“And I would just invite anyone to read what the New Testament and Old Testament says
about slavery, to see that they were on fairly firm ground; that the balance of the honest
reading was on the side of clearly ‘we can keep slaves’. Jesus… Jesus never envisioned
a world without slavery and he admonished slaves to serve their masters well (and to
serve their Christian masters especially well).” “The English Protestants wouldn't have agreed
with that because, like I said, they were at the forefront of the fight against slavery-"
“They were clearly influenced by something outside of the texts, and this is… you're
making this harder than it is, and my concern is why?” “Well, I don't think I Sam, because
I think that the fundamental message in the New Testament for example is that--" “So
you acknowledge that-- if we-- so Jews are in possession of a book that has some diabolical
passages that would be better left out? The theoretical physicist, Steven Weinberg,
once said that "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have
good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to
do evil things, that takes religion." It's a very powerful, albeit imperfect quote, that
I'm reminded of nearly every time I see the religious attempt to justify the atrocities
of their scripture… be it grotesque misogyny, violent homophobia, or straight-up slavery,
the religious either accept and celebrate such verses (as is the case for many Jews,
Christians, and MOST Muslims when it comes to misogyny and homophobia), or they go to
breathtakingly disingenuous lengths to dismiss, justify or "contextualize" these verses (as
is the case for them all when it comes to slavery). "No, no" they cry, "it was indentured
servitude, that's all; it was voluntary, and you’d be set free after 6 years! Love thy
neighbour, that's what matters." “Slavery in the Hebrew culture was volitional!” “It
was voluntary means of working off debt.” “It was not perpetual is another thing worth
point out… so it didn’t transcend generations.” “It’s not that slavery was endorsed by
the bible, it’s that slavery is universal among human civilisation until modern times.”
“If somebody had lost themselves to debt it was basically like a type of bankruptcy
law. They would enter into that voluntarily.” “Working for a gentle, caring, loving master
was the best of all possible worlds.” (*Peterson sighs*) This is Three Justifications
for Scriptural Slavery – Debunked.
“Let's pretend that you thought that God existed and that you-- and that you were he,
and it was-- and it was your job to convey to a group of human beings what you think
morality should be, understanding that they're going to take that and develop that because
we do have this gift of human reason that we use to develop things.” I know one thing
for sure… I’d have said “Thou shalt not have slaves” rather than, say, “Thou
shalt not work on the Sabbath” or “Thou shalt not wear clothing mixed of wool and
linen”… because, maybe it’s just me, but I’d count owning other people as property
as a tad bit worse than mixing wool and linen. Before we delve into the three primary justifications
of Abrahamic slavery, it's worth tersely reminding ourselves of what the scripture actually says.
Slavery is rampant throughout both the Old and New Testaments, which together provide
rules and regulations for several categories of slave. Exodus 21, verses 2 through 6, distinguishes
Hebrew male slaves by commanding that they are to set free after 6 years… what’s
more, if they came into slavery with a family, they too are to be liberated. However, if
they developed a family during their six years, they’d either have to forsake them, or join
them in slavery… forever. Moving on, verse 7 clearly establishes a category for Hebrew
female slave, in which it states that fathers can sell their Hebrew daughters into slavery,
and that they (quote) "shall not go out like the menservants do." And as for foreign slaves
(or “heathen”) things are unsurprisingly worse. Leviticus 25, verse 44 through 46,
states that foreigners can be brought, sold and passed-down as inheritance (and that so
too can their children)... and while Deuteronomy 24, verse 7, prohibits the kidnapping of Israelites,
and Exodus 21, verse 16, seemingly prohibits of the kidnapping of foreigners too, there
is no verse that prohibits the BUYING of slaves… and what’s more, numbers 31, verses 17 to
18, states that the spoils of war are to be dealt with as follows: execute all the men
and little boys, as well as all the woman that "hath known man by lying with him", but
keep alive for yourselves all the little girls who "have not known a man by lying with him."
If that’s not kidnapping, then I don’t what it is. And as for the treatment of slaves
(who were referred to as servants, bondmaids, and bondmaidens), it was brutal. Exodus 21,
verses 20 to 21, entails that masters can beat their slaves as hard and often as they
please so long as their slaves are not blinded in one or both eyes and that don't die within
a few days. Hence, broken limbs, fractured skulls, and haemorrhaging lacerations are
NOT to be punished, whether the victim is innocent or otherwise. “Shall be beaten
with many strikes… did you hear that? Strikes! […] Shall be beaten with many strikes. Now
many, signifies a great many. 40, 100, 150 lashes! That’s scripture! But then Jesus
and the New Testament overturned all of these barbaric regulations when in Peter 2, verse
18, the following was said unto thee: "Set free thy bondmaids and bondmen, for it is
an abomination to own another as slave"... only kidding, it says "Servants, be subject
to your masters with all fear; not only the good and gentle, but also to the froward."
Indeed, the New Testament offers no explicit condemnation of slavery, but in fact reassures
it. For example, Ephesians 6, verse 5 states “Servants, be obedient to them that are
your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your
heart, as unto Christ”, and 1 Timothy 6, verse 1 states “Let as many servants as
are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God
and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” Now to be fair, some verses do actually caution
masters to treat their slaves (quote)“fairly”, such as Colossians 4, verse 1, which states
“Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have
a Master in heaven”, and the same sentiment is echoed by Ephesians 6, verse 9. But I must
say, I’m with Alex O’Connor on this one… the only “fair” treatment of slaves is
their immediate emancipation with adequate compensation: "The only... I'll repeat: the
only appropriate regulation on slavery is its abolition. Anything less than this at
the very least demonstrates that god doesn't feel as strongly about it as he does, say,
divorce or adultery.” Okay, with our scripture session over, let’s get to the apologetics…
While some argue that their scripture doesn’t endorse slavery whatsoever, most accept that
it does… but they insist that the type that it endorses is in stark contrast to that of
the Transatlantic Slave Trade (or that in other words, they make out that it’s not
REALLY slavery). We’ll get to the actual arguments soon enough, but for now, here’s
a few examples of this proclamation: “The modern slave trade – the slave trade that
took men and women from West Africa, kidnapped them, sold them, put them on ships and brought
them on the middle passage to the British colonies and then to the United States and
sold them like cattle – that is expressly forbidden by the Bible, which forbids, prohibits
kidnapping and selling people.” “We must differentiate between the bondservants of
the Old Testament, the Greco-Roman practice of slavery (where slaves could own property
and purchase their freedom) and the Transatlantic Slave Trade (an unequalled race-based horror
of the 17th to 19th centuries). That was something quite different through anything in the New
Testament or the Old.” “I’m a child of the 70s, so in the miniseries Roots, when
Kunta Kinte was savagely taken from his land by a bunch of kidnappers. Now what’s really
interesting is that the Bible does talk about that type of slavery (two times I can think
of very specifically) and when it does it absolutely outright condemns it.” “Slavery
in the Bible is not the same as harsh slavery that other people often think of, which, you
know, occurred here in the Americas or in Europe.” “Slavery in the Bible was very
different than the slavery that was practiced in our country.” So there’s the claim:
proponents insist that the slavery mandated by their scripture doesn’t remotely resemble
the brutality of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Now, after digesting hours and hours of apologetics
(… you’re welcome…) I’ve seen predominantly three justifications (or arguments) given,
but before I address them, I want to make eminently clear that this position (even IF
it was true) is a reprehensible embodiment of the Relative Privation fallacy (which is
more commonly known as a “Not as bad as” fallacy); which is to say, even if the Transatlantic
Slave Trade was significantly worse than that mandated by holy scripture, that wouldn’t,
in any way, render the latter “good”. There is no “good” or “proper” or
“decent” way in which to own other human beings. To again quote good old (well, young)
Alex: “Proper treatment of slaves is a contradiction in terms.” So with that point made, let’s
get to the arguments already: one of the most frequent given (and one that featured quite
prominently in the previous compilation) is that scriptural slavery is strictly voluntary…
and here’s it better put: “First of all, Old Testament slavery was not race-based forced
servitude, it was voluntary means of working off debt or keeping captives from mustering
a rebellion.” “In essence, it was the first type of bankruptcy law. Now see, back
in ancient times if a person had lost themselves to debt had become incompetent with their
finances, really what happened is someone would say I want to I want to get paid and
they said, oh we don’t have the money well fine they’d throw you in jail till you paid
it. Well you didn't make anything when you're in jail so by in large you were just in jail
for the rest life.” “In the Hebrew culture, slavery was primarily volitional. So in other
words, if a person was too poor to provide for themselves, or if they were in debt, they
would oftentimes hire themselves out to someone who was richer who could provide for them
or pay off all of their debt.” So what’s being described here is what’s known as
“debt slavery”, and it was extremely prevalent among ancient civilisations. For example,
the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi allowed debtors to sell themselves, their wives and their
children into slavery for up to three years; the entire Greco-Roman world recognised it
as a distinct legal category; and yes, it was also recognised and practiced by the Israelites.
However, likewise to the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, it was an option only available
to their own people... Leviticus 25, verse 39 through 42 states that “If thy brother
[…] be sold unto the; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: but as a hired
servant [...] for they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt.”
But the following verses, 44 through 46 states “ Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which
thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids [...] and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them
as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they
shall be your bondmen for ever.” What’s more, Numbers 31, verses 17 to 18 entails
that when you conquer a foreign land you must slaughter all of the men, women and little
boys, but keep alive for yourselves all the little girls who have not "have not known
a man by lying with him.” How’s that for voluntary? “They would enter into that voluntarily.”
“It was voluntary.” “Volitional.”[Peterson sighs] Moving on, the second argument I’d
like to address is that scriptural slavery is not indefinite. Proponents often claim
that the status of slavery expires after 6 years, and that upon such time slaves were
set free: “It was not perpetual, was the other thing worth pointing out, so it didn't
transcend generations.” “And you know what? After six years they were set free on
the seventh year. So really, what it was, was it was taking somebody who had been incompetent
with their finances, training them, getting them back so when they go back out into the
society that they would do a pretty good job.” “Slavery was limited to just six years,
and so the idea here is that it was never God's heart for the rich to overtake or control
the poor. On the contrary, this system was set up so that slaves or people who were in
debt could work off their debt in a safe and loving environment.” “It's a real question
in the Old Testament whether the word for slaves should be translated as slave perhaps
bondservant might be a better word; for this time-limited service where, if you were in
debt, you could sell yourself to a master for a time.” Now you probably know exactly
where I’m going with this one, because we’ve just been there. Just as proponents equate
the regulations for Israelite slaves with foreign slaves when it comes to volition,
so too is the case with longevity. Exodus 21, verse 2 states “If thou buy an Hebrew
servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing”,
and this is further supported by Deuteronomy 15, verse 12, which state “And if thy brother,
an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then
in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.” However, this six-year
rule was not granted to foreign slaves. To the contrary, in fact, the scripture frequently
refers to foreign slaves as permanent property with no way in which to earn freedom. To use
just the previous example, Leviticus 25 commands that foreigner slaves can be brought, sold
and passed-down as inheritance… and it even says “And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
FOR EVER.” “It was not perpetual.”After six years they were set free.” “Slavery
was limited to just six years.” “It didn't transcend generations.” “Time-limited
service.” Forever! Would you please, for god’s sake, stop lying for god! Stop equating
the regulations for Israelite slaves with foreign slaves, because your scripture (your
god) incessantly distinguishes the two, and your failure to admit this doesn’t fool
anyone who’s earnestly paying attention. And it certainly would fool your god, if he
so existed (which he doesn’t, and so I you’re very lucky). And finally, let’s get to a
third frequent argument given… that being, that scripture explicitly condemns the practice
of forced slavery (or kidnapping) and that therefore the Transatlantic Slave Trade would’ve
been unconscionable to adherents of both the Old and New Testament: “The modern slave
trade – the slave trade that took men and women from West Africa, kidnapped them, sold
them, put them on ships and brought them on the middle passage to the British colonies
and then to the United States and sold them like cattle – that is expressly forbidden
by the Bible, which forbids, prohibits kidnapping and selling people.” “The Transatlantic
Slave Trade would have been, and should have been, unthinkable based on both Old and New
Testaments. Both Testaments outlaw man stealing, right? You cannot kidnap people and sell them
as slaves… it was a capital offense in the Old Testament.” “I want to read you a
passage here in Exodus, chapter 21, verse 16: he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells
them or as found in his possession shall surely be put to death. Now that's a pretty serious
judgment on someone who is a slave trader who goes out and kidnaps people and takes
them into the slave trade to be sold as a slave.” “Kidnapping, according to Exodus
chapter 21, in any and all circumstances, was completely and totally outlawed and punishable
by death. And so this idea that you could take somebody against their will and make
them your slave was not only against the law, but it was outside of the will of god. Now
this argument, at least in my opinion, is actually a bit stronger than the previous
two, and that’s because in isolation, Exodus 21, verse 16, seems pretty damn solid.“Exodus,
chapter 21.” “Exodus, chapter 21.” “Exodus 21.” Indeed, the verse clearly states that
those who kidnap others and enslave them shall be executed. However, there are at least two
crucial things to consider: 1) kidnapping is only one way in which to become a slave;
others include being born into it, extortion, exploitation, coercion, debt, debt-inheritance,
trickery and deception. Hence, this verse doesn’t condemn slavery… it condemns kidnapping…
and 2) and more importantly, this verse does not (and nor does ANY verse in the Old or
New Testament) condemn the BUYING of slaves who were kidnapped (and especially foreign
slaves). To the contrary, in fact (and as already thoroughly covered), Leviticus explicitly
states that one can buy slaves from the heathen around them, and Numbers explicitly endorses
the straight-up kidnapping of conquered little girls… so yeah, there’s loopholes. And
talking of loopholes, here’s a doozy: throughout the era of the Transatlantic Slave Trade,
in which an estimated 12 million Africans were forcefully enslaved and transported,
guess how many of those were kidnapped by American and European Christian slavers? Very
few. The vast majority of slaves were PURCHASED by Christians from African slavers who kidnapped
their neighbouring tribes… because BUYING kidnapped slaves is fine… as after all,
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, are to come from those around you.
Anyhow, to bring
this all back to Weinberg, seeing otherwise good, decent, educated and compassionate people
attempt to justify and rationalise the reprehensible, breaks my heart… and it’s one of the biggest
reasons as to why I do what I do. To paraphrase Hitchens, these people are poisoned. Look,
whether we call it slavery, indentured servitude, or a bankruptcy scheme, to get a civilized
person of today to try and justify the edicts of Leviticus and Numbers, that takes religion.Anyhow,
I’m Stephen Woodford, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special
thank you to my wonderful Patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via
other means. Until next time my fellow apes, until next time!