Chthonic Legal System

German version of Ptolemaeus und Justin zur Autorität der Schrift, in: Markus Lang (ed.), Ein neues Geschlecht? Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins, Göttingen 2013, 122-149. For second-century Christians, the reference to Scripture raised various questions: the age and tradition of faith in Christ, the infallibility of the Word of God, the validity of Divine law, the relationship between revelation in Sinai and revelation in Christ, the question of whether Jesus` words and teachings were consistent with the writings of Moses and the prophets, or if they were interpreting Scripture, expand it, modify it, go beyond it, or even make it obsolete. Justin Martyr and Ptolemy in his letter to Flora, two Christian theologians influenced by Middle Platonism in Rome in the second half of the second century AD, are among the very first to systematically answer these questions. In addition to being classified or excused as heretical, orthodox, or similar, this article seeks to follow Karen King`s agenda, analyze their speech, speech, as well as intellectual sources, to show how they “advance or thwart power structures.” It is shown that Justin Martyr and Ptolemy have a common tradition of interpretations: both have discovered contradictions in Scripture, both suggest that some pericopes of Scripture were mistakenly inserted by some Jews, both refer in the Allegorical Judeo-Hellenistic interpretations of the Sabbath, male circumcision, sacrifice, and for both to an eternally valid part of Scripture, which underlies the transformation of the law by the event of Christ. Differences can be observed in the way they treat the oral or written tradition of Jesus, what place they gave to Judaism in the history of salvation and, last but not least, how they inscribe Christian theology in the cosmological traditions of contemporary Middle Platonism and thus in the intercultural dialogue of that time. Any potential confusion is eliminated by preserving what is important to the law for thousands of years, based on cultural norms and customs. The transmission of the law takes place with oral tradition and memory over the centuries. It has a community base and aims to promote consensus. When dissent occurs, new rules and traditions emerge. Ultimately, chtonic law is related to tradition and therefore cannot be understood without understanding people`s traditions and culture.

[3] According to some testimonies, women – as elders – played a more important role in chtonic laws. [6] This chapter examines the history of the chthonic legal tradition. Chtonic law is inextricably intertwined with all the beliefs of the Chtonic and Indigenous peoples and is inevitably and deeply imbued with all these other beliefs. The Chtonian law cannot be understood without understanding other things. There is no separation of law and morality, no separation of law and anything else. The word ” chthonic ” chthonic ” has its etymological roots in the Greek language, which means ” underground “, and was directly related to the belief and worship of the gods of the Hellenistic underworld such as Hades and Aidoneus (Williams, 1909). The theory of the chthonic legal tradition, proposed by Professor H. Patrick Glenn is said to have evolved over time through oral traditions, personal experiences, and memories that have been passed down from generation to generation and that are typically directed at a specific tribe of people (Glenn, 2010). The chthonic system was developed to allow comparisons with other established legal systems. When the concrete definition of chtonic, underground or underground is combined with the fact that this nomenclature is attributed only to the laws, customs and cultures of indigenous tribes living in countries conquered, colonized or controlled by imperialism, the understanding of Chtonic law becomes subject to the perspective of the indigenous person and the citizen of the colony or imperial power.

Although Chchtonic law is not adapted to complexity, complex institutions such as the councils of elders exist and serve as the highest authority in the Chtonic legal system. Chtonic law is a legal system that focuses on the sanctity of the cosmos. According to Professor H. Patrick Glenn, the chtonic legal tradition, created by experience, orality and memory, is the “oldest of all traditions”[1] and can be understood as the law of a culture or tribe. [2] Glenn refers to the laws of Indigenous peoples because he believes that these peoples are “in close harmony with the land.” [3] At a broader level, it is used in reference to any law that is part of the custom or tradition of the people and that differs in this respect from the traditional definition of law. [4] Some authors believe that modern law has evolved from a scientific comparison of different Chtonic legal traditions. [4] It is examined in the context of legal pluralism. [5] In Lebanon, the organization of water legislation dates back to antiquity. While customs and habits ruled the water in the past, codified laws and associated legal infrastructure are now in place and live with the existing unofficial law. Mesopotamian, Roman, Ottoman and French water laws have been superimposed on Muslim customs and practices and traditional Arab social arrangements for water in Lebanon over a long history of conquests or mandates.

Traditional customs and practices of water use, which developed into traditions, still prevail today and go hand in hand with a palimpsest of water laws. Looking back at the co-evolution of 4,000 years of written and unwritten texts on water, the unique characteristics of a hydropalimpsest that combines formal and informal systems are highlighted with the aim of exploring its future potential in water management in the face of rapid global changes affecting the resource. The article briefly examines the most relevant representative factors for the status of indigenous peoples in the light of international law, paying particular attention to the rights of the Sami. POLS 1503 – AY2021-T4_ Discussion Question (DQ) 1N.pdf Dispute resolution is not considered confusing or alienating. The importance of an individual in this law depends on his knowledge of traditions and culture, and therefore the elders are valued for their improved wisdom. Land, for example, is community property and, therefore, its ownership and use have been established at the community level to avoid alienation. 5th IWA International Symposium on Water, Wastewater and the Environment in Ancient Civilizations: Traditions and Cultures Scripture attributes Melchizedek the prestigious title of Royal Priest (Genesis 14:18). Apart from this attribution and some details related to his encounter with Abraham, the only two references to Melchizedek contained in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 14:18-20; Ps. 110) ultimately provided the source of a wide range of speculation about the mysterious priest-king. From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the development of the rabbinic Midrashim, the Hebrew Bible`s relative silence on Melchizedek has led to a series of melchizedek scrolls and images ranging from that of a heavenly eschatological liberator-judge to a potential priest whose inability to adequately honor the supreme God led to his dismissal from his one position. Melchizedek`s literary representation enjoyed an undeniably high reputation before the rabbinical era. The combined priesthood king, as evidenced by the Hasmonean period, may be responsible for the decline in respect for Melchizedek.

Moreover, the defense of Christ in the Letter to the Hebrews as priests under the pre-Aaronic order of Melchizedek may have posed a challenge to rabbinic religious hegemony. This book provides a concise overview of all surviving Jewish works from the Second Temple period (e.g., the apocrypha of Genesis; Songs of the Sabbath offering; 11Q13 [11QMelch]; Philo; Josephus; 2 Enoch; also the Targums of the Pentateuch [later recorded]), the first Christian writings (e.g. the Letter to the Hebrews; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Origen, commentary on the Gospel of John) and rabbinical sources (b. Ned. 32b; General Rab. 43.6; Lev. Rab. 25.6; Num.

Rab. 4.8). The idea that Melchizedek lost his priestly role can be observed for the first time among rabbinical works. The decline in respect for Melchizedek`s priesthood seems to show a response to the level of dignity attributed to the priest-king in the Hebrews, as well as to the works of later patristic writers (e.g., Justin; Origen). According to the Hebrews, Melchizedek`s seniority as a priest took precedence over Levitical obligations, which were crucial for maintaining halachic obligations. The universality of an uncircumcised Canaanite priest most likely posed further challenges to rabbinical interests. Another point of contention between the two communities can be attested by the hypothesis of different written representations of Ps 110:3. The vocalization of the Masoretic text suggests a different reading of the verse than in earlier versions of the Septuagint and Syrian Peshitta. Other rabbinical works (e.g. y. Berakhot 5; Gen.

Rab. 59:9) and an excerpt from Justin`s dialogue are used to support the theory.