The “law of Moses.” Was actually meant as a limitation on revenge
If you ever hear someone saying that they think we should punish people according to the Law of Moses… and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc… Please point out to them that it was not a decree of how to impose revenge, but a limitation to take no more revenge than what you yourself suffered.
If you read the Old Testament, there are long catalogues of how many they put to death, men women, children and livestock. What was “normal” for the time period was if you were offended or harmed, you and your tribe would go wipe out the entire family or village. Such violence tended to escalate as each side took revenge for the last revenges on them.
The law of Moses, if properly translated would read, No more than an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, etc…” In other words cause more harm in your revenge than the harm you received.
This was new and revolutionary for its time. It was intended to stop escalation in violence and revenge, to a point where the entire Jewish tribe could get wiped out. It limited how much revenge a person could take. It was not an advocation that a person (or tribe) takes an equal revenge.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.That is an interesting viewpoint and I could see where that would be useful. The fact that most Biblical scholars believe Moses never existed is a interesting as well, we as non believers take it as normal that he is fictional but the religious also believing he is a myth? Love it.
misstuffy
Level 7
Apr 29, 2018
1
Two things:
-
That is the Code of Hammurabi and predates the Bible by several centuries.
-
You are correct. It was meant as a "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
Comrade_Yam
Level 4
Apr 8, 2018
1
The O.T. is very useful in tracking the evolution of western society. It would be much easier if the stories were told in order of their creation. Never the less, with modern scholarship we can figure it out. The Abraham story about not sacrificing his son, ended the practice of child sacrifice if Hebrew societies as well. Many (if not all) of the lessons it teaches can still be useful metaphorically. Things go off the rails however, when folks, continue to take literal lessons from 2500 year old stories without considering the context..
Seminarian
Level 7
Apr 8, 2018
1
Revenge - ugly yet accepted in Bible teachings.
sassygirl3869
Level 9
Apr 8, 2018
1
Yes I messaged you back John. Did u get it?
What would have been truly revolutionary for its time, and at least somewhat proof of divine inspiration is if the Bible quit leading from behind and actually reflected concepts and ideas that would not have otherwise appeared for thousands of years. Yet the Bible tells you, not that it's wrong to enslave others, but how to be a "good" slave-owner, not how to treat women as equals, but how to properly infantalize and "care" for them, etc.
Imagine if the Bible had described the germ theory of disease and applied those principles to personal and societal hygiene. Imagine if the Bible had described governance in terms of democratic republics instead of regents and subjects.
mordant
Level 8
Apr 8, 2018
2
Agreed. We know that individuals interpret words differently. Religion is the book, interpretation is the dogma and edicts.
JayJackson
Level 7
Apr 8, 2018
1
The Laws Of Moses Were Created Too Establish A Basis For A "Civalised" Society.
Coldo
Level 8
Apr 8, 2018
1
Evidently thought other replies here, I learned tha the law of Moses was taken from a code the per-existed in Babylon.
@Coldo As few people were literate at the time, most knowledge was passed by word of mouth. Personally I think Moses was just another made up fictional person.
According to archeologists, theJjewish tribe(s) were made up of outcasts from other tribes, and the old testament is a combination of at lest four different religious traditions in an attempt to form a single narrative (which explains many of the contradictions).
Granted the writings may not have been translated into modern languages until fairly recently, but closer to the time when they were written there may have been some people in 1500 BC who could read them, who became a part of the Jewish tribes. It can take a while for a language, at least one with a writing system, to die out completely.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.