Editing Code of Hammurabi (section)

===Legislation===
{{multiple image
| total_width       = 300
| image1            = Mosaic of Justinianus I - Basilica San Vitale (Ravenna).jpg
| alt1              = Mosaic of Justinian I
| image2            = Napoleon Bonaparte.jpg
| alt2              = Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte in His Study at the Tuileries
| footer            = [[Justinian I]] of the [[Byzantine Empire]] (L) and [[Napoléon Bonaparte]] of France (R) both created legal codes to which the Louvre stele has been compared.
}}

The term "code" presupposes that the document was intended to be enforced as legislation. It was used by Scheil in his {{lang|la|editio princeps}},{{sfnmp|1a1=Souvay|1y=1910|2a1=Kraus|2y=1960|2p=283}} and widely adopted afterwards. C. H. W. Johns, one of the most prolific early commentators on the document, proclaimed that "the Code well deserves its name".{{sfnp|Johns|1903b|p=258}} Recent Assyriologists have used the term without comment,{{sfnmp|1a1=Pfeifer|1y=2011|2a1=Rositani|2y=2017}} as well as scholars outside Assyriology.{{sfnmp|1a1=Alkadry|1y=2002–2003|2a1=Pearn|2y=2016}} However, only if the text was intended as enforced legislation can it truly be called a code of law and its provisions laws.

The document, on first inspection, resembles a highly organised code similar to the [[Code of Justinian]] and the [[Napoleonic Code]].{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=170}} There is also evidence that {{lang|akk|dīnātum}}, which in the Code of Hammurabi sometimes denote individual "laws", were enforced.{{sfnp|Oppenheim|Reiner|1959|pp=150–153}} One copy of the Code calls it a {{lang|akk|ṣimdat šarrim}}, "royal decree", which denotes a kind of enforced legislation.{{sfnp|Bottéro|1992|pp=180–181}}

However, the arguments against this view are strong. Firstly, it would make a very unusual code—Reuven Yaron called the designation "Code" a "persistent misnomer".{{sfnp|Yaron|2013|p=580}} Vital areas of society and commerce are omitted.{{sfnmp|1a1=Driver|1a2=Miles|1y=1952|1pp=45ff.|2a1=Bottéro|2y=1992|2p=161}} For example, [[Marc Van De Mieroop]] observes that the Code "deals with cattle and agricultural fields, but it almost entirely ignores the work of shepherds, vital to Babylonia's economy".{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=165}} Then, against the legislation theory more generally, highly implausible circumstances are covered, such as [[threshing]] with goats, animals far too unruly for the task (law 270).{{sfnmp|1a1=Van De Mieroop|1y=2016|1p=167|2a1=Roth|2y=1995a|2p=130}} The laws are also strictly casuistic ("if{{nbsp}}... then"); unlike in the Mosaic Law, there are no apodictic laws (general commands). These would more obviously suggest prescriptive legislation. The strongest argument against the legislation theory, however, is that most judges appear to have paid the Code no attention. This line of criticism originated with [[Benno Landsberger]] in 1950.{{sfnp|Kraus|1960|p=292}} No Mesopotamian legal document explicitly references the Code or any other law collection,{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=170}} despite the great scale of the corpus.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=172}} Two references to prescriptions on "a stele" ({{lang|akk|narû}}){{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=173}} come closest. In contrast, numerous judgments cite royal {{lang|akk|mīšarum}}-decrees.{{sfnp|Van De Mieroop|2016|p=170}} [[Raymond Westbrook]] held that this strengthened the [[argument from silence]] that ancient Near Eastern legal "codes" had legal import.{{sfnp|Westbrook|2003|p=19}} Furthermore, many Old Babylonian judgments run entirely counter to the Code's prescriptions.{{sfnmp|1a1=Oppenheim|1y=1977|1p=211|2a1=Bottéro|2y=1992|2pp=163–164|3a1=Roth|3y=1995a|3pp=5–6}}