Hammurabi and His Code

HAMMOND, HENRY: English Biblical critic; b. at Chertsey (19 m. w.s.w. of London), Surrey, Aug. 18, 1605 d. at Westwood (6 m. n. of Worcester), Worcestershire, Apr. 25, 1660. He was educated at Eton and at Magdalen College, Oxford (B.A., 1622; M.A., 1625; B.D., 1634; D.D., 1639), was elected a fellow of his college in 1625, and was presented with the living of Penshurst, Kent, in 1633. In 1640 he became a member of convocation, and in 1643 archdeacon of Chichester and a nominal member of the Westminster Assembly. The same year he helped to raise a troop of cavalry for the king's service, and when a reward of £100 was offered for his arrest, left Penshurst for Oxford, where he devoted himself to study. He was chaplain to the royal commissioners at the conference at Uxbridge (Jan. 30, 1645), at which he held a dispute with Richard Vives. A few months later he was made canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and chaplain to Charles I., and elected public orator of his university. He attended the king during his captivity until Christmas, 1647, when Charles was

135

Hamuaurabi and His Code

deprived of all his royal attendants. Returning to Oxford he was made subdean of Christ Church, but was quickly removed by the parliamentary visitors and thrown into prison for ten weeks. Afterward he resided in quasi-confinement in the house of Sir Philip Warwick at Clapham, Bedfordshire, till early in 1650, when, having gained his liberty, he removed to Westwood, Worcestershire. He died just on the eve of his elevation to the see of Worcester. He was a man of great self-denial, a tireless student, and an excellent preacher. Charles I. considered him the most natural orator he had ever heard. His most important works are: A Practical Catechism (Oxford, 1644; 15th ed., London, 1715); A Paraphrase and Annotations upon . . the New Testament (London, 1653; new ed., 4 vols., Oxford, 1845); and A Paraphrase and Annotations do the Book of Psalms (London, 1659; new ed., 2 vols., Oxford, 1850). His Works were edited by W. Fulman (4 vols., London, 1674--84), and his Miscellaneous Theological Works were edited in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology by N. Pocock (3 vols. Oxford, 1847-50).

HAMMURABI AND HIS CODE.

Hammurabi.

The Name. Identification with Amraphel (� 1).
His Date (� 2).
His Reign (� 3).

The Code.

Description of the Stele (� 1).
Contents of the Inscription (� 2).
Character of the Legislation and Penalties (� 3).
Legal Status of Woman (� 4).
The Laws not New (� 5).
Relation to Pentateuchal Codes (� 6).

I. Hammurabi was sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The name is taken as a compound of 'Ammu and rabi, "(the god) Ammu is ¹ great." In the Assyrian period the name was not understood and was mistranslated Kimta-rapastum, "great of family" or "the family is noble." This fact is a strong reenforeement of the argument for the foreign origin of the dynasty. By Assyriologists Hammurabi is quite generally identified with the Amraphel of Gen. xiv., though the final syllable of the latter word is hard to account for on philological grounds and some scholars dispute the identification. Apologetic ends, which have been a considerable element in the discussion, are not well served by the identification since the generally received date for this king (2250 b.c.) and the asserted contemporaneity with Abraham introduce serious difficulties into the Hebrew narrative. A millennium must on this basis have elapsed between Abraham and the Exodus, a gap impossible to fill with the Biblical material. As to the genealogy of the dynasty, it is noteworthy that neither Hammurabi, his son, nor his great-grandson trace their descent from Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty, but derive it from Sumula-ilu, the second king. This fact is interpreted as suggesting that the second king was a usurper.

The date of the reign is disputed, being placed as early as 2340 B.C., and as late as c. 1900 B.C. For the date about 2250 B.C. the most direct testimony is derived from the statement of Aashurbanipal in

650-649 B.C. that Kudur-nahunti carried away to Elam an image of Nana 1,635 years earlier, i.e.,

2285-84 B.C. This tallies well with the 2. His known fact that just before Hammu-

Date. rabi's reign the Elamites had conquered

Eastern Babylonia under a KudurMabug, who probably belonged to that dynasty or at least to its time. Kudur-Mabug's son was the Rim-Sin or Eri-Aku whom Hammurabi subdued in the thirtieth year of his reign. Less reliable but somewhat confirmatory is the fixing by Stephanos of Byzantium of the foundation of Babylon 1,002 years before the siege of Troy, the latter date being fixed by Hellanikos at 1229 B.C. The date given by Nabonidus, 700 years before Burnaburiash, is uncertain, both because it is a round number, and because there were several kings named Burnaburiash. Ifit were the correspondent of Amenophis III., it would place Hammurabi about 2150 B.C. (see Amarna Tesnwrs). Later dates are obtained by attempted rectification of the Chronicle and the King-list (see Assyria, VI., 1; Babylonia, VI., 1, � 1-2). As to the length of Hammurabi's reign the two sources just named do not agree, the former assigning him forty-three years and the latter fifty-five. The difference is perhaps to be explained by the fact that some of the years had two names .and were counted in the King-list as separate years. The Chronicle gives an abstract of the events of thirty-eight years of his reign, the other years being lost.

The sources of knowledge of this king and his reign, besides those mentioned above, are fifty-five letters written to his vassal Sin-iddinam of Larsa; directions to various officials; his great inscriptions, ten in number; the prologue and epilogue to his Code; and a long series of business documents of the period. As a result of this mass of material a much clearer view of his times is obtained than of those of any early Babylonian ruler after Naram-Sin.

The tenor of the earlier documents of his reign and of the prologue and epilogue agree with the implications of the Chronicle that the first part of his reign was passed not in warlike operations but in works defensive, religious, and administrative. These consisted in the building of fortresses and city walls, in the erection and decoration of temples

and providing them with images and 3. His endowments, in building granaries and

Reign. digging canals (some of them of impor-

tance, connecting the cities with the great streams), and in locating his people on lands thus reclaimed from the swamps. The change from this kind of activity to operations of war must have taken place about the thirtieth year of his reign, since the Elamite Rim-Sin ruled in Larsa till that time. It is not likely that the latter was tributary during any part of his rule, for the conflict was sanguinary and apparently final which terminated the Elamitic rule, and Sin-iddinam was Hammurabi's representative in Larsa thereafter. In succeeding years Hammurabi conducted further and successful operations against Elam, thus removed the great menace to the stability of his kingdom, and left a heritage of peace to his successors. The occupation by the Elamites had been disastrous, since Hammu-

136
rabi was compelled as a result to collect the scattered folk and preserve them from famine and desolation. By the end of his reign he was king of all Babylonia, Assyria, Martu or Syria, and probably of the region between. The records of the times exhibit him as a wise administrator. The many notes for direction of affairs still extant reveal him discharging with effectiveness and decision the public business. His letters to Sin-iddina, dealing, with,practical matters of administration, are clear, brief, and to the point. The hearing of causes by him is a fact referred to several times in extant documents. Several of the tablets make evident that the corv6e was in force and thoroughly systematized. The public works were at least in part carried on by forced labbr, and it is known that supplies for the support of the laborers might' be commandeered. That Hammurabi gave a great impulse to literature is much in evidence. It is most likely that the epics which have to do with Marduk were worked over at this time in the interest of the elevation of that god to the supreme place in the pantheon. The religious character of Hammurabi is beyond di:9pute; he was zealous in maintaining the religious institutions and in inculcating respect for the gods. In view of the times it is not surprising that he was deified and that ilu, "the god," was often prefixed to his name; indeed he calls himself "the divine shelter" of his people. In this connection it is interesting that his name never appears in commercial transactions, purchases being made in his name by his atewardea marked departure from earlier practise. A sentence from one of his inscriptions is worth quoting:

" I am Hammurabi who is to his people as their father, who has made the words of Marduk to be held in reverence,

=triumph on highland and lowland has accomplished; who made glad the heart of Marduk, and has bequeathed prosperity for his people for all time, and proclaimed .order to the land."

The note struck in the above is that which appears in most of his inscriptions, solicitude for the temporal and spiritual welfare of his people and the honor of the gods. But great as Hammurabi was as a creator of empire, as an administrator, as a builder of temples and a redeemer of his land, and as a patron of literature, it is likely that he will henceforth be more famous as the maker of the earliest great code of laws yet known.