The two different readings of the text “bring him to the
judges” and “bring him to God” in Exodus 21:6 show two different manuscript
traditions. Different readings like this show not only the odd state of Hebrew
Bible text critical studies, but also provide a possible original meaning that
led to the two different texts.
The Hebrew text of Exodus 21:6 is difficult for a few
reasons. These reasons caused several manuscript traditions to change it to try
and clarify or “fix” the difficulty. This can be seen through the logic of the
Hebrew Bible and its surrounding documents in the Ancient Near East that are
available.
The first reason that Exodus 21 creates problems is that it
is a law code. As it is a law code, the traditions are often seen as far older
than the remainder of the text. The text, of course, was not written as it was
happening (diary type literature did exist, but the book of Exodus clearly is
not one). Rather, Exodus was written at the very earliest after the entire narrative
was complete. As such, the law codes were present before (and perhaps for quite
a long time before) the rest of the text. Therefore, we do not know if it was
from the exact time period of the rest of the text or if it is an older
tradition preserved with a newer framework. Further, law codes are lists of
laws often without much elaboration. Here we have a point law about slavery
without a clear explanation of exactly what that entails.
The more important confusion comes in when the context
itself is considered. The text reads,
“But if the slave plainly says, ‘I
love my master, my wife, my children; I will not go out free’, then his master
shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And
his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave
forever.” (Exodus 21:5-6)
Note the text says that one should bring him to God. What does that mean? One would
assume, in the book of Exodus, that it must have something to do with the
tabernacle, tent of meeting, or some connection to the central worship center.
However, where this text gets confusing is the discussion about bringing him to
the door or doorpost. What does this
suggest? The fact that there are two options makes it seem that there is no
single place where the master should take the slave. Later generations must
have been confused – if one is to take the slave to the location of God (later
the temple), why is it not specific? What is one supposed to do? How is that
taking him to God?
The question is even more confusing with the use of
doorposts in the Hebrew Bible. Doorposts are commonly associated with religious
connotations, but not the door of the temple. Instead it is the door of one’s
own house.[1]
Consider Deuteronomy 6:4 (one of the key texts in the whole Hebrew Bible) –
“Hear O Israel, the Lord your God,
the Lord is one…And these words I command you today shall be on your heart. You
shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you
sit in your house, and when you walk by the way and when you lie down, and when
you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and the frontlets between
your eyes. You shall write them on the
doorposts of your house and on our gates.” (Deut. 6:4, 6-9)
The doorpost here is clearly seen in one’s own house rather
than on a single community location. This had led to many questions – is this a
ceremony done in one’s house or done in the tabernacle? If it were in one’s
house, it would suggest a more personal way of being religious than was previously
considered in the Hebrew Bible. If it were in the tabernacle, then this would
be a previously unknown locale at the tabernacle and would indicate a special
significance to a spot that is otherwise unknown.
Cyrus Gordon has argued that the surrounding culture had a
very similar ceremony to the practice of a slave oath, which was found in the household. Gordon noted that the Nuzi
tablets, dating back to as early as the 18th century B.C.E. (though
probably closer to the 14th-16th) indicate a type of dedication
ritual in one’s house. Text H V 52 reads as follows:
“And the
judges said to Akkapu: ‘Take the oath of the gods (ilani) against the
witnesses.’ And (this is) the declaration of Akkapu. Before the judges he
replies (?): ‘I struck Akapshenni’ Akkapu was afraid of the gods. Akapshenni
won the case.”
Gordon points out that there is
clearly an oath to the gods one takes in legal cases as proof of the veracity
of the statements. What is most striking is the word ilani used for gods here. There is a much more common term used for
gods generally in Akkadian that is not used here. This term is the term for
household gods – indicating a household ritual.[2]
Other scholars have noted that there
is at least a little evidence from the Ancient Near East that the door of the
temple could be used ritually. Charles Fensham considers the Laws of Eshnunna
(a text that might be roughly as old as the Nuzi tablets) for this
collaboration. The Law of Eshnunna 36-37 reads: “The owner of the house
shall swear for him an oath in the gate of the temple Tishpak.”[3]
Here, is nearly the lone reference to the gate of the temple having a ritual
function, but it is possible.
The solution of some manuscripts was to interpret this as a
corporate rather than a household phenomenon. The Septuagint reads, “to the
judges of God.” The Aramaic Targum Onkelos simply reads “to the Judges.” The
Syriac also has this reading. In all of these cases, the translator has moved
the ritual out of the household without question to solve confusion. If one
must go to the judges, then it is clear that he or she will not be doing it in
one’s own home.
There is no way to finally prove which reading is best, but
the principle of difficulty leads an interpreter to follow the reading of “to
God.” The Hebrew text of bringing him to God at the doorpost clearly is
confusing (see discussion above). Given that, it is unlikely someone might have
changed it to make it more confusing by introducing it. Probably the later
editors saw this confusion and attempted to solve it by simply changing the
reading “to the judges” rather than “to God.” It is possible, as E. Meyer
points out that the corporate cult, as it became more organized, was threatened
by the household ritual and thus attempted to change it to the corporate.[4]
Cyrus Gordon significantly notes that it is very possible
that this passage reflects the reading “bringing him to gods” rather than god.
The Hebrew term Elohim clearly makes
this possible etymologically. Gordon argues that given this code does not appear
anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible (note that in the version in Deut. 15:17, the
“to God” is deleted to solve the problem), it came from the Ancient Near East
when monotheism was not expressed in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, what is being
discussed are these household gods who would have a ritual in one’s own home.[5]
This is a hard point to prove here, but if it were true, it would provide
another stimulus for the Septuagint, Targums, and other texts to avoid correct
this strange passage.
The implications of this reading does suggest an early view
of household ritual that did fall out of favor later in the tradition as the
temple cult went on the rise. This text might give some insight into that early
world and provides a new context for where and how the household functioned in
the early days of the religion of Ancient Israel.[6]
[1] Another key
“doorpost” moment in the Hebrew Bible is found in the Exodus from Egypt where
the people put the blood of the lamb on the lintel of their door. Note that once
again, it is one’s personal house rather than a single location of the
community.
[2] Gordon, Cyrus, “Elohim in its reputed meaning of rulers,
judges” Journal of Biblical Literature,
54 (3) 1935, 139-144.
[3] Fensham, F.
Charles, “New Light on Exodus 21:6 and 22:7 from the laws of Eshnunna” Journal of Biblical Literature, 78 (2),
Je 1959, 160-161.
[4] Meyer
summarized well in Gordon, “Elohim in its reputed meaning,” 139-140.
[5] Gordon,
“Elohim in its reputed meaning” 139-144.
[6] The term
Ancient Israel is used with the recognition that for the period before Joshua,
they were not truly “Israelites,” but it is likely that the books that are
preserved for us were compiled and finished when they were self defining as
being in the land and belonging to it.
