[b-hebrew] addition and subtraction
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Dec 31 16:08:38 EST 2010
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:34 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com>wrote:
> the question implied by the verse and obvious to anyone conversant with
> that scroll follows.
> do those particular two words; does the hebrew literature of that
> scroll; describe a "french judicial system" or an "english judicial system?"
Just as I expected, a theological question.
> a. In france, government judges decide civil and criminal cases based upon
> a set of written statutes. The judges hear evidence and announce rulings,
> applying the statutes to the facts. Written reasons for the rulings, given
> ... not. The body of written statutes hence, remains inviolate & supreme.
> b. In england, government judges originally decided civil and criminal
> cases based upon a written set of statutes. In significant contrast to
> france, however, england judges write reasons for their rulings. This body
> of judge written rulings then acquires a life of its own in books, etc.,
> over the centuries, and eventually eclipses and surpasses the original
> written set of statutes.
This is a theological question depending on how one defines terms, and
depending on with whom one interacts. I may disagree with the theological
reasons, which is why theology is off the table for this discussion group.
> the תלמוד , incorporating the biblical hebrew language, answers that
> question as "b."
There are those who claim that the Talmud is like the American legal system,
where the judges write opinions, but those opinions may not establish new
law (legislate from the bench) and other judges, even a jury during a trial
by means of jury nullification, may overturn those judges’ rulings. Jury
nullification can even be used to nullify laws that violate the
Whether that claim is true or not is a theological question that I do not
want to get into.
> fred burlingame
> Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew