Dismantling the Myth That Ancient Slavery Wasn’t That Bad.
A Conversation About Slavery
This is an imaginary conversation I had in my head with Answering the Music Man author Steven Lewis. I have never corresponded with him but have incorporated his ideas from his chapter. I also understand evangelical thinking, which allows me to envision a conversation like this. (When in doubt with what he might say in defense of certain issues, I have fill in his reply with “Yes, but… or no, but…” You can decide for yourself what his response might be.)
Mt. Toll Productions and Steven Lewis PhD
MTP: In your chapter of Answering the Music Man, you were responding to atheists who have written that the God of the bible (Yahweh) is immoral and not worthy of praise. Your chapter was entitled “Dan Barker and the Immoral God of the Bible.” Is that right?
Lewis: Yes, that was the title and topic of the chapter.
MTP: I was particularly intrigued by the part of your chapter that involved slavery. Would you mind if we dive a little deeper into what you wrote?
Lewis: That would be okay!
MTP: In your article you say this about slavery in America, and I quote, “The typical American is appalled at the actions of his ancestors in this regard, and, thus, when reading in the Bible where slavery was permitted in ancient Israel under the guidance and laws of God himself, the response is often shock and confusion. However, the error here is a fallacy of equivocation.” What did you mean by “fallacy of equivocation”?
Lewis: Simply speaking, slavery in the Bible was not the same as slavery in nineteenth-century America.
MTP: That’s what you wrote in the book. Is that what you believe?
Lewis: Yes, the bible clearly gave strict restriction on slavery. Biblical laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave was always protected and preserved.
MTP: Do you really believe that biblical slaveowners always protected the dignity of their slaves?
Lewis: Yes, that’s what we’re told in scripture.
MTP: So, do you consider yourself an expert on ancient slavery?
Lewis: To be honest, not really.
MTP: I’m not either, which is why I decided to do some extra research for this conversation. I found an online article entitled, “Dismantling the Myth That Ancient Slavery Wasn’t That Bad.” I’d like to read some quotes from the article if that’s okay with you.
Lewis: Sure.
MTP: The author writes, “As someone who researches slavery in the ancient Mediterranean world, especially in the Bible, I often hear remarks like, ‘Slavery was totally different back then, right?’ ‘Well, it couldn’t have been that bad.’ ‘Couldn’t slaves buy their freedom?’” I’m hoping that we could agree to defer to this author in order to augment our lack of knowledge on the topic.
Lewis: That would be alright.
MTP: Good! The author continues, “Because these kinds of slavery took place so long ago and weren’t based on modern racism, some people have the impression that they weren’t as harsh or violent. That impression makes room for Christian theologians and philosophers… to argue that ancient slavery was actually beneficial for enslaved people.” That’s kind of what you said in your piece, right? That biblical slavery was beneficial for slaves? Is it possible that you were wrong?
Lewis: Maybe. Like I said, I’m not an expert on ancient forms of slavery, but I know what the bible tells us.
MTP: I’m sure you do, but if I may continue. The author writes that, in her work she encounters three myths about ancient slavery that I’d like to share with you.
Lewis: Okay.
Myth #1: “There is only one kind of ‘biblical slavery”
MTP: That’s what you implied in your piece; that’s there was typically only one kind of biblical slavery. You wrote that, and I quote, “biblical slavery was more akin to indentured servitude than forced slavery. It was typically a contract entered into willingly by both slave and owner, usually for the sake of the poor in order to provide for themselves or their families.” Do you still hold that position?
Lewis: That’s what we find in the bible.
MTP: I’m not saying that indentured servitude didn’t exist in ancient Israel. It certainly did, but you implied that indentured servitude was the only kind of slavery in ancient Israel. That is just incorrect. When Israelis bought foreign slaves from surrounding tribes, does it mean the slave did so voluntarily? The owner bought them, and they became his property. The bible uses the word property. Right?
Lewis: Yes, but…
MTP: So, it’s possible that chattel slavery existed in that era as well. If a slave is purchased with money and can be passed on to the next generation as directed in the bible, that would mean he/she is an inheritable possession and not an indentured servant, right? Would you be willing to concede that point.
Lewis: Yeah, but…
Myth #2: “Ancient slavery was not as cruel”
MTP: Let’s move on to myth #2. That’s what you believe, right? “The laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave was always protected and preserved.” That’s what you wrote, right?
Lewis: Yes,
MTP: Do you really believe that?
Lewis: That’s what the bible tells us.
MTP: So, what do you define as cruel? What if a slave is beaten so severely that he/she loses a tooth or an eye, or is beaten to death or near death? Couldn’t that be called cruelty? Atheists, like Barker, would say that this indeed constitutes cruelty. Barker quoted this verse in his book, “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken;” (and here’s the important part) “for he is his property” Did he misquote Exodus 21?
Lewis: No, but…
MTP: So, are atheists like Barker wrong about the cruelty inherent with slavery, including biblical slavery? Do you still maintain that “the human dignity of the slave was always protected and preserved?”
Lewis: Yes, and yes! There might have been cruel slave owners, but Hebrew laws were given to protect slaves.
Myth #3: “Ancient slavery wasn’t discriminatory.”
MTP: Thanks for clarifying your stance. Now, let’s look at myth #3. Much of your argument was that biblical slavery was not like 19th century slavery. You wrote that “Barker even points out a racial component to biblical slavery“, in that slaves of other races could be purchased and owned. Barker quotes Lev. 25 as reference. ‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. . .. they [non-Jewish sojourners] also may become your property’” Did he misquote Lev. 25.
Lewis: No, but…
MTP: The author explains in more detail what she means by myth #3. “Slavery in the ancient Mediterranean wasn’t based on race or skin color in the same way as the transatlantic slave trade, but this doesn’t mean ancient systems of enslavement weren’t discriminatory. Ancient slavery still depended on categorizing some groups of people as “others,” treating them as though they were wholly different from those who enslaved them.” So, couldn’t Lev. 25 be seen as a form of discriminatory slavery based on a non-Jewish criterion?
Lewis: Yes, but…
MTP: It seems as if your non-expert evaluation of biblical slavery is not as accurate as you had hoped. It doesn’t hold up to historical truth. In addition, you wrote, “A closer look at the context of these laws shows a gradual push away from slavery- not further into it.” But a “gradual push away from slavery” never actually materialized, did it?
Lewis: No, but…
MTP: You might be looking at ancient slavery with rose colored glasses. I see only two ways to look at your stance on slavery. Either you failed to do adequate research on the topic and thus are conveniently misinformed, or you are deliberately misleading your readers with falsehoods. I find it interesting that the inaccuracies in your argument such as your statement that “the human dignity of the slave was always protected and preserved” are obvious to atheists but remain unquestioned by your christian readers. But that’s a topic for another conversation.
Lewis: I look forward to having that conversation.
MTP: Me too, but let’s get back to our discussion of slavery. You wrote that, “Barker’s condemnation of the modern notion of slavery is admirable and correct, even though the slavery permitted and regulated in the Bible is a vastly different social enterprise than what Barker imagines.” We’ve already shown that your view of biblical slavery is historically inaccurate, so how is Barker wrong?
Lewis: As I wrote, the Bible’s descriptions of slavery and slave laws, when taken in the correct social context under which they were given, fail to provide proof of the culpability of the perfectly good God of the Bible. The bible is very clear on that.
MTP: I’m pretty sure it’s not as clear as you think. But is that why you take issue with Barker calling your, (in your words) “perfectly good” God a slave monger.
Lewis: That’s correct. I wrote that there are plenty of good and reasonable alternatives to the “slave monger” view of the God of the Bible.
MTP: I noticed, however, that in your chapter you didn’t actually offer any “reasonable alternatives” to the moniker “slave monger.” Why was that?
Lewis: Obviously, a great deal more could have been said on the issue of slavery but space was limited. The chapter delt with multiple issues, not just slavery.
MTP: Yes, it did. Perhaps, that could be the topic of a future conversation. But for now, let’s look at how you ended your defense of biblical slavery. You said that Yahweh could not be held responsible for slavery. Did I get that right?
Lewis: Yes, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God. Slavery existed long before God’s law was given to the Israelites, and it existed long after.”
MTP: So, Yahweh is off the hook for the institution of slavery?
Lewis: Yes, that is what I believe.
MTP: Yet there continues to be some criticism by atheists that Yahweh could have and should have prevented chattel slavery in the Antebellum South. You quoted Michael Shermer who said, “Imagine how different the history of humanity might have been had Yahweh not neglected to mention that people should never be treated as a means to someone else’s ends but should be treated as ends in themselves. Would this have been too much to ask from an all-powerful and loving God.” You have a problem with Shermer’s statement, right?
Lewis: Yes, I wrote that it is irresponsible to make any sort of judgment that God should have outlawed slavery in the Bible from the start to save humanity from centuries of what became such a cruel, inhuman enterprise.
MTP: Actually, that will be the topic of our next conversation. Many Antebellum slave owners and their pastors used the bible to justify slavery. I recently wrote a blog about a Baptist pastor named Richard Furman who said that…
The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures.
MTP: I’m curious to find out why you think a perfectly good, just, powerful, and all-knowing Yahweh, could have, but didn’t prevent centuries of cruel, inhuman chattel slavery in the Antebellum South.
Lewis: As I’ve said in my chapter, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God.
MTP: That’s exactly what I want to talk about. So, until then!
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum
mt.toll@comcast.net