S. Michael Houdmann Supporter Got Questions Ministries

Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who reigned from 1795 to 1750 B.C. He is remembered today for promoting and enforcing an organized code of laws. The Code of Hammurabi, discovered on a stele in 1901, is one of the best preserved and comprehensive of ancient writings of significant length ever found. The Hammurabian Code is divided into 12 sections and consists of 282 laws, 34 of which are unreadable. The Code is primarily a case-by-case formula of customary law covering administrative, civil, and criminal issues. The complexity of the laws and their subject matter reveal much about ancient Babylonian culture.

 About 300 years after Hammurabi, in 1440 B.C., Moses recorded the Law for the Israelites. Because the Mosaic Law contains some similarities to Hammurabi's Code, some critics of the Bible believe that Moses copied from the Hammurabian Code. If they're right, and Moses simply stole from the Babylonians, then the whole episode at Mount Sinai is false (Exodus 34), and the inspiration of Scripture is suspect.

 Both Levitical law and Hammurabi's Code impose the death penalty in cases of adultery and kidnapping (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 21:16; cf. Statutes 129 and 14). Also, there are similarities in the law of retaliation, such as "an eye for an eye" (Leviticus 21:23-25; cf. Statute 196). Statute 206 of the Hammurabian Code says, "If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, 'I did not injure him wittingly,' and pay the physicians." The Law of Moses is comparable: "If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed" (Exodus 21:18-19).

 There are other examples, but in all truth, such resemblances do not demonstrate that Moses plagiarized Hammurabi's Code. What the similarities do show is that murder, theft, adultery, and kidnapping are problems in every society and must be addressed. Even today, countries throughout the world have similar laws. Such parallels certainly don't prove plagiarism.

 Similarity in penal codes should be expected in civil societies. Both Babylon and Israel had laws against murder, but it doesn't follow that one stole the idea from the other. Should one country not prosecute a crime simply because another country has a similar law?

 The differences between Mosaic Law and the Hammurabian Code are equally significant. For example, the Law of Moses went far beyond the Code of Hammurabi in that it was rooted in the worship of one God, supreme over all (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). The moral principles of the Old Testament are based on a righteous God who demanded that mankind, created in His image, live righteously. The Law of Moses is more than a legal code; it speaks of sin and responsibility to God. The Hammurabian Code and other ancient laws do not do this.

 The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the cause of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.

 In his book Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, Fred Wight writes, "The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi's Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: 'Be ye holy, for I am holy' [Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code."

There is a dramatic difference in perspective between Hammurabi and Moses. One's focus is horizontal, while the other's is vertical. Archaeologist Alfred Hoerth, author of Archaeology and the Old Testament, says, "The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while others are civil. The Mesopotamians believed the god Shamash gave Hammurabi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible, the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God."

This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi's Code had no provision for forgiveness.

 The theory that Moses' Law is simply a rewording of Hammurabi's has largely been abandoned today, due to the fact that similar law codes, even older than Hammurabi's, have been found in various other places. These would include the Cuneiform laws, written as early as 2350 B.C.; the Code of Urukagina, 2380 B.C.; the Code of Ur-Nammu, 2050 B.C.; and others.

 Most critics accede to the fact that the Babylonian laws were probably well-known to the Hebrews of Moses' day. When God communicated His Law, He used language that the Israelites were already familiar with, and this would explain similar wording for similar laws.

Both Hammurabi and Moses recorded a complex system of laws that were unique to their times. Hammurabi claimed to receive his code from the Babylonian god of justice, Shamash. Moses received God's Law atop Mount Sinai directly from Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. There are some similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi, as would be expected from two legislative systems. However, their significant differences demonstrate the baselessness of the charge that Moses copied from the Code of Hammurabi.

See http://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html

July 01 2013 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Myron Robertson Supporter Seeking God's heart

Christian tradition says there was no written law before God gave the law on Mt. Sinai. Ancient Hebrew historical writings tell us that Cainan (Kenan), the great-grandson of Adam, was the first to write prophecy of the flood and other coming events (Jasher 2:13). This book is mentioned in scripture as one of the sources that was well known in the time of the judges and early kingdom (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18). 

I have read somewhere, I thought Jasher but cannot find the reference, that Noah took a written book of the law into the ark with him and taught from this in the school he built at the foot of Mt. Ararat and which Shem and Eber later moved to Jerusalem when Shem founded that city. Jacob studied many years in this school and wrote his own copy of the book of the law which he later stored with the record of his purchase of the birthright from Esau (for a portion of lentil soup) (Jasher 47:27-29, Genesis 25:29-34). (The Hebrew word shaba is translated oath or swear, but indicates a specific type of oath confirmed by seven sacrifices or witnessed by seven witnesses. In this case a written document was recorded and witnessed by multiple witnesses before Jacob would allow Esau to eat his pottage, and the document was stored with Jacob's copy of the law of God.)


My point is that the Law of God predates and was known before its revelation at Mt. Sinai to Moses and the people of Israel. There are many who believe Hammurabi to be the biblical Nimrod and Amraphel. The book of Jasher tells us that Amraphel was Nimrod (Jasher 11:6) and I thought there was another reference in the book to a name that is a phonetic equivalent of Hammurabi, but I am unable to find it. Still, many scholars have found reason to link Nimrod and Hammurabi over the years. Amraphel means sayer of darkness and Nimrod means rebel. He was the founder of the city of Babel and the builder of the tower there. 

We do not have space to discuss the meaning of all the spiritual symbols found in that story and what that story means in light of those symbols, but it is a very interesting story. In short stones are laws and instead of building his city of stone Nimrod chose brick (man-made stone). In other words, Nimrod replaced the law of God with laws of his own making. If he had made his laws too different from the law of God he would have had a code that was too unjust to gain any followers at all. As it is, his law is much more harsh and punitive than God's law, and more important, much less restorative. 

One of the most thorough studies of God's law that I have ever found comes in the books and other writings of Dr. Stephen E. Jones. Most are available to be read free of charge or download in PDF format on his website. A number of his books compare portions of God's law with the code of Hammurabi which was the primary common law of that region. Dr. Jones' conclusion has been that when God gave the law on Mt Sinai he simply corrected certain of the common law that had been corrupted. God's law is silent on many subjects contained in the Code of Hammurabi, and in most of those subjects Hammurabi appears to follow the biblical principles established in the laws God gave from Mt. Sinai. 

I cannot share specific links to any of Dr. Jones' studies because the moderators here have not yet vetted his site to make certain it conforms to their guidelines but they have never prohibited me from making reference to him or his books and encouraging others to search them out. If you find his site you can enter Hammurabi on his search engine to find these comparative studies, most of which are in the booklets "The Rest of the Law", "God's Law of Restitution", "The Bible Says: Divorce and Remarriage is not Adultery", and his commentaries on the book of Deuteronomy.

September 24 2014 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report