IRRUPTION OF THE SILENCE:

COUNTER-READING OF THE VIOLENT TEXTS IN THE BIBLE

Stanley

Introduction

It cannot be denied, although Christians accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, that there are many problematic, even violent, texts in it. We can also see many kinds of violence in it. Sometimes God appears as violent or supportive to violence, especially to women and nations other than Israelites. There are also many un-told, un-read stories and un-heard voices in the Bible. Why? The answer is as Phyllis Trible has stated, “Hebrew literature comes from a male dominant society, and biblical religion is patriarchal.”[1] I would like to add another answer that because of the one-sided writing and interpretation of the Bible of patriarchal method, it is superfluous to violent texts in the Bible. The crucial issue, here, is how to read the violent texts, how to generate un-read stories and unheard voices from the Bible for today.

Among many other untold and neglected stories within the Bible, like the story of Hagar, the story of Tamar and many other women’s story in the New Testament, I will focus my study on the role of the unpopular story of the daughter of Jephthah from the Book of Judges 11:29-40.

Studying the Story of the Daughter of Jephthah

There are many approaches on the story of Jephthah’s and his sacrificial act with his daughter.[2] Because of the limitation of words and pages, I will not discuss them. My study will focus on how we should read the story as a canonical violent text in the Bible for today’s context.

In the text, Judges 11:29-40, we can find at least three kinds of violence:

1. Vss. 32-33 - “the Lord gave them into his hand … He devastated twenty towns … Israel subdued Ammon.”
2. Vs. 35 – “When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” Instead of blaming himself for a stupid vow, Jephthah blames his innocent daughter for his action.
3. Vs. 39 – “she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed.”

Feminist Reading of the Story of the Daughter of Jephthah

There is an unheard-painful story, the story of the daughter of Jephthah. I heard the story in my Sunday school class. Unfortunately, however, the story was preached, told, heard and interpreted only between God and Jephthah, and forgot the story of his daughter. The story was and is interpreted as the majesty and faithfulness of God upon Jephthah, and Jephthah’s faithfulness to God. It was very difficult to realize and see the hidden story of the unnamed daughter of Jephthah because of patrichalizing the biblical text and its interpretation. The story was and is still read from the perspective of Jephthah and the faithfulness of Jephthah’s daughter was and still unpreached and unheard.

Although Jephthah’s daughter cannot be saved from his father’s vow by any interpretation, there is alternative reading from feminist hermeneutics called “sisterhood with the daughter,” emphasizing in her last days in Judges 11:37. By studying the story, traditionally, the ending has read, "She [the daughter] had never known man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year" (11:40). This reading makes “irruption of the silence,” that makes heard the unheard stories. I will quote Phyllis Trible’s interpretation on the story:-

Since the verb become, however, is a feminine form (Hebrew has no neuter), another reading is likely: "Although she had never known a man, nevertheless she became a tradition [custom] in Israel. From year to year the daughters of Israel went to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in the year." By virtue of this translation, we can understand the ancient story in a new way. The unnamed virgin child becomes a tradition in Israel because the women with whom she chooses to spend her last days do not let her pass into oblivion; they establish a living memorial. Interpreting such stories of terror on behalf of women is surely, then, another way of challenging the patriarchy of Scripture.[3]

Application of the Life of Jephthah’s Daughter in Burma

Like Jephthah’s daughter, there are also many women, girls, and daughters who sacrifice themselves for their families. Anna May Say Pa states the life of women in Burma as follows:

In Burmese society, little girls are to help mother tend the baby and do house work. Little boys play outside. Boys are encourage to be adventurous, active, aggressive, and daring, whereas girls are taught to be gentle, patient, silent, submissive and non-aggressive... Women’s role was thought to be primarily centered round the home and private realm. Families, children and home responsibilities represent the concerns and duties of women.[4]

I want to give one example of women’s experience among the Chins during the last ten years. Because of poverty, among the Chins, the so-called ‘parcel’ or ‘mail-order-bride’ became popular. Because of the situation in Burma, many Chin young boys (men) went abroad for survival for lives. When they came to get married, as Chins, they wanted to marry Chin women. Therefore, they ordered their brides through their parents and relatives even though they had never met one another. Unfortunately, it caused many divorces. There are many different opinions among the Chins. The main challenge was that many parents forced their daughters to marry those who order them. As obedience is regarded as women’s dignity, many young women had neither voice nor choice over their parents. Their lives are like properties of the family. In other words, they give and sacrifice their lives (or their virginity like some readings on the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah) and their love for their family because of being women. The life experience of women in Burma is self-sacrifice. Daughters are taught and expected to be self-sacrificing and serving, like Jephthah’s daughter.

Conclusion: The Role of Canon for the Interpretation of Violent Texts in the Bible

In order of do justice in reading, understanding and interpretation of the Bible, especially for the violent texts in the canonical Bible especially the Old Testament, there are two things we must do: redefining the concept of canon in the light of inspiration, and depatriachalizing in Biblical interpretation[5] or feminist reading of the Bible.

Redefining Canon in the light of Inspiration[6]

The first problem or issue is our understanding of canon and inspiration of the Bible. Most of the Christians do not have clear understanding between canon and inspiration. The Bible is believed to be the perfect book. As the Bible is regarded as the inspired Word of God, it is believed not to be criticized even if violence exists and being found within it. It is very important to introduce that “the concept of inspiration is much broader than the concept of canon, even than the Bible itself.” But it is still hard to believe that there are many inspired texts outside the Bible. Another problem is the idea of canon. In the idea, canon is regarded as closed, which cannot be added nor deducted. Therefore, we need to introduce the idea that “in a sense, canon is close, but is still in the process of interpretation, reading or understanding.” In other words, we need strength to accept the idea of “canon within the canon.”

Depatriachalizing in Biblical Interpretation

There are un-heard stories in the Bible such as the painful story of Joseph, father of Jesus, to protect his son from Herod, the sorrowful story of the family who were crying of being killed their sons when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, etc.

Therefore, we need another way of reading or interpretation. I agree with Trible that the intentionally of biblical faith is neither to create nor to perpetuate patriarchy but rather to function as salvation for both women and men. The hermeneutical challenge is to translate biblical faith without sexism.[7]

For depatrichalizing in biblical interpretation, the best example is feminist reading of the Bible because “it negates patriarchy in crucial ways; it does not legitimate the oppression of women. It explores the meaning of human existence for female and male. It reveals the goodness yet frailty of both creatures; their intended equality under God and with each other; their solidarity in sin and in suffering; and their shared need of redemption. Thereby its symbols illuminate a present issue, even as they exercise a sobering check on it.”[8]

There are, according to Phyllis Trible, three perspectives of feminism:- a. examining the Bible with emphasis upon documenting the case against women, b. discerning within Scripture a critique of patriarchy, concentrate upon discovering and recovering traditions that challenge the culture including highlighting neglected texts and reinterpreting familiar ones, and c. retelling biblical stories of terror in memoriam, offering sympathetic readings of abused women.[9] This method of reading can be called “counter reading of the canonical Bible, even the canonical violent texts in the Bible.”

---

[1] Phyllis Trible, “Depatriachalizing in Biblical Interpretation” in JAAR, XLI/1, March, 1973, 31.

[2] It is assumed that the story is integrated into the Deuteronomistic History. But such a view is contrary to Dtr ideology which is absolutely hostile to any human sacritice (2 Kgs 16.3; 17.17, 31; 21.6 etc.). Therefore, Romer concludes that, “A literary-critical approach to Judges 11 shows that vv. 30-31 [32] and 34-40 may be considered as post-Dtr. … So this text should be considered an insertion from the end of the Persian or beginning of the Hellenistic periods.” See details in Thomas C. Romer, “Why Would The Deuteronomists Tell About The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?” in JSOT 77, 1998, 27-38. We can see another perspective in David Janzen, “Why The Deuteronomists Told About The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter” in JSOT 29.3, 2005, 339-357, reflection on Romer’s article. From another approach, the main message is “unfaithful faith” and making vow (imitation of surrounding’s practices to their gods) of Jephthah which made sacrificial act happen.

[3] Phyllis Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies,” in The Christian Century, February 3-10, 1982, 118. You can see this idea in Phyllis Trible, “A Meditation in Mourning: The Sacrifice of the Daughter of Jephthah,” in Union SeminaryQuarterly Review, Vol. XXXVI Supplementary, 1981.

[4]Anna May Say Pa, “A Place at the Round Table: Equipping Burmese Women for Leadership,” Rays: Myanmar Journal of Theology, vol. 5 (January 2004): 17.

[5] I borrow the term from Phyllis Trible.

[6] I am really indebted for my idea to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, New York 1992, 837-851.

[7] Phyllis Trible, “Depatriachalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” 31. In her article on Depatriachalizing in Biblical Interpretation, Trible discusses one method of depatriachalizing, i.e. themes disavowing sexism (searching female-hood of God) basing on exegesis on Genesis 2-3 and Song of Songs.

[8] Phyllis Trible, “Depatriachalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” 47-48.

[9] Phyllis Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies,” 116-118.