Difference between revisions of "Comparison of Hammurabi, Hittite, and Assyrian Codes"

From Wikinoah English
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein reviews in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" the work of Philip Biberfeld, and says the following:<ref>[[Aaron Lichtenstein|Lichtenstein, Aaron]]. "The Seven Laws of Noah". New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986</ref>
 +
 
That we know anything at all about the Hammurabi, Hittite, or Assyrian Codes is due to the preservation of the ancient cuneiform tablets and stones upon which the statutes of these codes were engraved. However, there exists no original text of the Noahide code, and never was the existence of such a text ever reported. The earliest sources to give systematic treatment to Noahide Law are talmudic, and the earliest book of the Halakha which undertakes to deliniate the Seven Laws is the Tosefta, attributed to Hiyya bar Abba, born circa 160.
 
That we know anything at all about the Hammurabi, Hittite, or Assyrian Codes is due to the preservation of the ancient cuneiform tablets and stones upon which the statutes of these codes were engraved. However, there exists no original text of the Noahide code, and never was the existence of such a text ever reported. The earliest sources to give systematic treatment to Noahide Law are talmudic, and the earliest book of the Halakha which undertakes to deliniate the Seven Laws is the Tosefta, attributed to Hiyya bar Abba, born circa 160.
  

Revision as of 08:41, 20 February 2007

Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein reviews in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" the work of Philip Biberfeld, and says the following:[1]

That we know anything at all about the Hammurabi, Hittite, or Assyrian Codes is due to the preservation of the ancient cuneiform tablets and stones upon which the statutes of these codes were engraved. However, there exists no original text of the Noahide code, and never was the existence of such a text ever reported. The earliest sources to give systematic treatment to Noahide Law are talmudic, and the earliest book of the Halakha which undertakes to deliniate the Seven Laws is the Tosefta, attributed to Hiyya bar Abba, born circa 160.

Nevertheless, a 1948 study by Philip Biberfeld tries to surmise the existence of an early Noahide legal system from due scrutiny of the extant Near East codes.

Biberfeld begins by posing the oft-mentioned problem concerning the seeming hodge-podge arrangement of statutes within the Hammurabi Code, the Hittite Code, and the Assyrian Code. A second problem he raises centers on the occasional point of great similarity, amidst some wholly dissimilar material, in these three codes. Then Biberfeld focuses attention on the Noahic laws and notes their serial arrangement in the Talmud. As enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a, the Seven Laws of Noah are:

  1. Justice An imperative to pursue social justice, and a prohibition of any miscarriage of justice.
  2. Blasphemy Prohibits a curse directed at the Supreme Being.
  3. Idolatry Prohibits the worship of idols and planets.
  4. Illicit Intercourse Prohibits adultery, incest, sodomy, and bestiality.
  5. Homicide Prohibits murder and suicide.
  6. Theft Prohibits the wrongful taking of another's goods.
  7. Limb of a Living Creature Prohibits the eating of animal parts which were severed from a living animal.

Making use of the above categorization, Biberfeld observes that the other three codes admit of the following breakdown:

Hammurabi Code

Sections:
1-5 1. Justice.
6-126 2.Theft.
127-193 3. Illicit Intercourse.
193-282 4. Homicide.

Hittite Code

1-18 1. Homicide.
19-186 2. Justice and Theft (mingled).
187-200 3. Illicit Intercourse.

Assyrian Laws

1-2 1. Blasphemy and Theft (committed by a woman).
7-55 2. Illicit Intercourse and Homicide.
Parts II and 111 3. Theft and Justice.

Biberfeld draws attention to the fact that the subject heads included in the above codes can be classified within the framework of the Seven Noahide Laws. Not, of course, that each code possesses a counterpart to each of the seven Noahic areas of law, but that each code contains what it does because that is what it inherited from the Noahic tradition. In addition, Biberfeld notes a tendency for the seriatim arrangement of the subject heads in the three codes to correspond to the order assigned to the Seven Laws of Noah by the talmudic source.

Pointing further to the numerous similarities in style, order, and phrasing which the cuneiform codes have in common with the juridical sections of the Pentateuch - which in turn share with the Noahide tradition a common Divine source – Biberfeld concludes: The Hammurabi, Hittite, and Assyrian laws have ultimate roots in the earliest Near Eastern legal tradition, namely, the Seven Laws of Noah. That is, each oi the cuneiform codes records a separate partial reconstruction, development, or adulteration of a then waning Noahide system.

As indicated in the notes, Biberfeld's interesting thesis has shortcomings. A major weakness is the undue significance Attributed to the order of the Seven Laws as cited in the Braitha of Sanhedrin 56. Differing arrangements are to be found in other sources, as in the Tosefta, Abodah Zarah 9, and in Genesis Rabbah 16.6. Furthermore, the order cited by the Braitha of Sanhedrin is apparently based on the order in which these seven laws are derived from the verse in the second chapter of Genesis discussed there. As careful a traditionalist as Judah Halevi considered this exegetical derivation far-fetched and but a mnemonic device of the oral tradition (Kuzari 3.73). If so, the serial order is not likely to have any historical or conceptual implication.
  1. ↑ Lichtenstein, Aaron. "The Seven Laws of Noah". New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986
Retrieved from "http://www.wikinoah.org/en/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Hammurabi,_Hittite,_and_Assyrian_Codes&oldid=3373"