Hatha Sunahara
3rd June 2012, 07:59 PM
On another thread, GunDriller made a recommendation to read the Sanhedrin part of the Talmud, and pointed out its similarity to the Uniform Commercial Code. I ran into another posted article that called commercial law 'Babylonian Law'. I dug a little deeper, looking into Babylonian Law, and I found this:
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1223309663
The law of Babylonia has had an immense effect upon that of nearly all the countries of Europe . . . The literature of Babylon has perished; but the element of culture which has endured was greater than the literature. That element is law, an organized intelligible system of rights and duties enforced by the State. . . The great work of the nation was the production of a system of law, necessary to the extended commercial activity of the city . . . The complex Babylonian civilization, which produced a commercial law in advance of any other ancient system . . . was . . . the product of . . . its relations to the other countries of the world.
The exercise of judicial functions, at least in matters of commercial law, seems to have been in the hands of the hierarchy. The reasons for this may have been in part those which, in the mediaeval period of European history, threw the control of legal procedure largely into the hands of the ecclesiastics. In Babylon, the custom of documentary evidence in almost all transactions . . . and the wide extent to which written contracts were employed, made the notarial and judicial functions of the priests very extensive. But the part taken in business transactions by the priesthood was appropriate for another reason, which perhaps had more influence in the time of the early law, before the purely commercial side had been developed. This was the part which was connected with contractual oaths, which at first were numerous. The contracting parties were obliged in their contracts to swear by the principal god of the country, and by the reigning prince, that they would abide by the conditions of the contract . . ."
The Babylonian Law developed to the fullest extent the idea of a Contract. Almost any possible business transaction was reduced to the form of a contract and was executed with the same formalities - i.e., with witnesses, notary, and signature. Thus the points as to deeds, sales, mortgages, loans, and banking are in no respect different in form from the matter of hiring, rent and leases, partnership, testaments, and domestic relations, including adoption. Transactions so very different could be reduced to the same principle, or brought under the one head, only by a highly abstract conception of contract itself. From forms of contract . . . we pass to the relations of master and servant, leases, and future delivery of goods.
Sub-section A. Master and Servant. . . a man might well make a contract with another whom he hired for a year, or whom he contracted to serve for a year. . . example . . . In connection with this contract, it should be noted that Ubarru was regarded as a free agent, hiring himself out. But since he enters into a relation to his master in which he is temporarily in the condition of a slave, he has a representative, or guardian . . .
. . . In the case of a slave the name of the slave's father is never given. The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle. The actual point of this contract is the transfer of the right to a man's services. Such a transaction is but a part of the whole Babylonian system, whereby every credit or right was passed from one to another by means of contracts. . .
The law was very strict as to the beginning and termination of these contracts. . . If the servant did not appear, he could be arrested and brought to his master, as he was his master's man. ...
This species of . . . slavery was of great importance and very customary in Old Babylon.
Babylon('s) . . . commercial customs . . . became . . . the commercial law of the whole known world. Of . . . these Rome was . . . possessed from the earliest period . . . "
Does this sound like our modern (Admiralty) legal system?
You might want to read the whole piece at the link above.
I haven't read the Talmud yet, but I'm confident that the Sanhedrin part of it is, in principle, almost identical to the UCC. Why would anyone want to reinvent the wheel?
Hatha
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1223309663
The law of Babylonia has had an immense effect upon that of nearly all the countries of Europe . . . The literature of Babylon has perished; but the element of culture which has endured was greater than the literature. That element is law, an organized intelligible system of rights and duties enforced by the State. . . The great work of the nation was the production of a system of law, necessary to the extended commercial activity of the city . . . The complex Babylonian civilization, which produced a commercial law in advance of any other ancient system . . . was . . . the product of . . . its relations to the other countries of the world.
The exercise of judicial functions, at least in matters of commercial law, seems to have been in the hands of the hierarchy. The reasons for this may have been in part those which, in the mediaeval period of European history, threw the control of legal procedure largely into the hands of the ecclesiastics. In Babylon, the custom of documentary evidence in almost all transactions . . . and the wide extent to which written contracts were employed, made the notarial and judicial functions of the priests very extensive. But the part taken in business transactions by the priesthood was appropriate for another reason, which perhaps had more influence in the time of the early law, before the purely commercial side had been developed. This was the part which was connected with contractual oaths, which at first were numerous. The contracting parties were obliged in their contracts to swear by the principal god of the country, and by the reigning prince, that they would abide by the conditions of the contract . . ."
The Babylonian Law developed to the fullest extent the idea of a Contract. Almost any possible business transaction was reduced to the form of a contract and was executed with the same formalities - i.e., with witnesses, notary, and signature. Thus the points as to deeds, sales, mortgages, loans, and banking are in no respect different in form from the matter of hiring, rent and leases, partnership, testaments, and domestic relations, including adoption. Transactions so very different could be reduced to the same principle, or brought under the one head, only by a highly abstract conception of contract itself. From forms of contract . . . we pass to the relations of master and servant, leases, and future delivery of goods.
Sub-section A. Master and Servant. . . a man might well make a contract with another whom he hired for a year, or whom he contracted to serve for a year. . . example . . . In connection with this contract, it should be noted that Ubarru was regarded as a free agent, hiring himself out. But since he enters into a relation to his master in which he is temporarily in the condition of a slave, he has a representative, or guardian . . .
. . . In the case of a slave the name of the slave's father is never given. The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle. The actual point of this contract is the transfer of the right to a man's services. Such a transaction is but a part of the whole Babylonian system, whereby every credit or right was passed from one to another by means of contracts. . .
The law was very strict as to the beginning and termination of these contracts. . . If the servant did not appear, he could be arrested and brought to his master, as he was his master's man. ...
This species of . . . slavery was of great importance and very customary in Old Babylon.
Babylon('s) . . . commercial customs . . . became . . . the commercial law of the whole known world. Of . . . these Rome was . . . possessed from the earliest period . . . "
Does this sound like our modern (Admiralty) legal system?
You might want to read the whole piece at the link above.
I haven't read the Talmud yet, but I'm confident that the Sanhedrin part of it is, in principle, almost identical to the UCC. Why would anyone want to reinvent the wheel?
Hatha