Hammurapi §209-210

4 12 2006

šum-ma a-wi-lum
DUMU•SAL a-wi-lim
im-ta-ḥaṣ
ša li-ib-bi-ša
uš-ta-di-ši
10 GIN KU•BABBAR
a-na ša li-ib-bi-ša
i-ša-qal

šum-ma SAL ši-i
im-tu-ut
DUMU•SAL-su
i-du-uk-ku

If a man
should strike
another man’s daughter
such that her foetus
is aborted:
10 sheqels of silver
he shall pay
for the foetus.

If that woman
should die:
they should kill
his daughter

And they say that Leviticus gets a bit rough: welcome to the Babylonian law of vicarious punishment. There is some debate, of course, as to whether or not Hammurapi’s edicts were ever put into practise, but it is always nice to look at something like this whenever you think your own society is losing its sense of morality.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

7 12 2006
Feivel

Any comments to the theory (expressed in The Living Torah’s footnotes) that Hammurabi was Amraphel (who, some say, was Nimrod)?

7 12 2006
Simon Holloway

I’m not familiar with that theory. Whose is it? My personal opinion is that this is just another of those theories that attempts to view the entire world within the Torah. If we find evidence of somebody from the same supposed period, then surely they must have been mentioned in the Bible as well.

Mind you, I’m saying this without having read anything about this particular theory. Maybe some scholars feel that it has something going for it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: