What do you think?
Rate this book
Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?
The God of the Old Testament commanded and endorsed many practices that we find morally reprehensible today. High on the list was the institution of slavery, which features prominently in several sections of the Hebrew Bible. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery, masters could beat their slaves, creditors could carry off children for failure to repay a debt, and foreigners could be kept for life, passed down as inherited property. How are we to make sense of all of this from our modern point of view?
Atheists and skeptics will often say that the God of the Old Testament was a moral monster for endorsing such atrocities. Christians will often respond that the slavery in the Hebrew Bible wasn't as bad as we think, and was more like having a job or owning a credit card. While both sides of this debate are sincere in their positions, neither are ultimately correct. Our conclusions must derive from a thorough understanding of both the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern contexts.
This book will:
• Provide a detailed overview of slavery laws and practices in the Old Testament and the ancient Near East.
• Examine the significant—and highly controversial—passages in the Hebrew Bible that deal with slavery, including laws about beating your slave, taking foreign chattel slaves, and what to do if a slave runs away from their master.
• Answer the most challenging questions about slavery in the Old Testament, including, "Could you beat your slave within an inch of their life and get away with it?"; "Were slaves just property that had no human rights?"; and "Did the Old Testament really endorse slavery?"
Atheists and skeptics will often say that the God of the Old Testament was a moral monster for endorsing such atrocities. Christians will often respond that the slavery in the Hebrew Bible wasn't as bad as we think, and was more like having a job or owning a credit card. While both sides of this debate are sincere in their positions, neither are ultimately correct. Our conclusions must derive from a thorough understanding of both the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern contexts.
This book will:
• Provide a detailed overview of slavery laws and practices in the Old Testament and the ancient Near East.
• Examine the significant—and highly controversial—passages in the Hebrew Bible that deal with slavery, including laws about beating your slave, taking foreign chattel slaves, and what to do if a slave runs away from their master.
• Answer the most challenging questions about slavery in the Old Testament, including, "Could you beat your slave within an inch of their life and get away with it?"; "Were slaves just property that had no human rights?"; and "Did the Old Testament really endorse slavery?"
240 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 14, 2020
47 people are currently reading
182 people want to read
About the author
Joshua Bowen
9 books55 followersDr. Joshua Aaron Bowen graduated from the Johns Hopkins University in 2017, with a Ph.D. in Assyriology. He wrote his dissertation on the lamentational liturgies of the city of Kiš, and specializes in the Sumerian language. Joshua was awarded the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (D.A.A.D.) and Fulbright scholarship during the 2014-2015 academic year, allowing him to spend the year in Tubingen, Germany, working with Dr. Konrad Volk on his dissertation project.
As well as his Ph.D., Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the Johns Hopkins University. Prior to entering academia, Joshua was a chaplain in the U.S. Airforce where he also gained an A.A. in Avionics.
As well as his Ph.D., Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the Johns Hopkins University. Prior to entering academia, Joshua was a chaplain in the U.S. Airforce where he also gained an A.A. in Avionics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 26, 2020
Good Citations, Needs Substantial Editing
Clearly frustrated by interactions on social media, Josh Bowen uses this short book to address the question of slavery in the Hebrew Bible. In general, the goal is good: Bowen surveys the scholarly consensus on the nature of slavery, tamping down the extremes of the minimizers (e.g. slavery is like the NFL draft) and maximizers (e.g. slaves were animals with zero rights).
Let’s start with the good: To the end of surveying the scholarly landscape, this is a decent volume with numerous citations from across the theological spectrum (liberal, conservative, evangelical, Jewish, etc). Bowen aptly argues that we can’t squint at the Hebrew Bible and find 21st century labor laws hiding behind the text. Slavery was real and it’s in the Bible. Inversely, slavery in the HB (and broader ANE) does not carry with it the full range of slavery as conceived in its most heinous forms. There were gradations and variations within the slave class between times and cultures. So, it does not do either side any good to do hermeneutic gymnastics to make the text better/worse than it is. The best example being the master who beats his slave to death vs survives a few days. Bowen is clearly reacting to the (false) “the Bible encourages masters to beat their slaves within an inch of their life” interpretation. Bowen also does well surveying the range of interpretive options for ambiguous passages. Of course, one is always left wanting more, but the goal of this book is narrowly scoped.
Now the bad: This was a tedious, frustrating book that reads like a first or second draft (there are even notes to self!) Bowen unnecessarily reminds us every five pages that he’s responding to noobs on social media. It’s almost condescending. My own pet peeve is setting up the interlocutor as “usually, I hear it as...” rather than giving a precise formulation of the objection. For someone as insistent as Bowen on citing the literature, it seems low hanging fruit to cite an actual example in these instances. The only attempt was a passing reference to Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?”. (Honestly, setting up Copan - the arch minimizer- as a foil for the objections would probably have been the best move here). This bothers me because usually, the responses on social media are bastardized versions of genuine, semi-respectable positions/arguments in the scholarly literature. By responding only to the social media versions, a less charitable reader might come away thinking Bowen is straw-manning. (Although, to be charitable myself, some of the objections are so bad they could only have originated from Twitter).
Several sections are repeated verbatim and the same points are made more than once in different sections. Thus, the editing leaves much to be desired. The conclusion of the book is quite rushed and opens up more issues than it can chew in the short space. I’m still not exactly clear on the “condone” vs “endorse” semantics at the end. It seemed rather unnecessary.
In sum, don’t let the 2 star review dissuade you too much - the content is helpful (a bit thin in sections) and the editing is rough around the edges. I will mostly use this volume as a bibliography mine.
Clearly frustrated by interactions on social media, Josh Bowen uses this short book to address the question of slavery in the Hebrew Bible. In general, the goal is good: Bowen surveys the scholarly consensus on the nature of slavery, tamping down the extremes of the minimizers (e.g. slavery is like the NFL draft) and maximizers (e.g. slaves were animals with zero rights).
Let’s start with the good: To the end of surveying the scholarly landscape, this is a decent volume with numerous citations from across the theological spectrum (liberal, conservative, evangelical, Jewish, etc). Bowen aptly argues that we can’t squint at the Hebrew Bible and find 21st century labor laws hiding behind the text. Slavery was real and it’s in the Bible. Inversely, slavery in the HB (and broader ANE) does not carry with it the full range of slavery as conceived in its most heinous forms. There were gradations and variations within the slave class between times and cultures. So, it does not do either side any good to do hermeneutic gymnastics to make the text better/worse than it is. The best example being the master who beats his slave to death vs survives a few days. Bowen is clearly reacting to the (false) “the Bible encourages masters to beat their slaves within an inch of their life” interpretation. Bowen also does well surveying the range of interpretive options for ambiguous passages. Of course, one is always left wanting more, but the goal of this book is narrowly scoped.
Now the bad: This was a tedious, frustrating book that reads like a first or second draft (there are even notes to self!) Bowen unnecessarily reminds us every five pages that he’s responding to noobs on social media. It’s almost condescending. My own pet peeve is setting up the interlocutor as “usually, I hear it as...” rather than giving a precise formulation of the objection. For someone as insistent as Bowen on citing the literature, it seems low hanging fruit to cite an actual example in these instances. The only attempt was a passing reference to Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?”. (Honestly, setting up Copan - the arch minimizer- as a foil for the objections would probably have been the best move here). This bothers me because usually, the responses on social media are bastardized versions of genuine, semi-respectable positions/arguments in the scholarly literature. By responding only to the social media versions, a less charitable reader might come away thinking Bowen is straw-manning. (Although, to be charitable myself, some of the objections are so bad they could only have originated from Twitter).
Several sections are repeated verbatim and the same points are made more than once in different sections. Thus, the editing leaves much to be desired. The conclusion of the book is quite rushed and opens up more issues than it can chew in the short space. I’m still not exactly clear on the “condone” vs “endorse” semantics at the end. It seemed rather unnecessary.
In sum, don’t let the 2 star review dissuade you too much - the content is helpful (a bit thin in sections) and the editing is rough around the edges. I will mostly use this volume as a bibliography mine.
October 14, 2024
More Misleading Atheist (etc.) Mythology
(-reviewing and debunking Did the OT Endorse Slavery?)
It’s worse than the 1st edition, as far as attacks on the Bible, even though he admits to much that would be contrary to atheistic (etc.) assertions. Bowen attempts to show the OT endorses slavery, but admits “The entire point of Leviticus 25 is to emphasize that making someone a slave (eved) and keeping them indefinitely is an undesirable situation; the Israelites were no longer allowed to treat their fellow Israelites in this manner” (pages 208-9). Doesn’t sound like an endorsement. On page 183, he agrees the Deut. 15 debt-slavery laws were “to aid in keeping poverty at a minimum – as much as possible – for the nation of Israel.” But, that would inhibit debt-slavery; unimpoverished people would not need to enter debt-slavery to pay a debt. Doesn’t sound like an endorsement of slavery, again. On page 205, Bowen describes the OT law as a situation of “if” the Israelites wanted slaves, which sounds more nebulous rather than an endorsement (2020, page 141). He maintains the OT endorses slavery because slavery exists there and has laws for the appropriate practice (pages 118, 344). But, we have sin tax laws/vice laws today that allow the merchandising of cigarettes and other smoking products, chewing tobacco, and an alcoholic industry – does that mean the State endorses it? (-notice the severe health warnings on the package labels required by regulation) Allowing is not the same as endorsing.
In chapter 6, Bowen compares US slavery to the Old Testament. I consider this to be the chief example of where critics miss it – the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at OT slavery and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the OT. 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) I consider the main legal difference to be that US slave law allows brutality (see Bowen page 296ff), while OT law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). And, the chief cultural difference is huge: 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 (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). The problem they 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 did not call for abolition). American slaves were abolitionist.
As with Joshua Bowen’s previous books, the interior printing format is weird. The letters are oversized, and the sentence lines are double spaced or near it. The book could easily be half the size it is with a corrected lettering and spacing; maybe one-third size. The cover design is much better than the 1st edition, even though the imagery is misleading on both – there is no indication that chains or shackles (etc) were used for OT slavery. Oddly, Joshua writes this entire separate book on OT slavery in 2020, and then later strongly hints at his lack of qualifications to speak on the subject. He later writes after the 2020 edition: “.. concerning slavery in the Old Testament .. I am simply a conduit to the actual biblical and ancient Near Eastern legal specialists ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2022, Vol. 2, page 405 – see my 1-star review). Why didn’t he mention that in his 2020 book? Or, even now in the 2023 edition?
He agrees the type of “beating” allowed under OT law is a discipline, as with an adolescent family member, not an abusive beating. The atheist (etc.) nation may be surprised to learn the OT text does not allow abusive beating; it seems to be commonly assumed that “beating” means abusive beating. Bowen does admit to a lot that would be contrary to atheistic (etc.) assertions. He writes: “.. slaves were expected to be physically punished .. While this [beaten into submission] might sound unnecessarily violent, it is the same discipline that we see expected for children [Proverbs 13:24; 23:13] … the text was not intended to give laws that promoted the merciless beating and abuse of a slave. Against this, the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing and murdering his slave … As we have discussed, this did not mean that, because they were property, the master had carte blanche to treat them in any manner that he liked” ( - Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2023, pages 128-9, 133, 210; cf. 2020, pages 27-30, 106, 111, 142).
On page 19, Joshua makes it sound like the Bible is in a worse position, writing that “.. in the Laws of Hammurabi .. LH 117 also requires a debt slave to be released. However, in contrast to the six years found in the Old Testament, LH 117 considers .. only three years of service” (also pages 107, 235, 264-5; cf. 2020, page 52). Yet, that’s not entirely accurate. Bowen fails to point out that Hammurabi §117 refers to a dependent (wife or child) of the debtor being released, while the OT appears to also include the debtor being released (Deut. 15:7, 8, 12; Lev. 25:39a), if he decided to put himself into the debt-slavery. And, if it was a slave Hammurabi is unlimited – LH §118 reads, “If he [the debtor] should give a male or female slave into debt service, the merchant may extend the term (beyond the three years), he may sell him ..” (pages 400-1). In addition, the debt itself was canceled every 7th year in the OT (Deut. 15:1, 2, 9), which would help prevent debt-slavery.
On page 438 Bowen states the month long delay in Deut. 21:13 for marrying a female war captive was “quite likely a subtle way of ensuring that she was not pregnant.” But, an early pregnancy could easily be hidden for a month; and she grieves parents, not a husband, suggesting she lives at home with her parents (a virgin). Numbers 31:17-18, 35 suggests sorting had already taken place, as warriors select from virgins (cf. Judg. 21:12, 14); Rabbinic writers mention waiting at least 3 months for pregnancy to show, and Bowen fails to mention a uniqueness with the month length. Oeste notes the OT text seems to inhibit the practice: “An Israelite warrior has to wait one month before marrying a female war captive … a cooling-down time for the warrior … Deuteronomy requires that the captive woman shave her head .., trim her nails, and change her clothes. These three rituals fit within widely practiced mourning customs of the day … the biblical text implicitly forbids the warrior’s joy in victory to muzzle or squelch the captive woman’s pain in grief. Her grief is not to be silenced or suppressed. The three rituals suggest intense grief and grant permission for these rituals to puncture the joy bubble of the victorious warrior .. to highlight the folly of pursuing external beauty alone … a woman’s hair, nails, and clothing are visual features (see how in the text the warrior ‘notice[s]’ her) that have attracted men for millennia … Contemplate the opposite: a bald woman with short-cut nails and plain, modest clothes … a subtle rebuke to the disproportionate emphasis that the male warrior has placed on outward beauty” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-3; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D.). Further, “The marriage is to take place after the captive woman has ‘mourned her father and mother for a full month’ (Deut 21:13) … the granting of a time for mourning, and a relatively long one at that .. within ancient-world grieving patterns. Where one week was the cultural norm for grieving family loss, the biblical legislation required four times that standard length of time … Ancient war captives were typically granted no mourning rights (zero). The biblical requirement of a mourning time for enemy captives stands alone as a monument – an unrivaled statement of compassion – within ancient warfare … a right for the captive ritually trumps the victorious joy of the captor” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-2).
Leviticus 25 says that Jewish slaves are to be treated as a hired servant and that the owner shall “not rule with rigor over him” (verses 53, 43, 46); on pages 214-5, 407-9 Bowen maintains it is about “violence” for the “rigor” (cf. 2020, pages 146-7). Does that mean owners were allowed to be abusive to foreign slaves, but not Jewish slaves? Notice, Leviticus 25 actually seems to tie “rigor” to the length of time for servanthood; it’s not about how they were physically treated. Or, it may refer to the physical discipline allowed for slaves, but not for hired workers. Verses 40, 45-6, 50, 53 emphasize who is to be permanent slaves: “he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee .. He shall return to the possession of his fathers .. You shall not rule over him with rigor … as for your male and female slaves whom you may have – from the nations that are around you .. they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor .. it shall be according to the time of a hired servant for him … He shall be with him as a yearly hired servant, and he shall not rule with rigor over him .. he shall be released in the Year of Jubilee ..”
Referring to Exo. 21:26-7, Bowen complains that a slave that is permanently damaged by the owner (a prohibited beating) doesn’t get to have the eye for eye retaliation (lex talionis/talionic retribution) on the owner on pages 239, 420. He previously ties Exodus with Hammurabi – “The principle of retaliation – that the slave would have the right to the eye of the master – is not in play here because of their differing status … Both the Laws of Hammurabi and the Hebrew Bible make it clear that only social equals have the right of ‘talionic retribution’ ” (2021, pages 288-9). But, Hammurabi (§§251-52) in an ox goring case does not have the eye for eye physical retribution even for a free person; only a varying financial penalty. And, what is meant by the eye for eye? Is it always meant to be taken literally? Is it better for a slave to have the eye for eye retaliation? It’s curious that Bowen does not emphasize in the OT law the slave becomes a free person as restitution for the damage. This is rather different from Hammurabi law – the slave’s “social status” does not change there. You would rather have the owner beaten and the slave remain a slave? Bowen complains that slaves are not treated the same as someone free, then he fails to emphasize the slave becomes someone free. He also quotes the Hammurabi law (§199) on page 484 that money is paid for the slave injury, and he agrees the restitution is given to the owner (money) and not to the slave; yet, in the OT the restitution is given to the slave – freedom. Baker notes, “.. two examples are mentioned (eye and tooth), one much more serious than the other, but it may be assumed that the intention is to cover other injuries to slaves as well. Possibly the word-pair defines the upper and lower limits for application of the law .. A master is expected to respect a slave’s humanity and dignity, and his right to discipline does not extend to maiming or mutilation … the ruling of the Book of the Covenant [Exodus] compares favourably with the Laws of Hammurabi, where a master is compensated for injury to his slave by a third party but nothing at all is said about compensation for the slave (§199). Here [in Exodus] the master himself is punished for abuse of his slave, because he forfeits a valuable piece of property, and the slave actually benefits much more than if the lex talionis were applied. Even for a relatively minor injury like loss of a tooth, a slave is entitled to freedom ..” ( - Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 2009, pages 128-9; by David L. Baker, Ph.D.). “Philo alludes to Exod. 21:26-7: masters .. are not to be punished on the basis of the lex talionis, since its application in this case would only increase the master’s resentment against the slave. He would take revenge and torment the slave throughout his life so that the slave might even commit suicide” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005 Oxford University Press, page 208; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.).
Bowen maintains eye for eye is to be read in a literal way (page 420), but he neglects to mention that the phrasing is applied elsewhere in the OT to other cases unrelated to slavery and is not applied literally. Copan notes, “What’s interesting is that in none of these cases is ‘an eye for an eye’ taken literally .. [except] when it came to murder [Num. 35:31]. Yet each example in these passages calls for (monetary) compensation, not bodily mutilation … The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime [don’t overpenalize] … the expression ‘an eye for an eye’ was a measure of justice, not something Israel took literally … There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament. Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a ‘ransom’ or a ‘substitute’ [Num. 35:31]. This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes … the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime … The law of Moses sets limits, but this does not mean that the stiffest penalty was always administered. Typically, financial payment (ransom) proved to be the resolution – not a literal eye-for-eye punishment … Saying ‘such a person should be put to death’ is a way of saying, ‘This is a really wicked thing to do; terrible consequences may follow’ ” ( - Is God a Moral Monster?, 2011, pages 94-6; by Paul Copan, Ph.D. with Is God A Vindictive Bully?, 2022, pages 85-6; by Paul Copan)
Bowen points to a woman’s hand being cut off as a penalty (Deut. 25:12) on pages 621, 625. But, this appears to be a translation issue: “.. the most likely translation for Deut. 25:12a is ‘you shall shave [the hair of] her groin’. This reading is philologically and lexically superior to the standard translations, and it resolves the anomaly of one and only one law in the entire Israelite corpus that imposes physical mutilation as a punishment ..” ( - Journal of Semitic Studies, Feb. 2004 Oxford, pages 47-58).
Bowen sounds like he is trying to go so far as to partly blame the OT period for American slavery and leading to the US Civil War some 3,000 years later on pages 268, 296, 312, 347 (one proposed Exodus date is 1450 BC), and he fears a modern reprisal of such slavery on page 21. He writes previously, “there is a significant amount of commonality in the apparent legal rationale used in deciding cases” (2021, page 384); and in this 2nd edition refers to “laws were set in place in an apparent attempt to curb the abuse of slaves … we would do well to remember that a very similar legal rationale in both periods [OT and US] resulted in the atrocities that we saw prior to the Civil War” (pages 311-2; cf. 2021, 303-4, 320). But, he doesn’t explain how curbing abuse leads to atrocities and war, and there are key distinctions from OT law. In addition, is curbing abuse really that unique? Why would curbing abuse be a uniqueness to compare with American slavery or the U.S. Civil War? Ancient Roman law also “curbed abuse;” does that mean ancient Rome is partly to blame for American slavery or the US Civil War some 1,700 years later? Bowen seems to be reading into it something that isn’t there. Hezser notes that, “Roman law constantly vacillated between preserving the master’s authority and trying to curtail his cruelty towards slaves. A law of the first century CE stipulated that slaves were not supposed to be handed over to fight against wild beasts. According to an edict of the emperor Claudius, a master who killed his sick or weak slave was ‘liable to the charge of murder’ … Hadrian threatened with capital punishment anyone who castrated a slave … Antonius Pius is said to have gone further than his predecessors in his attempt to restrict undue cruelty toward slaves. He ruled that ‘whoever kills his slave without cause is to be punished no less than one who kills the slave of another’ ..” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005, page 206; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.). In addition, various ancient nations had laws that “curbed abuse,” as well. Does that mean the ancient Near East can be partly blamed for American slavery and the US Civil War millennia later? Why is only the Bible singled out and slandered? “Within the various legal collections and royal edicts of the ancient Near East there are several laws and decrees that deal with the treatment and manumission of debt-slaves as well as various aspects of the institution of lending that was often responsible for debt-slavery … LH [Law of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC] contains various legal precedents that attempted to curb some of the abuses prevalent in Babylon, including LH §§114-116, 117-119 … Similar laws can also be found in the Akkadian legal collection LE [Laws of Eshnunna] from Eshnunna (ca. 1790 BCE) and in MAL [Middle Assyrian Laws] (ca. 1450-1250 BCE) … there are various laws in LH that afforded certain rights to chattel-slaves (e.g., §§170-171) and prevented excessive penalties from being imposed upon them by their masters (i.e., §282)” ( - Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1993, pages 55, 57, 145; by Gregory Chirichigno, Ph.D.)
For NT, on pages 273-5 Bowen does not even quote verses 15, 16 of Philemon for you to see, which reads in part “.. that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave – a beloved brother ..” (NKJV). In 1 Cor. 7:21, slaves are encouraged to seek manumission. Nor does Joshua mention the risk involved to slaves and the church if Rome suspects an uprising. “During this period, virtually no one was calling for the abolition of slavery .. 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 .. resistance against the slaves’ oppressors, but not to abolish slavery in principle [1 Kg 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).
Shortened review due to space limit.
(-reviewing and debunking Did the OT Endorse Slavery?)
It’s worse than the 1st edition, as far as attacks on the Bible, even though he admits to much that would be contrary to atheistic (etc.) assertions. Bowen attempts to show the OT endorses slavery, but admits “The entire point of Leviticus 25 is to emphasize that making someone a slave (eved) and keeping them indefinitely is an undesirable situation; the Israelites were no longer allowed to treat their fellow Israelites in this manner” (pages 208-9). Doesn’t sound like an endorsement. On page 183, he agrees the Deut. 15 debt-slavery laws were “to aid in keeping poverty at a minimum – as much as possible – for the nation of Israel.” But, that would inhibit debt-slavery; unimpoverished people would not need to enter debt-slavery to pay a debt. Doesn’t sound like an endorsement of slavery, again. On page 205, Bowen describes the OT law as a situation of “if” the Israelites wanted slaves, which sounds more nebulous rather than an endorsement (2020, page 141). He maintains the OT endorses slavery because slavery exists there and has laws for the appropriate practice (pages 118, 344). But, we have sin tax laws/vice laws today that allow the merchandising of cigarettes and other smoking products, chewing tobacco, and an alcoholic industry – does that mean the State endorses it? (-notice the severe health warnings on the package labels required by regulation) Allowing is not the same as endorsing.
In chapter 6, Bowen compares US slavery to the Old Testament. I consider this to be the chief example of where critics miss it – the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at OT slavery and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the OT. 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) I consider the main legal difference to be that US slave law allows brutality (see Bowen page 296ff), while OT law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). And, the chief cultural difference is huge: 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 (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). The problem they 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 did not call for abolition). American slaves were abolitionist.
As with Joshua Bowen’s previous books, the interior printing format is weird. The letters are oversized, and the sentence lines are double spaced or near it. The book could easily be half the size it is with a corrected lettering and spacing; maybe one-third size. The cover design is much better than the 1st edition, even though the imagery is misleading on both – there is no indication that chains or shackles (etc) were used for OT slavery. Oddly, Joshua writes this entire separate book on OT slavery in 2020, and then later strongly hints at his lack of qualifications to speak on the subject. He later writes after the 2020 edition: “.. concerning slavery in the Old Testament .. I am simply a conduit to the actual biblical and ancient Near Eastern legal specialists ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2022, Vol. 2, page 405 – see my 1-star review). Why didn’t he mention that in his 2020 book? Or, even now in the 2023 edition?
He agrees the type of “beating” allowed under OT law is a discipline, as with an adolescent family member, not an abusive beating. The atheist (etc.) nation may be surprised to learn the OT text does not allow abusive beating; it seems to be commonly assumed that “beating” means abusive beating. Bowen does admit to a lot that would be contrary to atheistic (etc.) assertions. He writes: “.. slaves were expected to be physically punished .. While this [beaten into submission] might sound unnecessarily violent, it is the same discipline that we see expected for children [Proverbs 13:24; 23:13] … the text was not intended to give laws that promoted the merciless beating and abuse of a slave. Against this, the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing and murdering his slave … As we have discussed, this did not mean that, because they were property, the master had carte blanche to treat them in any manner that he liked” ( - Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2023, pages 128-9, 133, 210; cf. 2020, pages 27-30, 106, 111, 142).
On page 19, Joshua makes it sound like the Bible is in a worse position, writing that “.. in the Laws of Hammurabi .. LH 117 also requires a debt slave to be released. However, in contrast to the six years found in the Old Testament, LH 117 considers .. only three years of service” (also pages 107, 235, 264-5; cf. 2020, page 52). Yet, that’s not entirely accurate. Bowen fails to point out that Hammurabi §117 refers to a dependent (wife or child) of the debtor being released, while the OT appears to also include the debtor being released (Deut. 15:7, 8, 12; Lev. 25:39a), if he decided to put himself into the debt-slavery. And, if it was a slave Hammurabi is unlimited – LH §118 reads, “If he [the debtor] should give a male or female slave into debt service, the merchant may extend the term (beyond the three years), he may sell him ..” (pages 400-1). In addition, the debt itself was canceled every 7th year in the OT (Deut. 15:1, 2, 9), which would help prevent debt-slavery.
On page 438 Bowen states the month long delay in Deut. 21:13 for marrying a female war captive was “quite likely a subtle way of ensuring that she was not pregnant.” But, an early pregnancy could easily be hidden for a month; and she grieves parents, not a husband, suggesting she lives at home with her parents (a virgin). Numbers 31:17-18, 35 suggests sorting had already taken place, as warriors select from virgins (cf. Judg. 21:12, 14); Rabbinic writers mention waiting at least 3 months for pregnancy to show, and Bowen fails to mention a uniqueness with the month length. Oeste notes the OT text seems to inhibit the practice: “An Israelite warrior has to wait one month before marrying a female war captive … a cooling-down time for the warrior … Deuteronomy requires that the captive woman shave her head .., trim her nails, and change her clothes. These three rituals fit within widely practiced mourning customs of the day … the biblical text implicitly forbids the warrior’s joy in victory to muzzle or squelch the captive woman’s pain in grief. Her grief is not to be silenced or suppressed. The three rituals suggest intense grief and grant permission for these rituals to puncture the joy bubble of the victorious warrior .. to highlight the folly of pursuing external beauty alone … a woman’s hair, nails, and clothing are visual features (see how in the text the warrior ‘notice[s]’ her) that have attracted men for millennia … Contemplate the opposite: a bald woman with short-cut nails and plain, modest clothes … a subtle rebuke to the disproportionate emphasis that the male warrior has placed on outward beauty” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-3; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D.). Further, “The marriage is to take place after the captive woman has ‘mourned her father and mother for a full month’ (Deut 21:13) … the granting of a time for mourning, and a relatively long one at that .. within ancient-world grieving patterns. Where one week was the cultural norm for grieving family loss, the biblical legislation required four times that standard length of time … Ancient war captives were typically granted no mourning rights (zero). The biblical requirement of a mourning time for enemy captives stands alone as a monument – an unrivaled statement of compassion – within ancient warfare … a right for the captive ritually trumps the victorious joy of the captor” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-2).
Leviticus 25 says that Jewish slaves are to be treated as a hired servant and that the owner shall “not rule with rigor over him” (verses 53, 43, 46); on pages 214-5, 407-9 Bowen maintains it is about “violence” for the “rigor” (cf. 2020, pages 146-7). Does that mean owners were allowed to be abusive to foreign slaves, but not Jewish slaves? Notice, Leviticus 25 actually seems to tie “rigor” to the length of time for servanthood; it’s not about how they were physically treated. Or, it may refer to the physical discipline allowed for slaves, but not for hired workers. Verses 40, 45-6, 50, 53 emphasize who is to be permanent slaves: “he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee .. He shall return to the possession of his fathers .. You shall not rule over him with rigor … as for your male and female slaves whom you may have – from the nations that are around you .. they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor .. it shall be according to the time of a hired servant for him … He shall be with him as a yearly hired servant, and he shall not rule with rigor over him .. he shall be released in the Year of Jubilee ..”
Referring to Exo. 21:26-7, Bowen complains that a slave that is permanently damaged by the owner (a prohibited beating) doesn’t get to have the eye for eye retaliation (lex talionis/talionic retribution) on the owner on pages 239, 420. He previously ties Exodus with Hammurabi – “The principle of retaliation – that the slave would have the right to the eye of the master – is not in play here because of their differing status … Both the Laws of Hammurabi and the Hebrew Bible make it clear that only social equals have the right of ‘talionic retribution’ ” (2021, pages 288-9). But, Hammurabi (§§251-52) in an ox goring case does not have the eye for eye physical retribution even for a free person; only a varying financial penalty. And, what is meant by the eye for eye? Is it always meant to be taken literally? Is it better for a slave to have the eye for eye retaliation? It’s curious that Bowen does not emphasize in the OT law the slave becomes a free person as restitution for the damage. This is rather different from Hammurabi law – the slave’s “social status” does not change there. You would rather have the owner beaten and the slave remain a slave? Bowen complains that slaves are not treated the same as someone free, then he fails to emphasize the slave becomes someone free. He also quotes the Hammurabi law (§199) on page 484 that money is paid for the slave injury, and he agrees the restitution is given to the owner (money) and not to the slave; yet, in the OT the restitution is given to the slave – freedom. Baker notes, “.. two examples are mentioned (eye and tooth), one much more serious than the other, but it may be assumed that the intention is to cover other injuries to slaves as well. Possibly the word-pair defines the upper and lower limits for application of the law .. A master is expected to respect a slave’s humanity and dignity, and his right to discipline does not extend to maiming or mutilation … the ruling of the Book of the Covenant [Exodus] compares favourably with the Laws of Hammurabi, where a master is compensated for injury to his slave by a third party but nothing at all is said about compensation for the slave (§199). Here [in Exodus] the master himself is punished for abuse of his slave, because he forfeits a valuable piece of property, and the slave actually benefits much more than if the lex talionis were applied. Even for a relatively minor injury like loss of a tooth, a slave is entitled to freedom ..” ( - Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 2009, pages 128-9; by David L. Baker, Ph.D.). “Philo alludes to Exod. 21:26-7: masters .. are not to be punished on the basis of the lex talionis, since its application in this case would only increase the master’s resentment against the slave. He would take revenge and torment the slave throughout his life so that the slave might even commit suicide” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005 Oxford University Press, page 208; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.).
Bowen maintains eye for eye is to be read in a literal way (page 420), but he neglects to mention that the phrasing is applied elsewhere in the OT to other cases unrelated to slavery and is not applied literally. Copan notes, “What’s interesting is that in none of these cases is ‘an eye for an eye’ taken literally .. [except] when it came to murder [Num. 35:31]. Yet each example in these passages calls for (monetary) compensation, not bodily mutilation … The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime [don’t overpenalize] … the expression ‘an eye for an eye’ was a measure of justice, not something Israel took literally … There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament. Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a ‘ransom’ or a ‘substitute’ [Num. 35:31]. This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes … the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime … The law of Moses sets limits, but this does not mean that the stiffest penalty was always administered. Typically, financial payment (ransom) proved to be the resolution – not a literal eye-for-eye punishment … Saying ‘such a person should be put to death’ is a way of saying, ‘This is a really wicked thing to do; terrible consequences may follow’ ” ( - Is God a Moral Monster?, 2011, pages 94-6; by Paul Copan, Ph.D. with Is God A Vindictive Bully?, 2022, pages 85-6; by Paul Copan)
Bowen points to a woman’s hand being cut off as a penalty (Deut. 25:12) on pages 621, 625. But, this appears to be a translation issue: “.. the most likely translation for Deut. 25:12a is ‘you shall shave [the hair of] her groin’. This reading is philologically and lexically superior to the standard translations, and it resolves the anomaly of one and only one law in the entire Israelite corpus that imposes physical mutilation as a punishment ..” ( - Journal of Semitic Studies, Feb. 2004 Oxford, pages 47-58).
Bowen sounds like he is trying to go so far as to partly blame the OT period for American slavery and leading to the US Civil War some 3,000 years later on pages 268, 296, 312, 347 (one proposed Exodus date is 1450 BC), and he fears a modern reprisal of such slavery on page 21. He writes previously, “there is a significant amount of commonality in the apparent legal rationale used in deciding cases” (2021, page 384); and in this 2nd edition refers to “laws were set in place in an apparent attempt to curb the abuse of slaves … we would do well to remember that a very similar legal rationale in both periods [OT and US] resulted in the atrocities that we saw prior to the Civil War” (pages 311-2; cf. 2021, 303-4, 320). But, he doesn’t explain how curbing abuse leads to atrocities and war, and there are key distinctions from OT law. In addition, is curbing abuse really that unique? Why would curbing abuse be a uniqueness to compare with American slavery or the U.S. Civil War? Ancient Roman law also “curbed abuse;” does that mean ancient Rome is partly to blame for American slavery or the US Civil War some 1,700 years later? Bowen seems to be reading into it something that isn’t there. Hezser notes that, “Roman law constantly vacillated between preserving the master’s authority and trying to curtail his cruelty towards slaves. A law of the first century CE stipulated that slaves were not supposed to be handed over to fight against wild beasts. According to an edict of the emperor Claudius, a master who killed his sick or weak slave was ‘liable to the charge of murder’ … Hadrian threatened with capital punishment anyone who castrated a slave … Antonius Pius is said to have gone further than his predecessors in his attempt to restrict undue cruelty toward slaves. He ruled that ‘whoever kills his slave without cause is to be punished no less than one who kills the slave of another’ ..” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005, page 206; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.). In addition, various ancient nations had laws that “curbed abuse,” as well. Does that mean the ancient Near East can be partly blamed for American slavery and the US Civil War millennia later? Why is only the Bible singled out and slandered? “Within the various legal collections and royal edicts of the ancient Near East there are several laws and decrees that deal with the treatment and manumission of debt-slaves as well as various aspects of the institution of lending that was often responsible for debt-slavery … LH [Law of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC] contains various legal precedents that attempted to curb some of the abuses prevalent in Babylon, including LH §§114-116, 117-119 … Similar laws can also be found in the Akkadian legal collection LE [Laws of Eshnunna] from Eshnunna (ca. 1790 BCE) and in MAL [Middle Assyrian Laws] (ca. 1450-1250 BCE) … there are various laws in LH that afforded certain rights to chattel-slaves (e.g., §§170-171) and prevented excessive penalties from being imposed upon them by their masters (i.e., §282)” ( - Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1993, pages 55, 57, 145; by Gregory Chirichigno, Ph.D.)
For NT, on pages 273-5 Bowen does not even quote verses 15, 16 of Philemon for you to see, which reads in part “.. that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave – a beloved brother ..” (NKJV). In 1 Cor. 7:21, slaves are encouraged to seek manumission. Nor does Joshua mention the risk involved to slaves and the church if Rome suspects an uprising. “During this period, virtually no one was calling for the abolition of slavery .. 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 .. resistance against the slaves’ oppressors, but not to abolish slavery in principle [1 Kg 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).
Shortened review due to space limit.
February 2, 2023
Inconsistent and a weird format
Eh. It’s decent. I was expecting a much better presentation from a scholar. Sometimes the writing style has a generic tone. I had high hopes for this book, but after reading it, the overall impression is that of void spots (seems to be a lot unexplored; see Oeste example) and inconsistencies.
For example, Bowen at first makes it sound as if the OT slavery is not an improvement compared to other nations in the ANE (pages ii, 52, 90, 174) – “.. there is a gross misunderstanding .. there are ideas floating about concerning what other ancient Near Eastern cultures were like, and how the Old Testament greatly improved upon practices such as slavery” (page ii). He gives examples of that misunderstanding, but he also presents examples of where the OT slavery is an improvement compared to the other nations: ANE culture has execution, cutting off ears and gouging eyes for runaway slaves, while the OT prohibits such permanent damage (pages 29, 30, 56-7; Exodus 21:12, 26-7) (Here, Bowen also explains on those pages that slaves could be disciplined under the OT, as with an adolescent family member, but not an abusive beating). Escaped slaves from other nations were freed in Israel under OT law and not extradited, while other nations had treaties for extradition (pages 180-3, 185; Deut. 23:15-6). Page 175 reads, “.. the Hebrew Bible does likely provide some developments in the humane treatment of slaves ..” Bowen missed an interesting note on the forced marriage with female war captives (page 30) – he neglects to mention a time improvement with the OT. From Oeste: “The marriage is to take place after the captive woman has ‘mourned her father and mother for a full month’ (Deut 21:13) … the granting of a time for mourning, and a relatively long one at that .. within ancient-world grieving patterns. Where one week was the cultural norm for grieving family loss, the biblical legislation required four times that standard length of time … Ancient war captives were typically granted no mourning rights (zero). The biblical requirement of a mourning time for enemy captives stands alone as a monument – an unrivaled statement of compassion – within ancient warfare.” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-1; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Old Testament, Tyndale Seminary, Toronto)
Bowen even admits the OT laws favor the slave over the master: “.. the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing his slave … the laws of release built into the legal system were in support of the enslaved” (pages 111, 141). From pages 51, 174: “Although slaves were often considered chattel .. this does not mean that they were merely subject to the whims of their master, to be treated in any way that the master saw fit … As we saw in the Hebrew Bible, slaves had certain rights, and there were limitations on how they could be treated … the slave had the right to be free from excessive beatings and outright abuse, and could not be killed with premeditation by the master.”
Even the title of the book is a little misleading. It’s not just one answer. Did the OT endorse slavery? Yes, page 187, etc. Or, no – “The prophet Amos, for example, considered the mass sale of entire populations into slavery – ostensibly for strictly monetary gain – to be abhorrent and deserving of divine retribution (Amos 1:6; 9). This, of course, does not indicate that God was against slavery, but the mass misuse of people groups” (page 193). And that was in a mere footnote that Bowen admits the OT was against a large scale slavery. Bowen questions the title himself: “It seems to me that the question before us should not be, ‘Does the Old Testament endorse slavery?’, but rather, ‘How should we understand the biblical texts and the god of the Hebrew Bible in light of his endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament?’ ” (pages 192-3).
Bowen maintains that the existence of slavery laws in the OT means the OT endorses slavery (pages 187, 191) – a law system that favors the slave over the master as he admits above, even pointing to another law: “In some ways, to debate the endorsement of slavery in the Hebrew Bible would be akin to asking, ‘Does the Old Testament endorse killing people?’ Of course it does. However, there are restrictions and provisions in the law … The laws gave their proverbial stamp of approval on killing in these particular circumstances” (page 192). But, perhaps it is more similar to Sin Tax laws. Does the existence of laws that allow or regulate the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other smoking products, chewing tobacco, or an alcoholic industry, mean that the State endorses it? Then, Bowen describes the OT law as a situation of “if” the Israelites wanted slaves, which sounds more nebulous rather than an endorsement, as with Sin Tax laws: “The text says, essentially, that they [Israelites] cannot treat their own people in this way; if they wanted slaves, they could only get them from the people who were not their brethren” (page 141).
A key void spot is on page 193. Bowen declares, “One can be a Christian, for example, in spite of the endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament.” But, he does not explain how. That’s a controversial statement. A little more information, please. A “few” atheists (etc) might consider that a contradiction and may want you to expound.
Also, the printing format can be annoying. Considering that the letters are too large and the sentence lines are double spaced or near it, this book could easily be half the size it is (maybe a third). Some pages may take 3 seconds or less to read.
Would I recommend the book? Eh. Not if you’re looking for a straight answer on the subject. If this is the only book you’re going to read on the subject, then no. It needs more content, organization, consistency and clarity. He seems to argue for both sides and against both sides. I did find some useful notes here as I research this matter, though. Bowen does admit to a lot that would be contrary to atheistic (etc) assertions.
End of review.
Eh. It’s decent. I was expecting a much better presentation from a scholar. Sometimes the writing style has a generic tone. I had high hopes for this book, but after reading it, the overall impression is that of void spots (seems to be a lot unexplored; see Oeste example) and inconsistencies.
For example, Bowen at first makes it sound as if the OT slavery is not an improvement compared to other nations in the ANE (pages ii, 52, 90, 174) – “.. there is a gross misunderstanding .. there are ideas floating about concerning what other ancient Near Eastern cultures were like, and how the Old Testament greatly improved upon practices such as slavery” (page ii). He gives examples of that misunderstanding, but he also presents examples of where the OT slavery is an improvement compared to the other nations: ANE culture has execution, cutting off ears and gouging eyes for runaway slaves, while the OT prohibits such permanent damage (pages 29, 30, 56-7; Exodus 21:12, 26-7) (Here, Bowen also explains on those pages that slaves could be disciplined under the OT, as with an adolescent family member, but not an abusive beating). Escaped slaves from other nations were freed in Israel under OT law and not extradited, while other nations had treaties for extradition (pages 180-3, 185; Deut. 23:15-6). Page 175 reads, “.. the Hebrew Bible does likely provide some developments in the humane treatment of slaves ..” Bowen missed an interesting note on the forced marriage with female war captives (page 30) – he neglects to mention a time improvement with the OT. From Oeste: “The marriage is to take place after the captive woman has ‘mourned her father and mother for a full month’ (Deut 21:13) … the granting of a time for mourning, and a relatively long one at that .. within ancient-world grieving patterns. Where one week was the cultural norm for grieving family loss, the biblical legislation required four times that standard length of time … Ancient war captives were typically granted no mourning rights (zero). The biblical requirement of a mourning time for enemy captives stands alone as a monument – an unrivaled statement of compassion – within ancient warfare.” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, pages 120-1; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Old Testament, Tyndale Seminary, Toronto)
Bowen even admits the OT laws favor the slave over the master: “.. the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing his slave … the laws of release built into the legal system were in support of the enslaved” (pages 111, 141). From pages 51, 174: “Although slaves were often considered chattel .. this does not mean that they were merely subject to the whims of their master, to be treated in any way that the master saw fit … As we saw in the Hebrew Bible, slaves had certain rights, and there were limitations on how they could be treated … the slave had the right to be free from excessive beatings and outright abuse, and could not be killed with premeditation by the master.”
Even the title of the book is a little misleading. It’s not just one answer. Did the OT endorse slavery? Yes, page 187, etc. Or, no – “The prophet Amos, for example, considered the mass sale of entire populations into slavery – ostensibly for strictly monetary gain – to be abhorrent and deserving of divine retribution (Amos 1:6; 9). This, of course, does not indicate that God was against slavery, but the mass misuse of people groups” (page 193). And that was in a mere footnote that Bowen admits the OT was against a large scale slavery. Bowen questions the title himself: “It seems to me that the question before us should not be, ‘Does the Old Testament endorse slavery?’, but rather, ‘How should we understand the biblical texts and the god of the Hebrew Bible in light of his endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament?’ ” (pages 192-3).
Bowen maintains that the existence of slavery laws in the OT means the OT endorses slavery (pages 187, 191) – a law system that favors the slave over the master as he admits above, even pointing to another law: “In some ways, to debate the endorsement of slavery in the Hebrew Bible would be akin to asking, ‘Does the Old Testament endorse killing people?’ Of course it does. However, there are restrictions and provisions in the law … The laws gave their proverbial stamp of approval on killing in these particular circumstances” (page 192). But, perhaps it is more similar to Sin Tax laws. Does the existence of laws that allow or regulate the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other smoking products, chewing tobacco, or an alcoholic industry, mean that the State endorses it? Then, Bowen describes the OT law as a situation of “if” the Israelites wanted slaves, which sounds more nebulous rather than an endorsement, as with Sin Tax laws: “The text says, essentially, that they [Israelites] cannot treat their own people in this way; if they wanted slaves, they could only get them from the people who were not their brethren” (page 141).
A key void spot is on page 193. Bowen declares, “One can be a Christian, for example, in spite of the endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament.” But, he does not explain how. That’s a controversial statement. A little more information, please. A “few” atheists (etc) might consider that a contradiction and may want you to expound.
Also, the printing format can be annoying. Considering that the letters are too large and the sentence lines are double spaced or near it, this book could easily be half the size it is (maybe a third). Some pages may take 3 seconds or less to read.
Would I recommend the book? Eh. Not if you’re looking for a straight answer on the subject. If this is the only book you’re going to read on the subject, then no. It needs more content, organization, consistency and clarity. He seems to argue for both sides and against both sides. I did find some useful notes here as I research this matter, though. Bowen does admit to a lot that would be contrary to atheistic (etc) assertions.
End of review.
November 1, 2020
Here is my video review, “Religion in Theory and Practice, Part 1: Slavery and Christianity”: https://youtu.be/wwhvPdjLCiM
I wrote a letter to the author and his wife from the YouTube channel DigitalHammurabi as the following: “My video reflects on the praxis of religion and slavery, so for you, Joshua, try to see in it as much of a philosophical critique as possible (even though, I'm sure, as atheists, we agree on the basic implications of Christianity). A point I raise –and try to answer– being: How do we interpret the history of Christianity (and Judaism) in the long run? Surely, reverting to a textual tradition (especially with a "fundamentalist interpretative framework") has led to "reinventions" of slavery, re-legitimisations of it (e.g. during the renaissance). I have thought of you, Megan, too, in making this video. It's one of the reasons the character of this video is philosophical. Indeed, my concerns are how we view canonised moral theory (like that of the Bible or the Quran, or Das Kapital, by Marx). I came to the conclusion that, in dealing with the question of whether a certain religion or –to have it more vaguely– any social attitude to a problem in society is correct or not, we must compare various social attitudes and their real effects. E.g. the facts of slavery, in the case of Christianity (and, e.g., even Buddhism) are relevant to our analysis. Only then can we make cultural progress.”
I wrote a letter to the author and his wife from the YouTube channel DigitalHammurabi as the following: “My video reflects on the praxis of religion and slavery, so for you, Joshua, try to see in it as much of a philosophical critique as possible (even though, I'm sure, as atheists, we agree on the basic implications of Christianity). A point I raise –and try to answer– being: How do we interpret the history of Christianity (and Judaism) in the long run? Surely, reverting to a textual tradition (especially with a "fundamentalist interpretative framework") has led to "reinventions" of slavery, re-legitimisations of it (e.g. during the renaissance). I have thought of you, Megan, too, in making this video. It's one of the reasons the character of this video is philosophical. Indeed, my concerns are how we view canonised moral theory (like that of the Bible or the Quran, or Das Kapital, by Marx). I came to the conclusion that, in dealing with the question of whether a certain religion or –to have it more vaguely– any social attitude to a problem in society is correct or not, we must compare various social attitudes and their real effects. E.g. the facts of slavery, in the case of Christianity (and, e.g., even Buddhism) are relevant to our analysis. Only then can we make cultural progress.”
November 5, 2024
Bäst är appendixen där typ alla gamla slaverilagar och dokument som har med slaveri att göra från det gamla sydvästasien/mellanöstern finns samlade, översatta och tematiserade. Boken förtjänar fem stjärnor om man ser den mer som en resurs än som läsning. Trots att boken är 600+ sidor så känns den kort (ca. 200 sidor är olika appendix och typsnittet är ovanligt stort). Boken vill ge svar på olika argument kristna apologeter tar till för att försvara Bibeln och den gör det egentligen föredömligt. Jag hade förväntat mig mer av en akademisk djupdykning, men det ligger nog mer hos mig.
September 2, 2020
A very nuanced study of slavery in the old testament. Bowen isn't looking to own Christians, neither is he looking to defend Christianity. He presents here a very neutral account of OT slavery and how we should view it in the modern day.
February 14, 2025
I read the first edition, so I can't comment on his expanded edition which includes comments on the NT texts on slavery, Jesus' view, and the comparison between biblical slavery and the Antebellum South. Dr. Bowen does provide some thoughtful exegesis of the OT texts, and does not come across as attempting to smear the God of the Bible or the OT. For instance, he harmonizes the "apparent contradiction" between the practice of slavery and the injunction to neighbor-love in Lev. 19:33-34. While he does believe that slave texts "evolved" from Exodus to Deuteronomy and does not appear interested in justifying certain passages, he does acknowledge that many of these slave regulations were designed to provide judicial rights and protections for slaves.
My biggest issue is with his conclusion: "In the end, it is clear that slavery was not only condoned in the Hebrew Bible, but the legal stipulations in place demonstrate that its authors endorsed the practice." Does this follow? Do legal stipulations necessarily indicate a full endorsement of a practice? To use a biblical example, Jesus did not believe that the legal regulation of divorce in Deut. 24:1-4 was God's endorsement of the practice (cf. Matt. 19:7-8). Rather, the stipulation was "because of your hardness of heart" (because of the inevitability of the practice due to the wickedness of man, not because of divine approval). Laws concerning polygamy fall into this same bucket. In a world where social sins are inevitable due to the depravity of man, legal regulations surrounding those sins are necessary and do not amount to divine affirmation. It's also worth noting that regulations for the institution of slavery in ancient Israel do not necessitate that slavery is the "divine ideal" for society. After all, doesn't the kingdom of God which Jesus brings (the true divine ideal) include the proclamation to release the captives (cf. Lk. 4:18)? And Phm. 16 would certainly indicate that common brotherhood in Christ would logically lead to the emancipation of slaves. As such, it would be better to understand OT slave laws to be temporary regulations put in place to accommodate the existence of slavery (and provide judicial protections for slaves which dramatically transformed the institution) until the coming of Christ whose kingdom would pave the way for the emancipation of all peoples. And, of course, this has played out in history since Christians have been on the forefront in fighting for slavery abolition (although its also true that many Christians have historically defended the institution).
Having said that, there is no question that there are divine permissions given to slavery in the OT that don't apply to issues like divorce or polygamy. Lev. 25:44 does state positively that "you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." I'll grant that this text sounds much more like an endorsement of a particular kind of slavery, at least at a particular time in history. However, it is worth noting that Israel's position of being the covenant people of God among the pagan nations was unique at that particular moment in history and provided justification for practices (e.g. the destruction of the Canaanites) which do not necessarily translate to the world after the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant. Moreover, texts like these would not prove that slavery is the divine ideal for all time and that subsequent forms of slavery can be justified. Certainly the man-stealing, race-based system of African chattel slavery would remain biblically condemned (cf. Ex. 21:16, 1 Tim. 1:10).
Dr. Bowen also notes several times that biblical slavery conflicts with "our modern sense of morality". To be sure, he doesn't pretend to argue for "our modern sense of morality" - he seems to be trying to paint an accurate picture of what ancient Near Eastern practices would look like despite our modern moral norms. But whenever popular morality is pitted against Scripture, the question that needs to be asked is, "Who has the authority to dictate morality?" If Scripture is indeed the divine Word of God, its stance on any moral issue does not need to be tested against modern sentiment; the latter bows to the former.
My biggest issue is with his conclusion: "In the end, it is clear that slavery was not only condoned in the Hebrew Bible, but the legal stipulations in place demonstrate that its authors endorsed the practice." Does this follow? Do legal stipulations necessarily indicate a full endorsement of a practice? To use a biblical example, Jesus did not believe that the legal regulation of divorce in Deut. 24:1-4 was God's endorsement of the practice (cf. Matt. 19:7-8). Rather, the stipulation was "because of your hardness of heart" (because of the inevitability of the practice due to the wickedness of man, not because of divine approval). Laws concerning polygamy fall into this same bucket. In a world where social sins are inevitable due to the depravity of man, legal regulations surrounding those sins are necessary and do not amount to divine affirmation. It's also worth noting that regulations for the institution of slavery in ancient Israel do not necessitate that slavery is the "divine ideal" for society. After all, doesn't the kingdom of God which Jesus brings (the true divine ideal) include the proclamation to release the captives (cf. Lk. 4:18)? And Phm. 16 would certainly indicate that common brotherhood in Christ would logically lead to the emancipation of slaves. As such, it would be better to understand OT slave laws to be temporary regulations put in place to accommodate the existence of slavery (and provide judicial protections for slaves which dramatically transformed the institution) until the coming of Christ whose kingdom would pave the way for the emancipation of all peoples. And, of course, this has played out in history since Christians have been on the forefront in fighting for slavery abolition (although its also true that many Christians have historically defended the institution).
Having said that, there is no question that there are divine permissions given to slavery in the OT that don't apply to issues like divorce or polygamy. Lev. 25:44 does state positively that "you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." I'll grant that this text sounds much more like an endorsement of a particular kind of slavery, at least at a particular time in history. However, it is worth noting that Israel's position of being the covenant people of God among the pagan nations was unique at that particular moment in history and provided justification for practices (e.g. the destruction of the Canaanites) which do not necessarily translate to the world after the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant. Moreover, texts like these would not prove that slavery is the divine ideal for all time and that subsequent forms of slavery can be justified. Certainly the man-stealing, race-based system of African chattel slavery would remain biblically condemned (cf. Ex. 21:16, 1 Tim. 1:10).
Dr. Bowen also notes several times that biblical slavery conflicts with "our modern sense of morality". To be sure, he doesn't pretend to argue for "our modern sense of morality" - he seems to be trying to paint an accurate picture of what ancient Near Eastern practices would look like despite our modern moral norms. But whenever popular morality is pitted against Scripture, the question that needs to be asked is, "Who has the authority to dictate morality?" If Scripture is indeed the divine Word of God, its stance on any moral issue does not need to be tested against modern sentiment; the latter bows to the former.
February 2, 2021
This is Michael Coogan level work. Some familiar territory to help the reader feel like they’re on the same level, then blow their minds with the language and its context in other biblical passages. The author and partner Lewis dismantle some of the most common arguments against the idea of biblical slavery. After reading this book, one has to wonder why the arguments exist at all.
August 15, 2021
Short answer? Yes.
Dr. Joshua Bowern lays out common misconceptions you may find in any Facebook argument on the subject of biblical slavery and discusses the scholarly consensus with a hermeneutically sound approach.
Although the subject and delivery were dry at time, the book serves its purpose by answering the question without much fluff.
Dr. Joshua Bowern lays out common misconceptions you may find in any Facebook argument on the subject of biblical slavery and discusses the scholarly consensus with a hermeneutically sound approach.
Although the subject and delivery were dry at time, the book serves its purpose by answering the question without much fluff.
June 18, 2024
Excellent Guide
Joshua Bowen’s book is an excellent and thorough guide to this contentious subject. Sources are liberally cited and the tone is kept calm and rational. I’d definitely recommend this book to anyone that’s curious about this subject no matter your beliefs and background.
Joshua Bowen’s book is an excellent and thorough guide to this contentious subject. Sources are liberally cited and the tone is kept calm and rational. I’d definitely recommend this book to anyone that’s curious about this subject no matter your beliefs and background.
September 13, 2020
You can tell that a lot of research was put into this book. I’m very happy that I read this book,. I would recommend this book to anyone that has questions about what the Scriptures really say.
July 29, 2022
The way he breaks it down really made it easy to understand!
November 14, 2023
Good scholarly distillation
An objective and scholarly overview of the practice and regulation of the practice of slavery in the Hebrew Bible and the ANE.
An objective and scholarly overview of the practice and regulation of the practice of slavery in the Hebrew Bible and the ANE.
November 15, 2023
Dr Bowne shuts down the argument that slavery in the Old Testament was not a negative situation for those under it's yoke. This is a must read.
March 17, 2024
They claim God keeps you from being an immoral person.
"God Said" claims have produced more suffering than many are capable of imagining.
Of course their will be those that ditch this book! They will because their God has a plan. Therefore, all suffering can be explained as a result of a plan that only God comprehends. After all, just read Isaiah 55: 8-9. This is further complicated when God is characterized as: omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience. This is the apologist get of jail (cognitive dissonance) card.
The wedding to the idea of slavery being endorsed by God caused the splitting up of the Episcopalians and Lutherans before and during the war of rebellion aka the civil war. It also divided, even more thoroughly, the Presbyterians and the Methodists.
Oh my....the Confederate minded, right-wing authoritarian and the closet racist who is a liberal Christian apologist... fine citizens that secretly yearns for a slave to function as a wet nurse. You know the types. The ones that want to prevent undue stress on her breast while feigning a higher social class ....they will run from this book!
Of course, the prickly believers, especially the White Christian Nationalist, will want to appeal to personal interpretation (more often than not a fundamentalist framework) of passages like Leviticus 25. Yet will lobby hard and speak passionately at school board meetings that we should not teach about the horrors of slavery! We should not display the duplicitous / vile nature of the founders that own slaves or will admit a slave Bible exists. The document (slave bible) that eradicated anything about liberation! A book that had plenty within to justify slavery and submission to governing bodies. The book that showcased the verses (and the arguments) this book is highlighting. All while the non-reductionist KJV was housed in the common planter aka white terrorist home.
You do not have to be an expert in theology to comprehend the bible itself, provided justification for the killing of Native Americans. The Catholic Church and many Christian sects used the text, following the Doctrine of Discovery, to subjugate millions of people.
This book is for the person who wants greater insight outside the justifications of the Christian supremacist. Unfortunately, this book is necessary to dive into the details of the makeup of this tool of mass destruction, aka the Bible.
Of course, an apologist will appeal to Deuteronomy 23:15 & 16. As if that is a got ya moment. Read this book or listen to a Christopher Higgins debate or converse with a truly moral theologian, and you will realize this tactic is weak.
Then apologist will follow up with the claim that the New Testament did away with slavery. Yet they will not confront the hypothetical analogies Jesus uses when slavery is given as a default or the fact that Jesus never condemns the institution of slavery! Ephesians 6: 5-7.
This book focuses on discussions of the biblical text in the context of its geographical location of origin. This said the Bible does endorse slavery and the discussions of this sort have been exploited to maintain the institution.
Though this book does not tackle the uniqueness of the Transatlantic nightmares. The origins of biblical text regarding slavery as well as the story of Ham, are hugely influential in oiling the slavery machine. Ham supposedly was cursed, and this curse blackened his skin and justified misuse due to his sin. This explanation was commonly used in addition to the biblical narratives during the 18th and 19th centuries. Primarily white slavers in the USA expanded on the institution of enslavement via the application of the social construct of race and secured life-long bondage. In addition, the bondage of all "human stock" that was born from the enslaved person was enslaved. These same arguments, along with sadistic pleasures, greed, and predatory Capitalism, kept the institution moving. Another reason why books like these should be treasured. It keeps the rational human from being hoodwinked by Christianity.
"God Said" claims have produced more suffering than many are capable of imagining.
Of course their will be those that ditch this book! They will because their God has a plan. Therefore, all suffering can be explained as a result of a plan that only God comprehends. After all, just read Isaiah 55: 8-9. This is further complicated when God is characterized as: omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience. This is the apologist get of jail (cognitive dissonance) card.
The wedding to the idea of slavery being endorsed by God caused the splitting up of the Episcopalians and Lutherans before and during the war of rebellion aka the civil war. It also divided, even more thoroughly, the Presbyterians and the Methodists.
Oh my....the Confederate minded, right-wing authoritarian and the closet racist who is a liberal Christian apologist... fine citizens that secretly yearns for a slave to function as a wet nurse. You know the types. The ones that want to prevent undue stress on her breast while feigning a higher social class ....they will run from this book!
Of course, the prickly believers, especially the White Christian Nationalist, will want to appeal to personal interpretation (more often than not a fundamentalist framework) of passages like Leviticus 25. Yet will lobby hard and speak passionately at school board meetings that we should not teach about the horrors of slavery! We should not display the duplicitous / vile nature of the founders that own slaves or will admit a slave Bible exists. The document (slave bible) that eradicated anything about liberation! A book that had plenty within to justify slavery and submission to governing bodies. The book that showcased the verses (and the arguments) this book is highlighting. All while the non-reductionist KJV was housed in the common planter aka white terrorist home.
You do not have to be an expert in theology to comprehend the bible itself, provided justification for the killing of Native Americans. The Catholic Church and many Christian sects used the text, following the Doctrine of Discovery, to subjugate millions of people.
This book is for the person who wants greater insight outside the justifications of the Christian supremacist. Unfortunately, this book is necessary to dive into the details of the makeup of this tool of mass destruction, aka the Bible.
Of course, an apologist will appeal to Deuteronomy 23:15 & 16. As if that is a got ya moment. Read this book or listen to a Christopher Higgins debate or converse with a truly moral theologian, and you will realize this tactic is weak.
Then apologist will follow up with the claim that the New Testament did away with slavery. Yet they will not confront the hypothetical analogies Jesus uses when slavery is given as a default or the fact that Jesus never condemns the institution of slavery! Ephesians 6: 5-7.
This book focuses on discussions of the biblical text in the context of its geographical location of origin. This said the Bible does endorse slavery and the discussions of this sort have been exploited to maintain the institution.
Though this book does not tackle the uniqueness of the Transatlantic nightmares. The origins of biblical text regarding slavery as well as the story of Ham, are hugely influential in oiling the slavery machine. Ham supposedly was cursed, and this curse blackened his skin and justified misuse due to his sin. This explanation was commonly used in addition to the biblical narratives during the 18th and 19th centuries. Primarily white slavers in the USA expanded on the institution of enslavement via the application of the social construct of race and secured life-long bondage. In addition, the bondage of all "human stock" that was born from the enslaved person was enslaved. These same arguments, along with sadistic pleasures, greed, and predatory Capitalism, kept the institution moving. Another reason why books like these should be treasured. It keeps the rational human from being hoodwinked by Christianity.
November 15, 2023
Of course Dr. Bowen just released a revised, expanded edition of this book recently, after I purchased and listened to the original one...
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews