Talk:Women in the Bible

Number of women / number of women's words in the Bible

Shouldn't the basic statistics be in the introduction? It seems strange to bury such key information down the page. Surely this paragraph should be the first or second?

Compared to the number of men, few women are mentioned in the Bible by name. The exact number of named and unnamed women in the Bible is somewhat uncertain because of a number of difficulties involved in calculating the total. For example, the Bible sometimes uses different names for the same woman, names in different languages can be translated differently, and some names can be used for either men or women. Professor Karla Bombach says one study produced a total of 3000–3100 names, 2900 of which are men with 170 of the total being women. However, the possibility of duplication produced the recalculation of a total of 1700 distinct personal names in the Bible with 137 of them being women. In yet another study of the Hebrew Bible only, there were a total of 1426 names with 1315 belonging to men and 111 to women. Seventy percent of the named and unnamed women in the Bible come from the Hebrew Bible. "Despite the disparities among these different calculations, ... [it remains true that] 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." A study of women whose spoken words are recorded found 93, of which 49 women are named. PhilosopherReader (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also: Freeman (2014) - mentioned in footnote 30 - tells us about 14,056 words or 1.1% of the total words in the Bible are spoken by women. These stats could be added onto the end of the above para. PhilosopherReader (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds alright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so moving that paragraph there is not good WP-writing. In an article as long as this, lots on info will be buried down the page. The lead currently says While women are not generally in the forefront of public life in the Bible and the common woman is largely, though not completely, unseen. which hints that there are not that many. Something like "Out of the people named in the Bible. less than 10% are women." may be an acceptable addition, but IMO, not that critical either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Article is in dire need of a neutral rewrite

In its current form, the article seems to lean heavily towards the interpretation of progressive religious apologetics rather than how it's interpreted by most religious scholars and most Christians throughout history.

The section discussing contemporary societies should be bumped further down, or shortened significantly and summarized. It's important to give readers context, but this can be done with a significantly shorter section, or added further down.

Feel free to use this thread as a place for discussions for these edits. If nothing happens, I will begin the editing process. 84.215.26.170 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Context is especially lacking, and is easily sourced and provided by the text itself. For example, in the first named section, it is said that women in the bible were subject to strict (value judgement) purity and moral codes of conduct in the ancient world. This is in the context of a biblical reference and commentary on the nature of patriarchy in the bible. What is glaringly absent is the context, that the holiness codes in the law of Moses are as or nearly as strict for men! If further specificity or neutrality could be accomished, the statement could be made in a less misleading context. Tight.board1460 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, we present a balance of what reliable sources have to say on a topic—frankly, here that means modern, typically critical scholarship.

Specifically:

What is glaringly absent is the context, that the holiness codes in the law of Moses are as or nearly as strict for men!

That is simply off-topic for this article, which is Women in the Bible. The only way in which this focus is misleading is if one invents many claims in their head while reading that simply were not there. Remsense ‥ 论 15:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

New lead-image?

Current lead-image

19th century version of earlier art-work

The original

Tissot The Women of Midian Led Captive by the Hebrews

Tissot Michal Watching David from a Window

@Jenhawk777, @Bis-Serjetà?, other interested, hello.

Bis-Serjetà? inserted a new lead-image yesterday (see below Eve), which I reverted. It looked suspiciously modern to me, and the only source at the time on Commons was a dead link. But I got curious, asked around, and learned the image was from this book, so not that modern. Anyway, that picture in turn is based on older art (see below below Eve). The Eleusa icon is 15th century, and the frame with the OT-women (yes, those are OT-women, and Eve is top-middle, list at [1]) 17th century. It also seems this portrayal of Biblical women is quite rare.

Eve fits the article well, but I think the old icon could be a decent replacement, what do editors think? The combination of NT and OT is on topic, and afaict most or all of the heads are mentioned in the article. It's a Christian context image, but so is Eve, what can you do, most of the art we'd consider here is, I'm fairly sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have given the entire article a look-over again, and I have to say, it looks pretty good. I like Eve as the lead image. Since the section on art says that Eve is the most portrayed image in art, it seems more connected to the text. I don't like the icon, which is more specifically located in time, and is specifically Christian, and since icons are nowhere even mentioned anywhere in the text. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What's the issue with icons not being (directly) mentioned anywhere? Painting is only mentioned once throughout the whole article; and icons themselves are a specific form of painting. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Some gifted Wikipedian must have written 2/3 of the article... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

My primary issue with the painting of Eve is that it's too vertically long, meaning wikilinks to the "Women in the Bible" article do not show an image when they are hovered over (only text). There is also the aforementioned point that it only depicts Eve.

I don't see the issue with the Eleusa icon being a "Christian image" considering that this article primarily deals with Christianity (the whole New Testament section being the evidence) and the fact that the Eve painting was made by a Lutheran painter. Just because it doesn't depict Eve with a halo doesn't mean it isn't of any Christian origin.

Again, the Eleusa icon depicts various women of the Bible in a natural style (that is to say, it's not a collage of images assembled by WP editors) and it includes just about all of the major female figures of the Old Testament and the most important one of the New, New Eve, the Virgin Mary.

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me correct myself on the issue of the wikilink; instead of showing no image, it only shows a crop of the image, which unfortunately only shows from Eve's breasts down to her waist. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored but surely a better image is available as a wikilink preview? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, neither are oil-paintings or woodcuts. But this is mostly in the WP:ILIKEIT area. Thanks for replying! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Eve painting can also be moved to the In art and culture section as Eve in art is mentioned there. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That was a reply to Jenhawk, but I was gonna say thank you to you too! Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean on the hovering, but I don't consider that much of a problem. The HB section in this article has about 8 000 words, the NT section about 5 000, so I think you're wrong on "primarily deals with Christianity" here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, disregarding the nudity, it is simply a bad crop of an otherwise-beautiful work of art.

Of course, the Old Testament is shared as Scripture by both Jews and Christians (and Muslims?) but I took a glance at the current images of the article and just about none of them are of Jewish origin, either Christian or maybe secular origin. Even the Old Testament section features only Christian art from my brief review of the images.

So is there any Jewish art similar to the Eleusa icon in that it depicts several women of the Bible? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Like I said in my OP, I think Christian art is mostly what we've got, Italian, Russian, French, Dutch, what have you. However, if we count Cecil B. DeMille as Jewish, then we could see his The Ten Commandments characters as Jewish. I'm not suggesting any of them as leadimage for this article. Though I always liked Tharbis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No, there are no Jewish representations of Eve before the Middle Ages in the Tanak I believe. Grabergs is right: Christian art is mostly what we've got. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Lots of good points here. The icon image isn't ideal due to its cultural specificity, but I still prefer it to the Eve image due to the thumbnail cropping issue and the fact that this article is about all the women of the Bible, not just Eve. Ideally we could find an image that depicts multiple women in a more realistic and historically/culturally accurate manner. -- LWG ^talk 21:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

With bible-topics like this, I don't consider realistic/accurate much of an issue. This is artistic depiction of religious stories, expressions of faith, symbols of how rich and mighty you are etc. The extent to which these women actually existed or what they looked like is not the point. Much of the available art-work will be some sort of "scene" from the stories, so it's rare to see several "big ones" in one place. But Commons is deep, and people are welcome to dig. Adding a couple of pics by James Tissot, but I don't prefer these as lead-image alts. IMO, if we're sticking to a single woman, Eve is the way to go. Some of Commons pics of Eve can be found via Category:Eve in art, but there are probably plenty that aren't categorized. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, I asked about the cropping-issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#The_hovering_lead-image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång. LWG 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? Perhaps a compromise that addresses most of the concerns discussed here is in order. There is a mosaic, of Eve, from a church in Jerusalem built in the 400's located here[2]. Please take a look and comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It's Eve, sure, but 20th century art? My preference is older. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to any of the images proposed so far, although as Gråbergs Gråa Sång pointed out that artwork is a lot younger than the church. Even better would be a composite of four of the images found here. I'd suggest Eve, Miriam, Jael, and Ruth. -- LWG ^talk 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, the composite image you made, although it looks well-made, seems to be a "worse" version of the Russian icon, in that it depicts fewer people, is more modern, and still is "culturally specific" to a Christian confession (Catholicism). At least, I'm applying the criticisms given to the Russian icon to the composite image. I still prefer the Russian icon as the lead image.

That being said, the composite image can be added to the gallery that @Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggested below. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I slapped together an example composite image for consideration. It could probably be cleaned up/polished a little (for example adding a more appropriate background), or someone with more wiki know-how could do one of those little multi-image galleries some articles have.

Composite of images of Eve, Miriam, Jael, and Ruth

-- LWG ^talk 20:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User-made lead-collages can be problematic (more so). They don't have to lead to MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY-style discussions but it's not uncommon. "Why only that artist? Where's Hagar, Mary, and Lot's daughters?" etc. IMO, the point in favor of the old icon is the OT+NT combination, which fits the article-topic and I can't think of any other examples of, but they might exist.

It seems the Eve-pic has been there since 2018, which can be seen as old and stale or "not broke, don't fix." She gets a point for seniority. I looked for some WP:OTHERCONTENT inspiration at the versions of this article in other languages, Goddess, Deity, Women at the crucifixion, Women as theological figures, Mother goddess, but found nothing obviously "better."

Off-topic, but we could have a "Gallery" section in this article like at David. The amount of art is abundant. This was interesting: File:Eve In Eden by G.Surand.jpg Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's very fair, and if I were asked those questions about this image my response would be "those were the images that were immediately available with a free license, and had the correct aspect ratio". I'm very open to alternatives. I don't think I grant that the Eve image has the momentum of time, but I would say that the preview cropping issue falls into "it's broke now and we should fix it" territory. Looking at other articles like Women in ancient Rome or Lama it seems that the custom has been to illustrate with a single prominent member of the class. In light of that, I think using a single image of Eve is fine, but I would like one that at least shows her face when cropped by the preview. -- LWG ^talk 18:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A gallery seems fit for an article of this type, especially when a lot of art is available on the subject/s; it wouldn't also hurt to diversify the art beyond Renaissance art, which is what my original edit that began this discussion sought to do :p 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)