A final question is which source the Code claims for its legitimacy. The prologue states that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods. Raymond Westbrook noted that in ancient Near Eastern law, “the king was the principal source of legislation.” [134] However, they could delegate the legal authority God had given them to the judges. [135] However, as Owen B. Jenkins noted, the recipes themselves “have a surprising absence.” of all theological law, even ceremonial”. [45] The prologue and the epilogue together constitute a fifth of the text. On about 4,130 lines, the prologue consists of 300 lines and the epilogue 500. [17] They are ring-shaped around laws, although there is no visual break that distinguishes them from laws. [56] Both are written in poetic style,[57] and, as William W. Davies wrote, “contain much. which looks a lot like Braggadocio”.
[58] The first and still most complete copy of the text found is on a stele 2.25 m (7 ft 4+1⁄2 in) long. The stele is now located on the ground floor of the Louvre, in room 227 of the Richelieu wing. [13] Scholars are divided on the material of the stele. Some, including the Louvre and Martha Roth, said it was basalt. [14] However, others, including Marc Van De Mieroop and Father Jean-Vincent Scheil – the French Dominican and Assyriologist who wrote the editio princeps of the Code – [15] have stated that it is diorite. [16] Above, an image of Hammurabi with Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice. Below the image are about 4,130 lines of cuneiform text: a fifth contains a prologue and an epilogue, while the remaining four-fifths contain what are commonly referred to as laws. [17] At the bottom, seven columns of laws, each with more than eighty lines, were polished and erased in antiquity. [18] The stele was found and reconstructed in three large fragments. [19] It is 225 cm (7`4 + 1/2 in) tall, with a circumference of 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) at the top and 190 cm (6 ft 3 in) at the base.
[19] Hammurabi`s painting is 65 cm (2 ft 1+1⁄2 in) high and 60 cm (1 ft 11+1⁄2 in) wide. [19] A second theory is that the Code is a kind of legal relationship and, as such, contains records of previous cases and judgments, albeit couched in abstract terms. This would explain the casuistic format of “laws”; Jean Bottéro thought he had found a file of a case that inspired him. [103] However, despite the extent of the Mesopotamian body of law, such discoveries are inconclusive and very rare. [104] Moreover, in Mesopotamia, court decisions were frequently recorded that reproduced the facts of the case without generalizing them. [105] These judgments dealt almost exclusively with questions of fact, leading Martha Roth to remark, “I know of only one case out of a thousand, which could be said to revolve around a question of law.” [106] The text compiled at the end of Hammurabi`s reign is not so much a proclamation of principles as a collection of precedents established between prose celebrating Hammurabi`s righteous and pious reign. The Hammurabi Codex provides some of the earliest examples of the doctrine of lex talionis, or laws of punishment, sometimes better known as “an eye for an eye.” However, the arguments against this view are strong. First, it would result in a very unusual code – Reuven Yaron called the term “code” a “persistent misnomer.” [95] Important sectors of society and commerce are left out. [96] Marc Van De Mieroop, for example, notes that the Code “deals with livestock and agricultural fields, but almost completely ignores the work of herders, which is vital to the economy of Babylon.” [97] Second, contrary to legislative theory, highly implausible circumstances are generally recorded, such as threshing with goats, animals that are far too unruly for this task (Bill 270).
[98] The laws are also strictly casuistic (“si. then”); Unlike the Mosaic law, there are no apodictic laws (general commandments). These would more clearly indicate a prescriptive law. The strongest argument against the legislative theory, however, is that most judges seem to have ignored the code. This criticism comes from Benno Landsberger in 1950. [87] No Mesopotamian legal document makes explicit reference to the Code or any other statute book,[92] despite the large size of the corpus. [99] Two references to recipes on “a stele” (narû)[100] come closest to each other. On the other hand, many judgments cite royal decrees of mīšarum. [92] Raymond Westbrook argued that this reinforced the silence argument that the ancient legal codes of the Middle East had legal significance. [101] Moreover, many ancient Babylonian judgments completely contradict the provisions of the Codex.
[102] Hammurabi combined his military and political advances with irrigation projects and the construction of fortifications and temples celebrating the patron deity of Babylon, Marduk. Hammurabi`s time Babylon is now buried beneath the region`s water table, and all the records he kept have long since been dissolved, but clay tablets discovered at other ancient sites give a glimpse into the king`s personality and statesman. The laws are written in the old Akkadian Babylonian dialect. Their style is regular and repetitive, and today they are a standard text for introductory Akkadian courses. [136] However, as summarized by A. Leo Oppenheim, the cuneiform characters themselves are “arranged vertically”. in boxes placed next to each other in ribbons from right to left,” an arrangement that was already obsolete in Hammurabi`s time. [137] As today`s Akkadian learners tend to study the later phases of cuneiform writing, in which the signs were turned ninety degrees, they must turn their heads to one side to read the Louvre stele. [54] A third theory that has gained importance in Assyriology is that code is not real code, but an abstract treatise on how judgments should be formulated.
This prompted Fritz Rudolf Kraus to name legal decisions in an early formulation of the theory. [107] Kraus suggested that it was a work of Mesopotamian science in the same category as collections of omens such as šumma ālu and ana ittišu. [107] Others have provided their own versions of this theory. [108] A. Second, the codex has striking similarities with other works of Mesopotamian science. Important similarities are the list format and the order of the elements,[110] which Ann Guinan describes as a complex “serial logic”. [111] Marc Van De Mieroop explains that, like other works of Mesopotamian science such as omen lists, lists of kings, and lists of gods, entries in the Hammurabi Codex are organized according to two principles. These are “opposition” – where one variable in one input is modified to make another – and “pointillism” – where new conditions are added to an entry, or paradigmatic series that are plotted to produce a sequence. [112] Van De Mieroop gives the following examples: The above principles are far removed in the spirit of modern customary and civil law systems, but some may be more familiar.