchal structure, what are the ways in which they respond and
adjust to that situation? I suggest that there are five ways: rejectionist, loyalist,
revisionist, sublimationist, and liberationist.
The rejectionist alternative is familiar enough in the recent past. It resembles
Sakenfeld's second method, rejecting the Bible as not authoritative or useful, though
some rejectionist writers go further, to the total rejection not only of the Bible but of
the whole religious tradition it represents. Seen from this perspective, the entire Judeo-
Christian tradition is hopelessly sinful, corrupt, and unredeemable. The long-discussed
hermeneutical question whether patriarchy is a separable attribute in Judaism and
Christianity, from which it could be purged, or whether patriarchalism is an inherent
characteristic inseparable from its nature is answered with the latter: because patriar-
chalism is an essential and corrupt component of Judaism-Christianity, the whole reli-
gious tradition must be rejected.
Beginnings of this position can be seen as early as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who
refused to be present at a suffragist prayer meeting at which the opening hymn was
'Guide Us, 0 Thou Great Jehovah', on the principle that Jehovah had 'never taken any
active part in the suffrage movement' (quoted by SchUssler Fiorenza 1983:7). Yet her
great project of The Woman's Bible clearly shows that ninety years ago even she was
not prepared to reject the whole of her religious tradition, perhaps because she saw too
well that she would win more converts by remaining in the struggle.
The primary proponent of the rejectionist alternative today is of course Mary Daly
(1973, 1979), whose writings on the subject are well known. For Daly, the only
acceptable hermeneutical principle is that of the remnant of women who leave the
unsavable Judeo-Christian legacy perpetrated by men and together form a new post-
Christian faith capable of conquering the evil of patriarchal ism and transcending its
negative power. Ultimately this direction leads to a new dualism, in which maleness
symbolizes evil and femaleness good, a reversal of the ancient Platonic cosmic/sym-
bolic hierarchy, but a hierarchy nevertheless2 . The rejectionist hermeneutic is the most
extreme theological form of radical separatism. Carried out faithfully in the social,
economic and political spheres, it would be not only very difficult but also very disrup-
tive if successful. Even as a biblical hermeneutic, its implications are quite serious. It
not only rejects what is proclaimed to be a major redemptive vehicle of Judaism and
Christianity as non-redemptive; but it also rejects the possibility of conversion for its
entire structure and its supPQrters. There is a kind of extreme apocalyptic finalism,
rigid and unbending, which cannot yield to a dynamic of conversion. This indicates its
major weakness: an almost total rootlessness from the historical past and from much of
the historical and social present. Its only roots are in a hypothetical prehistoric past of
idyllic goddess worship and a projected eschatological future in which evil (male) will
be overcome by good (female).
The second hermeneutical alternative is the loyalist one, in most ways the opposite
of the rejectionist. There the foundational premise is the essential validity and good-
ness of the biblical tradition as Word of God, which cannot be dismissed under any cir-
cumstance. The biblical witness as revelation has an independent status which need
not be vindicated by human authority: the Bible is the ultimate expression of God's
authority, not only descriptive but prescriptive, to which all human inquiry must sub-
mit. Yet the Bible, precisely as Word of God, cannot by nature be oppressive. If it is
seen to be so, then the mistake lies with the interpreter and interpretive tradition, not
with the text. It is the interpreter who is sinful not the content; the medium which is
found wanting, not the message. Biblical revelation is intended to foster the greatest
human happiness for all, but such happiness may not always conform to the standards
of contemporary culture. The Bible proclaims a message of true freedom and humani-
zation, but according to a divine plan, not a human one. Men and women are intended
to live in true happiness and mutual respect within that divine plan, not in oppressive
patterns of domination and struggle against one another, which are sinful manifestations
of the disorder of human nature without divine grace.
As long as one is dealing with general principles of religious anthropology and
virtuous living, such premises pose little problem. But how are these hermeneutical
principles to be reconciled with the blatant biblical message of female submission,
especially in the household codes of the New Testament? Herein lies the problem.
Two somewhat different kinds of responses are offered within this alternative. The
first is to employ careful critical exegesis to counter one text with another in order to
refute simplistic literalist interpretations of anyone passage: for example, 1 Cor 14:34
with 11:5, 1 Tim 2:12 with Titus 2:3, et cetera. By building a carefully constructed
argument step by step, totally based on thorough and sound exegesis of actual passages,
this approach can demonstrate to the mind that is a priori open to expanding roles of
women, but unyielding on the precise definition of biblical authority and revelation,
that contrary to conclusions reached by a superficial reading of the texts, the Bible may
not at all be condemning women to an inferior position. The problem has been with
closed-minded interpreters, not with the text itself3. Thus the new exposition calls for
conversion of social attitudes to the true biblical spirit of mutual respect.
The second form taken by the loyalist hermeneutic is to accept the traditional argu-
ment for order through hierarchy as a datum of revelation but one sorely in need of
transformation from within because of its abuse by imperfect human instruments. Thus
it is argued that the subordination theme applies only or chiefly to the family, not to
society at large, and is totally misunderstood and abused when seen as dominance/sub-
mission. Rather the point is the necessary leadership of one and followership of the
other as the only and divinely intended way to unity and harmony in society. Far from
diminishing the dignity and freedom of women, such a structure adhered to with love
promotes the true liberation of both women and men to fulfill their divinely intended
destiny4.
Those who might tend to dismiss the loyalist hermeneutic too easily should recall
that it is a carefully worked out biblical method, usually based on sound use of exegeti-
cal method, and that it is found useful by large numbers of intelligent American women
as a means of explaining and interpreting their role within their biblical faith. It is an
Fiorenza turns her attention more directly to those texts of the New Testament
which transcend androcentric-patriarchal structures to express a new vision of redeemed
humanity. For both authors, as for aliliberationist feminists, it is not just a question of
reinterpreting texts within a patriarchal framework, but of actually approaching them
within an alternate vision of salvation and new creation, which will not stop at biblical
interpretation but will lead inexorably to transformation of the social order through
both individual and communal, structural conversion. Thus the liberationist alternative
does not reject the tradition as unredeemable, but demands a total restructuring of its
expression.
For the liberationist, the hermeneutical principle upon which to construct a theol-
ogy of revelation is quite specific. Stated negatively, 'whatever diminishes or denies
the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine ... or to be the
message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption'. Stated
positively, 'what does promote the full humanity of women is of the Holy, it does
reflect true relation to the divine ... the authentic message of redemption and the mis-
sion of redemptive community' (Ruether 1983:19); 'biblical revelation and truth are
given only in those texts and interpretive models that transcend critically their patriar-
chal frameworks and allow for a vision of Christian women as historical and theologi-
cal subjects and actors' (Schliissler Fiorenza 1983: 30).
The liberationist hermeneutic holds much promise for creating a new direction in
religious feminism. Its principal weakness lies in its almost partisan position on revela-
tion as discussed above. Such a restrictive basis for a theology of revelation can hardly
stand up under heavy scrutiny of theological tradition. It seems to equate 'revelatory'
with 'authoritative' in an almost simplistic way, then to reject as non-revelatory
whatever does not fit according to its own narrow criterion. Moreover, in its historical
approach to biblical literature, this narrow criterion of revelation leads the liberationist
method to eulogize the prophets, Jesus, and sometimes Paul while writing off other,
particularly later New Testament writers, who do not meet the liberation criterion, thus
forming a new 'canon within the canon' on very slim foundations. If the liberationist
hermeneutic is to exercise the influence for which it has the potential, this weakness
must be addressed.
We have surveyed five alternative responses to the question of feminist biblical
hermeneutics. They arise from five different sets of women's experiences and assump-
tions about the Bible. I believe that they are truly alternatives, that is, within the limits
imposed upon us by our experience and human conditioning, we really are free to
choose our own hermeneutical direction. The category of conversion directed by liber-
ationist feminists to perpetrators of androcentric patriarchy applies to feminists as well,
especially to those who by race and class are caught in the double web of being both
oppressed and oppressor.
In biblical times, patriarchy and androcentrism were seen not as sinful but as
necessary for maintaining order. With consciousness now raised, the primary
hermeneutical task is a redefinition of order in human society, a hermeneutic already
applied in the case of slavery and currently being applied on the issue of the necessity
of deterrence for the preservation of peace. There is no reason to treat the evil of
patriarchy any less seriously.
End Notes
1 This article first appeared in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, edited by Adela Y
Collins (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985). Hervormde Teologiese Studies is granted permission
to reprint this article. The author, Professor Carolyn Osiek, visited during August-September
1997 the University of Pretoria as CSD research fellow of Professor Andries van Aarde. The con-
tents of the article was discussed during a postgraduate seminar.
2 See Rosemary Radford Ruether's (1983:230,284 note 16) brilliant description of Mary Daly's
theology as neo-Gnosticism, 'now built on the dualism of a transcendent spirit world of
femaleness over against the deceitful anti-cosmos of masculinity' .
3 Examples of this kind of hermeneutic are Richard and Joyce Boldrey (1976) and Evelyn and
Frank Stagg (1978).
5 The outstanding example is Phyllis Trible (1978). See also George H Tavard (1973).
6 A recent example of this approach which is restrained, well-researched, and does not escape
into sentimentality is Joan C Engelsman (1979). Also helpful is Part One of Leonard Swidler
(1979:21-73), Biblical Affinnations of Woman. Not to be missed is the fourteenth-century
Bavarian church fresco portraying the Trinity as an old man, a woman, and a young man, on the
cover of Swidler's book.
7 Besides numerous articles by these and other authors, see especially Letty M Russell (1974); E
Schussler Fiorenza (1983:26-40); Rosemary R Ruether (1975,1983).
Works consulted
Boldrey, Richard & Joyce 1976. Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
Collins, A Y 1978. An Inclusive Biblical Anthropology. Theology Today 34, 358-
369.
Daly, M 1973. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation.
Boston: Beacon.