cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
I have seen the Bible criticized, and frequently, on this board because it does not denounce or outlaw slavery. Seems a fair criticism on the surface; but let's take a closer look.
(Two notes before I begin: First, when I speak of "the Bible" here, I am referring to the Jewish Bible, called Tanakh by Jews and the Old Testament by Christians. Second, I say nothing about the origin or provenance of the Bible or whether or not it is in any sense the "Word of God." Those are separate questions for another thread.)
Slavery in the ancient world was just part of the natural order of things. Some people were rich, some were poor, and some were slaves. It never even occurred to the slaves themselves that there ought not be such an institution; they merely hoped to have a good master, or to be free someday (and have slaves of their own).
Advocating the abolition of slavery in, say, the 10th century BCE, or even the 1st, was literally unthinkable. The entire economic order depended on it, as did the social order and the civil and criminal law. It was simply part of the way the world worked. An analogous position in the present day might be to advocate outlawing the private ownership of automobiles; though some few might agree that that would theoretically be a good thing, in the main one would be laughed off the podium. Too much depends on it; millions of jobs, the primary means of transportation for almost everyone outside of our largest cities, assessment of social status and economic success, and so on. Literally unthinkable; and two or three thousand years ago, slavery held the same position.
Nevertheless, it seems painfully obvious to us today that slavery was wrong at its root; well and good, for our time. It was not so obvious then. Consider my example of private car ownership: it may very well be obvious in the future that that, too, is evil.
I once read an SF story that assumed just that. From the perspective of the 25th century or so, a character observed that we must have been idiots: besides massive air pollution, interminable traffic jams, the obscene enrichment of despotic regimes, and the enormous economic burden placed on the individual (and the reinforcement of the class system), we have tens of thousands of dead to account for, every single year. Only worldwide war sees people killed by each other on such a massive scale. Surely the private ownership of cars is an immoral and indefensible business...
I think the point is clear. The outright abolition of slavery was simply not an option two or three millenia back, whatever our sensibilities may be today.
It would be more useful, I think, to consider what the Bible does have to say about slavery; and there we find that, while the institution itself is accepted, its immorality is heavily implied in the strict limitations and prohibitions imposed on slaveowners.
These restrictions were unique in the ancient world; in other cultures, slaves were mere property, and their use and abuse was no more restricted that those of a table or chair. The death of a slave, even if the result of a drunken whim, was of no account at all. If one killed the slave of another, one paid the slaveowner for the loss of his property and nothing more.
In the Bible, the unprovoked killing of a slave is murder.
Injury to a slave results in the slave's being immediately freed.
Female slaves were not to be raped. Even a woman taken in warfare was not to be molested; the victor might choose to marry her, but was required to wait for one full month to allow her to mourn--and if she was later divorced, she must be paid the full amount due any wife upon the end of a marriage (also a unique custom in the ancient world, where women were also generally treated as mere property).
Slaves were to be given a day of rest every week along with their owners..
If food was in short supply, the slaveowner was obligated to see that his slaves were fed before he himself was allowed to eat.
If shelter was limited, the slaves were to be housed while the owner slept outdoors.
Elderly slaves were to be cared for and given no onerous work; they were not to be abandoned.
Perhaps most significantly: It was forbidden to return an escaped slave to his master. On the contrary, it was commanded that such a person be sheltered and protected as an honored guest. What could possibly be more certain to lead to the end of slavery than a policy like that?
With all these restrictions, it should come as no surprise that slavery grew less and less common in Israel over the centuries; it was simply more trouble than it was worth.
On the issue of slavery, as with so many others--women's rights, cruelty to animals, civil and criminal law, equality under the law for noble, King, and commoner, limitations on the power of rulers, and so much more--the Bible was far ahead of its time. This is not evidence of Divine origin by any means, but it might help explain how and why a set of documents so very old, and held sacred by such a relatively tiny group of people, have had such an enormous influence on so many for so long. It certainly hasn't been the brutal and inhuman parts.
Credit where credit is due; no more--but no less.
(Two notes before I begin: First, when I speak of "the Bible" here, I am referring to the Jewish Bible, called Tanakh by Jews and the Old Testament by Christians. Second, I say nothing about the origin or provenance of the Bible or whether or not it is in any sense the "Word of God." Those are separate questions for another thread.)
Slavery in the ancient world was just part of the natural order of things. Some people were rich, some were poor, and some were slaves. It never even occurred to the slaves themselves that there ought not be such an institution; they merely hoped to have a good master, or to be free someday (and have slaves of their own).
Advocating the abolition of slavery in, say, the 10th century BCE, or even the 1st, was literally unthinkable. The entire economic order depended on it, as did the social order and the civil and criminal law. It was simply part of the way the world worked. An analogous position in the present day might be to advocate outlawing the private ownership of automobiles; though some few might agree that that would theoretically be a good thing, in the main one would be laughed off the podium. Too much depends on it; millions of jobs, the primary means of transportation for almost everyone outside of our largest cities, assessment of social status and economic success, and so on. Literally unthinkable; and two or three thousand years ago, slavery held the same position.
Nevertheless, it seems painfully obvious to us today that slavery was wrong at its root; well and good, for our time. It was not so obvious then. Consider my example of private car ownership: it may very well be obvious in the future that that, too, is evil.
I once read an SF story that assumed just that. From the perspective of the 25th century or so, a character observed that we must have been idiots: besides massive air pollution, interminable traffic jams, the obscene enrichment of despotic regimes, and the enormous economic burden placed on the individual (and the reinforcement of the class system), we have tens of thousands of dead to account for, every single year. Only worldwide war sees people killed by each other on such a massive scale. Surely the private ownership of cars is an immoral and indefensible business...
I think the point is clear. The outright abolition of slavery was simply not an option two or three millenia back, whatever our sensibilities may be today.
It would be more useful, I think, to consider what the Bible does have to say about slavery; and there we find that, while the institution itself is accepted, its immorality is heavily implied in the strict limitations and prohibitions imposed on slaveowners.
These restrictions were unique in the ancient world; in other cultures, slaves were mere property, and their use and abuse was no more restricted that those of a table or chair. The death of a slave, even if the result of a drunken whim, was of no account at all. If one killed the slave of another, one paid the slaveowner for the loss of his property and nothing more.
In the Bible, the unprovoked killing of a slave is murder.
Injury to a slave results in the slave's being immediately freed.
Female slaves were not to be raped. Even a woman taken in warfare was not to be molested; the victor might choose to marry her, but was required to wait for one full month to allow her to mourn--and if she was later divorced, she must be paid the full amount due any wife upon the end of a marriage (also a unique custom in the ancient world, where women were also generally treated as mere property).
Slaves were to be given a day of rest every week along with their owners..
If food was in short supply, the slaveowner was obligated to see that his slaves were fed before he himself was allowed to eat.
If shelter was limited, the slaves were to be housed while the owner slept outdoors.
Elderly slaves were to be cared for and given no onerous work; they were not to be abandoned.
Perhaps most significantly: It was forbidden to return an escaped slave to his master. On the contrary, it was commanded that such a person be sheltered and protected as an honored guest. What could possibly be more certain to lead to the end of slavery than a policy like that?
With all these restrictions, it should come as no surprise that slavery grew less and less common in Israel over the centuries; it was simply more trouble than it was worth.
On the issue of slavery, as with so many others--women's rights, cruelty to animals, civil and criminal law, equality under the law for noble, King, and commoner, limitations on the power of rulers, and so much more--the Bible was far ahead of its time. This is not evidence of Divine origin by any means, but it might help explain how and why a set of documents so very old, and held sacred by such a relatively tiny group of people, have had such an enormous influence on so many for so long. It certainly hasn't been the brutal and inhuman parts.
Credit where credit is due; no more--but no less.
