Old Testament Backgrounds



Download 4,99 Mb.
Page9/41
Date conversion06.05.2018
Size4,99 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   41
Inanna)-she would identify w/other female goddesses as the planet Venus, Ishtar (Astarte in Canaan). This goddess appeared in myth as sister, daughter, lover, bride & widow but never as ‘mother’ or ‘wife’.
She is the goddess of Uruk whose ruler was the ‘en’ priest who lived in the

Gipar, a section of Inanna’s temple where he probably served as her husband. The En was chosen b/c of some ‘outstanding deed or accomplishment’.
Later, the religious leadership of Uruk changed to Nippur (ruled by Enlil the Storm god). When Sargon conquered Sumer, he ordered that Enlil was to raise up Inanna who would be the tutelary deity of his dynasty. This event paved the way for the Sacred Marriage that occurred later (the event when life was renewed at the turn of the year through a ritual marriage of king & goddess).
2. The earliest evidence for this physical union was during the Ur III period when the king took on the role of Dumuzi (Inanna’s husband) & the SM was performed at Uruk in Inanna’s Temple.
3. This reveals a shift in political realities in ancient Sumer from Temple to palace and female to male. Inanna becomes the means by which kings of Ur III make their claim to rule Sumer as her chosen husband. She becomes the king’s consort representing the political shift in power from female to male, that is, from deity to human (royal) power.
4. One further detail appears to accompany this royal divinization-in order to assume his role as Inanna’s consort, he must perform successfully on the battlefield. His victory there makes him desirable to Inanna (alternately a goddess of war).
5. Thus, the shift in religion from the OA period to Ur III is that power shifts to the king as represented in the physical union of the king and Inanna.

How is this explained?

1. Prosperity/ fertility

2. Longevity

3. Relationship with God

What does this have to say about the ANE concept of kingship? On this see J. Nicholas Postgate, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad,” CANE, 395-412. Dominik Bonatz, “The Divine Image of the King: Religious Representations of Political Power in the Hittite Empire,” Representations of Political Power, eds. Heinz and Feldman, 111-136


Not so much that God de-mythologized something as He gave it its correct theological expression.

Of some importance, how does this correlate with the Hebrews in general, and the western Semites in particular? Topography

3d. The other kings are of little importance. They are Amar-Sin (9 years); Shu-Sin (9 years). For a love song to the latter, see ANET, pp. 496 & 644. He also makes mention of the important Martu wall which he stated extended, “twenty-six double-hours march from the Abgal Canal in N. Babylonia.

4d. Ibbi-Sin (25 years) and the end of Ur III. T. M. Sharlach, “The Remembrance of Kings Past: the Persona of King Ibbi-Sin,” Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature, ed. David Vanderhooft, 421-32.


1e. The Ishbi-Erra incidents

2e. The place of the Elamites in the final fall. See especially the moving document, “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur,” ANET, pp. 611-613. It is an eloquent picture of that type of literature found in the biblical book, Lamentations. See on Elam, Walther Hinz, The Lost World of Elam. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972.

3e. Other factors in the breakup.

5d. The period up to the rise of Hammurapi is somewhat confusing. Especially in the north, it is a period in which the Amorite population is moving into power. The whole problem of the Amorites is a vexing one. See M. Liverani, “The Amorites,” POTT, pp. 100-133. It should be remembered that the Ur III period is chronologically the correct period for Abraham. The location of Ur is, however, hotly debated. It seems to me unlikely that his homeland was in the Ur of Sumer. See Stigers, Genesis. Zondervan, l976 & Gordon in BAR p. 52-54 discuss location of Ur. The discussion will occur later in the section on “Arameans”

5b. The background of the patriarchal period-the Old Babylonian Period.
1c. Setting and stage. This is primarily a period that can best be called Amorite. Hammurapi was an Amorite; indeed, much of the period’s culture and language is strongly influenced by this ethnic element. Who were they? See BA 47:2:93, Robert M. Whiting, “Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia,” CANE, 1231-1242.
1d. The geographical perspective. Westerners

2d. The ethnic perspective.

They are first mentioned in Sumerian tablets from the OA period. Within another 1 ½ centuries, the locals are forced to build a wall to restrain them.

Assyrian merchants in Cappadocia (20th Century) have an occasional amoritic name.

By the OB period, they are mostly synthesized with the local population.

3d. The socio-economic perspective.

4d. The Biblical Usage.

86X in OT & all but 13 of them in 1st 7 books



Ethnic-Hyksos Empire. Amos 2:9; Josh. 11:10

Geographical
Further reading may be done in: H. Crawford, “Nomads: the Forgotten Factor, and Assessment of their Historical Role in N. Syria and Iraq in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia, “OLP 8 (1977), pp. 33-45; K. Kenyon, The Amorites and Canaanites; A Haldar, Who were the Amorites?; G. Buccellatti, The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Brit Jahn, “The Migration and Sedentarization of the Amorites from the Point of View of the Settled Babylonian Population,” Representations of Political power, eds. Heinz and Feldman, 193-200.

2c. The OB period. This is also occasionally known as the Isin-Larsa Period for those cities which are in dominance to the rise of Hammurapi. Technically, it begins with the ascension of Hammurapi (1792) and goes to 1594.


1d. Mesopotamia up to the ascendancy of Hammurapi
1e. The South (Isin, Larsa, and Babylon).
The early dominance of Isin under Ishbi-Erra.

Ishbi-Erra’s grandson is able to include the great city of Sippar to the empire; hence, an empire over all Sumer.

During the reign of Lipit-Ishtar (1934-1924), Gungunum of Larsa (1932-1906) began to dismantle the Isin hegemony. For succeeding kings, Isin declines and Larsa rises. The remaining history of Sumer, to the rise of Hammurapi, is of peripheral importance.

2e. The north (Eshnunna, Aššur, and Mari).


Eshnunna controlled all of the Diyala basin for most of this period up to its fall to Hammurapi.

Aššur received its real imperial impetus from the incoming Amorites. Shamshi-Adad I managed to secure an early hegemony over the whole northern area. He then places his able son Yasmah-Adad as king over Mari and Yasmah-Dagan as king over Ekallatum. He himself made his capital, Shubat-Enlil. Much of the correspondence of the period is from Shamshi-Adad exhorting his son to rule forcefully. Aššur is not the actual capital of his Amorite kingdom.

Mari had earlier won a western kingdom under Amorite influence but was subsequently incorporated into the kingdom of Shamshi-Adad. See Pierre Villard, “Shamshi-Adad and Sons: the Rise and Fall of an Upper Mesopotamian Empire”, CANE, 873-84 as well as Jean-Claude Margueron, “Mari: a Portrait in Art of a Mesopotamian City-State,” 885-900.

2d. Hammurapi, the Amorite.


That the area was ripe for conquest may be seen in this quote, “There is no king who can be mighty alone. Behind Hammurapi, the man of Babylon, march 10, 15 kings; as many march behind Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa, Ibal-pi’el, the man of Eshnunna, Amut-pi’el, the man of Qatunum, and behind Yarim-Lim, the man of Yamḫad, march 20 kings.”

See BA 47:2:92 when the 1st year of Hammurapi was either; 1848, 1792, or 1736 depending on whether the chronology is high, middle or low.


When a man such as Hammurapi arises to a position of power, there are a large number of factors which must be considered. Perhaps one of the most important was the death of Shamshi-Adad during Hammurapi’s 10th year. This clearly opened the way for a strong leader such as Hammurapi. He was not the first king of his dynasty; rather, he was the first Babylonian king to rule of a unified Mesopotamia. The previous history of Babylon is obscure. R. Harris, “Some Aspects of the Centralization of the Realm under Hammurapi and his successors.” JAOS, 88:4 (1968), 727-732. Jack Sasson, “Hammurabi of Babylon,” CANE, 901-916.

1e. Some contributions of Hammurapi and others during this period. See for a list of his accomplishments ANET, pp. 269-271. See also ANEP # 437 for a bust of Hammurapi and 515 for Hammurapi before the sun god Shamash. Other pertinent representations are 438 and 514.


1f. Architecture and construction. Babylon canals & Temples

2f. The calendar. The Venus Tablets of Ammi-saduqa (1646-1628) show a regular observation of the appearance and disappearance of Venus. Thus, the 1st step toward a later calendar. This period, then, is the source for the legendary skills of the astronomers of Babylon who were so famous in the Hellenistic era. See, Francesca Rochberg, “Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE, 1925-1940

3f. Law. Hammurapi was not the first to produce a code of law. Consider:

Ur-Nammu-cf. ANEP # 306 & 746; ANET, 523-24.

Lipit-Ishtar-cf. ANET, pp. 159-60. See also F. Steele, “The Code of Lipit-Ishtar,” AJA 51:2 (1947), 158-164 and 52:3 (1948), 425-450.

Eshnunna-cf. ANET, 161-163. See the thorough treatment by R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna and J. Miles and O. Gurney, “The Laws of Eshnunna,” ArOr 17:2 (1949), 17-88

Hammurapi-cf. ANET, 163-180. The complete treatise is that of G. R. Driver & J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2 Vols. Oxford. W.F. Leemans, “King Hammurapi as Judge,” Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamia, ed. M.W. Beek, et al, pp. 107029; M.E.J. Richardson, Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation and Glossary. Sheffield: Academic, 2000.
4f. The Amorite world-view and its possible relationship to that of the Bible.

1g. Linguistically, Amorite is close to Hebrew. Consider Yasmah-Adad with Hebrew ddh-umvy. The same could be done for such names as Yasmah-Dagan and others.


2g. Geographically, the connections with the patriarchs are impressive. For example, Haran, Tel-serugi, Til-Turahi, and Til-Nahur are all the same as personal names in Gen. 11:22-26; 24:10. The constant reference in Genesis and Josh. 24 to the homeland of the patriarchs as being in Northern Syria makes it possible, if not likely, that Abraham was himself well acquainted with Amoritic culture but was himself of Aramean extract.
3g. Socially, the parallels are truly impressive. Only several will be cited. In Jud 19:29-30, in order to get the Israelites to muster, the Levite cuts his murdered concubine into 12 pieces and sends a piece to each tribe. Similarly, in 1 Sam 11:6-7 Saul does the same thing with his oxen. There are certain similarities with this practice in the OB period.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar’s advice on how to stop criminality. W. G. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar, King of Justice,” Iraq 27 (1965), 1-11.

Similarly, Shamshi-Adad’s advice to his son is to cut off the head of a nomad who refuses to muster and send it around the kingdom. Consider also the OB tablet # 158 from Tel al Rimah where a man threatens “I shall cut you into 12 pieces,” if the sheep are not returned.

A literal host of such examples could be cited in any given social area. It is clear that this period, both chronologically and socially, which best fits the world of the Patriarchs. Some excellent reading on these subjects may be seen in the following works:

E. A. Speiser, “Authority and Law in Mesopotamia,” Oriental and Biblical Studies, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg, 313-323.

Ibid, “Early Law & Civilization,” pp. 534-55

Ibid, “Religion and Government in the ANE,” pp. 556-572.

A. Phillips, “Some Aspects of Family law in Pre-exilic Israel,” VT 23:3 (1973), 349-61.

M. David, “The Codex of Hammurapi and its Relation to the Provisions of Law in Exodus,” OTS 7 (1950), 149-178

Seminal reading may be done in the especially good work of:

M. E. Selman, “The Social Environment of the Patriarchs,” TB 27 (1976) 114-136.

K. A. Kitchen, The Bible and its World, (This volume should be in every evangelical’s library.)

A. P. Millard & D. J. Wiseman, eds. Essays on the Patriachal Narrative. W.L. Eisenbraun’s 1983.

Oates, Joan. Babylon. London: Thames & Hudson, 1979.

Saggs, H.W.F. Babylonians. People of the Past. Berkeley: U. of California, 2000.



IBID. Civilizations Before Greece and Rome. New Haven, Yale, 1989
4g. Economics.
1h. Crown land and its sale. The OT appears to have particular similarity with the concept of royal land. According to CH 35-37, land couldn’t be sold since the king owned it. This compares favorably with the OT understanding of the land although there, YHWH is the king who owns all the land. See especially S. H. Bess, Systems of Land Tenure. Maria deJ. Ellis, Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: Occasional Publication of the Babylonian Fund, 1976. See the helpful volume by Norman Habel. The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995 and the superb Walter Brueggemann. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise and Challenge to Biblical Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
It should also be noted that when the conditions of fief land were broken, the land was lost. The same principle is seen in the smashing of the tablets at Mt. Sinai.

2h. Interest and Usury. For an excellent study, see Robert P. Maloney, “Usury and Restrictions on Interest-taking in the ANE,” CBQ 36:1 (Jan. 1974), 1-20. See also the important volume by Morris Silver, Economic Structures of the ANE. Totawa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1985. Points of comparison are:


CH 51 showing a regulated economy; prices were fixed by the state.
CH 88 where interest = 20% of grain or silver. Anything else was considered usury which had severe punishments. CH 90.
CH 94 also deals with the problem of merchants who use unjust weights – a frequent problem in the OT. See especially Amos and Micah.
Indeed, there appears to have been an international vocabulary of commerce. For example, consider the vocabulary for “capital.” Akkadian - qaqqadum; Hebrew - r’osh; Aramaic - Resh; Egyptian – j’j’; Greek – kephalion; Latin – caput. All of these words mean, “head, or top;” hence “capital.”
3g. Without a doubt, the most striking parallel is that of the so-called ‘Jubilee.’ In the OT, every 7 years there was to be a ‘release;’ that is, a cancellation of debts.’ Dt. 15:1-4 which uses the technical word hf*m+v!. See also Dt. 31:9-13. This was apparently a limited release although we have no evidence that it was ever practiced.
Perhaps the most difficult economic practice to institute was that of the Jubilee (Lev 25) where it was commanded that there be a cancellation of debts and the land was to lie fallow for the 50th year. For years, this was considered to be a utopian, priestly idea that showed that the Bible to be a late document. This, however, has dramatically changed due to studies of OB materials which have shown something very similar to the OT economic program for cancellations of debts. The origins of the Mesopotamian release are obscure but go back at least into the Old Akkadian period. Thus far, there are at least 48 references to different releases in Mesopotamia. The two Akkadian words are mesharum and andurarum which correspond to Hebrew rvy and rwrd. The latter however, is the true conceptual counterpart of andurarum in the Bible. While the earliest reference to a Mesopotamian release is probably that of Eannatum (ca 2500), the preponderance of known releases occurred in the OB period.
3 tablets have been found at Hana, a small kingdom in the middle course of the Euphrates and just west of Babylon which deal with the release in some form or another. They are usually protection documents against a release. The most common place for a release in the ANE was at the ascension of a king to the throne although some OB kings especially had more than one release.

A number of tablets have also been found at Nuzi which make mention of the release. They also are designed to protect creditors from release of debts.

All of the OB kings had at least one release with Ammi-saduqa having several. Note his claim at his first release in his 2nd year: The year… “in which…the humble shepherd, who hearkened to Anu and Enlil, arose for the land like the sun and for all the people created a righteous order.” In his 10th year he claimed that it was the year, “…in which the true shepherd, the favorite of Shamash and Marduk, released the debts of the land.” The Edict of Ammi-saduga, (ANENA, pp. 36-41) also explains how the mešarum was to be applied to various people in differing circumstances. The style is very similar to the provisions in Lev 25.

From a biblical perspective, it is striking that ANE release formula ceased with the end of the OB period. The comparison with Moses, ca 1500 should be obvious.

The Literature on the subject is voluminous:

Howard L. Baker, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of the Year of the Release in Dt. 15,” DTS mf, 63 (1978).

J. B. Alexander, “A Babylonian Year of Jubilee,” JBL 57 (1938), 75-79.

J. Lewy, “The Biblical Institution of deror In the Light of the Akkadian Documents,” Eretiz-Israel, 5 (1958), 21-31.

J. Neufeld, “Socio-Economic background of Yōbēl and semiṭṭa,” Revista degli Studi-Orientali, 33 (1958), 53-124.

W. F. Leemans, “The Role of Landlease in Mesopotamia in the Early 2nd Millennium,” JESHO, 18:2 (June, 1975), 134-45.

Benno Landsberger, “The Date-list of Samsu-ditana,” JNES 14 (1955), especially, p. 146.

M. Kessler, “The Law of Manumission in Jer 43,” BZ 15 (1971), 105-108.

T. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, especially pages 80-110 on land tenure.

R. T. O’Callahan, “Historical Perallels to patriarchal Social Custom,” CBQ 6:4 (Octo. 1944), 391-405.

J. P. J. Olivier, “The OB mešarum-Edict and the OT,” Unpublished D. Litt. At the U. of Stellenbosch, 1977. In Library in Mf.

Other more recent articles/books include:

Amit, Yairiah. “The Jubilee Law-an Attempt at Instituting Social Justice,”

Bergsma, John S. “Once Again, the Jubilee, every 49 or 50 Years,” VT 55 (2005):121-25.

Block, Daniel I. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in ANE National Theology. ETS Monograph Series. Number 2. Jackson, MS: ETS, 1988.

Clements, R.E. “Land; its Rights and Privileges,” The Land of Ancient Israel, ed by Clements. Cambridge: CUP, 1989:349-370

Fager, Jeffrey A. “Land Tenure in the Biblical Jubilee: a Moral Order World View. Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987):59-68

Kawashima, Robert S. “The Jubilee Year and the Return of Cosmic Purity,” CBQ 65:3 (July, 2003):370-89.

Liveram, Mario. “Land Tenure and Inheritance in the ANE: The Interaction between ‘Palace’ and ‘Family’ Sectors.” Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East. ed. Tarif Khalidi. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1984:33-44

Lowery, Richard H. Sabbath and Jubilee. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000.

Milgrom, Jacob. “The Land Redeemer and the Jubilee,” Fortunate the Eyes that See, ed, bt Astrid Beck, et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995:66-69.

Moss, Rowland. “’The Land is Mine…and you are…My Tennants’: Reflections on a

Biblical View of Man and Nature.” Pulpit and People: Essays in Honor of William Still on his 75th Birthday. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986:103-16.

Ollenberger, Ben C. “Jubilee: ‘The Land is Mine; you are aliens and tenants with me’,” Reclaiming the OT, ed. Gordon Zerbe. Winnipeg, CBMC, 2001:208-304.

Olson, Dennis T. “Biblical Perspectives on the Land,” Word & World, 6:1 (Winter 1986):18-28

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuch and their ANE Background,” The Law in the Bible and its Environment, ed. Timo Veijola. Finnish Exegetical Society 51. Helsink. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 1990:39-62.

Williamson, M.A. “The OT and the Material World,” EQ 57:1 (January, 1985):5-22

In the late 70’s a new and noisy minority group of scholars (now called ‘Minimalists”) emerged. They are so-called because they deny the historicity of any biblical passage unless that passage can be scientifically proven to be a fact.. See for example, Niels O, Lemche, “Andurarum and Mišarum,” JNES 38:1 (1979), 11-22. and “The Manumission of slaves-the Fallow Year-the Sabbatical Year-the Jobel Year,” VT 26:1 (Jan. 1976), 38-59.


It should not be surprising that an idea this important would make its way into the NT by both analogy and direct citation. Take, for example, the incident in Lk. 4:18-19 which is quoted Is. 61:1-2. Was Jesus in some way offering the possibility of a release? Was He modifying His proclamation or is it to be related to the social arena or is it simply a spiritual modification? The royal motifs in Isaiah are clear:
“anointed me…” yt!a) hwhy jv^m*
“to the poor.” To proclaim liberty…” rw)rD+ In fact, nearly all the terminology of Is 61:1-2 can be mirrored in royal Babylonian literature.
Note that Christ stopped in the middle of verse 2 – why? It should also be noted that this same verse is also used of the ministry of the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran as well as 11QMelch 6-9. For an interesting study, see A. Ströbel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. Leiden: Brill, 1961. See Also John H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus. Eerdmans, 1972; Robert B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord: a Study of Jubilary Theology in the Gospel of Luke. Austin, TX: Schola, 1977.

Excurses on Shepherd as a Royal Title


1. In the Ancient Near East

2. In the OT


Gen.

Psalm 23


Ezekiel 34
Jeremiah 23
Micah 5 is first use of term for the Messiah

Zechariah 10, especially 11 and 13 for the first attestation of a smitten shepherd. On the donkey as a royal animal see Kenneth C. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World. Eisenbrauns and Othmar Keel, “Hyksos Horses or Hippopotamus Deities,” Levant 25 (1993):208-12.


3. In the NT

Matthew

John 10



4. Implications for leadership.

3d. A comparison of the Law of Moses and CH


1e. Capital offenses in the Law of Moses.
Murder. Ex. 21:12

Striking a parent. Ex 21:15

Kidnapping. Ex 21:16

Cursing of a parent. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9

Causing death to an expectant mother. Ex. 21:23

Having an ax kill a man, after being warned of its nature. Ex. 21:29

Killing a thief during daylight hours. Ex. 22:3

To lie with a beast. Ex 22:19

Sacrificing to other than God. Ex 22:20

Adultery. Lev. 20:10

Defiling the Sabbath. Ex. 31:14

Being a wizard. Lev. 21:27

Blasphemy of God. Lev 24:16

Giving of children to Molech. Lev. 20:2


2e. Capital offenses is CH

False accusations of murder. Par. 1

False accusations of sorcery. 2

False testimony in a case involving one’s life. 3

Stealing from the temple. 6

Receiving stolen goods from the temple. 6

Receiving goods from a thief. 7

Not restoring stolen goods. 8

Selling stolen property. 9

Professing to own property having stolen it. 10

Falsely reporting to have lost property. 11

Kidnapping. 14

Helping a slave to escape. 15

Hiding a run-away slave. 16

Keeping a run-away for own use. 19

Breaking into a house. 21

Robbery. 22

Stealing at a fire. 25

Sending a substitute to war. 26

An officer who accepts a substitute. 33

An officer who takes the possessions of a soldier. 34

Using false measures in the selling of wine. 108

Not arresting thieves who congregate in the establishment of a wine seller. 109

A lady of the gods who enters a wine shop. 110

Adultery. 129

A wife who causes the death of her husband. 153

Faulty construction, causing death. 229

Removing the mark of a slave. 227


3e. Analysis

4e. Similar ideas in the two laws:


Ex 21:2. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

Ex 21:18-19. And if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, the he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.
Ex 21:22-23. If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as penalty life for life.

117. If a man is gripped in poverty, and has sold his wife, or his son, or his daughter for silver, or has put them into bondage-service, they shall work in the house of their purchaser or of their bond-master for three years but in the fourth year their liberation shall be agreed.


206. If a man has struck another man in a brawl and has injured him, that man shall solemnly declare, ‘I did not wound him intentionally.’ It is he who shall be responsible for the physician.
209. if a man struck the daughter of a man and made her lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for the fetus.

Ex 21:24-25. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


Ex 22:7. If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught , he shall pay double.


Ex 22:10-12. If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and shall not make restitution

But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.
Lev 20:12. If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death, their blood-guiltiness is upon them.

Dt 24:1. When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his yes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house…

196-197. If a man has destroyed the sight of another similar person, they shall destroy his sight. If he has broken another man’s bone, they shall break one of his bones.
124. If a man has given silver, gold or anything else into another man’s custody in the presence of a witness but he disagrees with him, they shall prove that man guilty and he shall give double the amount of whatever was disputed.
244-45. If a man has hired an ox or a donkey and a lion has killed it in the open country, it’s the owner’s responsibility. If a man has hired an ox and has let it die through carelessness or violent treatment, he shall make a payment to the owner of the ox, an ox for an ox.

155. If a has chosen a bride for his son and his son has got to know her and afterwards he himself copulates with her, and they have caught him, they shall blind him and throw him into water.


138. If a man has left his first wife who has born him no children, he will give her as much silver as her bride-price. He shall pay back the gift she brought from her father’s house and leave her.


Hebrew Bill of Divorcement





1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   41


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page