HOME
ENGLISH
◊ BIBLE
Articles
Bible Lectures
Biblical Research
Biblical Studies
Sodom & Gomorrah
Links & References
◊ LANGUAGES
Instruction
Interpreting
Translation
◊ POETRY
Hymns Translated
Poems Translated
Songs Translated
◊ BIODATA
CV
Works
About Me
Contact Me
|
|
|
K. Renato Lings © |
|
The biblical story-tellers present their patriarchal protagonists as suffering heroes who are threatened or oppressed by various cities, tribes or peoples. The villains are groups, not individuals. By contrast, modern scholars tend to bring a different focus to the text. In today's commentaries the patriarchal heroes are often seen as the primary villains. Modern readers are prone to seek out individuals and blame them for the unfolding disasters. This is so much the case that one might well speak of the encounter between the biblical narrators and their modern interpreters as an authentic culture clash.
The collision of these two interpretive cultures seems to have gone unnoticed in many quarters. This article gives a brief overview of some of the striking contrasts between the biblical approach to the hero/villain issue and representative modern approaches. The evidence is such that it merits a detailed discussion. In the article I briefly explore some of the serious consequences caused by this major culture clash. If the political, social, ethnic and theological agendas underlying the biblical narratives are not decoded and understood, these stories will continue to serve as authentic texts of terror for women and gay people. Unfortunately this is precisely the negative light in which they are currently being approached.
By contrast, if we study these very same stories patiently and with our eyes wide open, without being scared off by their apparent ferocity, they are capable of offering important insights into the human condition. This is my personal experience. Strange as it may seem, they may even become tools of liberation, notably for lesbigay people. If the two narratives are read from the perspective of postcolonial theology, the lessons that can be drawn become meaningful for a range of other oppressed groups and communities, in particular the many peoples and nations that have been colonized.
The complete article is printed in |
|
Article Written 2006 Summary 2007 Judges 19–20 is a story which a lot of people find unpalatable. The sheer brutality of this narrative, in which a young, defenceless woman is mortally wounded through sexual assault, is certainly shocking. This should not surprise us, as it is likely to be an integral part of the original agenda. As I understand the ancient context, this tale was written as a scathing attack on King Saul, his hometown Gibeah, and his tribe Benjamin. The narrator seems to have been in the service of David given that the argument of the story is clearly pro-Davidic, pro-Judah, and anti-Saul. The most popular approach to the story is to read it in conjunction with In recent decades, the story has been reread from a feminist perspective. Phyllis Trible has provided a suitable label: text of terror. While feminist approaches represent an important innovation, they have not liberated the text from the iron grip in which the sexualization of the Hebrew verb yāda‘, ‘to know’, has held it for centuries. This article points out some of the ways in which post-biblical tradition has sown confusion among Bible translators. For my discussion I pursue three goals: (1) to present the many linguistic reasons why yāda‘ is better understood from a non-sexual perspective; (2) to document some of the distortions wrought by sexual translations of yāda‘; and (3) to propose a contextual and intertextual reading of Gibeah based on the biblical material. The subtle nuances of the Hebrew language in Judges 19 reveal that the narrator is a skilful communicator. Two Hebrew verbs in the text express physical assault, namely, ‘ānâ and ‘ālal. They channel the actual sexual aggression. There is no linguistic reason for distorting the fundamentally neutral nature of yāda‘. While the context speaks of sexual violence, yāda‘ still means ‘to know’. A non-sexual interpretation of yāda‘ is likely to lead to a clearer understanding of an artfully constructed plot with a strong political message.
The complete article is printed in |
|
According to the publisher’s preface these two contributions are designed to ‘enliven the discussion and bring fresh perspective to these issues’ (p. viii). Given the current stalemate, any such initiative is certainly to be welcomed. But does this book fit the bill? Fortress Press has asked two prominent Via’s point of departure is that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. However, this does not make him ignore the need for analysing the issue from different perspectives. Via acknowledges the problems surrounding hermeneutics, changing attitudes, homosexual orientation and the weight of tradition. Likewise, he is aware that there may be other valid viewpoints worth taking into account, including those of lesbian and gay scholars. Thus he quotes gay theologian Dale Martin. Via’s basic approach is that of a heterosexual male scholar with a good grasp of the core issues and who is genuinely interested in exploring them in detail. Gagnon’s essay is considerably longer and wordier, which is in direct proportion to the author’s unmistakable zeal. He operates on the basic premise that the Bible is unconditionally opposed to what he calls ‘homosexual practice’, often referred to as ‘same-sex intercourse’. Gagnon consistently and vehemently speaks of the Bible’s ‘uniformly strong rejection’ as well as ‘sexual behaviours that are pervasively, absolutely, and severely proscribed’. His language is strongly anti-gay. Unlike Via, Gagnon rejects all talk of sexual orientation. He firmly believes that the supreme norm taught by the Bible, including Jesus, is the importance of heterosexual marriage, and that this is the only gateway to salvation. To Gagnon scripture is an infallible law book. In his view, gay people should ‘change’ or ‘take up their cross’, that is, become celibate. The advantage of this book is its handy size. Anyone looking for a manageable introduction to current arguments in the bitter debate about Christianity and homosexuality will find it useful. It provides two largely incompatible approaches to an issue of great complexity. Whilst Via is open to dialogue, Gagnon’s writing is a monologue. Whilst Via engages with his material, Gagnon uses his as ammunition in a relentless crusade. If Fortress Press considers this publication the first in a series on the subject, it is to be commended. It certainly focuses on central aspects. However, three major weaknesses need pointing out: (a) the voices of heterosexual male theologians like Via and Gagnon have been heard for centuries; (b) the book represents only a fraction of current theological reflection, and (c) such vital subjects as female homosexuality and bisexuality are virtually absent.
To make this material relevant to lesbian and gay people, other contributions are needed. Today’s world is blessed with outstanding lesbian, gay and bisexual scholars. FP would do well to produce a follow-up to reflect the hard-won insights of the very people whose lives and faith are at the heart of the debate.
|
|
I may be reached at
|
|
Articles |
