 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
1.
Jewish society had developed its own social myth of male predominance. This
social myth was quite naturally incorporated in Sacred Scripture. Just as the
“flat earth” theory was part and parcel of the creation accounts
without implying a divine approval of such a theory, so the social organization
imprinted itself on various religious texts without falling under the scope of
its teaching.
2. Both
in the Old Testament and New Testament times the Jews were a male dominant
society. All relationships in the family centred round the father (the
patriarch).
- He could divorce his wives as he liked (Gen 16, 1-6; Dt 24, 1-4; Mt
19, 3-9).
- He decided on the future of his children and had absolute authority
over them (Gen 43, 1-15; 2 Sam 13, 23-27; Mt 21, 28-31).
- He was in every sense the head of the family (Ps 127, 3-5; 128, 1-6;
etc.).
- It was the man who received the family property (see the exception of
the daughters of Zelophehad, Num 27, 1-11; 36, 1-12).
- It was the man who as sole owner of the family property could
distribute it to his sons (Dt 21, 15-17; Lk 15, 11-32).
- Male predominance also found its expression in the Hebrew language.
“Ishâh” (woman) was derived from “ish” man
(Gen 2, 23).
3. As in
other societies, we find also with the Jews a strong cultural myth designed to
underline man’s central position. The workings of this myth can be
demonstrated from the endless elaborations in extra-biblical Jewish thinking.
The inferiority of woman is brought out by making Adam’s creation a
glorious success, while God’s various attempts at making woman are
presented as a series of failures.
- “Eve herself seemed like an ape when compared with Adam, whose
heel—let alone his face—outshone the sun:” (B. Baba
Bathra 58a; Lev. Rab. 20.2).
- God created Lilith (woman) but for her he used filth and mud instead
of pure dust (Yalqut Reubeni ad. Gen. II. 21; IV. 8).
- Litith refused to lie beneath Adam and eventually became the mother of
many demons (Num. Rab. 16.25).
- The act of love is an evil thing which Adam and Eve only learned from
Samael, the devil, after they had been thrown out of paradise (Sefer
Adam 64-67 p.35.
R.
GRAVES and R. PATI. Hebrew Myths, London,Cassell 1964, pgs, 65 69: 89-90.
4. We
need not be surprised that the social myth of male predominance affected the
following aspects of Sacred Scripture:
(a)
The representation of the divinity. The world of the gods represented in
man’s imagination, is one of the ways in which social myth is reinforced.
For this reason it is only natural that Yahweh was spoken of as if he were a
man and that Christ could not have been understood as an incarnation of God,
unless he was a man.
(b)
Sacramental Liturgy. The rules restricting the priestly ministry to men
in the Old Testament (Lev 8), allowing women access on1y to part of the temple
and attaching ritual uncleanliness to childbirth (Lev 12, 1-8: 15, 19-24), are
illustrations of a liturgical expression given to the social myth. Traces of
this can still be seen in early Christian uneasiness about full participation
of women in the liturgical assembly (1 Cor 11, 2-16; 14,33).
(c)
Family ethics. The duties of the father of a family towards his wife (Sir
9, 1-9; 36, 21-27) or towards his children (Sir 7, 22-26; 22, 3-6; 42, 9-11),
of a wife towards her husband (Sir 25, 13-26; 26, 1-18) and of children towards
their parents (Sir 3, 1-16; 7, 27-28; 25, 3-6) are all explicitations of the
social structure enshrined in the myth.
The
early Christian family code still reflects the same social values when it
describes the role of husbands (1 Pet 3, 7; Col 3, 19, Eph 5, 25-26), wives (1
Pet 3, 1-6; Col 3, 18; Eph 5. 22-23; 1 Tim 2, 9-15) and children (Col 3, 20;
Eph 6, 1-3).
(d)
Religious symbolism. The image of the marnage between Yahweh and Israel
belongs to this sphere (Hos 3, 1-5; etc.). Idolatry is compared to fornication
and adultery (Ez 16, 15-43; etc.). God speaks also as a father punishing his
children (Is 1, 2-6; 43, 5-7; etc.)
The all
pervasiveness of this pattern of values is due to the fundamental role played
by the social “myth” in constructing society from within.
5. From
a Scriptural point of view it is important that we recognize this social aspect
so that we may carefully distinguish it from the revealed message. God’s
Word to humankind had of necessity to be couched in human language and to be
understood in the cultural thought pattern of the people who received the
message. It would be a fatal theological blunder to confuse the human medium of
expression with the divine message itself.
John Wijngaards
Read also: John H.Otwell, And Sarah
Laughed. The Status of Woman in the Old Testament,
1977
John Wijngaards
Follow @JohnWijngaards
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as
published by www.womenpriests.org!