The medieval execution tradition

[luchog]

I guess my problem is the difference between murder, killing
and murder committed by government. The argument you hear
often is bullcrap because i also could say that the Holocaust
was no murder because it was "a act of state".

Technically, that's correct. Had the laws of the governing body of Nazi Germany permitted it, the killing would not have been unlawful, and therefore not technically murder. One could argue, however, international law taking precendence, and therefore classify it as murder, regardless

And a State can still commit murder, by causing the deliberate death of an individual or group contrary to it's own laws.

In the case of the Holocaust, however, the proscription against murder still stood; but the Nazi government has defined the Jews and other undesirables as "sub-human", and therefore not protected by the proscription against killing any more than any other animal would be. So and argument could be made that by the standards of the government, it was not murder, since the Jews were not human. On the other hand since their redefinition did not have any real validity, it would still qualify as murder, since they were humans and therefore protected by the prescription against unlawful killing.

 

[a_unique_person]

As for the killing of other nations, I recall another thread on this subject from last year, when I-forget-who characterized the Israelite conquest (assuming it happened) as genocide. In that thread, I noted that although the pentateuch itself identifies the nations targeted for elimination, that fate was reserved only for those Canaanites, etc. who continued their incest, idolatry, and so on. Those who changed their behavior for the better were not to be mistreated, no matter what their ancestry.

Clearly, modern sensibilities don't match those of the OT's plain meaning, but it pays to remember that the plain reading ain't necessarily the way things were done.

I think the actual evidence these days is that the whole story was a piece of propaganda from ancient times about events that never actually happened, or based on events but blown up into a mythology for the same reason. (Like most myths). Eg, Joshua stops the sun.

The story is about the conquest of the Canaanites, and, like the the comforting re-assurances I heard as a Catholic of various barbaric aspects of the bible, I am assuming Jewish tradition also tries to come to terms with unacceptable behaviour by creating rationalisations to make it more acceptable.

As the Israelites came to the Jordan River, the waters parted, as they did for Moses at the Red Sea. The first major battle was in Jericho, a heavily fortified city just five miles west of the Jordan River, northwest of the Dead Sea which he took by ordering his host to march around the city for seven days, whereupon the city walls fell, seemingly by a miracle. The Israelites then slaughtered "every living thing" inside Jericho and took the spoils. Next, through clever ambush tactics, Joshua defeats Ai, a city just West of Jericho. The Israelites face a Southern alliance of the Amorite kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. At Gibeon Joshua defeats them by causing the Sun to stand still at Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, so that he could finish the battle in daylight. Then Joshua faces a northern Canaanite king, Jabin of Hazor, who he defeats at the Waters of Mermon, possibly referring to Lake Huleh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua

The purpose of the 'conquest' was 'conquest'. Back in those days, many societies were just as barbaric. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, etc, all did pretty much the same. The only difference appears to be that the Israelis didn't actually do it in this case, the people who wrote up the legends just wanted it to appear they did.

 

[David Swidler]

I think the actual evidence these days is that the whole story was a piece of propaganda from ancient times about events that never actually happened, or based on events but blown up into a mythology for the same reason. (Like most myths). Eg, Joshua stops the sun.

Which is why I added the phrase, "assuming it happened".

The story is about the conquest of the Canaanites, and, like the the comforting re-assurances I heard as a Catholic of various barbaric aspects of the bible, I am assuming Jewish tradition also tries to come to terms with unacceptable behaviour by creating rationalisations to make it more acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua

The purpose of the 'conquest' was 'conquest'. Back in those days, many societies were just as barbaric. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, etc, all did pretty much the same. The only difference appears to be that the Israelis didn't actually do it in this case, the people who wrote up the legends just wanted it to appear they did.

From everything I've learned, not very much "coming to terms" takes place in the Jewish sources; the fact that God commanded it was enough. And that's not too difficult an approach to appreciate, considering the litany of bad things those targeted are supposed to have committed in the first place.

The biggest issues are:
1) The specific word "harag" translated "kill" in the KJV is a root with a number of different meanings, depending on context and construction; and can also be translated "slaughter", as of an animal. The construct used for that particular commandment carries an idiomatic translation of "kill unlawfully", or possibly "murder", although the latter is a bit too limited, since the idiom also incorporates death caused by negligence as well. The context of the scripture also make clear that the translation "kill unlawfully" is the correct one, since it prescribes a number of different offenses for which capital punishment is prescribed. Evidentiary standards are also quite strict for capital offenses.

'h-r-g' nideed refers to killing, which of course is a neutral word and requires context for moral judgment. In the Ten Commandments, the root employed is r-tz-ch, as pointed out above, which does in fact refer specifically to murder.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I guess my problem is the difference between murder, killing
and murder committed by government.

It's not a matter solely concerning Christians. One theory of Enlightenment law holds that in order to protect citizens from another, the State, or the polity, reserves the exclusive right to the exercise of violence. This is used as a check to vigilantism, and allows for (ideally) an examination of any case of disagreement to social norms and agreed standards. (Laws)

It is consistent with that line of thinking that the State may, in the rare case that it is warranted, expunge the diseased animal from the societal herd. The intent is to preclude or reduce person on person violence to the largest extent practicable. Duelling has likewise fallen from fashion in parallel with the wider acceptance of that ideal, and lawyers/suits are used where sabers and pistols were once employed to settle certain disputes.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Evil Double Post!

DR

 

[David Swidler]

Evil Double Post!

DR

I'm sure execution is justified.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sure execution is justified.

It's a fair cop, but Microsoft's to blame.

DR