Moses Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

It is nothing new to say that the texts of the bible, and in particular the Old Testament, are hopelessly patriarchal. It is a man's book, written by men, for men, and featuring predominantly male characters. So much so, that representation and experience of women in the text is a common point of conjecture, given that female voices and experience are mediated to us through this now multi-layered patriarchal prism. We are indebted to the pioneering work of scholars who have deconstructed the layers of ideology, and laid bare some of the assumptions regarding the construction of women in these texts. Likewise, we are indebted to them for the new approaches which have been introduced to our discipline through their efforts,1 enriching our work in innumerable ways. One of the trajectories that feminist criticism set into train was the investigation of gender roles and performance. We know that gender roles are culturally formed and performed, and that within any specific culture, a variety of masculinities or femininities are to be expected. To talk of a biblical masculinity in any singular sense, then, is fraught with this cultural ambiguity, particularly given the diverse set of historical questions which bear upon any responsible reading of the scriptural text. Further, we must bear in mind the weight of our own culture's view of gender and the way in which that influences our reading, a point well borne out in Clines' essay on David.2 Nonetheless, Clines lays out a typology of biblical masculinity under six categories: The fighting male, the persuasive male, the beautiful male, the bonding male, the womanless male, and the musical male. While these categories come from a reading of David and not the whole Old Testament canon, Clines asserts his view that the myth of masculinity enshrined in the David story was potent amongst Israelite men and must have been influential in the ongoing perception of masculinity within that culture. It is easy to see how these categories (perhaps with the exception of the beautiful male) might be used in a more comprehensive study of Moses' own masculinity. For the purposes of this more limited paper, my emphasis will be on the categories of the bonding male, and the persuasive male. I will also draw on the work of Susan Haddox, who provides a less-clearly developed typology than Clines, but who nonetheless identifies key traits in the characterisation of masculinity. Haddox identifies three broadly conceived components: honour, potency, and wisdom.3 Together, these features make up what is best described as a hegemonic masculinity, a term developed by Robert Connell in his influential monograph, Masculinities.4 Hegemonic masculinity is that demonstration of masculinity which is culturally exalted as the ideal type. Such men are not necessarily the bearers of powerful office, and indeed, this myth of masculinity may well be propagated through fictional characters, such as James Bond, Jason Bourne, Frank Underwood, Harvey Spectre, Don Draper, and so on.5 However, as Connell notes, hegemony is unlikely to be achieved without a correspondence between cultural ideals and institutional power, so that in our world, top level corporate, business, and military demonstrations of masculinity must play into the construction of the idealised type.6 The text I will consider is the story of Numbers 20: the waters of Meribah. In it, Moses is confronted by a mob of angry people, suffering from a lack of food and water. It is not the first instance of such complaints. Typically, these events stir up the wrath of God, and a