"Let this word of the Lord, which was from the beginning, stop the mouths of all that oppose womens speaking in the power of the Lord; for he hath put enmity between the woman and the serpent; and if the seed of the woman speak not, the seed of the serpent speaks; for God hath put enmity between those two seeds, and it is manifest, that those that speak against the woman and her seeds speeking, speak out the enmity of the old serpents seed ..." (Fell, 753)
This specific reading sparked my interest in bible rhetoric more than it did feminist rhetoric, oddly enough. I can't help but look at the way Fell manipulates the text of the bible to suit her position - something we see over and over again in history as a method of conversion or persuasion; the two largest ones that come to mind are the way its used almost as a manfiesto against the civil rights movement, and most recently used by groups (who frequently only quote one line from the thousands of pages in the book) who oppose the LGBT equal rights movement - "a man shall not lie with another man, it is an abomination" or something to that extent, which I think is from Leviticus.
The manipulation of this single text that has passed through who knows how many hands is...well, slightly terrifying to me. Depending on what hands the book or the text is in, you can preach to the masses whatever you like, backing it up with bible passages and sounding completely justified. I think the way Fell does it is great, but when I look at the way the Westboro Baptist Church uses it for it's own agenda, I shiver. The scary side of rhetoric!
I had similar thoughts come up while I was reading the text. I already knew about the Bible passages which taught that women should hold their tongues in church and inquire to their husbands if they have any questions. So when I realized that Fell was going to try to somehow refute that, I thought it would be tough job, because the verses seem pretty clear and blatantly against women speaking. But, I agree with you. She did a really nice job flipping those verses on themselves and also finding new passages that do seem to validate women's rights in the church.
ReplyDeleteI love how you brought up the Westboro Baptist Church, and their use of Biblical rhetoric. And after reading Fell's text, I am confident that Bible verses could be found that would refute the single Biblical passage that has fueled anti-gay/lesbian advocates. It's no secret that the Bible is obscure, because their is constant conflict between dominations that argue for different interpretations of it.
I like how you refer to it as "The scary side of rhetoric!" It really is, and particularly dealing with Biblical rhetoric and devout followers of the Bible, the ways that Biblical text can be manipulated or twisted could lead to some pretty serious issues. The Westboro Baptist Church is just one example of this.
This whole theme is leading me back to my admiration of Quintilian. An eloquent man/woman who is void of virtue is a villain, not a rhetor. But an eloquent man/woman of virtue is a super hero and a rhetor. That's my own personal interpretation and metaphor.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say--Fell's piece struck me as more of a purposeful literary analysis of the bible than a rhetoric. Or at least, it lacks the "invention" side of things.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting themes to me that has come up again and again throughout are journey across the rhetorical ages is the definition of truth/Truth. In the past, when most of what we read was an attempt to qualify rhetoric and decree how it should be carried out, it seemed that each rhetor had his own definition of truth.
After reading this piece it becomes obvious that the meaning of Truth for Fell, and perhaps people of her time, is tied in intimately close with the word of the Bible and the supposed word of God. There is no search for the truth, no good man or good woman speaking well, rather, the only room for discovery of righteousness lies in narrow interpretations of the books in the bible.
I didn't find Fell's argument compelling at all.But I am not a god-fearing Christian, as few people are by the standards of her time. At her time, the evidence she offered in support of speech for women was probably viewed with same respect as if I offered up Newton's Second Law in support of a heavier car being capable of going faster.
It did seem that there was a lot of manipulation of the text happening, though I'm not incredibly familiar with the bible. This is nw type of rheoric I haven't considered before--the use of other people's words, rearranged and resituated so as to have an entirely different message suited to one's own purpose.