Joel S. Baden
Yale Divinity School
New Haven, Connecticut
In Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Bible Used and Revised the Laws
************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Hammurabi, David P. Wright has laid out in great detail his argument that the
Covenant Code (Exod 20:23–23:33; henceforth CC) is dependent both in content and
structure on the Laws ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Hammurabi (henceforth LH). In the first chapter ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the book,
Wright sets forth his general claim. In the second and third chapters, the detailed
arguments for the dependence ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the casuistic (ch. 2) and apodictic (ch. 3) sections ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC
on LH are presented. Chapter 4 proposes the historical setting for the composition ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC:
in the Neo-Assyrian period, specifically between 740 and 640 B.C.E. Chapters 5–11
describe the process by which CC transformed its source material, in both legal and
ideological terms. Chapter 12 discusses the possibility ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ secondary growth in CC and the
contextualization ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC in a larger Exodus narrative. The conclusion summarizes and
focuses the foregoing arguments. Wright’s book is thorough in its detail, providing
extended discussions ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ virtually every passage in CC as well as very useful charts and
layouts ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the texts in question. The argumentation is clear at every point, which allows
for the reader to easily evaluate Wright’s claims.
It is to Wright’s credit that he has approached the question ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC’s dependence on LH
from a primarily literary perspective. In contrast to much biblical research, in which the
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit
Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature.
questions ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ absolute dating and historical context are taken as the starting point for the
analysis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the text, Wright recognizes the essential fact that the Bible, and CC within it,
is first and foremost a literary work, as ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ course is LH. Thus he begins with the purely
literary analysis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the two texts and develops his argument for dependence on the literary
level alone. ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ once he has determined that the literary evidence points to a
relationship between the two texts does he attempt to find a historical context in which
that relationship may have developed.
Overall, Wright’s argument for CC’s dependence on LH is convincing, although with
some qualifications. For a number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the casuistic laws ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC, Wright clearly demonstrates
the manner in which CC has adopted and adapted laws from LH. His analysis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
the apodictic laws ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC is less persuasive; indeed, he admits that it is ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ once one has
accepted dependence on the basis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the casuistic laws that one can in turn see the
relationship between the apodictic laws and LH (58). Where Wright makes his most
compelling argument is in the analysis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the parallel structures ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC and LH, not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
in their similar A-B-A pattern but also in much ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the specific ordering ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the laws. He
shows that the places where CC diverges from the order ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ LH are comprehensible in light
************SPAM/BANNEAR************ known methods ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ legal revision. Even where a given law in CC does not seem to
match quite as exactly as Wright would have it (more on which below), he returns again
and again, and with success, to the remarkable symmetry in the structure ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the two law
codes. His central argument in this regard, that it would be a remarkable coincidence if
CC followed so precisely the structure ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ LH and not that ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ any other known law
collection, is indeed a strong one.
Wright makes two subsidiary arguments that are ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ crucial importance in the study ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC.
First, he makes a strong case for the unity ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC, against the majority ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ scholarship past
and present, which tends to find multiple layers in the code (see esp. 352–55). Wright
approaches this issue from the point ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ view ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC’s dependence on LH: since CC shows
this dependence throughout, in all ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ its variety ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ content and form, Wright argues that
the simplest explanation is that the entire code was written at one time on the basis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ LH.
An important corollary to this, which Wright notes in passing (e.g., 157, 212), is that the
diversity ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ form and style in CC is not an indication ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ multiple authorship. The single
author ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC was free and willing to use a range ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ techniques in composing the laws, just
as any author, biblical or otherwise, is free to vary his or her style over the course ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a
single unified work.
Second, and similarly, Wright finds the connection between CC and the narrative in
which it is found to be original and intentional (332–44). Although Wright calls this
narrative context the “Covenant Code Narrative” (CCN) so as to avoid becoming
involved in the confusion ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ current pentateuchal narrative criticism, his identification ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit
Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature.
the texts that belong to this narrative are precisely those that can and should be identified
with the classical E document. Wright concludes that the CC laws and narrative were
composed in one piece, the narrative serving to frame the laws (335). I find the argument
that the Decalogue is a secondary addition to this narrative (342) both wrong and, in any
case, unnecessary; the further argument that CCN is itself also dependent on LH (340–41)
also seems forced, as it is more likely to my mind that the aspects ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the narrative that
resonate with LH do so because the narrative resonates with CC, that is, with itself (he also
claims that J is dependent on CC and that P derives its view ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the divine origin ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ law
from CC [358], two claims that I think utterly indefensible). These minor points
notwithstanding, Wright makes an important contribution to the discussion ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ law and
narrative and their integral relationship in the Pentateuch.
While Wright’s main point, the dependence ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC on LH, is successfully made, his
exuberance in making his case does at times have a deleterious effect on the argument.
This comes out mostly in his attempt to see dependence almost everywhere, even when
the connections between CC and LH are less than perfectly clear. Thus he at times relies
on what appears to be no more than common Semitics in drawing parallels: the use ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the
verb “to take” to designate marriage, for instance (34), or the use ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the qattāl nominal
pattern for habitual action (40). There are also cases in which the similarities between the
CC and LH laws are outweighed, to my mind, by their substantive differences: although
both Exod 21:33–34 and LH 229 describe an act ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ negligence and the punishment
thereof, the biblical law describes someone who digs a pit and fails to cover it, while the
Mesopotamian law describes someone who builds an unstable house (41–42). As there is
no reason to think that the CC author would have needed to change the law in LH—
Israelites, after all, had houses also—it is difficult to see a clear line ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ literary dependence
here. In the apodictic section, surely CC’s call to heed the “words” ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the deity in 23:13a
need not be dependent on LH’s laws regarding obedience to the “words” ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the stela (59–
60), especially as the “words” in CC are the spoken words ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Yahweh, while those in LH
are the written words ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the document. Similarly, although it is possible that the Hebrew
word b-r-k, “to bless” (20:24), is conceptually similar to the Akkadian idiom šīrum ṭābum,
“well-being” (LH col. 48:34–35), it is a stretch to argue that this is evidence ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ direct
dependence.
Wright’s conviction that CC is fundamentally a derivative text drives him to see
dependence not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ where there are potential connections to LH but to any number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
other texts, Mesopotamian or otherwise. Thus there are parts ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC that he derives from
the Laws ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Eshnunna, from the Middle Assyrian Laws, from Hittite laws, and even from
Ugaritic material. He surmises at one point that a CC passage is derived from an otherwise
“unknown Akkadian law” (217–18). The picture ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC as dependent on LH is somewhat
altered by this type ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ analysis. CC appears to be more a collection ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ various legal
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit
Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature.
traditions that uses LH as its basis and structure, while filling it out with other traditions
where necessary. Though this is not impossible, it does raise the question ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ whether there
is any CC material that is original to its author, rather than being necessarily derived from
an external legal source. Most problematic in this regard is Wright’s assumption ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the
existence ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a “native participial source” (see esp. 159–63, 192–204) on which CC has
drawn. Wright admits that this “source” cannot be reconstructed (162), though at times
he attempts to do just that (164, 196, 203). Since elsewhere Wright claims that CC has
used the participial form in rewriting LH (165–66, 197–98, 200), it is unclear to me why
these participial elements could not simply be the original contribution ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the author ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
CC, representing his expression ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ native Israelite legal custom. Even in a text that is
largely dependent on another, there is still surely room for original authorial
contributions.
This aspect ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Wright’s work raises the larger question ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the intention ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC’s revision ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
LH. For Wright, CC was written as an academic, polemical response to LH. Yet many ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
the changes to LH found in CC seem to have no ideological quality but are merely
attempts to create a sound legal document, as Wright himself observes (see 190–91, 227–
29, 284–85). Furthermore, some places where Wright sees ideological polemic may be
accounted for just as readily on the basis ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the author ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC’s adaptation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
Mesopotamian religious ideas to those ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Israel, especially as regards the question ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
monotheism. He suggests that the change from the laws being given by the king in LH to
the laws being given by God in CC is polemical (287–93); yet as every legal collection in
the Pentateuch derives the laws from God, it seems more likely that this was simply how
Israel envisioned the etiology ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ legal custom. Surely it is an overstatement to suggest that
CC could not have come up with the idea ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ laws deriving from God without LH (292).
While it is clear that where LH has references to the statue ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the god(s) in the temple CC
has removed this concept, this can ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ be seen as a polemical response if CC invented
the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel (293–94, 298–300); if, on the other hand, it was
part ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Israelite religious tradition that Yahweh could not be depicted and that there was
no statue ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Yahweh in the temple, then this change is again merely CC’s representation
************SPAM/BANNEAR************ contemporary religious practice. Finally, the fronting in CC ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the themes ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the poor,
the cult, and justice, which Wright takes as an ideological response to Assyrian
overlordship (300–319), has a solid foundation in the traditions ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the early prophets and
may be better seen as part ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ that tradition.
In general, Wright reads CC almost entirely through the lens ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ its revision ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ LH, which
results in some slight methodological difficulties. Regardless ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ its relationship to other
texts, CC must be comprehensible within its own cultural context, as a literary product
unto itself. When Wright identifies a specific text as being written in the “native idiom”
(183), he establishes a false dichotomy with the rest ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC. The entire text is written in the
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit
Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature.
“native idiom,” otherwise it would not be comprehensible to its readers or writers. To take
one example in particular, Wright claims that when CC uses the term ha’elohim it means
“the god,” in contrast to the plural gods ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ LH (252–58). Yet it seems probable, given the
evidence from the rest ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Bible, that Israelites hearing or reading ha’elohim would
recognize a direct reference to Yahweh rather than a response to a foreign law code with
which they would have no familiarity. In broader terms, Wright at times ascribes
ostensible difficulties in the logic ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC to the way in which CC uses LH: according to his
analysis, CC is understandable once we see how it plays off LH (140, 178, 188, 307). The
problem is that the audience ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC would not have LH before them to serve as a guide for
reading CC. As a document intended, as Wright recognizes, to be an Israelite replacement
for LH, CC has to be comprehensible on its own terms.
The fundamental question is whether dependence—that ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC on LH or ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ any text on
another—necessarily entails polemic or any ideological motivation. Although this is
commonly assumed to be the case, I do not see that it is required. It is perfectly
reasonable, to my mind, that the author ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC should have used LH because ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ its high
standing as a major legal text, as a template and guide when creating his own Israelite law
code, without writing as a direct response to LH per se. The use ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a preexisting text does
not require that the newer document be written as replacement or rebuttal; it may simply
be taken as a model. Wright assumes the ideologically motivated polemical intent ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC
more than he proves it. Part ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ this assumption is based on his dating ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC to the Neo-
Assyrian period, during which time he sees both opportunity and motive for an Israelite
intellectual class to compose a document reacting against the classic Mesopotamian legal
document. Although I find no problem with this dating, the opportunity and motive for
polemic does not demand the existence thereof.
The foregoing concerns, which should be taken more as commentary on the question ************SPAM/BANNEAR************
literary dependence in general rather than as criticisms ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Wright in particular, do little to
diminish the impact ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ this book. Wright has made a major contribution to our
understanding ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the composition ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC even if one accepts ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the barest bones
version ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ his thesis, that CC has some dependent relationship to LH. Read alongside the
conceptually similar works ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Bernard Levinson on the relationship ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC and
Deuteronomy and ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Jeffrey Stackert on the relationship ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ H to Deuteronomy, CC, and
P, Wright’s book takes us one step closer to a full picture ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the development ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Israelite
law. He has further done scholarship a significant service by again showing that literary
dependence can be seen not ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ in word-for-word correspondence but also in the
intelligent revision ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ an earlier text (although some verbal correspondence is certainly
required to make a convincing case). No account ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the history ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ CC’s composition will
any longer be able to be written without reference to and deep engagement with Wright’s
This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit
Review ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Biblical Literature.
work, whether one agrees with him or not. Such is the mark ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the truly meaningful
contributions to scholarship, and Wright’s book undoubtedly belongs in such a class.
