this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
331 points (95.1% liked)
Greentext
8315 readers
598 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use "servants" is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they'll see the bible advocating.
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it's still a valid translation, the word for "slavery" in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn't really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible's writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
...and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
Yes, that's Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people's hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
The Gospels would be huge if they recorded literally everything Jesus said - the mention of the Law of Moses being written due to the hardness of hearts is enough.
Society was okay with slavery at the time. It didn't really have much to do with Christianity - slavery was happening and arguably started in pagan society, the nobles got converted, but the peasantry generally didn't. Slavery basically was just an unquestioned fact of life.
It was the Christians who abolished slavery and started questioning it - while the devout ones were against it for a while, it didn't really garner traction until the 1700s when people were learning to read and the reformation had already taken effect.
Yes and the bible reflects that.
Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong
Sure, but didn't the advocates of perpetuating slavery use the bible to justify themselves, because the bible doesn't take a clear position against slavery?
It's interesting that you point to the reformation as key because Las Casas (responsible for the first law banning enslavement in colonies) was reading the Book of Sirach when he realised slavery was wrong. I mention it because it is excluded from the protestant canon.
You seem to be in denial about how okay with slavery Christianity was. Do you prefer the work of impartial scholars to that from people that think it's important to protect the reputation of Christianity?
That's my point.
No. I'm only referring to enslavement here.
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1 (NRSVUE)
Exodus 20:13
You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything. I've seen people try and use to to advocate in favour of homosexuality, to execute homosexuals, to advocate transphobia, to advocate abortion, a devil's advocate argument was used regarding murdering infants as well, against the trinity, universalism, etc.
All of which fall apart if it's read in it's proper context and Catholic* interpretation.
The books referred to by Protestants as the "Apocrypha" are still valuable documents, just not viewed as infallible.
Although, reading Sirach... You can go either way with it.
Sirach 33:25-33
It was society, the way the Bible was written was just addressing slavery as an established fact. The abolitionists were driven by their Christian faith.
"Impartial scholars" there is no such thing.
*Please note, I am not using the word "Catholic" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to refer to the universal and historically grounded Christian church and denominations as opposed to spin-offs. So think more Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist and Presbyterianism as opposed to non-denominationals and most Baptists
Or chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE [44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.