20.500.12556/RUL-69347 "Pri tebi ne bo smelo biti reveža (5 Mz 15,4)" primerjalna študija med Svetim pismom in nekaterimi mezopotamskimi zakoniki THERE SHOULD BE NO POOR AMONG YOU ( DEUTERONOMY 15,4); COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN BIBLE AND SOME MESOPOTAMIAN LAW CODES V obravnavanih mezopotamskih zakonikih, to so Ur-Nammujev, Lipit-IÅ¡tarjev, zakonik mesta EÅ¡nunn in Hammurabijev, nobeden od omenjenih zakonodajalcev v pravnem besedilu ne omeni reveža. ZapiÅ¡ejo sicer nekaj besednih zvez, ki se temu približajo, kakor npr. človek v denarni stiski, vendar sama beseda revež ostaja neizrečena. Ob tem se moramo zavedati, da to dejstvo ni posledica Å¡ibkega besednega zaklada sumerščine oz. akadščine. Å e več, opazimo lahko, da epilog Ur-Nammujevega ter prolog Hammurabijevega zakonika reveža omenjata. Tam je omenjen v kontekstu opisovanja stereotipne vloge in lastnosti vladarja, ki ga želi prikazati kot zaščitnika in varuha Å¡ibkih členov družbe, tj. vdov, sirot in revežev. Ti nazivi so bili, bolj kakor kazalci praktične vrednosti, v funkciji vladarjeve propagande in legitimizacije osebne oblasti – v skladu s takrat veljavnimi standardi. Ob tem spoznanju nas ne preseneti, da pravni teksti riÅ¡ejo od prologa in epiloga popolnoma drugačno zgodbo. Tako v epilogu omenjeni mož enega sekla v določbah samih sploh ni omenjen. ÄŒe bi zakoniku odvzeli zgodovinsko-religiozno prepletena prolog in epilog ter se osredotočili na člene same, o revežu ne bi izvedeli ničesar. Nekateri členi, ki npr. uporabijo zgoraj omenjeno besedno kombinacijo, se tematiki približajo toliko, da se ukvarjajo z ljudmi, ki so »zgolj« v Å¡ibkem finančnem stanju, in ne z reveži. Iz same rekonstrukcije družbe na podlagi določb o revežih ni mogoče govoriti. Ne na dobesedni ravni, tj. na ravni pravnega besedila, ki bi reveže v skladu s prologom ščitila (ali vsaj omenjala), kakor tudi ne na »preneseni«, kjer bi lahko v epilogu omenjeno skrb tudi teoloÅ¡ko poglobili in razložili. Povsem drugo zgodbo lahko izluščimo iz Peteroknjižja. Iz branja Postave lahko rekonstruiramo slojevito družbo, katere legitimni del so bili tudi reveži. O njih zakonodajalec ne molči. Različni avtorji Hebrejske Biblije za opis tega stanja uporabljajo celo vrsto različnih terminov, ki najdejo svoje mesto v določbah, ki reveža poizkuÅ¡ajo na različne načine zaščititi (prim. prepovedi jemanja obresti, nižja cena daritev). Vendar če velja, da mezopotamski zakoniki uzakonjajo družbo, kjer so varovane pravice bogatih, Peteroknjižje – vsaj teoretično in kar zadeva reveže – to ureditev postavlja na glavo. V tem primeru prvenstvena vloga zaščitnika ubogih ne izhaja iz vladarja (čeprav jo tudi ta izvaja), temveč od Boga samega. Postava tako ne ščiti interesov bogatih, temveč se zavzema za zatirane. Bogati so namreč tisti, ki trpijo izgubo, ko gre za vpraÅ¡anje reveža (prim. brezobrestna posojila, prepoved zakupa plašča in mlinskega kamna). V tem primeru torej ključne vloge ne igra človeÅ¡ki faktor, temveč Božji. Gre za idejo, da se predstave o tem, kakÅ¡en je Bog, konkretno utelesijo v (pravnih) besedilih. Ob tem pa v petih Mojzesovih knjigah problematika revščine ni skrčena le na reÅ¡evanje posledic neenakih družbenih odnosov, tj. na reÅ¡evanje pravnih deliktov (dolgovi, terjatve ipd.), temveč z Božjim prstom poskuÅ¡a takÅ¡no stanje, ob upoÅ¡tevanju dejstva, da ne bo zmanjkalo revežev (5 Mz 15,11), ublažiti do takÅ¡ne mere, da pred Bogom bogatin s svojim bogastvom ne more storiti ničesar več in revež v svoji bedi ničesar manj (prim. 3 Mz 5,7–13). In the discussed Mesopotamian codes, namely Code of Ur-Nammu, Code of Lipit-Ishtar, The Laws of Eshnunna, and Code of Hammurabi none of the above mentioned legislators in their legal texts refer to a poor man. With the exception of some phrases, e.g. man in straitened circumstances (If a man becomes impoverished.) the word poor man itself remains unspoken. Furthermore, we should be aware of the fact that this is not an issue of poor Sumerian or Akkadian vocabulary. Moreover, we can see that Ur-Nammu epilogue and Hammurabi prologue both refer to poor man describing ruler´s characteristics and his stereotypic role as a protector and guardian of the weak, i.e. widows, orphans and poor men. These denominations have rather been pointers of practical value in duty of the leader´s publicity and legitimation of personal authority in accordance with applicable standards of that time. Knowing this, it is not a surprise to us that legal texts from prologue to epilogue are completely different. Thus, one shekel man, mentioned in the epilogue, is not mentioned in provisions themselves. Focusing on pure articles, if the code was dispossessed of its historic-religious prologue and epilogue, we would not reveal anything about the poor man. Some articles, using the above mentioned word combination, address this topic in the way that they mention people »only« in poor financial situation and not poor men. Considering the reconstruction of society itself under provisions, makes it impossible to speak about poor people: not literally, that is on the level of legal texts, which would in accordance with the prologue protect poor men (or at least mention them), nor on a »figurative« level where the concern mentioned in the prologue could be theologically build up and explained. Pentateuch reveals a completely different issue. Reading Torah, a stratified society can be reconstructed with poor men being its legitimate part. Here the Legislator talks about them. Several authors of Hebrew Bible apply a number of different terms to describe this situation in their provisions trying to protect the above mentioned people (e.g. prohibition of charging interests, lower price of the offerings etc). However, if it holds true that Mesopotamian codes legalize the society where the rights of the rich are protected, then Pentateuch at least theoretically and considering poor man turns this regime upside down. In that case, protector´s primary role of the poor is not in the domain of the ruler (although he performs it) but in the domain of God himself. Thus the law does not protect interests of the rich, but takes the side of the suppressed. When the issue of poor man is concerned (e.g. interest-free loans, prohibition to lease coat or millstone etc.), rich men are those suffering the loss. Therefore, in this case the key role is not played by human but by God. It is all about the idea that the notions of who God is are being embodied in (legal) texts. Besides, in the five books of Moses, the problem of poverty is not only about solving consequences of unequal social relations, i.e. solving legal delicts (debts, claims etc.). Instead, realizing the fact, that there will always be some who are poor and needy (5 Mz 15,11) God is trying to sooth the situation in a way that before God a rich man with all his wealth can not do anything more and a poor man in his misery anything less (e.g. 3 Mz 5,7–13). reveži revščina ubožec siromak Mezopotamija zakoniki Ur-Nammujev zakonik Lipit-Ištarjev zakonik zakonik mesta Ešnunn Hammurabijev zakonik pravna zgodovina Sveto pismo Pentatevh Peteroknjižje biblična zgodovina svetopisemska zgodovina primerjalna študija diplomske naloge true false false [S. Skralovnik] Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Diplomsko delo 2015-07-10 21:24:59 2015-07-10 21:24:59 2022-07-11 03:42:33 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2009 0 0 VII, 164 f. 0000-00-00 NiDoloceno NiDoloceno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 34(091)(358):27-242.4(043.2) 4887898 https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=slv&id=11519 1 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=69358 Teološka fakulteta 0 0 0