Slavery in Early Christianity

by Jennifer A. Glancy

This is the first paperback edition of the enlighteningOxford University hardcover published in 2002. Glancy here situates early Christian slavery in its broadercultural setting, arguing that modern scholars haveconsistently underestimated the pervasive impact ofslavery on the institutional structures, ideologies, andpractices of the early churches - and upon the bodiesof the enslaved. Her careful attention to the bodilyexperience of subjection and violation that constitutedslavery makes this an indispensable book for anyoneinterested in slavery in early Christianity. Includes specialchapters on Jesus and Paul.

Genres: History, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Theology, Religion, Ancient History, Nonfiction

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Jennifer A. Glancy's research interests include the cultural history of early Christianity, corporeality and Christian anthropology, women’s history in antiquity, gender theory, and comparative slavery studies. She has received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities Enduring Questions grant program to develop an interdisciplinary Core course, “What does prayer do?” In all her courses, she encourages students to ask their own enduring questions. After completing an Honors degree in Philosophy and English Literature at Swarthmore College, Glancy joined the Jesuit Volunteer Corps (1982-1983) before undertaking doctoral studies in New Testament at Columbia University, which she completed under the direction of the late Rev. Raymond E. Brown, S.S.

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book, a wealth of information. Jennifer Glancy is at times hindered in her analysis by assuming too much purported differences between different authors of Scripture, and this gets in the way at times. She doesn't reason with any expectation that Scripture harmonizes. At the same time, she provides an amazing amount of detail on slavery in the New Testament era, not to mention the early centuries of the church. She is particularly strong in showing how much slavery plays a surprising role in the parables of Jesus.

[Hannah Odell]

I am learning so much about all the ways omission and erasure shape how Christians develop quite a convoluted relationship to the Bible. This book tells the truth on how the person of Jesus and his ministry operated in an enslavement society, from the reality of the slave’s life to the theological errors of our interpretations of slave/master relationships throughout the New Testament. In short, I gotta talk lol

[Bob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Missing emphasis on main cultural difference

(for the 2nd edition, but I include the 1st edition page numbers here; the main text is the same in both editions)

An interesting review of slavery in earlier “church” history (just because it claims to be church doesn’t mean it really is). I think her writing style could have more clarity; and her writing style is somewhat haughty, which may not be unusual for academic works. Glancy does have useful explanations of New Testament slavery verses (see below). Frequently, one gets the impression she is undermining or neutralizing the church as she goes through the centuries how the “church” handled slavery, but eventually she does point out it conflicts with the New Testament. I noticed several cases where she does not mention obvious conflicts with “church” history and the New Testament; “church” history is simply portrayed as “Christian” even though it would conflict with the New Testament. I consider the early church to be first and second century, but the book goes into the fifth century, as well (pages 105, 118, 133, etc; 2002, pages 71, 79, 90). This “expanded” edition has 18 new pages added on the ends (that’s some expansion!); political “correctness” nonsense is also propounded there (see below). As far as the main premise of the book – that slavery continued in the early centuries of church history, there’s a key distinction that she misses; more about it below. And, there are examples in the New Testament where churches did not live up to the demands of Jesus and the apostles; for example, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 that addressed Jewish converts imposing old law portions onto gentile converts. Immorality is reported in the Corinthian church, 1 Cor. 5:1. And, Jesus seems to challenge the slaveholding mentality by ordering foot washing – the work of slaves – to His followers; essentially saying be slaves to one another. Apostle Paul mentions not holding one as a slave anymore but as a brother (John 13:14-5; Philemon 16). A case can be made that “church” history did not conform.

And, Glancy seems to use the common assumption that if a figure or State claims to be Christian, then that means it really is Christian, or is conforming to the Bible – painting with a broad brush. Yet, many today would consider much of “church” history to be heretical or out of line with apostolic teaching. She mentions Chrysostom writing about church members who harbored runaway slaves for their own use, but she does not point out the obvious that in itself is dishonest, equivalent to theft or greed (were they trying to help the escapee, or just use the extra service for themself?): “John Chrysostom explicitly called on Christians to ensure that slaves remain with their legal owners … In his first homily on Philemon, he drew this conclusion: ‘.. Paul .. was unwilling to detain Onesimus … For if the servant is so excellent, he ought by all means to continue in that service’ … Chrysostom urged Christians to return slaves to their legal owners even when they might personally benefit from the services of the fugitive slave … Chrysostom stands firmly with the mainstream of the ancient church in enforcing the broader cultural insistence on the control of bodies ..” (pages 134-5; 2002, pages 90-1). But, Glancy does not mention the obvious, again – Paul encouraged the owner to free the slave Onesimus: “.. that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave – a beloved brother ..” (Philemon 15, 16) (NKJV). She does not mention here that abolition was not so much an issue, even with the enslaved, as it is today, either. Hezser notes that, “Paul recommends the fugitive slave’s release .. But the other view, that fugitive slaves should remain enslaved, is found in early Christianity as well .. Chrysostom urged fellow-Christians to make sure that slaves remained enslaved” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005 Oxford University Press, page 270; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.). Glancy also mentions without protest: “Christianity .. was eventually recognized as the official religion of the [Roman] Empire” (page 1; 2002, page 3). But, that is different from the Bible, which does not portray the church as an earthly kingdom or theocracy (“Christian empire”). The New Testament church did not have national laws or control of the government, and theology was not forced onto others by the State military. Believers could serve/lead government, but it was not a theocracy that imposed theology by the State power. Conversion was by persuasion (Acts 13:43, 46), and the apostle’s writings were to guide the church, policed by local elders in the churches (not civil law). Jesus did not establish an earthly kingdom: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20-1). “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight..’ ” (John 18:36).

Unfortunately, Glancy misses what I consider to be the chief distinction on this matter, so I give the book a failing grade. With some examples included (see below), she fails to emphasize that ancient slaves were likely not abolitionist, which is unthinkable today. Critics miss this point, as well, and likely don’t ask if the slaves were abolitionist – they simply take the modern abolition view of slavery and impose it onto the ancient, and fail to consider: what about ancient culture? There was no demand for abolition by their slaves. She agrees at the top of page 223 that, “No abolition movement existed in antiquity” (cf. 2002, page 150). That is a profound point that needs to be explored more. Certain Roman laws/figures can be found that were abolitionist, but in general the ancient cultures welcomed slavery, even among the enslaved! There appears to be no abolitionist movements then like American slavery had. This is a huge difference from the modern view of slavery. I consider this the chief example of where critics miss it – demanding abolition on a culture when it wasn’t welcome even by slaves; the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at slavery in the Bible and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. They basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick) We like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved (their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). She writes on page 118 (2002, pages 79-80): “.. a former slave who had become a bishop .. wrote a letter excoriating a local ruler for stealing and selling massive numbers of Christians into slavery … Patrick, bishop of Ireland in the early fifth century .. was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Ireland .. for six years before he made his escape. Years later, in a letter to a British king, Coroticus, he described himself … Patrick’s letter holds special interest as a rare document from a former slave commenting on the evils of slavery, but he did not condemn the institution of slavery itself.”

Glancy does point out that Roman slave revolts were not about abolition, but then she discounts the notion (page 206; cf. 2002, page 139 top half). However, that is the direction the Bible points to, as well, which she does not point out. The problem the slaves objected to was the misconduct of certain owners, not the existence of slavery (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus did not call for abolition). Mosaic law treats slavery as a vice law, and debt was frowned upon, but debt-slavery could be used to pay a debt. Notice Exodus 12:44, 51 gives a new Passover law for future slaves in Israel on the day of the Exodus from Egypt (cf. 20:10). The type of slavery Israel was under in Egypt is described as “cruel slavery” (Exo. 6:9) (NKJV), suggesting non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture. They were fleeing an abusive owner, not abolishing slavery. On their return to Israel/Judah after exile they brought their slaves with them, including slaves for the Temple (Ezra 2:1, 43, 65, 70; Lev. 22:11). Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Generally, American slaves were abolitionist. (see my 1-star review for “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?,” second edition 2023, by Joshua Bowen – and my 2-star review for the first edition 2020)

“During this period, virtually no one was calling for the abolition of slavery. In fact, when slaves became free and acquired means, they often bought other slaves for their own use. Rome had repressed three earlier massive slave revolts, ending in bloodbaths without freedom; the purpose of even these revolts was to provide a critical mass of resistance against the slaves’ oppressors, but not to abolish slavery in principle [1 Kings 12:4]. Even if someone wanted to abolish slavery in principle, such an issue would be addressed in a philosophic treatise, not in a letter giving advice to slaves” ( - NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, 2017, page 2142).

Interestingly, in the new Afterword she points out a distinction between American slavery and the Bible: “.. ancient slavery was not racialized in the way that American slavery would be ..” (page 236). There is scant reference to the differences between US and Bible slavery throughout the book. But, she would not even point out the chief cultural difference, again, that ancient slaves were generally not abolitionist, while American slaves were generally abolitionist. I consider the chief legal difference to be that certain US State slave laws allow brutality, while OT law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). She does not point that out, either.

Critics may point to Glancy’s work and say the church/Bible is false because it used slavery. Or, look at “church” history, it was always for slavery. But, Glancy is careful to point out: “.. commentators have noted the everydayness of the images Jesus uses in his parables: fishnets, leaven, weeds. As with these other metaphoric fields, the language of slavery in the parables participates in the everydayness of life in the first century … Because so many of Jesus’ sayings preserved in Luke and Matthew feature the figure of the slave, they create the impression that Jesus’ audience was as familiar with the world of slaveholding and enslavement as with the worlds of farming and fishing … Jesus relied on the figure of the slave in his discourse not because the trope of slavery was part of his philosophical or rhetorical inheritance, but because slaves were ubiquitous in the world in which he lived … Christian literature is not unique in its reliance on slavery as metaphor. For example, Stoic literature often figures the individual as a slave to passions and emotions ..” (pages 159, 191, 267-8; 2002, pages 107, 129, 172). “Jesus twice tells his followers that ‘the slave is not above the master’ [John 13:16; 15:20] … Jesus first says that slaves are not greater than their master after he has washed their feet and instructed them that they are to wash one anothers’ feet. Washing feet was one of the tasks consistently associated with slaves. This context thus enforces the sentiment known from Mark: the disciples are to be slaves to one another” (pages 157-8; 2002, page 106). “.. ‘whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant [diakonos], and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave [doulos] of all ..’ [Mark 10:43-4] Jesus’ interpretation of leadership as service and the leader as a slave is an innovation that shapes Christian tradition ..” (pages 156-7; 2002, pages 105-6).

And, “When great Babylon falls, writes John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation [18:11-13], all the rich merchants of the earth will mourn it. Their grief will emanate from their loss of trade .. from gold to linen .. from olive oil to sheep – to the bodies and souls of human beings. The list thus culminates with a reference to the human merchandise from which traders throughout the Roman Empire profited. By emphasizing that not only bodies but also souls were for sale, John implicitly condemned the practice of trading in human flesh. The slave trade disrupted human lives … Like other ancient sources, early Christian writings do not challenge the system of slavery itself. Nonetheless, like many other ancient sources, several New Testament texts recognize the evils of the slave trade … in 1 Corinthians 7:21, Paul encourages slaves to embrace opportunities for manumission” (pages 127, 142; 2002, pages 85-6, 96).

Does 1 Peter 2:18-25 endorse slavery? It reads in part, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh … one endures grief, suffering wrongfully … Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps .. who Himself bore our sins in His own body .. by whose stripes you were healed.” Glancy notes that, “.. 1 Peter does not identify servile subordination with the will of God nor of Christ. Rather, 1 Peter links the bodily violations to which slaves were subject with the bodily violations of Jesus in his passion and death. The author of 1 Peter invites slaves to contemplate the wounds of Jesus in order to give them strength to endure their own wounds … Moreover, since the author of 1 Peter enjoins the entire community to endure suffering in a Christlike manner [2:13-16; 3:9, 14, 16-18], enslaved Christians whose bodies absorb unwarranted abuse serve as a model for the entire Christian community to emulate … ‘Their conformity to the suffering Christ, therefore, is meant to be comfort and encouragement in suffering that they are powerless to avoid, not a legitimation of the oppression of slavery’ … No abolition movement existed in antiquity. Slaves did not have legitimate channels for working to redress wrongs against them. As we have seen, increasingly coercive oppression was the likely consequence of slave rebellions or other obvious affronts to slaveholding authority … The advice that 1 Peter delivers to enslaved Christians parallels the advice that 1 Peter delivers to the entire congregation. For slaveholders in any historical epoch to cite this text to foster the submission of their slaves is therefore egregious, since the author implies that the slaveholders’ treatment of their slaves is unjust and will ultimately be judged harshly by God … The argument of 1 Peter is distinctive. Slaves rather than slaveholders are assimilated to Christ. This identification is written on the bodies of slaves, whose bruises liken them to Jesus. The effect of the advice in the various epistles may be similar: slaves are to submit docilely to slaveholders. Nonetheless, .. 1 Peter offers grounds for condemning the system of slavery by inviting comparisons between the abuse of slaves and the passion of Jesus” (pages 221-3; 2002, pages 149-50).

She writes elsewhere, “To say that Jesus relies on the patterns of slaveholding in his parables does not mean Jesus therefore approves of those patterns of behavior. Nevertheless, he does not explicitly repudiate those behaviors … the gospel Jesus proclaims is incompatible with slaveholding values … in the hours before Jesus’ betrayal, he washed his disciples’ feet and instructed them that they must likewise serve one another [John 13:14-5] .. Foot washing was a chore assigned to one of the least regarded slaves in a household, a role often played by women. The Fourth Gospel thus depicts a Jesus who defied the hierarchical and gender norms of his day .. a challenge to the slaveholding ethos … By calling on his followers, whether they were slaves, freedpersons, impoverished freeborn persons, or even members of slaveholding families, to become slaves of all, Jesus emptied that ethos of its power … From the first century to the twenty-first, the church has failed to live up to the radical demands of the gospel. The demands of the gospel are still radical. Directed toward slaveholders in the first century, directed toward CEO’s in the twenty-first century, Jesus’ words dare listeners: Be slaves to one another. Become the slave of all … Jesus emptied of its force the mentality of slaveholding and thus the ethos of slavery” ( - Slavery as Moral Problem, 2011, pages 23-5; by Jennifer Glancy, Ph.D.).

As far as comparing to the 1st edition, the words are larger in this expanded edition, so the page numbers will not match even though the main content is the same. Page xi reads, “.. contains a new Afterword by Jennifer … The original body of Slavery in Early Christianity .. is reproduced here without changes.” It also has a 4-page Foreword added. Her new Afterword, which is 10 pages plus 4 footnote pages (18 pages is not much of an expansion!), is loaded with political “correctness” jargon – she propounds racial distinction there for the researchers; merit does not get emphasized, but rather what the researchers look like seems to be what matters. She writes, “An older colleague asked about my research. Like me, he was white … Like other feminist and womanist biblical scholars, I was also committed to rethinking Christian history ..” (pages 235-6); “As a white American Christian, however, I .. was tempered by some unease. Was a white scholar who had enjoyed a comfortable upbringing the ‘right’ person to write ..” (page 237); “I know that speaking openly about race – in our churches and in society – is an important way to begin” (page 244). This seems unnecessary and distractive from the subject for anti-race people like me – either you can do the job or you can’t; it doesn’t matter what nature made you look like, it’s what is inside that counts! There is to be unity in the church – Galatians 3:28. Glancy seems to be using skin color to segregate humans, but she doesn’t explain why skin color has to be used (or should). Why not use eye color or hair color to segregate humans? There are multiple ways to determine one’s race, and it doesn’t always involve color.

End of review.

[Laura Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Because slaves are not part of the typical modern person's everyday life, slavery becomes only a metaphor when reading the Bible, yet slavery was an all-too-real part of life for people in Biblical times. What I found most interesting reading this was how easy it is to glance over stories with slaves in them in the Biblical text without really stopping to think about the reality of the life of people in bondage. For example, in the story of the Prodigal Son there is a father and two sons, but there are also household slaves who have been denied the right to families of their own who the father calls upon to set the table for a party to celebrate his son's return. Being reminded of the gritty reality of slave life, their humanity, and the complex social and moral issues this involved is valuable.

[Steven Hart · Rating 1 out of 5]

Good research, horrendous analysis.

The book is well researched and details very well the condition of slaves in the Roman Empire and how early Christians interacted with the issue. However, it's intepretations of scripture and anylsis of the evidence ranges from the unlikely to the absurd.

The author is so dedicated to portraying slavery as brutal and inherently inhumane that she claims that the discussion of *a former Roman slave* on the subject of slavery belittles the brutality that such slaves experienced.

Unless you are seriously interested in analyzing different perspectives on this issue (as I am), I would recommend you pass.

[Dominic Venuso · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a brutal and challenging discussion of the harsh realities of slavery for people, with an emphasis on the embodied suffering, especially for women. It also draws attention to difficulties in the biblical text that are easy to miss and that need to be wrestled with. In the end, I think she undervalues the power of the King who took on a slave's body and died a slave's death to inaugurate redemption and who will accomplish perfect jubilee and the resurrection of every body. Ultimately, I disagree with her tentative proposal regarding 1 Thess 4.4, but found her argument worth hearing and thinking about. See Nordling's review for a response there.

[Nigel Ewan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A fascinating first couple of chapters describing and analyzing slavery in the Greco-Roman world. Certainly a reminder to stop and reconsider the importance—and real-world implications—of slavery metaphors in New Testament salvation language. Later in the book, the author proposes that present-day conservative Christians have misunderstood the Biblical sexual ethic, and that Bible-times believers would not have viewed sex-with-your-slave as violating the Christian view of chastity. Unconvincing, but interesting to think through.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful, but supplement with Hurtado's critiques in "Destroyer of the gods."

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really well-written and thought-provoking book on slavery in early Christianity. Jennifer Glancy weaves together a number of sources to help give the reader a picture of what slavery was like (in as far as we can tell) in the ancient Mediterranean. For those interested in New Testament studies, she engages with a number of texts, including 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, the parables in the synoptics, and the household codes in the epistles. She, along with more recent studies on Roman slavery, helps challenge the common belief that ancient slavery just wasn’t that bad. She includes lots of great evidence for her main thesis (slaves functioned as bodies for slaveholders, especially in their sexual availability). Although she often nudges that evidence into dubious, supplementary directions (e.g. her treatment of 1 Thes), I appreciate how this provokes further thought and research.

Where this book falls short in my opinion, however, is her consistent calling out of the NT as “reinscribing” the institution on slavery assumes a particularly modern and western critique that does not attend to how resistance to oppression actually functions. It seems that she (understandably) wants the texts to outright challenge the institution of slavery and incite rebellion, but I think this neglects the way that honor and shame works in different societies. I think her rhetoric of “reinscription” needs to be seriously reconsidered as itself a part of the problem - the power language of the powerful, rather than the subversive story-telling found among oppressed peoples and their pastors.

[Darel Tracy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly technical and scholarly book that was hard to get through more than a few pages at a time. She does a great job of referencing early sources to feed her thesis without too much interpretation of ‘what they must have been thinking’ like the loser who wrote ‘Jesus and John Wayne’.

Her central idea is that slaves in the Greaco-Roman world were viewed as bodies only - To be used as necessary in those functions needed. Those functions would include the obvious household and field labor but also the not so virtuous- both men and women for the use of both men and women. The most compelling thought I gleaned from the book was that Paul and Peter undoubtedly were familiar with these dynamics and yet included slaves within the body of the church. The authors question of whether a forced prostitute could receive communion was a good question. I think the answer is yes.

One of her references includes a Christian slaveholder, an archdeacon, who has a bronze ring placed around the neck of one of his slaves to humiliate and keep him from running away.

She is relatively convincing that the early church was not an advocate for abolition, that was later, much later, still not there in Islamic culture.

I do think she somewhat missed the point a bit regarding the conflating physical conditions with spiritual/internal. Clearly Jesus/Paul/Peter knew their condition and yet still taught to stay content etc.

Interesting, thoughtful, but definitely a slog.

Time for some fiction

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glancy does a good job painting the picture of slavery in the Greco-Roman world, bringing out that slaves were viewed as bodies, and emphasizing that these bodies were subject to violence and to sexual advances. She brings out how much the NT utilizes slaves and slavery beyond the book of Philemon.

Her adherence to modern conceits of NT authorship are, I suppose, to be expected but are irritating nonetheless. Her hypothesizing about early Christian approval of using slaves as proper sexual outlets is iconoclastic, like so much modernist biblical scholarship is. How did Christians treat their slaves? No doubt there was a range of treatment. But how were Christian slaves treated by non-Christian masters? Could they have maintained their sexual purity? These are tough questions that Glancy, to her credit, takes on directly (as best she can).

The upshot is that I benefited greatly from reading this expanded and updated edition. Originally published in 2002, this edition is from July of 2023.

[Karis · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting and helpful stuff on enslavement and corporeality, and the ontological consequences and tensions of how this was negotiated/not negotiated in the early church (and in ongoing church). felt like cultural presumptions around slavery, esp from a contemporary readership, going in could have been problematized more. i'm also not well-versed in biblical interpretation so i will ask my bib studies friends how they feel on that front.

[J O]

Glancy offers a clearly argued, eye-opening account of slavery in the Roman Empire and how that affected early Christianity. But this book seems to have had little impact on the attitudes and writings of theologians and clergy. That needs to change.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating eye opening read that unfortunately begins to repeat key themes and ideas as you progress through the latter half of the book.

[Ruth Jewell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the history of slavery and its connection with Christianity. A readable, in depth look at how slavery played a role in shaping Christianity. It is not a condemnation of the practice, rather, Glancy treats it for what it was, part of the culture of the time. Highly recommended.

[Amy Hughes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very thought provoking, especially the work on Biblical passages. Glancy insists that slavery had a much larger impact on early Christianity than most scholars consider. Some of her conclusions that she seems quite certain of are not as convincing to me as I would like them to be. This is still a service, however, since it promotes a fresh look at sources. Even with arguments from silence we have to be in the habit of making sure our assumptions do not go unquestioned.

Most of this work is located within NT studies so it is a bit early for me, but I am interested in the implications she brings up at the very end of this work on the more direct link between asceticism and slavery. It's helpful to reconsider the slavery the early Christian writers knew as they appropriated it on a rhetorical level that informed practice and piety.

This work served to dislodge some preconceptions I had about slavery and early Christianity and caused me to be more circumspect with regard to assuming a certain way slavery operated when the sources are at times far more opaque and contradictory than one would like.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Makes some ambitious claims at times (esp. about the composition of Paul's community at Corinth), but the analysis is deeply informed by the ancient context of slavery, and she does a superb job of introducing readers to the reality of ancient slavery and its pervasive impact on the New Testament (without judging the ethical implications of that impact). It continually produces persuasive readings alternative to the more standard readings of Biblical studies scholars. A fascinating read.

[Kevin Gardner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book helps modern readers understand the practice of slavery in Early Christianity. This book shows the prevalence of slaves and slaveholders among early Christians, in the Roman Empire and how scriptures regarding sexuality, being submissive to ones master had a tremendous, and not necessarily positive impact on early believers.

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book changes everything we've thought about the institution of slavery in the Greco-Roman empire. It was much more pervasive and insidious than we've imagined.