Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Comparison of Laws in the Ancient Near East with the Pentateuch

Joshua Lamb

132: Old Testament Introduction

November 19, 2015

Introduction

The Law Codes in the Old Testament have often been studied along with a collection of other law codes in the Ancient Near East (ANE). In particular, scholars of the form critical school have often observed many similarities between the Old Testament and these other codes, consequently dismissing the OT laws as a collection which borrowed from earlier societies. Is this truly the case? If not, what differences are there between the laws of the OT and other cultures of the time? A deeper examination reveals that the perspective of the OT laws come from a radically God-centered worldview that colors them in a much different way. This paper will summarize the codes that are in existence before moving on to a comparison between ANE laws and the Pentateuch.

Overview of the Codes

We will begin with a summary of the different law codes that existed prior to and during the time of the Pentateuch. There are nine major law codes that existed in the ANE¹. This number can be shortened and more broadly classified under the societies and regions in which they operated: the Sumerian laws, the Old Babylonian laws, the Middle-Assyrian laws, the Hittite laws, and the Biblical laws². The Sumerian laws present the oldest known legal codes in existence, including the Laws of Ur-Nammu and Lipit Ishtar. Chronologically, this is the best place to begin our examination.

Sumerian Laws

The oldest law code is the Law of Ur-Nammu, who was a founding ruler of the third dynasty of Ur and builder of the Ziggurat which still stands today at that location. Scholars have traditionally believed that Ur-Nammu wrote the laws himself, but recent evidence suggests that it may actually be his son, Shulqi, who wrote them in his honor³. As is true of many other codes in the ANE, the purpose of Ur Nammu’s laws was for propaganda. They communicated the message that he was a ruler who was appointed by the gods to bring peace and administer justice to his territory⁴.

The laws of Lipit Ishtar have a similar style to that of Ur-Nammu but have a somewhat greater breadth in subjects. They cover most aspects of life in the ANE, including family, inheritance, property, slaves, debt, and wages.

Taken together, these texts provide the foundation in history for many of the thought processes of law in the ancient near east, including the ruler’s relationship to the divine and how justice would be tested by the gods.

Old Babylonian (Akkadian) Laws

The Laws of Eshnunna (circa 1770 B.C.) are unfortunately damaged in the place where the author was expected to be named. These laws also differ in form from the Sumerian texts in that they do not have the expected tripartite (prolog, body of law, epilog) format⁵.

The famous Code of Hammurabi is the first ANE code to be discovered and one of the largest extant manuscripts that are available today. The code contained 282 laws which covered property, family, and commerce⁶. It was written around 1750 B.C. and unearthed by archeologists uncovering the city of Susa (the same city mentioned in Esther and Daniel)⁷. It has been vastly studied and compared to the laws in the Bible, with several similarities. In the same vein as the earlier law codes, it was likely that Hammurabi composed this in order to justify his reign and to leave a mark that would show his fairness and equity to the gods⁸. That is to say, it was not strictly enforced as the law of the land, but more a commendation on Hammurabi himself.

Middle-Assyrian Laws

The Middle-Assyrian laws were thought to have been written around the 14^th^ century B.C. but definitively existed during the reign of Tiglath Peleser I in the 12^th^ century B.C.⁹ Like many other texts, these laws have been preserved because they were copied as practice during scribal training¹⁰. There is a distinguishing of social classes in the laws, which is par for the course in ANE legal documents. The Middle-Assyrian laws differ from the other collections because they omit any political prologs as well as show much evidence of revisions that took place over time¹¹. One of the most striking differences is the level of violence within them. The punishments for even petty offenses often involve mutilation such as chopping off ears and noses. They are also much more tolerant of domestic violence towards women, allowing for pulling of hair and twisting of ears without any legal penalty¹².

Hittite Laws

The Hittite Laws show a much stronger development of a legal system than the previous collections. The most notable difference is that they show more of a regard for what the West refers to as the “rule of law”¹³. The famed “river ordeal” that was a common test of guilt in the earlier laws is also lacking. The laws are very clearly utilitarian and focused on reparation of damages instead of retaliation. In fact, there is an interesting absence of references to the divine will, which was found in many of the previous works¹⁴. One interesting feature of the Hittite laws is in their strange provisions, such as the allowance of intimate relations with a ghost¹⁵.

Biblical Laws

On the surface, there are many similarities between the Bible and law codes of the other societies in the ANE, particularly the Old Babylonian (Akkadian) laws such as the Code of Hammurabi. Concepts such as levirate marriage, the law of retribution, and judgeship by elders are a common feature in all ANE codes. However, the underlying suppositions and goals of the Biblical laws are far, far different from those of other societies. These comparisons will be made shortly, but a list of the laws sections in the Pentateuch are in order. John Walton categorizes the legal sections in the Pentateuch as follows¹⁶:

1. Covenant Code-Exodus 20:22-23:19

2. Decalogue-Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21

3. Ritual Decalogue- Exodus 34:14-26

4. Deuteronomic Law.- Deuteronomy 12-26

5. Holiness Code-Leviticus 17-25

6. Priestly Procedures- Leviticus 1-7, 11-16

The Bible presents a perspective on law that is radically theocentric. The law is not oriented pragmatically for the benefit of society, but rather towards a lifestyle which is pleasing and acceptable to God. One might assume that the other law codes of the ANE contained similar references to the divine, but in truth these references are lacking on the whole. It is this addition of the “cultic” which makes the Pentateuch laws truly unique¹⁷. We will now turn to examine in more depth the differences between Israel’s law and that of her peers.

Pentateuch vs. ANE Law Codes

This section will begin by framing a shared worldview between the societies of the ANE and how their understanding of Justice was reflected in their laws. It will then discuss the clear and striking differences between the Pentateuch and other legislation in the Ancient Near East.

Commonalities

Life in the ANE centered far more around the communal life of a society that people in the West often consider. The king was often viewed as either an ambassador or son of the gods. This is as true regarding the Egyptian Pharaoh as it is regarding Hammurabi. As a result, the monarch of a society had very sweeping and unilateral powers¹⁸. While he no doubt had counselors, there was not a “rule of law” system as is common in the West today. Even in Israel, God’s mediator (Moses etc.) was a center of the life of the people. As a result, law systems were not as essential as they are in modern societies. Most cases in the ANE were resolved by means of arbitration. There were, in fact, three spheres in which law operated: the king, the temple, and the elders¹⁹. The king was often not involved unless the dispute involved matters of the crown or escalated to such a nature as warranted his attention. The temple was involved in some matters as well, but the primary focus rested on the elders who would decide disputes. These resolutions often took place at the city gate, as is illustrated in the account of Boaz.

Men were more eager to participate in judging cases at the city gate because it was viewed as an honor to be involved in trying disputes²⁰. This is a far different mentality from opening the mail and discovering a summons to jury duty. It is through the lens of this cultural context that the legal provisions of the ANE should be viewed. If not, the punishments and cases of ANE law codes seem exceptionally cruel and barbaric. While some laws in the ANE are indeed a gross violation of human rights, there is a sense in which these laws describe a mindset in which communal peace and balance are a priority.

The first central concept that ANE law codes share with the Pentateuch is the idea of lex talionis or “law of retribution”²¹. This concept is prevalent in all ANE law codes and was a fundamental principle of justice in society²². The Bible’s references to this concept are contained in all three legal books (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21). Lex talionis served as a central tenant of justice, ensuring that damage inflicted would equal damaged received. It is a concept which served to promote equilibrium in society. It is important not to run to quickly to the notion that everyone scurried about plucking eyes and teeth. In day to day life, this would have served as a common principle which prevented some (not all!) crimes from taking place. Furthermore, lex talionis was administered in the context of official judgment, it was not simply up to an individual to seek vengeance in a vigilante manner. In societies that did not operate according to the rule of law and had no system of established court circuits, this principle served as a worthy alternative. It is a notion that has influenced many other conceptions of law through the ages.

The second shared legal principle is that of the judicial oath. The Pentateuch contains many solid references to oaths, including the people’s confirmation of the covenant in Exodus 24:7. Oaths can be used in order to ratify legal action, but also to swear to a truth during a judicial trial. This second purpose is prevalent in ANE law codes. It was commonly accepted that to “swear by the gods” meant one was innocent. Cases were decided and closed almost immediately if someone took an oath, due to the belief that the gods would avenge their reputation if the person was committing perjury²³. Since these gods were false, no doubt many people escaped the justice they deserved. However, those who were caught perjuring were given the punishment that would have been due to the person they accused.

The third legal principle is that of the paterfamilias. This concept recognized the father as the head of household with authority over his household²⁴. This was applied even to the death penalty in matters of disobedient children in the home. The father was thought to have the right to take the life of those who belonged to him. Although the Bible applies this concept in a theocentric way, there is a shared perspective on the seriousness of the offense (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The fourth shared concept is legal protection of marriage. The practice of levirate marriage was common. In societies that were often tribal in nature, it was expected that propagation of the family line would continue. Men were expected to carry on the name of deceased relatives by marrying their wives who were widowed. There is confirmation that this occurred in Hittite society and many others²⁵. A high view of marriage in general also permeated these societies, as reflected my many provisions in their legal codes. It is hard to read the Code of Hammurabi without being struck by the dominant theme of punishment for various forms of sexual misconduct. It is a sweeping but true statement that adultery was punishable by death in every ANE society. The Hittite laws even allow for the homicide of an adulterer and adulteress by the husband who discovers them “in flagranti delicto” (in the act)²⁶. The Pentateuch would stress holiness where ANE laws would stress the pragmatic importance of marriage to society, but both arrived at the judgment that violations of marriage were capital offenses (Leviticus 20:10)²⁷. Many other inappropriate relationships were also punished, such as those between people who were too closely related²⁸.

All things considered, there are many similarities in the types of infractions prohibited by laws in the ANE and the Pentateuch. A comparison between Exodus 20-23 and the Laws of Hammurabi reveal several similar legal cases and pronouncements (leading liberal scholars to assume Moses borrowed content from Hammurabi)²⁹. Although ANE laws and the Pentateuch contain numerous differences, there was a shared set of legal considerations that governed these societies. Along with these considerations was the common belief that mankind would be held to account in some way by the divine. Hammurabi’s stele is even addressed to “the gods and the ruling elite”³⁰. It is at this point we move to discuss the differences of the Pentateuch.

Differences

Although the Pentateuch holds much in common with the law codes of other ANE cultures, it has a vastly different starting point. There are monumental differences in the spirit and intent of the law itself, which makes all the difference in how it is viewed and applied.

Cultic Law

The single most important point of difference is in the addition of “cultic law”³¹. Although one might expect the polytheistic cultures around Israel to have their religious beliefs reflected in the law codes, this is far from the truth. Although Hammurabi’s code and others refer to their respective deities in their prologs and epilogs, the main body of legal content contains very scarce references to a connection between practical obedience and its impact on spirituality. Other than in reference to punishment for perjury, the gods were rarely mentioned. There are points at which the “will of the gods” is referred to in ANE literature, but Israelite law easily dwarfs them in terms of frequency and intensity. The sacrificial system as outlined in Leviticus is without parallel in ANE legal documents. Stated another way, ANE law codes had almost no thought to spiritual wisdom or application of legal principles. The reasoning for the laws in Israel was so that they could live as a holy missionary community to show forth the glory of God. This high view of the law was not shared by any of Israel’s peers. Their view of the law focused more on the pragmatic principles of lex talionis that would keep communities functioning in good order.

The content for ANE laws consists mainly of what are called casuistic, or “case law” references. These laws consisted of prostasis & apodosis statements (e.g. if an ox is gored, then a fine must be paid). As a whole, they outlined a series of scenarios and the punishment due to each of them. It is worth calling to mind again that these laws were not universally enforced, and application could vary from region to region. While this type of casuistic law is present in the Pentateuch, there exists another type of law that is unique – divine prohibition. Using the example of the Decalogue, Israel received laws from God Himself in the form of “Thou shalt not” statements. At times, these were not given a specific curse, but rather were to be obeyed because they originated from God Himself, and as such were tied up with his nature and character. Getting more to the root – ANE laws were different from Israel because they had fundamental differences in understanding the divine. Most ANE societies were polytheistic and believed that “the gods” were in need of food, drink, bathing, and sex just like humans were³². Taking this understanding along with the creation myths of many ANE societies easily leads to the conclusion that they did not view the divine as morally perfect. The behavior of the gods was depicted in largely anthropomorphic fashion and was sinful. So any connection between the divine being(s) and the law was more for pragmatic purposes (e.g. to commend Hammurabi’s leadership to the gods) than it was for any real moral reason.

Conversely, Israel believed in a God of absolute justice and holiness, who was of purer eyes than to look upon evil. Israel was called by God to “be holy for I am Holy” (Leviticus 20:26). In fact, Leviticus as a book is completely devoted to the concept of holiness. The practical ramifications of this theology cascaded throughout the entire system of Israelite society. The concepts of ritual uncleanness, sacrifice, and temple worship were at the very heart of day to day life in Israel. While other societies had pagan sacrifices and temples, nowhere but Israel was this system so closely linked to the law in concert with the practical worship of God. This was due to the source of law in Israel being viewed as God Himself instead of tradition or another more obscure source (even the depiction on Hammurabi’s stele is not in reference to him receiving direct divine revelation.

View of Personhood

Israel’s unique infusion of cultic principles into the legal code was not the only difference in their law. The view of people was also different in the Israelite legal system. In most ANE legal documents, there is a tripartite class system that is reflected. People belonged to either a free, half-free, or slave class³³. The free class consisted of nobility or wealthier citizens who possessed more economic independence. The half-free class consisted of workers and those that were dependent in some way (roughly equivalent to today’s working middle-class in the West). The slave class consisted of those who were owned as property by others, either through indentured servitude due to calamities (famines etc.) or from war captivity. The Law of Hammurabi, in particular, is a classic example of the difference in treatment of these classes. While the Pentateuch did contain laws pertaining to the treatment of slaves, the fundamental application of the law was different. In general, the Bible placed much more emphasis on the value of human life – regardless of the class of the person. Most ANE law codes were partial to giving the higher class a more lenient version of the code than would be applicable to the slave class. The Pentateuch as a whole does not share this partial view of justice. Tying back to the earlier discussion, the standard was impartial because it was based on a higher standard than social conformity – the conformity to the Holy character of God Himself.

Women also enjoyed a greater dignity under the law in Israel than in other ANE societies. Records show that Egyptian and Babylonian women possessed a certain degree of freedom in contrast to the rest of the ANE³⁴, but legal protection in Israel was the highest. A stark opposite is found in the Middle-Assyrian codes, which allowed husbands to divorce wives without cause and leave no provisions³⁵. The practice of polygamy is related to this issue because the most common reason for divorce or the taking of additional wives was due to barrenness³⁶.

The slave class of individuals was also viewed differently in the Pentateuch, due to the unique system of “jubilee”. Hebrew slaves in Israel were limited to a 6-year term of slavery (Exodus 21:1-4). On the year of jubilee (every 7^th^ year), they were to be released and allowed to go back home. A similar concept was applied to land titles, which was also unique to Israel. The Jubilee concept, whether regarding people or land, illustrated the same point – God owns everything. Many passages in the Pentateuch also actively commanded against harsh treatment of slaves and promised blessing for their well-treatment (Deuteronomy 15:1-18). Runaway slaves warranted execution in every ANE society, except Israel, where they were to be given asylum (Deuteronomy 23:15)³⁷.

Thus, the view of personhood in relation both to the divine and to the legal code varied significantly in the Pentateuch in contrast to other ancient law codes. The laws reflected the reality that people of every class in society possessed the dignity of being made in the image of God. Justice was, therefore, to conform to God’s impartial standard instead of man’s partial pragmatism.

Legal Decision

How cases were tried in Israel also differs from other societies in the ANE. This difference is not as vast as ones previously noted but deserves mention in its own right. Previously discussed were the fact that legal cases were tried by the king, the temple, and the local elders. Israel did share this formulation, but also added a particular nuance that is not well-documented among other societies of the era (It may have been in practice, but there is scarce evidence of it). This nuance is the formal structure of “judging elders” as established in Exodus 18:17-23. The father-in-law of Moses comes to him with wise advice to select capable men who will serve to try disputes. Of particular note is that these men are to be qualified not simply according to age but rather men who “fear God, trustworthy men, who hate dishonest gain…” (Exodus 18:21). It is this particular caveat on judging by community elders that gives Israel’s justice system a concrete apparatus and a standard by which the elders are to be measured. As these men must fear God, this easily connotes a standard by which they are to adhere not only in their qualification but also in their administration. It would not be out of bounds to say that this official system of judges according to an official standard (the Torah) gave Israel a much more defined and robust legal system than is documented anywhere else in that era. Thus, Israel was given by God a standards-based, impartial legal system which was far ahead of its time.

Law in Covenant

This legal system established in Israel also served a much broader purpose than simply obedience for the sake of smooth relations between people in society. The laws in the Pentateuch were given to the nation of Israel in the context of a covenant relationship with God. The Creator’s purpose for the law was not simply obedience in a well-ordered society but transcended that. A full-orbed view of the law was established as it related to the covenant between God and his people. Conformity to the law was a means of worship, of gratitude, of covenant maintenance, and showing forth redemption. These marvelous reasons for conformity far surpass anything even conceived of other legal documents in the ANE. They are simply not on the radar of other cultures.

Conclusion

It is this last reason that so demonstrates the wide gulf between the legal code of Israel and the rest of the ANE. God had spoken directly to his people on Mount Sinai. The origination of law had not come from tradition but from the very mouth of God Himself. Laws were not given for practical uses, but for spiritual conformity that had practical application. All beings were made in the image of God and entitled to a fair treatment of justice under a fair standard. Would Israel conform itself to this wonderful legal standard? Would it demonstrate to the pagan nations surrounding it a true and better standard of justice? Would they adhere to the covenant and so bring God’s continued favor and blessing on their families and fields?

We know from biblical history that ultimately Israel failed in its mission, yet God Himself prevailed and was working through the nation to fulfill his promise in raising up a judge who would rule with equity.

Although Israel only saw shadows at the time, the law of the Pentateuch is the law which will swallow up all others. It is the law. The true eternal king will use this law to rule His kingdom which will have no end.

Isaiah 9:6–7

^6 ^ For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given;

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

and his name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

^7 ^ Of the increase of his government and of peace

there will be no end,

on the throne of David and over his kingdom,

to establish it and to uphold it

with justice and with righteousness

from this time forth and forevermore.

The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boecker, Hans Jochen. Law and the administration of justice in the Old Testament and ancient East. London: SPCK, 1980.

Cook, Stanley Arthur. The laws of Moses and the code of Hammurabi. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1903.

Harrison, R. K. Old Testament times. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1970.

Hays, Christopher B. Hidden riches: a sourcebook for the comparative study ofthe Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.

Matthews, Victor Harold, and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament parallels: laws and stories from the ancient Near East. Fully rev. and expanded 3rd ed. New York: Paulist Press, 2006.

Merrill, Eugene H., Mark Rooker, Michael A. Grisanti, and Edwin Yamauchi. The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 2011.

Neufeld, E., ed. The Hittite laws. London: Luzac, 1951.

Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed., with supplement. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Richardson, M. E. J. Hammurabi’s laws: text, translation and glossary. Biblical seminar 73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Snell, Daniel C., ed. A companion to the ancient Near East. Blackwell companions to the ancient world. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.

Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible: a guideto the background literature. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context: a survey of parallels between biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. Library of Biblical interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich: Regency Reference Library, 1989.

¹. Daniel C. Snell, ed., A companion to the ancient Near East, ↩

Blackwell companions to the ancient world (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007),
200.

². John H. Walton, *Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural ↩

context: a survey of parallels between biblical and ancient Near
Eastern texts*, Library of Biblical interpretation (Grand Rapids,
Mich: Regency Reference Library, 1989), 69–74.

³. Victor Harold Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, *Old Testament ↩

parallels: laws and stories from the ancient Near East*, Fully rev.
and expanded 3rd ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 2006), 101.

⁴. Kenton L. Sparks, *Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew ↩

Bible: a guideto the background literature* (Peabody, Mass:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 420.

⁵. Sparks, Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible, 421. ↩

⁶. Eugene H. Merrill et al., *The World and the Word: An Introduction ↩

to the Old Testament* (Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 2011), 61.

⁷. Christopher B. Hays, *Hidden riches: a sourcebook for the ↩

comparative study ofthe Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East*
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 121.

⁸. Snell, A companion to the ancient Near East, 201. ↩

⁹. James B. Pritchard, *Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the ↩

Old Testament*, 3d ed., with supplement. (Princeton, N.J: Princeton
University Press, 1974), 180.

¹⁰. Sparks, Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible, 424. ↩

¹¹. Sparks, Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible, 425. ↩

¹². Pritchard, *Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old ↩

Testament*, 185.

¹³. E. Neufeld, ed., The Hittite laws (London: Luzac, 1951), 97. ↩

¹⁴. Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 99–102. ↩

¹⁵. Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 189. ↩

¹⁶. Walton, Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context, ↩

74.

¹⁷. Walton, Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context, ↩

76.

¹⁸. Hans Jochen Boecker, *Law and the administration of justice in ↩

the Old Testament and ancient East* (London: SPCK, 1980), 42.

¹⁹. Sparks, Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible, 418. ↩

²⁰. Walton, Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context, ↩

33.

²¹. Hays, Hidden riches, 143. ↩

²². Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 97. ↩

²³. Stanley Arthur Cook, *The laws of Moses and the code of ↩

Hammurabi* (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1903), 61–63.

²⁴. Boecker, *Law and the administration of justice in the Old ↩

Testament and ancient East*, 29–30.

²⁵. Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 191. ↩

²⁶. Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 194. ↩

²⁷. R. K. Harrison, Old Testament times (Grand Rapids, Mich: ↩

Eerdmans, 1970), 59.

²⁸. M. E. J. Richardson, *Hammurabi’s laws: text, translation and ↩

glossary*, Biblical seminar 73 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 91.

²⁹. Hays, Hidden riches, 137–138. ↩

³⁰. Snell, A companion to the ancient Near East, 201. ↩

³¹. Walton, Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context, ↩

76.

³². Sparks, Ancient texts for the study of the Hebrew Bible. ↩

³³. Neufeld, The Hittite laws, 119. ↩

³⁴. Snell, A companion to the ancient Near East, 208. ↩

³⁵. Pritchard, *Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old ↩

Testament*, 183.

³⁶. Cook, The laws of Moses and the code of Hammurabi, 111. ↩

³⁷. Cook, The laws of Moses and the code of Hammurabi, 157. ↩