First, I was struck by the definition of slavery that was used: A condition in which An individual or rights to their labor is owned by another either temporarily or permanently; the owner controls and benefits from their actions and activities of the owned individual.
But this is overly broad - An employer today could be seen as “owning slaves” under this definition. Since when one clocks into work their employer “owns the rights to their labor” and “benefits from their actions or activities”, even though it's a temporary situation. And yes, one could say that the employee is benefiting as well [paycheck - healthcare] but so would an indentured servant in the OT [food, housing, paying off debt, taking from the flock, threshing floor, winepress upon leaving per DT 15:12-14
This definition allows him to equivocate and conflate two very different ideas. 1) a temporary, voluntary situation where one commits oneself to work to pay off a debt, and 2) permanent, involuntary labor for another. Perhaps this is because Bowen thinks that “Any type of slavery is atrocious” and that slavery is horrible in every circumstance - [quotes from the Q/A section about the 1:20 mark] But this seems to be an a-priori conclusion that drives his analysis. I say this because what is horrible and/or atrocious about indentured-servitude - i.e. paying off one’s debt?
Debt slavery wasn't very different from our concept of employment: working for someone else so you could pay off your debts. We call it employment; they called it bond-slavery or indebted-servanthood
Furthermore "Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom [Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.4:1190]
A better definition of chattel slavery would seem to be a situation that includes one who is 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor since this is in agreement with what most reference as chattel slivery - that of the antebellum South.
To further complicate things the same Hebrew word ebed is translated as servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals. This is a major problem for those who contend that the Bible condones chattel slavery since that concept is not in the word ebed. Critics seemingly just presume that any time they see the word "slavery" it must = chattel slavery. But there is no reason from the text or context that this is true
I also want to touch on the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K.. Exodus: (The New American Commentary) (KL:13449)
Secondly, Bowen sees himself as a “conduit of Biblical scholarship” and that “Everything I say is consensus biblical scholarship”, He wants “To be able to say to a non-specialist, ‘here is what they all say about this topic’” Conservative and liberal scholars “all agree on this topic“ [starting at the 1:14 mark]
Two problems. First, arguing by citing "consensus" isn’t scholarship, it’s an attempt to appeal to authority [he’s a scholar who insists that all scholars agree with him [so who would even think to disagree with that deck stacked against you?] - but scholarly consensus can be incorrect as the Geocentric model of the universe was the scholarly consensus until it was proven false.
Secondly, not all scholars agree with him - shocking as it sounds, it’s true.
Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]
Westbrook states :At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]
Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and households in the Near East
Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel Stewart Douglas, id]
I’m not citing these scholars to disprove Bowen’s view per se but just to demonstrate that not all scholars agree with him.
So the question of chattel slavey and the Bible must be addressed not by fallacies but by data
These are the passages where Bowen attempts to make his case:
Bowen contends that the male slave only has 2 options, remain a permanent slave or go free as a single man as the wife remains a permanent slave. But this is simply untrue,
1) He could negotiate a marriage payment for his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees:… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. [History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Raymond Westbrook],
2) We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each),
3) Some of the gifts the master was supposed to send him out with at his release could be used as marriage payment see Deut 15:12-14
Exodus 21:7-11 Bowen contends this condones sex slavery.
Since the Bible teaches monogamy, any sort of sex slavery is simply out of the question. Later in the video Bowen contends that the Bible is not a text that has “one voice”; it has many contradictory voices so the answer that this was a marriage arrangement is simply not considered even though in context it does speak of the woman’s “marital rights”. Vs 10
Exodus 21:20-21 - Bowen is upset by the beating of slave/servant but is seemingly unaware that this treatment was no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizens. Being punished by the legal system via rod-beating was common in the Bible Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Perhaps you do not agree with corporal punishment, but that is a different discussion.
Proverbs 29:19-21 I’m not sure why Bowen brought this up. If you’ve ever encountered someone who is undisciplined, lacking self-control or good behaviour then you know how true this passage is.
Bowen cites lex talionis - the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree. His complaint is that the owner should have his eye/tooth knocked out, not for the slave/servant to go free. But wouldn’t the slave/servant rather go free then the former? And is this consequence in addition to lex talionis, and not a replacement?
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Bowen seems to have concerns with slave/servant staying in this position
It is important to point out that When a Hebrew slave/servant goes free after their 6th year they do not go out empty handed - They are given liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. See verses 13-14. If the slave/servant desires to stay permanently he may; but why would any want to? Given the economic realities of the times being a servant may have been the better option then going it alone.
LK 17: 7-10 Bowen contends that this shows 1) the reality of slavery during Jesus’ time, 2) the appropriateness of drawing on that reality for the analogy, 3) the complete lack of condemnation of slavery.
But again, what is meant by slavery? Chattel slavery? No, Bowen has failed to make the case that "ebed" must mean chattel slavery. Indentured servanthood/employment? That fits the passage perfectly; indentured servanthood/employment was 1) a reality during Jesus’ time, and was thus 2) appropriate for the analogy. And Jesus would 3) have no reason to condemn servanthood/employment.
Lev 25: 44-46 - this is the “big one” as it supposedly 1) Allows chattel slaves from other nations/strangers, 2) who become property, 3) passed down to children, 4) for life
But let’s slow down a bit. Bowen has yet to [and in fact never does] say how/why he gets “chattel slave” from “ebed”. So the passage above can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes above, "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.
And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, but it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that this passage loses all of it bite
The verses that that critics ignore that will further show that Lev 25 cannot mean what they want it to - i.e. that foreigners were chattel slaves.
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.[Leviticus 19:33-34]
“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt*. [Exodus 23:9]
*Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them *
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]
This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT
“You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]
These four passages outlaw chattel slavery in the OT:
1) the Israelites were commanded to treat foreigners well; "shall not oppress", "you shall not do him wrong", "you shall love him as yourself".
2) You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will.
3) You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property.
4) If a person working for you wants to leave a slave/servant situation they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so.
Bowen dismisses DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 is just miscellaneous laws . Verses 1-8 is concerned with who is excluded from the assembly. Verse 9-14 it’s uncleanness in the camp. Verses 17-18 Cult prostitutes, 19-20 interest on loans, 21-23 vows to God, 24-25 conduct in your neighbor’s fields Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done!
TL;DR
Chattel slavery means 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor.
The Hebrew term ‘ebed [slave/servant] designates a range of social and economic roles. Thus no reason to conclude that a use of "ebed" must mean chattel slavery.
The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract.
Israelites had multiple ways out of slavery/servanthood
God definition of marriage precludes any sort of sex slavery.
Beatings were not a punishment reserved for slaves; it was a common punishment even for free persons.
The no kidnap, no buying or selling of people was punishable by death.
The Israelites were commanded not to oppress, but to love foreigners .
The non-return of run away slaves/servants applied to all.
No comments:
Post a Comment