Uploaded  Feb. 25, 2018          

The Law Code of Eshnunna

Related Articles at the end of this article

The Premise
Back to Top

Supplying this for the same reason and from the same book as the Law Code of Hammurabi. Comparison of this law to our own of 2018, is very revealing. I intened to do a commentary on this Law Code as well. The Law Code of Eshnunna comes from layers from before the time of Hammurabi. How much further back was not said in the book. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Eshnunna :

The Laws of Eshnunna (abrv. LE) are inscribed on two cuneiform tablets discovered in Tell Abū Harmal, Baghdad, Iraq. The Iraqi Directorate of Antiquities headed by Taha Baqir unearthed two parallel sets of tablets in 1945 and 1947. The two tablets are separate copies of an older source and date back to ca. 1930 BC. The differences between the Code of Hammurabi and the Laws of Eshnunna significantly contributed to illuminating the development of ancient and cuneiform law. Eshnunna was north of Ur on the Tigris River and became politically important after the fall of the third dynasty of Ur, founded by Ur-Nammu.

In distinction from the other Mesopotamian collections of law, this one got its name after the city where it had originated – Eshnunna, located on the bank of the Diyala River, tributary to the Tigris. This collection of laws is not a real systemized codex; nearly sixty of its sections are preserved. The Laws are written in Akkadian and consist of two tablets which are marked with A and B. In 1948, Albrecht Goetze of the Yale University had translated and published them. In some sources the Laws of Eshnunna are mentioned as the Laws of Bilalama due to the belief that the Eshnunnian ruler probably was their originator, but Goetze maintained that tablet B was originated under the reign of Dadusha. The text of the prologue is broken at the point where the ruler who promulgated the laws was specified. << End Wikipedia.

From the Book: "The Ancient Near East    Volume I  An Anthology of Texts and Pictures"    -    Edited by James B. Pritchard

133             V. Legal Texts       Collections of Laws from Mesopotamia      

ANET, 161-163            THE LAWS OF ESHNUNNA                  TRANSLATOR: ALBRECHT GOETZE

[ Texts: Iraq Museum 51059 and 52614 excavated at Tell Abu Harmal1 near Baghdad by the Iraq Directorate of Antiquities in Pre-Hammurabi layers. ]

 V. Legal Texts

page 133       Collections of Laws from Mesopotamia    --    The Laws of Eshnunna  --  ALBRECHT GOETZE

Texts: Iraq Museum 51059 and 52614 excavated at Tell Abu Harmal1 near Baghdad by the Iraq Directorate of Antiquities in Pre-Hammurabi layers.                    

 1:     I kor of barley is (priced) at 1 shekel of silver; 3 qa of "best oil" are (priced) at 1 shekel of silver; i seah (and) 2 qa of sesame oil are (priced) at x shekel of silver; I seah (and) 5 qa of lard are (priced) at 1 shekel of silver; 1 seah of "river oil" are (priced) at 1 shekel of- silver; 6 minas of wool are (priced) at I shekel of silver; 2 kor of salt are (priced) at I shekel of silver; 1 kor . . . is (priced) at I shekel of silver; 3 minas of copper are (priced) at 1 shekel of silver; 2 minas of refined copper are (priced) at r shekel of silver.

2:    I qa of sesame oil la nishatim—its (value in) barley is 3 seah; I qa of lard la nishatim—its (value in) barley is 2 seah and 5 qa; 1 qa of "river oil" Ia nishatim—its (value in) barley is 8 qa.

3:     The hire for a wagon together with its oxen and its driver is 1 pan (and) 4 seah of barley. If it is (paid in) silver, the hire is one third of a shekel. He shall drive it the whole day.

4:     The hire for a boat is 2 qa per kor (of capacity), 1 seah 1 qa is the hire for the boatman. He shall drive it the whole day.

5:     If the boatman is negligent and causes the sinking of the boat, he shall pay in full for everything the sink­ing of which he caused.   

6:     If a man ...2 takes possession of a boat (which is) not his, he shall pay lo shekels of silver.

7:     The wages of a harvester are 2 seah of barley; if they are (paid in) silver, his wages are 12 grain.

8:     The wages of winnowers are 1 seah of barley.

>>Apparent in the above 1-4, were really price fixing and fixed obligations to follow. 5 prescribes financial liability and responsibility. 6 & 7 are more price fixing. Given that this was from the Akkadian Empire days, the founding empire of the time, that future empires like the Hattusa, would continue to use Akkadian as well as their own language to record events and records.

(Akkad = Accad which may well be the source for Acadia, also = Agade. K, C, G and Q, as well as Ch, are all typically interchangeable for the cacophonous sound that in English is usually spelled with a K or C. Irak can be Urak or Urek or Uruk, or Iraq or Erak or Erech.

We see Iran in our day, but It can be expressed as Uran as in Uranus, a former god and a planet, too. I have seen Aran as well, and Eran or Erin. I have seen Aran as Haran or Harran. If one accepts the Bilical narrative or the narrative recorded in Cuneiform, the languages were all changed at Babel, which is related to the word bable, which is making unintelligible sounds, due to not knowing the other languages spoken..

One of the advantages of law spelled out so clear as regards price fixing and liability is that it reduces, substantially, any open dispute about who bares what for responsibility and to facilitate production of resources and trade and to keep prices stable, the prices were fixed. No inflation and no argument about prices. It held back a fair amount of greed and price gouging.

This is near to the time the Bible claims for the confusion of language, which is said to be in the days of Peleg, 2249 BC - 2008 BC having lived 239 years. The Bible dates are derived from accountings in the Bible. Modesty aside, I have the best Bible Chronology in the world. I'll link to them at the end of this article. Nimrod was the name given to the despot who began Empire building, "a mighty hunter before the LORD (Jehovah). Better known in secular terms as Sargon of Akkad.

Given that this was a time of empire building, fixing prices throughout the Empire would have been very advantageous to the Emperor. At this time rulers/kings/conquerors controlled the military and his power beyond countering. In the passing centuries, traveling merchants would seek the overthrow of powerful leaders and control trade and commerce on their terms, ultimately to our time where merchants-become-bankers rule the world thru trade, commerce, and financing.

This enables control of puppet leaders and militaries, thru dictating standards of currency and exchange that can be tailored to whatever the bankers are pleased by. So we are looking here at when the Emperor was all powerful and sought control of all prices and commodities. It benefited not only the emperor, but also the people and the traders, if one desired stability and peace.

In contrast, today the bankers and financiers prefer instability and near chaos in order to keep all nations weak and somewhat emasculated. So we have quite a contrast between the early days of empire and our days of a secret empire that is far less benevolent and beneficial for most, but great for the world rulers of money and trade and all means of production. Satan would be (and is) proud. But the rest of us suffer.

But the contrast is very telling. Things were more civil and fair in the days, likely somewhat near to Sargon and his successors, like Naram Sin, Sargon's grandson, I believe. So if one wants a good example of Good law, law for the benefit of all and not just a few at the top, the law of Eshnunna is a good place to start. Hammurabi would follow not long after, and I will cover that separately.

And how odd it is that we should look back and wish for the days of Nimrod compared to our own, when Nimrod imposed control over a large area when it had been previously, somewhat free. Nimrod is spelled as Nimrud, an Assyrian city and in Assyrian inscriptions and cities named for him. He was a real person with real deeds. As well, Assyria had a king who took on the name of Sargon II perhaps near to 1000 years later.<<

--------------------------------- Notes:

1 Abu Harmal formed part of the kingdom of Eshnunna—the Diyala region east of Baghdad—which flourished between the downfall of the Third Dynasty of Ur (about 2000 B.C.) and the creation of Hammurabi's empire. Eshnunna was one of the numerous Amurrite-controlled states of the period. The city of Eshnunna itself is located at Tell Asmar which was excavated by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

2 Possibly "(who finds himself) in great peril."

>>It should be noted that Hammurabi is composed of the name of Ham, from the Bible, that then got another syllable added: Hammon by the Phoenicians (Tyre & Sidon, also known broadly as Canaanites and later in time as Carthage. Egyptians used a form of Hammon in Amon/Amun/Amen, one of the most popular gods of the Egyptians in the 12th Dynasty onward. This may well be the time of Joseph, whose life spanned, 1747 BC to 1637 BC, 110 years at death. The explosion of Mt. Thera took place at 1628 BC before Joseph died. Joseph was said to be 30 when Pharaoh (likely Amenemhet III) when the 7 year famine began.

Did you know that all the surrounding nations of the Mediterranean have/had a legend of a 7 year famine prior to the Collapse of the Late Bronze Age? They all remember it and having to go to Egypt to get grain. There are two very good books on this Collapse, With Eric Cline having the widest consideration of possible causes for this Collapse. I recommend it. Eric Cline "1177 BC; The Year Civilization Collapsed." Its fairly cheap now, too.

Back to Hammurabi, Hammur may indicate the origins of Nimrod/Sargon the Great/Magnificent. Nimrod was born of Cush/Kush, who was a son of Ham, son of Noah. The Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites (Carthaginians), all descended from Ham/Hammon. Hebrews used the shortened form, Ham. But descendants of Ham seem to prefer the 2nd syllable addition.

134             LEGAL TEXTS

9: Should a man pay 1 shekel of silver to a hired man for harvesting—if he (the hired man) does not place himself at his disposal and does not complete for him the harvest work everywhere, he [shall pay 10 shekels of silver. Should he have received 1 seah (and) 5 qa (of barley) as wages and leave the rations of [barley], oil (and) cloth shall also be refunded.

10: The hire for a donkey is 1 seah of barley, and the wages for its driver are 1 seah of barley. He shall drive it the whole day.

11: The wages of a hired man are 1 shekel of silver; his provender is 1 pan of barley. He shall work for one month.

>> In our day, individual contracts can be made between 2 parties. But the Law of Eshnunna, in my view, sought to avoid haggles over terms meant or implied or one-sided but making/forcing one single standard to avoid litigation and arguments. I can't help but see this all as being a restraint on merchants wheeling and dealing. I think there is a lot of wisdom in this law system.

There has always been a tension between traveling merchants, who have some advantage by their being somewhat nomadic and neutral to all trading partners. Merchants are great for making special and exclusive deals with various trade partners, sellers, and buyers. These laws suppressed many of these tactics.<<

>>Next are the laws protecting special classes and punishments for not respecting a special class the king sought to protect and elevate. We see the introduction of the death penalty. The death penalty was severe, but in times of breakdown or chaos, there is no room for softness and permissiveness. These are deadly. So Death was issued as a deterrence because few things instill as much fear as death. The worse things are, the more you need the death penalty. This from the age of wisdom and experience, I call it. When you start an oppressive empire, you need to establish solid immutable boundaries with distinct clear results such as death.

If there is no penalty, you will have no law or order. Even then, some will test the law and be executed. I do note in what I live, there have been 3 or 4 double homicides, always done by someone from Brooklyn, NYC. Stupid pushers try to skim some of the profit and are executed for it and no one is concerned. they all silently agree with the penalty. And frankly, I think they are right. the ones murdered knew the penalty if they got caught skimming and thought they could get away with it, but they never do. It works.

Yet we handle many things so as not to deter crime, but to fill prisons with slave labor. This is very dishonest. 2000 BC was a far more honest and objective standard. Prevent the problem rather than serving some hidden dishonest agenda. They were out in the open in 2000 BC. I like that.<<

12: A man who is caught in the field of a muskenum1 in the crop during daytime, shall pay 10 shekels of silver. He who is caught in the crop [at ni]ght, shall die, he shall not get away alive.

13: A man who is caught in the house of a muskenum, in the house, during daytime, shall pay 10 shekels of silver. He who is caught in the house at night, shall die, he shall not get away alive.

14:   The fee of a ...2—should he bring 5 shekels of silver the fee is 1 shekel of silver; should he bring 10 shekels of silver the fee is 2 shekels of silver.

15:        The tamkarrum3 and the sabitum4 shall not receive silver, barley, wool (or) sesame oil from a slave or a slave-girl as an investment.

>>This one is very interesting. 1st, you will note that slavery is legal. not only legal, but actions are taken to keep slaves as slaves. Above, 15, does not allow slaves to invest. Nor does in allow a slave girl to be used as investment. I assume they are preventing her from being prostituted as a means of payment or down payment. The goal is to keep the established sanctioned population in power and control so as to avoid overthrow and revolution.

How odd that in our day, our leaders go out of their way to settle foreigners among us in great numbers so as to overthrow us and destroy us, the people who once put powerful people in charge to preserve a way of life in an homogenous society. We, the founding population base, are seen as the real enemy.

In contrast, in 2000 BC, the founding population is protected and slaves/immigrants are disenfranchised and not allowed the same privileges. There could not possibly be a greater contrast than 2000 BC vs post 2000 AD. They were good in BC and pure evil in the present. Are you getting it? Those in power want us all dead or enslaved, except that we are enslaved already and are not even aware of it yet!<<

16:    To a coparcener or a slave a mortgage cannot be furnished.

17:    Should the son of a man bring bride-money to the house of (his) father-in-law, if one of the two deceases, the money shall revert to its owner.

>>I am assuming that the two referred to is either the bride-wife or the father of the bride, prior to actually getting the wife. The next law 18, will clarify it I believe. If she or her father, dies, then the husband of the bride to be gets his money back. What is very clear here is that a wife is property, in order to insure the peaceful and prosperous family, that the king may then get taxes from. to interfere with the king and his nation is not taken lightly. Healthy families produce strong healthy nations. In 2000 BC, they were not blind to this obvious fact. So a wife was property and required to obey her husband, and not fight and resist him. My, how stupid we have become in the 21st century in that we can not see our own best long-term interests right in front of our eyes. What a pathetic bunch we have become. Absolutely worthless.<<

18:  If he takes her (the girl) and she enters his house, but afterward the young woman should decease, he (the husband) can not obtain refunded that which he brought (to his father-in-law), but will retain the excess (in) his (hand).

>>It sounds to me as if the man makes a down payment (a mortgage maybe) on the bride and then the father dies, the man does not get the down payment back but does not have to pay the balance. I'd like to hear what others think.

You very typically will  not find any academic or scholar who will want to discuss the implications of these laws or why we do so different now!<<

18A:  Per 1 shekel (of silver) there will accrue 1/6 shekel and 6 grain as interest; per 1 kor (of barley) there will accrue r pan and 4 seah as interest.

--------------------------   Notes

1 The muskenum is a member of a social class which at Eshnunna seems to be closely connected with the palace or the temple.

2 The word must denote some kind of "money-lender" or "merchant."

3 The official "finance officer" who has a state monopoly on certain commercial transactions.

4 The woman to whom trade in liquor is entrusted.

135                THE LAWS OF ESHNUNNA

19:           The man who gives (a loan) in terms of his retake shall make (the debtor) pay on the threshing floor.

20:           If a man gives a loan . . . expressing the value of the silver in barley, he shall at harvest time receive the barley and its interest, r pan (and) 4(?) seah per kor.

21:           If a man gives silver (as a loan) at face value, he shall receive the silver and its interest, one sixth (of a shekel) and [6 grain] per shekel.

22:           If a man has no claim against a(nother) man, but (nevertheless) distrains the (other) man's slave-girl, the owner of the slave-girl shall [decla]re under oath: "Thou hast no claim against me" and he shall pay (him) silver in full compensation for the slave-girl.

23:           If a man has no claim against a(nother) man, but (nevertheless) distrains the (other) man's slave-girl, detains the distrainee in his house and causes (her) death, he shall give two slave-girls to the owner of the slave-girl as a replacement.

>>In 21 even interest is fixed. Below, 24, if a man sells his daughter out from her husband, his son-in-law, the son-in-law gets double back for the treachery. I dig it! In 25, rape is death in that particular circumstance described.<<

24:            If a man calls at the house of (his) father-in-law, and his father-in-law accepts him in servitude, but (nevertheless) gives his daughter to [another man], the father of the girl shall refund the bride-money which he received twofold.

25:            If a man gives bride-money for a(nother) man's daughter, but another man seizes her forcibly without asking the permission of her father and her mother and deprives her of her virginity, it is a capital offence and he shall die.

26:            If a man takes a(nother) man's daughter without asking the permission of her father and her mother and concludes no formal marriage contract with her father and her mother, even though she may live in his house for a year, she is not a housewife.

>>27 will not let a man be robbed of his daughter without proper agreed upon compensation and permission. This is bit different than the Bible's solution, which is, if a man takes a virgin without permission, the father of the girl can make the thief pay the dowry and still not get the bride. The father-owner may, if he wants, force the man to marry his daughter as well as pay the dowry. 27 below, adultery is death. Same as the Bible. How's that for enforcement of fidelity? Of course, the man in the Bible can also be executed for adultery or rape, provided the woman cries out for help.<<

27:            On the other hand, if he concludes a formal contract with her father and her mother and cohabits with her, she is a housewife. When she is caught with a(nother) man, she shall die, she shall not get away alive.

28:            If a man has been made prisoner during a raid or an invasion or (if) he has been carried off forcibly and [stayed in] a foreign [count]ry for a [long] time, (and if) another man has taken his wife and she has born

136             Legal Text

him a son—when he returns, he shall [get] his wife back.

>>28 is interesting in that it allows some circumstances if a man is carried off as a POW or slave with a chance he might not ever get back, then another man could accept being her husband except that if the former husband is lucky enough to get back, then he gets his wife back and I assume, the child born in his absence.

In the bible the daughter would essentially be a widow and her father or her father in law would look out for her and her kids.<<

30:            If a man hates his town and his lord and becomes a fugitive, (and if) another man takes his wife—when he returns, he shall have no right to claim his wife.

31:            If a man deprives another man's slave-girl of her virginity, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver; the slave-girl remains the property of her owner.

>>31 a slave girl is a man's property, even if she is a slave. No other man can help himself. this is quite a bit different from say 1700 AD in England or France, where slave girls of a lord would be shared with other visiting lords or important people. It would seem to me that they treated slave girls better in 2000 BC than 1700 AD.<<

Adoption Rules

32:            If a man gives his son (away) for having (him) nursed and brought up, but does not give (the nurse) rations of barley, oil (and) wool for three years, he shall pay (her) 10 minas (of silver) for bringing up his son and shall take back his son.

>>I am assuming 10 minas of silver was a fair amount of wealth in compensation for the man not caring for the nurse's rations for 3 years. Enough is enough!<<

33:            If a slave-girl by subterfuge gives her child to a(nother) man's daughter, (if) its lord sees it when it has become older, he may seize it and take it back.

34:            If a slave-girl of the palace gives her son or her daughter to a muskenum for bringing (him/her) up, the palace may take back the son or the daughter whom she gave.

35:            Also the adoptant of the child of a slave-girl of the palace shall recompense the palace with its equivalent.

>>33-35 does not let a slave girl or the one who gets the son of the slave girl get away with it. The child is returned and if it was the palace that was robbed, compensation would go to the palace as well. There was a pecking order, for sure. And they may be some justification for it, too. The precedent is that whatever is done can be undone. Statutes of limitation do not exist.<<

36:            If a man gives property of his as a deposit to .. . and if the property he gives disappears without that the house was burglarized, the sippu1  broken down (or) the window forced, he (the depositary) will replace his (the depositor's) property.

>>36  whoever holds the wealth is responsible for it while he holds it. A liability law. How easy it would be for a holder to allow something to be taken (and later shared) and say, I was robbed. This law prevents that. Our own modern day governments should do more of this. Get rid of conflicts of interest by automatically holding the one who could gain from deception, not be allowed the exception. In terms of law, if a party accused, destroys evidence or says he can not find it or it is lost, then guilt should be assumed. That would stop a lot of destruction of evidence or conveniently losing it.<<

37:            If the man's (the depositary's) house either collapses or is burglarized and together with the (property of the) deposit(or) which he gave him loss on the part of the owner of the house is incurred, the owner of the house shall swear him an oath in the gate of Tishpak2 (saying) : "Together with your property my property was lost; I have done nothing improper or fraudulent." If he swears him (such an oath), he shall have no claim against him.

>>37 Here we see the holder also experiencing equal loss, which is good evidence that he was truly robbed and not involved in collusion.<<

38:            If one of several brothers wants to sell his share (in a property common to them) and his brother wants to buy it, he shall pay... 3

39:            If a man is hard up and sells his house, the owner of the house shall (be entitled to) redeem (it) whenever the purchaser (re)sells it.
>>This is not a bad law. It would only be right to give the former owner, who fell into hard luck, the 1st chance to redeem (buy back) the house. If he does not have the price of redemption, then the house sells to another buyer.<<

--------------------------------- Notes:

1 Part of the house at or near the door. 2 The main god of Eshnunna

3 This expression seems to imply a preferential treatment.

137             THE LAWS OF ESHNUNNA

40:            If a man buys a slave, a slave-girl, an ox or any other valuable good but cannot (legally) establish the seller, he is a thief.

41:            If an ubarum, a naptarum or a muduml wants to sell his beer, the sabitum shall sell the beer for him at the current price.

>>41 I assume the sabitum is a seller and the 1st 3 are producers. The footnote suggests they were those entitled to a ration of beer and could sell that ration. The seller can not charge what he wants. He must sell at the current price and this also prevents the producers from over charging the seller.<<

42:            If a man bites the nose of a(nother) man and severs it, he shall pay r mina of silver. (For) an eye (he shall pay) 1 mina of silver; (for) a tooth 1/2 mina; (for) an ear 1/2 mina; (for) a slap in the face 10 shekels of silver.

>> 42 I like these types of laws where the penalty is assigned for specific types of injuries ahead of time so that we do not get ridiculous settlements cause someone  has friend in power who can see he get far more than usual for an injury and another gets hardly anything for it. Consistency of law! More of the same below.<<

43:            If a man severs a(nother) man's finger, he shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.

44:            If a man throws a(nother) man to the floor in an altercation and breaks his hand, he shall pay 1/2 mina of silver.

45:            If he breaks his foot, he shall pay 1/2 mina of silver.

46:            If a man assaults a(nother) man and breaks his . , he shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.

47:            If a man hits a(nother) man accidentally, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver.

48:            And in addition, (in cases involving penalties) from two-thirds of a mina to 1 mina, they shall formally try the man. A capital offence comes before the king.
     >> 48, they have 2 different courts for 2 types of offenses. Not bad!<<

49:            If a man is caught with a stolen slave (or) a stolen slave-girl, he shall surrender slave by slave (and) slave-girl by slave-girl.

50:            If the governor, the river commissioner (or) an-(other) official whoever it may be, seizes a lost slave, a lost slave-girl, a lost ox, a lost donkey belonging to the palace or a muskenum and does not surrender it to Eshnunna but keeps it in his house, even though he may let pass only seven days, the palace shall prosecute him for theft.  >>Assumed theft based on contest. I like. "Gee, I did not know who it belonged to." (maybe he should have made more effort to find out.) Again, bad excuses should not be given any dignity or hearing, whatsoever.<<

51:            A slave or a slave-girl of Eshnunna which is marked with a kannum, a maikanum or an abbuttum2 shall not leave the gate of Eshnunna without its owner's permission.

52:            A slave or a slave-girl which has entered the gate of Eshnunna in the custody of a (foreign) envoy shall be marked with a kannum, a malkanum or an abbuttum , but remains in the custody of its master.

--------------------------------- Notes:

1 Social classes who seem to be entitled to a ration of beer.

2 Markings that can easily be removed. 

138             LEGAL TEXT 

Liability Laws

53:            If an ox gores an (other) ox and causes (its) death, both ox owners shall divide (among themselves) the price of the live ox and also the equivalent of the dead ox.

54:            If an ox is known to gore habitually and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge of its owner, but he does not have his ox dehorned, it gores a man and causes (his) death, then the owner of the ox shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.

>>54 The bible requires a man warned of a dangerous animal and yet insists on keeping it alive, must give up his life if someone else gets killed by the animal.<<

55:            If it gores a slave and causes (his) death, he shall pay 15 shekels of silver.

56:            If a dog is vicious and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge of its owner, (if nevertheless) he does not keep it in, it bites a man and causes (his) death, then the owner of the dog shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.

57:            If it bites a slave and causes (its) death, he shall pay 15 shekels of silver.

58:            If a wall is threatening to fall and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge of its owner, (if nevertheless) he does not strengthen his wall, the wall collapses and causes a free man's death, then it is a capital offence; jurisdiction of the king.

59:            If a man divorces his wife after having made her bear children and takes [ano]ther wife, he shall be driven from his house and from whatever he owns and may go after him who will accept him.

>>59  In the bible, adultery by either party, is death. By comparison, this law is more gentle. As I see it, treachery by either the husband or wife, should be punished  equally. That is, whoever cheats or walks out, pays. In our day and age, the woman wins in all cases, for the most part. This onside law is only a recent phenomenon. For 6000 years prior, we were far more objective whereas modern law is full of hidden corrupt motives. A shame that we have gotten worse instead of better.<<

(6o and 61 badly mutilated and therefore incomprehensible)

Truth1 >> Hope you found this useful. That academia does not give old laws some commentary and attention speaks volumes for corruption. Why would we not want to know and understand our ancestors of the past, from whom we all descended from? They are hiding history from us. And who is bringing this to your attention? Universities? Not hardly! Truth1, baby. The only 1! Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Related Articles

History & Science Page 
The War on Men
Moses vs The Talmud
Why We Do Not Keep the Law! An 8 part series on the Laws of Moses commentary
and what Christianity kept and got rid of and why.

Slavery is Not Condemned in the Bible Politically correct Christians may think slavery abhorrent.
But God and the Bible did not. Then why is it objected to? Ya got me! Besides,
aren't most of us slaves today, anyway?
Stephan: About Immigration & Welfare
The Code/Law of Hammurabi

Back to Home/Index       Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top

004 720