Slavery and Translations

Now that I actually have the time to construct a sound argument about the passage in I Timothy that June from the Artist Thinker Blog has been waiting for, I’m actually glad that I decided to wait this long. Not only that, but I’m glad I forgot to respond to the passage to begin with. It was fortuitous indeed that this post should go into this passage in detail, as I think I’ll be touching upon the corners of other fallacious doctrines in fundamentalist Christianity which holds up their whole world-view. How? Well, let’s just say that the passage that June quoted is one of the most ambiguous, mis-leading, and vague passages in the New Testament, as far as linguistics, semiotics, and translations go. How could this be? The answer is rather simple if you have spent any time at all translating texts from the extant living languages in the world, and should be extrapolated into more and more difficulty when dealing with dead languages that still have written colloquialisms and idioms that are no longer understood, not to mention concepts and words that cannot be translated into English because the current English language simply does not have the precepts to understand these ideas. Of course, the same is true in reverse, but hardly serves our purpose for translating some sections of the ancient texts.

Let’s start off by reading 1 Timothy 1:8-11 in different versions, shall we? Let’s see if the words “slave trade” actually show up in the various passages. After all, this is a very specific occupation that actually had it’s own word within the Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and pidgin vernacular of the time, so if the original text utilized the Greek word for slavery, slave trade, and so forth, than the other translations should adhere to this as well. Especially since this is a list response enumerating specific incidents of morality, so the cry of “idiom” should be very far off. First, let’s take a look at the passage in the original language for those of you who may be using bastardized study aids that were manipulated to support one particular viewpoint, rather than trying to arrive at the truth:

8 oidamen de oti kaloV o nomoV ean tiV autw nomimwV crhtai,

9 eidwV touto, oti dikaiw nomoV ou keitai, anomoiV de kai anupotaktoiV, asebesi kai amartwloiV, anosioiV kai bebhloiV, patrolwaiV kai mhtrolwaiV, androfonoiV,

10 pornoiV, arsenokoitaiV, andrapodistaiV, yeustaiV, epiorkoiV, kai ei ti eteron th ugiainoush didaskalia antikeitai,

11 kata to euaggelion thV doxhV tou makariou Qeou, o episteuqhn egw.

Of course, the translation that June posted can be found here. This comes from the New International Version of the Bible. For some of the purists out there, let’s look at the King James translation. After all, the English language has had the word and the conception of slave and slavery for quite some time now, haven’t we?

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

For “menstealers”? Well, Old English has been known to be extremely vague, and “menstealers” might be construed as “slave traders”, along with a dozen other options. Okay, let’s find another translation that might be a little bit more specific. From the Amplified Bible:

8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose for which it was designed],

9 Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,

10 [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

11 As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

What a neat little translation, in both senses of the word at this juncture! We have gone from slave traders, to menstealers, to kidnappers! Wow, the enormity of it all! Well, let’s try out another translation:

8 We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching 11 of the good news that the glorious and wonderful God has given me.

Again, we have the term “kidnapper”. What is going on here? Why is it only in the NIV translation that we have the term “slave traders”? If we look at the original Greek version that I posted at the top of the article, we see that the term that is being translated is the Greek word “adrapodistai”, the stem of which is andrapodistes. In _Strong’s Concordance_ we see that this word is enumerated as 405, and the Concordance gives a meaning of:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer — one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Here we find that the term “slave dealer” has been defined as one working illegally with the slave trade, one who goes beyond the limits of propriety in the search for profits. In this passage, we again see that there is no out right condemnation of the practice of slavery, but rather an admonition to adhere to the Law in practicing the trade.

As I said in the beginning of this article, I stated that there were other issues with this passage of text that strikes at the core of linguistics and translation. The reason for this is that this passage is quoted most often, in addendum to a passage from I Corinthians, to be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as well. However, some scholars have stated that the term that has been translated as “homosexual” within the confines of this text is a made-up Greek word that Paul utilized to convey a clear and specific message pertaining to the sexual mores at the time. The term, “arsenokoitai”, meaning men + beds, had a very unusual implementation within the language, and has been translated as masturbators, perverts, effiminate, sexually immoral, sin against nature, sodomites, ad nauseum. How should this word tie into the surrounding passage? After all, Fundamentalists are constantly accusing others of taking Scripture out of context in order to justify their views of the Bible. Well, by looking at the surrounding analogies that the author made, we can see that this debate of homosexuality actually ties in with the current discussion of Slavery. Let’s take a look.

Within this passage the author used duets and triplets of sinfull behavior to describe for whom the Law was intended. First there is the lawless and disobedient, two related categories of sinful behavior. Then there is the ungodly and the sinners, also two related categories. After this, the author cites the unholy and profane, which I think most reasonable people would also conclude that a relationship between these activities exist. Then we have three types of murderers, those of fathers, those of mothers, and manslayers. Then we have the whoremongerers and the “arsenokoitai” and kidnappers. How do we go from these other groups to this last set of iterations? Well, the author has shown that he is linking together groups of similar sinful discourse, so it would be prudent to assume that he is still doing this with this next to last set in the passage, especially since the last set of behaviors, the liars and perjurers, concludes the analogy with yet another set of categories that are intrinsically linked. Let’s look at the terms in the original Greek.

The first of the terms is “pornoi”, which comes from the Greek stem word “pernemi”, which is the infinitive for “to sell”. Pornoi refers to an enslaved male prostitute. A more prudent interpretation of arsenokoitai is one who sleeps with an enslaved male prostitute, and the last term andrapodistes refers to one who illegally enslaves others. We see that the common theme running through this triplet is Slavery. More specifically, it is dealing with a form of illegall slavery that was common at the time that the author seems to be condemning.

Again, we have a comment from June:

In fact, the only reason why slavery has been abolished and seen in such terrible light is because of the Christian nations. If not for that, it would be continuing on today. There was no one else who condemned it. NONE.

Well, actually, if we look at history, we find out there was one group of people that actually condemned slavery within the limits of their historical perspective and mores: the Muslims. If you recall your history, while Europe was languishing within the Dark and Middle ages, an Enlightenment movement was sweeping the Muslim nations in the Middle East. In fact, most of the basis of our current mathematics and sciences are firmly established within the Muslim Enlightenment. They had indoor plumbing and gas lights while English and French farmers and peasantry had none. They had great mathematical minds that were translating the lost texts of Euripides, Demosethenes, Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers into Arabic, and then expanding on them. Also, they were formulating plans for the eventual abolishment of the institution of slavery. As we can see from the Quran:

“Three types of people will stand apart on the day of Resurrection as My enemies – and an enemy of Mine will be doomed; a man who vowed in My name then betrayed, a man who sold a free person as a slave and appropriated his price, and a man who employed a worker and had him do the assigned work then failed to pay him his wages.”

I could go on and on, but it is obvious from even a cursory inspection of the Quran that there is blanket condemnation of the practice of slavery, unlike the Jewish Torah or the Christian New Testament.

Artist Thinker | Slavery Condoned

If you have read the comments in the previous section detailing the debate between myself and the writer of the Artist Thinker Blog, you know that June had made some comments concerning that Christians were responsible for the abolition of Slavery, armed with Theology based in the Biblical Scriptures. My point of contention is that the verses that June had posted are taken out of context, and if looked at in the light of other Scriptures, can be seen to only address slavery in the light of Hebrews being enslaved to other Hebrews. They say nothing about the enslavement of other races. Also, within the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no repealing measure to the practice and establishment of slavery. Instead, what is called for is an egalitarian communion among the members of the Church within the confines of the Church. Slaves are still expected to serve their masters whole-heartedly and cheerfully.

Some of the first Scriptures that June quoted are taken from the Old Testament, directly from the Holiness Code. (Or the Law, as the Hewbrews knew it.) Rather than quoting the verses in full, I will link to them to the On-Line Bible, wherein the reader can read the verses in any translation that they prefer. First are the verses from Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and Leviticus 25:35-55. (I will get to the verse from I Timothy shortly.) As we can see, all these verses deal specifically with the practitioners of the Law in regards to slavery; i.e., they may sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay off debts or to make ends meet for themselves and their families. However, these verses do not pertain to the practice of taking slaves from other races, tribes, or nationalities. Indeed, we find that in Leviticus 25:44-46 that the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from other tribes, and that this practice of enslaving others extended to all the slaves progeny. To quote, for those too busy (or lazy) to look at the link:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This exemplifies in totality the outlines to Law in which slavery may be practiced. However, June also posted from Deuteronomy 15:12-18, which has nothing to do with Slavery, but rather Indentured Servitude. While in our day and age the difference between the two seems relatively minor, in those eras the difference was rather huge within the societies that such concepts operated.

Then, June asserts that slaves were not to be treated with ill-will. From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge. Indeed, June then goes on to quote from Ephesians 6:9. Let me post this so all those can see the clear and inherent contradiction that June does not seem to grasp:

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

From this verse we can see that there is no abrogation in the doctrine of Slavery. Rather, followers of Christ were expected to treat their slaves well. Nothing was stated about Slavery being an immoral, unethical institution.

Then, June posted two excerpts from the New Testament purportedly showing that slavery was sinful. These come from Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:26-29. However, these verses have nothing to do with slavery, but instead show the egalitarian spirit in which the Church was to operate in accepting new converts and the social communion that was to be shared. Indeed, if we look at Ephesians 6:5, we see that:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

as well as Colossians 3:22, which states:

“22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

Hence we see that there is no such construction of the abolition of slavery being inherent within the Bible as June asserts. At this point, I would have to agree with the essay by Charles Bradlaugh that, “I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognizing freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity.”

In conclusion, we see that the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery, the New Testament reiterates this support within the praxis of just rule over another, and nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that condemns the practice as immoral, unethical, barbaric, and wrong.