Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Chris:

Does Ehud Ben Zvi have any Biblical Hebrew examples to back up his
theory, or is he using only later rabbinical practice?

As for Jesus in John 8, there were more than one reason for his
reaction. 1) He did not condemn the woman, and as I understand it,
those who were witnesses should throw the first stone. 2) The law
cited always required that the man be executed, the woman only if it
could be shown that it was consensual and not a rape; where was the
man? 3) Jesus did not say that the woman should not be stoned, rather
that the one who was not in error (the word does not necessarily mean
"sinless") should throw the first stone. Since she was caught "in the
very act", that means that they caught the man too, so where was he?
Therefore, those who brought the woman were in error, incorrectly
applying the law. The law is found in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

If a law is not consistently applied, then it isn't justice. Mercy in
justice is where the demands of the law are fulfilled, then the
payment is freely given on behalf of the one who cannot pay.

If the law is not consistently applied, then it encourages more
lawbreaking. More lawbreaking has the innocent as its primary victims.
It is not mercy to society not to enforce the law consistently.

Therefore, I see no reason to go against the traditional
interpretation of the text insisting on consistent application of
punishment for crimes.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 10/28/06, Chris and Nel <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net> wrote:
> To my complete surprise, when I translated the verse in Exodus 21: 28, as
> "when an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox shall deffinately be
> stoned" - I was wrong.  Apparantly an Infinitive Absolute plus imperfect
> most likely conveyed:  'it is liable to be stoned' or 'it may be stoned'.
> BUT, not killing it is NOT breaking the law. Cited in "Readings in biblical
> hebrew, Ehud Ben Zvi, Hancock and Beinert - 1993"
>
> Similarly, in Leviticus 20:10 "he shall surely be put to death" (I have
> always cringed at this 'shall surely' business anyway), means that he is
> liable to execution but if PARDONED that is not breaking God's commandment.
> And you know what, all this makes much more sense anyway.  BUT what is this
> new developement in the Infinitive absolute, is this an isolated opinion or
> is there a consensus out there, and how did they arrive at this
> understanding?  (And if it is correct then why don't they correct the
> 'Modern' grammar books).
>
> NOTE:
> Of course all this allows for the fact that there WAS mercy to be found in
> the law after all and this excites me, since I have always been under the
> impression that there was no Flexibility in the regulations, just rigidity.
> This would thoroughly explain Jesus's ability to be both an upholder of the
> law while at the same time appearing to break it by not having that woman
> stoned who was brought to him by those individuals who wanted to test Jesus.
>
> regards
> chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew