The Bible And Slavery

[Politesse]

... he encouraged his followers to pursue agape, true love, toward all. He was not alone in this; the Stoics had taught likewise.

Just curious, is there a link that tells about a Stoic agape? I've taken up an interest in Stoicism but only just started studying it. So this is interesting that they held an impractical, mystical ideal like this.

Oh, I should correct. The notion of universal love is what links the two; the Stoics tended to value the emotion/concept of eros over agape, though, despite seeing them as linked. More than anything, they saw the various forms of love as something inherent to humanity, but that which should be experienced without great judgement or attachment, and definitely not excessively for one person over another. If you are exploring Stoicism I certainly hope you have started in on Marcus Aurelius' Meditations; his descriptions of other people and musings on how one ought to interact with them are very instructive. I also really like the general work by Alan Soble, "Readings in the Philosophy of Love". Unfortunately, many primary works that might have elucidated the Stoic philosophy on love more clearly have been lost; we know that many of Zeno's students took up the subject in books we possess only the titles of in the present, alas. That's cool that you're looking into Stoicism, in my opinion a much misunderstood and unduly maligned philosophy within classical studies.

 

[Politesse]

Paul copied and used Greek philosophy in his writings.

He was a Hellenistic Jew. No philosophical works from the time period are absent the insights of Plato and Aristotle to some degree. This is a strength, not a weakness.

 

[DBT]

Paul copied and used Greek philosophy in his writings.

He was a Hellenistic Jew. No philosophical works from the time period are absent the insights of Plato and Aristotle to some degree. This is a strength, not a weakness.

I didn't say that referring to Greek philosophy was a weakness, just passing it off as your own work, not giving credit where it's due. Also the implications from the perspective of the claim of divine inspiration. Unless the classical philosophers were divine?

 

[Politesse]

Paul copied and used Greek philosophy in his writings.

He was a Hellenistic Jew. No philosophical works from the time period are absent the insights of Plato and Aristotle to some degree. This is a strength, not a weakness.

I didn't say that referring to Greek philosophy was a weakness, just passing it off as your own work, not giving credit where it's due. Also the implications from the perspective of the claim of divine inspiration. Unless the classical philosophers were divine?

Just because I am talking with you, does not mean I am necessarily arguing with you.

 

[DBT]

I didn't say that referring to Greek philosophy was a weakness, just passing it off as your own work, not giving credit where it's due. Also the implications from the perspective of the claim of divine inspiration. Unless the classical philosophers were divine?

Just because I am talking with you, does not mean I am necessarily arguing with you.

Fair enough. I'm just saying what I feel needs saying without it being directed at anyone. It's not personal.

 

[ruby sparks]

Fourth century -- roughly the time of the most enduring canonizations. Council of Nicea, 325 CE; St. Jerome's Bible, 400 CE. So, before that, various church's collections of scriptures and lots of manuscripts in circulation.

Sure.

I may have gotten the wrong idea from what was said, and I'm not saying there were no political aspects, but I myself would not say 'the bible was invented for political purposes'.

 

[Politesse]

Fourth century -- roughly the time of the most enduring canonizations. Council of Nicea, 325 CE; St. Jerome's Bible, 400 CE. So, before that, various church's collections of scriptures and lots of manuscripts in circulation.

Sure.

I may have gotten the wrong idea from what was said, and I'm not saying there were no political aspects, but I myself would not say 'the bible was invented for political purposes'.

The Bible was not composed for political purposes, but it has been used for political purposes, and certainly by Constantine. I do not buy into the conspiracy theory about fourth century authorship either, but it is true that people thought about "the Scriptures" after the Roman state for all intents and purposes took ownership of them.

 

[bilby]

'Political' and 'religious' as separate and independent categories make no sense at all prior to the seventeenth century.

Nobody in the 400s would have understood the difference between them, or why you would try to disaggregate those concepts.

 

[Politesse]

'Political' and 'religious' as separate and independent categories make no sense at all prior to the seventeenth century.

Nobody in the 400s would have understood the difference between them, or why you would try to disaggregate those concepts.

True. "Religion" as a general concept didn't really exist in the time periods we're discussing. At least, not in the same way we would understand it now; some aspects of "religion" as we would think of it, such as devotion to the local deity or divinatory messages from the God/gods, were explicitly understood as political issues, and funding and maintaining certain rituals was one of the very basic responsibilities the elite classes were considered responsible for. Certainly in ancient Judea, religion and political authority were so strongly intertwined that the destruction of the Jewish Temple was for all intents and purposes also the fall of the Jewish state... for almost two millennia.

I see it crop up often in discussions of Jesus' death and the reasons for it; I'm not sure modern readers often realize the extent to which a Galilean (technically an independent region) challenging the Temple priesthood (an integral part of Roman direct rule over the Palestinian Province) as Jesus seems to have freely done by all accounts, was, in and of itself, sedition against the Roman state from the point of view of those times, that governments' legitimacy being tied inextricably to their alliance with and sponsorship of (what to them were) the local rites. We always try to project our own cultural realities backwards to try and understand the past, and it always causes confusion.

I suppose there is some relevance to this thread if one thinks about it, especially in terms of the pseudo-Paul's letters. I don't think this excuses his tacit-at-best support of slavery, but there are some messages that would have been more dangerous to put in writing in 46 CE than they would be now, and any economic questions affecting the maintenance of imperial power would have been among them. I can understand why he would feel pressured play it careful, even if I think this makes him a bit of a hypocrite and a coward given his other writings and his constant humble-boasting about his willingness to be martyred for Christ.

 

[Jarhyn]

'Political' and 'religious' as separate and independent categories make no sense at all prior to the seventeenth century.

Nobody in the 400s would have understood the difference between them, or why you would try to disaggregate those concepts.

True. "Religion" as a general concept didn't really exist in the time periods we're discussing. At least, not in the same way we would understand it now; some aspects of "religion" as we would think of it, such as devotion to the local deity or divinatory messages from the God/gods, were explicitly understood as political issues, and funding and maintaining certain rituals was one of the very basic responsibilities the elite classes were considered responsible for. Certainly in ancient Judea, religion and political authority were so strongly intertwined that the destruction of the Jewish Temple was for all intents and purposes also the fall of the Jewish state... for almost two millennia.

I see it crop up often in discussions of Jesus' death and the reasons for it; I'm not sure modern readers often realize the extent to which a Galilean (technically an indepent region) challenging the Temple priesthood (an integral part of Roman direct rule over the Palestinian Province) as Jesus seems to have freely done by all accounts, was, in and of itself, sedition against the Roman state from the point of view of those times, that governments' legitimacy being tied inextricably to their alliance with and sponsorship of (what to them were) the local rites. We always try to project our own cultural realities backwards to try and understand the past, and it always causes confusion.

I suppose there is some relevance to this thread if one thinks about it, especially in terms of the pseudo-Paul's letters. I don't think this excuses his tacit-at-best support of slavery, but there are some messages that would have been more dangerous to put in writing in 46 CE than they would be now, and any economic questions affecting the maintenance of imperial power would have been among them. I can understand why he would feel pressured play it careful, even if I think this makes him a bit of a hypocrite and a coward given his other writings and his constant humble-boasting about his willingness to be martyred for Christ.

Which is why I generally just toss all of Paul right into the wood chipper.

The guy wanted control and authority and prestige, to be the leader of men, and was stuck a lower functionary doing a shitty, violent, dangerous job for his "betters". I'm not surprised he turned sides and used his knowledge and personal context to get what he wanted from the cult.

Though the point you bring up is one I had been tossing around for some time: even if John didn't believe that slavery was ethical even if he thought it was anethma to his message, he couldn't write anything to those explicit ends because he would have been too ahead of his time, and the rest of the message would fail. As it is, there are parallels between MLK and his advocacy for acceptance of gay people by society: he was right but it hurt his movement to be right when too many people were absolutely wrong on the issue, including most of the mostly right people.

There are some choice things I would love to say TODAY about all manner of topics that are similarly just not capable of landing properly on today's ground.

 

[James Madison]

Love is not consistent with slavery, because in slavery you harm others for your personal gain. One cannot love one's neighbor as oneself and also desire to keep a slave, because no one would desire voluntarily to be made a slave if they had another option, for love of themselves and their own worth and freedom.

Tell me, if you yourself were in a condition of involuntary servitude, would you feel that your master loved you as she loves herself? Why or why not?

I don't think the laws that support slavery should be explained away, rather, I think they should be confronted as directly and consistently as possible. And that includes challenging bad theology.when we find it.

Some did, some didn't. When the world matured to the point that a debate over abolition was possible, many Jews were instrumental in that movement, such as Ernestine Rose and David Einhorn. They saw the same contradiction as I do myself, and if you'd like to have a discussion of the inconsistencies in just the Hebrew Scriptures on this question we can. It is not only Christian tradition that forbids slavery when you really think its principles through, and the arguments about literalism and obligation to the written word will make even less sense in a solely Jewish context.

The Bible does not comment as immoral some of the practices that existed back then, have persisted in some form today, whereas today we consider those practices as immoral. Gender inequality existed way back then, but the Bible does not say it is immoral. Equal pay, wage labor, labor conditions, are touched upon as immoral in the Bible. Having more than one wife wasn’t explicitly or tacitly forbidden in the OT or NT. Some practices were allowed but not preferred, like divorce.

That such things exist is not in question. Whether they are right or justifiable is another question. Just because you earnestly believe that a text justifies your way of life, doesn't mean that you are correct.

Which begs the question, is the meaning you attribute to the verse “love your neighbor as yourself” the meaning? That is the issue and question you and I have been discussing. A very old religious text is being interpreted. What’s its meaning? Whose meaning matters? Implicit in my replies is the assumption your meaning isn’t the meaning of the verses back when the command existed orally/placed into writing.

As I said before, the evidence doesn’t establish your meaning is the meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself.” It is your meaning but not the meaning at the time the verse was orally communicated/written onto parchment.

The verse in question dates back to, in written from, approximately 500 BCE, or earlier for the OT, and approximately 2000 years for the NT. The text’s meaning, a meaning that existed at the time it was written, is over 2000 years old and wasn’t the meaning you now apply to it in the 21st century.

The meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself” back then didn’t conflict with slavery. The Bible, as has a meaning of its own, a message, of its own, birthed into existence at the time it was written.

A important principle of interpretation of a text is to capture the meaning of the text at or near the time the text was written. The text was written at a particular time, in certain contexts, with words that had a limited range of meaning, to communicate a message to the people at the time in a vernacular, and context, that they would understand according to their own customs, practices, language, etcetera. The verse “love thy neighbor as thyself” didn’t have a meaning of conflicting with slavery, and we know this because the verse co-existed with verses acknowledging and allowing slavery, and slavery didn’t make the lengthy naughty list of the OT or NT. No prophet, apostle, disciple, leader, lawyer, or Jesus, explicitly condemn slavery anywhere in the OT or NT. And both the OT and NT are accurately reputed as having no reservations about listing what people aren’t to do. Slavery does not make the cut for thou shall not.

The meaning of the verse back then did not provide any moral conflict or moral dilemma with slavery and it is that meaning back then that matters.

So, by way of example, some modern day Christians understand the Biblical meaning of adultery to be when a married woman or man has sexual intercourse outside of marriage. That is a very modern meaning of adultery, which didn’t exist when the oral law/written law against adultery existed. Adultery was, inter alia, when a married or berhroed woman had sex with a man they weren’t married/bethroed with. Sex between a married man and unmarried woman was fornication. That was the meaning of adultery and fornication back then and it is the meaning that matters.

This is why it is problematic to invoke the Bible as condemning slavery. “Love your neighbor as yourself” back then didn’t mean one could not have slaves, and whatever its meaning, the command didn’t conflict with slavery.

It doesn’t matter if today the meaning of verse doesn’t make sense to us. The meaning back then is the meaning, regardless of whether we find it rational today.

When the world matured to the point that a debate over abolition was possible, many Jews were instrumental in that movement, such as Ernestine Rose and David Einhorn.

They are a couple of millennia or more too late. Their ancestors, who were alive when the verses existed orally/later on paper, practiced slavery under their laws, pursuant to their laws, including “love your neighbor as yourself.” Why? Because they did not understand the command to have the same moral meaning as you have of the verse today, in which you apply the meaning you presently have today onto a very old religious command that didn’t have your meaning back then.

They saw the same contradiction as I do myself, and if you'd like to have a discussion of the inconsistencies in just the Hebrew Scriptures on this question we can.

First, this isn’t an explicit, logical contradiction. To get to a contradiction “they” and “you” have to rely upon an unstated premise. The unstated premise is the meaning you and “they” attribute to “love your neighbor as yourself,” is the meaning. If your meaning, and “their” meaning isn’t the meaning, then there’s no contradiction.

Which brings us back to where I started this post, whose meaning is important? The meaning that existed back then when the verses were written/oral tradition, or the meaning you and others have today which isn’t the meaning that existed back then. The meaning back then is controlling.

So, while they may “see” the same contradiction, this doesn’t tell me they or you are right. They may be wrong in their perception of a contradiction.

So, we can have a dialogue of the perceived, and real, inconsistencies the Hebrew Scriptures. However, at times what is perceived as an inconsistency is rooted in a misinterpretation of the meaning of the text. That is what I claim you are doing with the command of love your neighbor as yourself.

That such things exist is not in question. Whether they are right or justifiable is another question. Just because you earnestly believe that a text justifies your way of life, doesn't mean that you are correct.

True, but my argument is nothing like “earnestly believing,” therefore, I’m correct.

I’m looking at the plain, immutable facts. Laws allowing and regulating slavery co-existed with the command of love your neighbor as yourself. How can they co-exist? If the latter doesn’t have a meaning conflicting with the former. This is a logical inference, as the people living under the law, and for whom the law was for, practiced slavery, their conduct illuminating no such conflicting meaning existed back then. No prophet, apostle, disciple, Jewish leader, religious lawyer, or Jesus, is recorded in the OT or NT as saying slavery was wrong or prohibited. It is not likely an error in omission, not for a people obsessed with a penchant for listing everything that couldn’t be done.

So, if someone is wrong for being a slave owner, the Bible isn’t the source, for reasons noted above.

I don't think the laws that support slavery should be explained away, rather, I think they should be confronted as directly and consistently as possible. And that includes challenging bad theology.when we find it.

Except, the theology the Bible doesn’t morally condemn slavery is not “bad theology.” It is a strong theology for the reasons above. Same argument for gender inequality, working conditions, etcetera.

 

[Politesse]

How is it relevant to ask what an author's intentions are? We're not even talking about one author, but several, writing in different times and places, none of whom we have so much as a name for aside from Jesus himself, let alone a biography from which a psychological profile could be drawn and precise intentions deduced. We have at our disposal a few thousand texts from the same century as the works in question; those scant resources and archaeological data are our only resources for knowing anything about that century of time anywhere in the world. Your claim of certain, objective knowledge about what given authors truly meant is absurd. That would be hard to do for an author who was still alive and available for interview let alone an ancient one about whom nothing is known except the text.

And even if we were talking about just one author, who we know exceedingly well, living in "ancient days" does not give them some sort of free pass on writing rationally and ethically, nor change our responsibility to engage with texts in a rational and ethical fashion. They may have lived in the 1st century, but we do not.

Except, the theology the Bible doesn’t morally condemn slavery is not “bad theology.” It is a strong theology for the reasons above. Same argument for gender inequality, working conditions, etcetera.

You are so lost in fundamentalist propaganda you don't even realize how fully they have defined the Bible, theology, and all the rest in incredibly biased terms that overtly favor themselves. How can you, an atheist, not realize that being "slavishly devoted to the supposedly literal meaning of a text (as interpreted by Victorian street preachers)" is not the only possible definition of being "good"? Who told you that in the first place, and what were their intentions? Were they trustworthy? Or did they want you to turn your brain off and do as you were told? I know you know better than this. You must approach other books than the Bible more critically, or you wouldn't be able to function in our mostly literate world. I'm well aware that I disagree with the Biblical authors on this issue. Why do you care more about that than I do? If they were wrong, they were wrong. Logically inconsistent, likewise.

Suppose we were analyzing a recent tweet of Donald Trump's in which he claimed that he is "the least racist person in America". Ten years later, a Trump fan living in New Zealand tweets that "Native Americans have been mooching off the federal government for too long and should be penalized". If we accept your agument that writing in the same tradition as someone else means we can analyze the writings of the founder on the basis of the writings of his followers, it follows that when Trump wrote his tweet, he must not have meant that it was wrong to make racial slurs when he referenced not being racist (just as your Jesus must not have meant to challenge slavery when he lectured about loving his neighbors sixty years before the composition of Timothy). So the question becomes, are you obliged to agree with Donald Trump that it is not racist or inconsistent with rejection of racism to say obviously racist things, since he clearly did not intend to exclude uttering racist slurs from his personal definition of being the least racist person in America?

 

[James Madison]

Okay, but issue is whether a specific feature, slavery, is sinful and/or immoral according to the Bible. My point is the Bible does not explicitly or tacitly render slavery as immoral or sinful. Your argument the Bible does say slavery is immoral or sinful is difficult to accept as likely for reasons I noted previously but will reiterate again below.

I think Politesse accepts that parts of the bible condone slavery and other parts do not, and he prefers the latter. I'm sure he'd agree that there is no reliable way to know which if either is true, of his god's views, but you pays your money and you makes your choice.

I agree. My disagreement with him is his premise “other parts” of the Bible “do not” condone slavery, more specifically are inconsistent with slavery. It is a matter of textual interpretation as to what is the meaning of this ancient religious text, specifically the old command “love your neighbor as yourself.”

I have taken the view his meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself” wasn’t the meaning way back then, and the meaning that existed back then matters.

 

[Lion IRC]

https://thechurchoftruth.org/god-jesus-condone-slavery/

The bible was used by whites to justify slavery. In the climate today of symbols of Confederate oppressions, it would seem like the bible should also be held up to scrutiny.

It has been.

And it withstands that scrutiny quite well.

Proponents of slavery are the only people (apart from New Atheists) who think the bible supports their case.

Have we seen anywhere in this thread, any evidence whatsoever that bible scholars agree upon a pro-slavery biblical/canonical understanding of scripture?

Have we seen any evidence of broad consensus among Christians or mainstream Christian denominations that their bible "justifies" slavery?

There's been nothing but page after page of atheist 'splaining' to Christians why they are all completely mistaken about what their bible.. actually ^TM means.

This canard is busted. It's boring. And it's time proselytisers for atheism got some new material. YAWN.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Have we seen any evidence of broad consensus among Christians or mainstream Christian denominations that their bible "justifies" slavery?

In related news, Scientologists still believe in Thetans and Mormons still believe in magic temple garments.

 

[DBT]

So where, again, does the bible explicitly condemn slavery?

 

[Lion IRC]

Thou shalt not steal.

 

[DBT]

Thou shalt not steal.

Slaves were purchased legally. Slavery was an accepted economic and social practice. "Slaves obey your master....."

 

[Lion IRC]

So where, again, does the bible explicitly say "accepted economic and social practice" is OK?

 

[DBT]

So where, again, does the bible explicitly say "accepted economic and social practice" is OK?

Complicity through silence. Support through instruction: slaves obey your master.....