Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-06-2012, 12:04 PM

Yes, that's correct. I just wondered whether this was a fabricated set of "laws" that seem to make no sense. Indeed, why have a law about stoning that has no significance where you have laws against murder, etc. Or about slaves. Once a slave becomes a Jew he may no longer remain a slave according to Jewish law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Toto, then what is source or veracity of such "laws"?? Where do they originate, and if they are untrue why didn't anyone notice?

I'm not sure what your question is. Laws are promulgated by rulers, or those who think they are rulers, and are written down and preserved for the ages. But enforcing the laws is a completely different question.

Before the modern era, governments had limited abilities to control some aspects of life, and the central government had limited abilities to control what went on in distant provinces, even when the king had proclaimed himself the ruler of that province.
.
Even today, you have politicians who support laws that are unenforceable, just in order to make a moral statement. Smoking marijuana is still illegal in most of the country, but you would not be able to understand a lot of our culture if you thought that reflected reality. Adultery is still classified as illegal in some jurisdictions, but even when it was a universal law, you would be naive to think that no one ever committed adultery.

So a Roman law might refer to Jews stoning converts, but that is not evidence that it ever happened. It might just reflect the story in Acts of the Jews stoning Stephen, which probably never happened.

Toto · 02-06-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's correct. I just wondered whether this was a fabricated set of "laws" that seem to make no sense. Indeed, why have a law about stoning that has no significance where you have laws against murder, etc. Or about slaves. Once a slave becomes a Jew he may no longer remain a slave according to Jewish law.

I'm still not sure what your question is. The laws don't make sense from a modern point of view, but they are not modern.

You might think there were laws against murder, but they didn't correspond to our laws. The Patriarch had the right to kill members of his household for violating social norms (honor killings). Stoning was something like lynching, which was a common practice in the US at some points in history, whatever the laws on murder.

Duvduv · 02-06-2012, 01:15 PM

So you mean that there were circumstances other than this where lynching would have been permitted, regardless of murder laws?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's correct. I just wondered whether this was a fabricated set of "laws" that seem to make no sense. Indeed, why have a law about stoning that has no significance where you have laws against murder, etc. Or about slaves. Once a slave becomes a Jew he may no longer remain a slave according to Jewish law.

I'm still not sure what your question is. The laws don't make sense from a modern point of view, but they are not modern.

You might think there were laws against murder, but they didn't correspond to our laws. The Patriarch had the right to kill members of his household for violating social norms (honor killings). Stoning was something like lynching, which was a common practice in the US at some points in history, whatever the laws on murder.

Toto · 02-06-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So you mean that there were circumstances other than this where lynching would have been permitted, regardless of murder laws?

...

I continue to have problems parsing your questions.

Circumstances? Other than what? :huh:

Duvduv · 02-06-2012, 04:08 PM

Toto, you said the following:
You might think there were laws against murder, but they didn't correspond to our laws. The Patriarch had the right to kill members of his household for violating social norms (honor killings). Stoning was something like lynching, which was a common practice in the US at some points in history, whatever the laws on murder.

So I asked whether our idea of laws against murder differ to the point where their law NEEDED a reference to this type of stoning as a crime because there were other circumstances when stoning would not be a crime?

Toto · 02-06-2012, 04:30 PM

If you care, you should research Roman law for yourself. The definitions of murder versus justifiable homicide differ among societies and over time.

But laws are not written as exercises in logic in any case. Even if stoning would be classified as murder, nothing would prevent the lawmakers from forbidding it again for emphasis.

The twelve tables

Quote:

A father had the right of life and death over his children (patria potestas). Should, however, he sell the son three times, then the son should be free of this bond of authority. A father was to right to kill his deformed child. . . .

... If an injury was caused by a weapon accidentally leaving the hand (perhaps when exercising weapons on the Campus Martius), then a ram was to be sacrificed publicly to atone for the deed. The penalty for perjury was to be hurled from the Tarpeian Rock. The punishment for murder was death, unsurprisingly. Yet the penalty for causing a death accidentally was merely the duty to provide a ram for public sacrifice to atone for the killing and to appease the deceased’s relatives. It was an offence to cast or have a witch cast any spells on someone else. The penalty was death. To kill one’s father was deemed the worst crime. ...

Duvduv · 02-06-2012, 04:47 PM

I understand, but in any case I find it hard to imagine that Jews would decide to Lynch a convert in public and expect to get away with it with this being the the impetus for such a law.

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 07:20 PM

Hey duvduv,

The answers to many of your recent questions in this thread about the laws cites can only be answered after examining the context and contents of the Codex Theodosianus.

Cheep or free English translations of these Latin codes do not exist. Fragmentary citations are all that is available. The situation is repeated in English translations of Epiphanius. Both manuscripts deal with events from the 4th century, and the all-important struggle between the victorious orthodox heresiologists and the antichristian Arian heretics.

Here are some from fourthcentury.com.

Here are some that I have collected

Quote:

The Codex Theodosianus was a compilation of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors since 312. A commission was established by Theodosius II in 429[1] and the compilation was published in the eastern half of the Roman Empire in 438.[2] One year later, it was also introduced in the West by the emperor Valentinian III.

This is not to be confused with the highly published Justinian Law Codes

Quote:

The Corpus Juris (or Iuris) Civilis ("Body of Civil Law") is the modern name[1] for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor. It is also sometimes referred to as the Code of Justinian, although this name belongs more properly to the part titled Codex.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you care, you should research Roman law for yourself. The definitions of murder versus justifiable homicide differ among societies and over time.

Slavery was assumed in these law codes - as it was assumed by Jesus and the New Testament authors. Constantine appears to have established clear laws that related to the Jewish Community and for the burning of their community members.

Quote:

But laws are not written as exercises in logic in any case. Even if stoning would be classified as murder, nothing would prevent the lawmakers from forbidding it again for emphasis.

Those who have studied the later Justinian Code have reported various motivations in the law-makers. There was a thread about this some time ago. Also Law makers and law-recorders if the task is retrospective, need to be differentiated.

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 07:41 PM

Amnon Linder compiled every single existing European ordinance against the Jews. I got my copy for $12 at Half Price Books

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2012, 04:08 PM	#25
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Toto, you said the following: You might think there were laws against murder, but they didn't correspond to our laws. The Patriarch had the right to kill members of his household for violating social norms (honor killings). Stoning was something like lynching, which was a common practice in the US at some points in history, whatever the laws on murder. So I asked whether our idea of laws against murder differ to the point where their law NEEDED a reference to this type of stoning as a crime because there were other circumstances when stoning would not be a crime?

02-06-2012, 04:47 PM	#27
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I understand, but in any case I find it hard to imagine that Jews would decide to Lynch a convert in public and expect to get away with it with this being the the impetus for such a law.

02-06-2012, 07:41 PM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Amnon Linder compiled every single existing European ordinance against the Jews. I got my copy for $12 at Half Price Books

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.