Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid235
Nothing to condemn about slavery? Slaves were viewed as cattle and sheep?
|
Not exactly.
Regarding Old Testament “slavery”:
Modern thinkers (rightfully, I think) advocate for better understanding of native and aboriginal cultures; how about some love for the Ancient Near East’s culture?
Like many of you, I have done (just a little) reading about Old Testament life and have come to believe that the term "Slavery" is, understandably, evocative, rather than analytical, and perhaps should be handled with more precision as it pertains to this discussion, or be discarded altogether. Slavery in the OT was not the same as the chattel slavery we are familiar with in the New World, Africa and the Caribbean (the term itself seemed to be rather relative in the ANE .
. A king’s subjects were called his slaves, even though they were free, and the king himself, if a vassal, was the slave of his emperor.Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave.")
New World slavery differs substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery';
debt servant would seem to be a better description, according to the following (these quotes are from the
History of Ancient Near East Law):
- Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave."
In both the European and Islamic slave trade, slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. In the ANE, and especially the OT, the opposite was the case: the impoverished
chose to enter this dependency state, in
return for economic security and protection. Again, from the HANEL: "A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…
Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant."
Only an insignificant part of captured war prisoners were enslaved in the ANE. For Israel, regarding wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10): if a city surrendered, it became a
vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming
serfs (
mas),
not slaves (
ebed,
amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as
masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE practice, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups.
Most slavery was done through
self-sale or
family-sale; it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
The idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE. " Slavery, Ancient Near East" …notes: the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE."
In the ANE:
a) slaves owned land, houses, and considerable amounts of movable property.
b) They actively participated in all spheres of economic activity, were engaged in trade, ran taverns and workshops, taught other persons various trades,
c) pawned and mortgaged their property, and they themselves received the property of others as security for loans…
d) In the legal sphere such slaves could appear as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants in court. They also could have their own personal seals and take oaths.
e) Moreover, there were apparently no differences in the ways in which the interests of slaves and freemen were defended.
And perhaps most importantly:
“More usually, individual autonomy has meant exposure to danger and predation;
safety lay precisely in the protection afforded by the bondage of dependence on groups and patrons.
What was desirable was not freedom but belongingness”
What about the Hebrews, though, in particular?
- Most, though not all, Hebrew slaves were a) native slaves b) and debt slaves
- Forced slavery of Hebrews was punishable by death Ex 21.6 Deut 24.7
- The majority were voluntary, note the term selling himself Lev 25.39 Lev 25.47 Deut 15.12
- There is an AUTOMATIC EXIT SYSTEM Deut 15.12
- An indentured servant could VOLUNTARILY extend the relationship Ex 21.5 Deut 15.16ff
- Poverty shouldn’t have existed if Israel in an obedient, righteous nation Deut 15.4
- Since there was poverty, because of disobedience, God made provisions for it, and encouraged generosity Deut 15.7ff
- No lame excuses for not being generous Deut 15.9
- Merchants and farmers were to provide special help for the disadvantaged (fewer people would then perceive the need to be sold for debt relief) Ex 23.10 Lev 25.10 The entire 7th year harvest was for the poor and servants! Margins around the fields were to be unharvested, and fields were to be gone over once, again for the poor Lev 19.10; 23.22 Deut 24.19ff
- The poor were to be exempt from interest Lev 25.35ff (what a concept)
- The entire Levitical tithe of every third year was to be shared with the poor Deut 14.28ff
- The sacrificial system had “substitutions” available to the poor Lev 15.7,11 Lev 27.8
13) DEBTS WERE CANCELLED EVERY SEVEN YEARS Deut 15.1ff
There are, I think some additional special cases, such
as a father acting for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female, but it appears to be about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor. In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security, but the sale
presupposes marriage to the master or his son.
Just my opinion, of course, but the institution sounds like it’s more about “preserving and taking care of the tribe”, than oppressing people.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
