The longest and by far the most important ancient code [pg 005] hitherto discovered is that of Ḥammurabi (circa 2250 b.c.). The source for this is a block of black diorite about 2.25 metres high, tapering from 1.90 to 1.65 metres in circumference. It was found by De Morgan at Susa, the ancient Persepolis, in December, 1901, and January, 1902, in fragments, which were easily rejoined. The text was published by the French Ministry of Instruction from “squeezes” by the process of photogravure, in the fourth volume of the Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse. It was there admirably transcribed and translated by Professor V. Scheil. In all, the monument now preserves forty-four columns with some three thousand six hundred lines. There were five columns more, which were once intentionally erased and the stone repolished, probably by the order of some monarch of Susa, who meant to put his own name and titles there. There have been found other monuments in the French explorations at Susa, where the Elamite monarch has erased the inscription of a Babylonian king and inserted his own. This method of blotting out the name of a king was a favorite device in the ancient East and is frequently protested against and cursed in the inscription set up in Babylonia. This particular inscription did not fail to call down similar imprecations, which perhaps the Elamite could not read. But he stayed his hand, and we do not even know his name, for he wrote nothing on the vacant space.
It seems probable that the stone, or at any rate its original, if it be a copy, was set up at Sippara; for the text speaks of Êbarra šuati, “this Ebarra,” which was the temple of Shamash at Sippara. At the head of the obverse is a very interesting picture of Ḥammurabi receiving his laws from the seated sun-god Shamash. Some seven hundred lines are devoted to the king's titles and glory; to enumerating the gods he reverenced, and the cities over which he ruled; to invoking blessings on those who preserved [pg 006] his monument and respected his inscription, with the usual curses on those who did the opposite.[7] These belong to the region of history and religion and do not concern us here. We may note, however, that the king expected that anyone injured or oppressed would come to his monument and be able there to read for himself what were the rights of his case.
Later copies
The whole of this inscription is not entirely new matter. The scribes of Ashurbânipal somewhere found a copy, or copies, of this inscription and made it into a series of tablets. Probably their originals were Babylonian tablets, for we know that in Babylonia the Code had been made into a series which bore the name of Nînu ilu ṣîrum, from the opening words of the stele. But, judging from the colophon of the Assyrian series, the scribes knew that the inscription came from a stele bearing the “image” of Ḥammurabi. A number of fragments belonging to such copies by later scribes were already published, by Dr. B. Meissner[8] and Dr. F. E. Peiser.[9] These were further commented upon by Professor Fr. Delitzsch,[10] who actually gave them the name “Code Hammurabi.” Some of these fragments enable us to restore one or two sections of the lost five columns.
These fragments are now easily set in order and will doubtless lead to the discovery of many others, the meaning of which has not yet been recognized. They exhibit some variants of interest, showing that they were not made directly from this particular monument. Even at Susa another fragment was found of a duplicate stele. Hence we may hope to recover the whole text before long.
Bibliography of this Code
The publication of the Code naturally excited great interest among scholars. It appeared in October, 1902, and, [pg 007] during the next month, Dr. H. Winckler issued a German translation of the Code under the title, Die Gesetze Hammurabis Königs von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr. Das Älteste Gesetzbuch der Welt, being Heft 4 of the fourth Jahrgang of Der alte Orient. This marked an advance in some points on Scheil's rendering, but is not entirely satisfactory. The present writer read a paper in October, 1902, before the Cambridge Theological Society, an abridged report of which appeared in the January Journal. He further published a baldly literal translation in February, 1903, entitled, The Oldest Code of Laws in the World.[11] In the Journal des Savants for October and November, 1902, M. Dareste gave a luminous account of the subject-matter of the Code, especially valuable for its comparisons with the other most ancient law-codes. This of course was based on Scheil's renderings. In the Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung for January, 1903, Dr. H. Winckler, reviewing the fourth volume of the Mémoires, gave a useful account of the Code comparing it with some of the previously published fragments.
Mosaic parallels
The comparison with the Mosaic Code was sure to attract notice, especially as Professor F. Delitzsch had called the attention of the public to it, in his lecture entitled Babel und Bibel, even before more of the Code was known than the fragments from Nineveh. Dr. J. Jeremias has published a small book called Moses und Hammurabi, in which he deals with the relations pretty thoroughly. Professor C. F. Kent has also examined them in his article entitled The Recently Discovered Civil Code of Hammurabi, in The Biblical World for March, 1903. Some remarks on the subject are to be found in the New York Independent, December 11, 18, 1902, and January 8, 15, 22, 1903, accompanying a translation. All the above follow Winckler's renderings.
The translation here given makes use of the above works, but must be regarded as independent. It is impracticable to detail and justify the changes made. The renderings can hardly be regarded as final, where actual contracts do not occur to illustrate the Code; but there is very little doubt that we know the tenor of these laws with substantial accuracy.