Just one other thought, I think there is no reason to suppose it is necessarily a miscarriage in the Hebrew texts since the word is just for birth but it’s also pretty much impossible to have a live birth as a result of an injury so maybe that’s why they assumed a miscarriage in most of the Hebrew commentaries on this. 

Contrary to popular opinion, blunt abdominal trauma that is not
severe usually causes no problem to the fetus, well-protected as it is
within the uterus and amniotic “shock-absorber.”41 Well over two-
thirds of blunt trauma in pregnancy in the Western world happens in
the course of motor vehicle accidents or physical assault. And even
in the high-energy impact of the former, “despite its prominence. . .
the uterus and contents stay intact most of the time.”42
Thus it seems fair to assume that the blow delivered in the biblical case was significant.
Kline builds a convincing argument for
such an understanding of the verb JganA (“to strike”) based on its use in other scriptural texts.
. . .
First, it is important to note that injury to the fetus in utero may
be direct or indirect. Direct injury is rare, mainly occurring late in
pregnancy when the head is deep in the pelvis and major trauma
causes fetal skull fracture. A recent review of the obstetric literature
revealed only 19 such reported cases.46 The outcome was almost uni-
versally fetal demise, except when cesarean section was performed.
There is no report of that particular surgical procedure having been
performed in the ancient Near East.
Indirect injury to the fetus occurs when there is disruption of the
oxygen supply coming through the umbilical cord. Rarely trauma
may result in uterine rupture with grave consequences for mother and
infant without immediate surgical intervention. Such event occurs
in less than one percent of trauma.47 More commonly, in six percent of
blunt trauma during pregnancy there is an overt disruption of the
normal connection between the placenta and the uterus.48 Fetal mor-
tality in such cases, given the best obstetric and neonatal care avail-
able in the United States, is 34 percent.49 Another reference cites 30
to 68 percent fetal mortality.50 Without intravenous methods of
fluid therapy for the mother and surgical intervention, it is obvious
that the fetal outcome in the vast majority of these cases would be
death. Timms states that “following uterine rupture or significant
placental separation, rapid exploration [surgically] and fetal
delivery provide the only chance for fetal survival.”51
Less severe abdominal trauma may result in smaller disruptions
of the placenta from the uterus, and less catastrophic outcomes. It is
unknown how often an occult (self-limiting) placental separation
takes place in these situations, but it may be the cause of common
complaints such as “increased uterine activity” or slight cramping.
Most of these cases progress to a normal outcome. In an excellent
study of trauma in pregnancy Crosby suggests that if fetal oxygena-
tion is impaired, labor or fetal death will occur within 48 hours.52
Premature labor is a serious problem after trauma and is aggres-
sively treated in appropriate cases these days with medication to
stop uterine contractions. The lungs of the developing infant are not
ready for life outside the womb until 33 to 34 weeks gestation (out of
40 weeks in a “full-term” pregnancy). In a nonhospital setting, the
mortality rate of these infants is very high.
There are only a few instances, in a nontechnological era, in
which blunt trauma serious enough to cause abortion of the fetus
would result in a viable birth. If medical data has anything to say
about Exodus 21:22, it indicates that the overwhelming probability
for such a situation is an outcome of trauma-induced abortion with
fetal demise.
The first conditional statement (Exod. 21:22) concludes with the
pivotal phrase “yet there is no [ason].” This word [ason] is used only
three other times in the Old Testament. All three occurrences are in
the story of Joseph (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29) and describe a severe or
deadly type of injury. Jackson, among others, has concluded that this
passage must also be relating a mortal injury.53 But the evidence is
not decisive. House comments in response:
Jackson should be tempered a little in his understanding of ason in
view of the rarity of the word. He surely demonstrates that the word
refers to severe or even fatal injury, but the text in Exodus, the only
other section of the Old Testament using the word, could allow for ason
to be applied to a lesser injury.54

Since the infant has miscarried due to the blow, the “no injury”
statement must apply to the mother. Occasionally a woman in such a
circumstance would experience minimal external injury, but the pla-
cental disruption would nevertheless result in fetal death and mis-
carriage.
Some maintain that [ason] must apply to both mother and child,55
particularly to the child because of the grammatical structure of
the sentence.56 Others are equally convinced that the mother alone
is referred to by [ason].57 The linguistic evidence is equivocal, and in
light of the evidence illuminating one’s understanding of the rest of
the protasis, it becomes evident that “no [ason]” applies to the mother.
(** you do not have permission to see this link ** )

My friend gave me a bunch of references to abortion and this verse in ancient texts. Thought I’d share along with some of the ones I found on my own:

If two men quarrel, and strike a pregnant woman and her fetus (m. sg.) comes out, — it not become a calamity— he shall surely pay a fine such as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; he shall pay as the judges determine. But if it is a calamity, life in exchange for life . . . .1 (Peshitta from ** you do not have permission to see this link **)

“If men when striving strike a woman with child, and
cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on
account of the infant which the husband of the woman
shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence
of the judges. But if death befall her, then thou shalt judge
the life of the killer for the life of the woman.” (TARGUM ONKELOS ETHERIDGE’S TARGUM PARAPHRASE ** you do not have permission to see this link **)

Exodus 21:22–25 (The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: Samaritan Text)

22 And if men struggle with each other and they strike a pregnant woman and her child is born. And there being no harm, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if harm follow, then you shall give soul for soul. 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

(Tsedaka, B. (Ed.). (2013). The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version. (B. Tsedaka, Trans.) (Ex 21:22–25). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.)

33. (277) If men strive together, and there be no instrument of iron, let him that is smitten be avenged immediately, by inflicting the same punishment on him that smote him: but if when he is carried home he lie sick many days, and then die, let him that smote him escape punishment; but if he that is smitten escape death, and yet be at great expense for his cure, the smiter shall pay for all that has been expended during the time of his sickness, and for all that he has paid the physician. (278) He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life. [1] (Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 122). Peabody: Hendrickson.)

(135) Thus the souls which are already pregnant are naturally likely to bring forth children, rather than those which are now receiving the seed. But as the eyes of the body do oftentimes see obscurely, and often on the other hand see clearly, so in the same manner does the eye of the soul, at times, receive the particular impressions conveyed to it by things in a most confused and indistinct manner, and at other times it beholds them with the greatest purity and clearness; (136) therefore an indistinct and not clearly manifested conception resembles an embryo which has not yet received any distinct character or similitude within the womb: but that which is clear and distinctly visible, is like one which is completely formed, and which is already fashioned in an artistic manner as to both its inward and its outward parts, and which has already received its suitable character. (137) And with respect to these matters the following law has been enacted with great beauty and propriety: “If while two men are fighting one should strike a woman who is great with child, and her child should come from her before it is completely formed, he shall be muleted in a fine, according to what the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall pay the fine deservedly. But if the child be fully formed, he shall pay life for life.”

For it was not the same thing, to destroy a perfect and an imperfect work of the mind, nor is what is only likened by a figure similar to what is really comprehended, nor is what is only hoped for similar to what really exists. (138) On this account, in one case, an uncertain penalty is affixed to an uncertain action; in another, a definite punishment is enacted by law against an act which is perfected, but which is perfected not with respect to virtue, but with reference to what is done in an irreproachable manner, according to some act. For it is not she who has just received the seed, but she who has been for some time pregnant, who brings forth this offspring, professing boasting rather than modesty. For it is impossible that she who has been pregnant some time should miscarry, since it is fitting that the plant should be conducted to perfection by him who sowed it; but it is not strange if some mishap should befall the woman who was pregnant, since she was afflicted with a disease beyond the art of the physician.[2] (Yonge, C. D. with Philo of Alexandria. (1995). The works of Philo: complete and unabridged (p. 316). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.)

(108) But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; (109) for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.[3] (Yonge, C. D. with Philo of Alexandria. (1995). The works of Philo: complete and unabridged (p. 605). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.)

HOMILY X

On the woman with child who miscarried because of two quarreling men

But if two men shall quarrel and strike a woman with child and her infant issues forth yet unformed, he shall be liable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall determine, and he shall pay it with honor. But if the infant was fully formed, he shall render life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

I think the first thing to be investigated is under what category of law decrees of this kind are considered. For all things which are decreed are not, as the simple think, called law, but some for example are called law, some testimonies, others mandates and ordinances, some judgments. The eighteenth Psalm teaches this clearly in one collection of categories when it says, “The law of the Lord is blameless, converting souls; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, giving wisdom to the little ones. The ordinances of the Lord are right, rejoicing hearts; the commandment of the Lord is luminous, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever and ever; the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves.” When we observe these differences between the decrees in the Law, the passage which we now have in hand falls under the category of ordinances or justifications. For thus the Scripture says above, “And these are the ordinances which you shall set before them.” We are not concerned at the present, however, to expound the differences between each of these categories, for our task is to explain these words which have been read.

It must certainly be known that part of what we are to discuss has been stated in the Gospel according to Matthew when the Lord says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist evil. But if someone strike you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other.” But perhaps the more attentive reader of the Scriptures may say that the words which we have related from the Gospel have not been taken from this passage in Exodus, but rather from Deuteronomy where certain words, written no less in this manner, are related: “But if an unjust witness stand against a man accusing him of impiety, both men involved in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests, and before the judges, whoever they may be in those days. And the judges shall diligently investigate and examine the matter, and behold, they shall discover that the unjust witness has testified unjustly and has risen up against his brother. And you shall do to him whatever he tried to do to his brother and you shall remove the wicked man from your midst that others, when they hear, may fear and not continue to act in this evil way among you. Your eye shall not spare him; life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Similar things appear indeed to be said in each place. It is not clearly indicated, however, from which place in particular the statement made in the Gospel appears to have been taken: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ ”

(2) Nevertheless, our discourse must now turn to those words in Exodus where two men quarrel and strike a woman with child; and so strike her that her infant issues forth from her either already “formed” or “yet unformed.” First, indeed, let us consider the infant which issued forth “yet unformed.” Let us consider how one of the quarreling men is ordered to be struck with a fine when Scripture refers the fault of the quarrel not to one, but to both. What furthermore, is it that the woman’s husband “determines” or imposes on him and not them, and “he” and not rather they “shall pay it with honor”? And what is that honor?

But if an infant already formed issue forth when a woman with child has been stricken by quarreling men, we easily understand that a life is given for a life, that is, that what has been committed should be punished by death. But it is worthwhile to explain what follows: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” For it does not seem possible that an infant which a woman aborted when she was stricken, although we understand it issued forth formed, should lose an eye in the womb because it was stricken by the foot of a quarreling man for which this man should be deprived of an eye by the judges. But assume that even this might be because it is referred to as already formed. But what shall we say about teeth? It did not have teeth in its mother’s womb which the blow of the striking man knocked out, did it? But if we refer these words to the woman who had the miscarriage, again, how will it be fitting that a woman should lose an eye or be afflicted in her teeth when she miscarries? But assume that it might be said that the woman was stricken in the eye or in the teeth and this caused the miscarriage, assume that she received a stripe or a wound, but what shall we say about “burning for burning”? A woman cannot be burned, can she, when she stands with quarreling men so that “burning for burning” might be explained?

These individual phrases seem to me to be incapable of an easy solution even in the passages in Deuteronomy where laws written similarly are mentioned. For let us assume there also that “an unjust witness has risen up” falsely accusing a man of impiety. Let both be summoned to judgment; let the judges inquire diligently; let them discover that the accuser or that witness has spoken falsely. How can a judge who ought not spare a false witness also condemn the life of the guilty for the life of the innocent? How, I say, will he be able also to remove “an eye for an eye”? As if in fact he who was unjustly accused was to have been injured by the accuser in eye or tooth or hand or foot. But we have said these things wishing to show that in each passage what has been written cannot be easily explained. For it was necessary that we first discuss what is said in relation to history, and thus, since “the Law is spiritual” seek the spiritual meaning in these words.

(3) But as far as it pertains to the present, even the allegorical part itself which usually extends broadly, is narrowly reduced to us. Nevertheless, as we are able we shall attempt to explain what the passage seems to us to mean. We have frequently said that in the Scriptures parts of the soul have the same names and the same functions as parts of the body. As, for example, when it is said, “You see the mote in your brother’s eye, and behold you have a beam in your eye.” It is certain that he is not speaking about an eye of the body in which a beam lies, but about the eye of the soul. The same is true when Scripture says, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” and, “How beautiful are the feet of those preaching peace,” and many statements like these. We have pointed this out that the likeness in names may not confuse us about the members.

Let those two men, therefore, who quarrel be two discussing and examining teachings or questions of the Law with one another and, let us say as the Apostle, wrangling “over words.” Whence also the same Apostle, knowing that quarrels of this kind arise between brothers, anticipates it and says, “Contend not with words for it is useless and leads to the subversion of the hearers,” and elsewhere, “But avoid questions of the Law, knowing that they produce quarrels. The servant of God must not quarrel.” Because, therefore, those who quarrel over questions quarrel “to the subversion of the hearers,” on that account they strike the woman with child and expel her infant either already formed or yet unformed.

The soul which has just conceived the word of God is said to be a woman with child. We read about such a conception also in another passage: “From your fear, Lord, we conceived in the womb and gave birth.” Those, therefore, who conceive and immediately give birth are not to be considered women, but men, and perfect men. For hear also the prophet saying, “Was the earth brought forth in one day, and a nation born at once?” That is a generation of perfect men which is born immediately on the day that it was conceived. But lest it appear strange to you that we said men give birth, we have set forth already earlier how you ought to understand the names of the members, that you might abandon the corporeal significations and take the meaning of the inner man. But if you wish to have further satisfaction from the Scriptures on this, hear the Apostle saying, “My little children of whom I am in labor again until Christ be formed in you.” They, therefore, are perfect men and strong who immediately when they conceive give birth, that is, who bring forth into works the word of faith which has been conceived. The soul, however, which has conceived and retains the word in the womb and does not give birth is called woman, as also the prophet says, “The pains of birth have come upon her and she does not have the strength to give birth.” This soul, therefore, which is now called a woman because of its weakness, is stricken and made to stumble by two men quarreling between themselves and bringing forth stumbling blocks in the strife—which is customary in verbal dispute—so that it casts out and loses the word of faith which it had slightly conceived. This is a quarrel and contention “to the subversion of the hearers.” If, therefore, the soul which has been made to stumble cast off the word yet unformed, he who made it stumble is said to suffer loss.

Do you wish to know why the word is formed in some and is yet unformed in others? The word of the Apostle which we related above teaches us clearly when it says, “Until Christ be formed in you.” But Christ is the Word of God. The Apostle shows by this that at that time at which he was writing the word of God was yet unformed in them. If, therefore, it come forth yet unformed, he will suffer loss. The Apostle also teaches about the losses of teachers when he says: “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss. He himself, however, shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” But the Lord also says in the Gospels, “For what does a man profit if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul or suffer loss?” Whence it seems to be shown that certain sins pertain to loss indeed, but not to destruction, because he who has suffered loss is said, nevertheless, to be saved, although “by fire.” This is the reason, I believe, the apostle John also says in his epistle that some sins are to death and others are not to death. But I do not think any man can easily discern what kind of sins may be to death and what, in fact, “not to death,” but to loss. For it has been written, “Who understands sins?” Nevertheless, from what is mentioned in the Gospel by parables we can learn in part what sort of things are called losses when we see there certain things considered as gain which are said to have been procured by employment. For example, when another five beyond the five pounds are said to have been acquired or another two beyond the two; or when a drachma or denarius or talent is assumed and named as a specified sum of money gained in employment; but also when the master of the house is said to have a reckoning with his servants and one is brought before him who owed ten thousand talents. Such, then, is a kind of reckoning of loss, so that, for example, he who would have received ten pounds for his reward may not receive ten, but eight, or six, or even less; and he who provided a cause of stumbling to a weaker and feminine soul is said to be stricken with this loss.

(4) But he shall pay, the text says, as “her husband shall determine” or inflict, “and he shall pay it with honor.” The husband of the learning soul is its master. As that husband, therefore, or Christ who is master of all, or the teacher of souls who presides over the Church for Christ, shall determine he who contended with words “to the subversion of the hearers” shall suffer loss for that soul which he cast forth as an “infant yet unformed.” This can perhaps be taken of the stumbling of a catechumen yet unformed. For it can happen that he who injured the soul again himself instruct, repair, and restore to the soul those things which it lost. And let him now do these things “with honor,” with modesty, and patience as the Apostle says, “with gentleness admonishing those who resist,” not with quarreling, as formerly when he introduced the stumbling block.

“But if the infant be already formed, he shall render a life for a life.” “The infant which is formed” can be seen as the word of God in the heart of that soul which has followed the grace of baptism or which has manifestly and clearly conceived the word of faith. If this soul, therefore, stricken by too much contention between teachers, should cast off the word and be found to be a part of those of whom the Apostle said, “For some have already turned back to Satan,” “he shall render a life for a life.” Either on the day of judgment he is to be taken by that judge “who can destroy soul and body in hell,” because also elsewhere the prophet says to Jerusalem, “I have given Egypt as an exchange for you, Ethiopia and Saba for you.” Or, at least, it is possible perhaps also to apply it so that he who was conscious of such a stumbling block in himself might lay down his “life for the life” of that person whom he made to stumble and might give attention to the point of death how he may turn back, how he may repair, how he may restore that soul to faith.

Let him also surrender “an eye for an eye” if he injured the eye of the soul, that is, if he disturbed its understanding. Let his own eye be removed by him who presides over the Church, and let that turbulent and fierce intellect of him who produces a stumbling block be cut off. But also if he injured a tooth of the hearer with which he had been accustomed when receiving the food of the word to crush or grind it with his molars in order to transmit the subtle meaning from these words to the stomach of his soul; if that man damaged and tore out this tooth so that by his contention the soul cannot receive the word of God subtly and spiritually, let the tooth of that man who did not crush well and divide the foods of the Scriptures be removed. Indeed, perhaps it is for this reason that it is said elsewhere about the Lord, “You have broken the teeth of sinners”; and elsewhere no less it is written, “The teeth of him who eats the bitter grape will be set on edge”; and elsewhere, “The Lord broke the lions’ teeth.” So, therefore, the soul is said to be injured and stricken by the members of the body. It is required also that “a hand” be given “for a hand” and a “foot for a foot.” The hand is the power of the soul by which it can hold and restrain something, as if we should say its deeds and strength. The foot is the means by which it advances to good or evil. Since, therefore, if the soul experiences a stumbling block it is cast down not only in faith but also in deeds which are signified by the hands and feet, these members of that man who provided the cause of the offense are removed, the hands by which he did not work well and the feet by which he did not advance well. He will also receive “burning” in that he burned and delivered a soul to hell.

By these individual members it is shown that that striker who has been mutilated in all his members is cut off from the body of the Church, “that others” Scripture says, “might see and fear and not act in like manner.” The Apostle also, therefore, when he describes the teacher of the Church, among other things, admonishes that he be “no striker,” lest striking pregnant women, that is beginning souls, he surrender “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Such are also those souls which the Lord too laments in the Gospels when he says, “Woe to those who are with child and who give suck in those days,” in which “even the elect if possible” will be made to stumble. But you should know that it is not a characteristic of the perfect to stumble, but of women or of the very small, as also the Lord says in the Gospel: “If anyone shall make one of those least little ones stumble.” It is the very small, therefore, and the least who can be made to stumble. “The spiritual man, however, judges all things” and “proves all things and holds fast what is good and keeps himself from all appearance of evil.”

We have said what occurred to us in the present chapter. But let us request from the Lord that he himself may see fit to reveal to us what things are perfect through Jesus Christ our Lord, “to whom belongs glory and sovereignty forever and ever. Amen.”[1]

(Origen. (1982). Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. (H. Dressler, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 71, pp. 346–354). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.)

 

69 1 After this judgment, they shall frighten them and make them scream because they have shown this (knowledge of secret things) to those who dwell on the earth. 2 Now behold, I am naming the names of those angels! These are their names: The first of them is Semyaz, the second Aristaqis, the third Armen, the fourth Kokbaʾel, the fifth Turʾel, the sixth Rumyal, the seventh Danyul, the eighth Neqaʾel, the ninth Baraqel, the tenth Azazʾel, the eleventh Armaros, the twelfth Betryal, the thirteenth Basasʾel, the fourteenth Hananʾel, the fifteenth Turʾel, the sixteenth Sipweseʾel, (the seventeenth Yeterʾel), the eighteenth Tumaʾel, the nineteenth Turʾel, the twentieth Rumʾel, and the twenty-first Azazʾel. 3 These are the chiefs of their angels, their names, their centurions, their chiefs over fifties, and their chiefs over tens.

4 The name of the first is Yeqon; he is the one who misled all the children of the angels, brought them down upon the earth, and perverted them by the daughters of the people. 5 The second was named Asbʾel; he is the one who gave the children of the holy angels an evil counsel and misled them so that they would defile their bodies by the daughters of the people. 6 The third was named Gaderʾel; this one is he who showed the children of the people all the blows of death, who misled Eve, who showed the children of the people (how to make) the instruments of death (such as) the shield, the breastplate, and the sword for warfare, and all (the other) instruments of death to the children of the people. 7 Through their agency (death) proceeds against the people who dwell upon the earth, from that day forevermore. 8 The fourth is named Pinemʾe; this one demonstrated to the children of the people the bitter and the sweet and revealed to them all the secrets of their wisdom. 9 Furthermore he caused the people to penetrate (the secret of) writing and (the use of) ink and paper; on account of this matter, there are many who have erred from eternity to eternity, until this very day. 10 For human beings are not created for such purposes to take up their beliefs with pen and ink. 11 For indeed human beings were not created but to be like angels, permanently to maintain pure and righteous lives. Death, which destroys everything, would have not touched them, had it not been through their knowledge by which they shall perish; death is (now) eating us by means of this power. 12 The fifth is named Kasadya; it is he who revealed to the children of the people (the various) flagellations of all evil—(the flagellation) of the souls and the demons, the smashing of the embryo in the womb so that it may be crushed, the flagellation of the soul, snake bites, sunstrokes, the son of the serpent, whose name is Tabaʿta. 13 And this is the number of Kasbʾel, the chief (executor) of the oath which he revealed to the holy ones while he was (still) dwelling in the highest in glory. 14 His name was (then) Beqa; and he spoke to Michael to disclose to him his secret name so that he would memorize this secret name of his, so that he would call it up in an oath in order that they shall tremble before it and the oath. 15 He (then) revealed these to the children of the people, (and) all the hidden things and this power of this oath, for it is power and strength itself. The Evil One placed this oath in Michael’s hand.[1] (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, pp. 47–48). New York; London: Yale University Press.) (1 Enoch 69.1–15)

19. This then is the way of light, if any one desiring to travel on the way to his appointed place would be zealous in his works. The knowledge then which is given to us whereby we may walk therein is as follows. 2Thou shalt love Him that made thee, thou shalt fear Him that created thee, thou shalt glorify Him that redeemed thee from death; thou shalt be simple in heart and rich in spirit; thou shalt not cleave to those who walk in the way of death; thou shalt hate everything that is not pleasing to God; thou shalt hate all hypocrisy; thou shalt never forsake the commandments of the Lord. 3Thou shalt not exalt thyself, but shalt be lowly-minded in all things. Thou shalt not assume glory to thyself. Thou shalt not entertain a wicked design against thy neighbour; thou shalt not admit boldness into thy soul. 4Thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys. The word of God shall not come forth from thee where any are unclean. Thou shalt not make a difference in a person to reprove him for a transgression. Thou shalt be meek, thou shalt be quiet, thou shalt be fearing the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt not bear a grudge against thy brother. 5Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born. Thou shalt not withhold thy hand from thy son or thy daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of God. 6Thou shalt not be found coveting thy neighbour’s goods; thou shalt not be found greedy of gain. Neither shalt thou cleave with thy soul to the lofty, but shalt walk with the humble and righteous. The accidents that befal thee thou shalt receive as good, knowing that nothing is done without God. Thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued.[2]

(Lightfoot, J. B., & Harmer, J. R. (1891). The Apostolic Fathers (pp. 285–286). London: Macmillan and Co.) (Barn 19.1–6)

I agree.

Just for fun here are some ancient law parallels that my friend found:

The Laws of Hammurabi

      §206      If an awīlu should strike another awīlu during a brawl and inflict upon him a wound, that awīlu shall swear, “I did not strike intentionally,” and he shall satisfy the physician (i.e., pay his fees).

      §207      If he should die from his beating, he shall also swear (“I did not strike him intentionally”); if he (the victim) is a member of the awīlu-class, he shall weigh and deliver 30 shekels of silver.

      §208      If he (the victim) is a member of the commoner-class, he shall weigh and deliver 20 shekels of silver.

      §209      If an awīlu strikes a woman of the awīlu-class and thereby causes her to miscarry her fetus, he shall weigh and deliver 10 shekels of silver for her fetus.

      §210      If that woman should die, they shall kill his daughter.

      §211      If he should cause a woman of the commoner-class to miscarry her fetus by the beating, he shall weigh and deliver 5 shekels of silver.

      §212      If that woman should die, he shall weigh and deliver 30 shekels of silver.

      §213      If he strikes an awīlu’s slave woman and thereby causes her to miscarry her fetus, he shall weigh and deliver 2 shekels of silver.

      §214      If that slave woman should die, he shall weigh and deliver 20 shekels of silver.

(Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L. (2000). Context of Scripture (p. 348). Leiden;  Boston: Brill.)

The Middle Assyrian Laws

21: If a seignior struck a(nother) seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, he shall pay two talents thirty minas of lead; they shall flog him fifty (times) with staves (and) he shall do the work of the king for one full month.

(Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (3rd ed. with Supplement, p. 181). Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

50: [If a seignior] struck a(nother) seignior’s [wife] and caused her to have [a miscarriage], they shall treat [the wife of the seignior], who caused the (other) seignior’s wife to [have a miscarriage], as he treated her; he shall compensate for her fetus with a life. However, if that woman died, they shall put the seignior to death; he shall compensate for her fetus with a life. But, when that woman’s husband has no son, if someone struck her so that she had a miscarriage, they shall put the striker to death; even if her fetus is a girl, he shall compensate with a life.

51: If a seignior struck a(nother) seignior’s wife who does not rear her children and caused her to have a miscarriage, this punishment (shall hold): he shall pay two talents of lead.

(Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (3rd ed. with Supplement, pp. 184–185). Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

The Hittite Laws

17: If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry—if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver and pledge his estate as security.

Later version of 17: If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry, he shall give 20 shekels of silver.

18: If anyone causes a slave-woman to miscarry, if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver.

Later version of 18: It anyone causes a slave-girl to miscarry, he shall give 10 shekels of silver.

(Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (3rd ed. with Supplement, p. 190). Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

It seems like Josephus knew Hebrew according to this answer. The answer gives some seemingly good evidence for this: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** So while Josephus wrote in Greek I think he could have been familiar with the Hebrew scriptures and in fact says so in his preface to Antiquities: 

2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear
to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our
antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted
out of the Hebrew Scriptures.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Stephen said
In his notes Alter points out how class conscious the Code of Hammurabi is.   How brutal the ancients were!  

I agree but the Bible seems to stand out as being a lot better in this regard. The only idea of a possible class difference regarded in judgement is in Lev 19

20 If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed; 21 but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering. 22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he committed; and the sin he committed shall be forgiven him.(Lev 19:20-22 NRSV)

And here it seems that the woman is not punished so while the punishment is different than two freed people it’s not the lower class that takes the blame maybe because a betrothal was not fully binding until she was freed. (which means she was probably marrying a free person)

Back to the main topic, it seems that while Josephus wrote in Greek he only followed the Hebrew version of the Bible:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

I can’t find anyone that used both the Septuagint and the Hebrew and interpreted this law, does anyone know of anyone? Basically, I’m trying to see if there’s additional evidence that the LXX wasn’t just way off in the way it translated the Hebrew.