Woman in Ancient Cultures

by Sr Vincent Emmanuel Hannon

from The Question of Women and the Priesthood, Sr Vincent Emmanuel Hannon S.U.S.C., Geoffrey Chapman 1967, pp.45-70. Republished on our website with the necessary permissions

It would not seem out of place here to examine briefly the position of woman in the ancient civilizations of Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Rome. The ancient Israelites were often brought, willingly or unwillingly, into close contact with both Babylon and Assyria. Mutual influence there must have been. And certainly Israel, despite her desire to remain isolated for fear of idolatrous contamination, was affected by the surrounding civilizations, as the bible bears witness. Considering the common Semitic origin of these peoples and the spread of Babylonian civilization, some parallel between their laws and customs is to be expected. A comparison of their specific legal codes verifies this. The law of Israel shows a basic structure which finds a parallel in the code of Hammurabi. It is all too obvious that the secular cultures contemporary with the period of the Old Testament’s formation left their trace on its pages-or rather its human authors, under divine inspiration, adopted certain elements from their pagan neighbours. In a later era, too, the New Testament writings took shape under the influence of a Greek and Roman environment. That is why we consider it necessary to discuss the position of women in these four cultures of antiquity.

1 The status of women in ancient Babylon

It has been said that the best way of judging any civilization is to investigate how it treats its women. In studying this the most obvious sphere of research is the status of woman in marriage, for this gives a good indication of her general position in society.

The earliest form of social organization, according to the general opinion of sociologists, was the clan.(1) The presumption is that the early Semites were formed into clans, in which the line of descent was reckoned through the mother. In this matronymic system women had more independence, but side by side with this is found polyandry. This state of affairs seems to have arisen first in Arabia, where three types of polyandry, nair, Tibetan and ba’al, co-existed or were practised at different periods. These varied according to the degree of freedom which woman maintained or the control which circumstances forced upon her. According to the practice of nair polyandry, the woman remained in her home receiving as many suitors as she pleased. Wife-capture by one of the clan, who exercised chief control over her but who shared her with brothers, was called Tibetan polyandry. Ba’al polyandry gave all husbands control over the same woman.

With the patronymic system came monogamy, in which three types of marriages existed: beena, mot’a and ba’al marriages. According to the first the wife stayed with her own clan, but among the Hebrews this was supplanted by the ba’al form of marriage by which the husband was reckoned the owner of his wife. Deuteronomy 2I:10-12 provides a parallel to this.

If you go out to fight against your enemies and the Lord your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home ....

By the mot’a marriage the woman remained with her own clan after she herself had chosen her partner; the children of this union were integrated into her clan. In ba’al marriages the husband alone could divorce; a later development of this type of marriage was that the husband-to-be made a contract with the girl’s father and paid him the mõhar. This was a retrogressive step, for since the husband had ‘bought’ his wife she could be lent to another man. So far as family life went, ‘the primitive Semitic woman was under the control of either her father or husband, and doubtless these had power of life and death over her’.(2) Biblical history provides a parellel to this in the instance of Jephthah (Judges II : 34-39).

The Code of Hammurabi reveals that a man could dispose of his daughter for debt, (3) but it seems she was given more in the form of a pledge than as a slave. This servitude would exist for only three years, and there is no evidence that the creditor acquired any rights over her, except that she render him service. This compares very favourably with the prolonged period of servitude imposed by a Hebrew father in the event of debt: ‘When a man sells his daughter as a slave she shall not go out as the male slaves do’ (Exodus 2I :7).

In ancient Babylon as with the Israelites, children were the object of marriage, and if a wife died childless, her husband received back the price paid to her father. We do not find any trace of levirate marriage in the Code of Hammurabi. It seems true that among the Semites in general marriage had a commercial cast. The practice of handing over a dowry, the seriqtu, was part of Babylonian legislation for marriage. The husband as well as the father could bind over his wife for three years’ debt service, but since it is apparent that it was the usual custom to sell people in financial crises, in this matter there was no discrimination against women as such, though a wife, because of the man’s rigid control over her, was more likely to suffer as a result of this practice. There is no evidence in the Code of Hammurabi that a man could punish his wife as an Assyrian could.

When such conditions prevailed it is not surprising that the woman had no voice in divorce. We know only one of the reasons why a man might divorce his wife: if she belittled him and misbehaved generally, neglecting her home. One law allowed her to demand her dowry and return to her father’s tent if the husband belittled her, but if she were at fault in this the penalty was drowning.(4) A wife could not be divorced for illness, but of course the man could always marry another who would become his concubine. The Babylonians were not polygamists, in the sense of having many wives on an equal footing. A man procured his chief wife by contract: the concubine (sugetu) or wife’s maid (amtu) could be taken in the event of his wife being ill or childless. Here, as among the Israelites, is an indication of the high esteem in which motherhood was held by the Babylonians.

As far as marital infidelity was concerned, both the man and the woman taken in adultery were punished: ‘If the wife of a seignior has been caught while lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the water.(5) This law was similarly expressed in Leviticus 20: 10: ‘If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.’

Among the Babylonians also a woman could possess property in her own right, but a married woman never became full heir to her husband’s estate. Israelite law dictates: If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter’ (Numbers 27:8). In civil and religious life, Babylonian women were permitted to act in the official and public capacities of judge or scribe: ‘In the religious life women were not just participants but officiants of various kinds, although they never as priestesses offered up sacrifices (6) or inspected animal omens. It is of interest however to note that three words at least-su.getum, zi.ik.ru.um and kulmasitum-are used for certain women in the service of religion. In each case the translator of the Code of Hammurabi states that their exact meaning is not known but that ‘it manifestly indicates some kind of priestess’.(7)

As in nearly all pagan religions, the Babylonians too exploited the virtue of women in the name of religion. The practice among them of sacred prostitution in the worship of Marduk and Ishtar makes a clear line of demarcation between the otherwise reasonable Code of Hammurabi and the divinely inspired Law of Moses: ‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot. . .’ (Leviticus I9 : 29). While having much in common with the Babylonian code, the bible transcends it in its elevated morality, and especially in the consideration it shows to slaves and its solicitude for the weak and oppressed.

Enough has been said to point out briefly some of the common characteristics of the Hammurabi and Mosaic codes. Which is dependent on the other or whence their similarity arises does not concern us here. The mere fact of convergence is the significant point. In general, it can be said that the status of women as revealed in the two codes is fairly similar, and a decisive factor here is surely the similarity of milieux.

2 The status of women in Assyria

Assyrian law, in its inscribed form, dates from around the twelfth century B.C., ‘but its laws may go back to as far asthe fifteenth’.(8) Because of the fragmentary state in which it was discovered, comparatively little is known about ancient Assyrian law and especially about the place it accorded to woman. From what we can gather, her status appears less favourable than in Babylonian Law: she is closer to being a chattel, over which a father had almost complete control, but this is in keeping with a law which among ancient peoples of the East was notorious for its inhumanity. The father had the right to choose a husband for his daughter. In a similarly arbitrary manner, the husband could divorce her at his displeasure. Her unfortunate condition was further aggravated by the fact that in the event of divorce the dowry was not returned to her. The Assyrian woman was much more at the mercy of her husband than her Babylonian counterpart. For a serious offence he could punish her with beatings and mutilation, (9) though only the public authorities could execute capital punishment. On the death of her husband, she was subject under the levirate system even to her father or son in-law.

Despite the severity of these laws, or perhaps on account of them, virginity was valued highly among the Assyrians. A man who seduced a virgin had to pay a threefold möhar (purchase money or dowry) to her father. Exodus (22:16, 17) exacts a mõhar in similar circumstances, but this legislation in both instances considers the father’s financial interest, not the outrage against the woman.

It is interesting to note in passing that the Assyrian law obliged all women except harlots to wear a veil in public. Neither wives of seigniors nor [widows] nor [Assyrian women] who go out on the street [may have] their heads [uncovered]. The daughters of a seignior . . . whether it is a shawl or a robe or [a mantle] must veil themselves. (10)

Assyrian Law mentions nothing regarding the commercial or religious activity of women; in all probability this is due to its fragmentary and incomplete state.

3 The status of women in ancient Greece

Female status among the Greeks was at the same time one of both respect and inferiority. Both by custom and by law woman was under the authority and control of her father or husband. In the seclusion of the gynaikonites she played a respected role, but in almost complete ignorance, with no other occupation than monotonous domestic duties, with the poor compensation of absolute dominion in only a very limited sphere. On marriage she passed from the seclusion of her father’s house to similar quarters in her husband’s, where she lived as an unequal partner. At best this would be favourable to domestic existence, but the husband’s concubinage and intercourse with hetaerae(11) coexisted, apparently without weakening domestic relations. The situation can best be summed up by a quotation from a speech attributed to Demosthenes:

We keep hetaerae for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily requirements of the body, wives to bear us legitimate children and to be the faithful guardians of our households."’

This statement reveals not only masculine licence but also the desire to maintain Athenian blood, the possessors of which were regarded as citizens, while all others not connected by blood ties in the city-state were counted as strangers.

Utility, appropriateness and sense of the beautiful were the only guides which the Greeks could find to regulate them in relations of the sexes to each other. (13)

Plato held and vigorously affirmed the equality of the sexes. According to him women should naturally share in all pursuits, for men and women are natural partners: ‘So far as her nature is concerned, the woman is admitted to all pursuits as well as men."’ His theory advocating a system of communal wives, however, would certainly do no honour to womanhood. Yet the general trend of his thought shows a reaction against the unreasonable treatment of women in his day. Aristotle, by way of contrast, was a truer representative of Greek thought, for he defended the prevalent custom of keeping women secluded and uneducated. He regarded the inferiority of woman as inherent in the sex," while the love of men and women, when he does mention it at all, is spoken of as altogether inferior and destined solely for the procreation of offspring.

It was a strange anomaly that permitted the hetaerae free access to learning and almost all pursuits while the mothers of Athenian citizens were condemned to ignorance and anonymity. Aspasia of Miletus, the learned wife of Pericles, was one of the hetaerae; the funeral oration has been thought to be her composition.

It is not a foolish belief to hold that many a potentially poetic and gifted feminine spirit was stifled in this civilization where freedom was born. Donaldson puts the issue in the following manner, with application not only to Greece but to every age and domain of human life.

The essential element in the harmonious development of woman’s nature-as man’s is freedom, but this is the very last thing which she acquires. Impediments have arisen on every hand to hinder her from bringing her powers into full activity. Ignorance, prejudice, absurd modes of thought prevalent in particular ages; conventional restraints of an arbitrary nature; laws that have sought to attain special aims without regard to general culture and well-being-these and like causes have prevented us from seeing what woman might become if she were left unfettered by all influences but those that are benign and congenial. (16)

The pagan world of Greek influence had its quota of gods and goddesses. Religious cult in Greece often took the form of a dramatic performance and, although a woman could not be a protagonist in buskins, she could finance the celebration of the mysteries. The Greeks too, like other pagan peoples, surrounded many of their temples with debauchery and prostitution. The oracular responses at Delphi supposedly coming from Apollo were given by a woman. From this office in the service of the gods derived the high title of Pythia. Corinth was the centre where Aphrodite was worshipped and around her shrine there over a thousand female prostitutes were employed in the name of religion(17)

Among all the city states of ancient Greece, Sparta alone came near to granting women equality with men. Women could compete in public alongside men in every kind of exercise, but especially in physical training. It is important to note, however, that this liberty was not ‘the result of a philosophic idea of the equality of the sexes, but was founded on the desire of producing strong children by means of strengthering the body of the female’ (18)

Summing up, one can say that the women of Greece were for the most part a suppressed sector hemmed in by the principles of usefulness and convenience, forbidden education but happy enough, it seems, with their dismal lot. ‘With all their poetry, refinement and boasted chivalry they [the Greeks] remained to the last wholly unconscious of the true characteristics and natural susceptibilities of woman.'(19)

4 The status of women in ancient Rome

The status of woman in the Roman republic was in general similar to that of Greece. However, under the Roman Empire an improvement in her position took place. In the pre-Empire era every father and husband was the subject of despotic power over the women folk. Legislation regarding women was severe: by the law of Oppius, 215 B.C., no woman was allowed to possess more than a half ounce of gold, to wear a parti-coloured garment, to ride in a chariot within the city of Rome or any town inhabited by citizens or within a half mile of these places except for purposes of religion.(20) The reason behind this law is not known, but it was repealed shortly after the Punic Wars. A speech in the Senate by Cato reveals the masculine mood at the time: ‘As soon as they [women] begin to be equal with us they will have the advantage over us.' (21) There are many instances of marital despotism, of murder with impunity for infidelity, of beating to death for disobeying the prohibition imposed on women not to taste wine, of divorce for appearing in the street without a veil, for speaking secretly to a freedwoman, and for venturing to the public games without telling the husband. This suppression was bitterly resented and occasionally led to desperate measures. For example, in 180 B.C. the consul Piso was said to have been murdered by his wif(22) and in 154 two wives of consulares acting in well-timed conspiracy poisoned their husbands on the same night.(23) The prominent part played by women in the Bacchanalian conspiracy of 186 B.C. also witnesses to discontent with their lot.(24) By the Voconian statutes of 169 B.C. the right of female inheritance was suppressed: according to this it became illegal to make a woman heir to more than 100,000 sesterces, and an only daughter was rendered incapable of inheriting her father’s property. (25)

Regarding the right to divorce, the Republic’s laws gave the same opportunity to women as it did to men. Either could dissolve the marriage, but precipitateness was guarded against by the necessity of fulfilling legal forms and consultation with the ‘family council’. Along with the partial emancipation accorded to women during the early days of the Empire an increased moral laxity is noticeable. Seneca’s famous remark that patrician women reckoned their years not by the number of consuls but by the number of their husbands was not altogether an exaggeration. (26)

Although Roman history records deeds of brutality in its domestic society and reveals vices of unutterable licentiousness and infidelity on the part of both sexes, yet the history of the Roman Republic and Empire preserves stories of devotedness and fidelity in family life. The father of the Gracchi is said to have found two snakes in his bed; the oracle said that if he killed the male he would die, if the female, his beloved wife Cornelia would. Since he was not allowed to kill both, he slew the male. Cicero too is accredited with a deep affection for his daughter. Many Roman matrons are known to have played important parts in politics and literature. Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, is said to have inspired their reforms: the intervention of Octavia, the wife of Antony, in the affairs of state was judicious and beneficial. Pliny the Younger gives a beautiful picture of the ability, frugality and literary knowledge of his wife Calpurnia. (27)

Just as there were devoted wives, like those who accompanied their husbands to the provinces in the days of the Empire (28) so there were, of course, reckless women such as those involved in the Cataline conspiracy. It was especially in Asia Minor that women took a prominent part in public activity. Many are recorded as having attained the highest priesthoods of Asia. (29) The office of high priest was never occupied by a woman in Rome itself, but the wife of the Pontifex Maximus took the lead in the worship of Bona Dea and in other religious rites which especially concerned women. It is interesting to note also that the priests attached to the worship of Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus or that of the Rex Sacrorum had to be married and were obliged to resign office when their wives died.

Women are mentioned as presiding over public games or great religious ceremonies and are often represented as financing such occasions. Baths, gymnasia, temples and statues were erected by them, in Asia Minor in particular, and they are consequently said to have played a vital role in the religious and political life of that part of the Empire (30)

Not all professions were open to women, for the simple reason that some, such as medicine and teaching, were practised by slaves only. Valerius Maximus (31) narrates how a certain Amaesia of Sentinum was so well versed in the law that she faultlessly pleaded in court against an accusation brought against herself and was acquitted almost unanimously. Ulpian (32) later on states that women were not allowed to prosecute on behalf of others because it was unbecoming that they should get mixed up in other people’s affairs. This prohibition seems to go back to 48 B.C. Although there is evidence of women being devoted to philosophy and literature yet none are recorded as having achieved noteworthy distinction in either branch of learning. Only one literary work by a Roman woman has come down to us, the very inferior satire of Sulpicia.

In Rome, the nerve centre of the Republic and Empire, although women were never permitted to hold the office of the Pontifex Maximus, they occupied a very honoured religious office as Vestal Virgins. They were among the capital’s most privileged citizens. The chief places at the amphitheatre were reserved for them, while their persons were regarded as sacrosanct. The office of this college of maidens consisted chiefly in keeping the charcoals burning continuously in honour of Vesta. Failure to fulfil this duty was punishable by scourging, while the penalty for loss of virginity was to be buried alive. After a period of thirty years’ service to their goddess they were free to marry.

This brief outline of the impact of four cultures on the life of woman shows that that of the Roman Empire was the most tolerable. There she was not relegated to seclusion like the Greek woman: although legally she was regarded as a mere piece of property in her husband’s possession, in practice she enjoyed considerable freedom and importance. Learning was open to her and the fact that she could attach herself to any of the various schools of philosophy proves the comparative independence that was hers. It cannot be said that the status of Roman women was ideal, but it was in many ways superior to that of women in earlier cultures. It was, in fact, a providential preparation, instrumental in enabling the earliest of Roman female Christians an unobtrusive freedom of movement which was to be effective in the spread of Christianity. Stoic philosophy was especially instrumental in this preparation and claimed many women among its adherents. The wives of Cato and Brutus, for example, are said to have been Stoics. (33) Stoicism bound men equally with women to abstain from licentiousness, and perhaps this was one reason for its attraction for the women of that period.

Despite this increase of prestige, the position of women still lacked the dignity which Christianity was to confer on her. In making Mary the Mother of His Son, God bestowed on woman an unparalleled honour. In redeeming mankind, Christ ensured her substantial equality with man, but because he chose weak and imperfect human beings to further his kingdom, the fulfilment of her true role in the Church and in the world still remains unrealized.

5 Women in the Old Testament

The position of woman in the Old Testament defies definition, and this mainly because of the broad canvas of time covered. At best we can say that her role appears paradoxical: at times she is accorded notable distinction, while at other times no doubt is left as to her inferiority. The Book of Proverbs (3I :IO-3I) extols the virtues of a valiant woman, while the devout Jew in his daily synagogue service prayed ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast not made me a heathen, a slave or a woman.(34) The Mosaic Law expected that women would be present at the great festivals of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (Deuteronomy I2 : 7; I Samuel I : If.). Undoubtedly they are included in the words ‘all the congregation of Israel’ (Exodus 12:3), and are specifically mentioned in regard to the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16: I4). Likewise, they were at the feast which David made for the recovering of the Ark, as ‘the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women’ (II Samuel 6 : I9). When the people gathered to hear the Law in the time of Nehemiah, women too were, in attendance: ‘And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women...’ (Nehemiah 8 : 2). There is evidence also of women taking part in the offering of sacrifices (Judges I 3 : 20) and actually partaking of the sacrifice: ‘But the breast that is waved and the thigh that is offered you shall eat in any clean place, you and your sons and your daughters with you’ (Leviticus 10 : I4). Hannah and Peninnah, who went yearly to the gathering in Shiloh, are examples of women participating in public prayer (I Samuel I: 1ff.).

There are several instances of their participation in the processionals and Temple choirs:

Thy solemn processions are seen, O God,

the processions of my God, my King, into the sanctuary -

the singers in front, the minstrels last,

between them maidens playing timbrels (Psalm 68:24-25).

So likewise Ezra 2:65: ‘two hundred male and female singers’ are present in the vast gathering of Israel.’(34) From Exodus we gather that women rendered conspicuous service in national religious songs and dances: ‘Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing’ (Exodus 15:20).(35) Women were permitted to ‘minister’ at the door of the sanctuary: ‘The ministering women who minister at the door of the tent of meeting’ (Exodus 38:8). They, as well as men, were permitted to dedicate themselves to Yahweh by taking the vow of a Nazarite : ‘When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself to the Lord...’ (Numbers 6 : 2). Theophanies were accorded also to women, as in the case of Hagar (Genesis 16 : 7), Sarah (Genesis 18 :9ff.) and Samson’s mother (Judges 13 :3-9). The gift of prophecy was communicated to Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Noadiah, while Deborah as judge played an important part as leader of the chosen People. A woman called Judith was portrayed as the embodiment of courageous and unselfish service as the saviour of the nation.

From all this it is evident that the life of Jewish women in early biblical times was anything but passive. On the other hand, from the legal point of view the rights of woman were practically non-existent. It is true that in the home she was accorded domestic privileges: ‘The main function of woman was that of presiding genius and guardian of the home’, (36) but outside this citadel any honour gained by woman was the fruit of her own ingenuity, exercised when opportunity presented itself. She laboured under the disabilities imposed by law or the very condition of her predominantly masculine environment. In the realms of official cult and education she was regarded as excluded because ‘her ritual uncleanness and sexual nature as a woman debarred her from serving’ in the capacity of priest.’ (37)Her opportunity, not to mention her right, to learn the Law was limited. One rabbi declared ‘Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to a woman’(38) while the Talmud itself supplies the reason for this: ‘A woman has no learning except in the use of the spindle.' (39) Since the elders were commanded to write Yahweh’s words upon ‘the doorposts of your gates’ (Deuteronomy II :20) and women seem to be included in the ‘congregation of Israel’, it is an obvious conclusion that women managed to acquire some knowledge of the Law. A modern writer infers that the term ‘Torah’ does not mean basic principles, but technicalities and academic discipline" The intricacies of the Law, he observes, especially regarding suspected adulteresses, would cause too much concern with things which might put unwholesome ideas into their heads.

In matrimony, the right of divorce lay with the man. There is no evidence that he had to provide maintenance for the woman divorced; she probably returned to her father’s house. Neither were any formalities needed to justify the procedure: the husband’s private reasons sufficed. Later, there was an attempt to make divorce a less facile process, for the man was obliged to give the woman a bill of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). Secondly the charge against the wife had to be proven in court, in one case at least, and if the husband’s charge was groundless he was liable to a fine and was obliged to keep the woman as his wife (Deuteronomy 22:15, 19, 29). A further bettering of conditions for woman is seen in the fact that he who violated a woman and was forced to marry her could not put her away. Later in Israel’s history the prophets denounced divorce-but more because of the danger of intermarriage with foreigners than out of respect for the dignity of woman."’ Hebrew society did not scorn the divorced woman and it is probable that she could choose her second husband (Deuteronomy 24:7). Despite the deference accorded motherhood there is no provision for the divorced woman to keep her children.

There is no evidence in the Old Testament to substantiate the opinion that a man could sell his wife for debt, since this could not be done even to a captive wife (Deuteronomy 21:74). Death was the penalty for ravishing a married or betrothed woman while for the same offence against a virgin only a fine was imposed (Leviticus 19:20). Obviously the value cherished was not virginity as such, but rather the husband’s right. He who violated a woman offended the man to whom she belonged: it was an infringement of the law of possession, not of the moral law. Only later did virginity come to be valued for its own sake and its violation punished because ‘a shameless thing was committed in Israel’ (Deuteronomy 22:27).

A prospective husband usually conferred a mõhar on his father-in-law (Genesis 32:72; 1 Samuel 78:25). This frequently took the form of service. Though the father evidently demanded some recompense for his daughter’s hand, it seems safe to assume that this was merely a matter of custom, for the esteemed position of the Hebrew wife and mother argues against actual purchase marriage. Rebecca’s freedom in choosing a husband (Genesis 24:58) seems unique and not only among the Israelites, for such freedom was unknown elsewhere in the east.

The relative inferiority of woman in the Old Testament adhered to her even from birth. A girl’s birth is a less desirable event than the birth of a son. A father could sell his daughter for debt (Exodus 27 : 7) and she could not be freed at the end of six years, as could a male slave (Leviticus 25: 50), though later on Deuteronomy (15: 72) does provide for the release of such persons of both sexes after that period.

Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter emphasizes the absolute power of a father over his daughter (Judges 77:39). The inferiority of woman was axiomatic for the Israelites even when, for example, she pledged herself in vow to Yahweh. Her valuation is much less than that of a man in similar circumstances

When a man makes a special vow of persons to the Lord at your valuation, then your valuation of a male from twenty years up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver . . . . If the person is a female your valuation shall be thirty shekels (Leviticus 27:2-4; cf also vv. 5-7).

Despite the sharp distinction based on sex difference, with its accompanying rights and privileges for the male, there appears a small area where both men and woman are treated with equality. Children were obliged to reverence both parents, and the penalty for striking or cursing father or mother was death (Exodus 27:IS-77; Leviticus 20:9, 70). Men and women taken in adultery were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:70), though by the time of Christ this law seems to have been a dead letter as far as it applied to the man (John 8 : 5). In the case of incest, death was the penalty for both sexes (Leviticus 20 : I I). The abduction of a daughter to an alien land was a loss equal to that of a son taken captive (Deuteronomy 28:32).

This brief outline of the place of woman in the Old Testament suggests that the ancient Israelites never entirely lost their original revelation concerning the equality and high destiny of man and woman. This becomes more apparent when the status of woman, in early Israel is compared with the status of woman among contemporary peoples and in later cultures. The most striking difference between the Old Testament and early oriental codes of law is the absolute prohibition and condemnation of prostitution in the former and the toleration of foul practices organized around religious shrines in the latter, where womanly virtue and dignity were exploited in the name of cult.

Yet there is evidence in the Old Testament of woman’s inferiority. She is accorded a paradoxical role-at one time placed on a pedestal, at another used as a footstool-which has been her lot ever since. It is too facile to fall back on revelation as the final justification for the discreditable elements in this situation. This hardly does justice to the written word of God. In considering Old Testament rules of conduct which appear petty and inhuman to us, we excuse them on the grounds that these were laws established for a people as yet untrained in the ways of a higher culture. Yet the restrictions imposed on woman in the Old Testament are quoted today as proofs of her incapacity to participate in the official cult.

What is the principle involved here? One is faced not only with the function of scriptural exegesis but with the still more vital question and mystery of how far God adapts himself to the given condition of his people in delivering his sublime revelation to them. The basic questions, therefore, for an understanding of woman’s role in the Church are: How far are the divine and human intertwined in the written word of God and how, ever since, has human agency interpreted his message?

A comparison of the biblical code of law with the Babylonian and Assyrian codes leaves no room for doubt that revelation was adapted to the existing conditions. The Son of God ‘became like unto man in all except sin’, born into the history of a certain nation, subject to the limitations of humanity, space and time. The written Word of God no less bears the impress of the transitory historical conditions of race and place. Attempts have been made by biblical scholars to distinguish where the human element ends and the divine takes over, or rather how far inspiration allows us to shed what is accidental and peripheral in the bible. It has been suggested that in regard to the Pentateuch ‘two principal types of law in Hebrew legislation exist: a “casuistic type” (“If a man...”), usually secular in type and patterned after neighbouring codes: and an “apodictic type” (“Thou shalt not . . : ‘), which is more religious in nature.' (42) It is argued that the ‘casuistic type’ goes back to Sumerian law which the Hebrews adopted from the Canaanites, and that the ‘apodictic type’ is of Mosaic origin.

The written Word of God was formed and recorded in a patriarchal society: moreover the whole tradition in which it was revealed and preserved was predominantly masculine. There is no text in the Old Testament which gives the remotest hint that women ever acted as priests: the priesthood of Aaron was conferred on a man and handed on to his sons. It would certainly be a gratuitous assumption to expect that if a female priesthood was ever intended by God then at least some foreshadowing of it should be present in the Old Testament. For one thing, in a patriarchal society a female ministry would be unthinkable. God does not act abruptly and arbitrarily with his people. A college of priestly women side by side with the legally deprived female section of the qãhãl would be an incongruity. No doubt God could have ordained it thus, but the pattern of divine intervention has always been to adapt to given mentalities and milieux. Little is known, comparatively speaking, of the Aaronic priesthood. But that only men belonged to it is beyond doubt. This imperfect priesthood was simply the foreshadowing of the unique priesthood of Christ. The priestly role of Aaron was transcended and surpassed by and in Christ the eternal high priest. In one sense, the fact that men belonged to the Old Testament priestly caste was an accident of history; in another, the very existence of the Aaronic order was essential, portraying as it did in some faint way the need of a mediator between sinful humanity and the all-holy God.

That the Old Testament period allowed the existence of prophetesses and a female judge does not contradict our contention that for a woman to have exercised a sacerdotal function would have been totally incongruous. The gift of prophecy has always been regarded as a spiritual charism dependent on the Spirit who ‘breathes where he will’. It is usual to regard the roles played by Deborah and Judith as exceptional, and by this is meant that, although women might on occasion be raised up among the people of God to take a decisive part in the divine plan, this forms no precedent for the subsequent activity of women. The hegemony of women was indeed the exception in the Old Testament; yet, like the faint forecast of Christ’s unique priesthood found in Aaron, it may well have been both a sign and a promise of fulfilment in the qãhãl of the New Testament.

The ultimate justification for the inherent inferiority of woman, which is said to incapacitate her for the priesthood, derives from the story of the creation and fall. Eve is taken from Adam’s side and seduced by the serpent, and for her sin she is placed under Adam’s power: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.’ Now just as the historical context influenced the writing down of God’s Word, so it has to a great extent conditioned the interpretation of scripture. The discovery of the Gilgamesh epic has in some degree enlightened our understanding of the intention of the human author of Genesis. Our knowledge of the Canaanite beliefs and practices helps us to guess more accurately at the reason for the serpent imagery in the fall narrative. (43) In these days the newly-acquired status of woman has led interpreters of scripture to reexamine the traditional theory of female inferiority. Nowadays they are at pains to prove from scripture the equality of the sexes. Instead of the creation account being taken as a sign of her inferior position, the formation of Eve from Adam’s rib is now emphasized ‘as a symbol to indicate the identical nature of both the man and the woman’(44)

The first eleven chapters of Genesis could not have been written like a historical document, relying on reports of eyewitnesses or on a chain of historical tradition unbroken from the first days of creation. As St John Chrysostom remarked, we are able to say nothing about the event, for ‘only he knows who was responsible for creation’(45) Then how was the creation account written? Did God reveal the words as they stand to the inspired writer? Mechanical dictation does no honour to God, who according to this theory would be responsible even for such things as the grammatical blunders found in Genesis. Of course there was divine inspiration: how this operated is not of concern here, except to recall that the human author with all his personal characteristics and environmental conditioning was allowed to play his part in the process. If serpent imagery was used in the Genesis narrative to symbolize evil and Canaanite idolatry, a perennial threat on Israel’s doorstep-and here a warning to would-be apostates-is it not possible that the human author also projected into the creation story the actual inferiority of women in his own age and milieu? One recent scripture scholar puts it in the following way

In a society where physical strength was arbiter, women were at best an inferior caste. Even under the Law of Moses a woman was in theory at least the chattel of her husband or father .... The Gentiles accepted this social fact with enthusiasm and justified it with legends proving that woman was the cause of human ills (Pandora’s box is one such story) and in any case, was a lower type of creature than man. If the world was a man’s world, it was because nature had made it so. Before we are enviously awed at the success of this male propaganda, I think we should seriously question whether it was ever really successful. The legends were made by men for male consumption; there is no evidence that any woman believed them.

The author of Genesis took a more realistic view. Women’s social inferiority was a fact (Genesis 3: 16), but only because this was not the best of all possible worlds. It was not so intended from the beginning. It was just another of the imperfections of an imperfect world that man had made for himself.’(46)

It might be objected that the inferior status of woman in the Mosaic age is further proof that this is her God-given position in human society. If this were valid, then all effort for the bettering of conditions of women where they are burdened by masculine domination and sometimes by tyranny, is not only prohibited but doomed from the start. It seems a gratuitous assumption that in both secular and religious spheres the male is made to rule, while the female’s role is one of passivity. This is de facto, although not universally, proved false. The hundreds of thousands of years before the recording of history would probably throw light on the original relationship of the sexes at a time when there was neither superior nor inferior, except in terms of brute force, if only we could see into them. In our own times of so-called civilization we see the principle that ‘might is right’ playing a predominant part in the history of some nations and can we lightly assume that in prehistory the same principle did not prevail? Further progress in the study of evolution might hold a key to the past. This aspiration does not go counter to the Reply of the Biblical Commission which states that the formation of woman from man may not be called in question.(47) But the Commission does not demand a belief in the crude literalness of Genesis.

Some attempts were made in the nineteenth century to explain the emergence of male supremacy. Bachofen’s theory (48)states that originally there existed a state of lawlessness, that women rebelled and with the supremacy of women monogamy was established. Evidence for this view is seen in the fact that among some primitive peoples children were called after their mother. Even in Republican Rome, whether a child was free-born or servile was determined by the actual grade of the mother, regardless of that of the father. That motherhood was held to be divine is instanced by female deities and the female ascendancy in ancient Egypt. Bachofen admits that in Greece paternity was regarded as divine but that it was the Romans in their military conquests who set the seal on male supremacy and female subjection. (49) It is apparent that this hypothesis, while having many loopholes, has also a certain probability. The naming of children after the mother, for example, is more likely to be the result of polygamy in which woman is regarded as a thing to be used rather than a principle of authority. McLennan’s (50) theory of wife-capture is another attempt to show how in the primitive past women were at the mercy of might. Whatever one thinks of these theories, the principle that might is right is not a myth; but in saying this one prescinds from the question whether humanity would fare better or worse from a female predominance.

The point to be emphasized here is that the categorical assumption of male supremacy and female subjection is not as incontrovertible as some would like to maintain. Neither is this an expression of the modern error that all truth is relative, but a plea that in scriptural exegesis and interpretation, or where there is historical evidence of female participation in the life of the primitive Church, objectivity and candour may replace the negative, indeed prejudicial, treatment which was given to these questions in the past.

Notes

l. E. M. McDonald, The Position of Women as Refected in Semitic Codes of Law, University of Toronto Press, 31931, p. 5. Most of my material here is taken from this work.

2. McDonald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law, op. cit., p. 8.

3. J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955, 170.

4. ‘Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op. cit., i72.

5.Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op. cit., 171

6. ‘McDonald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law, op. Cit., p. 25.

7 .Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op. cit., 180. ‘Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op. cit., 172, 174, footnotes.

8. Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op cit., 180

9. Only one such case of barbarism is found in the Bible: Deuteronomy 25 :I2.

10. “Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, op. cit., .i83.

1. 1Though not citizens, these women enjoyed a liberty denied to the female citizens of the city-state.

12. Against Neaera, par. 122.

13.James Donaldson, Woman: Her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome and among the Eaarly Christians, London, 1907, p.2

14. The Republic, V, V, 455-466.

15. Politics, I, V, 2.

16. Woman: Her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome, op. cit. p.2,

17. Strabo, VIII, 6, 2.

18. E. Guhl and W. Koner, The Life of the Greeks and Romans, London, 1875) P. 186.

19. S. W. Fullom, History of Woman, London, 1855, vol. I, p. 276.

20. Livy, XXXIV, I, 3.

21. Livy, XXXIV, III, 1.

22. Livy, XL, 37

23. Livy, Epitomae, 48.

24. Livy, XXXIX, 8-i8.

25. Aulus Genius, Noctes Attícae, vi. i3.

26. De Beneficiis III, XV13 2.

27. Epist., IV, 19.

28. Tacitus, Annals, 3, 33) 34

29. Donaldson, Woman: Her position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome, op. cit., p. 125.

30. Ibid., p. 124.

31.Vlll,3, 1. 3, 1.

32. lll, 1, 5. Cf. the same author, Dig. I, 16, 195 where he says that women may not hold any public offices.

33. Plutarch, Brutus, i3.

34. Cf. also Nehemiah 7:67.

35. Cf. also Judges 1 t :34; I Samuel 18 :6-7.

36. Hirschel Revel, ‘Woman’, Universal Jewish Dictionary, 10 vols, New York, 1943.

37. ’Woman’, Interpreter’s Dictionary, Abingdon Press, 1962.

38. A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, London, 1932, p. 189.

39. Ibid

40. R. Loewe, The Position of Woman in Judaism, memorandum submitted by request to the commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider the question of women and holy orders, October, 1964. This has since been published by the S.P.C.K., London. I am indebted to the author for his permission to read and make reference to this while in manuscript form.

41. Cf. Micah Z:9; Malachi 2:14-16.

42. R. A. Dyson and R. A. F. McKenzie, S.J., ‘Higher Criticism’, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Edinburgh, 1957, 45m.

43. Cf. J. Coppens, La connaissance du bien et du mal, Louvain, 1948, pp. 93f

44. C Hauret, Beginnings, Genesis and Modern Science, trans. E. P. Emmans, O.P., Dubuque, 1955, P 105 Cf. also F. Ceuppens, O.P., Genèse, 1945, I-III, 138.

45. PG 53:121.

46. B. Vawter, C.M., A Path Through Genesis, London,1957 P 59

47. AAS I (1909), 568.

48. E. B. Gamble, The Evolution of Woman, New York, x894, pp. I5off. Bachofen (d. 1887) was a Swiss jurist and author who propounded this theory in his work, Das Mutterrecht.

49. Ibid., pp. 189ff.

50. J. G. McLennan put forward this theory in his work, Primitive Marriages, 1866.

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.