Talk:Book of Leviticus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:55, 16 February 2013

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bible C‑class Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism C‑class High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Purpose of Leviticus

The article mentions Wenham (1979) when it states "Leviticus is not, however, a manual for priests, as it concerns itself at least equally with the role and duties of the laity." This is not true. The book was a guide for priests descended from Levi.

Prior to the excised quote, Wenham himself states, "Leviticus is a fairly appropriate title for the book as it deals largely with priestly matters, and the priests were drawn from the tribe of Levi." So, you can see, Wenham himself states the source the book, then turns around and says that it's equally about the laity, without any proof of this. He states that laws about sacrifice (handled by priests) and the priesthood itself are of equal concern to the non-priest members of the church, without giving any evidence.

All actual evidence about Leviticus indicates that this book is a very specific manual for the priesthood, not that it is a general guide for the living of a regular life at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.36 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History unclear to me & some murkiness seen

A. History of the Book of Leviticus is wanted

I've read elsewhere that there were big changes made to the Book in the 1940s (I'm not sure if there were reinterpretations of some wordings or outright additions to the Book). I don't know if what was meant was that a whole new Bible version was published in the 1940s or if there was a change between editions of the same version. I find some ancient historical information in this article, but not about more recent changes that may have taken place in the last 2 centuries or so. In my opinion, the addition of the historical evolution of the Book of Leviticus would be a good addition to the article.

B. Murkiness found (I focus here on the "Composition" section, but there are other places in the article with the same types of murkiness)

The majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch probably received. . .: 14. ^ Newsom, p.26.
Does the citation actually use the term "The majority of scholars" on page 26 and then list them? If so, then perhaps you should say something like "According to Newsom, the majority of scholars. . . ", but if not, then who makes up that majority; there's only one citation presented, not "a majority"?

Nevertheless, they also agree that. . .: 5. ^ a b Grabbe (1998), p.92. See the above comment.

The entire book of Leviticus is probably composed. . .: 15. ^ Levine, p.11.
Does the cited page actually say "is probably"? Then, some kind of notification is in order (similar to "is probably composed, according to Levine,"). If not, does the sentence equal a WP editor's opinion or original research/synthesis?

Most scholars see chapters 1–16. . .: 16. ^ Houston, p.102. I have the same comment as the first one above.

The ritual instructions in the Priestly code apparently. . . but it seems better to think of the Holiness authors. . .: 17. ^ Houston, pp.102–103.
Does the cited page actually say "apparently" and "does seem better"? Then, some kind of notification is in order (similar to "Houston believes that the ritual instructions in the Priestly code is apparently"). If not, does the sentence equal a WP editor's opinion or original research/synthesis?

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wordreader. I have not edited these articles extensively so I do not want to comment on your specific concerns but some of those subjects are discussed at Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. In addition Portal:Judaism or Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism may also be a place to get a wider audience. Good luck! meshach (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wordreader, you had all the sources given to you, and you didn't bother reading any of them. That's lazy. PiCo (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic POV cruft is removed from the lead

This material doesn't belong in the lead:

Leviticus is commonly cited^[1]^[2]^[3] for its statements against homosexuality (King James Version: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.")^[4] and condoning slavery. ("Both your male and female slaves, whom you shall have")^[5]

^ http://www.vpr.net/npr/152466134

^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/04/mtvs-dan-savage-whacked-by-ptc-for-anti-bible-remarks.html

^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2004/07/16/the-abominable-shellfish/

^ Leviticus 20:13 KJV

^ Leviticus 25:44–46

This paragraph isn't about the Book of Levitus; it's about some people who have a hissy fit about what's in the Book of Leviticus. It's not a "controversy" - everybody agrees that the Book of Leviticus contains this material, and nobody sane or reasonable disagrees with what it means. Thus, it may be possible to work in gracefully into the article somewhere, but putting in the lead without providing proper context in the body is a non-starter. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the dictionary: "controversy" doesn't mean "something many people don't think exists". Some of the world's major religion's backbone text condoning slavery, something outlawed by the UN, is not "a hissy fit" and it's something most sane people would consider controversial. The current version doesn't even mention the word and you think those edits are POV? There's nothing POV about STATING THE EXACT WORDS THAT APPEAR IN THE BOOK. --66.203.207.68 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I agree with Belchfire here. That material does not belong in the lead. I think that having it in the lead is undo weight: it is giving too much prominence to a subset of an issue. This article is about the book of Leviticus and not about some imagined controversy. meshach (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this content should remain in the article in some form. I also think that Belchfire has articulated a good approach ("it may be possible to work in gracefully into the article somewhere"), however continually reverting the content simply because it is the lede is a non-starter. A better approach would be to move it to a new section in the body of the article, until it can be expanded and then summarized in the lede. - Mr X 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non starter? According to whom? You and an IP? Add it to the body of the article and see where that takes you if anywhere. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to me and the HUMAN. I have added it to the body of the article. Cheers. - Mr X 16:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If verses on homosexuality and slavery are cited in modern American debates on those subjects, then the relevant articles are where this should be mentioned. This is an article about the book of Leviticus, not about modern America.PiCo (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a very relevant article for discussing the oft-quoted rhetoric used by religious fanatics in their foundering crusade against homosexuality. Our requirements for inclusion are notability and relevance to the subject, both of which are present in abundance. - Mr X 21:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revealing your POV bias. Cheers. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page, and keep our WP:NPOV guideline in mind. Also, you may want to consider WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.vpr.net/npr/152466134

[2] ttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/04/mtvs-dan-savage-whacked-by-ptc-for-anti-bible-remarks.html

[3] ttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2004/07/16/the-abominable-shellfish/

[4] Leviticus 20:13 KJV

[ReferenceA-5] Leviticus 25:44–46

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ::::::If verses on homosexuality and slavery are cited in modern American debates on those subjects, then the relevant articles are where this should be mentioned. This is an article about the book of Leviticus, not about modern America.[[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]]) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 :::::::Actually, this is a very relevant article for discussing the oft-quoted rhetoric used by religious fanatics in their foundering crusade against homosexuality. Our requirements for inclusion are notability and relevance to the subject, both of which are present in abundance. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 21:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
+{{od}}
+Thank you for revealing your POV bias.  Cheers.  ► [[User:Belchfire|'''<tt><span style="color:black">Belch</span><span style="color:red">fire</span></tt>''']]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"><small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 == Protection ==