1) For imperial power, it was more effective for a ruler to be seen as kind and just. If a leader can set a good example for his people, they will follow him, emulate his benevolent nature, and pay tribute with little to no fight. The Persians, for example, were more accepting of indigenous traditions and encouraged different cultures and religions. Cyrus is remembered as a great and kind ruler who liberated Judah from the Babylonians and “encouraged them to rebuild their temple (Video: Persia).” This fostering of knowledge and different ideas without arguing over who was right or wrong resulted in a society with good communication, trade, and a diverse range of schools of thought. On the other hand, the harsh rule of the Assyrians instilled resentment in those they defeated or who lived outside the “yoke of Asshur.” This resentment would lead to their demise when their system was overthrown by a coalition allied with the Babylonians. One could argue that Persia, like Assyria, fell, and that Assyria technically lasted longer; however, Persia’s political context at the time of their demise supports the argument that ruling with benevolence is more beneficial for all parties. This “benevolent image, memory of the or of the Persian Shaw was altered after conflict and war broke out between Persians and Greeks… image of the Persians in the West became increasingly viewed in an adversarial light” (Video: Persia) was altered during the 5th century. Of course, their empire fell as a result of challenges from the Greeks and invading armies. As their image of benevolent emancipators deteriorated, they became more vulnerable to conflict and attack, demonstrating that their initial strategy, perhaps best exemplified by King Cyrus, was what provided their successes in communication, trade facilitation, and military efforts.
2) There is some tension in the Israelite interpretation of justice. It is implied in the Death of Moses passage that Moses’ death was just because he served God, despite not being rewarded for his labor and dying directly before reaching the promise land. However, God speaks to Abraham and changes his mind about what is just, negotiating his way from “fifty innocent within the city (WW Ch. 5)” to his final conviction, “I will not destroy, for the sake of ten (WW Ch. 5).” This implies that the divine’s sense of justice is not all-knowing, and that the human judicial instinct is something truly unique to our species. Two schools of thought appear to exist. The first is that doing what is right entails always obeying God’s command (as is seen with Job approaching all of his misfortune but continuing his faith and being rewarded for it in the end). And the second appears to exemplify that there is no divine justice, and that true religion is doing what is right regardless, best exemplified in the Book of Job’s analysis, “others believe God’s words imply so system of divine justice and that authentic religious faith requires human righteousness in spite of this fact (WW Ch.5),” and in God’s decision to punish Gob despite his proven loyalty. Based on the lists of rules written down, including the Proverbs, it was clear that they had a sense of what seemed objectively right or wrong. The question seemed to be more about where that right and wrong ideal originated. God or man?
3) When we examine the Egyptian view of justice, we notice a striking resemblance to the Israelites. Earlier in the course, we looked at Hammurabi’s code, which was a comprehensive set of rules similar to those found in the Torah. Both had a broad scope and were passed down from a “higher being,” who we assume knows everything and is capable of compiling a list reflecting an eternal and objective right versus wrong. However, even earlier in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the vengeful god Ishtar murders Enkidu, which both Gilgamesh and the reader see as bad, and threatens to do terrible things that would affect everyone “I will smash the netherworld’s doors… I will raise the dead eating and alive. As a result, the dead will outnumber the living (Epic of Gilgamesh, page 3) “implying that gods are flawed beings with greater power and are capable of misbehaving This is in stark contrast to how the Israelites present the ten commandments: as a list of perfect rules presented by a perfect God. Whereas justice used to come more from within, we now see the rise of divine justice as a means of keeping rules and people in check.
