Open editorial questions

The questions we have not finished answering.

A translation is not strengthened by hiding the difficult parts. This section records important issues raised by scholars, readers, and our own editorial work. Each topic links the current text, the underlying question, relevant scholarship, and the public GitHub discussion where the reasoning can be challenged.

Read Issue 001 All GitHub issues ↗

Issue 001 · Open

Women, translation, and what the text makes visible

A recent conversation with Old Testament scholar Marion Taylor sharpened a question we were already working on: when women become less visible in a Bible, is that coming from the source text, a manuscript variant, a translation decision, or a later interpretive tradition? Those are different problems and should not be collapsed into one claim.

OpenTranslation + reception

Four related questions, one larger issue.

Taylor pointed us toward women’s historical readings of Genesis 1–3, Katharine Bushnell’s language work, manuscript questions involving Prisca/Priscilla and Aquila, and the way a small tense choice in Genesis 2:19 can carry a larger harmonizing effect.

Our own immediate test case is Genesis 3:8. The current edition reads “the man and the woman” rather than the more source-near relational form “the man and his wife.” We are openly reviewing whether that belongs in the verse, in a note, or should be revised.

Read the full issue and sources →

What “open” means: these pages are not announcements of settled doctrine or claims that earlier translations were deliberately corrupted. They are a public record of questions we think deserve evidence, disagreement, and revision before we treat them as resolved.

Issue 002 · Open

Cosmic Parent and divine language

The project sometimes uses “Cosmic Parent” where the source explicitly uses divine Father or parent language. The phrase can be meaningful in context, but it is interpretive rather than a literal source-language equivalent. We have opened the question publicly: should it remain in the running text, move to notes, or belong in a separate interpretive branch?

OpenDivine language

Relationship, imagery, and interpretive distance.

The discussion looks at explicit Father language alongside other biblical imagery for divine care and action, and asks whether “Cosmic Parent” helps modern readers hear the relationship or asks the translation to carry too much commentary.

Read the full issue →

How this section works

From conversation to an inspectable question.

When a scholar or reader raises a serious issue, we try to reduce it to a concrete editorial question. We link the live passage, identify what kind of evidence is needed, publish the unresolved options, and keep the GitHub discussion open. If the evidence points toward a change, the revision can then be traced rather than silently appearing in the text.

#44 · Women interpreters and Genesis 1–3Historical interpretation, women’s readings, and what belongs in editorial notes. #45 · Prisca/Priscilla and AquilaManuscript order, textual criticism, and possible effects on women’s visibility. #46 · Genesis 2:19, “formed” vs. “had formed”Grammar, chronology, and the risk of theological harmonization entering the English. #47 · Genesis 3:8, “the man and the woman” vs. “his wife”Source-near translation, participant visibility, and editorial transparency.