"THE WOMAN'S BIBLE."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10571, 18 January 1896, Page 2

"THE WOMAN'S BIBLE."

(Fnost Our Owk Coar.ESPONDEST.) • San Francisco, December 13.

The first portion of Elizabeth Cidy Sta'nfcon'a " Woman's Bible," and which consists of selections from and commentaries upon the first five books, has been published. A pernsal of this woik will cause ninny who hava hitherto followed tho " New Woman " iii all her innocent artfulnesses to pause. The main support to the female suffrage movement, the emancipation' of (.ho sex, and the improvement of the relations of the sexes has came from the aiea aud women of the church, especially th'ifc portion of the church embraced under the hea-.l of Nonconformity, and if it were possible to take uwuy the numbers aud influence of this body the csuse of woman in this direction would suffer enormously. It ia possible the pubiicstiou of Mrs Stanton'a "Woman's Bible "• may effect thia cliange, as the hook, in brief, is a rehash, from a female suffrage standpoint, of all the objections levied against it from Spinoza to Ingersoll. Not to take up space with my'own opinions, I submit a few extracts which will give a fiir idea of the general tenor of the work. Iv her introduction Mrs Stsnton speaks as follows :—

"The Bible teache3 that woman brought sin and death into the'world ; ttut'she precipitated the fall of the raoe ; thab she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven—tried, condemned, and seatenced. Marriage tor her was-to be a condition of bondage ; nritarnifcy a psriod of'suffsring and anguish ; and in silence and subjection sho wan to play the rdle of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants; aud for all the information she might desire on the vitnl questions of tbo hour she was commanded to atk her huabund at home. Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."

From this she ehowa how woman became degraded, and how every act gf Injustice, of the exercisis of might over right, was defended by the cleric* from their standpoint of .exponents of B.blical teaching, aud whei), in the early -part of the mnettenth century, women begin to prates* against .their, civil jtnd political degradation, thoy were referred to tue Bible for an answer. 'I h?u follows the e-nphatio statement :—

" The only points iv which I differ from all eccletinstioal teaching is that T. do not believe Ihst any roan ever caw or talked with God; I do not beliuve that God inspired (he Mosaic code, or told tbe historians what they say he did about tvoniiiu, for aU the religions on the face of the earth degrade her, ami fo long as woman accepts tbe position tha'; they nfsigu her, her emancipation ii impossible. Whatever the Bible inuy be made to do in Hebrew cr Greek, in plain English it does not exalt •and dignify woman. My sttnduoint for criticism is the revised edition of 1889,, I will so far honour the revising committee of nine men, who have given us the bast exigeM* they can, according tp their ability, alt'tiou^h Disraeli said thia last one container! 150,000 blunders iv the Hebrew and 7000 in the Greek."

Starting with those ideas, it is comparatively easy to infer the nature of the criticisms upon the book itself. Mrs Liliie Devereux Blake comments upon the lirst chapter of Ganesis as

under : —

•"Thera is something sublime in bringing otd;r out of chajs, light out of darkness, giving each planet its piacu in the solar system, oceans' aud lands their Hants, wholly inconsistent with a pretty surgical operation to find m'atstiaJ for the inothsr of the race. It is on this allegory that all tiie enemies of women rest their battering raras to prove their inferiority. Accepting the visw that man was prior in creation, so ma Scriptural writers say that woman was of the man, therefore her position should bo one of subjection. Grant it, then as the historical fact is reversed in our day, and the man is now of the woman, shall his place be one of subjection ? " It is evident that tome wily writer, seeing tho perfect equality of man and woman in tho iirst chapter, felt it important for the dignity and dominion of man to effect woman's suboiclinaliion in some way. To do tMs a spirit1 of evil inut.t be introduced, which at onca proved it-elf stronger than the spirit of good, and mar.1* supivmr.ey wss bused on the downfall of all thai; hud jast been pronounced very good. Tni'J s.uicit or evil evidently existed before the supposed fall of man, hence woman was not tie origin of sin as so often asserted." These ladieti deny Genesis was written by Mooes,.refer to its composite c'aaractee, ridicule the " serpent and apple tableaux," and assert the "curse" wan merely introduced by mm to justify their brutality to women. Nor do they believe Godtver did or eaid tha extraordinary things ascribed to him by the Jews. In brief, the whole comments and tenor of the work are undoubtedly anti-orthodox, and therefore calculated, to offend the susceptibilities of the many friends of the " New Woman," whose faith is based upon the infallibility of the Bible. This has been ssen from the moment of the book's publication by earnest supporters of ths female movement. Mis E. B. Grannis, one of the lenders, nays: —" The ' Woman's Bible' will bo a decided detriment to the cause of woman suffrage. The best women everywhere are evangelical Christiaue, and these-will baled to believe that the leaders of women suffrage are what is termed ' freethinkers.' 1 have been 'convinced always thnttho ' New Woman' has been introduced to the church and the world by cq less a personage thnn the Lord Jesue Cbrist. The Gospel gives entire freedom to woman. We want no new Bible. I think it utterly propoßterons that ,a committee of women should presume to give us a woman's Bible. It is wholly incomprehensible. Among the members of this committee, of which Mrs Staaton is chairman, there is probably not one Hebrew or Greek scholar. I don't believe there are six thorough Hebrew scholars among all the women in this country. I feel that the Christian women of America are the heart and brain and sinew of our nation,"

Dr Talmage fays :—" While tho intention of the good women is no doubt right, I can see no reason for a. woman's Bible. No book on earth does auch justice to women as the Bible as we now have it. You might as well publish a man's Bible, or a child's Bible, or a lawyer* Bible, or a shoemaker's Bible. I know the idea is industriously disseminated that in the Bible all the w»y tkroueh is the dcstadition of women. 1* '

| * Dr Joseph H. Rylance.says:WThe very title is ridiculous, Translating reßolves itself I .into, a question of scholarship, and is vitiated i jost'as suon as the translator Beaks to bolster up a pet theory. His a fault common to all sectarians. They want to prove what they have at heart. This work is oalled the ' Woman's Bible.' It is really an attack upon the Bible. The name is a mere cloak for a moat bitter attack upon Christian scholars, provided they deem it worth their while to notice. I do not wish to say anything to disparage their efforts. They nr'a cultured; scholarly, strongminded, statesmanlike women, but I h»ve small hopes for present enterprise. It is, how. ever, quite likely that many women, who ■ swear by the names of some of the projectors ..of. this work,, will abjure , Christianity.,,on. aocount of it. But I doubt whether this tendency will be far-reaching or durable. There i bave bean other more potent elements at work in opposition to Christianity, and if it had been destined to bo de3koyed it -would long ago hava i ceased to exist." - -..■•'■ • . | And tha like ;riticisms come from Jew and I Gsntile, man and woman. However, the book is there, or here, and aa a fruitful source of i future controversy, and a distinct revolt on the part of many gifted women frpm the teachings of the Bible as interpreted through the church, i it marks an epoch. <■'■'.