Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A "Balanced" Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological Observations

A "Balanced" Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological Observations <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article explores some of the central methodological issues connected with ideological readings of the Bible through reflecting upon the contrary interpretations of Genesis 34 offered, on the one hand, by Danna Fewell and David Gunn (which, they claim, is made from the standpoint of a "feminist" ideology) and, on the other hand, by Meir Sternberg (whose reading is charged by Fewell and Gunn with being "androcentric"). After assessing the exegetical disagreements between them, it is argued that both readings are deficient in being over-narrowly focused upon the question of the reader's feelings towards the characters of the story. A new interpretation is therefore offered, which sees the story as primarily concerned with exploring the issues of "crime and punishment." In the light of these exegetical studies it is argued that Fewell and Gunn's claim that all reading is necessarily ideological is undermined by their actual exegetical practice, which oscillates between (i) an objective, reader-independent style of exegesis which makes useful contributions to the understanding of Genesis 34 but offers nothing distinctively ideological; and (ii) a form of ideological "reading" which does not undermine but simply talks at cross-purposes to the doctrine of "foolproof composition" that Fewell and Gunn are attempting to refute. Their "reader-oriented" argument fails because it does not appreciate how the effects that a reader's own ideological presuppositions have upon his or her interpretations may be corrected by a sound exegetical methodology.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biblical Interpretation Brill

A "Balanced" Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological Observations

Noble, Paul
Biblical Interpretation , Volume 4 (2): 173 – Jan 1, 1996
Download PDF
31 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/a-balanced-reading-of-the-rape-of-dinah-some-exegetical-and-cX4ihZu4Hk

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1996 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0927-2569
eISSN
1568-5152
DOI
10.1163/156851596X00185
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article explores some of the central methodological issues connected with ideological readings of the Bible through reflecting upon the contrary interpretations of Genesis 34 offered, on the one hand, by Danna Fewell and David Gunn (which, they claim, is made from the standpoint of a "feminist" ideology) and, on the other hand, by Meir Sternberg (whose reading is charged by Fewell and Gunn with being "androcentric"). After assessing the exegetical disagreements between them, it is argued that both readings are deficient in being over-narrowly focused upon the question of the reader's feelings towards the characters of the story. A new interpretation is therefore offered, which sees the story as primarily concerned with exploring the issues of "crime and punishment." In the light of these exegetical studies it is argued that Fewell and Gunn's claim that all reading is necessarily ideological is undermined by their actual exegetical practice, which oscillates between (i) an objective, reader-independent style of exegesis which makes useful contributions to the understanding of Genesis 34 but offers nothing distinctively ideological; and (ii) a form of ideological "reading" which does not undermine but simply talks at cross-purposes to the doctrine of "foolproof composition" that Fewell and Gunn are attempting to refute. Their "reader-oriented" argument fails because it does not appreciate how the effects that a reader's own ideological presuppositions have upon his or her interpretations may be corrected by a sound exegetical methodology.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Biblical Interpretation – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.