Ancient Slavery and Its New Testament Contexts

by Christy Cobb (Editor), Katherine A. Shaner (editor)

An essential resource for understanding slavery in the New Testament and early Christianity
 
Slavery permeated society in the ancient world. Slavery and its shadows pervade the New Testament and other early Christian texts. Yet enslavement remains an under-taught aspect of the context of the New Testament and early Christianity. Because of this, readers are left with numerous questions about ancient slavery. How did people become enslaved? What kinds of work did enslaved people do? Who enslaved people? How did ancient slavery compare with more contemporary enslavement eras? Did anyone in the ancient world criticize slavery? Was ancient slavery racialized? Did Christians have a different understanding of slavery than others? These are just some of the questions students ask in higher education and in Bible study classrooms alike.
 
This volume takes on these questions, introducing students to the textures, complexities, and material realities of ancient slavery. Ancient Slavery and Its New Testament Contexts draws on the expertise of scholars around the world with a focus on introductory information, accessibility, and readability. It does not attempt to dismiss or downplay the role of New Testament texts in the perpetuation of either ancient slavery or slavery in the North American context. Rather, the volume helps students and teachers alike wrestle with the ongoing historical, theological, and ethical legacies of slavery in their own faith formation and engagement with the biblical text.
 

Genres: History

288 pages, Hardcover

Published April 10, 2025

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fails to mention chief cultural difference, slanders the New Testament, and is drenched in political “correctness” nonsense

Eerdmans seems to have fallen off the cliff. This is a strange book, and poorly conceived. Unfortunately, the writers parade modern political issues from their liberal/Cultural Marxist side constantly. If you are looking for a strictly historical review of the slavery subject (as I was), you will be disappointed; the book title is misleading. The book seems to serve more of a political/social cult purpose, rather than true research of the ancient past that readers are likely looking for; it is loaded with nonsense interpretations, negative bias, slander against the New Testament, projections onto the text, misconceptions, anti-Americanism, and political “correctness” nonsense. You will find the neo-Marxist vocabulary that has infiltrated US culture being used to turn Americans against logic and America: colonialism, cisgender, inclusive, capitalism, systemic racism, transphobia, preferred gender expression (pages 207, 210, 220-2, 223, 121). CRT (Critical Race Theory) is recommended on pages 101-2. Page 219 reads: “The federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour, is a rate of pay substantially below the hourly wage required to sustain an individual … Given how highly Americans value work and the idea of a hard-working citizenry, we might expect a robust social outcry about this injustice … they are virtually nonexistent” – so it’s the government’s or a company’s responsibility to make sure you get enough money to live on, you are not responsible for that. This doesn’t seem to fit the book title.

The editors appear to claim to be Christians (one is a “pastor”), but then the book is written with a hostile, anti-Christian slant. Jesus and the apostles, and more, are indicted several times. For instances of the assault on the New Testament, on page 116 Jeremy Williams criticizes apostle Paul for calling a man his “child” in Philemon 10; claims to be equivalent to “a white teenager calling a seventy-year-old Black man ‘boy’ ..”. But, if you read the verse it sounds more like a term of endearment – Paul refers to himself as the man’s father (cf. 1 John 2:12). On page 193, Midori Hartman suggests Titus 2:9-10 contradicts Galatians 3:28 – she fails to notice Titus is referring to the legal status (a slave should have civil conduct with owner), while Galatians refers to spiritual status in Christ (no longer slave and owner); or a material/non-material status is being contrasted (cf. 1 Cor 7:22- “he who was free .. is a bondservant of Christ”). Christy Cobb on page 132 refers to 1 Thes 4:3, 4; the verses read: “that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles,” and suggests the wording “control his own body” refers to Paul is advising members of the church to use sex slaves (yes, really!) (cf. Glancy 2002, pages 60, 70; 2024, pages 86-7, 101); since the Greek term for “body” can mean utensil or object when referring to slaves (so, control your own sex slave in holiness and honor?). But the verse doesn’t seem to be referring to slaves one might own, but rather to the person of oneself. And, using sex slaves sounds more like a Gentile practice, which the verse advises against.

The book is somewhat of a dry read early on. And, the print is too small, and some chapters are ridiculously short. The terminology used to introduce chapter 15 sounds childish; it reads, “For a reliable moral quickie, human trafficking is an ideal topic. A moral quickie is a snap judgment … Human trafficking .. is a perfect topic for a moral quickie … a moral no-brainer” (page 209). Perhaps a high schoolish terminology; like, totally! I was expecting a strictly historical survey of ancient slavery with archaeology mixed in for this book, and it does that, but not strictly so – there is a lot of social cult ideology imposed onto the reader and text. Page 117 reads, “Often enslavement in the New Testament is ignored or viewed as radically different than more modern practices … however, astute readers can see damning similarities … damning for what the New Testament condoned.” But, that charge neglects to consider an enormous cultural difference that’s easy to miss (ancient slaves were not against slavery), yet I would expect experts to notice, and what was “condoned” looks more like projections onto the text by these corrupt scholars. Reading through the book you can eventually tell the minds that wrote this book have been poisoned. I found some useful parts, but overall this is a shameful book for what it does to the New Testament – around the middle of the book into the end it constantly projects modern political “correctness” nonsense onto the New Testament to attack it. It’s bad enough the book doesn’t even mention the main cultural difference, but it also constantly searches for modern “social justice” issues to impose and attack the New Testament with.

The writers keep pointing to abolition as if it should be in the New Testament: “.. other literature from the first century CE, in Jewish, Roman, and Greek contexts … No texts include outright condemnation of slavery. An astute reader must read against the grain of biblical texts for abolitionist ideas” (pages x, xi). “We, too, must wrestle with the reality that the Bible, although a liberative text, was not outright demanding the abolition of enslavement” (page 207). “.. New Testament does not categorically condemn the practice of slavery .. Ephesians counsels slaves to obey their masters, and masters not to threaten them (Eph 6:5-9) .. the imagery of slavery is used in Romans to describe a Christian’s relationship to God (Rom 16:6-20). The New Testament is ambivalent about slavery. When readers turn to the Bible looking for cues on how to respond to modern slavery, a search for one-to-one correspondence will not yield the strong antislavery stance they may hope and expect to find” (page 222; cf. 137).

But, that is a fine example of imposing the modern onto the ancient, and misunderstanding ancient culture. The Bible is not ambivalent, but rather it speaks against abusive slavery; the book fails to mention non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture – even by the slaves (!). The Bible was addressing a culture where slavery was welcomed by slaves. The Bible can’t be used to impose or justify slavery on a culture where slaves were abolitionist / did not want slavery itself (US). Pages 12, 13 correctly point out: “.. New World slavery is not a one-to-one match with ancient enslavement.” I consider this to be the chief example of where critics misunderstand this subject. We like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but, and here’s the little known secret, ancient slaves were likely not abolitionist, but had a general welcome of slavery (unthinkable today! ancient slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it, imposing their view onto us!). What was the view of abolition by the ancient slaves themselves? This is almost never considered on this subject. What about ancient culture? Pages 51, 190 mention, “In ancient Jewish literary sources, Jews feature as both slave owners and slaves … Slaves could also become wealthy and own slaves themselves … slaves who owned their own slaves, a common phenomenon in Roman society ..” (cf. pages 58-9, 95). Slaves own slaves? Doesn’t sound like ancient slaves were abolitionist. Pages 78-9 describe slaves wanting freedom in the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 1st/2nd century AD), a document written by a slave or former slave, but there is no mention of abolition. On page 146, Mary the mother of Jesus describes herself as the slave of God and rejoices; also see Simeon in the Temple, and apostle Paul (Luke 1:38, 48; 2:28-9; Rom 1:1) (- I’m sure they meant US slavery!) Our modern mind tends to read the Bible and thinks it’s talking about US slavery, so get rid of their slavery, too – we look at ancient slavery and treat it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. But, American slaves were abolitionist. It’s a complete reversal of custom/culture.

Criticizing the Bible for not promoting abolition is putting the target in the wrong place; their ancient slaves did not promote abolition, either! Abolition was not the issue back then. We 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) Certain Greek and Medieval laws/figures can be found that were abolitionist (and others, cf. pages 172-3, 181-2), but in general the ancient cultures welcomed slavery, even among the enslaved! Ancient slave revolts were not attempting to abolish slavery. Glancy notes in her book, “No abolition movement existed in antiquity” ( - Slavery in Early Christianity, 2002 Oxford University Press, page 150; by Jennifer Glancy, Ph.D.; second edition 2024, page 223) – see my 2-star review for the 2024 edition. She also writes, “.. 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 .. 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” (ibid., 2002, pages 79-80; 2024, page 118).

Shaner agrees on page 172, “.. it is true there was no widespread, organized, politically powerful movement toward abolition ..” Glancy further points out the ancient Roman slave revolts were not about abolition (2002, page 139 top half; 2024, page 206). That is the direction the Bible points to, as well. The problem ancients objected to was the misconduct of certain owners (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 from Egypt did not call for abolition). Exodus 12:44, 51 gives a Passover law for future slaves in Israel on the day of the Exodus from Egypt. The type of slavery Israel was under in Egypt is described as “harsh slavery” (Exo. 6:9), suggesting non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture. 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. Abolition seems to have been a more widespread issue starting with the later British and American times. Mosaic law treats slavery as a vice law, and debt was frowned upon, but debt-slavery could be used to pay a debt. On page 181 Chris De Wet notes, “.. we should understand that slavery was seen as a necessary institution alongside others like marriage and imperial government – slavery was therefore part of an imperfect yet necessary social ecosystem.” For the New Testament/church: “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). (also see my 1-star review for “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?,” second edition 2023, by Joshua Bowen)

Yet, there are clues in the New Testament that seem to nudge against slavery. Pages 194-5 correctly observe, “.. we have come in the modern, post-slavery context … [while] the earliest Jesus movement was not focused on the abolition of slavery .. it does contain the ideological seeds, such as Galatians 3:28, that would be used as scriptural support for later generations to abolish enslavement as a social institution in the modern world.” So, why did slavery continue throughout church history until the modern? It can be shown believers did not always live up to the teachings 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; as if be slaves to one another (John 13:14-5). Apostle Paul mentions not holding one as a slave anymore but as a brother (Philemon 16). A case can be made that “church” history did not conform. Hezser notes that John Chrysostom (c 400) directly contradicts apostle Paul; Chrysostom writes about church members who harbored runaway slaves for their own use, but 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?): “Paul recommends the fugitive slave’s release [Philemon 16] .. 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.). Page 96 (cf. 99) appears to refer to wealthy members of the church that may have gotten their wealth from slave trading: “Thus, students of the New Testament must reckon with slave trading as a possible source of the wealth that helped to build the early church” – but, it points to 1 Timothy 1:10 on the same page where enslaving is condemned (that verse likely refers to illegal slave trade where one is abducted into slavery, but even if it was a legal form of slavery used to build the church one must remember their culture where even the enslaved were not anti-slavery); abusing slaves is condemned, as well, in Ephesians 6:9.

On page 74, Katherine Shaner remarks about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (which reads from the Greek, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it”). She writes there: “Scholars have long debated the first few sentences (1 Cor 7:21) .. because the Greek phrase underlying ‘make the most of it’ .. is famously ambiguous … Is Paul saying, ‘Even if you can gain your freedom, rather, use your enslavement’ or ‘Even if you can gain your freedom, rather, take advantage of freedom’?” Yet, the Aramaic and Hebrew New Testament may help clarify – they seem to allow or encourage manumission. From the astonishing and recently found Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament (c. 15th century, but likely sourced earlier than the Greek): “Are you called to be a servant? Care not for it; but if you may be made free, rather do that” ( - Hebrew Letter to Corinth 1-2: Translated From Seven Hebrew Manuscripts, 2023 Sefer Press; co-translator/editor: Dr. Al Garza, Th.M., Ph.D. in Second Temple Jewish Literature; Associate Scholar in the Linguistic Context of the Bible, Israel Institute of Biblical Studies – Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel). The Aramaic New Testament reads (from various manuscripts, the earliest dating back to AD 390) at verse 21: “If you are called to being a servant; let it not trouble you. But if you can gain your freedom, choose to serve ..” In other words, if one is freed from slavery still you should serve God; verses 23-4 read “.. being a free man, is the Mashiyach’s [Messiah’s] servant … become not the servants of men … continue with Elohim, in whatever calling in life he was called” ( - The Apostolic Writings: A Translation from Aramaic to English .., 2024, page 427; by Andrew Roth). It appears Paul did allow or encourage manumission in this verse, as the Hebrew and Aramaic shows, perhaps tipping the scale for the direction of the undecided Greek translation. That would also debunk Midori Hartman’s contention about this verse on page 206 that there was no need for a slave to seek freedom since slavery would not continue much longer as the Return of Jesus was about to happen – one should just remain enslaved.

The book also blames the “white” man for slavery. Yvonne Zimmerman writes on page 219: “Although many, especially white, Americans may prefer to forget this fact, chattel slavery was the law of the land in the United States until just 150 years ago … Crucially, not just anyone needed to worry about becoming enslaved. Chattel slavery was practiced as a race-based institution that enslaved indigenous people as well as those of African descent. From the sixteenth to the early nineteenth century … in the transatlantic slave trade.” Actually, it seems Zimmerman prefers to forget the “white” man was not the only slave owner, and there were white slaves. If these corrupt writers are going to bring in Western slavery, why is it that only European/US slavery gets mentioned? They make it sound like that’s the only kind there was; only the “white” man owned slaves. But, that’s not being “inclusive.” Why won’t they include non-white owners of slaves in the West? Does that discriminate against owners that were not European? Shouldn’t non-white owners of slaves be included in Western slavery, too? Be inclusive! Snyder notes, “Captivity and its most exploited form – slavery – was indigenous to North America … This history of Southern Indians and their captives begins during the pre-Columbian era, when rival chiefs vying for power went to war and took prisoners, exploiting these conquered enemies to enhance the power of their own ruling lineages … Captives usually arrived in Native communities as prisoners of war or as chattel via trade … Deeply rooted in Native history, slavery was already present when the first Europeans and Africans arrived in the sixteenth century. During the colonial era, slaves in Indian communities included individuals of Native, European, and African descent … Native slaveholders brought the plantation economy and black slavery to the interior South … For at least several hundred years .. commodification of conquered enemies was nothing new in Native North America” ( - Slavery in Indian Country, 2010 Harvard University Press, pages 4-6, 8-9, 58; by Christina Snyder, Ph.D. in History, University of North Carolina).

Shortened review due to space limit.

[Sanjuro · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book equal parts helpful and frustrating.

The book is helpful in the way that it covers a lot of ground regarding slavery in the ancient Roman and Jewish worlds. It hits all the major sub-themes, and while it does so with little sophistication, it serves as a good introduction, and the bibliographies point the reader to the appropriate literature that expands on these themes. In a reader needs a well written introduction to the major issues, including both the embodied realities of slavery and the language of slavery, metaphorical and otherwise, this is an excellent place to start.

The thing that frustrated me was that some of the authors here engaged in the exercise of pendulum swinging. It has often been noted that New Testament translations often "soften" the language of slavery, translating terms for "slave" as "servant" when "slave" would be more appropriate to the context. This is a fair enough critique. However, although words like "doulos" can mean "slave," and should often be translated that way, it is not at all wise to swing the pendulum so far in the other direction that "doulos" is then always translated that way. Sometimes "servant," without the connotations of slavery, is the right translation, but some of the articles in this book forcefully import the connotations of slavery into NT passages where it probably does not belong. This is a reverse form of the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy - instead of importing ALL of the meanings of "doulos" into each occurrence of the term, many of the authors here limit the meaning of the term to "slave" and read those implications into texts in a way that imports foreign concepts into the context.

Some of the authors here also take the stance of the slave to such a degree that it becomes its own form of bias and leads to questionable readings. For example, F. Mira Green discusses the story in Acts 16, where Paul casts out a spirit of divination from a slave woman. Green argues that Paul "stole" this woman's "gift," painting Paul as a perpetrator and the woman as Paul's victim. A far more charitable reading, and a wholly reasonable one, paints the woman as a victim of her enslavers, not of Paul. Rather than "stealing" this woman's gift, it's just as likely that the spirit of divination was an oppressive one, and that Paul liberated her. Such a reading is not entertained despite the fact that it far better fits the aims and themes of Luke's two-fold work.

Overall, this is a helpful book, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the topic of slavery in the ancient world. It does, however, have some shortcomings. While it's true that NT translation and interpretation has often "softened" slave terminology in NT texts in such a way that it minimizes the slave experience, it's also unhelpful to enter into a bias in the opposite direction where one recontextualizes the meaning of stories or ideas in NT texts for the sole purpose of elevating the voices and experiences of enslaved people. The goal is not to "soften" or "harden" the language, the goal is to understand each passage appropriately within its context. I do not think some of the essays here always accomplish that task adequately.