Kings of the day would post large monuments listing their laws with an accompanying statue carving of themselves to identify the law with the king. Hammurabi was no different in this practice. There were many copies of this law erected throughout the kingdom. Usually in the temples dedicated to the local gods. It now resides in the Louve, in Paris.

Archaeological History
The style of Hammurabi is a black diorite stone, seven and a half feet in height and six feet in circumference. It was discovered by J. De Morgan and V. Scheil during their excavations at Susa, the Edomite capital, in 1901-2. The fifty-one columns of cuneiform text was written in the Akkadian (Semitic) language.

Code of Hammurabi

The top of the stele has an engraved picture of Shamash, the sun god, seated on a throne handing a scepter and ring to Hammurabi. This is to symbolize the divine origin of the great code of laws which king Hammurabi received. This picture would reinforce the motivation for keeping these laws.

Legal Content
The content of Hammurabi’s law is based on previous Sumerian laws. They are so diverse in content that it can be said that they cover all of Babylonian life, both civil and judicial. Justice was placed within the reach of every man. This is perhaps the reason for their reproduction and publication on this stele. However, this free access to the law and to justice did not mean that all of life was viewed as equal.

Social classes
There was a hierarchical social system which become very important when considering the laws of Hammurabi.

The Amelu
The Amelu were the free citizens which would include government officials, priests, and soldiers of the regular army. Legally they could demand severe retaliation and higher compensation for injuries but had higher punishments for crimes and larger fees and fines to pay.

The Mushkinu
The Mushkinu were the middle class consisting of merchants, shopkeepers, schoolmasters, laborers, farmers and artisans. They were free citizens but they had to pay for personal injuries against other citizens. Their fines were smaller and their religious contributions were less.

The Slave
The last distinguishable class was the slave who whether captured in war, purchased, or born in a household was legally little more than a moveable possession. They were designated by a mark which was a criminal offense to obliterate. However, the slave in this society was able to own possessions (including other slaves), do business in his own name and purchase his freedom which was final and binding. They were under complete care of their master.

In the criminal code the distinction between the Amelu and Mushkinu was only made in the area of the individual's value. In matters of property there was no distinction made.

Property
All records of commercial transactions were recorded on tablets and kept as legal documents in case of discrepancies. A large number of these type of tablets have been found in other ruins. Property was commonly moved about within society by such means as barter, exchange, or lease. Normally, payment was made by means of like products rather than cash. Where a man was unable to pay his debt, he was able to give his wife, child or slave to work off his indebtedness but could not be detained longer than three years.

The Family
In Sumer monogamy was the law and practice of the land. However concubines were tolerated, but nowhere held in the same esteem as the wife which is evident from the legal protection given to the wife. Parents arranged the marriage and divorce was legal being instituted by the man. The personality of the wife was subservient to her role as a mother. This is evident from the ruling that if a wife refused to have children because she did not want them, she would be thrown into the river and drown.

If the wife was barren, the husband was allowed to take a handmaid from his wife's court and bear a child for his house. The woman would consequently become free which was not the case if the handmaid came from the husband's harem. This concubine was not held in equal status with the wife but inferior to her. If the concubine became a rival, the wife could reduce her to slavery again, sell her or dismiss her from her household. This is the apparent rule which Abraham and Sarah followed in the discarding of Hagar from their household. They were acting in accordance with the old Sumerian law which they were brought up under in Ur. Genesis 21:8. Genesis 21:8

Both parties in the case of adultery were drowned unless the husband pardoned his wife in which case she would be spared. Incest was punished by death, seduction was punished by fines but there is no mention of the consequences of sodomy. The code of Hammurabi depicts the family as holding a central and important place in Sumerian life.

Criminal Law
Perhaps the most outstanding aspect of the code of Hammurabi is the lex talionis, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' principle. The class distinctions mentioned above do govern the execution of this law. One who stole a loaf of bread would have his hand removed and one who plucked out a neighbor's eye would have his eye removed. For various crimes a variety of executions were used such as gibbeting, burning, impalement or drowning. Murder, however, is never mentioned nor its punishment. There were no prisons in Sumerian society, nor work camps, for there was no imprisonment or forced labor. The punishments of the code of Hammurabi stand somewhere between the severity of the Assyrians and the leniency of the Hittite laws.

Generally speaking, the code of Hammurabi was a very complex and well developed code of laws for the period in which it was to be used. It stands out as distinct from the codes it is based on in that no other code is as fully developed as this one.

It is phrased in a typical casuistic style, that is each separate law states a hypothetical case following it by the appropriate penalty.

There is a sharp distinction with the Mosaic laws which are formulated as commands. Although this is an important distinction between the code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic laws, there are some scholars who see a great importance in their similarities.

Compared to Old Testament Law
AAlthough there are many apparent similarities between the two codes, upon close examination these are not strong parallels. Death is ascribed to those who have committed adultery (sect 129, Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The principle of lex talionis is observed (an eye for an eye) in both law codes (Exodus 21:23ff; Deuteronomy 19:21). However, the code of the Hammurabi observes the class distinctions in the outworking of this law, Mosaic Law did not. Hammurabi's law was three centuries earlier than Moses and they shared different origins, and code of ethics.

Although many people attempt to magnify the similarities between the two codes, the distinctions between them are significant. The distinctive characteristics of the code of Hammurabi stand in sharp contrast to the Hebrew laws. There is a pantheistic background which stressed a humanistic orientation. There was a lower view of human life and it made no use of the distinction between deed and intent.

In contrast to this, the mosaic laws were characterized by a distinctly monotheistic (one God) background which consequently placed a higher value on ethical and moral conduct. These laws were basically spiritual in content, universal in aspect, final and binding.

There have been four main theories which attempt to harmonize the similarities between the two law codes. 

Independence
TThe first approach might be called the theory of independence. This theory sees the two law systems as having a common general Semitic heritage but not consciously borrowing from one another. Their similarities are due to their geographic proximity.

Dependence
The second theory has been called the theory of dependence. This view sets forth the hypothesis that the Hebrew laws are dependent on the Hammurabi code for its writing. However the differences and not the similarities dispose of this argument. On the simple level of justice for the outcast and downtrodden the Hebrew law is worlds apart.

Intermediate Transmission
The third theory is called the theory of intermediate transmission and asserts that the Canaanite culture influenced the Hebrew people at the time of the invasion and settlement in Canaan, and continued to influence them until the two became closely associated.

Cognateness
The final theory has been called the theory of cognateness, and purports that both codes had been influenced form a common Semitic background during the era of Abraham and Hammurabi.

The idea that the Hebrew law code was based on the code of Hammurabi is false. However while the Hebrew laws are divinely given, they were not given in a vacuum. It is certainly evident that Abraham had contact with the Sumerian law codes in Ur and that the people of Israel had intimate contact with the Canaanites. God's revelation was given in time and space not apart from the understanding of the Hebrew people. But God's Word clearly declares Israel's laws to be unique and based on a special covenant relationship with God. Morally and ethically the Mosaic Law was superior to the Code of Hammurabi.

Conclusion
The code of Hammurabi is significant in that it is the most comprehensive and well-preserved law code of ancient history apart from the Biblical law. As well it indicates to us that the writing of the Mosaic laws in a legible script at an early date is not unreasonable and corresponds harmoniously with ancient practices. 

The code of Hammurabi also giving us a historical picture of the society and the civilization of ancient Sumer. It point out the humanitarian structure of ancient society which put a strong emphasis on the family and morals. It was not the barbaric uncivilized peoples that we so often think of when ancient peoples are mentioned. Rather we have a sophisticated structure of well-ordered law which encompasses all of society.

Copyright © 1995 David Graves & Jane Graves, Electronic Christian Media