> I believe the word is 'eved' right?

Correct. And unless the context gives us any kind of hint, we have no idea from the term which kind of "slavery" (servanthood, debt slavery, corvee slavery, chattel slavery) is meant. But as you read the stories of the Bible, there is very little slavery, period, let alone the kind of slavery that we read about in ancient Rome or of the American South. The Israelites weren't that kind of people, from everything we can gather.

> I am also of the belief that they had much better treatment within the Israelite culture than other areas at the time.

They most certainly did.

> most people like to point out that within the Roman era Jews had slaves (more so like chattel slaves) much like anyone else in society. This was not the intent of the bible nor a reflection on God. Most so on we as humans who sin.

Correct. Because the Jews lived that way is not a statement of what the Bible teaches about it. As we painfully know, the KKK claims to be Christians, but anyone with a Bible and a brain knows better.

> I guess my whole point was just to see what the prevailing thought is on chattel slavery in OT Exodus/Leviticus era

Which is interesting because we're talking about, like 4 verses (2 in Exodus and 2 in Leviticus), and the critics and detractors base their entire case on 4 verses. If you know the whole story, it gives a completely different feel to those 4 verses and a different reality behind them. But we're talking 1500 years of history and 1200 pages of text, and there are only 4 verses that seem to say anything about slavery. The ones in Exodus actually show that the slaves have dignity and persons and the same rights as anyone else, also people twist them to make them seem brutal. The ones in Leviticus are more straightforward in sounding like chattel slavery, but since we know the context of ancient Israel, they are not what they seem when you just read them superficially.

[quote="jimwalton"]First of all, the same word is used in the Hebrew Bible for servant as for slave. You're right that from the term we can't tell if it's chattel slavery or debt slavery, but it's even worse than that: we can't even tell if it's servanthood or slavery.[/quote]

Yes I believe the word is 'eved' right? I have heard this and think it lends more to servanthood (debt-based) than slavery (chattel). However, I just heard/read this and it made me question the idea of it since I figured it was more clear or at least more towards the idea of former than the latter. It seems both readily existed and its not clear which it was in the bible. Of course its hard to quantify it at all when slavery I'm sure was different entirely. I happen to think it was quite different and must have evolved over the 1000+ years into the roman era.

[quote="jimwalton"]Fifth, contrary to what you're saying, slaves were granted full dignity as human beings. Exodus 21 is very clear about that. They were not granted full social status, but they were granted full dignity.[/quote]

Just wanted to mention that I wasn't saying it was; just quoting from a section in the book. I am also of the belief that they had much better treatment within the Israelite culture than other areas at the time.

[quote="jimwalton"]Sixth, it seems to be true that Israelite slaves were treated very different than from the nations around them. This is no surprise; the Israelites had been slaves themselves, and God says one of His purposes is to redeem slaves and bring them to freedom. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Israel were a slave-holding people group. On the other hand, or in addition, we know that there are periods in Israel's history where they were obscenely godless, and slavery may have thrived when they went apostate.[/quote]

Totally agree here. When I get deep into this conversation, most people like to point out that within the Roman era Jews had slaves (more so like chattel slaves) much like anyone else in society. This was not the intent of the bible nor a reflection on God. Most so on we as humans who sin.

[quote="jimwalton"]Seventh, therefore slavery in Israel was most often barely existent. Archaeologists from various eras find evidences of slavery in the surrounding cultures, but there is no extra-biblical artifactual or documentary evidence of any slaves in Israel. That's significant. The ONLY record we have of slaves in Israel are isolated biblical texts, and it's treated quite minimally, for one, and it seems to be quite friendly, for two. By "quite friendly" I mean it comes across as a beneficial symbiotic economic relationship rather than an abusive chattel one.[/quote]

This seems to also be my experience. When the topic is addressed, the evidence is hard to find or quantify. This is also even true once we get into the Roman era as its still unclear or hard to make a judgement call about the state of slavery. Most writings that are exbilical even at that time frame dont mention slaves too often as its not the topic in most found writings. If they are talked about its merly a mention so again very hard to quantify.

I guess my whole point was just to see what the prevailing thought is on chattel slavery in OT Exodus/Leviticus era. I always thought this was mostly debt-based servanthood and that was the main area the bible seems to address. However, it seems a little less clear as the wording and found evidence dont specify either very well.

Good to hear from you. I hope you're doing well. There are so many things to say here in response to you. I'll try to keep it brief, but then we can keep talking.

First of all, the same word is used in the Hebrew Bible for servant as for slave. You're right that from the term we can't tell if it's chattel slavery or debt slavery, but it's even worse than that: we can't even tell if it's servanthood or slavery.

Second, most slavery in ancient Israel was debt slavery. It wasn't a whole lot different from our concept of employment: working for someone else so you could pay off your debts. It wasn't as common in their world as employment is in ours, but it was still all around. Sometimes farms failed or buildings burned down or a particular business deal would go belly up, and people needed to work for someone else to earn money to pay their debts. We call it employment; they called it slavery.

Third, most Israelites were poor farmers. They would need help to work the land, which usually came from large families and cooperative efforts (you help me with my land and I'll help you with yours). It's just a fact that most Israelites couldn't afford to own slaves.

Fourth, chattel slavery in the ancient world was NOTHING like the slave pens of Greco-Rome or the atrocities of antebellum slavery in America. Rome and the American South are what come to mind when [i]we[/i] think of chattel slavery. The ancient world (especially Israel) was NOTHING like this. Even their "chattel slavery," and I'm not sure it's even accurate to call it that, was more like employment and "family" than ownership of a human being.

Fifth, contrary to what you're saying, slaves were granted full dignity as human beings. Exodus 21 is very clear about that. They were not granted full social status, but they were granted full dignity.

Sixth, it seems to be true that Israelite slaves were treated very different than from the nations around them. This is no surprise; the Israelites had been slaves themselves, and God says one of His purposes is to redeem slaves and bring them to freedom. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Israel were a slave-holding people group. On the other hand, or in addition, we know that there are periods in Israel's history where they were obscenely godless, and slavery may have thrived when they went apostate.

Seventh, therefore slavery in Israel was most often barely existent. Archaeologists from various eras find evidences of slavery in the surrounding cultures, but there is no extra-biblical artifactual or documentary evidence of any slaves in Israel. That's significant. The ONLY record we have of slaves in Israel are isolated biblical texts, and it's treated quite minimally, for one, and it seems to be quite friendly, for two. By "quite friendly" I mean it comes across as a beneficial symbiotic economic relationship rather than an abusive chattel one.

That's my first reply. Ask more, and we'll talk more.

This was a section of the book Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. John Walton writes some of it, but this section was written by Richard E. Averbeck. The reason I bring it up is because I was talking with someone about the distinction in the bible between debt-based and chattel slavery. Namely I was saying how neither are endorsed, but the bible seems to primarily address debt-based slavery especially with regard to when Hebrews are slaves. The person I was discussing it with brought up this book and a couple sections I was curious about your thoughts on.

First off, there is this section:

"Chattel slavery:

As noted above, we cannot always tell from the ancient Near Eastern sources whether a person was a debt slave or a chattel slave or had some other status in a household context. In ancient Israel, chattel slaves could be gained through purchase from the nations around them, from the resident aliens who lived among them, and as prisoners of war or warfare refugees. Israelite families could pass them down from generation to generation (Lev. 25:44-46; Deut. 21:10, 14 [see more on these passages below]). Even earlier, we know that Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, had chattel slaves, some of whom were born in his house and others purchased from foreigners (Gen. 12:16; 17:23, 27), as did Isaac (Gen. 26:19), and Jacob (Gen. 30:43) (G. Haa 2003, 779-81). This was a regular and expected practice in Israel and the ancient Near East."

This seems to suggest Israel practiced both forms of slavery around Leviticus/Exodus time (before that seems excusable to me). I never knew or thought that was the case. I always thought they had a focus on debt-based servant hood based on the original Hebrew. Did they practice both?

It also seems to confirm this later in the conclusions:

'Given the collection of passages surveyed above, we can draw a number of important conclusions about slavery in the Bible and the ancient Near East:
I. Both chattel slavery and debt slavery existed in the ancient world, but they represent two very different kinds of slavery.
2. We do not know much about the extent that chattel slaves could be taken from among one's own people in the rest of the ancient Near East, but in Israel it was not permissible.
3. Chattel slaves were not granted full human dignity, though there is some debate as to the extent and nature of their degraded status.
4. Biblical slave laws differed in some degree from those of the rest of the ancient Near East, but institutionally they were very similar.
5. The institution of ancient slavery was not supplied the way that it was in the New World institution, though both could be characterized by dehumanization. '

I guess my question is does this create any problems with the idea of how slavery is talked about in the bible? Are there areas (namely in Lev.) that seem to support or allow chattel slavery? Other sources I have seen seem to not support it, but this one gave me pause. I also know Exodus is hypothetical law in most cases so it doesn't endorse either form of slavery. But even that being the case, it seem Leviticus could point to chattel slavery of foreigners especially POWs.