seems inexplicable, and eertainh’ extra-legal. I'lie third problem is the extraordinärt' positioning of the two provisions. Whv is the command to honor your father and mother immediately followed by the command not to murder.^ C'armichael's solution, that I find con\ incing, is that the ancient lawgi\er-who was surely not Moses-was reflecting on Chain's murder of his brother Abel: Cienesis 4.8ff.'' This is the first biblical example of a son failing to honor his father and mother who were also the parents of Abel. Chain's punishment was precisely that Ciod made him a fugitixe and wanderer on the earth (Cienesis g.iif.). Chain's time on the land that Clod gave was not to be long. CAtin's killing of .\bel was also the first murder. CAirmichael's overall solution to the structure of biblical law is that the lawgiv ers were contemplating the implications of the first occurrence of an event in Israelite history, 'fhis approach will find no favor with those who believe that law emerges from societal conditions, and that there is a close connection between law and the societv' in which it operates. For me in favivr of CAtrmichael is that there is too much ev idence against the notion that law reflects society. Fhis mv'th of \ ahyeh giv ing the Ten Commandments to Moses is one of the great success stories of history, and of immense significance hvr understanding the role of authority in law. Fhe d en Commandments-given by Cod t<v the Israelites through Moses-are still treated as sacrosanct, d'he prov ision to honor one's father and mother appears in the French code civil, article :^7i: "L'enfant, ä tout age, doit honneur et respect a ses pere et mere." (" Fhe child of whatever age owes honor and respect to his father and mother.") It also appeared in the old Dutch civ il code though commentators admitted that neither it nor its predecessor was used, d'his has been changed in the new Burgcrlijk Wetback article 249, though not without vigonvus opposition.' 4 Origins, pp. 37f.: Spirit, pp. 94f. 90
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=