Interesting: 'Woman's Bible'

I was looking at the background to Women's Bible Commentary (in Logos), which back-ref'd to Woman's Bible (late 1800s).

For the guys, and especially the more conservative, there will be a goodly amount of dissonance (understated).

But for the more curious, it's an interesting commentary (not Bible) that pokes at translations, vs original language readings (english only).

I didn't get far, before I had managed to query where the latin readings came from, vs the LXX and targums (aramaic) in Genesis.

It'd be nice in Logos (not unlike Jefferson Bible), but absent that, interesting discussion.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00847UOKC/ (even has a decent TOC)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Christian Alexander

I was looking at the background to Women's Bible Commentary (in Logos), which back-ref'd to Woman's Bible (late 1800s).

Which one did you view? Reference Women's Bible Commentary. I have the 2nd and 3rd edition in my Logos I only see the 3rd in the storefront. The Bible is a living word that speaks to all of us, and that scholarship by womanist and feminist scholars deserves to be heard loud and clear, this is great. These are unquestionably some of the top researchers working today. They are not only historically and theologically correct, but their reactions to these texts reflect their richness in imaginative and practical ways. This book gives another logical perspective to see the Bible.

It'd be nice in Logos

Agree.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306604#Comment_1306604

This book gives another logical perspective to see the Bible.

My Logos has the 3rd, but my hardback is late 1990s.

I've never been too impressed with church doctinal overlays of writings from thousands of years ago. A careful study of Marcion illustrates its 'modern' beginnings among the churchmen. But Womens Bible describes a time when Biblical criticism was newly in full display, along with new archaeological digs. A time of 'prove it'.

So far, I've had to track down why the odd late entrance of plural pronouns in Gen 1. And why so little discussion of evil/snake/adversary preceding Adam/Eve, since it re-appears again in Luke's theology. Interesting reading.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306614#Comment_1306614

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/224159.aspx Check out this book here as it compares to your feminist perspective. Here are some good articles on evil and Adam and Eve in Luke

Ortlund, Gavin. "Image of Adam, son of God: Genesis 5: 3 and Luke 3: 38 in intercanonical dialogue." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 4 (2014): 673-88.

González, Justo L. The story Luke tells: Luke's unique witness to the gospel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015.

Byrne, Brendan. "Jesus as messiah in the Gospel of Luke: Discerning a pattern of correction." The catholic biblical quarterly 65, no. 1 (2003): 80-95.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306635#Comment_1306635

I apprciate your suggestions. Though regarding the snake/evil, vs Luke's bookending satan, the discussion largely shows up in 2nd Temple writings, followed by NT apocrypha, especially syriac.

Beware labels ... people love to assign them. Nowhere did I advocate a gender-based perspective.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306641#Comment_1306641

Sorry for the labeling. I will keep my eye out for resources that fit your study. Can you elaborate more of your research?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306892#Comment_1306892

This is more a bunny trail, that turned into a rabbit trail! I'm completely blank on the exact environment that surrounded Woman's Bible (WB). Some statements (about the text) are similar to modern popular books on the Bible (not well supported). Others, I need to look at the hebrew, and potentially, akkadian to see maybe yes/no (always maybe, for early text).

Years back, Logos shipped Julia Smith's translations (she did 3 hebrew, 2 greek (LXX and NT), and a latin). As I check WB, I thought I recognized Smith's translations. And indeed, it turns out, the appendix describes using Smith, and her biography. I personally like YLT (he knew her and her work) and the Smith translation. She's excruciatingly literal (YLT calmed his down). Metzger, in his discussion of translations, sort of blanched at the Smith choices, including a singular choice! Curiously, a lot of choices matched Tyndale, much earlier (Smith worked alone).

All this, to say, WB was working in a fairly scholarly environment at the time (arguments on the OL). And so, it's an interesting trail.