[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53 read within the book as a whole

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Wed May 26 16:01:27 EDT 2004


On 26/05/2004 12:50, Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:

>Dear Vadim,
>I misspoke, miswrote. I meant for Hebrew writers of the
>Persian period. Under the Persians you have what has
>been called a secularization of the law, the merging
>of the law of the king and the law of the god.
>Under Hammurabi, for example, just decisions, mishpat,
>was separate from the gods. Right order, kinatu, was
>not given by the gods, but part of nature. The gods were
>deemed too capricious to be held responsible. 
>Now it is interesting that the Priestly code has the
>law being given by YHWH -- and by Moses. This places
>Moses (as King) as lawgiver whose laws are synonymous with
>YHWH's laws. Writers prior to the Persians demand that the
>king be accountable to torah, correct behavior. This doesn't
>occur under the Persians, when the king's behavior is torah
>by definition.
>The word nomos is a good translation of torah, data, etc.
>It too does not refer to legislated law, but right thinking,
>order, tradition, custom, correct procedure, everything in its
>proper place.
>Sorry for the confusion,
>Best,
>Liz
>
>  
>
This is interesting, Liz, but it seems to disagree with the biblical 
picture of Persian law, under which the laws of the Medes and Persians 
were unchangeable, and the king was bound to obey them even against his 
will, as seen in Daniel 6:7-15 and Esther 7:5-8 (where, because the old 
edict could not be revoked, a new one had to be published which made the 
old one ineffective although still in force). Now is this picture of 
Persian law the same as the one which you are expounding? And, if not, 
how can we know which is more accurate?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list