Neighbouring Influences: Ancient Politics
By: Jonathan Seidel
This essay reviews the sentiment made in the previous essay concerning external influence on halakha more extensively. Here we examine the biblical parallels and the valuational divergencies.
Intro:
Maimonides famously wrote in the Guide that the laws of sacrifices were given to redirect from idolatry (Guide III 32). He traces pagan worship and compliments God in providing us with a newly paved path to God instead of idols. He reuses this theory multiple times. I have expanded its usage to many more laws. The Bible’s identical law to the ancient Near East forum demonstrates a redirection of “divine law” to divine law. God’s goal was to “judify” or better sanctify ancient customs to be uniquely Jewish1. Wearing tassels is a classic example. It was an ancient garment but the royal blue was to be worn by all Jews, not just the elites2. The ancient medical custom of circumcision became a divinely linked ritual. I will briefly review the pagan parallels in biblical times, but what I think is most novel is the greek influence in rabbinic literature. The methodological aspects and the legal deviation itself. Despite much opposition to such claims, the evidence will speak for itself. This essay will enlighten the power of external influence in aiding in the development of our identity and Judaism’s thriving.
Biblical Era
The Bible textually parallels much of the ancient laws and norms3. The ancient doctrines were identical across the board; everyone followed a common system. God intentionally imposed a known framework on recently freed people. R’ Berman has noted similarities not just to ancient codes but their styles of writing. He equates the Torah with the king-vassal treaties4. The Bible is conventionally monitored towards its age. Figurative themes but literally by its era. The covenants drawn are found in other ancient literature. It was not a novelty but a commonality. R’ Wolowelsky proposes that the Torah flood story utilises ancient literary devices similar to the Gilgamesh Epic5. Absorbing the story in a reframed manner from a polytheistic version to a monotheistic one. R’ Bazak argues the Torah does not simply start from scratch6. Instead, it piggybacks off of existing systems at times reforming them.
Many laws can be attributed to adhering to Maimonides’ theory. I think idolatry is too minute. It is adjacent but fails to cover the vast similarities. Maimonides believes that it was to move away from idolatry but the similarities do not hold up. Instead, God is redirecting these common norms from the polytheist world to a monotheistic vision. He is accommodating the present ideology of his freed slaves. Imposing comprehensible and comfortable order with a few tweaks. Innovating and directing intent to God instead of other gods. Academics have shown the innovative humaneness of the Bible against its contemporaries7. The Bible was revolutionary theologically but such a mindset brought forth a renewed ethic. Judaism’s philosophy of man rivalled ancient civilisations8. A philological model conveys a single nation deviating from the grain. A new path formed with a fresh ideology. The Jewish purpose arose with profound meaning and teleology.
Highlighting the reasons for divergence aids in conceiving the legal differences. Classically, slavery was a common theme in the ancient world only ceasing worldwide (more or less) recently. The world refused to tolerate human property. This was not always the case yet there were still regulations for slavery. In the Bible, a Hebrew slave is sent free after six years. If he refuses, wishing to stay his ear is pierced at the doorpost with an awl (Exodus 21: 2, 5-6). Ear injury also occurs in Hammurabi’s code but differently. If a slave disrespects his master and is convicted his ear is cut off (Code of Hammurabi 282 [COH hereafter]). Pierced is not as bad as cutting off but that is not the point. The biblical slave is awarded freedom which he freely chooses to decline. The master then brings him to be pierced after wishfully defying his emancipation. The Hammurabi slave has no such freedom and is punished for advocating for it. The biblical slave is ushered out but attempts to remain. He enjoys his master’s dominion. The master is then forced by his “master”-God to punish the slave for failing to obey his real “master”’s orders. It is not only that he is defying God and retaining his enslavement to a mere mortal; the same situation God completed in releasing the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. He denies the novelty of freedom; the ability to be independent. He should love God and individuality, not his master and dependency. This is mirrored by Hammurabi’s slave who declares his freedom brazenly and is punished. The Hammurabi slave possesses no future of freedom. Only by believing it to be that he can feel a sense of rejuvenation and elevation for a brief moment. His blasphemous act costs him physically. His master deals with his property. The slave is dependent and has no choice of leaving. The code does implement some court system but the testimony may not have had any effect and conviction was a certainty. Technically, the master needs court authorisation to deal with his slave. He cannot harm his slave apologetically but it is the terminal status that disallows such utter heresy to be spoken. He wishes to be the Hebrew slave who can leave freely.
Another such example is the case of an ox murder. The Eshnunna law (Eshnunna Laws 53) reflects the Biblical law (Exodus 21:35) that the money of both oxen alive and dead be divided but the Biblical law further requires the owner to sell the killer ox. The Bible seems to refuse any stain of blood or connection to murder to remain. The monetary compensation is insufficient. Murder is intolerable, it must be removed. The Bible (Exodus 21:28-29) exceeds the Eshnunna law (Eshnunna Laws 54) if an ox with a history kills a person. The latter requires mass compensation but the former sentences the owner to death. Responsibility is not solely a virtue but a requirement. If one is unable to tame his beasts he will have to pay with his life. The Bible excesses immense value to human life and will not deviate an iota. Hammurabi’s code is even more lenient (COH 250-251). The Biblical model disagrees with the former's approach. Compensation is not adequate remorse. The sanctity of human life supersedes material possessions.
Generally, academics draw parallels to Hammurabi’s code but the Bible does mirror other systems as well. Dr. Belkin pointed out the diverging philosophies between the rabbis and Romans led to varying laws9. The same notion can be applied here with regards to the previous two cases. Dignified human life is transcendent. The role of underlying abstractions is evident in adultery. Hammurabi’s code allows the husband to pardon his wife (COH 129) but God disallows such action (Deuteronomy 22:23-26). Both adulterers die for their transgression. Intimacy in Biblical theology is spiritual; any consensual breaching of this covenant is worthy of death. The patriarchal centre of Babylonia also permitted killing a child for a father’s misstep (COH 209-210, 229-230). Family was considered the man's possessions and could be appropriated as compensation. In another vein, potentially losing his child will elevate his caution still his own life would heighten it even more. The Bible sought individuality and equal reception under the law (Exodus: 21:22-23). Whoever did the deed is punished (Deuteronomy 24:16). Again human life is sanctified. Anyone who decimates it is penalised, not the innocents. The redirection of divine law from polytheism to monotheism altered regulations with a certain theology. Parallels exist but it is the slight variations that establish the uniqueness and revolution of the Bible.
Endnotes
1. I have expanded this argument in a previous essay Out of Bounds.↩
2. David Silverstein, Jewish Law As a Journey: Finding Meaning in Daily Jewish Practice. Toby Press LLC, 2018, pp. 25-27. See also: PART TWO The Meaning and Purpose of Tzitzit.↩
3. Angel Manuel Rodríguez, “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration”. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (2001): pp. 43–64.↩
4. Joshua A. Berman, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith (Maggid Books, 2020), pp. 88-102.↩
5. Joel B. Wolowelsky, “A Note on the Flood Story in the Language of Man,”,Tradition 42:3 pp. 41-48.↩
6. Amnon Bazak, Until this Day: Fundamental Questions in Bible Teaching, (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth, Chemed and Mikhlelet Herzog, 2013), pp. 321-325, (Hebrew)↩
8. Samuel Belkin, In His Image: Jewish Philosophy of Man as Expressed in Rabbinic Tradition London, New York, Abelard-Schuman, 1960, pp. 41-53.↩
Comments
Post a Comment