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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The conditions set out in the bible exempt Hebrew males, but do not change the condition for anyone else.

---

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.

---

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.)

---

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.)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

Is there some reason that's not a relevant analogy?

---

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.

---

• Bible inspired by God, but filtered through human ears: No worries.
• The Bible is dictated by God and inerrant: Worries.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for bog-standard slavery--

---

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.

---

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,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for Peter--

What precisely do you think Peter could have done about slavery?

---

quote:

---

Which is all to say: It's not that simple.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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.

---

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.)

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Consider this passage from Leviticus

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It would be more accurate to say that Hebrew slavery had analogues in parts of Africa...

---

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".

---

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]

---

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.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

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 Nigel M:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
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 Nigel M:
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.

---

quote:

---

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
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 cliffdweller:

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.

---

Yes. But then there's a whole boatload of other things that are left untouched in the OT (patriarchy, driving out indigenous peoples, nationalism). Slavery shares a rightful place among them.

---

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)? 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
We're not talking about voluntary immigrants or refugees. The passage clearly refers to buying foreigners. In other words, commercial slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

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.

---

Yes. But then there's a whole boatload of other things that are left untouched in the OT (patriarchy, driving out indigenous peoples, nationalism). Slavery shares a rightful place among them.

---

Are we talking about the same Old Testament? The OT I'm familiar with not only touches on patriarchy, driving out indigenous people, and nationalism, it endorses all three.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
People with "an increased sensitivity to black history" usually don't hold all-white conferences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
...your claim that the every word has only one meaning and should be translated identically in all cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
..."unpaid workers" typically means "slaves".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The passage clearly refers to buying foreigners. In other words, commercial slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But we don't know; if we think we know it's because we're making assumptions about what we think the institution referred to is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Educated assumptions...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But we don't know; if we think we know it's because we're making assumptions about what we think the institution referred to is.

---

Educated assumptions, though. It is taking typical conditions of slavery at the time and applying them to the Hebrews and there is nothing to suggest that it doesn't fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Educated assumptions...

---

Of course assumptions should always be tested, which is what I am doing.

---

Without intending any insult, I do not think you are. How it appears to me is that you are attempting to reconcile a very modern view of Christian morality with the plain words of the bible.
I do not see a theological problem with accepting that not every word in the bible is directed by God and many instances were the opposite view is problematic.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I'm not sure I have a handle on modern Christian mortality. Rather my concern is to seek the author's meaning in a text first and only after that to sort out morality and indeed any application. This is because I have found that the "plain words" of the bible tend to be English words with modern connotations attached, and that these do not always map to the plain words of the Hebrew / Aramaic / Greek originals.

It's that mismatch between what people think is in the (English or any other language) Bible, and what is really there, that makes something of an important difference to meaning and significance.

The only viable alternative to authorial meaning as a basis for interpretation is to rely on a reader-response variety of reading, but that fails to provide a valid basis for public interpretation and application. One brand of that reader-response reading is mediated unconsciously by the fact that we have texts in translation - English versions of the bible - and it is very easy to associate words therein with concepts from our heritage, worldview, mindsets, and so on. Sometimes it needs a deliberate act to break the dependence on those limits, and my suggestion of removing problem (English) words from a translated text for a while to see what the landscape then looks like is useful in forcing a reliance on the original context for guidance.

An additional advantage of focussing on authorial meaning is that it deals with publicly available data (archaeological, sociological, and linguistic) that anyone could do. It does not rely on viewing the text as inspired, inerrant, infallible, or any other 'in...' word. The text can be studied this way on the same turf by a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, an Agnostic, and anyone who does not see the bible as being directed by God. It's open for debate.

Of course, once that hard work around authorial intention has been done, then the Christian can turn to matters theological to apply the results appropriately. Sometimes that even happens in Kerygmania!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Authorial intent is difficult across millennia.
For one, the record is often more scarce than presented and there is much left out because knowledge is assumed.
So you need to look at the world around a particular culture as well as the culture itself.
From their very own record, the Hebrews showed willingness to do many of the same nasty things everyone else was doing. Why should this issue be different?
Occam's razor shaves even orthodox beards.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oh, no, it doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Authorial intention is indeed difficult, I agree. It requires hard work. So why should one discern the intent of the author?

The approach to communication that seeks to identify authorial intent is not accepted by all. A 'weak' form of opposition argues that the distance between then and now in the case of texts like the bible is too great to overcome: the cultural and linguistic differences are massive and an “ugly, broad ditch” (to borrow a phrase from Gotthold Lessing) lies in the way. There is an answer to this criticism, developed by Hans Georg Gadamer, based on the essentially human links we all have to the past through traditions.

A 'strong' form of opposition comes from those who argue that once a communication leaves an author's mouth or pen, it no longer lies in that author's domain or ownership; it passes over into the domain of the hearer or reader (any hearer or reader, not just the original intended audience) and becomes fair game for each and every understanding. On that view, any attempt to search for authorial intent is irrelevant at best, or a power play by those with vested interests at worst.

I think, though, that we need a controlling factor such as authorial intent for two reasons:-

[1] Common sense tells us that the author of a public communication is not content to give up his or her intellectual property rights (a modern analogy) to that communication. Examples abound of people who become irked when another mis-reads their message. A sense of injustice arises and the author feels obliged to correct the mistake. It happens often enough on the Ship! It's understandable; much depends from the author's point of view on being understood in the terms the author intended to be understood. No author likes to be blamed if others do something wrong on the basis of a misinterpretation of his or her words, and I guess that goes for God, too, never mind human authors.

[2] For the group of people commonly called Christians – as with any community operating on the basis of a written text – a form of regulation is needed if the community is to hang together. There is a need to verify interpretations by some method; otherwise, if anything goes, everything will go.

There are a number of contenders for the position of 'controlling factor.' One often argued in some Christian groups is: “I rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me into finding the truth when I read the bible.” Variations on that line include replacing the phrase “Holy Spirit” with “Pastor”, or “Holy Tradition”, or just “my church's tradition”, or “the commentary by [insert name].” “My gut feeling” could be another option here for some.

It's only my own opinion, but presently I find the authorial intention approach to be the best in a less than perfect world, though I am waiting for a better option to come along! Other approaches leave open, it seems to me, a gap in the process: that of validation. It is very difficult to validate an interpretation that relies purely on the claim that “The HS told me so.” More often than not, I would think, this is not an issue. It's usually an individual in the church who draws a benefit from interpreting a message on the basis of Spiritual guidance and this interpretation will apply only to that individual; it has no adverse impact on others in the community. However, there are times when an individual will seek to apply an interpretation that might impact adversely. One may be the leader of a church whose vision is so guided; one may believe that God has a word for another and that this word is binding; or one may, for example, believe on the basis of a biblical reading that blood transfusions are wrong and that the life of another is thereby put at risk. And so on.

Somehow we need a public method of verification (i.e. one that others can test as well). This means in practice suspending (for a time) discussion of what God, as divine author, might have meant / means. The process of validation is not truly public if non-(Christian) believers cannot also participate in that process for fear of the Christian persistently trumping the discussion with the God ace.

Can it be done (recognising an authorial intention)? We are definitely in a better position than our forebears when it comes to putting ourselves in the shoes of an author and audience of a text from the ancient near east. Surprisingly, I think we even better off then the church fathers, many of whom had only Greek philosophical traditions to draw on when it came to reading the Jewish texts. We have the benefit of research into the artefacts from the time, the anthropological insights from sociologists, and the linguistic steers from communication theorists and others.

I would say that the task of interpretation (I'm trying to avoid the 'hermeneutics' word!) is the identification of the purpose a writer (or speaker) had when s/he used the words s/he did in the way s/he used them. This is often equated to 'authorial intention.' It is not trying to get into the skin of the author, attempting to feel his or her psychology at any given point. It is about recognising that communication is an action – performed in the presentation of a text. Again, this is publicly available data and centres on the words in their co-text (the surrounding words) and context (the wider cultural setup that determines communication).

Once the hard work is done, though, one has a strong basis upon which to build the next stage – applying the intention to new situations. One can point back to verifiable, evidence-based, findings and can explain which interpretations are valid and which not. That can save people from acting on bad, or even ugly, interpretations; the sort of interpretations that lead to misguided behaviour.

The simplest answer is not always the best. It may be wrong. In fact, really, the simplest answer is the one the author intended; in the end that avoids assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I haven't argued that only one word should be used in a 1:1 relationship when translating a passage; I've argued that the English word 'slave' risks:
(a) a failure to do justice to the Hebrew / Aramaic (and Greek, for that matter) in the host language;
(b) an unconscious bias in some modern readers who read-in connotations that apply from a different context.

You need to explain why the authors qualify the eved word set so often when they want to refer to anything other than mere 'work'. That usage is telling.

My point is that in order to mitigate the risks, it is worth removing the risky word and replacing it with something else until two things happen:
(1) the context is investigated, so that a better mapping exercise can be performed between the host and receptor languages
(2) the issue of mis-mapped connotations can be addressed. This may mean clothing the risky word in the swaddling clothes of footnotes to explain its meaning in context, or it may mean ditching it until times and connotations changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
To take Texas' "Declaration of the Causes of Secession" as applicable to the conditions of the ancient near east would be an example of the reading-in against which I am warning. The social conditions (and worldview) of the one context are different from the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Confederate State of Texas:
[T]he servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Protection in that environment includes room and board, and protection from creditors. We are talking about a duty of care in a wider sense, not a simple passing of coins at the end of a working day. It sounds as though you are promoting a view that these workers should be offloaded from the protecting environment, which would mean they are no longer able to survive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
You will need to define “pay” carefully here. Protection in that environment includes room and board, and protection from creditors. We are talking about a duty of care in a wider sense, not a simple passing of coins at the end of a working day. It sounds as though you are promoting a view that these workers should be offloaded from the protecting environment, which would mean they are no longer able to survive. That's the implication of not treating them as well as those who were hired workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Given the scope of the legal judgements that are set out in Lev 25, the more likely reading is not buying as though one had gone to the shops to transact for meat, but acquiring where the background details of the case are not given, but where the judicial context clearly refers to the application of the Sabbath principle and rights of redemption. We're not on the same turf as 'commercial' in the sense that I think you mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
A 'strong' form of opposition comes from those who argue that once a communication leaves an author's mouth or pen, it no longer lies in that author's domain or ownership; it passes over into the domain of the hearer or reader (any hearer or reader, not just the original intended audience) and becomes fair game for each and every understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, it could be noted that the institution we call "slavery" in ancient Egypt or Rome has no exact counterpart in any English-speaking slaveholding or slave trading culture. Your semantic argument would seem to hold that we shouldn't say Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians, or any of the other ancient cultures we typically regard as having "slaves" actually employed slavery at all but rather should be described using another, still English, term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Compare with serfdom, another form of involuntary servitude. Technically a serf is not "owned"; the serf's master simply owns the right to the serf's labor. There are upsides (the serf can marry at will and doesn't have to worry about his family being sold off) and downsides (the serf is responsible for his own food and shelter).

---

quote:

---

That was reserved for fellow Israelites serving a fixed term of indenture ). Well, male Israelites anyway. No Year of Jubilee if you're a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Likewise most people would get that the term "slave" covers a type of involuntary servitude where the enslaved is owned outright as property, and that the exact specifics such a situation entails may vary depending on time and place.

<snip>

Compare with serfdom, another form of involuntary servitude. Technically a serf is not "owned"; the serf's master simply owns the right to the serf's labor. There are upsides (the serf can marry at will and doesn't have to worry about his family being sold off) and downsides (the serf is responsible for his own food and shelter).

---

So, even though a slave is a slave is a slave, if a slave doesn't have to worry about their family being sold off then they're a serf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I argued earlier, the various Biblical laws concerning marriage of slaves imply that as long as the man remains a slave he has no need to worry about his family being sold off without him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, a slave is property while a serf is not. That's the key difference between the two different forms of involuntary servitude. A slave's family can be sold off because they are also property. A serf's cannot because neither he nor his family are property.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I argued earlier, the various Biblical laws concerning marriage of slaves imply that as long as the man remains a slave he has no need to worry about his family being sold off without him.

---

That only applies to the form of indenture the Israelites practiced on each other which, in theory at least, seems closer to serfdom than slavery. The outright slaves from foreign nations had no such protections, or at least none mentioned in scripture (coupled with a lot of passages instructing Israelites not to treat their fellow Israelite bondservants the way they treated their slaves).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
This may be irrelevant.

I've been looking up various (English) translations of Philemon verse 19 (AV/KJV has: "Not now as a servant, but above a servant,").

"Servant" is used from Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Douay-Rheims, through to RSV;

"Slave is used in many (but by no means all) later translations, including Moffatt, Phillips, Knox, New and Revised English Bible.

I find the change, if not actually significant, worth explaining.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sounds like slavery to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
So, why "servant" in the 16th Century and "slave" in the 20th? The English word "slave" did exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
So, why "servant" in the 16th Century and "slave" in the 20th? The English word "slave" did exist.

---

For the same reason people here are trying to interpret away slavery in the bible now.
It is at odds with they way they wish to view the bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
... it confuses precisely no one when Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II are referred to as "Queens", despite the fact that the former was an absolute* monarch and the latter a constitutional one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
I've been looking up various (English) translations of Philemon verse 19 (AV/KJV has: "Not now as a servant, but above a servant,").

"Servant" is used from Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Douay-Rheims, through to RSV;

"Slave is used in many (but by no means all) later translations, including Moffatt, Phillips, Knox, New and Revised English Bible.

I find the change, if not actually significant, worth explaining.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are convinced because you wish to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Were this a court case the preponderance of evidence would support the case that those verses are about slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is in Deuteronomy as well as Leviticus. Why are you trying to limit it to one verse? Are you going to try to interpretive dance that verse away as well?
Regardless of the creative interpretation or supposed use of one word, it does not explain away the plain description of the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, a slave is property while a serf is not. That's the key difference between the two different forms of involuntary servitude. A slave's family can be sold off because they are also property. A serf's cannot because neither he nor his family are property.

---

It would be clearer to say that a serf is not property because he cannot be sold off without his family. This avoids the implication that 'property' is some natural category whose instantiation is invariant across cultures and legal systems.

(Incidentally, the plot of Gogol's Dead Souls depends upon the idea that serfs in Russia could be bought and sold. I assume they couldn't be separated from their families.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem here is that it requires two distinct institutions, one applying to Israelites and one to foreigners, that are nevertheless referred to by the same word. That makes passages where the difference isn't explicitly stated ambiguous. For example, the Exodus 21:7-11 passage doesn't tell us whether it refers to Israelites or to resident aliens. If there are two distinct institutions then one would expect it to specify whether it applies to bondswomen or to slaves or both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
... it confuses precisely no one when Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II are referred to as "Queens", despite the fact that the former was an absolute monarch and the latter a constitutional one.

---

People do not confuse the term “Queen” in those two contexts precisely because you have qualified the term (one Queen the 'first', the other the second; one constitutional, one not). You had to do that or the term would not have been understood, or would have remained at a vague high level: a female ruler, but which one? Which type? Good, bad; autocratic or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I made the same point about the way the Hebrew authors used the term ebed and its cognates. If it meant anything other than a rather neutral term 'work' or 'stewardship', then it required qualification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Essentially this is about definition. When a typical modern reader reads the English word 'slave', he or she is likely to pull on the understanding gained in history lessons at school and to do so unconsciously. He or she remembers being told about the slave trade (a UK angle), or the N. American experience. What then happens is the equation: “Ah! 'Slave' = forcible removal against my will from my community, shackles, de-humanising treatment, placement in an entirely different and hostile community, hard work in difficult conditions until I die...”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I appreciate the fact that you are trying to draw parallels between modern justifications for slavery and the environment of the ancient near east . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I would agree with you that the Texan experience would not truly reflect a beneficial outcome for those enslaved. As a text, the Declaration probably acts as a veneer, papering over the cracks and hiding the true nature of the experience. However, to superimpose that context without qualification on the experience of avadim (however translated) in the OT is to miss an important factor, one I referred to already, that to ignore the plight of a debtor in Iron Age Israel (and across the near east) is to condemn him to death.

---

Right, the Texas Declaration of the Causes of Secession was written by self-interested slaveholders to "paper[] over the cracks and hid[e] the true nature of" slavery, while the Pentateuch was . . . written by self-interested slaveholders and is therefore a certainly reliable account of how benevolent such a system was!

If you're going to parse "authorial intent", how does "justifying an existing status quo that gives the author sufficient leisure time to be an author" factor in?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Taking that person in under the 'Father's House' arrangement is a difference of quality compared to “forcible removal against my will from my community...”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Can I also check now that we only have Leviticus 25:44 left as an argument that the Bible supports slavery in modern terms? Is it conceded that the other texts do not support it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
There doesn't seem to be anything in the term "king" or "queen" to differentiate the two without additional context or historical knowledge, yet that doesn't seem to stop people from using the term... People can and do accept that the same word can mean different things in different contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're going to parse "authorial intent", how does "justifying an existing status quo that gives the author sufficient leisure time to be an author" factor in?

---

quote:

---

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

---

quote:

---

“You may have the Sabbath produce of the land to eat—you, your male servant, your female servant, your hired worker, the resident foreigner who stays with you.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, a slave is property while a serf is not. That's the key difference between the two different forms of involuntary servitude. A slave's family can be sold off because they are also property. A serf's cannot because neither he nor his family are property.

---

It would be clearer to say that a serf is not property because he cannot be sold off without his family. This avoids the implication that 'property' is some natural category whose instantiation is invariant across cultures and legal systems.

---

Nope, a slave is bodily the property of his or her owner. A serf owns his or her body but owes that body's labor to a master. That's the definitional distinction between the terms.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem here is that it requires two distinct institutions, one applying to Israelites and one to foreigners, that are nevertheless referred to by the same word. That makes passages where the difference isn't explicitly stated ambiguous. For example, the Exodus 21:7-11 passage doesn't tell us whether it refers to Israelites or to resident aliens. If there are two distinct institutions then one would expect it to specify whether it applies to bondswomen or to slaves or both.

---

Which it actually does. It follows a section (Exodus 21:1-6) that explicitly states that it's discussing "Hebrew servants", and even refers back to that section ("she is not to go free as male servants do" [NIV], where the only male servants who are "free to go" are Israelite ones).

---

quote:

---

People can and do accept that the same word can mean different things in different contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The point to note is that the material in chapter 25 – all of it – is governed by the topic header and also by chapter 19. For chapter 25, this is about the Sabbath principle, and how that is to be applied in certain situations, particularly in regard to redemption (for both land and people). The idea of redemption flows from the fact that although Israel 'possesses' the land, they do so on a stewardship basis; ultimately the land is owned by God (vv. 23f, “The land must not be sold without reclaim because the land belongs to me, for you are foreigners and residents with me. In all your landed property you must provide for the right of redemption of the land”).

Verse 44 has to be considered in that light, it can't be left hanging in mid-air on its lonesome. With verse 45, it has a link back to verse 6, where the land's Sabbath produce is food for all. A similar list of recipients occurs in verse 6 as occurs in vv. 44ff, here taken from NET again:

quote:

---

“You may have the Sabbath produce of the land to eat—you, your male servant, your female servant, your hired worker, the resident foreigner who stays with you.”

---

Some other English versions use the same terminology. There is an inconsistency in translation. “(Male) servant” is the noun eved, the same noun that in v.44 is handed out as “(male) slave”.

<snip>

Issue: So that covers the Israelite debtor, but does this mean Israelites must only secure the in-house work of fellow-Israelites who are in debt?
Judgement: No, Israelites are permitted to acquire in-house workers from the nations round about.

That was vv.44-45. There is no explanation of how the foreign workers are acquired and the only background we can therefore apply is that from the context of the section in chapter 25. Because debtors are to be treated on a par with day workers and protected aliens, they are not to be treated cruelly (vv. 40-43). That principle applies to the foreign workers of v.44, because they are connected to the protected aliens in v.45 and back to vv. 40-43.

---

• Perpetual involuntary servitude
• Legal status as property
• As Eliab notes, rules codified elsewhere about how severely you're allowed to beat your ebed

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
That is, I think, more than enough to show Nigel M's use of language like "Father", "protector" and "benefactor" as the disingenuous nonsense that it is. Contracts for mutual benefit do not generally require provision to be made about how far one party can go in beating the other to death. What is being regulated (and condoned) here is, in ordinary English, quite obviously slavery.

---

quote:

---

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

---

quote:

---

With regard to your male and female workers who are your responsibility, you are permitted to acquire such workers from the nations around you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
If we hang Lev. 25:44 up all on its lonesome in the terms of many English Versions, we get:

quote:

---

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

---

Now how does the idea that we are talking about people who have been bought, taken against their will and held against their will in perpetuity come out of that, if not for the fact that translators have chosen to use the words 'buy' and 'slave' in that verse? The plain meaning is dependent on those words.

If, however, we translate the same verse along these lines:

quote:

---

With regard to your male and female workers who are your responsibility, you are permitted to acquire such workers from the nations around you.

---

What is the plain meaning now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Crœsos, actually the clause permitting “perpetual ownership” applies to the alien groups (v.45) only. Verse 44 is silent on the application to the eved from the nations round about Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Back to the translation point – the other factor in play. The inconsistency in translation appears again in v.55. It seems that translators baulk at the idea of translating eved as 'slave' when it comes to Israelites – preferring the term 'servant' – even when in the same section they go for 'slave' for anyone else. The same inconsistency applies to the Greek word doulos in the NT. Verse 42 was the closest example – “For they [Israel] are my servants (eved in plural form), whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves (ebed again). I could understand if we were talking about different contexts, as with Pharaohs officials, where “official” suits the context in translation better than “slave”, but in the same verse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
P.P.S. I think, actually, that although the passages we have looked at in more detail do not support 'slavery' as a concept, a stronger argument lies with the war booty passages, such as the one in Deuteronomy. Hopefully we can get around to that soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I think, Eliab, that you will have to provide evidence to counter the point that the biblical writings are written by human authors in a particular culture and time, and that therefore the reader needs to understand the historical context underlying the text in order to understand it.

---

quote:

---

I expect that punishment beatings were just as common then in Israel as they were elsewhere across the ancient near east

---

quote:

---

but beatings are not an indicator of slavery.

---

quote:

---

When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves, but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. (Deuteronomy 25:1-3)

---

quote:

---

If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing obvious at all about it at all.

---

quote:

---

The term “Father” was a common term across the ANE above and beyond mere biological relationships. It was used in concert with “Son” to define a covenant relationship between a senior member of that relationship and a junior. [...] It is therefore entirely appropriate to use when talking about the relationship between an in-house worker and the one overseeing the extended family in the 'house'.

---

quote:

---

To argue that we should take the biblical texts out of that covenant worldview context and read them as though the context did not apply is somewhat illogical.

---

quote:

---

I struggle to see how you can justify it, though I see you try on the basis that “ordinary English” is enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
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.

---

I agree that someone might legitimately define "slavery" in a particular way for some academic, technical or rhetorical purpose, but you appear (unless I'm misunderstanding you) to be making the "Can the putative slave's marriage be overruled?" question definitive in a way that does not reflect the ordinary, non-academic, use of the English word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
...It's no part of my argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
We look at the context first. We have a class of people who can be bought and sold, forced to work for another for life (exceptions made on ethnic grounds) without pay, and subject to harsh physical punishment, at least to the point where their life is endangered, at will and without due process.

---

quote:

---

Crœsos, actually the clause permitting “perpetual ownership” applies to the alien groups (v.45) only. Verse 44 is silent on the application to the eved from the nations round about Israel. This is, I think, probably because the alien was a stateless sojourner whereas the foreign national had citizenship elsewhere. The latter had a place to go to if released, the former didn't. The Sabbath rule had an application to the alien (and foreign worker) in that they partook of the Sabbath food, but by definition aliens did not have land to go back to after 6 years; they were devoid of that responsibility. To send them out would be to condemn them to a position where they no longer had any protection – no food, no produce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I am also not convinced that the conditions of Israelite servitude are different than those the Israelites inflicted on others to a degree where the latter is considered "slavery". The condition of an Israelite in need does seem to be decently controlled. But, such an Israelite is also compared favourably to the aliens, who are also decently controlled in law. This does imply that the lot of an alien is not bad. They are protected, yet they too are avadim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
This is why I have challenged the reading of Lev. 25:44. It seems to me that the only reason it was produced in evidence as a support for slavery was the inclusion of the word 'slave' in the English translations of that verse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
It's this kind of loose mendacity in pursuit of an ideologically preferred outcome that I can't take seriously as an argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If the Hebrews are so concerned about foreigners, why the parable of the Good Samaritan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
No they weren't. Or at least the verse instructing Israelites to treat indentured fellow Israelites as if they were hired workers (sakiyr) or temporary residents (towshab) refers to neither of these as ebed or any of its cognates. Given its use elsewhere it was possible to be towshab without also being ebed and it seems almost certain from context that the towshab in Lev. 25:40 were not ebed. Since the rules that towshab could be made ebed are given later (Lev. 25:45-46) both common sense literary construction (if something is going to be relevant to a text, mention it before it becomes relevant, not five verses later)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
We see an argument similarly flawed by ideology in your assertion that ebed from foreign lands are free to go in the Jubilee year while resident alien ebed are perpetual slaves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If the Hebrews are so concerned about foreigners, why the parable of the Good Samaritan?

---

I can't believe that you would condone letting aliens go out into the unknown where they had no land and no means of support. Sounds rather harsh to let them die like that. And just in case I wasn't clear, there is a distinction in the biblical texts between 'alien' (temporary resident, sojourner) and foreigner.

That rather sudden leap across testaments and genres to the Good Samaritan parable could make readers rather giddy. I don't know where to start on that one.

---

I had thought your posts merely misguided, but that is ridiculous. If cannot honestly understand why this post is completely not defendable, there may be no point in reasoning with you.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I had thought your posts merely misguided, but that is ridiculous. If cannot honestly understand why this post is completely not defendable, there may be no point in reasoning with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The motivation for this being that Israel had been an alien in Egypt. This commonality makes it very hard to believe that an Israelite could be an ebed while the alien could not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Have a read again and see if you find where I say the Jubilee Law applied to foreigners. The overall text (even going wider than Lev. 25) makes a provision of commonality in respect of the native Israelite and the alien, but the scope of v.44 – mentioning foreigners – is too thin by way of background to say what was applicable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
It doesn't look as though we are going to agree about the forced servitude aspect, having batted it about for a bit now. I see the text as saying that if an Israelite was to acquire an alien as a worker (the use of the imperfect mode of the verb implies something not guaranteed), then the Israelite must do so in the knowledge that he has a lasting obligation to look after that alien (switch to the perfect mode) and to do so lastingly.

---

quote:

---

Crœsos: I never claimed that a resident alien (towshab) couldn't be ebed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I had thought your posts merely misguided, but that is ridiculous. If cannot honestly understand why this post is completely not defendable, there may be no point in reasoning with you.

---

Enlighten us all, lilBuddha; I'm sure we are all agog to see what the parable has to do with Lev. 25.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why do you insist on limiting the conversation to one section?
I'm talking about the numerous texts which refer to slavery.
How does the Good Samaritan figure in? If the the concept of treating foreigners well was so ingrained this early on, why would there be need for such a parable by the time of Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I never claimed that a resident alien (towshab) couldn't be ebed, just that those two terms aren't equivalent and that pairing towshab with sakiyr (hired laborer), who was also not ebed, indicates that towshab should be read generally in Lev. 25:40 rather than, as you're arguing, as a towshab who is also ebed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So I once again ask the question you've been avoiding for most of this discussion: why doesn't a system of lifelong involuntary servitude and classification as "property" count as slavery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

We are dealing with specific texts because if we don't, readers will be condemned to make sweeping statements based on presuppositions that have been untested. Theological fundamentalists are often accused of doing that, but theological liberals are not immune either. You are making quite a lot of sweeping statements; they do need to be tested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

We are dealing with Lev. 25:44 mainly because that text was produced to be studied, but also partly because in your post on the other thread (linked to from the OP here) you specifically asked: “Also, please explain Leviticus 25:44.” Even on this thread you responded to Lamb Chopped with: “I would like to see the references and context.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

A Samaritan doesn't seem to fit into the categories defined in Lev.25, at least from the point of view of the audience of the parable at the time. He wasn't viewed as a foreigner as such, nor was he an alien (he had his own land). He wasn't really an Israelite, either; he was something worse – a heretic.

So I have to press you again: What does the parable have to do with Lev. 25?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
You rather left yourself open to it by failing to notice how I have been using the context of the time and language use in support of my arguments!

---

quote:

---

On beatings, there is no indication that a beating was limited to slavery. [...] You really can't conclude from the fact that there where there were beatings, there must be slavery. Other factors will have to be used.

---

quote:

---

You can check if you like, but I am pretty sure I haven't used the term “benefactor” in my arguments.

---

quote:

---

This plays out on a larger scale and, as I have pointed out, seems to be reflected in the choices translators have made. Why should the term 'slave' be fine when the biblical context, both OT and NT, refers to non-believers (Israelites, Christians), but not fine when referring to the status of believers in relation to their God? Why should Paul be a 'servant' of God, and not a 'slave? The reason seems to me to be that we read see slavery as brutal, so we tone down the conversation and talk about 'servant-hood' instead. [...] I'd be happy to adopt the language of slavery if translators were consistent on this point, but it really does seem as though readers are not able to imagine a situation where 'slave' terminology can be anything but negative. I agree with them, and hence this thread.

---

Point taken. As I'm not a Biblical translator, I don't feel under any great obligation to defend their choices, but I have to say that this one doesn't seem obviously wrong. This is why:

If you're translating a text which describes or prescribes actual events and actions, then I think it's legitimate to choose the words that most closely convey what's going on. While it may be the case that our attitudes to the facts described could be very different to the original readers, I don't think we have to (or should) change the description of events so that our response to the (altered) text matches the presumed response to the original.

For example, as someone born in C20 England, shipwreck stories are for me associated with historical romances and adventure tales. They aren't scary. They don't portray a real danger I've ever been exposed to. So I'm not naturally going to read Acts 27 with the same eyes as someone for whom a sea journey was the default means of long distance travel, and carried a non-trivial risk of drowning. You could paraphrase Acts 27 to refer to road traffic accident or air-liner crash, and probably get an immediate emotional response from me that's closer to the author's intent, but at the cost of falsifying something. St Paul really did travel by sea, not by motorway. So we should say so.

On the other hand, if you're translating a metaphor, there's no 'real event' to be misdescribed. The language has been chosen specifically for its (then current) connotations. I think it is at least an arguable position that if attitudes have changed so significantly that the metaphor is positively misleading on a literal translation, a substitute metaphor which will provoke something closer to the original response can be the more faithful translation. There's an even stronger argument where the original words covers a range of meaning, for example, if "whatever-St-Paul-said-he-was" in Greek is a word that covers both what we would call a servant and what we could call a slave, then, in the absence of an English word with exactly that range, the translator has to make a choice. I don't think there's anything obviously wrong with choosing the one that's closest to what we think St Paul was trying to say.

For what it's worth, though, my personal preference would be that if Bible writers used slavery as a metaphor for our relationship to God, I'd rather have the translation reflect that, and read it in the light of my knowledge that slavery wasn't, to them, as outrageously evil as it appears to me. I'm all for moral equivalents being explored in sermons (haven't we all heard the Good Samaritan re-interpreted as a Good refugee/Muslim/skinhead/Tory by preachers trying to convey what they think the story meant?) but in the translation itself, I'd like to know what the original metaphor was and think it through myself.

You're going several steps beyond the arguably-legitimate re-phrasing of metaphors. You want the actual institution of owning people in the Bible to be called something else than 'slavery', because the culture at the time didn't see slavery as the evil thing we now believe it to be. But the institution that the text describes is something that I would call slavery. That the slave-owner, his neighbours, and possibly even (though we will never know) some of the slaves themselves saw him as a Father-figure doesn't change that fact that what he was actually doing is something that I think is evil. I know that my reaction is a modern one. I know that the word translated "slave" wouldn't instantly have proclaimed "unjustly oppressed!" to the original readers in the way that it does to me. However changing the word falsifies the text. The word "slave" isn't all connotation - it also means something factual, and the Biblical institution for the ownership of people is solidly within that class of facts. Refusing to use the best English word for the facts, on the grounds that our attitudes to those facts have shifted, would be a misrepresentation of what the text basically means, in the interests of engineering a supposedly similar moral and emotional reaction. No.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Eliab: excellent post.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Eliab,

Your post does indeed run along the same lines I was attempting.*
With the exception of this bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

- I don't think it is entirely self-serving. I'm open to the idea that the way saw slavery affected the ways in which they regulated it. The fact that (on one reading of the text) Hebrew slaves had to be released after a term, and foreigners didn't, probably does owe a lot to the idea that the Hebrew was a co-heir of the covenant, and the foreigner wasn't. And that did soften the institution of slavery, against the interests of the owners, at least as far as Hebrews were concerned.)

---

Enlightened self-interest is the best I can manage to apply to their motives. This is a feature of most culture's slavery codes that I've read. It simply makes practical sense to have a greater reprieve and better treatment of one's own.


*Though I am hesitant to admit this, given Leaf's approbation of your text whilst no mention of my similar efforts. She hates my style. Or me.
Or worse, ignored my posts.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
However changing the word falsifies the text. The word "slave" isn't all connotation - it also means something factual, and the Biblical institution for the ownership of people is solidly within that class of facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though I am hesitant to admit this, given Leaf's approbation of your text whilst no mention of my similar efforts. She hates my style. Or me.
Or worse, ignored my posts.

---

Oh honey, don't be jelly. Your posts were good too.
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The other sensu stricto (narrow sense) refers to instances where the employee is property: that is, the employee is entirely at the disposal of the employer, to be bought and sold, or killed or injured, at the employer's sole discretion. In this sense slavery can be distinguished from serfdom and other forms of bonded labour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I really struggle with that Advent hymn which says "of old did give the law, in fear and majesty and awe", because I just can't believe the OT Law comes from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not understanding the logic here: even if the ancient Hebrews did not have a system of trading of other people, they still clearly had a system of ownership of other people - from which they (let's call them "slave") could not resign.

There doesn't have to be a form of trading for it to be slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] The other sensu stricto (narrow sense) refers to instances where the employee is property/qb]

---

I think your sensu stricto is too narrow. The state or greater community quite frequently put limits on what a slave owner could do (for instance many southern states eventually didn't allow slave owners to emancipate their slaves within the state or to teach them to read or write).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I think your sensu stricto is too narrow. The state or greater community quite frequently put limits on what a slave owner could do (for instance many southern states eventually didn't allow slave owners to emancipate their slaves within the state or to teach them to read or write).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm arguing that the Biblical institution isn't slavery only in the sense in which arguing whether it is or isn't serfdom is a sensible argument. In the sense in which you might refer to nineteenth century marriage as slavery, I'm not going to disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It doesn't have to be slavery to be unethical. Nor indeed does it have to be slavery to be a form of ownership from which other people cannot resign.

---

quote:

---

In the late eighteenth centuries and early nineteenth centuries women were unable to resign from marriage, and unable to own property in their own right. Technically speaking, they weren't owned as slaves, and one of the reasons it would be wrong to say that they were owned as slaves is that their husbands couldn't sell them, except in Thomas Hardy novels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

[QB] [QUOTE]In the late eighteenth centuries and early nineteenth centuries women were unable to resign from marriage, and unable to own property in their own right. Technically speaking, they weren't owned as slaves, and one of the reasons it would be wrong to say that they were owned as slaves is that their husbands couldn't sell them, except in Thomas Hardy novels.

---

a) not the same and b) irrelevant to the topic of biblical slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
a) Not exactly the same to be sure. Are you really saying that eighteenth century marriage couldn't be described in such a way that, if you didn't know what the person was talking about, you'd say that looks a bit like slavery?

---

quote:

---

b) It's relevant to whether there are things that could be loosely described as ownership, from which one party cannot resign, that aren't slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Are you really saying that eighteenth century marriage couldn't be described in such a way that, if you didn't know what the person was talking about, you'd say that looks a bit like slavery?

---

I think eighteenth century marriage is different in a number of ways. First, it is true that women were often held in something that looked like slavery but that was not the nature of the relationship. Loving mutual married relationships existed and - shock, horror - people breaking up from each other also happened. I'm not even sure that a woman who ran away from her abusive husband would have necessarily been brought back to him as his chattel.

---

quote:

---

The essential quality of being a slave is that of being owned and controlled by someone else who then can compel you to work to his will. I don't accept that this is an essential quality of the English notion of marriage in the 17 century.

---

quote:

---

And although the ancient Hebrews clearly had a different understanding of marriage from 17 century England, it seems fairly clear to me that they recognised a difference between being a wife and being a slave. Hence the difference in status of Hagar and Sarah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
At one end of the scale is (A) absolute, unqualified ownership of people. We all agree that that's slavery.

Then there are (B) institutions for ownership recognised by law that are similar, but regulated in ways that do not change its essential character. I'd call that slavery as well, in a literal sense, and not merely by analogy to (A).

Next there's (C) a broad continuum of arrangements like serfdom, including the heavily regulated ownership of people, and the extensive control of people not recognised as ownership. I think I'd agree with you that at least the 'maximum six years' Biblical servitude is somewhere on this spectrum - it's ownership, but a restricted from of ownership. I'd still call it slavery, though. I think the features which it has in common with (A) and (B) justify that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, to me an important question would be: do modern Afro-Americans, Afro-Brazilians etc. see a connection at this level between the modern word 'slave' and what they're reading in the Bible? Without wanting to speak for them, I do think that the answer to this would be a rather clear "yes". There is a reason why Bob Marley called his most important album Exodus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:


The Biblical set-up allows for slaves who want to remain slaves once their time is up to tell the priest that they love their master and would like to have their ear nailed to the doorpost. And probably some slaves had sexual relationships with their masters and they fell in love with each other. I wouldn't conclude from that the 'nature of the relationship' wasn't brutal.

---

quote:

---

The wife promises to obey the husband at the wedding ceremony. The husband is allowed to enforce that with violence if he chooses.
I'm not saying that C17th marriage was slavery. Indeed, my point is that although it had slavery-like features it wasn't slavery. But someone could describe it in such a way that it sounds plausibly like slavery.

---

quote:

---

Concrete relationships don't have essential features or not. They just have features. Only definitions have essential features. From the fact that being owned by your husband isn't an essential feature of the definition of marriage it doesn't follow that being owned by your husband is not a concrete feature of marriage in any given society.

---

quote:

---

Talking about essential features of relationships seems to me to imply that there's a gulf between slavery and everything that's not slavery.

---

quote:

---

Whereas I think there's a continuum. There are a lot of ways in which someone could be said loosely to own somebody. Slavery is where ownership extends to the owned person's other relationships.

---

quote:

---

If the master has the power to separate the slave from spouse or children then it's slavery. And the Biblical masters, however brutal the relationship, did not have that power.

---

quote:

---

Exodus 21:7-11 seems to me to blur the lines in that it implies that being sold as a slave is equivalent to being sold as a wife in the case of a woman. And so do phenomena like second marriages, concubinage, and so on imply that the lines are a bit more fuzzy than you're making out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Biblical set-up allows for slaves who want to remain slaves once their time is up to tell the priest that they love their master and would like to have their ear nailed to the doorpost. And probably some slaves had sexual relationships with their masters and they fell in love with each other. I wouldn't conclude from that the 'nature of the relationship' wasn't brutal.

---

This is the weakest argument I've ever heard - which seems to be the basis of this thread; namely that Hebrew practices of slavery should not be called slavery because it wasn't actually that bad. Look, the text says that some slaves loved their masters!

Well woopie do.

---

quote:

---

Loving mutual married relationships existed

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't conclude from that the 'nature of the relationship' wasn't brutal.

---

---

quote:

---

There was no obligation to treat a wife like a slave in 17 century England - and unlike 21 century England, people were directly acquainted with what slavery really was. To equate the two is bollocks.

Life for women in 17 century England was brutal at times. But it was not even slightly similar to the conditions experienced by slaves locked into the transatlantic slave trade system.

---

quote:

---

But suggesting that the edges were so fuzzy as to merge the boundaries between what slavery was and what another form of free relationship

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The thing is, in v.40 the text runs: “As a hired worker (= sakir), as an alien (= toshav) that may be with you, until the year of Jubilee he may work with you.”

That phrase “with you” doesn't refer to the non-Israelites generally across the land. It refers to that class that had come into service in a house. It is asking the Israelites to take a fellow citizen into service (with you) in the same way that an alien or hired worker is in service (also with you).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Taking that “with you” phrase there and also in the context of the whole mini-section helpfully delimited linguistically by the particle ki + verb means we can't really hive off the understanding that this judgement is dealing with Israelites as workers from aliens as workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Lifelong servitude was aimed to be a protection and those taking aliens into their household were being warned that once in, always in; the Father could not wantonly abandon his responsibilities to the destitute alien. The covenant worldview drives this here, too.

I see little that is involuntary about this arrangement. I'm sure that for the typical destitute alien Plan A would not have been to become dependent on another. Ideally he would have done fine on his own account in Israel. Plan C, though, is to die. Faced with that option, Plan B is a better alternative and who is to say that he would not voluntarily have chosen that as the option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Being owned as property can apply, I agree. Clearly the noun achuzzah used in the Hebrew scriptures applies to non-material entities (land, burial sites, house, towns / cities, the entire earth, and so on).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
In Lev 25:45-46 the same term is applied to the alien.

The question I could only point to so far in passing, though, is what is meant by the term in question (the achuzzah noun). This is used about 66 times in the OT, predominately referring to the land that had been promised to the patriarchs. This was given as a place of security to be owned in the sense of stewarded, because the land ultimately belonged to God. There is a difference of quality between this understanding and that of an unlimited, total, ownership. I counted no fewer than 25 instances of the noun in Lev. 25, a chapter that is keen to protect this understanding of land as property on behalf of God. Use of it is regulated by the Sabbath principle and the land ultimately belongs to God (25:23 - “...the land is mine...”).

Now another understanding of owned property could be in sight in respect of the alien in chapter 25. I would suggest, though, given the flow and context of the regulations in that chapter, and the concern for the alien, that the more likely interpretation is one that accords with the understanding of land as given above. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm not sure that a Biblical slave who ran away from his or her master would necessarily have been brought back. Deuteronomy 23:15.

The Biblical set-up allows for slaves who want to remain slaves once their time is up to tell the priest that they love their master and would like to have their ear nailed to the doorpost. And probably some slaves had sexual relationships with their masters and they fell in love with each other. I wouldn't conclude from that the 'nature of the relationship' wasn't brutal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Much is being made of the concept of ownership and an equation is being drawn: Ownership of people = slavery. So let's look at that idea.

---

quote:

---

Sense therefore has to be made of why an Israelite might under certain circumstances take into his house someone from the resident alien community, but once so taken he could not release that person. Why that restriction? It removes any freedom the Israelite would have had to let the alien go at any time. The ruling is restrictive, not permissive.

---

quote:

---

I made the point before that beatings were not specific to slavery and could not be taken as an indicator of it.

---

quote:

---

Worldview determines the underlying conditions appropriate to the production of a text. […] The social and linguistic environment is informed – whether consciously or not – by the worldviews of the authors. The identification of the worldview that provided the key framework within which people lived, moved, and had their being, is a major move in securing valid interpretations. […] An interpreter should try to put him- or herself into the shoes of the author and the first audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
...to summarize, Hebrew has a way to distinguish between resident aliens (towshab) and resident aliens connected with the household (towshab guwr), and despite the fact that the author of Leviticus 25 makes this distinction elsewhere, he deliberately does not do so in verse 40. From this it seems fairly certain the verse is instructing its reader to treat his indentured Israelite like a paid worker or resident alien generally, not resident alien that has been specifically attached to his household.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
While there may have been cases where some ‘slaves’ didn’t want freedom (though how often that happened, and how genuine it was, we cannot know), the assumption is that most ‘slaves’ didn’t want to be ‘slaves’. That’s not the case for the other forms of ‘ownership’ you cite, and it’s significant.

---

quote:

---

It's another example, it seems to me, of the issue at stake: we see the word 'slave' there in the English versions and we make an assumption about the behaviour and conditions surrounding it. When, however, we remove the word 'slave' and insert something more neutral, we are more able to see the text in context, taking it on its own merits and seeing how the author uses the words he used in the way he used them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Nigel M: [QUOTE]What neutral word?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
...any word would have misleading connotations if we didn't know the background. We have to do the work to understand it on its own terms. I'd no more abandon the term "marriage" just because the institution today is so different from that in the Bible. I'd just try to understand marriage in Biblical times, and tell myself firmly that things were different back then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It seems to me that the OT Israelites had a pretty modern understanding of slavery, (ie it is always bad, unjust, oppressive, dehumanising) when they, as a nation, were enslaved , ie, in the Egyptian captivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Nigel M: [QUOTE]What neutral word?

---

I've been suggesting the word 'worker' as a more neutral stand-in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The terminology doesn't really make a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Just because v.40 does not complement the term toshav with ger (or variations thereof), it does not follow that the status of the alien in view there is different to those in previous verses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
These Levitical texts do not distinguish between indentured Israelite servants and everyone else in the sense that the “everyone else” must have been outright slaves; that's a misreading of the texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
If anything, therefore, the text demonstrates that the class of people translated as 'slaves' did not, in fact, run away as a norm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's another example, it seems to me, of the issue at stake: we see the word 'slave' there in the English versions and we make an assumption about the behaviour and conditions surrounding it. When, however, we remove the word 'slave' and insert something more neutral, we are more able to see the text in context, taking it on its own merits and seeing how the author uses the words he used in the way he used them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I've been suggesting the word 'worker' as a more neutral stand-in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
"Worker", to my modern mind, indicates freely bartered service. This would just trade one misconception for another. The fact remains that these "workers" could not leave their employment at will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your whole argument is based on the idea that terminology makes a difference...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The same is true for Roman slavery. Translating Paul as writing "there is . . . neither [worker] nor free" would seem to erase the meaning he was trying to communicate rather than clarify it. Yet since Roman slavery was different than slavery practiced in any English-speaking slave-holding culture, your supposed standard would prevent us from using the term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Labourer? Or does that sound too left-wing?

---

quote:

---

Matt. 9:37-38 (The Red Star Version)
Then Jesus said unto his disciples, “Behold! The harvest is plentiful. I just can't get enough Socialists to pick it.”

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0