Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-18-2013, 10:10 AM

Hi Arnoldo,

I suggested that it was difficult knowing the actual price of slaves in Israel, at least before the Seventh century B.C.E. Besides this, two of three cited passages are difficult to correlate with any slave prices at all.

I see two other objections to saying that the Biblical passages correlate to actual historical slave sale prices.

First, it is possible that the writers might have meant to make a specific point when naming the price Joseph's brothers received for him. They make be making the point that the traders recognized the great value of Joseph and thus gave 25 shekels for him. If the going rate for slaves at the time of writing was, say 2 shekels, this would have meant to show how desirable Joseph was to them. On the other hand, if the value of a slave at the time of writing was 250 shekels, placing his value at 25 shekels would have shown how cheap the brothers were and how much they devalued their brother.

Second, the law code of Hammurabi (circa 1700) seems to place the value of a slave at around 20 or 30 shekels. It is possible that this document and other well circulated documents from this period caused people to think of the value of slaves in ancient times at around 20 or 30 shekels. Anybody writing in later times simply would have recited a price around that figure.

In the same way, a writer today might place the cost of going to a movie in the 1920's and 1930's at a nickel. In fact, that was generally the cost
of going to the movies between 1905 and 1913 before feature films became popular and the "Nickelodeon" was king. The introduction of features quickly drove movie prices to ten cents and by 1916, some new "Movie palaces" were opening and charging a dollar a ticket. By the 1920's, movie prices were generally around 25 or 35 cents.

In any case, we need much more evidence to show that the pricing of slaves and other things are historically valid in the Bible.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Arnoldo,

You are the victim of junk science or perhaps a theological hoax.

In ancient Mesopotamia a certain amount/weight of barley was used to judge price around 2200 B.C.E.

In Egypt loaves of bread and jugs of beer were measurements of value.

There would have been no standard price for a slave as what you gave for a slave would have depended on a number of factors: Age, health, profession, history and sex of a slave; buyer's need and desire for a slave, and general cost of maintaining a slave. All of these would have changed drastically from year to year and deal to deal.

In the chart, there are 3 biblical passages cited:

2 Kings 15:20 does not talk about the price of slaves:

Quote:

Then Pul [ Also called Tiglath-Pileser ] king of Assyria invaded the land, and Menahem gave him a thousand talents [ That is, about 34 tons (about 34 metric tons) ] of silver to gain his support and strengthen his own hold on the kingdom.
20
Menahem exacted this money from Israel. Every wealthy man had to contribute fifty shekels [ That is, about 1 1/4 pounds (about 0.6 kilogram) ] of silver to be given to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria withdrew and stayed in the land no longer.

This describes an event in the 8th Century B.C.E. Since a metric ton is 1000 kilograms, this would suggest 27,200 wealthy men each contributing 1 1/4 lbs. of silver. Were there really 27,200 wealthy men in Israel at this time? In any case, it tells us nothing about the price of slaves.

Exodus 21:32

This does not tell us anything about the price of a slave, but is just how much you pay when a bull gores a slave. A person today might pay $100 if a dog bites a person or $1,000,000 if a dog kills a person. It tells us nothing about the value or a person's value.

How much was 30 sheckels equal to?
From Weights, Measures, and Coins
From the Bible Through the Talmudic Period

In excavations carried out in Palestine some of the weights which have been found have their weight marked on them, but most are without any notation. The shape of the weights, for the most part, is semicircular (dome-shaped). There are also some cast metal weights that are rectangular and cube-shaped, and some that are oval or in the shape of animals. Most of the weights found in Palestine are from the end of the period of the monarchy (the seventh to sixth centuries BCE).

Thus, even within the time period 600-500 B.C.E. what a sheckel of silver weighed varied quite a bit. Nobody knows what it equaled earlier.

The Third and final Biblical reference is to Genesis 39:28. This does not exist as Genesis 39 ends at 23. There is a reference at 37:28:

Twenty shekels or approximately 200 grams (7 ounces) of silver is worth about $150 today. It may have been an average price for a slave in the 17th century or in the 7th century B.C.E. It is difficult to determine.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I dunno about camels but I've seen stuff on the net about the price of slaves in Genesis 39:28 reflecting the circa 1500 B.C. rate.

semiopen · 09-18-2013, 10:38 AM

I didn't see Arnoldo's chart when making my previous reply.

That chart is total bullshit, which is obvious because they even got the genesis chapter and verse wrong.

The prices of slaves varied over time. Sometimes women were valued more and sometimes not.

Regarding the actual passages it quotes, only Genesis gives an actual price -

In Exodus 21:35, I get 21:32

Quote:

But if the ox gores a slave, male or female, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver to the master, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exo 21:32 TNK)

That's not giving the current price of a slave during the years in the wilderness, that's just stupid. It's the concept of getting paid compensation.

The other quote

Quote:

King Pul of Assyria invaded the land, and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver that he might support him and strengthen his hold on the kingdom. 20 Menahem exacted the money from Israel: every man of means had to pay fifty shekels of silver for the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria withdrew and did not remain in the land. (2Ki 15:19-20 TNK)

Again, only an idiot would claim that this is a slave price.

There is abundant academic literature on this subject, the graphic is just idiotic bible thumping - apparently Arnoldo really did get a lobotomy.

J-D · 09-18-2013, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I dunno about camels but I've seen stuff on the net about the price of slaves in Genesis 39:28 reflecting the circa 1500 B.C. rate.

Hi Arnoldo, been a while - nice to see you again... hope you weren't away getting a lobotomy but actually you are referring to Genesis 37:28

Quote:

And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt.

I've written many posts about this subject.

From an economic standpoint, slaves have to produce more than what is required for their subsistence. This isn't easy to do in a primitive economy. Therefore, if you wanted a generic person to do work, why not just hire one of the local yokels?

From an economic standpoint, hired employees have to produce more than what is required for their subsistence, and in a primitive economy, why would they work for you for hire instead of working for themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The 20 shekel rate (of course this is before coins were invented, and whether the bible authors are talking about weights here is highly questionable) might have been an acceptable price back in the good old days, but then again it might not. It sort of depended on market conditions, sex of the slave, etc. The price seems high for the conditions described in the Joseph story - this was a wholesale transaction after all; were the brothers in a position to bargain?

However, using the same logic, this was also the price of a slave (with the same cautions) for over a thousand years afterwards. Therefore, one has to question the effectiveness of this as any type of argument for some kind of historical accuracy in Genesis. I suspect your hero

Kenneth_Kitchen was the person who started this dubious defense of biblical accuracy.

semiopen · 09-19-2013, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

From an economic standpoint, hired employees have to produce more than what is required for their subsistence, and in a primitive economy, why would they work for you for hire instead of working for themselves?

I agree that my statement was poorly worded, considering ancient Egypt, etc wasn't a primitive economy among other things.

I was also amazed to see I made a post that was almost identical to one of Jay's about the total senselessness of the biblical verses Arnoldo provided. The graphic is blocked for some reason at work and it was a total surprise to see it appear later where the verses are noted, and I missed Jay's post - of course I might have missed it even if things were relatively normal.

Anyway, slaves were an important part of the ancient near eastern economies and there is abundant academic literature discussing prices, etc.

The lesson might be that the graphic is still an effective marketing tool., despite being a total lie.

Toto · 09-19-2013, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I dunno about camels but I've seen stuff on the net about the price of slaves in Genesis 39:28 reflecting the circa 1500 B.C. rate.

The source:

photobucket.com .. albums ... arnoldo ... Screenshot-Kitchendoc MicrosoftWord-Kitchendoc-mheiserpdf

Same image: here

Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" Biblical Archaeology Review, March / April, 1995, p. 52 (behind a paywall.)

semiopen · 09-19-2013, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I dunno about camels but I've seen stuff on the net about the price of slaves in Genesis 39:28 reflecting the circa 1500 B.C. rate.

The source:

photobucket.com .. albums ... arnoldo ... Screenshot-Kitchendoc MicrosoftWord-Kitchendoc-mheiserpdf

Same image: here

Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" Biblical Archaeology Review, March / April, 1995, p. 52 (behind a paywall.)

Kitchen is Arnoldo's hero, as we can glean from his old posts.

I've given the slave price thing more thought than usual and was surprised that the argument is so bad, given that Kitchen is not just a quack, but a relatively legitimate academic.

Tommy · 09-19-2013, 01:51 PM

I'm interested to hear thoughts on the issue of Noah and clean/unclean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Noah was told to differentiate between clean and unclean. Would he have known what this meant? I can't see any prior reference to this in Genesis. If people pre-flood knew why about food cleanliness why wasn't this recorded? If Noah didn't know surely God would have explained it to him - the lack of clarification by the Genesis author seems to be anachronistic and projecting back the knowledge of later generations.

semiopen · 09-20-2013, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

I'm interested to hear thoughts on the issue of Noah and clean/unclean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Noah was told to differentiate between clean and unclean. Would he have known what this meant? I can't see any prior reference to this in Genesis. If people pre-flood knew why about food cleanliness why wasn't this recorded? If Noah didn't know surely God would have explained it to him - the lack of clarification by the Genesis author seems to be anachronistic and projecting back the knowledge of later generations.

The key issue with Noah is whether it is two combined sources or a single one.

The academic consensus is that it is two, but some respectable guys (such as

Umberto_Cassuto) try to demonstrate that it is one. However Cassuto died in 1951 and I think it is getting harder to find respectable people that disagree with the two sources - especially since it is so obvious.

The P source is responsible for the one pair of all animals, while the J source has the seven pairs of clean animals versus the one of unclean. There are other differences of course such as different lengths of time for the rain, etc.

Tommy · 09-21-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

I'm interested to hear thoughts on the issue of Noah and clean/unclean.

The key issue with Noah is whether it is two combined sources or a single one.

The academic consensus is that it is two, but some respectable guys (such as

Umberto_Cassuto) try to demonstrate that it is one. However Cassuto died in 1951 and I think it is getting harder to find respectable people that disagree with the two sources - especially since it is so obvious.

The P source is responsible for the one pair of all animals, while the J source has the seven pairs of clean animals versus the one of unclean. There are other differences of course such as different lengths of time for the rain, etc.

I'm totally in agreement with the two source hypothesis - highly persuasive.

The underlying idea behind this thread is to see if we can beat Genesis literalists at their own game: assume that Genesis pertains to be a literal historical record written close to the events described then point out the anachronisms that undermine its credibility. So far it seems we've got four nail-on anachronisms (the three in the OP plus clean/unclean and Noah) and one likely anachronism (shekel in Genesis probably meaning coin). If we had a few more there might be scope for anachronismsingenesis.com and provoke answersingenesis to produce at least a page of weedling excuses.

arnoldo · 09-21-2013, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I dunno about camels but I've seen stuff on the net about the price of slaves in Genesis 39:28 reflecting the circa 1500 B.C. rate.

The source:

photobucket.com .. albums ... arnoldo ... Screenshot-Kitchendoc MicrosoftWord-Kitchendoc-mheiserpdf

Same image: here

Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" Biblical Archaeology Review, March / April, 1995, p. 52 (behind a paywall.)

Yes, that is the source which I should have cited. His website at the the University of Liverpool is at the link below;

http://www.liv.ac.uk/sace/organisati...le/kitchen.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.