Israelite law

In order to fully understand the manner in which other Near Eastern societies influenced Israelite laws, it is important to give a general background on Israelite laws.  The laws in written form are known as the Torah, which are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, or the Pentateuch.  Within the Torah are several ‘subcategories’ of laws.  They are:  1)  The Decalogue, containing the ‘essential precepts of morality and religion’; 2)  The Code of the Covenant, both criminal and civil laws that are connected to the Sinaitic Covenant;  3) Deuteronomy, a code that brings together many laws that may have originated in many ways 4)  The Law of Holiness, laws regarding sacrifices with references to blessings and curses,  and 5)  The Priestly Code, concerned with ritual purity as well as sacrifices and laws concerning the installation of priests.  Laws can be broken down even further into smaller categories in terms of types of laws, as in the cases of ‘casuistic’ (laws that dictate “If ________ then _______” – hypothetical situations) and ‘apodictic’ laws (laws that  are in no uncertain terms commands and are commonly phrased as “Thou shalt not….”) .

In terms of a time frame for actual biblical law, it can be covered in five periods.  1) Patriarchal (approximately 16th century BCE), 2)  Exodus (approximately 13th century BCE), 3)  Judges (approximately 12th/11th century BCE), 4)  Monarchy (approximately 11th – 6th century BCE) and 5)  post exilic (approximately 6th – 4th century BCE).  These time frames give a sufficient picture of the social implications in terms of where the Israelites were geographically during the development of law.  An important point regarding the development of law in Ancient Israel is that the redaction, or writing down of the laws took place in some instances many centuries after these laws were in full effect.  On other occasions, it seems that laws may have been inserted into older material by the editors of the Bible.  Studying the subject matter in these laws is a good indicator of what the time frame of the laws are.  For instance, though Israelite laws were written down and canonized in approximately the 5th century BCE,  some laws (in the Covenant Code in particular) are attributed to the time frame of the exodus (approximately 13th century BCE).  This cannot be true because some of these laws make specific references to situations only a settled community would be concerned with.  In Exodus 21:2 for instance, it is written: “When you purchase a Hebrew as a slave, he will be your slave for six years; in the seventh year he is to go free without paying anything.”  If this law was indeed written during the time of the Exodus, why would there be a law concerning Hebrew slaves?  Theoretically, since they were ‘wandering’ through the desert, they would have no need of slaves, and as a result, the authorship of this law cannot be logically attributed to the Covenant Code.

The Decalogue

The Decalogue is most commonly known as the Ten Commandments themselves.  They are described in the Bible as having been received by Moses from God at the top of Mt. Sinai.  Though there are variants in the versions of this story, there does not seem to be any evidence of influence from other ancient societies directly.  There are however, distinct variations in stories which can be attributed to differences in authorship as well as time frame of authorship.

That the Decalogue was written by the finger of God on two stone tablets, and that it comprised the terms of the covenant between God and Israel, is the concept clearly expressed in the book of Deuteronomy (4:12-13; 9:10). Hence the significance of the term "the Tablets of the Covenant," used in Deuteronomy (9:9, 11, 15). The Exodus account is more obscure: one must combine several verses: 24:12 ("Come up to Me on the mountain...and I will give you the stone tablets...which I have inscribed to instruct them"); 31:18 ("When He finished speaking to him..., He gave Moses the two tablets of the Pact, stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God"); 32:15, 19 (the two tablets of the Pact that Moses broke when he saw the golden calf); 34:1 (carving two more tablets like the first); and 34:28 ("and he wrote down on the tablets the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments"). Even after combining these verses, there is still no definite identification of the Commandments in Exodus 20 with the contents of the first and second sets of stone tablets (see below for discussion on Exodus 34:28). Only by turning to Deuteronomy do we find a connecting link, for the Exodus traditions are less crystallized and shaped than the tradition in Deuteronomy.

         In applying Julius Wellhausen’s ‘documentary hypothesis’ to the confusion, it is evident that variances in stories indicate different authorship.  The quote refers to the differences in reference to the ‘table of the covenant’.  The earlier version of the story located in Exodus 20 does not mention the stone tablets that are mentioned in Deuteronomy, and since we can apply the documentary hypothesis to these two books, we know that the authors of Deuteronomy existed after the authors of Exodus.  It would be my interpretation that the Deuteronomists – who existed during the Monarchy, and the infancy of the nation of Israel, needed to construct a version of the story with a tangible connection to the Covenant on Sinai in order to legitimize the existence of the nation.

The Covenant Code

This set of laws exists in Exodus 20:22-23:19.  In this code there are many similarities with laws already in existence in the ancient Near East, specifically the Laws of Eshnunna and the Code of Hammurabi.  The similarities between them are the strongest evidence of the adoption of laws that were widespread and in use throughout ancient Near Eastern societies.  

To understand the development of law and bring us to the development of Israelite laws, a short history of similarities between some ancient law codes and the law codes following are necessary.  A logical order of progression takes place beginning with Sumerian texts all the way through the Code of Hammurabi.  Though there are only fragments of codes throughout ancient times, there is enough to allow limited comparisons at the very least.  The Code of Hammurabi is one of modern archaeology’s significant finds in terms of extensive history of laws and sources of comparison.

For the sake of limiting the timeline, it is prudent to begin with the Code of Ur-Nammu, the code of the Sumerian King of the same name (2064 BCE – 2046 BCE).  This time frame is significant for two reasons.  First, it is a very early example of the principle of ‘casuistic’ law, and secondly, it provides us with a small amount of material to compare with the Code of Hammurabi.  The practice of formulating laws that have a hypothetical situation followed by a consequence (casuistic) is a legal construction that will be widely found throughout ancient Near Eastern societies.   In terms of similarities with the Code of Hammurabi (CH), the Code of Ur-Nammu (CU) one instance in particular stands out.  In CU section (ss) 10, there is a law that deals with a person accused of sorcery. “The accused must undergo ordeal by water and so proclaim his innocence or guilt’”  In the case of the CH (ss2), a similar law appears:

If a seignior brought a charge of sorcery against a (nother) seignior but has not proved it, the one against whom the charge of sorcery was brought, upon going to the river, shall throw himself into the river, and if the river has then overpowered him, his accuser shall take over his estate; if the river has shown that seignior to be innocent and he has accordingly come forth safe, the one who brought the charge of sorcery against him shall be put to death, while the one who threw himself into the river shall take over the estate of his accuser.”

This selection from the CH, illustrates the absorption of a law of a preceding society and the adaptation and adjustment in applying it to one’s own society.  Furthermore, the CH builds upon the concept of its predecessor by also instilling a consequence for a false accusation.  The idea that this particular situation may have been common in ancient Near Eastern societies and was known to Israelites is in Psalm 124:4-5.  Though it does not directly demonstrate and enactment of law in the same way the CU and CH enacted it, this passage certainly illustrates the knowledge of this type of consequence being prevalent around them.

        Then the waters would have carried us

                away

        and the torrent swept over us;

        Then over us would have swept

                raging waters.

The Code of Lipit-Ishtar (CL) was written nearly two centuries after the CU.  Though it primarily deals with the governance of people and property, it also contains a connection to the CH.  There is an example it the CL ss 10 in which the ‘desecration of a garden’.  This section of the code indicates the payment of ten silver sheckels as compensation to the victim, and the damages are trebled if the culprit intentionally destroys a tree in the victims garden.  (Treble damages indicate the actual damages – in this case ten silver sheckels – multiplied by three.)  In CH ss59, there is a similar law and the identical penalty is prescribed.

The Laws of Eshnunna (LE) were discovered in 1945 and 1947 at Tell Harmal, just outside of modern day Bagdad, and are the earliest book of laws written in Akkadian.   The precise date of construction has been in dispute and as late as 1980, the speculation had turned from having been attributed to King Nilalam of Eshnunna (c.1920BCE), to being much closer to the time of Hammurabi, perhaps only a few years or decades prior.  In general these laws deal with a  variety of topics, including wages, taxes, domestic issues, criminal matters and slavery.  There are however, a group of laws when compared to one another appear to be of the same context in the CE, CH and in the law codes appearing in Exodus, demonstrating a commonality between the cultures in terms of their legal concerns.  To demonstrate this commonality, we will look specifically at LE ss 53, CH 250,251 and Exodus 21:35-36.  This law deals with a goring ox, and the conditions of the incident and consequences.  LE ss53 reads:

If an ox gored an ox and caused it to die, both ox owners shall divide the price of the live ox and the carcass of the dead ox.

CH 250 and 251 read:

If an ox, when it was walking along the street, gored a seignior to death, that case is not subject to (actionable) claim. (250)

If a seignior’s ox was a gorer and his city council made it know to him that it was a gorer, but he did not pat its horns (or) tie up his ox, and that ox gored to death the son of an awelum, he shall give on-half minna of silver.  (251)15

Exodus 21:35-36 reads:

When a man’s ox butts another and kills it, they must sell the live ox, share the price, and also share the dead beast.  But if it is known that the ox has for some time past been vicious and the owner has not kept it under control, he must make good the loss, ox for ox, but the dead beast is his.

In examining the progression of these laws in chronological order, it is easy to see an example of how an ancient Near Eastern law was pertinent to at least three separate cultures, including the ancient Israelites.  In each case, the law is adapted or modified to fit the needs of the culture at hand.  The LE version of this law and the Biblical version of this law are nearly identical in both content and construction.  Though the CH version of this law is far less specific, the close relation of this law to the other two versions is also demonstrative of a connection.  Despite the difference in version, it is reasonable to concentrate on the similarities of these laws and conclude that this widespread Near Eastern code was one that was promulgated far earlier than the inception of Israelite laws, and developed through time.  This law in and of itself does not stand alone in terms of similarities in law from one ancient Near Eastern culture to the next.  There are several similarities, including laws on slaves, inheritance and consequences for abhorrent sexual offences.

The Law of Deuteronomy

In terms of laws, the Deutoronomistic law is where we begin to see the most evidence of truly unique Israelite laws.  It is believed that the construction of this law code resulted from the destruction of the northern kingdom (Israel), forcing literature of various sorts to be brought to the southern kingdom (Israel), and adopted into religious practices there.  Since the Deutoeronomy code is associated with the reign of Josiah it is fairly simple to see how the laws that were promulgated at the time related to the social situation of the Israelites.  In the development of the monotheistic religion of the Israelites, they were surrounded by pagans, and were forced to address the issues pertaining to pagan practices.   Laws such as Deutoronomy 12:2-3 illustrates both the historical contents of the law as well as the deep devotion to Yahweh.

You are to demolish completely all the sanctuaries where the nations whom you are dispossessing worship their gods, whether on high mountains or on hills or under every spreading tree.  Pull down their altars, break their sacred pillars, burn their sacred poles, and hack down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out the name of them from the place.

Israelite law became unique at this time in that it changed the form of casuistic laws from a third person format to second person.  In other words, the subject of the laws became ‘you’ as opposed to the subject being ‘he’ as they were in Exodus.  

The Law of Holiness &The Priestly Code

The Law of Holiness and the Priestly code appear to be related to one another.  Though the exact time frame and authorship of the Holiness Code is subject to much debate, it is generally believed that it is either a rival to Deutoernomistic laws, or a later priestly insertion.   These laws in particular are quite unique to the Israelites in that the Holiness Code, though interspersed with general law, is primarily concerned with older holiness laws that may have become obsolete with the development of the Deuteronomistic laws.  

The Priestly code is by far the most unique set of law codes in that they are concerned with laws pertaining specifically to the establishment of and rituals within the priesthood of the religion of the Israelite nation.  This is in stark contrast to the mostly ‘mixed’ material found in the Holiness code and the Deuteronomistic code.  The primary purpose of these laws were not to elaborate on previous laws, or supersede laws already in place, but simply to set their community apart and create a distinctly Jewish set of guidelines within the priesthood.  

The author has simply collected the details of ceremonial legislation, and the rubrics of the corporate life of the Jewish community as a holy nation, or rather, church under God.  It was only by emphasizing their special religious peculiarities that this struggling group could survive.

It was the distinctive nature of laws that set the Israelite nation apart from it predecessors and contemporaries.  Israelite law went from simply mirroring the laws of communities around them as in the Decalogue, Covenant and Deuternomistic Codes to being very distinct, specific prescription for Jewish life both in concert with and apart from its neighbors, as in the Holiness Code and Priestly Code.  All in all, though Jewish law started of as original only in the sense of adaptation of laws already in existence, (such as the goring ox example) through time, turmoil and devotion, the Israelites were able to develop a unique set of guidelines that has both applied to and fascinated people throughout the ages.  There is a phrase that is that is uttered in the Jewish community:  “Simchath Torah” or “Joy in the Law” - appropriate in describing the Jewish attitude of the law, and from which perspective Jews from ancient times until today approach the law.  

REFERENCES CITED

1)        James Hastings, editor, Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1963)

2. Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1976)
3. James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament:  Studies in Comparative Religion (New York: Mcmillan and Co., 1923)
4. Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961)
5. Raymond Westbrook, An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law, N.S. Hecht, ed.   (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
6. M. Jack Suggs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, James R. Mueller, editors. The Oxford Study Bible: A Complete Guide to the World of the Bible ,. (New York; Oxford University Press, 1992)
7. Moshe Greenburg,  Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995)
8. Reuven Yaron, The Goring Ox in Near Eastern Laws: Jewish Law in Ancient and Modern Israel; Selected Essays  (KTAV Publishing House, 1971)