Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nir:
Thanks for your informative comments. Please allow me to respond.

1. The biblical hebrew language ("BH") can contextualize up or down; from
word to phrase, to verse, to chapter, to book (scroll) to codex; and vice
versa.

2. I chose in this thread to contextualize up to the point of the book of
deuteronomy, and no further. Why? Because my understanding of history shows
that the author(s) of the deuteronomic scroll, like the other four "books"
of the torah, manufactured each scroll as a separate and complete, physical
document. The words of deuteronomy reinforce that conclusion, per the verses
I previously cited. see also, deuteronomy 17:18-19.

3. Since you mention mathematics, I would observe that balance and
moderation rule the day, rather than the extremes. For example, the more one
measures position, the more one loses sight of momentum, and vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

4. Likewise, with the civil and criminal law, too few statutes breed
anarchy; and too many statutes yield slavery.

5. One need look no further than the example of america to see this rule in
operation. America began with a relatively simple deuteronomic type code
(constitution). This organic document has since metastasized into tens
(100's?) of millions of statutes resulting in an out balance legal system.

6. Your solomonic example furnishes a nice illustration of the deuteronomic
code in action. Deuteronomy 5:19-21; 19;16-21; 30:1-4 provide solomon with
the policy and general principles of justice to apply to the specific
dispute confronting him. It's all about mercy and justice. The recipe =
crime; then punishment; then redemption.

7. Within that general statutory framework however, solomon retains liberal
individual freedom to act according to his peculiar talents; and so, he did.

8. Your reference to 1 kings 2:5-12 and also to "tse-lof-had" reinforces
that point.

9. Whether the deuteronomic code enjoyed a divine, human or even inorganic
origin represents a matter outside the scope of this forum.

10. So, I return to my original point (that you addressed).  Code
deuteronomy and its BH appears created as a mandatory guideline for human
behavior and dispute resolution. But the code preserves liberal individual
freedom to act, both on the part of the judges and their constituency.
Individual freedom, balance & happiness achieved because 10,244,352.2 new
written statutes forbidden.

regards,

fred burlingame

p.s.: i undertand your comments not about "gl" roots ...; perhaps a strong's
number or a hebrew lettering would help.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. 
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> 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.
>
>