Good point Michael, and another example of where the Jews pioneered a legal concept. There is a very definite separation of powers in ancient Hebrew law, in that the power of the secular government belonged to the Kings, while the power of religious law and practices belonged to the priests. Since the only people that could become king were descendents of David (from the tribe of Benjamin. edit: David and his descendents were from the tribe of Judah, Saul, the first King of Israel was from Benjamin. My apologies), while priests had to be from the tribe of Levi.

Even more interesting, the king could only become king after being annointed by the priest (an example first set by Samuel when he annointed Saul, and later David).

{Snip interesting stuff on Greek and Roman and common law}[/quote]

You are aware that the Greek laws and philosophy was preserved by the Christian Church through the Middle Ages I assume.

There is little question that the Ten Commandments serve as a foundation for Western legal codes, just as the separation of powers and the belief that all are equal before the law are Jewish and later Christian innovations. The influence of Platonic thought cannot be denied, but even here, it was the Catholic Church that was preserving these ancient traditions (since Greece itself and the Roman Empire had ceased to exist as political or philosophical units centuries before).

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 11, 2001).]

Right, exactly. That is why you see for each and every king, the statement that he either "did evil in the eyes of the LORD" or that he "did what was right in the eyes of the LORD". In every case it is God who is our judge, and this is why all (including the mightiest among us) are subject to the law.

Nomad

Nomad, on the captured-virgins thing:

Again, time for a reality check. Is it reasonable to assume that a woman would voluntarity marry the butchers of her parents and people? Just how many Jewish women married concentration-camp guards during the Holocaust? Why can I not draw the obvious conclusion here?
But you are proposing a law that women are required to mourn their dead in a specific fashion (not according to their own custom), and have not cited any such law applicable to regular citizens. If she is a free woman, why does the man have the authority to force her to shave her head? Where in the Bible is this a general LAW to which all are subject?
Yes, I would. You seem to imply that it's only misogyny if there is hatred involved, but it can also describe casual indifference to the rights of others. Is white-on-black slavery NOT racist if the slavers don't actively hate the slaves?
Please explain why this is NOT motivated by the belief that women are "more impure" than men. Such a belief is misogynist in nature, just as a belief that blacks are less intelligent is racist in nature.

OK, this may be nitpicking, but:

Many non-Western cultures weren't misogynistic. And in pre-Christian Western cultures (notably the Celts), women and men were pretty much equal (female warriors were common, for instance). I would therefore call post-Celtic Western cultures misogynistic until relatively recently, and I blame Christianity for that.

Nomad, did you read anything I posted? The Ten Commandments are not the basis for Anglo-Saxon common law; that has ALREADY been established. Nor are they the basis for Continental Civil law; that has ALREADY been established. And separation of powers between political and religion spheres is NOT the model for separation of powers in the US Constitution, as we saw from the other link I posted. Polybius through Montesquieu is.

Furthermore, the Biblical example you gave is not DEMOCRATIC.

Not a point you make holds up.

In other words, as the links and cites I put up pointed out; Judeo-Christian tradition is not an important source of Western legal practice.

Once again, I send you to the Ency. Brit.:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...44&tocid=39868

Note that European law evolved from a series of practices that were not Christian, that Church law was largely Roman law, that commercial law was also based on Roman law, but extended it.

Nowhere is there any Ten Commandments in here.

BTW, many early Germanic kings were elected. In fact, in many of the tribes, the law was a pact between King and his people. In other words, the King's will was subject to the approval of the people by LAW and custom. Only later did the Carolingans, Christian kings, arrogate unto themselves the right to make law without the consent of the governed.
One could argue, in fact, that you have it exactly backward: Christianity made the King supreme, and destroyed earlier, more democratic traditions. But of course things are more complex than that.

That story is here:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115344

As for "equality before the law" arising from Judeo-Xtian tradition, you can explain the Church's unceasing struggle to keep itself free itself temporal power, its authoritarian structure, its promulgation of anti-Jewish, racist laws, its support of slavery, its condemnation of liberal and progressive ideals, its attack on humanism, and so forth. Perhaps Christianity did have a big influence, but not the way you like to think.

But we can put off that discussion for the moment. Defend your position, Nomad. Show us that the Ten Commandments are the basis for Continental and Anglo-Saxon legal traditions.

Michael

You are still thinking like a modern Jack. The nation this woman belonged to is now gone, and her options are limited. She is a captive of the people of Israel, and for all I know, you would see it as her only acceptable option to marry a warrior from the victorious side.

The Jews had specific mourning rituals, and these applied to anyone that lived within Israel and Judah. This principle is common in the world, so I do not know what your objection happens to be.

Who said she was free? You asked if she had a say in who she married, and I told you that we cannot know this from the text, as it is silent on the matter. As for being free to not mourn her family, I do not know many that would wish to exercise that right.

No, misogyny has only one definition that I am aware of:

From Webster's.com

Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny
Function: noun
: a hatred of women


Right.

Right again.

Nomad

The Ten Commandments serve as the moral underpinnings of Western Civilization, and I am surprised that you would even dispute this Michael, but then you have held some very idiosyncratic views on these boards.

Have you heard of Sabbath Laws? Or laws that kept Sunday as a holiday? The prohibittion against murder is also fairly well known, as is that against stealing. The official churches of virtually every Western state has been Christian (i.e. Anglican in Great Britain, Dutch Reformed in Holland, Lutheran in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, Catholic just about everywhere else.

It is not a bad thing to have religious morals underpinning one's laws Michael, and the principles of separation of religious and secular power was established a very long time ago by the Jews as I have shown.

Property rights came from the principle that what a man owned belonged to him, very consistent with the idea that one should not covet what belongs to one's neighbours.

MIchael, calm yourself. The legal models available to the founding fathers came from sources preserved by the Church. Were it not for the work of men like Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and others, it is highly doubtful that we would have ever known much at all about the Greek and Roman legal systems.

I never said that they were. What I said was that everyone was to be treated equally before the law. Notice how there are not exemptions in the Judaic code laws for the wealthy or powerful, or even the king. Quite the opposite was the case in fact, as many of the rules were meant to compel fair treatment of the poor and weak.

Actually, I am not so certain why you are getting yourself so worked up about this whole issue Michael. Does it disturb you that the vast majority of people that have lived in the West, and in the United States have been Christian, and therefore that many of our most commonly held values also happen to be Christian? If so, why are you so hostile to this idea, and how would you go about correcting this travesty?

Hmm... but the prinicples of honouring one God, or the Sabbath, or one's parents, or considering envy an evil, protection of children, widows and the weak are not values that you think the West should have adopted? Why not?

Why did you highlight only Germanic Law? And did you not notice that many of their laws are very similar to the Jewish laws that I have been talking about? For example, private ownership of property, inheritance laws, oathes and the like. If you are unfamiliar with the specific Mosaic laws I will dig them up for you.

You mean like private property? This was a Jewish principle established in the Books of Moses, specifically in the Ten Commandments. (Christians also honour the Ten Commandments BTW)

Right.

How do you see the principles of the Ten Commandments excluded? Also why have you failed to address the questions of criminal law, or the Sabbath laws?

I know. And Hebrew Kings were subject to the same laws as were the people, plus some additional ones like how many horses he was allowed to keep. He was also subject to approval from the priests and the tribal clan heads. In other words, he did not have absolute power, and could not act like an autocrat (the most common type of king in the ancient world in any culture).

Of course they are more complex than this, and in your excitement you have forgotten that I have been talking about ancient Hebrew Kings, not Christian ones. The move from feudalistic to absolute Monarchy was a long one, and evolved in a number of Western countries. In each of these cases they came to look more like Eastern potentates than Western (or Jewish) rulers goverened by laws, but as you said, this is a very complex matter. If you wanted to try and lay all of the blame on Christianity then I would be interested in seeing you try to make the case.

But in the Jewish model the King did not make laws, but rather, enforced them. In other words, he acted like an executive, while the priests handed down God's laws, making them the effective legislature. See how the division of power is an idea that came first from the Jews, about 3000 years ago?

Ranting now are you? Let's stick with Jewish law and try not to get side tracked. We already know that in your world view Christians are Satan worshippers so you can only expect evil from us anyway. The legal principles that I have been talking about on this thread, however, have been taken from the Mosaic laws found in the the Books of Moses. If you can find examples of ANYONE not being treated equally by the law, then please show it.

Yes, and we're coming for you next Michael.

Try not to be so narrow or parochial Michael. I have been talking about Western Culture as a whole, and like it or not, Jewish and Christian values have played a dominant role in the formation of the Western societies in which we live. Yet again you have challenged a position that is really quite self evident.

Nomad

As we have already seen, the foundation of western legal codes is Germanic and anglo-saxon law, combined with Roman law, and the Church. Certainly the Church had a role, especially in later period -- who denied it? You might have refered to the Encyclopedia Britannica links I gave, which outlined the Church's role in creating laws to protect the poor, for example. However, Nomad, protecting the poor and weak is not one of the Ten Commandments.

Nomad, you did not say "Church" or "Judeo-Christian values," you said "Ten Commandments." And Judeo-Christian values and law are not the foundational ones for western law. Custom, common law and Roman law are. Note that Church law (canon law) takes among its sources (in addition to divine revelation) local customary law, and Roman law. This complex intercourse is outlined in the Cath. Ency. article on Canon law.

Thus, Western Church canon law is also in part creation of germanic custom and roman law. The article notes that this is especially true in the foundational period under discussion here, when western legal codes emerged from the wreck of the Roman period.

Who is arguing that Jewish and Christian values were not important shapers of Western culture? I'm discussing western law. Stay on topic.

Now, unless you can demonstrate that western law is not based on some combination of roman and germanic law and custom (continent) or on the anglo-saxon codes (Commonwealth & US), you don't have a case.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Ten Commandments:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=73519

The Commandments contain little that was new to the ancient world and reflect a morality common to the ancient Middle East. They are a description of the conditions accepted by the community of Israel in its relationship to Yahweh. The differences found in Exodus and Deuteronomy indicate that the process of transmission from generation to generation brought with it modifications.

The Ten Commandments had no particular importance in Christian tradition until the 13th century, when they were incorporated into a manual of instruction for those coming to confess their sins.

Once again, I ask you to defend your statement that "There is little question that the Ten Commandments serve as a foundation for Western legal codes."

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 11, 2001).]

First, an apology.

If I said or implied that the Ten Commandments are the only thing that served to form the underlying principles of American Law, I am sorry. This was not my intention.

Second, my contention remains that Jewish law as represented in the Mosaic code handed down to us primarily in the first five books of the Bible does serve to underpin much of Western civilization and thought, especially in regards to legal rights and principles. Further, the Jews offered one of the first (if not the first) models by which a King was not only not absolute, but actually was subject to laws that he himself did not (in fact could not) make. Also, I am claiming that Judaic law treated everyone equally under their law (within obviously defined roles like priests, kings, male and female roles, ect). These laws also made provisions for women that were clearly not misogynistic in character, allowing them to own property, to go to court and represent themselves, and to gain inheritances for example. Some of these principles were not even adopted in countries like Canada and the United States until very recently.

I will also dispute that Judeo-Christian values played only a minor or minimal role in the formulation of Western legal principles. In other words, rather than bog down on the specifics of just the Ten Commandments, my contention is that the Mosaic Laws as a whole played a leading role in the formulation of Western legal principles.

Finally, I want to make sure that we have agreement that the reason we have Greek and Roman legal and philosophic thought preserved and available to this day is thanks to the Catholic Church. If we have agreement on these points, then I believe that we are much closer on this subject than I had previously thought.

Nomad

Originally posted by Nomad:
[b]First, an apology.

If I said or implied that the Ten Commandments are the only thing that served to form the underlying principles of American Law, I am sorry. This was not my intention.

Nomad, nobody is accusing you of this. You stated that the Ten Commandments were a foundation of Western Legal codes. I assume this constitutes withdrawal of that assertion.

Second, my contention remains that Jewish law as represented in the Mosaic code handed down to us primarily in the first five books of the Bible does serve to underpin much of Western civilization and thought, especially in regards to legal rights and principles.

This is a more interesting topic, put in this general way. You may contend this, however, the Ency. Brit. does not agree with you. Can you dissect their case? The links are in the posts above?

Further, the Jews offered one of the first (if not the first) models by which a King was not only not absolute, but actually was subject to laws that he himself did not (in fact could not) make. Also, I am claiming that Judaic law treated everyone equally under their law (within obviously defined roles like priests, kings, male and female roles, ect). These laws also made provisions for women that were clearly not misogynistic in character, allowing them to own property, to go to court and represent themselves, and to gain inheritances for example. Some of these principles were not even adopted in countries like Canada and the United States until very recently.

I think you'd get a lot of argument on this. Equal under what law? Obviously certain groups were favored over others -- for example, only certain families could supply priests.

I will also dispute that Judeo-Christian values played only a minor or minimal role in the formulation of Western legal principles. In other words, rather than bog down on the specifics of just the Ten Commandments, my contention is that the Mosaic Laws as a whole played a leading role in the formulation of Western legal principles.

Well, as I said, none of the articles I put up agrees with you. English common law, for example, descends from the Norman Conquest, incorporated some old anglo-saxon customs and laws.

here is the Ency. Brit. article on it.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...46&tocid=40224

Note that the Normans resisted the imposition of Church/Roman law.

Finally, I want to make sure that we have agreement that the reason we have Greek and Roman legal and philosophic thought preserved and available to this day is thanks to the Catholic Church. If we have agreement on these points, then I believe that we are much closer on this subject than I had previously thought.

Sure, the Church's efforts in this area were important. But all you've done is given yet another source of law, independent of the five books of Moses.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...22#465622.hook

is the entry on civil law.

Probably most important single legal source for the Middle ages was Justinian's Codification of Roman Law. This seems not to have been handed on by the Church, and was available in latin in the west. Another important source of Roman law was Canon law (Church law). Roman and germanic law formed the basis of Civil law on the continent. So you are right, the Church was an important transmitter of laws that melded with Germanic law, but those laws were Roman, not Jewish.

Like I said, there isn't much room for the Mosaic tradition here. Where does it come in?

Michael



[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 11, 2001).]