What is the Code of Hammurabi?

Bottom line is that these codes pretty much confirm that old testament, Bible and Koran were all written by power hungry men who wanted to set up laws and a system to control the masses, but they added the whole "God" concept to make it sound more legit.

It's kind of funny how 1700BC tablets from this code are well preserved in some museums, but yet the so called "Ten Commandments" are nowhere to be found.

"130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless."

Compare the above quote with Deut 22:13-29

Hammurabi was so unfair. He just wanted people to die. He was probably scared that the people would go against him.

@ddljohn - I wonder if some of these laws weren’t meant to scare people into behaving more than being an actual method of discernment or punishment.

I mean, a person is going to think twice about stealing if he is going to get thrown in a river for it, and a person is going to think really hard before falsely accusing someone if he has a chance at getting killed over it.

I think of it sort of like when King Solomon in the Bible offered to cut a baby in half so that two women who claimed to be the child’s mother could have a piece of the baby. The real mother immediately stepped forward to give the child to the other woman, while the false mother was satisfied with King Solomon's harsh answer.

Of course, King Solomon had no intention of butchering the child. He was deciphering who the real mother was.

I don't know for a fact that this is the case with the hammurabis code, but I wonder if that isn't the case. Otherwise, I hope those folks knew how to swim!

It is truly an amazing learning experience to take a look back into the past and see how people used to live. Could you imagine going for literally your whole life more or less governing yourself, and then suddenly this King Hammurabi decides that you need to have a code to live by?

I can imagine that with some this went over very well – I mean they were at least a little bit protected. But I would also think that there were a whole host of folks who completely rebelled because they had been doing fine to begin with.

I'm doing an assignment for class and the assignment is finding out about life in Babylon from the Code of Hammurabi.

I read the code for this assignment and learned a lot about what Babylonians did for a living, some of their foods and even about their currency. I found out that there was a lot of theft and robbery there, many of the crimes mentioned in the Code are about these. There was also slavery and men had to join the army if there was a war.

The Babylonians mainly farmed for a living. They grew corn and sesame and usually paid their fees and debts with these grains. There were also many skilled workers, artisans and masons. The Code of Hammurabi has set wages for each of these professions. Workers and goods were paid with "ka" and "gerah," their currencies.

I also found out that Babylonians believed that the number 13 was unlucky as well! It's obvious because there is no 13th law in the Code.

I really liked this assignment, I didn't know that it was possible to learn so much about people from their laws! I learned a lot about the Babylonians from the Code of Hammurabi.

@ddljohn – I think that we are undoubtedly going to be considered just as backward to future generations as we think some antiquated cultures were. However, we are all inhibited with what we have been taught and that shades all of the laws and customs of our culture.

I’m a little suspicious that future generations will look back on us as frivolous and wasteful. We pay athletes and actors millions for their services, but we can’t manage the money which keeps our country afloat.

We are all working a gazillion hours so that we can have more than our parents did; but really, what was wrong with what many of our parents had?

The Hammurabi laws certainly does look severe to us, but it probably had to be. And, of course, I don’t agree with the way all of those decrees went down, but I certainly don’t agree with many outcomes in our judicial system today either. If anything, we are too lenient.

We can't expect the Code of Hammurabi to exactly match our present worldview, morals and laws. Of course there are going to be many differences.

I think more than the actual laws in the Code, the system of law which Hammurabi established is truly amazing and really the first until that time. The major legal concepts in the Code are also very similar to our legal system today. So I agree with the article that it is one of the basis for common law.

For example, Hammurabi's code establishes that legal cases be decided by a judge, who listens to the parties, their claims and views any evidence. There is a lot of responsibility placed on the judge. If the judge were to make a mistake in the ruling because he did not carry out his duties right, he would be fined and could not judge cases any more.

I think this is really impressive considering that this is an ancient code and was established in a different kind of society. I would have expected a more authoritarian type of legal system where the decision maker could not even be questioned for his decision. But the Code proved me wrong because even the judge is open to questioning and punishment, showing us that Hammurabi did not consider anyone to be above law. This is also very important for our modern legal system, so I'm really impressed with the Code of Hammurabi and how it was ahead of its time in many ways.

Reading the code of Hammurabi, not only do some of the punishments seem too severe, but some of the laws seem so illogical for today.

The funniest law, which I'm sure was not at all funny at that time, is a law which tests the innocence of a person by making him jump into the river. So if someone accuses someone else of a crime, the accused is required to jump in the river. If he sinks in the river, then he is considered guilty and the accuser is rewarded with the accused man's house. If he doesn't sink in the river, then he is considered not guilty and as a reward, he is given the accuser's house. And the man who accused him is punished with death!

I realize that they are trying to make a distinction between guilty and not guilty, but what a way to prove it! In Babylon, there must have been a belief about rivers and water judging innocence well. But reading the law with today's thinking, it basically means that those who can swim are considered innocent and those who can't swim, guilty!

I wonder if in the very far future, would people look back at our laws and find it awkward as well?