by Gill 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Terry - Thanks. I understand, and I will post more info on this tomorrow that it is pointed out in law schools that Hammurabi was the first recorded King to make laws that are in any way equitable and humane enough to bear some kind of comparrison to laws and fines that we have today.
It was 'advanced' law making, and something many nations were influenced to and sought to copy.
The fact that Hammurabi came up with these laws half a millenia before the Jewish nation says a lot.
Terry,
We're both in Texas. Would you be willing to pose your proposition to a few law professors? I pay the expenses? C'mon the Ten Commandments didn't affect western law?
Challenge: We ask four professors the question (two of your choice and two of mine) we video tape it. JWD votes on it and the loser pays the winner $500.00.
I mean you said that it was "inane" right? it should be an easy half grand for you!
What do you say.... one Texan to another? Win or lose, I buy the beer afterwards.
The fact that Moses gave laws is NOT disputed. He most certainly DID provide laws for the ancient nation of Israel to live under but this was five hundred years after Hammurabi had commenced his civilisation of his Babylonian empire.
By the Waters of Babylon by James Wellard:
That Babylon achieved such a place in history was largely due to the triumphs of a kind not in war, but in peace. For Hammurabi the warrior turned out to be one of the great law givers of his age, worthy to be ranked with Solon the Athenian. In its way the Babylonian's code of conduct for regulating the relations between men was as important a step forward towards a saner society as that which Moses formulated for his people some 500 yhears later; and the resemblance between the two leaders of their nations is all the more striking since both are reputed to have received the tablets of their law from god on a mountain top.
Hammurabi of Babylon, threfore, represents something more than a typical warlord of his age, even though it would be foolishto sentimentalise him as a man of peace imbued with Christian virtues. He lived, we remember, in a brutal age, when smiting ones enemies, as we learn from the Old Testament, was the first duty of a monarch, a duty performed with all the violence and cruelty of total warfare, ancient and modern. And so it isn ot suprising to find that Hammurabi, who cmae to the throne as a young and ambitious soldier of about twnty- five well aware that he was surrounded by implacable enemies, spent the first thirty years of his reign in mercilessly attacking the neighbouring states until their cities were destroyed, their citizens enslaved, and their kings mutilated and allowed to die in dark prisons. Not even the idols of the defeated gods and goddesses were spared, but were kept as royal hostages until all danger of retaliation was past.'
By the Waters of Babylon cont..
But after thirty years of successful campaigning, Hammurabi, in the sunset of his life, seems to have decided to make some retribution for the suffering he had caused, and to make his peace with the gods and his fellow men. We find him now busying himself restoring some of the temples he had destroyed or allowed to fall into decay. He also caused' to be made splendid' statues of gods and goddesses to whom the temples were dedicated, not omitting to set up flattering idols of himself.
Hammurabi dedicated himself wholeheartedly to his task of kindship, concerning himself not only withthe great affairs of state but with the petty details of his people's welfare,...
In addition to personally supervising every department of public administration, the kind devoted himself to the systematisation and codification of all the laws and traditions of the Mesopotomian world, going back to Sumerian times when law and order first became a cornerstone of civilised life. The basic principle which Hammurabi chose to guide him was the amelioration of the ancient tribal law of the lex talionis, or 'an eye for an eye'. He was not able, or did not wish to abolish altogether the custom of 'a life for a life', but he did introduce the principle of fines in payment for misdemeanours which were formerly punished by death or mutilation. And this change in the administration of justice can be seen as one of the greatest of all advances in the long slow process of civilisation, for it foreshadowed the coming of societies based not only on the force of the law but also on the power of money to control men's minds and passions. Long before Hammurabi's reign, the Sumerians had discovered the principle that social intercourse was much simpler if, instead of waiting to be killed by a person one had offended, one paid him compensation in cash. This sort of arrangement, in fact, became the foundation of all law as it was thenceforth known and practised leading to the establishment of courts of law, lawyers, solicitors juries and the complex apparat;us of jurisprudence in civilised societies.
Hammurabi, therefore, intent on stabilising his kingdom in order that his dynasty could continue to rule, was anxious to establish a strong and fair judicial system for the kings of the Mesopotamian city states had learnt by this time that even if their subjects would not actually rebel they would collaborate with a rival if justice was not done and seen to be done. For this reason ancient monarch were anxious to add to their honorifics titles like 'king of justice,' 'he who made justice to prevail', etc.
cont
The famous Code of Hammurabie, which, unlike the Tables of Moses, has survived in several steles or bronze plaques, begins with a Prologue, whihjc sets the tone for all civilised law thereafter. In it the King states that he was commanded by god (Marduk;, the tutelary god of Bablylon) to give justice to the people and to grant them good government in order to destroy the evil and the wicked and to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. The 300 laws follow, falling into specific categories beginning with the administration of justice, (false charges, false testimony, and falsification of judgment) and ending with regulation concerning the purchase of slaves abroad.
Subsequen laws seem to have been framed to protect women in a humane fashion, even though it is clear that their status was not much higher than that of the house slaves. All the same, husbands could not treat their wives unjustly, and the divorce laws were both equitable and reasonable.
Additional security for wives, widows, and concubines was written into the code, the last group obviously requiring special protection as they were chosen from the household slaves and were exposed to the possible hatred and persecution of the first wife. However, the law affirms:
170 If a concubine has borne a man sons to whom the father states, 'You are my sons,' he shall count them as legitimate and they shall take proportionate shares in the property of paternal estate.'
Noteworth too is the ethical principle underlying them, namely the recognistion that the strong must make concessions to the weak which was perhaps the most important contribution of the Babylonians to morality and which, ion fact, foreshadowed the whole basis of Christ's teaching. In other words, the concept of justice tempered with mercy, which was eventually to change the nature of men and society, was introduced into public life and given official sanction in the law, though it was long time before it was extended to cover the treatment of foreign enemies. Indedd, there is no mention in Hammurabi's Code, or for that matter, in Moses's commandments, of either justice or mercy towards one's enemies: to the contrary, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to show mercy to their fellow Semites; and typical of the OT moralityis the divine command given to King Saul to slaughter, (or as one would say today, to 'waste') an abscure South Palestinian tribe in the following manner:
'Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, cammel and ass.' (1 Sam 15:3)'
So, the foundations of law and humanity and infact a moral code was laid back in Sumeria and continued by Hammurabi who began the civilisation and justice that people expect today.
There is a long tradition of lawgiver-rulers in Mesopotamia indeed, even before Hammurabi:
http://www.aoal.org/song/files/AncientLawCodes.pdf
As Doug Mason already suggested, one must remember that in the Hebrew Bible "Moses" is to "Law" what "Solomon" is to "Wisdom" -- the "default author" of texts from multiple origins and periods.
One must also think that the role of the "lawgiver-ruler" (real or fictional) only marginally consists in promulgating new laws. One important part of it is harmonising, standardising, and fixing a diverse and moving corpus of pre-existing local (and mostly oral) laws through writing them down from the position of central authority of a larger territory. In a sense, one could say that "Moses" really begins with Josiah and culminates with Ezra, even though the Torah does contain some laws of earlier origin.
Narkissos - Though I understand that there is no or little doubt that Hammurabi wrote his law code, I understand that there is 'some' doubt over who really wrote the ten commandments, ie did Moses write the Pentatuch and over who and if Solomon was the writer of Ecclesiastes.
I suspect, and this is only my view, that LAW ie civilisation and moral code, went back to the civilisation that probably existed way before Sumeria ever rose from catastrophe. I believe that human nature is essentially good and once the basics of just human survival are 'fixed' our moral code and conscience will always rule.
Perry:
Whereas Hammurabi’s “Law Code” fails to address how the relationship between individual human beings and God (or the gods) should be structured, instructions concerning how the relationship between human beings and God should be structured are the foremost concern of the “Decalogue.”
That is precisely why Hammurabi's code is superior to the law of Moses, because it deals only with relationships between people as any legal system should. It covers crimes, not sins. The idea that a legal system prescribing death to anybody who doesn't worship the right god the right way is more virtuous than one that does not, is a primitive idea that has long been abandoned by civilised people.
We're both in Texas. Would you be willing to pose your proposition to a few law professors? I pay the expenses? C'mon the Ten Commandments didn't affect western law?
Challenge: We ask four professors the question (two of your choice and two of mine) we video tape it. JWD votes on it and the loser pays the winner $500.00.
I mean you said that it was "inane" right? it should be an easy half grand for you!
What do you say.... one Texan to another? Win or lose, I buy the beer afterwards.
Howdy, Pardner!
I see a logical flaw in your kind offer. Shall I point it out--or, do I assume you are aware of it already?
If we did a poll on whether ostriches bury their head in the sand the response might indicate that these birds really do. After all, we've heard this sort of nonsense all our lives. But, the conditioned opinion would be contrary to facts regardless of the poll.
Two hurdles here. In Western Society opinion is colored by Puritan values plain and simple. Even at its very worst our society has an underpinning of religious indoctrination. "In God We Trust" is on our currency and our children are instructed to pledge allegience to one nation "under God".......
School Boards fight to teach medeival views on the origin of man right along side the best science has to offer as though these were factual alternatives.
Even the slimey attorneys who become President of the U.S. (Richard Nixon) have Quaker roots and engage in prayer sessions as they go about their secular duties. (George Bush would, of course, never be influenced by god)
Meaning what?
Meaning this. The opinion of attorneys whose consciousness is forged in the crucible of bible indoctrination from birth to the prayer over their coffin when they die cannot possibly be objective opinions when it comes to the Ten Commandments or the influence of the Law of Moses.
And, believe it or not, this makes my comment bifurcated as to validity.
1.On the one hand, law is a practical secular matter which requires it to be rooted in the reality of evidence, proof and skeptical interrogation to establish Truth on the minds of disinterested parties (jury/judge) after a process of inquiry goes forward to conclusion.
2.Religion, the Law of Moses, God's will and Christianity in particular are at polar opposites. How so?
A. Faith is taken to be superior to evidence.
B. Submission to authority is more spiritual than skepticism
C.The Bible trumps proof in the mind of the believer; no process need apply
The Bible contains very little that is practical or more "enlightened" than what any primitive nomadic society has discovered anywhere in the world. Half the Ten Commandments don't even apply in court and the other half are principles any law in any land logically include.
What society condones murder, theft, adultry for example? Did we need Moses or God to point these things out?
Lying will put you at odds with any neighbor, friend or stranger in any village in the most remote of locales.
These are PRACTICAL matters not requiring Divine revelation.
I'm sure you know this and see this already.
If we ask a Muslim mullah if Allah wants a separation of church and state we will not get an objective opinion. If we ask a law professor if the Ten Commandments is the basis for Western Law you'll hardly be surprised at their response either.
So, yippee ty yay, Buckaroo and Howdeeeee!
But, no thanks.
Incidentally, as an afterthought (or, a sidebar if you will....)
Eye for Eye and Tooth for Tooth is brute justice which appears fair because it is mathematically indisputable as equal.
However, the concept of tempering eye-for-eye with mercy and extenuating circumstance is another matter worth looking at.
If God is Perfect and God's Law is Perfect then it is a standard of Perfection which is impervious to rebuttal.
However, upon closer examination what do we find? We find that God continually steps outside his own standard of Justice and Perfection and acts according to whim!
Law is law and whim is improvisationally without fixed standard.
Forgiveness steps outside of law and flies in the face of a fixed standard of justice.
