Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 16 December 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bible and violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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, , , , and . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. "C.L. Crouch", C. L. (2009). War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History. Berlin: de Gruyter. p. 194.
2. Monroe, Lauren A. S. (2007). "Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War- Ḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence". Vetus Testamentum. 57.3.
3. Crouch, C. L. (2009). War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History (PDF). Berlin: de Gruyter.
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jerome Creach was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Gunkel, Hermann; Zimmern, Heinrich (2006). Creation And Chaos in the Primeval Era And the Eschaton: A Religio-historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by Whitney Jr., K. William. Grand Rapids: Eerdman's.
6. Mathews, "Kenneth A." (1996). The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers. pp. 92–95. ISBN 978-0-8054-0101-1.
7. Soza, "Joel R." (2017). "2 Leviathan". Lucifer, Leviathan, Lilith and other Mysterious Creatures of the Bible. Lanham, Maryland: Hamilton Books. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-7618-6897-2.
8. Levinson, Jon D. (1988). Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
9. Middleton, J. Richard (2004). Created in the Image of a Violent God? The Ethical Problem of the Conquest of Chaos in the Biblical Creation Texts. Interpretation 58.4. pp. 342–344.
10. Dozeman, "Thomas B." (1996). God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 3, 4.
11. Jewish Virtual Library. "Akedah". Accessed March 25, 2011
12. Judaism 101: A Glossary of Basic Jewish Terms and Concepts Accessed March 25, 2011
13. Genesis 22:9
14. ^ Bergman, Michael; Murray, Michael J.; Rea, Michael C., eds. (2011). Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-957673-9.
15. Fales, Evan (2011). "chapter 3: Satanic Verses: Moral Chaos in Holy Writ". In Bergman, Michael; Murray, Michael J.; Rea, Michael C. (eds.). Divine evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–115. ISBN 978-0-19-957673-9.

-- Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 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."

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

1. Template:Cite article
2. Fletcher, George P.; Olin, "Jens David". Humanity, When Force is Justified and Why. New York, New York: Oxford University Press,Inc. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-518308-5.
3. Seibert, Eric A. Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-0-8006-6344-5.
4. Jenkins, Philip (8 May 2009). "Dark Passages". Boston Globe. Boston, Mass. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
5. Bistrich, Andrea (September 2007). "Discovering the common ground of world religions: Interview with Karen Armstrong" (PDF). Share International. Vol. 26.7. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
6. ^ Barr, David (June 1, 2006). The reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. p. 127.
7. Crouch, C. L. (2009). War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History. Berlin: de Gruyter. p. 194. ISBN 9783110223514.
8. Barton, John (2012). The theology of the Book of Amos. Ny, Ny: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85577-8.
9. Hawkin, David J. (2004). The twenty-first century confronts its gods: globalization, technology, and war. SUNY Press. p. 121.
10. Jones, James W. (2008). Blood That Cries Out From The Earth: The psychology of Religious Terrorism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Younger Jr., K. L. (1990). Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. Vol. Supplement series 98. Sheffield, England: JSOT.

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... critical reflection.. 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)

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 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:. 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)

Book by Arthur Mendel

This edit. Yes, after looking at the intro to the book (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) . 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)

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 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)

Hell

Someone needs to add something about Hell in both the HB and the NT, and about Apocalypticism and the Messiah imho. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither book says very much about hell, I think? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

They both say some, the New Testament says more, but roots of thought go back to Hebrew Bible. I'll see what I can find, but whatever consensus is, I'm okay with it. I thought you were the one who suggested it to me some time back!! I could not remember correctly--I've slept since then. I do think 1 Samuel 15; critique of Saul; Praise of David the warrior; should be added in too. There was some about it in the original--I don't know who took it out--or when, but it's not there now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's true, some verses and words (like Gehenna or Hades) are used to support a belief in eternal hell or purgatory for some, but others also interpret those verses differently. Maybe that it's possible to have a mention supported by a source like the Catholic Encyclopedia or such... —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "The verses in... has been the basis for the idea of Jewish/Christian Hell" or what´s in sources. We should try to stay with what´s actually in this book, and just point at Dante and whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at these: ] ]Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. So, Jesus talks about hell outright, but in OT it´s much more vague, something like that? Formation of Hell p138 mentions that Samuel comes up from below, but where the... heck did he come from? Probably Sheol (according to WP, not a simple concept), but again, tons of theology needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's my problem! It's why I haven't written anything--I am gun-shy now. There are some things concerning the Bible it seems almost impossible to discuss without including theology--and yet it also seems wrong to just leave them out. We've got a discussion of apocalyptic texts in here without mentioning Hell at all and the two are connected. Everything in the New Testament roots back into the Old--there are no new ideas in the New. Mentioning one without the other as though that connection isn't there seems wrong, but there is no way around it--that is 100% theology. There definitely needs to be consensus on what to do about this before we jump in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no Hell in the OT. See the article Biblical cosmology. Frankly I don't think this has any connection to violence in the Bible.PiCo (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Just saw Jenhawk777's comment about everything in the NT having roots in the OT. That's not exactly true. The last OT book was Daniel, written in the 2nd century BC, and the bulk of the OT books were finalised in the period 600-400 BC. There's a gap between them and the NT books of about 500 years, and a lot happened in that time. Much of the NT is based on books like Isaiah, but much of the mental world behind it is taken from other books that didn't make it into the scriptures - things like the Book of Enoch, for example. Almost everything in the NT is new, at least newer than the OT.PiCo (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi PiCo! I am fine with leaving it out. It isn't especially important. However, saying "There is no Hell in the OT" is an overstatement of what the sources say. If you check this reference ] you will note on page 602 it says, "the notion of Hell as the state and place of those who are finally lost goes back to the notion of Sheol in the Old Testament." That's the shortest reference but the reference in ] is a much more in depth discussion of the evolution of the concept and its origins in Hebrew thinking. It begins about page 139 and goes to 145, then jumps on up to the 190's for the remainder of that discussion. On page 200 this author says--roughly-- "denial of any (Hebrew) belief in the afterlife is too extreme... The idea of punishment after death is there, and it stems from logically prior notions firmly established in the Jewish biblical tradition." Chronologically of course you are correct that the new testament is newer than the Old. What I meant was that the New T's ideas are a reworking or reformation of ideas who's roots are found in Judaism. The New and the Old are not really separated conceptually. I do see what biblical cosmology says--much of that is old information--anyway, I don't think it can be seen as more authoritative or representative than these other works.

It was suggested to me that Hell is often thought of as a violent idea--and I agreed. Perhaps its discussion should be limited to the NT and it can simply be mentioned there-- that its roots are in the OT --without mentioning it here at all since it is not really a developed idea yet here. What would you think about that? It would have to be in the theology section I am thinking. What do you say? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Bernstein (your second link) is also the source used in part of the article on Biblical cosmology. He says:

• Sheol contained all the dead, good and evil (it wasn't meant for the evil-doers alone) - that's on page 139;
• Sheol means literally "the grave" - it wasn't a place of punishment, just the residence of the dead (page 140).
  

That's in the earliest Biblical literature. In the inter-testamental period (roughly 400 BC-50 AD) it became divided into a single well-lit cavern for the good, with a spring of water, and numerous dark cavers for the wicked. Still, however, it was for everyone - there was no possibility of the good entering heaven, which was for God and the angels. So there was punishment but no reward. Note also that this was the first time punishment for the wicked dead was introduced.

Still later the idea was introduced that the good would be taken to heaven and the wicked sent to eternal punishment - that's in some Christian literature. PiCo (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with everything you've said here. That would be the progression. That does indicate the roots of the NT concept of Hell do go back into Jewish beliefs of an afterlife beginning with Sheol and progressing onward. The question is whether to include any of that here. I think maybe it's a good point that it is not technically violence in the OT so should not be included here. Since you have objections, and no one else has a strong feeling it should be here, I think I will write a little something on the development of the concept that includes both the OT and the NT and put it in the Theology section. If anyone disagrees, let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: @PiCo: Okay I did it. I put 'Hell' in theology because apparently it is impossible for me to not discuss such things. I expect my head to be chopped off for it at any moment. :-) Please edit as you see fit! Revert it and move the category elsewhere--whatever! I wearied of the topic and just quit! I will go back to attempting to find valid references for Exodus now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving some stuff

Jenhawk777, in the narrative Joshua and Psalms sections, there´s text that would fit better in Theological reflections and responses. Can you move/merge that text in a good way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay--I moved the sentence I added there--is that sufficient or do you think the last sentence should go too? If so--feel free! Or just message me back. I didn't write anything in Joshua. Some of what I'm sure you are referring to is original material, some of it has been recently added by Alephb--perhaps you could ask them? If they won't, message me back. I'll help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Is there anything else in Joshua or Psalms that needs moving or removing? I am trying to finally remove all the pov in the parts that are left from the original article but I will no doubt miss some. Let me know! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

moved from my talk page @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: One of the templates on this article says the lead needs changing. What would you think about using the introduction as the lead?

I am about halfway done with references. They are not all high quality references I'm afraid--but they do all properly reference whatever is being said in the article. I'm having a lot of trouble with Numbers. It doesn't use the same wording for events that sources do and it is making it difficult. I will persevere to the end with this though.

I have noticed no changes or comments on the theology section. Does that mean anything?

We are getting close to completion I think. Is there anything in particular that you can think of that we might have overlooked that should be included? There isn't a history section as such--though some is included throughout--is that sufficient do you think?

These are a lot of questions aren't they?  :-) Answer as able of course. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet read/commented on the theology-bit I said I would, I feel guilty about that and will (but I have learned what a standing bell is). I did notice that the crucifixion section goes off-topic, and I think there´s room for something about turning the other cheek and that Jesus disliked stoning, surely someone must have commented on the I4I/turn cheek and stoning/no stoning thing? I´m going to try a merge of lead/intro, see if you like it. BTW, was this intended for the article talkpage? If so, feel free to move it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't feel guilty! I went back and took out some of what I considered pov leftover from the original article. I figured if it seemed non-neutral to me it probably really was. If you don't have time to mess with it, it's perfectly okay. I just thought someone else should at least read it and agree it's okay or not. That's all.

I should have put this there and meant to--how do I move it? Simple copy paste? The merge is okay with me if you are happy with it, but in my mind they kind of say the same thing two different ways--is that normal for WP?

I am so glad you said something about the crucifixion section. I put the negative stuff in first believing it had the best chance not to be reverted, and then I was sure I would get reverted if I said anything at all along those 'other' lines, so I didn't do anything at all. But it has always been my view that a discussion of violence should include all the comments on it that there actually are--and not just the negative ones. So I support and agree with that effort--by you. :-) No one else has commented on what's missing. But you're right in my view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Just move/copypaste is fine, you can add (moved fom my talkpage) to the title to avoid confusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've changed my mind! I looked at the lead in place and it reads well and the article looks better with no intro and I like it! I thought I wouldn't when you described it but I do! I hope someone else chimes in on it but I think you did good. The change is an improvement.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Check out crucifixion--is this what you were wanting?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like that, yes, but crucifixion doesn´t work as a section name for what´s currently in it. A "Jesus comments and deeds" section perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. I am in support of whatever you decide on that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So I did something.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool--or are you just saying that because I did what you suggested?  :-) Just kidding! Thank you for the compliment! I also like your rearrangement of that section so it is more chronological. It's an improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Kings

We need someone to write on first and second Kings. I am finishing up references--such as they are--on Numbers and Deuteronomy. After those two things I think we'll be finished unless anyone has anything else to add or review--or revert! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I might. What David did to Uriah shall not go unmentioned. Unless it shall. And I may take a closer look at Book of Judges, I think it can be improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree--David and Saul should both be mentioned--it's partly why Kings should be included. I appreciate your willingness to do that--finding appropriate references is taking all my time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at Judges and had the same thought but since there is a large section in theology on it, I left it thinking it might be overkill. But you do as you see fit with that. I will not object. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:1 Samuel 15 should be mentioned, and 2 Kings 1, and would you consider it appropriate to add some discussion of Jacob stealing Esau's birthright? It's not exactly violence--but is a little maybe. Is a discussion of Josiah in Exodus? I have a source so I am also going to add Jesus rebuking the disciples for asking to call fire down on the village that rejected him.

I would like to throw out another idea for you to consider as well. When David gets to be king, he goes and finds Michael, Saul's daughter, and takes her from her current husband who follows them down the road weeping. It has always seemed like an act of violence to me--not simply physical violence--but emotional and mental as well. David already had other wives--he only wanted her because she was the king's daughter. He didn't care what it meant for her. Think about including that too.

I got two whole references done today! Whoohoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Jacob and Esau are interesting, I wouldn´t be surprised if some scholar or whatever has commented on that Esau didn´t slay Jacob and take all his sheep and goats and women. It´s one of the not super-obvious, byt I´ll add a sentence to narrative, add "discussion" where you think you should and we´ll see what happens. It seems Abraham was in some sort of war himself, maybe that deserves mention. According to WP, Josiah is in Kings and Chronicles. Interesting about David, I´ll have to read a bit more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe I said Exodus--time for me to go to bed!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article doesn´t have as many issues

This article has been significantly improved, somehow. Not perfect, but clearly better. Unless there´s opposition, I´ll remove the four improvement templates in a week or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This article has been significantly improved! And not somehow--through hours and hours of work and lots of perseverance and some decisiveness on your part especially. I hope we are that close to finishing but I am thinking it will take awhile for me to finish up all the references. I am spending a good bit of time finding valid ones--and really struggle with some. Numbers is apparently not a popular subject and 'pickings is thin!' I will get them all in the end but it may take more than a week or so. Some references simply have too much pov to use even if the event is contained in the book. They are clearly Christian. Finding something of decent quality is easy for some events and almost impossible for others. Plus, it's the time of year when real life interferes with my online life so I have less time. But I will keep on it!

Tell me what you see as the article's imperfections. Our thinking has lined up well--let's see if we agree on this as well. Then maybe we can agree on what might fix them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Well, once again you were right and I have to eat crow--I finished them! I can't hardly believe it but the last ones went fast and everything has references now! What a huge pain in the neck that was! So much easier to find a decent reference and just write down what it says--this other way around really sucked! But between the two of us I think this article has come a long way and looks pretty darn good. Those last few additions need to be made--and then--and then--drumroll please--then we're done!! I'm proud of us--and thankful for you and to you--this never would have happened without you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your remarkable energy and persistence has moved mountains. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me I think. Thank you!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I beliefly checked the current article state and it indeed has improved, thanks for all your work. I did a few minor edits and some tagging while reading. By the way, in the "The Book of Judges and violence against women" section, because there are images both at the left and right some text is very squeezed between them at common resolutions. The left image should probably be at the right, if there are too many images one might be removed... —PaleoNeonate – 01:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I missed that section in Judges--dang it! It had numbered references and I just moved on past it and didn't check them--my bad. I will fix it.

I like the pictures on both sides! I think it contains that section nicely and sets it apart and looks good! Do they have to move?Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I again reduced the default size of thumbnails in my preferences, I don't remember what the default is. According to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size, unless it's outdated, the default would be 220px, which should be fine. If the default is larger, MOS:SANDWICH would be relevant. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved the pic--finished those references. Have you read through? See any other problems? I am grateful for your input. Sincerely.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Finished?

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What do you think? How close are we? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So--are you working on the David and Saul stuff? Working on something else--standing bells? sitting bells? ringing bells? Planning on finishing this up later? What's happenin'? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I´ve been off-WP for a few days, but I do intend to "do" Kings. And, WP-articles are never finished. But I will try to comment something more helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay--never finished--I understand--but maybe you and I will be finished with it! Unless you will need more references, I am probably done with my contributions. It's been awesome. I will check back on occasion. Thanks again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your next step is of course Misplaced Pages:Good article ;-) Or perhaps Misplaced Pages:Did you know. And I have started on Samuel-Kings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope I did that right! Thank you for letting me be the one to nominate it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, never GA-nominated anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well--there's a step I should never have taken. Oh for a time-machine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If it´s any consolation, I don´t think it worked for some reason, since it just looks like "code". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE, perhaps?

I thought this one was better than nothing (of course "nothing" is an acceptable solution), but it was moved. IMO it´s the "worst" violence in the Bible, at least by size. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Second one is on-topic image-wise, but it´s not a very well known scene. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

One of them is 'divine violence' by our definition, and one of them is human violence--so it wouldn't be amiss to include them both up front as examples of what is being discussed in the text. (That doesn't mean we have to include a peace picture does it?!?) I like them both or either or neither. I tend to like pictures---the more the merrier. (Apparently I'm still three years old inside...) Anyway as far as I am concerned--do as you see fit with pictures anytime anyplace. Do we have something else by Genesis where the flood story is? There are lots of options I'm sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a topical Rembrandt or Titian or something (We have enough Tissot). I think one image is enough for the lead, it just has to be "natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Piece of cake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Which will you pick then? Either will look good.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey--would you like me to go look or would you rather do it yourself? I'm not writing anything today! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do look around, a few more options can´t hurt. What I like about the Deluge illustration is that it´s so... violent. And it has an elephant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tried another. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Christian POV

I stopped watching this as I got sick of having the same conversation over and over.

This is article is unacceptably Christian. It fails WP:NPOV by a very, very long way because:

• it mixes theologizing into the simple description of what is actually in the Bible
• It gives absurdly UNDUE weight to Christian perspectives throughout
• the handling of the Christian problem of theodicy is hamfistedly shoved in here. The problem of violence and the problem of evil are related but distinct and really, really, Christian.
• the discussion of hell is horrible. it is basic biblical scholarship that the concept of hell as a place of punishment in the afterlife started to germinate in the 2nd temple period and received a specific crystallization in Jesus's teaching with all the discussion of people people being cast into fire with gnashing of teeth and all -- after which Judaism generally pushed back away from that and of course Christians developed it yet further.

This POV of contemporary christian concerns just smothers this whole page which is no longer a WP article but rather is an essay that belongs in Jesuspedia or some blog.

I am tagging this for POV. That tag needs to stay until the Christian garbage is shovelled back out of this. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What do these sentence even mean:

• • "René Girard, anthropologist, literary critic, and social commentator, says Jesus’ death calls into question the most fundamental and frequent violent acts in the Old Testament by exposing the "mimetic" sacrificial system on which all human society rests.." It "calls into question fundamental and frequent violent acts in the Old Testament"?  ??
  • : "The Hebrew Bible writes extensively in opposition to human violence supporting the pursuit of peace."  ?! Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should be merged into Christianity and violence and we should leave this page empty. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. I dispute the CPOV alleged for this article. Your comments evidence a POV of your own and should therefore not be the guiding light on this article's assessment. Anywhere you find a CPOV I personally, as I am sure the others who have written here will do, will support altering or simply removing it; but please be specific.

There is no theodicy as such in this article. Please, let's not get into another disagreement over definitions.

The discussion of Hell is straight from the books referenced and it doesn't actually say anything different than what you say is "basic biblical scholarship." It does say the idea germinated in the time frame you mention; if you want a specific reference to "second temple Judaism" I have no objection to adding that. It does say Christianity took it and developed it; I am unclear on how that could be made any clearer, but if you have an idea on how that should be stated that won't appear to be belaboring the point, I will be fine with it. It does say what Jesus said about it. It is described as "violent". Why is that insufficient? It has nothing about a supposed "Judaic pushback" since Judaism "pushed back" against all of Christianity and not this concept specifically. If you have a good source that says this was a particular focus of that pushback, then it should definitely be mentioned and included. It does have the Christian POV concerning the existence of multiple interpretations--but that's why this is in the theology section. This could be split and the first half moved to New Testament if you think that would improve anything.If you think the article would be improved without any mention of Hell at all, that is also fine by me.

Rather than me try to explain René Girard and his very well-known sociological theory on violence to you, it would be better if you did some reading your own. ]

The Hebrew Bible does uphold peace. The Jews are not pacifists as such but that does not mean they do not believe in the value of peace, and have not in their past,also believed in it. They do and have. There are 300 references to shalom-peace and I am wondering if I am going to need to list all 300 to prove this point. That would be primary source research though, so I doubt that would be acceptable. If you check out the secondary sources already referenced and don't think they say what is claimed, I will find more. This is an important view on violence in the Bible too.

I added a qualifier to one of your changes on Jesus and the "sword" since that was interpretation rather than fact.

Anything I can do to cooperate and make this page genuinely better I am happy to do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote here is either inaccurate or irrelevant. The sentence about Girard is simply garble - I have no idea what you understand or don't. Please actually read what you wrote. And the Hebrew Bible is a thing, not a person, and it doesn't "write" anything. People write things. I don't know how to begin cleaning up this mess. It is full of nonsense like these two sentences, in addition to being shot through with bad sources and Christian theologizing. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A shotgun approach is neither cooperative or helpful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And neither is filling this articlepage with POV content, badly sourced and badly written. It is shot through with badness. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Even here you are writing things like The Hebrew Bible does uphold peace. The Jews are not pacifists.... The "Hebrew Bible" is not "The Jews". The Hebrew Bible is based in very old stories; was collected in the second temple period (probably) because various parts of it were already sacred texts; these sacred texts were already interpreted and lived in various ways by various schools even back then; it was THE sacred text for Jesus and his disciples; it has remained a sacred text (with more authority in some parts than others) for the many different traditions in judaism and christianity which have done dramatically different things with it; it is essential background for the Quran and Islam and all of its various schools/traditions, which have also done dramatically different things with various parts of it. What is fixed in the Hebrew Bible is not identical with any group's beliefs or practices today nor was it ever. It is not any more definitive for any group of Jews than it is for any group of Christians or muslims. For crying out loud.Jytdog (talk)

It is common in literature to speak of what the text "says" when one is unsure of direct authorship. If there had been an evaluation intended, the rest of what you speak of--how it was actually applied etc--would have been included. The focus was kept on what the Bible says--since texts do say things. "This is a sacred text" yes, and therefore it is definitive in its way. It is foundational. Whatever the interpretation of it is, it is what is being interpreted. That's an unavoidable fact. This is a pointless criticism.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I take it you aren't happy with article as it stands. But I don't understand why you are getting so angry about it. As far as I'm aware no-one is attacking you or trying to stop you from making changes to the article. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We have been having the same conversation since May. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes Jennahawk so we describe that. We don't express it.

what i just wrote: it has remained a sacred text (with more authority in some parts than others) for the many different traditions in judaism and christianity which have done dramatically different things with it

what you just wrote: "This is a sacred text" yes, and therefore it is definitive in its way.

The Bible is not true in Misplaced Pages; we describe that some people take it as true. This is indeed entirely the point. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I have written requires believing that the Bible is true or is based on the belief the Bible is true, and that opinion is altogether irrelevant to the discussion of what should be on this page. Should a discussion of the violence in the Bible include these different aspects since this is how violence is presented in the Bible, and since this is how violence is discussed in the secondary sources? There is not a homogenous single view of violence in the Bible in the secondary sources, so this page should not present the information on it as though there is.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is just going around the mulberry tree again and not responsive to the problems.Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response that involves me or any of my contributions staying put.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Responses grounded on NPOV and aimed the mission will be satisfactory. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved here for improvement

The following is POV, badly sourced, and badly written. Moved here for now.

Divine violence and cherem

Eric Siebert defines 'divine violence' as: "violence God is said to have perpetrated, caused, or sanctioned in some way. Specifically, this includes (1) violence God commits without using human agents (e.g., sending down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah); (2) violence God commissions, typically unbeknownst to those being commissioned (e.g., using Babylon to punish Judah for their sins); and (3) violence God commands directly (e.g., ordering Israelites to wipe out Canaanites)."

The Hebrew verb ḥāram means to utterly destroy (Deuteronomy 7:2) and the noun derived from it, ḥērem, denotes the separation, exclusion and dedication of something to God which may be set apart for destruction (Deuteronomy 7:26; Leviticus 27:28-29).] The Israelites were not allowed to touch, possess, or redeem these "devoted things" (Josh. 7:2).

Over half the occurrences of the verb and noun for the root ḥ-r-m are concerned with the destruction of nations, but it is not the only Hebrew term associated with destruction; other terms such as ṣamat, shamad, nakah, aqar, qatsah, shabat, and kalah are also used in this context. ] For example, concerning those who worship idols, Deuteronomy 7:16 uses akal ("consume") when saying "You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you…". Deuteronomy 7:24, on the other hand, uses abad when saying "you shall make their name perish from under heaven…" while Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says "…you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy (ha-harem taharimem) them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you…".

Human violence and chamac

"The Bible itself conceives violence as action opposed to God and God's desires for the world... Violence is action that arises from motivations of greed, selfishness, and a desire for power and control over others... the first occurrence of the primary Hebrew term for violence (chamac/hamas) is in Genesis 6:11." The word also connotes action motivated by arrogance, selfishness, or vindictiveness.] Examination of the different uses of cḥāmac show it is not limited to physical violence but may refer to verbal, or even ethical violence as well. An example of the biblical view of this kind of human violence is found in Psalm 73, which identifies the "wicked" as violent people who deny God's demand for, and attention to, justice (v. 11).

Chamac sometimes appears as a cry to God in the face of injustice. The Psalms identify the victims of violence as the righteous (ṣaddîqîm), a term that denotes helplessness, humility, and dependence on God (Ps. 34:20–23) while the perpetrators of violence are the wicked (rĕšāʿîm), whose behaviors are destructive and life-threatening and whose activity is linked to their arrogance and disregard for God (Psalm 10).

Exodus 23:1 and Deuteronomy 19:16 characterize a false witness as ēd ḥāmas: a "violent witness".

The Pentateuch also uses the terms gazal ] and asaq ] separately and in combination to describe violent taking/robbing/plundering which may or may not involve physical, verbal or other types of harm. The violence of "plundering the poor" (Isaiah 3:14, 10:2; Jeremiah 22:3; Micah 2:2, 3:2; Malachi 1:3), withholding the wages of a hired person (cf. Deuteronomy 24:14), political oppression (Hosea 12:7), charging oppressive interest (Ezekiel 22:12), and oppressing the alien (Ezekiel 22:7), are just some of the violent practices spoken against using this term.]

Non-violence and shalom

This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In the Hebrew Bible, peace is "a condition of freedom from disturbance , whether outwardly, as of a nation from war or enemies, or inwardly, within the soul. The Hebrew word is shalom (both adjective and substantive), meaning, primarily, "soundness," "health," but coming also to signify "prosperity," well-being in general, all good in relation to both man and God."] The word "shalom"] meaning "peace" has been absorbed into the usage of the language from its Biblical roots. A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible lists almost 300 words connected with the root "SH-L-M" for "peace."

David Eglavish and Amichai Nachshon have written on practices of peace going back to ancient Israel using the examples of Abram's rescue of Lot, David's rescue of captives, and Elisha's command to free the Aramean captives.

Ethicist David VanDrunen says the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) is best seen as an expression of natural law and strict proportionate justice. It attempts to define retribution, or compensation, that is perfectly proportional to the harm caused. Historically, monetary compensation commonly took the place of literally taking an eye, but in the ancient world, the underlying concept of proportionality was a means of curbing disproportionate vengeful violence.

John Barton says the prophet Amos, when speaking against foreign nations, showed they violated standards of behavior in warfare which they recognized as ethical based on natural law, making it possible for Amos to use those same standards to correct and oppose their violence and support peace.

References

1. Siebert, Eric (2016). "Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament (with Special Attention to Christian Theological Perspectives)". Currents in Biblical Research. 15 (1). Sage: 8–40. doi:10.1177/1476993X15600588. Retrieved 16 August 2017.
2. Lohfink, Norbert (1986). ḥāram in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. p. 197. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
3. ^ Template:Cite article
4. Stern, Philip D. (1991). The Biblical Ḥērem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience. Brown Judaic Studies. Vol. 211. Atlanta: Scholars Press. p. 173.
5. Creach, "Jerome F. D." (2013). Violence in Scripture: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23145-3.
6. G. Johannes Botterweck; Helmer Ringgren (1979). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 4. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 478–87. ISBN 0802823270.
7. Wright, Jacob L. (2008). "Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 19:19–20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft". Journal of Biblical Literature. 127.3: 423–458.
8. Template:Cite article
9. Abraham Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible: Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names Phrases and Synonyms (Kiryat Sepher Publishing House, Jerusalem. 1986 edition)
10. Levin, Yegal; Shapira, Amnon, eds. (2012). War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present. N.Y., New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. pp. introduction, 1–25, 26–45. ISBN 978-0-203-80219-9.
11. Drunen, David (2008). "Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword". Liberty University Law Review. 2 (3). Liberty University School of Law: 945–967. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
12. Barton, John (1980). Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1:3–2:5. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with the references?Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have said many times. The sources are overwhelmingly Christian and even within the various Christian approaches, the choices here skew sharply evangelical. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression you are going Old Testament on this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh ouch. Your humor is edgy as always. :) Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you have a dictionary of Hebrew that you prefer that is not "evangelical", even though I am unsure how it is possible for a dictionary to be evangelical, I can happily substitute your reference for the one I used--which was simply the one at the top of the list when I googled online Bible dictionaries. I figure the definitions will be the same no matter what source is used, but I will be happy to make those changes. I used the quote from Siebert at least partly because it's a nice summation and you had said you liked it--found it interesting--some time back. It is my opinion that when discussing any topic, views both for and against should be included in the discussion if one wants to actually present a complete view. That non-violence aspects of teaching in the OT are just as relevant as the rest.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "for or against" anywhere here. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-violence is generally defined as against violence. Why does that have to be said? That is what you say is off-topic. I have removed what I think you have found offensive and replaced the definitions. They should be there.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "for or against" here. We are not doing theology in WP. We are just describing what is there and how what is there has been used. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a for and against here though it may not be about the article. I made changes in an effort to meet you part way. What have you done to demonstrate being cooperative and work toward a consensus? You have reverted it again without comment and by warning me at my talk page not to cross you again. How is that constructive? If you want to actually have a real discussion--post the changed version and see what others say.21:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not appropriate for an article talk page. Nothing to reply to. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Marcionism and supersessionism

Should this be under "Theological reflections and responses"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article contain these definitions? Should they be revised and partially included? Should they be completely removed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

These texts contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, or condemning, violent 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. The 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, and have also been used in opposition to violence.

Divine violence and cherem

The Hebrew verb ḥāram means to utterly destroy (Deuteronomy 7:2) and the noun derived from it, ḥērem, denotes the separation, exclusion and dedication of something to God which may be set apart for destruction (Deuteronomy 7:26; Leviticus 27:28-29).] The Israelites were not allowed to touch, possess, or redeem these "devoted things" (Josh. 7:2).

Over half the occurrences of the verb and noun for the root ḥ-r-m are concerned with the destruction of nations, but it is not the only Hebrew term associated with destruction; other terms such as ṣamat, shamad, nakah, aqar, qatsah, shabat, and kalah are also used in this context. ] For example, concerning those who worship idols, Deuteronomy 7:16 uses akal ("consume") when saying "You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you…". Deuteronomy 7:24, on the other hand, uses abad when saying "you shall make their name perish from under heaven…" while Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says "…you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy (ha-harem taharimem) them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you…".

Human violence and chamac

Examination of the different uses of cḥāmac show it is not limited to physical violence but may refer to verbal, or even ethical violence as well. An example of the biblical view of this kind of human violence is found in Psalm 73, which identifies the "wicked" as violent people who deny God's demand for, and attention to, justice (v. 11).

Chamac sometimes appears as a cry to God in the face of injustice. The Psalms identify the victims of violence as the righteous (ṣaddîqîm), a term that denotes helplessness, humility, and dependence on God (Ps. 34:20–23) while the perpetrators of violence are the wicked (rĕšāʿîm), whose behaviors are destructive and life-threatening and whose activity is linked to their arrogance and disregard for God (Psalm 10).

Exodus 23:1 and Deuteronomy 19:16 characterize a false witness as ēd ḥāmas: a "violent witness".

The Pentateuch also uses the terms gazal ] and asaq ] separately and in combination to describe violent taking/robbing/plundering which may or may not involve physical, verbal or other types of harm. The violence of "plundering the poor" (Isaiah 3:14, 10:2; Jeremiah 22:3; Micah 2:2, 3:2; Malachi 1:3), withholding the wages of a hired person (cf. Deuteronomy 24:14), political oppression (Hosea 12:7), charging oppressive interest (Ezekiel 22:12), and oppressing the alien (Ezekiel 22:7), are just some of the violent practices spoken against using this term.]

Non-violence and shalom

A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible lists almost 300 words connected with the root "SH-L-M" for "peace."

David Eglavish and Amichai Nachshon have written on practices of peace going back to ancient Israel using the examples of Abram's rescue of Lot, David's rescue of captives, and Elisha's command to free the Aramean captives.

Ethicist David VanDrunen says the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) is best seen as an expression of natural law and strict proportionate justice. It attempts to define retribution, or compensation, that is perfectly proportional to the harm caused. Historically, monetary compensation commonly took the place of literally taking an eye, but in the ancient world, the underlying concept of proportionality was a means of curbing disproportionate vengeful violence.

John Barton says the prophet Amos, when speaking against foreign nations, showed they violated standards of behavior in warfare which they recognized as ethical based on natural law, making it possible for Amos to use those same standards to correct and oppose their violence and support peace.Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Creach, "Jerome F. D." (2013). Violence in Scripture: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23145-3.
2. Fletcher, George P.; Olin, "Jens David". Humanity, When Force is Justified and Why. New York, New York: Oxford University Press,Inc. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-518308-5.
3. Lohfink, Norbert (1986). ḥāram in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. p. 197. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jerome Creach was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Stern, Philip D. (1991). The Biblical Ḥērem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience. Brown Judaic Studies. Vol. 211. Atlanta: Scholars Press. p. 173.
6. G. Johannes Botterweck; Helmer Ringgren (1979). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 4. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 478–87. ISBN 0802823270.
7. Wright, Jacob L. (2008). "Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 19:19–20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft". Journal of Biblical Literature. 127.3: 423–458.
8. Template:Cite article
9. Abraham Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible: Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names Phrases and Synonyms (Kiryat Sepher Publishing House, Jerusalem. 1986 edition)
10. Levin, Yegal; Shapira, Amnon, eds. (2012). War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present. N.Y., New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. pp. introduction, 1–25, 26–45. ISBN 978-0-203-80219-9.
11. Drunen, David (2008). "Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword". Liberty University Law Review. 2 (3). Liberty University School of Law: 945–967. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
12. Barton, John (1980). Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1:3–2:5. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Survey

• Keep as is Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as is I see nothing wrong with this. The demand that Christian sources be excluded because of "bias" is unfeasible. Irreligious sources are intrinsically biased as well. The idea is to present historical and exegetical realities in the context in which they appear, not to banish all diversity of viewpoints in the name of objectivity. Josh Burns (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep but revise Whilst I agree we can use religious sources I also think we need to use ethnographic ones. We need an assement of how accurate the Christian interpretations are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep with future possibility of specific revisions. If there are specific bad sources here, let them be removed. If there are specific examples of bad writing (such as spelling one Hebrew word for violence as chamac, let it be fixed. If there are awkward citations, let their format be improved. But blanket deletion is not warranted in this case. Alephb (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep etc per Alephb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per Alephp. There may be better more highly regarded reference works relating to translation at colleges and seminaries in the area here, and if it weren't the holiday season they would probably be open at hours I could get to them. That might have to wait till next month now though. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Should this section should be kept but revised in a specific manner? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is good that you trying to use dispute resolution but this is not an appropriate RfC. Please withdraw this and please read WP:RFC before proposing a new one. It is a good idea to propose a draft and get feedback on it before launching it, especially if you have never done one before. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I like this rewrite of your comment here. It's much nicer than your first version. I did of course read the Rfc page before doing anything. This Rfc follows exactly the example given on the Rfc page here in Misplaced Pages. I copy pasted as they recommend. It also contains the last version of the text you reverted as "bad", which is allowable, since that is what's under dispute: Revision as of 17:21 12 Dec.2017-- ] Thank you for saying, for the first time, that there is any good at all in the content under discussion, that's some progress, but we need to see if we can gain a consensus view on it, and that means allowing people some time.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a useful RfC - it will be a waste of the community's time. Useful RfCs focus discussion on some specific issue - they don't throw up big swaths of content and ask for "comment". Please withdraw it. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The community is certainly intelligent enough to decide that for themselves.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not the point. WP depends on everybody doing what they should do. If everybody indulged themselves pushing the limits of that they can do, this place would be more of a hellhole than it is. Our beautiful project is possible because people try to do what they should do.Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thank you so much for responding. This is a good suggestion. It was offered before this version was reverted. Some additional--or replacement--sources will be forthcoming if it gets decided this should be kept. So far when checking alternate sources, all the definitions remain the same. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Alephb I am sorry you have wasted your time on a poorly framed RfC. Of course it can be improved. The content has been moved to talk for improvement. That is exactly what has happened. The RfC is simply asking "how do we edit Misplaced Pages" and the answer is (painfully obviously) "like always". Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Thank you so much for showing up and commenting! I am so grateful. If you read what has taken place above here, you will see I not only offered to do these things, I have actually already attempted it. It got reverted anyway. I changed the spelling of the Hebrew from the way I wrote it originally because I attempted to change what I thought were the only Christian references I used-- an online Bible dictionary--and when I changed sources, it was spelled differently. If you can give me a better source, I will be more than happy to use it. PLEASE point me to a better source. I am most willing to make the changes you suggest. And thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Although there are certainly valid times to use something that calls itself "Baker's Evangelical Dictionary" to illustrate, say, evangelical thought, I'd shy away from using it as though it were a neutral reference, in the same way that I'd use "Jim's Communist History of the United States" more to illustrate Jim's thought or Communist thought than as a neutral source for facts about the United States. The same thing would apply to "William's Atheist History of Religion" or "Lucy's Nepalese Nationalist Book of Nepalese History."

This may sound strange (and it's certainly not a statement of Misplaced Pages policy) but it's true -- sources that use a "c" to represent the Hebrew letter samek are always subpar. I do not know why, but it probably has to do with being a publisher that does not (cannot afford to? doesn't bother?) to use diacritical marks to distinguish the various Hebrew s-like sounds. Use of "ch" for het is often, but not always, a similar red flag.

If you're looking for simple definitions of Hebrew words, I'd recommend the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. I've got a copy, so if you want me to provide a definition of something sourced to it I can. If you're looking for something more substantial, I've heard good things about Susan Niditch's War in the Hebrew Bible. I'm sure Jytdog could recommend some books as well. Alephb (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog, this just comes across as hostile. For a first-time RFC, you must have seen much worse than this. The intent of the "dummy-votes" is clear in context though written differently than say, at Talk:Fatima#Request_for_comment:_Fatima_or_Fatimah, and I disagree that they "are screwing everybody up", people are generally less easily screwed. It´s clear you don´t like this RFC, which I´m hopeful will have productive results, that´s fine, but this is pushing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

and !voting in spite is not great. It sucks to be dragged around Misplaced Pages by POV pushing advocates, as civil as they might be, who insist on dragging whatever RW issues they have into Misplaced Pages. It sucks. I have allowed myself to get too close here but the jesus-is-great-what-the-fuck-were-those-jews-even-thinking-with-these-disgusting-old-as-in-dead-testament-texts in these edits is especially putrid and I will not let this article get dragged down into that ... hellish muck. So I will start working to rehabilitate the stuff above. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• Start-Class Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment