|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Joseph use slaves?
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
And if so, how did he treat them? The pyramids were built in a society with endless amounts of oppression - how could any power be used for good in a system so built on evil?
When Joseph resisted the temptation of Potifar's wife, he lost power that could have been used for good in order to avoid committing a personal sin - but how much potential good would outweigh the actual evil of his adultery, if seen as a trade of goodness?
To what extent can any good individual seek power, when power itself is often vested in corrupt systems? Or should the good always stay away from power, or be completely indifferent to whether it is there or not? The Bible's statesmen (Daniel, Joseph, David) clearly didn't shy away from powerful positions, but how should one value the trade-off of using power in evil systems versus one's ability to achieve good by doing so?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Surely Abraham had slaves?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You do the best you can.
I doubt Joseph thought much about slavery as an institution--he was born into a culture where slavery was a given, and it's a rare person who rises above that. We know that in other moral situations Joseph showed himself to be, well, a man of his times. (I'm thinking here about how he basically enslaved all of Egypt to Pharaoh in return for grain.) The Bible doesn't hold up characters like Joseph as 100% pure moral heroes--rather it shows us what they did, and leaves us to make most of the moral judgements.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As so often, Lamb Chopped has got it right.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Joseph was a man of his time. It would be just as reasonable to ask why (since it was clearly employee harassment) he didn't email HR about Potiphar's wife, and then file a class-action lawsuit. We are all people of our time. Like fish -- unaware of the water all around us.
It is useful to think of what our great-great grandchildren might think about us. "How could Gram use plastic water bottles/drive a gasoline-powered car/eat swordfish/vote for Scottish independence/support fracking? Everybody knows that [bad effect of it here]."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
Actually, I think one of the points of The Story is that our ancestors in faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and on and on—were not paragons of morality or virtue. They were flawed, sinful people, just like all the rest of us. And yet God made, and kept, a covenant with them.
It underscores the whole idea of grace; there's certainly nothing to indicate they earned God's favor. None of them always got it right. Yet God looked favorably on them and blessed them, so there's hope for us as well.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What Brenda said. We have to be careful we don't find ourselves saying what amounts to, "How DARE he not have been 3000 years ahead of his time?!"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
My problem, as expressed in my OP, is not so much in that Joseph (or Abraham or any others) used or owned slaves as in the compromises of conscience the general behaviour must have required. How does one prioritise what evils to condone or accept when attempting to stem others, and can good people at all seek the power to make such judgments, even in knowing how dirty the road to power is? (and must have inevitably been in the despotic states of Babylon or Egypt)
Joseph prioritised non-adultery over the potential power he would have as Potifar's head servant. However, he must have prioritised other evils, such as not just slavery but accepting excessively harsh treatment of said slaves, less than the potential good coming from the power of being Pharaoh's second in command. Where does one draw the line for what to prioritise and what to trade off for what else?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Or…
Joseph refused adultery as the price of being Potiphar's second in command and was rewarded with becoming Pharaoh's second in command.
Once he had that power, do we have any idea (one way or the other) about what he did about the institution of slavery?
[ 05. June 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Responding to the overall question of the OP, sometimes the option of overturning a societal structure which embeds injustice may not be available to an individual (even to a Joseph). Paul's letter to Philemon offers one possible way forward - to subvert the structure by operating it humanely. So neither Philemon nor Paul campaigns to abolish slavery. Rather Paul asks Philemon to subvert it by treating Onesimus not as a possession, but as brother.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes. You don't have to defeat an enemy by strength of arms. You can change him into your friend.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Once he had that power, do we have any idea (one way or the other) about what he did about the institution of slavery?
We know* that at the end of his 14 years, the people that owned their own farms were now working Pharaoh's cattle on Pharaoh's farms,.
(though the effect was only the same as 20% tax**)
On the other hand they were alive.
In the words of Genesis 47:25 "We will become Pharaoh's servants."
And the account vague about some of the details that make a lot of difference to the outcomes. So it could mean a lot of things.
We know he had 'stewards' of his house, but again that covers a multitude of options
*for appropriate definitions of know.
**but again that could cover a range of outcomes.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
[ 05. June 2015, 18:37: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
If Joseph didn't exist - I think he is a representative figure a bit less real than Robin Hood, about the same as King Arthur, and a bit more real than Britannia - does that change things? Are an idealised symbolic person's moral failings significant? I suppose I think they are, though whose fault they are is tricky to say.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Hm, on reflection I may possibly have misjudged my tone in my last post. Especially as Lamb Chopped made the same point very early in the thread.)
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If Joseph didn't exist - I think he is a representative figure a bit less real than Robin Hood, about the same as King Arthur, and a bit more real than Britannia - does that change things? Are an idealised symbolic person's moral failings significant? I suppose I think they are, though whose fault they are is tricky to say.
I would say they are more significant. If Gildas represents Vortigern as a bastard, that may not reflect anything more significant than that Vortigern was a bastard. But if you are writing fiction, then you can choose whether or not your protagonists are bastards or not, and so the fact that the writer of the Pentateuch decided to make Joseph a nasty piece of work, when they could have made him a paragon of virtue, is significant of something.
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
[ 05. June 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But if you are writing fiction, then you can choose whether or not your protagonists are bastards or not, and so the fact that the writer of the Pentateuch decided to make Joseph a nasty piece of work, when they could have made him a paragon of virtue, is significant of something.
But even if Joseph is not historical, that doesn't mean that the scriptural account of him is fiction, at least not what we think of as fiction. I would say it's myth, and myth operates differently from fiction.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely Abraham had slaves?
Haggar was probably essentially a slave, which makes the Haggar narrative all the more troubling if you're looking for Abraham to be any sort of moral example. Thankfully, as Lamb already pointed out, that doesn't appear to be the point of the story.
Actually, I think one of the points of The Story is that our ancestors in faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and on and on—were not paragons of morality or virtue. They were flawed, sinful people, just like all the rest of us. And yet God made, and kept, a covenant with them.
Yes. That's the point I-- and Lamb-- were making.
--------------------
"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
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am under the impression that in the OT slavery is very very bad indeed when it is me. When it is other people, not so much.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What we are intended to see is the startling transcendent beauty of the powerful, moving story of humane wisdom and love breaking out in the Bronze Age. What on Earth is blameworthy about that? Or anything else of the time?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Sure. If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why do you feel that? I never did when I was a fundamentalist and now I'm a postmodern liberal I couldn't either.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Given that the rest of the Old Testament sees slavery in Egypt as emblematic of A Very Bad Thing Indeed, I don't think we are intended to see Joseph's actions in Genesis 47 as anything other than blameworthy.)
However much of the rest of the Old Testament has no issue with slavery as a concept, but is concerned with how it operates.
Sure. If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
I would say that it's far from clear that the OT has a "problem" with slavery itself, either of Hebrews or foreigners.
Exodus 21 has God giving some specific instructions on how to treat Hebrew slaves, including this:
quote:
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
By way of contrast, a few verses earlier we have
quote:
17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
It seems to me that if God really had a problem with slavery as such, this would have been a singularly good opportunity to say something about it to his chosen people, particularly since he had just reminded them that he was the one who brought them "out of the house of bondage" in Egypt (Exodus 20:2).
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The Old Testament doesn't have an opinion on this or that subject. It's a compendium of voices. And only the most naive or fundamentalist views Old or New Testament as the means by which God lets God's mind be known, as if it was a court circular or set of press releases.
Biblical books contradict each other. You can even track moral trajectories through them. They are evidence for the development of moral ideas and for the changing understanding of God.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And only the most naive or fundamentalist views Old or New Testament as the means by which God lets God's mind be known, as if it was a court circular or set of press releases.
Stripped of the ridicule of the phrase "as if it was a court circular or set of press releases", isn't "the means by which God lets God's mind be known" a pretty historically mainstream way of viewing the Bible?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Since it's been brought up, and people are running with it, I'll say what I've said elsewhere. The OT law never claims to be a statement of God's perfect will for human beings. What it is, is a statement of God's directions for Israel at a particular time in their history--namely, a time when they had just come out of a centuries' long slavery and had to re-invent themselves as a people with a culture and government of their own (preferably not borrowed from idolatrous Egypt). God was giving them a foundation for that re-creation, and very sensible of him, too. (The result of losing one's culture and history can be seen today in the US with many descendants of African slaves--modern poverty, crime, family breakdown, and so forth. If you do that shit to people, their descendants are likely to suffer as well, and it takes some doing to recover from it.)
Anyway--God is answering the question, "How should we live now that we are free Israel under one God and no longer Egyptian slaves?" His answer is NOT to require moral perfection across the board. Jesus himself makes it clear that the Law was an accommodation to the limits of the people when he discusses divorce and says "Moses gave you that law because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning..." So the Law is a halfway point, not God's perfect vision of what humanity should be.
As a result, you get a lot of laws that we are currently indignant about because to our minds (in this 2000 years post-Christ world) they don't go far enough. Why regulate treatment of slaves? Why not abolish it entirely? Why regulate divorce and not abolish it? Why allow marriage as one option for rape reparations? Why not just nuke the bastard?
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it. Consider slavery: if Israel had abolished it, they would have been the one hold out in the known world, AFAIK. They would also have had to figure out a way to cope with prisoners of war/conquered civilians and with debtors, since the normal way of dealing with such people was enslavement. Slavery is not an ideal answer (duh) but is it more humane to turn entire populations out to starve? Which is essentially what you'd be doing if most of the men are dead or disabled (since the heavy agricultural work falls to them). How in the world do you handle bankruptcy in a pre-modern society? Or take marriage. We all know just how well forcing people to stay together works even today, after 2000 years of Christianity. How should it work better back then? That thing about giving a woman the option of marrying her rapist. Well, in a patriarchal society (were there any other kinds in the Middle East?) he has done her irrevocable economic damage; marriage was the only career for a woman, and he has just removed most of her chances at a decent marriage. Therefore the OT offers her (NOT him) the choice of accepting a lump sum financial settlement, or else forcing him to marry her without possibility of divorce. (Yes, the transaction was handled through her father--not because rape is of more concern to a father than to the woman raped, but because EVERY transaction was handled that way in a patriarchal society. It doesn't mean she's her father's property. Sheesh.)
Do you see what I'm driving at? The OT Law was not meant to be a perfect example of the Good. It was meant to be an example of the Better. Better than Israel's inherited current practices, which involved unregulated slavery, divorce, and justice issues, with all the horrible abuses that come from lack of boundaries.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
Saying that the OT and the NT are means by which God makesGod's will known to humanity is not the same as saying that God wrote or dictated them.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not an uncommon view, but an unsophisticated one. The idea that God wrote the Bible is, I hope, still one that churches help people to grow out of.
Saying that the OT and the NT are means by which God makesGod's will known to humanity is not the same as saying that God wrote or dictated them.
That's true, but on this thread people have been reading the OT as if it's God's own words and final thoughts.
A more nuanced view of inspiration, and a clearer historical sense would make a big difference to the discussion.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
When I read the title, I immediately thought of Joseph, Jesus' (foster-) dad. And I thought, "Hm. Interesting. I doubt he'd have been sufficiently well off, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think, 'Dang, I could do with a slave or two around the place'."
And then I realised it was the other Joseph, and I thought, of course he did. Why wouldn't he? An Egyptian civil servant would have given no more thought to using slaves than I would give to using a food processor.
This is one of the reasons that Christians must grow beyond the Bible - it took us a long time to figure out that buying and selling people is wrong.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Genesis had just mentioned in passing that Joseph had slaves, the comments about 'man of his time' would apply. My feeling though is that Genesis 47 describes Joseph doing something that even the rest of the Old Testament would have a problem with.
I would say that it's far from clear that the OT has a "problem" with slavery itself, either of Hebrews or foreigners.
Yes, that's my point. If Joseph had simply kept slaves, either Hebrew or Gentile, he would have been a man of his time, with all that entails.
But at every single instance outside Genesis, where slavery in Egypt is mentioned, it's representative of 'the really bad thing that God rescued you from'. And Joseph is the one who's responsible for it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Two things.
First, Joseph rescued the Israelites from famine. It was a Pharaoh later who did not know (i.e. remember) Joseph who enslaved them.
Second, the kings of Judah continued to have more than one wife at least down to the exile. That doesn't mean it's OK for us. Likewise, if Israelites had slaves, it doesn't mean slavery is OK, or that we can.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is also worth looking at the historical context. The OT slavery regs were in fact amazingly liberal and humane.
Compare to Roman law about slaves. If you were a roman and owned a slave, you owned him or her body and soul. You could have sex with them, or lend them to friends. You could pimp them out and accept money for their sexual services. Every product of their body was yours -- there are records of slave owners cutting off their slaves' hair to sell to wig makers, and of course the child of your slave is a slave that you can sell in the market. Killing your slave was like the way you can have your dog put down today. when your slave became too old to work, or ill or injured, you could dump him in the street and bang the door.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death.
There ISN'T a blanket prohibition - if he lingers three days before dying, you're in the clear! (The killing of non-slaves (v. 12) makes no such allowance.)
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But at every single instance outside Genesis, where slavery in Egypt is mentioned, it's representative of 'the really bad thing that God rescued you from'. And Joseph is the one who's responsible for it.
Yes, that particular incidence of slavery was unpleasant for the Hebrews - though still not necessarily bad because slavery is morally wrong. God isn't bothered by other instances; the helpful provision of rules delineating just how badly a master can treat his slaves suggests he doesn't have a principled objection to it.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is also worth looking at the historical context. The OT slavery regs were in fact amazingly liberal and humane.
Compare to Roman law about slaves. If you were a roman and owned a slave, you owned him or her body and soul. You could have sex with them, or lend them to friends. You could pimp them out and accept money for their sexual services. Every product of their body was yours -- there are records of slave owners cutting off their slaves' hair to sell to wig makers, and of course the child of your slave is a slave that you can sell in the market. Killing your slave was like the way you can have your dog put down today. when your slave became too old to work, or ill or injured, you could dump him in the street and bang the door.
This works as long as you take the OT to be a mixture of divine and human-- which I have come to do, despite my evangelical creds. If you think of the OT as a perfect, infallible reflection of God's will (even if just for Israel as some try to parse it) you're going to have a hard time justifying what you find there about slavery, treatment of women, a whole host of things. But if you think of it as a reflection of imperfect humans living in an imperfect society encountering the perfect God, it's a lot easier to take the pov you're suggesting. If you see it as imperfect humans living in a society where slavery is just part of the way things are, then it works to see God working slowly over time to reveal himself and a more humane way of considering other human beings. But that is challenging to even admit out loud for those of it from more conservative lineage (though most of us act as if that's the case even if we don't admit it).
And, of course, a more nuanced reading of OT laws that allows for human imperfection may also occasion a rethinking of some dead horse issues...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A mix of 110% human and 0.1% divine.
And cliffdweller, is there anything that could have happened in the second Planck tick that would have changed that for the better?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The answer to all of these IMHO is the same: The people were not ready for it.
They were ready for stoning as a punishment for cursing their parents, but not for a prohibition on beating their slaves to death?
I find it hard to reconcile the endorsement of the view that a slave is his owner's money - words put in God's mouth - with the idea that this (perhaps) somewhat less savage version of slavery is really the best God could do at the time.
There IS a prohibition against beating your slave to death.
Well, yeah, if the slave died immediately. According to Exodus 21:20 it was only a legal problem if the slave did not survive for at least two days after the beating. After that it was just considered an intrinsic economic loss to the owner, that is lost "money". Not a punishable offense.
Again:
quote:
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yes; and that section does bother me.
It's perhaps the one point in the whole OT where I would come closest to agreeing with you and calling this merely human. And yet, given the overall tenor of the OT, I cannot.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes; and that section does bother me.
It's perhaps the one point in the whole OT where I would come closest to agreeing with you and calling this merely human. And yet, given the overall tenor of the OT, I cannot.
You're good with the conquest of Canaan then?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I didn't say I was good with it. I have a lot of questions about it.
I do say that I see enough to take the rest on faith. YMMV, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How?
That He'll somehow be able to explain being God the Killer?
With the kind of 'rationalizations' I used to come up with? As in, life before death doesn't matter?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
Not really. A completely innocent mistake, I would have thought.
I was in a Bible study about Joseph recently where the leader pointed out how "astute" Joseph had been in making his boss, Pharaoh, the owner of all Egypt, and of all Egyptians. So it was something I was particularly conscious of.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
That He'll somehow be able to explain being God the Killer?
With the kind of 'rationalizations' I used to come up with? As in, life before death doesn't matter?
I have no idea what rationalizations you used to come up with, bar the one you quote, which is horrid. Please don't judge my own faith by that.
--------------------
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 MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Umm, once Joseph got into power, he was the one who enslaved the rest of the Israelites.
No, really. Read Genesis 47:13-27.
[Cross posted.]
He enslaved the Egyptians, not the Israelites.
...
Ok, I look stupid now.
Not really. A completely innocent mistake, I would have thought.
I was in a Bible study about Joseph recently where the leader pointed out how "astute" Joseph had been in making his boss, Pharaoh, the owner of all Egypt, and of all Egyptians. So it was something I was particularly conscious of.
While "astute" is one way to describe using a national crisis, in this case a famine, to consolidate power and establish a dictatorship, which is what we see described in that chapter of Genesis, there are other, less flattering ways to describe that kind of behavior. Like "using a national crisis to establish a dictatorship". Whatever Joseph's opinions on the institution of chattel slavery, he obviously wasn't big on the idea of freedom.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
