This essay will explore the pathways (or calibrations) of the talionic ‘eye for an eye’ principle in the Pentateuch from the cultural perspective of the ancient Hebrew scribes. In contemporary doctrine, rabbinic consensus remains characterised by a strident denial of any literal intent of this principle, where it is interpreted exclusively as a monetary fine. This consensus emerged, initially, as a reaction to charges made in the New Testament regarding the excessive literalism of the early Pharisaic sages. With the growth of Christianity and in the wake of the prejudice from the decrees of Hadrian (c. 135 CE), through to the massacres of the crusades – essentially until the present times – the constancy of this denial was inevitable. Leaving the legacy of this reception history aside, how did the principle of ‘eye for an eye’ attain such prominence in the Hebrew Bible?

The book of Joshua presents a multitude of ethical quandaries, both ancient and modern. After identifying some of the key questions about the text and its composition, our discussion will trace the distinctive kinds of influence that this book has exercised in a number of Jewish and Christian traditions. All of these elements will then figure in concluding reflections on how the book of Joshua may, and may not, help us to reflect on the legacies of imperialism and colonialism.

As a very new Hebrew Bible professor working on my dissertation on Deuteronomic family law, I once attended a reception for the great New Testament scholar Krister Stendahl. Someone briefed him well; when he was introduced to me, he murmured, “Women in Deuteronomic law. Not much joy!” Bishop Stendahl’s assessment was on target. An analysis of gender norms and biblical law sheds light on the gender ideals and aspirations of certain elite circles of ancient Judahite men, but it does not render an ethical model for folk today. It is, nonetheless, worth undertaking – if only to avoid uncritically passing on abhorrent values. After discussing the nature of biblical legal texts and a brief look at gender and the Decalogue, this essay focuses on how the Covenant Code (C; Exod 20:22–23:33) and Deuteronomic law (D; Deut 12–26) construct gender roles. Analysis of the construction of gender norms in the priestly laws remains for another time.

Debates about immigration, national identity, and the inclusion of ethnic minorities have been a prominent part of the twenty-first century thus far. Yet, ethical questions such as how to define one’s community and whether and to what extent to include those deemed foreign are ancient. The Hebrew Bible offers a variety of viewpoints – many of them conflicting – on how to define “Israelite” and non-Israelite, native and foreign, insider and outsider. Among these is the perspective of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua to 2 Kings), a group of texts united by a somewhat coherent ideological perspective and the focus of this essay. Even within this collection, however, are expressed a variety of positions on the treatment of different peoples in the world of ancient Israel.

From its opening words, the book of Proverbs suggests that ethical reflection is a complex task, requiring sophisticated faculties of discernment. It demands the ability to sift through competing sources of wisdom. Proverbs calls upon neophyte students and experienced sages alike to test their learning constantly in wisdom’s laboratory of the world. Calibrating one’s moral sensitivities is a lifelong pursuit that requires savvy and discipline, and the book of Proverbs in both its form and its function seeks to impart such skill.

The study of ethics and the Hebrew Bible either side of the new millennium has generally fallen into two categories: a more traditional genre of ‘Old Testament ethics’, in which remarks on the biblical text are undertaken from a confessional and normative perspective, and more recent forays into the ‘ethics of ancient Israel’, which investigate the text from a historical perspective and reflect varying degrees of interest or attention to contemporary concerns. The aim of the essays in this volume is to bring these two scholarly enterprises into conversation.

The term “ethics” has a complicated history in Jewish tradition for two reasons. First, the term is not native to classical Jewish sources. Second, in both Christian and secular discourse ethics is often contrasted with law, suggesting that the two are distinct and separate normative frameworks. This is problematic in a Jewish framework, where ethical discussions tend to focus on the question of proper behavior in specific situations and thus fall under the broader category of halakhah. Although often translated as “Jewish law,” halakhah is better understood as a way of life, encompassing far more than the secular term “law” might suggest. Jews seek to live in accordance with the covenant established between God and the people of Israel; halakhah provides guidance about how to do this, whether the issue concerns interpersonal relationships, property law, or ritual behavior. As Chaim Saiman notes, “the rabbis use concepts forged in the regulatory framework [of halakhah] to do the work other societies assign to philosophy, political theory, theology, ethics, and even to art, drama, and literature.” As a result, many of the assumed distinctions between ethics and law do not apply easily or well to Jewish tradition.

I am the wrong person to write this essay. I should have recognized this earlier and suggested another author. I did not. Drafting what follows, I became keenly aware that exploring the ethical aspects of the Jacob narrative necessitates a deeper and probably more personal comprehension of marginalization than I have from my current experience.

Genesis 1–11 introduces not only Genesis but the Bible as a whole. With remarkable realism, these chapters present manifold challenges to ethical living. They suggest that humanity does not operate in an overwhelmingly positive moral space. Instead, human beings face a variety of challenges. Humanity is not necessarily damned to lives of immorality, but praiseworthy people are rare, and temptations are great. While creating a thirst for upright behavior, the text explains the difficulty of doing the right thing. This emphasis on moral difficulty has important resonances with both its earliest and its most recent readers.

I object to the unexamined assumption that the texts of the Hebrew Bible are suitable as a source of answers for ethical discussions of social, moral, and political questions of today. Readers with this hermeneutical supposition believe in finding rules in the biblical canon that they may enforce on modern society and church discipline. The ethical relevance of the Hebrew Bible does not reside in accepting rules, principles, or ideas that come from the text and a reconstruction of its historical contexts based on sustained critical scrutiny of the will of God in scripture. It comes from a critical discussion with the text in light of current events, such as the migrant caravan moving from Central America to the southern border of the United States in 2018. There were Christians advocating completely different political solutions and using passages of scripture to support their views, deeming it essential to their ethical stance to demonstrate a continuity between their claim and a biblical text. A critical exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, however, exacerbates rather than solves the problem because it heightens awareness of the ideological diversity within scripture and the infinite number of perspectives from which readers can interpret it. The only way that the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as straightforward and univocal in its message is if nobody bothers to read it. Even Augustine was dissatisfied with the Bible on ethical grounds, until he began conjuring allegorical interpretations to spiritualize the disturbing material away. History has shown, again and again, that turning a simple message into a political position usually provides theological justification for oppression. Is a critical reading of the biblical text relevant to deal with, comprehend, and use as a basis for action – as Christians – concerning the vicissitudes and problems that humanity faces in today’s world? How can a text produced in a world so distant from our own be essential to inform how we act and be today?

Ethics is not the main problem in the book of Jeremiah. The professor who wants to prepare for teaching a course on ethics in the prophetic books would rather begin in the book of Amos, where social matters are of the utmost importance for the religious message, a book that from the outset has very little in common with the book of Jeremiah. Or she would go to the book of Hosea, where religious and social issues are ingeniously combined. In Jeremiah, apostasy and the pursuant divine punishment are far more important matters. This does not mean that ethics is of no importance in Jeremiah, but ethics in general is a derivative from the central issue, namely, the question of theodicy in the wake of the catastrophes in 597 and 587 BCE and the Babylonian exile.

Care for the poor has been widely viewed as a defining characteristic feature of Hebrew ethics. There is a wealth of normative prescriptions across the law, the prophets, and the wisdom writings on the proper treatment of the marginalized and the vulnerable. Economic morality is not a peripheral concern in the Hebrew Scriptures. This essay considers the law’s teachings on economic life. Economic norms are found in the Decalogue (Exod 20:2–17; Deut 5:6–21), the Covenant Code (Exod 20:22–23:33), the Deuteronomic Code (Deuteronomy 12–26), and the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26). These laws are an expression of God’s moral will and articulate ideals on how Israel should live as the chosen people of God – but these laws, including the prescriptions on economic life, should not be taken as descriptions of the nation’s actual practice.