Difference between revisions of "Tanakh and the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Emor/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
See M. Greenberg, <a href="https://palimpsest.stmarytx.edu/thanneken/th6314/content/Greenberg(1960)SomePostulates.pdf">Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law</a>, for discussion of the contrasts between the underlying values of Biblical law and laws of surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greenberg demonstrates that Biblical law is unique in identifying God, rather than the king, as its source. Consequently, for example, adultery is viewed by Tanakh as a sin against God, not simply an affront against the husband. Similarly, the sanctity of human life, and the fact that it is not comparable to the value of property, is a basic premise of Biblical law but not of other ancient law codes. Tanakh is also unique in prohibiting vicarious punishment. All of these differences derive from the belief that law derives from God’s will, and the corresponding notion of sanctity in the legal context. | See M. Greenberg, <a href="https://palimpsest.stmarytx.edu/thanneken/th6314/content/Greenberg(1960)SomePostulates.pdf">Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law</a>, for discussion of the contrasts between the underlying values of Biblical law and laws of surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greenberg demonstrates that Biblical law is unique in identifying God, rather than the king, as its source. Consequently, for example, adultery is viewed by Tanakh as a sin against God, not simply an affront against the husband. Similarly, the sanctity of human life, and the fact that it is not comparable to the value of property, is a basic premise of Biblical law but not of other ancient law codes. Tanakh is also unique in prohibiting vicarious punishment. All of these differences derive from the belief that law derives from God’s will, and the corresponding notion of sanctity in the legal context. | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
| − | + | <category>Shabbat | |
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/tanakh-and-literature-ancient-near-east-3">Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East (3)</a>, by R. Amnon Bazak, for analysis of the claim that ancient Mesopotamian literature contains parallels to the institution of Shabbat. R. Bazak demonstrates the significant differences between the Biblical and Mesopotamian institutions.<fn>There is a day known as "sappatu" in the Assyrian Babylonian calendar, defined as the "day of rest for the heart." Another source speaks of dividing the lunar calendar into quarters of seven days on which certain activities were forbidden to the elite of society.</fn> While the latter were very much related to the lunar calendar and considered days of bad luck, appeasement to the gods, and meant for only a small segment of society, the Biblical Shabbat is unrelated to the lunar cycle, is considered a day of blessing and affirmation of faith in Hashem as creator, and is an egalitarian institution applying to everyone from servants to rulers.</li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
| + | <category>The Disadvantaged | ||
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/543887?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents">Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature</a>, by F. Charles Fensham, for information about how Ancient Near Eastern societies legislated and protected the rights of these vulnerable groups. The various cultures all view protection of these disadvantaged people as the will of god/God and expected of a just king. It seems to have been a common policy, already in place across the near east even before Torah law.</li> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1062739?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Sacred and Human Components in Ancient Near Eastern Law</a>, by Carlo Zaccagnini, for discussion of the significance of protecting the orphan and widow in Ancient Near Eastern law codes.</li> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.133.2.0203?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Foreigners in the Ancient Near East,</a> by Gary Beckman, for a survey of attitudes toward foreigners and how different populations of foreigners were integrated into Ancient Near Eastern societies.</li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
| + | <category>Theft and Kidnapping | ||
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/115734/edition/100592/content/folia-orientalia-the-meaning-of-theft-in-ancient-near-eastern-law-badamchi-hossein-vol-liii?language=pl">The Meaning of Theft in Ancient Near Eastern Law</a>, by Hossein Badamchi, for analysis of different types of theft and their punishments in ancient law codes, including kidnapping. He notes that the punishment for theft of property is more severe in these codes than in the Bible </li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
| + | <category>Sexual Offenses | ||
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>In his article, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.78.4.0286?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Crime and Sexual Offense in Hatti</a>, Ilan Peled notes that Hittite codes were the only Ancient Near East codes aside from the Bible that prohibited bestiality. See also <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37362105/Gender_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Ancient_Near_East_Law_and_Custom">Structures of Power: Law and Gender Across the Ancient Near East and Beyond</a>, Chapter 2 (Gender and Sex Crimes in the Ancient Near East: Law and Custom), also by Ilan Peled, for comparison and contrast of laws on sexual matters in the Ancient Near East, including the case of seduction that is described in Shemot 22:15. </li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
| + | <category>Divination | ||
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781589839984_OA.pdf">Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires,</a> particularly Chapters 2 (The King at the Crossroads Between Divination and Cosmology, by Beate Pongratz-Leisten) & 3 (Divination as Warfare: The Use of Divination across Borders, by Jonathan Stokl), for information about forms and uses of sorcery and divination in the Ancient Near East.</li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
| + | <category>Capital Crimes | ||
| + | <ul> | ||
| + | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1227595?seq=1">Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law,</a> by Edwin M. Good, for discussion of the crimes for which capital punishment was mandated in ancient societies, including sexual prohibitions and laws related to justice, sorcery, and property rights mentioned in Vayikra 19-20. The author tries to deduce from these the varying values of these differing cultures. For example, he suggests that the more severe the punishment, the worse the society views the offense, which provides insight into the way differing cultures evaluated differing acts. Regarding Israel, he concludes: “One finds in Israel a religious ethic that is sometimes explicitly adduced in explanation of legislation, whereas Babylonian ethics would seem to be based entirely upon social or utilitarian considerations.”</li> | ||
| + | </ul> | ||
| + | </category> | ||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> | ||
Version as of 06:43, 5 February 2024
Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Emor
Law: General See M. Greenberg, Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law, for discussion of the contrasts between the underlying values of Biblical law and laws of surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greenberg demonstrates that Biblical law is unique in identifying God, rather than the king, as its source. Consequently, for example, adultery is viewed by Tanakh as a sin against God, not simply an affront against the husband. Similarly, the sanctity of human life, and the fact that it is not comparable to the value of property, is a basic premise of Biblical law but not of other ancient law codes. Tanakh is also unique in prohibiting vicarious punishment. All of these differences derive from the belief that law derives from God’s will, and the corresponding notion of sanctity in the legal context.
Shabbat
- See Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East (3), by R. Amnon Bazak, for analysis of the claim that ancient Mesopotamian literature contains parallels to the institution of Shabbat. R. Bazak demonstrates the significant differences between the Biblical and Mesopotamian institutions.1 While the latter were very much related to the lunar calendar and considered days of bad luck, appeasement to the gods, and meant for only a small segment of society, the Biblical Shabbat is unrelated to the lunar cycle, is considered a day of blessing and affirmation of faith in Hashem as creator, and is an egalitarian institution applying to everyone from servants to rulers.
The Disadvantaged
- See Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature, by F. Charles Fensham, for information about how Ancient Near Eastern societies legislated and protected the rights of these vulnerable groups. The various cultures all view protection of these disadvantaged people as the will of god/God and expected of a just king. It seems to have been a common policy, already in place across the near east even before Torah law.
- See Sacred and Human Components in Ancient Near Eastern Law, by Carlo Zaccagnini, for discussion of the significance of protecting the orphan and widow in Ancient Near Eastern law codes.
- See Foreigners in the Ancient Near East, by Gary Beckman, for a survey of attitudes toward foreigners and how different populations of foreigners were integrated into Ancient Near Eastern societies.
Theft and Kidnapping
- See The Meaning of Theft in Ancient Near Eastern Law, by Hossein Badamchi, for analysis of different types of theft and their punishments in ancient law codes, including kidnapping. He notes that the punishment for theft of property is more severe in these codes than in the Bible
Sexual Offenses
- In his article, Crime and Sexual Offense in Hatti, Ilan Peled notes that Hittite codes were the only Ancient Near East codes aside from the Bible that prohibited bestiality. See also Structures of Power: Law and Gender Across the Ancient Near East and Beyond, Chapter 2 (Gender and Sex Crimes in the Ancient Near East: Law and Custom), also by Ilan Peled, for comparison and contrast of laws on sexual matters in the Ancient Near East, including the case of seduction that is described in Shemot 22:15.
Divination
- See Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires, particularly Chapters 2 (The King at the Crossroads Between Divination and Cosmology, by Beate Pongratz-Leisten) & 3 (Divination as Warfare: The Use of Divination across Borders, by Jonathan Stokl), for information about forms and uses of sorcery and divination in the Ancient Near East.
Capital Crimes
- See Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law, by Edwin M. Good, for discussion of the crimes for which capital punishment was mandated in ancient societies, including sexual prohibitions and laws related to justice, sorcery, and property rights mentioned in Vayikra 19-20. The author tries to deduce from these the varying values of these differing cultures. For example, he suggests that the more severe the punishment, the worse the society views the offense, which provides insight into the way differing cultures evaluated differing acts. Regarding Israel, he concludes: “One finds in Israel a religious ethic that is sometimes explicitly adduced in explanation of legislation, whereas Babylonian ethics would seem to be based entirely upon social or utilitarian considerations.”
