Out of Bounds Part 2-Ancient Parallels
By: Jonathan Seidel
Ancient History
Jewish tradition affirms God gave the Bible to Moses (Exodus 31:18)1. It is easier to assume that it is all unique. God specifically chose these laws. A positivist would pose such a theory. Truly based on faith. Judaism was special in its theonomy or as some wish to presume divine command theory2. This concept has its fallacies and has been rejected by normative Judaism3. Historical documents display the similarities between the Bible and ancient societies4. Most will revert to the flood and Babel story, but there are even comparisons in classic cases such as circumcision and an eye for an eye (talion law). The former is a hygienic Egyptian practice5, the latter is a quote from Hummurabi’s code6. There are more similarities regarding ritual and legal commands: kidnapping, levirate marriage, parental honour7. Sacrificing burnt and peace offerings8, leprosy9, temples10. There are many examples. This by no means reduces the divine law. Interestingly, all these former law codes were divinely induced11. The divine covenants of the ancient societies were solely with the king. He was divinely chosen and God-like12. Judaism stands alone as the sole mass revelation13. God made a covenant with the people; elevating the commoner from uninvolved to the status of an engaged priest. He calls us, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). Mass revelation is unique, it engages the totality of a people in an eternal bond. Moses is not God-like, he is Godly. Moses is the leader and messenger binding God and Israel into an everlasting fellowship.
The laws may have been socially acceptable but God presented them in a new light. It has been noted that the Bible is more humanitarian and merciful injustice14 and theologically monotheistic; He “jewdified them”15. Circumcision was a pagan Egyptian hygienic practice (believed the god ra was circumcised) and God redefined it as a covenantal bond with the people. The Sabbath was a day of rest16 and God redirected the schedule to be focused on serving Him. God’s predicament was how to transition from pharaoh’s slaves to His servants/citizens? How can I connect with these people? They lacked maturity and individuality. They were stubborn and dependent on Moses for survival (Exodus 32:9). Their slave mentality kicked in multiple times, constantly complaining wishing to return to Egypt (Numbers 11:1-6). They did not enjoy that life but they feared freedom and responsibility. They had never experienced such a lifestyle and struggled to adapt. God’s solution was to provide an existing framework with a few tweaks. To appeal to them into trusting Him. Releasing them from the shackles did not motivate them, it just strengthened their worries and fears (Numbers 14:10-14). Seeking social conventionalism, God displayed a familiar system17. The laws aligned with prior exposed values, generally idolatrous18, but besides for the minor differences in the legal language, it reframed the entire narrative. Not only were all these laws divinely sourced but they were also divinely encoded. It was not to simply follow a law, it was to serve God. Obedience was not for society but for God.
The social appeal wished to relieve the stress of the future. Although this did not solve all their fears as new external threats loomed, a new generation born in the desert under the word of God, aware of social norms, happily accepted into the next stage. The inspiration of the Bible was internalised as it rationally was cultivated by the people. God’s social awareness provided a methodology that clicked with the slaves. A theocracy was created on social values of its time.
Endnotes
1. Maimonides's intro to Perek Helek. Maimonides affirms the thirteen articles of faith. Number eight being the divinity of the Torah. Maimonides writes: "We do not know exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. But when it was transmitted, Moses merely wrote it down like a secretary taking dictation...[Thus] every verse in the Torah is equally holy, as they all originate from God, and are all part of God's Torah, which is perfect, holy and true."↩
2. Immanuel Jakobovits, “Jewish Views on Abortion” in Fred Rosner and J. David Bleich, eds., Jewish Bioethics (New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1979), 118-133. Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides [Hebrew][Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991], 338, n. 237. Marvin Fox, “Maimonides and Aquinas on Natural Law,” Dinei Yisrael 3 (1972), 5-27; idem, Interpreting Maimonides: Studies in Methodology, Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990), pp. 202-203, 208.↩
3. See: Avi Sagi and Daniel Statman, “Divine Command Morality and Jewish Tradition”, Journal of Religious Ethics 23 (1995), 39-67; Aharon Lichtenstein, “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha?” in Marvin Fox, ed., Modern Jewish Ethics: Theory and Practice (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975), Shubert Spero, Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition (New York: Ktav/Yeshiva University Press, 1983), 69-70.↩
4. 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.↩
5. MC Alanis and RS Lucidi, “Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation” Obstet Gynecol Surv. 59 (5): 379–95. Herman Te Velde, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Egypt” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3, pg. 1733 describes it as a priestly action. In Israel it was a communal expression. Joshua A. Berman, “God’s Alliance with man” Azure 25 pg. 104 affirms a Jewish change was the redirection from king-centred divinely chosen individuals to a group covenant. God made a pact with a community, not a single individual.↩
6. Hammurabi's Code: An Eye for an Eye [ushistory.org].↩
7. Supra “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration,” pg. 52.↩
8. John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the OT (Leiden: Brill, 1965), pg. 192.↩
9. Hartmut Schmokel, “Mesopotamian Texts,” in Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts, pg. 108. This is greatly debated and is still unclear if the practice originated in other cultures. There is a theory connecting the mesopotamian practice shab-et at the fifteenth of the month yet does not provide enough evidence,↩
10. Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, “God, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary” (Austin: U of Texas P, 1995), pg. 138.↩
11. Code of Hammurabi: Laws & Facts - HISTORY.↩.
12. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983), pp. 140-142 and William W. Hallo, “Texts, Statues, and the Cult of the Divine King,” in Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986, ed. John A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 54-66.↩
13. Cf. “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration,” pg. 62. Berman, “God’s Alliance with man” There are similarities between the Sinaitic covenant and the Hittite covenant but what most differentiates the two is the commoner is imperative to the treaty pp. 99-101.↩
14. Emanuel Rackman, “The Dialectic of Halakha” Tradition 3:2 and Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke With Ancient Political Thought (Oxford University Press, 2008). See also: Jeremiah Unterman, Justice For All: How the Bible Revolutized Ethics, JPS: Philadelphia 2017. ↩
15. R’ Schechter in his review of R’ Wiess’s Dor Dor Dorashav acknowledges the external influence by Persia, Greece and Rome but due to fluid “judaization” evidence has been entirely remiss. Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Adam and Charles Black, 1908) pg. 49. R’ Kasher argued the opposite, that ANE law was initially identical to the Torah (as pure transmission from Noah presumably) but regional kings deviated in their selfish desires. See: Mordechai Kasher, Torah Shelemah (Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelema, 1992), pg. 17:222. A second possibility is the continual denial of these aspects maintaining divine positivism in a synchronic model, outright rejecting any “tainting” of the divine will. See: An Alternate View on Rav Aharon Lichtenstein and Academic Talmud Study. For a different perspective with a more optimistic tone see: Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein and Academic Talmud Study.↩
16. W. W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach,” in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. F. E. Greenspahn (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pg. 315. It is well debated if it was a divine construct or a social convention. See: B.E. Shafer, “Sabbath,” in IDBSup, pg. 761.↩
17. For further examples of biblical similarities and deviation see my: Neighbour influences. Prof. Greenberg provides a similar model but much more exhaustive and explicit. See: Moshe Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law” Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1960), pp. 5-28. Prof. Greenberg argues better comprehension is derived from the whole system instead of individual laws (pg. 7). Prof. Jackson (disagrees with Greenberg elsewhere) pushes to interpret laws in biblical context instead of the ancient near east. He is not disregarding the ancient parallels but instead recognises the biblical relation. See: Bernard Jackson, “Human Law and Divine Justice: Toward the Institutionalisation of Halakhah,” JSIJ 9 pg. 235. Still, I think Prof. Jackson is correct that the synchronic nature is imperative to delineating between what values arise. The variations of ancient near east are due to narrative or experiential differences. Prof. Burnside connects the laws of asylum to the Mosaic Exodus narrative. See: Jonathan P. Burnside, “Exodus and Asylum: Uncovering the Relationship between Biblical Law and Narrative,” JSOT 34 pp. 245-256. I think the values of freedom and responsibility pivot the laws from other ancient near east codes in light of Israelite collective memory. Such examples include not chasing a runaway slave (Deuteronomy 23:15) that Hammurabi’s code requires (COH: 16-17) and self-punishment in the Bible (Deuteronomy 24:16) instead of sacrificing a child for fault (COH: 209-210). In contrast to Prof. Greenberg, the rulings may not have been diverted with valuational educational intent but were a consequence of the undergirding values. Alternatively, in the eye for an eye case (Infra 46) against Prof. Greenberg accepting retribution, the text itself may convey the deviation, yet practically compensation was permitted. I have provided a few examples, whether this can be applied to the Bible’s entirety is debatable.↩
18. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 3:49. See also: David Hartman, From Defender to Critic: the Search for a New Jewish Self (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2013) pp. 121-126. See also: Isadore Twersky, A Maimonides Reader, (New York: Behrman House, 1972) pp. 465-466.↩
Comments
Post a Comment