Human Rights in Deuteronomy

With Special Focus on Slave Laws

Daisy Yulin Tsai

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9783110385793
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Ancient Religion

The humanitarian concerns of the biblical slave laws and their rhetorical techniques rarely receive scholarly attention, especially the two slave laws in Deuteronomy. Previous studies that compared the biblical and the ANE laws focused primarily on their similarities and developed theories of direct borrowing. This ignored the fact that legal transplants were common in ancient societies. This study, in contrast, aims to identify similarities and dissimilarities in order to pursue an understanding of the underlying values promoted within these slave laws and the interests they protected. To do so, certain innovative methodologies were applied. The biblical laws examined present two diverse legal concepts that contrast to the ANE concepts: (1) all agents are regarded as persons and should be treated accordingly, and (2) all legal subjects are seen as free, dignified, and self-determining human beings. In addition, the biblical laws often distinguish an offender's "criminal intent, " by which a criminal's rights are also considered. Based on these features, the biblical laws are able to articulate YHWH's humanitarian concerns and the basic concepts of human rights presented in Deuteronomy.

1 Introduction and Methodological Considerations

Hebrew slaves and the slave manumission laws in the Pentateuch elucidate something that rarely has been touched upon. The Hebrew slave manumission laws (Exod 21:2–11; Lev 25:39–55; Deut 15:12–18) contain various rhetorical techniques that mark a strong call for the listeners’ attention. Slavery was a significant issue from the very beginning of Israelite history. Originally, Israel was mainly composed of escaped Egyptian Hebrew slaves. The very first law of the ordinances from the Covenant law book¹ that the Lord set before these fugitives concerns the manumission of a Hebrew slave (Exod 21:2–11).² R. Averbeck notes that “[t]he placement of Exodus 21:2 – 11 is striking. For the debt-slave laws to be at the beginning of this very important section of laws is conspicuous both historically and theologically.”³ The Covenant law book is the only ancient law collection that opens with this topic. The last legal regulation regarding slaves in the Pentateuch is in Deut 23:16–17 [Eng. 23:15–16], which is a petition to protect escaped slaves. This petition finds no correspondence among the ANE slave laws, and the law is one of the most humane appeals in the entire repertoire of biblical and ANE laws.⁴

Scholars in human rights and anthropology have often reckoned these biblical laws to be an integral pedestal for early ethical contributions.⁵ Unfortunately, biblical scholars have not given commensurate attention to the relationship between their theological significance and humanitarian concerns. In striking contrast to their ANE counterparts, Israelite slave laws in the Pentateuch, especially in Deuteronomy, demonstrate a strong humanitarian overtone.⁶

dp n="19" folio="3" ?

Review of Literature

Cuneiform law collections were first discovered in the beginning of the twentieth century. With this discovery came a growing interest of comparative study between biblical and cuneiform law collections, as well as intertextual legal comparison.⁷ As a result, scholars began comparing similar laws in the biblical and cuneiform law collections. In general, they paid attention to analogous subject matters. For example, in 1902, D. H. Müller compared some resemblances between the Law of Hammurabi, Covenantal, and Deuteronomic law collections in his book Die Gesetze Hammurabis, while later in 1935 C. Gordon published a book showing a parallel between LH 23–24 and some Nuzi tablets that reflected a custom similar to Deut 25:11–12.⁸ In the past few decades, comparative legal study has become a newly energized area of biblical law research.⁹ The investigation of biblical slave laws has focused on the literary relation between the three slave manumission laws in the Pentateuch: Exod 21:2–11 (hereafter Ex 21), Lev 25:39–55 (hereafter Lev 25), and Deut 15:12 – 18 (hereafter Dt 15).¹⁰

The first stage of hermeneutics on these slave laws, according to B. M. Levinson, is the “standard source critical model” which was pervasive until the 1960’s.¹¹ This model diachronically regards Ex 21, Lev 25, Dt 15, and Jer 34:8 –22 (hereafter Jr 34), as a developing series of the manumission laws. It assumes that the apparent discrepancy between the laws indicates that the later legislator was modifying or repealing the earlier law. According to this view, Ex 21 that requires the release of male slaves in the seventh year was chronologically first. Then from it Dt 15 stemmed out, with the same numerical scheme but with a series of revisions. Next was the prophetic narrative of Jr 34, which recounts how Zedekiah sought to implement the law as the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem, presumably so as to abortively add soldiers to the militia. Finally, the author of the Holiness Code deferred the slave law to the jubilee in the fiftieth year in Lev 25, desperately hoping somehow to retrieve the institution. In view of the standard source critical model, the development of the sources can be summarized as follows: Ex 21→ Dt 15→ Jr 34→ Lev 25.¹²

Subsequently, various theories about the literary relation between these slave laws surfaced and challenged what was then the consensus on the standard source critical model.¹³ The Israeli scholar Y. Kaufmann (1889–1963) may be the earliest forerunner who denied any literary relation between biblical and cuneiform laws, as well as among any of the Pentateuchal legal collections.¹⁴ Three decades later, R. P. Merendino incorporated Kaufmann’s position into the form critical approach. Precluding any literary dependence between biblical and cuneiform laws, he proposed a theory similar to the two-source hypothesis for the synoptic problem by appealing to an unknown independent literary source like the hypothetical Q.¹⁵ Others such as S. Japhet argue for Dt 15’s dependence on Lev 25. Her view has become a building block for a number of scholars including C. J. H. Wright, J. Weingreen, and J. Milgrom.¹⁶ In addition to establishing literary relation, Japhet has noted that the human social implications of the slave laws in Deuteronomy reveal additional aspects of thought and worldview.¹⁷

In recent decades (from the 1980’s to present), biblical scholars have paid more attention to the emphatic tone of human rights in Deuteronomy. However, many of them explained this humanitarian overtone by their dating of the book. G. Braulik’s article, “Das Deuteronomium und die Menschenrechte” in 1986, illustrated how the Deuteronomic statutes demonstrate the compassionate spirit of human rights.¹⁸ Braulik explained that such humanitarian sympathy was a plan for a just society which Josiah pledged to the Israelite people in 621 B.C.¹⁹ Later in 1993, C. Chirichigno proposed a synchronic reading of these slave laws from a socio-economic perspective. However, he paradoxically dated these legal corpora diachronically.²⁰ Another variation appeared in 2002 with E. Otto’s Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht: Rechts und literaturhistorische studien zum Deuteronomium that placed Deuteronomy in a pre-exilic period (most likely in the time of Josiah).²¹ Here, Otto believed that Deuteronomy created a complementary relationship between ethics and law in response to Mesopotamian economic problems and the occasional debt-release decrees.²² In identifying the ideal political freedom of Deuteronomy, he asserts that the concept comes from the threat of the Neo-Assyrians.²³ J. Van Seters maintains that Dt 15 comes first and Ex 21 last in his 2003 work A Law Book for the Diaspora,²⁴ asserting that the emphasis of humanitarian “brotherly” ethics of Dt 15 is an earlier presentation and that Ex 21 should be understood as “a window on the exilic and postexilic conditions of Hebrew enslavement.”²⁵

Independent from the source hypothesis, C. Carmichael’s historical analysis suggests a different theory for the three release laws.²⁶ Based on a synchronic reading, he asserted that the texts themselves provide accounts of their authors and dates. Each slave law in Ex 21, Dt 15 and Lev 25 reflects a recent slave experience and provides directions for the future life of the Israelite people.²⁷ Carmichael contends that attempting “to date the texts must end in frustration because the historical data necessary for the task are simply not available to us.”²⁸

In addition to the intertextual focus in the Hebrew Bible, ANE socio-economic investigations provide a contextual panorama to understand the institutions of ancient slavery. A socio-economic approach concentrates on issues such as the sources of slaves, the legal status of slaves, the economic roles of slavery, and the manumission of slaves.²⁹ A plethora of studies show that since variegated factors affect the status and circumstances around slaves,³⁰ the emphasis on human rights in Deuteronomy should not be simply attributed to mere redaction or studies of dates.

In a comparison of biblical slave laws to ANE slave laws, S. Greengus notes that laws dealing with slave trade are absent in the Hebrew Bible.³¹ In terms of the sale of chattel slaves, indeed Greengus is correct; however, such a phenomenon does not mean that the Israelites had never owned chattel slaves. The cases in Exod 21:20 – 21, 26 – 27 imply that chattel slaves did exist in the society. Furthermore, Lev 25:45 allowed the Israelites to buy chattel slaves from foreigners.

Until the end of the twen...

Table of contents

• Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Preface
• Table of Contents
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction and Methodological Considerations
• 2 Exegesis of Deuteronomic Slave Laws
• 3 Comparative Studies of Biblical SlaveManumission Laws
• 4 Comparative Studies of ANE Slave Laws
• 5 The Laws and the Concepts of Human Rights inthe ANE Law Books and in Deuteronomy
• 6 Conclusion: Summary, Contributions, and Further Avenues of Research
• Appendix A: A Compilation of Biblical and Cuneiform Law Collections
• Appendix B: Biblical and ANE Slave Laws and ANE Laws Related to Slave Issues
• Bibliography
• Index of Authors
• Index of Scripture References