Bestiality in Biblical and Hittite Law

Text editions and English translation are found in Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). The translations presented here are mine.

 ták-ku LÚ-iš GU₄-aš kat-ta [wa-aš-t]a-i ḫu-u-ur-ki-il a-ki-aš LUGAL-an a-aš-ki ú-wa-da-an-zi ku-en-zi-ma-an LUGAL-uš ḫu-iš-n[u]-zi-i[a-an LUGAL-u]š LUGAL-i-ma-aš Ú-UL ti-ia-iz-zi.

See summary of this topic in Ilan Peled, “‘Amore, more, ore, re…’: Sexual Terminology and the Hittite Law,” Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, edited by Yoram Cohen, Amir Gilan and Jared L. Miller, Studien zu den Bogazkoy-Texten 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 247–60.

 tá[k-k]u LÚ-aš UDU-aš kat-ta w[a-aš-t]a-i ḫu-u-ur-ke-el a-ki-aš [LUGAL-aš a-aš-ki] ú-wa-da-an-zi ku-en-zi-ma-anLUGAL-uš ḫu-u-i[š-nu-zi-i]a-a[n LUGAL-u]š LUGAL-i-ma-aš Ú-UL ti-i-ez-zi.

For bestiality in Hittite magical rituals, see Ilan Peled, “The Use of Pleasure, Constraints of Desire: Anniwiyani’s Ritual and Sexuality in Hittite Magical Ceremonies,” Acts of the VII^th International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31 2008, edited by Aygül Süel (Ankara, 2010), 623–636.

 ták-ku ŠAḪ<-aš> UR.GI₇-aš kat-ta ku-iš-ki wa-aš-ta-i a-ki-aš A-NA KÁ É.GAL-LIM ú-wa-te-ez-zi ku-en-zi-uš LUGAL-uš ḫu-iš-nu-zi-ia-aš L[UG]AL-uš LUGAL-i-ma-aš Ú-UL ti-i-ez-zi

Why the pig and dog are killed, but not the cow or sheep is unclear. Cautiously I might suggest that the laws were not documented systematically at one time, but were rather collected over the years, so occasionally a certain statute adds new information that becomes applicable for earlier similar statutes. We should bear in mind that this statute is no. 199, so it does not immediately follow 187 and 188; it may have been a later addition to the collection and thus reflect a new legal development (the execution of the animal), but this is pure speculation.

 ták-ku GU₄-uš L[Ú-ni] wa-at-ku-zi GU₄-uš a-ki LÚ-aš-ša Ú-UL ˹a˺-[ki] 1 UDU LÚ-na-aš ka-a-aš-ša-aš ḫu-u-it-ti-ia-a[n-ta] na-an-kán ku-na-an-zi ták-ku ŠAḪ-aš LÚ-ni wa-at-ku-z[i]Ú-UL ḫa-ra-a-tar.

 ták-ku LÚ-aš ANŠE.KUR.RA-i na-aš-maANŠE.GÌR.NUN.NA kat-ta wa-aš-ta-i Ú-UL ḫa-ra-tarLUGAL-i-ma-aš Ú-UL ti-ez-zi ^LÚSANGA-ša Ú-UL ki-i-ša.

Contrast Edwin M. Good, “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Stanford Law Review 19.5 (1967): 961; and Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, 224.

Richard Haase even viewed the prohibition of the offender to approach the king as a social humiliation; “Kapitaldelikte im hethitischen Recht,” Hethitica 7 (1987): 97.

The order here follows the order of composition as presumed by most documentary scholars.

Leviticus 18 and 20 contain a number of such negative terms, applied sporadically to different offenses. Whether this is systemic or random, and why any given offense is referred to by any given term is unclear.

For the sake of comparison, same-sex male intercourse is forbidden in this collection, but ignored in the two others; see David Frankel, “Male Homosexual Intercourse Is Prohibited in One Part of the Torah,” TheTorah.com (2017).

Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 136–137.

See similarly Ilona N. Rashkow, Taboo or not Taboo: Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 16–17.

See comprehensive discussion of these issues in Edward. L. Greenstein, “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. A, The Bible and Its World (1997), 47*–58*; see especially one of his concluding remarks: “The God of Biblical Israel may not actually be very different from the gods of the neighboring nations, but claiming that he is, is an important part of the rhetoric promoting devotion to that God alone.” (58*).

Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge, 1966), 51–56.

Calum Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 184 n19. This suggestion is reminiscent of Mary Douglas’ view of biblical taboos as reflecting the will to maintain the separation between categories.

Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, Chapters 20–40, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 213. Houtman discussed the prohibition in Exodus 22:18 in conjunction with the ban on the practice of magic in Exodus 22:17 but ended up rejecting the opinion that these two prohibitions were related to forbidden idolatry.