Talk:Ethics in the Bible

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible

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

Encyclopedia, Not Editorial

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

Is this a joke

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

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

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

WikiProject class rating

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

Child Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

Multiple issues tag

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

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

"The Jewish Bible adamantly opposes these popular Mesopotamian practices"

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

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

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

"This reply was, in context, conservative"

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a poor article

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

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

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

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

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible

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

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

WP:RS concern

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

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

References

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

Scott Haraburda's material

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

References

Structure

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

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

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

Sections 2-5 can be divided topically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality

Part one is ethical theories

Part 2 is topics

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

• Biblical Ethics and Social Change

Part one a theology of social involvement

Part 2 Paths to Justice

• A Textbook of Christian Ethics

Section 1 Methodology

Section 2 Politics, economics and Justice

Section 3 War and peace

Section 4 The environment

Section 5 Human life and interpersonal relationships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

starting the restructure

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

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

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

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

Tiamat

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

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

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

Suggestions to keep in mind while revising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctrine of God

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

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

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

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

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

Structure change without discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation and its ethical implications

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

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

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

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

Christianity

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

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

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

Hm

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authority of the Bible for Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals for rename

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

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

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

Requested move 15 September 2018

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

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

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

In contrast, "the Bible and ethics" is a broader and vaguer category that would cover any interaction of the two domains. This would include the project of investigating the Bible's apparent ethics, but also the ways religious and secular ethicists have appealed to Scripture to inspire or defend their theories (for example, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah or Kant's retelling of Genesis as a naturalistic explanation of the evolution of moral agency). It would also seem to include the topic of "the ethics of interpretation" in Biblical studies, which addresses concerns about the ethical obligations and risks assumed by Biblical scholars translating and interpreting texts that so many people take as sacred commands (e.g. [2] [3] [4]). Thus, I actually think this move would be counterproductive in trying to "define the scope", and through its breadth and vagueness would increase the risk of WP:CONTENTFORKing with Christian ethics, Translation studies, and similar existing pages. FourViolas (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. The present title limits the scope of the article to the ethical points within the Bible. Changing the title to The Bible and Ethics or Ethics and the Bible presents a different subject than what the article is and was intended to be. Also, I disagree that the present title is misleading. I find the suggested titles to be rather ambiguous. Turtlewong (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Jytdog, could you please get consensus before mass-deleting content unilaterally? Deleting well-sourced discussion of purity and pollution—probably the most important ethical concepts in the Hebrew Bible—on the grounds that they are "not about ethics but anthropology" [5], for example, is badly non-NPOV in that it prejudges the answer to the question of whether impurity was considered immoral in Israelite moral theology or, conversely, unethical behavior was thought of as a kind of pollution (see debate e.g. here). Much of your removal of sourced content is similarly based on contentious understandings of "ethics", and it's disruptive to continue removing and re-removing it while editors here are still trying to work out a consensus on what the page should be about. FourViolas (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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