Law of Moses vs Hammurabi

[Jack of Spades]

An argument against Biblical literalism, and the belief that law of Moses is given by God.

How come that two old laws, Law of Hammurabi, and law of Moses, are so similar in nature about morals? Eye for an eye, and stuff like that.

If we believe that one was given by God, and the other one written by man, why did God come up with a law that was so similar to a man-written law? Was God human-like, or was human God-like back then? Couldn't God have done much better than man?

 

[RDKirk]

An argument against Biblical literalism, and the belief that law of Moses is given by God.

How come that two old laws, Law of Hammurabi, and law of Moses, are so similar in nature about morals? Eye for an eye, and stuff like that.

If we believe that one was given by God, and the other one written by man, why did God come up with a law that was so similar to a man-written law? Was God human-like, or was human God-like back then? Couldn't God have done much better than man?

Well, Hammurabi claimed his law was by divine revelation as well.

While the wording is similar in many places (Hammurabi includes a "tithe" for instance, which is the law Abraham observed when he paid his "tithe" to Melchizedek), there are some fundamental differences.

The most significant is that the Moses includes the concept of "equality under the law," which Hammurabi most definitely did not. In Hammurabi, prohibitions and even penalties were dependent on one's social status.

That affected such concepts as "eye for an eye," for instance, in that they only applied between people of equal status, whereas the Mosaic Law emphasized legal equality.

 

[smithed64]

An argument against Biblical literalism, and the belief that law of Moses is given by God.

How come that two old laws, Law of Hammurabi, and law of Moses, are so similar in nature about morals? Eye for an eye, and stuff like that.

If we believe that one was given by God, and the other one written by man, why did God come up with a law that was so similar to a man-written law? Was God human-like, or was human God-like back then? Couldn't God have done much better than man?

These are but a few of the differences that pose real problems for those who try to argue that Moses borrowed from Hammurabi. The two codes (i.e., of Hammurabi and of Moses) come from different starting points and points of authority.

The Code is the law as written by man. In The Code of Hammurabi we are offered an example of a system of laws that represents man’s best effort at justice…and it’s colored profoundly by Hammurabi’s self-promotion and self-interests. The Code of Hammurabi contrasts with the Code of Moses, which comes from the true God, is inspired and reflects His just and unchanging nature.

To be fair, there are some similarities between Moses and Hammurabi. But where the significance rises is in the differences.

• Sanctity of human life. The Code of Hammurabi represents a lower view of human life than Moses. For instance, in The Code of Hammurabi, the consequence for theft is to repay ten- to thirty-fold. If that’s not possible, the thief is executed. That’s never the case in Moses.

• Favoring the privileged vs. protecting the oppressed. Protection of the oppressed is near to God’s heart; not so much with Hammurabi. Many of Hammurabi’s laws favor the free and wealthy.

• Justice. Though some of The Code of Hammurabi is just, much of it is eminently unjust. There is no injustice at all in the law of Moses.

• Mercy. The notion of mercy is exceedingly rare in Hammurabi, but appears with regularity in Moses.

• The focus of the laws. The vast majority of The Code of Hammurabi concerns money, property, and business transactions. While these are addressed in Moses, the focus on moral laws, loving and honoring God and taking care of man’s relationship to God are strong emphases in Moses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, Hammurabi claimed his law was by divine revelation as well.

While the wording is similar in many places (Hammurabi includes a "tithe" for instance, which is the law Abraham observed when he paid his "tithe" to Melchizedek), there are some fundamental differences.

The most significant is that the Moses includes the concept of "equality under the law," which Hammurabi most definitely did not. In Hammurabi, prohibitions and even penalties were dependent on one's social status.

That affected such concepts as "eye for an eye," for instance, in that they only applied between people of equal status, whereas the Mosaic Law emphasized legal equality.

I feel like you aren't answering the question of the OP.

The OP acknowledges differences. But the question isn't about the differences... it's about the similarities. Take the eye-for-an-eye concept for example...
It doesn't matter that there are subtle differences in how it is applied in both "codes".

What matter is the identical concept overall. Today, for instance, we pretty muh universally recognise (in the western world, at least) that the "eye for an eye" concept is fundamentally immoral.

When someone hits you in the face with a baseball bat, it is not okay to hit him back as "retribution". A court is not going to sentence the guilty to being hit in the face by a baseball bat, which is held by the victim of the crime.

So, in summary... the question is NOT about how these codes differ from eachother. It is about how they are the same. Why are they the same, if one comes from a god and the other doesn't?

And, perhaps more importantly (to me, anyway), why are the similar concepts in both codes completely discarded today as being bad ideas?

 

[RDKirk]

I feel like you aren't answering the question of the OP.

The OP acknowledges differences. But the question isn't about the differences... it's about the similarities. Take the eye-for-an-eye concept for example...
It doesn't matter that there are subtle differences in how it is applied in both "codes".

What matter is the identical concept overall. Today, for instance, we pretty muh universally recognise (in the western world, at least) that the "eye for an eye" concept is fundamentally immoral.

When someone hits you in the face with a baseball bat, it is not okay to hit him back as "retribution". A court is not going to sentence the guilty to being hit in the face by a baseball bat, which is held by the victim of the crime.

No, "eye for eye" is not immoral. The purpose of "eye for eye" is to prevent unending, escalating blood feuds between tribes in a socially primitive society. There might be better ways such things can be prevented in more advanced societies with more methods of social control and pressure, but that doesn't make earlier methods immoral.

You have to do what is moral in the circumstances you're in--"moral" on a battlefield might be very different from "moral" in an elementary school playground.

So, in summary... the question is NOT about how these codes differ from eachother. It is about how they are the same. Why are they the same, if one comes from a god and the other doesn't?

However, Hammurabi did claim his law came to him from his god.

And, perhaps more importantly (to me, anyway), why are the similar concepts in both codes completely discarded today as being bad ideas?

They aren't completely discarded.

 

[keith99]

The Mosaic code does make distinctions based on social class.

See Exodus 21:26 for what happens if an owner puts out the eye of a slave. It is NOT then an eye for an eye.

Also non-Jews are treated differently. One such verse in fact then plays a key role in world history. Jews are allowed to charge infidels interest on loans! Ironically this became important because Christianity applied it among Christians but not across the Christian-Jew divide.

 

[RDKirk]

The Mosaic code does make distinctions based on social class.

See Exodus 21:26 for what happens if an owner puts out the eye of a slave. It is NOT then an eye for an eye.

Also non-Jews are treated differently. One such verse in fact then plays a key role in world history. Jews are allowed to charge infidels interest on loans! Ironically this became important because Christianity applied it among Christians but not across the Christian-Jew divide.

What happens today if an employee loses an eye to the employer's negligence? Barring a criminal charge, the employer makes financial restitution.

Under the Mosaic law, a Jew would only be a servant to another Jew for reason of indebtedness. The obligation to free the servant is equivalent to making financial restitution.

With regard to treatment of "foreign nationals".... Baby steps. Those were Bronze Age people, after all.

 

[Jack of Spades]

The Mosaic code does make distinctions based on social class.

Yeah I meant to bring this up. As far as I can recall there are at least three distinctions in the Mosaic law. Free man, slave and non-Israeli. I can't recall if there are more.

However, Hammurabi did claim his law came to him from his god.

What would be the theological conclusion here? Did his law came from God too? If I recall correctly, Hammurabi's religion was polytheistic.

Sanctity of human life. The Code of Hammurabi represents a lower view of human life than Moses. For instance, in The Code of Hammurabi, the consequence for theft is to repay ten- to thirty-fold. If that’s not possible, the thief is executed. That’s never the case in Moses.

A disobidient son can be killed by his parents in Moses, and adultery is punishable by death. I wouldn't call this "sanctity of human life" as a matter of principle.

Justice. Though some of The Code of Hammurabi is just, much of it is eminently unjust. There is no injustice at all in the law of Moses.

Define injustice maybe? If you use law of Moses as a definition for justice, then the conclusion naturally follows, but can the same conclusion be reached with some exterior definitions of justice and injustice?

Is slave and free man having different kind of legal rights and different set of punishments, injustice?

Is a capital punishment for offenses which resulted in nobody's death (such as adultery), injustice?

 

[keith99]

What happens today if an employee loses an eye to the employer's negligence? Barring a criminal charge, the employer makes financial restitution.

Under the Mosaic law, a Jew would only be a servant to another Jew for reason of indebtedness. The obligation to free the servant is equivalent to making financial restitution.

With regard to treatment of "foreign nationals".... Baby steps. Those were Bronze Age people, after all.

Definitely. And I think the Mosaic Law was in a lot of ways an improvement on what went before. A significant improvement.

But an improvement that can at least as easily be ascribed to the hand of men as to God.

 

[smithed64]

Yeah I meant to bring this up. As far as I can recall there are at least three distinctions in the Mosaic law. Free man, slave and non-Israeli. I can't recall if there are more.

What would be the theological conclusion here? Did his law came from God too? If I recall correctly, Hammurabi's religion was polytheistic.

From his god....little g.

A disobidient son can be killed by his parents in Moses, and adultery is punishable by death. I wouldn't call this "sanctity of human life" as a matter of principle.

Okay, if your living during the the time of moses. It was for the life of the tribe. disobedient son could go to another enemy tribe and give away information of the tribe He lived in and betray the tribe.

Adultery, again, Israel was a tribe. They had tribal laws, yet they were place in their hearts. Adultery was betrayal, not only to the husband, but also to the tribe. It was all about keeping the tribe together and there had to be laws or there would have been anarchy. They didn't have jail's back in that time.

Define injustice maybe? If you use law of Moses as a definition for justice, then the conclusion naturally follows, but can the same conclusion be reached with some exterior definitions of justice and injustice?

justice -
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:
to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason:
to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Injustice -
1. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.
2. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.
3. an unjust or unfair act; wrong

Is slave and free man having different kind of legal rights and different set of punishments, injustice?

yes

Is a capital punishment for offenses which resulted in nobody's death (such as adultery), injustice?

Today, yes
Back in the time it was written. No.

Remember when you start trying to compare OT times for today. Your going to get confused. Because they don't compare. And that's not how you study God's word. You can't take something from back then and say...well see...the punishment for adultery was death...we don't do that now...so that's injustice....You have to hermeneutically study God's word, use the Journalistic thought pattern. Who, What, When, Where, Why

Who is written to?
What is the topic?
When was it written?
Where in the world was it written?
Why was it written?

Once you do this, you then keeping it in context, prayerfully ask God to help you to see the principle to the scripture you read. Once you get the principle of the scripture. You can bring that to today.

 

[Jack of Spades]

But an improvement that can at least as easily be ascribed to the hand of men as to God.

We can trace the similar phenomenon of improvement happening everywhere in history of legislation, and in many other areas, such as in safety instructions etc.

If a law, or a safety instruction manual, is declared to be the ultimate will of God, that ends the process of improvement right there.

 

[RDKirk]

We can trace the similar phenomenon of improvement happening everywhere in history of legislation, and in many other areas, such as in safety instructions etc.

If a law, or a safety instruction manual, is declared to be the ultimate will of God, that ends the process of improvement right there.

The error is Christians declaring that the Mosaic Law is the ultimate will of God for everyone when the OT denies it's the will of God for all men and when the NT denies it's ultimate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, "eye for eye" is not immoral.

lol, owkay then...

The purpose of "eye for eye" is to prevent unending, escalating blood feuds between tribes in a socially primitive society. There might be better ways such things can be prevented

lol, ya think??

in more advanced societies with more methods of social control and pressure, but that doesn't make earlier methods immoral.

It actually does, especially considering the belief that these "laws" were "obtained" by some all-powerfull, all-intelligent being who's supposed to be the "objective standard" of morality.

If he can tell you to not eat shrimp... he surely can also tell you to not keep slave or engage in barbaric methods like "eye for an eye".

However, Hammurabi did claim his law came to him from his god.

Yeah... so does abu bakr al-bagdadi.

 

[Larniavc]

An argument against Biblical literalism, and the belief that law of Moses is given by God.

How come that two old laws, Law of Hammurabi, and law of Moses, are so similar in nature about morals? Eye for an eye, and stuff like that.

If we believe that one was given by God, and the other one written by man, why did God come up with a law that was so similar to a man-written law? Was God human-like, or was human God-like back then? Couldn't God have done much better than man?

Simple. Hammurabi pre stole the Laws from Moses.

Like how the Native American Nations pre stole large swathes of America from the Europeans.

 

[Larniavc]

The most significant is that the Moses includes the concept of "equality under the law,"

Unless you are a woman, child, slave or foreigner.

 

[RDKirk]

Unless you are a woman, child, slave or foreigner.

I didn't say the perfected it. It was the Bronze Age, after all.

And no country even today makes women, children, slaves (convicts), or foreigners perfectly equal under all laws.

 

[RDKirk]

It actually does, especially considering the belief that these "laws" were "obtained" by some all-powerfull, all-intelligent being who's supposed to be the "objective standard" of morality.

The perpetuated error--perpetuated both by many Christians (who don't read their NT very carefully) and by atheists seeking to discredit God--is that the Mosaic law is supposed to be the "objective standard" of morality.

It's not. Jesus Himself denied that it was an "objective standard of morality." The Mosaic Law was an expression of instructions that God wanted those people to adhere to at that time, and designed to be something that Bronze Age rabble could reasonably obey--containing many compromises to God's objective standard of morality.

 

[Jack of Spades]

The perpetuated error--perpetuated both by many Christians (who don't read their NT very carefully) and by atheists seeking to discredit God--is that the Mosaic law is supposed to be the "objective standard" of morality.

If this is a widely held Christian view, and not a fringe belief, I believe that atheists (or critics generally) are well on the point when critisizing that as a Christian teaching.

Regardless of is the view the originally intended interpretation, it has become part of the religion as it exists.

 

[RDKirk]

If this is a widely held Christian view, and not a fringe belief, I believe that atheists (or critics generally) are well on the point when critisizing that as a Christian teaching.

Regardless of is the view the originally intended interpretation, it has become part of the religion as it exists.

It really boils down to something only taught by Christians who have a stake in the controlling government, because they have to reach back to the OT to find justification for the Church being involved in government.

The fact that the Marcion Heresy (a call to drop the OT entirely as well as the gospels that refer heavily to it) gained enough traction in the 2nd century to require the first broadly "catholic" Church moves to combat it indicates that early Christians had been referring to the OT very little for their operational doctrine. Otherwise Marcion's wild idea (as it seems today) would not have made it out of the starting blocks.

 

[Jack of Spades]

It really boils down to something only taught by Christians who have a stake in the controlling government, because they have to reach back to the OT to find justification for the Church being involved in government.

The fact that the Marcion Heresy (a call to drop the OT entirely as well as the gospels that refer heavily to it) gained enough traction in the 2nd century to require the first broadly "catholic" Church moves to combat it indicates that early Christians had been referring to the OT very little for their operational doctrine. Otherwise Marcion's wild idea (as it seems today) would not have made it out of the starting blocks.

I can name at least one Christian I know personally who is not a theocrat, but yet holds the belief that "The ritual law ceased to exist, the moral law still applies". I've heard that same phrase expressed before, when it comes to Christian morals.