Paper as presented at the Feminist Theologies Day, Sophia Ecumenical Feminist Spirituality Centre, 12th August 2017. Introduction Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a significant figure of the American 19th century feminist movement. She was an initiator of the first American women’s rights convention, in Seneca Falls New York in 1848, and she continued to crusade for women’s rights for the rest of her life. Such was Stanton’s status, the National Council of Women sponsored a celebration in honour of her 80th birthday in 1895. Over 8000 women from more than 20 different organisations came to pay their respects. Two weeks later Stanton published The Woman’s Bible. A few months after that, The National American Woman Suffrage Association—of which Stanton was honorary president—convened and denounced The Woman’s Bible. Rachel Foster Avery, the corresponding secretary said, and I quote During the latter part of this year, the work of our Association has been in several directions much hindered by the general misconception of the relation 1 of the organization to the so-called “Woman’s Bible.” As an association we have been held responsible for the action of an individual... in issuing a volume with a pretentious title, covering a jumble of comment … without either scholarship or literary value, set forth in a spirit which is neither that of reverence or inquiry. If the organization were not in so many quarters held responsible for this work, I should feel it out of place to mention it here; but I should be untrue to my duties as secretary of the Association did I fail to report the fact that our work is being damaged.” In January 1896 a resolution was formally passed 53 to 41 that the National American Woman Suffrage Association would distance itself from Stanton’s Woman’s Bible. To wit: “That this Association is non-sectarian, being composed of persons of all shades of religious opinion, and that it has no official connection with the socalled ‘Woman’s Bible,’ or any other theological publications.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton lived for another 6 and half years, but she was increasingly isolated from the women’s movement. The younger generation who focused the women’s movement on gaining suffrage for women—women like Carrie Chapman Catt— were keen that the controversial figure of Stanton not hamper their efforts, so they pushed her to the side, even banishing her from the history books, replacing her with her friend of 50 years or so, Susan B Anthony. Susan Anthony came to be recognised as “the symbol of women’s political progress” (Kern, p. 4) whereas Elizabeth Cady Stanton had previously been the “mother of the movement” and seen as synonymous with women’s rights in America. It wasn’t until the second wave feminist movement that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was acknowledged as a key figure in the American 19th century feminist movement. According to Kathi Kern it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s biblical commentary, The Woman’s Bible, which sounded the death knell to her reputation for decades. What was it about The Woman’s Bible which caused such controversy? Was it simply that a woman had the temerity to comment on the Bible? Today I’m going to give 6 reasons why Elizabeth Cady Stanton likely caused offense with The Woman’s Bible. In effect, I think the book risked offending almost everyone and so to my surprise, I’ve ended up agreeing with the actions 2 of the Woman Suffrage Association in distancing themselves from the book. That Association played a key role in getting women the vote in America. It went from a membership of 7000 women in 1890 to over two million, and those numbers were needed for the success of the suffrage campaign. Therefore, I decided that it was politically wise of the leadership of the Association to make sure there were no reasons, like Stanton’s bible, for American women to not join it. But the second thing I’m going to do today is present 6 reasons why I think Elizabeth Cady Stanton has been vindicated in the long term, why I think she was a woman so far ahead of her time that it took another 100 years or so for the mainstream to catch up with her. Why the Woman’s Bible ruined her reputation Women’s audacity So what was it about The Woman’s Bible which caused so much controversy? Was it simply that a woman had the temerity to comment on the Bible? Yes, that is one reason. Elizabeth Cady Stanton did risk offending all those who thought women should not undertake interpretation or translation of the bible. Lingering on in the cultural memory would have been the story of what happened to Anne Hutchinson (1591-1643) back in 1638. Hutchinson had held weekly Bible study and theology discussion meetings at her house in Boston. As long as only women attended the meetings, Hutchinson was not behaving in an unseemly manner. But when husbands began to accompany their wives, and Hutchinson increased the number of meetings to accommodate her followers, she was deemed a threat to the established order. Brought before the General Court in 1637, Hutchinson was tried for insurrection and banished from Boston 4 months later. Interpreting the bible is “a political act” as Christiana de Groot (p. 568) says. By the late 19th century, however, Stanton wasn’t unique in what she was attempting. There had been many other women reflecting on the bible during that century. Mary Baker Eddy published her “Key to the Scriptures” in 1875. Julia Smith published a literal translation of the bible in 1876 which was apparently so literal as to be unreadable. Women generally had responsibility for the religious education of their children and they prepared material for Sunday School classes and wrote books for young people ((de Groot, 567). 3 Nor was Stanton’s book unique in only interpreting those passages concerned directly about women. For the handout (available at the end of this paper) what I’ve done is go through The Woman’s Bible and listed all the passages that are included in that. You’ll see that Lot’s wife and Tamar aren’t included – Stanton doesn’t that those verses weren’t worthy of being included. Considering only such passages as contained women was a genre which began (de Groot, 567) much earlier, with Frances Elizabeth King, who in 1811 published Female Scripture Characters. Frances King had written her book in response to Thomas Robinson’s book, Scripture Characters, in which he’d not included any women at all. Frances King’s book was very popular and prompted many others. We don’t know how many of these books Elizabeth Cady Stanton had read. What we do know is that Stanton and the other women involved with The Woman’s Bible used Julia Smith’s bible when they wanted to check on the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew. We also know that one of Stanton’s friends was Frances Lord, an Englishwoman who first introduced Elizabeth Cady Stanton to theosophy when Stanton became interested in the alternatives to organised religion during the 1880s. Stanton had travelled to England and met Annie Besant of Theosophy fame and activist Josephine Butler, both of whom had written reflections on Christianity and biblical women. Frances Lord was a student of Emma Curtis Hopkins and Emma Curtis Hopkins had been a student of Mary Baker Eddy’s, and since Mary Baker Eddy’s rise to fame coincides with the timing of Stanton’s interest in alternatives to mainstream religious groups, she would have been aware of Eddy just as was aware of Christian Science, What was distinctive about Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s The Woman’s Bible, what was unique about it, was that Stanton wanted to revise the Bible by committee, as the men had done earlier when the American Revising Committee was formed in 1871 to revise the King James Version of the bible. No women had been invited onto that revising committee, as Stanton points out, so she formed her own. Which brings me to my second reason for The Woman’s Bible causing widespread offense—the Revising Committee that Stanton ended up with was a 4 very edgy one, so edgy it would have been a problem for many. They were the punks of the 19th century. A too edgy Revising Committee In 1881 the Revised New Testament, in the works for 10 years, was finally published and elicited much public debate. Stanton had hope that the Revised New Testament would instate woman as equal to men but she was disappointed (Kern p. 76). That disappointment led to Stanton thinking about her own revision of the bible, but it took another 5 years before she persuaded her friend Frances Lord—who was visiting from England—to help her with the project. Lord used a concordance and discovered that only about 1/10 of the bible mentioned women. Stanton and Lord, and Stanton’s daughter Harriot, purchased some cheap bibles and cut out the passages which mentioned women, pasted them in a book, and began writing commentaries beneath them. It took 9 years for Stanton to complete the project, by which time she was 80 years of age. One reason for the delay was the difficulty in putting together a committee to finish writing the commentaries. Stanton wrote to many women, even former political rivals, but most declined. In declining some women cited their lack of training in biblical criticism, and their lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Others considered the whole idea to be a bad one; some still believed in the bible, particularly the Christian Scriptures. Some were concerned that the project would result in anti-suffrage backlash, that it would alienate even clergy who supported women’s rights. Some thought the bible commentary would do more harm than good, and some thought there was no need for it because the women’s movement was already advancing without it. Even Frances Lord pulled out of the project, immersed as she was in writing a book about Christian Science at the time, and so did Harriot, Stanton’s daughter, because “it was the driest history she had ever read and most derogatory to woman” she says. Where Stanton had initially wanted a diverse group for her committee, “protestant, Catholic, Jew, Gentile, Evangelical, and Liberal” (de Groot 571), what she ended up with was a committee comprised of those women who 5 represented the main religious alternatives to the mainstream in the 19 th century. These were Spiritualism, Theosophy and Christian Science. Spiritualists focused on communication with the dead. This was a new, radical, and essentially feminist movement that emerged in America during the late 1840s. According to Ann Braude, all Spiritualists advocated women’s rights, and women in fact were equal to men within Spiritualist practice, polity and ideology. Spiritualists had attracted many of the early radical feminists because of its “anti-authoritarianism” and encouragement of women to do according to their “inner truth” rather than according to the dictates of social norms. (Kern, p. 144). Many members of the Universalist church, which Kathi Kern sees as the most “theologically traditional” represented on the Woman’s Bible Revising Committee were “spiritualists. The Theosophical Society had been formed in New York in 1875 by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Olcott. Theosophists were interested in studying humanity, religion and culture in all their diversity, and particularly the “Divine” or “Perennial” wisdom of the ages as conveyed by mystics, yogis, sages, masters. Feminism was an unmistakable thread through the Theosophical Society as both Michelle Goldberg and Joy Dixon have written. Indeed, the First Object of The Theosophical Society is to not distinguish between people on the basis of “race, creed, sex, caste, or color.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan Anthony had both explored theosophy quite intensely for a period, as had Frances Lord. There were 3 Theosophists on Stanton’s revising committee. 6 Christian Science is a Christian denomination which specialises in healing, through biblically sourced principles or laws of God. Mary Baker Eddy (who was the “most influential and controversial woman in America” in the late 19 th century according to Gillian Gill) had founded The Church of Christ, Scientist in 1879 in Boston. Mary Baker Eddy had women preachers and healers in her church from the outset. New Thought emerged from Christian Science. Emma Curtis Hopkins is generally accepted as the founder of New Thought. She started out as a student of Mary Baker Eddy’s and later founded the Emma Curtis Hopkins College of Christian Science. The New Thought movement was primarily composed of women during its first generation, and women’s leadership was instituted. According to William James, the pioneer American psychologist, the sweep of Christian Science and New Thought across America during the 19th century had to be “reckoned with as a genuine religious power” (p.94) particularly because of the “practical fruits” which grew from its many branches, and to which the male dominated medical and clerical professions were just beginning to take notice at the time of James’ putting together the Varieties of Religious Experience in 1902. 7 Emma Curtis Hopkin trained several of the women involved in Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Woman’s Bible. Stanton herself, influenced by Frances Lord, also investigated New Thought but decided that she was of “too solid flesh,” although she did occasionally have treatments from New Thought healers and admitted to being inclined to take it more seriously as she approached the end of her life. As I said earlier, it was Frances Lord who was, aside from Stanton’s daughter, the first woman to help assist Stanton with The Woman’s Bible. France Lord was also a student of Emma Curtis Hopkins, and had written her own book called Christian Science Healing: Its Principles and Practice and in which she used the feminine pronoun to refer to the Divine. 8 Some of the women on Stanton’s Revising Committee continued to maintain a connection with and commitment to the bible, women like Phebe Hannaford who was a minister with the Universalist denomination (which has now affiliated with the Unitarians). The New Thought women were interested, following Mary Baker Eddy and Emma Curtis Hopkins, in interpretations of the bible that focus on the inherent goodness in humanity. They were already arguing against an anthropomorphic male god and arguing for a Father-Mother God who could also be called gender-neutral names like Substance, health, Support, Defence, Protection and Intelligence. Theosophist Matilda Joslyn Gage thought it was time to do something about the idolatory of masculinity, and that it was time for woman “to interpret the Bible herself” (cited by Kern, p. 119) and for the feminine principle to be restored “in religion as well as in law” (cited by Kern, p. 119). As you can see from the handout (below), Stanton ended up with 2 committees, the full committee which is listed at the beginning of both volumes of The Woman’s Bible and the working committee (probably not very unusual, usually in any group there is a core that does everything). The working committee were all white women in middle to late age, all had connections with the national suffrage movement and were local leaders in that too. All were writers, which often gave them an income, sometimes like Lillie 9 Devereux Blake writing feminist fiction, others like Ursula Gestefield writing on spiritual healing. And all were on the edges of the mainstream, too radical for many. As you can also see from the handout, Stanton did most of the work. She didn’t impose a particular style of response, but allowed women’s differing views to stand. Usually it was the other women on the Revising Committee who offered symbolic interpretations whereas Stanton stuck to what she calls ‘plain English’ interpretations. I must say I had some difficulties with those symbolic interpretation too, such as that by Matilda Joslyn Gage who writes “To those who believe in the doctrine of re-incarnation, and who look upon the Bible as an occult work written in symbolic language, Solomon’s reputed “wives” and “concubines” are regarded as symbolic of his incarnations, the wives representing good incarnations and the concubines evil ones.” (P. 70-71 vol2). I just thought he was greedy. Even though Stanton wrote most of the commentary for The Woman’s Bible, the fact that the other women involved were from the radical margins would have been a good reason for the National American Woman Suffrage Association to distance themselves from the book. They didn’t want to alienate the mainstream, they needed the mainstream. Perceived Blasphemy A third reason for why it was prudent for younger suffragists to reject The Woman’s Bible is that it would have been seen by many as blasphemous. By the time of The Woman’s Bible, Stanton no longer saw the bible as a resource for liberation. Decades before, in 1854, she had used the golden rule to advocate for better treatment of women (de Groot p. 574). In 1860, she had used the bible to call for an end to the slave trade. But over time Stanton had become convinced that the bible was a major source of oppression in women’s lives. Everyone, she said, whether they were politicians or priests, trotted out biblical reasons “to justify women’s inferior position in law, politics and religion” (Kern, p. 99). Moreover, Stanton was convinced that women were convinced that there was “some divine authority for their subjection” and therefore she planned The Woman’s Bible as a book to 10 raise the consciousness of women and to remove deep rooted beliefs about their inferiority. The following sums up her position: “We have no fault to find with the Bible as a mere history of an ignorant, underdeveloped people, but when special inspiration is claimed for the historian, we must judge of its merits by the moral standard of today (p. 60). She says something similar a little later, “The question naturally suggests itself to any rational mind, why should the customs and opinions of this ignorant people, who lived centuries ago, have any influence in the religious thought of this generation?” (p. 71). Stanton didn’t believe that YHWH spoke to the Patriarchs, instead she thought this was and I quote “a very cunning way for the Patriarchs to reinforce their own authority”. She questions contemporary customs that have their roots in the bible. Like the Sabbath – she insists that women’s work still needs be done on that day, that it’s only men who are able to rest. She connects the way contemporary women’s names disappear when they get married and become “Mrs. Richard Roe, Mrs. John Doe and Mrs James Smith” p. 73 to the biblical tradition of namelessness –many women in the bible belong to what she calls the “no-name series” (p. 25 vol2). Another tradition carried on from biblical times is that of head covering. She says, and I quote, “The fashion for men to sit with their heads bare in our churches, while women must wear bonnets, is based on this ancient custom.” (p. 104). Stanton had no patience with the matriarchs like Sarah. She says, and I quote: “As Sarah did not possess any of the heroic virtues, worthy our imitation, we need not linger either to praise or blame her characteristics…In fact the wives of the patriarchs, all untruthful, and one a kleptomaniac, but illustrate the law, that the cardinal virtues are seldom found in oppressed classes” (p. 36). Which makes her sound not only anti-biblical but also racist and classist, and even sexist. This is one instance where it’s possible to see the different responses from commentators sitting side by side in The Woman’s Bible. Clara Colby, for example, is more forgiving of Abraham and more admiring of Sarah, seeing her as a woman of great strength of character. 11 Women in the bible can’t win when it comes to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, at least not in Volume 1. Instead of admiring the Hebrew midwives who didn’t obey the commands of the Pharaoh to kill all males at birth, Stanton says “Here we have another example of women who “feared God” and yet used deception to accomplish what they deemed right” (p. 69). It’s easy to imagine Jewish people being offended too by Stanton’s language and dismissal of Jewish history. According to Gerda Lerner, and I’m quoting, “Jewish history became a primary tool for the survival of the people…for Jews, their history, which was full of disasters and persecutions, was also a record of heroic figures resisting oppression.” The same goes for many African-Americans, who drew on the bible for inspiration, particularly the Exodus story, that they too could resist oppression and go free. Stanton does seem to have moderated her view by the time of the second volume of The Woman’s Bible in 1898. She starts that volume by taking up the Revising Committees comments about her ‘tone’, that she should be more reverent, but in her defence she points out that many people in her time still believed that the bible “was written by the finger of God, that the Old and New Testaments emanated from the highest divine thought in the universe.” Whereas in the first volume she was contemptuous of all women in the Pentateuch, in Volume 2 she does concede there are some good role models beyond that: And I’m quoting: “We have some grand types of women presented for our admiration in the Bible. Deborah for her courage and military prowess; Huldah for her learning, prophetic insight and statesmanship…; Esther, who ruled as well as reigned, and Vashti, who scorned the Apostle’s command, “Wives, obey your husbands.”” (p. 86, Vol2). She thinks that Michal (Saul’s daughter) and Abigail (David’s wife) are good examples “to wives to use their own judgment and to keep their own secrets, not make the family altar a constant confessional (p. 54 Vol 2). Even though Elizabeth Cady Stanton moderated her position on biblical women in Volume 2 of The Woman’s Bible, and even though she allowed to sit within that commentary positions contrary to her own, I can understand why many 12 people – Christians, Jews, African-Americans—would have been offended by her views, and therefore why the leadership of the National-American Woman Suffrage Association voted to distance themselves from The Woman’s Bible. Upsetting the Clergy The fourth reason I have for why Elizabeth Cady Stanton likely caused offense is because of Stanton’s attacks on the clergy. She says, commenting on the Levitical priestly tradition that was inaugurated with Aaron, Moses’ brother: And I’m quoting: “Our Levites have their homes free, and good salaries from funds principally contributed by women, for preaching denunciatory sermons on women and their sphere. They travel for half fare, the lawyer pleads their cases for nothing, the physician medicates their families for nothing, and generally in the world of work they are served at half price” (p. 110) Not only does Stanton have a go at the clergy for leeching off women while denigrating them, she calls out their hypocrisy, arguing that these are the people who believe the story about the fantastic things that Moses did—changing his walking stick into a snake, the dividing of the Red Sea, etc—while at the same time ridiculing “Spiritualism, Theosophy and Psychology” (p. 134). “Though teaching the people that all these fables are facts” she says, “still the Church condemns prestidigitators [magicians), southsayers, fortune tellers, Spiritualists, witches, and the assumptions of Christian Scientists” Go her I say. (P. 13 Vol 2). Even some of the others in the Revising Committee single out the clergy for comment, appropriately I think. Ellen Dietrick, for example, points out the neglect by church men of the women in the early church. It’s not hard to imagine why members of the National American Woman Suffrage Association would be concerned that The Woman’s Bible might have gotten off side even those members of the clergy who had previously supported women’s rights. 13 Upsetting Women My fifth reason is that church attending women are likely to have been offended by Stanton’s attacks on them. Not only is she singularly unimpressed by the blood sucking hypocritical clergy but she’s furious that women have propped up this class, that it’s been woman’s “chief occupation…next to bearing children… to sustain the priesthood and the churches” (p. 130). She says, and I quote: “there is nothing commendable in the action of young women who go about begging funds to educate young men for the ministry, while they and the majority of their sex are too poor to educate themselves, and if able, are still denied admittance into some of the leading institutions of learning throughout our land. It is not commendable for women to get up fairs and donation parties for churches in which the gifted of their sex may neither pray, preach, share in the offices and honors, nor have a voice in the business affairs, creeds and discipline, and from whose altars come forth Biblical interpretations in favour of woman’s subjection” (p. 125 vol2). Stanton is impatient with women who are “so easily deluded that most of the miracles of the Bible are performed for their benefit” (p. 72 vol2), she says. She’s frequently amazed that women believe the biblical stories which cast them in a bad light. Stanton was aware that many critics of The Woman’s Bible were women. She defends against these critics, saying that women denounce The Woman’s Bible, and I’m quoting, “while clinging to the Church and their Scriptures.” According to Stanton, it’s the Revising Committee of the “The Woman’s Bible” who are the reverent ones. “We have made a fetich of the Bible long enough.” She says. “The time has come to read it as we do other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.” Just for good measure, she criticises women not only for “clinging to their Scriptures” but also for complaining. “A complaining woman” she says, is worse than a leaky house, because with paint and putty you can stop the dripping; but how can one find the source of constant complaints?” (p. 98 vol2) And she criticises women for what they wear: “the earrings, the bangles, the big sleeves, the bonnets trimmed with osprey feathers…the wimples, the nose 14 jewels, the tablets, the chains, the bracelets, the mufflers, the veils, the glasses and the girdles…” (p. 102 vol2). Since the National American Woman Suffrage Association needed the support of women to push through the drive for suffrage, again it’s not surprising they would have distanced themselves from The Woman’s Bible. Upsetting ‘superior’ Christians If there were Christians who were pleased with attacks on the Old Testament, who believed that Christian countries were better than non-Christian ones when it came to the treatment of women, they too would have been offended by Stanton’s comments on the New Testament. For Stanton, the New Testament is not any better than the Old. She says, “While there are grand types of women presented under both religions, there is no difference in the general estimate of the sex. In fact, her inferior position is more clearly and emphatically set forth by the Apostles than by the Prophets and the Patriarchs. There are no such specific directions for woman’s subordination in the Pentateuch as in the Epistles” (p. 113 vol2). There is more agreement between the members of the Revising Committee on the New Testament than there was on the Old. Clara Newman, for example, points out that the writer of the story of Deborah’s “gifts and deeds must have had women before him who inspired him with such a wonderful personality.” She goes on to say “Deborah was, perhaps, only one of many women who held such high and honorable positions”. Therefore, she wonders, how could Christianity teach and preach that women should be silent in the church when already among the Jews equal honor was shown to women?” (p. 21 Vol2) Ellen Dietrick doesn’t mince words either. She says, and I quote: “As for the passages now found in the New Testament epistles of Paul, concerning women’s non-equality with men and duty of subjection, there is no room to doubt that they are bare-faced forgeries, interpolated by unscrupulous bishops, during the early period in which a combined and determined effort was made to reduce women to silent submission, not only in the Church, but also in the home and the state” (p. 150 vol2). And from Lucinda Chandler “The doctrine of woman as the origin of sin, and her subjection in consequence, planted in the early Christian Church by Paul, 15 has been a poisonous stream in Church and in State. It has debased marriage and made both canon and civil law a monstrous oppression to woman.” Vindication (with reservations) So far I’ve presented 6 reasons why The Woman’s Bible would have caused enough controversy for the National American Woman Suffrage Association to consider it wise to distance themselves from the book. I’d like to finish this paper with 6 reasons why I think that in the long-term Elizabeth Cady Stanton has been vindicated with her project. Marxists and culture First, by tackling the foremost place of the bible in American culture Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a forerunner to the 20th century study of culture. From the 1920s Western Marxists had taken up the study of culture because they wanted to understand how most people think there’s nothing wrong with the existing social arrangements. As these Marxists wanted to unpick the ideological mechanisms of capitalism which repressed the working classes, so Elizabeth Cady Stanton was wanting to unpick the biblical and theological mechanisms of patriarchy which repressed women and made them complicit in their own oppression. Cultural studies, informed by Marxism and other critical approaches including feminist theory, is now a wide ranging academic field of study, a worldwide movement. Consciousness raising groups Second, because Stanton wanted to draw women’s attention to the way in which the church encouraged the abuse and use of women, I see Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a forerunner to the sort of consciousness raising, or awareness raising, that was a feature of the 1960s in both the civil rights movement and later the women’s liberation movement, and which continues today with various campaigns, for example, Breast Cancer Awareness Week. As many of you know, consciousness raising groups were a feature of the second wave feminist movement during the 1970s. They were usually discussion groups, women only, speaking on aspects of women’s lives and then investigating the similarities amongst women. These discussions enabled women to explore the structural oppressions women were experiencing. What I see Stanton doing with The Woman’s Bible is trying to draw women’s attention to the structural oppression caused by 19th century American Christianity. 16 Feminist theologians Third, Elizabeth Cady Stanton foreshadowed some of the enthusiasm of 1970s feminist theologians and religious feminists for transforming their faith traditions. In the opening to her 2004 edited collection of stories from women who were significant in these transformations, Ann Braude writes: A generation has come of age that never experienced religion before the women’s movement. If you were born after 1965, you do not remember when inclusive language was unknown, when a woman minister was a curiosity, when brides routinely vowed before God and family to “obey” their husbands. Many of this generation have never covered their heads to enter a church or seen nuns concealed from head to foot in habits. They don’t remember when a woman could not read Torah in a synagogue or when a girl could not assist the priest as an alter server in a Catholic church. (p. 1) I’m confident that Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have been delighted with those changes, as she would have been to know that pioneering feminist theologians gave The Woman’s Bible its “first academic home”. To quote from Kathi Kern (p. 8). In fact, the renowned feminist theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza suggested that Stanton’s arguments for a feminist interpretation of the Bible were relevant to scholars almost a century later: the Bible was still used to subjugate women; women still believed in their own biblically based subordination; and finally, reform in the legal system would still be meaningless without simultaneous reform in religion. Stanton had begun a discussion of the Bible as a man-made expression of patriarchal culture; the feminist biblical scholars of the 1980s were her logical successors. End of quote. New Age Movement Fourth, those alternative religions—Spiritualism, Theosophy and New Thought—which were considered too edgy, too radical for many people in the late 19th century, include many beliefs and practices that are now mainstream meditation, affirmations, yoga, the broad acceptance of all religions and forms of spirituality, an emphasis on optimism and resilience. The Secret is out. Moreover, 1980s New Age superstars Marianne Williamson and Louise Hay are spiritual descendants of Emma Curtis Hopkins, spiritual healing has been part of 17 the mainstream churches for many years, and academic interest in the relationship between spirituality and health has burgeoned since the 1990s. The Inclusive Bible My fifth reason for thinking that Elizabeth Cady Stanton has been vindicated is that in 2007 a bible was published which has achieved what I imagine she was hoping the Revised New Testament might have achieved. The Inclusive Bible is the result of work since 1975 by a dedicated group of American priests and scholars to remove, or at least reduce, the sexism (and classism) from the ancient scriptures. Let’s have a look at the difference that makes. 18 19 Decline in the cultural authority of Christianity Finally, in the 21st century there has been a significant decline in Christianity as a cultural force in the United States. According to David Gushee writing for the Religion News Services in 2016, ‘cultural Christianity’ is fading away, there is no longer the cultural expectation, or even the family expectation to attend church or participate in Christian practices. While that won’t be good news for Christians – and it’s happening in Australia too—Stanton was damning of those 20 “clergymen and bishops of the Protestant religion” whom she regarded as “the most bitter outspoken enemies of women”. If they have less influence today, I think Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be pleased. My Reservations I do have some reservations about Stanton though. I can’t endorse what I read as classism. For example, she does refer to the ‘unthinking masses’ (p. 66), she suggests that it is only ‘the lower classes’ who disrespect and sexually assault girls and women? P.76 and she decides that conversations between women like Ruth and Naomi would have rarely risen “to the higher themes of pedagogics and psychology, so familiar in the clubs of American women” (p. 40 vol2). What a snob… Racism Stanton’s criticism of Jews reads like anti-semitism today, and I’m obviously not going to endorse that. For example she says that Deborah “seems to have had too much independence of character, wisdom and self-reliance to have ever filled the role of the Jewish idea of a wife” instead of seeing that perhaps there wasn’t just one idea of a Jewish wife either in the bible or in contemporary practice. That The Woman’s Bible is called The Woman’s Bible rather than The Women’s bible is also problematic, as it can be read as Stanton’s bible claiming to “speak for an essential universal woman” who just happens to be “white, middle class, educated and American.” Conclusion In summary, the best way to go about ruining your reputation is to have the courage to offend a majority of people—on the left, in the centre and on the right side of politics. You may be vindicated posthumously, but will that be enough? 21 The Woman’s Bible The Revising Committee Elizabeth Cady Stanton Rev. Phebe A Hanaford Clara Bewick Colby Rev. August Chapin Ursula N. Gestefeld Mary Seymour Howell Josephine K. Henry Mrs Robert G. Ingersoll Sarah A Underwood Ellen Battelle Dietrick Lillie Devereux Blake Matilda Joslyn Gage Rev. Olympia Brown Frances Ellen Burr Clara B Neyman Helen H. Gardener Charlotte Beebe Wilbour Lucinda B. Chandler Catharine F. Stebbins Louisa Southworth Baroness Alexandra Gripenberg, Finland Ursula M. Bright, England Irma Von Troll-Borostyanai, Austria Priscilla Bright McLaren, Scotland Isabelle Bogelot, France Christian Science/Mind Cure/New Thought Universalist (now affiliated with Unitarians) Freethinkers/Theosophy Feminist writer Volume 1: The Pentateuch (published 1895) Genesis 1: 26, 27, 28 2: 21-25 3: 1-24 4: 1-12, 19, 23 5: 1-2 6: 1-8, 14-22 21: 1-3, 5-6, 9-21 21: 1-1-9, 14-16, 19-20 24: 37-40, 42-47, 49-51, 53, 56-59, 61, 63-67 25: 1-2, 5-10, 21, 24, 27-34 26: 6-7, 9, 11, 34-35 29: 1-6, 9-15, 18-21 29-31: 18-23, 26-28; 25-26; Creation Creation of Eve Banishment Cain & Abel, Lamech’s wives Adah & Zillah Generations of Adam Noah Sarah - Birth of Isaac, banishment of Hagar Death of Sarah Isaac marries Rebekah Abraham marries Keturah and has more children, gifts everything to Isaac, dies. Jacob sells birthright Isaac says his wife is his sister, Esau marries Judith & Bashemath Jacob falls in love with Rachel Laban reneges on his deal 22 ECS, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS, Clara Bewick Colby ECS ECS, Clara Bewick Colby, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS ECS, Clara Bewick Colby, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS, Clara Bewick Colby ECS ECS, Clara Bewick Colby ECS, Clara Bewick Colby ECS 17-17-20, 22-23 35: 8-10, 16-20 36: 18 39:1-2, 4, 7-10, 13-22 41: 45-46, 50-52 with Jacob, Jacob has 2 wives, leaves Laban Rebekah’s nurse Deborah dies, Rachel dies Sons of Aholibamah, Esau’s wife, daughter of Anah Potiphar’s wife has Joseph punished Joseph marries Asenath ECS ECS ECS ECS, Lillie Devereux Blake Exodus 1: 1—5, 15-22 2: 1-10, 15-22 3: 19-22 4: 18-26 12: 12, 18, 43-48 18: 1-8 19: 12-14, 16 15: 20-21 16: 23, 29-30 16: 15 32: 1-7 34: 12-26 36: 22-23, 25-26 38: 8 22: 21-24 King of Egypt orders death of Hebrew baby boys, Hebrew midwives refuse Birth, fleeing and marriage of Moses to Zipporah The Lord to smite the Egyptians and the Hebrew women to take the jewels of silver and gold Moses talks about returning to Egypt, Zipporah circumcises her son Passover Moses returns to Jethro Sanctification includes separation from wives Miriam sings Inauguration of Sabbath Work on the Sabbath & die Golden calf Covenant with Yhwh Offerings to Yhwh Women at door of tabernacle Don’t oppress strangers, widows or orphans ECS Offering of goat for sin Eating of offering Ceremonial cleansing Instructions: treatment of parents, spouse of siblings, mediums Restrictions on priests’ daughters Blaspheming son Ten women to bake in 1 oven ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS Lillie Devereux Blake Leviticus 4, 6: 22-23, 27-28; 14-15. 18 10: 12-14 14: 3, 20-22 20: 9, 21, 27 22: 12-13 24: 10-11 26: 26, 29 23 ECS ECS ECS, Lillie Devereux Blake Numbers 1: 1-2, 32 5: 1-3, 11-12, 14-15, 17-21, 24-28 12: 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 15 20: 1 6: 1-2, 5 25: 6-8, 14-15 27: 1-11 18: 11, 19 22: 21-34 30: 1-9. 13-16 31: 9-10, 12, 14-18, 25-26, 31-35 36: 1-8, 10-11 Numbering the people Expulsion of lepers, penalty for adultery Miriam & Aaron gang up on Moses Miriam dies Nazarites to grow hair Death of Zimri & Cozbi Property rights for daughters of Zelophebad Holy offerings Balaam Commandments War on Midianites Property rights ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS, Louisa Southworth ECS, Phebe Hanaford ECS ECS ECS, Phebe Hanaford ECS, Phebe Hanaford, Lillie Devereux Blake ECS, Phebe Hanaford Deuteronomy 3: 6-8, 10 5: 6: 16-21; 2 4: 5-8 7: 1-8 10: 18-19 12: 18-19 13: 6-9 16: 11, 14 -16 17: 1-5 18: 9-12 20: 21 14; 10-17 24: 1-5 25: 5-9 28: 56, 64, 68 Victory Commandments Observance of statutes No inter-racial marriage Do right by orphans, widows, foreigners Burnt offerings Kill those who worship other gods Celebrate Passover Stone the sinners Don’t adopt foreign practices Women & children prizes of war Divorce Marriage of dead man’s wife Penalties for disobedience ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS, Phebe Hanaford Final commentary on the Pentateuch: Ursula N. Gestefeld Appendix: Information about Julia Smith’s translation of the bible, now called the Julia E. Smith Parker Translation, considered the first complete translation of the bible into English by a woman, The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments; Translated Literally from the Original Tongues, published 1876 when she was 84 years of age, 21 years after she had completed the translation. 24 Volume II: From Joshua to Revelation (published 1898) Joshua 2: 1-5 10: 11-14 15: 16-19 Rahab Joshua’s magic Achsah ECS ECS ECS Death of Joshua Deborah Jael Deborah Abimelech Jephthah’s daughter Wife of Manoah Samson ECS, Clara B Neyman ECS ECS Clara B Neyman ECS ECS, Louisa Southworth ECS, Lucinda Chandler ECS, Clara B Neyman, Phebe Hanaford Naomi, Ruth Ruth meets Boaz Redeem of land and woman ECS ECS ECS Hannah and Peninnah Samual, Hannah’s other children Women celebrate David Saul offers Merab, David marries Michal Abigail ECS ECS David’s sons & their mothers Michal Michael Story of the rich and poor ECS ECS ECS ECS Bathsheba Matilda Joslyn Gage David dying Solomon & the women Bathsheba Abishag the Sunammite Queen of Sheba Solomon’s many women Widow of Zarephath Jezebel Matilda Joslyn Gage Matilda Joslyn Gage Matilda Joslyn Gage Matilda Joslyn Gage ECS ECS ECS ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick Judges 1: 19; 2:6-8 4: 4-10 4: 18-22 5: 1-7 8: 30, 31; 52-54 11: 30-37 13: 2-13 14: 1-3 Ruth 1: 1-8, 1, 14-16, 19-22 2: 1-2, 4, 7-8, 19 4: 1-6 1 Samuel 1: 1-8, 10-11, 17, 26-28 2: 11, 18-21 18: 6-8 18: 17-22, 24, 28 25: 2-6, 8, 11-14, 18, 23, 25, 32, 35, 38-39, 42 ECS ECS ECS 2 Samuel 3: 2-5 3:14-16, 20-21 6: 2-4, 6-7, 9, 14-17, 26-27 12: 1-7, 9-10 1 Kings 1:11, 15, 17-18, 22, 21, 2834 2: 1-2 3: 16-22, 24-28 2: 19-21 2: 22-24 10: 1-7, 9-10, 13 11: 1-4 17: 8-10, 12-24 21: 1-15 25 2 Kings 4: 1-7 4: 8-12, 17-21, 24-25, 32-37 5: 1-4 8: 1-6 11: 1-3, 12-14, 20-21 22: 11-20 Widows’s appeal to Elisha Elisha & the Shunammite woman Naaman’s wife’s servant Shunammite woman Athaliah, Jehoseba, Huldah ECS ECS Vashti Esther ECS, Lucinda Chandler ECS, Lucinda Chandler Job’s woes & restoration ECS King’s daughters ECS Foolish woman vs wise woman ECS Worthlessness of life’s work No wise women ECS ECS Wealth women of Zion ECS Belshazzar’s queen identifies Daniel ECS Complaints about disrespectful treatment ECS Inter-racial marriage ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS Esther 1: 2-7, 9-13, 15-22 2: 1-5, 7-8, 11, 17-18 Job 1: 1-4, 6-12, 14-20; 2: 9-10; 42:11-13, 15-17 Psalms 45:9-15 Proverbs 9:13; 11:16; 14:25, 19:14; 21:9, 19; 27:15; 30:21-23; 31:10-13, 16, 20-24, 26, 2830 Ecclesiastes 2:1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13-14 7:26, 28-29 Isaiah 3:16, 18-23 Daniel 5: 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 26-29, 20 Micah 2:9; 7:6 Malachi 2:11, 14-15 Kabbalah : Frances Ellen Burr 26 The New Testament Introduction: ECS, Anon Matthew 1:16-17 2: 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 19-20 4: 18-25; 14: 2-12 20: 20-21 22: 23-30 25:1-12 26:6-13; 27: 19, 24-25, 5556, 61 28: 1-5, 7-10 Jesus’ linage Jewish leader prophesied Jesus’ fame, daughter of Herodias Mother of Zebedee No marriage in the resurrection Wise and foolish virgins Consecration by a woman, women at the crucifixion Marys discovery empty tomb & Jesus alive ECS ECS ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick Who is my mother? Marriage & divorce Poor widow ECS ECS ECS Elisabeth Anna Child Jesus in the temple Woman with infirmity Parable of widow ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick Water into wine Samaritan woman Samaritan woman Adulterous woman Sin didn’t cause blindness Lazarus ECS, Anon ECS, Anon ECS, Anon ECS, Anon ECS, Anon ECS, Anon Empty tomb ECS, Anon Ananias and Sapphira Tabitha Peter’s release from prison Lydia Priscilla and Acquilla Women prophets Felix & Drusilla ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS, Ellen Battelle Dietrick ECS ECS ECS ECS ECS Mark 3:31-35 10: 2-9 12: 41-44 Luke 1:5-8, 11-15 2: 36-37 2: 41-51 13: 11-17 18: 2-7 John 2: 1-5, 1-10 4: 5-10, 27 4:16-19, 28-29, 39-41 8: 2-11 9:1-3 11: 1-3, 5-6, 17, 20-25, 2829, 32, 35-36, 41, 43-44 20: 1-18 Acts 5: 1-10 9: 36-41 12: 12-17 16: 14-23 18: 1-3, 18, 24-26 21: 8-9 24: 24-25 27 Romans 16:-1-4, 6, 12-13, 15 Women included in greetings Ellen Battelle Dietrick Marriage Heading covering Women to keep silent ECS, Anon ECS, Louisa Southworth ECS Husband is head of wife ECS Women to be submissive and modest Behaviour of bishops Treatment of widows ECS, Lucinda Chandler Lois and Eunice Lucinda Chandler Behaviour of wives & husbands ECS Love one another ECS John as witness Jezebel Woman clothed with the sun Babylon the Great Matilda Joslyn Gage ECS Matilda Joslyn Gage ECS 1 Corinthians 7: 2-3, 10-14, 16 11: 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15 14: 34-35 Ephesians 5: 22-25, 28, 31, 33 1 Timothy 2: 9-14 3: 2-5, 8, 11-12 5: 3-6, 8-16 Lucinda Chandler Lucinda Chandler 2 Timothy 1: 2, 5 1 Peter 3: 1, 3, 7 2 John 1: 1, 5,-6, 12 Revelation 1: 1-4 2: 18-23 12: 1-6, 13 17: 3-5, 18 Appendix Letters in response to questions: 1. Have the teachings of the Bible advanced or retarded the emancipation of women? 2. Have they dignified or degraded the Mothers of the Race? Phebe Hanaford Antoinette Brown Blackwell Ursula Gestefeld Ursula Bright Ednah Cheney Sarah Underwood Irma von Troll-Borostyani Elizabeth Blackwell Josephine Henry M. A. Livermore Frances Willard E. M. Josephine Henry Matilda Joslyn Gage Anon Catharine Stebbins Alice Stone Blackwell Sarah Perkins Eva Ingersoll Elizabeth Cady Stanton 28 29