Thinking Outside the Panel: Rewriting Rebekah in R. Crumb’s Book of Genesis

1 Introduction

The rise in popularity of biblical comic books^[1] has brought with it the opportunity to interrogate, challenge, reframe and reimagine difficult aspects of sacred scripture through text–image retellings. By their nature, comic books are “non-controllable” vehicles of cultural expression^[2] which serve to “undercut the monopolisation of culture by the elite and privileged and to make room for culture that is not usually the subject of elite study.”^[3] Biblical comic books and other alternative or non-traditional methods of retelling biblical stories can challenge established practices of biblical interpretation which are often rooted in patriarchal and conservative ideologies and may open the text up to more creative interpretations which are not restrained by those traditional approaches of reading the Bible. David M. Gunn suggests such cultural retellings of the Bible are an opportunity to investigate sociological and ideological enquiries about society, culture and religion more broadly, meaning the text of the Bible can be read and interpreted in a multitude of ways which can forefront marginalised groups who may otherwise be left out of the text.^[4] This article considers one such comic book Bible, The Book of Genesis, Illustrated by R. Crumb as a case study to demonstrate how and why biblical comic books are well-positioned to reframe and in some cases rewrite biblical stories and characters in ways that encourage biblical scholars to view afresh those narratives.

From a literary perspective incorporating visual criticism, I focus on the character of Rebekah (Gen. 24:15–67 and 25:19–28) since Crumb has utilised the tools and resources of comic books to present Rebekah as a powerful woman hailing from a matriarchal society whose story and status, he argues, have since been diminished by later editors and redactors of the text. Crumb suggests that his representation of Rebekah is therefore a return to how her story would have been told prior to patriarchal strategising which has undermined her position and authority. However, Crumb’s Genesis, Illustrated is a “word-for-word” version of Genesis, meaning Crumb incorporates every single word from the “original text.”^[5] Thus, there is an inherent tension between authority and medium, which exists when comic books seek to represent sacred texts in an alternative graphical format which does not comply with the history of the Bible as a “cultural icon of faith as black and white certainty.”^[6] The traditional text-only Bible will always claim authority over any alternative-media retellings which seek to reproduce those sacred texts. In relation to the figure of Rebekah then, this article demonstrates how the dimension of images in particular acts as a commentary to the “original” text, reframing Rebekah as a matriarchal leader in image only rather than word. First, I discuss the influence of Teubal’s work on Crumb, and I then move to the retelling of Rebekah’s story in both Gen. 24:15–67 and 25:19–28 of Crumb’s version, before contextualising these narratives in biblical scholarship including feminist approaches. Such contextualisation and comparison demonstrate how biblical comic books can move beyond the constraints of traditional biblical criticism^[7] to reinterpret characters and stories from perspectives previously unvisited or at least, under-visited, by emphasising cultural interaction with the Bible. Such an approach means there is scope for those marginalised communities to interact with and present the Bible in ways meaningful and representative of them since they are not bound to traditional approaches of finding meaning in the Bible.

2 R. Crumb, “Pro-Feminism” and Savina J. Teubal

Crumb has often been accused of producing sexist or misogynistic work throughout his career. His depictions of large, curvaceous woman are described as unflattering and unrealistic; and he is known for producing images of gratuitous sex scenes, many of which involve smaller, inferior men being dominated by strong females. Crumb describes these works as “all fantasy.”^[8] Many accuse him of being anti-women,^[9] to which Crumb insists:

When I started doing it in ’68 or ’69, the people who had loved my work before that, some of them were shocked and alienated by it – especially the women, of course. I lost all the women. I’m not antifeminist. I like strong, independent women, like the matriarchs of Genesis – they ordered the men around. The sex-fantasy thing was a whole other side of myself, and when that started coming out, I could no longer be America’s best-loved hippie cartoonist.^[10]

In an interview with National Public Radio, he explains that his depictions of sex have always been personal and fetishistic.^[11] The conflict between depicting strong, independent women for his own sexual gratification is one of the main areas of concern for feminists reading his work since it relies upon female objectification and subservience as well as power associated with the male gaze. It is a conflict Crumb is aware of, as he has previously described himself as “pro-feminist” but with sexual fantasies which do not corroborate this and do not adhere him to feminist activists.^[12]

It is unclear what Crumb understands “pro-feminism” to mean or how it applies to his work. It may be that he supports the general idea of feminism, but while he sympathises with many of the causes associated with feminism (e.g. challenging unequal status between men and women; regarding masculinity as oppressive to women), he is not active or involved in campaigns to further the feminist agenda.^[13] According to Flood, it is normally men who identify as pro-feminist in contrast to women, since men argue that feminism is a movement created for and by women and to identify as feminist would be to take power from, or “colonise” a women’s movement, something they wish to avoid.^[14] This is problematic since there is no one form of feminism but many feminisms which reflect liberal, radical, black, queer, postmodern and other ideological approaches. However, one of the overarching viewpoints of pro-feminism is that the members are anti-sexist and anti-patriarchal, and it seems this is a point on which Crumb agrees and has apparently tried to incorporate into his version of Genesis.

One of the major influences in Crumb’s research for Genesis, Illustrated is a work by Savina J. Teubal called Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis.^[15] Teubal hypothesises that the matriarch Sarah was descended from a line of, and assumed the position of, high priestess. She was borne of a matriarchal society, elements of which were reflected in her story in Genesis.^[16] Teubal reads Sarah as being of equal status to Abraham because of this position. Moreover, she contends that it is the narrative of Sarah and later Rebekah, Rachel and Leah which propel the story forward rather than their male counterparts:

In the story of Abraham the narratives begin with an account concerning Sarah and Pharaoh and continue with this women’s trials in securing progeny. Finally, a whole chapter is dedicated to her place of burial. Of the forty-eight years of Abraham’s life after Sarah’s death there is no detail whatever. In other words, it is Sarah’s role that furthers the story.^[17]

Teubal’s overarching thesis is that the matriarchal narratives in Genesis have been eroded and overwritten over the last 2,000–3,000 years by editors, redactors and scribes writing in a patriarchal society. She suggests that the story of Sarah and her role as a high priestess and wife of Abraham would have been well known at one time, imparted orally in a society that was no stranger to matrilineal power structures. However, when they came to be written down (potentially in the late sixth-century BCE), they were written in a society more familiar with patriarchal rule and at a time when matriarchal society was being overtaken and diminished by men.^[18] The ancient texts were then subject to millennia of redaction, editing, rewriting and retelling, which shaped them more and more into the mould of male-dominated cultures, eventually erasing any evidence of matriarchal power. Teubal concludes with the following statement:

The narratives of the Sarah tradition represent a non-patriarchal system struggling for survival in isolation in a foreign land. Nevertheless, women of strength emerge from the pages of Genesis, women who are respected by men. Their function in life, though different from that of men, is regarded as equally important to society. Women’s participation in society as described in the narratives presupposes a system in which women were able to maintain an elevated professional position into which were incorporated the roles of mother and educator. Just as significantly, these women were in control of their own bodies and their own spiritual heritage.^[19]

It is this view of Sarah, which also affects the characters of Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, that has inspired Crumb in his remediation of Genesis. He believes that Teubal has unveiled a hidden truth to Genesis, that society at that time was female led rather than patriarchal and that “it needed a serious female scholar to root this ancient buried history out of the tangle of later redactions, distortions, corruptions, biased translations.”^[20] Applying a pro-feminist ideology to his work, then, is only in keeping with Teubal’s theories and a return to what Crumb perceives as the way the text was meant to be read. I turn now to a visual–critical reading of his Rebekah to demonstrate how Crumb retains fidelity to the text of Genesis but uses the accompanying images to challenge overriding patriarchal strategies that oppose Crumb’s “pro-feminist” ideology.

3 The story of Rebekah in Crumb’s Genesis, Illustrated

4 Contextualising Crumb’s remediation of Gen. 24:15–67 in biblical scholarship

Teubal’s theory that Sarah hails from a matriarchal society, that she potentially assumes the role of high priestess within that community and that her story has been overshadowed and rewritten in accord with a Canaanite patriarchal society inhabited by Abraham is also reflected in his characterisation of Rebekah.

In the case of Rebekah, Teubal indicates matriarchal power and lineage using examples such as the appearance of Rebekah’s mother in the betrothal scenes. Rebekah’s mother is mentioned three times directly in 24:28, 53 and 55 and twice indirectly (24:57, 58)^[27] and along with Laban; her mother is the one who Rebekah tells about the encounter with Abraham’s servant. The mother is also the one to receive gifts from that servant.^[28] Rebekah’s mother remains nameless only because, in keeping with patriarchal traditions, her name has been edited out of the text; however, Teubal suggests her name is actually Bethuel,^[29] the name given to Rebekah’s father in the biblical text who plays a much smaller role. This movement of names, according to Teubal, is an attempt to “introduce a father figure into Rebekah’s matrifocal community.”^[30] This implies Rebekah’s mother is the dominant partner in her relationship and is an indication of a matriarchal society.

Furthermore, Teubal argues that the betrothal scene in Gen. 24 is so long and detailed because it describes a change from matrilocal to patrilocal residence, reflected in Abraham’s order to his servant that Isaac must not leave Canaan. The order is reiterated twice. Teubal understands it to be an indication of a patriarchal society overcoming a matrifocal one, indicating a growth in patriarchal control.^[31] Lastly, Teubal understands the scene of Isaac taking Rebekah into his mother’s tent as a symbol of matrilocality, so that their marriage is consummated in the matriarchal tent.^[32]

Does this mean that Rebekah also stems from the tradition of high priestesses attributed to Sarah by Teubal? There is no direct suggestion of this; only that Rebekah’s homeland was, like Sarah’s, a matriarchal community, and that she likely brought matriarchal customs and traditions with her to Canaan, some of which are reflected in the text. For example, Jacob is the favoured son as a result of the practice of ultimogeniture in matriarchal societies. As such, he must marry endogamously according to matrifocal custom.

Alter does not draw attention to Rebekah’s mother in these scenes. Instead, he focuses on the role of Laban as a chief negotiator for Rebekah’s betrothal. Alter notes that the inclusion of Bethuel is likely a later scribal insertion and that Bethuel was absent at this point.^[33] From a patriarchal perspective, this explains why Rebekah runs home to tell her mother and not her father.^[34] Alter does recognise that Rebekah must have some status since she is allowed to take her nurse with her to Canaan.^[35] In his commentary to the JPS, Sarna notes that the Hebrew verb לָקַח (la-kach)^[36] meaning “to take” used in 24:4 indicates the patriarchal perspective of the groom’s family and “reflects the custom of the parent initiating the marriage transaction.”^[37] On the subject of Rebekah referring to home as her mother’s household, Sarna suggests this to be the norm “in this society” citing Song of Solomon 3:4 and 8:2 as other examples of this usage.^[38] However, whatever “this society” is, is unclear in Sarna’s notes.

Crumb’s sources are conflicted in their telling of Rebekah and Isaac’s betrothal scene, in at least three points: the type of society Rebekah lived in, i.e. matriarchal/patriarchal, the role of Laban and Bethuel and the identity of the mother/father and status of Bethuel (i.e. dead or alive). Crumb’s response to the latter point is to leave Bethuel out of the text entirely. Acting according to Alter’s interpretation, Crumb believes Bethuel is probably deceased at this point in the narrative, and the inclusion of his name in Genesis was “just those later scribes trying to shore up the patriarchy!”^[39] Crumb does not comment on Teubal’s hypothesis that Bethuel may be Rebekah’s mother, but his images of the mother do indicate a strong, matriarchal leader who could represent the head of the household. Notably though, it is Laban who is addressed by, and who responds to, the servant which is perhaps an indication of a patriarchal society where males are regarded as heads of the household.

As for the former point, scholarly readings on the subject point towards a patriarchal society and do not support Teubal’s overarching thesis, but some acknowledge tropes within the Rebekah narratives that do not always support androcentric readings. For example, Fischer notes:

Although in patrilineal societies genealogies are normally androcentric and in the ancestral narratives the line of promise is additionally represented in male succession, the genealogy of Milcah and Nahor points to Rebekah […] Rebekah and the ancestral father are linked from the very beginning.^[40]

Fischer argues that Rebekah acts as a successor to Abraham in place of Isaac, as elements of her leaving her home echo Abraham’s willingness to leave for Canaan, for example. Gunkel notes Rebekah was taken home by Isaac, in a manner contrary to traditional customs.^[41] Kissileff notes that it is Rebekah who, by controlling her presentation to Isaac, signals she will be in control of determining her role and function in her marriage to Isaac.^[42] Rebekah’s willingness to leave for Canaan (thus, a patriarchal society, from a matriarchal society in Haran) may also indicate that she has some power.

However, control or power does not equal dominance or even equality of treatment between genders. Rebekah is merely controlling the parts of her identity that she can control: her appearance, her maids and nurse and when she wants to depart. By agreeing to a move to patriarchal Canaan, this signifies a departure from Rebekah’s power at home. Indeed, as Exum notes:

The story of how Isaac acquired the correct wife serves to affirm patrilocal marriage over uxorilocal marriage, and by uprooting the woman from her family, privileges the husband’s line of descent, or Abraham’s side of the family, into whose genealogy the woman will be absorbed.^[43]

As usual, the texts can be read in a multiplicity of ways. However, Teubal’s perspective is still notably absent from most scholarship since it has been widely disparaged. To an extent, Crumb has achieved a rendering of Gen. 24:15–67 which is neither rooted in a matriarchal setting nor overtly patriarchal. Instead, it is rooted in characterisations of biblical figures, and it represents what Crumb reads in the text. Rebekah is strong, decisive, in control and is beautiful. Crumb knows this and uses it. On the other hand, Isaac is passive, somewhat marginalised (both literally and figuratively in the panels) and seemingly content to allow others to control his future.

5 Contextualising Crumb’s remediation of Gen. 25:19–28 in biblical scholarship

Concerning the scenes of Rebekah and Isaac becoming parents, Sarna considers the text from a patriarchal perspective, casting Rebekah as a secondary character in Isaac’s story. Of Rebekah, Sarna notes her age is omitted in the biblical text because, unlike Sarah, she is not past the age of childbearing.^[53] This casts her fertility problem in a different light to Sarah’s as Rebekah’s issue of barrenness is solved in the space of one verse which potentially encapsulates twenty years of waiting for children. This is reflected in Crumb’s text. Of her inability to bear children, Sarna notes that the situation is ironic, given the blessing Rebekah received as she left her family home: “O sister! May you grow into thousands of myriads,”^[54] and also that Rebekah and Isaac do not resort to using a concubine but rather “maintain their faith in God’s word and rely on the power of prayer.”^[55] I argue that this, too, is the dominating theme in Crumb’s narrative, especially in the pairing of the panel of Isaac’s burnt offering with the image of Rebekah’s pregnancy, which is a suggestion of divine intervention after prayer.

Divine intervention is also a running theme in Alter’s reading of Gen. 25. Alter suggests that 25:19, “the lineage of Isaac” implies a “false symmetry” with the lineage of Ishmael earlier in the chapter (25:12), because it highlights Ishmael’s success in creating a long line of descendants against a lack of descendants for Isaac. Similar to the Abraham cycle, Isaac requires God’s intervention.^[56] I argue this is also replicated in Crumb’s remediation, most significantly in the design of the multistage–multiframe incorporating panels 4–17, which sets the lone figure of Isaac against panels of Ishmael’s descendants. This has the effect of emphasising Isaac’s lack of progeny and why that is an issue.

Teubal also notes the matter of God’s intervention, but more importantly argues that the childlessness of Rebekah was proof that she too heralded from a priestess tradition: “it seems highly unlikely that three generations of women married to patriarchs would be barren,” and even more unlikely, according to Teubal, that the husbands of barren wives would continue to be married to them without taking some course of action to ensure progeny.^[57] Marrying for love is not an argument to which Teubal gives thought. For Teubal, this signifies that the women were treated differently by their husbands and that potentially, their status overrode their childbearing abilities. Lastly, Teubal suggests that the text represents both Sarah and Rachel as “anxious” to fall pregnant, but that Rebekah’s desire or otherwise for a child is not expressed by her, but by Isaac in his prayer to God.^[58]

I argue this interpretation is represented by Crumb’s visual and textual choices. Rebekah’s story, in comparison to Sarah or Rachel, has none of the tension or confused emotion portrayed in the other matriarchal narratives, nor does it seem to span a lengthy amount of time. The six-panel grid in the multistage–multiframe of Rebekah’s motherhood arc allows for a time to pass slower for the reader than a nine-panel grid would, because the reader must absorb more information in the larger panels. However, in the first four panels alone, Rebekah has endured a painful pregnancy, spoken with God, given birth and presented the children to their father. Her issue of infertility, if there is one, is resolved quickly and with minimum effort unlike Sarah and Rachel’s stories. By Crumb visually depicting Isaac’s prayer to God, it is Isaac who is depicted as anxious. Rebekah’s absence in the panel suggests an absence of emotion on the matter, which is then replaced by frustration and pain when her pregnancy encounters complications in the next panel. Alternatively, it could also represent the silencing of her voice in the text, but Crumb’s images do not depict this. Rather, they show emotion and struggle within Rebekah’s experience.

Rebekah’s visit to God also marks her as different to Sarah or Rachel, neither of whom speak directly with the deity.^[59] The result of the visit is that Rebekah learns that she is carrying twins who will be two nations destined to struggle with each other for supremacy.^[60] The fact that this is not shared with Isaac serves to emphasise Rebekah’s role and status over her husband, further casting him in a role submissive or perhaps less involved than his wife.^[61] However, the tension here is that it is only through Isaac’s prayer (and in Crumb’s remediation, burnt offering) that Rebekah even falls pregnant, so his role is significant nonetheless. Crumb’s remediation, although focused on Rebekah, presenting her as strong enough to speak to God’s face, does give equal pictorial space to Isaac to signify this. Furthermore, by situating the panel of Isaac’s prayer/offering to God beside the funeral of Ishmael and before the panel of Rebekah pregnant, Crumb is connecting the theme of brothers, family and progeny through the figure of Isaac.

Crumb’s use of Isaac as a visual connective tool in these panels is also representative of Esther Fuchs’ argument that the matriarchs are contingent upon their husbands’ relationships with God to fall pregnant, rather than the actions or character of the wife. In this sense, the patriarch is key to Rebekah’s motherhood narrative. However, Fuchs also contends that Rebekah is also central to the story, which can be seen in her interaction with God and the fact that both parents name their children, rather than Isaac alone.^[62] This is not a case then, of either the patriarch or the matriarch being the dominant partner, but rather of a partnership where each subject brings their own strengths to the relationship. Though Crumb’s remediation leans towards Rebekah as a central figure, Isaac’s role is not downplayed. There is a visual difference here with the narrative of Sarah and Abraham, where Abraham is continuously portrayed as a quiet, passive and secondary character.

Other feminist scholars such as Exum do not read the story of Rebekah, or the matriarchs, in this light. Instead, Exum argues that the matriarchs are bound to play a secondary role to their husbands by the patriarchal setting, and the patriarchally skewed scribes and redactors who tell their stories.^[63] Exum has highlighted stories between Gen. 11 and 35 to show where the matriarchs appear and where their function as characters progresses the narrative; however, she notes that their inclusion in the narrative is not to be read as evidence of their importance to the text: “[r]ather, the matriarchs step forward in the service of an androcentric agenda, and once they have served their purpose, they disappear until such time, if any, they might again prove useful.”^[64] In Rebekah’s case in Gen. 25, the only highlighted portion concerns her infertility, falling pregnant, enquiry to God and giving birth. Her love for Jacob is also noted. The rest of the narrative concerns her husband or sons, and so is in line with Exum.

Seeing the portions of the text associated with Rebekah highlighted in this way (itself a form of text–image narrative, where the emboldening of the text acts as a visual code to the reader)^[65] is persuasive. However, while the secondary role/status of the matriarchs in Genesis can be attributed to both patriarchal scribes, and centuries of patriarchal-based scholarship further obscuring their roles, I do not fully agree with Exum’s analysis on Rebekah’s story. While it is true that Rebekah’s character is used to further Isaac’s role as patriarch by providing him with children, and that God’s intervention in her fertility issue is a narrative tool to mark her children in the same trope as the hero (thus casting her in the role of the hero’s mother),^[66] there is evidence of autonomy in the story which cannot be overlooked. Rebekah’s decision to visit with God and enquire of him is one such example in her pregnancy narrative; other examples are apparent in the role she plays as mother to Jacob and Esau, ensuring her favourite Jacob receives the blessing from Isaac (27:1–40), for example, and the way in which she dictates the terms of Jacob’s future marriage (27:46–28:3).

Most scholarship on Rebekah is less concerned with the problem of her infertility than her eventual giving birth to “two nations.” In this respect, Rebekah is a vessel for narratives concerning Jacob and Esau, but mostly the former who inherits the role of patriarch in Genesis. Her role of mother is important, but mostly because it is Rebekah who takes control of Jacob’s destiny, encouraging him to trick Isaac and take the blessing from Esau. The Jacob/Esau blessing narrative is an example of ultimogeniture, which, Teubal argues, is a principle followed in matriarchal traditions. While emphasis is mostly on the sons in Rebekah’s narrative in biblical scholarship, scholars do identify the following three points as important in the narratives of Gen. 25:19–28: (1) narratively speaking, less time is spent on the issue of Rebekah’s fertility than Sarah, Rachel and Leah; (2) unlike Sarah, Rachel and Leah, Rebekah does not resort to concubinage to overcome the problem of barrenness; and (3) God intercedes quickly after Isaac prays for a resolution, granting his prayer. Again, little attention is paid to the potential of Rebekah as high priestess, in the manner of Teubal since it has been widely disparaged.

While her procreative role is the main function of Rebekah’s character in the Genesis narratives (as with Sarah and Rachel/Leah), Crumb has chosen to broaden their functions while simultaneously emphasising their biological roles as mothers. As with Sarah in Gen. 18:1–15 and 21:1–12, Crumb has presented Rebekah as an autonomous, controlling woman who, in the text–image, is equal to, if not more important than, her husband. However, unlike Sarah, Rebekah is not presented as desperate for children. That is Isaac’s role in Genesis, Illustrated, and highlighted by Crumb’s composition of panels, textual choices and graphic design.

6 Summary and conclusions

The overriding portrayal of Rebekah in Crumb’s remediation of Genesis is, like Sarah, a woman who is dominant, powerful and in control. Visual and textual analyses of her story in relation to motherhood and of her role as wife present her as a character who is strong-willed (e.g. her confidence in leaving the family home to meet and marry Isaac) but also confident in her relationship with God. Though it is Isaac who prays to God on Rebekah’s behalf, it is Rebekah who seeks advice from God, and it is Rebekah who hears she is carrying twins, not Isaac.

Isaac is portrayed as a passive character in the panels of Crumb’s remediation. Though he intercedes on his wife’s behalf, he is not part of the panels where Rebekah seeks advice from God, nor the panels where she gives birth to their sons (though this is perhaps not particularly significant since Crumb has not included any men in scenes of childbirth throughout the rest of the comic book). His introduction to his newborn sons takes place with him on the ground, eating food, while Rebekah and her midwife maintain a position elevated above him. The juxtaposition of Isaac’s passivity with Rebekah’s activity in seeking help, and in her physical state of pregnancy and birth against his passive seated position, emphasise the strength and power of Rebekah and diminish Isaac’s status in the eyes of the reader.

The issue of infertility is treated differently in these panels compared to Sarah. Rebekah, though barren, is never shown to be emotionally or physically upset by her infertility and that is because the text does not allow for such an exegesis. Instead, the reader is expected to fill in the gap between Isaac’s prayer to God and the consecutive panel of Rebekah heavily pregnant. That she appears alone, surrounded by stars which have the dual purpose of acting as a cartoon indicator of pain and which give the image an ethereal quality, is poignant. I argue that this single panel is the strongest indication in the entirety of Crumb’s Genesis, Illustrated of the influence of Teubal’s hypothesis that Rebekah, like Sarah, came from a high priestess, matriarchal tradition.^[67] At the very least, when this panel is read with the next panel of Rebekah speaking with the divine, the visual coding and language implies Rebekah was of important status.

However, we must remember the claim that Crumb’s Genesis, Illustrated is a “word-for-word” illustration of Genesis. The text alone does not support the idea that Rebekah is a matriarchal leader in her society; rather, the accompanying images forefront that narrative as described above. The visual commentary is then a modern exegesis on the text of the Bible which incorporates external sources as well as the biblical text which challenge traditional interpretations more broadly. The marriage of text and image is key to contextualising biblical characters like Rebekah and Isaac in different lights, and as such, comic books as a medium are well placed to reframe and, in some cases, rewrite biblical stories which can encourage scholars and other readers to view stories afresh. In this example, that means Rebekah is re-presented to the reader as a leader in her narrative, a figure intrinsic to the propulsion and direction of the story rather than a secondary character to her husband as some scholars might suggest.

Furthermore, the very nature of comic books as “low” culture, as unworthy of serious and rigorous study (until recently) means they are well-positioned to “undercut the monopolisation” of traditional scholarship.^[68] As noted in the introduction, biblical comic books and other alternative or non-traditional methods of retelling biblical stories can challenge established practices of biblical interpretation and may therefore open the text up to more creative interpretations which are not so restrained by traditional approaches of reading the Bible. However, it should be noted that this is not true only of comic books and that other media exist which have both attempted and achieved similar challenges to traditional biblical criticism, and comic books have certainly drawn from a varied history of such subversion and challenge to the Bible. This short case study of Rebekah’s story has demonstrated how, even when showing fidelity to the text in the case of Crumb, the inclusion of images can encourage readers to draw different conclusions about characters and narratives than text alone allows. In this respect, biblical comic books can and do open the text to fresh interpretations, representations of identity and, ultimately, challenge traditional, androcentric, conservative and hierarchical readings of the Bible.