Originally Posted by 2-J

Are you trying to imply that the fact that slaves and masters are 'one in Christ Jesus' means it does not matter whether slavery exists on earth or not? To many people, that solves absolutely nothing. Slavery is still unjust and repugnant; a benevolent God should condemn it as such (and if he does not, then at best we simply cannot understand Him, at worse He was only apparently benevolent). "Slaves obey your masters". Ephesians 6:5

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Slavery certainly has a negative connotation in the modern sense however the use of the word "slave" had different meanings within the context of the old testament. One instance of the word "slave" in the old testament was someone who had to work to pay off a financial debt - - and was then "free" once the debt was paid.

Originally Posted by James Holding

Dear Mr. Harris,

Today I'd like to talk to you about your lack of education on the topic of slavery (15-19).

In all seriousness, Mr. Harris, has your education in this matter gone past simply slapping open a Bible, seeing the word "slave," and immediately allowing visions of Kunte Kinte to run through your head?

Please allow us to educate you, with the detailed research provided by a friend of mine at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html [Glenn Miller] -- as it seems you need it badly. The following are some relevant excerpts in terms of what you offered in your book. Naturally if you respond, we expect you to do the same level of study as we have -- or else, allow us to trump your views on neuroscience simply because we flipped open a copy of The Children's Pop Up Book of Neurosurgery and check a Wikipedia article. I will add comments in italics to what my friend has written.

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 [sic] 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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

ANE means "ancient near east."

Unfortunately for Holding, playing semantics will not help him. Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 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. 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."

Item 2

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Item 3

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

However Holding wishes to define the words "slave," and "servant," there are not any doubts whatsoever that 1) the aforementioned texts refer to two different ethnic groups of people, Hebrews, and non-Hebrews, that 2) item 2 refers to Hebrew people, and that 3) item 3 refers to non-Hebrew people.

Item 1 establishes the right of freedom after six years for Hebrews who served Hebrew masters in some capacity. On the other hand, item 4 shows that non-Hebrews who served Hebrew masters in some capacity were not granted the right to be free, and were considered to be inheritable property. Item 2 establishes that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death. On the other hand, item 3 establishes that if a Hebrew killed a non-Hebrew who was in his service in some capacity, he would not be put to death under any circumstances, and would not be punished at all if the non-Hebrew recovered within a few days.

Holding attempts to mislead people with the words "ambiguity," and "fuzzy." There is not anything ambiguous or fuzzy at all regarding the fact that the aforementioned texts refer to Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of morality knows that the God of the Bible endorsed the unfair treatment of at least some non-Hebrews.

Holding's and Miller's treatment of slavery is a good example of gross incompetence and intellectual dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

Perhaps some slaves did not have much to grumble about - if they were fortunate enough to be owned by someone who fed them adequately and didn't beat them for the slightest little mistake.
But the Jews' god, so precise when it comes to the minutiae of eating habits and the sin offerings it requires and how they should be made, gives remarkably little guidance as to the treatment of slaves.

Are they to be properly fed and housed and clothed?
Are they to be given a day off once a week (to make up for working on the Sabbath, doing all the things their Jewish slave-owner isn't allowed to do)?

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think the sabbath rest included slaves; see for example Deuteronomy 5 Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think the sabbath rest included slaves.......

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But that does not justify the wrongful abuse of non-Hebrew slaves.