HAMMURABI hăm’ ə rä’ bĭ (Akkad. Ḫammurab/pi [the god] [H]ammu is great; by some identified with AMRAPHEL, ַמְרָפֶ֣ל, of Gen 14:1, 9). Name borne by sixth king of first dynasty of Babylon and by kings of Aleppo and Kurda in early 2nd millennium b.c.
I. King of Babylon
A. Political events. Hammurabi was son and successor of Sin-muballit and father of Samsuiluna. The widely accepted date for his reign is 1792-1750 b.c.; though this is disputed as 1728-1686 (Albright) or 1642-1626 b.c. (Goetze). He inherited a small kingdom centered about Babylon itself. According to the date-formulae of documents from his time and his own account of events given in the prologue to his Laws, he captured the cities of Uruk and Isin in his seventh year, destroyed Malgum, warred against Emutbal and attacked Rapiqum. The same sources state that between his eleventh and thirtieth regnal years he was preoccupied mainly with local affairs and the rebuilding of religious shrines, despite an uneasy truce with the neighboring city-states of Assyria and Eshnunna. The lively correspondence from this period found at Mari throws interesting light on the relative powers and is based on information from ambassadors at the court of Babylon. An emissary of Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, wrote him saying, “There is no king who is strong by himself. Ten to fifteen kings follow Hammurabi, the governor of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibalpiel of Eshnunna, a like number Amutpiel of Qatana, and twenty follow Yarimlim of Yamhad.” In his twenty-ninth year Hammurabi won an outstanding victory over a coalition holding the E of the River Tigris and the way was open for the attack, made two years later, against his old rival Rim-Sin, king of Larsa and Emutbal to gain control of the southern cities. The balance of power was now drastically changed.
Assyria was soon subdued and in this thirty-eighth year the Babylonians crushed Eshnunna by inundation due to diverted waterways. The next year his forces marched against the desert peoples to the NW and rendered the great city of Mari, about 250 m. from Babylon, impotent by the destruction of its walls. This was to prove the northernmost limit of Babylonian conquest at this time. The years till his death in his forty-third year of reign were much occupied with resettling his new frontiers. An abundance of administrative letters and contracts reveal something of the strong character of this king engaged in personal control of matters of war, diplomacy and business, yet fond of good food, hunting and fine buildings.
B. Economic conditions. At this time numerous contracts attest the increase in private trading, though the palace (state) played a dominant part in external dealings. The hold over the economy formally exercised by the temple was weakened by the use of manpower in cooperative projects such as harvesting and irrigation, and by royal decree fixing the prices of staple commodities power centered in the person of the king. Access to his presence was freely accorded, and out of the many decisions made there arose a collection of legal judgments commonly called the Laws of Hammurabi.
C. Lawgiver. An eight ft. high diorite stele surmounted with a portrait of the king receiving a scepter and ring, symbols of justice and order, from Shamash, the divine law-giver, was found in 1901 at Susa. It had been taken there in 1160 b.c. by the Elamite Shutruk-nahhunte following a successful raid on Babylon. Fragments of other stelae and tablets bearing copies of the same text show that the monument once stood in the Esagil temple of Marduk in Babylon with copies at other centers. The prologue tells how the king had received a divine call to “make justice to shine forth in the land, to destroy the evil and the wicked, that the strong might not oppress the weak...to give light to the land.” The increasingly diverse elements within the empire required the clear definition of the rights of an individual. Manifold personal indebtedness and a large measure of dependence on slave labor provided both the reason and means of doing this. By stating the wages of agricultural and technical workers and by decreeing release from slavery or debt, the king could largely guide the whole life of the nation. This was done by a periodical decree of “righteousness” (mesharum). In his first full regnal year, as dated by one such decree, Hammurabi made a public pronouncement of the standard of law which would govern the religious and economic life of his peoples. This action has been compared with the so-called “reforms” by the Heb. kings who, by restating allegiance to the Law in the opening year of their rule “did the right (yāšār) in the eyes of the Lord.” Hammurabi’s laws may well date from the beginning of his reign in part, but their final ed. and compilation was undertaken toward the end of his reign when he made a report to his god on his stewardship and exercise of “wisdom.” Two hundred eighty-two paragraphs or jud gments remain, phrased in the form of a summary of the evidence followed by the brief decision. It was decided that “if a son has struck his father they shall cut off his hand” (195). The laws are not comparable to a modern law code, the cases being grouped according to subject, though in only a few cases are they worded as general ordinances having universal application. Because of their specific reference to cases judged by the king, sometimes of an unusual nature (though background detail often is lacking to confirm this) the application of these laws rarely is reflected in the contemporary court cases or legal contracts. The latter were enacted before local judges or magistrates, some of whom sat at the city gate or “ward.” Some of the cases are similar to those recorded by earlier rulers, e.g. Lipit-Ishtar of Isin and Bilalama(?) of Eshnunna. A few bear close resemblance to Heb. laws, though in general the Hammurabi laws do not deal with religious affairs. Punishments included ordeal by immersion in the river, the lex talionis, fines, restitution by labor or in kind and death. Penalties might vary according to the class of the offender, the Babylonians being at this time divided for this purpose into “freeman” (awēlum), “state-dependent” (muškenum) and “slave” (wardum). The laws may be analyzed:
1. Various offenses and crimes (§§ 1-25). These include false witness as do Deuteronomy 5:20; 19:16ff.; a charge of sorcery, which was forbidden as in Deuteronomy 18:10; Exodus 22:18; action to be taken against a corrupt judge (cf. Exod 23:6-9; Lev 19:15; Deut 16:18f.). The death penalty imposed for theft or receipt of stolen property from a temple or palace (§6) contrasts with the allowance of restoration in Exodus 22:1; Leviticus 6:2. The penalty for dereliction (§7) is death or restoration of the stolen property thirty- or tenfold (according to the status of the accused) whereas the Heb. equivalent law requires that restoration be twofold (Exod 22:1-4, 7), if necessary the thief being sold (into slavery?), to provide the means of restitution. Kidnapping (§14) is punishable by death as in the Heb. law (Exod 21:16; Deut 24:7). Death is prescribed also for the theft of fugitive slaves, robbery and looting.
2. Property (§§ 26-99)is covered with special reference to crown-tenants, absconding fief-holders and tenant farmers. Loans of money or seed against an anticipated crop, pledges and distraint played a dominant part in a precarious agricultural existence. However, the man who planted trees was allowed four years for them to bear fruit before repaying capital (§ 60). Hebrew practice was similar, save that any firstfruits in the fourth year had to be dedicated to God (Lev 19:23ff.).
3. Commercial law (§§ 100-126)related to partnerships and agencies, sales and carriage of merchandise including liquor. Cases of deposit, distraint and slavery figure prominently, for Hammurabi legislated for an urban community which subsisted on a large body of slave labor and debtors were more severely treated than in the Heb. pastoral groups (cf. Exod 23:1).
4. Marriage (§§ 127-161)cases concerned the rights of both parties, dowry settlements, bridal gifts, divorce and matrimonial offenses. Adultery with a married woman resulted in the death penalty for both parties (as Deut 22:22), in the case of rape, in death for the man (as Deut 22:25). Both the Babylonian (§ 131) and Heb. (Num 5:13-22) sentenced the adulterous wife to trial by ordeal. A husband captured abroad (§§ 133-135) had his marriage safeguarded as was the intent of the Deuteronomic prohibition of military or merchant service in the first year of married life (Deut 24:5). The common reference to concubinage (§§ 144-147) and protection for the girl against divorce or reduction to slavery, except for offenses against the first wife, throw light on patriarchal practices (Gen 16:2, 4; 21:8ff.). Remarkably the Heb. attitude which allowed a man to divorce his sick wife (Deut 24:1) is harder than the Babylonian (148). Incest is treated with equal severity in both laws.
5. The firstbornhad special rights and portion (as Deut 15:21).
6. Special cases concerning women and priestesses in cloisters (§§ 178-184)whose support was weakened by the increase in state and private ownership of land reveal a situation applicable to N Babylonia only at this time.
7. Adoption (§§ 185-194)included the granting of “sonship” to apprentices and the legal force of oral depositions both to adopt and disown. Violence by an unruly son was met by cutting off the offending limb (cf. Exod 21:15).
8. Assaultand damage to persons and property (§§ 195-208) including pregnant women (21:22f.), a surgeon’s liability in an eye operation, builders of faulty constructions and hire of boats.
9. Agricultural work and offenses (§§ 241-267)includes a case requiring the owner of a goring ox to have been warned before further action can be taken (as in Exod 21:28-32).
10. Rates and wages (§§ 268-277)for seasonal workers, craftsmen, hire of beasts, carts and boats emphasize the divergences between the urban community for which these judgments were given and the conditions in early Israel.
11. An appendix concerning slaves (§§ 278-282),their purchase and sale.
While similar judgments in both the Heb. and Babylonian laws may arise from similar circumstances and a common Near Eastern tradition, they should not be overstressed in the light of the overriding religious purpose and expression in the Heb. legislation.
II. King of Aleppo
According to texts from Alalah (Syria) two kings of Yamhad bore the name Hammurabi, one (Hammurabi I) ruling c. 1760 b.c. being a contemporary of the king of Babylon of the same name. The name also was borne by a king of Kurda and by an official in the Old Babylonian period.
III. Amraphel
This king (Gen 14:1ff.) formerly was identified by some scholars with the name Hammurabi, but this is unlikely in that no form of the name with a terminal -el is known. Much depends on the identification of Shinar (q.v.), assuming this to be a northern site (Sinjar?). Albright equates Amraphel with a king named in the Mari tablets, Amud-pi-el (“Enduring is the word of El”).
Bibliography F. M. Böhl, King Hammurabi of Babylon in the Setting of His Time (1946); G. R. Driver and J. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (1952); D. J. Wiseman, “The Laws of Hammurabi Again,” JSS VII (1962), 161-172; C. J. Gadd, Hammurabi and the End of His Dynasty (1965).