In Chapter 17, Coogan includes a section about women in the books of Kings. Most of the women mentioned are part of the royal families, and here we can see an interesting piece of evidence of the Judean perspective under which these books were written. While only one mother of a king of the northern kingdom, Israel, is named, the mother of almost every king of the southern kingdom, Judah, is mentioned. Considering how few names of women in any significant position of power have been recorded in the scriptures, just the fact that these women are named is important.
Coogan offers an explanation for the term “queen mother” in this section. The term that is usually translated this way in most Bibles, he says, literally means “powerful woman.” What sort of power did these women have? It is difficult to say with much certainty, but it is mentioned, with the typical DTRH concern for the centralization of worship, that King Asa removed his mother from the position of “queen mother” because she made an “abominable image” for Asherah. If this office was important enough for her to be removed for this offense, it seems that it must have entailed some degree of power, as the name suggests. No evidence seems to be given, however, as to any other functions of the office.
While reading this material, a question that came to mind was how the Deuteronomistic Historians’ treatment of queens differs from their treatment of kings. How does the Judean royal theology affect the women who are part of the royal family? In the books of Kings’ portrait of Jezebel, we certainly seem to see a woman who embodies pure evil. Yet she is also perhaps the most powerful woman in the Hebrew Bible. Was she depicted so unflatteringly only because of her deeds, or because those who recorded history felt threatened by her power?
3 comments:
I think you're on to something in questioning the treatment, or rather, the way the Queens are described in Kings. I believe that the Queen/s probably had imperfections and mistakes, but I think the authors were threatened and wished to depict the female power-holders as less than their male counterparts. It would seem that authors who are so very concerned with Mosaic law and rules would not be overjoyed by a powerful woman ruler (since that was out of the norm).
While living in Tokyo, a female friend of mine told me that living in an Islamic country actually empowered her. Working from my contemporary perspective, I assumed women suffered in their status as second-class citizens. From her perspective, however, the life of a woman was better than the life of a man. For example, women completely controlled the home, domestic finances, food preparation, did not need to labor outside the home, were free from sexual harassment, and generally enjoyed a longer, happier life. Perhaps the male authors of the Hebrew Bible were not aware of, or did not know how to talk about, the advantages they bestowed upon the women in Israeli culture. I tend to measure a person's status or power using contemporary American metrics. I imagine things looked differently 3,000 years ago.
As Im sure you realize, Hellfire aint cool.
Wanna reeed something innterestn like the
reeed which grows til we reach our Creator,
doya?
♡ en.gravatar.com/MatteBlk ♡
Love you.
Cya soon.
be@peace.
-GBY x-tra
Post a Comment