Available for answering it

1. Wemay begin by stating, as concisely as may be, what we under- stand by the influence of the Code of Hammurabi on Mosaic legislation. There need be no discussion as to whether Moses knew cuneiform. Such a proposition could be maintained only by insisting, firstly, on the literal truth of the statement that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyp- tians (Ac 7”) ; secondly, that such learning must have included cuneiform. The latter proposition is not very safe. The evidence of the Tel el-Amarna tablets can only establish the existence of some scribes at the courts of Amenophis I. and Iy. who could read and write Babylonian. The cur- rent opinion of critics does not ascribe much of the Hebrew Law to Moses. So his personality may be set aside. Nor do we need to discuss exactly how far Baby- lonian influence had modified the life of the in- habitants of Palestine before the incursion of the Hebrews. Some men doubt whether that incur- sion did not find a widely spread Hebrew popu- lation already in possession. Whoever was in Palestine then, of whatever nationality, there is evidence that the chief rulers of the settled dis- tricts wrote in Babylonian to the kings of Egypt, and, presumably, also to the kings of Mitanni, Assyria, and Babylonia. Whether they used any other form of writing besides cuneiform we do not know. They did use words which were not pure Babylonian, but are at least Semitic, if not He- brew. These words they glossed by a more or less accurate Babylonian, That the whole pupulation of Palestine was Semitic or Hebrew, or read Babylonian literature at that time, are not pro- positions that we need trouble about. All that we need is that the people who drew up the Hebrew legislation, whenever that was done, should have CODE OF HAMMURABI embodied the laws observed in Palestine at their own date, and that those laws should have thera remaine unchanged from the time when they were the same as were to be found in Babylonia at the time when Hammurabi codified them. Indirect influence is then proved. 2. The laws may have once been common to all the Semitic races, or to the populations they dis- placed or overran. The greater part of the com- mon ideas of the two legislations may be due to this source. It may not even be Semitic at all, only human, such as man, anywhere and every- where, under similar conditions would and did agree upon. Such a common stock, including many most striking things, is no proof of Babylonian influence, either upon the Hebrews or upon the inhabitants of Palestine before the Exodus. Thus the principle of retaliation, the making a punish- ment as far as possible an exact reproduction of the injury, was a primitive view. It might well be Sumerian in Babylonia, and pre-Israelitish in Palestine. It omits the consideration that such a punishment only gratifies revenge, does not benefit either the offender or theinjured. Itischaracteristic of very inadequate justice. Now, in the Code we find that already a system of compensation to the injured was growing up. But the serie the améli, would not accept money for their ily injuries, they insisted upon the primitive ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb’ (§§ 196, 200, 197), and so did the Hebrews (Ex 21%, ete.). If this had been a peculiar or abnormal form of ana out the principle, we might argue for a raci connexion between the Babylonian aristocrats of Hammurabi’s time and the Hebrews. This has been done on the ground of linguistic affinities, But there is no reason to doubt that if retaliation, pore and simple, were the rule anywhere, it would e expressed in this way. All we caz say is, that, whether from pride, conservatism, or racial pecu- liarity, the aristocrat of Babylon clung to the primitive method of punishing bodily injuries. The — : acceptance by the commoner, or muskénu, of com- pensation may well point to a different race and a subject position. used to accept compensation in a similar way. Whatever view be taken of the similarthiaalaa between the legislations, the greatest difficulty . q in asserting Babylonian influence is that the — Israclitish law as we know it is a composite affair, — ; of uncertain date, and combining new with old in | a most perplexing manner. If we could be satis- fied that the Mosaic Laws still existed in their — | original order, or that any one stratum of them had preserved its original features, we might better | institute a comparison. F 3. As it is, if any law should turn out to be very like the Babylonian, in wording or idea, it is open — to say that it was foisted in after the Captivity, — when the Jews had become acquainted with that | On the other hand, it is | law in Babylonia itself. open to say that Abraham became acquainted with it in Ur of the Chaldees, and its memory — never died out. Others may maintain that it only embodies a common Semitic idea, which is thus — proved to have the widest extent in place and ~ time. its advocates, and there is no evidence to decide — between them. To speak of Babylonian influence — is not so to decide. 4, It may be well to set out first the material, which seems to be equally conclusive for all views. — (a) The following common practices or ideas are pointed out by 8. A. Cook. The appeal to the decision of God, the resort to the gate of the cit as a place of justice, the declaration on oat before God, the oath for purgation, warnings It would be interesting if we | could show that the conquered races in Palestine — Each of these views will continue to have 4 EE a ey ee CODE OF HAMMURABI CODE OF HAMMURABI 609 against injustice, bribery, false witness, the need of witness for proof, are all common to the judicial systems of Hammurabi and Moses. In both, the woman was in the hand of her husband, who was her 0é/ or baal ; marriage was arranged by parents, or relatives, on both sides, the girl’s consent not being asked. A purchase price was paid for the wife (teriatu, seh mohar), returned in her dowry, and other marriage customs are similar. The customs as to divorce, concubines, and maidservants are in thorough harmony, allow- ing for the greater explicitness on one side or the other. (6) The punishment for false witness, that the false witness should suffer what he had put the accused in danger of suffering, is the same in both (§§ 3, 4; Dt 19"). The punishments of slander (§$ 127; Lv 196, Dt 2218-21), and accusation of in- fidelity, though unlike in details, both recognize the nature of the offence. Ordeal was the pur- gation for suspected wives (§ 132; Nu 5"-8!), The regulations as to the shepherd’s responsibility for his flock are similar (§266 ; Ex 22), The eating of the fruit of newly planted land is deferred to the fifth year (§ 60; Lv 19%"). Kidnapping was a capital offence in both legislations (§ 14; Ex 21%), Both contemplate the extirpation of wizards (§§ 1, 2; Ex 2218), ssaults upon a woman, leading to miscarriage and death (§§ 209-214), are similar to Ex 21%, but with characteristic variations. 5. Supposing that there had been a knowledge of the Babylonian law and custom in Palestine, we should not expect that it would be adopted at once into the Code of Israel. The treatment of the slave in Dt 247 or Dt 23" is certainly a contrast to Hammurabi’s law forbidding the harbouring of a slave (§ 17), and ordering his restoration to his owner. But we are not without indication that such was the custom, at any rate, among the Amalekites (1 S 30). The older law in Palestine may not have been so considerate. Nor is it all ure humanity, later. Fugitive slaves from other ands may not have been an unwelcome addition to the population. The sentimental reason that Israel had once been a slave was in accordance with current ideas. 6. There is a close parallelism between the laws of deposit in §§ 124-126 and those in Ex 2264 [Heb.]. Further, there is a striking similarity in the treatment of the three parties in Ex 22 and the three in §§ 9-11. We may here note a parallelism of method, which may once have characterized a eat deal that did not survive in either code. th make selections, sometimes fuller, sometimes less full, one than the other. We could suppose that in a common source both the cases of illegal holding or sale of lost property, or of treasure trove, and the fraudulent retention or loss by theft, of deposit, were treated exactly alike, viz. that the fraudu- lent person should restore twofold. Hammurabi leaves the full treatment as a norm in §§ 9-11, and later condenses his source, for deposit, assuming the method. The Exodus legislator gives a full abstract in Ex 22%, and a condensed form in Ex 22'. The procedure in the cases differs, but only as a common source so treated might be ex- pected to differ, under different social organizations. 7. Of considerable importance is it to notice that these ancient codes do not lay down general pee, but select cases which exemplify them. hus, while Hammurabi (§§ 57, 58) takes only the eases where a shepherd feeds his flock off a field of corn, and Ex 22° deals with a field or vineyard, we may be sure that Hammurabi’s Code would have been interpreted by the judges as applying to vineyards as well, if they came in question. The vine was rare, if not quite unknown, in Babylonia.