Difference between revisions of "Tanakh and the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 12: Line 12:
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/tanakh-and-literature-ancient-near-east-1">Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East I</a> and&#160;<a href="https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/tanakh-and-literature-ancient-near-east-2">Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East II,</a> by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern law in general. He, too, notes that a fundamental difference between the two is that Tanakh views law as deriving from the will of Hashem rather than that of the king, which leads to many practical ramifications.&#160; Among these are that Tanakh includes apodictic laws such as those of the Ten Commandments, whereas Ancient Near East laws are consistently expressed casuistically.&#160;&#160;</li>
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/tanakh-and-literature-ancient-near-east-1">Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East I</a> and&#160;<a href="https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/tanakh-and-literature-ancient-near-east-2">Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East II,</a> by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern law in general. He, too, notes that a fundamental difference between the two is that Tanakh views law as deriving from the will of Hashem rather than that of the king, which leads to many practical ramifications.&#160; Among these are that Tanakh includes apodictic laws such as those of the Ten Commandments, whereas Ancient Near East laws are consistently expressed casuistically.&#160;&#160;</li>
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes" data-aht="page">The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes</a> which analyzes points of contact and difference between the various law codes, noting that the variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of the cultures, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment. While the Torah attempts to lay forth principles of right and wrong and to set up a just society, the primary goal of the other codes is to preserve law and order. The topic also includes a case study comparing the laws of the goring ox in various codes.</li>
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes" data-aht="page">The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes</a> which analyzes points of contact and difference between the various law codes, noting that the variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of the cultures, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment. While the Torah attempts to lay forth principles of right and wrong and to set up a just society, the primary goal of the other codes is to preserve law and order. The topic also includes a case study comparing the laws of the goring ox in various codes.</li>
<li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44088745?searchText=ancient+near+east+law+codes&amp;searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dancient%2Bnear%2Beast%2Blaw%2Bcodes&amp;ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&amp;refreqid=fastly-default%3A53d4b7dae9bded5aa43c580fa039a3e3&amp;seq=1">Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes</a>, by Raymond Westbrook, for information about the Ancient Near East law codes that have survived and analysis of their nature and purpose.</li>
 
<li>See <a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/torah-and-ancient-near-eastern-law-2">Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law II</a>, by R. Chaim Navon, for comparison and contrast of several of the individual laws of Parashat Mishpatim (including the laws of the Hebrew manservant, the goring ox, theft, pledge-taking and hurting a pregnant woman) with Ancient Near Eastern legal sources.</li>
 
<li>See <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/478479">The Code of Hammurabi</a>, by J. Dyneley Prince, for information about various legal points of comparison and contrast between Biblical law and the Code of Hammurabi specifically. 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, which he suggests underlies much of the code.<fn>See also&#160;<a href="&quot;עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן&quot; – An Eye for an Eye" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a> for analysis of commentators’ interpretations of the various verses in the Torah, including Shemot 21:22-25, that seem to indicate that the Torah mandates lex talionis as well.</fn></li>
 
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
 
<category>Capital Crimes
 
<category>Capital Crimes
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>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&#160;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>
+
<li>See&#160;<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&#160;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>
 
</ul>
 
</category>
 
</category>

Version as of 06:10, 5 February 2024

Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim

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.
  • See Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East I and Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East II, by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern law in general. He, too, notes that a fundamental difference between the two is that Tanakh views law as deriving from the will of Hashem rather than that of the king, which leads to many practical ramifications.  Among these are that Tanakh includes apodictic laws such as those of the Ten Commandments, whereas Ancient Near East laws are consistently expressed casuistically.  
  • See The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes which analyzes points of contact and difference between the various law codes, noting that the variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of the cultures, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment. While the Torah attempts to lay forth principles of right and wrong and to set up a just society, the primary goal of the other codes is to preserve law and order. The topic also includes a case study comparing the laws of the goring ox in various codes.

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.”