and the plain of Sharon toward- Jaffa, On the BOUth side
of the road (Robinson. Later Researches, p. 135 , \ ui «le Velde, Memoir, p. 340.
Piingel, Ninii.u s. Dr., a Roman Catholic divine, was bom at Mllnster iii 1802. Having completed bis studies, he was ordained priest in L825, and for several years labored as chaplain in Riesenbeck and Mllnster. From 1835 to 1846 he superintended the parish of Kie- Benbeck, in the meantime pursuing his studies. The
PUNISHMENT
787
PUNISHMENT
result was his work on Gerson's tract, De ParmUs ad Christum. Trahendis, together with a Vita Gersonis, which he published in 1853, and thus became a privat- docent at the University of Minister. He soon became professor of pastoral theology, and died April 24, 1876, as senior of the chapter. — Literarisc/wr Handweiser, 1876, p. 238.
Punishment (most properly expressed in Hebrew by some form of 1j?B,/?«Z.,dc/, strictly "to visit," and in Greek by koKcloiq or ripwpia, but frequently denoted by other terms). (The following account is based upon that found in Smith's Diet, of the Bible, with additions from other sources.) See Corporal, Inflictions.
I. Historical Review of Bodily Inflictions among the Hebrews. — The earliest theory of punishment current among mankind is doubtless the one of simple retalia- tion, "blood for blood" [see Blood Revenge], a view which in a limited form appears even in the Mosaic law. Viewed historically, the first case of punishment for crime mentioned in Scripture, next to the fall itself, is that of Cain, the first murderer. His punishment, how- ever, was a substitute for the retaliation which might have been looked for from the hand of man, and the mark set on him, whatever it was, served at once to designate, protect, and perhaps correct the criminal. That death was regarded as the fitting punishment for murder appears plain from the remark of Lamech (Gen. iv, 24). In the post-diluvian code, if we may so call it, retribution by the hand of man, even in the case of an offending animal, for blood shed, is clearly laid down (ix, 5, 6); but its terms give no sanction to that "wild justice" executed even to the present day by in- dividuals and families on their own behalf by so many of the uncivilized races of mankind. The prevalence of a feeling of retribution due for blood shed may be re- marked as arising among the brethren of Joseph in ref- erence to their virtual fratricide (xlii, 21). The punish- ment of death appears among the legal powers of Judah, as the head of his family, and he ordered his daughter- in-law, Tamar, to be burned (xxxviii, 24). It is de- nounced by the king of the Philistines, Abimelech, against those of his people who should injure or insult Isaac or his wife (xxvi, 11, 29). Similar power seems to have been possessed by the reigning Pharaoh in the time of Joseph (xli, 13).
Passing onwards to Mosaic times, we find the sentence of capital punishment, in the case of murder, plainly laid down in the law. The murderer was to be put to death, even if he should have taken refuge at God's altar or in an asylum city, and the same principle was to be carried out even in the case of an animal (Exod. xxi, 12, 14, 28, 36 ; Lev. xxiv, 17, 21 ; Numb, xxxv, 31 ; Deut. xix, 11, 12 ; and see 1 Kings ii, 28, 34). Moses, however, did not allow parents to be put to death for their children, nor children for their parents (Deut. xxiv, 16), as did the Chakteans (Dan. vi, 24) and the kings of Israel (comp. 1 Kings xxi; 2 Kings ix, 26).
The extensive prescription of capital punishment by the Mosaic law, which we cannot consider as a dead let- ter, may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the people. They were a nation of newly emanci- pated slaves, and were by nature perhaps more than commonly intractable ; and if we may judge by the laws enjoined on them, which Mr. Hume well remarks are a safe index to the manners and disposition of any peo- ple, we must infer that they had imbibed all the de- grading influences of slavery among heathens. Their wanderings and isolation did not admit of penal settle- ments or remedial punishments. They were placed un- der immediate divine government and surveillance. Hence, wilful offences evinced an incorrigibleness which rendered death the only means of ridding the communi- ty of such transgressors, and this was ultimately re- sorted to in regard to all individuals above a certain age, in order that a better class might enter Canaan (Numb, xiv, 29, 32, 35). If capital punishment in Chris-
tian nations be defended from the Mosaic law, it ought in fairness to be extended to all the cases sanctioned by that law, and, among the rest, as Paley argues, to the doing of any work on the Sabbath day (Mor. Phil.b.v, c.7).
II. Capital Crimes under Mosaism. — (4.) Absolute. — The following offences also are mentioned in the law as liable to the punishment of death:
1. Striking, or even reviling, a parent (Exod. xxi, 15, 17).
2. Blasphemy (Lev. xxiv, 14, 16, 23 : see Philo, V. M. iii, 25; 1 Kings xxi, 10; Matt, xxvi, 65, 66).
3. Sabbath- breaking (Numb, xv, 32-36; Exod. xxxi, 14; xxxv, 2).