Whatever view be taken of the similarities between the legislations, the greatest difficulty in asserting Babylonian influence is that the Israelitish 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.
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 law in Babylonia itself. On the other hand, it is 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 Semitie idea, which is thus proved to have the widest extent in place and time. Each of these views will continue to have 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 S. A. Cook. The appeal to the decision of God, the resort to the gate of the city as a place of justice, the declaration on oath before God, the oath for purgation, warnings
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 6é/ 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 (¢erhatu, net, 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 191%). The punishments of slander (§ 127; Lv 196, Dt 22-21), and accusation of in- fidelity, though unlike in details, both recognize the nature of the offence. Ordeal was the pur- gation for suspected wives (§ 1382; Nu 54-1), ‘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 2116), Both contemplate the extirpation of wizards ($$ 1, 2; Ex 228). Assaults 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 231 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 $ 30"). The older law in Palestine may not have been so considerate. Nor is it all ae 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 ig [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 great deal that did not survive in either code. Both 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°11, and a condensed form in Ex 221, The procedure in the cases differs, but only as a common source 80 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 principles, but select cases which exemplify them. Thus, while Hammurabi (§§ 57, 58) takes only the cases 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. *