Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. “Elizabeth Mary MacDonald: An Early Canadian Contribution to the Study of Women in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 169-189 in Breaking Boundaries: Female Biblical Interpreters who Challenged the Status Quo. Edited by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis and Heather Weir. LHB/OTS 524. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. “Elizabeth Mary MacDonald: An Early Canadian Contribution to the Study of Women in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 169-189 in Breaking Boundaries: Female Biblical Interpreters who Challenged the Status Quo. Edited by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis and Heather Weir. LHB/OTS 524. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. BREAKING BOUNDARIES Female Biblical Interpreters Who Challenged the Status Quo edited by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis and Heather Weir t&t clark NEW YORK • LONDON Copyright © 2010 by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis and Heather Weir Published by T & T Clark International A Continuum imprint 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX www.continuumbooks.com Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: 978-0-567-59503-4 (hardback) Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www.forthpub.com) Printed in the United States of America by Thomson-Shore, Inc Elizabeth Mary MacDonald: An Early Canadian Contribution to the Study of Women in the Ancient Near East Rebecca G. S. Idestrom Introduction Throughout history, women have studied and interpreted the Bible, and many of their studies have been published. However, until more recently, awareness and knowledge of women’s writings on Scripture have often been lost or largely ignored by the academic community. Therefore it is important to recover these lost voices and their writings if we want a more complete and better understanding of the history of biblical inter- pretation.1 When the door finally opened for women to study at uni- versities towards the end of the nineteenth century, few women entered the academic world to pursue doctorates in biblical studies. In the early twentieth century, however, one Canadian woman did. In this essay, I will explore the contribution of one of the early foremothers of Canadian biblical studies, Elizabeth Mary MacDonald (1897-1984). MacDonald was a woman who not only interpreted the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, but who also had an interest in the role of women in Old Testament Law and in the ancient Near East.2 Her doctoral dissertation, __________ 1. The important work of recovering women biblical interpreters throughout history is being done by Professor Marion Taylor at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, as well as by many of her friends and colleagues. Several special sessions have been held at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies as well as at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting on the history of women interpreters of Scripture. See Marion Ann Taylor and Heather E. Weir, eds., Let Her Speak for Herself: Women Writing on Women of Genesis (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006); Christiana de Groot and Marion Ann Taylor, eds., Recovering Nineteenth- Century Women Interpreters of the Bible (SBLSymS; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). Marion Taylor is presently editing a Dictionary of Women Inter- preters of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming). 2. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies annual conference, May 2003 at Dalhousie University, Halifax, 170 entitled The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law (1931), was an important study of women in the ancient Near East, in which MacDonald compared the status of women as reflected in the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Israelite codes of law.3 Elizabeth MacDonald is also an important figure in that she played a significant role in terms of the history of women at the University of Toronto. She was one of a handful of women who completed doctoral degrees from the University in the early days of granting doctorates and allowing women to study at the University. We will briefly look at her life, the context in which she was found, and then analyze her study of women in Semitic codes of law. We will also consider some of the factors that influenced her work and her importance to biblical studies in Canada. Her Life Elizabeth Mary MacDonald was born in Wolfville, Nova Scotia on December 2, 1897.4 She was the only daughter of Christina Margaret Logan and Peter MacLaren MacDonald. Her father was a Presbyterian minister, who became a United Church minister upon the creation of the United Church of Canada in 1925. He served churches in Wolfville and Truro, Nova Scotia before coming to Toronto in 1904. There Elizabeth’s father pastored a number of Presbyterian and United Churches before retiring in 1946.5 After finishing high school at Westminster Ladies College in Toronto, Elizabeth MacDonald enrolled at the University of Toronto in 1917, in the Faculty of Arts at University College, and completed her B.A. in 1921, her M.A. in 1923, and her Ph.D. in 1928. During this time she met her future husband, Matthew Truran Newby, who also studied at Uni- versity College beginning in 1922, majoring in Greek and Hebrew. Both __________ Nova Scotia. In the essay I use the terms Old Testament and Hebrew codes, rather than Hebrew Bible, because these are the terms that MacDonald used. When she spoke of the Hebrew codes, she was referring to the Old Testament laws, and when she used Old Testament she meant all of the Hebrew Bible including the laws. 3. Elizabeth Mary MacDonald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law (University of Toronto Studies; Oriental Series 1; Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1931). 4. She went by the name Beth. 5. In Toronto, he pastored Cowan Avenue Church and St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church, Bathurst Street United Church and was assistant Minister at Timothy Eaton Memorial Church (1941-46) just before he retired. “With Churches in Toronto for 40 Years,” Obituary of P. M. MacDonald, February 12, 1960, Canadian Obituaries 1957-1962 (University of Toronto Library Archives, Toronto). 171 MacDonald and Newby were students of Professor William Robert Taylor, who was the head of the department of Oriental Languages at the time (from 1914 to 1951).6 Since MacDonald was very good at languages, Professor Taylor suggested that she tutor Matthew Newby in German. This is how they met and became better acquainted.7 Newby was born August 21, 1901 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but his family moved to Canada in 1911 when he was ten years old. After completing his B.A. in 1926 and M.A. in 1927 at the University of Toronto, he studied theology for three years at Wycliffe College and became an ordained Anglican priest in 1930. MacDonald and Newby were married on June 27, 1934. They served at St. Matthew’s Anglican in Toronto, then St. George’s-on-the-Hill, Islington, and later, in 1953, Newby became Canon at St. James Cathedral in Toronto. At the same time, Newby continued his academic career, by becoming Teaching Fellow at University College (1929-31; 1936-40) and Lecturer in Introductory Greek at Wycliffe College (1940-49). He was appointed Associate Professor of Oriental Languages at Trinity College in 1947, full professor and acting head of the department of Oriental Languages in 1950, and finally head of the department until his retirement in 1971.8 Elizabeth MacDonald and Matthew Newby had one daughter, Margaret Frances, born May 28, 1936. This background demonstrates the significant place that the Church played in Elizabeth MacDonald’s life, both in terms of being raised in a minister’s home as well as marrying a minister. Her church experience included attending the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church. This heritage probably had some influence on her choice of what to study in university and her desire to pursue biblical studies. She came to the academic study of the Bible from a Christian background rooted in the mainline Churches of Canada. Education was also very important to her family, so it is not surprising __________ 6. Elizabeth MacDonald studied with Professor William Taylor from 1917 to 1928 and Matthew Newby studied with him from 1922 to 1927. 7. Margaret Frances Newby McMullin (daughter to Elizabeth and Matthew Newby), telephone interview with author, July 2003. 8. In 1968, Wycliffe College honored Newby by conferring on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. See Fred V. Winnett and W. Stewart McCullough, “A Brief History of the Department of Near Eastern Studies (formerly Oriental Languages) in the University of Toronto to 1976-1977” (unpublished essay, University of Toronto Library Archives, Toronto), 54, 56; “Matthew Truran Newby,” The Anglican (December 1978). 172 that she pursued a Ph.D. and married an academic whose interests in biblical studies and biblical languages mirrored her own.9 Elizabeth MacDonald is a significant figure when we consider the history of women at the University of Toronto. Women were first allowed to enroll as students at the University of Toronto in 1884.10 The Ph.D. degree was first introduced at the University in 1897; the first two women to receive a doctorate were Clara Cynthia Benson and Emma Sophia Baker in 1903.11 MacDonald was the sixteenth woman to get a Ph.D. from the University,12 and she was the very first woman to receive a doctorate in the department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies (then known as the department of Oriental Languages; it was renamed the Near Eastern Studies department in 1956; in 1996 it was renamed as the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations). In terms of the history of the department, Elizabeth MacDonald was the eleventh person to receive her Ph.D.13 As the first woman to earn a doctorate in the department of Oriental Languages she broke new ground, in a field that was dominated by male scholars. The significance of MacDonald’s achievement is further highlighted when we consider that it was another 43 years until another woman received her doctorate in Near Eastern Studies: Donna Runnels in 1971, followed by Eva Esther Dessen and Libby Ruth Mandel Garshowitz, both in 1974.14 Thus, out of the 36 Ph.D. degrees that were completed in __________ 9. Her father encouraged her to go to university. Professor Robert Taylor, her dissertation supervisor, was very impressed by her and encouraged her to pursue a Ph.D. (McMullin, telephone interview). 10. Martin L. Friedland, The University of Toronto: A History (Toronto: Univer- sity of Toronto Press, 2002), 91-92. Friedland has a whole chapter on the Admission of Women at the University (Chapter 9). 11. Anne Rochon Ford, A Path Not Strewn with Roses: One Hundred Years of Women at the University of Toronto, 1884-1984 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 46. 12. Jill McBryde, “Early Graduates and Academic Women at the University of Toronto” (unpublished essay, April 1979, University of Toronto Library Archives, Toronto). The other doctorates were in chemistry, philosophy, biology, physics, classics, geology, mathematics, and botany (according to McBryde’s list of women Ph.D. graduates up to 1930). 13. The first two people to get a Ph.D. in the department of Oriental Languages were Richard Davidson and Ross George Murison, both in 1902. 14. Donna Runnals, “Hebrew and Greek Sources in the Speeches of Jospehus’ Jewish Wars” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1971); Eva E. Dessen, “A Com- mentary of R. Menahem Ben Simon of Posquieres on Jeremiah” (Ph.D. diss., Uni- versity of Toronto, 1974); Libby Garshowitz, “Shem Tov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s 173 the Near Eastern Studies department between 1902 and 1975, only four were earned by women.15 What also makes MacDonald stand out when one compares her with her female contemporaries at the University of Toronto is that she pursued her studies in an unusual subject area. Most of the women studying at the university at the time were studying English and modern languages, preparing for a teaching career. Instead, MacDonald chose to study Hebrew and Greek and pursue biblical studies and ancient Near Eastern literature in particular. Elizabeth MacDonald was also a pioneer in that her Ph.D. dissertation was published as the first volume in the Oriental Series of the University of Toronto Studies, which was a new series offered by the University of Toronto Press. This in itself testifies to the importance of her work and the recognition that it received by the professors in the department. Besides her dissertation supervisor Professor W. R. Taylor (1882-1951), J. A. Craig (1854-1932), W. A. Irwin (1884-1967), and T. J. Meek (1881-1966) taught in the department during her tenure as a student.16 In his review of MacDonald’s published dissertation, W. A. Irwin’s appre- ciation for her work is reflected in his view that she had set the bar high for the series. He wrote: “It is to be hoped the ‘Toronto Oriental Series’ will announce further numbers on this same level of excellence.”17 __________ Touchstone (Even bohan) Chapters 2-10, Based on Ms. Plut. 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana), with Collations from Other Manuscripts” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1974). 15. Judy Mills and Irene Dombra, University of Toronto Doctoral Theses, 1897- 1967 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968), 86-87; University of Toronto Doctoral Theses, 1968-1975: A Bibliography (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 88-89. 16. Jacob Maier Hirschfelder (1819-1902) and James Frederick McCurdy (1847-1935) were previous professors in the department, McCurdy being the most influential in shaping the department at the time. William Robert Taylor, having completed his Ph.D. in the department in 1910, first came to teach there in 1911 to fill a one-year post. In 1913 he returned for another one-year appointment but then became full professor and head of the department in 1914 (when McCurdy retired), a position he held until 1951. James Alexander Craig taught in the department from 1914 to 1922, William Andrew Irwin taught there from 1919 to 1930, and Theophile James Meek was there from 1923 to 1952 (Winnett and McCullough, “A Brief History,” 1, 7, 18-27). 17. W. A. Irwin, “Women among Berbers and Semites: II. Semites,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 49 (1933): 267-68. Although Irwin was at the University of Chicago at the time of writing this book review, he had been part of the faculty in the department from 1919 until 1930 and had known MacDonald as a student. 174 In the descriptions of graduates in the University of Toronto archives, MacDonald was described in the following way: “Instead of the fiery temper habitually accompanying burnished copper hair, Beth is most amicable. She is sincere to a degree and incomparable as a friend.”18 Along with this write-up, the quotation cited under her photograph was from William Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night. It read: “I have one heart, one bosom, and one truth, and that no man has; nor never none shall master be of it, save I alone.”19 Upon graduating with her doctorate, she was offered a job at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Unfortunately, she had to decline the posi- tion because her mother was ill at the time and needed care. MacDonald ended up looking after her mother and as a result was never able to pursue a career where she could apply her studies and research skills.20 When she married Matthew Newby in 1934, she became a wife, mother, and clergy spouse and in these roles she supported her husband in his parish ministry and academic pursuits.21 MacDonald’s Doctoral Dissertation Although she never became an academic, Elizabeth MacDonald did make an important contribution to biblical studies, as well as to women’s studies. In this way, she is an important foremother to Canadian women who have since pursued biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies at the doctoral level. MacDonald’s Ph.D. dissertation, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law, was completed in 1928 and pub- lished in 1931 by University of Toronto Press.22 It is interesting to note that her dissertation, being 79 pages in length, was significantly longer than other dissertations in the department. For example, the doctoral dissertations completed before MacDonald’s were between eleven and __________ 18. MacDonald, Elizabeth Mary, A 1973-0026/260 (76), University of Toronto Library Archives, Toronto. 19. Ibid. 20. The fact that her father did not believe that it was suitable for a woman to work outside the home did not help the matter (McMullin, telephone interview). 21. Their daughter Frances McMullin shared that her mother often helped her father in his work; they would discuss it together. Elizabeth and Matthew also kept up their languages, by speaking and writing to each other in different languages, including ancient Semitic languages. For example, one year they wrote each other Christmas cards in Aramaic. Between them, they knew thirteen languages. In this way, Elizabeth was able to make some use of all the languages she had studied, and she was able to support her husband in his work (McMullin, telephone interview). 22. It cost $1.00 Canadian to purchase her book at the time. 175 fifty-one pages in length, and after hers, between 23 and 64 pages. The Ph.D. dissertations did not become 200-300 pages until 1936 (the one exception was E. J. Pratt’s dissertation in 1917, which was 203 pages long).23 Thus her doctoral dissertation was a larger, more substantial piece of work than that of her colleagues at the time. Her bibliography of 68 sources also demonstrates that she had done a lot of research, setting an example of someone who had thoroughly engaged the scholarly literature in the field. Her bibliography was up-to-date, including the latest publications on the topic.24 In this way, she raised the bar by setting a high standard for others doing doctoral work. In her research, MacDonald chose to compare the position or status of women as reflected and outlined in the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Israelite codes of law. For each law code, she systematically examined the position women held in these societies in terms of being a daughter, wife, mother, and widow, and in terms of their roles in the economic and religious life of each community. In doing so, she wanted to see the advances made by women as well as the privileges lost with the emer- gence of patriarchy, in comparison with the status of women in a primi- tive, nomadic society which she assumed was matriarchal.25 She also traced the development of patriarchy and its impact on women by comparing earlier Babylonian and Assyrian law codes with the later Hebrew code. In her study, MacDonald concluded that both advantages and disadvantages accompanied the emergence of patriarchy, and this was demonstrated in all three Semitic codes. She also argued that “the __________ 23. University of Toronto Doctoral Theses, 1897-1967, 86-87. Although E. J. Pratt eventually became a famous Canadian poet and a professor of English Litera- ture at Victoria College at the University of Toronto, he began his studies in theology and completed a Ph.D. dissertation in the department of Oriental Languages in 1917, writing on “Studies in Pauline Eschatology and its Background.” E. J. Pratt, “Studies in Pauline Eschatology and its Background” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1917). 24. In reality, she used more than 68 sources, because when she used a work only once, she would mention it in a footnote instead of putting it in her bibliography. Of the sixty-eight sources in her bibliography, eight were in French, twenty-eight were in German, and thirty-two were in English. She also shows evidence of having worked with the Hebrew and the Akkadian texts. Thus, in her research, she consulted more works in other foreign languages than she did English sources. Her thorough interaction with other scholars in the field is also demonstrated in the number of footnotes she used and in her discussion in those footnotes. Although the footnotes reach 266 in number, in reality she had more footnotes because whenever she was reusing a work she often would list the same footnote number more than once. 25. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 5. 176 highest ideals of womanhood” were being aimed for in the Hebrew laws in comparison to the Babylonian and Assyrian laws.26 Before turning to the particular law codes, MacDonald began her study by briefly describing the position of women in primitive Semitic life, so that she could determine what advances women had made or privileges they had lost over time. She identified this primitive period in human history as the time before the dispersion (when the human race divided, according to Gen 11). She admitted that this section of her study was more speculative because of the lack of sources, but that one could draw some conclusions, by analogy, with the life and customs of nomads who had lived on the Arabian Peninsula. Here she drew on the work of anthropologists and sociologists.27 Her main observation was that the primitive Semites were matriarchal or matronymic (the line of descent going through the mother), thus giving women more independence. She had the right to divorce, which was an advantage, since women would later lose this right. At the same time, the moral standards of women were lower in this system, since, for example, a woman could have more than one husband at the same time (called polyandry). However, after the dispersion, MacDonald noted that baal marriages began to emerge and this development became a step downward for women as they began to lose freedom and legally became mere possessions. As women moved from more nomadic lifestyles to settled communities, they received a definite place in the social and religious order in a more patriarchal society.28 Patriarchy then emerged as the dominant organizational frame- work of Semitic society. Having begun by describing the status of women in primitive Semitic life, MacDonald then proceeded to look at the status of women in the three Semitic codes. She began with the code of Hammurabi, since it was the oldest of the three law codes. In this code, women appeared in all spheres of ancient Babylonian life—domestic, economic and religious—revealing that they had more independence than in the later Semitic codes.29 She argued that there __________ 26. Ibid., 73. 27. Ibid., 5. Here she drew on the work of G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902). 28. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 5-10. In this chapter, she acknowl- edged the influence of W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885), and A. Jaussen, Les coutumes des Arabes (1908) on her thought. 29. Ibid., 11. MacDonald dated the Code of Hammurabi to 2004 b.c.e. MacDon- ald interacted a lot with the following scholars’ work on the code: C. Edwards, The Hammurabi Code (1921); A. H. Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians (1899); S. Landersdorfer, Die Kultur der Babylonier und Assyrier (1925); P. Koschaker, Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurabis (1917); M. Jastrow Jr., 177 were echoes of the matronymic system in the code of Hammurabi (e.g. a woman had more freedom to choose whom to marry, she could inherit, etc., although she had no rights in the case of divorce). MacDonald believed that this independence demonstrated that woman “was no piece of property in Babylon.”30 The only right the husband had over his wife was that he could sell her to serve three years for a debt he owed, but after three years she would be free again. He could not sell her for any other reason, since she was not merely his property.31 MacDonald noted “an atmosphere of partnership in marriage which is incompatible with a wife being a mere possession.”32 There was also no levirate marriage in the code, which MacDonald saw as positive, yet the widow would be provided for.33 In comparing the advantages and disadvantages for a Babylonian woman in that society, she concluded that, “on the whole, speaking of the free-woman, her position was remarkably favourable and far from being servile. Her father, or husband had not the power of life and death over her, nor the power to punish her at will. She was not an object of sale in marriage” even though there was a business con- tract involved.34 She concluded that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.35 When she examined the Assyrian code, MacDonald discovered that women did not fare as well in comparison to the laws in the code of Hammurabi.36 The father had almost complete power over his daughter; for example, by choosing her husband for her, or selling her into service indefinitely if he owed a debt. She was “clearly a marketable object”37 __________ An Assyrian Law Code (1921); idem, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898); idem, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (1905); B. Landsberger, Zu den Frauenklassen des Kodex Hammurabi (1915-16); D. G. Lyon, The Consecrated Women of the Hammurabi Code (1912); E. Cuq, Etudes sur le Droit Babylonien (1929). 30. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 16. 31. Ibid., 17. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., 23-24. 34. Ibid., 31. 35. Ibid., 32. 36. MacDonald dated the Assyrian code to 1300 b.c.e. In this section, she interacted a lot with the following scholars’ work on the Assyrian code: M. Jastrow, An Assyrian Law Code (1921); E. Cuq, Etudes sur le Droit Babylonien (1929); idem, Un recueil de lois assyriennnes (1922); V. Scheil, Receuil des Lois Assyriennes (1921); I. M. Price, The So-Called Levirate-Marriage in Hittite and Assyrian Laws (1926); K. L. Tallqvist, Old Assyrian Laws (1921); H. Ehelolf, Ein altassyrisches Rechtsbuch (1922); P. Cruveilhier, Le droit de la Femme (1927). 37. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 33. 178 and seen as a man’s possession, indicated by the veil she was required to wear.38 The divorce laws also did not favor the woman, for the husband could divorce his wife for any reason at all, since no grounds were necessary for a divorce.39 If the father or husband were displeased with her, they could punish her as they wished, but in some cases the laws stipulated that she be brutally punished with mutilation or death.40 After analyzing the Assyrian code, MacDonald concluded that The Assyrian woman does not appear from AC [the Assyrian code] to have enjoyed as favourable a position in society as the Babylonian woman. Her advantages are soon summed up. She was not sold in marriage, rather, the same contract system as in CH [the code of Hammurabi] prevailed. She had greater freedom as a widow. The state saw that she did not suffer if her husband was absent in its interests. But to her disadvantage, she was under her father’s powerful control; he could punish her as he chose. Her husband was chosen for her, and as a prospective wife she had to submit to the Levirate system even to the inclusion of her father-in-law, or her dead fiance’s son.41 Women were clearly disadvantaged in the Assyrian laws. MacDonald did note remnants of the matronymic system in Assyrian law in that it was common for the wife to live in her father’s house and not with her hus- band, making it necessary for her husband to visit her there. “Although she was expected to be faithful to him, she was not subject to [her husband’s] authority.”42 This was an echo of the matriarchal system. When MacDonald analyzed the status of women in the Hebrew codes of the Old Testament, she looked at four codes, dividing the law according to the historical-critical source theory of J, D, E, P (although the order and dating of the sources differed from the more accepted order and dating of JEDP), dating the J code from the ninth century, D from the eighth, E from the seventh, and P from the sixth.43 She argued that there was a development in the role of women as one analyzed these __________ 38. Ibid., 37, 48. 39. Ibid., 40. 40. Ibid. 38 40. 41. Ibid., 48. Only if there were no eligible men in her husband’s family was she officially recognized as a widow and free to remarry. 42. Ibid., 39. 43. Ibid., 50. It is possible that her ordering and dating of the sources was simply a mistake of switching the order of D and E, since later she wrote that D came from the seventh century and not the eighth century as she originally suggested (ibid., 63). She referred to these sources as codes rather than as sources, and argued that they were based on even older codes, perhaps even the code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian code (ibid., 50). 179 codes, the later codes being more favorable to women where a higher conception of woman was developed.44 In her study, MacDonald also relied on the biblical narratives to supplement her knowledge of women’s position in ancient Israel since the law codes represented the ideal rather than what may have been practiced in reality.45 Since the Hebrew codes were primarily concerned with Yahwistic religion, she stated that they were “[c]haracterized throughout by religion and the additional plea of the prophets for humanity, mercy and justice, [and that] we find at times a softness that is not there in the other codes.”46 Although it was unlikely that an Israelite woman could choose her own husband (with the exception of the later code P, in Num 36:6 where she could marry whom she chose provided that it was within her own tribe), the fact that women had freedom to tend flocks or go to wells where they could become acquainted with men led MacDonald to conclude that there may have been Hebrew marriages resulting from choice. As evidence for this, she gave examples of men and women meeting at wells (Gen 24:15; 29:9; Exod 2:16) and added that “there are many examples of affectionate couples in the OT.”47 Although there were references to gifts given when entering into marriage, MacDonald argued that “the Hebrew woman’s position as a wife and mother argue against actual purchase marriages.”48 She admitted that others would disagree with her and have argued that the wife was simply one of the husband’s possessions, a mere chattel. In her response to them and to verses which seem to lend support to this conclusion (like the Tenth Commandment in Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), she wrote: “But these things, except children, constituted all the material things that a man could have in life and what more natural than that his wife should be mentioned in this connection as __________ 44. Ibid., 51. In her analysis of the Hebrew codes, she interacted a number of times with the following scholars: G. Beer, Die soziale und religiose Stellung der Frau im israelitischen Altertums (1919); E. B. Cross, The Hebrew Family (1927); T. Engert, Ehe und Familienrecht der Hebräer (1905); P. Cruveilhier, Le droit de la Femme (1927); A. Eberharter, Ehe und Familienrecht der Hebräer (1914); E. Ring, Israel’s Rechtsleben (1926); E. Day, The Social Life of the Hebrews (1907); A. Bertholet, A History of Hebrew Civilization (1926); C. M. Breyfolge, The Religious Status of Woman in the Old Testament (1910); I. J. Peritz, Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult (1898); S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (n.d.); J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie (1894); D. W. Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce (1896); H. Schaeffer, The Social Legislation of the Primitive Semites (1915). 45. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 50. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid., 51. Unfortunately, she did not give specific examples of the “affectionate couples” she had observed in Scripture. 48. Ibid., 53. 180 in all probability she was what he valued the most.”49 While the order of coveting one’s neighbor’s house being listed before coveting the wife in Exod 20:17 might suggest that the house was more valuable than the wife in view of property, this understanding did not last because the order was reversed by the Deuteronomic writers “who were interested in raising woman’s status.”50 MacDonald believed that the status of women improved in the Deuteronomic code. MacDonald argued that in general the Old Testament codes of law revealed that the position of woman varied greatly. In one case she might be in subjec- tion to, and in another case apparently on equal terms with her husband. Admittedly her legal status was below her husband’s but a legal status is one thing, and common practice another. From her position as a mother, and from the fact that she was not excluded from participation in the religious life, we may conclude that as a wife she could not have held a greatly inferior position. She was often the stronger character (Gen. 16:18, I Sam. 25, II Ki. 4:8-10) and did not allow herself to be subjugated by a husband or by fear of consequences. Under subjugation, her ini- tiative would have disappeared, but it is difficult to find an OT reference where a wife was at a loss, while indications of her resourcefulness and instances where she had the upper hand are numerous. A cowed, slave- like race of women would have afforded none of these. Love in marriage, moreover, was a common thing among the Hebrews... The fact that woman’s influence was feared by the writers of the earliest code (Ex. 34:16) as well as later (e.g., Deut. 7:3, 1 Ki. 11:3, Ez. 9:2, Neh. 13:25) shows that she was a force to be reckoned with and no mere chattel.51 Interestingly, MacDonald’s view here was more influenced by the Old Testament narratives than the law codes, since she believed that the narratives reflected more the realities of life at the time. When it came to the Hebrew laws on divorce, even though the right to divorce lay with the man and not the woman, MacDonald saw the divorce laws in Deuteronomy as positive, safeguarding the woman from being divorced at the whim of her husband. Several laws protected the woman by making it difficult for the husband to divorce his wife, such as the requirement of a bill of divorce or the proving of charges against her in court.52 In comparison with Babylonian and Assyrian laws, MacDonald saw this as more favorable for Hebrew women.53 The stress on the virtue __________ 49. Ibid., 56. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., 57-58. 52. Ibid., 58. 53. Ibid., 60. 181 of Hebrew women in comparison to Babylonian and Assyrian women was also seen as positive, since this led to less immorality and empha- sized faithfulness in marriage.54 MacDonald also argued that the wife and mother could not have had “a servile position in relation to her husband in her home,” or she would not have been respected by her children if she was “treated as a creature of his will.”55 She noted that more fre- quently the woman named her children and she influenced the children when it came to religion.56 Religiously, women participated fully in the worship of the Lord, even though they could not be priests. This did not bother MacDonald because of her view of the nature of women. She wrote: “Even if woman’s ritual uncleanness had not excluded her from the office she was by nature unfitted for the sacrificing priesthood. The slaughtering of animals is contrary to her nature.”57 Here MacDonald’s dislike of killing animals seemed to influence her view of what was natural for women. Thus she saw no problem in women being excluded from the Israelite priesthood. Instead, in this context she highlighted that women could be prophet- esses, which she viewed as a much more positive role.58 MacDonald concluded that the Hebrew codes had both positive and negative effects on the status of women. But in comparison to women in Babylonian and Assyrian laws, “a more exalted idea of womanhood had developed among the Hebrews, and her virtue and faithfulness was valued for their own sake. Bigamy and polygamy with their attendant evils were giving place to monogamy.”59 In MacDonald’s concluding chapter she reviewed and summarized the similarities and differences between the three Semitic nations and their codes as they related to the status of woman. One observation she made was that the change from the nomadic to the settled life was doubtless what made woman more of an individual and won for her in the eastern Semitic world her economic independence. A settled abode and the necessity for all to unite against an outside enemy tended to break down tribal dis- tinctions and this in itself gave woman more freedom.60 __________ 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid., 63. 56. Ibid. She gave the following examples of mothers naming their children (Gen 4:1; 29:32-35; 30:6-13, 17-24). 57. Ibid., 67. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid., 69. 60. Ibid., 70. 182 She also believed that the settled life was one of the contributing factors that led to the change from the matriarchal or matronymic system to the patriarchal system.61 “With the settled condition and the acquiring of property (plus a sense of personal property rights) a man could support a wife by himself, and with wealth, more than one: so the patronymic system and the patriarchate were due to economic conditions.”62 With the change came both positive and negative effects. In fact, MacDonald did not see patriarchy as entirely evil; there were both drawbacks and improvements for women with patriarchy. For example, she believed that the fact that the power to divorce (with all three nations) lay with the man alone was a negative effect of patriarchy. However, the notion that the woman was the man’s property also led to the emphasis on her faithfulness which MacDonald saw as positive. “Yet the old idea that the wife was her husband’s property still clung in connection with the matter of her faithfulness, and for that, if not for ethical reasons, virtue was demanded of her. That it was demanded at all was an advance and this was one favourable result of the patriarchal system.”63 In comparing the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hebrew codes, MacDon- ald claimed that one of the reasons for the differences between the three nations and their laws about women was rooted in the character of each nation. As a people group, the Assyrians were more inherently cruel by nature, whereas the Babylonians were “a milder people interested in art and culture, and the Hebrews were interested primarily in religion.”64 This would explain some of the differences in their laws. The Assyrians were more abusive of their women than the others, as reflected in their code. In comparison, women fared better in the Babylonian and Hebrew codes.65 In her final assessment of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hebrew codes, MacDonald concluded that the Hebrew codes revealed that the “highest ideals of womanhood were being striven for. Despite the evils in connection with divorce and debt, she attained an independence and self-reliance and an opportunity for further development to which she would never have attained so long as the primitive conditions flour- ished.”66 Thus the status of women improved with the Israelite religion and law. She concluded that __________ 61. Ibid., 71. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid., 72. 65. Ibid., 72-73. 66. Ibid., 73. 183 Conjectures on the basis of data furnished by law codes can be only relatively true. Legal regulations are one thing, actual practice another. Women’s legal status is one thing, her actual position another... Life is never wholly determined by the letter of the law. If in some instances the lot of the Semitic woman was even less bearable than the codes indicate, it is no doubt equally true that there were many instances in which personal factors and the human element enabled her to rise to a higher position in society than is indicated in the codes.67 This statement reveals one of the reasons why MacDonald relied so much on Old Testament narratives in her study, allowing them to influ- ence her interpretation of the Hebrew codes. For her, the narratives in the Bible reflected more the reality of what actually happened, how laws were put into practice in ancient Israel, whereas the laws presented the ideal, whether practiced or not.68 It was a question of the ideal or theo- retical vs. reality. Thus the biblical narratives became the hermeneutical key or lens for her reading of the Old Testament law codes. In her opinion, the biblical narratives presented a more positive view of the status and role of women in ancient Israel in general than if one’s under- standing was based solely upon how they were presented in the Old Testament laws. This factor played a role in her study.69 MacDonald’s approach to the ancient Near East laws and the status of women was also influenced by the nineteenth-century evolutionary notion __________ 67. Ibid. 68. In introducing the Hebrew codes, MacDonald wrote: “Since in these more or less idealistic codes, parallels for a great many references in CH and AC are lacking, it is necessary to have recourse to the narratives to augment our knowledge of women’s position. The latter are composite, and as a result, are in places contra- dictory” (ibid., 50). G. R. Driver, one of the reviewers of her book, was critical of her approach because he argued that her work was “based on a literal acceptance of the text.” Although she recognized the composite and sometimes seemingly contra- dictory nature of the Old Testament narratives, her conclusions did demonstrate that she believed that the narratives reflected the reality of what happened in ancient Israel (in contrast to the laws that were more theoretical and ideal). G. R. Driver, Review of Elizabeth Mary MacDonald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law, Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933): 187-88. 69. In his review of her book, A. G. Barrois wondered why MacDonald had not examined legal judgments and contracts made in the Babylonian and Assyrian cultures in order to see how the laws from Hammurabi and the Assyrian code were being put into practice. Barrois too believed that these law codes were theoretical whereas the legal contracts revealed historical reality. MacDonald had only applied this approach to the Old Testament. A. G. Barrois, Review of Elizabeth Mary MacDonald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law, Revue Biblique 42 (1933): 459-60. 184 of developmentalism—that is, that as the human race naturally develops over time, it improves. This evolutionary framework of seeing develop- ment from a more primitive and nomadic world to a more sophisticated and settled society shaped her interpretation, and caused her to see the later Hebrew codes on a higher level than the earlier Babylonian and Assyrian codes. In the Hebrew codes the lot of women had improved in comparison. It is also possible to argue that her Christian background had an effect on her more positive view of how women were treated in the Old Testament and Israelite law, in comparison to the other ancient Near Eastern laws. Her Christian view of morality and the importance of fidelity in marriage also led her to evaluate some aspects of patriarchy as positive in the Old Testament. In her study of the status of women in the three Semitic codes, MacDonald used a comparative religions approach to study the topic. With more archaeological discoveries being made in ancient Mesopo- tamia, comparative studies were becoming increasingly popular within biblical studies at the time. While MacDonald was a student at the University of Toronto, the department of Oriental Languages introduced courses on the History of the ancient Near East as part of the curriculum in 1925, believing that this subject was important for understanding the biblical world.70 At the time, the department also hired T. J. Meek in 1923, who had a strong interest in the ancient Near Eastern languages and literature. He had been Professor of Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr College and had written his Ph.D. dissertation on the “Old Baby- lonian Business and Legal Documents.”71 Alongside Meek, W. A. Irwin also did a lot to popularize courses in Oriental History and Literature.72 In this intellectual milieu where both the faculty and curriculum emphasized the study of ancient Near Eastern history and its literature, it is not surprising that MacDonald chose a topic and an approach in which __________ 70. Winnett and McCullough, “A Brief History,” 21. 71. Ibid., 19, 26; T. J. Meek, “Old Babylonian Business and Legal Documents” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1915). Meek’s more important works were published after MacDonald’s doctoral dissertation and therefore are not reflected in her bibliography. These were Old Akkadian, Sumerian and Cappadocian Texts from Nuzi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), and his translation of Meso- potamian legal documents, including the Code of Hammurabi for the publication Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. J. B. Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950). Nevertheless, Meek’s presence in the department and his keen interest in the subject matter was probably an inspiration to many, including MacDonald. 72. Winnett and McCullough, “A Brief History,” 19-20. 185 she compared the legal texts of the ancient Near East. She was simply following the scholarly trend at this time. MacDonald’s work also demonstrated her acceptance of the source- critical approach to studying the Bible. At the end of the nineteenth century, a dramatic paradigm shift had occurred within biblical scholar- ship with the emergence of historical criticism as an accepted approach to the Bible in many academic circles. This approach had made inroads into the University of Toronto under James Frederick McCurdy (1847- 1935), one of the founding fathers of the department of Near Eastern Studies.73 Thus, Elizabeth MacDonald was thoroughly familiar with the historical-critical approach and adopted a source-critical perspective in analyzing the biblical data in her study. In her bibliography one sees the names of such historical critics as Julius Wellhausen and W. Robertson Smith, among others.74 Although one could argue that her view of the documentary hypothesis as reflected in JEDP was somewhat simplistic and lacked the complexities of later source-critical theories, she did not question the approach but rather embraced it as a way of interpreting the biblical text.75 She also adopted the results of anthropological and sociological studies at the time, and incorporated them into her study.76 MacDonald’s dissertation also reveals that she had studied German, French, Hebrew, and Akkadian, as well as the other ancient languages necessary to do her study of the Babylonian and Assyrian codes. She worked meticulously with the primary sources. Her academic training had prepared her well to do her research. How do we evaluate MacDonald’s work within the history of biblical scholarship? Although she never pursued an academic career as a biblical scholar, she did break ground in a male-dominated field for other women. Not only was she the first woman in the department of Oriental Studies to complete a doctorate, in her scholarly work she addressed a topic that related to women. In this way, she is important in the history of __________ 73. J. F. McCurdy succeeded J. M. Hirschfelder (1819-1902) as head of the department of Oriental languages in 1889. He retired in 1914 (ibid., 7-8, 17). 74. J. Wellhausen, Reste des arabischen Heidentums (1897); W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885); S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (n.d.), is also mentioned in n. 222 on p. 57. 75. In his review of her book, A. G. Barrois argued that her understanding and dating of the sources JEDP was a simplification of the Documentary Hypothesis. This is also the critique of G. R. Driver. See Barrois, Review of MacDonald, 459- 60; Driver, Review of MacDonald, 188. 76. This was especially evident in her first chapter where she analyzed primitive society according to anthropological and sociological studies done on nomadic societies. 186 women’s studies. Although other scholars had studied the topic of women in biblical and ancient Near Eastern laws (as reflected in her bibliography), MacDonald was one of the first women to do an academic and scholarly study of the topic.77 She broke ground by publishing a major scholarly work on the topic (in an academic series by a university press), at a time when there were few women academics engaged in scholarly publications on the Bible.78 How do we assess MacDonald’s work in light of later feminist inter- pretations of the Bible? In approaching this question, we acknowledge that feminists are not a homogenous and monolithic group, and that there is a whole range of varied interpretations and approaches taken by feminists today. Although MacDonald adopted certain views in her study that would differ from positions taken by more recent feminist scholars, her work also anticipated the conclusions of some feminist biblical scholarship of today. For example, she argued that the status of women improved in the Deuteronomic code in comparison to the earlier codes.79 Although there are those who argue against this view, many scholars today have come to the same conclusion.80 MacDonald’s assertion that women’s position improved with the move from nomadic to settled life fit with her evolutionary framework. A number of feminist scholars today would argue that women actually fared better in the earlier period in an agrarian society (during the time of the tribal confederation), rather than in the later monarchic period.81 __________ 77. In her bibliography we see only studies done by male scholars listed. Although there may have been other women who had done a similar scholarly work on this specific topic, MacDonald was certainly the first woman in Canada to do so. 78. See Dorothy Bass’s discussion of the history of women’s involvement within the Society of Biblical Literature in the United States and the challenges and publishing barriers women faced in the early days of being part of the Society. The first woman to become a member in SBL was in 1894. MacDonald was never a member of SBL. Dorothy C. Bass, “Women’s Studies and Biblical Studies: An Historical Perspective,” JSOT 22 (1982): 6-12. 79. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 56. 80. Eckart Otto has come to the same conclusion as MacDonald. Eckart Otto, “False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levison, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky; JSOTSup 262; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 128-46. For someone who disagrees with this conclusion, see Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW 216; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 105-14. 81. See Carol Meyers’s work on this topic: Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), and “Everyday Life: 187 However, when MacDonald spoke of improvement for women when they moved to the settled life, she did not make a clear distinction between the monarchic period and the pre-monarchic period (as later feminist scholars do). She simply spoke of the improved situation for women with the emergence of settled communities. MacDonald had a positive view of the concept of matriarchy, and made the argument that in the primitive society of the Semites, including the Israelites, matriarchy or a matronymic system existed before the development of patriarchy and then later alongside patriarchy. She said that there were remnants or echoes of this in all the law codes she analyzed.82 Even though she recognized that this was a minority view, she still made a case for it and saw it as something positive.83 Although there are scholars who have argued that matriarchy existed in the ancient Near East, there is no agreement on whether it was ever practiced in ancient Israel.84 For example, in W. A. Irwin’s otherwise positive review of her book, he criticized MacDonald on this point. He wrote: “The existence of matriarchal society in Israel (p. 56) is very uncertain.”85 I would have to agree with him. Here she was clearly influenced by the notion of a primitive matriarchy in the ancient world, a view popular in the nineteenth century.86 Biblical scholars today are less certain about this; a number of scholars would argue against it ever having existed.87 __________ Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible,” in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition (ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; Louisville: West- minster John Knox, 1998), 251-59. 82. MacDonald, The Position of Women, 5-10, 56, 71. 83. She acknowledged those who questioned this view. See ibid., 5 n. 3. 84. See Roland de Vaux’s discussion of different views on matriarchy in the ancient Near East and in ancient Israel. He outlines W. Robertson Smith’s position in Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885), who had advocated for the exis- tence of matriarchy among the earliest Semites. De Vaux finds that Robertson Smith’s arguments for a matriarchy are not conclusive. Instead, de Vaux (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961, 1997], 20) argues that “Prehistoric Israel is to us a closed book; but whatever may be true of that epoch, there is no doubt that from the time of our oldest docu- ments at any rate the Israelite family is patriarchal.” 85. Irwin, “Women among Berbers,” 268. 86. In taking this position, she had been influenced by work of W. Robertson Smith in Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885), as she acknowledged on p. 10 n. 6. 87. Carol Meyers (Discovering Eve, 30) writes, “Although some feminist anthropologists might insist that they can identify a few societies in which women were equal or even dominant, the overwhelming consensus is that no society truly egalitarian with respect to gender has ever existed. Furthermore, the notion that a 188 Some people today may struggle with the fact that women were excluded from the Israelite priesthood in biblical times. This reality was not a concern for MacDonald. She did not advocate that women should have been allowed to become priests in ancient Israel. Her view was not based on theological concerns, but rather was based on her belief that the priestly practice of slaughtering animals in order to sacrifice them went against women’s nature. It seems to me that she overlooked the fact that in an agrarian society women would have killed animals regularly for food. Her position was influenced by a particular view of women’s nature as gentle and not prone to killing animals. Although MacDonald acknowledged that there were many disadvan- tages with patriarchy, the fact that she concluded that there were some positive aspects or advantages with the emergence of patriarchy would be problematic for many today. Those who are engaged in feminist hermeneutics try to reveal what is perceived as a patriarchal bias in Scripture, a perspective seen as negative and oppressive to women. Mary Ann Tolbert writes that feminism is committed to critiquing “all oppres- sive cultural structures” and to exposing the oppressive structures of patriarchal society.88 MacDonald, however, did not adopt such a feminist hermeneutic in her approach. Therefore she did not reject patriarchy outright as something completely oppressive to women, but rather adopted a stance where she could see some advantages in a patriarchal society. MacDonald’s views, however, were not unusual at the time, but reflected the time period and culture in which she lived and worked. __________ primitive matriarchy, popular at one time among nineteenth-century evolutionists and their intellectual heirs, has been shown to be dubious at best.” MacDonald was one of the “intellectual heirs” who had adopted the popular view at the time. If she had lived today, she may have taken a different position. 88. Mary Ann Tolbert, “Defining the Problem: The Bible and Feminist Herme- neutics,” Semeia 28 (1983): 113-26 (114, 119). In her article, she outlines various approaches that feminists have taken to Scripture as they wrestle with the concept of patriarchy and its influence. Tolbert speaks of the irony, tension, and paradox of feminist hermeneutics when she acknowledges that: “So, one must struggle against God as enemy assisted by God as helper, or one must defeat the Bible as patriarchal authority by using the Bible as liberator” (ibid., 120). Rosemary Radford Ruether writes, “The feminist critical principle thus demands that women stand outside of and in judgment upon this patriarchal bias of the scriptures.” Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Feminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation,” in Feminist Interpre- tation of the Bible (ed. Letty M. Russell; Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 111-24 (116). Ruether also advocates that one should adopt the prophetic critique of injustice in the Bible, proclaiming “the good news of liberation from patriarchy” (ibid., 124). 189 Conclusion Elizabeth MacDonald is an important figure in the history of women at the University of Toronto, as well as in the history of women in biblical studies in Canada. She is also significant in that her work reflects an important early contribution to the study of women in the biblical world that is still cited by scholars studying this field today.89 This fact alone demonstrates the lasting value of her research. Even though MacDonald and her study are not widely known today (probably because she did not publish other scholarly works and she never held an academic post),90 nevertheless her research is a valuable contribution to the study of women’s status and roles in the ancient world, especially in terms of the impact of patriarchy on women. Although she came to certain conclu- sions that would differ from those of some feminists today, this does not negate the value of her work and her pioneering efforts. Her views should be understood in light of the cultural and intellectual milieu in which she was found, that of the early twentieth century. She was influenced by concepts and ideas popular within biblical scholarship at the time. In her context, she was a pioneer who broke new ground. For that she should be remembered. __________ 89. Roland de Vaux, Phyllis Bird, and William Webb refer to her book in their writings. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 522; Phyllis A. Bird, “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus,” in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 81-102 (82 n. 7); William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 285. 90. She is not mentioned in John S. Moir’s important book, A History of Biblical Studies in Canada: A Sense of Proportion (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982). ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****