The Unethical Life? #17: The Big 10

https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html

Question: "Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi?"

Answer: Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who reigned from 1795 to 1750 B.C. He is remembered today for promoting and enforcing an organized code of laws. The Code of Hammurabi, discovered on a stele in 1901, is one of the best preserved and comprehensive of ancient writings of significant length ever found. The Hammurabian Code is divided into 12 sections and consists of 282 laws, 34 of which are unreadable. The Code is primarily a case-by-case formula of customary law covering administrative, civil, and criminal issues. The complexity of the laws and their subject matter reveal much about ancient Babylonian culture.

About 300 years after Hammurabi, in 1440 B.C., Moses recorded the Law for the Israelites. Because the Mosaic Law contains some similarities to Hammurabi’s Code, some critics of the Bible believe that Moses copied from the Hammurabian Code. If they’re right, and Moses simply stole from the Babylonians, then the whole episode at Mount Sinai is false (Exodus 34), and the inspiration of Scripture is suspect.

Both Levitical law and Hammurabi’s Code impose the death penalty in cases of adultery and kidnapping (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 21:16; cf. Statutes 129 and 14). Also, there are similarities in the law of retaliation, such as “an eye for an eye” (Leviticus 21:23-25; cf. Statute 196). Statute 206 of the Hammurabian Code says, “If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, ‘I did not injure him wittingly,’ and pay the physicians.” The Law of Moses is comparable: “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed” (Exodus 21:18-19).

There are other examples, but in all truth, such resemblances do not demonstrate that Moses plagiarized Hammurabi’s Code. What the similarities do show is that murder, theft, adultery, and kidnapping are problems in every society and must be addressed. Even today, countries throughout the world have similar laws. Such parallels certainly don’t prove plagiarism.

Similarity in penal codes should be expected in civil societies. Both Babylon and Israel had laws against murder, but it doesn’t follow that one stole the idea from the other. Should one country not prosecute a crime simply because another country has a similar law?

The differences between Mosaic Law and the Hammurabian Code are equally significant. For example, the Law of Moses went far beyond the Code of Hammurabi in that it was rooted in the worship of one God, supreme over all (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). The moral principles of the Old Testament are based on a righteous God who demanded that mankind, created in His image, live righteously. The Law of Moses is more than a legal code; it speaks of sin and responsibility to God. The Hammurabian Code and other ancient laws do not do this.

The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the cause of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.

In his book Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, Fred Wight writes, “The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ [Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code.”

There is a dramatic difference in perspective between Hammurabi and Moses. One’s focus is horizontal, while the other’s is vertical. Archaeologist Alfred Hoerth, author of Archaeology and the Old Testament, says, “The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while others are civil. The Mesopotamians believed the god Shamash gave Hammurabi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible, the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God.”

This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi’s Code had no provision for forgiveness.

The theory that Moses’ Law is simply a rewording of Hammurabi’s has largely been abandoned today, due to the fact that similar law codes, even older than Hammurabi’s, have been found in various other places. These would include the Cuneiform laws, written as early as 2350 B.C.; the Code of Urukagina, 2380 B.C.; the Code of Ur-Nammu, 2050 B.C.; and others.

Most critics accede to the fact that the Babylonian laws were probably well-known to the Hebrews of Moses’ day. When God communicated His Law, He used language that the Israelites were already familiar with, and this would explain similar wording for similar laws.

Both Hammurabi and Moses recorded a complex system of laws that were unique to their times. Hammurabi claimed to receive his code from the Babylonian god of justice, Shamash. Moses received God’s Law atop Mount Sinai directly from Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. There are some similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi, as would be expected from two legislative systems. However, their significant differences demonstrate the baselessness of the charge that Moses copied from the Code of Hammurabi.

http://www.alhatorah.org/The_Torah_and_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Law_Codes

The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes

Introduction

There is both considerable overlap and significant differences between the legal sections of the Torah and its Ancient Near Eastern counterparts. While much is shared in both content and formulation, it is the differences between the codes which are most revealing. From the range of the topics covered to the specific details of the offenses and penalties, the collections vary widely. These variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of the cultures, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment.¹

The Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes

Lists of laws have been preserved in seven major cuneiform collections - the Sumerian codes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit Ishtar, the Old-Babylonian codes of Eshnuna and Hammurabi, and finally, the Middle Assyrian, Old Hittite and Neo-Babylonian lists. The degree of preservation varies for each text. Some, like the code of Ur-Nammu, remain only in bits and fragments, while others, like the famous code of Hammurabi, contain over 200 laws. The texts date to several different time periods. While the laws of Lipit Ishtar were composed as early as the nineteenth century BCE, the Middle Assyrian laws appear as late as the twelfth century BCE.

Points of Contact

• Common categories – Many areas of law are common to both the Mesopotamian and Biblical law collections. These include prohibitions against dishonest business dealings, false testimony, murder or rape, and laws dealing with adultery, illegal entry or theft, and personal injury.
• Specific details – In many cases, even the details of these laws are extremely similar. For instance, when discussing battery, the various collections contain an identical catalog of injured bodily parts: eye, tooth, hand, and leg. Both the Torah and several of the codes bring the unusual case of the striking of a pregnant woman in a brawl as an example of personal liability.² Sometimes, even the same extenuating circumstances appear in both sets of sources. Thus, in the case of rape, the same distinction between a city and an outlying field is found in both Sefer Devarim and Hittite Law 197.

Points of Difference

• Authorship – Hashem is the author of the Torah's laws, whereas it is the king rather than the deity who writes and promulgates the Mesopotamian codes.³As such, a Torah transgression is considered a sin against God, and not just a crime against a fellow man. For the same reason, while many of the codes give the victim the right to pardon the offender,⁴ in Israelite law, this is not possible.⁵
• Types of laws included – While the Ancient Near Eastern codes include just civil law, the Torah also incorporates ethical and moral precepts⁶ and religious and cultic law.⁷ The idea of interweaving religious and secular law is unique to the Torah,⁸ and often laws from the two categories flow seamlessly into one another.⁹
• Formulation of laws – In the Mesopotamian codes, all the laws are casuistic in style, formulated as case law. In the Torah, on the other hand, alongside such laws, there are also apodictic rules, absolute prescriptions of right and wrong.¹⁰Additionally, in the Torah, commandments are often accompanied by some sort of rationale or motivation for obedience.¹¹ This is somewhat rare in the secular codes.
• Context – The Ancient Near Eastern collections contain just a list of laws and rules, framed perhaps by an introduction or epilogue. The laws in the Torah, in contrast, are embedded within narrative material, and in some cases are not understandable without it.¹² (Rabbi Neil's note: Nomos & Narrative...) Moreover, the Torah's commandments are presented as a covenant to which the people agreed, and not merely a list of laws imposed upon them by a king.
• Punishments – In the Torah, life and property are never considered commensurate, while in the Ancient Near Eastern codes, they are often equated.¹³ Other penalties, such as bodily mutilation, multiple punishments for the same offense, or vicarious punishment, which are frequently found in other codes,¹⁴ are either rare¹⁵ or completely absent from the Torah. Finally, in the Torah, penalties do not vary depending on the social status of the criminal/victim (excepting slaves) while in the other codes, such social stratification is common.¹⁶
• Different conceptions of justice – At the core of many of these differences lie contrasting understandings of the purpose of the judicial code. The Torah attempts to lay forth principles of right and wrong and to set up a just society, while the primary goal of the other codes is to preserve law and order.¹⁷Compensation to the victim becomes more important than the idea of retribution for committing a wrong.¹⁸ Different value systems further pervade the codes. In the Ancient Near Eastern codes, an economic principle prevails; safeguarding property is of the utmost importance. In the Torah, in contrast, the sanctity of human life takes precedence.¹⁹

A Case Study – Laws of Goring Oxen

The laws dealing with goring oxen are remarkably similar between the Codes of Eshnuna, Hammurabi and Parashat Mishpatim, and as such, serve as a useful case study for comparison. Click on the Table to the right to compare the laws.

• The cases – The specific cases mentioned vary throughout the codes, and there is not complete overlap regarding victims and culprits. Shemot has the widest range of cases, speaking of both a non-goring and habitually goring ox, and matching each to both a human and animal victim. The Code of Hammurabi, in contrast, deals only with human victims and differentiates in this realm between the goring and non-goring culprit. The Code of Eshnuna deals with both human and animal victims, connecting the first with a habitually goring culprit and the latter with a non-goring culprit. In speaking of human victims, all three codes differentiate between freemen and slave. Shemot, though, goes out of its way to emphasize that the same laws apply to children as well.
• The punishments – In both the Codes of Hammurabi and Eshnuna, in cases of negligence,²³ the penalties for goring a human are monetary. In the Torah, in contrast, this is considered a capital offense, and both the ox and its owner are condemned to death, though the latter has the option of paying a ransom instead. In the case of a non-habitual gorer killing a man, both the Torah and the Code of Hammurabi do not hold the owner accountable at all. In Shemot, though, the ox is considered guilty and he is thus stoned to death.
• The context – In the Code of Eshnuna, the oxen laws are grouped together with other laws of negligence.²⁴ In the Code of Hammurabi, the laws are sandwiched between those that deal with negligent construction/navigation of both houses and boats and those that discuss all sorts of agricultural concerns.²⁵ The placement of the goring laws in Shemot is unique in that not all the laws are grouped together. There is a gap of two verses between the laws dealing with the goring of humans and those concerned with the goring of other oxen. The former follow a discussion of assault and battery, while the latter are connected to other cases of animal injury due to negligence.²⁶
• Understanding the differences – Much of the above can be explained in light of the differing values placed on life versus property in Torah and the other codes. In the Torah, where human life is supreme, laws related to the killing of animals and the killing of people are distinct. The death of man is incomparable to the death of an animal. Similarly, bloodshed, being the ultimate sin, requires the taking of a life, and thus, even in cases of non-negligence, when man is not held responsible, the goring ox is put to death. In the other codes, where a compensatory system prevails, vicarious punishment exists, allowing for the possibility that a child be killed to replace another's lost child. Here, in contrast, the Torah emphasizes that even if a child is the one killed, it is still the adult ox owner who is punished, not the son.

Ibn Ezra - Introduction to the 10 Commandments

...And Moshe explained this in the section, "And when your son will ask you" (Deuteronomy 6:20), since the explanation of the question is, "Why are we obligated to do the commandments of God more than every man? And is there not one Creator to all of us?" And behold, he mentioned three answers.The first is that ‘we were slaves to Pharaoh’ and He did us this great good; therefore we are obligated to keep all of what He commanded us, even if we don’t know the explanation of His commandments. And the second is because these commandments are not for His need, but rather ‘to benefit us all of the days and to keep us alive.’ And the third is that we should be righteous [so as] to inherit the world to come.

...And the men of research have found that all physical things are ten, and these are the main categories and there is none above them. The first one is the essence of everything and it is permanent, and the [other] nine things are all contingent, and they all rely upon the first and accompany it and come from it. For it is like measurement of one in the calculation of ten, since all of the calculation comes from it and every calculation is found in it, as it is the foundation. And behold, this first statement (of the ‘Ten Commandments’) that the glorious God said includes all of the commandments of the heart and the tongue and the deed, as one who does not believe in God in his heart has no commandment upon him. And a person is obligated to remember Him at every moment to honor Him; since all that he does, he should only do for the sake of His honor. And he [likewise] should only prevent himself from [transgressing] negative commandments for the sake of the honor of God alone. As a man who gives charity to a poor person should not give it for the honor of the sexton and not in order that people will praise him – as then, the level of man will be higher in his eyes than the level of the honor of God, who gave him assets – and he should prefer to [use] his money to give what he can to receive reward from God. And so [too], one who does a sin in secret so that it will not be made known to the king or that people [not] see him and he become light in their eyes. And someone who thinks this is crazy, since so is it written (Psalms 94:9), “if he creates the eye, does he not observe.”...

...And behold, God sees in secret places that which people are not able to see in the open, since God knows his thoughts and his secret. And behold, he was afraid of the king that will die tomorrow, that he should not punish him, and was not afraid of the true King, in whose hand is his soul - in this world and in the world to come. And Rav Saadia Gaon authored “The Commandments (Azharot)” and categorized all of the commandments in these ten statements (‘Ten Commandments’) and found the glorious Name of God in the first five statements. And I have already explained that the first statement is the foundation, and all of the structures of the commandments [lay] upon it. And after it is written, “There shall not be.”...