• Since the discovery of the Laws of Hammurapi in December 1901–January 1902,1
    the dependence of biblical law upon Mesopotamian law has been hotly debated. Among
    the most contentious issues is the abjudication of homicide, and the discussion has focused
    on particular odd cases in biblical law, such as an ox that gored or assault on a pregnant
    woman, that appear to have been borrowed from Mesopotamian law.2 The more
    common occurrences of fatal assault and the procedures to remedy them, however, have
    been largely ignored. What institutions insured that homicide was punished in biblical law,
    and what relationship did they have to Mesopotamian legal process? I will argue that the
    institutions that insured that a homicide would be investigated and remedied in biblical law
    were vastly different from those in Mesopotamian law and that the difference originates in
    disparate conceptions of the organization of society. Mesopotamian texts reflect the extensive
    involvement of the state in the process of remedying homicide. The members of the
    victim’s family participated in the process insofar as they had the right to make a claim on
    the slayer, but there does not seem to be any apprehension generated by the possibility of
    a blood avenger waiting to strike down the killer. By contrast, blood feud operated in biblical
    law, and places of sanctuary were needed to protect the killer.