Thank you, thank you, thank you

Thanks for calling attention to this, I had never seen this before...looks really interesting.

Blessings,

Philana

Praiser

Here's the link http://www.logos.com/product/16101/womens-bible-commentary

DMB

Thank you Tom!. I got it when it first came out and keep it next to Mom's Bible.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315697#Comment_315697

I wanted to say thanks for putting the Women's Bible Commentary on the pre-pub page. I have been wanting to read this commentary in Logos when I first started to use L3. I think this is one of the best single volume commentaries out there. Thanks Logos.

Does this commentary take a complementarian or egalitarian view?

tom

I wanted to say thanks for putting the Women's Bible Commentary on the pre-pub page. I have been wanting to read this commentary in Logos when I first started to use L3. I think this is one of the best single volume commentaries out there. Thanks Logos.

Does this commentary take a complementarian or egalitarian view?

Hi Joshua,

I am not sure how to answer your question because it sounds from the question that there can only be two views - complementarian or egalitarian. I am also having a hard time putting these two items together because complementarian is concerned with male & female roles while egalitarian holds that everyone is equal - it is not limited to a person's gender and his/her roles, but also a person's religion, a person's skin tone, a person's sexual orientation, a person's ... (fill in the blank).

I will say that most of the authors would hold a form of feminist theology.

I will also say that I do not always agree with the author, but the author will make me think. Thus, it is why I think it is one of the best commentaries there.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315675#Comment_315675

Here's the link http://www.logos.com/product/16101/womens-bible-commentary

It's rather disappointing that the product page doesn't show anything from the actual commentary section from the book, just a few pages of introduction. It's hard to evaluate the usefulness of a commentary, when you can't preview any commentary.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315842#Comment_315842

Sadly, Amazon doesn't do any better at providing a short section of actual commentary. Not sure that I totally expect Amazon to get this right as much as I do for Logos.

These are the kind of 'oversights' that incubate the critical speculation that these forums sometime become plagued by insinuating the possibility of nefarious motives on the part of Logos.

Maybe Logos needs to hire a 'damage control officer' (especially in a preventative role. I'm up for the task, but I don't know if I would rather live in WA or AZ (newest offices for Logos)...maybe I can fly back and forth like the executive team. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315868#Comment_315868

Sadly, Amazon doesn't do any better at providing a short section of actual commentary. Not sure that I totally expect Amazon to get this right as much as I do for Logos.

These are the kind of 'oversights' that incubate the critical speculation that these forums sometime become plagued by insinuating the possibility of nefarious motives on the part of Logos.

Maybe Logos needs to hire a 'damage control officer' (especially in a preventative role. I'm up for the task, but I don't know if I would rather live in WA or AZ (newest offices for Logos)...maybe I can fly back and forth like the executive team.

As with Amazon the publisher not the seller sets the limits on what can be viewed or downloaded as a sample.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315868#Comment_315868

Sadly, Amazon doesn't do any better at providing a short section of actual commentary.

I think you are mistaken because Amazon does provide a section of the actual commentary for one's perusal.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315879#Comment_315879

Ted sir,

I must be looking at the wrong thing then because I just went back and only found these sections (none of which seemed to include actual commentary):

Front Cover
Copyright information
Contents
Abbreviations
Contributors
Introduction
"When Women Interpret the Bible"
Supplementary Bibliography
Back Cover

Please help me to find the 'commentary' section.

Thank you...Michael

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315898#Comment_315898

Michael, here's a screen shot which shows the Surprise Me option and a Search Inside option.

Use either to take a look inside the commentary.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315904#Comment_315904

Very nice Mark. Thank you.

Guess this might take someone back to my next point I had made about motives.

If Logos won't/can't put this information on their site, maybe they can make life a lot easier for all of us and post the link to Amazon [:)]

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315898#Comment_315898

Ted sir,

I must be looking at the wrong thing then because I just went back and only found these sections (none of which seemed to include actual commentary):

Take a look.

Edit: I see Mark has responded to you while i was preparing to post. Thanks Mark.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315835#Comment_315835

I am also having a hard time putting these two items together because complementarian is concerned with male & female roles while egalitarian holds that everyone is equal - it is not limited to a person's gender and his/her roles, but also a person's religion, a person's skin tone, a person's sexual orientation, a person's ... (fill in the blank).

I will say that most of the authors would hold a form of feminist theology.

I will also say that I do not always agree with the author, but the author will make me think. Thus, it is why I think it is one of the best commentaries there.

Not all egalitarians hold to that...for some it is limited to gender roles and religion (example: http://blog.cbeinternational.org/ )

Blessings,

Philana

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315915#Comment_315915

Not all egalitarians hold to that...for some it is limited to gender roles and religion

Philana, this is the main problem with communications. So many words have the different meanings, and everyone assumes that everyone else understands words the same way that they do. This is why I did not answer Joshua's question.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316372#Comment_316372

Not all egalitarians hold to that...for some it is limited to gender roles and religion

Philana, this is the main problem with communications. So many words have the different meanings, and everyone assumes that everyone else understands words the same way that they do. This is why I did not answer Joshua's question.

Let me go about this a different way.

Would the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood agree with this commentary's conclusions?

Their statement of beliefs:

http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316429#Comment_316429

I understand Joshua, communications can get things mixed up. No they would not agree, but my point was that people often claim those who are egalitarians also support things like homosexuality...this is not the case. I think communication can confuse things. I do see your point. I think this commentary could be very good...I don't just read a commentary if I agree with it. Whether you are a complimentarian or an egalitarian you can learn something from this commentary.

Blessings,

Philana

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316444#Comment_316444

I understand Joshua, communications can get things mixed up. No they would not agree, but my point was that people often claim those who are egalitarians also support things like homosexuality...this is not the case. I think communication can confuse things. I do see your point. I think this commentary could be very good...I don't just read a commentary if I agree with it. Whether you are a complimentarian or an egalitarian you can learn something from this commentary.

Blessings,

Philana

I certainly don't buy only those resources that line up with my theological beliefs (though I do try to own those that do). I, too, understand the benefit of studying others arguments and positions. However, I still like to know which resources teach which theology.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316429#Comment_316429

Would the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood agree with this commentary's conclusions?

Conclusions? With the vast majority of them. I don't understand what you are trying to ask. This is a commentary representing a variety of authors with a variety of views commenting on a text (the Bible) in which there is a great deal of consensus where commentaries (not theological works) are concerned. Are there particular interpretations of particular passage that wouldn't make group X, Y, or Z happy? Of course, that is the nature of commentaries. Your question seems to be based on an assumption that a particular interpretation of a particular verse defines the commentary as a whole. If you look at the list of women scholars included, they run a broad gambit - the answer to your question, if there is one, would have to be answered author by author. They are all women, they are not all feminists. They are not all Christian. They are not all liberal . They are not all ... you get the picture.

Personally Mary Ann Tolbert, Renita Weems and Amy-Jill Levine are sufficient to convince me that this is a credible commentary.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316445#Comment_316445

However, I still like to know which resources teach which theology.

This is not a commentary written from a particular theological position. It is not even written from a single interpretative theory. That's why it is impossible to answer your question as asked. The meaning of complimentarian or egalitarian has unfortunately muddy the waters - your question has no answer.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316429#Comment_316429

Let me go about this a different way.

Would the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood agree with this commentary's conclusions?

Their statement of beliefs:

http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers

Short answer; a big NO! The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would definitely be opposed to the conclusions contained in this commentary. Hope this helps?

Jerry Fourroux

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316544#Comment_316544

Is the CBMW even opposed to women being scholars?

If it was in line with CBMW it probably would be the Women's Commentary written by all male scholars. Oh wait, that is Church history.

I kid I kid.....

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316544#Comment_316544

I've read this commentary. I've also read books on the tribal egalitarian / complimentarian dust ups. What strikes me about the commentary, is it doesn't appear to be interested in joining that type of argument. So for example, as the tribes line up to battle 2 Tim, the commentary only discusses several women's participatiom in the early church.

I agree with Ted on CBMH, but that speaks more toward another type of conflict (who's in charge). The commentary spends more time on perspective, both positive and negative as well. It's not comfortable reading but I suspect that might be the point.

And before anyone gets offended, please keep in mind these issues were also discussed at length by Jesus (without regard to our conclusions). So the issues are indeed of significance, no matter where one ends up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316587#Comment_316587

Once again, it seems nearly impossible to avoid 'theological' discussions (or certainly, inferred or openly stated positions). Though, not always the intention, this often leads to some heated debate, or people feeling hurt, as their questions, positions, or thoughts often come under attack...albeit, sometimes quite subtly. I truly believe most readers have a pretty good idea, at least roughly, what the OP was asking. The litmus test of using a handful of verses and the authors' positions can point to a direction the commentary might be leaning.

However, all comments (mine and others) not withstanding, the OP (or any of us) can purchase a resource and review it for a few weeks; if it's not what you expected, call customer service (or email your salesperson) and ask for a refund...they'll grant it to you. One of the nicest parts...no shipping [:)]

Though we don't necessarily always want to drive traffic to another website like Amazon (and this may be partly Logos responsibility for not providing greater accessibility to more meaty contents of the resource...though this might fall on the shoulders of the publishers), providing the OP with an option like this allows the OP to review the materials and reach their own conclusions without including our own spin on the matter.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316619#Comment_316619

I didn't know this commentary was so diverse (some authors aren't even Christian!). Instead of asking about it's theological slant I should have asked what it's agenda is.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316584#Comment_316584

If it was in line with CBMW it probably would be the Women's Commentary written by all male scholars. Oh wait, that is Church history.

[:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316628#Comment_316628

I should have asked what it's agenda is.

This question is easily answered.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316619#Comment_316619

Though, not always the intention, this often leads to some heated debate, or people feeling hurt, as their questions, positions, or thoughts often come under attack...albeit, sometimes quite subtly.

Fortunately, from my perspective, this thread led to the original poster restating his question in a manner that could be answered clearly and accurately. I wish more such threads led to successful results.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/316584#Comment_316584

If it was in line with CBMW it probably would be the Women's Commentary written by all male scholars. Oh wait, that is Church history.

[Y]