Author Topic: Greek scholars - Christianity and slavery - what did St. Paul teach? (Read 1908 times)

Stand_watie · « **on:** April 15, 2007, 07:34:03 PM »

To start with I'm refering to slave trade in the fashion of 16th century until now European/African/American type of slave trade for profit, rather than imprisonment for crimes etc.

I went to Christian churches my whole life, and the topic came up on ocassion, but was always to my recollection given only cursory comment aknowledging that some Christian churches had claimed slavery as morally acceptable using Paul's exhortation for slaves to "obey their masters" as justification, and dismissing that view as wrong without further explanation.

Not too long ago I read a passage written by Paul (1 Timothy 1, cited below) and noticed a peculiar older-English word that I hadn't paid much attention to before, or rather missed the entirety of it's meaning - the word "menstealers" (referring to them as unrighteous). I had mentally translated that as "kidnappers" and not thought about it in reference to slavery at all.

So I finally got around to doing a little cursory research this evening, and discovered that many expositors translate the original word to refer to slavers (the particular term being 'andrapodistes'). One commentator refers back to Exodus 21:16 (cited below - any Hebrew scholars can comment on that)

Have any of you read any good expository on this particular passage?

1 Timothy 1 - 9, 10 (KJV)

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons..."

Exodus 21;16 (KJV)

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:59:40 PM »

I'm no Greek scholar, but I know some who are. I've heard that interpretation many times. The NIV and ESV translate the word as slave-traders and enslavers, respectively. This probably means that "man-takers" or "kidnappers" is a literal translation, but was the common term for those that kidnapped people in order to sell them into slavery. Of course, literal translations like the KJV, NASB, etc., will use the most literal translation, while dynamic-equivalence versions do a little of the interpreting for you.

As for my opinion, it seems to me that slavery was, in many cases, the ancient equivalent of "having a job," and was often not that bad a gig, compared to the alternatives that then existed. I wonder if the term wasn't used interchangeably with "servant," just as some Americans referred to their slaves as "servants." So, the command to obey one's master was equivalent to saying that, so long as one served another, one should do the job one was asked to do.

I find that slavery is, like polygamy, something of which God disapproves and will ultimately judge. Yet He recognizes how deeply entwined it is in certain cultures, so gives instructions on how best to treat the victims of such on-going sins, rather than demand an immediate disruption of economies. If I am wrong on this point, I am not above correction.

ilbob · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2007, 02:45:37 AM »

Quote from: fistful on April 15, 2007, 07:59:40 PM

I find that slavery is, like polygamy, something of which God disapproves and will ultimately judge. Yet He recognizes how deeply entwined it is in certain cultures, so gives instructions on how best to treat the victims of such on-going sins, rather than demand an immediate disruption of economies. If I am wrong on this point, I am not above correction.

Not to defend polygamy, but how would you reconcile your view with the OT accounts that many of the stalwarts had multiple wives. Abraham, David, Solomon, to name just a few.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2007, 03:37:56 AM »

Quote from: fistful on April 15, 2007, 07:59:40 PM

... So, the command to obey one's master was equivalent to saying that, so long as one served another, one should do the job one was asked to do...

To me that sounds like a fair 'snapshot' explanation of the verse 'obey your masters', taken in context of the entire series of passages by Paul. I recommend a treatise I read last night, from 'The Ethics of American Slavery' by Lafayette Thompson (written in 1861) on pages 103 - 110.

http://books.google.com/books?id=M1oSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=menstealers+lafayette&source=web&ots=UcdS9vEkbe&sig=larhfnV_PjXxBoKQQ59KJ59kEpw#PPA109,M1

If You type slavery+Paul+Bible into google you will find a myriad of hits of Bible skeptic websites that are disturbing in their ignorance or deliberate lies and contextual distortion, claiming that in fact the pro-slavery 18th century Christians were correct, that Paul condoned slavery.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2007, 04:20:03 AM »

I'm not sure what the issue is. Slavery was a fact of life in Greco-Roman times, much as segregation was a fact of life here in the South for 100 years. No one thought much about it.
In the passage in Timothy quoted, it could easily have come from the Talmud (actually probably did), which often says "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hasharetz" (The Torah wasn't given to the ministrering angels--meaning that if people were perfect they wouldn't need the Torah). As for the list, I found it interesting since it basically recites the ten commandments

Quote

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons..."

So "Lawless and disobedient"="I am the Lord Your G-d."
"Ungodly"="You shall have no other gods before me."
"Unholy"="You shall not take the name of G-d in vain"
"Profane"="Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."
"Murderers of father, murderers of mothers" =honor your father and your mother
"Manslayer" =You shall not murder
"Whoremongers"=You shall not commit adultery
"defile themselves with mankind"=bearing false witness against one's fellow man
"Menstealers"=Do not steal (referring to one who steals another person and sells him, see Sanhedrin 86a). The order here is a little off, btw.
"Liars and perjured persons"=Do not covet your fellow's house, which often leads one to lying and cheating.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2007, 04:35:55 AM »

Quote from: The Rabbi on April 16, 2007, 03:20:03 AM

I'm not sure what the issue is. Slavery was a fact of life in Greco-Roman times, much as segregation was a fact of life here in the South for 100 years. No one thought much about it.
In the passage in Timothy quoted, it could easily have come from the Talmud (actually probably did..."

I don't know how familiar you are with Paul's writings, but you won't get far in any given passage without an explicit or implicit Torah quotation. He freqently writes as would a modern lawyer citing Torah as court or common law precedent, so although I'm not familiar with Talmud I'm not at all surprised if he's quoting or paraphrasing.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2007, 04:51:46 AM »

As I recall, Paul used to be Saul, and was a prime student of Rabban Gamliel, the exilarch, until he had a nervous breakdown or whatever you'd call it. So that kind of method was inculcated in him from an early age.
While I've read plenty of parts of the Christian Bible (some in koine Greek as well) it probably is not a surprise that it isnt on my frequently read list.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2007, 05:34:09 AM »

Quote from: Rabbi

Paul used to be Saul, and was a prime student of Rabban Gamliel,

As I understand it, yes.

Quote from: ilbob on April 16, 2007, 01:45:37 AM

Quote from: fistful on April 15, 2007, 07:59:40 PM

I find that slavery is, like polygamy, something of which God disapproves and will ultimately judge. Yet He recognizes how deeply entwined it is in certain cultures, so gives instructions on how best to treat the victims of such on-going sins, rather than demand an immediate disruption of economies. If I am wrong on this point, I am not above correction.

Not to defend polygamy, but how would you reconcile your view with the OT accounts that many of the stalwarts had multiple wives. Abraham, David, Solomon, to name just a few.

I thought I just did. The fact that Patriarch X did thus-and-so doesn't make it right. The "good guys" in the Old and New Testaments did a lot of wrong things.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2007, 05:49:05 AM »

Also, slavery in Roman times was not quite the same as the slavery of the late 1800's. It wasn't a cake walk, but it wasn't racial. Slavers were low class, but not considered sub-human.
I agree that I think Paul was simply saying to do you job in this world and keep you eyes on the Lord. Leave bitterness and hatred behind.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #9 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:09:03 AM »

Quote from: fistful on April 16, 2007, 04:34:09 AM

Quote from: Rabbi

Paul used to be Saul, and was a prime student of Rabban Gamliel,

As I understand it, yes.

Quote from: ilbob on April 16, 2007, 01:45:37 AM

Quote from: fistful on April 15, 2007, 07:59:40 PM

I find that slavery is, like polygamy, something of which God disapproves and will ultimately judge. Yet He recognizes how deeply entwined it is in certain cultures, so gives instructions on how best to treat the victims of such on-going sins, rather than demand an immediate disruption of economies. If I am wrong on this point, I am not above correction.

Not to defend polygamy, but how would you reconcile your view with the OT accounts that many of the stalwarts had multiple wives. Abraham, David, Solomon, to name just a few.

I thought I just did. The fact that Patriarch X did thus-and-so doesn't make it right. The "good guys" in the Old and New Testaments did a lot of wrong things.

But there is no prohibition of polygamy. In fact Jews from Yemen practice it to this day. It's not common but not unheard of either.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2007, 07:38:25 AM »

There doesn't seem to be a clear prohibition on slavery, either, which is my point.

Quote

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Polygamy would seem to violate the idea of a man cleaving to a wife and the two becoming one flesh. There doesn't seem to be room for other men or women here. Yet, God never specifically banned polygamy. Nor did he ban slavery, even though some forms of slavery would seem to contradict Lev. 19.18 and much of New Testament revelation.

Quote

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

But there were prohibitions of enslaving free people, were there not?

The Rabbi · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2007, 07:43:25 AM »

Quote from: fistful on April 16, 2007, 06:38:25 AM

There doesn't seem to be a clear prohibition on slavery, either, which is my point.

Quote

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Polygamy would seem to violate the idea of a man cleaving to a wife and the two becoming one flesh. There doesn't seem to be room for other men or women here. Yet, God never specifically banned polygamy. Nor did he ban slavery, even though some forms of slavery would seem to contradict Lev. 19.18 and much of New Testament revelation.

Quote

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

But there were prohibitions of enslaving free people, were there not?

There is no prohibition on slavery. In fact the institution is mentioned numerous times with no negative connotation.
As for cleaving unto one's wife: they shall be one flesh refers to the child born from the union. It does not suggest or especially mandate a monogamous relationship. In fact nothing mandates a monogamous relationship.