It also seems to be very popular among atheists and other anti-Christian critics. Popular in that they like try to slam, condemn, denounce, excoriate, disparage, lambaste the post. Unfortunately there isn't a good deal of actual analysis. But I want to respond to my critics and give their criticism the justice it deserves.
The Hitchen's Razor variety: The critics that have non-effort criticism.
Most of it is not very intellectual, just rants that say that it's been rebutted, full of fallacies, errors, yet zero effort given to show it or make their case.
For example:
"corrected/rebutted/rebuked very thoroughly"
"thoroughly got taken down point by point"
"It just get's crushed by scholarship"
"they are not willing to entertain the idea they are wrong"
The assertion is the extent of the "analysis" - i.e. none; it's just make an assertion that it's been debunked, and hope that people conclude that the assertion is true.
I call these Hitchen's Razor variety criticisms since comments like these one can, and should, apply Hitchens's razor:
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
So I just lop those off and don't worry about them, and neither should you. This dismissal is the justice such criticism deserves.
But now we come to a different category of critism...
The Some Effort Criticism -
My original statements will be underlined
Debunk attempt : will be noted as such - with bold to indicate key points
My response to the "debunking" will be in red
Debunk attempt one - Did God in the Old Testament specify that a Hebrew may purchase a person from the foreigners and keep him as property for the lifetime of the person purchased? The answer is yes, the purchased person is chattel by definition, thus chattel slavery. No amount of obfuscations and red herrings alters that fact.
What this seems to have missed is that, the main lynch pin of my argument. The Anti-Kidnap law - and the Anti-Return law. As I sated in my argument:
These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned if they left. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.
Regrettably the criticism doesn't take this key points into considereation.
Given the above, what Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery. And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master.
It is very difficult to think that the Bible endorses or supports chattel slavery with the Anti-Kidnap and the Anti-return laws in mind. This is why they need to ignore it.
Debunk attempt two:
This alone is enough to dismiss your entire post [Lv 25] and to exemplify the issues in your approach. This passage is the most direct and explicit statement of chattel slavery in the Bible - but you only offer a paper-thin response to it, none of which actually addresses the substance of the passage. You also mysteriously leave out the extremely relevant first half of this passage; here is the full thing: Lev 25:39-46
This makes the same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring point 4 - Anti-Kidnap anti-return laws. Ironically this rock solid foundation is called "paper-thin".
Debunk attempt three:
First, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion - in reference to LV 25:44-46: says you can buy a foreign slave, and you can bequeath them to your children
Let's break down your response: By itself this is a naked assertion and it's not clear how many of your 7 points would even relate to this. You do argue two specifically though, presumably the two you thought were most relevant, so I'll assume this is just teeing that up.
Calling my entire argument a "naked assertion" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor
Debunk attempt four:
One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants".
This is just completely absurd. No, one does not need to assume that "ebed" must mean "chattel slave" in order to find chattel slavery in this verse. We don't think this verse refers to chatter slavery just because it says "ebed"! We think that because of all the very explicit details of chattel slavery here -
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my argument; if one is simply using the word "slavery" or "ebed" to say that means chattel slavery an argument without any rational basis. However, I did say that "whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context."
Debunk attempt five:
these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life. We also think it because of the extreme contrast between the two halves of this passage, which immediately clarifies what the meaning of "ebed" is here. The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half. By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites, which is obviously inconsistent with everything you have said and also with the dozens of laws about how to treat Hebrew "ebed"s.
Once again this makes the EXACT same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws. Ignoreing key points in an arument is NOT the path to debunking it.
Debunk attempt six:
As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.
Yes, "buy" relates to transactions. Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery? Even if you want to argue that this word can sometimes be used for other things, you know it's primarily used for buying property, right? This is not a counter to the verse!
Once again the EXACT same fatal flaw as above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws.
Asking, "Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery?" No, I'm saying that Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery. One must read it in the context of those laws.
Debunk attempt seven:
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, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force.
This is by far the most mind-boggling part of your defense. It says you may take them as property, not that you have to, so there's no chattel slavery here????? If I said "you may murder people if you want" would you read that to have no murder in it????
Sigh. So all this person has is, let's ignore the actual argument and attack a strawman version of it.
How can they I'd just say go back and [read the response to objection F](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/seven-facts-about-biblical-slavery.html) that answers this.
Debunk attempt eight:
This is very explicitly allowing you to do these things - to engage in chattel slavery. It sets out a legal way to own another person, to buy and sell them, to treat them as property. This passage could not possibly be more explicit about that. It takes care to give multiple redundant examples of property rights, to clarify things multiple ways, to contrast it with indentured servitude so that you can't possibly confuse it with that. This unambiguously says "you may engage in chattel slavery" and your response was "well it says 'may', not 'must', so that means the Bible outlaws chattel slavery".
Only if one ignores the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws, then they could see that this was speaking of indentured servsants and "owning" their services. And these servants, upon the death of the master could be bequethed to the children until their contract runs out. Or they may choose to stay forever,
Debunk attempt nine:
So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave; "Buy" refers to financial transactions; This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"
All three of these are true! And none of them respond in the slightest to the objection that this verse describes chattel slavery clearly and obviously.
But the hat Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws do!
Debunk attempt ten:
There's so much else wrong here: your brazen mistreatment of slave-beating law which also ignores Exodus 21:28-32,
Exodus 21:28-32 deals with a bull goring a man or woman. Furthermore corparate punishment was normal in the ANE, even free men could be beaten. So, this has nothing to do with slavery.
Debunk attempt eleven:
Your attempt to preempt academic criticism because you know this is a fringe view that nearly every serious commentator in the last 2000 years would have found laughable while you yourself lean heavily on a scholar's authority,
How am I "preempting academic criticism"?
Majority opinion isn't a test for truth.
Debunk attempt twelve:
your reading of a person who "desires" a woman captured in war and so "takes" her and makes her his wife who is not free to go unless he "doesn't delight in her" as just her buddy hanging out with her with no indication of rape,
The law stipulated that a rapist was to be killed by stoning, see Deuteronomy 22:25.
Debunk attempt thirteen :
The complete lack of any discussion of the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt which would counter like half your claims about the meanings of "ebed" and the state of slavery in the ANE,
First I never said that "ebed" couldn't mean chattel slavery; I said that "whether ebed means indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.
Debunk attempt fourteen:
your absolutely BONKERS response to
objection B that for your sake I'm going to let you reexamine and blame on the person you quoted,
Calling my response "bomkers" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor
Debunk attempt fifteen:
So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave, "Buy" refers to financial transactions. This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"
You missed the most important part of my argument: the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law - These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Given that, it's reasonable to read LV25:44-46 through that lens. As I wrote earlier, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion; sadly, this seems to be the case of most of the critical replies.
Debunk attempt sixteen:
The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half.
It's right there in the verse: They are to be treated as hired workers...; the contrast isn't between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, but between indentured servitude and hired workers
Debunk attempt seventeen
By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites
Correct, They are to be treated as hired workers... which is different from an indentured servant.
"buying" slaves - The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".
Debunk attempt eighteen
these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life.
Nope, you've ignored the anti-kidnap law and the anti-return law. Under penalty of death they could not be bought or sold, or possessed against their will, and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned. Again, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion.
For an example of "ebed" escaping: But Nabal responded to David’s servants, “Who is David, and who is this son of Jesse? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! 1 Sam 25:10; Also 1 Kings 2:39 - Three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to King Achish son of Maacah of Gath
Debunk attempt nineteen
It says you may take them as property
They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.
Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.
There's so much else that you got wrong here, there's really no point addressing any more of your responses, until you figure out how you will deal with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law which is the very foundation of my argument.
Debunk attempt twentyYou read the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws a certain way, take that as authoritative, and then say 'what the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with that, so we should read it some other way.' Not due to any internal reason within the text, but because it doesn't match your reading of these other two laws.
No, I do not say that the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws. I say that they are completely consistent with the rest of the entire slavery code if one understand that it talks abut voluntary servitiude.
Debunk attempt twenty-one
The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants.
Are you planning to give any evidence for this, or are you just going to assert it? Saying the word has multiple meanings won't cut it! I agreed with you that the word refers to financial transactions. So what? You're concluding from that "and therefore this does not refer to the purchase of property." Why?????
You agree that acquire [qanah] refers to financial transactions; all I'm saying that based on that alone it doesn't necessarily mean purchasing chattel slaves. It could mean, just as easily, purchanse the services of someone.
Debunk attempt twenty-twoYou mention the "anti kidnap law" a lot. If there is a law that says "thou shalt not steal a car", is that the same thing as a law that says "thou shall not own a car"?
Slavery apologetics is just bizarre to me.
In order to aquire a slave one must take another person against their will - i.e. kidnap them. Which is vasly different than purchasing another's services.
Differentiating between chattel slavery and voluntary servitude us foolish and absurd? I think it's wish to understand something before you judge it
Debunk attempt twenty-three
Genocidal and slaving societies aren’t known for the consistency in their laws and action. Your whole argument seems to be on the level of denying Israelites ever killed anyone because it clearly says in the bible that killing is wrong so they can’t possibly have committed genocide.
I'm not saying that chattel slavery didn't happen in the ANE or in Israel, I'm saying that if it did it went against the law. Just like Israel had laws against muder, rape, robbery tht doesn't mean those things didn't happen. those who did that broke the law as did those who partook in chattle slavery.
Debunk attempt twenty-four
and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned.Slavery was a major social institution, and obviously allowing slaves to run away whenever they pleased would break a whole bunch of stuff.
I agree, that slavery was a major social institution. I put multiple quotes showing that slavery was poverty based social institution. You accept one but not the other. Why?
For example, enslavement was used as a punishment for some crimes; a thief who can't afford his fine is sold as a slave (Exodus 22:2-4).
Thanks, that's another example of debt slavery
You would have us believe they can get up and walk away the next day if they don't feel like serving out their sentence.
Oh, please. You ncan't see the difference between one who voluntarily goes into indentured servitude and another who is sentenced to serve as slave to pay for crime?
Creditors could take children as slaves to pay the debts of their dead fathers (2 Kings 4:1-7) - you would have us believe they could high-five the creditor and go back home.
Do you realize that Ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, where honor was a cultural value that could grant people power and status? And that walking away from a debt could seriously harm the entire family group? One's family's honor becomes your own and vise versa, as does the reputation of your hometown. That is why genealogies are so important. You can earn honor by doing something worthy or noble. And lose it by doing something unworthy or dishonorable. So to walk away isn't something that was taken lightly
Debunk attempt twenty-five
Again, you rest your entire case (as you admit) on this plainly wrong reading of the return law. Here, let me quote a Talmudic commentator who says the exact opposite thing that you do and even quotes Deuteronomy 22 as support for returning escaped slaves: The Gemara states that verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael,
The Gemara, a part of the Talmud, was written around 500 AD by scholars in Babylonia. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Torah that was completed around 200 AD.
Deuteronomy was written around 630 BC; what was this interpreation based on? From something in the text? What would that be? Show me where you getr that idea from the text:
DT 23:14-16 Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.
This law applies to ALL slaves who have escaped from their masters
a. The decisive factor is that the text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves
b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial/tolerable to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area which would be in line with Anti-Oppression laws -
“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]
The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.
c. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.
Not a single one proposes an interpretation remotely similar to yours. Why do you think that is?
Incorrect. Two who do are Matthew Poole, see English Annotations on the Holy Bible and Christopher J.H. Wright in New International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy And of course the one I cited in the original Seven Facts about Slavery article:
HANEL Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.
Debunk attempt twenty-six
Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore.
Your reading here is completely and absurdly wrong,... let me point out the obvious: Leviticus 25:47 speaks about foreigners. Foreigners, obviously, were not all slaves!
But neither does it exclude them; once out of indentured servitude they could become a hired worker - they already have the knowledge and skills - and thus work to become self-sustaining
Debunk attempt twenty-seven
Almost every protection for Israelite slaves specifically states it's for Israelites, not for slaves in general. I know of exactly two protections for foreign slaves - no murder (Exodus 21:20-21) and free them if you disfigure them
I cited the Anti-Oppression laws “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]
In Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, God charges all Israelites to love aliens who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her sservants. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to God himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities.
Debunk attempt twenty-eight
You are wrong when you said chattel slavery is explicitly outlawed by an anti-kidnapping law. Saying you can't kidnap people is not the same thing as saying you can't own people as property. They are two different things,
In order to own people as property, it must be against their will, so yes the Anti-Kidnap law does apply, since there are no Slave codes that legalize chattel slavery in Israel. The verses that people cite that say "buy" and "property" must be read in light of the anti-kidnap, anti-oppression laws and voluntary servitude.
Debunk attempt twenty-nine
To maintain your argument you were forced to claim that the Old Testament forbids indentured servitude of Israelites. The reason for this is that
Leviticus 25:39-46 very explicitly and unambiguously draws a distinction between Israelite indentured slaves and foreign chattel slaves:
You want to deny chattel slavery and make the second half of this passage about indentured slaves instead. But this passage could not possibly be more clear that the first half is in contrast to the second, so that means the first half can't be about indentured slaves - so you claim that there were no Israelite indentured slaves and that they were all hired workers:
First, given my argument I reject your presumption that foreigners were chattel slaves
Second, there is a distinction between Israelite and foreign "ebeds", but it's not what you think.
Ellicott's Commentary says this about LV 25:39-40 - Under these circumstances he is not to be treated like heathen slaves who are either purchased or captured, and made to do the menial service which these Gentile slaves have to perform. The authorities during the second Temple adduce the following as degrading work which the Israelite bondman is not to be put to: He must not attend his master at his bath, nor tie up or undo the latchets of his sandals, etc. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible...but a brother, an Israelite, sold to another through extreme poverty, was not to be put to any low, mean, base, and disgraceful service, by which it would be known that he was a servant, as Jarchi notes; such as to carry his master's vessels or instruments after him to the bath, or to unloose his shoes; but, as the same writer observes, he was to be employed in the business of the farm, or in some handicraft work, and was to be kindly and gently used, rather as a brother than a servant, and to be freed in the year of jubilee.
Israelite and foreign could both be indentured servant, but only foreigners could do the work above.
The good effort critism - These I actually appreciate this kind of critism, since an intelligent, in-depth conversation is hard to find on the internet. Not shockingly these are rare.
You are wrong on ebed, the Hebrew word is actually abad
You are correct; abad, whose primary meaning is "to work, serve" is used 3x in Lev 25 and ebed whose primary meaning is "slave, servant" is used 8x; I don't see the meaning changing much, and certainly not to mean chattel slave.
I'll rework my argument to incorporate this into it.
Note: This will be an ongoing post as I field other critisms and examine them to see if they have any merit. So far, nothing that would justify any significant changes