Taking the essential thesis of legal positivism to be that all law is positive law, that all law has sources, Green considers the relationships between legal positivism and ‘its closest cousin’, legal realism, focusing mainly on American legal realism. He looks at why legal realists disagree with legal positivists about the role of legal rules in explaining judicial decision-making. Noting that positivists and realists agree that law is constituted by social facts, that judges sometimes make law, and that law is morally fallible, he locates the point of disagreement in their different understandings of the boundary-lines between law and non-law. Green’s idea is that, unlike positivists, realists believe that a significant number of sources of law are only permissive sources – i.e. sources which judges are permitted, but not required, to use. These can sometimes be outweighed by considerations of policy, justice or the equities of the case, etc., which explains why realists can hold that law is so indeterminate as to undermine the causal efficacy of legal rules, while sharing the positivist view that all law has sources.

‘It should never be forgotten that the prophetic demand was religious, and that it sprang from the conception of God’. This essay aims to explore the relationship between religion and ethics, arguing that the ethical appeals in Isaiah were based on and prompted by largely the same conception of God and of religion as appear in the priestly literature of the Pentateuch. First, we sketch from the priestly sources the essence and the interrelatedness of certain key concepts, namely, rituals, holiness, and (im)purity. Second, we investigate the relationship of these concepts to ideas expressed in Isaiah.

With few historical exceptions, it has been men who have initiated and fought in wars. Women keep the home fires burning, unless the fight reaches the home front, in which case they could become victims or casualties. With such historical tendencies acknowledged, the days of two clearly delineated, uniformed armies lining up and charging at each other are largely past, yielding to forms of combat where the distinction between combatant and civilian is often ambiguous. These changes have increased the dangers of war for women and children. While they still rarely fight in combat, they are often in the line of fire and may be viewed as legitimate collateral damage or as enemies to be conquered.

Divine justice is a given throughout the Bible. The psalmists celebrate God’s rule over the cosmos, emphasizing that “justice and rectitude” form the firm base of the divine throne (Pss 89:15 [14]; 97:2). This sovereign “loves justice” (33:5; 37:28) and performs it (9:5 [4]; 99:4). God is renowned for the exercise of justice (Deut 32:3–4; Pss 9:17 [16]; 36:7). The world is “firmly established” because God “judges with equity” (Ps 96:10). Indeed, the earth’s stability depends on divine justice (58:2–3), and its foundations are shaken when that justice is lacking (75:3–4 [2–3]).

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.