Beyond suspicion? Rethinking feminist hermeneutics after post-critique

Abstract

This thesis defends a faithful form of feminist Biblical interpretation in light of “post-critique.” This is needed as feminist interpretation of the Bible today is dominated by a radical hermeneutics of suspicion which leaves little room for feminist readers who wish to oppose the oppression of women but who also believe that the Bible transmits the Word of God and makes possible an encounter with the divine. Seeking a less one-sided model of critique the thesis turns to a recent development in literary studies known as “post-critique” and explores its viability in relation to feminist Biblical interpretation. The thesis has two parts. Part One first of all offers a survey of the field, locating my approach within it. Chapter 2 highlights the dominance of one-sided suspicious approaches, and then unfolds a counter-model, explaining what is meant by “post-critique” and outlining its foundations in Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics. This chapter also provides a defence of a doctrine of Scripture that includes an account of the Bible’s role as mediator of the divine. Building on this general framework, Chapter 3 sets out what “reparative” reading and “second naiveté” might involve in feminist Biblical interpretation. In order to show the utility of this approach, Part Two (chapters 4–6) offers a series of interpretive case-studies on three New Testament texts (Luke 18:1-8; John 20:1-18; John 4:4-42). Each of these chapters engages with a suspicious feminist reading of the pericope, followed by a narrative-theological reading. The thesis concludes by challenging the widespread side-lining of faithful feminist readings of the Bible, both because this is founded on an un-argued-for refusal of theological possibilities, and because in rejecting such readings we forgo a range of significant resources for women’s liberation and flourishing.