IN FOCUSnDivine PropagandanJohn Paul Pritchard: A LiterarynApproach to the NewnTestament; University of OklahomanPress; Norman, Oklahoma.nDr. Pritchard, a professor ofnEnghsh at the University of Oklahoma,nseeks to introduce andnilluminate the New Testamentnfor college students in a muchneedednwork, given the Biblicalnilliteracy of this generation. Hisnapproach is a curious mixture ofnreverent belief and negativenskepticism. Since he assumesnthat the Bible’s ghostwritersnwere seeking to persuade theirnreaders, Pritchard classifies thenapostolic recordas”propaganda.”nCalling the New Testamentn”propaganda” is hardly the waynto win the hearts of contemporarynstudents, but Pritchard setsnout to show how the Biblicalnauthors artistically used appealingnfacts to win audience sympathy.nNevertheless, they alsonstraightforwardly presented controversialnideas — for example,nthe idea of a plurality in the godheadnto an audience of monotheisticnJews. He stresses thenwriters’ accuracy yet insists theynwere not writing biography. Thenapproach he takes is safe fornsomeone in the shelter of academe.nBut it will not satisfy thenconservative Biblical scholarnwho trusts the historic garb innwhich the message, or gospel,nis enshrined. The very fact thatnthe writers were unafraid to raisenserious and controversial issuesnmakes one hesitant to acceptnPritchard’s carefully qualifiednascription of “propaganda” tonthe New Testament. S urely propagandistsngot their reputation byndistorting or concealing facts.nand when did they ever enjoy thenreputation of bringing “goodnnews”?nThe book’s informative comments,nhelpful as they may bento Biblically illiterate collegenstudents, are weakened by someneyebrow-raising misstatements.nThe earliest copies of the NewnTestament were not writtennWASTE OF MONEYn”more than a century later” thannthe autographs; the capital-letternmanuscripts are lettered ornnumbered besides beingn”named”; and textual criticismnis emphatically not carried onnby “intuitive insight.” Remarksnlike these weaken the confidencenof the theologically initiated despitenPritchard’s otherwise-usefulnremarks.nChristianity was a revolutionarynmovement, and part of itsnimpact depended on the totalncommitment of the originalnhearers. Today’s hearers acceptnwhat they like and criticize thenrest, and Pritchard is no exception.n(RWM) anOn Southern Feminine WilesnAnne Rivers Siddons: Fox’snEarth; Simon & Schuster; NewnYork.nby Lindy EllingwoodnWhat we have here is Taranrevisited, with Decade of Womennovertones. Fox’s Earth attemptsnto parallel Gone with thenWind but, while MargaretnMitchell paints a vivid historicalnmural, Anne Rivers Siddons essaysna new feminist statement,nmostly to the effect that the traditionalnsuppression of women isna matriarchal rather than a patriarchalnphenomenon.nThe Scarlett CHara in thisnnovel is Ruth Steed Yancey, whonuses her cunning and beauty tonremain for four generations mistressnof Fox’s Earth, a graciousnhome in Sparta, Georgia. Ruth’snactions, unlike Scarlett’s, arisennot from love for a man butnMiss Ellingwood is on the staffnof the Chronicles.nfrom madness. Scarlett fights tonkeep Tara for her family and becomesna prosperous businesswomannin the process. Ruth’sntransformation from ragged millnchild to velvet-gloved matriarchnof the Fox family and sharpestnlandowner in Sparta is inspirednby the ravings of her somewhatncrazy mother. Pearl.nPerhaps because Ruth andnher parents are insane, neithernRuth nor most of the other charactersnare developed convincingly.nWhile Ruth’s sweet exteriornnnconceals “a heart full of lashingnsnakes,” neither she nor hernfamily show more commonplacenemotions; they never laugh withnor even at each other. The undercurrentnof Ruth’s stultifying influencenon her children andngrandchildren is evident, butneven a madwoman’s influencenshould not, to our mind, accountnfor the absence of essential humanntraits in these women. Itndoes in Ms. Siddons’ work.nIn lieu of essential humanntraits, Ms. Siddons focuses onnthe sexual careers of her women.nPearl treats her young daughternRuth to some bathroom descriptionsnthat include Pearl’s view ofnsexual principles:nA woman is weak, a womanndon’t have nothing, a womannis a man’s toy and a man’snslave . . . but a woman hasnone thing that can git anythingna man has, if she usesnit right. And that’s what’snbetween her legs.nRuth follows this moral preceptnto the hilt, and duly bestows itnon her own female offspring—nand this is all Ms. Siddons’ novelnis about until Nell, one of Ruth’sngranddaughters, breaks out ofnthe symbolic cage of Fox’s Earth.nNell is a sort of symbol of thencurrent tension between “careernwoman” and “soft femininenthing.” As she becomes a respectednSouthern novelist innspite of her grandmother’s disapprobation,nshe breaks freenfrom both the land Ruth spentnher life acquiring and holdingnfor Nell and from that specialnfeminine docility Ruth cultivatednin her as the means tonkeep that land.nThus, throughout generations,nthe Fox women developnfrom outwardly submissivenmanipulators to productive andnamoral modern women. WhichnMs. Siddons believes is the validnhistory of womanhood innAmerica. DnXovcmbcr/Dcccmbcr 1981n
January 1975April 21, 2022By The Archive
Leave a Reply