Ethics in the Hebrew Bible Methodology: Premises of This Essay

1 Ethics in the Hebrew Bible Rimon Kasher Methodology: Premises of This Essay This essay will deal mainly with aspects of human behavior, yet will also touch on aspects of ethics related to God’s attitude toward humans. The essay will present various Scriptural data as well as evaluate them. The essay overall will not deal with the question of the contemporary relevance of Scriptural morals, mainly because we adhere to the cultural relativistic approach (see relativism, moral), which emphasizes the gaps between various cultures in general, and the differing ethical standards between the ancient world and the modern world. At the same time, in the list of references, we refer to several important studies that discuss the question of relevance. Is Ethics in the Hebrew Bible Presented as a Separate Category? In the collections of laws in the Pentateuch, topics of ethics are integrated with topics of religion, ritual, and cultic practice. Thus, Leviticus 19:3 opens with the double command: “You shall each revere his mother and his father, and keep My shabbaths,” i.e., first an ethical directive, and then a directive from the ritual sphere. Further on in the chapter, various laws are also textually combined (e.g., verses 31–2). In the Ten Commandments as well (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5), the two types of commands – religious and ethical – appear side by side, albeit not in alternating order. This combining of commandments from differing spheres, with no clear distinction, may lead us to conclude that ethics in the Hebrew Bible do not constitute an independent and separate category (Goldingay 1981: 64). This conclusion is certainly correct regarding Leviticus 19. Yet one can find in the Hebrew Bible evidence of a separate status for ethics, particularly in the Prophetic literature. So, for example, Hosea 6:6 declares, “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice” (see also Isaiah 1:11–17, 58; Amos 5:15; Zechariah 7:9–12). What Is the Basis of Ethics? All Torah laws are presented as deriving from God, whether unmediated, as with the Ten Commandments, or via Moses (and occasionally Aaron) as agent. It is therefore certainly possible to see therein clear expression of a heteronomic/theonomic ethical approach. Similarly, the words of ethics that are stated by the prophets are uttered in the name of God – rendering them evidence of a heteronomic approach as well (see deontology). The Wisdom literature is to all appearances divided on the question of the basis of ethics. On the one hand, we find in Proverbs the approach according to which the The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Edited by Hugh LaFollette, print pages 1748–1759. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/ 9781444367072.wbiee073 2 source of wisdom is human, and the wise calls upon his “son” (biological and/or pupil) to hearken to his words (Proverbs 1:8), referring to them as “my teaching,” “my commandments” (e.g., Proverbs 2:1, 3:1, 4:2). The first collection of Proverbs (chapters 1–9) perceives wisdom as having been created by God (Proverbs 8:22–36), and thus teaches that the source of ethics is Divine wisdom. In contrast, in other collections in Proverbs (for example, 10: 1–22:16; 22:17–24:22; 24:23–34), the claim that the source of wisdom is God is absent. The third collection (22:17–24:22) is partially parallel to the Egyptian book of proverbs Amenemopet, wherefore we can deduce that we have before us indirect evidence of attribution of ethical instructions to mortal sages. This deduction derives reinforcement from the collections at the end of Proverbs, some of which are attributed to non-Israelite sages (Proverbs 30:1–14; 31:1–9). The inclusion of the words of non-Israelite sages in Proverbs is evidence of the autonomic ethical approach (see autonomy of ethics), which is not rooted in Divine revelation. From various writings, the possibility emerges of a conception of ethics as natural law, or as Rogerson (2004: 16) terms it, natural morality. This approach is based not on Divine revelation to humans, and not on the fruits of human wisdom, but rather on “a moral consensus common to sensitive and thoughtful people” or “sensitivity to justice” (Rogerson 2004: 16). Thus, for example, the Flood narrative in Genesis (chapters 6–9) rests on the premise that the Flood generation deviated from the upright way (Genesis 6:1–8, 11–13). The narrative of the taking of Sarah to the house of Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Genesis 12:10–20) describes Pharaoh as finding fault with Abra(ha)m, claiming that if he had known that Sarah was a married woman, he would not have taken her (Genesis 12:18–19; see also the parallel stories in Genesis 20:1–18; 26:6–11). Thus, Prophetic admonitions regarding gentiles’ wrong-doing in one’s house (such as the corruption of Nineveh, Jonah 3:8), or wrong-doing in international relations (Amos 1:3–2:3) are based on the conception of natural law as well (Barton 2003: 112–14). The Motivations for Moral Commands and Admonitions Arguments for ethical commands and admonitions can be classified theologically in two ways: (1) theocentric arguments, which elucidate the moral directives in the context of a proper relationship with God; (2) anthropocentric arguments, which elucidate the moral directives regarding relationships between people (on the motivations in ethics, see Malchow 1996). Theocentric arguments Obedience to the Lord Many of the commandments in Leviticus 19 end with the phrase “I am the Lord”/“I the Lord am your God” (such as verses 3, 10, 14). It appears that the role of this wording is to create a relationship between the commandment and the carrying out thereof. It may be that the key to this linkage of wording lies in verse 36: “I the Lord am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt” meaning: “The obligation to perform God’s commandments stems not only from God’s essence … but also 3 from Israel’s status as God’s servants, who are obligated to serve Him” (Schwartz 1999: 277), being a part of the covenant with God. Reward and punishment The obligation to obey is occasionally accompanied by a promise of reward or a warning of punishment. So, for example, in Exodus 22:20–3 the Israelite is admonished against exploiting the weak, the stranger, the widow, or the orphan, as such exploitation is liable to lead to a negative reaction on the part of God. In Deuteronomy 15:10 the law promises that whoever stands by the poor during the Sabbatical year when debts are canceled, will be rewarded (see also Proverbs 11:24– 5; 22:22–3). Imitatio Dei = Imitation of God The question of the status of the notion of Imitatio Dei in the Hebrew Bible is disputed among modern scholars: There are those who see therein the basis for many ethical directives, while others deemphasize it (on the various opinions, see Houston 2007; Kasher 2012). Biblical texts that speak explicitly of Imitatio Dei are few; an (almost) explicit instance is Deuteronomy 10:17–19: “For the Lord your God … love the stranger … You too must love the stranger.” Other examples which reflect the Imitatio Dei approach are concerned with the holiness of the Israelites. In Leviticus, the command to be holy because God is holy is mentioned several times (11:44–5; 19:2; 20:26).This is not concerned with Imitatio Dei literally, but rather with the theoretical outlook regarding Israel’s status compared to that of God – “holy” in Hebrew means apart. Just as God is apart from the world, it is incumbent upon Israel to set itself apart from the nations. The notion of emulating God could also emerge from Deuteronomy (and only therein), which directs Israel to walk in the ways of God (e.g., 8:6; 10:12). Honoring God According to Proverbs 14:31, whoever aids the poor is honoring God, and vice versa; i.e., whoever harasses a poor person curses God. Similarly, Proverbs 17:5 states: “He who mocks the poor affronts his Maker.” Anthropocentric arguments Humanitarianism In Leviticus 19:33–4, loving the stranger has two motives. The first motive – “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (as well as Exodus 22:20, 23:9, and Deuteronomy 10:19) – obligates the Israelite to relate to strangers in a humane way, and to demonstrate solidarity with those vulnerable to exploitation and oppression (see also Exodus 23:9). The explanation for keeping the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy (5:14) has also a humanitarian cast, as it demands granting rest to those with fewer rights, “your male or female slave … your ox or your ass … or your stranger” (see humanitarian intervention). 4 Altruism If we define altruism as an unselfish interest in helping others, we will then find that the lion’s share of ethical laws actually are motivated by altruism (see altruism and biology). Indeed, the ethical laws are intended first and foremost to benefit one’s fellow as an individual, and as a part of society overall. Wordings of the way of altruism are nearly nonexistent in the Hebrew Bible. A rare example of altruism are the laws prohibiting earning interest off a fellow Israelite (Exodus 22:24; Leviticus 25:35–7; Deuteronomy 23:20), as well as the law obligating moratorium of debts (Deuteronomy 15:1–2). Particularly worthy of note is the law mentioned in Deuteronomy 15:7–11 that obligates an Israelite to loan money to the poor, and to demonstrate especial generosity leading up to the Sabbatical year, although the lender loses his money (Houston 2006: 184). Equality The explanation for the prohibition on murder is found in Genesis 9:6 in the fact that humans – all humans, drawing no distinction between them – were created “in God’s image” (see also Genesis 1:26–7). Job explains his relationship to his slaves such that God created both he and his slaves in identical fashion (Job 31:15). According to the law of the Jubilee year in Leviticus 25:10–13, estates are restored to their original owners every 49/50 years, and equality prevails between all Israelites, as everyone holds the land (see egalitarianism). Utilitarianism In many parts of Proverbs, admonitions or advice are argued based on the results of observance. Response to the advice of a sage brings about practical benefit. It seems that the admonitions in Proverbs are mostly directed at youngsters training for jobs in the royal court, such as advisors or scribes, which apparently explains the use of utilitarian arguments that are directed more at individual success than they are at the benefit of the society at large (see utilitarianism). Here are some examples from Proverbs that emphasize the consequences of individual deeds: “He who spurns pledging shall be secure” (11:15); “He who pursues illgotten gain makes trouble for his household; he who spurns gifts will live long” (15:27). The Principles of Ethics The principles of ethics in the Hebrew Bible are presented in various ways: by means of lists of obligations and behaviors; by means of drawing sweeping conclusions via generalization from the individual laws and commands. Another way is by means of literary analyzing narratives. Principles transmitted by lists The biblical books contain a number of lists that include certain statements, some of which are delivered to the entire congregation, such as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21), Leviticus 19:3–12, and the list of curses in 5 Deuteronomy 27:15–26. Others are directed at the individual, such as Leviticus 19:13–18. Besides, there is a description of the righteous in Ezekiel 18:5–9, Job’s testimony of his deeds (Job 31), and the behavioral requirements of those coming to the Temple (Psalms 15; 24:3–4; Isaiah 33:14–16). If we take Job’s words (Job 31) as an example, we can find expressed several fundamental ethical principles, such as avoiding sexual temptation (verse 1); refraining from cheating (5); an egalitarian approach to all (15); refraining from gloating (29–30); and guarding the environment (38–9) (Fohrer 1974). Ethical principles as per overall conclusions drawn from individual laws A clear example of such is the interesting attempt to rest the laws in Deuteronomy (12–26) on the Ten Commandments, and thus to see the Ten Commandments as a certain declaration of intent or constitution (Kaufman 1978–9). Another fine example is from Kaufmann (1960: 316–40), who lists nine elements on which the laws of the Torah rest: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● the sanctity of life freedom and slavery marriage and sex the sanctity of the spoken word the sanctity of property justice and righteousness reverence to those with status love and compassion the laws concerning the poor Ethical precepts as per an individual literary analysis: The Book of Samuel In his commentary on the Books of Samuel, Bar-Efrat (2007–9) argues more than once on behalf of ethical precepts as expressed by Samuel’s author(s). Here are some examples: leaders (such as Eli’s sons) who abuse their positions are punished and even replaced (1 Samuel 2–4); in cases of threat to life, saving the life takes precedence over the prohibitions on lying and honoring one’s father (1 Samuel 19); true friendship and human decency take precedence over considerations of personal benefit and gaining power (Jonathan’s behavior toward David, 1 Samuel 20); the dictates of conscience defying the carrying out of a nefarious order (Saul’s minions refusing to slaughter the priests of Nob in 1 Samuel 22). The Scale of Ethical Values Perusal of the above sections, which discuss arguments for moral behavior and ethical precepts in the Hebrew Bible, leads us to a hierarchy of the most important. There follow some prominent examples. 6 In three of the lists of laws, which contain a number of moral directives, the commandment to honor one’s parents is found in first place: in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12 = Deuteronomy 5:16), in Leviticus 19:3, as well as in the list of curses in Deuteronomy 27:16. But in certain biblical narratives, humans actually choose loyalty to their partners or friends over loyalty to their father: Rachel and Leah opt for a relationship with Jacob over one with their father, Laban (Genesis 31:14–16); Jonathan rescues David, and refuses to accept Saul’s attitude toward David (1 Samuel 20). In several biblical narratives, the principle of saving a life takes precedence over telling the truth, both in the case of a mortal initiative such as that of Abr(ah)am (Genesis 12:12–13), and in the case of Divine initiative to rescue a prophet (1 Samuel 16:2–3) (Shemesh 2002). There are cases of mercy overriding legal justice, a clear case of which is the end of the Book of Jonah. While the prophet Jonah awaits a judgment on the citizens of Nineveh, God declares, “And should not I care about Nineveh that great city … in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons … and many beasts as well” (Jonah 4:11). Similarly, Hosea declares in God’s name that the Kingdom of Israel will not be punished, due to God’s mercy (Hosea 11:8–9). A Multiplicity of Voices Positions related to ethics aren’t all cast from the same mold, reflecting the array of subjects with which biblical literature deals. The explanations for this multiplicity of voices are varied, and can be divided into two main categories. The first is synchronic explanations, i.e., attribution of the various voices to various social and/ or theological positions, whether of an individual or of a group; whether originating from a single social stratum or various strata; whether in the Kingdom of Israel or in Judea. The second category – diachronic – exposes changes and/or a development resulting from various circumstances, such as policy or economic and social conditions. The multiplicity of voices might express how the author(s) relate to specific events. We will demonstrate this with a few examples. How should a new leader behave toward the previous ruler’s family? According to 2 Kings 9–10 (especially 10:30, ascribed to the Deuteronomists), Jehu is praised and rewarded for annihilating the family of Ahab, who had ruled up until this point. In contrast to this supportive stand, Hosea voices the opposite position, according to which God will punish the Kingdom of Israel for Jehu’s deeds (Hosea 1:4). This example instructs, while the biting criticism of Jehu that emerged from the mouth of Hosea precedes the praise that Jehu won from the Deuteronomists. We learn, therefore, that the Hebrew Bible does not always evolve along a straight axis from the “primitive” to the “developed,” from the less ethical to the ethical, from the vulgar to the refined. 7 What did Phineas achieve by his “lifetime tenure” as a priest? According to the narrative in Numbers 25, Phineas the priest killed two people, an Israelite and a Midianite, on account of their involvement in prostitution and/or fornication, and/or for idolatry. According to verses 8–11, by killing the couple, Phineas saved the people from destruction at the hand of God, and earned thereby a covenant that his descendants would serve as priests. In contrast, in Psalms 106:28–31, a differing stance is found regarding Phineas’ murder: “Phineas stepped forth and intervened and the plague ceased. It was reckoned to his merit for all generations, to eternity.” According to Muffs (1992: 40–1), the psalmist opposed the steps Phineas took, preferring prayer to aggressive acts. The determination that the evolution of an idea occurs via the prerogative of the researcher/reader applies based on his or her premises. Therefore, we cannot point to a general convention regarding any given development in the realm of Scriptural ethics. In Kaufmann’s opinion (1960: 323–9), an ethics approach in the Wisdom literature preceded that in the Pentateuch and the Prophets. In the former, ethics is individual and universal, like other Wisdom literature in the Ancient Near East, and recognizes one realm only: universal. In contrast, the ethics approach in the Torah and Prophets is social and national, and distinguishes two realms: Israelite and universal. Kaufmann opposes the convention of classical biblical criticism according to which the concept of individual ethics succeeds the social approach, and therefore that Wisdom ethics succeeds those of the Prophets. According to Simon (2004: 181), the development of political ethics began with the Kingdom of Judah, as a result of the disenchantment in the wake of Jehu’s deeds, and thereafter the practice of killing the offspring of a king’s murderer was halted, beginning in the eighth century. The author of the Book of Kings claims explicitly that Amaziah son of Joash, king of Judah, killed his father’s murderers, yet refrained from harming their sons, according to the law in Deuteronomy 24:16 (2 Kings 14:5–6). In contrast to the prevailing outlook among the Israelites according to which God punishes the sinner’s descendants (e.g., Exodus 20:5; 34:7), this was declared null and void (or incorrect) by the prophets at the end of the First Temple: Jeremiah 31:29–30 and Ezekiel 18:2–4. Who Is Responsible for Achieving Social Justice? Three factors are responsible for social justice: God, the king, and the individual. The Hebrew phrase mishpat usedaqa (or sedaqa umishpat) is rendered into English in various ways: “true justice,” “justice and righteousness,” “justice and equity,” “righteous judgment/justice.” Weinfeld (1995: 8) interprets this phrase – in the context of the deeds of the kings – as meaning “acts on behalf of the poor and less fortunate classes of the people.” This conclusion is based on its comparison with the Akkadian pairing kittam/misharim shakanum = “to do truth and uprightness …” entailed in the proclamation of social reforms by kings. 8 In the Hebrew Bible, God is perceived as extending righteous acts (e.g., Psalms 99:4; 103:6). The direct involvement of God in carrying out justice where humans fail to do so is conspicuous. Thus, for example, Ezekiel describes God as intervening to protect the weak and to remove rulers who are violent, greedy, and exploitative (Ezekiel 34, esp. verses 15–16 and 20). Doing true/righteous acts is attributed in the Bible mainly to the king. It is written of David that he “executed true justice” (2 Samuel 8:15); Josiah, king of Judah, was considered the ideal king because he “dispensed justice and equity,” i.e., “upheld the rights of the poor and needy” (Jeremiah 22:15–16); and various prophets see the coming/eschatological king as one who would practice justice and equity (Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15). In addition, in Psalms 72, the psalmist appeals to God to grant the king the ability to do justice, i.e., to aid the weak and destroy those who exploit. What emerges from Psalms is that to do justice is apparently the main role of the king. The individual has also a part in this endeavor. The choosing of Abraham by God is based on “that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right” (Genesis 18:19). Ezekiel profiles the righteous one with a series of deeds, the most important of which lie in the social realm (Ezekiel 18:5–9). Prophets prove this repeatedly and demand justice from each and every individual (such as Amos 4:1; 8:4–6; Jeremiah 7:5–6). Reflections on Approaches to Ethics in the Hebrew Bible Questions and ponderings on the nature of ethics in the Hebrew Bible can be divided into two: protests expressed in the Scripture itself on the one hand, and reflections of the modern reader on the other. Both show the adoption of Scripture as ethical authority to be problematic. Inner-Scriptural protests against Divine justice In certain writings, the authors have biblical characters voice protest against Divine collective punishment that does not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. For example, Abraham protests God’s plan to punish all of the Sodomites without exception: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:25). Similarly, Moses and Aaron plead with God not to punish all of the Israelites for Korach’s deeds (Numbers 16:22), and David ponders the ways of God in His punishing all of Israel for the sin of one (2 Samuel 24:17). Like these characters, Job criticizes vehemently the ways of God: “He destroys the blameless and the guilty” (Job 9:22). Reflections of the modern reader Reflections on God’s ways God’s deeds as described in the Hebrew Bible often give pause regarding the degree of their morality. God destroys humanity in the Flood (Genesis 6:9–7:24), annihilates Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24–5), and directs the annihilation of all the peoples of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16–18) – without distinguishing between 9 adults and minors. In addition, God allows Satan to kill all of Job’s innocent children (Job 1:12 ff.). Reflections on social outlooks Many parts of biblical literature are based on various social values that differ widely from those of today’s Western society. Below are a few examples. The Israelite social precept reflects a patriarchal, androcentric system, in which the man/male is the center of the family, and everyone else is subject to him and is his property. In other words, the woman is not equal in status to her partner: He is her master, and he rules over her (Genesis 3:16). The law in the Hebrew Bible is based on the social concept that allows the existence of the institution of slavery (Exodus 21:1–6; Leviticus 25:39–46; Deuteronomy 15:12–18). History of the Commentaries and Scriptural Research From ancient times until today, the realm of ethics in the Hebrew Bible is both a commentarial and theological challenge. The range of approaches and opinions is wide. There are those who accept all of the biblical approaches as binding; there are those who reject them out of hand; and there are those who adopt those precepts perceived as “ethical” and befitting the approach of the reader. In the modern age, the subject of ethics has occupied a growing platform of discourse, particularly from the 1970s and 1980s. The reasons for this are varied: the feminist critique of the biblical status of women; the call of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962–5) to return to holy writ for answers to theological and ethical questions; the involvement of the United States in Vietnam and Southeast Asia; the call of American biblical researcher and theologian Brevard Childs and his British colleague John Rogerson – all these served to intensify interest in biblical ethics. (For a history of ancient interpretation and modern research by both Jews and Christians, see Bretzky 1997, 2004; Wright 2004: 387–414; Kasher 2005; Ratheizer 2007: 11–161.) see also: altruism and biology; autonomy of ethics; deontology; egalitarianism; humanitarian intervention; relativism, moral; utilitarianism REFERENCES Bar-Efrat, Shimon 2007–9. Das Erste Buch Samuel – Das Zweite Buch Samuel, aus dem Neuhebräischen übersetzt von Johannes Klein. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Barton, John 2003. Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. Bretzky, James T. 1997. Bibliography on Scripture and Christian Ethics. Lewiston, NY: E. Meller Press. Bretzky, James T. 2004. Bibliography on Scripture and Ethics. Electronic version revised and expanded February 25, 2004. At www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/bretzkesj/Scripture EthicsBib.htm. 10 Fohrer, Georg 1974. “The Righteous Man in Job 31,” in J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis (eds.), Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. F. Hyatt in Memoriam. New York: Ktav, pp. 1–22. Goldingay, John 1981. Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. Houston, Walter J. 2006. Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Houston, Walter J. 2007. “The Character of YHWH and the Ethics of the Old Testament: Is Imitatio Dei Appropriate?” Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 58, pp. 1–25. Kasher, Rimon 2005. “Ethics and Morality of the Hebrew Bible in Modern Biblical Research,” BEIT MIKRA, vol. 51, no. 184, pp. 1–42 [Hebrew]. Kasher, Rimon 2012. “Walking in the Way of God in the Hebrew Bible,” SHNATON. An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, vol. 21, pp. 29–68 [Hebrew]. Kaufman, Stephen A. 1978–9. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” MAARAV, vol. 1, pp. 105–58. Kaufmann, Yehezkel 1960. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Malchow, Bruce V. 1996. Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible: What Is New and What Is Old. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press. Muffs, Yochanan 1992. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Ratheiser, Gershon M. H. 2007. Mitzvoth Ethics and the Jewish Bible. London: T. & T. Clark. Rogerson, John W. 2004. Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics, ed. M. Daniel and R. Carroll. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Schwartz, Baruch J. 1999. The Holiness Legalisation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Jerusalem: Magness Press [Hebrew]. Shemesh, Yael 2002. “Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of the American Near Eastern Society, vol. 29, pp. 81–95. Simon, Uriel 2004. Seek Peace and Pursue It: Topical Issues in the Light of the Bible, the Bible in the Light of Topical Issues. Tel-Aviv: Yedioth [Hebrew]. Weinfeld, Moshe 1995. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magness Press; Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wright, Christopher J. H. 2004. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Leicester: InterVarsity Press. FURTHER READINGS Barr, James 1993. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Berman, Joshua A. 2008. Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Birch, Bruce C. 1991. Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament Ethics, and Christian Life. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. Carroll, Robert P. 1991. Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as a Problem for Christianity. London: SPCK. Carroll, Robert P. 1997. Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as Problematic for Theology, 2nd ed. London: SCM Press. Crenshaw, James L., and John T. Willis (eds.) 1974. Essays in OT Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, In Memoriam. New York: Ktav. 11 Davies, Eryl W. 2005. “The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Examination of Some Proposed Solutions,” Currents in Biblical Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 197–228. Green, Joel B. et. al. (eds.) 2011. Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Greenberg, Moshe 1960. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Menahem Haran (ed.), Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: Magness Press, pp. 5–28. Hoffmann, R. Joseph, and Gerald A. Larue (eds.) 1988. Biblical v. Secular Ethics: The Conflict. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. Janzen, Waldemar 1994. Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. Kaiser, Walter C. 1983. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books. Knight, Douglas A. (ed.) 1995. “Ethics and Politics in the Hebrew Bible,” Semeia, vol. 66. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Nachshon, Amichai 2002. “God’s Requirements from the Gentiles in the Historiographic and Prophetic Biblical Literature,” Diss., Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University [Hebrew]. Nineham, Dennis 1976. The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change. London: SPCK. Otto, Eckart 1994. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Rodd, Cyril S. 2001. Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Rogerson, John, Margaret Davies, R. Carroll, and M. Daniel (eds.) 1995. The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, suppl. series 207. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Wenham, Gordon J. 2000. Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Wybray, Roger N. 1996. “The Immorality of God: Reflections on Some Passages in Genesis, Job, Exodus and Numbers,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, vol. 72, pp. 89–120.