Talk:Women in the Bible/Archive 2

Broad characterizations of societies
For one thing Greek and Roman attitudes, concepts and practices are nothing to do with the Bible. Then there is the obvious point that the female principle is revered as divine in Greek and Roman religion with goddesses and priestesses, absent and in fact considered wicked in Judeo-Christian tradition. In the lead "the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to justify cultural subordination with an ideology of superiority or "otherness" in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era." - I just don't think that's right, I am taking it out. Same thing with " Most theologians agree the Hebrew Bible does not depict the slave, the poor, or women, as different in 'essence' from men in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era.In the Greek world, the polarized view of women allowed some classics authors to write about women as another race." That is nothing to do with the Bible and is misleading, it is a complex subject and needs more nuance than is given here. For instance |The Women of Athena's Cult - 'The role of women in the Panathenaic Procession (which is represented in the famous Parthenon frieze) and the role of women in Athenian religion show us that while women were not esteemed very highly in everyday Greek life, there was a faction of Greek females that were able to break down the barriers and contribute publicly in the arenas of politics, civics, and religion.' There wasn't anything like that in ancient Jewish culture and of course the Roman Catholic Church does not allow women as priests to this very day. I am taking out that passage also.Smeat75 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Untrue--everything you say here is wrong.


 * "Greek and Roman attitudes, concepts and practices" directly influenced early Christianity, the formation of the New Testament, and even the actual content of the later Pauline Epistles. (Margaret MacDonald, "Early Pagan Women..." ISBN 0 521 56174 4
 * It was the culture that surrounded Christianity, and conflicts with it over women, sexual morés, and male authority were at the root of much of the hostility toward Christianity that often turned violent and dangerous.(Harper, Kyle (2013). "From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity", p. 4. ISBN 978-0-674-07277-0)
 * Female divinity in Greek and Roman religion does not represent a reverence for women amongst Greek and Roman men. One of the major functions of goddesses was to present societal ideas about women and their accepted roles.  The worship of Athena did not lesson male control over real women.  These were both warrior based societies who upheld male authority and domination and had different rules for men than for women. ("In the Wake of the Goddesses ISBN 978-0449907467
 * Male dominated societies were widespread in the days of ancient Israel, which did not invent patriarchy, and was not even the most intense of its practitioners. Patriarchy existed in places like Greece and the Roman Empire. ISBN 978-0-521-85943-1)
 * In "Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome" by R.Langlands ISBN 978-0-521-85943-1) she says, "In the Roman Empire, shame was a social concept that was always mediated by gender and status. Classics Professor Rebecca Langlands explains: "It was not enough that a wife merely regulate her sexual behavior in the accepted ways; it was required that her virtue in this area be conspicuous." Younger says men, on the other hand, were allowed live-in mistresses called pallake."
 * Look at your own quote: women were not esteemed very highly in everyday Greek life. That is an understatement. In "Women in Western Political Thought" ISBN 0-691-02191-0 Chapter one is on "Plato and the Greek Tradition of Misogyny."  Both Plato and Aristotle wrote on the inferiority of women, that females were created from the souls of the most wicked and irrational of men, and are by nature twice as bad as any man. Start on page 15 and go for the next three chapters.
 * If you think the Greeks and Romans were anything but androcentric, you are living in a dream world. That dream world is not authoritative for Wikipedia.


 * On pages xv and xvi in the introduction of "Reading the Women of the Bible... ISBN 0-8052-1182-9 by Tykva Frymer-Kensky--the female Hebrew Bible scholar--she says, and I quote for you: "Contrary to all assumptions, the Hebrew Bible, unlike other ancient literature, does not present any ideas about women as the "Other." The role of women is clearly subordinate, but the Hebrew Bible does not explain or justify this subordination by portraying women as different or inferior. The stories do not reflect different goals or desires...  strategies or methods used by women or men not in authority... there are no personality traits unique to women... and familiar Western notions...of women...are absent, as are any discussions of the nature of women... The only misogynistic statement in the Bible comes very late in Biblical development, in the book of Ecclesiastes, and shows the introduction of the classical Greek denigration of women."


 * Now unless you can bring enough sources to counter and disprove what these sources say, you need to revert these inappropriate and incorrect changes made because they are based solely on personal opinion and bias. Put back what you took out. You are in the wrong.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk, way too combative. These are pretty sweeping statements about social life in various ancient times and places and their very generality is not so easy to defend, much less their accuracy.Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No Jytdog, Smeat started off combative. His opinions are just opinions, he reverted without just cause, without talking, without consensus, without even any reference to show that what he took out was in error. He's the one in the wrong.  My statements are sourced correctly and accurately reflect what those sources say.  They are neither general nor sweeping--they refer to specific times, places and peoples.  Smeat's response is general, extremely sweeping in his claims, and contradicts the sources.  Come on Jytog.  You know damn well the Greeks were famous misogynists.  There is nothing inaccurate in what the article states.  The Bible does not make the same kind of claims about women that Plato and Aristotle do.  That's just factual.  Prove me wrong.  But do it with something more than personal opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Greek and Roman attitudes to women are nothing to do with the Bible. I am not going to argue about the rest of it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to both of you. The Greek and then Roman context is important for understanding the NT as well as Hebrew Bible texts that arose in the latter part of the second template period.  I don't see any way you can sustain the claim that it isn't, Smeat75. Whether that is done in this page, how that is done, and where in the article that is done, is a different matter.
 * Jen I believe you are well aware of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (not to mention how those passages have been used through history). This source is ax-grindy, but it provides a concise list of ugly sexist shit in the Bible. Deut 22:28-29 has always struck me as particularly ...difficult. That is just dealing with "women in the Bible" (the topic of this article) and not getting into what life may have actually been like in the various times (ca 2000 years) and places (from Egypt to mesopotamia) from which the Bible arose.  As we have run into before, part of where this is going astray is weaving in reconstructions of possible historical contexts in ways that are...overly general and un-careful.Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the role of women in ancient Greek and Roman religion is too complicated to go into in this article, to provide such context you would need to write a book. And one of the statements I removed "However, women such as Deborah, the Woman of Shunem woman, and the prophetess Huldah, rise above societal limitations and show that the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to justify cultural subordination with an ideology of superiority or "otherness" in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era" cannot stand alone like that. Above I quoted a source "there was a faction of Greek females that were able to break down the barriers and contribute publicly in the arenas of politics, civics, and religion" about ancient Greece, here is one on ancient Rome "The roles of women were not just confined to Roman cults, but also associated with a number of foreign cults that had made their way into the body of Roman religious importance. Pomeroy explains that one such cult was the cult of Isis which made its way throughout the Roman ,Empire and while in often dramatic contrast to many of the traditional cults was especially attractive.  This attraction was caused by the way that anyone could relate to Isis and this was particular the case with women who had a massive role to play in its upkeep.  Archaeology and written evidence from Pompeii illustrates that many women were affiliated with this cult, such as one so called Julia who was a public priestess of the cult at Pompeii.  This individual woman also shows us that such women could hold a certain authority in their localities, as Julia while holding this title of Priestess of Isis also had a number of businesses and authority over her own estates and income, as well as being a prominent member of society.  This illustrates Pomeroy’s assertion that religion afforded an outlet for those whose lives were circumcised in other ways." . Women were very important in ancient Greek and Roman religion, festivals for girls and women, the Pythia, in the Eleusinian Mysteries Men, women and even slaves were allowed initiation, the Vestal Virgins, on and on and on, how do you get a proper representation of it in an article about Women in the Bible, none of that is in the Bible and this is not a place for sermonizing "Greeks and Romans were misogynists and the Jews and Christians were less so." I would say generally that a lot of this article reads like a Christian sermon not an encyclopedia article.Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input and trying to mediate here. It is appreciated, and I completely agree on the importance of including the repressive aspects of the Bible as well, but in fact, that is already discussed in two places.  Patriarchy has more discussion of it than the other, and the second view (also in the sources) is simply mentioned with no lengthy discussion of it, giving patriarchy its the weight overall.


 * Your first sentence applies to everything on Wikipedia. It is not possible to do thorough in depth discussions in Wikipedia articles. We do broad overviews and offer samples of examples and that's it--for everything.


 * Smeat, you say, "However, women such as Deborah, the Woman of Shunem woman, and the prophetess Huldah, rise above societal limitations and show that the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to justify cultural subordination with an ideology of superiority or "otherness" in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era" cannot stand alone but including the kind of in-depth explanation you have here would be off topic. It is also unnecessary, since this isn't actually an article on Greek and Roman views and the only reason this is mentioned is context for the Biblical views. Context is valid. Going off topic is not.


 * Your argument seems to be based on the idea the Greeks and Romans were not as patriarchal as the Jews, and were not really misogynistic at all, and if that is the case, it is incorrect. Here are some articles on that: .   Here is a quote: Women in classical Greece did have some education and some role in society. Both were likely to be greater if they did not live in Athens. However, neither their education nor their social role was equal to that of men of the same socio-economic class. Women did not have the freedom to determine their own lives. There was a saying in ancient Greece, at various times attributed to Thales, Socrates and Plato, in which man thanked the gods that he was not uncivilized, a slave, or a woman.    This one includes One of the most famous early episodes in Roman mythology that reveals much about attitudes to women is the Rape of the Sabine women.


 * In the law of the Roman Empire, women were under the complete control of the pater-familias, the male head of the family. This power extended to life and death. A death penalty could be imposed upon a woman for adultery or drinking alcohol. Only the adultery of a woman was a crime which required punishment. Prostitution was legal for the men to indulge in. The pater-familias arranged marriages and appointed guardians for the women of his family. A woman could not legally transact business, make a contract or a will, or manumit a slave without the approval of her guardian. Daughters were not given individual names. They were called by the feminine form of the name of their father. If there were more than one daughter, they were numbered. Infanticide, especially of girl babies, was practiced.


 * This could become a book. Nowhere in the Mediterranean world of the Bronze or Axial Ages were women totally free or equal. By the time Judaism existed within the Roman empire and the cultural milieu of Hellenism, a variety of different views toward women had developed--but this article isn't about actual history, it is about what the Bible says, and the Bible contains only two of those views of women: the partriarchal view as predominant, but without the concept of "otherness" found in Plato, Aristotle and Philo, and the view of women as innately the same--metaphysically speaking--as men.


 * If you are going to make comments like this one I would say generally that a lot of this article reads like a Christian sermon not an encyclopedia article. You better be able to prove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't need more men showing up arguing how ancient civilizations weren't repressive of women. That needs to stop. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The bible treats women as objects owned/controlled by men quite a bit. Like the famous coveting command.  We don't have a lot of other documents from the ancient Israel to provide the sort of context that we do from ancient greece or rome, and especially not long theoretical discourses like we get in Plato, so it is very hard to make firm statements that women had a different role in ancient israel than they did in ancient greece or rome.   One can draw a line through various texts to show that women were some sort of "other" vis a vis men in the bible... Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Doing that would constitute original work. It isn't my job to draw lines or reach conclusions about what the primary source actually says. It's my job to find valid dependable sources and quote what they say. That's what I have done. I don't think it has been said anywhere, either in the article or here, that women had a different role in one culture than the other.  That would be factually incorrect. But the Bible does not include the kind of metaphysical comments (on what Tykva refers to as "essence" of Being) that can be found in the classical sources. At least, that is what is in the sources I looked at said--all of them.  All I can do is quote their work.


 * Do you agree including sociological context is valid? Smeat has once again refused to acknowledge that. Do you agree all these cultures were patriarchal, in differing ways over time, but still all patriarchal in practice and attitude? Smeat is denying he denied that: Your argument seems to be based on the idea the Greeks and Romans were not as patriarchal as the Jews, and were not really misogynistic at all I didn't say that, but he did say "there was a faction of Greek females that were able to break down the barriers and contribute publicly in the arenas of politics, civics, and religion" and This individual woman also shows us that such women could hold a certain authority in their localities, as Julia while holding this title of Priestess of Isis also had a number of businesses and authority over her own estates and income, as well as being a prominent member of society.  which seems to make the point they didn't really oppress women after all.  Do you agree with that?  Do you agree some of those Greek and Roman attitudes did in fact involve seeing women as something essentially "other" than men and not just that women should have different roles? Doing and Being are different and separate issues--which I know you understand. The statement in this article is not about roles. Can you find a source that contradicts the sources I used who claim the Bible doesn't make the same kind of claim as the classicists?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the example of Julia demonstrates the egalitarianism of the Greeks, then why remove the sentence that includes biblical examples that are basically the same type of thing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * this isn't actually an article on Greek and Roman views very true, they don't belong in this article at all.  I said you cannot use this article to preach a sermon that the nasty old pagans were much more misogynistic than the Jews and Christians. This article doesn't need more men showing up arguing how ancient civilizations weren't repressive of women. I didn't say that.Smeat75 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Context belongs in the article. There is no legitimate way around that notion and there is no legitimate way to deny the Greeks and Romans were misogynistic. The only real legitimate question is whether or not they were so in a way that differs from the Bible's. The sources say yes.  Unless you can come up with a source that makes that comparison differently, I say your comments are unfounded in the realities of the source material.


 * I said you cannot use this article to preach a sermon that the nasty old pagans were much more misogynistic than the Jews and Christians. Show me where I made this comparison to Christians.
 * And yes, you do seem to be claiming that Rome and Greece were not misogynistic: Women were very important in ancient Greek and Roman religion, festivals for girls and women, the Pythia, in the Eleusinian Mysteries Men, women and even slaves were allowed initiation, the Vestal Virgins, on and on and on,. Frymer-Kensky has a whole book on the Goddesses and this very male view, but that isn't what the article is about, so it is pointless and off topic.
 * Doing and Being are different. Frymer-Kensky's comment is on the nature of Being.  The Bible does not make the same kind of metaphysical claims about the nature of women that the Greeks and Romans did.  That's just reality.  It has nothing to do with the personal attack you have opted for rather than getting any actual source that supports your claim. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't. You never answer my direct questions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not going to argue any of these points except to say that I am opposed to contrasting Greek and/or Roman attitudes to women with those of Jews/Christians in this article "Women in the Bible".Smeat75 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You have made your opposition clear, yet you have offered no sourced evidence that Frymer-Kensky's claim is wrong. You have simply made generalized, grandiose claims about how wonderful the Greeks and Romans were to women. You have made no effort to negotiate or compromise on the valid matter of context, nor have there been any offers of additional sources. I did offer additional sources. Christians are nowhere mentioned in this except by you. You have made that a personal attack when all I did was disagree with you. I have made no attacks toward you. You are pushing a point of view, and if personal attack then stonewalling is the only option for dealing with disagreement over it, then a new approach seems called for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You have simply made generalized, grandiose claims about how wonderful the Greeks and Romans were to women. No, I did not say that. I said that it is too complex a topic to do justice to here, Greek and Roman views on women are not in the Bible and are therefore off topic for this article and if, which I would rather avoid, there is going to be a quote "the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to justify cultural subordination with an ideology of superiority or "otherness" in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era" that would have to be balanced by adding quotes such as I have on this page while women were not esteemed very highly in everyday Greek life, there was a faction of Greek females that were able to break down the barriers and contribute publicly in the arenas of politics, civics, and religion or referencing Sarah B. Pomeroy's book Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves This individual woman also shows us that such women could hold a certain authority in their localities, as Julia while holding this title of Priestess of Isis also had a number of businesses and authority over her own estates and income, as well as being a prominent member of society.Smeat75 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The role of women in the Isis cult is debated. (Swidler, Women in Judaism, p. 21.) I have every intention of putting women in the Bible in its greater context into this article. I'm going to restrict it to a paragraph or two, but I have now been motivated to include a historical and sociological section. I am using Pomeroy's book too. There is no claim in it that the mystery cults proclaimed the social equality of women.
 * If the example of Julia is valid to demonstrate women being honored in Greece of the Axial Age, then women such as Deborah, the Woman of Shunem woman, and the prophetess Huldah, rise above societal limitations and show that the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to justify cultural subordination with an ideology of superiority or "otherness" is the same. Your objection to one and use of the other demonstrates a double standard that is simply point of view pushing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that women in Greece and Rome were equal, they very clearly were not. I also did not say that Julia of Pompeii shows that women were honored.I am objecting to quoting with no further context, a view that says Greeks and Romans saw women as "other" but the Bible does not.Smeat75 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Any more claiming what you didn't say will require blanking this page. There is nothing left to go over here.  You came in and threw your grenade.  Now I'm going to go write something with much more detail.  I hope it will satisfy your requirements. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In an effort to resist point-of-view pushing, I am going to put some of this back with as many sources as possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now added a section on history. I intended a couple of paragraphs and ended with 6, and it still skims unmercifully but makes the MAIN points concerning the dominant attitudes and practices. The paragraph you hated is back and expanded with the support of the information in the historical section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Pomeroy
page 18, is used to source the statement that "Most theologians agree the Hebrew Bible does not depict the slave, the poor, or women, as different metaphysically in the manner other societies of the same eras, such as the Greeks, did.". I read page 18 (and page 17 and 19) and there is no mention of the Bible there. Is the page number wrong? Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can read 18-19, and it's all greek. On gbooks I get no hits for "metaphysically" in that book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Stuff
Jenhawk, there's still no attribution to the quote, let us know who says this or rewrite as not a quote. There's weird stuff in this section, "She lives a life similar to a young man's, free from domestic encumbrances, with energy, a love of war, and lovers." seems more poetic than encyclopedic.
 * It is weird--but I know I attributed it--it's Blumenthal, page 42--dang--you don't suppose I put it in the wrong place? You know what?  It's too weird to leave in--how about just removing it--and its citation.. wherever it is...  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear I mean in-text attribution, not just a cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That text is a) too-close paraphrasing and b) about a specific figure - the goddess Inana. While Blumenthal says "this description of Inana is the description of the zonah", he is generally careful when writing himself about groups of people (if you are familiar with his work, he often signals poetically, as he did in that sentence).   The content under discussion takes license from that signal and directly attributes this description to a whole class of female figures in the Bible, zonah.   So in terms of policy it a) fails verification and b) violates COPYVIO.  To the extent that we assume that there actually was a class of women known as zonah at some times in ancient Israelite societies,  the content is horribly essentializing, as absurd as saying "women are more emotional than men" or "black people are great at sports."  It is bad writing and scholarship. I removed this where it was added in Ethics in the Bible. It is embarrassing and ridiculous. Not just "weird".Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

OT question (no wait... it's not Off Topic!): According to the article, "The Hebrew Bible code is the only of these codes that condemns prostitution." Where does HB condemn this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You will have to take care of these things. I am gone from Wikipedia as soon as I close this comment to you.  You've been a pleasure to know and work with.  Thank you for all your work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have done lots of good work too. That's too bad. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Echo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the chapter (the book is open source and didn't find that in the source. It does point to Deuteronomy 23:18–19 (ironically, however. the passage says that money from prostituting can't be used as payment of vows; the books says "There are two passages in the Old Testament which show that in certain circumstances ‘a whore’s wages’ (ètnan) could benefit the temple treasury" (I guess this is one of those "must have" things -- it wouldn't be barred, if people weren't doing it).  The book is a great find, full of good stuff for this article and also citing many good refs like these two:
 * -- Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, not very condemn-y. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess there's room for a Prostitution in the Bible on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 18 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
 * 19 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
 * Per my OR it's not condemning prostitution per se, the loopholes are significant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's payment of vows, btw? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's payment of vows, btw? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Handel oratorios
At the moment the section "Women from the Bible in art and culture" includes " Deborah is an oratorio by George Frideric Handel first performed at the King's Theatre in London on 17 March 1733" which is perfectly true but it is only one of a long string of dramatic oratorios in English on Biblical subjects by Handel. "Dramatic oratorio" is like a concert version of an opera, no staging or costumes. Others include Esther, Athalia, Saul (roles for Saul's daughters Michal and Merab), Samson (role for Dalila, of course), Joshua, (role for Achsah, daughter of Caleb),Susanna, from the Book of Daniel, Solomon, (roles for Solomon's wife and the Queen of Sheba), and Jephtha (role for Jephtha's daughter).

I don't really care whether these are added to the article or not, I just thought I would bring them to the awareness of the editors working on it, seems a bit odd to refer to Deborah only.Smeat75 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked that closely at this section, but I would focus generally on those named after women/having women as main characters. But I haven't seen/heard any of these, so I have no feeling for how prominent female roles are in them. Good sources that connect the work to the topic is never wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The role of women in ancient Greek and Roman religion
The section "Women, sex, and law in surrounding cultures" does not say anything about the very important role of women in ancient Greek and Roman religion. I don't see why ancient Greece and Rome need to be discussed at all in an article titled "Women in the Bible" as they are nothing to do with the topic,but if those cultures are going to be mentioned in an article on Judeo-Christian religious texts, some attention should be paid to the role of women in ancient Greek and Roman religion. It is a very big and complex topic, you can't really cover it in a few sentences but, for instance, this article from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, "Women in Classical Greek Religion" contains, among much else, for example "Priestesses performed a variety of functions related to the worship of the deity and as a result had a strong public presence and authority within their communities. They led processions, offered prayers, lit fires on altars, poured libations, adorned statues, received and prepared sacrificial animals for slaughter, presided over sacrifice, distributed and consumed sacrificial meat, and tended sacred implements. Within sacred precincts, priestesses carried the key to the temple and cared for the xoanon (cult image), washing and dressing it as custom dictated." Our WP article Women in ancient Rome, section "Religious life" says "Women priests played a prominent and crucial role in the official religion of Rome. Although the state colleges of male priests were far more numerous, the six women of the college of Vestals were Rome's only "full-time professional clergy"...The Vestals possessed unique religious distinction, public status and privileges, and could exercise considerable political influence." There is much, much more. Of course Christianity does not have goddesses and until recently never had women priests either and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions ban women priests to this very day! The way the section in this article is written now it is saying "Greeks and Romans were patriarchal and misogynistic" (quoting opinions of Greek philosophers, highly educated members of the elites, using them as representative of ancient Greek thought is like presenting the views of Kwame Anthony Appiah as those of the man in the street in Manhattan). That section of this article is like a Christian sermon, it is saying "You think the Bible is bad when it comes to women, let me tell you, those nasty old pagans were much worse!" It cannot be allowed to remain like that, I would prefer for it to be deleted altogether, it does not provide "context" but a slanted and POV interpretation. However I will not delete or alter it at the moment and await other comments.Smeat75 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any feedback so without deleting anything I added a few sentences on the role of women in pre-Christian Greek and Roman religion, not nearly enough to do any kind of justice to the topic but maybe adding a little more balance. I still feel that section doesn't belong in this article at all as it is not about women in the Bible.Smeat75 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having context is useful; the ANE for the more ancient hebrew bible stuff, and the greco-roman for the later hebrew bible stuff and the NT stuff. It is hard content to source well and write well; there is a big chunk of older, often theologically driven, scholarship that sought to show the ancient israelites and then jesus as radical departures from their contexts; more contemporary mainstream scholarship is more nuanced in that regard. But the weight could be reduced, sure. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of episodes from the epistles in this article
Instead of quoting the passages this article gives interpretation of them, often very skewed to evangelical Christian glosses. For instance 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 did not quote the passage itself until just a minute ago when I put it in. There might, you know, be some readers of this article who have not memorised the NT and don't know what it says. Yes they could look it up but why not just quote it? Instead this article said "Traditional complementarians explain that Paul distinguishes between "public and private, authoritative and non-authoritative, formal and informal" types of instruction. Linda Belleville says those distinctions are not reflected in the Greek. She also asserts traditional English translations of these verses are colored by hierarchical bias. She uses 1 Corinthians 11:2-5 to demonstrate this by showing Paul approved women "praying and prophesying," which requires speaking in the church, adding that the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is about the order of worship and is corrective not directive."

And why should a "traditional complementarian" (are there non-traditional ones?) be selected to "explain" something that is not in the text, which just says "tell women not to speak in church, if they have a question let them ask their husband when they get home". Then we get another exegesis from somebody readers are unlikely to have heard of (Linda Belleville) and a bit of creative comparison with other texts to show it's not as bad as it sounds really ("corrective not directive"). It is like a little evangelical sermon. I am going to remove it and just quote the text, I would like to do that for all the passages from the epistles but I guess I should run it by the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I had a similar thought (I think) at Talk:Women_in_the_Bible, but I didn't do anything about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did have the same thought.Smeat75 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Too much generalizing in this article
I have done a lot of revision and addition to this article but I still feel it is not very good. There is too much broad generalizing, not just about the Bible but every other culture of the times, about a thousand years! that the Bible was written. I don't think it is possible in a WP article to do such a subject justice. I would really delete everything before the section "Hagar and Sarah" and just tell the stories of women in the Bible, if it were up to me, without any attempt to draw conclusions, like "they were patriarchal and misogynistic but weren't as bad as the other contemporary cultures" etc but I don't think others would agree.Smeat75 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You could try to ask for more input at wikiprojects like Bible, Women, Gender Studies, Judaism, Christianity and Feminism. Sometimes it helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Asenath
, other interested.

About this addition:. It seems to me that Book of Jubilees (?), Midrash and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is out of scope for "in the Bible", and since she is a minor character, perhaps is better excluded. Thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know we were only including "major" characters. I don't know how we would define that. You're on your own here I'm afraid. I am all caught up with both an FA and GA review for different articles going on at the same time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Have fun! And I don't think there's been any discussion on who is "deserving" of separate sections, but I could see this section "merged" into Women_in_the_Bible. If we try to include everybody at List of women in the Bible there'll probably be size-problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
I just happened to come across this article today "The Status of Women in Greek, Roman and Jewish Society by Elisabeth M Tetlow from Women and Ministry in the New Testament,Paulist Press, 1980 pp 5 - 29. Republised on our website with the necessary permissions" and was struck by some sentences that sounded very familiar from the section of this article I tried to make more balanced. There are word for word copies, here's a table - I wonder how much else Jenhawk just copied word for word, I only really paid attention to what she wrote on WP when she was talking about the dealings between "pagans" and Christians, sort of my pet topic in this area. Also of concern I think is that she has given dishonest references, it is not credible that she gets word for word identical phrases to the Tetlow article from books by Leonard Swidler and Miller. Jytdog, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, do you think this matters? Should it be reported to the copyrights board? Btw the Tetlow article she copied sentences from gives a much more balanced view of women in ancient Greece and ancient Rome than in that extremely POV section of this article that she wrote.Smeat75 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been an issue that I tried to clean up from time to time without making a big deal out of it due to the other issues. I don't know that it is worth reporting as she has departed the project but it is part of the cleanup still left to do.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the "Earwig" copyright detector is relatively happy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old discussion, but I hope you know I have never intentionally copied anything without attributing it.  I am just bad about quotation marks for some reason... I don't really know why, I put them at the start of a quote and forget them at the end - or I just forget them. Sort of like walking into a room and forgetting why. They were just mistakes, but I have learned to be more careful. I run the copyvio detector on everything now to remind myself to use quotation marks. I have improved a lot since I was new here. It helps not to be getting beaten up anymore too.Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I expect any lingering problems will be dealt with in future FA:s ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, knock on wood, but I haven't had any there - so far. I really hate that the sections of this article on the Pauline epistles and Peter are just Bible quotes. We are supposed to use secondary sources. Secondary sources would discuss the differing opinions of Paul's and Peter's views of women. They wouldn't just quote the Bible. That's lame. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

u|2603:8081:1801:BA00:6020:C90D:ECDD:9155 worst changes to lead ever
u|2603:8081:1801:BA00:6020:C90D:ECDD:9155 I think this must be the lamest opening sentence I have ever read. It's an obvious statement - (of course they are portrayed in various ways - they are various women!) - yet it's completely meaningless at the same time, since you neither mention nor explain what any of those various ways are.

A lead is supposed to summarize what's in the article, and you just eliminated most of that. This article has names. A summary would include that. What you left of the first paragraph makes it seem that the article is all about who the Bible names – it isn't. The second paragraph mentions challenges to patriarchy but never explains what they are and then goes on to only mention things supporting patriarchy. The third paragraph now makes it seem as though the old testament did not treat women with respect by comparison to Jesus. And God bless the fourth paragraph: where the heck is that even in the article?!? IT ISN'T.

This lead is now both uninformative and misleading at the same time. If you want to rewrite what was there, fine, but for the good of the encyclopedia, please, please do an actual summary and remove this - mess. I really, really hate the changes you made to the lead of this article, and if I don't hear back from you that you are working to fix it, I am going to revert/redo them myself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krmmiller. Peer reviewers: Mlic1995, Joshuamichaeldavis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)