This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I rather like the draft intro.Ark30inf
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. BL 23:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Or Old Testament views of women? Has the word testamentical ever been used before? Michael Hardy 00:02, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hemhem20X6 22:07. PST, Feb 15, 2006
Hem hem 16:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I do agree to that. Hem hem 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia is capable of accomplishing this: certainly an introduction
In the scripture known as the Old Testament to Christians, as the Torah to Jews and as the Qu'ran to Muslims
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. -- Someone else 00:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
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. BL 01:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
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 permits, which may not be very often. I will also try to look at Christian views of women. However I'm not a biblical scholar, especially Old Testament, so any other scholarly input would be appreciated. DJ Clayworth 18:14, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Nice work! I was the orginator of the article, but I must admit that the topic was way over my head. BL 02:30, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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. -- Someone else 02:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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:
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.
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 religious practice than the priests cared for. The presence of "Asherah" 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.
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?
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 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 The Book of J as his assertion is that the J document is written by a woman).
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 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. Dwmyers 15:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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.
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 as a
I don't understand why this is a separate article, rather than a section within the already-existing article Hebrew Bible.--Nycteacher 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The introduction reads like an essay, and is not easily verifiable. It needs to be amended. Rintrah 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
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 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. --Pigman 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 Wikipedia account without warning. Not a vandal, not anonymous. You may see my sig twice here. Pigman (talk • contribs) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC))
If after three years it still doesn't 'cut the mustard' then it is time for deletion. So nominated. Shir-El too 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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 modern day feminist Hebrew Bible scholar.
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 Modern Feminist Critique of the Hebrew Bible, 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. RainbowCrane | Talk 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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 core policies of neutrality and verifiability when you do so. --Darkwind (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)