Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing.
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it’s still a valid translation, the word for “slavery” in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn’t really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE
[44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Yes, that’s Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people’s hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
The Gospels would be huge if they recorded literally everything Jesus said - the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough.
Society was okay with slavery at the time. It didn’t really have much to do with Christianity - slavery was happening and arguably started in pagan society, the nobles got converted, but the peasantry generally didn’t. Slavery basically was just an unquestioned fact of life.
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it - while the devout ones were against it for a while, it didn’t really garner traction until the 1700s when people were learning to read and the reformation had already taken effect.
the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it
Sure, but didn’t the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn’t take a clear position against slavery?
It’s interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it’s important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.
Ephesians 6:9
Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.
Sure, but didn’t the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn’t take a clear position against slavery?
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything. I’ve seen people try and use to to advocate in favour of homosexuality, to execute homosexuals, to advocate transphobia, to advocate abortion, a devil’s advocate argument was used regarding murdering infants as well, against the trinity, universalism, etc.
All of which fall apart if it’s read in it’s proper context and Catholic* interpretation.
I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
The books referred to by Protestants as the “Apocrypha” are still valuable documents, just not viewed as infallible.
Although, reading Sirach… You can go either way with it.
Sirach 33:25-33
Fodder and a stick and burdens for a donkey; bread and discipline and work for a slave. Set your slaves to work, and you will find rest; leave their hands idle, and they will seek liberty. Yoke and strap will bow the neck, and for wicked slaves there are racks and tortures. Put them to work in order that they may not be idle, for idleness teaches much evil. Set them to work as is fitting for them, and if they do not obey make their fetters heavy. Do not be overbearing toward anyone, and do nothing without deliberation. If you have but one slave, treat him like yourself, because you have bought him with blood. If you have but one slave, treat him like a brother, for you will need him as you need your life. If you ill-treat him and he leaves you and runs away, which way will you go to seek him?
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was.
It was society, the way the Bible was written was just addressing slavery as an established fact. The abolitionists were driven by their Christian faith.
Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it’s important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.
*Please note, I am not using the word “Catholic” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to refer to the universal and historically grounded Christian church and denominations as opposed to spin-offs. So think more Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist and Presbyterianism as opposed to non-denominationals and most Baptists
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.
Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.
The bible is pretty clear that it isn’t murder to kill your own slave
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything.
Doesn’t that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don’t you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying “treat your slaves justly and fairly” if it said “the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” wouldn’t that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?
“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.
Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn’t through legally binding faith commitments.
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it’s still a valid translation, the word for “slavery” in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn’t really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
the bible talks about chattel slavery and allows it.
…and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
Or chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE [44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Yes, that’s Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people’s hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
The Gospels would be huge if they recorded literally everything Jesus said - the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough.
Society was okay with slavery at the time. It didn’t really have much to do with Christianity - slavery was happening and arguably started in pagan society, the nobles got converted, but the peasantry generally didn’t. Slavery basically was just an unquestioned fact of life.
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it - while the devout ones were against it for a while, it didn’t really garner traction until the 1700s when people were learning to read and the reformation had already taken effect.
Yes and the bible reflects that.
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
Sure, but didn’t the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn’t take a clear position against slavery?
It’s interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it’s important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
That’s my point.
No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)
Exodus 20:13
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything. I’ve seen people try and use to to advocate in favour of homosexuality, to execute homosexuals, to advocate transphobia, to advocate abortion, a devil’s advocate argument was used regarding murdering infants as well, against the trinity, universalism, etc.
All of which fall apart if it’s read in it’s proper context and Catholic* interpretation.
The books referred to by Protestants as the “Apocrypha” are still valuable documents, just not viewed as infallible.
Although, reading Sirach… You can go either way with it.
Sirach 33:25-33
It was society, the way the Bible was written was just addressing slavery as an established fact. The abolitionists were driven by their Christian faith.
“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.
*Please note, I am not using the word “Catholic” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to refer to the universal and historically grounded Christian church and denominations as opposed to spin-offs. So think more Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist and Presbyterianism as opposed to non-denominationals and most Baptists
Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.
The bible is pretty clear that it isn’t murder to kill your own slave
Doesn’t that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don’t you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying “treat your slaves justly and fairly” if it said “the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” wouldn’t that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?
Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn’t through legally binding faith commitments.