Budde In ZATW, 1891, p. 100 f., discusses the difflCTiltie« ol Ex 21*". After remarking that Dt 16i- 17 indicates an artvanc* in civilization, he compares Lv 1920, which, however, contem- plates a different set of conditions. Budde suggests an ingeni- ous emendation of the doubtful my' k'7 ib-k into nv;; «> is-H 'provided that he has not known her (carnally).' The LXX ;; xWi! jMtfl^^Xffyrtf-flE", *has promised or pledged herself to him,' appears to sustain the reading of the A^. We might, on the other hand, also render the Heb. text (^irf) ' to whom (one) has destined her.' W. R. Smith, however, in ZATW, 1S92, p. 162, supports Budde's reading of ^Sjl), and makes the further suggestion that k'? did not originally stand in the text, which was simply njT IPK. This involved a primitive usag*
• This is the view taken by most commentators ; Q'n7Nrr7(< does not mean 'to the judges,' as Dillm. seems disposed to understand it. For Jg 6*, 1 S 225 (see Ixihr, ad loc.), and Ex 227- a 28 are passages where D'n'?K should be rendered by 'God' not 'Judges,' God being regarded as the fountain of true justice, who spoke through the priest and witnessed the transaction. Hence LXX ••/^« ri *?mpic, nZ 6ui. Nowack would under- stand by D'nSft here the ' family ancestors' (cf. 1 S 28", Is S"). The slave was taken to the family sanctuary and adopted pe^ manently into the possessions of the family. But this is a far- fetched theory, and the employment of CT17K in a code a< legislation in a sense so exceptional is certainly improbable.
The boring ol the ear (probably the right ear, Lv S^"- U'*- ") was also practised bv other Oriental peoples, t.g. the llesopo- tamians (Juven. 1. 104), Arabs (Petronius, Sat. 102), LydiaM (Xenoph. Anab. m. L 31), and Carthaginians (Plautus, PxnuL V. ii. 21). For other parallels consult Dillm. on Ex 21^.
t This humane Deuteronomic law was fully maintained in thi later Jewish usage. According to ^iddtuliin 17, the worth of these parting pifts to the released slave must amount to M tdaim or 78 shillings (Hamburger).
SERVA^'^T, SLAVE, SI^VVERY
SERVAXT, SLAVE, SLAVERY 465
whereby the heir (or son) Inherited marital right3(ff»n*Aip and Mnrrio'jf, p. 89 (.). The Btorj' of Absalom shows that this might occur even in the lifetime of the lather without shock- ing puhlic feeling. But to the later Jewish ideas this was ftbborrent. Hence the insertion of kV into the text. Subse- quently another textual tradition arose through the nj^^'V of v.P, which caused .lyr to be corrected to .11;", which found Its way into our Massoretic text. K*? of the K^thib thus re- mained unintelUyible, and it was extremely easy for the Jewish scholars to assume that here as in so muny passages it stands in place of iV. The reading .1^1* i^'N is confirmed by (1) the phrase .13 ni33, which obviously presupposes sexual intercourse, (2) best explains '3'V3 n>i.— If we accept W. R. Smith's emendation, it would seem to show that the Book of the Coven.int arose considerably earlier than the Sth cent. For in Am :;' the prophet denounces the profanation of the 'holy name* by the inlcrcourse of father and son with the same paramour (cf. Gn oj-*** (P), 49*). Here the nii^J may probably refer to the -iv ~J7 of some local high place. The sentiment which underlies the verse is unmistakable,
B. The post-exilinn legislation of the Book of Leviticus (So*"'") was disitinct, and was desi<rned to meet the special conditions of the post-exilian times. The institution of the year q/ jubilee now takes the place of the old pre-e.\ilian law respect- ing the seventh year of release. An express dis- tinction is made between Hebrew slaves and foreigners. The latter are to be slaves for life, and do not come under tlie operation of the law of jubilee, whereby the Hebrew slave with his family in the fiftieth jear passed out of bondage and returned to his own kindred and to his own inherited property, where he was enabled to main- tain himself and liis family in freedom.
The older biblical scholars attempted to reconcile the Levilical legislation with the older codes. Thus Saalschiitz held the view that the le^-islatioo of Exodus and Deut re- ferred to the tribes related to the Hebrews, while the law of jubilee applied to Israelites only. But this distinction is an artificial * Nothbehelf,' and the same remark applies to Dill- niann'H attempt to harmonize Levit. with the earlier legislation h\ assuming that the former was designed to secure to those who had not made use of their right of release in the seventh year through utter impoverishment, that they should not be slaves for ever, but obtam their release in the fiftieth.— But both these theories are baaed on a failure to recognize that the Levitical regulations were a completely new constructive effort to settle the conditions of Hebrew bond-service.
It is not by any means clear how far the slave benclited by the new conditions. Indeed the old Deuteronoiiiic law seems more favourable, if the year of jubilee was over six years distant. The object of tlie new law seems to have been to fix a universally valid date of release, and thus to unite the lot of tlie individual to the collective life of the nation. Moreover, an ex|)res3 injunction was made (v.*'"-), that Hebrew slaves should be re- deemed from bondage to a foreign owner by the nearest kin (first brotliers, then uncle or cousin), 80 that a foreign master had not tlie unconditional right of possession towards the Hebrew slave until the year of jubilee. The slave was, if possible, to be redeemed before that time, the price of re- demption being regulated by (1) the original sum of purchase ; (2) the distance of the year of jubilee. We thus find that the fumlaniental pnnci|ile was recognized that the Hebrew slave was rather to be regarded as a hired workman, and the price of his purchase or redemption was to be considered as a kind of hire paid for in advance. The Hebrew master was, moreover, exhorted to treat him rather OS a brother, or a ' hired servant ' and * soiouruer '