166 



LEGISLATIONS OF ISRAEL AND BABYLONIA. 



As to the authorship of Deuteronomy he was satisfied that the 

 whole of the laws and speeches were (subject only to the qualifi- 

 cation introduced by textual criticism) Mosaic, i.e., the work of 

 Moses, in the language of Moses. Unfortunately it would take too 

 long to deal in detail with Mr. Boscawen's arguments on this point, but 

 he could refer them to his published writings on this. With regard 

 to the view that Deuteronomy was drawn on the model of Ham- 

 murabi's code he could only express his unqualified dissent. Unlike 

 any other known legislation Deuteronomy and certain other 

 portions of the Pentateuch were in form sworn agreements. Instead 

 of a legislation enacted by some law-making power and imposed by 

 it on the people, we find a series of internal agreements (called 

 covenants) of which the laws were terms. Deuteronomy in many 

 respects resembled an English deed. Its central speech began with 

 date and title, followed by a recital of a former covenant between 

 the same contracting parties, then came the body of the agreement 

 in properly articulated form, then the directions for its due 

 execution, the blessings and curses, and lastly a colophon saying 

 that this was a covenant made in addition to a former covenant. 

 The blessings and the curses replaced the form of jurat which 

 would have occurred in a covenant between men. Such sworn 

 covenants between men who could only appeal to a Divine tribunal 

 might be likened to treaties which in the Europe of the middle ages 

 and in many other societies had often been ratified by oaths. In 

 this case God was a party to the covenant, and so there was no 

 external superior power to which both parties could appeal to 

 enforce their right. Hence the jurat was replaced by blessings and 

 curses. Allowing for this and the fact that it belonged to a state of 

 society in which sworn agreements had not yet been replaced by 

 contracts, Deuteronomy mutatis mutandis resembled in form a 

 modern deed. Hammurabi's code, on the other hand, showed not 

 the least approximation to this type. Assyriologists should bring 

 to bear the knowledge of comparative jurists before they put 

 forward theories of influence. 



As to the contracts relating to the support of slaves, these in no 

 way altered the provisions by which Hammurabi guarded the rights 

 of owners or the contrast with the Mosaic enactments. 



