The purpose and legal authority of the Code have been challenged since the mid-20th century. [87] Theories fall into three broad categories: it is legislation, whether it is a code of law or a set of laws; whereas it is a kind of legal report containing files of past cases and judgments; and that it is an abstract work of jurisprudence. Legal theory has found a lot of support within Assyriology. [88] The codex is relatively well understood, but some points in its vocabulary are controversial. As mentioned earlier, the terms awīlum and muškēnum have proven difficult to translate. They probably refer to a male member of a higher and lower social class. [144] Wolfram von Soden suggested in his Akkadian dictionary that muškēnum was derived from šukênum, “to bow/plead.” [145] As a word for a man of lower social status, it has survived, perhaps from a Sumerian root, in Arabic (miskīn), Italian (meschino), Spanish (mezquino), and French (petty). [146] However, some earlier translators, who also tried to explain the special treatment of the muškēnum, translated it as “leper” and even “noble.” [147] Some translators have provided stilted readings for awīlum, such as “lord”,[148] “elite man,”[149] and “member of the aristocracy”; [150] Others left it untranslated. [151] Some legal concepts have also proved difficult to translate. For example, dīnum and dīttum can refer to the law in general, as well as individual laws, judgments, divine declarations, and other phenomena. [152] Mīšarum may also refer to the law in general as well as to a kind of royal decree. [153] A second theory is that the Code is a kind of legal relationship and, as such, contains records of previous cases and judgments, albeit couched in abstract terms. This would explain the casuistic format of “laws”; Jean Bottéro thought he had found a file of a case that inspired him.

[103] However, despite the extent of the Mesopotamian body of law, such discoveries are inconclusive and very rare. [104] Moreover, in Mesopotamia, court decisions were frequently recorded that reproduced the facts of the case without generalizing them. [105] These judgments dealt almost exclusively with questions of fact, leading Martha Roth to remark: “I know of only one case out of a thousand, which could be said to revolve around a question of law. [106] To prevent such quarrels from contributing to social instability, Hammurabi ensured that his laws were understood as absolute. Just as your-Nammu claimed that he had received his laws from the gods, so did Hammurabi, but to make this perfectly clear, he had engraved an image of the god of justice, Shamash, on the stele that handed the laws to Hammurabi. The laws, which then descend from this image in cuneiform rows, refer to their divine origin as well as the greatness of Hammurabi as a bani matim (“builder of the earth”), who built majestic temples for the gods, built canals and irrigated the earth, and who administered these laws for the benefit of all people. The relationship between the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law, especially the Exodus Covenant Code 20:22-23:19, has been debated since its discovery. [46] Friedrich Delitzsch argued for strong influence in a lecture in 1902, in an episode of the “Babel and the Bible” debate on the influence of ancient Mesopotamian cultures on ancient Israel. However, it met with strong resistance. [163] There were cultural contacts between Mesopotamia and the Levant, and casuistry cuneiform law tablets from the Middle Bronze Age have been found at Hazor. [164] There are also similarities between the Hamurabi Code and the Covenant Code: in casuistic format, in principles such as lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”), and in the content of the provisions. Some similarities are striking, as in the provisions concerning a human ox (Code of Laws Hammurabi 250-252,[85] Exodus 21:28-32).

[165] Some authors have postulated a direct influence: David P. Wright, for example, asserts that the federal code is “directly, principally, and constantly dependent on the laws of Hammurabi, a creative paraphrase of Mesopotamian sources.” be considered as an academic abstraction and not as a compendium of laws”. [166] Others postulate indirect influence, for example via Aramaic or Phoenician mediators. [167] However, the consensus is that the similarities are the result of common traditions. [168] In 1916, George A. Barton cited “a similarity between prehistory and general intellectual perspectives.” [169] More recently, David Winton Thomas has stated: “There is no reason to suppose a direct borrowing from the Hebrews from the Babylonians. Even if the two laws differ little in letter, they differ greatly in spirit. [170] Here, following the principle of pointillism, circumstances are added to the first entry to create other entries. [116] Pointillism also makes it possible to generate list entries by following paradigmatic series common to several branches of science. It can thus explain implausible entries. In the case of goats used for threshing (Law 270),[117] the previous laws concern other animals used for threshing.