Is slavery found in the Old Testament?
 |
| A 13th century book illustration produced in Baghdad by al-Wasiti showing a slave-market in the town of Zabid in Yemen. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
a. Introduction
Under the influence of Roman law, a slave is usually considered to be a person (male or female) owned by another, without rights, and—like any other form of personal property—to be used and disposed of in whatever way the owner may wish. In the ancient biblical East, however, slaves could and did acquire various rights before the law or by custom, and these included ownership (even of other slaves) and the power to conduct business while they were yet under their masters’ control. Slavery is attested from the earliest times throughout the ancient Near East, and owed its existence and perpetuation primarily to economic factors.
b. Sources of slaves
(i) By capture. Captives, especially prisoners of war, were commonly reduced to slavery (Gn. 14:21, claimed by the king of Sodom; Nu. 31:9; Dt. 20:14; 21:10ff.; Jdg. 5:30; 1 Sa. 4:9 (cf. rsv); 2 Ki. 5:2; 2 Ch. 28:8, 10ff.), a custom that goes back as far as written documents themselves, to roughly 3000 bc and probably further (references in I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East, 1949, pp. 1–3).
(ii) By purchase. Slaves could readily be bought from other owners or general merchants (cf. Gn. 17:12–13, 27; Ec. 2:7). The law allowed Hebrews to buy foreign slaves from foreigners at home or abroad (Lv. 25:44f.). In antiquity, slaves were sold among all kinds of other merchandise and from country to country. Thus, the Midianites and Ishmaelites sold *Joseph to an Egyptian high official (Gn. 37:36; 39:1), and Phoenician Tyre imported slaves and bronzeware from Asia Minor (Ezk. 27:13) and sold Jews to the Ionians, thereby incurring a threat of like treatment of her own nationals (Joel 3:4–8). For evidence of the large numbers of Semitic slaves that reached Egypt in Joseph’s general period, probably mainly by trade, see references in *Joseph or in Bibliography below. For Babylonian merchant-enterprise in slave-trading abroad in places such as Tyre, see Mendelsohn, op.cit., pp. 3–5.
(iii) By birth. Children ‘born in the house’ of slave-parents became ‘house-born slaves’; such are mentioned in Scripture from patriarchal times onward (Gn. 15:3; 17:12–13, 27; Ec. 2:7; Je. 2:14), and equally early in Mesopotamian documents (Mendelsohn, pp. 57–58).
(iv) As restitution. If a convicted thief could not make restitution and pay his fines and damages, funds towards this could be raised by selling him as a slave (Ex. 22:3; cf. a similar provision in Hammurapi’s Code, §§ 53–54: ANET, p. 168).
(v) By default on debts. Debtors who went bankrupt were often forced to sell their children as slaves, or their children would be confiscated as slaves by the creditor (2 Ki. 4:1; Ne. 5:5, 8). The insolvent debtor himself, as well as his wife and family, commonly became the slave of his creditor and gave him his labour for 3 years to work off the debt and then go free, in Hammurapi’s Code (§ 117: DOTT, p. 30, or ANET, pp. 170–171). This seems to be the background to the Mosaic law in Ex. 21:2–6 (and 7–11), and in Dt. 15:12–18, where a Hebrew slave must work 6 years, explicitly a ‘double’ period of time (Dt. 15:18) compared with Hammurapi’s 3 years (cf. Mendelsohn, pp. 32–33), but on release he was to be granted stock to start up on his own again (see also d. (i) 1, below). Insolvency was a major cause of reduction to slave status in the biblical East (Mendelsohn, pp. 23, 26–29).
(vi) 3 Selling oneself voluntarily into slavery, i.e. dependence on another, to escape poverty, was widely known (Mendelsohn, pp. 14–19, for data). Lv. 25:39–43, 47ff., recognized this, but provided for redemption at (or with foreign owners, even before) Jubilee year.
(vii) Abduction. To steal a person, and to reduce a kidnapped person to slavery, was an offence punishable by death in the laws of both Hammurapi (§ 14: DOTT, p. 30; ANET, p. 166) and Moses (Ex. 21:16; Dt. 24:7). The brothers of *Joseph were guilty of essentially such an offence (Gn. 37:27–28.with 45:4), and might well be ‘dismayed’ and need reassurance not to be ‘distressed’ (Gn. 45:3, 5, and cf. Gn. 50:15).
c. Price of slaves
The price of slaves naturally varied somewhat according to circumstances and the sex, age and condition of slaves, but the average price of slaves gradually rose like that of other commodities during the course of history; the female of childbearing age being always more valuable than the male slave. In the late 3rd millennium bc in Mesopotamia (Akkad and 3rd Ur Dynasties) the average price of a slave was 10–15 shekels of silver (references in Mendelsohn, pp. 117–155). About 1700 bc Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites for 20 shekels of silver (Gn. 37:28), precisely the current price for the patriarchal period, where 1/2 of a mina is 20 shekels (§§ 116, 214, 252: DOTT, p. 35; ANET, pp. 170, 175–176, in (e.g.) Hammurapi’s Code, c. 1750 bc), in contemporary Old Babylonian tablets (cf. Mendelsohn, loc. cit.), and at Mari (G. Boyer, Archives Royales de Mari, 8, 1958, p. 23, No. 10, lines 1–4). By about the 15th century bc the average price was 30 shekels at Nuzi (B. L. Eichler, Indenture at Nuzi, 1973, pp. 16–18, 87), and could be 20, 30 or 40 shekels at Ugarit in N Syria (Mendelsohn, pp. 118–155; J. Nougayrol, Palais Royal d’Ugarit, 3, 1955, p. 228: 2 with refs., p. 23 n. 1) in the 14th/13th centuries bc, comparing well with the contemporary price of 30 shekels reflected in Ex. 21:32. In later days the average price for a male slave rose steadily under the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires, to about 50–60 shekels, 50 shekels and 90–120 shekels respectively (Mendelsohn, pp. 117–118, 155). For 50 shekels in Assyrian times, cf. 2 Ki. 15:20, where the Israelite notables under Menahem had to pay their value as slaves, presumably as ransom to avoid deportation to Assyria (D. J. Wiseman, Iraq 15, 1953, p. 135, and JTVI 87, 1955, p. 28). The successive and identical rises in average price for slaves in both the biblical and external records strongly suggest that the former are based directly on accurate traditions from the specific periods in question, i.e. the early and late 2nd millennium and early 1st millennium bc, and are not at these points the elaboration of later traditionists or of over-statistical priestly redactors.
d. Privately owned slaves in Israel
(i) Hebrew slaves. 1. The law sought (like Hammurapi’s Code 5 centuries earlier) to avoid the risk of wholesale population-drift into slavery and serfdom under economic pressure on small farmers, by limiting the length of service that insolvent debtors (see b. (v), above) had to give to 6 years, their release to be accompanied by the provision of sufficient assets to make a new start (Ex. 21:2–6; Dt. 15:12–18). A man already married when thus enslaved took his wife with him at release, but if he was formerly single and was given a wife by his master, that wife and any children remained the master’s. Hence, those who wished to stay in service and keep their family could do so permanently (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:16f.); at Jubilee he would be released in any case (Lv. 25:40) in connection with the restoration of inheritance then (Lv. 25:28), even if he chose to stay on with his master permanently. Insolvent debtors in temporary enslavement similar to that of Ex. 21:2ff. are probably the subject of Ex. 21:26–27, the permanent loss of a member cancelling the debt and so bringing immediate release from the creditor/master (Mendelsohn, op.cit., pp. 87–88). In Jeremiah’ s day the king and the wealthy flagrantly abused the law of 7th-year release by freeing their slaves only to seize them again, and were duly condemned for this very sharp practice (Je. 34:8–17).
2. A Hebrew who voluntarily sold himself into slavery to escape from poverty was to serve his master until Jubilee year, when he would go free (Lv. 25:39–43) and receive back his inheritance (Lv. 25:28). But if his master was a foreigner he had the option of purchasing his freedom or being redeemed by a relative at any time before Jubilee (Lv. 25:47–55).
3. Female slaves were the subject of further specific law and custom. That a chief wife’s servant-maids might bear children to their master for the childless wife is attested both in the patriarchal narrative (Gn. 16) and in cuneiform documents, e.g. from Ur (Wiseman, JTVI 88, 1956, p. 124). Under the law, if a Hebrew girl was sold as a slave (Ex. 21:7–11) her marital status was carefully safeguarded: she might marry her master (and be redeemed if rejected), or his son, or become a properly maintained concubine, but would go free if the master failed to implement whichever of the three possibilities he had agreed to. In Mesopotamia such contracts were usually harsher, often having no safeguards whatever (cf. Mendelsohn, pp. 10ff., 87).
(ii) Foreign slaves. 1. Unlike Hebrew slaves, these could be enslaved permanently and handed on with other family property (Lv. 25:44–46). However, they were included in the commonwealth of Israel on patriarchal precedent (circumcision, Gn. 17:10–14, 27) and shared in festivals (Ex. 12:44, Passover; Dt. 16:11, 14) and sabbath-rest (Ex. 20:10; 23:12).
2. A woman captured in war could be taken as full wife by a Hebrew, and would thereby cease to have slave status; thus, if she was subsequently divorced she went free and did not become a slave (Dt. 21:10–14).
(iii) General conditions. 1. The treatment accorded to slaves depended directly on the personality of their masters. It could be a relationship of trust (cf. Gn. 24; 39:1–6) and affection (Dt. 15:16), but discipline might be harsh, even fatal (cf. Ex. 21:21), though to kill a slave outright carried a penalty (Ex. 21:20), doubtless death (Lv. 24:17, 22). It is just possible that Hebrew slaves, like some Babylonians, sometimes carried an outward token of their servitude (Mendelsohn, p. 49), though this remains uncertain. In some circumstances slaves could claim justice (Jb. 31:13) or go to law (Mendelsohn, pp. 65, 70, 72), but—like the Egyptian spared by David—could be abandoned by callous masters when ill (1 Sa. 30:13). In patriarchal times a childless master could adopt a house-slave and make him his heir, as is recorded of Abraham and Eliezer before the births of Ishmael and Isaac (Gn. 15:3), and of various people in cuneiform documents (Ur, cf. Wiseman, JTVI 88, 1956, p. 124).
2. Throughout ancient history, the available documents bear witness to the large numbers of people who tried to escape from slavery by running away, and those who in any way aided and abetted them could expect punishment, especially in early times (Mendelsohn, pp. 58ff.). However, slaves that fled from one country to another came under a different category. States sometimes had mutual extradition clauses in their treaties; this may explain how Shimei so easily recovered two runaway slaves of his from King Achish of Gath in Philistia (1 Ki. 2:39–40; cf. Wiseman, op.cit., p. 123). However, some states also at times decreed that if any nationals of theirs enslaved abroad returned to their homeland they would be set free and not be extradited. This was stipulated by Hammurapi of Babylon (Code, § 280: DOTT, p. 35; ANET, p. 177; cf. Mendelsohn, pp. 63–64, 75, 77–78), and is probably the meaning of Dt. 23:15f. (Mendelsohn, pp. 63–64).
(iv) Manumission. In the Heb. laws an enslaved debtor was to be released after 6 years (Ex. 21:2; Dt. 15:12, 18), or as compensation for injury (Ex. 21:26–27), and a girl could be redeemed or set free if repudiated, or if conditions of service were not honoured (Ex. 21:8, 11; see d. (i) 3 above). A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery was to be freed at Jubilee, or could be redeemed by purchase at any time from a foreign master (Lv. 25:39–43, 47–55; d. (i) 2 above). On Dt. 23:15f., see preceding section. A female captive could become a freedwoman by marriage (Dt. 21:10–14).
In 1 Ch. 2:34f., a Hebrew Sheshan had no sons, and so married his daughter to his Egyptian slave Jarha in order to continue his family line; it is most probable that Jarha would be made free in these circumstances (Mendelsohn, p. 57), and likewise Eliezer of Damascus (Gn. 15:3), if he had not been replaced as heir to Abraham by Ishmael and then Isaac.
In Heb. the term which denotes that a person is ‘free’, not (or no longer) a slave (e.g. Ex. 21:2, 5, 26–27; Dt. 15:12–13, 18; Jb. 3:19; Je. 34:9–11, 14, 16; etc.), is ḥop̱šî, which has a long history in the ancient East, occurring as h̬upšu in cuneiform texts from the 18th to the 7th centuries bc, and usually referring to freedmen who are small landholders, tenant farmers or hired labourers. When a Hebrew was freed this is the class he would be in. He would become a small landholder if he regained his inheritance (as at Jubilee) or a tenant or labourer on land held by others. On manumission in the ancient East, see Mendelsohn, pp. 74–91; on ḥop̱šî, see Bibliography below.
e. State and Temple slavery
(i) State slavery in Israel. This was practised on a restricted scale. David caused the conquered Ammonites to do forced labour (2 Sa. 12:31), and Solomon conscripted the surviving descendants of the peoples of Canaan into his mas-‘ōḇēḏ, permanent state labour-levy, but not true Israelites (see 1 Ki. 9:15, 21–22; burden-bearers and quarriers, v. 15 and 2 Ch. 2:18). The Israelites served on temporary corvie (mas) in Lebanon only, by rota (1 Ki. 5:13f.). There is no contradiction between 1 Ki. 5 and 9 on the corvies; cf. M. Haran, VT 11, 1961, pp. 162–164, following and partly correcting Mendelsohn, pp. 96–98. Cf. A. F. Rainey, IEJ 20, 1970, pp. 191–202. The famous coppermines near Ezion-geber (*Elath) were most likely worked with Canaanite and Ammonite/Edomite slave-labour (N. Glueck, BASOR 79, 1940, pp. 4–5; Mendelsohn, p. 95; Haran, op.cit., p. 162). Such use of war-captives was common throughout the Near East, and in other countries outside Israel their less fortunate nationals and ordinary slaves could sometimes be taken over by the state (Mendelsohn, pp. 92–99).
(ii) Temple slaves in Israel. After the war with Midian, Moses levied from the warriors and Israel at large 1 in 500 and 1 in 50 respectively of their spoils in persons and goods, for service with the high priest and Levites at the tabernacle, obviously as menials (Nu. 31:28, 30, 47). Then there were added to these the Gibeonites spared by Joshua, who became ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ for the house and altar of the Lord (Jos. 9:3–27), i.e. menials for the tabernacle and its personnel. Also, David and his officers had dedicated foreigners (Nethinim) for similar service with the Levites who served the Temple, some of their descendants returning from captivity with Ezra (8:20); to these were added ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr. 2:58). Ezekiel (44:6–9) possibly warned against allowing these uncircumcised menials to usurp a place in the worship of a Temple that was not theirs. Under Nehemiah (3:26, 31) some of these lived in Jerusalem and helped repair its walls.
f. Conclusion: general trends
Generally, a more humane spirit breathes through the OT laws and customs on slavery, as illustrated by the repeated injunctions in God’s name not to rule over a brother Israelite harshly (e.g. Lv. 25:43, 46, 53, 55; Dt. 15:14f.). Even when Heb. law and custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the law codes of Babylon or Assyria. It should, moreover, be remembered that, by and large, the economy of the ancient Near East was never one substantially or mainly based on slave-labour as in ‘classical’ and later Greece or above all in imperial Rome (cf. Mendelsohn, pp. 111–112, 116:117, 121; I. J. Gelb, Festschrift for S. N. Kramer, 1976, pp. 195–207, on statistics and comparisons; limited numbers and economic opportunities of Neo-Babylonian slaves, cf. F. I. Andersen (summary of Dandamayer), Buried History 11, 1975, pp. 191–194). And Job (31:13–15) heralds the concept of the equality of all men, of whatever station, before their creator God.
Bibliography. A fundamental work which makes frequent reference to the OT data is I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East, 1949, following up earlier studies, and supplemented by IEJ 5, 1955, pp. 65–72. The biblical data are summarized and evaluated by A. G. Barrois, Manuel d’Archiologie Biblique, 2, 1953, pp. 38, 114, 211–215, and by R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: its Life and Institutions, 1961, pp. 80–90, 525). On Temple slaves in Israel, see M. Haran, VT 11, 1961, pp. 159–169. On ḥop̱šî, ‘free (dman)’, see Mendelsohn, BASOR 83, 1941, pp. 36–39, and ibid., 139, 1955, pp. 9–11; E. R. Lacheman, ibid., 86, 1942, pp. 36–37; D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, 1953, p. 10. For the Egyp. data on slavery, see the monograph by A. M. Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt, 1952, supplemented for Joseph’s period by W. C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum, 1955, pp. 92–94, 98–99, 133–134, and especially G. Posener, Syria 34, 1957, pp. 147, 150–161.
K. A. Kitchen.
