Mosaic laws compared with the Code of Hammurabi: Any difference?

Question

The Code of Hammurabi was written before the Mosaic laws. Many believe there to be a direct dependence on the part of the latter. This may or may not be true. However, what is a very significant ethical difference between the two?

Answer 1

Well, some minor differences; under Hammurabi's law, a theif was put to deat. In the Mosaic law they simply had to return what they stole. Also, in Hammurabi's code, a son who struck his father had his hand chopped off; the Mosaic law had them put to death.

There are a lot of similarities. However, Hammurabi's code was mainly, "And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" while the Mosaic law wasn't as much. Also, Hammurabi's Law made higher-class citizens above lower-class citizens when they commited a crime. If a "superior" person stole from an "inferior" person the punishment was much less intense than if the situation was reversed.

The Mosaic law allowed no differences no matter what you're class.

However, the biggest difference, of course, is God's involvement.

Answer 2

The Mosaic Code

Answer 3

yes, there are probably lots of similarities. it does seem that pretty much every society around the world tends to come up with very similar laws, whether the societies had any contact with each other or not. but i have read some of the laws in the C of H, and for the most part they discuss the same situations as mosaic law, but come to very different conclusions and punishments.

Answer 4

Code of hamurabi is eye for an eye fixed... in case you thieve, your hand gets cut back off.. in case you kill, you would be killed.. U.S. regulation, is they are going to settle on w/ punishment is acceptable for the crime... all crimes are dealt with diffrently. as an occasion, all of us who commits homicide isn't continuously gave the comparable punishment... I actually think of if the punishments for crime have been as difficult as hamurabi, there will be much less crime...