How are Moses and the Hammurabi Code similar?

Origins and Historical Context

The Mosaic Law is traditionally understood to have been given to Moses at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19–20) sometime after the Exodus from Egypt, dating to around the mid-second millennium BC. The Code of Hammurabi predates this period, originating during the reign of the Babylonian King Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC). Discovered on a basalt stele in 1901–1902 in what is now Iran (ancient Susa), the Code of Hammurabi contains nearly 300 laws addressing civil, criminal, and economic matters. Both sets of laws emerged in the ancient Near East and reflect the societal need for codified legal provisions.

Though these two legal collections differ in their ultimate source, geographic context, and theological framework, they share broad similarities in style, subject matter, and the principle of retributive justice, often summarized under the phrase “eye for eye.”

Literary and Structural Parallels

The Hammurabi Code is arranged in casuistic (case law) format, typically employing “if… then…” statements to outline consequences for illegal acts. Mosaic regulations in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain similar formulations. For example:

• Code of Hammurabi §196: “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.”

• Exodus 21:23–25: “But if a serious injury results, then you must require life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.”

These parallel structures show a shared ancient Near Eastern style for legislating social conduct. Both collections address theft, violence, property rights, and personal injury, demonstrating that both societies codified detailed laws to regulate human interactions, protect community welfare, and establish judicial standards.

Retributive Justice (“Eye for Eye”)

One of the most noted similarities lies in the principle commonly known as lex talionis, or “eye for an eye.” This principle appears in both the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:24–25; Leviticus 24:19–20; Deuteronomy 19:21) and the Code of Hammurabi (§196–§200). Such a legal directive in both systems underscores a measure-for-measure form of justice. In practice, these laws often served as maximum limits to retaliation rather than commands to inflict equal harm. This principle aimed to preserve order and deter further violence.

Common Themes in Civil and Moral Regulations

1. Property and Thefts: Both sets of laws enumerate penalties for stealing livestock or goods, ensuring owners receive recompense and highlighting the importance of personal property.

2. Physical Injuries and Negligence: Provisions address accidental injuries, damages caused by animals, and building code violations. For instance, Exodus 21:28–29 discusses liability when an ox gores an individual, paralleling Hammurabi Code sections that address dangerous animals and negligence.

3. Social Protections: The Mosaic Law distinguishes itself by repeatedly commanding care for the vulnerable—widows, orphans, foreigners (Deuteronomy 10:18–19)—though the Code of Hammurabi also includes protections for certain classes of people.

Differences and Theological Emphasis

While sharing structural similarities, Mosaic legislation roots its authority in the sovereignty of the LORD. Repeated refrains occur throughout Scripture: “Thus says the LORD” (e.g., Exodus 19:3–6), emphasizing divine origin. The Hammurabi Code appeals to the Babylonian pantheon and the authority of King Hammurabi as chosen by these deities.

Moreover, Mosaic Law extends beyond civil and criminal statutes, encompassing ceremonial, moral, and spiritual commands. Worship regulations (Exodus 25–31), dietary guidelines (Leviticus 11), and feast days (Leviticus 23) reflect a covenant relationship between God and Israel. By contrast, Hammurabi’s laws focus more narrowly on civil and economic concerns without the comprehensive religious dimension found in the Mosaic covenant.

Archaeological and Textual Evidence

Archaeological discoveries shed light on the cultural context of these legal texts. The basalt stele bearing Hammurabi’s laws is housed in the Louvre Museum, preserving a tangible artifact confirming the sophistication of ancient Mesopotamian legal systems. Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, versions of the Pentateuch, such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, demonstrate remarkable consistency, bolstering confidence in the transmission of the Mosaic Law over centuries.

The Mosaic narrative, as recorded in the Torah, situates the giving of the Law in a historical context evidenced by Biblical genealogies (Numbers 33:1–2) and references to real locations. The Hammurabi Code’s prologue and epilogue similarly identify Hammurabi as a real king who received authority to rule from the gods of Babylon. Both confirm that law codes were a recognized cornerstone of governance and society in the ancient Near East.

Historical and Ethical Influence

These legal collections shaped social morality in their respective societies and influenced subsequent legal traditions. The Mosaic commands later found expression in Israel’s monarchy and the wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs), eventually informing broader Judeo-Christian ethics. The Code of Hammurabi, in turn, influenced other Mesopotamian cultures and provides insight into the region’s judicial practices.

Both sets of laws highlight the human need for orderly governance and the pursuit of justice, reflecting universal societal principles. Their similarities illustrate how certain moral and civil principles can recur in different societies, while their distinctions reveal the pivotal role of Israel’s covenant with the LORD and the unique theological dimension that permeates the Mosaic Law.

Conclusion

Moses and the Hammurabi Code share conceptual parallels in structure, subject matter, and the principle of retributive justice, reflecting common legal formats of the ancient Near East. Both address civic matters such as personal injury, property rights, and social regulations. Yet the Mosaic Law stands apart by asserting the authority and holiness of the living God (Exodus 20:2) and infusing civil statutes with moral and spiritual imperatives. These points of comparison and contrast highlight the broader cultural landscape in which the Mosaic Law was given and underscore the enduring relevance of such regulations for understanding both ancient legal systems and the abiding influence of Scripture.