Engaging the Doctrine of Marriage. Matthew Levering

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_180ae0ab-5c4c-5cf5-90ba-952338bb7cdb">158. Baumann, Love and Violence, 223. For a less condemnatory perspective, in dialogue with Baumann and others, see Holt, “‘The Stain of Your Guilt’.”

      159. Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah, 116. Bauer warns that “the pull of a long interpretive tradition that sides with the voice(s) of prophet/YHWH against the people/Israel, that sides in most instances with the male against the female, surrounds emerging [feminist] counter-readings. It continuously threatens their erasure, as textual and intertextual levels diverge. It is contemporary feminist and womanist voices that have been critical of dualistic patterns confining women. Yet not so Jeremiah. Israel of the past is remembered as ‘bride’ being ‘holy’ to YHWH (Jer. 2:2–3), or promised to be ‘Maiden Israel’, dancing in the future (Jer. 31:4). By contrast, the people of the Jeremianic present are accused of acting as a promiscuous woman of uncontrollable sexuality, defiled and defiling (e.g., Jer. 2:20–22, 23–25, 33–34; 3:1, 2–3, 6–10, 19–20), while at the same time rape, a crime of uncontrolled sexual violation, is presented as ‘justified’ (e.g., 13:20–27). It is contemporary female voices that call for the embracing of ambiguities. Not so Jeremiah. . . . It is contemporary (fe)male voices that search for fluidity of gender, transgression of traditional gender roles, and flexibility of identities, and hear the male prophet speak in a female voice. Not so Jeremiah” (Gender in the Book of Jeremiah, 162–63). It seems to me that the main point of Jeremiah about sin and redemption has been lost here.

      160. Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 262; cf. 265. He directs attention to Wettstein, “God’s Struggles.”

      161. Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 251.

      162. Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 249. See Davies, Double Standards in Isaiah, 133. For an opposed viewpoint, discussed appreciatively and at length by Barton, see Lindström, God and the Origin of Evil. Barton comments that “[t]here is considerable controversy about the idea of Yahweh as the source of evil. . . . Lindström would say that though Yahweh is presented as the source of punishment and destruction for the wicked (which may include Israel), to call these things ‘evil’ is to beg the question: precisely because they are sent by a good God they are not seen as evil by the Old Testament writers, but as good” (Ethics in Ancient Israel, 257). After pointing out that Lindström’s book is weakened by the fact that he only deals with passages where the language of “good” and “evil” occurs, Barton concludes that “I believe Lindström is right to argue that the general tenor of the Old Testament is to stress the justice of Yahweh, and to seek to reduce elements of arbitrariness in human experience of the divine. This seems to be the case even in works that evidently arose out of the experience of disaster, such as Lamentations” (Ethics in Ancient Israel, 260).

      163. Baumann, Love and Violence, ix.

      164. Baumann, Love and Violence, ix.

      165. Baumann, Love and Violence, x.

      166. See Morrow, “Pornography and Penance,” 62–84.

      167. Baumann, Love and Violence, 2.

      168. Exum, Plotted, Shot, and Painted, 122.

      169. Exum, Plotted, Shot, and Painted, 122.

      170. Carroll, “Desire Under the Terebinths,” 288.

      171. Carroll, “Desire Under the Terebinths,” 106. For various contemporary approaches to biblical metaphor and to metaphor more broadly, see for example O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor; Foreman, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel, 4–29; van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech”; Kittay, Metaphor; Donoghue, Metaphor; and the essays by numerous notable scholars in Sacks, ed., On Metaphor.

      172. Holt, “‘The Stain of Your Guilt’,” 105.

      173. See O’Connor, Jeremiah; see also O’Connor, Lamentations and the Tears of the World.

      174. Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q. 100, a. 8, ad 3.

      175. Baumann, Love and Violence, 72; see Huehnergard, “Biblical Notes.”

      176. Baumann, Love and Violence, 75; see Podella, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs.

      177. Baumann, Love and Violence, 78.

      178. Baumann, Love and Violence, 79.

      179. Keefe, Woman’s Body, 159. She adds, “Indeed, as Lyn Brechtel argues, in such a group-oriented culture (as opposed to an individual-oriented culture such as the modern West), the very notion of salvation is intimately tied up with the meaning of woman and sex” (Woman’s Body, 159; referring to Brechtel, “What If Dinah Is Not Raped?”). Keefe concludes, “When feminist (and other) readers look at the inscription of female sexuality in the book of Hosea and see the female body only as an individual body sexually constrained by the powers of patriarchy, they overlook the corporate and corporeal dimensions of human meaning which were constitutive of the fabric of life in ancient Israel and which are at work in Hosea’s imagery. This limitation in interpretive vision may be traced to the indebtedness of feminist theory to the world-view of the Enlightenment with its inscription of the body as an object and possession of the autonomous and rational self. For feminist theory, embodiment has to do with individual bodies, and its thinking about the body is primarily concerned with the systems of ideology and power by which these individual bodies are signified and constrained. The female body then means the individual body, which occupies one of two subject positions: either liberated or oppressed (sexually and socially) within the structures of patriarchy. But in Hos. 1–2 one finds an imagination of the female body as a sign for the body social; this symbol needs to be read within the context of a world-view in which corporate rather than individual meanings of the human and human embodiment are primary” (Keefe, Woman’s Body, 160).

      180. Keefe, Woman’s Body, 178. Keefe here is criticizing the viewpoint of Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism. As Keefe says, “The presence of menstrual taboos alone in ancient Israel is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that this was a misogynistic culture. One could, instead, argue on the basis of СКАЧАТЬ