|
< Back to The Bible And Biblical Figures Reviews The Bible And Biblical Figures ReviewsGod and Sex: What the Bible Really Says by Michael Coogan
 Talkback Add Your Comment
God and Sex. Who would not be intrigued by so expansive and seductive a title coming from a secular and boutique press? But the subtitle narrows the scope: What the Bible Really Says. If that phrase suggests either a prudish or salacious bent, the identity of the author assures us differently. A scholar of ancient Near Eastern and Biblical studies, Michael Coogan writes from head and heart—and both are in the right place. For him, the paradigm of male dominance and female subordination governs gender relationships in the Bible. “Your desire will be for your man,” says Yahweh to the woman in the story of Eden, “and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). “That decree,” says Coogan, “illustrates the bleakness of the overall Biblical picture for feminists who would claim the Bible as an authority.” Yes, the paradigm heralds bleakness. Whether that bleakness also harbors blessing, readers must decide. In declaring Genesis 3:16 a divine “decree” and, later, a “curse,” Coogan misreads. (He is in good company, from the apostle Paul and his successors through millennia.) These words of Yahweh to the woman do not characterize her status in creation but rather her life after disobedience. They do not “decree” patriarchy; they describe it. They announce judgment; they do not prescribe punishment, which comes later in expulsion from Eden. Further, Yahweh never “curses” the woman. This word the deity reserves for the serpent and the earth (via the man). In numerous ways, literary analysis disqualifies Genesis 3:16 as the paradigmatic proof text for endorsing patriarchy. Nonetheless, Coogan’s overall assessment is right. For some 40 years (a fitting Biblical time frame), second-wave feminists have wrestled with patriarchy and the Bible. They, too, have cautioned that the Bible belongs to the foreign country of antiquity. Despite its ubiquitous presence in the news and its canonical standing in communities of faith, it remains distant, even alien, in time, languages, mentality and geography. For diverse reasons—scant evidence, contradictory data, discrepancies among genres and historically locked views—what the Bible really says (or really does not say) about matters such as abortion, marriage, divorce, adultery, rape, prostitution and same-sex relationships does not readily transfer (for better or worse) to our world. Tensions between “original meanings” and contemporary applications persist—tensions that Coogan compares to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But what about competing evidence within the Bible? What about women characters, for example, who don’t seem to fit patriarchal strictures? In ancient Israel, the prophet Miriam was never linked to a husband. Leader in victory at the crossing of the sea and questioner of authority in the wilderness, she survived censure to endure in prophetic tradition as the equal of her brothers Aaron and Moses (Micah 6:4). The prophet Deborah, identified perhaps as “woman of fire,” exercised authority as judge and military leader in the settlement of the land (Judges 4 and 5). In the reign of King Josiah, the prophet Huldah (without her husband) authorized the beginnings of the Bible (2 Kings 22:14). And the prophet Noadiah, identified by neither father nor husband, opposed the policies of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 6:14). In the New Testament, the prophet Anna, a widow apparently living an independent life, blessed the child Jesus who had been brought to the Temple (Luke 2:36–38). Four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also held the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). To these prophets we add wise women (of Tekoa and Abel), queens (Jezebel and Vashti), widows (Naomi and Judith) and disciples (Mary, Mary Magdalene, Joanna). Throughout the Bible various women, by their actions, words or status, challenge the patriarchal paradigm, at least indirectly. Although Coogan reports on these public figures, he fails to stress their potentially subversive presence. What did such women represent? Tokens? Exceptions? An alternative narrative? A lost history? A saving remnant within the bleakness of patriarchy? Despite this book’s title, God takes center stage only in the last chapter. There Coogan argues that the Biblical deity is a male, indeed a sexual being who engages in reproductive activities in a polytheistic environment. The archaeological find at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud depicts two figures with the inscription “Yahweh and his Asherah” (eighth century B.C.E.). Within the Bible, more evidence surfaces: Ezekiel’s description of the divine loins (1:27); the pairing of Yahweh in the Temple with Asherah; metaphors of Yahweh as Israel’s husband and father; the goddess Wisdom alongside Yahweh; and the Christian formula for the parentage of Jesus: son of God, born of a virgin. Believers cannot neglect these threatening descriptions, says Coogan. But to what extent have believers neglected them? Even though polytheism and a female consort may not be acceptable, the basic idea that God is male has endured for centuries, sometimes as unofficial dogma. After all, Jesus called God “Father.” Missing among many believers are sustained critiques of this idea. Female images of God, in contrast to a female consort, call for attention. The metaphor connecting divine mercy (rahamim) to the vehicle of the womb (rehem) permeates the Bible. One small witness describes the God who “writhed in labor pains” giving birth to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18). Sexual overtones in these portrayals are not male. Although early in his prophecy (chapter 3) Hosea depicts Yahweh as the abusive husband beating his wife Israel, later Yahweh repudiates both male identity and violence. “For I am God (‘el) and not male (‘is), the Holy One (qadosh) in your midst, and I do not come to destroy” (Hosea 11:9). Is this the pattern of the abusive husband—to feign goodness and mercy? Or does the declaration of holiness testify to God beyond (male) sex, gender and attendant consequences? In keeping with his passionate plea that we read “the entire Bible” and not “cherry-pick” for “preconceived conclusions,” Coogan might have explored these and other counter-texts. On one occasion, God set before ancient Israel life and death and then commanded the people to decide the difference. “Choose life that you may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Likewise recognizing that authority derives from the community, Coogan admirably concludes that what the Bible really says (this time, its “underlying ideals”) moves “toward the goal of full freedom and equality for all persons.” That rhetorical flourish awaits development beyond the provocative subject of God and Sex.  Distinguished feminist Biblical scholar Phyllis Trible is professor of Biblical studies at Wake Forest University School of Divinity in North Carolina. From 1981 until her “retirement” in 1998, she taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York. She served as president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1994, only the second woman to serve in that capacity since the organization was founded in 1880.
God and SexI am greatly disappointed in Phyllis Trible's "review of Michael Coogan's recent book:"God and Sex". Her writings are more a critique than a review and "muddy the waters" by attempting to give credence to modern feminist viewpoints about biblical writings. Since, as T. Lee has pointed out in his comment, humans have consistently attempted to make the Bible say what they want it to say, I can only conclude that Phyllis Trible is another one of those persons. • • • • • • • what god says about sexLeviticus Laws concerning sexual conduct—incest, bestiality, same-sex relationships among men, • • • • • • • God's order and Decree?I just want to point out to Dr. D. Tee that the Bible we can see today has already been translated and interpreted by adding many "man's ideas". There are also too many people tend to justify their own words or actions as "orders or decrees" of God. It is just an undeniable fact that there is much taken away and much has been added into the Bible by human's will. • • • • • • • Total ConfusionFurther confusion is introduced by mixing up human and divine, as Coogan does. Whatever popular confusion, the prophets rejected it, and it disappeared in exile. Christianity is different: the father-sky god reappears. Antiquity was a different world. Patriarchy wasn't just about women, but a cosmic hierarchy. The modern West projects a distinctive vision of the sexes, bundled with individualism, delayed marriage, and romantic love. The biblical world jars us with its ancient assumptions. • • • • • • • Confusion IITrible hits the mark when she calls the biblical picture a description of patriarchy, not an endorsement. The *whole* creation story assumes sexual equality and explains inequality along the way that can't be separated from parallel explanations of having to work for a living or why snakes are so lowly. All three are bundled. Exceptional women so prominent in the Bible are important because they were exceptions, occasional cases of weaker parties prevailing, a larger biblical theme. • • • • • • • ConfusionThe review is interesting and provocative, but certain ideas from the book need clarification and should not go unchallenged. The key misguided idea is the biblical god was a human-like male who procreates etc. The prophetic religion that governs the canonical biblical text does not endorse this idea. Use of male gender and metaphors (like father) confuses metaphor with theology. The First Temple-era findings to the contrary imply a popular, syncretist religion that vanished in exile. • • • • • • • What the Bible Really says about SexThe Triune God is not human, though Jesus is fully God AND fully human. Some suggest the Holy Spirit is feminine. Perhaps. Men AND women were created in God's image. Different, yes; Inferior or Superior? No! The Bible denounces worshiping Asherah AND Baal. The Eden narrative is drawing a parallel between Canaan idolatry and what happened in Eden. Eve had sex with the devil, acquired reproductive powers, marriage was instituted. (Gruber, Tom. "What the Bible Really says about Sex," trafford.com) • • • • • • • God and Sexיהוח incorporates and comprehends both male and female, both vau and cheth bound by yah. The Trinitarian idea is later and peculiar to Christianity. There is really no place for a separate male and female identity or divine consort. Ish and ishah are a corporate unity, not separate species. • • • • • • • Was the Woman Cursed?Neither the nachash (serpent) nor the earth nor the woman were "cursed." Though the word צרור is translated as a "curse," in this instance, at least, it represents reality rather than a curse. This is how it will be, but that is the cost of being in the mortal world. Many men (and women) enjoy the risks of farming. Many women give birth to many children. Many children like snakes for pets. Not that big a "curse" here. • • • • • • • Male Supremacy in the BibleLet's not lay the blame for the supremacy of the male in the Bible at the feet of our God. This deep prejudice against the female---the prevailing concept in much of the Middle East and other parts of the world today---is of human origin, not divine. It was the enduring ethos at the time of the writing and editing of various books of the Bible. As long as people insist on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Bible, this very human prejudice will continue--and God will be mocked for it. • • • • • • • God and SexIsh is generic for man, and includes ishah. While I do not agree totally with Coogan, Trible does violence to the text. Baaalim and Ashteroth were part of Israel's religion, but were not condoned. • • • • • • • "Helpers" and "Man"If "Eve is Adam's helper" means Eve is subordinate to Adam, then you must read "God is my helper" (Psalm 54.4, 115.11, 146.5, etc., Deut 33.7, Hebrews 13.6)to read that God is subordinate to me. The Hebrew word (ezer)is the same in each case, and Hebrew's Greek uses the same word the Septuagint uses in Genesis. And to un-sex Hosea's iysh is a lost cause. Try neutering it in Genesis 2.24, 19.31, 24.16, etc., etc., etc. • • • • • • • Male dominancxe in the BibleJesus is the concluding act of the Old Testament and his Spirit is passed on to us. Under the Spirit's urging, how can anyonepossibly say that men and women are not equal before God and therefore before us who carry forward the establishment of the Kingdom. To say women are to be dominated by men is replulsive to me. Partnership andt he combination of the unique qualities of male and female is surely God's will. • • • • • • • Gen. 3:16Although I have not read the book, the review brings up the intriguing issue of male "dominance". I believe Genesis 3 does, in fact, portray this as a consequence of the fall, but not as the intended norm for relationships. She argues Paul has "misread" Genesis, but I do not believe that is the case. I think we misread Paul when we read into headship the idea of "dominance", an idea I can't fully develop here. Her review is less of a review of the book than an opportunity to expound her views. • • • • • • • God and SexIt is amazing, how many people misunderstand, what GOD SAID. He said, that he made EVE a HELPMEET, i.e. companion or equal, with MAN (i.e. ADAM) as the HEAD or PRIESTHOODHOLDER, and EVE (i.e. The Mother of all living) as the BODY. The reason for her desiring her man, is to reach exaltation and even apotheosis, as explained in The New Testament: "Neither is man without the woman, or woman without the man in THE LORD". They need each other for that puropose. • • • • • • • God and SexWhile I do not fully agree with Coogan, Trible greatly distorts the text. God's command in Deuteronomy is singular, Choose Life. God's paradigm in Hosea is the lover of a faithless harlot. He will draw her again into the wilderness, stripping her of her false lovers. It is true that the Baalim and Ashteroth long marked the popular religion of Israel, but that religion is nowhere condoned nor endorsed. I am disappointed that nothing is said of King David's rich and varied sexual model. • • • • • • • God and SexI think that the gender of God would be much clarified if we were to give up the notion of the neo-Platonic triune God and restore the ancient notions anthropomorphic gods as explain by Margaret Barker in her opera. • • • • • • • God and SexIt's interesting that Coogan advises against cherry picking. I think everyone does that to some extent. Certainly the local believers do. Where Old Testament injunctions keep women and gays subordinate, it's all good. Where they tell us to sacrifice animals, well, that's passe, don't you know. If one doesn't cherry-pick, how would one get by with such inconsistency? • • • • • • • Matriarchs in Genesis & Tribble review of CooganDo Genesis accounts of Hebrew matriarchs (e.g., Sarah and Rebecca) preserve earlier ideas of primacy of the female line and influence of female spouse? Do stories of King's daughter and Queen mothers in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles imply competing power relationships in Biblical times? • • • • • • • Gen 3:16I'm not sure what Dr. Tee means. If you read the so-called "three curses" of Gen 3, you will find that the curse formula is used only twice, once in connection with the snake and once in connection with the man. But NOT in connection with the women. That is what the text says. To what "obscure examples" does he refer? Obscure to him because he is familiar only with a few parts of his Bible? If you believe in the literal meaning of the Bible, does not ALL the Bible count? • • • • • • • God is ConfusedWomen (and men) want to turn over the bible for good reason; it was created by humans to enforce the rules and regulations humans want. For the bible (and nearly all religions) I’ll go further; rules and regulations men want. If you believe everything the bible has to offer then there will never be peace on this planet. You cannot evolve if you won’t change your beliefs. We don’t believe the same things but we sure are willing to kill over them. • • • • • • • Gen. 3:16I find that women all of all stripes keep trying to overturn what God has decreed. Miss Trible is no exception. They continue to misuse obscure examples as evidence for their promotion to non-biblical positions. No one has ever said that women were second class and not entitled to spiritual gifts, but that equality doesn't change God's order of things. Man remains the top with the woman next in line as his helpmeet. Itis wrong to change God's order when He has not done so. • • • • • • • Hosea 11:9In paragraph 9 (Hosea 11:9) I looked up and found the Hebrew word used there (iysh) it does mean male, but more along the lines of male person or just a man. It doesn't seem to imply (I am not male in gender). It leads me to understand that God was saying he is not a "man" as in a human being, not that he wasn't a "male". • • • • • • • |
BRAND NEWBronze Age Massacre Found in Turkey February 22, 2012 Jerusalem Archaeologists Uncover the “Elusive City” of Aelia Capitolina February 21, 2012 Important Temple Mount Model Returns to Jerusalem February 16, 2012 Israel Approves New City of David Visitor Center February 15, 2012 Expedition Claims Evidence of Queen of Sheba Found in Ethiopia February 14, 2012 MOST POPULARDoes the Merneptah Stele Contain the First Mention of Israel? In Search of Christian Origins Was Mary Magdalene Wife of Jesus? Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute? FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESWas King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean? FIRST PERSON: Privies and Privacy BIBLICAL VIEWS: The Bible Divide ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: Cultic Practices at Tel Dan—Was the Northern Kingdom Deviant? THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Plagued by the Press SCHOLAR’S STUDYA Minimalist Disputes His Demise February 19, 2012 Allan J. Pantuck: Response to Tselikas Handwriting Analysis August 19, 2011 Agamemnon Tselikas: Response to Allan J. Pantuck August 19, 2011 Oded Golan’s Commentary on the Expert Witnesses of the Case March 2011 Advertisement |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
