There was very lively debate on approximately this subject that took place in an old JREF thread which, sadly, was culled in one of the forum purges.
However, the kind folks over at
SkepticReport have archived all or most of the thread content; you can find it
here.
Not to sidetrack my own thread, but I found the points in the link interesting.
I didn't read quite all of it, but I did read the entire initial post with some care. I agree that some of the CL had definite roots in some of the Mosaic code, tracing it back through Roman law as you indicate. In fact, I think this is indisputable.
The influence is particularly strong in the CL criminal code though, and I am less convinced of its influence in Contract and Tort, especially in their modern incarnations. I am no Mosaic code scholar, but I don't see many of its echos in modern Tort law with its complex policy balancing nor in modern contracts code reflected in the UCC. (granted, that is only for goods)
Even in the criminal context, modern codes like the MPC seem to be less and less tethered to Mosaic criminal conceptions, and this is the clear trend in most states, although of course there are exceptions.
All of that is interesting history and one could make a decent argument that significant portions of the American CL tradition have roots in Mosaic code. But, my focus is more narrow.
When someone uses the phrase "United States is founded", that, to me, means the US Constitution and the framework of our federal system. If they mean "American common law system", it is easy enough to say that. And when someone says "Christian principles", I do not interpret that to mean "Mosaic code", I interpret that to mean specific principles that can be traced to supposed sayings of Jesus or at least early Christian tradition. (Of course, that is the problem, it is maddeningly difficult to define what "Christian principles" are limited to. Christians bring in Jewish tradition and codes whenever it suits their purposes, and abandon them at the earliest sign of inconvenience. But, that is probably a topic for another thread.)
If that is not what is meant, then the phrase, as used, is far too vague to have any definitive meaning. And, perhaps, this is the point. It is something that sounds good, appeals to the passions of the religious majority, but when cornered on specifics can be talked away in generalities.
In any case, thanks for the link, it has a lot of good points about the history of the CL tradition in America.
