"If the wife of a man has been accused by her husband and she has not been caught . . . she shall swear by God and return to her own house." 030 In the case of damage done to shipping by carelessness on the part of another : "The owner of the ship that has been sunk shall recount before God whatever was lost in his ship, and that of the ship going forward which sunk the ship at anchor shall render to him his ship and whatever of his was lost." (24o.) If an animal dies without visible cause: "If a man has hired an ox and God has struck it and it has died, the man who has hired the ox shall swear before God and shall go free." (249.) • In the above and in the following instance a stroke of lightning seems to be contemplated: "If in a sheep fold a stroke of God has taken place, or a lion has killed, the shepherd shall purge himself before God, and the owner of the fold shall face the accident of the fold." (266.) Again in the case of servants being purchased in a foreign land and on being brought home are recognized by a neighbor as his property, the innocent purchaser must make oath to that effect: "If they are natives of another land, the buyer shall tell out before God the money he has paid and the owner of the man servant or the maid servant shall give to the merchant the money he paid and shall recover his man serv ant or his maid servant." (281.) In every instance in the Code where oath is made it is made "before God," never in the presence of any heathen deity. And yet Ham murabi was a polytheist. In the prologue and in the epilogue to his Code no less than four teen heathen deities are recognized. Must we not infer, therefore, that this polytheistic king was not the originator of a monotheistic Code? The evidence in hand indicates that a goodly portion of it was handed down to him from some earlier period.
Hommel says: "From that time (the migra tion of Abraham) we find Babylonian manners and Babylonian idol worship steadily penetrat ing into the Arabian religion as they had pre viously done into that of the Canaanites. . . It can be readily imagined that this influence operated with still greater force on those Arabs who lived in BabYlonia itself. Even the Arab kings, from Sumu-abi onwards, became almost entirely Babylonian—at first no doubt from pol icy, but ere long from habit as well; and finally from innate conviction." (Hommel, "An. Heb. Trod., p. 118.) (13) Hammurabi and Moses. There are some notable similarities between the laws of Hammurabi and those of Moses, but it is safe to say the likenesses are not so radical nor so abundant as the differences that exist.
Some of the resemblances are of little mo ment, as, for instance, certain regulations per taining to flocks and herds, similar usages be ing found among all races where similar condi tions occur. Of more importance is the fact that the penalty for man stealing is death in both codes, although in the case of Hammurabi it is confined to a child who must be the son of a gentleman. (Compare 14 with Ex. xxi :16.) In Hammurabi a man in debt might sell his wife and children into bondage, but they must be given their freedom in the fourth year (117). This is claimed to be a similarity to the Mosaic command applying to any Hebrew servant : "Six years shall he serve and in the seventh he shall go free for nothing." (Ex. xxi :2.) But
in the case of a Hebrew servant he could not be sent out empty handed, but liberal provision must be made for him : "And when thou sendcst him out free from thee . . . thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press ; of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give to him." ( Dent., xv There is no such provision in the Babylonian code for the unfortunate wife and children who have worked for two masters—the hus band and father and also their purchaser.
Hammurabi prescribes that a slave who denies his master's ownership shall have his ear cut off (282). This is claimed as having some kin ship with the opposite provision made for the servant who refuses to leave his master and voluntarily submits to having his car bored as a token of life service. (Ex. xxi :6.) Incest with one's mother called for the death of both parties in both codes. (157, Lev. xx 1.) But it seems not to have been mentioned in Israel except in connection with a stepmother, or with a mother-in-law. (Deut. xxvii :20-23.) Incest with a man's daughter in the Code of Hammurabi only required the expulsion of the criminal from the city (154).
But in the Mosaic law, if a man was guilty of incest with his daughter-in-law, it meant death to both. (Lev. xx :12.) Adultery called for the death of both parties in both codes. (129, Lev. xx.) Hammurabi says : "If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye, one shall cause his eye to be lost." (196.) "If he have shattered a gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his limb." (197.) "If he has caused a poor man to lose his eye, or shattered a poor man's limb, he shah pay one mina of silver." (198.) There is no such distinction as this, however, in the Mosaic law. It is "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Ex. xxi :24.) Hammurahi's Code prescribes death for thirty nine offenses, while the Mosaic law mentions only seventeen crimes as being worthy of capital punishment. That this is not merely the result of the lapse of time is shown by the fact that in England in the time of Sir William Black stone one hundred and sixty offenses were by Act of Parliament declai ed to be worthy of instant death. (Blackstone's Commentaries, book IV, chap. 4, pages 15-18.) says : "If a man have struck a gentleman's daughter . . . if that woman has died, one shall put to death his daughter." (209 21o.) But if he strikes "the daughter of a poor man" . . . if that woman has died he shall pay half a mina of silver." (211-212.) "If he has caused the son of the owner of the housr to die (through collapse of the building), one shall put to death the son of that builder." (23o. ) In strong contrast to this is the declaration : "The fathers shall not be put to death tor the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers ; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. xxiv :16.) In the Code of Hammurabi there are repeated discriminations in favor of "the gentleman" and against the "poor man." The thief who has property may escape by paying, but if he have none he is put to death. The rank of the per son against whom the offense has been commit ted is the one aggravating circumstance.