King’s Research Portal Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Jacobs, S. (Accepted/In press). Models of Perfect Justice: Aspirational Retaliatory Measures in Ancient Legal Sources . In K. de Graff (Ed.), Law and (Dis)Order in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Held at University of Ghent, 15-19 July 2013 Eisenbrauns. Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 19 August 2014 Dr Sandra Jacobs Conference Paper Submission: 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale University of Ghent, 15-19 July 2013 “Law and (Dis)Order in the Ancient Near East.” Models of Perfect Justice: Aspirational Retaliatory Measures in Ancient Legal Sources The quest for perfect justice remains a tantalizing ideal, the absence of which is most acute for victims of crime, particularly for those injured, or killed, by a serial offender. Contemporary punishments, including the death penalty and life imprisonment, essentially convey a sense that justice has been achieved, even when it appears to be compromised – as in the recent reports of successfully-escaped prisoners from UK jails and, arguably also, where a “life-sentenced” criminal is released on parole. Such situations offer a compelling rationale for understanding the ancient belief that perfect justice was ultimately divine, and accordingly that kittum u mīšarum, “truth and justice,” (ROTH 1997, 81) could only be achieved by reproducing the heavenly order on earth. In this context “judgement was thus a transposition of divine practices into the human sphere,” in which the integral elements of stability (kittum from kânum, “to be stable, or solid,”) and precision (mīšarum from ešērum, “to be right, straight,”) were crucial for the continuity of human life on earth (DÉMARE- LAFONT 2011, 335). In this ideological framework divine retribution played a profound role, where conditions in the natural environment were presumed to echo those in the cosmic arena. This instinctive desire for judicial accuracy was reflected in widespread aspirations for achieving a notional equivalence between a crime and its punishment, and where the tailoring of a sanction to correspond to the sin was variously recommended in ancient sources. While such processes have a complex textual history, appearing often stereotypical in their demands for physical retaliation (as in the case of ius talionis, encapsulated in its “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” formulation, examined in JACKSON 1973, 273-304; CARDASCIA 1979, 169-183; WESTBROOK 1986, 52-69; HOUTMAN 1996, 381-397; HAASE 1997; DAVIS 2005; LEVINE 2008, 187-203; ROTHKAMM, 2011; JACOBS 2014, 68-189) the non-bodily specific demands for retaliatory measures are no less important. With reference to these more abstract expressions, the correspondence between the active nature of the crime and its subsequent punishment, nonetheless, remains explicit. In relation to the traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible, this process has been termed “reflective talion,” (JACOBS 2013, 691-699; 2014, 127-134), and can be differentiated from that of instrumental talion, which describes a punitive injury to the body part responsible for carrying out, or initiating, the crime (SHEMESH 2005; JACOBS, 2010; 2014, 134-178 ). Accordingly the core-belief, that there was an intrinsic link between a negative act and the inevitable consequence for its perpetrator encouraged the conviction that a fair punishment would rightly correspond proportionally to the nature and extent of the crime committed, (as BLENKINSOPP 1995; HAASE 1997; EGO, 2007). In general terms this message that “you reap whatever you sow,” (Galatians 6:7, as also Jeremiah 17:10; Job 34:1, etc.) reverberated in the Gospels: “For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you,” (Luke 6:38) and similarly, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you,” (Mark 4:24). Likewise, within the Hebrew Bible, the Psalmist (7:17) confirms, “his mischief will recoil upon his own head; his lawlessness will come down upon his skull.” In exemplifying this process with more concrete (negative) activities, Ecclesiastes 1 (10:8) adds: “He who digs a pit will fall into it; he who breaches a stone fence will be bitten by a snake.” Key elements of reflective talion are keenly recalled in the post-flood experience of Utanapištim, who explains to Gilgameš that once he and his wife returned to dry land, they provided the appropriate thanksgiving offerings to the gods, who descended like flies. Once sated, Ea proceeds to rebuke Enlil: You sage of the gods, you hero. How could you lack counsel and cause the deluge? On him who commits a sin, inflict his crime! On him who commits a wrong, inflict [his] wrongdoing! Slack off, lest it be snapped! Pull taut, least it become [slack!],” (GEORGE 2003, 715). Ea’s criticism of Enlil (in effectively wiping out mankind entirely with a flood) presumes that even the gods ought to be bound by talionic convention: “on him who commits a sin, inflict his crime.” A more ideal allocation of divine justice is recommended, as Ea then suggests that less widespread human destruction would have been a more responsible option: “Instead of the deluge you caused, lion could arise to diminish the people….. wolf could arise to diminish the people….famine could happen to slaughter the land…..Erra could arise to slaughter the land.” (Lines 189-95, GEORGE 2003, 714-717). Here the desire for the gods to distribute punishment more equitably and restrict it to sinners exclusively is presented as a more responsible divine option. Unlike these entirely destructive consequences earlier attestations of reflective talion were configured also in positive terms, where the Sumerian proverbs recommend: “Let kindness be repaid to him who repays kindness,” (ALSTER, 1997, Vol. 1, 216), and later in bilingual Akkadian-Sumerian forms: “May kindness be repaid to him who does a kindness. May Ḫunma grant favour to him of whom favour is predicated.” (LAMBERT 1960, 264). In this same vein, “he who insults is insulted; he who sneers, is sneered at,” (ALSTER, 1997, Vol. 1, 92), where Bendt Alster explains “a person is treated according to his behaviour.” (ALSTER 1997, Vol. 2, 384), and thus: “let revenge be taken on one who takes revenge” (ALSTER 1997, Vol. 2, 431). Nor were such expressions restricted to anecdotal or literary conventions, but were present in a number of Babylonian, Assyrian and Hebrew laws. While it is reasonably clear that the scribes responsible for writing the Covenant Code did have access to the full sequence of provisions listed in Hammurabi’s laws, there is no need to presume that this collection was “directly, primarily and throughout dependant on the Laws of Hammurabi,” (WRIGHT 2009, 3), given the significantly different consequences preserved in Exodus 20:19-23:33. In this context, therefore, where does the tailoring of a punishment, to correspond to the crime(s) of its perpetrator, most noticeably occur? There are four cases Hammurabi’s laws where the process of reflective talion is evident: 1. LH 1: If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed. (ROTH 1997, 81) This evokes the right of the blood avenger (variously the bēl napšāti, or in biblical or “blood redeemer,”) to slay the killer after a homicide was ,גאל הדם tradition, the committed (MISHALY 2000, 34-45; BARMASH 2005, 27, 50-52). LH1 is, however, paralleled more closely in the Deuteronomic revision of the talionic formulation: “If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not be done again in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Deuteronomy 19:18b- 24. In terms of its early reception, the main juridical elements of this law are dramatized in meticulous relief in the Book of Susannah (JACKSON 1976; LEVINE 1995), preserved as “additions,” (Chapter 13) in Daniel by the Roman Catholic 2 and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Book of Esther, “a tale reminiscent of the Arabian nights,” (DALLEY 2007, 195), also describes how the arch-villain Haman was hung on the gallows he had built originally for Mordechai: “With the promulgation of this decree, let the evil plot, which he devised against the Jews recoil on his own head,” (Esther 9:25).