Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

fred,

1. not reading your rights: this was probably in practice in all the
ancient cultures, so i assume you must be correct in your
interpretation. the judge saw no reason to justify his verdict
because he had unlimited power over the accused. making this
into a legal principle, though, is another matter.

2. not adding new laws:  to impute a claim of completeness
to any given finite set of words as a comprehensive legal codex
at any given time, and moreover in all future times,
is either naive or a religious belief .  once chosen the second option,
clearly (ambivalent) evidence can be dug up (or, if you like,
"beered?") in the text to support it.

(for the (absolutely irrelevant) mathematical point of view, see
wikipedia: goedel on completeness in logic).

according to SHMOT 18, the idea of both nominating judges (19:21)
and bringing  the godly word to the people (18:19-20) was first given
to moses not by god, but rather by a "mere goy"  (18:19-20!).  this,
for some,  might be taken as the "historical truth" behind this codex.

3.  but even according to the bible itself (1 kings 2:5-12) ,  there is more 
to
judging than merely applying the right codex item to the case at hand.
i will cite the only two trial cases in the bible i am aware of at the moment.
in solomon's trial (1 kings 3:16-28), the procedure does not seem to
follow any of the written laws of moses.  the (supreme!) judge of this
case added his  interpretation and wisdom, in an unprecedented case, and
according to  1 kings
3:28 he was doing the right thing. in addition, he not only pronounced
the verdict (give her the live child and do not kill him) but also explained
the basis for it (because she is his mother).

4. then again in a case, recently cited in this forum (the daughters of
zlofxad) even the supreme legislator himself, together with the entire supreme
court,  could not find the answer in the entire book of laws, and had to
consult god himself. so, one may infer that the answer was not there. or,
maybe what
they were missing was a good "interpretation"??

5.    on your citing deut 4:1-2 etc:
every legal codex says the same thing:  a) you should obey the law as it is
written, no less, no more. and syill b) every legal codex keeps changing 
and/or
expanding all the time. i do not see any contradiction between a and b.

regards

nir cohen

PS: the basic root GL (GLL, GLH) gives both the action of removing the 
stone on top of the well, as well as the act of revealing, which is 
close to explaining. 

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 22:52:54 -0600, fred burlingame wrote

i am suggesting, that deuteronomy 1:5; 4:1-2; 12:32; 17:8-11; 31:24-26 ....;
read together, yield the following conclusions reasonable:
>  
> a. the entire scroll of deuteronomy represents a complete and finished
statutory code;
>  
> b. the government judges were expected to apply only this legal code to
future & specific factual disputes, and issue rulings;
>  
> c. the "b" rulings would never be reduced to writing, in contradistinction
to "a," ... and so as to avoid competition with "a;"
>  
> d. whether "a" also includes "repetition," "interpretation,"
"justification," "background," "meaning," "new rules," etc., becomes quite
irrelevant to the judges. Why? Because "a," represents the sole, exclusive and
only source of the law for the judges to apply in deciding all future factual
disputes.
here ...