The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-11-17
For the National Era
AN EXAMINATION OF THE MOSAIC LAWS
OF SEREITUDE.
BY WILLIAM JAY.
CONCLtDED,


There is in our English and other versions of
the Bible a very important prOslavery perycr-
sion connected with the condition of strangers
10 Israel, and which we have purposely forbornc
to notice ill after that condition had been ex-
planned
In the passage we have quoted from Levitt.
cus, respecting foreign servants, the l6th verse
is as follows: And We shall take them as an
inheritance for your children after you to in
herit them for II possession, and they shall be
your bondmen forever; but over your brethren,
the children Of Israel, We shall not rule one
over another with rigor2
The natural inference from this verse, inter
preted.only by its own grammatical construc-
ton, H. that the Jews were to take and hold
foreign servants as hereditary slaves and treat
them accordingly, but that they should not
treat Hebrew servants in the same manner
that IL, with rigor.
Now, how can such an implied permission
to treat foreign servants with rgOr, coupled
with an express prohibition to treat Hebrew
servants III the same manner DO rccOnciled
with the various laws and declarations we have
quoted, securing the stranger from oppression,
making him equal with the Jew before the law
and requiring the latter to lDVe him as himNLt
The attempt would be vain, the contradiction
is palpable and therefore the inference is false
The inference arises from three circumstance:
fret, the gratuitous application Of the term bOnd.
men to foreign servants, connected with express.
SONS conveying the idea Of hereditary slavery
secondly, the mention of these bondmen in the
same verse with your brethren of the children
Of Israel and, thirdly. the use of the word
but, expressing exception and contrast, giving
TO the sentence the meaning, you must not
treat your Hebrew servants who are your
brethren, with rigor, like these foreign bond
men"
1t ~ we'll known that tho subdivision Of
chapters iniO verses is of no authority having
been made only about $50 years before the
present English version. The 10th verse ought
TO have terminated with the sentence they
shall be your bondmen forever" because these
words conclude the whole law respecting for.
e'gn servants; not n syllable on the subject be-
lnS bound IN any subsequent part % the Pen.
tatcuch The remaining clause is the com
mencement of II new law, and ought to have
been the beginning of new verse, being to-
tally disconnected with the regulations re- pect-
my forelgns servants. Having dismissed tho4o
regulations, Moses proceeds to lay down the
law respecting the redemption of Hebrew scr
wants IN the employment Of foreigner. and
this IN connection with the law of the Jubilee
To this new law about redemption, the words
But over your brethren the children of Israel
ye shall not rule one over another with riyor 90
are merely preamble If this be So it NAV
be asked, why use the word bm expressin /,
contrast OF opposition to what was asserted OF
implied the iret clause of the verse The
answer IL, 6W IL not here translation. but n
comment, expressing the opinion of the trans
latorS. Let the reader turn once more to thi,
same 10th verse llo will observe it commences
And We shall take &c Now. the Hebrew
here rendered amt is in every respect Identical
with that which in the beginning Of the last
clause Is rendered bW thus expressing new
and very different sen.c. 1t is true that occa
sonaily the structure of the passage, aud the
idlom OF our language justifes the change o
the Hebrew and, INTO the English but =, no sucl
Justification, however is found in the passage il
question, Tue initial use of and, is a peculiar
ity OF the Hebrew, and especially of the sty,,
OF Moses or the lS7 chapters composing Ia,
P"ntatcuth, no less than l2S commence witt
and Even the b00kS of levticus and Number
thus begin lnnumcrable are the laws an,
precep's Woiaced with and Hence there i
no reason whatever except the pro.sluyery the
DRY oil Inc transators aud of their predecessor
whose example they followed, for changing tn
ordinary initial use OF this particle, in this mar
tcular place, into word having the sense q
contrast. This theory regarded the foreig,
servants rs slaves and hence bat is hero intro
ducsd to intimate a distinction between thcp
and Hebrew servants. The folly of this AT
tempted distinction is rendered still more on
parent, if We refer TO the rendering in otbe
versions of the Hebrew here translated RICO,
The Vulgato has it, "ns Opprmat's p,, potet
tidm,0 well translated in the Doway Bib,
Do ye not opprcss by might" In Cranmcr
Bible, and copied into others il il. 4" le sha
not rule over one another with cruehvn An
are We to zee in these prohibitions diyir
warrant Tor depressing with might and ruin
with cruelty, servants OF foreign origin, no
withstand'ng the rel Gated commands not
vex or Cypress the stranger in Israel aud No
withstanding the general statute, that the
should he but one and the same law for II
Hebrew and the stranger Ii the divine i
junction, "thou shalt love the stranger as ia
self" to DO revoked by the process Of changir
and into buts
THE JUBILEE
There is q Jewish institution which st
claims our attention, an connected with 4
subject Of Hebrew servitude. In tho Temp
as previously in the Tabernacle, was an apa
ment designated ss the Most Holy Place