ETH/KOF Arbeitspapiere Nr.

49, April 1997

The Old Testament Anti-Usury Laws Reconsidered:
The Myth of Tribal Brotherhood
Thomas Moser
1
ABSTRACT
While there was in general no negative attitude towards interest on loans in the ancient Near
Eastern civilizations it was the moral commands of the Hebrew Bible that viewed the concept of
interest taking on loans - at least to any member of the community of Israel - as a morally
questionable practice. All of the three legal codes of the Old Testament contain a law prohibiting
the lending on interest whereby the prohibition in the Code of the Covenant in the book of
Exodus is generally agreed to be the oldest. This thrice repeated prohibition against lending for
interest in the Pentateuch is therefore often regarded as the result of a primitive economic
standard and the specific kinship morality of a tribal society. A closer look at the subject seems
to prove this general opinion of most scholars to be a historical myth. In the light of recent
historical research the Hebrew condemnation of lending at interest is neither in striking contrast
with the traditions of Israels ancient neighbors nor rested on very different grounds to the ideas
of Plato.
The Biblical prohibition against lending at interest was formulated by the Deuteronomic
school as part of an ideal law for a new post-exile Israel. It was the utopian response to the
ethical demands of the prophetic thematization of justice after Israels economy had entered the
stage of early capitalism. Therefore it was not the authors of Deuteronomy, who formulated the
prohibition in a stricter way than the traditional Covenant. It was the authors of Deuteronomy,
who were the first to formulate the prohibition, and it was the Deuteronomistic school, which
extended the other codes with a prohibition against lending at interest based on the
Deuteronomic Code. The Old Testament anti-usury laws are but one of the many utopian ethical
demands that had a profound influence on the life and thought of the Western World.
1 Introduction
Credit arrangements and the concept of interest are at least as old as the recorded history of
human society itself, even writing seems to have its origin in the need to record debts and
credits. Documented contracts from the Sumerian civilization c. 3000 BC reveal a systematic

1
Correspondence may be addressed to Thomas Moser, Center for Research of Economic Activity (KOF), Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zurich, Fax: (++41)-1-632 12 34, e-mail:
moser@kof.reok.ethz.ch. I would like to thank Prof. Franz Ritzmann, Prof. Andreas Zimmermann (University
of Zurich), and Prof. Andr Lapidus (Universit de Paris I Panthon-Sorbonne). This paper was presented at the
ESHET Annual Conference in Marseille, 27 February - 2 March 1997.
- 2 -
use of credit.
2
All aspects of the loans were left up to the contracting parties, but most common
were loans of grain at annual rates of 20-50% and loans of silver at 12-30%
3
. The main
creditors were temples, royal treasuries, and private citizens while the main debtors were
farmers and traders
4
. A general feature of all credit arrangements in the ancient Near East is the
fact that interest was an ordinary and an accepted collateral of loans. Although some legal codes
mention some interest rates that generally have been interpreted as maximum rates
5
, not one
single law that prohibits interest or even any other record that states a negative attitude towards
the taking of interest is known.
6
The Hebrew Bible which was to become the Christian Old Testament, on the other hand, con-
tains several negative statements towards the concept of interest-taking, and each of its three
legal codes states an explicit usury
7
prohibition. This striking contrast, with the traditions of the
neighboring Near Eastern civilizations, has given rise to scholarly controversy. Generally two
solutions are offered: (1) That the Hebrew scriptures reflect an economy that was much less de-
veloped than that of its neighbors, and the biblical commandments therefore express a kinship
morality of a tribal society (Nelson 1949). (2) That the Hebrew society was different because
of its religious belief in a God, who demanded justice and protection for the poor. In the light of
recent historical research, both arguments can not be maintained. The second argument can eas-
ily be rejected since the demands of justice and protection for the poor was a common feature of
ancient Near Eastern Gods
8
. Furthermore, the most outstanding creditor in the ancient Near
Eastern economy was the temple of Samas, god of justice, who had its own interest-rate and
whose temple is believed to be the first bank in the world (Bromberg 1942).
9
The problem
with the first argument is that it takes the historical background set out in the Bible more or less
for granted. If put in the right historical context, it can be shown that just as in ancient Greece
and Rome, the first negative statements about the concept of interest were raised during the most
prosperous periods in Israelite economic history.
2 The Legal Codes of the Old Testament
The first five books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch), which according to the Jewish classifi-
cation form the Law (torah), embody three ancient Hebrew legal codes: the Code of the
Covenant (Ex 20:22-23:33), the Law of Holiness (Lev 17-26), and the Deuteronomic Code
(Deut 12-26). Each of these codes contains a law prohibiting interest-taking. Before we take a

2
Van de Mieroop (1992, 94): Lending was a very profitable business in Mesopotamia as can be seen from the
great number of entrepreneurs who involved themselves with it. For several examples of such loans translated
into English see Bromberg (1942), Homer (177, 29), and Van de Mieroop (1992). The most comprehensive
survey is given by Bogaert (1966).
3
See San Nicol (1938), Leemans (1950), and Bogaert (1966).
4
Zettler (1992, 107-109) proved that at least in one case the temple of Inanna at Nippur during Ur III (c. 2112-
2004 BC) borrowed as an institution to cover its deficit.
5
Code of Eschnunna (c. 19th century BC): 33.3% for grain (20) and 20% for silver (21); the same rates are
mentioned in Code of Hammurabi (c. 18th century BC, 70).
6
What we can find are several liquidations of debts via royal proclamations and proverbs that warn against going
into debt. See the Teachings of Amen-em-ope (c. 1200 BC): Do not spend tomorrows riches, todays wealth
is all you own or the Teachings of Ahiquar (c. 700 BC): Receiving a loan is sweet ..., Repaying a loan may
cost all you possess (9,130-135). See Moser (1997, 1998).
7
The term usury stems from the Latin term usura, which in Roman Law denoted the payment for the use of a
loan of any non-specific good. The modern term interest evolved from the Medieval Latin word interesse, a
payment for damages arising to the creditor from default or delay in repayment (the quod interest of Roman
Law). In this paper I will use usury and interest as synonyms.
8
See Matthews, V.H. and D.C. Benjamin (1991), and Boecker (1976)
9
It also has to be noticed that the Old Testament term justice (tsaedaeq) attributed to God refers to the contrac-
tual relationship between God (Yahweh) and his people (Israel) and has the meaning of fidelity or loyalty
towards this Covenant. It goes without saying that such a justice is extremely encouraging for credit ar-
rangements.
- 3 -
closer look at these laws, a preliminary aspect needs to be emphasized. The legal Codes of the
Old Testament are often said to be in outstanding contrast to other ancient Near Eastern Codes.
But it should be recognized that these legal laws have been adapted to the Hebrew scriptures.
Therefore their selection as well as their editing was religiously motivated. Contrary to other
Near Eastern civilizations, we do not know of any pure Hebrew civil Law Code. In my opin-
ion, this seems to be the main reason for their fusion of religious commandments and secular
regulations. It is the aim of this study to show that the usury-laws in the Old Testament have no
secular history.
2. 1 Interest Prohibition in the Book of Covenant: Ex 22:24
10
The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:22-23:33) is generally agreed to be the oldest legal Code in
the Old Testament. The laws in Ex 21:12-22:16 in particular, are believed to be an outcome of
secular jurisdiction. These legal decisions seem to have been transmitted as a purely secular
Law Code until the 9th/8th century BC before it was edited and theologized in the 8th or 7th
century BC, under the influence of the early prophetic movement. As a result, the Book of
the Covenant was on the one hand enlarged by sacred and social demands, and on the other
hand stylized as a divine speech, before it was incorporated into a salvation history of the
children of Israel, as a part of the Pentateuch - which by itself had been again subject to a long
process of editing in the following centuries. These results of recent research have not been
included into the history of economic thought . From the fact that the Book of the Covenant is
regarded as the oldest of the three law legal codes, most scholars draw the conclusion that Ex
22:24 is the oldest formulation of the three interest prohibitions
11
. The Law reads as follows
12
:
[Ex 22:24a] If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor
[Ex 22:24b] you shall not be to them as a creditor
[Ex 22:24c] and you shall not exact interest from him.
Wellhausen in 1876
13
and more recently Schweinhorst-Schnberger (1990, 358) have con-
firmed in great detail that Verse 24c is a secondary supplement to Ex 22:24.
14
It was added to-
gether with the expression of my people in Verse 24a (to stylize it as a divine speech) by a
deuteronomistic editor to adapt it to the interest prohibition in Deut 23:20. This has already been
pointed out by Hejcl (1907, 65), Neufeld (1955) and Klingenberg (1977, 16), but only Hejcl
posed the crucial question, if Ex 22:24 without those supplements can still be called a law that
prohibits interest taking, to which he answers positively.
In its original formulation: If you lend money to any(body) with you who is poor, you shall
not be to them as a creditor, it commands the moneylender not to behave like a creditor
(noseh, in older Bible versions translated as usurer) towards the (poor) debtor . The crucial
question therefore is: what is it that makes somebody a noseh. It is only if his significant feature
would be to take interest, then Ex 22:24 could still be called the oldest known interest prohibi-
tion. But it can be shown that the characteristic feature of a noseh is not that he takes interest,
but that he, contrary to the ordinary money-lender, loaned money to a debtor who guaranteed

10
According to English translations of the Bible and the Latin Vulgate Ex 22:25. For the following general in-
formation about the Book of the Covenant see Westbrook (1985), Schwienhorst-Schnberger (1990), and
Smend (1989).
11
Baeck 1994, Gordon 1982, Klingenberg 1977, Gamoran 1971, Meislin/Cohen 1963/64, Neufeld 1955, Stein
1953. Their dates range from 1280 BC (Klingenberg 1977) up to the 8th century BC (Meislin/Cohen). But
Hejcl (1906, 67) rightly pointed out that this law only deals with money (silver), and that this is very unlikely
to be the main concern for a tribal clan, and Neufeld (1955) has emphasized that the single laws of the Book
of the Covenant do not at all reflect the primitive economy that its narrative context presupposes.
12
All passages are from the English translation of the Old Testament known as the Revised Standard Version.
13
Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie 21, 1876.
14
The most obvious though not clearly recognizable hint in the English Version is that the you in 24c is plural
while 24a and 24b formulate a you singular.
- 4 -
with his own body for the security of the loan
15
. The conclusion therefore must be, that Ex
22:24 originally had nothing to say about interest-taking, and therefore was not an interest-pro-
hibition.
16
In its original formulation, it commands the creditor not to enslave the debtor in the
case of default. This is a very prominent problem in ancient history. The prohibition of loans on
personal security was one of the laws that was introduced in ancient Greece through Solons
reform, at the close of the seventh century BC. Similar laws and edicts, which are believed to
have influenced Solon, have actually a long history in the laws of the ancient Near East
17
. On
the other hand, it can still be questioned if Ex 22:24 even in its original formulation was a real
legal law at all.
18
However, to summarize our conclusion we can say, that Ex 22:24 initially did
not prohibit interest. The interest prohibition was added by a deuteronomistic editor, to comply
with the prohibition in the Book of Deuteronomy.
2. 2 Interest Prohibition in the Law of Holiness: Lev 25:35-37
The legal Code called the Law of Holiness (Lev 17-26) is less consistent and more theologized
than the Book of the Covenant. It seems to draw its material from a large number of differing
sources and its editing was carried out in several stages even before it was incorporated into the
Pentateuch. It is generally agreed, that there is an affinity between the Law of Holiness, and
the Book of Ezekiel regarding its contents and its time of formation. Both Books are believed to
have been edited by the same intellectual circles. According to Cholewinski (1976, 337) the
Law of Holiness was composed by Jerusalems clergy in Babylonian Exile (586-538 BC) as
a revision or counter-proposal to the Deuteronomic Code. It is not beyond question that it
contains some real civil laws, but on the whole the Law of Holiness was composed as a re-
ligious text for its incorporation into the Deuteronomic salvation history. The major concern of
its composers was the reorganization of a New Israel-to-be after the return from Babylonian
Exile. The interest prohibition reads:
[Lev 25:35] And if your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain himself
with you, you shall maintain him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with
you. [36] Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your
brother may live beside you. [37] You shall not lend him your money at interest,
nor give him your food for profit.
According to Cholewinskis analysis (1976, 101-103.), the original chapter Lev 25 consisted of
four parts, each starting with: and if your brother becomes poor (v.25; v.35; v.39; v.47).
They all try to mitigate possible consequences that could emerge out of economic distress:
If economic distress led to the sale of agricultural land, this land had to be returned to its
original owner at the next Jubilee Year, which occurred every 50 years (v.25f.).
If economic distress led to indebtedness, the creditor was not to ask for interest (v.35f.).
If economic distress led to enslavement, that person had to be released at least at the next
Jubilee Year (v.39f.).
If economic distress led to enslavement and the slave-owner was a foreigner, the
debtors fellow-Jews are asked to pay for his release and let him work out his debt
(v.47f.).

15
See Schwienhorst-Schnberger (1990, 358) and Hossfeld/Reuter, noseh, Theologisches Wrterbuch des Alten
Testaments. See also Isaiha 24:2 which mentions first the ordinary debtor and then the noseh.
16
Neufeld (1955) also mentioned that noseh means literally one who lends money upon pledge, but he did not
draw any conclusion from this fact. Klingenberg (1977, 29) even stated himself that V.24ab does not say any-
thing about interest-taking, but his conclusion was that this was exactly the fault of this law since it was in-
tended to be an interest prohibition (?) and insofar the cause for the supplement.
17
See Kraus (1984).
18
Cuneiform laws are usually formulated in the 3rd. person singular and entail a punishment. See Boecker (1976)
- 5 -
In this context Lev 25:35-37 resembles a law to be found in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 18th
century BC), which requires the debtor to temporarily forgo the interest if the debtor finds him-
self in a situation of economic distress. It states that a debtor, whose field gets flooded, or who
has a bad harvest from lack of water, does not have to pay the interest on his debts during that
particular year (CH 48). It is possible that Lev 25:35-37 had a similar intention
19
. On the other
hand, it is also possible, that the law was formulated with regard to Deut 23:20 (Cholewinski
1976, 302). A certain parallel can also be seen in Deut 15:7-11 which demands that one helps a
person that gets into a situation of economic distress on receipt of a loan.
The main controversy with Lev 25:35-37 evolved around the two different terms that it uses for
interest: nesek and tarbit. The first term nesek, usually translated into interest (or usury) is
also used in the two other interest prohibitions (Ex 22:24; Deut 23:20-21). The ancient transla-
tions; the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate also translate it into the common terms for in-
terest (tokos, respectively usura). The term tarbit, usually translated into increase also receives
more unusual terms for interest in the ancient translations of the Hebrew scriptures. The ques-
tion that has arisen since antiquity is: do both of these terms differ in their meaning? The most
prominent stated opinions are: (a) That nesek occurs in a loan of money, while tarbit occurs in a
loan of natural produce (Loewenstamm 1969; Gamoran 1971). The main problem with this in-
terpretation is that in Deut 23:20 nesek is used for a loan of money as well as for a loan of
victuals. (b) That nesek refers to a discount taken initially from the sum lent, while the term
tarbit denounces a regular payment of interest (Neufeld 1955; Meisilin/Cohen 1963/4; Gordon
1982). (c) That there is no difference in meaning at all. This was already concluded by the
Talmud and seems also to follow from the ancient translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. On the
whole this does not change our conclusion, that it is also most likely that Lev 25:35-37 was
founded on the interest prohibition in the Deuteronomic Code.
2. 3 Interest prohibition in the Deuteronomic Code: Deut 23:20-21
20
The Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12-26) seems also to have been subject to a long and compli-
cated process of editing. Its fusion of religious cult, civil laws, and personal ethics goes even
further than in the Law of Holiness. Its origin is often associated with the reform of King
Josiah in 622 BC, while its editing and enlargement is supposed to have been undertaken by the
royal scholars in Jerusalem. This thesis gets further support by the fact that its contents seems to
show more affinity towards the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament than towards the
Prophetic literature (Perlitt 1994, 86). Other scholars have brought forward several reasons
for a later dating. Additionally, it has been doubted that the Code contains any true legal laws,
and some scholars see it exclusively as a literary construction, either to explain the implications
of the Old Testament narratives, or to serve as a Utopian constitution for a post-exile Israel
(Hoffmann 1980). The general agreement seems at least to be that the Deuteronomic Code
does not pre-date the 7th century BC. However, it has been shown that the Deuteronomic
Code itself, shortly thereafter, became the model to a Deuteronomistic school
21
which is re-
sponsible for a lot of the editing in the entire Pentateuch. The law concerned with interest-taking
runs as follows:
[Deut 23:20] You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money,
interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
[Deut 23:21] To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you
shall not lend upon interest; that Yahweh your God may bless you in all that you
undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

19
Particularly with regard to the fact that in the context of a loan, to be in need can only be meaningful in the
case of temporary distress. Since a loan is an (intertemporal) exchange and not a donation, a needy person will
not find a lender, since the poor persons problem is not really the payment of the interest but the repayment of
the loan itself.
20
Deut 23:19-20 according to English translations and the Latin Vulgate.
21
According to the different stages of this deuteronomistic editing process, recent research has so far distinguished
at least three editors (or schools of editors): a deuteronomistic historian (DtrH), a nomistic editor (DtrN), pri-
marily interested in the Law, and a third deuteronomistic editor reflecting prophetic interest (DtrP). See further
Smend (1989).
- 6 -
This prohibition has three special features in comparison with the other laws. Firstly, the object
of the loan is described as anything that is lent for interest. Secondly, there is no mention of
the economic situation of the debtor. But the commonly stated opinion, that this means an inten-
sification of the prohibition can not be maintained in the light of the chronology we have just
established. Finally, it is the only law that not only implicitly seems to be limited to the Jewish
community, but that even explicitly allows to take interest from foreigners (nokri). This has
given rise to debate throughout the Ages.
22
But this differentiation between Israelites and for-
eigner is actually undertaken on several occasions in the Book of Deuteronomy (see 14:21; 15:3;
17:15; 28:12; 28:44). It has also to be mentioned that the formulation of the law does not give
the impression of a civil law, especially in the light of Near Eastern Law in general, and par-
ticularly in regards to some of the laws in the Book of the Covenant.
Overall, we can conclude, that since both of the other interest prohibitions (Ex 22:24; Lev
25:35-37) depend on the interest prohibition in the Deuteronomic Code, that the oldest law
prohibiting interest-taking in the Old Testament does not pre-date the 7th BC. According to
Silver (1983) the 8th and 7th century BC were economically the most prosperous periods in Is-
raelite history. It is commonly known that Plato (427-348 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) were
critics of the democratic Athens, that had turned itself into a commercial center, and that they
condemned also the concept of interest-taking. Plato included in his work known as the Laws
(Nomoi) an explicit interest prohibition in the Utopian constitution of his state (polis):
... no one shall deposit money with another whom he does not trust as a friend,
nor shall he lend money upon interest; and the borrower should be under no
obligation to repay either capital or interest [Nomoi 5,742c]
3 Attitudes towards Interest in the Prophets and the Writings
The only Prophet in the Old Testament that actually states his attitude towards interest-taking is
Ezekiel, who was in Exile in Babylon, and whose first prophecy was made in 597 BC. His sev-
eral statements about interest-taking were to become very popular among the later Christian
Church Fathers. On one hand, his statements can be found in Chapter 18 where he is talking
about the conduct of the just man, who does not lend at interest or take any increase (Ez
18:8, see also Ez 18:17), while the robber, a shedder of blood, lends at interest, and takes
increase and shall not live therefore (Ez 18:13). On the other hand, he talks about interest tak-
ing in his so-called accusation against Jerusalem:
In you men take bribes to shed blood; you take interest and increase and make
gain of your neighbours by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the God
Yahweh. [Ez 22:12]
As we have already stated that there is a relation between the circle around Ezekiel and the edi-
tors of the Law of Holiness, it is not surprising that both terms for interest, nesek and tarbit,
can be found here. But there is no general agreement on the question if these sayings go back to
Ezekiel himself or to the editors of his book. For our purpose, it is sufficient to show that
among the books of the Prophets we can not find a single statement critical of the taking of
interest that extends back further than the 6th century BC.
If we turn to the last group of books in the Old Testament, the Writings, there are two
statements about interest-taking. The first one is in the Book of Psalms which basically features
religious lyrics. It contains several single collections, and is believed to have served as a song-
book for the Jewish community of the Second Temple (515-450 BC). It is also during this
time that most of its material was written, although single Psalms can originate from different
time periods. Ps 15
23
asks in its first line: Yahweh, who will sojourn in your tent? , to which
Verse 5 answers: who does not put out his money at interest, and does not take a bribe against
the innocent... (Ps 15:5). According to Beyerlins analysis (1985) Verse 5 belongs to the

22
The first Christian writer that tried to explain this was Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD) in his treatise De
Tobia.
23
According to the Septuagint and the Vulgate as well as to English translations Ps 14.
- 7 -
original formulation and shows obvious affinity with Ez 18 and Ez 22. He comes to the conclu-
sion that they both must originate from a mutual source. In his view, Ps 15:5 was composed
after the Exile (586-538 BC).
24
The second statement in the Writings is to be found in the Book of Proverbs which be-
longs to the Wisdom literature. But the statement can not as clearly be said to show a negative
attitude towards the concept of interest-taking:
He who augments his wealth by interest and increase gathers it for him who is
kind to the poor. [Prov 28:8]
Although it seems to state a negative attitude towards interest, this can not be concluded for cer-
tain since the Book of Proverbs also contains several statements that oppose such an attitude
(see Prov 16:26; 17:8; 22:16, 29:19). On the whole, this statement does not give strong support
for any interest prohibition in ancient Hebrew society before the 7th century BC.
4 Conclusion
In summarizing the results of this analysis, it can be concluded, that the interest prohibition in
the Deuteronomic Code is probably the oldest declaration in the entire Old Testament, forbid-
ding the taking of interest from a fellow Jewish member of the community. But at the same time
it explicitly allows one to take interest from a foreigner. The statement has its origin in the
flourishing Israelite economy of the 7th century BC, formulated by the authors of the Book of
Deuteronomy (or the deuteronomistic school), probably as part of an Utopian constitution
for an ideal Israel. The interest prohibitions in the Book of Exodus and Leviticus have been
inserted at a later date to comply with Deut 23:20-21. It is at this same period in time that Ezekiel
or his editors articulated a similar negative attitude towards usury. This probably occurred in the
context of the prosperous economy of Babylon. On the whole, it seems that the Hebrew anti-
usury laws are but one of the many utopian ethical ideals, that had a profound influence on the
life and thought of the Western World. Particularly, when in the 2nd century AD the Christian
Church definitively decided to adopt the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament of its Christian
Scriptures.

24
It is interesting to notice that Ps 15:5 was to become the most important quotation for the early Christian
Church as a argument against usury. Canon 17 of the first general Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which was
the first and most important canonical prohibition against usury for the entire Christian Church, quoted Ps
15:5.
- 8 -
5 References
Baeck, L.: The Mediterranean tradition in economic thought. London and New York, 1994
Beyerlin, W.: Weisheitlich-kultische Heilsordnung zum 15. Psalm. Neukirchen, 1985.
Boecker, H.J.: Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im alten Orient. Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1976.
Bogaert, R.: Les origines antiques de la Banque de dpt: Une mise au point accompagne
dune esquisse des oprations de banque en Msopotamie. Leyden, 1966.
Bromberg, B.: The origin of banking: religious finance in Babylonia. Journal of Economic
History, Vol. 2, 1942, pp.77-88.
Cholewinski, A.: Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. Rome,
1976.
Gamoran, H.: The biblical law against loans on interest. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.
30, 1971, pp.127-134.
Gordon, B.: Lending at interest: some Jewish, Greek, and Christian apporaches 800 BC-
AD 100. History of Political Economy, Vol. 14, 1982, pp.406-426.
Haase, R.: Die keilschriftlichen Rechtssammlungen in deutscher bersetzung. Wiesbaden,
1963.
Hejcl, J.: Das alttestamentliche Zinsverbot im Lichte der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz sowie des
altorientalischen Zinswesens. Freiburg i.B., 1907.
Hoffmann, H.-D.: Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deutero-
nomischen Geschichtsschreibung. Zrich, 1980.
Homer, S.: A History of Interest Rates. New Brunswick New Jersey, 1977 (1963).
Klingenberg, E.: Das israelitische Zinsverbot in Torah, Misnah und Talmud. Mainz, 1977.
Kraus, F.R.: Knigliche Verfgungen in Altbabylonischer Zeit. Leiden, 1984.
Leemans, W.F.: The rate of interest in Old-Babylonian times. Revue International des Droits de
lAntiquite 5, 1950, pp.7-34.
Loewenstamm, S.E.: Nsk and m/tarbit. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, 1969, pp.51-
54.
Matthews, V.H. and D.C. Benjamin: Old Testament parallels: Laws and stories from the ancient
Near East. New York, 1991.
Meislin, B.J. and M.L. Cohen: Backgrounds of the Biblical Law against Usury. Comperative
Studies in Society and History, Vol. 6, 1963/64, pp.250-267.
Mieroop, Marc Van De: Society and enterprise in old Babylonian Ur. Berlin, 1992.
Moser, Th. Die patristische Zinslehre und ihre Ursprnge: Vom Zinsgebot zum Wucher-verbot.
Winterthur: Schellenberg, 1998.
Moser, Th. Spending Tomorrow's Riches: Credit and Credit Markets in Ancient Near Eastern
Thought. Prepared to be presented at the 2nd Annual Conference of the European Society
for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET) 1998 in Bologna, 27 February - 1 March,
1997.
Nelson, B.: The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood. Chicago and
London, 1949.
Neufeld, E.: The prohibition against loans at interest in ancient Hebrew Laws. Hebrew Union
College Annual, Vol. 26, 1955, pp.355-412.
Perlitt, L.: Deuteronomium-Studien. Tbingen, 1994.
San Nicol, M.: Art. Darlehen. Reallexikon der Assyriologie II. Berlin und Leipzig, 1938,
pp. 123-131.
Schwienhorst-Schnberger, L.: Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22-23,33). Studien zu seiner Entste-
hung und Theologie. Berlin, New York, 1990.
Silver, M.: Prophets and Markets: The Political Economy of Ancient Israel. Boston etc., 1983
Smend, R.: Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. 4. Aufl. Stuttgart etc., 1989.
Soss, N.M.: Old Testament Law and Economic Society. Journal of the History of Ideas. Vol.
34, 1973, pp.323-344.
- 9 -
Stein, S.: The laws on interest in the Old Testament. Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 4,
1953, pp.161-170.
Zettler, R.L.: The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nipur: The Operation and Organization of Urban
Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B.C.. Berlin, 1992.