Abstract

Scholars have long wrestled with the question of why the Laws of Hammurabi provide two different sanctions for the theft of temple (and palace) property: the death penalty (§6) and thirtyfold restitution (§8). While reviewing Neo- and Late Babylonian evidence on sacrilegious theft, this paper argues that Babylonian law neatly distinguished between the theft of sacred objects and the theft of nonsacred temple property, which incurred different penalties, corresponding to those that §6 and §8 of the Laws of Hammurabi impose. It further seeks to identify the criteria that determined the classification of certain objects as res sacrae and the legal and cultic consequences of sacrilegious theft.