Hightailing It to the City of Refuge

[Anna]

Nice to see you commenting again @Gone Fishing 

[Anna]

I know I've probably said enough about this, but I've thought of another scenario. Suppose a wife has just given birth and because of loss of blood, she passes out momentarily and drops the baby on its head, and the baby dies. Her husband now becomes the avenger of blood. Is he really going to immediately start beating the life out of her with a stone, knowing that there is no way a woman that had just had a difficult birth is up to fleeing goodness knows how far? Or is it more likely he going to wait until she is strong enough and then pack everything up and take the whole family to a new life in the city of refuge. He could of course lie, and tell everyone that the baby died of natural causes, and stay put. So it's his attitude and respect for Jehovah's laws that would make him choose the correct path and take the blood guilt away from the city, to where his wife would become "clean" again, even if it meant rather a lot of inconvenience. He wouldn't surely have to kill her right here and there to show obedience to the law. Unless he hated her and that was his perfect chance. But Jehovah is the reader of hearts and motives and he will be the ultimate judge.

[Anna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

So of course I'm curious. What did he say?

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the ideal city locations were designated for an obvious practical purpose, along with the reminder to keep roads clear for the practical purpose of getting there.

It would hardly do to break an axle due to a pothole while fleeing to the city of refuge - while the AOB is closing in swinging a truncheon. So I liked that bit about keeping the roads in good repair.

On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done

i liked even more the modern day application of keeping the roads open today. Since the accidental manslayer's counterpart must flee to where he can get spiritual help, the latter should keep the roads open. If they are known to be 'difficult people' with 'personalities' (let the reader use discernment), it is rather like a pothole that the supplicant may break an axle on.

There is such a thing as homophobia in the truth. Our definition would differ from that of the LGBT world, who think that failure to be cool with their lifestyle is homophobia. It is not our definition. However, were there an elder who was known to absolutely rail and froth over gay things, out of proportion to anything else - and then a Christian committed such an act - well, it would be tough going to that elder, wouldn't it? The latter hadn't kept his road in good repair.

It's just an example. To our credit, this type of elder is rare. I can't, off the top of my head, think of one. Our people keep things in perspective, whereas there are fundamentalist churches which seem almost solely devoted to anti-gay crusades

. One could expand the application of roads to include any elder, about anything, who is known to be rough, or opinionated, or derisive (say - AlanF would make a good elder, I think! NOT!) even of just a person or two, or who is nursing a grudge over something. There would be plenty of potholes on that road. I would think twice before I drove it.

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

If you have the time, I have the ears. There are places where the prophets say the Jews hadn't kept the law for decades, other than the picayune stuff.I can easily picture the cities of refuge being established, but not necessarily made use of during those times. 

[JW Insider]

On 1/17/2018 at 1:25 AM, Anna said:

So of course I'm curious. What did he say?

Didn't mean to set this up like a "tease" to drum up interest. Especially if the actual point will turn out to be such a letdown. But I'll continue . . .

Many of us probably barely noticed that the first "kernel" of the "Cities of Refuge" laws started out in Exodus 21:12-15, especially in the highlighted portion.

• (Exodus 21:12-15) 12 “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death. 13 But if he does it unintentionally and the true God lets it happen, I will designate for you a place where he can flee. 14 If a man becomes very angry with his fellow man and he deliberately kills him, the man must die even if you have to take him from my altar. 15 One who strikes his father or his mother must be put to death.

But we have two versions to compare for much of Exodus 21. For example, let's start out by comparing two versions, starting in Exodus 21:28-32  in the way that Wright does:

I think a lot of people already know where this is headed, but this is a good place to start. I'll follow up in the next post.

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think a lot of people already know where this is headed

Trying to justify Hammurabi as the source for much of the Mosaic Law? Including the refuge city concept? (Believe me , this is only a guess.So I could be completely wrong!  It's not something I have researched...yet!)

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

While waiting- Did you ever see this?

Yes. It's the same as an article that Brother C.Aulicino had been working on for years. He had been giving most of these points in a couple of non-outline public talks. I was hoping to find that they had been recorded somewhere, because he has about two hours on this same material. He has collected old books (commentaries, etc) on the subject for years. Excellent points.

[JW Insider]

43 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Trying to justify Hammurabi as the source for much of the Mosaic Law? Including the refuge city concept? (Believe me , this is only a guess.So I could be completely wrong!  It's not something I have researched...yet!)

That's basically it. Up until last year, I thought these particular verses represented the only true "intersection" between the two Law codes, so it was pretty easy to dismiss as just a coincidence, anomaly, gloss, etc. But then I saw that Wright took this to the next step. I hadn't realized that there were not just overlapping "coincidental" laws, but that such a large number of the topics of the Laws of Hammurabi, were still in the same order. This speaks to the overall structural similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Laws of Hammurabi, not just some places where the wording happens to match.

Here's one place where Wright shows a chart of this structural similarity:

This particular chart, however, shows just one of several relationships. But the similarity shown above should be enough to absorb and try to explain first.

[Evacuated]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

structural similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Laws of Hammurabi,

Very interesting, but not alarming. I am sure Moses Egyptian education would have exposed him to Hammurabi's code as well as whatever system existed in Egypt (although apparently it is not so clearly preseved for us as the Mesopotamian). There would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" in setting out a form and structure for a law code to govern the affairs of a nation at that time, would there?

I believe the only part of the Mosaic Law actually written by a non-human agency is the decalogue? Is there a similar listing of this nature in the Hammurabi code? 

Also, is there a similar comparison chart on sanctions? And how about matters of hygiene? 

I have just found a copy of the Code of Hammurabi in a 2nd hand book shop ( I love those places). Time to dust it off methinks!

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Very interesting, but not alarming. I am sure Moses Egyptian education would have exposed him to Hammurabi's code as well as whatever system existed in Egypt (although apparently it is not so clearly preseved for us as the Mesopotamian). There would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" in setting out a form and structure for a law code to govern the affairs of a nation at that time, would there?

Good points and good questions, too. I am just working through some of this material myself. Last fall, I clicked a few pages onto my iPhone of several books to check out in full at a later time. These included Wright's (2009) "Inventing God's Law - How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi." The book is partially previewed on Google Books. Some of the other pages of material are only on my iPhone, though. I'm not planning to buy the book. It's at several libraries.

I should say that the book appears to break new ground on tying the Mosaic Law (he abbreviates CC, for Covenant Code) to the Laws of Hammurabi (he abbreviates LH). But a book that breaks new ground is also, in part, only one voice against several. So it would be good to acknowledge a few of the other major views about the relationship between CC and LH. Note, too, that LH becomes a kind of shorthand not just for the Laws of Hammurabi exclusively, but also the Laws of Eshnunna and other similar sets of laws with a relationship to LH.

One point is that we don't really know the exact dates of either the LH or exactly when the last adjustment was made to the CC either. Another point is that we should expect similarities in both oral traditions, legal needs, and legal practice with respect to the lifestyle of Semitic and Mesopotamian nations. All had similar issues with respect to slavery, marriage, divorce, murder, rape, theft, land, livestock, accidents, etc.. As Wright himself mentions:

• For example, the Covenant Code, the Laws of Hammurabi, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the Roman Twelve Tables, all have burglary laws that speak about killing a burglar (see chapter 9). These cannot all be related by literary influence.

Several of the other points made in comparison to the view of other scholars are not applicable to a faith-based view of the scriptures (textual redaction theories, etc.).

Wright makes a distinction between the "do this/do that" (apodictic) laws, and the "if this...then that"(casuistic) laws, and this distinction is useful for his thesis. But you are apparently right, @Gone Fishing, that the 10 commandments themselves stand outside these sets of laws as unique. 

["Hammer" Rubi]

Interesting statements here to me, who knows it all. Learned participants, I can see. No need to set anyone straight. However if a certain ignoramus ventures forth here, he is toast.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, "Hammer" Rubi said:

Interesting statements here to me, who knows it all. Learned participants, I can see. No need to set anyone straight. However if a certain ignoramus ventures forth here, he is toast.

@TrueTomHarley  you and your alter egos!