If the other testicle was injured, both of her eyes were gouged out.” See Copan, Paul. If a woman in a quarrel injured a man’s testicle, her finger was cut off. He writes, “In fact, Middle Assyrian laws (around 1100 BC) present a similar scenario (in the case of injury to the man), though with far more drastic consequences. It seems nearly just as bad and ultimately more bizarre! However, Copan also points out that this law was still ahead of the ANE at the time. He makes a linguistic argument for this, but I don’t find this much better than the plain sense reading. Copan argues that the Hebrew is actually referring to publicly shaving the woman’s pubic hair! That is, the woman was to be publicly humiliated for her actions. This might be the prevention of harm, rather than the retribution of harm. It might be similar to a SWAT sniper shooting someone with a hostage. However, this is probably referring to justice “on the spot,” rather than later. The only possible exception is Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH CODE
In addition, if a builder killed your kid, while working on your house, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed that the builder’s own kid should be killed as recompense (compare with Deut. “bone for bone” “tooth for tooth”), but it didn’t count for aristocrats damaging slaves or servants. The Code of Hammurabi had this legal principle (e.g. It encouraged fair payment for fair damage.įourth, the Code of Hammurabi practiced lex talionis much differently (see principle four). In this way, the “eye for an eye” principle encouraged fair bargaining for injuries. OFFENDED: “You plucked out my eye… give me yours!” If you were hurt by someone, you could bargain until you felt like your retribution was fair. Third, lex talionis was for the purpose of protection, rather than the purpose of revenge. Moreover, when we consider the greater context of Scripture, we cannot find one example of lex talionis being literally practiced in the entire OT. In verse 26, a servant could go free, if they were injured, and in verse 30, a ransom was given for damage. Second, the context speaks against a literal interpretation. Clearly, turning the other cheek was not a NT invention revenge was prohibited in ancient Israel. The law commanded that the Jews were not to “take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. Is this what is going on here in the OT law? Were the Jews supposed to literally pluck out another person’s eye ball or tooth for retribution?įirst, this passage was not meant to be literal. When he couldn’t pay him back, Shylock demanded that Antonio pay him what their contract demanded: a pound of his flesh! For the rest of the play, Shylock tries to pin down Antonio to cut a hunk of meat out of his side. In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, a Jewish moneylender named Shylock lent money to Antonio. 19:21):īut if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Lex Talionis is Latin, and it means “the law of retaliation.” It comes from this passage in Exodus 21:23-25 (c.f.
0 kommentar(er)
