Kidnapping, Slavery, Exodus 21:16. and Joshua Bowen

Joshua Bowen is a critic of Christianity and is most famous for his book Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?,  Spoiler alert: he concludes that it does. Note: The numbers in brackets are the page number in Bowen's book - Kindle edition.

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with Bowen's analysis.

Bowen definition of slavery:

A condition in which an individual or rights to their labor is owned by another, either temporarily or permanently. The owner controls and is legally allowed to derive benefits from the actions and activities of the owned individual [23]

This is a very liberal definition that casts too wide a net.

Example: Jordan love signed a four year $220 million contract with a $75 million signing bonus and $100 million guaranteed but since the Green Bay Packer owners will certainly reap some benefits from this, per Bowen's logic, Love - now a multi-millionaire - is a slave.

In fact, any contract worker would be a slave under Bowen's definition. And one could make the argument that even an hourly employee would be a slave, since the business owner has the rights to their labor and reaps benefits.

Remember, Bowen says, "...an individual or rights to their labor is owned by another..."

What employer doesn't derive benefits from their employees?  None. If a definition makes everyone a slave, then it's useless to ask "does the Old Testament endorse slavery". How can it not?  In Bowen's haste to accuse the Old Testament of slavery he condemns almost  every institution of it. If that's  the definition then how can one not be guilty of slavery? 

Bowen also writes this: Slavery may be involuntary, in which case the slave is generally considered the property of the owner and as such can be bought and sold.[97]

Bowen seems to be conflating involuntary chattel slavery with voluntary indentured servitude. The Bible endorses and condones the latter, but not the former. I reject the notion that to voluntarily say and then follow through on "I will do X work for Y payment" constitutes an evil, regardless if the employer/owners also benefits. If you disagree, please give your argument.

Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined 

Whoever kidnaps a person must be put to death whether he sells him where the person is found in his possession. Ex 21:16

Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]

So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] means this Ex 21 is about Hebrew slaves.  

Exodus 21:16 is not just about Hebrew slaves

The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16.  In fact, after being used in verse 2,  it's not used again in all of  Exodus 21.  

Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.

However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting  with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc 

So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses. 

Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever and "when a man".   And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave)

Thirdly, who is being addressed in verse 2? It says, "When you buy a Hebrew slave", who is the "you"? It seems that this law, and those following, apply are addressed to a "generic you" referring to people in general, rather than a specific person, or a particular group of people. 

Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 2, the fact they not only are they not used elsewhere, but different words were used. This strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in Exodus 21. 

Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc. only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population?

No, The best explanation is that verse 12 tacked off onto another topic.

Chapter and Verse

And please note that you cannot just look at the chapter and think that it covers one topic or issue as the chapter divisions and verses were not added until later.  Chapter divisions began in the 4th century and verses numbers we're not completed until the 14th century. 

Conclusion 

So given that Exodus 21:16 is in the middle of a bunch of "whoever" and "when a man" verses, it seems that Exodus 21:16 means anyone who kidnaps another and then sells or possesses is under a death penalty.

Bowen makes these four points concerning kidnapping and Exodus 21:16 (pg 127-132) 

My commentary follows

1 - Kidnapping is not necessary for slavery.

But it is necessary for involuntary servitude. The Bible does not condemn voluntary work. Indebted servitude was voluntary in the OT. 

2 - The meaning of Exodus 21:16 is not straightforward.

As shown above, Bowen's explanation concerning eved ivri makes little sense. It's more straightforward than Bowen would like to admit.

3 - This regulation existed in other ANE law.

How is this relevant to whether the OT endorsed involuntary slavery? It's not. 

4 - slavery is not restricted to involuntary servitude, though involuntary servitude was endorsed by the Bible.

I disagree, Involuntary labor is vastly different from voluntary labor. Bowen is trying to mash these two different concepts together to make his argument work.  As for Bowen's claim that "involuntary servitude was endorsed by the Bible", that is debunked with a proper understanding of the anti-kidnapping law in Exodus 21:16 as shown above. 

For a thorough defense of why OT slavery was voluntary indentured servitude, see my earlier article: Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery

Also, this follow-up article: Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?