Positive (Constructive) Feedback
This page has been set aside for specific comments and feedback from those who essentially support the DFV project but would like to make suggestions to better improve upon the text. Since this is still a work in progress, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. For comments and feedback questioning the whole idea of a DFV, please visit our Rebuttals page that has specifically been set aside for that purpose.
December 31, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
Your Divine Feminine Version of the NT is an impressive project and greatly needed, as you know so well.
In The Good News According to Matthew, your substitutions of Divine Feminine names will help bring gender balance to biblical studies. Although I like the use of “Christa,” people steeped in biblical tradition might be more likely to accept “Christ-Sophia.” For biblical, historical, and theological support of this divine name, please see my books In Search of the Christ-Sophia: An Inclusive Christology for Liberating Christians and Praying with Christ-Sophia: Services for Healing and Renewal.
January 4, 2011 at 3:22 am |
Thank you for this wonderful contribution to scripture translation. Godde, Lady, and She are all absolute balm to my soul and right in tune with my own work on expansive language liturgy and spirituality texts.
I am personally not comfortable with Jesus Christa as it appears to call into question the human maleness of Jesus in his earthly incarnation (no problem with speaking of him as incarnation of Sophia/Word of course). I have no problem with his maleness as physical gender is part of real humanity and was definitely part of his (especially since for me Godde overall and the other two Persons are primarily female imaged and he provides the masculine balance in my personal spirituality). And I agree with J A-C that, especially as it appears so early on, it is likely to turn off people who might otherwise be open to a stretching of their perspective. I would personally be fine with just Christ but think her suggestion of Christ-Sophia would be a great compromise too.
January 4, 2011 at 3:23 am |
Just noticed the link to Sophia’s Book of Hours in the Divine Feminine section–thank you so much!
January 4, 2011 at 3:33 am |
You’re welcome, Dr. Grimes! It was actually Shawna Atteberry (one of the members of our editorial team) who brought your work to our attention. And thank you for your helpful feedback! Your comments, and those of Dr. Aldredge-Clanton, are greatly appreciated.
January 4, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
I did not grow up steeped in either Biblical or Christian traditions, but have since come to the church/Church. I love your work on bringing feminist imagery to scripture, and find your work very spiritually freeing. As one of millions of women in the pews, comfortably saying Our Mother, Who Art in Heaven, and tired of caring for children, family, work and endless caretaking every week while hearing Jesus’s ministry constantly relating ministry to maleness, I am excited to see a new version of readings. I already know of Christ-Sophia, which is also a wonderful model. Christa is a wonderful model.
Bottom line: We need more models.
September 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
Wow. I was just reading your Matthew translation for the first time, and find myself powerfully overwhelmed by John’ s quote:
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lady!
Make her paths straight!’”
Thank you for that!
September 28, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
Our pleasure, Tara, and thanks so much for the kind words. It is amazingly powerful for me to see all those classic passages transformed to the divine feminine perspective.
May 13, 2012 at 8:46 am |
For the post on “A Women’s Place” I would like to add the example of “Zipporah”. She was the first born daughter of Jethro, the Priest of Middian. She ran the family business, which in today’s terms would be akin to a medium size organization considering the prosperity Jethro enjoyed. She also married an outcast Prince of Egypt. The OT account does indicate she was too the leader of the marriage, who Moses mostly gave deference to. I personally place her equal in spiritual importance second only to Mary for feminine personalities in the Bible, as she was the wife of the man who was so paramount in the OT, just as Mary was the mother of the paramount figure in the NT.
Sincerely,
-SH
May 13, 2012 at 11:28 am |
Matt 5:21 –> “Airhead” usage adds a whimsical expression to a sacrad text. IMHO it is out of place.
May 14, 2012 at 10:22 am |
I have completed reading the two gospels. The only suggested change is the one mentioned above. Otherwise, I find them to be very solid translations. Thank you.
I would like to recommend when compiling a DFV translation, that the books which make up the NT be not the same as the ones sanctioned by the Council of Nicea. For instance I Timothy may wish to be excluded. Others may wish to be added perhaps from Gnostic or other sources if any are found of value. I have heard of a golple according to Mary Magdalene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary).
The criteria for selection of a letter to be included was done in the firepan of opposition from feminine based religions and I fear the council gave preference to ones with a staunch patriarchal view and excluded ones contrary. I Tim seems to be one selected in such error as christianity treats both men and women as equal. This letter seems to be contrary to this accepted belief of the early church and the teachings of Jesus.
Sincerely,
-SH
May 16, 2012 at 6:50 am |
…Okay, so I have finished reviewing the material produced by the Christian Godde Project. It is very clear the DFV translation as it is has been produced to date is a scholarly translation of the original sources. There are other translations on the market that are much more slanted then this one. The DFV is scientifically, professionally, and with what appears to me to be a very high level of scholarly skill applied.
For Instance, in Romans in the KJV and Amplified translations the word ‘LAW’ is referring to the first five books of the old testament. A better word is Torah and that is the one used in the DFV. Also the word trust is used instead of ‘faith’. I agree that too is a better word to use to reflect the underling greek word (pistis). The fact that in both of these cases a word was used which better reflects the underlying meaning shows the level of biblical translation skill being applied to this translation. There are no slants in the translation, save for the feminine superseding the masculine, which is the converse in the other translations and perfectly fair in my estimation. There are commentaries noted, as in other bibles which are formulated from solid scriptural foundations. Unlike translations skews from the Mormon bible and the Jehovah Witnesses, among others (douay-rheims comes to mind), the DFV is much more scholarly in my opinion and surprisingly on par with the NIV, Amplified, or a matriarchal version of the patriarchal KJV. I am surprised to be able to say I find no fault and consider it to be a well crafted translation worthy of general acceptance. I was not expecting to find it as objective a translation as it is. I again thank the Christian Godde Project members for bringing this new translation into existence.
Sincerely,
-SH
May 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
Thanks so much for your positive and encouraging review of our work. We actually debated the use of “Torah” quite a bit, but the decision to use “trust” instead of the more traditional “faith” was an easier decision. We followed the “Scholar’s Version” of Paul on that. And we have tried very hard to bridge the gap between a faithful rendition of the original text, on the one hand, and our contemporary context, on the other. We consider and value all feedback, and really appreciate the thoughtful input!