What do you think?
Rate this book
The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics
<br /> >
192 pages, Hardcover
First published September 9, 2010
1 person is currently reading
20 people want to read
About the author
Eryl W. Davies
14 books1 followerEryl Wynn Davies
Eryl W. Davies is Professor and Head of the School of Philosophy and Religion at Bangor University, UK.
Eryl W. Davies is Professor and Head of the School of Philosophy and Religion at Bangor University, UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 14, 2011
Just finished Davies' book the Immoral Bible and found it to be very thought-provoking reading. The first chapter is a breath of fresh air to this evangelical in terms of his honesty about the problematic texts of the bible which is the focal point of his study. He's the first scholar in this sort of treatment that I've found to have noticed the fact that the Hebrew bible offers both swords being converted into ploughshares in a prophetic vision of peace, but that this is reversed in Joel and the prophet there calls for ploughshares to be hammered back into swords in a nationalistic vision of holy war! Davies presentation is focused exclusively on the Hebrew Bible and on these problem texts, and so he proceeds to survey approaches to the bible which represents attempts to construe a biblically oriented ethics with an awareness of these texts and the problems they present for any attempt to use the bible for normative moral reflection.
At the very least Davies' presents in this volume a very valuable survey of approaches to the bible which presents a very valuable complement to the also very valuable survey that forms the first 100 pages of Brian Brock's Singing the Ethos of God. Davies finishes where Brock begins with what Brock terms the "hermeneutical solution" and Davies presents as "Reader-Response Criticism." WIth my own training in literary theory, I also found Davies' treatment of reader-response to be useful. His treatment of more theological or communally construed strategies is nowhere near as charitable, but again, this is why his survey is so complementary to the more evangelical offering by Brock. Davies surveys the following categories: "The Evolutionary Approach" (mostly 19th - early 20th century), The Cultural Relativists approach, Canonical Approaches (really what he reductively calls the "canon within the canon" approach of Brevard Childs), The Paradigmatic Approach (primarily Chris Hays) and The Reader-response Approach.
While his final trajectory, i.e. the reader-response critical reading of the bible, left me unsatisfied inasmuch as he fails to account for any sort of community of readers, his presentation is nonetheless fascinating and valuable, particularly for readers who have spent much of their time reading more evangelical or theologically oriented hermeneutical literature. Davies work is richly supplemented with sources and footnotes and this will form a valuable addition to the literature on biblical ethics.
At the very least Davies' presents in this volume a very valuable survey of approaches to the bible which presents a very valuable complement to the also very valuable survey that forms the first 100 pages of Brian Brock's Singing the Ethos of God. Davies finishes where Brock begins with what Brock terms the "hermeneutical solution" and Davies presents as "Reader-Response Criticism." WIth my own training in literary theory, I also found Davies' treatment of reader-response to be useful. His treatment of more theological or communally construed strategies is nowhere near as charitable, but again, this is why his survey is so complementary to the more evangelical offering by Brock. Davies surveys the following categories: "The Evolutionary Approach" (mostly 19th - early 20th century), The Cultural Relativists approach, Canonical Approaches (really what he reductively calls the "canon within the canon" approach of Brevard Childs), The Paradigmatic Approach (primarily Chris Hays) and The Reader-response Approach.
While his final trajectory, i.e. the reader-response critical reading of the bible, left me unsatisfied inasmuch as he fails to account for any sort of community of readers, his presentation is nonetheless fascinating and valuable, particularly for readers who have spent much of their time reading more evangelical or theologically oriented hermeneutical literature. Davies work is richly supplemented with sources and footnotes and this will form a valuable addition to the literature on biblical ethics.
December 13, 2021
When I started reading this (supposedly) book,
The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics
by Eryl W. Davies, I was ready to be blown off with how the 'good' book is immoral. The author purports to discuss the ethically problematic passages of the Hebrew Bible and the way scholars have addressed aspects of the bible generally regarded as offensive and unacceptable.
But as I dived in to the book, I started getting disappointed. Well, Chapter 1 addresses The Ethically Problematic Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Overview Violence and Warfare in the Hebrew Bible - recent discussions of the subject, and Holy War and its Ramifications - the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan in Joshua 6-11.
I thought this was laying the foundation of much more to come, but alas! It's nothing. That's why I called it 'supposedly' a book. It is not a book. It is research/thesis/dissertation published as a book. All that rambling from there on is all academic drawl on how different people/readers interpret the bible -- The Evolutionary Approach, The Cultural Relativists' Approach, The Canonical Approach, The Holistic Approach, The Paradigmatic Approach, and The Reader Response Approach.
All of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and there is none that's superior/more authentic in presenting biblical facts/myths better than the other.
Well, as my one star shows, I did not like it. I don't want to be drawn to class to know how to read/interpret the bible.
But theologians, priests, pastors (not wannabes) would love it.
But as I dived in to the book, I started getting disappointed. Well, Chapter 1 addresses The Ethically Problematic Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Overview Violence and Warfare in the Hebrew Bible - recent discussions of the subject, and Holy War and its Ramifications - the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan in Joshua 6-11.
I thought this was laying the foundation of much more to come, but alas! It's nothing. That's why I called it 'supposedly' a book. It is not a book. It is research/thesis/dissertation published as a book. All that rambling from there on is all academic drawl on how different people/readers interpret the bible -- The Evolutionary Approach, The Cultural Relativists' Approach, The Canonical Approach, The Holistic Approach, The Paradigmatic Approach, and The Reader Response Approach.
All of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and there is none that's superior/more authentic in presenting biblical facts/myths better than the other.
Well, as my one star shows, I did not like it. I don't want to be drawn to class to know how to read/interpret the bible.
But theologians, priests, pastors (not wannabes) would love it.
November 13, 2025
This was well written and easy to follow. Davies avoids unnecessary jargon. I love it when scholars write in this approachable way, which enables non-specialists to understand and engage with the ideas. I also liked Davies' clear format—that of presenting the approach and offering a critique and ending with a summary. Finally, as someone who was an evangelical and accidentally began to read the bible like ethically, it is a breath of fresh air to read a scholar who takes ethical criticism seriously.
Before touching on the Reader-Response approach, which Davies favors, I noticed how each of the other perspectives he covers all assumed something is morally problematic with some biblical texts, but they generally fail to directly critique the texts. Also, each approach assumed the supremacy of their own ethical views and ideals, even when, as confessional Christians, they pretend to put themselves wholly under the Word of God:
* Evolutionary: It was a bad way back then, but we see development to high moral thought (from our own standpoint today).
* Canon within canon: we focus on what we think are the good bits and ignore all the bad parts
* Cultural Relativism, while it is morally repugnant to us, was appropriate to them way back then.
* Canonical: when read the text together, the bad bits have context, and redemptive themes are found
* Paradigmatical, the actions themselves are morally repugnant, but there is an authoritative principle that is relevant for us today.
The reader response approach is the only view that directly and transparently repudiates and critiques the immoral parts of scripture from the standpoint of our own contemporary moral outlook.
I think that the reader-response method can complement elements from the other views. If we take the Evolutionary viewpoint, it really seems undeniable that we see some moral development throughout scripture. Interestingly, in part, this may be due to how Jews (who contributed to what would become Scripture) used something like the reader-response method themselves. Jews were willing to critique, expose, protest, challenge, and alter traditions, while providing new perspectives and expressing fresh ethical insight. It is this dialectic and century-long dialogue that may have helped the moral development occur. But the deal is, it has NOT stopped, we too have the responsibility to expose, protest, and better own tradition, and propose better conceptions of what it is to love, and what it would mean for God to be wholly good.
I think if we are not encouraging the reader response view, then the canon within the canon is necessary. Unless we include and welcome ethical criticism, then all the toxic parts will be poisonous--and Scripture should be cherry-picked without shame. Only the reader-response view can make the immoral parts useful for instruction. But if we don't have time for it, then leave out the “dashing babies' heads against the rocks" bits.
The Canonical view is helpful to demonstrate how, when the biblical texts are brought together and allowed to speak as a whole, we see what is like a dialogue and a debate, a back and forth.
I think with the paradigmatic view, if we take a general principle of love of neighbor, for example, Torah gives us a picture of THEIR attempt to apply the principle in their context, but the specific principle or application may or may not be good. Like in a dialogue, we can attempt to find the principle, take it seriously, but be willing to reject it too if unhelpful.
The reader response method encourages Christians to be adults and to be discerning. The bible is simply not a book that we can just believe and obey without thought.
Before touching on the Reader-Response approach, which Davies favors, I noticed how each of the other perspectives he covers all assumed something is morally problematic with some biblical texts, but they generally fail to directly critique the texts. Also, each approach assumed the supremacy of their own ethical views and ideals, even when, as confessional Christians, they pretend to put themselves wholly under the Word of God:
* Evolutionary: It was a bad way back then, but we see development to high moral thought (from our own standpoint today).
* Canon within canon: we focus on what we think are the good bits and ignore all the bad parts
* Cultural Relativism, while it is morally repugnant to us, was appropriate to them way back then.
* Canonical: when read the text together, the bad bits have context, and redemptive themes are found
* Paradigmatical, the actions themselves are morally repugnant, but there is an authoritative principle that is relevant for us today.
The reader response approach is the only view that directly and transparently repudiates and critiques the immoral parts of scripture from the standpoint of our own contemporary moral outlook.
I think that the reader-response method can complement elements from the other views. If we take the Evolutionary viewpoint, it really seems undeniable that we see some moral development throughout scripture. Interestingly, in part, this may be due to how Jews (who contributed to what would become Scripture) used something like the reader-response method themselves. Jews were willing to critique, expose, protest, challenge, and alter traditions, while providing new perspectives and expressing fresh ethical insight. It is this dialectic and century-long dialogue that may have helped the moral development occur. But the deal is, it has NOT stopped, we too have the responsibility to expose, protest, and better own tradition, and propose better conceptions of what it is to love, and what it would mean for God to be wholly good.
I think if we are not encouraging the reader response view, then the canon within the canon is necessary. Unless we include and welcome ethical criticism, then all the toxic parts will be poisonous--and Scripture should be cherry-picked without shame. Only the reader-response view can make the immoral parts useful for instruction. But if we don't have time for it, then leave out the “dashing babies' heads against the rocks" bits.
The Canonical view is helpful to demonstrate how, when the biblical texts are brought together and allowed to speak as a whole, we see what is like a dialogue and a debate, a back and forth.
I think with the paradigmatic view, if we take a general principle of love of neighbor, for example, Torah gives us a picture of THEIR attempt to apply the principle in their context, but the specific principle or application may or may not be good. Like in a dialogue, we can attempt to find the principle, take it seriously, but be willing to reject it too if unhelpful.
The reader response method encourages Christians to be adults and to be discerning. The bible is simply not a book that we can just believe and obey without thought.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews