Talk:Eye for an eye

message: 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)
thread_title: Social hierarchy and reciprocal justice

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Talionis''?

message: 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)
thread_title: Rabbinic interpretation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" (moved from article) 

message: 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)
thread_title: More on "Criticisms"

message: I think we should be less timid in ascribing the original codification of the idea to the Babylonians. This translation of Hammurabi's code  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)
replies: text: How does this show that this was the original source? HKT 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title: etcetera

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Alternative types: Faulty implication 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. HKTTalk 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' criticism of Jewish law? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sumeria 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why in Arabic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is not this from the Code of Hammurabi? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who writes these??

message: :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. []
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)
thread_title:  Other Interpretations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simply wrong first paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similar expression in need of help 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lex Talionis  in Judaism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retributive Justice and Game Theory 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title of the article should be "Lex talionis" 

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  False attribution to Gandhi 

message: A murder for a drawing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.75.150 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st Century Islamism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Eye for an eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blood Feuds 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed incorrect translation 

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