Tanakh and the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Emor/0

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Emor

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Knowledge of the history, law, cultic practices and realia of the Ancient Near East can often shed much light on Tanakh. This index contains a list of links to articles which touch on the connections between Tanakh and ancient cultures.

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

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.”

An "Eye for an Eye"

  • See The Code of Hammurabi, by J. Dyneley Prince, for comparison and contrast of Biblical law and the Code of Hammurabi. He compares laws of adultery, rape, disobedient children, false witnesses, divorce, kidnapping, theft and the notion of lex talionis, the principle of retaliatory/proportional punishment (an "eye for an eye"), which he suggests underlies much of the code.
  • See also "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye for analysis of commentators’ interpretations of the various verses in the Torah that seem to indicate that the Torah mandates lex talionis as well.