I’ve been following the discussion of women bibliobloggers with great interest, but have also been hesitant to jump into the fray, largely because of being in two minds about the matter. (Please note that, should my contribution to the discussion be deemed anything other than a wise and insightful perspective that brings clarity and resolution, it is because I’ve come down with the flu (not sure yet which strain) and that has impaired my blogging ability and presumably also my judgment, leading me to foolishly rush in where angels and even some women fear to tread).
My dilemma is that I want to say both that it shouldn’t matter whether one is male or female when it comes to one’s scholarship or one’s blogging, and at the same time that being a successful scholar shouldn’t necessarily mean that men and women engaged in scholarship must be doing the same things in the same ways. While there have been debates about how much women have contributed to the phenomenon of biblioblogging, and whether they are equally represented, and if not, why not, it also ought to be asked whether refraining from blogging or spending less time blogging than some men do might not be an indication of wisdom rather than underrepresentation or a failure to get involved in the latest new trend.
On a related note, although some have begun to wonder whether conferences can be replaced by blogging and other virtual interactions, and at least to some extent they probably can, it is also appropriate to ask whether the loss of face-to-face contact and interaction altogether would not in fact be unwise.
Biologically speaking, women are probably (unless certain sci-fi scenarios come true) always going to have a role in bearing children that men never can. There certainly still are male faculty who will look at a gap in someone’s CV and not consider time spent in either giving birth to children or raising children as a “legitimate excuse” for years not spent teaching and publishing. This is unfortunate, but I suppose ultimately it is up to us to decide for ourselves what we will consider to have been a successful life. Some consider publishing the most articles and books and becoming a top name in one’s field the most important thing, and make sacrifices in order to accomplish it. Even though I’m of the gender that cannot actually bear children, I decided early on that I would rather publish less frequently, have a job at a university that is not one of the top tier “research one” institutions, and spend more time with my family. I don’t think that this means I should be excused from not publishing if I were to apply for a job at a top level research institution. But I do think it was, for me personally, a wise and rewarding choice regarding my career path. And ultimately I think there is ample evidence that, even if the quantity of one’s output may be less depending on how one chooses to use one’s time and energies, high quality contributions to scholarship have come from both men and women, high-powered book-a-year scholars and “one hit wonders”.
And so I find myself wanting to applaud women who have proven beyond any doubt that they can be high-powered scholars equal to any man who might attempt to compete with them, and yet also wanting to applaud men and women who make different choices, publish less, and spend time with their families. And I’m not sure exactly how to navigate those waters, nor exactly how much some historic gender inequities at universities have been addressed and how much still remains to be done.
And so, at any rate, let me give a list of scholars whom I appreciate and who are without equal in their contribution to their field in many ways, whether one is asking specifically about women’s contributions or simply scholarly excellence irrespective of gender. Since there are large numbers of posts relating to New Testament, I’m going to offer a number of individuals whose contributions transcends the canon just as it transcends gender. I’ll leave addressing the question of canon’s role in restricting women’s contributions for others to address, but I will say this: the Bible, ultimately, is a collection of writings, and the church has down the ages done with it as it wills, even while claiming that the opposite was true (i.e. that they were simply doing “what the Bible says”). When the church or some part of it has wished to reject slavery, it has found ways of justifying that or at least reconciling that with the Bible. When it has wished to defend it, it has likewise found ways of doing so. And so, while there are still some who pretend to simply be submitting to the Bible, the truth is that there are in fact only people who are using the Bible, and doing so in different ways. And so to the extent that there are still people using the Bible as a pseudo-justification for denigrating or restricting women, I think the only solution is to continue to improve the prevailing culture’s view of women, and then wait for conservative Christians to catch up. They usually do so eventually, and then denigrate their forefathers (not foremothers) in the faith for being so foolish to think that Scripture justified slavery, or the oppression of women, or discriminating against homosexuals, or whatever happens to be next.
As an aside, here’s a “result” from a “creation science fair” that a student blogged about, which illustrates nicely how science is utilized no less than scripture in an attempt to justify certain views of gender, or creation, or whatever else.
OK, here’s that list of female scholars I mentioned:
Frances Young: Although her contributions to the study of the New Testament and the early Patristic period and the “myth of God incarnate” discussion all stand alone and need no defense of their excellence, my own particular debt of gratitude to Young relates to the “a-ha” moment that is in many ways ultimately responsible for both my scholarly books. It was Frances Young’s paper at a conference in Leuven that was the defining moment for me in my research on monotheism and Christology. She has also had a remarkable and challenging experience as a mother.
Elisabeth S. Drower: The most significant contribution to English-language scholarship on the Mandaeans, and arguably the Mandaeans period, was made by the wife of a British ambassador to Iraq. She got to know the Mandaean community, obtained the manuscripts that are now the Drower Collection in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the only collection of Mandaean manuscripts of its kind in the world, helped produce the first Mandaic-English dictionary, translated a number of Mandaean texts into English, and wrote books about the Mandaeans and their customs, rituals, beliefs, and literature. No one, male or female, has done more for our understanding of the Mandaeans.
Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley: One of the relatively few people working in Mandaean studies in the present, Buckley recently published the only book on the scribal colophons on Mandaean manuscripts, relatively neglected evidence regarding not just the history of the Mandaeans but also enabling us to trace them back to perhaps as early as the third or fourth century.
Elaine Pagels: Pagels’ contribution is likewise one that “needs no introduction”, but it is worth emphasizing that Pagels did more than simply increase our knowledge about the ancient phenomenon known as Gnosticism. She also enabled us to understand what made Gnosticism appealing as another way of being Christian than developing proto-orthodoxy. And of course, Pagels faced tragedy as a parent alongside her scholarly life and contribution, and the two are not at all completely separate, independent realities.
April DeConick: In addition to clarifying the meaning of the Gospel of Judas and exploring connections between the original Gospel of Thomas, the Pseudo-Clementine literature and the Gospel of John, as well as Jewish and Christian mysticism, April kindly took time at last year’s bibliobloggers’ dinner to listen to a New Testament scholar who was taking his first steps into the study of the Mandaeans, and provide feedback and conversation with allowed him to feel that his ideas were not simply idiotic ones that someone more firmly rooted in the study of Gnosticism might have recognized as worthless. Thanks April!
Please do leave comments and discuss this. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my flu…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In