Archaeology and the Bible
Deuteronomy
The Second Law
The final book of the Pentateuch, the five books attributed to Moses, is "Deuteronomy", which is Greek for "the second law". The book is given that name because it repeats and reinforces many of the laws already laid down in the earlier books of the Pentateuch. It seems convenient at this point, therefore, to examine these "laws of Moses".
Some scholars appear to have a mania for claiming that everything in the Bible has been copied from somewhere else. The story of the Flood? A copy of Gilgamesh. The story of Joseph? A copy of the Egyptian "Tale of Two Brothers". The laws of Moses? Clearly, a copy of the law code of Hammurabi. The fact that Moses lived a minimum of two centuries later, a thousand miles away in a different part of the world entirely, and had probably never heard of the Mesopotamian king, is regarded as irrelevant.
There are certainly similarities between some of the laws of Hammurabi and those of Moses, but as we have already noticed, there are similarities between the customs practised by Abraham and those of Nuzi, which in turn are similar to the laws laid down by Moses. Unless we are going to claim that every single ancient law code has been copied from Hammurabi (or some other early code) we need to consider another reason for this similarity.
The explanation is not hard to find: if you examine the law books of France, Germany, Britain and - say - China, you will find that the rules of the road are very similar. Is that because the lawmakers of each country slavishly copied each other? No, it is because the automobile culture and the requirements of traffic lead to certain rules as the optimum way of avoiding accidents and facilitating traffic flow.
We can find an example of this in the approach taken by the French and the British to roundabouts. The British, who drive on the left, give way to traffic coming from the right, traffic which is already on the roundabout. The French, for whatever reason, chose to be different. They drive on the right and their rules laid it down that traffic must give way to the right - cars already on the roundabout had to give way to cars entering the roundabout.
The result was chaos and gridlock, but Gallic pride would not accept the obvious solution adopted by the English and so they struggled on for years while traffic density increased and the jams of stationary cars at every roundabout grew ever longer and more intractable. Eventually, however, they were forced to give in. French drivers now give way to the left, to traffic already on the roundabout, and traffic flows much more smoothly.
Were the French copying the British? They would hotly deny it. It is simply that the best and most efficient method of dealing with the problem of traffic and roundabouts is the one which the British - and other countries - adopted first.
Given ancient culture and the problems faced by those societies, certain solutions were the best and fairest and whether one culture copied another or happened upon the solution independently is really irrelevant. It would be surprising if the laws adopted to suit those cultures did not bear striking similarities to each other. It is much more significant to take account of the differences between the different law codes.
The laws of Hammurabi exist in various forms; they were written on clay tablets for the benefit of judges, for example; but when people think of the laws of Hammurabi they almost always picture the famous Hammurabi Stele, a black stone pillar 7' 5" tall. At the top there is a picture of Hammurabi standing before a seated god who is giving him the law code, but the rest of the column is taken up with closely spaced cuneiform setting out the individual laws.
Curiously, the law code contains some important omissions. For example, commerce is not mentioned at all, either because it was not considered important or because the famous stele is merely a specimen of the wisdom of Hammurabi or contains laws which had fallen into abeyance and which he was re-issuing. It is almost certain that there was a wide body of custom and tradition which regulated the areas not covered by the law code and the laws dealt with the difficult cases that had been brought before the king for judgement.
Differences
Although many of the actual laws of Moses and Hammurabi are similar, the most striking differences are in the ethos and setting of the laws. One of the major differences between Hammurabi and Moses is Hammurabi's regular use of trial by ordeal. For example, the second law declares that someone accused of sorcery can clear himself by jumping into the river. If he survives - presumably not many people could swim in those days! - he is considered innocent.
With the single possible exception of the case of a wife cursed with a jealous husband, the laws of Moses do not use trial by ordeal - and even in this case the ordeal isn't dangerous to life. What is more, it actually penalised the accuser! The husband had to provide a quantity of flour for an offering and then the woman had to drink water to which a pinch of dust from the sanctuary floor had been added. If she was innocent she would bear a child; if she was guilty, then a divine punishment would strike her. There was here no crude miscarriage of justice based upon the ability to swim, no public shame as a mob gathered to watch a woman thrown into the river.
However that brings us to another difference: Hammurabi is clearly written for Mesopotamia and possibly for a single city in Mesopotamia, for "the river" is mentioned repeatedly. Various criminals were executed by being thrown into the river or into the water. Moses never mentions the river and executions were to be carried out by stoning.
Hammurabi was written for an urban society where precious metals were the medium of exchange - a money economy; people were fined half a mina or a mina of silver. Moses, on the other hand, was written for an agricultural economy in which barter was the means of exchange and livestock the measure of wealth. Fines were in terms of sheep and goats.
A very important difference was that under the Mosaic law, a son or daughter could not be punished for the crimes of the parents. Under Hammurabi, if a man caused the death of another man's son or daughter, then it was not the murderer who was punished but his own son or daughter who was put to death! This seems terribly unfair to us, but Hammurabi would have justified it by the idea that a child was property until he had attained maturity. Under God's law, although parents had authority over their children, those children were, nevertheless, seen as individuals with their own rights.
Both law codes implemented the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" principle, but whereas in Hammurabi it seems clear that the penalty was to be carried out (see laws 200 and 201), in the Mosaic law it served as a basis for negotiation towards a financial remedy. That is why murder had to be explicitly excluded from money compensation (Numbers 35:31); it had to be "life for life" or "blood for blood". In other situations, however, the offender could "buy off" his accuser, which was advantageous for both parties. The offender kept his eye or tooth, the injured party received tangible compensation.
In one respect the laws of Hammurabi are not as comprehensive as the Mosaic laws, for they give no regulations about religion. The book of Leviticus is virtually taken up with the sacrifices and services to be performed in the tabernacle. Of course there are religious texts among the cuneiform documents but they do not form part of the code of Hammurabi. It is not clear whether they had greater or less authority than Hammurabi's laws - though it is noticeable that Hammurabi feels obliged to bolster the authority of his code with a series of curses on anyone who ignores the provisions of the code.
May Nin-karak, the daughter of Anu, who gives grace to me, cause him to suffer high fever, severe wounds, that cannot be healed, whose nature the physician does not understand, which he can not treat with dressing, which, like the bite of death, can not be removed, until they have taken away his life.
Hammurabi does not legislate on what we might call "moral" questions. Moses prohibits the marriage of close relations and various forms of incest, but the only incest Hammurabi recognises is a father having intercourse with his daughter or his daughter-in-law (154-156). Particularly interesting is the penalty where a man rapes or seduces his son's wife before the marriage has been consummated. He has to compensate her by giving her half a mina of silver, return all her possessions to her and after that she is free to "take a husband according to her heart"!
There is also nothing in Hammurabi comparable to the Mosaic statement of moral principles known as the Ten Commandments. These moral principles are universal and apply, irrespective of status or wealth, whether one is a citizen or not. The moral principles underly the rest of the Mosaic law: the Ten Commandments say "Do not steal"; the civil law then deals with the case "If a man steal ..." (Exodus 22:1)
Health Laws
Finally, there are no health laws in Hammurabi, whereas there are many health laws in the Mosaic code. There is a law dealing with the safe disposal of human waste, laws dealing with mould in a house or "leprosy" - possibly yaws but probably not Hansen's Disease - and laws dealing with diet and hygiene.
In other words, the laws of Hammurabi primarily concerned the relationship of the individual with the state and were laid down for the regulation of society. The laws of Moses, on the other hand, although they too regulated society, were also concerned with the well-being of the individual, his home and his family.
In conclusion, the laws of Moses are not copied from any identifiable source but reflect a fair and just approach to the problems of a society and culture that inspired other law-givers to arrive at similar conclusions as to what was right and just. The differences between Moses and Hammurabi are at least as important as the similarities and whether one attributes the laws to Moses or to God, the laws of the Bible are just as interesting and valuable as those of any other of the great legislators of the past.
roundabouts A roundabout is a road junction where three or more roads meet. Traffic is directed around a circular island and can leave the circle to take any of the roads. These junctions have different names in different countries. Return
Hammurabi Stele The black diorite stele was discovered in 1901 at Susa, capital of ancient Elam, by a French expedition headed by Jacques de Morgan. It was captured by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte in a raid on Babylon some time between 1185 and 1155 BC and taken back to his capital as a symbol of his victory over the Kassites. One feels for the sweating soldiers and animals who had to transport this lump of stone up into the mountains of Iran!
Those who wish to read all 282 laws, plus the prologue and epilogue, can find them on the Washington State University website. Here is a selection of the laws: the numbers refer to the paragraphs in Hammurabi's law code. (Note that numbers 13 and 66-99 are missing from the original stele.)
Return1. If a citizen has accused a citizen and has indicted him for a murder and has not substantiated the charge, his accuser shall be put to death.
2. If a citizen has indicted a citizen for sorcery and does not substantiate the charge, the one who is indicted for sorcery shall go to the river and shall throw himself in. If the river overwhelms him his indicter shall take away his house. If the river exculpates that citizen and he is reserved, the one who indicted him for sorcery shall die and the one who threw himself into the river shall take away his house.
3. If a citizen in a case has borne false witness and does not substantiate the statement which he has made and if that case is one warranting the death-penalty, that citizen shall be put to death.
4. If he comes forward to witness concerning wheat or money, he shall bear the penalty appropriate to that case.
5. If a judge has given a judgement and has passed a sentence and has drawn up a sealed document and afterwards revises his findings, they shall convict that judge of revising his findings; he shall give the prescribed indemnity which follows from that case twelve-fold and they shall eject him from the council and from the seat of his judicature; he shall not return and he shall not sit with the judges in judgement.
6. If a citizen has stolen property of the temple or of the crown, that man shall die, and whoseover receives the stolen goods from his hand shall die.
7. If a citizen has purchased or has accepted for safe custody silver or gold or slave or bondmaid or ox or sheep or ass or whatseover it may be, from the hand of the son of a citizen or from the slave of a citizen without witnesses or contracts, that man is a thief and he shall die.
8. If a citizen has stolen an ox or a sheep or an ass or a pig or a boat, if it is the property of the temple or of the crown, he shall give thirty-fold, but if it is the property of a vassal, he shall restore ten-fold, whereas if the thief has nothing to give, he shall die.
14. If a citizen steals the child of a citizen, he shall die.
22. If a citizen has committed a robbery and is caught, that man shall die.
117. If a debt renders a citizen distrainable and he has sold for money his wife or son or daughter, or if anyone is sold for service in lieu of debt, they shall work for three years in the house of their purchaser or their distrainer. In the fourth year they shall attain their freedom.
118. If a slave or bondmaid has been sold and should the merchant proceed to re-sell and either is sold for money, they cannot be reclaimed.
119. If a debt renders a citizen distrainable and he sells for money his bondmaid who has borne him children, the master of the bondmaid may repay the sum and redeem his bondmaid.
122. If a citizen gives to a citizen for custody silver or gold or anything whatsoever, he shall show to witnesses all that is deposited. He shall furnish the contracts and then he shall hand the goods over for safe custody.
123. If he has given into custody without witnesses and contracts and those to whom he gave it deny the transaction, no claim can lie in such a case.
124. If a citizen has given another citizen silver or gold or anything whatsoever for safe custody in the presence of witnesses and he denies it, they shall convict that citizen and in spite of his denial, he shall restore it twofold.
125. If a citizen has handed over anything of his whatsoever for safe custody and if the place where it is deposited is entered either by breaking in or by climbing a ladder and his property and that of the owner of the house is lost, the householder who has been negligent shall make restitution of what was given him for safe custody and was lost and shall compensate the owner; the householder shall further search for what was lost and recover it from the thief.
127. If a citizen has pointed a finger at a priestess or the wife of a citizen and does not substantiate his imputation they shall charge that citizen before the judge and they shall shave his front hair.
128. If a citizen has taken a wife but has not deposited her contracts, that woman is not a legal wife.
129. If the wife of a citizen is taken cohabiting with another male, they shall both be bound and cast into the water; if the husband of the wife reprieves his wife, then the king may reprieve his servant.
130. If a citizen has forced a citizen's wife, who has not known a man and has lain in her bosom and they seize him, that man shall be put to death; that wife shall go free.
131. If the wife of a citizen is accused by her husband but she has not been caught lying with another male, she shall take an oath of the god and return to her house.
132. If the finger is pointed at the wife of a citizen on account of another man but she has not been caught lying with another man, for her husband's sake she shall throw herself into the river.
133. If a citizen has been carried away captive and there is sustenance in his house, his wife shall guard her property and shall not enter the household of another. If that wife does not guard her property but enters into the household of another, they shall convict this wife and cast her into the water.
134. If a citizen has been carried away captive and there is no sustenance in his house, his wife may enter into another household and no crime may be imputed to this woman.
135. If a citizen is carried away captive and there is no sustenance in his house and before his reappearance his wife has entered the household of another and borne children, if subsequently her husband returns and comes to his city, that woman shall return to her former husband but the children shall follow their natural father.
144. If a citizen has taken a priestess-wife and that priestess has given a bondmaid to her husband and she has borne children, if that man plan to take a votaress as concubine, they shall not give that citizen permission; a votaress he may not take.
145. If a citizen has taken a priestess-wife and she has not presented him with children and if he plans to take a votaress as concubine, that citizen may take a votaress and bring her into his house; but this votaress shall not make herself equal with the priesess-wife.
146. If a citizen has taken a priestess-wife and she has given a bondmaid to her husband and she has borne children, if afterwards that bondmaid has made herself equal with her mistress, her mistress may not sell her for money since she has borne children; she may, however, impose on her the badge of slavery and reckon her among the bondmaids.
147. If she has not borne children she may sell her for money.
148. If a citizen has taken a wife and intermittent fever attacks her, if he plans to take another wife he may do so. He may not forsake his wife who is attacked by the intermittent fever but she shall dwell in a house which he has prepared and he shall support her for life.
153. If the wife of a citizen through association with another male has caused the death of her husband, they shall impale that woman.
154. If a citizen has known his daughter, they shall cause that citizen to leave the city.
155. If a citizen has chosen a bride for his son and his son has known her and he himself lies in her bosom, they shall seize that citizen and bind him and cast him into the water.
156. If a citizen has chosen a bride for his son and his son has not known her and he himself lies in her bosom, he shall pay her a half-mina of silver and he shall refund to her whatsoever she brought from her father's house. She may take a husband according to her heart.
157. If a citizen after the death of his father lies in the bosom of his mother, they shall burn them both.
158. If a citizen after the death of his father is seized in the bosom of his foster-mother who has borne children, that man shall be turned out of his father's house.
170. If a citizen, whose wife has borne him children and also his bondmaid has borne him children and the father during his lifetime has said to the bondmaid's children which she has borne him, "My children", he has added them to the children of the wife. After the father goes to his fate, the children of the wife shall divide the property of the father's house equally with the sons of the bondmaid; the son and heir, the son of the wife, shall choose a share first and take it.
195. If a son has struck his father they shall cut off his hand.
196. If a citizen has destroyed the eye of one of citizen status, they shall destroy his eye.
197. If he has broken the bone of a citizen, his bone shall they break.
198. If he has destroyed the eye or has broken the bone of a vassal, he shall pay one mina of silver.
199. If he has destroyed the eye of a slave of a citizen or has broken the bone of a slave, he shall pay half of his market value.
200. If a citizen has knocked out the tooth of one of equal status, they shall knock out his tooth.
201. If he has knocked out the tooth of a vassal, he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.
202. If a citizen has struck the cheek of his superior, he shall receive in the council sixty strokes with a thong.
203. If one of citizen status has struck the cheek of his equal, he shall pay one mina of silver.
204. If a vassal has struck the cheek of a fellow vassal he shall pay ten shekels of silver.
205. If the slave of a citizen has struck the cheek of one of citizen status, they shall cut off his ear.
206. If a citizen has struck a citizen in a quarrel and has inflicted on him a wound, that citizen shall swear "I struck him unwittingly" and he shall pay the doctor.
207. If he has died as a consequence of his attack, he shall swear and, if he was of citizen stock, he shall pay a half-mina of silver.
208. If he belonged to the vassal class he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.
209. If a citizen has struck the daughter of a citizen and she miscarries, he shall pay ten shekels of siler for her miscarriage.
210. If that woman dies as a result, they shall put his daughter to death.
211. If the blow has caused the daughter of a vassal to miscarry, he shall pay five shekels of silver.
212. If that woman dies as a result he shall pay a half-mina of silver.
213. If he has struck the bondmaid of a citizen and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
214. If that bondmaid dies as a result, he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.
250. If an ox has gored a citizen while going along the road and has occasioned his death, there shall be no penalty attached to this case.
251. If the offending ox belonged to a citizen who has been notified by the authorities of its propensity to gore and he has not removed its horns or has not tethered the ox and that ox gored a man of citizen status occasioning his death, he shall pay a half-mina of silver.
252. If he was the slave of a citizen he shall pay a third of a mina of silver.
280. If a citizen has bought in a foreign country a slave or a bondmaid of a man and when he came home a former owner of the slave or bondmaid recognises either his slave or his bondmaid, if the slave and bondmaid are natives of the land, their emancipation shall be asserted without money.
281. If they are natives of another land, the buyer shall declare before the god the sum he paid and the owner of the slave or bondmaid shall reimburse the merchant for the money he expended and shall redeem his slave or bondmaid.
282. If a slave has declared to his master "Thou art not my master", his master shall confirm him to be his slave and shall cut off his ear.
stoning Executing someone by throwing stones at them is rightly condemned as a cruel practice, but in a tribal society, where there was no central authority to execute justice, the alternative of a never-ending blood feud was an even worse alternative. At least with stoning not only did the family of the condemned person have to take part in the execution, but no one could tell which stone caused the criminal's death, so it was impossible to start up a blood feud to avenge the death of your family member unless you were going to hold the entire community responsible. Return
health laws Some have attempted to deny that the laws of "clean" and "unclean" have to do with health. I am told that a certain rabbi, who maintained that the laws dealt solely with ritual purity, asserted, "If they were health laws, why didn't God tell them to boil the water?"
It sounds a clever objection, but it doesn't stand up to close examination. In the first place, there may have been no need for such a law: the miraculous supply in the desert was safe to drink and so probably were the springs and fountains of Palestine. It was only later that urban living and wide-scale deforestation made water supplies unsafe.
Secondly, our modern emphasis on clean water is somewhat misplaced. Animals, whether wild or domestic, drink dirty water without any noticeable harm and there seems no reason why, in the majority of cases, humans could not do likewise. It is true that today thousands die annually from drinking dirty water, but that is more a problem of over-population causing the water pollution.
Thirdly, the major water-borne diseases such as typhoid and cholera appear to be relatively recent. The first recorded outbreak of cholera was in India in 1816, typhoid goes back to 430 BC. In both cases a relatively benign germ may have mutated to become the deadly disease we know today. Ordering the Jews to boil water in anticipation of a disease that was a thousand years in the future would have imposed a severe and unnecessary burden on those who had to gather wood for fuel - the women. Return
or to God It has been observed that some of the provisions of the Mosaic code, particularly in the area of health, betray a knowledge that was in advance of Moses' time. For example, Moses ordained that circumcision should take place on the eighth day and modern science has discovered that blood-clotting factors reach a peak in a newborn's bloodstream on the eighth day. The desirability of burying human waste was not discovered until well into the modern era and one reads horrendous accounts of mediaeval and rennaissance palaces in Europe littered with human excrement. In fact, one nobleman actually built his staircases circular in order to discourage his attendants from using the corners as a place to relieve themselves!
Of course, it is possible that Moses hit upon these ideas by accident: in which case he was a remarkably lucky man to have hit upon so many good laws which were missed by other wise men of antiquity. Return
