The Intercourse of Knowledge: on Gendering Desire and "Sexuality" in the Hebrew Bible
Ooh what a stimulatin' book this is. I've only had time to skim-read, alas. The point to which scholar Athalya Brenner repeatedly returns is the Hebrew aversion to "admixtures". Things need to be kept tidily in their categories, especially similar things which might be confused (1).
Brenner suggests that sexual laws in the Hebrew Bible are a version of this avoidance of crossing boundaries. For example, Deuteronomy 22.5, which forbids cross-dressing. "This short passage betrays a concern, perhaps an anxiety, about visible differences between the clothed male and female bodies; they should be clear cut." (2) She adds (citing Mary Douglas, whom I've not yet read): "The insistence on easily recognisable boundaries often signifies uncertainty about those boundaries." Could the law against male anal intercourse be explained by the idea that men do the penetrating, so a man who is penetrated has violated the gender boundary? (p 140)
Another of Brenner's points, which shook up the contents of my skull, is that archaeologists have tended to accept what men in ancient societies have said about women, pregnancy, and children, ie, that ancient women eagerly desired lots of kids. Reviewing what we know about ancient contraception and abortion, she suggests that this might not have always been the case. Further blogging my mind, she points out that many of the aromatic substances mentioned in the Song of Songs were also the ingredients of birth control preparations, such as pomegranates, honey, and myrrh, and wonders if these mentions were meant to reassure the female character to whom the seductive language is addressed.
Brenner also ponders whether the "prostitutes" of the Bible may have actually been women not under the economic control of men (which echoes a lot of recent scholarly writing about Mesopotamia and the harimtu - I have a mountain of material on this topic to blog about one of these days :). She points out that the Hebrew word translated as "harlot/ry" refers to any kind of illicit sex, including sex work, fornication, and adultery; and that it's not clear whether some of the women called "prostitute" actually engaged in sex work. Some were economically independent: Rahab, and the women who sought Solomon's judgement, owned their own houses. (p 149-150)
(1) Brenner points out that Leviticus 19:19 presumably forbids the crossing of horses and donkeys, but that puzzlingly, there are plenty of mentions of mules. I wonder if the Hebrews saw the horse and the donkey as essentially the same sort of animal? Or did they just import mules? (Note to self: other admixture laws appear in Deuteronomy 22:9 and 22:11.)
(2) Brenner points out (citing Susan Griffin, who I haven't read yet either) that clothing is what separates culture from nature - explicitly, in the case of Genesis 3.7. But naked male and female bodies don't have the same meaning in the Bible: the female body is "relatively public", while the male body and especially the penis is fastidiously protected, whether by underwear or by language - a "textual spiritualisation", suggests Brenner, turning penis into invisible phallus. (p 38) Women's genitals, by contrast, are exposed as part of a shaming punishment. (p 42)
__
Athalya Brenner. The Intercourse of Knowledge: on Gendering Desire and "Sexuality" in the Hebrew Bible. Brill, Leiden/New York/Köln, 1997
Brenner suggests that sexual laws in the Hebrew Bible are a version of this avoidance of crossing boundaries. For example, Deuteronomy 22.5, which forbids cross-dressing. "This short passage betrays a concern, perhaps an anxiety, about visible differences between the clothed male and female bodies; they should be clear cut." (2) She adds (citing Mary Douglas, whom I've not yet read): "The insistence on easily recognisable boundaries often signifies uncertainty about those boundaries." Could the law against male anal intercourse be explained by the idea that men do the penetrating, so a man who is penetrated has violated the gender boundary? (p 140)
Another of Brenner's points, which shook up the contents of my skull, is that archaeologists have tended to accept what men in ancient societies have said about women, pregnancy, and children, ie, that ancient women eagerly desired lots of kids. Reviewing what we know about ancient contraception and abortion, she suggests that this might not have always been the case. Further blogging my mind, she points out that many of the aromatic substances mentioned in the Song of Songs were also the ingredients of birth control preparations, such as pomegranates, honey, and myrrh, and wonders if these mentions were meant to reassure the female character to whom the seductive language is addressed.
Brenner also ponders whether the "prostitutes" of the Bible may have actually been women not under the economic control of men (which echoes a lot of recent scholarly writing about Mesopotamia and the harimtu - I have a mountain of material on this topic to blog about one of these days :). She points out that the Hebrew word translated as "harlot/ry" refers to any kind of illicit sex, including sex work, fornication, and adultery; and that it's not clear whether some of the women called "prostitute" actually engaged in sex work. Some were economically independent: Rahab, and the women who sought Solomon's judgement, owned their own houses. (p 149-150)
(1) Brenner points out that Leviticus 19:19 presumably forbids the crossing of horses and donkeys, but that puzzlingly, there are plenty of mentions of mules. I wonder if the Hebrews saw the horse and the donkey as essentially the same sort of animal? Or did they just import mules? (Note to self: other admixture laws appear in Deuteronomy 22:9 and 22:11.)
(2) Brenner points out (citing Susan Griffin, who I haven't read yet either) that clothing is what separates culture from nature - explicitly, in the case of Genesis 3.7. But naked male and female bodies don't have the same meaning in the Bible: the female body is "relatively public", while the male body and especially the penis is fastidiously protected, whether by underwear or by language - a "textual spiritualisation", suggests Brenner, turning penis into invisible phallus. (p 38) Women's genitals, by contrast, are exposed as part of a shaming punishment. (p 42)
__
Athalya Brenner. The Intercourse of Knowledge: on Gendering Desire and "Sexuality" in the Hebrew Bible. Brill, Leiden/New York/Köln, 1997