• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Article on Ten Commandments origin

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
This article, previously published by the Atheist Alliance, was run in our local Rationalist Society newsletter. I thought it might be of interest:


The Code of Hammurabi:
ORIGIN OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
by David L. Kent, AAI Individual Member

With the drive of the Religious Right to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings nationwide, the public should know where those commandments came from, lest it remain in ignorance and vulnerable to religious propaganda. In view of the state-church separation issues at stake, these Ten Commandments should be scrutinized closely.

The Moses on Mount Sinai drama cannot be placed by scholars historically or geographically for a very good reason. It seems to have been drawn directly from the legend of Minos of Crete, who every nine years ascended Mount Dikte to receive from the god of the mountain the laws for his people. Like Moses (Exodus 33:11), Minos was described as god's friend. Moses is supposed to have lived three centuries after Minos.

The Ten Commandments were written five centuries after the time of Moses (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th ed., VII:907-909, XVIII:895-96, XXV:138; HEBREW MYTHS, by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, 1965, p. 138; and EYEWITNESS TO DISCOVERY, by Brian M. Fagan, 1996, p. 189).

The Jahvist priesthood composed the first five of the Ten Commandments to consolidate their political power and reinforce their hierarchy. These were direct orders concerning what to worship and how to worship it. They placed a curse in the mouth of their deity on the innocent offspring of any who disobeyed (Deuteronomy 5:9, Exodus 20:5). The second half of the Ten Commandments was lifted from the Code of Hammurabi.

Both Hammurabi and his code are historical. Any visitor to the Louvre Museum in Paris can view the eight-foot pillar of black diorite, discovered in 1901 at Susa, Iran, by J.V. Scheil, on which is incised "one of the most important documents in the history of the human race" (Webster's BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY) in 44 cuneiform columns. Hammurabi was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, ruling the entire area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and composing the Code in the fortieth year of his reign, approximately 1910 BCE.

The Code has a strikingly modern feel. As in Egypt, women were the equal of men. Forty-four sections provided justice and a minimum wage to workers of all classes. Priests had no privileges and were mentioned only as citizens.

Hammurabi said expressly that he compiled the Code, not a deity (THE BABYLONIAN LAWS, by G.R. Driver and John C. Miles, Vol. 2, 1955; LAWS OF MOSES AND THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, by S.A. Cook, 1903). The Jahvist priesthood omitted these sections, selecting only those that would bolster its patriarchal hierarchy.

A point-by-point comparison of the latter half of the Commandments with the Code shows clearly how crude, vague and ethically inadequate the Jahvist edition is.

MOSES--Thou shalt not kill. HAMMURABI--If a man strikes the daughter of a man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver [#209]. If a surgeon causes a man's death...they shall cut off his fore-hand [#218]. If a man strikes a man in an affray, and if he dies of the striking, he may swear, "Surely I did not strike wittingly," and pay 1/2 maneh of silver [##206,207].

MOSES--Neither shalt thou commit adultery. HAMMURABI--If a married lady is caught lying with another man, if her husband wishes to let his wife live, the king shall let his servant live [#129]. If a man has taken himself off and there is not means for food in his house, his wife may enter another man's house; that woman shall suffer no punishment [#134]. If a woman hates her husband and states, "Thou shalt not have me," her history shall be determined in her district and, if she has kept herself chaste and has no fault, while her husband is given to going about out of doors and so has greatly belittled her, that woman shall suffer no punishment; she may take her dowry and go to her father's house [#142].

MOSES--Neither shalt thou steal. HAMMURABI--If a man has broken into a house, they shall transfix him at the breach he has made [#21]. If the robber is not caught, the man who has been robbed shall formally prove his loss, and the city and the mayor in whose district the robbery has been committed shall replace whatever he has lost for him [#23]. If a man occupying a house has paid its full rent for a year in silver to the owner, who then has ordered him to quit before the full term, the owner forfeits the silver which the occupier has paid [#E]. If a herdsman to whom cattle or sheep have been given to tend, alters the brand and sells them, they shall convict him and he shall replace them ten-fold to their owner [#265].

MOSES--Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor. HAMMURABI--If a man has come forward in a case to bear witness to a claim for corn or money and then has not proved the statement that he has made, he shall be liable for the penalty for that suit [##3,4, with the following copied verbatim from the Code into Deuteronomy 19:15-19: "If a false witness rise up and the judges make diligent inquisition, if the witness be a false witness, then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother."]. If a man has caused a finger to be pointed at a married lady and has then not proved what he has said, they shall flog that man before the judges and shave half his head [#127].

MOSES--Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's. HAMMURABI--If a fire has broken out in a man's house and a man who has gone to extinguish it has coveted an article of the owner of that house, and takes that article, that man shall be cast into that fire [#25].

Moses addresses his commandments to men, not to women, whom the Jahvist priesthood consider equivalent to livestock. In contrast, Hammurabi establishes a wide range of legal rights for women:

If a man has bestowed a field, a plantation, a house, or chattels, on his wife; after he dies her sons shall not bring a claim for it against her; she shall leave her estate to the son she loves [#150]. If a widow sets her face to go out, she shall surrender the settlement which her husband gave her to her sons; she shall take her dowry which she brought from her father's house, and a husband after her heart may marry her [#172]. If the father bestows a dowry on his daughter high priestess, priestess, or epicene, and grants her written authority to give her estate to whom she pleases and concedes her full discretion, after he dies she may give her estate to whom she pleases; her brothers shall not claim it [#179].

Women could become judges, elders and witnesses under the Code. The marriage ceremony included the joining of hands and a declaration by the groom: "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I shall be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." The penalty for rape was death for the man [#130].

Hammurabi summarized his Code in these words: "I, Hammurabi the shepherd, king of kings, have inscribed my precious words on my monument, that the strong may not oppress the weak, and to give justice to the orphan and to the widow.... I have set forth truth and justice throughout the land and prospered the people."

The Jahvist priesthood drew a small part of this age-old code of laws into its "command-ments" to sell its patriarchal propaganda to the people of Israel. As Joseph McCabe put it, "The moral code of the Decalogue is not, as regards human relations, higher than that of primitive peoples, and differs only in clauses, such as Sabbath-keeping, which point to the post-Exilian organization by the priests of the Jahvist religion. At whatever date this crude list of moral prohibitions was first compiled, it shows merely that the Hebrews were one of the last peoples of the ancient world between the Nile and the Persian Gulf to reach the general level of civilization."

That the ethical part of the "Ten Commandments" was never intended to be taken seriously is made clear in Deuteronomy 20:16, where the same god who purportedly commanded, "Thou shalt not kill," proceeds to command his people, under penalty of destruction, to kill everyone in the cities they are promised: "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes." That would include children and animals.

It would be extremely degenerate to accept a code of conduct emanating from such a corrupt source, much less adopt such an insincere ethical system for this country. Our Founding Fathers were careful to exclude religion from government. Their thinking was sound then, and it is sound now.
 
A tiny quibble here...the translation of 'Lo Tirtzakh' as 'Thou shalt not kill' is problematic, since it contradicts other elements of Mosaic law clearly allowing killing for self defense, food, etc.

'Thou shalt not murder' is a much more logical inference, and carries with it the connotation of prohibiting only wrongful killings....
And those killings commanded by the Lord or one of his chosen could never be 'wrongful' could they?
;)
 
Very interesting post Bikewer. I didn't realize how extensive the Hammurabi laws were.

Still, it shows how intelligent and sophisticated we have become over the last 4 millenium ...... NOT

Charlie (thou shalt not make rules and change them when they become inconvenient) Monoxide
 
Bikewer said:

With the drive of the Religious Right .....

A point-by-point comparison of the latter half of the Commandments with the Code shows clearly how crude, vague and ethically inadequate the Jahvist edition is......

That the ethical part of the "Ten Commandments" was never intended to be taken seriously......

It would be extremely degenerate to accept a code of conduct emanating from such a corrupt source, much less adopt such an insincere ethical system for this country......

What a horrible note. People don't get enlightenemnet from confrontation. Whoever was the final editor should apologize for wasting effort on something that those who read it will dismiss out of hand due to the confrontational tone.
 
Others have suggested that it is possible that the Commandments "borrowed" from Hammurabi. But it has not been established that the Commandments were in fact "lifted" from Hammurabi.

It is also subject to question that the priesthood composed the Commandments pertaining to religious duties "to consolidate their political power and reinforce their hierarchy." These Commandments do not necessarily benefit the priests or the hierarchy. In contrast, there are plenty of other "laws" in the Torah that seem to have been written expressly for the benefit of priests, and one could more easily suppose that such directives came from the priests themselves, who attributed their personal demands to the Almighty.
 
I only addressed the tone since I did not want to debate the accuracy of the arguements. It seems however that the skeptically speaking they claim the ten commandments were anti-woman and their evidence is that Hammurabi's code made more provisions for women and that since The Law is ripped off from Hammurabi and doesn't contain that language that it is anti-woman.

Its a sort of semi-circular arguement based on the lack of someting.

You can be against using a courtroom to push religion (which judge moore admitted was the purpose of his ten commandments display) without having to swallow this stuff.
 
crimresearch said:
A tiny quibble here...the translation of 'Lo Tirtzakh' as 'Thou shalt not kill' is problematic, since it contradicts other elements of Mosaic law clearly allowing killing for self defense, food, etc.

'Thou shalt not murder' is a much more logical inference, and carries with it the connotation of prohibiting only wrongful killings....

I'm trying to figure out which wrongful killings are not prohibited...

You'd figure an all powerful god could do better than a stupid tautology.
 
crimresearch said:
A tiny quibble here...the translation of 'Lo Tirtzakh' as 'Thou shalt not kill' is problematic, since it contradicts other elements of Mosaic law clearly allowing killing for self defense, food, etc.

'Thou shalt not murder' is a much more logical inference, and carries with it the connotation of prohibiting only wrongful killings....
And those killings commanded by the Lord or one of his chosen could never be 'wrongful' could they?
;)

I've heard (and thus can't provide any evidence to support it) that the "original text" actually means something like "Thou shall not kill/slaughter indiscriminately" or somesuch. Signifying that killing is perfectly OK, as long as you don't go berzerk and kill without purpose. This makes the problems of "but G*d then tells the jews to perform ethnic cleansing of Caanan" etc. go away. It's simply killing with a purpose.


Mosquito (possibly just blabbering)
 
With the following (possible) exception, I did not find the article compelling in its assertion that half the commandments were lifted from Hammurabi. Other than the tenuous connection that the sort-of-same subjects are addressed, there seems to be little similarity in wording, scope, or intent.

The exception is this bit:

"with the following copied verbatim from the Code into Deuteronomy 19:15-19: "If a false witness rise up and the judges make diligent inquisition, if the witness be a false witness, then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother."

This is from the "bear false witness" section.

Can anyone confirm or disconfirm that the bits in Deuteronomy are verbatim from Hammurabi?
 
pgwenthold said:
I'm trying to figure out which wrongful killings are not prohibited...

You'd figure an all powerful god could do better than a stupid tautology.

If you are trying to say that every single killing...self defense, etc. fits into the definition of 'Lo Tirtzakh' ( i.e. murder, or 'wrongful killing'), make your case.

Both murder and wrongful killings are by definition unlawful. To what legal code are you referring in your accusation of tautology?
 
crimresearch said:
Both murder and wrongful killings are by definition unlawful. To what legal code are you referring in your accusation of tautology?

The one that feels a need to prohibit wrongful killings.

It is, as you say, unlawful by definition. Why do we need a commandment that says "Don't do something that is wrong." The reason it is wrong in the first place is because it is something we shouldn't do. Hence the tautology. Something that is wrong is already something we are not supposed to do.

You have argued for a commandment that says, in effect, "Don't kill when it is wrong to kill."

I call it the "Barney Fife" commandment: "The first rule is, obey all rules." It doesn't tell us anything about what is allowed or not allowed, except to say that stuff that isn't allowed is not allowed.
 
pgwenthold:

I'm not sure I agree.

Take for example the commandment "Thou shalt not steal."

"Steal" connotes unlawful taking.

If, instead, the commandment had been interpreted as "Thou shalt not take without permission," then it would be open to the same criticism being leveled in this thread against "kill" vs. "murder."

If a husband takes a belonging of his wife's when she is not in the house and doesn't know but his intent is to use it for the betterment of the household then replace it, it would still be "taking without permission" but not "stealing."

I think it is relevent and not tautological whether the original meaning made a distinction.

Particularly since there is nothing in the ten commandments implying that they are the only commandments or laws so implying that certain types of killing could be unlawful might well be legitimate.
 
pgwenthold said:
The one that feels a need to prohibit wrongful killings.

It is, as you say, unlawful by definition. Why do we need a commandment that says "Don't do something that is wrong." The reason it is wrong in the first place is because it is something we shouldn't do. Hence the tautology. Something that is wrong is already something we are not supposed to do.

You have argued for a commandment that says, in effect, "Don't kill when it is wrong to kill."

I call it the "Barney Fife" commandment: "The first rule is, obey all rules." It doesn't tell us anything about what is allowed or not allowed, except to say that stuff that isn't allowed is not allowed.


Ahh...OK, I agree.
And how is that different from anything that prohibits prohibited behavior?
 
crimresearch said:
Ahh...OK, I agree.
And how is that different from anything that prohibits prohibited behavior?

It's not. OTOH, when Barney Fife makes a rule that says "Obey all rules," we all think it is funny.

But apologists (and even you fell for it) have no problem making a commandment from an omnipotent god that prohibits stuff that is prohibited, and they do it without laughing.

That's why I said in the original post, I would hope God could come up with something better than a stupid tautology, prohibiting stuff that is, by definition, wrong.

To Garrette:
"Steal" connotes unlawful taking.

Does it? Or does it mean "taking stuff that isn't yours"?

For example, we used to play games at home where stealing wasn't illegal, if you could do it without getting caught (by the victim, who's response was to prevent you from stealing). None of the other players in the game cared if you stole from someone else, unless they could snitch to their benefit. Thus, stealing wasn't illegal unless someone makes it so.

(OK, so it was a perversion of the standard Monopoly rules, but we did things like that). Heck, I seem to recall that we even have a game upstairs called "Lie, Cheat, and Steal"

If stealing can be allowed in situations like this, then it apparently does not inherently mean "unlawful taking."
 
Well, pgwenthold,

I can see I'm in over my head. So while I'm not totally convinced, I can admit that your arguments are stronger than mine and I'm unwilling to put more effort into it.

I concede.

---

On an aside, have you ever played a game called "Diplomacy?"

Wonderful, wonderful game that is best with 7 players and many hours.

In all versions, lying (lie-ing?) is not only encouraged, but essential for victory.

In some versions, physical cheating along the lines you describe in your Monopoly games is also allowed.

I recommend this game to everyone for the following reasons:

1. It's a hell of a lot of fun

2. It gives a very good "feel" for geopolitics and military strategy.

3. It's a great laboratory of human relations, interaction, deception, and response to betrayal.
 
Garrette said:
Well, pgwenthold,

I can see I'm in over my head. So while I'm not totally convinced, I can admit that your arguments are stronger than mine and I'm unwilling to put more effort into it.


And I should note that, even if you don't like the assessment of "stealing" = "taking things that aren't yours," it really doesn't matter. It would just be _another_ tautological commandment, just once again highlighting the folly of the Ten Commandments as a useful moral guideline.

But the Thou Shall Not Kill - errrr - murder dodge is such a blatent example of where apologists twist themselves over backwards to try rationalize the brutal israelite behavior of the OT and even their own biases toward war and the death penalty but don't realize that in doing so, they create an absolutely useless commandment, worthy of a comedy line on the Andy Griffith show.

The other problem is that the "It is really 'thou shalt not murder'" line is usually given with such arrogant smugness, with the "I know more about this than you" attitude, but once you realize the implications, it just shows the lack of actual critical thought that accompanies it.

I put it in the same category as all those great apologetics where christians have to resort to a god who is not omnipotent nor omniscient in order to rationalize some barbaric behavior. They don't think of the consequences of what they are saying.


On an aside, have you ever played a game called "Diplomacy?"


I've heard good things about Diplomacy but never played it.
 
Once more unto the breach...

(Despite my earlier post)

I think I was misunderstanding you earlier. With my new understanding, I agree with your conclusion but not your route to get there.

Conclusion: Using the 10 Commandments as a moral guide is folly. (I've long thought this).

Route: Defenses of the 10 Commandments as a moral guide are tautological in that, particularly with "Thous shalt not kill," they merely say: "Don't do what you've been told not to do by some other, human, entity." {The bolded part is my own addition based on my understanding.}

I can see what you're saying; I just don't see it as tautological.

Instead, I see it as being similar, but not identical, to the Euthrypho argument.

By arguing that "kill" really means "murder," apologists are actually saying that god is deferring to human institutions and is therefore not omnibenevolent or somesuch.

This is all off the top of my head and so could be quite off the mark.

Rip it apart.

Play Diplomacy.
 
Garrette said:
I can see what you're saying; I just don't see it as tautological.

If you are more comfortable calling it something else, then I don't mind. But I think tautology is the best descriptor. Basically, it is saying something that is true by definition.

I think someone the other day called it a "circular" commandment.

The key is that it is basically logically flawed as a commandment, because it doesn't really tell us what we can or cannot do, aside from saying that we can't do what we aren't allowed to do. If we agree on that, we're fine.

I still like calling it the Barney Fife commandment: "The first rule is, obey all rules."
 
I'll buy that.

Barney usually got the bad guy in the end, even if Andy made it happen behind the scenes.
 
So if all prohibitions on prohibited behavior are redundant, what makes the 10 commandments worthy of special notice or comment?
And how is making a distinction between murder, and self defense, 'falling' for the 10 commandments?
 

Back
Top Bottom