Summary: How does the Mosaic Law compare to other law codes of the ancient Near East? Taking a closer look can be revealing.
And afterward [Joshua] read all of the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of Law. – Joshua 8:34 (ESV)
The Laws of Moses and the Challenge
According to the Bible, Israel’s laws were the stipulations of the covenant made with God at Mount Sinai around 1450 BC. The Ten Commandments given in chapter 20 of the book of Exodus begin with God’s statement that it was he who brought the people out of slavery in Egypt. The law of God is preceded by his saving love. What follows afterward is their expected response. God would be their God and the children of Israel would be his distinct people, worshiping him alone and being known in the world by their willing obedience to his commandments. The writings of Moses contain many additional commands, totaling 613 according to Jewish tradition. The legal material in the Bible has served as an important source in the development of Western law.
However, many objections to the laws in the Bible have been raised by critics including claims that they are out of date, endorse slavery, and dehumanize women with their patriarchy. Observers who have grown accustomed to the ways the entire Bible has transformed modern culture, may fail to realize how revolutionary the Mosaic law really was in the context of its day.
Much could be said in response to these issues, but there is one particular challenge made against the Bible and the laws of Moses that perhaps causes the most serious doubts about the idea that Moses received these laws from God himself. The charge is that the Biblical laws were just part of an older tradition of Mesopotamian laws, and that their close similarity shows that Moses merely copied from these law codes to develop his own version. In other words, by claiming that all these laws have a strictly human origin, they seek to undermine the Divine inspiration of Scripture.
Is there any basis for the pattern of thinking represented in this challenge? Can comparing the laws of Moses with their Mesopotamian counterparts help address this question and perhaps shed some light on the others as well? When taking a brief but careful look, it becomes obvious that the Mosaic laws given on Sinai are unique in several ways, and indeed superior in regard to human rights and equality.
Ancient Mesopotamian Law Codes – The Similarities
To examine the law codes in neighboring Mesopotamian cultures that predate the time of Moses, let’s focus on the two prime examples of Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu. The Code of Ur-Nammu of Mesopotamia is one of the oldest surviving law codes dated to around 2100-2050 BC by scholars. The first tablets, written in the Sumerian language, were found in Nippur (Iraq) in 1952. Others were found in Ur in 1965. Of the 57 laws, 32 have been reconstructed. Every law begins the same way: “If a man…” Crimes of murder, robbery, adultery and rape are punished with death, while most other crimes are punished with fines.
The Code of Hammurabi, the most famous king of the Old Babylonian Empire, is a legal text composed around 1755 – 1750 BC by standard dating. The code of 282 laws has been found on several source artifacts, most famously carved into an over 7-foot upright slab of basalt stone that was discovered by a French expedition in 1901. Currently, the stele resides in the Louvre Museum. The code begins with an announcement claiming the laws on it were given by the Babylonian gods to King Hammurabi.
Something that can be quickly noticed about these codes is the number of similarities to the Mosaic Law, which is the basis for the charge that Moses merely copied his content from these precursors.
The Mesopotamian law codes used the “law of retribution” or “measure for measure” principle, in which a crime was punished with the infliction of an equivalent injury. In other words, the punishment fit the crime (in theory). For example, the Code of Hammurabi 196 says: “If a man should blind the eye of another man, they shall blind his eye.” Article 200 says “If a man knocks out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.” This is comparable to the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand” we find in Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:20 and Deut. 19:21.
The Code of Ur-Nammu, Article 1 states: “The man who committed the murder will be killed.” Exodus 21:12 says “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” These similarities can be quite persuasive on first viewing, but does the fact that there are similarities prove that one was copied from the other?
From a biblical perspective, different cultures having similar laws should not be surprising, because God created mankind in his image and with a conscience. Teachings about morality existed from the beginning. For example Cain was rebuked for killing Abel and given a mark so that everyone would know it. As early as the days of Noah, the law for capital punishment was given:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image. (Gen. 9:6)
So, it is not surprising that all cultures had some version of laws against murder. Many aspects of morality were present in Genesis long before Moses or even Mesopotamian cultures existed. Even today, isolated tribes who have had little contact with the modern world recognize the general sins of don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t take your neighbor’s wife, don’t be cruel, etc. These kinds of regulations are necessary for any culture to survive and are not an indication that one group copied another’s laws.
Similarities of wording for legal language should also be expected, since these were neighboring cultures from the same era. Egyptologist Ken Kitchen and other scholars have long noted strong parallels between the structure of biblical covenantal passages and common Near Eastern treaties between overlords and vassals during the 2nd millennium BC. God used familiar words and patterns to communicate his law to the children of Israel.
Similarities between the two systems may not prove a common source, but is there any evidence that the Bible is unique?
Law of Retribution – The Differences
While there are many resemblances between the laws of Moses and other ancient law codes (more than we have time to cover), something that is often ignored is that there are also many stark and revealing differences. Hammurabi’s laws are far more discriminatory than biblical laws in that a person’s worth depended on social class and gender. The value of the body part injured, whether it be an eye or a tooth, was different depending on who it belonged to: an upper class citizen, a commoner, or a slave.
Although Hammurabi claimed to be providing protection to all, his laws were meant to bring order to society with the priority of protecting the social elite. Thus, rich men were treated better than all women, poor men, children and slaves. The code punished the crimes of rich men significantly less than the crimes of others.
Compare the various punishments depending on social class in the Code of Hammurabi:
Article 202: If anyone strikes the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive 60 blows with an ox-whip in public.
Article 203: If a free-born man strikes the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina (60 shekels).
Article 204: If a freed man strikes the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.
In contrast, the Mosaic law doesn’t distinguish between social class:
Lev. 24:17 Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death.
Lev. 24:18 Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life.
Lev. 24:19 Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
Compared to Hammurabi, the Bible is clear in many places that protection of the oppressed is near to God’s heart. The Mosaic laws actually worked to curb powerful, high-class men from inflicting a more serious injury than had been received. For example, what Lamech did in Gen. 4:23, killing a man for wounding him, is not allowed. No one’s life was worth more than another.
Vicarious Punishment
Vicarious punishment also stands out in the Hammurabi laws, where sometimes innocent people were punished because they belonged to the person who committed the crime. For example, the punishment for killing a pregnant woman who was considered a “commoner” was 30 shekels or half a mina (Law 212). In stark contrast, if a pregnant woman from the upper class was killed, the daughter of her killer was killed as punishment (Law 210). The law considered a daughter the property of her father so this was seen as a fair and appropriate punishment (although, not to the daughter, one would think).
The Mosaic law was quite different. Punishment depended on the actual crime and the actual person who committed it. These dramatically more nondiscriminatory concepts came from the understanding that “all are created in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). Laws were made to protect all people from wrongs, not just the male elite and their “property.” This was a radical idea for the times.
The fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether. (Psalm 19:9)
The same cannot be said of Hammurabi.
Death Versus Fines
There was also a telling distinction in the law codes when it came to capital punishment versus fines. In the Mesopotamia codes, generally, crimes committed against human dignity were punished with fines, while crimes against property (the majority of its focus) were punished by death. In contrast, the Bible punished sins against human dignity with death, whereas property crimes received fines and never the death penalty.
Ur- Nammu Article 2: If a man commits a robbery he will be killed.
Ex. 22:1 If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.
Ex. 21:15 Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.
Brutality
Ancient Near Eastern codes were also more brutal than biblical law. Offenses deemed not quite worthy of the death penalty received bodily mutilation instead. The Hammurabi laws below attempt to make the penalty fit the crime by targeting the body part that matches the wrong committed.
192: If a son of a paramour or a prostitute says to his adoptive father or mother: “You are not my father, or my mother,” his tongue shall be cut off.
193: If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desires his father’s house, and deserts his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father’s house, then shall his eye be put out.
194: If a man gives his child to a nurse and the child dies and the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nursed another child, then her breasts shall be cut off.
Keep in mind that for its time, the code of Hammurabi is perceived as being remarkably fair and respectful to different groups of people. But still, the mercy that is frequently present in Moses is very rare in Hammurabi.
Unequal Punishment for Women
While some of the patriarchal aspects of the Mosaic law offend modern sentiments, comparisons to the treatment of women in other law codes from that day reveal another powerful contrast. Mesopotamian laws are severely prejudiced against women, revealing how revolutionary the laws of Moses were for their time.
The Ur-Nammu code penalizes a man who abuses a virgin 5 shekels of silver. The penalty in Moses’ writing is ten times more, 50 shekels. On top of that, the abusing man was required to marry the virgin and lose all his rights for divorce. The penalty for adultery is an even more stark example:
Ur-Nammu, Article 7: If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
Lev. 20:10: If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Where Is the Authority?
As has been seen, the two systems may have many similarities, but they also have significant differences in the areas of fairness and concern for all. However, the main distinction between the Mesopotamian law codes and Moses is the perspective that the Bible’s laws are reflections of God’s own nature and holiness – and are part of the covenant he initiated to bring people into relationship with himself.
“You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” (Lev. 20:26)
Rather than a system to protect the upper class, the Bible’s first (and most foundational) command is to have no other gods but the one true God. All the others flow from this.
Jesus would later summarize these commandments in the New Testament:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-40)
Jesus pointed out that the spirit of the law dealt not only with sinful actions but the sinful motives behind them. The Bible recognizes that we all have the same problem; that sin is first and foremost a rebellion against God, and sin lies behind the destruction of nations, relationships, and individuals. The Apostle Paul recognized that the law revealed his inability to fulfill God’s holy standards (Rom. 7:7). But he also knew the solution lay outside himself (Rom. 3:23 ff.), in the one who would perfectly fulfill the law for him.
The Mosaic laws were part of a covenant that provided an intricate and bloody sacrificial system to facilitate forgiveness when people broke the law, and which pointed to the ultimate solution that would overcome sin forever with the coming of the Messiah. To the Babylonians these concepts were completely foreign, as their law codes demonstrate.
Ultimately, it comes down to the authority behind the laws. Is the greater and unique source a human king seeking to protect his position or the one true God who gives life and instruction for true flourishing?
The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple; (Psalm 119:7)
Conclusion
Naturally, there will be similarities between all law codes. However, the many similarities between the Mesopotamian law codes and the Bible cannot overcome the fundamental differences, which reveal a completely different and superior source.
There is no basis for the claim that Moses imitated the laws of Mesopotamia. The purpose for the different codes is made evident by the laws themselves. One group of laws was meant to protect rich men and their property while the goal of Mosaic law (though it too included laws about property) was to show people who were created in God’s image what it looks like when they love God and each other. Keep thinking!
TOP PHOTO: Code of Hammurabi in the Louvre Museum. (credit: Antonio Campoy, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
