Maskuliniteter i den Hebreiska Bibelns kallelser Ett narratologiskt maskulinitetskritiskt studium av mansnormer i den Hebreiska Bibeln

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this paper is to conduct a Masculine Critical and Narratological study of the Callings of King Saul, King David, and the Prophet Moses. I want to know: • In what way are the characters masculine? • What are the differences between the male characters of the Narratives? • Is it obvious from the Calling Narratives if a character is a good leader if he is masculine? The theoretical framework is based on Judith Butler’s “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory” (1988), Bruce J. Malina’s and Jerome H. Neyrey’s “First-Century Personality: Dyadic, not Individual” (1991), R.W. Connell’s Masculinities (1995), and finally God’s Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (1994) by Howard Eilberg-Schwarz. I work from a Narratological Critical framework, where I use the five points of masculinity established by David Clines, where the man of the Bible is: fighting, good with words, beautiful, bonding, and womanless. Given the framework that I was given, it became obvious that king Saul did not uphold to the masculinity norms established by Clines. He is tall and masculine physically, but his manners are not what they are supposed to be. Saul is seen, by the text, as being a fragmented person, whose masculinity is constantly undermined. Thus, he is not fit to be the ruler of Israel. David on the other hand, though small, is seen as more masculine than Saul because the Modal Personality favors David. He is beautiful and his inner life is not fragmented like Saul’s. Moses’ masculinity is undermined from the beginning of his narrative. Though, that is not seen as a negative, but a necessity for him to rule. Or, should I say, for Yahweh to rule his people through Moses. The conclusion that I reached is that masculinity is important for a ruler. Moses is not a ruler in the same way that Saul and David are rulers, but he is a ruler by being fulfilled by Yahweh in his brokenness. There are differences between the characters, and one can see that in the characters’ background, that hegemonically establishes them.