Talk:Crime and punishment in the Torah/Archive 1

Well, it's a much better article after the last batch of edits, but the category of "atrocities" is and always will be inappropriate and POV. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the word atrocity is appropriate either. Perhaps the "Vengeance of Yahweh"? That translates (more or less) the Hebrew term for the exercise of Yahweh's political mandate in the earlier blessings/curses lists of the Old Testament. Fire Star 14:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we call it "The Wonderful Things God does, that we Doen't Understand Yet". On second thought, why don't we call it what it is, Atrocities of the Bible. Steve kap (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I disagree with some of the edits done by FiveStar.

• First, when discussing violence in Bible, one should assume that the Bible is true. The reason is very simple: truthfullness of the Bible is a topic very separate from the topic of violence and morality promoted by the Bible. In fact, if one doubts truthfullness of the Bible than morality of it almost becomes a non-issue. For this reason, I suggest to remove wording like "reportedly killed", "a story is told" and return to a more definite original wording "killed"

• 'what many Bible authors considered acceptable (see the documentary hypothesis of biblical authorship) and what some modern societies consider acceptable'. I think this statement was so watered down by the last edits that it became nearly meaningless: most (all) examples would not be acceptable in any modern society (even if, say, homosexuality is not legal in some, it's still not a capital offense. So I suggest to return to original wording : "Bible authors" (rather than "many Bible authors") and "any modern society" or at least "most modern societies", rather than "some modern societies"

• Finally, the Great Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah examples need at least some justification as to what's wrong with them from humanistic point of view.. The original article provided a justification, but it was deleted in recent edits... And I do think that mentioning that at least children were innocent is the simplest and most obvious justification.

Assuming the truthfulness of the Bible is POV. That is not Wikipedia policy. RickK 04:51, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, I did not mean to say that Bible is true. What I meant is that when writing about cruelty in Bible, it makes sense to write as if Bible events did happen.

Well, obviously assuming the truthfulness of the Bible is POV. But from a strict scholarly standpoint, both the moral justifications for "atrocities" and the atrocities themselves are fictional, or at least legendary. The question isn't one of truthfulness, but one of moral interpretation. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 05:07, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Greetings all,

To weigh in, what we are getting at here is also something that is covered somewhat at Documentary hypothesis. This article lists a series of grotesque, dramatic events (life hasn't changed much in 3,000 years, has it?) In the listing of these events in an article we should consider all sorts of explanations; humanist, academic, fundamentalist. The humanist POV relics that I edited out weren't an explanation of the events so much as a reaction to them.

If one assumes for argument that the stories are literally true, one is bound thereby to assume that the rest of the Bible is true, and since Yahweh is the supreme being in the context of the Bible, whatever is done by Yahweh is justified by definition and therefore cannot be murder, which is criminal killing.

Why are these stories told the way they are told? Do the translations that we have accurately translate the original Hebrew (or Greek)? Fundamentalists of many stripes insist their versions of the Bible are literally true, but scholars for years have pointed out that the Bible is a collection of stories from many different authors, some genuinely religious, some political. It seemed to me, based on the original article, that the intent of it was to point out what a horrible book the Bible is and, by extension, to cast an aspersion on any who believe in it, hence the votes for deletion. The first rewrite changed most of that, and my edits were in aid of getting rid of the last of the emotionally charged language along those lines and preparing for more expansion.

This is a BIG world that we live in, and my editing of the generalized statements of what "modern societies" would find objectionable is based on that. There are still more than a few societies in the world that are run quite similarly to some Bronze Age tribal and political societies (even technologically "advanced" societies). To say that the modern humanist POV is different from most late Bronze age POV is probably accurate, and I would welcome that perspective added, but to espouse humanist (or pagan, republican, freemason or communist) POV to show how savage the ancient Hebrews were isn't how to write an encyclopedia article. So, I changed "murdered" to "killed" and qualified the intros to the stories by mentioning that they are stories. I will be more explicit in future when it comes to pointing out theories of why the stories say what they say.

Cheers, Fire Star 13:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New name for this page

Atrocity can be defined as: 1. Enormous wickedness; extreme heinousness or cruelty. 2. An atrocious or extremely cruel deed.

Unless this is an article about the actual term "Bible atrocities" (I don't think so), we need to move this page to something more NPOV. Nothing I can come up with is any good, though, e.g.:

• Alleged Bible atrocities
• Incidents apparently endorsed by the Bible and which could be considered monstrous in Western culture

— Matt 14:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about

• Incidents of cruelty in the Bible?

One can judge "cruelty" somewhat objectively. This title avoids passing judgement on whether the cruelty was atrocious/heinous/wicked/immoral or justified. One might believe that God was perfectly right to repeatedly harden Pharoah's heart and then punish him for having a hard heart, or to punish Job for no apparent reason but curiosity, yet still acknowledge that these acts were cruel. Dpbsmith 16:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P. S. I understand completely that the article is about acts of cruelty that appear to have been performed by, ordered by, or approved by God. It's hard to put this in the title without making it long and clumsy. I'd suggest simply stating this as the topic at the start of the article. If people wanted to expand the article to include acts of cruelty _not_ authorized by God, e.g. Cain killing Abel, and, (do I recall this correctly?), Jael driving a nail into Sisera's head--separate sections could be created for divinely-authorized cruelty and divinely-unauthorized cruelty. Dpbsmith 16:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, but uncertain. Some of God's killings are attributed to his divine justice — punishment for crimes. Would imprisonment as a punishment be described as cruel? Well no, but I imagine that it depends on your POV. So is God's punishment cruel? Equally, it depends on your POV. — Matt 16:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Cruelty still seems pretty subjective to me. I mean, is it cruel to kill murders, rapists, and other criminals by gas, electrocution, firing squads, hanging, and lethal injection? I think so, but there are plenty of people who support capital punishment, and those people don't see it as cruelty, but as simple justice. Similarly, the majority of these "atrocities" would have seemed acceptable in their contexts and to the audiences for whom they were constructed. (I'm assuming the non-literal-truth-having-ness of the bible, me). Many of them are, in point of fact, instances of capital punishment in one sense or another; some are actual punishments by human authorities for transgressions against the divine law, and some are punishments by god, who is concieved in the Bible at many junctures as bearing the relationship to humanity (or Israel, depending) that a king bears to his vassals--i.e., a legal authority. So long as we don't call the article on "Capital punishment" "Cruel means of executing people in the United States", I don't think we should have an article on "Cruelty in the Bible".

Ultimately, the only unity this page can have is, really, as "A list of things in the Bible that are used by polemicists to make people feel squeamish and/or make Yahweh look bad." Subgroups might work: a page on genocide in the bible, a page on capital punishment in the bible, a page on assassination in the bible, etc. These would make sense as not-necessarily-POV semi-natural categories in a way that one page about "Bad things in the Bible" never will. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:52, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming that we're going to keep the page, and I think Bible atrocities is unacceptably tendentious. I understand -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ to be saying, correctly, that the word "cruelty" embodies a POV too, but I think it's better than "atrocities." Would

• Violence in the Bible

be any better?

I googled on Bible difficulties, suggested in the article, to see how it is understood by those who use the term, and I think it's too broad—includes apparent contradictions, etc. Plus it seems to carry an intrinsic POV because a "difficulty" can usually be surmounted (in this case, explained, justified). Still, it might do. We don't have an article on Bible difficulties under that name (though Wikipedia is so hard to search it's difficult to be sure). Perhaps we could break down Bible difficulties into parts, such as Bible difficulties: violence, Bible difficulties: contradictions, and either have one article with sections or one article for each subtopic? Dpbsmith 18:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::shrug:: Violence in the bible is fine, but it implies (and would I assume, come to include) something broader than has been discussed here previously--i.e., a general account of violence in the bible, without regard to whether it falls into a category of violence deprecated in modern society. With a suitable content overhaul, I wouldn't mind having such a page, but it might no longer meet with the original author's intentions... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, perhaps Vengeance of Yahweh? This would only be appropriate for acts which were by Yahweh or claimed to be at Yahweh's command. See the first line of psalm 94: ēl neqāmōt YHWH, ēl neqāmōt hôfi - with the NQM root in the sense of the legitimate exercise of coercive force or power. The line is translated as "O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself." There is a lot more which could be written on the issue, as it gets to the source of legitimacy Moses and his successors claimed to establish their new community in Canaan, "Israel," ca. 1200 BC. Fire Star 19:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Vengenace of Yahweh is appropriate. Punishment is not vengeance for one thing. Violence in the Bible is too broad; it would include rapes and beating (Good Samaritan anybody?).

I suggest the much simpler Death and Killing in the Bible. This is more restrictive, but should probably still include accounts of wars. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are passages that possibly belong in this article that do not involve death and killing. Tom Paine interprets Numbers 31:17-18 as a case where "[thirty-two thousand] women-children [were] consigned to debauchery by the order of Moses." The passage (KJV) is "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves," so in this case death and killing are also involved. That's one reason why I'd suggested the term "cruelty." Dpbsmith 02:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mortality and morbidity in the Bible? Just joking... Death and Killing in the Bible would certainly be better than what we have now. Fire Star 01:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vengeance of Yahweh sounds too much like an Indiana Jones sequel. And also probably isn't broad enough. And is POV. I think, amongst our choices so far, Violence in the Bible is the best, because it's too broad to precisely map to the current page. The current page's range of focus is a direct function of its POV, and it's going to be difficult if not impossible to go to NPOV without changing the range. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:25, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Vengeance" isn't a good translation of NQM, I agree, but it was the one the first translators used. "Redress" is a better term, but it is somewhat archaic now. The concept itself is a valuable one, why was Yahweh known to his earliest adherents as a "Man of War" (Exodus 15:3)? The Yahwist theology of "Holy War" (expounded in Judges 5, "The Song of Deborah") and all the disasters predicted in the Covenant Code (Exodus 21, 22 & 23) and Deuteronomy's blessings and curses formulae are issues which have shaped Judeo-Christian thought ever since, so an article on these issues can report why some modern scholars think the ancient Hebrews used the language they used and in what circumstances and how that language was subsequently recast by the various biblical "sources." I believe it can be done without the POV problems that plagued the first versions of this article (including the name). Cheers, Fire Star 17:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The current name is TOTALLY biased. Crime and Punishment? That's an explanation, a rationalisation, not a title! It asssumes that all of the Yahwa directed killing and rape was justified. I'm sure some people think that, fine, but thats POV. N-POV is just pointing out violent passages in the bible,letting the bible speak of itself, then allowing for explainations. The current title is like the famous "have you stopped beating your wife", it assumes facts not in evidence. This article is about biblical atrosities. They don't go away if we call them something else. If you don't like what's in the bible, fine, write your own, see if you can get it published and canonised. Until then, call as spade a spade!130.76.96.17 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Text

Why was the link to the Bible text deleted? One would think that it was the most relevant link for this topic?

I delete the link to the KJV text because we link both to the Wikipedia Bible article, and to a list of "atrocities" that are more relevant anyway; it seemed a redundancy. — Matt 16:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Record of Votes for Deletion

• POV, only mentions one so-called atrocity, extensive Bible quotes. RickK 23:58, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A discussion of of "Genocide in the Bible" might be able to pass muster, if someone wanted to write that, but "atrocity," is far too vague and value-laden a term to be functional in this context. On a side note, why on earth would you pick a passage prescribing the death penalty for heresy (a not-unheard of practice for any ancient culture) rather than one of the bits where god commands people to kill the entire population of a town or stone a child for being uppity? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It's certainly an interesting idea. I'd like to see it expanded and specified, maybe more like, instances of violence in the Bible. But as for now it can go. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand and write it properly! Mark Richards 02:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• At minimum it would need to be renamed. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 03:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Dang, and I was hoping for a real article. Not this mess. Kill it and allow the bits of the old article to soak nutrients into the soil for a new article to bloom come next spring. - Tεxτurε 03:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Such an interesting title and those were the only examples? Several more interesting ones come to mind. Oh, well. If someone wants to rename it and work on it, then keep. If it remains in current form, delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Ok, I'm the original "author", so my opinion is biased :-). Anyway, I think that for an article like this, it is a reasonable approach to just quote the bible with only some very minor analysis. The idea is to let the Bible speak for itself. An alternative style would be to provide extensive hyperlinking to some (external?) bible source. Would linking (rather than direct quoting) be better?..I agree that there are more spectacular examples of atrocities in Bible.. Still I think that urging to kill one's son or daughter for herecy is well within "Bible atrocities" topic..And I did expect that many more examples would be added..
  • Our problem with it is that it doesn't really seem to be an encyclopedia article per se. If it's a "list of biblical atrocities", well, having such an article is POV, and if it's an article, then it doesn't pass muster for lack of content. Some of this might be applicable at problem of evil. Meelar 05:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, having spent some time on the academic study of religion, I have to say that "atrocity" is pretty meaningless in this context. All it can amount to is "Something that offends modern moral sensibilities," and that's just a given when dealing with classical materials. Something like "Genocide in the Old Testament" (all my favorite "atrocities" would fit here) or "Violence in the Bible" (you could cram a lot of other stuff in this) would have some coherent meaning with practical reference, and I would support such a page. And of course, "atrocity" is clearly POV, passing a value judgment on ancient civilizations and making an implicit judgment on certain modern inheritors of those traditions. But in any case, wikipedia articles are, as has been pointed, not intended to be mere aggregations of source material that "speak for themselves". And BTW, in my experience when people say something "speaks for itself," it's often a way of hiding behind superficial shock value to avoid getting into the nitty-gritty complexity, ambiguity, and problematicity that are the marks of reality. The page clearly betrays a juvenile and shallow approach to the study of historical religion that is lamentable. This is an interesting and rich subject that deserves to be taken seriously. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 07:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The Bible isn't a person and can't form the intent to incite someone to murder as this article implies. Blatant POV. If someone wants to discuss specific issues of apostasy or Imperialism in the Bible there are other articles for this. See Documentary hypothesis. Fire Star 14:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the last comment. The article does not imply anything: it gives examples of the Bible prescribing to murder under numerous circumstances. And I don't see any significant relationship with either apostasy ot Imperialism topics.
  • My comment about the Bible not being a person was based on this line (no longer in the article): "There are many places in Bible where it urges believers to commit attrocities or where biblical heroes or even God himself commit attrocites." The rewrite is a big improvement, and I will contribute a bit to the article over time. Fire Star 19:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)"
• Comment. The article was completely rewriten on 6/11/04. Some of the concerns above were adressed (many more examples, less quoting, and, I think, better organized and less POVish).
• Keep rewritten article if and only if the article is renamed. -Sean Curtin 02:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT: No consensus to delete (strong suggestions to rename) DJ Clayworth 19:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)