Posts
Normally I post the open forum and then I wait for the question to pile up a little bit. Once I have some good questions, I usually post the responses. This is a little different this time. A friend posted a question on my Facebook page that would be better suited for the blog. So I'll answer it here.
Michael said...
Question for you: Many scientist/doctors study the use of Placebos on patients and how they can make people feel better. This has worked for depression, arthritis pains, burns, etc etc. If the belief in a god can act as a placebo causing pains and worries to slip away is that not reason enough to allow religious follower's to keep their beliefs alive? Placebo's may not be real, but they provide their own comfort.
I have never once said that people need to agree with me. I'm not an aggressive converter of people. If you so choose to believe whatever you want to believe, then fine. I'm fairly aware that this is not something people easily change their minds on. I didn't myself. It took quite some time. And if it makes people happy to believe a bunch of stuff that I consider nonsensical, I am fine with that as well. My problem with most of it though is not that it makes people happy. I personally feel there are better, more efficient, and less ridiculous ways to feel happy, but that isn't the crux of my argument. My issue is that most of these people who derive their happiness and comfort from religion are also apt to claim that the claims their religion makes are true. That's no longer the realm of opinion.
I'm not going to argue which color is the best color because that is silly. But if you say that yellow is darker than black, you are no longer discussing opinion, you are discussing facts. And whenever someone says that whatever religion they adhere to is true, I feel the urge to fight that, because plain and simple, it's not true. I'm hesitant to get too caught up anymore on whether or not religion is good or bad because anyone who is truly objective about this subject knows that religion has it's good effects and it's bad effects. But when it comes to truth value, religion as a whole and many of its outlandish claims are wholly untrue. People were not specially designed by the hand of a god. There is no afterlife of which anyone knows. That's the kind of stuff that I absolutely cannot stand by and allow to propagate itself. I'm a big fan of the truth. And anything that deliberately peddles lies that spit in the face of some very conclusive truths is no friend of mine.
Am I deliberately working to end all religion? Hardly. Fantasy is an element of human thinking that cannot be done away with and shouldn't be. Creativity is nice. Whenever you start believing shit that is obviously the product of someone's mind and is completely unsubstantiated by reality, you've taken a wrong turn. And even then, that's still OK. Just refrain from trying to convince everyone that your fantasy is reality and that disagreeing is insolence. I don't argue with street preachers because it's silly. I would rather he shut up more than I would rather he agree with me. Religion and fantasy is cool with me so long as you keep it to yourself. Unfortunately, that hardly is the case.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Haiti, God, You, And What You Can Actually Do To Help
I figured that at some point, all of my rambling was gonna start clicking in a few people's heads. Better yet I hoped that it would. There are no guarantees with the exception of death (even taxes can be avoided). Unfortunately, I hate that for people to start getting their shit together a massive earthquake had to hit Haiti. As a Dominican, and very very close neighbor to Haiti, I'm concerned. I've got direct family on the Dominican side of the island but I also have members of the wider arching human family who live at the epicenter of the quake. And for the most part, people are understanding that, that the Haitian people are our family too. But that's not what I mean when I say they're "getting it."
Immediately after the news broke, as I was meandering through Facebook, I saw a lot of these statuses: I hope God takes care of the people in Haiti or I'm praying for the safety of all the people in Haiti affected by this quake. I shrug at this kind of stuff. This does nothing. You can look at all the double blind studies on the efficacy of prayer on your own time as I'm not terribly interested in hashing it all out. But in the most basic terms, asking for favors from the invisible man in the sky doesn't work. This confused shrug generally turns into utter disappointment when I see someone immediately post a more effective status like: Visit the American Red Cross site to donate to the relief effort.
To me, it's an example of what you deep down inside really believe. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If you trust your God, why do anything other than pray? He'll handle it, supposedly? If you have any sprinkle of doubt regarding the efficacy of that prayer, you'll probably donate some money instead. Or you might hedge your bets and do both. But options B and C show how little confidence you have in option A.
One wider general point I'd like to make before I list some donation sites is this: Why did your God, who you are asking to save people right now, who supposedly loves us all, and cares for all of us, send a fucking earthquake there in the first place? (It's a rhetorical question really. I can hardly expect anyone to tell me what unicorns would do either right now.)
Now that that's over and done with, get your ass in gear and help Haiti!
Doctor's Without Borders:
You can donate directly to DWB at their site: Doctor's Without Borders
American Red Cross:
Go to their site: American Red Cross or you can donate $10 directly by texting "HAITI" to "90999." The $10 will be added on to your bill at the end of the month.
Immediately after the news broke, as I was meandering through Facebook, I saw a lot of these statuses: I hope God takes care of the people in Haiti or I'm praying for the safety of all the people in Haiti affected by this quake. I shrug at this kind of stuff. This does nothing. You can look at all the double blind studies on the efficacy of prayer on your own time as I'm not terribly interested in hashing it all out. But in the most basic terms, asking for favors from the invisible man in the sky doesn't work. This confused shrug generally turns into utter disappointment when I see someone immediately post a more effective status like: Visit the American Red Cross site to donate to the relief effort.
To me, it's an example of what you deep down inside really believe. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If you trust your God, why do anything other than pray? He'll handle it, supposedly? If you have any sprinkle of doubt regarding the efficacy of that prayer, you'll probably donate some money instead. Or you might hedge your bets and do both. But options B and C show how little confidence you have in option A.
One wider general point I'd like to make before I list some donation sites is this: Why did your God, who you are asking to save people right now, who supposedly loves us all, and cares for all of us, send a fucking earthquake there in the first place? (It's a rhetorical question really. I can hardly expect anyone to tell me what unicorns would do either right now.)
Now that that's over and done with, get your ass in gear and help Haiti!
Doctor's Without Borders:
You can donate directly to DWB at their site: Doctor's Without Borders
American Red Cross:
Go to their site: American Red Cross or you can donate $10 directly by texting "HAITI" to "90999." The $10 will be added on to your bill at the end of the month.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Finely Tuned?
A while back I had glanced over some elements of the fine-tuning argument. Well...my philosophy professor issued a final paper assignment for the semester. One of the options was...drumroll...the fine-tuning argument. Considering that I am very familiar with it and that I had written about it briefly, I chose that for my final paper assignment.
Evaluate the Design Argument in detail. Pay strict attention to the argument as it was presented on the handout and discussed in class, especially the fine-tuning one. Read: Aquinas, Hospers.
Having already evaluated it to be crap previously, I decided I would take that same route again. Without further delay, the final paper in the three part trilogy of papers this semester. (I have omitted the works cited page from this posting. But if you would like to know which books I am referring to, I will gladly pass that info along.)
**I have already received my grade for this paper. I got an A.**
If there is a law, then there is a law giver. That is a conclusion that pattern-seeking human beings are prone to commit. The idea of a law indicates that someone has considered the situations and the possible outcomes and in turn has created the best available guideline for it. However, there is a difference between proscribed laws, the kind we see in law libraries, and descriptive laws, rules that exist independently of any of the machinations of human beings. So many will be tempted to tell you that because the laws of physics enable human beings to be alive, then there must be some Law Giver, some Designer of the Laws, who created them. This is categorically untrue.
The fine-tuning argument is presented as follows (with some variation): The laws of nature are finely tuned. If we change them even a tiny bit, we will get a universe without life or consciousness. This fine tuning of the laws could not be produced without design. As we begin to look at this argument, one of the primary things that should catch our attention should be the first sentence. If the laws are finely tuned, then what are they finely tuned for? The proceeding sentence indicates that these laws are finely tuned for life and consciousness. This brings about the first fundamental flaw of this argument.
If the laws are finely tuned for life, then why are there so many instances of no life? The supposed designer of the laws had the intention to create life and consciousness but these laws have a tendency to create vast emptiness. There is no life in our very local solar system, except for this planet. The remaining planets are either too hot or too cold. These planets are still governed by the same set of laws that were designed to bring about life and/or consciousness, under premise number one. Yet they have none. So far as we know, there may be no other instances of consciousness throughout the universe. If so, then the laws have failed at their ultimate goal. Taking an even closer look at our own planet, we can see that even here, where we have managed a multitude of life; it is still a harsh environment for life. There are multiple locations on our tiny, life favoring planet that are utterly uninhabitable. Some sections of this planet are too hot. Some sections are too cold. These conditions have led to a process (evolution) that has ensured that “98 percent of all the species that ever appeared on earth have lapsed into extinction” (Hitchens 88). These finely tuned laws of nature do not seem remotely fine tuned for life at all. They seem equally adept at destroying life or creating situations wherein life is not even possible as they are for creating life.
One of the interesting things about the idea that these laws serve the purpose of creating life is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law states that in any isolated system, entropy or disorder will increase over time. “In other words, things run down, inevitably. According to the Second Law, the universe is unwinding out of a more ordered state into the ultimately disordered state know as the heat death of the universe” (Dennett 69). So we live in a universe that is supposedly designed for life but will eventually end in catastrophic death. Either this supposes an indifferent god who does not care about suffering or no god at all. An indifferent god who designs these terribly ineffective laws is not much of a god to pray to anyway.
The second portion of this argument says that if we tweak the laws slightly in any way, we will certainly have a universe where life and consciousness is not possible. While this may be tempting to say, it is hardly realistic. Under what grounds could we begin to know whether life is possible because there is 17% less gravity or if the speed of light were 280,000 kilometers per second? There are no grounds to conclusively know this because we do not have the luxury to test a universe with differing constants. This section of the argument is usually associated with the idea that there are multiple universes with varying differences in the laws of physics. And that all these universes are barren because they do not exhibit the correct combination of laws like our universe does. This is rather presumptuous. Are the laws correct because they have created us? This very idea that this universe is the best because it has managed to produce us, if not the idea that it exists solely to create us, is incredibly anthropocentric. It is not surprising at all that this universe has created us. If it didn’t, there would not be any people to wonder.
Victor Stenger argues that carbon and oxygen, two of the vital elements necessary for our survival in this universe are among the easiest to come by. “Each of these product nuclei except 4BE8 is also very stable and so will survive indefinitely. When the star finally runs out of energy these elements [Carbon & Oxygen] among others in the periodic table, especially iron, are distributed into the space between stars, either by evaporation or, in the case of very massive stars, enormous explosions called supernovae” (Stenger 150). According to him, in our universe, there is nothing remotely special at all in regards to carbon and oxygen. It is abundant enough in our own universe to result in a process that could possibly create us. There is no fine balance that has been struck between life and death when it comes to the carbon atom. It is merely there. And according to Stenger, it will continually arise due to the fluctuations that occur throughout the universe.
Suppose the laws, and all the physical constants, and elementary combinations were indeed different. As carbon based life-forms, we would certainly die or never arise in a universe that has no carbon atoms. But what grounds exist to say that another atom could not become the basis for life or consciousness of some different form? Perhaps we would not exist, but that does not conclusively rule out that all life or consciousness would not exist in turn.
Let us assume that the first two principles of the fine-tuning argument are indeed true. The laws are finely tuned for life and consciousness. Any changes to the laws will result in a universe where life or consciousness is not possible. Even if both of these premises are true, the third premise is still relatively unfounded. There is no reason to presuppose that they have been tuned by another party. If you argue that there is a tuner, then the questioning cannot end there. One would have to show how many gods were working on the project of designing the laws. If it was a single god in charge, then one would have to identify that god in particular out of the myriad of gods discussed throughout history. This would be inconclusive as there would be no reliable evidence to show that it was one god above the other. Then one must show how the tuner of the laws began to exist himself in order to tune the laws. If one says that he needs no creator or tuner, then why is this not applicable to the laws themselves. Either you have an infinite regress of who created the creator or you have the idea that the creator created himself. One theory is that the universe itself undergoes a cycle of big crunches and big bangs. The universe expands until it suffers its heat death. It then contracts itself. The resulting crunches and bangs of the universe result in markedly different laws of physics and chemistry. What allows credence for the theory of a law giver that does not fully discredit the idea of crunch & bang cycles? This oscillatory universe theory is equally credible on the same grounds due to the lack of evidence. “We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned” (Newberger Goldstein). To date, there exists no evidence that the laws have been written by anything. There is nothing to suggest that a law-maker has created the laws of physics. The laws of physics are observable and identified. They are not created and then implemented.
The Catholic Church officially accepts the idea that evolution has been guided by the hand of God. The theory of evolution via natural selection does not suppose the hand of God in any of its predictions. Neither do the laws of physics that govern the universe and have given rise to many different forms of life. The fine tuning argument, while being perhaps the most amenable to scientific discovery, still pursues a fundamental error. It still assigns purpose to things that seem impersonal and purposeless. It attempts to insert God into the equation where no god is necessary.
Evaluate the Design Argument in detail. Pay strict attention to the argument as it was presented on the handout and discussed in class, especially the fine-tuning one. Read: Aquinas, Hospers.
Having already evaluated it to be crap previously, I decided I would take that same route again. Without further delay, the final paper in the three part trilogy of papers this semester. (I have omitted the works cited page from this posting. But if you would like to know which books I am referring to, I will gladly pass that info along.)
**I have already received my grade for this paper. I got an A.**
If there is a law, then there is a law giver. That is a conclusion that pattern-seeking human beings are prone to commit. The idea of a law indicates that someone has considered the situations and the possible outcomes and in turn has created the best available guideline for it. However, there is a difference between proscribed laws, the kind we see in law libraries, and descriptive laws, rules that exist independently of any of the machinations of human beings. So many will be tempted to tell you that because the laws of physics enable human beings to be alive, then there must be some Law Giver, some Designer of the Laws, who created them. This is categorically untrue.
The fine-tuning argument is presented as follows (with some variation): The laws of nature are finely tuned. If we change them even a tiny bit, we will get a universe without life or consciousness. This fine tuning of the laws could not be produced without design. As we begin to look at this argument, one of the primary things that should catch our attention should be the first sentence. If the laws are finely tuned, then what are they finely tuned for? The proceeding sentence indicates that these laws are finely tuned for life and consciousness. This brings about the first fundamental flaw of this argument.
If the laws are finely tuned for life, then why are there so many instances of no life? The supposed designer of the laws had the intention to create life and consciousness but these laws have a tendency to create vast emptiness. There is no life in our very local solar system, except for this planet. The remaining planets are either too hot or too cold. These planets are still governed by the same set of laws that were designed to bring about life and/or consciousness, under premise number one. Yet they have none. So far as we know, there may be no other instances of consciousness throughout the universe. If so, then the laws have failed at their ultimate goal. Taking an even closer look at our own planet, we can see that even here, where we have managed a multitude of life; it is still a harsh environment for life. There are multiple locations on our tiny, life favoring planet that are utterly uninhabitable. Some sections of this planet are too hot. Some sections are too cold. These conditions have led to a process (evolution) that has ensured that “98 percent of all the species that ever appeared on earth have lapsed into extinction” (Hitchens 88). These finely tuned laws of nature do not seem remotely fine tuned for life at all. They seem equally adept at destroying life or creating situations wherein life is not even possible as they are for creating life.
One of the interesting things about the idea that these laws serve the purpose of creating life is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law states that in any isolated system, entropy or disorder will increase over time. “In other words, things run down, inevitably. According to the Second Law, the universe is unwinding out of a more ordered state into the ultimately disordered state know as the heat death of the universe” (Dennett 69). So we live in a universe that is supposedly designed for life but will eventually end in catastrophic death. Either this supposes an indifferent god who does not care about suffering or no god at all. An indifferent god who designs these terribly ineffective laws is not much of a god to pray to anyway.
The second portion of this argument says that if we tweak the laws slightly in any way, we will certainly have a universe where life and consciousness is not possible. While this may be tempting to say, it is hardly realistic. Under what grounds could we begin to know whether life is possible because there is 17% less gravity or if the speed of light were 280,000 kilometers per second? There are no grounds to conclusively know this because we do not have the luxury to test a universe with differing constants. This section of the argument is usually associated with the idea that there are multiple universes with varying differences in the laws of physics. And that all these universes are barren because they do not exhibit the correct combination of laws like our universe does. This is rather presumptuous. Are the laws correct because they have created us? This very idea that this universe is the best because it has managed to produce us, if not the idea that it exists solely to create us, is incredibly anthropocentric. It is not surprising at all that this universe has created us. If it didn’t, there would not be any people to wonder.
Victor Stenger argues that carbon and oxygen, two of the vital elements necessary for our survival in this universe are among the easiest to come by. “Each of these product nuclei except 4BE8 is also very stable and so will survive indefinitely. When the star finally runs out of energy these elements [Carbon & Oxygen] among others in the periodic table, especially iron, are distributed into the space between stars, either by evaporation or, in the case of very massive stars, enormous explosions called supernovae” (Stenger 150). According to him, in our universe, there is nothing remotely special at all in regards to carbon and oxygen. It is abundant enough in our own universe to result in a process that could possibly create us. There is no fine balance that has been struck between life and death when it comes to the carbon atom. It is merely there. And according to Stenger, it will continually arise due to the fluctuations that occur throughout the universe.
Suppose the laws, and all the physical constants, and elementary combinations were indeed different. As carbon based life-forms, we would certainly die or never arise in a universe that has no carbon atoms. But what grounds exist to say that another atom could not become the basis for life or consciousness of some different form? Perhaps we would not exist, but that does not conclusively rule out that all life or consciousness would not exist in turn.
Let us assume that the first two principles of the fine-tuning argument are indeed true. The laws are finely tuned for life and consciousness. Any changes to the laws will result in a universe where life or consciousness is not possible. Even if both of these premises are true, the third premise is still relatively unfounded. There is no reason to presuppose that they have been tuned by another party. If you argue that there is a tuner, then the questioning cannot end there. One would have to show how many gods were working on the project of designing the laws. If it was a single god in charge, then one would have to identify that god in particular out of the myriad of gods discussed throughout history. This would be inconclusive as there would be no reliable evidence to show that it was one god above the other. Then one must show how the tuner of the laws began to exist himself in order to tune the laws. If one says that he needs no creator or tuner, then why is this not applicable to the laws themselves. Either you have an infinite regress of who created the creator or you have the idea that the creator created himself. One theory is that the universe itself undergoes a cycle of big crunches and big bangs. The universe expands until it suffers its heat death. It then contracts itself. The resulting crunches and bangs of the universe result in markedly different laws of physics and chemistry. What allows credence for the theory of a law giver that does not fully discredit the idea of crunch & bang cycles? This oscillatory universe theory is equally credible on the same grounds due to the lack of evidence. “We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned” (Newberger Goldstein). To date, there exists no evidence that the laws have been written by anything. There is nothing to suggest that a law-maker has created the laws of physics. The laws of physics are observable and identified. They are not created and then implemented.
The Catholic Church officially accepts the idea that evolution has been guided by the hand of God. The theory of evolution via natural selection does not suppose the hand of God in any of its predictions. Neither do the laws of physics that govern the universe and have given rise to many different forms of life. The fine tuning argument, while being perhaps the most amenable to scientific discovery, still pursues a fundamental error. It still assigns purpose to things that seem impersonal and purposeless. It attempts to insert God into the equation where no god is necessary.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Role of Women Throughout Exodus with Respect to the Law
In addition to my initial assignment for slavery, my theology professor issued a term paper of our own choosing. Considering how much of my grade this paper was, there was no option of whether or not to write it at all.
Paper Assignment: 8-10 page paper (double spaced; 12pt. Times Roman font), due on the last day of class. The paper should focus on a chapter or defined text in the Pentateuch. Your selection must be submitted in writing and approved before you write the paper.
The paper itself will have two parts.
1. Using a critical method selected from Soulen and Soulen, analyze the passage and consider the questions which the method you are using raises. You are encouraged to consult a commentary or commentaries (e.g., Anchor Bible, JPS, Westermann) and are free to consult secondary sources. However, I do not want you merely to summarize scholarship. Your own analysis matters. This section should be approximately % of the paper.
2. Give an interpretation of the text. This may be theological, homiletic or cultural. Your interpretation is an opportunity for you to respond in a personal and direct way to the text. This section should be approximately % of the paper.
I chose to write my paper about two chapters (Exodus 20 & 21) and the value of women in the laws prescribed by God. The paper was written from a feminist bible interpretation perspective. In addition my professor suggested I include Exodus 19:10-11 & Exodus 14-15. So without further delay, here is my second paper. Grab a bite to eat. This is an enormously long read, even by my standards.
**Update: I received my grade for this paper assignment. I got an A. Sweet!**
The role of women in the Bible is one that has been hotly debated and contested for ages. While many have been prone to defend the Bible and attempt to justify some of the very underlying premises of the Bible, there is overwhelming evidence of the supposed inequality of men and women, an idea fundamentally supported by the Bible. The idea of male superiority is so ingrained that even the most innocuous stories from the Bible bear witness to this idea. In Exodus, we are confronted with multiple situations where the idea of male superiority is integral to the stories and laws provided.
In Exodus, there are two instances of widespread infanticide. The pharaoh issues an edict to all of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt to kill all of the boys born to Jewish women. When the midwives are too scared to do so, the pharaoh orders all his people to throw all the boys into the Nile and allow all of the girls to live (Exod 1:15-22). Later in the story, as God is sending waves of plagues at Egypt, the key to ensuring the release of the Hebrews is found. By killing every first born son in Egypt, God has finally reached the punishment that will break the pharaoh and lead to the release of his people. One of the questions that both of these situations asks is why the boys and not the girls?
The murdering of first born sons is a tacit example of the superiority of men and conversely the inferiority of women. Why kill all the first born sons? Why not kill all first born children equally? Why segregate the boys from the girls? As you begin to wonder why boys instead of girls, it helps to keep in mind the active consideration that women were not always considered equal to men. They were closer to property, in the same vein of livestock. The idea that women were closer to property is more than basically implied in Exodus 20 and 21.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exod 20:14). All of the elements listed in this commandment are property. The commandment clearly denotes a house, slaves, livestock, and wives as things belonging to your neighbor. If someone is your equal as a human being then the idea of that person as property belonging to you should be rather distant. However, as we have seen with slavery, if you dehumanize the object of your oppression then it is fairly easy to identify them not as fellow human beings but property. And the commandment itself identifies women on the same level as slaves.
In light of the insight provided by this commandment, it allows to look at another commandment. “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:13). It directly says do not commit adultery. It helps to also have a clearer understanding of what would constitute adultery. It can be when a married man has sex with a woman other than his wife or when a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband. There is also the situation where a married man has sex with a married woman that is not his wife. It is critical to understand which of these situations we are discussing in this commandment. We, as people living in our current culture, have certain reasons for finding adultery and marital infidelity reprehensible. We think about the welfare of the spouse that is scorned. We consider the fallout towards children in a relationship. Our ability to sympathize with the parties we consider wronged when adultery occurs is vital to why we consider adultery wrong.
So what about this commandment identifies an inequality between men and women? In Exod 20:14, it is clear that men are being addressed. The commandment says nothing of your neighbor’s husband. And there is no difference between verse 13 and verse 14 that would identify a switch in audience. So it is fairly safe to assume that the commandment to not commit adultery was not for women. That does not indicate that the adultery commandment does not apply to women. It is possible that it is understood that women should not be committing adultery as they are the property of their husbands. The litany of punishments for female adulterers suggests that might be the case. But we can feel comfortable that the direct application of this commandment was intended for men. Now which of the two situations remaining are we discussing? In the spirit of the following commandment and the very clear meaning and sentiment that it indicates, it is clear that we are not discussing the situation where a married man has sex with an unmarried woman. The only remaining situation is when a man has sex with a married woman, which in this case is a property issue.
This is in direct contrast to our reasons for disapproving of adultery. We disapprove of adultery because of its harmful effects on relationships and children. This commandment is concerned with property owner’s rights. While this commandment may on the surface indicate something close to what we feel about adultery, the nuances involved could not be further from what we observe as our valid reasoning.
These concepts of women as property extend beyond the marital realm. Among the slaves, the rules still favored male slaves to female slaves. Even in slavery, there was a hierarchy of value that placed women at the bottom. “When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment” (Exod 21:2). The role of women is conspicuous in its absence. There appear some provisions for women in this section, certainly. If the male slave in question came to the owner with a wife, when his term has ended he is allowed to leave with her. But even among slaves the rampant inequality becomes so blatant that it has to be deemed misogynistic. If the master gives said slave a wife, the wife is not of the slave. When he is freed, the wife and any children she has bore the slave belong to the master (Exod 21:4).
Several aspects of the law highlight the broad theme of female inequality that resonates throughout Exodus. That a woman could be given, without what would seem any consideration or consultation on her behalf, is deplorable. But when the understanding of the commandments we discussed earlier is applied, it is clear that this action falls in line with the principles reflected in the law. Your property is indeed your property. It should not have a say in what decisions you have in regards to it. And women are very clearly inferior to men.
Given the context of slavery, it is conceivable that female slaves would be subject to these blatant abuses of rights. The framework required in order to treat women this way is already present. However the idea of male superiority extends itself beyond the cultural institution of slavery. Or perhaps the giving away of your daughter to another man is potentially an extension of slavery itself. The language provided in Exod 21:7 clearly indicates that it is more of a fundamental part of slavery itself. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are.” The idea that it is acceptable to sell your own daughter into slavery is intriguing to say the least. This particular case must have occurred enough times that it needed to be identified as a pertinent law matter. There is no need to create a law for an action that never occurs. More than enough men were selling their own daughters into slavery for it to necessitate clarification in the law. As such, certain situations in relation to this particular form of bondage had arisen enough to require even more discussion in the law.
“If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her” (Exod 21:8). If the female slave does not satisfy her master, presumably sexually, she must be released. She cannot be sold to another. The interpretation provided on the side note of the Jewish Study Bible indicates that as a marriage arrangement, the master has certain conditions that he must meet in order to honor the sale of a woman into his family. “Similar arrangements are known from the ancient Near East, where a poor father might arrange for his daughter’s adoption by a well-to-do family in order to ensure a marriage for her” (Jewish Study Bible, p 153). However the law does not address that particular situation through the use of the language in the law. The law clearly describes when the slave is not pleasing to the master and not when the master has mistreated the slave. This interpretation does well to assuage some of the reasons for selling a daughter into slavery but it does not address the law. When the law indicates that the master has “[broken] faith with her” it speaks more about her viability as a woman who would be able to married off again. In having selected her for himself, it is understood that she is his wife fully and that the marriage would have been consummated, assuming there is a marriage at all in this particular instance of slavery. In doing so, he will essentially be holding on to damaged goods. A non-virgin slave wife would not have been considered as attractive to perspective buyers in comparison to a virgin. While the interpretation may indicate marriage, the text only hints at marriage peripherally. It is clearly slavery as the slave girl purchased can be selected exclusively for the master’s use or she can be given to the master’s son. The more one continues to analyze the law in this case sees that the clear intention of a sale like the one described is more sexual slavery than labor slavery. “If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing of her conjugal rights” (Exod 21:10). If he indeed marries another woman, and thus is satisfied with her, he is not allowed to simply disregard the first woman. In doing so, he has granted her freedom from her slavery. The law understands the difference between sexual slavery and free woman marrying a man as the provision for passing the purchased slave girl to a son indicates that in this case the slave should be dealt with “as is the practice for free maidens” (Exod 21:9). So the law in no way implies that in order to arrange a marriage, it must be done under the guise of slavery. The textual hints in the law indicate that this sort of slavery transaction, while it could be described as marriage potentially, is more indicative of sexual slavery and bondage. The only reason for the provisions for the female slave’s freedom is that the girl is a Hebrew. And as has been noted before, there are different sets of rules for slaves as Hebrews and slaves as non-Hebrews.
The laws in Exodus, particularly chapter 20 & 21, display a level of misogyny that can only be described as blatant and rampant throughout the culture of the Hebrews. It is overwhelming how the idea continues to resurface itself throughout this particular book. It can also be either shocking or expected when you take into account the entire Tanakh or even extended into the Christian New Testament. A cursory internet search can provide you with hours of citations that are undeniably disparaging of women if not outright cruel, sadistic, and abusive. Many Westerners are quick to identify the 10 Commandments or the laws of Moses as having reached a pinnacle in morality and law. They honestly feel that there is something new about identifying killing and stealing as particularly heinous acts, that somehow the introduction of these laws has enabled society to grow and function effectively. However this begs the question, “How did society manage to exist and grow and function effectively before the dawn of these laws?” The answer is probably that people intrinsically know that killing and stealing is wrong and that foundationally any society that is predicated on the principle that these actions are good, will crumble on itself. To say that these laws are a breakthrough is a proverbial slap in the face to women everywhere. To say that we have reached the pinnacle of morality when we identify women as property is despicable. It comes to many as no surprise then that the Biblical law was used, and justified by theologians, to subjugate and dominate women in virtually every aspect of their lives. The law and all of its recommendations can be seen as extension of one of the earliest stories in Torah. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis serves as a basis for most of the anti-women sentiment that proceeds throughout the remainder of both the Jewish and Christian texts. It sets the standard that women are not to be trusted and in doing so a man will be led away from God. This initial salvo underscores the male superiority complex that is so evident throughout the text. Eve is a product of man. Her role is to be “a fitting helper for him” (Gen 2:18). Even the word “woman” itself is an example of this complex. She is considered to be “from man.” She is subjugated and dominated by man from the very dawn of her existence. This centralized concept continues throughout the course of the Torah and the New Testament. And it has been detrimental to the value of the laws. If the idea is that the laws are effective and fair, but they exclude fifty percent of the population arbitrarily, then one has to cast an eye of doubt on the remainder of the law.
Exodus is one of the five foundational books of both the Jewish and Christian religion. As such, it has a very profound influence on many of the philosophies and theological deductions that proceed beyond it. It serves to be very unsettling then that women do not begin on equal footing in Exodus and throughout the Torah. It undermines the opposing claim that women serve an elevated place in the Abrahamic religions. The pall hangs over all that follows.
Paper Assignment: 8-10 page paper (double spaced; 12pt. Times Roman font), due on the last day of class. The paper should focus on a chapter or defined text in the Pentateuch. Your selection must be submitted in writing and approved before you write the paper.
The paper itself will have two parts.
1. Using a critical method selected from Soulen and Soulen, analyze the passage and consider the questions which the method you are using raises. You are encouraged to consult a commentary or commentaries (e.g., Anchor Bible, JPS, Westermann) and are free to consult secondary sources. However, I do not want you merely to summarize scholarship. Your own analysis matters. This section should be approximately % of the paper.
2. Give an interpretation of the text. This may be theological, homiletic or cultural. Your interpretation is an opportunity for you to respond in a personal and direct way to the text. This section should be approximately % of the paper.
I chose to write my paper about two chapters (Exodus 20 & 21) and the value of women in the laws prescribed by God. The paper was written from a feminist bible interpretation perspective. In addition my professor suggested I include Exodus 19:10-11 & Exodus 14-15. So without further delay, here is my second paper. Grab a bite to eat. This is an enormously long read, even by my standards.
**Update: I received my grade for this paper assignment. I got an A. Sweet!**
The role of women in the Bible is one that has been hotly debated and contested for ages. While many have been prone to defend the Bible and attempt to justify some of the very underlying premises of the Bible, there is overwhelming evidence of the supposed inequality of men and women, an idea fundamentally supported by the Bible. The idea of male superiority is so ingrained that even the most innocuous stories from the Bible bear witness to this idea. In Exodus, we are confronted with multiple situations where the idea of male superiority is integral to the stories and laws provided.
In Exodus, there are two instances of widespread infanticide. The pharaoh issues an edict to all of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt to kill all of the boys born to Jewish women. When the midwives are too scared to do so, the pharaoh orders all his people to throw all the boys into the Nile and allow all of the girls to live (Exod 1:15-22). Later in the story, as God is sending waves of plagues at Egypt, the key to ensuring the release of the Hebrews is found. By killing every first born son in Egypt, God has finally reached the punishment that will break the pharaoh and lead to the release of his people. One of the questions that both of these situations asks is why the boys and not the girls?
The murdering of first born sons is a tacit example of the superiority of men and conversely the inferiority of women. Why kill all the first born sons? Why not kill all first born children equally? Why segregate the boys from the girls? As you begin to wonder why boys instead of girls, it helps to keep in mind the active consideration that women were not always considered equal to men. They were closer to property, in the same vein of livestock. The idea that women were closer to property is more than basically implied in Exodus 20 and 21.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exod 20:14). All of the elements listed in this commandment are property. The commandment clearly denotes a house, slaves, livestock, and wives as things belonging to your neighbor. If someone is your equal as a human being then the idea of that person as property belonging to you should be rather distant. However, as we have seen with slavery, if you dehumanize the object of your oppression then it is fairly easy to identify them not as fellow human beings but property. And the commandment itself identifies women on the same level as slaves.
In light of the insight provided by this commandment, it allows to look at another commandment. “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:13). It directly says do not commit adultery. It helps to also have a clearer understanding of what would constitute adultery. It can be when a married man has sex with a woman other than his wife or when a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband. There is also the situation where a married man has sex with a married woman that is not his wife. It is critical to understand which of these situations we are discussing in this commandment. We, as people living in our current culture, have certain reasons for finding adultery and marital infidelity reprehensible. We think about the welfare of the spouse that is scorned. We consider the fallout towards children in a relationship. Our ability to sympathize with the parties we consider wronged when adultery occurs is vital to why we consider adultery wrong.
So what about this commandment identifies an inequality between men and women? In Exod 20:14, it is clear that men are being addressed. The commandment says nothing of your neighbor’s husband. And there is no difference between verse 13 and verse 14 that would identify a switch in audience. So it is fairly safe to assume that the commandment to not commit adultery was not for women. That does not indicate that the adultery commandment does not apply to women. It is possible that it is understood that women should not be committing adultery as they are the property of their husbands. The litany of punishments for female adulterers suggests that might be the case. But we can feel comfortable that the direct application of this commandment was intended for men. Now which of the two situations remaining are we discussing? In the spirit of the following commandment and the very clear meaning and sentiment that it indicates, it is clear that we are not discussing the situation where a married man has sex with an unmarried woman. The only remaining situation is when a man has sex with a married woman, which in this case is a property issue.
This is in direct contrast to our reasons for disapproving of adultery. We disapprove of adultery because of its harmful effects on relationships and children. This commandment is concerned with property owner’s rights. While this commandment may on the surface indicate something close to what we feel about adultery, the nuances involved could not be further from what we observe as our valid reasoning.
These concepts of women as property extend beyond the marital realm. Among the slaves, the rules still favored male slaves to female slaves. Even in slavery, there was a hierarchy of value that placed women at the bottom. “When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment” (Exod 21:2). The role of women is conspicuous in its absence. There appear some provisions for women in this section, certainly. If the male slave in question came to the owner with a wife, when his term has ended he is allowed to leave with her. But even among slaves the rampant inequality becomes so blatant that it has to be deemed misogynistic. If the master gives said slave a wife, the wife is not of the slave. When he is freed, the wife and any children she has bore the slave belong to the master (Exod 21:4).
Several aspects of the law highlight the broad theme of female inequality that resonates throughout Exodus. That a woman could be given, without what would seem any consideration or consultation on her behalf, is deplorable. But when the understanding of the commandments we discussed earlier is applied, it is clear that this action falls in line with the principles reflected in the law. Your property is indeed your property. It should not have a say in what decisions you have in regards to it. And women are very clearly inferior to men.
Given the context of slavery, it is conceivable that female slaves would be subject to these blatant abuses of rights. The framework required in order to treat women this way is already present. However the idea of male superiority extends itself beyond the cultural institution of slavery. Or perhaps the giving away of your daughter to another man is potentially an extension of slavery itself. The language provided in Exod 21:7 clearly indicates that it is more of a fundamental part of slavery itself. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are.” The idea that it is acceptable to sell your own daughter into slavery is intriguing to say the least. This particular case must have occurred enough times that it needed to be identified as a pertinent law matter. There is no need to create a law for an action that never occurs. More than enough men were selling their own daughters into slavery for it to necessitate clarification in the law. As such, certain situations in relation to this particular form of bondage had arisen enough to require even more discussion in the law.
“If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her” (Exod 21:8). If the female slave does not satisfy her master, presumably sexually, she must be released. She cannot be sold to another. The interpretation provided on the side note of the Jewish Study Bible indicates that as a marriage arrangement, the master has certain conditions that he must meet in order to honor the sale of a woman into his family. “Similar arrangements are known from the ancient Near East, where a poor father might arrange for his daughter’s adoption by a well-to-do family in order to ensure a marriage for her” (Jewish Study Bible, p 153). However the law does not address that particular situation through the use of the language in the law. The law clearly describes when the slave is not pleasing to the master and not when the master has mistreated the slave. This interpretation does well to assuage some of the reasons for selling a daughter into slavery but it does not address the law. When the law indicates that the master has “[broken] faith with her” it speaks more about her viability as a woman who would be able to married off again. In having selected her for himself, it is understood that she is his wife fully and that the marriage would have been consummated, assuming there is a marriage at all in this particular instance of slavery. In doing so, he will essentially be holding on to damaged goods. A non-virgin slave wife would not have been considered as attractive to perspective buyers in comparison to a virgin. While the interpretation may indicate marriage, the text only hints at marriage peripherally. It is clearly slavery as the slave girl purchased can be selected exclusively for the master’s use or she can be given to the master’s son. The more one continues to analyze the law in this case sees that the clear intention of a sale like the one described is more sexual slavery than labor slavery. “If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing of her conjugal rights” (Exod 21:10). If he indeed marries another woman, and thus is satisfied with her, he is not allowed to simply disregard the first woman. In doing so, he has granted her freedom from her slavery. The law understands the difference between sexual slavery and free woman marrying a man as the provision for passing the purchased slave girl to a son indicates that in this case the slave should be dealt with “as is the practice for free maidens” (Exod 21:9). So the law in no way implies that in order to arrange a marriage, it must be done under the guise of slavery. The textual hints in the law indicate that this sort of slavery transaction, while it could be described as marriage potentially, is more indicative of sexual slavery and bondage. The only reason for the provisions for the female slave’s freedom is that the girl is a Hebrew. And as has been noted before, there are different sets of rules for slaves as Hebrews and slaves as non-Hebrews.
The laws in Exodus, particularly chapter 20 & 21, display a level of misogyny that can only be described as blatant and rampant throughout the culture of the Hebrews. It is overwhelming how the idea continues to resurface itself throughout this particular book. It can also be either shocking or expected when you take into account the entire Tanakh or even extended into the Christian New Testament. A cursory internet search can provide you with hours of citations that are undeniably disparaging of women if not outright cruel, sadistic, and abusive. Many Westerners are quick to identify the 10 Commandments or the laws of Moses as having reached a pinnacle in morality and law. They honestly feel that there is something new about identifying killing and stealing as particularly heinous acts, that somehow the introduction of these laws has enabled society to grow and function effectively. However this begs the question, “How did society manage to exist and grow and function effectively before the dawn of these laws?” The answer is probably that people intrinsically know that killing and stealing is wrong and that foundationally any society that is predicated on the principle that these actions are good, will crumble on itself. To say that these laws are a breakthrough is a proverbial slap in the face to women everywhere. To say that we have reached the pinnacle of morality when we identify women as property is despicable. It comes to many as no surprise then that the Biblical law was used, and justified by theologians, to subjugate and dominate women in virtually every aspect of their lives. The law and all of its recommendations can be seen as extension of one of the earliest stories in Torah. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis serves as a basis for most of the anti-women sentiment that proceeds throughout the remainder of both the Jewish and Christian texts. It sets the standard that women are not to be trusted and in doing so a man will be led away from God. This initial salvo underscores the male superiority complex that is so evident throughout the text. Eve is a product of man. Her role is to be “a fitting helper for him” (Gen 2:18). Even the word “woman” itself is an example of this complex. She is considered to be “from man.” She is subjugated and dominated by man from the very dawn of her existence. This centralized concept continues throughout the course of the Torah and the New Testament. And it has been detrimental to the value of the laws. If the idea is that the laws are effective and fair, but they exclude fifty percent of the population arbitrarily, then one has to cast an eye of doubt on the remainder of the law.
Exodus is one of the five foundational books of both the Jewish and Christian religion. As such, it has a very profound influence on many of the philosophies and theological deductions that proceed beyond it. It serves to be very unsettling then that women do not begin on equal footing in Exodus and throughout the Torah. It undermines the opposing claim that women serve an elevated place in the Abrahamic religions. The pall hangs over all that follows.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Slavery and It's Relation to 3 Sections of the Old Testament
So I received an assignment from one of my theology professors to discuss slavery. It was an extra credit option and I'm always looking for a way to do better in a class. So I actually wrote the paper. The assignment was fairly simple.
For those of you who were not in class today, I want to tell you of an option I’m offering as extra credit to factor against quiz grades. I am assigning a 4-pg (no more) paper comparing the slavery laws of Exod 21, Lev 25 (which you will read for next week’s class) and Deut 15 (to read in a couple of weeks). I ask that you compare and contrast the laws and suggest an explanation for why each of the three law codes represented formulates the laws as they do.
So I present to you my theology paper. I may have missed the mark in terms of suggesting an explanation for the law codes. If you think so, you can let me know in the comments. Or you could just comment away about whatever you like. This is your blog too (in a way). Enjoy.
**Update: I got my grade for this assignment. I got a 94.**
Three sections of the Torah spend a significant amount of time discussing laws and edicts in regards to slavery. Many of these rules regarding slavery share similar sentiments although there are direct differences in tonality amongst the laws as well as their application to certain peoples among three specific sections of the law. In Exodus 21, the laws are very descriptive in regards to ownership and retention of slaves as well as viable reasons for the release of slaves. In Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15, we begin to see the how slavery affects relations with fellow Hebrews and with outsiders or foreigners living among the Hebrews themselves. More importantly there are distinct differences in how the three sets of laws regard the issue of cruelty toward slaves.
The slavery laws in Exodus 21 carry with them a strong tone of legality. These prescriptive laws are rather brief and can be seen as the sum of Moses’ experience with slavery. As such these prescriptions are rather direct and cover many potential situations that may arise in order to nullify any potential outlier cases where the law may originally have been either ambiguous or inapplicable. One particular situation lies in Exod 21:20-22 where the situation of a brutally beaten slave is invoked. If the slave is beaten so brutally that he or she dies, then a penalty must be enacted and the slave must be avenged. If the slave survives the beating, then no punishment is necessary. In Exod 21:26-27 a similar potential situation is discussed. If the master has disabled a slave by ruining his eyesight permanently or by knocking out a slave’s teeth, then the slave must be released. These particular laws regarding slavery can be seen from 2 different angles. In one sense, these laws are intended to protect slaves from extreme physical punishment. If the slave dies, then his master or owner must be punished. As to what this particular punishment should be is not specified in this chapter but it is clear that the death of the slave will be met with some punishment in return to the master, be it physical or financial. The same goes for permanently physically disabling a slave. The master loses said slave permanently in return as the slave must be freed. The master must now suffer a financial loss. On the other hand, these laws do not deny a master the right to beat his slaves. Exod 21:21 says directly, “But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.” And since he is the property of the other (the master), the slave is not protected from being beaten at all or indiscriminately. These particular laws do not prescribe against the beating of slaves at all on the grounds of cruelty. While there may be some protection from extreme cruelty, there is no protection from the kind of daily regimental cruelty that is associated with slavery.
In Leviticus 25 there begins a marked distinction between Hebrew slaves and outsiders as slaves as well how both should be treated. Lev 25:39 says, “If your kinsman under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you, do not subject him to the treatment of a slave.” This is the first mention of a difference in treatment of slaves. It is later indicated clearly that it is perfectly acceptable to be cruel to outsider slaves in Lev 25:43 when it is said “You shall not rule over him ruthlessly; you shall fear your God.” The “him” described in the passage is the Hebrew slave. The differences continue. In Lev 25:44-46 denotes that you may purchase slaves, but you can no longer purchase Hebrew slaves. If you will own slaves, they must be purchased from the children of the foreigners living among the Hebrews. It goes on to further state that these same slaves that are purchased from foreigner can be passed on as property for all time. They will not be released in the seventh year like Hebrew slaves (Exod 21:2). The difference in cruelty is then directly outlined in a portion of Lev 25:46. “Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” This distinction in treatment of slaves, where cruelty is permissible on outsider slaves while strongly discouraged amongst the Hebrew slaves, highlights an inequality that seems relatively arbitrary. There stands no valid moral reason to administer harsh punishment to outsider slaves but rebuke said punishment against Hebrew slaves, unless one presupposes that Hebrews have more valuable lives than those of outsiders.
Deuteronomy 15 is an interesting portion of the slavery code. In what seems to be a direct contradiction to Leviticus, it is now permissible to buy Hebrew slaves. Deut 15:12 says “If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free.” In comparison to Lev 25:44 which plainly states that you may only purchase slaves from the neighboring groups of peoples inhabiting your land. In addition to that particular difference there enters another aspect of the slavery code. Once you release your Hebrew slave in the seventh year you must prepare him for his life outside of your home. He is to be “[furnished] out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deut 15:14). It highlights another issue of inequality in treatment. There is no expectation to prepare your non-Hebrew slaves for the remainder of their journeys. It is not even implied in any of the sections discussed. This section of the law also provides the same remedy that Exodus 21 provided in case a slave would like to remain. Deut 15:17 says “you shall take an awl and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall become your slave in perpetuity.” The law also provides an injunction towards the master to “not feel aggrieved” (Deut 15:18) for releasing the Hebrew slave in the seventh year. The Hebrew slave has provided “double the service of a hired man.” This provision is conspicuous in its absence when discussing non-Hebrew slaves.
These distinct differences in the level of concern for Hebrew slaves in contrast to the amount of concern required for non-Hebrew slaves serves to show that there is something of a superiority complex. It is perfectly acceptable to mistreat and abuse non-Hebrew slaves by virtue of the fact that they are not Hebrews at all. This level of disparity is telling. Hebrew slaves should be treated better, supplied with equipment and livestock upon their release, and should not be resented upon their release. The most amount of concern towards non-Hebrew slaves is manifested in releasing slaves for having beaten them so badly that they remain physically disabled. There is minimal concern for their safety, well-being, or basic dignity. This difference between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves is one of the fundamentally connecting themes of these three sections of Torah law.
For those of you who were not in class today, I want to tell you of an option I’m offering as extra credit to factor against quiz grades. I am assigning a 4-pg (no more) paper comparing the slavery laws of Exod 21, Lev 25 (which you will read for next week’s class) and Deut 15 (to read in a couple of weeks). I ask that you compare and contrast the laws and suggest an explanation for why each of the three law codes represented formulates the laws as they do.
So I present to you my theology paper. I may have missed the mark in terms of suggesting an explanation for the law codes. If you think so, you can let me know in the comments. Or you could just comment away about whatever you like. This is your blog too (in a way). Enjoy.
**Update: I got my grade for this assignment. I got a 94.**
Three sections of the Torah spend a significant amount of time discussing laws and edicts in regards to slavery. Many of these rules regarding slavery share similar sentiments although there are direct differences in tonality amongst the laws as well as their application to certain peoples among three specific sections of the law. In Exodus 21, the laws are very descriptive in regards to ownership and retention of slaves as well as viable reasons for the release of slaves. In Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15, we begin to see the how slavery affects relations with fellow Hebrews and with outsiders or foreigners living among the Hebrews themselves. More importantly there are distinct differences in how the three sets of laws regard the issue of cruelty toward slaves.
The slavery laws in Exodus 21 carry with them a strong tone of legality. These prescriptive laws are rather brief and can be seen as the sum of Moses’ experience with slavery. As such these prescriptions are rather direct and cover many potential situations that may arise in order to nullify any potential outlier cases where the law may originally have been either ambiguous or inapplicable. One particular situation lies in Exod 21:20-22 where the situation of a brutally beaten slave is invoked. If the slave is beaten so brutally that he or she dies, then a penalty must be enacted and the slave must be avenged. If the slave survives the beating, then no punishment is necessary. In Exod 21:26-27 a similar potential situation is discussed. If the master has disabled a slave by ruining his eyesight permanently or by knocking out a slave’s teeth, then the slave must be released. These particular laws regarding slavery can be seen from 2 different angles. In one sense, these laws are intended to protect slaves from extreme physical punishment. If the slave dies, then his master or owner must be punished. As to what this particular punishment should be is not specified in this chapter but it is clear that the death of the slave will be met with some punishment in return to the master, be it physical or financial. The same goes for permanently physically disabling a slave. The master loses said slave permanently in return as the slave must be freed. The master must now suffer a financial loss. On the other hand, these laws do not deny a master the right to beat his slaves. Exod 21:21 says directly, “But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.” And since he is the property of the other (the master), the slave is not protected from being beaten at all or indiscriminately. These particular laws do not prescribe against the beating of slaves at all on the grounds of cruelty. While there may be some protection from extreme cruelty, there is no protection from the kind of daily regimental cruelty that is associated with slavery.
In Leviticus 25 there begins a marked distinction between Hebrew slaves and outsiders as slaves as well how both should be treated. Lev 25:39 says, “If your kinsman under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you, do not subject him to the treatment of a slave.” This is the first mention of a difference in treatment of slaves. It is later indicated clearly that it is perfectly acceptable to be cruel to outsider slaves in Lev 25:43 when it is said “You shall not rule over him ruthlessly; you shall fear your God.” The “him” described in the passage is the Hebrew slave. The differences continue. In Lev 25:44-46 denotes that you may purchase slaves, but you can no longer purchase Hebrew slaves. If you will own slaves, they must be purchased from the children of the foreigners living among the Hebrews. It goes on to further state that these same slaves that are purchased from foreigner can be passed on as property for all time. They will not be released in the seventh year like Hebrew slaves (Exod 21:2). The difference in cruelty is then directly outlined in a portion of Lev 25:46. “Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” This distinction in treatment of slaves, where cruelty is permissible on outsider slaves while strongly discouraged amongst the Hebrew slaves, highlights an inequality that seems relatively arbitrary. There stands no valid moral reason to administer harsh punishment to outsider slaves but rebuke said punishment against Hebrew slaves, unless one presupposes that Hebrews have more valuable lives than those of outsiders.
Deuteronomy 15 is an interesting portion of the slavery code. In what seems to be a direct contradiction to Leviticus, it is now permissible to buy Hebrew slaves. Deut 15:12 says “If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free.” In comparison to Lev 25:44 which plainly states that you may only purchase slaves from the neighboring groups of peoples inhabiting your land. In addition to that particular difference there enters another aspect of the slavery code. Once you release your Hebrew slave in the seventh year you must prepare him for his life outside of your home. He is to be “[furnished] out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deut 15:14). It highlights another issue of inequality in treatment. There is no expectation to prepare your non-Hebrew slaves for the remainder of their journeys. It is not even implied in any of the sections discussed. This section of the law also provides the same remedy that Exodus 21 provided in case a slave would like to remain. Deut 15:17 says “you shall take an awl and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall become your slave in perpetuity.” The law also provides an injunction towards the master to “not feel aggrieved” (Deut 15:18) for releasing the Hebrew slave in the seventh year. The Hebrew slave has provided “double the service of a hired man.” This provision is conspicuous in its absence when discussing non-Hebrew slaves.
These distinct differences in the level of concern for Hebrew slaves in contrast to the amount of concern required for non-Hebrew slaves serves to show that there is something of a superiority complex. It is perfectly acceptable to mistreat and abuse non-Hebrew slaves by virtue of the fact that they are not Hebrews at all. This level of disparity is telling. Hebrew slaves should be treated better, supplied with equipment and livestock upon their release, and should not be resented upon their release. The most amount of concern towards non-Hebrew slaves is manifested in releasing slaves for having beaten them so badly that they remain physically disabled. There is minimal concern for their safety, well-being, or basic dignity. This difference between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves is one of the fundamentally connecting themes of these three sections of Torah law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)