Indignities. — There was resort to various means of heajiing contumely on an ofl'ender ; such as ignominious or obscure burial for a blasphemer (Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 6 ; 1 K 14", 2 K 9'" 21'»- -«, 2 Ch 24''», Jer 22'"). Some victims were slain and left in the street or cast behind the walls (Ps 79-- ^ To 2'). Heads of the slain were removed and carried in triumph (1 S 17" 31"). Dead bodies were burned (Jos 7"- ", Lv 20'*, Am 2>. See Burning) or hanged (2 S 4", Gn 40""' [see Hanging], Nu 25*- », Dt 2P-- ^). Stones were thrown on the corpse, as on that of Achan (Jos 7"-'*), the king of Ai (Jos 8^), and on the tomb of Absalom (2 S 18"). Mohammedans still maintain the custom when passing by its supposed site (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 61) ; but Harmer plausil)ly suggests that the ' heap of stones ' was erected in honour. Some forms of execution were regarded as more disgraceful than others, as cruci- fixion ( Jn 19"), but it was not the design of the Mosaic law to cover a sutt'erer with perpetual infamy. In Egypt a calumniator of the dead was subject to severe punishment (Wilkinson, Anc. Egup.).
Mutilation was practised, but not under direct sanc- tion of the covenant law. The thumbs and great toes of Adonibezek were severed (Jg !"•'). The slayers of Ishbosheth (2 S 4'") lost their hands, but pos.sibly after death. Nebuchadrezzar threatened to cut in pieces his oQending counsellors (Dn 2°). At the command of Antiochus Epiphanes (ace. to 2 Mac 7''*'), seven brothers sutlered horrible outrages, among others that of tearing out the tongue, a very common cruelty among the Assyrians. In Egj'pt robbers were sometimes deprived of the right hand for the first ollence, the left foot for the second, and the left hand for the third ; though the theft of food not quickly perishable was not so severely punished (Lane, ilud. Erjijp.). To this act our Saviour's statement in Mt 24°', Lk 12", seems to allude. An Egyptian victor was known to dis[ilay severed hands as proof of the number of his trojihies (see 1 S 18-''). The town of Rhinocolura was said to be peopled b}' robbers who had lost their noses. The nose and ears of an adulterer were cut olI( Diod. Sic. i. 78), and from E/.k 23^ it aiipcars that the usage was in vogue among the liabyloiiiana. (On the horrible cruel tiesofAssurbani[)al, as recorded on hiscylinder, see HP iii. 39-50.) Kings were put in the lips <.i noses of captives (2 Ch 31!" ' among the thorns,' KV 'in chains,' Is 37^, Ezk 19*-"; Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. iii. 7 ; and see Am 4").
Plucking off the Hair was a punishment inflicted on Jews who had indulged in mixed marriages (Neh 13"°). It may have been intended simply for disfigurement. The prophet in Is 50' alludes to the ju<licial practice as common in his time. The efl'ort was so vicious as de.scrilicd in 2 Mac 7', that tlic skin was torn oil" with the hair ; but in scalping,
526 CKIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CKIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
as practised by the N. American Indians, a knife was used. As an insult to David's servants, half of the beard was shaven off (2 S 10*). The head was subjected to other indignities (Job 30", Mt 27*', Mk 12*).
Precipitation. — It is stated in 2 Ch 25" that 10,000 Edomites were cast from a rock by the children of Judah. So two Jewish women are said to have sufiered (2 Mac 6'"). Of the same sort are the acts mentioned in 2 K S'^, Hos 10" 13'«. On column iv. 100, 101 of Assurbanipal (G. Smith), it is stated that certain persons were thrown on tlie stone lions and bulls in a quarry, the fall designed to be fatal. Calmet is of opinion, with Jerome as authority, that this was the fate of Oreb and Zeeb (Jg 7^). An attempt after this manner was made on the life of Jesus (Lk 4^).
Restitution. — There was enacted an elaborate system for compensating an injured party under the sanction of Mosaism. As far as possible the restoration was identical with, or analogous to, the loss of time or power (Ex 21'8-m, Lv 24;8-2i, Dt lO^'). He who stole and then slew or sold a live ox had to restore fivefold ; if it was a live sheep fourfold. The penalty was designed in part to be prohibitory, because sheep were more exposed in the desert, while oxen were necesPAry and not so easily taken. In later history it appears as if sevenfold might be exacted (Pr 6". See also the LXX tr. of 2 S 12*, where seven is substituted for four). If the iden- tical animal was restored, another of equal value was all that the law required besides. Burglary doomed the culprit to oniequited death or to slavery. For breach of trust. -. r for trespass, twenty per cent, additional to M"j original sum was demanded (Lv 6'"°, Nu 5' "•). He who was de- tected in the theft of a pledge, < ir was found guilty in the matter of trespass while the property was in his hand, must pay double. Pecuniary com- pensation must be furnished for damages by an animal, when not on its own ground (Ex 22') ; and when a fatality occurred in the case of a servant, thirty shekels must be paid to the loser (Ex 21'^ ; see Dt 22"). One case only is mentioned of per- mitted commutation for biul-goring (Ex 21^'*'). In case a married woman was killed, the fine was paid to her father's (instead of her own) family (Lewis, Heb. Ant.). Akin to restoration is redemption, referred to in Lv 25''- "*, Ezk 18'- ". Remuneration was expected for loss by fire, through negligence, of a standing grain field ; or for the loss or damage of a pledge (Ex 22'- "• "). Under Rom. law a jailer losing his prisoner was liable to the punishment which was to be inflicted for the crime on which the arrest had been made (Ac .12" 16"). In NT morals it was taught that the guilt of theft could not be compounded by restitution. ' Let him that stole steal no more ' (Eph 4^) ; but Zacchaeus, on the occasion of his pardon, proposed to restore fourfold (Lk 19*).