Dear Vadim,This is interesting, Liz, but it seems to disagree with the biblical picture of Persian law, under which the laws of the Medes and Persians were unchangeable, and the king was bound to obey them even against his will, as seen in Daniel 6:7-15 and Esther 7:5-8 (where, because the old edict could not be revoked, a new one had to be published which made the old one ineffective although still in force). Now is this picture of Persian law the same as the one which you are expounding? And, if not, how can we know which is more accurate?
I misspoke, miswrote. I meant for Hebrew writers of the
Persian period. Under the Persians you have what has
been called a secularization of the law, the merging
of the law of the king and the law of the god.
Under Hammurabi, for example, just decisions, mishpat,
was separate from the gods. Right order, kinatu, was
not given by the gods, but part of nature. The gods were
deemed too capricious to be held responsible. Now it is interesting that the Priestly code has the
law being given by YHWH -- and by Moses. This places
Moses (as King) as lawgiver whose laws are synonymous with
YHWH's laws. Writers prior to the Persians demand that the
king be accountable to torah, correct behavior. This doesn't
occur under the Persians, when the king's behavior is torah
by definition.
The word nomos is a good translation of torah, data, etc.
It too does not refer to legislated law, but right thinking,
order, tradition, custom, correct procedure, everything in its
proper place.
Sorry for the confusion,
Best,
Liz
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.