University
of Nebraska Press
Shofar
- Books Received
Shofar
- Advertising &
Mailing List Info
Shofar
- Book Reviews |
This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies, edited by Hector Avalos, Sara J. Melcher, and Jeremy Schipper. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. 244 pp. $29.95.
This anthology is just one of many new volumes on Scripture and disability. The field of disability studies is growing by leaps and bounds. This anthology has much to offer those interested in disabilities in the ancient world and in ancient texts. Most of the authors volunteer the reason they are interested in disability studies, often because they have a disability or have a family member with one.
The Introduction informs us that most of the essays will offer redemptionist, rejectionist or historicist approaches to the topic, although these essays, and the responses to them, are not limited to these approaches.
In the chapter, “The Origins of the Disabled Body: Disability in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Neal H. Walls highlights female infertility as a disability in Mesopotamian texts. This has obvious corollaries in biblical stories of matriarchs who have trouble conceiving. Disabilities could also be interpreted as punishments by the gods.
“Deformity and Disability in Greece and Rome,” by Nicole Kelley, brings a more nuanced idea about exposing deformed infants. There is evidence of such infants being raised without any legal consequences for the parents. Disabled persons were able to make a living in a wide array of jobs. Blindness was seen as a punishment but, as today, the identity of disability spread to cover the person in his/her entirety, and greater perception and power were attributed to that individual, as is seen in Goffman’s now-classic definition of stigma.
“Introducing Sensory Criticism in Biblical Studies: Audiocentricity and Visiocentricity,” by Hector Avalos, contrasts the Deuteronomist and Wisdom literature and their focus, respectively, on audiocentricity and visiocentricity.
“‘Be Men, O Philistines’ (I Samuel 4:9): Iconographic Representations and Reflections on Female Gender as Disability in the Ancient World,” by Carle R. Fontaine, was, for me, the most enlightening chapter. The exploration of art history (e.g., how disabled persons are depicted in Egyptian hieroglyphics) is used to examine the role of disabled women in the ancient world. My only suggestion would be that she look into the biblical character of Leah. She is identified as having a disability of her eyes, yet she wins in every way that Hebrew Scripture considers important. She is Jacob’s first wife, she is the most fertile among those wives, and it is the tribes that descend from her children who lead Israel and have the best positions around the tabernacle.
“Masculinity and Disability in the Bible,” by Thomas Hentrich, explores the intersection of gender studies and disabilities studies. Some of Hentrich’s assertions reflect an ignorance or insensitivity about the nature of the ancient priesthood and even basic vocabulary. For example, he makes the common mistake of conflating the categories of disability and ritual impurity. They are utterly separate categories. A physically perfect person can be ritually impure, and a blind, quadruple amputee can be ritually pure. Impurity disqualifies everyone from participation in the sacrificial system, regardless of their physical perfection. He imagines that women are more disabled than men because of menstrual impurity, but he fails to recognize that any man who has a seminal emission is impure until nightfall. In such a system, men could be ineligible to bring sacrifices more often than women. The requirements for priestly perfection and purity were instituted as safety measures for the priests. They were the ones who came closest to God’s presence, which is lethal, so their physical perfection acted as their “safety suits,” so to speak. Disabled persons, if ritually pure, could offer sacrifices in the Temple. Indeed, we have reports of legless individuals offering their sacrifices in the Temple. These sorts of misconceptions are typical and wrong, making Judaism and Hebrew Scriptures appear to be far less accepting toward those with disabilities than they, in fact, are. The issue of “crushed testicles” applies to the priests only, (a) because they need physical perfection to guard them against God’s lethal presence and (b) because they must be visibly male, i.e., have beards, to officiate at the sacrificial service.
A discussion of the normate bias is found in the chapter entitled “The Normate Hermeneutic and Interpretations of Disability within the Yahwistic Narratives,” by Kerry H. Wynn. “The normate bias misconstrues the disability theology of the Yahwist, who understands disability to be a part of God’s created order. . . . Any attempt to understand the meaning of disability within the Pentateuch will need to be viewed on its own merits devoid of the modern normate hermeneutic” (p. 101). Disabled characters in the Pentateuch actually make up the majority of characters. Moses has a speech impediment, the matriarchs and patriarchs suffer from infertility, and Isaac and Leah have visual disabilities. Aaron cannot have any defects, or even any ritual impurity, or his right to officiate in the tabernacle would be challenged. (Note that in Numbers 12:1 both he and Miriam speak against Moses, but it is only Miriam who contracts leprosy and thereby, ritual impurity.)
“Disabling Israelite Leadership: 2 Samuel 6:23 and Other Images of Disability in the Deuteronomic History,” by Jeremy Schipper, explores Deuteronomic images in Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, etc., expanding on some of his earlier works. Tthe Deuteronomic ideal, according to Schipper, is Moses himself, and neither King David nor King Josiah, the two Deuteronomic heroes par excellence, attain his vigor.
“With Whom Do the Disabled Associate? Metaphorical Interplay in the Latter Prophets,” by Sarah J. Melcher, provides an introductory examination of the way prophets use disabilities as metaphor. God is the restorer of faculties as well as a healer of those who are ill. Metaphors of impairment can depict ethical deficiencies. The author suggests that hers is only a brief overview of this fertile field, and we can look forward to more of her analysis on this topic.
“‘Living among the Tombs’: Society, Mental Illness, and Self-Destruction in Mark 5:1–20,” by Holly Joan Toensing, brings the author’s personal experience of a brother with severe mental illness to bear on this story from Christian Scriptures.
“‘For Whenever I am Weak, Then I Am Strong’: Disability in Paul’s Epistles,” by Martin Albl, explores Paul’s experiences with, and teaching about, disabilities in his documents in Christian Scriptures.
“Enabling the Body,” by Janet Lees, offers a socio-cultural analysis of the experience of disability in contemporary church-going experience. She advocates an understanding of silence, a viewpoint in great harmony with the sages who created the classical midrash collections. They, too, heard “silence” in the text and sought to define it. (Probably the best known example is Genesis Rabbah 55:7 on Genesis 22:2, which fills in the blanks of God’s statement, “Take your son, your only one, the one you love, Isaac.”)
This volume contains three responses to the articles (“‘Jesus Throws Everything Off Balance’: Disability and Redemption in Biblical Literature,” by David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder; “Impairment as a Condition in Biblical Scholarship: A Response,” by Bruce C. Birch) and a conclusion by the editors. In addition, the work offers a bibliography, an Index of Subjects, an Index of Modern Authors, an Index of Ancient Sources, and an Index of Selected Foreign Terms and Phrases.
I learned a great deal from this book and I’m very glad to see the field of disability studies expanding. When I proposed the topic of Judaism and Disabilities for my Ph.D. dissertation, it was at first rejected as a topic that wasn’t “scholarly.” So reading this volume brings me much personal gratification. It does discourage me, however, to see misconceptions about the Hebrew Bible being perpetuated. Hopefully, such old notions will soon disappear as it is realized that they are erroneous.
Judith Abrams
Maqom School for Adult Talmud Study
Houston
|
