76. godess you would,

agree with emma. but do you really think that makes you right. further do you think the rest of the world thinks your right- NO!! and NO again. the rest of the world thinks,and rightly so, that atheist are freekin fringe lunatics who have a nice little situational ethics going that fits their lifestyle whatever that may be just dandy. perverted is what atheism truly is. a perverted world view

brian at 11:07AM on Jan 11th 2008

77. Pboy -

LOL...what a response. How long did it take you to come up with it? Did you need a nap later?

You might not LIKE my assessment, but that isn't what is important here. The question is, "Does it follow?" Is it true?

Your simply assertion of "dislike" for my answer does nothing to undermine my analysis. You have a brain - tax it a little.

JSL at 11:06AM on Jan 11th 2008

78. Dinesh:

You are inconsistent to blame ancient Greece for its slavery yet (in earlier blogs) not credit them for their science. And what does this show for non-belief in the supernatural anyway? The Greeks believed in many gods. They were hardly atheist with regard to deities.

Your inconsistencies are easily cited by your critics, including college professors, to abate or dissuade your few sympathizers. This, in part, is why your book has fallen to #422 on Amazon compared to Hitchens who is still at #117, and at #189 on his new book.

Please tell me where the Bible says we are created equal. I understand that to be John Locke’s contribution (natural rights), the Father of Empiricism and inspiration for libertarians. Can you show us where, say, Luther spent time on equality? America’s forefathers did not think they were quoting scripture when this idea found its way into our Declaration of Independence.

When might your blog address the glory of (eqalitarian?) Christian life after the fall of Rome and before Muslims brought Aristotle to Aquinas? The Roman Catholic Church did not promulgate equality as it expanded through Western Europe. Even after Locke, the Church did not treat indigenous peoples as equal in places like the Americas or Africa.

Again, sophistry.

jamesg4336 at 11:08AM on Jan 11th 2008

79. Dinesh:

You are inconsistent to blame ancient Greece for its slavery yet (in earlier blogs) not credit them for their science. And what does this show for non-belief anyway? The Greeks believed in many gods. They were hardly atheist with respect to the supernatural.

Your inconsistencies are easily cited by your critics, including college professors, to abate or dissuade your few sympathizers. This, in part, is why your book has fallen to #422 on Amazon compared to Hitchens who is still at #117, and at #189 on his new book.

Please tell me where the Bible says we are created equal. That was John Locke’s contribution (natural rights), the Father of Empiricism and inspiration for libertarians. Can you show us where, say, Luther spent time on equality? America’s forefathers did not think they were quoting scripture when this idea found its way into our Declaration of Independence.

When might your blog address the glory of (eqalitarian?) Christian life after the fall of Rome and before Muslims brought Aristotle to Aquinas? The Roman Catholic Church did not promulgate equality as it expanded through Western Europe. Even after Locke, the Church did not treat indigenous peoples as equal in the Americas or Africa.

Again, sophistry.

jamesg4336 at 11:11AM on Jan 11th 2008

80.
Good question...
...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created Dec 30, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This is a continuation of the question of Slavery. The Intro and OT discussion is at www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html.]


The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)


Now, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets somewhat more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery?"...

Remember, most people assume that the slavery of the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's writings was at least as bad as New World Slavery, with all its horrors, injustices, and atrocities. For us to be able to lodge the ethical objection of "the NT condones slavery" against the Christian worldview, we will have to demonstrate that what the NT calls "slavery" is equivalent to what we would understand by that term, and we will have to show that NT teaching 'condones' that practice. In the case of the OT/Tanaach, we saw that the two different systems of 'slavery' were not even close enough for meaningful comparison. We will need to compare and contrast Roman slavery and New World slavery here too, to insure that we are not committing crimes of equivocation.

So, our method here will be to first determine to what extent 'slavery' in the Roman Empire in the mid-first century exemplified the oppressive character of later New World slavery (of Brazil, the Caribbean, and the USA).

Then, we will ask what type of responses to this should have issued from Paul's pen (in light of general NT ethics and worldview) and what type of responses actually showed up in his writings. [We can then consider how much this position might be considered "condoning slavery"--the original objection.]

Then, we need to look at any theoretical/theological concepts and historical realities that might have informed these responses, and finally, what evidence we have about the early church's actions in this area.

Our order of investigation would be something like this:

1. The question of identity--does the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough for the objection to have its customary force?
2. Given the actual character of NT 'slavery', what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD?

3. What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT--esp. Paul?

4. To what extent could this be considered "condoning slavery", as voiced in a typical objection?

5. What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?

6. What evidence do we have about the early church's actions in this area?

........................................................................................................................................


1. So, our first topic concerns the question of identity--does the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough for the objection to have its customary force?



The data is quite strong that the two systems are substantially different, especially in the areas most troubling to modern minds--the abuse, the oppression, the future prospects of the slave.

I have summarized the data in this comparative chart, and adduce the detailed data for each of these issues below it:



Issue Roman New World
1 Motive Social Status Economic Advantage
2 Entry Mixed, mostly involuntary All involuntary
3 Treatment Wide variance, depending on owner Narrow variance, depending on owner
4 Living conditions Rural, mixed; domestic, good Mostly very bad
5 Legal controls on masters Medium None
6 Legal recourse of slaves Medium/high None
7 Legal agent status Medium (e.g., slaves could own slaves) Virtually none
8 Legal Exit Customary/Frequent Virtually never
9 Occupation types Very wide range Medium range
10 Social status Very wide range Mostly very low
11 Economic plight relative to poor free labor Better to much better Same or worse
12 Social advancement opportunities Excellent Poor
13 Incentives to perform More positive (e.g., economic, manumission) than negative (e.g., punishment) Mostly negative and coercive (e.g. physical abuse)



1. Motive -- the differences in this category are very considerable.

Roman masters were less interested in economic exploitation than in having a more robust lifestyle:
"Yet it does not follow that landowners sought the greatest possible levels of profit from their possessions in the capitalistic manner of New World slaveowners. The aim of production was to provide food mostly for household and local needs, not to produce crops for sale on highly competitive world markets with profits automatically reinvested to increase yields and the margins of profit still further. Many slaves, moreover, were not directly involved in primary production at all. Domestic slaves furnished their owners with services that often had nothing to do with generating revenue; in fact domestics tended to consume wealth rather than produce it, and revenue-earners, slaves such as field hands, accountants, managers of apartment blocks, bailiffs, even doorkeepers and weavers, were distinguished from those who were kept simply for their owners' personal needs, cooks, bedroom attendants, masseurs and the like.[HI:SASAR:15]
For wealthy Romans, the motive was basically that of status--how they looked to their peers:
"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia. First the immense size of the familia was predicated on the fact that the slaveowner was a person of enormous wealth who was always able to control resources grand enough to maintain a household in a manner that continuously proclaimed the owner's renown and richness. To those comprising Rome's social and political elite, therefore, for whom slaveholdings were a mechanism of competitive display and a means of rivalry, it made little sense to allow the familia to deteriorate in any significantly noticeable way, which automatically meant that the slaves, who made up such holdings--subject to the constraints that affected society at large-- were never likely to find themselves hungry or without clothes and a roof over their heads. [HI:SASAR:102]
"The writers and framers believed that adequate social and political remedies were available to curb possible abuses. A number of examples spring to mind. A slave might seek asylum in an appointed temple or may request that a third party intervene on his behalf. The social stigma of either remedy may have sufficed to inhibit the misdemeanors and offences of a status-conscious master. [NDIEC7:195f]

"At the opposite extreme, however, domestic slaves who worked as ministratores and pedisequi had special liveries or uniforms, in addition to their everyday clothes, to wear on those occasions when their owners wanted to advertise their wealth and taste, including plentiful amounts of jewelry." [HI:SASAR:87]

Even manumission (the granting of freedom) was sometimes done with status in mind:
"Some men manumitted slaves in order to impress their friend with their generosity and their wealth; since the loss of a slave involved the loss of a capital investment, a man who freed many slaves would appear quite wealthy." [ATRD:191]




2. Entry into slavery was similar, but with significant differences:
Sources of Slaves for New World Slavery were piracy and natural reproduction--no one became a slave to rise in social status, power, or wealth!


Sources of Slaves for the Roman Empire:
1. Roman military conquests (but these declined around the NT period):


"Much is heard in the sources of enslaving a vanquished enemy en masse, a habit the Romans probably acquired as their military and political influence spiraled throughout the Italian peninsula in the fourth and early third centuries BC."
- Rival Etruscan city of Veii (10,000 slaves--entire city)
- Siege of Aspis in Carthage's territory in 256 BC (20,000)
- Third war against Carthage in 146 BC (55,000)
- Campaign against the Alpine tribe of Salassi in 25 BC (44,000)
- The city of Ctesiphon in Parthian war of 198 AD (100,000)


"It does not follow, however, that all war captives were automatically conveyed from the site of capture for disposal in the marketplaces of the Roman heartland. At times Roman commanders allowed prisoners to be ransomed, so freedom might be recovered fairly quickly if relatives or friends were available to pay the necessary price. Likewise captives were often sold off on the spot to itinerant dealers or distributed to the troops as a form of payment or bonus." [HI:SASAR:33]
In the Jewish war of AD66-70, Josephus tells us of:

- 2,130 women and children enslaved at Japha
- 30,400 at Tiberias in Galilee
- 97,000 at Jerusalem
- 700 sent to Rome for the victory march


Cato "especially bought prisoners of war when they were still little so that they could be raised and trained like young dogs or athletes" (Plutarch, Cat. 21.1)
"Often in antiquity wars were waged to acquire laborers, and the armies were followed by slave merchants. The axiom occurs constantly: "The one who is taken in war belongs to the conqueror" (Aristotle); the law of war transformed prisoners into slaves (Heliodorus, Philo). The prisoner, who was like captured booty (Plato) took on an exchange value and would not be freed except for ransom." [TLNT:spiq, 427]

cf. 2 Peter 2.19: "for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved"

cf. Rom 7.23: "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."



2. Natural reproduction:
Vernae were born into slavery, and were often preferred for important tasks. They were more "expensive" (e.g., infancy and childhood costs), but were not 'troublemakers' often.
"But having children could bring slaves certain benefits in real terms. Columella believed that female salves should be rewarded for bearing children and said that he himself had given a mother of three time off from work and a mother of more than three children her freedom as well." [HI:SASAR:34]



3. Rescue from Exposure (intended infanticide):
"Another professor of literature included in Suetonius' collection who was also once a slave was C. Melissus, a teacher and author who flourished in the Augustan era and who once actually received a commission from Augustus himself. But Melissus was not a verna. He was born of free parents but was exposed as an infant and then brought up in slavery by the man who reclaimed him after his parents had abandoned him. At all levels of society, whether due to poverty or fears of overburdening a patrimony with too many heirs, infant exposures was a widespread fact of life in the Roman world. But because those who chose to rescue abandoned children were free to raise them as slaves if they wished, infant exposure was also another important means of replenishing the slave supply. The Christian polemicist Tertullian (Apol. 9.7) condemned pagans for abandoning their children to certain death from cold, starvation or being eaten by dogs." [HI:SASAR:35]


4. International trade:
"It appears therefore that Roman merchants were constantly traversing the spiderweb of trading routes that crossed the Mediterranean in search of slaves from locally powerful, distant rulers who were willing to exchange captives, or even the weaker members of their own communities, from the material goods the merchants carried." [HI:SASAR:37]


5. Piracy:
"Piracy within the sphere of Roman influence, finally, must be acknowledged as a major means of generating new slaves. At the beginning of Rome's central period the pirates of Citicia were already notorious for the scale on which they conducted kidnap- ping and trafficking activities: the island of Delos, where they dumped their victims because they knew Roman merchants were waiting there to receive them, is said to have turned over tens of thousands of slaves daily in the early second century Bc. What the pirates' activities involved, however, is graphically illustrated by a piece of evidence from late antiquity, one of the newly discovered letters of Augustine, which shows among other things that at the turn of the fifth century AD piracy was still a scourge in the Mediterranean. Augustine spoke in his letter (Epistulae 10*) of the formidable presence along the coasts of North Africa, and especially at Hippo Regius, of itinerant slavedealers (mangones), Galatians in particular, who were buying up as slaves freeborn people captured by independent marauders who made it their business to undertake forays from the coast into remote rural villages in order to hunt down and kidnap as many victims as possible. In one village, the rumour went, they had carried off all the women and children of the community after murdering all the men. Some local people, Augustine continued, were conniving with the invaders: there was a woman who had a clandestine business specialising in young girls from the interior; there was a man (a Christian at that) who had sold his wife into slavery because he preferred to have the cash; and there were indigent parents selling their children because they needed the cash. Augustine said that it was the practice of the Christian community to use its funds to redeem as many of the kidnapped victims as possible, and in one recent episode 120 'slaves' whom the Galatians were boarding, or were preparing to board, onto their ships had been saved. But the trade itself was so lucrative that there were advocates on hand who wanted to try to recover the reclaimed victims for the slavedealers, so their safety was in real jeopardy. It was a desperate situation, and one that must have been far from uncommon throughout the whole of the central period." [HI:SASAR:37f]


6. Some people actually sold themselves into slavery, for differing reasons:


"Some ambitious men did the same [sold themselves] in the hope of becoming the stewards of noblemen or imperial treasures. This, in my view, was the story of the all-powerful and extremely wealthy Pallas, scion of a noble Arcadian family, who sold himself into slavery so that he might be taken on as steward by a woman of the imperial family and who wound up as minister of finance and eminence grise to the emperor Claudius." (A History of Private Life:I, p.55)
"Even more, the law itself might create a situation that casts doubt on the distinction between free and slave. What are we to make of the perfectly possible case of an elder brother who is a slave and a younger brother who is freeborn because the father had freed their mother, his slave, in the interim? The elder would thus not only be the servus of his father but could become the property of this brother at the father's death. Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post or, on the other (a more frequent case), because they were miserable wretches reduced to selling themselves in order to survive?" [HI:TR:168)

"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]





3. Treatment--was more varied:
"Wealthy private homes also employed large numbers of slaves as nurses, tutors, paedagogues, litter-bearers, secretaries, cooks,"' gardeners, dishwashers, housecleaners, hairdressers barbers, butlers, laundrywomen, seamstresses, and so on. It was not unusual for a wealthy man or woman to own several slaves. The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. The treatment of slaves varied according to the disposition of their masters. ...Since slave ownership involved an outlay of capital, one might expect slave-owners to protect their investments by keeping their slaves in good health. However, the treatment of slaves varied considerably, depending on the disposition and personality of the master or mistress. Some masters were more cruel or thoughtless than others. In general, however, slaves working in private homes were better treated than slaves working on farms and ranches or in factories and mines. Also, slaves born in the master's home were probably better treated than slaves brought to Rome from foreign countries. And slaves from "civilized" areas, Greece or Egypt, for example, were less likely to be bought for farm, factory, or mine work than were slaves from "uncivilized" areas, such as Gaul or Germany.. .. City slaves, then, were generally better off than farm slaves. Indeed, in Roman comedy a frequent threat made to city slaves who have misbehaved is: "I'll send you to work on the farm! [ATRD:170-171
"Scholars have often noted an essential difference between rural slaves and those employed in the city, particularly when the latter worked in their master's household. This notions seems to hold true: the countryside rose up in the great servile revolt led by Spartacus, but these seems to be have been little or no reaction from urban slaves. This is quite understandable. Most of the slaves used in the country were put to hard labor.," [HI:TR:141]

"Jurists such as Paulus and Ulpian, who both lived in the age of the Severi, state that slaves must be fed and clothed according to the rank" [HI:TR:145]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. [HPL:55]

"The treatment of slaves varied enormously, depending on their employment and their owner. Harsh treatment was often restrained by the fact that the slave was an investment, and impairment of the slave's performance might involve financial loss." [HI:HLAR:342]

"The Roman slavery system cannot be understood, therefore, without at once acknowledging its enormous diversity and variability, and any attempt to define its general features must constantly allow for the unanticipated and the exceptional." [HI:SASAR:4]

"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]

"The material life of the slave in the Roman world, as in later slave societies, was determined on the one hand by the slave's function, standing and relationship with the master and on the other hand by the degree of responsibility with which the master met his (or her) material obligations to the slave." [HI:SASAR:89]

"To judge from evidence in the Digest on arrangements owners made for their slaves' welfare once they - the owners - were dead, it must be inferred that many men and women took their material responsibilities very seriously. One owner for example imposed a testamentary charge on an heir for supporting slave temple guardians as follows: 'I request and impose on you afidei commissum to give and supply in my memory each of my footmen (pedisequi) whom I have left to take care of the temple with monthly provisions and a fixed amount of clothing per annum' (Dig- 34- I. i 7). Another set free in his will the grandson of his nurse, provided him with an annual allowance of cash, and conferred ownership upon him of his own slave wife and children, together with 'the things he was accustomed to provide for them in his lifetime' (Dig- 34.1-20 pr.). Such liberality to slaves or former slaves was by no means extraordinary: alimentary arrangements, as they are called, appear in the well known Will of Dasumius, and the younger Pliny as seen earlier provided in his will for the maintenance after his death of one hundred of his freedmen's [HI:SASAR:99]

"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia.... Secondly, Livia's household staff provided many services that were available not simply to the owner and her immediate family but to the slaves (and freedmen and freedwomen) who made up the familia as well:, the cooks, caterers and bakers, fullers, wool-weighers, clothes-menders, weavers and shoe-makers, nurses, pedagogues, midwives and doctors - these were all functionaries whose labour contributed to the material well-being of the familia as a whole.[HI:SASAR:102]

"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]

"whether the slaves in the workhouses are carefully fettered ... and whether the manager has chained or released any without authorization....should inquire not only of the inmates but also of the slaves not in shackles--who are more to be believed--whether they are getting what is their due, should sample the quality of their food and drink by tasting it himself, should check on their clothing, mittens, and foot coverings. What is more, he should give them frequent chances to register complaints against those who treat them cruelly or dishonestly." Selection from Columella, who wrote a book on agriculture in middle 1st century ad [HI:ELAR:27]



4. Living conditions:
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. ..These slaves lived in dormitories under the authority of a slave overseer or steward, whose official concubine prepared meals for all the slaves. Philostratus tells the story of a modest vintner who resigned himself to tending his vineyard by himself because his few slaves cost too much to keep.[HPL:55]
"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]

"Rural salves, Varro suggests (R. 1.19.3), regularly kept livestock, more or less their own, from which to supplement their rations, and field hands who had only portions of bread and olives were able to gather as many wild greens as they wished to eat with. Both in the city and the country, kitchen-gardens produced a wide range of vegetables--onions and lettuce, beets and artichokes, peas and beans--which not only gave extra food but allowed the chance of extra cash from sale of the surplus." [HI:SASAR:83]"Most domestics, that is to say, lived under the same roof as their owners. Within the housing complex the wealthy owner, Pliny for instance (Ep 7.27.12-14), was able to close himself off from the slave quarters when he wished to maintain his privacy, but it was thought odd nonetheless that the slave quarters should be absolutely separate from the owner's living space as among the tribes of Germany." [HI:SASAR:84]



5. Legal controls on masters--this is an area of immense difference:
Slave owners were answerable to the law for mistreatment of slaves:
"Certain slave-owners abandoned their sick and worn-out slaves on the island of Aesculapius since they were loathe to provide them with medical care. Claudius ordered all slaves so abandoned to be granted their freedom. And if they recovered, they were not to be returned to the control of their master. He also decreed that anyone who chose to kill a slave rather than abandon him should be arrested on a charge of murder." (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25)


Slave owners were restricted from 'executing' their slaves, and from forcing most of them into certain low-tier 'occupations'
"Hadrian forbade masters to kill their slaves; capital charges against slaves were to be handled through official courts and execution, if necessary, carried out by these courts. He forbade a master to sell a male or female slave to a pimp or to a gladiator trainer without first showing good cause. ... He forbade private prisons" Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Aelius Spartianus, The Life of Hadrian) 18.7-1 1
"The ease with which the slaveowner could freely abuse the slave was diminished by a sequence of laws that, for example, made murderous masters liable for homicide, proscribed castration, and outlawed ergastula; and through recognition of rights of asylum and appeal to magistrates and governors slave victims in the imperial age came to have some means of relief against abusive owners." [HI:SASAR:171]



In the wider expanses of the Empire, local laws often restricted the slaveowner:
"the slave in Athenian law was considered the private property of his master to do with very much as he wished and only in exceptional circumstances did the state interfere in the master-slave relationship. The situation changed, however, in the Hellenistic kingdoms. Increasingly, both the master and the slave were perceived to be subjects of the state and the state began to intervene in the relationship. For example, in the Ptolemaic kingdom the following acts of intervention are noted: (a) the annulling of acts of enslavement; (b) the forbidding of slaves to be branded or sold overseas without the sanction of the sate; (c) the registration of both sold or homeborn slaves and the collection of revenue from them; (d) the grant of freedom to slaves who denounced the acts which their masters had committed against certain royal ordinances; and (3) the right of asylum in certain temples."[NDIEC7:169]
"The royal diagramma will have intervened in the legal procedure possible exempting certain types of slaves from prosecutions, e.g. state salves, slaves belonging to officials or slaves employed in vital occupations." [NDIEC7:172]

"In other words, the state intervened in the master-slave relationship to limit and control punishment." [NDIEC7:175]



This was a trend begun in NT times:
"It is true that from the first century AD legislation which had the effect of ameliorating the slave's situation began to be passed." [NDIEC6:51]


Roman law actually empowered the owner to advance his slave over his own heirs!
"Indeed, Roman law permitted disinheriting an heir to the profit of an adopted slave (who was thus freed)..." [HI:TR:144]


Masters were required to provide for their slaves in accordance with rank:
"Jurists such as Paulus and Ulpian, who both lived in the age of the Severi, state that slaves must be fed and clothed according to their rank" [HI:TR:145]


If a slave fled to an image of an emperor, he was allowed to change masters--this was extended by Tiberias against wealthy masters!
"After all, a decree of Tiberius guaranteed asylum to servi next to images of the emperors, not only in public places but also in private house (Tacitus Annales 3.36)." [HI:TR:162]


This improvement of the conditions of slaves began early and continued throughout the early church period:
"measures to protect the slave from the violence of the owner: limits to torture, regulations concerning slaves condemned to combat with wild animals; prohibitions against killing a slave incapable of working (Claudius), then any slave (Hadrian); liberty granted to slaves who were abandoned by their master because they were ill. In the second and third centuries, this protective legislation was reinforced, increasingly taking the slave's family ties into account and backing his manumission when he was the object of juridical controversy." [HI:TR:163]


Even sexual exploitation was limited somewhat:
"Awareness of the sexual dangers to which slaves were exposed was thus very sharp. Even a slave overseer might be a threat. Yet because proprietary rights were absolute, there was nothing the law could do to prevent slaveowners themselves abusing their slaves if they wished to do so. A tension developed consequently between the need to uphold the rights of ownership on the one hand and a need to punish such obvious injustices as rape on the other. The dilemma is visible in a directive given by the emperor Antoninus Pius (Dig. i.6.2) for cases of abuse, including sexual abuse, of slaves, in which sale of the slaves concerned to a new household was recommended: 'The power of masters over their slaves certainly ought not to be infringed and there must be no derogation from any of man's legal rights. But it is in the interest of masters that those who make just complaint be not denied relief against brutality or starvation or intolerable wrongdoing' - the latter to include impudicitia, sexual wrongdoing. [HI:SASAR:49]
The law courts often sided with slaves against masters:
"But it [Ulpian's ruling] indicates that in some circumstances the law could operate to the advantage of the slave. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that legal judgements were regularly made in favour of slaves whose manumission was obstructed by adverse factors, the operative principle being favor libertatis, giving the slave the benefit of the doubt when a claim to freedom was not clear cut." [HI:SASAR:162]
"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables. Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided." [HI:SASAR:162]





6. Legal recourse of slaves: practically non-existent in New World Slavery, but substantial in NT times
Slaves could litigate on their behalf (esp. in cases of assault/abuse):
"In the law of GR Egypt the slave could own property and could enter into legal transactions such as loans, leases or paramone (i.e., service) contracts...A slave could also act on behalf of a master in his business dealings, e.g. loans, sales, issuance of receipts etc....In terms of litigation the slave was also considered as more than n object in the law of GRE. For example, in matters of personal injury or damage of property the slave could litigate (i.e. sue) and act on his own behalf or represent another....In this instance not only does it appear that the slave had entered into a contract with a certain villager but also when assaulted and robbed by this same villager lodged a petition against him."" [NDIEC7:165]


Various state-sanctioned legal rights are manifest throughout the Empire:
"the slave in Athenian law was considered the private property of his master to do with very much as he wished and only in exceptional circumstances did the state interfere in the master-slave relationship. The situation changed, however, in the Hellenistic kingdoms. Increasingly, both the master and the slave were perceived to be subjects of the state and the state began to intervene in the relationship. For example, in the Ptolemaic kingdom the following acts of intervention are noted: (a) the annulling of acts of enslavement; (b) the forbidding of slaves to be branded or sold overseas without the sanction of the sate; (c) the registration of both sold or homeborn slaves and the collection of revenue from them; (d) the grant of freedom to slaves who denounced the acts which their masters had committed against certain royal ordinances; and (3) the right of asylum in certain temples."[NDIEC7:169]


Even the Roman elite knew about the legal recourse of slaves and considered the structures adequate to curb abuse!:
"The writers and framers believed that adequate social and political remedies were available to curb possible abuses. A number of examples spring to mind. A slave might seek asylum in an appointed temple or may request that a third party intervene on his behalf. The social stigma of either remedy may have sufficed to inhibit the misdemeanors and offences of a status-conscious master. Again, the state itself intervened at times in the master-slave relationship. For example, slaves could denounce certain offences of their masters and gain their freedom (breaches of particular royal ordinances). Seneca, De Beneficiis 3.20, observes: "For neither can we command everything nor are slaves compelled to obey in everything. They will not act on orders against the public interest; they will not lend a hand to any crime." [NDIEC7:195f]


There were even legal means for slaves to actually seek freedom (as opposed to simple transfer of ownership, as in the case of asylum):
"One important turning point, both political and military, occurred with Marius, placed in command of the African war, restricted recruitment for the campaign of 107 BC to volunteers, thus opening the legion ranks to the poorest citizens...the army became a means of advancement for the destitute...As early as the Social War, 21,000 slaves were freed to combat the socii, and later Sulla and Pompey had little scruples about similar sorts of recruitment, particularly when the need was urgent, as it often was. On occasions the slave could even obtain his liberty without having to serve in the army. Thus after the death of Caesar the triumvirs who inherited power published a list of proscribed political enemies, promising a reward to anyone who would give information on them or kill them and promising liberty to a slave who did so. Thus slaves, like other disinherited groups, found service to political leaders a more efficient way out of the condition than widespread revolt." [HI:TR:154f]


Slave could effect a transfer of ownership (forcing a change of master) via the fully sanctioned institution of asylum:
"If asylum was sought [in temple] because of the master's cruelty or severity, the slave was to be sold and the price paid to the master. The reason for the intervention is given, namely that it was in the state's interest that no one use his property badly." (see Justinian, Institutes 1.8.1)
"In doing so [fleeing], he might hope to be lost in the subculture of a large city, for example, or to find work in another region or he might resort to brigandage. Alternatively, he might seek the assistance of a person of social standing to advocate his cause or seek asylum in an appropriate temple (and later in a church or monastery) and have its priests decide his fate." [NDIEC6:58]

"After all, a decree of Tiberius guaranteed asylum to servi next to images of the emperors, not only in public places but also in private house (Tacitus Annales 3.36)." [HI:TR:162]



They could also lodge legal complaints against their owners, for various types of abuse:
"The suggestive fact remains that it was one of the functions of the city prefect, once the office of the prefect had been established by Augustus, to hear allegations from slaves that they were suffering from starvation caused by their owners." [HI:SASAR:100]
"Awareness of the sexual dangers to which slaves were exposed was thus very sharp. Even a slave overseer might be a threat. Yet because proprietary rights were absolute, there was nothing the law could do to prevent slaveowners themselves abusing their slaves if they wished to do so. A tension developed consequently between the need to uphold the rights of ownership on the one hand and a need to punish such obvious injustices as rape on the other. The dilemma is visible in a directive given by the emperor Antoninus Pius (Dig. i.6.2) for cases of abuse, including sexual abuse, of slaves, in which sale of the slaves concerned to a new household was recommended: 'The power of masters over their slaves certainly ought not to be infringed and there must be no derogation from any of man's legal rights. But it is in the interest of masters that those who make just complaint be not denied relief against brutality or starvation or intolerable wrongdoing' - the latter to include impudicitia, sexual wrongdoing. [HI:SASAR:49]



In addition to legal power, the slave had a certain economic power as well. Besides the fact that could and did become partners with their owners in many ventures, the slave had the ability to damage the investment of the owner represented by himself/herself (via non-compliance), as well as had (and used) the power to reduce the welfare of the owner through pilferage and sabotage. And owners recognized this power and were constrained by it, in practical settings.
"A slave was usually a master's largest investment apart form his investment in land. If the runway slave was not recovered, the master's loss might be substantial. Even if recovered, the loss might not be inconsiderable. Not only did the owner face a reduced resale value (contracts of sale included clauses concerning the slave's propensity to run away) but he may also have incurred costs associated with the finding and apprehension of the runaway." [NDIEC6:57]
"The non-compliance of salves manifested itself in several ways, from the most drastic, like slave rebellion and murdering one's master, to the more subtle, like careless workmanship and tardiness. No doubt the frequency and type of non-compliance were correlated; it is reasonable to assume that the more drastic the non-compliance the rarer its occurrence and the more subtle the non-compliance the more frequent its occurrence." [NDIEC6:57f]

"Roman lawmakers regarded attempts at self-destruction on the part of slaves as commonplace to judge from information in the Digest. When a slave was sold the aedilician edict required the seller to declare whether the salve had ever tried to hill himself (Dig. 21.1.1.1)..." [HI:SASAR:112]"The jurists, recalling Apuleius' brigand, used the phrase 'domestic thefts' to refer to this sort of pilfering, misdeeds that were too trivial to justify prosecution, but which must have been deleterious to slaveowners in their overall effects." [HI:SASAR:116]"Literate slaves were able to falsify records and documents to the disadvantage of their owners." [HI:SASAR:116]"Truancy, dilatoriness, lying, dissembling, stealing, causing damage, feigning sickness--at the strictly factual level these types of slave behaviour are all well in evidence." [HI:SASAR:117]"Roman slaveowners acknowledged from time to time that their slaves behaved 'badly' because of the way they were treated and not because of inherent character flaws. It was conceded that the master's threatening words could force the slave to run away, that the dispensator might embezzle because he needed food, that the slave might lie to avoid torture, that apparent greed might have something to do with the slave's hunger. Cruelty, fear, deprivation--these are recurring elements in the record of master-slave relations in the Roman world, and practical slaveowners could see that injustice caused resentment." [HI:SASAR:124]





7. Legal agent status (and operating autonomy)--huge differences here, also:
The could own property, take out loans, lease/rent land, offer service contracts:
"In the law of GR Egypt the slave could own property and could enter into legal transactions such as loans, leases or paramone (i.e., service) contracts...A slave could also act on behalf of a master in his business dealings, e.g. loans, sales, issuance of receipts etc...." [NDIEC7:165]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves. As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth. [HI:TR:155]



Many urban servants had tremendous amounts of operating autonomy, entering into legal contracts as representative of their owner (sometimes to their own advantage):
"For one thing, a number of urban slaves escaped all direct, permanent control when their master charged them with the management of a range of businesses--shops or crafts operations--for his benefit. The autonomy such slaves enjoyed was without parallel in country areas, except perhaps in the case of shepherds." [HI:TR:142]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. ... As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155]

"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning.[HI:TR:155f]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master.[HPL:55]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen...The paths, in the imperial administration led right to the very top, to posts that today would be held by department heads, even cabinet ministers. During Claudius's reign, Pallas, a freedman, served as his secretary of the treasury, and Narcissus, another freedman, as his secretary of state. Both used their position to line their pockets and both became so incredibly rich...[HI:ELAR:60]



They could own slaves themselves (which could own slaves also!):
"Before their manumission, a minority of wealthy (or at least well-off) slaves built up a patrimony that faithfully reproduced prevailing structures. They might themselves own salves--vicarii--who acted as procuratores or institutores to manage the slave's holdings, just as those slaves managed their masters'. The law specified that such slaves of slaves belonged to the latter and not to his dominus, and the relations between the slave and his vicarii were modeled on those that pertained between a free man and his slaves...But vicarii might also belong to the privileged slave minority, and their own peculium could includes slaves--that is, vicarii who belonged to a vicarius. These cascading relationships within the servile world are the best testimony to the success of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]
"Although himself a slave, that is to say, Musicus Scurranus had a personal slave retinue of his own, and his inscription actually continues with the names and job-titles, save in one case, of sixteen of its members. They include a business agent, an accountant, three secretaries, a doctor, two chamberlains, two attendants, two cooks and three slaves who were respectively in charge of Scurranus' clothes, gold and silver....Ownership of slaves by slaves seems strange at first sight, but in societies like that of Rome where slaveowning was a critical mark of an individual's social standing it has been far from unusual." [HI:SASAR:2-3]





8. legal exit/manumission--this is an area of MAJOR discontinuity:
Manumission was widespread, frequent, and expected by the majority of slaves:
"A freedman was a slave who had been manumitted, that is, freed. Manumission was widely practiced in ancient Rome, and it is an aspect of Roman society which sets it apart from other slave-owning societies. For example, very few slaves in the American antebellum South were ever manumitted by their owners. In Rome, however, slaves were not only freed but were also given Roman citizenship and thus assimilated into Roman society and culture. Yet, although manumission was a common practice, not every slave could hope to be manumitted. Wealthy slave-owners could much better absorb the cost of manumission (loss of property) than could moderate-income slave-owners. And slaves working in a private household, whose job had been to attend to a master's personal comfort and who were therefore known well by the master, were the most likely to receive freedom. Slaves whose work brought profit to an owner--that is, slaves working on a farm or ranch in a mine or factory, as a prostitute or gladiator--were least likely to be manumitted. Such slaves had been chosen for their physical stamina rather than their intellect, and it was thus easy for Roman owners to adopt the same protective attitude used by slave-owners of the American South: "He's not bright enough to do anything else; if I freed him, he would never make it on his own." Slaves owned by a city or corporation, rather than by a private individual, were also poor candidates for manumission.[ATRD:190-19]
"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities, landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

"Manumissions were fairly frequent.." [HI:HLAR:342]

"It was possible for such men, whether born into the imperial familia or recruited from outside, to advance through what loosely resembled a career structure, beginning with subordinate positions while still young and proceeding to positions of greater authority after manumission, which typically came when they were about thirty. For some, especially in the first century AD, the way was open to participate directly in the highest levels of Roman government." [HI:SASAR:69]

"Although there were a number of ways by which a slave might be legally manumitted, two were most common: (1) the slave and master would appear before a magistrate (either praetor or consul) who would touch the slave with a rod or wand and thus signify that he was now free; or (2) the master would state in his will that he wished some or all of his slaves manumitted upon his death. The advantage of the latter procedure was that the owner enjoyed the use of his slaves right up to his death, but still appeared to be a generous man. Some owners would free slaves only if the slaves could buy their freedom, that is, pay back the original purchase price or whatever price the owner deemed reasonable. Most slaves would save up the money from occasional gifts and tips; slaves employed in the civil service had the advantage of receiving bribes. Sometimes freedmen who were friends or family members would buy the slave from the owner and then manumit him.[ATRD:190-19]

"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it. ...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen. [HI:ELAR:60]

"In urban areas, the locale of most business and government offices, manumission was so common that ex-slaves came to make up a high proportion of the Roman citizenry." [HI:ELAR:62]

"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]



It was apparently so frequent that it required some limitation:
"In 2 B.C., under the emperor Augustus, a law was passed prohibiting a master from freeing more than a hundred slaves in his will, although apparently no limit was placed on the number of slaves he could free during his lifetime." [ATRD:194]
"The Augustian laws were a reforming response to the haphazard manumission practices of the pre-imperial era...the lex Aelia Sentia of AD 4 set minimum age requirements of twenty for the slaveowner and thirty for the slave before a living owner could formally manumit a slave..." [HI:SASAR:156]



The social status motivation of the system (unlike that of New World Slavery) also made for frequent manumissions:
"Some men manumitted slaves in order to impress their friend with their generosity and their wealth; since the loss of a slave involved the loss of a capital investment, a man who freed many slaves would appear quite wealthy." [ATRD:191]


But some manumissions were for noble matters of the heart:
"Some men fell in love with slave women and freed them so that they could then legally marry them. Some men became very attached to slave children born in the household and freed them so that they could adopt them as legal heirs." [ATRD:191-192]


Some were for disputable political/military reasons:
"One important turning point, both political and military, occurred with Marius, placed in command of the African war, restricted recruitment for the campaign of 107 BC to volunteers, thus opening the legion ranks to the poorest citizens...the army became a means of advancement for the destitute...As early as the Social War, 21,000 slaves were freed to combat the socii, and later Sulla and Pompey had little scruples about similar sorts of recruitment, particularly when the need was urgent, as it often was. On occasions the slave could even obtain his liberty without having to serve in the army. Thus after the death of Caesar the triumvirs who inherited power published a list of proscribed political enemies, promising a reward to anyone who would give information on them or kill them and promising liberty to a slave who did so. Thus slaves, like other disinherited groups, found service to political leaders a more efficient way out of the condition than widespread revolt." [HI:TR:154f]


But there were also base reasons for freeing a slave--sometime "freedom" was not a good thing:
"There were baser reasons, too, for manumission ... And some men freed old or sick slaves because they no longer wanted to feed and clothe them. Since such slaves had no resale value, it was cheaper to free them and let them fend for themselves (thought it is unlikely that an old or sick slave could support himself, most probably starved to death)."[ATRD:192]
"Certain slave-owners abandoned their sick and worn-out slaves on the island of Aesculapius since they were loathe to provide them with medical care. ." (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25)



The legal system was actually biased toward the granting of freedom(!):
"But it [Ulpian's ruling] indicates that in some circumstances the law could operate to the advantage of the slave. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that legal judgements were regularly made in favour of slaves whose manumission was obstructed by adverse factors, the operative principle being favor libertatis, giving the slave the benefit of the doubt when a claim to freedom was not clear cut." [HI:SASAR:162]
"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables. Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided." [HI:SASAR:162]





9. Occupation types--quite varied in NT times; less so in New World
"Slaves in the city were employed in many different ways. Some were owned by the city and worked on city construction projects, such as roads and aqueducts, or on the cleaning crews which maintained public buildings, such as the baths and temples, or on the clerical staff. Other slaves were purchased by factory owners or shop owners, and set to work in the factories and shops. Transportation firms would buy slaves to haul both raw and manufactured materials from one part of the city to another. Among the most unfortunate of slaves were those purchased to serve as gladiators or prostitutes...Wealthy private homes also employed large numbers of slaves as nurses, tutors, paedagogues, litter-bearers, secretaries, cooks,"' gardeners, dishwashers, housecleaners, hairdressers barbers, butlers, laundrywomen, seamstresses, and so on. It was not unusual for a wealthy man or woman to own several slaves. The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. ...And slaves from "civilized" areas, Greece or Egypt, for example, were less likely to be bought for farm, factory, or mine work than were slaves from "uncivilized" areas, such as Gaul or Germany. [ATRD:170-171]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves. As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155f]

"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning. [HI:TR:155f]

"Most artisans seem to have been slaves." [HPL:55]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. The system of large estates cultivated by slave gangs was limited to certain regions such as southern Italy and Sicily. (The slave system was no more essential a feature of Roman antiquity than slavery in the southern United States prior to 1865 is an essential characteristic of the modern West.).[HPL:55]

35 different rural jobs listed in the Digest 33.7 and 37 from Columella [HI:SASAR:59,60]50 domestic classes in Livia (p.61) and 39 more from other elite households [HI:SASAR:63]

"No commercial activities, it must be repeated, were the exclusive domain of slaves: 'If a master frees a slave whom he has appointed to manage a bank and then continues the business through him as a freedman, the change of status does not alter the incidence of risk' (so Papinian: Dig. 14.3.19.1)." [HI:SASAR:76]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service.[HI:ELAR:60]





10. Social status--considerable difference here, also:
The social status of slaves was highly variable, and could range from positions of extreme power and respect, to that of the typical New World slave:
Urban slaves were more like "servants" or "courtiers":
"The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. [ATRD:170-171]
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrat

aniekan thomas at 11:12AM on Jan 11th 2008

81. jet,

all people know killing is wrong,all people know stealing is wrong/most know cheating on your wife is wrong!! most people have an innate sense of morality. culture dictates to a degree. look at our culture,our culture says homosexuality is right,when it is clearly immoral and thats what gays hate. they don't want to be thought of that way. so just change the cultural tone and there you go. gayis OK !! done. but its still not right. god gave us a moral law. it keeps society functioning. what if killing were right. do you people really think so stinkin shallow yet wallow in your intellectual garbage. it gets old.

brian at 11:13AM on Jan 11th 2008

82. I'm looking at the history, and it appears Christianity IS behind most of the abolitionist movements around the world. I just wish [D'azed on Sushi] would stop going "Na-naa! Na-naa-naa! We're better than you!".

It seems to me that morality to people is not a gift from a God who arbitrarily decided it, but something behaviorally learned like the mouse in a Skinner box. We are the mice, society is the box. That's the short version...

Mokele-Mbembe at 11:15AM on Jan 11th 2008

83. Good question...
...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OT: Created Nov 9, 1997 // UPDATED Mar 18/2004 // NT: Created Dec 30, 1999


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every so often I get a question about slavery in the Bible, or someone sends me a 'spoof' of the biblical Mosaic regulations concerning 'slavery'. Sometimes the issue concerns Paul in the NT, as this thoughtful quote might indicate:

"I think a lot of the problems you spill a lot of "electrons" on can be understood better by looking at the Bible as an accommodated and historical revelation. In my judgment, the most important example of how this concept operates in scripture is the Bible's approach to slavery, especially as it appears in Paul's writings. Paul clearly understood that the gospel obviated all class distinctions (Gal. 3:28) but was never willing to draw out the social ramifications of his understanding of what it meant to be "in Christ." Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to manumit Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul danced around the topic of manumission but never made it an explicit directive; accordingly, it made the problem more difficult for later theologians. We can only imagine how western civilization might have been changed had Paul openly stated what we now all agree on: that for one human to own another is inconsistent with the imago dei and the freedom of the gospel.

Of course, Paul did not do so, probably for a number of reasons. He may have still been freaked out by the "crisis" he speaks of in I Cor. 7, or he may have felt that an explicit position on manumission would have made the gospel appear too radical (although he didn't shy away from "radicalness" in other areas and manumission was considered by many in the Roman empire to be a noble act of kindness). At any rate, it took theologians and activists 1900 years to finally convince Christendom of the moral bankruptcy of slavery, and frankly, from a perspective of exegesis and Biblical theology, the fire-eaters had a better argument in ante-bellum America than the abolitionists, largely due to the statements made by Paul in Ephesians and Philemon."

I replied to this part of the email with a 'directional' statement...

"The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL socio-economic institutions are 'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused woefully...for example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within conscience and stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult (in my opinion) so the Philemon situation is not at all decisive or instructive for me...(i am familiar, however, with those civil war debates, but consider much of that simply bad theological method)...simply put, i think the problem is more complex than a simple 'Paul hedged here'...i am still thinking through this, so dont take my comments as finished goods ...

And hence I want to come back to this issue in this series...

There are several elements of this study, which I will no doubt have to publish piecemeal ("oh no! not ANOTHER unfinished series in the Tank!"):

1. Introductory remarks

2. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its nature, purpose, and structure.

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: the Foreign Slave.

4. The Great Escape Clause…?

5. References to slavery in later OT books.

6. The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)


.........................................................................................

1. Introductory remarks

I am a child of the Western World, and a native of the rural American South. The word 'slavery' is such a powerful vortex of images, meanings, cries, and grief to me. Any technical discussion of any type of forced labor or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached to it, and I suspect that many others share this association.

Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice).

A recent example of this comes from the discussion of the Hittite culture in [HI:HANEL:1.632]:

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active."

Scholars in Cultural Anthropology are sensitive to this as well, and point out that New World slavery was quite unique, historically:

"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..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]

Generally, in the ANE, these 'fuzzy' boundaries obtain as well. "Slavery" is a very relative word in our time period, and we have to be very carefully in no auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World examples. For example, in the West we would never say that the American President's Cabinet members were his 'slaves', but this term would have been applied to them in the ANE kingdoms. And, in the ANE, even though children/family could be bought and sold, they were never actually referred to as 'slaves'--the property aspect (for such transactions) did NOT define explicitly the notion of 'slavery':

"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]



Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that naturally occur for Westerners when something is referred to as 'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider 'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'. New World slavery differs substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery', which themselves differed at significant points from OT slavery. We will try to make these distinctions clear, when they are relevant to the discussion.

With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)



· Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")

In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:



§ "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)



§ "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)



§ "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)



§ "On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)



§ "The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)



· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:

"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors."


In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:

"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs….The question arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v. "Slavery, ANE"]

"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]

The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:

"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.



· Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…]

But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways were a problem, as we shall see):

"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]

And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:

"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]



· Treatment : As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.

We have already noted that in New World slavery at least two-thirds of plantation slaves would have lived in barracks (field-slaves), and not in intimacy with owners (domestics), whereas in the ANE/OT, the vast majority of the slaves were domestics under the same roof. In the ANE/OT, we don’t have the 'gangs' of agricultural workers we will see later in Republican Rome and in the New World:

"Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household [in Israel]--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world" [OT:I:101]

"Both types (Hebrew, foreign slaves) were domestic slaves living in their owners' homes, not members of slave gangs working on plantations." [Notes, Jewish Study Bible, Ex 21]



· Legal Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

Theoretically, some expressions of New World slavery had some protection from outright murder of a slave, but this was not very widely accepted:

"In the American South, 10 codes prescribed forced sale to another owner or emancipation for maltreated slaves. Nevertheless, cases such as State v. Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v. Jones (Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were punished for savagely 'correcting' their slaves to death." [Britannica]

And the right-to-kill differed by groups [Britannica]:

"Legally the slave was usually defined as property, and the question then was whether he was movable property (chattel) or real property. In most societies he was movable property, but in some, real property… A major touchstone of the nature of slave society was whether or not the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for salves from ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830…That was not the case in other societies. The Hebrews, the Athenians, and the Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill their human chattel."

Now, this restriction on an owner as to what he/she could do with their personal 'property' should make us wonder about how the word 'property' is being used there. And indeed, the definition of 'property'--in the context of slavery--gives Anthropologists pause:

"The definition of slaves as property runs into conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a shorthand and abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights held by a person (or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any given society, something (say, a person) is 'property' has meaning only to the extent that the rights involved are specified and understood in the context of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial African societies, the kin group had the right to sell equally its slave and nonslave members, it had equal control over the wealth acquired by either of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the other, and the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives, and, if prosperous enough, could acquire slaves of their own. Here, obviously, one must look at other features to find the difference between the slave and the 'free'." [NS:ECA:4:1191, s.v. "Slavery"]

Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the notion of 'property' when applied to people:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece" [HI:HANEL:1:665]

And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:

"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]

and slaves had very specific legal rights (can real 'chattel property' have such?):

"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active." [HI:HANEL:1632]

"However, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Ancient Near East"]

One other important distinction has to do with how 'comprehensive' or exclusive was the 'property' aspect. In other words, to what extent was a slave only property, and not also, a human, a family member, a contracting agent. In the ANE at least, slavery was generally a mixture of these aspects--they were not ONLY property per se [HI:HANEL:1.40]:

"A better criterion for a legal definition of slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized as a category of property that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a person to whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even this definition is not wholly exclusive, since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the rules of ownership. Furthermore, the relationship between master and salve was subject to legal restrictions based on the humanity of the slave and concerns of social justice."

A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a modern acquisition of one business by another business. I the employee--a 'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the values I am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the office, my skills, my organizational knowledge, and my career path in the firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g., competitor, private investor, Wall Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my life-at-the-office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in my country. My role and/or identity as a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited' (e.g., if the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor). Our legal system recognizes this in many, many contracts under the heading "Successors and Assigns". But wherever I went, the state would still see me as a human, and prevent--as in the ANE-- my 'owner' from killing me.



· Legal Status : Slaves could not have their own property--all they had belonged to their 'owner'.



"In North America, India, Rome, Muscovy, most of the Islamic world, and among the Tuareg a fundamental principle was that the slave could not own property because the master owned not only his slave's body but everything that body might accumulated. This did not mean, however, that slaves could not possess and accumulate property but only that their owners had legal title to whatever the slaves had. In a host of other societies, such as ancient and Roman Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Talmudic Palestine, Gortyn, much of medieval German, Thailand, Mongol and Ch'ing China, medieval Spain, and the northern Nigerian emirates, slaves had the right of property ownership. Some places, such as Rome, allowed slaves to accumulate, manage, and use property in a peculium that was legally revocable but could be used to purchase their freedom." [Britannica]

[Note: As pointed out in the quote about the fuzziness of 'property' above (by the Cultural Anthropologists), there is a little 'play' in this word, But a strict delineation of what was and what was not 'property', and/or what was and was not 'owned', was established and determined by the governing body of the specific situation. For example, in the ante-bellum South, it would have been the law courts in that time and in that geographical jurisdiction which decided, and they would have invariably sided with the slave owner instead of the slave as to whether, for example, the bed the slave slept on belonged to him or to his owner. The relevance of this 'jurisdictional' point is threefold: (1) It is irrelevant to this discussion as to what parties outside the legal system would have judged (e.g., Native Americans of the time would have said that the plantation land did NOT 'belong' to the Owner, but to the Earth--but the Southern courts would have disagreed); (2) it is irrelevant to this discussion as to what 'relative/informal/conventional ownership' arrangements would have been held within the community of slaves (e.g. Even though the Owner legally--according to Southern courts at the time--owned the bed that Slave X slept in, did NOT mean that Slave Y could take it from him, under the argument that it didn’t 'belong' to Slave X… "relative rights to usage"--very close in content to what property really is all about--would not violate the common legal understanding of property ownership (i.e., establish and delineated by relevant judiciary authorities)...the minors who have lived with me might have argued among themselves whose TV set it was, but the courts would have blamed me the dad had said TV set hurt one of their visitors); (3) it is irrelevant to this discussion what people after the legal jurisdiction collapsed said about property ownership (e.g., Civil war soldiers after the war had destroyed the jurisdiction structure agreeing that slave X 'owned' his bed, based perhaps on the 'informal' and relative rights of #2, would be irrelevant to the question of whether "slaves could own property under the pre-war, pro-slavery legal system").]



"Sometimes slaves [in the ANE] were permitted to possess various kinds of property (peculium). Naturally, a slave received the right to a peculium only in those cases when the master took an interest in this. Such slaves were left to themselves with the payment of a fixed quitrent [tanknote: a 'quitrent' is a fee paid by the slave to the owner, so that the slave doesn’t have to work any more for the owner, during the period covered by this 'rent to quit working'. It's like a substitution of money for labor]. The size of the quitrent fluctuated depending on the property of the slave, and in 1st-millennium Babylonia, on average, when calculated in money, amounted to twelve shekels of silver a year. Such a sum was also equal to the average annual pay of an adult hired worker regardless of whether he was free or a slave. Sometimes a quitrent was replaced by work for the master. Temple slaves who led an independent economic existence were also obliged to pay a monetary quitrent or provide the temple with finished products in accordance with the established norms…In 1st-millennium Babylonia enterprising slaves owned land, houses, and considerable amounts of movable property. They actively participated in all spheres of economic activity, were engaged in trade, ran taverns and workshops, taught other persons various trades, pawned and mortgaged their property, and they themselves received the property of others as security for loans…In the legal sphere such slaves could appear as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants in court. They also could have their own personal seals and take oaths. Moreover, there were apparently no differences in the ways in which the interests of slaves and freemen were defended, though the slaves, of course, could not engage in litigation with their masters. In affairs with a third party, the slave could mortgage only the peculium, but not his own person." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Ancient Near East']



· Exit : Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman.

"…in the American South manumission ws comparatively difficult and almost never happened after the prohibition on importing new slaves…manumission was even forbidden in South Carolina in 1820, Mississippi in 1822, Arkansas in 1858, and Maryland and Alabama in 1860…" [Britannica]

In the ANE, although some cultures had pre-built "debt-payoff-periods" (like Israel's 6 years), "chattel" manumission was rare because it wasn’t sought after--the issues of economic security and the quasi-family relationships that developed within the household unit created little incentive to become 'independent':

"More usually, individual autonomy has meant exposure to danger and predation; safety lay precisely in the protection afforded by the bondage of dependence on groups and patrons. What was desirable was not freedom but belongingness." [NS:ECA:4.1191]

[We will be semi-shocked below when we discover that manumission in Israel was either pre-scheduled (in the case of Hebrew slaves) or anytime-you-want-it (in the case of foreign slaves)…!]


Garnsey identifies many of these elements in his understanding of what he terms 'chattel slavery' [HI:ISAA:1]:

"A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of slavery."



………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

With this framework in mind, let's consider how the Mosaic Law structured 'Hebrew slavery'...



2. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.


First of all, we will have the same wide, wide range of meanings of the terms for 'slave' here, as we did in the ANE. It will refer to general (and sometimes vague) subordination:

"The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning “the slave (or servant) of God.” Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ANE is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible >ebed/doulos and several other similar terms are rendered “slave” as well as “servant,” “attendant,” etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible…However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these “slaves” were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When Josiah, king of Judah, had been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30). It is quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of the actual meaning of the ambiguous >ebed may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham’s household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a freeborn person." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]



In the ANE, legal systems divided 'slaves' into different categories, and prioritized interventions (social intervention has costs, remember, and scarce resources in the ANE had to be allocated to optimize their effect on social/community survival) around these categories:

"In determining who should benefit from their intervention, the legal systems drew two important distinctions: between debt and chattel slaves, and between native and foreign slaves. The authorities intervened first and foremost to protect the former category of each--citizens who had fallen on hard times and had been forced into slavery by debt or famine." [HI:HANEL:1,42]

In the OT case, we will see a similar interest: most legislation will be about Hebrew ("native") individuals who, for reasons of debt/famine, sell themselves into short-term slavery ("debt slaves"). Accordingly, we will examine this class of 'slaves' first (native, debt).

Hebrew 'slavery' (i.e., a Hebrew 'servant' of a Hebrew 'master'; we will do foreigners next) occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context. Like the ANE, the context is a constant struggle for economic stability. The Mosaic law contains numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option:

"Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest. (Elsewhere in the ancient Near East exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery)." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]


· There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all! (Compliance with the spirit and letter of the covenant would have produced a society marked by righteousness, compassion, and prosperity.)

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)

This makes any economic situations involving slavery exceptional.


· But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor. Some of these are:

1. He enjoins the Israelites to be generous toward the destitute (this would function to preclude/reduce voluntary or debt slavery), in the same passage He expressed the hope of pan-success:

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15.7ff)

2. Interestingly, the passage above recognizes that this 'lending' (best for self-respect of the recipient) might turn into 'giving' (best for economic good of the recipient) quickly, but that the Hebrew should not let this obvious risk deter his heart:

"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." (Deut 15.9)

"Moses left the realm of law for a moment to appeal to his fellow Israelites’ hearts. The law of debt cancellation (vv. 1-6) was intended to instill a spirit of generosity within the Israelites and thus a freedom from the love of money and things. Therefore a calculating Israelite was guilty of sin if he refused a loan for a poor brother (v. 7; cf. needy brother, v. 9) out of fear that it might not be repaid since the seventh year was near. Being hardened or tightfisted meant he was not trusting the Lord to bless . . . all his work." [BKC, in loc]



3. There are numerous instructions to merchants and farmers to provide special help for the disadvantaged (again, reducing the need for someone to sell themselves or family members).

§ The entire seventh year of the planting cycle was dedicated to the poor (and servants)!

"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex 23.10)

Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you -- for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)

§ They were instructed to leave the margins around the fields unharvested, and to not go over the fields but once:

"`When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.10; 23.22; Deut 24.19f)

§ The poor were to be exempt from interest, and were to be buy food at cost.

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. (Lev 25.35ff; note the quote above that interest rates were the dominant cause of voluntary servitude in the ANE.]

[Note: Israel was allowed to charge interest to foreigners, and to no forgive their unpaid loans in the year of Jubilee (Deut 23.21). Tigay [JPStorah, in loc] explains the sociological rationale for this: "This exception is similar to 15:3, which exempts loans to foreigners from remission. As Shadal notes, the foreigner is normally a businessman visiting the country for purposes of trade, and he borrows in order to invest in merchandise and make a profit, not to survive poverty. There is no moral imperative to remit loans made for such purpose or forgo interest on them. Furthermore, assuming the risk of lending and making the sacrifice that remission and interest-free loans entail are special obligations toward one's countrymen (Heb, ahim, lit 'brothers') and for the sake of maintaining equilibrium in Israelite society. The law does not require assuming the same risk and sacrifice toward others who do not share the same obligation."

§ The entire Levitical tithe of EVERY THIRD YEAR was to be shared with the poor!

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deut 14.28ff)

4. Even the sacrificial system made allowances for economic status:

"`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering..."`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering." (Lev 5.7,11; see also Lev 14.21)

If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford. (Lev 27.8)

5. Indeed, there was even a major structure in the economic system designed to support the poor--the automatic cancellation of debts every seven years!

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1ff)

· Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15; note: this is a 'standard' case of debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21--discussed below.)

· Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? " (Deut 4.5)

19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147.19)

With this as background, I want to compare the verses we have on this institution with the preceding description of Western antebellum slavery.


· Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.


OT: There is a very fundamental difference here. The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!:

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Indeed, as we shall note below, the proceeds of the transaction went to the servant only--each 'sold himself' to someone.

Notice that the sole motive--in the primary text before us-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.

[Even chattel slavery, however, often produced this benefit. So Garnsey [HI:ISAA:5]:

"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere."

But this was not the POINT of such slavery, whereas in the OT context, this benefit is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION for even allowing a watered-down, temporary, semi-servanthood.]



· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.


OT:: In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated (as in pledge of work, in case of default of debt, cf. the case in 2 Kings 4.1 where the creditor is probably coming to claim the children for non-payment, [BKC, in loc]) enslavement was a capital offense (unless it was a community punishment--you were an theft/fraud offender yourself, of course). This is generally in keeping with what we have noted earlier:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]


§ Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10).

§ The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of 'selling oneself':

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25.39)

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut 15.12)

§ Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave':

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex 21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)

[Note: if a person had a wife/family when he sold himself, then the wife/family went free when his freedom occurred (If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Ex 21.3). We will discuss the various release scenarios (with/family, w/o) below under 'Treatment".]



……………………………………………………………….

Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely bothered by that 'your wife stays here' clause…Can you explain how the various exit scenarios looked, in the case of a Hebrew debt-slave's going free? And is it true that a man could sell his daughter into slavery without any HOPE of freedom for her????

Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow of this, with my typically verbose response…smile)

Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish Publication Society version):

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (21.2-4)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (21.7-11)

The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background (rel. to OT and some ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.



First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).



1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often the father, but not exclusively--Hagar 'took a wife for Ishmael out of Egypt', Gen 21,21) discuss and agree on a marriage/union between their respective son/daughter, in the context of a union of families--not of individuals. (The daughter, depending on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course):



"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]



"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable husband for her and negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]



"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar, "marriage present". ." [HI:MFBW, 57]



"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the bride be given to one of the groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is, the bride married into her husband's family--she did not marry an individual." [OT:DLAM, 134f]



"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman’s father decided whom she could marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55–58)." ["Patriarchy As An Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture", Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]



2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride:



"The contract described in the Laws of Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented by the fathers. For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]



"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]



"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father, with an expected amount the baseline, the mohar habbetulot, set at fifty shekels, but with no upper limit. " [HI:HALOT,:2:1007; Note: this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a hired person's labor.]



3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in services:



"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be services…Jacob worked seven years for Rachel and Leah respectively. " [HI:HALOT,:2:1007]



"A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by service, as Jacob did for both his marriages (Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel for Calab's daughter (Jos 15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]



"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of 'wife'" [OT:DLAM, 133]





Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter….



1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable' , 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):



· "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children." [OT:LIANE, 35]



· "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]



· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]



· "In the a

aniekan thomas at 11:16AM on Jan 11th 2008

84. brian thinks intellect is garbage

Mokele-Mbembe at 11:20AM on Jan 11th 2008

85. brian, before you attack so immaturely, please leran how to read.
1. I didn't say you had no morals. You said I didn't.
2. I can say, with absolute certainty, that morality results from a combination of human instinct, experience and reason.
3. You obviously don't put a lot of value on "stinkin morals." I perceive them to be vital.
4. If right and wrong were so clearly embedded in our DNA, as you reason, how do you explain various takes on morality? Do you eat meat that comes from factory farms, brian? Guess that makes you immoral, because a sentient being is tortured for your gluttony. Same goes for drinking factory farmed milk. How about Walmart? You shop there? Guess that makes you immoral, because you are contributing to child sweat-shop labor. I could go on with countless examples to prove that DNA does not explain morality or else you wouldn't be doing these things. No one would, not even the Chinese.
5. Atheists don't claim moral high ground. Like I said before, they acknowledge that morality exists among non-Christian societies and cultures.
6. Cut the China crap. Political systems and religion are separate evils. Guess you've never studied Taoism or Buddhism or read the writings of Confucius. No wonder your capacity is so limited.

You are one hateful evangelical, brian, but that seems to be the norm. At least, now that you are back to being nasty, you can stop the "let's all get along" farce.

emma at 11:19AM on Jan 11th 2008

86. I have to say that one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read in my life is Dinesh's notion that "slaves turned to the bible for solace." Say what? When exactly was that? Considering that it was ILLEGAL for slaves to be educated, how exactly did that work? Now if he wants to say that after two centuries of hegemony, slaves bought the ideas of Christianity, that's a whole other matter. But this notion that the average slave could finish toiling all day and go home to read his bible by the fire for "solace" is utter BS. Dinesh should be ashamed of himself for writing such garbage.

GG313 at 11:45AM on Jan 11th 2008

87. DAMN! These "christian" fundies are nucking futs. My brain is caving in on itself just reading this drivel. brian is the worst by far. He just comes here to suck DD's dick no matter what that goofy idiot posts. Sick.

It makes since, though, since his last post was not anti-atheist and it only got 300-something responses. Had to do something to keep his comment count up. That's all he cares about - not Jesus. Just the almighty paycheck he gets from AOL and shoving his book up our collective asshole.

I'm with Ryan. I am boycotting this post. The world would be a better place without Dinesh.

K at 11:23AM on Jan 11th 2008

88. Emma,
Don't you know? Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism... they're all hoaxes to test our faith!

Mokele-Mbembe at 11:23AM on Jan 11th 2008

89. brian, sorry to disagree with you, yet again. In general we are taught morality through reward and punishment; just as we learn our religous beliefs, fom infancy.

Atheists are immoral, lack morality? I'm still at a loss as to how you have determined this assumption. Is the belief in a god part of the parcel that is morality?

JefFlyingV at 11:25AM on Jan 11th 2008

90. Brian and Dinesh will be butt fucking each other all the way to "delusions of grandeur heaven"

danny at 11:26AM on Jan 11th 2008