Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anat · 01-06-2005, 12:48 PM

A couple of comments: Deuteronomy 19 uses the verb r-tz-ch for manslaughter:

Quote:

3 Thou shalt prepare thee the way, and divide the borders of thy land, which the LORD thy God causeth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every manslayer may flee thither. 4 And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee thither and live: whoso killeth his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in time past; 5 as when a man goeth into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities and live; 6 lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally; whereas he was not deserving of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7 Wherefore I command thee, saying: 'Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.' 8 And if the LORD thy God enlarge thy border, as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which He promised to give unto thy fathers-- 9 if thou shalt keep all this commandment to do it, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in His ways--then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three; 10 that innocent blood be not shed in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. 11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die; and he flee into one of these cities; 12 then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

The law regarding the cities of refuge recognizes the right of the avenger to kill a killer. However, if the original killing was accidental, the killer can find refuge in 6 cities (but not outside them).
----------

The first (if we accept position in the Bible as indication) law against killing appears in Genesis 9. Interestingly, it is intertwined with a prohibition against the consumption of blood, but seems to explain the prohibition against killing people as a prohibition against an act that diminishes God's image (would that be a form of Natural Law?):

Quote:

4 Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

Clivedurdle · 01-06-2005, 03:16 PM

Can we be very careful about this phrase natural law? It is not natural, but the result of thousands of year of legal dispute and honing of related concepts like justice, equity and rights.

We must not read back current ways of thinking into ancient texts. The concepts of taboo are far more interesting.

Is xianity - with its allowing of eating unclean foods, the concept of renting the veil of the temple, the idea of being washed in the blood of the lamb, the removal of the requirement for circumcision and human sacrifice like Abraham but actually happening, so completely against the tenets of Judaism that in some ways it might be a deliberate plot to upset the Jews, a Machiavellian political and propaganda concept, probably by the Romans, to get political control?

Clivedurdle · 01-06-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve,

When was this technology first used in Palestine, and has it been used to date these verses?

Agnostic Theist · 01-06-2005, 03:25 PM

Can we be very careful about this phrase natural law? It is not natural, but the result of thousands of year of legal dispute and honing of related concepts like justice, equity and rights.

Precisely, and this is probably the greatest contributing factor to the dissolution of natural law as being politically legitimate. People realised (long story short) that the basis of political law on natural law was arbitrary, and the path between the two, if I may, was a totally circular one.

Epinoia · 01-06-2005, 07:07 PM

Kill or murder? Probably murder, as in killing for self-defense=probably OK. But I'm not sure it matters all that much.

The only interpretation borne out at least somewhat in fact is "thou shalt not kill/murder any fellow Jew." Otherwise God wouldn't have the Hebrews going pre-nuclear on the Moabites, the Canaanites, the Amelekites... you get the picture.

Or maybe it was "thou shalt not murder" but it was different when it involved a Jewish victim.

01-06-2005, 07:07 PM	#15
Epinoia Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Sodom, USA Posts: 200	I bet it's "thou shalt not kill/murder any Jewish person"... Kill or murder? Probably murder, as in killing for self-defense=probably OK. But I'm not sure it matters all that much. The only interpretation borne out at least somewhat in fact is "thou shalt not kill/murder any fellow Jew." Otherwise God wouldn't have the Hebrews going pre-nuclear on the Moabites, the Canaanites, the Amelekites... you get the picture. Or maybe it was "thou shalt not murder" but it was different when it involved a Jewish victim.

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

01-06-2005, 03:16 PM	#12
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Can we be very careful about this phrase natural law? It is not natural, but the result of thousands of year of legal dispute and honing of related concepts like justice, equity and rights. We must not read back current ways of thinking into ancient texts. The concepts of taboo are far more interesting. Is xianity - with its allowing of eating unclean foods, the concept of renting the veil of the temple, the idea of being washed in the blood of the lamb, the removal of the requirement for circumcision and human sacrifice like Abraham but actually happening, so completely against the tenets of Judaism that in some ways it might be a deliberate plot to upset the Jews, a Machiavellian political and propaganda concept, probably by the Romans, to get political control?

01-06-2005, 03:25 PM	#14
Agnostic Theist Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: UK Posts: 4,822	Can we be very careful about this phrase natural law? It is not natural, but the result of thousands of year of legal dispute and honing of related concepts like justice, equity and rights. Precisely, and this is probably the greatest contributing factor to the dissolution of natural law as being politically legitimate. People realised (long story short) that the basis of political law on natural law was arbitrary, and the path between the two, if I may, was a totally circular one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.