Slavery in the bible

[sooda]

That does not appear to be the case. Jews as a population had a higher percentage of slave ownership. But their numbers were so small that they still played a very limited roll in the slave trade:

Jews and the African Slave Trade | My Jewish Learning

From the linked article:

'Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.” '

A high percentage of Jews owning slaves can give a false picture. Population wise they were a fraction of a percentage of the overall population so even with a high percentage of slave ownership they still played a very minor role.

By 1800 there were about 2,000 Jews in South Carolina (overwhelmingly Sephardic and settled in Charleston), which was more than in any other U.S. state at that time.

The also owned shares in shipping.

History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina - Wikipedia

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves. Not even all of those were Christian. So to blame 95+% for the actions of less than 5% is a BS at the very least.

I'd like to see where these statistics came from (because I have seen sources that cite "low percentage" numbers as a myth, and stating that the figure was more like 32% according to an 1860 census), but, the South, in general, was afraid for its financial independence were slavery to fall and feared what it would mean to their lifestyle to suddenly be surrounded by a population of freed slaves (i.e. "black people"). And so, even though pastors didn't own slaves themselves, they began preaching about the compatibility of slavery with Christian doctrine, and how to "perfect" slavery to make it fit with Christian livelihood. These pastors and their supporting congregations understood that the Bible provides clear moral guidelines on how to properly practice slavery, leadership figures in the Old Testament owned slaves, and Paul’s New Testament letters compel slaves to be obedient to their slave masters. Finally, the Gospels do not record any condemnation of slavery by Jesus. All of those were argumentation points, and constantly brought up by southerners looking to protect their lifestyles - slave owner or not.

Obviously not or else Christian Abolitionist wouldn't have been the ones to wins slavery.

Even MORE obviously - just because they had the ammunition didn't make them right. There were obviously people on both sides (North and South) and both worldview camps (secular and religious) who did not agree with slavery. But that doesn't negate the FACT that The Bible contains exactly the kind of support and evidence for permissibility of slavery I just mentioned in the paragraph above. And it doesn't negate the fact that many Christians in the South were being preached to and took up the cause in defense of slavery using those pieces of evidence.

Dunno ending slavery was a pretty sweet win over the secularist.

What the hell are you talking about here? Are you implying that what you're labeling "secularists" were the majority slave owners and slavery supporters? What forms of justification did they use for their argumentation? Can you cite any examples? Because it is well documented that those who supported slavery turned to The Bible for justification of their arguments.

Here is a quote from Frederick Douglass, reviewing the work of the white churches of the times:

: “Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[sooda]

Those are some very good observations and I've asked myself the same questions before. I did some research and I couldn't find any indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s purpose or that He encouraged it in any way. He did, however, allow it. Why, I don't know. I couldn't find a clear answer to that one. Maybe because by the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that were the opposite of godly principles.
From what I was able to find in my research into the Bible, there were some regulations that made being a slave in Bible times very different from what happened years latter with the slave trade that we are more familiar with.
For example, taking a man by force and then selling him was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). A thief who wasn't able to pay back what he had stolen could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt but once he paid he could walk free.
Cruel physical abuse towards slaves was forbidden and if a slave was seriously hurt he was to be set free (Exodus 21:26, 27). The law required that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be freed, independently of how long the individual had been a slave and when they god released their masters were supposed to be generous towards them.
I'm not in any way defending slavery, but even though in Bible times it was allowed, at least it was regulated. If slave owners followed the laws or not, that's a whole different story.

They didn't always follow the Bible.

1. Khazars - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
   The Khazars constituted one of the two great furnishers of slaves to the Muslim market (the other being the Iranian Sâmânid amîrs), supplying it with captured Slavs and tribesmen from the Eurasian northlands. It was profits from the latter which enabled it to maintain a standing army of Khwarezm Muslim troops.
   
   
2. Radhnaites, Khazars, Trade Routes & the Slave Trades ...
   https://macrocosmicthinking.blogspot.com/2015/11/radhnaites-khazars-trade-routes-slave...
   Nov 13, 2015 · The Ashnekazi Jews, Radhnaite Jews, and Khazar Jews heavily profited from misery and were heavily involved in the Arab Slave Trade and the American Slave Trade.
   

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are some very good observations and I've asked myself the same questions before. I did some research and I couldn't find any indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s purpose or that He encouraged it in any way. He did, however, allow it. Why, I don't know. I couldn't find a clear answer to that one. Maybe because by the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that were the opposite of godly principles.
From what I was able to find in my research into the Bible, there were some regulations that made being a slave in Bible times very different from what happened years latter with the slave trade that we are more familiar with.
For example, taking a man by force and then selling him was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). A thief who wasn't able to pay back what he had stolen could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt but once he paid he could walk free.
Cruel physical abuse towards slaves was forbidden and if a slave was seriously hurt he was to be set free (Exodus 21:26, 27). The law required that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be freed, independently of how long the individual had been a slave and when they god released their masters were supposed to be generous towards them.
I'm not in any way defending slavery, but even though in Bible times it was allowed, at least it was regulated. If slave owners followed the laws or not, that's a whole different story.

And the Bible as usual contradicts itself a bit:

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”

—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't always follow the Bible.

1. Khazars - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
   The Khazars constituted one of the two great furnishers of slaves to the Muslim market (the other being the Iranian Sâmânid amîrs), supplying it with captured Slavs and tribesmen from the Eurasian northlands. It was profits from the latter which enabled it to maintain a standing army of Khwarezm Muslim troops.
   
   
2. Radhnaites, Khazars, Trade Routes & the Slave Trades ...
   https://macrocosmicthinking.blogspot.com/2015/11/radhnaites-khazars-trade-routes-slave...
   Nov 13, 2015 · The Ashnekazi Jews, Radhnaite Jews, and Khazar Jews heavily profited from misery and were heavily involved in the Arab Slave Trade and the American Slave Trade.

I suppose that they could claim that they were not the ones that kidnapped those people. The Bible is full of plausible deniability.

 

[sooda]

I suppose that they could claim that they were not the ones that kidnapped those people. The Bible is full of plausible deniability.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't know about that. They justify murder of the Cananites..

What we have here is a story torn from its page. You just finished telling me the Israelites were the Caananites, and you were correct. How can they both be and also have massacred the Caanites? You remarked in another thread that Jesus (in Revelation) doesn't kill with a physical sword but with words, but you and I both know Jesus is named after and is modeled after Joshua the conqueror of Caanan. Words are at play here. When 2 Corinth 10 says "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are mighty through God" where do you suppose that tradition comes from? It doesn't come from one that massacres people physically. Where must these ideas and language come from? Why have all of the Jews down through that last 2000 years made a point of being nonviolent? Obviously they don't think that the story justifies murder of Caananites or anyone else. Its simply a story torn from its page. The forward and prologue are missing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They didn't always follow the Bible.

1. Khazars - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
   The Khazars constituted one of the two great furnishers of slaves to the Muslim market (the other being the Iranian Sâmânid amîrs), supplying it with captured Slavs and tribesmen from the Eurasian northlands. It was profits from the latter which enabled it to maintain a standing army of Khwarezm Muslim troops.
   
   
2. Radhnaites, Khazars, Trade Routes & the Slave Trades ...
   https://macrocosmicthinking.blogspot.com/2015/11/radhnaites-khazars-trade-routes-slave...
   Nov 13, 2015 · The Ashnekazi Jews, Radhnaite Jews, and Khazar Jews heavily profited from misery and were heavily involved in the Arab Slave Trade and the American Slave Trade.

No, they didn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That looks like it came from an anti-Semitic source. Can you find something a little more reliable?

By the way, when cutting and pasting a link is a must. That way one can see if one is using a reliable source or not.

 

[sooda]

That looks like it came from an anti-Semitic source. Can you find something a little more reliable?

By the way, when cutting and pasting a link is a must. That way one can see if one is using a reliable source or not.

The data comes from the archives in Charleston. You can also find the names, dates and occupation of travelers who traveled to Charleston from Europe.

Using Ship Manifests for Slave Research - Archives
https://www.archives.com/.../brandt-kathleen/using-ship-manifests-for-slave-research.html

 

[sooda]

What we have here is a story torn from its page. You just finished telling me the Israelites were the Caananites, and you were correct. How can they both be and also have massacred the Caanites? You remarked in another thread that Jesus (in Revelation) doesn't kill with a physical sword but with words, but you and I both know Jesus is named after and is modeled after Joshua the conqueror of Caanan. Words are at play here. When 2 Corinth 10 says "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are mighty through God" where do you suppose that tradition comes from? It doesn't come from one that massacres people physically. Where must these ideas and language come from? Why have all of the Jews down through that last 2000 years made a point of being nonviolent? Obviously they don't think that the story justifies murder of Caananites or anyone else. Its simply a story torn from its page. The forward and prologue are missing.

They didn't massacre the Canaanites. That's all BS.

 

[sooda]

Guide to Immigration Records and Ship's Passenger Lists ...
https://www.njgsbc.org/files/immigration/ship07.html
"The Original List of Persons of Quality who went from Great Britian to American Plantations, 1600-1700". Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1974 . Lancour, A. Harold. "A Bibliography of Ship Passenger Lists of Ships coming to North America, 1538-1825, Being a Guide to Published Lists of Early Immigrants to North America".

 

[exchemist]

And you conveniently omit that those who utilized The Bible to advocate FOR slavery during that same time-frame were also Christian. And, honestly, they had plenty of ammunition to take into the argument. The Bible blatantly supports/condones slavery.

And this is where there is an egregious problem. Secularly minded individuals who wanted to argue for keeping slavery had to come up with secular justifications as to why it is acceptable to own another human being - of which there are basically none outside of appealing to greed and apathy. But religious people who want to argue that we should keep slavery have The Bible that they can point to, and basically use it to insist that God is on their side in the argument. That's one of the biggest dangers of religion in general. Cosmic-level justification of atrocity.

I'm not as familiar with my bible as I might be, but where does it actually endorse slavery? I mean, I know there is slavery in the bible and it is not condemned, but where is it actually advocated?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I don't see what the problem is here. Nobody claims either the Jews or the early Christians, 2000 years, ago led perfect moral lives, nor does anyone claim that the social structures of the time were the moral equal of what we have in many modern societies. Slavery is just one example. You could equally well pick on the role of women.

People cannot help being of their time: what they see as moral and immoral will be shaped by that. The bible was written by people, after all, at a certain time in history.

So what's the issue?

No, but there are those who'd hold up the bible as some sort of moral codex - and hold people like Peter as sacred. Yes, they were people - but if god wanted to provide us a text from which to draw our moral code - how could it be so awful?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I am not arguing for an infallible Bible just responding to the OP. They're speaking strictly about what they read in Hebrew laws, and I'm meeting them in that world. Nobody is really trying to shore up historicity, but we are discussing whether slavery is encouraged or discouraged. Obviously Christians, Muslims and Jews are implicated by recent centuries in which slavery has been a big business. The OP blames this on the Bible and on the concept of God, and I see some misconceptions in the OP argument.

Noooo I don't blame the bible for slavery. I blame people who'd use the bible as an excuse, and those who keep using the bible as some sort of treatise on morality when it's so obviously wrong in so many places.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Is this exclusively a Biblical thread or is it slavery in general?

exclusively biblical - I don't know enough about any other texts to comment.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Are you aware that God also allowed Jews to have multiple wives for a while, because he knew they lusted over the flesh?

...God never wants to be too heavy of a burden. Everything in due time. Step by step.

Though, I will say, the Catholic Church rejected slavery long before the secular non-theists. That's a documented fact.

I'm not claiming that secularists are perfect - not sure why you'd bring that up. The point is that most secular people (especially humanists) don't have any texts which advocate for slavery... can any Christian say the same?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I think its illegal to kidnap but not to purchase slaves from other countries, yes. Why I'm not sure but presumably its only part of the story. There are no suggestions that it is moral but that freeing slaves is moral. Its a culture in which all citizens celebrate being escaped slaves in a mandatory all night reenactment. I think you'd need to look deeper before making conclusions about whether they think of slavery as a moral thing. I myself am not sure and don't know what the Talmud says. There are gaps that the Pentateuch doesn't expressly describe.

He advises that to Christian slaves but to masters he advises to release slaves. He seems to think they should win them over to Christ under the circumstances. He does believe in freedom, and NT writers talk about freedom as an ideal. Presumably this comes form Jewish ideals.

Jubilees. It is every seven years. Every 50 years the land leases are renewed, but every seven years slaves are released except for converts. Then you have the ear piercing ceremony where the person decides they want to become part of the family. Its unclear to me, but it appears to be a form of naturalization. Up to seven years of indenture are possible, and so the amount of money for that service is probably pro-rated based on how many years are left of the seven. For details you'd need to ask someone with Talmud study.

No, there is something wrong with it. That is the whole point. This is a culture that every year celebrates escape from slavery. Every Hebrew is an escaped slave. Its highly likely that the slaves purchased from other countries are naturalized. There are hints of this in the text of the laws as I read them. Why would they have this culture of escape from slavery if they thought slavery was a moral thing? They also have a system of adoption that ignores lineage. You can see this in the genealogies. Your lineage doesn't actually come from DNA. Its not much of a leap to say that they were a very mixed race due to a practice of bringing people in and naturalizing. The stories of David emphasize how he is able to take a group of rag tag outcast individuals of various national pasts and turn them into a tight knit group. The symbols and stories emphasize diversity not so much slavery. I'd say the people here in this bronze age were surrounded by pillaging enslaving countries and were trying to improve things, and they did so successfully. I don't think they at all enshrine slavery as a moral good.

You can imagine someone executing their wife for wearing two kinds of fabrics, but its not clear that is what happens. There is no claim that slavery is moral. Rather the claim is that slavery is bitter. I think you could take another look.


I only point out some possible misconceptions. I don't think slavery is moral.

Thanks for this, I'll respond as fully as I can...

1: That isn't an argument against the awful command that slaves obey their masters. Just because the bible says good things as well as bad things doesn't mean that the bad things disappear.

2: as I said, 50 minutes is wrong. 7 years is also, unsurprisingly, wrong.

3: so firstly, there is no evidence that the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt. This seems to be fictional... there is no cross-pollination of culture, archaeological evidence or contemporary accounts. Secondly, You're glossing over the fact (and it is a fact) that people were bought and sold as property, and could be part of someone's inheritance. Would you be a slave under the laws of the bible? knowing that someone could beat you within an inch of your life and get off scot free as long as you got up after a few days? What about an eye for an eye? that doesn't apply to slaves. If a master takes the eye of a slave, they get to go free, but that's it. There's no reason to believe they thought there was something wrong with it; it seems to suggest that it's only natural that you take slaves.

4: I didn't mean to assert that there was a claim that slavery was moral. There isn't a statement on that.... only on how to morally treat your slaves. There is no suggestion that it is immoral.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Then God should have condemned it, as "He" did many, many other things.

EXACTLY!! There are so many weird and extremely detailed instructions in the bible, but nothing on slavery except on how to own your slaves.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not as familiar with my bible as I might be, but where does it actually endorse slavery? I mean, I know there is slavery in the bible and it is not condemned, but where is it actually advocated?

The moral/acceptable means by which to practice slavery is presented. Not to mention quotes like "Slaves, obey your masters." It is a design of the law such that practice of slavery has its niche.

What if, during the times in U.S. history of the heaviest segregation, our law books prescribed the moral way in which you could beat black people in the street such that you weren't to be punished if you followed the guidelines? "Never use a rod with over 300 MPa tensile strength.", "Be sure you are in full view of at least 3 other witnesses.", "Do not strike to the point that eyes or teeth are lost."

Just think about that. What the hell kind of message do you think something like that would send, honestly?