|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Bible and 'slavery'
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
This topic grew out of a short discussion on the "This is in the Bible - but it stinks! IMHO..." Kerygmania thread (and appears to have had a life on other threads before that) about a single biblical passage where the English word 'slave' is used in many versions.
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. I cannot assume that just because I think about something in one way, that therefore someone from another time and place thought about that something in exactly the same way.
[3] Following from that, and because concepts are communicated so commonly by words, it follows that words used in a translation process have to be chosen on the basis of their 'fit' with the concepts denoted and connoted by words used in the original language. It is rare to find words with a complete fit.
[4] The English word 'slave' carries connotations (and even denotations) that do not map effectively with their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek counterparts in the Bible. As shown by the issue on this thread and by websites that prove the point, the word 'slave' is proving to be hopeless, in that it has failed to do justice to the concepts behind the biblical words. Rather than promoting study of the bible, it has facilitated a 'reading in' that has distorted the author's original meaning. There is no hope that it can prevent this
[5] Accordingly, it is not appropriate to use the term 'slave' in translation of biblical texts unless it can be shown that the concepts associated with the term 'slave' map sufficiently to their equivalents in the Bible. In lieu of that, and in the absence of a related term that might suffice, I suggest that the biblical authors were communicating a concept that is better translated by the English term 'work' (or cognate terms to that).
And, of course, it would be illegitimate to move from that 'reading into' the Bible, to application. One cannot support slavery from the Bible and one cannot say that the bible supported slavery.
[Heads up - I may not be able to respond further until the weekend. I owe my employer that much at least!]
[ 28. May 2016, 02:01: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I suppose one way of making the point is to remark that there's a continuum here, including slaves, serfs, and servants.
As I understand it, Henry Gates Jr thought that the distinguishing feature of slavery, as opposed to institutions more like serfdom, is that the master has the right to overrule the slave's marriage. A master can sell a slave separately from any spouse the slave might think he or she has contracted.
In addition, a slave under Roman law had no legal rights against the master at all. The master could kill the slave with no legal repercussion. (But the same in theory applied to the master's children, so that isn't a distinguishing feature.)
Under that definition, the Biblical institution is not slavery. It does still fall a long way short of modern egalitarianism. Of course, there are modern employment contracts that fall short of modern egalitarianism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
[5] Accordingly, it is not appropriate to use the term 'slave' in translation of biblical texts unless it can be shown that the concepts associated with the term 'slave' map sufficiently to their equivalents in the Bible. In lieu of that, and in the absence of a related term that might suffice, I suggest that the biblical authors were communicating a concept that is better translated by the English term 'work' (or cognate terms to that).
Don't you mean 'worker'? A slave is a human being, and any substitute word should also denote a human being.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suppose one way of making the point is to remark that there's a continuum here, including slaves, serfs, and servants.
As I understand it, Henry Gates Jr thought that the distinguishing feature of slavery, as opposed to institutions more like serfdom, is that the master has the right to overrule the slave's marriage. A master can sell a slave separately from any spouse the slave might think he or she has contracted.
In addition, a slave under Roman law had no legal rights against the master at all. The master could kill the slave with no legal repercussion. (But the same in theory applied to the master's children, so that isn't a distinguishing feature.)
Under that definition, the Biblical institution is not slavery. It does still fall a long way short of modern egalitarianism. Of course, there are modern employment contracts that fall short of modern egalitarianism.
Under that definition, the bible very clearly has slavery. The conditions set out in the bible exempt Hebrew males, but do not change the condition for anyone else. By that definition, slavery didn't exist in the Americas either, because white males had exemption.
Slavery such as in the Americas was the worsening of an ancient abomination, not the invention of a new one.
Yes, there was an overlap in some areas, for some people between indentured servant and slave. But when people can be bought and sold without their consent, even if they be merely women, children and foreigners, there is slavery.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If the person working does not have the right to leave the job, the term worker would not be a nearly adequate replacement for slave or bondsman. I don't know what translation solution would be best, but IMO worker isn't it.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suppose one way of making the point is to remark that there's a continuum here, including slaves, serfs, and servants.
As I understand it, Henry Gates Jr thought that the distinguishing feature of slavery, as opposed to institutions more like serfdom, is that the master has the right to overrule the slave's marriage. A master can sell a slave separately from any spouse the slave might think he or she has contracted.
In addition, a slave under Roman law had no legal rights against the master at all. The master could kill the slave with no legal repercussion. (But the same in theory applied to the master's children, so that isn't a distinguishing feature.)
Under that definition, the Biblical institution is not slavery. It does still fall a long way short of modern egalitarianism. Of course, there are modern employment contracts that fall short of modern egalitarianism.
Under that definition, the bible very clearly has slavery. The conditions set out in the bible exempt Hebrew males, but do not change the condition for anyone else. By that definition, slavery didn't exist in the Americas either, because white males had exemption.
Slavery such as in the Americas was the worsening of an ancient abomination, not the invention of a new one.
Yes, there was an overlap in some areas, for some people between indentured servant and slave. But when people can be bought and sold without their consent, even if they be merely women, children and foreigners, there is slavery.
Agreed.
The notion that what the Bible refers to as slavery is substantively different than American slavery is usually made for eisegetical reasons-- to defend the Bible's apparent support for slavery. But the fact remains, people were bought and sold, and had no say over their destiny-- that's slavery.
I do believe we have to read the Bible in it's historical context, of course. And given that, what often appear to be defenses of slavery seem to me to be more just acceptance of slavery as the way things are. It was a part of the ancient world, and arguably not something that occurs to the biblical writers to question. I don't see any real defense of the practice, simply instructions to both slave-holders and to slaves about how to live their lives in the context of a society where slavery is part of life. I would, of course, prefer a more prophetic note-- an opposition to slavery and a command to believers to release slaves-- but those sorts of prophetic counter-cultural statements are rare. We do get glimpses though, of a more progressive agenda-- Gal. 3:28 of course (neither slave nor free), Paul's letter to Philemon, and Paul's listing "slave-traders" among the "lawbreakers" in 1 Tim. 1:9-10.
But overall, the biblical response to slavery seems more pragmatic than prophetic. Paul's advice here seems to sum it up:
quote:
1Cor. 7:21-23 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
You might as well say that the Bible doesn't support marriage either, since what Western society today experiences as marriage is leagues away from marriage in the Biblical world. The Bible certainly doesn't support the equal, loving partnerships that are the general ideal here and now.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You might as well say that the Bible doesn't support marriage either, since what Western society today experiences as marriage is leagues away from marriage in the Biblical world. The Bible certainly doesn't support the equal, loving partnerships that are the general ideal here and now.
I would say the Bible for the most part doesn't support the egalitarian partnerships we have today (although I believe Eph. 5 does), but it also doesn't condemn them either (esp. in light of Eph. 5). Rather, much like slavery, it simply assumes patriarchy. It's part of the "way the world is" in the ancient world. So, again, the regrettable lack of a prophetic witness against an unjust system is not to be confused with explicit support for an unjust system.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, there was an overlap in some areas, for some people between indentured servant and slave. But when people can be bought and sold without their consent, even if they be merely women, children and foreigners, there is slavery.
It's not that simple. For example, if a football player can be sold to another club without his consent, does that make him a slave?
Serfs likewise could be bought and sold without consent, but economic historians would make a distinction between slavery and serfdom. And of course, for much of history daughters could be sold to husbands without their consent. Again, that wasn't slavery. That's not something we would consider ethical now of course, and neither are serfdom nor the Biblical institution). But people who study slavery or the history of slavery wouldn't count serfdom. And as I said, scholars who don't seem interested in exonerating the Bible have offered definitions of slavery under which the Biblical institution doesn't qualify. (Which isn't to say it's therefore an acceptable institution.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, there was an overlap in some areas, for some people between indentured servant and slave. But when people can be bought and sold without their consent, even if they be merely women, children and foreigners, there is slavery.
It's not that simple. For example, if a football player can be sold to another club without his consent, does that make him a slave?
That is a pretty far stretch, mind the elastic snap back as it breaks.
The footballer can stop playing. Not ideal for him, but the slave cannot quit if s/he doesn't care for the new master.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
A slave is someone who has no choice in their lives - someone else controls them. An employee might be in a job they hate, but they retain the legal right to cease the contract of employment.
That's the difference. If the other person owns you and has absolute discretion about you, then you're a slave. If you can tell him to sling his crappy job, you're an employee.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A slave is someone who has no choice in their lives - someone else controls them. An employee might be in a job they hate, but they retain the legal right to cease the contract of employment.
That's the difference. If the other person owns you and has absolute discretion about you, then you're a slave. If you can tell him to sling his crappy job, you're an employee.
But for what values of "can"? Sure I can walk out, but can I ever work in this town again if I do? If I am living in penury and have no wherewithal to move to another town, and this is the only employer in town, how exactly "free" am I?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But for what values of "can"? Sure I can walk out, but can I ever work in this town again if I do? If I am living in penury and have no wherewithal to move to another town, and this is the only employer in town, how exactly "free" am I?
Yes, I think these examples show that the line between good/bad situations is not always bold, so that someone might be trapped in a state of not-free employment but not-slavery either. If they retain the theoretical right and ability to control themselves they're not slaves IMO - but clearly they can still be in a very bad situation.
Penury is a form of slavery - someone else is using a financial obligation over you to control your life.
[ 03. March 2016, 12:34: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The conditions set out in the bible exempt Hebrew males, but do not change the condition for anyone else.
Look back at those passages. Hebrew females are also clearly exempted.
[ 03. March 2016, 13:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just for fun, I'm throwing in that recent Walmart case where the doors were locked and employees could not leave the building until their supervisors were satisfied with the cleanliness of the store. IMHO that's over the border into slavery. (So was a Certain Individual who did more or less the same to me over my lunch breaks.)
But a big part of this discussion hinges on how you define slavery. Like most words, it has elasticity. The institution is not precisely the same in every culture in time and space. Ancient Roman slavery was not ethnically based and gave one a reasonable hope/expectation of freedom at some point in one's life. Early American indentured servanthood was also not ethnically based and assumed freedom after a certain period, plus a starting-out stake, much like these Hebrew passages.
Before you can say whether the Bible has/supports/condemns/ignores slavery, you will have to define it as a term, or risk talking past one another.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The minute you start allowing other conditions (penury, distance to other employment) you open the door to many others. I can't get a job because I don't have a high school diploma/college degree/Ph.D in heuristics. I can't get a job as a stripper because I need silicone implants. I can't get Beckham's job because I can't run and bend it. I can't become a surrogate mother because I am uterus-free. At some point these do not become limits upon employment, but simply life.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, well let's not get carried away: the slaves in the bible were not slaves in the sense that they were stuck stacking shelves in a supermarket because they didn't have a BA in History.
It is true that slavery has changed in character throughout history and with differences in geography: so a Roman slave was not the same as a slave-victim of the atlantic slave trade working in the sugar fields of the Caribbean, which is not the same as a modern slave forced to work in a brickworks because of an ancient penury.
But that doesn't mean that a Hebrew slave was not, in fact, a slave and was more similar to a middle-manager in Walmart.
Slavery is an apt description of what was happening in the OT: one group of people believed that their special spiritual calling meant that they were more important than another, which in turn meant that this latter group could be "owned" and forced to do the former's bidding.
Slavery absolutely was condoned.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: OK, well let's not get carried away: the slaves in the bible were not slaves in the sense that they were stuck stacking shelves in a supermarket because they didn't have a BA in History.
Some people stack shelves because they have a BA in History.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just for fun, I'm throwing in that recent Walmart case where the doors were locked and employees could not leave the building until their supervisors were satisfied with the cleanliness of the store. IMHO that's over the border into slavery. (So was a Certain Individual who did more or less the same to me over my lunch breaks.)
Don't you have a criminal offence of false imprisonment over there?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped,
Even if you are correct, it doesn't change that the bible seems to be cool with slavery of foreigners.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And as I said, scholars who don't seem interested in exonerating the Bible have offered definitions of slavery under which the Biblical institution doesn't qualify. (Which isn't to say it's therefore an acceptable institution.)
I would like to see the references and context.
Most people would acknowledge slavery in Africa prior to the triangle trade. There is no substantive difference between pre-European slavery in Africa and ancient Hebrew slavery.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Useful
"Sent back by a saint.
Lent? Owned? How then was it known?
Was it kindly meant?"
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lamb Chopped,
Even if you are correct, it doesn't change that the bible seems to be cool with slavery of foreigners.
Define "cool with." If you mean "approves of," that's ridiculous. You can regulate something you disapprove of (e.g. revenge killings). In fact, this is a popular political strategy even today--instead of making smoking/drugs/prostitution/whatsit illegal, let's regulate it for safety and hope it dies off of itself. Some choose this strategy for ignoble reasons (let's tax the hell out of it). Some choose it because they see no likelihood of a more complete reform succeeding, and would rather have half a loaf than none.
IMHO the OT falls into this category on several issues.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Even if you are correct, it doesn't change that the bible seems to be cool with slavery of foreigners.
In a thousand years, human society might very well have reached a point where ownership of animals and eating meat are considered completely immoral. Someone at that time could look back at today and decide that our laws preventing the worst cruelties to animals means that we're cool with being pet owners and meat eaters. That's clearly true for most of the population, but the laws themselves could have been instigated by animal rights activists that are way ahead of their time, but who realize that from a practical point of view, such laws are the best that could be achieved.
Is there some reason that's not a relevant analogy?
The Bible records laws about slavery from thousands of years ago, but not much about the context in which they were created, nor about the reasoning or motivation behind the laws. On the somewhat similar topic of animal sacrifice, the Bible does make it clear that such sacrifices were not in line with God's preferences, but they were nonetheless regulated by similar laws. Personally, I have no trouble believing that the Bible only regulated slavery without supporting or condoning it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lamb Chopped,
Even if you are correct, it doesn't change that the bible seems to be cool with slavery of foreigners.
Define "cool with." If you mean "approves of," that's ridiculous. You can regulate something you disapprove of (e.g. revenge killings). In fact, this is a popular political strategy even today--instead of making smoking/drugs/prostitution/whatsit illegal, let's regulate it for safety and hope it dies off of itself. Some choose this strategy for ignoble reasons (let's tax the hell out of it). Some choose it because they see no likelihood of a more complete reform succeeding, and would rather have half a loaf than none.
IMHO the OT falls into this category on several issues.
So God couldn't manage a 'you shouldn't do this, but if you must do, be kind'?
Few proposing legalising prostitution do so without mentioning it is a least worst situation.
And, BTW, the conditions set in the bible are not revolutionary; they are bog standard pre-triangle trade slavery rules held in most cultures which had slavery.
And Peter could manage to lift dietary restrictions with a hand-waive, but not slavery?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Is there some reason that's not a relevant analogy?
Yep. God. A deity. One who loves his creations.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The Bible records laws about slavery from thousands of years ago, but not much about the context in which they were created, nor about the reasoning or motivation behind the laws. On the somewhat similar topic of animal sacrifice, the Bible does make it clear that such sacrifices were not in line with God's preferences, but they were nonetheless regulated by similar laws. Personally, I have no trouble believing that the Bible only regulated slavery without supporting or condoning it.
If you accept human agency in what is written, then no worries. The problem arises when one purports that the bible is transcribed direction from God.
To be clear:
- Bible inspired by God, but filtered through human ears: No worries.
- The Bible is dictated by God and inerrant: Worries.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So God couldn't manage a 'you shouldn't do this, but if you must do, be kind'?
Few proposing legalising prostitution do so without mentioning it is a least worst situation.
And, BTW, the conditions set in the bible are not revolutionary; they are bog standard pre-triangle trade slavery rules held in most cultures which had slavery.
And Peter could manage to lift dietary restrictions with a hand-waive, but not slavery?
Yes, a "least worst" solution is precisely what I think the Bible is after. So we are agreed, then?
As for making "be kind" a law--
AFAIK no culture has ever enacted "be kind" into law, and for very good reason. Your idea of "be kind" is likely to differ from mine, and both from a third party's. And it is the least kind people who are likely to shout the loudest about how "kind" they are being. Where is the objective standard for this?
Keep in mind that this is precisely what the Torah is doing here--it is legislating, not offering uplifting moral aphorisms. What Moses is after here is a standard that can be taken to court if and when necessary.
As for bog-standard slavery--
I have my doubts about whether such a thing exists, truthfully. Slavery runs the gamut from Cherokee slavery (where slaves apparently commonly became free family members and were treated as such!) to the worst excesses of sadism and murder.
I will note that it is unusual AFAIK to mandate a time-limited length to slavery for any population--the fact that this is limited to Hebrews does not negate the unusual nature of it. It is also unusual to accord women slaves the rights enumerated here--the right to be freed just as men were if Hebrew, the right to be freed if taken as wives or concubines and then rejected, the right to be treated as free women ("the rights of a daughter") if married to a family member.
None of this is the moral equal of abolishing slavery altogether; but it is certainly above the norm in my knowledge.
As for Peter--
What precisely do you think Peter could have done about slavery? Pass an edict forbidding slavery altogether among Christians? Keep in mind that both Christians and slaves (and their intersection) are enmeshed in the larger population; a Christian woman, for instance, is unlikely to talk her nonChristian husband into giving her permission to free her maid. Slaves owned by a family or a business are not likely to be free-able by the single Christian in that group. And if/when freed--then what? Turned out to starve? There was no welfare system to take them up. And an owner who was capable of freeing a slave was not necessarily also capable of supporting that slave to the point that he or she could support him/herself. Which could be years, or never, in the case of elderly, disabled, or child slaves.
Which is all to say: It's not that simple.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, a "least worst" solution is precisely what I think the Bible is after. So we are agreed, then?
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Keep in mind that this is precisely what the Torah is doing here--it is legislating, not offering uplifting moral aphorisms. What Moses is after here is a standard that can be taken to court if and when necessary.
Yeah, except that is not what Christians do with the OT. They do moralise with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for bog-standard slavery--
Means the terms were not revolutionary, not set apart by any great distance.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I will note that it is unusual AFAIK to mandate a time-limited length to slavery for any population--the fact that this is limited to Hebrews does not negate the unusual nature of it.
Kinda does. It is very typical for the treatment of us to be better than the treatment of them. So to codify it is nothing amazing.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is also unusual to accord women slaves the rights enumerated here--the right to be freed just as men were if Hebrew,
Not 'just as". Better than foreigners, perhaps, but certainly not the same as Hebrew men.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for Peter--
What precisely do you think Peter could have done about slavery?
From this point forwards, let's not do this. As far as slaves who would be at a disadvantage, there is no perfect solution for the transition, but this does not at all justify maintaining such a system.
quote:
Which is all to say: It's not that simple.
Kinda is. Thousands of years to work on one of mankind's worst evils, and nothing? Nothing beyond, "try not to be a slave, if you can be bothered"?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I actually don't think the time-limit on slavery was limited to Hebrew culture-- they are perhaps just the first people to write it down. I think it was a middle eastern custom in general. The story of Jacob working for Laban suggests a time limit for servitude, and Laban was on the pagan side, right?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I actually don't think the time-limit on slavery was limited to Hebrew culture-- they are perhaps just the first people to write it down. I think it was a middle eastern custom in general. The story of Jacob working for Laban suggests a time limit for servitude, and Laban was on the pagan side, right?
I don't think there is anything at all remarkable about Hebrew slavery. Pretty middle of the road. And that is part of the problem.
[ 04. March 2016, 07:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I actually don't think the time-limit on slavery was limited to Hebrew culture-- they are perhaps just the first people to write it down. I think it was a middle eastern custom in general. The story of Jacob working for Laban suggests a time limit for servitude, and Laban was on the pagan side, right?
Kelly, you may be right, but I'd love to see some sources. I think the Jacob thing was closer to ordinary employment, as he could have walked away at any time, and he complains "You changed my wages ten times!" Though I'm not sure whether that refers simply to the method of getting them ("this week let's make it all the speckled goats, shall we?") or whether he had some sort of supplementary wage for basic needs that went along with the seven-year-reward for a wife.
The Middle Eastern examples I know of (Greek, Roman) were all tied to an event, not a time period--either the death of the owner, or the time when the slave had saved enough money from a side business to buy freedom, or the owner's whim ("Hey, it's Caesar's birthday" or the like). And AFAIK anyone who wished could retain a slave lifelong without legal penalty, though I don't know about the social.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
LilBuddha, in your last you're basically making assertions and contradictions but offering no new evidence or argumentation. Have we reached the end of being able to discuss it, then?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
LilBuddha, in your last you're basically making assertions and contradictions but offering no new evidence or argumentation. Have we reached the end of being able to discuss it, then?
Not sure. It seems quite obvious to me that bits like this are inconsistent with Jesus teachings and, if one accepts the bible as a coherent guide, incompatible.
You've offered nothing which challenges this view other than the belief that every bit of the bible must count for something.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And as I said, scholars who don't seem interested in exonerating the Bible have offered definitions of slavery under which the Biblical institution doesn't qualify. (Which isn't to say it's therefore an acceptable institution.)
I would like to see the references and context.
It's a report of what Gates Jr said at a seminar he was teaching. So I can't provide a reference, I'm afraid.
quote:
Most people would acknowledge slavery in Africa prior to the triangle trade. There is no substantive difference between pre-European slavery in Africa and ancient Hebrew slavery.
On what basis do you say there is no substantive difference? (I don't know anything about the status of slaves in pre-European Africa, so genuine question.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
The thing is, there is precedent in the Bible for prohibition of things that God thinks are bad... the ten commandments, for one. So if God really wanted to indicate that slavery was bad, why not simply prohibit it? Like murder, adultery, worship of other gods... or like the dietary regulations for that matter. Why not simply say "Thou shalt not keep slaves."? It really is that simple. The Bible accepts slavery as part of daily life, no concept that there's anything wrong with it as an institution, when it could simply be eliminated.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The thought occurred that I should have begun the thread with a definition of the English word 'slave'. Hopefully though, on the basis of posts thus far, everyone here has a good common idea of what the issue is. For what it's worth the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries – presumably reflecting common usage – come up with something along the lines of: a person who is the legal property of another (i.e. owned by another) and is forced to obey them, or has not personal freedom. Negative associations go further: degradation, brutalisation, and a general sense of “I wouldn't even treat my furniture that way.”
There are a few ways to come at this subject, it seems. The following is my take.
One approach is linguistic. Some of these points are made by Peter Williams on the YouTube video I also linked to on the other thread. The talk in the video is a summary of an article he wrote (“'Slaves' in Biblical Narrative and Translation”, in On Stone and Scroll, eds James Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin).
The Hebrew term underlying the English translation 'slave' is essentially neutral. Its verbal form is avad and nominal forms are eved and avadah. It refers to 'work' and the person doing it could be referred to as a 'worker' (Moo's earlier point taken). The verb is used some 300+ times in the Jewish Scriptures and getting on for 850 times in its nominal form, so I quickly gave up the idea of analysing each one.
Fortunately there's one early on that makes the point: in Gen. 2:15 God places man in Eden's garden to 'work' the ground. This was before the rebellion of chapter 3, so if an author felt comfortable enough to use the term in that paradisical context, then it shows that 'slave' (in our modern definition) can't be taken to be an adequate translation without really good reasons in support.
Williams also points out that the same Hebrew word noun (eved) is used in the narrative of Israel's stay in Egypt, but not to describe the Israelites as slaves. Rather, it describes Pharaoh's officials – dozens of times (see for example, Ex 5:21; 7:10). These are senior officials in the administration; hardly slaves.
That eved and its cognates is a neutral term is further borne out by the fact that when biblical authors wanted to refer to a concept of unjust work – more akin to the English definition of slavery – they qualified the eved terminology. An example is in Ex. 1:10ff, where the Israelites were set to work with oppression, with heavy burdens, with hard service, and so on. The 'work' itself was neutral, so it required qualifying terms to make a point that would not otherwise have been understood by the Jewish readers. That's the linguistic point.
All this begs the question: Why do English Versions use the term 'slave'? Williams makes the point in his video that the use of the term saw an increase in the years after WWII. I did a quick search through some versions on the Bible Gateway site and he's right. The KJV used 'slave' twice, whereas the New KJV splashed out on 65. The ESV goes for 127, no less.
I can't speak for the assorted translators, but did come across a snapshot of the thought processes with the scholars engaged in the ESV translation process in a video. Peter Williams was involved in that discussion. It's an interesting though tangential question as to why the term 'slave' is being preferred more in the biblical revisions of recent decades.
Posts above also refer to the practices associated with that word. So...
What about the practice of 'slavery'? In connection with this is the question whether the OT (those Jewish texts) condone the practice at all.
I don't doubt that there were periods of war, involuntary mass migrations and enslavement in the Ancient Near East. Apart from that there were also more specific instances of poverty. The background is evident from the Jewish scriptures alone, never mind other texts from the period. Important for our discussion is the legal framework that the Jewish courts set up in response. Those who had no resource to fall back on (and there was no state social support system) could, as an option, have shrivelled up and died, but the courts made it clear that the debtee had a duty of care to the debtor (Lev. 25:35f – link to larger segment of the text provided below). Widows, orphans, aliens, and debtors; they were all in danger of falling and they were all covered by legal protection. Taking someone on as an eved was to protect them, not to exploit them.
Williams' analysis is useful here. The Roman and New World legal contexts, people could be kidnapped, tortured, physically abused, and put in chains. The Jewish law codes permitted none of these. The Roman and New World legal codes made no provision for holidays, sufficient food, legal redress, and sexual protection. The Jewish law codes on the other hand provided for all of those.
Why was this so? In the Ancient Near Eastern hierarchical setup (based on the covenant worldview), everyone was an ebed of someone else. Father of the house up to the clan, clan to tribe, tribe to nation, nation to empire. Even the King was described as an ebed to God. The law codes have to be seen in that light. Loyalty runs up and down that chain and loyalty means responsibility.
The point made by others in posts above about the Jewish law code and non-Israelites (that Israel is operating God's Kingdom in a rebellious world) is worth demonstrating here. One passage to be reckoned with is Lev. 25:35-55. A primary principle ruling the law courts' considerations concerning the 'workers' is the relationship between God and Israel (v.55). Israel – God's community – was God's 'slave'. Well, apparently not. English versions back away here from consistency and use the word 'servant'. Why? The same word is in play: eved. Notice how translators are content to render that term as 'slave' in vv 42-44 where foreign workers are concerned, but not in v.55 where Israel is concerned. This lack of consistency causes problems. In the context there is no justification – apart from a susceptibility to disquietude – for a distinction that attempts to draw in 'servant' in support of 'slave'. Either all such workers are slaves (including Israel as a people) or all are servants (including those nasty rebellious foreigners).
There may be other texts that appear to condone slavery and are worth looking at. The key point for now, I think, is that if we are looking for a “Thou Shalt Not Have a Slave” in the OT then we will be disappointed. The terminology will not permit it. It would be like saying “Thou Shalt Not Have Work”, which is actually fine by me – or would be until dinner time when there is no food on the table. There actually are absolute statements limiting control for those in the believing community (and therefore by extrapolation to the way God's Kingdom works), e.g., Lev. 25:43 - “You must not rule over him harshly”, but for world-wide application we can also look wider. For example...
What about the NT stance? On the way to the NT, the LXX Versions translate eved predominantly with the nominal doulos.
When Paul says he is a doulos of Christ (e.g., Rom. 1:1), or that Christians are douloi of Christ, it is highly doubtful that he meant we are forced against our will to be brutalised, oppressed, furniture. The sense of the relevant terminology in the NT is most unslave like when applied to the Christian community (reflecting the approach taken with regard to the Jewish community in the Jewish scriptures).
What should we make of Paul's famous egalitarian “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” saying (Gal. 3:28, see also Col. 3:11)? I see this in contrast to the Roman Laws Paul's audiences were all too aware of. In Christ there was no Jew or Greek – compared to Rome where citizenship counted for everything. There was no slave or free – whereas in Rome there plainly were. No male or female – but obviously Roman men had the upper hand.
Where did Paul get this extraordinary principle from? I'd argue that he got it from the Jewish scriptures, the place he pulled so much backing for his teaching. Genesis 1-2 was a prime place to start with, providing as it does the principle of a common responsibility for man and woman to 'work' or 'steward' the land on God's behalf.
So rather than “Thou Shalt Not Have a Slave”, we have a much wider “Thou Shalt Not Treat Other Humans as Inferior To Yourself.”
This all goes to show that if the English term 'slave' is to be used in the Bible, it really needs a good justification. If in each and every occurrence of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek equivalents there is no such justification, then frankly we are better off without it. There may be instances where 'slave' is indeed appropriate, but it does need treating carefully. This is why I suggest using something more neutral like 'work / worker' – or even 'stewardship / steward' – as a starting point so that we are not tempted unconsciously to import foreign concepts into the text. It is also why I don't believe that the Bible supports slavery.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
LilBuddha, in your last you're basically making assertions and contradictions but offering no new evidence or argumentation. Have we reached the end of being able to discuss it, then?
Not sure. It seems quite obvious to me that bits like this are inconsistent with Jesus teachings and, if one accepts the bible as a coherent guide, incompatible.
You've offered nothing which challenges this view other than the belief that every bit of the bible must count for something.
I'm finding this very confusing. Do you really think I am saying that slavery is consistent with Jesus' teachings? Because I'm not. More to the point, the Bible itself does not say that slavery is a Good Thing™ or recommend it in any way. To regulate something is NOT to promote it, or even to consider it a neutral thing. You can regulate something you consider good; you can regulate something you consider neutral; you can regulate something you consider evil, but unavoidable for the time being. In that last case your regulations will be aimed at minimizing the evil as much as possible.
For an exactly parallel case, try divorce. The OT regulates it, with the goal of protecting women from utter abandonment and agounah status (you can google that last one--it still happens today). It does not logically follow that the OT approves of divorce, or that it is in any way consistent with Jesus' teachings.
To sum up, the Bible regulates several evil things. The only thing one can logically conclude on the basis of that fact is that the Bible / God thought they needed to be regulated. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that those regulations are the same thing as approval.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The thing is, there is precedent in the Bible for prohibition of things that God thinks are bad... the ten commandments, for one. So if God really wanted to indicate that slavery was bad, why not simply prohibit it? Like murder, adultery, worship of other gods... or like the dietary regulations for that matter. Why not simply say "Thou shalt not keep slaves."? It really is that simple. The Bible accepts slavery as part of daily life, no concept that there's anything wrong with it as an institution, when it could simply be eliminated.
It's that last phrase I question. "When it could simply be eliminated"--is it really that easy? That's a question for historians, I suppose, but I'd really hesitate to make such a statement about an ancient middle eastern culture.
Let's try on a parallel for size. Most people agree that smoking is an evil. It causes various kinds of lung disease, not only in the smoker but in those who live with him/her. Why therefore do we not simply outlaw it and be done?
The answer is simple: because it is the best judgement of the majority of people (lawmakers, voters) that this particular evil cannot be fully eliminated from this society at this particular point in time. It's not that we don't want to; it's that we genuinely believe it unworkable at this time. So we regulate tobacco, but do not utterly ban it. Yet.
The American experience of Prohibition is another example. There the attempt was actually made to outlaw alcohol with the goal of removing the evils of alcoholism, drunkenness, etc. We all know how that turned out. As a result, we now regulate alcohol use but we do not ban it completely.
They taught me in teaching school that I ought to set goals for my class that were specific, measurable, and all that, but above all, ATTAINABLE. I think God is doing that when he regulates slavery in the OT and leaves the utter abolition of it as a push for a later century. (And we haven't managed it yet, have we?)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think you have a better case for "why didn't God tell them to stop it?" in the OT than in the NT. The NT is written to an occupied people-- not a theoretical theocracy like you have in (at least parts of) the OT, nor a democracy like you had in pre-Civil War US. So the point is rather moot-- if Caesar wants slavery, there'll be slavery. He's not likely to ask those Christians what they think about the matter. In that context, the NT seems eminently practical (even more so if you factor in the expectation of an imminent parousia)-- focused more on "how do you then live"-- i.e. what does it mean to live in this broken world, including, what does it mean to live as a slave in this broken world.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Then why have any of the ten commandments, LC? Why have any of the laws at all? Why list the things that absolutely CAN NOT be done? The Bible does quite a bit of that. But it does not say that slavery can not be done.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The American experience of Prohibition is another example. There the attempt was actually made to outlaw alcohol with the goal of removing the evils of alcoholism, drunkenness, etc. We all know how that turned out. As a result, we now regulate alcohol use but we do not ban it completely.
I like that example - thanks. Now I hope I can remember it in the future when it's relevant to a conversation.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Why must it be all or nothing? The Bible chose its battles, as do we all. Obviously you think slavery should have been given a higher priority. That's fine. I would have liked it to be so myself. But I accept that I know far less about what was feasible in that day and age than the very people who lived there--and God knows, far less than God. If he chose to eradicate that evil less quickly than I would have done in his place, I assume he had good reasons. Which might include giving a higher priority to even more horrible evils.
Why not give him / it the benefit of the doubt? It's not as if we had an actual passage praising or ordering slavery. That would be a problem indeed. As it is, you argue that the Bible's failure to explicitly condemn slavery in words of one syllable is equivalent to agreeing with it. And that's faulty logic.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
All this begs the question: Why do English Versions use the term 'slave'? Williams makes the point in his video that the use of the term saw an increase in the years after WWII. I did a quick search through some versions on the Bible Gateway site and he's right. The KJV used 'slave' twice, whereas the New KJV splashed out on 65. The ESV goes for 127, no less.
Maybe it's a question of how tolerant of euphemism each translator is. I'm reminded of a similar situation during Thomas Jefferson's tenure in Paris as America's ambassador to France. Virtually all written accounts that bother to mention such details refer to Mr. Jefferson's "servants", assiduously avoiding the term "slaves".
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I can't speak for the assorted translators, but did come across a snapshot of the thought processes with the scholars engaged in the ESV translation process in a video. Peter Williams was involved in that discussion. It's an interesting though tangential question as to why the term 'slave' is being preferred more in the biblical revisions of recent decades.
One of the things that struck me watching that video was the complete lack of anyone who wasn't both white and male. This seems remarkably stunted, particularly in a discussion about slavery and exploitation.
And I'd guess that part of the reason the term "slave" is used is that very often it doesn't make sense any other way. Consider this passage from Leviticus
quote:
If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.
The word "slaves" there is ebed. If that's to be universally translated as "workers" we have the situation where the Israelites are commanded to not treat their fellow Israelites as "workers" but rather as "hired workers". Clearly a distinction is being made, but your suggested translation would erase it.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What about the practice of 'slavery'? In connection with this is the question whether the OT (those Jewish texts) condone the practice at all.
I don't doubt that there were periods of war, involuntary mass migrations and enslavement in the Ancient Near East. Apart from that there were also more specific instances of poverty. The background is evident from the Jewish scriptures alone, never mind other texts from the period. Important for our discussion is the legal framework that the Jewish courts set up in response. Those who had no resource to fall back on (and there was no state social support system) could, as an option, have shrivelled up and died, but the courts made it clear that the debtee had a duty of care to the debtor (Lev. 25:35f – link to larger segment of the text provided below). Widows, orphans, aliens, and debtors; they were all in danger of falling and they were all covered by legal protection. Taking someone on as an eved was to protect them, not to exploit them.
Williams' analysis is useful here. The Roman and New World legal contexts, people could be kidnapped, tortured, physically abused, and put in chains. The Jewish law codes permitted none of these. The Roman and New World legal codes made no provision for holidays, sufficient food, legal redress, and sexual protection. The Jewish law codes on the other hand provided for all of those.
What is usually elided here is that what is described in the Old Testament, particularly the Torah, is a two-tiered system of slavery. The first was for enslaving your fellow Israelites. This was more akin to what we'd think of as "indentured servitude", where someone is bound to a fixed period of involuntary servitude after which they are free again. There are rules for the treatment of fellow Israelites in this state, like the aforementioned passage not to treat them like slaves.
The same was not true for enslaved foreigners. This seems to be a simple form of outright slavery, where the slaves are the outright property of their owners in perpetuity. Very often in these discussions it's mendaciously pretended that the only form of slavery described in the Old Testament is the indenture system the Israelites practiced on each other, ignoring the slave system inflicted on foreigners.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What should we make of Paul's famous egalitarian “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” saying (Gal. 3:28, see also Col. 3:11)?[/QB]
It's interesting that this passage is often cited as being disapproving of slavery, and yet it seems to be equally disapproving of freedom ("neither slave nor free"). Yet no one seems to be willing to argue that side of it, which seems rather selective.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer is simple: because it is the best judgement of the majority of people (lawmakers, voters) that this particular evil cannot be fully eliminated from this society at this particular point in time. It's not that we don't want to; it's that we genuinely believe it unworkable at this time. So we regulate tobacco, but do not utterly ban it. Yet.
The American experience of Prohibition is another example. There the attempt was actually made to outlaw alcohol with the goal of removing the evils of alcoholism, drunkenness, etc. We all know how that turned out. As a result, we now regulate alcohol use but we do not ban it completely.
The problem with this argument is that blasphemy, adultery, converting your neighbours ass are no more amenable to being eliminated than slave ownership, yet they get a place.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
+1 to what Crœsos said.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most people would acknowledge slavery in Africa prior to the triangle trade. There is no substantive difference between pre-European slavery in Africa and ancient Hebrew slavery.
On what basis do you say there is no substantive difference? (I don't know anything about the status of slaves in pre-European Africa, so genuine question.)
It would be more accurate to say that Hebrew slavery had analogues in parts of Africa as the cultures there are not monolithic, nor were attitudes towards, and methods of, slavery.
Read here for a beginning. But tl;dr: there was debt slavery, indentured servitude, treat "us" better than "them"; all the things that are supposed to make biblical slavery "special".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the things that struck me watching that video was the complete lack of anyone who wasn't both white and male. This seems remarkably stunted, particularly in a discussion about slavery and exploitation.
Quite possibly also the majority of the translators in that session were trained in the slipstream of the post-war liberation philosophies that permeated the academies – and seminaries – of our late modern epoch. There may have been an increased sensitivity to black history and a desire to front up about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Consider this passage from Leviticus
Lev. 25 is a key passage in the discussion. I couldn't cover it all off in my last post, but I was intrigued by the way the author laid out the eved line in v.39. You'll probably have seen that it is one of those places where the author has to qualify eved. Presumably using just that one term in the sentence wouldn't suffice for the concept the author wanted to get across. It's a strange construction. We have the verbal form (avad) and then the nominal twice, in construct. In effect, the author hits us with eved and its cognates in machine gun fashion (לֹא־תַעֲבֹד בּוֹ עֲבֹדַת עָבֶד).
I agree with you that this not mere 'work' to which a reference is being made. It's something stronger. But 'slave'? The difficulty is that there are instances of eved / avad in the texts that refer to senior officials in a country – without qualification. Perhaps here we might even have something that is stronger than 'slave'. “You shall not 'work' him with 'worker's work'” in a sense that he is not be dehumanised, he is not a worker for work's sake. Then we have the requirement that he be treated on a par with those who are remunerated.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...The same was not true for enslaved foreigners. This seems to be a simple form of outright slavery, where the slaves are the outright property of their owners in perpetuity.
On the foreigners in vv.44ff, again I would go to the two factors playing out here: firstly the social set up at the time based around the covenant worldview, and secondly the place of Israel as God's possession surrounded by nations in rebellion to God.
For the former we have the responsibilities associated with the 'Father's House', where the senior male (usually was male – but not always) had a responsibility to protect whoever resided under his wing.
The latter covers the approach taken by Israel's higher law courts when faced with the legal question of the status of those not from the community, but who were active in the community. Verse 44 refers generally to the other nations (the goyim) round about – workers and handmaids (who can also be free workers according to other texts in the bible), but vv.46-46 refer to a different class, the aliens (garim) who are displaced from the other nations and dependent on protection form Israelites. That probably explains the fact that they more permanent members of a 'Father's House' and to be considered as inheritance (i.e., not to be ejected just because a specific 'Father' dies – v.46 begins with the Hitpael perfect form of the verb nahal, the responsibility must transcend a generation).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What should we make of Paul's famous egalitarian “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” saying (Gal. 3:28, see also Col. 3:11)?
It's interesting that this passage is often cited as being disapproving of slavery, and yet it seems to be equally disapproving of freedom ("neither slave nor free"). Yet no one seems to be willing to argue that side of it, which seems rather selective.
I argued that it was being set up against the Roman legal equivalents, in which case the law Paul has in mind is the creation principle that all were created equal as God's stewards on earth. The rebellion had skewed that in favour of oppressive hierarchies (Gen. 3:16).
Is there another way to see 'free' in a disapproving sense in Paul's usage?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The problem with this argument is that blasphemy, adultery, converting your neighbours ass are no more amenable to being eliminated than slave ownership, yet they get a place.
On the face of it this is an important point. There is no "Thou Shalt Not have Slaves."
I tried to show above that this phraseology would not work given the Hebrew terminology available. It can also be argued that if an equivalent were to be used (such as "Though Shalt Not Harshly Work Your Workers") then these dependants would have had to be let go, free to shrivel up and die in the absence of land security and social security.
I think the risk I am trying to avoid is of reading back into an author's world something that only applies to some modern environments. We should rather put ourselves in the shoes of those writing at the time - understanding their world-view and resultant modes of expression - and only then read forwards for an application or significance for today.
We can get to the anti-slavery point, but it will have to be by a different route, I think.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It would be more accurate to say that Hebrew slavery had analogues in parts of Africa...
Surely the better analogues are to be found in the ancient near east (ANE)? the Sumerian legal codes, Hammurabi's code, the Late Assyrian Annals, the city states of Syria; these all form part of the backdrop to what was going on at the time that the biblical authors recorded the Israelite binding court laws. Why impose something from another geographical area unless it can be shown to be on all fours with the ANE?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But tl;dr: there was debt slavery, indentured servitude, treat "us" better than "them"; all the things that are supposed to make biblical slavery "special".
I think the position 'Biblical slavery was special' would be entirely confused.
There's a continuum in labour institutions from self-employment at one end to the chattel slavery where the slave has no rights at all of the US South. Certainly Biblical institutions are closer to the less egalitarian end of that, especially as applied to non-Israelites.
Now saying Biblical slavery was special would be to say that there's not a continuum - that there is a precisely defined block of practices that are all 'slavery' and all basically the same, all chattel slavery, apart from the Biblical version.
Whereas, I want to stress that there are a lot of practices that fall short of free egalitarian labour contracts. And that not all practices called slavery share even all the same features. For example, debt slavery is not chattel slavery.
To look at the extent at which we read things in, you've defined slavery as when people are bought and sold without their consent. There's no statement in any of the passages we've described allowing men to be bought and sold without their consent. The conditions under which women are allowed to be bought and sold without their consent are standard treatment of women under patriarchy. (Not that patriarchy is at all a good thing, but we would not normally consider the women in the European nobility slaves without some terminological inexactitude.)
Not to say that you mightn't want to call the Biblical institution 'slavery' for some purposes. Still, I think that people who want to concentrate on the absolute abomination of chattel slavery will draw the line between 'slavery' and 'other unfree labour' in such a way that the Biblical institution is at least on the border and I'd say probably over it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What should we make of Paul's famous egalitarian “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” saying (Gal. 3:28, see also Col. 3:11)?
It's interesting that this passage is often cited as being disapproving of slavery, and yet it seems to be equally disapproving of freedom ("neither slave nor free"). Yet no one seems to be willing to argue that side of it, which seems rather selective. [/QB]
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I don't see anything here as disapproving of freedom. The point of the passage seems to be similar to that of Eph. 2-- that these distinctions that divide us are meaningless in the Kingdom. The categories still exist, of course-- just like there's still male & female and Jew & Gentile. It's just that these distinctions should no longer be divisive.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
