biblical archaeology is an oxymoron.archaeologist wrote:is that biblical archaeology?
how can you possibly hope to expect to discover physical evidence of a fiction?
except, for, perhaps, evidence of the invention of the fiction?
john
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
13 The Egyptians ruthlessly made the children of Israel serve,
14 and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field, all their service, in which they ruthlessly made them serve.
sounds to me like pastoral nomads, in a drought period, trying to figure out the upper neolithic.Minimalist wrote:Okay. That's fair, although I have to say that Exodus 1, 13 and 14,
13 The Egyptians ruthlessly made the children of Israel serve,
14 and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field, all their service, in which they ruthlessly made them serve.
that sure as hell sounds less like cooks and maids and more like picking cotton in the hot sun. But, WTH, it's your book. Maybe you can explain it.
yes and i am not saying that they were not slaves and treated in such a manor, i was kind of foreshadowing for tech there as well. the word 'slave' or 'servant' can be interchangeable and we need to look at the context of the verses to get a better idea.that sure as hell sounds less like cooks and maids and more like picking cotton in the hot sun. But, WTH, it's your book
It thus appears that the term slavery, though frequently applied to the
Jewish system of servitude, is not wholly appropriate. Among the Greeks
and Romans it properly expressed the legal condition of captives taken in
war, or the victims of the existing slave trade and the offspring of female
slaves. Those slaves were held to be the absolute property of their masters,
and their slavery was regarded as perpetual and hereditary. Nor does
Jewish servitude bear any resemblance to modern slavery, which, however
it may differ from the Greek and Roman in some of its minor incidents,
resembles it in its essential principles. If under the Roman law slaves were
3
held “pro nullis, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus,” so, until lately, under the
laws of several of the United States, they were adjudged to be chattels
personal in the hand of their owners, to all intents, constructions, and
purposes whatsoever; and their slavery, like that of the ancient Romans,
was, as a necessary consequence, perpetual and hereditary.
In the heat of modern controversy, indeed, some writers have been led to
deny that the Hebrew and Greek words noticed above necessarily, or in
point of fact ever do, designate a condition of absolute bondage; but
whatever may be said of db,[,, it is certain that dou~lov, both from its
etymological signification (from de>w, to bind), and its, classical usage, is
the prevalent and appropriate word for slave in the current acceptation of
the term. SEE SERVITUDE
II. Forms of Scriptural Slavery. — It is difficult to trace the origin of
slavery. It may have existed before the Deluge, when violence filled the
earth, and drew upon it the vengeance of God. But the first direct reference
to slavery, or rather slave trading, in the Bible is found in the history of
Joseph, who was sold by his brethren to the Ishmaelites (<013727>Genesis 37:27,
28). In <262712>Ezekiel 27:12.13 we find a reference to the slave trade carried
on with Tyre by Javan, Tubal, and Meshech. In the Apocalypse we find
enumerated in the merchandise of pagan Rome (the mystic Babylon) slaves
(sw>mata) and the souls of men (<661813>Revelation 18:13). The sacred
historians refer to various kinds of bondage:
1. Patriarchal Servitude. — The exact nature of this service cannot be
defined there can be no doubt, however, that it was regulated by principles
of justice, equity, and kindness. The servants of the patriarchs were of two
kinds, those “born in the house” and those “bought with money”
(<011713>Genesis 17:13). Abraham appears to have had a large number of
servants. At one time he armed three hundred and eighteen young men,
“born in his own house,” with whom he pursued the kings who had taken
“Lot and his goods, and the women also, and the people,” and recaptured
them (<011416>Genesis 14:16). The servants born in the house were, perhaps,
entitled to greater privileges than the others. Eliezer of Damascus, a home
born servant, was Abraham’s steward, and, in default of issue, would have
been his heir (<011502>Genesis 15:2-4). This class of servants was honored with
the most intimate confidence of the masters. and was employed in the most
important services. An instance of this kind will be found in <012401>Genesis
24:1-9, where the eldest or chief servant of Abraham’s house, who ruled
4
over all that he had, was sent to Mesopotamia to select a wife for Isaac,
though then forty years of age. The authority of Abraham was that of a
prince or chief over his patriarchate or family, and was regulated by usage
and the general consent of his dependents. It could not have been
otherwise in his circumstances; nor, from the knowledge which the
Scriptures give of his character, would he have taken advantage of any
circumstances to oppress or degrade them: “For I know him,” saith the
Lord, “that he will command his children and his household after him and
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the
Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him”
(<011819>Genesis 18:19), The servants of Abraham were admitted to the same
religious privileges with their master, and received the seal of the covenant
(<011709>Genesis 17:9, 14, 24, 27).
There is a clear distinction made between the “servants” of Abraham and
the things which constituted his property or wealth. Abraham was very rich
in cattle, in silver, and in gold (<011302>Genesis 13:2, 5). But when the
patriarch’s power or greatness is spoken of, then servants are spoken of as
well as the objects which constituted his riches (<012434>Genesis 24:34, 35). It is
said of Isaac, “And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until
he became very great, for he had possession of flocks, and possession of
herds, and great store of servants” (<012613>Genesis 26:13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29).
When Hamor and Shechem speak to the Hivites of the riches of Jacob and
his sons, they say, “Shall not their cattle and their substance and every
beast of theirs be ours?” (<013423>Genesis 34:23). Jacob’s wives say to him, “All
the riches which God hath taken from our father, that is ours and our
children’s.” Then follows an inventory of property: “all his cattle,” “all his
gods,” “the cattle of his getting.” His numerous servants are not included
with his property (comp. <013143>Genesis 31:43, and also ver. 16, 18). When
Jacob sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his
state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his riches, but of his
greatness, and that he had oxen and asses and flocks, and men servants and
maid servants (<013204>Genesis 32:4, 5). Yet in the present which.he sent there
were no servants, though he manifestly selected the most valuable kinds of
property (ver. 14, 15; see also <013423>Genesis 34:23; 36:6, 7). In no single
instance do we find that the patriarchs either gave away or sold their
servants, or purchased them of third persons. Abraham had servants
“bought with money.” It has been assumed that they were bought of third
parties, whereas there is no proof that this was the case. The probability is
5
that they sold themselves to the patriarch for an equivalent; that is to say,
they entered into voluntary engagements to serve him for longer or shorter
period of time, in return for the money advanced them. It is a fallacy to
suppose that whatever costs money is money or property. The children of
Israel were required to purchase their firstborn (<041815>Numbers 18:15, 16;
3:45, 51; <021313>Exodus 13:13; 34:20). They were, moreover, required to pay
money for their own souls; and when they set themselves or their children
apart by vow unto the Lord, the price of release was fixed by statute
(<032702>Leviticus 27:2-8). Boaz bought Ruth (<080410>Ruth 4:10). Hosea bought
his wife (<280302>Hosea 3:2). Jacob bought his wives Rachel and Leah, and, not
having money, paid for them in labor, seven years apiece (<012916>Genesis
29:16-23). That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service,
was the general practice is plain from such passages as <022217>Exodus 22:17
and <091825>1 Samuel 18:25. But the idea of property does not appear in any of
these purchases. For the various ways in which the terms “bought,” “buy,”
and “bought with money” are used, consult <160508>Nehemiah 5:8; <014718>Genesis
47:18-26, etc. In <032547>Leviticus 25:47 will be found the case of the Israelite
who became the servant of the stranger. The words are, “If he sell himself
unto the stranger.” Yet the 51st verse says that this servant was “bought,”
and, that the price of the purchase was paid to himself. For a further clue
to Scripture usage, the reader is referred to <112120>1 Kings 21:20, 25; <121717>2
Kings 17:17; <235501>Isaiah 55:1; 52:3; see also <243414>Jeremiah 34:14; <450616>Romans
6:16; 7:14; <430834>John 8:34. Probably Job had more servants than either of
the patriarchs to whom reference has been made (<180102>Job 1:2, 3). In what
light he regarded, and how he treated, his servants, may be gathered from
<183113>Job 31:13-23. That Abraham acted in the same spirit we have the divine
testimony in <242215>Jeremiah 22:15, 16, 17, where his conduct is placed in
direct contrast with that of some of his descendants, who used their
neighbor’s service without wages, and gave him not for his work (ver. 13).
2. Egyptian Bondage. — The Israelites were frequently reminded, after
their exode from Egypt, of the oppressions they endured in that “house of
bondage,” from which they had been delivered by the direct interposition
of God. The design of these admonitions was to teach them justice and
kindness towards their servants when they should have become settled in
Canaan (<050515>Deuteronomy 5:15; 8:14; 10:19; 15:15; 23:7, etc.), as well as
to impress them with gratitude towards their great deliverer. The Egyptians
had domestic servants, who may have been slaves (<020914>Exodus 9:14, 20,
21; 11:5). But the Israelites were not dispersed among the families of
6
Egypt; they formed a special community (<014634>Genesis 46:34; <020209>Exodus
2:9; 4:29; 6:14; 8:22, 24; 9:26; 10:23; 11:7; 16:22; 17:5). They had
exclusive possession of the land of Goshen, “the best part of the land of
Egypt.” They lived in permanent dwellings, their own houses, and not in
tents (12:22). Each family seems to have had its own house (ver. 4; comp.
<440720>Acts 7:20); and, judging from the regulations about eating the Passover.
the houses could scarcely have been small ones (Exodus 12, etc.). The
Israelites appear to have been well clothed (ver. 11). They owned “flocks
and herds, and very much cattle” (ver. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38). They had their
own form of government, and although occupying a province of Egypt and
tributary to it, they preserved their tribes and family divisions, and their
internal organization throughout (<020201>Exodus 2:1; 3:16, 18; 5:19; 6:14, 25;
12:19, 21). They had to a considerable degree the disposal of their own
time (<020209>Exodus 2:9; 3, 16, 18; 4:27, 29, 31; 12:6). They were not
unacquainted with the fine arts (<023204>Exodus 32:4; 35:22, 35). They were all
armed (<023227>Exodus 32:27). The women seem to have known something of
domestic refinement. They were familiar with instruments of music, and
skilled in the working of fine fabrics (15:20; 35:25, 26); and both males and
females were able to read and write (<051118>Deuteronomy 11:18, 20; 17:19;
27:3). Their food was abundant and of great variety (<021603>Exodus 16:3;
<041104>Numbers 11:4, 5; 20:5). The service required from the Israelites by
their taskmasters seems to have been exacted from males only, and
apparently a portion only of the people were compelled to labor at any one
time. As tributaries, they probably supplied levies of men, from which the
wealthy appear to have been exempted (<020316>Exodus 3:16; 4:29; 5, 20). The
poor were the oppressed, “and all the service wherewith they made them
serve was with rigor” (1:11-14). But Jehovah saw their “afflictions and
heard their groanings,” and delivered them after having inflicted the most
terrible plagues on their oppressors,
But the Israelites were not dispersed among the families of
6
Egypt; they formed a special community (<014634>Genesis 46:34; <020209>Exodus
2:9; 4:29; 6:14; 8:22, 24; 9:26; 10:23; 11:7; 16:22; 17:5). They had
exclusive possession of the land of Goshen, “the best part of the land of
Egypt.” They lived in permanent dwellings, their own houses, and not in
tents (12:22). Each family seems to have had its own house (ver. 4; comp.
<440720>Acts 7:20); and, judging from the regulations about eating the Passover.
the houses could scarcely have been small ones (Exodus 12, etc.). The
Israelites appear to have been well clothed (ver. 11). They owned “flocks
and herds, and very much cattle” (ver. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38). They had their
own form of government, and although occupying a province of Egypt and
tributary to it, they preserved their tribes and family divisions, and their
internal organization throughout (<020201>Exodus 2:1; 3:16, 18; 5:19; 6:14, 25;
12:19, 21). They had to a considerable degree the disposal of their own
time (<020209>Exodus 2:9; 3, 16, 18; 4:27, 29, 31; 12:6). They were not
unacquainted with the fine arts (<023204>Exodus 32:4; 35:22, 35). They were all
armed (<023227>Exodus 32:27). The women seem to have known something of
domestic refinement. They were familiar with instruments of music, and
skilled in the working of fine fabrics (15:20; 35:25, 26); and both males and
females were able to read and write (<051118>Deuteronomy 11:18, 20; 17:19;
27:3). Their food was abundant and of great variety (<021603>Exodus 16:3;
<041104>Numbers 11:4, 5; 20:5). The service required from the Israelites by
their taskmasters seems to have been exacted from males only, and
apparently a portion only of the people were compelled to labor at any one
time. As tributaries, they probably supplied levies of men, from which the
wealthy appear to have been exempted (<020316>Exodus 3:16; 4:29; 5, 20). The
poor were the oppressed, “and all the service wherewith they made them
serve was with rigor” (1:11-14). But Jehovah saw their “afflictions and
heard their groanings,” and delivered them after having inflicted the most
terrible plagues on their oppressors,
how ami twisting anything? those were consecutive paragraphs and i didn't manuever anything to say what i would likeit to say.Sorry but Your explanations are just a way of twisting words to make what the bible says fit your own ideology .
There are lines in the bible you cannot explain away
i didn't post all the notes as it continues on but i will do that now:Sorry, arch...it just doesn't sound as if they were all that "afflicted." As a matter of fact, it sounds like they had it pretty good. Perhaps god was nearsighted?
3. Jewish Slavery. — The institution of slavery was recognized, though not
established, by the Mosaic law with a view to mitigate its hardships and to
secure to every man his ordinary rights. Repugnant as the notion of slavery
is to our minds, it is difficult to see how it can be dispensed with in certain
phases of society without, at all events, entailing severer evils than those
which it produces. Exclusiveness of race is an instinct that gains strength in
proportion as social order is weak, and the rights of citizenship are
regarded with peculiar jealousy in communities which are exposed to
contact with aliens. In the case of war carried on for conquest or revenge,
7
there were but two modes of dealing with the captives, viz. putting them to
death or reducing them to slavery. The same may be said in regard to such
acts and outrages as disqualified a person for the society of his fellow
citizens. Again, as citizenship involved the condition of freedom and
independence, it was almost necessary to offer the alternative of
disfranchisement to all who through poverty or any other contingency were
unable to support themselves in independence. In all these cases slavery
was the mildest of the alternatives that offered, and may hence be regarded
as a blessing rather than a curse. It should further be noticed that a laboring
class, in our sense of the term, was almost unknown to the nations of
antiquity. Hired service was regarded as incompatible with freedom; and
hence the slave in many cases occupied the same social position as the
servant or laborer of modern times, though differing from him in regard to
political status. The Hebrew designation of the slave shows that service
was the salient feature of his condition; for the term ebed, usually applied
to him, is derived from a verb signifying, “to work,” and the very same
term is used in reference to offices of high trust held by free men. In short,
service and slavery would have been to the ear of the Hebrew equivalent
terms, though he fully recognized grades of servitude, according as the
servant was a Hebrew or a non-Hebrew, and, if the latter, according as he
was bought with money (<011712>Genesis 17:12; <021244>Exodus 12:44) or born in
the house (<011414>Genesis 14:14; 15:3; 17:23). We shall proceed to describe
the condition of these classes, as regards their original reduction to slavery,
the methods by which it might be terminated, and their treatment while in
that state.
(I.) Hebrew Slaves. —
(1.) The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to
servitude were (a) poverty; (b) the commission of theft; and (c) the
exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged
his property, and was unable to support his family, might sell himself to
another Hebrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance and perchance a
surplus sufficient to redeem his property (<032525>Leviticus 25:25, 39). It has
been debated whether, under this law, a creditor could seize his debtor and
sell him as a slave. The words do not warrant such an inference for the
poor man is said in <032539>Leviticus 25:39 to sell himself (not as in the A.V.,
“be sold;” see Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 787); in other words, to enter into
voluntary servitude, and this under the pressure, not of debt, but of
poverty. The instances of seizing the children of debtors in <120401>2 Kings 4:1
8
and <160505>Nehemiah 5:5 were not warranted by law, and must be regarded as
the outrages of lawless times, while the case depicted in the parable of the
unmerciful servant is probably borrowed from Roman usages (<401825>Matthew
18:25). The words in <230101>Isaiah 1:1, “Which of my creditors is it to whom I
have sold you?” have a prima facie bearing upon the question, but in
reality apply to one already in the condition of slavery. The commission of
theft rendered a person liable to servitude, whenever restitution could not
be made on the scale prescribed by the law (<022201>Exodus 22:1, 3). The thief
was bound to work out the value of his restitution money in the service of
him on whom the theft had been committed (for, according to Josephus,
Ant. 16, 1, 1, there was no power of selling the person of a thief to a
foreigner); when this had been effected he would be free, as implied in the
expression “sold for his theft,” i.e. for the amount of his theft. This law
contrasts favorably with that of the Romans, under which a thief became
the actual property of his master. The exercise of paternal authority was
limited to the sale of a daughter of tender age to be a maid servant, with
the ulterior view of her becoming a concubine of the purchaser (<022107>Exodus
21:7). Such a case can perhaps hardly be regarded as implying servitude in
the ordinary sense of the term.