Talk:The Bible and violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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: [[1]] [[2]]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 [[3]] 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 [[4]] 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Good article ;-) Or perhaps Wikipedia: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)

Moved here for improvement

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

Divine violence and cherem

Main article: Herem (war or property)

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).[[5]] 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. [[6]] 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.[[7]] 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 [[8]] and asaq [[9]] 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.[[10]]

Non-violence and shalom

In the Hebrew Bible, peace is "a condition of freedom from disturbance [including violence], 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."[[11]] The word "shalom"[[12]] 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

-- 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)

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.[141]." 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. [[13]]

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 Wikipedia; 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)

Marcionism and supersessionism

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

Samuel

Jenhawk777 Finally got Samuels done, Kings will be coming but maybe not before christmas. Man that was a long one. Please do your thing if you´re still up to it. And now I´m even more disappointed Kings ended so quickly! Remember that early scene where Rev. Samuels "anoints" David Sheperd? Good storytelling! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

:-) I find most of this history fascinating. Bronze age people--good storytelling indeed! I will begin looking for references. We make a pretty good team. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 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)

Jenhawk777 Pinging you again. I put Palti in there per your suggestion. From what I read at Palti, son of Laish it´s not a super-obvious fit, but if it stays it stays. We're never told what Michal thought about it, at that point in the story she may have approved, maybe not. I'll imagine she wasn´t to pleased in 2 Samuel 21, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I thought that was weird: "Due to that later discrepancy that states Michal as the wife of Adriel, instead of Merab as first said in 1st Samuel, many scholars believe this to be an ancient copyist's error that should have read Merab in 2 Samuel 21:8.[4]". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Michal's reaction is read --like much else in the Bible--without actually being stated out-right. Michal had loved David when she was young. After this incident it says she hated David. Who wouldn't? But as a politically wiley king, he probably figured he had no choice--she helped legitimize his kingship. Sad. This kind of thing no doubt happened as long as there were kings wrestling for power anywhere. It demonstrates David's ruthlessness I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE, perhaps?

Noah's Ark and the Deluge.

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)

Figures Five Kings of Midian Slain by Israel

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)

I like the pics btw. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:15, 17 December 2017

This revision is not good; it garbles what Alephb said and produces a misleading impression of what following 9/11 means. It is not an improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write any part of that bit about Collins. It was Jytdog editing stuff Jytdog wrote. Alephb (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it had your name at the top of the diff. It's still garbled though--the abrahamic religions inspired?Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk, can I suggest you consider totally re-thinking your approach to this article? Don't go through the bible listing episodes of violence, there's no end to it. Instead, look at the ways theologians and religious leaders have squared the use of violence with their religious beliefs. There's been a huge range through history, from utter quietism (the Quakers but many others) to religious war (the Crusades and also things such as the wars on heretics and pagans and Indians). This would be a much more fruitful and even interesting approach in my opinion. PiCo (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

PiCo The one who has been going through the Bible (OT, mostly, but I added Herod as well) is me for the large part (most of the Biblical narrative sections Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Joshua), and I currently intend to do some more of it (Samuel-Kings, apparently the Ark is happily returned to Israel, except then fifty thousand men dies from looking at it). It started with the discussion here: Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#This_article_needs_more_violence. There´s an end to it, but it´s a lot. Jenhawk has been helpful adding sources to the plot, though. The basic idea is that the violent bits in the biblical text deserves space in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There´s also articles like Christianity and violence, Judaism and violence. If these articles are not to be merged, "what they did with it" belongs more there. This article is for violence in the actual text. People have used it for crusades and pacifism, but the direction lately has been to get that stuff out of this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: I have been trying to think of the best way to respond to this kind and thoughtful comment, and I wonder if you can appreciate the irony in it. This is exactly what I have gotten so beaten up for--being accused of putting "interpretation" and theology everywhere. I moved everything like that to the theology section or just deleted a bunch. I hope that section is adequately balanced with multiple views represented accurately as to what the majority view is and what fringe views are. Perhaps you could review that section? That would be helpful. I know I would appreciate it and any comments you might have.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Fales

I believe this revision of Fales' statement Latest revision as of 22:08, 18 December 2017 does not accurately reflect Fales' POV. Someone else please check the source to see if I might be wrong on this. It's been awhile since I read it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

please do see the source, and please see Salvation in Christianity. there are schools of christian thought and whole denominations that do not accept substitutionary atonement as valid and even see it as pernicious. most do it from a root understanding of God as loving and nonviolent and seek a coherent set of doctrines. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

this is true--I don't know about whole denominations--at least I don't know what those would be--but I do know there are people in every denomination that are challenging the traditional interpretation. Fales is not one of those however--but this point of view deserves to be represented here--it's just the wording of the change that I question--the change seems to have modified the force of Fale's argument. It seems to me it should be included with all the power of his own words. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

the content currently quotes him and says "Evan Fales, Professor of Philosophy, calls the the doctrine of substitutionary atonement that some Christians use to understand the crucifixion of Jesus, "psychologically pernicious" and "morally indefensible""

I have no idea what you are objecting to or how that is not "forceful". Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I am probably being too picky. The way I originally read Fales, it was the crucifixion itself--along with the doctrine--that he found morally indefensible. This change makes it sound--to me--as though it is merely the idea of it and not the actual event he finds so abhorrant. It's a very minor point and probably not worth making a "deal" about. Feel free to ignore me without recrimination.  :-) Overall, I like the changes and additions you have made since coming back. I am glad you showed up and started writing here again--I was sort of counting on you. Together we bring all the perspectives to the article, which makes for a better article. I think that works well. One of the things I wonder about is that Wiki says we should be sure to make clear-- by how much space and weight we put on something-- what the majority view and what the fringe views are. I am not sure I even know how that falls out, but I am glad to see them all here regardless!Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

substitutionary atonement is not just "the idea of it" - it is a specific theological interpretation of the crucifixion that is distinct from many others. in some theological views the crucifixion was just a horrible thing that happened to jesus and has no relevance to salvation. in the teaching of substitutionary atonement the crucifixion is what saves us. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So what exactly is the difference between "the idea of it' and the 'theological interpretation' of it? I'm not sure I follow this. At any rate, it is a minute point. I probably shouldn't have even brought it up. If you feel strongly about the changed wording then I am willing to let it go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Creach says" vs "Philosopher, professor and author Eleonore Stump says"

This is a MOS-thing that´s been bugging me, so I asked about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_199#People_we_quote_and_paraphrase. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that was totally worthwhile! I never thought of asking the community! Putting 'Philosopher' etc. back in now! Thank you. Perhaps done correctly means it will garner none of the previous opposition. If only it had been explained months ago. Ah well. Live and learn.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing Tags

Does everyone agree it's time to remove the flags at the top of the article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Holidays

There are probably a fair number of well regarded reference sources which deal with this topic at some length. Most of those would be in seminaries. There are a few seminaries around me here, but their libraries aren't open long if at all over the holiday period. Maybe someone can ping me around January 8 and remind me to look in some of them? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! That would be wonderful. I have asked for a new Hebrew dictionary for Christmas--I hadn't asked for anything yet, so we'll see if I get it. :-) I own a Strong's, but it's old and I was told it wasn't acceptable early on, so I switched to online and what I could find there, which was BibleStudyTools, and then I was told it wasn't acceptable either. So I took the next one down the line on Google--which was Baker's--and the world exploded. (Which is really only a slight exaggeration.) David Clines' dictionary has been recommended to me, but when I went on Amazon to price it, I found its quality was rated lower than Strong's--so I start wondering and don't buy anything. I would love to know what qualifies as a genuinely good Hebrew dictionary that would be pretty much universally acceptable--that doesn't cost over 200$.

I have only been on Wiki about 6 months and a lot of it still seems a little bewildering. What qualifies as a good Hebrew Dictionary that is not "Christian"? I will be happy to ping you on the 8th assuming I have survived all of this. :-)

If you live near any good college or university library, they would probably be in the best position to answer that question. I seem to remember seeing a multivolume theological dictionary of the Old Testament out there. That in particular is what I will be looking for myself. Beyond that, if you have access to any editions of the various guides to reference works out there, they would be useful. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The TDOT is already cited in the article. There is too much use of theological christian refs as it is. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was using the phrase more as a description than a title, but thanks for the information. But, particularly at Concordia Seminary, more or less the home seminary of the LCMS there are probably other, maybe older, works of the same general type, very possibly including at least one from a Jewish perspective. I honestly don't know many books on the Hebrew Bible from Islamic or non-Abrahamic perspectives and kind of doubt the likelihood of the latter, but I'll know better when I get there. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The most commonly used scholarly dictionary of biblical Hebrew is HALOT. What would be better would be articles in the biblical literature that discuss these words. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly there have been translators' guides to various biblical books as well which might include useful notes on usages. The seminaries subscribe to a slew of journal databanks as well, which might well have articles related to either words or these particular topics. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

But Jytdog--this comment has sort of turned my mind inside out--Using biblical literature and their discussions of these words is what got me in trouble in the first place! You hated them! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I gain access to HALOT? The above is just a link to an article about it. Google books won't access it. How do I get to it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:RX might help. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I went and added that to my list of Tools! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

need consensus

This latest addition, while interesting, makes no sense without Creach's comment being included as well. Is there a way to modify and combine these? "The narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 were not the only creation myths in ancient Israel, and the complete biblical evidence suggests two contrasting models. The first is the "logos" (meaning speech) model, where a supreme God "speaks" dormant matter into existence. The second is the "agon" (meaning struggle or combat) model, in which it is God's victory in battle over the monsters of the sea. Genesis 1 is an examples of creation by speech, while Psalms 74 and Isaiah 51:9–10 are examples of the "agon" mythology, recalling the Canaanite myths."

Most current scholarship says "Gen. 1:1–2:4a narrates a story of God creating without violence or combat. As Old Testament scholar Jerome Creach says, "The elements do not represent rival deities, and the story declares the creation “good” (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). What is more, in Gen. 1:1–2:4a the elements participate in the process of ordering at God’s invitation (Gen. 1:9, 11, 20). The fact that this account was likely part of the last stages of the creation of the Pentateuch may indicate that the portrait of God in Gen. 1:1–2:4a was normative for those who gave the Old Testament canon its present shape. Hence, it seems that the account of God creating without violence in Gen. 1:1–2:4a serves as the overture to the entire Bible, dramatically relativizing the other cosmologies.”

Since Isaiah and Psalms are dated after the Pentateuch, those particular books are no longer considered by most modern scholars to carry equal weight with Genesis as far as the creation myths go. The battle concept is a modern interpretation, something imported into the story from modern readers, not present in the original stories themselves. There is no creation battle equivalent to those of other ANE nations in Genesis. That seems significant enough to at least mention rather than push a particular view.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Creach adds no real value in this section - the current content makes it clear that there was some "demythologizing" in Genesis - see the first paragraph there. That is all that Creach is saying. Jytdog (talk)

Alright--I can accept that--but then let's delete the other two paragraphs as well. They add nothing of substance to the discussion of violence, are available elsewhere, everything that needs saying here gets said in the first paragraph, and it will help make a long article a little shorter.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

please restore

Revision as of 20:30, 1 January 2018 this says you reverted this because it is not in the source, but that is a mistake, it is a direct quote from page 4 of the OUP article by Creach. [[14]] It is the third paragraph up from the bottom that begins with this sentence: "Consistent with the identification of ḥāmas as action against the just order of God, the term sometimes appears as a cry to God in the face of injustice (Jer. 6:7)." Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Also you put back "second temple" in this [Revision as of 20:30, 1 January 2018] but there needs to be evidence to support that claim since Isaiah 26 was probably written about two hundred years before the second temple was built and Daniel was written during the exile--also before the Temple was built. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I couldn't help but notice that the additions and removals in "Various views" under theology all seem to have produced a single negative perspective. I wonder about two things seeing that: I know these do not represent majority views, yet they are all that remains here, and because they are all that remains, this section cannot be described as neutral point of view. I have a problem with both of those. If you stop to realize what's happened here I believe you will surely have the same problem with this result that I do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I added Babylonian captivity thanks. I have no idea of what you mean by "negative". Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Babylonian captivity is fine, but you understand you are intentionally leaving in an error by saying 'second temple' in that same sentence? Those texts--Isaiah and Daniel--were well known enough they were among the most popular texts by the second temple period, but they weren't written then. Say it that way if you have the hots for including that phrase, but at least be accurate.

You may not understand negative but readers will. There is a single point of view represented now and it is not mainstream, will you acknowledge that?

I am restoring the comment by Creach on the creation story. Comparing the violence or lack in the Hebrew creation story to the violence in the other creation stories of the ANE is a significant thought that should be included. Please don't revert it again without presenting a good argument for why. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, Jenhawk. Before you go any further with this line of argument about Daniel, I'd try googling a little bit, finding out when most scholars think Daniel was written, and then checking to see if that date falls inside of the Second Temple period. Alephb (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did that first, but there are conflicting dates so thought it would be best to use the specific dates for each rather than a blanket phrase. Second Temple is okay for Daniel, put it back if it seems best, but not for the Isaiah reference. And what are you doing here? You are supposed to be avoiding here! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am really good at coming up with really good ideas about what I should avoid. My ability to actually carry out those plans . . . well, could use some work. Alephb (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It makes me like you better to know you're not infallible after all.  :-) I need to make that resolution. This has not had a good impact on me I don't think. It's making me ornery--and I am not normally ornery--and I don't like what it's turning me into--so I need to be outta' here too! I am having trouble finding anything on Pionius that doesn't completely put me to sleep though.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove intro to Hebrew Bible?

This is a nice blurb about the Hebrew Bible in general--but it says nothing about violence in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore I think that means it is a tiny bit off topic and should be removed. The section doesn't need an introduction unless it includes something that actually connects to what follows--something like: this is a synopsis, by book, of various incidents of violence of any and all types found in the Hebrew Bible. Nothing more is needed. Does anyone have cause to object? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but leave the "main article" link. And shouldn´t "Terms" be under "Hebrew Bible", since it doesn´t apply to NT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the theological and sociological sections are really in serious need of trimming out everything not on topic as well. It's pretty unwieldy and overblown right now. Can someone volunteer to help with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Duh!! YES! Terms should be under Hebrew Bible! I'll go move it! Now I feel stupid!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

reverts and insults

@Jytdog: You removed "The Hebrew verb ḥāram is first used in Deuteronomy 7:2 and means "to utterly destroy". The noun derived from it..." saying it is uncited when one sentence away there are two references. But Creach is almost a quote. His OUP article says, "The Hebrew verb ḥāram connotes [complete annihilation] (New Revised Standard Version, “utterly destroy”; Deut. 7:2), and the noun that derives from it (ḥērem) refers to persons or objects “set apart for destruction” (Deut. 7:26)." I could go back and add another Creach reference here if you prefer.

"Such persons or objects were designated as sacrificial gifts to God in exchange for God’s help in securing victory in battle. Thus, ḥērem identifies “devoted things” that the Israelites were not to touch or possess (Josh. 7:2)." These are both taken from [[15]] and somehow I found a version with page numbers so it's page 17 but this version has none. But this statement is contrasted with Levine's on Herem being introduced later--which is a strikingly important idea not to include.

Barruch Levine would be a better reference for the "early uses" statement you removed, but I think that section is not stated with sufficient clarity, so thank you for catching that. I will go fix it. כי ברוך הוא: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine page 396 discusses Exodus 33:5-16 (as demonstrative of the early ideology) and Deut.7:1-11 as the same ideology but with the introduction of the concept of the ban indicating it was a later addition to Hebrew thought. Creach says the same thing basically, claiming that Joshua was written after the conquest not before, so herem was not intended to incite war but devotion to God. I should go back and clarify that by putting that in I guess. And you're right, Joshua is not an early work--bad location of that reference on my part.

As for the comment "this is simply incompetent" which again, I am sure, will be claimed as a comment on edits, but which can only be a personal comment since only a person can be incompetent, I have gone back and clarified that I hope. Those two statements should have been in separate paragraphs; one was not intended as an example of the other--or I would have said, for example. A simple fix or a ping to me about it would have been a kind thing to do instead. Maybe someday. I like most of the other reverts. You generally do good work and I thank you for your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

The consensus is to "Keep with future possibility of specific revisions" to remove bad sources and add more mainstream sources. There was no consensus on any specific changes to make.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

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

Main article: Herem (war or property)

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).[[16]] 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. [[17]] 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 [[18]] and asaq [[19]] 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.[[20]]

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

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)
• some of the stuff is fine to keep. The refs need to be winnowed of the evangelical bent and more mainstream ones added which will straighten the kinked content, and the content needs to be actually grounded in sources that discuss these words so this is not like a book report from the "theological dictionary of the old testament". Transliteration of hebrew also needs to be brought into the 21st century. As i had mentioned above having such sections is fine; just not the specific realization of them. Again this RfC is so vague as to be pointless. What is needed is work and editing. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So everyone seems to agree the dictionaries need to be changed. With some help, I will find an acceptably neutral dictionary and take care of that. If you could be specific about which of the rest of the references listed above are not sufficiently "mainline" as well, I will change those too. Creach's article was published by OUP, but his book wasn't, and I reference both. I can eliminate the book if you like--even though it's the same guy saying the same thing. But I want you to be happy with the results here. I am willing to do whatever work is required--surely I have demonstrated that. If you would be so kind as to be specific--as Alephb was above--it would help close this issue out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include, but suggest adding an overall section lead in. Markbassett (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay--do you have a suggestion? Something as simple as a heading--Definitions--or something more on the categories? I am open to ideas. And thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett:--I took out the headings and retitled the whole thing as one-- simply "Terms"--what do you think of that approach? It actually seems to me it cleans it up a little. It's in my sandbox if you care to look. [[21]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 - a lead paragraph to help describe what the terminology section is about would help give it some context. I had thought something like 'Biblical Terms for Violence' as title, a short paragraph to say that the meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic words originally used the Bible text are important to understanding the context and meaning of the passages (Examining the root words is a common approach, e.g. here.) Then each of the subsections could follow as sub-sections under the section 'Biblical Terms for VIolence', or whatever title you prefer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wish I could use that source! But good ideas I will attempt to incorporate. I will go write something--you feel free to come and edit it. Between the two of us, perhaps we can get something acceptable. [[22]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with the above Seanbonner (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

All the changes specified here have now been made: I have a different Hebrew Dictionary reference (David J.A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Volumes III,IV and V.), transliteration of those words has been spelled according to that reference, I think everything is formatted properly but I am still learning new things about referencing every day--so if it's wrong--please just fix it! Plus I tried to find which references could be considered questionable and I think these are all mainstream authors of Jewish, Christian and agnostic background--pretty equally--with no axe to grind. I took out the subheadings Jytdog hated, changed it to one simple heading: "Terms" and added a two sentence lead per Markbassett.

It is not yet perfect--but it is ready to be reinstated I think, and unless there is objection--for cause--I will do so within the next few days. Then this marvelous Wiki community can fix its remaining imperfections by editing it themselves. Thank you everyone. You've all been marvelous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to take a look at it, it's in my sandbox: [[23]]Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (and anyone interested), just read through this, so here´s a few comments.

I think Hamas and Herem looks pretty ok. They can probably be improved (perhaps a little condensed) readability-wise for the general lay-reader, but there is no (and now even less) reason to exile this from the article, as I see it, it´s interesting and on topic.

Shalom. Since the section now is "Terms", it seems to me that most of what is here goes well beyond that and fits better under The_Bible_and_violence#Non-violence_and_Shalom (since that is under "Theological reflections and responses").

I´d save for "Terms" something like "Shalom or SH-L-M is a Hebrew term for peace and is used nearly 300 times [Examples?]. In the Hebrew Bible, peace is "a condition of freedom from [violence], whether outwardly, as of a nation from war or enemies, or inwardly, within the soul.[16]" The rest of it seems to go into "what does it all mean" in a much broader sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You always give good advice. Following through on those suggestions now. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, should be a little tighter now.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 29 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 Wikipedia. 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-- [[24]] 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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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)

@Alephb: Jytdog probably could recommend books and though I have asked he has never yet done so. The reference I used first was Biblestudy tools. I switched everything to Baker's--that was going in the wrong direction apparently. It's hard to know when you're guessing. But I can certainly see you have a valid point and will be happy to use whatever reference is recommended. Yes, definitions of hamas and herem, that would be most helpful. It's not like I have demonstrated any unwillingness to do however much work is required to accomplish what needs doing, but I am still learning, and this is extremely helpful--specific--it gives me something to take away from this experience that will improve anything I do on Wiki. I reference Susan Niditch's work down in the war section under theology. I will go look for more there. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I did. See the talk page of your draft where I provided several. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you! But I have looked at both my talk page and my sandbox talk page and cannot find what you are referring to. What section would it be in? I must be overlooking it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog, this [25] 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 Wikipedia by POV pushing advocates, as civil as they might be, who insist on dragging whatever RW issues they have into Wikipedia. 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)

??? Who the heck is !voting in spite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

{ping|Jytdog}} Please do not ever say or imply that I have ever even thought or intended to communicate anything as anti-semitic as the statement you have made here. It was a truly terrible thing to say--among the many terrible things that have been said.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am describing edits. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What edit communicated what you said? Please tell me specifically. I want to be careful never to say it again.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongly worded accusations of anti-Semitism, whether the accusation is about a person or about their edits, really should be accompanied by diffs. Alephb (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Creach

Creach is cited something like 20 times in this article. This is appalling. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First that's an exaggeration. Second, consolidating won't work. Two books and an article say different things. There are other authors cited multiple times. Siebert, Collins, Levinson, Hays--two of those are yours and have five references each which is about the same as each of Creach's works. The timing of Creach's publications on this specific topic just worked out to make him a great source on the topic. I can probably find other authors who say the same things if that's necessary but I have looked--there's no policy on this and there is no reason to do that. There are over a hundred references for this article and many are referenced multiple times, so there is a total of almost 200 individual references in this article. For Creach's three works to be referenced fifteen times total is not an outlandish level of representation. I am going to undo the changes you made and I am asking you to please leave it alone. Consolidating multiple works simply because they are by the same author does not work and is not required by Wiki policy anywhere. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I also returned the "speech" creation you reverted. You are the one who put it in, in the first place and it was a good addition, and since the "agon" model is also discussed, removing the "speech" model is inappropriate and misleading. The speech model is the one in Genesis, it is the primary creation story, whereas the other is a couple references that occur in much later writings: scholars agree Genesis is the "speech" model, there's no controversy about calling it that; excluding the main point will never be the best approach or supportable on Wikipedia. We can do an appeal on this one too if you like but removing this reference is never going to be supported. Removing it removes necessary information from the encyclopedia. It's not a good thing to do. You were right to indicate a more adequate discussion was needed here. This is the discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

this revert was nonsense and had nothing to do with my comment above. There was a dupe ref and the refs were badly named so that looking at wikitext, one had no idea which of the three overcited Creach refs was being cited. Look before you edit. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The history on the article page shows you changed those references to "Creachresources" and "CreachOxford" and told me to consolidate them all. That won't work. It is untrue to say there was no explanation since the explanation was here before I did it. Jytdog, you once told me to slow down, now I am asking you to do the same. Please don't change all those references and throw them all in a pot together just because they are the same author. They are different works. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not one reference--it's all of them. If there is a duplicate I will fix that, otherwise leave them alone, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

look at the actual edit you are reverting. I fixed the dupe, and I fixed the ref names so that it is "CreachResources", referring to his book of resources, instead of "Jerome F.D. Creach-1" and likewise CreachOxford instead of "Creach 2" or CreachTheology instaed of "Creach" or "Jerome Creach" (that was the duplicated one). You duplicated it because of the nondescriptive ref names. Descriptive ref names helps people edit. Your reverts are incompetent BATTLEGROUND that are degrading the article. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you leave me instructions about consolidating them? When I checked the references that's what it looked like. Renamimg them is fine if you think it's better. I don't see how it improves anything but I will accept your judgment on that. I apologize if I didn't respond at my best. I admit I am a little "once bitten" interacting with you. Those rules--like battleground: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement" seem to apply only to others.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't leave you any "instructions" about anything. What in the world are you talking about? (when i made this edit, for example, my edit note said consolidate the three creach refs and give ref names that are meaningful). That is what I was doing in the edit. That wasn't "instructions" for you. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One month full protection

@Jytdog and Jenhawk777: both of you have violated the 3RR. But instead of temporarily blocking either of you, I'm putting this article on a 1-month full protection, admin only edits. You can still edit this talk page. However, if you cannot resolve the issue, please take this to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. Since both are equally at fault here on the reverts, perhaps it would best serve this article, and both of you, to get it sorted out at ANI. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We have sorted it already. The fault was mine. I misunderstood what Jytdog was doing. It's worked out now. This is the first conflict we've had in a while, but we are getting better at talking to each other I think--at least I think we are both trying. Jytdog is a high quality experienced editor and I am a bumbling newby and it is occasionally difficult for us to understand each other. I apologize for my part in this problem. I am learning as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Jenhawk777: I probably also should say my action came as the result of a request at WP:RFPP by an uninvolved editor, who made the request after the last edits by both of you. It's hard to tell by those edits, or by the talk section above, that it was resolved. And there's no getting away from the fact that both of you got so involved that you violated the 3RR. If you both believe it is resolved, then perhaps it's best for all to have a cooling off period to step back from this. Walk away from it for a while and work on something else. I'm leaving the protection in place. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That was a nice thing for alephbb to do. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We resolved it on my talk page, but we have had repeated run ins here as you can see from the Rfc above, so it's fair to say nothing is ever permanently resolved. I know of the request that was made, he told me before he did it, so it's perfectly okay not to have mentioned it. I know absolutely his intentions are all good, for all of us, and for Wiki especially, and he is no doubt wise and right. I blame no one but myself for not walking away sooner. Aleph told me to more than once. I did walk away for a bit a while back, worked on another article and on Pionius with Alephb, all went well, then I made the mistake of coming back here. At this point, I would comply with this even if the protection were removed. This has not been a good experience for me overall. I'm sorry it came to this but I feel grateful at the same time, if you can understand that. I do need to let this article go. So, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 January 2018

Please change "firts=J.Glentworth" to "first=J.Glentworth" in reference 60 to fix a citation error Mortee (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 January 2018

Please correct a citation error in subsection “1.2.7 Books of Samuel” in the second paragraph. The verse: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" is found in 1 Samuel 15:3, not 1 Samuel 16 as listed. Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Improvement templates

Jytdog (and anyone interested), you restored the current two when I removed them the last time. Are you ok with removing them now? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Using the Term "Violence" Accurately

I just posted an edit, mostly for word choice and better citations. Along the way, I also edited a list in the article lede that mislabeled sexism and violent language (among other things) as violence. That entire edit was reverted with the following reasoning offered:

""Restoring earlier version, these are not good changes. "slavery, and rape .... classification as violence is contentious" ???"

I'm looking at WP:REVERT, and it doesn't look like the revert or the explanation for it is adequate. No reasons were provided other than the user's incredulity about slavery and rape. Reliable sources on the ethics and practice of ancient slavery (in history, political science, ethics, human rights) do not depict ancient slavery (as distinct from modern European and American slavery) as characteristically violent, but take it on a case by case basis. In ancient cultures, voluntary slavery was widespread, even if not universal. A typical source on ancient slavery, Buying Freedom: The Ethics and Economics of Slave Redemption (edited by Anthony Appiah and Martin Bunzl, Princeton University Press), goes over the distinction between different practices of slavery, and the voluntary nature of some slavery practices in the ancient world. See the addendum on voluntary slavery on pg 94, for instance. source This voluntary form of slavery is characteristic of the ancient Near East, where most of the Old Testament was set. My proposal is simple: We rely on what reliable sources say over the individual incredulity of editors. —Approaching (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Approaching, my edit was way too knee-jerk, sorry. I read your ES Removed sexism, violent language, slavery, and rape, whose classification as violence is contentious, but you didn't actually remove rape. Disagree on excluding slavery, for example the time in Egypt is not described in the Bible as picnic (overseers beating people, male babies drowned etc), there's the wars (women of Midian etc), Deuteronomy 28 threatens with slavery, Joseph etc. The others I'm (currently) less opinionated on.

Further, I strongly dislike your introduction of "discussions/discussed", IMO the previous language is more on point. When the bible "commands" a stoning or execution by whatever way, it doesn't "discuss" it, or When God kills fifty thousand men for looking at the ark, that is not "discussion", even if they had it coming.

The cn:s you introduced are amply expanded on in the article text per WP:LEADCITE (tales of Egypt, Canaan, Rome etc for the first and Biblical narrative section for the second). That said, Creach's book should be used with caution, it's a pretty religious text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, that version of cn looks ugly, but I see the point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. (i) I used the word "discussion" because the prior phrasing ("contain many passages outlining approaches to, and descriptions of") was cumbersome, and even with its awkward length it was incomplete. Violence in the Biblical text is much more than outlined and described. I thought the best word to summarize the various roles of violence in the text was "discuss" (and these roles would be elaborated in the article body). If you can think of better phrasing, please share. (ii) There's an implicit question about whether we should use an inclusive or exclusive concept of violence: Is slavery as a whole violent because some ancient slavery practices were violent? I think the best option is to take it on a case by case basis. Calling slavery as a whole violent on the basis of one subset of slavery practices in the text risks giving the readers a misleading impression in light of those admittedly unusual cases where people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery in the Old Testament. I'm curious about the basis on which you think we can claim that ancient slavery as a whole can be called violent (if that is what you believe). (iii) You reference the Bible as commanding stoning. By that same analysis, certain passages also prohibit murder. Is it your view that the article should only discuss the commands to stone, and not the prohibitions to murder? Or should we cover both? Just curious. Thanks. —Approaching (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Title

You could have all sorts of titles like this for example Sex and the Bible, Peace and the Bible, love and the bible, poetry and the bible, visions and the bible, myths and the bible, history and the bible. Alan347 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

We have several of those, see the "Part of a series on the Bible" sidebar in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've become sympathetic to the concern implied by Alan347 as I think about this article. The original authors seem to have used this article as a sort of taxonomy, or repository of all the violent things in the Bible. That's one way to think about the article, but I think it's shallow and limited. A much better way to use this article space might be to talk about the ethical, moral, historical, philosophical, and theological dimensions of violence. —Approaching (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think an article with the current focus is a good article to have, and an article called The Bible and violence should spend significant text on acts of violence/anti-violence (there is some) in the Bible, it's the basis of the interpretations that followed. Nothing prevents articles like Violence in Philosophy, The moral of Violence, Violence in religion, Violence in Christianity, Violence in Judaism etc. More than one of those exists. The limited topic is not a bad thing. I'm not saying this article is perfect in the current shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're interested, the current "shape" came out of a long effort to agree on a reasonable structure for the article, some consensus emerged at Talk:The_Bible_and_violence/Archive_1#This_article_needs_more_violence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Violence may be a better target to cover all general aspects of violence (WP:MNA), there's also Ethics in the Bible. But the title and scope of this article were indeed debated. My main concern during its early development was primary/scripture sources with editor interpretation/selection, but my complaints were mostly addressed, it seems. As with any article, WP:WIP/WP:BOLD/WP:CONSENSUS applies, so feel free to edit/propose. —PaleoNeonate – 08:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

May someone explain why is the "Hamsa" (Yiddish!) word in the article in the first place?

I don't see how this is relevant to the article. And is misspelt as 'Hamas' BeanBandit54 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Read the section of the article about it. It's identified by WP:RS as a Hebrew word "hamas" meaning violence, used frequently in the Hebrew Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, my bad. How is it relevant to the article though?

There are problably dozens terms that mean harm and voilence in Hebrew. What is the purpose of it being in the article? BeanBandit54 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s discussed by reliable sources as relevant to the topic of violence in the Bible.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead too short

[26] Dimadick, can you expand on what you want to add to the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The current version seems to be that the first two sentences refers to TOC sections 1 and 2, and the third to section 3. It's short but personally I don't mind it being short. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)