An Eye for the Truth The Laws of ancient civilizations may be confusing to some people nowadays, but, when put into the context of the location, time, and mindset of the people who created these laws, they become much more reasonable within that framework. In this essay, two distinct sets of laws from the ancient civilizations will be compared and contrasted; The Code of Hammurabi, by Hammurabi, the sixth Babylonian king in the 1700s B.C. and the Ten Commandments and Exodus, written, or at least attributed to Moses. The first difference that must be noted is the way that the laws are introduced, or the prologues, one obviously polytheistic, the other blatantly monotheistic. The Code of Hammurabi says in its prologue, “at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people.”1 It also mentions Igigi and Anumnaki, minor gods who attend to the major gods Enlil and Anum respectively, so very clearly a polytheistic setting there, as these gods appoint Hammurabi as the promoter of the people’s welfare. The Ten Commandments states, in contrast, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, you shall have no other gods before me.”2 This starting sentence immediately says that there is only one god, and later in the passage it also mentions as one of the laws not to create any idol.3 These two societies then might be said to have different social values in the idea that as a monotheistic person, you would be expected to put more value in the self rather than the community, mono- meaning one, where as in the polytheistic setting, relationships between people might be stressed more than individual welfare.
However, despite this difference in their mindsets, both civilizations had very strict and distinct laws pertaining to bearing false witness and stealing, and each even goes so far as the death penalty in certain cases, such as bearing false witness in a murder, and falsely accusing someone of a crime in which the accused would be put to death if convicted.4 This suggests that each civilization valued honesty very highly as well as to certain degree, fairness. Yet, another obvious difference between the two is the law in The Code of Hammurabi wherein it lays out what will happen, “If a judge gave a judgment, rendered a decision, deposited a sealed document, but later has altered his judgment.”5 The Ten Commandments and Exodus do not even seem to mention what will happen if and when a judge changes their mind. This seems to promote the idea that the Babylonions held authorities responsible for their mistakes, so they valued responsibility more than the Hebrews did. There were also class systems in each and most of the laws in The Code of Hammurabi seem to apply only to this upper middle class section of the people, while the Hebrew laws apply to everyone, perhaps suggesting the Hebrews valued equality more than the Babylonians. Both civilizations had very large penalties for stealing livestock, a minimum of fourfold restitution in the Hebrew laws, and tenfold in the Babylonian laws. These were most likely to deter people from stealing, because if you get caught, you have to pay back what you stole several times, and if you couldn’t, well, you get put to death. These penalties reaffirm their values on property, especially living creatures, and also their value of honesty. The idea that the Babylonians valued the community over the individual is shown in law 23 of The Code of Hammurabi, wherein it outlines that if someone is robbed and the robber is not found, “the city and governor, in whose territory and district the robbery was committed shall make good to him his lost property.”6 Nowhere in the Hebrew laws does it even suggest that the government is responsible for crimes committed within their region of control.
The next subject of this essay deals with the laws on respect in the Babylonian and Hebrew law codes. In the Babylonian codes, it says that if you hit someone or hurt someone that you will then be hurt in a similar or in the same way that you hurt that person. In the Hebrew laws, it pretty much says the same thing with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The Hebrew laws also go on to say that if you disrespect your mother or father you will be put to death, so a much stronger value on parental authority there than in Babylonian law.7 The Babylonian code however also mentions that there is a difference between stealing from the church and state versus an individual, it is three times more serious to steal from the church or state than a peer in the Babylonian law. This again reaffirms that the Babylonians value their society and their governing bodies more so than did the Hebrews, since it is not mentioned in the Hebrew laws what will happen if you steal from the temple or state, it is presumable that it falls under the same category as stealing from an individual, in which case the act of stealing is regarded as just as bad no matter who does it and to whom they do it, again showing the Hebrew value of equality amongst peers.8 Both systems however, seem rather fair in that, if you steal from a group of people in the Babylonian society it would be worse than stealing from an individual, that’s fair enough. The Hebrews then would assume that if you were stealing from a group of people you would be stealing more and thus the restitution is still based on how much you stole rather than the fact that you stole from multiple people, this is also fair in its own way. The last thing that should be noted is the kidnapping law where you will be put to death if you kidnap someone in Hebrew society, which means they value freedom. Also, they mention that when an individual “strikes the other with fist or stone so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, but then recovers.”9 The person who hit him is cleared of guilt except to pay for lost time.