Talk:The Bible and violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

quick note

i blasted through this today and took out all the supercessionism crap. the article needs a lot more work but it is more neutral now. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

edit warring supercessionist content into article

Johnhannsg has been edit warring supercessionist, unsourced content into the article.

1. diff 21:00, 26 August 2014, first addition of
2. diff 15:11, 27 August 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)
3. diff 20:17, 29 August 2014
4. diff 21:11, 30 August 2014
5. dif 20:55, 1 September 2014
6. dif 11:52, 2 September 2014
7. dif 12:05, 2 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [1] 15:57, 27 August 2014 user was clearly new, welcomed the user and explained about discussing, warned not to edit war.
• dif 22:10, 1 September 2014 warned again on user Talk page

I came across the article cleaning up after a now BANNED user. This article was in sore need of improvement. Shortly after that, Johnhannsg started adding unsourced, supercessionist POV content to the article (basically saying that the "old testament" is ugly and violent and the new testament is all full of light and peace). Despite several efforts, user keeps edit warring.

User apparently just figured out how to use his Talk page - see [2] and says he is new.

Opening discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose to add the following in, all of which is sourced either from the Bible or authoritiative sources:

Various passages in the New Testament illustrate the non-violent message of Jesus. These are a few examples:

Ephesians 4:32 "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you". Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you". Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?". Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you". Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse". Romans 12:17-21 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone". 1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing". 1 John 2:9-10 "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble".

Desjardins notes that a consistent them of non-violence runs throughout the New Testament. Following rejection or even under threat of death, Christians were mandated to respond in a non-violent manner.Probably the central act of violence in the New Testament is the crucifixion of Jesus. :This act, held in most Christian theologies as crucial to the redemption of humanity by God, is also held to be ordained by God as a payment for the sins of men and women.[18]

There are sayings of Jesus that relate to violence:[19]

• Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.Matthew 10:34. :This is a reference to the persecution Christians would face against them as they preached the gospel.

• I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.Luke 12:49-51 The first part of this verse is a reference to the final day of judgement. The second part talks about the division the gospel would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it.

• And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.Luke 22:35-38

Jesus' cleansing of the Temple is an example of direct violent action by Jesus.[20]. Though it must be noted that in the biblical text regarding the cleansing of the temple, there is no account of any harm being doing against the person of anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhannsg (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Responses:

Setting aside the edit warring, which I will assume will finally stop, so that we can discuss things...

• First the focus of this article is violence, not peace. It is unclear to me why the content about peace should be here. I am open to having a discussion about the scope of the article. But this content represents a fundamental broadening of it, and will require us bringing the whole article in line with the new scope (e.g. bringing Hebrew Bible discussions of peace to bear as well
• Related to the 1st.. some of the introduced NT passages have no direct bearing on violence/nonviolence and it is unclear why they were introduced at all. Like the 1 John and 1 Peter sayings, and also the "two swords" quote. Which really points up that the selection of passages itself is what we call "original research" which by policy is not allowed here - see WP:OR. I do note that the former version of the article, which I have been in the processing of fixing, also had no sources for the texts selected. There are great books that can be the basis of selections from the biblical text (Phylis Trible; Rene Girard; Susan Niditch, and others have wrestled with these "texts of terror") We need to bring in the work of these mainstream scholars.
• Second, the edits mix in specific and one-sided Christian interpretations of specific New Testament texts. Wikipedia is a secular project and does not express any specific group's POV. This violates Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy See WP:NPOV.
• Third, the edits add broad interpretation ("the non-violent message of Jesus") that are again from a specific, Christian POV. Again this violates the WP:NPOV policy. The quoted content also has no source, and is original research which again is not allowed in Wikipedia by policy.
• Fourth and most broadly, prior to these edits, the article had no theological interpretations on any biblical text. It is another fundamental change of article scope to introduce theological interpretations. We can discuss doing that, but again we would need to bring in the whole range of mainstream theological interpretations, of these issues, not just one, and give them "weight" according to how reliable sources describe them (see the "undue weight" section of WP:NPOV.
• There are a lot of issues here, and we should probably break them into separate discussions, and do them one at at time. In my experience here it does not go well when people try to discuss multiple issues simultaneously. Shall we start with a discussion of article scope? Namely, should the scope of this article be focused on violence per se, or on violence and nonviolence? Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Note - Johnhannsg has continued to edit war this content into the article. here and here. I have reverted as well, so I am now also in violation of 3RR. By now it is a pox on both our houses as far as the 3RR board goes. So I will let the final edit stand and will try to work things out here. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My response, 1) The article is indeed about violence, and Jesus' words specifically relate to non-violence. This means that they are directly connected to the question "Is the Bible Violent" and "What does the Bible have to say about violence". 2) I have introduced authoritative sources, as per above. 3) I think you violate the [WP:NPOV] as well. By not wanting to produce a balanced article (i.e showing those verses which talk about non-violence as well as your own specific interpretation of violence, you are violating [WP:NPOV]). 4) I am happy to discuss bringing in other sources. I believe those I have introduced are mainstream. I am happy to break the discussion up. 5) Yes I am happy to discuss the scope. It is completely out of context to discuss the question of the Bible and Violence without discussing the non-violent sections, and I am sure most people would agree will provide a more balanced an informative article on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhannsg (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

preserving NPOV

while we are discussing scope, i added content on "peace" in the Hebrew Bible, and organized the Hebrew Bible and New Testament sections so their structures are parellel. This way we preserve WP:NPOV while the article is under construction. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent discussion. I have amended some of the writing in the NT section. I changed the headers there to non-violent and violent, however on second thoughts non-violence simply means an absence of violence, wherease perhaps "against violence" would be better. Extending the scope to peace is possible, but is a great extension and would require much more reference to other bible verses on the subject- do you concur? I have place the non-violent references at the fore as the emphasis of the NT is on peace and non-violence (for example there is not one instance of Jesus or a follower of Jesus directly harming someone physically in an act of violence in the Bible, yet there are voluminous passages against taking a violent approach and pursuing peace- which is something I feel should come accross more in this article). Johnhannsg (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ok, fine with the section header changes. i made the whole article match the scope that you insisted on retaining for the NT part - both violence and opposition to violence so we have a roughly NPOV article while we are still hashing out the scope. Before we flesh things out further, let's come to agreement on scope, in the discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

article scope

Thank you for replying. Let's talk about one thing at a time. So let's talk about scope. This conversation is not bound, for the most part, by any policies or guidelines - we can make the scope be pretty much anything we want it to be. Because it is a matter of preference, consensus is decided by simply trying to persuade each other with reasoning. The goal is to arrive at a shared view, not to "win". The only boundary that I can see, is that the article needs to be scholarly, not confessional. Wikipedia is a secular project. But outside of that, pretty much anything goes. If we cannot agree, there are ways to input from the wider community, so this never has to be about you and me per se. The other thing to keep in mind, is the set of related articles, which include but are not limited to Religious violence, Christianity and violence, Judaism and violence, Religious war, Pacifism, Religion and peacebuilding, Christian pacifism, Judaism and peace, Thou shalt not kill, Live by the sword, die by the sword, Eye for an eye, and others. We want to be sure that this article a) has a clear focus that is distinct from those articles; and b) incorporates relevant content from those articles as far as they are within the scope we chose, per WP:SUMMARY. We have a responsibility to the whole encyclopedia here. So all that said... what do you think the full scope of this article should be? Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is a secular project. Of course it is a secular institution commenting on a matter that is religious. I agree that the article should a) have a clear focus, b) incorporate relevant content. I would also add c) that it should present a balanced view. I believe the scope of the article should address the question on whether the Bible is violent. To answer that will require reference to relevant biblical passages, since the part of the topic is the "Bible". Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhannsg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the question "whether the Bible is violent" is a) not answerable because the bible is a book and books are just inert things, and b) is yes/no question that has no answer. Would you please clarify? If you want me to provide suggestions for what I think you might mean, I would be happy to do that. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(a) Yes you are right- the Bible is indeed inert. What I wrote was shorthand writing for addressing the topic of disucssion, i.e whether the Bible provides literature which can be construed as provoking violence or non-violence. (b) Yes I am happy that we only use relevant material. (c) You have written on my private page that you object to the use of Jesus' verses on non-violence. If you wish to discuss that here, please let me know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhannsg (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking what I think, and I will be happy to answer in due course. One thing at a time, and right now I would like to understand what you would like the scope to be, and help get your wish framed as a viable candidate for the article's scope. Wikipedia articles describe the mainstream view on what is known or thought on a given topic. As I am sure you know, mainstream biblical scholarship does not view the Bible as speaking with one voice or having any single message (some theological perspectives do, but mainstream biblical scholarship does not). And I don't think the "yes/no" "whether" question is productive (it would drive us to come up with a single answer and there isn't one, in secular scholarship) and is unlikely to be widely accepted as a scope. So, reframing what you wrote above, your statement of the scope could be something like: "What biblical texts discuss or describe violence and non-violence, and how have those texts been used throughout human history?" Is that an acceptable statement of your desired scope? Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnhannsg would you please continue this discussion? We need to reach consensus on scope. We have a disagreement, and we both have an obligation to work it out, per the policy, WP:CONSENSUS. If you do not intend to work it out, please say so. (you should know, that if you just stop participating in this discussion, then the community will interpret that as not working toward consensus). There is no deadline but if we are going to move this along, we should keep chipping away. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Dear

Jytdog Hope you are well, I am afraid there are times when I cannot respond to messages within 48 hours simply due to the hectic nature of my work. However, I will respond, and am hopeful of reaching a long term consensus with you. I think from an objective point of view, we are on the same page (in the sense of objective references of what the Bible says as well as academic interpretations of those objective references). However, including historical interpretations, which you also suggest, does indeed widen the scope of the topic significantly, and may detract from mainstream interpretations in churches that are prevalent today. It may also steer the topic away from being primarily objective (which its title suggests) to subjective; and to repeat, my fear is that skewed historical applications based on subjective interpretations and not objective assessments of the Bible may paint the wrong picture of whether the Bible espouses violence or non-violence, and relates to a different question. What do you think? Johnhannsg (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy that you willing to continue the conversation! That was my biggest concern -- that we continue. The pace is not important. Turning to the meatier stuff... I am sorry but I don't understand what you are afraid of:

a) "that skewed historical applications based on subjective interpretations" This is somewhat loaded. I am not sure we should unpack this now, but I don't know what you are refering to with "skewed historical applications based on subjective interpretations"....

b) "objective assessments" it will also be interesting to unpack what you mean by this (some kind of word count?) but I think we should hold off on this too...

c) "whether the Bible espouses violence or non-violence" there are two issues with this, as we discussed above. The text of the Bible "espouses" nothing. Various faith traditions and communities take the messy text of the Bible and shape it this way or that, but the actual text of the Bible is ... messy, with many frank contradictions and inconsistencies. That is the big picture in the framework of the discipline of biblical scholarship, which is the framework in which Wikipedia works. The text has many stories and passages that are violent, and many that are "anti-violence", as we are calling them. I don't understand where this "either/or" is coming from, nor this notion of the Bible being or espousing or teaching any one thing... and both keep coming up. I could see both things being said coming from a confessional standpoint of one of the communities of faith (in which, for example, the Bible is the inerrant living Word of God which of course is consistent and doesn't contradict itself), but Wikipedia takes no confessional stance. These things, I would like you to explain more, if you would. We need to work through this to arrive at a scope. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

lead

I think the 2 sentence intro is the bigger problem and needs to be rewritten.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk • contribs) 27 September 2014 12:46 (UTC)

thanks for your interest. you appear to be new to wikipedia - if you want to get involved please consider creating an account, and at least, please be sure to sign your posts with 4 tildas. Turning to your point, as you can see if you read the discussion above, the scope of this article has been under discussion and efforts to develop the article became stuck. i have waited a pretty long time for the other participant to respond, and since that is not forthcoming i am going to go ahead and continue developing this. the lead, as it stands, is provisional, and will evolve as the article evolves. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

agree with the unsigned user. The opening section of this article is both too undeveloped and far too colorful in its language. The basic ideas may be largely true, but as written it's completely non-NPOV. Words like overflows are inappropriate and one author is not adequate to make the claim that "[All] people [X] do [this thing I disagree with]." Supersessionism seems mostly out of scope: not something you'd mention on the first few paragraphs unless you're preaching. My general take is that this article as currently written is neither encyclopedic nor useful and that Wikipedia would be better off with nothing than what's currently here. Gerweck (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article needs an extensive rewrite, with the removal of most (all?) of the proof texting and its replacement with reliable non-primary sources. Editor2020, Talk 05:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Hi! I have been working on a total rewrite as suggested and am at the point where I need other eyes and additional input. It's my attempt to Be Bold! I would love a content review if could find the time. It's in my sandbox at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox thank you so much!Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

yes, it does. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Jytdog}} I am in the process of doing a complete rewrite of this article; I'm about 75% done. I know there's a bunch you will fuss at me about, but that's okay, you give good advice and you understand Wiki. Where do I put it so you can see it? I would like to see the title of the article changed from what it is to "Violence in the Bible" instead. It's narrower and more specific. The Bible and violence could mean modern terrorism or peace negotiations or just about any thing where the two things cross. This change makes it much more limited in scope. Please talk to me Jytdog! Forgive me, cut me some slack, whatever--it's very frustrating here at first! I did apologize! And I really am sorry for getting upset with you. I know I took it out on you, but I am pulling out my hair a little bit less now and I promise not to take my frustration out on you ever again.  :-) Give me another chance. Please. Yours is the only opinion on this I am asking for on this--see that's how much I actually respect your experience and opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a "sandbox", that is yours: User:Jenhawk777/sandbox. I'll be happy to look at it. there are people who are much better than me on this stuff, like Editor2020 above. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just an accident--I should have checked. Thank you for responding. It should go in the sandbox? Not a draft? Who do I suggest changing the title to--I know that's kind of a big deal right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You know what? It's not ready to be looked at yet. I haven't put all the references in the proper form. It's not fully edited--it's not even completely finished. I will go ahead and stick it in the sandbox to make it a little easier to work on but I got to thinking about you looking at it and all I can see is what's wrong with it now!  :-) I'll try and finish it this week. Then I'll ping you again--sorry to have bothered you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi knows a lot about religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW Jenhawk777, pings doesn´t work when you miss the first coathanger. it must be two on either side of ping|Jytdog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I just added an external link to a relevant article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Eperoton (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eperoton! I will check it out. Thanx.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please look over New Rewrite

I have attempted to do an overall rewrite of this article while still maintaining its content and ideas. This entire original article is subsumed in the new one--it's just edited and with more references and is rearranged. If anyone here would please go and read the rewrite and start a conversation about what might need changing or doing or undoing, I would be very grateful. Several people--more than a half dozen--have already responded and put a LOT of work into it. The Wiki community has been fantastic. This is truly a group project. So thanx to all who have already worked on it and to those who will. It is currently at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox. All suggestions appreciated! Even if they are not all agreed to! When we have overall agreement I'll press the submit button but not until the community is comfortable with this version--or whatever version we end up with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page there and in my view it is not suitable. But in any case, submitting it via the blue button will result in its speedy deletion per WP:A10. That is not the way to make it live. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay! Not pressing the scary blue button till you are happy! I greatly appreciated your response on the talk page there and am endeavoring to follow through with every word you said. I also sent you a response and request on my own talk page. I genuinely want to get this right and am not only willing to cooperate but desirous of doing so. I thank you for your help and hope you will continue to give the kind of helpful specific recommendation you have in the past on so many other things here on Wikipedia. I am hoping that together we can get this accomplished. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I went and looked over the Wiki reference that you say would just delete this and I am wondering why that is being assumed. It says a duplicate article that "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion." This rewrite does that--so why would it automatically be deleted?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It exactly overlaps this article, and from what i understand, very intentionally. you called it a "rewrite" in the header. There are other ways to incorporate things here but we are far from having the implementing discussion yet. (not just me - you need consensus from the folks participating to implement the rewrite) Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly--do you mean it doesn't qualify as a rewrite because it incorporates the original article? Is that a standard I should have read somewhere? While incorporating it I believe I also fixed the problems in the parts I transferred. Does that matter? The original article did not have sufficient references, so I found some and added them--after reading and checking them of course. If I couldn't find any reference--say for example three of the Bible references on "peace"--beyond the Bible itself, I thought there was no other explanation--they had to be "original work"-- so I deleted those three. That left two Bible verses as examples, and I thought that was sufficient. Do you agree? When doing this rewrite, I checked every reference on his list, and found one, that the author refers to more than three times, was completely missing from the reference list. I couldn't find what wasn't there, so instead I tried to make sure every statement has actual validation. For example, in the "supersessionist" section, the description/definition there does not match what is in the Wikipedia article here on it, nor any other source I could find. None of the definitions mention "violence in the New Testament" as an aspect of supersessionism; it believes the church replaced Judaism. Did he make the rest up? Where did it come from? I was not familiar with this before reading up on it for this article, and it's entirely possible I just haven't looked in the right place yet--but if it's that hard to find--perhaps it's too obscure an aspect to include?

I call it a rewrite because that's what I believed I was doing--was I not? If it isn't a rewrite--instead of a deletion and replacement--what qualifies as a rewrite? How is that defined? This original article was considered good enough to be accepted and published by Wiki in the first place, so it seemed right to keep as much of it as possible. I was actually trying to do what seemed respectful of previous work--keeping the good while fixing the rest--which included expanding it some. Yes it overlaps. I genuinely thought it was supposed to. I am concerned you are telling me everything I've done is a waste of time--is that what you're saying?

I was hoping to hear back from you and I appreciate the response, but I was also hoping for the reference you quoted about Jesus' apocalyptic sayings. Is that doable? I have been unable so far to find the point of view you mentioned. I've been through about a dozen books and they all say the apocalyptic view in general is violent and three say specifically Jesus wasn't--which I'm sure you will not want included--but I have not yet found the other perspective. Is it obscure or mainstream and should I just keep digging? Am I wasting my time? Should I just leave Wiki? I can't seem to get anything accomplished here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming too similar to the discussion we had about moving this to your userspace. It was liable to deletion as it was; if you move it back it will again be liable to deletion. It is A10 (the same) or your take on same in which it is a WP:POVFORK which is also not valid.

It takes time to turn a battleship. If you want to change how this topic is handled in WP, you ultimately need to work on this page, as this page is where it is addressed. There is no way around that. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm sure it's tedious having to say the same things twice, and I know you've said them before, but I still can't claim to really understand. I am confused here and now because in the above, another editor says this needs a total rewrite and you answered yes it does; now it sounds like you are saying it doesn't. It just needs to be edited a little here. Or did I misunderstand? Part of what I don't get right now is how or why you are saying my rewrite is the same as the original. This rewrite does expand upon the original as the Wiki guidelines say it should. You can see that by the additional topics not in the original and just by the sheer length of the dang thing! It includes detail and adds information not in the original: it discusses warfare specifically, it discusses women in the Bible, it has several discussions of the ancient near east culture: language, history, cosmology, and mythology and makes those comparisons--none of which was in the original. I am adding in apocalyptics which was not in the original. It does discuss theology--which the original also does since this is about the Bible--but the rewrite has more of both sides of the disagreements--it has to have more since the original hardly had any to speak of. I have many more references than the original and went back and fixed those lacking in the original as well. The rewrite does in fact expand, reorganize, and contain referenced mergeable material. How is any of this not accurate? How and why do you see this as a point of view fork? Prove your case. Give me specifics. The article needs to be more balanced so if the point of view has shifted--that is why. That would be a good thing though. Please--I don't mean to be rude--but I am not seeing what you are saying and I need more than a general negative opinion. Please tell me where and how--with specifics-- what I have said about the changes is not so and/or what you have said about a povfork is so.

It does take time--I'm cool with that. It takes time to do proper research--which is something I appreciate--and I am totally okay with the whole cooperation thing. I like it. I think it's awesome. I don't take it personally when someone changes something I wrote--I'm grateful! You know I thanked you when you did so on the other article and I meant it. I have done nothing but thank everyone for their edits--I actually do appreciate them. I have no problem with all the rules and requirements. I'm learning them as quickly as I can. I don't want to change how anything is handled. I have no big plans! I wanted to do one thing--well, two now, but only because this one is part of the first one. I just wanted to balance one article a little better. That's it--then I would leave you alone. One tiny little goal. It isn't changing the world. Look, I truly respect your experience and skill. I genuinely desire your agreement and support. I will not attempt to submit anything till you say it's good to go--but I need you to meet me half way on this. I am never going to be negative toward all things Christian, but that does not mean I am incapable of being neutral. Presenting both sides of a controversial issue is neutral in my view. I want to be sure I have done that. If you have another definition of what neutral means in practice--just explain. I will do my best to cooperate. I don't know how to give more than that.

But I think you were right in the first place: this article needs more that a few edits. It needs a total rewrite--meet me halfway and help me accomplish that. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

way too bold. Really, you need to do this slowly. There are lots of people here. The right way to do this is bit by bit. Maybe section by section. Look what I did here for example. That RfC was originally just a proposal, but when it was clear that there wasn't going to be consensus, i converted it to an RfC. That is how you move things... bit by bit. That is how you do it in a way that is stable and consensus-driven. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well--too late--I moved a bunch of stuff already. I figured there would be screaming and hair pulling--you won't like the expanded theology section--but I honestly think you will like everything else. I have not read the book reference you sent me yet on apocalyptic sayings-- I had a full day today so I will read it through tomorrow--so that's not there yet. I was also unable to verify the reference for the statement on supersessionism. I have gone over every other reference --but can't validate that one. Would appreciate your help with that. So that's not done yet. But otherwise--I'm begging you--don't just revert everything. Please actually read each section one at a time and see what you think about them individually. Edit as you see fit. You are a gifted editor. Your input would improve everything--but please don't just knee-jerk throw it all out. It's valid and validatable and fixes most of this article's problems. Let's work on it. Let's see if anyone else objects. Give it a couple of days anyway to see if there can be consensus--you can always remove it later.

Oh. One thing. I did not remove all the various statements with an overtly Christian pov--all the "Bible quotes"-- removing it all would have left about a tenth of the article... :-) but now there is enough other material you can have the pleasure of removing anything you see as overtly one-sided (that is not immediately balanced by the alternate perspective) and get all that crap out of there--and still have an article left to edit! I thought you might enjoy "taking the axe to the tree" yourself. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You already reverted everything didn't you? How can there be consensus if nobody even gets to see it and state an opinion? You didn't leave it there for ten minutes. There are lots of people here and they should get to have a say as well but in order for that to happen--they have to actually see it. They have to have a chance to participate. As bad as this article is--why chip away at it? Why not just replace it? What is your reasoning for leaving something you know is not neutral and does not meet wiki standards? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Again everybody gets your eagerness -- but please, step back and think. What if everybody here did what you are doing? Really. Imagine it. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What if everybody here took flags at the tops of articles seriously, worked for weeks to check every reference, find new references, and do what the flag --and others including you--all agreed up front needed doing, then actually did it? What if everyone then actually trusted everyone else to respond accordingly--in exactly the same manner-- reading carefully with the goal in mind and checking and editing only what genuinely did not match up to Wiki standards without simply resisting change? You mean what if everybody did that? Well, we wouldn't have instant reverts for one thing. People would get a chance to read something for themselves--the whole community would get to participate-- instead of one person deciding for them what they had the right to see. Work would get done. Problematic articles would get fixed faster. That's what I imagine would actually happen. I have found the Wiki community to be entirely worthy of being trusted to think for themselves and do quality work and respond to quality work with intelligence and good will. I trust them. What if they ended up editing and rearranging every word I wrote? So what? The goal is to fix the article. The goal is for the community to do it. The goal is not for one person to control what everyone else sees and does. An act of trust in the Wiki community would be to put those edits back, leave them for a week--see what changes they make. If you build it they will come. They will show up and edit and they will do great work and the article will improve. That's what I imagine Jytdog. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I checked the reference on supersessionism and it is a misstatement of what the editors actually say. They don't say supersessionists overlook the violence in the New Testament and focus on the Old--they say scholars doing studies have done that. Scholars have focused more on one than the other. They never mention supersessionism. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So total rewrite may mean total rewrite by the end but not at the beginning--not all at once. Okay. I can accept that. I am going to try one section, okay? I am going to do one of the two sections that are the most egregious--the one that has original work and no references besides Bible quotes. See what you think. I am trying not to totally change it but still introduce those references and a balancing view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I read the reference to the RfC you sent--you really do quality work--I don't think there are any edits I have seen from you where they didn't genuinely improve things. Anyway--I also noted the section I added those references to is still there. In the talk above here, I noted that originally, you were against it going in as 'not part of the scope of the article', and I agree with your original assessment. I think every one of your original arguments against putting it in were soundly reasoned. I do realize that in order to discuss anything where people have different opinions, they all need to be mentioned--but this section doesn't actually do that--'peace' is a whole other subject. It's my opinion the whole section should just be removed. Is there a way to propose that and take a vote on it in the way you did on that example you sent? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What i was trying to show you, was how to use to use the talk page to propose specific changes to whole sections if you want to make a change in direction. Again you don't have to jump to RfC but you can show the changes on the talk page, explain what the big picture, and give people a chance to comment on the specifics (which are what really matter). This is makes things digestable for other volunteers to absorb. I understand it is slow and you are in a hurry but consensus is how we work, and it just takes time. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I am not in any particular hurry. I can understand how it looks that way--but not knowing the pace of the culture here, I just worked at my normal pace. If an editor tells me something needs a rewrite--they usually want it immediately--or like an hour before they gave it to you and they wonder why you're taking so long... :-) This is different from what others have said too--perhaps there's some flexibility in this? I was told there is a page that says 'be bold--post it!, give it some time, if it gets reverted, discuss and go for consensus'--BRD? But I am okay either way. I will do whatever you suggest. You have the experience here. I did post my two suggestions on talk and no one answered--perhaps they thought I was an idiot for asking before doing since that's apparently slightly different than normal--but that is turning out to be me isn't it? Slightly different from normal! Then yesterday when I was told just 'do what you think needs doing and let others respond', I did go and remove that section on peace and add in the two sections on hamas and natural law. I was hoping you might leave them there long enough for others to respond--allow some consensus to form--if the consensus is, get rid of it, then so be it. If anyone objects to the "peace" removal, I will point them to your original reasons for resisting it--it's off topic. I would like to edit the next section as well--but I will wait until some time has passed-- I promise. See what you think about the 'against violence section. I know if you edit it, it will be an improvement whatever you do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please Note: cut and paste error!

Being a newby and not knowing better I have committed a faux pax and copy-pasted from this article into the rewrite in my sandbox in an effort to see what a merge might be like. As of 5 AM on 5 August, 2017, the version of 'Violence in the Bible' in User:Jenhawk777/sandbox contains material copied from the Bible and violence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ideas for additions to this article

I have material on warfare and women in the Bible I would like to have considered by the community for adding under "use of violence" in the Hebrew Bible, and material on apocalypse that I would like to see added to the "use of violence" in the New Testament. It is viewable in my sandbox at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox for anyone who is interested and would like to voice an opinion--either on it, or the idea of adding these sections, or both. Also, there is a problem in this original article with the "supersessionism" definition's reference: it does not say what the article says it does. The reference is for page three but the discussion extends both before and after. Others should look it up and see if they agree with my assessment or not. Supersesionism should actually be moved to be under theology too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I just reverted the change you made by removing the heading "Against Violence." Not only does that make it not match the NT section, it makes the content "weird" and seemingly unrelated to anything. Hamas is all and only about what the Bible says is wrong --exactly how the Bible is against violence--without using proof texts--and the other two give two practices that were also within Judaism specifically because they limited violence: were against violence that are also mentioned in the Bible itself. The heading needs to be there for it not to be "weird" as you called it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Scope of Article

Yesterday I removed the section on peace under against violence because, while I understand counterpoints are important to mention, I believe peace is another topic rather than a counterpoint. I also added in two new topics to that section. Please check it out and see what you think. Thank you wiki community! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with this article. First, there are no sources about "violence and the Bible" but about violence and the Old Testament. The NT stuff should be taken out and moved to its own article if the subject has notability. The sources used should be sources about the subject of the Old Testament and violence rather than writings about specific incidents that included violence or worse passage from the Bible. It should also mention the leading writers on the subject. The Oxford article, which is a tertiary source, provides a good example of how the article should be written. TFD (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said here. I have a completely rewritten version that expands both sections including a new section of apocalypticism in the New T. posted in my sandbox that I would love for you to look at and comment on. User:Jenhawk777/sandbox I include the leading writers in that version. I am having a dispute over the definition of supersessionism as it is stated in the original article not matching what the references say. Would you take the time to look it over and offer an opinion? I tried mediation but the other party wouldn't agree. We need third party opinions. Thank you for any help you are able to offer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There are indeed a lot of problems with this article. Historically it has gone through waves of pushing, that one can roughly describe as "anti-religion" (people opposed to the Bible/Christianity/religion etc) loading on all kind of negative stuff and prooftexting examples of violence, and removing content opposed to that view, and "pro-Christian" (generally Christians who generally want to depict the NT and Christianity as opposing violence and add prooftexting to support that and trying to remove negative stuff).

Each wave has had its own qualities, of course.

This is very clear from the history of the article and this Talk page. It has been hard to craft high quality content. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be if we follow weight and describe the various positions and explain their acceptance. The Oxford sources says that there are Christian commentators and we can explain what they say. Anyway, it is inherently POV that the article is about the Bible, which a number of books chosen by Christians including Jewish religious texts and books written by Jesus' disciples. TFD (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for third party opinions

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am formally requesting your opinion on the dispute in section 10, supersesionism. I believe the definition as it is stated in the article is not supported by the references. Wikipedia has an article on supersessionism here as well. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The statement has been removed so you don't need to check it. Thanks. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Please take a look at the definition of supersessionism and its references in the article on Bible and violence. I don't think this is accurate or correctly referenced. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Editor2020: If you would please take a look at something being disputed right now and offer your opinion I would be in your debt. It's the definition of supersessionism as it is stated in this article and its reference which does not support it. There is a definition of supersessionism-- but I could not find this one, as it is stated here, in any source. If supersessionism is not actually about violence, then it seems it should be removed from this article. It should be in the section about the Jews in the Christianity and violence article--but not here. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Editor2020:The statement in question was removed by someone else. Thanks. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I am looking for third party resolution to a disagreement on the definition of supersessionism and the statement in the Bible and violence article. Please come and look it over and offer your two cents if you would. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Count me out on this. I've tried to mentor and counsel, but I am not a theologian and will not be lead into arbitration about such matters. On crude statistics, Jenhawk, I note that you have added 2,700 odd bytes and then discussion has been around the couple of dozen bytes edits. I would have though that was co-operation and attempts by others, particularly Jytdog, to polish and improve not to disparage your work. To be honest Jytdog's response to your request for mediation appears to be reasoned, civil and courteous. I just wish the pair of you would assume good fair faith and good scholarship and accept that no-one has an absolute view of truth. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This dispute is not over any editing that has been done to material I added. I'm sorry you feel unable to participate. It doesn't require any knowledge of theology, it only requires checking the references, but I can understand not wanting to get involved. Thank you anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: The statement in question was removed by someone else. I apologize for putting you on the spot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• there is no dispute on this page about "the definition of supersessionism". Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is no dispute, that means you agree I can go ahead and remove it then--right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it won't solve the dispute, but maybe it'll move it forward. I yanked the sentence Given that the sentence that was (the basis of? a small part of?) the argument was unsourced according to Jenhawk, and given that Jytdog didn't argue that it was sourced, I've just yanked it out. Now, presumably, if either one of you wants the article to say something about supersessionism, one of you can write some text, and then the argument can be about some actual verified text. At least we've got one thing out of the way. Alephb (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That is amazingly awesome! Talk about bold and brave! You so--so--rock! I will get right on that! Thanks to all this back and forth--I have lots and lots of references!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it fairly difficult to follow some of the discussions going on here. I mostly did the edit for my own sake -- to remove one various and cut a little bit of complexity out of the argument. Now the argument can move on to the remaining issues. And there's no bravery involved. It's not like Wikipedia is a sovereign state that can cane people. It was one tiny step to move this awful mess toward whatever sort of conclusion it will eventually reach. Alephb (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the bravest things I've seen in a while. It was thestep. You're not alone--I found it difficult to follow the discussion here. It did not stay on topic. It went off the rails early. I kept feeling we were having two totally different conversations. Now, as far as I'm concerned--it's over. Anything you ever need--I'm there. You just let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Stoning

There currently appears to be no mention of stoning (lapidation). —PaleoNeonate – 08:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Supersessionism beyond the scope of this article

A second source has now been added to the "supersessionist" statement--it is line 5 under "Theological Uses" which says: "Supersessionist Christians have continued to focus on violence in the Hebrew Bible while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament."--but this new reference does not make this comparison any more than the first one did. The first reference lamented the way scholars have focused more on violence in the Old than the New testaments and explained that is why there is so little work available on violence in the NT--but that's about the choices scholars make on what to study--it's not supersessionism. As a matter of fact, that term is never once used in Gibson and Matthews. The new reference--"The God of Israel and Christian Theology" by R.Kendall Soulen, is truly an excellent reference. It is a work that solely discusses supersessionism: it defines it, applies it, discusses the systematic theology of it and the resulting problems--all of it. And nowhere in the entire thing is there a single mention of the violence in either the old or new testaments.

Starting on page one, the author explains supersessionism is about Christianity's attitude toward the Jews. It is also known as the "theology of displacement." The author explains: "according to this view, God chose the Jews to prepare the world for the coming of christ and after his arrival, their special role came to an end. They were now displaced--(superceded)--their place taken by the church--and when they refused to enter into the new covenant, God rejected them and scattered them." That is supersessionist theology. It's about who is special. Supersessionism has nothing to do with the violence in either testament. It was held by the church for much of its history and is seen now as contributing to actual violence--the mistreatment of the Jews over the centuries and even to the necessary mindset that allowed the holocaust. (page 2) I can see including the impact of this in the "Christianity and violence" article in the section on the Jews. That's where it belongs.

There's a really nice big quote on the bottom of page 14 and several important things are said--important for theology--on page 17 and 18--for example, this study says there is a shift taking place--the reference doesn't name this theology but it's called parallelism. On page 3 the author says it is "a development of historic significance for Christian theology." This is no doubt worthy of a mention--somewhere--but it has nothing to do with violence in the Bible. Since there is no reference that actually makes a statement as this sentence is stated--or anything that resembles it--it is simply incorrect; but even if it were correct, this subject would not belong here. It is beyond the scope of this article. So--it's both wrong and out of place. It should go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What you're saying here makes sense to me. If you've looked at the sources and they don't support the references, I'd say go ahead and pull it out. Nothing on Wikipedia gets a free pass from the requirement to cite sources, especially not a statement that criticized living people. If anyone disagrees, well, then it can be worked out here on the talk page.

As a minor point, you threaded your comment in a way that made it look like your three paragraphs were written by more than one person. I'm guessing it was a simple oversight and you basically know how to thread at this point, but if you're not sure, I can describe the issue to you in more detail. Alephb (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get this. Supercessionists' descriptions of Christianty's putative superiority to Judaism do often make Marcionist arguments. This is a "theological use" of depictions of violence in the bible. (I find the whole section bizarre, fwiw, but if it is here, supercessionism belongs in it)

The way the article is structured now, wit with the "against violence" NT stuff supported solely by prooftexting is a great example of that Marcionist/supercessionist POV at work. Where is the actual "against violence" prooftexting from the Hebrew Bible? (we shouldn't have any of this OR prooftexting at all, btw -- but the presence of it only in the NT is just.... quite blatant POV pushing.) Jytdog (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I misunderstood your instructions about being sure to indent every section on a comment. I see here you indented them equally--That makes a lot more sense! Yes, Alephb, you are absolutely right, supersessionist theology does often make Marcionist arguments--but those are two different subjects--they are not the same things. Marcionism should be in this article. It is about the amount of violence in the OT compared to the NT. If you both think supersessionism should be left, let's at least be careful to clean up the definition so it reflects what the sources actually say.

Jytdog, I totally agree with your assessment of the prooftexting in this article, but prooftexting on peace in the Hebrew Bible--which is not actually an antonym of violence--is what I took out. I have not touched the New T section. The subheading "against violence" is missing from the latest revision--is there a reason for that? And you commented the content I added was weird. What exactly does that mean? These are ways the Hebrew Bible can be seen to be against violence--that was the subject heading. Without the subject heading it does seem a little--why? But I did not remove the subject heading--not intentionally anyway! If we can get consensus on this and move on, I would like to take out the reference to the angel in the part about Abraham and add in some sourced discussion of two points of view on it instead. If you think that would be okay. It doesn't seem appropriate to have references to angels in an encyclopedia article. Maybe that's just me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Here is a link that explains it really well if you don't feel like wading through the academic work: [[3]] It's a blog so it can't be used as a ref but it does refer to Soulen's work and it's short and clear. It says what Soulen says accurately. You will note, I think, that this one also makes no mention of the amount of violence in either Testament or supersessionism having anything to do with that comparison between them. That is Marcionism. It's not supersessionism. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. Marcionist arguments about the violent god revealed in the hebrew bible are the same as those used by supercessionists to denigrate the HB and advocate that the NT is "better" - the prooftexts and arguments are the same, with slightly different uses, but the same ultimate end that Christianity is True and Judaism is dead and false). Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate a reference, that actually says those two things together, that I could read and check. What you have said here--above--mixes the two definitions in ways that no scholar I can find uses them. The two references in this article do not. Here is a direct quote, beginning on page two, line three of the second paragraph of the first reference: "Violence in the NT" by Shelly Matthews and E.Leigh Gibson. The issue of religious violence in canonical gospel... has been underscrutinized in general, and --rather more explicitly--neglected even in studies devoted specifically to "violence in the Bible. For example, a recent edition of Religious Studies News an internet journal of the society of Biblical Literature, advertises itself as a feature on the violence in the Bible, yet articles focus with virtual singularity on Hebrew Bible texts and Hebrew Bible atrocities. It goes on to say this issue does a violence of its own by focusing only on the OT while neglecting the new--but that is not a reference to supersessionism itself. It's only a commentary on the quality of scholarship in that particular issue of that particular journal. If you search for the term supersessionism, it is nowhere in this book, and if you search for the definition of supersessionism--or any combination of words that approximates this definition--it is nowhere in this book.

Soulen defines supersessionism beginning on page 1 of his book, "The God of Israel and Christian Theology". He mentions what Alephb said--that supersessionism used a form of what amounted to Marcionist views in the nineteenth century based on the idea that the Hebrews were never special not just no longer special. But if you search this book from beginning to end--which I did--there is nowhere that it says supersessionism is connected to the violence in one text while overlooking the violence in the other. That is an inference--but it's a personal opinion--and as far as I know is not stated in that manner by any scholar.

Perhaps I am mistaken myself, but I think this is a simple error that conflates two ideas that are actually separate. I hope everyone checks the material for themselves and reaches their own conclusions.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The "against violence" header is not only nonsense, but OR. Please don't restore it. The Marcion >> supercessionism thing is common as dirt as is the connection with "OT god is violent/NT god is peaceful" ... refs anon... Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

see:

• Miller, John W. (2004). How the Bible Came to be: Exploring the Narrative and Message. Paulist Press. pp. 77ff. ISBN 9780809141838.
• Wilhite, David E. (2015). The Gospel according to Heretics: Discovering Orthodoxy through Early Christological Conflicts. Baker Academic. pp. 34ff. ISBN 9781441223517. (note already we have "Jesus = love, OT god = violent, retaliatory, arbitrary" etc
• Aguzzi, Steven D. (2017). Israel, the Church, and Millenarianism: A Way beyond Replacement Theology. Routledge. pp. 280ff. ISBN 9781317111900.
• Rodríguez, Rubén Rosario (2017). Christian Martyrdom and Political Violence: A Comparative Theology with Judaism and Islam. Cambridge University Press. pp. 47ff. ISBN 9781316949757.
• See here: "Through his reading of Paul’s letters, especially the letter to the Galatians, Marcion came to the startling conclusion that the punitive, lawgiving creator God of the Jewish scriptures (his perception) was not the same God as the non-judgmental, non-violent God of love who had revealed himself in and through Jesus Christ.2 To be faithful to this revelation, Marcion concluded, the churches must divest themselves of the Jewish scriptures (still in use in the churches) and replace them with a canon-codex made up of only authentic texts that faithfully represented this new revelation"... "Marcion believed that the God revealed in Christ was pure compassionate non-violent love. Yoder’s beliefs were similar: through Jesus Christ a new understanding of God’s compassionate non-violent way for overcoming evil was revealed to humanity. In both cases these convictions resulted in supersessionist beliefs and attitudes toward Israel’s story, Israel’s scriptures, and Israel’s God. The point at which this supersessionism on Yoder’s part becomes most evident is in his teachings about God’s will for the nations."
• Just for a counterexample - here is a pacifist taking the editing knife to the whole bible, and taking care to note how different his effort is from other pacifist bible-editors fell over into marcion/supersessionism

... so many refs! Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The heading was there. I did not add it. I only added material appropriate to the heading. If it is original work--it isn't mine and it's been there for months. What is your reasoning for taking the heading out after I put material in that actually goes there? I do not agree the heading should come out. How can a category heading qualify as original work anyway? It matches the category heading for the NT and the lead. It is a discussion of violence in the Bible so the article should include both these ideas. I think you should leave the heading in. Let's stop changing it and get consensus shall we?

On supersessionism: Your quote here is about Marcion--not supersessionism. Marcion came to the startling conclusion, "Marcion believed , and a reference to the Mennonite Yoder? Really? So many references you say--and yet not one that states what I asked for proof of--what the article here states. The first book you reference has four references to supersessionism that all define it with no reference to "violence" in either testament. Google the definition and you get exactly what this book says: "Supersessionism refers to the long standing presumption that Christianity replaced (superseded) Judaism." That is from page xii of the intro of the first book you reference. Please note there is no reference to violence in the Bible in that definition.

The second book you reference here is about replacing supersessionism with what is actually a theology from the forties called millenarianism--it's about the millennial rule, the thousand years, of Christ after his return. It also does not state the definition in this article. It's an excellent book--the entire introduction is worth taking the time to read-- let me give you a sample since it doesn't seem you bothered. "...the source and origin of supersessionism is two-fold. First it is Christological...Second it involves...the historicizing of the eschatological event..." Please note--there is no reference to violence in the Bible in that definition nor is it implied.

I have to say I'm astounded you picked the next one since "this book aims to model religious pluralism and cooperation by retrieving distinctly Christian sources that nurture tolerance and facilitate coexistence." It does not define supersessionism as it is stated in this article either.

Just for a counter-example of what Jytdog? What I have said here is that this definition is not supported by its references --that the definition given is not the definition one actually finds when checking references. So how is some pacifist mangling the Bible a counter to that? I am going to thoroughly check every reference you send. It isn't enough to just look up references with the word in it--it matters what those references actually say. If the statement--as it is stated in the article--cannot be supported by an outside source, I am going to continue to lobby for its removal. That's as it should be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one: The Gospel according to Heretics: Discovering Orthodoxy through Early Christological Conflicts. It has a whole chapter on Marcion and what they refer to as the doctrine of supersessionism but again, it is not a theology born out of focusing on violence in the Old Testament while overlooking the violence in the new. That is nowhere in this book. That's nowhere anywhere because that particular definition doesn't exist. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Supersessionism beyond the scope of this article. While some people are supersessionism and hold certain views, you can be non-supersessionism and hold the exact same views as they relate to violence/non-violence. tahc ^chat 16:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Excellent point.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• The "OT is violent, NT is peaceful" bullshit is all over the place, specifically in Christian discussion of violence in the Bible, and it is entirely supercessionist. Because it is so prevalent it is important to keep, specifically in the theology section. I will probably expand it. The refs above discuss that extensively and there are plenty more. This article will not be hijacked by Christians who are here to write from a supercessionist Christian theology. Not going to happen. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be submitted to arbitration. There are no Christians attempting to hijack anything here, but that comment certainly makes your position clear. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We are extremely far from "arbitration" as that term is used in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• But at least for me, the most powerful eye-opener was an essay written by Jon D. Levenson called "Why Jews are not interested in biblical theology" which was originally published in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, eds. j. Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) ISBN 9780800608323 and was republished in ISBN 9780664254070 in 1993. and I commend it to you. He makes the (rather obvious point when you think about it) that Christians approaching the Hebrew Bible do that from a.... Christian place that is often nonsense or even offensive when read by non-Christians. Here is a useful quote from Rolf Rendtorff (a Christian scholar who represents the mainstream in Biblical scholarship), from The Old Testament: Jewish and Christian Bible:

One might imagine that now the scholarly study of the Hebrew part of the Bible would have become a common effort of Jewish and Christian scholars. Obviously, this was not the case, and for different reasons. Here one very important aspect of the above mentioned problem of naming the 'Old Testament' becomes visible: Jewish scholars were de facto excluded from the academic study of their own Bible because these studies were exclusively executed as 'Old Testament studies' in the framework of confessional Christian theological faculties.' ...

Reflecting on the reasons why in the meantime things have changed I think that one of the actual causes is the fact that the center of biblical studies moved from Europe to North America with its different system of higher education. Here Bible studies and Bible teaching are now executed in a great variety of different universities, schools, seminaries, etc., most of them in one way or the other being involved in the development of "the modem secular university...in the United States."' The opportunities for Jewish students to study Bible in a modem context are much better than ever before, and likewise the chances for Jewish scholars to get a teaching position in this field.

The second important development is the gradual change of Christian-Jewish relations. Today many Christians, in particular Christian Bible scholars, are aware of the fact that the first part of their Bible had been the Jewish Bible before Christianity came into being, and that it still is the Jewish Bible. Through the centuries much too often Christian theologians were not aware of this or even denied any Jewish claim upon the Old Testament after Christ. Since at least the majority of Christian Bible scholars have given up this kind of supersessionism there is now room for new reflections.

So yeah supercessionism and deprecation of the "old testament" is pervasive in many Christian approaches to the Bible. Including claims like the Hebrew Bible is the bloodiest of all texts and this bizarre tendency to compare the "OT" and the "NT" and find the "OT" wanting, which the content you have proposed has done consistently and relentlessly. It has no place here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is ludicrous that you are trying to deny that the canard that the "God of the Old Testament is violent and vengeful, the God of the New Testament is peaceful" a) exists and b) is supercessionist. This is "sky is blue" stuff. The claim that these are not true is so extraordinary that the burden is on you to show that this is not true. There is a wealth of sources above and many more on this. And yes, mentioning this in a section about "theology" in an article on the Bible and Violence" is entirely in scope. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

even the maximalist biblical archeology society has published a piece acknowledging both things and even "ranting" about how common they are, and how incorrect. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not denied the existence of supersessionism anywhere at any time. I have not denied Marcionism. Remember when you corrected me for quoting you when what I was quoting was actually an inference I had made? When you pointed that out I humbly apologized. You have inferred all kinds of things I have not done, nor said, nor even thought. I have asked for mediation on this issue. I believe arbitration over the many false accusations you have made might be appropriate as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not said that you denied the existence of supersessionism, anywhere at any time. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What is this then? It is ludicrous that you are trying to deny that the canard that the "God of the Old Testament is violent and vengeful, the God of the New Testament is peaceful" a) exists and b) is supercessionist. This is "sky is blue" stuff. The claim that these are not true is so extraordinary that the burden is on you to show that this is not true.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That says what it says; the structure of that is - "with regard to X you deny (Y and Z)." Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a good laugh.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong tendency among some people to define "supersessionism" in a narrow view that can be condemned... but to also declare many other things, people, and thoughts-- in a McCarthyist way-- as supersessionist, without any real proof.

To make supersessionism within the scope of "Bible and violence" you have to (for starters) show how supersessionism uniquely contributes to a view in a way all non-supersessionism views do not. You cannot do this-- not unless you can make all of Christianity part of supersessionism. tahc ^chat 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have said nothing about anyone's thoughts, but rather am describing diffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tahc. I appreciate your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, your comments on the dispute resolution page and the other talk pages in addition to this one have all gotten way off point.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You have said things repeatedly about my thoughts and feelings and motives--all of them wrong and untrue and not based in any reality. I just wrote a paragraph of them and deleted it because it is completely beside the point --all of it--it makes no difference at all what false accusations are lodged out of hatred or paranoia or anything else. It is a valueless discussion. You clearly hate religion and all things Christian. I don't. I recognize its value. That apparently makes you livid. It doesn't matter. None of the discussion about what you think of my feared and terrible supposed bias makes any difference of any kind because that is not and has never been the issue. It's all a smokescreen. The issue is one inaccurate definition and references that do not support it. There is a correct definition of supersessionism. All people need to do is check the reference you offer and see if what you have written matches up with what the reference says. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with anything else you have thrown around here.

Your refusal to agree to mediation has effectively torpedoed that approach for now. I am making requests for third party input at this time. You should too. Stop making this about religion. You are wrong about the motives you are assuming and assigning to me. This definition of supersessionism--"Supersessionist Christians have continued to focus on violence in the Hebrew Bible while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament."--does not reflect the way scholars use the term. The references given do not support that definition. That is all this is about. Please stick to the topic at hand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean about "don't make this about religion". The sentence under discussion is in the "theology" section. The canard and its deployment in supersessionist efforts are theological uses of violence in the bible. As I said before i am not sure what the section is doing here at all, and it is thin generally. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is in reference to those comments on the mediation page and in my sandbox and on my userspace talk page--all of them-- that all indicate this is about what you perceive as my religion. This article does not need "defending" from--what was it you said--a Christian trying to hijack it? That's crazy talk. If I put anything into this already heavily biased article that does not actually make it more neutral, then others will see that and respond accordingly. You are not on your own in caring about this. Others do care about the quality of the article--including me. Whatever my personal views may or may not be, I learned long, long ago that the facts have no bias. When I learned to write news articles it was by simply recording the facts: who, what, where, when and why; and I think an encyclopedia article should be approached in the same manner. That's my actual point of view--and not the point of view you have attributed to me. I do have a more positive attitude toward Christianity than you do--your negative feelings seem apparent--but that does not preclude my being able to be neutral in presentation of information. I am going to assume that eventually, when calm, you are also capable of the same thing regardless of your personal feelings. That takes us back to where we started: the definition here is not supported by references. The definition here is not the one scholars use. This definition is inaccurate. If supersessionism should be kept--which is iffy since it is not actually about violence in and of itself then at the very least it must be redone so it is correctly defined and accurately referenced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. There is an enormous amount of complicated discussion on this page. Let me see if I can get one thing straight. As it stands right now, the sentence "Supersessionist Christians have continued to focus on violence in the Hebrew Bible while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament." There are two references cited, but they are references to entire books, with no page numbers cited. The two references are (1) Gibson and Matthews, and (2) Soulen. According to Jenhawk, Gibson and Matthews never use the term supersessionism. According to Jenhawk, Soulen never mentions violence.

These are very simple claims. User:Jytdog, do you dispute either of the two claims that Jenhawk is making here? I know there's all sorts of other interesting sources you can talk about, and I'm sure you have all sorts of interesting thoughts about what's going on in Jenhawk's head, but right now we have a particular sentence in the article, sourced to two particular sources. Is there material in the two sources currently cited that directly supports the sentence in the article as it currently exists, or not?

Because you haven't disputed either of Jenhawk's claims about the two sources, but have instead started talking about other sources, I'm going to assume, unless you tell me otherwise, that the sentence currently standing in the article is not justified by the sources cited. Alephb (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, you nailed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is not actually about the content; yes the sourcing can be strengthened and any editor here could do that, it is a blue sky thing. I will strengthen the sourcing now, which is trivial. All the ruckus is not about whether this is actually VERIFYable. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

All right, then. I've removed the unsourced bit. Feel free to add back in whatever can be directly verified by sources. You two can go back to arguing about the other issues now. Alephb (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And... as I said, i have brought plenty of sources, and restored. diff. There are so many more sources on this. It is common as dirt.Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is progress. Alephb (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. You make me smile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

HALOT vs. Bible Study Tools

I think this question is for Jenhawk777, who I believe created the hamas section, but if not, I'll try to figure out who. The following sentence heads the Hamas section: "

"According to John I. Lawlor, professor of Old Testament, along with the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word ḥāmas, generally translated "violence", refers almost exclusively to human action.[1][2]

HALOT is named in the sentence, but the footnote goes to Bible Study Tools. So are you citing this sentence to HALOT, or Bible Study Tools, or both. I'd like to shift the sentence a little bit to reflect what the actual sources used where a little more clearly. Alephb (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Please feel free to do whatever you think is good anywhere at any time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, to do anything I need to know whether it is HALOT or Bible Study Tools that you used to write that sentence, or both. Is there any chance you remember? Alephb (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I used the BST--I can check. After the revelation about the BST I tried to go back and take all those references out and put HALOT in instead, but I must have missed this one. First I used a concordance, then a dictionary, and then a lexicon--I think I got a little lost after a bit... The definition of supersessionism is back--and I still don't think it's well phrased--but it has better references now so I am going to leave it alone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's one the other guy (I can't remember his name) changed to the BST-NAS version so I left it because it became acceptable--so not HALOT. Yikes! I'm fussing about someone else's screwed up references in this article and here's mine! Serves me right...  :-) Thank you for catching that! I am thankful we check each other--to me it's like having each other's back. There is another good reason not to try and do too much at once huh? Makes mistakes more likely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Apocalypse

Jytdog, your edits are all good and an improvement and do in fact move this whole section more toward neutrality. Thank you. Good editors make writers look good. You are without doubt an excellent editor. I have one question concerning the phrase about Neville "seeking theological approaches" as an inference that makes an argument--takes a position on interpreting it--whatever. It's very mildly biased in my reading of it. Would you be willing to cut that phrase out and just leave it Neville says or something simpler and less interpretive? It would declutter it some as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

His book is called "A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament ". The intro by the series editor says:

This close association of peace and war, to which we have already drawn attention, presents serious problems for the contemporary appropriation of the Bible. Are human freedom, justice, and liberation -- and the liberation of creation -- furthered or hindered by the martial, frequently royal, and pervasively masculine terms in which the Bible speaks of peace? These questions cannot be answered by the rigorous and critical exegesis of the biblical texts alone; they demand serious moral and theological reflection as well. But that reflection will be substantially aided by critical exegetical studies of the kind included in this series, even as these studies will be illumined by including just that kind of reflection within them.

In the present volume, David Neville investigates passages in the New Testament Gospels, Acts, and Revelation that portray a violent eschaton. His concern is that throughout the centuries, Christians have been drawn to the violent eschatology of the first and last books of the New Testament without appreciation for the tension between the moral vision presented in the accounts of Jesus' life and vengeful end-lime judgment. Rather, Neville proposes a "shalom-oriented canonical trajectory" and offers several "treasure texts" to aid in reading the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. His work contributes to and expands the purposes of the series.

No inference and no argument. Describing what the source says and what it is doing in its own terms. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The canonical trajectory is specifically about supersessionism you might be interested to know. It's quite interesting. I don't read this the same way you do apparently, but I will let it go. You may be right. I may be wrong. It's not worth fighting over. I appreciate the quote in response btw. It helps me to know exactly what you are referring to and to accept alternate readings when I have something specific to work with.

You have made a comment a couple of times that we are not making arguments here, but this comment puzzles and confuses me because we are presenting information from people who are making arguments, and it is sometimes impossible to avoid conveying their actual thoughts on their subject without communicating that. There is no way to paraphrase "John boy is against this idea, thinks completely differently, and says my way or the highway" without conveying it is an argument to some degree. How is it possible to describe an argument without communicating that it's an argument? I don't get this comment and --so far--haven't found it helpful or communicative. Could you find a way to rephrase that would communicate your meaning a little more clearly? You know Jytdog, I have a long established record--in real life--and without arrogance can justly say I am an excellent researcher and a good writer. You are an excellent editor, and we could make an amazing team if we could work out our communication issues. I want to. I value your input and I would not say that if it were not so. I hope you can come to recognize I have something of value to offer here as well. Toward that end, perhaps taking the time to explain a little would be helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to explain a bunch of times. Yes the sources you have chosen and the content you have written do make arguments.

Your approach here has been that violence in the bible attributed to God or God's representatives (or done by others and not condemned) is a) is a bad thing and b) needs to be "addressed" or argued down to the ground from a certain Christian perspective. Some of your moves to do that with regard to the Hebrew Bible have been supercessionist; now in this NT section almost every bit you have added describes this sort of violence and then wrestles with it .

Again from a perspective of faith this makes complete sense - as Trible says in Texts of Terror if one takes the bible seriously as an authority, all one can do is wrestle with these texts and like Jacob and the angel, hope to walk away alive yet bruised. But you are making that wrestling - that work within a certain sort of Christian faith -- the center of the article. This is not appropriate in WP. This what I meant about misalignment with the mission.

It is jarring to come across this theologizing; the very least we can do is name it as such.

I get it that from your first edit here you have found this article jarring and in need of change because it didn't do that. But a lot of people mistake Wikipedia for something that it is NOT. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that has been your view of everything I have written since you first read my proposed merge with the C and V article, but you're wrong about my pov and what is motivating my efforts here. I am not writing from the Christian perspective, I do not think these need to be argued down to the ground, as you say it. I am in the center--a true moderate--and that's the truth. It's not that I am advocating the Christian view--it's that I am not lobbying against it. I am including all the points of view, things it seems to me that you have carefully excluded. Your views are clear in not only what is said--and in some instances how it is said--but in what is left unsaid. The majority of the people who study the Bible are religious people--statistically, that's just a fact. I look at the references on the c and v and I do not see that proportionally represented. The majority view is almost not mentioned while fringe views are over represented. That's a really effective way in which to bias an article without actually saying anything biased. One of the examples on the wiki instruction page on style uses Darwin and his detractors; they point out that equating them would be wrong because the majority view upholds him--but failing to mention the detractors and what they say--or to discuss them dismissively--would be a biased presentation of information. What is in the c and v article is the equivalent of making sure it presents every detractor--often in language that conveys your agreement--while barely giving Darwin's views a mention! I am just trying to get "Darwin" his proper place in this. That means adding in stuff I think you left out, which gives the impression of a point of view I don't have.

In the B and v article there is the opposite problem. It looks to me like it was originally written from a completely Christian perspective. Have you not noted I am removing that? Half of what was in the big rewrite I did was ancient near east history and culture; I expanded the sociology section; yet because I also included more of the majority view on the theology--which has to be there--you seem to have equally hated all of it.

That's okay--you don't have to like what I write, but if it is what I say--others will, and it will improve the article. I --personally--am not making any arguments. I am presenting the research. I didn't go looking for a particular point of view--the other day, I started at the top of the list of books on Google books and worked my way down from the top one at a time with no cherry picking of any kind. When you research--do you make it a point to skip the Christian authors? It looks like it.

I asked a particular question and got the answer to a question I did not ask. What you think about my motives or whatever else is going on in my head is not really copacetic for you to be judging my writing by. I asked a particular question about writing style here on Wiki--you responded with a criticism of what you think are my religious views. That speaks volumes. And not about me. I am sorry we can't seem to work this out. Genuinely. I admire your skills. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You asked a question about "not making arguments" and I answered it. And again, i have no idea what is in your head. I have tried to describe your editing - that is all the data i have. If i have slipped and not described your editing, i apologize. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, well, that's progress I think. Even if it's just "if" I've been wrong, that's at least a step. If you answered my question on how to write about arguments without sounding like an argument, then what I get from your answer is, "You sound like you are making arguments because you are--and they don't agree with mine--so that makes them biased." This doesn't directly reference my writing it refers to what you think the motives behind it are. That is not only not an answer to what I asked, it's a genetic fallacy with an ad hominem attached. But I accept your apology such as it is. Perhaps we can reboot and begin again. If you haven't noticed, I am a stickler for accuracy in research, accurately reflecting an author's intent, the main ideas, not generalizing or inferring more than is required--the devil is in the details. Don't take it personally if--when--I question a reference or a definition that happens to be yours. And please stop interpreting everything through the "Christian" filter. I challenge a definition, and it becomes about my supposed religious bias. I ask a question on writing, and the answer I get is about religious bias. This is crazy talk, Jytdog. Sometimes an issue over a definition really is just about the accuracy of that definition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, you say I present the issues in the Bible and then wrestle with them. That is 100% incorrect. I present the issues in the Bible and then I present other people's wrestling with it. That is a lot--almost all--of what goes on in this particular field of study. This is a whole sub-genre of Biblical studies all by itself and the number of works in this field have multiplied exponentially since 9-11. Wrestling is what every body does these days: the people doing historical research and linguistic research--even Trible's work can be counted as a kind of wrestling with these issues. Hers is from a very narrow perspective in that it excludes context and other data applicable to how women are treated when government fails--it's even wrestling from a certain negative point of view--but it's still wrestling. And she does it in a manner that communicates her perspective. It's what they all do. They all wrestle with these issues-- from various perspectives-- and they all make arguments and that is what scholarship in this field of study looks like. You are mistaken in assigning any of these thoughts to me. Hence my prior question: how do you recommend presenting arguments so they don't appear as arguments? I don't think it's possible, but I would like to hear if you do, and if you do, I would like to know how. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If your commenting was solely on my editing, you would note that under the "Against violence" section under the New T, the first paragraph has 2 sentences that can be seen as negative and one that can be seen as a "defense"--with two parts to it. So that's balanced. The next has 3 negatives and one positive--not as balanced but certainly not biased in the Christian direction either. Under apocalypse, the first paragraph now has two negative statements; the second paragraph has neutral and negative statements; the third paragraph is all negative; the fourth has five negatives then one defense with three parts; then the next two paragraphs are solely negative. So in that entire section, there is one quote of the view from the "explanatory" side--and that's the one you chose to qualify as theology--as though the rest of the views represented here are not theology. Yet you say it's my writing that you are responding to as representing a Christian pov. I don't think that's a valid claim Jytdog. I just don't think it is. And I think that is what has caused so much trouble between us. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am done trying to engage on this level. I am discussing foundational things - the mission of WP vs writing essays and you are trying to reduce this to competing arguments - something that happens "upstairs" from the foundation. I will address specific content you raise. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Peace

I am wondering if removing the section on peace was a mistake on my part. I did this believing peace is not an antonym for violence, but I have since discovered a reference that contradicts that--but it's modern data not biblical. The Institute for Economics and Peace does research annually following global conflicts on worldwide conflicts and they say "The Global Peace Index uses the absence of violence or fear of violence as the definition of peace." Should the section on peace be added back in? Should it include this definition?Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am being bold again--which will probably get me in trouble--but I jumped in and added back two of the old sentences and one new sentence on peace directly under "Against Violence". If anyone objects, I have no problem with that. I am not deeply committed to including this, but since there is a source saying peace and violence are connected, it seemed proper to put at least a mention of that back in. I did not include the IEP reference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Against Violence

It is theology--but it's his--not mine--it is what the secondary source says, therefore it's copacetic to use. It's a direct referenced quote. I looked for something that would support the "Against violence" phrase. Found it. It doesn't represent your view--but it represents his.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)You're completely right of course, it is one point of view. But the way this article is divided up--so are the varying views. There is plenty of condemnation that follows. Balance is spread around a lot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not worth going into further. Let's focus on the re-organization. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I don't feel strongly about it. You reverted it and I will leave it. I like the suggestion of focusing--I would like to know what you're thinking. Do you have a plan? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reason

@Jytdog: Okay, skipping on past being insulted as writing garbage, you will have to explain--with reasons--how four comments on violence in the NEW Testament can possibly qualify as supersessionist. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dictionary of the Old Testament says that while the actual instances of violence are few in the New Testament, there is language of violence in some instances.... " Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Organization

@Jytdog: It occurs to me that part of what makes this entire article seem supersessionist--and what is hamstringing us here--is that it is arranged the way it is: divided between the Old and New Testaments. We have all gone with it because that was what was there-- and it's easy--but that doesn't make it good. Perhaps, since the article title is "The Bible and..." this entire thing should be rearranged according to topic or type of violence, or just from beginning to end by books of the Bible where violence is mentioned as the OUP article by Creach does. The OUP article specifies what to be sure and include in any discussion of violence in the OT--we could follow that idea all the way through. But I kind of like the category of violence idea, which would put a discussion of old and new together repeatedly. For example, instead of apocalypse being only under the NT there would be discussion of the idea in both at the same time. What do you think? Removing the division between testaments would remove any appearance of supersessionism I think--it would help anyway. Possible topics to consider are: creation, sacrifice, war, prophecy/apocalypticism, sociological views, with theology and history and culture included in each area as appropriate--or separately under each topic? Anyway--just an idea. How about we actually work together and thrash a re-org out?Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll think about it and please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did. Thank you. I know if you think on it, you will come up with something good.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a paragraph under 'the Hebrew Bible' "use of violence" that we could organize around. It could follow either of these references, but I vote for following Creach's books/or topics in order since that is almost like the article is organized now and would involve the least change. Right now, the New Testament section is longer than the Old T section--which is a little crazy since the OT is twice as long and has many more specific examples than the New T. This section seriously needs beefing up. Topics I would like to suggest are--in order: Creation (Genesis); Sacrifice (Abraham--could add in discussion of animal sacrifice); Exodus (discussing Pharoah and the Egyptians); War (from Genesis through Joshua); Zealotry (covering the prophets mostly); and Women (and violence in the book of Judges). This won't cover everything, but it will cover the main things. Would you take a look and consider this as an approach? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think sections as follows would be useful and encyclopedic (sections would be named differently, of course. This is what the sections would do):
  • "What is it"? content that summarize the kinds of things that are actually in the NT/HB/bible about violence
  • "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 uses of violence 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) For Christians this would be theologizing.
    • uses in history - summarizing ways governments or peoples have used it to justify/motivate
    • uses in culture -- depictions in art, literature, etc

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I like some of these ideas in general, but specifically dislike some others: first, since this is "The Bible" and violence and not "Religion" and violence, the Quran and Muslims should not be added into this article. It would completely shift the focus and scope of it.

Next, this rearrangement will be problematic from the get go. Not only is it a total change basically starting from scratch--which I was told repeatedly not to do because this article was voted not to be deleted--but ::::--third, it strays out of scope-- again-- with the "how has it been used" section (which is too vague) and "uses in history and culture." That is no longer talking about the Bible being used--to found groups who built hospitals or universities, etc. etc.or any of the many--many--other things the Bible was actually used for in history and culture; that's solely about violence being used in history and culture. That's a singular shift in focus.

This total reorganization would not just reorganize; it would effectively alter both the scope and the focus of the article as well.

If we expand the article to include all the ways the Bible has been used in relation to violence in history and culture over the past few thousand years, for the sake of balance and neutrality, we will have to include all the ways it has been used to prevent violence as well as promote it, and since the Oxford Handbook of Religion and violence says there are at least six approaches to understanding "religion" and violence in culture and history--sociologically, historiographically, anthropologically, psychologically, from a literary perspective, a linguistic perspective, a political perspective and more--all of these would have to be included--in each and every one of these categories!! It would not be up to snuff to print one point of view because the Bible has been used in every aspect of life for a few thousand years now! This would expand the article out of bounds--each of these should be an article all by itself.

This article is about the violent texts in the Bible. It should be limited to that. There are ways to organize the existing article without throwing out everything already here. For example, we could follow Creach's pattern from the Oxford University Press article, "Violence in the Bible." He goes by sections in the Bible. We could do away with the for and against division and combine them and discuss both all the way through if you felt strongly about it--although the "Against violence" section is already getting short shrift here when it should be getting equal time.

I vote no for a total re-org along these lines for all the reasons stated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep the topic is a very broad one and summarizing the whole topic is challenging. this structure would cover the whole topic in an encyclopedic manner. I agree that this is "the bible and violence" which is why only one subsection of three main sections deals with "religion" per se. The article is currently shot through with that stuff - and particularly Christian engagement at that. I don't understand the objection to discussion about the Quran and Islam in the "how it has been used" section; there is no doubt that a) Islam is an Abrahamic religion and an heir of the stories and ideas in the Bible; and b) a major religion worldwide. And the intersection of violence and Islam is a topic of some importance as well. The current exclusion of Islam and the (almost complete) exclusion of Judaism is incorrect (not surprising but incorrect) for an article that has so much religion in it. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Islam is an Abrahamic religion but it does not use the Bible so including it in an article on the Bible just seems off point. Judaism is the entire Hebrew Bible section. How is it being left out? Are you suggesting there should be a note of which views on the Hebrew Bible are specifically Jewish and which are specifically Christian--and if there are any non-Christian views? Surely not. That can't be what you're saying. I have misunderstood. I haven't a clue what you mean. Perhaps you could explain how Judaism is left out of discussion of the Hebrew Bible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between what these books say, and what people have done with what these books say. Reducing 2000+ years of jewish engagement with the Hebrew Bible and the new testament to "Judaism is the entire Hebrew Bible section. " is a conversation ender. I have no more to say here.

The way that things tend to go in WP, because this section has become the two of us disagreeing, it is unlikely that any one else is going to say much here. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. When I don't agree what should I do?Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If I am actually interfering with progress I will just stop tilting at this windmill. It was not my intent to be obstructive. I apologize to the community.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts on the current article

The OT "Against violence" section/subsections doesn´t seem to have any "against violence" content, perhaps rename?

There may be some other biblical episodes worth mentioning in this article, like

Cain and Abel

Genesis flood narrative

Jacob wrestling with the angel (and I strongly suspect that "touched his hip socket" is bible-speech for "kneed him in the groin")

Egypt's Pharaoh, fearful that the Israelites could be a fifth column, orders that all newborn boys be thrown into the Nile.

Zipporah at the inn

Plagues of Egypt, in particular nr 10

Crossing the Red Sea

Massacre of the Innocents

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

What would you rename it? I am the one who took out the stuff on peace from that section (which seemed like a different topic), and which no one objected to at the time. Then I tried to put it back after reading that the Institute for Economics and Peace defines peace as "an absence of violence or fear of violence." But that immediately got reverted by Jytdog. So it remains gone. The information on Hamas is all about the ways in which the OT speaks against human violence and how and what exactly are defined as human violence. I don't really see how it can be classified as anything other than "Against Violence" but if you have other ideas you will probably get support. Jytdog does not like that heading either, but changing it would require reworking the organization of the rest of the article as well, since it is all organized that way, and other better headings have not yet appeared. It's not that I dislike the idea--I just don't know what options there are that would be better without beginning from scratch on the whole article. I like your other suggestions here. I agree the OT section needs beefing up. I was saving it till after I was done with the NT section in hopes of not being accused of being supersessionist. I am trying to be more aware and careful. And I am trying to go slowly and give people time between any additions I make. I am trying!Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The structure of having "against violence" and "for peace" sections remains flawed; these have been the product of people coming here with an ax to grind about religion being "bad" or "good" and forces us to classify things in ways that are basically OR and have little to do with how most scholarship that is not about pacifism or some other theological issue approaches these texts. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You know what? I think this comment is completely correct. This division is artificial and it does force a classification that is not found in most scholarship. That really should go. You said you think one option for reorganization is to organize around kinds of violence--do you specifically have some 'kinds' in mind? Is it human and divine--or things like creation, warfare, laws, women--or some combination? I would like to take a stab at it if you agreed and could tell me what you have in mind. If you would be okay with that. I would like to make some progress--do something.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I can imagine having Hamas and Natural Law and the lex talionis directly under Hebrew Bible, without renaming. I´m not sure the "OT" section needs a separate "against violence" section (but there may be good material in sources). Bits like Cain & Abel. Binding of Isaac, Do Not Kill (some exeptions apply) can occur in whatever appropriate section, they don´t need to be singled out (and isn´t there some bit where God says he will spare some cities because a few righteous people live there?).

The article currently doesn´t mention (I think) "bad guy" violence, like Pharaoh and Herod, but that´s violence too. And Moses story has a lot of blood and collective punishment in it, from slaying the overseer (not himself a good guy) and onwards. "And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

I´m not sure how many of the OT-episodes should be mentioned, but there seem to me to be a lot of fairly relevant one´s, Cain & Abel for starters, one God expressed dislike about, and the Deluge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. It is also unclear to me how we should determine what examples/episodes to include; this topic is vast. Above, in the organization section, i proposed a section that would cover the kinds of violence that are in the bible, and if we do it that way, mentioning specific examples and using Wikilinks would probably work.... Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the "Eric Siebert defines" bit is a start. Added as necessary to the OT/NT sections, something like

• Divine
  • In person
    • Collective (Deluge, cities, Egypt and whatnot)
    • 1 on 1
  • On his orders (laws/regulations here?)

• By/On the orders of "his people", (Cain/Abel, Moses, Samson, The Kings, there must be some wars?)
• Bad guys

Off topic, I can recommend Kings (U.S. TV series), an interesting take on an old story. Ian McShane is in it (I like him), and the young soldier David defeats the tank Goliath. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if my vote counts still, but I agree with everything you have both said here. Jytdog, I think your idea of "kinds' of violence is brilliant. I like all of Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggestions--also brilliant--it both broadens and focuses the topic at the same time. Really good ideas. (P.S.--I am a big Ian McShane fan too!)  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You called me brilliant, of course your vote counts! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! Well--everyone should know by now that I just say what I actually believe to be true! These suggestions really are great. IMHO!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So, combining your idea and Jytdog's, there would be divine violence--with its three categories from Siebert?? And a category of human violence? Which would include examples such as Cain and Abel?? Am I understanding that correctly? If we did this in chronological order we could go by sections of the Bible from old t to new t without the differentiation between them--which might fix the appearance of supersessionism. Or instead of chronological, we could lean a little more heavily on Jytdog'd idea of categories like creation, warfare, women, etc.--and put them in chronological order using all your examples where they fit in that framework. I do have one point where I am confused. I have some stuff in my sandbox version that includes archaeology and linguistics and near east studies etc.--would that fit in as an aspect of each discussion--where there is any--or would it be separate? There isn't always going to be this kind of thing on every example--and there will be tons on others. Tell me your brilliant thoughts! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be currently out of brilliance, but will return if I find some again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! I have no doubt you will! I would like to take a stab at doing something but I don't want to piss anyone off again. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Something about the first murder in the OT/Violence section? Here´s a source: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

See? Brilliance right back again! I agree--that would be a significant milestone type of thing. Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: OMG! I checked that source! You're not only brilliant you're hilarious! I am still laughing! Thank you! I needed that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization Ideas

@Jytdog: @Gråebergs Gråa Sång: Taking Jytdog's idea of "kinds" of violence as a framework, and taking Gråebergs Gråa Sång's suggestions and list of specific examples, and attempting to put them together into a single combined approach, I went looking for any scholarly examples of any scholarly work divided into "kinds" that we might follow or incorporate here. There is not much. Scholars don't seem to divide the Bible in quite that fashion very often--probably because their topics are usually much narrower than this is. However, I found four that had divisions of this type. "Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible" edited by Saul M. Olyan; "Sexuality and the Sacred" edited by Julia M. O'Brien and Chris Franke; "War in the Hebrew Bible" by Susan Niditch; and "Violence in Scripture" by Jerome F.D. Creach. Creach's book has the most comprehensive organizational system, but I think we can take a little from all of these works. I agree with Jytdog's suggestion that eliminating the division of for and against would improve quality, therefore some of that is incorporated in each section, and probably eliminating the separation of the Old and New Testament would also improve quality. Everyone should chime in on that.

In their place there could be five categories of "kinds of violence" (per Jytdog's suggestions).

1.===Creation and Calling; violence and the book of Genesis===

Genesis one: make comparisons with other ANE creation stories (such as Enuma Elish); discuss leviathan;

"The image of God" as a call to non-violence

The First Murder: Genesis 4 (Cain and Abel); hamas definitions and uses;

Abraham and Isaac

(Are there New Testament references to creation that could be included here?)

2.===Political Violence===

God the warrior in Exodus; oppression, Pharoah, heart hardening, the Plagues

Divine violence in Sodom and Gomorrah; concepts of justice: divine and human

Exodus 15 as an anti-war poem

====Dispossessing Nations====

War with Amalek--1 Samuel 15; critique of Saul; Praise of David the warrior; questions of genocide

Josiah; urbicide (killing cities);

The Ban: herem warfare; include ANE/ other cultures

Conquest of Canaan

(One possibility that should be discussed is putting the crucifixion here under political violence)

3.===Ritual Violence===

Ritual Sacrifice; other violence toward animals/environment; forbidden violence toward animals/environment

Prophetic Speech and Action; (five prophets in particular) Elijah, Elisha,Amos, Ezekiel, and Nahum

(Put Jesus' act against the moneychangers in the Temple here?)

4.===Sexuality and the Sacred=== (This is the title of one of the books so we can't steal it but these are the ideas here)

Women and slavery; Deuteronomic Law--(this could be a biggy)

Judges; The Decline of Israel; Deborah; Jephtha's daughter; Levite's concubine

5.===The Problem of Hell===

Old Testament roots; a call to non-violence in the Old Testament

New Testament texts; verbal pictures of suffering in Hell; Lake of Fire

Jesus and the cross as violent (if it isn't already in political); Jesus teachings as non-violence

Apocalypticism; in the Old Testament; in the New Testament

I think I have every example mentioned in here except "Bad Guys"--I didn't know exactly who that was referring to exactly; otherwise I think this includes everything that has so far been discussed. Five sections seemed like plenty--otherwise this could easily get unwieldy. But nothing is fixed in my mind--these are just possibilities--but this gives us something to play with maybe. If you hate it--please respond! If you love it--please respond! If you want to change it--please respond--with ideas! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Oh yeah--P.S.--this list does not include theology or sociology etc.. That could still be included separately--or incorporated under these other categories as a section in each one-- maybe?Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

From what are these derived? Item 1 is not about violence and this includes completely-theological-and-not-simple-description things, like the subhead, "'The image of God' as a call to non-violence". Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I took all of this from the five books I referenced in my first paragraph and from GGS's suggestions. Creach claims part one is about violence. It's his first chapter. I haven't read all of all five books--only excerpts--and that section on the image of God in Creach's book is one I haven't read. It seemed like an interesting possible insert on non-violence in the Old Testament. I don't really how theological the discussion is, but it sounds at least somewhat theological. I included it to help combat the whole supersessionist thing in the twofold manner these scholars seem to: mention non-violence in the Old as well as violence in the new. That is the chapter heading in Creach's book but if you want to go another way I have no objection.

@Gråebergs Gråa Sång:So how come your name is not registered and there is no talk page for you? I went to go talk to you and couldn't. Could you go to my talk page and discuss something about this article there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Reverts

@Jytdog: I object to the standard you are using to justify recent reverts; there is no requirement that says discussing the meaning of something is not allowed. Having good sources, I understand accept and agree. Call me on that if I fail. Staying neutral I understand and accept and agree. Call me on that if I fail. I understand and agree and completely accept no original material or personal opinion. Call me on that and you will and have gotten no argument. But this article is basically a kind of historiography; because of the subject, it has to be. And historiography is "the narrative presentation of history based on a critical examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and secondary sources and subject to scholarly criteria."Dictionary.com It's not possible to exclude the evaluation contained in the secondary sources because that is what they are all doing without butchering the material found in the sources. The idea of discussing history and the Bible without including any of the evaluation as stated in the sources is an artificial and unfounded and even an arbitrary restriction. I don't find that standard followed on other like-topic Wikipedia articles. Evaluation--if it is an aspect of the secondary source material--should be allowed in discussion of this topic because that's what the majority of the writings done on this topic are about.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes we disagree about how to develop the page. You want toYour edits consistently develop this page with theology all through it, and I am opposed to developing it that way. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) {fix Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC))

There you go again telling me what I think and want. And it's wrong Jytdog. That's not what I want. All I want is acknowledgement that evaluation the sources make has a place--evaluation of any kind because you have reverted historical evaluations and sociological evaluations and linguistic evaluations as well as any theology that is not from a certain point of view while allowing theology that is from that pov. If we are supposed to take what the sources say as our guide, we are not doing that. We are imposing our views on the material. Your pov is the accepted one so I will probably lose this disagreement, but you are not simply reverting theology. And I am not simply introducing it. I can list them all and will if necessary, but you and I both know that's accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am describing the edits. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then why say "you want"? There are no references to the edits--just me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice edit. Let's examine that: "Your edits consistently develop this page with theology all through it" by examining the last revert: =====Ancient Near East cosmology and archaeology=====

C. L. Crouch compares the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah to Assyria, saying their similarities in cosmology and ideology gave them similar ethical outlooks. Both Crouch and Lauren Monroe, professor of Near Eastern studies at Cornell, agree this means the ḥerem type of total war was not strictly an Israelite practice but was a common approach to war for many Near Eastern people of the Bronze and Iron Ages. For example, King Mesha of Moab fought in the name of his god Chemosh, subjecting his enemies to ḥerem, recording it on the Mesha Stele.

Jerome Creach says the creation story in Gen. 1:1–2:4a contrasts with other creation myths. In 1895 Hermann Gunkel observed that most creation stories contain a theogony depicting a god doing combat with other gods. For example, in the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish the first step of creation has Marduk fighting and killing Tiamat, a chaos monster, to establish order. Kenneth A. Mathews says, "It has been typical of scholarship since Gunkel's Schöfung und Chaos (1895) to interpret Genesis 1's subjugation of "the deep" and division of the "waters" as a remnant of the battle motif between Marduk and watery Tiamat, which was taken up by the Hebrew author and demythologized. But scholars have come to recognize that the association of the Hebrew tehôm ("deep," 1:2) with Tiamat is superficial, and there is nothing Babylonian about the Genesis account of creation."

Joel R. Soza says, "Unlike the creation epics of cultures which surrounded ancient Israel, this creation account reveals no struggle between God and the sea monsters he created." Creach sees Genesis 1:1–2:4a as narrating a story of God creating without violence or combat with any rival deity, God declares creation “good,” and the elements of nature participate at God’s invitation. (Gen. 1:9, 11, 20). Creach goes on to say this mythic framework operates on the assumption that God created the world for peace and that this is key to understanding the parts of the biblical narrative that concern divine violence.

According to Creach, the Exodus story is directly linked to the creation story. "Exodus depicts Pharaoh as commander of the forces of disorder, forces that would destroy and diminish life (Exod. 14:14)." Thomas B. Dozeman writes that "The destruction of the Egyptian army is the primary story of salvation for Israel, and central to it is the portrait of God in combat." Dozeman focuses on the use of militaristic imagery in the Exodus account and the interpretation of divine power as open to "dynamic reformulation" rather than remaining static.

In the Binding of Isaac, son of Abraham, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah by binding him and placing him on a makeshift altar. This was from the original article. This is not mine.

Bergman, Murray and Rea say it is texts like these that "seem not merely to presuppose divine approval for bad moral values, but to commend or command practices ... which reflect unflinching cruelty and a complete disregard for the negative effects of such commands upon victim and perpetrator alike." Evan Fales agrees, saying "The story gives us--and Abraham--no reason whatever to think that Isaac's sacrifice will engender more good than ill..." Bergman, Murray and Rea go on to say that excludes both the mythical and the metaphorical interpretation of the overall story of Abraham as one of the development of his relationship of trust with God, as well as Abraham's own reasoning reflecting that in this particular story's context.

Theology is only about belief, it is not any and every kind of evaluation. There are no beliefs discussed here just scholarly opinions on the texts and violence.

There is no theology in the first paragraph. The second paragraph gives a different view: so now there are two views of the same creation stories but still no theology. Crouch says they're similar, Creach says they are not. Discussion follows-- no theology. Third paragraph still comparing creation stories--it does quote some scholars evaluatingthe stories--but it's not theology since it is not discussing beliefof any kind. It is merely describing what the story says. No theology in the fourth paragraph. I took out the theology that was in the last paragraph, all that's there now is evaluation of the texts from two points of view. Locate what you see as theology and I'll remove it--or you can--but it is clear to see "Theology is all through it" is incorrect.

References

-- Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Terminology of Force vs Violence

The title of this article uses the term "violence". I don't think it's the best choice. Violence is a loaded term, and implies a narrower range of conduct than the article ought to reflect (specifically, illegal or unethical acts). In discussing these issues, where ethical judgements and claims are implicit, I think a better, more neutral term is "coercion", "the use of force", or simply "force". This allows for both putatively legal or ethical uses of force (such as the crucifixion, and other legal uses of force). It also seems to be closer to existing academic standards in the discussion of the use of force, both lawful and unlawful. For examples of existing usage and its implications, [here], [here], [here], and [here]. Approaching (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that when discussing organizations, coercion, high control and abuse are often used; when discussing powers, the use of force is often mentioned; although violence is a more general term which possibly applies better here. The complex legalistic aspects and ethics of war are possibly also outside of the scope of this article (i.e. we have Deuteronomic Code, Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg principles, etc.). One of your above sources precisely has:

One effect of this discrepant attention is that it is sometimes difficult to determine what precise meaning earlier writers intended in their discussions of "coercion", as well as to decide whether "coercion" captures something different from or related to other frequently used terms, such as violence, compulsion, punishment, force, or interference.

—PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the term from violence to force or coercion has some problems I think. First, it is not representative of the terms actually used in the original language of the Bible. Violence is a loaded term, but it's the term used and the idea described in my view. I have a definition of violence in my sandbox version that I took from the OUP article I used defining violence as anything that harms, destroys --or coerces--a human being, either physically, verbally or ethically. Perhaps something along those lines should be added to the lead. Second, since violence in the Bible refers to physical force but also verbal and ethical "violence" as well--such as bearing false witness--that change of title would not properly include those other ideas. Third, I think this title change would alter the scope of the article and change its intent.

I personally think there needs to be a "warfare" section under "use of violence". What you have here would fall nicely into that without altering the entire scope of the overall article itself. It would add valuable and pertinent information to the overall topic. In my sandbox, the version I was working on there has a "Warfare from Genesis to Joshua" section in it with some usable info, but what you have here would be even better. What some people don't get is that in order to be properly representative of what the Bible and scholars actually say means the Old Testament section needs to be longer than the New T section: the OT is twice as long as the NT and it has all kinds of stuff--like war--in it that the NT just does not have; what the OT says should not be overlooked just because the NT doesn't have the same things.

I don't support changing the terms of the Title, but I do vote for adding a section that focuses on war specifically under the category of "Use of Violence". Second, if you don't stray off too far into all the various legal issues, including a section on crime and punishment--and stoning--might be valid, although that is actually a whole other topic too. A mention wouldn't hurt maybe that redirects to an article on that topic. Do we have one? If not, you should write one. Somebody should. It would be a good redirect from this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

WP content is driven by sources. There are boatloads on "violence". Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that should have been number four in my list: the scholarship is on "violence" because that's what the Bible itself says, therefore that's what we have to stick with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Lots of responses here, fantastic! Let me address as many as I can:

1. The "What the Bible itself says" argument, and the "What the sources say" argument: The goal of an encyclopedia article shouldn't be to uncritically mirror the language or the perspective of the Bible. After all, the Bible wasn't written in English, nor does Wikipedia assume the perspective of Judeo-Christian ethics or politics. So I don't find it makes sense to uncritically go with what the Bible says. Rather, we go with an informed characterization of what the Bible says, and an informed characterization, I believe, will be limited to not just violence, but broader issues (of which violence will be an important part).
2. The "Coercion is too vague" argument: This is a problem with all the relevant terms, especially (and ironically), the term "violence": A hugely important topic in this context is the Biblical commands to go to war. Are wars best characterized as acts of violence, or as uses of force? It seems obvious that it is the latter, the use of force.
3. The "Legal and ethical issues are outside the article's scope" argument: Indeed, and that's the problem! The Bible is full of wars and conflict, with huge legal and ethical implications. But because the article is fixated on violence, we cannot expand it to include discussion of war and conflict. This argument ends up supporting my point!
4. The "Biblical violence includes verbal and ethical 'violence'" argument: I simply don't think this is true. It doesn't make sense to me to have these separate categories of violence. Maybe you mean 'verbal and ethical "violations"', which is a different issue entirely: It would fall in the domain of ethics, not merely violence.

I hope this addresses most of the issues raised. Let me know what you folks think. Approaching (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Approaching: Hi! I really want you to put in whatever you have on war and ethics and the law. I do not agree it is completely outside the scope--it just stretches it a little! Make a new section. Put it wherever you want to put it. I think it should be there. You can discuss the differences between force and violence when you get there. If somebody reverts it--we'll find out why. We'll fight for it! Go ahead and Be Bold! I will look forward to reading it. Oh--and the biblical violence including verbal and ethical violence is from the section in the article on "hamas." No one has dealt with them as separate categories of violence though. It's just using the original language to try to nail down some kind of definition--which you may have noticed--is missing from anywhere in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Addressing each under their number:

1. I think that the argument was mistaken, it is more how secondary sources treat the topic rather than the primary sources (the scriptures)
2. War usually implies violence
3. Please suggest alternative article names, it may inspire editors and would help to discern multiple perspectives to cover the topic
4. I have no opinion here for now

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right, this is a great response! I am willing to go with whatever the majority decides. I do agree there should be a focused discussion on war in this article. It is about secondary sources, but the scope has to be limited to what is actually in the primary source. Otherwise it isn't really an article about the Bible -and whatever else- at all. It gets off topic without that limitation. But the primary source does discuss all kinds of things as "violence" including ethics and law and war. As a result, the secondary sources do as well. I don't think it's outside the scope to include these--but this article does keep getting longer and longer.

I have wanted to change the title of this article from the beginning. The Bible and violence could mean using the Bible to oppose violence and advocate for peace; it could mean using the Bible to advocate for violence; it could be discussing those texts within it that are considered violent--it's just too ambiguous. I thought from what was written already that the scope was the latter, so I suggested flipping it to "Violence in the Bible" to at least exclude the other two. It could be "Force, coercion, and violence in the Bible." That would cover it without altering the scope and without the existing ambiguity. It's a little awkward.

I don't have a real opinion on what I think the title should be--but I do find the existing title lacking. I hope one of you brilliant people can think of something!Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to stick with the current title. Changing the focus to "coercion" seems like it has the potential to turn an already difficult article into an even harder one to write. With a loaded "X and Y" articles, there's already trouble summarizing the literature well. I think running a Google Books search for each of "bible violence," "bible coercion" and "bible force" will give helpful picture of just how the available sources phrase things. It would be trivially easy to pull up a list of twelve decent books on violence and the Bible. Are there even a half-dozen on the subject of coercion and the Bible? Alephb (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I have been thinking about what you said about force vs. violence and I think you are right. I have a version--of sorts--of this article in my sandbox. I am attempting to follow the organization suggested by another editor here but I have changed the opening to reflect force not just violence. I wonder if you would go look at it. It's the section under "What is it?" I would send you a link but I don't know how.  :-) Anyway, opening paragraph, my sandbox, as far as I am concerned you can feel free to make any changes to it you feel it needs. Please give it a look. Everything on this article has been stopped for months now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There could be a misunderstanding, Approaching seems to be the one who suggested to use force, when I think that violence is more general and fits the theme of the article. But I will let other editors review the new edits, I have been out of touch with this article for a while. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

new section

moved here from the article..

What is it?

Violence refers to any biblical text describing an "act, of God or humans, that harms, destroys, or coerces another." The concept of legal force is also present in the Bible and is differentiated from other kinds of violence. "Though the Bible is silent about a general right to use defensive force, the oral Law as codified in the Mishna recognizes the right to kill an aggressor in certain specified cases."

Christ on the cross (1631), by Rembrandt

Pieter Schoubroeck - The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha

The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain many passages outlining activity involving the use of force and/or violence including war, sacrifice, murder, rape, stoning, sexism, slavery, criminal punishment, and violent language. Old Testament professor Eric A. Seibert says the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible both portray an image of God as compassionate, merciful and just, while these same scriptures also contain passages that portray God as punitive, wrathful, and jealous. Many scholars like Philip Jenkins and Karen Armstrong in making comparison to other sacred texts say the Hebrew Bible is the bloodiest of all texts, while author David L. Barr in his book The Reality of Apocalypse, says Revelation may be the most violent book in the entire Bible, and that it has been used to justify Christian hostility, Christian imperialism and Christian sectarian violence. According to author David J. Hawkin, Professor of Religious Studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland, the central act of violence in the New Testament is the crucifixion of Jesus.

James W. Jones points out the "clear and final demarcation of the saved and the damned, of good and evil, ... is central to any violent apocalyptic vision."

Historian and linguist K. L. Younger says works on the Old Testament and ancient Israel and the meaning, effect and impact of texts pertaining to violence have mushroomed since 9-11 with debate over these problematic texts and the dilemma they create receiving increasing scrutiny.

References

In the outline i offered (which i did not sense a solid consensus for, but i am glad to see there is some agreement to), the organization i suggested was rough. A section called "What is it?" is not at all typical and I don't think it is appropriate. I think something like "Scope" is what this content is going after...

With regard to the content, we have the continuing strange over-reliance on Creach. The first sentence itself is just kind of strange as the definition of violence there is general and has nothing to do with "the bible" per se. If this said "violence in the bible concerns X" that would make more sense. And I don't know why legal violence is carved out here. Stuff like capital punishment seems very on-topic to me and Jesus' death was exactly that, under Roman law. And other government-sponsored violence (like how war is conducted) is entirely relevant too, it seems.

The first paragraph refers to the Mishnah, which is not even part of the Bible. So odd that it is here. (discussion of the Mishnah would belong in the proposed history of interpretation/Judaism) section)

So in the first two sentences I am already thrown. This then goes into the "who is worse?" contest between the bible and other religious texts and then within the bible. I don't understand this impulse to identify "who is worse"...

Some parts of this are useful... something like the following would perhaps be OK.

Scope

Violence is found in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, each of which contains narratives, poetry, and instruction describing or urging actions by God, individuals, groups, and governments. These actions include war, human and animal sacrifice, murder, rape, stoning, sexism, slavery, criminal punishment, and violent language. These texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification for acts of violence as well as structural violence throughout history, as well as criticism.

Something like that? That would actually be a pretty good lead, if we can agree on how to shape the article overall. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually--I like it. Mine was a rough first draft, yours is a polished presentation of the same ideas--why don't you go ahead and make that change? It would be an improvement to the article. Cut out Creach if you like, but I did like the other references--they were specific instead of general which I always think is preferable. You know when we work together we make a pretty good team. :-) I did like my more specific organizational approach, but there is no reason why we can't go with your more general headings. I didn't know if you intended the 'what is it?' to be included or not. I suspected not, but figured you could revert it into something you liked better so long as the idea was present. Beginning with definitions is almost always a good idea.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this meant as a new first section or a new lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is intended as an addition to the existing one sentence lead. Jytdog's organizational plan begins with 'What is it?' so this is an attempt to begin with definitions--which he is absolutely right should always have been the place to start. I was attempting--poorly--to include PaleoNeonate's suggestion on force and not focusing exclusively on the term 'violence' which is--as he says--emotionally loaded in a very negative manner. I agree with his basis. Since Jytdog has stated all along that he wants to remove the bifurcation of for and against--replacing that with the more nuanced discussion of 'force' in its more positive forms along with violence in its purely negative ones seemed like a reasonable way to satisfy both editors and cover the subject with a little more sophistication than is yet present. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Would you prefer that I wrote it and then you could edit it? Or are you working out an idea for organization? I know you are busy and have other things to do as well but I was wondering what your plans might be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the body. That paragraph does not summarize the body as it stands now. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

I would like to find out if it is possible to get consensus on two things: first, PaleoNeonate raised a question concerning scope and definitions. What I understood him to be saying is 'violence' has solely negative connotations, therefore some discussion of lawful use of force--that kind of thing--should be included. If this doesn't happen, and the 'for' and 'against' divisions are removed, the article will end up cherry-picking only the negative examples. The end result would still be an unbalanced, biased article--it would just be biased in the other direction. Is there any consensus on this?

The second question I would like to know is whether or not we can ever have consensus on theology as an appropriate aspect of this article: if it should be included, how much, where, what it is, whatever--how do you define theological discussion?

I would like to know what the consensus is on what should be included in this article. Perhaps we can begin by agreeing on generalities. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is Approaching who has been advocating for "force", not Paleo. I didn't weigh in up there as i don't agree with the premise and i doubt there will be consensus to change the title if anybody formally requested a page move.

Theology ("faith seeking understanding") belongs strictly in discussions about what a given specific religion has done with these texts and even then we handle it more sociologically than as actually doing theology. We are describing here, not doing here. See WP:Beware of tigers. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting changing the title. I was agreeing with the idea that some uses of force are seen as justified and that should be within the scope of the article. If we actually want the article driven by the scholarship. There are any number of studies out there showing the social impact of the Bible in times of conflict is positive. I have one from a conflict in Australia not too long ago. Are we going to discuss the phenomena of people using the Bible to oppose violence? Should that be within the scope? If we remove for and against, what will we do instead that will reflect the full scope of the discussion of violence as more than one-dimensional in the scholarship out there?

I expected your definition of theology to be different from mine. I genuinely appreciate the clarification. I am looking for any reference that defines theology as "faith seeking understanding" and so far I can't find any. Perhaps you have a reference that explains your view that you could recommend. I've got "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth..." And the Oxford Dictionaries.com which says theology is "The study of the nature of God and religious belief"-- so one interpretation is, these definitions say theology involves an actual discussion of belief. That's why I say I haven't done that and have not advocated for it.

If, on the other hand, one makes these definitions broad enough to include any study of God, religion or the Bible, what you end up with is that--"Describing the Bible and its impact"--as you say we are supposed to be doing--isby definition theology. There's no avoiding it. We can limit its type and style--but it's my view--by these definitions--it can't be avoided completely. Wanting to avoid it creates an unreasonable expectation that is impossible to meet.

"what a given specific religion has done with these texts" seems more like history and sociology to me. First you have to say what the texts are and say before discussing their impact. 'Impact' should be in the scope of the article--I agree--impact of any and all kinds since there are a lot of studies on it--but focusing on the title here and staying on topic has to mean actually discussing what the Bible says at some point. In my opinion, faith is neither needed nor of any particular value in that and is not a requirement for theology either. Come on Jytdog. Just write something yourself or let me write something--you can take the parts you don't like out afterward--(or tell me what you want removed and I will do it)--as you did here on the part of the lead--that worked fine. Let's do some more of that--let's work together and get this article done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

i take it that google is not your friend. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked for definitions of theology, I didn't search the phrase itself. That's the title of a book. It looks like an interesting book, and I thank you for pointing me to it. I will probably read the whole thing. Theology was not my major in school and I took the minimum classes required--I could use some expansion, and this book looks like it would do that. So thank you.

In the introduction he says theology is inseparably bound to an identifiable faith community...[involving] critical reflection..[involving] an interpretation of the central Christian message. and so on along those lines, but the way he uses this phrase is exactly what I said theology was: theology is a discussion, examination and interpretation of belief and beliefs themselves. His whole introduction explains that quite well. He does not expand the definition of theology to include everything connected to evaluating religion. He very specifically confines theology to the examination of a set of beliefs themselves. I had never heard this phrase before and I was unsure how to interpret it, so thank you again. This gives me a book to back up how I have always understood theology to be defined. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

yes it is the title of a book and a very good one. You have still missed the origin of the phrase which is much older and deeper in the guts of the christian tradition. It was Anselm of Canterbury's motto and has been used for around 1500 years as a nutshell description of what people are doing, when they doing theology.Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he does say so in his introduction. I didn't bother to mention it because it doesn't change the meaning. He doesn't reference Anselm as disagreeing with him, he references him as foundational to this view of what theology is and does. And I am familiar enough with Anselm to know what that reference means. This entire book defines theology as the analysis of belief and beliefs. That's it. The book you referenced defines theology the same way I do. It does not use it as broadly as you do. What you describe as theology falls more correctly under other headings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself and this is not worth responding to. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

How so? All this response indicates to me is you realize you were mistaken and don't want to admit it. This is not the first time this has occurred in this same manner, either, is it? Why not just be gracious about it? Everyone makes mistakes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone to be more gracious, while simultaneously saying that they are deliberately not admitting something they know, is a tricky thing. I doubt speculating about whether Jytdog is speaking in bad faith is going to help anything here. Alephb (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I am duly chastised. I publicly apologize. I spoke out of frustration without careful consideration. Please forgive me.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Book by Arthur Mendel

This edit. Yes, after looking at the intro to the book [5] (pages 1-2), author tells that Communism and Nazism represented "apocalyptic visions" and their ideologies were quite possibly inspired by the Biblical Apocalypsis. However, the book reads pretty much as personal essay, and the claim is almost certainly wrong with regard to communists who considered religion as an "opium to the people". I think this passage should be removed or rephrased. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I vote for you to go ahead and do that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I also have concern about previous phrase: Steve Friesen wrote that Revelation has been used to justify "Christian hostility toward Jews, Christian imperialism and Christian sectarian violence". Does the cited source include any arguments or facts to support such assertion? Is it proper summary of something this book tells? I think this should be either elaborated and explained (per source) or removed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this phrase might be removed based on criticism/comments on page 3 of Intro in the source (2nd paragraph from the bottom) [6]. But there is such claim in the sources, so we can not just remove it. Rephrased. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to investigate if he has further support for his claim. I am not personally familiar with this source so I will spend some time on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the change you made in this section. I personally think we should leave it the way you have it. It seems an improvement to me. The other was too 'interpretive'. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This article needs more violence

After some more thinking I think the OT/Hebrew Bible section needs a violence section like the NT. It will come before the lingusitic sections. I had different ideas above, but we can make this simpler. Just go through OT, chronologically, with a mostly MOS:PLOT (describe, don´t interpret) perspective, and see what we find. Subsections as necessary, Pentateuch (or whatever it should be called in this article) can be one section or five (probably five, though).

The violence sections are, IMO, the basic element of the article. All reasoning, theology, apologetics come from what´s in the texts, so we need that in the article.

So, for the claws and fangs of my fellow wikipedians, here is my very rough draft of violence in the Book of Genesis. It´s longer than I thought it would be (but there´s no violence in Exodus, right..?). One wants to be brief, but there is also a lot that I feel deserves mention. I got most of this from reading through Book_of_Genesis#Summary, some is copypaste from there. Keep in mind that much of this have separate WP-articles, so we don´t need much detail, we have wikilinks. Some is already in the article, but things can be moved at need. I fully expect sections after "Violence" to actually have some comment on this stuff.

There´s currently no sources, I´m thinking perhaps online Catholic Encyclopedia with a dash of primary source, I´ve seen this [7] used on WP before. Would that be allowed? Or would each item demand a secondary source calling it "violence" or something close (war, murder, genocide etc)? That would take more work.

Book of Genesis

In Genesis 4:1-18 Cain, the first born man, murders his brother Abel. God curses Cain for this, and also grants him protection from danger.

In the Genesis flood narrative, chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis, God saw that "wickedness of man was great" and decides to exterminate mankind and all animals, save Noah and and those he brought with him on the ark. After the Flood, God promises to never again destroy all life by a flood.

In Genesis 18-19 God resolves to destroy the cities Sodom and Gomorrah, "because their sin is very grievous". God promises Abraham that he will spare a city if as few as 10 righteous people can be found there. The cities are destroyed, but angels save Abrahams nephew Lot and most of his family from the destruction.

God tests Abraham by demanding that he sacrifice Isaac. As Abraham is about to lay the knife upon his son, God restrains him, promising him numberless descendants.

Jacob and his brother Esau had a long disagreement, and Jacob feared for his life. Jacob sent his brother gifts and bowed before him, and they finally reconciled. According to some interpretations Jacob also met and wrestled with God, who blessed him.

Joseph, Jacob's favorite son, is sold into slavery in Egypt by his jealous brothers. Joseph prospers after hardship, with God's guidance, and saves his family from starvation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I think it should include the throwing out of the garden and the cursing of adam (you will eat by toil and the sweat of your brow) and eve (give birth in pain). And I am not sure that Jacob/Esau needs so much. Mention the start of circumcision maybe?

This is kind of OR with regard to what to select but is justifiable per PLOT as you suggest. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see it a bit like the "narrative" sections in for example Genesis flood narrative and The Exodus. Fall of man, sure, being thrown out of Eden can´t have been a picnic, even if physical violence seems to be lacking. I like Jacob and Esau as a "not all doom and gloom" story, but it´s not essential. But I do want the wrestling, that´s so cool even if it was "just" an angel.

If some sort of consensus seems to form on this I may start on Exodus. "A lot of crap happens to Israelites and Egyptians." Hmm, that was easy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I really like the PLOT-style approach here. I've been reluctant to weigh in so far in part because of how hard it is to think through what the most appropriate organization of the article is, but Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion of just going through the books in some kind of order seems like a good idea. Once Genesis and Exodus are up, I'd be happy to help flesh out the PLOT section straight through the rest of the Hebrew Bible unless somebody else would rather do it. Alephb (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

YAY!! WHOOHOO!! This is awesome! Jytdog: the reason I had what you called my 'peculiar dependence on Creach' was because he has an organization that is basically the same as what Gråbergs Gråa Sång recommends here. His book was published by OUP and using it means this approach reflects current scholarship and is not OR. But I also like your ideas--genuinely--so I would like to keep some of them if we could and incorporate them into this overall approach. I would like to keep "what is it" with definitions and descriptions and maybe make an introduction out of it--what do you think? You are right I think, as well, that this article needs more history and context--but that can be added in at every section if we agree to follow GGS's suggestion.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I agree wholeheartedly. I agree with everything you said! This article would benefit from that organizational method and it isn't OR, it's the same as Creach's book on violence. And I agree this article needs more examples of violence. I have some of what should be in the HB part in my sandbox but have been unable to figure out how to put it into the article without being accused of supersessionism. There is not only more violence than is just in the book of Genesis and Exodus, there is some throughout most of the rest of the entire rest of the HB as well. It seems to me it should ALL be in here somewhere! There are enough examples that even if you combine them into categories, the article will still be long! But this is what the article is about! Please do start on Gen/Ex! I agree! I agree! I agree!

Alephb Please do! There is enough here for multiple people to work on. If you guys are going to work on the beginnings, if it's okay with everyone else--I think I will start on war and genocide and Joshua--or sexism and violence--or both! I'm so excited I can hardly stand it!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What is proposed here, is what I meant in ""What is it"? content that summarize the kinds of things that are actually in the NT/HB/bible about violence". Creach is doing theology. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Creach is doing theology. Does that automatically disqualify his historical outline?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether or not Creach is disqualified for outline purposes seems to be a moot point at the moment, since it looks like everyone is okay with the PLOT approach. If Jenhawk777 is in favor of it because of Creach, and Jytdog is in favor of it for some other reason -- we can still move ahead either way. Alephb (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I´ll put a version of this in the article (have at it!), then I´ll start with Exodus in a similar manner. If we follow the MOS:PLOT metaphor even further, we could actually skip inline citations, but that would be wrong on many levels. So, please help with sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Exodus in progress:[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Put Exodus in article, grim stuff. Pinging Alephb, Jenhawk777 and Jytdog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Added a short Leviticus as well. I'm fairly certain "cut off from among his people" means something like "exile" or "excommunication", but this could use a good secondary source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This guy says it's about the afterlife: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Convincing Evidence of the Truths of Judaism, By Shmuel Waldman. This one says it is expulsion basically. Zechariah, By George L. Klein. This one seems the best to me. It says it means die. מקראות גדולות: Leviticus, edited by Michael Carasik, page 190. https://books.google.com/books?id=Z3osDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&dq=what+does+cut+off+from+his+people+mean?&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZsp2Oh6vXAhUK4WMKHeIGDcwQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=what%20does%20cut%20off%20from%20his%20people%20mean%3F&f=false

Thank you! you mean that "Rashi 30" bit on page 190, right? I´m not quite sure how to read that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I´ve exiled exile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha! This is amazing--you are amazing! We are actually making progress and your work is wonderful. I think I am beginning to see the difference between what I was attempting and yours now. I have just gone ahead and moved mine to the theology section... :-) Have you looked at the whole overall article? It looks like a real article now! It looks good. There's still a couple more subjects to add--the Prophets and Deuteronomy and Hell/apocalypse, and Messianic prophecy maybe, should be there too--but we are past the worst now. You broke the log jam. Thank you thank you thank you! I'm so dispassionate aren't I? It's a whole new me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It does look better. I wondered who removed NT-non-violence, seemed uncalled for, but it doesn´t look half bad as an "intro". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. We are on a roll baby!!  :-) I was so calm there for a minute. It looks good. There--that sounds grown up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is this school of thought around that WP-editing is supposed to be fun. It´s a disputed one, but it´s there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Individual incidents

If we try to list individual violent events in the Bible this is going to be a very long article. Editor2020 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitively longer, but it´s not very long now. If the section(s) becomes gigantic, there's always the spin-off solution, but we´re far from there yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Editor2020 is right and that's why I asked everyone to take a look at the Table of Contents in my Sandbox so everyone could see what kind of length we are talking about. Please note that after Genesis and Exodus, I lumped books together under topic headings--it just isn't possible to do this one book at a time all the way through to the end in my opinion. Genesis and Exodus deserve special mention, but after that I vote we follow the 'Plot' approach without alteration but that we do so in groups of books rather than singly. There are 39 books in the Old Testament and there are examples that can be used in every one! That's just too much in my view to do them all one at a time. Or not! Whatever! I can go either way! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no opposition against having for example a "Book of Exodus and Book of Leviticus" section if that is seen as an improvement, book by book is far from mandatory, but peeking at Book_of_Numbers#Summary, I think there may be a section there too. And the conquest of Canaan hasn´t even started.

Slightly off-topic: The following article-text strikes me as non-WP language, we don´t "command" like this in WP:s voice: "When looking at acts of divine violence in the Bible discussion must include..." Can the sentence be changed to starting something like "Divine violence in the Hebrew Bible occurs in..." followed by what it occurs in? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Good images, BTW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just moved them from above to below--they were already there. That "command" is a quote isn't it? But feel free to paraphrase as desired. I didn't change the content, I just relocated it--relocated all the defining "what is it?" paragraphs so they were together up front and did not interrupt your discourse on Genesis and Exodus. They seemed like they were just in the way down there! Now definitions are up front, and examples follow. Okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If it´s a quote, it´s not written as one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooops!! That would be my mistake too, so I will go check and see and get back to you on this one! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See if this fix is satisfactory! If not tell me. It's on page 15 of that article by Creach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I can´t vouch for "particular significance" (and it´s a little opinion-y) in the bits I´m not very familiar with, but if you and the sources say so. I wonder a little about "women in the Bible", the divine violence in Genesis and Exodus seems fairly gender neutral (more anti "people" than "men" or "women"), but there may be different things ahead. I must say I think the G & E women heroes are buried treasure, I don´t remember ever hearing about Shiphrah and Puah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I did find significant divine violence in "Numbers". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It is opinion-y! He is an Old Testament scholar, but I think what he was trying to say was, these are the books/incidents that involve the worst/most examples. What's a better way to say it? Because you are absolutely right--there are not only examples in Numbers--there are examples in every single book of the Hebrew Bible--literally. What this says is these are the biggees. Should we leave that out? I am reluctant to simply change it to 'Examples of violence are found in...' because examples of violence are found everywhere. What do you suggest? Sincerely--I need an idea! I can self-revert that entire sentence if you think that's best. And yes, women in the Bible are treated and behave along a full spectrum from good to awful. If the two worst examples are all you hear about it skews perspective badly--and that is what some sources are careful to say--but not all. It does seem like the worst needs mentioning but within context. I added that in theology--if it gets to stay.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay--I made a stab at it! It's a little awkward but see what you think.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:There is a theological interpretation of the crucifixion leftover from the original article. Should it be moved to theology? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I made a change to that sentence but it occurs to me that if we leave it in as it is, it's a commitment to follow through with discussing each of those as topics. Maybe I should just take it out altogether? Or add those topics? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I say leave it for now, it´s not amazingly wrong or anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

But removing is fine too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If everything is only supported by primary sources, someone could eventually come and call it original research or synthesis (user interpretation), even if much of the interpretation is obvious. But I'm not saying this to stop the work in progress, only to encourage the addition of secondary or tertiary sources. —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

all my references seem to be theologians so that's why I am not offering any. Oh--and I think that questionable sentence should just be removed, and since it was mine, I'll just go do that now. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert my revert, but it reads better without it I think! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate I asked the question above at "This article needs more violence": There´s currently no sources, I´m thinking perhaps online Catholic Encyclopedia with a dash of primary source, I´ve seen this [9] used on WP before. Would that be allowed? Or would each item demand a secondary source calling it "violence" or something close (war, murder, genocide etc)? That would take more work.

That these items are "violence" are indeed a form of SYNTH/OR (and as I argued above, a kind of MOS:PLOT), but I think sources can be managed. And I don´t think a theologian saying "Yep, that´s violence" would necessarily be disqualified in this context? I think it sounds rather excellent, especially if I don´t have to add the sources myself... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear enough, I should have mentioned the context. An example is at the Book of Judges section. —PaleoNeonate – 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have multiple references--maybe six already in the article somewhere--calling all of this "violence." I have a bunch more I didn't use--probably twice that many. Most of them are theologians--though not all of them are. If you think I won't get in trouble for that, I will go add some. How many and where? Would you prefer a different reference for each and every reference? Or at each book? Or can I repeat references? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you try your hand at the Genesis section (or whatever you prefer) and see how that turns out? Ideally, every "claim" (I count seven in that section) should have a cite, and if several can be cited to Big Book about OT-Violence, all the better. As I see it, many (not all) of the events are very obviously violence, and a wide range of sources should be an acceptable cite (I´d take, say, a BBC-article about Sodom and Gomorra that says "the violent destruction"). I also think that if the source says "war" etc that pretty much counts as "violence." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference--yet--that describes Joseph being sold off by his brothers as an act of violence, but I think I have valid references for the others as such. Have any ideas? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would accept "sold as slave" as "violence", try that and see if anyone objects? It´s one of the not super-obvious ones, if it goes, it goes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally agreey--if someone sold me into slavery I would certainly consider it an act of violence! It seems like common sense--but so far I can't find a way to reference "common sense". I will keep looking for someone who actually calls it violence--that's all we need--and it should be in the article. Common sense tells me so...  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)