From the Library of
Professor W. H. Clawson
Department of English
University College
THE LAW OF HAMMURABI AND
MOSES
THE
LAW OF HAMMURABI
AND MOSES
A SKETCH
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
HUBERT GRIMME
Professor of th€ Stmitic Languages in the University of Freiburg, Switzerland
TOGETHER WITH
A TRANSLATION FROM THE BABYLONIAN OF THE LAWS
DISCUSSED, AND CHAPTERS ON
THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE
HAMMURABI AND MOSAIC CODES
BY THE
REV. W. T. FILTER
MEMBER OP THE COUNCIL OF THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY ;
FORMEKLY RECTOR OF GEDDING, SUFFOLK;
SOMETIME MISSIONARY IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA*
LONDON
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.
1907
[rUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE]
92057fi
PREFACE
This book consists of two parts : first, a translation
of a brochure by Professor Hubert Grimme, to which
I append a version from the Babylonian of such of
the laws of Hammurabi's Code as he discusses in
detail; and, secondly, of a series of chapters by
myself.
Hammurabi's stela is, and must remain, a con-
spicuous landmark in the historical and legal study
of the Old Testament, but, so far as I am aware, no
writer except Professor Grimme has appeared to
discuss this great monument of the Abrahamic age in
a manner at all satisfactory to students who believe the
Old Testament to be authentic and historically true.
For such persons, and, indeed, for all earnest-minded
inquirers, this sketch of his appears to me likely to be
very helpful, a contribution of value to the under-
standing both of Hammurabi's and the Mosaic Codes,
and also of the relatic nship, or otherwise, between
them. Hence this translation of Professor Grimme's
sketch.
But for many English readers further information
appeared to be required, and some points to call for
5
6 Preface
development and for illustration from the ancient
inscribed monuments ; hence the second part of this
volume, which may serve as a succinct, practical
introduction to the archaeology of the Pentateuch
from the period of Abraham. In its pages I have
sought to set forth briefly the history of the Ham-
murabi period in Babylonia and how it affected the
patriarchs of Israel; the state of culture which
surrounded the Hebrews from the days of Abraham
to Moses ; the history of Hammurabi's Code in later
Babylonia, and its influence, or otherwise, upon the
laws of Israel ; and how the political and legal, the
geographical and historical conditions, and the institu-
tions, both legal and ceremonial, of the times, as
brought before us by contemporary monuments, are
faithfully reflected in the pages of the Pentateuch.
My contribution closes with two further chapters —
one of them applying Professor Grimme's method to
a subject of Pentateuchal law which lies outside the
special sections he discusses, and the other illustrating
— by an incident which was fresh in the minds of the
people of GaUlee and South Syria at the time of my
sojourn there, now some years ago — what would be
the practical working of a section of Hammurabi's
Code.
In submitting the archaeological evidence, I have not
only sought to give the facts as faithfully as possible,
but also I have added quotations or references to the
sources, so that even the non-expert student may be
in a better position to appraise the statements made
Preface 7
in this book and by other writers on the subjects
discussed. As henceforth it would seem scarcely
likely that any critical introduction to the Old Testa-
ment or commentary on any book of the Pentateuch
can fail to refer to Hammurabi's stela and other
monuments herein considered, it is hoped that this
little work supplies such information as will be of
real use to clergymen and other public teachers and
to working students.
I have to thank Professor Grimme for kindly per-
mitting his brochure to appear in its present form.
For my translation he has revised his original
throughout, added the whole of the passage on the
ancient Arabian inscriptions (a subject in which he is
known to be specially interested), and a new Foreword.
He is in no way responsible for any additions of my
own, which are always definitely marked off from his
work by, at least, square brackets [ ], usually followed
by the contracted word Trans. For the Table of
Contents here given, the division into chapters, the
chapter-headings and Index, I am also responsible.
The quotations from the Bible are given, usually,
from the Revised Version.
W. T. PILTER.
Welbeck Lodge,
North Finchley,
\st February y 1907.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
THE LAW OF HAMMURABI AND MOSES
By Professor Hubert Grimme
PAGE
Foreword to the English Edition . . . .17
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
Hammurabi's records and personality — The stela inscribed
with his laws — The bas-relief sculptured upon it . .19
CHAPTER II
THE INSCRIPTION ON THE COLUMN
Extent and condition of the text — A legislative testament
of Hammurabi's old age — Its significance for us — The
Code a comparatively late development of Babylonian
civilization — It is thus analogous to the Babylonian
language of the same period — Hammurabi's legislation,
therefore, by no means represents primitive Semitic
legislation 24
CHAPTER III
THE CODE AND ITS SCOPE
Summary of the contents of the Hammurabi Code — It
was not a system of law, but a collection of laws — The
four social classes of ancient Babylonia — Kinship ai^d
9
lo Table of Contents
PAGE
family the most important unit — The economic cir-
cumstances of Babylonia at the time of the Code —
Hammurabi claims both the laws and the promulgation
of them as his own, and not his gods' . , . .28
CHAPTER IV
THE CHARACTER OF THE BABYLONIAN CODE
The tendency of Hammurabi's Code — The two fundamental
ideas of the Code were (i) the preservation of the class
of common freemen ; (2) the protection of property —
In principle and administration it differed from Old
Semitic — It did not recognize religious motive or
sanction, nor that thereafter it might be improved . 38
CHAPTER V
THE COURSE OF HAMMURABIAN LAW, AND THE SOURCES
AND COURSE OF LEGISLATION AMONG THE HEBREWS
Hammurabi's legislation became widespread and lasting,
but had its limits— It affected the Patriarchs, but not
the nation of Israel, which had its own specific law
whose ultimate roots were Old Semitic.
The Old Arabian temple worship — The Mosaic
legislation 45
CHAPTER VI
DID HAMMURABI'S CODE INFLUENCE THE MOSAIC
LEGISLATION ?
Something more than priority needed for the legislation of
one people to affect that of another — Social circum-
stances of Israel, as represented in the Mosaic Law,
very different from those of Hammurabi's Code, — as
also were the economic conditions — The spirit and
tendency of each Code greatly differed — The Mosaic
law completely independent of that of Babylon . • ^3
Tabic of Contents ii
CHAPTER VII
DETAILED PROOF OF THE MOSAIC INDEPENDENCE OF
HAMMURABI
PAGB
The beginnings of the Mosaic Code in the first half of
" The Book of the Covenant " — Comparison of these,
clause by clause, with Hammurabi — Whatever is
common to the two Codes is traceable to a common
Old Semitic base.
More general proof of Mosaic independence of
Hammurabi shown by the absence of Babylonian
law terms from the Hebrew legislation.
Conclusion 65
PART II
THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF
THE HAMMURABI AND MOSAIC CODES
By the Rev. W. T. Filter
CHAPTER I
HAMMURABI AND THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS
Some events in the history of the Hammurabi period, and
their bearing on the history of the Hebrew Patriarchs 8 1
CHAPTER II
THE PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC LAW
The difference between the civil law under which the
Hebrew Patriarchs lived and that of the Sinaitic
Covenant . , 88
12 Table of Contents
CHAPTER III
EARLY ISRAEL AND CULTURE
PAGE
Outline of the history of culture in and around Israel,
from the Patriarchs to Moses . . , . .91
Appendix : On the Egyptian personal names in Gen. xli. 45 96
CHAPTER IV
THE HAMMURABI CODE AND LATER ISRAEL
The history of Hammurabi's Code after his period — His
legislation accessible to the legal codifiers of Israel as
postulated by the modern criticism, but was totally
ignored by them 99
CHAPTER V
ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MOSAIC RITUAL
The Ceremonial Law of the Pentateuch and modern
archaeological discovery — The inscriptions of ancient
Arabia and the monuments of the Sinaitic Peninsula . 108
CHAPTER VI
MOSES AND ISRAEL
The historical turning-point of the Mosaic period — The
personality of Moses — A Divine element in the Mosaic
legislation, as in all Scripture 1 18
CHAPTER VII
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE
The law of levirate marriage : an additional application '
of Professor Grimme's method . . . . .124
Table of Contents 13
CHAPTER VIII
HAMMURABI LAW IN MODERN PALESTINE
PAGE
The practical working of a section of Hammurabi's Code
illustrated by the law of Palestine now . . .129
A Translation from the Babylonian of those laws of Ham-
murabi which Professor Grimme compares in detail
with the Mosaic laws of ** The Book of the Covenant."
(Being the following sections of the Code : i, 2, 6, 7, 8, 14,
21, 24, 57, 63, 117, 125, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 206,
207, 209, 211, 213, 250, 251, 252, 263, 266, 267, and
280) 132
Index 141
IPART 1
THE LAW OF HAMMURABI AND MOSES
By Dr. Hubert Grimme
s
FOREWORD TO THE ENGLISH
EDITION
The following sketch was written and sent into the
world three years ago under the fresh impression
produced by the first publication of the Code of
Hammurabi. Since then Hammurabi research has
made not insignificant progress whereby, specially,
the peculiarity of Babylonian law, its terminology
and form of expression, and, in particular, its adminis-
tration, have been brought into clearer light. But
that which was most important in the drawing up of
our sketch was to define the relation in which the
Hammurabi law stands to the Mosaic ; this point is
still a matter of lively discussion. Nevertheless,
nothing has yet been brought to light which can
/ disprove the propositions which we have advanced,
and, therefore, we continue to hold fast, with all
firmness, the conclusion that Hammurabi, as well as
Moses, must have dravvn out of the well of Old
Semitic common law; of course, each in a different
17 B
^h^ob;
1 8 The Law of Hammurabi
way. This opinion would still remain valid if at any
time more thorough investigation should yield as a
result that in Arabian antiquity civil law found ex-
pression in forms similar to those of Hammurabi
and Moses.
HUBERT GRIMME.
March, 1906.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
Hammurabi's records and personality — The stela inscribed with
his laws — The bas-relief sculptured upon it.
The Babylonian ruler named Hammurabi has long
been known to Assyriologists. He was the sixth
in the series of the First Dynasty .of Babylon, which
was a Semitic dynasty, and he ruled fifty-five or,
according to another source, forty-three years. The
date of his reign cannot yet be determined with
certainty, but it may be placed before B.C. 2100.
Hitherto our only records of Hammurabi's activity
as a ruler have been a short chronological tablet,*
about a dozen minor inscribed monuments, and a
series of fifty-five letters of the king to Sin-iddinam,
his vassal or field-marshal.f From these we may
* [This valuable tablet, compiled in the reign of Ammizaduga,
the fourth King of Babylonia in succession to Hammurabi, is in
the British Museum (Bu. 9-5-9, 284), and is published in Part
VI. (plates 10 and li) of the official Cuneiform Texis, etc. A
translation is given by Prof. Sayce, in the Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology, January, 1899 ; Mr. King has
published the text, transliteration and- translation in vols. ii. and
iii. of his Letters, etc., mentioned in the following note. — Trans.]
t [These letters and other monuments of Hammurabi, with
additional remains of the period, have been published in cunei-
form text, transliteration of the same into Roman letters, and
(in the third volume) an English translation by Mr. Leonard W.
19
20 The Law of Hammurabi
gather that he was conqueror in battle with the
Elamites, the ruler of a powerful Semitic kingdom
which he knit together in Babylonia, as head of which
he bore the titles ** King of Babylon, King of Sumer
and Accad, King of the Four Quarters ; " they also
show him to have been a great builder, who dedicated
his powers to the erection of temples, making canals,
and other peaceful undertakings ; they depict him as
an administrator who had in his own hands the threads
of all the affairs, great and small, of the public
business of Babylonia. Moreover, we possess a hymn *
in which he is addressed in an unmistakable manner
as a god, or at least as a mediator between the gods
and men. Nevertheless, in spite of all these deeds
and attributes, he did not appear to have much
advantage over other great men of Babylonian and
Assyrian history.
For the Bible student Hammurabi has awakened
a greater interest than all the kings of the older
Babylonian epoch because his name appears, perhaps,
in the Bible (Gen. xiv. i) under the form " Amraphel ; "
he is thus one of the four kings of the East who, on
the occasion of a warlike expedition against Southern
Palestine, was successfully attacked by Abraham.
The Hammurabi of Assyriology, however, has in
the last year or two become a Hammurabi of uni-
versal history, and has even entered the list of the
leading names of antiquity. This change has been
brought about by 'the decipherment of a column set
King, of the British Museum, under the title, The Letters and
Inscriptions of Ha7nniM'abiy in three vohnnes (London, 189S-
1900). — Trans.]
* [This hymn, which is carved on a broken statue of black
basalt now in the British Museum, is given, in text, translitera-
tion, and translation, in Mr. King's Letters^ etc., referred to in
the preceding note. — Trans.]
Introductory 2 1
up by him and discovered towards the end of the
year 1901 by the French expedition investigating
the ruins of Susa, once the capital of ancient Elam
and later that of Persia.
For the prompt publication of the text of this
column we have to thank the acute decipherer, the
Dominican father, Vincent Scheil, who pubUshed and
translated it in the fourth volume of the Memoires
of the Persian delegation.* Upon that work rests,
substantially, all that has since appeared upon Ham-
murabi's Code, whether as translation or interpretation,
by German, English, and French scholars.
The Hammurabi stela or column consists of a block
of diorite 2*25 metres [7 feet 4^ inches] in height and
more than 1*50 metres [4 feet 11 inches] in circum-
ference ; on its upper end is a large carving in relief ;
under that, as well as on the back of the stela^ there is a
long text written in the Old Babylonian wedge-writing.
The relief represents King Hammurabi standing
before the Babylonian sun-god (Shamash). Professor
Scheil has started the theory, which hitherto has been
generally accepted, that the gestures of the two figures
indicate that the god Shamash dictated the legal code
to King Hammurabi, a procedure which would lead
us to look upon the law and religion of Babylon as
having an inner unity, and it has also been described
as a counterpart of the scene of the giving of the Law
on Mount Sinai. But the representation carved in
no way signifies all this. For first of all, the inscrip-
tion itself does not set before us Shamash as being he
* [Paris, 1902. This expedition was sent out by the French
Government, and the several volumes of Mimoires are the
official publications recording the results of the labours 0/ the
delegation. Mons. V. Scheil is also professor at I'Ecole
pratique des Hautes-^tudes. — TRANS.]
2 2 The Law of Hammurabi
to whom Hammurabi owed his law. If emphasis is to
be laid upon the words of the epilogue {Verso, Co!,
xxiv. 84, ff.), " At the command of Shamash, the great
judge of heaven and earth, may justice go forth in the
land," it must also be noticed that in the prologue
{Redo, Col. V. 14, ff.) Merodach, who is also named
*' the god of law" {Recto, Col. i. 11), is signified as he
who had sent Hammurabi to cause the land to share
in the protection of law, and that another place, and
in the epilogue {Verso, Col. xxv. 25, ff.), speaks of
Hammurabi as having procured respect for the word
of Merodach. Now, if we must refer these forms of ex-
pression to the proclaiming of the law in question,
the relief would indicate less than what the inscription
itself says, or even something quite different from it.
King Hammurabi is pictured lifting up the right hand
to heaven, but this gesture is nothing else than an illus-
tration of the customary Babylonian expression nish
qati (" lifting up of the hand "), i,e, prayer ; whence
the custom, which is preserved to our own day, of
lifting up one hand in taking oaths. While as to the
attitude of Shamash, it is only that of a god enthroned
in dignity, who bears firmly in his right hand the
emblems of his power, namely, a sceptre (or ? stilus)
and ring.*
* It is the exact reproduction of the representation found in
the cella of the temple of Sippar [in North Babylonia or Akkad].
Friedrich Delitzsch, in his Babel und Bibel, i. pp. 48, 49, gives
illustrations of this god which correspond most exactly in
expression and mien to the Shamash of the Hammurabi stela.
He also gives, on page 9, a picture of Hammurabi, who is there
unaccompanied by Shamash, in exactly the'same praying attitude
as in the relief on the stela of laws. It is the more incompre-
hensible, therefore, that Delitzsch (in Babel U7id Bibel, ii. p. 26)
should represent the relief on the stela as valid evidence that
Hammurabi claimed to give to his people Divine law, which
Introductory 23
Since the Hammurabi column — as we gather from
a concluding remark of the inscription — came from
the temple of Shamash at Sippar, so the representa-
tion of the king praying before Shamash may have
been chosen in honour of the lord of that temple.
Another example of this stela^ which, according to the
epilogue, must have stood in the temple of Merodach
in Babylon opposite to a statue of Hammurabi, will,
presumably, have shown the king in prayer before
the god Merodach.
had been revealed to him by Shamash. [The original of the
carved slab from the temple of Sippar is to be dated about B.C.
870 (though, perhaps, copied from one of much older date), and
may be seen in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the
British Museum, Table Case C ; it is shown on Plate XXII. of
the official Guide (1900). The same attitude of persons in the
presence of one of the gods is by no means rare on the Baby-
lonian antiquities. It is found, e.g.^ in the room in the British
Museum just referred to, in Wall Case No. 72, where the figure
is also supposed to be that of Hammurabi ; also in the " Baby-
lonian j/<r/<r," in case loi, where the *' astronomical emblems "
on the top of the right hand of the monument are the same as
on the tablet from Sippar ; also in the important ancient cylinder
seal of the reign of Ur-Gur, King of Ur, some three centuries
or so before Hammurabi's time, in the presence of Sin (the
moon-god) — this green schist seal is to be seen in CaseD, and is
figured on Plate XXIII. of the official Guide. Again, in the
same case. No. 123, in the black stone seal of Amel-Nannar
before the moon-god ; in No. 115, a red stone seal, showing the
god Asshur above a sacred tree, with two Assyrian kings
worshipping in this attitude, and Divine attendants ; in No.
108, a similar seal of one Ili-tabni ; and in No. 68, a seal of
dark green schist, which shows the worship of Shamash, who is
seated on a throne and " from whose body rays of light ascend."
That Hammurabi, in the scene sculptured at the head of his law
stela^ is represented merely as a worshipper before the sun-god
(Shamash), as Prof. Grimme contends, and not^ as Prof. Scheil
first suggested, as receiving the Code of Laws from that god's
hand, is thus abundantly evident, as well as from further con-
siderations, which arc stated below (p. 37).— Trans.]
CHAPTER II
THE INSCRIPTION ON THE COLUMN
Extent and condition of the text — A legislative testament of
Hammurabi's old age — Its significance for us — The Code a
comparatively late development of Babylonian civilization
— It is thus analogous to the Babylonian language of the
same period — Hammurabi's legislation, therefore, by no
means represents primitive Semitic legislation.
The cuneiform text which covers the greater part of
the pillar claims the chief interest. There are sixteen
columns of 65-75 li^^s each on the front, and twenty-
eight columns, each of 95-100 short lines, on the back
of it, and these turned into our script make up a not
insignificant volume.
The text has been handed down to us almost
uninjured, except that five columns on the obverse
have been completely chiselled away. This re-
markable erasure is probably to be attributed to an
Elamite king named Shutruk-Nachunte,* who carried
off divers trophies from Babylon to his own capital,
and there furnished them with an inscription or post-
script referring to himself Our stela would be treated
in the same way, and to that end part of the surface
* [Shutruk-Nachunte was King of Elam about B.C. iioo.
In tome iv. (which contains the text, etc., of the Hammurabi
stela), and in other volumes of the Mimoires de la Delegation en
Ferse, the literary part of some of the trophies here referred to is
published.— Trans. ]
24
The Inscription on the Column 25
of it was made smooth, that it might afterwards be
inscribed. How it was that a new inscription was
not cut upon it we have now no means of discovering.
The text gives us first of all a long introduction,
in which Hammurabi enumerates his deeds of war
and peace. The picture here given is far more
comprehensive than that brought before us in his
earlier documents, and shows us an hitherto undreamt-
of extension of his kingdom of Babylon, which
reached from the boundaries of Elam northwards to
beyond Assyria and Nineveh. The emphasis laid
upon his care for his subjects strikes us as showing
a specially sympathetic feature in Hammurabi's
character. He calls himself a "shepherd" of his
people, and that more is meant by that than a mere
form of words is indicated to us by the fact that the
greater part of the inscription — some two hundred
and eighty-two paragraphs* — is a code of civil and
criminal law. In this legislative testament of Ham-
murabi to his successors, I see a work of his old age,
as may be deduced from the great number of his
deeds mentioned in the prologue. His epilogue
teaches us that he intended that this testament should
be of force for the future, the directions of which say,
among other things, *' The king who is in the land shall
observe the words of the law which I have written on
my stone monument, he shall regard the law of the
land which I have given, and shall not alter the
decisions which I have enacted." Without doubt, his
intention has been accomplished ; his law remained
the standard law for the Babylonian and afterwards
♦ [This estimate includes the parts of the Code erased from
the monument, which amounted, according to Prof. Scheil's
reckoning, to thirty-five paragraphs. But see the note, p. 132.
—Trans.]
26 The Law of Hammurabi
for the Assyrian kingdom ; for not only is his motto-
hke, fundamental idea that the strong should not
injure the weak repeated by later rulers, as, e.g. by
Sargon and by Assurbanipal of Assyria, but there have
also been found, both in the library of the Assyrian
king Assurbanipal and in the ruins of Babylon,
fragments of laws * which are now seen to be part of
Hammurabi's legislation.
The value of Hammurabi's Code for us is, firstly,
that it helps to fill up a great gap in our know-
ledge of the ancient East, namely, the lack of a
prescribed standard of law for the great states of
Nearer Asia, and, further, that it represents to us by
far the oldest writtefi document in the development
of human legislation ; one which anticipates the
Law of Moses by 600 years, that of Manu by 1000
years, and that of Gortyna [in Crete] by 1600 years,
and thus merits the right of being taken into con-
sideration in all questions relating to the development
of human law. Nevertheless, we must at the outset
firmly confront the exaggerated expectations with
which, perhaps, many greet the Code of Hammurabi.
The beginnings of civilization in Babylonia are lost
in the most hoary antiquity. Non-Semitic in origin,
it was adopted and developed — perhaps about B.C.
4000 — by Semitic immigrants. The age of Ham-
murabi could already enjoy the ripe fruits of this
doubly rooted culture, and the Code of Ham-
murabi is certainly in part a very late collection of
legal decisions which had been arrived at long
before.t Although, therefore, its relative age may at
* [See my discussion of these, pp. 102, 103 below. — Trans.]
t In the volume of his Mhnoires which contains Ilam-
piurabi's laws, Prof. V. Scheil has published an inscription of
The Inscription on the Column 27
first impress us, yet its absolute antiquity is by no
means guaranteed. Highly developed culture is
always a forcing-house for ideas ; by it that which in
primitive circumstances had remained a long time in the
germ is often brought to ripeness, or even over-ripeness,
with giant strides. The Babylonian development of
language shows similar features to the Babylonian
development of language which, in more than one
point, had already, in the third millenium before
Christ, more thoroughly used up and worn away its
sounds than many other Semitic dialects which only
came to literary blossom thousands of years later, as,
for instance, the North Arabic, Ethiopic, and even
the Amharic of our own times. Such legal institutions
as maintain the Old Semitic standpoint to this day in
the Arabian desert, a few miles south of Babylon, in
Babylon itself four thousand years earlier had been
drawn into the stream of culture, had lost their prirai-
tiveness, and received as compensation a practically
modified form which accommodated itself to many
new conditions. Thus we can immediately, from the
progress of Babylonian culture, without further proof,
draw the conclusion that Hammurabi's Code neither
represents to us primitive Semitic legislation nor
greatly enlarges our knowledge of the pre-historic
times of law.
the priest-king of Susa, Karibu-sha-Shushinak, which, to judge
from the writing, is at least as old as that Code. This ruler
also, like Hammurabi, asserts of himself that he "exercised just
judgment in his city ; " and he invokes the curse of all the gods
upon every one *' who causes any one to transgress his law."
CHAPTER III
THE CODE AND ITS SCOPE
Summary of the contents of the Code — These show that it was
not a system of law, but a collection of laws — The four
social classes of ancient Babylonia — Kinship and family
the most important unit — The economic circumstances of
Babylonia at the time of the Code — Hammurabi claims
both the laws and the promulgation of them as his own, and
not his gods'.
We turn now to the contents of the Code before us.
A short enumeration of the legal matters dealt with
may give us an idea of its comprehensiveness ; they
are partly criminal, partly civil cases, and are decided
in the following order : The criminality of ban and
witchcraft when employed to the injury of another
(§§ I, 2) ; the law as to the calumniation of legal
witnesses (§§ 3, 4) ; as to the perfidious sentences of
judges (§ 5) ; appropriation of the property of others
(§§ 6-14) ; escape and kidnapping of slaves (§ 15-20) ;
robbery (§§ 21-25); feudal relations to the king
(§§ 26-41) ; relations between owner of land and
cultivator (§§ 42-52) ; responsibility with reference to
the bursting of dams and inundations (§§ 53-56) ;
shepherds and pasturing (§§ 57, 58) ; owners and
cultivators of gardens (§§ 59-65). Here follows the
blank space in which there is room for about thirty-
five paragraphs, some of which certainly treated of
28
The Code and its Scope 29
the hiring of houses. [The inscription is now con-
tinued on the obverse of the s^ela.] It treats of
relations between business men, apparently merchant
and retailer or middleman (§§ 100-107) ; of inn-
keeping (§§ 1 08-1 1 1) ; appropriation of consignments
(§ 112); prosecution for debt (§§ 113-119); deposit
of corn and objects of value (§§ 120-126); insulting
a woman either dedicated to a god or a lawful wife
(§ 127); marriage laws, particularly matrimonial
property law as well as conditions of re-marriage
(§§ 128-167); repudiation of children (§§ 168, 169);
position of children by different wives, and of widows,
with respect to inheritance (§§ 170-174); marriage
between free persons and bond-slaves (§§ 175, 176) ;
provisions as to the re-marriage of a widow having
young children (§ 177) ; position of a female
descendant (especially of a non-marriageable temple
virgin, of temple and street girls) with respect to the
paternal estate (§§ 178-184); foster-children and
adoption (§§ 185-193) ; obligations of wet-nurses
(§ 194); legal consequences of causing bodily in-
juries (§§ 195-214); fees of the higher order of
doctors and penalties to which they were liable
(§§ 215-223); the same, with regard to doctors of
an inferior order (§§ 224-227) ; charges payable to
house-builders, and penalties to which they were
liable (§§ 228-233) ; ditto with regard to ship-
builders (§§ 234, 235); of owners, hirers, and the
manning of ships (§§ 236-239) ; of collisions between
ships (§ 240) ; the requisition and hiring of domestic
animals (§§ 241-249) ; of bodily injury by goring
oxen (§§ 250-252) ; hiring transactions in field labour
(§§ 253-258); recompense for implements of hus-
bandry stolen (§§ 259, 260) ; rights and duties of
herdmen (§§ 261-267); hire of beasts for threshing
30 The Law of Hammurabi
(§§ 268-270); hire of ox-waggons (§§ 271, 272);
labour tariff for labourers and artisans (§§ 273, 274) ;
tariff for hire of ships (§§ 275-277); of the slave-trade
(§§ 278-281) ; punishment of rebellious slaves (§ 282).
In this multitude of cases we miss the leading
thread, so that the whole presents itself to the mind
more as a collection of laws than as a system of law.
In order to penetrate into the spirit of the Code it
appears necessary to form an idea of the social and
economic modes of Hfe which lay at the basis of it
and conditioned its environment.
The social organization of Babylon is shown by the (
Code to consist of four classes : (i) the king, with ']
the court and priests; (2) the emancipated; (3)
ordinary freemen ; (4) slaves.
(i) We seek fruitlessly in Hammurabi's legislation
for laws governing the first of these classes, chiefly
because the king, as source of the law, stands high
above it ; in relation to him, every one else is nothing
more than a slave (§ 129). It is true Hammurabi
glorifies himself as a good king, at once the shepherd
and father of his people, in that " he speaks the law
of the land," " makes known the decree of the land,"
" procures the well-being of the country, and suffers
not the causer of disquiet ; " but he is yet more. As
" divine king of the city " {ilu shar alt), he joins him-
self to the gods of the land, and with them receives
the adoration of his subjects. The hymn to Hammurabi
mentioned above (p. 20) thus corresponds to what
he here says of himself. About the king, as universal
prince, the court {ekaP) arranges itself; while, as a
spiritual power, he stands in close connection with the
priestly class. Of the legal relations of both these
groups, the Code before us makes no mention, so that
it is presumed that in the Babylonian culture there
The Code and its Scope 31
was, together with this citizens' law-book, a further
one for the nobiHty and priesthood. Our Code
contains legal decisions only for certain groups con-
nected with the court and priesthood and those not
connected by birth, such as court paramours or
courtesans (§ 187), court slaves (§ 175), also women
devoted to the gods (§ 182), as well as those not in a
convent (§ no), temple virgins and temple prosti-
tutes (§181).
(2) The Marbanu are those whom we may desig-
nate the second class ; these Professor Scheil sup-
poses to be the nobility, Dr. H. Winckler and others,
with more probability, the freed men of the court (and
in its service). They appear to have stood in close
relation to the court (§ 8), which might be due to
the king having become, on their emancipation, their
protector. If when they suffered bodily injury the
offender had to pay them money compensation
instead of receiving retaliatory punishment, this need
not be taken as evidence that their position was
inferior to that of the free classes, for at the root of
this exceptional law may be the idea that the treasury
of the king should draw profit from the private affairs
of his proteges,
(3) Without special privileges and strictly restrained
by legal obligations was the great class of ordinary
freemen or citizens {a^nelu^ fem. ameltu). The Code
brings them before us a comparatively compact mass ;
nevertheless, there are evidences that it was composed,
in more ancient days, of several smaller organizations,
as, ^.^., the union of townsmen {alu)^ with the high
official {Rabiamt) * at its head — this was probably of )
* The correspondence of Hammurabi and Sin-iddinam
mentions Rabianus of the several cities. This office appears
to have become obsolete not long after their time.
32 The Law of Hammurabi
Old Semitic origin ; there was also the union of
those who dwelt in the same district {pihatu^ § 256).
Among the hand-workers {vidr 2Wimia) — except per-
haps artists, who, however, under Oriental conditions
ranked with the artisans — there were guilds.
The most important of all social combinations
appears, in Hammurabi, to have been that of kinship
and family. It is not, it is true, very evident how far
blood relationship or marriage affinity extended, and
as a consequence — so it seems to us — of life in large
towns, the value of a far-ramified relationship is not
more prominently brought forward ; but so much the
more conspicuous does Hammurabi's smaller unit of
the family stand out before us. In this the father
plays the ruling part, the mother a more subordinate
part, but not one of subjection. Every man who
married made a house for himself; every girl who was
married lost that of her father, and could only win it
again in exceptional cases. Marriage took place by
agreement between the husband and the father-in-
law. Matrimony in Babylonia, it is manifest, had
grown out of a form of wife-purcliase, for the father-
in-law set over against a marriage portion {tirhatu)
paid to him the dowry (sheriqtu) of his daughter;
perhaps even he gave to her the marriage portion at
her marriage (§ 138). Settlements, presumably in
the form of first-morning gifts {niidunmi) of the newly
married husband to his bride, are by no means rare.
Babylonian marriage was essentially monogamic in
character, because a man could be the husband of
only one wife {ashshatit^ also Jurtu or 7'ahitu). If,
however, his wife bore him no offspring, he might
along with her have a secondary wife {shitgetu) ; but
besides the s/nigctu who bore the children, no second
was allowed him (§ 144). The subordinate wife never
The Code and its Scope 33
attained the position and full rights of an ashshatu
(§§ 145-147); on the other hand, her children were
always legitimate. If a married man begat children
by a female slave (amtu)y these might be made legiti-
mate ; on the other hand, legitimate children who com-
mitted wrong against their parents were disinherited.
The man's honour was the palladium of the family.
If he brought dishonour on himself, e.g. if he fled the
country (§ 136), or if he led a dissolute life (§ 142),
the wife had a right to a separation. If the honour of
a man was assailed by the suspected conduct of the
wife, she had to purge herself by the judgment of God
(ordeal by water [§ 132] ). Further, incest deprived
the guilty party of honour, and drew upon him,
in some cases, exclusion from the family ; in others,
the forfeiture of goods or life [§§ 154-158].
Lastly, it would appear that all cases of dissolution of
marriage by the husband were judged from the point
of view of injury to his honour, as, e.g., was that
specially frequent cause of separation, childlessness
(§ 138).
(4) Those not free, or slaves {ardu, fern. aintu\
form the lowest class. It was of diverse origin. The
idea of {w)ardu^ i.e. " to be reduced," seems to show
that many became slaves in consequence of being
outlawed or oppressed freemen ; the idea of a7ntu^
which in Semitic elsewhere signifies concubine, shows
plainly that the growth of the class of women slaves
came about in a different way from that of men.
With Hammurabi slaves of the State are distinct from
slaves of the emancipated and those of free persons ;
both the first-named classes must have been more held
in esteem than the third class, for their marriage
with free women appears to have been not uncommon
(§§ 17s, 176).
34 The Law of Hammurabi
The laws of Hammurabi inform us of the economical
conditions of his country in a comprehensive manner,
so that many separate features, which have previously
become known from contracts of his own and of a
later time, now appear in a fuller and more complete
form. The prosperity of Babylonia depended, in a
large measure, upon the very thorough cultivation of
the soil, and this was only possible as long as the
canal system — which dated from primitive times —
was regularly kept in order. Hence the great signifi-
cance of the penalties prescribed by Hammurabi
(§§ 5S~S^) ^or neglect of the dams. But though the
land was so thoroughly cultivated that little mention
is made of waste lands, yet very different persons had
a share in the different properties. The king himself
owned a large part of the land ; another part was the
property of the freemen. Nothing is said in the Code
— perhaps the omission is accidental — of the landed
property of the temples. The ground belonging to
the king was partly assigned on feudal tenure {i/ku) to
officials, for example soldiers (redii), for emolument, and
partly farmed out for a fixed rent (biltu). Other lands
belonged to the freemen of the city or of the plain.
There are numerous indications, however, that the
land was greatly in the power of the cities, so that
frequently the owners were not the cultivators. The
property was farmed out to others, either for a fixed
rent (§ 45) or for a certain part of the produce (§ 46),
and the first tenant not infrequently handed over the
field to a sub-tenant. The working expenses, which
were connected in a special way with the widely rami-
fying system of sub-letting, were often met by loans,
evidently from money-lenders in the towns. Though
under these conditions a peasant class was able to
maintain itself, there had for a long time been no
The Code and its Scope 35
room for an independent shepherd class, and such
cattle as were kept belonged chiefly either to the king
or to town people engaged in the enterprise, who
hired out their animals or gave them over to keepers
to pasture.
Though the wealth of the land was raised by the
very thorough cultivation of the soil — by means of
plough, water-wheel, and well-bucket — yet it found
its way, for the most part, into the great towns.
There were the great merchants {damgar), who had
about them a multitude of middlemen or agents to
whom they lent money or handed over merchandise
for sale. The towns were the centre of a well-
developed money business, whereby silver {kaspu)
furnished the standard of value. Money, especially
as capital bearing interest, played a most important
part in business Ufe. At the same time, payment
could be made in produce, the relation of which to
money was "according to the king's tariff" (§ 51);
in exceptional cases, for example in the settlement of
a debt, objects of value had to be accepted in pay-
ment. The genius of town hfe is shown also by
many other tokens. Thus, there were houses which
were let for a yearly rent in money; but as the
agreements were liable to be cancelled at any time,
the hirer of a house cannot have been held in much
esteem. Great storehouses existed (§ 120) wherein,
for definite payment in corn, cereals were received
for storage. Public-houses, which were carried on
by women, show another side of town life; at the
same time, as is supposed, they were used as lupanaria
(§ no). The workmen's unions already mentioned*
had certain grades : house and ship builders stood
higher than the ordinary craftsman, such as mason,
* P. 32, above.
36 The Law of Hammurabi
potter, carpenter, tailor, veterinary-surgeon, and hence
received their payment in the form of a fee {qishtUy
§§ 228, 234), not in that of wages {[idii] §§ 224, 274).
But town civiUzation shows itself especially in the
all-pervading custom or even obligation of putting
into writing all business of public and private life.
The drawing up of a written document (duppu^
kmmkktL) played a definite part as well in courts of
justice and judicial sentences as in money matters
and commercial dealings, in wills, dowries, and similar
transactions.
As we reflect on these separate features in their
entirety, we recognize Babylonian society as an
organism wherein the greatest activity and continual
movement were conditions of its being. The pursuit
of gain, a struggle for existence, such as is interwoven
with the economics of modern civilization, constituted
even then the chief factor in the life of most of the
ancient Babylonians. We wonderingly ask ourselves
whether that which floats before the eyes of many per-
sons as their conception of Oriental life, namely, com-
fortable enjoyment or contemplative repose attained
by fortunate circumstances — whether these were lack-
ing to the contemporaries of Hammurabi. Along
with material aims, were there not intellectual objects
also which appeared worth seeking ? The answer to
such questions is not to be got from Hammurabi's
laws. The people whose circumstances his Code was
intended to regulate was only the great mass who
saw in bodily labour or in business their appointed
lot. As they had no participation in the laws made
for the higher classes — the court, nobility, and priest-
hood— neither had they any share in the self-chosen,
intellectual pursuits which seem natural among persons
who, in the quietness of the temple and in the
The Code and its Scope 37
shadow of the throne, are removed from the strain
of daily toil. To obtain an insight into the two-
fold nature of Babylonian life— the material and the
intellectual — we must consult other sources than
Hammurabi's laws.
After the above survey of the practical side of
Hammurabi's legislation, an understanding of his
object in giving the laws depends chiefly on a con-
sideration of their general drift.
Hammurabi sets the conception of the law on a
purely human basis. It is true he allows it to appear
that abstract justice {kendtu) rests with the gods,
specially with Shamash, "the great judge of heaven
and earth;'* but after Shamash has handed over to
him as a gift the knowledge of that justice (Reverse,
Col. XXV. 97, f.), he feels himself to be joint-proprietor
of it, as " king of law," and considers the decisions
it pleased him to give as his own "precious, noble
words" (Reverse, Cols. xxiv. 79 and xxv. 12-14, 99)>
as his private title to renown. The occasion of the
proclaiming of the law, in like manner, was referred
back to no supernatural impulse; it was the grace
and solicitude of the king which had called the law
into being, and as his " beneficent decree " {t'idu
damgu) was it delivered to his subjects.
CHAPTER IV
THE CHARACTER OF THE BABYLONIAN CODE
The tendency of Hammurabi's legislation — Its two fundamental
ideas were (i) the preservation of the class of common free-
men ; (2) the protection of property — It attached a high
value to property, but a low value to human life ; in this,
as well as in the administration of the law, it was very
different from the Old Semitic — The Code does not recognize
any religious motive or sanction, nor that thereafter it might
be improved.
As to the tendency of his laws, Hammurabi himself
writes under them [Col. xl. lines 59, ff.] that they
were given " that the strong hurt not the weak, that
orphans and widows be safe." But even if the Code
contains nothing which contradicts the declaration of
the king that he was the guardian of such as were
worst placed economically and socially, yet, taken as
a whole, it in no way appears as a manifesto for the
safeguarding of the humane interests. It is written
not with the heart, but with the head. From many
intimations it seems to follow that the lawgiver had
in view, before all things, two distinct, fundamental
ideas, namely, care for the preservation of the class of
common f?'ee citizcfts^ and the protection ofprope?'ty.
In the Hammurabi period, capital and business
undertakings were being developed on an increasingly
large scale. In order to enrich a few many had to
3S
Character of the Babylonian Code 39
work their utmost, and, through the pernicious con-
sequences of this system, they were in danger of being
reduced by impoverishment to slavery. In order to
prevent this, Hammurabi's law in such a way ordered
the circumstances of every free man who worked, that
it lay in his power either to acquire property or to
retain it. Hence is to be explained the statutory
rates of hiring and wages, perhaps also the com-
paratively rare occurrence of fines, and the taking
account oi force majeure in certain circumstances of
debt. In order to give to the free-born woman a
household position, in order to strengthen pecuniarily
the family which she helped to found, a definite settle-
ment was made to her on marriage. So as to make a
numerous progeny of the free class, any child of the
union of a free man with a female slave, or of a male
slave of the court with a free woman, was reckoned to
the free class, and adoption was made easy. The free
person who had the misfortune to be obliged to give up
himself or a member of his family to slavery, Ham-
murabi allowed to become free after the expiration of
a few years. And for every woman who did not
become married, in order to secure her a livelihood he
provided for her employment; it might be in the
service of a temple, or the business of a tavern or
public woman — whose r^le was at that time looked
upon as much less disreputable than it is now.
But with the principle of supporting the free class
another is intermingled, that of making personal
property secure. No goods hired out or deposited
in the way prescribed by law could be forfeited ; all
dues must be punctually paid, except when force
majetire interfered ; stolen property found in the
possession of another person was in all cases restored
to its rightful owner (§ 9). Care was taken that
40 The Law of Hammurabi
marriage portions and patrimonies should not come
into unauthorized hands; hence, for example, the
private property of a wife was not allowed to be partly
merged with the property of her husband until she
had borne children ; so, too, a married person was
not security for such debts of his or her partner as
were contracted before marriage ; and hence children,
unless fully entitled, were excluded from the inherit-
ance (§ 171).
The high value set upon all property gives the chief
explanation of the extraordinary harshness with which
theft and robbery were punished. In the Old Semitic
law the greatest penalty assignable, that of death, for
theft applied only to sacred or devoted property
(Josh, vii.), but with Hammurabi it was the most
common penalty for every form of theft or robbery
[see §§ 6-10, also 21, 22, and 25] ; * and the receiver
was dealt with in the same way as the thief. If the
thing was stolen from court, temple, or emancipated
person of the court, then, as it would appear, the
punishment of death could be commuted by an ex-
tremely large money fine (§ 8).
In striking contrast with the high value placed upon
property is the small value placed upon the life of
the individual. In the Code, grievous penalties are
the order of the day. Its severity, it is true, scarcely
went beyond that of a modern court-martial in such
a case as where it prescribed the death penalty to
a captain {redti) or constable (? bdiru) who did
not personally obey a summons of the king and
* §§ 259 and 260 [which, as they occur in the midst of
sections devoted not to theft, but to hiring] probably do not lay
down that he who stole a water-wheel or a well-bucket should
make amends for it by a money penalty, but that the hirer of
these objects must, if they were stolen, pay a money indemnity
to the owner.
Character of the Babylonian Code 41
sent a substitute; but the Code allowed the same
harshness to rule in civil law. That a thief was
killed, that is, beheaded, has already been said ; the
same punishment befel the false accuser [in a case of
lost property] (§ ii) ; and the accomplice or harbourer
of an escaped slave (§§ 15, 16) ; the disorderly wife
and the fraudulent female innkeeper were drowned
(§§ 143, 108) ; the nun devoted to a god who entered
a tavern was burned (§ no) ; so also any one who in
an outbreak of fire appropriated another's property
(§ 25) ; any one malevolently causing a slave intended
for sale to be branded was killed and buried (§ 227).
The death penalty fell upon the unfaithful adminis-
trator of property if he could not make good the
injury.
The small value placed upon human life in Ham-
murabi's Code is shown also by the range given to
the idea of retaliation. The Old Semitic demand for
the requital of the destruction of eye, tooth, or bone
by the destruction of the same bodily member in the
perpetrator, Hammurabi's law carried to a logical
extreme so as, in a measure, to caricature it when,
for example, he decreed that " If any one strike a free
woman so that she has a miscarriage and dies, then
his daughter shall be put to death" (§§ 209, 210);
** If a prisoner (for debt) die from blows or ill-treat-
ment, then the master of the prisoner shall bring the
man of business [who caused the arrest] before the
tribunal and, if the deceased was free born, they shall
put to death the son of the man of business " (§ 116) ;
•* If a builder has built a house, but has not made it
strong, and it consequently falls and causes the death
of the owner, then the Imilder shall be put to death
(§ 229) ; but if it cause the death of the owner's son,
then the soti of the builder shall be put to death "
42 The Law of Hammurabi
(§ 230). Even the doctor may experience the opera-
tion of this enlarged talio idea, inasmuch as, according
to Hammurabi's law, if an operation on the limbs or
the eye of a freeman had failed, the doctor's fingers
were to be cut off (§ 218).
It would little agree with the spirit of strict con-
sistency and comprehensive uniformity, by which Ham-
murabi's laws are distinguished, if the Old Semitic
administration of justice by the people, with its
irregular and often unreliable execution, had retained
any importance in his judicial system. But there are
special reasons for concluding that Hammurabi, or
a preceding epoch, had wrested from the people every
title to their own administration of the law. It is
true that we are nowhere told in plain words that the
execution of justice rested with the king's officers,
just as little as the contrary; nevertheless, the form of
many of the penalties leads us to infer that the carry-
ing out of them could not have been assigned to an
administration of the law by the people. Penalties
like impalement, burning, drowning, cutting out the
tongue, plucking out the eyes, cutting off the breasts,
and public scourging, presuppose trained executioners,
such as are only to be found in the service of a
centralized jurisdiction. Penalties which were not
carried out officially appear to have been allowed
only in certain offences of slaves (§ 282, perhaps
also § 205).
We might go even further and affirm that the whole
legal procedure took place in the king's name ; once
(§ 18) the palace is named as the place of judicial
investigation, and an affair of such a family nature
as the offence of a son Hammurabi likewise (§§ 168,
169) sent before the judges. Then we have to
regard the examining magistrate, as well as the person
Character of the Babylonian Code 43
entrusted with pronouncing sentence, as royal officials,
subordinate again to a higher court, probably of the
king himself (§ 5). Traces of popular jurisdiction
are indicated in the Code only by the presence of
(apparently) civilian assessors {shibti) in lawsuits.
Where the secular (? royal) apparatus of justice
did not suffice to clear up doubtful cases, Hammu-
rabi's Code referred them to the gods, to be settled by
the judgment of God and oath. The judgment of
God points merely to a form of ordeal by water, which
is signified by the expression, not very clearly
descriptive of its nature, "to plunge in the River-
God" (or "Divine river," §§ 2 and 132); its object
was to give to a person suspected of exercising sorcery
to the common hurt, and to a slandered married
woman, the means of clearing themselves. Much
more usual appears to have been the oath which, to
conclude from the different expressions, was spoken
in divers forms ; as, ** to say before " (perhaps, *' before
a ") " god " (§§ 9 and 281) ; " to lay a claim before the
god" (§§ 23, 120, 126^; "to bring before the god,"
on the part of the accuser (§§ 106, 107); "purging
before the god" (§ 266) and "to utter prayer before
the god " by the accused (§§ 20 and 131) j and, lastly,
the simple "swearing" (§§ 206, 207).
It appears to follow that Hammurabi made over to
the Divine Power the last decisive sentence in doubt-
ful or obscure cases because, as we said above, it is
the Upholder of the idea of law ; but with that ends
the taking of the gods into consideration in the Code
established by Hammurabi. Another closely related
consequence Hammurabi purposely avoided, namely,
to regard the gods as regarding faithfulness to the law
and causing punishment to fall upon transgressors of
it. As he regarded the law as his, that is, as a human
44 The Law of Hammurabi
work, so he looked upon the infringement of it only as
an insult to the king, and the execution of punishment
as the king's vindication.
To Hammurabi there was no such thing as a con-
tinuous development of the law. He alludes neither to
stages preceding his legislation, which in any case
must be presupposed, nor did he expect it to be
improved upon or supplemented in the future. That
which he had traced out seemed to him perfect
enough to remain " afterwards and for ever " in force.
At all events, it was not in the name of eternal law,
but in that of his own majesty, that he besought the
richest blessings of the gods on such of his successors
as adhered closely to his decisions, and upon the
princes who should deny or change them he invoked
every curse.
CHAPTER V
THE COURSE OF HAMMURABIAN LAW, AND THE SOURCES
AND COURSE OF LEGISLATION AMONG THE HEBREWS
Widespread and lasting influence of Hammurabi's legislation, —
but it was not universal — It affected the Patriarchs, but not
the nation of Israel, which had its own specific law, whose
ultimate roots were Old Semitic.
The Old Arabian temple worship — The Mosaic legislation.
Like every great intellectual achievement, Ham-
murabi's legislation penetrated a wide area ; in spite
of frequent changes of the royal dynasty, it established
itself in Babylonia and Assyria as the fixed standard
of law, and it drew Babylonian culture in its train.
As that culture moved chiefly from east to west, so,
we may venture to suppose, the people of Mesopo-
tamia, Semitic as well as non-Semitic, had a common
share in the law, and that they all indeed would be
affected by the literary life of Babylon. As the
Mediterranean coast may be regarded as the extreme
boundary of the influence of Hammurabi's Code,
Canaan should have been within its sphere.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to allow no
exceptions to this rule as to the influence assigned
to Babylon ; one at least may already be proved, that
is the Mosiac law.
The beginning of Israelite history, the time of th«
45
4 6 The Law of Hammurabi
Patriarchs, falls within the epoch of Babylon's greatest
intellectual influence on the West. Hammurabi's con-
temporary, Abraham, was of Babylonian origin ; his
successors, Isaac and Jacob, who felt themselves to
be strangers in Canaan, and therefore obtained for
themselves wives from the east of the Euphrates,
would certainly not have been unaffected by Ham-
murabi's laws. Different marked features of their
history offer themselves as examples of this. For
instance, when Sarah bore no children to Abraham,
she herself gave to him her bondmaid Hagar as
secondary wife; this is an illustration of §§ 144 and
146 of Hammurabi's Code; and the child of this
slave was looked upon as legitimate, corresponding
to the provision in § 146. Sarah remained along
with Hagar, but as the chief wife, and when Hagar
would exalt her position above that of Sarah she for-
feited her consort right — a case for which Hammurabi
prescribed sending back into slavery (§ 146). Sarah
endeavoured to drive away Hagar, together with her
son, ** that the son of the bondmaid should not inherit
with her son ; " this Abraham. looked upon as specially
unjust, but only with respect to the son. Hammurabi
also (§ 146) did not allow the child to suffer for the
mother's presumption. In Isaac's married life, again,
the influence of Hammurabi's law similarly appears.
Rachel gave her maid Bilah, Leah her maid Zilpah,
to Jacob to wife, in order to beget legitimate children
by them. Further, Leah and Rachel felt bitterly that
their father had employed for himself the marriage
settlement which had been paid for them ; * as if they
* [Gen, xxxi. 15 : " He (their father) hath sold us and hath
"' the marginal rendering of the
ersion, is '* the price paid for
also quite devoured our money ; " the marginal rendering of the
last two words, in the Revised V^
us."— Trans.]
Course of Hammurabian Legislation 47
had Hammurabi's law in mind, according to which
(§ 138), presumably, the marriage settlement would
be given by the father to the daughter along with the
dowry. Adoption of a son, which was a characteristic
Babylonian feature (§ 185), may have had its influence
upon Jacob when he adopted the two sons bom to
Joseph in Egypt. And the Babylonian custom of
putting every agreement into writing may perhaps
be placed as a parallel to the expression frequently
used in the Old Testament, '* to make " (literally, to
dig or cut) " a covenant " {karat bent)*
Thus there are not wanting important evidences
which lead us to ascribe a strong Babylonian colouring,
in customs and law, to the times of the Patriarchs.
But although the forerunners of the people of Israel
came under the jurisdiction of Babylon, yet Israel
itself, the stronger it became, the more it outgrew the
guardianship of its great neighbour. The period of
the sojourn in Egypt naturally caused every trace of
Babylonian influence to be lost, and when the nation
emerged from North Arabia to take possession of the
rich plains and cities of Canaan ; when too, in the
midst of internal and external conflicts, it obtained
political independence in the conquered districts, it
preserved its own distinctive characteristics in their
fulness and purity. The hankering after what was
foreign, above all, the desire to imitate Babylonian
ways, only entered into the heart of Israel when
David's success in war and his political skill caused
the idea of an absolute monarchy to recommend
itself to the enfeebled tribes, and when Solomon
* [To appreciate the literal force of this remark, it should be
remembered that a contract or binding agreement was written, in
ancient Babylonia, on a clay tablet which, in its moist state, hail
the inscription "cut" or scratched into it by a stylus. — Trans.]
48 The Law of Hammurabi
endeavoured, in a despotic spirit and without any
regard to old popular rights, to develop the inheritance
he had received from his father. When, moreover,
David no longer felt himself to be merely leader of
the army of Israel, but supreme commander; when
he took into his hand the sovereign right of declaring
the law, and, after the taking of Jerusalem, made
claim to priestly dignity for himself and his sons ;
when Solomon appointed officers over the tribes of
Israel, endeavoured as much as possible to bring into
permanent connection with the court and army the
more submissive popular elements, but burdened the
less pliable with compulsory service ; when he sacri-
ficed the strength of the land to his love of building
and passion for splendour, — both these kings, must
certainly have had patterns before their eyes, and
among them Babylonia and Assyria would not occupy
the least important place.
Nevertheless, we ought not to overrate the extent
and significance of this affectation of foreign customs
which was at work within the Israelitish court.
Though the varnish of Babylonian modes was laid
thickly on all that might serve to represent royalty
outwardly, it did not penetrate deeply into the soul
of the people of Israel. Their deeper thoughts and
feelings already found expression, before the time of
the kings, in forms which were original to themselves
and fundamentally opposed to intermixture with
foreign innovations; above all, there floated before
them an idea of law to which no Babylonian law para-
graph could have offered any comparison. To trace
this Israelitish law to its origin is, indeed, the most
difficult but also the most important problem of the
Old Testament.
Its ultimate roots extend, in any case, into the Old
Course of Hammurabian Legislation 49
Semitic customary law with which the Israelites,
before they entered Canaan, had become so deeply
imbued that the effects of it never entirely departed
from them, either in consequence of nearness to
Canaanitish (query, Babylonian) law, which flourished
in the Palestinian towns, or by their own later internal
developments.
With the consideration of Old Semitic law we enter
a region which, it is true, has been Httle studied and
explored, yet which is by no means to be regarded as
merely one of abstract idea and of presupposition of
Semitic legal notions which cannot be further de-
clared. That law could probably be recovered again,
in reasonable purity, by a comparison of the legal
customs made known to us partly by numerous con-
temporary wandering tribes of the Arabian peninsula,
as well as by certain half-nomadic tribes of the
Ethiopic community of peoples now living. Until
that investigation is exhaustively carried out, there
appears to me no single body of law which can raise
a claim to the title of Old Semitic peculiarity such as
can the law of the Abyssinian Bogos — a tribe found
westward of Massowah and not yet arrived at the
fully settled state. Their law Werner Munzinger, in
his excellent book, Ueber die Sitfen und das Recht
der Bogos, called " a document of the old law of the
Ethiopian people before the intrusion of the Amhara ; "
but to me, who see in Ethiopia the most original
comer of the Semitic world which shows, more than
Arabia, claim to the designation *' primitive home of
the Semites," that law appears to point immediately to
the Old Semitic.
Of numerous details of the Law of Israel, in which,
evidently. Old Semitic conceptions are still perceptible,
we shall come to speak later on. They appear,
D
50 The Law of Hammurabi
however, only as blocks inserted into a greater and
more noble building, and have thereby been preserved.
The creative mind which has perpetuated itself in this
building, and given to his people Israel an inheritance
which outlasted their hereditary possession of the
Land of Promise, was Moses : his work was the Torah
Law.
Now, have we the right to speak of a Mosaic
Law ? Those who are under the spell of the Graf-
Wellhausen investigations answer in the negative,
because they are convinced that the Biblical law is not
within the North Arabian sphere and does not fit into
the time of the wanderings of the tribes of Israel, but
that it breathes altogether the spirit of late Judaean
times — the period of the decline of the kingdom, of
the Exile, partially even of the after-Exilic period. But
against this view the stones have begun to testify, the
inscribed stones of ancient Arabia, which teach us
that in the time that Israel sojourned in North Arabia
that land is in no way to be considered as the domain
of nomade barbarism, but, particularly with reference
to religious worship, as the seat of an extraordinarily
refined culture. From Hadramaut to Yemen, and
further up to North-West Arabia, there were, accord-
ing to the inscriptions, temples which were the
centres of the ecclesiastical life of the state ; with
which was bound up a great apparatus of superior and
subordinate priests, of levites, bondmen, slaves, even
*' friends of the gods " and " sons of gods ; " along with
these were arrangements for sacrifices in which blood
was shed and sacrifices without blood, tithe tributes,
pious institutions, vows, and dedications, — in short, a
fulness of phenomena of religious worship resembling
the Mosaic law, and indeed, specially, the " Priestly
Code," that alleged piece of latest Biblical legislation*
Course of Hammurabian Legislation 51
Accordingly, nothing more stands in the way of allow-
ing the Biblical ceremonial laws to have originated
there, where the Bible itself refers them, in the Mosaic
period. But if we are justified in holding the cere-
monial laws to be ancient, how much more the
Biblical criminal and civil law decisions, which are
evidently contrary to the spirit of civilized Canaan !
Yet the Biblical ceremonial law is certainly not a
mere cast of Old Arabian temple laws; its strong
monotheistic colouring shows that, and places it in
sharp antithesis to them. We are consequently com-
pelled to postulate a lawgiver of Israel who may have
partially made use of the temple arrangements of
ancient Arabia, so as to utilize them as a foil for a
new and high Divine service. Therewith, however,
we come directly to the powerful figure of a Moses,
as he is depicted in the Bible, who, as son-in-law of
Jethro, the Midianite high priest, had had deep insight
into the Old Arabian temple religion ; who, also, as the
liberator of his people from the servitude of Egypt, as
victorious leader of the host, and as supreme judge, was
fitted, as none other before or after him, to make his
designs, his experiences, and the Divine revelations
which had been granted to him, into a law which should
be binding upon Israel. That for this he may have
made use of writing is, to conclude from the high
position of education in North Arabia, more than
probable.
With the Old Arabic inscriptions in the background,
we believe ourselves justified in speaking of a Mosaic
legislation.
But in saying this we do not assert that the Penta-
teuch, line for line, or every decision of the Law, is to
be directly credited to Moses. The form and style
of many sections indicate revision and subsequent
52 The Law of Hammurabi
recasting ; the Bible itself names Joshua and Samuel
as making additions to the Law of God (Josh. xxiv.
26; I Sam. X. 25). At all events, the Ten Command-
ments (even in their dupHcate form, Exod. xx. 1-17 ;
xxxiv. 17-26, which perhaps allows us to conclude
that there was a dualism — i.e. esoteric and exoteric
members — of the Israelite community) further the
so-called Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi.-xxiii.),
as also the great part of the Ceremonial and Moral
Law of Leviticus and Numbers, might be allowed
to breathe the Mosaic spirit; on the other hand,
behind the Deuteronomic law (Deut. xii.-xxvi.) there
stands out pretty clearly some one commenting on
Moses, probably Samuel* After Samuel the Mosaic
Law, in all its more important parts, was probably
closed, so that neither the sovereign greatness of
a David nor the proverbial wisdom of Solomon left
behind it any traces in the Law of Israel. More
persecuted than adhered to by the later kings of
Judah and Israel, and much forgotten by the people
who adapted themselves to Canaanitish laws and
customs, it survived, nevertheless, as a venerable
witness of the past, the little triumphs and growing
need of the Jewish nation, in order that, when all
national life tottered before the Assyrian and Baby-
lonian conquerors, it might become the firm pillar,
leaning on which, after the loss of princes and
freedom, the people gathered together spiritually and
became a community of the Law.
* Cf. the article of F. von Hummelauer, " Zum Deuterono-
mium," in Biblische Studien^ vi, i, 2 [Freiburg in Breisgau,
1901].
CHAPTER VI
DID Hammurabi's code influence the mosaic
LEGISLATION ?
Something more than priority needed for the legislation of one
people to affect that of another — The social circumstances
of Israel, as represented in the Mosaic Law, very different
from those reflected in Hammurabi's Code ; so were the
economic conditions — The spirit and tendency of each Code
also greatly differed — The Mosaic Law was completely in-
dependent of that of Babylon.
However old we allow the Mosaic legislation to be,
the legislation of Hammurabi preceded it by many
centuries. But as the Babylonian Law made itself
felt wheresoever Babylonian influence forced its way,
the important question is raised, whether and how
far the Mosaic Law, in its criminal and civil portions,
may have been founded upon that of Hammurabi ?
To answer this question is the chief object of the
following investigation.
First of all, I deny that the Code of Hammurabi,
because it is older and partly, it may be, more com-
plete than that of Moses, must have influenced it.
All influencing depends upon particular conditions.
As a mechanical impulse does not, by any means,
make an impression on every object which it meets,
as only substances of a certain kind conduct the
electric spark, so also the stream of culture can meet
53
54 The Law of Hammurabi
both bad and good conductors on its way. As a
rule, in intellectual matters only elements of a like
nature are able to influence each other. Moreover,
laws, as the peculiar formulae of the life of peoples,
can only be imported where related habits of life,
similar social divisions, andj like economic efforts
concur. The law of Babylon never conquered the
Beduin who ranged up to the gates of Babylon ; a
whole world of views and conditions of life separated
the two. Similarly must we regard the relationship
between Babylon and ancient Israel. It is sufficient
to pick out of the Mosaic Law the most important
of social and economic forms and compare them with
those found in Hammurabi's Code, in order to per-
ceive a series of contrasts which would not allow of
approximation through a common law. Hence, if we
consider the spirit which breathes in the legislation of
Israel and in that of Babylon, even those things which
here and there appear to be outwardly related are
seen to be separated by a deep chasm.
The class organization of Israel, as is taken for
granted by the Mosaic Law, discloses a certain but
not deeply seated dualism owing to the antithesis of
priests {koheii) and non-priests {zdr). While the
older law leaves it doubtful whether the priesthood
represents, throughout, an hereditary dignity, the
later shows a priesthood whose dignity was chiefly
based upon membership of a particular tribe. The
Hebrew priest, as distinguished from the layman, in
no way represented a legally privileged individual;
but his office brought the enjoyment of certain advan-
tages, as well as obligations to render certain services
which did not make his circumstances quite equal to
those of the non-priest.
The laity, who formed the great mass of the people.
Hammurabi^s Code and the Mosaic 55
were divisible into four chief classes : (i) genuine
members of the tribes {azrdch) ; (2) clients {^ger) ; (3)
settlers {ioshdb) ; (4) slaves [abdd).
(i) The characteristic of genuine tribal membership
consisted in lawfully belonging to a particular tribe
(shebdf) by reason of kinship and share in political
privileges. Every tribe exemplified self-government ;
theoretically, every member of a tribe was entitled to
co-operate in the political life, yet, as a rule, more
important decisions were come to through the elders
(zeqe7iim)^ men of experience and position. With them,
as also with the princes (nasi)^ who were the descend-
ants of one particular old family, rested the external
representation of the tribe. In the administration of
justice, various ranks of civil judges shared, while
in complicated cases the priests also gave judicial
decisions.
(2) The Clients consisted of those belonging to
foreign tribes or people who had acquired the legal
protection of a tribe and either continued " in its
midst " or transitorily sojourned " within its gates."
Their legal position developed itself by the advancing
centralization of the tribes so favourably that they
gradually succeeded to equal rights with the genuine
members of the tribe, and came to be regarded as one
people (dm) with them.
(3) The Settlers were likewise foreign to the tribe,
being probably subjected tribes who had surrendered
themselves ,to Israel by capitulation. The older law
knew them less in the character of people without
property than as those outside the law, the greater
part of whom, however, probably soon blended with
the tribes of Israel and made with them a homo-
geneous people.
(4) The Slaves represented the lowest social grade,
56 The Law of Hammurabi
and were in the first place distinguished as those
bought with money and those born in the house.
Along with these two classes, which comprised those
who were slaves for life, there were also Israelites who
had lost their property and had become temporarily
reckoned in the slave class ; if they were redeemed or
released they had the standing of freedmen {hophshtj^
but retained their former lord as patron.
In spite of the original connection which must once
have existed between the social classes of Babylonia
and Israel, it strikes one that the condition in which we
find them historically, at the time of Hammurabi and
of Moses respectively, shows some fundamental differ-
ence. Apart from the slave class, which remained
similar in both cases, there is scarcely any resem-
blance between the ranks of the two communities.
In Babylon society was divided into two opposite
groups, one made up of the king, court, and priesthood,
and the other of the governed, whose freedom, how-
ever, the king practically regarded as slavery. This
division did not exist in Israel. There the great mass
of the people, the class of the fully free, was in the
possession of all rights and means of self-government
and, accordingly, had sovereign rights ; what it yielded
up of its rights, for convenience, to its trusted men,
ever fell back again to it when it declared their
authority to be expired.
In Babylon the classes which made up the social
organization had become settled, though not defined
by law. In Israel there was, in the position of clients
and settlers, much which was still unsettled, so that
the problem of class organization was kept in a state
of constant uncertainty. In Babylon the idea of the
State embraced all classes in a firm common bond of
union, but in Israel it was felt more as a fetter,
Hammurabi^s Code and the Mosaic 57
restraining individuality, and found partisans only in
time of common trouble.
That which is of importance in the various divisions
of the social organization of Israel rests entirely on
the principle of kinship. Hence above all else is the
tribe, with its different subdivisions. Members of the
same tribe felt themselves to be as " brethren " and
*' neighbours " to one another ; as such they appear
for one another whenever the injured honour or
the lawful interests of one among them cried out for
help.
Marriage furnished the smallest unit in the tribe.
It was made by a form of wife-purchase on the part
of the man, who deposited a marriage settlement [or
gift] with the father-in-law. The wife remained the
property and companion of the husband so long as
he duly rendered to her sustenance, clothing, and
intercourse. If the man found his wife's honour
sullied he had the right to dismiss her on delivering
to her a deed of divorce ; if the divorced woman was
childless she could, without further ceremony, return
to her father's house. The barrier of monogamy did
not exist ; bigamy on the part of the husband was a
common event. If, on the one hand, marriage with
near blood relations was not allowed, on the other hand
a sort of duty fell to the brother-in-law of marrying his
sister-in-law if she became a widow and was childless.*
Of the children of marriage, the firstborn son might
claim special rights ; to him fell the larger inheritance,
the other brothers inherited after him ; daughters
succeeded to an inheritance only on the failure of
male heirs. However insignificant the regard paid
to a married woman externally, in the midst of her
♦ [For further discussion of this subject, see the translator's
chapter on leviratc marriage, pp. 124-128, belo\y. — Trans.]
58 The Law of Hammurabi
family, with reference to the children her authority
was equal to the father's.
Comparing these with the analogous circumstances
of Babylonia, we are most struck by the almost com-
plete extinction of the tribal idea in that country.
The heavy sacrifices which a tribe of Israel must
make, under certain circumstances, for those belong-
ing to it stands in contrast with the restricted
responsibility of a Babylonian district for persons
injured in their territory. With respect also to the
marriage tie, many things appear otherwise in Babylon,
and generally in favour of the wife. In Israel, while
the wife was looked upon by the husband as a
purchase, in Babylon this idea could not be held,
because the woman came into the marriage with a
dowry, and she could preserve and earn her own pos-
sessions in the same married union. Among the
Israelites there was no prescribed number of wives,
but in Babylon the monogamic priniciple ruled and
could only be broken through when the first marriage
was childless.* Again, the inequality in position of
the younger to the firstborn, of the girls to the boys,
which is to be noticed in the Israelite, as also in Old
Semitic law, the Babylonian Code appears to have
almost annulled, since it says nothing of the rights of
the firstborn, and every girl received a portion of her
father's substance, except perhaps of the landed
property.
The economic circumstances of Israel, as depicted
by the older parts of the Mosaic Law — which have
in view the life of Israel in Midian or on the east of
the Jordan — are those of nomads who had just
* But, to conclude fi-om the marriage of Elkanah (i Sam. i. i),
in Israel, also, the second wife was taken, generally, only when
the first wife was childless.
Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic 59
become settled and agricultural communities, com-
parable to the Arabian hadan or inhabitants of small
towns, near whose lands their kindred the Beduin,
still as nomads, pitch their tents. Among the
Israelites the chief value was put upon the posses-
sion of agricultural land, which it was the business
of the owner and his slaves to manage, although
also dependants and hired servants, who were pro-
bably impoverished fellow-tribesmen, were drawn into
the work. Farm management necessitated the keep-
ing of cattle ; hence the importance to the Israelites
of oxen, asses, and sheep. Household and agricul-
tural implements, also, were of value to them. Money,
that is silver, as a means of purchase and as redemp-
tion money, played a not unimportant rble^ but not
yet as working, interest-bearing capital ; for trading
both opportunity and desire were wanting. An artisan
class does not come into consideration, while of the
arts the healing art chiefly deserves mention, and it
was partly in the hands of the priests. In private
life religious worship played a manifold part ; they
regarded the day of rest, celebrated appointed feasts,
observed the year of release by performing various
acts of restitution ; paid tithes to the priest and
offered, at least in principle, the firstling to Jehovah,
and circumcision was the seal of religious homogeneity.
But in the Book of Deuteronomy we notice a
change of the proportions of this picture. Israel now
inhabits towns as well as open country; trade and
loan business is, to a small extent, added to agriculture,
but the gains of it are limited, as usury is taken only
from strangers.
Comparing with this the economic circumstances
of Babylon, we see that they resembled one another
50 far that the economic foundation of both peoples
6o The Law of Hammurabi
was agriculture. But in Babylon it was such to a
very great extent, while only to a small extent in
Israel ; in the former the produce of the land served
as merchandise, in the latter it was the means of
daily support. Babylonian agriculture was very much
regulated by monetary arrangements, because the culti-
vator must often first hire his land ; but the peasant
in Israel cultivated his own ground. The further
results of financing, such as great industries and
strictly organized manual labour, scarcely affected
Israel, which was, in this respect, in the completest
antithesis to Babylon; as only the smallest measure
of his products became turned into money, the Hebrew
thus lacked the possibility of competing in business
with his great neighbour. The more refined pleasures
of life, as they were cultivated in the town society
of Babylonia, stood in contrast to patriarchal con-
tentedness. That which elevated and beautified the
life of an Israelite above all else was his share in the
services connected with the worship of his God.
The foregoing brief survey of the forms and factors
of public life, which are represented in the law-books
of Hammurabi and Moses respectively, might suffice
to repel the idea of their influencing one another or
of Moses' making use of Hammurabi's Code; while
the more we consider the tendency, which is so clearly
manifest, in' the Law of Moses, the more plainly absurd
must such an idea become.
The Mosaic Code connects the idea of law, as
well as lawful living, directly with God. As Jahveh
promulgated it amid the thunder-peals of Sinai, in
like manner the Divine Voice continually sounded
throughout its further development. The God of
Israel is a great Moral Being, therefore His legal com-
rnandments must have a moral tone, sometimes louder,
Hammufabi^s Code and the Mosaic 61
sometimes gentler, but always clear enough to be
heard by attentive ears.
The moral idea is least noticeable in the first half of
the so-called Book of the Covenant {i.e. Exod. xxi.-xxii.
19). We might suppose that purely secular law was
here propounded, because even in the law against
idolatry the opportunity to make Ithe voice of Jahveh
heard is neglected. But in order to value the Book
of the Covenant aright we must have regard to its
place within the framework of the Law ; above all,
its dependence on the Ten Commandments pro-
claimed immediately before. After the Divine stand-
point of the lawgiver and the moral background of
all law had been firmly, clearly, and distinctly laid
down in these, then the customary form of the Old
Semitic legal style could be retained for separate
ordinances without appearing to be brought down to
the merely human standpoint. Only if internal con-
tradictions between the ethics of the Ten Command-
ments and the spirit of the Book of the Covenant
were demonstrable should we have the right to raise
the question of the formal connection of both parts of
the Law ; but I cannot concede that such contradictions
exist.*
* Friedrich Delitzsch, in his Babel und Bibel^ ii. p. 26, argues
otherwise. He exclaims : " Would any one venture to affirm
that the thrice holy God, who with His own fingers graved in the
Table of Stone, Ld tirzach^ * Thou shalt not kill,' may, in the
same breath, have sanctioned the blood -vengeance which burdens
as a curse the people of the East unto this day, while Ham-
murabi had almost abolished every trace of it ? " It entirely
escapes Prof. Delitzsch that not only Moses in the ancient East,
but also now in the penal law of our civilized states, a fundamental
difference is made between murder and the use of the sword
in legal punishment. The avenging of blood which Moses
sanctioned only allowed the means by which the penalty of
Old Semitic justice took effect, under appointed stipulations
62 The Law of Hammurabi
If it was a defect in the more ancient Book of the
Covenant that it did not illustrate all the Ten Com-
mandments, the further development of the Law
sufficiently made good that defect. This leaves the
connection of the Law, in every main point, with
Jahveh no longer uncertain, even if the oath " I am
Jahveh " did not conclude so many of the injunctions.
Thus, then, the purpose of God in giving the Law, with
reference to the workings of that Law in the spiritual
life of the community, is made clear by the precept,
" Be ye holy, for I am holy." Hence it comes that,
particularly in Deuteronomy, the aim of Jahveh' s
Law was to regulate the social circumstances of the
community from below upwards ; for [Deut. x. 17, 18]
" the Lord ... the great God, the mighty, and the
terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh
reward, doth execute the judgment of the fatherless
and widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him
food and raiment." This trait of love for the weak
softens the harsher judicial aspects of the older time.
The fixing of appointed penalties for the trans-
gression of the precepts of God is very often oo^itted.
The importance, indeed, of expiation is emphasized ; it
does not, however, appear in its Old Semitic form, as
a due to the injured person, but in the form of an
expiatory offering presented to God. From the
and formalities j but his command to do no murder branded the
outrage of him who regarded not the life of his neighbour.
Moreover, Delitzsch's view of blood-revenge as the curse of
the East isdiametrically opposed to the view of J. L. Burckhardt,
that most competent judge of Beduin life, who recognized in the
blood-vengeance of the Arabs a most salutary arrangement, which
more than any other circumstance may have contributed to hold
back the warlike Arab tribes from destroying one another.
(Cf. Burckhardt's Bemerkung iiber die Beduinen und Wahaby^
Weimar, 1831, pp. 119, f.)
Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic 63
complete freedom which many malefactors had in the
former time the Mosaic Law developed separation
from spiritual relationship with Jahveh and His
servants, as well as the ritual malediction. A required
duty was not seldom sweetened with a promise — the
opposite of the threat of punishment — to those who
acted conformably to the Law. Thus none of the Ten
Commandments carries with it a threat of punishment,
but the Fifth bears with it a promise. The latter
suffices to invalidate the opinion lately propounded *
that the Ten Commandments were only penal law
propositions, tacitly supplying the sanction of punish-
ment, which was that the offehders should be put out
of the way by the hand of the avenger. As such a
view does not agree with the high moral spirit of the-
Mosaic Law, neither, similarly, does the doctrine of
the Talmud that all prohibitions which are without
sanction of punishment, 365 in number, are to be
understood as saying that the transgressor is to be
corrected with forty stripes save one. But instead of
thus making, with the Talmud, the punishment for
every transgression of the Law equal, we ought, per-
haps, to affirm that the Mosaic Law, as laid down for
morals, no longer clearly distinguished between
greater and lesser duties. As a striking example of
this, we might adduce the case of the fulfilment of
the law of love to parents, which influences social
communities most deeply, for it closes with a promise
of reward, which promise, almost exactly, recurs
when the duty is spoken of of allowing the mother
bird, caught in the nest with her young, to fly away.f
But with perfect certainty we must ascribe to Moses
* By Gerhard Forster, Das mosaische Strafrecht, Leipzig,
1900, pp. 67, ff.
t [See Deut. v. 16, and xxii. 6. 7.— Trans.]
64 The Law of Hammurabi
the endeavour to have equally meted out the measure
and kind of duties required of each member of the
community : " One law shall be to him that is home-
born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among
you." With this equality corresponds the fact that
the Mosaic Law, in its Deuteronomic colouring, does
not bow, even before the authority of a king ; it rather
prescribes to the king that he shall have at hand, all his
life through, the Book of the Law of Jehovah, copied
from one in the charge of a priest. It leaves, it is
true, the organ of justice of the earlier time in power,
but, for the decision of more difficult questions, it
grants judicial authority to the priest. Lastly, it
assigns to every member of the community the duty,
depending on circumstances, of coming forward as
executor of penal judgments.
A comparison between Moses and Hammurabi,
which takes into consideration, above all, their main
outlines and tendencies, will never lead us to make
Moses in these things a pupil of Hammurabi. But we
can go further, and of all the details which are
peculiar to the later stages of development of the
Mosaic Law, affirm complete independence of Babylon,
without thereby arousing serious opposition ; for there
are perhaps no ancient laws more different from
one another than are those of Hammurabi and
Deuteronomy. " Comparison with the Law of Moses
obtrudes itself everywhere," says Dr. Winckler {Die
Gesetze Ham7nurabi^ p. 7), apparently with reference to
the first part of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi.-
xxii. 19). If, therefore, a comparison of this with
Hammurabi negatives Dr. Winckler's opinion, it can
no longer be supposed that Moses took over or
worked up Hammurabi's Code.
CHAPTER VII
DETAILED PROOFS THAT THE MOSAIC LAW WAS
INDEPENDENT OF HAMMURABl's CODE
The beginnings of the Mosaic Code in the first half of" The Book
of the Covenant" (Exod. xxi.-xxii. 19) — These compared,
clause by clause, with Hammurabi's legislation show com-
plete independence of it ; any identity is due to a common
Old Semitic base for each — More general proof that the
Mosaic legislation is independent of Hammurabi's is found
in the absence from it of Babylonian legal terms.
Conclusion.
A SIMILARITY in the formula of the law-books of
Babylon and Israel may be conceded, for, as a whole,
every paragraph of Hammurabi begins with the word
"if;" in like manner most of the enactments of the
Book of the Covenant begin with a conditional
particle. For this we should not make Hammurabi
responsible, but rather the spirit of penal law in
general ; no one would connect Moses with the
authors of the Roman Twelve Tables or of the Old
German collection of laws because those bodies of
legislation show similar phraseology. Thus it is not
the outward form, nor is it the similarity of certain
legal questions, but only the principle which governs
their solution, which can decide whether there is a
direct connection between them. How, from this
65 B
66 The Law of Hammurabi
point of view, Moses stands with reference to Ham-
murabi we will now see.
The first laws which are given in the Book of the
Covenant (Exod. xxi. 2-6) treat of purchased Hebrew
slaves, who, it is there laid down, after six years'
service should be set free again, and their wives with
them ; except when their wives had been given to
them by their masters. The slaves might, however,
remain, as such, with their masters ; but in that case
they were to be marked with a particular mark in the
ear. Hammurabi (§ 280) allowed a Babylonian subject
who had been bought as a slave in a foreign land, and
afterwards brought back into the fatherland, to go out
free, and decided (§ 117) that members of a free family
brought into confinement for debt should be set free
after three years. Here, Moses and Hammurabi are
only alike in this, that a subject of the land who had
fallen into slavery should enjoy greater privileges than
one born in slavery. But this is Old Semitic custom,
as certainly follows from the same view being held in
the law of the Bogos.*
Exod. xxi., verses 7-1 1. — Law with reference to
an Israelitish woman who was given by her parents
into slavery ; she was not to be released [as a bond-
man was, after six years' service] nor to be sold,
but she might be redeemed. As wife she should
enjoy all the rights of a married woman, and be free
if any of these were denied her. Hammurabi,
in the passage above mentioned, makes no difference
♦ Werner Munziger, Ue^er die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos
Winterthur, 1859). § 40: "Born bond-slaves have not the
right to buy their freedom. Bond-slaves, descended from free
parents, have the right ... to purchase their freedom from
their masters."
Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi 67
between bondmen and bondwomen of Babylonian
descent.
Verses 12-14. — The death-penalty was attached to
intentional homicide; the unintentional manslayer
might be protected by asylum (which was probably a
sanctuary or an altar of Jahveh), not so the inten-
tional murderer. It is remarkable that Hammurabi
does not even mention intentional homicide, but
on homicide which was proved upon oath to be un-
premeditated he laid a fine of half a mana of money
(§ 207). The Old Semitic law admitted no difference
between intentional and unintentional homicide;*
but recognized certain holy places as asylums for
murderers. t Moses took over and justified this con-
ception, recognized unintentional homicide, and for
that only allowed asylum. Hammurabi, however,
quite disowned the Old Semitic standpoint, in so far
as he took unintentional homicide to be a mistake,
expiable by a light fine, and apparently did not
recognize places of refuge for murderers.
Verses 15, 17. — He that smote, wounded, or cursed
father or mother should be put to death. Hammu-
rabi (§ 195): " If a son smite his father, his fingers
shall be cut off." Hammurabi here is much less
severe than Moses, and also^ recognizes no punishment
for the wronged authority of the mother. In this he
deviates as far as possible from the Beduin, i.e.^ pro-
bably, the Old Semitic usage, in which the mother
stands much closer to the children than the father.J
Verse 16. — He who in any manner stole an Israelite
♦ Reckt der Bogos [see footnote on previous page], § 192 a.
t Cf. Otto Procksch, Ueber die Bltitrache bei de7tvorislamische7i
Arabern (Leipzig, 1899), p. 44,
X Burckhardt, Bemerknngen iiber die Beduinen und Wahaby,
p. 284.
68 The Law of Hammurabi
should be put to death. Hammurabi says (§ 14), " If
any one steal the young son of another person, he
shall be put to death ; " and (§ 24), " If persons
are stolen, the township and its Rabianu * shall pay
a mana of silver to the relatives." What is here
common to the two Codes is derived from the Old
Semitic law,t whose first principle is the inviolability
of the person.
Verses 18, 19. — If in a struggle one man injures
another with a stone or his fist so as to cause him to
keep his bed, he shall compensate the man he has
smitten for loss of time, and pay the expenses of his
illness. Hammurabi's law on this point (§ 206) is,
" If one man strike another in a quarrel and wound
him, he shall swear, ' I did not do it knowingly,' and
shall pay for the doctor." In principle, the two cases
have little in common. Moses lays the stress on the
circumstance that one man causes another a non-
mortal wound with a non-dangerous instrument, as a
stone or the fist ; but Hammurabi says, any one who
injures another in a struggle, that is unintentionally.
The order of thought in Moses in the formulating of
the case of law and penalty is Old Semitic ; J the mild-
ness of Hammurabi's conception of injury inflicted
without premeditation may almost be called modern.
Verses 20, 21. — The death of a bondman or bond-
woman, caused by the smiting of the master, shall
* [But cf. note ^ p. 134, below. The Rabianu was the city
governor. See p. 31.— Trans.]
t Sitten und Recht dcr BogoSy § i88 : *' Whoso steals or sells
a person of the land comes into blood feud with that person's
family, and so falls under the law of blood vengeance."
X Recht der Bogos, § 205 : "Whoso wounds a person with a
stick or stone, or with any other implement not of iron, does
not come^under the law of blood vengeance, but is bound to
pay compensation, ' '
Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi 69
be avenged, unless the smitten one live some days
after receiving the blows. Hammurabi (§§ 199, 213)
attached only a money penalty to the injuring by
blows the slave of another person. With Moses, the
Old Semitic idea that a slave is a person er.tiiled to
protection takes effect ; on this account the Bogos
also (§ 46) allow blood revenge to follow his being
killed. With Hammurabi — in opposition to the Old
Semitic view — the idea of a ** slave " had come to
have the common meaning of a "bought slave;"
that is, a piece of property of his master.
Verses 22, 23. — In a brawl in which a woman with
child received a blow causing her to miscarry, the
smiter should pay a sum to be fixed by the injured
woman's husband. Hammurabi (§ 209) : " If any one
strike a free-born woman so that she lose her child,
he shall pay ten shekels of money for her child"
(according to §§211 and 213, the payment should
be less for freed bondwomen and female slaves).
The cases in the two Codes are essentially diiferent.
Moses speaks of accidentally striking a woman, Ham-
murabi of intentional blows ; moreover, according to
Moses the decision of the case belonged to the family ;
according to Hammurabi, to the public tribunal.
Verses 24, 25. — For every bodily injury (brought
about by dangerous instruments), the lex taliojiis steps
in : " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound,
stripe for stripe." Hammurabi (§§ 196, 197, 200)
attached the lex talionis to injury of eye, bone, or
teeth of the free-born ; like Moses, he here allowed
the operation of the Old Semitic talio law which had
even at that time coined the formula ** eye for eye.*
* Rechtder Bogos t § ^93 b. For the Arabs, compare Ahlwardt,
Sammlungen alter arabischcr Dichter^ Band I., Ged. 66, v. 2.
70 The Law of Hammurabi
Wiih Moses it showed itself more strict — that is,
more primitive — than with Hammurabi.
Verses 26, 27. — Whoever knocks out the eye or
tooth of his slave should give him his freedom
in compensation. Hammurabi has no analogous
law.
Verses 28-32. — When a goring ox killed (a) a
stranger or {b) a slave, the ox should be stoned in
each case. Moreover in (^), if the owner knew of
its dangerous habit, he himself was declared, in
principle, to be guilty of death, while in practice a
money ransom was commended ; in (^), thirty shekels
were to be paid to the owner of the slave. By Ham-
murabi's Code (§ 250), "If an ox on its way gored
any one to death, no claim in this case shall be
allowed; " § 251, " If the ox of a freeman is given to
tossing, the fault has been pointed out to the owner,
but he has not caused its horns to be blunted (?),
and has not provided it with a nose-ring, and the ox
gore to death a free-born person, the owner shall pay
half a mana of silver" (according to § 252, for a slave
it should be one-third of a mana). Moses and Ham-
murabi looked upon the apparently analogous case
from quite different points of view. Moses treated
it according to the idea of the lex talioTiis^ hence the
first thing is that the ox is to be killed, and in this
he represented the same usage as the Bogos ; * that
is, of the Old Semites generally ; Hammurabi con-
sidered it as only a case of unpremeditated killing,!
and recognized no fault of the ox, but only of its
owner.
Verses 35, 36. — To the laws of Moses here given,
* Reckt der Bogos, § 204 : "The bull or the cow or any
animal which kills a person shall be put to death."
t [See above, p. 68.— Trans.]
Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi 71
of the case when one ox kills another, Hammurabi
has nothing corresponding; just as he has nothing
corresponding to verses 33 and 34, which estab-
lish the responsibility when cattle fall into a
cistern (or " pit ") which has been allowed to stay
open.
Verse 37 [and xxii. 3; Exod. xxii. i and 4 in the
English version]. — For stealing an ox, the thief shall
pay the maximum penalty of five oxen ; for a sheep,
of four sheep, in case the stolen animal cannot be
recovered ; if it was recovered, the thief got off by
restoring it and paying another one to make amends ;
if the thief had no means [to make restitution], he
lost his freedom. Hammurabi (§§ 6 and following)
attached generally to theft, and the being accessory
to theft, the death-penalty, which, however, in some
cases (§ 8) he mitigated to the payment of a thirty-
fold or even tenfold compensation. Moses and
Hammurabi had radically different ideas about theft.
''Moses stood near to the Old Semitic standpoint,
according to which, theft within the tribe entailed
only restitution and recompense ; " * but with Ham-
murabi theft was a capital offence as an encroach-
ment upon the rights of property, which was to be
protected under all circumstances.
Exod. xxii. I, 2 (verses 2 and 3 in the English
version). — Blood vengeance was not allowed to follow
the slaying of a robber caught breaking into a house
by night, but it was allowed if the thief was killed in
daylight; while Hammurabi's Code (§ 21) says, "If
any one break into a house, he shall be put to death
before the breach and buried in it." According to
Moses, the robber had still, under certain circum-
stances, personal honour (which calls to mind the law
♦ Recht der Bogos, § 173,
72 The Law of Hammurabi
of the Beduin *) ; with Hammurabi, he was infamous.
Hence, the two lawgivers arrive at different estimates
of the punishment due.
Verse 4 (Enghsh version, verse 5). — When animals
put to feed in a field or garden injure a neighbour's
field, compensation should be made for the damage ;
if the whole field of the neighbour were eaten up, the
owner of the cattle should make restitution of his best.
Hammurabi decrees (§ 57), " If a shepherd allow his
sheep to pasture in the field of another without per-
mission of the owner of the field, such owner shall
reap the shepherd's field, and the shepherd who has
allowed the sheep to pasture without consent on
another's field shall, for every ten ga7i (rods), pay
twenty gU7- (camel-loads) of corn to the owner of the
field." Moses judged the causing of the damage to
the field to be a mistake reparable by compensation ;
but Hammurabi saw in it a punishable encroachment
on the property of others, and therefore, besides com-
pensation, affixed a penalty above the value of the
normal produce of the field (of. § d-^.
Verse 5 (English version, verse 6). — Compensation
for setting a field on fire; Hammurabi does not
mention this case.
Verses 6, 7 (7 and 8 in the English Bible). — When
deposited property (money or goods) was stolen, the
depositary was not bound to make restitution if he
released himself by oath ; the thief, when discovered,
* Burckhardt, Benierkungefi iiber die Bedninen^ p. 1 27 (as in
other passages) : " The Arab robber regards his profession as an
honourable one." [But is not Moses' point of view a higher one
than that of the Beduin here referred to ; is it not (what is also
the Old Semitic view) that the life of the robber is of more
importance than goods are ? Of course, breaking through into
a man's house during the hours of sleep and darkness is more
serious and more sinister than daylight robbery. — Trans.]
[Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi 7S
should pay double the amount stolen. Hammurabi's
Code (§ 125) threw on the depositary the obligation
of full reparation, and to indemnify himself from the
thief. Moses represented Old Semitic law which
recognized no responsibility for deposits ; * perhaps,
also, he reckoned the theft of things as less than the
theft of cattle. Hammurabi did not hold the Old
Semitic idea of property, and consequently insisted on
restitution.
Verse 8 (English version, verse 9). — When cattle
or things were injured, and one accused another
person of being the cause of the injury, the question
was decided by both parties " coming before God " —
that is, by a sort of judgment of God ; he who lost
should pay double to the other party. Hammurabi's
Code had no corresponding case ; if it had, the
decisions would be different from that of Moses, be-
cause Hammurabi knew only of an ordeal or judgment
of God to which the accused alone must submit
himself.
Verses 9-12 (10-13 in the English version). — When
cattle entrusted to the care of another got lost without
his fault, he could clear himself by oath, and then he
was not held liable for compensation ; for cattle thus
in charge which were demonstrably torn in pieces by
wild beasts, the keeper was under no circumstances
liable; but he was responsible if the cattle were
stolen. Hammurabi (§ 266) decreed, " When a
stroke from God fall upon a herd, or a lion kill any of
them, the shepherd shall clear himself before God, and
the owner of the herd shall bear the misfortune."
Here (as in § 263 and § 267 which contain further
particulars) Hammurabi reached the same fundamental
principle as Moses, that a shepherd who discharged
* /^ecAf der Bogos^ § 153.
74 The Law of Hammurabi
the guardian duties of his office according to his
ability was not called on to make compensation for
loss, but the careless shepherd was. It is very pro-
bable, therefore, that old shepherd law still operated
here.*
Verses 13, 14 (English version, 14, 15). — The
borrower of cattle which became injured must make
simple recompense if he was absent when the injury
was done, but not if he was present ; if the animal was
hired, the risk of injury was reckoned in the hircf
Hammurabi's Code contains no clause like this, and
the omission is not accidental, because the lending of
cattle, especially gratuitously, would scarcely have
agreed with the economic circumstances of his
time.
Verses 15, 16 (in the English version, 16, 17). — If
a man had conjugal intercourse with an unbetrothed
young woman, he must marry her ; but if her father
would not give her to him, the man must pay her a
sum of money equivalent to the nuptial gift. Ham-
murabi does not deal with this case.
Verse 17 (English version, 18). — A sorceress — that
is, a woman who employed magical arts to injure
others — should be put to death. Hammurabi (§ i)
attached the death-penalty to the unproved accusation
of having practised sorcery (? iiertu) upon another ;
on the other hand (§ 2), the accusation of witchery
{kispu) was to be decided by the judgment of God
(ordeal by water). What is here alike in the laws
* When W. Munzinger {Ostafrikatiische Studien^ p. 318)
observes that among the Beni Amer of Abyssinia the shepherd is
not made answerable for lost or stolen cattle, it is, as here, with
the limitation " in case he has done his duty."
t [Our Revised Version of this text makes the borrower's
liability depend on whether the owner (not the borrower) was
present when the injury was done. — Trans.]
Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi 75
of Moses and Hammurabi is explained by tracing
both back to the Old Semitic practice.*
Verse i8 (English version, 19). — Any one commit-
ting bestiality shall be put to death. Hammurabi's
Code is silent as to such a case.
Verse 19 (English version, 20). — Whoso sacrifices
to idols instead. of to the Lord God shall be banned.!
Hammurabi, agreeably with the purely civil character
of his laws, has nothing like this.
The foregoing comparison of the two statute-books
yields the following results : Numerous cases treated
in the Book of the Covenant are absent from Ham-
murabi's Code ; often the same case occurs in both
Codes, but the decision given upon it is different.
Where the same case occurs followed by the same
decision, the common source of both existed long
before Hammurabi's time in the Old Semitic customary
law. Any direct influence of Hammurabi's law on
the Mosaic penal law is, therefore, to be regarded as
out of the question.
A final argument for the Mosaic Law, taken as a
whole^ being independent of Hammurabi's legal Code,
may be adduced ; the full demonstrative force of
which, however, would only be made evident by a
detailed exposition which would here be out of place.
The argument is this : It is characteristic of every
higher culture that it forces its own use of language
* Recht der Bogos^ § 192 : " Any one convicted of having by
evil arts taken the life of another person shall be put to death,
and his whole family driven out into the country " [i.e. be
banished from the community into the uninhabited parts. —
Trans.]
t [The Hebrew word here used means strictly, '* devoted,"
which, however, according to Lev. xxvii. 29, and other places,
is equivalent to ** given up to death." — Trans.]
76 The Law of Hammurabi
upon a more primitive culture which comes near it,
whereby, as a first result, ideas which have become
as current coin in the higher culture become trans-
ferred to the lower. This transference especially
holds good with respect to the form and expression
of the common law. Had Moses borrowed from
Hammurabi's Code, Babylonian words would be
found in his vocabulary; but for these, throughout
his terminology, we seek in vain. Neither from the
expressions for the Babylonian law of public Hfe, for
example, those for witness, purchase, sale, hire, debt,
capital, interest, contract, legal decision; nor those
for the law respecting the family, e.g. for husband,
wife, concubine, marriage settlement, marriage por-
tion, inheritance, divorce, does there appear in the
Hebrew legislation any term which is demonstrably
a Babylonian loan-word ; there is nothing more than a
few words expressing general ideas in jurisprudence,
such as judge {daian)^ judgment, and possibly lawsuit
(din)^ which appear alike in both Codes, and prove,
at the most, that the Babylonian and the Hebrew are
both branches of the primitive Semitic language.
In the course of our investigation it has been
shown in various ways how the culture of Babylon
has affected Israel; the history of the Patriarchs is
built on the foundation of Babylonian law, and the
kings of Israel strove to copy the outward forms of
its Eastern neighbour. But still the Bible is a book
in no way inspired by the Babylonian spirit. Where
the influence of the Babylonian spirit appears to be
present, it is our duty to investigate whether it deter-
mines substance or form. Legislation is always one
of the essential features in the portraiture of a people ;
legislators were honoured in antiquity as heroes, to
Mosaic Independence of Hammurabi ^^
us they are landmarks of human culture. From the
comparison of Hammurabi and Moses, the lawgivers
of the ancient East, it follows that each of them
impressed his mark upon his people, who bore that
impress throughout the whole period of their history ;
but between the former, who, in his Code, carried
out the secularization of the law with conscious
purpose, and the latter, who guided the law into
paths proceeding from God, lead by God, and ad-
vancing the Divine in man, and thereby prepared
the way for the Christian law in customs and morals,
— between these two legislators there existed no way
of connection, and there never was any transference
of ideas. Like two mountains, in the far distance,
they are prominent in the history of antiquity : the
head of the one is overshadowed by the clouds,
while the contours of its mighty base, which rests
on the plain, stand out in tranquil brightness ; but
as removed from earth and encircled by an ocean of
Divine light, the summit of the other shines forth
and well-nigh blends with the infinite ether.
PART II
THE HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY OF
THE HAMMURABI AND MOSAIC CODES
By the Rev. W. T. Filter
CHAPTER I
HAMMURABI AND THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS
Some events in the history of the Hammurabi period, and their
bearing on the history of the Hebrew Patriarchs.
The discovery at the beginning of the twentieth
century of the Christian era of a complete Code or
digest of civil and criminal law which was pro-
mulgated in Babylonia some six or seven hundred
years before the time of Moses, while most gratifying
to the Assyriologist and a marvel to the ordinary-
public, is a discovery which casts a bright beam of
light upon the pre-Mosaic period of Old Testament
history, and must profoundly and permanently modify
our conceptions of the civilization of tht ancient world
with which the Patriarchs of Israel were in contact.
The character of the Code and the circumstances of
its discovery are sufficiently set forth by Professor
Hubert Grimme in the foregoing sketch ; in the pages
which follow I propose to further elucidate, for the
English reader, some points in that sketch, chiefly by
means of the inscribed monuments of the Nearer East
which have come down to us from Old Testament
times, and to set forth the importance and significance
which the Code of Hammurabi* possesses for the
♦ The initial letter of Hammurabi's name is the very strong
but " smooth " guttural A, corresponding partly to the Hebrew
heth ; it is often represented by the Roman letters kh or ch^ or,
8i F
82 The Law of Hammurabi
modern study of the oldest documents of the Bible.
It may be as well to say at once that both the Code
and the archaeology afford very strong circumstantial
evidence of the authentic character of the Pentateuch
in both its history and its legislation.
Our first illustration of this is the fact, which
Professor Grimme has clearly proved (see pp. 45-47,
above), that the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
did actually live under and were in the main ruled
by the provisions of Hammurabi's Code. This is a
testimony to the historical character of the patriarchal
narrative as striking as it is unimpeachable.
There is much more evidence of the same sort, if
less striking, afforded by the monuments. It is
chiefly concordatit with the Pentateuchal history, and
not direct. This was to be expected. But for con-
temporary records of a distant antiquity to be in
agreement with traditional literature dealing with the
same remote period is in itself strong confirmation of
the trustworthiness of that literature ; for had it
orginated in a much later time, or if its dating were
fraudulent, this would soon be betrayed when con-
fronted by witnesses of the date postulated.
The remarkable episode of Gen. xiv. afford us a
good opportunity of testing the Biblical history by the
monuments. On the presumption that the " Amraphel,
King of Shinar," there spoken of is, as most Assyrio-
logists believe, Hammurabi himself, he (along with
*' Arioch, King of Ellasar," and the other allies) must
have associated himself with Chedorlaomer, King of
Elam, for the raid into South-Eastern Canaan in the
early years of Hammurabi's kingship ; for at that time
better than either, by ^ or ^. It should here be added that there
is reason for believing that the date usually assigned to Hammu*
rabi (about B.C. 2200) will have to be considerably reduced.
Hammurabi and Hebrew Patriarchs S^
the power of Elam predominated in Babylonia. After-
wards the tables were turned ; Hammurabi repeatedly
warred against Elam, and did not rest until, in the
thirtieth year of his reign, he had subdued it.* Now,
when Gen. xiv. was written, it is evident, from the
first verse, that the name of Amraphel (Hammurabi)
had come to be the most important of the four allied
kings. The chapter, substantially in its present form,
must, therefore, have been written some years after
the raid, though, from the tone and details of it, not
very long after. It would appear, therefore, that we
are indebted to the pen of some contemporary for the
original narrative of the episode,! which Moses
* This — which Mr. King described (before the discovery of the
Code s/g/a) as " the chief event of Hammurabi's reign, for his
victory freed Babylon from her most powerful enemy " — is, of
course, duly noted in its place in the Babylonian " Chronicle of
the Kings of the First Dynasty," but a very interesting reference
to some circumstances of it appears to be preserved on a tablet
excavated by Prof. Scheil at Sippar in 1894, and now in the
museum at Constantinople. It is a brief, business-like list of
numbers of gazelles (jabite)y which make up the enormous total of
42,250, collected, apparently, from the different persons named,
and is dated in the 13th day of the month Adar, in the year the
army was at Elam. • Herr Thomas Friedrich, in publishing this
tablet (No. IX. in his Altbabylonische Urkundat aus Sippara^
Leipzig, 1906), remarks that the circumstances recorded happened
in the 30th year of Hammurabi, when there was war with the
Elamites, and so the gazelles may have been obtained for the
alimentation of the Babylonian army in the field. This seems
a likely explanation.
t Prof. Fritz Hommel, in his Ancient Hebrew Tradition^ pp.
192, ff., insists that it must have been written down in the
cuneiform script very shortly after the events, in Palestine, and,
probably (p. 153), by a scribe of Melchizedek, Prof. Sayce has
quite lately (in the Expository Times ^ August, 1906) given a
running commentary on the chapter from the standpoint of a
cuneiform scholar.
Of quite a diflferent character from the historical narrative of
84 The Law of Hammurabi
afterwards, under special Divine leading, incorporated
in the Book of Genesis.
The fourteenth chapter of Genesis, therefore,
exactly fits into the period as extant Babylonian
monuments make it known to us. That this is so,
that the Patriarchs of Israel were subject to Babylo-
nian law while they lived in Canaan (partly because
they were themselves of Babylonian origin, and
partly also, as we shall presently see, because Canaan
itself, during nearly the whole of that period, was
subject to Babylon), and the further consideration
that there is no extant monumental evidence an-
tagonistic to the history of the Book of Genesis, —
these facts, taken together, fully justify us in accept-
ing the narrative of that book (or, at least, so much
of it as contains the patriarchal narrative) as fully
Gen. xiv. is the interesting but mythical legend of these same
three kings — Chedorlaomer, Arioch (Eri-aku), and Tidal (Tud-
hula) — desecrating the shrine of Babylon, which is extant on a
tablet of very late date (not earlier than the end of the Persian
period, the 4th century B.C.) in the " Spartali " Collection of the
British Museum, and registered as Sp. 3. 2. The three names
appear in a corrupt and obscure form, so that it has been
questioned whether we may read them there at all ; but Prof.
Sayce, in a brilliant and thorough examination of the matter
before the Society of Biblical Archaeology, June, 1906 (and
since published in the Proceedings of the Society), gives a con-
clusive affirmative to the question.
In two or three other tablets of the same period, and of a
similar kind (Sp. 2. 987 ; and Sp. 158 -f Sp. 2. 962), one or
more of the same three names also occur. The text of as much
of all of these as is preserved, with a transcription of it into
Roman letters and an English translation, appears inihe/ournal
of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute (for January, 1896),
vol. xxix. No. 113, from the pen of Dr. T. G. Pinches.
On the other hand, a contemporary letter of Hammurabi to
Sin-iddinam, which Prof. Scheil thought contained the name of
Chedorlaomer and a reference to his defeat by Hammurabi, is
now generally held to contain neither that name nor reference.
Hammurabi and Hebrew Patriarchs 85
and entirely trustworthy. The arbitrary subjective
"Higher Criticism" now current can produce no
such testimony in its favour.
The record of events in the life of Hammurabi,
from his early days, when he was in temporary
alliance with Chedorlaomer, until his own law be-
came the law of Canaan, is very incomplete. This
is illustrated by the historical part (the prologue,
chiefly) of the stela containing his Code, which is,
for the historian, defective. For example, it nowhere
claims for Hammurabi any authority in Canaan, nor
does it even refer to that land nor to any of its cities
by name. It is further to be observed that none of
his wars are there spoken of and none of his exploits,
outside Mesopotamia (in its larger extent) are even
mentioned, except in the most general sort of way.
One apparent exception to this statement might
appear in the mention of Aleppo, but the explanation
of that is either that Hammurabi was directed thither
by a Babylonian oracle or because it refers to his
executing the laws of Aleppo; either circumstance
would bring the event within the scope of the pro-
logue. Even Elam, wars with which occupied him
much during the first part of his reign, is not so much
as referred to. The subject of the prologue is really
the glorification of Hammurabi, as ruler of Babylonia,
from the priests' point of view, of his works of peace,
and, specially, as a favourer of the temples. But
this point of view allows him to be described as
" warrior of Dagan, his creator," and, as Dagan was
a Canaanite god, there is here an allusion to Ham-
murabi's connection with that land, and a connection
of importance.*
* At the same time, it must not be forgotten that on different
occasions, long before this, Babylonian rulers had invaded
&6 The Law of Hammurabi
But another of his monuments, a stone slab in the
British Museum,* tells us plainly of his suzerainty of
Canaan in these words : Ha-am-mu-r[a-bi] shar Mar-
[tu KI] — that is, "Hammurabi, king of the land of
Martu" (i.e. of the land of the Amorites, or Canaan).
Another inscription preserved in our national museum
must be quoted.j It is a late but apparently a quite
accurate copy of an original of Ammi-satana (or Am-
mi-ditana), King of Babylonia, and third in succession
to Hammurabi, in which the king gives as one of his
official titles, "King of the land of Martu." This
tablet was written well within the lifetime of Isaac,
but perhaps after Jacob had returned from Padan-
aram to Canaan.
From the later days of Abraham until this time,
therefore, Babylon would appear to have had para-
mount authority in the land of the Amorites. This
conclusion is confirmed, and our subject further illus-
trated, by one of the ancient tablets from Sippara
referred to in a note on a preceding page, a tablet
which Herr Friedrich J assigns to the eighth year of
Samsu-iluna, the son and immediate successor of
Hammurabi. The document is a commercial con-
tract by which one Habil-kum hires from another
Canaan, and that some two hundred years earlier than the date
of Hammurabi one of the local kings — apaUsi, or governor, of
Assyria — was named Ishme-Dagan, *'(the god) Dagan has
heard."
* It bears the registration number 80-1 1-12, 329.
t 80-1 1-12, 185. A copy of this, as well as of the last men-
tioned text, isfgivenby Dr. H. Winckler in his Altorientalische
Forschungen (Erste Reihe, ii., Leipzig, 1894), and an English
translation of the latter text, by Dr. Pinches, appears in the
Records of the Fast, second series, vol. v. pp. 102-5.
X The tablet is No. 23 of his Altbahylonische Urhinden^ No.
562 in Prof. Scheil's list.
Hammurabi and Hebrew Patriarchs 87
citizen a carriage for a year, agrees to pay two-thirds
of a silver shekel for the hire, and pays down one-
sixth as the earnest money, but — and this is the
feature of particular interest to us just now — he
engages not to take the carriage to the land of
Kittim. Now, Kittim commonly means the island
of Cyprus, but that can scarcely be meant here; it
would rather seem to be the Mediterranean coast ot
Canaan. Why Habil-kum engaged not to go there
with the hired vehicle we do not know, but because,
of the inhibiting clause in the contract, it follows
that, at that time, people could and did visit those
parts from Babylonia, and they had freedom and
reasonable security in doing so. This freedom Abra-
ham exercised when he went down into Canaan, and
not only so, but he and his children after him, as
we have seen, there lived under the provisions of
Hammurabi's Code.
Thus extant Babylonian records, practically con-
temporary with the events recorded, give us sufficient
light on the political relationship of that empire with
Canaan to assure us that the history of the Hebrew
Patriarchs, as given in the Book of Genesis, faithfully
reflects the pohtical circumstances of the time. Now,
for the writer of that book to have done this, without
betraying the least sign that he was conscious of any
other purpose than that of recording facts because of
their religious importance for his own people, affords,
to my mind, striking testimony to the truthfulness of
the narrative contained in that book.
CHAPTER II
THE PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC LAW
The difference between the civil law under which the Hebrew
Patriarchs lived and that of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Our investigation now advances another stage. On
any theory, the Patriarchs of Israel moved in a sphere
of law quite different from that in which the nation
sprung from them moved, at any period, while it
sojourned in the wilderness and lived in the Land
of Promise. More especially and most significant is
the fact that, while the Patriarchs lived chiefly accord-
ing to the provisions of Hammurabi's Code, the legis-
lation which purports to be Mosaic, and whicli is
embodied in the four later books of the Pentateuch,
does not show a single feature or clause which can
be definitely assigned to Hammurabi. On the con-
trary, as Professor Grimme has demonstrated in the
earlier part of this book, what underlies the first civil
legislation of Sinai is the customary law of a some-
what primitive Semitic people who have lately forsaken
the nomadic condition for the settled life of towns
and villages, and whose dominating principle is the
protection of the person. The Deuteronomic law
shows the same characteristics, but developed by forty
years' experience in the desert, and also by forty years'
hallowing of the great lawgiver's own life and affected
The Patriarchal and Mosaic Law 89
by his vision of the future. In the Code of Hammu-
rabi, on the other hand, that feature prevails which
is characteristic of commercial communities, namely,
the protection of property ; it also brings us face to
face with a well-developed agriculture and city civi-
lization. The Hammurabi and the Mosaic civil
legislation are thus in complete antithesis, corre-
sponding to the circumstances of the two peoples
for whom they were enacted : the one was for the
great trading emporium of an old country, in which
education was widespread, the culture high, and some
of it even then ancient, albeit the time of the
Patriarch Abraham ; while the other legislation was
devised for a people making a great national trek from
shepherd life, enforced field labour, and brick-making
in Goshen, to settlement in another land. Thus the
civil legislation of Sinai exactly suits the circum-
stances of the children of Israel at the time, as the
Bible brings them before us, as the Code of Ham-
murabi suits the history of Babylonia of his time;
and both are equally to be depended on.
That the old customary law of Semitic tribes —
which was, in fact, the law ruling the twelve tribes
when, as a nascent nation, they emerged in Sinai —
that such was the substratum of the civil laws of the
Book of the Covenant, some scholars, such as Dr. J.
Jeremias and Mr. S. A. Cook, had already thought
to be probable ; it is the great merit of Professor
Grimme to have proved, in the foregoing pages, that
it was such in reality.
Some documentary evidence of this thesis, in a
fragmentary form, was to be found in the writings of
travellers among the Beduin and of investigators of
pre-Mohammadan literature and institutions. But a
much fuller body of evidence, and thjit in a collective
90 The Law of Hammurabi
form, was irx existence in a long-forgotten book by a
patient investigator and practical student, Werner
Munzinger. He lived for years among the Bogos of
Abyssinia, a Semitic people of half-primitive habits
and customs, who were changing the nomadic for
settled life in towns and villages, and who were there-
fore in much the same condition of social organiza-
tion and civilization as the Hebrews in Sinai, with
whom, therefore, their customary law might profitably
be compared. Munzinger's work, descriptive of the
Semitic people named, and giving a full account of
the customs which were the laws of the tribe, was
published under the care of a competent scholar,
J. M. Ziegler, in 1859 ; his later contributions to our
knowledge of the languages of his adopted country,
notably the Barea and the Tigre, are well known
to linguistic students. For the rediscovery of the
treatise on the Bogos, and the recognition of the
importance of their law for comparison with the corre-
sponding parts of the Mosaic Code, we are indebted
to Professor Grimme. He may have been led to
make this comparison by the opinion he holds that it
is to North Africa, in and near Abyssinia (and not to
Arabia, as is more commonly supposed), that we are
to look for the origin of Semitic language and insti-
tutions.* But it is by no means necessary to share
that opinion in order to recognize the cogency of the
evidence which the common law of the Bogos supplies
as to the character of Old Semitic law, and the
aptness of the comparison of it with the earliest civil
legislation of Sinai, as recorded in the Book of
Exodus.
♦ Prof. Grimme has set forth his views on this subject in
his excellent and well-illustrated little volume, entitled Die
Weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung Arabien: Mohammed (Munich,
1904).
CHAPTER III
EARLY ISRAEL AND CULTURE
Outline of the history of culture in and around Israel, from the
Patriarchs to Moses.
Appendix : On the Egyptian personal names in Gen. xli. 45.
Being thus assured both of the historical accuracy of
the patriarchal narrative as given in the Book of
Genesis, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the
correctness of the reflection of the social condition of
the Hebrews in those long-subsequent days of which
the inspired record of the earliest civil legislation in
Sinai speaks, we may now, in the light of the most
recent discovery, attempt a bare outline of the history
of culture as it affected the Hebrew people in the
interval between the patriarchal and the Sinaitic
periods. And, since this scarcely falls within the
scope of the Pentateuchal records, we are left to infer
what it probably was from the monumental remains of
the neighbours of Israel.
When the children and grandchildren of Jacob left
Canaan, where Hammurabi's law had long ruled, and
made their long sojourn as shepherds and herdrnen in
Goshen, the pastoral north-eastern frontier of Egypt,
they there came into constant contact with pastoral
nomad tribes, mostly, like themselves, of Semitic race.
But because of their connection with Joseph, the
9>
92 The Law of Hammurabi
grand vizier of the land, and as long as the country
remained under the rule of the Hyksos or Shepherd-
Kings, the culture of Egpyt would doubtless have
some influence upon them, the children of Israel
would be among the 'elite of the tribes, and their more
intellectual leaders would maintain a certain literary
interest, especially in such traditions of culture and of
family and tribal history as may have descended to
them from their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, who were of Mesopotamian origin.
Until recently it might have been supposed that
such culture as was preserved among them would
have been strictly limited to traditions of a momentous
character — such, for example, as of the Deluge, of the
Divine covenant made with Abraham, which he was
specially instructed to teach his children and house-
hold after him,* and also genealogical lore ; but our
new knowledge of the culture which existed in the
ancient world greatly modifies our conception of the
ancient East in the period under review. We are
now aware that there was great intellectual andHterary
activity in Babylonia in the time of Abraham ; in
Canaan, too, some generations later, as testified both
by the cuneiform tablets of state correspondence
between the different cities and states of Canaan, and
their Egyptian suzerain, which have been found in
the Pharaonic archives of Tell el Amarna,f and by
similar tablets of the same period, though written
from a different point of view, which every season's
excavations are now uncovering in Palestine itself.
And we remember that the stream of literary culture,
strong and full, was flowing through Egypt while the
* Gen. xviii. i8, 19.
t Tell el Amarna is in Middle Egypt, on the east bank of the
Nile, midway between Beni-hasan and Siut.
Early Israel and Culture 93
dynasty ruled which covered the Tell el Amarna
period, and also during the following dynasty (the
nineteenth), under which Moses himself lived. This
knowledge, most of it acquired by quite recent dis-
coveries, must considerably enlarge our ideas of the
culture which surrounded and must have made some
impression upon the ancient Hebrews.*
But we further reflect that the Tell el Amarna
period fell in the later half of the Eighteenth Dynasty
of Egypt, when the children of Israel were sojourn-
ing in Goshen. At that time, as the literary culture
then prevalent in Canaan had the Babylonian cunei-
form script for its vehicle, and as postal messengers
were continually passing and repassing between Pales-
tine and Egypt t by way of the eastern part of the
* Since the above was penned, Prof. Flinders Petrie has pub-
lished his Researches in Sinatj in the fourteenth chapter of which,
on '* The Conditions of the Exodus," especially on pp. 199-206,
that distinguished explorer arrives at much the same conclusion
as that I here set forth as to the literary culture of the children
of Israel and their neighbours at the age mentioned. A similar
conclusion has long been proclaimed by Prof. Sayce, and,
indeed, cannot now be gainsaid.
t Such postal communication between the two countries con-
tinued for some time after the Tell el Amarna period, and as long
and in such parts of Canaan as Egypt had political influence and
control. A proof of this is found in the fragment of a report to
which Brugsch Bey long since called attention (in his History^
ii. p. 126), as Prof. Petrie has lately reminded us (in his History
of Egypt ^ iii. 107). That report was from an Egytian official
on the Syrian frontier, in the third year of Merenpthah, the
Pharaoh of the Exodus, and shows that **in ten days there were
eight important people passing the frontier, and seven official
dispatches, implying much intercourse across the long and for-
bidden desert " intervening. It was probably in the very next,
or else in the second, year after that report was written, that
the Exodus of Israel took place ; because in the fifth year of
Merenpthah that Pharaoh met the Libyan hosts and their allies,
who had invaded the Delta, in battle, and, after a great and
94 The Law of Hammurabi
Delta, where the Hebrews lived, it is reasonable to
suppose that, thus circumstanced, and their own
previous history being what it was, some, at least, of
the elders of Israel would be acquainted with the
Babylonian language and script ; this would explain
how it is that certain passages in the Book of Genesis
were derived, apparently, from cuneiform sources.
Afterwards, in the Mosaic period, and somewhat
earlier, such of the Israelites as were officers and
deputies, especially such as those who kept record of
the tales of bricks delivered to the stores and works
of the Pharaoh, must have been able to read and
write,* as well as speak, both their own language and
their oppressors'. Moses himself, as the adopted son
of the Pharaoh's daughter, and " instructed in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians," must have had an educa-
tion of no mean order.
sanguinary conflict, defeated them. It would seem reasonable
to suppose that the Exodus was connected, though perhaps
indirectly, with that invasion and battle, they being part of
the Providential operation by which the Chosen Race was
delivered from " the house of bondage."
* The word translated " officers " {shotertm) signifies
"writers," or, perhaps better, "recorders of accounts," or
"scribes of legal documents." The root-word is not used in
the Old Testament for " to write," for that kdtab is employed ;
but in the ancient Babylonian (in the Code of Hammurabi, for
example) shat&ru (the root of the Hebrew shotertm) is the cus-
tomary word for writing out legal documents.
As to the use of shoterwi in Hebrew, it is interesting to notice
that it first appears, and frequently, in Exod. v. ; thereafter,
not till Numb. xi. 1 6, next in Deuteronomy (seven times), in
Joshua (five), and thereafter not until we come to the Books of
Chronicles, where it occurs five times, and is translated by
" officers." The word, however, twice appears translated
differently ; once in the Book of Proverbs (vi. 7), where it is
rendered "overseer," and once in 2 Chronicles (xxvi. il), where
the A.V. gives "ruler," but the R.V. "officer."
Early Israel and Culture 95
We cannot be surprised, therefore, that extant
witnesses of such culture among the early Hebrews
speak plainly in the pages of the Pentateuch. The
history of Joseph, for example, as its thorough pene-
tration with true Egytian colour * assures us, would
be written, at least in substance, in Egypt. The
earlier records of the Bible, its patriarchal history, and
at least some of the primitive traditions, appear to
have been derived from cuneiform sources; whether
such were directly used by Moses, or had been trans-
lated into the language of the Hebrews before his
time, is a matter which does not fall within the limits
of this essay to discuss.
Such, I venture to say, is the story of the survival
of literary culture among the children of Israel from
the days of their Patriarchs to those of Moses, as
modern discovery indicates it to us.f Yet to that
culture, it were fatal to forget, special Divine illumina-
tion and guidance were needed ere the Book of
Genesis, or any other book of the Pentateuch, could
have been written.
* The accurate Egyptology of that history is now conceded by
all Egyptologists. The late Dr. J. Krall, for example^ at the
International Congress of Orientalists, held in Vienna in 1886
( Verhandlung of the Egyptian-African Section, p. 98, Vienna,
1888), said that every fresh investigation showed the accurate
knowledge of Egyptian circumstances possessed by the Biblical
writer, and that in all cases where he was thought to be in error,
it had proved to be much more the insufficient knowledge of the
objector.
The difficulty as to the Hebrew form of the Egyptian personal
names in Gen. xli. 45 is treated in an appendix to this chapter
(pp. 96-98, below).
t How this culture lingered on in Israel until the period of the
Judges was pointed out long ago by the late Lord A. Hervey,
Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Introduction to the Book of
Judges in the Speaker^ s Commentary ^ p. 1 18.
96 The Law of Hammurabi
It is practically certain, however, that such culture
would be restricted to the few in Israel. Among the
mass of the tribes, as they receded from Canaanite
influence, and the favour 'of the Egyptian Government
was succeeded by oppression, their opportunities of
culture and interest in it must have grown less and
less. On the other hand, in Goshen they would be
under direct and constant intercourse with nomad
pastoralists of Semite race, like themselves, which
must, and, in fact, did, greatly mould them, so that,
as the pages of this book show, Old Semitic social
organization and Old Semitic customary law, at the
time of the Exodus, had become fully their own. But
though they had thus come under a lower form of
civilization than in the patriarchal period, they could
not have quite forgotten their descent from Abraham,
and some strands of his faith and of his faithfulness —
now, alas ! but few and perhaps weak — must have
been entwined in the moral consciousness of their
moral aristocracy.
Such was the stock and such the condition of
culture into which new life was to be breathed by
Moses, the wondrously equipped servant of the Lord.
APPENDIX : ON THE EGYPTIAN PERSONAL
NAMES IN GEN. xli. 45
The chief difficulty raised by Egyptologists to the
acceptance of the history of Joseph as being, in sub-
stantially its present form, from the pen of a con-
temporary, is that, as is alleged, the proper names as
given in Gen. xli. 45, namely, " Zaphenath-paneah,"
Early Israel and Cultufc 97
" Asenath," and " Poti-pherah," indicate a late date— later ,
indeed, than the time of Shashank I. of Dynasty XXII. ;
who was the Shishak who attacked Rehoboam of Judah
(i Kings xiv. 25 and 2 Chron. xii.). This difficulty was
elaborated by Dr. G. Steindorff {Zeitschrift fur ^gypt-
ische Sprache, vol. xxvii., 1889, pp. 41, 42) ; has been re-
peated by Mr. F. LI. Griffith {Stories of the High Priests
of Memphis y 1900, pp. i, 2), and by other writers. The sub-
ject is important enough to call for detailed examination.
Now, because the exact forms of the names, as they
have come down to us, do not exactly agree with any
recognized old Egyptian forms (which is not surprising,
after they have been copied by generations of Hebrew
scribes, to whom ancient Egyptian was an unknown
tongue), scholars are left to their own resources to identify
the originals behind the Hebrew. But when we consider
that the whole narrative is true to the circumstances of
ancient Egypt, and must belong to the Hyksos period, it
does not seem reasonable to assign the record, nor even
the names, to a late date, unless we are driven to do so.
Professor Ed. Naville, of Geneva, perhaps the most ex-
perienced of living Egyptologists, has shown that, far
from being so, the names in question are much more
ancient than Dr. Steindorff aud others suggest, and
suit the time and circumstances of the Patriarch Joseph
very well ; while the Egyptian originals, which Professor
Naville proposes for the Hebrew names, seem to me to
be both more likely and more appropriate than those
assigned by Dr. Steindorff. Professor Naville's paper
on this subject appears in the Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archceology (vol. xxv., March, 1903, pp. 157-
161). The following are Professor Naville's conclusions : —
Zaphenath-paneah is the Hebrew form of the Egyptian
Thest-net-pe-ankh (Chief of the Magicians or Master of
the Sacred College). This word is correctly transcribed
by the Hebrew of Zaphenath-paneah, except that/ is sub-
stituted for / in the first syllable {saph being a common
Hebrew syllable, whereas sath is not found — at least
not at the beginning of a word — throughout the Hebrew
Bible). Although the complete name Thest-net-pe-ankh
0
98 The Law of Hammurabi
has not hitherto been noticed in the Egyptian monu-
ments earlier than the time of Osorkon II. (Dynasty
XXII.), the elements of it are much older — quite old
enough, indeed, to have been used by Joseph's lord. The
second name, Asenath, is the Hebrew (with the well-known
prosthetic alepK) of the Egyptian Senit^ a name borne by a
queen of the Sixth Dynasty, and common under Dynasties
XI. and XI I. While Poti-pherah is the Egyptian Photeh-ra
(or Ra-hetep), analogous to that of a high priest of Helio-
polis (and thus a predecessor of Joseph's father-in-law),
under Seneferu, the first Pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty,
and whose tomb, and that of his wife, are well known at
Medum. The same name is found in the Hyksos period.
Dr. Steindorff argued that "Zaphenath-paneah" repre-
sents an Egyptian Ded-pe-neter-ef-~anh^ or, with the
second consonant dropped, and other phonetic changes
found in the latest (the Coptic) form of the language,
Depnute-ef-onh^ meaning, " The god speaks and he
lives." But, plainly, this word would be somewhat
strangely transcribed by the Hebrew {Sdphnaih pa'fiah) ;
again, instead of the vague words ot the sentence, pe
neier ("the divinity"), we should have expected the
name of some particular Egyptian god, such as Ra.
Even then the name would lack special appropriateness
to Joseph's case, which the name proposed by Professor
Naville possesses in an eminent degree. " Asenath '' Dr.
Steindorff makes the equivalent of Nes-net (" Belonging
to Neith "), and " Poti-pherah " of Peterpre (" Gift of the
Sun-god "), both of which are less likely than the more
simple and suitable derivations of Professor Naville.
We are thus reassured of the truth of the contempora-
neity of personal names, as well as of the historical circum-
stances, laid before us in the Scriptural narrative of Joseph.
I should add that the geography of Egypt, as repre-
sented in the first pages of the Book of Exodus, exactly
reflects the contemporary condition of the Delta as
illustrated by the Egyption monuments. This is shown
convincingly by Professor Sayce, in the sixth chapter of his
interesting little work, entitled Momwieiit Facts and
Higher Critical Fancies.
CHAPTER IV
THE HAMMURABI CODE AND LATER ISRAEL
The history of Hammurabi's Code after his period — His legisla-
tion was accessible to the legal codifiers of Israel as postu-
lated by modern criticism, but was totally ignored by them.
The results of our inquiry so far have shown us that
there was culture enough among the Hebrews — in
particular possessed by Moses — of the period to pro-
duce a literature recording their own past and current
circumstances, and also, as we may justifiably infer
from the long previous promulgation of the Ham-
murabi Code, and, we may add, from the current
legislation of Egypt * in those days, to produce a legal
statute-book. The literary material lay to Moses'
hand, and developed literary and legal forms for copy-
ing. Then came the occasion for employing them.
The great national upheaval, whereby the whole twelve
tribes left the land of Goshen, never to return to it,
but to be henceforward an independent people, and
now to make for the Promised Land as their inherit-
ance,— this emergency, as writers of all schools allow,
must have necessitated the provision for them of some
body of law whereby they should be governed. The
circumstances called for it, the culture and the leader
♦ See The Inscriftion of Mes, by Alan A. Gardiner (Leipzig,
1905).
99
loo The Law of Hammurabi
were equal to it, and these two did not coexist again,
in the same suitable measure, throughout the nation's
history ; indeed, not from the days of Joshua until
those of the monarchy could the circumstances and
culture of Israel have possibly combined so as to
produce the literary substance of the Pentateuch.
But as the elaborators of the prevailing " Higher
Criticism" of the Old Testament were unaware of
the existence of the strong current of literary and
legal culture which flowed in the Nearer East from
the time of Abraham to Moses, while the record of
Israel during the period of the Judges was certainly
one of confusion and much barbarism, the elaborators
of that criticism imagined that the national civiliza-
tion of the Hebrews cannot have become in any way
noteworthy before the monarchy or the early years of
the divided kingdom. Hence, they assign the earliest
written sources of the Pentateuch (" J " and '' E ") to
that period. Archaeological discovery, as we have
seen, shows that their great postulate of a barbarous
world, and in particular of a barbarous early Israel,
is altogether wrong. Cut off from that ground and
starting-point, there is less warrant than ever for
the hypothesis that the Pentateuchal Codes are not
Mosaic,* but are made up of blocks of legislation,
nearly all of a late form, some of them the outgrowths
of national custom, some of them merely "ideal"
♦ Wellhausen, e.g.y says, "In truth, Moses is as little the
originator of the Law as our Lord Jesus Christ is the founder of
the Church order of Lower Hesse." The same incredulity of
Moses as the main codifier of the laws of the Pentateuch
was expressed by one of his followers in Germany at the
very time that the stela of Hammurabi was being discovered
(see Moses und Hammurabi ^ by Dr. J. Jeremias (Leipzig, 1903),
p. 45). But such incredulity is the common property of all the
Wellhausen school.
Hammurabi Code and Later Israel loi
laws, and practically all of them introduced into
" ideal" (that is, fictitious) history.
Yet further objection to such hypothetical origin
of at least the civil law, which the Bible attributes,
under Divine inspiration, to Moses comes from the
discovery and later history of the statutes of Ham-
murabi. It is a suggestive fact that although the
Patriarchs of Isrsrel lived under them, not one of
those statutes has definitely affected any enactment
of the Pentateuch.
Is it not strange that Jewish scribes, in issuing,
time after time — ex hypothese — several bodies of legis-
lation should, for the civil part, have so very carefully
avoided introducing any clauses of that renowned
Code under which the venerated founders of their
nation lived, and which, therefore, would have com-
mended itself to the pious, but instead thereof, and
writing for their countrymen long settled in Canaan,
should have chosen as a basis the customary law of
hadari Arabs (see p. 59, above), and that without such
modification, or at least, explanation, as would appear
desirable for their contemporaries ?
One of two answers must surely be given to this
question. Either the origin of the Hebrew system of
law was such as the history in which it is embedded
states it to have been, or else, if anything like the
explanation built up by the critics is true, that the
Hammurabi legislation, in the prolonged period during
which laws were being evolved which resulted in the
falsely named *' Mosaic " codes, was a thing of the past,
and no longer recognized by or accessible to Jewish
law-makers. We therefore proceed to show that this
latter answer to the question does not agree with the
facts of the case as we are now acquainted with them.
I. Hammurabi's laws were still well known in
I02 The Law of Hammurabi
Assyria and Babylonia, when, according to the
hypothesis of the critics, the Pentateuch was being
composed.
There are in the " Daily Telegraph " and " Rassam "
collections of the British Museum two broken tablets *
from the library of Ashshurbanipal (King of Assyria,
B.C. 667-626), which are inscribed, in cuneiform,
with certain ancient laws. Now, some of these laws
are identical with sections of Hammurabi's Code,
namely, with those sections which precede and those
which follow the erased part in his newly discovered
stela (see p. 24, above), while the remaining sections
on the tablets are intermediately placed, and must
therefore have occurred on the column where we
now see the erasure. It is to be remembered that
both these tablets were copied in the royal schools
of Assyria at the time that Manasseh was reigning
in Judah, the very time when, so the modern critics
tell us, the Book of Deuteronomy was being invented
to foist upon the nation of Israel as the work of Moses.
That the laws of Hammurabi were continuously well
known to the scribes of Mesopotamia we have further
positive evidence in a broken cuneiform tablet, now in
the Museum at Berlin, upon which also are inscribed a
series of ancient laws.f Those in the second column
are the same as §§ 152, 153, and 154 of the recently
discovered stela, and the column ends thus : duppu vii.
kam \tii\-nu ilu si-ru-um — that is, " 7 th tablet (of the
* Their register numbers are D. T. 81 and Rm. 277. It is
remarkable that the two tablets are complementary to each other,
and both help to restore to us the sections erased from the stela.
t The register number of the tablet is V. A. Th. 991. See
JurisprudenticB Bahylo7iic(B quce super sunt ^ by F. E. Peiser
(Cothen, 1890), pp. 33, ff. Cf. also Jlammurabi's Gesetz^ von
T. Kohler uud F. E. Peiser, 1904, Vorrede,
Hammurabi Code and Later Israel 103
series beginning) [Ni]-nu ilu[m] si-ru-um," which words
are, literally, the opening words of Hammurabi's stela.
Thus this tablet of late Babylonian times (not earlier
than the captivity of the Jews in Babylon) is a true
copy of some of the laws promulgated on the stela of
Hammurabi nearly two millenniums previously.
A fresh witness to the knowledge, in the later
Assyrian period, of Hammurabi's Code and stela
has just become known. It also is a broken tablet
from Ashshurbanipal's hbrary, and now in the British
Museum.* The legible portion begins with con-
cluding clauses (277, 278, 279) of the laws, and is
then broken off. When the text resumes, in Col. ii.,
it is at the beginning of the Epilogue of the stela
(Col. xxiv., 1. 17, of the reverse), which was copied
right on to the end of it. The colophon following
begins, " — 5 legal judgments of Hammurabi," and ends
with the usual " imprint " of *' Ashshurbanipal (King
of) Assyria." The entire copy would fill about eight
tablets, and thus be of larger form, as well as earlier
date, than the series represented in the Berlin Museum.
Demonstrably, therefore, the laws of Hammurabi
were known, copied, and studied by the learned
classes of Babylonia and Assyria (and, so far as
we know, without interruption) through all those
centuries, but certainly — and this is the important
point for us just now — at the very time when sceptical
critics would have us believe that the priests and
prophets of Israel were concocting a pseudo-Mosaic
legislation.
• Bu. 91-5-91 221, published in plates 46 and 47,
Pt. XIIL, of the Cuneiform Texts, etc. I hope shortly to
publish a transcription and translation of the text, which hitherto
have not been made. As to the numbering of the clauses of tjie
Code, see p. 132, below.
104 The Law of Hammurabi
2. We have now to see that such concoctors, if
they ever existed, must have had opportunities of
access to those laws. A very brief sketch of the
pohtical relationship of Assyria (which predominated
over Babylonia most of the time from Moses until
some twenty years before Daniel and his compatriots
were carried to Babylon) with Palestine (in its larger
extent — that is, including Phenicia, Philistia, etc.) will
enable us to see that they must have had such
opportunities.
We will begin with the time of Ashshurbanipal,*
upon whose connection with Palestine a beam of
light has just been thrown.
In the course of excavating in a comparatively late
stratum of the site of ancient Gezer,t for the Palestine
Exploration Fund, in 1904, Mr. R. A. S. Macalister
unearthed a cuneiform tablet which was, in every
essential respect, the same as tablets which were then
being made and inscribed in Assyria itself ; only a
skilled Assyriologist could tell that it was really made
and written locally — that is, in Palestine. It was not
only written in Assyrian cuneiform characters, but in
the Assyrian language, sealed with the seals of wit-
nesses in the legal Assyrian form, and bore the usual
Assyrian data^ which showed that it was written B.C.
649. Short as the document is, it contains more than
a dozen proper names, most of them good Babylonian
or Assyrian names. It is therefore clear that Gezer at
that time was, or, at least, that it contained, an
Assyrian colony. It was, in fact, an outpost of the
* Ashshurbanipal is thought to be referred to in Ezra iv. 10,
as *' the great and noble Osnappar."
t See Josh. xvi. 10 ; Judg. i. 29 ; I Kings ix. 16, etc. The
site of Gezer lies between Jaffa and Jerusalem, some eight miles
south-east of Ramleji.
Hammurabi Code and Later Israel 105
Assyrian power, and no doubt the most southern of a
chain of such outposts which ran through Palestine,
as Ashshurbanipal's father, Esarhaddon,* had, in
B.C. 670, conquered Egypt, which had been held, and
therefore also a way to Egypt through Palestine must
have been held, by Assyria until two or three years
before the date of this tablet. At that time Egypt
cast off Assyrian suzerainty; though the parts of
Palestine and Phenicia which were subject thereto
had not cast it off. This condition of things was
previously known from other sources, which the
recently discovered tablet strikingly confirms.
Now, in B.C. 649, the year in which this tablet was
made and written in Southern Palestine, Manasseh was
reigning in Judah ; it was the 37th year of his reign, f
Some fifty-two years earlier Hezekiah had lost, tem-
porarily at least, a number of fenced cities and paid
tribute, to Sennacherib ; J also, for some time before
Hezekiah came to the throne, his father, Ahaz, with his
court were simply dominated by Assyrian influence.
In the kingdom of the Ten Tribes the influence of
Assyria was still more potent than in Judah and more
long standing. After being several times defeated in
battle by Assyria, and portions of its people deported,
at length, in the sixth year of Hezekiah of Judah, the
Ten Tribes ceased to exist as a nation, were trans-
ported into Assyria and Media, and the mongrel
Samaritan people occupied their land.
• Who is spoken of in 2 Kings xix. 37.
t This is easily calculated. The date usually assigned by
Assyriologists to the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib is B.C.
701 ; that was in the 14th year of the reign of Hezekiah, who
reigned fifteen years longer, and was succeeded by his twelve-
year-old son, Manasseh. So that the year B.C. 701, less fifteen
years and thirty-seven years = B.C. 649.
I 2 Kings xviii. 13-16.
io6 The Law of Hammurabi
These are more or less typical proofs of the political
influence of Assyria upon the children of Israel —
influence which must have carried with it commercial,
social, and literary influence likewise. In this same
period, as we have seen, Hammurabi's laws were
known and were being copied by the learned classes
of Assyria, and therefore there would seem to have
been nothing to have prevented such of the Hebrew
scribes and influential classes as were interested in
such matters from becoming acquainted with them ;
especially when Jewish kings and leading men were
politically leaning upon Assyria or Babylon. Ham-
murabi's Code must certainly have been known to the
Prophet Daniel,* who, when living " in Shushan the
palace," which was then " in the [Babylonian] province
of Elam," must, with his own eyes, have often looked
upon this very stela of Hammurabi's which was then
standing in the acropolis of Shusan, where the French
expedition disinterred it in December, 1901, and
January, 1902. Doubtless, also, he must often have
seen and handled copies of the laws of the Code in
his earlier years, when he lived in Babylon itself, and
was a by no means obscure member of its learned
classes. Moreover, in the general captivity of his
people, many other Jewish scholars, because of their
intimate commercial and other relations with the Baby-
lonians among whom they lived, were certainly in the
way of hearing of that Code. How strong the proba-
bility is that such was the case we see when we re-
member that many Babylonian legal tablets of that
period, excavated by the expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania and published by Dr. H. V. Hilprecht,t
* Whose book has a strong Babylonian tinge, which most
modern critics very inadequately recognize.
t In vol. ix. of the official reports (Series A).
Hammurabi Code and Later Israel 107
contain many Jewish names. This is positive evi-
dence that the Jews were not only living under but
were also personally involved in legal transactions
with Babylonians, who still were influenced by, copied,
studied, and praised, the laws of Hammurabi.
These facts all tend to show that his legislation was
accessible to the learned classes of Israel at the
different periods which the critical school referred to
assigns to the composition of the Pentateuch, and,
having been the identical law under which Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob lived, would have commended itself
to the Jewish nation, particularly to the pious, and
therefore to priestly and prophetic writers who sought
to impose upon their countrymen systems which they
pretended were Mosaic. That all these considera-
tions should have been ignored, and, without the
slightest suggestion of explanation, instead of Ham-
murabi there should have been adopted as Mosaic, by
civilized Jews of a kingdom, a basis of Old Semitic
customary law which was, fundamentally, the law of
despised, Beduin marauders, is, in the light of present-
day knowledge, in the highest degree improbable,
indeed inconceivable. If, however, the Pentateuch is
a true record of the history and legislation of the
early days of Israel, that record carries its own proper
explanation with it.
CHAPTER V
ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MOSAIC RITUAL
The Ceremonial Law of the Pentateuch and modern archaeological
discovery — The inscriptions of ancient Arabia and the
monuments of the Sinaitic Peninsula.
Thus far we have spoken only t)f civil legislation,
which is all with which Hammurabi's Code deals ; but
in a book discussing Mosaic Law something should be
said on the religious legislation which bears the name
of Moses, which occupies a very considerable part of
the Pentateuch, but which the prevailing school of
modern criticism declares to be of very different
origin, and nearly the whole of it of very different
date, from what the Bible itself assigns.
Laws respecting the religious ordinances, ceremonial,
and life of ancient Israel ; the building and furniture
of the national sanctuary and the arrangements for
carrying these when the tribes were on the march;
the religious feasts, fasts, offerings, and ritual ; the
classes set apart as priests and their helpers, and the
regulations for both, — these things (which necessarily
form a very large part of the Mosaic legislation, since
the national life began and was to be built upon the
basis of a religious covenant) do not come up for
detailed comparison in this book. But concerning
io8
Archaeology and the Mosaic Ritual 109
them I would say, briefly, that some of them deve-
loped naturally from the circumstances of the people.
Take, for example, the Tabernacle of the Congrega-
tion, or, more correctly, the Tent of Meeting, of
Exod. xxxiii. 7-9. This, which was Israel's {sanc-
tuary until the Tabernacle proper was constructed,
was only an ordinary tent, apparently " the tent " of
Exod. xviii. 7 — that is, the private tent of Moses ; just
as the first Christian "churches" were the private
rooms of the primitive Christians. Other religious
externals were similar to, and some founded upon,
what the children of Israel were acquainted with as
used among neighbouring peoples. Some of them
certainly were similar, in their broad features, to what
were in use in Babylon, but, it is specially noteworthy,
very few indeed of the rehgious terms of the Bible,
even for common religious acts, are derived from
ancient Babylonian,* although the father of Israel
emigrated from ancient Babylonia, and both peoples
spoke a Semitic language. We are not, therefore,
entitled to assume a Babylonian origin for any
Mosaic ceremonial unless that ceremonial, while used
by the Babylonians, was not to be found among
nearer neighbours of the Israelites in the days of
Moses.
Similarities of outward forms in religious worship,
in ceremonies, officers, rules, furniture, various arrange-
ments, and even in nomenclature, as given in the
♦ This is shown conclusively, and in fulness of detail; by
Mr. Robert Dick Wilson, in an article entitled "Babylon and
Israel : a comparison of their leading ideas based upon their
vocabularies," in the Princeton Theological Review^ April, 1903
(Philadelphia).
That Babvlonian law terms are not found in the Hebrew civil
law Prof. Grimme has already conclusively shown (see p. 76,
above).
iio The Law of Hammurabi
Pentateuch, we also find, to some extent, in the ex-
tant remains of Egypt and other neighbours of Israel.
But when we remember the gross polytheism of
Egypt, the enmity which the oppression of the rulers
of that land caitsed to grow up between it and Israel ;
and when we remember, on the other hand, the refuge
and home whicli for forty years of his early manhood
Moses found with Jethro, the priest of Midian ; how
the friendship between them both was renewed after
the Exodus ; and the very considerable influence which
Moses allowed Jethro to exercise on his magisterial
arrangements for the Twelve Tribes ; * moreover, that
the friendly and neighbourly influence of Midian upon
Israel was continued, to some extent, through Hobab,
who probably was Moses' brother-in-law, and the
KeniteSjt — when, I say, we remember all this, we
might reasonably expect that Midianitish ritual would
have considerable influence on the Mosaic ; the ritual,
but not the theology, for the Hebrew faith came by
Divine revelation.
Modern archaeological investigation seems to con-
firm that expectation in a remarkable way. Professor
Grimme, as well as other scholars, believes that the
most important source of the religious ceremonial of
the Pentateuch is indicated in the ancient inscrip-
tions of Arabia, which have been brought to light m
recent years. In view of what Professor Grimme has
written (see pp. 50, 51 above), it may be well, for
* Exod. xviii. In Deut. i. 9-15 the appointment of the
subordinate magistracy under Moses is spoken of without any
reference to Jethro ; but it was sufficient for that occasion, and
more befitting it, that only Moses and the people of Israel — who
fully accepted Jethro's advice, and were, therefore, responsible
for the results of it — should be mentioned.
t Numb. X. 29-32 and Judg, i. 16. Cf. also Judg. iv, 11-17
and I Sam. xv. 6.
Archaeology and the Mosaic Ritual 1 1 1
various reasons, but especially because of its great
importance for Biblical criticism, to give here some
particulars of that new branch of study.
Inscriptions of ancient Arabia have long been
known; they are of various periods and dialects.
One of the series, the Nabatean, is comparatively
late, ranging from a few decades B.C. to about a.d.
I go; one of the Nabatean rulers whose inscrip-
tions have come down to us is the " Aretas the king "
(Aretas IV.) mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 32. But with
those inscriptions we have here nothing to do. What
Professor Grimme refers to are two series of a much
earlier date, formerly called Himyaritic, but now
known, from the ancient Arabic kingdoms they
respectively represent, as the Minean and Sabean.
The one dialect, the Minean, was spoken in the
kingdom of Ma'an or Ma'in, and a large number of
its kings* are mentioned in the inscriptions. The
Mineans, of whom Strabo speaks. Dr. Ed. Glaser and
Professor F. Hommel believe to be the Maonites of
Judg. X. 12; while the Septuagint, as has been
pointed out, describes Job's friend Zohar, as " King
of the Mineans" (Job ii. 11). The Sabean inscrip-
tions apparently come later than the most brilliant
Minean period ; the earliest of them cannot be placed
before the eighth century B.C. The Sabean rulers
were then priest-kings (mukarrib), and the Queen of
Sheba, who visited Solomon, would belong to a pre-
ceding era of the same (Sabean) people. Now, the
inscribed Minean monuments, as Drs. Glaser and
Hommel, Sayce and Grimme believe, preceded the
Sabean, and it is claimed that the religious organiza-
tion of the temples of ancient Arabia, as revealed by
♦ More than thirty, but some of these may have been con*
temporary ; compare Numb. xxxi. 8,
1 1 2 The Law of Hammurabi
these inscriptions, may have been the source of many
of the forms of the ceremonial law of the Pentateuch,
as Professor Grimme indicates in his treatise.
But although the opinion of the high antiquity of
the Arabian inscriptions held by Professor Grimme
is shared, as we have seen, by other scholars of great
learning and experience, including some who have
the most intimate first-hand knowledge of the in-
scriptions in question, it is only right to recognize that
many scholars, in England and elsewhere, regard those
inscriptions as of much later date than is here assumed.
The strength of their argument lies in this, that whereas
the high antiquity of the inscriptions rests upon palaeo-
graphic and other inferences, there are two Minean
inscriptions which seem to directly contradict those
inferences. One of these inscriptions is a long one
upon an Egyptian sarcophagus, now in the Museum
of Cairo, and the date it bears is very late indeed,
viz. in the time of one of the earlier Ptolemies, pro-
bably Ptolemy Philadelphus (b.c. 285-247).* But
this inscription. Dr. Hommel points out, is evidently
in late Minean style ; moreover, its contents show
that its writers had no connection with any Minean
kingdom, but were only members of the tribe or
colony immediately under the protection of Egypt.
All that this inscription can be fairly claimed to prove
with regard to date is, therefore, that at the time
mentioned there were people living who wrote a
Minean dialect.
The other Minean inscription referred to is a more
important witness. For the political and geographi-
cal references contained in the inscription do seem,
♦ This Minean text, with transliterations and English trans-
lation, is given by Prof. Hommel, in the Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaology^ March, 1894.
Archaeology and the Mosaic Ritual 113
as Dr. E. A. Wallis-Budge contends,* to point to
the war between Cambyses and Psammetichus III.
(B.C. 529). Moreover, the inscription apparently
belongs to a time when the Minean kingdom was
flourishing. The question therefore arises, Does this
date, if it be the true one, nullify Professor Grimme's
argument that ancient Arabian religious ceremonial
was a chief source of the outward forms of the cere-
monial law of the Mosaic Pentateuch ? By no means.
It would certainly nullify the demonstrative force the
argument has if the Minean temple system was con-
temporary with Moses, but if it should be proved
that such system did not originate until much later
than the Mosaic period, the argument remains intact
as a rebutter of the extraordinary hypothesis of " the
Higher Criticism," that the Ceremonial Law of the
Pentateuch dates, in much of its substance and
wholly as a system, from the period of the Exile,
only terminating with Ezra, For it shows us that
the Old Arabian temple system, with its very con-
siderable analogies to the Pentateuchal ceremonial,
was in full force in the sixth century B.C. (when
Persia was the dominating power of the world),
when the long-standing and only occasionally dissi-
pated enmity between Israel on the one hand, and
Midian, Moab, and all the Arabian tribes on the
• In the Preface to the sixth volume of his History of Egypt.
The inscription is numbered 1155 in Dr. Glaser's list, No. 535
in M. Halevy's ; the text of it is lithographed in Dr. Hommel's
Siid'Arabische Chrestotnathie (Munich, 1893), also in his
Aufsdtze, etc. (Erste Halfte, 1892, pp. 124, flF.).
Dr. Budge's satisfactory refutation of Dr. H. Winclcler's
conjecture that there was a kingdom of Mutsri in Arabia
(besides the two well-known Mutsris, namely, Egypt and
a land in North Syria), is not dependent upon the date of
this Minean inscription.
H
114 The Law of Hammurabi
other, was deep and bitter.* How, then, at such a
time, could priestly romancers of Israel (such as the
criticism presupposes) have gone to that stock for
their religious ceremonial ?
But the ancient Arabian temple worship is admitted
on all hands to have been flourishing at least by b.c.
529, and it must then have had a history behind it.
One of two things had happened — either it was
developed from within, or obtained from without.
If the latter, it is not unreasonable to suppose that
many of its forms were obtained from the Hebrews ;
a special indication of its Hebrew derivation would
appear in the name of "Levites"t given to a certain
♦ E.g. With the Midianites^ at least the section of them who
were nearest neighbours to Canaan, such enmity is shown from
the time of Balaam until they were nearly exterminated by
Gideon (Judg. viii. 28), and thereafter practically disappear
from historical contact with Israel. With the Moabites there
was an even greater estrangement than with Midian, save for
a few decades of friendliness in the early years of David and the
time immediately preceding. Solomon, it is true, introduced
some of its women into his haram and their worship to
Jerusalem, but the latter became stigmatized for ever as " the
abomination of Moab" (i Kings xi. 7). The Ceremonial Law
of the Hebrews, it is plain, could not, after David's earlier
years, have been much affected by Moab.
The relation of Israel to Amalek, the Ammonites, and Edom
was much the same as to Moab and the Midianites.
No doubt, during part of Solomon's reign, there would be
currents and counter-currents of religious influence between Israel
and its neighbours, but that date would suit the hypotheses of
the critics as little as the earlier traditional period ; moreover, it
could scarcely be fitted into the histories of Kings and Chronicles,
and it has yet to be shown that the writers of those books knew
less of the periods they chronicle, or that their records are
less trustworthy, than are nineteenth and twentieth century re-
modellings of their histories.
t Otherwise, the word may have had more the sense of the
classical Arabic Idwd or la^a, meaning he who endures hardship
Archaeology and the Mosaic Ritual 115
class attached to the Old Arabian temples.* But that
derivation must have begun long before to account
for the considerable modifications made in Arabia ;
we might suppose it to have begun about the time of
the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon, at which
time also the Israelites had a naval depot at Ezion-
geber, on the north-east head of the Red Sea, and so
there would be much contact between them and the
Sabeans. If at that period the Pentateuchal system
was the recognized ritual of Israel (and the Bible
teaches us it was), the whole hypothesis of the Graf-
Wellhausen school of critics tumbles to the ground.
But if, on the other hand, the Old Arabian temple
worship was indigenous, it must have had a long
antecedent period of development, and reason has
yet to be shown why the framework of it may not
have existed among the Midianite Semites when
Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, was their high priest.
The interval of time cannot be considered too great
when we reflect that the period from Jethro to the
days when, as all allow, the Old Arabian temple
worship flourished, was but a fraction of that which
intervened between the legislation of Mount Sinai and
the record by Munzinger of the customary law of the
Bogos in Abyssinia, which has so much in common with
the civil law of the so-called Book of the Covenant.!
(as the hard manual and menial labour of the temple, or in the
sense oi o. fakir).
* Prof. Grimme informs me that the N. Arabian male and
female levites, in the inscriptions of El-Ola, do not appear in
any way as a priestly class, but are always named in close con-
nection with such persons as were dedicated {sibrdr) to the
service of a temple. So they must, in the first instance, be
regarded as pledj^es (cf. the Heb. iawa^ " to lend ''), which those
dedicated gave over to the temples.
t The following translation by Prof. Grimme (which I
render into English from the Orimtalistiche Litteratur-Zeitung
ii6 The Law of Hammurabi
Yet more recent archaeological discoveries, to wit,
those of Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie in the
peninsula of Sinai (December, 1904, to March, 1905),
indicate to us that the Pentateuch bears evidence in
its pages as of a substratum of Old Semitic civil
law, so also of Old Semitic religious ceremonial which
influenced the patriarchs of Israel and retained a
modified place in the Mosaic Code; while ancestral
superstitions and degrading practices, which were for-
bidden by the inspired lawgiver, had a deep, if secret,
hold upon the hearts of many in Israel, and they, as
well as idolatries of nations within and influencing
Canaan, again and again asserted themselves in the
life of the Chosen Race.
Professor Petrie's investigations in Sinai disclose
that there were in use there, not only as early as the
of May, 1906) of a decree of one of the Old Arabian temples
will, in spite of some obscurities, be of interest as illustrating
something of the character of these inscriptions ; this one,
Prof. Grimme thinks, may belong to the period of the
early Sabean kings. It was copied by M. Halevy in Harara,
and he numbers it 152. It apparently consisted of seventeen
lines, sixteen of which are well preserved : —
"Whoso enters the temple precincts must lay down his
weapons far from (the god) Halif, then seeking shelter he may
draw near or enter in order to obtain an oracle. When forsooth
his weapons are discovered, and blood-guiltiness is in his train,
he shall pay to the head of (the temple community of) Attar and
the priests ten hai'ili ; but if he is not blood-guilty he shall pay
five hai'ili. If* any one drives away a fatted calf out of the
temple radius he shall count out five (calves) of equal value,
and whoso consumes a portion (of the calf) shall pay it back in
full. A man who purloins food from the temple radius shall
compensate for one of the small cattle an ox, and for a measure
(of corn) of the temple radius a larger measure. For watered
curdled milk and comb-honey and cakes he shall defray the cost
for all people (of the temple). This ordinance shall be of force
for ten years, beginning with the month Du-s-I-'m, of the time of
the sacrificial service of Ilsad, overseer of Hali'at."
Archaeology and the Mosaic Ritual 1 1 7
time of the Exodus (during the Nineteenth Dynasty
of Egypt), but even as far back as the Twelfth
Dynasty, altars of incense, anointed sacred stones,*
and tanks for ablutions or religious purification, while
many tons of wood ashes, which still remain heaped
together in the temple precincts of Serabit el Khadem,
testify to burnt offerings there made ; and all of this
religious ceremonial (which involved ceremonial law)
was not according to ancient Egyptian, but according
to ancient Semitic usage, t
So, then, as the Old Semitic world supplies us with
the substratum of civil law, so does it furnish us with
the substratum of religious ceremonial upon which,
as upon a natural basis, and (to speak ** after the
manner of men ") in accordance with the necessary
analogy of God's dealings with mankind, He reared,
supernaturally, the Mosaic dispensation.
• Since Jacob, appropriating an ancient practice, raised and
anointed the stone he had used for a pillow at Luz, when the
heavenly vision was vouchsafed to him, and called the place
Bethel, anointed sacred stones are often called '* Bethels."
t Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, Researches in Sinai (London,
1906) ; particularly chapters vii., x., and xiii., and plates 93,
94, 142, and 143.
CHAPTER VI
MOSES AND ISRAEL
The historical turning-point of the Mosaic period — The person-
ality of Moses — A Divine element in the Mosaic legisla-
tion, as in all Scripture.
Thus far, we have seen that modern discovery makes
probable the consistent traditional date of the Cere-
monial Law, and proves the historical character both
of the narrative and also of the civil law of the
Pentateuch. To the factors in the recovery of the
natural conditions under which the Pentateuchal
codes originated we must now add other two, one
at least of which has been more than once referred
to in these pages ; * they are Moses himself and the
turning-point in history in which he appeared.
First, the age of Moses was the age of travail of
a new nation, the nation of Israel, whose mark on the
subsequent history of mankind has been very deep
and lasting — a nation, indeed, which still powerfully
influences the modern world, intellectually, financially,
and politically. No single race has, not even all
other races put together have, made contributions so
great, so enduring, so effective, and of a potentiality
still untold, to the moral and religious history of the
world as the nation of Israel has made, and that
* See above, pp. 50, 51, 88, 94, 96, and 99.
118
Moses and Israel 119
never could have been but for the national home
and school which the Promised Land afforded it.
The age of its deliverance from Egypt and passing
into that land was, therefore, a turning-point in
human story as well as in that of Israel, and one
marked with the fulfilment of cherished promises
made to the fathers.
And next, as to the leader of that deliverance,
Moses. Periods of crisis necessitate a leader, one
who shall be both the offspring of his time and the
shaper of its history; while both ages and leaders
are prepared by God. As the Mosaic age was a
crucial point in history, so Moses was its prepared,
competent, and efficient leader. By Divine provi-
dence he was fitted for his literary and administra-
tive work by being educated, from infancy, at the
court of Pharaoh at a period of ripe culture ; he was
versed in ecclesiastical matters, of his own Semitic
type, during the forty years he served and by mar-
riage became one of the family of the high priest
of Midian; during those same forty years he was
becoming personally disciplined, and was acquiring
that intimate practical knowledge of the desert and
of the requirements of shepherding there, which would
stand him in such good stead during his leadership
of his own people, who also were pastoralists in that
same wilderness. The full and manifold preparation
thus Divinely allotted to Moses was manifestly ideal
for the great work for which he was being prepared.
His natural temperament — patriotic, indignant at
wrong, compassionate to the oppressed, yet patient
and meek — co-operated the same way. He was thus
a devoted, experienced man of affairs as well as a
competent man of letters. Comparable in versatility
and power to Hammurabi, to our own King Alfred,
i^o The Law of Hammurabi
to his own later countryman King David, yet his
mission was greater than any of theirs. Placed, at
a peculiarly trying juncture, at the head of the tribes
of his people, first to effect their delivery from in-
tolerable oppression and tyranny, then to lead them
to the somewhat severe but safe conditions of the
desert ; to be as a father to them, the law-giver and
organizer of their corporate life and church during
the long years of disciplinary wandering, until they
should be prepared to take and to make their in-
heritance in the Land of Promise, — all this, as it gave
Moses a uniqueness of opportunity, established also
the uniqueness of his position, and made his mark
on his nation and on the world unique and lasting
also. Hammurabi was the founder of the Babylonian
empire and first codifier of Babylonian law; but
his work and influence, as they were ever indepen-
dent of, were very far from parallel with those of
Moses.
And then there was a supernatural element in
Moses' life and work which did not exist in Ham-
murabi's, but which was manifest in the life and work
of all the writers of the Old and New Testaments.
For it is most significantly true that the essential
character, distinctiveness, and value of the Mosaic
institutions was not, of course, that they lacked the
social and legislative development exemplified in
Hammurabi's Code, nor, positively, that they amply
recognized Old Semitic customary law and religious
ritual ; no, nor even the suitability of those institu-
tions to the social and economic circumstances of
the Twelve Tribes when organizing for the Promised
Land. Not those things but its powerful rehgious
doctrine was the characteristic, par excelkftce, of the
Mosaic legislation and record. We note some points
Moses and Israel i2t
in its unique character : its pure, unbending mono-
theism. Its revelation — or, rather, its re-revelation —
of a righteous and holy God, jealous for His own
honour and His people's purity ; a God who hates all
idolatry as debasing and deadly sin, yet who graciously
drew nigh unto and entered into covenant relationship
with the nation for whom Moses legislated, namely,
for the descendants of that convinced monotheist
from Babylonia, Abraham, whose sublime and simple
trust in Him has been a model and an inspiration to
men through all the ages since. We note also that
by that covenant in the fulness of the times there was
to emerge the new and better Covenant in which all
families of the earth should be and are being blessed.
As we consider these things and their stupendous
issues, which are to culminate in the regeneration of
the world, we cannot wonder that God should have
called Moses to his great work by the miraculous
appearance at the Burning Bush ; that by many signs
and wonders He should have delivered the Abraham ic
tribes from the bondage which thwarted their heritage
of grace ; and that the proclamation of His Covenant
to the new nation and of the fundamental laws which
should rule it, should have been inaugurated by the
great Theophany of Sinai, — so awe-striking and yet
so marvellously in accord with that momentous event
in the life of the Chosen Race and of all mankind.
The Mosaic dispensation, its laws and institutions,
was thus developed out of the circumstances and
conditions of the time, but by Divine revelation,
inspiration, and guidance.
Now, the evolution of its outward forms from actual
contemporary conditions is what we ought, rightly and
reverently, to have expected. We ought not to have
expected the Mosaic system to have been a miraculous
122 The Law of Hammurabi
entity, a totally strange and marvellous thing which
appealed to no knowledge, use, or custom of the people
to whom it was given. Such, so far as we know, never
has been God's way of working among men. The
Saviour of the world, in the days of His flesh, taught
even His closest followers just as they were able to
bear it,* and His special teaching to them and to the
world started from the common things around them.
The Hebrew prophets spake and taught — as they were
" moved by the Holy Ghost," certainly, but yet —
according to the customs and understanding of their
generation. So, too, it was in the Covenant legisla-
tion of Sinai : it started from the class and clan
organization of the Twelve Tribes, from their own
customs, and from the knowledge of what was going
on around them, especially among those with whom
they had sympathy and relationship. The words of
Dr. Wace,t the present Dean of Canterbury, have
here a peculiar appropriateness. " The inspiration
of the Divine Law-giver," he says, " was exerted, in
fact, not in creating an entirely new social order, but
in illuminating and transforming, by positive Divine
commands, the state of life which already existed.
Nothing more consonant with the methods of Divine
inspiration and education, as exhibited in later
history, could well be conceived."
Thus while the line of thought here taken is, as I
believe, fully as " natural " — that is to say, as fully in
accord with our common experience, rather would I
say with the analogy of God's dealings in history — as
is the line of argument taken by the Rationalistic
* John xvi. 12.
t In the Preface with which he honoured me by contributing
to a little book which I translated from the German of Pro^
Edward Konig, entitled The Bible and Babylon (1905).
Moses and Israel 123
critical school, it does what that cannot do, namely, it
justifies, in the main, the trust which the Church of
God on earth has, and must have, in its own literary
and historical sources, as being specially given by
Divine inspiration ; no other book having been thus
given. The prevailing critical school undermines
such trust. But while our line of argument, based
on the most recent advances in real knowledge, gives
satisfactory reasons for the Christian student to accept
the " writing " or *' Scripture of truth," * as fully
authentic and trustworthy, and not as merely " ideal "
in its statements, yet the vital value of the Scriptures,
that which makes them really " Holy Writ " and " the
Word of God " to any soul of man, is faith, — Divinely
originated, Divinely illumined, and Divinely led.
This, of course, lies without the limits of merely
literary criticism or archaeological proof, but it is the
touchstone and the safeguard of Christian knowledge
and criticism now as much as it was in Apostohc
days.
• Dan. X. 21.
CHAPTER VII
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE
The law of levirate marriage : an additional application of
Professor Grimme's method.
The comparison of another instance of Pentateuchal
legislation, one which lies outside the Book of the
Covenant dealt with by Professor Grimme, with Old
Semitic customary law on the one hand and Old
Babylonian on the other, may be usefully subjoined ;
the instance is that of levirate marriage.
The enactment about it is given in Deut. xxv. 5, ff.,
but that is a modification of a customary law of Israel
in the patriarchal period (Gen. xxxviii. 8, 11). The
substance of the law, in both places, is that when a
man died without seed his brother should marry the
widow in order to raise up a posterity to the
deceased.
Now, according to the testimony of the most recent
English traveller, who is also a most experienced
sojourner, among the Arab tribes of Sinai, Mr. W. E.
Jennings-Bramley : * "Although they (the Beduin)
* " The Beduin of the Sinaitic Peninsula," in the Qtiarterly
Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fzmd^ July, 1905, p. 218.
Mr. Jennings-Bramley was, in the early part of 1906, appointed
by the Egyptian Government to be commandant and inspector,
" with full control " over the affairs of the Sinaitic Peninsula.
124
Levirate Marriage 125
seldom have more than one wife, in the case of a man
dying and leaving a widow, his brother is bound to
marry her, and to look after her children, if she have
any." This case at once suggests analogy with the
levirate marriage of the Pentateuch, yet all that is
common to both is that, for family and perhaps tribal
reasons, a man was bound to become husband to his
brother's widow. That law, therefore, is evidently Old
Semitic custom, and upon it the Hebrew law would
be based. That it is Old Semitic is confirmed to us
by the fact that it is in force among the Bogos.
According to § 107 of Munzinger's treatise, if a man
dies before marriage, his father or his brother takes
over the marriage right of the deceased with his
betrothed, without either new contract or customary
payment to his father, who had no right of objection.
By § 108, if a married man dies, a son by another
marriage, his brother, or other nearest relation, has' the
right to the widow, without reference to her father.
Betrothal counts as marriage, and the brother, or
other next of kin inherits (as is expressly stated) the
brother's wife or espoused. The widow may remain
in her late husband's or go back to her father's house,
and for a certain period — from forty days to a year — is
at the claim of her husband's brother or other next of
kin j if at the end of the customary period he shows
no desire to marry her, she is free to marry any one
she chooses.
Thus we see that among the Sinaitic Beduin and the
Bogos hadariy as among the Israelites in both the
patriarchal and Mosaic periods, the custom has
prevailed of the brother marrying his deceased
brother's wife; it is thus an Old Semitic custom.
But the circumstances of each group of people give it a
different aspect. Among the wandering Arab tribes it
126 The Law of Hammurabi
is chiefly considered as a means of protecting a woman
and any young children she may have ; among the
Bogos clans adopting a settled life it is looked upon
as a privilege, and, to some extent, a responsibility
of inheritance ; in Israel it was a duty (from which,
however, he was exonerated if he lived away) of a sur-
viving brother (or other next of kin) to the family name
and heritage — about which I will say more presently ;
whereas in the settled and highly civilized Babylonia
of Hammurabi's time the custom of levirate marriage
was not recognized by the Civil Code in any sort of
way, but, on the other hand, it provided the widow
with at least a settlement and a life interest in her
deceased husband's estate.
The peculiar features of brother-in-law marriage
in the law and custom of Israel call for remark.
That which is pecuHar to the Deuteronomic law is
for the same evident purpose as that other enactment
of the same period, namely, the law about daughters
succeeding to landed estate, which was made, in the
first instance, for the daughters of Zelophehad,* to
* Numb, xxvii. i-ii. For the legal significance of this
event, see an article by Mr. H. M. Wiener, a Jewish barrister, in
The Churchmany May, 1906. A book by, the same author,
entitled Studies i?i Biblical Law (London, 1904), should be
carefully read by any serious student who is impressed by " the
Higher Critics' " plausible analyzes of the MosaiclCodes and the
apparent detection of different renderings of the same law, and
of post-Mosaic conditions reflected in them. On that subject it
may here suffice to say that from lack of legal training, or
perhaps from lack of care and consideration in reading the
terms of Pentateuchal enactments, laws of very different purport
are often confused, and a meaning is read into them which they
were not meant to bear. Mr. "Wiener has supplemented his
book by later contributions to The Churchinan than that referred
to above.
The incident of Zelophehad's daughters, it may be observed.
Levirate Marriage 127
wit, the preservation of each family's inheritance.
Zelophehad had died without son, his daughters
formally inquired whether, because of that, his name
should " be taken away from among his family ; "
were not they entitled to preserve it and to receive his
inheritance when the allotment of the Promised Land
was made? While what distinguished the levirate
law of Israel (as expressed both in the Book of
Deuteronomy and, as recognized by Jacob and his
sons, in the Book of Genesis) from similar legal
customs among other peoples was the special object
of raising up seed to a deceased brother, in order
that his name should not become extinguished among
his people.
This distinctive object of the law at once prompts
the inquiry. Why this special and avowed care in
Israel for name and seed ? For my own part, I can-
not but recognize in it a token that the parental desire
was strengthened and acquired hereditary force in
Israel because of the promise made to Abraham that
in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed,
and because the protevangelium was upon record
among them, that the seed of the woman should bruise
the serpent's head. These two great and mysterious
promises were the first cause of the ineradicable belief
suits well with the historic circumstances of the Chosen People
about to enter upon the Land of Promise ; it needs, I think,
peculiar vision to see in it any practical value as an invention
of Jewish scribes (labelled ** P ") exiled in Babylon. Similarly,
the levirate enactment of Deut. xxv. suits well the testamentary
legislative Code or summary of the venerable lawgiver ere be
passed away and his people entered Canaan ; but what is its
value or meaning as '* the prophetic re-formulation and adapta-
tion to new needs " (as Prof. Driver, with special reference to
•* the Deuteronomist," explains the principle involved) of Israel
in the period, " approximately," of the Babylonian Captivity ?
128 The Law of Hammurabi
of Israel that it was an elect race. How much,
then, depended upon the family life ! and how deeply
might men and women in Israel indulge the hope
that through their own family life they might have a
special part in the fulfilment of the great promises
to their nation 1 Furthermore, the levirate law of
marriage was among the legal arrangements of Israel
which called for care in recording and preserving
family genealogies; in some circumstances it might
even have the value of family insurance, of which,
incidentally, the Book of Ruth supplies us with a
specially interesting instance. My readers will not
take it amiss if I add that the richest and ripest fruit
of the care in preserving family genealogies in Israel
is reached in the record of Luke ii. 4, 5 ; v. 23, fif.,
whereby we see, in a wonderful way, the working of
Divine providence in the history of the Chosen Race ;
and see also clearly that it was the Holy Spirit of
" the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity,"
who inspired Hebrew lawgiver and prophet, through
whom He wrought out His great purposes for man-
kind.
CHAPTER VIII
HAMMURABI LAW IN MODERN PALESTINE
The practical working of a section of Hammurabi's Code
illustrated by the law of Palestine now.
This series of chapters may be brought to a close by
an illustration, from the law of Palestine now current,
of the way in which the principle of one of Ham-
murabi's laws would work in practice.
In § 23 of his Code, Hammurabi decreed that in
a case of highway robbery or brigandage, when the
banditti escaped, the man who had been robbed
should make a declaration of his losses in the temple
of the local god, and the township within whose
borders the place lay where the act of brigandage had
been committed, and its governor {rabiami)^ should
fully indemnify the man for his loss ; while if the
man's life had been taken, the city and its governor
should pay a mana of silver to the family of the
murdered man.* Very similar law to the foregoing
* Sections 22, 23, and 24 of Hammurabi's Code run thus :
(§ 22) *' If a man has committed highway robbery and has been
captured, he shall be put to death. (§ 23) If the robber has not
been captured, the man robbed shall declare everything he has
lost before the god. The city and the rabianu, in whose land
and borders the robbery has been committed, shall fully restore
everything he has lost. (§ 24) If life (has been taken), the city
and rabianu shall weigh one mana of siWcr to his people;"
129 t
130 The Law of Hammurabi
obtains in Palestine still, as the following illustrative
incident will show.
Just off the track, through the forest of Carmel,
which one pursues going to and from Nazareth and its
port and English post-town Haifa, there was pointed
out to me, more than once during the year (April 30,
1879, to May I, 1880) I resided at Nazareth, a
certain large tree under which, some years earlier, a
young Englishman had been foully murdered. He was
travelling alone and afoot, and in the middle of the
morning sat down to rest and find shelter from the
heat of the sun under the tree spoken of. The sight,
probably, of his gold watch-chain excited the cupidity
of certain men of Belial, who stole behind him while
he slept, killed him with their bludgeons, and robbed
him. This act of violence was, of course, speedily
discovered and an outcry raised. But there was no
little trouble to find and punish the criminals ; the
chief difficulty really being that the murderers were
Mohammadans and the victim a Christian. But
though a Christian he was also an Englishman, and
the English Consul in Beyrout was firm in insisting
that the doers of the il) deed should be brought to
justice. Yet how could they be since they were
unknown ? The Turkish law has a generally effective
way of finding out the criminals in such cases by a
clause — customary if not statutory — which corresponds
to the laws just quoted from Hammurabi's Code, and
which says that the township within whose borders
crime is committed shall be held responsible. In this
case, both the villages nearest to the scene of the
murder denied their responsibility. The distance of
each from the spot was therefore measured, and the
village really the nearer was called on to produce the
wrong-doers. But the idea that the life of any
Hammurabi Law in Palestine 131
Mohammadan should be forfeited for the life of a
Christian was an idea which, in those days at least,
could not be entertained by any Mohammadan com-
munity in Palestine. It was, consequently, declared to
be impossible to find the culprits ; if, however, amends
must be made, the township was prepared to pay a
money fine. But the English demand that the law
should be effective remained firm, and an English
gunboat anchored oflf Beyrout. Then the village in
question found the criminals.
It is thus seen that where local law has a strong hold
the king's writ may operate best through that. Thus
the Sultan of Turkey rules to-day, and thus, in some
matters, Hammurabi exercised authority in Babylonia
four thousand years ago. At that time, in spite of
Hammurabi's imperial governance and his diligence as
a ruler, local or township law must still have had
much force, for, before he united them under his own
sovereignty. Babylonia had long consisted of several
states, each with its capital city, and the head (king,
priest, or governor) of first one and then another had
obtained leading jurisdiction in the land. It was an
old rule, therefore — a rule, indeed, probably handed
down from primitive ages — that each locality or settle*
ment should be held responsible for good conduct
within its borders.
A Translation from the Babylonian of such
OF THE Laws of Hammurabi's Code as are
COMPARED BY PROFESSOR GrIMME (pp. 66-75,
above) with the Laws of the First Part
OF "The Book of the Covenant" (Exod.
xxi.-xxii. 19).
Note. — The laws are here given in the sequence in
which they occur on Hammurabi's stela. The numbering
of them is Prof. Schiel's, who estimated that the five
erased columns, which followed next after § 65, contained
35 clauses. Now, the recently discovered tablet (see
p. 103, above) seems to show that the sum of the clauses
had ** — 5 " for its unit (the signs for the hundreds and
tens being broken off), if that were so, the right total
would probably be 275 or 285 ; consequently the present
numbering of the clauses after 100 would be incorrect.
§1
If a man* has accused another of having practised
sorcery upon him and he has not established (the
accusation), the accuser shall be put to death.
* The original word {awilu or amelu)^ thus rendered throughout
this translation, usually means a member of the class of ordinary
free men. See p. 31 of Prof. Grimme's treatise.
132
A Translation 133
§3
If a man has charged witchcraft upon another and has
not established it, he who is charged with witchcraft to
the river god he shall go, and to the river god he shall be
cast, and if the river god overwhelm him, his accuser
shall take his house ; if the river god show that man to
be innocent and save him, he who has charged him
with witchcraft shall be put to death, (and) he who has
cast himself to the river god shall take the house of his
accuser.
§6
If a man has stolen (from) the treasury of the god
{i.e. of his temple) or from the palace, that man shall be
put to death, and he who has received from him the
thing stolen shall be put to death.
§7
If a man has bought or has received on deposit silver
or gold, bondman or bondwoman, ox or sheep or ass,
or anything whatever, from the hand of a man's son or a
man's servant without witnesses and bonds, that man
(as) a thief shall be put to death.
§8
If a man has stolen ox or sheep or ass or pig or ship,
if it is the god's \i.e. belongs to the temple], (or) if of the
palace (belongs to the palace), he shall give {i.e. recom-
pense) up to thirty-fold ; if (it is the property) of a
134 The Law of Hammurabi
freed-man,* he shall compensate up to ten-fold ; if the
thief has not wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.
§ 14
If a man has stolen the young son of another, he shall
be put to death.
§ 21
If a man has broken into a house, before the breach
they shall kill him and shall thrust him (into it).
§ 24
If a life [has been taken by brigands f] the city and
Governor {Rabianu) one mana % of silver shall pay to his
[the missing person's] people.
§57
If a shepherd has caused the sheep to feed in herbage
[that is, probably, in growing corn], with the owner of the
field he has not agreed, and without (the consent of) the
owner of the field the sheep have eaten the field,
the owner of the field shall reap his (the shepherd's)
field, (and) the shepherd who, without (the consent of)
the owner of the field, has caused the sheep to eat the
* MArbanity or freed minister of the court. {The word is
otherwise read mushkinu, which would mean a poor man of
some sort.) See above, p. 31.
t Or, If a living person has been carried off ; the original is
obscure. See above, p. 68, also p. 129.
X There was no money coined in those days, but payments
were made in silver by weight, i mana = 60 shekels.
A Translation 135
field shall, in addition, (for every) lo GAN * (thus eaten)
pay 20 GUR t of corn to the owner of the field.
§63
If (he t has taken over) an unreclaimed field he shall
perform the work of the field and (for each) lo GAN (of
land) he shall measure out lo GUR of corn for a year.
§ 117
If debt has seized a man, and his wife, his son or his
daughter, he has given for the money, or into subjection §
he has given them, three years for the house of their
purchaser or subjector they shall work, in the fourth year
they shall be restored to freedom. ||
§ 125
If a man has given anything of his in trust, and where
he gave it, either by breaking-in or climbing over, any-
thing of his, together with anything belonging to the
* I GAN (a Sumerian word, and, therefore, printed in
capital letters) is estimated to equal 6*67 acres.
t I GUR = 300 QA, which, according to Prof. R. F.
Harper, were equivalent to about 500 lbs. avoirdupois, or
8j^ bushels (of wheat) ; a Gur would, therefore, be 20 quarters,
6^ bushels (of wheat). A QA is the equivalent of nearly
I litre, or over ij pints liquid measure, or 2 lbs. 2 ozs. 15 drams
nearly, avoirdupois weight.
X That is, as the preceding sections show, a man who has
taken over land in order to cultivate it, but has neglected to
do so.
§ /.g. whether he has sold them for the money to pay oft" bis
debt, or whether he has given them into slavery to work ofi" the
debt.
II Lit. ** the state of their independence shall be established."
13^ The Law of Hammurabi
owner of the house,* has been lost, the owner of the
house who has been slack shall make good anything
which was given him on trust and is lost, the owner of
the goods he shall compensate ; and the owner of the
house shall diligently search for everything lost, and shall
take whatever is with the thief.
§ 195
If a son smites his father, theyf shall cut off his
fingers.
§ 196
If a man destroys the eye of a man's + son, they shall
destroy his eye.
§ 197
If he breaks a man's bone, they shall break his bone.
§ 199
If he destroys the eye of a man's slave, or breaks the
bones of a man's slave, he shall pay half of his (the
slave's) price.
§ 200
If a man knocks out the teeth of a man, his equal, his
teeth shall be knocked out.
* /.<». the householder. It was scarcely considered respect-
able in ancient Babylonia for a man not to be the owner of the
house he lived in.
f I.e. the judicial authority.
X It will be remembered, as explained in the note on § i, that
by "man" the Code means not a gentleman or a slave, but an
ordinary free man.
A Translation 137
§ 206
If a man has smitten another man in a fight and
wounded him, and that man swear '* I did not smite him
wittingly," he shall be answerable for the doctor.
§ 207
If from his blows the man dies, he shall swear,* and if
he [the man killed] is the son of a (free) man, he shall
pay half a mana of silver.
§ 209
If a man smites the daughter of another (free) man
and causes her miscarriage, he shall pay for her miscarriage
ten shekels of silver.
§ 211
If a man smites the daughter of a mdrdan/ij and
causes her miscarriage, he shall pay five shekels of
silver.
I 213
If he smites the female servant of a (free) man and
causes her miscarriage, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
♦ /.g. he shall take oath, as in the preceding section.
t Or vmshkinu. See note on § 8 of this translation of these
laws.
13^ The Law of Hammurabi
§ 250
If an ox going along the street gores a man and causes
his death, that case has no penalty.
§ 251
If the ox of a man which gores has had its failing as a
gorer made known and he has not blunted its horns (and)
his ox he has not put under restraint (and) that ox has
gored and killed, he shall pay half a mana of silver.
§ 252
If (it has gored) the slave of a man, he * shall pay
one-third of a mana of silver.
§ 263
If [a man] has lost an ox or a sheep which has been
given [= lent] him (with) an ox like to the ox, a sheep
like the sheep, he shall compensate the owner.
§ 266
If in a fold a visitation of the god has befallen, or a lion
has killed, the shepherd shall come before the god and
clear himself and the damage to the fold the owner of the
fold shall meet.
* The owner of the ox.
A Translation 139
§ 267
If the shepherd is neglectful and has caused a breach
in the fold, the shepherd the injury from the breach
which he has caused in the fold he shall make good in
oxen and sheep, and shall give them to their owner.
§ 280
If a man in a foreign land has bought the male or
female slave of another man, [and] when he has come back
into his own land the owner of the male or female slave
has recognized his slave, if those male and female slaves
are children of the land, without money they shall be
restored to freedom.
W. T. P.
INDEX
Ahdd, 55
Ablutions, religious ceremonial,
117
Abraham, 20, 46, 82, 86, 87, 89,
92, 96, 121, 127
Abyssinia, 49, 90
Administration of the law, 42
Adoption, 47
Agriculture, 34, 35
Ahaz, King, 105
Ahlwardt, W., 69
Aleppo, 85
Altars of incense, 1 16
Alu, 30, 31
Am, 55
Amelu (,ameUu)t 3i» »32 "•»
136 n.
Amhara, 49
Amharic, 27
Ammi-Satana (or Ammi-Di-
tana), 86
Ammi-zaduga, 19 n.
Amorites, land of (= Canaan),
86
Amraphel, 20, 82, 83
Amtu^ 33
Arabia, ancient inscriptions and
temple worship of, 50, 51,
110-115
Arabian Beduin, 27, 107, 113, 124
Arabian, Old, temple inscription
translated, 115 n.
Archaeological discover)*, 8, lOO,
no, 116
Ardu, 33
Aretas, King, III
Arioch, 82
Artisans, 32
Asenath, 97, 98
AshshatUy 32, 33
Ashshurbanipal, 26, 102, 103, 104
Assyria, 25, 85 n., 102, 103, 104,
105
Avnlu (ame/u)y 31, 33 n., 132 n.,
136 n.
Azrdch, 55
B
Babylonia and Israel, 76, 89, 92,
106, 109
141
142
Index
Babylonia, social organization
of, 3o> 56
Babylonian Chronicle, 83
,, civilization, 26, 36
,, monuments, 22 n.,
83 n.
Babylonian words in Hebrew,
76, 109
BdirUf 40
Balaam, 114 n.
Barea language, 90
Beduin, 27, 62 n., 67, 72, 89,
124, 125
Berlin Museum, 102, 103
♦'Bethels," 117
Beyrout, English Consul in, 130
,, gunboat off, 131
Bible and Babylon, The, 122 n.
Bible, the, authentic and trust-
worthy, 123
Bilah, 46
Biltu, 34
Bird in nest, 63
Blood vengeance, 61 n.
Bogos, the, 49, 66 fF., 90, 115,
125, 126
*' Book of the Covenant," 52, 6r,
62, 64, 65 fif., 75
Brigandage in ancient Baby-
lonia and in modern Palestine,
129 ff., 134
British Museum, tablets and
other monuments in, 19 n.,
20 n., 23 n., 84 n., 86, 102 f.
Brother-in-law marriage, 124 ff.
Brugsch(H.) Bey, 93 n.
Budge, Dr. E. A. Wallis, 113
Burckhardt, J. L., 67 n., 72 n.
Burglary, 71
Burning Bush, the, 121
Cairo, Museum of, H2
Cambyses, 113
Canaan, 45, 82, 84, 85, ^6y 87,
9i» 92, 93
Canals of Babylonia, 34
Captivity, Jewish, 106
Carmel, forest of, 130
Carriage-hiring in Babylonia, 87
Ceremonial law of the Penta-
teuch, 50, 51, 108- no, 113-
117
Chedorlaomer, 82, 84, 85
City ownership of land, 34
Clients in Israel, 55, 56
Commandments, the Ten, 52,
60-63
Commercial pursuits of Baby-
lonia, 35, 36
Commercial pursuits of Israel,
59
Constantinople Museum, 83 n.,
86
Consul, English, of Beyrout, 130
Cook, Mr. S. A., 89
Covenant, Book of the, 52, 61,
62, 64, 65, 75
Covenant, Book of the, Mosaic,
130
Culture and Israel, 91-96
,, Babylonian, 76, 92
Index
143
Culture, Egyptian, 92, 93, 94
,, higher, a characteristic
of, 75 f-
Cuneiform writing, 83 n., 92,
93. 94, 95» 103
Cuneiform writing in Palestine,
103
D
Dagan, the god, 85
Daiaftf 76
Damgar {tamkaru\ 35
Dams of canals, 34
Daniel the prophet, 103, 105, 123
Daughters, inheritance by, 126
David, 47, 52, 114
Delitzsch, Prof. Fried., 61 n.
Debt, slavery for, 66, 135
Deposited property, 72, 135
Deuteronomy, Book and law of,
52, 59, 62, 64, 88, 102, 124, 126
Development in the Bible, 131 ff.
Din, 76
Driver, Prof. S. R., 27 n.
Dualism in Israel, 52, 54
Duppu, 36
E
" E " of" the Higher Criticism,"
100
Egypt and Assyria, 104
Egyptian colour of Joseph's his-
tory, 95, 96-98
Egyptian influence on Israel, 47,
94, 95, 96
Egyptian sarcophagus inscribed
Ekal^ 30
Elam, 20, 21, 24, 82, 83, 85
Elkanah, father of Samuel, 58
English Consul in Bey rout, 130
„ gunboat off Beyrout, 131
Esarhaddon, King, 104
Ethiopia, 27, 49
Evolution of the Mosaic sacred
history, 121
Exodus, Book of, 90, 98
Exodus, the, of Israel, 89, 93,
99, 119
Ezion-geber, 115
F
Family, desire for, in Israel, 127
Farming in Israel, 58, 60
Father, the, in Babylonia, 32
Forster, G., 63 n.
Free class, preservation of, 38,
39
French expedition to Susa, 21,
106
Friedrich, Herr Thomas, 83, 86
Gan, 72, 134, 135
Gardiner, Alan A., 99 n.
Gazelles, ancient inventory of,
83 n.
Genealogies, care of, in Israel,
128
Genesis, Book of, 20, 82, 83, 84,
87, 91, 94, 95
Genesis, Egyptian accuracy of,
95. 96 ft.
144
Index
Ger, 55
Gezer, 103, 104
Gideon, 1 14 n.
Glaser, Dr. G., iii, 113
God, judgment of, 43, 73, 74
Goring ox, 70, 138
Gortyna, 26
Goshen, 89, 91, 93, 96
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, 50,
108, 115
Griffith, Mr. F. LI., 97
Grimme, Prof. H., 81, 82, 88,
89, 90, 109, no. III, 113,
115 n., 124, 132
Guilds, 32
Gur, 72, 134, 135
H
Hadari 58, loi, 125
Hadramaut, 50
Hagar, 46
Hammurabi and Canaan, 82,
84-86
Hammurabi and^Elam, 82, 83, 85
,, ,, his monuments,
19-21, 25, 30, 31 n., 37, 81,
83, 85, 86, los
Hammurabi and Moses com-
pared, 60, 64, 65-67, 88, 89,
119, 120
Hammurabi claims his Code as
his own, 37, 43
Hammurabi claims his Code to
be perfect, 44
Hammurabi, date of, 19, 82 n.
Hammurabi, name of, 81 n.
Hammurabi's Code, contents of,
28-30, 31, 102, 103 ; discoveiy
of> 25, 85, 106 ; human basis
of, 37 ; imperfection of, 30,
108 ; influence of, 45, 53, 60,
100, loi ff., 105, 106 ; objects
of, 38 ; tendency of, 38, 64 ;
value of, 26
Harper, Prof. R. F., 134 n.
Hervey, Bishop A., 95 n.
Hezekiah, King, 105
"Higher Criticism, the," 85,
101-103, 106, 108, 113, 115,
123, 126 n.
Highway robbery, 129 ff., 134
Hilprecht, Prof. H, V., 106
Himyaritic inscriptions, 1 1 1
Birtu, 32
Hobab and Moses, 1 10
Holiness in law of Israel, 62
Holiness, law of, 52
Homicide, 6"], 137
Hommel, Prof. F., ?>t, n., in,
n2, n3 n.
Hophsh'i, 56
House-breaking in Babylonia,
71, 134
House-ownership in Babylonia,
135 n.
Hummelauer, F. von, 52 n.
Hyksos, 92, 97
I
Idu^ 36
Ilku, 34
Index
Inheritance, 40, 57, 58, 125, 126, ' Kaspu, 35
145
127
Injury, unpremeditated, 68, 206
Inspiration of Mosaic and other
Old Testament books, 95, 121 ,
122, 123
Isaac, the patriarch, 46, 86
Ishme-Dagan, 86 n.
Israel and culture, 91-96, 99,
100, 105
Israel, patriarchal history of, 46
Israelites and Midian, 1 10, 1 14 n.
,, in Canaan, 46, 47, 51
„ in Egypt, 47, 9 1-98, 99
„ law of, 48, 49, 52, 53
,, life in ancient, 59
„ national peculiarity of, 48
" J " of « the Higher Criticism,"
100
Jacob, the patriarch, 91, 92
Jennings-Bramley, Mr. W. E.,
124
Jeremias, Dr. J., 89, lOO n.
Jethro, 51, no, 115
Jews in Babylon, 106
Job, III
Joseph, the patriarch, 47, 91,
9S» 96, 98
Joshua,"52
Judges, period of, 95 n., 1 00
K
Ka (Qa), 134 n.
Karibu-sha-Shushinak, 27 n,
Kendtu^ 37
Kenites, the, no
Kidnapping, 67, 134
King, Mr. L. W., 19 n., 20 n.,
83 n.
King of Israel and the Law, 64
King's tariff, the, 35
Kittim, land of, 87
Kohhi, 54
Kohler, Dr. J., 102
Konig, Prof. Ed., 122 n.
Krall, Dr. J., 95 n.
Kunukkuy 36
Landed property in Babylon, 34
„ „ in Israel, 59,60
Law, Egyptian, 99
„ Israel a community of the,
52
" Law of Holiness," the, 52
Laws and national life, 54
Leah, 46
Legislation, ancient, 26, 65, 76,
99
Lex talionis, 41, 42, 69
Levirate marriage, 57, 124-128
Levites, 50, 1 14 f.
Life, low value of, in Babylonia,
40,41
Love in the law of Israel, 62
M
Ma'an (Ma'in), 1 1 1
Macalister, Mr. R. A. S., 103
K
146
Index
Manasseh, King, 102, 105
Manu, law of, 26
Marbanu, 31, 133 n.
Marriage, dissolution of, 33
„ in Babylonia, 23
„ in Israel, 57, 58
„ levirate, 57, 124-128
„ settlements, 32-39
Mar ummia, 99
Martu, land of (Canaan), 86
Medicine, practice of, 59
Melchizedek, 83 n.
Merchants of Babylonia, 35
Merenpthah (the Pharaoh of the
Exodus), 93 n.
Midianites, 114 n., 115
Midianitish ritual, 1 10
Minean inscriptions, 111-113
Miscarriage, laws of, 137
Moabites, 114 n.
Money, 35, 59, 60, 134 n.
Monogamy, 58
Monuments' evidence for the
Pentateuch, 82
Mosaic Law, 26, 45, 50, 51, 53,
54, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 88 flf.,
116, 117, 121
Moses, so, 54, 63, 64, 94, 95,
96,99, no, 119, 120
Moses and Hammurabi com-
pared, 77
Mother, the, in Babylonia, 32
Munzinger, Werner, 49, 66 n.,
74 n., 90, 125
Mushkinu, 133 n,, 137 n,
Mutsri, kingdoms of, XI3 n.
N
Nabatean inscriptions, in
Nasi, 55
Naville, Prof. Ed., 97 f.
Nishgdii{Qatt), 22
Nudtmnuy 32
Oaths, 43
Old Semitic law and custom,
32, 40, 41, 42, 49> 61 , 62, 66-
75, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 107,
117,120
Osnappar, 103
Ox goring, 70, 138
"P" writer of ''the Higher
Criticism," 127 n.
Palace, Babylonian (ev^a/), 30,
133
Palestine, 104, 105
,, Exploration Fund, 103
,, modern episode in,
I 29-13 I
Parental desire in Israel, 127
Patriarchs of Israel, 46, 81, 82,
84, 86, 87, 88, 92, 95
Patriarchs of Israel, law of, 46,
76, 82, 88, loi, 106, 124
Peculiarity of Mosaic legisla*
tion, 120
Peiser, Dr. F. E., 102 n.
Pennsylvania, expedition of|
106
Index
1-17
Pentateuch, the, 82, 88, 95,
100, 107, 108, no, 113, 125
Petrie, Prof. W. M. Finders,
93 n., 116, 117 n.
Pihatu, 32
Pinches, Dr. T. G., 84 n., 86 n.
Postal communication, ancient,
93
Potipherah, 97, 98
Prayer to Babylonian god, 22, 23
" Priestly Code," 50
Priests of Israel, 54
Princeton Theological Review^
109 n.
Procksch, O., 67 n.
Promise in the Law, 63
Promises to mankind through
Israel, 127
Property, protection of, 38, 39,
40,89
Protevangelium, the, 127
Psammetichus III., 113
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 112
Public-houses, 35
Purchase, illegal, 133
Qa, 134
Qishtu, 33
R
Rahianu, 3 1, 68, 1 29, 1 34
Rabitu, 32
Rachel, 46
^ece^ving stolen goods, 133
Records of the Past (II.), 86 n.
Redu^ 34, 40
Refuge for murderers, 67
Religious ordinances of Israel,
108
Retaliation law, 41, 42, 69
Ridu damgu^ 37
River-god, ordeal of, 43, 133
Robbery, 40
Roman Twelve Tables, 65
Ruth, Book of, 128
Sabean inscriptions, iii, 115 n.
Samuel the prophet, 52
Samsu-iluna, 86
Sarah, 46
Sargon, 26
Sayce, Prof. A. H., 19 n., 83 n.,
98, III
Scheil, Prof. V., 21, 23 n, 2$ n.,
26 n., 83 n., 84 n., 86 n.
Secondary wife, 32
Semitic law and institutions, 88,
89, 90, 96, 116, 117
Semitic origins, 90
Sennacherib, 104 n., 105
Serabit el Khadem, 117
Settlers in Israel, 55, 56
Shamash, the liabylonian sun-
god, 21, 22, 23, 37
Sheba, Queen of, in, 115
Shebdt, 55
Shekel, 134 »•
Shepherd class, 3J
148
Index
Shepherd responsibility, 73, 74, '
134, 138, 139
Shepherd Kings of Egy-pt, 92
Sheriqtu, 32
ShibUi 43
Shi shale I., 97
Shoterim (" officers "), 94 n.
Shugeiu, 32
Shushan (or Susa), 21, 27 n.,
105, 106
Shutruk-Nahunti, 24
Silver, 35, 59, 134 n.
Sinai, 60, 88, 89, 90, 91, 115,
116
Sinai monuments of ancient
religion, 116-117
Sin-iddinam, 19, 31 n., 84 n.
Sippar, documents of, 23 n.,
83 n., 86
Slaves in ancient Babylonia, 33,
66, 69, 133, 135 ff.
Slaves in ancient Israel, 55,
56,59
Society in ancient Babylonia, 36
„ „ Israel, 54, 56,
60
Society of Biblical Archaeology,
19 n., 84 n., 97, 112 n.
Solomon, King, 47, 48, 52, III,
114 n., 115
Son striking his father, 136
Sorcery, 74, 132
*• Spartali " Collection in British
Museum, 84 n.
State, the, in Babylonia, 56
,, ,, in Israel, 56
SteindorfF, Dr. G., 97, 98
Stones of anointing, 116
Storehouses, 35
Struggle for existence in ancient
Babylonia, 36, 38
Supernatural element in Old
Testament, 120
Tabernacle of the Congregation,
109
Talio law, 41, 42, 69, 70, 136
Talmud, the, 63
Tariff, the king's, 35
Tell el Amarna, 92, 93
Temple, Babylonia, treasury of,
133
Temple, Babylonia, properly of,
133
Ten Commandments, 52, 60-63
Tent of Meeting, 109
Terminology of Hammurabi and
Mosaic Law different, 76
Theft, 40, 133
" Tidal, king of nations," 83 n.
Tigre, language of, 90
TirhatUy 32
Toshdb, 55
Town life, 35
Township law, 68, 129, 131
Tribal membership in Israel, 55,
57,58
Twelve Tables of Roman law, 65
U
Unions of workmen, 32, 35
Index
149
Victoria Institute^ Journal of
Transactions ^ 84 n.
W
Wace, Dr. H. (Dean of Canter-
bury), 122
Wardu^ 33
Wellhausen, Prof. J., loo n.
Wiener, Mr. H. M., 126 n.
Wife in Israel, 57, 58
Wilson, Mr. R. D., 109 n.
Winckler, Dr. H., 86 n., 113 n.
Witchcraft, 132
Woman's, married, property, 40
Workmen's unions, 32, 35
Wounding, 68
Writing in ancient Babylonia,
47
Writing in ancient Israel, 94
,, use of by Moses, 51
Yemen, $0
Zaphenath-paneah, 96 ff.
Zdr, 54
Zelophehad, daughters of, 126
Zeqenim, 55
Ziegler, J. M., 90
Zilpah, 46
THE END
PRI^TSP BT WILLIAM CLOWES AND SO^S, LIMITED, LONDON AND |)ECCLBS.
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
Society for Proiotirg Christian Knowledge.
Aids to Prayer. s. a
By the Rev. Daniel Moore. Printed in red and
black. Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 i
Authenticity of the Gospel of St. Luke (The).
Its bearing upon the Evidences of the Truth of Chris-
tianity. Five Lectures by the late Bishop of Bath
and Wells. Small Post 8vo Cloth boards 1
Being of God, Six Addresses on the.
By C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester.
Small Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 '
Bible Places ; or, The Topography of the Holy
Land.
By the Rev. Canon Tristram. New Edition, brought
up to date. With Map and numerous Woodcuts.
Crown 8vo Hal/ bound 5 i
Called to be Saints.
The Minor Festivals Devotionally Studied. By
the late Christina G. Rossetti. Printed on hand-
made paper. Crown 8 vo Buckratn boards 5 i
Christians under the Crescent in Asia.
By the late Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D. With numerous
Illustrations. Crown 8vo Cloth boards 5 i
Christus Comprobator ; or, The Testimony of
Christ to the Old Testament.
Seven Addresses by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop
of Gloucester. Post 8vo Cloth boards 2 I
a PVILICATIOMS or TVB SOCURT
Church Ifistory in Eng^Und. t.
From the Earliest Times to the Period of the Re-
formatkm. By the Rev. Arthur Martiniau, M.A.
i«n>o ^ Cl0ik ^0ardj 8
Church History, Sketches of.
From the First Century to the Reformatioa. By
the late Rev. Canon Robertson. With Map.
l2mo a0tki0ards 8
Daily Readings for a Year.
By Elizabsth Spooner. Crown ty :„CUtk hards 3
Devotional (A) Life of our Lord.
By the late Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., Author of
** Pastoral Counsels," &c. Vosi %\o, ,„Cloth boards 5
Face of the Deep (The).
A Devotional Commentary on the Apocalypse. By
the late Christina G. Rossetti, Author of " Time
Flies." DemySvo Cloth boards 7
Golden Year (The).
Thoughts for every Month, Orig^inal and Selected.
By Emily C. Orr, Author of '* Thoughts for Work-
inf Days." Printed ia red and black. Post 8vo.
Cloth boards 1
Gospels, The Four.
Arranged in the Form of an English Harmony, from
the Text of the Authorised Version. By the late
Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. With Analytical Table
of Contents and Four Maps Cloth boards 1
Great Truths and Holy Lives.
A Series of Bible Lessons, from Advent to Trinity. By
Lady Hammick. Post 8vo Cloth boards 1
History of the English Church.
In short Biographical Sketches. By the late Rev.
IULIUS Lloyd, M. A., Author of " Sketches of Church
iistory in Scotland." Post 8vo Cloth boards 1
rOR PROMOTINO CHRlSTIAlf KMOWLtDOI. 3
Land of Israel, The. #. d,
A Journal of Travel in Palestine, ondertaken with
special reference to its Physical Character. By the
Rev. Canon Tristram. With two Maps and numeroui
Illustrations. Large Post 8va Ciotk da^rds 10 6
Lectures on the Historical and Dogmatical
Position of the Church of England.
By the Rev. W. Baker, D.D. PostSvo. Cloth beards 1 6
Martyrs and Saints of the first Twelve Cen-
turies.
Studies from the Lives of the Black-letter Saints of
the English Calendar. By the late Mrs. RUNDLE
Charles. Crown 8vo Cloth boards 5 0
Paley's Evidences.
A New Edition, with Notes, Appendix, and Preface.
By the Rev. E. A. Litton. Post 8vo. Cloth boards 4 0
Paley's Horae Paulinae.
A New Edition, with Notes, Appendix, and Preface.
By the Rev. J. S. HowsoN, D.D., Dean of Chester.
Post 8vo Cloth boards 8 0
Patriarchal Palestine.
By the Rev. Professor Sayce. Crown 8vo. With
Map Buckram boards 4 0
Peace with God.
A Manual for the Sick. By the Rev. E. BURBIDOE,
M.A. Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 «
Plain Words for Christ.
Being a Series of Readings for Working Men. By
the late Rev. R.G.DUTTON. Postivo. Cloth boards 1 0
4 PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY
Readings on the First Lessons for Sundays /. d,
and Chief Holy Days.
According to the New Table. By the Rev. Peter
Young. Crown 8vo In two volumes 5 0
Religion for Every Day.
Lectures for Men. By the Right Rev. A. Barry,
D.D. Fcap. 8vo Cloth boards 1 0
Revised Version of the Holy Scripture,
Addresses on the. By the Right Rev. C. J.
Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester. Small post
8vo Cloth boards 2 0
Seek and Find.^
A Double Series of Short Studies of the Benedicite.
By the late Christina G. Rossetti. Post 8vo.
Cloth boards 2 6
Servants of Scripture, The.
By the late Rev. John W. Burgon, B.D. Post 8vo.
Cloth boards 1 0
Spiritual Counsels; or Helps and Hindrances
to Holy Living.
By the late Rev. R. G. DUTTON, M.A. Post 8vo.
Cloth boards 1 0
Spiritual Progress.
A Book for Young Communicants. By the Ven.
G. R. Wynne, D.D. Small Post 8vo. Cloth boards 1 6
Things Lovely; or. The Ornaments of the
Christian Character.
By the Rev. Clement O. Blakelock, M.A. Post
8vo ,»Xloth boards 1 0
FOR PROMOTINO CHRISTIAN KNOWLBDO&
Thoughts by the Way. #.
By the Rev. F. C. VVOODHOUSE, M.A., Author of
"The Life of the Soul in the World." Crown 8vo.
Cloth boards 3
Thoughts for Men and Women.
The Lord's Prayer. By Emily C. Orr. Post 8vo.
Limp cloth 1
Thoughts for Working Days.
Original and Selected. By Emily C. Orr. PostSvo.
Ump cloth 1
Three Martyrs of the Nineteenth Century.
Studies from the Lives of Livingstone, Gordon, and
Patteson. By the late Mrs. Rundlk Charles.
Crown 8vo Cloth boards 3
Time Flies ; a Reading Diary.
By the late Christina G. Rossetti. Post 8vo.
Cloth boards 3
True Vine (The).
By the late Mrs. RUNDLE CHARLES. Printed in red
and black. Post 8ro Cloth boards 1
Turning-Points of English Church History.
By the late Rev. Edward L. Cutts, D.D. Crown
8vo Cloth boards 3
Tuming-Points of General Church History.
By the late Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., Author of
" Pastoral Counsels," &c. Crown 8vo. Cloth boards 4
Verses.
By the late Christina G. Rossetti. Small Post
8vo t Cloth boards 8
6 PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY
NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS.
This Stries furnishei in a brief and popular form an accurate account
of the great Non-Christian Religious Systems of the World,
Foap. 8vo, oloth boards, 2s. 6d. each.
BUDDHISMS-BEING A SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF
GAUTAMA, THE BUDDHA.
By T. W. Rhys Davids, M.A., Ph.D. With Map.
BUDDHISM IN CHINA. By the late Rev. S. Beal. With Map.
CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM. A COMPARISON AND A CONTRAST.
By the Rev. T. Sterling Berry, D.D.
CONFUCIANISM AND TAOUISM.
By Professor R. K. Douglas, of the British Museum. With Map.
HINDUISM. By the late Sir M. Monier Williams, M.A., D.C.L.
With Map.
ISLAM AND ITS FOUNDER. By J. W. H. Stobart. With Map.
ISLAM AS A MISSIONARY RELIGION. By C. R. Haines, (sj.)
STUDIES OF NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. By Eliot Howard.
THE CORAN-ITS COMPOSITION AND TEACHING, AND THE TESTI'
MONY IT BEARS TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
By Sir William Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., Ph.D.
THE RELIGION OF THE CRESCENT, OR ISLAM ; ITS STRENGTH,
ITS WEAKNESS, ITS ORIGIN, ITS INFLUENCE.
By the Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, M.A., CM.S. (41.)
THE HEATHEN WORLD AND ST. PAUL.
Fcap. 8yo, oloth boards, 28. each.
57. PAUL IN DAMASCUS AND ARABIA.
By Rev. G. Rawlinson, M.A., Canon of Canterbury. With Map*
ST. PAUL AT ROME.
By the late Very Rev. C. Merivale, D.D., D.C.L. With Map.
ST. PAUL IN ASIA MINOR AND AT THE SYRIAN ANTIOCH.
By the late Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. With Map.
FOR PROMOTINO CRIIISTIAN KNOWI.BDOS.
CONVERSION OF THE WEST.
A Siriis of Vtlumts tkswimg ktut tht CmvirtUn oftJu CMsf Xmi
cftht Wat was trpu^At about, and tAeir C9nditi«n htftrt this 9((urr9d.
Fmp. 8to.| oloth boards* 2i. MMh.
f//£ CfZ.7S.
By the RcT. G. F. Maclbak, D.D. With Two Maps.
r//f ENGLISH.
Bj the Above Author. With Two Map^
THE NORTHMEN.
By the aboTe Author. With Map.
THE 8LAV8.
By the aboTC Author. With Map.
THE CONTINENTAL TEUTONS.
By the late Very Rer. Dean MiRiVAL*. D.D., D.C.L. With Map.
ANCIENT HISTORY FROM THE MONUMENTS.
This Series of Books is chiefly intended to illustrate thi Sacred Scriptuns
by thi results of recent Monumental Researches in the East,
Foap. 8vo, oloth boards, 2a. each.
ASSYRIA, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF NINEVEH.
By the late George Smith, Esq., of the British Museum. A new
and revised edition by the Rev. Professor Sayce.
SINAI: FROM THE FOURTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY TO THE PRE
SENT DAY.
I By the late Henry S. Palm». Major B.B,, F.R. A.8. With Map
A new and revised edition by the Roy, Profeasor 8AY0X.
BABYLONIA (THE HISTORY OF).
By the late George Smith, Esq. Edited and brouffat up to data
by the RcT. A. H. Sayce.
PERSIA, FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE ARAB CONQUEST.
By the late \V. S. W. Vaux, M.A. A new and reriiod ediUon by
the Rev. Profeuor A. H. Sayce.
8 PUBLICATIONS 0*' THE SOCIETY.
THE FATHERS FOR ENGLISH READERS.
4 Stria of Monographs on tht Chitf Fathtrs of tht Church, tht Fathtra saUcttd
btini centres of influence at important periods of Church History and in
important spheres of action.
Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, as. sacb.
BONIFACE
By the Rev. I. Gregory Smith, M. A. (i*. 6rf.)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
By the Rev. F. R. M. HiTCHCOCK, B.D. (3*.)
LEO THE GREAT.
By the Right Rev. C. GORB, D.D.
GREGORY THE GREAT.
By the late Rev. J, BarmbY, B.D.
SAINT AMBROSE : his Life, Times, and Teaebing .
By the Yen. Archdeacon Thornton, D.D.
SAINT ATHANASIUS: his Life and Times.
By the Rev. R. WhELER BuSH. (a*, td.)
SAINT AUGUSTINE.
By the late Rev. E. L. CuTTS, D.D.
SAINT BASIL THE GREAT.
By the Rev. RiCHARD T. SMITH, B.D.
SAINT BERNARD : Abbot of Clairvanx, A.D. 1001-1153.
By the Rev. S. J. Ealbs, M.A., D.C.L. (aj. 6rf.)
SAINT HILARY OF POITIERS, AND SAINT MARTIN OF TOURS
By the Rev. J. GiBSOM CAZENOVE, D.D.
SAINT JEROME.
By the late Rev. Edward L. Cutts, D.D.
SAINT JOHN OF DAMASCUS.
By the Rev. J. H. LUPTON, M.A.
SAINT PATRICK: his Life and Teaching.
By the Rev. E. J. Newlll, M.A. (aj. 6rf.)
SYNESIUS OF CYRENE, PbUosopher and Bishop.
By Alice Gardner.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
By the Rev. Canon ScoTT Holland.
THE DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH; or, The Christian Apologists of
ihe Second and Third Centuries.
By the Rev. F. Watson, D.D.
THE VENERABLE BEDE.
By the Right Rev. G. F. Browne, D.D.
LONDON :
KORTHUHBBRLAND avenue, W.C. ; 43, QUEEN VICTORIA STRBBT, B.C
BRIGHTON : laQ, NORTS Strbst.
K Grimme, Hubert
The law of Hammurabi
086^3 and Moses
G413
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11