HOLY MISOGYNY
April DeConick; Bloomsbury Academic,2014; $27.99
Reviewed by Terry Oberg
ONE conclusion that cannot be challenged concerning our first female Prime Minister’s term in office is that, for better or for worse, she put the word misogyny in to everyone’s lexicon.
Her speech before the parliament has been classified as a piece of irrelevant self-indulgence on the one hand or an internationally acclaimed oration on the other.
Famed Biblical scholar April DeConick covers the same tetchy topic in this her latest study.
She bases her conclusions on her expert knowledge of canonical and extracanonical literature, archaeological findings, especially recent ones, and a thorough appreciation of the light that secular history shines on women, sex and gender in the early days of Christianity.
Philo and Josephus seem to be two of her favourite sources.
Her treatment is academic yet presented in a style that makes her thinking accessible to all.
Her thesis is that the original Christians had no trouble accepting the Lady God.
Gradually the early Church became unsettled by the gender question.
The female association with sin became an issue, along with a distrust of the female body.
Leadership became a male monopoly and the question of a female priesthood was reduced to the state with which we are now familiar; when the matter is not even to be placed on the table for discussion.
The author is particularly interested in examining St Paul’s contribution to the gender debate.
Indeed, no one personality comes under more scrutiny than the Apostle to the Gentiles.
He is to the author what Tony Abbott was to Ms Gillard.
If one is to take DiConick literally, one of Paul’s basic theological tenets is that “the male hierarchy is divinely sanctioned”.
Catholic readers will take exception to the way scripture is used. It is a source, but seems to have no greater authority than the purely human evidence stemming from the various sciences and history.
Nevertheless she explores questions that are exercising many minds.
To these she brings a mixture of undoubted scholarship, interesting speculation, some subjective wishful thinking and, dare it be said, not a little bias.
The whole presentation is entertaining, provocative and is sufficiently credible to challenge a Church that could be in denial about this topic as it has been about some others whose results are painfully with us today.
[divider]
