Could the Laws Given to Moses by G-d at Mt. Sinai Be Just a Copy of the Laws of Hammurabi?

The relationship between the laws given to Moses at Mt. Sinai and the Code of Hammurabi has been a subject of scholarly debate for many years. Both sets of laws are among the earliest known legal codes, providing foundational frameworks for social order in their respective societies. However, the question arises: are the laws received by Moses merely a copy or adaptation of the Babylonian legal traditions documented in the Code of Hammurabi?

The Code of Hammurabi, created around 1754 BCE, is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. Its laws were carved on a stele and included various regulations addressing aspects of daily life such as trade, property rights, and family matters. Similarly, the laws given to Moses, found in the Torah, provide guidance on many aspects of social customs, moral conduct, and legal procedures within the Israelite community (Walton, 2006).

While some scholars argue that the similarities between these legal codes suggest a direct borrowing or influence, it is essential to consider the historical and cultural contexts in which each arose. The societies that produced these laws were vastly different: Hammurabi’s Babylon was a polytheistic society where law and order were enforced by a king considered a deity on earth, while the Israelite laws were theocratic, with divine authority as the foundation (Walton, 2006). Thus, while both legal codes share common themes, such as justice and social order, the underlying philosophies diverge significantly.

Moreover, the structure and implementation of these laws also reflect different societal priorities. Hammurabi’s code is known for its principle of “an eye for an eye,” emphasizing retributive justice. In contrast, the Sinai laws often promote justice through mercy and community restoration (Walton, 2006). For instance, in the context of injury or loss, the Torah includes provisions for restitution, suggesting an emphasis on repairing relationships rather than merely imposing punitive measures.

Critics of the imitation theory often cite these variances as evidence that while there may be superficial similarities due to the shared ancient Near Eastern context, the core intent and execution of these laws differ significantly (Walton, 2006). Furthermore, other ancient Near Eastern legal codes, such as the Laws of Eshnunna and the Middle Assyrian Laws, also display parallels, which suggest a broader tradition of legal thought across the region rather than a direct copying from Hammurabi specifically.

In conclusion, while the laws at Mt. Sinai and the Code of Hammurabi share some commonalities, they cannot be conclusively deemed copies of one another. The differences in intent, execution, and cultural context underline the distinct foundations of each legal code, highlighting the unique theological and social principles that shaped the Israelite laws (Walton, 2006). This comparative analysis enriches our understanding of ancient legal traditions and illustrates the diversity of thought regarding justice and governance in the ancient world.

References

Walton, J. H. (2006). Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Baker Academic.