Talk:Ethics in the Bible/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 15 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. You are welcome to open a new discussion on the alternate suggestion if wanted. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Ethics in the Bible → The Bible and ethics – It is generally agreed above and in the recent AfD discussion that the exiting title is confusing and implies that there is a cohesive set of ethics inside the bible, which is not the topic of the article. The proposed title is inspired by The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Ethics and other reference works. It is also consistent with other 'The Bible and __' articles on Wikipedia. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and ethics seems good. I think it will provide focus for this article and will be a guide to its construction. Thank you Frayae for finding those references and for your input. It is genuinely appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seems like an improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have the impression that this will help to define the scope. —PaleoNeonate – 09:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move I disagree that the phrase Ethics in the Bible "implies that there is a cohesive set of ethics inside the bible"; after all, "ethics" can be an uncountable or plural noun. We hardly think that all Professors of Ethics are substantively saying the same thing, only that they all study something about what moral people should do or why. To me, the current title suggests that the article I'm going to read is a summary of what Biblical scholars have written about the ethical ideas they think can be found in Biblical texts, and that seems to be what the article in fact contains.

In contrast, "the Bible and ethics" is a broader and vaguer category that would cover any interaction of the two domains. This would include the project of investigating the Bible's apparent ethics, but also the ways religious and secular ethicists have appealed to Scripture to inspire or defend their theories (for example, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah or Kant's retelling of Genesis as a naturalistic explanation of the evolution of moral agency). It would also seem to include the topic of "the ethics of interpretation" in Biblical studies, which addresses concerns about the ethical obligations and risks assumed by Biblical scholars translating and interpreting texts that so many people take as sacred commands (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). Thus, I actually think this move would be counterproductive in trying to "define the scope", and through its breadth and vagueness would increase the risk of WP:CONTENTFORKing with Christian ethics, Translation studies, and similar existing pages. FourViolas (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per FourViolas who lays out the main arguments against. The need to limit the scope of the topic can be seen from the fact that the article currently has neither the Ten Commandments nor the Sermon on the Mount as major examples of ethical guidance within the Bible. Until these essentials are done, we don't want rambling and sprawling accounts of other issues. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• support much more apt and more likely to lead to a useful page; it also more accurately describes the current contents, which along with blatant, unsourced original research, touches on various scholars' efforts to construct an ethics using some parts of the Bible and ignoring or downplaying others. Such moves are necessary for anyone doing theology/philosophy that uses the bible as a source of authority....whether the move is shifting the level of authority granted to a specific bit from "literal" to one of the others, or simply ignoring some bits as an artifact of the time and place it originated, such moves must be made to deal with the very different assumptions, themes, and outright contraditions in "the bible" (which ever version of that is being used). Anybody who has studied systematic theology or the history of Jewish or Muslim interpretations has learned about these hermeneutical moves. "Ethics in the Bible" is simply misleading to readers and to editors trying to work on the page. The "ethics in the bible" title also invites disruption from people who believe that the Bible is authoritative and carry those beliefs with them into the encyclopedia and will advocate for The Truth that they find to be actually in the bible. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Starting an article title with "the" should be avoided. I would support "Ethics and the Bible". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

that's fine. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Equally acceptable. WP:THE gives you some support on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I also don't see the alleged implication. We have "Women in the Bible", without implications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

But there's no great philosophical angst over which women in the Bible are actually women, is there? We also have The Bible and humor and The Bible and homosexuality without implications. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The present title limits the scope of the article to the ethical points within the Bible. Changing the title to The Bible and Ethics or Ethics and the Bible presents a different subject than what the article is and was intended to be. Also, I disagree that the present title is misleading. I find the suggested titles to be rather ambiguous. Turtlewong (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I disagree that there's anything wrong with the current title, and I'm not usually a fan of "foo and bar" names.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, esp. per Turtlewong. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Have two separate articles, one with each title See my comments on the now-closed AfD for this article. "Ethics in the Bible" and "The Bible and ethics" are two different subjects. Both are encyclopedically notable, so we should have two separate articles dealing with both of these subjects. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not sure what this means

Jytdog Ethicist Eryl Davies says ethics in the Bible only become visible when it is realized that Israel's morality was not simply a matter of obedience to an exterior moral code since obedience is perceived as having moral character.

It's from one of those articles you sent me. What I understand it to be saying is that people often overlook or fail to see the ethics that are in the Bible. That is partly because they are looking in a particular way expecting to find a particular thing--"Divine command" and Law and obedience--but once you broaden your perspective a little--realizing morality in the Bible is internal moral character not just external rules, ethics becomes "visible."

Here's the actual quote: "Ethical living required obedience to certain prescriptions and obedience to God was regarded as one of Israel's highest duties. The danger of overemphasizing the Law as the basis for Israelite ethics, however, is that biblical morality can too easily be reduced to a set of rules, prohibitions and regulations. A much richer picture of biblical ethics emerges once we realize that Israel's morality was not simply a matter of obedience to an external moral code." page 112.

The moral character part is from John Barton.

Can you suggest a rewrite to make it clearer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so a look at history indicates the answer to that is no I guess. That's okay. It's not really a necessary statement,it's just an interesting one. I appreciate the work you did. I don't agree with all your decisions, such as "this isn't about the Bible," when it is about ethics, which should be part of the threshhold for being in this article. But mostly I like the changes you made, and I'm glad you are working to make things acceptable to your standards and expectations and are not just throwing everything away. Thank you. The next section to work on is Topics and Themes. Some of the stuff you took out needs to be cleaned up and put back--like sexual ethics. Describing what's there doesn't require agreeing with it. You want to take a shot at it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

So without getting mad or anything--I am not trying to pick a fight--would you be willing to explain something to me? Several of the changes you made here took out references and statements from the secondary sources and put in the direct statements from the primary source instead. Why is that better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog Hello? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking... something about "when it is realized that..." is really bugging me and I am trying to put my finger on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so dump that phrase then--bluch! Yuckie stupid phrase--it's gone. There. I liked the "much richer picture" part and the "morality was not simply obedience to an external code" and thought those ideas might be important enough to include--a different perspective on what most everyone expects to find in the Bible. Both Davies and Barton say something along these lines. But I am willing to go along with whatever you decide.

What about my other questions about replacing secondary sources with primary ones--which seems backwards to me, so I was wondering about it--and about the other ethical topics-—wanna try your hand? There is some interesting work being done by a Mary Douglas I think on ecolological ethics in Genesis--might be interesting reading whether any of it is usable or not. I think she's an anthropologist. There's economics, which I find dull as dirt, and sexuality of course--and since you hated what I wrote so much, I thought you might want to do that one yourself. There is interpersonal relationships too. I think that pretty much covers the major topics. You can do anything you feel like, let me try my hand at a slightly better version and then you can come along and "fix" it, :-) we can divvy it up, combine it, whatever you think.

There's more to be said under the headings that are already there--and since you left criticisms at the bottom--there's a ton of stuff that should probably go there as well. A lot of what's there is pretty stupid and not really valid. And valid criticisms do exist--so we might want to shoot for adding in some of those and removing some of the baseless claptrap. That's a lot of work left to be done, and I know you are spread a little thin and right now I am too, but I don't want to abandon this project altogether. And I don't want you to abandon it either. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Polution v ethics

About this

Sexual ethics in the Bible is especially complicated.

References

What Feinstein is talking about there in the introduction, is how complicated the concept of pollution is - the content summarized in the last paragraph "the views in the Bible vary more than is generally recognized.". The book is not talking about sexual ethics there; this is an invalid summary of the source. This statement doesn't say much of anything, in any case.Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine. This one is not worth fighting over.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Mishmash

The content is creeping back to this fundamental error of taking what in the bible as history, and mixing up what is in the bible with notions of life may have been like in ancient israel in various times and places.

This article is about ethics in the bible.

content from page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the Hebrew Bible==== Main article: Women in Judaism Patriarchalism, combined with the Bible's form of spiritual equality, creates a difficult and often conflicting set of ethics concerning women. There is substantial agreement among a wide variety of scholars that the Hebrew Bible is a patriarchal document written by men who lived in a patriarchal age, therefore its ethics involving women and children is heavily skewed toward reinforcing male authority and women's subordinate status. For example, marriage and family law favored men over women: a husband could divorce a wife if he chose to, but a wife could not divorce a husband without his consent. The law said a woman could not make a binding vow without consent of her male authority, so she could not legally marry without male approval. The practice of levirate marriage applied to widows of childless deceased husbands, not to widowers of childless deceased wives. Laws concerning the loss of female virginity have no male equivalent. Women in biblical times depended on men economically, they generally did not own property except in the rare case of inheriting land from a father who didn't bear sons. Even "in such cases, women would be required to remarry within the tribe so as not to reduce its land holdings". Property was transferred through the male line and women could not inherit unless there were no male heirs (Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The marginal environment required a strict authority structure, and sexual lines were rigidly drawn. Virginity was expected, adultery the worst of crimes, and even suspicion of adultery led to trial by ordeal. These and other gender-based differences found in the Torah suggest that women were seen as subordinate to men; however, they also suggest that biblical society viewed continuity, property, and family unity as paramount. Other scholars, such as Hebrew Bible scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky, say there are evidences of "gender blindness" in the Hebrew Bible. Theologians Evelyn Stagg and Frank Stagg say the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 contain aspects of both male priority and gender balance. For example, the fifth commandment to honor parents does not make any distinction in the honor to be shown between one parent and another. Most theologians agree the Hebrew Bible does not depict the slave, the poor, or women, as metaphysically different in 'essence' from men in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era. In the Greek world, the polarized view of women allowed some classics authors to write about women as "another race". In the Bible, the goals of women are no different from those of men. The greatest differences in the ethics related to gender are evident in sexual practices. Adultery was defined differently for men than for women: a woman was an adulteress if she had sexual relations outside her marriage, but if a man had sexual relations outside his marriage with an unmarried woman, a concubine or a prostitute, it was not considered adultery on his part. A woman was always under the authority of a man: her father, her brothers, her husband, and since she did not inherit, eventually her eldest son. She was subject to strict purity laws, both ritual and moral, and non-conforming sex—homosexuality, bestiality, cross dressing and masturbation—was punished. Stringent protection of the marital bond and loyalty to kin was very strong. On the other hand, the zonah of the Hebrew Bible is a woman free of patriarchal authority. She may be a paid prostitute, but not necessarily. She lives a life similar to a young man's, free from domestic encumbrances, with energy, a love of war, and lovers. "She is dangerous, fearsome and threatening by her freedom, and yet appealing and attractive at the same time." Her freedom is recognized by biblical law and her sexual activity is not punishable. She is the source of extra-institutional sex. Therefore she is a threat to patriarchy and the family structure it supports. Dinah's brothers are outraged that their sister was treated like one; Judah goes in search of one; the people go to the Moabite women that way; Joshua's spies go to Rahab; Samson goes to one; Yiftah is the son of one, as is Jephthah; the women who have the dispute about the dead babies are called zonot. The Law provides a general prohibition against turning one's daughter into one; a priest may not marry one; a bride found not to be a virgin is called one; and the professional fees of a zonah cannot be used as an offering in the sanctuary. This kind of unencumbered sexual activity became a metaphor in the Hebrew Bible for improper behavior. The people are said to act like zonah when they chased after other gods or other nations. Jerusalem and Zion are accused of playing the zonah. The term zonah appears 136 times in the Hebrew Bible, primarily in Ezekiel and Hosea, but the worst zonah is a married woman who acts like one. The lurid descriptions and the punishment accorded her in the Bible are both brutal and pornographic. References

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I actually left a statement for you in one of the diffs hoping to head this off. The core of this material is usable, so I went ahead and moved it, but I ran out of time to edit it down, and had to leave before I was able to do much with it. I was kind of hoping you would show up and help! :-) I was hoping for a GA kind of review from you--picking it apart a sentence at a time--deleting most of them. Please do help me go through it and salvage what is actually about ethics and swiftly delete the rest.

In the future when you want to talk about something I've written, it isn't necessary to copy the entire thing to the talk page--unless you want to go over it line by line. It's okay to just refer to it. I know you don't make stuff up Jytdog. We fight about a lot of stuff, but what that has done is teach me a good bit about who you are and what you will and won't do, and I know you tell the truth. Everyone makes the occasional mistake, but that's not the same thing as being willing to twist the truth--which I know you do not do. If you need to refer to a particular line you can do that, but really, copying the whole section is unnecessary overkill between you and me. We should know each other well enough by now for us both to know neither of us is going to attempt to deceive the other about what was said or not said. We may hate each other--but I still respect you as an editor. I am always willing to work with you because you're a straight-shooter, you're smart, and you do quality work--when you have the patience.

So far, the books I've been looking at for this section are: "Marriage, Sex, and Family in Judaism", edited by Michael J. Broyde, and Michael Ausubel; "Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky; "Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader", edited by Alice Bach; "Created Or Constructed?: The Great Gender Debate", By Elaine Storkey; "The Sex Texts: Sexuality, Gender, and Relationships in the Bible", By L. Robert Arthur; "Taboo Or Not Taboo: Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible", By Ilona Nemesnyik Rashkow; and "Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible", By Eve Levavi Feinstein. I wish you'd turn your sharp mind to some of these as well and come up with what you think the main points of ethics in this area actually are. It's a bit of a messy topic and I could use the help taming it.

Speaking of history vs. ethics, I think the stuff on monarchy that you added here should definitely be included--if you can link it to an ethic. Right now, what's there needs reorienting a little--it sounds a bit more like history than ethics. Monarchy itself isn't really an ethic, but there has got to be something out there on political ethics that would connect it. It is worth looking for a source. The bit about David and Jesus sounds like theology to me, and I don't really think it should be kept. If you want to keep it, perhaps there is a way to tie it to a political ethic too--though Jesus is not considered a political figure by most scholars. One way or the other, I think these statements need to be attributed. They are kind of bold, strongly historical, statements, so sourcing them within the paragraph would be a good idea; putting it within an ethical theory of some kind is essential. It's got to belong somewhere--we just have to find it. Thank you Jytdog.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the inclusion of " Most theologians agree the Hebrew Bible does not depict the slave, the poor, or women, as metaphysically different in 'essence' from men in the manner of the Greeks and Romans of the same era.In the Greek world, the polarized view of women allowed some classics authors to write about women as "another race". Greek and Roman attitudes towards women and others are nothing to do with ethics in the Bible. Then there is the obvious point that ancient Greek and Roman religion had goddesses and priestesses, anathema to Jewish and Christian religion. It is a complicated subject that needs more nuance than can be given in this article. Just one example - Women of Athena's Cult - "The role of women in the Panathenaic Procession (which is represented in the famous Parthenon frieze) and the role of women in Athenian religion show us that while women were not esteemed very highly in everyday Greek life, there was a faction of Greek females that were able to break down the barriers and contribute publicly in the arenas of politics, civics, and religion." There was no equivalent in ancient Jewish culture and priestesses are of course forbidden in the Roman Catholic church to this very day.Smeat75 (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted. We are back to context which is in every Bible article. There is no evidence goddesses were rejected simply because they were female. The worship of YHWH was strictly monotheist and other male "gods" were also rejected. All the evidence supports goddesses being rejected simply because they weren't YHWH. There is a basic logic error in using the minority (a faction) to contradict the dominant majority view of women where Athens and the Greek view of women is concerned. The equivalents of the "few" in Jewish culture are represented by name in this article. What the Roman Catholics do is completely inconsequential. That is a contemporary--and a Christian--comment on an ancient and Hebrew ethic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reflecting sources

This is unacceptable editing. We don't obliterate contradictions in sources. The content is very broad stroke generalization and so it is unsurprising that sources contradict each other when reaching this far. It is probably for us to go there in any case, especially not in this article. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

And this is editing warring to preserve dishonest content. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You should actually go look at the sources before making such an accusations and reaching false conclusions. To quote from Frymer-Kensky: "The stories do not reflect any differences in goals and desires between men and women. Nor do they point out any strategies or methods used by women that are different from those used by men not in positions of authority." page xv

Blumenthal references Kensky's 1989 article saying, "In achieving these goals women were as active and aggressive as men, though with different strategies and techniques. These latter involved the use of "indirect power"... Indirect power was not that of men in authority that he was discussing immediately before this section. Indirect power is only used by women and men not in authority in the Bible. Within the context of Blumenthal's larger discussion, this statement does not constitute disagreement with Tykva whom he is both quoting and referencing. In a scholarly discourse of this kind he would have said straight out if he disagreed with her and then explained why. He does not do that anywhere. You are cherry picking one phrase taken out of the overall context of the whole.

There are no contradictions in the sources over this. Please put these statements back. They are correct, in agreement, and valid. And don't say what I write is dishonest again. Try editing without attacking the other person. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's call for an RFD on this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

[4] What are you referring to? I did not intentionally change anyone's comments. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Argh. Fucking argh. Look at the history of this page. Look for the red number (-7,753)‎ on 05:39, 18 October 2018‎. Look who removed that. If you don't know how to look at the history of the page, ask how to. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you really want to have an RFC over content where you violated copyright? The levels of bad in your behavior today are way too much for me. I will come back later. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Violated copyright? What are you on about now? You know what? Nicely thrown grenade, but it's a distraction. Let's stay on topic and stop the games. Whether or not the content correctly reflects the references or if there is disagreement between those references, is the topic. You can't have it both ways--it can't be copied and yet not accurately reflect content; if it doesn't reflect content, it can't be copied.

You are mistaken-- but in the spirit of cooperation that I always endeavor to have, I will check to be sure it isn't too close a paraphrase--of course, all that's necessary to fix that are a couple quotation marks.

Stop attacking me Jytdog. I have never treated you with anything but respect--you have never treated me with any. I have never yet taken a complaint to ANI about you, but I have kept a record of the old diffs where you attack and insult me and deal with me with the assumption of bad faith. There's an awful lot of them. I have no desire to cause you trouble, and I know they are getting tired of complaints about you, but you need to stop this. Deal with me in the same manner I deal with you--from a position of good faith.

You moved content I had written to the talk page with a complaint about it. I moved it to my sandbox where I could work on fixing the problem you had complained about. I was cooperating with you. I responded to your complaint with the effort to fix the problem. Since you had removed the entire thing from the article, there was no other source for that content. I couldn't very well work on it on the talk page could I? You should have left it in the article and worked on fixing it together. That's what most people who are making the effort to treat others with good faith do. You have never once made that effort with me--not once.

If you can't bring yourself to overcome your bias toward me, at least you can stop attacking and insulting me and blocking me from working every time I try to work somewhere.

Let's focus on the original issue. This content is good. I'll deal with quotes if it needs it. Put it back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Under construction" tag removed

User:Jenhawk777, who was the editor most focused on expanding this article and added the "under construction" tag, has announced her departure from WP [5]. Therefore I have removed the "under construction" tag. I do hope others will continue to work on this article, I think it is too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article as it stands.Smeat75 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)