Colegas ateos, porqué somos ateos?

[schneewittchen]

ok viejo testamento: Ojo por ojo, diente por diente... bla bla

Nuevo Testamento; Si le dan una mejilla poner la otra....

Por cual me gui señor?

Eso es de los babilonios... Es del Codigo Hammurabi..

 

[Trejos2]

Eso es de los babilonios... Es del Codigo Hammurabi..

Precisamente. Los hebreos fueron súbditos de los babilonios. En la Biblia se menciona en algún lugar lo de "ojo por ojo..." Una de las tantas cosas que tomaron de los babilonios.

 

[schneewittchen]

Precisamente. Los hebreos fueron súbditos de los babilonios. En la Biblia se menciona en algún lugar lo de "ojo por ojo..." Una de las tantas cosas que tomaron de los babilonios.

Sip, como yo habia dicho.. La biblia es una recopilacion de historias y normas sociales de esas epocas....
Sin embargo, nunca lei eso.. Donde dice eso?

 

[SNICT]

Diablos, que buena pregunta. Nunca se me había ocurrido....Mmmmm...será porque que nunca existió, generalmente los fundadores de las sectas escriben sus propias doctrinas ellos mismos.

Erroneo en todo sentido.

 

[SNICT]

Precisamente. Los hebreos fueron súbditos de los babilonios. En la Biblia se menciona en algún lugar lo de "ojo por ojo..." Una de las tantas cosas que tomaron de los babilonios.

Comparación con la ley mosaica

Algunas partes de la Ley Mosaica son similares a ciertas leyes del Código de Hammurabi, por lo que algunos estudiosos han afirmado que los hebreos derivaron su derecho del babilonio. Otros especialistas difieren:
No hay bases para suponer préstamo directo alguno de los babilonios a los hebreos. Aunque ambos conjuntos de leyes difieran poco en la letra, difieren mucho en el espíritu. Thomas (1958)

Se presentan a continuación algunos ejemplos de las diferencias:
Código de Hammurabi Ley mosaica Pena de muerte por hurto de propiedad de la Iglesia y el Estado o por recibir bienes robados. (Ley 6) Se castiga al ladrón resarciendo a la víctima. (Éx. 22.1-9) Muerte por ayudar a un esclavo a escapar o por refugiar a un esclavo fugitivo. (Ley 15, 16) “No entregarás a su señor el siervo que huye de él y acude a ti.” (Deut. 23.15) Si una casa mal hecha causa la muerte de un hijo del dueño de la casa, la falta se paga con la muerte del hijo del constructor. (Ley 230) “Los padres no morirán por los hijos ni los hijos por los padres.” (Deut. 24.16) Mero exilio por incesto: “Si un señor hombre de alto rango se ayuntare con su hija, harán salir a tal señor de la ciudad.” (Ley 154) Pena de muerte por incesto. (Lev. 18.6, 29) Distinciones de clases: penas duras para quien lesione al miembro de una casta superior. Penas leves para quien lesione a miembros de una casta inferior. (Ley 196–205) No cometerás injusticia en los juicios, ni favoreciendo al pobre ni complaciendo al grande. (Lev. 19.15)
Bibliografía


En español

• Código de Hammurabi. México: Cárdenas Editor y Distribuidor, 1992.
• Lara, F.: Código de Hammurabi. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1982.
• Sanmartín, J.: Códigos legales de tradición babilónica. Barcelona, 1999.

 

[SNICT]

Asi mas ordenadito:


Código de Hammurabi
Pena de muerte por hurto de propiedad de la Iglesia y el Estado o por recibir bienes robados. (Ley 6)

Ley mosaica
Se castiga al ladrón resarciendo a la víctima. (Éx. 22.1-9)

Código de Hammurabi
Muerte por ayudar a un esclavo a escapar o por refugiar a un esclavo fugitivo. (Ley 15, 16)

Ley mosaica
“No entregarás a su señor el siervo que huye de él y acude a ti.” (Deut. 23.15)


Código de Hammurabi
Si una casa mal hecha causa la muerte de un hijo del dueño de la casa, la falta se paga con la muerte del hijo del constructor. (Ley 230)

Ley mosaica
“Los padres no morirán por los hijos ni los hijos por los padres.” (Deut. 24.16)


Código de Hammurabi
Mero exilio por incesto: “Si un señor hombre de alto rango se ayuntare con su hija, harán salir a tal señor de la ciudad.” (Ley 154)

Ley mosaica
Pena de muerte por incesto. (Lev. 18.6, 29)

Código de Hammurabi
Distinciones de clases: penas duras para quien lesione al miembro de una casta superior. Penas leves para quien lesione a miembros de una casta inferior. (Ley 196–205)

Ley mosaica
No cometerás injusticia en los juicios, ni favoreciendo al pobre ni complaciendo al grande. (Lev. 19.15)

 

[SNICT]

Precisamente. Los hebreos fueron súbditos de los babilonios. En la Biblia se menciona en algún lugar lo de "ojo por ojo..." Una de las tantas cosas que tomaron de los babilonios.

Bueno veo que en historia estamos un poco mal.
A lo que ud se refiere como súbdito de babilonia la unica referencia que calza con eso seria la conquista de Judea por parte del rey babilonico Nabucodonosor II en el 586 a.c. Estos en los tiempos de los hijos de Salomon.
Asi que el marco cronologico que ud presenta esta bastante errado, suponiendo ud que de esa primera diaspora se escribiera la ley talmudica del "ojo por ojo"

 

[Cesar]

Para un estudio bastante completo y reciente, puede leer el libro Inventing God's Law, How the Covenant Code of The Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Ese es un estudio comparativo muy completo, donde se analizan ámbos códigos (el de la Biblia y el de Hammurabi) verso a verso. La similitud es evidente y, lógicamente, no vamos a ver una copia fiel de tal código (hay partes donde el texto es casi el mismo), pero es notorio que los hebreos se basaron en el código de Hammurabi para desarrollar el suyo (Éxodo 20:23 - 23:19); la estructura completa del código es prácticamente la misma.
http://uploading.com/files/b66f435b/0195304756_Inventing_God_s_Law1.rar/

 

[SNICT]

Para un estudio bastante completo y reciente, puede leer el libro Inventing God's Law, How the Covenant Code of The Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Ese es un estudio comparativo muy completo, donde se analizan ámbos códigos (el de la Biblia y el de Hammurabi) verso a verso. La similitud es evidente y, lógicamente, no vamos a ver una copia fiel de tal código (hay partes donde el texto es casi el mismo), pero es notorio que los hebreos se basaron en el código de Hammurabi para desarrollar el suyo (Éxodo 20:23 - 23:19); la estructura completa del código es prácticamente la misma.
http://uploading.com/files/b66f435b/0195304756_Inventing_God_s_Law1.rar/

Frank H. Polak
Tel Aviv University
Ramath Aviv, Israel
The present study by David Wright, well-known for his analysis of biblical ritual
literature, in particular in comparison with Hittite cultic practice, restates and elaborates
his innovative thesis that the Book of the Covenant (CC) is immediately and textually
dependent on the second part of the Collection of Laws of Hammurabi (LH, §§ 115–272).
This textual dependence stands out both in content and in order of items with the same
theme. A few laws may derive from other cuneiform corpora, probably through
mediation in Akkadian, such as the law collection of Eshnunna (LE), the Middle Assyrian
Laws (MAL A), and the Hittite Laws (HitL). Laws in the participial style may reflect an
Israelite formulation, similar to the Arur text of Deut 27:15–26. But the mainstay of CC
reflects the inspiration by LH, attributable, in Wright’s opinion, to the Neo-Assyrian
period, in which the Codex Hammurabi was often copied and during which at least some
Israelite scribes/scholars may be assumed to have had knowledge of Akkadian. These
assumptions enable Wright to postulate an effort to counter Assyrian predominance with
a codex that is represented as God’s law. Thus Wright defends the unity of CC as a
literary creation, preceding both Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code. In some details
Wright points to connections between CC and the Exodus narrative, such as the use of
“coming” in CC (Exod 20:24) and the Mount Sinai tale (19:9; 20:20), of “going out”(in
CC: 21:2–11; in the narrative: 3:10–12, 21; in 3:15 Wright finds traces of the epilogue of
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
LH). This thesis is impressive and is presented in great detail. Wright has revised his
previous formulations,1 accepting some of the criticisms and countering other arguments.2
Wright’s argument is based on two twin pillars. At first he examines the basic content and
order of casuistic law in CC (Exod 21:2–22:16) in comparison with the correspondent
laws of LH, while apodictic law, found both in the law of the altar preceding the main
corpus (20:22–26) and in the closing commandments (23:17–33), is compared with the
prologue and epilogue of the Code of Hammurabi. By means of this analysis, Wright
seeks to establish the dependence of CC on LH. The second part of this study presents a
microtextual scrutiny of the relationship between both corpuses. This extremely
meticulous examination serves to indicate the way in which CC transforms the laws of
LH and combines them with items from other cuneiform codices and with Israelite law.
Comparison of the apodictic law with the prologue and epilogue enables Wright to point
out a basic transformation, viewed as a reaction to dominant Assyrian-Babylonian
culture, “a response to the experience of Assyrian imperialism in the late eighth or early
seventh centuries BCE” (287), in competition with LH rather than following it as such.
The authority of the Babylonian king is replaced by God’s, represented as the source of
the rules governing society.
Wright, then, has founded an impressive synthesis on a no less impressive array of basic
data. Nevertheless, many of his arguments need critical reflection. As Wells already
noted, the agreement of the items of CC with their counterparts in LH often is less than
convincing. In particular, the basic categories of this analysis must be challenged.
The notion of “thematic correspondence” is questionable since the definition of the topic
can indicate either the subject matter of the law at hand, such as debt servitude, or a
generalization, such as “negligence.” In the latter case, the definition is exegetical and as
such does not indicate any inherent connection between the laws coming under this
heading. Moreover, in some cases Wright subsumes laws with different subject matter
under one heading, such as “Negligence” and “An ox goring an ox.”
The notion of order is problematic, since the ordering of laws is a matter of associative or
logical connection (e.g., principal rule followed by specific details) rather than of mere
juxtaposition or numerical succession as in a catalogue. Thus, when the ordering of laws
in different corpora is similar, one still has to consider the logical aspect.
1. David P. Wright, “The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection: (Exodus 20:23–
23:19),” Maarav 10 (2003): 11–87.
2. See Bruce Wells, “The Covenant Code and Near Eastern Legal Traditions,” Maarav 13 (2006): 85–118;
David P. Wright, “The Laws of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code: A Response to Bruce Wells,” Maarav
13 (2006): 211–60.
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
Likewise, if the correspondence pertains to the topic of the laws under scrutiny, one still
has to consider the specifics of content and structural organization.
Wright (Inventing God’s Law, 9) compares the following CC laws with LH (+ LE; MAL A;
HitL):3
(1) debt slavery of males—Exod 21:2, 3–6//LH 117; 21:3–6//LH 175, 282
(2) debt slavery of a daughter—21:7,8–11//LH 117, 148–49, 154–56, 178; MAL A 55–
56
(3) death from striking, intent—21:12–14//LH 207 (but note participial formulation,
suggesting a “native source”)
(4) child rebellion—21:15,17//LH 192–93, 195, LH 14 (but note participial
formulation);
(5) men fighting, injury, cure—21:18–19//LH 206 (for LH 207 see no. 3)
(6) killing one of lower class—21:20–21//LH 208 (cf LH 116; for slaves cf. 196–205;
209–223)
(7) causing miscarriage—21:22–23//LH 209–14; MAL A 50, 52
(8) talion laws, injury to slave—21:23–27//LH 196–201
(9) ox goring a human—21:28–32//LH 250–52
(10) negligence—21:33–34//LH 229–30 (idiomatically comparable to “opening a
branch of a channel” or releasing “water,” LH 55–56)
ox goring an ox—21:35–36//LE 53 (not in LH)
(11) animal theft—21:37; 22:2b–3//LH 253–65, specifically 253–54, 265; LH 21
(comparable with LE 13)
(12) deposit—22:6–8//LH 265–66 (idiomatically related to LH 120, 124–25)
(13) injury and death of animals—22:9–12//LH 266–67 (also LH 244, 249)
(14) animal rental—22:13–14//LH 268–71 (rates of hire), LH 244–49
The end of CC includes a number of laws that are not matched by corresponding laws in
LH, the law on seduction (22:15–16//MAL A 55–56 and a number of miscellaneous
participial laws are noted (22:17–19), not matched by LH, but cautiously attributed to a
“native source,” like 21:12–17.
The present reviewer’s criticism of this construction relates to all three parameters
indicated above. The idea of correspondence of ordering in itself seems problematic.4
Number 3 of CC (homicide) is paired with LH 207, which rather relates to number 5. The
connection between numbers 5–6 (injury, homicide, miscarriage, and talion) relates to
3. Notably, in some details this listing differs from the proposals in Wright 2003 and 2006.
4. Wright (Inventing God’s Law, 9) admits himself seven nonsequential correspondences with LH and six
correspondences with other cuneiform laws.
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
inner logic and thus does not indicate influence. By the same token, in CC the connection
of these laws and the laws concerning the goring ox (nos. 7, 10) is organic, whereas in LH
the relevant laws (LH 250–52 and LH 209–10) are separated one from another by long
series of laws. In LH number 11 (LH 253ff.) seems to follow logically after number 9 (LH
250–52; but see below), whereas in CC the juxtaposition of numbers 10–11 (21:35–36;
21:37) is no less logical. Here, then, the logic of the CC ordering is internal rather than
derived from LH. So is the ordering of 21:37ff. (no. 11) and 22:4–5 in CC, although the
latter two laws have no equivalent in this part of LH (but note LH 57–58). Both in CC and
in LH the connection of numbers 12–14 is subject related and thus a matter of internal
logic. Thus the evidence of order is less impressive than it seems at first sight.
The indication of thematic connection often is questionable. The CC homicide law
(“Death from striking, intent,” 21:12–14; no. 3) is ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ partially comparable to LH 207,
which imposes a fine of 30 sheqels for slaying a mār awīlim in a brawl, and belongs to a
complex of laws dealing with injury (intentional and unintentional, LH 196–214) rather
than with homicide as such. In CC the law mentioned under “negligence” (21:33–34, no.
10) concerns a pit into which an ox or a donkey may fall and the compensation for the
damaged animal. As such, this law is related to the theme of the goring ox and the
reparations involved (21:28–32, 35–36) and is hardly comparable with the liability of the
contractor of LH 229–30, which is ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ one of the instances of professional and technical
liability, including also physician, veterinarian, barber, and boatman (LH 215–27, 231–
40).
In many cases the specific details are problematic. The structure and particular details of
the laws of debt servitude differ significantly from the corresponding items in LH (nos. 1–
2).5 The laws concerning deposit (Exod 22:6, no. 12) match the laws on the same topic in
the first part of LH (LH 120–26) rather than sections 265–66, which specifically concern
the liability of the shepherd.
In conclusion, in the realm of casuistic law the specific details of the comparison are of
different strength. Hence the strong claim of textual dependence seems to lack evidential
support. What is needed is proof of a strong connection in a large number of cases, such
as the connection between the Eshnunna Law (LE 53) and the law of the goring ox (Exod
21:35) or the correspondence between the Hittite laws (HitL 105–7) and biblical laws
(Exod 22:4–5) concerning grazing and fire (see Wright, 240–41). Evidence of this kind is
lacking. Nor do we find specific evidence for the translator’s interference. The linguistic
5. Bruce Wells point out the similarity between slave deed from Emar (Emar 16) and Exod 21:3–4; Bruce
Wells, “What Is Biblical Law? A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice,” CBQ 70 (2008):
223–43, esp. 233–34.
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
correspondences quoted are of a general nature, and nowhere do we find indications of
explicit translational calques. Another desideratum relates to legal terminology. In CC
one notes the distinction between kî and ’im in the protasis of main conditions and
secondary circumstances, respectively. This well-known distinction corresponds with the
use of the preterite (iprus) and the perfect (iptaras) for the same purposes in the first part
of LH. It is true that we do not have evidence for Canaanite law, but k and hm are used to
introduce the protasis in Ugaritic omen texts,6 a genre with a structure similar to that of
legal texts.
In the field of apodictic law, the connections between CC and LH are even weaker. The
correspondence between the altar law (Exod 20:2–26) and the prologue to LH is limited
to the general theme of temple worship, whereas the similarities between the epilogue and
Exod 22:20–23:19 pertain to mere generalities.
Consequently, the present reviewer is unable to discern the same strong textual
connection between CC and LH that Wright attempts to prove. In this connection, one
has to take into account that Wright admits that a number of laws reflect “a native
source,” namely, the laws in participial formulation in Exod 21:12, 15–17; 22:17–19. In
addition, Wright postulates the dependence on an additional cuneiform source, matching
the Laws of Eshnunna (LE 53), Middle Assyrian Laws, and the Hittite Laws. These items
carry all the more weight, since the correspondence between them and CC is even
stronger than the connection with LH. The most significant example is the law of the oxgoring
ox (Exod 21:35–36//LE53). But we should also consider the case of “Grazing and
fire in the field” (Exod 22:4–5). In the Hebrew text, the connection between these laws is
formed by the two homonymous roots √b‘r, indicating grazing in verse 4 and fire in verse
5. Hence the present text is a construct of the Hebrew law par excellence. If one turns to
sources, one finds LH 57–58 for grazing and the Hittite Law 105–6 for fire, two laws with
no connection whatsoever (for grazing, one notes HitL 107). Thus the input of the
Israelite legal author is far beyond what is suggested by the thesis of decisive textual
dependence on LH.
On the other hand, we are not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Wright’s
analysis indicates, more than his predecessors, a strong textual dependence on cuneiform
law in general. The question is, however, whether this dependence can be described as
immediate dependence on one or more Akkadian corpus. Maybe it would be preferable
to think of Canaanite mediation, in view of the Syro-Phoenician continuum, which did
not come to an end in the first millennium.
6. See, for example RS 24.302, Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2002), 141 (lines 1', 3'); RIH 78/14, ibid., 143 (line 2).
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
However, these reflections in no way detract from the overall contribution of Wright’s
admirable opus magnum. In its extremely detailed discussions of single issues and in the
wide sociopolitical and perspective, this work points the way to new vistas in the study of
biblical law.

 

[chema81]

A lo que me parece que apunta este señor, y a lo que uno ve en personas de las que uno dice "este señor es un ejemplo" es que simplemente son capaces de aplicar principios espirituales y se desacen de toda conciencia del yo, de egocentrismo, cosa que la mayoría no hacemos. Debemos considerar la posibilidad de que todos aquí, tanto los ateístas como los teístas, estemos literalmente orinando fuera del tarro con tanta hablada. Nunca antes hubo tanta tecnología y tanto conocimiento como para poder hacer de este planeta un paraíso que satisfaga la necesidad de todos, pero resulta que es ahora cuando más amenazados por nosotros mismos estamos, por las rutas equivocadas que como sociedad hemos tomado. Evidentenmente como sociedad hemos dejado algo fuera de la ecuación, nos hemos comido un termino.

La universalidad es fundamental, de alli que el que algunos hablen tan mal de la biblia y de los libros sagrados y todo lo que tenga que ver con espiritualidad es una actitud que no busca la universalidad del conocimiento. Una mente con verdadero deseo de conocimiento estudiará tanto literatura religiosa o espiritual como literatura seglar, y englobará todo este conocimiento en una sola perspectiva de la realidad, de forma objetiva. Debemos tomar la imparcialidad del universo mismo, en un universo en el que simultáneamente conviven todas estas mentes con pensamientos e ideas distintas de la naturaleza de la existencia y tratar de tender hacia una generalización. El estudio fragmentado y sesgado que algunos ateos desean inculcar ( de inducir a la gente a que se aparte de la experiencia religiosa y abrace solo el racionalismo) es en mi opinion un grave error, les da una visión sesgada y fragmentada de la realidad. En la realidad de la naturaleza humana, la espiritualidad no debe ser eliminada de la ecuación, sino considerada, porque es parte de nosotros. La gente no dejará de creer en Dios o de vivir por un objetivo superior no tangible aunque toda la evidencia racional este en contra, porque algo en mucha gente resuena desde adentro, y ese murmullo parece decir "Dios".

Valla hasta que al fin estoy deacuerdo en algo con ud.... mi asombro es tal que no se quien le ayudo... pero es cierto.... pero para ese sueño y volviendo al tema no es necesario creer o no... yo como ateo me apunto a mejorar la sociedad.... pero no puedo labarles el cerebro a cierta gente no lo digo por ud ... pero hay mucha gente obsecada... ojala mis bisnietos vivan en una sociedad como imaginamos... pero por ahora peñisquese que ahora esta aca.... jajajaja

 

[SNICT]

Sobre el autor del review
Frank Polak, Department of Bible

 

[Cesar]

Todos los montes y Todos los cielos CONOCIDOS.

Mirá, no vi que había puesto esta respuesta páginas atrás.

¿Dónde dice el texto bíblico, en hebreo, que eran todos los montes y todos los cielos conocidos?

Sobre el autor del review
Frank Polak, Department of Bible

Interesante review; habrá que echarle una leída a ambos. Claro, ambos autores tienen sus tesis debidamente formuladas. Me parece que este tipo de estudios grandes y profundos, para ambos "lados", seguirán dándose por parte de personas muy estudiadas en el tema.

 

[chema81]

Esta interesante lo de los codigos... seria como una constitución de la epoca... la verdad hay varias cosas que se deberian seguir al pie de la letra.... como la muerte a las mujeres infieles y de que el hombre pudiera tener varias mujeres... jajajaja
por otro lado si lo tomaron de los babiloneos... fue algun Dios babilonico que lo inspiro y no el Dios de la biblia....

 

[SNICT]

Joel S. Baden
Yale Divinity School
New Haven, Connecticut
In Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws
of Hammurabi, David P. Wright has laid out in great detail his argument that the
Covenant Code (Exod 20:23–23:33; henceforth CC) is dependent both in content and
structure on the Laws of Hammurabi (henceforth LH). In the first chapter of the book,
Wright sets forth his general claim. In the second and third chapters, the detailed
arguments for the dependence of the casuistic (ch. 2) and apodictic (ch. 3) sections of CC
on LH are presented. Chapter 4 proposes the historical setting for the composition of CC:
in the Neo-Assyrian period, specifically between 740 and 640 B.C.E. Chapters 5–11
describe the process by which CC transformed its source material, in both legal and
ideological terms. Chapter 12 discusses the possibility of secondary growth in CC and the
contextualization of CC in a larger Exodus narrative. The conclusion summarizes and
focuses the foregoing arguments. Wright’s book is thorough in its detail, providing
extended discussions of virtually every passage in CC as well as very useful charts and
layouts of the texts in question. The argumentation is clear at every point, which allows
for the reader to easily evaluate Wright’s claims.
It is to Wright’s credit that he has approached the question of CC’s dependence on LH
from a primarily literary perspective. In contrast to much biblical research, in which the
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
questions of absolute dating and historical context are taken as the starting point for the
analysis of the text, Wright recognizes the essential fact that the Bible, and CC within it,
is first and foremost a literary work, as of course is LH. Thus he begins with the purely
literary analysis of the two texts and develops his argument for dependence on the literary
level alone. ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ once he has determined that the literary evidence points to a
relationship between the two texts does he attempt to find a historical context in which
that relationship may have developed.
Overall, Wright’s argument for CC’s dependence on LH is convincing, although with
some qualifications. For a number of the casuistic laws of CC, Wright clearly demonstrates
the manner in which CC has adopted and adapted laws from LH. His analysis of
the apodictic laws of CC is less persuasive; indeed, he admits that it is ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ once one has
accepted dependence on the basis of the casuistic laws that one can in turn see the
relationship between the apodictic laws and LH (58). Where Wright makes his most
compelling argument is in the analysis of the parallel structures of CC and LH, not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
in their similar A-B-A pattern but also in much of the specific ordering of the laws. He
shows that the places where CC diverges from the order of LH are comprehensible in light
of known methods of legal revision. Even where a given law in CC does not seem to
match quite as exactly as Wright would have it (more on which below), he returns again
and again, and with success, to the remarkable symmetry in the structure of the two law
codes. His central argument in this regard, that it would be a remarkable coincidence if
CC followed so precisely the structure of LH and not that of any other known law
collection, is indeed a strong one.
Wright makes two subsidiary arguments that are of crucial importance in the study of CC.
First, he makes a strong case for the unity of CC, against the majority of scholarship past
and present, which tends to find multiple layers in the code (see esp. 352–55). Wright
approaches this issue from the point of view of CC’s dependence on LH: since CC shows
this dependence throughout, in all of its variety of content and form, Wright argues that
the simplest explanation is that the entire code was written at one time on the basis of LH.
An important corollary to this, which Wright notes in passing (e.g., 157, 212), is that the
diversity of form and style in CC is not an indication of multiple authorship. The single
author of CC was free and willing to use a range of techniques in composing the laws, just
as any author, biblical or otherwise, is free to vary his or her style over the course of a
single unified work.
Second, and similarly, Wright finds the connection between CC and the narrative in
which it is found to be original and intentional (332–44). Although Wright calls this
narrative context the “Covenant Code Narrative” (CCN) so as to avoid becoming
involved in the confusion of current pentateuchal narrative criticism, his identification of
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
the texts that belong to this narrative are precisely those that can and should be identified
with the classical E document. Wright concludes that the CC laws and narrative were
composed in one piece, the narrative serving to frame the laws (335). I find the argument
that the Decalogue is a secondary addition to this narrative (342) both wrong and, in any
case, unnecessary; the further argument that CCN is itself also dependent on LH (340–41)
also seems forced, as it is more likely to my mind that the aspects of the narrative that
resonate with LH do so because the narrative resonates with CC, that is, with itself (he also
claims that J is dependent on CC and that P derives its view of the divine origin of law
from CC [358], two claims that I think utterly indefensible). These minor points
notwithstanding, Wright makes an important contribution to the discussion of law and
narrative and their integral relationship in the Pentateuch.
While Wright’s main point, the dependence of CC on LH, is successfully made, his
exuberance in making his case does at times have a deleterious effect on the argument.
This comes out mostly in his attempt to see dependence almost everywhere, even when
the connections between CC and LH are less than perfectly clear. Thus he at times relies
on what appears to be no more than common Semitics in drawing parallels: the use of the
verb “to take” to designate marriage, for instance (34), or the use of the qattāl nominal
pattern for habitual action (40). There are also cases in which the similarities between the
CC and LH laws are outweighed, to my mind, by their substantive differences: although
both Exod 21:33–34 and LH 229 describe an act of negligence and the punishment
thereof, the biblical law describes someone who digs a pit and fails to cover it, while the
Mesopotamian law describes someone who builds an unstable house (41–42). As there is
no reason to think that the CC author would have needed to change the law in LH—
Israelites, after all, had houses also—it is difficult to see a clear line of literary dependence
here. In the apodictic section, surely CC’s call to heed the “words” of the deity in 23:13a
need not be dependent on LH’s laws regarding obedience to the “words” of the stela (59–
60), especially as the “words” in CC are the spoken words of Yahweh, while those in LH
are the written words of the document. Similarly, although it is possible that the Hebrew
word b-r-k, “to bless” (20:24), is conceptually similar to the Akkadian idiom šīrum ṭābum,
“well-being” (LH col. 48:34–35), it is a stretch to argue that this is evidence of direct
dependence.
Wright’s conviction that CC is fundamentally a derivative text drives him to see
dependence not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ where there are potential connections to LH but to any number of
other texts, Mesopotamian or otherwise. Thus there are parts of CC that he derives from
the Laws of Eshnunna, from the Middle Assyrian Laws, from Hittite laws, and even from
Ugaritic material. He surmises at one point that a CC passage is derived from an otherwise
“unknown Akkadian law” (217–18). The picture of CC as dependent on LH is somewhat
altered by this type of analysis. CC appears to be more a collection of various legal
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
traditions that uses LH as its basis and structure, while filling it out with other traditions
where necessary. Though this is not impossible, it does raise the question of whether there
is any CC material that is original to its author, rather than being necessarily derived from
an external legal source. Most problematic in this regard is Wright’s assumption of the
existence of a “native participial source” (see esp. 159–63, 192–204) on which CC has
drawn. Wright admits that this “source” cannot be reconstructed (162), though at times
he attempts to do just that (164, 196, 203). Since elsewhere Wright claims that CC has
used the participial form in rewriting LH (165–66, 197–98, 200), it is unclear to me why
these participial elements could not simply be the original contribution of the author of
CC, representing his expression of native Israelite legal custom. Even in a text that is
largely dependent on another, there is still surely room for original authorial
contributions.
This aspect of Wright’s work raises the larger question of the intention of CC’s revision of
LH. For Wright, CC was written as an academic, polemical response to LH. Yet many of
the changes to LH found in CC seem to have no ideological quality but are merely
attempts to create a sound legal document, as Wright himself observes (see 190–91, 227–
29, 284–85). Furthermore, some places where Wright sees ideological polemic may be
accounted for just as readily on the basis of the author of CC’s adaptation of
Mesopotamian religious ideas to those of Israel, especially as regards the question of
monotheism. He suggests that the change from the laws being given by the king in LH to
the laws being given by God in CC is polemical (287–93); yet as every legal collection in
the Pentateuch derives the laws from God, it seems more likely that this was simply how
Israel envisioned the etiology of legal custom. Surely it is an overstatement to suggest that
CC could not have come up with the idea of laws deriving from God without LH (292).
While it is clear that where LH has references to the statue of the god(s) in the temple CC
has removed this concept, this can ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ be seen as a polemical response if CC invented
the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel (293–94, 298–300); if, on the other hand, it was
part of Israelite religious tradition that Yahweh could not be depicted and that there was
no statue of Yahweh in the temple, then this change is again merely CC’s representation
of contemporary religious practice. Finally, the fronting in CC of the themes of the poor,
the cult, and justice, which Wright takes as an ideological response to Assyrian
overlordship (300–319), has a solid foundation in the traditions of the early prophets and
may be better seen as part of that tradition.
In general, Wright reads CC almost entirely through the lens of its revision of LH, which
results in some slight methodological difficulties. Regardless of its relationship to other
texts, CC must be comprehensible within its own cultural context, as a literary product
unto itself. When Wright identifies a specific text as being written in the “native idiom”
(183), he establishes a false dichotomy with the rest of CC. The entire text is written in the
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
“native idiom,” otherwise it would not be comprehensible to its readers or writers. To take
one example in particular, Wright claims that when CC uses the term ha’elohim it means
“the god,” in contrast to the plural gods of LH (252–58). Yet it seems probable, given the
evidence from the rest of the Bible, that Israelites hearing or reading ha’elohim would
recognize a direct reference to Yahweh rather than a response to a foreign law code with
which they would have no familiarity. In broader terms, Wright at times ascribes
ostensible difficulties in the logic of CC to the way in which CC uses LH: according to his
analysis, CC is understandable once we see how it plays off LH (140, 178, 188, 307). The
problem is that the audience of CC would not have LH before them to serve as a guide for
reading CC. As a document intended, as Wright recognizes, to be an Israelite replacement
for LH, CC has to be comprehensible on its own terms.
The fundamental question is whether dependence—that of CC on LH or of any text on
another—necessarily entails polemic or any ideological motivation. Although this is
commonly assumed to be the case, I do not see that it is required. It is perfectly
reasonable, to my mind, that the author of CC should have used LH because of its high
standing as a major legal text, as a template and guide when creating his own Israelite law
code, without writing as a direct response to LH per se. The use of a preexisting text does
not require that the newer document be written as replacement or rebuttal; it may simply
be taken as a model. Wright assumes the ideologically motivated polemical intent of CC
more than he proves it. Part of this assumption is based on his dating of CC to the Neo-
Assyrian period, during which time he sees both opportunity and motive for an Israelite
intellectual class to compose a document reacting against the classic Mesopotamian legal
document. Although I find no problem with this dating, the opportunity and motive for
polemic does not demand the existence thereof.
The foregoing concerns, which should be taken more as commentary on the question of
literary dependence in general rather than as criticisms of Wright in particular, do little to
diminish the impact of this book. Wright has made a major contribution to our
understanding of the composition of CC even if one accepts ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the barest bones
version of his thesis, that CC has some dependent relationship to LH. Read alongside the
conceptually similar works of Bernard Levinson on the relationship of CC and
Deuteronomy and of Jeffrey Stackert on the relationship of H to Deuteronomy, CC, and
P, Wright’s book takes us one step closer to a full picture of the development of Israelite
law. He has further done scholarship a significant service by again showing that literary
dependence can be seen not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ in word-for-word correspondence but also in the
intelligent revision of an earlier text (although some verbal correspondence is certainly
required to make a convincing case). No account of the history of CC’s composition will
any longer be able to be written without reference to and deep engagement with Wright’s
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit Review of Biblical Literature.
work, whether one agrees with him or not. Such is the mark of the truly meaningful
contributions to scholarship, and Wright’s book undoubtedly belongs in such a class.

 

[Cesar]

Es importante recalcar que esos son reviews hechos por una sociedad, y sólo deben ser tomados como una guía superficial del libro en sí, y no como una conclusión autoritaria sobre el trabajo de los autores en general, sea a favor o en contra.

 

[SNICT]

Es importante recalcar que esos son reviews hechos por una sociedad, y sólo deben ser tomados como una guía superficial del libro en sí, y no como una conclusión autoritaria sobre el trabajo de los autores en general, sea a favor o en contra.

Exacto...pero son reviews de personas importantes en el tema a convenir. Pero como ud lo dijo, bien bien se puede seguir el debate eternamente.

 

[SNICT]

Mirá, no vi que había puesto esta respuesta páginas atrás.

¿Dónde dice el texto bíblico, en hebreo, que eran todos los montes y todos los cielos conocidos?

Ya me puso a correr jejeje...
El texto dice:

Vezeh asher ta'aseh otah shelosh me'ot amah orej hatevah jamishim amah rojbah ushloshim amah komatah. Tsohar ta'aseh latevah ve'el amah tejalenah milmalah ufetaj hatevah betsidah tasim tajtim shni'im ushlishim ta'aseha. Va'ani jineni mevi et-hamabul mayim al-ha'arets leshajet kol-basar asher-bo ru'aj jayim mitajat hashamayim kol-asher ba'arets yigva.
----------------------------------------------
Y así la harás: de trescientos codos de largo del arca, cincuenta codos su ancho y treinta codos su altura.
Una claraboya harás para el arca, y la terminarás a un codo de la parte alta, y la puerta del arca la colocarás a su lado; le harás compartimentos bajos, segundos y terceros.
Pues he aquí que Yo traigo el diluvio de aguas sobre la tierra
----------------------------------------------


Como ud sabra TODOS los textos de la Torah tienen una explicacion/interpretacion extensa en el Mishna y el Talmud por parte de Ravs, voy a buscar la explicacion, pero deme tiempo por que esa la vi escrita no en internet.

 

[Cesar]

Sí no hay problema, tómese su tiempo. Pero creo que tiene bien claro que el texto hebreo no dice, por ningún lado, que sean todos los conocidos; concluir eso es tratar de ver más allá de lo que el texto tan claramente comunica. Rercuerde que usted dijo que la idea de que era todo es un error de traducción, que el texto hebreo no dice eso.

 

[Trejos2]

Sip, como yo habia dicho.. La biblia es una recopilacion de historias y normas sociales de esas epocas....
Sin embargo, nunca lei eso.. Donde dice eso?

Pues tal vez no una copia pero es evidente, como ocurre en todo país conquistado, que siempre quedan vestigios de la influencia del conquistador. Eso se puede ver en todas las culturas y hasta en nosotros mismos encontramos vestigios de tales conquistas ancestrales.

Es extremadamente fascinante como sin importar cuanto tiempo pase esas influencias perduran en un sin fin de maneras, colores y sabores.

Y en Mateo se hace referencia a esto:

5:38 Ustedes han oído que se dijo: Ojo por ojo y diente por diente.
5:39 Pero yo les digo que no hagan frente al que les hace mal: al contrario, si alguien te da una bofetada en la mejilla derecha, preséntale también la otra.

Toda una novedad el giro que le daba al judaísmo la nueva secta del cristianismo valga decir.

Sin embargo si se mira con cuidado el código de Hammurabi, lo de "ojo por ojo..." es la excepción y no la regla.

Anexo:Lista de leyes del Código de Hammurabi - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Lo mismo con el códice de Ur-Nammu más antiguo y del que posiblemente se inspiró Hammurabi.

Texto del Código de Ur-Nammu — OCW Universidad de Cantabria

Más bien es una lista de multas que se parece más a nuestra ley de tránsito...je, je, je...

 

[Trejos2]

Bueno veo que en historia estamos un poco mal.
A lo que ud se refiere como súbdito de babilonia la unica referencia que calza con eso seria la conquista de Judea por parte del rey babilonico Nabucodonosor II en el 586 a.c. Estos en los tiempos de los hijos de Salomon.
Asi que el marco cronologico que ud presenta esta bastante errado, suponiendo ud que de esa primera diaspora se escribiera la ley talmudica del "ojo por ojo"

No mi estimado, esa es suposición suya. Yo estoy haciendo alusión al N.T. como demostré en mi anterior mensaje. Y nadie está diciendo que el judaísmo sea una copia de las leyes babilónicas. Simple e innegablemente Mesopotamia, así como Egipto, Grecia y eventualmente Roma, dejaron su huella en la historia de esa zona y en la religión hebrea y su secta cristiana como repito, ocurre con el conquistado.