Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:58, 4 May 2018

Jewish Views on Slavery

Hi, I was reviewing your most recent addition to the Jewish views on slavery page. I noticed that you added that the Biblical concept was to treat slaves as chattel. No argument that that is what that source says, but I don't think that that represents the consensus opinion of historians. Curious if you were up to having a quick discussion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am up for it. What would you like to discuss? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd like to chat about the use of the word chattel in your addition. Fully recognize that this particular author did use that phrase. However, I would argue that the majority of scholars do not hold that Jews saw their slaves as "chattel" (personal property). They are generally set apart when lists are presented of personal property and the existence of the rights/obligations you correctly point out, is at odds with the concept of chattel slavery. Squatch347 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this. But I would like you to provide me with a source for this. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. I think one of the best, though oldest coherent arguments comes from the highly influential emancipation tracts "The Bible Against Slavery" https://en.wikisource.org/The_Bible_Against_Slavery. This work comes from a series of Oxford and Harvard scholars (as some respected ministers) and catalogs how the American chattel system is different than Biblical slavery. The primary thrust of the argument is essentially that the Hebrews acknowledged that while a right to purchase work existed, the right to own the person did not. Specifically they draw our attention to the similarity with land. The Hebrews didn't own the land, that is reserved to God alone, who brought them there. Rather, they owned the fruits of the land. Similar hebrew constructs are used in that explanation and in the exortation God gives them to remember that they too were slaves redeemed from Egypt.

Quite a few works historically have noted the difference between Israelite slavery and, variously, Roman, Greek, American, or ANE slavery. Chapters 12-14 of Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011 are easily read and well sourced. Copan reviews the primary source documentation and examines both Hebrew structure, context, and application to draw a distinction between ownership of the person (chattel) or the race, and the type of slavery (including of non-hebrews) practiced in Israel.

Callendar, Dexter E. "Servants Of God(S) And Servants Of Kings In Israel And The Ancient Near East" Semeia 83/84(1998): 67-82. is also an excellent source, generally pointing out that we often draw far too much inference from the use of the word slave in ancient texts, too often applying our 20th Century American context to that term, which can mean anything from willing servant to chattel slave. He does a good survey of Hebrew uses compared to other contemporary ANE sources to show that the Israelites' uses generally reflected a more liberal use of the term than that which was used by their neighbors.

Likewise, we have several different compendiums that survey slavery as a concept in the Ancient world and list them related to their modern classification from indentured servitude to chattel slavery. There is general consensus that the Israelites were referring to a right to claim the work of someone rather than a permanent ownership of the human being. Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.

Finally, general OT and Torah reviews almost exclusively relate the Hebrew context as referring primarily to a system that contained vast sets of rights for the laborer, broad manumission requirements, and an absolute dearth of qualifying groups of humans as different than themselves and thus, natural slaves or drawing group based slavery arguments. These concepts were not found in chattel systems, and the Israelite approach seems to come to slavery from a very different mechanism that retains the status of the slave as a human. Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman (main ed.), DoubleDay:1992 The JPS Torah Commentary (5vols). Nahum Sarna (gen ed). JPS:1989. Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (eds). IVP:2003. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, Ze'ev Falk, Eisenbrauns:2001(2nd ed). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed), Eerdmans:1979.

My recommendation would be to move your quote a bit earlier, and to have it add to a section as a good explanation of the origin of why Hebrew law contained the protections referenced. Thoughts?

Squatch347 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Check

You've got a mail.

Jewish history

Hello. I hope you are planning to restore this with proper sources. That information is generally correct and easy to support.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am going to work on these pages soon. I like to clean up before I start. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in the Middle Ages

Hi! I tried. If there is something you don't think is right about the layouts feel free to change it. About the PoV, I also tried so you'll have to be more specific about what the problem is. If it is the sources that are problematic I'll love to discuss that. If there are just other sources I don't know about and say the opposite I think we should add both things.

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

Let me remind you once again that ARBIPA sanctions are applicable to all India pages. Please do not make deceptive POV edits again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a very bad faith accusation. Mind proving how this is a ″deceptive POV″ edit? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are a Jewish historian, an academic. You have published peer-reviewed journal articles, and you teach at a University. But for some inexplicable reason, you have been watching History of Gilgit-Baltistan and Princely state, and you have been overly concerned about the "gaming" going on over there. So, what do you do? You come running to the page on Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, whose sources are being used there, and start smearing it. And, you are in such a great hurry to smear it, that you don't even notice that you are citing a year book and a newspaper, and you brand them as "journals". For somebody that has published peer-reviewed journal articles, can you not recognize what a journal article is what is not? And, do you expect me to believe that your English is so poor that you don't understand the difference between "shaping" and "influencing"? All of these can be honest mistakes, for sure. But in your case, not in a long shot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The "evidence" you have given is even more flimsy than your original message. I checked the edit history and it shows that JosephusOfJerusalem cited to the journal International Organizations. So Kautilya3 this ("that you don't even notice that you are citing a year book and a newspaper, and you brand them as "journals")" is false. Perhaps if you tried looking it up you would find it. And if "influence" has been used in place of "shaping" then that is WP:EUPHEMISM which JosephusofJerusalem should be wary of. Shaping (implying a stronger role) is clearly more correct for IDSA than influencing. But I do have to ask you JosephusofJerusalem why do you have a keen interest in South Asia topics (as I notice that you not only contribute to Jewish pages but South Asian ones also) as a Jewish historian? Just curious.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)