534:
not sure archeology supports this as much anymore, but it can be mentioned) and then internal and external evidence that polytheism was alive and well in Israel, at least through the reign of King Josiah, should be mentioned as well. With these kinds of details as background, then we can describe the views of the Old
Testament with regards to women (and a reference does need to be made to Harold Bloom's work in
212:
view, rather than contradicting itself, and secondly, what that view (or rather, those views) might be. This can only be accomplished neutrally by attributing points of view, rather than by "winging it" by picking out random quotes and depicting them as exemplars of a single "view". Somehow I don't think
Knowledge (XXG) is capable of accomplishing this: certainly an introduction
21:
503:" icons and statements like "Yahweh and his Asherah" show that the time and place of the Old Testament was one of cultural pluralism; the reason we place so much emphasis on the one point of view depicted in the Old Testament is that the priests "won" the war of history, so to speak. Their views survived.
533:
If it's more historical than pure narrative interpretation, then we should talk about the
Canaanite religion of the area and how they treat women, we perhaps should include the views of some feminist scholars that Israelis had attitudes more in line with the "iron bearing invaders" of the region (I'm
423:
I've attempted to improve the very first section, (while accidentally masquerading as 207.236.234.180), largely by removing the references to Lilith (who is not a feature of the Old
Testament), and adding in a much more significant reference in Genesis. I will try to improve further sections as time
373:
The article is very far from
Knowledge (XXG) standards at the moment and at least one of its authors (I didn't check the history) really does not know what he/she is talking about. However, I would have thought that this is cause for fixing the article rather than deleting it. There are issues here
230:
The hope is that a Jew and a Muslim will come around and replace Torah and Qu'ran with the exact title they refer the Old
Testament with. :-) I think the quotes are a good starting point and you don't have to look hard to find literally thousands of different interpretations for each and every quote.
665:
As written this article presumes a certain view of women is inherent in the Hebrew Bible, versus the meaning overlaid on the text by various hermeneutics. For example, the interpretation of the Adam/Eve creation story would likely be very different for an early Talmud scholar than it would be for a
554:
My intention was to write an article explaining what the OT said about the role and status of women, surrounding it with as much historical context as necessary to understand what is said, and try to say something the mind-set that contemporary readers would bring. I was forced to treat the document
541:
If the focus is the narrative view of the Old
Testament, then we can normalize it by talking about the caveats, pointing out that the Old Testament does have a point of view and that perhaps it is not the sole view of the inhabitants of Palestine of the time. In other words, build the background and
529:
So let me ask: do we want to talk about the place and views of women as expressed by this document, by possible deconstructions of this document, or is this a history piece of the region using the Old
Testament as one of the tools to describe the role and place of women in ancient Israel and Judah?
476:
As an example, note that the stories about Eve in the creation sequence in
Genesis play a much larger role in the Christian world than they do in the Jewish world. Judiasm does not extract the same theological implications from these narratives that Christianity does, and does not give them the same
265:
for your
Judaism question. As I said above I rather doubt that compiling Bible verses with interpretations by Wikipedians is going to result in a decent article here: until that decent article arises, proving me wrong, I think it's only fair to note the factual and methodological errors in a warning
211:
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be theorizing about or reconstructing an "Old Testament" view of women, it should be quoting people who done so, and quoting them non-selectively. Imposing "a" unitary view on a Scripture is imposing a point of view: first, the point of view that that Scripture has a single
518:
To be blunt Ricky, if all the Judeo-Pagans are as egoistic about their new catch-phrase as you are, the only way I'll encounter one is if I have to gun the son of a biscuit eater down for tresspassing. It's nice you think you invented the study of Canaanite history. I'm really "impressed". I guess
260:
Followers of Islam are perfectly content to refer to "The Bible". The "distinction" between testaments is not terribly important to them, but they are also perfectly content to refer (in English, anyway), to the "Old Testament" when the need for a distinction arises. But it ain't the Koran, and it
239:
There are significant commonalities between Torah and the Christian Old Testament; the Koran is a completely separate book. This is like saying "the city known as Constantinople to the Greeks, Istanbul to the Turks, and Marseilles to the French." Furthermore, someone who calls it Torah and someone
712:
The article has been turned into a stub to remove as much of the original research and POV problems as possible, in accordance with the comments on this talk page over the past 2 months or so, as well as the comments in the AfD discussion. Feel free to expand the article, but please stick to the
188:
Agree that "Old Testament" is a POV-biased title and using "Hebrew Bible" may be more appropriate than a Hebrew term as the main title for a NPOV English edition of Knowledge (XXG). "Tanakh" and "Old Testament" could be used as synonyms to aid searches as long as there is language clarifying that
601:
I'm tempted to put this article up for deletion, no offence to all who have worked on it. The entire text is more interpretive than reference oriented. As others have noted, it is significantly biased in POV, detail, and even the entry title. So much so that I can't even get a handle on where to
172:
page. Using "Hebrew Bible" would eliminate both both the bias of referring to it as "Old Testament" and the bias of referring to it as "Tanakh". I'm not convinced the bias is major enough to require action, but that solution is probably better than changing to a different bias. The remaining
498:
The problem is that the priests who wrote the Old Testament were not normative in their behavior or their writings, as least from the time we can find archeological evidence of the Israelis. They were the extreme edge of a monotheistic strain of religion in an area that was more pluralistic in
602:
begin to correct it. I originally came to the page to do copy-editing but was discouraged from attempting it because of basic faults I see in it. It is entirely original research as well. I'm putting it on my watchlist and will try to come back to it. Sorry to be such a downer. --
488:
DJ, thanks for the invite here, I've taken a look at the article and I have to ask, what is it we (Wiki writers) wish to accomplish here? I ask this because from the start we have an issue, and that is, the thesis of this article is, in my view, incorrect. To quote:
222:
that appears to think that the Qu'ran and the Old Testament are identical, that the Tanakh and the Torah are identical, that the Torah and the Old Testament are identical, and that the Torah and the Qu'ran are identical, does not bode well for the endeavor. --
542:
then launch into the story of the OT's view of women. I think by doing so we can get closer to a neutral POV. The background can keep historians and mythologists happy and the narrative middle can deal with the orthodox interpretation of the OT narrative.
279:
Think of it like this way, you have an article called "Current Jewish attitudes towards Palestinians" then "Current Jewish attitudes towards women" then "Jewish attitudes towards woman as they were 2500 years ago" and you have this article.
86:
Christian attitudes toward women are informed by more than just the OT. I think you should decide whether the piece is to be about OT attitudes, or current Christian attitudes, and title the article accordingly. Or write two articles. --
312:
Such articles are a dime a dozen. See xxx and anti-Semitism etc, etc. And there's alot written about what the Old Testament says about women. And in this case "X" consists of only about 1000 pages so there is no need to be selective.
493:
This article concerns the laws, customs and practices described in the Old Testament regarding women. These formed the norm of Jewish society from around the time of the Exodus to around the destruction of the second temple in 70CE.
455:
There's been improvement, but it's still not neutral and it's still methologically flawed, with little reference to scholars, preferring the interpretaions of anonymous writers. So let's keep the warning up a little longer. --
75:
Thanks. I think Attitudes... is an ok name but we want to capture the views of the authors of the Old Testament's books AND how those same views have been read by various Christian groups and so on. Naming this one is hard.
606:
21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (Argh! Since I got a satellite hookup a couple of days ago, I keep getting signed out of my Knowledge (XXG) account without warning. Not a vandal, not anonymous. You may see my sig twice here.
266:
at the head of it. The "story" of Lilith by the way doesn't appear in the Bible, the Old Testament, the Torah, the apocrypha, or the Tanakh. It's a medieval legend based on a midrashic elaboration on Isaiah 34:14. --
550:
Thanks for coming here Dwmyers. I don't myself have a definite idea of what should go here. I got involved because the original article was just a collection of out-of-context quotes, plus some stuff about Lilith.
669:
I suspect this article was originally conceived as a place to provide information on modern, feminist-friendly critiques of the Hebrew Bible. If that's the case I suggest renaming it to something like
31:
674:, which is a much more managable scope for an article than attempting to critique the Hebrew Bible from all perspectives. Also, that modified scope seems appropriate for an encyclopedia.
519:
people like Alt and Wellhausen, Friedman and Campbell never existed. And Frank Cross, who actually reads the languages and works at a joint called Harvard, I guess he doesn't count either.
295:
Such articles, if they were to exist, would very likely be worthless. Choices on what to include in an article called ""X" views on "Y"' are very, very, very, very, very subjective. --
381:
There's nothing salvagable here, as far as I can see. If there is an article worth having on this subject, it's more likely arrived at from a blank slate than from this mess. --
412:- This is the Old Testament's view. Knowledge (XXG) should try and make things as NPOV as possible, but it's no use rewriting history to do so. -Adrian.
507:
There are those that are currently striving to revive those other views, because some of those people think that those views have merit. Ever heard of
477:
level of influence. There is no single view of these narratives common to Judaism and Christianity, and there of course many viewpoints within each. --
249:
So what is the Old Testament in Islam and Judaism? I can't believe it's called the "Old Testament" by them - it would be way to simple. :-)
366:, mentioned above, with which it shares numerous factual errors. Shows little promise of ever being anything but a point-of-view essay. --
168:
as a term that covers the commonality of Tanakh and the Old Testament while avoiding sectarian bias." A similar note is at the top of the
632:
618:
692:
move yourself. I'd advise against colons to denote qualifiers in the title - parentheses are better, per our naming conventions.
359:
63:
348:
355:
27:
428:. However I'm not a biblical scholar, especially Old Testament, so any other scholarly input would be appreciated.
391:
52:
425:
363:
558:
I don't understand why this is a separate article, rather than a section within the already-existing article
217:
In the scripture known as the Old Testament to Christians, as the Torah to Jews and as the Qu'ran to Muslims
688:
There was no consensus to move this page through the discussion you initiated, but you might want to try a
679:
628:
614:
241:
563:
447:
Nice work! I was the orginator of the article, but I must admit that the topic was way over my head.
20:
726:
696:
106:
675:
478:
468:
457:
440:
429:
382:
367:
333:
296:
267:
224:
190:
689:
448:
314:
281:
250:
232:
77:
652:
622:
608:
603:
576:
The introduction reads like an essay, and is not easily verifiable. It needs to be amended.
402:
202:
149:
138:
439:
First draft done. Feedback welcome. I was also bold enough to remove the dispute notice.
730:
701:
682:
655:
636:
590:
580:
566:
481:
205:
193:
177:
152:
508:
395:
718:
714:
189:
these terms represent distinctively Jewish/Christian (respectively) points of view. --
722:
693:
512:
375:
169:
45:
587:
577:
559:
543:
520:
174:
113:
124:
88:
67:
401:
Keep, I think. This at least has the potential of being a workable title. --
408:
I think the trouble here is that trying to make a NPOV article. This is not
134:
Why even call it the "Old Testament"? This is, at the most basic, biased.
500:
651:
doesn't 'cut the mustard' then it is time for deletion. So nominated.
262:
161:
240:
who calls it the Old Testament are looking at it very differently.
538:
as his assertion is that the J document is written by a woman).
424:
permits, which may not be very often. I will also try to look at
499:
religious practice than the priests cared for. The presence of "
15:
467:
What is it about the article you think is not neutral?
643:I agree with Pigman, Someone else and Dwmyers...
332:Yup, a dime a dozen. And over-priced at that.--
145:Why not call it: The ((Tanakh))'s veiw on women?
661:Separating "Hebrew Bible" from Interpretation
164:page contains the text "some scholars prefer
8:
672:Modern Feminist Critique of the Hebrew Bible
374:there are not properly covered elsewhere. --
64:Attitudes toward women in the Old Testament
666:modern day feminist Hebrew Bible scholar.
586:Actually, nevermind. I need to go to bed.
511:? I'll bet you a buck or two you haven't.
55:(ie, is testamentical even an adjective??)
26:This article was previously nominated for
7:
390:Keep. Comprare with the history of
362:: not improved by being moved from
14:
360:Old Testamentical views of women
19:
656:13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
394:- it'll get there eventually.
173:question - would it be found?
44:I rather like the draft intro.
1:
153:16:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
731:00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
702:11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
683:19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
637:21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
591:19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
581:19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
356:Old Testament views on women
99:Old Testament views of women
746:
567:20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
482:05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
194:05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
178:02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
53:women in the Old Testament
546:15:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
515:18:19, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
392:Jews in the New Testament
378:07:45, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
370:06:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
235:01:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
227:00:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
141:22:07. PST, Feb 15, 2006
123:That is no authority. --
109:00:02, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
80:23:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
647:If after three years it
523:18:21, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
460:02:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
451:02:30, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
432:18:14, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
426:Christian views of women
405:20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
398:18:16, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
385:08:08, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
364:Christian views of women
336:08:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
317:08:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
299:08:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
284:07:57, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
270:04:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
253:04:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
244:01:16, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
206:09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
127:14:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
91:14:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
62:Too general. How about
471:18:03, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
443:03:51, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
261:ain't the Qu'ran. See
105:ever been used before?
219:
215:
201:I do agree to that.
721:when you do so. --
419:Attempt to improve
713:core policies of
51:Title? How about
42:
41:
737:
699:
242:Vicki Rosenzweig
101:? Has the word
30:. The result of
23:
16:
745:
744:
740:
739:
738:
736:
735:
734:
710:
697:
663:
645:
599:
574:
421:
352:
12:
11:
5:
743:
741:
709:
706:
705:
704:
662:
659:
644:
641:
598:
595:
594:
593:
573:
570:
549:
527:
526:
525:
524:
509:Judeo-Paganism
486:
485:
484:
473:
472:
463:
454:
445:
444:
435:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
406:
399:
388:
387:
386:
351:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
288:
287:
286:
285:
274:
273:
272:
271:
255:
254:
246:
245:
209:
199:
198:
197:
196:
183:
182:
181:
180:
147:
146:
136:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
118:
117:
95:
94:
93:
92:
73:
72:
71:
70:
57:
56:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
742:
733:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:verifiability
716:
707:
703:
700:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
667:
660:
658:
657:
654:
650:
642:
640:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
620:
616:
612:
611:
605:
596:
592:
589:
585:
584:
583:
582:
579:
571:
569:
568:
565:
561:
556:
552:
547:
545:
539:
537:
536:The Book of J
531:
522:
517:
516:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
502:
496:
495:
490:
483:
480:
475:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
461:
459:
452:
450:
442:
438:
437:
436:
433:
431:
427:
418:
411:
407:
404:
400:
397:
393:
389:
384:
380:
379:
377:
372:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
350:
346:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
283:
278:
277:
276:
275:
269:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
247:
243:
238:
237:
236:
234:
228:
226:
220:
218:
213:
208:
207:
204:
195:
192:
187:
186:
185:
184:
179:
176:
171:
170:Old Testament
167:
163:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
151:
144:
143:
142:
140:
133:
132:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
108:
107:Michael Hardy
104:
103:testamentical
100:
90:
85:
84:
83:
82:
81:
79:
69:
65:
61:
60:
59:
58:
54:
50:
49:
48:
47:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
711:
676:RainbowCrane
671:
668:
664:
648:
646:
623:
609:
600:
575:
572:introduction
560:Hebrew Bible
557:
553:
548:
540:
535:
532:
528:
497:
492:
491:
487:
479:Shirahadasha
469:DJ Clayworth
462:
458:Someone else
453:
446:
441:DJ Clayworth
434:
430:DJ Clayworth
422:
409:
383:Someone else
368:Someone else
334:Someone else
297:Someone else
268:Someone else
229:
225:Someone else
221:
216:
214:
210:
200:
191:Shirahadasha
166:Hebrew Bible
165:
148:
137:
102:
98:
96:
74:
43:
35:
653:Shir-El too
597:What a Mess
715:neutrality
564:Nycteacher
139:Hemhem20X6
116:- 38 times
723:Darkwind
694:Dekimasu
633:contribs
619:contribs
513:Rickyrab
46:Ark30inf
28:deletion
708:Stubbed
690:WP:BOLD
588:Rintrah
578:Rintrah
544:Dwmyers
521:Dwmyers
501:Asherah
203:Hem hem
175:GRBerry
150:Hem hem
624:Pigman
610:Pigman
604:Pigman
396:Martin
263:Tanakh
162:Tanakh
114:google
649:still
555:as a
347:From
125:Daran
89:Daran
68:Daran
66:? --
727:talk
717:and
680:Talk
629:talk
621:) --
615:talk
410:NPOV
403:Jake
376:zero
160:The
36:keep
34:was
562:.--
349:VfD
97:Or
729:)
698:よ!
678:|
639:)
635:)
631:•
617:•
449:BL
358:,
315:BL
282:BL
251:BL
233:BL
78:BL
725:(
627:(
613:(
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
