Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 27
The Punishment of Burning in the Hebrew Bible
SHAUL BAR (UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS)
ABSTRACT
Different modes of executing people are mentioned in the Hebrew
Bible. Among them we find the punishment of burning which also
existed in the Ancient Near East. Thus, the question posed here is:
what is the significance of describing this form of death? In order to
arrive at an answer, we examine the episodes which describe death
by burning to see in which context they appear. We will show that
the punishment of burning in the Hebrew Bible appears in cases of
illicit sex, sacrilege, and as a threat. In addition we will demon-
strate that burning people to death was a bad omen and that it
meant total obliteration of the dead. Execution by burning meant
non-burial; this was an end to continuity and the final extinction of
the deceased, who had not been “gathered to his ancestors.” In
other words the punishment of burning shows a belief in posthu-
mous concept.
1 INTRODUCTION
Texts from the Ancient Near East rarely describe how the condemned were put
to death. For example, when the Code of Hammurabi prescribes death for those
who commit a particular crime, the method of execution is not specified,
1
except in a few cases that stipulated drowning,
2
burning, etcetera.
3
The Bible,
too, generally employs the laconic תמוי תומ “he shall be put to death.” We have
definite knowledge of only two forms of execution: stoning (after which the
corpse was suspended in public view) and burning. In this article we will limit
our study to the punishment of burning to see in which context it appeared. We
will explain the meaning of this form of execution and suggest a rationale for
its particular description in the Bible. Moreover, since the person is dead, why
then does the Bible attach such importance to describe the manner and cause of
a person’s death? Was the punishment of burning an indication of a posthu-
mous concept?
1
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 166-176
no.1–3, 6–11, 14–16, 19, 22, 26, 33, 109, 116, 130, 210, 229, 230).
2
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 170-172, no.
108, 129, 143).
3
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET,
167,170,172,177; §§no.25, 110, 157; he was tied to bulls who dragged him through
the field [§256]).
28 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
2 BURNING
2a Illicit Sex
Reading the Hebrew Bible shows that Biblical law specifies burning as the
punishment for two forms of illicit sex. The first is the case of a man who mar-
ries both a mother and her daughter: “They shall be burned with fire, both he
and they” (Lev 20:14).
4
The obvious meaning is clearly that both women are to
be burned. However, what is the first wife guilty of? In a baraita we find a
debate between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva: the former maintains that only the
second wife is to be burned, but the latter insists that the punishment applies to
both.
5
Furthermore, R. Akiva extends the prohibition to a third generation in
each direction: the daughter, her mother and her grandmother, as well as the
mother, her daughter and her granddaughter.
6
It seems that the first wife is
culpable because it was inconceivable that a man would marry a woman and
her mother had the first wife not given her consent to this ménage à trois, thus,
making her an accomplice to the transgression. That they are to be burned is an
indication of the severity of their offense.
Rashi points out that “and them”(ןהתאו), the plural, implies that more
than one women are to be put to death. The wife, however, is not punished
because her husband sinned with a close relative. From the plural we can learn
that the penalty applies to the mother-in-law and her mother should they both
sin with him.
7
In extra-biblical sources, burning is also the punishment for illicit sex.
Under the Code of Hammurabi, it is stated “[i]f a seignior has lain in the bosom
of his mother after [the death of] his father, they shall burn both of them.”
8
Gerstenberger points to the severe punishment of burning, because
according to him burning signals a purification ceremony. When three people
entered into prohibited sexual associations they released malevolent and delete-
rious forces.
9
Similarly, Hartley points out that burning cleansed the land from
the defilement. But, as for the severe punishment, he says that burning deprived
these offenders of a proper burial which therefore increased their punishment in
4
Wenham says that the verb חקל does not mean marry but “to live with” since he
believes that such unions would have been given public sanction. But see Gen 11:29;
Exod 21:10; Deut 20:7; Sipra Qedoshim 10:12, which has the meaning to marry. The
Akkadian semantic cognate aḫāzu “to take” also means to marry. See: Gordon J.
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 280.
5
b. Sanh. 76b.
6
y. Yebam. 11a.
7
b. Sanh. 76b.
8
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 172 no. 157).
9
Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (Louisville, Ky: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1993), 296-297.
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 29
the eyes of ancient people. He suggests that burning may have followed execu-
tion by stoning as it appears in the case of Achan. He speculates that burning,
as a form of punishment, may be related to God’s way of putting to death those
who dared to enter the sanctuary with something foreign or those who openly
challenged his purpose.
10
In the second case, if the daughter of a priest is promiscuous, “it is her
father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire” (Lev 21:9). The plain
meaning is that the daughter in question is unmarried; but the Talmudic sages
held that the provision applies only to a betrothed girl (R. Ishmael) or to a
betrothed girl or married woman (R. Akiva and R. Simeon).
11
She is liable for this severe punishment because her behavior resembles
that of the sacred prostitutes of the pagan cults and because she profanes her
father’s holiness. According to Levine, her behavior reflects on her father’s
sacral office thus the death by fire indicates the seriousness of the offence.
12
The rabbis assert similarly: “If he [the father] was regarded as holy, he is now
regarded as profane; if he was treated with respect, he is now treated with con-
tempt; and men say, ‘Cursed be he who begot her, cursed be he who brought
her up, cursed be he from whose loins she sprung.’”
13
We have to remember
that in ancient Israel the family was considered a unit, the action of one mem-
ber reflected on the rest of the family. Since she caused the family’s defilement
she had to be removed. Milgrom points out that some societies were permissive
in sexual matters with regards to commoners but they were strict regarding
royalty.
14
As for burning it is believed that fire cleanses away the defilement.
15
Here, too, a parallel exists to the Code of Hammurabi, which prescribes burn-
ing for a “cult prostitute or divine lady” who goes to a party and becomes in-
toxicated: “If a hierodule, a nun, who is not living in a covenant, has opened
(the door of) a wineshop or has entered a wineshop for a drink, they shall burn
that woman.”
16
Under ancient law, however, burning seems to have been the penalty
imposed on any woman who had illicit sex, and not just the daughter of a
priest. When Judah is informed that Tamar has acted lewdly and became preg-
nant, (although she is bound to his son by a levirate marriage), he reacts imme-
diately: “Bring her out … and let her be burned” (Gen 38:24).Tamar is accused
of adultery either as Er’s widow or Shelah’s betrothed. According to Wester-
10
John E. Hartley, Leviticus (Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1992), 339.
11
b. Sanh. 50b, 51b.
12
Baruch A. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989), 144.
13
b. Sanh. 52a.
14
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1810.
15
Hartley, Leviticus, 349.
16
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 170. no 110).
30 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
mann her act was sufficient for criminal punishment without inquiry or legal
process. Therefore, Judah pronounces the sentence immediately. This is the
only place in the Bible where an individual had the power to order the execu-
tion of another for adultery. But this is not a surprise, since the incident took
place in the patriarchal period when the patriarch had total authority over the
members of his household.
17
Judah as head of the family exercised his power of
life and death here, Tamar was still considered part of the family. The words
“Bring her out!” that is, outside the gate point to the fact that the death sentence
was performed outside the locality (Deut 22:21).
18
Westermann raises the
possibility that burning was perhaps an earlier more severe punishment for
adultery and stoning was a later punishment in Israel (Deut 22:23).
Indeed, the only report that a sentence of burning was carried out after
Achan, is post-biblical. The Mishnah states that the method was to drop a
“wick” into the mouth of the condemned person.
19
The Babylonian Talmud
says that this means a molten bar of lead.
20
It explains that the corpse had to be
preserved intact, so that the death would resemble God’s work.
21
To prevent
any external injury to the condemned person, they buried him in dung up to his
knees and tied two scarves (a rough one inside a soft one, to avoid the scars of
a burnt rope) around his neck; the two witnesses pulled on the scarves in oppo-
site directions until he opened his mouth, into which they poured the molten
lead, which would go straight down to his intestines.
22
In the Talmud as we
shall see later the idea of resurrection was well developed. Thus, the latter
made an effort to preserve the body of an executed man. Burning the dead
meant total obliteration. It was an end to continuity and the final extinction of
the deceased. Thus by using this method the body was preserved and the dead
person “gathered to his ancestors.”
Philips pointed out that on the basis of Gen 38:24 the punishment for
adultery in the patriarchal period was burning. However, he thinks that there is
no indication that such a sentence was ever prescribed besides the two provi-
sions of the Holiness Code (Lev 20:14; 21:9). Thus, he believes that during the
exile the penalty of burning was borrowed from two similar enactments of
17
Anthony Philips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970),
117, no 34.
18
Claus Westermann, Genesis 37-50 (trans. John J. Scullion S.J.; Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 54.
19
b. Sanh. 52a.
20
b. Sanh. 52a; but cf. y. Sanh. 7:2. Two contracts from Alalakh, dating from the
end of the Hammurabi period, threaten the violator of the contract that molten lead
will be poured into his mouth. See: Donald J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, (Lon-
don: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953), 37 no. 8 line 32; 49 no. 61
line 18.
21
b. Sanh. 52a.
22
b. Sanh. 52a.
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 31
Babylonian law. The penalty of burning was not exercised in post-exilic Israel
which relied on excommunication. Judah’s order that Tamar be burnt is proba-
bly a priestly gloss reflecting the Babylonian type of punishment which was
incorporated into the Holiness Code.
23
We should point out that burning is also
attested to in Egypt for adultery as, P. Westcar, notes: “Then he had her burnt,
[and she became] refuse for the river.”
24
According to Parkinson, fire is an
attested means of execution. However, he believes that cases of adultery were
dealt with less extreme measures. The adulterers were thrown into the water, a
place that is associated with the unburied dead.
25
According to Nahmanides, the harshness of the punishment is deter-
mined by Judah’s high status. It may also reflect Canaanite custom. Rashbam
believes that it is an older law. Ramban says that the unmarried daughter of a
priest is not liable for death penalty, therefore there were other reasons for the
death sentence.
26
According to him Judah is represented as a ruler and a judge
who acted on his own authority. Tamar’s harlotry affronted his status just as the
priest’s daughter who committed harlotry and was condemned for having
“thereby profaned her father” (Lev 21:9). Ramban concludes that this judgment
would not have been suitable for a commoner. Rashi also recognized the prob-
lem with the harsh punishment of burning, therefore he quotes a midrash:
“Ephraim Makshahah, a disciple of R. Meir, said in the latter’s name: Tamar
was the daughter of Shem; for it is written, And the daughter of any priest, if
she profane herself by playing the harlot…she shall be burnt with fire (Lev
21:9); consequently, And Judah said: bring her forth, and let her be burnt,”
27
while Luzzato thinks that Judah ordered the severest punishment because the
sons of Jacob were strict regarding their family honor.
2b Sacrilege
In the story of Achan, set at the time of the conquest of Canaan, burning is the
punishment for sacrilege, not for forbidden sexual relations: “He who is taken
with the devoted things shall be burned with fire” (Josh 7:15). Only burning is
mentioned here, however in v. 25 we read: “All Israel pelted him with stones;
they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones” (Josh 7:25). Accord-
ing to v. 15, he is to be burned because, having stolen the “devoted things”
(ם ֶרֵח), he has acquired that status for himself; and the fate of the “devoted
things” is to be burned (see 6:24). By contrast, v. 25 refers to stoning, twice.
Perhaps this is an example of the general and specific. Rashi explains that the
language in v. 15 is elliptical. He reads it as referring, not to the transgressor,
23
Philips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 129
24
Richard B. Parkinson. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems
1940-1640 BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 109, 4.10.
25
Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe, 121. no12.
26
b. Sanh. 50b.
27
Gen. Rab. 85:10.
32 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
but to his tent and movable property. As stated in v. 25, Achan was stoned to
death rather than burned; only his inanimate possessions were burned.
28
The
simple meaning, however, is that Achan was sentenced to two punishments,
burning and stoning. After he was burned they stoned his charred corpse. The
Talmudic Sages said that he was stoned because of when he committed the
theft—on the Sabbath, and a Sabbath desecrator is to be stoned; he was burned
for what he stole—the “devoted things.”
29
It was pointed out by Lehay that in some cases of Egyptian sources,
rebels were executed first and their bodies then incinerated. He specifically
points to the Osorkon episode where rebellion took place against him. He was
the king’s eldest son and also the High Priest of Amun, which meant that this
crime was a theological one against Amun. The crime’s theological nature
resulted in the rebels getting burnt: “…each man being burned in the place of
his crime.”
30
This is the only place that Lehay believes the phraseology rein-
forces the view that the rebels were killed first. But as Lehay himself pointed
out, a single instance is not an adequate basis for generalization.
31
According to the text, Achan’s sons, daughters, livestock, and all his
possessions were burned with him (vv. 24–25). The Talmudic Sages asked how
his family and possessions had sinned. Some replied that his family was not
executed but taken to the execution site to witness their father’s punishment.
32
Others maintained that his family members were judged as his accomplices
because they did not protest against his action.
33
Another possibility is that they
were judged like Korah and his congregation, who were swallowed up along
with all their possessions (Num 16:26). Or, as Robinson says, we are dealing
with the concept of community solidarity, in which case, the transgressions of
an individual are ascribed to the entire community.
34
Another and more plausi-
ble interpretation has to do with the motif of sanctity. All of the spoils taken in
war must be consecrated to the Lord and is considered to be holy (Josh 6:19).
28
b. Sanh. 44a.
29
Num. Rab. 23:6.
30
Anthony Leahy, “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt,” JESHO 27 (1984): 200-201.
31
Leahy, “Death by Fire,” 202.
32
b. Sanh. 44a.
33
Pirqe R. El. 38.
34
H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” in
Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament (ed. Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer and Jo-
hanes Hempel; BZAW 66; Berlin: Alfred Topelman, 1936), 49–62. (See also H.
Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, [Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1964], 1-2).
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 33
The failure to do so created ritual defilement, and the camp had to be purified
of all those who came into contact with the spoils.
35
Soggin follows a similar path and says that the whole clan of the con-
demned man, even though it was not directly responsible for what happened,
was subject to the same punishment. The whole clan had to be expelled from
the community because it was contaminated.
36
The fact that the offender and also his relatives were sentenced to death
by burning is also attested to in the Egyptian text in the “Instruction of
Ankhsheshonq.” In this incident, treason was the reason for the harsh punish-
ment. According to the preface Ankhsheshonq, a priest of Re at Heliopolis
came to visit his boyhood friend Harsiese at Memphis. The latter told him that
he and other courtiers are plotting to kill Pharaoh. Askhsheshonq tried to dis-
suade his friend from the plot. Their conversation was heard by a servant who
reported it to the king. The result was that Pharaoh had an altar of earth built at
the door of the palace. He had Harsiese, son of Ramose, placed in the fire
“…together with all his people and every man who had conspired in Pharaoh’s
doom.”
37
As for Askhsheshonk he was assigned to the house of detention.
Death by fire long before the first millennium is also known from
Mari.
38
As in Egypt, we read in Mari about the punishment of burning as a
result of treason by burning the guilty together with his family.
39
2c Threat of Burning
Burning was not only a punishment imposed by a court of law. When people
took the law into their own hands they used the threat of burning. In one case
such a threat was even carried out. In the Samson’s stories we read that the
Philistines who pressured Samson’s wife to discover the answer to his riddle,
threatened to burn her and her father’s house (Judg 14:15). Later on we read
that they indeed carried out the threat and they burned her and her father (Judg
15:6).
40
This was done as retaliation so that they suffered Samson’s wrath by
fire. Block points to the irony:
35
Joshua R. Porter, “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in
the Old Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 368–372; Trent C. Butler, Joshua (WBC 7; Waco,
Tex.: Word Books, 1983), 86.
36
Alberto J. Soggin, Joshua (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 105.
37
Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (vol. 3; Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1980), 163.
38
Jack M. Sasson, “Treatment of Criminals at Mari: A Survey,” JESHO 20 (1977):
97; “Punishment by Fire,” Translated by William L. Moran (ANET, 627-628).
39
Sasson, “Treatment of Criminals,” 109.
40
In some MSS and in Greek and Syriac version we read “her and her father house.”
This version is to be preferred.
34 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
The woman draws the solution to the riddle out of Samson to pre-
vent her and her family from being burned, but in the end she suc-
cumbs to the very catastrophe she tried to avoid, precisely because
she got the answer from him.
41
Similarly the Ephraimites, in their fury, threatened Jephthah that they
would burn his house down on top of him (Judg 12:1). According to v. 1, the
reason for their anger was because Jephthah did not call them to join him in his
fight against the Ammonites. Some scholars suggested the Ephraimites were
angry because they were denied a share of the victor’s booty.
42
Jephthah had
already lost his household, now the Ephraimites wanted to burn down his
physical house as well. Instead of thanking him for delivering them from the
Ammonites, in their jealousy they wanted to destroy him.
3 NON-BURIAL
Thus far we have examined cases where people were put to death by fire, but
the question still remains: what is the implication of this form of punishment?
When people were burnt, it meant that they were not buried. To remain unbur-
ied was a curse. Non-burial was worse than death, because the spirit of the dead
could not find rest and would never reach the underworld. In the ancient world,
the dead were offered food due to the belief that they could influence events in
the world of the living. The dead would help the living if the latter provided for
their needs, but would hurt them if they were neglected. The Bible is clearly
antagonistic towards inquiries of the dead or providing them with food and
drink. The prohibition of magic and necromancy in Leviticus and Deuteron-
omy, is motivated by the fact that these were among the abhorrent rituals of the
Canaanites, whom the Israelites abhorred. The Bible does not deny that it is
possible to communicate with the dead; but it totally denounced this practice. It
mentions sacrifices to the dead (Ps 16:4; 106:28; Lev 19:26; 1 Sam 14:32–35;
Ezek 33:25), but always rejects them. Providing the dead with food was not
part of Israelite culture, and when it did infiltrate, it was rebuffed by official
circles.
The fact that non-burial was a curse appears in the war of words
between David and Goliath. The Philistine curses David and promises he “will
give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field” (1 Sam
17:44). Not to be outdone, David counters him with “I will strike you down,
and cut off your head; and I will give the carcasses of the Philistine camp to the
birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth” (v. 46). Again the curse here is: to
not be buried so that the spirit will wander aimlessly.
41
Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999),
433; Trent C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 340.
42
Leslie Hoppe, O. F. M, Joshua, Judges (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier,
1982), 175; Susan Niditch, Judges (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 137.
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 35
The curse of non-burial is also found in the prophetic literature: “The
carcasses of this people shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of
the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Jer 7:33)—an echo of Deuteronomy
28:26. That there are none to frighten off the scavengers implies that there are
no survivors or no one who pities them. Similarly “they shall die of deadly dis-
eases. They shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried; they shall be as
dung on the surface of the ground. They shall perish by the sword and by fam-
ine, and their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the air and for the beasts
of the earth” (Jer 16:4).
The curse of non-burial is also found in extra-biblical sources. For
example, in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Ninurta, leader of the
gods, fell you with his fierce arrow, and fill the plain with your corpses, give
your flesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon.”
43
“Let dogs and pigs eat your
flesh, and may your spirit have no one to take care of and pour libation to
him.”
44
“May the earth not receive your body for burial, may the bellies of the
dogs and pigs be your burial place.”
45
Clearly victorious kings treated their
vanquished enemies savagely. The annals of Ashurbanipal report what he did
to his foes: “I fed their corpses cut into small pieces, to dogs, pigs, zibu-birds,
vultures, the birds of the sky and (also) to the fish of the ocean.”
46
In the Epic
of Gilgamesh, after Enkidu returns from the underworld, he is asked “Him
whose corpse was cast out upon the steppe hast thou seen?” and he replies: “I
have seen: His spirit finds no rest in the netherworld.”
47
When people were burnt to death the meaning was that as they were not
buried they were cursed. The idea was that they will not find rest and their
spirit will not reach the underworld. A similar concept is also found in Egyp-
tian texts. In order to insure that the offender was denied an afterlife it was
essential to completely destroy his body. Thus we read about the posthumous
burning of Amasis body by Cambyses. According to Herodotus, Cambyses
gave orders to dig up the body of the pharaoh Amasis (the father of Psam-
menitus) and desecrating the corpse in front of the pharaoh’s tomb. He then
ordered the body to be burned. This act was considered sacrilegious to both the
Egyptians and the Persians. However, the Egyptians claimed that it was not the
pharaoh who was cruelly defiled. Apparently, the king was warned by an ora-
43
“The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” translated by Erica Reiner (ANET, 538, no.
41).
44
“The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” translated by Erica Reiner (ANET, 538, no.
47).
45
“The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” translated by Erica Reiner (ANET, 539, no.
56).
46
“The Death of Sennacherib,” translated by A. Leo Oppenheim, (ANET, 288, iv
65–82).
47
“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” translated by Ephraim A. Speiser, (ANET, 99, xii 152–
154).
36 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
cle. Therefore, he arranged for a second corpse to be interred with him to take
the punishment. Herodotus did not believe this story, which he feels was sim-
ply made up to make them feel better.
48
The same punishment is mentioned in the Instruction of Sehetepibre:
“There is no tomb for the rebel against His Majesty.”
49
“The one whom the
king loves shall be a well provided spirit; there is no tomb for anyone who
rebels against His Majesty and his corpse shall be cast to the waters. Do this,
and your body will flourish, and you will find it (excellent) for eternity.”
50
Similarly, in the Joseph story, we read that Joseph interpreted the dream
to the baker. In this interpretation Joseph predicted that in three days the phar-
aoh will lift the baker’s head and impale him upon a pole and the birds will
pick his flesh (Gen 40:19). As we know, the Egyptians paid special attention to
the preservation of the body after death. Thus the punishment foretold was
repugnant. The baker was not buried thus his soul did not find rest.
4 A POSTHUMOUS CONCEPT
The Talmudic sages counted 903 different types of death. The worst of them,
they said, is death from asthma or croup; the easiest, death by a Divine kiss,
which is the lot of the righteous and is compared to removing a hair from
milk.
51
Great importance was assigned to the manner of a person’s death and
day of death, because these were indicators of whether the deceased was good
or bad. Death after an illness of five days was considered to be the norm. Death
after four days was viewed as a reprimand, after three days a severe reproof,
after two days precipitous, and after only one day of illness a sudden or apo-
plectic death.
52
A comparison of judicial execution forms mentioned in the Bible, with
those in the Talmud, indicates that the latter made an effort to preserve the
body of an executed man.
53
The difference may stem from the fact that in
Talmudic times the idea of resurrection was well developed. Even though the
idea of the resurrection of the dead was not fully developed in the biblical lit-
erature, we still find some hints about it (Deut 32:9; Dan 12:2-3; Hos 6:1-2; Isa
26:19). The notion that the righteous and the wicked shared the same fate and
are both found in Sheol was too simplistic. In the Hebrew Bible we read that
the underworld is a void; the dead cannot praise the Lord and do not know
48
Herodotus, Hist.3.16.
49
Leahy, “Death by Fire,” 205-206.
50
William K. Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories,
Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies and Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003), 174.
51
b. Ber. 8a; b. B. Bat. 17a.
52
. b. Moʾed Qatan. 28a.
53
b. Sanh. 45a, 52a; b. Pesahim. 75a; b. Ketub. 37b.
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 37
anything about the living. The belief of the underworld as the final station of
life, from which there is no return and which is utterly divorced from reward
and punishment, came to represent too naive and too cruel a notion. It left no
room for answering the thorny question of why evildoers prosper and the right-
eous suffer. Hence the biblical texts began asking questions about the under-
world and the survival of the soul. As Ecclesiastes wondered: “Both go to the
same place; both came from dust and both return to dust. Who knows if a
man’s life-breath does rise upward and if a beast’s breath does sink down into
the earth?” (Eccl 3:20–21). This same book, evidently written between 500
B.C.E. and 100 C.E., concludes: “And the dust returns to the ground as it was,
and the life-breath returns to God Who bestowed it” (Eccl 12:7). This clearly
reflects a belief in the immortality of the soul.
Pagans in the ancient world feared that the manner of death could influ-
ence whether or not a man could be resurrected. As late as the tenth century the
Jewish masses held similar views.
54
According to Saul Lieberman, medieval
literature intimated that non-burial was a bad omen for the deceased and a
severe punishment, indicating that the man was a sinner.
55
Evidently the differ-
ent modes of unnatural death which include the punishment of burning in the
Hebrew Bible as well as the different modes of death that appear in the Talmud
points to a posthumous concept. The punishment continued after death. In other
words the punishment of burning in the Hebrew Bible meant an end to conti-
nuity and the final extinction of the deceased, who had not been “gathered to
his ancestors.” His spirit wandered aimlessly never to be resurrected.
5 CONCLUSION
In the Hebrew Bible execution by burning appears in cases of illicit sex, sacri-
lege and as a threat. Execution by burning aims at the total obliteration of the
evil. The usage of the fire motif comes to stress that nothing is left of the sin-
ner, a method of utter extinction.
56
Burning was done in order to not allow the
54
Saul Lieberman, “Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in
Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume (vol. 2; Jerusalem: American Academy for
Jewish Research, 1965), 528 no 112; Menahem Stein, “Mother Earth in Old Hebrew
Literature,” Tarbiz 9 (1938): 272–274 (Hebrew).
55
He goes on to say, however, that the Sages also believed that the premature death
of a normal sinner and non-burial served as atonement and helped the man acquire his
share of the world to come. According to Lieberman, the Christians adopted a similar
tradition; in the late Middle Ages some requested that their bodies be thrown into the
fields or a river, like the carcasses of animals; but such abuse is contrary to the spirit
of Judaism. See b. Sanh. 46b, 104a; Lieberman, “Afterlife in Early Rabbinic Litera-
ture,” 530.
56
The fire motif appears many times in the prophetic literature in war oracles where
fire is to destroy the enemy. The divine fire in battle often appears in the mythology of
the ancient Near East. See: Isa 29:6; 30:27,30; 66:15-16; Ps 18:9,13; 50:2-3; 104:4.
38 Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39
deceased to find rest. The execution by burning was an atrocious deed meant to
profane the dead person’s memory. The act of burning came to prevent the
deceased from being gathered to his kin in the underworld. This means that his
spirit wandered aimlessly without finding a resting place and could not be res-
urrected.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary 6. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 1999.
Butler, Trent C. Joshua.Word Biblical Commentary 7. Waco, Tex.: Word Books,
1983.
_______. Judges. Word Biblical Commentary 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009
“The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek. Pages 163-180 in
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3
rd
ed.. Edited by
James B. Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
“The Death of Sennacherib,” translated by A. Leo Oppenheim. Page 288 in Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3
rd
ed.. Edited by James B.
Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” translated by Ephraim A. Speiser. Pages 72-99 in Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3
rd
ed.. Edited by James B.
Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1993.
Herodotus. History. Translated by A. D. Godley et al. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921.
Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1992.
Hoppe, Leslie O. F. M. Joshua, Judges. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982.
Leahy, Anthony. “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt.” Journal of the Economics and
Social History of the Orient 27 (1984): 199-206.
Levine, Baruch A. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume 3. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1980.
Lieberman, Saul. “Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature.” Pages
495-532 in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume. Volume 2. Jerusalem:
American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Niditch, Susan. Judges. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
Parkinson, Richard B. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940-
1640 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Philips, Anthony. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970.
Porter, Joshua. R. “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in
the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 361–380.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” Pages
49-62 in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für
Bar, “The Punishment of Burning” OTE 25/1 (2012): 27-39 39
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 66. Edited by Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer
and Johannes Hempel. Berlin: Alfred Topelman, 1936.
_______. Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.
Sasson, Jack M. “Treatment of Criminals at Mari: A Survey.” Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 20 (1977): 90-113.
Simpson, William K. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories,
Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies and Poetry. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2003.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Joshua. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.
Stein, M. “Mother Earth in Old Hebrew Literature.” Tarbiz 9 (1938): 257–277.
“The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” translated by Erica Reiner. Pages 534-541in
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3
rd
ed.. Edited by
James B. Pritchard; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 37-50. Translated by John J. Scullion S.J. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.
Wheeler, Robinson H.“The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” Pages 49-
62 in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 66. Edited by Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer and
Johannes Hempel. Berlin: Alfred Topelman, 1936.
_______. Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.
Wiseman, Donald J. The Alalakh Tablets. London: The British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, 1953.
Dr. Shaul Bar; Bornblum Judaic Studies, The University of Memphis, Mitchell
Hall 301, Memphis, Tenn.. E-mail: sbar@memphis.edu.
