'Let my people go!' emancipation, revelation, and scribal activity in Jeremiah 34.8-14

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Volumn 22, Issue 76, 1997, Pages 71-95

  Chavel, Simeon ^a  

^a NONE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950473719     PISSN: 03090892     EISSN: 14766728     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030908929702207605     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Dating follows J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), p. 223
2. A. Ehrlich, Scripture according to its Literal Meaning, I-III (Berlin, 1899-1901), on Jer. 34.9, disagrees with this reasoning, claiming that at such a time, one does not differentiate between genders of slaves; all gain release
3. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 223
4. see also Jer. 34.21-22; 37.5. N. Sarna, 'Zedekiah's Emancipation of Slaves and the Sabbatical Year', in H.A. Hoffner, Jr (ed.), Occident and Orient: Essays Presented to C.H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (AOAT, 22; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), pp. 143-49 (144 n. 9), does not see here a formal abrogation of the covenant; rather, the people needed farm-hands to take care of the neglected fields. He even raises the possibility that the slaves may have returned without much persuasion due to thse tough economic conditions left by the siege. The verb, 'forced subjugation', depicting the re-enslavement (Jer. 34.11, 16) suggests otherwise (see BDB, p. 461)
5. M.D. Cassuto, Commentary to the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook, 1969), p. 181, reasons that the non-pentateuchal laws in effect then, which did not limit Hebrew servitude to any specific number of years, ultimately made it legitimate for the owners to re-subjugate those they had recently freed; the covenant, initiated by Zedekiah for moral reasons, had no legal standing before the government authorities
6. erôr in the Light of Akkadian Documents', EI 5 (1958), pp. 21-31 (28), notes that already the law code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (1937-1927 BCE) reflects the conception of a sweeping andurârum as pleasing to the gods
7. On the contrary, pentateuchal legislation, as demonstrated below, had no observable influence on the terms of the covenant and its formulation. H.D. Rabinovitz, The Book of Jeremiah (The Da'at Soferim Commentary; Jerusalem: 'Da'at Israel' Society for Bible and History of Israel, 1996), p. 415, even attributes to Zedekiah a more general inspiration simply to act justly, without a direct link to God's salvation, but he interprets the covenant and the entire section - in a most original fashion - in terms of the pentateuchal legislation
8. Suggesting military conscription: Ehrlich, Scripture, Jer. 34.9, who claims that because slaves did not serve as soldiers in the ancient Near East, Zedekiah had to free them prior to drafting them; C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, Lamentations (trans. D. Patrick; Commentary to the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1985), p. 84, who also suggests the appeasement of God
9. M. David, 'The Manumission of Slaves Under Zedekiah', OS 5 (1948), pp. 63-79 (63)
10. N.P. Lemche, 'The Manumission of Slaves: The Fallow Year, The Sabbatical Year, The Jobel Year', VT 26 (1976), pp. 38-59 (51 n. 37), who recommends this motivation on the basis of similar instances in classical antiquity, although he finds no instances in the ancient Near East itself
11. M. Weinfeld, 'Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws and their Ancient Near Eastern Background', in T. Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and in its Environment (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1990), pp. 39-62 (39). Suggesting reduction of the financial burden: Lemche, 'The Manumission of Slaves', p. 51
12. Y. Hoffman (ed.), Jeremiah (Encyclopedia of the Biblical World; Tel Aviv: Revivum, 1983), p. 164
13. S.L. Gordon, The Book of Jeremiah (Tel Aviv: S.L. Gordon, 1967), p. 228, combines the two motivations: given the inaccessibility of the fields, the owners would rather the slaves serve as soldiers than as farm-hands. Suggesting the appeasement of God: S.D. Luzzato, The Commentaries of Shadal on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Proverbs and Job (Lemberg, 1876), on Jer. 34.9, on the basis of Jer. 34.15
14. David, 'The Manumission of Slaves', p. 63
15. A. Weiser, Jeremiah (The Bible Explained by A. Weiser; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1981), p. 95 who also speculates that the Judaeans may have feared that were their brethren to arrive in Babylon as slaves, they would remain as slaves there. M. Kessler, 'The Law of Manumission in Jer 34', BZ 15 (1971), pp. 105-108 (107), adds 'a touch of mimetic magic: as the people of Jerusalem set free their slaves, so let Yahweh set Jerusalem free from Nebuchadrezzar's siege!' J.P. Hyatt, Jeremiah: Prophet of Courage and Hope (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958), p. 55
16. and J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 610, raise all three possible motivations
17. Weinfeld, 'Sabbatical Year', pp. 39-42
18. against Sarna, 'Zedekiah's Emancipation', pp. 145-48
19. Noticed also by Ehrlich, Scripture, Jer. 34.9
20. S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (CBSC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), p. 213, posits a semantic difference between the two terms: indicates service defined primarily by concubinage, denotes merely slavework. BDB, pp. 51, though, softening the distinction, generally equates the two
21. Against Kessler, 'The Law of Manumission', p. 106, and many others who read the entire narrative in Jer. 34 as dependent on Deut. 15. Only the legal citation in Jer. 34.14 bears any literary relationship to Deut. 15.12. Even Keil, Jeremiah, Lamentations, pp. 83-84, who recognizes the lack of reference to Exod. 21 and Deut. 15, nevertheless insists that Zedekiah's covenant conforms to pentateuchal manumission. P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremiah (KAT, 10; repr.; Leipzig: Diechart, 1928), p. 319 n. 1, understands the remote similarity between the historical event and the legislation in Exod. 21 and Deut. 15 to have led Jeremiah to cite Deut. 15.12
22. erôr', pp. 29-30
23. Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 165
24. R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM Press, 1986], p. 644)
25. This is in addition to this author's tendency throughout the book of Jeremiah to explain the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in terms of sin and punishment. For a fuller characterization of this 'Deuteronomistic' author's literary style, date of activity, and purpose, see A. Rofé, 'Enquiries into the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah', Tarbiz 44 (1975), pp. 1-29 (10-13, 16-17, 22-29)
26. For a persuasive argument against distinguishing too neatly among authors, editors and copyists, see S. Talmon, 'The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook', in F.M. Cross, Jr and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), especially, pp. 336-37
27. S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1901), p. 183
28. Sarna, 'Zedekiah's Emancipation', pp. 145-46
29. Y. Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Exegesis (Reches, 1992), pp. 101-102
30. For a critical survey of the various theories explaining the difference between the perfect and imperfect verbal forms, see L. McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day (Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 2; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), especially his summary remarks, pp. 176-85
31. See S. Japhet, 'The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumission Laws', in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in Bible (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 31; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), pp. 63-89 (83-84, 87-88). Although, as she notes, the Deuteronomic author refrains from calling the sold Hebrew a slave until he enters permanent bondage. Japhet argues that this differentiation derives more from the Deuteronomic ideology regarding foreigners than from a polemic against Israelite slavery
32. The use of 'brother' here as a legal term emphasizing social equality within the nation approaches its use throughout Lev. 25, on which see Japhet, 'The Relationship', pp. 74-78
33. and P.D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), pp. 136-37
34. As Japhet demonstrates, 'The Relationship', pp. 80-81, the term carries an exclusively emotional force in Deut. 15.12. The author of Jer. 34.14 adds to it a measure of legal significance by having it supersede Zedekiah's 'slave' and 'maidservant'
35. Weinfeld, 'Sabbatical Year', p. 39 n. 3, notes the shift from the second person plural, to the second person singular, explaining it as a manifestation of the author's desire to follow the original Deuteronomic formulation as accurately as possible, but he does not address the source of the opening plural form and the logic of the redundancy itself
36. See Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 174
37. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, p. 319 n. 1
38. Kessler, 'The Law of Manumission', p. 106
39. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, p. 611
40. R. Westbrook, Encyclopedia Biblica, VIII (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1982), col. 114 'Schmittah'
41. M. Bulah, The Book of Jeremiah (Da'at Miqra'; Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook, 1983), pp. 439-40
42. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, p. 645
43. W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52 (Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 237-38
44. G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 141; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 285. All of these scholars explain, essentially, that denotes the end of the seven-year cycle, which the beginning of the seventh year itself serves to mark
45. Kittel, BHK, Jer. 34.14
46. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the LXX renders with and/or the root giving the general sense 'after' or 'after the completion of (see LXX Jer. 13.6; 49.7 [Heb. 42.7]); Ezek. 3.16; 29.13; 39.14, as well as Gen. 4.3; 8.3, 6; 16.3; 41.1; Exod. 12.41; Num. 13.25; Deut. 14.28; 31.10; Josh. 3.2; 9.16; Judg. 11.39; 2 Sam. 15.7; 24.8; 1 Kgs 2.39; 17.7; 2 Kgs 8.3; 18.10; 2 Chron. 8.1; Isa. 23.15, 17). However, here, the LXX deviates pointedly with the root ('fulfilment' in all its various senses, and frequently used, therefore, to render etc.; see LSJ, pp. 1419-20, and E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath teds.], A Concordance the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897], II, pp. 1147-48)
47. J.P. Hyatt, 'The Book of Jeremiah: Exegesis', in G.A. Buttrick et al. (eds.), The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), V, p. 1057
48. M.Z. Segal, Jeremiah (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1944), p. 79
49. Lemche, 'The Manumission of Slaves', p. 52
50. Weinfeld, 'Sabbatical Year', p. 39 n. 3. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 222, correctly warns against emending the text in favor of the LXX specifically because of this reference
51. So also Rabinovitz, The Book of Jeremiah, p. 417-18, who also notes the same pairing of emancipation and cancellation of debts in Neh. 5. J. Milgrom explains the Jubilee legislation similarly in his forthcoming Leviticus 17-27 [AB, 3; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Carroll, 'Sabbatical Years', p. 648, suggests that the reference to Deut. 15.1 serves to make Jeremiah's citation of Deut. 15.12 more applicable to Zedekiah's emancipation by transforming Deut. 15.12 from manumitting each slave individually to all at once. The Rabbis, b. 'Arak. 33a, offer a similar explanation, although they do not explicitly read as a reference to Deut. 15.1
52. For the legitimacy of this translation, see BDB, p. 83, which notes the same sense in 1 Kgs 8.33, and T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), §70. Translators generally have missed the explicative sense and its force here, rendering instead the more common relative pronominal 'whom' or the like; see, e.g., LXX; Targ. Onq.; RSV; JB; NEB; NJPS; NIV; M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Die fünf Bücher der Weisung - verdeutscht von M. Buber gemeinsam mit F. Rosenzweig (Cologne: Jakob Hegner, 1954)
53. G.J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979)
54. J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC, Waco, TX; Word Books, 1992)
55. See further Japhet, 'The Relationship', pp. 84-85
56. See also Lev. 25.55, in which YHWH's exclusive ownership provides the motivation for redeeming an Israelite from a foreigner, and see Exod. 20.2-3; Deut. 5.6; 6.12-15; 13.7-11; Josh. 24.16-18; Judg. 6.8-10, in which YHWH's redeeming of Israel from slavery serves as a legal basis for rejecting all other gods in the face of total fealty to YHWH
57. For an insightful discussion of scribal techniques for legal innovation and the theological ramifications of such innovation, see B.M. Levinson, 'The Human Voice in Divine Revelation: The Problem of Authority in Biblical Law', in M.A. Williams, C. Cox, and M.S. Jaffee (eds.), Innovations in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change (Religion and Society, 31; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992)
58. So G.A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918), II, p. 202
59. David, 'The Manumission of Slaves', p. 73, though not due to the grammatical difficulties (see p. 72 n. 31)
60. Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Exegesis, p. 101
61. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 170-72 (171 n. 21), goes one step further and subsumes under the category of interpolations marked by the supplemental through which biblical legists expanded legal formulations (whether to make explicit what previously had remained implicit or taken for granted, or whether to broaden the range of applicability to new cases cannot always be determined)
62. So, too, Ehrlich, Scripture, Jer. 34.9. Lemche, 'The Manumission of Slaves', p. 52, in a baffling position, confidently identifies as a gloss, but he hesitates with regard to belonged to the original formulation of the decree, then it should follow immediately after, not after
63. So Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Exegesis, pp. 101-102
64. See above, n. 37
65. M. Zeidel, 'Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms', in M. Zeidel (ed.), Studies of Scripture (Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook, 1978), p. 2
66. but for better controlled analyses and applications of Zeidel's law, see Talmon, 'The Textual Study of the Bible', pp. 358-81
67. and P.C. Beentjes, 'Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern', Bib 63.4 (1982), pp. 506-23. Thanks to B.M. Levinson for directing me to these sources