Wasn't Twain the damnedest ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're getting more ridiculous with each post. The only "abridging" I've done is to quote the Commentary that is relevant as regards Exodus 21:21 rather than Commentary regarding passages that have no relevance to Exodus 21:21 as you have. And none of the Commentary support your claim in any way, shape or form. No translation before the late 20th Century ...[text shortened]... or I can't use a definition of the term?? If so, I laugh at such desperate idiocy.

The only "abridging" I've done is to quote the Commentary
Tut-tut: it will be alright. No one accused you of abridging anything, dear, just as no one "accused" Clarke, Henry or etc., of actually using the verb "to stand" in their sundry commentaries. Read this next part slow, so you don't miss anything, okay?

Clarke, Henry, et al, based their commentaries on the words of the Bible. Those words are translated from the original language into the vernacular of the day. In Henry's day it was "to continue," which, to us, means, "to stand."

I have told you now twice that I quoted from the site you provided the fifth link, which was an abridged version of the expanded, original version (posted here from another source). You, No1, did not abridge it. They, the site you provided, did.

f course, haven't shown a 14th Century dictionary either
You are correct, sir. I merely gave you the origins of the word. From the 14th century.

are you really claiming that I must unearth a pre-1000 AD Latin dictionary
I should, just to shut you up for awhile, but I won't.

Here's what the US Supreme Court had to say about the development of the manslaughter offense in McGautha v. California, 402 US 183 (1971):

By the statutes of 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, 3, 4 (1531), and 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, 10 (1547), benefit of clergy was taken away in all cases of "murder of malice prepensed." 1 Stephen, supra, at 464-465; 3 id., at 44. During the next century and a half, however, "malice prepense" or "malice aforethought" came to be divorced from actual ill will and inferred without more from the act of killing. Correspondingly, manslaughter, which was initially restricted to cases of "chance medley," came to include homicides where the existence of adequate provocation rebutted the inference of malice. 3 id., at 46-73.

Since the Jewish commentators are wrong about the Mosaic Law, I'm sure you'll simply assert that the US Supreme Court is wrong about the development of homicide law as well.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's what the US Supreme Court had to say about the development of the manslaughter offense in McGautha v. California, 402 US 183 (1971):

By the statutes of 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, 3, 4 (1531), and 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, 10 (1547), benefit of clergy was taken away in all cases of "murder of malice prepensed." 1 Stephen, supra, at 464-465; 3 id., at 44. Du ...[text shortened]... ert that the US Supreme Court is wrong about the development of homicide law as well.

One, I never said the Jewish source you cited was wrong; simply that I did not (at this time) agree with it--- singular.

Two, manslaughter was previously considered acts of happenstance. Great blazing saddles, Mr. Watson! You've proven my point!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One, I never said the Jewish source you cited was wrong; simply that I did not (at this time) agree with it--- singular.

Two, manslaughter was previously considered acts of happenstance. Great blazing saddles, Mr. Watson! You've proven my point!

No, manslaughter was NEVER merely "happenstance". The distinction the court is making is between involuntary manslaughter i.e. where death was not intended but was the result of recklessness and voluntary manslaughter where death was intended but it was determined that there was sufficient provocation to reduce the charge from murder to a lesser, but still, homicidal crime. Thus, when Henry is using the term "chance medley" he is saying that when a slave DIES from a beating, it is a manslaughter. That's what I've been saying; you've been claiming differently.

Henry: Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley.