Tanakh & the Ancient Near East Index – Parashat Behar

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.

Slavery

See Slavery in the Ancient Near East, by I. Mendelsohn, for information about various forms of slavery that were practiced in the near east. The author speaks of three main sources of slaves: sale of minors by their parents, voluntary self-sale by indigent adults, and defaulting debtors. He then describes the legal status of slaves, their treatment and rights, and finally their economic role, noting that societies had state slaves, personal slaves and temple slaves, but that they were not economically dependent on slavery.

Usury

While interest-taking was permitted in all ancient Near Eastern societies other than ancient Israel, there were attempts to limit rates of interest and the burden upon impoverished debtors. See Usury and Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near East, by Robert P. Maloney.

Idolatry

See The Biblical Idea of Idolatry, by Jose Faur, for information about Ancient Near Eastern notions of idolatry and Tanakh’s rejection of idolatrous beliefs. This article briefly outlines and rejects Yehezkel Kaufmann’s theory that “Israel was totally unaware of the nature of pagan beliefs.” Kaufmann’s The Religion of Israel is available here.

Capital Punishment

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 idolatry. 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.”