Hammurabi
Hammurabi
Sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty (c.2130-2088 B.C.). His warlike exploits togetherwith his skill in governing his kingdom and his code of laws, place him among the greatest men of ancient history. He is probably the Amraphel, King of Senaar, mentioned in Genesis 14. His code, unearthed at Susa, Persia, 1901, by French excavators is a legal masterpiece, dealing comprehensively with civil and criminal matters.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Hammurabi
(Ha-am-mu-ra-bi)
The sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty; well known for over fifty years to students of Babylonian history. Inscriptions of Hammurabi were published by Rawlinson in 1861 and Oppert in 1863; the “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian tablets, etc., in the British Museum” contained many letters and other documents belonging to his period; finally the most valuable work of L. W. King, “Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi” (1895-1900) supplied a mine of information on the reign of the now famous Babylonian ruler of 4000 years ago. The origin and etymology of Hammurabi’s name are somewhat puzzling, for this name does not appear to be distinctly Babylonian. Later scribes regarded it as foreign and translated it Kimta-rapaashtum, “great family”, a fairly good rendering of Hammu-rabi in the S. Arabian dialect. It is noteworthy that, with only two exceptions, the names of the kings of that so-called Babylonian dynasty are likewise best explained from the Arabic. This fact gives much weight to the hypothesis, first suggested by Pognon in 1888, of the Arabic or Aramean origin of that dynasty. All scholars seem to agree that the nationality of these rulers must be sought in the “land of Amurru”, whereby the Babylonians designated all the regions lying to the west (N. and S.) of their own country.
There is not so great a divergence of opinions as to the date to be assigned to Hammurabi. The King-lists would suggest 2342 B. C. as the date of his accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to be interpreted, for from the “Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings”, published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and second Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon, but on “the Sea-country”. Other indications furnished by Nabonidus, Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin and Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 B. C.; Tofteen adopts the dates 2121-2066 B. C.; King suggests 1990- 1950 B. C.; Father Scheil, O.P., says 2056 B. C. is the probable date of the king’s accession, which Father Dhorme places in 2041. Hammurabi’s was therefore a long reign. Since the victorious expedition of Kutir-Nahhunte, in 2285, against Babylonia, the latter country had been in a condition of vassalage to Elam. Under Hammurabi’s predecessors, it gradually improved its condition; but it was reserved to him to free it from the foreign yoke. In the thirtieth year of his reign, Hammurabi defeated the army of Kudur-Lagamar (?), King of Elam, thereby winning Babylonia’s independence; the ensuing year he completed this success by conquering the lands of Iamuthala (W. of Elam) and Larsa, and taking, in consequence, the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. Other triumphs followed: Rabiqu, Dupliash, Kar-Shamash, possibly Turukku, Kakmum, and Sabe fell into his power, so that towards the end of his life he had knit together into a mighty empire N. and S. Babylonia, and very likely extended his sway, at least nominally, over the land of Amurru as far as Chanaan.
The warlike exploits of “Hammurabi, the strong warrior, the destroyer of his foes, the hurricane of battle”, are not perhaps such as would make him the peer of the most renowned captains; what has won for him a well-deserved prominent place among the rulers of kingdoms is that to his military achievements he joined the wisdom of a consummate statesman in the government of his vast domains. From the brief outline of his reign sketched in the “Chronicles” we learn that every year there was some important work accomplished: temples erected or restored, cities built or embellished, canals dug, agricultural progress promoted, justice re-established; and his letters witness to the attention given by him to every detail of administration: revenue, public works, regulation of food supplies, exemptions from duty. Assyriologists agree that Hammurabi’s reign was, moreover, a period of great literary activity. The interest which attaches to his history has waxed more intense since Schrader proposed, in 1887, to identify this prince with Amraphel, King of Sennaar, mentioned in Gen., xiv. That Senmar (Hebr. Shin‘ar) corrsponds to Shaanhaar, an Assyrian name for Babylonia, is beyond dispute; that the two names Hammurabi and Amraphel are phonetically identical, most scholars readily admit; as, moreover, the other names cited in the same context: “Arioch, king of Pontus (Hebr. Ellasar), and Chodorlahomor, king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations (Hebr., Gôyîm)”, may designate Rim-Sin (’-Riw- Akû), King of Larsa, Kudur-Lagamar, King of Elam, and a certain Thudhula, otherwise unknown, sâr mâtâti, i. e. “king of the (foreign) countries”, the identification of Hammurabi and Amraphel is, to say the least, very probable. We should gather thence that the expedition referred to in the Bible must have taken place before Rim-Sin’s downfall, when Babylon was still a vassal to Elam, hence before the thirtieth year of Hammurabi’s reign, that is to say, before about 2010, a date in perfect agreement with the probable chronology of Abraham.
The discovery of Hammurabi’s Code has raised him to a leading place in the roll of the greatest men of antiquity. This wonderful document was unearthed partly in Dec., 1901, and partly in Jan., 1902, by the French Délégation en Perse, under M. de Morgan, in their excavations at Susa, once the capital of Elam and, later, of Persia. The stele containing the Code is an obelisk-like block of black diorite measuring 7 ft. 4½ in. in height and 6 ft 9½ in. in circumference at the base. With the exception of a large carving in relief on the upper end, it was once entirely convered with forty-four columns (over 3800 lines) of text in the old Babylonian wedge-writing. From the inscription we learn that it was engraved for the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that another copy stood in the temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon, and the discovery of various fragments make it probable that more copies had been set up in different cities. This stele, now in the Louvre Museum, was carried off from Sippar, about 1120 B. C., by Shutruk-Nahhunte, King of Elam, who set it in his capital as a trophy of his victory. To this circumstance should likely be attributed the chiseling away of some five columns of the text, probably to make place for a record of the Elamite ruler’s triumphs, which, however, was never written. The relief carved at the upper end of the stele represents the king standing before the sun-god Shamash seated upon a throne, clothed in a flounced robe, wearing the swathed head-gear and holding in his hand the sceptre and ring.
With wonderful promptness, the editio princeps of the text, accompanied with a French translation, was published late in 1902. A German version by Winckler, and one in English by Johns, appeared in 1903. The text of the inscription may be divided into three parts: the introduction, the Code, and the conclusion. In the first part there is a lengthy enumeration of Hammurabi’s honorific title and a recital of his deeds of war and peace, ending with these words, very aptly prefacing the Code: “When Marduk sent me to govern men, to sustain and instruct the world, right and justice in the land I established, I brought about the happiness of men”.
According to a fragment found in Assurbanipal’s library, the Code contained 285 “legal judgments of Hammurabi” (Cuneif. Texts, etc., XIII, pl. 46 and 47). Fr. Scheil estimated that the five columns erased, as has been described above, contained about forty laws; the exact nuimber might be 37, thus giving a total of 285; at any rate, the numbering of the editio princeps is usually followed.
An idea of the comprehensiveness of the Code may be gathered from the enumeration of the legal matters, both civil and criminal, dealt with in it. It opens with two laws concerning ban and witchcraft (§§ 1, 2), two dealing with false witnesses (§§ 3, 4), and one on prevaricating judges (§ 5). The next laws treat of theft (§§ 6-8), stolen property found in another’s hand (§§ 9-13), kidnapping (§ 14), escape and kidnapping of slaves (§§ 15-20), burglary and brigandage (§§ 21-25). Others are devoted to feudal relations to the king (§§ 26-41); the relations between landowner and cultivator (§§ 42-52), responsibility for damages caused to crops by careless farmers (§§ 53-56) and shepherds (§§ 57, 58), enactments concerning orchards (§§ 59-65).
Among the laws chiselled off, three have been recovered by Fr. Scheil from mutilated copies of the Code: they deal with loans and house-renting. Following the blank space are provisions touching the respective rights of merchants and agents (§§ 100-107) and the policing of wine-shops (§§ 108-111), appropriation of consignments (§ 112), debts (§§ 113-119), and deposits (§§ 120-126) are also treated of. These are followed by laws treating of the family. Slander against a woman, either dedicated to a god or married, opens the series (§ 127); then, after having defined the position of the woman (§ 128), the Code deals with adultery (§ 129), violation of a married virgin (§ 130), suspicion of unchastity (§§ 131, 132), separation and divorce (§§ 133-143), taking a concubine (§§ 144-149), women’s property (§§ 150-152), various forms of unchastity (§§ 153-158) and the customs regarding the purchase price for, and the marriage portion of, the bride (§§ 159-164). Inheritance laws come next; they define the rights of children, wives, concubines (§§ 165-174), slaves (§§ 175-176), widows (§ 177), and non-marriageable temple- and street-girls (§§ 178-184); provisions respecting adoption and foster-children (§§ 185-193) conclude this important part of the Code. Following are various series of regulations concerning personal damages (§§ 194-214), fees and responsibilities of physicians (§§ 215-227), payment and responsibilities of house-builders (§§ 228-233), ship-builders (§§ 234, 235), and boatmen (§§ 236-240). Another set is devoted to agricultural labour: hiring of domestic animals (§§ 241-249), injuries caused by goring oxen (§§ 250-252), the hiring of persons, animals, wagons, and ships (§§ 253-277). The last regulations deal with slave-trade (§§ 278-281) and the penalty inflicted on rebellious slaves (§282).
The conclusion of the inscription sounds like a hymn of high-keyed self-praise. The document ends with a blessing for those who will obey the laws and a long series of curses against him who will give no heed to the laws, or interfere with the word of the Code. Hammurabi’s Code cannot by any means be regarded as a faltering attempt to frame laws among a young and inexperienced people. Such a masterpiece of legislation could befit only a thriving and well-organized nation, given to agriculture and commerce, long since grown familiar with the security afforded by written deeds drawn up with all the niceties and solemnities which clever jurists could devise, and accustomed to transact no business otherwise. It is inspired throughout by an appreciation of the right and humane sentiments that make it surpass by far the stern old Roman law.
Of all the ancient legislations, that of the Hebrews alone can stand comparison with the Babylonian Code. The many points of resemblance between the two, the Babylonian origin of the father of the Hebrew race, the long relations of Babylon with the land of Amurru, have prompted modern scholars to investigate whether the undeniable relation of the two codes is not one of dependence. The conclusions arrived at may be breifly stated as follows. Needless to notice that Hammiurabi is in no wise indebted to the Hebrew Law. As to the latter, its older part, the Code of the Covenant (Exodus 21:1-23:19), is intended for a semi-nomadic people, and therefore cannot depend on Hammurabi’s enactments. Both codes derive from a common older source, to be sought in the early customs of the Semitic race, when Babylonians, Hebrews, Arabs, and others were still forming one people. The work of the Hebrew lawgiver consisted in codifying these ancient usages as he found them, and promulgating them under Yahweh’s authority. The early Israelite code may, perhaps, seem imperfect in comparison with the Babylonian corpus juris, but, whilst the latter is founded upon the dictates of reason, the Hebrew Law is grounded on the faith in the one true God, and is pervaded throughout by an earnest desire to obey and please Him, which reaches its highest expression in the Law of Deuteronomy.
———————————–
I. INSCRIPTIONS OF HAMMURABI.–RAWLINSON, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (London, 1861-1884); Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets, etc., in the British Museum (London, 1896); KING, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi (London, 1898-1900); MENANT, Inscriptions de Hammurabi (Paris, 1863); AMIAUD, Recueil de Travaux (Paris, 1880); SCHEIL, Délégation en Perse. Mémoires publiés sous la direction de M. J. de Morgan, IV: Textes Elamites-Sémitiques, deuxième série (Paris, 1902–Editio princeps of the Code); SCHEIL, Loi de Hammurabi (Paris, 1904); JOHNS, Oldest Code of Laws in the World (Edinburgh, 1903); HAUPER, Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon (Chicago, 1904); WINCKLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis. Das älteste Gesetzbuch der Welt übersetzt (Leipzig, 1903); IDEM, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Unschrift und Uebersetzung herausgeben (Leipzig, 1904); KOHLER AND PEISER, Hammurabis Gesetz (Leipzig, 1903). II. HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF HAMMURABI.–Besides the works mentioned in the articles on ASSYRIA and BABYLONIA: KING, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian kings (London, 1907); UNGNAD, Selected Babylonian business and Legal documents of Hammurabi’s period (London, 1907); BOSCAVEN, The First of Empires (London, 1907); KING, History of Babylonia and Assyria from the earliest times to the Persian conquest (London, 1908); SCHRADER, Keilinschriften Bibliotek, III, i: Hist. Texte altbabyl. Herrscher (Leipzig, 1889); ULMER, Hammurabi, sein Land und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1907). III. STUDIES ON THE HFAMMURABI CODE.–COOK, Law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903); DAVIES, Codes of Hammurabi and Moses (Cincinnati, 1905); EDWARDS, Hammurabi Code and the Sinaitic legislation (London, 1904); JOHNS, Notes on the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903); IDEM, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (London, 1904); IDEM, Code of Hammurabi in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible, extra vol. (1905); PINCHES, Old Testament in the light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London, 1904); GRIMME, Das Gesetz Chammurabis und Moses. Eine Skizze (Cologne, 1903), tr. by PILTER: The Law of Hammurabi and Moses. A Sketch (London, 1907); ORELLI, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und die Thora Israels: Eine religions- und rechtgeschichtliche Parallele (Leipzig, 1903); COHN, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (Zurich, 190a3); DAICHES, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie (Leipzig, 1903); JEREMIAS, Moses und Hammurabi (Leipzig, 1903); MUELLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis und der Verhältnis zur mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den römischen XII Tafeln (Vienna, 1903); IDEM, Ueber die Gesetz Hammurabis (Vienna, 1904); IDEM, Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch und Hammurabi (Vienna, 1905); MARI, Il Codice di Hammurabi e la Bibbia (Rome, 1903); BONFANTE, Le leggi di Hammurabi re di Babylonia (Milan, 1903); BISCHERON, Babylone et la Bible (Paris, 1906); Among the numerous articles in theological and other reviews, we shall mention only the following: JOHNS, Code of Hammurabi in Journal of Theological Studies (Jan., 1903); SAYCE, The Legal Code of Babylonia in American Journal of Theology (1904), 256–66; BUHL, Kong Hammurabis lovsamling in Nordisk Tidskrift (1903), 335-54, 556-99; OUSSANI, Code of Hammurabi in New York Review (Aug.-Sept., 1905), 178-97, copious bibliography to date; IDEM, Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Legislation in New York Review (Dec., 1905- Jan., 1906), 488-510; DARESTE, Code babylonien d’Hammourabi in Journal des Savants (1902), 517-28, 586-99; IDEM, Code babylonien d’Hammourabi in Comptes Rendus des Séances et Travaux de l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, CLIX, 306-39; LAGRANGE, Code de Hammourabi in Revue Biblique (1907), 27-51; HALÉVY, Le Code d’Hammourabi et la Législation Hébraïque in Revue Sémitique (1903), 149-53, 240-49, 323-24; OPPERT, La loi de Hammourabi (Paris, 1905); CUQ, Le Mariage à Babylone d’après les lois de Hammourabi in Revue Biblique (1905, 359-71. IV. HAMMURABI-AMRAPHEL.–See the works mentioned in the bibliographies to the articles ASSYRIA and BABYLONIA, and the modern commentaries on Genesis: OUSSANI, The Fourteenth Chapter of Genesis in New York Review (Sept.-Oct., 1906), 204-43; DHORME, Hammurabi-Amraphel in Revue Biblique (1908), 205-26.
CHARLES L. SOUVAY Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert, Akron, Ohio
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Hammurabi
HAMMURABI.See Assyria and Babylonia, ii. 1 (b).
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Hammurabi
ham-oo-rabe:
1.Etymology of His Name, with Reference to Amraphel; His Dynasty
2.The Years Following His Accession
3.Military Operations and Further Pious Works
Inauguration of His Image
4.The Capture of Rim-Sin
5.Various Works, and An Expedition to Mesopotamia
6.His Final Years
7.No Record of His Expedition to Palestine
8.The Period When It May Have Taken Place
9.Hammurabi’s Greatness as A Ruler
1. Etymology of His Name with Reference to Amraphel; His Dynasty
The name of the celebrated warrior, builder, and lawgiver, who ruled over Babylonia about 2000 bc. In accordance with the suggestion of the late Professor Eb. Schrader, he is almost universally identified with the AMRAPHEL of Gen 14:1, etc. (which see). Hammurabi was apparently not of Babylonian origin, the so-called Dynasty of Babylon, to which he belonged, having probably come from the West. The commonest form of the name is as above, but Hamu(m)-rabi (with mimmation) is also found. The reading with initial b in the second element is confirmed by the Babylonian rendering of the name as Kmta-rapastum, my family is widespread, or the like, showing that rabi was regarded as coming from rabu, to be great. A late letter-tablet, however (see PSBA, May, 1901, p. 191), gives the form Ammurapi, showing that the initial is not really kh, and that the b of the second element had changed to p (compare Tiglath-pil-eser for Tukulti-abil-esar, etc.). Amraphel (for AmArapel, Amrabel, Amrabe) would therefore seem to be due to Assyrian influence, but the final l is difficult to explain. Professor F. Hommel has pointed out, that the Babylonian rendering, my family is widespread, is simply due to the scribes, the first element being the name of the Arabic deity Am, making Ammu-rabi, Am is great. Admitting this, it would seem to be certain that Hammurabi’s dynasty was that designated Arabian by Berosus. Its founder was apparently Sumu- abi, and Hammurabi was the fifth in descent from him. Hammurabi’s father, Sin- mubalit, and his grandfather, Abil-Sin, are the only rulers of the dynasty which have Babylonian names, all the others being apparently Arabic.
2. The Years Following His Accession
Concerning Hammurabi’s early life nothing is recorded, but since he reigned at least 43 years, he must have been young when he came to the throne. His accession was apparently marked by some improvement in the administration of the laws, wherein, as the date-list says, he established righteousness. After this, the earlier years of his reign were devoted to such peaceful pursuits as constructing the shrines and images of the gods, and in his 6th year he built the wall of the city of Laz. In his 7th year he took Unug (Erech) and Isin – two of the principal cities of Babylonia, implying that the Dynasty of Babylon had not held sway in all the states.
3. Military Operations and Further Pious Works
Inauguration of His Image
While interesting himself in the all-important work of digging canals, he found time to turn his attention to the land of Yamutbalu (8th year), and in his 10th he possibly conquered, or received the homage of, the city and people (or the army) of Malgia or Malga. Next year the city Rabiku was taken by a certain Ibik-Iskur, and also, seemingly, a place called Salibu. The inauguration of the throne of Zer-panitum, and the setting up, seemingly, of some kind of royal monument, followed, and was succeeded by other religious duties – indeed, work of this nature would seem to have occupied him every year until his 21st, when he built the fortress or fortification of the city Bazu. His 22nd year is described as that of his own image as king of righteousness; and the question naturally arises, whether this was the date when he erected the great stele found at Susa in Elam, inscribed with his Code of Laws, which is now in the Louvre. Next year he seems to have fortified the city of Sippar, where, it is supposed, this monument was originally erected.
4. The Capture of Rm-Sin
Pious works again occupied him until his 30th year, when the army of Elam is referred to, possibly indicating warlike operations, which paved the way for the great campaign of his 31st year, when, with the help of Anu and Enlil, he captured Yamut-balu and King Rm-Sin, the well-known ruler of Larsa. In his 32nd year he destroyed the army of Asnunna or Esnunnak.
5. Various Works, and an Expedition to Mesopotamia
After these victories, Hammurabi would seem to have been at peace, and in his 33rd year he dug the canal Hammurabi-nuhus-nisi, Hammurabi the abundance of the people, bringing to the fields of his subjects fertility, according to the wish of Enlila. The restoration of the great temple at Erech came next, and was followed by the erection of a fortress, high like a mountain, on the banks of the Tigris. He also built the fortification of Rabiku on the bank of the Tigris, implying preparations for hostilities, and it was possibly on account of this that the next year he made supplication to Tasmetum, the spouse of Nebo. The year following (his 37th), by the command of Anu and Enlila, the fortifications of Maur and Malka were destroyed, after which the country enjoyed a twelve-month of peace. In all probability, however, this was to prepare for the expedition of his 39th year, when he subjugated Turukku, Kagmu and Subartu, a part of Mesopotamia. The length of this year-date implies that the expedition was regarded as being of importance.
6. His Final Years
Untroubled by foreign affairs, the chief work of Hammurabi during his 40th year was the digging of the canal Tisit-Enlila, at Sippar, following this up by the restoration of the temple -mete-ursag and a splendid temple-tower dedicated to Zagaga and Istar. The defenses of his country were apparently his last thought, for his 43rd year, which seemingly terminated his reign and his life, was devoted to strengthening the fortifications of Sippar, a work recorded at greater length in several cylinder-inscriptions found on the site.
7. No Record of an Expedition to Palestine
Unfortunately none of the documents referring to his reign makes mention of his attack, in company with the armies of Chedorlaomer, Tidal and Arioch, upon the rebel-kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. This naturally throws doubt on the identification of Hammurabi with the Amraphel of Gen 14:1. It must be remembered, however, that we do not possess a complete history either of his life or his rule. That he was a contemporary of Arioch seems undoubted, and if this be the case, Chedorlaomer and Tidal were contemporaries too. Various reasons might be adduced for the absence of references to the campaign in question – his pride may have precluded him from having a year named after an expedition – no matter how satisfactory it may have been – carried out for another power – his suzerain; or the allied armies may have suffered so severely from attacks similar to that delivered by Abraham, that the campaign became an altogether unsuitable one to date by.
8. The Period when It May Have Taken Place
If Eri-Aku was, as Thureau-Dangin has suggested, the brother of Rm-Sin, king of Larsa (Elassar), he must have preceded him on the throne, and, in that case, the expedition against the kings of the Plain took place before Hammurabi’s 30th year, when he claims to have defeated Rm-Sin. As the date of Rm-Sin’s accession is doubtful, the date of Eri-Aku’s (Arioch’s) death is equally so, but it possibly took place about 5 years before Rm-Sin’s defeat. The expedition in question must therefore have been undertaken during the first 25 years of Hammurabi’s reign. As Amraphel is called king of Shinar (Babylonia), the period preceding Hammurabi’s accession ought probably to be excluded.
9. Hammurabi’s Greatness as a Ruler
Of all the kings of early Babylonia so far known, Hammurabi would seem to have been one of the greatest, and the country made good progress under his rule. His conflicts with Elam suggest that Babylonia had become strong enough to resist that warlike state, and his title of adda or father of Martu (= Amurru, the Amorites) and of Yamutbalu on the East implies not only that he maintained the country’s influence, but also that, during his reign, it was no longer subject to Elam. Rm-Sin and the state of Larsa, however, were not conquered until the time of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi’s son. It is noteworthy that his Code of Laws (see 3, above) not only determined legal rights and responsibilities, but also fixed the rates of wages, thus obviating many difficulties. See AMRAPHEL; ARIOCH; CHEDORLAOMER; TIDAL, etc.