180 EEV. ANDEEW CRAIG ROBINSON, ON THE BEARING OP 



I should like to add to what is here said regarding Hammurabi, 

 that his name appears somewhat later as Ammurapi — which brings 

 it very near to Amraphel ; and, further, I would say that Hammurabi 

 describes himself as lord of the Amorites ; just as Kudur Mabuq, the 

 father of Kudur Lagnal, or Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, whom 

 Hammurabi overcame, had previously, as we find, called himself king 

 of the Amorites. 



It has been the fashion of late to style the laws of Moses less 

 original or more cruel than the laws of Hammurabi, with an 

 insinuation that they were less just ; but you will find that, 

 whereas Moses' law throughout says, " An eye for an eye and a 

 tooth for a tooth," in the Babylonian law it was, "An eye for an 

 eye and a tooth for a tooth " only when one injured a rich man. 

 Again, whereas, according to Moses, a thief when he was breaking 

 into a house might be killed and his blood was not to be upon the 

 killer ; according to Hammurabi, if he were caught breaking into his 

 house, the thief was to be killed and buried at the spot where he 

 broke in. 



There are many other points in which the excellency of the 

 laws of Moses might be shown. 



Professor Orchard. — I wish to express my thanks to the author 

 of this paper for a most valuable and timely contribution to one of 

 the most important discussions of our age. I think we shall agree 

 with the conclusion arrived at (on p. 172), that it is absurd to suppose 

 that the Israelites were not influenced by the culture and literature 

 of those Egyptians amongst whom for such a very long period they 

 had resided. 



With regard to the Creation story and the Flood story, the idea 

 that the Babylonian version is a Divine record is preposterous. If 

 we are offered one version simple and pure and another complicated 

 with strange, grotesque accretions, one cannot doubt which was the 

 earlier in point of time, ^foreover, we are very well aware that 

 monotheism has been proved to be the primitive belief, and not 

 polytheism. The idea that the Creation story was borrowed from 

 the Babylonians would probably never have been seriously put 

 forward had it not been that many people imagine that there was 

 nothing in the BiT)le written before the time of Moses. That, of 

 course, is an untenable assumption. The prol)ability is that Adam 

 himself wrote the Creation story under Divine guidance, that Noah 



