Talk:Ethics in the Bible/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

As of today's date (8/28/03) most of this material comes from the 1906 public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. This entry needs updating. One thing, however, needs to be made clear. This article is not intended to be the "Jewish" view of ethics. The religion of Judaism is not identical to the religious practices and beliefs described in the [[Tanakh|Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Rather, this entry is about the ethics of (a) the Hebrew Bible, (b) the Apocrypha, and (c) the New Testament. We need to avoid historical anachronisms by portraying today's Judaism as the same as the Biblical religion. Over time we could new sections in this article specifically on Ethics in Judaism and Ethics in Christianity.

Christian philosophy makes no attempt at more than chronology so far. It would be good if there was more there perhaps of the same intent as what is now in ethics proper. It is better as you say to title "Ethics in Judaism" rather than such contentious titles as "Jewish ethics" or "Christian ethics" or "Marxist ethics" or "Feminist ethics" since the implication is that only within those groups need one care about those issues. Whereas the traditions claim universality. user:142.177.etc

If these sections grow to larger sizes, these could be split off into their own articles. Those could eventually be joined by articles on Ethics in Islam, Ethics in Secular Humanism, Ethics in Hinduism, etc. RK 14:36, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You must also differentiate between traditional and modern views in most cases. For instance traditional Islamic philosophy is quite different in character from modern Islamic philosophy.

Hindu philosophy likewise. Contrast the traditional schools with what is said in Hindu Philosophy (a redundant article that must be integrated) and the way-too-brief summary of Hindu ethics in ethics.

Confucius and honesty seem to be the only place where that whole tradition is discussed, aside from its brief treatment in ethics. user:142.177.etc

I've just added a section on ethics in the New Testament. It's a pretty big subject, I hope it's the sort of thing people were looking for. It's also my first article for Wikipedia, which makes it harder again to know whether I've hit it about right. Somehow it doesn't seem to have got associated with my user ID, hopefully this addition will, so you know how to get in touch with me.

Ethics in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible

The section on killing (fourth paragraph ) could use some updating USING the Hebrew text (see e.g. [1]). Since this could moot the point, perhaps it could be discussed (here) first. Dan Watts 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia, Not Editorial

Will someone please tell me how this line: "Another major problem in monotheist ethics.." is unbiased? User: Uriah is Boss Sept 3, 2007

Tags

This article needs quite a bit of work. The majority of the sources are taken from the Bible, a primary source that should be used with caution to support any statements that are not obvious to any reader, including non-Christians.

It reads quite a bit like an essay, and needs reliable secondary sources. For example, a sentence starting with "The predominant Christian view" simply must have a reliable secondary source to support these words (not the idea that follows). Perhaps a few sources. It is very difficult for one person to speak for the majority of people within any faith; and, as editors here, we simply cannot make this statement (and others like it that I tagged) without reliable secondary sources.

The good news is that I'm certain sources exist that can support everything I tagged, although the wording might have to be modified to reflect the sources. Thus my addition of numerous tags should not be taken as an attempt to cast doubt on the ideas in the article. They are intended to improve it. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

I added four tags to the article. I addressed the citations issue above. The original research concern is in regards to passages such as the below. The citations tag and original research tag overlap as the below passages are unreferenced.

"An important element of Jewish Bible ethics..."

"The Jewish Bible adamantly opposes these popular Mesopotamian practices"

"These elements of Biblical ethics are central to the modern conception of legal justice"

"The New Testament is intended as a New Covenant, not records of time-honoured traditions"

"The central teachings of Jesus are presented in the" [begin list]

"This reply was, in context, conservative"

"The Pharisees considered this to be the most important principle in Judaism"

"Jesus answers the Pharisee by quoting the two most important Pharisaic principles"

"The predominant Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers"

"The Bible contains numerous examples seemingly unethical acts of God" [begin list]

These passages need reliable secondary sources to support them. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would only to note that in the article are cited only three secondary sources (Russell, Blackburn and Anderson) whose view on religion are one-sided. --2.40.144.158 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke

I found this article in absolutely terrible condition. No truth seeking individual should subject themselves to what I found. I made some major edits, but by no means is it where it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.209.205 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know that as well. This article has quite a history of vandalism. Is there seriously an ethical biblical principle of anti-cannibalism?! Here's where that section originated, by an anonymous user, to say that Jesus upset people by washing feet "in the nude". Even without that insanity, I don't know how that section makes any sense at all.

Smuckola (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a poor article

What we have here is 3 people, all partially or entirely critical of biblical ethics being cited throughout the whole article with claims that for the most part can be answered after not much of a Google search. I know I'm not the first to point out the lack of quality in this article but I don't know what I can do to improve it. 86.42.121.148 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section is more fully developed compared to the rest of the article. The rest of the article should be brought up to a commensurate level. If you are interested you can improve this article! Consider starting with the tag at the very beginning that outlines the main issues. One of the biggest challenge is the lack of secondary sources. These should be added to explain the ideas within (see the section just above this one on "multiple issues"). You can also see from the above that there are a lot of POV claims in the article that are unsourced. They may or may not be true and/or notable; we need reliable sources to state that. A smaller issue is that the lede does not summarize the article. Of course, the article should be improved before the lede is fixed or it will have to be done twice, but it is still a rather glaring issue. Hope that helps! Airborne84 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'd find reliable sources. 86.40.143.109 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you not sure what type of source to look for or where physically to find them? For the former, please read the article WP:RS. It will give you the type of source that will be acceptable here. Books written by Biblical scholars, published by reliable publishers (e.g, not self-published), and that are well-referenced themselves are a good start. Peer-reviewed articles in journals by these same authors and that, again, are well-referenced is another way to go. As far as where to get them, I suppose that would depend on where you live. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible

I won't speculate on why the "Old Testament" section was changed to "Hebrew Bible". However, in the criticism section at least, using the words "Hebrew Bible" would be misrepresenting the sources which were discussing the Old Testament or books of the Old Testament. Of course, "Old Testament" books appear to a varying extent in both the Hebrew Bibles and Christian Bibles. So, unless we are going to try to be extremely specific and list criticism only by book, it may be the best compromise to state "Old Testament", even if the books appear to some degree different between the Hebrew and Christian works. Further details should identify if the source is specifically talking about one work or the other, if appropriate. I welcome discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor changed "Old Testament" to Hebrew Bible. This misrepresents the sources in the criticism section which do not (unless I missed an instance) use the words "Hebrew Bible". As the "Old Testament" wording has consensus through editing and accurately reflects the sources, a new consensus will be needed to change it to Hebrew Bible, although I think that will only work in the first instance in the article, not the criticism section. Airborne84 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Child Abuse

I added the following to Child Abuse: -Erudecorp ? * 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Child abuse is demanded by biblical religions, such as Christianity (about a quarter to a third of the world's population). (Cited from Hinnells, John R. The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. 2005, page 441.):

• Proverbs 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
• Proverbs 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
• Proverbs 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

The Book of Proverbs is in the Old Testament. Not every Old Testament verse still applies. 86.45.13.128 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The question you should be asking is "what do these statements mean and to whom do they apply?". The clue is in the name: "Proverbs"! Proverbs are not meant to be taken literally and applied willy nilly to everyone in every situation. Otherwise how would you handle the classic contradiction of "many hands make light work" and "too many cooks spoil the broth"? Our Western culture doesn't advocate caning children, but the principles of these proverbs still apply: i.e. that we have a duty to discipline children appropriately and for their benefit. Blackburn, cited in the article, makes the same basic mistake of assuming all Bible verses are meant to be read literally and applied in blanket fashion today. Someone needs to balance that up. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS concern

Listing recently added material below. I have two concerns with it: (1) the author and publisher do not appear to meet the criteria of a reliable source, and (2) it does not appear to belong in the criticism section. If editors here agree it is a reliable source, please re-add to an appropriate section. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Scott S. Haraburda, a retired U.S. Army officer and professional engineer, "Christian ethical decisions should be based upon personal honor, interpersonal relationships with others including non-Christians, and moral implications of the decisions. Anything less than this violates the teachings of Jesus." He further claims that, "Jesus didn’t come to make us religious, righteous, or moral. Basically, His ethics involved His proclamation of a God-centered, love-filled life lived in obedience to God.".

References

Considering that it is a whole can of worms even if it's just among protestant theology, WP:RS will always be an issue. Is an article written by Evangelical that utilize the Unkown God to justify that some existing deity are merely people wrongly attribute consider not WP:RS? I say we add it just that there are people that consider differently.George Leung (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Scott Haraburda's material

The material by Scott Hariburda does not belong in the "Criticism" section, so I've temporarily moved it here. It's not a criticism of biblical ethics, as the rest of the section, it's more of a theological reflection on Jesus. If anyone wants to put it back into a relevant section of the article, have at it. I've temporary moved it here to the talk page until someone can find a home for it. <<Scott S. Haraburda, a retired U.S. Army officer and professional engineer, stated that "Christian ethical decisions should be based upon personal honor, interpersonal relationships with others including non-Christians, and moral implications of the decisions. Anything less than this violates the teachings of Jesus." He further claims that, "Jesus didn’t come to make us religious, righteous, or moral. Basically, His ethics involved His proclamation of a God-centered, love-filled life lived in obedience to God.".>> Alephb (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Structure

I would like to begin reworking this article and I would like to start by restructuring it. This page needs to be rewritten. First, we need to stop falling into the lazy approach of dividing everything that has anything to do with the Bible into the categories of Old and New Testament. This is ethics--that's completely unnecessary and somewhat misleading.

I believe this article should be structured topically. That takes a slightly more philosophical approach. I would like to see five or perhaps six sections.

• Section number one should discuss the basics: Are there ethical norms and standards in the Bible? What justifies assuming there are norms and standards of behavior that are coherent (as in an "ethic") in a Bible that is also diverse and contains contradictions? What are these norms and standards if they exist? What are basic assumptions in biblical ethics? Define it up front, lay out what it is, what it addresses, and what it assumes. Should a short discussion on the existence of god and/or the nature of god be included here--a separate section--not at all?

Sections 2-5 can be divided topically:

• 2) war and peace;
• 3) Human life and personal relationships--include marriage, sexuality, etc.; the sanctity of life
• 4) social justice, economics and politics, labor, business ethics--maybe put law and grace here;
• 5) the environment/bio-ethics/animals.

--or whatever else you can think of that are actually aspects of ethics.

• Section 6 could be a section on criticisms, but I would rather have those contained in each section along with whatever they are applicable to. It seems more reasonable to me to include all aspects of a discussion where it's being discussed. That is the way most scholarly articles are structured--though not all--so I am flexible on that if someone else has a strong feeling.

The consensus of everyone that comes here and reads is that this is an extremely poor article. No argument. Part of its lifelessness and lack of direction is its organizational structure. I love taking poor articles and redesigning them into something worthwhile. So I am posting this here, and if anyone objects to me reworking this page, please just say so and we will work through any and all issues. Be forewarned--I will enlist you! Anyone who has any contributions to make on any of these subjects should do so!

Can I get a consensus that this page should be restructured? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Right now the article gives a good overview of what the problems are with the ethics of the Bible. Problems, as if there were almost nothing positive/worth in the whole Bible, which is a WP:NPOV problem. Imho, the current content should be kept, but you may add what the Bible means for its believers, e.g. Bart Ehrman stated on Video on YouTube that it was a joy for Jews to keep the Law, it wasn't "a burden" as present-day Christians are inclined to think. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeping current content is certainly doable--something I generally attempt to do as much as possible--it's not my goal to replace so much as to rearrange and supplement. Yes, I agree, current research--since Sanders in the 70's--has all been inclined to view Judaism and first century Christianity through that different lens--producing the "new Paul." It's impacted everything and is a pretty fascinating shift in perspective. That's theology mostly but it definitely impacts ethics, so yes, I agree with both your insights.

If someone is coming to look for what the Bible has to say on some ethical issue--they won't find it here--what they mostly find are criticisms--as you say. Those should stay--I will probably add more--but the Bible also has a lot to say on ethics that is positive as well. If we are to accurately represent the field and the sources, the positive should be larger than the negative in this page anyway. That shift should be made as well--but that's content and therefore down the road I think.

Changing the structure and enabling the addition of more topic oriented content will fix that POV problem I think. It's not that what's here is not neutral--mostly--it's what is not here that creates that impression. There should be more history and sociology and any other -ologies we can think of too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps leave a comment on a few projectpages? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Such as Judaism and the Bible and so on? I can do that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

None may bite but the hooks are cheap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hah! I like the way you think.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm agnostic (sic) (grin) on the subject of whether a restructuring is necessary or not. To me, though, it's important that distinctions between Jewish and Christian interpretations not be suppressed. There are often different understandings of the ethics to be learned from the very same texts—and as far as it goes, evolution (in both cases) of those understandings over time, too. So don't lose any of that. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! No suppression! The purpose of restructuring would be expansion not suppression. As far as ethics are concerned though, there is more overlap in ethics than most realize since Christianity includes the Old Testament in its ethical views. The evolution of understanding of both groups may be more theology than ethics--perhaps that should be a section too. It probably is worth including. Anyway--if I understand you correctly, your position is basically the same as Tgeorgescu which is, fine, so long as the content already here isn't lost. Is that correct? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'd say that the structure of the article should be based on how significant RS structure the subject matter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That could work, if we can have some sort of idea on which those are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant Farang! :-) I would have guessed you would jump right to it. That is exactly why I suggested it! Books on ethics are generally structured by topic. The topics, and approaches to them vary, but they are all pretty much divided that way. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality, edited by Elliot N. Dorff, Jonathan K. Crane, and Biblical Ethics and Social Change, By Stephen Mott are just a couple of examples of this structure. A Textbook of Christian Ethics By Robin Gill is where I took some of these ideas from. I've got over two dozen books so far and they are all divided by topic. I'd say structure is significant to the discussion of ethics represented by the fact the sources all do it that way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone had the time to check the resources and see how they are structured yet? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality

Part one is ethical theories

Part 2 is topics

• Bioethics (4 chapters)
• Business ethics
• Sexual ethics
• Environmental ethics
• Animal ethics
• Ethics of speech
• Political ethics
• criminal justice
• war

• Biblical Ethics and Social Change

Part one a theology of social involvement

Part 2 Paths to Justice

• A Textbook of Christian Ethics

Section 1 Methodology

Section 2 Politics, economics and Justice

Section 3 War and peace

Section 4 The environment

Section 5 Human life and interpersonal relationships

I like the structure of this one the best and think it could be most easily adapted for this article. It only has four sections.

• Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, By D. Stephen Long

Section 1 discusses the source of ethical behavior. Since nearly all of these various books discuss something of the theology, philosophy and/or theory behind biblical ethics, including something on it--the nature of God, the arguments from naturalism, maybe Euthyphro--would fit well here--but it would also be necessary to keep it from overgrowing the whole article.

Section two is history -- for us it would be the history of biblical ethics

Section 3 is basically modern challenges--list sub-topics here...

Section 4 is Sex, money and power -- always good fun to talk about.

We could follow this pattern--sort of--with three sections: theories, history and topics. There are multiple options--I am arguing for two things primarily: freedom from Old Testament/New Testament divisions and a greater breadth and depth to a very important topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of specialized books--business ethics, the ethics of war, etc etc etc. They too have topics within their topic.

Vote!

@86.42.121.148: @Airborne84: @George Leung: @Alephb: You have demonstrated an interest in this article in the past, so I am pinging you to ask you to weigh in on my idea to improve it. It's discussed here immediately above this under 'Structure'. I think this change could vastly improve this article without losing any of what is here. I am happy to do the work, but I don't want to just 'take over' without consensus that these changes are both needed and good. Everyone seems to agree this is a poor article. With a few tweaks, I think it could be great. Please tell me what you think about restructuring this article! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Before voting starts, it might help to provide a nice brief summary, in this section, of what the proposal is that we're being asked to vote on. I see several different proposals in the discussion above, ranging from very broad to very specific. In general, you can count me as in favor of the article getting a major rewrite and in favor of something along the lines of a topically-based article. As for the Hebrew Bible/OT vs NT distinction, the devil will be in the details of how exactly that all gets edited, and it would be hard to have a clear vote ahead of time on how much the article should emphasize NT-OT sorts of differences. Alephb (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Go ahead. Improve away! A few thoughts:

I'm fine using any of the proposed structures you outlined from reliable sources above. The four part one you preferred seems fine.

Disclaimer: I added most of the criticisms—mostly because people in other articles thought they fit best here. I realize it appears there is a POV toward criticism; however, my view is that this is simply the best developed part of the article (with reliable sources) and the rest just needs to be improved in the same manner. (Thanks for taking it on.) Wikipedia's guidelines on criticism sections are not clear, although there seems to be an inclination toward what you suggested which is to parse it across the appropriate sections. I see no issue with that, although it will have to eventually be summarized concisely in the lede.

It will be difficult to completely ignore separate ideas of Biblical ethics between the Old and New Testament. Many Christians today see the New Testament as more relevant to their faith than the OT. I don't suggest that this article focus on the NT—only that a distinction is made in various sources and that may need to be acknowledged in some manner, whether just noting that in passing or in actually laying out the material.

Again, thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is awesome, we are all completely on the same page--pun intended! :-) Aleph, I didn't present a specific scenario because I wanted to leave it as flexible as possible for others to pick what they thought would be best. I value your ideas and input. And I suppose, truthfully, that content will be determined by what's in the sources and how it falls out from there. I indicated my preference, but I think everyone should get a say so. A lot of people care about this article even if they are stuck at "it's bad and I don't know how to fix it."

Airborne I said almost exactly the same thing you did about POV--"my view is that this is simply the best developed part of the article"--I could not agree more! Which means I think reorganizing will address that as well as its other problems. There are different views between the Old Testament and the New, you're so right, just as there are different views between the Old Testament and modern Jews--and between the OT and the new atheistic Jews and so on--and all the major views, from all perspectives, in reliable sources, should have a place in this article. (Without the supersessionists) I am so excited to hear back from you both I can hardly stand it! My educational background is in the field of ethics--it's my lifeblood really! And even though I am not sure that's an advantage here--I will have to keep a rein on my enthusiasm--I can only say how glad I am to have this opportunity. Thank you both! I am in the process of finishing up getting Biblical criticism ready to apply for FA, but I have already begun researching this one with hopes of taking it just as far. Thank you thank you!! I'm so excited! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't present a specific scenario because I wanted to leave it as flexible as possible for others to pick what they thought would be best. Now that I see you put it that way, that's probably smarter than my suggestion of nailing down a very specific proposal and having people vote Yes/No at this early stage. I'm more used to the format where votes need to be really, really specific because everyone is arguing about ten things at once, but that doesn't apply in this case. Alephb (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

starting the restructure

Please no one freak out that I am beginning to move things around! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am getting a running start. I have done something weird and odd--which is pretty normal for me--and have included several headings with virtually nothing under them because it is my hope someone will look at it and think "I have something I can say about that"--and they will! Pick a section! Make it your own! This article is already a great example of how well Wiki works when played as a team sport--so take the field anywhere you please! If anyone hates anything--or questions its sources or whatever--we can work that through here. Once something is written we can sink our teeth into it, so write whenever you please! I am! Hope to see other contributions here as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jenhawk777. Looks like the work is well underway. There are a few tools here that you can use if you'd like for the article and sections as you work. Feel free to change the article tag I added to {{in use}} when editing or replace in favor of others that are more appropriate as you continue. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Tiamat

@Katolophyromai: Awesome! Thank you so much for the heads up on the image! I just go and point and click and accept whatever the image says, so having someone who actually knows is truly great! Hey now that you have shown up and made a correction, you are obligated to do some writing here with us! That's a new rule we've made--or maybe I made it myself--but it's a good rule! Mostly because I need all the help I can get here! Anyway--enough whining--and thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Much of my work here on Wikipedia has been devoted to improving the articles on ancient Mesopotamian mythology. You are far from the first one to misidentify that relief. (In fact, I myself mistakenly identified it as "a scene from the Enûma Eliš" back in March of 2017 when I was still a relatively new editor and did not know any better.) The relief is from the Neo-Assyrian temple of Ninurta at Kalhu (Nimrud) and was discovered by Austen Henry Layard. I will try to help you with the article, but I do not know how much I can help with the article right now, especially since I am in the middle of both undergoing a GA review and conducting one myself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The best people on Wikipedia are always the busiest, so that does nothing but speak well of you and your work. Come by and drop a line whenever you can--if you can. I understand if you can't--but your input will be missed! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine of God

Editor2020 I know I did a weird thing by outlining topics without filling them in, but I was hoping someone would come along and write on them. Restructuring is kind of a mess right now, I know. I don't mind removing it until there is actually something to go there, but I was kind of surprised by your assertion that it's off topic. Do you not think all biblical ethics are dependent on this one? Perhaps you could explain your thinking a little more and I will end up agreeing with you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you should wait until you have something to put there. I'm not sure if the existence of God is relevant to "Ethics in the Bible", but with a good reference I could be persuaded. Editor2020 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered dividing the article by Hebrew Bible and New Testament, as the ethics in each vary considerably. Editor2020 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we can wait until I work my way down there. When I get there, I will see if I can find some good references for you to look at. We'll both find out what they say! Some mention needs to be made somewhere that ethics in the Bible assumes God, and certain things about God, and list those things, but that will probably be sufficient. It wouldn't do to get distracted off down the rabbit hole on that topic too far. Leaving it and waiting to see is perfectly reasonable.

The reorganization is changing this article from that split between the testaments--see discussion above. People forget Christian ethics includes the Old Testament and is rooted there. There is very little difference between Christian and Jewish ethics in reality--they share about 90% of ethical concepts--Christians add some things from Jesus. Those are being mentioned. The big differences between the Old and New Testament views are in theology, so any article requiring much theology, benefits from that split. But ethics is an entirely different world. Ethics is a subject best addressed by topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions to keep in mind while revising

@Jenhawk777: Here are some suggestions I recommend keeping in mind while working on this article:

1. Be careful to distinguish between the different books of the Bible and their different authors. The Bible is not one book with a single, known author; it is a collection of many different books written by very different authors with very different agendas to address very different issues in very different social contexts over the course of hundred of years. Each of these authors has a different perspective on ethics. Even subtle differences between the different authors' perspectives can be significant.
2. Give as specific examples as possible. Try to give exact chapter and verse numbers whenever possible as well as basic information about when, where, and by whom scholars believe the text to have been written. Just saying (for example) "Deuteronomy endorses the death penalty" or "Jesus said 'Love your enemies'" does not give the reader very much useful information.
3. Stay on topic. Christians and Jews base their ethics on the Bible (or at least, for some of them, pretend to). However, this article is not called "Christian ethics" or "Jewish ethics," so try to focus on the biblical texts themselves rather than later religious interpretations of them. It is also appropriate to give information about the historical context and the moral values of the societies in which the texts were originally produced, although that information should generally only be given in order to elucidate what is actually written or alluded to in the texts.

I hope these are helpful. If they are not, I am sorry. My only intention in writing this is to help, since you asked for me to help you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I was not in any way suggesting that you were doing anything wrong. These are just things I thought of that I would try to keep in mind if I were writing this article. You might already be doing these things. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! It was thoughtful of you, and I will keep them in mind. But I meant help adding in content! I could really use someone with your background to start on the history section! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I'll note again the relevance of including modern ethical decision frameworks that are ostensibly based on Biblical Scripture. You can see a couple of debates that have raged on the Talk:Christian ethics page by one or two editors who object strenuously to suggestions that Old Testament material be added in that article, asserting strongly that that material belongs in this article. Well, it has to go somewhere. It could go nowhere I suppose, but we see Christians and Jews drawing from Biblical Scripture quite often around the world in their daily lives related to decisions on right and wrong. It seems encyclopedic to me to capture that somewhere so readers can see how people use the Bible in their ethical decision making. Just my thoughts, of course. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Airborne84: Old Testament ethics certainly belong in this article. This article should cover both ethical teachings and values in both the Old and New Testaments in depth. I do not, however, think that this article should cover post-biblical ethical frameworks based on the Bible because modern Jewish and Christian ethics do not fall under the heading of "Ethics in the Bible." Besides, biblical morality is a bewilderingly vast and complex subject as it is; adding modern-day ethical systems based on it would only make it even more complicated. If we use this article to explain ethics in the Bible in detail, then we can merely summarize this article in the article Christian ethics and use the rest of that article to discuss historical and modern Christian ethical systems in greater depth. There is a tremendous amount of material to cover there also, because that article would need to briefly summarize this article and also cover everything from the earliest Church Fathers to the ethical teachings of present-day Christian sects. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, Katolophyromai's reasoning seems irrefutable right now. But I haven't even gotten to the second section yet--it's possible there could be a place for "Contemporary Interpretations." It kind of depends on how long it is by then. I am getting really good at boiling complex material down into simple sentences, so I am desperately trying to keep this as short as possible through that method--we'll just have to see how good I really am!  :-) (humor!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this, but I don't think there is a disconnect between this article's title and how modern Jewish and Christian groups use those ethics. The rest of the article lays out Ethics in the Bible. But that doesn't prevent a section from identifying which of those ethics modern religious groups point to as important today. Certainly there are ethical ideas in the Bible that major groups (outside of fringe groups or individuals) do not use in decision-making today. Pointing out those ethics in the Bible that people today do use seems encyclopedic—and not unrelated. Just my thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Airborne84 No worries mate--imagine me saying that with a truly fakey Aussie accent--my Aussie generally sounds more like Pirate... Most of the Bible articles I have worked on have contemporary views in them somewhere. You could always go ahead and write something--start Googling! We don't have to do this in any particular order. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Easy for me to sign other people up for work.... :) Might not be for a few days, but I'll see if I can pitch in on this sometime in the next week. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Airborne84: You really must take a look at this one: Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality By David Baggett, and Jerry L. Walls, isbn 978-0-19-975180-8Jenhawk777 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Structure change without discussion

@Editor2020: What the heck happened here?! I don't remember a discussion or gaining consensus! I am not necessarily against this change, but I'd like to know your reasoning for it--and I'd like to be given the opportunity to agree or disagree! Jenhawk777 03:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Changing other people's work without putting anything on the talk page is generally considered poor Wikipedia manners. It doesn't treat others as we all want to be treated here. I have pinged you a couple of times and gotten no response. You moved material out of the lead--where it shouldn't have references--to an "overview" section where it will require them, without even giving me a heads up. I have the references and can put them back--but that lead is going to need to be done eventually as well. Consensus, and working together, matters on Wikipedia. Jenhawk777 17:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that change. It creates more problems than it solves. Using a definition of philosophical ethics at the front is misleading as to what biblical ethics actually is. Look up biblical ethics, not simply ethics. I will leave the overview section you created so these statements can be sourced there, but please don't put citation needed tags in the lead section. There should not be sources there. Jenhawk777 17:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Editor2020: I have restored some and moved some to the overview section you created. The overview gives a quick and easy opportunity for sourcing the statements in the lead, and will probably be helpful to readers, so I left it. Neither of these sections is finished. The work you did in the other areas is good, organizing the criticism section is especially helpful. I am wondering how much to say there, since this section raises issues not discussed yet in the remainder of the body--genuinely philosophical issues of metaphysics and ontology--and interpretation of course, I am wondering if quoting specific references might be sufficient or not. Here is a book you might find useful for this section. Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality By David Baggett, and Jerry L. Walls, isbn 978-0-19-975180-8. Jenhawk777 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like the reorganization please feel free to revert it. That's how wikipedia works. (See WP:BRD) As far as the WP:Lead goes you should write the article before the Lead, as it is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. Do what ya gotta, no hard feelings. Editor2020 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I know I can revert you. But I am no more in charge than you or anyone else, and I have no wish to act as though I am. The way Wikipedia works best is through cooperation and consensus. It doesn't have to be a constant battle here. People can and do work together. That was my invitation to you--to work together. All that requires is a little communication. Jenhawk777 02:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Christianity

The article seems to be developing a Christian focus. More information about Jewish interpretations needs to be added. Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please point out what you are referring to specifically. So far I have only used two Christian references I think. The rest have been Jewish. Most of the discussion here so far is on the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible as well--there have been no discussions of specifically New Testament events or Christian views yet--so I am unsure exactly what you could be referring to. It is biblical ethics, and Christian views do have to get a mention at some point. Any imbalances that exist--if they are real--are only because there aren't any completed sections yet. Sometimes sources aren't neutral, but I go back later and check things more than once and remove any of that--if the information is good enough to keep. I will definitely keep an eye on neutrality. I'm sort of throwing things against the wall and seeing what sticks right now. Jenhawk777 03:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no point in thanking me for removing a sentence that anyone would agree really needed to go. Stuff like that will show up periodically--and get deleted--because I don't always filter until after I see it. It doesn't mean anything--except that I am working too fast here because of reorganizing. I usually write in my sandbox first so you would never see it, but I am working on the fly in this one. Don't get upset over a sentence, please--but saying something was good--and you can revert too of course--then explain! Always talk! I am extremely flexible and cooperative and respectful of other people's work. And humble of course--after that sentence I had to add humble... :-) Jenhawk777 04:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Creation and its ethical implications

I noticed that the end of the section is about women. Only a suggestion, but a common theme is "women coming from man" in Abrahamic religions (the rib), which may deserve mention. If I remember that is only in one of the two Genesis creation myths. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It will deserve mention and probably even some expansion. Instead of finishing one section and moving on to the next, I have been a little bit all over the place with stuff stuck hither and yon and none of it complete! Feel free to jump in and write! I appreciate the heads up that you will--or have--written something so we can keep this the wonderful consensus we started with, but I have no trouble with other people contributing. Drive-by edits from people who don't talk are problematic. But that is obviously not you, so please--additional input would actually be appreciated. Jenhawk777 16:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This was addressed since, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

More to come! What do you think we should be sure to include? There is so much that can be said about the Bible and women that what to leave out is the real issue! Jenhawk777 03:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposals for rename

Are there other thoughts about better names for this page? So far:

• The Bible and ethics
• Use of the Bible in ethics

Others? We should start a formal move discussion, but I want to get candidates on the table...Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just did a bunch of cutting back, and left things like this.

Trying to generalize about something this ...inchoate, but so big, generally leads to lots of blather.

So part of the way this was handled at The Bible and violence was to

a) ask "what is actually in the bible about X"

b) include some high level discussion of theologizing about X in the bible.

What is hard here, is that the bible is not a philosophical treatise; there is no 'ethics' per se in the bible. There is lots in the Bible that is fodder for doing ethics, and debating ethics. For sure. Hm. The Bible and ethics might be doable, or the inverse title of this page, namely Use of the Bible in ethics might be doable. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think The Bible and ethics would be best. It is consistent with reliable modern scholarship on the subject. Perhaps then someone could write a coherent article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there was a slightly related discussion at Talk:The_Bible_and_humor#Page_name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Hi Frayae, thank you for caring enough to show up and participate and try to help out here. I am grateful for any input on how to get a handle on this page. I knew it was a mess, it isn't anywhere close to finished, and because of that, it wasn't ready for the kind of peer review it's getting, but when I went and asked for help, this is what happened. It seems premature to me, but if I can get some actual help out of it, that's okay. Gråbergs reference to the discussion of the title at Humor--which we did together--sort of underlines part of this problem. Sometimes the "in the Bible" articles are interpreted strictly--and sometimes they are not. One of the other commenters has suggested that sticking stric tly to "in the Bible" is the right way to structure this--by Testament and book. That approach would be mostly historical obviously. I wanted to write about ethics, how the Bible has been used as the foundation for multiple ethics, so I interpreted the title that way--and then lost my way. I'm not defending the quality of what's there right now, but if we change the title, what's there (a focus on ethics) is the path the article would follow--so would you be okay with that? Do you have an opinion on which approach would be best? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Right now my view is that the reference work to base the title on would be The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Ethics. I am not a theologian, so the nuance of the direction the content takes is unclear to me. The problem as I see it is that there are several competing schools of thought on the subject. It is necessary to bring this into focus without mixing things up or making overly generalised content. This is a broad subject, for example that book I linked is a full size two volume encyclopedia on this subject. There isn't room for more than a high level overview. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Any sort of article on "bible" and "ethics", if it is going to be actually NPOV, is going to have to deal with history. For something like 500 years, there was a system of colonialism that involved people doing things, and people justifying things; the people doing it viewed as deeply consistent with and justified by the Bible. From Genesis to Joshua to Jesus, there is a thread of ethical imperatives and examples to fill the earth and subdue it and to spread the kingdom of god, by the sword if necessary. For 500ish years. (one can probably tack another 300 years or so onto the beginning if we include the Christianization of Europe) See also Manifest destiny. Those notions are still around, although the use of physical force is deprecated (for the most part) in the developed world.... and this is part of what fires religious terrorism in all the abrahamic religions, even today. People doing this stuff view it as ethical, moral, etc. One could say that women's bodies are a very current "territory" being disputed under this ethical paradigm.... some feminists frame the ethics of some pro-life ideologies in that way. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is an unfair criticism since it is based on the fact this article is unfinished. There is a place for criticisms in the second half--some possible headings are already there--content just hasn't been written yet. Criticizing this for what isn't there--when it is very clear there is intent for it to be there--is simply premature. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

this is what you wrote: That approach would be mostly historical obviously. I wanted to write about ethics...

and this foundational concepts like human value and human rights--the Hebrew Bible is what changed the view of mankind and protecting the weak, the stranger, the elderly, and women and children. See, that is shifting in our modern day as people move away from the biblical ethic; society is shifting to a utilitarian value of man instead. Soon, they will be knocking off people who don't earn their keep anymore!! The Bible teaches virtue ethics, and no, I don't think splitting this one into OT and NT is appropriate. Ethically, the Bible has one ethic that runs through it--there is grace in the OT and Law in the N T and everything that's in the NT is built on what's in the Old. Theologically there's a difference in testaments but ethically there isn't.

The use of the bible in colonialist ethics is not some fringe notion nor is it "criticism" - it has been a mainstream, and perhaps even the dominant, cherry-picked-biblical-basis ethical paradigm for most of the last 2000 years in regions where abrahamic religions are prevalent. That simply is what it is.

There is of course also the whole "arc of history bends towards justice" thing, which also has its own cherry-picked biblical basis, and also has a long history, most of that on the edge of the stage of history, but present.

I do understand that you are trying to clarify your thinking. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source that says 'colonialism' by either Judaism or Christianity--the religions that use the Bible--has lasted 2000 years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What Jytdog said is relevant. The subject of The Bible and ethics is very tricky. I was just reading in the Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology and it says this:

The Authority of the Bible for Ethics

Christians have always believed that the Bible is the most important resource for thinking about the moral life of individual believers and their communities. For two millennia, in discussions on ethical issues a strong view of the Bible's authority was a given. The Church Fathers, medieval theologians and ethicists, the Reformers, and their heirs well into the nineteenth century all presupposed that the Bible was the Word of God. Disagreements concerned the interpretation of texts and the particular theological and philosophical framing of ethical positions, but all grounded their views in the settled conviction that the Bible was divine revelation and trustworthy.

Today, however, the authority of the Bible is a flashpoint of deliberation and dispute. The formulation of the meaning of this authority varies, and depends largely on the definitions of particular theological traditions and decisions on text-critical and higher-critical matters. Those of conservative persuasion hold that the authority of the Bible is an inherent property of the text as the Word of God, and ground this in a doctrine of inspiration that emphasizes the Bible's divine origin. Others are less at ease with the notion of divine inspiration as classically understood, and argue instead that the Bible has earned its authority by proving its worth. They contend that the Bible's authority is based on its proven value over time in providing guidance and shaping moral imagination. Authority, from this perspective, arises from the recognition by believers of the Bible's value as Scripture, even though it contains elements that do not commend themselves for application today. A third approach arises from what is called a “theological interpretation” of the Bible. It looks to precritical perspectives and incorporates into the articulation of biblical authority the role of the Spirit and liturgical practices, the interpreter's character, and the importance of reading in community.

( Carroll R., M. Daniel, and Darrell L. Bock. "The Bible and Ethics." The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology. : Oxford University Press, January 02, 2011. Oxford Handbooks Online. Date Accessed 15 Sep. 2018 )

It is clearly stating that there are different views on the subject. If this article is to be a success, it must work with all of these views throughout the article. This includes the points being made by Jytdog. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Deciding "what the bible says" is already fraught (as is freighted, carrying a truckload of assumptions) even among people who accept its authority on some level (and there are levels of that); the secondary moves (and there are often several) to build on "what the bible says" in order to generate an ethics or "theology of X" are also freighted and tricky, especially if one is trying to be self-consistent. Theology is a marvelously complex endeavor (one of the hardest of all things to do soundly), and slow, careful thinking is essential. What we are tryng to here- namely summarize secondary sources to try to present "accepted knowledge", is also really, really hard. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: I have no argument with what you have said here. I haven't really discussed authority anywhere in this article, but perhaps it should be here too. One of the--many--things that got cut was an explanation that biblical ethics never discusses whether or not God is real--it assumes it (that's metaphysics)--and it assumes some things about how we know what the books and their authors intended to communicate (that's epistemology). But that discussion is theological, it's not ethics, so I removed it. Ethics is built on a metaphysical view--always--and even a certain epistemology, always, and that has been implied here but not directly stated. Perhaps this article needs to begin with a short overview of ethics itself that explains that. The average person does not know any of that.

These views are slightly different than what Jytdog is referring to though, I think. He is talking about how the ethic in the Bible has been used, and can be seen as, un-ethical. I totally agree with Jytdog that the flaws and failures and criticisms--whatever you want to call them--must all be included. I was going to do that in separate sections in the manner of some other articles on WP--the way many sources are written: present one view, then present the other view, but don't attempt to do either one justice by mixing them together. That was my thinking. It seemed reasonable that before the unethical can be discussed, what is ethical has to be established first. The fact that unethical uses exist does not prove an ethic doesn't exist. In a way, it sort of perversely proves an ethic does exist--even if it's a negative one. There is no formal deductive ethical system presented in the Bible--Jytdog's right about that as well--but that also does not prove there is no ethic in the Bible. It is simply in a slightly different form and method. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i am using the term "colonialism" broadly. See christianization of Europe, Early Muslim conquests, crusades, Age of Discovery( -->>British Empire, Dutch Empire, Spanish Empire, Portugese Empire, etc etc) Slave trade, manifest destiny, etc. arguably West Bank settlement (although very hot/contested topic). Oh see also religious terrorism most of which is christian in the US, but there are also of course representatives of the other abrahamic religions), etc. All of these have aspects of that set of ethics based on cherry-picked bits of the bible, namely: "we were chosen, you were not, so you need to follow our ways and we will take what is yours and make it part of ours; and we will kill you if you don't comply. And god said so.) Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thus proving even the broadest most inclusive of definitions of colonialism cannot be seen as lasting for 2000 years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: You are missing the point, the colonialist ethics came before those later colonisations you are thinking of which began in the 4th century, and have been an ideology since the beginning of Christianity. That is, Interpretatio Christiana. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing the point because now I am just confused. Are you referring to evangelim/missions/proselytizing/etc? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with regard to "the bible" and "ethics", Genesis (“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (so many sources on this!)) and Joshua (again, so many sources - this is "accepted knowledge" see for example doi:10.1177/0020964311434872) were key bits. We have, btw, Christianity and colonialism which is unfortunately poor in explaining the internal logic. European colonization of the Americas mentions how the bible was deployed, a bit. Discussions of what is "intrinsic" to christianity per se are interesting, but go far beyond our topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Be fruitful and multiply is about colonialism??? Colonialism is--based on its root word colony: (which is a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.) Colonization is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components. The term is derived from the Latin word colere, which means "to inhabit". Wikipedia Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. That did happen in the Middle Ages, and religion was used as one of the justifications, but it is political and economic most of all, it requires a 'state'--and I do not see the connection you are trying to make here. But it doesn't matter. As you say, it's off topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intent?

Perhaps it would be possible to add something about the percieved intent of the authors, mainly to what extent they intended to write about ethics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example? I see how this might help address some of the debate over the scope and content of the page, but I'm worried that discussing authors' "perceived intent" would require doing our own OR. I don't think it's very common for RS to explicitly state to what extent other RS were trying to write about ethics. FourViolas (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Intent can only be implied by what is actually stated. The question is whether or not they discuss ethics. I'm still waiting for a source that says there is no ethic in the Bible. What the Bible lacks is a formal deductive argument--that's all--the Greek form of argument, the modern form of argument--instead it is distinctly Jewish in its form and approach--it's presented as "moral reasoning" which is very much present throughout the Bible--but then I discussed that--with the references that explain it, and it has been deleted. Ethics/moral reasoning in the Bible is different from other formal deductive reasoning--that doesn't prove it doesn't exist at all. I do not believe there is a source that says what Jytdog claims. In all the references I checked, and all the references others have mentioned here, and in all the years I have studied this topic, I have never heard or read anyone claim what Jytdog says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no example. I think I've seen something about parts being intended to defend rights/priviliges of groups (like levites) and perhaps bloodlines. And I meant percieved per reliable sources (if such exist), not OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If the Bible says, "this is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord our God" and if it mentions "doing this will be followed by doom and despair"--is that a discussion of an ethic? Because that's in there a pretty good bit. If it says "do this and blessings will follow" is that an ethic? That's in there a lot too. If it tells a story and the story seemingly has a moral point to it--is that part of an ethic? Did you know parables are a uniquely Jewish form of teaching? There is no such thing as a parable anywhere in Greek literature--does that prove none of the parables of Jesus demonstrate an ethic? Ancient Israel had primitive forms of law, criminal justice, a primitive form of democracy, it had rules of economic justice and moral principles of human relationships including "love thy neighbor." Is love thy neighbor not actually an ethic after all? Much of what the Bible says is controversial, and much of it has been applied negatively--does that prove it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist--what is it people are applying negatively? Is there an ethic in the Bible or isn't there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP: "Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime." There do seem to be some of that going on in the Book. I don't see how Greece not having parables would affect if Jesus' parables demonstrate ethics or not. But that may be OT for this talkpage. And I put it to you that the hebrews stole the parables from the buddhists: Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.^[me] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Come to think of it, ethics in the bible may be the elephant in Blind men and an elephant ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, I misunderstood! I thought you were talking about the scholarly authors we're citing, not the authors of the Bible.

I liked the recently-deleted content discussing the nature, prevalence and distinctive characteristics of ethical reasoning in the Bible, and I think it's a great idea to go into further detail on that. As I alluded to above, there's tons of debate over whether particular parts of the Bible are trying to talk about sin, immorality, or impurity, or if they distinguish between these categories; I've also seen some books on how Paul's writings in particular interacted with Greek scholastic ethical traditions. I'd favor a section on this high-level question about whether and in what sense the Biblical tradition is meant as (including) an ethical tradition, in addition to the discussions of the Bible's approach to various questions in applied ethics that until recently constituted most of the article. There are good RS for all of these questions, and this seems like the best place to put them. FourViolas (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

FourViolas, I think Grabergs initial comment was about the sources--he can confirm or deny for himself of course.

I was just using a little common sense to show him what sources discuss as far as implying the intent of the Biblical authors. Most of those who write on biblical ethics seem to think the author's intent is apparent from content. The Bible authors never say, "Now I am going to talk about ethics." But I don't think that is proof they don't do it. The sources who write about ethics take the existence of an ethic in the Bible for granted however--they don't generally attempt to prove it's there--they just discuss what it is--I think that means they agree with me on this point: that ethics in a somewhat primitive form are indeed present in the Bible.

I agree with you that a more in depth discussion of the "distinctive characteristics of ethical reasoning" and some on whether or not it is there, and in what form, etc. would be pertinent. It is a high level question. Good idea to add more--if there was something to add to of course. (sarcasm...not aimed at you of course)

Grabergs, if not being in a Greek form of deductive reasoning is the determining factor for whether or not what's in the Bible qualifies as ethics, then no parables can be considered ethics. And they are considered ethical teachings. I don't think it would be possible to find a source that says the teachings of Jesus do not involve ethics--even sources that don't believe he existed would still say the teachings in his name are about ethics!

And actually, I think it's more likely--though this is not a fully researched opinion--that Buddhism might have borrowed parables from Christianity since Christianity did spread to India early, it was seen as a competitor, and Buddhism did respond by absorbing and adapting some of its concepts and practices by about 500 AD I think. Interesting side point that--and who knows--you could be right! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Jesus wandered over to India and stole the parabels, so that's that. Blind men and an elephant is supposed to be fairly BCE, anyway. You've lost me on the Greek form/ethics thing, but it's probably not important. And 4V got it right the second time, my OP meant authors of the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay then! Hell--what do I know anyway?! The Greek form/ethics thing is important! For Heaven's sakes keep up Grabergs! :-) Jytdog's initial objection was "there is no ethic in the Bible." I was giving him as much agreement as possible--using good sources of course--by agreeing there is no formal deductive ethical argument in the Bible. None at all. He's right about that. I was conceding a point to my honorable opponent. :-) However, the point is moot. There is moral reasoning in the Bible which does compose a primitive form of a distinctively Jewish--and then Christian--type of ethic. You understand perfectly, of course, that morals and ethics are different. Jytdog is mistaken in his position. No matter how much I request a source supporting his view--none is forthcoming--because there is no source that makes the claim he does. 4V is absolutely correct in saying Jytdog is attempting to impose his own anachronistic view on this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Jytdog, could you please get consensus before mass-deleting content unilaterally? Deleting well-sourced discussion of purity and pollution—probably the most important ethical concepts in the Hebrew Bible—on the grounds that they are "not about ethics but anthropology" [2], for example, is badly non-NPOV in that it prejudges the answer to the question of whether impurity was considered immoral in Israelite moral theology or, conversely, unethical behavior was thought of as a kind of pollution (see debate e.g. here). Much of your removal of sourced content is similarly based on contentious understandings of "ethics", and it's disruptive to continue removing and re-removing it while editors here are still trying to work out a consensus on what the page should be about. FourViolas (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the content? Not plugged into ethics per se and includes bizarre things unrelated to sexual ethics like The blood of slain innocents is said to pollute the land in Numbers 35:34. According to Leviticus 11, eating prohibited meats pollutes the consumer's throat.. Not to mention unattributed statements like Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires. That is somebody taking what is in the Bible and going... somewhere with it. That bit about the homosexuality in the NT is also completely out of dialogue with Homosexuality in the New Testament which is poor meta-editing.

One could say it is perhaps more disruptive to restore or argue to retain unsourced/badly sourced/off-topic content.

This is perhaps an appropriate place to say, that not every sperm is sacred; nor is every bit of content added to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There was also plenty of perfectly useful and well-sourced material, such as The Bible has two categories of pollution: ritual pollution and moral pollution. Pollution concerns arise when things and people are outside the established order. Even if there weren't, per the WP:PRESERVE policy it's more productive—if slower and more difficult—to improve rather than eradicate imperfect content. FourViolas (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Even here you quote something that it not explicitly connected to ethics. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a POV opinion. Plenty of scholars disagree: e.g. [3] Ancient man seldom distinguished between 'sin' and 'impurity'[...]Consequently, in the Priestly Code, any infraction of God's laws—cultic or ethical—is seen as a sin calling for appropriate expiation. Jytdog is imposing a contested and possibly anachronistic definition of "ethics" onto this page, and deleting large amounts of sourced material on the basis of it; this is fine if consensus agrees, but not otherwise. What do others think? FourViolas (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is simply reading the words that are there. I have no doubt that content could be generated about this topic. Of course it could. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no biblical critic on earth who would support the idea that reading the Bible is "simply reading the words that are there." Reading the Bible is impossible to do without interpretation. I think Johann Semler said that back in the 1800s. It is still true. Denying that you interpret is simply more evidence of POV. This is simply more of "I don't like what it says" and not a dispute over whether or not either the Bible or the secondary source actually say it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777 "the words that are there" was, quite obviously, referring to the the content that 4Violas and I were discussing -- the words that were in the Wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and your response to what was in the article is rooted in your highly POV interpretation of what is and isn't in the Bible. This began with "there are no ethics in the Bible." Except it is not a reasonable claim. There are no sources to support that view. Also, there is not a single statement in this article without a good quality secondary source stating what I quote from it. The source discussed Numbers and Leviticus as part of its discussion of the concepts of purity and pollution. If you read it, you would find a discussion of how sex isn't necessarily a moral issue even back then. There are multiple examples of the issue being ritual purity instead. In the source--that references the Bible. You dislike "the words that are there" but I say your quarrel over that isn't with me but with the source.

There is no OR in this article--or wasn't before you started mass editing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

content removed about theodicy had only prooftexts. that is OR. not connected to ethics. could be.

content removed about supercessionism had one source on Paul's attitude toward law. all OR with respect to supercessionism which was not tied into ethics. could be.

content removed, rather obvious OR; some editor's observations. "the bible has a great deal to say about bioethics".. seeing how that is defined as "the study of the ethical issues emerging from advances in biology and medicine" this seems a kind of stretch. Perhaps ideas that applied in bioethics, sure. anyway, was OR.

content removed, somebody threw in a quote from proverbs.

Please be careful in misrepresenting other people's edits per WP:TPNO. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

All of these pre-existed me in this article. I apparently should have said "there is not a single statement in this article that I have personally made" that is without a good source and cited accordingly. I fixed other OR in the upper part of the article by finding whether or not there were sources to support the statements and adding those citations--not by mass deleting everything that was inadequately sourced. What these examples represent are the things that needed fixing--things I was trying to fix in this article. I hadn't gotten down to doing the Criticisms section yet. Thus my assertion that your review and your conclusions on an unfinished article were premature. The big tag at the top saying this article is undergoing major revision should at least get a nod. Revision should be allowed.

Arguments about good and evil are the bedrock of ethics. Supercessionism has an ethical aspect--albeit a modern one. Bioethics is a modern term but not a modern concept, and it is ethics. At any rate, all the other headings went away too. Criticism is now way too empty. Adding--content and citations--instead of deleting was called for here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Content under criminal justice

• So he is saying that herem was a newer ... "ethic", added into much older material. Is that what you are getting? That's kind of interesting. It is complicated to bring in historical-critical aspects, but perhaps useful. Yes, if you go look at the sources there is a much longer discussion. The fact there are two ethics was interesting and also pertinent to ethics I thought.
• I'm not done dealing with your longer comment above please feel free to be done. I do not feel the need to have each point addressed. Surely we agree the Bible uses other literary forms in addition to history to communicate its ethic.
• the overgeneralization in the text, which leaves out difficult facts is connected to This appears to be privileging the "good" ethics and explaining away the "bad" ethics, which I am not sure we should do. In my understanding this has been your primary criticism from the get go. But I have never disagreed with including the bad, and do, 100%, think we should most definitely NOT privilege the good over the bad. To me this was a misunderstanding caused by timing and organization. It was always my intent to put the "bad" stuff in here I was just doing it in sections and hadn't done it yet. That's all--the "good" in the upper section, the "bad" in the lower section--because there is no ethic without good and evil--and for all the other reasons why it must be there that we are both fully aware of. There is overgeneralization, it does leave out facts, but only because it is unfinished. If you want the "good" the "bad" and the "ugly" side by side--I have no problem with that. It is not a problem to change organization at this point. The article is still pretty amorphous.
• There is no discussion to be had with anyone on leaving the bad stuff out. No one votes for that. The only discussion is over where to put it.
• So let's see if we can actually make a decision here on how to structure this article. If criticisms (the bad and ugly) are in a separate section, they are easier to find and are more visible in some ways. If they are in a separate section, that leaves the good up there all by itself. If it's all mixed together, it makes it easier to make the connection between concepts. It makes each section a little longer and messier. I can go either way, and I don't mind at all just letting you pick what you're more comfortable with. But let's do decide and get started on it one way or the other.
• (There are places where prophets describe oppression of widows etc as covenant-breaking pollution (see here and a bunch of hosea...) This would be excellent to include--I already had two books on the prophets open that I had only skimmed but intended to use. I agree this would be a good addition.
• I don't think it is helpful to readers to have statements making such broad sweeping claims Okay. I can see that. I think that's right out of the source, but just because it's in a source doesn't mean we have to use it, right? More specific is always better, I agree. If we can find a good source for more explicit statements, we should.
• when there are commandments and stories about god ordering a guy to be put to death because he is gathering firewood on the sabbath, which has nothing to do with social justice (but rather some other set of ethical assumptions and goals and reasoning that connects them), and could in any case be viewed as quite the opposite as liberating the oppressed. This part underscores how very difficult this subject is. There's a modern interpretation in part of that. It is so frickin' easy to fall into that! The "other set" of ethical assumptions has nothing to do with social justice--I don't think that was even an ethical concept as such back then. It's hard not to use anachronistic terms isn't it? They are short-hand for sets of ideas to us, but your comment here: I don't think we should use loaded language like "right to life" when talking about what is in the Bible... it is anachronistic. is a good, valid point. I agree. We are going to have to "describe" what the source meant and not use those modern terms. (It is interesting though that we originally took our modern concepts of "social justice" from those prophets you mentioned--but that's now, not then.)
• The source, focused on actively constructing a specific Christian ethics, is not the greatest source for generating content describing "ethics in the Bible". I cannot agree to excluding a perfectly good source just because they are Christian. That will in fact give a biased product. The majority of the sources I had used--so far--merely by coincidence--have been Jewish. Both Jewish and Christian academic sources will have to be used. Secular sources--and there are some good ones--will also be included, of course, but excluding a Christian source because it is Christian is bias. This might be one of those articles where there would be a place for the inclusion of Islamic views as well. They don't use the Bible per sé but they have views of biblical ethics. These are the people that study, write and teach biblical ethics. So long as there is not a preponderance of one isolated view, and the sources are academic, this is not a valid objection. I cannot agree.
• the proposed content discusses capital punishment and provides some anthropological context. Does that mean including it at least in part? If you decide to structure the article with the bad and ugly mixed in, criminal justice demands a decent discussion of capitol punishment. If it's not in a section of its own, it must be here--must. Please take a look at a couple of sources on this and see what you come up with. Covenant and community as part of the ethic must also be included though.
• Are we actually making progress here? We can I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • When I wrote, the "bad" ethic, I meant things that are described as mandated by god (therefore actually good, in the bible), but that many people today and throughout history can only view as bad. Like herem, like death by stoning for sabbath breaking.
  • About the source, i alsowould raise questions about a source that is primarily using the bible to construct a "jewish ethics of X" for today or a secular ethics of X for today -- the objection is that such sources are generally going to be using the bible as evidence to make an argument about something else. There is a substantial literature with ethics in the bible as their focus, where it should be more or less impossible to tell if they are written by jews or christians and there should be little to no reason for the author to even tout their religion. Many of these may also be making some argument but ideally we'll use the ones that are trying to describe, rather than make arguments.Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I understood. That's how I used it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! Just making sure.

I moved your comment out of the midst of mine, btw. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

History vs what's in "the Bible"

So, especially for the Hebrew Bible, what is the Bible is not necessarily history -- things described may not necessarily have ever happened. There are some people who believe the Bible is true as a matter of faith, and there are people who just kind of don't think about this.

I am concerned for example about the picture of stoning that is in the article. I am unaware of evidence that there actually was stoning in ancient Israel. (I really am unaware; I haven't gone looking or studied this before and am going to spend some time on that.) But the picture leads people to imagine that there was.

Likewise discussion about what "criminal law" was actually like at one or more points in the roughly 1000 years (!) of history of ancient Israel covered in the Hebrew Bible that go from myths about nomads to various kingdoms to people in exile from conquered kingdoms (very different contexts), with lots of different genres (none of it "history" writing as is done today but rather as it was done in the ANE). Or what sexual ethics people actually practiced, etc.

There is all kinds of stuff about this in commentary and scholarly material. For instance Jeremiah constantly rails against people offering their children to Moloch (burning them with fire). What does that mean - does it mean that burning up children was actually common, or a rare event that really upset people so got lots of "press" (like an assault in NYC's Central Park) or is that just rhetoric.. or something else? If it was common, what was the internal logic and ethics of the people who did that? That is the kind of stuff that one has to get into, if one wants to describe a) what actually went on in ancient Israel b) of Jeremiah and his time and place (to the extent that we are much certain of that).

Whether we keep this as "Ethics in the Bible" or change the title, we have to be careful to treat what is in "the Bible" as such and be careful about making claims about what people may have done or not done or how they decided things or approached things at any given time. This is one of the hardest things about this topic in particular. There is a bunch of that on this talk page and a some of that in the content that i haven't fixed yet. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Re:stoning in ancient Israel - In Antiquities of the Jews Josephus writes "(the high Priest) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." That is the reference in a work of history that I am aware of to an actual stoning as opposed to prescribing stoning as a punishment or a Bible story such as the stoning of Saint Stephen in Acts which that may or may not be historical.Smeat75 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not one who would accept Josephus as an RS on history (unless via more modern scholars), but interesting. I actually put two images concerning stoning in the article, Guercino and Tissot. Now what images fit where will probably change greatly, but there's quite a lot of stoning in the Bible (Stoning#Judaism), so I think they fit fairly well. I personally like that they somewhat illustrate what I see as the often contradictory/differing nature of the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Anne attacks Gilbert

Jytdog, your first point about those that believe the Bible is true is certainly accurate as a general principle. The others have already answered your example correctly.

Secondly, your point about what criminal justice was like is valid, keeping in mind this is 'in the Bible' and not 'in history'. Discussing what is in the Bible doesn't require anything but a mention of when the texts were written and how the different periods might have changed the ethic--which is part of what you deleted in the discussion of war and genocide under politics.

Third, what difference does it possibly make whether or not Bible content discussing ethics is history or not? This is not an historical evaluation of the the ethics! It is simply a presentation of what the Bible says--however it says it--and whatever the foundation for it was. The Bible does in fact use fiction and poetry and prophetic utterings and wisdom sayings--and history--and everything else to communicate its ethic. It is not all history. Totally agree. I don't see how that's pertinent to this page though.

Whether or not the Israelites were actually offering their children is probably worth a mention as a question that the ethic (such as the story of Jephthah's daughter) might have grown out of, but beyond a mere mention, it would be completely off topic to pursue in my thinking.

Before fixing any more of this article, consulting the sources would be appropriate. Yes, this is in the Bible. But this is not an article about the Bible--as such. It is an article about ethics. Ethics does not require history! Ethics uses myth all the time--from Aesop to Spiderman. Overall, this objection is as baseless as the claim there is no ethic in the Bible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for your reply, but this is not like, say an illustration of Anne of Green Gables where people are clearly aware that this is this an illustration of a narrative.Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In an article named "in the Bible" with an image marked "Numbers 15" (that can be expanded) they should be. I see no particular reason to believe the general "they" are not. Sure, Biblical inerrancy etc, but that would apply to any biblical image in any article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sabbath-breaker Stoned. Artistic impression of episode narrated in Numbers 15. James Tissot c.1900

I tweaked the caption a bit further.

Here is what the content says, adjacent to the picture. "Biblical criminal justice supports the fight to overthrow oppressors and liberate the oppressed, to put things right from God's perspective, and to put justice in the hands of the many and not just the few. It respects local courts, and involves a range of authorities in an effort to apply practical wisdom and a "divine" sense of justice"

Here is Numbers 15: When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

The content is some ridiculous la la la overgeneralization that turns very, very dark when juxtaposed with the image and the passage it represents. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, your argument on criminal justice is with the source and not me. This is what the source said--did it need to be balanced, polished, toned down? Absolutely, but it had to be there first. And then I didn't get the chance did I?

Grabergs said up front the pics would need to be moved around--so move it. No one will object. Again, the underlying issue that I keep hearing is, "I don't like this" and that should not be the driving factor for what is in this article and what isn't.

MistakeBy what right did you delete my response concerning your assertion here of the significance of history to ethics? That was wrong of you Jytdog. Removing valid discussion without even giving a reason why is just wrong. And your assertion is also wrong. Ethics does not require a historical foundation. As a general principle, it makes no difference to ethics whatsoever, whether or not what is referenced in the Bible is actually historical or not. Ethics uses myth to convey itself all the time. This whole discussion is not pertinent to ethics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention you. I didn't look to see who added the content.

The juxtaposition of the picture and the text is actually powerful, as I noted. It is not something we should sustain but it is powerful.

Part of what we need to do as editors, is be careful in selecting the sources we use, and careful in how we summarize them. That is the work here.

I don't know what you mean about me deleting something. I didn't remove anything intentinally, and I just looked through the history of my diffs here and don't see that I removed anything accidentally. Please show me the diff and I will gladly self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, this was a calm and reasonable response, thank you. You're right, you didn't mention me. That was my own interpretation wasn't it? And apparently I was wrong. I apologize.

When you mentioned reasons for deletion you included OR. I did have a couple of problems with that. First, I thought Wp policy is to place "citation needed" tags or better yet, to simply do the work, and find citations, and put them where they are needed. If they are not available, to delete only then. Do I misunderstand Wp policy? At any rate, if these six things are all the OR that was left, there wasn't really much left at all--I had already fixed most of it--and I would have gotten around to citing it all. You dumping it without even making the effort to do that just seems wrong.

Second, I have a problem with how precipitously you act toward the work of other editors. You have massively deleted the majority of the work from this article, which had references, and much of it was my work--granted it wasn't especially good work--but I did tell you that when I went to you for help to turn it into good work. It makes it pretty darn difficult to fix a problem with content when the content is gone.

But the accusation of POV was the most galling. It is your go—to response whenever you don't like something I have written. Occasionally you are probably right. But you are not right as often as you think you are. The really truly galling thing was that you blasted me for something I was aware of enough that I brought it to you for help, and then you blasted me for not being aware. I was aware. I came to you--you didn't 'catch' me out.

I wasn't given the time or the opportunity to clean up my own act. It wasn't even acknowledged that I had been on the road to doing so——that I was the one who recognized the problems and brought them to you. A truly precipitous Afd, with flying accusations of OR and POV, without even specifying what was what--without any effort to fix anything--then all that work just dumped. I felt blind-sided and totally steamrolled.

I make it a point to pick secular scholars and academically oriented religious ones. I try to be sure I end up with all views in the articles I write——liberal, conservative, atheist, whatever——if they have a view of the topic and it is includable, I include it. I don't think you can make the same claim. I think you give preference in your writing to secular authors with a particular POV--which in a field where the vast majority are not secular, automatically biases your product. We both think the other is not neutral in their point of view. We are undoubtedly both right. Because that's the way humans are. All humans have biases. I am aware I often do start there--but I also work to make sure I never end there. I have not read anywhere, that I can recall, that you have acknowledged any biases of your own. Yet all humans have them.

So those characteristics in combination created a big, big problem. It did in fact make me defensive--after I finally stopped crying. So now, I am making the extra effort. I want to work this out if at all possible. I think we have to focus on the article and the sources. We have to be guided by the sources, whether we like what they say or not.

Your first objection was, "there is no ethic in the Bible." Are we past that one now? Or is more discussion necessary? I am thinking 4V's was right, there should be a section devoted to what ethics is and isn't and what the Bible actually includes, and what ethics includes and so on. Perhaps that should be the opener, what do you think?

Your next objection concerned content itself. You objected to including anything on sexual ethics--though it's in the Bible and it's in the sources. The book you quoted that you hated the quotes from? It's OUP. It isn't written by a Christian. It's a good source. There is no foundation for throwing it out as you have done just because you didn't like what it said. Is this article going to include the different ethics that have their roots in the Bible or isn't it? The article now has political ethics--with no reason given for why politics escaped the hatchet--yet there is no discussion of war and peace under said politics--which are major preoccupations of the Bible. This is more haphazard now than when I came to you saying it was a mess! You have my sympathy in trying to get a handle on this subject--but Jytdog--you are not doing it any better than I was.

You want to be sure and include differing views. I have not once disagreed with that. I was going to use your preferred approach of having separate sections, but you know I have no trouble mixing everything up together if you want that on this article instead. If you think contrary views should be included alongside other views from sources, then I am in agreement with whatever you want. We can do that--not by exclusion--but by inclusion.

Your next objection was, I thought, about what was actually historical or not--as though it couldn't be an ethic if it wasn't true historically. Perhaps I misunderstood. Where ethics is concerned, it doesn't matter if the picture you refer to is historically accurate or not. Ethics is taken from the text, and if it's in the text, that's what matters for the discussion of ethics. History is another article. If I did misunderstand your point, additional explanation might help me see it better.

I don't really understand your purpose in pointing out a method we all use for our work here. Perhaps you could explain further.

[4] This was deleted. If you didn't do it intentionally, then it doesn't matter and we can just move on.

I want to be sure I understand your concerns and respond to them if there is any way at all that I can. I know this is stupidly long, but please take the time to respond to my questions about the article at least. Our only hope is in making the effort at communication. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This is very long and I will respond to things in a bit. Just dealing with the concern about the diff you say was deleted. The content you added in that diff is still here, up above, and I walked through every diff after that one, and it was never removed by me or anyone else. So ... ? Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It was gone-now it's back. I see it. It's unimportant. You didn't do it. That's all that matters for our issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I walked through each diff to this page after you added that. There was no point when it was ever gone, that I can see. I am kind of sticking on this, because if we cannot agree on something as simple as whether content was gone at some point or not, there is no way we are going to agree on more complicated things. Facts matter. Please show me the diff where it was gone, or please completely withdraw that statement and just call the claim that it was gone (and that I deleted it) a mistake. This is not vindictive but rather is about moving forward carefully, together. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to find where it was removed when I sent the diff from where it first was, but it kept putting up "14 revisions not shown" and I could go from where it was, to where it wasn't, and couldn't find what had happened in between. If it's important to you, I am happy to call it a mistake and will go strike it. We have already agreed that, whatever it was, it wasn't your fault. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

OK

as an aside, if there are "14 revisions not shown", then in the history you have selected little circles that are not adjacent to one another, but ones that are 14 revisions apart. I will explain on your talk page.

I pushed this a bit, because, as I said, facts matter. It matters what you write, it matters what I write, it matters what sources say, and it matters what the bible says. We both need to pay attention to detail. To what each other says and to what sources say. Part of what trips us up, is when we each fail to do that.

OK, now responding. Your "first" is just sort of agreeing, so I will skip it.

now, your "second". You wrote

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the 2nd sentence. I am not sure what you mean by "how the different periods might have changed the ethic."

What do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to say that ethics in the Bible changed over time and that some of those differences have been identified by critical scholarship. For example, Walzer points out that verses 15 to 18 of Deuteronomy 20 are very old, suggesting "the addition of herem to an older siege law."[4]:42 He goes on to say the earliest biblical sources show there are two ethics of conquest in the Bible with laws supporting each.[4]:36–43 Beginning at Deuteronomy 20:10-14[27] there is a limited war/(just war) doctrine consistent with Amos and First and Second Kings. From Deuteronomy 20 on, both war doctrines are joined without one superseding the other.[4]:42 However, starting in Joshua 9, after the conquest of Ai, Israel's battles are described as self-defense, and the priestly authors of Leviticus, and the Deuteronomists, are careful to give God moral reasons for his commandment. This could use a little cleaning up, but perhaps it answers the question. If not, let me know.

I know you've been concerned about the picture of stoning next to "Criminal Justice." Perhaps adding this would help: "Under covenant law, the right to life was not the absolute right of secular theory, but was instead limited by the responsibilities of covenant membership. Human rights scholar Christopher Marshall says there are about 20 offenses that carry the death penalty under Mosaic Law, but that within the context of covenant, capitol punishment was not seen as simply a punishment for wrong doing. It was believed the covenant community suffered ritual pollution from certain sins, therefore the primary purpose of capitol punishment was seen by the covenant community as protecting that community. Evans explains that contemporary standards tend to view these laws of capitol punishment as cavalier toward human life, however, within the framework of ancient covenant, it suggests the right to life was communal as well as individual."

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have some objections to the suggested paragraph, it's perfectly reasonable to state and discuss what they are and how we might agree on dealing with them.

As to your statement above that facts matter--that you have now stated to me personally about the same thing three times, even though I have already struck and written mistake on the offending statement--I can partially agree, but that's the best I can do. "Facts" such as these--(you made a mistake, your mistake offended me)--only matter if we decide they matter. I can only partially agree such facts matter because it is an option to "not sweat the small stuff"--because in reality, most of it is small stuff. Simply overlooking something is an option. I can only partially agree because we can just decide to let go of those "facts" and move on. We can decide to take the knowledge that everyone makes mistakes and use it to promote tolerance. We can choose to focus on the good instead of the bad, we can forgive. We have those options. Those are choices each of us makes. No one is forcing you to hold onto your offendedness. I have already apologized once. I struck the statement. I wrote mistake on it. If that isn't sufficient--including the "fact" I have demanded no apologies from you--then there is literally not a damn thing I can do about it. So I can only partially agree that your "facts" matter. These particular "facts" only matter to you.

If you can bring yourself to move past our disagreement and move on to talking about article content, that would be best. Or, of course, you always have the option of following through on your earlier inclination to shun me. That could work too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am just going stepwise, moving from facts in our discussion to facts about what sources say and what is in the Bible. That's all. I'm not complaining or criticizing; I am saying we should both move carefully.

Thanks for answering about what you meant about "how the different periods might have changed the ethic". The Walzer example is sort of interesting. So he is saying that herem was a newer ... "ethic", added into much older material. Is that what you are getting? That's kind of interesting. It is complicated to bring in historical-critical aspects, but perhaps useful.

I'm not done dealing with your longer comment above, and you have added new stuff, so I will respond to the proposed language about criminal justice.

My concern is not with the picture per se, but more with the overgeneralization in the text, which leaves out difficult facts - as exemplified by the image, yes. This is what I said above. I don't think it is helpful to readers to have statements making such broad sweeping claims about what is the Bible like "Biblical criminal justice supports the fight to overthrow oppressors and liberate the oppressed", when there are commandments and stories about god ordering a guy to be put to death because he is gathering firewood on the sabbath, which has nothing to do with social justice (but rather some other set of ethical assumptions and goals and reasoning that connects them), and could in any case be viewed as quite the opposite as liberating the oppressed. Content like "One of the themes in the Bible is that the vulnerable should be protected by the powerful, who are held to account when they fail to do so." or something like that.

With regard to the proposed content about capital punishment, three things.

The source, focused on actively constructing a specific Christian ethics, is not the greatest source for generating content describing "ethics in the Bible".

I don't think we should use loaded language like "right to life" when talking about what is in the Bible... it is anachronistic. (The Bible is for sure used in ethics when people construct arguments about "right to life"... I just don't think it is useful to ring that bell here).

Finally, the proposed content discusses capital punishment and provides some anthropological context.... which is an interesting thing to do. The existing content doesn't make that move. This appears to be privileging the "good" ethics and explaining away the "bad" ethics, which I am not sure we should do. (There are places where prophets describe oppression of widows etc as covenant-breaking pollution (see here and a bunch of hosea...) Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Slow is fine, but facts about our problems with each other are not connected to facts about sources--at least they don't have to be. You don't have to like me or trust me or even respect me--you just have to check the sources--that's all. Even if you do dislike and mistrust me--you should still check the sources--because it isn't supposed to be about me. You should neither simply accept nor simply revert everything I write, no matter what you think of me. I am starting a new section. This has gotten too long and too off track. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

From a quick look at the article as an outsider who is not intending to edit the article or get involved here, I do think that it should be clarified that "The Bible" is not a unitary work with a single POV but a collection of disparate writings from entirely different perspectives written over hundreds and hundreds of years apart from each other. We know that and it is easy to assume everyone else does too but that is not the case. Also I would recommend that it be clarified that the consensus of contemporary scholars is that passages "In Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and both books of Kings, warfare includes narratives describing a variety of conflicts with Amalekites, Canaanites, and Moabites. God commands the Israelites to conquer the Promised Land, placing city after city "under the ban," the herem of total war. This meant every man, woman and child was to be killed. This leads many contemporary scholars to characterize herem as a command to commit genocide" are not reflective of actual historical events, such massacres and genocides by the Isrealites did not actually happen as described but are fictional as the WP article Joshua states "The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events."Smeat75 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement. FourViolas had suggested an opening overview section that established some of these foundational concepts--about both the Bible and ethics itself--and what does and doesn't happen when they meet. We agreed, but getting anything done here so far is pretty slow--we are mostly off in the weeds.

As for your second point, I would ask, how does whether or not it actually happened affect what ethic is being conveyed in the text? If the ethic is found in the text, in any or all of the various forms of literature in the text, including history, what history is behind it is, most times, inconsequential to the ethic itself. Think of the study of biblical ethics as more of a literary type criticism and not a historical criticism. Its history is only significant if it impacted a change in the ethic which would be identifiable from the text. It requires a bit of an adjustment to how we normally tend to think about the Bible--we're all trained to think in terms of historical criticism--but historicity has next-to-nothing to do with ethics. In ethics, we take the text as it is, and deal solely with what's there--and perhaps how it has morphed and been used over time--both good and evil. Whether or not "herem" actually happened--the ethic is present in the text--and it has been used subsequently to support violence. Those are significant aspects of ethics. Whether or not they practiced their own ethic is interesting to a degree, and may have a place somewhere, but also, maybe not. First we have to actually get all the ethics into the article. That would be a major accomplishment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"As for your second point, I would ask, how does whether or not it actually happened affect what ethic is being conveyed in the text?"

This I agree with. It may be valid to link Historicity of the Bible or make a short comment on that somewhere, but it is not of great interest for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's great, then let's be vigilant about keeping content about "what the Israelites did" out of this, or consistently and carefully use the ANE context.

Have a look at the Walzer content where it says now " "Israel's almost-democracy has three features having to do with covenant, law, and prophecy."".... This quote as it stands is a statement about history (not about "what's in the bible"). It is perhaps a useful statement in the course of Walzer's whole book but pulling it out and putting it front and center isn't appropriate. "Isreal" apparently had a tribal governance and then a kingdom, and the northern kingdom was obliterated, and the southern kingdom soon became one sort of vassal state after another; this statement just flies in the face of what little we know of governance. Yes in the narrative there are prophets and priests who challenge the kings (did some of that happen? maybe, but we don't know) but this is a common in narratives from the ANE per ISBN 978-1-57506-282-2.

My main concern here is not "interior decorating" by the way, but structural engineering. What are the sources (the foundation), what are we building, is all this sound. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, stop for a second and take another look at what you have said here. First, the Walzer content is not a statement about history, that's a mistake. It's a statement about what is in the Bible that concerns a political ethic. It is not a particularly historically accurate, or even a historically grounded statement, as you so correctly point out. Certainly it in no way reflects what may or may not have actually happened. It doesn't actually discuss what may or may not have actually happened. Walzer is solely referencing those characteristics that are in the texts that are represented--in the texts--as features of government. The presentation of what ethics is isn't actually affected by whether, or how, or when, these ethics were actually practiced in history. Walzer's statement is solely about the ethic in the text itself. Ethics is about ideas, it's not about reality! Historicity is off topic. I can keep saying this till I am blue in the face of course, but it would be better if you actually checked out some sources and found out for yourself. Or find a source that says I'm wrong. Either way--but let's go with what the sources say and not with what we think they should say, agreed?

Walzer is professor emeritus of social science at Princeton. He has written 27 books and more than 300 articles, and the book referenced was published by the Yale university press. If Walzer isn't a good source, then there are no good sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a statement about "Israel". It says that right on its face.

Yes Walzer is generally great.

We have to be careful how we summarize sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well of course it says Israel, that's what the text is about! It wouldn't say anything else--it's not about China or Germany or Lapland--but that doesn't prove he's speaking historically, it just proves he is referencing the text. He says in the intro, page x, "I am not trying to find out what really happened in the centuries during which the Bible was written. Among historians of those years, the Bible is typically read as a series of clues to reality... I am interested only in what the biblical authors thought had happened and in what they thought about what they thought had happened. I am interested in the history they told and retold, or perhaps, imagined." Actual history is off topic in ethics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to come to some kind of agreement if we can, based on sources, since concerns over what is historically "true" are really hanging everything up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Gericke

I would like to discuss what Gericke says about "folk ethic" in the Bible and its various parts if we could, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am adding to content in overview per FourViolas and Smeat75's suggestions, that I agree with, and believe that gives a reasonable consensus for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Structure 2

Like the other "X in the bible" topics in my view we should structure content carefully along the following lines

• "What is it"? content that summarizes the kinds of things that are actually in the NT/HB/bible about ethics
• "What is its context"? this would be ANE>>hellenistic history, about what scholarship can say (and is guessing at) about the cultural and historical context in which these passages are thought to have been written and added to the canon
• "How has it been used?" which would have sections on the various bits on ethics in the bible, which would include
  • intertextuality -- reuse/reference within the biblical corpus itself and the Quran
  • religious engagement - summarizing engagement of Jews, Christians, and Muslims with these texts (there are very many ways of doing this... this will be hard to summarize)
  • uses in history - summarizing ways governments or peoples have used it to justify/motivate
  • uses in culture -- depictions in art, literature, etc

The first bullet is the core content and should capture all the messiness. The 2nd bullet is good to have; we should be careful not to use this to explain away difficult things while leaving comfortable things as somehow... normative. Stuff in the third bullet should not creep in and overwhelm the first two

Whether the page overall is structured like that, or all three bullets are run through on a topic by topic basis, is neither here nor there to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not bad. What is ANE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ancient near east. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

a remnant of eurocentric scholarship. At some point that should be changed to ancient west asia. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the borders of Europe can be a tricky concept. But I digress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

talk about fierce controversy! OH NO Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I am with you, I agree, no problem, but question number one was actually where I started. I never got past it. Let me explain how the "messiness" overwhelmed me. Answering "what is it?" is not going to be a simple definition because there is no formal deductive ethical argument stated anywhere in the Bible. So we can't state one. It's all deduced from moral statements and law and so on. A topic by topic basis is how nearly all the sources are written--but I totally got off into the weeds attempting to mimic their approach. It could probably be done--and perhaps should be done somewhere in the article--but attempting to answer all three questions topic by topic is how I sank beneath all the detail involved in this subject. There's just too much--and they all have POV.

All ethics are built on a basic worldview; a metaphysical view, in other words, of the nature of reality itself. The Bible's ethic is a religious ethic, by definition, its metaphysics is based on assumptions about God. The metaphysical view provides the foundation of what is good, and what is evil, and there is no ethic without metaphysics. This is mostly in Genesis--but not completely. A discussion involving intertextuality could be necessary. How will you describe the biblical foundations of the metaphysic--that reflects the biblical view of God--without falling into my error--primarily describing the "good" the Bible itself assumes about God? I am not trying to be difficult--just describing part of what is genuinely difficult about this subject.

I am still unclear about whether or not you want to include the ethic's problems and failures--a critique of it--alongside the presentation of it. Should the critique of the reality and nature of God be included in the presentation of the metaphysic? It should be critiqued somewhere. In my mind, I thought it deserved a section of its own--it would be a multi-level critique since it would include context, and ANE, and modern responses as well--which is actually your question number three. I am still unsure what you think here.

All ethics have an epistemology as well as a metaphysic--an understanding of how we know what we know, and why we know it. That is also very much in the ethic of the Bible. It is a thoroughly religious explanation. This gets really messy, since it involves what the Bible has to say about conscience and reason and how mankind knows right from wrong because of being in the "image of God" and so on. It has to be included as an aspect of what the ethic is--but it's not simple--and its religious nature is unavoidable. How will you write that without sounding like you are advocating--specifically? Does covenant belong here--or in applications? What about the nature of man and the Fall? A description of the Bible's view of the "soul"? I was getting increasingly confused over what to include and what to leave out on this aspect especially.

Then, all ethics, have the how--after providing that why. The how is the moral application of these two basic approaches to reality. Moral application is how an ethic is practiced, and whether it's practiced, and what its varying weaknesses are that are exposed by difficulties in practice, and all of what you have as "How has it been used?". This could be done topically. What the ethic says "should be" and what it actually was--and whether or not the "should be" is actually a good--and all of that--will you mix it together? It is likely to get extremely messy.

Perhaps, describing what it is can begin from these three basic standard divisions. Using some of what was there about what the biblical ethic is not, adding these basics about ethics, and describing what the Bible uses to provide its explanations of the world and reality, then listing the various topics--political ethics, economic ethics, sexual ethics, relationship ethics, and legal ethics--that are in the Bible, could be sufficient for an overview of 'what it is' at the beginning. Then topic by topic could be done without having to go over the same ideas in every section.

I agree to your general outline, but your specific, not general, approach is what I am actually asking about. What concepts from the Bible will you include in addressing these questions? I think this is where the rubber meets the road for us. In trying to describe-- "What is it?"--I had this all mixed together--without sufficiency or consistency--and it was truly a mess. No argument. I would say a topical approach--by itself--just didn't work. It's how the pro's do it, but I don't think it can work for Wikipedia. Organizing it around your three questions is a better idea. So let's get down to brass tacks--what will you put where? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The first bullet matter should just be descriptive.

Stuff about underlying world views or ways of knowing (there is not just one underlying metaphysics, nor just one underlying epistemology) is second bullet matter. There is not one "ethic" in the Bible; for example the "wisdom tradition" -- like stuff in Proverbs -- is thought by a lot of scholars to be secular. The assumptions and epistemology in Quoheleth is very different from say Micah and Ezekiel's way of knowing god (tripped out mystical visions) is very different from say 1st Isaiah. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Critiques" are third bullet stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I am shocked and surprised at the idea there is not one metaphysic in the Bible! I have never heard that before! No instructor ever said that and I only went to secular schools! That is singularly significant! Please recommend sources that say that so I can read up! But even if that is so, that is still necessary to include.

The first bullet should be descriptive--agreed--how will the first bullet describe ethics in the Bible? How else are you going to describe and define what it is if you don't use the philosophical divisions? Not arguing--just asking what idea you have in mind to do what you have suggested. How can the wisdom literature be secular before there was such a thing as secular? What is a source for that?

I am waffling a bit on your use of epistemology and visions. The idea that man is capable of understanding God--and that they can and do communicate directly--is an aspect of epistemology, but I am not sure varied methods qualifies as a separate epistemology as such. It's still the same thing happening however it happened.

See--now I thought critiques was third bullet as well--but that's part of what got me in trouble isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read pages 206-211 in The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, By Jaco Gericke, ISBN 978-1-58983-708-9 and let's see if we can get on the same page(s) here. Chapters 12, 13 and 14 are also pertinent, but 5 pages is a good place to start. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

read any commentary on the Wisdom literature to see the very common descriptions of the "metaphysic" in that literature as a sort of pan-ANE "scribe class" secular "wisdom".

There is definitely more than one theistic metaphysic -- there are undeniably polytheistic notions in the bible, right there with the monotheistic ones.

Even among monotheistic "metaphysics" there are different conceptions of who god is and what god wants.

What is "in the bible" is deeply messy. What people of faith do with it, is another matter. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

These are arguments by Smith! I recognize those! Not universally accepted as a separate metaphysic in the Bible, though definitely worthy of a mention! HAH! What people of faith do with it is messier still! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I will try to get my hands on that book and read those chapters btw. What are you referring to by "these are arguments by Smith!". ? Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether one accepts the "ANE wisdom" notion or not (and not everyone does) there is nothing about God, but plenty of ethics, in things like "Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them." Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Read it on Google books! He quotes a little from Smith. It's Mark Smith and you can read him too! Simply typing in "metaphysics" in Gericke and reading everything the book says there is worthwhile! You will find much agreement with what you have said! And there is also a workable approach in it. Pages 156-157 have a usable definition I think! You'll love the quote from Carrol on 148! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Pages 173-175 are probably usable too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I will look at Gericke and some reviews of his book (i imagine he is going to be savaged a bit for downplaying what others have done in the field already....) Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question about how to structure, I think the approach you started on -- to go topically -- is OK, but the big sweeping summaries is where things have gone awry. We should start each topic with first bullet stuff -- just summarizing the range of ideas under each topic. And just let the messiness of it stand there. Just name it. Describing how people have tried to wrestle that messiness to the ground is 3rd bullet stuff. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviews are actually generally quite impressed with him. Aaaargh! Topically? Really? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking but not doing too well yet. The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter says Job, Proverbs and Qohelet have no real metaphysic and that Near Eastern Wisdom is pragmatic and didactic though Job is theistic. (Intro. p.xvi) The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History ..., Volume 3 edited by Isidore Singer, Cyrus Adler, has one page on Maimonides and Aristotelian metaphysics, and mentions that there is metaphysics in the wisdom lit, but doesn't say what it is. Ancient Jewish Philosophy: A Study in Metaphysics and Ethics by Israel Efros looked the best--but there are no views of it. If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

a simple google search for ethics in the wisdom literature yields many scholarly hits; just two off the first page

• Stewart, Anne W. (2015). Poetic Ethics in Proverbs: Wisdom Literature and the Shaping of the Moral Self. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107119420.
• Fox, Michael V. (2007). "Ethics and Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs". Hebrew Studies. 48: 75–88. JSTOR 27913833.

there are loads of sources on ethics in the wisdom literature. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be exactly what I searched for--along wit any variation I could think of. I didn't get either of these. I have no idea why. Thank you. I appreciate your helpfulness. I will definitely read them and get back to you if I have any pertinent discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Still not having any luck with this. The Stewart book was interesting, but typing in metaphysics gets nothing. I've looked at several of those. It does have an indirect discussion of what amounts to an epistemology, saying Proverbs=Aristotle's view that virtuous character is necessary to "know" wisdom. The later chapters do discuss "what does Proverbs assume about the nature of man", which alludes to some aspects of being and metaphysics, but it's the same metaphysic as the rest of the Bible. This book gives no indication of an alternate metaphysic as such.

I could not access the Jystor article. I don't have access anymore. I have already used my 6-month free access and now they want money.

There are loads of sources on the wisdom literature, even several on ethical aspects, but metaphysics is a different issue, and that's what I am having trouble finding. Can you remember exactly where you read that? That might help if you could. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you like I can send you any source out of jstor that you want via email. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that would be kind of you. Go ahead and send any you think have something in them concerning different metaphysics in the Bible. This represents a gap in my knowledge in my own field. I don't suppose anyone knows everything but this seems pretty significant. I need to know what is actually said about it and by whom. I appreciate the assist. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been checking my email--which I don't do much usually--and I don't think I've gotten anything yet. I haven't missed it have I? I am trying to pay attention!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been busy, but I think Jytdog's structure is excellent, with the minor clarification that the "in history" and "in culture" sections should probably aim to include references as well as uses, as there's been plenty of historically and culturally important critical engagement with Biblical ethical ideas as well, from inside and outside Abrahamic traditions. I have access to a lot of OUP books as well as JSTOR and other databases through my university, happy to take a look if anyone needs something. FourViolas (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you, thank you for the articles you sent, they have been very helpful, and it was very kind of you. I have read three and used material from two already. I haven't found the 'multiple metaphysics'--yet--but they are good articles, and I am still reading. This has saved me a lot of work! Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)