The Divine Feminine Version (DFV) of the New Testament: Basic Principles
Another Bible Version?
A few years ago, one of the editors of this project browsed through the Bible section of a local Christian bookstore. Shelf after shelf sported dozens of customized Study Bibles. Most of the specialty Bibles used the more traditional KJV or NKJV, but many used more contemporary translations, including the ESV, the HCSB, the NCV, the NIV, and the TNIV.
There was a Bible for virtually every person under the sun. Men could stock up on Dad’s Bible: The Father’s Plan; Strive: The Bible for Men; Men of Color Study Bible; and of course the Promise Keeper’s Men’s Study Bible.
For those who aren’t yet married, there’s always The Groom’s Bible, and naturally The Bride’s Bible, along with the Couple’s Devotional Bible; then for the next phase of family life there’s The Parenting Bible and the Family Foundations Study Bible.
For women, they had Mom’s Devotional Bible; True Identity: The Bible for Women; Women of Faith Amazing Freedom Bible; and The Grandmother’s Bible.
For the younger generation, there was The Youth Bible; Teen Study Bible; Revolution: The Bible for Teen Guys; True Images: The Bible for Teen Girls; Student Serendipity Bible; College Devotional Bible; and last but not least, the Varsity Colors Bible.
For the real go-getters, try the Possibility Thinkers Bible, or perhaps The Maximized Living Bible, the New Spirit-Filled Life Bible, or the New Spirit-Filled Life Bible for Women. Then there’s the Celebrate Recovery Bible and the Urban Devotional Bible.
For deep thinkers, there was the Archaelogical Study Bible; The Apologetics Study Bible; and The Reformation Study Bible.
The career Bibles were well represented: The Sportsman’s Bible; The Teacher’s Bible; The Nurse’s Bible; The Firefighter’s Bible; The Police Officer’s Bible; The Sailor’s Bible; The Soldier’s Bible; The Marine’s Bible; and finally the Battlezone Bible for the trooper on the move.
What was most striking, however, was not so much what was included as what wasn’t included. For all the specialty niche translations and Study Bibles, it was difficult to find Bibles that challenge patriarchy or even systemic injustice. These were personalized inspirational Bibles, which is fine as far at that goes; but with dozens of Bibles on offer for Christians of all types, why aren’t there more Bibles that seriously engage social issues of the day?
There was one exception in the used Bible section of the bookstore: The 1995 revision of the NRSV named The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, published by Oxford University Press. Like “gender-inclusive” Bibles already on offer (CEV, GNB, NAB, NCV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, REB, SB, and TNIV), this version meticulously avoids the masculine generic language that has become increasingly controversial in a world striving toward true freedom and equality for all. However, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version was one of the first to also apply the gender-inclusive principle to Godde. By eliminating all pronouns referring to Godde, this version achieved a gender-neutral conception of the divine. By substituting the word “God” for the word “Father” in most instances, it deemphasized the ubiquitous imaging of Godde in purely masculine terms. By occasionally using the term “Father-Mother,” it strove to remind us that Godde can and should be described in feminine as well as masculine terms.
However, in relying more heavily on gender-neutral language for Godde, this translation did not emphasize the Divine Feminine.
The same can be said of The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation, published by Sheed & Ward in 2007. The result of nineteen years of work by a Catholic group named Priests for Equality, this is the first one-volume edition of a gender-neutral Bible designed for liturgical purposes. This translation, which is more dynamic and poetic, also avoids using masculine language to describe Godde, but it often avoids feminine language as well.
Both of these Bibles are excellent translations and highly recommended. They are two exceptions standing head and shoulders above other inclusive Bible versions. However, in relying so heavily on gender-neutral language for Godde, they offer only a partial concession to those of us who long for a recovery of the Divine Feminine within the Christian tradition. It doesn’t distract us by using masculine terms, but it doesn’t nourish us by using feminine terms either, nor does it challenge those who repudiate the Divine Feminine entirely.
The Divine Feminine Version of the Bible seeks to change all of that. This version comes from a grassroots movement which is frustrated and tired of waiting for the mainstream publishing establishment to provide us with a Bible which incorporates the insights of generations of feminist, womanist, and liberationist scholarship, among others. More recent Bibles such as The Peoples’ Bible do reflect these concerns in their essays and annotations, but they still use translations such as the NRSV which describe Godde using masculine names, titles, and pronouns. We are confident that one day fresh translations reflecting more of these concerns will be made available by established publishers, but in the meantime a gap desperately needs to be filled, and this version aims to do that.
The Development of The Divine Feminine Version (DFV)
The Divine Feminine Version (DFV) roughly follows the United Bible Society’s Fourth Corrected Edition of the Greek New Testament. Noting that most Bible readers don’t spend much time comparing textual variants, we decided against listing variants in footnotes or using brackets to set off uncertain readings. After considerable deliberation, we finally decided not to use any of the variants relegated to the Greek New Testament’s textual apparatus.
No Bible version is perfect. Nor is it possible to provide a technically “literal” translation from one language to another. The closest we can come to a “literal” translation is an interlinear which inserts English words below the Greek text, but that’s not technically a translation. Once a plausible meaning of the original text has been determined, then we can consider the best way to convey that meaning to a current generation. This is where the creative work of reimagining the text comes into play.
Generally speaking, Bible versions which tend toward literal fidelity are less readable, whereas Bible versions which tend to be more readable are less literal. The more literal approach is often called “formal equivalence,” and the more readable approach is often called “functional equivalence” or “dynamic equivalence.” Because Greek and English are very different languages, no Bible version can be both readable and literal. Consequently, all Bibles occupy some point along the spectrum between those two poles.
The DFV editors haven’t hesitated to render the ancient texts in contemporary language reflecting contemporary concerns and issues. In favoring dynamic equivalence over formal equivalence, we’ve continued in the tradition of many distinguished Bible versions. We maintain that this approach is not only valid, but preferable in many ways.
As an example, consider Jeremiah 31:20. The KJV “accurately” translates this text to say “therefore my bowels are troubled for him.” The NIV is less “literal” when it renders this phrase, “therefore my heart yearns for him.” However, in choosing a less “literal” translation, the NIV is more faithful in conveying the sense of the original. In actual fact, neither the bowels nor the heart are the seat of our emotions. Ancient Israelites spoke of the bowels in that way and we speak of the heart in that way, making “heart” a far preferable choice for us.
The point of all this is simply that “changing the words” of the Bible is not necessarily a distortion of the Bible; it can also be a way of faithfully communicating the Bible’s intent. For example, rendering the masculine generic “brothers” as “sisters and brothers” conveys the original intent by taking into consideration the fact that traditional masculine generic language doesn’t “read” as generic in today’s English. The term “brothers” may have been considered gender-inclusive at one time, but many today do not consider this a gender-inclusive term. Consequently, choosing a gender-inclusive phrase like “sisters and brothers” is a faithful rendition of the original.
Significantly, the DFV does take an extra step in this direction. The careful reader will note that in addition to adding “sisters” to “brothers,” this version also adds the names of matriarchs when only the names of patriarchs appear in the Greek text. Our intent is to bring women back into the narrative and to honor women’s contributions in the biblical story. So, for instance, references to “Abraham” in the NT are often rendered as “Sarah and Abraham.”
One final note about inclusive language. Many inclusive Bible versions have been criticized for their approach to the problem of the third person singular pronoun. Since there is no gender-neutral third person singular pronoun (other than “it,”), most inclusive Bibles approach the problem by either rewriting phrases to use the second person (“you,” “your”) or by rendering phrases in the plural instead of the singular (for example, “laborers deserve their food” instead of “the laborer deserves his food”). These versions have been criticized for potentially obscuring the personal or individual application of some phrases, as in Revelation 3:20 (“I will come in and eat with them” as opposed to “I will come in and eat with him”).
We considered many strategies for approaching the problem of the third person singular pronoun, but decided in the vast majority of cases to use a different (if controversial) approach. We have chosen to use the singular “they,” which has become so commonplace in contemporary English that several grammar texts now admit this usage to be acceptable. The singular “they” has a long history in the English language and has already been used by many other Bible versions, including most notably the King James Version (cf. Matt. 18:35, “if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses,” emphasis added).
From “God” to “Godde”
In the classic feminist book She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse,1 Elizabeth Johnson grapples with the problem of the traditional term “God.”2 Because of its long history of association with an exclusively masculine image of the divine, to many it implies a masculine way of conceiving the Christian “God,” as opposed to “the Goddess,” a term that Christians have not traditionally embraced.
In an attempt to overcome this “God / Goddess” dichotomy, Rosemary Radford Ruether suggested the term “God/ess,” which may work as a written term but which comes across as simply “Goddess” as a spoken term. Consequently, Johnson decided to work with the traditional term “God” as “an interim strategy,”3 “pouring the new wine of women’s hope of flourishing into the old word God,” while recognizing that “[u]ltimately this strategy may be superseded.”4
Since then, a new term has bubbled to the surface, gaining ground on blogs and web sites around the internet within the last few years. That term, “Godde,” seeks the middle ground between “God” and “Goddess,” combining a feminine-type ending with the traditionally masculine-type word. It’s intended as a more gender-inclusive term, something broader than both “God” and “Goddess.” Yet it transcends both as a term that points beyond itself to a divine reality that we can grasp only by metaphor. Some pronounce the term with two syllables, like “Goddess” without the “ss,” whereas others pronounce it with only one syllable, like “God.” Even if pronounced with only one syllable, however, it nevertheless serves as a constant reminder that the Godde of whom we speak is not the ancient man with the white beard so quickly recognizable as a traditional Christian stereotype.
In a sense, then, this too is experimental, and may or may not continue to gain ground among those seeking alternatives to the exclusively masculine image of “God.” In the future, another alternative may emerge, but for the present the editors of the Divine Feminine Version of the New Testament are content to affirm the increasing popularity of “Godde” as a way of describing the One whom Christians worship.
From the Divine “He” to the Divine “She”: Gender and Biology
In the Women’s Bible Commentary,5 Sharon H. Ringe describes the need for gender-inclusive Bible translations:
A particular concern in women’s interpretation is the problem of language and gender. The so-called generic use of words like ‘man,’ ‘brother,’ or ‘mankind’ and of masculine pronouns in traditional translations of the Bible obscure or even negate the participation of women in the communities whose stories are conveyed in the Bible. The translators of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) worked strenuously and systematically to address these problems. Their translation, on which this commentary is principally based, uses words like ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ and ‘brothers and sisters’ where the gender of a person is unspecified or where women as well as men are clearly being addressed.6
However, she goes on to describe a problem not addressed by the NRSV — the exclusively masculine pronouns used of Godde:
A theological issue of great importance in feminist interpretation that was not addressed by the translators of the NRSV is the problem of gender and language about God. All pronouns referring to God in that translation are masculine singular. The explanation given is that these pronouns (or verb endings, as pronouns are often conveyed in Hebrew) are found in the original languages and that therefore the translation is accurate. In both Greek and Hebrew, however, all nouns have grammatical gender, which governs the gender of pronouns used to refer to the nouns. In that sense, those languages are like such modern languages as Spanish, where, for example, ‘table’ (la mesa) is a feminine noun, requiring a feminine pronoun (ella, ‘she’). If one were translating from Spanish to English, however, where pronouns convey biological and not merely grammatical gender, the pronoun that refers to ‘table’ would be translated with the neuter ‘it.’ The same freedom prevails in rendering pronouns from Greek or Hebrew. Thus, the decision about which pronouns to use for God is one that cannot be made on grammatical grounds. It is a theological decision, and one whose resolution affects the way one views God. An interpretative decision that many women make is not to use any pronouns to refer to God (simply to repeat the word ‘God’), thus conveying the theological affirmation that God is beyond categories of gender.7
That’s the approach chosen by An Inclusive Version and The Inclusive Bible, and it is certainly a valid approach: Avoiding all pronouns with reference to Godde is an effective way to highlight the historic Christian position that Godde transcends gender. On the other hand, avoiding pronouns altogether arguably doesn’t balance out the exclusively masculine language that so many use of Godde. It simply sidesteps the issue. Consequently, Ringe’s point about the gender of the pronouns in the Bible deserves some emphasis.
As grammarians are constantly reminding us, the gender of Hebrew and Greek nouns and pronouns doesn’t imply anything about biology or sex. Fair enough, but that point cuts both ways: The reason that pronouns referring back to “Godde” are masculine in gender is not because Godde is more properly described as male, but because they have to match the gender of the word theos. Consequently, “he,” “she,” and “it” are equally valid ways of rendering those pronouns in English, a language in which the gender of pronouns isn’t determined by the gender of their antecedents but by what we intend to communicate in terms of personhood and sex.
When speaking about Godde, we necessarily use the language of analogy and metaphor because we cannot adequately grasp all that Godde is. When we describe Godde as “she” or “he” we’re not saying that Godde is biologically feminine or masculine, but that Godde engages us in spiritual relationship. Experiencing Godde as “She Who Is” affirms the Divine Feminine and expands our appreciation and understanding of Godde.
It’s our contention that a Bible version which uses the pronoun “she” of Godde is just as true to the original languages as Bible versions which use the pronoun “he.” In fact, given the importance of reclaiming the Divine Feminine within the Christian tradition, the need may be even more urgent.
From “Father” to “Mother”
Rendering “God” as “Godde” and using divine feminine pronouns are straightforward editorial decisions, as we have argued above. But what about the NT’s pervasive use of the masculine word “Father” to describe Godde? Inclusive Bibles have proposed different solutions.
For example, An Inclusive Version often simply replaces “Father” with “God,” but occasionally uses the awkward term “Father-Mother” to balance out the gendered parental imagery. By contrast, The Inclusive Bible uses the term “Abba God” instead of “Father.”
In the DFV we have chosen simply to render “Father” as “Mother” in most cases. This decision is based on the fact that the type of intimate familial divine-human relationship that Christians associate with the term “Father” are equally, if not more powerfully, communicated by the term “Mother.” Relying again on the principle of dynamic equivalence, and recognizing the language of parenthood as a metaphor with reference to Godde, our decision to use “Mother” instead of “Father” seems an appropriate way to highlight the divine feminine.
Christians have long thought of the “Fatherhood” of Godde as an effective metaphor for talking about spiritual intimacy with the divine. For example, many continue to believe that the Aramaic word Abba means “Daddy,” despite the fact that Joachim Jeremias, the scholar who proposed that translation, later retracted his suggestion as “a piece of inadmissable naïvity.” Nevertheless, though the significance of the term Abba is more ambiguous,8 we recognize the importance of the intimate spiritual experience that people associate with the term.
Why “the Son of Godde” and not “the Daughter of Godde”?
In The Divine Feminine Trinity, we argue that all three “persons” of the Trinity may be described using feminine terms. In the case of the second “person” of the Trinity, the Divine Feminine is revealed most strikingly in the incarnation, the “enfleshment” of Lady Wisdom. Why, then, have we chosen to retain the traditional language of “the Son” instead of “the Child” or even “the Daughter” of Godde?
This decision is not based solely on the historical particularity of Jesus’ maleness; we have also considered the theological significance of a gendered representation. If Jesus were merely a teacher of ancient Wisdom, for example, there would be no particular benefit to thinking of him in masculine terms. One reason we have preserved the NT’s image of Jesus in masculine terms has to do with the crucifixion.
Often in the NT, the story of Jesus is the story of the cross. For Paul, the Gospel is Jesus crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Portraying Jesus as the divine Daughter who was abducted, abused, and killed might run the risk of reinscribing violence against women in our theological discourse. By contrast, it may be argued that the narrative of a privileged male voluntarily laying aside his privilege and giving his life has transformative power. As Elizabeth A. Johnson has written:
Feminist hermeneutics has blazed a trail showing how the gospel story of Jesus resists being used to justify patriarchal dominance in any form. His preaching about the reign of God and his inclusive life-style lived and breathed the opposite, creating a challenge that brought down on his head the wrath of religious and civil authority. They crucified him, but Sophia-God receives that death and transforms it to life. When the story of Jesus is told in this way, a certain appropriateness accrues to the historical fact that he was a male human being. If in a patriarchal culture a woman had preached compassionate love and enacted a style of authority that serves, she would most certainly have been greeted with a colossal shrug. Is this not what women are supposed to do by nature? But from a social position of male privilege Jesus preached and acted this way, and herein lies the summons.
Above all, the cross is raised as a challenge to the natural rightness of male dominating rule. The crucified Jesus embodies the exact opposite of the patriarchal ideal of the powerful man, and shows the steep price to be paid in the struggle for liberation. The cross thus stands as a poignant symbol of the “kenosis of patriarchy,” the self-emptying of male dominating power in favor of the new humanity of compassionate service and mutual empowerment. On this reading Jesus’ maleness is prophecy announcing the end of patriarchy, at least as divinely ordained.9
Consequently, we have chosen to retain the masculine language of “the Son of Godde” in the DFV and have consistently portrayed Jesus in masculine terms. This does not mean that we don’t support feminine representations of Jesus, simply that in the biblical narrative we have chosen to retain the masculine portrait of Jesus in light of the crucifixion.
Finally, in considering how to render the phrase “the Son of Man,” instead of using a more gender-neutral phrase like “the Human One” or “the Chosen One,” we decided to split the difference and simply replace the word “Man” with “Woman,” rendering the phrase as “the Son of Woman.” Not only does this reinforce our emphasis on the divine feminine, it also echoes the phrase “born of a woman” in Galatians 4:4, a phrase which describes the humanity of Jesus.
Other translation choices we made also deserve further elaboration.
“Life-Giver” instead of “Savior”
Most versions of the New Testament use the terms “Savior” and “salvation.” By contrast, the Divine Feminine Version uses “Life-Giver” instead of “Savior” and words like “life,” “rescue,” and “healing” instead of “salvation.” This very different terminology is intended not only to minimize religious jargon, but also to emphasize (maybe even recover) a significant, positive aspect of historic Christian faith.
The Greek word for “save,” sōzō, has a wider range of meanings than is often realized. It can mean salvation from eschatological punishment, as in Romans 5:9: “Now that we have been justified by his blood, how much more will we be rescued (sōthēsometha) through him from punishment!” (DFV) However, it can also mean salvation from dangers of this world, as in Matthew 8:25: “They woke him up. ‘Rescue (sōson) us, Lord!’ they cried. ‘We are dying!’” (DFV) The word is also used to describe physical healing, as in Matthew 9:21: “She said to herself, ‘If I just touch his coat, I will be healed (sōthēsomai)’ (DFV).
“Salvation” in the New Testament is often described as the beginning of a spiritual life in the here-and-now. As such, it is sometimes depicted in the language of a spiritual birthing process (cf. John 3:3-8; Tit. 3:5). This positive dimension of “salvation” is often overlooked in some church contexts. While it can mean salvation from something, as from sin or physical danger, it can also signify the bestowal of life.
Gabriele Winkler points out that this is the concept of “salvation” in the translation of the New Testament Gospels into Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic) as early as the second century.10 The word for “life” in these Syriac Gospels was originally a term from Western Aramaic (the language of Jesus and his followers) which was commonly used to translate the Greek word for “salvation.” There was a Syriac word for “salvation,” but it wasn’t the one that was used in the Gospels. Winkler writes, “Joseph Molitor has shown that in the Syriac New Testament, the equivalents for the Greek verbs meaning ‘to deliver,’ ‘to redeem,’ ‘to save’ are not used; instead, they are rendered in Syriac by the terms ‘to give life,’ ‘to make alive,’ ‘to cause to live.’”11
The following examples from Matthew’s Gospel illustrate this difference between “salvation” and “life,” comparing the NRSV translation of the Greek with Murdock’s 1952 translation of the Syriac Peshitta:
|Matt. 19:25||When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?”||And when the disciples heard [it], they wondered greatly, and said: Who then can attain to life!|
|Matt. 24:22||And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved.||And unless those days should be cut short, no flesh would remain alive.|
|Matt. 27:42||“He saved others; he cannot save himself.”||He gave life to others, his own life he cannot preserve.|
Similarly, the Greek word for “Savior” (sōtēr) is translated by the Syriac term Mahyana, “Life-Giver,” as in the following examples:
|Luke 1:47||My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.||My spirit rejoiceth in God the author of my life.|
|John 4:42||We know that this is truly the Savior of the world.||We know that he truly is the Messiah, the Life-Giver of the world.|
Our decision to use “life” and “Life-Giver” instead of “salvation” and “Savior” in the Divine Feminine Version doesn’t rely entirely on the Aramaic evidence. Our intent isn’t to supplement our use of the Greek New Testament with the Syriac Gospels and the Peshitta as a matter of ideological convenience; it’s rather to reflect better how early Semitic readers may have understood the Greek terms in the context of a broader range of meanings. Our hope is that this will assist contemporary readers of the New Testament in envisioning afresh once more this aspect of Christian theology in a more positive light.
“Torah” instead of “Law”
The New Testament frequently references “the Law” (ho nomos), which Protestant theology has traditionally used as a foil to cast Godde’s “grace” into sharp relief. “The Law” (especially in Paul’s letters) is often understood as a universal moral code and “works of the Law” as legalistic human efforts to “earn” justification by good deeds.
In his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture “The New Perspective on Paul,”12 James D.G. Dunn challenged the prevailing interpretation of “the works of the Law” as legalistic efforts to “earn” salvation. He pointed out that Paul’s first use of this term, in Galatians 2:16, occurs not in the context of a debate about earning salvation, but rather in the context of a debate about circumcision (vv. 3ff) and food laws (vv. 11-14):
[T]o start our exegesis here from the Reformation presupposition that Paul was attacking the idea of earning God’s acquittal, the idea of meritorious works, is to set the whole exegetical endeavor off on the wrong track. If Paul was not an idiosyncratic Jew, neither was he a straightforward prototype of Luther….
As to the immediate context, the most relevant factor is that Galatians 2.16 follows immediately upon the debates, indeed the crises, at Jerusalem and at Antioch which focused on two issues – at Jerusalem, circumcision; at Antioch, the Jewish food laws with the whole question of ritual purity unstated but clearly implied. Paul’s forceful denial of justification by works of law is his response to these two issues. His denial that justification is from works of law is, more precisely, a denial that justification depends on circumcision or on observation of the Jewish purity and food taboos. We may justifiably deduce, therefore, that by ‘works of law’ Paul intended his readers to think of particular observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws.13
In order to better reflect the original cultural and sociological nuances of “the Law” in the New Testament, we have chosen to use the Hebrew term “Torah” (instead of “Law”) for the Greek word nomos. It must be noted that the term nomos is used in more than one sense. For example, in a more limited sense, it often refers to the first five books of the Bible (the “Pentateuch”), as in Luke 24:44. In other texts, the New Testament uses it to describe all the Hebrew Scriptures, the tanakh (the “Old Testament” in Christian tradition), as in John 10:34. In yet other texts, the term is used in an even more broad sense to refer not to Moses’ Law specifically or to the Scriptures generally but to “teaching” generally, as in Romans 7:21-23. When it’s used in this most general sense, we’ve chosen not to capitalize the “T” in “Torah.” We’ve also chosen to use the definite article (“the”) only when it’s used in the Greek, which better provides the sense of Torah in terms of personification, particularly when juxtaposed with Christ as in Galatians 3:23-25.
None of these decisions is intended to reinvent Christianity. Our intent, using the principle of dynamic equivalence, is to attempt to faithfully restate the ancient text in contemporary language. A better understanding of the scriptural text leads to better theology. We cannot pretend that the interpretative choices made here are the only valid choices or even the best possible choices. We must have multiple strategies, especially when we consider the great diversity of the readers of the New Testament through the ages. No one size will fit all. If we can simply raise awareness of issues in the way we render the text, we believe our purpose will have been achieved.
The Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry and Mark M. Mattison, Editors
1 New York: Crossroad, 1992.
2 Ibid., pp. 42-44.
3 Ibid., p. 43.
4 Ibid., p. 44.
5 Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992.
6 Ibid., pp. 7,8.
7 Ibid., p. 8.
8 Cf. D’Angelo, Mary Rose, “Abba and Father: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions,” Journal of Bibical Literature, Vol. III, No. 4, 1992, pp. 611-630.
9 Op. cit., pp. 160, 161, emphasis ours.
10“The Origins and Idiosyncrasies of the Earliest Form of Asceticism,” The Continuing Quest for God: Monastic Spirituality in Tradition and Transition, ed. William Skudlarek, O.S.B. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press), 1981, p. 26.
11Ibid. Cf. also Cynthia Bourgeault, The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind – a New Perspective on Christ and His Message (Shambhala), 2008, p. 21.
12On-line at http://markgoodacre.org/PaulPage/New.html (accessed March 13, 2012).
The Comments feature has been disabled on this page. In order to comment on any aspect of the Divine Feminine Version (DFV) of the New Testament, please visit either our Positive (Constructive) Feedback page or our Rebuttals page.