Talk:The Bible and slavery

Yahweh supporting buying people as property?
Some one please add the fact that Yahweh supports buying people as property, especially non-israelits. To the Wiki page please.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 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.

This seems to be said by Yahweh and it's important because Christians always blame the Jews for slavery despite Yahweh supporting violence, murder, genocide & torture in other verses against those who don't worship Yahweh. Yahweh from his deeds in the Old testament and in the new(hell for non-believers) seems to be the kind of guy who would have no problem with slavery especially with the above verse and his prophet Moses supporting distributing women as spoils of war and the best man he has selected Noah making his grandchildren slaves and Yahweh never condemns it.

Sexual and conjugal slavery
This section is grossly Inaccurate to the Point where I believe it was Written to support an Agenda. For example, the Word Amah means Handmaiden, and does not Connotate a Sexual Relationship or that The Slave was intended for Sexual Use. Shifhah means beautiful but is not meant to convey Slavery.

A lot of this Cites " Judaism and Jewish Life : Sex Rewarded, Sex Punished : A Study of the Status 'Female Slave' in Early Jewish Law. " I haven;t Read this but it is Likely this is False. After all, it also Cites the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, yet This Volume, which is Free Online, does not say what the Article Claims.

I Already edited some errors but do want a Discussion before I procceed. Help would also be Nice as I need to Fact Check the Claims made.

SKWills (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)§

I made some Revisions. I Found a Copy of "SEX REWARDED, SEX PUNISHED; A STUDY OF THE STATUS “FEMALE SLAVE” IN EARLY JEWISH LAW" by DIANE KRIGER Online. Many of the Claims about what it said are not Actually True.

Nor The Biblical References.

I Will elaborate more in a few Days at most. §

Documentary Source Hypothesis
This is article shows an over reliance upon two sources, Peake's commentary (17 times) and the Jewish Encyclopedia (19 times), and seems to be intent upon promoting the problematic Documentary Source Hypothesis, which is by no means universally accepted. http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htmDaniel1212 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DH is not universally accepted, I'll grant you that. It is however the basics (propaedeutics) of Bible scholarship in all secular universities and in many divinity schools (Catholic and mainline Protestant). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The source you linked to is rather crappy:
 * "The tragedy of all this is that for over a hundred years many Theology and Religious Studies students have been indoctrinated in a system which wholly discredits the claims of the Old Testament to be the inspired Word of God." It is not the inspired word of any god (I hate capitalizing god to speak of Yahweh). It is a collection of human writings, written by humans and reflecting human ideas from their era. Biblical inspiration is by no means a secular position.
 * "We have to keep reminding ourselves that Jesus fully backed up the truth and authenticity of Moses and of the 'Law, Prophets and Writings' (the Old Testament), by frequently quoting from it. He based His authority and credentials upon the Old Testament!" Jesus is not a secular researcher on literary history, or an archaeologist. His opinions on "authenticity" would be Fringe theories, no more reliable than any non-expert's.

"Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – denialist histories, for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

New Testament
I added a section about slavery being mentioned in the New Testament. It certainly deserves to be included in the article because it has had a greater influence on Christian views of slavery. ADM (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the Gospel "references to slavery" have nothing to do with slavery, as they involve cases where Jesus is merely invoking slavery as a metaphor to make a point. Parables that refer to slaves (or servants, which is actually a different concept - cf. dikanos and doulous in Greek) cannot be said to express views on slavery. Probably the only relevant references here are Jesus's healing of the slave's ear in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his enjoinder to his followers to serve one another (Matthew 20:27). KitePerson (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, but the historical fact is: Ancient Christians did not oppose slavery. On the contrary, archaeological evidence shows that Christian churches owned slaves. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction claims that Slavery is universally condemned... and yet is still legally institutionalised in certain countries, isn't this a American/European-Centric? - 81.86.224.72 (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rant
Can an admin step in as regards the repeated attempt by (new?) editor Rences wiki (pos. sockpuppet Luca Marco) to insert his poorly written rant. Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in previous talk pages here. He now has changed his name to Comprehensible view. Daniel1212 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer, so my apologies if I am going about this the wrong way, but I wanted to agree with Daniel1212 and request that an admin do something about the rant at the beginning of this article. Neutrality issues aside, it is extremely poorly written. Bobaati (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern. The same editor is doing it to the Christianity and slavery page, using different names, and now just IP's, after i posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names used by this same editor, in part stating, "Perhaps you are ignorant of the extensive efforts at balance regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, which are seen in their talk pages. Continued reversions back to your version will result in deletions, and administrative intervention. Thanks" I just posted the issue on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not finding anything else more precisely for this problem.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also posted a warning on his Talk Page. I am an admin but with over 2000 pages on my watchlist it is easy for me to miss stuff.  If this continues to be a problem, leave a message on my Talk Page and I'll come over and take a look.  --Richard S (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regulated Slavery
I'm not entirely certain, but this part: "The Bible nowhere explicitly condemns slavery, but allowed a regulated practice of it, especially under the Old Testament,[1][2]" seemed to be giving the impression that the bible (although it'd be more accurate to mean, God) is favourable to slavery. This might be a neutrality issue. The cited references seemed to be giving examples of specific punishments, or restricting an existing practise, rather than granting a regulated slavery practise.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say 'the bible neither explicitly condemns nor encourages slavery, but allowed it under certain regulations', or something like that. It might just be me though, since I keep hearing people say 'bible is for slavery!'; which is why I hesitate to edit this article myself. Slavery, as it is currently understood in our lexicon, has to be sensitively handled for public consumption, I would reckon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMudz (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis. I would like to point out that a GREAT deal of Biblical scholars disagree with that first sentence. A LOT of Biblical scholars would argue that the Bible declares it immoral, but gives edicts as to the fundamental realities of the time. I wish this wiki page would at least mention that this is VERY MUCH up for dispute among respected Biblical scholars. TO let anything else on the first paragraph would be to suggest a hidden agenda to this wiki page. Please edit this to include the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.98.72 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The verses listed for the New Testament allowing slavery do not CONDONE slavery. It is giving instruction for those who are already slaves for how they should act. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say God or Christianity condones slavery. This violates Wiki Neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki72566 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bible specifically allows the owning of other humans and the selling of one's daughters as sex slaves. It explicitly tells slaves to obey their masters like Christ. That is CONDONING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.1.19 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely does not. Learn the difference in servant and slave. The servants were willing servants who essentially joined the family due to no other means of support.72.161.239.114 (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course the bible condones slavery. It is ridiculous to say otherwise.  People became slaves for different reasons: some were captured in war, some were born to parents who were slaves, and some people were so poor that they were actually better off to sell themselves into slavery (this happens even today, when individuals commit crimes and intentionally get arrested in order to have food and shelter in a prison), but the word used in the original Greek (doulos) absolutely means “slave,” and connotes being owned as property by another person with no freedom of choice of one's own, forced to accept whatever working conditions and abuse one's master/owner thrust upon them. This institution was extremely common in Roman civilization, and slaves made up a significant population of the Roman Empire (35-40%, about the same percentage of slaves in the Confederacy by 1860).  Greek has a few words for “servant,” (which implies “voluntary paid job that you can quit if you don’t like it”) but those words weren’t used in the Bible most cases. Doulos is frequently translated as “servant” or “bondservant," but it’s purely for political/religious expediency (it’s much easier to accept being a “servant of Christ” instead of a “slave of Christ”), and it is an inaccurate translation of the original text.


 * We’re not just talking about about indentured servitude, which many people mistakenly think is the only form of slavery the Bible mentions. I’m talking about permanent slavery over non-Israelite “heathens” as mentioned in Leviticus 25, which allows men to own slaves and pass them along to their families as inherited property.  Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 all give instructions to masters on how to treat their slaves. Exodus 20:20-21 says it’s fine for a man to beat his slave as long as the slave survives “a day or two” afterward. You can’t regulate the behavior of slave owners without implicitly condoning the practice of slavery to begin with.


 * Take a morally simpler example: Imagine that rape and sexual assault were never explicitly made illegal. Can you imagine having laws that dictated the proper behavior of rapists? “Men should always use a condom when raping a woman, the penalty being 15 years in prison.” Would you argue that such a law doesn’t implicitly condone rape?  Would you not think such a law to be a moral outrage?  “No, it’s ok because the law never specifically condones rape.  It just tells how rapists should behave when raping.”  If someone raped your mother or sister or brother, would you argue that it was ok because legally the practice of rape was never explicitly banned?


 * I get that we have a lot invested in the inerrancy and Divine origin of the Bible, and it’s hard to admit, but sometimes the Bible gets it wrong. In this particular case, you’ve got to decide either that it’s ok to own other human beings or that the Bible is in error.  It doesn’t invalidate the rest of the Bible. It doesn’t mean Christianity is evil. Holy cow, guys, get over this foolish pride and just call it what it is.  -Bindingtheory (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Bible (being a book containing many books) partially acts as a history book. Theoretically history tells us what happened, we humans are the ones that make the mistakes. Yeah it doesn't make Christianity evil plus times change but many people are intolerant about it. Lastly, I don't think anyone's "got to decide" between two human made verdicts when that isn't not the point. If we don't get something, that doesn't make it wrong, or maybe it's instead humans that get it wrong (just a thought, but helpful to see the big pictures). – 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Yeah it doesn't make Christianity evil" You do realize that many of the books in this collection were not written by Christians and predate Christianity by centuries, right? Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

To Unknown Who posted this on 5 March 2014, To Who Wrote This;

"The Bible specifically allows the owning of other humans and the selling of one's daughters as sex slaves. It explicitly tells slaves to obey their masters like Christ. That is CONDONING."

This plays well in Atheist Forums, but not in the Real World. For example, saying to a Slave they should Obey their Masters like Christ does not Condone Slavery. Not on its own. And its not Really Rational to say it does. Slavery existed in The Roman Empire, and just because it is in The Bible does not mean Ephesians is about Israelite Slavery. What should Paul have told them, exactly, that would meet with Your Approval and not lead to the Slave being simply Killed?

Further, as much as Your Not-A-Religion told you about Slaves obey Your Masters, and acts as if This is there simply to ensure Slaves remain Docile and controled, and so The Masters can do as they Please with them, The Biblical text also says This.

Eph 6:9  And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

You don't Read that on Atheist Websites as the Sites wish you to Think The Master had no Restrictions on his behaviour and could do as He liked, when that is simply not the same.

People need to Read Historians not Sam Harris. The Bible does have instructions for selling Ones Daughter as a Slave, but not as a Sex Slave. And the Boring it may not use the word Sex but considering the Times We Know this is what it means Trope used by Militant Atheists is Hypocritical, given they demand Christians restrict themselves to Only what it Specifically Written. I Realise You want to use Wikipedia to Vilify Christianity, but it gets Old.

Especially since You won't allow the Argument that different sorts of Slavery existed to reduce all Slavery to the same, and haven't Read The Biblical Laws concerning Slavery and don't Really Understand them. The New Atheism is just as Biased as the So-Called "Fundamentalist Christians", and pretending to have No Religion thus Nothing to Bias you doesn't mean the Bias is not there. It is. It is also Obvious.

Roman Slavery was also much more complex than simply "Owning People" and Roman laws about Slavery need to be considered, as do other Israelite Laws Past citing single verses and saying "Women aren't Freed" and "Non-Israelites aren't Freed". There is Far more to it than this.

I am not arguing to take "The Christian Side" of this but, We shouldn't Blindly accept what Sam, Harris or other Anti-Christians say either.

SKWills (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

SKWills (talk)


 * Nope, Wikipedia isn't anti-Christianity. It isn't pro-Christianity, either. See WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Bible versions
I do not feel that the article is biased or substantially inaccurate, but I do note that the Bible version the quotes are taken from has not been indicated.

The Bible has been translate into so many versions that, at times, are in disagreement with each other, that it is impossible to talk about there being "a" (singular) Bible or to discuss what message it conveys without reviewing multiple versions and noting discrepancies. At the very least, where only one version is used, that version should be clearly identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.25 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The KJV correctly says man or woman "servant". Much different than "slave".[commentaries]72.161.239.114 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists 108 English versions of the Bible. Though the article says 1 Timothy condemns slave traders, many versions use the word "kidnappers".Robinrobin (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are replying to a 4 year old discussion, but the way slave traders have traditionally obtained many of their slaves, and still do, is by kidnapping them. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Authenticity of information
I feel that the page is biased to apologists wishing to claim that there were no atrocites towards women in the bible. I would wish for references for the claims made in this page, to be verified by non-religious sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.130.122 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) comments by sock of user:Dalai lama ding dong


 * Yes, the references section suggests that this page has been flypaper for original research. I fear it will need to be completely rewritten based on reliable, up-to-date secondary sources. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have your summary definition backwards, the Bible spoke of servants, whether they be bond servants of choice, debt servants of legal restitution or financial contract, and yes sometimes referencing enslaved people.. however, the term slave, and other similar translations for the word, first appeared in English around 1290, because the Slavic people were enslaved greatly in the middle ages across Europe and beyond.. The term was obviously not used in biblical times nor for a thousand years after. So biblically, it is the word slave that was substituted for the terservant rather than the other way around 2603:8090:608:F6E2:6E39:707F:556:46AD (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Duh, the Bible wasn't written in English. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Slavery
Slavery - A condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation: female domestic slavery. Oxford English Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.131.85 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC) comments by sock of user:Dalai lama ding dong


 * Using a specific definition in a specific dictionary to support novel wording not found in our source would be original research. We need to go by the sources who actually talk about this issue.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Defintions of Slavery from various major dictionaries;


 * Oxford English Dictionary:- A condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation: female domestic slavery.


 * Century Dictionary:- The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.


 * Collins Dictionary:- The state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune


 * And to some lessor extent;


 * Wikitionary:- A condition of servitude endured by a slave.


 * Farlex:- The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.


 * This is not about the sourcing of information, but the philosophy of language. language dictates that this is slavery and not servitude.


 * Stating that this is Original Research, from the Major dictionaries, I believe, is a farcical idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.131.85 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Slavery being articulated by the major Dictionaries actually adds due weight to changing the word servitude to slavery: see teritary sources.> comments by sock of user:Dalai lama ding dong


 * There are no amount of dictionary definitions which would compel us to change the wording of a source. We need a source discussing this topic to change our wording choice. Frankly, I don't really see a big deal between "servant" and "slave", but what you're proposing is using OR to contradict a source, and we can't do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:86.130.191.111 is attempting to edit war two changes into the article. The edit was first introduced by Andygsp here, and was most recently added by the ip (after a series of edit warring) here. I'd like to see an explanation for these changes, as none has been provided by Angygsp or the ip, and the change uses wording different than our sources. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 12:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jess and finally welcome to the Talk-Page. I have provided sourced evidence as you have requested; See Reference 36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.40.35 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first edit by Angygsp is correct, here, Stating that the Bible actually supports slavery without reliable secondary sources is not a neutral point of view. If you can provide evidence that the Bible supports slavery with reliable secondary sources, I would of course be happy to review my current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.40.35 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're introducing a change to the article. How does reference 36 (here) support that change?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two changes have clearly been made to the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bible_and_slavery&diff=527439281&oldid=527335395 By yourself and jayjg. I have left a message on Jayjg talk-page asking for an explanation for the change. This page has been changed from a NPOV to a non-NPOV. Sources are required to explain this non-NPOV, 'The Bible supports the regulated practice of Slavery.' You as an editor and Jayjg as an administrator should know this. There is also a note at the top of the article that you seem to be glossing over. 'This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. (September 2012)' Relying on Primary religious text here which is 100% OR, is not acceptable. Check the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.251.1 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The article was changed by Andygsp originally. His change was reverted to the original version. You came in after that and began edit warring to reinstate his revision. You've said that reference 36 supports your preferred version. How? I'm on vacation, and I'm not going to waste more time arguing over who has what burden and how our policies work.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the statement, 'The article was changed by Andygsp originally." Why did he change it? Because it was from a non-NPOV. With the sources available, the case for Monothestic scripture supporting the regulated practise of slavery has not been made. The burden of proof is always on the sources, not the person editing, when going from a non-NPOV to a NPOV.

Secondley, please stop saying I am trying to edit war changes in, I find Ad Hominem attacks quite futile. I rely solely on critical thinking skills.

Thirdly, if you have time to make changes to Wiki, you have time to face the consequences of your actions. If you do not wish to follow wiki protocol then don't edit Wiki.

Fourthly, about this source. Don't worry, I have a new one. The old source which I used, whilst backing up the claims which I made, can be read as religious text, unsuitable for critical secondary examination of sources. However, a new source has appeared from a puff of smoke out of nowhere, "What The Bible Really Says About Slavery." - I give you the juicy bits.

"When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11)."

"The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use "servant" to cover up slave language."

The source: Greg Carey. Professor of New Testament, Lancaster Theological Seminary. Source taken: The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html

This source now gives weight for further changes to be made to the page, other than the ones which I have already made. If any changes are made to my edits by yourself or administrators, without due process and following wiki protocol with reliable secondary sources, then I believe sanctions are needed against you, to stop you editing Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.232.234 (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't attempted to explain how the last source backed up your changes. How does this new source support your change? Indeed, this source (even the passages you've quoted!) seem to defy your suggestion. If you think I (or any other editor) have behaved inappropriately, go to WP:ANI. Read WP:EW and WP:BRD first.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013
Kelly loves jesus (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Within the first paragraph of the article, it states that the Bible supports the practice of slavery. This is not true. The Bible permitted the practice of slavery because of sin in the world. See source: http://carm.org/slavery


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Carm is not a reliable source for such claims. We would need a high quality reliable source discussing this in order to add new content. See WP:RS. We have a number which support the current text, so we have to have something at least comparable to modify it in such a way.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again Jess your missing the point entirely and putting your view forwards and stopping much needed changes to this page. The burden of proof lies with this page (because it has made the claim) to support what it says. However, you have proven with your actions on editing this page, that you are incapable of working out what is a reliable source or not. (See recent edits.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.188.134 (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think carm is a reliable source for this, then you should take that to WP:RSN for discussion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No Jess, your intentionally missing the point. This page has made a claim, "it states that the Bible supports the practice of slavery." Where is the evidence to back this up?


 * Now I really need you to focus here Jess and think. Do I need evidence to prove that I am 'not' a stamp collector? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.186.228 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We've already discussed that. Sources are in the article, and have been provided on the talk page repeatedly. A claim was made here that CARM should be sufficient to override those sources. It is not. If you disagree, take it to RSN. See my comment in the section below in addition. I'm going to do productive things with collaborative editors; it's time to move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Incomplete
This article does not recognize the difference between cultural practices involving voluntary servitude for a specific period of time versus involuntary servitude resulting from the kidnapping or purchase of such a person. The latter is specifically prohibited in Exodus 21:16 ("Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." ESV) In the New Testament, Paul condemns the practice in 1 Timothy 1:8-10. ("8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners... enslavers,... and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine." ESV) The Bible specifically condemns the type of slavery that existed in the United States prior to the 13th Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneOldMan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "involuntary servitude resulting from the kidnapping or purchase of such a person." - Now would this be called Slavery instead of involuntary servitude.


 * voluntary servitude - What is this? - Can you give reliable sourced information on this peculiar thing called 'Voluntary Servitude'? and why it is not slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.188.134 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Guess you never heard of a butler or maid. You need references for that? What do you think a job is, people forced to work or voluntarily serve? Cossio (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We'd need a reliable source for this. We can't use interpretations of bible passages to contradict reliable secondary commentary.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources has already been given and refused by you Jess (Which I think is shocking) Let me draw your attention once again to the changes made to this page that you edit warred out.


 * "When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11)."


 * "The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use "servant" to cover up slave language."


 * The source: Greg Carey. Professor of New Testament, Lancaster Theological Seminary.
 * Source taken: The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html


 * Is the Huffington Post a reliable source or not? Is the professor who wrote the article a reliable source or not?


 * These are questions that need to be answered.


 * The questions that need to be answered is the continued use of taking biblical passages out of context by people LIKE YOU. For example, Exodus 21 which is a favorite for people like you (Evilbible / Huffington Post trolls).  First, the Bible does not condone this practice of taking slave women, a man was to sell himself into slavery before his own daughters.  Recognizing that servitude is a natural part of human nature, one that continues TODAY with 12 million enslaved (many of them sexually) the Bible focuses on the treatment of slaves rather than outright outlawing it.


 * Second we know that Biblical Slavery was indeed different than the slavery portrayed in Roots (i.e. American or Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade) so there is no need to beat a dead horse. People regularly sold themselves into "slavery".  In fact the Bible makes mentions of Hebrews selling themselves into "slavery" to other Hebrews.


 * Finally we know that, contrary to your inept opinion, the Original KJV actually used "servant, MAID, bondsman, maidservant, manservant, instead of slave. People like you who accuse the KJV of "covering up" slavery in the Bible is nonsense.  The KJV was completed in 1611, there would be little reason to "hide" slavery from the masses during that time period. Cossio (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cossio, original research isn't helpful here. We need secondary sources for all content decisions we make. Please try to focus discussion on teh article, and not on other users. WP:PA is good advice here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable secondary sources. None have been provided in this section, certainly, so you'll have to provide them if you want them discussed. The link to the huffington post article you just posted contradicts the CARM cite, and does not support the suggested wording. Your tone, in this section and elsewhere, is unnecessarily confrontational. If you want to overturn consensus, you're going to have to work collaboratively. Until then, I'm not going to continue engaging with this sort of repetition. It's time to drop the stick and move on. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jess, you seem to be confusing points all over the place. Could you please provide evidence where it says in the Huffington Post article that the Bible supports the regulated practice of slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.40.15 (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jess seems to mainly cite specific Biblical verses as evidence that the Bible supports slavery. Whether any of these verses specifically supports slavery is highly questionable, though they clearly place regulations on the practice, and since interpretations vary broadly I doubt this could be defined as a source that clearly supports the assertion. At the very least, a different term should be used rather than "Supports" to make it clear that the Bible cannot be explicitly said to promote or favor the practice of slavery. And concerning old claims by Jess that the page was originally like that and then someone changed it, I looked through the history and at the page's creation it starts by saying that the Bible neither promotes nor condemns slavery. It was only after people started editing the page that claims of the Bible supporting the practice appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Law vs. Practice
I would suggest that a differentiation be made between slavery as it was outlined in the Law of Moses and slavery as it was actually practiced. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows that the Hebrews often turned from following God and observing the Law; therefore, just because the Bible says that they followed a certain practice at some point does not mean that the Bible teaches or even condones the practice. Therefore, I think that there should be a section about how slavery is dealt with in the Mosaic Law and a separate section for how it is depicted in the rest of the Old Testament. Tempest.in.a.teapot (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Reference Listings
Hello, I was doing research on slavery and the Bible when I found this article. I wrote down all of the references for the Bible, then I read each of them to see how they applied to slavery. Some of them do not refer to slavery (nor concubinism or polygamy, either), and have no connection to this article that I can discern. I thought I should make the editors here aware of this problem so that it can be resolved by all of you.

These are most of the references to the Bible listed in your references that I found relate to slavery, although I did remove one or two.

Old Testament

Genesis 25:1; 29; 30 - examples of poligamy and sexual slavery (payment of wages by giving wives) Genesis 25:6 - reference to having concubines

Exodus 21:1-11 Hebrew slave/servant rules, some of which are gender-discriminatory, buying and freeing, polygamy, slaves as daughter-in-laws 21:20-21, 26-27 Compensation or punishment for the killing of a slave or the loss of an eye or tooth as a result of a master beating a slave 21:32 What to do if a bull kills a slave 22:2-3 Selling a thief into slavery to repay for stolen items; also, when killing a thief is acceptable (at night)

Leviticus 19:20-22 Sex with a female slave, and the punishment if she hasn't been freed yet 25:39-55 Rules for Israelites as slaves that can be bought back by family, and non-Israelites

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Israelites as slaves - temp and perm 20:10-11 Taking enemies who have surrendered as slaves for hard labor; and murder of all males & genocide 21:15 Taking a female enemy as a wife

2 Samuel 20:3 Gender slavery (concubines) without sexual relations

Jeremiah 34:8-24 Terrible punishment from God for keeping Hebrew slaves after 6 years

New Testament

Ephesians 6:5-9 How slaves and masters should behave

Colossians 3:22-25 How slaves should behave

1 Timothy 6:1 How slaves should behave

Titus 2:9-10 How slaves should behave

1 Peter 2:18 How slaves should behave

References for Chronicles (CH), Kings and others that are not listed above mostly do not relate to slavery.

There are some references to Bible books that do not state verses, and others that do not state which Book (eg: 1 Tim or 2?). I hope this helps. ReveurGAM (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

'free with some conditions' and other implications
"Male Israelite slaves were to be offered release after seven years of service, with some conditions."

The structure of this sentence implies conditions are only placed on the male Israelite slaves. And as slavery often frowned upon in many modern societies and thought of as the type of slavery practiced in modern times on people of African decent (the ancient laws are different), implies all these are negative conditions imposed on the male Israelite slaves. In fact, many of the conditions are imposed on the slaves' masters for the benefit of the slaves. "You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today." Also, The Year of Jubilee was a time to calculate what masters owed to their slaves (both foreign and domestic). In practice it was often cheaper to give them their freedom and corresponding benefits. The laws are designed to favor the freeing slaves. This was also the designated time to calculate the value of slaves. Tithes along with many other responsibilities of masters would added fast during Jubilee. Seemingly in case a master got the idea of limiting their liability by selling slaves; prices would surpass the market during Jubilee; again making freedom the cheaper option.

"as long as Israelites were not among the victims" Again, this implies something else.

"but first they had to have their heads shaved and undergo a period of mourning. " This wording implies something else. The meaning hear is probably that they would be allowed to shave their head and mourn. But as the text specifies neither, it probably better that wikipedia also specify neither, rather than imply these women were forced to shave their head and mourn. Also, any language here that implies forced marriage-slavery should be decided in the light that israelite marriage required fairly high standards from husbands as well as wives (salves or not) and their would have to men would be much better off verifying a minimal level of willingness from a woman who was to have so much power over him compared to non-israelite marriages.

"Deuteronomic Code is seen by some to contradict elements of this instruction." OR, the law was respecified in accordance with the system of Judges laid out in the same law and additionally decreed by G-d in similar manor as He had done in: Giving a single Law to Adam (don't eat that), later giving multiple rules (toil, mortality, etc...) to the couple, later giving more rules via Noah (8 laws), and finally giving hundreds of rules via Moses. "Deuteronomy" means "Second Law". Calling anything in Deuteronomy a contradiction is like saying that each of the Bill of Rights contradicts the US Constitution. Deuteronomy is addendums, not contradictions.

"In Jewish tradition, the identified gifts were regarded as merely symbolic, representing a gift of produce rather than of money or clothing". Hmmm, and the Hebrews also failed to keep the land sabbath for 490 years worth of land sabbaths. And they were carried away into captivity (slavery) for 490 years (the land got is sabbaths). The old testament is a chronology of disobedience, this disobedience is an example of how not to follow the law of moses, not a guide to following it. "Despite these commandments, Israelite slaves were kept longer than permitted" a very narrow definition of the problem, They were not kept in accordance with the law of Moses. Keeping slaves too long was just one of the violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

edit and verse
Hello. Don't automatically assume that I must be wrong just because you usually have disagreed with me, and because it's me putting the edit, and you don't like me. Try (hard) to be at least a tiny bit objective, fair, and cool, even though you hate both me and the Bible (by your own admission). That doesn't mean that your incorrect (old) notion of Leviticus 25:44-46 being totally without any pre-context ever is a correct or objective one, or hasn't been debunked, or that Exodus 21:16 doesn't belong on an article like this in any event in some sense (when it so clearly does...)  'Exodus 21:16 does not'' say "stealeth a fellow Israelite" but "stealeth a man" in general. And Leviticus 25 did not come with no back-drop or context, and does not prove "kidnapping foreigners" for whims or greed. But Exodus 21:16 obviously belongs in the article in some statement somehow.' It wasn't.  But to your Leviticus 25:43-46 argument (which, to have good-faith assumptions, I would say you're putting forth sincerely, though I disagree) we must keep in mind that though the wording may seem troublesome by modern standards, and from a hasty reading and not taking anything else into account (and not wanting to believe there was ever a pre-context), the fact is that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime'' and the starvation of the poor during famine. And notice what it says right after verse 46 of Leviticus 25, in verse 47-49: "Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself."  Now doesn't that prove that "foreigners and sojourners" could roam around Israel without being kidnapped randomly, and could in fact take on Israelites as debt-slaves for themselves? But anyway, regardless of all that, frankly, Jeffro, stop violating WP policy regarding hounding please. I warned you to stay away from me. I know it's hard...but try. An article like this without Exodus 21:16 anywhere on it is ridiculous... I was actually kinda surprised that it was not there already. So I put it in there with careful and true (bold) and sourced wording.

You act like I never heard of Leviticus 25, and the wrong notions you just espoused for that, arguably (let's be honest) wanting the Bible to be "bad" or uh "condoning slavery" on whims, when more careful and honest analysis shows that it really doesn't, but was always done with justification, (just like we have prison systems today based on crime and debt, freedom taken away for REASONS, not random greed)...not caring or not believing that there was always some pre-context, with those "foreign nations", in general. And it was not out of some vacuum. You can't look at Leviticus 25 without also looking at Exodus 21.16.

Nowhere does it say in Exodus 21.16 "he that stealeth a fellow Israelite". It simply says "stealeth a man". A MAN. A human being in general. But the point is that Exodus 21:16 should be in the article SOME WAY IN SOME SENSE, at the very very least. And the sources agree. Whether you like the sources or agree with them or not. It's not just my personal opinion. Why was Exodus 21:16 not in the article anywhere somehow? In an article about "Bible and slavery"?? But you'd be ok with not having it in that article at all. No good, sir. You start an edit war....over bias (of various kinds)...won't fly.... You'd be just fine with an article like that lacking in your admitted anti-Bible bias and positions. (Everyone has filters and prejudices...everyone.)  Don't diss me (not in this one). Because it will be big time notice-board stuff, and constant stuff on your page (which I know you hate). You start it, frankly, and I react. What exactly do you expect? The edit was accurate and sourced, regardless of what you say or want to believe, and your thinking that Leviticus 25 proves that Israelites could kidnap random foreigners of totally innocent nations, who never harassed, attacked, or molested Israel in any way, or that there was no back-drop ever for it...and leaving out Exodus 21:16 completely, and has the verse putting the complete position. '''You're just flat out wrong on your summary because nowhere in Exodus 21.16 does it say "just Jews" as that's the common Atheist cop-out for that verse, but "men". (And it's not just my personal assessment...the sources clearly state it...which you discount...as well as the verse itself. And also the wrong belief that there was no context for Leviticus 25 and that it was just random whims.   Exodus 21:16 does not stipulate or limit it to just fellow Jews.  But forbids owning or selling people in general.  It's worded broadly.   Of course stealing fellow Jews was forbidden in the Law of Moses.  But so was stealing any innocent person.   Plucking random people off the street, with no context at all, was condemned.   In general. Slavery in Israel was based on crime and debt and restitution, not random kidnapping.)'''

Exodus 21:16, as a verse, was nowhere in the article. Which is insane. Also, I know about Leviticus 25. Sighs. I've been on the merry-go-round with your type (atheists etc) many times on that before, and what is never understood is that there was always pre-context.   If you take all the other chapters and books on the subject together. In fact, in a way, Exodus 21:16 proves that random kidnapping of ANYBODY was not allowed, and that there had to always be valid reasons, not just whims, or willy nilly greed. It says "stealeth a man"...not just fellow Jews. And those foreign nations were from past events.

'''You can't take Leviticus 25 out of a vacuum. (Sighs...)  But regardless, the article was lacking the Exodus 21:16 verse, in any explanation. Even your wrong one of "only Jews". WP policy is to modify not to do wholesale removal of someone's hard work because A) you don't like the editor, or B) you have personal biases (which you clearly do) against the subject matter, or C) even if you have a somewhat maybe valid possible position or argument, but can instead do a re-mod, partial removal, touch-up, improvement, or tweaking, which is more WP-preferred, to avoid big edit-wars and resentments etc....'''

By the way, I changed the wording to a degree, and stuck only with the precise words in the text "stealeth a man" and I removed the other sentence entirely. (Again, the point is that Exodus 21:16 should be somewhere in the article, even if it's in the sense that you believe it to mean...it still should be in the article. I was amazed that it wasn't.)

You disagree with references such as the Pulpit Commentary and a host of Bible scholars and sources on this one. Not just me. But again, Exodus 21:16 should be at least somewhere in the article, and it wasn't.  Which is appalling. But your hounding won't be tolerated. If you don't like me, which you don't, why not stay the heck away from me in every matter? You choose not to, with some compulsion to check up on my recent edits, with automatic bias against me and the edits, and to rudely diss and second guess and totally delete. (And acting like I'd put up with that...)    Revert and be reverted ON THIS ONE. Modify instead, at the very least. Or better yet don't deal with me...as I thought would be the case the past couple of weeks. In ANY sense. Seriously. Stay away from me. Stalking is against WP policy.. But anyway, as I said, I changed the wording now. Regards......... Gabby Merger (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite a rant. Anyway, the point about Israelites having the death penalty for kidnapping is (and was already) present in the first paragraph of the section, and does not need to be stated a second time. I have, however, moved the additional reference to that paragraph. The claim from the non-academic 'apologetics' website (supplemented by your own opinion not found even in that POV source) about slavery only relating to 'crime or war reparations' is simply false, and has therefore been removed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I 'hate both you and the Bible' is just plain stupid. I have never 'admitted' or even claimed to 'hate' either you or the Bible. I do find your long-winded tangential rants quite frustrating, but since I do not even know you, it's certainly stretching things to say I care enough to hate you. It is even more nonsensical to suggest that I hate 'the Bible'. It's a collection of old writings. It is neither better nor worse than the superstitious religious writings of any other civilisation. I'm looking forward to you providing diffs supporting your claim about my "own admission" that I "hate" either you or the Bible.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Please keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. Discussion of editor behavior is best held on that editor's talk page, WP:RFCU, WP:ANI, WP:AE, or another appropriate venue, but not here. This page should stay focused as much as possible on specific changes to the article, and sources that support those changes. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jeffro77, in the first paragraph in the section, but not with the specific needed verse (anywhere in the article or section)...of Exodus 21:16.  Which was really my only main point anyway.  I was surprised (as I said) that it wasn't in the article already...like other specific verses are.   And it makes sense that a paragraph after it should have at least some elaboration (even a watered-down version, per your position that it was "only fellow Israelites" even though it does NOT say that in Exodus 21:16, but says simply broadly "stealeth a man".)     But I restored and now removed the paragraph completely, and modified the other slightly.   Also, Jess, sorry about the long previous comment, but I wanted to make the points thorough.   Again, this article should have that clear verse somewhere, and it's frankly silly that it wasn't there...in an article like this, with all its broken links and problems.  And again, regardless of whether Jeffro77 or others want to believe that Israelites were allowed to enslave innocent foreigners for no reason at all, the point is that Exodus 21:16 should be clearly singly mentioned in this article, and probably in that section. And if there's a problem with the source, then a find a possible better source. Instead of wholesale removal (as well as the checking and hounding).  But that specific verse should be there clearly.  And now I removed the paragraph but simply modified the previous one a little, to make it more clear.    Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making stupid claims about what I supposedly "want to believe". Though it is the case that the law code allowed the Israelites to buy and sell slaves, as well as kidnap virgin girls after murdering their families (Numbers 31:17-18), at no point did I suggest that I 'wanted' that to be the case. Nor did I or anyone else at any point claim that "Exodus 21:16 doesn't belong" in the article. (A frequent response by apologists is that the nations that were the subject of Numbers 31:17-18 were 'incorrigibly wicked' and 'deserved' to be slaughtered [assuming the account written centuries after the supposed events happened at all]; however, it is quite obviously nothing but religious propaganda to claim that all the men, all the male children, all the non-virgin women, but conspicuously excluding the virgin girls, deserved to die.)
 * More broadly, if you so badly want something in an article, then you should find better sources. Other editors are not obligated to find better sources for things that you want in an article. (Maybe I should complain about how Numbers 31:18 "should be in the article SOME WAY IN SOME SENSE", and then demand that other editors find sources for it.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Pulpit Commentary
I don't see the Pulpit Commentary as a reliable source. See this website which I got to from BibleHub. Eg "Find the keys to applying biblical truths and presenting them to others ". Add to that the fact that it's over a century old, 135 years old in fact. Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources - too much use of primary sources, a couple of sources that should definitely go
I see godrules.net is used as a source. Seems to be a personal website which also sells video games. Here's its list of articles and here's the article's where it's used as a source.  Then there's evilbible.com, another personal website.

But the main problem is the use of primary sources. We should be using reliable sources discussing those primary sources, not the primary sources themselves, at least not to such a great extent. Tagging the article for that. Hopefully someone else will deal with the websites. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the 'evilbible' site as a source. I have also removed the associated statement, which is fairly redundant, since pretty much everything in the Bible is the subject of debate. The 'godsrule' site is definitely not a great source, though the hosted material may be from a source that might be considered a reliable source (I say might because I have not attempted to assess its reliability). Assuming the hosted material is an accurate representation of the source and the view presented represents due weight, the citation should be improved, perhaps indicating a different host.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of ridding this page of the source "apologeticspress". And I agree that overuse of primary sources is the main problem facing this article. I have half a mind to nominate this page for deletion. MemorableMe (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Holiness code deletion
I'm not going to work on this, but there is some useful information on the Holiness Code and slavery here in an OUP book. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Can foreign residents own Israelite slaves?
In the introduction to section 1.1, the following phrase appear as of 2019-6-9: «Foreign residents were included in this permission, and were allowed to own Israelite slaves.» The reference given is, which says:

«33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.»

Slavery is not mentioned, so at best this is very weak support, and only for what the article calls debt slavery anyway, if indeed Leviticus 19:33-34 is interpreted as saying that, when it comes to slavery, the alien shall still have the same rights as an Israelite. Even that is quite a stretch. Luc-j-bourhis (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliance on Original Research?
Stumbled over this article via other pieces on slavery and was horrified by the flawed content. In Enslavement of Captives the article exclusively references the Bible, but then either ignores differences in translation or imposes its own. Rather than the code requiring slavery Deuteronomy 20v11b states: ESV: ... then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. KJV: ... all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. NIV: ... all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. Note that forced labor or tributary status is not slavery.

Regarding female captives, again personal interpretation seems to be getting added. There is no source given for the claim that the time of mourning is dependent on the number of those lost, there is no source given for the claim that it was marriage at swordpoint\spearpoint, and there is no basis given for the claim that the husband has forfeited the right to sell his wife into slavery - the passage itself simply states that she who was a captive may not be sold, nor treated as a slave, as she has been dishonored\humbled\humiliated - this latter's unclear but could refer to the divorce. The 2 views presented in this section are that the Bible condones sexual violence, and that the Bible endorses not only sexual slavery but genocidal rape. The passage on Numbers 31 has the Israelites enslaving virgin women for their own pleasure, and yet the Israelites only killed the men - Moses commanded the execution of every non-virgin female\girl, and this appears condoned as the Lord specifies the tribute to be given Him. Are there no Bible scholars with positive views on these passages?

The Epistles section references Paul's writing about slaves, however this is translation dependent. Some use bondservant rather than slave, and these are different concepts.

I've no doubt I've missed plenty of points, these are merely the most egregious that caught my eye. Thoughts? 2001:44B8:21A9:ED00:FC8E:3D98:BEBF:3D10 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If forced labor isn't slavery then I don't know what slavery is. It wasn't chattel slavery as in the American South, a particularly nasty type, but it still looks a lot like slavery to me. deisenbe (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Garbage page, needs to be rewritten
Citations to reliable sources are missing page numbers. Many of the citations are just to the text of the Bible itself, not actual sources from scholarship. A lot of the "scholarship" cited is over a century old and outdated. This page is written as if there's no such thing as the Documentary Hypothesis, as if the whole Torah is a single original document and does not express diverging views on slavery that developed over time. Several biblical texts on slavery are not even mentioned, and those that are receive so little discussion as to be utterly misleading. I'll start fixing all this eventually.Editshmedt (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Language
There doesn't seem to be any discussion of the terms for slaves used in the original Biblical languages (Hebrew for the canonical Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament and the Apocryphal books of the Septuagint), except for a passing mention of two Hebrew terms for female slaves. I think in the Latin Vulgate the original terms are translated either as 'servus' or 'ancilla' (e.g. in the Ten Commandments), 'servus' being the standard Latin word for what we call a 'slave'. In the AV these are usually translated as 'servant' or 'bondman' (or bondwoman), which are more ambiguous. I don't know why the AV translators seldom, if ever, used the word 'slave', even where the context clearly required it.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:FDED:A52D:7452:9ABD (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Contention on Timothy passages that don't condemn slavery
There are several historians (Bart Ehrman, Dan McClellan, etc) that hold 1 Timothy 10 does not condemn slavery. It rather condemns the kidnapping of free people to sell as slaves. Not to mention the fact that 1 Timothy is widely accepted to not have been written by Paul. What would be an acceptable way of phrasing this to make sure the reader gets all the information?

(I don't have access to any of Ehrmans books but I do have a YouTube short of McClellan expressing this view. I recognize that we would need more sources.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7A-VSIt1jg

There is also this definition of the original Greek https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g405/kjv/tr/0-1/ Padillah (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Doubts about the authenticity of the First Epistle to Timothy had already emerged in the 140s, when Marcion excluded it from his canon of Pauline epistles. Anyway, this is covered to the general article on the pastoral epistles. Does the fact that Paul did not write it have any effect on Christian views on slavery? Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, because it's covered in a different article we shouldn't cover it here? I'm not sure I follow. In fact, that would lead me to add a passage here that refers to the larger article. As for having an effect on Christian views of slavery I was under the impression this article was about "The Bible and slavery". I'm unsure where "effects on Christian views" comes in. I was simply trying to expound on the fact that the claim that Paul wrote the Timothy letters and the claim that those letters denounced slavery is not accepted by many (either claim) and rather than promote one side of this we should present both sides. Padillah (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "that would lead me to add a passage here that refers to the larger article" It sounds like a good idea to me. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The term ἀνδραποδιστής as meaning "slavery" is not exclusively biblical. It was used for centuries, and it appears in Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Lysias, Polybius, etc. So, it's necessary to analyse all these uses and accept their real and contextualized meaning, instead of insisting on fruitless anachronisms. 2804:214:8164:12D4:24B7:F52B:1F99:9885 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire's revert of "...but there is no mention of this in Bible."
@SnowFire, your edit summary (thank you for that, by the way) says the sentence already mentioned it is from Catholic tradition and that makes it clear where this idea comes from. I submit it does not. Quite a few traditions in the Catholic church are driven by passages from the Bible (it is a religion after all). Just because it's a tradition doesn't mean it's not driven from passages in the Bible. The snippet I added was to specify this particular tradition has no justification in the Bible. It's purely made up to satisfy the argument against slavery in the Bible. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article in general needs some better sourcing (hence the primary sources tag at the top), so it might be good to check a scholarly commentary on Philemon and echo whatever phrasing is there (or alternatively remove the sentence entirely if it's considered off-topic for a "Bible and..." article, although I kinda doubt it - interpretations of the Bible are important too, even when they're not based on the text itself). I'll try and give it a look myself if I get a chance.  SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)