- audition monologues
- teaching resources
Thus Saith Eve
a collection of monologues, each written from the point of view of one of the women in The Bible as if she had a contemporary feminist consciousness
feminist/atheist critique of the Bible (and, often, religion in general)
fresh, new (original) audition monologues
free preview at Smashwords
available in print as part of Satellites Out of Orbit
Both āI am Eveā and āI am Mary, mother of Godā have been done as audio collage pieces.Ā (āI am Maryā is titled āAve Mariaā.)
“Elizabeth Cady Stanton (The Woman’s Bible) would be proud!”Ā Peg Tittle
“Short, but definitely entertaining … and serious between the lines.”
5/5 Lee Harmon, A Dubious Disciple Book Review
Cain’s wife ā¦16
Noah’s wife ā¦17
the certain woman ā¦23
The Queen of Sheba ā¦31
Mary, mother of God ā¦38
Mary, of Bethany ā¦43
Mary Magdalen ā¦47
I am Eve
the bad girl, the evil woman.
I stand accused, and sentenced. Without a trial. For life.
Because of my single action, millions of individuals have been born with āoriginal sinā, have been guilty even before they acted, doomed before they started. I alone have been held responsible for this sad and pathetic fallen race. Therefore, let me begin by correcting this: if I were free not to fall in the first place, they were free not to fall after me; and if I were not free, then I canāt be held responsibleāfor my fall or theirs.
Now, let us further examine the charges, let us correctly define that action.
I have been condemned for choosing knowledge over ignorance: the fruit I ate came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In a society that praises pursuit of knowledge and honours men of wisdom, why have I been viewed with disfavour? Had Adam reached out first, would he have been so rebuked? Or is the state of ignorance requisite for women only? (Histories pass on Socrates, they pass over Aspasia.)
In the same vein, I chose experience over innocence. In a context of attitudes that value experience, the disapproval of my action can only imply the desire that women, like children, live in a state of innocence.
I have also been condemned for disobedience. If that were the issue, then why wasnāt the tree so namedāāthe tree of obedience and disobedienceā or āthe tree of temptationā. By naming it what it was not, God either deliberately tempted me or deliberately deceived me. And he should be judged, not I.
Perhaps though, the tree really was a tree of knowledge. In that case, one should wonder what insecurities led God to prefer obedience over knowledge. Indeed, one should wonder why he went so far as to forbid knowledge. The reason is evident in Genesis (3:22-23): he didnāt want us to equal him. He sent us out of Eden to prevent our eating from the tree of life, because already we were as wise for having eaten from the tree of knowledge, and if we had made it to the tree of life before he found us, we wouldāve been immortal as wellāwe wouldāve been as godly.
And that takes me onward, for counted among my sins is that of pride. Considering that later, through his son, God commands us to āfollow in his footstepsā, I find the label of pride odd for the action that would do just thatāmake me like God. Furthermore, I find it odd to be condemned for being like God when, after all, he created us in his image (Gen 1:26-27). And God certainly is proud: to create us in his image can be called narcissistic, and to prefer us to spend our time admiring him rather than learning about him is equally evidence of pride. (As an aside, I would think that my knowledge would increase my admiration; that wasnāt why I ate the fruit, but if it was, would it have mattered? Did God ever ask my intent?)
I have also been charged with a lack of faith. Yet I took it on faith in the first place that God told us not to eat from the tree: remember, he gave the command to Adam before I even existed (Gen 2:16-17). Further, I had faith in the serpent, I trusted the serpent to be telling the truth. Is it dishonourable to trust?
And is it reprehensible to act on that trust, as I did then in offering the fruit to another, to Adam? God commanded innocence, then held me responsible for an act of innocent intent. For how could I know my faith was misplaced? How could I know the serpent was evil until I had knowledge of good and evil? By telling us not to eat of the tree, he insisted on ignoranceābut then held us responsible, for an act of ignorance.
Lastly, I have been condemned for using my reason, for it is through the exercise of reason that I decided to eat the fruit. The serpentās explanation of Godās motives, that the knowledge of good and evil would make us godly and he didnāt want us to equal him (Gen 3:5), seemed very reasonable to me. Godās command on the other hand, not even to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because then Iād die, seemed so very unreasonable. Where is the fault in using that faculty given to me by God? The fault is not mine, but Godās: he made reason guide our will and left our reason prey to deceit.
Or did he? History has it that the serpentās words were false, that I was deceived. But Godās words after the fact (Gen 3:22 āBehold, the man is become as one of usā) verify the serpentās prediction (Gen 3:5 āYe shall be as godsā): the serpent was telling the truth. And so I stand condemned, for listening to truth. And for offering that truth to others.
 Even though Adam was beside me through it all (Gen 3:6) and made not one objection. And, of course, also ate the fruit.
 I donāt rule out the possibility that the command therefore was meant only for AdamāGod knew that knowledge in the hands of men is a dangerous thing.
 And in fact God lied: he said we would die (Gen 3:3) if we touched the fruit of that tree, and we didnātāat least not for several hundred years.
Appendix entry for āI am Eveā