Barbara Chodkowski

Christian Movement II

Email Seminar – The Woman’s Bible

Bvonchad3@hotmail.com

 

People are often amazed as how long these ideas have been debated.  Change came very slowly.

 

     Although I have heard some of the commentary in this text before, I was enthralled with it as a holistic work. This commentary, as a whole is incredibly brave, and insightful.  It is because of these women and those that followed their lead that I can attend BTS today.  It is quite poignant to me that the main reason that it took me until 49 years of age to get here had to do with my parents’ refusal to believe in 1975/76 that there was a future for a woman minister – even in the UCC!.  And while I do find some feminist literature to swing past where I think the pendulum indicates a middle and equal position, the lens that this book peers through promotes thought and the often voiced, “ah ha”.   This response I would expect to be uttered by most male readers of the work as well.

     One of the commentaries I was especially impressed by was by Elizabeth Cady Stanton on Chapter 3.  She is referring to the tempter in the garden when she writes:

 

The tempter evidently had a profound knowledge of human nature, and saw at a glance the high character of the person he met by chance in his walks in the garden.  He did not try to tempt her from the path of duty by brilliant jewels, rich dresses, worldly luxuries or pleasures, but with the promise of knowledge, with the wisdom of the Gods. (p. 24) 

 

     Not only does this make a great deal of sense, but must have struck home with Stanton and other women who were not allowed to study at the same schools as men despite the proven scholastic achievement of such women.  History chronicles a woman’s struggle for education for many decades following these writings, still existing in more subtle, subversive ways today.  My personal interpretation of this passage has always centered around the fact that knowledge and wisdom has been withheld in the story from both humans because knowledge being power also corrupts.  We don’t know if Adam would have been seduced by the same proposal, as the meeting was supposedly by chance and the tempter offers the seduction to the one of the two he meets.  I assume that Adam would have been offered the same as Eve.  What his decision would have been, we cannot know because the story does not tell us.  It is, however, that such a story has been the basis for terrible inequalities and perceptions.  Was this its purpose – in light of this commentary – I cannot think so.

     I was also drawn to the writing of Clara Bewick Colby on chapter 7.  She states that the account of Rebekah shows her “personal freedom and dignity”.  The commentary points at historical inaccuracies of interpretation to explain that the Hebrew Scriptures, again, do not place woman in a subordinate place.  The men, who somehow ended up with the education and did the research and writing did not understand the culture within which these stories took place.  In using the customs of the biblical Israelites as models, they used a modern vantage point.  As Colby concludes, the cues the men use for a basis of behavior are inaccurate. 

     The Woman’s Bible is full of examples of these misunderstandings, misreads and subsequent misbehaviors.  It makes a person wonder how the world would be modeled at different points in history if the woman’s role was modeled what appears to be the truth of the scriptures, rather than a skewed eye.  How many brilliant minds never were cultivated?  How many decisions would have not been made, roads taken, etc.  Which players would have been different?  Would celibacy ever have been an issue?  Would woman be priests (now or over the centuries)?  The book is certainly thought provoking, and I plan on reading it through at a time when assignments quiet down once more.

 

 

 

 

CH 1502

Christian Movement

Glenn Miller

April 2, 2008

Cathie Kimball

cathiek@roadrunner.com

 

The Woman’s Bible

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

 

                Mrs. Stanton provides us with a great breath of fresh air.  Her insights and exegesis are excellent, and suggest that she had teachers similar to Ann Johnston. Much of biblical criticism, at least the reading of the documents, was in place relatively early Her goal was a lofty one, to re-craft the Bible with women in mind, and she gathered an impressive group of equally gifted women to participate in the task. This is a test to see if the slowdown is the result of the

               

 

In reading Chapter VI, on the account in Genesis of Abraham and Sarah, I was reminded of Ann’s comment in Torah that it is of note that after Abraham takes Isaac up on the mountain, ostensibly to sacrifice him, that thereafter the family is never seen again intact.  It is only upon Sarah’s death that Abraham becomes reconnected with Sarah.  One can imagine the wrath of a woman toward the man who at least intended to sacrifice her son.  It is this kind of woman whom Elizabeth Stanton brings forward in her comments on Genesis.  Interesting observation

                “In this prolonged interview, the unprejudiced reader must be impressed with the courage, the dignity, and the lofty ambition of the woman….  [The tempter] did not try to tempt her …with brilliant jewels…but with the promise of knowledge… Compared to Adam she appears to great advantage through the entire drama.”  What an insightful observation, that Adam merely did what he was told by Eve, but that Eve needed to be courted and she was vulnerable not to things – for she already possessed all in the Garden – but to knowledge, to ‘wisdom of the Gods’.  She and others go on to make similar comparisons of men and women.  Lillian Devereux Blake makes the observation that even as they appear before God to defend their actions that Adam whines, and blames Eve!  They adequately demonstrated that Adam and Eve were created in equality and from both the masculine and feminine aspects of God.  She goes on to observe that a more literal translation of the naming of Eve is the word Life.  As the Mother of the human race, it is an apt observation. 

                Still, Elizabeth herself commits the error of anachronistic interpretation in her comments on the actions of Rebekah to secure for Jacob, her favorite, a birthright.  This is very typical of the moral thinking of the  19th century with its very heavy emphasis on personal integrity and truthfulness.   Deception was considered sinful by most commentators, and some biblical scholars used these stories to demonstrate that the ancient Israelites were not good examples of ethical thought. Though even within the time period it would be possible to find fault with her deception, she makes the mistake of suggesting that women of her century should not turn to women such as these for examples of virtue.  It was an act of great courage for Rebekah to behave as she did in her time.  She showed courage from her first appearance – confidently drawing water from the well in front of all those men – and proceeded to take full advantage of opportunities offered to her to advance herself and her children.  While Elizabeth Stanton seems able to see the earlier stories of Genesis as myths, she seems to take these stories more personally, failing to see some of the more over-arching themes that tell us something about God and something about the flawed nature of humanity.  Second sons favored over firstborn are a recurring theme in Israel’s history, running counter to the culture of the day, only one of several examples.  Though Jacob participates in a deception to receive his brother’s blessing from his father, he too becomes the victim of deception and so the eventual justice of God is demonstrated.  It is also possible today to see in these stories the flawed nature of men and women, and still to see them struggling to improve and ultimately to receive the favor of God.  This gives us all hope.

                Still, Elizabeth brings excellent scholarship to the table, showing the depth of her study over the years.  She brings in scientific studies of the day, and does not mince words when she is critical of what has been included in the Old Testament to date.  She is clear that there is much that is good within the Bible, but much also that has been included with which she finds fault, and in particular for which she blames men.  It is refreshing to read her opinions, well reasoned, insightful, and crafted with intellect and wit. 

 

Kathleen M. Batchelder

kmbatchelder@rushmore.com

 

Stanton was an interesting figure and an important one.  It is always fascinating to see how many issues that we assume are comparatively recent actually date back to the late 1800’s.  She does use many scholarly conclusions that are still with us.  The phrase, fine metaphysical speculations could be appreciated by any teacher at any level.  In seminaries, of course, we have few people whose dog ate their papers, although the number of crashed computers, broken printers, bad websites, and the rest is extraordinary.

 

The midrash point is an interesting one.  Midrash was a very jewish form of commentary that is only slightly related to our present ways of commenting on the text.

 

See you tomorrow

CH 1502—Online Seminar #8

                                    Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Woman’s Bible: A Classic Feminist Perspective

 

            Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a feisty figure in women’s history, and I am delighted to find her among Christian Movement readings.  It makes sense that her dedication to equal rights for women and to abolition of slavery bring her to discussions of religion. Three things that fascinate me about Stanton’s text are her distinction between her quarrel with men and their association with the writing/interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; her pointed use of diction; and her creation of a midrash within the text.

 First, it is apparent early in this text that Stanton’s quarrel is with men, not with God.  For example, on page 13, she writes, “The canon law, the Scriptures, the creeds and codes and church discipline of the leading religions bear the impress of fallible man, and not of our ideal great first cause, ‘the Spirit of all Good,’ that set the universe of matter and mind in motion.”  Stanton is also frustrated with men’s hypocrisy in their reading of the Bible as justification for the subjugation of women while at the same time glorifying the images of women within the Bible’s stories.  On page 25, she  has related the story of the curse pronounced on woman’s child bearing (in the story of Adam) when she captures a notable double standard  of hypocrisy: “Some churchmen speak of maternity as a disability, and then chant the Magnificat in all their cathedrals round the globe.” Today we are still hearing about the issue of double standards in cases of religion and of social justice.

            In addition to Stanton’s relevancy to today’s discussions of women’s rights, her use of language is “spot on.”  My favorite phrase in the sections we read for this week has to be on page 21 when she describes man’s justification of subordination of women as “fine-spun metaphysical speculations.”  It makes me wish I were back in the high school classroom on the day a big essay is due; as I listened to “my dog ate my homework” or “my printer is out of ink” for the thirty-seventh time, I could express my sympathy for the student’s story as “fine-spun metaphysical speculations.” Stanton’s father said he wished she were a boy—I think she is a fine wordsmith as she is!!

Finally, The Woman’s Bible captured my interest as a midrash or “commentary and explanatory notes” (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms , page 173).  In the Talmud, highly respected rabbis commented on the Hebrew Scriptures.  In The Woman’s Bible, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and seven other women (listed on page 4) both write about the words of Genesis and also comment on each other’s ideas.  For example, on page 41, Clara Bewick Colby comments both on the story of Abraham and Sarah and also on the writings of Elizabeth Cady Stanton about Abraham and Sarah.  The reader is thus drawn into the conversation among the text’s writers through this midrash strategy.    This is a good observation.

Stanton tells the reader (in the introduction on page 9)  that several women biblical scholars were afraid to risk their academic reputations by working with The Woman’s Bible.  This does not lead, however, to a lack of sound scholarship.  I enjoyed the inclusion on pages 16 and 17 of  a concise, yet thorough, explanation of biblical authorship—including the “J” and “E” authors who used “Iaveh” and “Elohim” as names for God.  As a BTS “newbie” who has been learning about authors and redactors of the Scriptures, I appreciate Stanton’s inclusion of sound scholarship which I understand.  She addresses issues of current interest such as ordination of women and evolution—issues which have been “settled” in some denominations and not in others.  I am glad The Woman’s Bible is among our readings for Christian Movement.  Rather than always staying with the theological issues of the church, I enjoy reading about the sociological conflicts.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s voice speaks clearly to me:  “Reformers who are always compromising have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon” (page 11).  She is talking about women’s rights; I understand her to include all reform efforts which are grounded in God’s truth.

 

Michael Kasevich

kasevichm@aol.com

Christian Movement

April 3, 2008

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

       Prior to coming to seminary, I would have not read this material, not because a woman wrote her beliefs and thoughts, but because of the assumed position, the author places upon its reader. In the introduction, there is a quote from Lord Brougham, who stood up for the Princes of Wales during her divorce for he was the head of her legal team. The quote states, “it is a disgrace to the civilization and Christianity of the Ninetieth Century.” Brougham was referring to the civil rights of woman. His specialty was the civil rights of slaves.

   In the same paragraph, Charles Kingsley is quoted “this will never be a good world for women until the last remnant of the cannon law is swept from the face of the earth.” Kingsley was an author of children’s books and a great social reformer in his day. Here Stanton uses predominate social reformers to make her point that women are accused of “bringing sin and death into the world.”

    To take this pre-assumption into the text of Genesis, let us look at Genesis 3: 1-14. In her commentary, Stanton proclaims that it is in this text that we, the Christian community, receive the doctrines of original sin. This I agree with. Stanton then goes on to talk about Darwinism and the “growth of the race from a lower to a higher type of animal life.”

    The text in Genesis, I think, is very clear that the woman was used by the serpent to create havoc on earth and not to develop some higher form of life; as we are all created equal in the image of God as it states in Genesis 1:27

      I do not see the correlation between this scripture writing and commentary to the statements in the introduction about the evil human hating death woman. I use this example because we are all familiar with the creation story.

    In her writing, Stanton does make some very valid points about how women are looked upon by the male dominate clergy, leaders, and readers of the historic bible. On page 37 , she talks about how a careful study of the Bible will give us , the readers, a better view from the woman’s perspective in these Biblical narratives. Stanton explains the age old truth about Biblical text; anybody can take the written word out of context to fit their need and the need of ones cause.

   In her book, Discovering Eve ,Carol Meyers writes how the image of male and female sexuality is exempt from the biblical text in Genesis. She goes on to state that the implications of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is the predominate theme. Meyers states that only in later literature, in both Judaism and in Christianity, that Eve,  the first woman, get the bum rap about bringing death and destruction to human kind by original sin.

   It is in the writings of Stanton that Meyers statements come true. It is the authors and the social reformers that take the stand against women’s’ rights along with the rights of slavery, and today homosexuality.

 

 

CH 1502                                                                                                        Phyllis Merritt

Christian Movement II                                                               merriphy@hotmail.com

Glenn Miller                                                                             week of April 3, 2008

 

Stanton

The Woman’s Bible

A Classic Feminist Perspective

 

Introduction and Genesis

Thanks for the helpful story at the end of the paper.  Sometimes we forget how recent some of those discriminations actually were.   It is fascinating to me how many people, this is off subject, have been hurt by choirs.

 

 

 

I can imagine the furor when The Woman’s Bible was published!  Page x of the Foreward to the Dover Edition, states that it “spread controversy” and that it inspired “some members of the clergy to denounce it as the work of Satan.”  Even the membership of the National-American Woman Suffrage Association voted to accept a resolution disassociating itself from The Woman’s Bible or “any theological publication” (215) by a vote of 53-41 (217).  That being said, I find it interesting to note that the book was also an “immediate bestseller.” (x)

 

According to the blurb on the back cover, one of the reasons for the enduring nature of the book, is “the still-resonant sincerity of its righteous indignation.”  That righteous indignation is present from the first sentence in the introduction.  We soon discover that forming the committee to write the commentaries was no easy task.  Some women were not eager to help because they were afraid that “their high reputation[s] and scholarly attainments might be compromised by taking part in an enterprise that for a time may prove very unpopular.” (9)  Others felt that the endeavor would “compromise their evangelical faith [if they affiliated]  with those of more liberal views.” (9)  Elizabeth Cady Stanton makes it clear that working on this project would not be a job for cowards!  (11)

 

Although I come from a family of what I consider to be strong women, I was “born and brought up” on one creation-of-humans story, the one about the rib.  I have never heard the story of Genesis 1 discussed, nor have I heard anyone mention the “us” of verse 26.  I have thought about the Ten Commandments, the “Golden Rule” and the way my parent taught us to behave.  The early fathers and mothers, as I have read their stories in Genesis, did not usually behave with integrity.  I found that sneakiness, lying and trickery seemed to be a part of almost every character.  It doesn’t take long for the commentators of this Bible to point out those characteristics as well.  They do not point to these early men and women as models worthy of imitation. (53)

 

The commentaries tackle the subjugation of women by pointing out that while  equal dominion is given woman over every living thing, but not one word is said giving man dominion over woman.”  (15)  Later, the verse that has been used to justify the degradation and subjugation of women more than others is discussed.  These commentaries see Genesis 3:16 as a prediction, a foretelling, rather than as a curse. (25)

The blurb on the cover states that “Stanton’s attack on religious orthodoxy is more a forceful political treatise than a scholarly work.”  While that no doubt is true, I am sure that many women have asked the same questions these commentaries ask:

·         If Genesis 1:27 is true, how is making woman an afterthought? (15)

·         (Genesis 2:23) If woman is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” how could men preach the subjugation of women? (21)

 

I have found it difficult to imagine the world these women discuss, but an incident that happened at this year’s convocation helped me understand the issue a little better.  One BTS alum was told that the choir was going to be co-ed the year she started seminary in the 1960’s.  Excitedly, she went to the try-outs.  The choir director was not prepared for a woman to be there and obviously didn’t want a co-ed choir.  In her mind, his dismissive remark was given a shady interpretation by the rest of the choir, and she left try-outs in embarrassment.  She never sang in the BTS choir; it became co-ed after her graduation.  This year, when alums were invited to sing with the choir, she jumped at the chance.   Before we began rehearsing, she told us her story.  When she cried, my throat closed and I could almost feel her frustration and humiliation.  When we began to sing, I think many of us sang not only with her, but for her...she waited over thirty years to do what I do every week.

Amanda Wagner

The Woman’s Bible

wagner.amandae@gmail.com

 

Nicely done.

                More than anything else, what struck me about this reading is how very simple and yet so convincing are Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s logic skills.  Though she does delve into some deep theological issues, she keeps her arguments to a level which can be read and understood by almost anyone who can read them.

                In the introduction, she explained her reasons for undertaking such a project.  She realized just how difficult it would be to go against something so ingrained in the traditions of the people.  However, she was quick to explain that the same was thought of the laws of the government until somebody challenged them.  If those laws could be changed, there was hope too for biblical tradition.  Of course, she freely admitted that there was a lot more baggage to deal with when trying to do something as shocking as challenging the traditional interpretation of the Bible.  “The sentimental feelings we all have for those things we were educated to believe sacred, do not readily yield to pure reason” (11).  She responded to those women and men who refused to disagree with the text, saying, “Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving” (10). 

                I admire Stanton for not bowing to the temptation of rejecting the entire Bible.  Though she pointed out some very obvious contradictions in the Bible, including the two creation stories, Stanton believed instead in investigating each story and part for its own merit.  She remarked, “The Bible cannot be accepted or rejected as a whole, its teachings are varied and its lessons differ widely from each other” (13).  This seems so simple, but is a very important statement.  Just as we cannot reject the Bible because some parts disagree, neither can we ignore those disagreements and accept everything contained in the Bible at face value.

                Though little of her commentary is new to me, I find her remarks to say something about Stanton herself.  I especially enjoyed the part in her commentary on chapter 10, where she observed that the people on both sides of the issue are appealing to the very same God and legislature (60).  Though Stanton might believe that the folks on the other side of the issue know very little about God, she allows that she doesn’t know anymore about God than they do.

                As a final note, I wonder why the editors chose to ignore the stories of Tamar and Lot’s daughters.  Stanton’s only remark is that they are unworthy of a place in The Woman’s Bible.  I would guess that it is the deviant sexual nature of both stories.  It seems a shame to miss out on that commentary, particularly in the story of Tamar

Gary Cyr

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

4/1/08

gcyr0001@roadrunner.com

 

In reading Stanton’s introduction, I was struck by her description of an event from her youth: that of a minister flaying his hands in the air frightening her about the pit of hell.  Considering when she wrote, I believe that Dispensationalism was on the rise in this country.  The fire and brimstone message would have had an impact on such a mind as Stanton; even at so young an age.

 

What is interesting about her view is how she seems to continue what began in Germany years before—a look at the interior spiritual life of an individual.  She carries this theme forward by incorporating the spiritual and physical treatment women had experienced at the hands of patriarchy.  She employs what seems an early type of form/textual criticism.  She gives the reader a nuanced and fresh look at the etymology of certain words and phrases then moves to the female lens to observe the biblical scene at hand.  It tells me that Stanton was not content with the biblical text and literature of her time.

 

Not content with the KJV bible or Vulgate, Stanton employs her own board of “experts” in language and biblical study, especially languages.  This alone demonstrates that women were moving into fields that were dominated by men.  It is the roster that caught my attention with the title of Rev. being used with women.  What denomination does this entail during this era? Usually Unitarian

 

Stanton’s reflection from a female perspective may be provocative for some, yet it lends itself credence.  To witness a story from a different vantage point is to give it new life.  I don’t believe she want to reinterpret biblical text merely for the sake of doing so.  Nor do I believe she did so just to be provoking reaction.  What she does is give the text an authenticity that dogma and tradition had layered over at the expense of women in general.

 

The challenge comes to the established church’s way of selecting text to suit its own agenda.  Granted, some may say Stanton does likewise, but what she really does is introduce a means of interpretation that allows the text to be seen from a different angle.  Considering that her focus was on text that affected women, this method challenged how biblical scholarship had been done as regards the female voice in scripture.  I noted that she gives value to the first creation story on one hand, but almost dismisses the second story as the fabrication/exaggeration of biased redactors.  The Victorian principles of the day give way to women who are part of the feminine nature of God; that they have as active a role in bringing forth life as men—maybe more so.  Her critique of biblical interpretation being male dominated as a means of subjugating woman flies in the face of established orthodoxy.  I found her critique of a staid German thinking pointed.  To who was she addressing this?  Who were the leading thinkers?  Did they depart from the road Schleiermacher had started down?  I find Stanton presenting a turn in biblical thought and scholarship that resembles Schleiermacher during his time.  What is amazing is the quantity of books published.  The very fact that this material was generally circulated is testament to the power of the press.  I am sure many had sought to suppress her work, much as the opponents of the reform movement tried.  In the end, Stanton’s work creates a paradigm shift that continues to reverberate even today.  Interesting reading and very enjoyable.  It challenged my own way of reading scripture from a male prospective and tells me there are always two sides to a story.  Very good point.  Books were almost unstoppable.