DIVINE INSPIRATION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAW CODE OF

HAMMURABI AND THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT

by

OGUNLANA, BABATUNDE ADEKUNLE

(UJ/2012/TC/02954)

A Thesis Submitted to Theological College of Northern Nigeria, in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in OLD TESTAMENT

OCTOBER 2017
 ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this work is the product of my own research efforts undertaken under the

supervision of Professor Andy Warren-Rothlin and has not been presented elsewhere for the award

of a degree or certificate. All sources have been duly distinguished and appropriately

acknowledged.
 iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to:

Adepeju Ogunlana (my dear wife and best friend)

Amos Ogunlana (Late) and Ruth Ogunlana (my dear parents)

The church of God in Nigeria

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many persons contributed to the preparation, inspiration, undertaking and completion of this thesis.

Thus, to each of the following people I want to express my sincere appreciation:

To my supervisor and mentor, Prof. Andy Warren-Rothlin, for his professional guidance,

warmly encouragement, personal care and technical expertise in the subject matter.

To Prof. Ingrid Hjelm and Prof. Martin Ehvensvärd, for their constructive comments and

significant assistance toward the completion of this dissertation.

To Prof. Reuben Chuga, Prof. Tersur Aben, Prof. Mark Hopkins, Prof. Timothy Palmer and

Dr. Matthew Hartley, for their constant encourgagement and timely advice.

To my colleagues at the college, Rev. Joseph Reni, Rev. Paul Cookey, Rev. Dogara Gwana

and Rev. Jim Gotom, for their contribution to this dissertation.

To Adepeju, my beloved wife, for her inestimable support, joyful endurance and patient

encouragement throughout the study programme.

I appreciate with gratefulness, the financial assistance received from Baptist Theological Seminary,

Kaduna, during the course of this study programme.

But, all glory to God. Without Him, this work would have been impossible. He provided all things –

strength, wisdom, sound-mind, good health, joy and perseverance – to come to this point.

‫שמָּה תְּ ַּהלֵּל י ָּה ַּהלְּלו־י ָּה‬

ָּ ְּ‫כ ֹּל ַּהמ‬

Let every breathing thing praise the LORD! Praise the LORD! (Psa 150:6)
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration.......................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication .......................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ v
Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 PURPOSE................................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.5 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.7.1 George S. Duncan, „The Code of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi‟, 1904 ................................................ 10
1.7.2 Leroy Waterman, „Pre-Israelite Laws in the Book of the Covenant‟, 1921 ..................................................... 11
1.7.3 J.H. Hertz, „Ancient Codes and the Mosaic Legislation‟, 1928 ....................................................................... 12
1.7.4 Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, 1980 13
1.7.5 J.J. Finkelstein, The Ox that Gored, 1981 ........................................................................................................ 13
1.7.6 John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 1990 .................................................... 14
1.7.7 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 2005 ................................................................................................ 15
1.7.8 Bruce Wells, „The Covenant Code and Near Eastern Legal Tradition‟, 2006 ................................................. 16
1.7.9 Matthew Monger, „Exodus 22:6-8 and the Question of the Authority of the Law in the Bible and the Ancient
Near East‟, 2008 .............................................................................................................................................. 17
1.7.10 David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 2009.................................................................................................. 18
1.7.11 Raymond Westbrook, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, 2009 ......................................................................... 19
1.8 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2. BACKGROUND STUDIES ...................................................................................................................... 21
2.1 LINGUISTIC APPROACHES .................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1.1 Genre ............................................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1.2 Word Order ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
2.1.3 Verbal System .................................................................................................................................................. 28
2.2 ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LAW CODES ................................................................................................................ 34
2.2.1 The Law Code of Ur-Namma (LU, compiled ca. 2100 B.C. in Sumerian)...................................................... 34
 vi

2.2.2 The Law Code of Lipit-Ishtar (LL, compiled in ca. 1930 B.C. in Sumerian) .................................................. 35
2.2.3 The Law Code of Eshnunna (LE, compiled ca. 1920 B.C. in Akkadian) ........................................................ 36
2.2.4 The Hittite Laws (HL, compiled between 1650 and 1500 B.C. in Hittite Language) ...................................... 36
2.2.5 The Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL, compiled between 1115 and 1077 B.C. in Middle Assyrian Language) . 36
2.2.6 The Neo-Babylonian Laws (LNB, compiled ca. 700 B.C. in Neo-Babylonian) .............................................. 37
2.3 DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.................................................................................................................................. 37
2.3.1 Church Fathers (A.D. 100-476) ....................................................................................................................... 38
2.3.2 Medieval Scholars (A.D. 476-1517) ................................................................................................................ 39
2.3.3 Reformers (A.D. 1517-1685) ........................................................................................................................... 40
2.3.4 Modern Period (A.D. 1685-1900).................................................................................................................... 40
2.3.5 Contemporary Period (A.D. 1900-Present)...................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3. THE LAW CODE OF HAMMURABI ...................................................................................................... 55
3.1 DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 55
3.2 CONTEXTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 57
3.2.1 Literary Context ............................................................................................................................................... 57
3.2.2 Historical Context ............................................................................................................................................ 58
3.2.3 Theological Context ......................................................................................................................................... 65
3.3 GENRE ................................................................................................................................................................. 65
3.3.1 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 66
3.4 DISCOURSE .......................................................................................................................................................... 69
3.5 GRAMMAR ........................................................................................................................................................... 76
3.5.1 Syntax: Word Order in CoH ............................................................................................................................ 76
3.5.2 Akkadian Verbal System in CoH ..................................................................................................................... 79
3.6 THEMES ............................................................................................................................................................... 85
3.6.1 Slavery: CoH 117-119 ..................................................................................................................................... 85
3.6.2 Striking a Parent: CoH 195 .............................................................................................................................. 88
3.6.3 Kidnapping: CoH 14 ........................................................................................................................................ 89
3.6.4 Bodily Injury: CoH 206-208 ............................................................................................................................ 90
3.6.5 Miscarriage and Eye for Eye: CoH 209-214; 196-201 .................................................................................... 92
3.6.6 Goring Ox: CoH 250-252 ................................................................................................................................ 97
3.6.7 Theft: CoH 8, 21 ............................................................................................................................................ 100
3.6.8 Cattle Grazing: CoH 57 ................................................................................................................................. 102
3.6.9 Storage and Deposit: CoH 120 ...................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 4. THE BOOK OF the COVENANT ........................................................................................................... 107
4.1 DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 107
4.2 CONTEXTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 108
4.2.1 Literary Context ............................................................................................................................................. 108
4.2.2 Historical Context: Diachronic Approach...................................................................................................... 113
4.2.3 Theological Context ....................................................................................................................................... 116
4.3 GENRE ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
 vii

4.3.1 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 119

4.4 DISCOURSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 124
4.4.1 Sinai Narrative: Exodus 19-24 ....................................................................................................................... 124
4.4.2 BC: Exodus 20:22-23:33 ............................................................................................................................... 125
4.4.3 Casuistic Laws: Exodus 21:2-22:16............................................................................................................... 126
4.5 GRAMMAR ......................................................................................................................................................... 128
4.5.1 Syntax: Word Order in Exodus 21:2-22:16 ................................................................................................... 129
4.5.2 Verbal Forms in Exodus 21:2-22:16 .............................................................................................................. 138
4.6 THEMES ............................................................................................................................................................. 146
4.6.1 Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11 ................................................................................................................................ 146
4.6.2 Striking a Parent: Exodus 21:15 .................................................................................................................... 155
4.6.3 Kidnapping: Exodus 21:16 ............................................................................................................................ 156
4.6.4 Bodily Injury: Exodus 21:18-19 .................................................................................................................... 158
4.6.5 Miscarriage and Eye for Eye: Exodus 21:22-27 ............................................................................................ 160
4.6.6 Goring Ox: Exodus 21:28-32 ......................................................................................................................... 165
4.6.7 Theft: Exodus 21:37-22:3 .............................................................................................................................. 169
4.6.8 Cattle Grazing: Exodus 22:4 .......................................................................................................................... 172
4.6.9 Storage and Deposit: Exodus 22:6-7.............................................................................................................. 173
Chapter 5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAW CODE OF HAMMURABI AND THE BOOK OF THE
COVENANT ....................................................................................................................................................... 176
5.1 COMPARISONS ................................................................................................................................................... 176
5.1.1 Contexts ......................................................................................................................................................... 176
5.1.2 Genre ............................................................................................................................................................. 179
5.1.3 Grammar ........................................................................................................................................................ 180
5.1.4 Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... 184
5.1.5 Structures ....................................................................................................................................................... 199
5.2 EXPLANATION ................................................................................................................................................... 202
Chapter 6. INSPIRATION IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST .................................................................................. 212
6.1 CLAIMS TO DIVINE INSPIRATION IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LAW CODES ...................................................... 212
6.1.1 CoH ................................................................................................................................................................ 213
6.1.2 BC and the Decalogue ................................................................................................................................... 218
6.1.3 Comparisons .................................................................................................................................................. 223
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF INSPIRATION ........................................................................................................................... 224
6.2.1 The Process of Inspiration ............................................................................................................................. 224
6.2.2 The Quality of Inspiration .............................................................................................................................. 231
6.2.3 The Product of Inspiration ............................................................................................................................. 236
6.3 CONCEPT OF INSPIRATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ......................................................................................... 242
Chapter 7. RELEVANCE TO EVANGELICAL BIBLICAL STUDIES, FOCUSING ON NIGERIA .................... 247
7.1 YORUBA WORLDVIEW....................................................................................................................................... 247
7.2 THE CONCEPT OF „AROKO‟ ............................................................................................................................... 251
 viii

7.3 THE CONCEPT OF TABOO .................................................................................................................................. 253

Chapter 8. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 260
Chapter 9. WORKS CITED....................................................................................................................................... 264
Chapter 10. APPENDIX A: HAMMURABI STELE ............................................................................................... 280
Chapter 11. APPENDIX B: HAMMURABI STELE ............................................................................................... 281
Chapter 12. APPENDIX C: AUTOGRAPHED TEXT ............................................................................................ 282
 ix

ABBREVIATIONS

BC The Book of the Covenant

BH Biblical Hebrew
CoH The Law Code of Hammurabi
DL Deuteronomic Law
HL The Hittite Laws
LE The Law Code of Eshnunna
LL The Law Code of Lipit-Ishtar
LNB The Neo-Babylonian Laws
LU The Law Code of Ur-Namma
MA Main Apodosis
MAL The Middle Assyrian Laws
MP Main Protasis
OA Old Akkadian
SA1 First subsidiary apodosis
SA2 Second subsidiary apodosis
SA3 Third subsidiary apodosis
SA4 Fourth subsidiary apodosis
SAC Sub-case Apodosis
SAC1 First Sub-case Apodosis
SAC2 Second Sub-case Apodosis
SAC3 Third Sub-case Apodosis
SAC4 Fourth Sub-case Apodosis
SP1 First Subsidiary Protasis
SP2 Second Subsidiary Protasis
SP3 Third Subsidiary Protasis
SP4 Fourth Subsidiary Protasis
SPC Sub-case Protasis
SPC1 First Sub-case Protasis
SPC2 Second Sub-case Protasis
SPC3 Third Sub-case Protasis
SPC4 Fourth Sub-case Protasis
SV Subject-Verb
VS Verb-Subject
 x

ABSTRACT

The discovery of CoH in the early twentieth century and its comparison with BC has revealed

that there exists a relationship between it and BC. There are both striking similarities and stark

contrasts between them. The striking similarities and stark contrasts have generated tension and

questions that have always revolved around the inspiration of the Old Testament. The key research

questions of this thesis are: „how does the relationship between CoH and BC inform our

understanding of the nature of inspiration? Is BC inspired the same way as CoH? How should

Yoruba Christians consider the Bible, which is the product of inspiration? Previously, scholars have

examined the relationship between CoH and BC in light of their contexts (historical, literary and

theological), forms of expression (genres and structures), grammar (word orders and verbal forms)

and contents. In addition to all these, this thesis examines the relationship between CoH and BC in

light of their claims to divine inspiration, and demonstrate how this relationship informs our

understanding of the nature of inspiration. In the thesis, I argue that BC is a rewriting (by rewriting I

mean an adaptation and a translation) of a version of CoH, and in its composition both Yahweh and

the human agents were involved, thus, it is not inspired the same way as CoH. While Yahweh is the

source of BC, the human agent determined its historical, linguistic and theological contexts, its form

of expression (genre and structure) and its content under his direct influence. To achieve this

purpose, I engage in a comparative study of CoH and BC with special empasis on their inspiration

and discuss the implication for the Yoruba view and use of hte Bible. The methodology that is

adopted is an integrated approach, which incorporates the exegetical, comparative, statistical,

translation, theological and intercultural biblical hermeneutical approaches. Through this method, it

is discovered that BC is a rewriting of a version of CoH. In its rewriting, the author maintained the

form of the source text. Then, he encoded the contents of the source text in his own theological,

cultural and historical contexts. All these accounts for the similarities and the differences between
 xi

CoH and BC. Furthermore, it is established that inspiration accounts for the different theological

concepts in Ancient Near Eastern law codes. The processes of inspiration for rewriting CoH and BC

are the same. Both texts involved deities and human agents and depended on the older law codes in

their composition. This is the reason for the similarities in the two texts. Moreover, both texts are

considered the products of inspiration, thus authoritative for their peoples. However, the qualities of

inspiration of both codes are not the same. While there is the model of indirect divine influence in

the rewriting of CoH, there is the model of direct divine influence in the rewriting of BC.

Consequently, CoH is recognized as the words of Hammurabi, and BC the words of Yahweh. The

difference is due to the different theological concepts in Israel and Babylonia. Finally, the thesis

asserts that the Yoruba interpreters should always appropriate the biblical text to Yoruba context.

For instance, Yoruba Christians should consider the Bible as the words of God and the King, which

must be read, interpreted and obeyed by them.

CHAPTER 1.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This chapter will serve as an introduction to the whole thesis. In the chapter, I will provide the

background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of

the study, the scope of the study, the research methodology and the literature review. All these

elements will serve as the frame for the whole thesis.

1.1 Background

The archaeological discoveries of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have

inaugurated a new field called Ancient Near Eastern Studies. This field is concerned with the

academic study of the Ancient Near East. It focuses on the mastery of the Mesopotamian

cuneiforms, the Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic scripts and phrases (Kitchen 24). It is also

concerned with the study of the typology of potteries and different literary genres of the period.

Kitchen comments that the field is complex and highly specialized (Kitchen 24). It is closely related

to the Old Testament scholarship. In expressing the relationship between Ancient Near Eastern

studies and Old Testament studies, Kitchen asserts that the Ancient Near East is the world of the

Old Testament and that the Old Testament is a part of Ancient Near Eastern literature, history, and

culture. Therefore, what can be known about the history, literature, linguistics, and religion of the

Ancient Near East, he says, will have a direct link upon these same aspects of the Old Testament

(Kitchen 24).

This thus makes the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies to include comparisons of the

biblical text with Ancient Near Eastern texts. Several scholars have studied ancient texts and used

them to illustrate the Old Testament text. Thus, many comparisons have been made between these

ancient texts and the Old Testament text. In these comparisons, there are at times striking

1
similarities and at other times, stark contrasts between them. These comparisons have greatly

helped us to learn about the ancient world in which the stories of the Old Testament took place. One

such comparison commonly done by the biblical scholars is the comparison between ancient laws

and biblical law.

The interest to engage in Ancient Near Eastern Studies first came during a MTh class of

Deuteronomic Theology (MTB 508) at Theological College of Northern Nigeria, Bukuru, in 2008.

In the class, CoH (CoH 128-184) was compared with DL (Deut 22:13-23:1; 24:1-4). Since then it

has been a burden to carry out a comprehensive research on a comparative study of a biblical text

and an Ancient Near Eastern text. The interest to research on this topic reached its peak in

September 2011 when I was teaching a topic on 'Inspiration'. The concept of inspiration is of great

importance to the understanding of the concept of the Bible as the product of inspiration. The study

on the concept of inspiration has greatly helped to discover that many Yoruba Christians have an

improper view and use of the Bible. Thus, the decision to research on comparing CoH and BC,

focusing on the relationship between them, with special emphasis on their inspiration, and

appropriating the concept of inspiration to Yoruba context was arrived.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Comparative studies of Ancient Near Eastern texts and the Old Testament text have always

demonstrated that the texts are closely paralleled. Take for instances, the creation story in Genesis is

in close parallel to the Egyptian creation mythology (i.e. Cosmogony of Heliopolis) and Enuma

Elish. The close parallels to the social customs of the Patriarch in Genesis 12-50 come from the

texts of the nineteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C. (Kitchen 25). The covenant forms, which appear

in Exodus and Deuteronomy, follow the model of the Ancient Near East. The personification of

wisdom found in Proverb 8 is similar to the personified concepts in the Ancient Near East (Kitchen

25). The comparison of Mosaic Law with Ancient Near Eastern law codes (i.e. the Law Code of Ur-

Namma) also demonstrates a close relationship between them. The Egyptian wisdom literature

provides more parallels with Israelite wisdom literature than any other Egyptian literary type

2
(Walton 169). For instance, Proverbs 22:17-24:2 are closely paralleled to the Instruction of

Amenemope.

These various comparisons have generated tension and questions in Old Testament studies.

The tension and questions have always revolved around the inspiration and uniqueness of the Old

Testament. Thus, some scholars have asserted that the Old Testament is not different from other

Ancient Near Eastern texts because of the similarities between them. Other scholars who emphasize

the differences do so to confirm the inspiration and uniqueness of the Old Testament.

Furthermore, it has rightly been observed that the concept of inspiration is closely related to

the concept of the Bible. This is because the Bible is the product of inspiration. In Africa, many

Christians especially the Yoruba Christians are having an improper view and use of the Bible

because of their worldview, which have influenced their conception of the Bible. Many consider the

Bible as the divine book or the power of God, not considering its human elements. Many do not

consider the Bible as the final authority in the matter of doctrine and practices; rather they place a

high value on vision, revelation, dream or pastor‟s message.

Many African pastors and theologians are not having a proper engagement in Biblical studies

like their western counterparts. They are not concerned to demonstrate the connections between

biblical text and ancient texts and to highlight the hermeneutical and theological implications of

those connections for our understanding biblical faith and doctrine. In their various studies, a

comparative approach is not being done properly. They do only engage in the comparision between

the Bible and African culture or context, neglecting the comparison between a biblical text and its

corresponding Ancient Near Eastern texts. Consequently, the lack of such a comparative approach

between the biblical text and Ancient Near Eastern texts has undermined biblical inspiration.

What is the biblical inspiration? Does biblical inspiration suggest that there is no influence of

Ancient Near Eastern setting on the Old Testament at all? Why is the Old Testament text both

similar to and different from Ancient Near Eastern texts in many ways? Why does the Old

Testament share in Ancient Near Eastern culture, religion, worldview and literary genres? If it

happens that the Old Testament reflects the ancient world in which it was produced, does this
3
reflection still make the Old Testament unique? Does this suggest that the similarities between the

Old Testament text and Ancient Near Eastern texts make the Old Testament less inspired? Do the

striking similarities between them eliminate the role of Yahweh in the composition of the Old

Testament? How can the relationship between CoH and BC be described in light of the claims to

inspiration in the two texts? How should contemporary Christians consider the Bible? How can the

concept of inspiration be of great assistance for Yoruba Christians to have a proper view and use of

the Bible? How can they engage in Biblical studies properly? How does the relationship between

CoH and BC inform our understanding of the nature of inspiration? Is BC inspired the same way as

CoH? How should Yoruba Christians consider the Bible, which is the product of inspiration? All

these questions will be answered in this thesis.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between CoH and BC, and

demonstrate how this relationship informs our understanding of the nature of inspiration. This thesis

will further demonstrate that BC is a rewriting (by rewriting I mean an adaptation and a translation)

of a version of CoH in the Old Testament Israelites‟ theological perspective. It will argue that both

Yahweh and human agents were involved in the rewriting of BC, thus, it is not inspired the same

way as CoH, and it will establish that the concept of inspiration can be appropriated to Yoruba

context. To achieve this purpose, the contexts (historical, theological and literary), forms of

expression (genres and structures), grammars (word orders and verbal forms), and contents of CoH

and BC will be discussed. The relationship between CoH and BC, considering the similarities and

differences between their contexts, forms, grammars, and contents in relation to LU, LL, LE, MAL,

and HL, will be described. Afterward, the claims to divine inspiration in both CoH and BC will be

discussed and the practical implications of the study for Yoruba Christians will be drawn out by

appropriating the concept of inspiration to Yoruba context.

4
1.4 Significance

This thesis will be of great benefits to biblical scholars, Nigerian ministers of the gospel and

Yoruba Christians in particular. Scholars will gain a better insight into the contexts, forms,

grammars, and contents of CoH and BC. They will have a better understanding of the legal tradition

of the Ancient Near East. They will have a better understanding of how the deities related to their

people in the composition of law codes. Furthermore, they will have a better understanding of the

nature of inspiration in Ancient Near Eastern context. Nigerian Ministers and Yoruba Christians

will have a proper view and use of the Bible. They will be familiarized with how to have a fruitful

and proper engagement in the studies of both the Old and New Testaments, which are considered

products of divine inspiration. In this engagement, they will learn to distinguish between the divine

and human elements in the production of the Bible. They will learn how to recover the central

message of the Bible from its ancient contexts. They will further learn how to study the Old and

New Testaments in parallel with other ancient literature. This is because there is a parallelism

between certain themes and practices in the Bible and its world, and there is also a structure of

thought that is common to them both and that forms the theological backbone of the Bible (Niehaus

9–10). Lastly, they will gain skills in appropriating the central message of the Bible to

contemporary contexts.

1.5 Scope

This thesis does not attempt to discuss the entire laws in CoH and BC. Rather, it will only

focus on some parallel laws in both CoH and BC. While the genre and grammatical analyses of

CoH and BC will focus on some laws generally, the thematic analyses of CoH and BC will focus

only on the selected themes as found in CoH 8, 14, 21, 57, 117-120, 195-201, 206-214, 250-252 and

Exodus 21:2-11, 15-16, 18-19, 22-32; 21:37-22:3-4, 6-7. The practical aspect of the thesis will be

limited to Yoruba Christianity and context.

5
1.6 Research Methodology

This thesis adopts an integrated methodology. The Methodology combines many approaches

that will work together to achieve the purpose of the thesis. This method incorporates the

grammatico-historical approach, the comparative approach, the statistical approaches of scatter

diagram and correlation coefficient, the translation approach, the theological approach and the

African biblical hermeneutical approach (in a limited degree).

In this thesis, the grammatico-historical approach will be adopted to provide the contexts,

forms, structures and contents of CoH and BC in chapters 3 and 4. The grammatico-historical

method is one form of „exegesis‟, which is derived from the Greek word εχεγεομαί, „to lead out of‟,

and when applied to texts, it denotes „reading out of the meaning‟ (Hayes and Holladay 5). Exegesis

„is a thorough, analytical study of a biblical passage done so as to arrive at a useful interpretation of

the passage‟ (Stuart 21). It involves linguistic analysis, genre analysis, theological analysis,

historical analysis, textual analysis and vocabulary analysis. This implies the consideration of the

historical, theological, literary and linguistic contexts of the biblical text. In Warren-Rothlin word, it

helps in reading biblical text „emically‟, which means „studying texts within their own world‟

(Warren-Rothlin 38). Through the grammatico-historical approach, six approaches of analysis,

namely, literary analysis, historical analysis, theological analysis, genre analysis, grammatical

analysis and thematic analysis will be adopted. Comprehensive analyses of both texts demand a

deep understanding of the texts. This is achieved through thematic analyses, upon which rest genre

analyses and grammatical analyses, and upon which rest literary analyses, historical analyses, and

theological analyses. In the thematic analyses, some basic rules and standards of exegesis will be

applied to the parallel themes in CoH and BC, in order to bring out clearly their contents.

In chapter 5, the comparative approach will be adopted to compare the contexts, forms,

structures, and contents of CoH and BC in order to establish that BC adopted other older law codes

in the Israelite theological, historical and cultural context. In this comparison, the similarities and

differences between the contexts, forms, grammars, structures, contents, and claims to the divine

6
inspiration of CoH and BC will be explained. Neither similarities nor differences would be stressed;

rather emphasis will be placed on both. This comparison will further help to delineate the doctrine

of biblical inspiration in chapter 6.

Furthermore, the statistical approaches of scatter diagram and correlation coefficient are used

in chapter 5 to establish that there is a moderate relationship between CoH and BC. A scatter

diagram is a diagram that shows the relationship between two variables X and Y (Chernick and

Friis 254). The values of variable X are given along the horizontal axis, with the values of variable

Y given on the vertical axis. In determining the relationship between the two variables, the variable

X is plotted against the variable Y. If the dots on the scatter diagram tend to go from the lower left

to the upper right, it means that as one variable increases the other variable tends to increase also. In

this case, we have a „positive relationship‟ (Higgins 1). If the dots on the scatter diagram tend to go

from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of the scatter diagram, it means that as values of

one variable increase, values of the other variable decrease. This is called a „negative relationship‟

(Higgins 1).

According to Callaghan, correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear

relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to +1. A correlation coefficient of +1 indicates

that there is a perfect positive relationship between the two variables. A correlation of 0 indicates

that there is no linear relationship between the two variables. The correlation of -1 indicates that

there is a perfect negative relationship between the two variables. So, for a positive relationship,

the closer a correlation coefficient approaches 1 the stronger the relationship, and the closer a

correlation coefficient is to 0 the weaker the relationship (Callaghan 553).

In addition, the translation approach will be used in chapter 5 to delineate the relationship that

exists between CoH and BC. According to Shaheen, it is defined as „the actual process of decoding

the source language text and encoding the target text‟. He describes it as „the end-product, texts

resulting from the actual process‟ (Shaheen 1). Lefevere describes it as rewriting. It is „the most

obviously recognizable type of rewriting, and … it is potentially the most influential because it is

7
able to project the image of an author and for those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of

origin‟ (Lefevere 9).

In chapter 6, the theological approach will be adopted to reconstruct the doctrine of inspiration

based on the concept of inspiration in the Ancient Near East.

In chapter 7, the African Biblical hermeneutical approach will be used in a limited degree to

appropriate the biblical text, which is the product of inspiration, to Yoruba context. Adamo

describes African biblical hermeneutics as „the principle of interpretation of the Bible for

transformation in Africa‟ (Adamo, “The Task and Distintiveness of African Biblical

Hermeneutic(s)” 32). It is „the biblical interpretation that makes African social cultural context a

subject of interpretation (Adamo, “The Task and Distintiveness of African Biblical Hermeneutic(s)”

32). According to Adamo, it is the reareading of the Christian scripture from a premeditatedly

Africentric perspective (Adamo, Exploration in African Biblical Studies 6). This approach will help

African interpreter to understand the Bible and God in African experiences and culture.

It is worth noting to describe the intercultural hermeneutical approach, which is a branch of

African biblical hermeneutics. The intercultural hermeneutical approach of re-reading the Bible in

Africa is concerned with „methods that are culturally informed and yet faithful to biblical tradition‟

(Olaniyi 25). It is an approach to biblical interpretation which seeks to make African context the

subject of interpretation. This means that every dimension of the interpretive process is „consciously

informed by the worldview of and the life experience within African culture‟ (West, “Biblical

Hermeneutics in Africa” 3).

Justin Ukpong calls this approach inculturation hermeneutics. This is a contextual

hermeneutic methodology that seeks to make any community of ordinary people and their context

the subject of interpretation. He further explains the task of inculturation hermeneutics as reading

the Bible to appropriate its message for a contemporary context (Ukpong, “Inculturation

Hermeneutics: An African Approach to Biblical Interpretation” 18). This involves engaging a

biblical text in dialogue with a contemporary contextual experience so as to appropriate its message

in the contemporary context (Ukpong, “Inculturation Hermeneutics: An African Approach to

8
Biblical Interpretation” 19). According to him, in inculturation hermeneutics, the past of the biblical

text is not supposed to be studied as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. In this method, the

past collapses into the present, an exegesis fuses with hermeneutics (Ukpong, “Inculturation

Hermeneutics: An African Approach to Biblical Interpretation” 18). Intercultural biblical or

inculturation hermeneutical approach is one of the best approaches for appropriating the biblical

texts in the context of an African interpreter. This approach definitely takes into cognizance African

context in biblical interpretation.

According to Adamo, one of the distinctiveness of African biblical hermeneutics is the

comparative approach. This approach compares the Bible text, religion and culture with the African

text, religion and culture. In African comparative approach, African context become the major

dialogue and partner with the biblical text. It makes African culture and religion the focus of the

interpretation (Adamo, “The Task and Distintiveness of African Biblical Hermeneutic(s)” 42).

Ukpong says that the comparative approach is concerned with relating the Bible to the African

cultural milieu (Ukpong, “Current Theology: The Emergence of African Theologies” 514).

Furthermore, he emphasizes that the approach facilitates a parallel interpretation of certain biblical

texts or motifs and supposed African parallels, letting the two illuminate one another. He further

indicates that the goal of comparative interpretation is „the actualization of the theological meaning

of the text in today‟s context so as to forge integration between faith and life, and engender

commitment (Ukpong, “Development in BIblical Interpretation in Africa: Historical and

Hermeneutical Direction” 24).

Thus, in this thesis, two dimensional comparative approaches will be adopted in order to

strengthen the research work. As stated earlier, the comparative method will be used in chapter 5 to

delineate the relationship between CoH and BC. Moreover, in chapter 7, the comparative approach

will be used in a limited degree to appropriate the concept of inspiration of the Bible to Yoruba

context. Through this approach, an elaborate discussion between the Bible and the Yoruba

worldview will be provided. The Yoruba concept of aroko will also be used to describe the

9
authority of the Bible. Furthermore, the Yoruba concept of taboo will be used to explain the biblical

law.

1.7 Literature Review

I present a brief review of the literature of how scholars have explained the relationship

between CoH and BC in history. This review will assist me to establish a relationship between CoH

and BC in chapters 5 and 6. The research in the field of relationship between the biblical text and

Ancient Near Eastern texts actually began in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century

with the Babel-Bible lectures of the late Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch. In his lecture, Delitzsch

demonstrated that the Old Testament is not superior to other Ancient Near Eastern texts, and that it

is only an edited version of these texts1. Afterward, many scholars have worked in the area of

comparisons between the biblical text and Ancient Near Eastern texts. However, I will focus only

on the contributions of scholars to the field of relationship between biblical law and Ancient Near

Eastern laws. I follow in ascending order the years (from 1904 to 2009) of their contributions.

1.7.1 George S. Duncan, ‘The Code of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi’, 1904

George S. Duncan in his explanation of the relationship between biblical law and Babylonian

law emphasizes the similarities between them. He asserts that some of the laws in the Babylonian

code are either the same as, or closely resemble laws in biblical law (Duncan 272). Duncan affirms

that comparison of the two laws demonstrates how close the resemblance is between them (for

examples, Exod 21:2-11 cf. CoH 117-119, Exod 21:15 cf. CoH 195; Exod 21:16 cf. CoH 14; Exod

21:18-19 cf. CoH 206; Exod 21:28-32 cf. CoH 250-252; Exod 22:2-4 cf. CoH 22, 8; Exod 22:5 cf.

CoH 57) (Duncan 272–276).

Afterward, Duncan argues that the resemblance between these laws is not merely accidental,

rather it betrays a dependence of one set of laws on the other (Duncan 276). For him, BC might

have depended on CoH in its composition. Duncan suggests different ways in which BC might have

1
See Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‟sche Buchhandlung, 1902.

10
been in contact with CoH. First, Abraham might have been in contact with the Babylonian laws in

Ur and carried them to Palestine. Second, Abraham might have been in contact with the laws in

Palestine when he entered it. This is because the Babylonian culture had strongly permeated

Palestine from 3800 to 1400 B.C. Third, the Israelites might have been in contact with the laws

when they resided in Egypt. Lastly, the Israelites might have come in touch with these laws in

Palestine after the desert wandering. The Amarna tablets have shown that the Babylonian culture

was deeply rooted in Palestine before the Israelites entered it. This is possible because the

Canaanites were already familiar with CoH and were using them before the Israelites arrived

Palestine. This suggests that the Israelites might have taken over the laws from them. As time went

on, the laws might have been changed and many new ones might have been added (Duncan 277).

Duncan concludes that the Israelites definitely appropriated the culture and civilization of the

Canaanites among whom they settled, like the Babylonians, who also appropriated all that was best

in the Sumerian culture and civilization and became in time masters of the ancient world. By

implication, the same way the Babylonians adapted the older codes in their context, the Israelites

adapted CoH and other law codes in their context. According to him, this is probably the best

explanation for the many resemblances in form and subject-matter existing in biblical laws and

Babylonian laws (Duncan 278).

1.7.2 Leroy Waterman, ‘Pre-Israelite Laws in the Book of the Covenant’, 1921

Like Duncan, Leroy Waterman emphasizes the resemblance between CoH and BC to explain

the relationship between them. Waterman explains that in compiling BC, there was infiltration and

amalgamation of pre-Israelite law into BC in the same way pre-Semitic law infiltrated and

amalgamated into CoH. Waterman also emphasizes that CoH might have been accessible to the

Canaanites since they used the language of Babylonia for the purpose of international diplomacy at

least for a considerable time before Israel entered Canaan. Waterman then asserts that BC in form

might have grown out of the Canaanite case laws since there was no cultural break between

Canaanite and Israelite civilization (Waterman 36). And this could have been responsible for the

11
similarities in form (Waterman 40). Waterman says that the resemblance between CoH and BC far

outweighs the differences, and that the differences could have been accounted for by the differences

in civilization (Waterman 46). Waterman argues for oral development of the laws of CoH in

Canaan. And Waterman asserts that this might have been done by the Israelites themselves

(Waterman 52). Despite BC‟s dependence on pre-Israelite law, Waterman concludes that BC came

from Yahweh, and was written by the finger of God (Waterman 54).

1.7.3 J.H. Hertz, ‘Ancient Codes and the Mosaic Legislation’, 1928

J.H. Hertz emphasizes the differences between CoH and BC in his explication of the

relationship between them. Hertz argues that CoH is the amalgamation and adaptation of the older

law codes (Hertz 213). It might have solely depended on these older codes in its composition.

Furthermore, Hertz points out that as opposed to CoH, which depended on the older law codes, BC

did not. Although, there appear some instances of analogies and resemblances between CoH and

BC, there is no feature in BC that can be definitely singled out as derived from CoH. Thus, BC is

not indebted to CoH. This is because there are no Babylonian loan words in its legal terminology.

Again, Israel and Babylon had no related habits of life, similar social conditions or similar

economic society. Israel was nomadic, rural and primitive, whereas Babylon had an intricate, highly

industrialized, commercial city-civilization. Thus, Israel could not have directly copied from

Babylonian law (Hertz 214). Hertz asserts that the relationship that exists between CoH and BC can

only be described as indirect. He says that CoH is not definitely the source of BC. Both laws are

only in an indirect relation to each other. Hertz maintains that the resemblances between the two

laws are due to the common laws that permeated the ancient world at the time of the composition of

these laws. These common laws were used in the composition of CoH, and the Israelites also had to

adapt them in their own contexts (Hertz 216).

12
1.7.4 Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and

Ancient East, 1980

Hans Jochen Boecker‟s emphasis is on the differences between CoH and BC. Boecker

explains that there is no direct dependence of BC on CoH. Despite the similarities in form and

partly in content, there are too many differences for there to be a direct appropriation in BC of CoH

(Boecker 154). Boecker further argues that there is no proof of any direct literary dependence of BC

on CoH or on any other older law codes. Boecker therefore advocates for the view that the laws in

BC are derived from Canaanite oral tradition. This might have accounted for the similarities

between BC and CoH. The reason for the differences between them is the different theological

concepts in them. Another reason is that both codes have different concepts of kingship. Unlike in

CoH where the laws were promulgated by Hammurabi, the king, the laws in BC were given by

God. Thus, God is considered the Israelite king and the sole legislator (Boecker 27, 40).

1.7.5 J.J. Finkelstein, The Ox that Gored, 1981

J.J. Finkelstein focuses more on the reason why there are so many similarities between

Ancient Near Eastern law codes. Finkelstein asserts that all these law codes represent a single

tradition. For instance, comparing LE with CoH, the two texts prove to be little more than word-for-

word equivalents (Finkelstein 17). This does not suggest that these texts are mere duplicates of each

other. There definitely exist differences, both in terms of substantive legal prescription and in

expansiveness or economy of expression with respect to any given legal topic. Nevertheless, most

often, the range of topics in these codes remains relatively uniform throughout the tradition and the

phraseology employed, whether in Sumerian or Akkadian, it is completely homogenous. In this

regard, Finkelstein raises the question of whether the compiler of CoH had a direct access to LE or

not. But Finkelstein‟s conclusion is that both drew on essentially the same corpus of prototypal

material (Finkelstein 18). For Finkelstein, this is also true of BC. Finkelstein expresses that the

resemblance of BC with CoH or any other Ancient Near Eastern code cannot be explained as

coincidental. Finkelstein then did some analyses of the laws on goring ox in LE 53-55, CoH 250-
13
252 and Exodus 21:28-36. In Finkelstein‟s analyses, he affirms that the three law codes are very

similar in diction and formulation. The specific wordings in these three codes and the forms, which

the goring-ox laws take in them, are very close.

In his explanation of the relationship between these law codes, Finkelstein explicitly rejects

oral tradition. Rather, he argues that there could have been an organic linkage between them. Thus,

the relationship between them is not the matter of independent developments, but of a single,

organically interrelated, literary tradition (Finkelstein 20). All these law codes might have depended

on the same literary tradition, which he calls the literary Mesopotamian prototypes. He concludes

that BC might have depended upon literary Mesopotamian prototypes. Thus, biblical laws derived

their inspiration from their earlier Mesopotamian prototypes or from yet undiscovered sources, that

in turn, derived from Mesopotamian prototypes (Finkelstein 21).

1.7.6 John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 1990

John H. Walton in his explication of the relationship between CoH and BC focuses on the

contents, forms and functions of the two codes to explain why BC is so different from CoH. Walton

points out that the similarities between them are largely superficial, and the differences are

substantive (Walton 90). As regards their contents, civil and criminal laws are contained in both.

However, while biblical law is very light on civil laws and places heavy emphasis on religious laws,

Mesopotamian law has no religious law and focuses on only civil laws. In addition, it is obvious

that sometimes, both cover similar topics using similar wording, but most often, the penalties in

these similar topics show different elements of concern, even when formulation of problem is the

same. As regards their forms, the two codes were cast in casuistic law form. However, while

biblical law has apodictic basis for casuistic form, Mesopotamian law has very little apodictic

formulation. As regards their functions, both serve „admonitory‟ function. Both seek to demonstrate

adherence to contractual obligations. However, while biblical law has morality as its goal, is more

prescriptive and adherent to covenant and maintains holiness, Mesopotamian law has justice as its

goal, is more descriptive and adherent to cosmic order and is the gods‟ monitor (Walton 91).

14
 Walton argues that there is no literary dependence of biblical law on Mesopotamian law.

According to him, there is very little in any of the literary categories to substantiate borrowing from

specific literary pieces by the Israelites. However, there are cases where common roots of society,

and common motifs and culture are evident (Walton 235). Walton therefore asserts that the Israelite

authors most often might have utilized a number of genres of the Ancient Near East. However,

these points offer no ground to suspect that Israel borrowed from a specific piece of literature to

compose another piece of literature. Walton concludes that though the Israelite authors participated

in the literary heritage of the Ancient Near East, they could not be regarded as theological editors of

Ancient Near Eastern literatures. They definitely had significant contributions to make to the

literary creativeness of the ancient world. They often drew from the contemporary literary milieu

and motifs to shape their unique theological perspective. Thus, they can be said to only partake of

the common literary heritage (Walton 236).

1.7.7 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 2005

Peter Enns emphasizes both the similarities and differences in his explication of the

relationship between biblical text and Ancient Near Eastern texts. In Enns‟ work, he compares

several portions of the Old Testament with Ancient Near Eastern texts in order to reconstruct the

evangelical doctrine of scripture. He focuses on three issues that, he believes, have not been

properly handled in evangelical theology. The first issue deals with the Bible‟s uniqueness. For the

Bible to be unique, it should not bear striking similarities to the literature of other ancient people.

The second issue concerns the Bible‟s trustworthiness. For the Bible to be trustworthy, it must be

unified in its outlook, be free of diverse views. The third deals with the Bible‟s interpretation. The

New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament in fanciful ways, and this seems to make the

whole issue of the Old Testament interpretation highly subjective (Enns 15).

Enns adopts the incarnational analogy as his methodology, that is:

as Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible. In other words, we are to think of the Bible in the same way

that Christians think about Jesus. Christians confess that Jesus is both God and human at the same time. He is not

15
 half-God and half-human. He is not sometimes one and other times the other. He is not essentially one and only

apparently the other…. This way of thinking of Christ is analogous to thinking about the Bible. In the same way,

that Jesus is-must be- both God and human, the Bible is also a divine and human book (Enns 17).

Enns emphasizes that Christ‟s incarnation is analogous to Scripture‟s „incarnation‟. There are both

divine and human marks of the Bible (Enns 18). In Enns‟ explanation of the relationship between

the Bible and other Ancient Near Eastern texts, he submits that there are both similarities and

differences between them. In addition, he submits that the similarities between them indicate a

connection on some level. Moreover, he argues that the differences between them are so great that

one cannot speak of any direct relationship between them. According to Enns, the relationship

between them is not one of textual independence but of conceptual similarity (Enns 55). The

similarities between them demonstrate that the Israelites were well at home in the ancient Semitic

world (Enns 56). They are different from each other because the motivation and historical condition

of Israel‟s law code are very different from its neighbours‟ (Enns 58), and what makes Israel‟s law

unique is not so much what it says but Israel‟s claim to be connected to the one true God who alone

has the right to lay these claims upon them (Enns 59).

Enns‟s conclusion is that a contemporary evangelical doctrine of scripture must account for

the fact that the Bible was produced in a number of different contexts. Thus, the Bible is not „a

timeless, contextless how-to book that we are meant to apply to today‟s world. Rather it

demonstrates the inevitable cultural dimension of any expression of the gospel‟ (Enns 67).

Nevertheless, it is unique, and its uniqueness is not seen in the marks of the ancient settings it bears,

rather, it is seen in the belief that scripture is the only book in which God speaks incarnately. It is

ultimately from God, and it is God‟s gift to the church. It is God‟s word (Enns 168).

1.7.8 Bruce Wells, ‘The Covenant Code and Near Eastern Legal Tradition’, 2006

Bruce Wells, in his reaction against David Wright‟s argument that BC is directly, primarily,

and throughout dependent upon CoH, submits that certain of Wright‟s conclusions are misguided.

Wells proceeds to give his own explanation about the relationship between BC and CoH. In this

16
explanation, he distinguishes between four different types of connections. The first of these is

„resemblance‟, which Wells describes as type of connection that occurs when there is no direct or

close match between a law in BC and another text, but the content of the latter deals with a theme

that could conceivably be related to the theme of BC law. The second is „similarities‟, which Wells

refers to as instances when there is more of a close match in terms of theme or topic, than in the

case of a resemblance, but when the details of the two sets of material are substantively different.

The third is „correspondence‟, which Wells refers to as material that matches quite closely with only

minor differences. The fourth is „point of identicalness‟, which Wells describes as the type that

occurs when the match is so close that the two sets of material can be understood as identical or

nearly identical in both theme and substance (Wells 89).

Wells then selects five of Wright‟s primary group of 14 laws. Wells compares these laws in

BC with CoH and other laws, and his conclusion is that the contents of BC and CoH are not as close

as Wright makes them out to be. Wells thus submits that though Wright is correct in asserting that

BC possesses more connections with CoH than with any other single set of laws from the Ancient

Near East, this does not mean that BC is directly, primarily, and throughout dependent upon CoH.

BC is too dissimilar to CoH to be dependent upon it. Wells concludes that some similarities

between CoH and BC are due to meta-traditions, that is, the general diffusion of common legal

ideas across the Ancient Near East (Wells 115–117).

1.7.9 Matthew Monger, ‘Exodus 22:6-8 and the Question of the Authority of the Law in the

Bible and the Ancient Near East’, 2008

Matthew Monger in his explanation of the relationship between BC and Ancient Near Eastern

parallels emphasizes the similarities and differences between them. Monger analyses Exodus 22:6-8

in comparison with the CoH‟s parallel. In this comparison, he submits that BC does not appear to be

a special invention of the Israelites since there are remarkable similarities between it and CoH

(Monger 4). The forms of the laws found in BC and CoH are in many ways similar (Monger 25).

As regards their verbal systems, Monger notes that there is no correspondence between them. Thus,

17
their verbal system demonstrates that if BC is based on CoH, it has not been copied using a strict

direct syntactic correspondence (Monger 26). Monger also observes that the literary structure of BC

is a close parallel to CoH. The prologue, the body of law and the epilogue of BC follow the pattern

of CoH (Monger 31). Many of their themes are also parallel.

Based on these three different issues, that is, linguistic, literary and thematic parallels, Monger

argues that BC should be seen first as an Ancient Near Eastern law code, and second as having

some form of dependence upon CoH. Monger then submits that BC is not a direct translation of

CoH (Monger 44), rather, it should best be understood as a contextualized interpretation of CoH.

The intention of the author of BC was not to reproduce CoH, nor to copy every detail, but rather, to

interpret CoH in his own theological context, which is different from that of CoH. This accounts for

the differences between them (Monger 60).

1.7.10 David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 2009

David P. Wright in his explanation of the relationship between CoH and BC emphasizes the

similarities between CoH and BC. Wright explains that the structures of both CoH and BC are A-B-

A, that is, prologue-casuistic laws-epilogue. Wright affirms that fourteen laws in the central

casuistic laws of the two codes correspond and have close associations. In addition, their outer

apodictic laws have close thematic associations (D. P. Wright 8). The casuistic laws in both law

codes display the same or nearly the same topical order (D. P. Wright 14). Wright then compares

these laws to establish that there are many similarities between them, and his comparison

demonstrates that there are both thematic and linguistic similarities in these laws. Wright‟s

conclusion supports the theory of direct dependence of BC on CoH. Wright argues that BC „is

directly, primarily, and throughout dependent upon CoH. It imitated the structure of CoH and drew

upon its content to create the central casuistic laws of Exodus 21:22-22:19, as well as the outer

sections of apodictic law in Exodus 20:23-26 (along with the introduction of 21:1) and 22:20-23:19‟

(D. P. Wright 3). It drew primarily and directly upon CoH for its entire composition. Its

18
composition took place in the Neo-Assyrian period, between 740 and 640 BCE. Thus, BC is a

creative academic work whose goal is mainly ideological (D. P. Wright 346).

1.7.11 Raymond Westbrook, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, 2009

Raymond Westbrook gives the summary of different models that have been constructed to

explain the relationship between biblical law and the cuneiform codes. The first model is the

evolutionary model. This model emphasizes the independent development of laws in early Israel. It

was only the casuistic form and some content that were imported from the Israelite neighbours. The

difficulty with this approach is the strong affinities that the form and content of the biblical casuistic

laws have with the cuneiform codes. These affinities are an embarrassment that needs to be

explained (Westbrook, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel 24).

The second model is the literary model. This model posits a much closer dependence, in

which texts like CoH were copied and imitated by the Israelite scribes. The difficulty with this

approach lies in the details in which the Israelite scribes appear to draw upon all the known codes,

which would have required a truly exceptional library at their disposal (Westbrook, Everyday Law

in Biblical Israel 24). The third model is a middle approach. This model is to see the law codes as

part of an intellectual tradition, partly oral and partly written, that spread by diffusion from

Mesopotamia, following the path taken by cuneiform legal documents, while continuing in practice

to interact with the law, both local and drawn from the underlying common legal tradition

(Westbrook, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel 24).

1.8 Justification for the Study

Prior to now, several scholars have explained the relationship between CoH and BC in

parallel to other ancient law codes. I have examined some of these scholars‟ explications of the

relationship between CoH and BC. Some of them like Duncan, Waterman, Finkelstein and Wright

emphasize similarities between the two texts and conclude that BC drew directly from CoH. Thus,

it is merely a product of its environment. Other scholars like Herzt, Boecker, Walton and Wells

19
emphasize differences between them and conclude that there is only an indirect relationship

between them. Thus, BC is unique in its production. Scholars like Enns, Monger and Westbrook

adopted the middle approach in their explications of the relationship between CoH and BC. Peter

Enns compares the biblical text with Ancient Near Eastern texts, after which he uses his comparison

to reconstruct the doctrine of the Bible. He concludes that the Bible is the product of its

environment, yet it is unique and different from them because of inspiration. This brief overview

has demonstrated that the scholars have only concentrated their discussions on the relationship

between biblical law and Ancient Near Eastern law codes on their contexts, forms, grammars,

contents and structures.

In this work, I will adopt the middle approach. I will use contextual method to explicate the

relationship between CoH and BC. In addition to emphasising the similarities and the differences

between the contexts, forms, grammars, and contents of CoH and BC, as previously done by

scholars, I will solidify the relationship between the two texts by examining the similarities and the

differences between the claims to divine inspiration in them. Thus, I will delineate the relationship

between CoH and BC in the light of the concept of inspiration in the Ancient Near East, since none

of the scholars has previously discuss the relationship between biblical law and Ancient Near

Eastern law codes in the light of the claims to inspiration in the texts. Finally, I will argue that BC is

a rewriting (i.e. a translation and an adaptation) of a version of CoH because of the similarities in

their processes of inspiration and the differences in their qualities of inspiration.

20
CHAPTER 2.

BACKGROUND STUDIES

In this chapter, I will discuss the comparative background that will serve as groundwork for

chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this thesis. Thus, this background is foundational and important to the

subsequent chapters. First, I discuss some theories concerning genre of casuistic laws and grammars

of BH and OA. The discussion will greatly help in providing the forms and grammars of CoH and

the casuistic laws of BC in chapters 3 and 4. In chapters 3 and 4, I will engage in the analyses of the

genre of CoH and the casuistic laws of BC. I will also examine the word order and verbal system of

these laws. In these grammatical and genre analyses of CoH and BC, I will solely adopt the theories

discussed in this chapter. CoH and the casuistic laws of BC are strongly connected with other

Ancient Near Eastern law codes that had been discovered. Some common themes that appear in

CoH and BC are also found in these law codes. Since I will engage in the comparison of the

contents of CoH and BC (in chapter 5) in order to establish a relationship between them, it is

appropriate for me to examine briefly these six other law codes that had been discovered in the

Ancient Near East, considering their modes of composition and characteristics. Thus, this

examination will be of great help for my delineation of the relationship between CoH and BC in

chapter 5. Finally, I will discuss the historical development of the doctrine of inspiration. In my

discussion, I will focus on how scholars have described biblical inspiration. This discussion will be

of great assistance in my delineation of the concept of inspiration in the Ancient Near East in

chapter 6. Chapter 6 will engage more explicitly with the various theories of inspiration described in

this chapter.

21
2.1 Linguistic Approaches

I now consider theories on the genre of CoH and the casuistic laws of BC, the verbal system of BH

and OA and the word order in BH and OA.

2.1.1 Genre

The casuistic law is a subcategory of genre of law. It is always expressed conditionally. Thus,

conditional sentences are its prominent feature. A conditional sentence describes „relations between

the matters spoken of by the antecedent and consequent‟ (Barwise 51). In the relations, the matter

spoken of by the consequent does not follow unless the condition stated in the antecedent also holds

(Longacre 101). By implication, the antecedent, which contains a conditional clause, precedes the

consequent, which is the conclusion. Another name for antecedent is a protasis or an if-clause,

while the consequent is also called an apodosis or a then-clause. Waltke and O‟Connor say that the

antecedent states a real or hypothetical condition, while the consequent states a real or hypothetical

consequence (Waltke and O‟Connor 636). P.N. Johnson-Laird argues that the antecedent

determines the state of affairs in which the consequent is to be evaluated (Johnson-Laird 65–67).

Cohen depicts the relationship between the protasis and apodosis as causal. It is the type found

between cause and effect in which the cause temporally precedes the effect (Cohen, Conditional

Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian 13).

Furthermore, Waltke and O‟Connor describe the relationship between the antecedent and the

consequent as logical (Waltke and O‟Connor 636). In logic, conditional is defined as a relation

between the protasis (p) and the apodosis (q) such that either both p and q are true, or p is false and

q is false. But this excludes the possibility of p being true while q is false, as it is not possible for p

to be true and q to be false (Comrie, “Conditionals: A Typology” 78). By implication, in a

conditional sentence, it is possible for the protasis to be false and the apodosis true, but not vice

versa. This is because once the protasis is adjudged true, whether it is actually true or false, the

apodosis will definitely be true. This is the reason why in Ancient Near Eastern law codes, there is

22
always need to provide witnesses and to swear before the divine in order to be sure that the protasis

is true and not false.

In addition, Charles A. Ferguson argues that conditional (if-then) construction „directly

reflects the characteristically human ability to reason about alternative situations, to make

inferences based on incomplete information, to imagine possible correlations between situations,

and to understand how the world would change if certain correlations were different‟ (Ferguson 3).

This implies that it is possible to have alternative situations apart from the main situation within

protases. In the same way, different conclusions can be made for these alternative situations in

apodoses, and the relationship can be established for all the situations within a conditional sentence.

G.J. Wenham divides casuistic laws of BC into main case laws, as in (1), subsidiary case

laws, as in (2), sub-case (of the main or subsidiary protasis) laws, as in (3) and qōṭēl laws (sub-

group of the main case), as in (4) (Wenham 97–98).

1. Protasis: ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟ you buy a Hebrew slave,

Apodosis: he must serve, and in the seventh year, he must go out free, for nothing.
2. Protasis: ‫ אִּם‬ʼim, „if‟ he comes as a single person,
Apodosis: he must go out as a single person
3. Protasis: ‫ א ֹּו‬ʼô, „or if‟ it is known that the ox has the habit of goring yet the owner does not keep it
penned
Apodosis: then the owner must surely pay animal for animal. The dead one must be his.
4. Protasis: And qōṭēl ‫ כִּי‬kî „when‟ a man strikes his father or his mother
Apodosis: he must surely be put to death
The main case laws and qōṭēl laws are considered primary laws. The subsidiary case laws and

sub-case laws describe the alternative situations within the main case laws and they are considered

secondary laws. The protasis is usually marked by the particle ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟, particle ‫ אִּם‬ʼim, „if‟,

particle ‫ א ֹּו‬ʼô, „or if‟ or qōṭēl. The protasis of the main case law is introduced by ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟. Anne

Kompaoré emphasizes that ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟ is used as a conditional marker, and as a conjunction

introducing reason clauses in legal texts (Kompaoré 33). ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟ always implies a new topic

(Andrew Warren 44) and introduces the protasis of the main case law (Kompaoré 33). However, ‫אִּם‬

23
ʼim, „if‟ always introduces the protasis of the subsidiary case law. In addition, ‫ אִּם‬conditional

clauses always present varieties of the same topic introduced by ‫ כִּי‬conditional clause (Kompaoré

33). The protasis of a sub-case of the main or subsidiary is introduced by ‫ א ֹּו‬ʼô, „or if‟ instead of ‫אִּם‬

(Wenham 97–102). ‫ אִּם‬ʼim, „if‟ and ‫ א ֹּו‬ʼô, „or if‟ often introduce different levels of condition in a

particular law. Qōṭēl is taken as equivalent to ‫ כִּי‬and finite verb. So qōṭēl does the duty of ‫ כִּי‬kî, +

finite verb (Wenham 97–102). As for the apodosis, sometimes waw-relative in the construction

serves as an apodosis waw, introducing the apodosis after the protasis (Waltke and O‟Connor 636),

and at other times, qāṭôl in the second part of case merely marks the opening of the apodosis

(Wenham 102). Many a time, the apodosis is unmarked.

In the case of CoH, the protasis in each law is usually introduced by the particle šumma

„when‟. The particle frequently functions as an introduction to a conditional clause (Caplice 35).

The protasis often consists of one or more clause(s). These clauses state the conditions, and they

describe the offenses described in each law. If the protasis consists of one clause, the verb may be

either iprus or iptaras. If it consists of two or more clauses, the verbs may be connected as iprus-ma

… iptaras/ iprus-ma … iprus/ iptaras-ma … iptaras. The apodosis in each law is usually

unmarked. It also consists of one or more clauses. The clauses describe the consequents and they

express the punishments for the offenses. If the apodosis contains one clause, the verb is always

iparras. If it contains two or more clauses, the verbs remain iparras but sometimes are connected

by the particles –ma, u or u lu. In a few occasions, we find iprusu in the apodosis, which serves as a

referential to an event previously mentioned in the protasis. In addition, it usually occurs in a

relative clause.

Huehnergard defines the particle –ma as „a coordinating conjunction that may be attached to

the end of any finite verb form (or other predicate)‟. The emphasis always lies with the last clause

whenever clauses are connected with –ma, and these clauses are logically related in some way

(Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian 49–50). In addition, Loesov describes the particle –ma as a

sequence of events when it is attached to the preterite or the perfect (Loesov, “The Suffixing
24
Conjugation of Akkadian: In Search of Its Meaning” 87). As a coordination, the particle -ma may

be translated as „and‟, „and then‟, „so that‟, but‟, and „therefore‟, depending on the context

(Deutscher 33). Like the particle –ma, the particles u and u lu serve to connect two or more clauses.

So they are used for „and‟/„or‟ to create compound sentences. Nevertheless, there is a slight

difference in their usages. The particle -ma usually connects clauses with verbs of the same mood,

whereas the particles u and u lu have no such restriction. Clauses connected with the particles u and

u lu have the same semantic or thought stress, and are reversible, whereas clauses connected with

the particle –ma may not be reversed without changing the meaning (Huehnergard, A Grammar of

Akkadian 49).

Following G.J. Wenham‟s method in his division of casuistic laws, the laws in CoH can be

divided as main case laws, subsidiary case laws and sub-case (of the main or subsidiary protasis)

laws (Wenham 97–98). The main case laws and the subsidiary laws are considered primary laws,

and these two categories of laws contain the primary protases. While the protases of the main case

laws express new topics, those of the subsidiary case laws present varieties of the same topic

(Kompaoré 33). The sub-case laws are secondary laws. They are not usually numbered as laws.

Rather, they continue and always refer back to the main case or subsidiary laws. Cohen refers to

them as both law-internal and self-standing. They are also shorter because they do not have to

specify anything already mentioned. They cannot occur alone. They contain the secondary protases,

that continue, and thus refer back to, a main protasis (Cohen, Conditional Structures in

Mesopotamian Old Babylonian 133).

2.1.2 Word Order

2.1.2.1 Basic Word Order

It has been held that a basic word order exists and is discernible for any given language

(Robert D. Holmstedt 128). Four basic criteria have so far been used to identify basic word order.

They are clause type, frequency, distribution and pragmatic markedness.

25
2.1.2.1.1 Clause Type

The task of clause type is to identify which type of clause is basic and then set it apart for an

individual language (Robert D. Holmstedt 129). The type that is often identified as representing

basic word order is „stylistically neutral, independent, indicative clauses with full nouns phrase

participants, where the subject is definite, agentive and human, the object is a definite semantic

patient, and the verb represents an action, not a state or an event‟ (Siewierska 8). When clause type

is used as the primary criterion in determining basic word order for a language, it does not mean

that the basic order within the basic clause type is identical to the statistically prevalent word order

in the language (Robert D. Holmstedt 129). Clauses of this kind may not appear frequently in a

particular discourse because of the nature of human communication. This does not annul the

identification of basic clauses in a text, rather, it indicates that this criterion cannot be used alone

but only in conjunction with other criteria (R. D. Holmstedt 116–117).

2.1.2.1.2 Frequency

Frequency focuses on the word order that appears mostly in a given language. Here, statistics

is often used to determine which word order frequently appears, which is assigned the role of basic

word order. Takamitsu Muraoka affirms that this criterion is often used to determine the normal

word order in BH (Muraoka 30). The problem with it, however, is that when the difference in

frequency of two data is too small for one to be more frequent than the other, one is not confident to

say that one is basic.

2.1.2.1.3 Distribution

The third criterion is based on the test of distribution. The basic issue in this criterion is the

„environment‟ and not „statistics‟. Whenever there are two or more alternatives for a syntactic

construction, the one that appears in the greater number of environments is the basic order (R. D.

Holmstedt 119).

26
2.1.2.1.4 Pragmatic

The last criterion by which basic word order is often examined is pragmatic. This criterion is

useful for determining the basic word order for languages that have too many variations in their

word order. Holmstedt argues that „this approach identifies basic word order on the basis of what is

judged to be the least pragmatically marked, or neutral order‟. He explains that any clauses that are

judged to be without contrast and emphasis represent the basic word order in this approach (Robert

D. Holmstedt 130). This criterion is thought to be context-dependent (R. D. Holmstedt 129).

2.1.2.2 Information Structure

Sometimes, the order of constituents may be rearranged in a variety of ways due to the

information structure within the sentence. Information structure is categorized under the linguistic

discipline of pragmatic. Its components are topic, focus, theme and rheme. Moreover, a distinction

between the topic and focus can be made from a pragmatic point of view. Topic, according to

Sebastiaan Floor, is „what the sentence is about, often-but not always-reflected to by subjects‟

(Floor 3). It generally corresponds with the subject and it is what the sentence is about (Floor 21).

Erteschik-Shir describes it as that entity a speaker wants to say something about which he considers

as relevant to the addressee. It tells the addressee something about the topic that he did not know

before (Erteschik-Shir 3). Topic includes discourse topic, new topic, given topic, resumed topic,

subtopic, and subject (Merwe 30).

Focus is defined as „the element of information that is added to the presupposition of a

sentence‟ (Floor 3). It is „a way of specially marking the salient, important information of a

sentence‟ (Merwe 29). To focus, therefore, is to mark an item as informationally prominent.

Lambrecht suggests that both new and old information can be focused for functional purpose

(Lambrecht 240). Furthermore, Cook and Holmstedt explain that focus represents a constituent that

is highlighted for emphasis, that is, for contrast or identification (Cook and Holmstedt 181). It is

concerned with the information contrasted with possible alternatives (R. D. Holmstedt 128).

27
 In a sentence, information can be new, given, emphasized, contrasted and the like. While

theme is the given information in a clause, rheme is the new information in the clause. Cohen

explains that these two terms do not fully correspond to the terms „subject‟ and „predicate‟, they are

rather determined in relation to the giveness or newness of the information (Cohen, Conditional

Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian 9). Topic is an entity beyond the basic structure of

theme and rheme in a clause, but it can also serve as theme. It is „what is being discussed‟ (Cohen,

Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian 9).

2.1.2.3 Triggered Inversion in Hebrew

Modern Hebrew generally exhibits an SV word order in a declarative sentence, and it is held

that whenever the order is not SV, it means that the basic word order has been inverted (Glinert

162). The word order in BH is thought to be like the word order in Modern Hebrew. It is often

analysed as an SV language that exhibits a phenomenon called triggered inversion. The constituents

placed in front of the subject and verb are responsible for the triggered inversion from SV basic

order to VS order (Robert D. Holmstedt 148). Like Modern Hebrew, a fronted constituent triggers

the inversion of the basic SV order to VS order. Some of the constituents that trigger inversion are:

relative words, interrogatives, causal words, as well as semantic members, such as modal operators

(whether overt or covert) and negative operators (R. D. Holmstedt 124).

2.1.3 Verbal System

Semitic languages are closely related, and their verbal systems are usually related. Their

verbal systems are generally considered complex because their verbal forms are highly polysemous.

The study of verbal systems is concerned with describing the verbal forms in a language in terms of

the features of tense, aspect and modality. There is no straightforward method for interpreting these

verbal forms (Joosten 39). Furthermore, categorization of the verbal forms into tense, aspect and

modality has been a difficult task. For instance, scholars first understood BH as having tenses.

Thus, many theories have been propounded in this regard. These theories are held by scholars like

28
Gesenius, Blau, Rainey, Gropp and others. Later, scholars began to know about aspect-oriented

theory, which emerged from Ewald‟s relative tense theory (Warren 64). They began to assert that

BH is a language with no tense, but with aspect (Hatav 2). Presently, the modality approach has

been added to the circle. Modality has been understood by many scholars as the „attitude or

opinions‟ of the speaker towards an utterance (Cook, 'The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System' 64).

However, there is an overlap in the three approaches. Warren argues that tense marking sometimes

will often imply aspectual and modal functions. Aspect will tend to imply tense. Modal forms will

also tend to imply aspect and tense (Warren 65-66).

2.1.3.1 Tense

Tense has to do with the principle by which events are located in a given time-frame such as

the past, the present or the future (Joosten 22). For this reason, time is not encoded in verbal forms

(Arnold 36). Tense is always determined by context, that is, discourse type, temporal expression

and so on. It has to do with the temporal location of an event with respect to the time of speaking

(past, present, or future) (Cook, “Mood/Modality” 4). It locates a situation in time, whether relative

to the moment of speaking or relative to another situation in context. It refers to the absolute

temporal relationship of the situation to the speaker (Waltke and O‟Connor 508). This suggests that

tense „relates the time to the situation referred to some other time, usually to the moment of

speaking‟ (Comrie, Aspect 1). The relative tense system involves the relationships among three

temporal points: the speaker time (S), the event time (E), and the reference point (R). The speaker

time is the speech act time, the time of the utterance (Waltke and O‟Connor 346). The event time is

the time of the event or state of affairs, the time of action (Waltke and O‟Connor 346). The

reference point is established relative to the present moment, and a situation is then located in time,

relative to that reference point (Comrie, Tense 125). It mediates in some way or other the temporal

relationship between time of speech and the time of the event portrayed, it is the viewpoint of the

speaker (Cook, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 7).

Relative tense can thus be represented as follows: (Comrie, Tense 125)

29
 Relative present = E simul R
Relative past = E before R
Relative future = E after R

2.1.3.2 Aspect

Aspect is usually referred to as the point of view from which a process is represented (Joosten

28). It is distinguished into two categories, the perfective and imperfective aspect. Perfectivity

denotes „the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction of the various separate phases

that make up that situation‟ (Comrie, Aspect 16). Cohen defines it as „semantically punctual,

complete, bounded, viewed from the outside‟ (Cohen, “The Tense-Aspect System of the Old

Babylonian Epic” 34). Thus, it looks at „the situation from the outside, without necessarily

distinguishing any of the internal structure, of the situation‟ (Comrie, Aspect 4). It indicates a

complete situation, with beginning, middle and end. It expresses constative perfect (when the

perfective form gathers together an extended internal situation), ingressive (when the perfective

form refers to the beginning of the situation), and telic (one that involves a process, within a

perfective situation, that leads up to a well-defined terminal point, beyond which the process cannot

continue) (Waltke and O‟Connor 481–482). It further indicates that situation is complete whether in

present time or in past time (Waltke and O‟Connor 348).

Cohen defines imperfective aspect as „semantically durative, incomplete, habitual,

continuous, referring to a process, unbounded, viewed from the inside‟ (Cohen, “The Tense-Aspect

System of the Old Babylonian Epic” 34). It looks at „the situation from the inside, and such is

crucially concerned with the internal structure of the situation, and look forwards to the end of the

situation, and indeed is equally appropriate if the situation is one that lasts through all time without

any beginning and without any end‟ (Comrie, Aspect 4). According to Waltke and O‟Connor, it

indicates that a situation is ongoing, and there are present, past and future forms of imperfective.

The present and past are used to describe, rather than to narrate. The speaker or writer views the

situation as continuing in the process of accomplishment, just taking place or imminent. Other

phenomena related to aspect of imperfectivity are frequentativity (marking a verb as designating a

30
repeated action) and habituality (marking a verb as designating a habitual action) (Waltke and

O‟Connor 346).

2.1.3.3 Modality

Modality is not the same as aspect and tense. It has been understood by many scholars as the

„attitude or opinions‟ of the speaker towards an utterance (Cook, 'The Biblical Hebrew Verbal

System' 64). It does not point directly to any characteristics of the event, rather to the status of the

proposition (Palmer 1). Bybee defines it as „any markers that indicated what role the speaker meant

the proposition to play in the discourse‟ (Bybee 192). Cook affirms that it defines „the temporal

existence of an event – whether it exists, does not exist, or potentially exists – with respect to the

time of speaking‟ (Cook, “Mood/Modality” 4). So a speaker uses modality to make the existence of

an event or the validity of a proposition relative to a set of possible alternative situations (Cook,

“Mood/Modality” 4). DeClerk points out that modality suggests that „there is reference to

actualization of a situation in a world that is not represented as being the factual world‟. So the

common element of meaning is that a situation is represented as actualizing in a non-factual world

(DeClerk 21–22).

Modality reflects the mood of the speaker and the modal force of the terms. This makes

modality, mood system and modal system closely related. While modality refers to the category of

modal notions or meanings expressed in human language, modal system expresses modalities by a

„single system of commuting terms‟ (verbs like „may‟, „must‟, and „will‟ are used), and mood

system expresses modalities through grammatical moods like, indicative, subjunctive, and optative

(Cook, “Mood/Modality” 5). Binnick notes that indicative is the „indicating‟ or „pointing out‟

mood, subjunctive is the subordinating or subjoining (conjoining) mood, and optative is the wishing

or desiring mood (Binnick 67). There are many types of modality, but two of these are relevant for

this work: epistemic modality and deontic modality.

31
2.1.3.3.1 Epistemic Modality

Epistemic modality has to do „with the degree of knowledge regarding a process, as in

expressions of doubt, likelihood, expectation or assertion‟ (Joosten 31). It is concerned „with the

speaker‟s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition‟ (Palmer 8). It involves a

speaker expressing his judgment about a factual status of the proposition, and deals with „the degree

of commitment by the speaker to the proposition‟ (Cook, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 68).

Warren has called it the modality of knowledge, and he says that it includes weak („may‟) and

strong („must‟) modal force (Andy Warren, “Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms”

39). It is characteristically expressed with the subjunctive. In the epistemic modal system, the

speaker makes attempt „to get the words to match the world‟ (Andrew Warren 15–20). It consists of

the concepts of possibility and necessity: „either an event is true in all alternative futures (i.e.,

necessarily true), or it is true in some alternative future (i.e., possibly true) (Cook, The Biblical

Hebrew Verbal System 187). In his explanation of the strength of the epistemic modality, Warren

gives the following schema: (Andrew Warren 19)

EPISTEMIC
(Subjunctive)
„It is so‟
WEAK Possibility
„I don‟t know‟ „It may be raining‟
STRONG Necessity
„I say so‟ „It must be raining‟
Furthermore, Palmer gives the following types of epistemic modality: (Palmer 24–25)

Speculative: It expresses uncertainty. It is interpreted in terms of what is epistemically possible.

For example, „John may be in his office‟ – a possible conclusion.

Deductive: It indicates inference from observable evidence. It is interpreted in terms of what is

epistemically necessary. For example, „John must be in his office‟ – the only possible conclusion.

Assumptive: it indicates inference from what is generally known. For example, „John will be in his

office‟ – a reasonable conclusion.

32
2.1.3.3.2 Deontic Modality

Deontic modality has to do „with what makes a process a necessity as in expressions of

intention, volition, permission or obligation‟ (Joosten 31). It refers to events that are not actualized,

events that have not taken place but are merely potential (Palmer 8). It is unified around the

expressions of the speaker‟s will. It stems from external authority such as rules or the law, whose

authority is the actual speaker, who gives permission to, or lays an obligation on, the addressee

(Palmer 10). It „characterizes an event as non-actual by virtue of the fact that it is imposed on a

given situation‟ (Cook, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 67). Warren has called it the modality

of volition, and he says that it includes weak („may‟) and strong („must‟) modal force (Andy

Warren, “Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms” 39). According to him, it is

characteristically expressed with the imperative. In it, the speaker attempts „to get the world to

match the words‟ (Andrew Warren 18). Furthermore, deontic modality consists of the notions of

obligation and permission: if a proposition is obligatory, then „it is morally or legally true, that is it

is valid or if it is permissible then „it is morally or legally true in some alternative future, that is, it is

possibly valid‟ (Cook, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 188). In his explanation of the strength

of the deontic modality, Warren gives the following schema: (Andrew Warren 19)

DEONTIC
(Imperative)
„So be it!‟
WEAK Permission
„I don‟t know‟ „You may come in‟
STRONG Obligation
„I say so‟ „You must come in‟
Palmer gives the following types of deontic modality: (Palmer 8)

Directive: where we try to get others to do things. There are two types of directive:

Permissive: deontically possible

Obligative: deontically necessary

Commissive: where we commit ourselves to do things.

33
 The linguistic theories discussed above will definitely be of great help in my genre,

grammatical and thematic analyses in Chapters 3 and 4. CoH and the casuistic laws of BC were

written in the same genre, which is the common form of writing laws in the Ancient Near East. The

theory on genre will serve as a key to interpret CoH and the casuistic laws of BC. It will help to

uncover the authors‟ intended meaning. In addition, CoH and BC were written in OA and BH

respectively. The theories on word order and verbal system will likewise be of great help in

understanding their contents. The analyses of the word order and verbal forms of both CoH and BC

will highly depend on these theories discussed in this section. Through these theories, I will

investigate how words are arranged in these law codes to show connections of meaning within the

conditional sentences, and I will describe the functions of the main verbal forms that appear in CoH

and BC in chapters 3 and 4. Finally, my grammatical studies will be done in relation to the genre of

casuistic law, which is the common form of expressing law codes in the Ancient Near East.

2.2 Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes

I consider the law code of Ur-Namma, the law code of Lipit-Ishtar, the law code of Eshnunna,

the Hittite laws, the Middle Assyrian laws and the Neo-Babylonian laws. While the first three codes

in the list were composed before CoH, the last three were composed after it. CoH and the casuistic

laws of BC are strongly connected with these law codes. Moreover, many themes in these law codes

are paralleled to both CoH and BC.

2.2.1 The Law Code of Ur-Namma (LU, compiled ca. 2100 B.C. in Sumerian)

The royal sponsor of these laws is King Ur-Namma (2112-2095 B.C.). Although some

scholars argue that it was his son Shulgi (2094-2045 B.C.) who had the composition drafted. Ur-

Namma compiled the law code at his peacetime, and after he had assumed the royal epithet „king of

Sumer and Akkad‟ (M. Roth, “The Law of Ur-Namma (Ur-Nammu)” 408). The code consists of the

prologue, the laws and the epilogue, but only the prologue and fewer than forty laws are preserved

(M. T. Roth 13). The prologue recounts the political and economic accomplishments of the king

34
(M. T. Roth 14). The composition is known to us from the three manuscripts discovered in Nippur

(M. Roth, “The Law of Ur-Namma (Ur-Nammu)” 408).

In the prologue, it is stated that Ur-Namma was appointed by Anu and Enlil. He established

justice in the nation by the command of the god, Utu. He established freedom for all the people in

Ur. He liberated the oppressed people, and standardized the weights and measures. He also made

the transportation routes secure, and established equitable justice. He would not deliver the orphans

to the rich, nor the widows to the mighty. Some of the laws in LU are paralleled to both CoH and

BC, for instance LU 20-22 are paralleled to CoH 196-200 and Exodus 21:22-27 (M. Roth, “The

Law of Ur-Namma (Ur-Nammu)” 409).

2.2.2 The Law Code of Lipit-Ishtar (LL, compiled in ca. 1930 B.C. in Sumerian)

LL was composed by King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth king of the first Dynasty of Isin who ruled

from 1934-1924 B.C. He composed the laws in order to establish justice in Isin (M. T. Roth 23).

More than fifteen manuscripts, almost all from Nippur, have been discovered. The laws were

written on more than one stone stele. Almost all the prologue, fifty laws, and the entire epilogue are

preserved, although many are still fragmentary and gaps remain (M. Roth, “The Laws of Lipit-

Ishtar” 411).

The prologue states that Lipit-Ishtar was appointed by god An, father of the gods and the god

Enlil, king of the nations. He was commanded by Enlil to establish justice in Sumer and Akkad. He

liberated those who were oppressed (M. Roth, “The Laws of Lipit-Ishtar” 411). Some of the laws

are paralleled to CoH and BC. For instance, the laws on miscarriage (LL d, e, f) are paralleled to

CoH 209-214 and Exodus 21:22-27, and the laws on hiring (LL 34-38) are paralleled to CoH 244-

249. It is stated in the epilogue that the god, Utu helped him in the compilation of the laws. He

erected a stele, blessed anybody that would not alter the stele, and cursed anyone who would

damage it or efface the inscription and write his name (M. Roth, “The Laws of Lipit-Ishtar” 412).

35
2.2.3 The Law Code of Eshnunna (LE, compiled ca. 1920 B.C. in Akkadian)

Two clay tablets of LE were discovered in 1945 and 1947 at Tell Harmal, on the outskirts of

Bagdad (Boecker 60). This code was attributed to the reign of King Bilalama of Eshnunna (Boecker

61). Thus, the code is the earliest extant of the Akkadian-language collections of laws. There is no

literary prologue or epilogue preserved in this code, but it has sixty laws. The code is so similar in

content with other known law collections especially with CoH. For instance, LE 37 which is on

burglary is paralleled to CoH 21 and Exodus 21:37-22:3, and LE 53-55 on a goring ox is paralleled

to CoH 250-252 and Exodus 21:28-36 (M. Roth, “The Laws of Eshnunna” 332).

2.2.4 The Hittite Laws (HL, compiled between 1650 and 1500 B.C. in Hittite Language)

HL was first written down from the city of Antolia. This first set is referred to as the Old

Hittite, and four copies of it have been discovered. These copies are characterized by a form of

cuneiform writing (M. T. Roth 214). From the copies of the Old Hittite, the New Hittite was

compiled between 1400 and 1180 B.C. These laws altogether are grouped in two series. Series One

consists of laws 1-100 and Series Two, laws 101-200 (M. T. Roth 215).

2.2.5 The Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL, compiled between 1115 and 1077 B.C. in Middle

Assyrian Language)

The laws were written from the city of Assur by Tiglath-Pilesser I. Many of the tablets that

contain the laws (about twelve tablets) have been discovered in the Assyrian capital of Assur. Each

tablet records a „chapter‟ with an apparently well-defined theme. The best preserved tablet known

as Tablet A, is inscribed with eight columns each with about 100 lines, recording rules and

regulations detailing circumstances involving mostly women and incidentally all other dependent

people. There are fifty-nine laws there. There are 124 laws altogether in the code. MAL 21 is

paralleled to CoH 209 (M. Roth, “The Middle Assyrian Laws” 353).

36
2.2.6 The Neo-Babylonian Laws (LNB, compiled ca. 700 B.C. in Neo-Babylonian)

LNB was compiled by Nabopolassar from the city of Sippar. The code does not have any

recognizable prologue or epilogue. It contains fifteen laws. The tablet discovered is a copy of a

damaged original or records a collection assembled from incomplete sources (M. T. Roth 143).

The six law codes aforementioned are closely related in form and content to CoH and the

casuistic laws of BC. LU, LL and LE were composed before CoH, while HL, MAL and LNB were

composed after it. Majority of these law codes were evidently composed before BC. In this study,

references will be made to some laws in the aforementioned law codes. These references will be

made in relation to the related laws in CoH and BC. Comparing these laws with CoH and the

casuistic laws of BC, there are evidently striking similarities and stark differences. This

demonstrates that they are surely related. The comparison will further help to establish the

relationship between CoH and BC.

2.3 Doctrine of Inspiration

The term „inspiration‟ is derived from the Latin verb inspiro that means „to breathe on‟ or „to

breathe into‟ and the Latin noun inspiratio meaning „God-breath‟ (Carroll 15). The terms appear

many times in the Vulgate Latin Bible (cf. Gen 2:7; 2 Sam 22:16; Job 32:8; Ps 17:16; Acts 17:25; 2

Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). In history, the term acquired a technical sense with reference to the biblical

authors or the biblical books (Warfield and Craig 131). The term „inspiration‟ has been defined and

described in many ways by different scholars. For centuries, these scholars have battled with how

best the inspiration of the Bible should be described. Some of these various definitions,

descriptions, views and theories will be considered here. I will look at the church fathers‟ views, the

medieval scholars‟ views, the reformers‟ views and the contemporary scholars‟ views. I consider

the various theological perspectives (evangelical and non-evangelical) that have been presented by

scholars in their attempts to address the issues of biblical inspiration and biblical authority. In this

overview, the three terms, „inspiration of the Bible‟, „divine inspiration of the Bible‟ and „biblical

37
inspiration‟ will be used interchangeably. This is because the focus will be only on the divine

inspiration in the Bible, and not outside the Bible.

2.3.1 Church Fathers (A.D. 100-476)

The church fathers accepted the Old Testament books as they had received them from Jesus

and the apostolic church (Bruce 255). Their use of those books was based on Jesus‟ and the

apostles‟ uses of them (Bruce 28). They regarded the Bible as „the inspired books‟, „the holy

writings‟, „the sacred letters‟ and a work of „divine writers‟ (Vawter 20). God is considered the

primary or actual author of the Bible. They hold that the initiative to write the Bible was God‟s

alone and he determined what was to be written in the Bible and that the resultant books are his

words (Beegle 364). The human authors were only considered instruments of the Holy Spirit.

In their explanations of the inspiration of the Bible, some scholars adopted the Greek‟s

explanation of inspiration, in which inspiration is applied to the ecstatic mantis possessed by a

person who is, in turn, possessed by the spirit and becomes a divinized person, having no

consciousness or volition of his own (Vawter 8–9). In such situation, the inspiration is believed to

have come from outside of the person, while his rational power was suspended as in sleep (Beegle

127). The authors of the biblical books were only inanimate instruments like a flute or a lyre on

which God played his word for us to hear (Dilday 39). Thus, inspiration is understood in terms of

mechanical dictation.

However, most church fathers rejected the dictation approach to inspiration. They

acknowledged instead that the Bible showed evidences of the individual styles of the authors in

their books (Dilday 40). As for them, they adopted accommodation approach in their explanations

of the inspiration of the Bible. They explained the human elements by means of a doctrine of

accommodation. By this, they teach that God accommodates himself to human language to fit our

level of understanding, and this does not mean that there must be errors in the Bible (Dilday 42).

In sum, according to Dilday, this period of the early church history saw the Bible as the most

important authority for the church in dealing with false doctrines and heresies. The Bible‟s authority

38
was based on its God-given message of salvation through Jesus Christ. The Bible was recognized as

a divine/human book and its human elements were dealt with by the doctrine of accommodation

and in some cases by the allegorical method of interpretation (Dilday 44).

2.3.2 Medieval Scholars (A.D. 476-1517)

In this period, most scholars held to the early church fathers‟ teachings on the inspiration and

authority of the Bible. Yet, there were some deviations from their teachings due to the

characteristics of this period. In this period, the papacy developed, and the Bishop of Rome evolved

as the authority over all the other bishops. As a result, the papacy claimed to have superior power

over all the churches, and though the authority of the Bible was still important, it began to be

subordinated to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (Dilday 44). However, although the

view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible was held, practically, the authority of the Bible

was neutralized and probably undermined (Mpindu 10). The concept of papal, thus, complicated the

doctrine of inspiration, especially as the church hierarchy saw itself as being above the Bible

(Mpindu 10).

Furthermore, some scholars put reason before faith, and this resulted in approaching the Bible

rationally. Such scholars made the Bible subservient to the authority of the church and the

knowledge discovered through reason. But others who put faith before reason, maintained a firm

position that the Bible was the ultimate authority for faith (Dilday 44). Vawter describes the basic

approach adopted in this period to explain the concept of inspiration as the prophetic approach. In

this approach, the human author is considered a prophet, the instrumental cause, and God the

principal cause who moved the instrumental cause, the prophets to write. The product is the word of

God. Thus, it is God who spoke the word through the prophet, who of himself would have been

incapable of it (Vawter 48).

39
2.3.3 Reformers (A.D. 1517-1685)

The reformers realized that the doctrine of inspiration in the medieval period seemed to

contradict the pattern set down by the apostles and church fathers. Consequently, they wrote to

attack the prevalent tradition in the medieval period. Their writings also demonstrate a return to the

position of the church fathers on the doctrine of inspiration and a highly Christocentric view of

revelation. The reformers taught that the Word of God was to be identified with Jesus Christ and

Him alone (Dulles 239). Furthermore, the reformers focused on the Holy Spirit, not human author

and the content in their delineation of the inspiration of the Bible (Dulles 239). They treated the

Bible as God‟s word in an entirely literalist sense. They taught that the Holy Spirit was responsible

for the various styles and characteristics of the human authors of the sacred writings, and these

together with approximations and discrepancies, were the result of divine accommodation (Vawter

80). They likewise emphasize the principle of sola scriptura, the Protestant Church doctrine that the

Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice (Olson 370–374). They also

denied the dictation approach.

The counter-reformation of the Roman Catholic Church also helped to reshape the church‟s

doctrine of inspiration. Their doctrine restricted the authority of the Bible to the ones that relate to

the doctrine of salvation (Mpindu 15). The focus was shifted on the product of inspiration, the

Bible, which was profitable for salvation.

In sum, according to Bloesch, the reformers teach that the Bible is the infallible rule for faith

and practice, it contains all things necessary for salvation, but its saving truth can be perceived only

by the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 89).

2.3.4 Modern Period (A.D. 1685-1900)

The modern period begins with the enlightenment period in which an emphasis is placed on

the power of reason to discover truths. This resulted into the necessity to reconstruct traditional

Christian thought, including the doctrine of inspiration, in the light of the modern culture,

philosophy and science. There was the rise of rationalism and science. Emphases were placed on
40
scientific method and rationalist approach to truth. Many scholars used reason and science to

examine previously unquestioned doctrines and traditions, the doctrine of inspiration inclusive. So,

in relation to the Bible, the focus moved away from the divine to the role that humans played in the

composition of the Bible (Olson 518–542). During this period, one of the important views is the

deistic view. This view portrays the Bible as „a purely human book with obscurities, lots of

contradictions, and many immoral regulations. The biblical writers were inspired only to the extent

that their gifts were elevated in moments of special creativity‟ (Demarest 132).

2.3.5 Contemporary Period (A.D. 1900-Present)

There were reactions against/for modernism in theology from scholars. Consequently, many

views and theories of the inspiration of the Bible evolved from the evangelical, Roman Catholic and

liberal scholars. I now consider some of these views and theories.

2.3.5.1 Views of Biblical Inspiration

2.3.5.1.1 Liberalism

Liberalism refers to the attempt to harmonize the Christian faith with all of human culture. It

is applied to any protestant religious movement that questions the basic doctrines of conservative

Christianity (Geisler and Nix 145). It divides between the concerns of society and civilization and

personal salvation (Geisler and Nix 145–146). The Bible falls in the latter concern. Liberalism

emphasizes that inspiration of the Bible is not the inspiration of books, but the inspiration of the

people from whom the books came (Barr 125). This implies that God was with the people in the

composition of their books. God is, thus, considered the illuminator of the human authors (Bloesch,

Holy Scripture 103). Liberalism also accepts the notion that the Bible contains errors and its

advocates sought means whereby the newly discovered truths of modern thought could be

harmonized with the Bible (Geisler and Nix 146). The advocates argue that the Bible should be

employed only for theology and basic morality, but not in details of life because of the change in

41
the position of Christianity in society (Davis 69–70). Finally, liberalism emphasizes that inspiration

should have nothing to do with inerrancy and final authority.

2.3.5.1.2 Neo-Orthodoxy

This view started as a reaction against liberalism. It developed a highly Christocentric view of

revelation. It makes a distinction between the Bible and revelation. It holds that the Word of God

was to be identified with Jesus Christ, and that the Bible was not, itself the Word of God but a

witness to that Word. When Christ used the Bible, it becomes the Word of God. Furthermore, the

view focuses on the Holy Spirit, not author and content (Dulles 239). Karl Barth, an early proponent

of this view, teaches that the Bible is only a witness to divine revelation. Thus, a witness cannot be

identical with that to which it witnesses. Barth concludes that the Bible should never be equated

with the Word of God. The Bible, which is inspired and unique, should not be confused with the

Word. It is a human document and becomes the Word only as the Holy Spirit testifies to it (Mpindu

14–15). Mpindu summarizes the neo-orthodox view of biblical inspiration as:

the Bible is a purely human book containing some errors as to facts and some false doctrines; but it is,

nevertheless, in God‟s grace the instrument of the Holy Spirit which rightly interpreted as a whole leads to the

truth, that is, the divine Christ. Even what is not true still conveys the truth since the whole Scripture, in every

word of it, is the final authority for theology (Mpindu 15).

2.3.5.1.3 Vatican II Catholicism

This view of the Bible is different from the traditional Roman Catholic position that was

previously discussed. The view is influenced by the Protestant neo-orthodox theology, and restricts

the truthfulness and authority of the Bible to the salvation issue (Demarest 134). Sancy submits that

the Bible is not revelation; it only attests revelation. It is human testimonies of divine revelation. He

further emphasizes the humanity of the biblical writers; they are limited and fallible. Thus, the Bible

is no simply God‟s word. It is first of all man‟s word. The Bible is not without mistakes and errors

(Sancy 224).

42
2.3.5.1.4 Conservatism

Achtemeier declares that when the conservative scholars, orthodox scholars or pietists

realized that the scientific and rational approaches to the study of the Bible had led to fault finding,

and the inspiration and authority of the Bible was called to doubt, they rose to defend the Bible.

They affirmed that the Bible has as its ultimate source God himself, and that because God cannot lie

or contradict himself, the Bible cannot contain any errors or inconsistencies. God is truth, God is the

source of the Bible and therefore scripture must be truth. If God cannot lie, then the Bible cannot

either. The very words have been inspired by God through his Holy Spirit. It is not designed to

teach science, history, or philosophy (Achtemeier 50–51).

So, this has led these scholars to use terms like „inerrancy‟, „infallibility‟, „trustworthiness‟,

„veracity‟, „indefectibility‟, „unshatterability‟, „consistency‟, „indestructibility‟, „continuance‟ and

the like in their descriptions of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. I now focus on the terms

„inerrancy‟ and „infallible‟. The term „inerrancy‟ was first used in the middle of nineteenth century.

The concept of inerrancy was developed out of the teachings of church fathers like Augustine,

Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and others, which describe the Bible as free from all errors. The argument

of the concept is that since the Bible is God‟s word and God cannot lie, therefore, the Bible is free

from all errors. The concept thus identifies the Bible with God (Trembath 97–98). When some

discrepancies were discovered in the Bible (2 Sam 10:8 cf. 1 Chron 19:18; 2 Chron 36:9 cf. 2 Kings

24:8; 1 Cor 10:8 cf. Num 25:9 and the like) by critical scholars, especially when they studied the

Bible rationally and scientifically, conservative scholars limited the concept of inerrancy to only the

original manuscripts of the Bible. However, the doctrine of inerrancy was affirmed afresh in the

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy2. The statement makes clear the understanding of the

doctrine of inerrancy and warns against its denial. The Bible is to be received as the authoritative

Word of God. The authority of the church is subordinate to that of the Bible. Inspiration applies

2
Summit I of International Council on Biblical Inerrancy took place in Chicago for the purpose of affirming the doctrine of

the inerrancy of Scripture. The original document is located in hte Dallas Theological Seminary Archives.

43
only to the autographic text of the Bible. The copies and translations of the Bible are also the Word

of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. The Bible, having been given by

divine inspiration, is infallible. The Bible is also in its entirety inerrant, being free from all

falsehood, or deceit. The term „inerrancy‟ actually refers to the complete truthfulness of the Bible. It

further means that there is unity and internal consistency in the Bible.

The term „infallibility‟ is also used in defence against attack on the Bible. Reformers like

Luther and Calvin adopted the term in their descriptions of the Bible as being infallible and without

error. When the term is applied to the doctrine of inspiration, it means that the Bible is incapable of

deception or leading astray especially in its teachings. It implies that the Bible is infallible in its

salvific doctrinal references and in the purpose for which it was given (Erickson 70). Another

implication is that everything the Bible reports and teaches is intended by God to be read and heard

by his church (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 115).

2.3.5.1.5 Baptist View

The Baptist are evangelical, therefore their doctrine of inspiration reflects the evangelical

tradition. From the survey of the Baptist confessions of faith, it is obvious that the common

characteristic found in them is that of pointing to the Bible as a higher authority than any other

documents of faith (Russ and Nettles 355). Baptists usually declare the Bible to be the Word of God

and, thus, to be worthy of full trust and belief. It alone is the true and authoritative Word of God

(Russ and Nettles 357). The Baptists believe that:

the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has

God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the

principles by which God will judge us; and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian

union, and a supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried

(Dilday 105).

Furthermore, they hold that the Bible is „the record of God‟s revelation of Himself to man‟

and that „the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ‟ (Dilday 106). The

question of biblical infallibility has evoked controversy among Baptists in this contemporary
44
period. While some scholars are comfortable using this term, others are not. Some, like Garett,

when using the term infallibility have to redefine it. Garett distinguishes between two types of

„infallibility‟. He calls the first type „functional‟ infallibility. „Functional‟ infallibility implies that

the Bible is the norm for faith and practice. It also includes the hermeneutical principle that can be

used to interpret obscure passages. The second type he calls „modal‟ infallibility, which implies that

the method of inspiration is akin to dictation (Garret 48). Baptists regard the Bible as the norm for

faith and practice, whether they use the term infallibility or not. It is viewed as superior to other

documents of faith. It is the direct revelation of the true and only God and that man could and

should trust it and obey it as it was interpreted correctly. The other documents of faith can be used

as guides for correct interpretations, not as final exhaustive and absolute creedal affirmations. In

addition, Baptists believe that the special revelation is climaxed in Jesus Christ (Russ and Nettles

357–358), and that the Bible is the product of inspiration. It is authoritative in the matters of faith

and doctrine. Moreover, it is revelational, and its revelation climaxes in Jesus Christ.

The historical development of the doctrine of inspiration has helped to understand many theories of

inspiration. Thus, these theories will be of great help in my reconstruction of the doctrine of

inspiration in Ancient Near Eastern context in chapter 6. In that chapter, I will relate these theories

of inspiration to my discussion on the claims to inspiration in both CoH and BC.

2.3.5.2 Theories of Inspiration

During the modern period, a number of theories of inspiration were also proposed. A summary and

critique of some of these theories are discussed below.

2.3.5.2.1 Intuition Theory

This theory holds that the human authors of the Bible were inspired in the same way as other

great poets, writers and literary geniuses are inspired. Inspiration is thus described in terms of the

human authors being elevated to moments of heightened awareness, creativity and ability, which

allow them to produce quality writings (Dilday 74), and what made their writings different from

45
their contemporaries was their keener natural insight into truth (Beegle 124). The theory

undermines the claims to divine inspiration in the Bible. It elevates natural insight above divine

insight as the source of religious truth above divine insight. Moreover, it regards the Bible as only a

product of man‟s own powers.

2.3.5.2.2 Illumination Theory

This theory is closely linked with the intuition theory. It holds that the human authors of the

Bible were inspired in the same way as other believers are inspired. Thus, inspiration is simply that

ordinary illumination of the Holy Spirit which all Christians share (Dilday 74). The theory further

implies that the human authors of the Bible were left alone in the choice of their words after they

were being inspired. This suggests that the Bible evolved as a result of the cooperative effort of God

and humans (Lewis 54). The theory bolsters both divine influence and human powers in the

composition of the Bible. It, thus, regards the Bible as the product of both divine influence and

man‟s powers.

2.3.5.2.3 Mechanical Dictation Theory

The dictation theory holds that God dictated the words of the Bible to the human authors. It

suggests that God literally dictated word by word the message he intended for his people (Dilday

73). Furthermore, it assumes total passivity of the human authors, that these authors acted only as

penmen, as though God dictated revelation into a tape recorder (Lewis 56). Some proponents of the

theory have sometimes taught that the human authors were put in an unconscious trance and were

not aware of what they wrote (Dilday 74). It is true that we have such claim in the Bible, but the

theory is not applicable to all portions of the Bible. Even such claim as we have in the Bible may

not mean actual dictation especially in Ancient Near Eastern context. The theory also denies that

God worked in and through the human authors. Thus, it deemphasizes human involvement in the

composition of the Bible.

46
2.3.5.2.4 Partial Inspiration Theory

This theory is linked with the illumination theory. It holds that the Bible is only partially

inspired by God. The ideas in the Bible originated from God but human authors expressed the

wordings in their own languages, as they liked (Pache 58). Thus, inspiration has to do only with the

author‟s thoughts, and not with the words used. The theory also suggests that divine inspiration is

limited to certain biblical passages and not to others (Dilday 74). Thus, inspiration is applied only to

the doctrines of the Bible and not to the wordings. Like the illumination theory, the partial

inspiration theory equates divine involvement with human involvement.

2.3.5.2.5 Verbal/Plenary Inspiration Theory

This theory is in two parts. The plenary aspect holds that the Bible is wholly inspired, that is,

every part of the Bible is inspired and is therefore authoritative truth. The verbal aspect holds that

the Bible is word-inspired, that is, every word chosen to convey the messages, ideas or truths in the

Bible is inspired, and not only the messages, ideas or truths. The theory suggests that the words of

the Bible are an essential part of divine revelation and that the Bible is inspired in all its parts. Every

book of the Bible is equally inspired, and the whole Bible is the product of divine inspiration (Lewis

57). The strength of this view is that it takes seriously the divine element in the Scriptures. This

theory is not the same as the dictation theory. According to Lewis, the strength of this theory is that

it emphasizes that the Bible communicates through words. Thus, the words (not just the ideas) must

be inspired. It seeks to balance the inspiration of the Spirit with the human capacities of each human

author. Lewis also states the weakness of this theory as having the tendency to so emphasize the

propositional truth of the Bible that the personal nature of faith is subordinated to belief in

propositions (statements of the Bible) (Lewis 57). Another weakness is that the theory makes it

difficult to account for the individual peculiarities of the writers.

47
2.3.5.2.6 Dynamic Inspiration Theory

This theory stresses the belief that God actually inspired every part of the Bible. However, his

control over the process of writing was such that the freedom and personalities of the human

authors were allowed to operate their vocabularies, styles, and personal peculiarities of their

cultures and time. These are evident in the Bible, but under God‟s control, the result of their

writings, in spite of these human elements, was precisely the message God wanted to convey

(Dilday 75). Thus, the Bible is both authentic and eternal. In addition, Lewis emphasizes that, in

this theory, the authority of the Bible is in its wholeness and unity in the light of the truth of God in

Christ. Here the function of the Bible is more emphasized than an effort to explain fully the process

of inspiration. The theory seeks to take the human elements in the Bible seriously, as it takes the

divine element so apparent in the Bible. It seeks to stress the dynamic nature of revelation that

arises out of the actual realities of human history (Lewis 57–58). The theory, therefore, emphasizes

the combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration. This emphasis is one of

its strengths. It attempts to maintain both the divine and human elements in the Bible. It stresses the

Holy Spirit‟s guidance and the human authors‟ creativity in the composition of the Bible. The

weakness of this theory is its tendency to overstress the human elements in the Bible above God‟s

involvement. A critical look at these theories in the light of evangelical teachings on the inspiration

of the Bible shows that one or more of the verbal theory; plenary theory and dynamic theory are

held by the evangelicals.

2.3.5.3 Scholars’ Views

As from the 1940s, the doctrine of inspiration took so many dizzying twists and turns and

went in so many new directions that even experts find it difficult to draw it together into one

coherent doctrine. All the views and theories discussed above are now present in contemporary

times. Contemporary scholars have freedom to hold and build on one or more views and theories.

Here I will discuss five scholars‟ views on inspiration, focusing on their descriptions of the term

„inspiration‟, the process of inspiration, the quality of inspiration and the product of inspiration.
48
2.3.5.3.1 Definition

Benjamin B. Warfield defines inspiration as „a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred

writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness‟.

According to Warfield, human authors are finite in their understandings and capacities, and that

they need the revelation of God if they are to understand the supernatural. So, revelation

presupposes the doctrine of inspiration (Warfield and Craig 131). René Pache defines inspiration as

„the determining influence exercised by the Holy Spirit on the writers of the Old and New

Testaments in order that they might proclaim and set down in an exact and authentic way the

message as received from God‟. Pache emphasizes that the divine influence so guided these writers

to the extent of their use of words that they were kept from all error and omission. They wrote under

the influence of the Holy Spirit, so much so that the events or facts they recorded became accounts

as willed by God (Pache 45).

David S. Dockery describes inspiration as meaning „that through the superintending influence

of God‟s Spirit on the writers of Holy Scripture, the account and interpretation of God‟s revelation

have been recorded as God intended so that the Bible is actually the Word of God‟ (Dockery 67).

This indicates that the Bible has a dual-sided authorship. Thus, it is a divine-human document. It is

a human witness to divine revelation, God‟s witness to himself (Dockery 55–56). Inspiration

preserved or recorded what God had revealed so that the resulting document carried the same

authority and effect as if God himself were speaking directly (Dockery 67).

Donald G. Bloesch defines inspiration as „the divine election and superintendence of

particular writers and writing in order to ensure a trustworthy and potent witness to the truth‟. The

purpose of the inspiration of human authors thus is to serve God‟s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

God elected and guided the writers so as to reveal Jesus Christ through the Bible (Bloesch, Holy

Scripture 119–120). Bloesch emphasizes that inspiration does not guarantee that the Bible is

inerrant in the sense of being exempt from human misconceptions and limitations. However, in

terms of what the Bible purports to show us and teach us, it does not deceive. Thus the authority of

49
the Bible does not rest finally on the inspired record but on God who is speaking to us through this

record (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 121– 125). Francis M. Mpindu describes biblical inspiration as

meaning that „the Bible is co-authored. Human authors used sources, expressed their personalities

in their literary styles, and God, by his Spirit, guided that entire process so that the ultimate product,

the text, reflected what God wanted written (Mpindu 281–282). In their description of inspiration,

all these writers focus it on the process, quality and product of inspiration.

2.3.5.3.2 The Process of Inspiration

All the scholars being considered emphasize the divine origin of the Bible and the human

involvement in the composition of it. Warfield interprets two main passages from the New

Testament (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 2:19-21) to buttress his point as regards the process of

inspiration. The two passages refer to the whole scripture as of divine origin. The Bible is of divine

gift. It does not owe its origin to human initiative. Its source lies in God. Though God involved

human authors in its composition, God is considered the primary author of the Bible (Warfield and

Craig 132–139). The human authors are referred to as inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit

(Warfield and Craig 131). Pache uses 2 Timothy 3:16 to argue for the divine origin of the Bible. He

emphasizes that God himself takes the initiative, choosing and preparing the human authors as his

instruments before he communicates his message through them. Thus, inspiration was granted by

God in an absolute sovereign way, the Spirit speaks and causes the human authors to write as it

pleases him (Pache 47–52).

As for Dockery, he describes the Bible as the source of God‟s revelation. The Bible itself also

claims to be divinely inspired. Both Testaments view the words of the Bible as God‟s own words

(Exodus 20:1-17; Neh 8; Ps 119) (Dockery 40–41). He further comments that the Bible has a dual-

sided authorship. Thus, it is a divine-human document. It is a human witness to divine revelation,

God‟s witness to himself (Dockery 55–56). In addition, Dockery emphasizes the process of

inspiration as being different with each author, with each genre and within passages. The human

authors employed the linguistic resources available to them as they wrote to specific people with

50
particular needs at particular times. These human authors were not therefore lifted from their culture

or removed from their contexts (Dockery 57).

Bloesch asserts that the composition of the Bible involved both the divine author and the

human authors. Thus, the Bible is divine in its ultimate origin and theological content but human in

its mode of expression or literary form. The true humanity of the Bible involves a vulnerability to

error and a limited cultural horizon because the human authors lived in a particular time and place

in history. Despite this humanity of the Bible, it still yields real knowledge about God and his plan

of salvation (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 38–39). The human authors are not to be thought of as simply

the pens of the Holy Spirit but as partners with the Spirit so that the end product can be attributed to

co-authorship (Bloesch, “The Primacy of Scripture” 122–123). God elected and guided the writers

so as to reveal Jesus Christ through the Bible (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 119–120). Mpindu submits

that biblical inspiration emphasizes that the Bible is co-authored (Mpindu 187).

2.3.5.3.3 The Quality of Inspiration

These scholars emphasize the direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the human authors of the

Bible. Warfield explains that the Bible is breathed out by God. The human authors only spoke under

the determining influence of the Holy Spirit, the things they spoke were not from them, rather they

were from God (Warfield and Craig 132–139). Thus, the Bible is the Word of God in a sense that

its words, though written by men and bearing upon them the mark of their human origin, were

written, nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Spirit as to also be the words of God, the

adequate expression of his mind and wills. Therefore, there exists co-authorship in the composition

of the Bible whereby the Spirit‟s superintendence extends to the choice of the words by the human

authors (verbal inspiration), and preserves its product from everything inconsistent with a divine

authorship. Inspiration is, thus, a cooperative effort, but not between equals (Warfield and Craig

173).

Pache explains that the Bible is written under the determining influence exercised by the Holy

Spirit on the human authors in order that they might proclaim and set down in an exact and

51
authentic way the message as received from God‟. He further emphasizes that the divine influence

so guided these writers to the extent of their use of words that they were kept from all error and

omission. They wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit so that the events or facts they recorded

became accounts as willed by God (Pache 45).

Dockery emphasizes that the Holy Spirit had a superintending influence on the human authors

in the composition of the Bible. Moreover, this does not necessarily mean that the human authors

were temporarily stripped of their limitation in knowledge, memory, language, and ability to

express themselves in specific contexts (Dockery 66). Therefore, the Bible is considered the Word

of God (Dockery 67). He then emphasizes that the quality of inspiration is the same throughout,

some parts are not more inspired than others are (Dockery 71).

Bloesch argues that the Bible was written under the divine influence on the human authors.

God‟s Spirit was operative upon both the human authors and their writings, and he continues to be

present in their testimony throughout the history of the church, preserving it from corruption. Thus,

inspiration is both conceptual and verbal, and this signifies that the Spirit was active both in shaping

the thoughts and imagination of the human authors of the Bible and in guiding them in their actual

writing (Bloesch, “The Primacy of Scripture” 122–123). Mpindu says that the human authors wrote

under the influence of the Holy Spirit. God, through his Holy Spirit, influenced, superintended, and

guided the process (involving individuals and communities of faith) leading to the final text

(Mpindu 187).

2.3.5.3.4 The Product of Inspiration

The five scholars under consideration consider the Bible as a product of inspiration. However,

they describe the Bible as a product of inspiration in different ways. Warfield describes the Bible as

the divinely determined products of inspired men (Warfield and Craig 131). The Bible as the

product of inspiration is, therefore, authoritative, truthful, inerrant and essential for salvation

(Warfield and Craig 173). Therefore, it is impossible for the Bible to be annulled, and for its

authority to be withstood or denied.

52
 Pache describing the Bible as the product of inspiration asserts that the Bible is vested with

God‟s authority. Its contents are revelatory and authoritative (Pache 279–305). In addition, as a

product of inspiration, the Bible is profitable for teaching (Pache 45). Dockery regards the Bible as

a product of inspiration, which is authoritative and revelational (Dockery 71). It is a divine-human

document. It is a human witness to divine revelation, God‟s witness to himself (Dockery 55–56).

Inspiration preserved or recorded what God had revealed so that the resulting document carried the

same authority and effect as if God himself were speaking directly (Dockery 67). Dockery further

emphasizes the function of the Bible as pointing to God, and through it, others can be pointed to

God (Dockery 71).

Bloesch emphasizes that inspiration does not guarantee that the Bible is inerrant in the sense

of being exempt from human misconceptions and limitations. However, in terms of what the Bible

purports to show us and teach us, it does not deceive. Thus the authority of the Bible does not rest

finally on the inspired record, but on God who is speaking to us through this record (Bloesch, Holy

Scripture 121– 125). He suggests that the terms „inerrancy‟ and „infallibility‟ should be retrieved in

the description of the doctrine of inspiration. Bloesch says that other terms could be used to convey

what the fathers of the church generally meant when they referred to the Bible as without error.

Bloesch then suggests that words like „veracity‟ and „trustworthiness‟ can be used in explaining

divine inspiration. Bloesch describes veracity as „unflagging adherence to the truth‟ and

trustworthiness as „complete dependability in bearing witness to truth‟. The Bible is veracious and

trustworthy only because it is grounded in historical revelation and employed by the Holy Spirit to

guide us into the knowledge of his revelation (Bloesch, Holy Scripture 35–37). Bloesch, like others,

concludes that the Bible as a product of inspiration is authoritative, revelational, veracious and

trustworthy. Its authority rests on God. It is meant to reveal Jesus Christ. It is veracious and

trustworthy because it guides us into the knowledge of God‟s revelation (Bloesch, Holy Scripture

38–39).

Mpindu‟s premise is that „the Bible, in its final canonical form, is God‟s Word to human

beings, and it must be the Christian‟s final authority in matters of doctrine and practice‟ (Mpindu
53
186). Mpindu holds that inspiration rests in the written authoritative text, not in the human authors.

Thus the Bible is normative or authoritative for Christians (Mpindu 187). As an authoritative text,

the Bible has both an inherent and bestowed authority because it is God‟s Word to humankind. It is

intrinsically authoritative because it is God‟s Word. It points beyond itself to God. It should

therefore be viewed and accepted as our authority in matters of doctrine and conduct for it tells us

about the Supreme God and what he requires of mankind (Mpindu 200). Furthermore, Mpindu

argues that the Bible is God‟s revelation, and it should not be equated with God himself. It does not

by any means share in the same qualities that God possesses. As God‟s revelation, it only discloses

God and his will to humans (Mpindu 206). In addition, all the theological truths that we need in

order to lead lives that honour God in the world are derived from it. Thus, the Bible is a reliable

standard of truth, which God has given to humans so that they can know how to relate to God and

live according to his revelation. The Bible as God‟s Word must therefore be accepted as the final

authority in matters of doctrine and conduct (Mpindu 217). Mpindu‟s conclusion is that the Bible is

a product of inspiration and Christians‟ final authority in matters of doctrine and practice. It points

only to the supreme God. It should not be equal with God himself.

The discussion on the doctrine of inspiration has demonstrated that there are divergent views

on the concept of inspiration. Most often, the contexts of the proponents of these views determine

their views on the concept of inspiration. By implication, most proponents did not base their views

on the concept of inspiration on biblical contexts. However, this discussion will be of great help in

my explanation of the concept of inspiration in chapter 6, which will be based on Ancient Near

Eastern context.

54
CHAPTER 3.

THE LAW CODE OF HAMMURABI

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the contexts, form, grammar, content and structure of

CoH. In the process, I will discuss the literary, historical and theological contexts of CoH. Then, I

will engage in analysing the genre of CoH, after which, I will discuss its discourse. I will go ahead

to examine the word order and verbal system of CoH. Finally, I will analyse ten themes in CoH that

are closely parallel to BC. From these thematic analyses, I will provide the structure of each theme

considered.

3.1 Description

Of all the law codes recovered so far, CoH is the longest and best organized. The laws in CoH

were inscribed on an eight feet high diorite stele.3 On the top of the stele is a portrait of Hammurabi

standing before the sun-god and god of justice, Shamash, seated on his throne4 (Meier 41). There

are different interpretations that have been suggested for this portrait. Roth summarizes them as

follows:

 The god, Shamash, is dictating the laws to the king.

 The king is offering the laws to the god.
 The king is accepting the rod and ring that are emblems of temple-building and sovereignty (M. T.
Roth 73).
The first interpretation is the most appropriate one. Hammurabi received the laws from the

god, Shamash, and compiled and inscribed them on the stone. The stone on which the code is

recorded was set up in Esagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon before a statue of the king. It was

later taken to the Ancient city of Susa, chief residence of Darius I of Persia and his successor, in

3
See Appendix A
4
See Appendix B

55
1160 BC by the Elamite king named Shutruk-Naḫḫunte following his successful raid of Babylon

(Wiseman 24). After many years, the stele was discovered in Susa between December, 1901 and

January, 1902 by an expedition sent out by the French government under Director General M. de

Morgan (Wiseman 24). It was found in three pieces. Driver and Miles describe it as being 2.25m

high and having a circumference of 1.65m at top and 1.90m at the base. The portrait of Hammurabi

standing before Shamash measures 0.65m from top to bottom, and 0.60m across. The text of the

laws is inscribed round the stele, starting under the back of the throne. The columns marked off

from one another by parallels lines, run in horizontal bands round it, each increasing in girth. Each

line of text in which the writing runs vertically from top to bottom, is separated from the text by a

dividing line. The laws are preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue, which take up

respectively some five and half and five columns of the text5 (Driver and Miles 28).

Hayden affirms that CoH had originally contained about 282 laws, arranged in forty-nine

rows of approximately 4000 lines and 8000 words. Out of the forty-nine rows, five or seven

columns on the front were erased by an Elamite king. Shutruk-Naḫḫunte probably erased it for the

purpose of preparing the stone for a new inscription (Hayden 606). White says that 2614 lines out of

an original total of 4000 lines now remain and this suggests that about thirty-five laws are missing

in the code (White 227). The stele is presently placed in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

In addition to this discovery, there are a number of other fragments of clay-tablets containing

portions of the laws that have been discovered. They belong to various periods and include four Old

Babylonian, three Middle Assyrian, two other Neo-Assyrian, and three Neo-Babylonian tablets

(Driver and Miles 29). The British Museum contains a number of fragments of an Assyrian edition,

prepared by scribes of Assurbanipal (668-626 BC). The Berlin Museum has the text of several

fragments of late Babylonian copies (Urch 437). The code, therefore, was widely published and

used long after Hammurabi‟s time. Most of them are badly damaged. The majority of laws in them

5
Some portions of the Autograph text are placed in Appendix C.

56
are identical to the laws in the stele placed at Louvre (Driver and Miles 29). These fragments have

been used to restore the missing laws in the gap where the text has been erased.

3.2 Contexts

A consideration of the context of an ancient text is crucial in exegesis. It is the first stage in

the exegetical process. It is concerned with investigating into the situations in which a text was

written. Here, I consider the context of CoH, investigating into the literary, historical and

theological situations in which it was written. This will be of great help to gain deeper insights into

the contents of the laws in CoH.

3.2.1 Literary Context

Literary context is concerned with the way the literary components of a text is arranged. CoH

was inscribed in Akkadian, which is the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of ancient

Mesopotamia. Akkadian belongs to the Semitic family of languages and was written in

Mesopotamian and literature collection of the Ancient Near East from roughly 2400 B.C. to A.D.

100 (Reiner 20). CoH was specifically inscribed in OA (2000-1500 B.C.), the Akkadian of southern

Mesopotamia during the period of the first dynasty of Babylonia (Huehnergard, A Grammar of

Akkadian xxii). It was written using cuneiform script.

CoH shares the same literary type and style with other law codes of the Ancient Near East.

The 282 laws were inserted between a prologue and an epilogue. The prologue and the epilogue are

thought to be written „in the mathematically precise hymnal-epic dialect of the language and are a

beautiful example of archaic Babylonian cuneiform‟ (White 227). They describe the political

context for the composition of the laws. They also outline the historical circumstances that allow

Hammurabi to present himself as a worthy recipient of gods‟ favour and support (M. T. Roth 2).

Driver and Miles describe the prologue as a religious introduction explaining how King

Hammurabi was appointed as a king by gods in order to give justice to the people they entrusted to

his care (Driver and Miles 36). Roth describes the epilogue as the summation of Hammurabi‟s legal

57
work. The epilogue describes the king as a military leader who brings peace to his people. It seeks

blessings from Hammurabi to his successors and the beneficiaries of his legacy. It blesses them if

they treat the laws in the stele with respect, and it brings the curses of the great gods upon any who

would violate the law (M. T. Roth 72).

The body of laws contains some legal decisions, which are constructed in the same pattern.

According to Roth, they were written using the casuistic formulation that first describes a situation

and then sets out the resolution or sanction, that restores balance (M. T. Roth 23). They are usually

written in the form: Šumma „when‟ a person (typically awῑlum „a man‟) does X (iptaras/iprus

form), Y (iparras form) will happen to him, as stated below.

Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq, iddâk6

When a man has stolen man‟s small child, he must be killed. (CoH 14)7

The body of laws covers civil, criminal and administrative laws and reflects a well-developed

commercial society (Hayden 606). Walton asserts that it primarily focuses on civil laws with few

criminal laws (Walton 76). It is mostly concerned with homicide, slavery, pastoral conflicts,

engagement, marriage, divorce, adultery and incest, children adoption and inheritance, the duties of

children‟s nurses and cultic rules of purity or ritual (Livingston 178).

3.2.2 Historical Context

Under the historical context, I will discuss the authorship, date of composition, historical

background and purpose of CoH.

3.2.2.1 Authorship

There are many evidences that point to Hammurabi as the author of CoH. Both the prologue

and the epilogue of the code mention Hammurabi as the author of the code. In the prologue, it is

6
The Transliteration of CoH used in this work is taken from M.E.J. Richardson, Hammurabi’s Law: Text, Translation and

Glossary (London: T&T Clark International, A Continuum Imprint, 2004).

7
All the translations of CoH in this work are my personal translations.

58
stated that Marduk instructed Hammurabi to give justice to his people, and for this reason, he set

forth truth and justice (P22 V:14-25). The epilogue states that Hammurabi obeyed the instruction of

Marduk and established the laws for his country (E8 XLII:59-78). It further states that Hammurabi

inscribed the laws on the stele (E14 XLVIII:59-74; E15 XLVIII:75-85). The portrait of Hammurabi

standing before the sun-god in the stele depicts that Hammurabi received justice and order from

Shamash, and he inscribed it in the stele (Meier 41). Thus, Hammurabi was the compiler and

publisher of CoH. He authored the code as the King of Babylon. He used the existing codes of his

time and included the new laws he formulated, making the code relevantly contextual to his time.

The reading of his name is uncertain. There are two spellings for the name: Hammurabi and

Hammurapi. It is generally accepted that the name contains two elements: hammu and rab/pi.

According to Sasson, the cuneiform script was transcribed as Hammurabi, but some scholars linked

Hammurabi with Amraphel of Genesis 14. This is the reason for the option of rapi. He further

argues that some documents in alphabetic cuneiform recovered from Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in the

1930s show that many kings of the second half of the second millennium bore the name „mrp‟.

Moreover, „the spelling was retrojected on the name of the famous king of Babylon‟ , thus leading

many to read his name ammu + rapi, „The (Divine) kinsman/uncle heals‟ (Sasson 902). These two

interpretations are possible, but in this work the traditional spelling, „Hammurabi‟, will be kept. It is

mostly believed that the name belongs to the family of Semitic and not Akkadian. „Hammu‟

probably signifies a god, and „rabi‟ is common in the Babylonian language and means „is great‟

(Urch 437). So the name „Hammurabi‟ means „god is great‟.

3.2.2.2 Date

The date of the composition of CoH is not certain. There is nothing in the text that says

definitely to what period of Hammurabi‟s long reign of forty-three years, the laws are to be

assigned. But many scholars, like Slanski, state that it was composed between 1792 and 1750 B.C.

during Hammurabi‟s reign (Slanski 101). The date-formulas present in the code have helped to

59
speculate about the probable date of the code. Generally, it was believed that the code was written

between Hammurabi‟s second year of reign and his death.

During his second year of reign, Hammurabi promulgated the laws and set forth justice in

Babylon (Saggs 61). Wiseman mentions that he made a public pronouncement of the standard of

law that would govern the religious and economic life of his people (Wiseman 24). Therefore, the

law could be said to have dated from the beginning of his reign, but the completion of the code is

not earlier than the latest event referred to in the prologue and the epilogue.

Boecker asserts that the work was intensified and the code itself was finished only shortly

before his death. He alludes to the references on the borders to the king‟s deeds of war to affirm his

argument (Boecker 73–75). Lyon suggests that the unification and pacification of Babylon

described in the code seem to have been subsequent to the victory over Elam and Emutbal, which

took place in the thirtieth and thirty-first year of his reign (Lyon David 123). In agreement with this,

Roth admits that after his thirty-first year of reign, the law collection was inscribed on the stele and

compiled and publicized in multiple copies in major cities of his realm (M. Roth, “The Laws of

Hammurabi (2.131)” 335). Hayden comments that his last years were devoted to law giving and

matters of religion (Hayden 605). Therefore, Hammurabi began the compilation from the beginning

of his reign, he added and subtracted laws during the course of his reign, and by the end of his

reign, he had inscribed the laws on the stele and publicized the law code in Babylon.

3.2.2.3 Historical Background

CoH was written in the historical and political context of Hammurabi‟s time. Hammurabi was

the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. He reigned for forty-three years (1792- 1750 B.C.).

He was a descendant of Simulail and the heir of Sin-muballlit (P21 IV:67-V:13). Before he became

king, he was a devout prince who revered the gods (P3 I:27-49). He became a king almost a

hundred years after his ancestor Sumu-abum established his dynasty in Babylon around 1894 B.C.

He succeeded Sin-muballit as the king of Babylon (Sasson 901). At his accession, Mesopotamia

was „fragmented into numerous small, independent kingdoms. The kings fought against each other,

60
but none could achieve supremacy‟ (Mack 7). At this time, Babylon was „a well-established but still

minor kingdom‟. It was „one of numerous little kingdoms in the Mesopotamia area and was within a

loose coalition of states headed by Assyria under the powerful king of Shamshi-adad‟ (Saggs 63).

To the east of Babylon was Eshnunna, a nation that was powerful at the time of Hammurabi.

Farther away to the east was Elam, also a powerful nation in Mesopotamia (Sasson 905).

Hammurabi commenced his reign in this unbearable situation. Despite this bad situation, he

was able to create a larger kingdom that he later reshaped. He was able to achieve this because of

his administrative, diplomatic and military skill (Saggs 63). During his forty-three years‟ reign,

Hammurabi brought Babylon for the first time to prominence. Each of the forty-three years

following his accession year is identified sequentially with his good works like building projects,

pious royal donations to temple, war, construction of canals and the like (Meier 40).

At Hammurabi‟s time, it was a common practice in Mesopotamia to label each year of their

king‟s reign after a major royal activity. The king usually had what is called a year-date in which

king‟s activities were recorded. The same thing is applicable to Hammurabi. In his writings, each

year of his reign is labelled after his major activities. Here, his activities will be examined based on

the year formula in his writings in order to acquire a comprehensive picture of his career.

In Hammurabi‟s first ten years, he gave himself to improving the infrastructure of his

kingdom. In his first full year, he issued a misarum, which is „an edict meant to stem economic and

social disintegration by reverting to earlier conditions‟ (Sasson 907). Hammurabi at this period

made the establishment of justice one of his concerns. To Ancient Near Eastern people, justice was

an accepted responsibility of the king and the justice referred to was primarily economic justice

(Saggs 161). In the next four years, he focused on the building of temples in and out of Babylon.

These temples included Ekishnugal for Sin, the moon-god and other gods (Sasson 905).

From his sixth through his tenth year, Hammurabi launched attack on many nations in order

to expand his kingdom. He fought against Rim-Sin and Uruk in the south and he conquered Isin and

Uruk in the sixth year. In the next year, he invaded Emutbal (Yamutbal), the country with Larsa as

its capital. Two years later he launched different attacks on Malgium at the edge of Eshnunna but
61
could not inflict a total defeat on it (Sasson 906). During these periods, Hammurabi rendered his

service under Shamshi-adad who was the leader of the coalition. When Shamshi-adad died, the

leadership of the coalition he had headed was passed to Hammurabi. In his ninth year, Hammurabi

built the canal by the name „Hammurabi is abundance‟ (Saggs 65). In his tenth and eleventh years,

he allied with king Zimrilim of Mari and the alliance helped him to conquer many nations like

Rapiqum, the town that was under Eshnunna‟s control and others. This enabled Hammurabi to

become master of southern and central Mesopotamia (Boecker 70).

From his twelfth year to the twenty-ninth year, he embarked on consolidation and

organization of his kingdom. During these years, Hammurabi performed many domestic activities.

He restored the prosperity of the people (Meier 40). He engaged in the construction and reparation

of temples from his 12th to 18th years. From Hammurabi‟s twelfth year to thirteenth year, Babylonia

became prosperous, centre of learning and politically important (Oppenheim 519). He embarked on

irrigation works and fortifications from his nineteenth year to twenty-fifth year, and more religious

activities from his twenty-sixth year to twenty-ninth year (Sasson 906).

From his thirtieth year to the end of his reign, he engaged in continuous warfare and recorded

huge success. From his thirtieth year to thirty-third year, he succeeded in dislodging all his rivals

and for a reason he was regarded as the undisputed master of Mesopotamia. He dislodged the

kingdom of Eshnunna to the north and Larsa to the south (Boecker 71). In his thirtieth year, he

conquered Elam, Assyria, Gutium, Eshnunna and Malgium. In his thirty-first year, he defeated Rim-

sin of Larsa. To defeat him, Hammurabi allied with the kings of Mari and Eshnunna. He later turned

against these two kings and fought against them. His thirty-second year began an eight-year period

of continuous attacks of Hammurabi to the north. He defeated the armies of Eshnunna, Assyria and

Gutim. In his 33rd year, he defeated Mari and Malgu (Meier 40), he put Zimri-lim as a vassal there.

Two years later, Zimri-lim revolted, and Hammurabi launched another attack. He conquered the

city and removed Zimri-lim (Saggs 67). Within these eight years of continuous battles, Hammurabi

gained victory over Sutium, Turukku, Kakmu, Subartu and Eshnunna (Oppenheim 518).

62
 By this period, Hammurabi had expanded his kingdom. He extended northwards far beyond

the territory of Eshnunna. He had achieved, according to Boecker, „an empire that stretched from

the Persian Gulf in the south to Kurdistan in the north and embraced practically the whole of

Mesopotamia with its neighbouring countries‟. He could properly call himself „King of Sumer and

Akkad‟ (Boecker 72).

In his last years, he concerned himself with the internal and external consolidation of his

empire, which can be described as heterogeneous. He built walls along the Tigris and the Euphrates

(Oppenheim 518). „He ensured the agricultural prosperity upon which the well-being of his land

ultimately rested, throughout his reign, he prosecuted a vigorous policy of canal-building‟ (Saggs

68). He worked hard to make sure that all things were done correctly. Furthermore, he worked to

unify his heterogeneous kingdom. He improved the culture of his people and made Babylon a

civilized society. In his time, many documents were produced by scribes. These documents later

became model for future literary activity in the first millennium B.C. (Meier 41). Before his death,

Hammurabi stabilized the politics and military situation of his empire. As a result, other cities

became provincial from his time on except for Chaldea (Mack 5). He had also brought together, into

one kingdom, the many former city-states of Sumer and Akkad and brought them under one legal

system (Saggs 69).

3.2.2.4 Purpose

The purpose of CoH is mentioned in the code itself. Generally, the purpose of law codes in

the Ancient Near East was to provide a general standard to guide the judges. CoH served the same

purpose. The code was written in the historical and political situation of Hammurabi‟s time to meet

the need of the Babylonians. It was written to establish justice in Babylonia and to protect the weak

from the strong (P3 I:27-49). In the epilogue, which Hammurabi appended himself, he plainly

stated the motives that guided him as a ruler. He describes himself as the shepherd chosen by the

gods to care for his people and provide justice for them so that „the mighty might not exploit the

weak, and so that the orphan and the widow may be treated properly‟ (E6-E8). This indicates that

63
the code would help judges administer justice to the weak, orphans and widows. It was written to

inform the members of the society how to resolve legal problems (Claassens 467). We also find in

the prologue that Marduk commissioned Hammurabi to guide the people aright, to direct them, and

to establish law and justice in the language of the people, thereby promoting their welfare (P22

V:14-25). In line with this, Boecker remarks that the purpose of the code is to cause justice to

prevail among the people, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the

weak (Boecker 75).

Another purpose of CoH is to unify the various traditions of the people living in Babylon. At

this time, many people of other nations with different traditions were residing in Babylon. The law

code, therefore, played an important role in the organization and unification of the empire (Mack 8).

The law code helped a great deal to organize the kingdom created by Hammurabi‟s political and

military activities. It also helped to achieve a uniform law for the Sumerian and Akkadian

population of the empire (Boecker 77).

CoH was written to serve as a model of legal and judicial reasoning. Claassens, referring to

Boterro‟s comment, says that the collections were models to train and educate king-judges and to

stress the king‟s function as the great master of jurisprudence (Claassens 469). It was intended to

influence future judgements and serve as legal patterns so that judges had to abide by the laws in it.

Sasson asserts that:

the code was written „to be a measure by which future kings could gauge their own commitment to equity. Once

the code was read to them, naturally they would want to equal the political success Hammurabi had; but they

would fail to do so unless they embraced his drive for justice and kept true to the divinely set standards he

enunciated in the code‟ (Sasson 908).

In addition, some scholars say that it was part of the literary works and propaganda of the king. It

was compiled to exhibit the greatness of Hammurabi to the whole world for generations to come.

Claassens, referring to Zaccagnni‟s assertion, expresses that it was written so that people would

recognize Hammurabi‟s accomplishment and conquest (Claassens 469).

64
3.2.3 Theological Context

The theological context is concerned with how the deities are linked with an ancient text. CoH

is apparently linked with gods, and it is generally believed by Ancient Near Eastern people that the

deities are responsible for the appointment of the king and the giving of the laws. Hammurabi, in

the same way, acknowledged these facts. He mentioned and described the roles of some gods in

CoH. Some of the gods mentioned in the prologue and epilogue of the code are Anu, Enlil, Marduk,

Sin and Shamash. Anu was mentioned as the king of Anunnaku, and one of the gods who appointed

Hammurabi to be king (P1 I: 1-13). He was the father of the gods (E19 XLIX: 18-52). Enlil was

described as the lord of heaven and earth, he determines destinies for the people. He was the second

god who chose Hammurabi to be king. He entrusted the people to Hammurabi (E2 XLVII: 9-14).

Marduk was the god who was destined to govern all the peoples of the world (E2 XLVII: 9-14). He

was exalted among other gods (P2 I: 14-26). He commanded Hammurabi to write the law code in

order to direct the people so that they would adopt correct behaviour (P22 V: 14-25). Marduk made

the people to dwell in Babylon (E2 XLVII: 9-14). Sin was the creator of the royal line (P7 II: 22-

31). Although Marduk commanded Hammurabi to write the code, he depended on Shamash who

was the almighty judge in heaven and earth in the compilation of the laws (E10 XLVII: 84-xlviii:

2). Hammurabi acknowledged all these gods in his reign. According to Mack, he reorganized the

Mesopotamia pantheon in his reform. He also defined the relationships among the many gods and

established the supremacy of Marduk (Mack 8–9). As can be seen in the prologue, Hammurabi

claimed that the gods had inspired him to establish justice among his people. Finally, it is worth

noting that CoH reflects the peoples‟ concept of human. CoH emphasizes the relationship that

should exist among different categories of people in the country.

3.3 Genre

Genre usually serves as a key to interpret texts. It provides a set of rules that further allows the

interpreter greater accuracy in uncovering the intended meaning of the author. It is a valuable link

that binds both authors and readers together (Osborne 150–151). In the writing of any text, the
65
author is bound to write according to a set of literary conventions shared by readers and authors.

Thus the author must accept this set of literary conventions, more or less faithfully, and shape the

text in regard to it, so that the readers will likewise accept the text (Hartmann 332). For this reason,

the interpreter must labour to understand this set of literary conventions shared by both readers and

authors, before he or she can dabble into interpreting any particular text. CoH is expressed in a

genre called casuistic law. Laws were expressed in the Ancient Near East in this common form. I

therefore apply the characteristics of casuistic laws as discussed in chapter 2 to analyse CoH.

3.3.1 Analysis

Out of the 282 laws in the CoH, I focus only on twenty-nine laws, which are parallel to some

laws in BC. These laws are numbered 8, 14, 21, 57, 117-121, 195-201, 206-210 and 250-252. The

statistical data of the categories of case laws in the laws listed above is presented below.

Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Main Case Law 13 45
Subsidiary Case Law 11 38
Sub-case Law 5 17
Total 29 100
There are twenty-nine case laws altogether. Out of these are thirteen (45%) main case laws,

eleven (38%) subsidiary case laws and five (17%) sub-case laws. The thirteen main case laws

present new topics in the laws, eleven subsidiary case laws express varieties of these new topics and

five sub-case laws are not listed as new laws, rather they continue and refer back to the main case

laws. The forms of laws in CoH can be explained in different ways.

Some main case laws have neither subsidiary case nor subcase laws, and they have only one

clause each in both the protasis and the apodosis. Examples are stated below.

1. CoH 14
Protasis: When Šumma a man has stolen man‟s small child
Apodosis: then Ø he must be killed
2. CoH 21
Protasis: When Šumma a man broke into a house
Apodosis: then Ø they must kill and hang him because of that burglary

66
 In others, we find more than one clause in both their protases and apodoses. In such cases,

they are usually connected with the particle –ma as in (3)8 and (4), particle u as in (3) or particle u

lu as in (4)9. Sometimes they are unmarked, that is, without any particle as in (4)10.

3. CoH 206
Protasis: When Šumma a man „has struck‟ another man in a fight
and has injured him
Apodosis: then Ø that man „must solemnly swear‟, … and u … must be answerable for
the physician
4. CoH 117
Protasis: When Šumma poverty „overtook‟ a man,
and he gave his wife, or his son, or his daughter for silver,
or u lu has given them into bound-service,
Apodosis: then Ø they must work in the house of their purchaser or of their bond-master
for three years
but Ø in the fourth year their freedom must be arranged
There are some instances where the main case laws have one or more subsidiary case law(s),

as in (5)11.

5. CoH 117-119
117
Protasis: When Šumma poverty overtook a man,
and he gave his wife, or his son, or his daughter for silver,
or has given them into bound-service,
Apodosis: then Ø they must work in the house of their purchaser or of their bond-
master for three years
but in the fourth year their freedom must be arranged
118
Protasis: If Šumma he has given a male slave or a female slave into bound-service
Apodosis: then Ø the merchant may pass them on
and sell them for silver
The person cannot be reclaimed
119
Protasis: If Šumma poverty overtook a man
and has given his female girl for silver
after she has borne him sons

8
See also CoH 57, 118, 119, 207.
9
See also CoH 120, 198, 199.
10
See also 57, 118, 120.
11
Note that the subsidiary case laws are indented. See also 120-121.

67
 Apodosis: then Ø the female slave‟s owner must pay back
the silver that the merchant had loaned
and he must redeem his female slave
Others may have only sub-case laws, as in (6) 12.

6. CoH 8
Protasis: When Šumma a man stole an ox, or a sheep, or a donkey, or a pig, or a boat
Protasis: If Šumma it belongs to a god
Protasis: If Šumma it belongs to a temple
Apodosis: then Ø he must pay thirty times its value
Protasis: If Šumma that thief does not have what to give
Apodosis: then Ø he must be killed
Some others have both subsidiary case laws and sub-case laws, as in (7) 13.

7. CoH 206-208
206
Protasis: When Šumma a man has struck another man in a fight
and has injured him,
Apodosis: then Ø that man must solemnly swear,
„I did not know I struck him‟.
It is he who must be answerable for the physician.
207
Protasis: If Šumma someone has died in that fight,
Apodosis: then Ø he must similarly swear
Protasis: If Šumma it was a man‟s son,
Apodosis: then Ø he must pay half a mana of silver.
208
Protasis: If Šumma it was a working man‟s son,
Apodosis: then Ø he must pay a third of a mana of silver.
All the main case laws, subsidiary case laws and sub-case laws usually have both protases and

apodoses as in laws (8), (9) and (10) respectively with the exception of a few cases.

8. CoH 14
Protasis: When Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø
9. CoH 118
Protasis: If Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø
10. CoH 207

12
Note that the sub-case laws are indented.
13
Note that the subsidiary case laws are indented once, and the sub-case laws twice.

68
 Protasis: If Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø
There are some cases where the main cases share the same apodoses with the sub-case laws as in

(11).

11. CoH 8
Protasis: When Šumma
Protasis: If Šumma
Protasis: If Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø
Protasis: If Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø
Protasis: If Šumma
Apodosis: then Ø

3.4 Discourse

Scheil was the first to divide the code into 282 paragraphs. His division has not been

universally accepted in every detail. However, many translations have adopted Scheil‟s paragraphs

(Boecker 79). Attempts have also been made by scholars to fill the seven missing column gap by

depending on the texts of various fragmentary copies recovered in other places. These missing

columns comprise CoH 66-100 (Boecker 79).

Many scholars have agreed that the laws in CoH can be grouped according to subjects (for

instance, theft, CoH 6-13; storage and deposit, CoH 120-126; adoption, CoH 185-193). However

some laws concerning the same subject are not grouped together but are found in various parts of

the code (for instance, slaves, CoH 7, 15-20, 116, 119, 146, 170, 171, 175-176A, 199, 205, 213,

214, 217, 219, 220, 223, 226, 227, 231, 252, 278-282) (Lyon, “The Structure of the Hammurabi

Code” 248).

Lyon suggests that „Hammurabi‟s fundamental principle is the logical relation of the

individual laws to one another‟. By this, he means that several related laws form a group, several

groups a larger group, and several of these a still larger group. In the code, two most prominent

topics can be detected. They are things and persons. Hammurabi would have conceived of things as

property. The code groups the laws relating to property into three:
69
 1. Personal property
2. Real estate
3. Trade and business relations.
Three groups can also be detected under the laws relating to persons. They are:

1. The family
2. Injuries
3. Labour.
These six groups are then divided into sub-groups. The two sub-groups under the family are:

1. Man and wife

2. The children.
The sub-divisions under children are:

1. One‟s own children

2. Adopted children.
One‟s children are then considered in three aspects:

1. Children of a free father

2. Children of a slave father and a free mother
3. The free widow and minor children.
The children of a free father are considered in three groups:

1. Children by a free mother

2. Children by a slave mother
3. The free widow and adult children.
There are three divisions under the children by a free mother, and these three divisions are further

subdivided into individual laws (Lyon, “The Structure of the Hammurabi Code” 250).

Lyon goes ahead to give this structure based on the grouping above:

1. Children by free mother, CoH 165-166

1. Division of inheritance preceded setting aside
1. Father‟s special gift to a favoured son, CoH 165
2. Marriage settlement for unmarried son, CoH 166
2. Children by two successive wives, CoH 167
3. Disinheritance
1. Disallowed for slight offense, CoH 168
2. Allowed only for repeated grave offense, CoH 169
Presented in tabular form this procedure is as follows:

II. Person
i. Family
70
 2. Children
1) One‟s own children
(1) Children of a free father
a. Such children by a free mother
a) Division of the inheritance
(a) Special gift to favoured son
According to him, this method of division and subdivision according to logical relations is

obvious throughout the code. A correct analysis of the laws explains the apparent inconsistency of

the code as regards the same subject in different places. Example can be found in slaves. The slave

is mentioned in CoH 7, 15-29 as a species of personal property. In CoH 116, the slave is mentioned

as a person seized for debt. In CoH 119, the slave is mentioned as a wife sold for debt. In CoH 146,

147 the slave is mentioned as to define her relations to a votary wife. In CoH 170, 171, the slave is

mentioned as to define the status of her children by a free husband. In CoH 175-176A, the slave is

mentioned because, certain classes of slaves might marry free womEn. In CoH 199, 213, 214, the

slave is mentioned because of damages due the owner for injuring a slave. In 205, the slave is

mentioned as to prescribe the penalty on a vicious slave. In CoH 219, 220, 223, the slave is

mentioned because slaves had to be treated by doctors and surgeons. In CoH 226, 227, the slave is

mentioned because they might be marked improperly. In CoH 231, the slave is mentioned because

of their possible relation to a falling house. In CoH 252, the slave is mentioned because one might

be killed by an ox. In CoH 278-282, the slave is mentioned to define what might invalidate the sale

of a slave and to give the penalty on a slave for denying his master. It thus appears that there are no

laws relating to slavery as such, but that the slave is often introduced because of his relation to the

many subjects into which the code is logically divided (Lyon, “The Structure of the Hammurabi

Code” 250–251).

Lyon further says that the logical arrangement of the code is also apparent from the five laws

about slaves as we have it in CoH 278-282. These codes might be grouped with the laws relating to

stolen and fugitive slaves, CoH 15-20. Hammurabi must have had a definite reason for the

separation. „He placed 278-282 in the second great division, because here, he conceives of the slave

as person; in the third group of the second division, because the slave is a labourer; and last in the
71
third group, because slave labour is inferior to free labour‟ (Lyon, “The Structure of the Hammurabi

Code” 252).

Lyon argues that „the code has many illustrations of the influence of rank on the order both of

individual laws and of groups of laws‟. For instance, theft from the temple or palace (CoH 6-8)

comes before theft from individuals (CoH 9-13). In the section on injuries (CoH 196-214), we also

find several illustrations of this order, freeman, freedman and then slave. Males are treated before

females. This is obvious when we compare CoH 196-208 with CoH 209-214, or CoH 165-177

(male children) with CoH 178-184 (daughters). „The principle of rank was probably not without its

influence in placing property before person as well as in the order of the three great groups under

each of these divisions‟ (Lyon, “The Structure of the Hammurabi Code” 252–253).

The order is not determined by logical relation. For instance, under grain fields damage is

placed last (CoH 53-58). The same principle of arrangement should have placed damage last in the

section that follows date groves. Nevertheless, in this section damage actually stands first (CoH 59).

This is to be able to connect grain fields and date groves through the idea of damages. The offence

of striking a parent (CoH 195) gives an easy transition to the section on injuries (CoH 196-214),

damage to oxen (CoH 244-249) leads easily to the section on injury by oxen (CoH 250-252)

(Pfeiffer 310–314).

Generally, CoH is divided into „Introduction‟ (CoH 1-5), „The Law of Property‟ (CoH 6-126)

and „The Law of Person‟ (CoH 127-282). Based on this, Pfeiffer gives the following analysis of

CoH:

I. Introduction: The Law of Procedure (CoH 1-5)

1. False Accusation (CoH 1-2)
2. False Witness (CoH 3-4)
3. False Decision (CoH 5)
II. The Law of Property (CoH 6-126)
1. The Possession of Property (CoH 6-52)
A. Illegal Possession (CoH 6-25)
a) Unwitnessed Theft (CoH 6-20)
1) Of Things (CoH 6-13)
a. Sacred and Public (CoH 6-8)
72
 b. Private (CoH 9-13)
2) Of Persons (CoH 14-20)
a. Free (CoH 14)
b. Slave (CoH 15-20)
b) Witnessed Theft (CoH 21-25)
1) Violent (CoH 21-24)
2) Clandestine (CoH 25)
B. Legal Possession (CoH 26-52)
a) Benefice of Public Lands (CoH 26-41)
1) Conditional Possession (CoH 26-31)
2) Inalienable Possession (CoH 32-41)
b) Use of Private Lands (CoH 42-52)
1) Rented Farm (CoH 42-47)
2) Mortgaged Farm (CoH 48-52)
2. Ownership of Property (CoH 53-65ff.) Right of the Owner:
1) Protection against Damage Caused by: (CoH 53-59)
a. Water (CoH 53-56)
b. Cattle (CoH 57-58)
c. Man (CoH 59)
2) Lease of Land (CoH 60-65)
3. Acquisition of Property (CoH 100-126) Forms of Commerce:
1) Partnership in Trade (CoH 100-107)
2) Wine Traffic (CoH 108-111)
3) Transportation of Goods (CoH 112)
4) Debt (Banking) (CoH 113-119)
5) Storage of Grain (CoH 120-121)
6) Deposit of Valuables (CoH 122-126)
III. The Law of Persons (CoH 127-282)
1. The Family (CoH 127-193)
A. Marriage (CoH 127-161)
Slander of Wife (CoH 127)
a) The Marriage Contract (CoH 128)
b) Dissolution of Marriage (CoH 129-143)
1) Adultery of Wife (CoH 129-132)
2) Absence of Husband (CoH 133-136)
3) Divorce (CoH 137-143)
a. By Husband (CoH 137-140)
b. By Wife (CoH 141-143)
c) Domestic Restriction (CoH 144-152)

73
 1) Personal (CoH 144-149)
a. Restriction of Right to Take Concubine (CoH 144-145)
b. Restriction of Right to Sell Slave Wife (CoH 146-147)
c. Restriction of Rights over Diseased Wife (CoH 148-149)
2) Pecuniary (CoH 150-152)
a. Restriction of Rights of Heir (CoH 150)
b. Restriction of Seizure for Debt (CoH 151-152)
d) Crimes Relating to Marriage (CoH 153-158)
1) Connivance of Wife with Murderer (CoH 153)
2) Incest (CoH 154-158)
e) Breach of Promise (CoH 159-161)
B. Inheritance (CoH 162-184)
a) The Estate of the Wife (CoH 162-164) Heir:
1) Children (CoH 162)
2) Father‟s House (163-164)
b) The Estate of the Husband (CoH 165-184) Heir:
1) Grown-up Sons (CoH 165-176)
a. Father Free (CoH 165-171)
Mother Free (CoH 165-169)
Mother Slave (CoH 170-171b)
b. Wife (CoH 171c-174)
c. Father Slave (Mother Free) (CoH 175-176)
2) Minor Children (CoH 177)
3) Daughters (CoH 178-184)
C. Adoption (CoH 185-193)
a) When Can the Adopted Child Be Reclaimed? (CoH 185-190)
1) Not Reclaimable (CoH 185-188)
2) Reclaimable (CoH 189-190)
b) Inheritance by Adopted Son (CoH 191)
c) Ingratitude of Adopted son (CoH 192-193)
2. Liability (CoH 194-282)
A. Liability Arising from Tort (CoH 194-277)
Change of Infant by Nurse (CoH 194)
a) Bodily Injury or Death (CoH 195-223)
1) Caused by Assault (CoH 195-214)
a. Males (CoH 195-208)
Malicious Injury (CoH 195; 196-199; 200-205)
Unintentional Injury (CoH 206; 207-208)
b. Females with Young (CoH 209-210; 211-212; 213-214)

74
 2) Caused by Malpractice (CoH 215-223)
a. Of Surgeon (CoH 215-217; 218-220)
b. Of Physician (CoH 221-223)
b) Pecuniary Loss (CoH 224-227) Malpractice of :
a. Veterinary Doctor (CoH 224-225)
b. Brander of Slaves (CoH 226-227)
B. Liability Arising from Contract (CoH 228-282)
a) Hire of Labour (CoH 228-277)
1) Contract for Job (CoH 228-267)
a. House-building (CoH 228-233)
b. Boat-building (CoH 234-235)
c. Navigation (CoH 236-240)
d. Agriculture (CoH 241-260)
Ox (CoH 241-252)
Overseer (CoH 253-256)
Farm Labourer (CoH 257-258)
Theft (CoH 259-260)
e. Shepherding (CoH 261-267)
2) Contract by the Day (CoH 268-277)
a. Animals (CoH 268-270); Teams (CoH 271-2720
b. Labourer (CoH 273); Artisan (CoH 274-275)
c. Boats (CoH 276-277)
b) Purchase of Labour (Slaves) (CoH 278-282)
a. Contract Null (CoH 278; 279; 280-281) (Pfeiffer 310–314)
In CoH, three social classes are distinguished. They are awῑlum, muškênum and wardum-

amtum. The awῑlum is the highest class, comprising house-holders, property owners, the wealthy,

upper class and nearly all the freeborn citizens (Harper xii). The muškênum is the next in rank. The

term „muškênum‟ means „ pauper‟, „poor man‟, „serf‟, „retainer‟, and the like (Harper xii). This does

not necessarily mean that the people that belong to this class are poor, for they could also possess

properties and slaves (Urch 438). They are free. They hold a position halfway between the awῑlum

and the wardum-amtum. They are also referred to as commoners or working men. The wardum-

amtum is the lowest class, comprising majorly male and female slaves. They could be sold or

pledged as securities (Urch 438).

75
 In CoH, I will consider the following themes: Slavery (CoH 117-119), Striking a Parent (CoH

195), Kidnapping (CoH 14), Bodily Injury (CoH 206-208), Miscarriage (CoH 209-210), Eye for

Eye (CoH196-200), Goring Ox (CoH 250-252), Theft (CoH 8, 21), Cattle Grazing (CoH 57) and

Storage and Deposit (CoH 120-121). In these themes, the three classes are not treated in the same

way. The awῑlum is classified higher than the others are. The muškênum is always liable to smaller

compensation for injuries inflicted and subject to less severe penalties for the more serious criminal

offenses (CoH 202-208) (Urch 438). The wardum-amtum sometimes is considered a property (CoH

116-117). However, at other times he is considered a person (CoH 250-252).

3.5 Grammar

Linguistic is a subdivision of exegesis. It is defined as „the scientific study of human

language‟ (Fromkin 3), focusing on the nature of language and communication (Akmajian 5). It is

concerned with the arrangement of terms or concepts that form the propositional statements in a

language (Osborne 41). Grammar, semantics and syntax are the three basic aspects in linguistic

study. Grammar is concerned with analysing the relationships between individual terms or concepts

in the text in order to better understand its meaning (Osborne 47). Semantics has to do with looking

at the meaning of individual words, as each functions in the sentence (Osborne 41). Syntax is

concerned with the study of the structure of sentences and phrases (Akmajian 6). Hammurabi

compiled his laws in OA, which is the language of the Babylonians. For a better understanding of

the contents of CoH, it is very necessary to engage in grammatical study of the text in relation to the

genre of casuistic law. I focus my grammatical study on the syntax of CoH, and on how verbal

forms in the text are distributed and function in the casuistic laws.

3.5.1 Syntax: Word Order in CoH

The term „syntax‟, according to Matthews, is derived from the ancient Greek syntaxis, „a

verbal noun literally means “arrangement” or “setting out together”‟. It refers to the branch of

grammar that deals with the ways in which words, with or without appropriate inflections, are

76
arranged to show connections of meaning within a sentence (Matthews 1). It is one of the processes

involved in grammatical analysis. Fromkin defines syntax as part of our linguistic knowledge that

tells us what constitutes a well-informed string of words, and how to put words together to form

phrases, clauses and sentences (Fromkin 8). It specifies how words may be combined with one

another to produce grammatical, well-informed sentences (Fromkin 90). Andrew Carnie defines it

as „the level of linguistic organization that mediates between sounds and meaning, where words are

organized into phrases and sentences‟ (Carnie 20).

Word order is an aspect of syntax. Gianto defines it as the relative order among the functional

constituents of a sentence, that is, subject, verb and object (S, V, O) (Gianto 1). In OA, the

commonest order of constituents especially in prose text is: Subject-Direct Object-Adjunct-Verb.

„Adjuncts‟ are adverbs and preposition phrases (including indirect objects) (Huehnergard, A

Grammar of Akkadian 19).

3.5.1.1 Analysis

In the twenty-nine laws considered, there are ninety-four clauses. Of the ninety-four clauses,

there are twenty-five clauses with explicit subjects, objects and finite verbs. In my analysis, I will

work with these twenty-five clauses with explicit subjects, objects and finite verbs. As such, we

have the following data as regards word order:

SOV = 22 (88%)
OSV = 3 (12%)
The data includes all types of clauses, but I focus on conditional clauses and apodictic clauses.

From the data above, it is appropriate to say that the laws exhibit SOV order in terms of frequency.

3.5.1.1.1 Conditional clauses

The data of conditional clauses in the laws is as follows:

SOV = 15 (88%)
OSV = 2 (12%)

77
Seventeen clauses are conditional. In terms of frequency, this data shows that fifteen (88%) of the

clauses exhibit SOV order, and the remaining two (12%) OSV order. This proves that the

conditional clauses in CoH exhibit SOV order as stated below:

Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq

When a man has stolen man‟s small child. (CoH 14)

Šumma awῑlum awῑlam ina risbātim imtaḫaṣma

When a man has struck another man in a fight. (CoH 206)

In few occasions where the conditional clauses exhibit OSV, there is emphasis on information or

contrast of information, as stated below.

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma

When poverty overtook a man. (CoH 117)

3.5.1.1.2 Apodictic Clauses

The data of apodictic clauses in the laws is as follows:

SOV = 7
OSV = 1
Eight clauses are apodictic. In terms of frequency, this data demonstrates that seven (87%) of the

clauses exhibit SOV order, and the remaining one (13%) OSV order. Therefore, the apodictic

clauses in CoH also exhibit SOV Order, as stated below.

bēl eqlim eqelšu iṣṣid

the owner of the field must harvest his field. (CoH 57)

bēl še’im maḫar ilim še’ašu ubârma

the owner of the grain must clarify his grain before gods. (CoH 120)

Moreover, where there is OSV order, it is for the reason of emphasis or contrast as stated below.

kasap tamkārum išqulu bēl amtim išaqqalma

the owner of the female slave must pay the silver …. (CoH 119)

78
3.5.2 Akkadian Verbal System in CoH

The verbal system of Akkadian is believed to be complex (Deutscher 31). This is noticeable

in CoH. According to Cohen, there is inconsistency in the functions of Akkadian verbal forms as

demonstrated in CoH. He asserts that CoH presents several problems that have not, to this day, been

overcome (Cohen, Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian 26). Here, I delve into

an attempt to solve some of these problems by standing on the shoulders of some Akkadian scholars

who have previously worked on defining the functions of Akkadian verbal forms in CoH. My focus

is to describe the functions of the main verbal forms that appear in CoH. The descriptions will be

limited to the three finite verbal forms: iprus, iptaras and iparras.

3.5.2.1 Analysis

I limit my analysis to twenty-nine laws14 in CoH. I have identified the verbal forms in these

laws to describe their functions. There appear eighty-seven verbal forms: eighty-one finite and six

infinite in these laws. However, I restrict the study to main clause verbs. In these laws, there appear

three finite verbal forms: iptaras, iprus and iparras. These verbal forms appear in the protases and

apodoses of conditional sentences in CoH, and each of them functions differently in the laws. The

statistical data of the verbal forms in CoH are represented in the table below.

Verbal Form Frequency Percentage (%)

iptaras, „he has decided‟ 23 28
iprus, „he decided‟ 21 26
iparras, „he will decide‟ 37 46
Total 81 100

3.5.2.1.1 Iptaras

Iptaras (traditionally called perfect or T-perfect (Deutscher 31)) has a typical value of past,

but with a specific nuance in meaning. The nuance is believed to be actuality. Through iptaras, the

14
I consider the laws which are closely paralleled to the casuistic laws in BC, and they are CoH 8, 14, 21, 57-58, 117-119,

120-126, 195, 196-200, 206-208, 209-214 and 250-252.

79
speaker represents the past event as though it is still actual to the moment of speech (Kouwenberg

140). It is best rendered as „someone has done something‟, „something has happened‟ or „something

has been done‟ (Goetze 312, 321). It appears only in the protases of conditional sentences, and is

identified as perfective aspect (Kouwenberg 94-95). It is most often used to express the conditional

events in the protases. It occupies the „foreground‟ or main line of the protases of the legal text. Any

verbal form, which occupies the „foreground‟ of the text usually, pushes the story or conversation

forward. In addition, any verbal form, which occupies the „background‟, provides some kind of

background information, which is critical to understanding the main story line (Witt 26). Of the

twenty-three occurrences, fourteen appear without the particle –ma, „and‟, seven appear in a chain

of iprus-ma … iptaras and two appear in iptaras-ma ..: iptaras chain.

When iptaras appears without the particle –ma, this indicates that the event is completed at

the moment referred to in the apodosis of conditional sentences (Cohen 127). This demonstrates

that it expresses anteriority to the event described in the apodosis. It serves as a point of reference

for the apodictic clause (Loesov 89, 90). It also serves to indicate the current relevance of a past

event. When we talk about the current relevance, we mean „a present state resulting from a past

action‟ (Loesov 85).15 This indicates that iptaras in the protases of CoH is „present perfect‟, which

contains the punishable acts. Examples are stated below.

Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq, iddâk.

When a man has stolen [iptaras] man‟s small child, he must be killed [iparras]. (CoH 14)

Šumma mārum abasu imtaḫaṣ, rittašu inakkisū

When a son has struck [iptaras] his father, they must cut off [iparras] his hand. (CoH 195)

When iptaras appears in a chain of iptaras-ma … iptaras, as stated below, it serves the same

role as when it appears without the particle –ma as described above. In addition, there is a logical

15
See also B. Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of the Verbal Aspect and Related Problem. Cambridge, 1976,

p.56ff., 60f.

80
relationship between the two clauses, which contain iptaras, where the first clause is logically

subordinate to the second.

Šumma awῑlum awῑlam ina risbātim imtaḫaṣma simmam ištakanšu, awῑlum šû ‘ina idû la amḫaṣu’

itamma u asâm ippal.

When a man has struck [iptaras + ma] another man in a fight and has injured him [iptaras], that

man must solemnly swear [iparras], „I did not know [iprus] that I struck him.‟ He must be

answerable for the physician [iparras]. (CoH 206)

However, when iptaras appears in a chain of iprus-ma … iptaras, as stated below, iprus

usually forms the background for the more salient event, which occurs as iptaras. Iptaras thus

represents the events that are legally the most relevant (Cohen 127).16 So, iptaras indicates the

critical event, the event upon which the judgment in the apodosis is based (Huehnergard 157).

Šumma awῑlum mārat awῑlim imḫaṣma ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 10 šiqil kaspam ana ša libbiša išaqqal

When a man struck [iprus+ ma] the daughter of a man and has made [iptaras] her lose her unborn

child, he must pay [iparras] ten shekels of silver for the foetus. (CoH 209)

Šumma alpu, sūqam ina alākišu awῑlam ikkipma uštamῑt dῑnum šû rugummâm ul išu.

When an ox gored [iprus+ ma] a man while walking along the street and has caused his death

[iptaras], there must be no cause for complaint [verbless]. (CoH 250)

3.5.2.1.2 Iprus

Iprus (traditionally called preterite (Deutscher 31)) is thought to have a typical value of past.

It refers to an action as a past fact, and is usually expressed as „somebody did something‟ (Goetze

312). It is therefore usually translated with a simple past tense (Huehnergard 19). Iprus appears in

the protases and apodoses of conditional sentences, and it is identified as having perfective aspect.

Of the twenty-one occurrences, seventeen appear in the protases of conditional sentences and four

in the apodoses of conditional sentences. In the protases, seven appear without any particle, nine

16
See also Mahoney, 1982: 177f. and Loesov, The T-Perfect in the Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters, 2004:150-155)

81
appear with the particle –ma and one appears with the subjunctive marker –u (indicating

subordinate clause). The four that appear in the apodoses are with the subjunctive marker –u. When

iprus appears without any particle in the protasis, as stated below, it is used in the same sense as

iptaras. It indicates the foregrounded event, the event upon which the judgement in the apodosis is

based (Huehnergard 157).

Šumma awῑlum bῑtam ipluš, ina pani pilšim šuāti idukkūšuma iḫallalūšu.

When a man broke [iprus] into a house, they must kill [iparras] and hang [iparras] him because of

that burglary. (CoH 21)

Šumma awῑlum ina bῑt awῑlim se’am išpuk, ina šanat ana I kur še’im 5 qa še’am idῑ našpakim inaddin.

When a man stored [iprus] his grain in another man‟s storehouse he must give [iparras] five qa-

measures of grain for each kur of grain as the storage charge for one year. (CoH 121)

When it appears with the particle –ma, as stated below, it expresses those facts which serve as

„background‟ leading up to the most important fact or facts that the lawmaker wishes to provide a

legal remedy for in the apodosis (Maloney 277-280). So in this case, it depicts background activities

as opposed to iptaras forms (Cohen 7). It denotes a situation that is anterior to the situation

expressed by a verb in iptaras form (See Loesov 2004).

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma amassu ša mārῑ uldušum ana kaspim ittadin, kasap tamkārum

išqulu bēl amtim išaqqalma amassu ipaṭṭar.

If poverty overtook [iprus + ma] a man and has given his female slave for silver after she has borne

him sons, the female slave owner may pay back [iparras] the silver that the merchant loaned [iprus]

and must redeem [iparras] his female slave. (CoH 119)

Šumma awῑlum mārat awῑlim imḫaṣma ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 10 šiqil kaspam ana ša libbiša išaqqal

When a man struck [iprus + ma] the daughter of a man and has made [iptaras] her lose her unborn

child, he must pay [iparras] ten shekels of silver for the unborn child. (CoH 209)

When it appears with the subordination marker –u in the protases and the apodoses, as stated below,

it serves as a referential event to an event previously mentioned in the protasis (Cohen, 2012:133).

82
 Šumma awῑlum se’ašu, ana našpakūtim ina bῑt awῑlum išpukma ina qarῑtim ibbûm ittabši u lu bēl bῑtim

našpakam iptēma še’am ilqe, u lu še’am ša ina bῑtišu iššapku ana gamrim ittakir, bēl še’im maḫar ilim

še’ašu ubârma bēl bῑtim se’am ša ilqû uštašannāma ana bēl še’im inaddin

When a man stored [iprus] his grain into storage in another man‟s storehouse and there has been some

loss [iptaras] in the granary, or the owner opened [iprus] storage and took [iprus] the grain, or he has

completely disagreed [iptaras] about the grain which was stored [iprus = u] in his house, the owner

of the house must clarify [iparras] in the presence of the god the amount of grain which he took and

he must make double [iparras] and give the owner of the grain. (CoH 120)

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma amassu ša mārῑ uldušum ana kaspim ittadin, kasap tamkārum

išqulu bēl amtim išaqqalma amassu ipaṭṭar.

if poverty overtook a man [iprus+ma] and has given [iptaras] his female slave for silver after she has

borne him sons, the female slave owner may pay [iparras] back the silver the merchant loaned [iprus

= u] and he must redeem [iparras] his female slave. (CoH 119)

3.5.2.1.3 Iparras

Iparras (traditionally called present-future or durative (Huehnergard 98)) has a typical value

of future. But, it can also be used for present, durative and habitual actions as well as a range of

modal meanings such as „may‟, „can‟, „should‟ or „must‟ (Deutscher 31). It is always posterior to a

given reference point (which is the time of the law formulation) and since the future is close to

modality, it can denote the latter in the legal apodosis (Cohen 127). It appears only in the apodoses

of conditional sentences, and it is identified as having imperfective aspect. It appears to signal

foreground in the apodoses. Of the thirty-seven occurrences, three appear without the particle –ma

and four appear with the particle –ma. When it appears without the particle –ma, as stated below, it

serves to indicate anticipated information which depends on the validity of the protasis.

Šumma ῑn muškēnim uḫtappid u lu eṣemti muškēnim ištebir, 1 mana kaspam išaqqal.

if he has destroyed [iptaras] the sight of a working man or broken a bone of a working man, he must

pay [iparras] one mana of silver. (CoH 198)

Šumma ῑn warad awῑlim uḫtappid u lu eṣemti warad awῑlim ištebir, mišil šῑmišu išaqqal.
83
 if he has destroyed [iptaras] the sight of another man‟s slave or broken a bone of another man‟s slave,

he must pay [iparras] half his value in silver. (CoH 199)

When there is a chain of iparras-ma … iparras, as stated below, the first clause which has iparras-

ma is logically related to the second clause with iparras (Huehnergard 50).

Šumma awῑlum awῑlam ina risbātim imtaḫaṣma simmam ištakanšu, awῑlum šû ‘ina idû la amḫaṣu’

itamma u asâm ippal.

„When a man has struck [iptaras] another man in a fight and has injured him, that man must solemnly

swear [iparras + ma], „I did not know that I struck him‟ and then he must be answerable [iparras]

for the physician. (CoH 206)

Šumma ina maḫāṣišu imtūt, itammāma: šumma mār awῑlim 1/2 mana kaspam išaqqal.

if someone has died [iptaras] in that fight, he must similarly swear [iparras + ma], and if it was a

man‟s son, he must pay [iparras] half a mana of silver. (CoH 207)

In summary, the verbal forms: iptaras, iprus and iparras of CoH express various events in the

protases and apodoses of conditional sentences. Each plays different roles in CoH. Iptaras appears

as a perfective aspect. It functions to express the critical and foregrounded conditional events in the

protases. Iprus also appears as a perfective aspect. It is sometimes used in the same sense as iptaras.

In addition, it is used to express background events in a chain of iprus-ma … iptaras. It is also used

to express referential events when it appears with the subordination marker –u. Iparras appears as

an imperfective aspect. It serves to express the anticipatory consequences and signals foreground in

the apodoses. The roles of these verbal forms are summarized in the table below:

Category Verbal Form

Iptaras – Primary foreground situation
Protasis: Conditional Events Iprus – Secondary foreground situation, past
background situation and referential
situation
Iparras – Primary foreground situation
Apodosis: Anticipatory Consequences
Iprus – Referential situation

84
3.6 Themes

Generally, theme has to do with what a text is about. Kompaoré refers to it as the „aboutness‟

of a text (Kompaoré 42). In Ancient Near Eastern law codes, one or more laws could focus on a

theme, which always focuses on one or more activities expressed by verbs. Thematic studies of

these codes have demonstrated that the themes in different law codes share some resemblances in

content and form. Nevertheless, we still find some differences in them. Here, I consider ten themes,

which are closely paralleled in both CoH and BC. These themes are Slavery, Striking a Parent,

Kidnapping, Bodily Injury, Miscarriage, Eye for Eye, Goring Ox, Theft, Cattle Grazing and Storage

and Deposit. I treat the themes „Miscarriage and „Eye for Eye‟ together. Each theme contains at

least one topic. Sometimes, it contains two or more topics. At other times, some of these topics are

slightly different from one another.

3.6.1 Slavery: CoH 117-119

CoH 117-119 contains one main and two subsidiary case laws. These laws are about the

theme „The conditions for release of slaves‟. While the main case law describes the main condition

of the law, the other two laws state the subsidiary conditions. Each law has a protasis and an

apodosis. The main case law focuses on the condition for releasing people that belong to awῑlum-

class. The subsidiary case laws present variations to the main case law, and they focus on the

condition for releasing wardum, „a male slave‟.

The laws mention seven participants: the man, his wife, his son, his daughter, the master, the

male slave and the female slave. The participant rank17 is as follows:

 The man who is gripped with poverty is the primary and central participant.
 The master is the secondary participant.
 Others serve only peripheral roles.

17
Participant rank has to do with ranking the participants that are referred to in the laws according to the number of

references. For instance, the central participant has a much higher incidence of reference than do secondary participants, or minor

participants (see Anne E. Kompaoré, Discourse Analysis of Directive Texts: The Case of Biblical Law, p.94.

85
3.6.1.1 Text

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma aššassu mārašu u mārrassu ana kaspim iddin u lu ana kiššātim

ittandin, šalaš šanātim bῑt šāyyimānišunu u kāšišišunu ippešū ina rebûtim šattim andurāršunu

iššakkan.

When poverty overtook a man, and he gave his wife, or his son, or his daughter for silver, or has given

them into bound-service, they must work in the house of their purchaser or of their bond-master for

three years but in the fourth year their freedom must be arranged. (CoH 117)

Šumma wardam u lu amtam ana kiššātim ittandin tamkārum ušetteq, ana kaspim inaddin ul ibbaqqar.

If he has given a male slave or a female slave into bound-service, the merchant may pass them on and

sell them for silver. The person cannot be reclaimed. (CoH 118)

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma amassu ša mārῑ uldušum ana kaspim ittadin, kasap tamkārum

išqulu bēl amtim išaqqalma amassu ipaṭṭar.

If poverty overtook a man and has given his female slave for silver after she has borne him sons, the

female slave‟s owner must pay back the silver that the merchant had loaned and he must redeem his

female slave. (CoH 119)

3.6.1.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis describes three conditional events. The first two conditional events are

logically connected by the particle –ma, and they serve as background to the third conditional

event, which expresses the main condition in which the apodosis is based. The word order of

the first conditional event exhibits OSV. This demonstrates that emphasis is placed on the

object, awῑlam, „a man‟. So the first conditional event states that e’iltum, „poverty‟ iṣbassuma,

„overtook‟ awῑlam, „a man‟. The verb iṣbassuma has a connotation of „a financial obligation

forcing a man to dispose of his assets‟ (Richardson 277). By implication, the man is a debtor

that could not raise the money to settle his creditor. So he has to sell his wife, son or daughter

ana kaspim, „for silver‟. Thus, his wife, son or daughter is considered his property. The two

verbs, iṣbassuma, „overtook‟ and iddin, „sold‟ are in iprus form, and this indicates that the

86
 next verb ittandin „has sold‟ in iptaras form expresses the main condition. The main condition

states that the man ittandin „has sold‟ one of his family members ana kiššātu, „for pledge‟ or

„into bond-service‟. This suggests, according to Driver, that the man has either made a sale of

his wife, son or daughter for silver to the merchant or delivered these persons to the creditor

for silver, and in either case, he retains a right of redemption (Driver and Miles 217).

MA: The obligatory consequences are that these persons must serve the master for three years and

in the fourth year, they must be released. The implication of this is that these persons ippešū

„must work‟ or „contribute to the formation of a household‟ (Richardson 172). After three

years‟ of service, their release is granted to them. It is obvious then from the law that these

persons can never be sold to anyone else.

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the main condition. However, it presents

the same conditional event, but the object of the selling now changes to wardum, „a male

slave‟ or amtum, „a female slave‟. Nevertheless, as for a slave, the man does not retain a right

of redemption.

SA1: The obligatory consequence is that the master may sell wardum or amtum to anyone else to

the extent that he or she can never be reclaimed again. This implies permanent slavery, that is,

wardum or amtum would continue to be slave forever.

SP2: Here, another variation to the case is presented. The object of the selling now shifts to amtum,

a female slave‟ ša mārῑ uldušum, „who has borne a child‟. This demonstrates that amtum has

previously borne the man a son. Therefore, she has become his concubine. Thus, he retains a

right of redemption for her.

SA2: The obligatory consequence here is the same as that of the main apodosis. The man may

redeem the female slave who has borne him a child.

3.6.1.3 Structure

If the man=a, his wife=b, his son=c, his daughter=d, the master=e, the slave=f, and the female

slave=g,

87
 Protasis: When Šumma poverty overtook a
117
iprus (preterite)
and a gave b or c or d for silver iprus (preterite)
and a has given them into bound-service iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: they must work in e‟s house for three years iparras (present-future)
but in the fourth year their liberation must be
arranged iparras (present-future)
Protasis: When Šumma a has given f or g into bound-service
118
iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: e may pass them on iparras (present-future)
and sell them for silver iparras (present-future)
The person must not be reclaimed iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
119
poverty overtook a iprus (preterite)
and has sold g for silver iptaras (preterite)
after g has given birth to a‟s sons pārisum (participle)
Apodosis: a may pay back the silver iparras (present-future)
e paid for g iprus (preterite)
and he must redeem g iparras (present-future)

3.6.2 Striking a Parent: CoH 195

The aboutness of the law in CoH 195 is the consequence of striking one‟s father. The law

consists of one main condition, with a protasis and an apodosis.

There are three participants in the law: the son who strikes his father, the father and the executioner

who is unnamed. The participant rank is as follows:

 The son is the primary and central participant.

 The father is the secondary participant.
 The executioner serves only peripheral role.

3.6.2.1 Text

Šumma mārum abasu imtaḫaṣ, rittašu inakkisū

When a son has struck his father, they must cut off his hand. (CoH 195)

3.6.2.2 Analysis

MP: The conditional event states that when mārum, „a son‟ imtaḫaṣ, „has struck‟ abasu, „his

father‟. The verb imtaḫaṣ in iptaras form denotes that the father and the son have engaged in

a fight, and the son has beaten his father and treated him violently (Black 190).

88
MA: The obligatory consequence of the offense of striking one‟s father is the cutting-off of the

offender‟s hand. The verb inakkisū „must cut down‟ in iparras form connotes „to severe a part

of a body‟ (Richardson 244). This indicates that only one of the hands is to be cut off.

3.6.2.3 Structure

If the son=x, father=y and executioner=z, then we have the structure:

Protasis: When Šumma x has struck y

195
iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: z must cut off x‟s hand iparras (present-future)

3.6.3 Kidnapping: CoH 14

CoH 14 is a case law, prohibiting the act of kidnapping a child. It has a protasis, leading up to

an apodosis. There are three participants in the law: a kidnapper, a child and an executioner. The

participant rank is as follows:

 The kidnapper is the primary and central participant.

 The child is the secondary participant.
 The executioner serves only peripheral role.

3.6.3.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq, iddâk.

When a man has stolen man‟s small child, he must be killed. (CoH 14)

3.6.3.2 Analysis

MP: The conditional event states that awῑlum, „a man of the highest social class‟ ištariq, „has

stolen‟ mār awῑlim ṣeḫram, „the free man‟s small child‟. The only verb ištariq „he has stolen‟

in the protasis is in iptaras form, and signifies that stealing of mār awῑlim ṣeḫram is a form of

theft and the act is a capital offense.

MA: The obligatory consequence is that awῑlum, „a free man‟ must be killed. The verb iddâk „he

must be put to death‟, which is in iparras form (present), is used to describe the punishment.

3.6.3.3 Structure

If a man=x, son of another man=y and executioner=z

89
 Protasis: šumma „when‟ x has stolen y iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: z must put x to death iparras (present-future)

3.6.4 Bodily Injury: CoH 206-208

The laws in CoH 206-208 are about the consequences of inflicting bodily injury or killing a

person when fighting. These laws comprise one main case law, one subsidiary case law and two

sub-case laws. Each law has a protasis and an apodosis. There are four participants in the law: the

striker, the injured person, a man‟s son and a working person‟s son. Here the striker is the primary

and central participant, the injured person is the secondary participant and the man‟s son and the

working person‟s serve only peripheral role.

3.6.4.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum awῑlam ina risbātim imtaḫaṣma simmam ištakanšu, awῑlum šû ‘ina idû la amḫaṣu’

itamma u asâm ippal.

When a man has struck another man in a fight and has injured him, that man must solemnly swear, “I

did not know I struck him”. He must be answerable for the physician. (CoH 206)

Šumma ina maḫāṣišu imtūt, itammāma: šumma mār awῑlim 1/2 mana kaspam išaqqal.

if someone has died in that fight, he must similarly swear; and if it was a man‟s son, he must pay half a

mana of silver. (CoH 207)

Šumma mār muškēnim, 1/3 mana kaspam išaqqal.

if it was a working man‟s son, he must pay a third of a mana of silver. (CoH 208)

3.6.4.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis mentions a sequence of two conditional events, which are logically

connected by a particle –ma. The first conditional event states that awῑlum, „a man‟

imtaḫaṣma, „has struck‟ awῑlam, „another man‟ ina risbātim, „in a fight‟. The use of ina

risbātim suggests that the fight does not involve a couple of men, rather a number of persons

are engaged in the fight (Driver and John C. 249). The second conditional mentions that one-

man ištakanšu, „has injured‟ the other man. The two verbs imtaḫaṣma and ištakanšu being in
90
 iptaras form represent simple chronologically subsequent events. Since, many people are

involved in the fight, the injury is considered unintentional, and both men are to be blamed

(Driver and Miles 412).

MA: The obligatory consequence is that the striker must pay for the victim‟s medical treatment,

after he might have sworn that he did not wound the victim intentionally.

SP: The subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the main case. It states another condition: if the

injured person has died. The verb imtūt in iptaras form continues the two conditional events

described in the main protasis. Therefore, we have the situation „a man has struck another

man‟, so that he has injured him and he has died.

SA: The obligatory consequence is the same as we have in the main apodosis. The striker must

similarly swear that he did not wound the victim intentionally.

SPC1: The conditional event in the first sub-case protasis continues and refers to the events in the

main protasis and states: if it was mār awῑlim, „a man‟s son‟.

SAC1: The obligatory consequence is that the striker must pay a mana of silver.

SPC2: The conditional event in the second sub-case protasis also continues and refers to the events

in the main protasis and states: if it was mār muškēnim, „a working man‟s son‟.

SAC2: The obligatory consequence is that the striker must pay a third of a mana of silver. This

demonstrates that mār muškēnim is rated at two-thirds of the sum at which mār awῑlim is

rated.

3.6.4.3 Structure

If the striker=x, the injured person=y, the man‟s son=z and the working man‟s son=w
206
Protasis: When Šumma x has struck the cheek of y iptaras (perfect)
and has inflicted injury on y iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: x shall swear iparras (present-future)
„I did not know pārāsum (infinitive)
I struck‟ iprus (preterite)
207
Protasis: If Šumma y has died iptaras (perfect)
while fighting pārāsum (infinitive)

91
 Apodosis: x must similarly swear iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma it was a x
Apodosis: he must pay half a mana of silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
208
he was w
Apodosis: he shall pay a third of a mana of silver. iparras (present-future)

3.6.5 Miscarriage and Eye for Eye: CoH 209-214; 196-201

The themes „miscarriage‟ and „eye for eye‟ are not treated together in CoH. Unlike in BC

where the theme „eye for eye‟ serves as the penalty for the person who causes harm to a pregnant

woman, it is treated separately in CoH, and CoH has a separate penalty for miscarriage. We find

laws on miscarriage in CoH 209-214 and eye for eye in CoH 196-201. While CoH 209-214 consists

of three main case laws and three subsidiary case laws, CoH 196-200 contains three main case laws

and three subsidiary case laws. Each law contains a protasis and an apodosis. In the laws concerning

miscarriage, there are five participants: the striker, the daughter of another man, his (the striker‟s)

daughter, the working person‟s daughter and the female slave. The participant rank is as follows:

 The striker is the primary and central participant.

 The daughter of another man, the working citizen‟s daughter and the female slave are the secondary
participants.
 His (the striker‟s) daughter serves only peripheral role.

3.6.5.1 First Unit: CoH 209-214

3.6.5.1.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum mārat awῑlim imḫaṣma ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 10 šiqil kaspam ana ša libbiša išaqqal

When a man struck the daughter of a man and has made her lose her unborn child, he must pay ten

shekels of silver for the unborn child. (CoH 209)

Šumma sinništum šî imtūt, mārassu idukkū.

If that woman has died, they must kill his daughter. (CoH 210)

Šumma mārat muškēnim ina maḫāṣim ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 5 šiqil kaspam išaqqal

If he has made a working‟s daughter lose her unborn child by the violence, he must pay five shekels of

silver. (CoH 211)

Šumma sinništum šî imtūt ½ mana kaspam išaqqal

92
 If that woman has died, he must pay half a mana of silver. (CoH 212)

Šumma amat awῑlim imḫaṣma ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 2 šiqil kaspam išaqqal

If he struck a man‟s female slave and made her lose her unborn child, he must pay two shekels of

silver. (CoH 213)

Šumma amtum šî imtūt 1/3 mana kaspam išaqqal

If that female slave has died, he must pay a third of a mana of silver. (CoH 214)

3.6.5.1.2 Analysis

MP1: The first main protasis contains two logical conditional events, connected by a particle -ma.

The first conditional event, which serves as background event to the second conditional event,

states that a man imḫaṣma, „struck‟ mārat awῑlim, „a daughter of another man‟. The second

conditional event, which is the main event, emphasizes that the striking caused mārat awῑlim

to lose ša libbiša „her unborn child‟. This suggests that mārat awῑlim is married and may have

children.

MA1: The obligatory consequence is that he must pay ten shekels of silver for the loss of the unborn

child.

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the main case, and states that sinništum šî

„that woman‟ imtūt, „has died‟. Sinništum, „woman‟ is a purely general term for a female as

opposed to a male and it is used to refer to a wife in some ancient documents (Driver and

Miles 414). Here it is applied to mārat awῑlim mentioned in the main protasis. The verb imtūt

is in iptaras, thus it continues the second conditional event in the first main protasis that

mentions the loss of the unborn child.

SA1: The obligatory consequence is that mārassu, „his daughter‟ must be killed. This suggests that

the principle of talion is applied here. Talion is defined as requiring „a life for a life, an eye

for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, burning for burning, wound

for wound, strife for strife‟ (Driver and Miles 207–208). Thus, his daughter, not his wife

would be killed.

93
MP2: In the second main protasis, the attention is now shifted to the working person‟s daughter.

The conditional event states that he has made mārat muškēnim, „a daughter of working man‟

to lose her unborn child.

MA2: The obligatory consequence for causing a working person‟s daughter to lose her unborn child

is that the man must pay five shekels of silver. If this amount is compared to what is to be

paid in the first main apodosis, this suggests that mārat muškēnim is worth only half the value

of mārat awῑlim.

SP2: This protasis presents a variation to the second main protasis. The conditional event in this

protasis is the same as the one described in the first subsidiary protasis.

SA2: The obligatory consequence is that the man must pay half a mana of silver. The consequence

here is that the man must pay half a mana of silver, which is equal to thirty shekels. This

punishment is very different from the case of mārat awῑlim where the principle of talion is to

be observed.

MP3: In the third main protasis, the attention again shifted to amat awῑlim „a female slave of

another man‟. The same conditional event is described as we have in the first and second main

protases.

MA3: The obligatory consequence is that the man must pay two shekels of silver. This demonstrates

that amat awῑlim is rated at one-fifths of the sum at which mārat awῑlim is rated and two-fifths

of that at which mārat muškēnim is rated.

SP3: This protasis presents a variation to the third main protasis. The conditional event is the same

as the conditional events in the second and third subsidiary protases.

SA3: The obligatory consequence is that the man must pay a third of a mana of silver or twenty

shekels.

3.6.5.1.3 Structure

If the man=a, the daughter of another man=b, the daughter of the man=c, the working person‟s

daughter=d and the female slave=e, then we have the structure:

94
 Protasis: When Šumma a struck b
209
iprus (preterite)
and has made b lose her unborn child iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay 10 shekels of silver for
the unborn child iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
210
b has died iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: they must kill c iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šummaa
211
has made d lose her unborn child iptaras (perfect)
by violence parāsum (infinitive)
Apodosis: a must pay 5 shekels of silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
212
d has died iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay half a mana of silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: When Šumma a struck e
213
iprus (preterite)
and has made her lose her unborn child iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay two shekels of silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: When Šumma e has died
214
iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay a third of mana of silver iparras (present-future)

3.6.5.2 Second Unit: CoH 196-201

In the laws concerning eye for eye, there are four participants: a man, another man, a working

person and another man‟s slave. The participant rank is as follows:

 The man is the primary and central participant.

 Another man, the working person and another man‟s slave are the secondary participants.

3.6.5.2.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum ῑn mār awῑlim uḫtappid, ῑnsu uḫappadū.

When a man has destroyed the sight of another similar person, they must destroy his sight. (CoH 196)

Šumma eṣemti awῑlim ištebir, eṣemtašu išebbirū

If he has broken another man‟s bone, they must break his bones. (CoH 197)

Šumma ῑn muškēnim uḫtappid u lu eṣemti (!) muškēnim ištebir, 1 mana kaspam išaqqal.

If he has destroyed the sight of a working person or broken a bone of a working man, he must pay one

mana of silver. (CoH 198)

Šumma ῑn warad awῑlim uḫtappid u lu eṣemti warad awῑlim ištebir, mišil šῑmišu išaqqal.

If he has destroyed the sight of another man‟s slave or broken a bone of another man‟s slave, he must

pay half his value in silver. (CoH 199)

95
 Šumma awῑlum šinni awῑlim meḫrišu ittadi, šinnasu inaddû.

If a man has knocked out the tooth of another man who is similar to him, they must knock out his

tooth. (CoH 200)

Šumma šinni muškēnim ittadi 1/3 mana kaspam išaqqal.

If he has knocked out the tooth of a working person, he must pay a third of a mana of silver. (CoH

201)

3.6.5.2.2 Analysis

MP1: The first main protasis describes the conditional event where awῑlum, „a man‟ uḫtappid, „has

destroyed‟ ῑn mār awῑlim, „the sight of another man‟. This is the famous law of retaliation (lex

talion). It suggests that equal injury must be inflicted on the striker (Durham 323).

MA1: The obligatory consequence is that the sight of awῑlum must also be destroyed.

MP2: The second main protasis expresses that he ištebir, „has broken‟ eṣemti awῑlim, „the bone of a

man‟.

MA2: The obligatory consequence is that his bone must also be broken. The principle of talion is

also observed here.

SP1: This protasis presents a variation to the first and second main protases by focusing on

destroying ῑn muškēnim and breaking eṣemti muškēnim.

SA1: Talion is not to be observed in the case of muškēnum, rather the man must pay one mana of

silver.

SP2: This protasis also presents a variation to the first and second main protases by focusing on the

destruction of ῑn warad awῑlim and breaking eṣemti warad awῑlim.

SA2: Talion is also not to be observed in the case of warad awῑlim, rather the man must pay half his

value in silver.

MP3: The conditional event described here is that awῑlum, „a man‟ ittadi, „has knocked out‟ šinni

awῑlim meḫrišu, „the tooth of a man who is of the same status as him‟.

96
MA3: The obligatory consequence is that his tooth must be knocked out too. The principle of talion

is also observed here.

SP3: This protasis presents a variation to the third main protasis by focusing on knocking out šinni

muškēnim, „the tooth of a working man‟.

SA3: The obligatory consequence is that he must pay a third of a mana of silver.

3.6.5.2.3 Structure

If man=a, another man=b, working man=c, and another man‟s slave=d, then the structure of CoH

196-201 is

Protasis: When Šumma a has destroyed b‟s sight

196
iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: they must destroy a‟s sight iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
197
a has broken b‟s bone iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: they must break one of a‟s bone iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
198
a has destroyed c‟s sight iptaras (perfect)
or broken a bone of c iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay one mana of silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
199
a has destroyed the sight of d iptaras (perfect)
or broken a bone of d iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay half his value in silver iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
200
a has knocked out the tooth of b iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: they must knock out a‟s tooth iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma
201
a has knocked out the tooth of c iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: a must pay a third of a mana of silver iparras (present-future)

3.6.6 Goring Ox: CoH 250-252

The laws in CoH 250-252 are about the consequences of the act of goring a person by an ox.

The laws comprise one main case law and two subsidiary case laws. Each law has a protasis and an

apodosis. There are four participants in the law: a man, the owner of the ox, a man‟s son and a

slave. The participant rank is as follows:

 The owner is the primary and central participant.

 The man, son and slave are the secondary participants.

97
3.6.6.1 Text

Šumma alpu, sūqam ina alākišu awῑlam ikkipma uštamῑt dῑnum šû rugummâm ul išu.

When an ox gored a man while walking along the street and has caused his death, there is no cause for

complaint. (CoH 250)

Šumma alap awῑlim nakkāpῑma kῑma nakkāpû bābtašu ušēdῑšumma qarnῑšu la ušarrim alapšu la

usanniqma alpum šû mār awῑlim ikkipma uštamῑt, ½ mana kaspam inaddin.

If a man has an ox, which gores, his council made known to him that it gores, he did not trim its horns

and did not tie the ox up, and the ox gored a man‟s son and has caused his death, he must pay half a

shekel of silver. (CoH 251)

Šumma warad awῑlim, 1/3 mana kaspam inaddin.

When it was a man‟s male slave he must give a third of mana of silver. (CoH 252)

3.6.6.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis describes two logical conditional events, which are connected by the

particle –ma. The first conditional event serves as background to the second. It expresses that

alpu, „an ox‟ ikkipma, „gored‟ awῑlam, „a man‟ sūqam ina alākišu, „while walking along the

street‟. Sūqam ina alākišu, „while walking along the street‟ suggests that the ox was broken

loose itself, and probably for the first time (Driver and Miles 442). The second conditional

event states that the goring ox caused the death of the man.

MA: There is no consequence to this case. In other words, there is no right of action (Driver and

Miles 442).

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the topic introduced by the main protasis.

In the first subsidiary protasis, we have a sequence of six conditional events. The first five

conditional events serve as background to the sixth conditional event. The first conditional

event states that a man has an ox in the habit of goring, that is, it is addicted to goring. The

second conditional event is logically connected to the third conditional event and states that

bābtašu, „the community‟ ušēdῑšumma, „has caused him to know‟ that it is addicted to goring.

98
 This implies that the owner of the ox has been sent an official „notification‟ as a warning that

the ox is dangerous (Driver and Miles 442). The third conditional event emphasizes that the

owner la ušarrim, „did not trim‟ qarnῑšu, „its horn‟. The fourth conditional event is logically

connected with the fifth and is expressed as, if he la usanniqma, „did not control‟ alapšu, „his

ox. The fifth conditional event is also logically connected with the last, and states that his ox

ikkipma, gored mār awῑlim. The last conditional event then states that it has caused his death.

SA1: The obligatory consequence is that the owner of the ox must pay half a shekel of silver. This

demonstrates that the offense of the owner is a civil offense that merely requires a monetary

compensation payable to the family of the victim (Driver and Miles 444).

SP2: This protasis presents another variation to the main topic. The object of goring now shifts to

warad awῑlim, „a man‟s slave‟.

SA2: The obligatory consequence is that he must pay a third of mana of silver.

3.6.6.3 Structure

If the man=x, the owner of the ox=y, the man‟s son=z, the man‟s slave=w
250
Protasis: When Šumma an ox gored x iprus (preterite)
while walking along the road parāsum (infinitive)
and has caused his death iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: there is no loss in that legal hearing
251
Protasis: When Šumma y has an ox which gores
and his council made known to him iprus (preterite)
that it gores
and he did not trim its horns iprus (preterite)
and did not supervise his ox iprus (preterite)
and the ox gored z iprus (preterite)
and has caused his death iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: he must give half a shekel of silver iparras (present-future)
252
Protasis: When Šumma it was w
Apodosis: he must give a third of a mana of silver iparras (present-future)

99
3.6.7 Theft: CoH 8, 21

The laws in CoH 8, 21 are concerned with the consequences of stealing animals or properties

and burglary. In CoH 8, there are one main case law and four sub-case laws. Each law has a

protasis. The main case law does not have any apodosis. The first two sub-case laws share the same

apodosis. Moreover, the remaining two sub-case laws have their own apodoses. CoH 21 comprises

only one main case law, which has a protasis and an apodosis.

3.6.7.1 First Unit: CoH 8

In CoH 8, there are two participants: the thief and the working person. The participant rank is as

follows:

 The thief is the primary and central participant.

 The working person only serves a peripheral role.

3.6.7.1.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum lu alpam lu immeram lu imēram lu šaḫâm u lu eleppam išriq, šumma ša ilim šumma ša

ekallim, adi 30-šu inaddin. šumma ša muškēnim, adi 10-šu iriab. šumma šarrāqānum ša nadānim la

išu, iddâk.

When a man stole an ox, or a sheep, or a donkey, or a pig, or a boat he must pay thirty times its value

if it belongs to a god or a temple and repay ten times its value if it belongs to a working person. If that

thief does not have what to give, he must be killed. (CoH 8)

3.6.7.1.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis describes the conditional event in which awῑlum, „a man‟ išriq, „stole‟

alpam, „an ox‟, immeram, „a sheep‟, imēram, „a donkey‟, šaḫâm, „a pig‟, or eleppam, „a boat‟.

SPC1: This protasis continues and refers back to the conditional event of the main case law. It states

that the property ša ilim, „belongs to a god‟. This suggests that property belongs to the divine

shrine (Richardson 45).

SPC2: This protasis also continues and refers back to the conditional event of the main case law. It

further states that it may belong to ekallum. Ekallum may refer to „the temple‟ or „the palace‟.

100
 If ekallum is translated as „the temple‟, it means that the property is stolen from an area

around the temple (Richardson 45).

SAC: This apodosis states the obligatory consequence for the first and second sub-cases. The thief

must pay thirty times the value of the property stolen from a god or a temple.

SPC3: This protasis continues and refers back to the conditional event of the main protasis. It states

if the property ša muškēnim, „belongs to a working man‟.

SAC3: The obligatory consequence is that the thief must pay ten times the value of the property.

SPC4: The protasis also continues and refers back to the conditional event of the main protasis. It

describes the condition where šarrāqānum, „the thief‟ does not have enough to pay.

SAC4: The obligatory consequence is that šarrāqānum, „the thief‟ must be killed.

3.6.7.1.3 Structure

If the man=x, the working citizen=y, then we have the structure:

8
Protasis: When Šumma x stole an ox, a sheep or a donkey,
or a pig or a boat iprus (preterite)
Protasis: If Šumma it belongs to a god
Protasis: Or If Šumma it belongs to a palace
Apodosis: he shall give 30 times its value iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma it belongs to y
Apodosis: he must make a ten-fold recompense iparras (present-future)
Protasis: If Šumma x does not have what to give parāsum (infinitive)
Apodosis: x must be killed iparras (present-future)

3.6.7.2 Second Unit: CoH 21

In CoH 21, there is only one participant, and he is the primary and central participant.

3.6.7.2.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum bῑtam ipluš, ina pani pilšim šuāti idukkūšuma iḫallalūšu.

When a man broke into a house, they must kill and hang him because of that burglary. (CoH 21)

101
3.6.7.2.2 Analysis

MP: The conditional event in the main protasis is described as when awῑlum, „a man‟ ipluš, „has

broken into‟ bῑtam, „a house. The verb ipluš is usually used of burglary (Driver and John C.

158). Therefore, the law describes the offense of burglary.

MA: The obligatory consequence is that the offender must be killed (idukkūšuma) by hanging

(iḫallalūšu) him just where he broke in. The meaning of iḫallalūšu can suggest that they must

pierce him or that they must hang him up. If it means „they must pierce‟, Driver mentions that

„it must be supposed that a stake is driven through his corpse which is left exposed at the

breach that he had made in the wall of the house. The punishment then reflects the crime: as

he has made a hole in the wall of the house, so a hole is made in his body‟ (Driver and John

C. 158).

3.6.7.2.3 Structure

If a man=x, then the structure is:

21
Protasis: When Šumma x broke into a house iprus (preterite)
Apodosis: they must kill iparras (present-future)
and hang him iparras (present-future)
because of that burglary

3.6.8 Cattle Grazing: CoH 57

The law in CoH 57 is about the consequence of damage caused by the grazing of animals. The

law has only one protasis and one apodosis. There are two participants: the shepherd and the

owner of the field. The participant rank is as follows:

 The owner of the animals is the primary and central participant.

 The owner of the field only serves a peripheral role.

3.6.8.1 Text

Šumma rē’ûm ana šammῑ ṣēnim šūkulim itti bēl eqlim la imtagarma, balum bēl eqlim eqlam ṣēnam

uštākil, bēl eqlim eqelšu iṣṣid. rē’ûm ša ina balum bēl eqlim eqlam ṣēnam ušākilu, elēnumma ana I

burum 20 kur še’am ana bēl eqlim inaddin.

102
 When a shepherd has not agreed with the owner of a field to allow his flock feed on the plants there,

but without the knowledge of the owner of the field, his flock has fed on the field, the owner of the

field must harvest the field. The shepherd who allowed his flock to feed on the field without the

knowledge of the owner of the field must give to the owner of the field in addition 140 bushels of

grain for every 16 acres. (CoH 57)

3.6.8.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis describes two logical conditional events, which are connected by the

particle –ma. The first conditional event expresses that rē’ûm, „a shepherd‟ la imtagarma,

„has not agreed‟ itti bēl eqlim, „with the owner of a field‟ to let his flock feed ana šammῑ, „on

the plants‟ there. Šammu is a general term for whole classes of plants. Here it denotes the

growing shoots of any crops eaten by cattle (Driver and John C. 179–180). The second

conditional event states that rē’ûm, „the shepherd‟ ṣēnam uštākil, „has caused the flock to

feed‟ ana šammῑ, „on the plants‟. By implication, the shepherd has let in his sheep to feed on a

field without entering into any agreement with the owner of the field.

MA: The obligatory consequence is that bēl eqlim, „the owner of the field‟ must harvest eqelšu, „his

field‟, and rē’ûm, „the shepherd‟ must pay in addition 140 bushels of grain for every 16 acres.

This, according to Richardson, means that the shepherd must pay 20 measures of corn for

every measure of land (Richardson 63).

3.6.8.3 Structure

If the shepherd=x and the owner of a field=y, then we have the structure:
57
Protasis: When Šumma x has not agreed with y iptaras (perfect)
to allow the flock feed parāsum (infinitive)
on the plants there
without the knowledge of y
the flock fed on the field iptaras (perfect)
Apodosis: y must harvest the field iparras (present-future)
x who has allowed the flock to feed
on the field without the knowledge of y iprus (preterite)

103
 must give to y in addition 140 bushels
of grain for every 16 acres iparras (present-future)

3.6.9 Storage and Deposit: CoH 120

The law in CoH 120 is about the consequence of losing goods that have been delivered to one

for safekeeping. There is only one main case law, with its protasis and apodosis. There are two

participants: the owner of the property and the keeper. The participant rank is as follows:

 The keeper is the primary and central participant.

 The owner of the property is the secondary participant.

3.6.9.1 Text

Šumma awῑlum se’ašu, ana našpakūtim ina bῑt awῑlum išpukma ina qarῑtim ibbûm ittabši u lu bēl bῑtim

našpakam iptēma še’am ilqe, u lu še’am ša ina bῑtišu iššapku ana gamrim ittakir, bēl še’im maḫar ilim

še’ašu ubârma bēl bῑtim se’am ša ilqû uštašannāma ana bēl še’im inaddin

When a man stored his grain into storage in another man‟s storehouse and there has been some loss in

the granary, or the owner opened storage and took the grain, or he has completely disagreed about the

grain which was stored in his house, the owner of the house must clarify in the presence of the god the

amount of grain which he took and he must make double and give the owner of the grain. (CoH 120)

3.6.9.2 Analysis

MP: This protasis presents six conditional events. The first two conditional events are logically

connected by the particle –ma. The first conditional event serves as background to the second.

It states that awῑlum, „a man‟ išpukma, „stored‟ se’ašu, his grain ana našpakūtim ina bῑt

awῑlum, „in the storage in the house of another man‟. The verb šapaku is a technical term for

hoisting grain into or out of a granary, and it is also used of bringing up or removing grain

from a field (Driver and John C. 210). The second conditional event expresses that ibbûm, „a

loss‟ ittabši, „has occurred ‟ina qarῑtim,„ in the granary. The next four conditional events are

alternative sequence of events to the first two conditional events. The third and fourth

conditional events serve as background to the fifth conditional event. In addition, the last

conditional event is the past event that has happened before the fifth conditional event. So, bēl

104
 bῑtim, the owner of the house‟ iptēma, „opened‟ našpakam, the granary and he ilqe, took

še’am, „the grain‟. Afterward, he ana gamrim ittakir, „has completely disagreed‟ about še’am,

„the grain‟ that the owner of the grain iššapku, „deposited‟. By implication, the loss is caused

by the storekeeper in one of two ways, either directly by opening a granary and taking grain

or indirectly by wholly denying the deposit. He may either deny that a deposit was ever made

or assert that all the grain had been returned (Driver and Miles 234–235).

MA: The obligatory consequence is that the owner of the grain must declare maḫar ilim, „in the

presence of the god‟ the amount of grain he had deposited. First, he must prove that he has

stored his grain with the man. Second, he must declare on oath the exact amount or value of

the grain. The divine is to be involved in declaration on oath. The declaration on oath before

god is the justification for the owner of the grain because the fear of the divine would make

him to tell the truth. The owner of the house must give the owner of the grain double the

amount of grain he had accepted.

3.6.9.3 Structure

If the owner of the grain=x and the keeper=y, then we have this structure:
120
Protasis: When Šumma x stored his grain into storage
in y‟s house iprus (preterite)
and there has been some loss
in the granary iptaras (perfect)
or y opened the storage iprus (preterite)
and took the grain iprus (preterite)
or y has completely disagreed
about the grain iptaras (perfect)
which was stored in his house iprus (preterite)
Apodosis: x must clarify in the presence of
the god the amount of grain iparras (present-future)
which y took iprus (preterite)
y must make double iparras (present-future)
and give to x iparras (present-future)

105
 These analyses have helped us to gain deeper insights into the contents of some laws in CoH.

These laws have helped to understand how Hammurabi, through the help of Shamash, dealt with

some offenses that were common in the Ancient Near East. The laws have also revealed that

offenses like kidnaping, fighting, murder, stealing, mistreatment of slaves, disrespect for one‟s

father and others usually attracted punishments like monetary compensation, talion, capital

punishment and the like. The laws distinguish three different social classes, and these classes are

not to be treated equally. Therefore, the laws do not promote equality of value of these classes. For

instance, the awῑlum is protected from permanent slavery, but the wardum and amtum are not

protected, they can even be sold to other awῑlum. In the laws concerning bodily injuries, the classes

are also not valued equally: mār muškēnim is rated at two-third of the sum at which mār awῑlim is

rated. In the case of miscarriage, mārat muškēnim is worth only half the value of mārat awῑlum, and

amat awῑlim is rated at one-fifth of the sum at which mārat awῑlum is rated. Considering all these

together with the discourse of CoH, it is apparent that the laws of CoH place the highest value on

the awῑlum, followed by the muškēnim and lastly the wardum-amtum. The awῑlum is liable to the

highest compensation and is more protected than the other two classes. The muškênum is always

liable to smaller compensation for injuries inflicted. The wardum-amtum is considered a property,

and is the least protected of the three classes.

106
CHAPTER 4.

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT

In this chapter, I will provide the contexts, form, grammar, content and structure of BC. In the

process, I will discuss the literary, historical and theological contexts of BC. Then, I will examine

the genre analysis of BC, after which, I will discuss its discourse. I will go ahead to describe the

word order and verbal system of BC. Finally, I will analyse ten themes in BC that are closely

paralleled to CoH. From these thematic analyses, I will provide the structure of each theme

considered.

4.1 Description

Biblical scholars generally use the term „the Book of the Covenant‟ or sometimes „the

Covenant Code‟ for Exodus 20:22-23:33. The two terms can be used interchangeably for the text.

The term „the Book of the Covenant‟ actually derives from Exodus 24:7. In Exodus 24:7, Moses is

portrayed as taking BC and reading it to the hearing of the people. Thus, BC refers to the words of

Yahweh that Moses wrote down and read to the people (Exod 24:4-7). Meanwhile, scholars coined

the term „the Covenant Code‟ to refer to Exodus 20:22-23:33 as a collection of different laws of

differing forms and contents before it was being inserted into the Sinai narrative. By implication, it

comprises the casuistic laws (Exod 21:1-22:16), the apodictic laws (Exod 20:23-26, Exod 22:17-

23:19) and some deuteronomic glosses (Exod 22:20b, 23; Exod 23:9b, etc). In this work, I prefer to

use the term BC for the text so as to sustain its status as the words of Yahweh communicated to the

Old Testament Israelites (Exodus 24:3-7). However, I maintain the different forms pointed out by

scholars in my discussion.

107
4.2 Contexts

A consideration of the context of a biblical text is concerned with knowing how the text is

woven into and related to the rest of the book. My main text, Exodus 21:1-22:16 (Eng. 17) is the

casuistic laws of BC. For this reason, I will consider generally the context of BC, in which I will be

unpicking BC from its larger context and then weaving it back to gain deeper insights into the

contents of the laws contained in Exodus 21:2-22:16. I will limit the work to the literary, historical

and theological contexts of BC.

4.2.1 Literary Context

Literary context is concerned with the way that an inspired author or editor has arranged the

literary components of a text, and with how he has placed the text within an entire block of

literature. It is also concerned with how the text fits within the larger context, what it contributes to

the entire flow of the larger context, and what the structure of that book contributes to it (Stuart 45).

Scholars have categorized BC in different ways. Hyatt divides BC into a brief introduction

(20:22), a group of cultic regulations (20:23-26), a title (21:1), a group of laws, admonitions and

regulations (21:2-23:19) and finally closing promises and exhortations (23:20-23). Hyatt does not

include Exodus 23:24-33 as part of BC (Hyatt 217). Childs‟ division is almost the same as Hyatt‟s,

only that he considers Exodus 23:20-33 as the conclusion of BC and a secondary addition that did

not belong to the original layer of the laws (Childs 454). Boecker and John Van Seters maintain the

division of the prologue (20:22-26), the laws (21:2-23:19) and the epilogue (23:20-33). In addition,

Boecker divides the prologue of BC into three parts: a brief introduction (20:22), an ancient

formulation of the commandment against making images of Yahweh (Exod 20:23) and the Altar

law (20:24-26) (Boecker 137). Van Seters describes the prologue of BC as a connector, which links

the theophanic event with the laws of BC. Moreover, Van Seters depicts the epilogue as a

connector, which links the theophanic event and BC with the event of the conquest of the Promised

Land. Thus, BC is treated as a late appendix (Van Seters 6). In this work, I maintain the main

division of the prologue (20:22-26), the laws (21:2-23:19) and the epilogue (23:20-33). The body of
108
laws is categorized into two major types: the apodictic laws and the casuistic laws. Albrecht Alt was

the first scholar to do this categorization.

4.2.1.1 Apodictic Laws

Alt defines the apodictic laws as regulations that are written in the form of divine commands.

Alt considers them to be „absolute, unconditional, prohibitive and universal in nature‟ (Alt 81–132).

Hyatt describes them as being categorical and unconditional, a negative command or prohibition,

expressed by the strong Hebrew negation ‫ ֹלא‬lōʼ, not (Hyatt 221–222). They are usually thought to

be religious and cultic in nature. They might have been developed in ancient Israel under cultic

influence. They are theocentric, and they focus on what human relationship should be with Yahweh.

They are usually called „native Israelite laws‟, because such laws are rarely found in other Ancient

Near Eastern codes (Alt 81–132). These laws are mostly found in Exodus 20:23-26, 22:17-23:19.

Most of them present Yahweh as speaking in the first person, and reasons are usually given for the

observance of the laws (Hyatt 222). They are usually written in the form: object of the verb + the

negation ‫ ֹלא‬lōʼ, not + a single verb, as in Exodus 22:21 [Eng.22]:

‫כָּל־ַא ְּל ָּמנָּה ְּוי ָּת ֹּום ֹלא תְּ עַּמון׃‬

You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.18 (Exod 22:21 [Eng. 22])

However, some of them especially those found in 20:25; 22:24-26; 23:3-4 have a mixed or quasi-

casuistic form (Hyatt 221–222), as in Exodus 22:24 [Eng.25]:

‫אִּם־ ֶּכסֶּף תַּ ְּלוֶּה אֶּת־ ַּעםִּי אֶּת־ ֶּה ָּענִּי ִּעםְָּך ֹלא־תִּ ְּהי ֶּה ֹלו כְּנֹּשֶּה‬

‫ֹלא־תְּ שִּימון ָּעלָּיו נֶּשְֶּך׃‬

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to

him, and you shall not exact interest from him. (Exod 22:24 [Eng.25]).

18
The Hebrew text used in this research work is the „Masoretic Text‟ (from the fourth edition of Biblia Hebraica

Stuttgartensia) and the English text used is the „English Standard Version‟ except Exodus 21:2-11, 15-16, 18-19, 22-32; 21:37-22:4

(Eng. 22:1-5); 22:6-7 (Eng. 22:-8) which are my personal translation.

109
 Sometimes, we find parenetic elements in some of these laws. These elements comprise

promises of Yahweh‟s blessing as in Exodus 20:24, warnings from him as in Exodus 20:25 or

motives for the keeping of a specific law or regulation as in Exodus 22:20 [Eng.21]. In a few

instances, Yahweh is presented as exhorting the people to give full obedience to his laws as in

Exodus 23:13 (Hyatt 223).

‫ש ָּלמֶּיָך‬
ְּ ‫ִּמזְּבַּח אֲדָּ מָּה תַּ ֲעשֶּה־לִּי ְּוזָּ ַּבחְּתָּ ָּעלָּיו אֶּת־עֹֹּלתֶּ יָך ְּואֶּת־‬

‫שמִּי ָאב ֹּוא ֵּאלֶּיָך וב ֵַּּרכְּתִּ יָך׃‬

ְּ ‫אֶּת־צ ֹּאנְָּך ְּואֶּת־ ְּבק ֶָּּרָך ְּבכָּל־ ַּהםָּק ֹּום ֲאשֶּר ַאזְּכִּיר אֶּת־‬

An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace

offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will

come to you and bless you. (Exod 20:24)

ָּ‫ְּואִּם־ ִּמזְּבַּח ֲא ָּבנִּים תַּ ֲעשֶּה־לִּי ֹלא־תִּ ְּבנֶּה אֶּתְּ הֶּן ָּגזִּית כִּי ח ְַּּרבְָּך ֵּהנַּפְּת‬

‫ָּעלֶּי ָּה וַּתְּ ַּח ְּל ֶּלהָּ׃‬

If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you wield your tool on it

you profane it. (Exodus 20:25)

‫ְּוגֵּר ֹלא־ת ֹּונֶּה וְֹּלא תִּ ְּל ָּחצֶּמו כִּי־ג ִֵּּרים ֱהי ִּיתֶּ ם ְּבא ֶֶּּרץ ִּמצ ְָּּרי ִּם׃‬

You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Exod

22:20 [Eng.21])

‫שמַּע עַּל־פִּיָך׃‬
ָּ ִּ ‫שמֵּרו ְּושֵּם אֱֹלהִּים ֲאח ִֵּּרים ֹלא תַּ זְּכִּירו ֹלא י‬
ָּ ִּ‫ובְּכ ֹּל ֲאשֶּר־ָאמ ְַּּרתִּ י ֲאלֵּיכֶּם ת‬

Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it

be heard on your lips. (Exod 23:13)

4.2.1.2 Casuistic Laws

The casuistic laws are usually described to be more formally legalistic in form, and as being

more related with case laws. Accordingly, they contain a conditional statement and a type of

punishment to be meted out. They are invariably introduced by an objective conditional clause

beginning with „if …‟. This conditional clause is introduced by a temporal clause providing the

110
case-context for the condition. Alt submits that these casuistic laws were adapted from the

Canaanites and had no connection with the covenant and this is the reason why the casuistic laws of

BC resemble laws from other Ancient Near Eastern codes in form and content (Alt 81–132). Hyatt

remarks that the casuistic laws follow a definite literary form. They express conditions and

corresponding penalties or consequences. They are casuistic in which the main condition is

introduced by ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟ and any subordinate condition is introduced by ‫ אִּם‬ʼim, „if‟. They

consist of civil and criminal laws, and are therefore considered secular laws dealing with slavery,

injury to persons and animals and damage to property (Hyatt 219–220). They are mostly found in

Exodus 21:2-22:16. They are usually written in the form: „When X does this, then Y must happen‟,

as in Exodus 21:2 and Exodus 21:3.

‫ש ִּבעִּת יֵּצֵּא ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי ִּחמָּם׃‬

ְּ ‫שנִּים יַּעֲב ֹּד ו ַּב‬
ָּ ‫כִּי תִּ ְּקנֶּה ֶּעבֶּד ִּעב ְִּּרי שֵּש‬

When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years he must serve, and in the seventh he must go out free, for

nothing. (Exodus 21:2)

‫אִּם־ ְּבגַּפ ֹּו י ָּב ֹּא ְּבגַּפ ֹּו יֵּצֵּא אִּם־ ַּבעַּל ִּאשָּה הוא ְּויָּצְָּאה ִּאשְּת ֹּו עִּם ֹּו׃‬

If he comes as a single person, he must go out as a single person; if he comes as a married person, then

his wife must go out with him. (Exodus 21:3)

4.2.1.3 BC and the Sinai Narrative: Synchronic Approach

Most modern scholars have treated BC as a self-contained entity. They hold that it already

existed independently before being inserted into the Sinai narrative (Smith 15). Thus it is thought to

have been inserted into the Sinai narrative between the theophany related in Exodus 19:1-20:21 and

the conclusion of the event narrated in Exodus 24:1-11 (Boecker 136).

The insertion of BC into the Sinai narrative suggests that it should be read in light of the Sinai

narrative. This calls for need to discuss the features of the biblical narrative. Biblical narrative is

defined as „“art” or “poetry” centering upon the literary artistry of the author‟ (Osborne 153). It

usually contains both history and theology, and these are brought together through a „story‟ format.

111
It basically utilizes the methods of plot, characters, setting and others to tell the story (Osborne

153). All these characteristics and elements are present in the Sinai narrative.

4.2.1.3.1 The Setting

The setting of the Sinai narrative is concerned with the narration of the theophany on Mount

Sinai. The people witnessed Yahweh speaking with Moses, first to establish Moses as the mediator

between him and the people, and then to give Moses the laws on two different occasions (Exod

20:1-17; Exod 20:22-23:33). This was followed by the reception of the laws and the covenant

ratification in Exodus 24:3-8 (Exod 19-24).

4.2.1.3.2 The Characters

The major characters in the Sinai narrative are Yahweh, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, the

elders, and the people. Yahweh is presented as pronouncing the laws to Moses alone. Moses is

portrayed as speaking with both Yahweh and the people. Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the elders are to

go up with Moses so that they can worship Yahweh from a distance. The people stand by the

mountain at a greater distance (Exod 19-24).

4.2.1.3.3 The Plot

Here, I follow Sprinkle‟s chronological sequence of Exodus 19-24 (Joe M Sprinkle 18–24).

The Decalogue and BC seem to disrupt the narratives, which would flow more smoothly without

them. Sprinkle suggests that the narrator of the Sinai narrative utilizes the technique of resumptive

repetition in Exodus 19-24. This implies that the narrator tells a story once, and then retells the story

again somewhere in the chronological sequence. While retelling it, he often expands the story or

tells it from a different point of view. Accordingly, Exodus 19:16-25 gives the synopsis of the story,

and all other sections like the Decalogue (20:1-17), the people‟s fear (20:18-21) and BC (20:22-

23:33) occur simultaneously with the actions of 19:16-25, expanding the previously given story.

Exodus 24:1-3a repeats the end of chapter 19 with more detail, preparing the reader for subsequent

112
actions. Only with 24:3b does the chronology advance beyond the end of chapter 19. Exodus 19:16-

19 has striking parallels with 20:18-21.

When are the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17) and BC (20:22-23:33) presented as occurring

chronologically? The Decalogue is thought not to have been spoken between Moses‟ going down to

warn the people (19:24-25) and the request for mediation (20:18-21). This is because the events of

19:21-24 are simultaneous with 24:1-3a at the end of Moses‟ stay on the mountain, after he had

received Yahweh‟s words and norms (24:3a). The Decalogue is also considered an example of

resumption, going back to somewhere in the events of 19:18-20, but before the command to come

down from the mountain in verse 21. It must have occurred when Moses was speaking to Yahweh,

and He was answering him in thunder (verse 19). The Decalogue is considered part of what

Yahweh was telling Moses during these conversations. So the Decalogue is part of the „thunder‟

that the people heard before they requested Moses to mediate (20:18-21).

BC (Exod 20:22-23:33) was placed after 20:21 where Moses having agreed to mediate for the

people, goes up the mountain. It is to be regarded as material delivered by Yahweh to Moses on the

mountain after he has gone up (19:20-20:21), but before the command to go down to warn the

people and bring Aaron (19:21-25=24:1-3a).

4.2.2 Historical Context: Diachronic Approach

There exists some overlap between historical context and literary context. However, the

historical context has to do with the historical situation out of which or to which a text was written

(Stuart 43). It is concerned with the setting, the background and the date of composition of a text.

The historical context of BC is difficult to determine because of the different forms in it. Each form,

that is, the casuistic laws (Exod 21:1-22:16), the apodictic laws (Exod 20:23-26, Exod 22:17-23:19)

and some deuteronomic glosses (Exod 22:20b, 23; Exod 23:9b, etc) can be said to have its own

historical context.

The historical context of the apodictic laws considers some factors. For instance, the apodictic

laws (20:23-26, 22:17-23:19) contain some signs pointing to cultic use relating to a covenant

113
context. Yahweh is portrayed to be in the first person addressing his people as „you‟ in Exodus

20:24. Yahweh reveals His name to his people and requires legitimate worship from them (Exod

20:24). His name is not to be reviled (Exod 22:27). Sexual license is strictly forbidden (Exod 20:26;

22:18). Idolatry and the worship of other gods are punished by the ban (Exod 22:18). There are also

parenetic additions to this section of BC, which give further evidence of cultic usage within a

covenant context. The parallel use in Exodus 34:18ff. of the laws of the BC (Exod 23:10ff.) is

another strong indication of an early place of this material within the cultic life of the covenant

community (cf. Exod 34). According to Childs, all these factors indicate a historical setting for the

apodictic laws (Exod 20:23-26; Exod 22:17-23:19) in the period prior to the rise of the monarchy. It

is evident that some of the material stems from a very early period, which may reach back into the

wilderness period. Many of the prohibitions are unconnected with a settled agricultural life.

However, the initial altar law (20:24-26) and the festival calendar clearly point to the period after

the conquest (Childs 455–456).

Considering the historical context of the casuistic laws, it is evident that the casuistic laws

(21:1-22:16) originally had no covenant connection. The casuistic laws represent one of the earliest

collections of legal material within the Bible, later than the apodictic laws. They are closely

paralleled by laws from other Ancient Near Eastern legal collections (Childs 255–258). Some

scholars hold that most of them were first composed during the pre-monarchic period. This is

because some of the casuistic laws presuppose the circumstances that were prevalent during the pre-

monarchic period. The Israelite society was predominantly agrarian. They cultivated crops and

reared sheep, oxen and asses, but not horses or camels. They also practised slavery (Hyatt 218).

Another reason is that the casuistic laws presuppose the non-existence of courts or the need for

witnesses (Jackson 225). Furthermore, the casuistic laws presuppose the non-existence of

monarchy. The ruler is not described as king. So a detailed study of the economic, political, and

religious background of the casuistic laws point unmistakably to the period immediately after the

occupation of the land of Canaan (Davies 142).

114
 The insertion of BC in the Sinai narrative also suggests consideration of the historical context

of the Sinai narrative, which contains traces of the treaty form (Exod 19-24). Exodus 19-24 exhibits

an alteration of narrative and regulatory sections (Exod 20:1-17; 20:22-23:33) (Joe M Sprinkle 17–

28). The storyline, rearranged chronologically, begins with Moses bringing the people to the

mountain where the theophany occurs. Moses calls to Yahweh, and He answers him in thunder or

so it sounds to the people (Exod 19:16-19, cf. Exod 20:18), though the real message includes at

least part of the words of the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17). While all this is occurring, the people,

overwhelmed with terror, fall back from the mountain and ask Moses to mediate for them (Exod

20:18-19). Moses tries to reassure them, but ultimately ascends the mountain at the call of Yahweh

alone as their mediator with him (Exod 19:20; Exod 20:20-21). There he receives the remainder of

Yahweh‟s revelation for the Israelites pertaining to the establishing of the covenant. At the end of

his stay, Moses is told to descend from the mountain to warn the people and the priests not to

approach the mountain, but he is to ascend again up the mountain with Aaron and others (Exod

19:21-25; Exod 24:1-3b). The warning is necessary because sufficient time has passed for the initial

terror of Exodus 20:18-21 to wear off, while Moses was alone on the mountain, and because Moses

would later be returning without Aaron and others (Joe M Sprinkle 24).

Another difficulty that scholars usually encounter in the discussion of BC is the issue of the

date of composition. The discussion should involve offering different dates for the various forms of

BC and the insertion of BC into the Sinai narrative. The Sinai narrative is usually thought to belong

to the J-source. Before BC was inserted into the Sinai narrative, there had been a series of

redactions. So, most literary-critical scholars of BC accept the view that it is the product of a long

redactional process (Van Seters 21). A critical study of BC demonstrates that most of its laws

reflect a more primitive social and religious stage in the development of Israelite culture (Van

Seters 5). Childs argues that BC emerged prior to the rise of the monarchy. He discusses how some

of the materials in the apodictic laws stemmed from a very early period which may reach back into

the wilderness period and how the initial altar law and the festival calendar were written in the

period after the conquest (Childs 455–456). However, the casuistic laws address issues relating to
115
the period of Israel‟s initial settlement in the land of Canaan (Alexander 100–101). Therefore, the

period following the settlement sets the starting point for the dating of the casuistic laws. It seems

most likely that the casuistic laws were practiced by the Canaanites whom the Israelites displaced

from the land. It is thus possible that the casuistic laws were adapted from Canaanite laws because

some of these laws resemble those from other Ancient Near Eastern law codes. These laws were

composed to inform the members of society, which was primarily agrarian, how to resolve legal

problems (Hyatt 218).

Both the apodictic and casuistic laws are usually associated with the E-source. They were

probably edited by the Elohist. The E-source is usually thought to have been composed in the

northern kingdom during the ninth century and to have moved to Judah, along with other northern

traditions, in the aftermath of the destruction of the northern kingdom (Patrick 156). Patrick further

argues that the apodictic laws were first combined with the Sinai narrative, before the casuistic laws

(Patrick 156). The casuistic laws were later fused with the apodictic laws, which already had

received a place within the Sinai narrative. The fusion was probably done by the same redactor who

only rearranged his material and gave the altar law its present leading position (Childs 458). The

probable reason for the fusion is to bring all of Israel‟s early laws, some of which were adapted

from the Canaanites, closer in line with the central tenets of the Sinai tradition. The E-writer further

edited some of the laws so as to resist the inroads of Canaanite culture, particularly in the local

sanctuary (Childs 458). As regards the final form of BC in the Sinai narrative, the E-writer could

not have been responsible for it. A deuteronomic redactor was probably responsible for the final

form of BC. He probably did this sometime in the seventh century B.C. (Davies 143). In the

process, he added a series of glosses which have entered into the text secondarily (Exod 22:20b, 23;

Exod 23:9b, etc) and then provided the epilogue (Exod 20:20-33) to BC (Childs 454).

4.2.3 Theological Context

The theological context is concerned with how God is presented and characterized in a text. It

provides a theological interpretation of the main event that led to a text. The Sinai narrative in

116
Exodus 19-24 presents Yahweh as appearing to the ancient Israelites on Mount Sinai, in order to

give them his covenant and his laws (the Decalogue and BC; Exod 19:9, 16-20; Exod 20:1, 22;

Exod 21:1). Long before exodus from Egypt, Yahweh had revealed to Moses that Israel‟s

experience on Mount Sinai would be primarily a worship experience (Exod 3:12) (Barrick 220).

Yahweh‟s intention is to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel. In this relationship, Yahweh

is presented as the great King making a covenant with His people. He manifests himself to them,

and reminds them of his previous relationship with them. He is the one who brought them out of

Egypt (Exod 20:2). Moreover, he continues to speak to them even directly from heaven (Exod

20:22). It can be asserted that Yahweh is the „fountainhead of the law‟ or the „source and formulator

of the law‟ (Oosthuizen 163). By implication, all the laws stem from Yahweh and derive their

ultimate authority from Him. Consequently, some scholars accept the intrinsic nature of Israelite

law as rooted in the will of Yahweh (Oosthuizen 163).

Furthermore, the Sinai narrative consists of the theocentric frame section (Exod 19:3-6;

23:20-33). This section provides a theological motivation which supports the status of the

Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17) and BC (Exod 20:22-23:19) as divine law (Oosthuizen 163). This also

provides a springboard for various claims concerning characteristic values and features, which are

attributed to the legal sections of the Bible. The Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17) and BC (Exod 20:22-

23:19) are structured to form the stipulations for the covenant relationship between Yahweh and

Israel. Before Yahweh would make the Old Testament Israelites a special nation and lead them to

the Promised Land, they must be loyal to Him by obeying all the laws in the legal sections (Exod

19:5-6; 23:21-22). The Decalogue and BC are not presented in the same way. Unlike the Decalogue

(Exod 20:1-17) which is considered to be Yahweh‟s words spoken directly to the Israelites, BC

(Exod 20:22-23:19) is the words which Yahweh instructed Moses to speak to them.

Generally, the Decalogue and BC can be considered as Yahweh‟s application of the

fundamental requirements of his covenant as to the context of daily living (Durham 318). Sprinkle

affirms that both BC and the Decalogue are part of the Sinai narrative where Yahweh established a

personal relationship with the Israelites as distinct from other nations (Joe M. Sprinkle 235). BC
117
and the Decalogue are part of Yahweh‟s personal message to his people, which is meant to deepen

their personal relationship with him. These laws are considered a means for the narrator to portray

the character of Yahweh. Yahweh is characterized by the narrator through the law speeches of the

Decalogue and BC, and what he does not tolerate is listed in the laws. Thus the law-speeches in the

Sinai narrative show Yahweh to be a moral law giving King who structures religious as well as

other aspects of their lives. The civil laws in BC presents Yahweh as a God of justice (Joe M.

Sprinkle 235–241).

In addition, Fensham argues that the laws in the Sinai narrative are placed within a definite

theological framework. Accordingly, Yahweh is introduced as speaking directly in the first person

or speaking in direct speech in his precepts to Moses (second person singular). In the case where

Yahweh speaks in the third person, sudden shifts from third person to first person sometimes appear

as in Exodus 21:13 (Fensham 263–264). This demonstrates that BC and the Decalogue are words

spoken by Yahweh to the Israelites of the Old Testament.

It is also worthy of note that the name and two titles of God: ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh, ‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm and

‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬hāʼelōhîm are used in BC (Exod 20:22-23:33). They are used 13 times in the text. Yahweh

is used as subject two times (Exod 21:13; Exod 22:8/9), object two times (Exod 22:27/28; Exod

23:25), as dative with preposition five times (Exod 21:6; Exod 22:7/8; Exod 22:8/9; Exod 22:19/20;

Exod 23:17) and as genitive four times (Exod 22:10/11; Exod 23:19; Exod 23:25). ‫ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬

hāʼelōhîm occurs four times (Exod 21:6; Exod 21:13; Exod 22:7/8; Exod 22:8/9) and ‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm

four times (Exod 22:8/9; Exod 22:27/28; Exod 23:19; Exod 23:25). ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬hāʼelōhîm is once used

as subject (Exod 21:13) and three times used as dative after a preposition (Exod 21:6; Exod 22:7/8;

Exod 22:8/9). Alt observes that ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬hāʼelōhîm occurs most often in the casuistic laws of BC,

and that its use is paralleled by the use of „god‟ or „gods‟ (ilani) in Mesopotamian law (Alt 79–132).

‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm is used once as subject (Exod 22:8/9), once as object (Exod 22:27/28) and twice as

genitive (Exod 23:19; Exod 23:25). ‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm usually expresses a more theological, abstract,

118
cosmic idea of God, and therefore is used in a broader, more comprehensive way (Parke-Taylor 7).

‫ יהוה‬Yahweh appears five times in BC (Exod 22:10/11; Exod 22:19/20; Exod 23:17; Exod 23:19;

Exod 23:25). ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh is used once as object (Exod 23:25), twice as genitive (Exod 22:10/11;

Exod 23:19) and twice as dative after a preposition (Exod 22:19/20; Exod 23:17). ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh is

used in the context, which distinguishes Israel‟s God from foreign gods. The three terms are used in

BC to refer to the same God (Parke-Taylor 7), and generally the Israelites understood that ‫ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬

hāʼelōhîm refers to both ‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm and ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh (Fensham 264). This is also confirmed in 1

Kings 18:21 which says, „if Yahweh is ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬hāʼelōhîm, follow him‟ (Parke-Taylor 10).

4.3 Genre

The editor or author of Exodus 21:2-22:16 expressed the laws in the text in a genre called

casuistic law. It is also referred to as a discourse of juridical. The casuistic laws are expressed in the

Ancient Near East in this common form. I therefore apply the characteristics of casuistic laws as

discussed in chapter 2 in my analysis of Exodus 21:2-22:16.

4.3.1 Analysis

The statistical data of casuistic laws in Exodus 21:2-22:16 is presented below.

Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Main Case 19 38
Subsidiary Case 20 40
Sub-case 7 14
Qōṭēl 4 8
Total 50 100

Altogether, there are fifty case laws in Exodus 21:2-22:16. Of these, twenty-three are primary

case laws (main case + qōṭēl) and twenty-seven are secondary case laws (subsidiary case + sub-

case). The secondary case laws are subordinate to the main case laws. They express different levels

of conditions in a particular law, and hence serve as supplements to the main case laws.

119
 In Exodus 21:2-22:16, some main case laws have no subsidiary case laws or sub-case laws, as

in (1).19 Others have one or more subsidiary case laws, as in (2). Others have only sub-case laws, as

in (3). Still, some have both subsidiary case laws and sub-case laws, as in (4). Qōṭēl laws do not

have any secondary case law, as we have an example in (5).

1. Exodus 22:4 (Eng.5)

Protasis: 4When ‫כי‬ When a man allows a field or vineyard to be grazed over,

and ‫ ו‬he sends his beast so that it feeds in another man‟s field,
Apodosis: then Ø from the best in his own field, and from the best in his own vineyard,
he must make restitution.
2. Exodus 22:15-16 (Eng.16-17)
Protasis: 15When ‫וכי‬ a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed

and ‫ ו‬he lies down with her

Apodosis: then (qāṭôl) he must surely pay the bride-price
Protasis: 16If ‫אם‬ her father utterly refuses to give her to him
Apodosis: then Ø he must still pay the bride-price for virgins in silver.
3. Exodus 21:35-36
Protasis: 35When ‫וכי‬ one man's ox injures another's ox
and ‫ ו‬it dies

Apodosis: Then ‫ו‬ they must sell (wĕqāṭal) the live ox

and ‫ ו‬divide the money

and also the dead one they must divide
Protasis: 36or if ‫או‬ it is known that the ox has the habit of goring yet the owner does not
keep it penned.
Apodosis: then (qāṭôl) the owner must surely pay animal for animal, the dead one must be his.
4. Exodus 22:13-14 (Eng.14-15)
Protasis: 13When ‫כי‬ a man borrows anything from his neighbour

and ‫ ו‬it is injured

Protasis: or if ‫או‬ it dies, the owner not being with it

Apodosis: then (qāṭôl) he must surely restore
14
Protasis: If ‫אם‬ the owner is with it
Apodosis: then Ø he must not restore
Protasis: If ‫אם‬ it is a hired thing

19
Note that all the secondary case laws are indented in the examples given.

120
 It came for its hiring fee

5. Exodus 21:16
Protasis: When qōṭēl a man steals another man
and ‫ ו‬sells him

or ‫ ו‬he is found in his possession

Apodosis: then (qāṭôl) that man must surely be put to death.
In agreement with what has been discussed earlier, all the main case laws in Exodus 21:2-

22:16 are introduced by ‫ כִּי‬kî, „when‟ (see (1)-(4) above). Qōṭēl laws are introduced by qōṭēl form

of verb which is equivalent to ‫ כִּי‬kî and finite verb (see (5) above), the subsidiary laws by ‫ אִּם‬ʼim,

„if‟ (see (2) and (4) above) and sub-case laws by ‫ א ֹּו‬ʼô, „or if‟ (see (3) and (4) above). Apodoses are

sometimes unmarked (see (1) and (2) above). In the situation where it is marked, it is either marked

by the waw in wĕqāṭal (see (3) above) or qāṭôl, as in (2) and (3) above.

All the primary case laws in Exodus 21:2-22:16 have both protases and apodoses, as in (6).20

This means that the consequent of the offense is stated at the statement of each condition of law.

However, we have an exception in Exodus 21:33-34, where the two main case laws with different

protases have only one apodosis, as in (7). Here two alternative conditions of laws attract the same

penalty for the offense. Therefore, the two cases have the same consequent.

6. Exodus 22:4 (Eng.5)

Protasis: When ‫… כי‬
Apodosis: Then Ø
7. Exodus 21:33-34
Protasis: 33
When ‫… וכי‬
Protasis: Or When ‫כי‬ ‫… או‬
Apodosis: 34
Then Ø …
All the qōṭēl laws have both protases and apodoses, as in (8).21 By implication, the qōṭēl laws have

antecedents followed strictly by consequents.

20
See also Exodus 5, 15-16.
21
See also Exodus 21:12, 15, 17.

121
 8. Exodus 21:16
Protasis: When qōṭēl …
Apodosis: Then (qāṭôl) …
There are many instances where each main case law and each subsidiary case law have their

own protases and apodoses, as in (9).22 This shows that each supplementary condition has its own

consequent. In addition, the antecedent in each case is followed by the consequent.

9. Exodus 21:2-6
Protasis: 2
When ‫… כי‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
Protasis: 3
If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬

Apodosis: Then ‫… ו‬

Protasis: 4
If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
Protasis: 5
And If ‫… ואם‬

Apodosis: 6
Then ‫… ו‬
Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to this. There are some instances where two protases

of a main case law and a subsidiary case law are dependent on the same apodosis, as in (10).23 By

implication, the protasis of the subsidiary case law extends the condition before the penalty of the

offense is stated. Therefore, in this case two antecedents lead to one consequent.

10. Exodus 21:18-19

Protasis: 18When ‫… כי‬
Protasis: 19If ‫… אם‬

Apodosis: Then ‫… ו‬
It is also possible for a subsidiary case law to have a protasis without an apodosis, as in (11). In this

case, instead of the apodosis, the background explanation follows the protasis.

11. Exodus 22:13-14

Protasis: 13When ‫… כי‬

22
See also Exodus 7-11, 20-21, 22-25, 26-27.
23
See also Exodus 22:6-7

122
 Apodosis: Then (qāṭôl) …
14
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
Background information: ….
In the case of sub-case law, sometimes each sub-case law has both protasis and apodosis, as in (12).

In this case, there is no subsidiary case law, the sub-case law functions like the subsidiary case law.

As in the main case law, the sub-case law has its antecedent and consequent.

12. Exodus 21:35-36

Protasis: 35When ‫… וכי‬

Apodosis: Then ‫… ו‬
Protasis: 36or if ‫… או‬
Apodosis: Then (qāṭôl) …
At other times, two protases of sub-case laws may depend on the same apodosis, as in (13). Here

the two sub-case laws serve as alternative conditions to the main case law and subsidiary law earlier

stated. The apodosis of the sub-case laws is the same as that of the main and subsidiary case laws.

13. Exodus 21:28-32

Protasis: 28When ‫… וכי‬
Apodosis: Then (qāṭôl) …
29
Protasis: And If ‫… ואם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
30
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬

Apodosis: Then ‫… ו‬

Protasis: 31or if ‫… או‬

Protasis: or if ‫… או‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
32
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …

123
At times, the protases of sub-case laws may depend on the apodosis of the main case law, as in

(14).24 Here the protasis of the main case law is extended by the protases of the two sub-case laws

that followed before the principal apodosis is stated.

14. Exodus 22:9-12

Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
12

Protasis: or if ‫… או‬
Protasis: or if ‫… או‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
10

Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then ‫… ו‬
11
Protasis: And If ‫… ואם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …
12
Protasis: If ‫… אם‬
Apodosis: Then Ø …

4.4 Discourse

Analysing the discourse of a text is an important task in the interpretation of the text. The task

serves as a clue for deriving the meaning of the text. Since BC is to be read in light of the Sinai

narrative and Exodus 21:2-22:16 is part of BC, I thus consider the discourses of the Sinai narrative

(Exodus 19-24), BC (Exodus 20:23-22:16) and the casuistic laws (Exodus 21:1-22:16). This task

will help to gain a deeper insight into the content of the casuistic laws.

4.4.1 Sinai Narrative: Exodus 19-24

The Sinai narrative text is a mixture of narratives and regulations (Exod 20:1-17; Exod 20:22-

23:33). Many scholars have noticed a broad chiastic arrangement of the material in terms of the

narrative-law sequence (Williamson 93). Sprinkle suggests the arrangement of the Sinai narrative

(Exod 19-24) as follows:

A Narrative: the covenant offered (Exod 19)

B General regulations: the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17)

24
See also Exodus 22:13-14.

124
 C Narrative: people‟s fear of God (Exod 20:18-21)
B1 Specific regulations: BC (Exod 20:22-23:33)
1
A Narrative: the covenant consummated (Exod 24)
In his arrangement, Sprinkle places emphasis on the first and last units that deal with the

establishment of the covenant. According to him, the two units of regulations represent the

stipulations that the people must follow (Joe M Sprinkle 27). But, if this arrangement is to be

interpreted in light of Dorsey‟s argument that in a symmetrically structured narrative, the central

unit always serves as the turning point and the story‟s climax (Dorsey 40), then the people‟s fear of

God (Exod 20:18-21) would serve as the turning point and the story‟s climax. Thus, emphasis is

placed on the reaction of the people to God‟s appearance, and this serves as the narrative climax.

The unit also refers to both units concerning regulations. The unit results from the preceding unit

concerning general regulations (Decalogue) and leads into the next unit concerning the specific

regulations (BC). Hence, BC is the words of Yahweh that has resulted from the people‟s reaction to

God‟s appearance, which made them prefer that only Moses received messages from Yahweh and

communicated these messages to them.

4.4.2 BC: Exodus 20:22-23:33

BC has been arranged in different ways by scholars. They usually arranged it according to its topics.

Alexander stresses J. Halbe‟s arrangement as follows:

A Cultic laws (Exod 20:22-26)

B Law of release (Seventh year) (Exod 21:1-11)
C Slaves, property (Exod 21:12-22:19)
D The LORD alone (Exod 22:20)
C1 Aliens, social justice (Exod 22:21-23:9)
1
B Sabbath (Seventh day) (Exod 23:10-12)
A1 Cultic laws (Exod 23:13-19)
This arrangement highlights the main units within, but fails to incorporate Exodus 23:20-33

into BC. It also requires that Exodus 23:10-19 should be unnecessarily divided into two sections:

„Sabbath (seventh day)‟ (Exod 23:10-12) and „Cultic laws‟ (Exod 23:13-19). The emphasis is

placed on the unit „the LORD alone‟ (Exodus 22:20) (Alexander 95). By implication, the end of BC

125
is Yahweh himself. The first, central and last units focus on the worship of Yahweh, and other laws

(the casuistic laws inclusive) revolve around him. The relationships that exist among the people also

revolve around him.

Cameron highlights Staaldume-Sulman‟s arrangement of BC as follows:

A Cult: the altar as the one place (Exod 20:22-26)

B The weak: slaves and maids (21:1-11)
C Capital charges: Social (Exod 21:12-17)
D Bodily integrity: Injuries (Exod 21:18-36)
E Theft and ownership (Exod 21:37-22:12)
D1 Bodily integrity: cattle and virgins (Exod 22:13-16)
1
C Capital charges: Cultic (Exod 22:17-19)
1
B The weak: Strangers, widows and orphans, the poor (Exod 22:20-26)
A1 Cult: Curses and consecration (Exod 22:27-30)
His arrangement fails to include Exodus 23 in BC. According to Cameron, the laws in BC are

patchy, covering some areas in detail and others briefly. They cover a variety of specific cases. The

arrangement of these laws shows that God is above everything, and that people are more important

than objects. Also the needs and circumstances of some people are considered more important than

the legitimate claims of others (Cameron 133–134).

4.4.3 Casuistic Laws: Exodus 21:2-22:16

Exodus 21:2-22:16 reveals the will of Yahweh as regards what should be acceptable

relationships among his people. The laws are given to regulate these. Two classes of people are

recognized in the Old Testament Israelite society: freemen and the less privileged. The first class

includes people such as masters, men, women and children. The second class includes people such

as male slaves, female slaves, the poor, strangers, orphans, widows and virgins (unmarried women

who are still under the authority of their fathers). The laws in Exodus 21:2-22:16 describe different

offenses in light of the supposed relationships among God‟s people. The offenses that are prominent

in Exodus 21:2-22:16 include offenses of freemen against freemen, masters against slaves and

freemen against virgins. Dorsey arranges the casuistic laws as follows:

Casuistic laws (Exod 21:2-22:26)

126
 a Kindness to servants (Exod 21:2-11)
b Capital offenses (Exod 21:12-17)
c Non-capital bodily assaults (Exod 21:18-27)
d Death or injury of person by animal (Exod 28-32)
e Loss of property due to accident (Exod 21:33-36)
1
e Loss of property due to theft (Exod 21:37-22:8)
d1 Death, injury, or loss of animal by person (Exod 22:9-14)
c1 Non-capital bodily offense: seduction of virgin (Exod 22:15-16)
1
b Capital offenses (Exod 22:17-19)
a1 Kindness to aliens, widows, orphans, poor (Exod 22:20-26)
In his arrangement, Dorsey considers Exodus 22:17-26 to be part of the casuistic laws. Dorsey

arranges the laws in ten parts like the Ten Commandments. The arrangement is even-numbered

symmetries. The outer units tend to carry emphasis. As for the legal cases at the centre (involving

loss of property, etc.), they are less serious, compared to the legal cases as one works outward (such

as capital offenses). Therefore, the laws with the greatest structural emphasis are those at the

beginning and the end (the laws about kindness to the disadvantaged and the poor). This suggests

that kindness to the poor and the disadvantaged is a more important issue than the capital offenses

(which are treated in the second and penultimate positions), capital offenses are more important

than the non-capital bodily offense and so on (Dorsey 73–75).

Based on all the above arrangements, I give the following arrangement for the casuistic laws in

Exodus 21:2-22:16.

Casuistic laws (Exod 21:2-22:16)

A Relationship between master and slave: protection of slaves and maids (Exod 21:2-11)
B Relationship among freemen: Various offences (Exod 21:12-19)
C Relationship between master and slave: injury of slave (Exod 21:20-21)
D Relationship between two men: injury of woman (Exod 21:22-25)
E Relationship between master and slave: Injury (21:26-27)
D1 Relationship among freemen: injury by animal (Exod 21:28-31)
1
C Relationship between master and slave: injury by animal (Exod 21:32)
1
B Relationship among freemen: loss of properties (Exod 21:33-22:14)
A1 Relationship between master and slave (Exod 22:15-16)
This arrangement alternates the relationships that should exist between two freemen, and

between freemen and less privileged. The highlighted position in the arrangement is the central unit
127
that describes the relationship between a master and his slave, where the master must compensate

any injury inflicted on his slave. The beginning and last units emphasize the need to be kind to the

less privileged.

Furthermore, I will consider the following themes: Slavery (21:2-11), Striking a Parent

(21:15), Kidnapping (21:16), Bodily Injury (21:18-19), Miscarriage (21:22-25), Eye for Eye (21:26-

27), Goring Ox (21:28-32), Theft (21:37-22:3), Cattle Grazing (22:4) and Storage and Deposit

(22:6-8) in my thematic analysis. The first unit, which comprises the first theme, emphasizes the

need to treat slaves as brothers or members of the community. The central unit is grouped together

with all injuries to prevent any kind of mistreatment towards slaves. Slaves are to be treated as

human beings despite their reduced social status. They are not to be treated as mere properties but

as persons. In the unit C1, a slave is considered a property, yet he is to be treated as a human being.

All these suggest that the laws place high value on human life and do not discriminate in

terms of social class. They also express a great concern for the rights of less privileged and

encourage human good treatment. Thus, a higher value is placed on human life than on any property

in the laws. For instance, death penalty is abolished for offenses against property (cf. CoH 6-11; 19;

122). Slaves are also given protection against inhuman use (Exod 21:20-26). They are not merely

things, but human beings as well. Though the distinction between freemen and slaves is maintained,

even the slave is afforded the protection of the law (Eichrodt 77–79).

4.5 Grammar

The editor or author of Exodus 21:2-22:16 communicated the laws in BH, which is the

language of the Old Testament Israelites. For a better understanding of the contents of Exodus 21:2-

22:16, it is very necessary to engage in grammatical study of the text in relation to the genre of

casuistic law. I focus my grammatical study on the syntax of Exodus 21:2-22:16, and on how verbal

forms in the text are distributed and function in the casuistic laws.

128
4.5.1 Syntax: Word Order in Exodus 21:2-22:16

My focus will be on the word order of Exodus 21:2-22:16. Word order, which is an aspect of

syntax, is the typical way in which words are arranged in simple sentences. Moreover, it is

important for the interpretation of the sentence. Therefore, there is a relationship between the word

order and the interpretation of the sentence. Fromkin says that this kind of relationship involves

interaction between the syntactic rules governing the structure of sentences and the semantic rules

of reference and thematic role assignment (Fromkin 102). Some of these rules will later be

examined. The consideration of word order of Exodus 21:2-22:16 will in fact help to gain a correct

insight into the content of the laws in the text.

Much work has been done on the word order of BH in the past thirty years. Most often, word

order is strictly connected to discourse concerns. The discourse type that has received more

attention is the narrative text. Various works on word order of the narrative text have always

demonstrated that BH is a VS language. Most often, the conclusions of scholars are based on

statistics, yet many other scholars have proven the conclusion that BH is a VS language wrong, and

have argued that it is a SV language. I will apply the theory on word order in chapter two to analyse

Exodus 21:2:22:16‟s juridical text. In this section, I consider only the subject and the verb in the

clauses. Hence, I use SV and VS rather than SVO and VSO.

4.5.1.1 Analysis

Exodus 21:2-22:16, expressed in the genre of casuistic law, is associated with conditional

clauses, apodictic clauses and modal clauses. Moreover, these clauses in BH always exhibit VS

basic order in terms of frequency. This means that the SV word order of BH has been inverted to

VS word order. In this section, I examine each of these clauses and apply the theories on word order

to explicate the word order of Exodus 21:2-22:16. This will later be of a great assistance in gaining

a deeper insight into the contents of the laws in the text.

129
4.5.1.1.1 Clauses with Explicit Subject

There are almost 170 clauses in the text. Of these, fifty clauses are with explicit subjects and

finite verbs. In my analysis, of these fifty clauses, we find the following data as regards word order:

VS = 40 (80%)
SV = 10 (20%)
The data includes all types of clauses. Below, I will focus on the modal clauses, the conditional

clauses, and the apodictic clauses. From the data above, it is appropriate to say that the text exhibits

VS word order in term of frequency.

4.5.1.1.2 Modal Clauses

The data of modal clauses in the text is as follows:

VS = 40 (80%)
SV = 10 (20%)
In terms of frequency, this data shows that 80% of the clauses exhibit VS basic order, and the

remaining 20% SV order. There are fifty modal verbs in the text. Out of these, thirty-nine are modal

yiqṭōl, nine modal wĕqāṭal and two modal qāṭal. Of the thirty-nine modal yiqṭōl, twenty-nine appear

in the conditional clauses (protases) and ten in the apodictic clauses. Of the twenty-nine modal

yiqṭōl in the conditional clauses, seventeen appear in ‫כי‬-clauses, eleven in ‫אם‬-clauses and one in ‫או‬-

clause. Of the nine modal wĕqāṭal, four appear in the conditional clauses and the remaining five in

the apodictic clauses. The two modal qāṭal appear in the conditional clauses.

Of the thirty modal yiqṭōl in the text, thirty-one stand in a clause-initial position, that is to say, the

yiqṭōl-construction clauses in the text exhibit VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:7 and Exodus 22:6.25

‫ְּוכִּי־יִמְכ ֹר אִיׁש אֶּת־בִּת ֹּו לְָּאמָּה‬

‫ֹלא תֵּ צֵּא ְּכצֵּאת ָּה ֲעבָּדִּ ים‬

When a man sells his daughter to be a slave,

she must not go out as the male slaves do. (Exod 21:7)

25
See also Exodus 21:5; 21:14; 21:18; 21:20; 21:22; 21:26; 22:1; 22:3; 22:4; 22:8, etc.

130
 ‫אִּם־מָאֵ ן יְמָאֵ ן ָאבִי ָה לְּתִּתָּה ֹלו ֶּכסֶּף‬

‫יִּשְּק ֹּל כְּמֹּהַּר ַּהבְּתוֹלת‬

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him,

he must pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (Exod 22:16)

All the wĕqāṭal in the modal clauses stand in a clause-initial position, that is to say, the wĕqāṭal-

construction clauses in the text exhibit VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:1826.

‫ְּוכִּי־י ְִריבֺן אֲ נָׁשִ ים‬

‫ֶּת־רעֵּהו ְּב ֶּאבֶּן א ֹּו ְּב ֶּאגְּר ֹּף‬

ֵּ ‫ְו ִהכָה־אִ יׁש א‬

‫וְֹּלא י ָּמות‬

‫שכָּב‬
ְּ ‫ְּונָּפַּל ְּל ִּמ‬

And when men quarrel

And one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist

and the man does not die

but takes to his bed. (Exod 21:18)

One of the modal qāṭal in the clauses stands in a clause-initial position, as in Exodus 22:4.

‫שמֶּש ָּעלָּיו‬
ֶּ ‫אִּם־ז ְָּּרחָּה ַּה‬

‫דָּ מִּים ֹלו‬

‫שלֵּם‬
ַּ ְּ ‫שלֵּם י‬
ַּ

‫אִּם־אֵּין ֹלו‬

‫ְּונִּ ְּמכַּר ִּבגְּנֵּבָּת ֹּו‬

26
See also Exodus 21:3; 21:22; 22:7; 22:10.

131
 However, if the sun has risen on him

there must be bloodguilt for him.

He must surely pay.

If he has nothing,

then he must be sold for his theft. (Exod 22:4)

Therefore, of the fifty modal verbs in the text, forty-one stand in a clause-initial position.

Thus, in terms of frequency, modal clauses exhibit VS basic order. This confirms the arguments of

Revell (Revell 14–21) and Cook (Cook, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 134–144) that modal

clauses always exhibit VS basic order. Hence, a modal clause reflects triggered inversion, and a

modal verb is a potential trigger that inverts SV basic order to VS order in BH.

4.5.1.1.3 Conditional Clauses

The data of conditional clauses in the text is as follows:

‫כי‬-Conditional Clauses

VS = 21 (0%)
SV = 0 (100%)
‫אם‬- Conditional Clauses

VS = 8 (67%)
SV = 4 (33%)
‫או‬-Conditional Clause

VS = 1
SV = 0
‫אשר‬-Conditional Clause

VS=0
SV=1
Conditional clauses are closely associated with modal verbs. This makes the conditional clauses

always exhibit VS basic order. The conditional clauses in the text are introduced by the particles ‫כי‬,

‫אם‬, ‫ או‬or ‫אשר‬.

132
All twenty-one ‫כי‬-conditional clauses exhibit VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:33.27

‫ְּוכִּי־יִפְתַ ח אִ יׁש ב ֹּור‬

‫א ֹּו כִּי־יִכ ְֶרה אִיׁש ב ֹּר‬

‫וְֹּלא י ְּ ַּכןֶּמו‬

‫שםָּה ש ֹּור א ֹּו חֲמ ֹּור‬

ָּ ‫ְּונָּפַּל־‬

When a man opens a pit,

or when a man digs a pit

and does not cover it,

and an ox or a donkey falls into it, (Exod 21:33)

The particle ‫ כי‬is one of the triggers that invert SV basic order to VS order. ‫כי‬-conditional

clause usually begins topic units of main case law (Kompaoré 33). This makes the clauses topic

constituent. Moreover, the fronting of a topic constituent always results in VS order. The clauses

further contain modal verbs, which are also triggers that invert basic order. Three factors trigger

inversion of basic order in ‫כי‬-conditional clause. So if the first factor, that is the particle ‫ כי‬triggers

the inversion from SV basic order to VS order, then the second, that is, the fronting of a topic

constituent triggers the inversion from VS order to SV order, and the third, that is the modal verb

again triggers the inversion from SV order to VS order. Thus, ‫כי‬-conditional clauses exhibit VS

basic order.

There are twelve ‫אם‬-conditional clauses. Eight of these clauses exhibit VS basic order, as in (4)28

above and the remaining four exhibit SV basic order, as in Exodus 21:4 and Exodus 21:23.29

‫אִּם־אֲ דֹנָיו יִתֶ ן־ֹלו ִּאשָּה‬

27
See also Exodus 21:7; 21:14; 21:18; 21:20; 21:22; 22:4; 22:5 22:6; 22:9: 22:13, etc.
28
See also Exodus 21:5; 21:32; 22:1; 22:3; 22:6; 22:7; 22:10.
29
See also Exodus 21:23; 21:30.

133
 ‫ְּויָּלְּדָּ ה־ֹלו ָּבנִּים א ֹּו בָּנ ֹּות‬

‫ָּה ִּאשָּה וִּילָּדֶּ י ָּה תִּ ְּהי ֶּה לַּאדֹּנֶּי ָּה‬

‫וְּהוא יֵּצֵּא ְּבגַּפ ֹּו‬

If his master gives him a wife

and she bears to him sons or daughters,

the wife and her children must be her master's,

and he must go out as a single person. (Exod 21:4)

‫ְּואִּם־ָאס ֹון יִ ְהיֶה‬

‫ְּונָּתַּ תָּ ה נֶּפֶּש תַּ חַּת נָּפֶּש‬

But if harm happens

then you must pay life for life. (Exod 21:23)

The particle ‫ אם‬also triggers the inversion of SV basic order to VS order. ‫אם‬-conditional

clauses present varieties of the same topic introduced by ‫ כי‬conditional clause (Kompaoré 33). The

varieties that exist under the same main case law make the clauses pragmatically marked. The

clauses also contain modal verbs, which are also triggers that invert basic order. These three factors

cause ‫אם‬-conditional clauses to reverse SV basic order. Nevertheless, they exhibit SV basic order

whenever a constituent, especially a subject, is highlighted for some sort of emphasis for contrast or

identification. For instance, in Exodus 21:4 the constituent ‫ אֲ דֹנָיו‬ʼadōnâv, ‘master’ is fronted for

the sake of emphasis. It is contrasted with the previous subject, a Hebrew slave. The same is

applicable to Exodus 21:23. The subject ‫ ָאס ֹון‬ʼāṣôn, ‘harm’, is fronted to present a contrasting

situation. The fronting of subjects in these two cases results in SV order.

The ‫או‬-conditional clause exhibits VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:36.

‫א ֹּו נ ֹּודַּ ע‬

‫שלְּש ֹּם‬
ִּ ‫כִּי ש ֹּור נַּגָּח הוא מִּתְּ מ ֹּול‬
134
 ‫וְֹלא יִׁשְ מ ְֶרּנו ְב ָעלָיו‬

‫שלֵּם ש ֹּור תַּ חַּת הַּש ֹּור‬

ַּ ְּ ‫שלֵּם י‬
ַּ

‫ְּו ַּהםֵּת י ִּ ְּהי ֶּה־ֹּלו‬

Or if it is known

that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past,

and its owner has not kept it in,

he shall repay ox for ox,

and the dead beast shall be his. (Exod 21:36)

Like other conditional clauses, ‫או‬-conditional clause exhibits VS basic order. It can also be

deduced from Exodus 21:36 that ‫ ֹלא‬lōʼ, „not‟ is closely associated with modal verbs. In conditional

clauses, it works together with the modal verb to affect the word order in a clause.30

The ‫אשר‬-conditional clause exhibits SV basic order, as in Exodus 21:13.

‫ַּו ֲאשֶּר ֹלא צָּדָּ ה‬

‫ְוהָאֱ ֹלהִים אִ ּנָה ְּלי ָּד ֹּו‬

‫שמְּתִּ י לְָּך מָּק ֹּום‬

ַּ ‫ְּו‬

‫שםָּה‬
ָּ ‫ֲאשֶּר י ָּנוס‬

But if he did not lie in wait,

but God let him fall into his hand,

then I will appoint for you a place

to which he may flee. (Exodus 21:13)

The clause exhibits SV basic because the subject ‫ ְּו ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬vehāʼelōhîm is highlighted for emphasis

sake.

30
See also Exodus 21:22; 21:28; 22:7.

135
4.5.1.1.4 Apodictic Clauses

The data of apodictic in the text is as follows:

Wĕqāṭal-Construction Clauses

VS = 5 (100%)
SV = 0 (0%)
Yiqṭōl-Construction Clauses

VS = 5 (50%)
SV = 5 (50%)
There are fifteen apodictic clauses in the text. All these clauses contain modal verbs: modal yiqṭōl

and wĕqāṭal.

Of the ten Yiqṭōl-Construction Clauses, five exhibit VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:28.31

‫ְּוכִּי־יִּגַּח ש ֹּור אֶּת־אִּיש א ֹּו אֶּת־ ִּאשָּה ָּומֵּת‬

‫סָּק ֹּול י ִּ ָּןקֵּל הַּש ֹּור‬

‫וְֹּלא י ֵָּאכֵּל אֶּת־ ְּבשָּר ֹּו‬

‫ו ַּבעַּל הַּש ֹּור נָּקִּי‬

And when an ox gores a man or a woman to death,

the ox must surely be stoned,

and its flesh must not be eaten,

but the owner of the ox must not be liable. (Exod 21:28)

Modal yiqṭōl in yiqṭōl-construction clauses causes the trigger inversion from SV basic order to

VS order. In these five clauses, there are no focus-fronted constituent and topic-fronted constituent.

This makes the clauses exhibit VS basic order.

The other five clauses exhibit SV basic order, as in Exodus 21:29.32

‫שלְּש ֹּם‬
ִּ ‫ְּואִּם ש ֹּור נַּגָּח הוא מִּתְּ מ ֹּל‬

31
See also Exodus 21:22; 22:8.
32
See also Exodus 21:32; 21:34; 22:10.

136
 ‫וְּהועַּד ִּב ְּב ָּעלָּיו‬

‫שמ ְֶּּרמו‬
ְּ ִּ ‫וְֹּלא י‬

‫ְּו ֵּהמִּית אִּיש א ֹּו ִּאשָּה‬

‫הַש ֹור י ִּ ָּןקֵּל‬

‫ְּוגַּם־ ְב ָעלָיו יומָּת‬

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past,

and its owner is to be notified but does not keep it in,

and it kills a man or a woman,

the ox must be stoned,

and its owner also must be put to death. (Exod 21:29)

Modal yiqṭōl in yiqṭōl-construction clauses, first, causes the trigger inversion from SV basic

order to VS order. There is a focus-fronted constituent in these five clauses. For instance, in (11),

the subjects ‫ הַש ֹור‬haššôr, ‘the ox’ and ‫עלָיו‬

ָ ‫ ְב‬be„ālâv, „its owner’ are highlighted for emphasis of

identification. Because they are focus-fronted, their fronting results in SV order.

All the five wĕqāṭal-construction clauses exhibit VS basic order, as in Exodus 21:6.33

‫ְּו ִּהגִּיש ֹּו אֲדֹּנָּיו אֶּל־ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬

‫ְּו ִּהגִּיש ֹּו אֶּל־הַּדֶּ לֶּת א ֹּו אֶּל־ ַּהםְּזוזָּה‬

‫ו ְָּּרצַּע אֲדֹּנָּיו אֶּת־ָאזְּנ ֹּו ַּבם ְַּּר ֵּצ ַּע‬

‫ַּו ֲעבָּד ֹּו לְּעֹּלָּם‬

then his master must bring him to God,

and he must bring him to the door or the doorpost.

His master must also bore his ear through with an awl,

33
See also Exodus 21:3; 22:7; 22:10.

137
 and he must be his slave forever. (Exod 21:6)

As a modal verb, wĕqāṭal triggers the inversion from SV basic order to VS order. Since it is

often used to continue other modal verbs, it may be difficult to find focus-fronted constituent and

topic-fronted constituent in wĕqāṭal-construction clauses. Because of this wĕqāṭal-construction

clauses always exhibit VS basic order.

4.5.2 Verbal Forms in Exodus 21:2-22:16

There appears at least one Hebrew verb in the protasis and apodosis of each law in Exodus

21:2-22:16, which are used to express the situations in the laws. According to Renaat DeClerk,

situation is used „as a cover term for the various possible types of contents of clauses, i.e. as a cover

term for anything that can be expressed in a clause‟. Situation can be a state, an action, a process, or

an event (DeClerk 22). The theory on verbal system in chapter two will be used to identity verbal

forms and state the functions of the forms in Exodus 21:2-22:16, in order to gain a better

understanding of the situations of the laws in the text.

4.5.2.1 Analysis

In Exodus 21:2-22:16, there appear three finite verbal forms: yiqṭōl, wĕqāṭal and qāṭal and

three non-finite verbal forms: qāṭôl, qōṭēl, and qǝṭōl. However, I restrict my study to verbs yiqṭōl,

wĕqāṭal, qāṭal and qōṭēl. These verbal forms appear in the protases and apodoses of conditional

sentences in BC and each of them functions differently in the laws. The statistical data of the verbal

forms in Exodus 21:2-22:16 are represented in the table below.

Verb Form Frequency Percentage (%)

yiqṭōl, „he kills‟/ „he will
102 60
kill‟
wĕqāṭal, „and he kills‟/
44 26
„and he will kill‟
qāṭal, „he has killed‟ 14 8
qōṭēl, „he kills‟ 10 6
Total 170 100

138
4.5.2.1.1 Yiqṭōl

Yiqṭōl (traditionally called prefix conjugation or imperfective (Joosten viii)) usually functions

to refer to a process not yet begun (Joosten 268), to describe events belonging to the future (Driver

28), to express an action only as doing, and not as done, and to express a command (Driver 29).

Joosten further stresses that over 80% of yiqṭōl form in a typical text may have a future-modal

function (Joosten 268). Yiqṭōl can appear as a „long‟ yiqṭōl and a „short‟ yiqṭōl. While the „long‟

yiqṭōl signifies the present-future or modal, the „short‟ usually signifies jussive mood (Waltke and

O‟Connor 496).

Yiqṭōl is the main tense and primary form in conditional sentences in BC, so it expresses the

foreground situation in the laws. It is used to describe the conditional situations in the protases and

the legal consequences in the apodoses. It has a typical value of future. It appears modally in the

protases and the apodoses. As a modal verb, it is used in the protases to denote propositions which

are knowledge-based and are usually labelled epistemic (Hatav 116-117). It is used to express the

speaker‟s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition in the protases (Palmer 8), as

in Exodus 21:2 and Exodus 21:33.34

‫ש ִּבעִּת יֵּצֵּא ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי ִּחמָּם׃‬

ְּ ‫שנִּים יַּעֲב ֹּד ו ַּב‬
ָּ ‫כִּי תִ ְקנֶה ֶּעבֶּד ִּעב ְִּּרי שֵּש‬

When you buy [yiqṭōl] a Hebrew slave, six years he must serve [yiqṭōl], and in the seventh he must

go out free [yiqṭōl], for nothing. (Exod 21:2)

‫שםָּה ש ֹּור א ֹּו חֲמ ֹּור׃‬

ָּ ‫ְּוכִּי־יִפְתַ ח אִּיש ב ֹּור א ֹּו ִּכי־יִכ ְֶרה אִּיש ב ֹּר וְֹּלא יְ ַכסֶּנו ְּונָּפַּל־‬

And when a man opens [yiqṭōl] a pit, or when a man digs [yiqṭōl] a pit and does not cover [yiqṭōl] it,

and an ox or an ass falls [wĕqāṭal] there in. (Exod 21:33)

Also as a modal verb, it is used in the apodoses to denote directives which are not yet

actualized and are usually labelled deontic (Palmer 8). Thus, its usage denotes the obligation,

emanating from an external source (Palmer 9). The modal verb „must‟, which, like other modal

34
See also Exodus 21:4, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37; 22:1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13.

139
verbs, expresses the relation between the factual world and the nonfactual world, is often used for it

(DeClerk 39). Furthermore, yiqṭōl is used to represent a real situation which arises as a legal

consequence of the situation described in the protasis (Waltke and O‟Connor 511), as in Exodus

21:7 and Exodus 21:34.35 Sometimes, yiqṭōl is used with qāṭôl to stress the condition or

consequence of the laws, as in Exodus 21:16 and Exodus 21:17.36

‫ְּוכִּי־יִּמְּכ ֹּר אִּיש אֶּת־בִּת ֹּו לְָּאמָּה ֹלא תֵ צֵא ְּכצֵּאת ָּה ֲעבָּדִּים׃‬

And when a man sells [yiqṭōl] his daughter as female slave, she must not go out [yiqṭōl] as the male

slaves go. (Exod 21:7)

‫ַּבעַּל הַּב ֹּור יְׁשַ לֵם ֶּכסֶּף יָׁשִ יב ִּל ְּב ָּעלָּיו ְּו ַּהםֵּת יִ ְהיֶה־ֹּלו׃‬

the owner of the pit must make restoration [yiqṭōl]. He must give [yiqṭōl] money to its owner, and

the dead beast must be [yiqṭōl] his. (Exod 21:34)

‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹות יומָת׃‬

And when a man steals [qōṭēl] another man and sells [wĕqāṭal] him, and he is found [wĕqāṭal] in his

possession, that man must surely be put to death [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:16)

‫ו ְּמ ַּקלֵּל ָאבִּיו ְּואִּם ֹּו מ ֹות יומָת׃‬

When a man curses [qōṭēl] his father or his mother must surely be put to death‟[yiqṭōl]. (Exod

21:17)

4.5.2.1.2 Wĕqāṭal

Wĕqāṭal (traditionally called the suffix conjugation preceded by waw or perfect consecutive

(Joosten viii)) is thought to have its origin in perfective qāṭal (see Waltke and O‟Connor 521-523

and Joosten, 'Biblical Weqatal and Syriac hwa Qatel‟ 3). It also has a typical value of future.

Furthermore, its semantics, according to Cook, are compatible with temporally successive

expressions (Cook, 'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 265). He defines temporary succession as

35
See also Exodus 21:2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 21, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37; 22:3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16.
36
See also Exodus 21:5, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 28, 36; 22:2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15.

140
„the linear portrayal of events according to the order or their occurrence in the depicted world‟

(Cook, 'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 251). Wĕqāṭal is the form of preference for expressing

chronological sequence (Kompaoré 65). Joosten emphasizes that wĕqāṭal and yiqṭōl often occur in

the same context, and when they occur side by side, it is hard to detect any temporal, modal or

aspectual difference between these forms. They share exactly the same temporal-aspectual-modal

functions. Both can be used as expressions of futurity-modality (Joosten 18–19). Furthermore,

wĕqāṭal is often used to continue other modal forms like imperatives, jussives and cohortatives in

the protases (Holmstedt 137).

Wĕqāṭal appears as a modal form in Exodus 21:2-22:16. It is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl.

It is identified as an extension of the form‟s primary modal meanings in the protases and the

apodoses. Just like yiqṭōl, it signals foreground situations in the protases and the apodoses. In the

protases, it has an epistemic sense. It is used to continue the description of the situation already

introduced by yiqṭōl in the protases, as in Exodus 21:26 and Exodus 22:1.37 So it does not appear in

the clause introduced by the particle ‫ כי‬or ‫אם‬. It is used to express foregrounded, temporally

successive situations in the protases (See Cook, „The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics‟ 264-269).

‫ש ְּלחֶּמו תַּ חַּת עֵּינ ֹּו׃‬

ַּ ְּ ‫ְּוכִּי־יַּכֶּה אִּיש אֶּת־עֵּין ַּעבְּד ֹּו א ֹּו־אֶּת־עֵּין ֲאמָּת ֹּו וְׁשִ חֲתָ ה ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי י‬

When a man strikes [yiqṭōl] the eye of his slave, male or female, and if he destroys [wĕqāṭal] it, he

must let the slave go free [yiqṭōl] because of his eye. (Exod 21:26)

‫אִּם־ ַּב ַּםחְּתֶּ ֶּרת י ִּ ָּםצֵּא ַּה ַּגמָּב ְו ֺהכָה ָומֵת אֵּין ֹלו דָּ מִּים‬

If a thief is found [yiqṭōl] breaking in, and is struck [wĕqāṭal], so that he dies [wĕqāṭal], there must

be no bloodguilt for him. (Exod 22:1)

In the protases, it also appears as alternative situations, as in Exodus 21:16 and Exodus 21:18.38 It is

especially used after the participle to describe a temporal or alternative situation in the protases.

37
See also Exodus 21:4, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37; 22:1,5, 6, 9, 15.
38
See also Exodus 21:12; 22:4

141
 ‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

When a man steals [qōṭēl] another man and sells him [wĕqāṭal], or he is found [wĕqāṭal] in possession

of him, than man must die‟ [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:16)

‫שכָּב׃‬
ְּ ‫ֶּת־רעֵּהו ְּב ֶּאבֶּן א ֹּו ְּב ֶּאגְּר ֹּף וְֹּלא י ָּמות ְונָפַל ְּל ִּמ‬
ֵּ ‫ְּוכִּי־י ְִּּריבֺּן ֲאנָּשִּים ְּו ִּהכָּה־אִּיש א‬

And when men quarrel [yiqṭōl], and one strikes [wĕqāṭal] the other with a stone or with his fist, and

the man does not die [yiqṭōl] but takes [wĕqāṭal] to his bed. (Exod 21:18)

From its frequent use in the apodoses, wĕqāṭal has a deontic sense. Moreover, it often marks

temporal succession. Temporal succession refers „to the order of their occurrence in the depicted

world‟ (Cook, 'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 251). Wĕqāṭal is always a continuation form,

so, it never comes first in the chain. It also expresses a consequent (logical and/or chronological)

situation to a situation represented by a protasis (Waltke and O‟Connor, 1990:529). Waltke and

O‟Connor refer to the relative waw in wĕqāṭal as apodosis waw, which is equivalent to English

„then‟. This apodosis waw usually introduces an apodosis after a protasis (Waltke and O‟Connor

521), as in Exodus 21:11 and Exodus 21:35.39

‫שלָּש־ ֵּאלֶּה ֹלא י ַּ ֲעשֶּה לָּה ְויָצְָאה ִּחמָּם אֵּין ָּכסֶּף׃‬

ְּ ‫ְּואִּם־‬

And if these three things he does not do [yiqṭōl] for her, then she must go out [wĕqāṭal] for nothing,

without payment of money. (Exod 21:11)

‫ְּוכִּי־י ִּג ֹּף ש ֹּור־אִּיש אֶּת־ש ֹּור ֵּרעֵּהו ָּומֵּת ו ָמכְרו אֶּת־הַּש ֹּור ַּהחַּי ְּוחָּצו אֶּת־ ַּכסְּפ ֹּו ְּוגַּם אֶּת־ ַּהםֵּת יֶּחֱצון׃‬

And when one man‟s ox injures [yiqṭōl] another‟s ox, and it dies [wĕqāṭal] then they must sell

[wĕqāṭal] the live ox and divide [wĕqāṭal] its money, and the dead ox also they must divide [yiqṭōl].

(Exod 21:35)

4.5.2.1.3 Qāṭal

Qāṭal (traditionally called perfective or suffix conjugation (Joosten viii)) is used to denote an

action completed and finished at a definite moment in the past, fixed by the narrative (Driver 13).

39
See also Exodus 21:3, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, 30; 22:2, 7, 10.

142
Qāṭal has been translated in English as simple past, past perfect, present perfect, present, future

perfect and modal (Cook, 'The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System' 75).

Qāṭal appears only in the protases in the text. In many instances, it has a typical value of past.

It also refers to anterior situations (Hatav 147). Driver describes it as actions relating to a past time,

which might have happened but did not happen, which are therefore only for the moment conceived

as having occurred, under conditions not actually realized (Driver 23). Thus, its clauses refer to

situations that precede the situations described in the protases. It is used to give background

information to the laws. In such situation, it is used to express a completed action, as in Exodus

21:8 and Exodus 21:13.40

‫ִּם־רעָּה ְּבעֵּינֵּי אֲדֹּנֶּי ָּה ֲאשֶּר־ֹלו יְ ָעדָ ה ְּו ֶּהפְּדָּ ה ְּלעַּם נָּכ ְִּּרי ֹלא־יִּמְּש ֹּל ְּל ָּמכ ְָּּרה ְּב ִּבגְּד ֹּו־בָּה׃‬
ָּ ‫א‬

If she does not please her master, who has appointed her [qāṭal] as his wife, then he must allow her

be redeemed [wĕqāṭal]. To a foreign nation, he does not have right [yiqṭōl] to sell her, because he has

acted faithlessly to her. (Exod 21:8)

‫שםָּה׃‬
ָּ ‫שמְּתִּ י לְָּך מָּק ֹּום ֲאשֶּר י ָּנוס‬
ַּ ‫ַּו ֲאשֶּר ֹלא צָדָ ה ְּו ָּהאֱֹלהִּים אִ ּנָה ְּלי ָּד ֹּו ְּו‬

And that he did not lie in wait [qāṭal] but God has delivered [qāṭal] him into his hand then I must

appoint [wĕqāṭal] to you a place that he must flee [yiqṭōl] thither. (Exod 21:13)

In a few occasions, it is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl in describing propositional situations. It

appears with ‫ אם‬in some occasions to express the propositional situation, as in Exodus 22:2a

[Eng.3a] and Exodus 22:10 [Eng.11].41

‫שלֵּם׃‬
ַּ ְּ ‫שלֵּם י‬
ַּ ‫שמֶּש ָּעלָּיו דָּ מִּים ֹלו‬
ֶּ ‫אִּם־ז ְָרחָה ַּה‬

but if the sun has risen [qāṭal] on him, there must be bloodguilt for him. (Exod 22:2a [Eng.3a)

‫שלֵּם׃‬
ַּ ְּ ‫שנֵּיהֶּם אִּם־ֹלא ׁשָ לַח י ָּד ֹּו ִּב ְּמלֶּאכֶּת ֵּרעֵּהו ְּו ָּלקַּח ְּב ָּעלָּיו וְֹּלא י‬
ְּ ‫ש ֺּבעַּת י ְּהוָּה תִּ ְּהי ֶּה בֵּין‬
ְּ

40
See also Exodus 21:5; 22:15.
41
See also Exodus 22:2, 7.

143
 An oath of the Lord must be [yiqṭōl] between them both, if he did not put [qāṭal] his hands to his

neighbour‟s property then the owner must accept [wĕqāṭal] the oath and he must not restore

[yiqṭōl]. (Exod 22:10 [Eng.11])

It also appears with ‫ או‬in the protases. Sometimes ‫ או‬introduces subcase of the main or subsidiary

protasis (Wenham 98). In such case, ‫ או‬seems to act like a waw-relative. Where ‫ או‬immediately

precedes the verb, qāṭal is used instead of yiqṭōl, as in Exodus 21:37 [Eng.22:1] and Exodus 22:9

[Eng.10].42

‫ְַּארבַּע־צ ֹּאן תַּ חַּת ַּהשֶּה׃‬

ְּ ‫שלֵּם תַּ חַּת הַּש ֹּור ו‬
ַּ ְּ ‫כִּי יִּגְּנ ֹּב־אִּיש ש ֹּור א ֹּו־שֶּה ו ְּטבָּח ֹּו א ֹו ְמכָר ֹו ֲח ִּמשָּה ָּבקָּר י‬

When a man steals [yiqṭōl] an ox or a sheep, and kills [yiqṭōl] it or sells it [qāṭal], five oxen he must

repay [yiqṭōl] for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. (Exod 21:37 [Eng.22:1])

‫ֶּל־רעֵּהו חֲמ ֹּור א ֹּו־ש ֹּור א ֹּו־שֶּה ְּוכָּל־ ְּב ֵּהמָּה ִּלשְּמ ֹּר ומֵּת א ֹו־נִׁשְ בַר א ֹו־נִׁשְ בָה אֵּין רֹּאֶּה׃‬
ֵּ ‫כִּי־י ִּתֵּ ן אִּיש א‬

When a man delivers [yiqṭōl] to his neighbor a donkey or an ox, or a sheep or any animal to keep safe

and it dies [wĕqāṭal] or is injured [qāṭal] or is driven away [qāṭal] without seeing it. (Exod 22:9

[Eng.10])

Where there is a noun between ‫ או‬and the verb, yiqṭōl is used, as in Exodus 21:31.

‫שפָּט ַּהזֶּה י ֵּ ָּעשֶּה ֹּלו׃‬

ְּ ‫א ֹו־בֵּן יִגָח א ֹו־בַּת יִגָח ַּכ ִּם‬

Or if a son it gores [yiqṭōl] if a daughter it gores, [yiqṭōl], according to the same judgement, the

matter must be dealt [yiqṭōl] with. (Exod 21:31)

4.5.2.1.4 Qōṭēl

Qōṭēl is the Hebrew active participle. It is a verbal noun. It participates in both nominal and

verbal characteristics. It has four principal functions in biblical Hebrew: it functions as a

substantive, as an adjective, as a relative and as a predicate (Waltke and O‟Connor 613). As

substantive, qōṭēl functions as a noun, most often occurring with the definite article (Arnold 82). As

42
See also Exodus 21:36; 22:13.

144
adjective, it functions attributively (ascribes a quality to a noun) (Arnold 78) and predicatively

(expresses an assertion about a noun or pronoun in a nominal clause) (Arnold 79). Qōṭēl can be

used as the equivalent of relative clauses. It is also used as the predicate of a verbless clause.

In Exodus 21:1-22:16, qōṭēl is taken as equivalent to ‫ כי‬and finite verb in the protases of Exodus

21:12, 15, 16, 17. The finite verb expresses modality of necessity, as in Exodus 21:17. It has the

same sense as yiqṭōl.

‫ו ְמ ַקלֵל ָאבִּיו ְּואִּם ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

When a man curses [qōṭēl] his father or his mother he must be put to death [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:17)

In summary, the four verbal forms yiqṭōl, wĕqāṭal, qāṭal and qōṭēl in Exodus 21:2-22:16 are

distributed to express various situations in the protases and apodoses of casuistic laws. Each plays

different roles in the text. Yiqṭōl appears modally. It expresses the foreground situations in the

protases and the apodoses. It has an epistemic sense in the protases and a deontic sense in the

apodoses. Wĕqāṭal appears modally. It has the same sense as yiqṭōl. In addition, it is often used to

continue the description of the necessary conditional situations in the protases and the obligatory

consequent situations in the apodoses. Qāṭal appears as a perfective aspect and a modal verb. As a

perfective aspect, it gives past background information to the laws. As a modal, it is used in the

same sense as yiqṭōl. Qōṭēl is used as modal and non-modal forms in modal clauses. As modal, it is

used in the same sense as yiqṭōl. As non-modal, it functions as an anticipated background situation.

The summary of the functions of verbal forms in Exodus 21:1-22:16 is stated below:

Category Verbal Form

1. Yiqṭōl – Primary foreground situation
2. Wĕqāṭal – Secondary foreground
situation
Protasis: Necessary Propositions
Qāṭal – Secondary foreground situation
Qāṭal – Past background situation
Qōṭēl – Secondary foreground situation
1. Yiqṭōl – Primary foreground
Apodosis: Obligatory Directives situation
2. Wĕqāṭal – Secondary foreground

145
 situation

4.6 Themes

Here, I consider the ten themes that are closely paralleled in both CoH and BC. These themes

are Slavery, Striking a Parent, Kidnapping, Bodily Injury, Miscarriage, Eye for Eye, Goring Ox,

Theft, Cattle Grazing and Storage and Deposit. I treat the themes „miscarriage and „eye for eye‟

together. Each theme contains at least one topic, which is introduced by a ‫ כי‬conditional clause or a

qōṭēl clause. Sometimes, it contains two or more topics. At other times, it contains a topic with

some variations, and these variations are usually introduced by ‫ אם‬clauses or ‫ או‬clauses.

4.6.1 Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11

Exodus 21:2-11 has two main case laws and eight subsidiary case laws, which revolve around

the theme „the conditions of release of Hebrew slaves‟. The laws seek to regulate the treatment of

slaves within Israel. The text is divided into two structural units: Exodus 21:2-6 and Exodus 21:7-

11, which deal with male Hebrew slave and female Hebrew slave respectively. Both units begin

with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause and are each followed by four ‫ אם‬clauses, outlining sub-conditions for

each of the cases. By implication, there is one main protasis and one apodosis, together with four

subsidiary protases and four subsidiary apodoses in each unit. While the first main protasis

introduces the topic of male Hebrew slave, the second focuses on the topic of female Hebrew slave.

The subsidiary protases in both units present variations of the two topics.

4.6.1.1 First Unit – Exodus 21:2-6

The first unit mentions four participants: male slave, master, wife and children. The

participant rank43 is as follows:

43
Participant rank has to do with ranking the participants that are referred to in the laws according to the number of

references. For instance, the central participant has a much higher incidence of reference than do secondary participants, or minor

participants (see Kompaoré 94).

146
  The male slave is the primary and central participant.
 The master is the secondary participant.
 The wife and children serve only peripheral roles.

4.6.1.1.1 Text

‫ש ִּבעִּת יֵּצֵּא ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי ִּחמָּם׃‬

ְּ ‫שנִּים יַּעֲב ֹּד ו ַּב‬
ָּ ‫כִּי תִּ ְּקנֶּה ֶּעבֶּד ִּעב ְִּּרי שֵּש‬

When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years he must serve, and in the seventh year, he must go out free,

for nothing. (Exod 21:2)

‫אִּם־ ְּבגַּפ ֹּו י ָּב ֹּא ְּבגַּפ ֹּו יֵּצֵּא אִּם־ ַּבעַּל ִּאשָּה הוא ְּויָּצְָּאה ִּאשְּת ֹּו עִּם ֹּו׃‬

If he comes as a single person, he must go out as a single person; if he comes as a married person, then

his wife must go out with him. (Exod 21:3)

‫אִּם־אֲדֹּנָּיו י ִּתֶּ ן־ֹלו ִּאשָּה ְּויָּלְּדָּ ה־ֹלו ָּבנִּים א ֹּו בָּנ ֹּות ָּה ִּאשָּה וִּילָּדֶּ י ָּה תִּ ְּהי ֶּה לַּאדֹּנֶּי ָּה וְּהוא יֵּצֵּא ְּבגַּפ ֹּו׃‬

If his master gives to him a wife and she bears to him sons or daughters, the wife and her children

must be her master's, and he must go out as a single person. (Exod 21:4)

‫ְּואִּם־ָאמ ֹּר י ֹּאמַּר ָּה ֶּעבֶּד ָא ַּהבְּתִּ י אֶּת־אֲדֹּנִּי אֶּת־ ִּאשְּתִּ י ְּואֶּת־ ָּבנָּי ֹלא ֵּאצֵּא ָּח ְּפשִּי׃‬

But if the slave plainly says, „I have loved my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.

(Exod 21:5)

‫ְּו ִּהגִּיש ֹּו אֲדֹּנָּיו אֶּל־ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים ְּו ִּהגִּיש ֹּו אֶּל־הַּדֶּ לֶּת א ֹּו אֶּל־ ַּהםְּזוזָּה ו ְָּּרצַּע אֲדֹּנָּיו אֶּת־ָאזְּנ ֹּו ַּבם ְַּּר ֵּצ ַּע ַּו ֲעבָּד ֹּו‬

‫לְּעֹּלָּם׃‬

then his master must bring him to God, and he must bring him to the door or the doorpost. His master

must also bore his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave forever. (Exod 21:6)

4.6.1.1.2 Analysis

MP: The subject that appears in the main protasis is „you‟, which refers to the master of the slave.

The use of the second person for the addressee suggests that Yahweh is the one speaking in

the first person through Moses in expressing his propositions and directives to the Old

Testament Israelites (cf. verse 13). The verb ‫ תִ ְקנֶה‬tiqneh, „you acquire‟ in yiqṭōl form is used

to describe the situation in the main protasis. It is usually used with reference to people, and
147
 its usage is concrete and economic (Lipiński, “55 ”‫)קנה‬. Therefore, it refers to the purchase of

humans to serve as slaves. The object of the action is ‫עב ְִרי‬

ִ ‫’ ֶעבֶד‬ebed ’ibrî. There are two

interpretations to ‫עב ְִרי‬

ִ ‫ ֶעבֶד‬. First, it may refer to the term „ḫabiru‟, which is an Akkadian

term for „a widespread social class throughout the second millennium B.C. in the Near East‟.

The people in this social class were considered to be social outcasts or immigrants who served

as mercenaries or as labourers just above the class of slaves (Van Seters 87). Second, the term

is traditionally referred to be an ethnic term „Hebrew‟, which is derived from Eber (Gen

11:14) (Joe M Sprinkle 64). In the Old Testament, the term is usually used as an appellative

for the descendants of Abraham (Freedman 437–440). The later interpretation is more

appropriate considering the context of the text. We find in the text the guarantee that the slave

should be released after the seventh year. This demonstrates that descendants of Abraham are

to be differentiated from other peoples like prisoners of war or non-Hebrew slaves. ‫עב ְִרי‬
ִ ‫ֶעבֶד‬

are thus expected to be treated as brothers or members of the community. In the Old

Testament times, the purchase of ‫עב ְִרי‬

ִ ‫ ֶעבֶד‬is only possible whenever an Israelite sells

himself, his wife or his children into slavery because of poverty or specifically for non-

payment of debt (Hyatt 228).

MA: In the situation where an Israelite sells himself or a family member, or a master buys an

Israelite, the directive is that the slave must serve his master for six years and in the seventh

year he must be released. Two verbs ‫ יַעֲב ֹד‬ya‘abōd and ‫ יֵצֵא‬yaṣa’ both appearing in yiqṭōl

form, are used to describe the situations in the main apodosis. The first verb ‫ יַעֲב ֹד‬indicates

that the slave must serve for six years instead of paying the debt. Then his freedom is granted

in the seventh year. Sprinkle observes that the text may be connected to the Sinai narrative

because of the mentioning of the seventh year as the time for his freedom (Joe M Sprinkle

65). If this is so, this implies that the slave‟s freedom in the seventh year could be understood

as a general Sabbath year for everyone (Van Seters 94). Thus, the number seven is symbolic

148
 for the period at which comes divinely „rest or release‟ (cf. Gen 2:3; Exod 20:9-11; 23:10-11;

Deut 5:1-3; 31:16) (Joe M Sprinkle 65). The second verb ‫ יֵצֵא‬is used figuratively to mean

„release from bondage or slavery‟ (Merrill 498). It appears five times in the first unit. It

appears in the main apodosis, the first three subsidiary apodoses and the fourth subsidiary

protasis. This indicates that the topic of release is emphasized with the repeating of the word

‫ יצא‬throughout the unit (Kompaoré 55).

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the main law concerning the release of a

male slave, and the focus is on his marital status as a single person. The verb ‫ יָב ֹא‬yābō’ is

used to describe the situation of the slave. The proposition is: if the slave enters slavery as a

single person.

SA1: The directive is that he must be released as a single person. The verb ‫יֵצֵא‬, in yiqṭōl form, is

used to express the act of releasing the slave.

SP2: The second subsidiary protasis presents another variation to the main law concerning the

release of a male slave. The proposition is: if he married before his slavery.

SA2: The directive is that he must be released with his wife. The verb ‫ ְויָצְָאה‬veyāṣe‘āh is still used

to express the act of releasing the slave. Nevertheless, this time it is in wĕqāṭal form, and it is

used in the same semantic sense as yiqṭōl. This demonstrates that his wife does not become a

slave by her association with her husband‟s slavery. Moreover, by implication any children

born of this union are not slaves but are released when he is released.

SP3: Another variation of the release of male slave is presented here. The term ‫‘ אֲ דֹנָיו‬adōnâv is first

introduced in this protasis, and placed at the head of the clause. So the word order is inverted

from VS to SV. This indicates that emphasis is placed on the term ‫ אֲ דֹנָיו‬for the sake of

presenting a contrasting view to the first two subsidiary cases. The focus of the performance

of actions now shifted from the male slave to the master. The verb ‫ יִתֶ ן‬yitten in yiqṭōl form is

used to describe the first action of the master. It probably connotes handling a wife to the

149
 slave as a reward. This wife may be a female slave as well. The second verb ‫ ְויָלְדָ ה‬veyāledāh

in wĕqāṭal form is used to extend the first action. If the wife is given to the slave, and she

gives birth to children, then the wife and the children belong to the master. This suggests that

at the end, the slave would face a difficult choice of either remaining a slave for life or leaving

his wife and children with his master.

SA3: The directive is that the wife and the children must belong to the master and the slave must be

released. The second verb ‫ יֵצֵא‬describes the act of releasing the slave, and the first verb ‫היֶה‬
ְ ִ‫ת‬

tihyeh describes the situation where the wife and the children would not be released rather

they would continue to remain with the master. The word order in the first clause of this

apodosis is inverted from VS to SV. This demonstrates that the wife and the children are

highlighted for emphasis for contrast. Thus, the directive is best expressed as though the slave

may be released but the wife and the children must belong to his master.

SP4: Here the subject changes back to the slave. The verb ‫ ָאמ ֹר‬ʼāmōr, in qāṭôl form, is used to

emphasize and intensify the situation of the verb ‫ י ֹאמַר‬yōʼmar in yiqṭōl form. It can thus be

interpreted, „he plainly says‟, which implies that the slave has emphatic confession to make.

The third verb ‫הבְתִ י‬

ַ ‫’ ָא‬āhavtî, which is in qāṭal form, refers to the slave‟s confession. The

emphasis is that he has loved his family members prior to that time. Therefore, he prefers to

remain slave forever.

SA4: Four actions are described in the fourth subsidiary apodosis. Three of these actions are done

by the master, and one by the slave. The three verbs ‫הגִיׁש ֹו‬
ִ ‫ ְו‬vehigîšû, „and he must bring him‟,

‫ ו ְָרצַע‬verāṣa‘ „and he must pierce him‟, and ‫ ַו ֲעבָד ֹו‬va‘abādô „he must serve him‟ which are in

wĕqāṭal form, are used to express chronological successive situations. Thus the directive is

that the master must bring his slave before ‫ הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬ha'elōhîm and to door, must pierce his ear

with an awl and the slave must serve the master forever. The term ‫ הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬ha'elōhîm has a

wide range of interpretations of God, judges, gods or the place of court. The rendering of

150
 judges, gods or the place of court seems unlikely for ‫ הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬ha'elōhîm. This is because the

term is most often found in other Canaanite texts to refer to a „deity‟ (Joe M Sprinkle 56–57).

In BC, ‫ הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬ha'elōhîm appears with both ‫' אֱ ֹלהִים‬elōhîm and ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh to refer to the

Israelite God (21:6, 13; 22:7/8, 8/9, 10/11, 19/20, 27/28; 23:17, 19, 25). The act of bringing

the slave near to ‫ הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬ha'elōhîm and to the door then suggests a ceremony in the sanctuary

in which the male slave‟s attention is drawn to Yahweh (cf. Josh 24:1; 8:30-35) (Joe M

Sprinkle 57). The piercing of the ear, perhaps for the insertion of a ring or tag of some kind,

was a public indication of a permanent slavery, and had to be carried out in a public place

(Durham 321). This implies that the slave will serve his master for life. Thus the ceremony

suggests that the male slave has become a permanent slave, yet he is no longer an outsider,

but has become attached to the house as a member of the household (Joe M Sprinkle 56).

4.6.1.1.3 Structure

If master=w, male slave=x, wife=y and children=z then the structure of Exodus 21:2-6 is stated as

follows:

MP: When ‫כי‬ w buys a x, yiqṭōl

MA: Then Ø x serves w for six years yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬x goes free in the 7th year yiqṭōl
without paying for freedom
SP1: If ‫אם‬ x comes in his singleness yiqṭōl
SA1: Then Ø x goes free in his singleness yiqṭōl
SP2: If ‫אם‬ x is the husband of y wĕqāṭal

SA2: Then ‫ו‬ y goes free with x

SP3: If ‫אם‬ w gives y to x yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬y gives birth to z for x wĕqāṭal

y and z are to be for w yiqṭōl
SA3: Then ‫ו‬ x goes free in his singleness yiqṭōl
SP4: And If ‫ואם‬ x strongly (inf abs) says qāṭôl, yiqṭōl
I love w, y and z qāṭal
I will not go free yiqṭōl

151
 SA4: Then ‫ו‬ w brings x to God wĕqāṭal

and ‫ ו‬w brings x to the door or to the door post wĕqāṭal

and ‫ ו‬w pierces x‟s ear with an awl wĕqāṭal

and ‫ ו‬x serves w forever wĕqāṭal

4.6.1.2 Second Unit – Exodus 21:7-11

The second unit is closely linked with the first. There, emphasis is shifted to the female slave.

The second unit refers to six participants: the female slave, the master, the man (selling his

daughter), the son of the master and another wife. The participant rank is as follows:

 The female slave is the primary and central participant

 The master is the secondary participant
 The man (selling his daughter), the son of the master and another wife serve only peripheral roles.

4.6.1.2.1 Text

‫ְּוכִּי־יִּמְּכ ֹּר אִּיש אֶּת־בִּת ֹּו לְָּאמָּה ֹלא תֵּ צֵּא ְּכצֵּאת ָּה ֲעבָּדִּ ים׃‬

And, when a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she must not go out as the male slaves do.

(Exod 21:7)

‫ִּם־רעָּה ְּבעֵּינֵּי אֲדֹּנֶּי ָּה ֲאשֶּר־[כ= ֹלא] [ק= ֹלו] יְּעָּדָּ ה ְּו ֶּהפְּדָּ ה ְּלעַּם נָּכ ְִּּרי ֹלא־יִּמְּש ֹּל ְּל ָּמכ ְָּּרה ְּב ִּבגְּד ֹּו־בָּה׃‬
ָּ ‫א‬

If she does not please her master, who has appointed her as his wife, then he must allow her be

redeemed. To a foreign nation, he does not have right to sell her, because he has acted faithlessly to

her. (Exod 21:8)

‫שפַּט ַּהבָּנ ֹּות י ַּ ֲעשֶּה־לָּה׃‬

ְּ ‫ְּואִּם־ ִּלבְּנ ֹּו י ִּיעָּדֶּ מָּה ְּכ ִּמ‬

And if to his son he appoints her as a wife, after the manner of daughters he must deal with her. (Exod

21:9)

‫שא ֵָּּרה כְּסותָּ ה וְּעֹּנָּתָּ ה ֹלא יִּג ְָּּרע׃‬

ְּ ‫אִּם־ַאח ֶֶּּרת יִּקַּח־ֹלו‬

If he takes another wife to himself, her food, her clothing, or her marital rights he must not diminish.

(Exod 21:10)

‫שלָּש־ ֵּאלֶּה ֹלא י ַּ ֲעשֶּה לָּה ְּויָּצְָּאה ִּחמָּם אֵּין ָּכסֶּף׃‬

ְּ ‫ְּואִּם־‬

152
 And if these three things he does not do for her, then she must go out for nothing, without payment of

money. (Exod 21:11)

4.6.1.2.2 Analysis

MP: The man is the subject, and the verb ‫ יִמְכ ֹר‬yimkōr is used to describe his action. This act

indicates selling of his daughter into slavery. Such an act is possible when a father cannot pay

his debt because of poverty (Hyatt 228). It may also be for business reason (Noth 178). The

term ‫' ָאמָה‬āmāh used as the object seems to have the sense of a slave-wife rather than simply

a female slave (Joe M Sprinkle 51). So the daughter is betrothed to the master indirectly.

MA: The directive is that the female slave must not be released as the male slave is. The verb ‫תֵ צֵא‬

taṣa’ is used to describe the act of releasing. The verb appears in the first protasis and the last

apodosis to signify release from bondage. The term ‫' ָאמָה‬āmāh, suggests that the female slave

has become the master‟s wife or his son‟s wife, and this makes the release of the female slave

different from the one of the male slave.

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis presents the first variation of the release of the female slave, that

is, if the master marries her and later hates her. The verb ‫ יְעָדָ ה‬ye‘ādāh „he has betrothed‟,

which is in qāṭal form, is used to describe the action of the master. The verb implies that the

master has appointed the female slave as a wife and for sexual intercourse in the past. This

makes it possible for the female slave to have the same legal rights as a wife (Görg 138). The

purpose of this law is to prevent a woman under such circumstances from any kind of abuse.

Thus the law is to encourage the humane treatment of a female slave (Joe M Sprinkle 70).

SA1: The directive contains two actions of the master. First, the master must allow her to be

redeemed. The verb ‫הפְדָ ה‬

ֶ ‫ ְו‬vehepdāh is used to describe this action. The verb is usually used

in juridical sense. It has the meaning of transferring of ownership from one person to another

through the payment of a price. Here it deals with the redemption by a third party of a female

slave whose master does not wish to marry her (Cazelles 484). The implication is that the

153
 female slave can be transferred back to the parent. Second, the master does not have any right

to sell her to foreigners because he has acted faithlessly and treacherously to her. The verb

‫ ְב ִבגְד ֹו‬bebigdô expresses the unstable relationship of a man to an existing established

regulation. Here it is used in connections with faithlessness in marriage, when a husband

violates his marriage promise, deserts his legal wife and establishes a relationship with

someone else (Erlandsson 470).

SP2: The second subsidiary protasis states another variation of the release of female slave, that is, if

the master marries her to his son.

SA2: The directive is that the master must deal with her as with a daughter. The implication is that

she now has the same legal rights as her master‟s daughter.

SP3: Another variation is that if the master marries another wife.

SA3: The directive is that the master must not deny the female slave her right as a wife. The verb

‫ יִג ְָרע‬yigrā„ suggests that the master who married a second wife must not lessen or diminish

the food, marital rights, and clothing of the first wife (Ringgren, “66 ”‫)גרע‬.

SP4: The last variation states: if the master refuses to do these three things.

SA4: The directive is that the female slave must be released without any payment.

4.6.1.2.3 Structure

If man (selling his daughter) = a, daughter (primary and central participant)=b, master=c (secondary

participant), son of the master=d, another wife=e then we have the structure:

MP: When ‫כי‬ a sells b yiqṭōl

MA: b does not go free as the male
slave goes free yiqṭōl, qǝṭōl
SP1: If ‫אם‬ b is bad in the eyes of c
who designates b for himself qāṭal
SA1: Then ‫ו‬ c let b be redeemed wĕqāṭal
c does not hand over to sell b to outsider yiqṭōl, qǝṭōl
because c acts faithlessly with b qǝṭōl
SP2: And If ‫ואם‬ c designates b for d yiqṭōl
154
 SA2: c treats b as custom for daughters yiqṭōl
SP3: If ‫ואם‬ c takes for himself e yiqṭōl
SA3: c does not diminish food, clothing and
marital rights to b yiqṭōl
SP4: And If ‫ואם‬ c does not do these three to b yiqṭōl

SA4: Then ‫ו‬ b goes free without any payment of money wĕqāṭal

4.6.2 Striking a Parent: Exodus 21:15

The law in Exodus 21:15 is about the punishment for striking one‟s parent. It belongs to the

group of laws called qōṭēl laws, a sub-group of casuistic law (Wenham 97–98). The law begins with

qōṭēl, which equals the conditional marker ‫ כי‬+ the subject + the verb. So Exodus 21:15 has a

protasis and an apodosis like other casuistic laws, but it does not have any subsidiary case law.

There are three participants in the law: a child who strikes his parent, the parent and the executioner

who is unnamed. The participant rank is as follows:

 The child is the primary and central participant.

 The parent is the secondary participant.
 The executioner serves only peripheral role.

4.6.2.1 Text

‫ו ַּמכֵּה ָאבִּיו ְּואִּם ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

And when a man strikes his father or his mother he must surely be put to death. (Exod 21:15)

4.6.2.2 Analysis

MP: ‫מכֵה‬
ַ ‫ ו‬umakkah, „and when he strikes‟, which is in qōṭēl form, stands at the beginning of the

sentence to represent the conditional marker ‫כי‬, the subject and the verb of the sentence. The

subject of the proposition is thus the child, and his action is described as striking either parent.

The root verb ‫ נכה‬implies the child‟s use of physical force against either of the parents, and it

results into infringement on the parent‟s personal existence. Thus the verb suggests unjustified

endangerment, injury or humiliation of one‟s parent (van Dam 102).

155
MA: The directive is that he must be put to death. The child becomes the object of the dying action.

The executioner who is the subject is unnamed. The verb ‫ מ ֹות‬môt, which is in qāṭôl form

precedes a verb ‫ יומָת‬yûmat in yiqṭōl form. It is used to emphasize and intensify the

punishment for the offense of striking either parent. Therefore, ‫ מ ֹות‬môt, „surely‟ functions to

emphasize the verb ‫ יומָת‬yûmat. This implies that the offence of striking either parent is a

capital offence. Durham emphasizes that the offense is a reversal of the respect the parents are

due (Durham 323).

4.6.2.3 Structure

If a child=x, father=y, mother=z, w=unnamed executioner, then we have the structure:

MP: qōṭēl When x smites y or z qōṭēl

MA: x must be put to death by w qāṭôl, yiqṭōl

4.6.3 Kidnapping: Exodus 21:16

The law in Exodus 21:16 is about punishment for the act of kidnapping. Exodus 21:16 also

belongs to the group of laws called qōṭēl laws, a sub-group of casuistic law (Wenham 97–98). The

law begins with qōṭēl, which equals the conditional marker ‫ כי‬+ the subject + the verb. So Exodus

21:16 has a protasis and an apodosis like other casuistic laws but no subsidiary case law. There are

three participants in the law: the kidnapper, the kidnapped man and the executioner. The participant

rank is as follows:

 The kidnapper is the primary and central participant.

 The stolen man is the secondary participant.
 The executioner serves only a peripheral role.

4.6.3.1 Text

‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

And when a man steals another man and sells him, or he is found in his possession, that man must

surely be put to death. (Exod 21:16)

156
4.6.3.2 Analysis

MP: ‫ וְגֹנֵב‬vegōnab is in qōṭēl form, and it stands at the beginning of the sentence to represent the

conditional marker ‫כי‬, the subject and the verb of the sentence. The subject of the proposition

is thus the kidnapper, and his main action is described as the act of stealing a man. The two

verbs ‫מכָר ֹו‬

ְ ‫ ו‬umekārô, „and he sells‟ and ‫ ְונִ ְמצָא‬venimṣā’, „or he is found‟, which are in

wĕqāṭal form, are used to describe his actions. The two verbs ‫מכָר ֹו‬
ְ ‫ ו‬umekārô, „and he sells‟

and ‫מצָא‬
ְ ִ‫ ְונ‬venimṣā’, „or he is found‟ represent simple chronologically subsequent situations

(Waltke and O‟Connor 536) but ‫מצָא‬

ְ ִ‫ ְונ‬venimṣā’ is an alternative situation to ‫ ו ְמכָר ֹו‬umekārô.

There are therefore two alternative sequences of actions in the protasis. The first sequence of

actions is the stealing and the selling of ‫ אִ יׁש‬ʼîš, „an adult citizen‟. Moreover, the alternative

sequence of actions is the stealing and the keeping of ‫ אִ יׁש‬ʼîš in the possession of the

kidnapper.

MA: The directive is that the kidnapper must be put to death for either of the alternative sequences

of actions: the acts of stealing and selling ‫ אִ יׁש‬ʼîš or the acts of stealing and keeping ‫ אִ יׁש‬ʼîš

in possession. This is because the kidnapper has demeaned the man by treating him as

merchandize rather than as a human being (Joe M Sprinkle 88). The verb ‫ יומָת‬yûmat

suggests that the punishment is obligatory and necessary (Waltke and O‟Connor 508). The

kidnapper is the object of the dying action. The executioner is unnamed. The offence of

kidnapping is also is a capital offence. So kidnapping a free man in order to enslave him for

one‟s own purposes is punishable by death (Hyatt 231).

4.6.3.3 Structure

If a kidnapper=x, the kidnapped man=y, then the structure is as follows:

MP: qōṭēl When x steals y qōṭēl

and ‫ ו‬x sells y wĕqāṭal

157
 or ‫ו‬ y is found with x wĕqāṭal
MA: x must surely die qāṭôl, yiqṭōl

4.6.4 Bodily Injury: Exodus 21:18-19

The law in Exodus 21:18-19 is about the penalty for a person who causes bodily injury on

another person when fighting. The law begins with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause, and it is followed by ‫אם‬

clause outlining the sub-condition for the law. The two protases are followed by one apodosis.

There are two participants in the law: the striker and the injured person. Here the two participants

are primary and central participants.

4.6.4.1 Text

‫שכָּב׃‬
ְּ ‫ֶּת־רעֵּהו ְּב ֶּאבֶּן א ֹּו ְּב ֶּאגְּר ֹּף וְֹּלא י ָּמות ְּונָּפַּל ְּל ִּמ‬
ֵּ ‫ְּוכִּי־י ְִּּריבֺּן ֲאנָּשִּים ְּו ִּהכָּה־אִּיש א‬

And when men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die

but takes to his bed, (Exod 21:18)

‫שבְּת ֹּו י ִּתֵּ ן ו ְַּּרפ ֹּא י ְַּּרפֵּא׃‬

ִּ ‫ש ַּענְּת ֹּו ְּונִּקָּה ַּה ַּםכֶּה ַּרק‬
ְּ ‫אִּם־י ָּקום ְּוהִּתְּ ַּהלְֵּך בַּחוץ עַּל־ ִּמ‬

if he rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, then he who has struck him must be clear; only he

must pay for the loss of his time, and must have him to be thoroughly healed. (Exod 21:19)

4.6.4.2 Analysis

MP: There are four propositions in the main protasis. The four verbs ‫ י ְִריבֺן‬yerîbun, ‫הכָה‬
ִ ‫ ְו‬vehikkāh,

‫ יומָת‬yûmat and ‫ ְונָפַל‬venāpal are arranged in chronological sequence in expressing these

propositions. The first proposition has both the participants as subjects with the verb ‫י ְִריבֺן‬

yerîbun, „he strives‟ in yiqṭōl form, which is used to describe their action. The root verb ‫ ריב‬is

usually used to describe a strife among humans (Bracke, “0015 ”‫)ריב‬. The second proposition

has the striker as the subject and the injured person as the object. The verb ‫הכָה‬
ִ ‫ ְו‬vehikkāh,

„and he strikes‟ in wĕqāṭal form is used to emphasize the fact that in the course of the strife

one of the parties strikes the other with ‫ אֶ בֶן‬ʼeben, „a stone‟ or ‫ אֶ גְר ֹף‬ʼegrōf, „his fist‟ and
158
 injured him. The use of ‫ אֶ בֶן‬ʼeben, „a stone‟ or ‫ אֶ גְר ֹף‬ʼegrōf, „his fist‟` by the striker signifies

that he intentionally delivered the blow on the second party (Joe M Sprinkle 89). The third

proposition has the injured person as the subject. The verb ‫ יומָת‬yûmat in yiqṭōl form with the

particle ‫ ֹלא‬lōʼ is used to explain that the injury does not result to death. In the last

proposition, the verb ‫ ְונָפַל‬venāpal „and he keeps‟, in wĕqāṭal form, is used to confirm that the

injured person is confined to bed. We have the sequence of the actions as: the men strive, one

party injures the other, the injured person does not die, but he is confined to bed.

SP: There are two propositions in the subsidiary protasis. The two verbs ‫ יָקום‬yāqûm and ‫הלְֵך‬
ַ ְ‫ְוהִת‬

vehithallak appear to continue the four actions described in the main protasis, and they are

likewise arranged in a chronological sequence. The first verb ‫ יָקום‬yāqûm, „he rises‟ in yiqṭōl

form is used to emphasize that the injured person rises from sickbed after sometime. The

second verb ‫הלְֵך‬

ַ ְ‫ ְוהִת‬vehithallak, „and he walks‟ in wĕqāṭal form continues the action of the

injured person, that he walks and continues his daily activities.

MA: In the apodosis, three actions are described. First, the striker must be clear. The verb ‫ְונִקָה‬

veniqqāh, „and he is clear‟ in wĕqāṭal form denotes that the striker must be released from the

capital punishment (Cassuto 272). Second, he must pay for the loss of time. The verb ‫יִתֵ ן‬

yittan, „he pays‟ demonstrates that the striker must compensate for the loss of time and have

the injured person healed. He must be held responsible for the work the injured person could

not do and for his total recovery. ‫ ְו ַרפ ֹא‬verafōʼ is used to intensify the act of healing described

by the verb ‫ י ְַרפֵא‬yerafaʼ „he heals‟.

4.6.4.3 Structure

If the striker=x and the injured person=y, then we have the structure:

MP: When ‫כי‬ men strive yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬x smites y with a stone or with his fist wĕqāṭal

159
 and ‫ ו‬y does not die yiqṭōl

but ‫ ו‬falls on his bed wĕqāṭal

SP: If ‫אם‬ y arises yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬walks outdoors with his staffs wĕqāṭal

MA: Then ‫ו‬ x is to be free wĕqāṭal
x (one who smites) is to pay for the loss of
time qōṭēl, yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬have y thoroughly healed qāṭôl, yiqṭōl

4.6.5 Miscarriage and Eye for Eye: Exodus 21:22-27

The laws in Exodus 21:22-27 contain two themes: „miscarriage‟, which focuses on bodily

injury inflicted on a pregnant woman and a slave, and „eye for eye‟, which focuses on the penalties

for a person who causes harm to the pregnant woman. Unlike in CoH where the two themes are

treated separately, the themes are interwoven in BC. The composer of BC used the theme „eye for

eye‟ as the penalty for a person who causes harm to a pregnant woman. While Exodus 21:22-25

focuses on the bodily injury inflicted on a pregnant woman and the application of talionic

retribution (eye for eye), Exodus 21:26-27 focuses on the bodily injury inflicted on a slave. The two

laws begin with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause and are each followed by one ‫ אם‬clause, outlining the sub-

condition for each case. By implication, each case contains one protasis and one apodosis. In the

first law, there are three participants: the striker, the husband and the woman. The participant rank

is as follows:

 The striker is the primary and central participant.

 The husband and his wife are the secondary participants.

4.6.5.1 First Unit: Exodus 21:22-25

4.6.5.1.1 Text

‫ְּוכִּי־יִּמָּצו ֲאנָּשִּים ְּונָּגְּפו ִּאשָּה ה ָָּּרה ְּויָּצְּאו יְּלָּדֶּ י ָּה וְֹּלא י ִּ ְּהי ֶּה ָאס ֹּון עָּנ ֹּוש י ֵּ ָּענֵּש ַּכ ֲאשֶּר יָּשִּית ָּעלָּיו ַּבעַּל‬

‫ָּה ִּאשָּה ְּונָּתַּ ן ִּב ְּפ ִּללִּים׃‬

160
 And when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no

harm, the one who hits her must surely be fined, as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he must

pay as the judges determine. (Exod 21:22)

‫ְּואִּם־ָאס ֹּון י ִּ ְּהי ֶּה ְּונָּתַּ תָּ ה נֶּפֶּש תַּ חַּת נָּפֶּש׃‬

But if there is harm, then you must pay life for life, (Exod 21:23)

‫ַּעי ִּן תַּ חַּת ַּעי ִּן שֵּן תַּ חַּת שֵּן י ָּד תַּ חַּת י ָּד ֶּרגֶּל תַּ חַּת ָּרגֶּל׃‬

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (Exod 21:24)

‫ַּבורה׃‬
ָּ ‫ַּבורה תַּ חַּת ח‬
ָּ ‫ְּכ ִּוי ָּה תַּ חַּת ְּכ ִּוי ָּה ֶּפצַּע תַּ חַּת ָּפצַּע ח‬

burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exod 21:25)

4.6.5.1.2 Analysis

MP: In the first law, there are four propositions in the main protasis. The four verbs that appear in

the protasis are arranged in a chronological sequence. The striker and the husband are the

subjects of the action in the first proposition. The verb ‫ יִּנָצו‬yinnāṣû, „they strive‟ in yiqṭōl

form is used to describe their action. The verb usually refers to physical altercation between

two parties (Bracke, “037 ”‫)נצה‬. The second proposition demonstrates that the striker is the

subject, the woman is the object and the action emphasized is the act of striking the pregnant

woman. The verb ‫ ְונָגְפו‬venāgefû, „and they strikes‟ in wĕqāṭal form denotes a severe knock

that merely inflicts injury on a person but does not result in death (Swart 26). The action

emphasized in the third proposition is the coming out of the child. The verb ‫ ְויָצְאו‬veyaṣeʼû in

wĕqāṭal form implies that the struggle causes the pregnant woman to miscarry (Ottosson 458).

In the fourth proposition, the emphasis is that there is no harm, that is, the woman and the

children do not die.

MA: Three actions are described in the main apodosis. First, the striker must be fined. ‫ עָנ ֹוׁש‬ʽānôš,

is used together with ‫ענֵׁש‬

ָ ֵ‫ י‬yaʽānaš, „he fines‟ to emphasize the necessity of the punishment

161
 for the striker. Second, the husband must be held responsible for the imposition of the

payment. Last, the striker must pay as the judges decide. The implication is that the striker

must pay compensation before the judges. The term ‫ ְפ ִללִים‬pelilîm, „judges‟ traditionally refers

to those officials who determine damages to be paid in injury cases (Schultz 628).

Nevertheless, some scholars like Speiser, Westbrook and Sprinkle argue against this

traditional understanding. It is thought to mean „by assessment or reckoning‟, or „(he pays)

alone‟ (Joe M Sprinkle 100). Therefore, it is not referring to a judge. Rather it refers to the

fact that the payment is the sole responsibility of the offender.

SP: The subsidiary case law presents a variation to the main law. The proposition is that if there is

‫ ָאס ֹון‬ʼāsôn, „harm‟ to the woman. The term ‫ ָאס ֹון‬ʼāsôn is a medical term meaning „injury

requiring attention of a physician, serious injury‟ (Joe M Sprinkle 92). This suggests a

permanent injury, either to the woman or to the child or the children she was carrying

(Durham 323). The word order in the proposition is inverted from VS to SV, highlighting

‫ ָאס ֹון‬ʼāsôn, for emphasis for contrast. The focus of attention is shifted to the possibility of the

occurrence of harm during the struggle.

SA: The directive is that the striker must pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,

foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Sprinkle suggests that „life for

life‟ might have represented the most serious injury, „eye for eye‟, „tooth for tooth‟, „hand for

hand‟ and „foot for foot‟ various parts of the body injured, and „burning for burning‟, „wound

for wound‟ and „stripe for stripe‟ various types of injuries (Joe M Sprinkle 92). This is usually

referred to as the famous law of retaliation (lex talion). It suggests that equal injury must be

inflicted on the striker (Durham 323). Sprinkle argues that the lex talion „is not to be taken

literally but assumes a system of ransom in which monetary composition can serve to

substitute for the literal talion as in Exodus 21:29-30 (cf. 1Kings 20:39)‟. Thus, lex talion is

thought to reflect a system of monetary compensation in which „life for life‟ in practice meant

monetary value of a life or monetary value in exchange of any part of the body lost (Joe M

162
 Sprinkle 94–97). In support of this, Carol Meyer puts it that lex talion „is one of the judicial

equity and not a barbaric mandate to inflict corporal punishment equivalent to the injury

sustained‟. He affirms that the punishment would have been appropriate monetary

compensation, based on the severity of bodily harm (Meyers 193).

4.6.5.1.3 Structure

If the striker=x, the pregnant woman=y and the husband of the woman=z, then structure of Exodus

21:22-25 is

MP: When ‫וכי‬ men struggle yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬strike y wĕqāṭal

so ‫ ו‬her children go out wĕqāṭal

but ‫ ו‬there is no harm yiqṭōl
MA: x must surely be fined qāṭôl, yiqṭōl
as z imposes on x yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬x pays wĕqāṭal
as the judges determines ?
SP: And If ‫ואם‬ there is harm yiqṭōl

SA: Then ‫ו‬ x must pay wĕqāṭal

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot
burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe

4.6.5.2 Second Unit: Exodus 21:26-27

4.6.5.2.1 Text

‫ש ְּלחֶּמו תַּ חַּת עֵּינ ֹּו׃‬

ַּ ְּ ‫שחֲתָּ ה ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי י‬
ִּ ‫ְּוכִּי־יַּכֶּה אִּיש אֶּת־עֵּין ַּעבְּד ֹּו א ֹּו־אֶּת־עֵּין ֲאמָּת ֹּו ְּו‬

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he must let the slave go free

because of his eye. (Exod 21:26)

‫ש ְּלחֶּמו תַּ חַּת שִּמ ֹּו׃‬

ַּ ְּ ‫שן ַּעבְּד ֹּו א ֹּו־שֵּן ֲאמָּת ֹּו יַּפִּיל ַּל ָּח ְּפשִּי י‬
ֵּ ‫ְּואִּם־‬

If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he must let the slave go free because of his

tooth. (Exod 21:27)

163
4.6.5.2.2 Analysis

MP: The second law is about the consequence of bodily injury inflicted on a slave. The proposition

in the main protasis is that a master smites the eye of a slave and destroys it. The first verb

‫ יַכֶה‬yakkeh, in yiqṭōl form describes the action of the master, and it denotes the act of striking

a manual blow by a human agent with or without instrument and the object is always human

(Conrad 416). The second verb ‫ וְׁשִ חֲתָ ה‬vešiḥatāh in wĕqāṭal form continues the above action,

and it denotes total destruction of the slave‟s eye.

MA: The directive is that the slave must be released for the sake of his or her eye. The verb ‫יְׁשַ ְלחֶּנו‬

yešalleḥennû, in wĕqāṭal form, is used in the stronger sense of setting free the slave from his

slavery (Collins 119–123). The law is given to prevent any kind of abuse against slaves.

SP: The subsidiary case law presents a variation of the main case law. The proposition is that a

master knocks out the tooth of a slave.

SA: The directive is that the slave must be released for the sake of his tooth. The law is seeking to

prevent any kind of mistreatment towards slaves by grouping all injuries together without

distinction (Childs 473). This suggests that a slave must be treated as a human being despite

his lower social status. He should not be treated just as mere commodity or property, but as a

full human being (Joe M Sprinkle 97). He should be regarded as a person not a thing.

4.6.5.2.3 Structure

If master=x, slave=y, then we have the structure:

MP: When ‫וכי‬ x smites the eye of y yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬y destroys it wĕqāṭal

MA: x must let y go free because of his eye yiqṭōl
SP: And If ‫ואם‬ x knocks out the tooth of y yiqṭōl
SA: x must let y go free because of his tooth yiqṭōl

164
4.6.6 Goring Ox: Exodus 21:28-32

The laws in Exodus 21:28-32 is about the consequences of goring of a person by an ox. The

law begins with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause, and it is followed by three ‫ אם‬clauses outlining the sub-

conditions for the law. The main case law and the three subsidiary case laws have protases and

apodoses. Two sub-cases are introduced by ‫„ או‬or if‟ following the second ‫ אם‬clauses. Each sub-case

law has its protasis, but their protases depend on the same apodosis. The two sub-case laws serve as

alternative conditions to the main case law and subsidiary law earlier stated. The apodosis of the

sub-case laws is the same with that of the main and subsidiary case laws. There are seven

participants in the law: a man, a woman, the owner of the ox, a son, a daughter, a slave and the

master of the slave. The participant rank is as follows:

 The owner is the primary and central participant.

 The man, woman, son, daughter and the slave are the secondary participants.
 The master of the slave serves only a peripheral role.

4.6.6.1 Text

‫ְּוכִּי־יִּגַּח ש ֹּור אֶּת־אִּיש א ֹּו אֶּת־ ִּאשָּה ָּומֵּת סָּק ֹּול י ִּ ָּןקֵּל הַּש ֹּור וְֹּלא י ֵָּאכֵּל אֶּת־ ְּבשָּר ֹּו ו ַּבעַּל הַּש ֹּור נָּ ִּקי׃‬

And when an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must surely be stoned, and its flesh must not

be eaten, but the owner of the ox must not be liable. (Exod 21:28)

‫שמ ְֶּּרמו ְּו ֵּהמִּית אִּיש א ֹּו ִּאשָּה הַּש ֹּור י ִּ ָּןקֵּל ְּוגַּם־‬
ְּ ִּ ‫שלְּש ֹּם וְּהועַּד ִּב ְּב ָּעלָּיו וְֹּלא י‬
ִּ ‫ְּואִּם ש ֹּור נַּגָּח הוא מִּתְּ מ ֹּל‬

‫ְּב ָּעלָּיו יומָּת׃‬

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner is to be notified but does not keep

it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned, and its owner also must be put to death.

(Exod 21:29)

‫אִּם־כֹּפֶּר יושַּת ָּעלָּיו ְּונָּתַּ ן פִּדְּ י ֹּן נַּפְּש ֹּו כְּכ ֹּל ֲאשֶּר־יושַּת ָּעלָּיו׃‬

If a ransom is imposed on him, then he must give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed

on him. (Exod 21:30)

‫שפָּט ַּהזֶּה י ֵּ ָּעשֶּה ֹּלו׃‬

ְּ ‫א ֹּו־בֵּן יִּגָּח א ֹּו־בַּת יִּגָּח ַּכ ִּם‬

165
 If a son it gores or if a daughter it gores, according to the same judgement, the matter must be dealt

with. (Exod 21:31)

‫ש ָּקלִּים י ִּתֵּן לַּאדֹּנָּיו ְּוהַּש ֹּור י ִּ ָּןקֵּל׃‬

ְּ ‫אִּם־ ֶּעבֶּד יִּגַּח הַּש ֹּור א ֹּו ָאמָּה ֶּכסֶּף שְֹּלשִּים‬

If a male slave or a female slave the ox gores, thirty shekels of silver he must pay to their master, and

the ox must be stoned. (Exod 21:32)

4.6.6.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis contains two propositions, which are arranged chronologically. The first

proposition focuses on the goring of a man or a woman by an ox. The verb ‫ יִגַח‬yiggaḥ, „he

gores‟ is used to describe the action, and it consistently refers to the pushing activity of a

horned animal (Klingbeil 19). The second proposition addresses the result of the goring,

which is the death of the person.

MA: The directive is that the ox must die by stoning. The verb ‫ יִ ָסקֵל‬yissāqal, „he stones‟ is

customarily employed to indicate execution by stoning in the Old Testament legal tradition

(Hill 286). ‫ סָק ֹול‬sāqôl in qāṭôl form is used to emphasize the necessity of stoning such

animal. The stoning of the ox is a reflection of the value of human life in relation to animal as

seen in Genesis 1:26-30 and Genesis 9:1-6 (Joe M Sprinkle 117). This implies that it has acted

against man, its superior in the hierarchy order established by creation. Thus its flesh must not

be eaten. The flesh must be considered as unclean, because it has blood-guilt upon it (Hyatt

235). Moreover, the owner must be exonerated.

SP1: The proposition of the first subsidiary case law is if the ox is addicted to goring in the past.

The adjective ‫ נַגָח‬naggāḥ, „addicted to goring‟ is used to differentiate a first-time goring by

the animal from a repeated goring (Klingbeil 19). The word order of the proposition is

inverted from VS to SV, focusing on the repeated goring by the ox. This implies that the

owner is liable for the animal‟s action, because he has done nothing despite the fact that the

animal is addicted to goring, and he has been warned by some local authority, however he has

166
 refused to restrain his ox. The sense of the verb ‫ וְהועַד‬vehûʽad is „if one has notified‟ the

owner of a goring ox, or „if one has called this to his attention‟ (Simian-Yofre 512). By

implication, the owner of the ox is guilty of negligence rather than of premeditated murder

(Hyatt 235).

SA1: The directive is that the ox must be stoned and the owner must be put to death. The term ‫יומָת‬

yûmāt indicates that the consequence of the offense is death.

SP2: The proposition of the second subsidiary case law provides room for placing a ransom on the

owner.

SA2: The directive is that the owner must pay a ransom for the redemption of his lie. The term ‫פִדְ י ֹן‬

pidyōn, „a ransom‟ is originally juridical and suggests that the owner of the ox that habitually

gores can escape death penalty by paying a ransom for his life, that is, the release of his own

life (Hubbard 580). This implies that the term ‫ פִדְ י ֹן‬pidyōn, „a ransom‟ is not a fine for

negligence, but rather a substitution of a monetary payment for the „life‟ of the owner by

which he pacifies the victim‟s family, thereby settling the grievance between the family and

the offending party (Joe M Sprinkle 117). The term ‫ ְונָתַ ן‬venātan, is frequently used in the

juridical sphere as „to compensate‟ (Lipiński, “59 ”‫)נתן‬. The owner of the ox is to compensate

with a ‫ כֹפֶר‬kōper, „a cover‟. The term ‫ כֹפֶר‬kōper is also a legal term and denotes a material

gift that establishes an amicable settlement between an injured person and the offending

person. So for the recipient, ‫ כֹפֶר‬kōper represents compensation or reparation, while for the

offender it represents a ransom (Lang 301).

SPC: The propositions of the two sub-case laws consider the goring of a son or a daughter. It is

worthy of note that the female member is mentioned in both the main protasis and the sub-

case protases alongside her male counterpart, this implies equality of value of both male and

female members of the community (Joe M Sprinkle 110).

SAC: The directive is the same as with when an ox gores a man or a woman.

167
SP3: The proposition of the third subsidiary case law considers the goring of a slave by the ox. The

word order is inverted from VS to SV. This implies that the term ‫עבֶד‬
ֶ ʽebed is highlighted for

contrast, and the case for the goring of a slave is to be differentiated from that of freemen.

SA3: The directive is that the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave and

the ox must be stoned. In this law, slaves are valued as property possessed, so that only the

usual purchase price of a slave is to be paid to his owner (Noth 183). Hyatt comments that

thirty shekels of silver doubles the average price of a slave at that period (Hyatt 234). Thirty

shekels was also mentioned as the price of slave in Nuzi tablets (Joe M Sprinkle 110). On the

other hand, the slave is treated as human because of the directive that it must be stoned.

4.6.6.3 Structure

If the owner of the ox=a, man=b, woman=c, man‟s son=d, man‟s daughter=e, slave, male or

female=f and master of the slave=g, then the structure of Exodus 21:22-25 is

MP: When ‫וכי‬ an ox gores b or c yiqṭōl

and ‫ו‬ they die wĕqāṭal
MA: the ox must surely be stoned qāṭôl, yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬its flesh shall not be eaten yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬a is innocent ?

SP1: And If ‫ואם‬ the ox is addicted to gore in the past adjective

and ‫ ו‬it was testified to a wĕqāṭal

and ‫ ו‬does not keep it in yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬the ox kills b or c wĕqāṭal
SA1: the ox must be stoned yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬a also must be put to death yiqṭōl

SP2: If ‫אם‬ a ransom is imposed on a yiqṭōl

SA2: Then ‫ו‬ a must give for the redemption of his life wĕqāṭal
whatsoever is imposed on him yiqṭōl
31
Or ‫או‬ an ox gores d yiqṭōl

Or ‫או‬ it gores e yiqṭōl

This is done according to the same judgment to him yiqṭōl
SP3: If ‫אם‬ an ox gores f yiqṭōl
168
 SA3: a gives to g 30 shekels of silver yiqṭōl
and ‫ ו‬the ox must be stoned yiqṭōl

4.6.7 Theft: Exodus 21:37-22:3

The law in Exodus 21:37-22:3 is about the consequences of stealing animals and burglary.

The law begins with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause, and it is followed by four ‫ אם‬clauses outlining the sub-

conditions for the law. By implication, there are one main case law with its protasis and apodosis

and four subsidiary case laws with their protases and apodoses. There are two participants: a thief

and a defender. The participant rank is as follows:

 The thief is the primary and central participant.

 The defender only serves a peripheral role.

4.6.7.1 Text

‫שה׃‬
ֶּ ‫ְַּארבַּע־צ ֹּאן תַּ חַּת ַּה‬
ְּ ‫שלֵּם תַּ חַּת הַּש ֹּור ו‬
ַּ ְּ ‫כִּי יִּגְּנ ֹּב־אִּיש ש ֹּור א ֹּו־שֶּה ו ְּטבָּח ֹּו א ֹּו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ֲח ִּמשָּה ָּבקָּר י‬

When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, five oxen he must repay for an ox, and four

sheep for a sheep. (Exod 21:37 [Eng.22:1])

‫אִּם־ ַּב ַּםחְּתֶּ ֶּרת י ִּ ָּםצֵּא ַּה ַּגמָּב ְּו ֺּהכָּה ָּומֵּת אֵּין ֹלו דָּ מִּים׃‬

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there must be no bloodguilt for him, (Exod

22:1 [Eng.22:2])

‫שלֵּם אִּם־אֵּין ֹלו ְּונִּ ְּמכַּר ִּבגְּנֵּבָּת ֹּו׃‬

ַּ ְּ ‫שלֵּם י‬
ַּ ‫שמֶּש ָּעלָּיו דָּ מִּים ֹלו‬
ֶּ ‫אִּם־ז ְָּּרחָּה ַּה‬

if the sun has risen on him, there must be bloodguilt for him. He must surely pay. If he has nothing,

then he must be sold for his theft. (Exod 22:2 [Eng.22:3])

‫שלֵּם׃‬
ַּ ְּ ‫שנַּי ִּם י‬
ְּ ‫אִּם־ ִּה ָּםצֵּא תִּ ָּםצֵּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו ַּה ְּגנֵּבָּה מִּש ֹּור עַּד־חֲמ ֹּור עַּד־שֶּה ַּחי ִּים‬

If the stolen beast is certainly found in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he

must pay double. (Exod 22:3 [Eng.22:4])

169
4.6.7.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis expresses chronological actions. The verb ‫ יִגְנ ֹב‬yignōb, „he steals‟ in yiqṭōl

form expresses the main action of the thief. The two verbs ‫ וטְ בָח ֹו‬uṭebāḥô, „and he slaughters

it‟ in wĕqāṭal form and ‫מכָר ֹו‬

ְ mekārô, „he sells it‟ in qāṭal form represent chronological

subsequent actions, where ‫מכָר ֹו‬

ְ , mekārô, „he sells it‟ is an alternative action to ‫ וטְ בָח ֹו‬uṭebāḥô,

„and he slaughters it‟. Thus, we have two alternative chronological actions in the main

protasis, first: the act of stealing the animal and the act of killing it and second: the act of

stealing the animal and the act of selling it. The implication of these actions is that the stolen

animal is no longer found in the possession of the thief when he is caught.

MA: The directive is that the thief must pay back five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

The verb ‫ יְׁשַ לֵם‬yešallam in yiqṭōl form is often used in legal context and means „repay, or

compensate‟ (Nel 130). The term is used for restitution in kind and in money (Illman 99).

Cassuto explains that the reasons why the number of oxen is greater than the sheep‟s is that

rearing of sheep does not require so much, or such prolonged, effort as rearing of oxen

(Cassuto 282).

SP1: The first subsidiary protasis states three propositions, which are chronologically arranged.

First, if a thief is found breaking in. Second, if he is struck and third, if the thief dies.

SA1: The directive is that the defender must be exonerated. The implication of this law is that the

thief was caught in the nighttime. The killing of the thief by the defender is a rightful

presumption that a thief is caught breaking in probably to murder the owner of the house, but

the owner in order to save himself killed the thief as an act of self-defense (Cassuto 282).

SP2: The second subsidiary protasis states a variation proposition, that is, if the sun has risen on

him. The verb ‫ ז ְָרחָה‬zareḥāh is usually used in the literal sense of the rising of the sun. It is

used as an indication of the time or situation in the law governing theft (Ringgren, “040 ”‫)זרח‬.

170
SA2: The directive is two-dimensional, first the defender must not be exonerated because he may

not actually have been in danger and had no need to kill in order to protect himself. In such a

case, the defender is considered a murderer. The second dimension is that the thief must make

restitution. The first and second subsidiary case laws are meant to guard the lives of both

parties involved. So the owner of the house is exonerated if he kills the thief at night in self-

defence, and the life of the thief is protected by the law, if he is killed in daylight.

SP3: The third subsidiary protasis presents the proposition, if the thief is poor and cannot restore.

SA3: The directive is that he must be sold to raise the money needed for the compensatory payment.

Slavery is implied here, thus, he must be sold into slavery.

SP4: The fourth subsidiary protasis states the proposition, if the stolen animal is found alive in his

possession.

SA4: The directive is that the thief must pay double.

4.6.7.3 Structure

If thief=x, defender=y, the structure of Exodus 21:37-22:3 is

MP: When ‫כי‬ x steals an ox or sheep yiqṭōl

and ‫ ו‬slaughters it wĕqāṭal

or ‫ או‬sells it qāṭal
MA: x restores five oxen for an ox yiqṭōl
and four sheep for a sheep
SP1: If ‫אם‬ x is found breaking in yiqṭōl
and y smites x wĕqāṭal
so ‫ ו‬x dies wĕqāṭal
SA1 there should be no bloodguilt for y
SP2: If ‫אם‬ the sun has risen on him qāṭal
there should be bloodguilt for y
SA2: x must surely restore qāṭôl, yiqṭōl
SP3: If ‫אם‬ x has nothing ?

SA3: Then ‫ו‬ he must be sold for his theft wĕqāṭal

SP4: If ‫אם‬ the theft is found alive in his possession, qāṭôl, yiqṭōl
an ox, a donkey or a sheep
171
 SA4 he must pay double. yiqṭōl

4.6.8 Cattle Grazing: Exodus 22:4

The law in Exodus 22:4 is about the consequence of the damage caused by grazing of

animals. The law has only one protasis and one apodosis, and begins with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause.

There are two participants: the owner of the animals and the owner of the field. The participant rank

is as follows:

 The owner of the animals is the primary and central participant.

 The owner of the field only serves a peripheral role.

4.6.8.1 Text

‫שלֵּם׃ ו ִּבעֵּר‬
ַּ ְּ ‫ִּירה] [ק= ְּבעִּיר ֹּו] שָּדֵּ הו ומֵּיטַּב כ ְַּּרמ ֹּו י‬
ָּ ‫שלַּח אֶּת־[כ= ְּבע‬
ִּ ‫כִּי י ַּ ְּבעֶּר־אִּיש שָּדֶּ ה א ֹּו־כ ֶֶּּרם ְּו‬

‫ִּבשְּדֵּ ה ַאחֵּר מֵּיטַּב‬

When a man allows a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or he sends his beast so that it feeds in

another man's field, from the best in his own field and from the best in his own vineyard he must make

restitution. (Exod 22:4 [Eng.22:5])

4.6.8.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis presents two repeated situations. First, the owner of the animals allows his

animals to graze over a field or vineyard of another man. The situation is repeated and said in

a different way, that is, he allows his animals loose and feed in another man's field. The term

‫ יַ ְבעֶר‬yabʽer, „it feeds on‟ is used in both situations. According to Cassuto, the root term ‫בער‬

refers to damage by the tooth, while the term ‫ וְׁשִ לַח‬vešillaḥ, „and he sends‟ refers to damage

by the animal‟s foot, that is trampling (Cassuto 284). The law implies that the owner of the

animals was guilty of negligence by allowing his animals to feed in another man‟s field.

MA: The directive is that the owner of the animal must restore from the best in his own field or

vineyard. The owner of the animal is to give an amount probably greater than what his animal

had consumed. The implication of this is to maintain harmony within God‟s people by

providing complete satisfaction to those wronged by another (Joe M Sprinkle 143).

172
4.6.8.3 Structure

If the owner of the animals=x, the owner of the field, then the structure of Exodus 22:4 is

Protasis: 4When ‫כי‬ x causes to graze a field or vineyard yiqṭōl

or ‫ ו‬x sends away his beast wĕqāṭal

and it grazes from the best in y‟s field wĕqāṭal
Apodosis: x must restore from the best in his own field yiqṭōl
or in his vineyard

4.6.9 Storage and Deposit: Exodus 22:6-7

The law in Exodus 22:6-7 is about the consequence losing goods that have been delivered to

one for safekeeping. The law begins with a ‫ כי‬conditional clause, and it is followed by two ‫אם‬

clauses, outlining the sub-conditions for the law. The main case law and the first subsidiary case

law share the same apodosis, and the second subsidiary case law has both protasis and apodosis.

There are three participants: the owner of the property, the keeper and the thief. The participant rank

is as follows:

 The keeper is the primary and central participant.

 The thief and the owner of the property are secondary participants.

4.6.9.1 Text

‫שנָּי ִּם׃‬
ְּ ‫שלֵּם‬
ַּ ְּ ‫ֶּל־רעֵּהו ֶּכסֶּף א ֹּו־ ֵּכלִּים ִּלשְּמ ֹּר ְּוגֺּמַּב ִּמבֵּית ָּהאִּיש אִּם־י ִּ ָּםצֵּא ַּה ַּגמָּב י‬
ֵּ ‫כִּי־י ִּתֵּ ן אִּיש א‬

When a man gives to his neighbour money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house,

if the thief is found, then he must pay double. (Exod 22:6 [Eng.22:7])

‫שלַּח י ָּד ֹּו ִּב ְּמלֶּאכֶּת ֵּרעֵּהו׃‬

ָּ ‫אִּם־ֹלא י ִּ ָּםצֵּא ַּה ַּגמָּב ְּונִּק ְַּּרב ַּבעַּל־ ַּה ַּבי ִּת אֶּל־ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים אִּם־ֹלא‬

If the thief is not found, then the owner of the house must be brought to God to show whether or not

he has put his hand to his neighbour‟s property. (Exod 22:7 [Eng.22:8])

4.6.9.2 Analysis

MP: The main protasis presents two chronological actions: a man gives to his neighbour money or

goods to keep safe and the money or goods are stolen from the neighbour‟s house.

173
SP1: The first subsidiary protasis continues the two actions stated in the main protasis. It states: if

the thief is found.

SA1: The directive is that the thief must pay double.

SP2: The second subsidiary protasis presents a variation to the proposition stated in the first

subsidiary protasis and states: if the thief is not found. If the thief is not found, there may be

suspicion that the owner of the house had sold or hidden the goods given to him for

safekeeping.

SA2: The directive is that the owner of the house shall come near to ‫הָאֱ ֹלהִים‬, ha'elōhîm „God‟, that

is to go to a local sanctuary, and there he must take an oath saying that he had not put his hand

to his neighbour‟s property. It is assumed that an oath in the presence of God is so strong that

the person would not swear to a false oath (Hyatt 238). His taking of oath may exempt him

from any payment because the case has been brought to a higher court. Thus what cannot be

determined by human means is handed over to God for a decision (Noth 184). Sprinkle

explains this act as the invasion of religion and the supernatural into the realm of the legal

(Joe M Sprinkle 153). The law is also meant to bring about harmony among Israelite citizens

(Joe M Sprinkle 153).

4.6.9.3 Structure

If the owner=x, the keeper=y, the thief=z, then the structure of Exodus 22:6-7 is

MP: 6When ‫כי‬ x gives y money or goods yiqṭōl

to keep safe qǝṭōl
and ‫ ו‬it is stolen from y wĕqāṭal

SP1: If ‫אם‬ z is found yiqṭōl

SA1: z must pay double yiqṭōl
SP2: If ‫אם‬ z is not found yiqṭōl
SA2: y must come near to God (to show) wĕqāṭal
whether he has sent his hand to x‟s property qāṭal

174
 The analysis of the themes above has helped us to gain a deeper insight into the contents of

the laws in BC. The laws in BC have revealed Yahweh‟s attitude toward offences that were

common in the Ancient Near East. Furthermore, the laws have revealed God‟s outrage over

offences like murder, kidnapping, fighting, stealing, disrespect for one‟s parents, maltreatment of

slaves and the like. It is also clear that the laws in BC are motivated by humanitarian concern. They

encourage humane treatment of those who are vulnerable to abuse. They offer security for slaves,

women and even thieves. They promote equality of value of both male and female members of the

society. They treat slaves, who are thought to be properties, as persons and not things.

175
CHAPTER 5.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAW CODE OF HAMMURABI AND THE BOOK OF

THE COVENANT

In this chapter, I will describe the relationship between CoH and BC in the light of other

Ancient Near Eastern law codes LU, LL, LE, MAL and HL. In my description, I will engage in

comparing the contexts, genres, grammars, contents and structures of both CoH and BC, which I

have provided in chapters 3 and 4. I will then use the result of the comparisons to establish a

relationship between them. This description will be used in chapter 6 to explain „Inspiration in the

Ancient Near East‟.

5.1 Comparisons

5.1.1 Contexts

In the Ancient Near East, deities were always the initiators of the composition of law codes.

However, kings were always responsible for composing them. Moreover, they usually did so in

their own historical, cultural, linguistic and theological contexts. In chapters 3 and 4, I have already

discussed the contexts of CoH and BC respectively. A careful examination of these contexts

demonstrates that the historical and theological contexts of CoH and BC are not the same because

the two texts were written in different historical times, and for different people with different

theological conceptions. However, the two texts followed the normal pattern of writing law codes in

the Ancient Near East. I will now compare the contexts of CoH and BC, focusing on the historical

and theological contexts of the two codes.

As discussed earlier in chapter 3, CoH was written in the historical and political context of

Hammurabi‟s long reign of forty-three years. It was written between 1792 and 1750 B.C. reflecting

Hammurabi‟s theology and purpose of writing. Hammurabi, as the king, composed his law code to
176
provide justice in Babylonia as commanded by the gods. In his compilation, he depended on older

law codes like LU, LL and LE. In addition, he mentioned some gods like Anu, Enlil, Marduk,

Shamash, Ea and Sin in his law code. He acknowledged Anu and Enlil as the gods who appointed

him as king. He acknowledged Marduk as the god who commanded him to write the law code. At

this period, Marduk had been elevated to a supreme position in the Babylonian pantheon. Moreover,

he acknowledged Shamash as the god who assisted him greatly in the compilation of the laws. He

also acknowledged Ea and Sin as the gods who would bring punishment to anyone who disobeys

the laws. This was possible, because at that period, Hammurabi had already established the

relationship among gods and goddesses and the roles of the deities towards humans. Shamash was

regarded as the sun god, and he was associated with the administration of justice. His major

responsibility is to protect the vulnerable classes against injustice (Walton 239). Though it is stated

in the law code that Hammurabi depended on Shamash in his compilation, this does not put aside

the fact that he still depended on the older law codes in his compilation. He adapted these law codes

to fit his own historical and theological contexts. So, his law code can be regarded as an adaptation

of older law codes into a new historical, cultural and theological context. In his adaptation, he might

have unified the older law codes by adding to and subtracting from them to fit the situation of his

time (Mack 5). Thus, CoH can only be understood in the context of the historical, political and

theological situation of Hammurabi‟s time.

As discussed in chapter 4, it is obvious that the contexts of BC were different from that of

CoH. There is no indication that BC was composed by any human king. The casuistic laws of BC

presupposed the circumstances that were prevalent during the pre-monarchic period. When it was

first composed, it probably depended on Canaanite laws, which the Israelites inherited when they

arrived in Canaan. They were composed to inform the people on how to resolve legal problems

when they arrived at Canaan. The E-writers later edited the casuistic laws to remove every element

of Canaanite culture and theology in it. They were also responsible for its insertion into the Sinai

narrative (J-source) to be regarded as part of Yahweh‟s revelation to the Old Testament Israelites on

Mount Sinai. Afterward, the deuteronomic redactors gave the final form of BC sometime in the
177
seventh century B.C. They probably depended on the law codes available to them in editing BC.

Thus, they added to and subtracted from the laws in BC. Thus, the reading of BC must take into

consideration both its original historical context and the Sinai narrative context. The casuistic laws

of BC, like other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, were adapted from pre-existing law codes, and

thus considered as an adaptation of the older law codes into a new historical, cultural and

theological context. The apodictic laws are unique with the Israelites. Moreover, because of its

insertion into the Sinai narrative, the Old Testament Israelites regarded BC as Yahweh‟s revelation

to them on Mount Sinai. This insertion also provides a theological framework for the code. Thus,

Yahweh is recognized as the „fountainhead of the law‟ or the „source and formulator of the law‟

(Oosthuizen 163). He is regarded as the Israelite King who gave the laws to his people. For this

reason, his name and two titles of God: ‫ יהוה‬Yahweh, ‫ אֱֹלהִּים‬ʼelōhîm and ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬hāʼelōhîm continue

to appear in BC. His name Yahweh appears to establish a relationship between him and the

Israelites. Hāʼelōhîm appears to show that BC depended on the older law codes. This is because it is

used in parallel with „god‟ or „gods‟ (ilani) in Mesopotamian law (Alt 79–132). Elohim, which is

the generic name of God, is used to establish that Yahweh, the Israelite God, is God.

We can conclude that CoH and BC are similar and different in their evolutions. CoH and the

casuistic laws of BC are both adaptations of older law codes. CoH was adapted from LU, LE and

LL, while BC was first adapted from Canaanite laws. Moreover, there is the possibility that

Canaanite laws were adapted from LU, LE and LL. Since, the final form of BC emerged in the

seventh century B.C., it is possible that the deuteronomic redactors might have used a version of

CoH in their edition of the casuistic laws of BC. At this very period in time, Israel and Judah had

extensive and continuous contacts with Mesopotamia, specifically with the Neo-Assyrian Empire

(D. P. Wright 98). Furthermore, some Israelite scribes might have learned Akkadian and studied

CoH (D. P. Wright 98). However, the two codes were adapted into different historical and

theological contexts. While CoH reflects the historical, political and theological context of

Hammurabi‟s times, BC reflects the Old Testament pre-monarchic and monarchic contexts. It is

178
reasonable to think that the different contexts are part of the reasons why there are variances in both

codes. For instance, CoH speaks of many gods, and BC speaks of only one God. In addition, the

charaterizations of the deities in both texts are not the same. Therefore, thier theological concepts

cannot be the same. For instance, their concepts of kingship are not the same. CoH regards

Hammurabi as the great king, appointed by Anu and Enlil, mandated by Marduk to compile the law

code and assisted by Shamash in the compilation of the law code. However, BC portrays Yahweh as

the Israelites‟ King, who has revealed his will in terms of laws. More on this issue will be discussed

later especially as I discuss the contents of CoH and BC in this chapter and describe inspiration in

the Ancient Near East in chapter 6.

5.1.2 Genre

As discussed earlier, CoH and BC share the same literary structure as other law codes in the

Ancient Near East. They are divided into prologue, laws and epilogue. However, the apodictic laws

as we find in BC are rarely found in CoH and other Ancient Near Eastern law codes. They are

unique with BC. Moreover, the forms of expression in the laws of CoH and the casuistic laws of BC

correspond to one another. Most often, these laws comprised the statement „when x then y‟. They

were written using conditional sentences. The sentences contain both the protases and the apodoses.

In addition, in each law, the apodosis would not follow unless the condition stated in the protasis

holds. For example, the forms of expression of CoH 195 and Exodus 21:15 correspond to each

other, as in (1) and (2).

1. Protasis: When Šumma a son has struck his father

Apodosis: then Ø they must cut off his hand
2. Protasis: When ‫כי‬ a man strikes his father or his mother
Apodosis: then Ø he must surely be put to death
As mentioned in chapters 3 and 4, the laws in CoH and the casuistic laws of BC are

categorized as main case laws, subsidiary case laws and sub-case laws. These categorizations are

found in other Ancient Near Eastern codes. This suggests that the composers of both CoH and BC

strictly followed the form of the older law codes they adapted. However, there are in few cases

179
when the composers creatively deviated from this common form. For instance, while the protasis of

Exodus 21:16 is introduced by qōṭēl, as in (3), the protasis of CoH 14 is introduced by the particle

šumma „when‟, as in (4), which is equivalent to the particle ‫„ כי‬when‟ in Hebrew.

3. Protasis: When qōṭēl a man steals another man

and ‫ ו‬sells him

or ‫ ו‬he is found in his possession

Apodosis: then (qāṭôl) that man must surely be put to death
4. Protasis: When Šumma a man has stolen man‟s small child
Apodosis: then Ø he must be killed
Thus, the form of Exodus 21:16 is closely connected to CoH 14 with a minor difference. In

addition, the form of the talion laws in CoH and BC are not exactly the same. In BC, these laws

have abbreviated forms, as in (5) in contrast to the ones in CoH, as in (6), which are presented in

full casuistic form.

5. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, …

6. Protasis: When Šumma a has destroyed b‟s sight
Apodosis: they shall destroy a‟s sight
All these demonstrate that both CoH and BC followed the literary type common in the Ancient Near

East with minor changes. The changes are also due to the historical, linguistic and theological

contexts of the two codes.

5.1.3 Grammar

CoH and BC were written in different languages. While CoH was written in OA (2000-1500

B.C.), BC in BH (c.1000 B.C.- A.D. 70). Both languages are related Semitic languages, and

therefore have related grammar. Yet, we find some differences in their arrangements of terms or

concepts that form the propositional statements.

5.1.3.1 Word Order

As discussed in chapter 3, CoH often exhibits SOV word order in terms of frequency as stated

below:

Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq

180
 When a man has stolen man‟s small child. (CoH 14)

Šumma awῑlum awῑlam ina risbātim imtaḫaṣma

When a man has struck another man in a fight. (CoH 206)

This implies that emphases of CoH are always on the subjects of the laws. Whenever we have OSV

word order, as in CoH 117, emphasis is shifted to the object of the actions.

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma

When poverty overtook a man. (CoH 117)

It can be deduced that CoH places special prominence on the subjects and the objects of

actions (Gianto 122). The reason for placing special emphases on the subjects and the objects in

CoH is that three social classes (awῑlum, muškênum and wardum-amtum) are distinguished in CoH,

and these three classes are not treated in the same way. The awῑlum is classified higher than the

others are. The muškênum is always liable to smaller compensation for injuries inflicted and subject

to less severe penalties for more serious criminal offenses (CoH 202-208). The wardum-amtum

sometimes is considered a property (CoH 116-117), and at other times he is considered to be a

person (CoH 250-252) (Urch 438).

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the casuistic laws of BC often exhibit VSO word order, as stated

below:

‫ְּוכִּי־יִמְכ ֹר אִיׁש אֶּת־בִּת ֹּו לְָּאמָּה‬

‫ֹלא תֵּ צֵּא ְּכצֵּאת ָּה ֲעבָּדִּ ים‬

And when a man sells his daughter as a female slave,

she must not go out as the male slaves do. (Exod 21:7)

‫ְּוכִּי־יִפְתַ ח אִ יׁש ב ֹּור‬

‫א ֹּו כִּי־יִכ ְֶרה אִיׁש ב ֹּר‬

‫וְֹּלא י ְּ ַּכןֶּמו‬

‫שםָּה ש ֹּור א ֹּו חֲמ ֹּור‬

ָּ ‫ְּונָּפַּל־‬
181
 When a man opens a pit,

or when a man digs a pit

and does not cover it,

and an ox or a donkey falls into it, (Exod 21:33)

As for the casuistic laws of BC which comprise mostly verbal clauses, emphases are on the

situations or actions found in the laws or on what the subjects do, and not on the subjects or the

objects themselves (Niccacci 23). Nevertheless, in the case where they exhibit SVO or OSV word

order, as in Exodus 21:4, the subject or the object in the clause is highlighted for emphasis, contrast

or identification. Here, the emphasis is on the description of the subject (Niccacci 23). In BC, there

is no much distinction of classes among people.

‫אִּם־אֲ דֹנָיו יִתֶ ן־ֹלו ִּאשָּה‬

‫ְּויָּלְּדָּ ה־ֹלו ָּבנִּים א ֹּו בָּנ ֹּות‬

‫ָּה ִּאשָּה וִּילָּדֶּ י ָּה תִּ ְּהי ֶּה לַּאדֹּנֶּי ָּה‬

‫וְּהוא יֵּצֵּא ְּבגַּפ ֹּו‬

If his master gives to him a wife

and she bears to him sons or daughters,

the wife and her children must be her master's,

and he must go out as a single person. (Exod 21:4)

Since we have more emphases on the actions in the clauses than the subjects and the objects,

this suggests that BC places higher value on human life and does not discriminate in terms of social

class (Eichrodt 77–79). Instead of distinguishing between the less privileged and free persons, the

laws are arranged to express a great concern for the rights of less-privileged and to encourage

humane treatment of them. Thus, through the emphases placed on the actions, a higher value is

placed on human life than on any property in the laws.

182
5.1.3.2 Verbal Forms

As mentioned earlier, all the verbal forms in both CoH and the casuistic laws of BC are used

to express the conditions in the protases and the legal consequences in the apodoses. Moreover, all

of them being expressed in the conditional construction indicate that the verbal forms in CoH and

BC are all equivalent in meaning, but belong to different categories.

Iptaras and iprus which are the main verbal forms in the protases of conditional sentences in CoH

carry perfective aspect, appear indicatively and have a typical value of past, as stated below:

Šumma mārum abasu imtaḫaṣ, rittašu inakkisū

When a son has struck [iptaras] his father, they must cut off [iparras] his hand. (CoH 195)

Šumma awῑlum bῑtam ipluš, ina pani pilšim šuāti idukkūšuma iḫallalūšu.

When a man broke [iprus] into a house, they must kill [iparras] and hang [iparras] him because of

that burglary. (CoH 21)

In addition, iparras, the main verbal form, in the apodoses of conditional sentences in CoH carries

imperfective aspect, appears indicatively and has a typical value of future, as stated in CoH 195 and

CoH 21 above.

Yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal, the main verbal forms, in BC carry modality, appear modally and have a typical

value of future, as stated below:

‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹות יומָת׃‬

When a man steals [qōṭēl] another man and sells [wĕqāṭal] him, or he is found [wĕqāṭal] in his

possession, that man must surely be put to death [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:16)

‫שלָּש־ ֵּאלֶּה ֹלא י ַּ ֲעשֶּה לָּה ְויָצְָאה ִּחמָּם אֵּין ָּכסֶּף׃‬

ְּ ‫ְּואִּם־‬

And if these three things he does not do [yiqṭōl], then she must go out [wĕqāṭal] for nothing, without

payment of money. (Exod 21:11)

Therefore, the verbal forms in CoH: iptaras, iprus and iparras being indicative and used in

the modal clauses point to the fact that the laws in CoH were formulated based on the events that

took place during the reign of Hammurabi. Moreover, the verbal forms in BC: yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal
183
being modal suggests that the laws in BC are Yahweh‟s propositions and directives for the Israelites

on Mount Sinai. The propositions in the protases are knowledge-based because they are based on

the events already known to the people, and the directives in the apodoses are Yahweh‟s attitude

towards the offenses described in the protases. The E-writers might have invented these verbal

forms, which are different from the older law codes to fit the Sinai narrative context.

The comparisons of the grammatical contexts of CoH and BC demonstrate that there are

minor differences between the verbal forms in CoH and BC. The differences seem to have to do

with the perception of whether the crime is seen as already having taken place (CoH) or to take

place in the future (BC) (Monger 26).

5.1.4 Contents

There are some themes that appear in both CoH and BC. The analyses of these parallel themes

in CoH and BC done in chapters 3 and 4 respectively have helped us to gain a deeper insight into

the contents of the two texts. A careful examination of these contents reveals that there are

similarities and differences between CoH and BC, and comparisons of these contents will highlight

the strong connections between CoH and BC. In addition, both CoH and BC are strongly connected

with other Ancient Near Eastern law codes like LU, LL, MAL and HL. It is, therefore, necessary to

examine the types of connections that exist between the parallel themes of CoH and BC, and

between the parallel themes of BC and other law codes. I will make distinctions between these

different types of connections.

In examining these connections, I will consider the elements in BC‟s laws that are connected

with the elements in CoH‟s laws, and I will distinguish between three different types of

connections. The first is that of a direct grammatical parallel. This type of connection occurs when

there is a close match between elements in BC‟s laws and elements in CoH‟s laws in terms of

theme, arrangement and grammar. The second is that of a direct grammatical parallel with some

significant differences. In this case, there is a close match between elements in BC‟s laws and

elements in CoH‟s laws in terms of theme, arrangement and grammar with some significant

184
differences. The third is a thematic parallel. Here, there is only a close match between elements in

BC‟s laws and elements in CoH‟s laws in terms of theme.

It is now necessary to apply the categories set forth above to the analyses of the contents of

CoH and BC. I focus on six of the ten parallel themes previously analysed in chapters 3 and 4. I

combine the themes of miscarriage and eye for eye in my application. I selected the themes:

Kidnapping and Goring Ox because of the close connections in the two codes and I used a simple

random selection technique to pick the remaining four themes. The themes to be examined below

are:

1. Kidnapping (CoH 14; Exod 21:16)

2. Goring Ox (CoH 250-252; Exod 21:28-32)
3. Slavery (CoH 117-119; Exod 21:2-11)
4. Miscarriage and Eye for Eye (CoH 209-214, 196-201; Exod 21:22-27)
5. Theft (CoH 8, 21; Exod 22:37-22:3)

5.1.4.1 Kidnapping (CoH 14; Exod 21:16)

Apart from CoH 14 and Exodus 21:16, HL 19-21 also treats the crime of kidnapping.

In CoH 14, there appear two elements. Its elements are stated as follows:

1. When a man has stolen a child

2. The kidnapper must be killed

The four elements in Exodus 21:16 are as follows:

1. When a man steals another man

2. And he sells the stolen man

3. Or the stolen man is found in his possession

4. He must be put to death.

The following elements appear in HL 19-21:

1. If any Luwian steals a person – man or woman – from Hattusa

2. and carries him to the country of Arzawa,

3. but his master traces him out,

4. he shall be declared liable for his estate

5. If in Hattusa any Hittite steals a Luwian

185
 6. and carries him to the country of Luwiya

7. They would formerly give twelve persons,

8. Now he shall give six persons

9. and pledge his estate as security

10. If any Hittite steals a Hittite slave from the country of Luwiya

11. and carries him to the Hatti land,

12. but his master traces him out

13. He shall give him twelve shekels of silver;

14. and pledge his estate as security

15. If anyone steals the slave of a Luwian from country of Luwiya

16. and carries him to the Haitti land,

17. but his master traces him out,

18. He shall receive just the slave

19. There will be no compensation.

Both CoH 14 and Exodus 21:16 focus on the crime of kidnapping. Element #1 in CoH and

element #1 in BC are closely connected. The object of kidnapping in BC is ‫ אִּיש‬ʼîš, „man‟ (an adult

citizen), whereas CoH has in view mār awῑlim ṣeḫram, „the man‟s small child‟. The main verbs

ištariq (in CoH 14) and ‫ וְּגֹּנֵּב‬vegōnab (in Exodus 21:16) in their protases are not cognates, but are in

the same semantic range. This makes evident that element #1 in CoH and element #1 in BC share a

point of direct grammatical parallel with some significant differences. Element #2 in CoH and

element #4 in BC are also closely connected. The punishment for the crime of kidnapping in both

codes is death. The main verbs iddâk (in CoH 14) and ‫ יומָּת‬yûmat (in Exodus 21:16) are not also

cognates, but both refer to the capital punishment for the offence of kidnapping. This indicates that

element #2 in CoH and element #4 in BC share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some

significant differences. Elements #2 and 3 in BC are missing in CoH.

The laws in HL 19-21 are concerned with the crime of kidnapping a Hittite citizen, male or

female, by a Luwian, the kidnapping of a Luwian man by a Hittite, and the kidnapping of both

Hittie and Luwian male slave. Elements #1, 5, 10 and 15 in HL 19-21 share a point of direct

grammatical parallel with element #1 in BC. However, the penalties for the offence in HL are
186
completely different from the ones we have in BC and CoH. The comparisons between BC and

CoH, and between BC and HL have demonstrated that BC is more closely connected to CoH than to

HL. However, element #3 in BC is unique to BC. This element cannot be found in both CoH and

HL. There are also many elements in HL that cannot be found in both CoH and BC.

5.1.4.2 Goring Ox (CoH 250-252; Exod 21:28-32)

Apart from CoH 250-252 and Exodus 21:28-32, LE 54-55 also treats the crime of the act of goring

by an animal.

The following elements appear in CoH 250-152:

1. When an ox has gored a man while walking along the road and caused his death

2. There is no cause for complaint

3. When a man has an ox which gores and his council have informed him that it gores and he has
not covered its horns and has not tied the ox up

4. And it gores a man‟s son and causes his death

5. He must pay half a shekel of silver

6. When it was a man‟s slave

7. He must give a third of mana of silver

These elements appear in Exodus 21:28-32:

1. When an ox gores a man or a woman to death

2. The ox must be stoned, and its flesh must not be eaten, but the owner of the ox must not be
liable

3. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past and its owner has been warned but has
not kept it in

4. And it kills a man or a woman

5. The ox must be stoned, and its owner also must be put to death

6. If a ransom is imposed on him then he must give for the redemption of his life whatever is
imposed on him

7. If it gores a man‟s son or daughter

8. He shall be dealt with according to this same rule

9. If the ox gores a slave, male or female

187
 10. The owner must give to their master thirty shekels of silver

11. And the ox must be stoned

The following elements appear in LE 54-55:

1. If an ox is known to gore habitually and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge
of its owner, but he does not have his ox dehorned,

2. it gores a man and causes (his) death,

3. then the owner of the ox shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver

4. If it gores a slave and causes (his) death,

5. He shall pay fifteen shekels of silver

Both CoH 250-252 and Exodus 21:28-32 are about consequences of goring a person by an ox.

These laws have been recognized as the closest thematic parallel between BC and cuneiform laws

(Wells 104). Seven elements in each text are connected, but elements #4, 5 and 11 in BC are

missing in CoH. Element #1 in CoH is connected with element #1 in BC. Both elements deal with

an unanticipated case of goring. Both elements have „an ox‟ as the subject of the action, though the

words alpu and ‫ ש ֹּור‬šôr used for „an ox‟ are not cognate. The first main verbs ikkipma „has gored‟

(in CoH) and ‫יִּגַּח‬, yiggaḥ (in BC) are not cognates, but are in the same semantic range. The object

of the act of goring is a man in CoH, whereas the object in BC is a man or a woman. The phrase

„while walking along the road‟ in element #1 of CoH is missing in BC. The second main verbs

uštamῑt and ‫ יומָּת‬yûmat are cognate. Elements #1 in both CoH and BC can thus be said to share a

point of direct grammatical parallel with some significant differences. Elements #2 in both CoH and

BC emphasize that the owner of the ox need not be punished, but element #2 in BC adds that the ox

must be stoned and that its flesh must not be eaten. Therefore, element #2 in CoH and element #2 in

BC also share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some significant differences. Elements #3

in both CoH and BC present a case of a habitually goring ox. While BC first requires capital

punishment, before giving the option of monetary compensation, CoH only allows monetary

compensation. Element #4 in CoH and element #7 in BC also share a point of direct grammatical

parallel with some significant differences, but the option of a daughter is missing in CoH. Element

#6 in CoH and element #9 in BC also share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some
188
significant differences, only that BC includes the option of the female slave. Element #7 in CoH and

element #10 in BC are closely connected, but the monetary compensation in CoH is less than that of

BC. It should be noted that the thirty shekels in BC is the same amount as compensation for a free

person in element #5 in CoH (D. P. Wright 41).

There is also connection between Exodus 21:28-32 and LE 54-55. Elements #1, 2, 4, and 5 in

LE 54-55 are strongly connected with elements # 3, 4, 6 and 9 in BC. Therefore, element #4 that is

not found in CoH is present in LE. Moreover, element #9 in BC is more closely connected with LE

than CoH. Furthermore, the act of an ox goring another ox which is found in Exodus 21:35-36, and

not in CoH is found in LE 53. According to Wells, LE 53 matches closely with Exodus 21:35. And

that the connection between BC and CoH on the law of goring ox is no closer than that between BC

and LE (Wells 105–106). The reason might have been that BC depended more on Canaanite laws,

which probably resemble LE. However, elements #6 and 11 in BC are unique to BC.

5.1.4.3 Slavery (CoH 117-119; Exod 21:2-11)

Apart from CoH 250-252 and Exodus 21:28-32, LU 4-5 also treats the crime of maltreating slaves.

CoH contains the following elements:

1. When a man is gripped in poverty, and he has sold his wife, or his son, or his daughter for
silver, or has put them into bound-service

2. They must work in the house of their purchaser or of their bond-master for three years but in
the fourth year their liberation must be agreed

3. When he has given a slave or a slave-girl into bound-service

4. The merchant may pass them on and sell them for silver. The person cannot be reclaimed.

5. When a man is gripped in poverty and has sold his slave-girl for silver after she has borne him
sons

6. The slave-girl‟s owner may pay back the silver the merchant had loaned and redeem his slave-
girl

Exodus 21:2-11 has the following elements:

1. When you buy a Hebrew slave.

2. He must serve six years, and in the seventh he must go out free, for nothing.

3. If he comes in single, he shall go out single;

189
 4. If he comes in married, then his wife must go out with him

5. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children
must be her master's, and he must go out alone.

6. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out
free

7. Then his master must bring him to God, and he must bring him to the door or the doorpost.
And his master must bore his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave forever

8. When a man sells his daughter as a slave,

9. She must not go out as the male slaves do

LU 4-5 contains elements as follows:

1. If a male slave marries a female slave, his beloved

2. and that male slave (later) is given his freedom,

3. she/he will not leave (or be evicted from?) the house

4. If a male slave marries a native woman,

5. she/he shall place one male child in the service of his master;

6. the child who is placed in the service of his master,

7. his paternal estate. … the wall, the house, […]

8. A child of the native woman will not be owned by the master,

9. He will be pressed into slavery

Both CoH 117-118 and Exodus 21:2-11 are about the theme „the conditions of release of

slaves‟. The laws seek to regulate how slaves should be treated. Exodus 21:2, 7 is closely connected

with CoH 117. Therefore, element #1 in CoH is closely connected with element #1 in BC. Elements

#1 in both CoH and BC present a case of indebtedness that is resolved by enslavement to a creditor.

In the two elements, the person entering into slavery is a member of the free class in society. Both

elements describe the enslavement of a slave, but in their descriptions, CoH refers to selling and BC

to buying. Therefore, the two elements only share a point of thematic parallel. Elements #2 in both

CoH and BC are also closely connected. Both law codes state the length of the slavery with the

numeral at the beginning and the verb, referring to work, at the end. They specify that the next year,

the slave is to be set free, with the numeral again at the beginning. The two elements seem to have a

similar syntax, but for the fact that they have different numbers for the length of the slavery, they

can be said to share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some significant differences.
190
Elements #3 and 4 in CoH are missing in BC. In addition, elements #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in BC are

missing in CoH. Though, the word amtam, „female slave‟ in element #3 in CoH and the word ‫ָאמָּה‬

'āmāh, „female slave‟ in element #8 in BC are cognate, and so grammatically related, they are used

differently in the two texts. According to Wells, the term amtam in element #3 in CoH is used with

reference to a woman who is already a slave in the possession of her master, and the term ‫ אמה‬is

used with reference to „a free woman who has been sold by her father into debt-slavery‟ (Wells 94).

Elements #4 and 5 in Exodus 21:2-11 also share a point of thematic parallel with elements #1

and 2 in LU 4-5. These elements in both BC and LU are not found in CoH. Thus, LU 4-5 possesses

some closer connection with BC than CoH. This also demonstrates that BC depended on another

law code, which is probably Canaanite laws, apart from CoH.

5.1.4.4 Miscarriage and Eye for Eye (CoH 209-214, 196-201; Exod 21:22-27)

I compare the themes of „miscarriage‟ and „eye for eye‟ in BC with that of CoH. The laws on

eye for eye appear at the end of the miscarriage laws in BC. In CoH, the laws appear earlier before

miscarriage laws. Moreover, MAL A50-51 and HL 17-18 mention the laws on miscarriage. Also,

LU 18-22 and LE 42 mention the laws on eye for eye.

The elements in the laws on miscarriage and eye for eye in CoH are as follows:

1. When a man has struck the daughter of a man

2. And has made her lose her unborn child
3. He must pay ten shekels of silver for the foetus
4. When that woman has died
5. They must kill his daughter
6. When he has made a commoner‟s daughter lose her unborn child by the violence
7. He must pay five shekels of silver
8. When that woman has died
9. He must pay half a mana of silver
10. When he has struck a man‟s slave-girl and made her lose her unborn child,
11. He must pay two shekels of silver.
12. When that slave-girl has died,
13. He must pay a third of a mana of silver
14. Talion laws: when a man has destroyed the sight of another similar person, they must destroy

191
 his sight. When he has broken another man‟s bone, they must break one of his bones.
15. When he has destroyed the sight of a working man or broken a bone of a working man,

16. He must pay one mana of silver.

17. When he has destroyed the sight of another man‟s slave or broken a bone of another man‟s
slave,

18. He must pay half his value in silver.

19. Talion law: when a man has knocked out the tooth of a man who is his colleague, they shall
knock out his tooth.

20. When he has knocked out the tooth of a working man,

21. He must pay a third of a mana of silver.

Moreover, the elements in the laws on miscarriage and eye for eye in BC are stated below:

1. When men strive together

2. And hit a pregnant woman
3. So that her children come out
4. But there is no harm,
5. The one who hit her must surely be fined
6. As the woman's husband would impose on him
7. He must pay as the judges determine
8. But if there is harm,
9. Talionic law is applied, then you must pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe
10. When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it
11. He must let the slave go free because of his eye
12. When he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female,
13. He must let the slave go free because of his tooth
The elements in the laws on miscarriage in MAL A50-51 are stated below:

1. [If a seignior] struck a(nother) seignior‟s [wife]

2. and caused her to have [a miscarriage],

3. they shall treat [the wife of the seignior], who caused the (other) seignior‟s wife to [have a
miscarriage]

4. as he treated her; he shall compensate for her fetus with a life.

5. However if that woman died,

6. they shall put the seignior to death;

7. he shall compensate for her fetus with a life.

8. but, when that woman‟s husband has no son, if someone struck her so that she had a
miscarriage

192
 9. they shall put the striker to death;

10. even if her fetus is a girl, he shall compensate with a life

11. If a seignior struck a(nother) seignior‟s wife who does not rear her children and caused her to
have a miscarriage,

12. this punishment (shall hold): he shall pay two talents of lead
The elements in the laws on miscarriage in HL 17-18 are stated below:

1. If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry –

2. If (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver,

3. If (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver and pledge his estate as security.

4. Later version of 17: if anyone causes a free woman to miscarry,

5. He shall give 20 shekels of silver.

6. If anyone causes a slave-woman to miscarry,

7. If (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver

8. Later version of 18: if anyone causes a slave-woman to miscarry,

9. he shall give 10 shekels of silver

The elements in LU 18-22 are stated below:

1. If [a man] cuts off the foot of [another man with …]

2. he shall weigh and deliver 10 shekels of silver

3. if a man shatters the … bone of another man with a club

4. he shall weigh and deliver 60 shekels of silver

5. if a man cuts off the nose of another man with …

6. he shall weigh and deliver 40 shekels of siver

7. if [a man] cuts off [… he shall] weigh and [x shekels of silver]

8. if [a man knocks out another man‟s] tooth with […]

9. he shall weigh and deliver 2 shekels of silver

The elements in LE 42 are stated below:

1. If a man bites the nose of a(nother) man and severs it,

2. he shall pay 1 mina of silver.

3. For an eye (he shall pay) 1 mina of silver;

4. (for) a tooth one-half mina;

5. (for) an ear one-half mina;

6. (for) a slap in the face 10 shekels of silver.

193
 Element #1 in BC is missing in CoH, while element #2 in BC is closely connected with

element #1 in CoH. The difference is that while CoH speaks of a man‟s daughter, BC speaks of a

man‟s wife. In addition, CoH describes the attack simply as a man striking the woman, and BC has

the attack in the context of two men fighting and striking the woman, though in BC like in CoH

only one of the men is responsible for the injury. The main verbs, imḫaṣma „he has struck‟ (in CoH)

and ‫ ְּונָּגְּפו‬venāgefû „he strikes‟ (in BC), are not cognate, but are in the same semantic range. These

two elements can be said to share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some significant

differences. Element #3 in BC and element #2 in CoH are also closely connected. The two elements

anticipate a possible miscarriage. Thus, they share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some

significant differences. Element #4 is missing in CoH. CoH does not mention possibility of any

injury done to the woman who was struck. Elements #5 and 7 in BC are closely connected with

element #3 in CoH. They specify their first definite penalty, which has to do with compensation for

the unborn child. The fines in both law codes are not the same. While CoH specifies that the man

who has struck the woman would pay ten shekels, BC specifies that the man would pay according

to what the husband of the woman imposes. They, therefore, share a point of direct grammatical

parallel with some significant differences. Element #8 in BC is also connected with element #5 in

CoH. They both consider the possibility of injury to the woman. BC considers a range of injuries,

whereas CoH considers only the death of the woman. These elements also share a point of direct

grammatical parallel with some significant differences. As for punishment for the injury, which

CoH states to be death, CoH prescribes death for the person who has caused the pregnant woman‟s

death. BC states eight possible injuries and prescribes talion laws as punishments.

Elements #6, 7, 8 and 9 in CoH which are concerned with the miscarriage of mārat muškēnim

„a commoner‟s daughter‟ are missing in BC. Elements #10, 11, 12 and 13 in CoH focus on the

miscarriage of a female slave, and these discussions are missing in BC. Elements #10, 11, 12 and 13

in BC are closely connected with elements #17 and 18 in CoH. These elements apply talion laws to

slaves. While both CoH and BC speak about injury to any of the body parts of slaves, the talion

194
formulation (body part for body part) does not apply to them (D. P. Wright 40). The talion laws in

CoH are concerned with one man wounding the body part of another man‟s slave, whereas those in

BC speak of wounding that is caused by the slave‟s master. The penalties also differ. CoH

prescribes fines for any injury inflicted on the body parts of slaves. BC prescribes freedom for any

slave that his master inflicted injury on. Therefore, the discussions on bodily injury to slaves in both

texts do not share any point of direct grammatical parallel. Elements #15, 16, 20 and 21, which

speak about injury to muškēnum, are missing in BC.

Element #9 in BC is closely connected with elements #14 and 19 in CoH. These elements

speak about injury to body parts of free people. They are regarded as talion laws. In BC, these laws

have abbreviated forms in contrast to the ones in CoH, which are presented in full casuistic form

(D. P. Wright 39). The elements in both texts speak of injury to eyes and teeth. However, CoH

includes bones and BC hands. Furthermore, BC includes burn, wound and stripe in its talion laws.

All these demonstrate that these elements in both CoH and BC share a point of direct grammatical

parallel with some significant differences.

MAL A50-51 and HL 17-18 are also closely related with the laws of miscarriage in BC.

Elements #2 and 3 in BC are more closely connected with MAL (elements #1 and 2) than with

CoH. MAL like BC speaks of a man‟s wife contrary to CoH, which speaks of a man‟s daughter.

Element #3 in BC, which anticipates a possible miscarriage, is also found in element #2 in MAL.

Elements #5 and 7, which prescribes fine, are closely connected with elements #3 and 4 in MAL.

Element #8 in BC, which considers the possibility of injury to the pregnant woman, is closely

connected with element #5 in MAL. Element #9 in BC and elements #6 and 7 in MAL display

talion laws in connection with miscarriage. This demonstrates that MAL displays the talion laws in

connection with miscarriage more prominently than CoH. Elements #2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 in HL,

elements #5 and 7 in BC, elements # 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13 in CoH and elements #3 and 12 in MAL all

specify monetary compensation for those who cause miscarriage in a free woman and a female

slave. As for the talion laws, LE and LU mention injuries to body parts. Elements #1, 3, 5 and 8 in

195
LU mention injuries to a foot, a bone, the nose, and a tooth respectively. Elements #1, 3, 4, 5 and 6

in LE mention injuries to the nose, an eye, a tooth, an ear and the face respectively.

5.1.4.5 Theft (CoH 8, 21; Exod 21:37-22:3)

The crime of theft is also found in LE 13.

In CoH 8, 21, there are six elements, and they are as follows:

1. When a man has stolen an ox, or a sheep, or a donkey, or a pig, or a boat

2. he must pay thirty times its value if it belongs to a god or a temple

3. and repay ten times its value if it belongs to a workman.

4. When that thief does not have enough to pay he must be killed.

5. when a man has smashed a way into a house,

6. they must kill him by hanging him just where he broke in.

There are nine elements in Exodus 21:37-22:3, and they are as follows:

1. When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it,

2. he must repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep

3. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies,

4. there must be no bloodguilt for him

5. but if the sun has risen on him,

6. there must be bloodguilt for him. He must surely pay.

7. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for his theft

8. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep,

9. he must pay double.

The elements in LE 13 are as follows:

1. A man who is caught in the house of muškēnum, in the house, during daytime,

2. He shall pay 10 shekels of silver.

3. He who is caught in the house at night,

4. He shall die, he shall not get away alive.

CoH 8, 21 and Exodus 21:37-22:3 deal with the crime of theft. While elements #1, 2, 3 and 4

in CoH and elements #1 and 2 in BC are concerned with stealing of animals, elements #5 and 6 in

CoH and elements #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in BC deal with burglary. Element #1 in BC and element

196
#1 in CoH are closely connected. The two elements deal with stealing of animals because the

objects of the stealing in both cases are animals. Both elements mention an ox and a sheep. In

addition, CoH mentions a donkey, a pig and a boat. The main verbs ‫ יִּגְּנ ֹּב‬yignōb, „he steals‟ (in BC)

and išriq, „has stolen‟ (in CoH) in their protases are not cognates, but are in the same semantic

range. This demonstrates that both elements share a point of direct grammatical parallel with some

significant differences. Element #2 in BC and elements #2, 3 and 4 in CoH specify the penalties for

the crime of stealing. Here, there is only a close match between the elements in terms of theme.

Moreover, the reason for the difference in terms of the penalties is the difference in their theological

views. Elements #5 in CoH and element #3 in BC are closely connected. Both elements talk about

breaking in into a house. Element # 6 in CoH and elements #4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with penalties of

the crime of burglary. While element #6 in CoH establishes the general penalty on the crime of

burglary, which is death, elements #4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 establish penalties meant to guard the lives of

both parties involved. The owner of the house is exonerated if he kills the thief at night in self-

defense and the life of the thief is protected by the law, if he is killed in daylight. The element in

CoH and the elements in BC also share a point of thematic parallel. Elements #3, 4, 5 and 6 in BC

and elements #1, 2, 3 and 4 in LE are also closely connected. Element #3 in BC and element #1 in

LE both mention that the burglar is found in the house, though element #1 in LE does not

emphasize the issue of breaking in. Unlike element #6 in CoH which does not make any distinction

between apprehending the burglar by day or night, elements #4, 5 and 6 in BC and elements # 2, 3

and 4 in LE do. This suggests that on the issue of burglary, BC is closer to LE than CoH.

Summarily, the foregoing comparisons have taken into account six parallel themes in both

CoH and BC. It is glaring from the comparisons that these themes are likewise connected with other

Ancient Near Eastern law codes like LU, LE, LL, MAL and HL. All these law codes are evidently

older than BC. Furthermore, there are striking similarities and stark differences between the

elements in the parallel themes of CoH and BC. There are times that some elements in themes of

BC are missing in the corresponding themes of CoH. At other times, some elements in CoH‟s

197
themes are not found in the corresponding BC‟s themes. Most often, the elements in these themes

share a point of grammatical parallel with some significant differences. In few instances, they only

share a point of thematic parallel or grammatical parallel. In addition, we find some elements in the

themes BC that are closely connected to elements in law codes like LU, LE, LL, MAL and HL.

Nevertheless, a careful look at these parallel themes shows that BC is more closely connected to

CoH than any other law codes. However, close connections exist between BC and other law codes:

with HL on the theme of kidnapping, with LE on the theme of goring ox, with LU on the theme of

slavery, with HL and MAL on the theme of miscarriage, with LE and LU on the theme of eye for

eye and with LE on the theme of theft.

The connections between these law codes authenticate that borrowing of contents of laws is

allowed in the composition of law codes in the Ancient Near East. By implication, both CoH and

BC could have borrowed from the older law codes. Thus, CoH is literary dependent on LU, LE and

LL, which were composed before it. BC is first literary dependent on Canaanite laws. However,

these Canaanite laws are yet to be discovered. I propose the theory that these Canaanite laws are

literary dependent on LU, LE and LL as well. The elements in BC that are closely connected with

LU, LE and LL might have been derived from Canaanite laws. Afterward, BC is literary dependent

on CoH. All these might have been responsible for the similarities in the contents of Ancient Near

Eastern law codes. Despite the similarities, there are also differences in these law codes. The

differences are what make it evident that borrowing of contents in the compositions of the law

codes is not done word-for-word. This suggests that the composers of law codes in the Ancient

Near East usually adapted the contents into their own linguistic, historical and theological contexts.

Conclusively, there is a literary dependence of BC on the law codes written before it,

especially a version of CoH and Canaanite laws. This literary dependence accounts for the

connections in their contents. For instance, elements #1 in CoH („when a man has stolen a child‟),

in BC („when a man steals another man‟) and in HL („when any Luwian steals a person – man or

woman – from Hattusa‟) are so connected that one can only think of a literary dependence. Thus,

BC can be referred to as an adaptation of CoH and the Canaantie laws. However, in its adaptation,
198
BC does not hold fast to the theological features of these older law codes. For instance, looking at

the theological features in CoH, the laws distinguish three different social classes, and these classes

are not to be treated equally. So the laws do not promote equality of value of these classes. For

example, awῑlum is protected against permanent slavery, but wardum and amtum are not protected,

they can even be sold to other awῑlum. In the laws concerning bodily injuries, classes are not valued

equally. Mār muškēnim is rated at two-third of the sum at which mār awῑlim is rated. Moreover, in

the case of miscarriage, mārat muškēnim is worth only half the value of mārat awῑlum, and amat

awῑlim is rated at one-fifths of the sum at which mārat awῑlum is rated. All these suggest that the

laws place highest value on awῑlum, followed by muškēnim and lastly wardum-amtum. Awῑlum is

liable to the highest compensation and are more protected than the other two classes. Muškênum is

always liable to smaller compensation for injuries inflicted. Wardum-amtum is perceived to be a

property, and is the least protected of the three classes. In the case of BC, the laws are motivated by

humanitarian concern. They encourage humane treatment of those who are vulnerable to abuse.

They offer security for slaves, women and even thieves. They promote equality of value of both

male and female members of the society. They treat slaves, which are thought to be properties in

CoH, as persons and not things.

5.1.5 Structures

A careful study of the structures of each of the parallel themes of CoH and BC has

demonstrated that there are intersections and deviations in the elements found in these parallel

themes. I use the number of elements found in the structures of each parallel theme of CoH and BC

(as stated in chapters 3 and 4) to create the data below. Afterwards, I use the data to construct a

scatter diagram and to calculate the correlation coefficient of the two variables X and Y. I then use

the result of the correlation coefficient to determine whether or not relationship exists between CoH

and BC.

Theme X (CoH) Y (BC)

Slavery 15 32

199
 Striking a Parent 2 2
Kidnapping 2 4
Bodily Injury 12 9
Miscarriage and Eye for
29 22
Eye
Goring Ox 14 20
Theft 11 15
Cattle Grazing 6 4
Storage and Deposit 12 8

5.1.5.1 Scatter Diagram

A scatter diagram is a diagram that shows the relationship between two variables X and Y

(Chernick and Friis 254). The values of variable X are given along the horizontal axis, with the

values of variable Y given on the vertical axis. In determining the relationship between the two

variables, the variable X is plotted against the variable Y. If the dots on the scatter diagram tend to

go from the lower left to the upper right, it means that as one variable increases the other variable

tends to increase also. In this case, we have a „positive relationship‟ (Higgins 1). If the dots on the

scatter diagram tend to go from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of the scatter diagram,

it means that as values of one variable increase, values of the other variable descrease. This is called

a „negative relationship‟ (Higgins 1). The diagram is indicated below.

35

30

25

20
Y Axis

Scatter Diagram
15
Linear (Scatter
Diagram)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40
X Axis

200
 In the graph, the number of elements found in the structure of each theme analysed in CoH is

plotted along the horizontal axis and is given the symbol X. The number of elements found in the

structure of each theme analysed in BC is plotted on the vertical axis as variable Y. Each number is

represented by an asterisk. By examining the scatter diagram, the relationship between X and Y can

be seen at a glance. It can be seen that larger values of X and Y intersect. Thus the relationship is

categorized as a moderate positive relationship, and not a perfect positive relationship. The diagram

also demonstrates that there is a dependence of one variable on the other. Since CoH was written

first, and the number of elements in BC are more than that of CoH, then there is the possibility of

BC depending on a version of CoH in its composition.

5.1.5.2 Correlation Coefficient

According to Callaghan, correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear

relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to +1. A correlation coefficient of +1 indicates

that there is a perfect positive relationship between the two variables. A correlation of 0 indicates

that there is no linear relationship between the two variables. The correlation of -1 indicates that

there is a perfect negative relationship between the two variables. So, for a positive relationship,

the closer a correlation coefficient approaches 1 the stronger the relationship, and the closer a

correlation coefficient is to 0 the weaker the relationship (Callaghan 553). Furthermore, the value of

correlation coefficient can be used to determine the strength of the relationship between two

variables. Thus these guidelines are given to determine this strength:

0 < r < 0.3 – weak relationship

0 < r < 0.7 – moderate relationship
r > 0.7 – strong relationship (StatPrimer 5)
The formula of correlation coefficient (denoted r) = ∑XY – (∑X) (∑Y)/n ∕ √[∑X2 – (∑X)2/n]

[∑Y2 – (∑Y)2/n]

201
I now calculate correlation coefficient using the data above.

X Y X2 Y2 XY
15 32 225 1024 480
2 2 4 4 4
2 4 4 16 8
12 9 144 81 108
29 22 841 484 638
14 20 196 400 280
11 15 121 225 165
6 4 36 16 24
12 8 144 64 96
Total = 103 Total = 116 Total = 1715 2314 1803
r = 1803 – (103) (116)/9 ∕ √[1715 – (103)2/9] [2314 – (116)2/9]
= 475.4 ∕ √536.2 X 818.9
= 475.4 ∕ √439094.2
= 475.4 ∕ 662.6
= 0.717
≈ 0.7
In the data above, it is glaring that there are more elements in BC than in CoH. The result of the

correlation coefficient also indicates that there is a moderate positive relationship, and not a perfect

positive relationship, between CoH and BC.

5.2 Explanation

The foregoing comparisons have demonstrated that there are connections between CoH and

BC, and between BC and other Ancient Near Eastern law codes. It has also been established that

there are moderate connections between CoH and BC. The existence of these connections then calls

for an explanation of the precise nature of relationship that exists especially between CoH and BC.

What could have been responsible for the striking similarities and the stark differences between

these law codes? How best can the relationship between CoH and BC be explicated?

So far, scholars have made many explanations about the relationship between CoH and BC.

Some of these explanations have already been discussed in the literature review, and there are

different opinions in their explanations. In summary, some scholars overweight similarities with

202
differences. Duncan, Waterman, Finkelstein and Wrights among others emphasized the similarities

between CoH and BC over the differences that exist between them. They seek to demonstrate that

BC is merely a product of its environment (Younger xxxvii). These scholars have conclusions that

resemble one another. Duncan concludes that the Israelites definitely appropriated the culture and

civilization of the Canaanites among whom they settled, just like the Babylonians who also

appropriated all that was best in the Sumerian culture and civilization and became in time masters

of the ancient world. By implication, the same way the Babylonians adapted the older codes in their

own context, the Israelites adapted CoH and other law codes in their historical and theological

contexts. According to him, this is probably the best explanation for the many resemblances in form

and subject-matter existing between biblical laws and Babylonian laws (Duncan 278).

Waterman argues for oral development of the laws of CoH in Canaan, and he asserts that this

might have been done by the Israelites themselves (Waterman 52). Despite BC‟s dependence on

pre-Israelite law, Waterman concludes that BC came from Yahweh, and was written by the finger

of God (Waterman 54). Finkelstein concludes that BC might have depended upon their literary

Mesopotamian prototypes. Thus, biblical laws derived their inspiration from earlier Mesopotamian

prototypes or from yet undiscovered sources, that in turn, derived from Mesopotamian prototypes

(Finkelstein 21). Wright‟s conclusion also supports the theory of direct dependence of BC on CoH.

Wright argues that BC „is directly, primarily, and throughout dependent upon CoH. It imitated the

structure of CoH and drew upon its content to create the central casuistic laws of Exodus 21:22-

22:19, as well as the outer sections of apodictic law in Exodus 20:23-26 (along with the

introduction of 21:1) and 22:20-23:19‟ (D. P. Wright 3). BC drew primarily and directly upon CoH

for its entire composition. Its composition took place in the Neo-Assyrian period, between 740 and

640 BCE. Thus, BC is a creative academic work whose goal is mainly ideological (D. P. Wright

346). Finally, Malul concludes that there existed a literary connection between the two texts (Malul

159).

On the contrary, other scholars overweight differences with similarities. Scholars like Herzt,

Boecker, Walton and Wells among others emphasize the differences between CoH and BC over the
203
similarities that exist between them. They seek to demonstrate that BC is absolutely different or that

each of Ancient Near Eastern law codes should be appreciated on its merits (Younger xxxvii).

These scholars criticize arguments of direct literary dependence. They argue that a direct literary

dependence on CoH or on any other of the law collections from the Ancient Near East cannot be

proven (D. P. Wright 17). They also have conclusions that resemble one another. Hertz concludes

that the relationship that exists between CoH and BC can only be described as indirect. He asserts

that CoH is not definitely the source of BC. Both laws are only in an indirect relation to each other.

He maintains that the resemblances between the two laws are due to the common laws that

permeated the ancient world at the time of their compositions. These common laws were used in the

composition of CoH, and the Israelites also had to adapt them in their own contexts (Hertz 216).

Boecker concludes that the laws in BC are derived from Canaanite oral tradition, and this is

accounted for the similarities between BC and CoH. The reason for the differences between them is

the different theological concepts in them. Another reason is that the two law codes have different

concepts of kingship. Unlike in CoH where the laws were promulgated by Hammurabi, the king, the

laws in BC were given by God. Thus, God is considered the Israelite king and the sole legislator

(Boecker 27, 40).

Walton concludes that though Israelite authors participated in the literary heritage of the

Ancient Near East, they were not to be regarded as theological editors of Ancient Near Eastern

literatures. They definitely had significant contributions to make to the literary creativeness of the

ancient world. They often drew from the contemporary literary milieu and motifs to shape their

unique theological perspective. Thus, they can be said to have only partaken from the common

literary heritage (Walton 236). Wells concludes that some similarities between CoH and BC are due

to meta-traditions, that is the general diffusion of common legal ideas across the Ancient Near East

(Wells 115–117). Westbrook explains that the similarities in contents between them are not just

coincidental, but are due to a common law tradition that spread throughout the Ancient Near East.

This tradition was not actually the laws, rather it consisted of „standard problems‟ that were

considered and answered independently by each society. The editors of BC might have drawn upon
204
this tradition in their compilation. The similarities are not thus the result of direct dependence of BC

on CoH (Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law 1–4, 40–44). Chirichigno concludes

that BC is unique and different from CoH and that the similarities are due to the fact that BC drew

upon common Ancient Near East legal traditions (Chirichgno 195).

Some other scholars like Enns and Monger adopt the middle approach in their discussions of

the relationship between CoH and BC. Enns concludes that the Old Testament is a product of its

environment. It is produced from some contexts. The Bible is not „a timeless, contextless how-to

book that we are meant to apply to today‟s world. Rather it demonstrates the inevitable cultural

dimension of any expression of the gospel‟ (Enns 67). Nevertheless, it is unique, and its uniqueness

is not seen in the marks of the ancient settings it bears, rather in the belief that scripture is the only

book in which God speaks incarnately. It is ultimately from God and it is God‟s gift to the church. It

is God‟s word (Enns 168). Monger concludes that BC is not a direct translation of CoH (Monger

44), rather it should best be understood as a contextualized interpretation of CoH. The intention of

the author of BC was not to reproduce CoH, nor to copy every detail, but rather to interprete CoH in

his own theological context, which is different from that of CoH. This accounts for differences

between them (Monger 60).

In explicating the relationship between CoH and BC, I will also adopt the middle approach.

This approach, as I have mentioned earlier, sees the law codes as part of an intellectual tradition,

part of an oral tradition and part of a literary tradition. These traditions spread by diffusion from

Mesopotamia, following the path taken by cuneiform legal documents, while continuing in practice

to interact with the law, both local and drawn from the underlying common legal tradition

(Westbrook, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel 24). I will use contextual method to delineate this

relationship. Contextual method is a balanced method that is most suitable in identifying and

discussing both similarities and differences between CoH and BC. Thus, I consider both the

similarities as well as the differences of BC and CoH in my description of the relationship between

them. Thus, as Younger would stress neither similarities and differences, rather emphasis will be on

both (Younger xxxvii). This will contribute to the understanding and explanation of the relationship
205
between BC and CoH. I will now give some explanations to the foregoing comparisons between the

contexts, genres, grammars, contents and structures of CoH and BC.

Comparisons between the contexts of CoH and BC show a high degree of contrast between

the two texts. When comparing the two texts, it is glaring that their historical and cultural

backgrounds are different. There is also a great distinction between CoH and BC in their concepts

of deities. CoH speaks of many gods. It mentions and describes the roles of Anu, Enlil, Marduk,

Sin, Ea and Shamash in its prologue and epilogue. BC speaks of only one God, using the name and

two titles of God: ‫יהוה‬, Yahweh, ‫אֱֹלהִּים‬, ʼelōhîm and ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬, hāʼelōhîm. It mentions the cult of

Yahweh, the Israelite God in its prologue. Their theological concepts of human are also not the

same. Unlike CoH, which treats slaves as complete properties, BC encourages human treatment of

those who are vulnerable to abuse. It offers security for them. It treats them as persons, despite the

fact that they are properties. Their concepts of kingship are also not the same. It is, therefore, clear

from the comparisons of the contexts of the two texts that BC is not a direct translation of CoH or

other Ancient Near Eastern law codes.

However, comparisons between the genres of CoH and the casuistic laws of BC show a high

degree of similarity between the two texts. The genres of the two texts are in many ways similar.

The genre of the casuistic laws is used in the formulations of both texts. Thus, the composers used

the same form in expressing the laws in the two texts. This makes it evident that CoH and BC

followed the literary type common in the Ancient Near East with minor changes, which are due to

the different historical, cultural and theological contexts of the two codes.

Comparisons between the grammars of CoH and BC reveal both some degree of similarity

and some degree of difference between the two texts. In the comparisons between the grammars of

CoH and BC, we find out that there are minor differences in them. These differences prove that

Ancient Near Eastern codes are not usually written using a strict direct grammatical

correspondence. This, therefore, suggests that the composers usually have freedom in employing

the most suitable grammar that fits their contexts. For instance, the word orders in CoH and in the

206
casuistic laws of BC reflect their theological concepts of human. Moreover, their verbal forms

reflect their historical contexts. The composers of the two codes used different verbal forms, which

however have equivalent meanings.

Comparisons between the contents of the parallel themes of CoH and BC reveal some degree

of similarity and difference between the two texts. The similarities in the contents of CoH and the

casuistic laws of BC validate the fact that there is a literary dependence of BC on CoH and

Canaanite laws, which probably depended on other Ancient Near Eastern codes like LU, LL, and

LE. Thus, the evidence that we have about Ancient Near Eastern law codes is most often in written

form. The differences demonstrate that BC is not a direct translation of these other codes, thus these

codes could not have been its inspiration. In some instances, the composers added to, subtracted

from or rewrote in their own historical and theological contexts. In other instances, they altered the

forms or reordered the arrangement of the laws. They did not follow strictly the grammatical

features, ordering and theological features of these older law codes, rather they adapted them to fit

their own historical and theological contexts.

Lastly, comparisons between the structures of the parallel themes in both CoH and BC show

that there are many elements of the parallel themes that intersect. This also proves that there is a

literary dependence of one text on the other, and since we have more elements in BC than in CoH,

this validates that BC is literary dependent on CoH. Many differences in the elements of these

themes can also help to argue that BC is a unique code, and not simply a verbatim copy of CoH.

My conclusion, therefore, is that there exists a moderate positive relationship between CoH

and the casuistic laws of BC, that is, there is a moderate connection between CoH and BC. To

explain further this relationship that exists between the two texts, I employ the term „translation‟.

And I will use translation techniques to explicate the relationship between the two texts.

Translation has been defined in many ways. According to Shaheen, it is defined as „the actual

process of decoding the source language text and encoding the target text‟. He describes it as „the

end-product, texts resulting from the actual process‟ (Shaheen 1). Lefevere describes it as rewriting.

It is „the most obviously recognizable type of rewriting, and … it is potentially the most influential
207
because it is able to project the image of an author and for those works beyond the boundaries of

their culture of origin‟ (Lefevere 9). In addition, Larson says that:

translation consists of studying lexicon, grammatical, structure, communication situation, and cultural context of

the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine its meaning, and the reconstructing this same

meaning using lexical and grammarical structure which are appropriate in the receptor langauge and its cultural

context (Larson 3).

By implication, translation involves the contexts, grammars, structures and genres of both the

source langauge and the target language. Thus, the translator must be familiar with all these

elements before a good translation can be done. Also Newmark, in his explication of translaton,

asserts that in translation, the job of the translator is to render the meaning of a text into another

language in the way that he intended the text (Newmark 5). Therefore, the translation cannot simply

reproduce, or be, the original.

From the definitions above, it is obvious that translation always involves at least two different

languages, the source language and the target language. The process of translation involves the

translator changing the source text in its verbal language and contexts into the target text in its

verbal language and contexts (Munday 4). Translation can be source language oriented or target

language oriented. When it is source language oriented, the translation can be categorized as word-

for-word translation, literal translation or faithful translation. When it is target language oriented, it

can be categorized as adaptation, free translation, idiomatic translation or communicative

translation. According to Newmark, word-for-word translation is interlinear translation where the

source langauge word-order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common

meanings, out of context. In literal translation, the source langauge‟s grammatical constructions are

converted to their nearest target language equivalents but the lexical words are again translated

singly, out of context. A faithful translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of

the original within the constrains of the target langauge grammatical structures. It „transfers‟

cultural words and preserves the degree and lexical „abnormality‟ in the translation. According to

him, adaptation is the „freest‟ form of translation. It is used only for plays and poetry. The themes

208
are usually preserved, the source language culture converted to the target language culture and the

text rewritten. Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, or the content without the

form of the original. Idiomatic translation reproduces the „message‟ of the original but tends to

distort nuances of meaning by preferring idiom where these do not exist in the original.

Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a

way that both context and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership

(Newmark 45–47).

Furthermore, there are many different techniques required in translating from a text to another

text. I prefer Vinay and Darbelnet‟s technique because I intend to use this technique to explain the

relationship between CoH and BC. It is categorized as direct translation and oblique translation.

Direct translation covers borrowing (the source language word is transferred directly to the target

language), calque (the source language expression or structure is transferred in a literal translation)

and literal translation („word-for-word‟ translation). Oblique translation covers transposition (this is

a change of one part of speech for another without changing the sense), modulation (this changes

the semantic and point of the source language), equivalence (cases where languages describe the

same situation by different stylistic or structural means) and adaptation (this involves changing the

cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture)

(Munday 57–58).

Having previously established that BC is literary dependent on a version of CoH, BC can then

be referred to as another translation and adaptation of previous Ancient Near Eastern law codes.

Thus, it is a rewriting of these older law codes. In its rewiting, it majorly depended on Canaanite

laws and a version of CoH, which are also literary dependent on the older law codes. This is a

normal tradition in the compilation of law codes in the Ancient Near East. A new law code is

usually literary dependent on the previous ones. And in the process of rewriting BC, its translators

decoded the contents and the form of the source texts (a version of CoH and Canaanite laws in

particular). They maintained the form of the source texts, and they encoded the contents of the

source texts in their own theological, cultural and historical contexts. In the light of the comparisons
209
above, BC cannot be adjudged as a word-for-word, literal, faithful or direct translation of the older

law codes. It cannot also be adjudged as an oblique translation, rather we can say that it shares some

elements of an oblique translation. It is an adaptation of Canaanite laws and a version of CoH. I will

categorize it as an „indirect translation‟ of the older law codes, a version of CoH and Canaanite laws

in particular. This kind of translation in today‟s language for translation is the „freest‟ form of

translation. The translators of BC did not often use loan words or loan words plus explanations in

their rewriting, rather they often used related words, and sometimes unrelated words in their

rewriting. They always replaced the theological issues in the source texts with their own

considering its impact on their readers. They also substituted a culture-specific item or expression

with their society‟s item. They often translated by omission or addition of words or expressions in

some contexts. They sometimes preserved the themes and contents of the older law codes and many

a times they deviated from them especially when considering their own contexts. Thus the

translators often looked at their historical, cultural and theological contexts when translating. Most

often, they added extra information not in the older law codes, they usually changed the meaning of

the older law codes and they always altered the facts of the historical, theological and cultural

contexts of the older law codes.

The notion of contexts removes BC from the purely mental sphere. It also makes BC to be an

indirect translation of the older law codes in the sense of modern translation techniques. It is not

acceptable as normal translation. This conclusion is also true of CoH, which is literary dependent on

older law codes like LU, LL and LE. Thus, there existed a literary connection between the law

codes in the Ancient Near East, and this is responsible for the similarities in these law codes.

However, the relationship between them is indirect because of the contexts. These different contexts

are responsible for differences in the law codes. In addition, there are claims to divine inspiration in

each law code. These claims also suggest that different deities were responsible for the inspiration

for rewriting the law codes in the Ancient Near East. This is true of CoH and BC. For the fact that

there is always literary dependent of a new law code on older law codes, these older law codes are

not inspiration for rewriting new law codes in the Ancient Near East. The belief of the ancient
210
people is that deities were the inspiration of their law codes. Thus, inspiration accounts for the

different theological concepts in Ancient Near Eastern law codes. This is also true for CoH and BC.

An explanation of the relationship between CoH and BC will not therefore be complete without

giving attention to the concept of divine inspiration in the Ancient Near East.

211
CHAPTER 6.

INSPIRATION IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

In chapter 5, I have described the relationship between CoH and BC in the light of their

contexts, forms, grammars, contents and structures and established that BC is an adaptation and a

translation of a version of CoH. In this chapter, I will focus my discussion on the relationship

between CoH and BC in the light of the claims to divine inspiration found in the two texts. First, I

will explain the claims to divine inspiration in both CoH and BC, and I will draw out the similarities

and the differences in these claims. Consequently, I will describe the concept of inspiration in the

Ancient Near East considering my discussions on the doctrine of inspiration in chapter 2,

relationship between CoH and BC in chapter 5 and claims to inspiration. I will do this under the

subtopics, „the process of inspiration‟, „the quality of inspiration‟ and „the product of inspiration‟.

Finally, I will argue that both are the products of inspiration, evolving through the same process of

inspiration, but having different qualities of inspiration.

6.1 Claims to Divine Inspiration in Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes

Before one dabbles into describing the concept of inspiration in the Ancient Near East, it is

pertinent to explain first „divine inspiration‟ as is expressed explicitly in the law codes themselves.

There appear claims to divine inspiration in majority of Ancient Near Eastern law codes. However,

I will only focus on the claims to divine inspiration in CoH and BC. Despite the fact that there

existed literary connections between CoH and BC, both texts still lay claims to divine inspiration.

By this, we understand that despite the literary connections between ancient law codes, ancient

peoples still believed in the divine inspiration of these law codes. They believed that deities are

always involved in the composition of law codes. For instance, though CoH and BC are considered

212
rewritings of the older law codes, yet deities are believed to be involved in their composition. Thus,

they are deities‟ works and not merely human products.

6.1.1 CoH

CoH is connected with so many gods. These gods are mentioned in CoH itself. The

inspiration of the laws in CoH is attributed to Anu, Enlil, Marduk and Shamash. This fact can be

found in the prologue and epilogue of CoH. The prologue begins thus:

There was a time when exalted Anu, the king of the Anunnaku, and Enlil, the lord of heaven and earth, who

determines the destines of the nation, determined that Marduk, the first son born to Ea, should govern as Enlil all

the peoples of the world. They exalted him among the Igigi, and gave Babylon its illustrious name, and made it

pre-eminent throughout the earth; with its foundations as secure as heaven and earth, they established for him an

everlasting reign within it. It was then that Anu and Enlil ordained Hammurabi, a devout prince who fears the

gods, to demonstrate justice within the land, to destroy evil and wickedness, to stop the mighty exploiting the

weak, to rise like Shamash over the mass of humanity, illuminating the land; to improve the welfare of my

people. I am Hammurabi, Enlil‟s chosen shepherd … (P1 I: 1-49).

Anu was initially the highest of the deities in Mesopotamia. His name means „heaven‟. He is

therefore the god of heaven (Hooke 9). Enlil is the second member of the great Mesopotamian

pantheon. He is the god of the earth. One of his important functions was the guardianship of the

„tablet of destiny‟. This function gave him power over the „destiny‟ of all things, and to fix the

destiny of all things (Hooke 14–15). Moreover, Anu and Enlil chose and appointed Hammurabi as

king for establishing justice in Babylon. Hammurabi was thus chosen and appointed by these gods

to maintain justice and protect the community. It was, therefore, the sole responsibility of the king

at that time to determine the legal policies as instructed by deities. Justice was then a major

responsibility of every king in the Ancient Near East.

Hammurabi like most kings also received divine sanction to compose a law code. Marduk was

the deity that commanded Hammurabi to compose CoH. As stated in P1 I: 1-49, Anu and Enlil

determined and exalted Marduk to be the king of all gods. So Marduk as the king of all gods urged

Hammurabi „to direct the people of the land to adopt correct behaviour and to make the land speak

213
with justice and truth, and improve the welfare of the people‟ (P22 V: 14-25). Marduk was thus

recognized as the king of the gods in Babylon, with the title Bel, „lord‟ (Wolfram 182). He was also

recognized as the storm god. His commandment to Hammurabi served as inspiration to Hammurabi

in his compilation of the law code. We can see that Marduk‟s commandment agrees with the

purpose to which Anu and Enlil chose and appointed Hammurabi.

In addition to Marduk‟s commandment, the prologue and epilogue of CoH highlight that

Hammurabi depended on Shamash in the composition of the law code. Shamash is the sun god, and

is recognized as the upholder of truth and justice in the Babylonian community. He was called the

almighty judge in heaven and earth, in the matter of justice. In the stele, he is represented as giving

the laws to the king (Hooke 18). Shamash was mentioned by name nine times in the prologues and

the epilogues. In the prologue, Hammurabi was expected „to rise like Shamash over the mass of

humanity, illuminating the land; to improve the welfare of my people‟ (P1 I: 1-49). Hammurabi

called himself a prudent king, „who listens obediently to Shamash‟, (P7 II: 22-31). Therefore, he

was obedient to Shamash. In the epilogue, Hammurabi further prayed that „by the command of

Shamash, the almighty judge in heaven and earth let my justice shine over the land! (E10 XLVII:

84-xlviii: 2). He was thus „the king of righteousness, to whom Shamash has entrusted the truth‟

(E17 XLVIII: 95-XLIX: 1). Because of Shamash‟s assistance, Hammurabi restored the temple of

Shamash his helper (P8 II: 32-54), and he even styled himself the mighty king, the Shamash of

Babylon (P21 IV: 67-V: 13). He also prayed that Shamash may prolong his good successor‟s reign

as king of righteousness and may lead his people in the right path (E18 XLIX: 2-17). He prayed,

moreover, that Shamash might overthrow the kingdom of any of his successors who disobeys the

laws (E23 L: 14-40). We can say that Hammurabi obeyed the instruction of Marduk to compile the

law code and depended on Shamash in the compilation. By implication, Shamash can be viewed as

his guide and model in the compilation of CoH.

The main purposes of the law code are, first, to reveal the justice of the deities mentioned

above and second to reveal to the Babylonians how to relate with one another. The epilogue states

that Hammurabi obeyed and gave the law code to the people according to the command of Marduk.
214
Hammurabi pleased Marduk by putting the law code in writing. He „like a father gave his people

their birth, who has been obedient to the command of his lord Marduk and who both above and

below has achieved success for Marduk who has brought pleasure to Marduk his lord, by ensuring

health and prosperity for his people for evermore, and by maintaining justice in the land‟ (E12

XLVIII: 20-47). By this, Hammurabi ascribed the success of the law code to Marduk. He

admonished other kings thus: „May any king who appears in this land at any time at all in the future

heed the righteous commands that I have inscribed on this stone. May no one change the justice for

the land which I have ordained, may no one remove my graven image‟ (E14 XLVIII: 59-74).

Despite Shamash‟s guide and assistance in the compilation of the law code, Hammurabi was

likewise involved. This is because he was a chosen and anointed of the gods, Anu and Enlil. He was

expected to participate in the compilation of the law code. For this reason, Hammurabi was

regarded as the lawgiver. Moreover, in the law code, he referred to the laws as „my words‟. For

instance, Hammurabi says „I am Hammurabi the king of righteousness, to whom Shamash has

entrusted the truth. My words are special. My deeds cannot be surpassed. It is only to the senseless

they are meaningless; to the wise they are a cause for praise‟ (E17 XLVIII: 95-XLIX: 1). The

„words‟ Hammurabi was referring to here could actually mean „the words of the code‟, „the words

of righteousness‟, „the commandments in the law code‟ or „the law code itself‟. This is a common

tradition in the Ancient Near East where the laws are usually referred to as „the words of the

lawgiver‟ (cf. HL 55) (Westbrook, “Introduction” 13). This implies that Hammurabi‟s involvement

includes the inscription of the laws on stone, the establishment of the law code and the enforcement

of people to accept and abide by the laws in the code. He said, „I have written these very special

words of mine on this stone; I have set them together with image of me, the king of justice …‟ (E8

XLVII: 59-78). Furthermore, Hammurabi admonished the people thus:

let any man oppressed, anyone who has a complaint, come before this statue of the king of justice and let him

have the message on the stone read aloud, and let him listen to the treasured words I have written, and may my

stela resolve his complaint, and my he understand his problem and may he be content in his heart‟ (E11 XLVIII:

3-19).

215
 By implication, the people must pay close attention to the treasured words he had written on

the stone. They must pay attention to the laws, which are so special and obey them as stated in E17

XLVIII: 95-XLIX: 1. He further stated, „If that man has paid attention to the commandments that I

have inscribed on this stone and has not cast aside my rules, if he has not changed my

commandments or emended what I have written, Shamash will surely make that man‟s rule last for

as long as he has made mine last, the rule of the king of righteousness. He shall feed his flock in

pastures of righteousness‟ (E18 XLIX: 2-17). Thus, nobody should change nor emend the laws, and

any king who is obedient to the laws will prosper. Shamash will make his rule last long. He will

feed his people in pastures of righteousness.

On the contrary, on any king who is disobedient to the laws, the gods will rain curses. Apart

from the four gods mentioned above, Hammurabi still mentioned other gods like Ea, Sin, Zababa,

Ishtar, Lady Zarpanitu, Ninlil, Adad, Nergal, Nintu and Ninkarrak in the epilogue as witnesses

against any king who would be disobedient to the laws. If a king should destroy the rules or the

laws Hammurabi had ordained, if he should change his commandments and emend what he has

written, if he should remove his name from the inscription and inscribe his own, then such king

must be cursed. Hammurabi proclaimed the blessings and curses before Marduk and Lady

Zarpanitu, who were the guardian and protector, the deities who go into Esagila, who look kindly

on the daily petitions of the people (E13 XLVIII: 48-58).

According to the code, if anyone disobeys its laws, Anu „the father of the gods, … will surely

remove from him the splendour of sovereignty, whether that man is a king or a lord or a governor or

a person appointed to some other function, and he will smash his staff and curse his destiny‟ (E20

XLIX: 53-80). Enlil „the lord who decides destinies, whose commands cannot be altered, who

makes my sovereign magnificent, bring to his home turmoil which cannot be suppressed, upheaval

which will bring him to an end, make his destiny a reign of depression not enough days, years of

hunger no light in the darkness, death in the flash of an eye; command with your grave tones the

loss of his city, the exile of his people, the overthrow of his kingdom, the extinction of his name and

reputation from the land‟ (E20 XLIX: 53-80). Ea, who is the god of waters, the source of all secret
216
magical knowledge and the instructor of human in all the art and craft necessary for human well-

being (Hooke 16), „almighty prince, whose opinions gain precedence, the counsellor of the gods,

who knows about everything, who lengthens the days of my life, take from him wisdom and

understanding and turn him into someone confused; stop up the springs of his rivers, banish from

his land the grain to feed the people‟ (E22 XLIX: 98-L: 13).

Shamash, „almighty judge of heaven and earth who directs the lives of all living creatures, the

lord in whom I trust, overthrow his kingdom, do not judge his cause, confuse him on his path, cause

the foundations of his military power to crumble‟, … He will „quickly overpower him; cut him off

from those who live above, in the land below make his shadow thirst for water‟ (E23 L: 14-40). Sin,

who was recognized as the moon god and the lord of the calendar, by whom days, months and years

were fixed (Hooke 17), „lord of heaven, creator god, whose brilliance outshines all other gods

remove his kingly crown and throne, impose on him a harsh punishment and severe condemnation

from which his body will not recover; bring each day, each month, each year of his rule to a close

with weeping and wailing; bring him face to face with a rival of his kingdom, make his destiny a

life that vies all the time with death‟ (E24 L: 41-63). Ninlil, the almighty mother, whose voice is

honoured in Ekur will make his words stink in the presence of Enlil (E21 XLIX: 81-97). Adad, a

weather god and the lord of plenty, who looks after the water channels in heaven and earth, will

deprive him of showers from heaven and spring of water from the ground. He will destroy his land

with famine and pestilence. He will thunder angrily over his city, and turn his land into the ruin left

after the flood (E25 L: 64-80).

Zababa, almighty warrior, the first born in Ekur will shatter his weapon on the battlefield, turn

his day into night and allow his enemy stand victorious over him (E26 L: 81-91). Ishtar, lady of war

and conflict and fertility goddess will curse his kingship with unsurpassable anger, rage in his heart,

turn his blessings into troubles, shatter his weapons wherever he struggles and fights, ensure that he

has revolts and insurrection in his country, destroy his army in the battlefield and hand him over

into the hand of his enemy (E27 L: 92-LI: 23). Nergal, fighter for the gods, unrivalled in the battle

who always ensures victory will burn up his people with a massive holocaust, beat him with a
217
violent weapon, and crush his limbs like those of a clay doll (E28 LI: 24-39). Nintu, noble lady of

the nations, the mother and birth goddess, will cause him to have no heir, deprive him of posterity,

and allow him not to raise a family amidst his people (E29 LI: 40-49). Ninkarrak, daughter of Anu,

source of blessings will summon up a terrible illness in his body and with demonic pain and fever

and weeping sores (E30 LI: 50-69). The claim to divine inspiration found in CoH has led the people

of Mesopotamia to highly esteem the text and link it with the gods. The text is thought by them to

have been inspired by the deities.

In summary, the claim to divine inspiration in CoH has made evident that both the deities and

Hammurabi were involved in the rewriting of the law code. Anu and Enlil chose and anointed

Hammurabi to be king over the Babylonian people. Marduk inspired him to compile the law code.

Hammurabi depended on Shamash in the rewriting of the law code. Nevertheless, Hammurabi was

responsible for the rewriting of the law code on the stone, and for setting it up in the temple of

Marduk. Hammurabi codified the laws, depending on the older law codes. He wrote it in OA, the

language of his people and he gave it a Semitic form so that it will be universally accessible (Lyon,

“Notes on the Hammurabi Monument” 268). Despite the human involvement in the composition of

the laws, the people accepted the laws as being inspired by the gods and considered them gods‟

work. Thus, they considered the law code to be authoritative because of its connection with the

gods. Furthermore, they considered it to reveal the justice of the gods. Therefore, they practised the

laws during and after the reign of Hammurabi. In addition, the law code was published in many

places and was being used even in other places apart from Babylonia. Any disobedience to the laws

might attract punishment from both the deities and the kings. Thus, the people overlooked human

involvement totally, and they were committed to obeying and to teaching these laws to others.

6.1.2 BC and the Decalogue

Like any other Ancient Near Eastern peoples, the Old Testament Israelites viewed BC, which

consists of the apodictic and casuistic laws, as having been inspired by Yahweh, their God. The

main purposes of BC are first to reveal the love and justice of Yahweh, and second to reveal the

218
relationships that should exist between Yahweh and the Old Testament Israelites in the one hand,

and between the Israelites themselves on the other hand. While the apodictic laws focus on what

should be the relationship between God and the Israelites, the casuistic laws focus on the

relationship between the Israelites. Both types of laws present Yahweh as being involved in their

composition. In the apodictic laws, Yahweh is portrayed as the first person speaker of the laws. He

speaks in direct speech and the people are addressed in the second person, as in Exodus 20:22-26:

And the LORD said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: You have seen for yourselves that I have

talked with you from heaven. You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves

gods of gold. An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace

offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you

and bless you. If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you wield your tool

on it you profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.

Thus, the human writers of BC present the apodictic laws as God‟s direct words. God is portrayed

speaking directly his expectations to the Old Testament Israelites.

In the casuistic laws, the people are addressed in the third person. However, its introduction in

Exodus 21:1 portrays Yahweh as the lawgiver. It says „now these are the rules that you shall set

before them‟. The human writers of BC present Yahweh as the speaker and Moses as the addressee

or the mediator. This sets the casuistic laws up as the words of Yahweh, and not the words of the

human writers. At one instance, Yahweh speaks in the first person in the casuistic laws. There

Yahweh speaks in the first person instead of the third person, thus, „but if he did not lie in wait for

him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee‟

(Exod 21:13). This suggests that Yahweh himself would direct any person who kills someone

unintentionally to a place of asylum.

Furthermore, in both the apodictic and casuistic laws, the name and two titles of God:

Yahweh, Elohim and Ha’elohim are mentioned and used as subject and object. For examples,

Exodus 22:10-11 says‚‟ if a man gives to his neighbour a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to

keep safe, and it dies or is injured or is driven away, without anyone seeing it, an oath by Yahweh

“the LORD” shall be between them both to see whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbour‟s
219
property. The owner shall accept the oath, and he shall not make restitution‟. Exodus 22:8 states

that „if the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to Ha’elohim “God” to show

whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbour‟s property‟. Lastly, Exodus 22:28 highlights

that „you shall not revile Elohim “God”, nor curse a ruler of your people‟.

Elohim expresses a more theological, abstract, cosmic idea of God, and therefore is used in a

broader, more comprehensive way (Parke-Taylor 7). Yahweh is used in the context that

distinguishes Israel‟s God from foreign gods, and generally the Israelites understood that ‫ ָּהאֱֹלהִּים‬,

hāʼelōhîm refers to both ‫אֱֹלהִּים‬, ʼelōhîm and Yahweh (Fensham 264). Thus, these three terms are

used in BC to refer to Yahweh, the Israelite God. In BC, Yahweh speaks directly to the people, and

sin can be committed against him.

As regards the composition of BC, Moses‟s name was mentioned as the human agent used in

its composition. The E-writers who edited BC and included it in the Sinai narrative were

responsible for associating BC with Moses. The reason is that Moses had previously penned down

some apodictic laws in BC. Thus, Moses is portrayed as writing down all the laws in BC as Yahweh

inspired him. Exodus 24:4 says „and Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD …. And he took

it and read the laws in the hearing of the people, who accepted the laws and saying, „all that the

LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient‟ (Exod 24:7). The laws in BC are thus

recognized as expressions of the will of Yahweh in a legal context. Consequently, they are regarded

as the words of Yahweh, and not that of Moses.

Apart from in BC, we also have claim to divine inspiration in the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17;

Deut 6:6-21), whose laws are also categorized as the apodictic laws. The laws are thought to be the

direct words of Yahweh (Exod 20:2ff.). Yahweh is introduced speaking directly, in the first person.

He says „I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of

slavery‟ (Exod 20:2). He is described as speaking directly to the Old Testament Israelites, who are

addressed in the second person (Exod 20:3ff.). Afterward, we have the account of the composition

of the stipulations.

220
 Yahweh is depicted as summoning Moses into his presence and promising to give Moses the

tablets of stone, with the laws he has written on them. He said to Moses, „come up to me on the

mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the

commandment, which I have written for their instruction (Exod 24:12). The tablets of stone were

the „documents‟ on which the covenant was recorded in the Ancient Near East (Thompson 139).

Moses obeyed and remained in the presence of Yahweh for forty days and forty nights, during

which Yahweh „gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two

tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God‟ (Exod 31:18). The tablets

that „were written on both sides; on the front and on the back‟ are described as „the work of God,

and the writing of God, engraved on the tablets (Exod 32:15-16). This suggests divine involvement

in the writing of the laws on the tablets (Hyatt 302). Thus, the Israelites believe that Yahweh is the

inspiration and authority of what was inscribed on the tablets (Dunnam 345).

As it was narrated, „as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing,

Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the

mountain (Exod 32:19). Yahweh later instructed Moses saying „write these words, for in

accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel‟ (Exod 34:27). This

time, Yahweh demanded that Moses writes down the words on the tablets. Here Moses is clearly the

subject. As instructed, Moses „was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate

bread nor drank water. As instructed by God, he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the

Ten Commandments‟ (Exod 34:28).

Wenham, Durham and Budd point out that there are inconsistencies in the Old Testament

references as regards the composition of the Decalogue on the tablets of stone as those passages in

Exodus 24 and Exodus 34 show (Wenham, Durham, and Budd 345). However, there is no

inconsistency as for what is recorded in Exodus 34:1, 27-28. It is an explanation of the record of

Exodus 32:15-16 that mentions that Yahweh wrote and inscribed the two tablets. What this means is

that Yahweh commanded Moses to write and inscribe his words on the tablets. Moses obeyed

Yahweh and inscribed the words under his guide. The tablets, thus, became the work of Yahweh. In
221
agreement with this, Thompson expresses that it was a common practice in the Old Testament to

ascribe events to the activity of Yahweh when, in fact, the events were performed by his agents, and

the credit was given to him. We can therefore conclude that Moses both selected the tablets of stone

and wrote upon them. Yet, he could claim that Yahweh gave him the tablets and that his writing

upon them was none other than God‟s writing (Thompson 140).

The narration of the inscription of the Decalogue on the tablets is also found in Deuteronomy.

Moses „went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant‟ that the

LORD made with the Israelites. He „remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights‟. He

„neither ate bread nor drank water‟. Yahweh gave him „the two tablets of stone written with the

finger of God‟, and on them were all the words that Yahweh had spoken with the Israelites „on the

mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly‟ (Deut 9:9-10). After, the breaking

of the two tablets, Deuteronomy mentions that Yahweh instructed Moses to make another two stone

tablets like the first ones and Yahweh asked him to come up to him on the mountain. He promised

to write himself on the tablets the same words that were on the first tablets that Moses broke (Deut

10:1-2). Here, Moses was responsible for the preparation of the tablets of stone. Nevertheless,

Yahweh wrote the Decalogue on them. Deuteronomy 10:4 states, „and he wrote on the tablets, in

the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the

mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. The LORD gave them to me‟. By

implication, the statement, Yahweh wrote or inscribed on the tablets, is the same thing with the

statement, Yahweh instructed Moses to write or inscribe on the tablets. The Decalogue in

Deuteronomy is presented as the laws that Moses set before the people. They are stipulations,

decrees and laws that Moses „set before the people of Israel‟. They are „the testimonies, the statutes,

and the rules, which Moses spoke to the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt‟ (Deut 4:44-

45). Therefore, Moses gave them the laws as Yahweh commanded him at Horeb.

In summary, the claims to divine inspiration in BC and in the Decalogue have revealed human

involvement in the writing down of the laws. As indicated in BC itself, Yahweh chose and anointed

the human agent, whom the editors presented as Moses. He inspired and directed him to write down
222
everything he has communicated to him (Exod 21:1). Moses then obeyed Yahweh by writing down

the laws (Exod 24:4). In the process, he provided the document, decided the contexts and chose the

structure, the genre and the language for writing both the apodictic and casuistic laws as Yahweh

directed him. The Israelites accepted the laws as having been inspired. They regarded them as

Yahweh‟s words, thus authoritative despite the human involvement in its composition. They

believed that the laws reveal Yahweh‟s justice. This is because Yahweh is considered the God of

justice who would enforce the law and implement his own rewards and punishment. Thus, they

overlooked totally the human involvement, and they were committed to obeying and to teaching

these laws (Exod 24:3, 7). Because of its inspiration, BC was even revised and expanded in the

Deuteronomic laws (Deut 12-26). The editors of the Deuteronomic laws actually had to revise BC

to suit their own historical context. Moreover, at the end of the Deuteronomic laws (i.e. Deut 28),

the editors likewise placed blessings from Yahweh on anyone who would obey the laws and curses

on anyone who would disobey them.

6.1.3 Comparisons

There exist both similarities and differences in the claims to divine inspiration in CoH and BC

as discussed above. Both texts have claims that both deities and human agents were involved in

their rewriting. While Anu, Enlil, Marduk and Shamash were involved in inspiring and directing

Hammurabi in the composition of CoH, only Yahweh was involved in inspiring and directing the

human agents in the composition of BC. Thus, CoH speaks of many gods and BC speaks of only

one God. In addition, while CoH was composed by Hammurabi, BC was written by an unknown

author and edited by the E-writers who later attributed its mediation to Moses.

Both CoH and BC were composed for the purposes of revealing the justice of the deities and

establishing relationships. CoH was written to reveal the justice of Shamash and BC the justice of

Yahweh. CoH was written to establish relationship between the Babylonian peoples, and BC to

establish relationships first between Yahweh and the Israelites and second between the Israelites.

The recipients of both CoH and BC accepted the laws as being inspired by deities and regarded

223
them as the deities‟ work. Thus, they regarded the law code to be authoritative because of their

connections with the deities. They pledged to be obedient to the laws in the law codes.

6.2 Description of Inspiration

In this section, I will describe the concept of inspiration in light of the relationship between

BC and CoH considering their contexts (historical, linguistic and theological), forms (genre and

structure), contents and claims to inspiration. Besides, the description will involve generally three

aspects, namely, the process of inspiration, the quality of inspiration and the product of inspiration.

The process of inspiration will include the series of steps or actions involved in the composition of

the texts. It will focus on the way the deities and the human agents were involved in the

composition of CoH and BC. The quality of inspiration will include the characteristics of

inspiration of the texts. It will be concerned with the level of deities‟ influence and humans‟

influence on CoH and BC. The product of inspiration will focus on the texts themselves. The

emphasis will be on the purposes of the texts, the peoples‟ attitude towards the texts and the

practical usages of the texts.

6.2.1 The Process of Inspiration

When we speak of divine inspiration of ancient law codes, it must be understood in Ancient

Near Eastern context. From the foregoing, it is obvious that the process of inspiration begins with

the claims to divine inspiration found in both CoH and BC. The claims to divine inspiration are not

only found in CoH and BC, but in other law codes of the Ancient Near East. These claims are most

often found in the prologues and epilogues of the law codes. The compilers usually claimed that

they received the laws from deities, who loved and expected justice from their peoples. Thus, the

laws are presented as descending directly from the deities. This reveals that the compilers of the law

codes usually attribute the inspiration of the law codes to their deities.

For instance, in the inscription of the reforming king of Lagash, Urukagina, about 2000 B.C.,

the king represented himself as a deputy to the god Ningirsu, who was the war god and was

224
recognized as Enlil‟s son (Wolfram 176), to put an end to the evils of priests and officials and to

establish justice in the country (Hooke 95). In the prologue of LU, it is stated that Ur-Namma, the

king, ruled the people of Sumer and Akkad according to the justice and truth of Nanna. The god

Nanna was among the gods of the celestial bodies in Sumerian pantheon. He was a moon god and

was considered the father of the sun god, Utu (Wolfram 176). At the time, Ur-Namma ruled, the

kingship of the city of Ur has been turned to Nanna by the gods, An and Enlil (LU Pr. A i: 31-42).

Thus, Ur-Namma established justice in the country through the help of the god Nanna. Therefore,

the god Nanna is recognized as the inspiration of LU. In the prologue of LL, it is stated that Anu

and Enlil chose and appointed Lipit-Ishtar to establish justice in Sumer and Akkad. Then Lipit-

Ishtar established justice in the country according to the words of Enlil (M. T. Roth 159). Moreover,

according to the true word of Utu, the sun god, Lipit-Ishtar caused Sumer and Akkad to hold to true

justice. Thus, the inspiration for LL is attributed to Anu, Enlil and Utu (M. T. Roth 161).

By implication, the composition of the law codes usually starts with the divine involvement.

The initiative to write the law codes was the deities‟ alone. Therefore, the law codes do not owe

their origin to human initiative. Their source solely lies in deities (Warfield and Craig 132–139).

The deities take the initiative, choosing and preparing the human authors as their instruments in the

composition of the law codes (Pache 47–52). They usually instructed the human authors to compose

the law codes as a means to establish and maintain justice in the nations. In the process of the

composition, likewise the deities directed the human authors. For instance, Anu and Enlil chose and

appointed Hammurabi to establish and maintain justice in Babylonia. Marduk instructed

Hammurabi to compose the law code. Shamash directed him in its composition. For BC, Yahweh

chose the Old Testament Israelites so that they would live justly in the land of Canaan. He

instructed human authors to compose the casuistic laws when they arrived at the Promised Land.

Furthermore, he directed the E-writers to edit the laws in order to remove every Canaanite culture

and theology and to insert them in the Sinai narrative. He also directed the Deuteronomic redactors

to edit further the laws to be in the form we have them today.

225
 The process of inspiration does not stop with the divine involvement, it continues with the

human involvement. The deities involved the human authors in the composition of the law codes.

According to Dockery, the human authors employed the linguistic resources available to them as

they wrote to specific people with particular needs at particular times. Therefore, they were not

lifted from their culture or removed from their contexts (Dockery 57). They are recognized to

determine the historical, linguistic and theological contexts, forms (genre and structure), and

contents of these law codes under the direction of the deities. In sum, they usually wrote in their

own historical, cultural, linguistic, theological and literary contexts.

In the case of CoH, it was written in the historical and political context of Hammurabi‟s long

reign of forty-three years. It was written between 1792 and 1750 B.C. reflecting Hammurabi‟s

theology and purpose of writing. Hammurabi, as the king, composed his law code to provide justice

in Babylonia as commanded by the gods. In the case of the casuistic laws of BC, the laws reflect the

pre-monarchic and Sinai narrative contexts. It was written between 1400 B.C. and 600 B.C.

reflecting Israelite theology. It was also composed to provide justice in Israel as commanded by

Yahweh. Thus, contexts of the law codes are part of human elements in the inspiration of law codes.

As for the form of expression, the human authors normally followed the structure and the

form of expression common in the Ancient Near East. The structure is in the order of prologue,

body of law and epilogue, and the form is casuistic. Most often, these laws comprised the statement

„when x then y‟. They were written using conditional sentences. The sentences contain both the

protases and the apodoses. In addition, in each law, the apodosis would not follow unless the

condition stated in the protasis holds. For instance, the forms of expression of the law on theft in

LE, CoH and BC look similar as stated below:

LE – Protasis: A man who is caught in the house of muškēnum, in the house, during daytime,

Apodosis: then he shall pay 10 shekels of silver.

CoH – Protasis: When a man has stolen an ox, or a sheep, or a donkey, or a pig, or a boat

BC – Protasis: When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it,

Apodosis: then he must repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep

226
The human author of CoH, in his composition, could have followed the form of expression of a

version of LE, which was composed before CoH. Likewise, the human author of BC could have

followed any of the version of CoH, which is older than than BC in his composition. However,

there are in few cases when the composers creatively deviated from this common form. For

instance, the form of Exodus 21:16 is closely connected to CoH 14 with a minor difference.

Moreover, the form of the talion laws in CoH and BC are not exactly the same. In BC, these laws

have abbreviated forms in contrast to the ones in CoH, which are presented in full casuistic

form.This demonstrates that form of expression of law code is also part of the human elements in

the inspiration of the law codes.

As for the grammar used in the composition of the law codes, the human authors normally

composed the law codes in the language of their people. Hammurabi composed CoH in OA, which

is one of the Semitic languages and the language of the Old Babylonians. Hammurabi adopted the

linguistic resource available to him as he wrote to his people with aim of meeting their particular

needs at that time. He employed the verbal forms: iptaras, iprus and iparras to indicate that the

laws were formulated based on the events that took place during his reign. For instance, the verb,

imtaḫaṣ, „has struck‟, which is in iptaras form with a typical value of past appears in the protasis of
44
CoH 195. The verb, inakkisū, „must cut off‟, which is in iparras form with a typical value of

future appears in the apodosis. This proves that the crime of striking one‟s parent was common

during the reign of Hammurabi, and that the punishment for the crime is to cut off the hand of the

offender.

Furthermore, Hammurabi used the order SVO or OSV, as stated below:

SVO -

44
Šumma mārum abasu imtaḫaṣ, rittašu inakkisū - When a son has struck [iptaras] his father, they must cut off [iparras] his

hand. (CoH 195)

227
 Šumma awῑlum mār awῑlim ṣeḫram ištariq

When a man has stolen man‟s small child. (CoH 14)

OSV –

Šumma awῑlam e’iltum iṣbassuma

When poverty overtook a man. (CoH 117)

He placed special prominence on the subjects and the objects of actions, and determined to arrange

the laws to distinguish between three social classes, awῑlum, muškênum and wardum-amtum in

Babylonia.

In the case of the casuistic laws of BC, the human authors used BH, which is one of the

Semitic languages and the language of the Old Testament Israelites. The authors used the verbal

forms: yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal, which have a typical value of future to indicate that the laws were given

to them on Mount Sinai. For instance, the verbs ‫וְּגֹּנֵּב‬, „steals‟ ‫ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו‬, „and sells‟ and ‫ ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא‬, „and is

found‟ in Exodus 21:1645 indicate that the protasis of the law is Yahweh‟s proposition to the

Israelites. The verb ‫יומָּת‬, „must die‟ indicates that the apodosis is Yahweh‟s directive as per what

should be done to the offender. Moreover, the human author of the casuistic laws of BC, most often,

used the order VSO, as stated below:

‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

When a man steals [qōṭēl] another man and sells [wĕqāṭal] him, or he is found [wĕqāṭal] in his

possession, that man must surely be put to death [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:16)

45

‫וְּגֹּנֵּב אִּיש ו ְּמכָּר ֹּו ְּונִּ ְּמצָּא ְּבי ָּד ֹּו מ ֹּות יומָּת׃‬

When a man steals [qōṭēl] another man and sells [wĕqāṭal] him, or he is found [wĕqāṭal] in his possession, that man must surely be

put to death [yiqṭōl]. (Exod 21:16)

228
The human author placed emphasis on the actions in the laws rather than the subjects and the

objects. This suggests that BC places higher value on human life and does not discriminate in terms

of social class. The above discussion on the verbal forms and word orders of CoH and BC also

demonstrates that grammar of the law codes is also part of the human elements in the inspiration of

the law codes.

Furthermore, in determining the contents of the law codes, the human authors normally wrote

based on their conception of deities. In addition, they depended on the older law codes. The human

author of CoH depended on various versions of LU, LL and LE. The human authors of the casuistic

laws of BC depended on a version of CoH available to him. This, thus, indicates that human

involvement in the composition of the casuistic laws includes literary dependence. The human

authors had to depend on older law codes in their composition. So, their law codes can be regarded

as adaptations and translations of older law codes into new historical, cultural and theological

contexts under the direction of the deities. In their adaptation and translation, they unified the older

law codes by adding to and subtracting from them to fit the situations of their times (Mack 5). This

implies that CoH can only be understood in the context of the historical, political and theological

situation of Hammurabi‟s time, BC in the context of the historical and theological situation of the

Old Testament Israelites. Thus, the literary dependence of a law code on older law codes also

constitutes the human elements of inspiration of the law code.

The process of inspiration in the composition of law codes in the Ancient Near East can then

be said to involve literary dependence of one code on the others. This indicates that belief in divine

inspiration in the Ancient Near East tolerates some level of literary dependence. This accounts for

some similarities in the contents and similarities in the forms of the two law codes. The inspiration

of BC therefore accommodates similarities in contents and forms with other Ancient Near Eastern

law codes. In addition, the inspiration involves BC depending on older law codes especially any of

the versions of CoH available to its human agents. Its authors and editors followed the standard

procedure for composing casuistic laws in their time. They used literary and legal forms that were

long known in the Ancient Near East as vehicles of God‟s revelation (Niehaus 29), yet, Yahweh is
229
considered the inspiration of BC. It is counted as Yahweh‟s work. This, therefore, accounts for the

differences especially in the theology found in the two law codes.

In addition, the process of inspiration about the promulgation of law in the Ancient Near East

can also be explained considering the relationships between different law codes. In this research

work, I have considered the relationship between CoH and BC. It is worth noting that the

promulgation of law involves both deities and human agents. The deities are always the inspiration

and authority of laws. The explanation of the relationship between CoH and the casuistic laws of

BC has thus demonstrated that the casuistic laws of BC are rewriting of any versions of Canaanite

laws and CoH, yet Yahweh is recognized as its inspiration. This is therefore responsible for the

similarities that exist between BC and other Ancient Near Eastern law codes. This conclusion

requires identification of likely channels of transmission, and I propose a theory of chain of literary

connections among Ancient Near Eastern law codes.

The theory of chain of literary connections suggests that there was a tradition in the Ancient

Near East where a new law code has to depend on the older ones in its writing. However, this chain

of literary connection is finite. There must be a first law code, which was composed without any

literary connection. The ancient people would have associated the origin of this first law code to the

true God who created all things. This God is known to love and do justice, and each nation called

their respective deities this God. Probably the laws contained in this law code are without contexts,

they consist of general truths, which some scholars called legal tradition or common laws. I argue

that this legal tradition could only be got from the older law codes. Therefore, if this legal tradition

was believed to have originated from the true God, the authors and editors of BC would not find it

difficult to depend on the older law codes in their rewriting knowing fully that Yahweh is that true

God. This is reflected in the use of the name of God, ‫האלהים‬, Ha’elohim which occurs most often

in the casuistic laws of BC, and its use is paralleled by the use of „god‟ or „gods‟ (ilani) in

Mesopotamian law (Alt 79–132). It is the duty of the human agents to rewrite the legal tradition in

their own theological context, which is acceptable by their people. This is also true of the creation

230
stories found in different Ancient Near Eastern texts. There was a tradition that a God created the

sky and the earth and everything in them. Thus, each nation attributed the creation of all things to its

chief deity. For instance, the Babylonians attributed the creation of all things to Marduk, their chief

god.

As for the remaining genres of the Old Testament (that is, narrative, history, proverbs, psalms,

prophecy and the like), they are also related to their corresponding Ancient Near Eastern genres, but

have different processes of inspiration. Thus, about the process of inspiration, we can rightly assert

that the Old Testament bears the marks of its environment. Since other genres of the Old Testament

bear the marks of their environment, the explanation of their processes of inspiration should be done

in relationship with their corresponding Ancient Near Eastern genres. Eventually, this will

demonstrate that the process of inspiration differs with each genre.

In summary, I have emphasized the divine initiative and the human involvement in the

composition of CoH and BC. Thus, both texts can be attributed to co-authorship. The deities are

considered the primary authors, and the human authors are referred to as inspired by the deities. All

the involvements of the human authors, that is, the determination of the contexts, forms and

structures for the texts, and the employment of the linguistic resources for the texts are considered

the human elements in the doctrine of inspiration. In spite of these human elements, the ancient

people still recognized deities as the inspiration and authority of the contents of the law. In the case

of CoH, Anu, Enlil, Marduk and Shamash are recognized to be the inspiration of the laws. In the

case of BC, Yahweh is the inspiration of the laws. This agrees with Ancient Near Eastern tradition

whereby events were usually ascribed to the activities of deities when, in fact, the events were

performed by their human authors, and the credit was always given to the deities (Thompson 140).

All these have demonstrated that the processes of inspiration of CoH and BC are the same.

6.2.2 The Quality of Inspiration

In explaining the quality of inspiration of CoH and BC, I will explain the level of influence of

the deities and that of the human authors in the two texts. In explaining this, I will first focus on

231
different models concerning divine influence in the promulgation of laws. In the case of CoH, we

have the model of indirect divine influence (D. P. Wright 290). This model is closely linked with

the illumination and partial theories of inspiration. Therefore, the model encourages the equal

influence of both the divine and Hammurabi in the composition of CoH. It equates divine

involvement with human involvement, and bolsters both divine influence and human powers in the

composition of CoH (Lewis 54). As for the divine involvement, Anu and Enlil chose and anointed

Hammurabi to be king over the Babylonian people. Marduk inspired him to compile the law code.

Shamash guided and directed him in the rewriting of the law code. However, Hammurabi was

responsible for the rewriting of the law code on the stone, and for setting it up in the temple of

Marduk. He codified the laws, depending on the older law codes like LL, LU and LE. He wrote it in

his historical, literary and theological contexts. He composed it using OA, the language of his

people. He composed it in the form of expression common in the Ancient Near East. He gave his

law code a Semitic form so that it will be universally accessible.

The model emphasizes the combination of divine and human elements in the description of

inspiration. It attempts to maintain both the divine and human elements in CoH. It stresses divine

influence and Hammurabi‟s creativity in the composition of CoH. However, Hammurabi‟s

involvement is stressed above the deities‟ involvement. Thus, CoH evolved as a result of the

cooperative effort of the deities and Hammurabi (Lewis 54). This implies that Hammurabi was

indirectly influenced in the composition of CoH. The deities were in the background giving a

direction that was left to Hammurabi‟s initiative to fulfil (D. P. Wright 290).

Hammurabi as the king was both the high priest and judge of Babylonia. This is because the

position of kingship carried a sacral meaning that is, it is identical with that of a high priest and of a

judge in the Ancient Near East. As the king, Hammurabi was the author and the lawgiver. He had

been chosen and inspired by the deities to carry out a superhuman charge. He was left alone in the

choice of words after he was inspired to compile the law code. For this reason, he regarded the laws

as his words. For instance, in CoH 195, Hammurabi was saying, because of the crime of sons

striking their fathers, this is my words to you my subjects, as I was instructed by the deities in order
232
to maintain justice in Babylonia, „when a son has struck [iptaras] his father, they must cut off

[iparras] his hand‟. This is true of all the laws in CoH. CoH can then be considered partially

inspired. This implies that the ideas in CoH came from the deities but Hammurabi expressed the

wordings, as he liked.

In the case of BC, we have the model of direct influence in the promulgation of law (D. P.

Wright 290–291). This model is closely linked with verbal/plenary and dynamic theories of

inspiration. It attempts to maintain both the divine influence and the human elements in its

composition. However, the divine influence, as presented in BC itself, is taken more seriously in its

composition. The divine involvement and the human involvement are not equal (Lewis 57–58).

Yahweh inspired and directed the human authors and editors in the composition of the laws and the

determination of the contexts, grammar, genre and structure of BC. This implies that both the divine

influence and direction and the human creativity are stressed in the composition of BC. However,

the divine influence is more stressed above the human involvement. In BC Yahweh is actually

portrayed as the primary author and the human authors as the mediators. Furthermore, the model

stresses the belief that Yahweh actually inspired BC. However, his control over the human authors

was such that their freedom and personalities were allowed to operate their vocabularies, styles, and

personal peculiarities of their culture and time (Dilday 75).

Yahweh, as the King, is portrayed as giving the instruction to compose the laws. In the

composition, he was not in the background giving a command rather he was actively involved in the

writing of the laws. This is because Yahweh is recognized as the King of the whole earth in Israelite

theology. He is undoubtedly the mightiest and most majestic King to the Israelites. He is portrayed

as their King who is always doing the work of a human king in their midst. Therefore, Yahweh is

recognized as the inspiration, lawgiver and author of the laws, and the human authors and editors as

the mediators of the laws. Thus, both the apodictic and casuistic laws are recognized as Yahweh‟s

words, though the apodictic laws are referred to as the direct words of Yahweh. This is the reason

why Yahweh is presented as speaking as the first person speaker in the apodictic laws. He speaks in

direct speech and the Israelites are addressed in the second person (Exod 20:22-26; 22:21-23, 25-
233
26; 23:5-6). The introduction of the casuistic laws (Exod 21:1) portrays Yahweh as the author of the

laws. Furthermore, there is one instance in which Yahweh also speaks in the first person instead of

the third person (Exod 21:13). Thus, the words of BC are regarded as those of Yahweh, the only

Israelite King. This is reflected in both the protases and apodoses of the casuistic laws in BC. The

protases are presented as Yahweh‟s propositions and the apodoses as Yahweh‟s directives or

attitudes toward the offences described in the protases. For instance, in Exodus 21:15, Yahweh is

portrayed as saying to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, this is my proposition for you, „when a man

strikes his father or his mother‟, and my directive, „he must surely be put to death‟. Therefore,

Yahweh‟s attitude toward the offence of disrespecting one‟s parent is different from that of CoH

195.

The qualities of inspiration in CoH and in BC are not the same. While CoH is recognized as

the words of Hammurabi, BC is recognized as the words of Yahweh. What could have accounted

for this difference are the different theological concepts in Israel and in Babylonia. The two nations

have different concepts of kingship. Meanwhile, there are some points where their concepts

intercept. Generally, in the Ancient Near East, according to Lemche, the kings are usually

understood to be righteous and just judges. They are considered the high judges, the ones who

would administer law and righteousness among their peoples. The kings were usually chosen and

appointed to administer justice as the deities‟ representative. Thus, justice was a divine business

given to king from the deities and effectuated by the kings their representatives on earth (Lemche

209–216). Now, focussing on the difference, Yahweh remains the king of the Old Testament

Israelites, while Hammurabi was the king of the Babylonians. In the case of CoH, the laws were

promulgated by Hammurabi. Hammurabi, thus, acted by divine commission, and it was as the king

of Babylonia that he wrote CoH and expressly described himself as the lawgiver. The words of the

law code are considered his words. By implication, Hammurabi had been mandated by the gods to

establish and maintain justice in Babylonia. As the king, he had absolute right to pardon in any case.

He was also above the laws.

234
 In the case of BC, the laws were not promulgated by any human king. Rather, they were given

by Yahweh. Yahweh, the God and King of Israel, was the lawgiver, the sole legislator. He alone has

absolute right to pardon, and all the human kings were under the laws. This is the reason why the

Old Testament nowhere refers to legislation on the part of the human king (Boecker 41). In the Old

Testament, the king is only attributed with judicial competence. He is accorded decisive judicial

competence (Boecker 40). He is regarded as the judge in Israel. We find that cases that cannot be

determined by human judge are handed over to God for a decision in BC (Exod 22:7, Eng. 22:8).

Therefore, justice was solely Yahweh‟s business. He is expected to give and make justice himself.

In addition, it is obvious that the theological concepts of humankind in Babylonia and Israel

differ. This is evident in both CoH and BC. While the Israelites viewed humans as created to rule,

the Babylonians viewed humans as created to serve (Walton 29). The universe of the Bible is, thus,

to be seen as totally human-centred. Human being is its focus and apex. He is to rule wisely and

justly. He is God‟s steward (Finkelstein 8). In contrast, human being is barred from attaining the

ideal by gods in Babylonian literature (Finkelstein 11). Nowhere in Babylonian literature is it ever

suggested or even implied that human being is destined to rule (Finkelstein 12). The Israelites

viewing human as the centrepiece of creation afforded him a certain dignity, undergirded by the fact

that he was created in the image of God (Walton 29). In contrast, Babylonians did not see humans

as created with dignity. Rather, humans achieved their dignity by the function they served (Walton

29). All these account for the kind of value placed on all humans in both codes. In CoH, equal value

is not placed on humans. The laws place highest value on awῑlum, followed by muškēnim and then

wardum-amtum. The law code was written so as to reconcile the individual to his class and stir him

up to his social tasks (Sayce 753). In the case of BC, the laws promote equality of value on humans,

whether male or female, free or slaves. They are meant to protect the welfare of resident aliens and

to establish the theme of God‟s equal justice for all. The differences in theologies, thus, indicate the

uniqueness of BC from other law codes. These differences also reflect the Israelites‟ rejection of

Ancient Near Eastern theology.

235
 As for the remaining genres of the Old Testament, the quality of inspiration is the same as that

of both the apodictic and casuistic laws. The quality of inspiration is the same throughout, some

parts are not more inspired than others are (Dockery 71).The whole of the Old Testament is

regarded as the words of Yahweh. Thus, all of the Old Testament is equally inspired by God. He

was actively involved in its composition, though, its composition involved human authors and

editors. The human authors most often used the most common literary types of their times. In spite

of their involvements, the divine influence of the Old Testament, which was central in the

composition of the scripture, is not by any means vitiated (Osborne 274). This thus makes the whole

of the Old Testament the words of Yahweh. The Old Testament Israelite tradition was to equate the

words of the Old Testament as the very words of Yahweh (Churchouse 31). This is similar to

Ancient Near Eastern tradition, which equates the words given by the deities with the words of the

king. Since Yahweh is viewed as the only Israelite King, the whole of the Old Testament is

regarded as his words.

6.2.3 The Product of Inspiration

Ancient Near Eastern law codes, as products of inspiration, are kings‟ words, which is

authoritative. While CoH is Hammurabi‟s words, BC is Yahweh‟s words. Both texts are considered

the products of inspiration. They are divinely determined products of inspired human authors. They

are divine-human documents. The people believed that the two texts are vested with the divine

authority. They believed that law codes are essential for salvation. Therefore, they must understand

the purpose of their writing, revere the laws in them and used the laws in their daily activities.

Here, I will focus on the purposes of CoH and BC, the peoples‟ attitudes toward the law codes and

the practical usages of these law codes.

The main purpose of laws in the Ancient Near East is to reveal truth about deities‟ desire that

justice be established and maintained in the countries. Marduk instructed Hammurabi to compile his

law code to stop and prevent many crimes in Babylonia. Thus, the law code characterizes the

Babylonian gods and Hammurabi as just in their administration of justice to the Babylonians, and is

236
essential for physical salvation. Its main function is to point people to gods‟ and Hammurabi‟s

administration of justice to the people. For instance, it is the deities‟ desire that justice be given to

fathers whose sons have struck by cutting off their hands, as we have in CoH 195.

BC, on the other hand, reveals truths about Yahweh‟s desire for the Israelites to live justly

with one another when they reach the Canaanite land. Yahweh in Exodus 21:15, instructs the

Israelites that when they reach the land, he will give justice to fathers whose sons will strike by

causing them to die. Thus, BC characterizes Yahweh as the just king, who is its inspiration, and the

lawgiver, and is essential for both physical and spiritual salvation. In essence, the authority of BC

was grounded on both the Yahweh‟s inspiration and authority. Its main function is to point people

to Yahweh. Therefore, both texts are essential for salvation.

The attitudes of the Babylonians and the Israelites towards the law codes are mentioned in the

texts. The peoples accepted the law codes as carrying the deities‟ authority in spite of the human

involvement in their promulgation. The human elements in the process of their inspiration do not

negate them to be considered the products of inspiration. Consequently, the peoples agreed to read,

interprete, obey and teach the laws in these texts. Any failure to do these will attract curses and

destruction on them. The laws must be published and taught to younger generations and other

peoples outside their nations. For instance, though Hammurabi considered CoH his words, yet the

people published CoH in many places because they considered it product of inspiration. They

believed that Hammurabi was chosen by the deities, inspired by them to compose it and the words

of CoH are binding on them. There are a number of other fragments of clay-tablets containing

portions of CoH‟s laws that have been discovered. These fragments belong to various periods and

include four Old Babylonian, three Middle Assyrian, two other Neo-Assyrian, and three Neo-

Babylonian tablets (Driver and Miles 29).

Inspite of the human elements in BC, the Israelites still accepted its words as Yahweh‟s

words. They believed that its words are binding on them. There is evidence that the Israelites

continued to read and interprete BC and other laws as authoritative documents. Some portions of

BC were later revised and expanded in the Deuteronomic Law (Deut 12-26). Joshua built an altar in
237
Mount Ebal to Yahweh based on the instruction in BC (Josh 8:30 cf. Exod 20:24). Zerubbabel also

built the altar of Yahweh as it is written in BC (Ezra 3:2 cf. Exod 20:24). Jeremiah declared

judgement on the Israelites for disobeying the law in Exodus 21:2. The people refused to proclaim

liberty for the slaves after six years, and as a result Yahweh brought judgement on them (Jer

34:8ff.). In addition, the actions of the people during Nehemiah‟s time were based on the law of

Sabbath in Exodus 23:10-12. The people agreed not to buy on the Sabbath and to forego the crops

of the seventh year and the exaction of every debt (Neh 10:31). All these examples thus

demonstrate that the Israelites regarded BC as carrying Yahweh‟s authority. This is the same for

CoH and other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, which were also recognized as carrying the

authorities of deities. Thus, the ancient people considered these law codes authoritative.

Another issue that is worthy of discussion is to know whether CoH and BC were practiced or

not in the courts of the kings. There are different opinions on this issue, and some theories have

been formulated by scholars in that regard. The first theory is what scholars called „the rule of law

theory‟. According to Claassens, „the rule of law theory‟ considers the cuneiform collections as

codifications of existing legal practices and oral law traditions. The supporters of this theory

validated their position mainly by emphasizing some portions of the prologue and epilogue of

Ancient Near Eastern law codes wherein the kings stated that the gods had chosen and appointed

them to bring about the rule of righteousness in their countries, and to destroy the wicked and the

evildoers. They contend that the law codes are a source of law and consider them as a rule of law.

Some scholars regard these law codes as fragmentations of legislation, which had been orally

transmitted for generations. Some scholars accept that the law codes were codifications of existing

law. These laws were meant to serve as guidelines for judges, and to create uniformity in the law

traditions of the region, under the rule of the king. The function of the law codes was to inform the

members of society how to resolve legal problems (Claassens 465–467).

The second theory is what scholars called „the scribal school theory‟. According to Claassens,

Ancient Near Eastern law codes constituted „scientific treatises‟ that were developed in the scribal

school and transferred in a scribal tradition as part of the school curriculum. The „scientific treatises
238
were „practically orientated in assisting the judges/kings in their rulings by providing different

cases‟. Some proponents of this theory say that the law codes mainly comprised propaganda in

favour of the kings. They serve as a testimony of their function as scholastic texts. The kings

provided proposed ideals of justice and testimony of some of their decisions. The law codes are

therefore not authoritative source of law. They consisted of lessons for students in the scribal

schools in order to educate them in the drafting of contracts and other legal documents. The codes

are considered products of such a school, and they are not regarded as the main authoritative source

of law (Claassens 467–469).

The third theory is what scholars called „propaganda in favour of the king theory‟. According

to Claassens, by this rule, the law codes did not constitute legislation, but were rather part of the

literary works and propaganda of the kings. They were written at the end of the kings‟ reign, and

their purpose was to exhibit their greatness to the other nations. The most important purpose of

these law codes was to serve as ratification that the kings by will of the gods, ruled as kings. Thus,

the law codes were models to train and educate king-judges and to stress the king‟s function as the

great master of jurisprudence. They are the kings‟ literary presentation of their social

responsibilities. They were propaganda by the king. The propaganda theory is in conflict with the

rule of law theory. The latter claims that the king or king-judge is mainly bound to the text while the

former stresses that the law codes have a political motive. They serve as guidelines or ideals for the

king-judge in some of his presiding cases and excluded the majority of cases delivered by other

judges (Claassens 469–473).

CoH fits best into the first theory, that is, „the rule of law theory‟. This is evident from the

verbal forms and word orders in CoH. The verbal forms iptaras, iprus and iparras were used based

on the events that took place during the reign of Hammurabi. The word order distinguishes different

social classes. Hammurabi stated that the gods chose and appointed him to bring about the rule of

righteousness in the country to destroy wickedness and to establish justice. He was the highest

judge in the country, and his court was the final court of appeal in disputes. He was the guarantor of

justice for his people. Therefore, he formulated the laws based on the events that took place during
239
his reign. He depended on the previous laws and his previous decisions in judgement in order to

formulate the law code. The discovery of other fragments of CoH in other places also demonstrated

that the law code was being practised in those places. After the formulation of the laws and the laws

being his words, he continued to implement them and to execute judgement. He ensured justice in

the society over which he presided. He even directed anyone who has a suit or complaint to come

before his statue, and read his stele, which will instruct him what his rights are, and will gladden his

heart (E11 XLVIII: 3-19). CoH, thus, grew out of two sources, one literary and one judicial.

BC fits best into the first theory and third theory. This is also evident from the verbal forms

and word orders in BC. The verbal forms in BC: yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal express that the laws in BC are

Yahweh‟s propositions and directives for the Israelites on Mount Sinai. The propositions in the

protases are knowledge-based because they are based on events already known to the people, and

the directives in the apodoses are Yahweh‟s attitude towards the offences described in the protases.

Thus, the laws are regarded as an expression of Yahweh‟s will, and therefore all crimes are

considered a sin against him, and cannot be pardoned by a human agency (Rodriguez 54). Any act

contrary to the will of Yahweh will therefore be punished directly by Yahweh himself. Yahweh

personally gives the law to his people. They are directly responsible to him and not to any

individual or legislative body (Rodriguez 54).

The E-writers used the laws, which were practised by the Israelites when they first arrived at

the Promised Land. They rewrote the laws and presented them as Yahweh‟s propositions and

directives. BC is therefore literary works and propaganda. There is no evidence that BC was

practised after its composition in the kings‟ court. The purpose of its composition is to present

Yahweh as the only King of the Israelites. It was composed to exhibit Yahweh‟s greatness to the

nation, Israel. It was written to demonstrate to the Israelites that if they transgress any of the laws in

BC, they would be punished by Yahweh himself. Yahweh, as the King is expected to execute the

judgement and not the human king. He is expected to act as the judge. He is to be involved in the

implementation of the laws. He is the inspiration of BC and controls its application. The main duty

of the Israelites‟ kings and priests is to teach and explain the laws in BC to the people so that they
240
would be understood by everyone. BC grew out of the two sources, a literary source and Israelites‟

theology.

The foregoing discussion on the product of inspiration proposes that CoH and BC are

products of their environment. The two law codes were composed in order to establish and maintain

justice. The attitudes of the recipients to the laws are the same. Both texts are products of their

environment. Both texts were accepted by the peoples as inspired, authoritative and revelational.

The Babylonians and the Israelites accepted them as products of inspiration. They pledged their

allegiances to be obedient to the laws. In CoH, we find that the people were admonished to pay

attention to the laws in it, which are so special and to obey them (E17 XLVIII: 95-XLIX: 1). They

must not change nor emend the laws. In BC, we also find that the Israelites were committed to

obeying and teaching the laws in it (Exod 24:3, 7). Besides, both texts reveal something about the

deities who inspired them and something about relationships. It is obvious that what they revealed

are not the same. While CoH reveals something about the Babylonian gods, BC reveals something

about Yahweh. The emphasis of CoH is only on how the ancient Babylonians should relate to one

another; BC reveals what should be the relationship between Yahweh and the Israelites and the

relationship between the Israelites. Lastly, CoH was practiced during and after Hammurabi in the

kings‟ court, but BC is never practiced in the kings‟ court. Rather, the kings and the priests were

expected to make known the laws in it to the Israelites.

So far, the relationship between CoH and BC has been delineated in the light of the concept of

inspiration in the Ancient Near East. The two texts have the same process of inspiration. Their

composition involved both the deities and the human authors. The deities inspired the human

authors, who wrote the law codes in their own historical, literary, linguistic and theological

contexts. However, the levels of divine influence on the two texts are not the same. There is the

model of indirect influence in the case of CoH and direct influence for BC. While CoH is

considered Hammurabi‟s words, BC is considered Yahweh‟s words. This is due to different

theological concepts in the two societies. In addition, the different theological concepts resulted

from the concept of inspiration in the Ancient Near East. Apart from this, both texts are considered
241
products of inspiration. They are authoritative texts, which peoples held in high esteem and they are

essential for salvation.

6.3 Concept of Inspiration of the Old Testament

By divine inspiration, I mean that through the direct influence of Yahweh on the human

authors, the message of Yahweh to the Old Testament Israelites has been recorded in their

historical, cultural, theological, linguistic and literary contexts. This indicates that the Old

Testament is co-authored, where Yahweh is the primary author, and the human authors, the

secondary. Thus, the composition of the Old Testament involved both Yahweh and the human

authors. As in the case of BC, Yahweh is recognized as the inspiration of the words in BC because

he is the Israelite King. He was not in the background in its composition rather he was actively

involved. He chose to reveal himself, his characters and activities through it, so that the Old

Testament people may be in a relationship with him.

The human authors of the Old Testament, like the human authors of BC, received the words

from Yahweh and determined the contexts (historical, linguistic and theological), forms (genres and

structures), and contents to use in encoding the words of Yahweh. They wrote to reflect God‟s

dealings with them. They rejected any theology, practice or perspective that contradicted that of

God‟s revelation to them. For instance, the author of BC rejected the concepts of deities, kingship

and humans that were prevalent in the Ancient Near East. They reconstructed the casuistic laws of

BC based on God‟s revelation to them. Furthermore, the human authors of the Old Testament

adopted the genres most common in their times, just as the human mediators of BC did in their

composition of the casuistic laws of BC. The processes of the remaining genres of the Old

Testament (that is, narrative, history, proverbs, psalms, prophecy and the like) are not the same with

that of the casuistic laws. Nevertheless, these genres are also related to their corresponding Ancient

Near Eastern genres.

In the discussion of the divine inspiration of the Old Testament, close attention should be paid

to the relationships that exist between the Old Testament text and Ancient Near Eastern texts, as it

has been done to the relationship between BC and CoH. The inspiration of the Old Testament can
242
best be understood in the context of the Ancient Near East. The Old Testament text has a

theological significance emerging from an ancient context. For this reason, the assistance of

comparative study might sometimes be needed in the description of the inspiration of the Old

Testament.

Furthermore, attention should be paid to the level of involvement between the divine and the

human authors. In the Old Testament inspiration, the divine influence is more stressed above the

human involvement. Moreover, the divine influence on human authors was such that their freedom

and personalities were allowed to operate their vocabularies, styles, and personalities of their

culture and time (Dilday 75). In spite of this, the divine element of the Old Testament, which was

central in its composition, is not by any how vitiated less effective (Osborne 274). All genres of the

Old Testament thus have the same quality of inspiration. Every book of the Old Testament is

equally inspired. The whole of the Old Testament is inspired in all its parts. The whole of the Old

Testament is the very and true words of Yahweh.

The Old Testament is considered the product of inspiration. It is essential for salvation. It is

authoritative for doctrine and practice. The original recipients of the books of the Old Testament

accepted Yahweh‟s words in the Old Testament as being authoritative. They regarded all the words

as having been inspired by Yahweh himself and focusing on the supremacy of Yahweh over other

gods. They considered the words to be Yahweh‟s work overlooking the human involvement in its

composition. They were committed to obeying, teaching and publishing the words of the Old

Testament that reveal truths about Yahweh in terms of how they should relate to him and to one

another as in the case of BC.

For instance, the original recipients of BC considered it authoritative and were committed to

obeying the laws in it. They read, interpreted and published BC for the consumption of the next

generations. Henceforth, the Old Testament Israelites continued to hold BC in high esteem. Joshua

referred to it as the Book of the Law of Moses and admonished all people to always read and obey it

(Josh 1:8; 8:30). Nehemiah likewise referred to BC as the words of Yahweh spoken to the Israelites.

The laws in BC he called right ordinances, true laws, good statutes and commandments (Neh
243
20:22). The prophets generally are considered interpreters of laws. They based their teachings on

the book of Law, which includes BC. For instance, Jeremiah declares judgement on anyone who

will not obey the law in Exodus 21:2, that is, anyone who will not proclaim liberty to the Israelite

slaves at the end of six years (Jer 34:8ff.). Ezekiel accuses the Israelites for breaking the law of

Exodus 22:21-22, because of which, Yahweh brought his judgement on them (Eze 22:29).

Zechariah emphasizes the law of Exodus 22:21-24, that is, he encourages the Israelites not to

oppress the widows and the orphans (Zech 7:10).

In my description of the Old Testament as the product of inspiration, the term „authoritative‟

will be used in the same sense that the Ancient Israelites used it for the Old Testament books. For

instance, the Old Testament Israelites counted both BC and the Decalogue to be binding on them.

They considered them to carry Yahweh‟s authority. Thus, to them, the books of the Old Testament

are unique and not on a par with other literature produced through normal and natural human

activities. This indicates that Yahweh is the authority of the words of the Old Testament and all its

words are binding on the recipients. The Old Testament carries Yahweh‟s authority.

The term „authority‟ in the secular sense can mean „who‟s is in charge?‟, „exerting control on

people or situation‟ or „the place where one can find out the correct answer to key questions‟ (N. T.

Wright 2, 4). When we talk about the authority of the Old Testament, we do not mean that the Old

Testament is in charge, controlling people or situation or the place where one can find out the final

solutions to key problems of life. Rather, it means the authority invested in the Old Testament by

Yahweh. In the Old Testament itself, all authority lies with Yahweh, its inspiration (N. T. Wright

4). The authority of the Old Testament is therefore the authority of Yahweh, who is revealed in the

Old Testament. Thus, Yahweh exercises his authority through the words of the Old Testament and

through its revelations. According to Wright, this authority can be exercised through human agents

whom God has anointed and equipped to retell the words and the revelation in the Old Testament

(N. T. Wright 8–10). Therefore, the authority of the Old Testament rests finally on Yahweh who

exercises it through his human agents. Through this authority, Yahweh can fulfil his purposes for

the existence of the Old Testament.

244
 In the explanation of the doctrine of the Old Testament, it should not be equated with

Yahweh. Rather, the Old Testament should be considered as pointing beyond itself to Yahweh and

pointing others to Yahweh. It points to Yahweh who cannot lie or contradict himself. Hence,

Yahweh should be recognized to be inerrant, infallible, consistent and trustworthy. When we also

speak of the authority of the Old Testament, it means that Yahweh vested his authority on the Old

Testament. This makes the authority of the Old Testament to be higher than the authority of any

other ancient kinds of literature. What we know about Yahweh in the Old Testament is authoritative

to bring us into a relationship with him. The Old Testament is therefore worthy of full trust and

belief.

The concept of divine inspiration of the Old Testament can best be summarized as follows:

The Old Testament has a dual-sided authorship. Yahweh and human agents were involved in the

composition of it. The initiative to write the Old Testament was Yahweh‟s alone. Thus, the Old

Testament does not owe its origin to human initiative. The human elements in the writing involve

the determination of the historical, literary, theological and linguistic contexts of each genre

contained in the Old Testament. They also involve literary dependence as in the case of casuistic

laws of BC, use of oral tradition as in the case of historical narrative texts, interpretations of event

theologically as in the case of historical narrative texts, receiving direct words from Yahweh as in

the case of prophetic literature, and others. However, the involvement of Yahweh supersedes that of

human agents.

The process of inspiration is different with each genre, but each genre is closely related to the

corresponding genre of Ancient Near Eastern literature. The divine and human elements should be

maintained in the process of inspiration. Yahweh guided the human authors in their composition of

the Old Testament. The human authors likewise creatively engaged in the composition.

The quality of inspiration is the same throughout. All genres of the Old Testament are equally

inspired.

The Old Testament is the product of its environment. It is considered the words of Yahweh, the

Israelite King. It is Yahweh‟s message encoded in Ancient Near Eastern context.

245
The words of the Old Testament are binding on the Old Testament Israelites, thus, authoritative.

The words reveal something about Yahweh, and they are essential for salvation.

The way the Old Testament is considered the product of inspiration so is the whole of the

Bible. As we have claim to inspiration in BC, there are many other claims in both the Old and New

Testaments. Apart from these claims, the evangelical Christians have attributed inspiration to the

whole of the Bible. Consequent to this, various theories of inspiration of the Bible have been

formulated by scholars. These theories are often formulated in the contexts of the proponents, and

not in Ancient Near Eastern context. Therefore, the contemporary concept of inspiration can be

described as a contextual inspiration.

246
CHAPTER 7.

RELEVANCE TO EVANGELICAL BIBLICAL STUDIES, FOCUSING ON NIGERIA

The foregoing discussion on the doctrine of the inspiration in the Ancient Near East is very

applicable to the Nigerian church, especially to Yoruba Christianity. The goal of this chapter is to

relate the concept of inspiration to Yoruba context using intercultural hermeneutical approach.

7.1 Yoruba Worldview

The message of the Bible can be encoded in the pre-Christian worldview of Yorubas. The

Yoruba people are a tribal group of southwestern Nigeria and southern Benin in West Africa. The

Yoruba‟s population is about 35 million people in total, and constitutes 21% of the Nigerian

population (CIA World Factbook). The Yoruba people speak Yoruba and have some shared culture

and worldview with other African tribes.

Worldview is the people‟s picture of the way things in sheer actuality are, people‟s conception

of nature, of self, of society (Turaki 30). Generally, it seeks to answer fundamental questions about

the place and relationship of man with the universe. It is the way people perceive their universe.

Conversely, knowledge of a people‟s worldview is a key to the understanding of their social,

political, religion and even psychological problems.

Keith E. Eitel sums up African worldview as follows: the spirit world‟s powers intervene in

humanity‟s normal experiences and people must appease these forces to sustain life (Eitel 351). One

way in which the spirit world‟s power intervenes in the human affair is through communication.

The spirit beings are believed to communicate their wills and messages to humans. Any message

communicated to the human world is always taken seriously.

Keith B. Anderson says that the African worldview is summed up in African ideas of God as

a triangle in which man, typically is at the centre surrounded by various powers and being which

247
influence his life. At the top is God who is the creator. On one side of the triangle are the ancestors,

the living dead. On the other side are the divinities. Beneath his feet or at the base of the triangle are

the spirits or the lower magical powers which may trouble him (Anderson 77). From this

worldview, Africans believe that both the ancestors and the divinities have access to God. They

hear from him, and communicate his message to humans who are at the centre of the triangle. Any

message communicated to humans is always taken seriously.

Yoruba worldview, which resembles African worldview, is summarized as follows: the

Yoruba people generally believe in one God whom they call Olorun, „the owner of heaven‟. He is

the creator of all things. He is believed to be all-powerful and all knowing. However, he cannot be

approached directly except through Orisa „the divinities‟. He is believed to be transcendent. He

rarely plays a role in the daily activities of the people. No one would even think of knowing him or

trying to know him (Asante xxiii). After the creation, he is believed to have retreated from any

direct involvement in the affairs of humans (Asante xxiii). He does not even communicate directly

with humans. He left this task for the Orisa whom he himself has created. These Orisa hear from

him, and usually communicate the message to the people.

The Orisa among Yoruba are many. Ayegboyin and Jegede say that there are between 600

and 1700 of them (Ayegboyin and Jegede 211). The prominent ones among them are Obatala, Ifa,

Shango, Ogun, Oduduwa and the like. They were created by Olorun to assist humans in the

maintenance of harmony and peace in the land (Asante xxvi). They have different roles, which they

perform. Nevertheless, they are generally considered mediators between Olorun and the people.

They are worshipped, revered, loved and feared (Asante xxiii). They are believed to be godlike,

they are held to be lower than Olorun. They are believed to share aspects of the divine nature and

status of Olorun (Ayegboyin and Jegede 209). They are regarded as „saviour‟. They deliver the

people from all forms of evil and disaster. People could receive the prosperity, good health,

protection, wife, children, by offering regular sacrifices to them (Ayegboyin and Jegede 211). All

these take place through their relationship with the priests. The priests are intermediaries between

the Orisa and the people. The priests have the ability to hear Olorun‟s message, which has been
248
communicated to the Orisa. The Orisa usually convey the message to them. The priests in return

convey the message to the people. The people normally consider the message as the divine

message, which must be obeyed. They are always eager to hear the message, trembling at the

hearing of the message and willingly accepting it as the divine message.

Furthermore, in Yoruba pre-Christian worldview, ordinary people cannot approach Orisa

directly. They have to depend on priests to hear messages from them. The priests are the ministers

of Orisa. They are intermediaries between individuals or whole communities and specific Orisa.

According to Ikenga-Metuh, their main function is to find out hidden secrets or knowledge and pass

them on to other people. They are said to have natural power by means of which they see certain

things, which are not easily known to other people. They foresee events before they take place

(Ikenga-Metuh 209). For this reason, nobody can question them especially in whatever they see or

say. Therefore, whatever they say is final.

The failure to bring Christianity in African religious traditional form has led to the

misconception of Christianity. For instance, many do not have a proper conception of the Bible. The

conception of the Bible should have been explained to them properly. This improper conception is

also due to their worldview. The worldview is presently affecting their conception of the Bible

indirectly. However, this worldview supposes to strengthen their conception of the Bible.

Some Yoruba Christians have a wrong conception of the Bible because this was not explained

to them taking their worldview into cognizance. Some viewed the Bible only as the divine book, not

considering the human elements of it. In their conception, the Bible has taken the role of Orisa in

the structure of Yoruba worldview. It is viewed as the power of God. For this reason, some

Christians, during prayer, stand on the Bible to make a declaration of blessings to their members.

Some tear pages of the Bible, grind them and mix them with soap for healing purpose. Some read

the Psalmic text several times over water or oil also for healing and protection purposes. Some open

their Bibles under their pillows to drive away evil spirits. Some business people spread the pages of

the Bible on their goods in order to bring God‟s blessings on them. Some tie rope on the Bible for

casting a lot to know God‟s will for their members. Thus, according to West, „the Bible became
249
central to their daily concern for protection, healing, and success, becoming the prime source of

imprecatory potent words (ogede), used on their own, or recited‟ (West, “The Role of the Bible in

African Christianity” 79).

To some, the Bible is not the final authority in the matter of doctrine and practice. Some of

them often place a higher value on vision, revelation and dream above the message of the Bible.

Therefore, whatever they say is final and binding on the people. Another issue is that many

members of the church are not encouraged, at all, reading the Bible for themselves. They often

depend on what ministers have to say. Moreover, they consider any message given to them by

ministers as coming from God, and they must obey their ministers. The members cannot question

whatever message their ministers deliver to them, even though, the message evolved from

ministers‟ misinterpretation of biblical text, vision, dream or revelation. All these are because of the

influence of their worldview. In the worldview, no one can question the priests and their activities.

This is because they are regarded as the mouthpieces of the divine.

In Yoruba Christianity, members view their ministers as priests. The result is that they allow

their ministers to interpret the Bible for them. They accept whatever message their ministers deliver

to them whether the message came from God or not. For examples, a minister once asked his

members to eat every bit of soil that his feet would step because eating the soil would bring healing

to their bodies. Many members did not have any choice than to obey. Furthermore, some ministers

have asked their female members to come to riversides for spiritual bath, which would drive away

the evil spirits responsible for their problems, and members have obeyed many times. Some

ministers have also asked their members to sell all their properties and to bring the money realized

to the church. Some members have also obeyed such directives many times.

Lack or improper engagement in Biblical Studies by most Yoruba ministers and Christians

has resulted in these various acts. Most often, they do not take serious the human elements in the

doctrine of inspiration. They overweight the Bible with their experiences and African context. They

insert their ideas into the silences of the text. They bring verses together in order to establish the

truth. They read into the biblical text, and read the Bible literally. They focus only on
250
contextualization at the negligence of exegesis. They always appropriate the blessings in the Bible

directly into their lives.

However, African religious traditions can serve as garments for Christianity if the three

elements (the biblical text, Yoruba context and the act of appropriation) of intercultural

hermeneutical approach as given by West are taken into cognizance. First, there is a need for

Yoruba Christians to engage in Biblical Studies like the western church in order to recover the

central message of both the Old and New Testaments, before they could appropriate the message to

their context.

Although, it is not difficult for Yoruba Christians to accept the Bible as the words of God,

however, they should always acknowledge the human elements in the composition of the Bible in

order to bring out the message of the Bible clearly. Like Berean Christians in the Acts of the

Apostle, they should receive the words of God with all eagerness examining the Bible to see if those

things told them by ministers are so (cf. Acts 17:11). Furthermore, all Yoruba Christians should

learn to exegete any biblical text they intend to use before they contextualize. They should engage

in the historical analysis, literary analysis, linguistic analysis and structural analysis as they

interprete any text. This will enable them to bring out the real message of the text. Consequently,

contextualizing the text will be made easy, and the process will be of great blessings to the Nigerian

church in general.

7.2 The Concept of ‘Aroko’

African traditional people did not have the concept of writing and documentation. However,

they have means of communicating the words of deities and kings to the people. African traditional

people consider the words of deities and kings to be authoritative, binding on them. One way

through, which, the message of deities and kings can be conveyed to Yoruba people, is aroko. One

thing that is very interesting about Yorubas before their contact with colonial masters is their use of

aroko as a tool for communication. They used aroko to communicate especially the words of deities

and kings. Aroko is „a non-verbal semiotic system of communication through which messages and

251
information are passed from an individual to an individual or to a community or from a community

to an individual or to another community‟ (Abdullahi-Idiagbon 4). It is a means of communication

that conveys a deeper meaning, than what words can express (Ojo 49). It is the use of material

objects packaged together in a specific way, which was the traditional system of sending messages

to people among the Yoruba people in the past (Ojo 50). It involves sending an item or a combined

number of items to a person who is expected to decode the message and infer a piece of information

(Abdullahi-Idiagbon 5). This suggests that the message is encoded in Yoruba context, and that the

items are known to the people.

Furthermore, the aroko message covers all aspects of life, for instance, the message can serve

as a warning, admonition, announcement, plea, directive, expression of love, expression of

affection, expression of conflict, expression of punishment and expression of war (Ojo 50). It could

be sent by a king, a priest, a chief, a warrior, or any other person, group or body. Therefore, three

important persons are involved: the sender, the transmitter and the receiver. All the three persons

are always skilful in the art of representation of an aroko sign. The sender has to encode the

message using material objects known to both the transmitter and the receiver. The transmitter has

to deliver the message, and the receiver has to decode the message. Thus, all of them have to

operate within encompassing element and the context to make aroko meaningful (Ojo 50). If the

king is the sender, it is possible for him to involve the transmitter in the process of encoding the

message. In the case that the king is the sender, he usually reinforces the credibility of the message

by sending his belonging, especially his staff to accompany the message. This implies that the

message carries the authority of the king, and it must be obeyed.

In relating this to the concept of inspiration, God who is the sender is the Supreme Being in

Pre-Christian African worldview. According to African belief, he is good, merciful, holy, all-

powerful, all-knowing, present everywhere, limitless, self-existence, the first cause, rewarder of the

good and evil and the like. The Yoruba people describe him as eleti igbo aroye, „he who is ever

listening to complaints‟, ari nurode olumo okan, „the one who sees both the inside and the outside

252
of a person – omniscient‟, ohun ti o pa mo, oju Olorun to, „that which is hidden to people is seen by

the eyes of God – Omniscient‟.

He initiated the words and information in the Bible as the King. As the King, he is

omnipresent. The Yoruba people describe him as oba adake dajo, „the king who executes

judgement in silence‟ and oba olotito ati olododo, „the just and righteous God‟. He involved

humans who are a transmitter in the process of encoding his words. The words of the Bible are

encoded in the biblical contexts. God as the King reinforces the words of the Bible with his

authority. Thus, the Bible is authoritative, it carries the authority of the King, its message is binding

on the receivers, the Old Testament Israelites, the early church and the Nigerian church, especially

the Yoruba Christians today must obey it.

7.3 The Concept of Taboo

Taboo is an essential concept in African religion and culture. The word means that a

particular person, object, word or action is to be avoided (Fershtman and Hoffman 139). It is a

prohibition concerning social and religious life in order to keep peace and harmony and to avoid a

curse from ancestors or spirits like sickness or famine. It is a thing that people should not do in front

of people.

Taboos were formulated a very long time ago by the African forefathers. They were

formulated at the time when people were believed to be close to God. Therefore, taboos were

closely connected with the divine. Mhaka asserts that they constitute an important dimension of

African religion (Mhaka 371). An important quality of taboo is its association with the sacred.

According to him, taboo is sacred and dangerous and is therefore to be avoided (Mhaka 374). Thus

they are an expression of God‟s will. People are instruments to implement that will in the world.

They are very sacred (Moja Afryka 3).

Taboo are thus regarded as „a law that is strictly prohibited in a given community, a kind of

rule established for the sake of respect of elders and well-being of the society and a system of

253
prohibitions against the community, God and spirits … against acts that may offend the community’

(Moja Afryka 3).

Fershtman and Hoffman describe taboo as ‘the prohibition of an action based on the belief

that such behavior is either too sacred and consecrated or too dangerous and accursed for ordinary

individuals to undertake‟ (Fershtman and Hoffman 139). According to them, taboo is a social or

religious custom placing prohibition or restriction on a particular thing or person. They are those

acts, behavior or tendency that are prohibited or restricted by social custom. They are put in place to

control and guide the different individuals in that very community so as to achieve harmony and

oneness. They are concerned adultery, teenage pregnancy, disrespect for elders, have relations with

blood sisters and eating of certain animals. They further assert that it is a form of „thought police‟

that governs not just human behavior, but also its thoughts (Fershtman and Hoffman 140). It is used

to regulate a certain behavior (Fershtman and Hoffman 141). It is viewed as a public good that all

individuals enjoy (Fershtman and Hoffman 145).

Clemence and Chimininge say that taboos are „avoidance rules‟ that forbid members of the

human community from performing „certain actions‟ (Clemence and Chimininge 8). They are moral

rules that regulate human behavior. They are meant to make the individual adjust his interests so

that they conform to those of the society (Clemence and Chimininge 9). They further describe them

as specific rules that forbid people from performing certain actions. Any violators of this moral

code as contained in taboos are said to invite misfortunes, for themselves and the community at

large in the form of bad luck, disease, drought, and even death. They form integral ingredients of

ethics (Clemence and Chimininge 8).

Taboos are believed to provide a set of rules serving as a moral guidance or a law in the

community. The keeping of taboos is believed to ensure that peace and security are present in the

community because bad things are not taking place. They protect the social hierarchy in the society.

They help in the upbringing of children and provide rules for marriage. They are used to control

moral values to especially the children. They could be described as teaching aids when explaining

some moral principles to them. In a society where there is no police, taboos serve as a guardian of
254
moral values. They are a means of social control and without them there would be chaos. The

keeping of taboos also ensures the good harmony between the visible and the invisible world (Moja

Afryka 4).

Accordingly, there was a hierarchy of taboos. Even though all of them were not supposed to

be broken, some were more important to be kept. The bigger the penalty to be involved if a taboo

was broken, the more important that taboo was. People learn about taboo as children, from their

parents and grandparents. The learning process takes place during communal ceremonies, during

initiation period and when arranging for bride price. It also happens during day-to-day activities,

when one is about to do something that is prohibited (Moja Afryka 3).

There are different types of taboos. These comprise of taboos about people, acts, things and

situations. Examples of such taboos among Yoruba people are as follows:

 Eewo ni fun obinrin lati joko pelu okunrin, „it is a taboo for women to sit with men.

 Eewo ni fun obinrin lati wo iyara baba oko re, „it is a taboo for a woman to enter the

bedroom of her father-in-law‟. The first two taboos are meant to prevent adultery among

married women.

 Eewo ni fun enikan lati jale ohun ti ki se tire, „it is a taboo for a person to steal another

person‟s properties‟.

 Eewo ni fun okunrin ati obinrin lati se igbeyawo lai je pe awon idile won fi owo si igbeyawo

na, „it is a taboo for a man and a woman to marry without involving their families‟.

 Eewo ni fun okunrin lati ni asejogbo pelu obinrin ti o ba je ara ile re, it is a taboo for a man

to have a sexual relationship with his family members‟. The next three taboos are meant to

avoid acts of stealing, cheating, getting married without a ceremony and incest.

 Eewo ni fun okunrin ki oma toju daradara ekeji omo leyin ibimo, „it is a taboo for a man not

to bury properly the placenta after the birth of a child‟.

 Eewo ni fun enikan lati je iru onje ti ole ba okan ati ara je, „it is a taboo to eat some certain

food that defile both the soul and body‟.

255
  Eewo ni fun enikan lati joko lori ohun ti afi dana onje, „it is a taboo for a person to sit on

cooking materials‟.The next three taboos are about things, and they are meant for

cleanliness.

 Eewo ni fun okunrin lati mawo aburo obinrin re ti o ba nwe, „it is a taboo for a man to look

at his sister bathing‟.

 Eewo ni fun okunrin ati obinrin lati pe nkan okunrin and ti obinrin ni oruko won, „it is a

taboo for people to refer to genitals directly‟. The last two taboos are about situations that

are capable of defiling the society.

The breaking of these taboos attracts a variety of forms of punishment depending on the

gravity of the offence. These include: the death of the person who broke a taboo, expulsion from the

community, becoming mad which affected the person himself or his relatives, fine, dissolution of

marriage, and a warning (Moja Afryka 4). The agents of punishment were always God, ancestors,

spirits, elders, chief and father of the family (Moja Afryka 3). Thus, people always avoid breaking

these taboos because of the fact that they are connected with the divine. This makes them be more

careful pertaining anything called taboos.

However, the disorder that usually follows the breaking of a taboo can be averted by

appeasing the divine, payment of fine, asking for forgiveness and public declaration that one would

not break particularly taboo anymore. In case one is accused of breaking it, and he did not do it, he

could also take an oath swearing that he has not broken it (Moja Afryka 4).

Considering, Yoruba pre-Christian worldview, the concept of Aroko and the concept of taboo,

the Bible should be considered the words and will of God and King. The Bible has been

communicated to us through God‟s messengers, his intermediaries. These messengers are like

priests in Yoruba worldview. They received messages from God. Therefore, the Bible is the product

of inspiration, and as such is considered God‟s words, which is authoritative.

Furthermore, the Bible is the words of the King expressed in the form of Aroko. Though it is

encoded in human contexts, it is authoritative. It is vested with God‟s authority. Moreover, it is

essential for salvation. As such, Yoruba Christians should accept the Bible as carrying God‟s
256
authority as the ancient people would accept the message conveyed by Aroko. They should believe

that the words of the Bible are binding on them. Thus, they should read, interpret, obey and

communicate the message of the Bible to the younger generation.

Their attitude to the message of the Bible should be as that of the ancient people‟s attitude to

taboo. For instance, the laws in BC should be considered as being formulated a very long time ago

by the ancestors. They were closely connected with the divine. They are laws that should be strictly

prohibited in Yoruba community. The laws are an expression of God‟s will. They are meant to

make individuals adjust his interests so that they are conformed to those of the society. They are

meant to serve as a moral guidance or a law in the community. They form integral ingredients of

ethics.

For instance, the laws of BC may be rewritten as follows:

 It is a taboo to keep a male slave for more than six years (Exod 21:2).

 It is a taboo to sexually abuse a female slave and not marrying her (Exod 21:7).

 It is a taboo for a person to strike his father or his mother (Exod 21:15).

 It a taboo for a person to steal another person and sells him or her, or put the person in his

possession (Exod 21:16).

 It is a taboo for a person to strike a person to the point of death and not take care of his or

her healing (Exod 21:18-19).

 It is a taboo for a person to hit a pregnant woman so that her child is aborted (Exod 21:22-

25).

 It is a taboo for a person to allow his ox to injure or kill another person (Exod 21:28-32).

 It is a taboo for a person to steal another person‟s properties (Exod 22:1-4).

 It is a taboo for a person to allow his cattle to destroy another person‟s farm (Exod 22:5).

 It is a taboo for a person not to keep properly another person‟s properties in his or her

custody (Exod 22:6-7).

257
  It is a taboo for a person to steal an ox or a sheep and kill it or sell it (Exod 21:37

[Eng.22:1]).

When the laws are presented in this way to Yoruba people, they will be afraid to break them.

This is because they know that breaking of taboos will attract punishment, which may include the

death of the person who broke a taboo, expulsion from the community, becoming mad which may

affect the person himself or his relatives, fine, dissolution of marriage, and a warning. They believe

that the divine is always involved in the punishment.

After the explanation of the biblical text in Yoruba context, a dialogue must be created

between the text and African context through the process of appropriation. This may even be done

through aroko. The contextualized message should be communicated to Yoruba Christians through

aroko. This, thus, implies that the interpreter should develop such skill. This involves the exchange

and flow of a message from one person to another. Hence, it involves a sender, a message, and a

listener. This time the interpreter is the sender, and he should encode the message of the Bible in

Yoruba context, which people understand very well. After he has decoded the message of the Bible,

he is saddled with the responsibility of transmitting it in the context of the listener. The listener is

the reader of the message, who is also involved in deciphering the meaning of the message and then

relating it to his/her context.

It is worth to note that aroko‟s means of communication also involves dialoguing. Marlene

Lorensen defines dialogue as „interactive communication, that is, communication in which both

sides are participating and are influenced by the words of the other‟ (Lorensen 27). The interpreters

as communicators are supposed to be in dialogue with the contemporary people constantly. They

should make them always active in deciphering the meaning of the biblical text for their contexts.

Thus, the Yoruba Christians should be made participants in this process. They are to be involved in

relating the meaning of the biblical text to their contexts. For this reason, the interpreters should

make the message of the Bible processed, contextualized and adjusted in Yoruba contemporary

Christians‟ thoughts. Moreover, this would enable them to become participants in the decipherment

of the meaning of the text. They then become only a facilitator (Gaarden and Lorensen 31). Their
258
goal should be to change the modern readers for good. They must take a careful look on both the

content of the message and the context in which they share it.

259
CHAPTER 8.

CONCLUSION

This thesis has examined the relationship between CoH and BC, and argued that BC is a

rewriting of a version of CoH because of the similarities in their processes of inspiration and the

differences in their qualities of inspiration. To arrive at this conclusion, I have examined the

relationship that exists between CoH and the casuistic laws of BC in light of the similarities and the

differences between their contexts, forms, grammars, contents and claims to divine inspiration. This

thesis, in Chapter 1, began by considering the background of the study, the statement of the

problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, and the research methodology.

Furthermore, chapter 1 presented a brief review of the literature of how scholars have explained the

relationship between CoH and BC in history. It has revealed the contributions and shortcomings of

these scholars to the field of relationship between CoH and BC. Through this literature review, the

justification for the thesis was established. The literature review has helped to show clearly the

direction the thesis should go and the best method to be used in the thesis.

Chapter 2 presented the background studies for the thesis. Some theories on genre and

grammatical issues were discussed here, which Chapters 3 and 4 are based on. The modes of

composition and characteristics of other law codes like LU, LL, LE, HL, MAL and LNB that are

related to CoH and the casuistic laws of BC were discussed. These law codes bear a striking

resemblance to CoH and the casuistic laws of BC, especially in form and content. This necessitated

the need to discuss the relationship between CoH and BC in relation to these law codes in Chapter

5. I also discussed the historical development of the doctrine of inspiration from scholars‟ views

here. The discussion on the doctrine of divine inspiration in the Ancient Near East depended on

these scholars‟ views

260
 Chapters 3 and 4 presented the contexts, forms, grammars, contents and structures of CoH and

BC respectively. CoH was composed in the context of the historical, political and theological

conditions of Hammurabi. It was composed according to the divine directive. It reflected the

people‟s concepts of divine and human. It focused on truths about gods and about how the peoples

of Babylon should relate to one another. Its laws consisted of the casuistic šumma „when‟ x then y‟

statement. Its laws often exhibited SOV word order, demonstrating that emphases are placed more

on persons than on actions. The verbal forms iptaras, iprus and iparras appear mostly in the laws.

Iptaras functions to express the critical and foregrounded conditional events in the protases. Iprus is

sometimes used in the same sense as iptaras. It is also used to express background events in a chain

of iprus-ma … iptaras. It can also be used to express referential events when it appears with the

subordination marker –u. Iparras serves to express the anticipatory consequences and signals

foreground in the apodoses. The contents of the laws reveal the Babylonians‟ concept of human.

The laws distinguish three different social classes, and these classes are not to be treated equally.

Therefore, the laws do not promote equality of value of these classes.

BC was an independent unit, before its insertion into the Sinai narrative. It has different

forms: the casuistic laws (Exod 21:1-22:16), the apodictic laws (Exod 20:23-26, Exod 22:17-23:19)

and some deuteronomic glosses (Exod 22:20b, 23; Exod 23:9b, etc.). It must be read in the light of

the Sinai narrative. It reveals truths about Yahweh, about how the ancient Israelites should relate to

Yahweh and about how the people should relate to one another. It was composed casuistically; the

laws are conditionally structured, and they consist of at least one protasis and one apodosis. The

laws exhibit VS word order demonstrating that the emphases of the laws are on the situations rather

the persons.

The verbal forms yiqṭōl, wĕqāṭal, qāṭal and qōṭēl appear mostly in the laws to express various

situations in the protases and apodoses of the casuistic laws. Yiqṭōl appears to express the

foreground situations in the protases and apodoses. Wĕqāṭal has the same sense as yiqṭōl. It is often

used to continue the description of the necessary conditional situations in the protases and

obligatory consequent situations in the apodoses. Qāṭal appears to express past background
261
information on the laws. Sometimes, it is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl. Qōṭēl is used in the same

sense as yiqṭōl. Sometimes, it functions as an anticipated background situation. The contents of BC

have revealed Yahweh‟s attitude toward offenses that were common in the Ancient Near East. They

have also demonstrated that the laws in BC are motivated by humanitarian concern. The laws

encourage the humane treatment of those who are vulnerable to abuse. They offer security for

slaves, women and even thieves. They promote equality of value of both male and female members

of the society. They treat slaves, who are thought to be properties, as persons and not things.

Chapter 5 described the relationship between CoH and BC. BC, CoH and other law codes are

closely connected. The comparisons between CoH and BC have revealed there is a moderate

positive relationship between them. The similarities between them have proven that there is a

literary dependence of BC on a version of CoH and other law codes. This, in turn, has demonstrated

that BC is a rewriting of a version of CoH and other older law codes. However, it is considered a

rewriting (a translation and an adaptation) of a version of CoH. The translation is indirect because

of the claims to divine inspiration in both texts. The two texts were inspired by different deities.

Thus, they have different theological concepts.

Chapter 6 considered the doctrine of inspiration. It described the relationship between CoH

and BC in light of this concept under the subtopics: The process of inspiration, the quality of

inspiration and the product of inspiration. The process of inspiration in CoH is the same as that of

BC. The compositions of both texts involved deities and human authors. Both are literary texts that

depended on previous law codes. However, the quality of inspiration in CoH is different from that

of BC. There is a model of indirect divine influence in the promulgation of the law in CoH, but

there is a model of direct divine influence in the promulgation of the law in BC. Both CoH and BC

are considered the products of inspiration. They are both products of their environment. Moreover,

they evolved from different deities. While CoH evolved from many deities like Marduk, Shamash,

Anu and Enlil, BC evolved from Yahweh. Both CoH and BC are believed to characterize the deities

presented in them. Moreover, CoH, grew out of two sources, one literary and one judicial. BC grew

out of the two sources, literary and Israelites‟ theology. CoH was practiced during and after
262
Hammurabi in the kings‟ court, but BC is never practiced in the kings‟ court. Rather, the kings and

the priests were expected to make known the laws in it to the Israelites. Furthermore, the chapter

has demonstrated that the concept of inspiration in the Old Testament is the foundation upon which

the doctrine of inspiration in history is built. Thus, the doctrine of inspiration in history is

contextual. Scholars developed the doctrine reflecting the contexts of the periods in which it was

developed.

Chapter 7 showed how the doctrine of inspiration from the Old period to the contemporary

period is applicable to the Nigerian church, especially to Yoruba Christianity. One of the

implications of the doctrine of inspiration is biblical interpretation. Thus, the Bible must be

interpreted in the light of African context. The chapter adopted intercultural hermeneutical approach

as a means to appropriate the biblical text to Yoruba context. Yoruba worldview, the concept of

Aroko and the concept of taboo were considered as media in which the biblical text can be

appropriated. Yoruba Christians supposed to have a high view of the Bible. The Bible should be

regarded as the words and will of God and the King by them. It should first be decoded to bring out

its message, then, the message is encoded in their own context.

Finally, I recommend that biblical scholars should take up the challenge of researching into

reconstructing the doctrine of divine inspiration in the light of relationships between other biblical

genres and their corresponding Ancient Near Eastern genres or Graeco-Roman world‟s genres. If

biblical scholars can engage in such tasks, it is hoped that more insight would be gained into the

processes of inspiration in different biblical genres and consequently, much dust beclouding the

doctrine of divine inspiration would be successfully cleared.

263
CHAPTER 9.

WORKS CITED

Abdullahi-Idiagbon, M. S. “African Traditional Semiotics: The Example of Aroko in Yoruba

Traditions.” The International Journal-Language Society and Culture, vol. 31, 2010, pp. 1–

9.

Achtemeier, Paul J. Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals. The Westminster Press,

1980.

Adamo, David Tuesday. Exploration in African Biblical Studies. Wipf & Stock, 2001.

---. “The Task and Distintiveness of African Biblical Hermeneutic(s).” OTE, vol. 28, no. 1, 2015,

pp. 31–52.

Akmajian, Adrian, editor. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 4th ed,

MIT Press, 1998.

Alexander, T. Desmond. “Book of the Covenant.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch,

InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp. 94–101.

Alt, Albrecht. “The Origin of Israel Law.” Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, Basil

Blackwell, 1966, pp. 81–132.

Anderson, Keith B. Theological Education by Extension 1, 1,. Evangel Publ. House, 1986.

Arnold, Bill T. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Asante, Molefi Kete. Encyclopedia of African Religion 2 2. Sage, 2009.

Ayegboyin, Deji, and Charles Jegede. “Divinities.” Encyclopedia of African Religion, vol. 2, Sage,

2009.

Barr, James. The Scope and Authority of the Bible. Westminster Press, 1980.

Barrick, William D. “The Mosaic Covenant.” TMSJ, vol. 10, no. 2, Fall 1999, pp. 213–32.

264
Barwise, Jon. “Conditionals and Conditional Information.” On Conditionals, Cambridge University

Press, 1986.

Beegle, Dewey M. Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility. Eerdmans, 1973.

Binnick, Robert I. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press, 1991.

Black, Jeremy, Andrew George and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian.

Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000.

Bloesch, Donald G. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. InterVarsity Press,

2006.

---. “The Primacy of Scripture.” The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture,

Eerdmans, 1980, pp. 117–53.

Boecker, Hans Jochen. Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient

East. Augsburg Pub. House, 1980.

Bracke, John M. “‫נצה‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, p. 137.

---. “‫ריב‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Zondervan Pub.

House, 1997, pp. 1105–06.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Bybee, Joan L. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the

World. University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Callaghan, Karen. “The Correlation Coefficient.” Kime, L. & Clark, J.(Eds.), 1996.

Cameron, Andrew. “Liberation and Desire: The Logic of Law in Exodus and Beyond.” Exploring

Exodus: Literary, Theological and Contemporary Approaches, Apollos, 2008, pp. 123–53.

Caplice, Richard I. Introduction to Akkadian. 3rd rev. ed, Biblical Institute Press, 1988.

Carnie, Andrew. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Blackwell, 2002.

Carroll, B. H. Inspiration of the Bible. 1980 ed, T. Nelson, 1980.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1983.
265
Cazelles, H. “‫פדה‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 483–86.

Chernick, Michael R., and Robert H. Friis. Introductory Biostatistics for the Health Sciences:

Modern Applications Including Bootstrap. Wiley-Interscience, 2003.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus; a Critical, Theological Commentary. Westminster Press,

1974.

Chirichgno, G. C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. (JSOT Sup 141), Sheffield

Academic, 1993.

Churchouse, Matthe John. Defining and Refining Inerrancy: Revisiting the Doctrine for the 21st

Century. University of Birmingham, 2009.

CIA World Factbook. 2013.

Claassens, S. J. “The So-Called„ Mesopotamian Law Codes‟. What‟s in a Name?” Journal for

Semitics, vol. 19, no. 2, 2010, pp. 481–98.

Clemence, Makamure, and Vengesai Chimininge. “Totem, Taboos and Sacred Places: An Analysis

of Karanga People‟s Environment Conservation and Management Practices.” International

Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, vol. Volume 4, no. 11, Nov. 2015, pp.

7–12.

Cohen, Eran. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Cohen, Eran. “The Tense-Aspect System of the Old Babylonian Epic.” Zeitschr F. Assyriologie,

vol. 96, 2006, pp. 31–68.

Collins, C. John. “‫שלח‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 119–23.

Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.

Cambridge University Press, 1976.

---. “Conditionals: A Typology.” On Conditionals, Edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott et al.,

Cambridge University Press, 1986.

---. Tense. Cambridge University Press, 1985.

266
Conrad, J. “‫נכה‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 415–23.

Cook, John A. Mood/Modality in Biblical Hebrew Verb Theory. 2005.

---. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalization Approach. University of

Wisconsin–Madison, 2002.

Cook, John A., and Robert D. Holmstedt. Ancient Hebrew: A Student Grammar. Draft Copy, 2007.

Davies, Philip R. The Old Testament World. 2nd ed, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Davis, D. Clair. “Liberalism: The Challenge of Progress.” Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological

Response, Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, Chicago Press, 1984.

DeClerk, Renaat. “The Definition of Modality.” Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and

Epistemic Modality, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011, pp. 21–44.

Demarest, Bruce. Integrative Theology. Vol. 1, Zondervan Pub. House, 1987.

Deutscher, Guy. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation.

Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.

Dilday, Russel H. Jr. The Doctrine of Biblical Authority. Convention Press, 1982.

Dockery, David S. The Doctrine of the Bible. Convention Press, 1991.

Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi.

Baker Books, 1999.

Driver, G. R., and Mile John C. The Babylonian Laws II. Vol. II, The Clarendon Press, 1955.

Driver, G. R., and John C. Miles. The Babylonian Laws I. Vol. Volume 1, The Clarendon Press,

1952.

Driver, S. R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions.

Clarendon Press, 1892.

Dulles, Avery. “Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views.” The Authoritative Word: Essays

on the Nature of Scripture, Eerdmans, 1980, pp. 239–61.

Duncan, George S. “The Code of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi.” The Biblical World, vol. 23,

no. 4, Apr. 1904, pp. 272–78.

267
Dunnam, Maxie D. Exodus. Word, 1993.

Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. Word Books, 1987.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J.A. Baker, vol. Vol. One, The

Westminster Press, 1961.

Eitel, Keith E. “Traditional Religions: Primal Religiosity and Mission Dynamics.” Missiology: An

Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions, Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 1998.

Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Baker

Pub. Group, 2005.

Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 2nd ed, Baker Academic, 2001.

Erlandsson, Seth. “‫בגד‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 470–

73.

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. Information Structure the Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford University

Press, 2007. Open WorldCat, http://site.ebrary.com/id/10167518.

Fensham, F. C. “The Role of the Lord in the Legal Sections of the Covenant Code.” Vetus

Testamentum, vol. 26, no. 3, July 1976, pp. 262–74.

Ferguson, Charles A. “Overview.” On Conditionals, Edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott et al.,

Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Fershtman, Uri Gneezy, and Moshe Hoffman. “Taboos and Identity; Considering Hte Unthinkable.”

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 3, May 2011, pp. 139–64.

Finkelstein, J. J. The Ox That Gored. American Philosophical Society, 1981.

Floor, Sebastiaan Jonathan. From Information Structure, Topic and Focus, to Theme in Biblical

Hebrew. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, 2014.

Freedman, D. N. and B. E. Willoughby. “‫עברי‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,

Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 430–44.

Fromkin, Victoria, editor. Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Blackwell, 2000.

268
Gaarden, Marianne, and Marlene Ringgaard Lorensen. “Listeners as Authors in Preaching-

Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives.” Homiletic, vol. 38, no. 1, 2013.

Garret, James Leo. “Source of Authority in Baptist Thought.” Baptist History and Heritage, July

1978, pp. 41–49.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, 1986.

Gianto, Agustinus. Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos. Pontificio Istituto Biblico,

1990.

Glinert, Lewis. Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar. 3rd ed, Routledge, 2005.

Goetze, Albrecht. “The T-Form of the Old Babylonian Verb.” Journal of the American Oriental

Society, vol. 56, no. 3, Sept. 1936, p. 297.

Görg, M. “‫יעד‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 144–55.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi. University of Chicago Press, 1904.

Hartmann, Lars. “Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre.” Apocalypticism in the

Mediterranean World and Teh Near East, J.C.B. Mohr, 1983, pp. 329–44.

Hatav, Galia. The Semantic of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew.

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.

Hayden, R. E. “Hammurabi.” The International Standard Bible Dictionary. Ed Bromiley, Geoffrey

W., The Paternoster Press, 1982.

Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook. John Knox

Press, 1982.

Hertz, J. H. “Ancient Codes and the Mosaic Legislation.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and

International Law, vol. Vol. 10, no. No. 4, 1928, pp. 207–21.

Higgins, Jim. The Radical Statistician: A Beginners Guide to Unleashing the Power of Applied

Statistics in the Real World. n.p., 2005

Hill, Andrew E. “‫סקל‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, p. 286.

269
Holmstedt, R. D. “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A Generative-

Typological Analysis.” Journal of Semitic Studies, vol. 54, no. 1, Mar. 2009, pp. 111–39.

Holmstedt, Robert D. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, 2002.

Hooke, S. H. Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. Basil Blackwell, 1962.

Hubbard, Robert L., Jr. “‫פדה‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis, Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 578–82.

Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Scholars Press, 1997.

---. A Grammar of Akkadian. Third Edition, Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. Eerdmans, 1980.

Ikenga-Metuh, Emefie. Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions. Snaap Press Ltd.,

1999.

Illman, K. J. “‫שלם‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 97–105.

Jackson, Bernard S. Theft in Early Jewish Law,. Clarendon Press, 1972.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. “Conditionals and Mental Models.” On Conditionals, Edited by Elizabeth

Closs Traugott et al., Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Joosten, Jan. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of

Classical Prose. Simor Ltd., 2012.

Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Inter-Varsity Press [u.a.], 1966.

Klingbeil, Martin G. “‫נגח‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 19–20.

Kompaoré, Anne E. Garber. Discourse Analysis of Directive Texts: The Case of Biblical Law.

Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, 2004.

Kouwenberg, N. J. C. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. Eisenbrauns, 2010.

Lambrecht, Knud. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental

Representations of Discouse Referents. Cambridge university press, 1996.

270
Lang, B. “‫כפר‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 288–301.

Larson, Mildred L. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence.

University Press of America, Inc., 1998.

Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Routledge, 1992.

Lemche, Peter Niels. Biblical Studies and the Failure of History: Changing Perspectives 3. Equinox

Publishing Ltd., 2013.

Lewis, John M. Revelation, Inspiration, Scripture. Broadman Press, 1985.

Lipiński, E. “‫נתן‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 90–92.

---. “‫קנה‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 58–65.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Baker Book House, 1987.

Loesov, Sergey. “The Suffixing Conjugation of Akkadian: In Search of Its Meaning.” Babel &

Bibel, vol. 6, 2011, pp. 75–147.

---. “T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis.” Babel & Bibel, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 101–

48.

Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. Plenum Press, 1983.

Lorensen, Marlene Ringgaard. “Carnivalized Preaching-in Dialogue with Bakhtin and Other-Wise

Homiletics.” Homiletic, vol. 36, no. 1, 2011, pp. 28–45.

Lyon, David G. “Notes on the Hammurabi Monument.” Journal of the American Oriental Society,

vol. Vol. 25, 1904, pp. 266–78.

---. “The Structure of the Hammurabi Code.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 25,

1904, p. 248.

Lyon David, Gordon. “When and Where Was the Code Hammurabi Promulgated?” Journal of the

American Oriental Society, vol. Volume 27, 1906.

Mack, Rosamond E. The Code of Hammurabi Code. Republic of Iraq Ministry of Culture and

Information, 1979.

271
Maloney, J. F. The T-Perfect in the Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters, with a Supplement on

Verbal Usage in the Code of Hammurapi and the Laws of Eshnunna. Harvard University,

1982.

Malul, Meir. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies. AOAT

227, Butzon and Bercker, 1990.

Matthews, P. H. Syntax. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Meier, Samuel A. “Hammurapi.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Freedman, David Noel, Doubleday,

1992.

Merrill, Eugene H. “‫יצא‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 498–500.

Merwe, Christo H. J. van der. “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Grammar.” Biblical Hebrew and

Discourse Linguistics, Edited by Robert D. Bergen, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.,

1994, pp. 13–49.

Meyers, Carol L. Exodus. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Mhaka, Edison. “Rituals and Taboos Related to Death As Repositories of Traditional African

Philosophical Ideas: Evidence from the Karanga of Zimbabwe.” Academic Research

International, vol. Vol. 5, no. 4, July 2014, pp. 371–84.

Moja Afryka. mojaafryka. weebly.com/taboos.html.

Monger, Matthew. Exodus 22: 6-8 and the Question of the Authority of the Law in the Bible and the

Ancient Near East. 2008.

Mpindu, Francis Mpilo. James Barr and Biblical Inspiration: A Critique of Barr’s View of Biblical

Inspiration in the Light of Recent Exegetical and Theological Developments in Evangelical

Theology. University of Pretoria, 2003.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Application. Routledge, 2001.

Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Magnes Press, Hebrew

University ; E.J. Brill, 1985.

272
Nel, Philip J. “‫שלם‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 130–35.

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Longman, 2006.

Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. JSOT Press, 1990.

Niehaus, Jeffrey. Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. Kregel Academic, 2008.

Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. The Westminster Press, 1962.

Ojo, Matthias Olufemi. “Symbols of Warning, Conflict, Punishment and War and Their Meanings

Among the Pre-Colonial Yoruba Natives: A Case of Aroko.” Anttopologija, vol. 13, no. 1,

2013, pp. 39–60.

Olaniyi, Abiola Ayodeji. “An Intercultural Hermeneutics of Female Voices in Religious Leadership

in Ancient Near Eastern and Yoruba Patriarchal Systems.” Dialogue & Alliance, vol. 30, no.

1, Sum 2016, pp. 24–32.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Reform. InterVarsity Press,

1999.

Oosthuizen, M. J. “Law and Theology in the Covenant Code.” Skrif En Kerk Jrg, vol. 17, no. 1,

1996, pp. 160–90.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Hammurabi.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by George

Arthur Buttrick et Al., Abingdon Press, 1962.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Ottosson, M. “‫הרה‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 458–64.

Pache, Rene. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Moody Press, 1969.

Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality. 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. (Yehovah) = Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Wilfrid Laurier

University Press, 1975.

273
Patrick, Dale. “The Covenant Code Source.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 27, no. 2, Apr. 1977, pp.

145–57.

Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. “An Analysis of the Hammurabi Code.” The American Journal of Semitic

Languages and Literatures, 1920, pp. 310–15.

Reiner, Erica. A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. De Gruyter, 1966.

Revell, E. J. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose.” Hebrew Union College Annual,

vol. 60, 1989, pp. 1–37.

Richardson, M. E. J. Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation, and Glossary. T & T Clark, 2004.

Ringgren, H. “‫גרע‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 66–67.

---. “‫זרח‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 141–43.

Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the BIble and the Question of

Revelation and Inspiration.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, vol. 12, no. 1,

2001, pp. 43–64.

Roth, Martha. “The Law of Ur-Namma (Ur-Nammu).” The Context of Scripture: Monumental

Inscriptions from the Biblical World, vol. Vol 2, Brill, 2000, pp. 408–10.

---. “The Laws of Eshnunna.” The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical

World, vol. Vol 2, Brill, 2000, pp. 332–35.

---. “The Laws of Hammurabi (2.131).” The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from

the Biblical World, vol. Volume 2, Brill, 2000, pp. 335–53.

---. “The Laws of Lipit-Ishtar.” The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the

Biblical World, vol. Vol 2, Brill, 2000, pp. 410–14.

---. “The Middle Assyrian Laws.” The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the

Biblical World, vol. Vol 2, Brill, 2000, pp. 353–60.

Roth, Martha Tobi. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Scholars Press, 1995.

Russ, Bush L., and Tom J. Nettles. Baptists and the Bible. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

274
Saggs, H. W. F. The Babylonians: A Survey of the Ancient Civilisation of the Tigris-Euphrates

Valley. The Folio Society, 1999.

Sancy, Robert L. “Recent Catholic Theology.” Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response,

Moody Press, 1984, pp. 215–46.

Sasson, Jack M. “Hammurabi, King.” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, 1995, p. 901.

Sayce, A. H. “The Legal Code of Babylonia.” The American Journal of Theology, vol. 8, no. No. 2,

1904, pp. 256–66.

Schultz, Richard. “‫פלל‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 627–28.

Shaheen, Muhammad. Theories of Translation and Their Applications to the Teaching of

English/Arabic-Arabic/English Translating. University of Glasgow, 1991.

Siewierska, Anna. Word Order Rules. Croom Helm ; Published in the USA in association with

Methuen, 1988.

Simian-Yofre, H. “‫עוד‬.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 495–

512.

Slanski, Kathryn. “The Law of Hammurabi and Its Audience.” Yale Journal of Law & Humanities,

vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol24/iss1/3.

Smith, J. M. Powis. The Origin and History of Hebrew Law. Lawbook Exchange, 2005.

Sprinkle, Joe M. “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19-24.” JETS, vol. 47, no. 2, June 2004, pp. 235–

52.

Sprinkle, Joe M. The Book of the Covenant a Literary Approach. JSOT Press, 1994.

Stuart, Douglas K. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 4th ed,

Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Swart, I. “‫נגף‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Zondervan

Pub. House, 1997, pp. 25–26.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary. IVP Academic, 2008.

275
Trembath, Kern Robert. Evangelical Theories of Biblical Inspiration: A Review and Proposal.

Oxford University Press, 1987.

Turaki, Yusufu. Theory and Practice of Christian Missions in Africa: A Century of SIM/ECWA

History and Legacy in Nigeria, 1893-1993, Volume One. International Bible Society Africa,

1999.

Ukpong, Justin. “Current Theology: The Emergence of African Theologies.” Theological Studies,

vol. 45, 1984, pp. 501–36.

---. “Development in BIblical Interpretation in Africa: Historical and Hermeneutical Direction.” The

Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trends, and Trajectories, E.J. Brill, 2007.

---. “Inculturation Hermeneutics: An African Approach to Biblical Interpretation.” The Bible in a

World Context: An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics, Eerdmans, 2002, pp. 17–83.

Urch, Erwin J. “The Law Code of Hammurabi.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. Vol. 15,

no. No. 7, July 1929, pp. pp.437–441.

Van Dam, Cornelis. “‫נכה‬.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

Zondervan Pub. House, 1997, pp. 102–05.

Van Seters, John. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code.

Oxford University Press, 2003.

Vawter, Bruce. Biblical Inspiration. Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd., 1972.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O‟Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between

Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Regency Reference Library, 1990.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, et al. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Presbyterian and

Reformed Pub. Co., 1948.

Warren, Andrew. “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal Wĕqā ִִּtal as Key to New Testament

Readings of Deuteronomy 24: 1-41.” Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 49, 1998, pp. 39–56.
276
Warren, Andy. Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms. Cambridge University, 1998.

---. Psalms. Modality (ch. 3) Argues for the Existence of Three Modally-Distinct Verbal Systems: A

Deontic System [based on Short-Form Yiq! Ol, an Epistemic System [based on Long-Form

Yiqtol, and an Indicative System [-MOD] Based on Qatal and the Predicative Participle

(developing Joosten, Niccacci). Vocative Function Is Closely Related to Modality. 1998.

Warren-Rothlin, Andy. “Finding Christ in the Old Testament: Traditions and Types of the

Messiah.” TCNN Research Bulletin, vol. 47, 2007, pp. 37–52.

Waterman, Leroy. “Pre-Israelite Laws in the Book of the Covenant.” The American Journal of

Semitic Languages and Literatures, vol. 38, no. 1, Oct. 1921, pp. 36–54.

Wells, Bruce. “The Covenant Code and Near Eastern Legal Traditions: A Response to David P.

Wright.” MAARAV, vol. 13, no. 1, 2006, pp. 85–118.

Wenham, G. J. “Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant.” Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 22, 1971, pp. 92–

102.

Wenham, Gordon J., et al. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 1. Word Books, 1987.

West, Gerald. “Biblical Hermeneutics in Africa.” African Theology on Hte Way, SPCK, 2010.

---. “The Role of the Bible in African Christianity.” Anthology of African Christianity, Regnum

Books International, 2016, pp. 76–85.

Westbrook, Raymond. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction. 1st ed, Westminster John

Knox Press, 2009.

---. “Introduction.” A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Edited by Raymond Westbrook, vol.

Volume One, Brill, 2003, pp. 1–90.

---. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. J. Gabalda, 1988.

White, William. “Hammurabi, Code of.” The New International Dictionary of Biblical

Archaeology, Edited by Edward M. Blaiklock et Al., Regency Reference Library, 1983.

Williamson, Paul R. “Promises with Strings Attached: Covenant and Law in Exodus 19-24.”

Exploring Exodus: Literary, Theological and Contemporary Approaches, Apollos, 2008, pp.

89–122.
277
Wiseman, D. J. “Hammurabi.” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 3, Regency

Reference Library, 1976.

Wolfram, von Soden. The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East.

Eerdmans, 1983.

Wright, David P. Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the

Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Wright, N. T. “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative.” Vox Evangelica, vol. 21, 1991.

Younger, K. Lawson. “„The Contextual Method: Some West Semitic Reflections.‟” The Context of

Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, Edited by Willliam W. Hallo, vol.

Vol. 3, Brill, 2002, pp. xxxv–xlii.

278
279
CHAPTER 10. APPENDIX A: HAMMURABI STELE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

280
CHAPTER 11. APPENDIX B: HAMMURABI STELE

https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/67159.aspx

281
CHAPTER 12. APPENDIX C: AUTOGRAPHED TEXT

282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291