The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-03

Inc second part of the ''Woman's Bible"
is now ready for the public, and a high
~ entertaining, if not strictly edifying.
work 1T is. good many people have the
erroneous impre ssiOn that the authors and
editors of the Woman's Bible have revised
and amended the sacred text of the familiar
ana hitherto accepted version in a way to
make certain Objectionable passages con-
form to the modern and progressive wora
ans ideas of fitness and equality. AS a mat
ter of fact the King James text is not NJ
tered. The passages relating to woman are
merely quoted and commented on in the
breezy. free and easy, highly original man
ne- peculiar to the nineteenth century
dation of the world, has been a tyrant bent
on depriving women of their natural rights
and privileges. The book, in fact, should ne
called a commentary" rather than a
Bible" But, whatever its name, it is ex-
treme'y interesting as showing the work
ings of the new womans mind for skepti-
cal as one may have been as to the actual
existence of such a person as the new
woman her arrival is amply demon
strated by the character of the reflections
set forth in this volume. AT the very outset
scorn is cast upon the doctrine of the in
SEPARATION of the Scriptures, belief being ex-
pressed that the Sights visited therein
upon woman are due to the inherent mean
ness of the masculine disposition, rather
Though the injustice to woman is the
blacklist page i'll sacred history, the dis
tinguished biblical writer's take no note
of 1T whatever says the feminine com
mentator, Indignantly and ADDS Even
Hon. Andrew d. White, though he devotes
several pages of his work to the statue of
Lots Wife in salt, vouchsafes no criticism
on the position of Lots wife in the flesh
nor of Lots outrageous treatment of his
daughters. The wonder is that women
themselves should either believe that such
unholy proceedings We're inspired by God
or make fetch of the very book which
is responsible for their civil and social
degradation"
In speaking of the distinguished and
heroic virtues of Deborah the writer COM
plains that we never have sermons pointing
women TO her services as worthy of imita-
ton. Nothing is said in the pulpit she de-
clares, to rouse them from the apathy of
ages, to inspire them to do and dare great
things, to intellectual and spiritual achieve
ments, to real communion with the Great
Spirit of the universe. ooh, nor con-
tinues the commentary, ''the lessons
doled out to women from the canon
law, the Bible. the prayer books and the
catechisms are meeknesS and self-abnega-
ton; ever with covered heads Ga badge of
servitude) to do some humble service for
man; that they are unfit to sit as dele
gate in Methodist conference, to be or
dained to preach the gospel, or to fill the
office OF elder, of deacon or of trustee, or to
enter the Holy of Holes in cathedrals''
In the interest of truth the Journal is
obliged at this point to call attention to an
inaccuracy. In spite of the time-honored
domination of Paul and his injunctions and
the universal regard entertained for him
by the clergy, it has remained for an Indi-
ana pastor to lead his church, or, at least,
the male members of it, in revolt against
women's head coverings. Not only have
bonnets been preached against, but women
have actually been ordered by official edict
not to wear them in church. The painful
and embarrassing acknowledgment must be
made in this connection that the order was
issued solely in the interest of the men of
the church, who were disconnected by the
Haunting feathers and lofty trimmings of
the headgear, thus giving support to the
implication of the commentators that men
of to-day are as tyrannous lot as their
biblical forefathers were. On the other
band, it can be said for their encourage
ment and consolation that the Indiana
women thus commanded fatty refused to
obey their domineering brethren and
demonstrated their nineteenth century indie
pendence, if not their loyalty to Paul, by
calmly wearing their hats in church as be-
fore.
A particular grievance of the editors of
the Bible is the fact that woman is such
a minor quantity in Holy Writ that her
family name is seldom given, and some
times not even her first name, she being
known only as an appendage to some man.
as "Jephthah's daughter and the mother
of Zebedee's children" 1t is source OF ir-
IllGllOn u tHSSS CiAllCS u Tic pIOpLSlS anu
their times that nothing is known, for in
stance as to the ancestry OF Samson's
mother, who also belongs to the mo name
SERIES or of Delilah, though it would
seem that quite enough was known for all
useful purposes about this last-named per-
sonage. Even If Delilah had been set forth
in full as ''Delilah Smith, what would it
profit the women of to-day?
OF King David the commentators have
a poor opinion. in this respect differing
widely from the ordinary view, and even
from the estimate of such scholars as Pro-
fessor Moulton, who regards David as the
greatest character of all history. This
King of Israel is Dismissed with this brief
epitaph "Dayid's time and thoughts seem
to have been equally divided between the
study OF government and social ethics. and