How Much for a Hebrew Slave? The Meaning of Mineh in Deut 15:18 Author(s): James M.

Lindenberger Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 479-482 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267784 . Accessed: 17/09/2013 15:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:25:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JBL 110/3 (1991) 479-498

CRITICAL NOTES
HOW MUCH FOR A HEBREW SLAVE? THE MEANING OF MISNEH IN DEUT 15:18

"Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand ('ntr Inrt ):' This translation (NIV) of Deut 15:18a, the conclusion of the deuteronomic law concerning a Hebrew slave, represents in modern language a very old traditional understanding of that verse. That traditional reading was challenged by M. Tsevatin 1958. Tsevatargued that I=e in Deut 15:18 does not have its usual meaning "twice, double," but is to be understood on the basis of a supposed Akkadian cognate miftannu, occurring at Alalakh, meaning "equivalent, quid pro quo." The passage should be translated, according to Tsevat, "he has served you the equivalent of the hire of a hired servant six years:'3Tsevat sees the same meaning of the word in Jer 16:18, "I will give them the 'Ml= of their iniquity and their sin" (RSV: "I will doubly recompense their iniquity and their sin")4 Tsevat'sproposal appears to remove a difficulty in the interpretation of these verses, and it has been accepted by many commentators, including D. J. Wiseman, the original editor of the Alalakh texts. G. von Rad, in a 1967 article, carried Tsevat's
That is the understanding of the Targums:NT N3 n by (Tg. Onq.), by 3 ~'n 135LVb1t TI'" Db75=3 (Tg. Neof.). The Peshitta reads similarly: had tren 1'H1 (Tg. Ps.-Jon.),?TVTIM" ba(')gra' da(')gire'.

It is clear from the other ancient versionsthat the verse occasioned some difficultyin The LXXtranslators did not knowwhatto makeof it, andseem to havevocalizedMT antiquity. 4 aot i'tl MVLt as miggdna: roott.lozO Uo [variants: a?too0v ijt pitov InetLov, r~et~etov] The~o.t8OAX he has servedyou six yearsforthe annualwageof a wage-earner"). Vghasyet another ("for of the verse;see n. 3 below. understanding 2 M. 29 (1958)109-43, esp. 125-26. HUCA Tsevat, "Alalakhiana,' 3 ThoughTsevat the verse.The does not indicateit, this is exactlyhow Jeromeunderstood iuxtamercedemmercenarii per sex annos servivittibi" Vg reads,"quoniam If to the usualtranslation. Tsevat claimsthat neitherpassagemakessense according ;lV in Deut 15:18, "thiswould implythat hired laborersused to were translated "twiceas much" the usualtranslation loaf on the job, a ratherunlikelyimplication" (p. 125). And in Jer 16:18, ... IV,1912,p. 285] andunjust,as Ehrlich[Randglossen God as unreasonable stigmatize "would of these conclusions not see that either do I necessarilyfollows correctlyremarked" (p. 126). fromthe traditional reading. 5 The text in questionis Alalakh Text3 (lines 19, 22, 28, and 34) publishedby Wisemanin in Ankara of the BritishInstituteof Archaeology TheAlalakh Tablets Publications (Occasional In in The in Ankara, his article British Instituteof Archaeology 2; London: 1953). "Archaeology,"

479

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:25:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

480

Journal of Biblical Literature

may mean "equivalent"as well as "double, argument one step farther.Just as IMVZ von Rad argues, so the same broader semantic range can also be detected in the synThus in Isa 40:2, "She has received from YHWH'S hand onymous word atzD for von would "the all her Rad translate sins," a.s_. equivalent/ [traditionally 'doublel recompense for all her sins."6 Tsevat'ssuggestion, though it has not met with universal acceptance7 has not to my knowledge been directly challenged in the thirty years since it was first put forward.It is cited with favorin Peter Craigie'srecent commentary on Deuteronomy8 and is clearly the scholarly basis for the rendering in NRSV: "for six years they have given you services worth the wages of hired laborers." But a closer look at the comparative evidence, some of it not available in 1958, suggests that despite its wide acceptance, the proposed parallel is illusory. The Akkadian word in question occurs four times in a single text from Alalakh stratum IV (Alalakh Text 3). It is an international treaty between King Idrimi and a certain Pillia concerning the capture and extradition of fugitive slaves. From that context it is clear that the miftannu is something given by the master of a runaway to a person who seizes the slave and returns the escapee to his or her owner: "If it (the captured slave) is a man, then he (the captor) will be paid 500 copper [shekels] as his reward [mi-ik-ta-an-na-su], and if it is a woman, then he will be paid 1000 copper [shekels] as his reward [mi-ik-ta-an-na-su]:'9
New Bible Dictionary (ed. J. D. Douglas; London: InterVarsityFellowship, 1962) 67, Wiseman not only accepts Tsevat'sproposal, but lists the parallels with Deut 15:18and Jer 16:18 as being among the most important contributions of the Alalakh texts to the study of the Hebrew Bible. In a later edition of the same work (D. J. Wiseman, "Alalah,'in New Bible Dictionary [ed. J. D. Douglas and N. Hillyers; 2d ed.; Leicester, England: Tyndale House; Wheaton, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982] 24), Wiseman is somewhat more cautious, but appears still to accept Tsevat's conclusion on the word in question. G. von Rad accepts the proposal: "Das hebriische Wort mischnii in V. 18 ist nicht mit 'Doppeltes' zu fibersetzen; wahrscheinlich handelt es sich um ein juristisches Fachwort im Sinne von 'Aquivalent"' (Das fiinfte Buch Mose [ATD 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968] 77, citing Tsevat in n. 1). Von Rad's position is obscured in the English version (Deuteronomy [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966]) by a translator's slip on p. 105, where the running translation of the verse gives without alteration the reading of RSV, "athalf the cost of a hired servant"(in the original, "einAquivalent vom Lohn eines Tagelohners"[p. 75]). This RSV reading is then carried over into the comment on the verse: "The Hebrew word misne... should not be translated by 'a half"' (p. 108). See also von Rad's article cited in n. 6 below. On the RSV reading, see n. 7. 6 G. von Rad, ZAW 79 (1967) 80-82. Von Rad suggests "kiplayimin Jes 40:2 ='Aquivalent," that mean "equivalent"also in Zech 9:12. The editors of HALATcite von Rad'sarticle, may LD but do not accept his conclusions (614b). 7 The majority of recent English Bible translations preserve the older interpretation "twice, double" (JPS, NAB, JB, NJB, NIV, Revised English Bible). NEB reads "worth twice the wages," giving "equivalent to" in a footnote as an alternative. RSV's unusual translation, "for at half the cost of a hired servant,' is apparently intended to represent, less literally, the same understanding of the verse (twice the value = half the cost); so also TEV "athalf the cost,"' (footnote: "Or 'and has worked twice as hard"'). 8 P. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (New International Commentary; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1976) 235, 239 and n. 17. In citing the evidence, Craigie speaks imprecisely of the occurin "texts"from Alalakh. There is only one. rence of the word mimtannu 9 Wiseman, Alalakh Tablets,text 3, lines 19, 22; cf. lines 28, 34.

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:25:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Critical Notes

481

Two difficulties stand in the way of identifying Alalakh miltannu and Hebrew in Deut 15:18. The first is semantic; the second concerns the form and ,-trM1 etymology of miitannu. 1. First, the semantic problem: '1Mt3 is a well-attested noun in biblical and postbiblical Hebrew. Related to the root ,'Ml, its meaning varies according to context ("double, duplicate, deputy [second in command], second-best, repetition"). All of these nuances reflect clearly the common sense of "double"or "second.' Miltannu, on the other hand, is not a common word at all. Wiseman would relate it etymologically to the verb ganui,"to repeat, do again"'0(the Akkadian cognate of Hebrew 'MV). But migtannu has not to my knowledge been found anywhere in the entire Akkadiancorpus except for Alalakh Text 3. Akkadian has well-attested derivatives from ganui,but this word is not one of them.' A genuine semantic parallel for the range of meaning Tsevat proposes for :l3 but in some contexts has would be an Akkadian noun that ordinarily means "double," This is not the case with migtannu at all. It is an the alternative sense "equivalent."''2 extremely rare word having only a specialized meaning relating to compensation for a slave. 2. A more serious objection concerns the morphology of miltannu. The termination -nnu is not a normal one for an Akkadian noun.3 Tsevat recognized the anomaly and attempted to answer it with the ad hoc suggestion of a secondary doubling of the n or a by-form of the root with a second n.'4 But a more likely explanation was put forwardby M. Mayrhoferin a brief critical note published in 1965,'5 which has been largely ignored by biblical scholars. Mayrhofer observes that in Akkadian texts from Hurrian territory (including other texts from Alalakh IV), the Hurrian article -nni often appears in the akkadianized form -nnu, and that in several cases the word-element preceding this ending can be recognized as Indo-Aryan in origin. He goes on to note that the element migta- can easily be explained from an Indo-Aryanetymology: *mildhd- >midhd- [Sanskrit]"pay, price" (cf. Greek ?tau06;, "pay,hire"'6).
10 to be a derivative Tsevat considersmimtannu either of (1)sanul,with secondarydoubling of the second radical,or preferably sananu,known from West Semitic ("Ala(2) a by-form 125 n. 1). lakhiana,' 11 E.g., tagna andtainitu, "repetition" (a frequentmeaningof;lrt (var. taini) "doubly," tafgnt

in Mishnaic Hebrew); AHW 1339. 12 with a different Note that Tsevat does not claim to have identified a homograph (*TnU~ot2) but rather a new meaning for the Hebrew word already etymology from that of lr~mt ("double") known. 13 W von Soden commented in a letter to M. Mayrhofer dated March 12, 1965, that "Akkadisch kann migtannu nach seiner Bildung keineswegs sein, .... auch fuir kanaanaiische Herkunft spricht nichts" (quoted in M. Mayrhofer,"Ein arisch-hurritischer Rechtsausdruck in Alalah?"OR n.s. 34 [1965] 336 n. 5). 14 See n. 10. 15 Mayrhofer,"Ein arisch-hurritischer Rechtsausdruck,' 336-37. 16 By coincidence, this Greek word appears in the LXX of Deut 15:18,but as the translation of MT ":V, not MtML?; see n. 1. The exact sense of the Hurrian suffixed particle -ni- or -ne- (the -n- is regularly doubled after a stem ending in -a) has long been a matter of debate among often having "the force of an article without specialists. E. Speiser calls it a "relationalparticle;" necessarily implying definition" (Introductionto Hurrian [AASOR20; New Haven: ASOR, 1941], 100). J. Friedrich, in the most recent of several studies, terms it "eine Art bestimmten Artikels"

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:25:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

482

Journal of Biblical Literature

Thus if Mayrhofer is correct, migtannu is not a Semitic word at all,,1 and the possibility of any direct connection with Hebrew 13nI is ruled out. Even if his Indowhen we consider the rarityand uncertain derivation Aryan etymology is uncertain,18 of migtannu, and the great distance in time, place, and culture between Alalakh stratum IV and the environment of Deuteronomy, the supposed parallel is too tenuous to justify retranslating a Hebrew text that is intelligible as it is.9 What, then, does 'M= in Deut 15:18 mean? The best answer is the simplest: iM= has its traditional sense "double"(cf. Gen 43:12, 15; Exod 16:5, 22; Isa 61:7;Jer 17:18; Zech 9:12; Job 42:10). The sense of the verse is, "It shall not seem hard to you..., for he has served you six years, and has been worth twice as much to you as a hired servant.... "Twice as much,' then, turns out not to be a legal formula after all20 much less an implication that hired laborers loafed half the time.1 It is simply a vivid way of stating a harsh but self-evident fact: you get more work for less pay from a slave than from an employee! James M. Lindenberger Vancouver School of Theology Centre for the History of Biblical Interpretation Vancouver,BC, Canada V6T 1L4 in Altkleinasiatische der Orientalistik I, 1-2 Abs.,Lfg. 2; Sprachen [Handbuch ("Churritisch,' of the particleis also disputed;Speiser Leiden:Brill, 1969] 13). The correct normalization on bothpoints,see Speiser, Introduction, pp.98-101; arguesfor-ne-.Fordetailsof the discussion forthe pointunderdiscusof Thisdebateis of no consequence see alsop. 65 on the doubling -n-. sion here. is 17 Mayrhofer's explanation acceptedby von Soden,AHW661b.The editorsof CAD(vol. but agreewithoutcomment, 10,130a)areslightlymorecautious, notingMayrhofer's etymology is a non-Akkadian loanword. ing with him that migtannu in Jes 81 n. 1) knowsof Mayrhofer's 18 VonRad("kiplayim proposalandacknowledges 40:2,' that if Mayrhofer is correct,miltannucan hardlyhave anybearingon the Hebrewword.Von fromA. Falkenstein is the best Radcites a privatecommunication whether"Lohn" questioning in Alalakh nonthatFalkenstein translation Text 3, but it does not appear challenges Mayrhofer's Semiticetymology. of Tsevat's on MWD, we mustalsojudgevonRad's 19 Withthe abandonment proposal suggestion for a similarunderstanding of aDfD (n. 6), neverreallyconvincing, to be groundless. 20 The observation that the six-yearperiod of servitudein Israelitelaw is twice the three ANET170b-171a; so Craigie, Deuteronomy, yearsprescribedin the Law of Hammurabi (?117, 238 n. 11,239 n. 17) is correct,but not relevant.Perhapsmore to the point is a clausein the "Ifa man's to his master olderSumerian slavehascompensated his slaveship Lawsof Lipit-Ishtar: Butthe sense trans.S. N. Kramer, ANET 160;the italicsindicatewordsof uncertain meaning). of the Sumerian law is not entirelyclear,andthere is no reasonto supposethat Deuteronomy is echoingany such notion.
21

(and) it is confirmed (that he has compensated)his master twofold, that slave shall be freed" (?14,

So Tsevat; see n. 4 above.

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:25:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions