Talk:Women in the Bible/Archive 1

Regarding "There are no women in heaven"
As much as I'd love for that claim to be valid, the word used in Luke 20:35-36 for "sons" is the Greek word "huioi", which can also refer to a mix of sons and daughters, which is why most translations say "children" instead of "sons".

Galatians 3:26-28 is one example of where "huioi" refers to a mix of sons and daughters:

26 You are all [huioi] of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtfinch (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve from Adam's rib
I'm sure that the interpretation of Eve being made from Adam's as an indication of women's subordination is not the only interpretation of the passage. I think that it is also thought to show equality between sexes as they are made from the same flesh. Does anyone know any more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Variousvarious (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Dis'd
As much as the judge Deborah wanted the glory for the battle she did not get it. Boo Hoo. In Hebrews Chpt 11 the great faith hall of fame it was Barak that got the glory. Her feminist pride cost her the glory......LoL...Rofl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your words are inaccurate. That verse you refer to talks about faith. Barak is considered to have had faith because he (eventually) went to war with Jabin despite his misgivings, trusting God to give him the victory. In fact, Judges 4 and 5 are a big lesson to the Israelites on how women (in the form of Deborah and Jael) are blessed by God and should be respected by men. Deborah does not appear to have been feminist or prideful.


 * IF you are a Christian you could be a bit more polite and less insulting.

Correct me if I am wrong
I do believe there are certain verses in the bible that support Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. One I remember but can't remember exact verse is the stoning incident where Jesus said (paraphrased) that only one who has not sinned, cast the first stone. Then, throughout it seems to be the same woman. There are also clear points of her sin.--68.103.153.82 (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I help you??
I have a website that gives more information on the topics covered here. The website is www.womeninthebible.net It has stories of 23 of the main women in the Old and New Testaments, with historical background, study group activities and useful links - which all sounds very worthy and dull I know, but check it out anyway. I think it could be useful to readers of this site. Please consider putting a link to it. MaryRoseWalker (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you but it is a personal website, and these generally can't be used unless they (unusually) are by a notable expert in the field. See WP:RS. I note that clicking on 'about the author' leads to the glossary. dougweller (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this concerning as the author of this article bases some fairly major claims on content from that website. Possible neutrality issues? basalisk (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction issues.
I think there are major issues with the introduction to this article. Aside from the fact that the introduction appears to represent a biased view of the subject and bases many of its claims on inappropriate self-published material, it does not seem to be supported by the body of the article. Discussion required? basalisk (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011


 * i think that this article needs to be balanced out a lot. i think that the bible basicly says that man and women are of equal value, they just have different strengths, weaknesses, needs, and goals. it is probably just a classic case of people thinking that “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence”.


 * the intro states: "Women's roles in the history of Judaism and Christianity often were omitted or presented as stereotypes, 'as if all the women in the ancient world had been saints, whores, or invisible.'" this obviously is heavily biased. the bible is about women and men who stood out, not the average person.


 * i am sorry if i offended anyone by this statement, i am just trying to help balance out this article.Balance of paradox (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

move
since this is apparently written from a Christian perspective (and rather subjectively, I might add), perhaps the article should be moved to Women in the New Testament to answer to the existing Women in the Hebrew Bible. No need to have one article on "women in the OT" and one on "women in the OT and the NT". --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * that is a really good idea Balance of paradox (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This article's title implies that it is a list of individuals that are mentioned in the bible.


 * Is this article about what the bible says about women? If so, it should be merged with the "Bible" page.


 * Is this article about theologian’s opinions of what the bible says about women? Due to the many different beliefs of theologians there would be many opposing ideas, resulting in a chaotic article.


 * Either way, the article should be renamed to clearly state what it contains.
 * Balance of paradox (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Overgeneralized, Barely Explained or Confusing Statements
This article tends to make overgeneralized, and often very biased, statements that are not fully explained. For example, in the introductory paragraph, a claim was made that the bible is the only book in which women are perceived as human beings and as an equal status to that of men. Has the author read every book that has been published in this century in order to make this claim? Unlikely. And even though, many female characters within the Bible resist the sort of male oppression, women were also presented as beings who had no will of their own, must remain silent, and obey both their husbands and God without question. There are also troubling statements such as: "The views of women presented in the Hebrew Bible are complex and often ambivalent." I am not understanding the meaning of this statement, especially with the use of complex and ambivalent in the same sentence, but the author does not go on to explain in what ways the women indicate these characteristics. This article needs more explanation of terms and characteristics that they are placing here in order to give the readers a clear understanding of the arguments that they are trying to convey. Krmmiller (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi! You left this comment at women in the Bible that I thought was so appropriate I decided to do what I could to fix it! The only section still undone is Peter, so I invite you to come back and take a look, read, make suggestions, add what you think might be appropriate--whatever!  You seemed to care, and I care too, so I am hoping for your input.  I think I have fixed the article's former problems!  I hope you agree! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

paradise lost mistake
in the "Old Testament views on gender" section, this article states:

Eve's weakness has sometimes been blamed for causing Adam's fall, and thus for humanity's fall into original sin. This claim was made[citation needed] during the Middle Ages and was a subject in John Milton's classic epic, Paradise Lost.

the article on "paradise lost" says:

"The relationship between Adam and Eve is one of 'mutual dependence, not a relation of domination or hierarchy.'"

the "paradise lost" article also states that although they both sinned in eating the fruit, adam's sin was "bigger" because he did it knowingly.

Balance of paradox (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Balance of paradox, if you are still around and interested in women in the Bible I invite you to return and participate in reworking it. I have almost finished my revisions and would appreciate any input you might have. I agreed with your criticism of the paradise lost reference and I have removed it--and that whole section--since this article is not Christianity and women, or cultural views of women, or whatever else about women, it's the Bible and women. Thank you for reading and commenting, I hope to hear from you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments
, per request. I write as I read.

This bit:

"Women were subordinate in the sociological and legal systems of ancient Israel, yet the Bible does not attempt to justify that with an ideology of superiority or "otherness." The Bible is a patriarchal document from a patriarchal society, yet both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are predominantly "gender blind." Stories of victorious women, and women who were victims, show the goals, powers and strategies of women in the Bible do not differ from men.[2]"

Sounds to me like one "take" on this, not a solid "fact" like the current writing makes it. Of course, my ignorance on the subjectmatter is monumental. And, you know, WP:LEAD will have to be dealt with at some point.

"Patriarchy has a strong..." needs. There are several more quotes like that. Paraphrase or attribute. Frymer-Kensky may be to prominent in the lead. Perhaps overall.

Are there any good wikilinks for "Mesopotamian and other Near Eastern creation stories"?

Huldah. I don't quite get this. According to WP the Bible seems clear enough she is a woman.

Maacah. According to WP Asa's grandmother, not mother, which is right?

Texts of terror. Sounds headline-y. The women of Midian could deserve a mention. The following sections telling of the biblical stories have a tone that sometimes feels very personal like "Family is destroyed from the refusal to hear wisdom from a woman."

It's interesting how many unnamed bible women have their own articles.

All in all, I get the impression that this article is to a significant extent Feminist perspective on Women in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to address all of this. I knew there would be a bunch because I wrote too much without you!  I got all enthiusiastic!  And that's never good... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course it is! And stop with the guilting! I'm like Aaron, I get away with stuff. Off topic, look at me using a hook: I can learn, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a little annoying that outside the TOC it's undetectable that "Texts of terror" has subsections, but I have no idea if anything can be done about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about subsections. I actually considered adding two more headings just to make the division clearer--something like leaders and victims, but I wasn't sure I wanted such a stark differentiation. What would you think of that? I did add the idea into the intro part (OT views...) so it is somewhere now. Huldah is there to show women could be prophets so I added a line since that apparently wasn't clear.  Took out a whole bunch of good old Tikva.  SOB!  Just so it's not quite the Bible according to her anymore.  It's always such a temptation just to exclude the fundys!  :-) I attempted to rework the lead and the first paragraph.  I went and read all the leads for every other article on women in the Bible that there is and they all say something like this!  It's weird!  Apparently we are all just confused!


 * Thank you for the encouragement. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading. The lead is much much better. I have some problems with the Tamar section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay I fixed the attribution --who?-- notes you left--was there anything else about Tamar? I removed that last sentence you didn't like. Do you know, on one of these articles--I can't remember which right now--someone criticized me for using "So and so says" repeatedly.  He said it interfered with the flow of reading.  You're in the right though I think--paraphrase or internally attribute--it's not enough just to reference.  I will be more careful even if it does interfere.  Do you think you will add the women in culture thing?  I think it would be a good addition.  It needn't be long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tamar seems ok. It does/can interfere with the flow of reading, but depending on context, it's a price worth paying. Plenty of grey area to bicker in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, didn't you like the creation of Eve image? I thought it fitted the text pretty well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This lead bit doesn't quite make sense to me:

Professor Margaret Y. McDonald says, historically, there is evidence of egalitarianism in early Christianity,[10]:127 while historian Shulamith Shahar says the church was primarily patriarchal in the middle ages. Both views dramatically impacted the role of women in the church and society, sexual mores, and marital and family relationships.[11][12]:88

Is it really true that McDonald's and Shahar's views "dramatically impacted"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Huldah: Is that really a quote? If so, perhaps rewrite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Craig Blomberg says there are three primary texts that challenge egalitarianism and are critical to the New Testament view of women" So he says there are texts in NT that are critical to NT:s view on women? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Blomberg, again. First we say

"New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg says there are three primary texts that challenge egalitarianism and are critical to the New Testament view of women: "1 Corinthians 14:34-35, where women are commanded to be silent in the church; 1 Timothy 2:11-15 where women (according to the TNIV) are not permitted to teach or have authority over a man; and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where the male and female relationship is defined in terms of kephalē commonly translated head."[24][42]:97"

further down comes

"Scholars agree three verses attributed to Paul and the Pauline epistles have provided much of the biblical view of the role of women as subservient: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16."

Perhaps Blomberg is redundant? At this point, I feel I should remind you that you asked for it ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we spell her name "MacDonald"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagged a bunch of quotes. You (?) have a fondness for many and long quotes. Sometimes, like in "Mary of Bethany", they may approch copyright problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the language sometimes approach "to difficult", but it's not a huge problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Women who may be missing: Bathsheba, Delilah, Salome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * quit adding stuff to this same comment! I'm trying to answer!  Ha! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you--and no apologies are ever necessary--unless it's from me to you for taking blatant advantage of your good-will. Except I'm not really sorry. :-) I still don't feel like I can do this as well as you can without adult supervision...


 * So. First things first--in order--I liked the Eve image fine, but if you look at history, I tried moving it like five times and no matter where I put the file, the image always showed up at the same place--far down away from Eve. I got frustrated and just took it out.  If you can figure out how to locate it so it is actually by the text, feel free to put it back.


 * Okay, I see the ambiguity--no it is not the writers views--I will fix it.


 * Huldah is a quote--yet another Frymer-Kensky quote. I can maybe figure out how to paraphrase properly.  I'll give it a go.


 * Yes Blomberg does say that--somewhere--okay look, the google book reference didn't have page numbers. So I also found it on amazon--but they didn't have all the same pages as googlebooks. So I was SOL! But I needed the quote so I didn't have to use the primary source to balance Belleville's assertions.  I don't have the page number--what should I do?  There are a couple other references without page numbers as well.


 * I know that was a repetition, but context seemed to require it in both places. What do you recommend?


 * No goofball! She is not a hamburger magnate!


 * I do like quotes!! I am going to have to be more careful about that I think!  I will change this one too--I just did not think I could say it better than they did.  They made all the important points succinctly.  Anyway, I will go ahead and muck it up in my own words instead.


 * I fall into 'jargon' sometimes I guess. I'll look for it--or was there something else?  I have been accused of requiring a dictionary to read my writing sometimes... a dictionary and a snack...


 * Yes, there are a ton of women missing! There are over a hundred named women in the Bible and 600 unnamed ones--that's mentioned in the intro!  They cannot all be included--could add a see also to the List of women article if you think it's a good idea--where exactly??


 * Thank you, honestly thank you very much. If I could send you a singing telegram--with naked women of course--I would.  Singing thank you, thank you, thank you--just use your imagination.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What does cn stand for? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's jargon for . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blomberg and others agree that..."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * did you enjoy your singing telegram? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it had Bathsheba in it. Dressed as a gorilla (see 1:05).. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The step kick at the end was especially nice I thought. Sorry I didn't spring for balloons.  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done!! You totally rock, you know that?! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do. But as you know, it's still nice when other people notice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha! And your humility is one of your most admirable traits!  But you really are amazing so what can you do?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Y. McDonald
I noted you went through and changed the spelling of her name to MacDonald--which is not how she spells it and it seems like she probably knows how to spell her own name--please note the sarcasm--so they all have to be changed back--is there a quick easy way to do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? . See also your cite in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OMG!! I can't believe this!  The mistake IS mine!  I own her book--I am writing my first article on it!  How did I do that?  That's insane!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You really wanted some McDonald's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank the god of MacDonalds you found my flub! I couldn't figure out why you would change it when I said no! Ha ha!  I will never live this down! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Hebrew Bible
Jenhawk,, anyone interested, what do you think about merging that article to this one? Preferably by someone who knows how to merge articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the New Testament is also in this one--so are you suggesting merging them both under this more general title? Would that not make this too long?  How much redundancy would there be? How is that done?  And why would it be a good thing--what's the value in it since there is also a women in Christianity?  Merge that one too then?  Sell your idea!  I am not seeing it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "clears throat".
 * The other article is shorter and suckier, so per "Humor" and "Violence", one Bible article makes an amount of sense. The idea is to "rescue" what deserves to be kept from there to here, presumably some/a lot is already covered here. Probably would not make this article too long. Then make the other article into a redirect.
 * It would be a good thing to get rid of the smaller article since this one has more on the topic than the other one.
 * Women in Christianity and Women in Judaism stay where they are, the non-overlap areas are huge and obvious. You don't find Saint Jadwiga of Poland or Jewish Renewal in the bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. I buy it. How do we do all the above? What do you need from me to accomplish this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Having looked over the article and attempted to find transferrable material, I think "Women in the Hebrew Bible" is definitely 'suckier', using mostly primary source references, self-published references, and lots of original research that cannot be located in secondary source material. Most of the material is not usable. It should simply be deleted.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

recent changes
Jytdog, this sentence--"Accounts of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden[Gen 2-3] have been the subjects of considerable sociological, anthropological, and theological debate regarding the patriarchal family order, male dominance and female oppression.[39][68][69]"--that was moved down to art, now makes no sense where it is--because those things are not discussed there--the sentence just hangs out there flapping in the wind now. I want to move it, and the next paragraph on the sociological views of Eve traced through art history, back into the section on Eve where it was a lead sentence that summarized what followed. If I do that will you revert me? I don't want to get into another fight with you, so if you have a good argument for leaving it as you changed it, make your case--please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You changed a reference on Christine Elizabeth Yoder to a book by Christine Roy Yoder, and I am unsure if they are the same woman or mother and daughter or what, but I changed the reference again to a book that has both names--and page numbers! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not about "women in the bible" (what is actually in the bible about women?) but as it very explicitly says, is about the "considerable sociological, anthropological, and theological debate" which all happened subsequently. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * See below. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Off topic
What does the following section have to do with the topic of this article which is "women in the bible"? No women in the bible are even mentioned here.


 * Patriarchy of the Middle Ages

By the middle ages, a return to patriarchal views meant women were largely excluded from religious, political and mercantile life.

There had been a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical (a liturgical book) up through the 12th century, but by the 13th-century Roman Pontifical, the prayer for ordaining women as deacons was removed. The formation of convents (and monasteries), distinct from either political or familial authority, gradually carved out a series of social spaces with some amount of independence thereby revolutionizing social history. These institutions also helped form the concept of chivalry which was influenced by a new Church attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historian Shulamith Shahar says the increasing popularity of devotion to the Virgin Mary secured maternal virtue as a central cultural theme of Catholic Europe of the period.

Some leading churchwomen gained powers unavailable to women in Roman or Germanic societies. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia references the Comte de Montalembert, (1810-1870) as having recorded that "Medieval abbesses and female superiors of monastic houses became powerful figures whose influence could rival that of male bishops and abbots. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;... they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies...". Woman-as-witch became a stereotype in the 1400's until it was deliberately codified in the Summis desiderantes affectibus in 1487 by Pope Innocent VIII who declared "most witches are female." Harvard librarian Margaret Schaus says "The European witch stereotype embodies two apparent paradoxes: first, it was not produced by the "barbaric Dark Ages," but during the progressive Renaissance and the early modern period; secondly, Western Christianity did not recognize the reality of witches for centuries, or criminalize them until around 1400." Sociologist Don Swenson says the explanation for this may lay in the nature of Medieval society as heirocratic which led to violence and the use of coercion to force conformity.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Women in the Bible" was such a broad, unfocused title, (and what was here previously looked pretty much exactly like the Women in the Hebrew Bible that we just blanked--written by same person), that in order to actually improve this article, it was necessary to pick a direction of some kind!  There's already a page that lists the women in the B, but there wasn't a page that discussed the differing views of women from the point of view of differing approaches to interpretation. The lead sentence of this page includes the four biblical interpretations that inform views of women in the Bible, so that means those views have to be mentioned throughout the rest of the page. This section is that.  The lead sentence of New Testament views says there's no agreement, so all the differing views have to be included throughout.
 * If you don't like it the way it is--and I agree it can be improved--removing some of the history, then adding in some info on today might be an improvement. That would also mean it would be necessary to go back and add in mention of the modern versions of all four --but that is totally doable.  I am talking myself into this idea now.  :-)
 * It's not off topic, but it can be shortened and focused more--and then extended--and I think that will make it more apparent why it is there. I think the first paragraph can probably stay pretty much as is, it's about "views of women," and the second paragraph can be deleted entirely, and from the third paragraph--maybe just keep the first sentence? What do you think?
 * I will look and see what I can find on the rise of partriarchalism in the modern evangelical community. I think one of the things that got deleted was a statement that an increase in patriarchalism is associated with the homeschool movement. I could find no valid source for that statement so I cut it.  I will look some more.


 * Since I haven't heard back from you on it yet, I am going to go ahead and put the material removed from Eve back with some refocusing there as well to make sure it is clear it's a societal view being discussed. Sociology often looks at art and literature etc. to assess societal attitudes, and it is more relevant to the discussion of Eve specifically than to the discussion of art in general--imo. It seems slightly anomalous down in art and Eve is in need of a summary-style lead sentence. :-)


 * Thank you for discussing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic is broad, but is very clear. "Women" (not men, not donkeys) "in" (not "after", not "thoughts about", not "theology about") "the Bible" (not the mountains of books written after the bible was more or less canonized; not extrabiblical stuff like the Talmud or Mishah, not related holy books like the Quran or the Book of Mormon). The content should be directed to women in the bible. Not hard.
 * In my view it is interesting to have some nachleben stuff but really, You could write a VERY long article on Theological anthropology of women (we do have Christian anthropology, which is badly named. Anthropology is one of the main branches of systematic theology, along with ecclesiology, soteriology, etc).  Similarly feminist theology has its own thing, as does Gender and religion. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The topic is not clear imo, there are different ways to interpret what it means. If I had taken the approach you suggest here, I would have ended up either duplicating the "List of..." that already exists or writing vignettes of 700 women. That didn't seem like a good idea.  I have chosen a broader view.  I chose all the differing ways women in the Bible can be and are viewed from the Bible era to our modern day. I was writing it and that was one of many legitimate options I saw as an overview of those more specific pages you mention. If you want to suggest a title change, go ahead, we can see if there's consensus for it, but "Views of..." from then till now is what this is right now. Changing my approach at this point will require blanking and rewriting this entire page from the beginning to suit the fact that you interpret the title differently than I have. There would need to be consensus for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Option on Patriarchy
 * Patriarchy

By the middle ages, a return to patriarchal views meant women were largely excluded from religious, political and mercantile life.

There was a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical (a liturgical book) up through the 12th century, but by the 13th-century Roman Pontifical, the prayer for ordaining women as deacons was removed. The formation of convents (and monasteries), distinct from either political or familial authority, gradually carved out a series of social spaces with some amount of independence thereby revolutionizing social history. These institutions also helped form the concept of chivalry which was influenced by a new Church attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historian Shulamith Shahar says the increasing popularity of devotion to the Virgin Mary secured maternal virtue as a central cultural theme of Catholic Europe of the period.

Journalist Kathryn Joyce reports a resurgence of patriarchalism within modern Christian fundamentalism. "It's a prevalent lifestyle among the booming homeschool population."

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The scope is not ambiguous. I suggest we have an RfC. I will be surprised if people see this kind of blatantly extra-biblical stuff as being appropriately mixed in. If we are going to do this, there is no end to the stuff we should add about what has happened with these texts subsequently. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You want an RFC on the scope of the article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. But if we have one you should articulate what you think the scope is, so that we can have a well-defined question. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Where does this chunk of text belong?
Where does the following text belong in the article? The options so far are:
 * a) in the body of the article as in this version (at the top of the Adam and Eve section at this section=link of that version),
 * or
 * b) down in "Women from the Bible in art and culture" as in this version (in the section at this section-link of that version)

Text
Due to the creation stories in Genesis providing different perspectives on the relationship between men and women, Eve has been the subject of considerable sociological, anthropological, and theological debate. Near Eastern scholar Carol Meyers says, "Perhaps more than any other part of the Bible, [Genesis 1-3] has influenced western notions of gender and identity." Meyers says this is connected to Eve as an archetype setting a pattern for those who follow.

Art historian Mati Meyer says differing sociological views of Eve are observable in the renderings of her in art over the centuries. According to Meyer, Eve is historically portrayed in art in a favorable light up through the Early Middle ages (AD 800's), but by the Late Middle ages (1400's) artistic interpretation of Eve becomes heavily misogynistic coinciding with the rise of patriarchalism in the Middle Ages. Meyer sees this change as influenced by the writings of Augustine "who sees Eve’s sexuality as destructive to male rationality". By the seventeenth century, the Fall as a male-female struggle emerges, and in the eighteenth century, the perception of Eve is influenced by "Paradise Lost" where Adam's free will is emphasized along with Eve's beauty. Thereafter a secular view of Eve emerges "through her transformation into a femme fatale—a compound of beauty, seductiveness and independence set to destroy the man." Sociologist Linda L. Lindsey says "women have born a greater burden for 'original sin'... Eve's creation from Adam's rib, second in order, with God's "curse" at the expulsion is a stubbornly persistent frame used to justify male supremacy."

Shall we have an RfC for this or discuss a bit first? Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like this now:
 * It was my belief that Eve being iconic needed addressing from multiple perspectives thereby giving the subject appropriate weight--sociological, anthropological and theological views are all discussed--but not if half of it is in art where they are not discussed at all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "now" keeps changing and linking to the "live"' section is useless. I linked to specific versions above. Shall we have an RfC on this or wait to hear other's thoughts here? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you went ahead and changed it, that question is now moot. I don't dislike the changes you made in the sexuality section, I actually think they add a broader more complete perspective that wasn't there before, so well done there. Since you insist on having Mati Meyer in art, and seem to feel quite strongly about it, I will leave it there and not fight about it. It did mean that I went ahead and removed the "anthropology" paragraph from the Eve section since it is now off topic there.  There is no reason to discuss anthropology as it has no apparent direct connection to Eve at all. So that section is shorter, and that may very well be a good thing too.  I will go remove the stray sentence from art too.  There is still the problem of having mentioned the patriarchal view of the middle ages in the lead and not having it anywhere in the body. Wikipedia faux pas. How would you fix that since this page is an overview? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

lead sentence in sexuality
Jytdog, the changes made here are good but this section now has no summary-style lead sentence. I think the sentence that got moved to the bottom works but if you don't like that particular sentence, the section still needs one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * These questions are posted here in good faith, with all due respect. I hope you recall I have never treated you with anything else. Patriarchy, and a summary lead in sexuality.  Please respond when you can.  I am holding off doing anything till I hear from you; no one else is writing here now but us. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you want each section to have a lead sentence. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I read it somewhere!! That each section should be structured with its own summary-style lead sentence--except now I can't find it and I can't remember where I read it. Arrgghh! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

More of same
Similar to the section above, does the following belong in the main section of an article on "Women in the Bible" or should this go in subsequent sections about what happened in history with regard to a) women generally and b) subsequent interpretations of these stories or statement?

Official teaching of the modern Catholic church considers women and men to be complementary (equal and different), but some have argued the teachings attributed to St. Paul and those of the early Fathers of the Church and later Scholastic theologians advanced the notion of a divinely ordained female inferiority.
 * from "Peter" section


 * Patriarchy

By the middle ages, a return to patriarchal views meant women were largely excluded from religious, political and mercantile life.

There was a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical (a liturgical book) up through the 12th century, but by the 13th-century Roman Pontifical, the prayer for ordaining women as deacons was removed. The formation of convents (and monasteries), distinct from either political or familial authority, gradually carved out a series of social spaces with some amount of independence thereby revolutionizing social history. These institutions also helped form the concept of chivalry which was influenced by a new Church attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historian Shulamith Shahar says the increasing popularity of devotion to the Virgin Mary secured maternal virtue as a central cultural theme of Catholic Europe of the period.

Journalist Kathryn Joyce reports a resurgence of patriarchalism within modern Christian fundamentalism. "It's a prevalent lifestyle among the booming homeschool population."

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The quote from the Peter section is one of the three pieces left of the original article. Feel free to do with it whatever you please.  I simply left it because it had an actual reference.  And you know I tend to leave other people's work in place if possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have accepted all your changes, and fixed the missing page numbers--one was a leftover from the previous article I had not yet fixed, and one was my use of a reference that didn't have any page numbers--but I was able to track them down through other means--so that's fixed. I think there is one or two of the previous author's references still left that are questionable and I will check those out too.  I am wondering if you are still troubled with the scope of this article, or if you would like to talk that over more.  I want to give your concerns proper weight and don't want to assume I'm right just because this is what I picked.  I want to listen, so I ask, if you still have concerns, let's talk. I am sure we can work them through in good faith. I will ask that you consider that this page has just been given a "B" quality tag within the last week or so after many many hours of work on my part.  But I think between us we can make it even better.  You have already made some notable improvements.


 * I am still concerned about the patriarchy in the middle ages for a couple of reasons:
 * 1) Leaving egalitarianism in, without including the swing to the opposite end that occurred in the middle ages, creates a problem; the church may have treated women better than the surrounding culture in its beginnings, but by the middle ages it treated them very badly indeed; mentioning the good and not the bad seems both imbalanced and misleading to me.
 * 2) The alternative is to remove the egalitarianism in the early church section as well, but since that is one of the most significant traits of early Christianity, especially where women are concerned, and since it is referred to in multiple places, and since this article is supposedly an overview of exactly that subject--how women in the Bible have been interpreted--removing both topics would alter the scope of the article and require that complete blank and rewrite. I believe it would be like dominoes--one change would lead to another until it all falls down.
 * 3) If patriarchy is out of the article, it also needs to come out of the introductory paragraph that mentions it--once again leaving egalitarianism all by itself and misleading readers about the nature of the church's attitude toward women--or removing them both and changing the focus of the article.


 * These are valid reasons for keeping something, anything, that mentions patriarchy. I am fine with you doing it your way since you don't seem to like anything I write, but please do agree to include something about patriarchy in the middle ages. Women had freedoms and respect, then lost them, and have never fully regained what they lost. The whole "women as witches" thing really does deserve a mention.  Please--write your own from scratch, modify what I wrote--tell me what you want changed and I will do it--I am open to any option--but as strongly as you felt about moving Mati Meyer to art--that's how strongly I believe patriarchy in the middle ages should be included in this  article.


 * I am hopeful we can work this out, but if you want to have an Rfc about it, let's get on with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What would you think of creating a "historical perspectives" section and moving both egalitarianism and patriarchalism into it together? Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I had created a section along those lines - you can see it here, and you removed it here. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No no no no no!! I explained in the edit summary when I did it--what you had put under that section title was almost a perfect duplicate of what was already in the article in the section directly above. Removing the duplicate content left nothing under the heading, so I figured unless and until we put something else there, the heading had to be removed too.  I never had any objection to the addition of the section itself. I know--who reads the edit summary?  But I did explain.  So let's put it back and put the two historical views under it--shall we? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Historical perspectives
Jytdog, Gråbergs, Gerda Arendt, LWG--anyone who has demonstrated any interest in this article--please comment on the idea of creating a "Historical perspectives of New Testament views" section and moving the "Egalitarian" section currently under New Testament, and the disputed patriarchy section, there. In a page on the different interpretations of biblical views of women, having the history in there somewhere seems important to me.

Also, what would you all think of a change in title--something more reflective of this being an overview--Interpreting women in the Bible--or Varying views of women in the Bible--or some such thing? Would that be a good thing? Can it be done without being awkward? Any suggestions? Please? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think WP should have an article with the current title, it fits well with the others in the Bible sidebar. That said, there's probably sources for A "Feminist views on WitB" or similar subarticle (s). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Retaining existing styles
On some questions of style, the MoS provides more than one acceptable answer; on other questions it gives no guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

Edit-warring over styles is never acceptable. If the existing style of an article is problematic, discuss it at the article's talk page or if necessary at the MoS talk page.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is changing some set ref style? I have seen none of that happening. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not about references, it's about the "style of the article", not the style of the references--summary style or news style or stand on your head and talk like a monkey style. :-) It's about how the article itself is written. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All three are about WP:ERA (BCE/CE vs BC/AD). What in the world are you talking about? (I do not think you understand what you doing here in trying to invoke arbcom decisions, and I am not going to reply further. fwiw, i recommend you drop this ... angle, as it is most likely to blow up in your face) Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. I will take it to heart.  I simply referenced it as a guide to disagreements over the style of an article which is partly what we are having here. I meant no offense. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Style, in the Manual of Style meaning, is, well, look at the table of contents there. You seem to use it in a different way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The corinthian and timothy sections
These sections seems to assume that the reader knows the content of these texts. I don't. Also, I get the impression they're trying to prove a specific POV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

latest revision
--you removed quotes from a quote--doesn't that make it plagiarism? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotation from Belleville's book still has quote marks around it, I just changed it to better match what Belleville said in her book. The previous version included quotes around "overseers" and "overseers and deacons" which were not in the actual book. That made it seem like Belleville was trying to quote the cited bible verses, which she wasn't as far as I can tell. -- LWG talk 21:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is awesome that you are participating, and I don't want to discourage you, but the quotes are in fact in the original quote. On Googlebooks there are no page numbers, so it is the second paragraph under the section titled Women Leaders in New Testament Times that begins "Male leaders may have been more numerous..."  Otherwise look for page 54.  There is only one of the references not in quotes and that is the term overseer that comes immediately after Nympha--the others all have quotes around them in the original. I will restore them.  But thanx! I often need watching!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! I replaced the inner quotes with single quotes to make it clearer and more consistent with the manual of style. -- LWG talk 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing
There are 53 sources. I have grouped them.

1) here good sources (scholarly and about women in the bible)
 * general
 * Lindsey, Linda L (2016). Gender Roles: A Sociological perspective. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-205-89968-5.


 * hebrew bible
 * Meyers, Carol (1988). Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195049343. OCLC 242712170.
 * Frymer-Kensky, Tikva (2006). Studies in Bible and feminist criticism (1st ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society. ISBN 9780827607989. OCLC 62127975.
 * Craven, Toni; Kraemer, Ross; Myers, Carol L., eds. (2000). Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament. Houghton Mifflin. p. xii. ISBN 978-0395709368. Retrieved 30 January 2017.
 * Trible, Phyllis (1973). "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 41 (1): 30–48. JSTOR 1461386.
 * Trible, Phyllis (1984). Texts of Terror: Literary feminist readings of biblical narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-1537-9.
 * Yoder, Christine Elizabeth; Yoder, Christine Roy (2009). Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Proverbs. Nashville: Abingdon Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-4267-0001-9.
 * Pleins, J. David (2001). The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 116. ISBN 0-664-22175-0.
 * Lanser, Susan S (December 1996). White, Hugh C., ed. "(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2–3". Semeia. 41 (Speech Act Theory and Biblical Criticism): 67–84.
 * O'Connor, Michael Patrick (1986). "The Women in the Book of Judges". Hebrew Annual Review. 10: 277–293.open access publication – free to read
 * Frymer-Kensky, Tikva (2002). Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories. New York: Schoken Books. ISBN 9780805211825. OCLC 49823086.
 * Stewart, Anne E (2012). "Jephthah's Daughter and her Interpreters". In Newsom, Carol A.; Ringe, Sharon H.; Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Women's Bible commentary (3rd ed., twentieth anniversary ed. ed.). Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 133–137. ISBN 9780664237073.


 * 2nd temple or Greco-roman context
 * Lim, Timothy H. (2005). The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191517532. OCLC 929408500.
 * Gardner, Jane F. (1991). Women in Roman Law & Society. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. p. 67. ISBN 0-253-20635-9.
 * Langlands, Rebecca (2006). Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-521-85943-1.
 * Younger, John (2005). Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z. New York: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-415-24252-3.


 * NT --> early church
 * MacDonald, Margaret Y. (1996). Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion The power of the hysterical woman. NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 56174 4.
 * Stark, Rodney (1996). The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02749-4.
 * Stagg, Evelyn; Stagg, Frank (1978). Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
 * Witherington III, Ben (1984). Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' attitudes to women and their roles as reflected in his earthly life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 34781 5.
 * Witherington III, Ben (1988). Women in the Earliest Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40789-3.
 * McKnight, Scot (1996). 1 Peter: The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-87120-0.
 * Odell-Scott, D.W. "Editorial dilemma: the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in the western manuscripts of D, G and 88." Web: 15 Jul 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_2_30/ai_94332323/
 * Wilshire, Leland E. (2010). Insight Into Two Biblical Passages: Anatomy of a Prohibition I Timothy 2:12, the TLG computer and the Christian church; The servant city,The Servant Songs of Isaiah 40-60 and the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC/BCE. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-7618-5208-7.
 * Keener, Craig S. (2009). Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Massachusettes: Hendrikson Publishers Inc. ISBN 978-0-943575-96-4.
 * Getty-Sullivan, Mary Ann (2001). Women in the New Testament. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-2546-0.
 * Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching. New York City, New York and London, England: T & T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-64517-3. OCLC 775849664.
 * Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530013-0. OCLC 918205375.


 * Harper, Kyle (2013). From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusettes: Harvard University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-674-07277-0.


 * culture/art
 * Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane (Jul 2016). "Women in Religious Art". Religion. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.208. Retrieved 18 May 2018.
 * Meyer, Mati. "Art: Representation of Biblical Women". Jewish Women's Archive. Jewish Women's Archive.
 * Freeman, Lindsay Hardin (2014). Bible Women: All Their Words and Why They Matter (3rd ed.). Forward Movement. ISBN 978-0880283915.

2) here are low quality sources that are at least relevant
 * Hirsch, Emil G.; Levi, Gerson B.; Schechter, Solomon; Kohler, Kaufmann (1906). "Deborah". In Cyrus Adler; et al. Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.
 * Long, Burke O. "The Shunammite Woman". The BAS Library. Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
 * Hirsch, Emil G.; Seligsohn, M.; Schechter, Solomon; Barton, George A. (1906). "Jephthah (יפתח)". In Cyrus Adler; et al. Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.
 * Richards, Sue Poorman; Richards, Lawrence O. (2003). Women of the Bible: The Life and Times of Every woman in the Bible. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers..

3) here are scholarly sources, but what are they doing here?
 * Shahar, Shulamith (2003). The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415308519. OCLC 51009116.
 * Geisler, Norman (1998). "Albright, William F.". Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Ada, Michigan, USA: Baker. pp. 14f, 46ff, 37–41. ISBN 0801021510.
 * McLeese, Constance E (1998). "Book Review: Margaret MacDonald. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 6 (1): 150–151. doi:10.1353/earl.1998.0008.
 * Richardson, Peter (25 June 2016). "Book Review: Margaret MacDonald. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996". Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 27 (2): 214–215. doi:10.1177/000842989802700210.

4) here are poor sources (that are fighting some ideological battle today or doing some theological thing; there is rather obvious focus on evangelical christianity.
 * what is up with this focus on women in ministry? That is not what this article is about.
 * The following are all from the same book, Two views on women in ministry.:
 * Beck, James R. (2005). Two views on women in Ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. p. Introduction and Conclusion. ISBN 0-310-86451-8.
 * Linda Belleville (2009). "Chapter 1: Women in Ministry: an egalitaritan perspective". In Beck, James R.; et al. Two views on women in ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310254379. OCLC 779330381.
 * Craig L. Blomberg (2009). "Chapter 2: Women in Ministry: a complementarian perspective". In Beck, James R.; et al. Two views on women in ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310254379. OCLC 779330381.
 * James R. Beck (2009). "Conclusion". In Beck, James R.; et al. Two views on women in ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310254379. OCLC 779330381.
 * Ramnarine, Kay (2008). Women Belong in Leadership: Let Critics Keep Silent. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-55635-576-9.
 * Grenz, Stanley J.; Kjesbo, Denise Muir (1995). Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1862-6.
 * Hovhannisyan, Hayk (2014). Men and Women in the Ministry for Christ. Bloomington, Indianna: West Bow Press. p. 297. ISBN 978-1-4908-5075-7.
 * Hurley, James B. (July 2002). Man and Woman in Biblical perspective. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. pp. 153–157. ISBN 1-57910-284-0.
 * Keng Mun Chung, Mary (2005). Chinese Women in Christian Ministry: An Intercultural Study. New York: Peter Lang. p. 14. ISBN 0-8204-5198-3.


 * about other things
 * Piper, John; Grudem, Wayne (2006). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books. p. Preface. ISBN 978-1-58134-806-4.
 * Creach, Jerome (Jul 2016). "Violence in the Old Testament". The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-154 (inactive 2018-04-11). Retrieved 23 December 2017.
 * Painter, Luke (2017). Finding the Roots of Christianity: A Spiritual and Historical Journey. Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-5326-1031-8.
 * Ruether, Rosemary Radford (1998). Introducing Redemption in Christian Feminism. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. p. Foreward. ISBN 1-85075-888-3.

Hm. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are much better sources about women in the NT - there are so many that are just straight up, scholarly works on this.
 * very good and under-used...
 * there are lots of interesting and important works but that are doing theology
 * very good and under-used...
 * there are lots of interesting and important works but that are doing theology
 * very good and under-used...
 * there are lots of interesting and important works but that are doing theology
 * there are lots of interesting and important works but that are doing theology

I propose to rework, working out the strange sources about women in ministry and other things, and working in sources that are on point... -- Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to replace Kay Ramnarine who can be duplicated, Mary Keng Mun Chung, whose reference remained after her quote was deleted, Luke Painter who was not one of mine and who I had not verified yet, as you wish, but calling these others "poor sources" is sim ply uninformed.
 * You are welcome to replace Kay Ramnarine who can be duplicated, Mary Keng Mun Chung, whose reference remained after her quote was deleted, Luke Painter who was not one of mine and who I had not verified yet, as you wish, but calling these others "poor sources" is sim ply uninformed.


 * James R. Beck is a licensed clinical psychologist and a senior professor at Denver seminary, the author of 6 books, and the editor of several others.
 * Linda Belleville has a PhD in NT from the University of Toronto, is a seminary professor, a Bible translator for Tyndale house, and the author of 6 books including commentaries on the NT books she is quoted on here.
 * Craig L Blomberg is a Distinguished Professor of New Testament and author of 22 books, and multiple other contributions to his field.


 * James B Hurley is a professor with a PhD in three fields: New Testament, Theology, and Counseling. He holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University and Florida State University and he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard with a triple major --biochemistry, economics, and personality psychology. He is the author of multiple books.


 * Stanley Grenz was a theologian, professor and author and was considered a "leading evangelical theologian." (Yes, he was evangelical--that is not sufficient to prove he is a poor source.)


 * Rosemary Radford Ruether is a feminist scholar and Catholic theologian who is considered a pioneer in the field of feminist theology. She has taught at several prestigious institutions and is the author of nearly 500 articles and more than 30 books.


 * John Piper (theologian) is the chancellor of Bethlehem College and Seminary and is the author of more than 70 books.


 * Hayk Hovhannisyan is a Bible translator. That's why he's included.

None of these can be considered--by any definition--a poor source. To include the multiple perspectives, it was necessary to include some conservatives along with feminists and others. That doesn't automatically make them a "poor source".

Please do not remove these sources. Doing so would require changing content--a lot of content. If you intend to do that, I think there should be an Rfc on it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the main objection. These books focused on taking stances on contemporary issues, are not going to be simply doing history, but deploying history to make arguments.  That is not the kind of source we should be using. (I freaking love Reuther, almost as much as I love Elizabeth Johnson who kicks everybody's ass. But we should not use either). Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am glad to know it is not simply a prejudice--relieved even. Good.  Okay then, yes, they do discuss contemporary issues which is what most of the article is about. It's the contemporary conflicts over interpreting women in the Bible--that have also been going on throughout history--pretty much as long as there has been women. If you had started the rewrite of this article you would have approached it differently.  I get it.  And you don't particularly like or agree with my approach.  I get that too.  That doesn't automatically prove it's wrong.  So I am asking--begging--please do not change something that is not wrong per se just because it's not what you would have done. I have spent hours on this page, beginning with something that was tagged as problematic with original research, primary source quotes, blogs, self-published books--you name it.  I did not change the structure, style, or even the overall approach--I kept what could be kept--and after hours and hours, it was rated a B-class article just last week.  You don't like it--but somebody does.  Now I fully believe that if you and I cooperate, this could be an A class or even a GA page.  I really respect your skills and really, really want to listen to what you have to say--but not at the expense of everything that has already been accomplished.  I don't want to start over again. I don't want to change focus and style.  It would require a total rewrite--and I have already freaking done that!!  Please, please get on board with what this article already is, then I know anything you do will make it better--not just different. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is pretty good on the surface, for the most part paying attention to the correct, in-scope things. If you actually read it most of the article is not about contemporary stuff. It is just describing women in the bible. It could do that better, and give readers better sources to go to to learn more. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well--I have actually read it--and reread it--and so on. The lead is about the contemporary stuff, and even the stories and discussions of the women themselves include contemporary comments and interpretations.  I don't think there's a section that doesn't have it somewhere. It's everywhere--like dust... :-) I certainly don't object to improving sources, but I do object to removing the ones you listed because that would decimate the content of the NT section.


 * Let's change the title--shall we? So it reflects the scope of the article as it is.  The page "List of women in the Bible" covers the scope you are advocating for this one.  Doing that here would be a duplicate.  There are over 600 nameless women in the Bible--about 100 with names.  A page that attempted to tell the stories of all the women would be as long as the Bible itself. Leaving some out would require some kind of filter, a basis for choosing--and would probably need an in article explanation for why some are excluded.  (I included an explanation for the ones I picked to discuss in the lead--so I didn't have to try and talk about all of them. They were just examples of what Tykva Frymer-Kinsky and Linda Belleville said--that's the only reason they are there at all.)  There would be no such limitation on "Women in the Bible" as either a list or a description of them all. How would a person even go about doing that?  Frymer-Kensky divides them as victors, victims, virgins and voices--but somehow I don't think that would do for Wikipedia. It would certainly be a completely different article than this one. The majority of what's here would get trashed.


 * Isn't there a place for an article that discusses what this one does? I think there is. I even think that rating it of high importance is appropriate--but maybe you're right, maybe the title is misleading--so let's retitle it.  How would you title what's actually 'here?  Then if you want to make a list with some descriptions, I'll even volunteer to help--if you would like.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Jytdog I am going out of town for a few days. Please don't do anything there hasn't been agreement on while I'm gone.  Think about that name change! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Jytdog is largely correct on the scope for this article (and BTW, thanks for listing the sources that way, very useful).


 * The second sentence in the lead is (I may go off-topic here), per it's wikilinks, very focused on the theological side of things in a sort of "hidden" way. If I "expand" the wikilinks:


 * "Their varied roles are viewed through conflicting biblical interpretations ranging from Christian feminism, which prioritizes female views, and the Christian egalitarianism which sees equality in all things, to the complementarian perspective supporting moral equality with differing roles, and its more Biblical patriarchy versions of male supremacy."


 * Where complementarian is also a "theological view". This seems to hint that the sources in the article mostly comes from these perspectives, which is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see now.   I almost never read article leads.  I should pay more attention to them.  yes the lead of this article does not reflect what the body of the article actually says and does.  Jenhawk read just the body and you will see what i mean, about what this page is actually doing. it is just about "women in the bible", with a bit of discussion about nachleben.  I get it that you wrote the lead and you have been reading the body through the lead.  That is not how WP works.  Per WP:LEAD, the lead just summarizes the body. I will be rewriting it.
 * If you want to write an article that is something like "christian views on female gender" i would recommend starting a section on that in Christian_anthropology and if it expands too far, it can be SPLIT out from there. (this is strangely and rather shocking lacking there; i am amazed sometimes at where holes are in WP.)
 * The issue of women in Christian ministry is already discussed in WP at Ordination_of_women. That section could arguably be WP:SPLIT now (and a summary left behind) and expanded. You'll note that the beginning part does cover the early church.  Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking up "nachleben" on wiktionary ... Well that didn't really help... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång sorry it is a term used in some lit crit and biblical studies circles. It means the "after life" 'of a text. People who study intertextuality in the bible use it, as well as people who study the history of intepretation (and the "nachleben" of intrepretations themselves, as early authoritative interpretations become  the subject of re-readings... see also Reception_theory... i should avoid using it i think, sorry. Jytdog (talk)
 * No problem, I've been accused for using strange words myself.. And thanks for explaining! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All right then.  Sounds like I have really screwed things up here but you and Jytdog will fix it.  I wish you all the best.  I will leave you to it.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ownership
I am back in town and after some time to think, I agree I have too much of a sense of ownership of this, so I am bowing out. I wish you well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When that sense gets more bearable, get back in. If you compare "The article as it stands is pretty good on the surface, for the most part paying attention to the correct, in-scope things." to what Jytdog says when he dislikes things, he is probably as happy as a dog in chardonnay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That may be true overall, but he is taking over, doing things I don't agree with, my agreement doesn't matter, and that is just more than I can bear after having done most of the work up to this point. The best thing is just to leave you both to do what you think is best without constant alarms and arguments from me.  I'm glad no one decided to come along and re-do humor though I have to say! I will move on to something else.  Perhaps I will find something he won't care about. :-) Good luck to you both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

edit war
I changed the lead and took out the sentence that was about contemporary views. I did what you said it needed. How is that a problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * this edit contained original research. It also continues this theme that you are imposing about "egalitarian" vs "patriarchal". That is theologizing and is an issue that we keep running into on articles that are putatively about content in the Bible.   It would be OK to have a section about theological interpretation of the bible in the body, and that section could be summarized in the lead. The lead should not itself be doing theology or focused on theology. The lead should just summarize the body. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What original research? What are you talking about?  Please tell me how to discuss women in the Bible without mentioning patriarchy. That is the social and the historical context. It is not simply theology. Patriarchy and egalitarianism are just short-hand. If you think those terms are too jargon-ish and should be spelled out instead--that is done in the body--but can also be done in the lead.  How to discuss women in  the Bible while leaving all of this out is not something I can get behind. If you look at it a bit more, I think you will see my changes did make the lead more of a summary of the body. It's not perfect but it's better and it removed the contemporary aspects you objected to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say leave it out. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are being cryptic. Please be clear.  Specify.
 * How do you respond to my question about what is original research?
 * How do you respond to my assertion patriarchy is not just theology?
 * How do you respond to my question on how to discuss women in the Bible without discussing their social and historical context as patriarchal?
 * How do you respond to my assertion the sentences on Eve that you moved to art are not about art in their sources or content?
 * And why the heck did you remove what I copied here from my talk page? It was about content.  You are always telling people to move content to the page's talk page, so I did.
 * If you don't like what I have written make suggestions. So far your approach here of reverting and threatening before discussing--once again--has been heavy handed and autocratic. It's not a good method Jytdog.  It creates problems.  Maybe you are right--but I can't tell if all you do is take a position.  Explain.  Answer questions.  Please discuss before taking such actions upon yourself without consensus.  Please demonstrate your good faith effort to work with me to make this a better article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We seem to have this conversation often (e.g Talk:The_Bible_and_violence/Archive_2). As noted at the Talk page of the violence page (here) content about the bible, or characters in the bible, should have a main section simply describing what is in the bible. It useful to have other sections that address things like:
 * a) historical context (ANE, hellenistic, whatever)
 * b) history of interpretation in the various abrahamic religious traditions, which can lead all the way up today, with no special emphasis on any one of those traditions.
 * c) history of cultural interpretations
 * and the lead should simply summarize that content in the body.
 * The lead, some of the content, and the sources are skewed heavily toward some contempoary issues in some very specific protestant contexts. This is a sigificant departure from the NPOV policy.
 * Above, you seemed to have acknowleged these problems and I thought you saw them and understood them. That seems to have not been the case. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding.
 * a) Having these other sections that discuss those things means it will have to be included in the lead. So mentioning the patriarchal nature of the background of the Hebrew Bible is not simply theology and is going to be necessary and unavoidable.  Again if you would like a rephrase, I am game, but it is an unavoidable conclusion that if the historical and social contexts of patriarchalism--and egalitarianism--are in the body, they must also be in the lead.
 * b) I do not agree that all "Abrahamic traditions" should be included on this page. That would be even more off topic than contemporary issues. This page is not titled Women in Abrahamic tradition. Perhaps that should be created. This page is limited to the Bible.
 * If this article is skewed toward contemporary issues in a Protestant context, which I don't necessarily agree, it is because that is where most of the controversy on this subject exists today. It is part of Wikipedia NPOV policy to be sure and include such things with proper weight.  But if I have mistakenly done that, you seem to have intentionally done so.  For example, the Eve section.  Removing the sentences you did skews it toward the contemporary feminist view.
 * It's completely unreasonable to say I have not recognized problems you have mentioned when I attempted to rewrite this according to your complaints and you reverted it. There was no original research.  There was paraphrasing of what the sources say--sourced in the body--which is appropriate for the lead.
 * I've been gone from here for two months. I even went and asked you--what was it, three times?--to go ahead and do what you thought needed doing here without my interference.  You were too busy with other things.  So the day after I show up here again, you revert everything I have written and threaten me with penalties for edit warring. I am beginning to think you are stalking me for the sole purpose of blocking whatever I do on Wikipedia. That's not good Jytdog. That is a real problem.
 * Take over and do what you think needs doing yourself if you want to, and I will go away again and leave you to it, but don't just show up when I do in order to block me and prevent me from working. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't edit on your schedule. Notices of policy are not threats. With regard to 'abrahamic religions" I would be fine excluding all theological content from this page; but if we are going to have any then it is hard to understand why it should be so overwhelmingly evangelical christian theology, much less exclude religions other than Christianity and Judaism. Finally, the lead should summarize the body. Putting the sociological analysis in the first sentence, sourced to the book is about issues of women in evangelical ministry, is just... bizarre from a policy perspective. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you do edit on my schedule. That's the point. As I said on my talk page--the part you also reverted--I guessed you would.
 * Notices of policy--when they are used to prevent a response--are indeed a threat.
 * The lead should summarize the body. I agree. My changes did that.  You reverted it.
 * How can a page about the Bible possibly include anything other than Judaism and Christianity? Please explain.
 * What are you going on about overwhelming evangelical theology? How is it "the sociological analysis in the first sentence, sourced to the book is about issues of women in evangelical ministry" that I just tried to take out that you reverted and put back is any kind of a just criticism. It's there now because of you not me!
 * I changed it to--"Women in the Bible do not fit into one category of type. They are victors, victims, leaders, and servants. The number of women in the Bible is uncertain, ranging from 111 to 173 named individuals, with over 600 unnamed women."--in order to exclude both the evaluations you claim as evangelical and the reference--and you changed it back and now criticize me for it! Jytdog this is craziness. To claim it's bad and disallow change is just craziness. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is going no where and most of it is not about article content. The content problems here remain as they were - there is a bucket of inappropriate sources and the lead is not a summary of the article but is rather a mini-essay about a part of it. I do intend to fix the sourcing and the lead (and that source about women in contemporary evangelical ministry will have a much more constrained role) Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * References can be changed. As summaries, leads do have some in common with essays. The lead that you reverted was a summary.  I had completely removed that source about women in ministry--you put it back.  Repeating a criticism I tried to fix is indeed going nowhere.  We need arbitration of some kind here.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

copied content from Women in Judaism
, for future use, when you do this, you should wikilink Women in Judaism in your editsummary, per Copying within Wikipedia, see the "nutshell". I know this because I have created articles this way.

Also, this bit: "A common phenomenon in the bible is the pivotal role that women take in subverting man-made power structures. The result is often a more just outcome than what would have taken place under ordinary circumstances.[13]"

If we are going to have this in the article, my knee-jerk reaction is that it needs to be attributed to someone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay! Sorry!  Will do!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This one is referenced and attributed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

changing the lead
Let's change the lead. Criticisms of it seem fair and accurate--but what should it be changed to? Women in Judaism opens with The role of women in Judaism is determined by the Hebrew Bible, the Oral Law (the corpus of rabbinic literature), by custom, and by cultural factors. Women in Christianity opens with The roles of women in Christianity can vary considerably today as they have varied historically since the third century New Testament church. Women in Islam opens with The experiences of Muslim women (Arabic: مسلمات‎ Muslimāt, singular مسلمة Muslima) vary widely between and within different societies.

I don't know exactly how you interpret those, but in my view they all say pretty much the same thing--which in its own way--is what is already here. Which sucks. They all talk about the roles/experiences of women. Can we avoid going down the rabbit hole of roles somehow? You seemed to previously have a strong opinion about what "in the Bible" means exactly for this subject, so I am hoping you can explain how that might translate to a new lead. Creativity--we need a little creative thinking here. We need ideas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, what do you think of doing something with this sentence: "Women in the Bible are rarely mentioned by name and role, suggesting that they were not usually in the forefront of public life. Exceptions... blah blah"?Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * About the final parapraph here: "The number of named and unnamed women in the Bible is uncertain. Professor Karla Bombach says the number ranges from 111 to 173 named individuals, and over 600 unnamed women.[9] "Despite the disparities among these different calculations, ... women or women's names represent between 5.5 and 8 percent of the total [names in the Bible], a stunning reflection of the androcentric character of the Bible."[9] A study of women whose spoken words are recorded found 93, of which 49 women are named.[10]"


 * If there is no great disagreement in sources on this, how about "The number of named and unnamed women in the Bible ranges from 111 to 173 named individuals, and over 600 unnamed women.[9] Women or women's names represent between 5.5 and 8 percent of the total [names in the Bible].[9] A study of women whose spoken words are recorded found 93, of which 49 women are named.[10]" Come to think of it, is this expanded on in the body?


 * We can add a stunning reflection of the androcentric character too, but it needs a . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no disagreement as such--people sometimes count differently apparently--not sure how that works--but the idea is the same--not many. I agree --go ahead and change it as you see fit. A 'says who' should be easy--I think there's a ref already somewhere around it. It is mentioned--now--in the second paragraph under the Hebrew Bible.  What do you think of that as an opener?  Women vary is lame.  And Jytdog is right that the other stuff is contemporary and should be in a section that says it's about contemporary issues--most of the New T stuff should be moved there as well I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:FIRST, the title doesn't have to appear in the first sentence like it usually does. "Women appear in every book of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament." Could something like that work as first sentence, assuming it's true? As an aside, these numbers made me wonder what the corresponding numbers for the Quran would be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know--women are everywhere is suspiciously close to "there are lots of different kinds of women." Jeez--where is  when I actually want him? We need his input--he will have an opinion if we jump in and do something. Better wait. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * He's just thinking hard on it. Since 25 May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And according to Women in the Quran, the number of women named in the Quran is one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...further argument for that being the lead sentence in this article. I am thinking of moving that final paragraph to the other discussion of it in the Hebrew Bible section--or should it stay in the lead and move to the first paragraph if we use that sentence? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The %-numbers etc could fit nicely at "Relatively few women are mentioned in...", and that could be mentioned in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Moved it! See what you think! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We so are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And humble. We're really humble and never brag. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * the lead is much improved. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * YAY!! You made my day.  Thank you Jytdog! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Structure
I am considering adding a section on Bathsheba. However, if I do this, it will by necessity fall under "Hebrew Bible views on gender". I don't really have a view on "views on gender", I just want to add a summary of the biblical narrative, which of course be can expanded. Is it a problem that "views on gender" is so all-encompassing in the current structure? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if "Violence against women" as currently written is a helpful subsection. Violence is very common in many Bible stories, and can probably be found in the narratives of the women outside this section as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it should be in the section on sexuality, along with a few other actual women--we don't have any women there at all, just blah blah about it--Tamar, and Lot's daughters etc. etc. should be in that section--maybe something on laws on rape. In the New T the woman caught in adultery maybe. It would be a huge improvement to have more women actually in the women in the Bible.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And Rahab the prostitute and Hagar and the story of Jael and the tent peg which is not here anywhere yet and contains all kinds of sexual innuendo and reversal of male-female--according to the critics. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That is an option, but Bathsheba is more than female sexuality, for example she also gets her son on the throne, though I don't know if any sources noticed this. So any woman we put in this article as currently written (not counting popcult) will be under either gender or female sexuality. To me, that seems incomplete. Other intersting women are Miriam, Zipporah, Shiphrah and Puah, Delilah, Salome, Potifars wife, Pharaos daughter etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am adding this back up here because this is what I am responding to. I really like that you include that Bathsheba is more than just limited to female sexuality--but that seems a good point to make in talking about women and sex in the Bible. That the Bible gives even the slightest indication that these women were people first who also happened to be sexual is really significant in light of the fact that it was written entirely by men who lived in a patriarchal society.  In my mind it has always sort of balanced out some of the rest.  The Bible almost never gives a clue about what people are thinking and feeling--but it comes close with some of the women.
 * Plus, with notable women now, I think we can try removing violence as a heading. I'll do that and you see if you like it.  You can tell me I'm an idiot later if you want to. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me, and I'm still not opposed to a violence against women in the HB section, I'm sure there's sources on the topic. If it happens, it happens.
 * Okay so suggest another heading! Put another heading in!  Tykva--the one I fell in love with and gushed all over the page at first--divided women into four categories I think--all with a v--victors, victims, virgins and vixens--we could come up with something as good I'm sure!  We can't include every woman--but we should be able to include multiple 'categories' with enough examples that this article actually has some value and insight! Wouldn't that be great!


 * But I'm afraid I think violence of some sort has to be a category. It isn't as prevalent as you think, but it's significant when it happens because it's always an example of how bad things are for Israel. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Violence probably need a section, sure. But look at the current ToC. The OT has 5 non-vio women, then 4 vio women, and NT has no violence. Categories are hard, like we discovered in The Bible and violence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The only example I can think of from the New T is the woman caught in adultery. There just aren't any examples of violence there--and we are not allowed to make stuff up--I feel pretty sure about that... :-) Categories are hard and when a Bible article is split between OT and NT, it always ends up with this difficulty--there just isn't as much there. The OT covers centuries.  The NT covers about a decade. What can we do about it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot Rahab, there's a mover and shaker, subverting man-made power structures. Bathsheba and Rebecca seems to have a similar way of reasoning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, one could argue that Noted women in the New Testament is missing at least one Mary. The mother of that guy with the beard, the winemaker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! Mom is missing, but several women are missing, because we stopped in the middle of this one when I got frustrated. Two months of the FA process and going through GA have shown me that if someone has a specific complaint about something, I am happy to cooperate with changing it, but I get frustrated at nebulous, blanket, 'this is crap' statements. With specifics, there is something to be done. With the other, the only appropriate response is despair. So I despaired for a while. Now I have dipped my toe back in the water here and we will see what happens.
 * Echoing your brilliant heading for the New T, though, rearranged everything in a much clearer and better way I think--easily enabling the separating of contemporary issues from the rest. I am thinking that the 'notable' heading does allow the complete removal of violence as a separate topic though, and the women could be put in chronological order instead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You know--I probably owe you an apology for that--when I despair I stop listening. Then I need time to get myself in hand.  I left you hanging, and I am sorry for abandoning you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You never have to apologize for becoming fed up with WP, in whole or in part. Dealing with each other in our "system" can be hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * this was a great edit! Not sure "noted" is necessary but I understand the purpose (not meant to be exhaustive). Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Who are you and what have you done with my Jytdog? Oh--wait--the compliment's for Grabergs! That's alright then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog can be a kickie-wickie when he wants to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhmmm... isn't kickie-wickie one of those Shakespearean terms? That means wife?  Is that what you meant to say? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot the "affectionate term for a wife" part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just don't call him a quatch Frenchwoman. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quatch! You have some German in your background!  i am happy to be anybody's wife for a while, but i am not anybody's bee-atch. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I just found this--that's what I get for jumping all over the page huh? Am I reading this correctly? Are you making a joke?  I am experiencing severe dysphoria now--the world is rotating backwards--what is happening?  Have you been taken over by extremely polite aliens with a sense of humor?  I am contacting Area 51 right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As long as it's not notable, WP-readers shouldn't have to see such language. Just "women" is fine with me. And IMO, a doubling or tripling of the number of women here would not be a problem. If necessary, we can spin off "Women in Exodus" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or just have for example a Women in Exodus/Other women in Exodus section, without subsections for each and every one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Language? What the heck? What are you going on about?
 * I am reluctant to go specifically "by book" because we cannot do all the books or all the women in each book and I'm concerned that it would look as though it was meant to be exhaustive when it isn't. (I kind of like writing all over the page like this. It drives Jytdog crazy when I do that. He usually rearranges everything when he shows up.)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Notable" is a talk-page word (it has a distinct WP-meaning) that sometimes escape into article-space and needs to be shot, not important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And we don't have to do all books, just the ones we feel like doing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * However, when I have hunted down all the true and correct names for the Wives aboard Noah's Ark I will insist on separate sections for them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you run down those names, there should definitely be an article on that! Which sort of brings us back to the point of how many women there are in the Bible that are unnamed, and my suggestion that perhaps that is where the lead should begin. It's about the Bible, and about women, it is more specific, and less wishy-washy than women are everywhere and they're different, and it would eliminate the contemporary aspect from the lead sentence. It seems like a viable option.  At least it would be better than what's there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ummmm--the latest edit? "Compared to men"? Isn't that sort of unnecessary? As the statement stands it is not a comparison so much as an absolute statement--of the number of women in the Bible, few are named. No comparisons required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it preferable to reletively to what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's relative to the total number of women. But it's not a big issue. I was just concerned that because we nowhere discuss how many men are in the Bible, or how many of them are named, that making a comparison to something that isn't there could be a problem. Leave it if you like it. However, I'm telling you up front that if Jytdog freaks out about it, I am definitely throwing you under the bus! :-)
 * I moved some stuff around under Hebrew Bible and now our favorite idea is a full paragraph. That makes it a viable contender for the lead sentence.  I know I did this backwards!  I so often do!  I should have had content first, but sometimes I just come up with an idea for a lead--and then create content--and more often than not, that gets me in trouble, but maybe this time it will help solve the problems here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you made me a little insecure. We say "women or women's names represent between 5.5 and 8 percent of the total [names in the Bible]," Though this calculation would seem to include the number of mens names, A, as written it could well include names of cities and rivers and whatever, and B, this tells us nothing about the number of unnamed men vs the number of unnamed women. Take 1 Samuel 6:19, that's 50070 unnamed men right there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I am familiar with that feeling! We will fix it together. That is a holdover from the original article.  I believe the percentage is of the 600 women's names and has nothing to do with how many men are named or unnamed, but I will go check that source--or find a source--or do something to solve this very legitimate question you have now raised.  I'll be back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You were right! You were right and I was wrong--which goes to show it was a really good thing you brought this up!  As it was, it was very misleading and ambiguous.  Now it is clear!  Thank you!  Excellently done.  I love working with you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved this down to the bottom because things were getting lost jumping around--dang--another thing Jytdog is right about... Sigh... If we leave the women who were under violence listed chronologically under 'noted' instead, (with some important additions), then we have another group of women under something like--maybe--Marriage, Family and Sexuality--or some such thing (Prostitutes and Queens? :-) ??), it would be possible to echo those same categories in the New T without the total dearth of material in the New T creating that huge gap that the absence of violence does. Of course, there is 'contemporary issues' in the NT and that isn't in the OT--I don't know--what do you think? I really really want to put women under the sex topic just to show they are all more than just that--every one--prostitutes who save the army and daughters who act like prostitutes and women who are raped and behave with dignity--and all of them! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * note, I added Esther and Ruth. Esther, since she was mentioned in the lead but not discussed in the body, and Ruth because hey she has a whole book (and for bonus, is in the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew) Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you thank you! A million blessings upon your head!  I was going to shuffle it off onto Grabergs, so he should thank you too. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Where are you? You disappeared!  Poof!  Jytdog added two women and I added four--so where is Bathsheba??? I've added a ton--and no comment!  Still need to work on New T sex and women in art, but I do think it's come a long way.  Need your input! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of WP-time at the moment, I'll be back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. I miss you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead
At least the lead is, I was unable to force myself to read beyond that. "Women in the Bible fill many roles including victors, victims, leaders, and servants. So? You might as well say "people on earth fill many roles including this that and the other"."Their varied roles are viewed through sometimes conflicting biblical interpretations such as feminism, which prioritizes female views, egalitarianism, which sees equality in all things, an the complementarian perspective supporting moral equality with differing roles, and its more patriarchal versions of male supremacy." Some bits are one thing, some the other, apparently, again so what? and what in the world does an the complementarian perspective supporting moral equality with differing roles mean? There is no such word as "complementarian" and is that supposed to say "and the complememtarian perspective"? It seems it is just a typo and I would change it but it is hard to tell with such gobbledegook. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an amateurish attempt at an essay. "predominantly but not exclusively patriarchal"" Multiple scholars support the view of the Hebrew Bible as patriarchal, yet some" say something else and it goes on like that all the way through - 'some bits are this, some bits are that, some scholars say one thing, some say the other and others say something else again".What is the point of this article? Shouldn't it discuss Women in the Bible instead of trying to generalise on a subject that obviously resists generalisation? It is a disgrace to the project and I think it should either be re-written (not going to be me who does that) or deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I toned down your header. Yes the lead needs work.
 * "Complementarian" comes from misguided efforts to address contemporary issues over the role of women in evangelical christianity - it is the title of one of the sources. Yes this needs work. Why don't you read upthread a bit.  Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Come see if you think it's improved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it's better than it was.Smeat75 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am damned by faint praise. What are your objections? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Delilah
Gråbergs--when you come back and do Bathsheba--add Delilah too, okay? I've got to go review Gerda's FAC. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just trying to tempt me into adding interesting images! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a pic of Salome at the bottom I thought you'd like. There's got to be some good ones of Bathsheba and Delilah. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, added Bathsheba under Sex, marriage and family since she seemed to fit that category like hand in glove. Less sure if Rahab (the family bit, sure) and Jael fit very well though, haven't looked very closely at others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a nice image, we need to loosen Tissot's stranglehold on these articles. I've been wondering if he's secretly paying people to add his pictures, but that seems unlikely (at least I haven't seen any money). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, there's an argument that Rahab had something to do with sex, too.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He did love to paint these women didn't he? And mostly his paintings are realistic--which makes them good as thumbnails--and beautiful: a hard to beat combination. I am of the opinion that the majority of people don't give a rip who painted it if there's a pretty girl in it. :-)  I liked his picture of Japheth's daughter better than the one we have, she looks full of life in it and it makes you feel what a tragedy early death would have been.
 * So is Delilah on her way? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sooner or later, probably. Speaking of realistic paintings, I found this delightful one. It's one of those that tells a story like a comic strip. On the left, we see Ishmael beating the crap out of his babybrother. Later in the story, Hagar and Son pass that hill on the right with the very special father-son bonding going on and say to each other "This wasn't such a bad idea after all" (my interpretation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Presenting inauthentic epistles as genuine, disputed tags placed on article and sections
1 Timothy is listed under "Paul the Apostle and women" and then there is a section "Apostle Peter on women" which quotes 1 Peter but nowhere is there even a hint that 1 Timothy was not really written by Paul or 1 Peter by the Apostle Peter, according to all but the most diehard fundamentalists. I would just take these sections out but Jenhawk gets so upset at material she has written being removed and takes it as a personal affront so I just tagged the article and sections as accuracy disputed and she or someone else can figure out how to fix it.Smeat75 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop with the personal attacks. I get upset at people imposing their unsourced personal views on others. I get upset at arbitrary, heavy handed, "do what I say and don't argue" edits.  I get upset at stonewalling and the refusal to offer to negotiate.  I get upset when others don't acknowledge reality.  This, however, is a valid point and it should be included. The only reason the question of authorship isn't there yet is because this section is unfinished.  Go add it yourself to your satisfaction.  Consider this consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-did some passages and removed tags.Smeat75 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's short and sweet--but there is nothing on Peter yet--are you going to add that or should I put that back on my list? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightly re-worded the section.Smeat75 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any comment on the possibility Peter was not written by Peter. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just re-worded the section so it didn't refer to "Peter's" views but to "the author's" and added a "see also" to the article on authorship of the Petrine epistles.Smeat75 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... seems to me it needs a direct statement on authorship. It's disputed. It should at least be mentioned.  Actually, this whole section needs expanding.  It got a few sentences to hold its place basically, because if you only have a heading, someone comes along and deletes it.  There has to be something there, but there should be way more than this.  If you would be willing to write something, it would be good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try to revise it but I am very busy with real world work right now, it may take a few days.Smeat75 (talk)
 * No worries. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Art and culture
Do you think it's necessary to add some examples from film as well? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we have any with some women-focus... That recent MM-film, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

blockquote
is a quote--the whole thing is a quote. If it's set off as a blockquote it doesn't require Quotation marks. By wiki definition it's too long a quote to just have qmarks. Long quotes are supposed to be set off--at least that's my understanding. I could be wrong, but I guess we need to find out for sure. I'm afraid it needs to be completely rewritten as a paraphrase--which would lessen its impact--or put back as a blockquote. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * But as with any quote, we need to know, in-text, who said it. Just a cite is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)