January 22, 2018 Matthew

Women’s Bible Commentary ★

Not one of the professors contributing to this commentary are professors of either Greek or Hebrew. None of them are scholars of the languages. Not one.
I did notice one had some sort of background in “Biblical Languages” but it appeared minor. It is entirely composed of women scholars.  It is not a work that utilizes scholarship of any males but instead is a challenge to scholarship that has existed for centuries under male scholars. How does this not categorically define them and everything we’ve learned from them as a product of male oppression?

Its motive and aim is not the glorifying of the Word, God, or Jesus, but women themselves. That’s traditionally called self-ishness. Ever since Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s failed attempt at a Woman’s Bible at the end of 19th century, feminist ‘theologians’ have been trying to rewrite the Bible for us without any, or minimal, Greek or Hebrew language scholarship. When will they actually learn the languages? 120 years, and we’re all still waiting. This is a careless 700-page single volume put together by seventy scholars. Seventy, and that’s the best they could do? Compare this with the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges which is a work of just thirty scholars and yet over 15,000 pages in 58 volumes. That’s passion for the Word.

Rachel Foster Avery, leader in the Women’s Suffrage movement, was right about this kind of treatment of the Bible when she spoke of Stanton’s work as “set forth in a spirit which is neither reverent nor inquiring” and just “a jumble of comment”.  (New York Times, January 23, 1896, Rachel Foster Avery. Discuss the Woman’s Bible: A Difference of Opinion Among Leading Members of the National Suffrage Association. )

Leave a Reply

Notify of