Editing Code of Hammurabi (section)

===Jurisprudence===
A third theory, which has gained traction within Assyriology, is that the Code is not a true code but an abstract treatise on how judgments should be formulated. This led Fritz Rudolf Kraus, in an early formulation of the theory, to call it jurisprudence ({{lang|de|Rechtssprüche}}).{{sfnp|Kraus|1960|p=288}} Kraus proposed that it was a work of Mesopotamian scholarship in the same category as omen collections like {{lang|akk|[[šumma ālu]]}} and {{lang|akk|ana ittišu}}.{{sfnp|Kraus|1960|p=288}} Others have provided their own versions of this theory.{{sfnmp|1a1=Saggs|1y=1965|1pp=80ff.|2a1=Oppenheim|2y=1977|2p=287|3a1=Bottéro|3y=1992|3pp=166–167|4a1=Van De Mieroop|4y=2016|4loc=chapters 6–7}} [[A. Leo Oppenheim]] remarked that the Code of Hammurabi and similar Mesopotamian law collections "represent an interesting formulation of social criticism and should not be taken as normative directions".{{sfnp|Oppenheim|1977|p=158}}

This interpretation bypasses the problem of low congruence between the Code and actual legal judgments. Secondly, the Code does bear striking similarities to other works of Mesopotamian scholarship. Key points of similarity are the list format and the order of the items,{{sfnmp|1a1=Bottéro|1y=1992|1pp=173ff.|2a1=Van De Mieroop|2y=2016|2pp=165ff}} which Ann Guinan describes as a complex "serial logic".{{sfnp|Guinan|2014|p=115}} Marc Van De Mieroop explains that, in common with other works of Mesopotamian scholarship such as omen lists, king lists, and god lists, the entries of the Code of Hammurabi are arranged according to two principles. These are "opposition"—whereby a variable in one entry is altered to make another entry—and "pointillism"—whereby new conditions are added to an entry, or paradigmatic series pursued, to generate a sequence.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|pp=165ff.}} Van De Mieroop provides the following examples:

{{Blockquote|text=If a physician performs major surgery with a bronze lancet upon an [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}] and thus heals the [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}], or opens an [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}]'s temple with a bronze lancet and thus heals the [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}]'s eye, he shall take ten shekels of silver (as his fee).|title=Law 215{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|p=123}}|}}
{{Blockquote|text=If a physician performs major surgery with a bronze lancet upon an [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}] and thus causes the [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}]'s death, or opens an [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}]'s temple with a bronze lancet and thus blinds the [{{lang|akk|awīlum}}]'s eye, they shall cut off his hand.|title=Law 218{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|p=123}}|}}

Laws 215 and 218 illustrate the principle of opposition: one variable of the first law, the outcome of the operations, is altered to create the second.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=166}}

{{Blockquote|text=If there is either a soldier or [an auxiliary] who is taken captive while serving in a royal fortress [...] if he should [...] return and get back to his city, they shall return to him his field and orchard and he himself shall perform his service obligation.

If there is either a soldier or [an auxiliary] who is taken captive in a royal fortress, and his son is able to perform the service obligation, the field and orchard shall be given to him, and he shall perform his father's service obligation.

If his son is young and is unable to perform his father's service obligation, one third of the field and orchard shall be given to his mother, and his mother shall raise him.|title=Laws 27–29{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|p=86}}|}}

Here, following the principle of pointillism, circumstances are added to the first entry to create more entries.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|pp=166–167}} Pointillism also lets list entries be generated by following paradigmatic series common to multiple branches of scholarship. It can thus explain the implausible entries. For example, in the case of the goat used for threshing (law 270),{{sfnp|Roth|1995a|p=130}} the previous laws concern other animals that ''were'' used for threshing. The established series of domesticated beasts dictated that a goat come next.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=167}}

[[Wolfram von Soden]], who decades earlier called this way of thinking {{lang|de|Listenwissenschaft}} ("list science"),{{sfnp|von Soden|1936}} often denigrated it.{{sfnmp|1a1=von Soden|1y=1936|2a1=von Soden|2y=1994|2pp=146, 158}} However, more recent writers, such as Marc Van De Mieroop, Jean Bottéro, and Ann Guinan, have either avoided value judgments or expressed admiration. Lists were central to Mesopotamian science and logic, and their distinctive structural principles let entries be generated infinitely.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=167}} Linking the Code to the scribal tradition within which "list science" emerged also explains why trainee scribes copied and studied it for over a millennium.{{sfnp|Roth|1995b|p=20}} The Code appears in a late Babylonian (7th–6th century BC) list of literary and scholarly texts.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=175}} No other law collection became so entrenched in the curriculum.{{sfnp|Charpin|2010|p=81}} Rather than a code of laws, then, it may be a scholarly treatise.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=173}}

Much has been written on what the Code suggests about Old Babylonian society and its legal system.{{failed verification|date=March 2023}} For example, whether it demonstrates that there were no professional advocates,{{sfnp|Johns|1911}} or that there were professional judges.{{sfnp|Charpin|2010|p=52}} Scholars who approach the Code as a self-contained document renounce such claims.{{sfnmp|1a1=Kraus|1y=1960|1pp=295–296|2a1=Roth|2y=1995b|2pp=13ff}}