nd question the dependence of the one upon the other?

There are, then, marked resemblances between the Hebrew Decalogue,
certain requirements among the Babylonians, among the Egyptians, and
among the Buddhists. I know of no one who claims that the Decalogue
was borrowed from Buddha; some, however, seem to think, that in part at
least, it was dependent upon Babylon; others, that Moses is indebted
for it to Egypt. True, in the minds of most scholars the dependence is
not direct; there would be room, according to their theory, for the
work of the Spirit in the selection of these fundamental, ethical
conceptions {216} from the great mass of requirements, the majority of
which are far inferior to the Decalogue. Such dependence, even if it
could be proved, would not rob the Decalogue of inspiration or
permanent value; but it seems to me that the similarities do not
warrant the claim of even such dependence. Is it not more likely that
these similarities are due to the instinct implanted in man by the
Creator, which recognizes the sanctity of life, of family relations,
and of property rights? But this instinct does not account for the
obvious differences between the Hebrew Decalogue as a whole and the
legislations of other peoples. These must be traced to the special
activity of a Spirit who produced among the Hebrews a collection of
commandments such as natural instinct, if left to itself, could not
have produced.

It is different, perhaps, when we consider the relation of the more
comprehensive civil legislation of the Pentateuch to the Code of
Hammurabi. There the resemblances are numerous and striking enough to
justify the inference that there exists some relation of dependence,
and yet by no means that the legislation of the Pentateuch is borrowed
directly from the other, or even that there is a literary dependence.
How extensive this dependence is only careful examination can show;
but, however complete, it will not destroy the fact that the laws of
Israel are permeated by a Divine {217} Spirit. The important question
is not, Where do we find the natural basis upon which the system is
built up by men under divine guidance? but, Does the spirit and
character of the system indicate such guidance?

In the second place, in seeking the truth about this relationship
assumption must not be confused with knowledge. Modern archaeologists
seem to be in peculiar danger of taking things for granted. It is not
without re