Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus Essay Example

the Code of Hammurabi is an original work by Hammurabi; many of the laws in the Code of Hammurabi can be traced back to older more incomplete codes of laws.It is most likely that Hammurabi took various laws that were already in existence and compiled them with a number of original addictions to create the most complete set of laws at that time. The Code of Hammurabi was inscribed on a number of large black stone steles measuring seven and a half feet tall. The stele also included a scene in which Hammurabi is depicted alongside the god Shamash at the top, giving it an overall imposing impression of authority and power.It is also framed by a prologue and an epilogue, which serve to further justify Hammurabi’s legitimacy as king and the justness of his laws.

(Roth 73) While Hammurabi attributes his ability to rule to the gods, he does not claim that the laws were written by the gods; which is the case with the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, which is attributed to Yahweh. The laws of ancient Israel were the only ancient laws to have both religious and non religious laws combined together, demonstrating the importance of religion to the Bible’s authors. Avalos 616) Both law codes have references to the gods, but the Code of Hammurabi presents itself as a more secular law code. The overall background of the laws gives the impression that the laws of Exodus were laid down through trial and error throughout the history of their society.

The Code of Hammurabi reflects the strong central government that created it and has a more secular feel.

The workings and practices of the law system itself also give insight into the cultures of the two societies.In both ancient Mesopotamia and Israel, the judges in local cases were made up of a group of village elders. (Avalos 437) The use of a group of judges indicates a concern with equality as a greater number of judges would usually indicate a fairer trial. Neither the Babylonians nor the Israelites used lawyers in their cases; both parties represented themselves before the judges, which emphasize the concept of personal responsibility in both societies. (Greengus 473) There are a number of differences between the two societies however in the way in which their laws are carried out and by whom.

There were technically three jurisdictions in both Israelite and Babylonian society, the Elders, the king and the priests, although the exact jurisdictions of each are hard to define. (Vaux 152) According to the Priestly Code in Israel, all laws were cultic laws, and as such, the priests could use that to exercise judicial power when they desired. (Avalos 621). This furthers the impression that Israelite society was one more deeply rooted in tradition and religious customs. This is not to say that the temples were not used in Babylon, in fact court proceedings usually took place within the temple.The reason for this was that in the event of it being impossible to decide the outcome of a trial, the accused was usually required to make an oath to the gods proclaiming his or her innocence.

(Greengus 473) Babylonian trials were usually recorded in writing and stored to prevent future lawsuits and confusion. The greatest differences in the values

of each society can be seen in the laws themselves, what they cover and how they do so. Many of the laws in Exodus relate to agriculture such as Exodus 22:5, which deal with allowing livestock to graze on another man’s property.Agricultural vocabulary is also used throughout the book, indicative of a more agrarian economy. However, the Code of Hammurabi has a vast number of laws relating to material goods reflecting a much more financially centered culture than we see in ancient Israel. Numbers 15 and 16 in the Code of Hammurabi concern runaway slaves and the consequences of harboring them.

15. If any one takes a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death. 16.If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

Robbery was also taken much more seriously in the Code of Hammurabi than in Exodus. 22. If a man carried on highway robbery and he be captured, he shall be put to death. 23. If the highwayman were not captured, he who has been robbed shall declare before God, the amount lost; then the place and official in whose territory and district the robbery too place shall compensate him for that which he lost.

4. If it were a life, the place and official shall pay one mina of silver to his people. Capital punishment is reserved

for a small number of offences, and the fact that robbery is included in this list supports the idea of a society highly concerned with material wealth. The 23rd law that states that the victims of robbery are to be reimbursed by the states points to a highly organized and powerful government.

The 24th law actually puts a monetary value on a human life, which is not seen in Israelite society.Laws 42-48 in the Code of Hammurabi deal with renting and leasing agricultural fields. They enumerate how payments are to be made in a list of special circumstances such as drought or crop failure. Law number 43 goes so far as to say “If he does not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give grain like his neighbor's to the owner of the field, and the field which he let lie fallow he must plow and sow and return to its owner. ” The fact that the government requires maximum productivity further reinforces the idea of a culture concerned with material goods.The charging of interest was commonplace in ancient Babylon and rates were seen as high as twenty percent with a standard rate between 11 and 13 percent.

(Davies 43) However, this was not the case in ancient Israel as can be seen in Exodus 22:25, “If thou lend money to any of me people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor’ neither shall ye lay upon him usury. ” It is important to note that a distinction here was made between Israelites and foreigners. Only Israelites were protected from interest rates, which reflect

a difference in treatment of foreigners.The same law is restated in Deuteronomy 23:19-20 reinforcing the Israelites’ belief that interest was unjust. This law provides more evidence of the Israelite society being less commercially driven with a greater emphasis on unity and compassion for fellow Israelites. In the Code of Hammurabi, laws 197-282 are known as caustic laws, which are all in the form of “If…then.

.. ” They go through many different circumstances ranging from assault to shipbuilding. In each law a standard fee or punishment is stated which gives rise to a more stable economy and practice of business.The Code of Hammurabi thus not only encompasses both civil and criminal laws, but also standardizes prices. These laws further the argument that ancient Babylon was a much more financially centered culture than that of ancient Israel.

Along with economic and criminal laws, many laws governing social customs are present in Hammurabi, Exodus and Deuteronomy. Both the Babylonians and the Israelites treat sexually based crimes such as adultery and incest similarly, and they are punishable by death in many circumstances. Hammurabi 130 and Deuteronomy 22:25 deal with adultery and Hammurabi 154-158 deals with forms of incest) The similarities in these laws indicate common fundamental values in society, draw clear lines between what is acceptable, and what is not. While the two cultures differ on many points relating to economics, they resemble one another closely when discussing violent and sexual crimes.

Marriage was one of the most important social customs and as such, there are many laws pertaining to it in both ancient Babylon and Israel.In the Code of Hammurabi, we see a depiction of marriage as not

only a spiritual bond, but also a legal and financial bond. Land and wealth were inherited, as such, many of the laws designed to regulate marriage and divorce are rooted in property rights. Hammurabi 128 states, “If a man marries a wife, but has made no contract with her, this woman is not a wife”. Not only is marriage a bond between two people and their God in Babylon, but it is also a bond that must be recognized by the state.The requirement of a contract further shows the importance of the government and legal contracts in Babylon.

This idea is expanded upon in laws 151 and 152, which state: 151. If a woman, who lived in a man's house, made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefore, if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor cannot hold the woman for it. However, if the woman, before she entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor cannot arrest her husband therefore. 152.

If after the woman had entered the man's house, both contracted a debt, both must pay the merchant. In law, number 151 of the Code of Hammurabi it is made clear that debts only pertain to the individual in the contract at the time of signing and it is not transferable to others after marriage. This again stresses the importance of personal responsibility. However, in law number 152 any debts incurred after a marriage are levied on both parties, which indicate that marriage was seen as union that carries into financial responsibilities as well as spiritual responsibilities.

The

laws pertaining to marriage in Deuteronomy are found in chapter 22 verses 13 to 29. Those laws discuss claims of virginity and adultery with no mention of economic debts. While marriage was seen by both cultures as a sacred bond between two people, only in Babylon is there concrete evidence that it was also seen as a financial bond. Both sets of law codes have a number of laws relating to divorce, indicating that it was not uncommon.

However, there are a number of key differences between the two, which mostly pertain to monetary transfers.However, in Hammurabi 137 if a man wishes to divorce his wife he must also return her dowry to her and provide her with the means to raise her children. Laws 162-164 also deal with the transfer of dowries under unusual circumstances. While both civilizations have many parallels between their laws regarding marriage and divorce, in the Code of Hammurabi we also see a number of laws regarding the transfers of dowries, which provide further evidence to the greater importance placed on material wealth in Babylonian society. In the Code of Hammurabi, it is clear that members of different social classes were reated differently under the law.

This is not seen to such an extent in Israelite law and is indicative of society that is equal under the law and evidence of less class distinction between Israelites. In Hammurabi, 209-214 different punishments are outlined for the crime of a man striking a pregnant woman and producing a miscarriage. If a man strikes a freeborn woman and produces a miscarriage he must pay ten shekels of silver, if the woman is a

free woman he must pay five shekels and if she is a maidservant of a freeman he must pay two shekels of silver.Here not only is human life being equated to monetary sums, but also the size of the sums are based on social class. In Exodus 21:22 we find a parallel law relating to miscarriages due to assault, but there is no class distinction made, and the punishment is stated as “he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judge determine.

” The value of the unborn is clearly greater in the Israelite law, and the punishment is most likely dependent on the circumstances as it is not clearly enumerated reflecting a greater value placed upon human life.A clear distinction between the value of life in Israelite and Babylonian society can be seen in Hammurabi 250-252 and in Exodus 21:28-29, 32. Hammurabi 250 states, “If an ox, while passing through the streets, gores and kills a man, this case is not subject to litigation. ” Party is punished under Babylonian law, however in Exodus “if an ox gores a man or a woman that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. (Ex. 21:28) Hammurabi 251 pertains to an ox that has a history of goring, and if the owner does nothing to hinder the ox, he must pay half a mina of silver.

Whereas the punishment for the same offence in Exodus 21:29 both the ox and the owner would be put to death. Hammurabi 252

and Exodus 21:32 are about the same offence, but with a slave as the victim with fines of a third mina of silver and thirty shekels of silver respectively.The differences in the value of life between the two civilizations are staggering in these examples, with the Israelites having death as a penalty and the Babylonians having a small monetary fee for the same offence. Throughout the laws of the two civilizations, we see a general greater appreciation for life in the laws of Exodus than in Hammurabi. Israelite laws consistently have harsher punishments for violent crimes often not merely consisting of a monetary fine while the laws of Hammurabi commonly levy such a fee.

From the general form and origin of the laws, we can see a general picture of the two civilizations.With the Code of Hammurabi reflecting a more powerful centralized government with it are physically imposing size and claim of divine right and the book of Exodus indicating a more religiously based traditional society. The laws themselves provide the most evidence as to the differences between the civilizations. The many laws concerning the return of runaway slaves, robbery, land rental, business practices, interest and inheritance all indicate that the Babylonians were much more concerned with material wealth than the ancient Israelites.In addition, we see in the Babylonian laws values placed on human lives that have no parallel in the laws of Exodus. At the same time, we see a great number of similarities between the cultures in their social customs and practices, such as views on virginity and marriage, both of which were extremely important to their cultures.

The differences that do exist

between the laws of Babylon and Israel on the subject of marriage are mostly concerned with financial situations, which serve to further the idea of ancient Babylon being a more materialistic society than that of ancient Israel.While both societies have similar views on divorce there are many laws present in the Code of Hammurabi that concern inheritance that are not seen in Deuteronomy or Exodus, which is indicative of similar social beliefs but again Babylon gives the impression of being more concerned with material wealth. Under Babylonian law, we see a much more stratified society under the eyes of the law with different penalties from crimes committed against members of different social classes. The only distinction made in the laws of Israel is between Israelites and foreigners, which point to a more egalitarian society.Throughout the laws, we also see much harsher penalties for violent crimes in Deuteronomy and Exodus than in Hammurabi showing a much greater appreciation and value of human life in ancient Israel.

From this, we get the general picture of each society and what it values most. While both civilizations had many similar values concerning social practices, ancient Babylon has an undertone of being a financially driven culture while ancient Israel appears to be more deeply rooted in tradition and religion lacing greater values on human life and spirituality with less emphasis on material wealth. Works Cited 1. Greengus, Samuel. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Ed.

Sasson, Jack M. New York: MacMillan, 1995. 469-483 2. The World of Ancient Israel. Ed.

Clements, R E. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. 3. Gottwald, Norman K. The Politics

of Ancient Israel.

Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox P, 2001. 4. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Vol. 6.

Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars P, 1995. . Avalos, Hector. “Legal and Social Institutions in Canaan and Ancient Israel” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.

Ed. Sasson, Jack M. New York: MacMillan, 1995. 615-630 6. Vaux, Roland De.

Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. 7. Freedman, David N.

, ed. The Anchor Bible dictionary. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

8. Davies, W. W. The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1905 9. Johns, Walter. Hammurabi.

March 1998, March 12th, 2006. http://www. fordham. edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode. html