SLAVE,
SLAVERY
ally
by
a
fine
(Ex
21™).
If
the
slave
is
seriously
maimed
by
his
master,
he
is
given
his
freedom
(Ex
21™-)-
At
this
point
the
BC
contrasts
very
favourably
with
the
CH.
The
latter
does
not
attempt
to
protect
the
slave's
person
from
the
master,
but
only
provides
for
an
indemnity
to
the
master
if
the
slave
is
injured
by
another
(199,
213,
214).
While
a
man
could
be
sold
into
slavery
for
debt
(see
above),
man-stealing
is
pro-hibited
on
pain
of
death
(Ex
21ii'=Dt
24').
Deuter-onomy
interprets
the
Exodus
law
correctly
as
a
prohibition
against
stealing
a
fellow-countryman.
Deut.
also
forbids
returning
a
slave
who
has
escaped
from
a
foreign
master
(Dt
23™-).
If
the
slave
in
this
case
were
a
non-Israelite
(which,
however,
is
not
certain),
the
law
would
be
a
remarkable
example
of
the
humane
tendencies
in
Deut.
and
would
again
contrast
favourably
with
CH,
which
prescribes
severe
penalties
for
harbouring
fugitive
slaves
(16,
19).
The
humane
law
for
the
protection
of
captive
wives
(Dt
21>»-»)
is
also
noticeable.
But
practice
often
went
far
beyond
law
in
mitigating
the
severity
of
servitude.
Indeed,
slavery
in
the
ancient
East
generally
was
a
comparatively
easy
lot.
The
slave
is
grouped
with
wife
and
child
as
part
of
the
master's
household
(Ex
20").
Children
are
property
and
can
be
sold
as
well
as
slaves
(Ex
21';
cf.
22"=Dt
222'
where
the
daughter
is
regarded
as
the
father's
property).
Children
are
flogged
as
well
as
slaves
(Pr
13").
Wives
were
originally
bought
from
the
parents,
and
wives
and
concubines
are
often
almost
indistinguish-able.
Hence
the
lot
of
the
slave
was
probably
not
much
harder
than
that
of
wife
or
child
(cf.
Gal
4'),
and
the
law
implies
the
possibility
of
a
genuine
affection
existing
between
master
and
man
(Ex
2V=T)t
15").
Accord-ingly
we
find
many
illustrations
of
the
man-servant
rising
to
a
position
of
importance.
He
may
be
intrusted
with
the
most
delicate
responsibilities
(Gn
24),
may
be
the
heir
of
his
master
(Gn
15'-'),
is
often
on
intimate
terms
with
and
advises
the
master
(Jg
IQ^"-,
1
S
9*"-),
the
custom
of
having
body-servants
(Heb.
na'ar,
Nu
2222,
1
K
18«,
2
K
412,
Neh
422
etc.)
favouring
such
intimacies,
and
he
may
even
marry
his
master's
daughter
(1
Ch
23M-;
cf.
similar
cases
in
CH
§
175
ff.).
Espe-cially
servants
of
important
men
enjoy
a
reflected
dignity
(1
S
922,
2
K
8*).
The
rise
of
servants
into
positions
of
prominence
was
so
frequent
as
to
be
the
subject
of
proverb-makmg
(Pr
14»5
172
19'"
3022»).
Whether
a
servant
could
own
property
while
remaining
a
servant
is
not
clear.
The
passages
adduced
in
favour
of
it
(1
S
9na
gratuity),
2
S
9^-
16"-
[Ziba
is
a
retainer],
Lv
25"<>
[not
a
realservant]}
are
not
pertinent.
Dt
15^3
makes
against
it,
but
not
necessarily,
and
the
fact
that
in
Arabia
and
Baby-Ionia
(CH
5
176)
the
slave
could
own
property
awakens
a
presumption
in
favour
of
the
same
custom
in
Israel.
Under
a
good
house-wife
the
maid-servant
would
be
well
taken
care
of
(Pr
31").
At
times
she
also
seems
to
be
the
heir
of
her
mistress
(Pr
302"'
[7]).
The
son
of
the
slave-concubine
might
inherit
the
property
and
the
father's
blessing
(Gn
16i«-
21"
49«-),
but
this
depended
on
the
father's
will
(Gn
25«),
as
in
Babylonia
(CH
§
170ff-).
The
effect
of
occupying
such
positions
of
trust
was
often
bad.
Proverbs
fears
it
(19""
3021-28),
and
such
passages
as
2
K
52"-,
Neh
5'=,
Gn
16«
justify
the
fear.
Servants
also
tended
to
become
agents
of
their
master's
sins
(1
S
2"-»5,
2
S
13").
3.
Thus
far
no
distinction
between
native
and
foreign
slaves
has
been
observed
either
in
law
or
in
practice,
except
possibly
by
Implication
at
Ex
21«=Dt
24',
and
Dt
23"«-.
The
view
that
the
protective
laws
in
Ex
212»«'-2Mf-
82
apply
only
to
the
native
slave
is
without
exe-getical
justification,
and
Gn
1712,
Ex
12",
Gn
152
[if
the
text
can
be
trusted]
39"'-
[probably
equally
applicable
to
conditions
in
Israel],
1
Ch
2™-
and
Gn
16i«-
show
that
the
foreign
man-
or
maid-servant
may
enjoy
all
the
advantages
of
the
native
Israelite.
The
distinction
drawn
between
the
subject
Canaanites
and
the
IsraeUtes
at
1
K
92'«-
=2
Ch
8'«-
is
cleariy
incorrect
(cf
.
1
K
6")
and
belongs
to
a
later
development
in
the
ideas
SLAVE,
SLAVERY
of
slavery
(see
below).
The
distinction
drawn
in
P
between
the
'
home-bom
'
slave
and
the
one
'
purchased
with
money
'
(Gn
14"
17'2
etc.)
does
not
refer
to
the
two
classes
of
foreign
and
native
slaves.
In
apparently
but
one
particular,
though
this
is
of
vital
importance,
the
native
slave
is
legally
better
off
than
the
foreign-born,
namely,
in
the
right
to
release.
Already
in
CH
(§
117)
provision
was
made
for
the
release,
after
three
years,
of
a
wife
or
children
who
had
been
sold
for
debt.
In
the
BO
(Ex
21'-»)
this
idea
was
associated
with
the
Sabbath
idea,
and
a
release
was
prescribed
after
6
years
of
servitude,
but
the
law
was
extended
to
cover
every
Israelite
man-servant.
Yet
in
the
specifications
of
the
law
(vv.'-
*)
the
rights
of
the
master
still
noticeably
precede
the
rights
of
the
husband
and
father.
Provision
is
also
made
for
the
slave
to
remain
in
servitude
if
he
prefers
to
do
so.
In
this
case
the
servant
is
to
be
brought
to
the
door
of
the
master's
house,
not
of
the
sanctuary
(the
rite
would
then
lose
its
significance),
and
have
his
ear
pierced
with
an
awl
(a
wide-spread
symbol
of
servitude
in
the
East),
when
he
would
become
a
slave
for
life.
The
phrase
'unto
God'
(v.'»)
can
scarcely
refer
in
this
connexion
to
the
local
sanctuary,
as
has
usually
been
held.
It
sipiifies
the
adoption
of
the
slave
into
the
family
as
a
religious
unit,
and
probably
referred
originally
to
the
house-hold
gods
(or
ancestors?).
In
the
case
of
the
maid-servant
(Ex
21'-")
no
release
was
permitted
under
ordinary
circumstances
(v.'),
for
it
is
assumed
that
the
slave-girl
is
at
the
same
time
a
concubine,
and
hence
release
would
be
against
the
best
interests
both
of
herself
and
of
the
home.
Yet
she
is
not
left
without
protection.
Her
master
has
no
right
to
sell
her
to
a
family
or
clan
not
her
own
('foreign
people,'
v.s'',
probably
has
this
restricted
significance,
sale
of
an
Israelite
to
a
non-Israelite
being
out
of
the
question),
but
must
allow
her
to
be
redeemed,
presu-mably
by
one
of
her
own
family.
Failing
this,
he
rhay
give
her
to
his
son,
in
which
case
she
is
to
be
treated
as
adaughter
(v.*).
If
neither
of
these
methods
is
adopted,
a
third
way
is
provided.
He
may
take
another
(concu-bine
or
wife),
but
must
then
retain
the
first,
provide
for
her
maintenance
and
respect
her
marital
rights
(v.'").
If
the
master
refuses
to
adopt
any
one
of
these
three
methods
('these
three,'
v.",
refers
to
the
three
methods
in
vv.'-'",
not
to
the
three
provisions
in
v.'"),
then,
and
then
only,
the
maid-servant
has
a
right
to
release.
The
above
is
but
one
of
several
possible
interpretations
of
this
passage.
Further,
the
meaning
of
v.'**
is
doubtful.
The
text
is
corrupt.
Instead
of
the
phrase
'who
hath
espoused
her
to
himself,'
we
should
read
either
'so
that
he
hath
not
known
her,'
or
'
who
hath
known
her.'
On
the
first
reading
the
two
methods
of
procedure
in
w.'-^
are
allowable
if
she
be
still
a
-virgin
(in
v.'o
she
is
no
longer
such).
On
the
second
reading
one
of
the
three
methods
in
-vv.'-io
niust
be
followed
when
she
is
de
facto
a
concubine.
The
latter
reading
is
exegetically
preferable.
The
resultant
possibility
of
a
father
gi-ving
his
concubine
to
a
son
was
probably
not
offensive,
at
a
time
when
wife
and
concubine
were
regarded
as
property
which
a
son
could
inherit.
Among
the
Arabs
marriage
with
a
stepmother
was
common
till
the
rise
of
Islam.
In
later
times
these
marriages
were
forbidden
both
in
the
Koran
and
in
the
Hebrew
law
(Dt
22»
272",
Lv
18«
20").
The
Deuteronomic
re-formulation
of
the
Law
of
Release
(Dt
15'2-i8)
is
noteworthy.
(1)
Release
is
ex-tended
to
the
maid-servant.
Consequently
the
specifl-cations
in
Ex
21'-
'■
'-"
are
allowed
to
lapse,
and
in
the
awl-rite
only
the
possibility
of
the
slave
continuing
in
servitude
through
love
of
his
master
is
considered.
This
change
is
due
to
the
increasing
respect
for
the
marriage
relation.
The
slave-husband's
rights
over
the
wife
are
now
superior
to
the
master's
rights,
and
it
is
apparently
no
longer
assumed
that
the
maid-servant
as
such
is
the
concubine
of
her
master.
Where
concu-binage
does
not
exist,
the
maid-servant
can
be
released
without
prejudice
to
the
marital
relation.
(2)
In
Deut.
the
awl-rite
is
clearly
only
a
domestic
rite.
This
con-
