The most obvious statement of
Moses’ shift toward a feminized masculinity is the masculine symbol of the
theomorphic idol. Bailey states that animals were often used in the ancient
Middle East as substitutes for divinity: “they embody the attributes of the
deity (his beauty, strength, bravery, speed), and as such, their image could be
directly worshipped in connection with his cult” (1971, p. 101). In his
diachronic/anthropological tracking of bull symbols in ancient cultures, Conrad
demonstrates how the bull is inevitably, in all of them, a divine symbol of
fertility and strength that crystalizes “the paramount of masculine values”
(1959, p. 9). Whether it be Enlil in Mesopotamia, Indra in Hindu culture, Hap
or Apis in Egypt, or Baal in Levant, among many other epiphanic divinities, the
bull is the most primitive symbol of masculinity in antiquity, assumed as a
religious and political referent. More specifically, biblical historiography
(Janzen 1990; Perdue 1973; Sasson 1968) has detected the parallelism between
the bull created by Aaron and the worship of Baal, along with the Mesopotamian
god of the moon, Sin. De Laet and Walker note that bull cults in antiquity were
“incarnations of the masculine principle.” Through its cult, the bull became “a
divine animal, [a] personification of the great male principle which rules the
universe,” incarnating “the supreme god, the sun-god, creator of all things and
dispenser of all benefits” (1981, p. 110). Gurina uses Carrigan’s terminology
in stating that bulls “are the symbolic representatives of hegemonic
masculinity” (2016, p. 87). Despite the fact that due to the richness and
widespread nature of bull deities, it is risky to limit the golden calf of
Exodus to a single theriomorphic idol (Janzen 1990, p. 597), the bull is
undeniably synonymous with procreation, generation, strength, and fear, and it
is perceived as such in a referential manner by the people of Israel.
By virtue of its power as a
masculine symbol, the physical presence of the bull displaces Moses,
substituting and overshadowing him. The golden calf comes to visually
materialize the process of emasculation and feminization of the prophet
initiated during his direct interaction with divinity. The privilege of
speaking intimately with Yahweh brings with it bodily marks—“congress with God
changes you” (Koosed 2014, p. 416)—that precipitate the prophet’s loss of
masculinity. Regardless of his linguistic decline (Exodus 4:10) or his skin
disease (Exodus 4:6–7), the honor of being the direct interlocutor with God
entails a series of bodily mutations in Moses that, beyond the physical, affect
and mold his gender, excluding him from the traditional norms of hegemonic
masculinity. After his second face-to-face dialog with Yahweh, Moses returns to
the mountain graced with a radiant face that must be covered with a veil
(Exodus 34:29–35). Although, as indicated by Britt (2004, p. 114–15), it would
be simplistic to interpret the presence of the veil as an exclusively female
accessory in ancient Middle Eastern cultures given that men—essentially priests
or warriors—used it as much as women did, the feminizing connotations derived
from it are no less significant. The veil feminizes Moses because it is the
marker of his conversation with the sublime male. It is not my objective here
to address the male conceptualization of God in the Hebrew Bible from his
characterization as a powerful warrior, political patriarch, and persuasive
orator. These notions have already been addressed through the lens of psychoanalytics
(Eilberg- Schwartz 1994) and translation (Poythress and Grudem 2000) and
refuted by critics such as DiPalma (2010) or Moore (1996), who see in Him signs
of His androgyny or the impossibility of ascribing to Him a particular gender.
Taking as a reference point a male god, His figure is yoked to a kind of
supreme father whose presence undermines the masculine foundations of His
interlocutors. As Eilberg-Schwartz puts it, “when a man confronts a male God,
he is put into the female position so as to be intimate with God. . . . When
Israelite men had to face God, their masculinity was made uncertain” (1994, p.
137–38). (Ignacio Ramos-Gay, “Animality and Biblical Masculinity in Conflict:
Moses and the Golden Calf (Exodus 32),” Men and Masculinity 23, no. 5
[2020]: 820-21)
