Ship of Fools: Bible and slavery in Kerg

Thread: Bible and slavery in Kerg Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029993

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Moo made this post stating that 19thC slavery was too much a tangent.
However, as the definition of slavery is part of the argument and has been part of the thread since early on, I question this.
ISTM, triangle trade chattel slavery serves a purpose in demonstrating the variability of slavery. One of the early and consistent tenets of the 'bible doesn't do slavery' side has been that what is described is too lenient to be slavery. Using chattle slavery as a reference. The best documented chattel slavery we have is the triangle trade. And, whilst generally one of the harshest forms, also had great variability.
To remove comparisons of non-biblical slavery from whatever era unduly biases the conversation towards the translation issue.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

For what it's worth I agree with lilBuddha on the principle at question.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

It appears to me that when a thread is opened in Kerygmania to discuss Biblical slavery and compare it to more modern forms, it would be appropriate to discuss the latter also. The discussion still seems to be heavily related to specific Bible texts. (My Shipmate's opinion.)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It appears to me that when a thread is opened in Kerygmania to discuss Biblical slavery and compare it to more modern forms, it would be appropriate to discuss the latter also. The discussion still seems to be heavily related to specific Bible texts. (My Shipmate's opinion.)

As I saw it the thread was started to discuss the nature of Biblical slavery. If I had realized that people saw it as a place to compare Biblical slavery to other slave cultures in history, I would have sent it to Purgatory immediately.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Defining what slavery is is integral to determining whether the Bible describes slavery or not. So comparisons outside the Bible are necessary since the Bible does not contain a dictionary or encyclopaedia. Even did it, it would still need corroboration in a less biased form.
But I am not trying to tell you where it should be, I was happy in Hell where it began and would continue should it move to Purgatory.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
But I am not trying to tell you where it should be, I was happy in Hell where it began and would continue should it move to Purgatory.

In that case why don't you start a new thread in Purgatory.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: In that case why don't you start a new thread in Purgatory.

THis sounds a bit harsh. LilBuddha didn't start that thread.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
But I am not trying to tell you where it should be, I was happy in Hell where it began and would continue should it move to Purgatory.
In that case why don't you start a new thread in Purgatory.

Moo

With no offence meant, this does not address my contention. I do maintain the ruling, intentional or not, biases the discussion.
For perspective:
The thread began in Hell with a tangential exchange between Lamb Chopped and myself. She felt it would be better discussed in Kerg. So I posted in the 'this stinks' thread and NigelM. opened a separate thread.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

re-reading that it looks a bit accusatory and it is not so meant. I do not think that creating a bias was the intent. Could have phrased that much better, but there it is.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It appears to me that when a thread is opened in Kerygmania to discuss Biblical slavery and compare it to more modern forms, it would be appropriate to discuss the latter also. The discussion still seems to be heavily related to specific Bible texts. (My Shipmate's opinion.)

The OP of the thread does not propose a comparison between Biblical slavery and more modern kinds. It simply proposes a discussion of the nature of Biblical slavery.

The topic of modern slavery was introduced by later posters.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As I've seen mentioned several times here by hosts and admins, the op is not king of the thread. In this case the op did not start the conversation and did, in fact, mention slavery exterior to the bible. And the second poster went in as well.
Defining slavery is key to the discussion. Have can this be done without bringing in comparisons?

Thus far the discussion has not wandered off into discussing exterior slavery without comparing it to biblical slavery, therefore relevant, not tangent

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As I've seen mentioned several times here by hosts and admins, the op is not king of the thread. In this case the op did not start the conversation and did, in fact, mention slavery exterior to the bible.

It's true that the OP is not king of the thread. I was pointing out that, contrary to LeRoc's statement, the thread was not started for the sake of comparing Biblical slavery with modern slavery. The focus of the OP was quite narrow, but other posters expanded it.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: The OP of the thread does not propose a comparison between Biblical slavery and more modern kinds.

It does. I can see it very clearly.

I haven't opened that thread, nor am I very active on it. The thread seems to be about a couple of words in the Bible that in some modern translations are rendered as 'slave'. The discussion is about whether this is an accurate translation of those words.

In my view, you can't have this discussion without thinking about what the modern word 'slave' means. What associations do people have with it? I'm guessing that most people will be thinking about the period of slavery in the USA (I'll probably be thinking more of Brazil).

I'm not the most active poster in Keryg but I've been reading the board before Kerygmania even existed. The question "can we port the modern associations we have with the word 'slave' onto the words we see in the Bible?" seems utterly Kerygmaniacal to me. And to discuss that question, it seems reasonable and even necessary to talk about more modern forms of slavery.

I realise there is a fluidity between Kerygmania and Purgatory, and I can imagine the thread being moved to the latter, but your suggestion to lilBuddha to "open another thread in Purg" seems to convey to me that she's going beyond the Kerygmaniacal intent of that thread. I don't think that she is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The focus of the OP was quite narrow, but other posters expanded it.

Moo

The OP of that thread did not begin the discussion, I did.
The OP attempted to artificially limit the terms to an, IMO, impossible degree.
However, he made his starting point this:

quote:
I'll make my starting point sufficiently blunt and see where the bible goes with it: Nowhere does the bible support slavery.

The rest of his conditions of discussion undermine this starting point to irrelevance.
A bit like my posting that Pele was the greatest sportsman ever, but stating that one could not compare him to other footballers, football of other eras and other sport was right out.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The OP of the thread[/URL] does not propose a comparison between Biblical slavery and more modern kinds. It simply proposes a discussion of the nature of Biblical slavery.

I've posted little if at all on that thread, but I have been reading it with interest. With respect, I'd suggest that the OP clearly raises the issue of non-Biblical, including more recent, forms of slavery. The OP didn't propose a comparison between Biblical slavery and more modern kinds, but rather rejected any such comparison as improper:

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
My feeling is that the English word 'slave' does not do justice to the biblical terms and should, therefore, be jettisoned. I ended up with a post that might as well be the starting point for this thread, so that people can get things off their chest in biblical fashion...

I'll make my starting point sufficiently blunt and see where the bible goes with it: Nowhere does the Bible support slavery.

This can then be defined along these lines:

[1] The biblical authors have to be understood on their own terms and in the terms they used to express their worldview, mindsets, and resulting cultures. Authorial intention is king (or at least is better than the alternatives)

[2] Importing concepts from other worldviews, mindsets, and resulting cultures, into the biblical texts risks anachronism, which is illegitimate. Concepts from one culture do not automatically overlap with concepts from another. . . .

At the very least, the OP squarely presents the question of whether our understanding of "slavery" in the Biblical context is influenced by our understanding of slavery in other contexts. Those other contexts, then, seem to be a necessary part of the conversation.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The OP of that thread did not begin the discussion, I did.
The OP attempted to artificially limit the terms to an, IMO, impossible degree.

If you considered the OP of that thread so unsatisfactory, why did you post on it instead of starting another with what you considered important?

Moo

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The OP of the thread[/URL] does not propose a comparison between Biblical slavery and more modern kinds. It simply proposes a discussion of the nature of Biblical slavery.

I think that if you're going to discuss whether or not something is appropriately called 'slavery' on the basis of certain features, it's appropriate for someone to respond that something else with the same or very similar features is uncontroversially called 'slavery'.
I can agree that were the topic to drift into the details of Solomon Northrop's account and how that was reflected in the film, then that would be drifting too far. But the post that you quoted in your post on the thread seemed to me to be within the bounds as I've described.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The OP of that thread did not begin the discussion, I did.
The OP attempted to artificially limit the terms to an, IMO, impossible degree.
If you considered the OP of that thread so unsatisfactory, why did you post on it instead of starting another with what you considered important?

Moo

I've read Kerg guidelines and the thread thus far violates none of them.
SOF, in general, doesn't care for parallel threads on the same topic.
The thread in question was fully comparing biblical and non biblical in the second post before I joined it.
The thread was untenable for real discussion as constrained by the OP.
The OP's desires are not controlling. Thus posts can be other than what they wish and still be on topic. This is an exceedingly common phenomenon here.
Every box I can find as to proper SOF posting has been ticked.
What am I missing?

[ 16. March 2016, 20:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
SOF, in general, doesn't care for parallel threads on the same topic.

'
In the past we have had threads on the same general topic in Kerygmania and Purgatory.

Moo

[ 16. March 2016, 22:28: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
SOF, in general, doesn't care for parallel threads on the same topic.
'
In the past we have had threads on the same general topic in Kerygmania and Purgatory.

Moo

I'm failing to see the point in discussing this further if you continue to evade the most salient point. I, and others, have made the case that comparing slavery within the bible to slavery without is not only not a tangent, but important to discussing the subject at all.
How is this wrong?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

To me the most salient point is that in Kerygmania we are accustomed to discussing Bible passages to determine their meaning in context without reference to other topics.

Once the meaning has been established (i.e. what the passage conveyed to the original hearers), then we go on to consider other relevant matters.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Slavery cannot be a separate topic to slavery in the bible. It is integral. It is in the Title of the OP.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

When you want to make comparisons, you need to establish, as far as possible, the nature of each item before you begin the comparison process.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When you want to make comparisons, you need to establish, as far as possible, the nature of each item before you begin the comparison process.

Moo

And how might one discuss the nature of slavery without discussing slavery itself?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
To me the most salient point is that in Kerygmania we are accustomed to discussing Bible passages to determine their meaning in context without reference to other topics.

Once the meaning has been established (i.e. what the passage conveyed to the original hearers), then we go on to consider other relevant matters.

The proposition presented in the OP was that modern English translations err by translating the Hebrew in the relevant passages as "slave," because "slave" and "slavery" carry meanings in (modern) English that the Hebrew did not carry or intend. How is it possible to discuss that proposition without discussing what "slave" and "slavery" are understood to mean in English?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can determine the meaning of a passage of Scripture WITHOUT referencing things outside of it. As lilBuddha said above, it doesn't come with a dictionary, let alone a wiki.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It is possible to go a step, or several steps, too far in that discussion. Whether that is happening is a matter for Hostly judgement. It's not as if Moo is telling you not to discuss it anywhere, any time. Purg exists. Why get het up about it?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I hope you're not referring to me as "het up." It's insulting, and untrue. I am not even part of that thread. I just think that the idea we can discuss the Bible without bringing in any comparisons from the outside world is facile at best, and moronic at base.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

1) I was presenting a general garment, and you claim it is cut to your measure? (yeah, you know the quote source)

2) it's a bit rich that you refer to Moo's position (which I think you misdescribe, by the way) as "facile" and "moronic," and then claim insult for the mild term "het up." Seriously?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is possible to go a step, or several steps, too far in that discussion.

Fairly certain that it has not yet.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Whether that is happening is a matter for Hostly judgement. It's not as if Moo is telling you not to discuss it anywhere, any time. Purg exists.

Hmmm, remind me who suggested Kerg? [Biased]

The foundation of discussions here are the guidelines. If a thread sits within those guidelines why should it be forced to move?

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Why get het up about it?

I began this thread as a procedural issue with no heat and I maintain no animosity.
I will admit frustration as to the main bone of contention being avoided more than discussed.
It is a simple, straightforward question that I feel is not being addressed in a simple, straightforward manner.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I suggested Keryg, as you well know, to discuss the very limited topic of two passages dealing with slaves who refuse manumission. This was wholly appropriate. A wide-ranging discussion on the topic of slavery per se may or may not be appropriate, depending on just how widely it ranges. And that's a Host's call.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

In my view, you can't have this discussion without thinking about what the modern word 'slave' means. What associations do people have with it? I'm guessing that most people will be thinking about the period of slavery in the USA (I'll probably be thinking more of Brazil).

The first thing that comes to my mind is the sale of Slavs to the Muslims in the early Middle Ages. I'm not presenting myself as a representative sample though.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suggested Keryg, as you well know, to discuss the very limited topic of two passages dealing with slaves who refuse manumission.
This was wholly appropriate. A wide-ranging discussion on the topic of slavery per se may or may not be appropriate, depending on just how widely it ranges. And that's a Host's call.

I've addressed all this already. As I do not feel the actual complaint is being addressed I see no point in this thread.

Styx Hosts, I am done with this thread. I do not consider the complaint settled, but my complaining about it is over.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
it's a bit rich that you refer to Moo's position (which I think you misdescribe, by the way) as "facile" and "moronic," and then claim insult for the mild term "het up." Seriously?

Surely you of all people know the difference between talking about someone's position and someone's person? It's a bit rich to pretend you don't.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I understand it, all right. But "moronic" in particular has implications for the holder.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Seriously? You've never done anything moronic? Only morons do moronic things? You are a very fortunate woman then.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

To be honest, I'm starting to get a bit irritated by the short, almost smart-arse like quality of Moo's answers on this Styx thread also.

I respect Moo very much as a Host, and I'm very much aware that volunteer Hosts can make a judgement error from time to time. I have the feeling that this is what happened in this case, and that's absolutely forgiveable.

Five people have already given rather reasoned arguments why they think the way the Bible and slavery thread is being discussed is within the bounds of Kerygmania. Although some of us can be rough debaters at times, none of these five is normally known to be wanting to stir shit for the sake of it.

At this point, on this Styx thread, I would like to ask if we could also get an answer from an H&A other than Moo to our questions.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

OK, that's enough on the use of 'moronic', or anything else that looks too much like a fight. That is not Styx business.

Now, lilBuddha has stated that although she doesn't think her query has been addressed she is leaving the thread. I'm aware that others have chipped in with comments directly related to the hosting decisions on the Kerygmania thread. I will, therefore, leave this thread open if anyone else has any final comments pertinent to the original question.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

On the one hand, Kerygmania is useful to me because of its limited scope for discussion.

On the other hand, the thread in question has been useful to me as a discussion about appropriate ways to translate the relevant OT passages, and, in particular, the one word variously translated as both "slave" and "servant." I don't believe that the discussion would have been nearly as useful with regard to translation issues if it had been in Purgatory: I think it could only have happened in Kerygmania.

And I don't see how it could have covered the translation issues nearly so well without frequent references to modern ideas associated with the word "slavery" and how they compare and contrast with patriarchal society in the ANE. How else can any of us understand the trade-offs around which English word works best for a modern reader in the various places the Hebrew word occurs?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
On the other hand, the thread in question has been useful to me as a discussion about appropriate ways to translate the relevant OT passages, and, in particular, the one word variously translated as both "slave" and "servant." I don't believe that the discussion would have been nearly as useful with regard to translation issues if it had been in Purgatory: I think it could only have happened in Kerygmania.

And I don't see how it could have covered the translation issues nearly so well without frequent references to modern ideas associated with the word "slavery" and how they compare and contrast with patriarchal society in the ANE. How else can any of us understand the trade-offs around which English word works best for a modern reader in the various places the Hebrew word occurs?

I think before we consider the meaning of the word 'slave' in modern English, we should concentrate on figuring out what it meant in the society of the ancient Hebrews. Then we can consider the meaning in English. If we make incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the Hebrew, our conclusions will be incorrect.

There is a saying, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." In this case we are talking about an actual foreign country and a society that existed 2500 years ago. It is very foreign.

As I said earlier, if you want to compare two things, you should make sure you have all the facts about both of them before you begin the comparison.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But doesn't explication in one language of a term from another language benefit from, if not positively require, comparing and contrasting with known constructs in the target language?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: As I said earlier, if you want to compare two things, you should make sure you have all the facts about both of them before you begin the comparison.

First of all, this ordering seems rather rigid. It is quite possible to begin a discussion about a comparison before you have all the facts yet. Discussing the comparison and finding the facts can go hand in hand.

But more importantly, both the Biblical situation and the modern word are being discussed on the thread. Isn't "finding all the facts" exactly what we're trying to do on that thread, related to a couple of words that are in the Bible?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But doesn't explication in one language of a term from another language benefit from, if not positively require, comparing and contrasting with known constructs in the target language?

No, I don't think so. The question is how to translate "slave" into modern English. The first thing to do is to establish what was meant by the biblical use of this word - what were the characteristics of such slaves, how did they become slaves, was it a permanent condition and so on. Once you have a description of what the word meant, you are then in a position to determine which contemporary English word or words gives the correct impression.

Trying to shortcut the process and going straight to "biblical 'slavery' and modern 'slavery' differ because of X" does not, in my opinion, aid clarity, but tends to encourage a misframing of the question.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I expect that this has all been thrashed out, but I feel that slavery in the time of the Exodus and slavery in the early Roman Empire may have different contexts, at least in sense of what we can find out from a diversity of sources.

And that might imply a difference between the moral force of the Old and New Testament mentions of slavery.

As with dietary commands, I would be more interested to start with, and build on, the implicit recommendations (if any) of the New Testament.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think before we consider the meaning of the word 'slave' in modern English, we should concentrate on figuring out what it meant in the society of the ancient Hebrews. Then we can consider the meaning in English.

I would say you need to do both. If the intention is to answer the question "what is the best English word to translate 'eved'?" we need to look at both the uses of 'eved' in the Old Testament (and any other Hebrew or related texts we might have, if any) and the meaning and uses of English words that we might consider appropriate. There seems no reason why we can't do both of those things in parallel.

quote:
If we make incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the Hebrew, our conclusions will be incorrect.

And, that's also true about incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the English words too. Because a word like 'slave' has a range of meanings within English and if we're too narrow in defining the English meaning then we're also going to be incorrect in our conclusions - or, at the very least, risk miscommunication about our conclusions.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
If the intention is to answer the question "what is the best English word to translate 'eved'?" we need to look at both the uses of 'eved' in the Old Testament (and any other Hebrew or related texts we might have, if any) and the meaning and uses of English words that we might consider appropriate. There seems no reason why we can't do both of those things in parallel.

I would like to consider them in parallel, bearing in mind that lines in parallel always stay separated. I think you can get greater clarity that way.

Moo

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

My attention has been drawn to this thread - I would have blissfully ignorant of it otherwise as I haven't the time to spend reviewing material on other boards, much I would really love to (so much to learn).

For the record, as the OP-er, I agree with Moo. The discussion on the thread is an example, it seems to me, of how important it is first to explore the meaning of the texts in their own contexts before deciding what to do with them. Kerygmania is the ideal place to do that. My contention has been that there has been too much reading-in to those biblical texts of understandings from the modern era. Reference to that modern era is perhaps inevitable, but I did it only to make that point about "how important it is first to explore the meaning of the texts..." etc.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Two or three times in the past we have had parallel threads in Keryg and Purg dealing with the modern-day situations/applications of various Bible passages. This approach was useful because the separate threads made it possible to figure out what was important and what was extraneous.

After the separate threads had clarified matters, then it was possible to compare the Bible conditions with modern conditions.

Moo

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Two or three times in the past we have had parallel threads in Keryg and Purg dealing with the modern-day situations/applications of various Bible passages. This approach was useful because the separate threads made it possible to figure out what was important and what was extraneous.

After the separate threads had clarified matters, then it was possible to compare the Bible conditions with modern conditions

But that doesn't seem to be what's going on in the thread in question. It's not really about comparing slavery in Biblical times to modern conditions per se. It's about how modern understandings interplay with translations of OT Hebrew. Two different threads, in my opinion, would make that very difficult to do intelligibly.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I'm reminded of a famous sound-bite by Mrs Thatcher in 1980. And of a cartoon I once saw, of a family group watching a military parade, and the child saying to its parent: "Look Ma, they're all out of step except our Johnny!"

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Two or three times in the past we have had parallel threads in Keryg and Purg dealing with the modern-day situations/applications of various Bible passages. This approach was useful because the separate threads made it possible to figure out what was important and what was extraneous.

After the separate threads had clarified matters, then it was possible to compare the Bible conditions with modern conditions.

Moo

Useful, but is it normative? Do we have to do it that way because it has worked in the past?

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

If it works, why not? It doesn't stop people from using other methods, does it?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0