Sacrilegious Theft in First-Millennium BCE Babylonia

Journal of the American Oriental Society 144 (4):739-763 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,449

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On Property and Theft.Geoffrey Klempner - 2008 - Philosophy for Business 45.
The Concept of Theft in Classical Hindu Law.R. K. Sharma & Chanchal Bhattacharya - 1992 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1):168.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-12-06

Downloads
5 (#1,774,538)

6 months
5 (#702,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references