Talk:Book of Leviticus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Book of Leviticus

Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.

Feel free to change this, and the other four in question. Polymathematics 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

double info

There's some double information in this article. The summary is given twice and both are very similar. We should merge them into one, shouldn't we? Caesarion 14:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

summat seriously wrong with the formatting

homosexuality

The matter of male homosexuality of unfairly emphasized in this article. If this article wants to be unbiased, the "Summary" should also mention punishments for adultery, polygamy, bestiality, incest, sexual relations with a women having her period and sexual relations with your aunt. If you are to believe one verse, you shouldn't you believe them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primvspilvs (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have some clarification on Leviticus in the sense that laws regulating the purchase of slaves, selling a daughter, dietary and other restrictions don't seem to apply today. Yet the subject of homosexuality is still prohibited as in the book of Leviticus. Why didn't the restrictions of homosexuality go away with slavery, etc. This is a question I have seen many times on emails and I still don't have a concrete answer. Can yo help?

Sday sday11141@adelphia.net

You should post this on the Reference Desk.

You haven't stated which denomination you would like to answer your question. From the (Orthodox) Jewish POV, the dietary laws are still very much in effect (see kashrut), although slavery is not in use today :-) JFW | T@lk 08:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From my point of view, the laws are still in effect, but according to the Gospels of Jesus, it was just changed so that one could remove the sins by faith in Jesus. But then again I haven't read those Gospels in a while so I could be wrong, been reading a lot of books on Hinduism lately. Quazywabbit 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, most Christians don't appear to feel the same way. Surely they'd be avoiding pork pies! JFW | T@lk 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the undue emphasis, which I was quite surprised to see in the article. I have since provided some context for the intro statement, with quotes and links.TVC 15 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

THe emphasis on Gordon J. Wenham indicates that the author(s) of this page is anxious to use Leviticus to win political arguments on homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.133 (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

"Subilee"? Is that a typo for "Jubilee"?

Probably. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Date

I don't know anything about it myself, but I would like to see a brief discussion on when Leviticus was written (or the range of opinions). Deet 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Name in Hebrew

Doesn't the name in Hebrew (ויקרא) translate to "He called"? I think the ו' at the begining is [vav hahipuch] (ו' ההיפוך, "vav of reversal") Which explains why the tense is future (יקרא - 'call' third person, future) but means past. Notice that translations to other languages do not start with "and".

The vav is also known as the "vav consecutive," but the loss of the word "and" in other translations has more to do with readability than the use of the vav as a consecutive. The vast majority of the sentences in the Hebrew Bible begin with a vav or "and." While this was perfectly acceptable to the ancient Hebrew ear, it makes for cumbersome reading in English. So many translators decide to eliminate the "and"s that are not see as essential to the meaning of the text.St stickler 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)St_stickler

christian views

I am taking out this section, and moving it here until someone can provide a citation for how the majority of christians view the leviticus laws —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roamingwilderness (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC).--Roamingwilderness 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian views

After the Christian era began, parts of Leviticus began to be interpreted, by Christians, as foreshadowing of the coming of their messiah, Jesus. To some Christian readers, Leviticus is not literally about law or regulations for worship, but instead a "type" prefiguring Jesus, regarding in particular, his crucifixion as a sin offering. This interpretation is scripturally referred to within the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Leviticus is said to contain in its law a gospel of the grace of God. The book of Leviticus continues to serve as a demonstration of the holiness or, separation, to which God calls his people, even if the exact regulations are no longer required for God's favor.[original research?]

When it was written

I think there does perhaps need to be more said on when the book was written, or at least something better said. I am not sure that the basis of Wellhausen's theory was on the advent of written language but rather on different and conflicting themes he saw developed in the Books. On top of that, questioning Mosaic authorship began before Wellhausen, folks like Spinoza and Hobbes. Personally I find discussions around the authorship of the books boring and unfruitful, but if it is going to be here, why not have better focus? I might be up for revising it, but it was hammered in so hard in seminary that I find I have no time for it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnduns (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

part of Pentateuch

Hi Paxcoder, you're right that Leviticus is part of the Pentateuch, and I didn't change that. However, the paragraph that I edited (and you reverted) described a contrast between two views. It then described one view as understanding "more accurately" the "central core" of the Torah/Pentateuch. Those are statements of conclusion, siding with one point of view over another. Also, the paragraph provided no sources to support that view. If you can add a reference link, that would at least solve the sourcing problem. Until then, it's unsourced POV. So, I will restore the edit that I made earlier. If you want to call Leviticus the "central core" of the narrative (as opposed to, for example, Genesis) then please at least provide a source for that. Likewise, if you want to describe one POV as "more accurate" than another (a touchy subject where religion is involved), please provide a source for that too. Even then, the presentation should be as neutral as possible, as per WP:NPOV.TVC 15 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just now realized that it is called "the central core" in that paragraph. That may be Orthodox Jewish stance, but I still don't see opposing views presented. I see only one view. And "is seen as" - I don't see how it helps. As for your other edit, I, again don't see what you're trying to say with that. Leviticus is Law defined more thoroughly. One could only argue it's applicable to priests only, but last time I checked, Jewish laymen obeyed it. I just don't see it. Can you elaborate some more: what you think the intention was, what are opposing views, and how you resolved it with your edits? --Paxcoder (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, both versions of the paragraph start out with this:

"The Book of Leviticus is often described as a set of legal rules, and priestly rituals...." So, that's one view (or description), i.e. Leviticus is a set of rules and rituals, just as Numbers is a set of numbers (of how many are in what tribe etc.).

Then, the previous version said:

"but it actually forms the central core," i.e. a second view, that Leviticus is not just one book among five, but rather that it is _the central_ book; the previous version went on to describe this second view as "more accurate" than the first view.

To be extra-careful about sourcing, we could require reference links for each view presented. However, the first view (set of rules and rituals) is obvious from the text. The second view ("central core") is more subjective and should be supported by at least one reference. The second view could thus be deleted based on WP:OR or WP:NPOV, but rather than risk a fight about censorship I simply tried to make the presentation more neutral. Obviously, even that minor change has drawn attention, which shows how sensitive religion can be.TVC 15 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That, yes. But the first thing is a fact, not a view. Only one view presented with sloppy language ("but"), so it just sounds it's opposite. But yeah, it's ok. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote Leviticus

I'm happy to see that we can talk about this - I don't want to edit war. Your opinion is that Moses wrote Leviticus and the Torah. I can agree that this is the traditional opinion, and really wouldn't want to ask for a ref for it. Beyond that, the problems begin. The major point at issue is just what constitutes modern opinion. You seem to feel that Mosaic authorship is still a viable opinion in scholarly circles. I say it isn't. You haven't actually presented any referenced reliable ssource to support your view - a 1906 or 1911 source just doesn't count, it can by no stretch be considered modern. Modern means the last decade, or perhaps the last quarter of the 20th century at the most. The reason for this time-frame is that there was a revolution in in attitudes to the historicity of the bible after about 1970. Whybray, Van Seters, Rendtorff - these people turned everything on its head. Today, not many scholars have any time for the documentary hypothesis, let alone Mosaic authorship - not even Catholic scholars. Anyway, if you want to have in the article anything that suggests that the Mosaic hypothesis is still considered viable, you need to present modern opinion from reputable scholars - and frankly, I can't think of any, certainly not Wenham, who doesn't accept it, nor Blenkinsopp, who's probably the most eminent modern Catholic scholar, nor anyone else. So please, produce your evidence. PiCo (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You act as if I've edited the article to say all "modern scholars" see Moses as the author of Pentateuch. This is not true. First, your edit says so for Leviticus alone. Secondly, you have removed my "some modern" scholars which I attempted to give as a compromise. I don't know why. I have showed you (and provided a reference) the Catholic stance, and it is, much like the Church, universal. And even though I cannot give you any new (2000-) books as evidence (I don't know about any), I can tell you this view is shared among Catholic scholars. Now unless you claim there are no Catholic scholars studying Leviticus, you have no base to write as though all modern scholars don't see Moses as the author. That's all. At most what you could do is to put "reference needed" on a part of the article you don't agree with, but I see no such part of the article - as I explained above I don't claim all scholars agree, let alone modern ones, which your edit did imply. --Paxcoder (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My point - or point of view - is not that all modern scholars see Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, but that all modern scholars see him as not being the author. This view is universal, which means that the word "some", or even "most", is misleading - it's all.

Your proofs for what you claim is the Catholic stance are not valid - they're over a century old. No way they can be called modern. The Catholic Church today does not teach that Moses was the author of the Torah, and hasn't done so since the 1940s. The Catholic Church today accepts the findings of source criticism and other forms of modern investigation, which have demonstrated beyond doubt that many people had a hand in writing the Torah, and that it took many centuries, and that none of it dates from the putative time of Moses.

So, in sum, it is correct to say that no scholars today, not even Catholic ones, believe that Moses wrote the Torah. The scholars don't agree on just how it did come to be written, but they do agree that Moses was not involved. I can give you references for this statement.

On the other hand, as you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church today holds to Mosaic authorship, can you provide a reference for this?

Thank you, by the way, for your courteous agreement to engage in argument on this page. It's the right way to settle the dispute. I promise to listen to everything you say, without prejudice or presupposition. PiCo (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be your job to provide proof that Church has changed its stance *on this particular subject*. I very much doubt that has happened, and accordingly, its decision that is "over century old" still stands. That, in turn, implies that Catholics agree with it. The Church has no need to repeat something every few hundred years, if there's nothing to add. Also, as I said in the edit, the reference you keep deleting is not disputable. What you doubt is its validity today. However, the text itself doesn't reference it as a case for "some", but case for "tradition". If you think this is incomplete, as said above - you will have to add (not remove!) more text *with* your own (Catholic!) source. Thank you for lending me your ear, I hope we put this to an end soon. --Paxcoder (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note on modern critical discussion of the Torah: the documentary hypothesis has few ardent followers nowdays, although it does have some. But the most popular theory today sees the Torah as composed from a host of sources, and given a final edit by an author or group of authors who, for lack of a better term, are called P - the same P (for Priestly) used in the DH. P, according to this theory, which I repeat is the most popular today, had certain preoccupations, mostly to do with the role of the priests (naturally), and Leviticus is the most concentrated expression of those concerns. Nevertheless, Leviticus is not seen as being by a single author - it has multiple strands. I suggest you read Wenham's commentary, and you might also like to look up Blenkinsopp, who is the most prominent Catholic scholar in this area in North America today.PiCo (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My reason for editing out the bit about Moses being traditionally credited with authorship of the other four books is that it's irrelevant - this is an article about Leviticus, not about the Torah.

Now, Moses and Leviticus and the Catholic Church. You have to go back a bit and get the context. In the late 18th century scholars developed a set of new tools for analysing texts - not just the bible, any text. This set of tools was called Higher Criticism at the time, but today it's called source criticism. When source criticism was applied to the Torah, it was discovered that there were clear signs that it had been written by more than one person - in other words, at the very most, only some of it could have been my Moses. As the 19th century went on, source criticism led to more and more insights, and its conclusions became more and more widely accepted. By the closing decades of the century, the general consensus was that four original documents had been combined to make up the Torah, that Leviticus came almost exclusively from just two of the four, and that the timeframe for the composition of all of them lay in the 1st millenium BC - which ruled Moses out entirely.

At the close of the 19th century the Church was intensely conservative, and the Pope of the time, Leo X, wished to turn back the tide. In 1892 he accordingly issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, "on the study of Holy Scripture." This condemned "higher criticism," rationalism, evolution, modern geology (Leo disliked the idea that the Earth might be millions of years old), and much else. In 1902 Leo formed the Biblical Commission to enforce his views in seminaries, and it's the work of this Commission, in 1906 and 1911, which you are quoting in support of your case.

As the 20th century went on, the Church became increasingly embarrassed by Leo's anti-modernism, and in 1943 Pius XIII issued a second encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, "on promoting biblical studies." Where Providentissimus Deus had forbidden Catholic scholars from using modern methods such as source criticism, Divino Afflante Spiritu openly encouraged them to do so, enjoining scholars to "endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral (a reference to source criticism and to more recent critical tools developed in the early 20th century) to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed" (a reference to form criticism, another modern critical method). In other words, Catholic scholars were being told that tradition no longer should be regarded as the last word in determining who wrote what, but that they should instead use modern scholarly methods. And the use of those methods had already led to scholars dropping the traditional idea that Moses had authored the Torah. Look, I know you're a sincere and devout Catholic, but I think you really need to learn much, much more about biblical criticism and the history of the Church in the 20th century, as your ideas are not exactly well-informed. PiCo (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my asterisks. You still have to provide evidence that Church's opinion regarding *this topic* has changed. You seem to be misunderstanding what I write a lot, possibly due to your ability to listen to others "without prejudice or presupposition". That's why I'll further elaborate just so we are clear: The acceptance of one or other scientific method doesn't mean that automatically all researches using this methods are accepted by the Church. Especially if the said researches contradict each other, like they do in case of Leviticus. I'm sure you are familiar with a lot more abbreviations than just your beloved "P". Now unless you can prove this *for the church* (never mind now other scholars, I'm not a religion major, I won't argue), you have no business claiming "all" scholars agree. --Paxcoder (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Paxcoder, I have provided the evidence: it's all there in my explanation: the Catholic Church no longer regards the Torah as the work of Moses, and no longer regards tradition as the sole authority. Please read it carefully.PiCo (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Leviticus is part of Pentateuch, and as *such* it is by tradition prescribed to Moses. I also provided a source. Don't fear other views. This is to be objective, not just present the "right" opinion, and mention other views just so that you can say you did. Reverted. --Paxcoder (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote something from 2003:

"The opinion that faith as such knows absolutely nothing of historical facts and must leave all of this to historians is Gnosticism: this opinion disembodies the faith and reduces it to pure idea." [1], written by Joseph Ratzinger (Cardinal at that time).

So no, you proved no such thing. It's still required that you provide evidence from the Church itself, because the sole work of a Catholic, as I said already, does not reflect the official stance of the church. Now you may just as well be right, but you have yet to prove it:

"At first it seemed indispensable for the authenticity of Scripture, and therefore for the faith founded upon it, that the Pentateuch be indisputably attributed to Moses or that the authors of the individual Gospels be truly those named by Tradition."

So it implies the Church doesn't think it's necessary for Moses to be the author, but it doesn't say they now think otherwise. You're welcome to find more evidence. --Paxcoder (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited the wiki, into your favor. Reference stays because it has nothing to do with the discussion, have at least some decency (if not to objectively edit) to leave what others have contributed in bona fide. --Paxcoder (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please put all your comments at the end of the post you're replying to - if you break things up it makes it harder to follow.

Moses is traditionally credited with writing the entire Torah: Yes, he is, but this article is about Leviticus only. Put that in the article on Torah.

Your quotations are irrelevant. Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't talking about the origins of the Pentateuch, and and your second quote begins with the significant words "At first..." Please re-read my post and try to connect the two encyclicals.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the sole work of a Catholic." Perhaps you meant "the word of a sole Catholic"? In any case, the document I'm referring you to is a papal encyclical - these are authoritative within the Church.PiCo (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me restate the case: In the 19th century biblical scholars abandoned the traditional view of the origin opf the Torah because they had developed new tools of literary analysis - today we would call these tools "source criticism". In 1892 Pope Leo issued an encyclical telling Catholic scholars they were not allowed to use source criticism but must instead rely solely on tradition. In 1942 Pope Pius issued a new encyclical telling Caltholic scholars that they should in fact use source criticism (and other critical methods) in addition to tradition. In short, he overturned what Leo had said. Catholic scholars are today free to use normal critical methodologies, and none of them - none at all - now advance the idea that Moses wrote the Torah. PiCo (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I do put things (and indent) as to show what I'm responding to (and what I'm not responding to). You're the one rearranging the stuff, but knowing you, I won't try putting it back the way it was. Now, let me answer. First, the reason why I mentioned Torah - still stands. There's nothing to add there. Second, sentence beginning with "At first", as I've said (again, you're not reading it) says authorship doesn't need to be credited to Moses (ie. it isn't vital for our faith, as thought "at first"), but it doesn't even imply, let alone say it isn't anymore considered a work of Moses. This is what I want you to prove. Not with work of people who are considered Catholic and scholars, but the official Church stance, as the first sentence says (and I've, again, explained, and you again missed), Church in no way automatically approves "Catholic" scholarship. Vatican decides what the Church stance is, and it never did say it is whatever some scholar says. In fact, it says the exact opposite in that sentence (beginning with "The opinion"). What you need is Vatican's official documents confirming the certain scholar's view.

Oh, and just to add, this is not to be confused with dogma (like flat Earth was confused for dogma for "some reason"). As I said, you may even be right that Church does think so, but you have given no proof for *that*. The only thing you did give was one scholar, but this is not Church . It is however scholarship, and given the fact I can't find any "modern" scholar claiming the opposite, and considering you finally left the rest unchanged, I will leave you your last edit).

Ok, this is basically paraphrased what I said above. You repeat yourself, I repeat myself. I hope this won't be necessary anymore. Oh, and this page now probably needs archiving :-/ --Paxcoder (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Paxcoder, I didn't give you "one scholar", I gave you a papal encyclica. Do you know what an encyclica is? PiCo (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to fail to differentiate between a method and a research that uses it. The first is allowed, but the second isn't automatically confirmed because it uses the first. Any more clear? --Paxcoder (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm not sure what you mean by a "method" and a "research", though I think you might be calling source criticism a "method" and by "research" you might mean the results scholars have produced through using source criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I'll try once more to clarify what I'm saying. Let's begin with what I believe your point to be: the Catholic Church believes/teaches that Moses wrote the Torah. Is that right?

Anyway, You've given two books by Catholic scholars which do say that Moses wrote the Torah, one dating from 1906, the other from 1911. I've tried to show you that these two quotes are no longer valid, not even for Catholic scholars - which is scarcely surprising, as they're both around a century old. Here's the reasons again, this time in point form (and the fact that it's in the form of a little potted history is important - as I said above, time moves on, and yesterday's certainties can be overturned tomorrow):

• Until about 1600 nobody much cared who wrote the Torah, but insofar as anyone did care, it was accepted that Moses had. There were differences of detail - some, such as Philo and Josephus, said he wrote every single word, while others, notably the Talmudic scholars and the Christian churchmen, thought that he wrote most of it but had not described his own death an burial. And a very few pointed out that the Torah occassionally describes things that didn't exist in Moses' day, such as kings in Israel, which suggested that someone much later had had a hand in it, but these opinions were the minority.
• In the 1600s this changed, and philosophers started suggesting that many parts of the Torah could not have been by Moses. For example, there's the repeated phrase saying that such-and-such exists "to this day," suggesting that "this day" is not the days of Moses. These questions became more and more widespread in northern Europe, but not in southern Europe, which was Catholic, and where the Church was much more onn guard against heresy.
• In the 1700s a new technique was developed for separating texts into component parts. It was applied first to the Classics - Homer and so on - in an effort to discover the real, original Homer (or Plato, or whatever was being studied). Then it was applied to the bible. By the end of the 1700s it was becoming accepted in scholarly circles in northern Europe that the Torah could be separated into 2 or 3 or 4 separate parts, which meant t had not been written by a single individual.
• In the 1800s this new technique - source criticism as we now call it - was developed still further, and the Torah was demonstrated to date from eras in the 1st millennium, later than that of Moses - it contains clear references to the doings described in Samuel and Kings and the Prophets. The idea of Mosaic authorship now became extremely rare in scholarly circles in Germany.
• The Catholic Church viewed this as heresy (so did a lot of Protestants), and so Pope Leo X issued an encyclical banning Catholic scholars from using the methods of source criticism. Instead they were told they must rely on tradition and the magesterium, which is the authority of the Church. And so you get your two quotes from 1906 and 1911, putting the Pope's program in place.
• In the 20th century yet more critical tools were developed - redaction criticism, form criticism, tradition history. The evidence that the Torah had been written over many centuries, and in the 1st millennium, became so overwhelming that the majority of scholars everywhere dropped the idea of Mosaic authorship. The Catholic Church accepted the inevitable in 1942 when Pope Pius issued his own encyclical on biblical scholarship, telling Catholic scholars that it was acceptable to use all these new tools. And that's the situation today - Catholic scholars use the same methods and techniques that all other scholars use.

And since those techniques have long ago produced convincing evidence that Moses did not write the Torah, no reputable scholar today says he did. You'll find a few people still arguing that he did, but not many, and all of them on the fringes - no mainstream scholar publishing in the peer-reviewed journals advances this idea today.

Look, I don't think we're getting very far, you're not convincing me of your position and I'm obviously not convincing you. Thank you for offering a compromise, and for being so courteous, but unfortunately intellectual integrity stops me from accepting. Would you like us to seek a mediator? I think the best way to do this, if you agree, is to jointly approach the admins. PiCo (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CoE biased propaganda

The History Channel said Henry VIII changed the Leviticus translations in the C of E, used in most of Christianity today, and therefore a lot of Leviticus is wrong, and invented by Henry VIII himself to make certain things, like sodomy illegal.

Or is this a lie? Are the History Channel liars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moving per logical requested move with unanimous support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Foreigner Laws

I just edited the sentence in the second paragraph which claimed that only one of the commandments in Leviticus (the one concerning offering children to Molech) was applied to resident foreigners. On the contrary, several laws in Leviticus were explicity applied to foreigners, including many of the prohibitions on eating blood (Leviticus 17.8, 17.13) and the sexual laws as well as Molech worship (Leviticus 18.26). I didn't see a need to provide scholarly support for this, given that it explicitly stated in the texts mentioned above, but if anyone finds it controversial I could do so. Demmeis (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The Book of Leviticus → Book of Leviticus — Wikipedia:TITLE#Avoid_definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_the_start_of_names. NeonMerlin 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - the definite article is not part of the name (nor is "Book of..." for that matter but I can live with that). PiCo (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - It makes absolutely no sense (I was actually about to 'be bold' and move the page myself before reading the talk page) --Fjmustak (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:The Book of Deuteronomy#Requested move for my supporting comments. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slavery and Homosexuality??

Where is the mention of slavery in this article? I think it's an important point that should be made open and clear. Especially to those who are trying to suppress this fact.

==

Yeah seriously someone needs to sort this out. Many sources refer to Leviticus when talking about the bible's many references and condonations of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.42.169 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

==

I also think the really interesting bits about Homosexuality in this book should be addressed to. It seems they are often quoted by fundamentalist types who are against it.

Xamian (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

==

I've been watching the constant back and forth of putting in that paragraph and then removing it and I have to say that I disagree with the paragraph being there. For one thing I read through the sources and neither one of them offer up proof for Leviticus being "well known" for its prohibition of homosexuality and its views on slavery. Because the sources do not point that out, the paragraph is wrong to claim that without proof. The sources only point out that Leviticus is known for these views by some, but they do not back up the claim of being "well known". The further problem is the strange view that homosexuality must be mentioned specifically. There is absolutely no basis for this view. I looked up the chapter that this article says contains Leviticus' views on sexuality and I found that the majority of it is filled with different prohibitions of incest, and only one verse in the chapter is dedicated to homosexuality. Now, one might be wondering why the article doesn't make mention of these views and I wouls answer that by saying that the article has adequate links to more specific articles that speak about Leviticus' view of sexual behavior. The article entitled Acharei discusses this, and it is linked to in this article. Finally, the view that the article says nothing about slavery is also wrong because the article clearly does. In this article, what we might call slavery is more correctly referred to as "debt servitude", and this is clearly the better way to refer to what Leviticus is referring to as the type of servitude that is referenced in Leviticus is different from what is normally referred to as slavery. That is why this article chooses to refer to it as "debt servitude", because the article is then in agreement with the majority of Ancient Near-Eastern scholars on this issue. I am going to revert the paragraph, but if anyone has any suggestions of a better way to appease both sides then I am open to suggestions.

Darth Vader7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Change to balance article

I have made some changes to make the article's historicity/authorship section more balanced. It has been extremely one sided.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Youre changes are towards adding what you call "conservative scholarship" to the section of the article that deals with the origin of the book. However, these ideas are not so much conservative as fringe - they're held by a very small minority. Wiki rules on undue balance seem to exclude them. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, if they are included at all, they must be clearly labeled as fringe. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of Leviticus

Under the section on dating/authorship the article says this: significant schools of thought argue either a pre-exilic, exilic, or post-exilic dating.Baruch A. Levine, "Leviticus: Its Literary History and Location in Biblical Literature, in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler (Brill, 2006), pp. 11–23 I've read the reference article and it says nothing like this, so far as I can see. Instead it's a long argument in favour of a date in the Persian period. (See, for example, pages 19 and 20, which talk about Persian terms in the Priestly source generally). Where does it say that there are these "significant schools of thought" for non-Persian dates?PiCo (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Covenant and Leviticus

Since the concept of covenant seems to be becoming important, I thought I'd just clarify: Leviticus is not in the form of, and is not, in itself, a covenant. It relates very strongly to a covenant, namely the Sinai covenant, but that's in Exodus. A covenant is an agreement, not just a set of laws - Party A (God) agrees to be the God of Israel, to give Israel the land of Canaan, and to lend Israel his strength; Party B (Israel) agrees to accept Yahweh as their god and to follow no other god (this is what "faithfulness" means in the OT context). The observance of laws are in order to preserve holiness, their not part of the covenant itself. See Wenham's commentary, page 29. PiCo (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but Christians refer to all of the 613 mitzvot as "Old Covenant Laws". They don't distinguish between "convenantal laws" and "levitical laws". 75.15.193.10 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to confess I'm not terribly clear on what Christians believe. I'd be surprised if Christians are even aware that there are 613 laws - surely that's more a Jewish thing? Maybe we could ask for some help? PiCo (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Boldly unprotected

OK? Everyone please be nice now. If another Admin (I don't mean me) comes along and finds edit warring here they might find a different solution, which would be a shame. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic POV cruft is removed from the lead

This material doesn't belong in the lead:

Leviticus is commonly cited 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.") and condoning slavery. ("Both your male and female slaves, whom you shall have")

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)

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)

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)

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. - MrX 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Actually, this is a very relevant article for discussing the oft-quoted verses 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. - MrX 21:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

There seems to be a continued desire to keep the section Homosexuality and slavery out of this article and I'm at a loss as to why. The article should examine the cultural impacts of this book not only when it was written, but also the interpretation, analysis and cultural impacts in modern times. I'm open to discussing perhaps placing the content elsewhere in the article, but as of now, placing it under the main heading Themes seems to be the most logical and appropriate choice. Or, perhaps it should be moved under Summary. - MrX 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• MrX, you are reading Leviticus using a 20th or 21st Century brain, when in fact, the Pentateuch portion of the Bible was probably written about 3,000 years ago, when people thought quite differently. What your reference of the word slave or homosexuality means to you, is not what the word would have meant to them. Unless you are a linguist familiar with the etymology of the word in Hebrew, it would be very challenging to try and package that for use on Wikipedia comparing a modern concept with an ancient one. Words as symbols have depth and dimensions that are usually no longer current for us, and to try and massage that into a theme commensurate with an encyclopedia, may be beyond the scope of Wikipedia...Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You have replied to a thread that is nine months old. If you continue reading this page, you will see that the editorial issue was resolved. My argument was not really based on the meaning of the words when they were written and I mostly agree with your points. My argument was about how Leviticus has, in modern times, been interpreted by some people or organizations to justify an adverse view of LGBT people. - MrX 13:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Article unprotected; material removed without further discussion

The article was recently unprotected again, and I'm sorry to say that my efforts to move this discussion forward seem to be failing. PiCo has again removed this sourced content, with the edit summary "Homosexuality and slavery are not themes of the book of Leviticus" PiCo. This is bare assertion, that is not founded in fact. Is the objection that is called a theme, rather than something else? I have proposed putting the content under a new section, but no one has responded to this proposal.

Our inclusion standards require that content be verifiable. This material more than meets that criteria. Please help me understand the valid reasons for suppressing this content. - MrX 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been gone over before, but once more now: The book of Leviticus is a theologically-oriented law-book, aimed at creating the rules that allow the tiny Jewish community to keep itself "pure" in an impure world. Separation and holiness are the overarching themes - separation from the world of the Canaanites (who were not the historical Canaanites, but simply everyone in Palestine who wasn't a Jew), and holiness (closeness to their concept of God). Homosexuality takes up, I think, a single verse. That's not a theme, it's entirely incidental. You need reliable sources to say this is a theme,and I don't think you'll find them. PiCo (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss this. Some of the other objections (above) to this material was specifically with regard to placing it in the lede, which has already been addressed. Perhaps shoehorning this content into the "Themes" section is also a bad editorial approach. I have made an alternative suggestion, to briefly summarize it in the Summary section. Do you object to this, or do you have yet another alternative to suggest?. Also, is it your conclusion the sources already presented are unreliable, or are otherwise inadequate? - MrX 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My problem with your edit is that singles out a single one of Leviticus' many prohibitions. If you want this mentioned, why not also mention that Leviticus prohibits good God-fearing Jews (and Christians?) from the following abominable practices:

• Boiling a goat in its mother's milk (were ancient Israelites really tempted to do this?)
• Eating fat.(Leviticus 3:17)
• Consulting a psychic or spiritualist.(Leviticus 19:31 - I have a certain sympathy for the Levites on this one, though I wouldn't go so far as to put the psychics to death, as demanded by Leviticus 20:27)
• Planting more than one kind of seed in a field.(Leviticus 19:19 - do you have roses and daisies together in your garden? Yahweh will get you for that!)
• Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth.(Leviticus 19:19 - are you wearing a nice polyester/cotton shirt right now? Thunderbolts are coming your way!)
• Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard.(Leviticus 19:27 - so long hair is in, as are straggly beards.)
• Tattoos.(Leviticus 19:28 - right on!)
• Being a female rape victim.(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - ok, so it's not Leviticus, but I just thought I'd mention it.)

The summary section is meant to be a summary of the book's contents, and I believe the homosexuality thing is mentioned there. It isn't a theme - Leviticus is book with a theological perspective, and the themes are all theological (which is true of all the biblical books). Possibly in the Christianity section, if you phrase it acceptably. PiCo (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

From the perspective of the Book of Leviticus' authors, homosexuality may have been regarded at the same level of importance as eating fat or cutting hair, but in today's world, the intersection of Leviticus and Homosexuality is very notable, largely because of how the bible is has been interpreted and used to justify discrimination against gay people.

For example, on HighBeam, there are 119 articles in magazines and journals that cover the subject, from publications such as Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Catholic Insight, New Oxford Review, Presbyterian Record, Theological Studies, Currents in Theology and Mission, Washington Jewish Week, The Ecumenical Review and Church & State to mention a few. On Questia, I found 143 books and on NewsBank I found more than 4000 newspaper articles.

It's irrefutable that the topic (Levitical homosexuality) is a major cultural/legal theme in the Book of Leviticus, and it is not limited to a Christian interpretation, so the suggestion to put this content in that section probably will not work. I think what would work is very brief mention in the Themes>Holiness section and then a subsection under Subsequent tradition with two to three paragraphs, and then a concise summary in the lede. There may even be enough content for a fork article. The guiding principle here is WP:DUE, summarized as "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." The modern cultural influence of Leviticus' proscriptions on homosexuality is a significant viewpoint, and this article can not be limited only to the contemporary theological viewpoint. - MrX 14:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. PiCo (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't think so...what? That's not a very convincing argument in light of the sources that I identified, and it certainly doesn't justify continually removing the content. Please help address the content issues collaboratively, rather than making dismissive statements and reverting other editors who happen to hold a different editorial view than you. - MrX 23:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't put forward any arguments at all to support the idea that homosexuality is a major part of the Book of Leviticus. The subject takes up just two verses, so I doubt you ever will. All the things you say are excellent arguments for mentioning those two verses in articles on current American controversies over sodomy, gay sex, sex education, gay marriage etc etc, but not for having it spill over into this article, which is about the book itself and it's Iron Age setting. By the way, the anti-gay agenda is almost exclusively American - the rest of the world is getting on with legalising gay marriage (except benighted places such as Uganda, where American evangelicals have managed to insert their agenda). PiCo (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My concern is not related to same sex marriage, LGBT rights or anything of the sort. My concern centers on the the large body of scholarly commentary about Leviticus being one of the few biblical texts that is so often quoted for its proscription of homosexual behavior. Although I concede it's a relatively small portion of Leviticus, it is supported by a significant number of sources that discuss the topic, and that is how we determine DUE weight.

The idea that the scope of this article is limited to the subject's iron age context is one that I considered, but the question is, should it be? WP:POVFORKs are usually discouraged. I think a next step may be to bring this to WP:NPOVN to get a few more eyes on it, and determine if omitting this content complies with our policy of neutral content. I'm willing to be swayed from my position, but it will take more that one or two involved editors, especially since there are at least a few other editors that share my concerns. - MrX 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have no concern with gender equality and gay rights - these are important issues, and I'd respect you more if you took an interest in them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if Leviticus is quoted in today's debates, then the mention of that fact should be in articles about today's debates. By all means take this to arbitration if you wish - though I don't think it's an NPOV issue. PiCo (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean that toungue-in-cheek or if you really believe that when I wrote "My concern is not related to same sex marriage, LGBT rights or anything of the sort" that I actually meant "I have no concern with' gender equality and gay rights". I will assume good faith though.

I'm not suggesting arbitration, which is a formal process for issues that can't be resolved by the community. I'm suggesting WP:NPOVN so we can get some outside opinions, and hopefully resolve this content dispute. - MrX 01:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at at the NPOV notice board here: Book of Leviticus. - MrX 03:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My comment about gender issues was quite serious. If you were wanting to put comment on the misuse, by their modern American counterparts, of an ancient and outdated text produced by what one eminent biblical scholar (N.P. Lemche) describes as a "tiny community of religious fanatics", I'd respect that immensely, even though I'd oppose it. Yes, I've seen and responded to the NPOV notice board. PiCo (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised this has been reverted back and forth so many times with so little modification. For instance, the statement that "Leviticus is commonly cited for...condoning slavery" is supported only by the Bible verse itself (WP:Primary), and the juxtaposition of slavery and homosexuality in the sentence seems like Synth as far as I can tell from reading the sources cited. That said, what would people think of this as a potential compromise? It's a single sentence about the homosexual relations placed in the "Uncleanliness and purity" subsection, since that already mentioned sexual relations. I also replaced the newsy bloggy sources that were just examples of the verses being cited with an actual scholarly source that directly supports the statement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't work in the context of the structure of the article - that subsection is about ritual purity and impurity as defined in a society that hasn't existed for over 2000 years (2nd temple Judaism); then suddenly you start talking about modern America. The only reasonable place is the section on Subsequent Tradition, which can plausibly handle contemporary "takes" on Leviticus. It could say something like: the laws of Leviticus still have currency in modern Orthodox Judaism (which they do - Orthodox Jews really do avoid eating lobsters, cutting their beards, etc etc), but not in Christianity; the sole exception being the contemporary appeal to Leviticus by ultra-conservative Christians in the US (not outside - it really is a US thing) to support their stance on homosexuality (but oddly they accept Leviticus for homosexuality only, and ignore the laws on mixing fabrics, marrying your dead brother's wife, etc etc). PiCo (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This content I believe should be in the page. It is one of the most used parts of the bible in modern media and culture, good or bad. It is more than notable and relevant to the page. I have no problem with it not being in the lead but to remove it entirely would be a NPOV issue. 216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality takes up just 2 verses of the book. Please explain why you think it deserves more attention than all the other verses. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Because (scroll up) it is notable as evidenced by abundant sources, which is how we determine appropriate DUE weight in articles. We don't let the subject itself determine this. - MrX 14:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@216.81, it is not one of the most used parts of the bible. I would leave that for the teachings of Jesus, including the Golden Rule, Sermon on the Mount, etc., or even the 10 Commandments.

@PiCo, so are you suggesting something like, "Though Christians generally reject other aspects of the Law of Moses, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are often cited in biblical arguments against homosexual relations." under the subsection on "Christianity"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been protected again, so we'll have to do those annoying edit requests now. Mr. X, what would you think of moving the new sentence down to the Christianity subsection? Do you have any suggestions on how it should be phrased? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the appropriate context for this material is broader than just Christianity, and even broader than Subsequent tradition. I think a new section, Modern interpretations (or similar) is probably a good way forward. It probably should also be very briefly mentioned under holiness, the overarching theme under which these verses are found. Whether or not it should be mentioned in the lede would depend on how much prominence it has in the overall article, but best case, only a word or two would be warranted in my opinion. - MrX 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: yes, that's the basic idea - it's a fact that Christians don't follow the Mosaic law, while Jews still do. American right-wing evangelicals invoke Leviticus on homosexuality, but nothing else (which is rather inconsistent). Your draft sentence looks about right but would need sourcing.

@Mr: The section is called "Subsequent tradition", but in fact deals with modern interpretations as well as the medieval period (the Talmudic interpretation that's mentioned). The two subsections Judaism and Christianity could be combined and replaced with subsections on early Christianity, Talmud and contemporary America, or simply written as separate paras withing one section (which might be preferable). Putting homosexuality explicitly in the Holiness section would give homosexuality much more attention than Leviticus itself gives it (i.e., undue weight). PiCo (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that it probably shouldn't live in the "Uncleanliness and purity" section, though it did seem to fit nicely at first, which is why I put it there. Short of creating a new "Modern interpretations" section (that's more long term) I suppose the next best place would be the "Subsequent tradition". For the short term, can we all agree to move it to the "Subsequent" section, at the end of the "Christianity" section, since I generally prefer not to have single-sentence sections? That, at least, will solve the present dispute (I think) and people can move on and expand the article in other areas as needed.

@PiCo, this would probably work as a source, though it's fairly blog-ish. (It was one of the sources on the disputed paragraph.) I could also live with dropping the subheadings in the "Subsequent tradition" section, since both subsections are very short.

@Mr. X, I'm having a hard time visualizing a mention in the current "Holiness" section. Do you have a suggestion for how it might be done? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at The Bible and homosexuality#Leviticus 18 and 20 you can get a better idea of how to integrate this content. Unfortunately, this article is heavily dependent on quotations, but I think we could add a sentence at the end of the holiness section, similar to what you wrote: "Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts." without it being too awkward. - MrX 01:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to add specific mention of just 2 verses to the Holiness section - it's explaining the Levitical notion of holiness (which was rather different to what we understand by that term today - holiness was a state of radical ritual separation from the world, not simple moral goodness), and that sentence just doesn't fit. Also, the sentence says that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 "have historically been interpreted" as a ban on homosexual acts, but there's nothing much to interpret - the penalty is death, which makes the intention pretty clear.

@Adjwilley, I don't think Patheos will work as a source, even though I agree with what it says about the evil of lobster-ophagy - I think you'll have religiously inclined editors coming and saying this is a wicked atheistic blog. There's some interesting material in Cyril Rodd's book, "Glimpses of a Strange Land", which is already in the article bibliography - Rodd is trying to explain that Judaism of the 5th century BC was an alien culture, and that we need to make an effort if we are to understand it (an effort that modern American right-wingers are not willing to make).PiCo (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to step forward incrementally. Because there is still disagreement over having the sentence in the "Holiness" section, but so far nobody has said anything against moving it to the "Subsequent" section, I have framed an edit request below to move it to the "Subsequent" section. I have marked the request as being answered just to make sure we can all agree on it before it goes live. Also, because it's a fairly complicated edit, I've made a mock-up in my sandbox here. I ended up dropping the subsection headings, and added a sentence of explanation as well. If there's something you want to change, please don't hesitate to edit my sandbox yourself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it looks very well-considered. I've made a revised version, while keeping your original so that the two can be compared. PiCo (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a positive step forward. Interest has also been expressed at the NPOV/N discussion about including a mention of slavery, but we can tackle that in a subsequent edit. - MrX 05:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll activate the request once PiCo and I work out a small disagreement in the sandbox. (I've left a message there.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I made a suggestion for the second piont and will leave the first to your discretion. PiCo (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I agree to the version linked by Adjwilley above (here). I'm unable to follow the subsequent edits as they seem to duplicate material, with added commentary. - MrX 14:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I had to put out some fires elsewhere, and then my laptop came unplugged. (It's old and slow and the battery only holds enough charge to run it for a few milliseconds...) Anyway, I have made some changes to my revision to accommodate what PiCo was saying. Most notably, I merged the two paragraphs in Judaism, dropping the last sentence of the 2nd, and I added the note about other prohibitions (e.g. shellfish) not being observed by Christians. There was also some explanation and rephrasing that happened, but nothing major that I can think of. I didn't make the changes that I didn't feel were supported by the source, because I'm not entirely comfortable with stating something in the article and then looking for a source to support what I said (kind of putting the cart before the horse). Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and activate the request now. Frankly I think it would be ok for the article to be unlocked now, as we have moved past the point of simple reverts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. We just need Mr's input now. You might consider pasting the new draft section in below, in total, to back up/clarify the edit request.PiCo (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is reasonably well-structured at this point. However, it is still unclear why the section on Subsequent Tradition requires special mention of homosexuality. That prohibition exists within a series of prohibitions on sexual behavior, such as incest and bestiality, which have been considered binding by Christianity since its inception. The distinction between portions of the Law and Old Testament in general that apply to Gentile Christians and those that do not are a significant topic of the New Testament. The directive given to Gentiles by the Apostles to "refrain from sexual immorality" is understood to mean all forms of sexual immorality as defined by the Old Testament. Furthermore, these verses in the book of Leviticus are hardly the only ones in the entire Bible that prohibit homosexuality and define it as sinful. The above discussion is full of ignorance of Jewish and Christian doctrine, and is marred by a narrow, modern-day socio-political agenda regarding homosexuality. MOst of that has been correctly excluded from the article, but the unique mention in the Subsequent Tradition section is still inappropriate weight. At a minimum, all of the sexual prohibitions of the text should be included as presently-binding "blanket prohibitions", not homosexuality alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.151.110 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the last sentence in the Uncleanliness and purity and add it to the end of the Subsequent tradition section with the modifications shown in this diff. Additionally, please remove the subheadings for Christianity and Judaism, and make the other changes shown in the diff (merging the first two paragraphs of the Judaism section, dropping the last sentence of the second, making some tweaks to the "Christianity" paragraph, and adding information about Christian views of the old covenant to the new paragraph at the end). These changes were discussed above, as well as in the sandbox where they were made. Otherwise, feel free to unlock the article, since we have moved beyond the stage of making simple reverts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley, perhaps you could make the consensus edit and then we can adjust from there. - MrX 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like a complicated edit request to get an article unlocked, eh? Thank you Dougweller. I've made the edit...it may still need tweaking, but for the present, let's all pretend like there's a 1RR restriction on the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the very last sentence in the article misrepresents what we want to say. It says: "However, in both Christianity and Judaism, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have historically been interpreted as clear blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts." I think what we really want to say is that these verses continue to be actively cited, and frequently, in arguments over legalisation of homosexual acts and equality in law for homosexuals. I leave that to others to amend if they agree.

Also, an anon isp is reinserting a subsection on homosexuality that we on the Talk page agreed not to have. I really do think it's time something was done about this person - I assume it's that same Homeland Security person. 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP and invited them to this discussion. I disagree with rewording the sentence about Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as it would be an understatement. The verses are also cited in churches, pamphlets, web sites, etc., by various organizations, which you learn more about here.

On a related note, we also need to incorporate the related material on slavery. Any ideas? - MrX 00:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the IP. Oddly that one geolocates to somewhere in western Canada. I did a quick Google search on slavery in Leviticus, and also slavery in the Old Testament, since I knew very little about the subject. Although a Google search is not the best way to find NPOV material, one thing I learned right off the bat was that the slavery in the Old Testament isn't anything like what the word slavery brings to mind these days. This is a pretty good read if you want to get an idea of how complicated the issue is. So is the article Christian views of slavery. In short, to copy a bit from the WP article, "The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."

Also, one of the first sites I stumbled onto was this, which surprised me because the slavery and homosexuality issues were being juxtaposed in a way similar to the disputed edit to say something along the lines of "If you use Leviticus to justify the hate of homosexuals, then you are a supporter of slavery." Obviously I'm not encouraging that we use that source (it seems to be a Christian apologetic site) and I don't think we should try to make the argument that if you believe such and such part of the Bible then you support slavery. (That kind of stuff is best left to blogs and forums IMO.)

I guess the question is, what do we want to say about slavery, and do we have a source? (The bit about slavery in the disputed edit was just sourced to the Bible.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP is an open proxy and reported as such. I did a poor job of articulating why slavery is notable. It is because of it's use as a counterargument for the prohibitions on homosexual acts. I also understand that slavery had a different connotation in that culture than now. I'm not going to pursue better sources for that though. Someone else can, if they feel strongly about that content. I only mentioned it becuase of the original disputed edit and the fact that several people at the NPOV/N discussion mentioned that it should be included. - MrX 02:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like many of the IPs, including the IP that first introduced the material, are from proxy servers in Canada. Weird. Let's see if they decide to use the talk page. If one is looking for counterarguments, the source on the new sentence has a few that are much better than the slavery one IMO. I'm not terribly interested in pursuing it myself though either, in part because it seems a bit Coatrack-ish to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)