RELIC! IOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hamilton
Hammurabi and His Code
deprived of all his royal attendants. Returning to Oxford he was made subdean of Christ Church, but was quickly removed by the parliamentary visitors and thrown into prison for ten weeks. Afterward he resided in quasi-confinement in the house of Sir Philip Warwick at Clapham, Bedfordshire, till early in 1650, when, having gained his liberty, he removed to Westwood, Worcestershire. He died just on the eve of his elevation to the see of Worcester. He was a man of great self-denial, a tireless student, and an excellent preacher. Charles I. considered him the most natural orator he had ever heard. His most important works are: A Practical Catechism (Oxford, 1644; 15th ed., London, 1715); A Paraphrase and Annotations upon . the New Testament (London, 1653; new ed., 4 vols., Oxford, 1845); and A Paraphrase and Annotations on the Book of Psalms (London, 1659; new ed., 2 vols., Oxford, 1850). His Works were edited by W Fulman (4 vols., London, 1674-84), and his Miscellaneous Theological Works were edited in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology by N. Pocock (3 vols. Oxford, 1847-50).
HAMMURABI AND HIS CODE.
I. Hammurabi.
The Name. Identification with Amraphel (§1). His Date (§ 2). His Reign (§ 3). II. The Code.
Description of the Stele (§ 1).
Contents of the Inscription (§ 2).
Character of the Legislation and Penalties (§ 3).
Legal Status of Woman (§4).
The Laws not New (§ 5).
Relation to Pentateuchal Codes (§ 6).
I. Hammurabi was sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The name is taken as a compound of 'Ammu and rabi, " (the god) Ammu is i. The Name, great." In the Assyrian period the Identifica- name was not understood and was mistion with translated Kimta-rapastum, " great of Amraphel. family " or " the family is noble." This fact is a strong reenforcement of the argument for the foreign origin of the dynasty. By Assyriologists Hammurabi is quite generally identified with the Amraphel of Gen. xiv., though the final syllable of the latter word is hard to account for on philological grounds and some scholars dispute the identification. Apologetic ends, which have been a considerable element in the discussion, are not well served by the identification since the generally received date for this king (2250 B.C.) and the asserted contemporaneity with Abraham introduce serious difficulties into the Hebrew narrative. A millennium must on this basis have elapsed between Abraham and the Exodus, a gap impossible to fill with the Biblical material. As to the genealogy of the dynasty, it is noteworthy that neither Hammurabi, his son, nor his great-grandson trace their descent from Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty, but derive it from Sumula-ilu, the second king. This fact is interpreted as suggesting that the second king was a usurper.
The date of the reign is disputed, being placed as early as 2340 B.C., and as late as c. 1900 b.c. For the date about 2250 B.C. the most direct testimony is derived from the statement of Asshurbanipal in
650-649 b.c. that Kudur-nahunti carried away to Elam an image of Nana 1,635 years earlier, i.e., 2285-84 b.c. This tallies well with the 2. His known fact that just before Hammu- Date. rabi's reign the Elamites had conquered Eastern Babylonia under a Kudur- Mabug, who probably belonged to that dynasty or at least to its time. Kudur-Mabug's son was the Rim-Sin or Eri-Aku whom Hammurabi subdued in the thirtieth year of his reign. Less reliable but somewhat confirmatory is the fixing by Stephanos of Byzantium of the foundation of Babylon 1,002 years before the siege of Troy, the latter date being fixed by Hellanikos at 1229 b.c. The date given by Nabonidus, 700 years before Burnaburiash, is uncertain, both because it is a round number, and because there were several kings named Burnaburiash. If it were the correspondent of Amenophis III., it would place Hammurabi about 2150 b.c. (see^AMABNA Tablets). Later dates are obtained by attempted rectification of the Chronicle and the King-list (see Assyria, VI., 1; Babylonia, VI., 1, § 1-2). As to the length of Hammurabi's reign the two sources just named do not agree, the former assigning him forty-three years and the latter fifty-five. The difference is perhaps to be explained by the fact that some of the years had two names and were counted in the King-fist as separate years. The Chronicle gives an abstract of the events of thirty-eight years of his reign, the other years being lost.
The sources of knowledge of this king and his reign, besides those mentioned above, are fifty-five letters written to his vassal Sin-iddinam of Larsa; directions to various officials; his great inscriptions, ten in number; the prologue and epilogue to his Code; and a long series of business documents of the period. As a result of this mass of material a much clearer view of his times is obtained than of those of any early Babylonian ruler after Naram-Sin.
The tenor of the earlier documents of his reign and of the prologue and epilogue agree with the implications of the Chronicle that the first part of his reign was passed not in warlike operations but in works defensive, religious, and administrative. These consisted in the building of fortresses and city walls, in the erection and decoration of temples and providing them with images and 3. His endowments, in building granaries and Reign. digging canals (some of them of importance, connecting the cities with the great streams), and in locating his people on lands thus reclaimed from the swamps. The change from this kind of activity to operations of war must have taken place about the thirtieth year of his reign, since the Elamite Rim-Sin ruled in Larsa till that time. It is not likely that the latter was tributary during any part of his rule, for the conflict was sanguinary and apparently final which terminated the Elamitic rule, and Sin-iddinam was Hammurabi's representative in Larsa thereafter. In succeeding years Hammurabi conducted further and successful operations against Elam, thus removed the great menace to the stability of his kingdom, and left a heritage of peace to his successors. The occupation by the Elamites had been disastrous, since Hammu-
Hammurabi and His Code