Within Reason - #30 Joshua Bowen - How the Bible Supports Slavery

Episode Date: May 7, 2023

Joshua Bowen is an Assyriologist, YouTuber, and author of the book, "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?" Links: The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: Volume 1: https://t.co/SrcMTKcxS6 Volume 2: https://t.co/RuPDimaomv Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?: https://tinyurl.com/3m6prd3h Digital Hammurabi: www.youtube.com/digitalhammurabi Misquoting Jesus Podcast (Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis): https://www.bartehrman.com/podcast/ Digital Hammurabi: Website: www.digitalhammurabi.com YouTube: www.youtube.com/digitalhammurabi Twitter: www.twitter.com/digi_hammurabi Patreon: www.patreon.com/digitalhammurabi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Within Reason. My name is Alex O'Connor, and my guest today is Dr. Joshua Bowen. Josh Bowen is an Assyriologist, a YouTuber, and author of the book, Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery, a work which is currently in the process of being updated and reissued. So I thought it was a good time to sit down with Dr. Bowen to discuss that question. Does the Old Testament endorse slavery? And if it does, what kind of slavery are we talking about? We sometimes hear from religious apologists that this isn't the bad kind of slavery that comes to mind when we think of the antebellum slavery of 19th century America, for example. But Josh Bowen wants to argue that this is a mistaken idea. I was astonished by this conversation and found it to be greatly enjoyable, and I hope that you do too.

Joshua Bowen, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to sit down and talk to you. I saw on Twitter that you were working on an updated version of your book, did the Old Testament endorse slavery. I wondered sort of, I mean, we were just talking off camera and you said that this book has sort of expanded greatly since the original edition. Why is this something that you wanted to write about?

about? I think probably because, one, I end up talking about this far more than anyone would hope or dream to talk about it. It's something that Christian apologists tend to buck against much more than I think they need to. But, you know, there are more fundamentalist leanings, I think, often take them that direction. And so when a skeptic brings up slavery, you hear, I think, very dangerous apologetic arguments. And I remember a couple years ago, you ran into some of those with Alan Parr. And some of the responses that came to your response, one in particular by a gentleman by the name of John McCrae, I think what do you mean? you know he he was really the reason that I got into this because a defense of slavery in the Old Testament

and what I mean by that is defending the slavery itself as saying things like it's the nice kind of slavery or it's like owning a credit card or it's like having a job these are the types of defenses that I think could lead to very dangerous consequences. And I talk about this in the book. It's one of the things that I go into a little bit more in the second edition is often you'll hear, and I think even you heard, apologists will say, well, let's just start off by making it clear that slavery in the Bible is nothing like slavery in the American South leading up to the Civil War.

And the problem is that's just not true. And when you compare the laws in the Hebrew Bible to the laws that were on the books leading up to the Civil War, they're not only very similar, but they have the same legal rationale. And so ultimately, I think, a defense of Old Testament slavery in that regard

can very easily be a defense of anti-Semitism. debellum slavery and ultimately just having slavery again. So that's why I think it's a really important topic. Yeah, I remember I'd made a response video to Alan Parr a number of years ago because he'd made a sort of quick informational video about the fact that if you look at the Old Testament, it appears that in a great number of places we have an implicit endorsement of the practice of slavery. And he was trying to argue, I mean, I remember, remember in the video, I went in thinking I was about to watch an argument that said, no, the Bible doesn't defend slavery. And instead, what we get is something like, well, it does defend

something called slavery, but it's not the kind of slavery that you have in mind. Is this not the case? I mean, I hear this so commonly that when we look at the Old Testament and we look at what's being referred to as slavery here, what we're really talking about is something like indentured servitude, something like, you know, people willingly entering into a relationship with a master where they'll work for them for a number of years to pay off their debts. And that's nothing like the kidnapping of human beings and shipping across to a different continent.

In fact, I remember, or I know that in the book of Exodus where we find some of the verses that are often cited by skeptics as defending biblical slavery, we also find that the Old Testament forbids the kidnapping of people and forbids their sale. I have it in my notes here. It's Exodus 21 verse 16. Anyone who kidnap someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnappers' possession. So here we have some indication that the kind of slavery that we're talking about in the Old Testament can't be exactly like the slavery in America in the 1800s antebellum slavery,

at least for this reason. But you seem to suggest that they are more similar than these apologists often claim. Yeah. So a couple of things to note about it. First of all, any type of discussion that talks about slavery in the Hebrew Bible or in the Old Testament

should very quickly take into account slavery as it was practiced in the ancient or East in general. And what I have found with a Christian apologists online, is that they're very quick to say, oh, yeah, laws of Hamarabi, laws of Ornama, laws of Ashnuna, middle of Syrian laws, these are all genuine slavery.

Well, lo and behold, it's also illegal to kidnap people there. It had been illegal to kidnap free people and reduce them to slavery for thousands of years, as long as we've had those types of, law collections from Esopotamia. So there's nothing novel in the Old Testament about that. And yes, there was in a form of contract slavery, right, indentured servitude.

My first response when someone says that to me generally is yes and therefore what, right? So you're okay with someone being the property of someone else as long as it's only for a period of six years. By the way, in the laws of Hamarabi, it was only for three years that someone was taken as a debt slave and then their debts forgiven. So, you know, if we were a Babylonian apologist, we would say, oh, look how much better the laws of Hamarabi were than the Old Testament laws because they only kept them for three years. the laws in the Bible are twice as bad of course that's i think it's sort of a silly position to come down either direction but um so yes there absolutely was indentured servitude and it was slavery once you signed up for it and it was voluntary that type of slavery was voluntary throughout the ancient near east but that was it right you're in it's not like you can wake up

the next morning and go you know what i'm actually not down with this There are contracts from Newsy, for example, that talk about people voluntarily entering into a type of slavery where they would be adopted by the master and his wife often. And the contract, I mean, we have these contracts, and I go through them in the second edition. But the contract stipulates that so-and-so slave will become the son of these two people, and they will take care of them and be careful to obey them for the rest of the lives

of the parents, the adopted parents. And when they die, they will perform the correct burial rights and mourn them and all these things. And then that son will inherit a portion of land. But then the contract has clauses that say, if such and such son says, I'm out, right? I'm no longer their son he has to pay i think it's something like 10 minas of gold and 10 minas of silver uh or it might be it might be a hundred minas i mean it's it's some sort of crazy amount uh to give you an idea a mina is 60 shekels um and so that's uh a person might make 10 shackles of silver a year so if you're making that's that six years times 10 just in the silver part i mean it's it's it's probably 60 years uh worth of wages at any rate so indentured servitude is not all that it's cracked up to be

right your freedoms are gone for that period of time and you are at the at the discretion of corporal punishment of the master but that's not the only type of slavery that we see in the bible and that's the second maybe more important point. If you look at places like Exodus 21, 2 to 6, where the famous passage that apologists like to go to where they say, oh, look, I'll serve for six years and then, you know, they get set free. And well, this is the same passage where a debt slave is given a wife by the master. And if that he and his wife have children, the wife and the children belong to the master,

even after the debt slave goes free. and so he can then sign up for chattel slavery, lifetime servitude. And he has his ear pierced and he is marked as a chattel slave. And that's exactly what chattel slavery is. It's slavery that is somebody being owned and it's not dependent upon the repayment of the debt. You also have this, of course, in the famous passage in Leviticus 25, 44 to 46. Foreigners are not taken as indentured servants. they're taken as chattel slaves and they serve for life they're passed on as inheritance so yeah you also have

and then i'll stop because i know i've gone on for a bit but you also have sexual slavery in the hebrew bible now they might not have considered it such right in the way that we would but when someone is kept as property and is at the disposal of the master and has no consent no right to to um you know, refuse the use of their body for sexual purposes. Both male and female slaves fall into that category at different points. So, you know, this idea that it's only indentured servitude and that, you know, the fact that Exodus 2116 and Deuteronomy 24-7 outlaw kidnapping and reducing of a free person to slavery, you know, you can't steal a car, right?

You can't steal somebody else's car and make it your own, but that doesn't mean that you can't own a car. So, yes, and the last thing that I'll say is slavery, I think in 1808 was officially outlawed in the United States. Sorry, not slavery. Kidnapping and taking people on the African slave trade, I think was in 1808. It's not my area of expertise, but I think was outlawed.

And so this actually caused problems in the American South. it made people made the laws elevate the humanity and the treatment of slaves but part of that was because they couldn't so easily replace them with someone from the African slave trade but of course slavery continued in the American South so you know this idea it's sort of a in my opinion it's sort of a non sequitur or a red herring depending on how it's used I suppose, because kidnapping does not equal slavery and it's not required for it. Yeah, so I want to talk about some of the verses in question here. We've sort of mentioned them in passing because I'm sure that many of our listeners

will be familiar if they've listened to these debates that people have had about slavery in the Bible, but even then they might need a refresher, and some people listening might not know what we're talking about at all. They might have heard that, yeah, the Bible endorses slavery, but what are we talking about here. Where can we look in the Old Testament? We've mentioned Exodus as well as a couple of other books. What's the nature of these verses? What are they being, you know, what's their sort of genre? Are these like laws, are these suggestions, are these descriptions of historical events? And what is it we actually find in scripture that tells us that God himself is condoning the

ownership of human beings? Yeah. So there are three primary legal sections that we find in the Penitouk that deal with slavery. The first is Exodus 21, and that covers taking male debt slaves and what to do with families that developed during that period of service. It talks about physically punishing and disciplining a slave, a debt slave, what to do if abuse happens if murder happens on the part of the master then you have sort of a you know slightly adjacent law that talks about if an ox gores a slave to death what is to happen there but those are all in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 which is a later text you have a sort of a

development, I think is pretty clearly argued in the scholarship. Deuteronomy 15 develops Exodus 21 in some ways. And one of the ways that it does is it provides a supernatural layer to the slave laws. So there's still six years and they're released in the seventh for Israelites, not for foreigners. But when they're released in Deuteronomy 15, they are required to be provided for the slave is to be provided for liberally with food and provisions so that they don't fall back into debt slavery. Now, there's a reason for that, theologically speaking, but the big thing is that it's to be supernaturally accounted for, right? God is going to take care of that. And then in Leviticus 25, that's the latest section of legal texts that deal with slavery.

And this is part of the Holiness Code. And this is where you have slavery for Israelites essentially outlawed. They can no longer keep Israelites can no longer keep fellow Israelites even as dead slaves. they have to be kept only as hired workers. Now, of course, there's some debate about is this sort of a roundabout way of making things actually worse for slaves by keeping them as what are called antacretic pledges. But we don't have to get into that. But the law itself on its face says you can't keep an Israelite as a dead slave anymore. However, it then answers the question, well, where do we get slaves from?

If we can't get them from Israelites, where do we get them? and the text says starting down in verse 44 you're to get them from the nations around you you can get them from tenant foreigners or tenant farmers that are living in the land of Israel itself these are kept as permanent slaves passed on as inheritance to your children they serve for life you just can't do that to Israelites and these sort of land with this unless you want me to develop that further. There is debate among critical scholars as to the nature of these legal sections as a whole, any of the laws and the law collections that you see in the Bible, not just the ones that deal with slavery, but what is the decalogue? Like, what are the Ten Commandments?

What are these laws that are laid out in places like Exodus 21, Leviticus 25? And the debate sort of, it's been assumed for millennia, I think, that these are, you know, what we would consider to be legislation, that this is God, this is Yahweh on Mount Sinai, handing down the laws that he wants the people to obey. Now, if you hold to a more evangelical or fundamentalist view of the text, that's kind of where you have to come down. because if you believe that Yahweh was there talking to Moses on Mount Sinai, there aren't a lot of other ways that you can go with that. But, you know, critical scholars that don't adhere to that sort of divine source for these texts

would say, what are these things? And if you look back at places like the laws of Hamarabi or the laws of Ashnuna or the laws of Lipidishtar or Nama, these law collections have a a very propagandistic tone to them. They're put on parts of royal inscriptions. So it's the king is essentially saying,

look how great I am. I'm a wonderful judge. I make sure that justice is in the land and that no one is oppressed. And here's how I did it. Look at all the laws that I, you know, made sure that brought justice to people. And so there's this debate,

are these, propaganda is are these just as you sort of said suggestions or wisdom literature are they if you want to live your best life you know yolo and if you want to really make it happen the way you do it is to obey these types of laws sort of like proverbs all those things are debated but uh apologists have have tried to gravitate toward this and to sort of grab hold of it and to say well well if they're if they're not legislation if it's not actual laws that the people had to abide by well i mean then you can't really attribute them to god right because you know uh and god can't be held morally responsible because it's just like it's just like part of the story but the problem is that you can't then say we believe

that yahweh gave these things to moses on mount sinai because you can't have a foot in both camps and you can't have your cake and eat it too right You either have to say they didn't come from Yahweh, they're not a supernatural origin, and so they can be one of these other things, or they are, and their legislation that Yahweh wants and requires the people to uphold. Yeah, so we do seem to have some, like you mentioned, potentially conflicting reports here as well. If we look at Exodus 21, which will be our sort of earliest scriptural source here, the very beginning of X. Exodus 21, the second verse, if you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve for six years, but in the seventh year, he shall go, he shall go free without paying anything. And as you have mentioned, some people point to this as evidence that even if we are dealing

with something like slavery here, it's not a permanent slavery, and it's something like a sort temporary work contract. It says in verse 7 that if a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as the male servants do. Can you tell us about that? Yeah. So verses 7 through 11 deal with the Hebrew word is Amma and it's a female slave. And the female slave is very often taken in concubinage. And this is again, not just in the Hebrew Bible. This is throughout the ancient areas. You have female slaves taken as concubines. Even here, if you look in the verses, it says if he takes another wife to himself, He can't just, you know, disregard this female slave that he's taken as a, probably as a concubine.

But the law here is explicitly saying that using the same sort of verbiage as what is seen, as you pointed out in verse two, that female slaves are not to go free. And the reason for this is oddly a protection for them. And apologists like to jump on this. And it's, when I hear it, I want to say things like sick flex, bro. You know, like, if this is what you're, if this is what you're camping on and having standout is a great thing, this isn't, this isn't all that great. The reason that she can't be or she is not to be set free is because you have devalued her, the Israelites had devalued her by having intercourse with her. And of course, her value, having been deflowered or whatever, you know, term that we want to use there to maybe nice it up, nice in it up, you know, she's, she no longer carries the same value that she did as a virgin.

So it's when you get to passages like Deuteronomy 15, which seem to be updating other aspects of Exodus 21, there's sort of a debate as to whether. this particular law is being updated. And so when you get there, I think down in verse 18, it might not be that far down. It says, you are to also do this for your female slave, and that is the do this is to release her after six years or to allow her to serve her life as a chattel slave if she wants to. And so it seems highly, highly, you know, very possible

that this is trying to turn Exodus 21-7 on its head and say, no, this is going to be across the board. Male and female slaves are going to get released after six years. It's also possible that it's a different type of slavery being assumed here in Deuteronomy 15. So certainly the slavery that's being assumed in Exodus 21 is not just regular household slavery. she's being taken for sexual purposes right she's being taken as a concubine um and so it may be that deuteronomy 15 is envisioning something else here either way um the reason that it's it's saying that in in exodus 21 7 is to try to protect her from being just sort of disregarded notice that uh if she if she does become displeasing to her master he can't just sell her to afford

born people, he has to allow her to be redeemed. And essentially, that means that the father who went into debt or the brother that went into debt that then sold her as this female slave, has to be allowed to purchase her back to pay the debt that he was forgiven by selling her. Well, here's the, here's the NIV. If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go. free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has broken

faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these things, she is to go free without any payment of money, just so that we have a clear grasp on what the text actually says. I mean, is it not, it seems so strange to us now to imagine a situation where being in this sort of circumstance would offer a level of protection. But if the scripture is saying explicitly that if you can't provide for this woman, if you can't give her marital rights, if you can't give her food, if you can't give her clothing, then she has to go free. Can't we take this as an individual?

that this isn't just a verse that's supposed to protect the rights of men to take concubines as slaves, but rather to protect women from being, as you say, completely disregarded. Is this not a plausible argument? Sure. The thing that I would want to nuance it with is that it's nothing new in the Bible. So types of laws, these types of laws appear throughout the legal collections in the ancient Near East. And this is something that I think people miss, just generally speaking, certainly apologists miss it. They have this picture, probably because the Bible in the Old Testament paints everybody else, all these Canaanites and Hittites and Jebysites and Amalekites, all these horrible,

horrible people. Yeah, they weren't, they weren't, relatively speaking, they weren't so bad, right? and one of the things that is paramount for a king who is ruling in a Mesopotamian city is that he's supposed to be a good shepherd to his people he's supposed to protect the vulnerable and they explicitly say this over and over again no one was oppressed under my rule the orphan the widow the foreigner right these people whether this played out this way or not as sort of irrelevant to the point here right um because it would be you'd have to ask the same question of the biblical texts um but the way that these rulers set themselves up is they are to care for the vulnerable people uh under their domain and so uh you know contracts even like practice

actual contracts that we have from, you know, from the old Babylonian period, from, you know, the third millennium, the second millennium, the first millennia BCE, you often have clauses that are placed in there that protect the woman when she's being sold, right? And marriage contracts function in very much the same way. So if you're going to make that argument, or if one were to make that argument, well, look, this is a protection. Like, I agree. You see the same thing. I'm sure as we're going to talk about down in verses 20 and 21. This is a level of protection for the slave. But you have to then follow that up with therefore what?

Because if you're, if you make that argument, you have to then make the argument for these other ancient near eastern cultures that come before. And you have to say, well, they were doing the same thing. They're really protecting women. And I don't think apologists are going to to go down. that path um i suppose i'm imagining uh how we were we begun we began this discussion by a comparison between the kind of slavery we're talking about in the old testament and something like

antebellum slavery in the united states and one difference might be for example that it seems quite obvious that the laws in place regarding uh slaves in the american south didn't have this level of, well, look, if you can't provide for your female slaves, if you can't give them marital status and food and shelter, then they have to go free without any payment. It seemed very clearly, you know, these are just your property with whom you can do what you like. This, in other words, seems like maybe a way in which we can say that this is different and perhaps a less grotesque form of slavery.

It's not to say that it's permissible and certainly not by modern standards. But it's much how I've heard an analogous argument being made about polygamy, Sometimes when a religious scripture talks about men taking multiple wives, we might look at that today and think of a man who just wants multiple wives when we don't recognize that this comes from a time when having a husband was one of the best ways to protect yourself as a woman in a world where you're not able to very easily sort of fend for yourself. And that might not be the case in the modern age, but if you're living in a time where that is the case, this might be something that's actually good for you. Now, I think it's a harder case to make. for slavery than it is for something like polygamous marriage. But at the very least, we might be looking at something that's not so grotesque as these are just your property with whom you can do what you like, but rather these are human beings who have some moral restraints on what you can do with them. And in fact, you need to provide for them. Otherwise, they have to go free. This seems much less grotesque than, you know, American slavery.

Yes, so let me disavow the value of that notion a little. And this is something that was incredibly surprising to me, because when I first came online and started talking about slavery, and somebody would say to me, oh, well, you know, that's just totally different in the American South. I would go, yeah, yeah, but so what? I mean, like, it's still slavery. You know, and I have no formal expertise, no formal training in, like, American, you know, history. So, you know, no, or certainly not nothing regarding the laws. in the American South. I have no expertise there. However, I feel like I've provided the scholars in my work to establish this. And of course, I cite the laws themselves. So with all that being said, the law, there was a tension, a fundamental tension with the lawmakers in the colonial period and getting better toward the revolution and certainly post-revolution, the laws got more humane.

And the fundamental tension that legislators and judges grappled with was on the one hand the right of the master to be able to discipline and physically beat his slave in order to get him or to do the work that he required them to do and on the other hand the humanity of the slave and the slave's right to not be abused and murdered now that sounds bizarre because we know what happened in the american south right but if you go back and read the laws the laws are very clear again particularly as you get closer to the civil war and in the south i'm talking about not just in the north um you you weren't allowed to abuse your slave now how they defined abuse was anything more than moderate physical correction but you weren't allowed to dismember them you weren't allowed to uh like

you know knock out eyes and teeth you're not allowed to do that stuff you're certainly not the lad to kill them. And in fact, if it was determined that you had murdered a slave in several states, and ultimately, I think most states by the end, the punishment was essentially as if you'd killed a free white person. So this idea that apologists put forward that, oh, in the American South, the laws just let them do whatever they want. Well, that's nonsense. The laws were very similar and often reference, you know, like in the, you know, like in the In these discussions, they'll say things like no good Christian would disregard the humanity of a slave so much to abuse them, right? But the master has to be able to physically discipline them.

And so how did they do that? Well, they said, you know, no master can be held liable for sometimes even the death of the slave, as long as it was done under moderate correction. well you know surprise surprise exodus 21 20 to 21 if a man beats his male or female slave of the wooden rod and they die immediately up abuse abuse they're to be killed right the punishment is the punishment is severe um but if they survive a day or two well now this is determined to be moderate physical correction right this is the master disciplining his slave and the benefit of the doubt is given to the master. And so there is no punishment because they're his property. Because they're his property. Once again, from the NIV, Exodus 21 versus 20 to 21, anyone who beats their male or female slaves with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result.

But they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two since the slave is their property. And interestingly here, what seems to be at first, maybe an indication that this isn't as bad as we once thought because we say, well, look, if they beat their slave with a rod and that slave dies, they get punished. So this isn't just abject slavery and ownership, but it is immediately followed up with the idea that as long as they get up after a day or two, and you can imagine the kind of suffering that has to be inflicted where it takes days for the slave to recover, they're not to be punished. And as you say, why? Because

the slave is their property. So, and it's interesting that when we imagine, firstly, if we imagine that, well, look, and this is another thing I think Alan Parr said in his video that I responded to, he said, look, God did not condone slavery so much as he regulated it. And a lot of people often say that, like, God's kind of writing for the people of the time. If you just try to completely abolish slavery instantly, it would have caused havoc. There's, there's no way that it could have practically manifested. And so instead we place regulations. And the idea is maybe God is sort of hinting that he's not all cool with the slavery thing, but recognizes it can't be gone, can't be done away with entirely. I mean, he seems quite liberal in his doing away with other forms of

practices in their entirety. And so I'm not sure how much credence I give that. But even so, the kind of regulations we're talking about are still pretty grotesque. They still have humans owning other human beings as property and allowing them to beat them mercilessly to the extent that they can't get up for a number of days as long as they don't die and it's only then that they'll be punished but we explicitly say that they're not punished as long as they get up yeah that's the see that's the thing the hebrew itself um is a little tricky there because certainly the niv is translating it that way that they recover after a day or two but the hebrew doesn't require that as a matter of fact many scholars would say that they survive a day or two, meaning they last a day or two before they die.

Oh, sure, because of course the verse says they're to be punished if the slave dies as a direct result. Yeah, and literally that it's under his hand, and that's the idea. It's like there. And even early interpreters like Philo, the way that they read this was to say this is sort of a litmus test. for like how do you determine malicious intent and this is something that's very common again to the engineers you know the laws of homerabi think is 116 says if somebody distrains a free person's child for example and beats them to death well the master's child is put to death as a result right So you, like, this idea that, oh, the Hebrew Bible, if you're killing the master, my God, this is, like, this is crazy, this is new, this would never happen in ancient Near East. No, it's, it's right on, it's right on line, in line with what you see in the ancient Near East.

I wanted to ask how you think we can square this with what almost immediately follows in Exodus 21, which is verses 26 to 7. an owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth now again it's not clear to me that the law is specifically saying here you can beat your slave however you like except specifically if you knock out an eye or knock out a tooth

then you have to let them go free it seems maybe here we're dealing with something more like saying, look, if you cause serious physical, permanent damage to your slave, this is not allowed. And in fact, will result in you losing the slave altogether. Now, a moment ago when we're talking about anyone beating their slave with a rod, we kind of have this image of somebody just mercilessly beating a slave however they like, as long as they don't die. But immediately following this, we have some indication that actually, no, you can't just cause physical bodily damage to them. And that instead, the kind of, uh, the kind of, uh, physical damage that we're talking about previously must be sort of much milder than what we had in mind.

What do you think about this? How can these be squared? So a couple of things to note. First, I agree. And it's something that I talk about in the book. These laws just as 21, 7 to 11 were intended to be a protection. These are intended to be a protection for this. This is very likely, almost certainly a debt slave. and debt slaves had a higher a higher level of rights in the ancient Near East when it came to the way that they were treated and so the fact that they go out free without payment is sort of one of the things that indicates or is an indication of their debt slave status but it's more complicated than that. So what we have here is someone who is a debt slave, probably talking about an Israelite debt slave, probably similar to what we saw in two to six. And the master has to be able to do corporal punishment. That's what the law is, I think, going for. But he's, he can't just

abuse them, just like you see in the laws in the Antebellum South, just like you see in the laws in the ancient Near East. The master can't just do whatever he wants to them. But the, the problem is how do you determine that? And so I think the way that they're doing that in 20 to 21 is if he dies immediately, well, that's an indication that this was abuse. If he dies after a couple of days, you know, we've got to give the master the benefit of the doubt. Something else could have intervened, you know, an infection. Of course, they wouldn't have thought in those terms, but like something else may have intervened and killed the slave. Then you come to 26 and 27. There's damage to an eye, damage to a tooth.

Some people read these things, and apologists do this all the time. They say something as insignificant or as minor as knocking out an eye or a tooth. And they'll even do those sorts of hand motions and eye rolling, right? Silly. It's silly. So I have an entire appendix in the second edition to the Old Testament and door slavery that looks at all the battery laws from all of the ancient ear eastern law collections including those of the hebrew bible and it compares them uh not only amongst themselves in their in their individual collections to

see what is the most severe and what is the least severe and how do they rank uh type of battery that can be inflicted upon someone but then comparing them between you know to the to to each other based on the type of battery being you know performed whatever and an eye and a tooth and a nose these are all very severe parts of the body that draw very severe punishments if if damage is done to them it's not it's not something small And you see this consistently throughout the collections. And so this is where like the whole eye for an eye, tooth for tooth thing came from, right? It's because these are not minor things. And so I think you're right.

I don't think that it's limited to, well, they have to put out an eye or they have to put out a tooth. However, they are specific for a reason. I think probably in that class would be like, you know, breaking a bone. That would be probably pretty significant. Those are pretty significant in the collections. And so I think what's happening here is a debt slave is being abused and suffers significant damage and is therefore released from his debt. Now, this is what I want everybody to hear in the, and you can read it if you want, in verses 20, I think it's 23 and 24. You have one of the sections where it talks about eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound.

Yeah, but if there is, we have 21 verse 23, but if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for life, eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. following on that that so that's you know what we call the law of retaliation or lex talionis whatever is you know if if we're two free people and you put out my eye well now i have the right to your eye and what that often translates into is you saying hey hey hey i tell you what if you don't take my eye i'll give you a million dollars right i will pay you x amount of money for you to allow me to keep my eye and there's a lot of discussion about that and how that worked but it's to try to assess value in those circumstances but the critical point is that those two verses follow on those two verses uh sorry 26 and 27 follow this eye for eye

foot burn for burn hand for hand in all these things this lex talionis if the slave We're on the same legal standing as a free person. What we would expect to see here is, and if a master puts out the eye of a slave, then his eye shall be put out. But that's not what we see. Instead, that slave is to be released from his debt, which probably is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of it most,

what, 30 shekels of silver, right? I mean, like, those sorts of things are hard to know. but he is the key is that he is not due the law of retaliation he cannot say to his master all right let the bidding start right how much will you give me for put for your eye for me to not take your eye he's not he's not given that um he's simply set free from his um from his debt yeah verse verse 22 we're talking about if people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there's no serious injury. The offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands, and the court allows.

It then follows that, but if there is serious injury, you are to take a life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and so on. And you say immediately following this, an owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it, must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. So there are sort of, there's like a parallel law here. In the one instance, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the other instance, if I knock out your eye, well, I tell you what, you know, you're free to go and we'll call it quits. I suppose that does seem quite different. There's also a differential treatment not only between sort of slaves and non-slaves here,

but as you've mentioned before, different kinds of slaves. We seem to have chattel slavery versus indentured servitude. But also we seem to have differential treatment for Israelites versus foreigners in the book, of Leviticus, a verse that you referenced earlier, but I'll read out again from the NIV, Leviticus 25 versus 44 to 46. Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you. From them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them

slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. So I think it's worth bearing in mind, I mean, here it seems clear that what we're saying is there's a totally different rule for Israelites than there are for others. And I think it's worth bearing in mind that when you see a verse that seems to suggest that we're not talking about a particularly grotesque form of slavery, we have to be careful to understand, are we talking about all slaves here, or are we talking about just Israelites, or are we talking about just indentured servitudes, and not those who are sort of sold into chattel slavery for life. There seems to be a lot of differential treatment here.

And I think that one of the ways that we can often get a bit sort of blindsided is by people saying, look at this verse, which suggests that slaves have to be treated nicely. But we're really talking about Israelites who are voluntarily entered into indentured service as opposed to slaves captured from the nations around you. Yeah. and and this sort of thing plays out of course Leviticus 25 is like the big passage but this sort of this sort of treatment of foreigners you can see very clearly in other passages and again we can

come back to Leviticus 25 and talk about as much or as little as you like of it but in in some places like Deuteronomy 21 which talks about a captive bride here the picture is if you read back through the previous chapter Deuteronomy 20 10 to 14 it talks about what how the Israelites are to go to war and we know you know from this passage but also from others that all of the the nations that are living in the land of canaan in the promised land there to be annihilated there to be wiped out out. They are under what's called the ban. However, the question then becomes, well, what about

other nations? Because Deuteronomy sets up Israel as the head of the nations, right? And they're the ones that are supposed to be in charge. They're supposed to be the best. They're supposed to be the most powerful. They're supposed to create vassals all around them. So how do they do that? What are the rules for warfare. And so it says when you go to war against nations or cities that are very far away from you, you're to offer them shalom, is what the text says, peace, right? And what that equates to is a vassal treaty, as you can, as you see in the next verses. And basically the text explains that if they accept, if they say, we're good, will be your vassal.

then the people in the city become your Corvay labor, right? And you can muster them as you like to do, you know, building projects that you see Solomon doing. However, if they close their gates and they say, no way, Jose, right? And they put up a fight, then you're to kill all of the men in the city, all the fighting force. and you're to take the women and the children and the livestock as plunder. And that's what you do to the cities that are around. They become your property, right? So then chapter 21, sort of in this context, says,

okay, if an Israelite man sees among those captives a beautiful woman and he wants to take her as a wife, here's how you do it he brings her into his house has a ritual where he trims her nails and shaves her head changes clothing and a new clothing and then she's given 30 days to mourn her dead family just pause um because i shouldn't be laughing but i i feel like i laugh sometimes at horrible statements well it's it's difficult it's difficult not to again from from the Lord's own mouth, and this is Deuteronomy 21 verse 10 onwards,

when you go to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife, bring her into your home and shave her head, trim her nails,

and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. I mean, I don't see a way of reading this that can be reconciled

with the attitude that I often see in popular apologetics, that we're not really talking about, you know, slavery here. We're talking about something like people entering into a voluntary work contract. No, this is, this is captives of war who the captors find attractive, give them a month to mourn for the people who presumably were killed by their new husband, and now they're yours to keep. Again, the verse you mentioned earlier, just because I want to make sure that our listeners hear it from the Bible itself, so they don't think you're distorting things earlier that

in Leviticus 25 versus 44 onwards, you'll, sorry, sorry, Deuteronomy. 20, 10 to 14, yeah. Yeah, so we were talking earlier about Deuteronomy chapter 20 versus 10 onwards. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. Again, it seems like make them an offer of peace. That sounds like a good thing, but it says here, if they accept and open their gates, all of the people in it shall be subject to force labor and shall work for you, some peace. if they refuse to make peace which you know how dare they as they engage and they engage you in battle

lay siege to that city when the lord your god delivers it into your hand put to the sword all of the men in it as for the women the children the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves and you may use the plunder the lord your god gives you from your enemies you may use the plunder and of course the plunder is referring to the livestock you know the the property and of course the women and this is Alex this is precisely what we see in the very often discussed passage numbers 31 yes and what people miss about this is the Christian apologists that they they have this way of sort of spinning this in a way that, and it makes me sad, frankly.

But Numbers 31 is that these virgin women are, they're not only taken, but they are numbered and counted along with the other livestock in the chapter. I think it's probably down in like, I can't remember 17 and 18 somewhere around there, but it might be even further down than that. But it says, you know, such and such number of sheep and such and such number of cattle and such, such number of women, right? Like, they're divided out among the tribes. So this is something that what I hear all the time that makes me ill. And I remember Mike Winger, if you're familiar with him,

had a discussion with Schuyler Fiction several years ago on this particular passage. And I think it's the last time he's spoken with him. And Mike, it just blew my mind because he's saying essentially things like, well, yeah, like this is a protection for the woman. if that's what you get out of that passage um i don't know it betrays it tips your hand what cards you're holding right what your position is um because the scene that you're describing would be akin to if someone were to break into my house right now and were to kill me and to kill Megan and to set the house on fire

and to take my five children as as captives right and keep them in the basement in their house while this house burns down and keep them there and but to feed them right and to clothe them and to to give them homeschooling, right, and to teach them to play the violin or whatever else we would say. Would certainly no apologist would come to the defense of the captor, the kidnapper, and say, well, I mean, it was a protection for the kids to take them out of that burning building, right? This was for their benefit.

But what was he supposed to do, just leave them there to die? Well, I mean, like, again, sick flex, bro. You know, like, this isn't the flex that you think that it is. This woman, not that women had consent, you know, or gave consent in marriages, that wasn't really a thing. But certainly, this woman is not giving consent either directly. Or even if you want to make the argument that she would have wanted it, she would have wanted it under duress in the same way that my kids would have wanted the guy to take them instead of letting them burn alive.

And I'll be quiet, but like I picture that movie about, oh my gosh, that's so terrible, the Holocaust movie that's so famous. I can't remember the name. There are a few I can think of maybe Schindler's List. Shindler's List, that's it. And there's a scene where the women in the concentration camp are simply trying to not be shot in the morning. And so they like slap their cheeks to make them a little bit redder,

you know, a little bit rosier so they don't look so gaunt and so pale. And when that guy comes by, that officer walks by and doesn't shoot them, you know, or if he were to say, hey, come with me, you're going to be my. my wife, would they have wanted that instead of being shot by the next officer? Yeah, hell yeah, right? But does that mean that they consented to it? Of course not. Does that make it okay? Of course not. And so the logic here, I think it just betrays that you're starting with your conclusion as an apologist. And you're saying this has to be okay. It has to be okay. And I have to make that okay. Now, I don't know what Mike Winger in particular have said. I haven't listened to that

debate, at least I don't think so. I am familiar with him. But we were talking earlier generally about this approach to the problem specifically of female slavery, that this is somehow for the benefit of the woman, that this is for their protection. And like you say, this is an absurdity, but it's also worth bearing in mind, if we look at numbers 31, this is after the Midianites, the armies of Moses just essentially genocide, the Midianites. And Moses commands his troops now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has not slept with a man. Again, that's the NIV's translation.

If this is about the protection of women, it seems interesting that it's only about the protection of virgin women. The women who've slept with the man, they get put to the sword. The ones who haven't, these are the ones who are offered the protection. if there is some kind of argument in the tone of saying this is somehow for the benefit of the women it's worth bearing in mind why it would only apply to the virgin women why do you think that might be I mean certainly because they're the only ones that would be viable as wives it's it's kind of like what I'm wondering here is that being someone who's sort of written a book on this and engaged in a lot of debates about biblical slavery is have you heard anything

that's sort of given you an indication that maybe we're mischaracterizing this. I mean, there's clearly, there are clearly a lot of people in the world who think that the Bible or the Old Testament is the word of God and that God is a benevolent being. There must have, there must be some way in which this is to be made sense of, in all your research and all your debates, have you come across anything? I mean, what's the best argument that you think, not just an apologist, but also just a Christian believer who might be listening to this. I mean, this might be the first time that they've encountered some of these verses. And they might be thinking in their heads, well,

this sounds very bad. But, you know, I'm hearing this from atheists. We're sort of plucking quotes out of the Old Testament without reading the entire books. What are some of the things you've heard? And are there any that are successful, do you think, in defending these verses as not as bad as we're making them sound? Yeah. So I guess one thing to say, again, to be fair, um and this is this is to sort of go away from a more fundamentalist approach to the text but like passages like numbers 31 like the overarching picture that the that the text is painting the narrative is painting is the reason that they're spared is because they didn't sin right that was the point that's why the the um you know the virgin women are spared here um but but overall with these

passages just like in the wider ancient near east these laws are are set in place in order to protect the vulnerable that's generally what they do and so if we're taking a step away from this more fundamentalist approach to the text and we're just saying looking at the ancient israelites or the ancient assyrians or the ancient Babylonians or whatever and saying were these like horrific you know horrible nasty, terrible, immoral people. Well, I mean, like, that's going to depend on the standard that we use, right?

And I'm not an ethicist, but the laws that they're putting in place are intended to protect. That's what they're intended to do. The problem becomes, as you well know, much better than I, that when someone says I'm going to ground my morality, either

in the nature of this divine being or in the laws that he sets, if you believe that these are the laws that are set forth, well, you know, that's what they say. They're bad, right? So in that vein, the best, I think the best argument that one could make is a much more progressive argument that says, yes, slavery in the Hebrew Bible was bad. Slaver in the Old Testament was bad by our standards, right? We should not be doing that slavery. But as you sort of alluded to, earlier, God is sort of meeting people where they are, right? Now, there are some serious

problems with this, and I'll talk about those in a second. But the argument sort of goes, God is sort of, you know, condescending to the people in the ancient areas and ancient Israelites and moving them forward incrementally. And when you get to the New Testament, you get to the early church, you know, now you're starting to see verses like Galatians 328, neither male or female, slave nor free, right? We're all one in the body of Christ. You're seeing things like 1st Timothy 1.10, which is slave traders are part of a list of sins. You have pat, you know, like the book of Philemon, which one interpretation, you know, has it that, you know,

Paul is arguing to set this slave free. And, and, and, and, you know, even things like, you know, Jesus. coming to set the captives free. And one of their main arguments is based on Matthew chapter 19. And in Matthew chapter 19, Jesus, it talks about divorce as it's laid out in the laws of the Old Testament. And it says that God allowed you, Moses allowed you, to put away your wives, to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

You had sinful hearts. But it wasn't this way from the beginning. And so what they do is they extrapolate from this, like a general principle, that there are lots of things in the law, the Old Testament, that weren't God's ideal. And slavery is one of them. But he just sort of, you know, he lets them do that because of the hardness of their heart. But then by the time you get to the New Testament, he's given new commands. He's given new, sometimes subtle commands or suggestions that slavery. that slavery is bad.

Okay, that's the argument. I deal with it more in depth in the book. But there are some main problems with this. First of all, the idea that God has to condescend, particularly on the issue of slavery, is not borne out by passages like Leviticus 25. In Leviticus 25, God had said, Yahweh had said, leading up to this

in both of their earlier law collections, you can keep Israelites as indentured servants, right? It's dead slaves. But in 25, he says, you can't do that anymore, right? No more slavery for the Israelis. Got to keep them as paid hired workers. And what I've said in the past is, well, if God had stopped there and said, like, okay, can't keep people of slaves anymore, then I would say, all right, fine, like, I can see that

forward progression. But the fact that he then goes on to say, here's how you get slaves, right, take him from the foreigners. Now, someone might argue, and people have, well, that's that tiny step forward, Josh. See, it's the tiny step forward. The problem is that the rationale behind this is very often that the economy wouldn't have supported it. And you sort of alluded to that, I think, as well. It would have just fallen into chaos. Their economic system would have just crashed down.

needed slavery. And so that's why he's trying to get rid of it just for Israelites, but they still need the foreign slaves to be able to do that. But he's going to work that out eventually. The problem is that it was still a financial problem. It was still an economic problem to not keep Israelite debt slaves. And the text talks about this. And it says, I, Yahweh says, I will bless you. I will take care of you. If you obey the commands, I will provide for you. in that same chapter he talks about letting the land lie fallow every seventh year and the people are like how are we supposed to do that and still eat let the don't grow anything for a year and god says don't worry i will bless you so much supernaturally that you'll have two years extra worth so god is

is saying he will supernaturally step in and provide both in deuteronomy 15 and live guess 25. So the idea that he couldn't also supernaturally step in and provide for them not having foreign slaves from an economic standpoint. I think it's just the burden is on the person making that argument. Two more problems and I'll stop. One is you have to sort of argue for moral progress in the Old Testament, at least a little bit. And it's really hard to do. There are people, there's a guy named Webb who wrote, I think, in 2014 that sort of makes this argument that he's trying to show moral progress in the Old Testament laws when it comes to slavery. It's just not there, right? Outside of these supernatural provisions, it's just not there.

And so you don't see that moral step forward in the Old Testament. But I think the bigger issue is these verses that are cited so often in the New Testament. And again, I deal with them in more detail in the book, they don't say what apologists need them to say. For example, the book of Philemon, it's highly debated what it's even about. But scholars that write on Philemon say unequivocally, this is not a condemnation of the social institution of slavery. It's talking about one guy, right? And even in a best case scenario for an apologist, it's saying, hey, set him free so he can come work with me. right um it's not this condemnation that they wanted to be passages like first timothy 110 it's about slave trading right and the illegal practices that you see that slave traders did at the time

the problem is even if you think that's a good thing which of course it is but even if you think it's like the bible it's doing this this great new thing in the new testament it's not that slave i mean that um that sin list you know evil evil acts list is pulled from writings, the earlier New Testament writings from the period that are that are not from the New Testament, right? So you would have to argue

that, oh, well, okay, it's illegal in places other than the New Testament to what? Because the New Testament is informing that somehow? No, because the New Testament's borrowing from it. So 1st Timothy 110 doesn't really get you anywhere. And the last one, Galatians 328, where there's neither Jew nor Gentile, slave, nor free, male nor female. This is a spiritual statement.

It's not a condemnation of the social institution of slavery any more than Paul is saying that there's no social distinction between men and women. Yes. That would be a hard sell, I think, to try to convince me that Paul thought that there was no social distinction anymore between men and women. between men and women. Of course there was. But what he's saying is you're all in Christ. So spiritually, there's equality. The big thing, this is, the plane is landing, I promise, sorry, when you go to the early church, what you would expect to see if the New Testament writers were saying slavery bad, condemn slavery, you would expect to. to the early church to pick up on this.

They don't. They write things like even like John Chrysostom when he writes, he says that like you shouldn't own so many slaves. But it's not because slavery's wrong. It's because he's saying, stop being so lazy, right? All right, maybe have one slave or at most two. I'll allow you to have two. But like, come on, like God gave you two hands, right?

Adam didn't have slaves and he was just fine. So the early church and people like Jennifer Glancy and Ronald Charles, they write about this in the New Testament, the early Christian church. And it's just not there, in my opinion, to show this moral progress and this condemnation of slavery in the New Testament. it. Yes. Again, just for those listening who want the actual references that we're talking about, you mentioned First Timothy chapter 1, verse 10, well, it comes after a list of things, but in verse 10 we get the sexually immoral for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders, liars and perjurers, again, the NIV, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, implying that slave trading is maybe contrary to sound doctrine, but I think you've maybe

traded one problem for another there and having to also include homosexuality in that list. It's also, I believe, disputed as to whether Paul is actually the author of First Timothy, which is a whole other problem that I don't think we really have time to go into now. Not that it matters, of course, because as you say, this isn't really that much. I mean, if this is an important message, you think at the very least, it would be more clear it's not to say it would need to necessarily show up more times but it would probably be clearer and you wouldn't just get it from the mouth of pool but probably more clearly from the mouth of christ himself as you say uh we also have galatians chapter three verse 28 there is

neither jew nor greek there is neither bond nor free is how the niv puts it there is neither male nor female for you are all one in christ jesus but as you say there's just no way to interpret this other than a spiritual metaphor. Even the New Testament here doesn't really help us out. And Alex, think about it. Like, in Luke 17, Jesus is talking to his disciples. And I don't remember which verses it is, but he says, essentially, which one of you having a slave serving out in the field all day when the slave comes in at night would say to him here sit with me eat no you would say go in and cook my you know get get your it's some sort of apron i think um make my dinner and come out here and serve me and then when i am done then you may eat and even after all these things you would

say he is just a worthless slave because he's just doing his job and that metaphor is used to talk about the apostles or about the disciples and it's so hard to think that Jesus is going to say which one of you and use this as an example and not say well obviously you're not going to have slaves because this is wrong how atrocious right he uses it just like he does all throughout Luke. Yes, the metaphor is strong here. I mean, it's worth bearing in mind why it is that Jesus is saying, well, who among you would do this? This is Luke 17, chapter 7, sorry, chapter 17 verse 7, who among you would say to your slave who was just coming from plowing or tending sheep in the

field, come here at once and take your place at the table? Would you not rather say to him, prepare supper for me? Put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink. Later you may eat and drink. Do you thank the slave for doing what he was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, we are worthless slaves, we have only done what we ought to have done. This is sort of a message about why would you be thankful for things that you ought to have done anyway? And almost unthinkingly, the example that Jesus used is that of a slave. Now, if Jesus wanted to abolish slavery and there were some considerations about why that might not have been possible. Potentially, again, we're talking about how this would have been too, you know, disruptive.

It seems strange to me that he would seemingly unthinkingly use slavery as a metaphor here and as part of his spiritual guidance. There is, of course, the reference in Ephesians that Paul makes, which in chapter six, verse five, we get slaves, obey your earthly masters. with respect and fear and with sincerity of heart just as you would obey Christ. And Paul also writes of obeying masters not just the good ones, but also the ones who are harsh. So it seems even if we start incorporating New Testament verses and looking at the letters of Paul, we're still left with a bit of a way up. And if we're trying to think of Paul as somebody who wishes to see the end of slavery or abolish slavery,

or is at least carrying the message of the Christ who wanted to see the end of slavery, where it does seem to be condemning slavery we'd want something a bit clearer and we probably wouldn't also want the presence of these other verses which seem to explicitly condone it um yeah before uh before we finish up here do you know much about the so-called slave bible have you come across this yeah not a lot um as far as the specifics um it is used quite often an apology arguments and the way that it's used, I'm sure, as you know, is the slave Bible removes I think three quarters of the Bible, the content of the Bible, almost all, most of, maybe the Old Testament.

The slave Bible, its full name is select parts of the Holy Bible for use of the, I'll say, black slaves in the British West India Islands. And this is essentially a censored Bible that was produced, I think, in around 18, was it 1807? I think it was, I've got in my notes, 1807. And it was specifically designed for slaves in the British West Indies. And it retracts a few, as I say, it censored. It takes out a number of verses, including some of the ones we've talked about. It takes out Exodus 2116, anyone who kidnap someone is to be put to death.

It takes out Deuteronomy 23, verse 15, if a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever you like, wherever they like, and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them. Again, a hint in Deuteronomy of at least some sort of beneficial attitudes towards slaves. And that's not something we talked about, actually, and I had meant to ask you about, interestingly, these are sort of taken. out of this slave bible and this bible was was read out including all the verses we've already talked about in order to essentially let these slaves know that this is their place in the world and that's because god says so what i find strangely ironic about a censored bible being produced

for supposedly the benefit of slaves and teaching them what their natural place is the fact that it was considered necessary to censor it at all now this kind of argument might actually work against our purposes here, or our thesis here, which is that if the Bible so obviously condones slavery, and there's basically no way to interpret it as not doing so, then why would it be that the Bible that's read out to slaves and the British West Indies would have to have this censored version? There seems to be at least some suggestion here that there is some indication in the Bible that slavery isn't, you know, completely fine. And that's the only verse I think I have written down here that we haven't mentioned yet, and perhaps we can do just.

just before I let you go, which is, again, Deuteronomy chapter 23 versus 15 to 16, if a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master, let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them. If slaves are essentially the private property of other individuals, why would God not command here that the slaves be returned? So let me say one quick thing about the slave Bible that I think is important. to recognize here. And again, like, I haven't, I haven't studied it. So take what I say in that light. But as I understand it, the passages that are taken out are not excised, right? It's not like

you get 20, Deuteronomy 23, you know, 12, 13, 14, and then 15 and 16 are kind of pulled out, right? It's, it's that, the Exodus story, these narratives, these large sections of the text are removed. And the reason, I think, without getting into the minds of, you know, the people that redacted the text is because the story of the Exodus and the freedom that the Israelites, you know, received ultimately from Egypt is a foundational story throughout the Old Testament. particularly in those early chapters, or in those early books. And so you can't, I don't think many of us listen to songs that we really like and that speak to us and drill down into, well, what exactly did Sam Hunt mean when he penned this, right? What's the specific situation that he's referring to? No, you just hear sort of general things that speak to you, right? It's sort of a reader response type of interpretation.

And the idea, that's the same reason that my father, when he was out building, you know, building houses, swinging a hammer, would sing, oh, my Lord knows the way through the wilderness. All I got to do is follow. And he's not thinking about the historical context of when that song was written. and he's probably not, you know, trying to say, I think I'm actually an ancient Israelite and I identify as an ancient Israelite, right? He's just thinking, this is a story about my God and from my Bible,

and God wants me to be free, right? And so if we're looking at the overarching message that people hear when they read through the stories, That is a very different conversation from what the text said and meant in its original context. Yes. And the reason that the latter is important is that what apologists want to do is take you back to the original context and see, see, homosexuality, bad, right? It's not the overarching message that God loves you and that God wants to.

to, you know, have a relationship with you. That's not, and God wants you to protect the vulnerable, right? That's not, though, they want to drill down into those things. And so I think, I think it's very important to recognize that the overarching message of the stories and how they were heard and understood, removing those so that people don't get the idea of we should be free. while also taking out these verses in the laws that talk about slavery, that somehow speaks to the individual laws,

I don't think that was on their mind at all. It's just we have to get these Old Testament stories out of here about slavery and release from slavery in the Exodus. So I think that's probably what's going on here. Yeah, I think there's about 10% of the Old Testament is included in the slave Bible in about half of the New Testament and the story of the Exodus is taken away

as well as the stories of the Psalms. Even the book of Revelation in the New Testament doesn't appear and this is thought of I've got a quote which I think I believe is from a man called Seth Pollinger

or Pollinger who is the curatorial director the museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Saying that the publishers of the slave Bible thought that these sections quote, could instill in slaves a dangerous hope for freedom and dreams of equality.

So this isn't just about sort of specific verses being taken out, but that entire narratives of the Old Testament, in particular, I suppose the Exodus, just leave this feeling of redemption and God's liberation from slavery is a good thing. And that's why it was taken away. Yeah. Now, as far as Deuteronomy 2315 to 16 is concerned, this is a, a passage that scholars have recognized for quite some time isn't just about any slave that runs away. And if you read through and sort of read carefully through the verses, there are

several things that you'll notice. First of all, the slave that escapes is to be allowed to stay wherever he wants in their gates. Now, the reason that that is, important to notice is that Israelites were allotted land they were allotted property and so the idea that an israelite slave let's say uh israelite jim takes israelite frank as a dead slave right and frank runs away if frank goes somewhere he's going back home he's going back to his land the idea that the text would say let him stay wherever he wants among your gates it doesn't make any sense and that's the that's what scholars have picked up on what this is particularly in the context of deuteronomy particularly this section of deuteronomy this is talking about foreign slaves that are escaping

from foreign countries into Israel and the reason that they are to have noticed that they're not to take them into their homes and to care for them or anything like that they're just supposed to have a hands-off approach don't oppress them let them stay wherever they want and the reason is um that very often lots of examples i cite several of them in the book of treaties parody treaties uh in between nations and when you have parity treaties in between nations they often have extradition clauses so if slaves run away they're to be brought back that's how it works Well, if you have a vassal treaty, if you have that sort of clause, generally it shows that the vassalage is going, you know, the power is one way, right? So the vassal has to return these slaves, right?

And I think this is the idea, and this is what scholars think is going on here, is that Israel is not supposed to make these parity treaties with the nations around them. we saw it earlier in Deuteronomy 20, they're to create vassal treaties. And so they're not supposed to then set up these extradition clauses where they're going to return slaves, as if they have some equality with the nations around them. They're just supposed to take this hands-off approach and let them be. Now, the problem that we face, I think,

when it comes to this verse, and we being like legal scholars, or people that work in legal text is that we don't always have one-to-one correspondence in the law collection. So, for example, if we have nice eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth stuff, right? But if we have one text that talks about, you know, what do you do if somebody, I don't know,

jumps off of a building and drop kicks, you know, somebody else, and they go unconscious for three days. And if you don't have that law in the other collections, you just have it in this one where you can't do comparative analysis, right? It doesn't work. So that was a really weird example. Sorry, what I can come up off the top of my head. But when we don't seem to have anything like this, considering like a, a foreign slave escaping into what would be somebody that's not supposed to have a parity treaty. We don't seem to have that direct correspondence in the other law collections.

So in that sense, it's unique, seemingly unique in the biblical text. But this is not the big point. This is not a situation where any slave can run away in the moment that they do, everything's done, right? this is almost certainly foreign slaves escaping into Israel they're not to be returned to their foreign masters I think that in all these instances where we have a verse that seems to maybe suggest that the Bible doesn't endorse the kind of horrific slavery that we think of when we consider antebellum slavery but also that was present in the ancient world my my hunch is that if the Bible could be used to to advocate against the institution of slavery, it shouldn't be so easy

to use it to do the exact opposite thing to. I don't think that we should expect to find in a book whose author is the divine moral author and wants people to understand that slavery is a bad thing. I don't think we should find it so littered with verses that can so easily be compiled into a book designed to be read to slaves in the West Indies to teach them that that's what their natural lot is. I don't think that we should find it littered with verses that tell us exactly how to treat the captors of war, including the taking of virgin women, quote, for yourselves. You know, it's interesting offering an analysis and sort of looking at these verses and what they might mean and some of the different interpretations that are offered by apologists. But I don't

know. I really struggle to see how this isn't one of the biggest problems for somebody who thinks that the Bible is the inspired word of God, or indeed in the Old Testament, perhaps the word of God itself. Before we depart, I wanted to give one more opportunity for you to present perhaps some advice to somebody who like me is hearing this. And of course, you know, I've been familiar with these verses, but it's good to speak to someone who really knows what they're talking about. I mean, I've been greatly surprised by some of the things that I've learned from you today. Some people might be listening to this sort of in distress, because of course they think that what we're hearing is horrible, but we know that the Old Testament is littered with terrible things.

You know, I mean, Exodus, in the same place that we're talking about these verses about slavery, Exodus also says that anybody who disrespects their father should be put to death. But nobody take seriously the idea that this is sort of really what, at least not what God would want for us today. And so people might be listening and either thinking, I'm really troubled by what I'm hearing and I don't know what to do, or listening and thinking, yeah, but that's kind of just the Old Testament. It doesn't really apply anymore. What advice would you have to somebody who's coming across this for the first time and is deeply disturbed by what they're hearing, but doesn't really know how to fit it into their Christian or Jewish worldview? Yeah. I mean, the first thing that

I would say, as always, is don't take my word for it. There's a reason that I put these books out, and whether it's to the Old Testament, adore slavery or either volume of The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, that they are jam-packed with citations. That's the whole point, is to give scholarly consensus on these issues. So you certainly don't have to get my book to verify what I'm saying, but pick up really any good commentary. on the book of exodus or on the book of leviticus and just you know go look at these things for yourself go read the secondary literature read the citations um sort of a sort of a shameless plug that's come to mind here because the new testament is not my area of specialization uh it is bart ermins uh if you're familiar with bart

and uh my wife is the host of his new misquoting jesus podcast uh is that that right. Yeah, so she was pegged me. I've been, I've been listening to that, to that podcast quite a lot. I mean, for anybody who's made it this far into a sort of hour and a half podcast about the specificities of slavery in the Old Testament, perhaps they deserve a slight sort of early access to knowledge that Barderman is an upcoming guest on this podcast. So perhaps I'll get an opportunity to talk to him about some of these issues. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to talk to him about yet. But that's a, that's a fantastic podcast. I didn't realize it was it was your wife who hosted it. Yeah, that's my wife. Yep, Megan Lewis. Yeah, he, he's just,

obviously a brilliant scholar and she's a brilliant scholar. She's in a serialist as well, like I am. And so I think they have a really great dynamic. But, you know, his podcast, as you know, deal with a lot of the New Testament context. And so I think just listening to those sorts of things and getting a more broad understanding of the New Testament, then coming to these verses, coming back to these verses that we've talked about in the New Testament and say, oh, okay, that makes more sense now in that context. But I think ultimately what I would say,

and I've said this, I go onto a channel called MythVision podcast hosted by Derek Lambert. I feel like I talk about this a lot. But the one thing that I say, whether we're talking about slavery in the Old Testament or genocide, passages like 1st Samuel 15, flooding the world and killing all of the people, including babies, like if you hold to an interpretive model that is more fundamentalist, then yes, you should be sitting and squirming in your chair. But I think what I would say is you don't have to take that interpretive model of a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian. Megan is a Christian, right? My wife is a Christian. She's Anglican. Certainly does not hold to these types of fundamentalist tenets. And there are good ways to think about God interacting.

should a God exist, God interacting with people and texts like the Hebrew Bible being the result that don't require inerrancy, that don't require infallibility in this type of inspiration that evangelicals want to hold to. Now, all of that being said, I am obviously an atheist. And the reason that I'm an atheist, or one of them, at least in this regard, is that while I think it's possible that a God could exist and interact with humans in a way that would lead to this book being the product, I don't think that's the likely scenario. And so I think however you're hearing this, whether you're hearing it and saying, oh my God, I can't believe this stuff is in here. I don't believe in this God anymore or I do believe in this God how do I reconcile these things? It seems impossible.

I think that either position is reasonable, maybe not as the right word, but certainly possible. There are certainly ways that you can adapt your interpretive model in order to make those things, work. I think what you're going to find if you do that is that you'll hate fewer people,

you know, which isn't a bad thing. Certainly not. Josh Bowen, where can people find you online? So, Digital Hamarabi is our channel, H-A-M-M-M-U-R-A-B-I. I don't go on there too terribly much anymore. It's sort of become Megan's thing, which is great because she does a much better job than I did. I often spend my time on channels like MythVision or the Atheist Network group. But if you want any of my books, you can go to Amazon and type in Joshua Bowen and they'll all pop up, B.O.W.E.N. This one, this second edition of the Slaver book should be out by this fall. I'm just doing the editing of it now. and it's gone from 200 pages roughly in its first edition to it's going to be over 700 so there's

a lot more in it now so I'm excited they can also if they want those books go to the links in the description where I will make sure that these are available Josh Bowen thank you so much for your time and thanks for coming on the podcast that was absolutely my pleasure thank you God.