So I finally have my new car (woo hoo), a 2002 Honda Civic. Well, it's new to me anyway. And it has a tape deck! So I went to the liberry the other day and I got "The Red Tent" by Anita Diamant on Books on Tape. So I'm listening to this novel in the car as I drive from home to work and back and elsewhere.
"The Red Tent" is the story of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah. Gen 30:21 She gets very little mention in the book of Genesis and is best known for being abducted by Shechem. Was she raped? The Bible seems to indicate that Shechem lay forcefully with Dinah, but his actions afterwards are not consistent with a rapist. So, that's an ambiguity in the text. Anyway, when Dinah's brothers learn what happened to their sister, they lay siege to Shechem and take away their sister by force, thus avenging her honor. Gen. 34:1-31 After that, she disappears from the text, except for mention in a genealogy. Gen 46:15
What happened to her? What was her life like before she met Shechem? What is like being the only daughter among 11 brothers? Benjamin had not been born yet. What household duties did she have? What was her relationship with her mother and the other women in Jacob's family? What was her religion? "The Red Tent" attempts to answer this and many other questions.
So far I'm only on the 1st side of the 3rd cassette out of 8. So I'm not too far into the book (tapes). Diamant is an excellent story teller, no doubt. She has a wonderful way with words and brings each of her characters to life with stark clarity. The ancient pagan rituals and worship practices of the Canaanites are laid out in vivid detail.
One thing I noticed though is that Diamant takes certain liberties with the story from the Bible that don't jive with the Biblical account. For example, she says that the contract between Jacob and Laban for Rachel's hand is 7 months instead of 7 years. And she writes that Leah is the mother of seven sons and Bilhah the mother of only one. Actually, Leah bore six sons and Bilhah bore two. But, dont' take my word for it, look these facts up for yourself. Genesis 29:18-19; 30:20; 30:1-8.
I understand that the Bible can be frustratingly silent on certain details about people, especially women. But when information is given, why not use it? Those who advocate for women's commentaries and women's studies on the Bible and for novels about Biblical women (and I whole-heartedly agree with them) do themselves and other women a disservice when they do not accurately portray what is in the Bible. Who will take them seriously if they cannot get those details correct? Either it shows ignorance or lack of attention, and I'm not sure which is worse.
And this problem of not properly using what's in the Bible is not limited to stories written by and about women. I don't know if any of you are familiar with "Charlton Heston [may he rest in peace] Presents the Bible." His take on the stories in the Tanakh, or OT, weave a complicated mess not even Alexander the Great could have cut through.
But, I will continue to listen to the tapes because I find the story of Dinah interesting and also to find out (for my own perverse satisfaction-God forgive me) where else Diamant diverted from the Biblical text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hmm. That's interesting. If she didn't twist so much of the Bible's context, I'd probably read it. (Or listen to it, whichever). Oh, btw, at the moment I AM taking your word for it, just because I'm busy, but I'll look into that more later ;) Also, I can't say anything about your reading to discover more out-of-context information. I continued going to revival at my church this year, simply because I was curious as to what else the pastor would twist and take out of context >.<
Lilly,
Thanks for your reply.
Yeah, I also just discovered that in the story where Rachel stole her father Laban's idols and sat upon them when he came into her tent to search for them, she did not rise to greet him but said, the period of women was upon her.
Well, in the book, Rachel stands up and faces her father and tells him to his face that she took his idols and they have lost their power since she bled on them and if wants to take them back, he's welcome to them.
It's a bit different from the Biblical text, but hey. I guess Diamant wanted Rachel to be a more assertive (or aggressive) character. Perhaps what was recorded in the Bible didn't suit her purposes. The hey with Scripture, right?
I can be more forgiving of a novelist than a preacher. People are less likely to be led astray by a novelist as they know the work is fiction and that authors take certain, how shall we say, poetic license, with the text. But a preacher. A preacher should know better. A preacher should be teaching his listeners from the Word of God and not turning to the right or to the left, neither adding nor taking away. What amazes me about people who do that stuff is all the stuff they need is right in the Bible.
You're welcome.
0_o That's...interesting....
HA! Apparently <_<
I concur. I'd be more angry if I didn't think he was just confused. For all I know, I just misunderstood him. I did a lot of Bible-hopping, so it wouldn't be too difficult to get confused. He DID add his opinion to a part of Rev and said it in a way to assume that it was in the Bible, but I asked him about it afterward and he clarified that it was only his personal opinion. Too bad he didn't tell that the everyone else <_<
Maybe your preacher thought people could tell the difference...?
Are people that knowledgable in Scripture so that they'd know what he said was his own personal opinion and not Scripture?
Idk. He sounded pretty sure of himself =/
I can only hope >.<
Post a Comment