merit of restricting itself to censorship of the present: there have not, so far as I know, been “inclusive language” versions of Homer or Virgil, Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Wordsworth. One can imagine the outrage in academe were such projects to be set in train. But there has been hardly a murmur from the academic community against the bowdlerisation of the Psalmist and the Evangelists by otherwise reputable Christian scholars, publishers, and institutions. The chapters which follow seek to show that this insensitivity to history is not restricted to language. It extends to include anachronistic and distorting conclusions in other areas. What the cult of “Inclusive language” has achieved in the realm of textual infidelity has, in these instances, simply been continued by other means.
19. Hampson, Theology and Feminisim, 8.
20. Vermes, Searching for the Real Jesus, 47–50.
21. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 396–97.
22. Bultmannm, Jesus and the Word, 8.
23. Ochshorn, Female Experience and the Divine, 170.
24. Hume, Essays and Treatises, vol. 2, 115–16.
25. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 8.
26. Ibid., 91.
27. Ibid., blurb.
28. Oddie, What Will Happen to God?
29. Cappon, Adams-Jefferson Letters, 323.
30. Lewis, “Priestesses in the Church?”
31. Farrer, Glass of Vision, 37–38, 42–43, 44.
32. Bartsch and Fuller, Kerygma and Myth, 222–23.
33. Sacred Congregation, Inter Insigniores, para. 2.
34. Baker, Consecrated Women, 14.
35. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 77
36. John and Charles Wesley (1758), adapted from John Cennick (1752), revised by Martin Madan (1760).
37. Cornwall, “Intersex & Ontology: A Response,” 15.
38. Norris, “Ordination of Women and the ‘Maleness,’” 71–85.
39. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall, 3,1:SCh 10,96; cf. Ad Magn, 6,1:SCh 10,82–84.
40. See Schoborn, God’s Human Face, 133.
41. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,22,4c.
42. Moore, Take a Bishop Like Me, 37.
43. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 62–63.
44. Jardine, Still Harping on Daughters, 1–2.
45. Sacred Congregation, Inter Insigniores, para. 2.
46. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 88.
47. Slee, “Parables and Women’s Experience,” 25–31.
48. Attributed to Diderot by Jean-François de La Harpe in Cours de Littérature Ancienne et Moderne, 1840. A similar saying appears in Diderot’s posthumous Poesies Diverses, 1875.
49. Clack, Misogyny in the Western.
50. Pagden, Enlightenment: Why it still Matters, 26.
51. Shouyi and Yang, Outline History of China, 38.
52. Goldberg, Inevitability of Patriarchy.
53. Quoted on the dust jacket of the book in question, and by Goldberg himself in an article, “Feminism Against Science,” in the Journal of AIMHS.
54. Baron-Cohen, Essential Difference: Men, Women.
55. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
56. Publisher’s blurb for Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
57. Lewis, Screwtape Letters, 97.
58. Norman, Church and Society in England, 262.
59. Flaubert, Sentimental Education, 303.
60. Morris, J., Against Nature and God.
2: What did Jesus Really Think about Women?
In Gospel research certainty is a very scarce commodity floating adrift in an ocean of probabilities.
—Geza Vermes
Jesus was neither a misogynist nor a feminist; his interests simply lay elsewhere.
—Judith Ochshorn
