This essay provides a critical analysis of the neoliberal grounding of feminist biblical studies. I outline the main problems generated by this framework, notably fragmentation, repetition, the absence of theory, the limiting emphasis on method, and above all the validation of traditional (male-dominant) scholarly norms and practices. Seeking greater inclusion within biblical studies, neoliberal feminism has endorsed the normalizing approach to patriarchy and rejected its radical interrogation in women’s studies. My thumbnail historical overview of the field links disconnected publications in biblical theology, historical criticism, and literary criticism. The analysis shows that these possibilities advocate the relative utility of re-objectifying women with five hermeneutical strategies. They are: first, the depatriarchalizing strategy, exemplified in Phyllis Trible’s work; second, the historicizing strategy as employed most prominently by Carol Meyers; third, the textualizing strategy exemplified by Ilana Pardes; fourth, the mythologizing strategy employed by Susan Ackerman; and fifth, the idealizing strategy exemplified by Frymer-Kensky. By placing my critical analysis within the broader context of transformational feminist critiques published at the same time, I argue for a shift from the “biblical” to the “feminist” in feminist biblical studies.
Mpambu Nzila: José Bedia at the Crossroads