Many works appeared which took V. SCHEIL’s transcription and translation
as sufficient, only varying from it where the author was already
possessed of independent knowledge, or had worked over the text with a
view to improve the renderings.
H. WINCKLER, in November, 1902, set out _Die Gesetze Hammurabis, Königs
von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr._ as Part 4 of Volume IV of _Der alte Orient_
(Leipzig, Hinrichs), a complete translation with valuable introduction
and short useful notes. It was followed by a second and third revised
editions in March and November, 1903, which called the Code _Das älteste
Gesetzbuch der Welt_. In 1904 appeared a fuller work by the same author,
_Die Gesetze Hammurabis, Umschrift und Übersetzung, dazu Einleitung,
Wörter-, Eigennamen-Verzeichnis, die sogenannten sumerischen
Familiengesetze und die Gesetztafel, Brit. Mus._, 82-7-14, 988. This was
a most valuable work, and has been liberally made use of by subsequent
writers (Leipzig, Hinrichs).
In 1903 D. H. MÜLLER delivered lectures on the Code embodied in
_Vorläufige Mitteilungen über die Gesetze des Hammurabi_, published in
the _Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Classe der K. K. Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Wien_, vol. xiv, and in the _X. Jahresbericht der
israelitisch-theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien_, 1903, issued _Die
Gesetze Hammurabis und die mosaische Gesetzgebung_, afterwards published
as a separate work (Vienna, A. Hölder, 1903), with some additions. It
contained not only a transcription, but a remarkable translation into
Hebrew, which did much to bring out the likeness to the laws of Moses,
and made the Code accessible to a variety of deeply interested readers
who would have missed the point of a transcription, or even of a
translation into modern German. It was severely attacked by KOHLER and
PEISER in the _Deutsche Literatur-Zeitung_, 1904, no. 5. MÜLLER replied
in no. 8, where KOHLER answered him. MÜLLER, however, made many acute
suggestions as to the Babylonian text, as well as the subject-matter,
and his views have received continued support. His comparison with the
other ancient codes, especially with the books of Moses and the Roman
Twelve Tables, was full of fresh matter and well deserves careful study.
In 1904 was published what promised to be an epoch-making work. J.
KOHLER, Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Berlin,
brought his unrivalled knowledge of ancient laws to bear on the legal
side of the Code; and F. E. PEISER, so well versed in Babylonian Legal
Documents (see p. 83, below), who had worked with KOHLER before,
attempted an improved translation. The work appeared as Band I of
_Hammurabi’s Gesetze_, and contained _Übersetzung, juristische
Wiedergabe, Erläuterung_ (Leipzig, Pfeiffer). Band II was to contain
philological researches, a transcription with a grammatical and
lexicographical treatment. Band III was to be an _Urkundenbuch_, to give
a selection of the more important documents of the Hammurabi period so
as to form a contemporary commentary. In many points PEISER, or his
translation, misled KOHLER, and the work was vigorously attacked by D.
H. MÜLLER as _Die Kohler-Peisersche Hammurabi-Übersetzung_ in the
_Zeitschrift für die Privat-und Öffentlichen Rechte der Gegenwart_, Bd.
xxxi (Wien, Hölder, 1904). M. SCHORR also contributed an article on _Die
Kohler-Peisersche Hammurabi-Übersetzung_ to the _Wiener Zeitschrift für
die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. xviii, pp. 208-40, with a long series
of acute and severe criticisms. We may note here MÜLLER’s _Zur
Hammurabi-Kritik_ in _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, lix, pp. 145-9, ZIMMERN’s article under same title, same
place, pp. 150-4, and MÜLLER’s article with the same title in _Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, xix, pp. 371-88, carrying
on a controversy which cleared up some points. In this great work A.
UNGNAD became associated with KOHLER, and to him is due the _Umschrift_
published as Band II with a complete glossary of the Code, and an
_Anhang_ with a register of the duplicates then known, Old Babylonian,
Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian, which were used to complete the text
(Leipzig, Pfeiffer, 1909).