by
Damien F. Mackey
“The Halaf culture as it is traditionally understood appears to have
evolved over a very large area, which comprises the Euphrates valley
(until recently considered to be a peripheral area), the Balikh valley
and the Khabur in Syria but also northern Iraq, southern Turkey
and the Upper Tigris area”.
Roger Matthews
An apparent lack of archaeology for the Akkadians had prompted recently deceased professor Gunnar Heinsohn, of the University of Bremen, to the desperate measure of identifying the Akkadians with the Assyrians, two clearly distinct and chronologically separated peoples.
In controversial articles of Heinsohn’s such as, “Did the Sumerians and the Akkadians Ever Exist?”
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/.cdrom/journals/aeon/vol0102/017sumer.htm
Heinsohn argued that Ur and Sumeria in general had been wrongly located 2000 years too early, based on hopeful attempts to align the biblical account of Abraham with Mesopotamian history.
Emmet Sweeney, a fan of some of professor Heinsohn’s radical revision, explained the situation in “Gunnar Heinsohn’s Mesopotamian Historiography” (C and C Workshop, 1987, no. 2, p. 20):
The peoples thus duplicated in the second millennia were the Akkadians, the Amorites, the Old Babylonians, and of course the Sumerians themselves. The weight of Heinsohn's argument therefore rests on the following identifications. The Sumerians themselves, who should date between c.1500 and c.500 BC are the alter-egos of the Chaldaeans: the Akkadians are simply the alter-egos of the Assyrians: the Amorites are Persians; and the Old Babylonians are Persians in Babylon. The detailed evidence presented by Heinsohn for each of these identifications is impressive, and we shall deal with each separately. ….
The real problem, however, was not with Abraham.
The problem was the failure to realise, what Dr. John Osgood had appreciated, that so-called Stone Age cultures overlapped with Bronze Age ones, enabling Dr. Osgood to recognise ‘Ubaid culture, conventionally dated c. 6500-3800 BC, as dovetailing with Abram (Abraham) and the Chaldeans in c. 2000 BC (round date).
Likewise I, following Osgood’s pattern, have identified the so-called Stone Age Halaf culture, conventionally dated c. 6100-5100 BC, as Akkadian – also dovetailing with Abram and the Chaldeans.
It is my view that, regarding the Akkadian empire, one needs to look substantially towards Syria and the Mosul region, rather than to “Lower Mesopotamia”.
And that one needs to fuse the Halaf culture with the Akkadian one.
The potentate Nimrod, one might now expect, had begun his empire building, not in Sumer, but in the NE Syrian region, and had then moved on to northern Assyria.
Thus Genesis 10:10-11: “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”.
And these are precisely the sorts of regions where we find that the spectacular Halaf culture arose and chiefly developed: NE Syria and the Mosul region of Assyria.
Understandably once again, in a conventional context, with the Halaf cultural phase dated to c. 6100-5100 BC, there can be no question of meeting these dates with the Akkadian empire of the late C3rd millennium BC. That is where Dr. Osgood’s
A Better Model for the Stone Age
http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age
becomes so vital, with its revising of Halaf down to the Late Chalcolithic period in Palestine, to the time of Abram (Abraham):
1. In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.5:25
Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallel arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.
This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure 6.
This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)
[End of quote]
Dr. John Osgood has written further of Halaf in:
A Better Model for the Stone Age Part 2
http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2
but he regards the Halaf people as the biblical “Aramites” [Aramaeans].
Since the Aramaeans, though, tended to be a wandering nomadic people (Deuteronomy 26:5), I would not expect their existence to be reflected in a culture as sophisticated as Halaf. Though they themselves may have absorbed some of it.
My preference, therefore, is for Halaf to represent the Akkadians.
This is how Dr. Osgood sees it (though I would not accept all of his geography here):
Now if we date Babel to approximately 2,200 B.C. (as reasoned by implication from Noah's Flood 3) and if Abraham came from Mesopotamia (the region of Aram) approximately 1875 B.C., then we would expect that there is archaeological evidence that a people who can fit the description generally of the Aramites should be found well established in this area .... What in fact do we find? Taking the former supposition of the Jemdat Nasr culture being identified with the biblical story of Genesis 14 and the Elamite Chedarloamer,4 we would expect to find some evidence in Aram or northern Mesopotamia of Jemdat Nasr influence, but this would only be the latest of cultural influences in this region superseding and dominant on other cultures.
The dominant culture that had been in this area prior to the Jemdat Nasr period was a culture that is known to the archaeologist as the Halaf culture, named after Tell Halaf where it was first identified. One of the best summaries of our present knowledge of the Halafian culture is found in the publication, 'The Hilly Flanks'5. It seems clear from the present state of knowledge that the Halaf culture was a fairly extensive culture, but it was mostly dominant in the area that we recognise as Aram Naharaim.
It is found in the following regions. First, its main base in earliest distribution seems to have been the Mosul region. From there it later spread to the Sinjar region to the west, further westward in the Khabur head-waters, further west again to the Balikh River system, and then into the middle Euphrates valley. It also spread a little north of these areas. It influenced areas west of the Middle Euphrates valley and a few sites east of the Tigris River, but as a general statement, in its fully spread condition, the Halaf culture dominated Aram Naharaim ….
The site of Arpachiyah just west of Nineveh across the Tigris River appears to have been the longest occupied site and perhaps the original settlement of the Halaf people. This and Tepe Gawra were important early Halaf towns.
The settlement of the Halaf people at these cities continued for some considerable time, finally to be replaced by the Al Ubaid people from southern Mesopotamia. When Mallowan excavated the site of Tell Arpachiyah, he found that the top five levels belonged to the Al Ubaid period. The fifth level down had some admixture of Halaf material within it. He says:
‘The more spacious rooms of T.T.5 indicate that it is the work of Tell Halaf builders; that the two stocks did not live together in harmony is shown by the complete change of material in T.T.l-4, where all traces of the older elements had vanished. Nor did any of the burials suggest an overlap between graves of the A 'Ubaid and Tell Halaf period; on the contrary, there was evidence that in the Al 'Ubaid cemetery grave- diggers of the Al 'Ubaid period had deliberately destroyed Tell Halaf house remains.’6
He further comments the following:
‘It is more than probable that the Tell Halaf peoples abandoned the site on the arrival of the newcomers from Babylonia; and with the disappearance of the old element prosperity the site rapidly declined; for, although the newcomers were apparently strong enough to eject the older inhabitants, yet they appear to have been a poor community, already degenerate; their houses were poorly built and meanly planned, their streets no longer cobbled as in the Tell Halaf period and the general appearance of their settlement dirty and poverty stricken in comparison with the cleaner buildings of the healthier northern peoples who were their predecessors.’7
He further says:
‘The invaders had evidently made a wholesale destruction of all standing buildings converted some of them into a cemetery.’8
It is clear from the discussion of Patty Jo Watson9 that the later periods of the Halaf people were found in the other regions, particularly in a westward direction across the whole area of Aram Naharaim, namely the Sinjar region, the Khabur head-waters, the Balikh River system and the middle Euphrates. While the site of Arpachiyah had been destroyed by the Al Ubaid people and the former inhabitants either dispersed or destroyed, it seems clear that the Al Ubaid culture had not been so devastating upon other areas where the Halaf people were but had been assimilated in some way into their culture even though the Al Ubaid culture became dominant later. We find this particularly suggested by Mallowan while discussing findings at Tell Mefesh in the Balikh region (Balih).
He says:
‘The pottery discovered in the house was particularly interesting, although unmistakably of the Al Ubaid period, it revealed certain characteristics of the T. Halaf phase of culture suggesting that the Al Ubaid period occupants at Mefesh were, at all events in their ceramic, considerably influenced by their predecessors.’10
He goes on in speaking of the ceramics by saying:
‘But I believe on grounds of the style of painting and the fabric that this is a hybrid ware, and that it may indicate a fusion on the Balih of the peoples representing the intrusive Al 'Ubaid culture with those of the older T. Halaf stock. Elsewhere, the evidence generally indicates that with the intrusion of the Al Ubaid peoples, the ceramic of T. Halaf rapidly disappeared but at Tepe Gawra Dr E.A. Speiser indicates that he has found evidence of a pottery representing a fusion of the two cultures and it is possible that when this detailed evidence is finally published, it may tally with that obtained at T. Mefesh.’11(emphasis ours)
So it seems that the culture of Upper Mesopotamia, previously Halaf, became affected by the Al Ubaid culture from the south resulting in a continuous but changed culture, with no doubt an admixture of the population in some way and in some proportion.
I will later attempt to show that the Al Ubaid culture is deeply associated with the name of the Chaldeans, and that the Halaf people were subjected to a northern migration and conquest as evidenced by the presence of southern names (from Southern Mesopotamia) in the north. Such an example may be found at the site of Harran, which represents a southern name and a religion that essentially had its roots in the south, but was in fact a city in the north. This point becomes greafly significant when we come to the migration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees in the south up to the city of Harran and finally to Canaan. The way had already been prepared by migration of Chaldean peoples who apparently had attacked the major stronghold of the Halaf peoples in the north (which here I am equating with the Aramites), but finally to dominate them in the Aram Naharaim area culturally at least for some time to come.
There is now no question that the early Halaf people in the north were contemporary with the early Al Ubaid people in the south, here equated with a contemporaneity of the Aramites with the Chaldeans.
Joan Oates discusses this fact:
‘It is quite clear that in the Hamrin at this time there were potters working in both the Halaf and Ubaid traditions, perhaps even side by side in the same villages. Certainly, the contemporaneity of these two very distinctive ceramic styles cannot be in doubt. Such contemporaneity has always seemed a possible explanation of certain chronological anomalies (Oates 1968 p. 1973, p.176) and is indeed the only explanation that makes sense of the late Halaf 'intrusion' at Choga Mami, where the Samarran and early Ubaid materials are very closely related. The modern situation may perhaps provide a relevant parallel in that villages of Arabs, Kurds, Lurs and Turcomans exist side by side, their inhabitants often distinguishable by their dress and other cultural appurtenances. In the Hamrin we have the first unequivocal evidence of such a situation in near Eastern pre-history, where previously we had assumed a 'chest-of-drawers' sequence of cultures.’12
There is a need, of course, to show that there was a general continuity of the culture from the days of Halaf in the majority of Aram Naharaim through to at least the days of Jemdat Nasr.
[End of quote]
Now that we have our chronology and geography in proper place, hopefully, we can expect to find a convergence between the high quality Halafian and Akkadian cultures.
Art, for example:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Akkadian_Empire#Culture
A finely executed bas relief representing Naram-Sin, and bearing a striking resemblance to early Egyptian art in many of its features, has been found at Diarbekr, in modern Turkey. Babylonian art, however, had already attained a high degree of excellence; two cylinder seals of the time of Sargon I are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutter's art ever discovered.
And in an article, “Samarra culture, Tell Halaf and Tell Ubaid”, we read:
https://aratta.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/figuring-out-identity-the-body-and-identity-in-the-ubaid/
In the period 6500–5500 B.C., a farming society emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria which shared a common culture and produced pottery that is among the finest ever made in the Near East. This culture is known as Halaf, after the site of Tell Halaf in northeastern Syria where it was first identified.
The Halaf culture is a prehistoric period which lasted between about 6100 and 5500 BC. The period is a continuous development out of the earlier Pottery Neolithic and is located primarily in the Euphrates valley in south-eastern Turkey, the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria, and the Upper Tigris area in Iraq, although Halaf-influenced material is found throughout Greater Mesopotamia.
The term «Proto-Halaf period» refers to the gradual emergence of the Halaf culture. It reformulates the «Halafcultural package» as this has been traditionally understood, and it shows that the Halaf emerged rapidly, but gradually, at the end of 7000 BC.
Dr. Matthews’ “… problems [above] of fitting material cultural assemblages, especially pottery, into historical sequences …”, are, I think, solved by the following ‘assemblages’:
The term refers to a distinct ceramic assemblage characterised by the introduction of painted Fine Ware within the later Pre-Halafceramic assemblage.
Although these new wares represent changes in ceramic technology and production, other cultural aspects continue without abrupt change.
The recent discoveries at various Late Neolithic sites in Syrian and elsewhere that have been reviews here are really changing the old, traditional schemes, which often presupposed abrupt transitions from one culture-historical entity to another. At present, there is growing evidence for considerable continuity during 7000-6000 BC.
At the northern Syrian sites, where the Proto-Halaf stage was first defined, there is no perceptible break and at several sites (Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula) the Proto-Halaf ceramic assemblage appears to be closely linked to the preceding late Pre-Halaf.
The key evidence for the Proto-Halaf period is the appearance of new ceramic categories that did not existed before, manufactured according to high technological standards and complexly decorated.
The similarities of these new painted wares from one Proto-Halaf site to another points to strong relationships between different communities. On the other hand, the evidence of local variety in ceramic production would indicate a certain level of independence of local groups.
….
The Halaf culture as it is traditionally understood appears to have evolved over a very large area, which comprises the Euphrates valley (until recently considered to be a peripheral area), the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria but also northern Iraq, southern Turkey and the Upper Tigris area.
The Halaf potters used different sources of clay from their neighbors and achieved outstanding elaboration and elegance of design with their superior quality ware. Some of the most beautifully painted polychrome ceramics were produced toward the end of the Halaf period. This distinctive pottery has been found from southeastern Turkey to Iran, but may have its origins in the region of the River Khabur (modern Syria).
How and why it spread so widely is a matter of continuing debate, although analysis of the clay indicates the existence of production centers and regional copying. It is possible that such high-quality pottery was exchanged as a prestige item between local elites.
“From that land [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”.
The most important site for the Halaf tradition was the site of Tell Arpachiyah located about 4 miles from Nineveh, now located in the suburbs of Mosul, Iraq. The site was occupied in the Halaf and Ubaid periods.
It appears to have been heavily involved in the manufacture of pottery. The pottery recovered there formed the basis of the internal chronology of the Halaf period. The Halaf culture was eventually absorbed into the so-called Ubaid culture, with changes in pottery and building styles.
Early in the chalcolithic period the potters of Arpachiyah in the Khabur Valley carried on the Tell Halaf tradition with a technical ability and with a sense of artistry far superior to that attained by the earlier masters; their polychrome designs, executed in rous paint, show a richness of invention and a painstaking skill in draughtsmanship which is unrivaled in the ancient world.
The best known, most characteristic pottery of Tell Halaf, called Halaf ware, produced by specialist potters, has been found in other parts of northern Mesopotamia, such as at Nineveh and Tepe Gawra, Chagar Bazar and at many sites in Anatolia (Turkey) suggesting that it was widely used in the region.
Arpachiyah and Tepe Gawra have produced typical Eastern Halaf ware while a rather different Western Halaf version is known from such Syrian sites as Carchemish and Halaf itself.
Hassuna or Tell Hassuna is an ancient Mesopotamian site situated in what was to become ancient Assyria, and is now in the Ninawa Governorate of Iraq west of the Tigris river, south of Mosul and about 35 km southwest of the ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh.
[End of quote]
Whilst the Akkadian kings were remembered and admired down through the centuries: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190903015.001.0001/oso-9780190903015
The Akkadian kings (ca. 2334–2154 BCE) [sic] created the first territorial state in the ancient Near East and were remembered as model kings for more than two millennia thereafter. Exemplars of Kingship: Art, Tradition, and the Legacy of the Akkadians evaluates how later rulers engaged with Akkadian visual models and memories of Akkadian kingship in their own images ….
the situation appears to have been entirely different with the Ur III kings:
“Remarkable is the lack of interest in this period by later Mesopotamians
when compared to how long they remembered Akkad's kings
were remembered. In the first centuries of the second millennium,
Ur III rulers were known primarily through the school curriculum”.
Marc Van de Mieroop
And this, despite the fact of Ur III’s incredible abundance of documentation.
Previously, I wrote on this:
Ur III presents historians with the conundrum of a super-abundance of documentary materials, on the one hand, coupled with a seeming total disinterest in the dynasty by later Mesopotamians, on the other. Marc Van de Mieroop writes of both the massive amount of documentation from the period and the strange disinterest in Ur III by the later generations (A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 72):
Virtually no period of ancient Near Eastern history presents the historian with such an abundance and variety of documentation. Indeed, even in all of the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, there are few periods where a similar profusion of textual material is found. ….
Owing to the parlous state of the conventional archaeology and chronology, one has to dig very deeply to ‘lay spade’ on the true era of King Solomon of Israel.
Quite useless have proven to be the shallow efforts of contemporary archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues. These, scratching around in an impoverished phase of the Iron Age in hopeful pursuit of - or is that hopeful good riddance to? - evidence for kings David and Solomon, and finding absolutely nothing of relevance, then boldly proclaim themselves to have destroyed the likes of Solomon.
We have already learned about Berlin chronologist Eduard Meyer’s most unfortunate off-setting of Egyptian history in relation to the biblical record - his artificial Sothic theory - and how it has served to push King Solomon’s Egyptian contemporaries, the Eighteenth Dynasty’s Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, into the C15th BC, about 500 years before Solomon.
And yet another chronologist - what is it about them? - Dominican Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent, of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, has been instrumental in throwing right out of kilter the Palestinian archaeology, so that, for instance, the destruction of Jericho is now dated about a millennium before the time of Joshua (when the destruction actually occurred).
Quite a disaster!
In 1922 Fr. Vincent, a pottery-chronologist to be specific, worked out this new arrangement in partnership with his very good friend W. F. Albright – sadly, because Albright was one who was at least capable of, from time to time, arriving at brilliant conclusions that burst out of the suffocating straightjacket of conventional thinking.
Another era needing to be tied to David and Solomon is, as we have found, c. 1800 BC (conventional dating) Syro-Mesopotamia. This is the era of King Hammurabi of Babylon and Zimri-Lim of Mari, amongst many others (some biblical identifiable to the Davidic/Solomonic era). Most confusingly, the Solomonic era recurs again in the conventional system in c. C15th BC Syro-Mitanni.
At least this synchronises with the C15th BC (mis-)placement of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty.
Now I, just to ‘complicate’ matters even further, am going to suggest that yet another era, Sumerian c. 2100 BC, must also be merged with Hammurabi and the golden age of Solomon.
Since what follows on this score is brand new material, it will be presented only as a non-detailed working hypothesis at this early stage.
UR NAMMU MAY BE HAMMURABI
Ur Nammu (c. 2100 BC, conventional dating), according to the usual explanation, reigned about three centuries before the Hammurabi with whom he shares some strong similarities:
https://www.facebook.com/crazymesopotamians/posts/2467692739943585/
“300 years before Hammurabi, King Ur-Nammu founded the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, and laid the foundation of the Ziggurat dedicating it to the revered Moon God; Nanna.
Ur-Nammu is credited to have established the first legal code in history. In it, he put laws, rules, and guidelines that defined the rights of the individual, the consequences of disobedience, and forms of punishments in violation of the laws; with two main currencies for exchange, the life of the individual and/or their money.
It is worth noting that the similarities between Ur-Nammu's Code and Hammurabi Code are many, including the depiction of the king and the sitting god on the throne with a scepter in one hand and a ring and a rod in the other. …”.
[End of quote]
Regarding the depiction, now of Ur Nammu, now of Hammurabi, I actually find these to be so alike that I have begun to wonder if Ur Nammu was in fact Hammurabi.
With Hammurabi now moved down to the time of King Solomon, then one might expect a similar necessary downward shifting of Ur Nammu.
Given that the - albeit most significant - Ur III dynasty was hardly recognised by the later Mesopotamians (see below) had led me to the conclusion that the dynasty was in need of an alter ego dynasty. Ur III presents historians with the conundrum of a super-abundance of documentary materials, on the one hand, coupled with a seeming total disinterest in the dynasty by later Mesopotamians, on the other.
Marc Van de Mieroop writes of both the massive amount of documentation from the period and the strange disinterest in Ur III by the later generations (A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 72), as quoted above.
Obviously this cannot be right.
We are talking here about a dynasty that presumably was responsible for the construction of the magnificent ziggurat at Ur (though this may need to be seriously checked).
Kings of this sort of grandeur are not going to be virtually forgotten by later generations. The situation demands that Ur III be merged with another dynasty. I have been trying to find that partnership match in the Akkadian dynasty. However, I now think that I should have been looking much further down the historical track, to the First Dynasty of Babylon, Hammurabi’s dynasty.
Ur Nammu to be merged with Hammurabi.
Since I tentatively concluded this, I have come to light with King Solomon as Gudea:
Prince of Lagash
(13) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
With Ur Nammu dated to c. 2100 BC, then his famous laws could rightly be considered to have preceded those of Moses by about half a millennium. However, if Ur Nammu is lowered on the time scale to fold into Hammurabi, then it would be more likely that the Torah of Moses, filtered through, say, a King David, had influenced Ur Nammu.
Whilst Ur Nammu’s laws are considered to be less harsh than Hammurabi’s, this could be simply due to alterations over time, or different uses in different locales, e.g. Ur and Babylon:
https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/a-comparison-of-hammurabis-law-code-and-laws-of-
“Many people may not know it, but they have heard part of Hammurabi’s Law Code before. It is where the fabled “eye-for-an-eye” statement came from. However, this brutal way of enforcing laws was not always the case in ancient Mesopotamia, where Hammurabi ruled. The Laws of Ur-Nammu are much milder and project a greater sense of tolerance in an earlier time. The changing Mesopotamian society dictated this change to a harsher, more defined law that Hammurabi ruled from. It was the urge to solidify his power in Mesopotamia that led Hammurabi to create his Law Code.
It must first be noted that the Laws of Ur-Nammu were written some time around 2100 B.C., around three hundred years before Hammurabi’s Code. Because of this, The Laws of Ur-Nammu are much less defined in translation as well as more incomplete in their discovery. However, it is apparent from the text that these laws were concerned with establishing Mesopotamia as a fair society where equality is inherent. In the prologue before the laws, it is stated that “the orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” This set forth that no citizen answered to another, or even that each citizen answered to each other, no matter their wealth, strength, or perceived power. …”.
Marc Madrigal has discerned a clear distinction between the Torah of Moses and the Mesopotamian codes (“The Mosaic Law in light of ancient Near Eastern law codes”): http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/3114/The_Mosaic_Law_in_Light_of_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Law_Codes
There are many skeptics today that argue that the laws contained in the Old Testament are written on the basis of earlier Sumerian and Babylonian law codes.
The purpose of such theses is to question the Divine inspiration of Scripture and to demonstrate that the underlying principles in these texts are merely human, and dare I say, imitative in nature.
For someone who does not have a grasp on the subject, these theses can be quite persuasive at first sight. To give a popular example; it is possible to find the maxim "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand" (Exodus 21:23, ESV) in the Code of Hammurabi which dates to a period at least 400 years prior [sic]: “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out” (Article 196) or "If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out." (Article 200).
What’s more, these similarities are not limited to the laws of Hammurabi only. For example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which is at least 300 years older and thought to be by some the oldest Law code, states: “The man who committed the murder will be killed.” (Article 1) Compare this to the Mosaic Law which tells us that "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” (Ex. 21:12, ESV). Such similarities often lead to a very simplistic preliminary judgment that the Old Testament has perhaps copied these laws. Similarities may indeed exist, but similarity is not synonymous with causality. Moreover, similarities in wording and expression should be fairly normal for these laws, considering they all proceed from a common age and geography. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that similar laws point to humanity’s shared concern for justice more than to a mere causality.
To me, what is truly fascinating is the astonishing picture one is left with upon cross-examining the underlying principles of these law codes. I would go so far as to say that the laws of Moses show great differences with the spirit of Mesopotamian laws codes.
In fact so much so, that I honestly believe that many do not realize the revolutionary character of the Mosaic laws for its day and age. In the following paragraphs I will be contrasting the differences between the Mesopotamian Codes and the Mosaic Law under four main headings, with special attention given to the Code of Ur-Nammu:
1) DIVINE SOURCE VS HUMAN SOURCE
The Introduction to the Code of Ur-Nammu reads as follows: “After An and Enlil had turned over the Kingship of Ur to Nanna, at that time did Ur-Nammu, son born of Ninsun, for his beloved mother who bore him, in accordance with his principles of equity and truth... Then did Ur-Nammu the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance with the true word of Utu, establish equity in the land; he banished malediction, violence and strife, and set the monthly Temple expenses at 90 gur of barley, 30 sheep, and 30 sila of butter.”
From this statement, it is understood that this law code emerged at the initiative of King Ur-Nammu. The reason for the writing of this law is not necessarily a particular god but the king's own will. Although the king emphasizes that some deities may have provided spiritual support and direction to him, this is quite different from the claim of divine origin made in the Mosaic Law. Contrast this with the introduction and direct voice of God found in Exodus 20:1-2, “And God spoke all these words, saying “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (ESV)
It is evident that Ur-Nammu and other similar ancient laws were recorded at the initiative of the kings themselves. Whereas the Old Testament text clearly states that the laws came directly from God. In this context, the Old Testament is making a revolutionary claim, a claim of divine legal authority that had not been heard of until that day.
2) THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY AND THE REASONS FOR PUNISHMENT
In the Mesopotamian understanding of justice, the aim of the law is to bring order to society. But it is quite difficult to say that this method is equitable to today's understanding of equality under the law. For example, in the case of Hammurabi’s Code, those who have a higher social class undergo lighter forms of punishment compared to those who commit the same crime but belong to a lower class. Compare the three levels of class-based-punishment found in articles 202, 203, and 204 of the Code of Hammurabi:
- Article 202: If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.
- Article 203: If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.
- Article 204: If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.
The Mosaic law is quite different in this regard, because punishment depends on the nature of the crime rather than the social class. One of the most important reasons for this is that the law of Moses is not based on class sensibilities. Rather, it is based on the sanctity of each individual life created in “the image of God.” Its concept of law is anchored in the idea of “God’s holiness" rather than the protection of the socially elite: "You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” (Leviticus 20:26, ESV)
3) A DIFFERENCE IN FOCUS WHEN IT COMES TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND MONETARY COMPENSATION
Perhaps one of the most striking differences between the Old Mesopotamian codes and the Mosaic Law is the nature of punishments for crimes committed against human dignity.
In the most general sense (though there are some exceptions), in the laws of Ancient Mesopotamia crimes committed against human dignity are punished with fines, while crimes against property are punished with death. In the Mosaic Law we observe an opposite approach. For while sins against human dignity are punishable by death, property crimes are converted into fines. The following examples make this difference quite obvious:
- Ur-Nammu, Article 2: “If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.”
- Mosaic Code, Exodus 22:1: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” (ESV)
- Ur-Nammu, Article 3: “If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.”
- Mosaic Code, Exodus 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (ESV)
- Ur-Nammu, Article 28: “If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.”
- Mosaic Code: Deuteronomy 19:18-19: “The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” (ESV)
4) GREAT DIFFERENCES IN PUNISHMENTS GIVEN TO WOMEN
The position of women in ancient law codes is of course far from our 21st century sensibilities. However, when we compare these laws with the Mosaic code, we do find that the Mosaic code draws a more just and equitable line.
For example, in the Ur-Nammu code, a woman committing adultery is subjected to capital punishment while the man is set free. In contrast, in the Mosaic Law both men and women convicted of adultery are subject to capital punishment. In the Ur-Nammu code the penalty given to a man who abuses a virgin is 5 shekels of silver. In the Mosaic Code the punishment is 10 times harsher, 50 shekels. Additionally, it was expected that the abusing man marry the virgin and lose all his rights for divorce. This is, in case the virgin’s father were to accept the arrangement. If the virgin’s father refused, she could continue to live under her father’s protection.
The culprit was expected to pay the dowry price regardless. This last measure may seem rather strange and cruel to our modern ears, but what it meant to achieve was to shame the perpetrator and insure the material support of the woman for the rest of her lifetime. Here we can take a glance at such laws:
- Ur-Nammu, Article 7: “If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
- Mosaic Code, Leviticus 20:10: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (ESV)
- Ur-Nammu, Article 8: “If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.”
- Mosaic Code, Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (ESV)
- Mosaic Code, Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (ESV)
In conclusion, we observe many differences between the Mosaic law and Mesopotamian codes. While the Mosaic code emphasizes that laws come directly from the Deity, the texts of other civilizations emphasize that the laws are based on the initiative of a ruler. While the Mosaic code is based on the holiness of God and the sanctity and of human life, the laws of Mesopotamia are based on preserving or protecting a particular social class or elite. While the Mosaic code applies the death penalty to crimes against human dignity, Mesopotamian laws implement this punishment to crimes mostly against property. While the laws of Mesopotamia draw a highly prejudiced line against women, the Mosaic code proves to be more equidistant. In short, the Mosaic code is quite revolutionary for the times! So, where did this understanding of law come from? I’m fully aware that this study in of itself doesn’t prove beyond a doubt the Revelation of Scripture. However, it is plain to see that claims that the Mosaic code is somehow an imitation or inspired from Mesopotamian texts are rather simplistic and naive. ….
Comments