All the above works contained more or less discussion of the Code from
various points of view.
In October, 1902, the present writer read a paper before the _Cambridge
Theological Society_, an abstract of which appeared in the January
number of the _Journal of Theological Studies_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1903). The Code was here dealt with as _material for comparison with the
Laws of Moses_, but no comparison was made. A. UNGNAD wrote _Zur Syntax
der Gesetze Hammurabis_ in vol. xvii of the _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, pp. 353-78 (Strassburg, K. J. Trübner, May, 1903), and
again in vol. xviii, pp. 1-67. The text of the Code, by its careful
phraseology and exact use of grammatical forms, has become a classic for
the study of the language. The order of the sentence is, however,
somewhat unusual, and probably shows the influence of the legal
phraseology of the time, which was based on Sumerian law precedents. D.
H. MÜLLER took up this point in _Die Wortfolge bei Hammurabi und die
sumerische Frage_, an article in _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des
Morgenlandes_, vol. xvii, pp. 337-42 (Wien, Hölder, 1904), followed by
_Noch einmal die Wortfolge bei Hammurabi und die sumerische Frage_, vol.
xviii, pp. 89-94. _Der Gebrauch der Modi in den Gesetzen Hammurabis_,
xviii, pp. 95-8, by D. H. MÜLLER, appeared in the _Wiener Zeitschrift
für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_ (Vienna, A. Hölder, 1904).
In the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vol. xviii, pp. 202-22, S.
DAICHES contributed a most important article, _Zur Erklärung des
Hammurabi-Codex_ (1904). The same title was used by A. UNGNAD for an
article in the _Wissenschaftliches Correspondenzblatt der
Philologie—Novitates_ for October, 1906, pp. 8-9.
In vol. xix of the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, pp. 388-91, CHR.
SARAUW took up the grammar of the Code in an article _Zum Kasus-System
des Hammurabi-Kodex_, 1906.
E. WOHLFRAMM has since written _Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Codex
Hammurabis_ (Leipzig, Drugulin, 1910).
In the _Expository Times_, vol. xiv, pp. 257-8, the present writer gave
an article on the _Code of Hammurabi_, and in _The Journal of
Theological Studies_, vol. v, pp. 313-16, under the same title, a notice
of the bibliography at that date. A. W. SAYCE wrote on _The Laws of
Hammurabi_, _Expository Times_, vol. xv, pp. 184-6. _The Code of King
Hammurabi_ appeared in _The Times_, April 14, 1903; _The Laws of
Hammurabi_, by L. T. HOBHOUSE, in _The Speaker_, March 7, 1903; D. O.
DYKES in _The Juridical Review_, discussed some legal points; E. KÖNIG
gave an estimate in _Beweis des Glaubens_, 1903, pp. 169-80. P.
LOTICHIUS wrote _Die Gesetzessammlung des Königs Hammurabi von Babylon_
in _Protestantenblatt_, 1903, nos. 29, 30. C. F. LEHMANN contributed an
article on _Hammurabi’s Code_ to _The Nineteenth Century_, 1903, pp.
1035-44. These served to give a wider publicity to the Code.
In _Notes on the Hammurabi Monument_, _Journal of the American Oriental
Society_, vol. xxv, pp. 266-78, D. G. LYON, 1904 (New Haven, Conn.), and
in _Notes on the Code of Hammurabi_, _American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures_, vol. xxii, pp. 1-28, R. F. HARPER (Chicago,
University Press, 1905) made some important contributions to the
understanding of the text. D. H. MÜLLER wrote _Ueber die Gesetze
Hammurabis_ (Wien, Hölder, 1904); T. G. PINCHES had an article
_Hammurabi’s Code of Laws_ in the _Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology_, 1902, pp. 301-8, among other valuable comments
pointing out a hitherto unrecognized fragment in Ashurbanipal’s Library.
The present writer discussed some difficulties in _Notes on the Code of
Hammurabi_ contributed to the _American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literature_, vol. xix, pp. 96-107, 172-5 (Chicago, University Press,
1903); T. G. PINCHES wrote also on _The Laws of the Babylonians as
recorded in the Code of Hammurabi_ in _The Journal of the Victoria
Institute_, 1903, pp. 237-55.
P. CRUVEILHIER discussed _Le Code de Hammurabi_ in _Revue du Clergé
français_, 1912, pp. 413 ff.
There is not space to chronicle all the reviews of these books and
articles on the Code, though many of them are practically articles in
themselves and marked advances. As a rule, later books used up all that
appeared in the reviews of any note, and some of them give references to
such sources. Such discussions are of fundamental importance for the
exact understanding of the Code.