-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan D. Safren
[mailto:yon_saf AT bezeqint.net] Sent: Sat, January 26, 2002 4:29
AM To: Lisbeth S. Fried; Biblical Hebrew Subject: Re:
Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..
Dear Liz,
Rolf Furuli wrote:
Some years ago we read the laws of Hammurapi in class and it bacame
evident for the students how different these are from the laws in the
Pentateuch, even though there are similarities as well. So it seems to me that
there generally is a clear quality difference between the Hebrew documents of
the Tanach and other documents of antiquity.
Liz Fried
asked:
OK What
differences do you see here?
Since I'm getting ready to teach all these subjects in a few weeks, I'd
like to know.
[JDS] I'm
teaching a seminar on the Development of Hebrew Law from its ANE antecedents
through the development of halakhah and down to Conservative and Reform
responsa.
I agree with
Rolf that there is a qualitative difference between the ANE law codes and the
Pentateuchal law corpi, but not necessarily in the way he understands
it.
First of all,
the biblcal law corpi weren't meant to be law codes as such. They function as
stipulations within the various conceptions of the Divine suzerainty treaty
with Israel. This explains the presence of both apodictic formulation, which
we find in ANE suzerainty treaties - along with casuistic formulation - but
not in ANE law codes. This also explains the presence of cultic-religious
laws, absent in ANE law codes. In the Israelite law corpi, they function as
methods of expressing loyalty to the Divine sovereign.
[LSF} Hasn't Ray
Westbrook discussed this? I don't think apodictic laws are that
rare
but maybe they are. If they are rare in the law codes
and not rare in the Vassal Treaties,
As for the ANE codes, they serve to
demonstrate the justness of the monarch (cf. the intro. and conclusion to CH).
\legal-administrative documents from the same places and periods demonstrate
that the actual legal practices were different.
[LSF] The same is here as well, only I suppose
the monarch is YHWH.
Secondly, the concept of the lawgiver is
different. In CH or Ur-Nammu, the king is not the lawgiver. In the Pentateuch,
God is the lawgiver, by virtue of his being suzerain and imposing a suzerainty
treaty on his Israelite vassals (remember, they are called
"servants").
[LSF] I do agree that it is unique that the
laws come from YHWH. In Mesopotamia, the
kinatum are in the air, not specifically from
the god or the king.
Thirdly, the whole moral framework is
different. In the ANE, life and limb was not a supreme value, but
measurable in terms of money and social standing. In the Bible, life is of
supreme value, not to be measured in money, because Man was created in God's
image (Gen. 1; 9). Therefore, in CH, murder is not always punished by death;
it depends on social status. InIsrael murder is always punished by death. In
the ANE codes, theft may sometimes be punishable by death. In the Bible it
never is. Property is only property.
[LSF] No murder isn't always punished by
death, cf Exodus 21:20. No punishment
is listed. How do you translate naqom
yenaqem?
Thus, in the Bible we have "an eye for an
eye", while in CH we have monetary compensation. The reason the Rabbis
substituted a fine for physical maiming was humane and not financial: What can
be gained by maiming another human being? How will the offender be able to
support his family? Same with the death penalty. Executing a human being
is murder too, in its fashion. Therefore the Rabbis made it almost impossible
to execute anyone.