A Comparative Study of the Verbal Analyses of the Case Laws of the Law Code of Hammurabi and the Book of the Covenant,

Babatunde Adekunle Ogunlana (PhD) Baptist Theological Seminary, P.O. Box 94, Kaduna, Nigeria Abstract This paper considers the fact that the verbal forms typically used in the protases (if-clauses) of conditional sentences in the law code of Hammurabi (iptaras and iprus) have a typical value of past (‘if a man stole a man’s small child ...’), while the verbal forms typically used in the protases of conditional sentences in the Book of the Covenant (yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal) have a typical value of future (‘if a man will steal another man ...’). Meanwhile, the verbal forms typically used in the apodoses (then-clauses) of conditional sentences in both CoH (iparras) and BC (yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal) have a typical value of future (‘... then he must be killed’). The conclusion of the research is that there are minor differences between the verbal forms in CoH and BC. The differences seem to have to do with the perception of whether the crime is seen as already having taken place (CoH) or to take place in the future (BC).


INTRODUCTION
Akkadian (c.2000-1500 B.C.) and Biblical Hebrew (c.1000 B.C.-A.D. 70) are related Semitic languages and therefore have related verbal system. Their verbal systems are generally considered to be complex because their verbal forms are highly polysemous. The study of verbal systems is concerned with describing the verbal forms in a language in terms of the features of tense, aspect and modality. There is no straightforward method for interpreting these verbal forms (Joosten 39). Furthermore, the categorization of their verbal forms into tense, aspect and modality has been a difficult task. For instance, scholars first understood Biblical Hebrew as having tenses. Thus, many theories have been propounded in this regard. These theories are held by scholars like Gesenius, Blau, Rainey, Gropp and others. Tense has to do with the principle by which events are located in a given time-frame such as the past, the present or the future (Joosten 22). Later, scholars began to know about aspect-oriented theory, which emerged from Ewald's relative tense theory (Warren 64). They began to assert that Biblical Hebrew is a language with no tense, but with aspect (Hatav 2). Aspect is usually referred to the point of view from which a process is represented (Joosten 28). It is distinguished into two categories, the perfective and imperfective aspect. While the perfective aspect is defined as 'semantically punctual, complete, bounded, viewed from the outside' (Cohen,, the imperfective aspect is 'semantically durative, incomplete, habitual, continuous, referring to a process, unbounded, viewed from the inside' (Cohen,. Presently, the modality approach has been added to the circle. Modality has been understood by many scholars as the 'attitude or opinions' of the speaker towards an utterance (Cook,'The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System' 64). There are many types of modality, but two of these are relevant for this work: epistemic modality and deontic modality. While epistemic modality has to do 'with the degree of knowledge regarding a process, as in expressions of doubt, likelihood, expectation or assertion', deontic modality has to do 'with what makes a process a necessity as in expressions of intention, volition, permission or obligation' (Joosten 31). However, there is an overlapping in the three approaches. Warren argues that tense marking sometimes will often imply aspectual and modal functions. Aspect will tend to imply tense. Modal forms will also tend to imply aspect and tense .
In this study, I delve into solving a problem in relation to comparative study of the verbal systems of Akkadian in the law code of Hammurabi (c.900-500 B.C.) and Biblical Hebrew in the of case laws of Book of the Covenant (c.1792-1750. Why do the protases of conditional sentences in the law code of Hammurabi (CoH) have a typical value of past and the protases of conditional sentences in the Book of the Covenant (BC) have a typical value of future? And, why do the apodoses of conditional sentences in both CoH and BC have a typical value of future? I offer analyses of laws in CoH and BC in order to identify the verbal forms that appear in them, and then clarify the roles of these verbal forms. I then conclude by relating the roles of these verbal forms to the contexts of CoH and BC.

ANALYSIS OF SOME LAWS IN COH
I limit my analysis to 24 laws 1 in CoH. And I restrict the study to main clause verbs. In these laws, there appear three finite verbal forms: iptaras, iprus and iparras These verbal forms appear in the protases and apodoses of conditional sentences in CoH, and each of them functions differently in the laws. The statistical data of the verbal forms in CoH are represented in the table below. Iptaras Iptaras (traditionally called perfect or T-perfect (Deutscher 31)) has a typical value of past, but with a specific nuance in meaning. The nuance is believed to be actuality. Through iptaras, the speaker represents the past event as still actual to the moment of speech (Kouwenberg 140). It is best rendered as 'someone has done something', 'something has happened' or 'something has been done' (Goetze 312,321). It appears only in the protases of conditional sentences, and is identified as perfective aspect . It is most often used to express the conditional events in the protases. It occupies the 'foreground' or main line of the protases of the legal text. Any verbal form which occupies the 'foreground' of the text usually pushes the story or conversation forward. And any verbal form which occupies the 'background' provides some kind of background information which is critical to understanding the main story line (Witt 26). Of the 23 occurrences, 14 appear without the particle -ma, 'and', 7 appear in a chain of iprus-ma … iptaras and 2 appear in iptaras-ma ..: iptaras chain. When iptaras appears without the particle -ma, as in (1), it indicates that the event is completed at the moment referred to in the apodosis of conditional sentences (Cohen 127). This demonstrates that it expresses anteriority to the event described in the apodosis. It serves as a point of reference for apodictic clause (Loesov 89,90). It also serves to indicate the current relevance of a past event. When we talk about the current relevance, we mean 'a present state resulting from a past action' (Loesov 85). 2 This indicates that iptaras in the protases of CoH is 'present perfect', which contains the punishable acts. When iptaras appears in a chain of iptaras-ma … iptaras, as in (2), it serves the same role as when it appears without the particle -ma as described above. In addition, there is a logical relationship between the two clauses which contain iptaras, where the first clause is logically subordinate to the second. But when iptaras appears in a chain of iprus-ma … iptaras, as in (3), iprus normally forms the background for the more salient event, which occurs as iptaras. Iptaras thus represents the events that are legally the most relevant (Cohen 127). 4 So iptaras indicates the critical event, the event upon which the judgment in the apodosis is based (Huehnergard 157

Iprus
Iprus (traditionally called preterite (Deutscher 31)) is thought to have a typical value of past. It refers to an action as a past fact, and is usually expressed as 'somebody did something' (Goetze 312). It is therefore normally translated with a simple past tense (Huehnergard 19). Iprus appears in the protases and apodoses of conditional sentences, and is identified as having perfective aspect. Of the 21 occurrences, 17 appear in the protases of conditional sentences and 4 in the apodoses of conditional sentences. In the protases, 7 appear without any particle, 9 appear with the particle -ma and 1 appears with the subjunctive marker -u (indicating subordinate clause). The four that appear in the apodoses are with the subjunctive marker -u. When iprus appears without any particle in the protasis, as in (4), it is used in the same sense as iptaras. It indicates the foregrounded event, the event upon which the judgment in the apodosis is based (Huehnergard 157).

CoH 21 šumma awῑlum bῑtam ipluš, ina pani pilšim šuāti idukkūšuma iḫallalūšu. 'If a man smashed [iprus] a way into a house, they must kill [iparras] and hang [iparras] him just where he broke in'.
When it appears with the particle -ma, as in (5), it expresses those facts which serve as 'background' leading up to the most important fact or facts that the lawmaker wishes to provide a legal remedy for in the apodosis . So in this case, it depicts background activities as opposed to iptaras forms (Cohen 7). It denotes a situation that is anterior to the situation expressed by a verb in iptaras form (See Loesov 2004).

CoH 209 šumma awῑlum mārat awῑlim imḫaṣma ša libbiša uštaddῑši, 10 šiqil kaspam ana ša libbiša išaqqal 'if a man struck [iprus + ma] the daughter of a man and has made [iptaras] her lose her unborn child, he must pay [iparras] ten shekels of silver for the foetus'.
When it appears with the subordination marker -u in the protases and apodoses, as in (6) and (7), it serves as a referential event to an event previously mentioned in the protasis (Cohen, 2012:133).

Iparras
Iparras (traditionally called present-future or durative (Huehnergard 98)) has a typical value of future. But, it can also be used for present, durative and habitual actions as well as a range of modal meanings such as 'may', 'can', 'should' or 'must' (Deutscher 31). It is always posterior to a given reference point (which is the time of the law formulation) and since the future is close to modality, it can denote the latter in the legal apodosis (Cohen 127). It appears only in the apodoses of conditional sentences, and is identified as having imperfective aspect. It appears to signal foreground in the apodoses. Of the 37 occurrences, 3 appear without the particle -ma and 4 appear with the particle -ma. When it appears without the particle -ma, as in (8), it serves to indicate anticipated information which depends on the validity of the protasis. When we have a chain of iparras-ma … iparras, as in (9), the first clause which has iparras-ma is logically related to the second clause with iparras (Huehnergard 50).

Summary
The three verbal forms iptaras, iprus and iparras in CoH are distributed, so as to express various events in the protases and apodoses of conditional sentences. Each plays different roles in CoH. Iptaras appears as a perfective aspect. It functions to express the critical and foregrounded conditional events in the protases. Iprus also appears as a perfective aspect. It is sometimes used in the same sense as iptaras. In addition, it is used to express background events in a chain of iprus-ma … iptaras. It is also used to express referential events when it appears with the subordination marker -u. Iparras appears as an imperfective aspect. It serves to express the anticipatory consequences and signals foreground in the apodoses. The roles of these verbal forms are summarized in the Yiqṭōl Yiqṭōl (traditionally called prefix conjugation or imperfective (Joosten viii)) usually functions to refer to a process not yet begun (Joosten 268), to describe events belonging to the future (Driver 28), to express an action only as doing, and not as done, and to express a command (Driver 29). Joosten further stretches that over 80% of yiqṭōl form in a typical text may have a future-modal function (Joosten 268). Yiqṭōl can appear as a 'long' yiqṭōl and a 'short' yiqṭōl. While the 'long' yiqṭōl signifies the present-future or modal, the 'short' signifies usually jussive mood (Waltke and O'Connor 496).
Yiqṭōl is the main tense and primary form in conditional sentences in BC, so it expresses the foreground situation in the laws. It is used to describe the conditional situations in the protases and the legal consequences in the apodoses. It has a typical value of future. It appears modally in the protases and apodoses. As a modal verb, it is used in the protases to denote propositions which are knowledge-based and are usually labeled epistemic . It is used to express the speaker's attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition in the protases (Palmer 8), as in (13) Also as a modal verb, it is used in the apodoses to denote directives which are not yet actualized and are usually labeled deontic (Palmer 8). Thus, its usage denotes the obligation, emanating from an external source (Palmer 9). The modal verb 'must', which, like other modal verbs, expresses the relation between the factual world and the nonfactual world, is often used for it (DeClerk 39). Furthermore, yiqṭōl is used to represent a real situation which arises as a legal consequence of the situation described in the protasis (Waltke and O'Connor 511), as in (14). 7 Sometimes, yiqṭōl is used with qāṭôl to stress the condition or consequence of the laws, as in (15) Wĕqāṭal Wĕqāṭal (traditionally called the suffix conjugation preceded by waw or perfect consecutive (Joosten viii)) is thought to have its origin in perfective qāṭal (see Waltke and O'Connor 521-523 and Joosten, 'Biblical Weqatal and Syriac hwa Qatel' 3). It also has a typical value of future. Furthermore, its semantics, according to Cook, are compatible with temporally successive expressions (Cook, 'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 265). He defines temporary succession as the 'the linear portrayal of events according to the order or their occurrence in the depicted world' (Cook,'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 251). Wĕqāṭal is the form of preference for expressing chronological sequence (Kompaoré 65). Joosten emphasizes that wĕqāṭal and yiqṭōl often occur in the same context, and when they occur side by side, it is hard to detect any temporal, modal or aspectual difference between these forms. They share exactly the same temporal-aspectual-modal functions. Both can be used as expressions of futurity-modality . Furthermore, wĕqāṭal is often used to continue other modal forms like imperatives, jussives and cohortatives in the protases (Holmstedt 137).
Wĕqāṭal appears as a modal form in Exodus 21:2-22:16. It is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl. It is identified as an extension of the form's primary modal meanings in the protases and apodoses. Just like yiqṭōl, it signals foreground situations in the protases and apodoses. In the protases, it has an epistemic sense. It is used to continue the description of the situation already introduced by yiqṭōl in the protases, as in (16). 9 So it does not appear in the clause introduced by the particle ‫כי‬ or ‫.אם‬ It is used to express foregrounded, temporally successive situations in the protases (See Cook In the protases, it also appears as alternative situations, as in (17). 10 It is especially used after participle to describe temporal or alternative situation in the protases.

‫ישׁ‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫ֵב‬ ‫נ‬ ‫גֹ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫א‬ ‫צָ‬ ‫מְ‬ ‫נִ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ו‬ ‫רֹ‬ ‫כָ‬ ‫וּמְ‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ָדֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫ת‬ ‫יוּמָ‬ ‫ות‬ ‫מֹ‬ ‫׃‬ 'Whoever steals a man and sells him [wĕqāṭal], or anyone found [wĕqāṭal] in possession of him, must die'.
From its frequent use in the apodoses, wĕqāṭal has a deontic sense. And it often marks temporal succession. Temporal succession refers 'to the order of their occurrence in the depicted world' (Cook,'The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics' 251). Wĕqāṭal is always a continuation form, so never comes first in the chain. It also expresses a consequent (logical and/or chronological) situation to a situation represented by a protasis (Waltke and O'Connor, 1990:529). Waltke and O'Connor refer the relative waw in wĕqāṭal as apodosis waw, which is equivalent to English 'then'. This apodosis waw usually introduces an apodosis after a protasis (Waltke and O'Connor 521), as in (18)

Qāṭal
Qāṭal (traditionally called perfective or suffix conjugation (Joosten viii)) is used to denote an action completed and finished at a definite moment in the past, fixed by the narrative (Driver 13). Qāṭal has been translated with English as simple past, past perfect, present perfect, present, future perfect and modal (Cook,'The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System' 75). Qāṭal appears only in the protases in the text. In many instances, it has a typical value of past. It also refers to anterior situations (Hatav 147). Driver describes it as actions relating to a past time, which might have happened but did not happen, which are therefore only for the moment conceived as having occurred, under conditions not actually realized (Driver 23). Thus, its clauses refer to situations that precede the situations described in the protases. It is used to give background information to the laws. In such situation, it is used to express a completed action, as in (19) In few occasions, it is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl in describing propositional situations. It appears with ‫אם‬ in some occasions to express the propositional situation, as in (20) It also appears with ‫או‬ in the protases. Sometimes ‫או‬ introduces subcase of the main or subsidiary protasis (Wenham 98). In such case, ‫או‬ seems to act like a waw-relative. Where ‫או‬ immediately precedes the verb, qāṭal is used instead of yiqṭōl, as in (21) Where there is a noun between ‫או‬ and the verb, yiqṭōl is used, as in (22)

Qōṭēl
Qōṭēl is the Hebrew active participle. It is a verbal noun. It participates in both nominal and verbal characteristics. It has four principal functions in biblical Hebrew: it functions as a substantive, an adjective, a relative and a predicate (Waltke and O'Connor 613). As substantive, the qōṭēl functions as a noun, most often occurring with the definite article (Arnold 82). As adjective, it functions attributively (ascribes a quality to a noun) (Arnold 78) and predicatively (expresses an assertion about a noun or pronoun in a nominal clause) (Arnold 79). Qōṭēl can be used as the equivalent of relative clauses. It is also used as the predicate of a verbless clause. In Exodus 21:1-22:16, qōṭēl is taken as equivalent to ‫כי‬ and finite verb in the protases of Exodus 21:12, 15, 16, 17. The finite verb expresses modality of necessity, as in (26). It has the same sense as yiqṭōl.

Summary
The four verbal forms yiqṭōl, wĕqāṭal, qāṭal and qōṭēl in Exodus 21:2-22:16 are distributed so as to express various situations in the protases and apodoses of casuistic laws. Each plays different roles in the text. Yiqṭōl appears modally. It expresses the foreground situations in the protases and apodoses. It has an epistemic sense in the protases and a deontic sense in the apodoses. Wĕqāṭal appears modally. It has the same sense as yiqṭōl. In addition, it is often used to continue the description of the necessary conditional situations in the protases and obligatory consequent situations in the apodoses. Qāṭal appears as a perfective aspect and a modal verb. As a perfective aspect, it gives past background information to the laws. As a modal, it is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl. Qōṭēl is used as modal and non-modal forms in modal clauses. As modal, it is used in the same sense as yiqṭōl. As non-modal, it functions as an anticipated background situation. 56  Therefore, the verbal forms in BC: yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal being modal suggests that the laws in BC are Yahweh's propositions and directives for the Israelites. The propositions in the protases are knowledgebased because they are based on the events already known to the people. The directives in the apodoses are Yahweh's attitude towards the offenses described in the protases. BC must, thus, be a later insertion into the Sinai narrative context.  Based on these findings, I submit that BC might have depended on a known legal code indirectly, however, its verbal system demonstrates that even if BC has depended on a known legal code, it has not been written using a strict direct syntactic correspondence.
 All the verbal forms in both CoH and the casuistic laws of BC are used to express the conditions in the protases and the legal consequences in the apodoses.
 Moreover, all of them being expressed in the conditional construction indicate that the verbal forms in CoH and BC are all equivalent in meaning, but belong to different categories.
 Iptaras and iprus which are the main verbal forms in the protases of conditional sentences in CoH carry perfective aspect, appear indicatively and have a typical value of past.
 In addition, iparras, the main verbal form, in the apodoses of conditional sentences in CoH carries imperfective aspect, appears indicatively and has a typical value of future.
 Yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal, the main verbal forms, in BC carry modality, appear modally and have a typical value of future.
 Therefore, the verbal forms in CoH: iptaras, iprus and iparras being indicative and used in the modal clauses point to the fact that the laws in CoH were formulated based on the events that took place during the reign of Hammurabi.
 Moreover, the verbal forms in BC: yiqṭōl and wĕqāṭal being modal suggests that the laws in BC are Yahweh's propositions and directives for the Israelites on Mount Sinai. The propositions in the protases are knowledge-based because they are based on the events already known to the people, and the directives in the apodoses are Yahweh's attitude towards the offenses described in the protases. The E-writers might have invented these verbal forms, which are different from the older law codes to fit the Sinai narrative context.  The comparisons of the grammatical contexts of CoH and BC demonstrate that there are minor differences between the verbal forms in CoH and BC. The differences seem to have to do with the perception of whether the crime is seen as already having taken place (CoH) or to take place in the future (BC).