originally posted by Arthra
Someone above wrote:
"It had to do with the Hammurabi code which was enforced at the time and place where Abraham lived..."
Someone brought this up earlier that Abraham lived under the Hammurabic Code...
The problem with this idea is that no one really knows for sure when Abraham lived...
If no one knows, the possibility of Abraham being under the Code is still a possibility. Shall you concede that? That would not help your case, but it would not hinder it either. There would be no advantage for your case or mine.
Tradition does place Him around "Ur of the Chaldees" possibly and moving to Haran and then to the Holy Land..
You are correct. There does not appear to be any historical evidence or scholarly claims against this. It is widely accepted.
The Chaldean Empire was at it's height around the seventh century BCE but if Abraham had lived then it would mean He was after Moses according to Bible chronology.
I didn't really check into that, but it has no bearing on what I did find out, which supports my case.
The law Code of Hammurabi was supposed to be in place around 1760 BCE in ancient Babylon..
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
This is what I have seen so far to be true.
Ur was south of Babylon in the delta area..of what today is the Persian Gulf.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#History
I did not try to confirm that, but I did read somewhere that it was near what is now called Palestine.
Ur predates Hammurabi by centuries in time.
I did read that it was probably destroyed (circa 2000 BC/BCE)before the time that Hammurabi's Code was in force, (circa 1700 BC/BCE).
Haran is north of Babylon and of course ancient Canaan was far to the west of Babylon and Arabia was to the south west of Babylon.
I won't contest this one since it is not really relevant to my response.
So it's really a "stretch" I think to assume Abraham was under the the Hammurabic Code I think..
- Art
I will agree with you on that point unless I can find something that might shed some more light on this subject.
However, your conclusion doesn't prove that Abraham was not under law that allowed him to claim inheritance through his legal son, Isaac.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the region of Mesopotamia was under heavy influence of Sumerian Law, which the Hammurabi Code shows great parallels to. Sumerian law is purported to have existed from about 40th century to 18th century BC/BCE, which puts it in the time line that Ur was destroyed presumably the first time. Your point on Ur being reconstructed after 1000 BC/BCE would not be a problem in that case. The time line is as follows:
============================================
5000 B.C.: Nomads from the area that is now Iran begin to settle in southeastern Mesopotamia. These early settlers plant wheat and barley and tame animals.
3500 B.C.: The Sumerians settle along the Euphrates and begin to build ziggurats (temples). They also create a crude writing system.
3000 B.C.: Nippur, Ur, and Eridu become the leading Sumerian cities. Sumerian writing evolves to include cuneiform letters.
2750 B.C.: Gilgamesh, the hero of Sumerian legends, becomes king of the city-state Uruk.
2250 B.C.: Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, creates one of the world's earliest law systems. The new laws call for the greater protection of widows, orphans, and the poor.
2000-1900 B.C.: Foreign invaders conquer areas of Mesopotamia. Ur, the most-advanced Sumerian city-state, is destroyed,
1800 B.C.: Hammurabi ascends to the throne of Babylonia. He unites all the city-states under one kingdom and introduces his own law code.
Reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Life+in+Mesapotomia:+what+was+life+like+in+the+world's+first+cities%3F-a0107123820
Subtopic: MESOPOTAMIA TIME LINE
==========================================
My points are the following:
Although it does not seem reasonable that Abraham lived in 1700s BC during the time that Hammurabi's Code appears to have been enforced, the influence from earlier laws on Hammurabi's code are very noticeable and are compelling enough to infer that the same or similar laws with regards to marriage, inheritance, and the home were still enforced.
SumerianLaw was enforced in Ur at the time of Abraham's presumed move to Ur.
These two points show that the same conclusion should be drawn, although one of my first premises does appear to be wrong. That premise being that it was Hammurabi's code instead of Sumerical law that influenced the life of Abrham. So, if we just insert Sumerian law in the place of Hammurabi, we still have the same or very similar outcome in regards to the inheritance law as will be evidenced below.
==========================================
In Hammurabi's 282 case laws include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offences.
In Hammurabi's 282 case laws include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offences.
The background of the code is a body of Sumerian law under which civilised communities had lived for many centuries. The existing text is in the Akkadian (Semitic) language; but, even though no Sumerian version is known to survive, the code was meant to be applied to all parts of Mesopotamia. We can notice the step between the small courts of elders and the established judges in town as for instance in these codes:
3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.
5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case. And he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.
6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.
Now let us look at woman's situation in Mesopotamia according to the Babylonian law that was using existing parts of elder Sumerian laws. Codes 127 - 187 of the 282 codes are for the protection of woman and indirectly of the child. The normal dowry was assurance for "child food" in case mother was left alone and the children inherited her. Her sons inherited her and daughters got dowry. With no children the dowry was passed back to her brothers.
137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.
139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.
140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.
Reference: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~catshaman/0inanna/0law.htm
Sub topic: Comment on Hammurabi's law codes
==========================================
