Slavery, a Guide

[Tom 1]

You give a source and then don't want to provide the actual text of what that source said

You can find an endless amount of info on it in minutes. Google + search terms. Do you really need me to do it for you?

 

[Tom 1]

Did you mean to say here that the Torah does not allow for people to be owned or not?

Yes, but it's a long argument. Maimonides wasn't know for taking shortcuts or being a smart-Alec about serious issues. If you want to understand it, you'll need to read it. If you don't, then don't , it's not my job to spoon feed anyone.

 

[Tom 1]

You give a source and then don't want to provide the actual text

What I want is for you to show some seriousness or stop bothering me with your endless repetitions and childish arguments.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You can find an endless amount of info on it in minutes. Google + search terms. Do you really need me to do it for you?

Yes, it is endless. That is why you need to specify what text you agree with. Which volume or text he wrote do you agree with? Your being ridiculous to just say go read everything he wrote and guess as to what I am agreeing with.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, but it's a long argument. Maimonides wasn't know for taking shortcuts or being a smart-Alec about serious issues. If you want to understand it, you'll need to read it. If you don't, then don't , it's not my job to spoon feed anyone.

READ WHAT? He wrote a ton of stuff. What name, volume, title do you want me to read?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What I want is for you to show some seriousness or stop bothering me with your endless repetitions and childish arguments.

I think you are just trying to make me mad so I will go away so you don't have to provide the source text you are referring to.

 

[Tom 1]

I think you are just trying to make me mad so I will go away so you don't have to provide the source text you are referring to.

Read the posts. It’s in there. Life is to short for me to explain to you basic things like ‘what is this thread about?’ ‘What might that indicate about what search terms to use’. Questions of the sort ‘what part do you agree with’ only indicate that the idea of studying and forming an understanding of a complex issue is not a process you are familiar with, fair enough, no problem. What I don’t get is why you are bothering to continue posting inane comments on a topic you have no interest in.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Read the posts. It’s in there. Life is to short for me to explain to you basic things like ‘what is this thread about?’ ‘What might that indicate about what search terms to use’. Questions of the sort ‘what part do you agree with’ only indicate that the idea of studying and forming an understanding of a complex issue is not a process you are familiar with, fair enough, no problem. What I don’t get is why you are bothering to continue posting inane comments on a topic you have no interest in.

You think that providing a source is just providing the name of someone who wrote about the subject you are talking about. I am speechless.

Why is your tone that of a jerk?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm not going to work through it one point at a time - that would be pointless, as at each point you would simple reiterate what you both already think, which would be incredibly tedious. There's a lot to absorb if you want to understand Jewish perspectives on 'slavery' and how it was actually practised, you'd make more headway with that in some quite and reflective study. If it doesn't interest you, then it doesn't interest you, but the only way to understand practices within an ancient culture is to study the writings of that culture and the context within which it existed.

What a great debating tactic!
"My opponent is wrong. Obviously wrong. Comically wrong. Words fail me as to how wrong he is! What? No, I can't be bothered to explain why. Find out for yourself."
If you hadn't already shown in this thread how often you're mistaken yourself I might be willing to give you some benefit of the doubt. As it is, it's obvious you're just trying to dodge the argument. You've had plenty of chances to proves that the Bible isn't pro-slavery, but you don't seem able to. I'd also like to mention, I've read plenty of Christian writings trying to justify the Bible's stance on slavery, and this is the first time I've heard of anyone using Maimonides to do it. It's not, however, the first time I've encountered such overweening pomposity and bluster. That's sadly typical.
So I don't often say this, but I'm going to trust the Bible on this one. It says it's in favour of slavery, and it obviously is.
Do get back to me if you have, well, anything at all to add to the debate.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You think that providing a source is just providing the name of someone who wrote about the subject you are talking about. I am speechless.

Why is your tone that of a jerk?

There should be a rule on this forum about wasting people's time.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There should be a rule on this forum about wasting people's time.

It is becoming clearer that he does not know what he is talking about and he is making it up as he goes. The symptoms of this are:

Blustery talk,
Condescending comments toward others,
Caught many time claiming "I never said that" then shown he did,
Not providing sources,
Not answering questions he says he knows the answer to like "What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?", and
Overstating his aptitude.

I bet he heard about Maimonides from an apologist or something and has never read what the man actually wrote. I have been reading what he did write about slavery and so far I cannot find anything about how Hebrews viewed slaves or property. I am looking through his voluminous writings to try to find what principle of ownership h is talking about. It is not easy to find the writings in English for free or what volume I am supposed to look at. So unless he provides the writings he is referencing I will have to conclude that he is wrong

I bet he will end this with we are not worth going through the effort to educate our small minds or something like that. Of course he can change all of this by just providing the writings he is referencing, especially if they are so easy to find as he claims.

 

[com7fy8]

if he rapes a non-slave he shall be put to death.

. . . if she is engaged, right?

So God thinks of non Hebrew slaves as possessions and to be treated by property.

If it is possible for the slave to come to love his master, that would not be a property relationship, I would say. Exodus 21:4-6

So God must not think beating slaves severely as long as they don’t die within a couple days is not ruthless.

If the law is there, this could help slaves to keep themselves from being treated ruthlessly. Possibly, the law is meant for prevention so it doesn't happen.

Also, there is the possibility that the slave could be developing to love his master enough so he wants to stay with him. So, this would mean the slave might not be doing things which could get a beating. Also, I would say in a God fearing culture, the masters would want their slaves to come to know the LORD. So, they would not be swift to be painfully punitive.

So if a master wants to keep his male Hebrew slave he can “trick” him by supplying him a wife and hoping he wants to stay with her.

But the law includes if the man loves his master.

So, I can see slavery can be used in a good way. Joseph was a slave > Genesis 37-50 > with God, he made very good use of it, versus God somehow making a way for Joseph to get free. The LORD could have made a way just for Joseph to get free, but He used Joseph's slavery situation . . . for the good of many people.

I think of this > there can be people who would be isolated if they are free. Slavery can put people together with others to love. But there are marriages which are slavery . . . to arguing and other brutal and cruel things. So, it depends on what you make something.

Ones can claim they hate slavery . . . while they can treat others like property to use for what they want. And ones can be slaves of substances and fear and unforgiveness and workaholic stress and burn-out and arguing and complaining in their marital relating.

I think a point God's word is making is that our emotional and spiritual slavery is more degrading than being the property of another human.

Fear is ruthless >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18)

"fear of death" is slavery to Satan > Hebrews 2:14-15. But Jesus died in order to deliver people from slavery to Satan. That is the sort of slavery Jesus is the most concerned about.

So, possibly slavery in the early scripture is used as a foil, to show how the really bad slavery is fear.

And the fact that God does not openly condemn slavery could be because we can be slaves of our own selves, if not of someone else.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It is becoming clearer that he does not know what he is talking about and he is making it up as he goes.

It's a new approach, at least. Tiresome, though.

Blustery talk,
Condescending comments toward others,
Caught many time claiming "I never said that" then shown he did,
Not providing sources,
Not answering questions he says he knows the answer to like "What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?", and
Overstating his aptitude.

Indeed. I was wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt for the first ten pages or so. But now he's used up his credibility.

I bet he heard about Maimonides from an apologist or something and has never read what the man actually wrote. I have been reading what he did write about slavery and so far I cannot find anything about how Hebrews viewed slaves or property.

Yes, I've had a look too. Searched about fifteen websites. Didn't find anything. If he really meant it, he could just paraphrase or summarise the arguments.
No, I think probably it's this: he can't possibly be wrong about this, because the Bible being pro-slavery is just inconceivable. Therefore, there must be an explanation, even if he can't say what it is.

I bet he will end this with we are not worth going through the effort to educate our small minds or something like that.

Can I join you in that bet? Because I'm certainly not going to bet against it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

But the law includes if the man loves his master.

Try looking at a different way. You're a slave. Your time is up, and you can go free. But you have a wife and children, who are still slaves of your master, and who do not go free. So you agree to stay a slave for the sake of your family. And then your master takes you, drills a hole through your ear, and you have to say, "I love my master and would like to stay his slave."

Can you not see how, at the very least, this rule is open to appalling exploitation by holding a slave's family hostage, and a very handy loophole for masters to avoid having to free their slaves?

 

[Tom 1]

@InterestedAtheist and @Clizby WampusCat I’m pretty surprised you weren’t able to find anything relevant, using search terms terms related to this thread immediately brings up a whole raft of places to start. @InterestedAtheist for obvious reasons pro-slavery (or, sadly, many other) Christian groups are not going to use Jewish sources. If you’re not aware of this, the Hebrew Bible and the NT came out of the Hebrew culture, the latter has many Greek influences, but for the most part only via the influence of those on Judaic thought. The quotes you have used mainly refer to periods of Jewish history. One of the basic tenets of anti-semitism that has underpinned much Western thinking for centuries is the complete rejection of Jewish thought as relevant when studying Jewish writings and Jewish history. It is not possible however to understand either the OT or the NT without developing at least some familiarity with the thinking of that culture. Fortunately, much of the relevant material was written down. As looking some of this up appears to have defeated you, here are some of the basic principles, from an ancient world Jewish perspective:

All ownership is custody - everything belongs to God.

All people, Jews and Gentiles, men and women are made in God’s image - in the relevant piece of parallel poetry these last 2 together are the final expression of it.

A person ‘owning’ another puts that person in the position of God. This means on the one hand that the ownership is not real ownership (a person cannot be in the position of God - another underlying principle - but can only reflect this in certain relational juxtapositions) but a combination of rights and responsibilities- in brief, the right to have that person perform certain tasks, which can be onerous (non-Hebrew slave) or light (Hebrew slave), and responsibilities for their own actions towards the slave. On the other hand, and more influential on how slavery was actually practised in Hebrew society, is the principle that people are created equal and have obligations towards each other in a general, absolute sense, as in the Mishnah Torah -

‘There in no way exists a relation of superiority and inferiority between individuals conforming to the course of nature except that which follows necessarily from the differences in the disposition of the various kinds of matter...[God has] beneficence with regard to His creatures...in that he makes individuals of the same species equal at their creation...’

These principles led to further codifying and explanation of the law over a long period of time. The laws governing the use of non-Hebrew slaves are similar to earlier laws written down under Hammurabi, those relating to fellow Hebrews were new. The whole lot of laws and principles was codified later by Maimonides, taking these laws, regulations, practices and underlying principles and expressing them in specific and general terms. Some examples (from the Mishnah Torah):

‘As the eyes of slaves to their master’s hand, and like the eyes of a maid servant to her mistress’ hand, so are our eyes to YHWH our God awaiting his favour...we should not embarrass a slave verbally or physically, for the Torah only contemplated work for them not humiliation. Nor should one excessively scream at or exhibit anger with them. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their complaints. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised, Job 31:13, 15 “Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarrelled with me...Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form both in the womb?”

Nb. Chronologically Job is probably the oldest book in the OT, so this last reflects some consistency between early and later views. A reasonable amount can be known about slavery, indentured servitude and so on in the ancient world, and apart from some aberrations (death pits of Ur?) it was until the Roman Empire at least not quite as grim as slavery practised in the US was. Although they are children’s books, “The Ox Boy of Ur” series actually reflects what is known about this period pretty well, and is a very accessible way to get a general overview of practices at that time. Hebrew culture took some of these practices and further codified and developed them over time.

This is getting long so I’ll continue it in more posts.

 

[Tom 1]

It is becoming clearer that he does not know what he is talking about and he is making it up as he goes. The symptoms of this are:

Blustery talk,
Condescending comments toward others,
Caught many time claiming "I never said that" then shown he did,
Not providing sources,
Not answering questions he says he knows the answer to like "What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?", and
Overstating his aptitude.

I bet he heard about Maimonides from an apologist or something and has never read what the man actually wrote. I have been reading what he did write about slavery and so far I cannot find anything about how Hebrews viewed slaves or property. I am looking through his voluminous writings to try to find what principle of ownership h is talking about. It is not easy to find the writings in English for free or what volume I am supposed to look at. So unless he provides the writings he is referencing I will have to conclude that he is wrong

I bet he will end this with we are not worth going through the effort to educate our small minds or something like that. Of course he can change all of this by just providing the writings he is referencing, especially if they are so easy to find as he claims.

@InterestedAtheist @Clizby WampusCat you guys might not know anything about the OP topic, but you are shaping up to be a decent comedy duo. I will look forward to the next instalment of 'what I must be thinking'.

 

[Tom 1]

Try looking at a different way. You're a slave. Your time is up, and you can go free. But you have a wife and children, who are still slaves of your master, and who do not go free. So you agree to stay a slave for the sake of your family. And then your master takes you, drills a hole through your ear, and you have to say, "I love my master and would like to stay his slave."

Can you not see how, at the very least, this rule is open to appalling exploitation by holding a slave's family hostage, and a very handy loophole for masters to avoid having to free their slaves?

You do understand that what you imagine might have happened is entirely irrelevant to understanding what actually happened at the time? I realise I'm labouring the point here, but it is a basic premise you simply don't seem to get - your imagination is irrelevant; your feelings about slavery are irrelevant when your actions support slavery; your idea that your passive adoption of current ethical norms to explain your own views is just 'shtick' is irrelevant. These notions of yours have no bearing on reality - do you understand? On the one hand there are things that actually happen and can be looked into, read, experienced, found out about, on the other there are random firings of neurons in your brain based on what you have absorbed from your environment over the course of your life. This is an important distinction when it comes to gaining knowledge.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You do understand that what you imagine might have happened is entirely irrelevant to understanding what actually happened at the time? I realise I'm labouring the point here, but it is a basic premise you simply don't seem to get - your imagination is irrelevant; your feelings about slavery are irrelevant when your actions support slavery; your idea that your passive adoption of current ethical norms to explain your own views is just 'shtick' is irrelevant. These notions of yours have no bearing on reality - do you understand? On the one hand there are things that actually happen and can be looked into, read, experienced, found out about, on the other there are random firings of neurons in your brain based on what you have absorbed from your environment over the course of your life. This is an important distinction when it comes to gaining knowledge.

Uh...what can I say?
Sorry you're in denial about this?
I can't really see anything else in what you wrote that merits a response, except a brief plea to make your points clearly and relevantly.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@InterestedAtheist @Clizby WampusCat you guys might not know anything about the OP topic, but you are shaping up to be a decent comedy duo. I will look forward to the next instalment of 'what I must be thinking'.

I'm sorry, Tom, I have no idea what you are thinking.

 

[Tom 1]

@InterestedAtheist and @Clizby WampusCat I’m pretty surprised you weren’t able to find anything relevant, using search terms terms related to this thread immediately brings up a whole raft of places to start. @InterestedAtheist for obvious reasons pro-slavery (or, sadly, many other) Christian groups are not going to use Jewish sources. If you’re not aware of this, the Hebrew Bible and the NT came out of the Hebrew culture, the latter has many Greek influences, but for the most part only via the influence of those on Judaic thought. The quotes you have used mainly refer to periods of Jewish history. One of the basic tenets of anti-semitism that has underpinned much Western thinking for centuries is the complete rejection of Jewish thought as irrelevant when studying Jewish writings and Jewish history. It is not possible however to understand either the OT or the NT without developing at least some familiarity with the thinking of that culture. Fortunately, much of the relevant material was written down. As looking some of this up appears to have defeated you, here are some of the basic principles, from an ancient world Jewish perspective:

All ownership is custody - everything belongs to God.

All people, Jews and Gentiles, men and women are made in God’s image - in the relevant piece of parallel poetry these last 2 together are the final expression of it.

A person ‘owning’ another puts that person in the position of God. This means on the one hand that the ownership is not real ownership (a person cannot be in the position of God - another underlying principle, but only reflect that in certain relational juxtapositions) but a combination of rights and responsibilities- the right to have that person perform certain tasks, which can be onerous (non-Hebrew slave) or light (Hebrew slave). On the other hand, and more influential on how slavery was actually practised in Hebrew society, is the principle that people are created equal and have obligations towards each other, as in the Mishnah Torah -

‘There in no way exists a relation of superiority and inferiority between individuals conforming to the course of nature except that which follows necessarily from the differences in the disposition of the various kinds of matter...[God has] beneficence with regard to His creatures...in that he makes individuals of the same species equal at their creation...’

These principles led to further codifying and explanation of the law over a long period of time. The laws governing the use of non-Hebrew slaves are similar to earlier laws written down under Hammurabi, those relating to fellow Hebrews were new. The whole lot of laws and principles was codified later by Maimonides, taking these laws, regulations, practices and underlying principles and expressing them in specific and general terms. Some examples (from the Mishnah Torah):

‘As the eyes of slaves to their master’s hand, and like the eyes of a maid servant to her mistress’ hand, so are our eyes to YHWH our God awaiting his favour...we should not embarrass a slave verbally or physically, for the Torah only contemplated work for them not humiliation. Nor should one excessively scream at or exhibit anger with them. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their complaints. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised, Job 31:13, 15 “Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarrelled with me...Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form is both in the womb?”

Nb. Chronologically Job is probably the oldest book in the OT, so this last reflects some consistency between early and later views. A reasonable amount can be known about slavery, indentured servitude and so on in the ancient world, and apart from some aberrations (death pits of Ur?) it was until the Roman Empire at least not quite as grim as slavery practised in the US was. Although they are children’s books, “The Ox Boy of Ur” series actually reflects what is known about this period pretty well, and is a very accessible way to get a general overview of practices at that time. Hebrew culture took some of these practices and further codified and developed them over time.

This is getting long so I’ll continue it in more posts.

Underlying this codification of laws and behaviours are general principles of the biblical worldview. Whatever 'the fall' represents, some key points for understanding what the bible puts forward as being 'good' or 'bad' are right there in the text. The fall introduces the patriarchy - the clash of wills and the ultimate dominance of the male as described in Genesis 3 describes things as they will be, in contrast to how they had been - relationships of limited ownership - Adam's naming of Eve is a declaration of ownership in the sense of having additional rights over the woman (as later elaborated on in Jewish law) - the list goes on; meat eating, death and so on. Jesus' discussion of divorce is a useful parallel to understanding the differences between the intended state of things and the post-fall, make do with what you have mentality:

'Some pharisees approached Jesus and, to set a trap for him, asked if was permitted for a husband to divorce his wife. Jesus replied:

"What did Moses command you?" (side note - as mentioned earlier in the thread, the Torah is only one part of Jewish law, this reference is not to the Torah. This is an important consideration if your intention is to understand any aspect of life in ancient Israel, such as slavery)

They said

"Moses permitted that the husband could give his wife a certificate of divorce and separate from her"

Jesus then said:

"Moses permitted this because your hearts were hard (other translations have: because you were incapable of understanding the plans of God); but God, when he created humans, he made them man and woman. For this reason, a man will leave his parents and unite with his wife, and the two of them will become one person. So they are no longer two persons, but one. Whatever God has united, let not man tear apart"

See the difference? The principle and the accommodation due to man's weakness. As Malachi has it, a man who divorces his wife 'covers her in violence' - the Hebrew teaching on divorce was that a man can divorce, but that he should not, and that he should be aware that in doing so he is acting in a way that is displeasing to God. Underlying this is yet another fundamental principle; God's interaction with man includes a great deal of leeway and promotes freedom, reflection, and understanding. This perhaps is a topic for another thread, as it would take up a lot of space, but for the most direct understanding of this I'd recommend Auberbach's comparison of the story of Abraham with the Odyssey and David Rosenberg's biography of Abraham.

Slavery, or indentured servitude as many Hebrew scholars have it (no knee-jerk responses please, there are many recorded lectures on this topic available free online, you can watch some and then specify what it is you disagree with and why, based on the relevant context) was likewise subject to both the application of principle and the codification of that into laws, regulations and guidelines. In relation to Hebrew slaves, the guidelines reflect the oft repeated principle that a Hebrew slave is a member of the family - (Kiddushin, 208 - bracketed notes from the original text):

'"Because he is with you" - he must be with (i.e. equal to) you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said "whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself'.

Attitudes towards slaves bought or (earlier) captured in battle from other cultures were seen very differently, the application of similar principles to the treatment of slaves from nations Israel had been at war with was a longer and more complicated process, hence the practice of the buying and selling of Hebrew slaves was outlawed much earlier than that of buying and selling gentile slaves, which went on until the 12th C. Another principle your arguments seem to indicate you are unaware of, or don't think about, is that any change is gradual. Depending on how society develops over the next few centuries, people in developed societies a few hundred years from now may well be horrified that we tolerated the use of child slaves so we could have mobile phones, alternatively the whole mess may go in a different direction and they will think something else entirely. It is worth thinking about why change is gradual. Anyway, back to the point; regulations and guidelines to promote the humane treatment of gentile slaves did become part of Jewish law over time, both specifically as in regulations forbidding 'no defined limit to the amount or time period of work' and the assigning of 'useless work' to gentile slaves (Mishnah Torah, 'law of slaves' 1.6). This is accompanied by discussion of the need to allow a gentile slave 'a semblance of accomplishment that could salvage some sense of self-worth or empowerment as a human being' [later commentary summarising a large body of work on this issue, Rueven Yaron, Biblical Law] and more generally, as in (Mishnah Torah):

'Cruelty and arrogance are common only among idolaters. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriach, i.e. Israel on whom the holy one, blessed be He, endowed the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe "righteous statues and judgements" (Deut 4:8) are compassionate to all'

Nb. this principle of righteousness and what it means is illustrated in the description of Joseph and his reaction to finding his young bride to be pregnant - 'because he was a righteous man, he planned to divorce her quietly, so as not to expose her to public disgrace'; although Joseph was permitted by law to humiliate and punish his, as he initially believed, adulterous fiancé, he is described as being righteous for not doing these things. If you familiarise yourself with Jewish writings and practices you will become aware that this is no mere abstract notion but that it translates into an influential set of social obligations and expectations that distinguished Israel from other early nations.

'...and similarly, with regard to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He commanded use to imitate, it is written Psalms 145:9: "His mercy is upon all of His works". And whoever shows mercy to others will have mercy shown to him, as implied by Deut 13:18: "He will show show you compassion, and in His compassion mercifully increase you'.

Anyway there are some references to get you started. If either of you has an interest in the OP topic, you can look into it further.