SpaceMonkey

In another thread gilly45, in an amusing response, mentioned something about Jesus and slavery. So as not to divert the thread from its original context I've decided to start a new one.

After seacrhing the forums I could not readily find a thread dedicated to this topic. However, I did find this:
"Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters."

Does anyone have anymore information on this? How does one explain this away in the context of faith? How can fundies respond to this?

Doctor X

For what it is worth, the RSV, which is the English translation used for the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, translates the word for "slave"--δουλοs --as "servant." This, obviously, changes the meaning--softens it--cannot have Junior supporting slavery.

Unfortunately, δουλοs is translated as "slave" throughout in the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon--not "servant."

Lk uses the word frequently in his gospel. The passage you mention, and another one, Lk 17:7-10, do not have a parallel in Mk or Mt.

What does this mean? To begin, no one really knows if a historical Jesus existed, and certainly, no one knows what he said or did. Given that this is only in Lk, I would not accept it as "authentic" as in said by a historical Junior! It does seem that the author of Lk-Acts--which we call Luke for convenience--had no problem, nor did his intended audience, with slavery.

This is theological problem if someone believes that what is written in the NT is "true." Of course, that is a whole problem in and of itself!

--J.D.

SpaceMonkey

Well, personally I'm with you when it comes to the possibility of every uncovering an historical Jesus.

I'm just accepting it as a given for the purpose of Biblical ciriticism in relation to Jesus and slavery.

In essence pretending that this guy Luke was there when Jesus said, "go home and beat your slave/servant cause they've been naughty."

How can somebody apologise for that? I know someone can. I just can't predict it.

Well, I guess I can. I'm betting the best explanation is that Jesus wasn't talking about a slave/servant. He was in fact talking about servants of God.

I'm hoping someone will go in and counter that statement. And I'll get to have an interesting read by the time I come back tomorrow.

Edit: Just got to thinking that the original translation would make one a "slave" of God, would it not?

Diotima

And that is because in Greek there is another word for "servant" Ypiretis

SpaceMonkey

I will never be tired to remind to people that ancient texts should be interpreted in the context of the social and historical environment that produced them...not only this is the only scientific way to approach them but it prevents us as well from getting involved in fruitless and sometimes funny "criticism" that makes us look ridiculous.

Doctor X

Though I know it will come to great disappointment to Diotima and cause her, no doubt, dishumour, I agree completely with her.

--J.D.

Diotima

Doctor X :

Indeed! What a dreadful way to start my day!

Doctor X

SpaceMonkey:

It would not be supported by the rest of the text. Yyyyyeeessss . . . one can argue that he is "really" speaking about "slaves of Big Daddy;" however, then one still has to recognize that Junior is happy with the plight of the slave, his treatment--it is considered a perfectly understandable and acceptable conceit.

--J.D.

SpaceMonkey

I can't agree, and I'm sure a large number of xtians wouldn't agree with you either.

If we allow for various moral anomalies in the Bible because of temporal and cultural dissimilarity between "us and them", how are we to decide which pieces are acceptable and which are not? You can't just pick and choose.

I would never have guessed that moral relativism would be an excuse for the behaviour of Jesus.

On a side note: Phrenology, eugenics, atavism, hysteria diagnosis.. Yeah, science is great! Because humans can take a disinterested approach to their empirical research.

Diotima

Space monkey

You obviously missed my point. You can't blame past generations for not acting according to current political , social or moral values.

If you choose to do so, then you are involved in moral relativism, a practice that you seem to find unacceptable.

hinduwoman

However, only atheists are prepared to look at all ancient texts in this way. The religious groups regard religious texts, not as a product of hisotrical development, but as Divine guidance, which is valid for ALL times.
So those who believe in such things are the ones who are ridiculous.