During the class on Tuesday, we discussed slavery and the Bible. Now, the word has a bit of a different connotation to what we know as American slavery, however I still feel like it is a bit problematic to just sweep it to the side. We know slavery as the buying and selling of people against their will, that’s what happened more modern-day and that’s what the current definition is. However, slavery back then was more of indentured servitude – people working to pay off their debts when say, a year of crops goes bad and they can’t make money back. This is vastly different from the slavery we know, the times were completely different and this doesn’t constitute the Bible “promoting” slavery. However, if it is so different than slavery we know now, why are we not using a separate word in the translations is my question? We know what they mean through context and through discussion, but had I never listened to the discussion on Tuesday I probably would not have come to the conclusion that it was indentured servitude to pay off debts, and not the form of slavery that we’re more familiar with. Of course in the grand scheme of things it does not mean much, but I do find it interesting that even though slavery back then was different, since the word and connotation has evolved we haven’t changed anything about how it is worded/printed.
Categories