I know slavery is wrong and it saying that a slave owner can beat the slave as long as they live but when you remember that the Bible was written a REALLY long time ago for them to add that if a slave owner was to beat their slave to death they would be punished than that is really something. More than likely they hated that rule. They probably said if the slave was theirs than they had a right to beat them till they die.
If you were to use this context now it be more like if a boss forces its workers to work in unsafe environments that would lead to the workers death knowingly than the boss should be punished.
Like forcing their worker to work in high risk covid 19 areas like hospitals or grocery stores with out proper equipment like masks and hand sanitizer. (hand sauce as my hubby puts it lol)
Not only that but there are also other places not only in the Bible that detail how slavery in those time was accepted and some even willingly became slaves either to support a cause or even dedicate their lives to a person who has probably saved their life. Just because we see something as wrong today doesn't mean it had no basis or reason back then
Well... yes and no. You’re using modern ideas and modern philosophy and modern definitions all informed by history that didn’t exist then. We can’t really help it. We are in part shaped by the world we grow up in. The idea that slavery is wrong is a solid one I will not argue against. Slavery is wrong. Period. But here is the problem... follow me as I try to do this without an hour a day over semesters to explain it.
Slavery is recorded in the earliest recorded history of humans- spoken of as if it were already an institution. Evidence of it pre dates written history. It was an accepted practice of the ancient world. It wasn’t made illegal world wide until the 1980’s- and we STILL have slavery as well as concepts of slavery in various cultures today.
The DEFINITION of slavery is a tricky thing. Does slavery require a person to be considered property to be bought and sold or rented and leased? That would make work technically slavery. Certainly putting prisoners to unpaid labor? There’s a question- is slavery always unpaid? Many historical slaves were paid some type of wages. Slavery by nature usually requires room and board- types of “compensation” themselves. Generally- slavery requires a person be not allowed to leave by choice right? You can’t “quit” being a slave when you don’t like it right?
But... then if we said slavery is: “you can’t leave if you want, you CAN get paid, and you do not have to be considered property legally- but you need to be treated as though you are at the disposal of another wether you consent or not... the military is slavery isn’t it?
There are papers and books galore on the subject. In modern times- a primary definition of slavery is not a question of wether you are being exploited- but if you have a choice in being exploited. That isn’t so clear either because everything is a choice. “Serve or die,” “submit or be punished...” so it is implies that choice must be somewhat free of consequence other than direct rational consequence- in other words: a direct consequence of quitting your job is the loss of a benefit it provides- NOT the loss of your left arm because someone cut it off because you left.
This is critically important because while we can say the CONCEPT of slavery is repugnant- we can say that REAL EXAMPLES of slavery are repugnant if presented examples to judge- we still need a DEFINITION of slavery to speak in abstract- if we say “it is the law to kill any who would keep slaves...” We need to be able to point at any and all relationships between and two humans and determine if THAT relationship is a form of slavery.
Some things are clearly identified as such in society. But... are arranged marriages slavery? I guess it might depend on the details. But again- what are the things that we can use as a check list to say “this is slavery”? Obviously- plantation ere Slavery was slavery. People were kidnapped, beat, refused free passage or control of their lives, etc etc. but- we know that context and combinations of those criteria exist in relationships other than slavery.
Think of the line between strict discipline with a child and abuse. It can be very hard to define and tends to fail universal tests across cultures and across time doesn’t it?
If you start looking at the relationships and laws concerning partners and children as well as the attitudes of various societies towards certain groups- the attitude of American society in the era of slavery was that enslaved peoples were intellectually inferior- incapable of self care and so on. Many apologists will try to take this tract- that slavery was to the benefit of those enslaved in America. So from a perspective outside our time and place- removed from our culture- the way we treat children might be viewed as a form of slavery- in at least they may feel giving children chores etc. is exploitive since they have no choice.
Words suck. I love words but they also complicate things. When we say “slavery” we have at least an idea of what that is- even if we can’t put a concrete and universal definition to it and justify every nuance of that. But... language and even the concepts behind language change over time. This creates problems when studying ancient writings.
The Bible is not only ancient- but it has been translated and retranslated with varying attention to detail, expertise, and even in some cases politically motivated edits or changes for localization to aid understanding or just inherent to the perspective and ability to understand of the one translating.
Studying slavery in ancient Egypt- or even class- is difficult because of this. Often what is one word today was many in ancient language, or what we use many nuanced word for only had a single word in ancient times. Such it is with slavery in ancient Egypt- there weren’t “slaves.” They had several words to describe different types of servant or serving class, workers, slaves, forced labor, indentured servants... those who chose servitude and so forth.
What’s more complex? The usuals of these words changes with time and even with location! So if a word meant something like a modern Butler in a certain region- in another it could be more like an Atlantic slave trade relationship. If one word meant more like a personal assistant in one period- 50,100 years later that same word could mean a person was the equivalent of a nun or clergy.
So when the Bible speaks of slaves and property- you also have to remember that it isn’t even so much an argument “they treated slaves differently..” it’s that “slave” is a broad ass term. Let me give you an example from modern times-
A legal text detailing rules for prison staff and inmates. It might say something like: “Use of force is only allowed in defense of self or others; or to prevent escape. This use of force should be proportional and not excessive. Lethal for e or extreme force that results in the maiming, death, or serious injury of a prisoner and is deemed inappropriate for the circumstances will carry charges up to and including murder. Any prisoner checked out under your watch is in your care as a ward of the state...”
Cut down the wordiness, add several thousand years of changes to language, retranslations, etc. and it basically says: “these men are your property” (property, when taken out of legal contexts that did not exist at the time and free of conceptions based in culture where property has a clearly negative connotation- denotes responsibility and “ownership” for) “and you may beat them if needed- but you may not kill them without cause.” (That’s basically what it says.)
Lol. I use the phone almost exclusively. I mainly hit FunSubstance while I’m working or when I have some free moments here and there in between things.
You have to look at the context. This scripture isn't saying that you can and should exodus 21:12-36 talks about how situations should be handled. Who's to say the slave didnt rape the owners wife or was stealing? The punishment was given to him via the rod. You have to read the context to understand what it means. This doesnt say the slave owner can just walk around beating slaves almost to death. Their wrath is being stored up by God as they sin against the people of God.
Scenario 2: The Bible is a book concerning interactions with beings of an alien nature. Divine, extra-dimensional- whatever. Supposedly- at least from the perspective of the authors- the highest of these beings is capable of seeing and knowing all things across all time and reality. This brings up 2 important points. Point 1: even a reasonably intelligent being is aware that you cannot simply drop radical ideas and changes in culture and science on a group of humans without causing extreme disruption or having those ideas rejected. Upon discovering germs- medical doctors rejected their existence for conflicting with what they knew- and for insulting their cultural ideas (chiefly that to them- germs implied doctors were unclean or of low standing.) we’ve seen in history even recent decades that suddenly forcing extreme cultural changes often causes huge problems or even reverses positive change.
And point 2. An all knowing being that could see all futures could and likely would be motivated to act in such a way that set up the future which they wanted to see. In other words- ignoring divinity- just the idea of an advanced being that can see through time and see all possible outcomes at once-would imply that such a being might act in ways that wouldn’t make sense or would even seem counter intuitive to those without the ability because that is precisely what needs to happen. They would tell you exactly what they needed to tell you so that in the future that creates things end up as they need to end up.
It’s an interesting perspective. Without trying to invalidate it- I would pose that the holiness of the book is as you say- largely irrelevant in examining the book. If I may present 2 scenarios for review:
Scenario 1. The Bible is a book written by humans as a history book of sorts. All history books- including modern ones contain errors and bias by the writers. Some events might be described as perceived and the details may be imperfect, and some events may be altered or invented by an author with their own motivations- but what we know from archeology and other records supports that at least SOME of the Bible lines up to actual historical events. Looking at ancient texts- history and elements we could label as mythology overlap- in other words ancient history records were in part not strictly “non fiction.”
@bruh What does she think about the Gospel of Judas and other non-canonical stories like the story of Lilith? I'm super curious if they learn and discuss about them.
If you were to use this context now it be more like if a boss forces its workers to work in unsafe environments that would lead to the workers death knowingly than the boss should be punished.
Like forcing their worker to work in high risk covid 19 areas like hospitals or grocery stores with out proper equipment like masks and hand sanitizer. (hand sauce as my hubby puts it lol)