Difference between revisions of "Tanakh and the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
(Topic Manager created an empty topic subpage) |
m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | <h1>Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim</h1> | + | <aht-xml> |
+ | |||
+ | <page type="Basic"> | ||
+ | <h1>Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim</h1> | ||
<div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | <div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | ||
+ | <category>Capital Crimes | ||
+ | <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 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> | ||
+ | </aht-xml> |
Version as of 05:51, 5 February 2024
Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Kedoshim
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.”