[Author’s Note; I am going back to feminist reinterpretations of the Bible, this one focusing on the work of Alice Bellis. I especially love her reexamination of Ruth. I remember watching the movie on TCM when I was in middle school, and it stuck with me. Even in the movie, made in 1960, Ruth is an active character, choosing her destiny and not passively accepting men’s plans for her. That is a definite lesson many interpretations of the story leave out, focusing instead on Boaz as the hero and YHWH’s protection.]
In my previous article on women in the Bible, I discussed two pieces of fiction that attempted to describe women’s lives during the period. However, the issue many feminist scholars have with Biblical texts is not with fictionalized depictions but instead with how the primary source material is interpreted now and has been interpreted over the last two thousand years. It is a religious text first, which for the people it was written for meant that it contained their history, laws, traditions, and proof that theirs was the correct spiritual path to follow.
When the text was left in the hands of priests and bishops, statesmen, and scholars, they looked to it for guidance on laws and justification for their power. In the last century, women have joined their ranks, each looking for something different. Some to find a feminine view of the Divine, some to prove the Bible did not say what they were told it said, and some seek to prove the Bible is the true word of the Divine to be obeyed, and for other reasons. Analysis of a sacred text, even one as old and well-studied as the Bible, is a deeply spiritual and personal experience. It is an autoethnographic history of those who first told the stories, retold, and translated over and over again until we reach the point that it was finally written down, around the 4th century CE.
It is folklore and oral history transmuted through time and presented to us through the eyes and pens of those who finally gathered together to piece these stories into a single coherent text. Most likely, these men who wrote what we now call the Bible did bring their own opinions and interpretations to it when the text left them with questions unanswered or stories unclear. Thus, it is not wrong or disingenuous for scholars to bring their points of view to the study of the text, particularly those that deal with named women in the Bible.
Old Testament scholar Alice Bellis, in her book Helpmate, Harlots, and Heroes, used feminist literary and language analysis to reexamine the named central women in the Hebrew Bible. She presents a variety of feminist and womanist interpretations of female characters in the biblical text, inspiring readers to engage with these perspectives. The book is structured with each chapter focusing on women in different books of the Bible, such as Judges, Kings 1 and 2, Prophets, etc., and with two chapters dedicated to specific women, one to Eve and another to the ‘Subversive Women in Subversive Books’ those women being Ruth, Ester, Susanna, and Judith.
Bellis writes, “This is a story about stories. It is a story of feminist and womanist interpretations of sacred stories.” The stories of the Bible have framed Western thinking about women for centuries. Women who were outspoken in public were labeled ‘disobedient Eves,’ and African American women were called Jezebels to suggest that they were more sexually available than white women. The negative influences of the stories of Eve, Jezebel, Delilah, and others have continued even into the 21st century. Bellis takes these stories out of the male interpretation and introduces us to the women of the Bible we had heard about but never met before.
As Bellis explores each female character, she includes other feminist and womanist interpretations of the text. She allows us to sample multiple interpretations, some of which complement each other, and some stand in opposition. We are not simply reading what biblical scholars think these texts mean but also the interpretations of scholars from different fields, such as archaeology, anthropology, and sociology.
Bellis stresses that we cannot read our modern morals and biases regarding topics like racism and slavery back into the biblical text and that we, as interpreters, must acknowledge our bias. She is very direct about this and writes, “I spent years studying Hebrew and other related languages. Thus, I confess a certain bias in the direction of interpretations that look closely at the Hebrew text.” Letting the reader know her bias does not leave us guessing what influences her interpretation. We know where she is coming from.
There are two primary points I drew from this text. First was the need to acknowledge the broad and diverse range of biblical interpretations, even among feminist scholars. Second, it is important not to read back our modern values into the text but instead use the text, in part, to understand the values of the time. These texts are not all completely true stories. They may be dramatized retellings, parables, or entirely fictional accounts of times long past. Having a range of interpretations in one book is helpful and a good reminder of the necessity of such variety if we later need interpretations of biblical or non-biblical texts.
Before her re-analysis of women in the Hebrew Bible, Bellis used hermeneutical analysis and women’s ways of knowing to examine the book of Ruth and the story of Rachel and Leah to demonstrate the solidarity and support women in the Bible could have for each other that has often been missed or downplayed by male scholars. Her article “Ruth: Sweet or Salty” reexamined the story of Ruth as a positive one for women using women’s ways of knowing. A widow travels with her mother-in-law back to the home of her husband’s people, works to support them, marries a wealthy man, and has a child to continue her late husband’s line.
But who is the hero? For a long time, interpreters answered Boaz; he is the wealthy older gentleman who takes pity on two women in his family and marries one of them. However, read through the lens of a feminist interpretation, the real heroines are Ruth and Naomi, as Bellis illustrates. The book of Ruth is one of the few stories in the Bible where two women work together to achieve their goals and help each other.
She believes that Ruth also taught the importance of including foreign women, particularly foreign wives, in the community. Ruth, born a Moabite, leaves the land of her people out of love for her mother-in-law and chooses to live in a community in which neither has a support system nor in which Ruth is initially welcome. Therefore, the book of Ruth “…overturns Deuteronomic law excluding foreigners from becoming part of the people of Israel.” Ruth is not only a story of cooperation but also of acceptance. This is a lesson that all people could benefit from today.
Acknowledging the bias of ourselves and those who previously wrote, translated, and interpreted the Bible is a crucial step in understanding why the stories and lessons are framed the way they are. Why is Genesis 1, where YHWH creates man and woman together, not taught as often as Genesis 2, where man is created and a woman only formed when he is lonely and seeks companionship? Finding these stories of women, their hidden histories, and an alternate theory of Creation can form the basis for interpreting aspects of the Bible as a feminist text rather than one in which entire sections should be abandoned and ignored.