Talk:Eye for an eye

Social hierarchy and reciprocal justice

The assertion: " On the other hand, the slave would probably be put to death for the injury of the eye of the slave-owner." is totally unfounded, onder the jewish law a slave should have had to pay a monetary compensation, the only problem beeing that he didn't possess anything, and was thus exempted of payement until he was set free cf michnah 8 chapter 4 of Baba Kama. Furthermore if a free man killed a slave he was passible of death penalty in the same way as if he had killed a other free man, with the exeption of the owner which was exempt in the case of the death beeing delayed more than 24 hours after the beating (exodus 21:20) 213.224.2.178 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Ahy Gavra213.224.2.178 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Talionis?

What does Talionis mean? I read the summaries of 200 web pages on Talionis and found not even one literal translation. --Menchi 12:18 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is the genitive case of the Latin talio (retaliation), and therefore means 'of retaliation'. I guess that it was derived from talis, meaning 'of such kind'. -- Heron 13:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rabbinic interpretation

The rabbinic interpretation - the law "an eye for an eye etc." demands an adequate financial or other substitution of a physical damage - is supported by the biblical context itself. In Exodus chapter 21, verses 23-24 this law first appears: It is clearly related to cases of physical damage in a fight between men, in extreme with mortal consequences for a pregnant woman (vers 22). The adequate substitution is a certain amount of money, which the victims partner and the judges have to find out together. The verse that follows the quotation of the law applies it to a case of physical damage to a slave: the adequate punishment for his owner is not to let him take one of his eyes but to set him free for the rest of his lifetime!

The understanding of this law as a law principle which cannot be taken literally is also supported by the context of it´s other appearances in the bible.

And also by the historical comparison to the babylonic "Lex Hammurabi" which shows a totally other understanding of retaliation by using almost the same words as the bible.

Last but not least: This law does NOT necessarily support the death punishment, despite it´s common abuse by most christian fundamentalists. This an article with an encyclopedic approach should point out! --213.7.97.164 20:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry my identification is not valid on english wikipedia: look for "Jesusfreund" on german wikipedia, if you want to answer me. --213.7.97.164 20:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should a seperate page titled lex talionis be created redirecting to this article?

I agree with the argument at the top. The article provides a controversial opinion that Biblically, it meant literal reciprocal punishment and it was only later Rabbis who changed it while further in Exodus, it specifically describes punishment for killing a fetus as being monetary. This flatly contradicts the opinion that it was interpreted literally until later Rabbis changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.10.97 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Criticisms" (moved from article)

This section needs discussion as it is highly invective, and derogatory of Jews:

"Most Christians see the New Testament as superior to the Hebrew Bible, and have traditionally read many of the laws in the Hebrew Bible as outdated or immoral. Outside of the Jewish community, the Christian view of the Hebrew Bible has become standard for many non-Christians. As such, many non-Christians have a critical view of the Hebrew Bible's conception of justice, and also of rabbinic Judaism's concept of justice. One example of this point of view is the quote "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" by Mohandas Gandhi. This quote was originally by Kahlil Gibran, not Gandhi.

Those who disagree with this view note that it is a Christian interpretation of the commandment, which assumes that the directive encourages bloody retributive justice. Since the original intent was to limit retribution, the criticism is held to be misinformed and invalid."

Further comments needed...IZAK 07:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Izak, (A) we cannot remove all POVs that you find derogatory. This is not an Orthodox Jewish encyclopedia. (B) This statement of fact is phrased in an NPOV way. It does not state as a fact that Judaism is inferior to other religions. Rather, it merely states that some people think so, which is an indisputable fact. (C) If anything, this section is biased in favor of Judaism. Did you even read it, especially the conclusion? 21:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

RK: Ho-hum, did I ever say this is an "Orthodox encyclopedia"? If anyone thinks so, they should get their head read, and remember this is NOT a Conservative Judaism encyclopedia either, and it is definitely NOT merely a convocation for anti-religious athiests either, so cut out your crap and leave out criticizing your imagined view/s of other Wikipedians' religious beliefs. IZAK 23:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the Criticism section is still far from neutral. 80.221.157.153 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Read in its historical context, this seems to not be encouraging retributive justice, but is rather setting forth a commandment that punishments must be no more worse than the crime, giving as an example "an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth". This verse probably was meant to serve as a limitation on what kind of response the injured party could give.

This is ridiculous. The quote must be read in context, and the most direct context is the one surrounding the quote:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

This cannot imply anything except "an unjust action must be met with an equivelant punishment". The "upper limit" explanation is wrong. If there was opportunity for legal systems to give a lower punishment, then the lines 26 and 27 would not make sense. This law suggests that the servant now gets to take the eye if he would like, unless he can be enticed into sparing the one whose eye would be taken. This makes sense, though some may now find it wrong, morally. Since I believe that there is a greater chance that this quote, in the historical context, means exactly what people think it means today ("you may do as much ill to others as they've done to you") due to attitudes being different at the time of the writing, - that there is a greater chance of that than of the author becoming suddenly confused and writing something that makes no sense, I will soon be editing this article, setting the above sentiments (italics, first para) as a minor note, and then providing refutation of those sentiments. Slike2 09:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right that looking at the "historical context" will not necessarily show you that "the verse was probably meant to serve as a limitation." Whoever wrote this was ill-informed. However, your interpretation is based upon an inaccurate translation (King James?). The following translation is more faithful to the meaning conveyed in the original Hebrew:

22. And if men fight, and they knock into a pregnant woman, and her child goes out (i.e. she miscarries), and there is no tragedy (most commentaries on the original Hebrew text understand this to mean that the woman survives), he (i.e. the one deemed at fault) shall surely be punished, according to that which the husband of the woman shall cast upon him (i.e. accuse him in court; the Hebrew term for this, yaw-sheeth, never refers to violent confrontation), and he (i.e. the culprit) shall give [compensation] according to the court's order. 23. And if there shall be a tragedy (i.e. the woman doesn't survive) then you shall award a person in place of a person. 24. An eye in place of an eye, a tooth in place of a tooth, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot. 25. A burn in place of a burn, a wound in place of a wound, a bruise in place of a bruise. 26. And if a man shall strike the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant, and destroy it, he shall set him free in place of his eye. 27. And if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in place of his tooth.

Regarding the use of the term "tachath" (which is translated above as "in place of"), it implies monetary compensation wherever used in discussions of torts, as the Talmud demonstrates (Bava Kamma, 84a) (and as is clearly seen from studying verse 36 in light of verse 34). It seems fairly clear from the context of verses 22,26, and 27, moreover, that, regarding torts, equivalent punishment is not delivered physically. I think that the "historical context" paragraph should be replaced by a paragraph describing that the Biblical view of "an eye for an an eye" entails monetary compensation. HKT 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your rewrite a translation that does not seem to mandate physical retribution. I have no objections to it now that you've explained and rewritten it. It should be pointed out that these are laws that made their way into the bible, and not biblical teachings. Slike2 00:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that because verses 22, 26, and 27 advocate non-reciprocal punishment, this must be true for verses 24 and 25 as well. I do not think this does justice to the passage in question. Verse 22 describes a case where reciprocal justice is impossible, because you cannot cause a man to miscarry. Likewise verses 26 and 27 are presented as exceptions to the general rule, describing the special case when the victim is a slave and therefore not of equal status as a fellow citizen. In this case, naturally, his eye is not worth as much as the eye of the assailant, and therefore reciprocal justice becomes impossible, too, and is substituted by setting the slave free. However, the general rule that is presupposed and re-stated in verses 24 and 25 is clearly that the one who injures another's eye, shall have his own eye destroyed, etc. The fact that, for very obvious practical and ethical reasons, modern Jewish scholarship has adopted a more metaphorical interpretation of this passage should not lead us to mistake this interpretation for the original meaning of this law.--84.190.12.116 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

More on "Criticisms"

I have done a complete rewrite on the "Criticisms" section, which was vague, inaccurate, and tendentious (not as bad as the stuff that had already been evicted above, but along the same lines). I've also tweaked the Intro section to try to reflect the new content (and some of the interesting discussion above). As will be obvious, I am writing this from within the Christian tradition, but I have sought to do so in an NPOV way; this article has to reflect Christian as well as Jewish interpretations and commentary, since the target phrase is in the New Testament (and in a crucial section of it) as well as the Hebrew Bible. I am very happy to get into discussion here over the exact points that need to be made and how; properly understood, this is not something that needs to be a matter of conflict between Jewish and Christian scholars. seglea 01:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm,

I've always felt the policy was meant to promote mercy, as if you deny yourself vengeance, your neighbor might let you off the hook the next time, but it would always be clear that you had every right to it... thus giving it value.

Intro

I think we should be less timid in ascribing the original codification of the idea to the Babylonians. This translation of Hammurabi's code [1] states quite clearly:

• If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [An eye for an eye] (196)
• If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [A tooth for a tooth] (200) Marskell 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How does this show that this was the original source? HKT 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do people not understand the passage?

The passage was clearly defining punishments to be sentenced by a judge or court or other judicial body - it clearly indicates earlier that fines are to be imposed for certain damages; to those who argue this verse justifies personal revenge, would you say this justifies the injured party to go take whatever money he deems reasonable? The passage does not allow personal vengeance, but is a prescription for the judge to give just punishment which fits the crime. Jesus' mention of the verse in the new testament supports the idea that it was not about personal revenge, because he says "you have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" instead of saying "it is written."

WP:NOR

Removing section claiming that the "turn the other cheek" antithesis is not contrary. If someone notable thinks that it is not, it may be mentioned that Prof. _____ (or whoever) thinks that this is not contrary. HKT 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay...

• Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said by them of old time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and what the Lord says, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but if any one smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on. The old precept as well as the new is intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make their enemy suffer enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not summon his assailant, that he may be condemned in the court of law? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can get hold of one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess, the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty should correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire already kindled from spreading. For there is a just revenge due to the injured person from his assailant; so that when we pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lord's prayer, we are taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our debts. There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is kindness in forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never swears; and while swearing truly is not a sin, we are further from sin by not swearing; so that the command not to swear is a guard against perjury: in the same way since it is sinful to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security against the sin of making an unjust demand is to demand nothing, especially considering the danger of being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is in debted to none. Thus, I would explain the passage as follows: It has been said by them of old time, Thou shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at all: here is the fulfillment. (Augustine, Against Faustus, 19:25)

• We plainly perceive, by the repetition of the lex talionis, that a just proportion is to be observed, and that the amount of punishment is to be equally regulated, whether as to a tooth, or an eye, or life itself, so that the compensation should correspond with the injury done; and therefore (what is first said of the life) is correctly applied also to the several parts, so that he who has plucked out his brother’s eye, or cut off his hand, or broken his leg, should lose his own eye, or hand, or leg. In fine, for the purpose of preventing all violence, a compensation is to be paid in proportion to the injury. But although God commands punishment to be inflicted on the guilty, still, if a man be injured, he ought not to seek for vengeance; for God does not contradict Himself, who so often exhorts His children not only to endure injuries patiently, but even to overcome evil with good. The murderer is to be punished, or he who has maimed a member of his brother; but it is not therefore lawful, if you have unjustly suffered violence, to indulge in wrath or hatred, so as to render evil for evil. Since this error was rife among the Jews, our Lord refutes it, and teaches that the punishment, which is publicly awarded to the wrong-doer, is not subservient to every man’s private passion, so that he who is offended should make haste to retaliate. (Matthew 5:38.) Nor indeed are these words addressed to them in order to inflame or excite the desire of vengeance, but all violence is restrained by the fear of punishment. (Calvin on Exo. 21:22).

• An eye for an eye. Here another error is corrected. God had enjoined, by his law, (Leviticus 24:20,) that judges and magistrates should punish those who had done injuries, by making them endure as much as they had inflicted. The consequence was, that every one seized on this as a pretext for taking private revenge. They thought that they did no wrong, provided they were not the first to make the attack, but only, when injured, returned like for like. Christ informs them, on the contrary, that, though judges were entrusted with the defense of the community, and were invested with authority to restrain the wicked and repress their violence, yet it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the injuries which he receives. (Calvin on Matt. 5:38).

• An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exo. 21:24. This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation" [. . .] Now our Lord here, does not find fault with the law of retaliation, as delivered by Moses, but with the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, as they interpreted it of pecuniary mulcts, as a compensation for the loss of a member, which sometimes exceeded all just and due bounds; so they applied it to private revenge, and in favour of it: whereas this law did not allow of a retaliation to be made, by private persons, at their pleasure, but by the civil magistrate only. (Gill on Matt. 5:38)

• It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exod. xxi. 24; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom. xiii. 4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num. xxxv. 31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed. But some of the Jewish teachers. . .insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. . . . Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luke xviii. 2, 3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of innocency. (Matthew Henry on Matt. 5:38)

• An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — that is, whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution - designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate - was abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Pro. 20:22; 24:29). (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown on Matt. 5:38)

• An eye for an eye, etc. This command is found in Ex 21:24 Le 24:20; De 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for a burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But, instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified, by this rule, to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Against this our Saviour remonstrates. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge; that it was given only to regulate the magistrate; and that their private conduct was to be regulated by different principles. (Barnes on Matt. 5:38).

• Ye have heard that it was said [Ex. xxi. 24; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21], An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil [The lex talionis, or law of like for like, was the best possible rule in a rude state of society, its object being not to sacrifice the second eye, but to save both, by causing a man when in a passion to realize that every injury which he inflicted upon his adversary he would in the end inflict upon himself. From this rule the scribes drew the false inference that revenge was proper, and that a man was entitled to exercise it. Thus a law intended to prevent revenge was so perverted that it was used as a warrant for it. This command which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon, does not demand of us absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We are to submit to evil for principle's sake and to accomplish spiritual victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so far encourage crime as to become a sin. (McGarvey [Four-Fold Gospel] on Matt. 5:38)

• The law quoted is found in Exod. 21:23–25 and Lev. 24:18–20. Moses intended it to protect person and property by prescribing what punishment the law should inflict. He who took a life should lose his life; he who robbed another of an eye should be punished by the loss of an eye. The Jews perverted it to justify private retaliation. (Johnson [People's NT] on Matt. 5:38)

Should you need current scholarship: The nature of the antithesis as being emphatic not contrary, Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 91-97, citing Ridderbos, Murray (q.v., Principles of Conduct, 160-178) and Stonehouse (q.v., The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 196-209). The anthithesis specifically regarding the ius talionis in Matt. 5:38, 119, 423-24.

I just assumed that since this is the historical majority view of Christian scholars and commentators, there was no need for sourcing or attribution. I had no idea anybody would think it was OR. Unfortunately, most of my books are packed right now, but the above samples should suffice. --MonkeeSage 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good to me. Pardon my ignorance. In any event, it is nice that the emphatic view is at least generally attributed now, rather than left as a simple assertion of fact. Thanks, HKT 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

One troubling (at least, to me) aspect is that Moses himself did not follow this principle as doggedly as his namesake law has sometimes been interpreted. There are (a few) times when Moses turned to mercy rather than retribution, lending some additional credibility to the view that these laws served both as a principle of justice--limiting retribution--and as a rough sentencing guideline, of sorts. Yet there were times when the punishment meted out by Moses did seem to be more severe than this aphorism would suggest.

Perhaps we just don't know enough to state equivocally the principle was, or was not, in force as a limiter or as a prescription. I'm not certain we can even know, given our known extant resources.

As one example, perhaps we should not go too far in equating "servants" with "chattel" in the culture of this time and place.

Mosaic law seems to establish that Jewish servants (i.e., those who are bound into service for economic reasons) did not forfeit all of their rights--and especially did not forfeit *on behalf of their tribe* any of the rights held collectively. This is an important point in that the "eye for an eye" concludes with blatant exceptions: If a master puts out a servant's eye, the master's eye is not forfeit: Instead the servant is released (which would indicate that whatever financial obligation caused them to go into service was forfeited by the master).

On its face, however, this potentially contraindicating command (with its implication that a master's eye was worth more than a servant's eye, or that in every case, a servant's freedom was equal to the loss of an eye or tooth. "If A =B and B=C, doesn't A=B? (hmmm. I've lost teeth and it didn't seem to be that big of a deal so that I would much prefer losing even a bunch of teeth rather than an eye. . .)

Although I have never seen evidence that it was put into practice (do we know for sure which laws were practiced and which were not?), the reconciliation year of the Jubilee was to see the land of all of the servants returned to their tribes, and all the servants (at least of Israel, and perhaps of Edom) were to be set free. Given that the taking into bondage was neither a transfer of all the bonded's possessions into the hands of the master, nor was a permanent condition, it seems strange that servants would be denied "retribution"--the eye for their eye--on the last day before Jubilee, and granted it the next.

I believe this lends support to the view that this was a limiting, rather than a prescribed punishment. This would then support the view that what is being traded is economic value rather than blood.

It does seem a bit strange to read the ancient texts as if they were modern law or even sentencing guidelines. At about the time the laws were given a number of righteous men were named judges (at the suggestion of Jethro, a priest of Midian and the father of Moses' wife, Zipporah), yet there is no mention of limits or guidelines within which these judges were to operate, except that they were to take the more difficult cases to Moses. While they certainly would have been expected to follow the Levitical law (although given the number of times the people seemed to forget all about it, I wonder if it were widely distributed), these laws may not have been complete at the time, and even if complete, it is not clear there was universal literacy among the people who had grown up slaves in Egypt. Even if every man, woman, child and household pet was completely literate, I'm not so sure there was universal access to the written texts.

We sometimes forget this, but in a strictly hierarchical society, there is no "rule of law." The law is whatever those above you in the hierarchy say it is. This is part of what was so revolutionary about the Hellenist systems. Even the Roman law was often completely reinterpreted to suit Caesar (especially in later years) but in Athens the law was a source to which a rhetor could appeal to supply strength to his warrants. I believe it is safe to say that no such system was present in Judaism, Islam or Christianity until much later. The closest would probably be the Law of the Medes. My rudimentary knowledge about this civilization makes me stop short of being sure, however.

Even if we believe the written Mosaic law was scrupulously applied to the children of Jacob, it is less clear about the role of aliens in the land, whether they be previous inhabitants who did not leave or die when the Israelites arrived from Egypt, trophies of war (especially women and children), or someone outside of the Thirteen (or twelve, or eleven, or fourteen. . .) tribes.

This is an unsettled question. Consider for example the account of the battle between the kingdoms which resulted in Judah taking many slaves. The prophet Oded, an apparently faithful prophet of God, went to the victorious army and told them to release their slaves, "for they are related to you, your brothers and sisters". Thus it is apparent that there were different rules in place for relatives than from foreigners.

Just to complicate things a bit more, at times it seems God considers Edom as related to the people, for they are also children of Abraham. At other times, however, it seems that they are given no special status.

Thus the issues surrounding the status of the actual implementation of this law versus the knowledge that it did exist may be relevant. In other words, we don't know just how this law of retribution was actually implemented--or if it ever really was implemented in the way we think of laws.

I suppose this ends up saying "we shouldn't say we know if we don't know." While unequivocality and unambiguity are wonderful traits for an encyclopedia, it might just be that this is one case in which we are better off saying "Some say. . . while others say . . ." rather than attempting to discern what was the actual practice (thus the salient practice, given the likely low level of formal literacy.

There is also the problem that the intra-textual evidence is also ambiguous. While it is clear (I believe) that Moses did not return from the dead to write his own obituary, it is not clear that any of these accounts are forgeries. Given the historical legs of this text, I would expect a careful presentation of evidence before any credible author started claiming exactly what was the approach of the people to the law.

Thanks, all, for your good work. I believe the sides might not be as far apart as they might seem.

Roy 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

etcetera

I am dissatisfied with the word "etcetera" in the alternatives section for the following reasons:

• An encycopaedia should not assume the reader already knows the facts
• There is no cite for additional alternatives WP:CITE
• There is no evidence given for additional alternatives (if indeed they do exist) WP:V

I propose rewording the section to either include all known examples, provide a reference to other examples, or to state that two examples are given here (not excluding the possibility of others, but not stating that there are others either).

What do people think? Stephen B Streater 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative types: Faulty implication

"Alternative types of sanction are often based on another rationale for punishment, which focus not on an abstract notion of poetic justice, which is closest to the crime victim's point of view, but rather on the impact of the punishment on the sanctioned offender (whose misbevahior must be dealt with) and/or on society (which must be protected or satisfied)."

This implies that all forms of "eye for an eye" punishment are simply ways for an authority to wreak vengeance on behalf of a victim. Not all legal systems employing the phrase "an eye for an eye" mandate "poetic justice" for the sake of easing victims' grief, as other parts of this article mention. HKT 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' criticism of Jewish law?

This passage strikes me as rather POV:

Most Christian scholars and commentators have agreed that such an interpretation is a misunderstanding of this section of Matthew. The "Expounding of the Law" includes a series of six sayings in similar format, known as the "antitheses". In each of them Jesus quotes the provisions of the Jewish Law without criticism - indeed, the passage is prefaced by a ringing endorsement of the Law as whole. However he then calls on his followers to go further than the Law demands, in order to "Be perfect". It seems clear Jesus was not criticising the law, but calling on his followers not only to refrain from the abuses the Law condemns, but to go to the opposite extreme by exercising forgiveness and love — even when one has a just claim to vengeance.

While this should be mentioned as a possibility, it seems by no means "clear" that Jesus was not criticising the law. In its raw biblical form (and this is ultimately by far the best source to go on), Jesus' "turn the other cheek" looks like a direct rebuttal of the "eye for an eye" law, particularly as he quotes it and then goes on "but I say...". The fact that christian scholars have produced theses attempting to reconcile the two (possibly out of theological necessity), does not constitute proven fact. Or am I missing something? SteveRwanda 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:An_eye_for_an_eye#WP:NOR above. I didn't really read the list a few months ago, but I lazily accepted that this is indeed the majority view. Maybe someone could do more research to confirm or refute this. HKT^Talk 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of what he was saying is, if you pass up the opportunity to 'even the score' with someone, maybe others will do the same when you screw up. At the same time, if you DO screw up, you should expect the full amount of what you've done to be done to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Come on, the section on cultural references is just silly. We're not talking about some obscure 1934 car brand where it might actually be interesting to see who's used it, we're talking about a common English phrase. This section is never even going to be remotely complete or interesting, and is just reflecting viewer biases from editors.

I'd remove it, but since I'm anonymous, it would just get shot down as vandalism. 82.95.254.249 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't think MLK said that about an 'eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.' he might have, but i think gandhi coined the phrase long before.

-ramsey affifi

Sumeria

Lex Talionis, while its a Latin name, was a concept of ancient Sumeria. Why isn't this in the article? 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why in Arabic?

This article has nothing to do with Arabic in particular, so having the translation of "eye for an eye" in Arabic in the introduction makes no more sense than having the translation into French, Georgian, Japanese, Quechua or any other language. It could make sense to have it in Sumerian or Akkadian, source languages for the quote, or in Hebrew, source language for the Bible. To this end, I've removed the Arabic. For those who have comments, please write them below. Be sure to add four ~ to show your signature. Interlingua 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is not this from the Code of Hammurabi?

The origin of this phrase is from the Code of Hammurabi. However, why there were no sections or not discussed about it?

169.233.49.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Who writes these??

I've never heard that "turn the other cheek" was any sort of pacifism in the face of violence. The passage has largely been interpreted that the "strike" Jesus was refering to was an insult/attack on ones character or a **minor** assault, as the "strike" is described as being a "backhand" strike, one intended to insult instead of harm. The pacifism nonsense is what non-christians/non-biblical scholars have largely claimed about the passage. So was this written by someone who knew what they were even writing?66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Interpretations

Eye for an eye. => If one sees another, one should show themselves. Tooth for a tooth. => Feed and be fed. Feed your children and in turn you should be fed when you are incapable of feeding yourself in old age. [2]

I removed this, it looked quite random. If this really was a well-known interpretation, please provide more context. 99.245.206.188 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply wrong first paragraph

I'm going to change this sentence: "from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation."

This is not what this verse says. It clearly says that if two people are fighting and they harm a pregnant woman's baby, the one responsible will be punished with a life for a life, an eye for an eye.... Not a common understanding of the context.

Mtkoan (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar expression in need of help

The article "Fight Fire With Fire" was redirecting to Metallica's Ride The Lightning album. I fixed that bit, but could somebody else more experienced with this sort of thing head over to there and clean it up better than I attempted to? I figured if somebody knows a fair deal about wikipedia and older expressions of this type, I'd find them here fastest, thanks. Xanofar (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lex Talionis in Judaism

A reference is given to the American Jewish Orthodox movement A text appears, said to be "Paraphrased" from this association The paraphrase is misleading Here is what is actually said by them

The concept of an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" as punishment for a physical injury is mentioned in the Written Torah in "Shemot"/Exodus 21:24. This verse has been the basis for criticism of the Torah as a harsh and inhumane document for thousands of years, all based on a misunderstanding of its meaning.

The Oral Law explains that what is meant is a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" - which underlie many modern "advanced" legal codes? And the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." means that that is what the perpetrator deserves, if not for the mercy of the Torah and its Author. Ah, you ask, how do you know the Torah means that, and is not to be taken literally? Because the Torah says, "Do not take a ransom for the life of a Murderer, who is wicked to the extent that he must die"; for the murderer, there is no monetary amount that is sufficient to grant him atonement in the eyes of G-d! Only payment with his life will secure that atonement! But for other forms of injury, we will take millions of dollars from the criminal, as a ransom for his eye, hand, or foot; and as atonement, hopefully rendering him a poor man, for his terrible crime!

The text in the Wikipedia article should be amended to "Paraphrase" the Orthodox view accurately!!

Historygypsy (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Retributive Justice and Game Theory

I'd like to direct attention to the following sentence:

"Under the right conditions, such as the ability for all actors to participate in an iterative fashion, the "eye for an eye" punishment system has a mathematical basis in the Tit for tat game theory strategy."

I'd propose to delete this enigmatic remark. There might be some truth in it. But as it stands, it either needs some expansion - which would be quite inappropriate in the context - or left out. Collini (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Your article says "eye for eye" IS in the Hebrew Bible and does NOT occur in the Hebrew Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim club (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Title of the article should be "Lex talionis"

I understand the desire to use the more understandable and more widely known "eye for an eye" but the scholarly and legal term is "lex talionis". I have been searching in Google books for sources to use in the "Eye for an eye" section of Judaism and violence. The most commonly used phrase is "lex talionis" although some sources use both. Generally, they will say "lex talionis" and then explain that this is "eye for an eye" but then they will use "lex talionis" in subsequent sentences. There is even one source that says "Eye for an eye" or "lex talionis" as it is referred to in Near East studies. Any objections to moving this article to Lex talionis? --Richard S (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Lex Talionis redirects here, which is ridiculous. The academic concept is "lex talionis" and the article should be called that. Alphachimera (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with a change, the article name should be: "The Law of Talion"(common English term), "eye 4 an eye" seems to me like christian vandalism to force their pov/beliefs/"sacred texts" over everyone(something I know and experience on my everyday, thus I can spot it right on sight), the concept and name is largely know as "the law of talion", just look at the articles in Dutch, Spanish, Italian and the vast majority of languages, the name goes Lex Talionis or "law of talion". Why the article should be named "eye 4 an eye" when is not the original and real name at all?--FaustoLG (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Literal Translation of the Hebrew phrase.

I changed this from "eye under eye", which makes little to no sense in English, to "an eye in place of an eye". I'd say this is justified as a literal translation: 1) The indefinite pronoun "a(n)", which is necessary in English, is implicit in Hebrew, which has only a definite pronoun. Thus, the literal translation of the noun "ayin" is "an eye", as opposed to "ha-ayin", which would be "the eye". 2) The preposition tachath, which sometimes is used to mean "underneath", more generally means "in (the) place of". There are many instances in the Hebrew Bible of this word used in contexts where the translation "underneath" simply would not make sense. JudahH (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some examples: Genesis 4:25 (...another child in place of Abel...), Genesis 22:13 (...he brought [the ram] for an offering in place of his son.), Genesis 30:15 ("Therefore shall he lie with you tonight in place of [or "in exchange for"] your son's mandrakes."), Genesis 44:4 ("Why have you paid bad in place of good?").

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Eye for an eye → Lex talionis – The academic concept is called "lex talionis," the vernacular phrase "eye for an eye" should redirect to the academic concept, not the other way around (currently, lex talionis redirects to "eye for an eye." This article even concedes that "Eye for an Eye" is actually called "mirror punishment" which is an existing article. Moreover, Wikipedia article naming conventions require the page to be called what it is referred to in "notable" sources, a quick search on Google Books confirms a plethora of scholarly interest in "lex talionis." Thank you for your consideration. Alphachimera (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. "Eye for an eye" is the vernacular usage familiar to most people, few of which are familiar with arcane Latin phrases. Where the Latin has entered the vernacular (e.g.,quid pro quo), we have retained its primacy. Federales (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME specifies the most common name in reliable sources. I don't know what that would be here, but the most recognizable in the "vernacular" should not drive the title. --JFH (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that lex talionis is more common than "eye for an eye"?

Really???

Federales (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nulla. Legitimum scriptum non est. (in English, what?) Apteva (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:UE/WP:UCN/WP:JARGON -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "eye for an eye" is the common name. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Lex talionis" is definitely not what our readers will search for. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate Alphachimera's interest in improving the article, but yes, WP:UCN is a big deal and we do like using common-use (vernacular) English-language names whenever it's at all possible. Also, the assertion that Google Books' data supports the move request is incorrect. Did you actually check? See the data yourself. This is an interesting scenario where I cannot think of a single reason to support, and many to oppose. Ten imaginary Wiki-points go to Apteva, cleverer than I. Red Slash 07:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

False attribution to Gandhi

I am again reverting an edit that falsely adds the claim that Gandhi made a related statement ending something like "makes the whole world blind." Please do not add content to this article that attributes this without reviewing and addressing the available research, particularly as described at wikiquote:Mahatma Gandhi and at [3]. There is currently no evidence that indicates when and where Gandhi created the quotation and considerable evidence that, in fact, he did not. —Danorton (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

21st Century Islamism

A murder for a drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.75.150 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eye for an eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070703102021/http://www.humboldt.edu:80/~kmb2/paper.html to http://www.humboldt.edu/~kmb2/paper.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5421

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Blood Feuds

The article discusses the principle in relation to various legal codes but forgets about its relation to feuding. In many cultures, injured parties had the option to either seek legal redress or exact revenge. In that situation, the "eye for an eye" principle should be thought of to moderate the scope of the revenge. These kind of "parallel" justice systems were common in all parts of the world. ImTheIP (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed incorrect translation

I removed the erroneously claim that lex talionis means "law of the claw." It doesn't. The phrase comes from talio, which in Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary is "a punishment similar and equal to the injury sustained, like for like, retaliation in kind," not from talus, ankle-bone. If it were "law of the claw," it would be lex tali. MASingerND (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

three one God religions

This concept is also Islamic? The articles should link to reach other better.Irtapil (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)