A Complex Past: Biblical Legal Parameters Part 4--Courts and Adjudication

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

This part will explain the adjudication model in biblical law. Who judged? How did they judge? Where did they judge?

                                                                    Judgment Day 

Adjudication becomes unnecessary because people are aware of the “rules”. They are clear to the social knowledge of the people to pursue when these events occur. All this is against the frequent use of courts and to rely on social solving (Proverbs 25:7-9). The restoration period was the revolution of book-based judgement (Ezra 7:25). Judges existed and did judge (Jehoshaphat Chronicles II 19:4-7), and Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges (Exodus 18:21-22). Prof. Jackson argues courts functioned for distant, out-there cases1. Jethro even notes that only the toughest questions should come to Moses. One could either infer that judges would hear easier cases or that they heard only hard cases and Moses heard the most difficult cases (a similar proposal is articulated by Prof. Wishart2). Alternatively, Jethro’s reform was temporary to the desert period when they were first receiving the law, and later the courts became “obsolete”3. 

After questioning whether the word “shophet”/judge described professionals or elders, Prof. Fensham answers that it is probably not the hereditary profession of other lands and more like elders at the gate4. Yet, Prof. Fensham distinguishes between the Pentateuchal and prophetic texts. In the latter, the word infers legal decisions, not just a leader. Deborah is described as a prophetess and judge of Israel (Judges 4:4). Some note this means a mediator or arbitrator5. Prof. Fensham does not posit a personal theory and instead mentions earlier projects that believe judges arbitrated, but it is not conclusive. 

Prof. Weinfeld argues the laws surrounding pursuing Justice in Exodus 23: 1-3, 6-9 mirror the Hittite code. This general perspective is attested in Leviticus 19:15. Exodus stresses moral qualities, while Deuteronomy stresses intellectual ability. Prof. Weinfeld notes in Egypt, both were important. A pledge taken to be a judge and dual court composition is similar to the Egyptian model as well6. Textually, this is not foreign as the Jews were enslaved there for centuries. The fact that Deuteronomy has such parallels may hint at its earlier codification and relation to emancipation. Elders were local authorities, while judges were central authorities. Prof. Jackson argued that many laws were self-executing but if elders were introduced that would involve a third party but not necessarily a court case. The king appointed judges and sent them to judge (Kings I 12:29, Chronicles II 17:7-9). These judges and Levites went to teach the law. This may be literal excluding any judgement but also may include the latter.                

Even if judges did mediate, this lack of textual evidence to such actions may promote Prof. Jackson’s position of its unnecessary/uncommon purpose. As noted above, David and Solomon both judged cases. In contrast to later rabbinic literature, it may reflect a shift in either the monarchical system or in the transition to the rabbinic leadership. It was not about legacy but knowledge. David intervenes in the Absalom case after a brief reluctance (Samuel II 14:5-7). If he was permitted, why did he not judge? Individual rationality was not a common thread. The rabbinic world shifted from a time of divine oracles and inspiration to logic and rationality. David does not inquire his own opinion but does so on God’s behalf (Samuel II 14:11,20). This also occurs with Solomon’s divine wisdom (Kings II 3:28). In Prof. Jackson’s conclusion, it could be surmised he acknowledges the divine collection as a narrative based but in extenuating circumstances the court was to be centre stage. 

David’s use mirrors Moses in Deuteronomy (not in Numbers where he asks God for aid) deciding on his “own” as an outlier case needing judicial support, but Solomon's case seems to be less about the case and more about the wisdom7. Solomon’s case was not unconventional, but his response was, which lay at the divine order instead of rules. Judicial leadership was problematic throughout, and the only way to retain any sort of order was to provide a system that was intuitive to the audience. The corruption of Ancient Israel was not novel. To this day, politicians are corrupt, enforcing rules “for thee not for me”. They are an elitist class that cares more for their own profit than concerning themselves with the people. Without going into too much of a tangent just look at how many politicians enforced covid restrictions on their constituents but failed to abide by them. 

The ingeniousness of the biblical model enables proper association without the intervention of courts. Prof. Jackson concludes with a modern representation of semantic and narrative meaning, but that is beyond the scope of this essay. Yet, it may be interesting in converting values with the biblical illustration to modern society. The social knowledge of Biblical Israel preceded any judicial corruption. Despite the judicial issues, order could fluidly perpetuate between man and man.

Endnotes

1. Bernard S. Jackson, “Literal Meaning: Semantics and Narrative in Biblical Law and Modern Jurisprudence,” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law / Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 13, pg. 446.^↩

2.Ryder Wishart, “An Emerging Account of Biblical Law: Common-law Tradition in the Old and New Testaments” McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry: Vol. 8 pg. 178.^↩

3. It is worth pointing out that Jethro’s suggestion is different from Moses’ actions in Deuteronomy 1:9-17. Jethro advises Moses to choose for himself based on character and later on, Moses endorses tribal nominations. As argued later in the essay, this may reflect an alteration in Moses’ perception of entering the land. Jethro’s advice was no longer relevant or circumstantially constructive. The land would be divided by tribes, and it was a source of autonomous representation. Jethro’s point was effective to a desert flux of people united but not for separate tribal heirs.^↩

4. F.C. Fensham, “The Judges and Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence,” OTWSA 2:1 pg. 18.^↩

5. W.F. Albright, “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat,” Alexander Marx Jubilee ed. Saul Lieberman (Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), pg. 22 and Ludwig Köhler, Der hebräische Mensch: eine Skizze, Tübingen: Mohr, 1953, pg. 41.^↩

6. Moshe Weinfeld, “Judge and Officer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” IOS 7 pg. 78.^↩

7. Divine oracles were consulted by other leaders: Saul (Samuel I 14:36), Hezekiah (Chronicles II 31:21) and Josiah Chronicles II 34:3). Josiah does go to the prophetess Huldah to consult God (Kings II 22:13). David and Solomon were considered prophets (Megillah 14a) so their “divine wisdom” is acceptable. Whether this is a later apology or not is uncertain. We know Hezekiah did not possess such wisdom as God tells Isaiah that he is adding fifteen years to the king’s life (Kings II 20:6). When David sins, God sends Nathan and for Solomon as well though not explicit in the text, Radak argues Ahiyah the Shilonite was sent to inform him. The text’s omission may just be due to a superfluous point or to emphasise God’s link to Solomon’s prophetic ability. God visits Solomon twice (Kings I 3:5, 9:2) and David zilch. God advances the prophet as the medium upon entering the land (Deuteronomy 18:18-19). Solomon seems to be an exceptional case and David’s situation is routed by the wise woman herself in the form of a curse.^↩