Source of Law in the Biblical 331 is a cornerstone of the Israelite credo and constitutes, in my opinion, the most essential distinction between the classical mythologies and their view of the relationship between gods and humans, and the Israelite conception. The Israelite laws founded upon this axiom bear the same distinction. b) Revisions of Laws and their Execution Another decisive feature of the cuneiform laws is their ability to be changed. The same power that promulgated the law has, by its nature, the authority to alter them. Hammurapi, in his Epilogue, curses the man who will “overturn the judgments that I rendered, change my pronouncement”, and implores the gods to punish him. Such a state- ment suggests that laws were or could be changed after the demise of the king who promulgated them. Hittite laws, for instance, clearly demonstrate reforms (35). It is a matter of scholarly debate whether such changes always represent underlying development in sociological and philosophical thought (36), or are limited to changes in prices and penalties (37). I suggest that there are changes in legal thinking between the different law collections (38). In the Eshnunna Laws (LE), for instance, there is no public corporal punishment or service to the king required in addition to the appropriate settlement to the injured party. The public seems not to be affected in a quarrel between two citizens. In the later Middle Assyrian Laws, in contrast, we observe a well-organized society in which there is a public interest in the private affairs of the citizens. We may note, for instance, the complex administrative process for the acquisition of real estate (MAL B 6), the corporal punishments and service to the king for harmful acts against citizens (MAL B 14), and, on the other hand, the public authority’s responsibility for the wellbeing of the (35) The Late Version (c.1500 – 1180 BCE) parallels of a great number of laws in the Old Version (c. 1650 – 1500 BCE) clearly demonstrate substantial alterations. (36) As suggested by S. GREENGUS, “Some Issues Relating to the Compat- ibility of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Tradition”, Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, 60-87. (37) As argued by R. WESTBROOK, “What is the Covenant Code”‘, Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, 15-36. (38) I follow here the opinion of P. Koschaker; see, e.g., the arguments presented in Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurapis, Königs von Babylon (Leipzig 1917).