SLAVERY: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

[www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html]:

'''Good question...

...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?

OT: Created Nov 9, 1997 // UPDATED Mar 18/2004 // NT: Created Dec 30, 1999

Every so often I get a question about slavery in the Bible, or someone sends me a 'spoof' of the biblical Mosaic regulations concerning 'slavery'. Sometimes the issue concerns Paul in the NT, as this thoughtful quote might indicate:

"I think a lot of the problems you spill a lot of "electrons" on can be understood better by looking at the Bible as an accommodated and historical revelation. In my judgment, the most important example of how this concept operates in scripture is the Bible's approach to slavery, especially as it appears in Paul's writings. Paul clearly understood that the gospel obviated all class distinctions (Gal. 3:28) but was never willing to draw out the social ramifications of his understanding of what it meant to be "in Christ." Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to manumit Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul danced around the topic of manumission but never made it an explicit directive; accordingly, it made the problem more difficult for later theologians. We can only imagine how western civilization might have been changed had Paul openly stated what we now all agree on: that for one human to own another is inconsistent with the imago dei and the freedom of the gospel.

Of course, Paul did not do so, probably for a number of reasons. He may have still been freaked out by the "crisis" he speaks of in I Cor. 7, or he may have felt that an explicit position on manumission would have made the gospel appear too radical (although he didn't shy away from "radicalness" in other areas and manumission was considered by many in the Roman empire to be a noble act of kindness). At any rate, it took theologians and activists 1900 years to finally convince Christendom of the moral bankruptcy of slavery, and frankly, from a perspective of exegesis and Biblical theology, the fire-eaters had a better argument in ante-bellum America than the abolitionists, largely due to the statements made by Paul in Ephesians and Philemon."

I replied to this part of the email with a 'directional' statement...

"The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL socio-economic institutions are 'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused woefully...for example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within conscience and stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult (in my opinion) so the Philemon situation is not at all decisive or instructive for me...(i am familiar, however, with those civil war debates, but consider much of that simply bad theological method)...simply put, i think the problem is more complex than a simple 'Paul hedged here'...i am still thinking through this, so dont take my comments as finished goods ...

And hence I want to come back to this issue in this series...

There are several elements of this study, which I will no doubt have to publish piecemeal ("oh no! not ANOTHER unfinished series in the Tank!"):

Introductory remarks

The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its nature, purpose, and structure.

Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: the Foreign Slave.

The Great Escape Clause...?

References to slavery in later OT books.

The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)

.........................................................................................

1. Introductory remarks

I am a child of the Western World, and a native of the rural American South. The word 'slavery' is such a powerful vortex of images, meanings, cries, and grief to me. Any technical discussion of any type of forced labor or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached to it, and I suspect that many others share this association.

Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice).

A recent example of this comes from the discussion of the Hittite culture in [HI:HANEL:1.632]:

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active."

Scholars in Cultural Anthropology are sensitive to this as well, and point out that New World slavery was quite unique, historically:

"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]

Generally, in the ANE, these 'fuzzy' boundaries obtain as well. "Slavery" is a very relative word in our time period, and we have to be very carefully in no auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World examples. For example, in the West we would never say that the American President's Cabinet members were his 'slaves', but this term would have been applied to them in the ANE kingdoms. And, in the ANE, even though children/family could be bought and sold, they were never actually referred to as 'slaves'--the property aspect (for such transactions) did NOT define explicitly the notion of 'slavery':

"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]

Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that naturally occur for Westerners when something is referred to as 'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider 'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'. New World slavery differs substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery', which themselves differed at significant points from OT slavery. We will try to make these distinctions clear, when they are relevant to the discussion.

With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)

* Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")

In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:

• "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
• "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene...A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements..." (1.585)

• "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both...A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f) *"On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions..." (1.741) *"The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy...There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)
• Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:

"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors."

In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece...Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:

"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs....The question arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v. "Slavery, ANE"]

"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy...There are also examples of self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]

The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:

"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.

* Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute...]

But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways were a problem, as we shall see):

"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]

And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:

"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]

*Treatment : As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.

We have already noted that in New World slavery at least two-thirds of plantation slaves would have lived in barracks (field-slaves), and not in intimacy with owners (domestics), whereas in the ANE/OT, the vast majority of the slaves were domestics under the same roof. In the ANE/OT, we don't have the 'gangs' of agricultural workers we will see later in Republican Rome and in the New World:

"Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household [in Israel]--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world" [OT:I:101]

"Both types (Hebrew, foreign slaves) were domestic slaves living in their owners' homes, not members of slave gangs working on plantations." [Notes, Jewish Study Bible, Ex 21]

*Legal Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

Theoretically, some expressions of New World slavery had some protection from outright murder of a slave, but this was not very widely accepted:

"In the American South, 10 codes prescribed forced sale to another owner or emancipation for maltreated slaves. Nevertheless, cases such as State v. Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v. Jones (Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were punished for savagely 'correcting' their slaves to death." [Britannica]

And the right-to-kill differed by groups [Britannica]:

"Legally the slave was usually defined as property, and the question then was whether he was movable property (chattel) or real property. In most societies he was movable property, but in some, real property... A major touchstone of the nature of slave society was whether or not the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for slaves from ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830...That was not the case in other societies.

The Hebrews, the Athenians, and the Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill their human chattel."

Now, this restriction on an owner as to what he/she could do with their personal 'property' should make us wonder about how the word 'property' is being used there. And indeed, the definition of 'property'--in the context of slavery--gives Anthropologists pause:

"The definition of slaves as property runs into conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a shorthand and abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights held by a person (or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any given society, something (say, a person) is 'property' has meaning only to the extent that the rights involved are specified and understood in the context of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial African societies, the kin group had the right to sell equally its slave and nonslave members, it had equal control over the wealth acquired by either of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the other, and the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives, and, if prosperous enough, could acquire slaves of their own. Here, obviously, one must look at other features to find the difference between the slave and the 'free'." [NS:ECA:4:1191, s.v. "Slavery"]

Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the notion of 'property' when applied to people:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece" [HI:HANEL:1:665]

And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:

"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]

And slaves had very specific legal rights (can real 'chattel property' have such?):

"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active." [HI:HANEL:1632]

"However, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Ancient Near East"]

One other important distinction has to do with how 'comprehensive' or exclusive was the 'property' aspect. In other words, to what extent was a slave only property, and not also, a human, a family member, a contracting agent. In the ANE at least, slavery was generally a mixture of these aspects--they were not ONLY property per se [HI:HANEL:1.40]:

"A better criterion for a legal definition of slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized as a category of property that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a person to whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even this definition is not wholly exclusive, since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the rules of ownership. Furthermore, the relationship between master and slave was subject to legal restrictions based on the humanity of the slave and concerns of social justice."

A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a modern acquisition of one business by another business. I the employee--a 'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the values I am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the office, my skills, my organizational knowledge, and my career path in the firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g., competitor, private investor, Wall Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my life-at-the-office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in my country. My role and/or identity as a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited' (e.g., if the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor). Our legal system recognizes this in many, many contracts under the heading "Successors and Assigns". But wherever I went, the state would still see me as a human, and prevent--as in the ANE-- my 'owner' from killing me.

*Legal Status : Slaves could not have their own property--all they had belonged to their 'owner'.

"In North America, India, Rome, Muscovy, most of the Islamic world, and among the Tuareg a fundamental principle was that the slave could not own property because the master owned not only his slave's body but everything that body might accumulated. This did not mean, however, that slaves could not possess and accumulate property but only that their owners had legal title to whatever the slaves had. In a host of other societies, such as ancient and Roman Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Talmudic Palestine, Gortyn, much of medieval German, Thailand, Mongol and Ch'ing China, medieval Spain, and the northern Nigerian emirates, slaves had the right of property ownership. Some places, such as Rome, allowed slaves to accumulate, manage, and use property in a peculium that was legally revocable but could be used to purchase their freedom." [Britannica]

[Note: As pointed out in the quote about the fuzziness of 'property' above (by the Cultural Anthropologists), there is a little 'play' in this word, But a strict delineation of what was and what was not 'property', and/or what was and was not 'owned', was established and determined by the governing body of the specific situation. For example, in the ante-bellum South, it would have been the law courts in that time and in that geographical jurisdiction which decided, and they would have invariably sided with the slave owner instead of the slave as to whether, for example, the bed the slave slept on belonged to him or to his owner. The relevance of this 'jurisdictional' point is threefold:

(1) It is irrelevant to this discussion as to what parties outside the legal system would have judged (e.g., Native Americans of the time would have said that the plantation land did NOT 'belong' to the Owner, but to the Earth--but the Southern courts would have disagreed);

(2) it is irrelevant to this discussion as to what 'relative/informal/conventional ownership' arrangements would have been held within the community of slaves (e.g. Even though the Owner legally--according to Southern courts at the time--owned the bed that Slave X slept in, did NOT mean that Slave Y could take it from him, under the argument that it didn't 'belong' to Slave X... "relative rights to usage"--very close in content to what property really is all about--would not violate the common legal understanding of property ownership (i.e., establish and delineated by relevant judiciary authorities)...the minors who have lived with me might have argued among themselves whose TV set it was, but the courts would have blamed me the dad had said TV set hurt one of their visitors);

(3) it is irrelevant to this discussion what people after the legal jurisdiction collapsed said about property ownership (e.g., Civil war soldiers after the war had destroyed the jurisdiction structure agreeing that slave X 'owned' his bed, based perhaps on the 'informal' and relative rights of #2, would be irrelevant to the question of whether "slaves could own property under the pre-war, pro-slavery legal system").]

"Sometimes slaves [in the ANE] were permitted to possess various kinds of property (peculium). Naturally, a slave received the right to a peculium only in those cases when the master took an interest in this. Such slaves were left to themselves with the payment of a fixed quitrent [tanknote: a 'quitrent' is a fee paid by the slave to the owner, so that the slave doesn't have to work any more for the owner, during the period covered by this 'rent to quit working'. It's like a substitution of money for labor]. The size of the quitrent fluctuated depending on the property of the slave, and in 1st-millennium Babylonia, on average, when calculated in money, amounted to twelve shekels of silver a year. Such a sum was also equal to the average annual pay of an adult hired worker regardless of whether he was free or a slave. Sometimes a quitrent was replaced by work for the master. Temple slaves who led an independent economic existence were also obliged to pay a monetary quitrent or provide the temple with finished products in accordance with the established norms...In 1st-millennium Babylonia enterprising slaves owned land, houses, and considerable amounts of movable property. They actively participated in all spheres of economic activity, were engaged in trade, ran taverns and workshops, taught other persons various trades, pawned and mortgaged their property, and they themselves received the property of others as security for loans...In the legal sphere such slaves could appear as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants in court. They also could have their own personal seals and take oaths. Moreover, there were apparently no differences in the ways in which the interests of slaves and freemen were defended, though the slaves, of course, could not engage in litigation with their masters. In affairs with a third party, the slave could mortgage only the peculium, but not his own person." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Ancient Near East']

*Exit : Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman.

"...in the American South manumission ws comparatively difficult and almost never happened after the prohibition on importing new slaves...manumission was even forbidden in South Carolina in 1820, Mississippi in 1822, Arkansas in 1858, and Maryland and Alabama in 1860..." [Britannica]

In the ANE, although some cultures had pre-built "debt-payoff-periods" (like Israel's 6 years), "chattel" manumission was rare because it wasn't sought after--the issues of economic security and the quasi-family relationships that developed within the household unit created little incentive to become 'independent':

"More usually, individual autonomy has meant exposure to danger and predation; safety lay precisely in the protection afforded by the bondage of dependence on groups and patrons. What was desirable was not freedom but belongingness." [NS:ECA:4.1191]

[We will be semi-shocked below when we discover that manumission in Israel was either pre-scheduled (in the case of Hebrew slaves) or anytime-you-want-it (in the case of foreign slaves)...!]

Garnsey identifies many of these elements in his understanding of what he terms 'chattel slavery' [HI:ISAA:1]:

"A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of slavery."
66667777

....................................................................................................

With this framework in mind, let's consider how the Mosaic Law structured 'Hebrew slavery'...

2. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.

First of all, we will have the same wide, wide range of meanings of the terms for 'slave' here, as we did in the ANE. It will refer to general (and sometimes vague) subordination:

"The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as "servant." Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning "the slave (or servant) of God." Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ANE is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10-11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible >ebed/doulos and several other similar terms are rendered "slave" as well as "servant," "attendant," etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible...However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these "slaves" were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham's family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When

Josiah, king of Judah, had been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30). It is quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of the actual meaning of the ambiguous >ebed may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham's household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a freeborn person." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

In the ANE, legal systems divided 'slaves' into different categories, and prioritized interventions (social intervention has costs, remember, and scarce resources in the ANE had to be allocated to optimize their effect on social/community survival) around these categories:

"In determining who should benefit from their intervention, the legal systems drew two important distinctions: between debt and chattel slaves, and between native and foreign slaves. The authorities intervened first and foremost to protect the former category of each--citizens who had fallen on hard times and had been forced into slavery by debt or famine." [HI:HANEL:1,42]

In the OT case, we will see a similar interest: most legislation will be about Hebrew ("native") individuals who, for reasons of debt/famine, sell themselves into short-term slavery ("debt slaves"). Accordingly, we will examine this class of 'slaves' first (native, debt).

Hebrew 'slavery' (i.e., a Hebrew 'servant' of a Hebrew 'master'; we will do foreigners next) occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context. Like the ANE, the context is a constant struggle for economic stability. The Mosaic law contains numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option:

"Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest.

(Elsewhere in the ancient Near East exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery)." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

*There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all! (Compliance with the spirit and letter of the covenant would have produced a society marked by righteousness, compassion, and prosperity.)

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)

This makes any economic situations involving slavery exceptional.

*But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor. Some of these are:

1. He enjoins the Israelites to be generous toward the destitute (this would function to preclude/reduce voluntary or debt slavery), in the same passage He expressed the hope of pan-success:

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. ... There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15.7ff)

2. Interestingly, the passage above recognizes that this 'lending' (best for self-respect of the recipient) might turn into 'giving' (best for economic good of the recipient) quickly, but that the Hebrew should not let this obvious risk deter his heart:

"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." (Deut 15.9)

"Moses left the realm of law for a moment to appeal to his fellow Israelites' hearts. The law of debt cancellation (vv. 1-6) was intended to instill a spirit of generosity within the Israelites and thus a freedom from the love of money and things. Therefore a calculating Israelite was guilty of sin if he refused a loan for a poor brother (v. 7; cf. needy brother, v. 9) out of fear that it might not be repaid since the seventh year was near. Being hardened or tightfisted meant he was not trusting the Lord to bless . . . all his work." [BKC, in loc]

3. There are numerous instructions to merchants and farmers to provide special help for the disadvantaged (again, reducing the need for someone to sell themselves or family members).

*The entire seventh year of the planting cycle was dedicated to the poor (and servants)!

"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex 23.10)

Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you -- for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)

*They were instructed to leave the margins around the fields unharvested, and to not go over the fields but once:

"`When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.10; 23.22; Deut 24.19f)

*The poor were to be exempt from interest, and were to be buy food at cost.

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. (Lev 25.35ff; note the quote above that interest rates were the dominant cause of voluntary servitude in the ANE.]

[Note: Israel was allowed to charge interest to foreigners, and to no forgive their unpaid loans in the year of Jubilee (Deut 23.21). Tigay [JPStorah, in loc] explains the sociological rationale for this: "This exception is similar to 15:3, which exempts loans to foreigners from remission. As Shadal notes, the foreigner is normally a businessman visiting the country for purposes of trade, and he borrows in order to invest in merchandise and make a profit, not to survive poverty. There is no moral imperative to remit loans made for such purpose or forgo interest on them. Furthermore, assuming the risk of lending and making the sacrifice that remission and interest-free loans entail are special obligations toward one's countrymen (Heb, ahim, lit 'brothers') and for the sake of maintaining equilibrium in Israelite society. The law does not require assuming the same risk and sacrifice toward others who do not share the same obligation."

*The entire Levitical tithe of EVERY THIRD YEAR was to be shared with the poor!

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may

come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deut 14.28ff)

4. Even the sacrificial system made allowances for economic status:

"`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering..."`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering." (Lev 5.7,11; see also Lev 14.21)

If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford. (Lev 27.8)

5. Indeed, there was even a major structure in the economic system designed to support the poor--the automatic cancellation of debts every seven years!

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for

canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1ff)

*Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f) When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15; note: this is a 'standard' case of debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21--discussed below.)

*Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? " (Deut 4.5)

19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147.19)

With this as background, I want to compare the verses we have on this institution with the preceding description of Western antebellum slavery.

*Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

OT: There is a very fundamental difference here. The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!:

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Indeed, as we shall note below, the proceeds of the transaction went to the servant only--each 'sold himself' to someone.

Notice that the sole motive--in the primary text before us-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.

[Even chattel slavery, however, often produced this benefit. So Garnsey [HI:ISAA:5]:

"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere."

But this was not the POINT of such slavery, whereas in the OT context, this benefit is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION for even allowing a watered-down, temporary, semi-servanthood.]

*Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

OT:: In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated (as in pledge of work, in case of default of debt, cf. the case in 2 Kings 4.1 where the creditor is probably coming to claim the children for non-payment, [BKC, in

loc]) enslavement was a capital offense (unless it was a community punishment--you were an theft/fraud offender yourself, of course). This is generally in keeping with what we have noted earlier:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece...Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

*Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10).

*The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of 'selling oneself':

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25.39)

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut 15.12)

*Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave':

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex 21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)

[Note: if a person had a wife/family when he sold himself, then the wife/family went free when his freedom occurred (If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and

she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Ex 21.3). We will discuss the various release scenarios (with/family, w/o) below under 'Treatment".] .........................................................................

Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely bothered by that 'your wife stays here' clause...Can you explain how the various exit scenarios looked, in the case of a Hebrew debt-slave's going free? And is it true that a man could sell his daughter into slavery without any HOPE of freedom for her

Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow of this, with my typically verbose response...smile)

Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish Publication Society version):

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (21.2-4)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (21.7-11)

The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background (rel. to OT and some ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.

First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).

1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often the father, but not exclusively--Hagar 'took a wife for Ishmael out of Egypt', Gen 21,21) discuss and agree on a marriage/union between their respective son/daughter, in the context of a union of

families--not of individuals. (The daughter, depending on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course):

"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable husband for her and negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]

"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar, 'marriage present'." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the bride be given to one of the groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is, the bride married into her husband's family--she did not marry an individual." [OT:DLAM,

134f]

"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman's father decided whom she could marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55-58)." ["Patriarchy As An Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture", Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]

2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride:

"The contract described in the Laws of Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented by the fathers. For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father, with an expected amount the baseline, the mohar habbetulot, set at fifty shekels, but with no upper limit." [HI:HALOT:2:1007; Note: this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a hired person's labor.]

3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in services:

"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be services...Jacob worked seven years for Rachel and Leah respectively." [HI:HALOT:2:1007]

"A fianc? could compound for the payment of the mohar by service, as Jacob did for both his marriages (Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel for Calab's daughter (Jos 15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]

"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of 'wife'." [OT:DLAM, 133]

Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter....

1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable', 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):

• "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children." [OT:LIANE, 35]
• "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
• "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
• "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn't real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:

*"Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not

helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]

*"The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. ... Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if

they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]

• "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
• "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. ...The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

3. The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a 'concubine'. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife status (in the ANE).

• "In Assyria a man could raise a concubine to the status of a wife." [OT:DLAM, 136]
• "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]
• "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]
• "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]
• "Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was concubinage. The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

[Note: one of the two main purposes of concubinage (the other being to provide an heir in a barren marriage)--an economically very expensive expedient in the ancient world--was to keep the family from falling below 'critical mass'. The mortality rate was

so high ("as many as one in two children did not survive to the age of five" [OT:FAI:19]), and the labor demand was so high, that additional means of renewal (other than just the single-wife of the ideal) were sometimes necessary:

*"Those labor requirements in early Israel were especially intense for several reasons: cropping patterns, with their seasonal demands for many hands to do certain sowing or harvesting tasks within a relatively short window of environmental opportunity;

sporadic needs for terrace maintenance and land clearing; a constant set of time-consuming daily procedures for tending to livestock, securing water, and transforming food products to comestibles. The number of persons needed for the family, as the primary, self-sufficient economic unit, to perform the myriad tasks in a regime with critical labor-intensive periods was greater than a nuclear family could supply. Extended or compound families were essential for survival." [OT:FAI, 18]

• "Concubines are women without dowry who include among their duties providing children to the family. Childbearing was an important function in the ancient world, where survival of the family, and often survival at all, was tenuous at best. " [BBC, at Gen 35.21ff]
• "A concubine was a true wife, though of secondary rank. This is indicated, for example, by the references to a concubine's "husband" (Jud 19:3), the "father-in-law" (Jud 19:4), "son-in-law" (Jud 19:5). Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not cohabit with a man unless married to him. The institution itself is an offshoot of polygamy." [TWOT, s.v. concubine/pilgsh]]

4. This focus on the wife-aspect of this process leads commentators to understand this passage to be about protections for the woman, over and above the protections afforded a male slave, and there were many 'exit clauses' for the woman--to full family membership, or to freedom:

*"When a daughter was sold into slavery by her father, this was intended both as a payment of debt and as a way of obtaining a husband for her without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master

does not provide her with food, clothing and marital rights. [BBC, Exodus]

• "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (cf. Lev. 25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex. 21:8); she could also redeem herself. If she married her master's son she was to be given family status (v. 9). If the master married someone else he was required to provide his servant with three essentials: food, clothing, and shelter. [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
• "The expectation of seventh-year release was denied to women... Though an owner may be unhappy with a female slave he has bought for himself, he is to permit her to be freed by the payment of a price, apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his own family, perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her, he has no right to sell her to "a strange family", a family unknown to her, perhaps even one outside the covenant community of Israel. If he keeps her within his own family, yet takes another woman as his own wife or concubine, he is not to deny her the basic rights which his purchase of her for himself guaranteed in the first place. ... If the owner refuses to provide the female

slave with these fundamental rights, he waives his claim of possession, and she is free to go her own way. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. Mendelsohn has cited Nuzian sale contracts which almost exactly parallel the Exodus provisions. Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slavebride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]

• "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]
• "The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign

her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

• "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21] *"In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. ... The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
• "The 'amah' of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:7-10) is an Israelite woman sold for this status by her father. If the buyer has designated her for his son, she is treated like any other daughter in-law, becomes a wife, and is not freed in the seventh year. If the man for whom she was acquired as a wife did not want her, he could "redeem her" to another family but he could not sell her, for his not marrying her was considered a betrayal. If he married another woman, he had to keep providing for

his 'amah; if not, she would go free." [HI:HALOT:2:1008]

• "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]
• "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]

So, this passage is hardly 'negative': it provides an escape from poverty for a young woman, security and protection (and upward social mobility) in the house of a better place, and all the basic legal rights of a wife.

Now, let's turn to the odd looking 'post-release' passage, dig into the situation/background, and look at the different scenarios...

Case 1: Single in, Single during, Single out. No issues here. The master supported the servant during the tenure with room, board, medical care, etc; and the servant provided labor in exchange for this stability, provision, and legal protection. Economic exchange transaction.

Case 2: Married in, Married during, Married out (with or without kids). Seems to be a bit economically burdensome on the master/owner, especially if it was a large family that drove the Hebrew to have to sell himself! There is no stipulation that the wife/kids have to be 'servants too', yet the master has to feed, clothe, house, provide medical care, etc for them out of this own pocket during their tenure ("The master would have been responsible for the maintenance of the slave's wife and children throughout the period of his service." [JPStorah, Ex 21]). But this certainly recognizes the importance of emotional attachments (i.e., the servant and his own family), and supports these values out of the pocket of the owner. Grace and goodness.

Case 3. Single in, Married during, Single out (with or without kids). This is the one that seems odd at first glance to us. Let's make some notes:

• The wife is obviously a servant too, since a free woman wouldn't have to stay behind and the offspring of free and slave was free in the ANE ("If a slave, either male or female, married a free person, the children they had together would be free." [OT:DLAM, 118])
• This means that the owner paid for the servant girl himself (at typical prices of at least one-third to one-half of all the labor output the male slave would have generated in his 6-year tenure), or, if she was born in the household, then the owner had

been paying all her support costs for years and years, with little economic value--given marriage age was around 12-14 (the support costs being considerably more than the male slaves output). ("If, however, his wife has married him during his servitude, obviously by the permission and through the provision of his owner, both the wife and any children born to such a union must remain with the owner when the "temporary" slave claims his freedom of the seventh year." [WBC])

*Now, normally, this male servant would have to pay the mohar (bride-price, bride-present) for the wife, but he obviously doesn't have such resources in his circumstances. This means one of two things: (1) the bride-price must be paid after his release;

or (2) the marriage is not a 'real' one, but a siring (like concubines sometimes functioned) to help populate the household.

We know the latter (#2, 'siring only') situations occurred, and typically did NOT generate the emotional/commitment attachments of a real marriage [probably difficult to generate in a relationship whose average duration would have been 36 months (half of 6 years), most months of which would have been spent in pregnancy/nursing ("children")]:

"In the ancient Near East is was a common practice for a master to mate a slave with a foreign bondwoman solely for the purpose of siring 'house born' slaves. In such instances, no matrimonial or emotional bond was necessarily involved, and the woman and her offspring remained the property of the master (e.g., Gen 17.12,13, 23, 27;Lev 22.11; Jer 2.14.; Cf Gen 14.14; 15.3; Eccs 2.7)" [JPStorah, in loc.]

So, this should not be a serious issue for us.

But, in case emotional bonds WERE created with the wife/kids, there were at least two options open to the ex-servant:

First, he could invoke the clause of 'permanent servitude' and stay forever in that situation (with security, familiarity, family);

Secondly, he could negotiate a marriage/mohar payment and "get" his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees: "... they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. " [HI:HANEL:1, 632]

This second possibility could take several forms:

We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each).

We know that, in the ANE, future services could be accepted by an owner as payment today ("More frequently (than a slave using their property to buy freedom), the manumitted slave was bound to support the former owner during the latter's lifetime.

In Speleers 45, a slave is ceremonially manumitted and bound by a support clause but is also said to have 'redeemed himself,' which suggests that his future services were seen as a payment in fact, if not in law." [HI:HANEL:1,384]), so the owner could allow the family to exit, on the basis of a services 'promissory note'.

3. The post-servant could move out (assuming he had a place to go, obviously), arrange these terms, and take his wife/kids to himself . [In many cases of 'regular betrothal, the bride-to-be moved in with the groom's family long before the marriage was consummated, especially if she was in childhood. This often occurred right after the 'contract' was signed, and since we have already noted both 'promissory notes' and 'installment plans', this is not implausible an arrangement at all.)

4. Some of the 'lavish gifts' the master was supposed to send him out with at his release (see Deut 15.15, and the discussions above/below) could be used as a/part of a bride-price to get the process going.

These are just a couple of easily conceivable scenarios, of which there might be more. The community thrived off healthy relationships and survived because of the fertility associated with them--they would have had a way to keep vibrant and loving couples

together.

So, this case #3 has a couple of different aspects to it, but upon analysis, doesn't seem as 'odd' as it appeared at first. There's just too much flexibility in the marriage processes, economic substrate, and servant institution for this to be a real problem for them (or us).

...........................................................................

*The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a thief that was too poor to make restitution for good stolen, and here is was strictly an economic measure:

"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. (Ex 22.3)

Presumably, the 6 year period would be enough to make restitution.

*Treatment: Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

OT: The Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries around punishment/abuse of servants.

*There are several general admonitions in the Law against harsh/abusive/oppressive behavior toward Hebrew servants:

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18)

*In fact, the Law assumes that the situation may be lucrative enough for some servants to decide to stay with their masters for their lifetime.

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' (Ex 21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, (Deut 15.16)

*The general scholarly assessment is that this domestic "slavery" was not very atrocious, went way beyond "property only", and instead created family-like bonds:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world." [OT:I:101]

"Slave labor was used in domestic service and thus made for a close relationship between master and servant in everyday life. In spite of the legal status, the slave' position was in practice closer to that of a filius-familias than to that of a mere chattel." [OT:HLBT:114ff]

"The treatment of chattel slaves indicates that these slaves are considered human beings..." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves...Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's

property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

*Interestingly, when a servant was to be released at the Sabbath year (without payment of money!), the master was to send him out with gifts of material possessions!

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

*ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off--just like the masters.

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. (Ex 20.9)

"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed. (Ex 23.12)

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt (Deut 5.13ff)

*In fact, the servants were supposed to take part in the rejoicing of the cultic "parties" and trips to Jerusalem (including the big Feasts--Deut 12.11,14):

Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name -- there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD. 12 And there rejoice before the LORD your God, you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants... (Deut 12.11f)

Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose -- you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns -- and you are to rejoice before the LORD your

God in everything you put your hand to. (Deut 12.18)

• Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!
• If a master beat a slave and the slave died, the master was held accountable under the 'life for life' clause:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished (Ex 21.20, NIV)

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged" (JPS Tanach translation)

"If a man shall strike his slave or his maidservant with the rod and he shall die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged." (Stone Edition Tanach translation)

*If a master caused any type of permanent damage to a servant, the servant was given immediate freedom:

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

• The above prescription is hugely instructive, in comparison to the ANE: In some ANE codes, a master could literally put out the eyes of his slaves![HI:HANEL, e.g., at Mari, 1:383; at Nuzi, 1:586]. This represents a MASSIVE departure from 'conventional morality' of the day!
• And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth...(smile). But in the OT, there was a huge "disincentive" to strike one's slave in the face! [Legitimate community punishments were by rods, on the back. Facial blows were considered culpable.] The ANE, however, did NOT have the same 'respect' for the face of slaves--besides eye-gouging, they

resorted to branding, cutting of the ears, mutilating the nose, etc-- IN THE LAW CODES!. These practices are NOT in Israel's law codes, and they are implied to be prohibited by the focus on penalties for striking the face.

*And this passage is noted as being 'oddly humanitarian':

"In the case of bodily injury to slaves, whose status does not qualify them for equal compensation, the owner whose abuse results in the loss of an eye or a tooth is to free that slave, a remarkably humanitarian provision directed at cruelty and sadism in

a slave-owner." [WBC]

*The law allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20f), apparently under the same conditions as that for free men:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay

the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word(s) for property, btw).

*Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument ( flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's

slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free-person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, the 'property' attribute doesn't seem to suggest any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant. Let's structure out the parallel:

Aspect

Two "Free-brews" (smile)

Master/Slave

Victim:

Freeman

Slave

Perp:

Freeman

Master

Extent:

"Confined to bed"

"cannot get up"

(i.e., Confined to bed)

Bodily Harm:

Wounded to point of needing a 'staff';

Wounded to the point of needing medical attention and 'healing'

[Unspecified, but sounds similar to the other case]

Instrument used:

Stone or fist

Disciplinary rod

(like elders used on criminals; and parents used on sons)

Motive:

"Brawl"

Discipline

Punitive

Compensation:

Loss of time;

Cost of medical attention

(paid in 'money'--'silver')

Loss of time;

Cost of medical attention

(borne 'internally' - 'silver')

If victim dies"

Perp Executed

Perp Executed

It should be obvious that the 'slave' in this case is raised to at least as high a level as is the Free-brew! [The context actually may raised the slave HIGHER, due to the eye/tooth passage. So [JPStorah], ""The aggressor must indemnify the victim for loss of income, here called 'idleness', and for medical expenses as well. This text (about the Freeman) is curiously silent on the law governing the infliction of permanent injury." It may be only the slave who is protected in the case of permanent injury...?

*The discipline of free men (and older sons) by the community MIGHT form the backdrop (and boundary?) for this type of rod-usages. Here are verses to compare with this master/slave discipline:

· When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. (Deut 25.1-3)

• "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. (2 Sam 7.14)
• "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me" (Is 10.5f)
• He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (Prov 13.24)

*This Exodus passage is very instructive, because it places slaves (both Hebrew and foreign, apparently) on a legal-protection par with full, free citizens. It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a day or so! Notice some of the commentators on this passage:

First, the JPS Torah Commentary [JPStorah, in loc]

"This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27. The underlying issue, as before, is the determination of intent on the part of the assailant at the time the act was committed.

his slave The final clause of verse 21 seems to indicate that the slave in question is a foreigner. Otherwise the terminology would be inappropriate, given the conditions under which an Israelite might become enslaved.

a rod Hebrew shevet, the customary instrument of discipline [2 Sam 7.14 (to the sons of David!); Is 10.5,24; Prov 10.13; 13.24; 23.13-14; 26.3]. The right of a master to discipline his slave within reason is recognized. But according to rabbinic exegesis,

it is restricted to the use of an implement that does not normally have lethal potentiality, and it may not be applied to a part of the body considered to be particularly vulnerable.

There and then Literally, "under his hand," in contrast to "a day or two" in verse 21. The direct, immediate, causal relationship between the master's act and the death of the slave is undisputed. The master has unlawfully used deadly force, and homicidal

intent is assumed.

He must be avenged The master is criminally liable and faces execution, in keeping with the law of verse...The verb n-k-m is popularly taken to signify "revenge." Actually, it means "to avenge," that is, to vindicate, or redress, the imbalance of justice.

Its use in the Bible is overwhelmingly with God as the subject, and in such cases it always serves the ends of justice. It is employed in particular in situations in which normal judicial procedures are not effective or cannot be implemented. It does not

focus on the desire to get even or to retaliate; indeed, Leviticus 19:18 forbids private vengeance.

"Verse 21. Should the beaten slave linger more than a day before succumbing, certain new and mitigating circumstances arise. The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is losing his financial investment, the price of the slave."

Then, [EBCOT]

"The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit

of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased. When this law is considered alongside the law in vv. 26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, viz., his pocketbook, a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment (vv. 18-19). The aim of this law was

not to place the slave at the master's mercy but to restrict the master's power over him (cf. similar laws in the Code of Hammurabi 196-97, 200). [EBCOT]

Then, [OT:DictOT5]:

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves...Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's

property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:

This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.

This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.

This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.

This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:

It applies primarily to the foreigner.

The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)

It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights.

*Although the matter under discussion is Hebrew servitude, one verse about foreign slaves might also be illustrative of the heart of YHWH in this issue of treatment:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

This passage refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done! (We will come back to this amazing verse, but note here that

it is in abject disagreement with all other ANE codes:

"According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be take advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves." [HI:HANEL:2:1006]

*Treatment: As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.

OT: We have already seen how servants were supposed to be given liberal gifts from the possessions of their masters upon release (Deut 15.13) "according to the blessing of the Lord". We have also seen above how they were expected to celebrate and rejoice with the household during the festivals of YHWH.

The Rabbinic lore highlights how this was supposed to play out (B. Kid 22a):

"Out masters taught: 'Since he has fared well with there'--'with thee' in food; 'with thee' in drink. For you may not eat fine bread while he eats coarse bread. You may not drink aged wine while he drinks new wine. You may not sleep on soft bedding while he sleeps on straw. Hence the saying: When a man buys a Hebrew slave, it is as though he had bought himself a master."

But one interesting verse highlights the apparent solidarity of a servant with the family household:

"`No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. 11 But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food. (Lev 22.10)

Also, we have already cited sources pointing out that almost all servitude in this class was domestic--they lived IN the house with the master and family. They did NOT have separate quarters, as the vast majority in the New World context did:

"However, throughout the entire history of Israel and Judah as well as of all other countries of the ANE, slave labor did not play a decisive role in agriculture and it was used to a very limited extent compared to the labor provided by small landholders.

As the Bible indicates, the artisan trades were also in the hands of free persons (1 Chr 4:14, 23; Jer 37:21; Neh 3:8). For this reason, there existed no artisan workshops based on slave labor and the decisive role in the handicraft industries was played

by free labor, especially in the area of manufacture depending upon skills. Thus, there was no predominance of slave labor in any branch of economy, and it was used primarily for household tasks requiring neither skill nor extensive supervision, i.e., in

jobs where slaves could be employed all the year round, not those which were seasonal in character." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Old Testament']

*Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.

• Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'.
• Both the land and Hebrew servants belonged to God--always!

"`The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Lev 25.23)

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. (Lev 25.39)

• Accordingly, tenants and masters were held accountable to God for treatment of the Land and the people. In the case of the Land, there were numerous prescriptions by God for them; in the case of servants, there were likewise guidelines and limitations upon practice.
• 'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor):

"`If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. (Lev 25.14)

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay

the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. (Ex 21.18)

49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based

on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly. 53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; (Lev 25.49ff)

• As a 'managed, but not owned' human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered 'disposable, non-human goods'. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.
• We have already noted that abuse leading to death or permanent injury was punishable under law for the master.
• In the case of a servant's voluntary choice for lifetime service, the local courts were required to witness the transaction ("But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. " Ex 21.5)
• That the servant still had full agent status in servitude is obvious from the fact that the servant could "buy himself back" from the master (i.e. "redeem" himself):

An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. (Lev 25.49)

*This right of self-redemption is not unique to Israel, but occurred elsewhere in the ANE:

At Emar: "Slaves might redeem themselves out of their peculium." [HI:HANEL:1,644]

"Another Assyrian document from ca. 1115 records that a slave redeemed himself from slavery for 1 mina 55 shekels of silver." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Ancient Near East']

• In the judicially difficult case of the 'serial goring' animal (Ex 21.32ff), the optional ransom value for a dead servant is fixed at a very high rate, compared to even children (cf. redemption values in Lev 27). If the ransom were not offered by the bereaved family/master, or if the ransom price were not paid by the ox-owner, then the ox-owner would be killed for a capital offense. This demonstrates rather vividly the human and moral status of the servant.
• We might also note that in the case of this goring animal, the value of the life of the slave was placed on a par with freepersons. This can be seen in two ways: (1) that the ox was stoned--not slaughtered; and (2) that the price was equivalent to ANE aristocracy:

(1) "The killer ox is not destroyed solely because it is dangerous. This is clear from the fact that it is not destroyed when the victim is another ox and from the prescribed mode of destruction--not ordinary slaughter but stoning. The execution of the ox

was carried out in the presence, and with the participation, of the entire community--implying that the killing of a human being is a source of mass pollution and that the proceedings had an expiatory function...The sanctity of human life is such as to make bloodshed the consummate offense, one viewed with unspeakable horror...In the law of the Torah, the stoning of the ox (in the case of the slave) means that it was regarded as having incurred bloodguilt, just as it had for killing a free person." [JPStorah, in loc]

(2)"This (30 shekels) is the evaluation, for the purposes of vows, of a woman between the ages of twenty and sixty, as given in Leviticus 27:4. It is also the fine imposed by Hammurabi's laws (par 251) on the owner of an ox that gored to death a member of

the aristocracy. The same laws (par 252) impose only twenty shekels if the victim was the aristocrat's slave." [JPStorah, in loc.]

*We have seen above that the elders (addressed by Moses in Lev 25.53) were ordered to make sure owners did not mistreat Hebrew semi-servants:

He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.

*Legal Status: Slaves could not have their own property--all they had belonged to their 'owner'.

OT:Hebrew servants obviously could have their own property.

• The purchase price for their servanthood belonged to them (before they used it to buy their freedom and/or their land back).
• They could prosper and buy their own freedom (above).
• They maintained any family and property that they had before they entered into the servant arrangement.

We don't have a lot of data on this, but we do have some additional data that indicates that servants could accumulate property:

"Naturally, there were a certain number of privileged slaves. Thus, according to 2 Samuel (19:17), Ziba, a slave of Saul's family, had fifteen sons and twenty slaves. To judge from Leviticus (25:47-50), some slaves of Hebrew origin could have raised the means in order to purchase their freedom." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

*Exit: Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman.

OT: One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how 'easy' it was to get free! (There might be a message in there about God's attitude toward it, smile). *Freedom could be bought by relatives (Lev 25.49) [This demonstrates that Garnsey's 'no kinship relations' criteria for REAL slavery did not exist in Israel.]

• The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not (Lev 25.49)
• Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free--without ANY payment of money to the master:

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. (Ex 21.2; Deut 15.12)

*Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labeled as 'to compensate', implying rights/duties/debt):

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26)

*When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts--to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again (Deut 15.13)

Summary: It should be QUITE CLEAR from the above, that the institution in the Mosaic law involving voluntary, fixed-term, flexible, and protected servant-laborer roles was unlike "western", chattel labor in almost ALL RESPECTS. To label it as 'slavery', except in the most general/metaphorical sense of the word, is significantly inappropriate. God's intent in Levitus 25.39f of protecting their status and self-image was VERY clear: ""`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you."

.......................................................................................................................................

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".

In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of

the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

• Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]
• The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).
• The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut

25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.

• It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:
• Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. (Deut 14.21)
• Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother,

because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1-3)

*Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)

This shows that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than international practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of the assembly of Israel and participate in the covenant blessings, so this is not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such standard cultural priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they are like a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.

Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).

*The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]

*?Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.

It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.

But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands...

Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they

do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]

4. The Great Escape Clause...?

Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

Most commentators understand this to be a reference to non-extradition of a foreign, runaway slave. That is, a slave in another country runs away and flees to Israel. Israel, under this verse and under this understanding, has to allow the runaway to live freely in the land (as a sanctuary), and cannot extradite him/her to their former master. Commentators also note that this is in abject contradiction to ANE and international law of the time:

• "In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations, slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16)."[OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]
• "Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits

escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel." [JPStorah, in loc.]

Now, this understanding could be right, and this restrictive an application (i.e., foreigners immigrating to Israel) is argued on the basis of the scope of the allowance ("whatever town"), but it is not clear from the passage that it is to be taken so restrictively. Nor is the (translation supplied) 'come to Israel' very obvious from the text.

If the passage is NOT this restrictive, then what we have here is an escape-clause that says: "if you--Hebrew or foreigner-- run away from a master, as long as you stay within Israel, you are free, and no one can return you to him/her."

This is exactly the understanding given in [HI:HANEL:2,1006]:

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

Think about this conclusion for a moment...Slavery was meant to serve the poor (and thereby, contribute to community strength and health). If a master/slave relationship turns destructive, the value is not being achieved, and it is better for the community for the relationship to dissolve. This was NOT left in the hands of the elite to decide, through appeals and litigation and hearings etc (!!!), but was something the slave could initiate himself/herself. There was a cost--dislocation--but this would have been a tradeoff-driven decision anyway.

If HI:HANEL is correct, then NO situation of 'true' slavery was exempt, and the foreigner (and Israelite alike, presumably) could live in freedom (but without the economic support substrate many sought in voluntary slavery). I would guess, however, that this would have been of little interest to most Hebrew debt-slaves, since they had a time-release clause already, and since they would want the local community reinstatement process to come to closure--for reasons of community respect, status, and sense of self-worth.

And, since this clause is based on Israel's experience in Egypt, it probably resonated with the elders of communities, and therefore had a good chance of being honored.

"It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution"--a Great escape clause?

5. References to slavery in later OT books.

The subsequent references to slavery, semi-slavery, and forced-labor situations all reflect (1) this non-western character of the arrangements; (2) Israelite tendency to abuse even the well-intentioned structures of Hebrew servanthood set up in the Law; and (3) a transitional framework that will carry over into the Greeco-Roman era.

A number of historical situations reflect this:

*The Gibeonite deception of Joshua (Joshua 9).

This is the incident in which the people of the four towns in Canaan (Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath Jearim. ) deceived Joshua and the Israelites into signing a peace-treaty with them, even though Israel was NOT supposed to do so. In retaliation for this deception, the Gibeonites were put to 'forced labor':

but all the leaders answered, "We have given them our oath by the LORD, the God of Israel, and we cannot touch them now. 20 This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath will not fall on us for breaking the oath we swore to them." 21 They continued, "Let them live, but let them be woodcutters and water carriers for the entire community." So the leaders' promise to them was kept. 22 Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, "Why did you deceive us by saying, `We live a long way from you,' while actually you live near us? 23 You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God." 24 They answered Joshua, "Your servants were clearly told how the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to wipe out all its inhabitants from before you. So we feared for our lives because of you, and that is why we did this. 25 We are now in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right to you." 26 So Joshua saved them from the Israelites, and they did not kill them. 27 That day he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the community and for the altar of the LORD at the place the LORD would choose. (Josh 9.18ff)

Now, the interesting thing about this is that these cities still maintained their individual status, as the next chapter in which Israel was politically 'forced' to defend them against a Canaanite war-alliance (chapter 10). They were apparently placed under this conscription/forced-labor arrangement, but this does not seem to be too abusive in the least.

What I personally find interesting about this, is that commentators often relate the 'curse' formula of Joshua in this passage to the antediluvian curse of Noah on Canaan:

When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." 26 He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 27

May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (Gen 9.24ff)

This curious passage is never referred to later in the bible, unless the situations of the forced-labor of Joshua and later of Solomon (All the people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites),

21 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites could not exterminate -- these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. I Kngs 9.20-21) are oblique references to it.

IF this prophecy of Noah is fulfilled in the conscription arrangements of Joshua and Solomon, then the 'target' of the prophecy is a political arrangement and NOT a class structure (as is sometimes argued from the passage).

*The anti-king warnings of Samuel.

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." (I Sam 8.6ff)

In this warning speech by Samuel to the straying nation, he points out that the ruling elite will end up placing forced-labor and conscription services on the nation. Since this is meant to be a deterrent to the nation, it makes sense that it was seen quite negatively. In other words, forced-labor was NOT an acceptable state of affairs for the populace.

*The runaway slaves of Shimei

But three years later, two of Shimei's slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath, and Shimei was told, "Your slaves are in Gath." 40 At this, he saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in search of his slaves. So Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath. (I Kings 2.38-39)

This is the earliest passage that suggests that slaves (foreign?) were sometimes mistreated to the point of attempted escape. Since these slaves fled to the Philistine coast for protection, it might be reasonable to assume that they were NOT Hebrew servants. In any event, the main character of this story--the master Shimei-was not know for his wholesome attitudes and dealings anyway! (His abuse of King David is recorded in 2 Samuel 16.), rendering the use of this story as representative as unwarranted.

We have one other piece of data that tends to support this, however: the comment of Nabal concerning David:

When David's men arrived, they gave Nabal this message in David's name. Then they waited. 10 Nabal answered David's servants, "Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. (I Sam 25.9) Although, like the case of Shimei, Nabal is not know for his 'plain dealing' (!, cf. "His name was Nabal and his wife's name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but her husband, a Calebite, was surly and mean in his dealings. "), such

a statement only makes sense if the social context could be remotely characterized so. This MIGHT mean that a general abuse of the institution (although again it is unclear if this is the semi-servant role described in the law) was occurring in a higher incidence.

*The forced enslavement of the widow's sons in the Divided Monarchy (2 Kings 4)

The wife of a man from the company of the prophets cried out to Elisha, "Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that he revered the LORD. But now his creditor is coming to take my two boys as his slaves." (2 Kings 4.1)

This potential forced enslavement seems to run counter to most of the provisions for the widows in Israel, and as such would not be in the spirit of the Law in the least! (A similar situation occurs in Neh 5.5, where the Israelites are being economically forced to sell their sons and daughters to simply maintain their living and homestead.)

*The attempted enslavement of 200,000 Judeans! (2 Chrn 28.8-15).

The Israelites took captive from their kinsmen two hundred thousand wives, sons and daughters. They also took a great deal of plunder, which they carried back to Samaria. 9 But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria. He said to them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven. 10 And now you intend to make the men and women of

Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD your God? 11 Now listen to me! Send back your fellow countrymen you have taken as prisoners, for the LORD's fierce anger rests on you." 12 Then some of the leaders in Ephraim -- Azariah son of Jehohanan, Berekiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai -- confronted those who were arriving from the war. 13 "You must not bring those prisoners here," they said, "or we will be guilty before the LORD. Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his fierce anger rests on Israel." 14 So the soldiers gave up the prisoners and plunder in the presence of the officials and all the assembly. 15 The men designated by name took the prisoners, and from the plunder they clothed all who were naked. They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and healing balm. All those who were weak they put on donkeys. So they took them back to their fellow countrymen

at Jericho, the City of Palms, and returned to Samaria.

In this passage we see a victorious Northern Kingdom of Israel taking "war captives" of the Southern Kindgom of Judah. The prophet speaks for God and specifically condemns the practice.

*The abuse of the poor by the elite in the Southern Kingdom (Amos)

Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, 5 saying, "When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" -- skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with

dishonest scales, 6 buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. (Amos 8.4ff)

One can see here that the ruling elite had begun to exploit and abuse the poor--just another example of how we tend to take acceptable structures and exploit them for selfish ends. No exception here. The fact that the prophets consistently rebuke these oppressive practices should indicate that God NEVER intended them for His people at all!

*The Fiasco of Jeremiah 34!

This is one of the saddest stories in the bible--a story of hope and freedom, dashed by the greed of men.

The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back

the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 `Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female

slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again. 17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim `freedom' for you, declares the LORD -- `freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18 The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. 19 The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, 20 I will hand over to their enemies who seek their lives. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. (Jer 34)

This was the major point in the revival under Zedekiah (with the Babylonian army outside the door!), and illustrates both (1) God's intent for freedom and (2) Israel's failure to obey this FROM THE START. This incident was even solemnized by another covenant ceremony! Needless to say, God's response is quite clear in this passage, and his attitude toward permanent servitude is obvious.

*The Post-Exilic Political Situation (Ezra, Neh)

9 Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. (Ez 9.9)

"But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our forefathers so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces. 37 Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you have placed over us. They rule over our bodies

and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress. (Neh 9.36-37)

In this case, the term 'slavery' is being used more loosely, as a national-political term. Israel as a group was under the authority of the Persian government. As a captive nation, they were subservient, but this certainly was a far cry from the individualistic, western-style slavery that we are discussing.

What is interesting is that this type of 'group captivity' has a distinct analogue in what Judea will have under the Roman government during NT times, as well as the situation in which the Church will find itself in the same timeframe.

In other words, Israel would not have been 'free' to FULLY practice the Mosaic law under Persian rule. Stipulations about land redemption, debt cancellation, sacrificial tithes, for example, would not be necessarily allowed by the ruling government (although Persia is generally noted for its tolerance of captive cultures). Similarly, in 1st century Judea, we have a Roman captive state, attempting to maintain a large degree of cultural independence, but still struggling with the invasive and often oppressive Roman restrictions. (The NT church will find itself 'captive' to this same Roman world, and will face similar constraints in practicing what it knows life in the New Creation will be like.)

*The 'Status' associated with Servanthood.

In the OT, the 'status' associated with the role of servant was directly proportional to the status of the "master" (as it is today, in more traditional cultures). For example, the highest title of importance that could be given to a human by God was that

of 'my servant'. It is given to Abraham (Gen 26.24), Moses (Num 12.7), Caleb (Num 14.24), David (2 Sam 3.18), Eliakim (Is 22.20), the Messiah (Is 42.1,et.al.), Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25.9!), Zerubbabel (Hag 2.23), and the prophets (2 Kings 9.7; 17.13, et. al).

And, 'servant' could be used of virtually ANY subordinate (in the sense of authority) or anyone seeking something from a more powerful figure, as some of the following examples might indicate:

He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way -- now that you have come to your servant." (Gen 18, Abraham to YHWH)

Then Esau looked up and saw the women and children. "Who are these with you?" he asked. Jacob answered, "They are the children God has graciously given your servant." (Gen 33, Jacob to his brother Esau)

Then Judah went up to him and said: "Please, my lord, let your servant speak a word to my lord. Do not be angry with your servant, though you are equal to Pharaoh himself. (Gen 44, Judah to his disguised and powerful younger brother Joseph)

"May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my lord," she said. "You have given me comfort and have spoken kindly to your servant -- though I do not have the standing of one of your servant girls." (Ruth 2, Ruth to Boaz)

Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and grief." (I Sam 1, Hannah to the priest Eli)

David said to Saul, "Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him." (I Sam 17, David to King Saul)

Ahimelech answered the king, "Who of all your servants is as loyal as David, the king's son-in-law, captain of your bodyguard and highly respected in your household? 15 Was that day the first time I inquired of God for him? Of course not! Let not the king

accuse your servant or any of his father's family, for your servant knows nothing at all about this whole affair." (I Sam 22, a priest to king Saul)

Then David said to Achish, "If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in one of the country towns, that I may live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?" (I Sam 27, a fugitive David to a Philistine King) Now there was a servant of Saul's household named Ziba. They called him to appear before David, and the king said to him, "Are you Ziba?" "Your servant," he replied. 3 The king asked, "Is there no one still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show God's kindness?" (2 Sam 9, Saul's servant Ziba to King David)

Absalom went to the king and said, "Your servant has had shearers come. Will the king and his officials please join me?" (2 Sam 13, Absalom to his father King David)

Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, "Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel. Please accept now a gift from your servant." (2 Kings 5, Naaman the syrian military commander

to Elisha the prophet).

Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, "I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8 And Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria. 9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death. (2 Kings 16, the king of the Northern kingdom to the king of Assyria)

The point of these examples is to show that the term 'servant' could refer to kings, military leaders, patriarchs, priests, servants, and the general populace. In general parlance, it merely reflected a relative (and sometimes temporary) position of authority or influence.

*Slavery as a 'judgment' on Tyre (Joel 3) There is one passage in which YHWH indicates his abhorrence of slave-trading, and actually uses it as a judgment on a nation (along the lines of 'what you reap, you sow' and 'eye for eye')

`Now what have you against me, O Tyre and Sidon and all you regions of Philistia? Are you repaying me for something I have done? If you are paying me back, I will swiftly and speedily return on your own heads what you have done. 5 For you took my silver and my gold and carried off my finest treasures to your temples. 6 You sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks, that you might send them far from their homeland. 7 `See, I am going to rouse them out of the places to which you sold them, and I

will return on your own heads what you have done. 8 I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away.` The LORD has spoken. (Joel 3.4-8).

This passage shows the divine displeasure over foreign capture of Israelites for slave trade, and of the 'repay in kind' motif of judgment concerning those nations who mistreated Israel (cf. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; , Gen 12.3).

As such, it clearly shows God's displeasure toward forced servitude . (Unlike the Hebrews, the Phonenicans DID practice 'chattel slavery'.)

These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was NEVER in favor of 'chattel' slavery, and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at

6 years) shows how concerned He was about abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.

It might be instructive to remind the reader again of how different this is from New World Slavery. A generic, scholarly statement of this would be:

"Naturally there were the usual social distinctions, e.g., "master" and "servant," but even servitude for the Hebrews was very different from the slavery elsewhere in the ancient Near East or from modern concepts of slavery". [ISBE, s.v. "Law in the OT"] But a more vivid way of seeing this would be to contrast real Israeli/Hebrew possibilities with their analogies in New World slavery. Consider this statement of possible slave/master relations in OT Israel:

"In the absence of legal heirs, his master sometimes appointed him (a slave) as his successor (Gen 15:3). Where the master had only daughters, he could perpetuate his name by giving one of them to the slave and adopting him as a son (1 Chron 2:34; b.Pesahim 113a)."[OT:HLBT:115]

Now, take the phase "In the absence of legal heirs, his master sometimes appointed him as his successor". Try to visualize this scenario in light of what you think Old South slavery was like: is it even remotely conceivable that a wealthy, traditional Plantation owner--with a wife, daughters, brothers, but no sons--would take one of his slaves, write him into his Will, and bequest the entire plantation (and the future welfare of his remaining family!) to him?!! In the Old Testament, it happened; in the

Old South--?

Try this one, too, of "Where the master had only daughters, he could perpetuate his name by giving one of them to the slave and adopting him as a son". Try to visualize that one: the wealthy, spotless, traditional Plantation owner -- with daughters but no

sons--adopting one of the slaves as a son, and giving one of his daughters to the slave in marriage?!! In the Old Testament, it happened; in the Old South--?

No, it is entirely inappropriate and inaccurate to map the New World slavery 'social malignancy' onto the ANE servitude systems, and especially off-base to map it onto the biblical law codes, OT ethics, and the heart of Israel's God. ............................................................

Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community ruled by Him.

.......................................................................

Pushback: "Well, Glenn, I think I can agree that this system was certainly different/better than New World slavery, and in several areas, such a non-extradition policy, much better than ANE slavery, but that only means its comparatively better. It's good from a human standpoint, but you have to admit its not perfect-enough-to-be-from-a-god. I would expect a real God could have done much better, and precluded ANY type of slavery-dependency arrangements (or whatever you want to call it).

Well, this actually runs up against a philosophical problem known as 'supererogation'. It's a common scenario one considers: "given some situation X, couldn't God have improved it incrementally by at least 1% more? And if He could and didn't, doesn't this

say something negative about God?" The supererogation problem arises in such an arguement when it becomes obvious that that statement may be too vacuous/vague to stand as an argument. For example, if X humans are good (in the biblical system), can't God improve the universe incrementally by making just one more person (one more instance of goodness), giving an even better X+1 persons? And then, if X+1 persons are good, couldn't He make X+2, etc, etc, etc...you see the problem? Some goodness-sets are not bounded in themselves but only by other constraints (e.g., resources to sustain population, overcrowding psychological problems). But, one might ask, why can't God also make the Earth bigger, and make the resources more abundant? He could, and then the infinite regress would continue--increase the population by 10% more, inflate the earth by 10% more, increase the natural resources by 10%...and on and on and on and on...

Philosophers know that such arguments are too questionable/slippery to work either positively (e.g., God, who already made a lot of people, could have made one more person but didn't--therefore He is not really interested in maximum goodness), or negatively (e.g., God, who already prevents a lot of crime, could have prevented one more crime but didn't--therefore He is not really interested in minimizing evil). These arguments don't work because they do not have a 'context' in which to bound the infinite regress.

Instead, discussions focus more on notions of 'constrained optimality' or 'best-of-all-possible-worlds". Such notions presume some given situation, with some given boundary principles. For a whimsical example, God could, upon each sale of a person into slavery, turn that person into a butterfly so they can fly off in freedom. Or, God could, upon each sale of a person into slavery, kill the purchaser with some horrible death (or turn them into a frog). But real-world discussions have to operate on the basis of the givens (e.g., poverty occurs, dependency is a familiar part of life--given the parenting process, some individuals have/retain more resources or skills than others), and then ask--"what is the best way to solve for all the simultaneous constraints?" One hopes that the solution is 'aimed high' (e.g., provision & protection for those who need it, escape and exit for those who need that, flexibility in the arrangements, emphasis on human worth in ALL "transactions" and resultant states, prescribed tenderness for clients and feedback mechanisms for the patrons, community benefits instead of corrosiveness because of the institution, etc), so that the inevitable failures of us humans will yield a 'net higher' result that we would have achieved shooting for something incrementally better.

So, its not that easy to say that what we have in the OT is NOT the 'perfect-enough' solution to the multiple-variable problem, because of the constraints of multiple value targets, and multiple levels of sensitivity of the human heart to others, and the different levels of selfishness and avarice in human society. If a solution set--again, given the situation of that history and the status of the participants--is (1) significantly better than all historical alternatives, and (2) still upholds ethical ideals which would clearly be present in any superior-enough-to-be-from-God system, and (2) cannot be significantly improved by systemic changes (theoretically)--and these proposed improvements could be 'tested' to see what side-effects might be co-generated [the cure being worse than the disease, or ecosystem 'tweaking' which throws the system into a worse state], then one would have to come up with a real data-advancing argument (and not just a supposition--"SURELY a perfect God could improve it?") to make this into a real argument.

And, it is irrelevant to the objection/discussion here to argue that a perfect God would have made a different situation (as a way to preclude the problems addressed in the biblical servitude laws). To argue that God should not have allowed poverty, war, misfortune, locusts, predators, etc is an altogether different argument than our subject of slavery. As such, as much merit as that argument could have, and as much attention as it deserves (I have tons of pages on the Tank devoted to the various forms of

that question), it is irrelevant to our question here: "given the situation/context, is OT slavery legislation below par for a good-hearted and omni-competent God?" Without (a) a clear description of what God should have done differently in this given context, (b) a strong defense that this proposed set of operations is 'worthy of a deity', and (c) some evidence/argument that these alternative approaches would have not have produced worse problems somewhere in the overall system, then the argument that

"God could have done better" is speculation at best, and meaningless at worse (under the supererogation problem).

..........................................................................

Pushback: "We'll that's a lofty, Pollyanna view of the situation--the reality would have been quite different than this 'easy view' of slavery, Glenn. In spite of your arguments this situation would still have been true: Imagine a girl born to a gentile slave. By Jewish law, she is never freed, may be raped at the master's whim until she becomes engaged (you didn't even discuss the slave-rape law of Lev 19!!), may be beaten regularly as long as the master is careful around the head, and may be sold -thereby shattering the slave family when it suits the master."

Well, let's look at your scenario and see how realistic it is, for the biblical world...

"imagine a girl born to a gentile slave": This could arise in two different circumstances: (1) the slave is a concubine of the 'owner' or the owner's son, which would make the girl free [but not in the official line of inheritance--remember the data about

the difference between concubines and 'regular' wives]; or (2) the slave is a wife of another slave (male) in the household. In this latter case, the owner has all the financial, medical, legal, and training responsibility for the child indefinitely.

"By Jewish law, she is never freed": This is not actually true, on at least three counts: (1) she could, should the situation be intolerable, simply run away and seek asylum elsewhere in Israel (as HI:HANEL noted earlier, this essentially made this relationship 'voluntary'); (2) Jewish law only said that Israelites COULD maintain a master-slave relationship past the 7-year mark/Jubilee mark for non-Israelites--it did NOT say that it was automatic, necessary, free, expected, or 'standard'; and (3) there is simply no reason to believe that an owner could not "marry her off" into marriage-based freedom (just as the Hebrew fathers did), should times get hard or it make overall sense to do so. It is simply unwarranted to state that 'she is never freed'. They might always seek the shelter and security of such a household, but there are no restrictions in Jewish law upon freeing ANYONE. The only restrictions extant are that Jewish servants MUST BE freed periodically. There are statements mandating

'perpetual Gentile slavery' at all!

"may be raped at the master's whim until she becomes engaged": I can see how this might have been done under New World slavery, but this is a serious misunderstanding of the social realities of the ANE/Biblical world, on several counts. (1) If this girl were EVER to be engaged to someone, her virginity had to be demonstrable! If the owner EVER wanted to the 'free of the economic responsibility' for her--for good reasons or greedy reasons-- he had better protect her virginity flawlessly. (2) There were HUGE marital complications between regular wives and concubines--and not just about inheritance! The rivalries described in the bible between Rachel and Leah, the prohibitions about marrying a woman and her sister, the problems between Sarah and Hagar, and the rivalry/taunting of Hannah all illustrate the realities of inter-family conflict over sexual 'exclusivity' and/or 'preference' of one wife over/by the husband. This provides a strong argument against some 'accepted practice' of sex between a male owner and a girl slave (assuming the master was married). (3) one of the earliest points of visibility into this possibility gives us indication that the practice was quite the opposite: Sarah had to 'give' the Egyptian servant Hagar to Abraham, before he

could have sex with her (Similarly with Rachel and Leah's female servants)--if the 'master' could have raped all he wanted, this recorded practice makes no real sense; (4) Households struggled to survive in that world--everybody had to pull together. There was simply not much room for animosity, subterfuge, abuse, and/or 'sabotage'. Ancient, small, households simply did not have enough "excess resources" with which to make up for the "lost productivity" which historically has been entailed in slave-abuse. (5) Societies (especially many ancient ones) have strong honor/shame value structures, and the culture orients almost everything in support of those structures. Honor is good; shame is bad--and both exists on spectra. This is true in the biblical world, as well as in the ANE. Rape was considered a crime throughout the ANE, which varied in consequences from capital punishment (e.g, stoning an adulterer), vicarious punishment (not in the bible, but elsewhere in the ANE a man who raped someone else's wife had to give HIS wife to the offended husband for HIM to rape/abuse!!!), down to simple fines and religious requirements. But in all cases it was seen as 'shameful' and NOT as something "neutral" and especially not something "honorable". Even without some explicit penalty in the law codes, even "small" instances of sexual violation would have been (a) easily known!; and (b) a source of lowered honor-status for the perp. The way that social values exist on spectral lines (and not simply "yes" and "no" bifurcations) argues that some shame was attached to even 'smaller', less community-destructive acts such as slave-rape.

This latter point, btw, can be seen in the ethical literature of pre-NT Israel. Good treatment of servants is listed by Job in 31.13ff as one of his "good points" (illustrating the honor attached to righteous treatment of servants): "

"If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves, when they brought a complaint against me;

?14? what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?

?15? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Hartley notes:

"Job contends that he has treated his slaves fairly and kindly. He insists that he has never refused to listen to a just complaint from either his male or his female slaves, including a complaint against himself. He has accepted the responsibility of treating his slaves justly as a God-given obligation, convinced that in the time of judgment God, either as a judge or a witness, will rise (qum) to their defense..." [NICOTT, in loc.]

Later ethical writers hold this same point:

"Ethical writing of the period view this sexual exploitation of a defenseless maidservant as a lurking danger. In his essay on women to be avoided, Ben Sira warns: "(Take heed, sons, ... and be warned against) having any relations with your maidservant." (41.22). Hillel supposedly said, 'the more maidservants, the more lewdness,' (mAbot 2.7). And a parable tells of 'a royal prince who sinned with a s slave-girl, and the king on learning of it expelled him from courth' (Gen R. 15.7, p. 140 ed Theodor-Albeck); thus the prince's action was disapproved of not only by his father but the authors of the source." [WS:JWGRP, 206]

The Sirach passage is very clear: "(Be ashamed...) of meddling with his servant-girl--and do not approach her bed" [NRSV]

And (6) The case of children is even more strictly dealt with in the ANE law codes ["Intercourse with a married woman is deemed rape when she has offered firm resistance (MAL A 12). By contrast, any form of physical or psychological violence amounts to rape when the victim is a child (MAL A 55)." HI:HANEL:556]...thus, this assumption of 'rape-at-will' is unfounded (in the culture under discussion) and even contra-indicated by numerous and clear data points.

(you didn't even discuss the slave-rape law of Lev 19!!) Well, that's because either (a) it supports my view; (b) is too unclear to really comment on the issue; or (c) doesn't deal with rape at all..."to wit":

Here is the passage in the NASV: "Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed, nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she

was not free. ?21? And he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting, ?a? ram for a guilt offering. ?22? The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."

1. It might not even be talking about rape at all (but seduction instead):

"The ANE laws, as pointed out above, do not have a parallel case to Lev 19:20-22 dealing with adultery with a consenting slave wife" [ABD, s.v. "Crimes"]

2. It might be including the owner in the guilty parties, and since the crime was one of 'lowering' the girl's desirability, this principle would apply long before she was betrothed:

"The law also is ambiguous as to who slept with the slave, the owner or another, and may include all circumstances." [HI:HANEL:1005]

3. The absence of death penalty 'because she was a slave' is NOT due to her 'servile' status, but to her non-married status (the capital crime version only applied to fully/legally married people--until the deal was done, she was still under the economic rubric of the owner):

"The present case concerns a slave woman who is about to be set free so that she can be married. The prospective husband had not yet 'redeemed' her, that is, purchased her freedom from her master; and the latter has not liberated her of his own accord. If at this point she has sex relations with another man, neither of them is subject to the death penalty for she is still a slave and therefore not legally married." [A Modern Commentary on the Torah]

4. It's also unclear who gets the punishment money--the owner or the groom-to-be. If it's the owner (most likely), the reason is for the continued financial support of the now-no-longer-about-to-leave-in-marriage servant girl:

"Some legal background is required by way of explanation. The law of Exodus 21:7-11 allows a father to sell his preadolescent daughter as a slave to another Israelite. This was usually done out of extreme deprivation or indebtedness. When the slave girl reached marriageable age, her master were required to do one of three things: marry her himself, designate her as his son's wife, or allow her to be redeemed. This last option was interpreted to mean that the master could pledge the girl to another Israelite. Although Exodus 21:8 prohibits the master from selling the girl to a non-Israelite, it does no prohibit such arrangements as would involve another Israelite man. The latter would redeem the girl by a payment to her master and take her as his wife... The situation projected in our passage is as follows: An Israelite slave girl, here called shifhah, was pledged by her master to another Israelite man. The designation had already been made, but had not been finalized by payment to the girl's master or, possible, the man had not yet claimed his bride. Legally, the girl was still a slave and unmarried. If at this point, an outsider had carnal relations with her, he would have caused a loss to her master because, no longer a virgin, would be less desirable as a wife, and the prospective husband would undoubtedly cancel the proposed marriage... In parallel circumstances, Exodus 22:15-17 stipulates that one who seduced a free maiden who was not yet pledged as a wife had either to marry her himself or pay her father the equivalent of the marriage price (mohar). In our case, the option of marriage was ruled out because the girl had been pledged to another man--leaving only one way to deal with the situation. The man who had had carnal relations with the girl had to pay an indemnity to her master to compensate him for his loss. Presumably, since the marriage was called off, and the young woman rendered undesirable, the owner would have to continue maintaining her in his household... " [JPStorah]

5. We can also see, btw, the honor/shame principle at work here. Whoever raped this servant girl (including the owner, if the passage includes him) was seriously exposed to the public eye(!): there is a public inquiry by elders and 'significant peers'; there is a public monetary transaction done 'at court'; there is repudiation by the offended groom-to-be-and-family, and there is a public religious ceremony held in front of all for this sin!!! (This is NOT like 'telling your secret sins' to some priest in a confessional booth!). Besides the honor-loss, there are the more tangible losses of (a) the compensation/payment; and (b) the guilt offering [only a male sheep was allowed--a serious cost to the future of the flock, and therefore 'pension plan' for the perp].

So, there's nothing really 'embarrassing' about this verse--it falls more into 'marriage/family' law than into 'public crimes'

may be beaten regularly as long as the master is careful around the head: Not sure where this comes from. The 'eye and tooth' passages are considered by commentators to be representative of all 'body parts', just as the lex talionis ('eye for eye and tooth for tooth') is not considered to allow 'regular beatings of free Israelites, as long as you are careful around the head'!!! And besides this, the passage we looked at above in detail about "if he gets up after a couple of days" in no way restricted

the blows to the head area--so this 'being careful about the head' comment is off-base.

and may be sold -- thereby shattering the slave family when it suits the master: Again, this might have been relevant in New World slavery, in which the slave community was not intimately entwined in the household survival task, but in the ANE this was of

limited applicability. You just couldn't afford to alienate your one or two servants by doing such a thing--it would put everyone at jeopardy. When the girl was old enough, of course, she could be 'sold into marriage', but this isn't normally considered 'shattering a family'--when a daughter leaves to get married. We know of fathers selling their own daughters and sons and wives (in the Bible and in the ANE)--shattering a family due to economic necessity--so I am not sure the situation is much different (or worse?) here with servants. One normally wouldn't part with someone raised, trained, fed, cared for within a household, unless it were under dire circumstances. So, again, this has limited relevance to the culture in which we are discussing this.

So, all in all, I don't really think the scenario in the pushback is any more 'realistic' than the ones I documented above. The pushback scenario is much more representative of New World Slavery, but it shows a basic lack of familiarity with both the social setting (and actually, even the Jewish law structures) dealing with ANE/biblical "slavery". The situation described in this article, rather, is documented well from ANE and biblical sources, so I stand by the accuracy and fairness of its representation.

At the end of the day, Israel was just not allowed to mis-treat ANYBODY:

"Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they

do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

999999999999999999999999999999999

Good question...

...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?

Created Dec 30, 1999

[This is a continuation of the question of Slavery. The Intro and OT discussion is at www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html.]

The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)

Now, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets somewhat more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery?"...

Remember, most people assume that the slavery of the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's writings was at least as bad as New World Slavery, with all its horrors, injustices, and atrocities. For us to be able to lodge the ethical objection of "the NT condones slavery" against the Christian worldview, we will have to demonstrate that what the NT calls "slavery" is equivalent to what we would understand by that term, and we will have to show that NT teaching 'condones' that practice. In the case of the OT/Tanaach, we saw that the two different systems of 'slavery' were not even close enough for meaningful comparison. We will need to compare and contrast Roman slavery and New World slavery here too, to insure that we are not committing crimes of equivocation.

So, our method here will be to first determine to what extent 'slavery' in the Roman Empire in the mid-first century exemplified the oppressive character of later New World slavery (of Brazil, the Caribbean, and the USA).

Then, we will ask what type of responses to this should have issued from Paul's pen (in light of general NT ethics and worldview) and what type of responses actually showed up in his writings. [We can then consider how much this position might be considered "condoning slavery"--the original objection.]

Then, we need to look at any theoretical/theological concepts and historical realities that might have informed these responses, and finally, what evidence we have about the early church's actions in this area.

Our order of investigation would be something like this:

The question of identity--does the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough for the objection to have its customary force?

Given the actual character of NT 'slavery', what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD?

What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT--esp. Paul?

To what extent could this be considered "condoning slavery", as voiced in a typical objection?

What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?

What evidence do we have about the early church's actions in this area?

........................................................................................................................................

1. So, our first topic concerns the question of identity--does the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough for the objection to have its customary force?

The data is quite strong that the two systems are substantially different, especially in the areas most troubling to modern minds--the abuse, the oppression, the future prospects of the slave. I have summarized the data in this comparative chart, and adduce the detailed data for each of these issues below it:

Issue

Roman

New World

1

Motive

Social Status

Economic Advantage

2

Entry

Mixed, mostly involuntary

All involuntary

3

Treatment

Wide variance, depending on owner

Narrow variance, depending on owner

4

Living conditions

Rural, mixed; domestic, good

Mostly very bad

5

Legal controls on masters

Medium

None

6

Legal recourse of slaves

Medium/high

None

7

Legal agent status

Medium (e.g., slaves could own slaves)

Virtually none

8

Legal Exit

Customary/Frequent

Virtually never

9

Occupation types

Very wide range

Medium range

10

Social status

Very wide range

Mostly very low

11

Economic plight relative to poor free labor

Better to much better

Same or worse

12

Social advancement opportunities

Excellent

Poor

13

Incentives to perform

More positive (e.g., economic, manumission) than negative (e.g., punishment)

Mostly negative and coercive (e.g. physical abuse)

1. Motive -- the differences in this category are very considerable.

o Roman masters were less interested in economic exploitation than in having a more robust lifestyle:

"Yet it does not follow that landowners sought the greatest possible levels of profit from their possessions in the capitalistic manner of New World slaveowners. The aim of production was to provide food mostly for household and local needs, not to produce crops for sale on highly competitive world markets with profits automatically reinvested to increase yields and the margins of profit still further. Many slaves, moreover, were not directly involved in primary production at all. Domestic slaves furnished their owners with services that often had nothing to do with generating revenue; in fact domestics tended to consume wealth rather than produce it, and revenue-earners, slaves such as field hands, accountants, managers of apartment blocks, bailiffs, even doorkeepers and weavers, were distinguished from those who were kept simply for their owners' personal needs, cooks, bedroom attendants, masseurs and the like.[HI:SASAR:15]

o For wealthy Romans, the motive was basically that of status--how they looked to their peers:

"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia. First the immense size of the familia was predicated on the fact that the slaveowner was a person of enormous wealth who was always able to control resources grand enough to maintain a household in a manner that continuously proclaimed the owner's renown and richness. To those comprising Rome's social and political elite, therefore, for whom slaveholdings were a mechanism of competitive display and a means of rivalry, it made little sense to allow the familia to deteriorate in any significantly noticeable way, which automatically meant that the slaves, who made up such holdings--subject to the constraints that affected society at large-- were never likely to find themselves hungry or without clothes and a roof over their heads. [HI:SASAR:102]

"The writers and framers believed that adequate social and political remedies were available to curb possible abuses. A number of examples spring to mind. A slave might seek asylum in an appointed temple or may request that a third party intervene on his behalf. The social stigma of either remedy may have sufficed to inhibit the misdemeanors and offences of a status-conscious master. [NDIEC7:195f]

"At the opposite extreme, however, domestic slaves who worked as ministratores and pedisequi had special liveries or uniforms, in addition to their everyday clothes, to wear on those occasions when their owners wanted to advertise their wealth and taste, including plentiful amounts of jewelry." [HI:SASAR:87]

o Even manumission (the granting of freedom) was sometimes done with status in mind:

"Some men manumitted slaves in order to impress their friend with their generosity and their wealth; since the loss of a slave involved the loss of a capital investment, a man who freed many slaves would appear quite wealthy." [ATRD:191]

2. Entry into slavery was similar, but with significant differences:

• Sources of Slaves for New World Slavery were piracy and natural reproduction--no one became a slave to rise in social status, power, or wealth!
• Sources of Slaves for the Roman Empire:

1. Roman military conquests (but these declined around the NT period):

"Much is heard in the sources of enslaving a vanquished enemy en masse, a habit the Romans probably acquired as their military and political influence spiraled throughout the Italian peninsula in the fourth and early third centuries BC."

• Rival Etruscan city of Veii (10,000 slaves--entire city)
• Siege of Aspis in Carthage's territory in 256 BC (20,000)
• Third war against Carthage in 146 BC (55,000)
• Campaign against the Alpine tribe of Salassi in 25 BC (44,000)
• The city of Ctesiphon in Parthian war of 198 AD (100,000)

"It does not follow, however, that all war captives were automatically conveyed from the site of capture for disposal in the marketplaces of the Roman heartland. At times Roman commanders allowed prisoners to be ransomed, so freedom might be recovered fairly quickly if relatives or friends were available to pay the necessary price. Likewise captives were often sold off on the spot to itinerant dealers or distributed to the troops as a form of payment or bonus." [HI:SASAR:33]

In the Jewish war of AD66-70, Josephus tells us of:

• 2,130 women and children enslaved at Japha
• 30,400 at Tiberias in Galilee
• 97,000 at Jerusalem
• 700 sent to Rome for the victory march

Cato "especially bought prisoners of war when they were still little so that they could be raised and trained like young dogs or athletes" (Plutarch, Cat. 21.1)

"Often in antiquity wars were waged to acquire laborers, and the armies were followed by slave merchants. The axiom occurs constantly: "The one who is taken in war belongs to the conqueror" (Aristotle); the law of war transformed prisoners into slaves (Heliodorus, Philo). The prisoner, who was like captured booty (Plato) took on an exchange value and would not be freed except for ransom." [TLNT:spiq, 427]

cf. 2 Peter 2.19: "for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved"

cf. Rom 7.23: "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."

2. Natural reproduction:

Vernae were born into slavery, and were often preferred for important tasks. They were more "expensive" (e.g., infancy and childhood costs), but were not 'troublemakers' often.

"But having children could bring slaves certain benefits in real terms. Columella believed that female slaves should be rewarded for bearing children and said that he himself had given a mother of three time off from work and a mother of more than three children her freedom as well." [HI:SASAR:34]

3. Rescue from Exposure (intended infanticide):

"Another professor of literature included in Suetonius' collection who was also once a slave was C. Melissus, a teacher and author who flourished in the Augustan era and who once actually received a commission from Augustus himself. But Melissus was not a

verna. He was born of free parents but was exposed as an infant and then brought up in slavery by the man who reclaimed him after his parents had abandoned him. At all levels of society, whether due to poverty or fears of overburdening a patrimony with too many heirs, infant exposures was a widespread fact of life in the Roman world. But because those who chose to rescue abandoned children were free to raise them as slaves if they wished, infant exposure was also another important means of replenishing the slave supply. The Christian polemicist Tertullian (Apol. 9.7) condemned pagans for abandoning their children to certain death from cold, starvation or being eaten by dogs." [HI:SASAR:35]

4. International trade:

"It appears therefore that Roman merchants were constantly traversing the spiderweb of trading routes that crossed the Mediterranean in search of slaves from locally powerful, distant rulers who were willing to exchange captives, or even the weaker members of their own communities, from the material goods the merchants carried." [HI:SASAR:37]

5. Piracy:

"Piracy within the sphere of Roman influence, finally, must be acknowledged as a major means of generating new slaves. At the beginning of Rome's central period the pirates of Citicia were already notorious for the scale on which they conducted kidnapping and trafficking activities: the island of Delos, where they dumped their victims because they knew Roman merchants were waiting there to receive them, is said to have turned over tens of thousands of slaves daily in the early second century Bc. What the pirates' activities involved, however, is graphically illustrated by a piece of evidence from late antiquity, one of the newly discovered letters of Augustine, which shows among other things that at the turn of the fifth century AD piracy was still a scourge in the Mediterranean. Augustine spoke in his letter (Epistulae 10*) of the formidable presence along the coasts of North Africa, and especially at Hippo Regius, of itinerant slavedealers (mangones), Galatians in particular, who were buying up as slaves freeborn people captured by independent marauders who made it their business to undertake forays from the coast into remote rural villages in order to hunt down and kidnap as many victims as possible. In one village, the rumour went, they had carried off all the women and children of the community after murdering all the men. Some local people, Augustine continued, were conniving with the invaders: there was a woman who had a clandestine business specialising in young girls from the interior; there was a man (a Christian at that) who had sold his wife into slavery because he preferred to have the cash; and there were indigent parents selling their children because they needed the cash. Augustine said that it was the practice of the Christian community to use its funds to redeem as many of the kidnapped victims as possible, and in one recent episode 120 'slaves' whom the Galatians were boarding, or were preparing to board, onto their ships had been saved. But the trade itself was so lucrative that there were advocates on hand who wanted to try to recover the reclaimed victims for the slavedealers, so their safety was in real jeopardy. It was a desperate situation, and one that must have been far from uncommon throughout the whole of the central period." [HI:SASAR:37f]

6. Some people actually sold themselves into slavery, for differing reasons:

"Some ambitious men did the same [sold themselves] in the hope of becoming the stewards of noblemen or imperial treasures. This, in my view, was the story of the all-powerful and extremely wealthy Pallas, scion of a noble Arcadian family, who sold himself

into slavery so that he might be taken on as steward by a woman of the imperial family and who wound up as minister of finance and eminence grise to the emperor Claudius." (A History of Private Life:I, p.55)

"Even more, the law itself might create a situation that casts doubt on the distinction between free and slave. What are we to make of the perfectly possible case of an elder brother who is a slave and a younger brother who is freeborn because the father had freed their mother, his slave, in the interim? The elder would thus not only be the servus of his father but could become the property of this brother at the father's death. Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end

of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post or, on the other (a more frequent case), because they were miserable wretches reduced to selling themselves in order to survive?" [HI:TR:168)

"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of

getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]

3. Treatment--was more varied:

"Wealthy private homes also employed large numbers of slaves as nurses, tutors, paedagogues, litter-bearers, secretaries, cooks,"' gardeners, dishwashers, housecleaners, hairdressers barbers, butlers, laundrywomen, seamstresses, and so on. It was not unusual for a wealthy man or woman to own several slaves. The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. The treatment of slaves varied according to the disposition of their masters. ...Since slave ownership involved an outlay of capital, one might expect slave-owners to protect their investments by keeping their slaves in good health. However, the treatment of slaves varied considerably,

depending on the disposition and personality of the master or mistress. Some masters were more cruel or thoughtless than others. In general, however, slaves working in private homes were better treated than slaves working on farms and ranches or in factories and mines. Also, slaves born in the master's home were probably better treated than slaves brought to Rome from foreign countries. And slaves from "civilized" areas, Greece or Egypt, for example, were less likely to be bought for farm, factory, or mine work than were slaves from "uncivilized" areas, such as Gaul or Germany.. .. City slaves, then, were generally better off than farm slaves. Indeed, in Roman comedy a frequent threat made to city slaves who have misbehaved is: "I'll send you to work on the farm! [ATRD:170-171

"Scholars have often noted an essential difference between rural slaves and those employed in the city, particularly when the latter worked in their master's household. This notions seems to hold true: the countryside rose up in the great servile revolt led by Spartacus, but these seems to be have been little or no reaction from urban slaves. This is quite understandable. Most of the slaves used in the country were put to hard labor.," [HI:TR:141]

"Jurists such as Paulus and Ulpian, who both lived in the age of the Severi, state that slaves must be fed and clothed according to the rank" [HI:TR:145]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also

imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. [HPL:55]

"The treatment of slaves varied enormously, depending on their employment and their owner. Harsh treatment was often restrained by the fact that the slave was an investment, and impairment of the slave's performance might involve financial loss." [HI:HLAR:342]

"The Roman slavery system cannot be understood, therefore, without at once acknowledging its enormous diversity and variability, and any attempt to define its general features must constantly allow for the unanticipated and the exceptional." [HI:SASAR:4] "At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]

"The material life of the slave in the Roman world, as in later slave societies, was determined on the one hand by the slave's function, standing and relationship with the master and on the other hand by the degree of responsibility with which the master met his (or her) material obligations to the slave." [HI:SASAR:89]

"To judge from evidence in the Digest on arrangements owners made for their slaves' welfare once they - the owners - were dead, it must be inferred that many men and women took their material responsibilities very seriously. One owner for example imposed a testamentary charge on an heir for supporting slave temple guardians as follows: 'I request and impose on you afidei commissum to give and supply in my memory each of my footmen (pedisequi) whom I have left to take care of the temple with monthly provisions and a fixed amount of clothing per annum' (Dig- 34- I. i 7). Another set free in his will the grandson of his nurse, provided him with an annual allowance of cash, and conferred ownership upon him of his own slave wife and children, together with 'the things he was accustomed to provide for them in his lifetime' (Dig- 34.1-20 pr.). Such liberality to slaves or former slaves was by no means extraordinary: alimentary arrangements, as they are called, appear in the well known Will of Dasumius, and the younger Pliny as seen earlier provided in his will for the maintenance after his death of one hundred of his freedmen's [HI:SASAR:99]

"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia.... Secondly, Livia's household staff provided many

services that were available not simply to the owner and her immediate family but to the slaves (and freedmen and freedwomen) who made up the familia as well:, the cooks, caterers and bakers, fullers, wool-weighers, clothes-menders, weavers and shoe-makers, nurses, pedagogues, midwives and doctors - these were all functionaries whose labour contributed to the material well-being of the familia as a whole.[HI:SASAR:102]

"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]

"whether the slaves in the workhouses are carefully fettered ... and whether the manager has chained or released any without authorization....should inquire not only of the inmates but also of the slaves not in shackles--who are more to be believed--whether they are getting what is their due, should sample the quality of their food and drink by tasting it himself, should check on their clothing, mittens, and foot coverings. What is more, he should give them frequent chances to register complaints against those who treat them cruelly or dishonestly." Selection from Columella, who wrote a book on agriculture in middle 1st century ad [HI:ELAR:27]

4. Living conditions:

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also

imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. ..These slaves lived in dormitories under the authority of a slave overseer or steward, whose official concubine prepared meals for all the slaves. Philostratus tells the story of a modest vintner who resigned himself to tending his vineyard by himself because his few slaves cost too much to keep.[HPL:55]

"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]

"Rural slaves, Varro suggests (R. 1.19.3), regularly kept livestock, more or less their own, from which to supplement their rations, and field hands who had only portions of bread and olives were able to gather as many wild greens as they wished to eat with. Both in the city and the country, kitchen-gardens produced a wide range of vegetables--onions and lettuce, beets and artichokes, peas and beans--which not only gave extra food but allowed the chance of extra cash from sale of the surplus." [HI:SASAR:83]"Most domestics, that is to say, lived under the same roof as their owners. Within the housing complex the wealthy owner, Pliny for instance (Ep 7.27.12-14), was able to close himself off from the slave quarters when he wished to maintain his

privacy, but it was thought odd nonetheless that the slave quarters should be absolutely separate from the owner's living space as among the tribes of Germany." [HI:SASAR:84]

5. Legal controls on masters--this is an area of immense difference:

o Slave owners were answerable to the law for mistreatment of slaves:

"Certain slave-owners abandoned their sick and worn-out slaves on the island of Aesculapius since they were loathe to provide them with medical care. Claudius ordered all slaves so abandoned to be granted their freedom. And if they recovered, they were not to be returned to the control of their master. He also decreed that anyone who chose to kill a slave rather than abandon him should be arrested on a charge of murder." (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25)

o Slave owners were restricted from 'executing' their slaves, and from forcing most of them into certain low-tier 'occupations'

"Hadrian forbade masters to kill their slaves; capital charges against slaves were to be handled through official courts and execution, if necessary, carried out by these courts. He forbade a master to sell a male or female slave to a pimp or to a gladiator trainer without first showing good cause. ... He forbade private prisons" Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Aelius Spartianus, The Life of Hadrian) 18.7-1 1

"The ease with which the slaveowner could freely abuse the slave was diminished by a sequence of laws that, for example, made murderous masters liable for homicide, proscribed castration, and outlawed ergastula; and through recognition of rights of asylum

and appeal to magistrates and governors slave victims in the imperial age came to have some means of relief against abusive owners." [HI:SASAR:171]

o In the wider expanses of the Empire, local laws often restricted the slaveowner:

"the slave in Athenian law was considered the private property of his master to do with very much as he wished and only in exceptional circumstances did the state interfere in the master-slave relationship. The situation changed, however, in the Hellenistic kingdoms. Increasingly, both the master and the slave were perceived to be subjects of the state and the state began to intervene in the relationship. For example, in the Ptolemaic kingdom the following acts of intervention are noted: (a) the annulling of acts of enslavement; (b) the forbidding of slaves to be branded or sold overseas without the sanction of the sate; (c) the registration of both sold or homeborn slaves and the collection of revenue from them; (d) the grant of freedom to slaves who denounced the acts which their masters had committed against certain royal ordinances; and (3) the right of asylum in certain temples."[NDIEC7:169]

"The royal diagramma will have intervened in the legal procedure possible exempting certain types of slaves from prosecutions, e.g. state slaves, slaves belonging to officials or slaves employed in vital occupations." [NDIEC7:172]

"In other words, the state intervened in the master-slave relationship to limit and control punishment." [NDIEC7:175]

o This was a trend begun in NT times:

"It is true that from the first century AD legislation which had the effect of ameliorating the slave's situation began to be passed." [NDIEC6:51]

o Roman law actually empowered the owner to advance his slave over his own heirs!

"Indeed, Roman law permitted disinheriting an heir to the profit of an adopted slave (who was thus freed)..." [HI:TR:144]

o Masters were required to provide for their slaves in accordance with rank:

"Jurists such as Paulus and Ulpian, who both lived in the age of the Severi, state that slaves must be fed and clothed according to their rank" [HI:TR:145]

o If a slave fled to an image of an emperor, he was allowed to change masters--this was extended by Tiberias against wealthy masters!

"After all, a decree of Tiberius guaranteed asylum to servi next to images of the emperors, not only in public places but also in private house (Tacitus Annales 3.36)." [HI:TR:162]

o This improvement of the conditions of slaves began early and continued throughout the early church period:

"measures to protect the slave from the violence of the owner: limits to torture, regulations concerning slaves condemned to combat with wild animals; prohibitions against killing a slave incapable of working (Claudius), then any slave (Hadrian); liberty granted to slaves who were abandoned by their master because they were ill. In the second and third centuries, this protective legislation was reinforced, increasingly taking the slave's family ties into account and backing his manumission when he was the

object of juridical controversy." [HI:TR:163]

o Even sexual exploitation was limited somewhat:

"Awareness of the sexual dangers to which slaves were exposed was thus very sharp. Even a slave overseer might be a threat. Yet because proprietary rights were absolute, there was nothing the law could do to prevent slaveowners themselves abusing their slaves if they wished to do so. A tension developed consequently between the need to uphold the rights of ownership on the one hand and a need to punish such obvious injustices as rape on the other. The dilemma is visible in a directive given by the emperor Antoninus Pius (Dig. i.6.2) for cases of abuse, including sexual abuse, of slaves, in which sale of the slaves concerned to a new household was recommended: 'The power of masters over their slaves certainly ought not to be infringed and there must

be no derogation from any of man's legal rights. But it is in the interest of masters that those who make just complaint be not denied relief against brutality or starvation or intolerable wrongdoing' - the latter to include impudicitia, sexual wrongdoing. [HI:SASAR:49]

o The law courts often sided with slaves against masters:

"But it [Ulpian's ruling] indicates that in some circumstances the law could operate to the advantage of the slave. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that legal judgements were regularly made in favour of slaves whose manumission was obstructed by adverse factors, the operative principle being favor libertatis, giving the slave the benefit of the doubt when a claim to freedom was not clear cut." [HI:SASAR:162]

"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables. Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided." [HI:SASAR:162]

6. Legal recourse of slaves: practically non-existent in New World Slavery, but substantial in NT times

* Slaves could litigate on their behalf (esp. in cases of assault/abuse):

"In the law of GR Egypt the slave could own property and could enter into legal transactions such as loans, leases or paramone (i.e., service) contracts...A slave could also act on behalf of a master in his business dealings, e.g. loans, sales, issuance of receipts etc....In terms of litigation the slave was also considered as more than n object in the law of GRE. For example, in matters of personal injury or damage of property the slave could litigate (i.e. sue) and act on his own behalf or represent another....In this instance not only does it appear that the slave had entered into a contract with a certain villager but also when assaulted and robbed by this same villager lodged a petition against him."" [NDIEC7:165]

* Various state-sanctioned legal rights are manifest throughout the Empire:

"the slave in Athenian law was considered the private property of his master to do with very much as he wished and only in exceptional circumstances did the state interfere in the master-slave relationship. The situation changed, however, in the Hellenistic kingdoms. Increasingly, both the master and the slave were perceived to be subjects of the state and the state began to intervene in the relationship. For example, in the Ptolemaic kingdom the following acts of intervention are noted: (a) the annulling of acts of enslavement; (b) the forbidding of slaves to be branded or sold overseas without the sanction of the sate; (c) the registration of both sold or homeborn slaves and the collection of revenue from them; (d) the grant of freedom to slaves who denounced the acts which their masters had committed against certain royal ordinances; and (3) the right of asylum in certain temples."[NDIEC7:169]

* Even the Roman elite knew about the legal recourse of slaves and considered the structures adequate to curb abuse!:

"The writers and framers believed that adequate social and political remedies were available to curb possible abuses. A number of examples spring to mind. A slave might seek asylum in an appointed temple or may request that a third party intervene on his behalf. The social stigma of either remedy may have sufficed to inhibit the misdemeanors and offences of a status-conscious master. Again, the state itself intervened at times in the master-slave relationship. For example, slaves could denounce certain offences of their masters and gain their freedom (breaches of particular royal ordinances). Seneca, De Beneficiis 3.20, observes: "For neither can we command everything nor are slaves compelled to obey in everything. They will not act on orders against the public interest; they will not lend a hand to any crime." [NDIEC7:195f]

* There were even legal means for slaves to actually seek freedom (as opposed to simple transfer of ownership, as in the case of asylum):

"One important turning point, both political and military, occurred with Marius, placed in command of the African war, restricted recruitment for the campaign of 107 BC to volunteers, thus opening the legion ranks to the poorest citizens...the army became

a means of advancement for the destitute...As early as the Social War, 21,000 slaves were freed to combat the socii, and later Sulla and Pompey had little scruples about similar sorts of recruitment, particularly when the need was urgent, as it often was. On occasions the slave could even obtain his liberty without having to serve in the army. Thus after the death of Caesar the triumvirs who inherited power published a list of proscribed political enemies, promising a reward to anyone who would give information on them or kill them and promising liberty to a slave who did so. Thus slaves, like other disinherited groups, found service to political leaders a more efficient way out of the condition than widespread revolt." [HI:TR:154f]

* Slave could effect a transfer of ownership (forcing a change of master) via the fully sanctioned institution of asylum:

"If asylum was sought [in temple] because of the master's cruelty or severity, the slave was to be sold and the price paid to the master. The reason for the intervention is given, namely that it was in the state's interest that no one use his property badly." (see Justinian, Institutes 1.8.1)

"In doing so [fleeing], he might hope to be lost in the subculture of a large city, for example, or to find work in another region or he might resort to brigandage. Alternatively, he might seek the assistance of a person of social standing to advocate his

cause or seek asylum in an appropriate temple (and later in a church or monastery) and have its priests decide his fate." [NDIEC6:58]

"After all, a decree of Tiberius guaranteed asylum to servi next to images of the emperors, not only in public places but also in private house (Tacitus Annales 3.36)." [HI:TR:162]

* They could also lodge legal complaints against their owners, for various types of abuse:

"The suggestive fact remains that it was one of the functions of the city prefect, once the office of the prefect had been established by Augustus, to hear allegations from slaves that they were suffering from starvation caused by their owners." [HI:SASAR:100]

"Awareness of the sexual dangers to which slaves were exposed was thus very sharp. Even a slave overseer might be a threat. Yet because proprietary rights were absolute, there was nothing the law could do to prevent slaveowners themselves abusing their slaves if they wished to do so. A tension developed consequently between the need to uphold the rights of ownership on the one hand and a need to punish such obvious injustices as rape on the other. The dilemma is visible in a directive given by the emperor Antoninus Pius (Dig. i.6.2) for cases of abuse, including sexual abuse, of slaves, in which sale of the slaves concerned to a new household was recommended: 'The power of masters over their slaves certainly ought not to be infringed and there must

be no derogation from any of man's legal rights. But it is in the interest of masters that those who make just complaint be not denied relief against brutality or starvation or intolerable wrongdoing' - the latter to include impudicitia, sexual wrongdoing. [HI:SASAR:49]

* In addition to legal power, the slave had a certain economic power as well. Besides the fact that could and did become partners with their owners in many ventures, the slave had the ability to damage the investment of the owner represented by himself/herself (via non-compliance), as well as had (and used) the power to reduce the welfare of the owner through pilferage and sabotage. And owners recognized this power and were constrained by it, in practical settings.

"A slave was usually a master's largest investment apart form his investment in land. If the runway slave was not recovered, the master's loss might be substantial. Even if recovered, the loss might not be inconsiderable. Not only did the owner face a reduced resale value (contracts of sale included clauses concerning the slave's propensity to run away) but he may also have incurred costs associated with the finding and apprehension of the runaway." [NDIEC6:57]

"The non-compliance of slaves manifested itself in several ways, from the most drastic, like slave rebellion and murdering one's master, to the more subtle, like careless workmanship and tardiness. No doubt the frequency and type of non-compliance were correlated; it is reasonable to assume that the more drastic the non-compliance the rarer its occurrence and the more subtle the non-compliance the more frequent its occurrence." [NDIEC6:57f]

"Roman lawmakers regarded attempts at self-destruction on the part of slaves as commonplace to judge from information in the Digest. When a slave was sold the aedilician edict required the seller to declare whether the slave had ever tried to hill himself

(Dig. 21.1.1.1)..." [HI:SASAR:112]"The jurists, recalling Apuleius' brigand, used the phrase 'domestic thefts' to refer to this sort of pilfering, misdeeds that were too trivial to justify prosecution, but which must have been deleterious to slaveowners in their overall effects." [HI:SASAR:116]"Literate slaves were able to falsify records and documents to the disadvantage of their owners." [HI:SASAR:116]"Truancy, dilatoriness, lying, dissembling, stealing, causing damage, feigning sickness--at the strictly factual level these types of slave behaviour are all well in evidence." [HI:SASAR:117]"Roman slaveowners acknowledged from time to time that their slaves behaved 'badly' because of the way they were treated and not because of inherent character flaws. It was conceded that the master's threatening words could force the slave to run away, that the dispensator might embezzle because he needed food, that the slave might lie to avoid torture, that apparent greed might have something to do with the slave's hunger. Cruelty, fear, deprivation--these are recurring elements in the record of master-slave relations in the Roman world, and practical slaveowners could see that injustice caused resentment." [HI:SASAR:124]

7. Legal agent status (and operating autonomy)--huge differences here, also:

* The could own property, take out loans, lease/rent land, offer service contracts:

"In the law of GR Egypt the slave could own property and could enter into legal transactions such as loans, leases or paramone (i.e., service) contracts...A slave could also act on behalf of a master in his business dealings, e.g. loans, sales, issuance of receipts etc...." [NDIEC7:165]

"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves. As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth. [HI:TR:155]

* Many urban servants had tremendous amounts of operating autonomy, entering into legal contracts as representative of their owner (sometimes to their own advantage):

"For one thing, a number of urban slaves escaped all direct, permanent control when their master charged them with the management of a range of businesses--shops or crafts operations--for his benefit. The autonomy such slaves enjoyed was without parallel in country areas, except perhaps in the case of shepherds." [HI:TR:142]

"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. ... As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155]

"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning.[HI:TR:155f]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also

imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master.[HPL:55]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen...The paths, in the imperial administration led right to the very top, to posts that today would

be held by department heads, even cabinet ministers. During Claudius's reign, Pallas, a freedman, served as his secretary of the treasury, and Narcissus, another freedman, as his secretary of state. Both used their position to line their pockets and both

became so incredibly rich...[HI:ELAR:60]

* They could own slaves themselves (which could own slaves also!):

"Before their manumission, a minority of wealthy (or at least well-off) slaves built up a patrimony that faithfully reproduced prevailing structures. They might themselves own slaves--vicarii--who acted as procuratores or institutores to manage the slave's holdings, just as those slaves managed their masters'. The law specified that such slaves of slaves belonged to the latter and not to his dominus, and the relations between the slave and his vicarii were modeled on those that pertained between a free man and his slaves...But vicarii might also belong to the privileged slave minority, and their own peculium could includes slaves--that is, vicarii who belonged to a vicarius. These cascading relationships within the servile world are the best testimony to the success of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

"Although himself a slave, that is to say, Musicus Scurranus had a personal slave retinue of his own, and his inscription actually continues with the names and job-titles, save in one case, of sixteen of its members. They include a business agent, an accountant, three secretaries, a doctor, two chamberlains, two attendants, two cooks and three slaves who were respectively in charge of Scurranus' clothes, gold and silver....Ownership of slaves by slaves seems strange at first sight, but in societies like that of Rome where slaveowning was a critical mark of an individual's social standing it has been far from unusual." [HI:SASAR:2-3]

8. legal exit/manumission--this is an area of MAJOR discontinuity:

* Manumission was widespread, frequent, and expected by the majority of slaves:

"A freedman was a slave who had been manumitted, that is, freed. Manumission was widely practiced in ancient Rome, and it is an aspect of Roman society which sets it apart from other slave-owning societies. For example, very few slaves in the American antebellum South were ever manumitted by their owners. In Rome, however, slaves were not only freed but were also given Roman citizenship and thus assimilated into Roman society and culture. Yet, although manumission was a common practice, not every slave

could hope to be manumitted. Wealthy slave-owners could much better absorb the cost of manumission (loss of property) than could moderate-income slave-owners. And slaves working in a private household, whose job had been to attend to a master's personal comfort and who were therefore known well by the master, were the most likely to receive freedom. Slaves whose work brought profit to an owner--that is, slaves working on a farm or ranch in a mine or factory, as a prostitute or gladiator--were least likely to be manumitted. Such slaves had been chosen for their physical stamina rather than their intellect, and it was thus easy for Roman owners to adopt the same protective attitude used by slave-owners of the American South: "He's not bright enough to

do anything else; if I freed him, he would never make it on his own." Slaves owned by a city or corporation, rather than by a private individual, were also poor candidates for manumission.[ATRD:190-19]

"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break

into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities,

landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

"Manumissions were fairly frequent.." [HI:HLAR:342]

"It was possible for such men, whether born into the imperial familia or recruited from outside, to advance through what loosely resembled a career structure, beginning with subordinate positions while still young and proceeding to positions of greater authority after manumission, which typically came when they were about thirty. For some, especially in the first century AD, the way was open to participate directly in the highest levels of Roman government." [HI:SASAR:69]

"Although there were a number of ways by which a slave might be legally manumitted, two were most common: (1) the slave and master would appear before a magistrate (either praetor or consul) who would touch the slave with a rod or wand and thus signify that he was now free; or (2) the master would state in his will that he wished some or all of his slaves manumitted upon his death. The advantage of the latter procedure was that the owner enjoyed the use of his slaves right up to his death, but still appeared to be a generous man. Some owners would free slaves only if the slaves could buy their freedom, that is, pay back the original purchase price or whatever price the owner deemed reasonable. Most slaves would save up the money from occasional gifts

and tips; slaves employed in the civil service had the advantage of receiving bribes. Sometimes freedmen who were friends or family members would buy the slave from the owner and then manumit him.[ATRD:190-19]

"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of

getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it. ...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen. [HI:ELAR:60]

"In urban areas, the locale of most business and government offices, manumission was so common that ex-slaves came to make up a high proportion of the Roman citizenry." [HI:ELAR:62]

"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]

* It was apparently so frequent that it required some limitation:

"In 2 B.C., under the emperor Augustus, a law was passed prohibiting a master from freeing more than a hundred slaves in his will, although apparently no limit was placed on the number of slaves he could free during his lifetime." [ATRD:194]

"The Augustian laws were a reforming response to the haphazard manumission practices of the pre-imperial era...the lex Aelia Sentia of AD 4 set minimum age requirements of twenty for the slaveowner and thirty for the slave before a living owner could formally manumit a slave..." [HI:SASAR:156]

* The social status motivation of the system (unlike that of New World Slavery) also made for frequent manumissions:

"Some men manumitted slaves in order to impress their friend with their generosity and their wealth; since the loss of a slave involved the loss of a capital investment, a man who freed many slaves would appear quite wealthy." [ATRD:191]

* But some manumissions were for noble matters of the heart:

"Some men fell in love with slave women and freed them so that they could then legally marry them. Some men became very attached to slave children born in the household and freed them so that they could adopt them as legal heirs." [ATRD:191-192]

* Some were for disputable political/military reasons:

"One important turning point, both political and military, occurred with Marius, placed in command of the African war, restricted recruitment for the campaign of 107 BC to volunteers, thus opening the legion ranks to the poorest citizens...the army became

a means of advancement for the destitute...As early as the Social War, 21,000 slaves were freed to combat the socii, and later Sulla and Pompey had little scruples about similar sorts of recruitment, particularly when the need was urgent, as it often was. On occasions the slave could even obtain his liberty without having to serve in the army. Thus after the death of Caesar the triumvirs who inherited power published a list of proscribed political enemies, promising a reward to anyone who would give information on them or kill them and promising liberty to a slave who did so. Thus slaves, like other disinherited groups, found service to political leaders a more efficient way out of the condition than widespread revolt." [HI:TR:154f]

* But there were also base reasons for freeing a slave--sometime "freedom" was not a good thing:

"There were baser reasons, too, for manumission ... And some men freed old or sick slaves because they no longer wanted to feed and clothe them. Since such slaves had no resale value, it was cheaper to free them and let them fend for themselves (thought it is unlikely that an old or sick slave could support himself, most probably starved to death)."[ATRD:192]

"Certain slave-owners abandoned their sick and worn-out slaves on the island of Aesculapius since they were loathe to provide them with medical care. ." (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25)

* The legal system was actually biased toward the granting of freedom(!):

"But it [Ulpian's ruling] indicates that in some circumstances the law could operate to the advantage of the slave. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that legal judgements were regularly made in favour of slaves whose manumission was obstructed by adverse factors, the operative principle being favor libertatis, giving the slave the benefit of the doubt when a claim to freedom was not clear cut." [HI:SASAR:162]

"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables. Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided." [HI:SASAR:162]

9. Occupation types--quite varied in NT times; less so in New World

"Slaves in the city were employed in many different ways. Some were owned by the city and worked on city construction projects, such as roads and aqueducts, or on the cleaning crews which maintained public buildings, such as the baths and temples, or on the clerical staff. Other slaves were purchased by factory owners or shop owners, and set to work in the factories and shops. Transportation firms would buy slaves to haul both raw and manufactured materials from one part of the city to another. Among the

most unfortunate of slaves were those purchased to serve as gladiators or prostitutes...Wealthy private homes also employed large numbers of slaves as nurses, tutors, paedagogues, litter-bearers, secretaries, cooks,"' gardeners, dishwashers, housecleaners, hairdressers barbers, butlers, laundrywomen, seamstresses, and so on. It was not unusual for a wealthy man or woman to own several slaves. The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. ...And slaves from "civilized" areas, Greece or Egypt, for example, were less likely to be bought for farm, factory, or mine work than were slaves from "uncivilized" areas, such as Gaul or Germany. [ATRD:170-171]

"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves. As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155f]

"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning. [HI:TR:155f]

"Most artisans seem to have been slaves." [HPL:55]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also

imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. The system of large estates cultivated by slave gangs was limited to certain regions such as southern Italy and Sicily. (The slave system was no more essential a feature of Roman antiquity than slavery in the southern United States prior to 1865 is an essential characteristic of the modern West.).[HPL:55]

35 different rural jobs listed in the Digest 33.7 and 37 from Columella [HI:SASAR:59,60]50 domestic classes in Livia (p.61) and 39 more from other elite households [HI:SASAR:63]

"No commercial activities, it must be repeated, were the exclusive domain of slaves: 'If a master frees a slave whom he has appointed to manage a bank and then continues the business through him as a freedman, the change of status does not alter the incidence of risk' (so Papinian: Dig. 14.3.19.1)." [HI:SASAR:76]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service.[HI:ELAR:60]

10. Social status--considerable difference here, also:

The social status of slaves was highly variable, and could range from positions of extreme power and respect, to that of the typical New World slave:

* Urban slaves were more like "servants" or "courtiers":

"The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household. [ATRD:170-171]

"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also

imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. .[HPL:55]

* In NT times, even many of the rural slaves were more like sharecroppers in social status:

(Beginning with early 1st century AD) "This change is clear in the countryside, where a number of landowners tended to abandon direct exploitation of their land, split it up, and give it over to dependents to exploit. Some of these dependents were slaves,

for whom the management of a parcel of land implied relative autonomy and responsibility. The life of these slave tenant farmers was radically different from that of slaves caught in a system that demanded of them only that they stay alive to work on tasks assigned to them day by day. Their juridical status aside, slave farmers were in practice very close to the free men who also worked a portion of an estate in exchange for carefully specified obligations. This type of sharecropping was highly constricting for the working farmer though it guaranteed him certain rights over the land he farmed; but with its spread, by the second and third centuries, agricultural lands were in large part worked by dependents--coloni--whose personal juridical status became secondary to their real social position. The specificity of the slave gradually weakened, and Ulpian, a jurist of the Severan age (citing first-century predecessors), speaks of servi qui quasi coloni in agro sunt (slaves who are in the field

like coloni, Digest 33.7-12-3). Thus we arrive at a regrouping, into one category, of free men and nonfree men who were still slaves but were not part of the instrumentum fundi (the property's equipment) because they farmed under a sort of conventional agreement. [HI:TR:157]

* Indeed, the theme of the 'wealthy and insolent' slave shows up in literature(!):

"This change contributed greatly to a growing heterogeneity in the slave world. From the first century, the theme of the wealthy and insolent slave paralleled that of the freedman who surpassed the aristocrat in his life-style and his power. The phenomenon was considerably intensified by the rapid rise in the number of slaves who belonged to the emperor. Not only were such slaves endowed with specific rights that distinguished them from private slaves, but also the proximity of power offered a few of them greater opportunities for social promotion, in particular, in the management of the enormous imperial patrimony or in the service of the state.[HI:TR:157]

* This wide range of social status (very high to low) gave rise to the term "slave elite":

"Before their manumission, a minority of wealthy (or at least well-off) slaves built up a patrimony that faithfully reproduced prevailing structures. They might themselves own slaves--vicarii--who acted as procuratores or institutores to manage the slave's holdings, just as those slaves managed their masters'. The law specified that such slaves of slaves belonged to the latter and not to his dominus, and the relations between the slave and his vicarii were modeled on those that pertained between a free man and his slaves...But vicarii might also belong to the privileged slave minority, and their own peculium could includes slaves--that is, vicarii who belonged to a vicarius. These cascading relationships within the servile world are the best testimony to the success of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break

into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities,

landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

* And some could achieve very high power and status:

"A handful were richer and more powerful than most free men." [HPL:52]

"Although himself a slave, that is to say, Musicus Scurranus had a personal slave retinue of his own, and his inscription actually continues with the names and job-titles, save in one case, of sixteen of its members. They include a business agent, an accountant, three secretaries, a doctor, two chamberlains, two attendants, two cooks and three slaves who were respectively in charge of Scurranus' clothes, gold and silver....Ownership of slaves by slaves seems strange at first sight, but in societies like that of Rome where slaveowning was a critical mark of an individual's social standing it has been far from unusual." [HI:SASAR:2-3]

"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]

11. Economic plight relative to the free poor (another major difference):

"Even more, the law itself might create a situation that casts doubt on the distinction between free and slave. What are we to make of the perfectly possible case of an elder brother who is a slave and a younger brother who is freeborn because the father had freed their mother, his slave, in the interim? The elder would thus not only be the servus of his father but could become the property of this brother at the father's death. Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end

of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post or, on the other (a more frequent case), because they were miserable wretches reduced to selling themselves in order to survive?" [HI:TR:168]

"Large landowners used slaves to cultivate portions of their estates not rented to sharecroppers. These slaves lived in dormitories under the authority of a slave overseer or steward, whose official concubine prepared meals for all the slaves. Philostratus tells the story of a modest vintner who resigned himself to tending his vineyard by himself because his few slaves cost too much to keep.[HPL:55]

"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose

employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid." [HI:ISAA:5]

"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. ." [HI:SASAR:70]

"It would be wrong, however, to claim that servile living conditions were uniformly and generically worse than those of all other groups in Roman society..." [HI:SASAR:90)

"In comparison with the free poor, therefore, slaves may often have been at something of a material advantage: given that they were to some degree provided for, they must in many cases have enjoyed a security in their lives that the free poor could never have known." [HI:SASAR:92]

"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia. First the immense size of the familia was predicated on the fact that the slaveowner was a person of enormous wealth who was always able to control resources grand enough to maintain a household in a manner that continuously proclaimed the owner's renown and richness. To those comprising Rome's social and political elite, therefore, for whom slaveholdings were a mechanism of competitive display and a means of rivalry, it made little sense to allow the familia to deteriorate in any significantly noticeable way, which automatically meant that the slaves, who made up such holdings--subject to the constraints that affected society at large-- were never likely to find themselves hungry or without clothes and a roof over their heads. Secondly, Livia's household staff provided many services that were available not simply to the owner and her immediate family but to the slaves (and freedmen and freedwomen) who made up the familia as well:, the cooks, caterers and bakers, fullers, wool-weighers, clothes-menders, weavers and shoe-makers, nurses, pedagogues, midwives and doctors - these were all functionaries whose labour contributed to the material well-being of the familia as a whole... For great numbers of Roman slaves, over time, there must have been every practical reason to display to their owners the unswerving loyalty and obedience that ideally all owners sought from those in their possessions' [HI:SASAR:102]

They were, more often than not, materially, economically, and socially superior to the free poor!

12. Social Advancement opportunities (virtually none in New World slavery; ubiquitous in Roman Empire):

"There were many freedmen in a large city such as Rome. Though freedmen could vote, they could not run for public office, nor could they be officially enrolled in the equestrian or senatorial orders even if they became wealthy enough to meet the property qualifications for these orders. However, only one generation of a family was "freed." The sons of a freedman were "free" citizens; they did not owe their father's patron a certain number of working days a year (though they might choose to be his clients), and they were eligible for public office and equestrian and senatorial rank (should they be lucky enough to meet the property qualifications).[ATRD:195]

"Indeed, Roman law permitted disinheriting an heir to the profit of an adopted slave (who was thus freed)..." [HI:TR:144]

"The social situation of such financial managers was enviable, but it implied servile status, which gave security to the master. In this case, entering into slavery became a means of social promotion. [HI:TR:157]

"This change contributed greatly to a growing heterogeneity in the slave world. From the first century, the theme of the wealthy and insolent slave paralleled that of the freedman who surpassed the aristocrat in his life-style and his power. The phenomenon was considerably intensified by the rapid rise in the number of slaves who belonged to the emperor. Not only were such slaves endowed with specific rights that distinguished them from private slaves, but also the proximity of power offered a few of them greater opportunities for social promotion, in particular, in the management of the enormous imperial patrimony or in the service of the state. [HI:TR:157]

"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break

into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities,

landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]

" Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post" [HI:TR:168]

"Some ambitious men did the same [sold themselves] in the hope of becoming the stewards of noblemen or imperial treasures. This, in my view, was the story of the all-powerful and extremely wealthy Pallas, scion of a noble Arcadian family, who sold himself

into slavery so that he might be taken on as steward by a woman of the imperial family and who wound up as minister of finance and eminence grise to the emperor Claudius." [HPL:55]

"In Roman Italy of the first century BC, it was evidently possible for the slave to achieve individual distinction despite his lowly origins and to be happily received into the free, civic community."[HI:SASAR:1]

"It was possible for such men, whether born into the imperial familia or recruited from outside, to advance through what loosely resembled a career structure, beginning with subordinate positions while still young and proceeding to positions of greater authority after manumission, which typically came when they were about thirty. For some, especially in the first century AD, the way was open to participate directly in the highest levels of Roman government." [HI:SASAR:69]One captured slave from Smyrna "served as a young administrator in the household of the emperor Tiberius, by whom he was set free. He accompanied Caligula when the emperor traveled north in AD 39 and was probably promoted to a provincial financial posting under Claudius and Nero before

eventually becoming a rationibus, secretary in charge of the emperor's accounts, under Vespasian. Vespasian indeed conferred upon him the rank of eques, second only to that of senator and his marriage, under Claudius, to a woman of free birth produced two sons who also gained equestrian standing." [HI:SASAR:69f]

"These remarks imply that it was perfectly possible at Rome for the socially inferior to win the esteem of their superiors and for the latter to draw the former firmly into society..." [HI:SASAR:78]

"Cultural and psychological dislocation of this kind must have been commonly endured by the great numbers of slaves brought from the fringes of the Roman world, those for instance procured from the regions that bordered on the Black Sea or from within the

Asian interior. The results were not of course always permanently damaging, and it is possible to find success stories showing how the victimised were sometimes capable of adapting their new circumstances to their personal advantage. For example, the freedman Licinus, who came to hold a procuratorship in Gaul under Augustus and whose name became a byword for great wealth, had originally been captured in war in Gaul, where he was born, but fell into the ownership of Julius Caesar and was fortunate enough to be manumitted by him. Then there was Cleander, the notorious freedman who in the reign of Commodus held the high office of praetorian prefect and exercised enormous political influence; he was a Phrygian by birth who had been brought to Rome as a slave where he was sold on the block. At a more humble level one might notice a pair of freedmen who as slaves had originated from Cilicia and Paphlagonia respectively, the cloak dealers L. Arlenus Demetrius and L. Arienus Arternidorus.[HI:SASAR:47]

"I was no bigger than this candlestick here when I came out of Asia Minor .... For fourteen years I was the master's little darling. The mistress' too .... The gods were on my side--I became the head of the household, I took over from that pea-brain of a master. Need I say more? He made me co-heir in his will, and I inherited a millionaire's estate." The speaker is Trimalchio, the character in Petronius's novel, The Satyricon, who made it from the rags of a slave to the riches of a billionaire...A slave becoming a master's heir and inheriting an estate worth millions? It seems unbelievable. Not in the Roman world of the first century A.D., when Petronius wrote. He was, to be sure, a novelist and not a historian, but his portrait of Trimalchio is based on

reality. Though the slave was at the opposite end of the social spectrum from the likes of Pliny, thanks to certain Roman attitudes and ways, avenues of upward mobility bridged the gap between these extremes, and there were many slaves who made it part way across and some who, like Trimalchio, made it all the way. [HI:ELAR:57]

"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]

"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom...the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it. Moreover, manumission among the Romans brought with it a precious gift--citizenship. Thus the freedman stood politically higher than the multitudes of freeborn peoples who lived in the lands Rome had conquered and were only Roman subjects, not citizens, and hence were denied the vote, marriage with a Roman citizen, access to Roman courts, and other privileges....The paths, in the imperial administration led right to the very top, to posts that today would be held by department heads, even cabinet ministers. During Claudius's reign, Pallas, a freedman, served as his secretary of the treasury, and Narcissus, another freedman, as his secretary of state. Both used their position to line their pockets and both became so incredibly rich...[HI:ELAR:60]

"Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]

It might also be pointed out that skill development, education, and life-care support during formative periods were also provided to household slaves. Unlike New World Slavery, in which the vast majority of the 'skills' required were for simple agricultural tasks, household slaves received training in specialist skills, which became marketable after manumission. And these were not always 'core only' skills: one document from Roman Egypt of the period contains a case where a mistress is sending a

slave girl to a foreign city for music lessons!

13.Incentives for the slave to perform:

In New World slavery this was largely punitive, coercive, and quite negative. In Roman slavery of our period, this element was certainly there, but it was overshadowed generally by the 'profit motive'. The slave could earn money and often had a profit-sharing arrangement with the master (e.g., slave bankers). Incentives to perform were often structured in these more positive ways. This is another vast difference between the two systems.

.................................................................................................................................................

It should be apparent from this detail that these two systems are hardly comparable, and one could wonder along with Usry and Keener if we should even call these by the same name[TH:DBF:37] :

"The slaveholders [of the New World period] severely misrepresented Paul. First, Paul was addressing nonracial Roman household slavery, a situation quite different from the slavery practiced in the Americas. Household slaves had greater opportunities for freedom, status and economic mobility than did the vast majority of free peasants in Paul's day; one wonders whether the same term should apply to both U.S. slavery and Roman household slavery."

[The Roman term was actually servus, from which we get "servant", and many bible translations used this word rather than "slave" for the relevant translation. The English word "slave" comes from the middle Latin "Slav"; the connection being that during the eastward expansion of the Germans in the Middle Ages the Slav populations were enslaved or destroyed, something much closer to the horror of New World slavery.]

Any socio-economic class that:

people would voluntarily join to achieve greater social status than they could being free;

allowed a servant legal rights against their 'owner';

gave the servant the ability to force a change of owner by seeking asylum;

created a realistic expectation of freedom WITH ROMAN CITIZENSHIP around the age of 30 years of age;

provided much greater material comforts, security, and earning potential than free status

provided access to educational training often unaffordable by the free poor

can hardly be called 'slavery' in any New World sense! [It looks so much more like the rigor, discipline, and submission to superiors that shows up in modern military enrollments, in which people submit to military life for a fixed time, in exchange for training, post-service educational payments, medical care, and the like AFTER their term of military service.]

Accordingly, I have to conclude that the NT-period "slavery" in the Roman Empire is not similar enough to New World slavery for this objection to have its customary force. The gap between NT 'servanthood' and New World 'slavery' is simply too great for us

to identify them with each other.

In spite of this inappropriate use of the word 'slavery' to describe this phenomena, I will generally still use the term below, but it should be remembered throughout that this is NOT your normal meaning of 'slave' or 'slavery'. ...........................................................................................................................................

2. Given the actual character of NT 'slavery', what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD?

Now, here we have to determine 'the good, the bad, and the ugly' in Roman servitude.

As a socio-economic institution, it had a massively ambiguous character:

o Slavery could be entered into by a slave as a stepping-stone for the socially ambitious.

o Slavery could be violently forced upon a captive of war or a captive of a slavetrader.

o Slavery could be used as a means of social 'bragging' by the elite.

o Manumission could be used as a means of social 'bragging' by the elite.

o Slaves could be subjected to a range of abuses by masters, as well as fear and intimidation.

o Masters could be subjected to fear, assassination, and a wide range of pilferage by slaves.

o The institution itself created social inequality between the master and the slave--sometimes a barrier to community;

o But sometimes the institution created strong personal bonds between master and slave, to the point of marriage or adoption.

o Manumission could be used by a master to avoid caring for the needs of his slaves (e.g., abandonment of old slaves and/or sick slaves to die)

o Slavery provided comprehensive life-care during non-productive years (e.g. infancy and childhood) for slaves born in the household or rescued from infant abandonment

Freedom was thus not always 'good' and 'slavery' was not always 'bad', and what to 'legislate' about this institution--given its amazing variety and ethically polymorphous character--might be incredibly difficult to determine and perhaps even vary case-by-case!

Some of the more obvious things we might expect to find in the NT would be these:

• The NT emphasis against arrogance and boasting would preclude EITHER 'bragging' efforts;
• Any desire for "selfish ambition" (as opposed to obedient betterment) would be rebuked (eliminating the voluntary slavery for ambitious reasons, often);
• The general anti-oppression and mistreatment ethic of the Old Testament/Taanach might preclude legitimization of slavetrading.
• The Biblical emphasis on kindness toward others, respect, and goodness would preclude abuse of slaves by masters, as well as respectful behavior toward owners.
• The Biblical emphasis on new creation in Christ (via identification with His death) would argue for removal of many ethnic, social, or cultural 'barriers' between people.
• The biblical element of covenant loyalty would argue that both master and slave would be held accountable for their respective side of the relationship--to their responsibilities to one another.
• The biblical motif of Christ as Lord over all elements of created existence would argue that all relationships would be transformed somehow by His Lordship.
• Given the complex situation, we would NOT expect blanket commands to 'free the slaves', if for no other reason than that infanticide-rescued infant slaves and aged/infirm/sick slaves would become critically destitute.
• The emphasis on non-legalism, limited hierarchical authority, and conscience-based decision making in the NT might suggest that the decision concerning any specific master-slave situation NOT be solved by unilateral/apostolic pronouncements, but rather by individuals in the midst of the situation.
• Given the potential abuses in the system, we would NOT expect enthusiastic endorsement of slavery, either. ..........................................................................................................................................................

3. What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT--esp. Paul?

Now, when we compare this expectation-grid with actual NT teaching, we find a good bit of overlap:

o The emphasis against arrogance and boasting would preclude EITHER 'bragging' efforts;

As far as I can tell, the blanket statements against 'bragging' are never applied to this specific area, but neither are they to ANY area. This ethical principle is to be applied to ALL things, and this would include grandiose displays of slave retinues or over massive manumissions as a Public Relations ploy.

o Any desire for "selfish ambition" (as opposed to obedient betterment) would be rebuked (eliminating the voluntary slavery for ambitious reasons, often);

The closest we get to this is Paul's injunction to free people to "do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor 7.23), which would certainly preclude becoming slaves for reasons of selfish ambition.

o The general anti-oppression and mistreatment ethic of the OT/Taanach might preclude legitimization of slavetrading.

This is very strongly stated by Paul: "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (I Tim 1.9-10)

o The Biblical emphasis on kindness toward others, respect, and goodness would preclude abuse of slaves by masters, as well as respectful behavior toward owners.

This shows up in the 'household codes' of Paul, in which the role enactments are required to be characterized by goodness and high-ethics:

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Eph 6.5ff)

Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. 4.1 Masters, grant to your

slaves justice and fairness, (NIV: Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair) knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Col 3.22ff)

And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (I Tim 6.2)

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. (Titus 2.9f)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5.21, which introduces the household code section)

o The Biblical emphasis on new creation in Christ (via identification with His death) would argue for removal of many ethnic, social, or cultural 'barriers' between people. This is quite clear in Paul. The unity in Christ obliterated social/ethic/gender barriers:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3.28)

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3.11)

These were contrary to much of his Pharisaical upbringing (esp. as regards Gentile and women!), but even the slave class was despised within first-century Judaism [ Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, Dutton:949, p.203]:

"Nevertheless, the slave class was despised and credited with certain faults. Slaves were generally supposed to be lazy. 'Ten measures of sleep descended into the world; slaves took nine of them and the rest of mankind one' (Kid. 49b); 'A slave is not worth the food of his stomach' (B.K. 97a). They were untrustworthy: 'There is not faithfulness in slaves' (B.M. 86b). Their moral standard was low: 'The more maidservants the more lewdness, the more menservants the more robbery' (Aboth II.8); and 'A slave

prefers a dissolute life with female slaves (to a regular marriage)' (Git. 13a)."

o The biblical element of covenant loyalty would argue that both master and slave would be held accountable to their sides of the relationship--to their responsibilities to one another.

This was clear from some of the above passages, in which masters were supposed to provide what is 'right and fair' to the slave, and the slave was supposed to follow the owner's instructions faithfully and without deceit.

o The biblical motif of Christ as Lord over all elements of created existent would argue that all relationships would be transformed somehow by His Lordship.

This is definitely the case, because Paul centers each aspect of the slave-owner relationship around their individual accountability to the Lord:

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Eph 6.5ff)

Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. 4.1 Masters, grant to your

slaves justice and fairness, (NIV: Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair) knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Col 3.22ff)

o Given the complex situation, we would NOT expect blanket commands to 'free the slaves', if for no other reason than that infanticide-rescued infant slaves and aged/infirm/sick slaves would become critically destitute. [We might expect a general encouragement away from a slave system, though.]

We do find statements that 'move' the church away from general slave-system orientation:

Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households [1 Tim 1.9-10]

Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23]

Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21]

Paul encourages Philemon to 'free' Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21]

But the historical situation was too complex to issue such a blanket 'free them all' statement:

o Many slaves were still in infancy or childhood, rescued from infant exposure/abandonment.

o Many slaves were acquired in infancy or childhood, with life-care being provided by owner.

o Many slaves were aged or sick, without means to live in 'freedom'.

o The social relief systems of the Empire would have been inadequate to care for these needy people. [Later, the emperor Julian will lament about this--that it is only the Christian community that provides welfare services to the needy of the world.]

o There were known legal limits to manumission (and probably others), some before an owner's death and some at death.

o There was a growing body of legislation and intellectual support for amelioration of the slave's conditions, and the trendlines were very favorable to the slave:

"The cruel views of Cato, who advised to work the slaves, like beasts of burden, to death rather than allow them to become old and unprofitable, gave way to the milder and humane views of Seneca, Pliny, and Plutarch, who very nearly approach the apostolic

teaching." [Schaff]

"At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery." [HPL:55) Even abuse of slaves was frowned upon (and legislated against) and deplored, as when Pliny the Elder speaks of the cruelty of Vedius Pollio in the manner of execution of condemned slave criminals, or when Seneca describes the beating of a slave by a master for a simple sneeze. These were NOT accepted practices of the time, and it is simply false to assert that owners had complete authority over their slaves.

o Had Paul somehow been able to get the Empire to free the 'slaves', the economic and social chaos would have been unimaginable. The sheer size of the slave population was immense. ("At the end of the first century BC the servile population of the Roman heartland lay, according the modern estimates, in the order of two to three millions, representing 33-40 per cent of the total population." [SASAR:29f])

From a practical standpoint alone, it would have been impossible to have issued some unilateral emancipation command to the Christian community.

o The emphasis on non-legalism, limited hierarchical authority, and conscience-based decision making might suggest that the decision concerning any given master-slave situation NOT be solved by unilateral pronouncements, but rather by individuals in the midst of the situation.

This situation seems to be what is illustrated in the book of Philemon.

The general consensus is that Paul is writing to Philemon to accept his runaway slave Onesimus back as a freedman, but the historical and legal context for this is quite precarious.

1. It was a major crime to harbour a runaway (soon thereafter, it became a capital crime!):

"The same senatus consultum also appears to have prescribed a penalty for failure to hand over a fugitive to his master or to the magistrates within 20 days, if found on one's property (Dig. 11.4.1.1)." [NDIEC8:26f]

"At the same time that the privilege of asylum was conferred on the temple, a suit for compensation and penalty was instituted against any private individual who should either help or harbour a runaway. Flight of slaves was an issue to be regulated...The prosecution of persons either for persuading a slave to run away, concealing his whereabouts, or seizing, selling or purchasing him was known to Roman law from the second century BC...It became a crimen capitale no longer punished necessarily by a monetary penalty but also by banishment to the mines or crucifixion..." [NDIEC8:35, late 1st century]

2. Paul could NOT afford for the early Church to be stigmatized in this way:

"H. Bellen interprets Paul's decision to return Onesiumus as an attempt to protect Christianity from the charge of kidnapping which would have adversely affected his missionary activity. Paul sought to stop slaves from using Christianity and its call to 'forsake everything' as a way of avoiding slavery." [NDIEC6:54]

3. And he had to act quickly, because there might have been huge incentives (other than legal) for those around him to 'turn him in':

"The above evidence shows the various means available to masters to find and apprehend their runaways. These include: the posting of public notices and the use of officials as recipients of information, the offering of rewards, the hiring of a professional searcher, the prevailing on friends and acquaintances for help and the seeking of help from individuals able to exert influence on official personnel." [NDIEC8:25]

"Of interest also is the naming of the slaves' owners and their position. As this was unnecessary for the search, school surmises that such information was added to encourage persons, knowing that the reward would be paid, to assist. The reward promised in the first instance (i.e. two talents) was approximately a year's wages for an ordinary worker." [NDIEC8:13]

4. His letter makes it fairly clear that he wishes Philemon to free Onesimus upon his return (and that this is something ethically obligatory--"ought to do"):

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good- 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in

the Lord. 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do,

5. He makes it clear, also, that Paul had the authority to command Philemon to do so:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do,

Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

6. Yet Paul still seeks for Philemon's action to be conscience-driven and from the Christian ethic of love:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I appeal to you on the basis of love

But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask

7. There is very little ambiguity here, but Paul is clearly coaxing Philemon to make the right choice (which Paul makes clear). What he falls short of, at least in this epistle, is some authoritative command (even though he could have--as verse 8 makes clear to Philemon!) which would override Philemon's freewill/choice in the matter. Whether he is trying to let Philemon "get the credit" for the action--since it would have represented Philemon's investment--or whether he was deferring to Philemon because

he would have had better knowledge of any problematic circumstances is unclear from the text [remember, at the time of the writing, Paul had only heard Onesimus' side of the story and knew that it might have involved some injury to Philemon], what IS CLEAR is that Paul wanted Philemon to take action in keeping with the general 'new creation' ethic.

In this case, Paul communicates the correct action (from the heart) without appealing to apostolic authority. This is what we might expect, given his anti-legalism and pro-Spirit teaching.

[There is also a theme in Paul that says that ONLY voluntary acts of goodness are rewarded or praiseworthy--this would certainly provide a motive for him to give Philemon the chance to act voluntarily:

For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. (1 Cor 9.16f). Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor 9.6)

shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily (Peter, in I Peter 5.2)]

o Given the potential abuses in the system, we would NOT expect enthusiastic endorsement of slavery, either.

We certainly don't have any endorsements of slavery as a human social system in Paul, but rather have numerous anti-slavery motifs (as noted above). Its ambiguous character at that juncture in history precludes a wholesale emancipation motif, but the goal

of freedom for all is very clear throughout his writings.

............................................................................................................................................................. 4. To what extent could this be considered "condoning slavery", as voiced in a typical objection?

There are three considerations which make this phrase inapplicable to our situation:

First of all, it should be obvious that this is hardly 'slavery' in the normal, horrible meaning of it, so I think the objection is misplaced to begin with.

Secondly, 'condoning' means (in a context like this) "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly" [Oxford]. The NT data we have looked at certainly doesn't "sanction" it, but rather strongly encourages the church to move away from it, and explicitly condemns those elements of it that were clearly wrong (e.g., slavetrading, deprivation, malice, anti-community social views of it)--the very elements in New World slavery that are problematic. We have seen already how a blanket emancipation would have been inappropriate (given the type of slave-system it was), and as an institution it was too ambiguous and too flexible to deserve a judgement of 'holy' (sanctioned) or 'evil' (condemned).

Finally, we shall see later that the data we have about the early church showed that they believed the institution was not evil in itself, since they could use it to free others or provide relief money for others. In the earliest non-biblical accounts we have (late 1st century), we can see this:

"We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to slavery, in order that they could ransom others. Many others have surrendered themselves to slavery, so that with the price that they received for themselves, they might provide food for others." [Clement of Rome, c.96, 1.70]

As we noted above, an institution that was flexible enough as this could not be considered evil per se--it could be used evilly by participants in that institution (e.g., abusive masters, bribe-requiring slaves, etc.)

Accordingly, I find it difficult to agree that the NT "condones slavery" in any meaningful (from a modern standpoint) sense.

..................................................................................................................................................................

5. What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?

The above data should be enough to show that a "condoning slavery" objection is simply inapplicable to biblical data. The OT and NT systems of 'slavery' addressed therein are just not close enough to New World slavery to make the objection even relevant, much less accurate. So, we could stop the discussion here.

We might profit from looking further at peripheral data, however, since the Suffering Servant motif from Isaiah was applied to Christ, and Jesus' deliberate model in John 13 of servanthood has challenged believers throughout the centuries to a life of humility, service, and other-centeredness.

So, let's look at the wider context of servant hood in the NT:

* Backdrop: Jesus and servanthood

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave -- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20.25) [Note: the contrast is between elitism and service, with Jesus as the example of one working for the interests/welfare of others.]

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9.35) [Social status should NOT be an ambition of the follower!]

For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs (Rom 15.8) [The servant quality in view here is that of performing work for the benefit of others.]

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! (Phil 2.5ff) [Social status was not as important as performing the will of God--whatever it took.]

* Paul as 'servant of all' and 'servant of Christ'

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. (I Cor 9.19) [The ideas here are those of service and humility.]

"`I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16 `Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. (Acts 26.16) [Here servanthood is an 'appointment' by a royal figure--the Lord, and will involve the task of proclamation.]

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, (Rom 1.1) [The "status" of a servant was related to the "status" of the owner, as was commonly seen in Ancient Rome. To be a servant of the God of the Universe and of the Lord of History was quite an honor and privileged position...]

* Paul and the illusion of "ownership"

For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; (I Cor 7.22) [The status was changed in Christ.]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. [The illusion of ownership also applied to payment!--the servant would be rewarded by Christ Himself, since HE was the actual one being served by the attitude of the worker.]

It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col 3.22ff)

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Eph 6.9) [Masters were clearly told here that ownership had "passed" to Jesus! And, that they now had a Master in heaven. All ownership (earthly) was at best a matter of part-time contract agreements. We don't even "own" ourselves--much less others!]

* Paul's emphasis on using one's slave status as a witnessing/ministry opportunity (!).

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (I Tim 6.1)

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Tit 2.9)

Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. (I Tim 6.2)

* Paul's emphasis that the love of Christ and the accountability to Him should completely transform ALL institutions, including the roles of master/slave (echoed by Peter).

o Masters were supposed to treat the slaves as if they were the slaves of Christ! (Eph 6.9)

o They were not supposed to threaten the slaves (STANDARD practice in that relationship!!) (Eph 6.9)

o They were to recognize that, unlike the government/elite, they had no preferential treatment before God! (Eph 6.9)

o Masters were supposed to give slaves what was 'right and fair' (inconsistently applied in those days!) (Col 4.1)

o Slaves were not supposed to steal (common practice in those days) (Tit 2.9)

o Slaves were supposed to obey in 'sincerity of heart' (uncommon!) (Eph 6.5)

o Slaves were supposed to do right, even without supervision (uncommon) (Eph 6.6; also Col 3.22)

o Slaves were supposed to work with all their heart (uncommon) (Col 3.23)

o Slaves were supposed to demonstrate trustworthiness (Tit 2.9)

o Slaves are to emulate Christ, when confronted with undeserved harshness (I Peter 2.18ff)

This represents nothing less that a radical transformation of the master/slave relationship--when infused with the ethics of Christian love and other-centered actions (e.g. Philp 2.4)

* Paul and transcending the earthly 'economics' for the slave:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. (Eph 6.5f) [Notice that Paul points out that the actions of slaves (and masters!)

have eternal consequences, and the slightest task done in humility before the real Master Jesus is seen and rewarded by Him!]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col 3.22ff) [This "extra economic benefit" is called an inheritance here--something passed on from Jesus to the servant!]

* The analogy between slavery and submission to oppressive government (Rom 13 and I Peter 2.18ff)

In Romans 13, Paul argues that the Roman government should be obeyed, since it was an existing authority structure in history. The Imperial government was a mixture of both "good" and "bad", but government itself was not evil. Just as a ruler could be abusive (without the institution being evil in its nature), and a spouse could be abusive (without marriage being evil in its nature), and a parent could be abusive (without parenting being abusive--so too could an owner or servant be abusive (without the

economic "contract" or arrangement being evil). [The same, by the way, would apply to employers of free people: a work contract could be 'neutral' but how the parties treated each other, and the quality of work and promptness of payment could vary in ethical appropriateness.]

According to the bible, authority structures were supposed to be ways of serving/helping others! Governments, for example, are all "ministers" of God (Romans 13, cf. Our modern phrase "public servants"), but some are useful, some are useless, and some are

destructive. Authority, biblically speaking, is granted only for the good of others--it is supposed to be a vehicle for doing "distributed good," not for elitism or exploitation.

And if this analogy holds, it has important implications for how far slaves were supposed to 'submit'.

In 1 Peter 2.18ff we read:

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

This amazing passage shows that slaves were only supposed to submit as far as their conscience allowed. We have already seen legal situations in which slaves were supposed to 'turn their masters in' for criminal behavior (setting one boundary on submission), but this passage makes it a matter of conscience before God. We certainly have known cases of where Christian female slaves of pagan masters refused to participate in immorality (and were often martyred, such as Potamiena).

This places a very definite limit on the 'authority' of masters (!), and is paralleled in known cases of 'civil disobedience' in the NT (Acts 4.19 and 5.29).

[The topic of civil disobedience is far beyond the scope of this document, but it should at least be noted here that the biblical teaching on the matter is not exhausted with a simple "bear it" theme. We know of several different themes of dealing with 'evil' authorities and responses. For examples: (1) 'suffering unjustly' is not ALWAYS the appropriate response--FLEEING sometimes is (Jesus' teaching in Mt 10.23); as can be (2) taking legal action (as Paul did often, in the Roman court system); as (3) vivid confrontation and rebuke could be (e.g., Paul and the efforts of the 'enslaving Judaizers'). Even the Romans 13 passage--often understood as a sanction of "divine right" political theory--has to be read in light of the concrete providential history of the OT. For example, when Saul had the "Romans 13 authority" and David was anointed king, David fled and even their armies fought. He did not 'submit to martyrdom' nor did he assassinate the king. When God 'raises one up and deposes another', this can often be a macro-level process that involves everything from civil factionalism (e.g., the split between the tribes after Solomon) to popular revolts (e.g., 2 Kings 21.19ff). The issue of how authorities are 'replaced' is a more complex one, than that of obedience as far as is morally right.]

* Slavery as metaphor--the main issue was the character of the Master

As we have seen, this institution in NT times had an ethically ambiguous character: so much depended on the intentions, treatment, and coercive elements in the relationship.

If a Master forced someone into slavery (even the NT type of 'slavery'), it was seen as clearly evil by Paul (i.e., slavetraders). If a master used coercive elements (e.g., threatening, withholding material needs, abusive treatment), it was seen as clearly evil.

If, on the other hand, a person voluntarily entered into servitude, to a owner of great rank (e.g. the royal household), the status and benefits were impressive. It was a win-win situation for everyone, and the quality of life in the larger families of Rome was exceptionally high. Owners often found personal warmth in their servants (to the point of adoption or marriage!), and even manumission was easily attained once the servant had developed and mastered 'marketable' skills.

In the NT, Paul draws upon this disparity between evil/abusive masters and good/affirming masters. The evil masters he tells the believer to avoid are many:

o Sin (the pull toward evil and selfishness):

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. (Rom 7.14)

o Death (the law of down-hill/destructive consequences):

that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Rom 8.21)

o False gods (false, misleading, and consumptive religious practices):

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God-or rather are known by God-how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them

all over again? (Gal 4.8f)

o Satan's kingdom (e.g., macro-cultural forces that restrict our freedom, creativity, transformation):

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness (Col 1.13)

so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death (Heb 2.14f)

o Appetites (impulsiveness, lack of self-control):

For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. (Rom 16.18)

o Desires and pleasures (addictions):

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures (Tit 3.3)

These are abusive situations that are remedied in Christ, by a 'change of master' ("redemption") to Christ. We flee for refuge (asylum) to God and we experience a change of ownership from the abusive and deceitful masters, to One who cares for us--the Lord (who also provides the ownership transfer payment!).

But not only was the change supposed to be in our situation, it was also supposed to be in our character.

Commitment to serving Christ and others, humility toward Christ and others (e.g., Rom 12.10), and working for the interests of others instead of merely our own (cf. esp. Philp 2.4,21) became the highest calling of the Christian life. Jesus said 'follow my

example' when he washed the feet of his companions, and urged us to take up our cross daily and follow that example. This calling considers only the welfare of others (i.e., love in action!) to be a worthy goal, when compared to social 'standing' or arrogance of the elite...

The model of Christ, faithfully and from-the-heart serving the Father and us, becomes the model for the heart of the believer.

This ideal of a gentle, committed, persistent servanthood, based on affection and loyalty DID NOT, HOWEVER, legitimize slavery somehow (contra common opinion)! Paul's explicit injunctions to (1) not become slaves and (2) against slave traders, and (3) for

voluntary manumission are very strong indications that preserving the status quo in favor of the masters was neither a goal, nor an acceptable stopping point for the gospel of freedom.

* Historical factors

Although there were definite constraints on the early church as to how much change she could effect, this really didn't stop the NT writers from making bold statements where appropriate. At the time of Paul's earliest writings (mentioning 'slavery'), Christianity would have been largely a Jewish denomination, popular in the Diaspora communities, and mainly only persecuted by Judean Jews. Later in the NT period, of course, it attracted the (sometimes) hostile attention of the Roman government, and became more consistently persecuted outside of Judea.

But although this would have practically limited the effects of any Christian prophetic voice to the massive empire, the NT authors did not find this to be the limiting factor. They DID speak out against evil institutions (i.e., slave trading), evil usage

of neutral/ambiguous institutions (e.g., abusive masters, pilfering servants), and even commonly-accepted morals of the surrounding cultures (e.g., sexual ethics, exploitation, fraud). But their main focus was on individual transformation of the heart, and on the growth of Christ-like community within the fellowship. Social change would be a necessary conclusion of heart-changes of people, and growth in love, kindness, forgiveness, and loyalty could only produce Kingdom-of-God-quality relationships among His followers.

To illustrate how difficult this might have been, consider that Paul had his hands full trying to get believers to understand that sacred prostitution in Corinth was wrong--a full campaign to eradicate it in the Roman Empire would have diverted his efforts from his major work of 'planting freedom' in the lives of people!

Also, we must remember that most of the NT literature deals with specific issues and occasions that came up in the beginning of the Christian expansion. It doesn't represent by any means a systematic or comprehensive critique of the cultures in which it had to live. For example, infanticide was a common practice--the leaving of infants on trash heaps to die of exposure or to be eaten by wild dogs--but the New Testament doesn't even speak about this. Later believers, however, after the church had taken root, spoke out vigorously against this practice.

The NT epistles reflect the mixture of its readership. At the time of Paul's epistles, the recipients would most likely have included household slaves, in urban settings. The number of slaves would have been much greater than the number of owners, and this would be reflected in the fact that there are more passages with instructions for servants, than for masters. Urban household slaves, we have noted often above, were NOT in a bad situation generally--certainly nothing like New World slaves or even the much earlier plantation slaves of the early Roman Republic. For these readers, the owner/slave relationship would not have been the oppressive institution that we are familiar with from modern images of New World slavery.

All in all, we couldn't realistically expect the NT to speak to every evil, or even to every evil usage of neutral structures, of the day, but in the case of NT slavery, we have enough data to confirm that it was:

pro-freedom

anti-involuntary slavery

anti-voluntary slavery

an advocate of respect, consideration, loyalty, and good-will in ALL relationships (including master/servant)

pro-voluntary manumission

[One could clearly, in the light of this, see how easily the pro-abolitionists of later centuries could find the anti-NewWorld slavery case in the Bible! For an excellent summary of this later debate, see the excellent books by Craig S. Keener and Glenn Usry (Black Man's Religion and Defending Black Faith), and for a careful and balanced discussion of the relationship between Christianity and social change, see Sociology Through the Eyes of Faith, by David A. Fraser and Tony Campolo.] ......................................................................................................................................

6. What evidence do we have about the early church's actions in this area?

We don't have a lot of data here, but what we do have seems to indicate that:

1. The early church saw the institution as 'neutral' enough to utilize to meet the needs of others:

"We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to slavery, in order that they could ransom others. Many others have surrendered themselves to slavery, so that with the price that they received for themselves, they might provide food for others." [Clement of Rome (c.96) 1.70]

We know that the church was very active in social relief programs, because the church at Rome was supporting over 1,500 widows and beggars in the middle of the third century. Voluntary slavery may well have been one of the ways of funding such a large-scale relief program (among the many others done in the period, see ROC).

2. The early church apparently used their funds to procure freedom for their members (to the limit of their ability):

"Do not despise either male or female slaves, yet neither let them be puffed up with conceit, but rather let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty. Let them not long to be set free [from slavery] at the public expense, that they be not found slaves to their own desires. (iv) " [Letter of Ignatius to Polycarp]

"As for such sums of money as are collected from them in the aforesaid manner, designate them to be used for the redemption of the saints and the deliverance of slaves and captives." [Apostolic Constitutions ( somewhat later, c.390) 7.435]

3. The data we have from this period strongly suggests that urban Christians were the most frequent manumitters in the period:

"Christian masters were not specially encouraged to set a slave free, although Christians were most numerous in the setting of urban households where freeing was most frequent: our pagan evidence for the practice is overwhelmingly evidence for the freeing

of slaves in urban and domestic service...Among Christians, we know that the freeing of slaves was performed in church in the presence of the bishop: early laws from Constantine, after his conversion, permit this as an existing practice." [PAC:298]

4. This practice of manumission was widespread by the time of Constantine, which would argue that it had a history much earlier:

"A point of particular interest in Constantine's second ruling is the reference it makes to slaveowners setting free their slaves because of their religious convictions: 'religiose mente'. This suggests a possible new ideological impetus to manumission that, using the old forms, could well have been at work in the Christian communities long before Constantine's conversion. Certainly something of a demand for the new process must be inferred from the fact that Constantine's rulings were letters responding to petitions received from bishops. [HI:ELAR:158]

5. We do know that not all Christian masters freed their servants, nor that all Christian servants were honest and loyal. We have the famous case of Callistus in the third century, in which the slave Callistus was set up as a banker in Rome by his (Christian) master Carpophorus. This would have been an excellent position, with high autonomy and almost certain to have resulted in early freedom and material comforts. [This might have represented a very good 'use' of the master/servant relationship.] However, Callistus embezzled funds, ran away to avoid discovery by the bank's depositors, tried to kill himself when he thought he was about to be apprehended, created a riot in a synagogue, and was sentenced by government courts to prison. He later was freed and became Pope in 217 AD.

[We would also assume that there were Christians who abused the master/slave relationship (or even resisted the general principle toward manumission), just like there were Christians in the NT who violated other major moral principles, including major sexual ethics (I Cor 5-6!), but this is no counter-argument to the NT teaching motif itself. We also know that church leaders had household servants through most of the institutional history of the post-Constantine church, but these look so much more like

the British servants or French bureaucrats than it does something nefarious like New World slavery.]

6. But we do know that there were widespread manumissions among Christian converts, esp. those of wealth. We have data about some actual manumissions in the pre-Constantine era, that indicates that the principles of the NT indeed created more and more manumissions among Christians. Phillip Schaff summaries this data [History of the Christian Church, s.v. "Christian Life in Contrast with Pagan Corruption: The Church and Slavery" in Volume II]:

"The principles of Christianity naturally prompt Christian slave-holders to actual manumission. The number of slave-holders before Constantine was very limited among Christians, who were mostly poor. Yet we read in the Acts of the martyrdom of the Roman bishop Alexander, that a Roman prefect, Hermas, converted by that bishop, in the reign of Trajan, received baptism at an Easter festival with his wife and children and twelve hundred and fifty slaves, and on this occasion gave all his slaves their freedom

and munificent gifts besides. So in the martyrology of St. Sebastian, it is related that a wealth Roman prefect, Chromatius, under Diocletian, on embracing Christianity, emancipated fourteen hundred slaves, after having them baptized with himself, because their sonship with God put an end to their servitude to man. Several epitaphs in the catacombs mention the fact of manumission. In the beginning of the fourth century St. Cantius, Cantianus, and Cantiannilla, of an old Roman family, set all their slaves, seventy-three in number, at liberty, after they had received baptism. St. Melania emancipated eight thousand slaves; St. Ovidius, five thousand; Hermes, a prefect in the reign of Trajan, twelve hundred and fifty....These legendary traditions may indeed be doubted as to the exact facts in the case, and probably are greatly exaggerated; but they are nevertheless conclusive as the exponents of the spirit which animated the church at that time concerning the duty of Christian masters."

These acts of manumission are unintelligible, if the church had somehow 'sanctioned' slavery! In other words, these acts make sense ONLY IF the church had been taught that freedom was something owner-masters should pursue for their servants wherever possible. A simple "just be better to your slaves" ethic would NOT have generated such events and patterns of manumission as these.

So, overall, it seems that the Church basically 'got the message', but implemented it as the situation allowed.

As late as Augustine, we see still see efforts by the Church to free involuntary slaves:

Augustine said that it was the practice of the Christian community to use its funds to redeem as many of the kidnapped victims as possible, and in one recent episode 120 'slaves' whom the Galatians were boarding, or were preparing to board, onto their ships had been saved. " [HI:SASAR:37f]

........................................................................................................................................................

Summary and conclusions:

The slave-system described in the NT period is very dissimilar to New world slavery, especially in regards to the more horrific and troubling aspects: lifetime slavery, forced/violent enslavement, no chance for improvement in conditions, no legal recourses against owners, bad living conditions, lowest possible social and economic status.

As such, its ethical character relative to New World slave is very different.

It was a much more neutral, flexible, varied, and ambiguous institution--blanket ethical pronouncements against it or for it would have been inaccurate.

Accordingly, the institution itself could not be considered 'inconsistent with' the gospel of freedom, and the NT clearly denies the idea that a master "owns" a servant (only the Lord owns them both)!

I have to conclude that the NT-period "slavery" in the Roman Empire is not similar enough to New World slavery for this objection to have its customary force.

Given this character of the institution, the NT teachings address obvious problems with the praxis and role enactments.

The general Christian principle of 'freedom' creates several passages that encourage the church to move away from (and avoid) the practice.

The general view of the NT that change should be instituted from "the inside outward" and should be a matter of individual moral decision explains the phenomena within the book of Philemon.

The complexity of the historical situation also argues against the feasibility of any 'unilateral abolition'.

Accordingly, we cannot correctly accuse the NT of "condoning slavery" in any traditional sense.

The use of the servant-heart of Jesus as a goal did NOT legitimize the institution in any way; the anti-slavery injunctions clearly show that.

The NT does not expect unconditional obedience to masters; indeed it required disobedience in cases of moral wrongdoing (similar to cases of required civil disobedience).

The NT literature is too 'occasional' and too early to be expected to deal with ALL social implications of the good news of God's action in Jesus Christ, but we do have strong pro-freedom elements and instructions therein anyway.

The early church saw the institution itself as neutral/useful for raising funds for social relief, yet demonstrated a decided preference for manumission.

Now, what emerges from this rather detailed study, is that most of the passages in the NT relating to slavery were not even speaking about what we could consider 'slavery' today (i.e., New World slavery). Given what 'slavery' was like in Paul's day, we should not be morally 'surprised' at the absence of a blanket manumission statement by him, or at the absence of a major Empire-wide anti-slavery campaign on the part of the emerging church. The data that we DO have in the NT lays clear groundwork for refuting New World Slavery (almost all of which was based on slave-trading and piracy--explicitly condemned by Paul and fought by the early church). By the time slavery loses its ethically ambiguous character as an institution (i.e., in the slave trade of the New World period), it cannot legitimately 'use Paul' to defend itself, for it had mutated into something quite unlike either Hebrew "slavery" in the OT, or "household slavery" in the NT.

So, it is incorrect to say that the bible "condones slavery" (in the modern connotation of that phrase).

Glenn M. Miller

December 30, 1999

Abbreviations Used in References

Common abbreviations: DSS (Dea Sea Scrolls); mss (manuscripts); NT (New Testament); OT (Old Testament/Tanach); ANE (Ancient New East). Books with an X: prefix are NOT in my library.

· [AAA] Atlas of Ancient Archaeology, Jacquetta Hawkes (ed), Barnes and Nobles: 1994.

· [AAF] Answering a Fundamentalist, Albert J. Nevins, M.M., Our Sunday Visitor Publishing:1990.

· [AB] Atlas of the Bible, John Rogerson, Facts on File: 1985.

· [ABC] Atlas of the Bible and Christianity, Tim Dowley (ed.), Baker:1997.

· [ABD] Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman (main ed.), DoubleDay:1992

· [ABH] Archeology and Bible History, Free and Vos, Zondervan:1992.

· [ABWT] Archaic Bookkeeping: Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East, Hans Nissen / Peter Damerow / Robert Englund (trans. Paul Larsen), U.Chicago: 1993.

· [ACAEC] Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context, Bruce G. Trigger, American University in Cairo:1993.

· [ACCS:Mark] Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Thomas Oden and Christopher Hall (eds.). IVP:1998.

· [ACH] Atlas of Classical History, Michael Grant, Oxford: 1994.

· [AEC] The Archaeology of Early Christianity--A History, William Frend, Fortress:1996.

· [AEL1] Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols), Miriam Lichtheim, Univ of Cal:1973, 1976, 1980.

· [AEL2] Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols), Miriam Lichtheim, Univ of Cal:1973, 1976, 1980.

· [AEL3] Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols), Miriam Lichtheim, Univ of Cal:1973, 1976, 1980.

· [AHANE] Archeological History of the Ancient Near East, Jack Finegan, Barnes&Nobles:1979.

· [AHSG] Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee--the Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, Richard A. Horsley, Trinity Press: 1996.

· [AI] Ancient Israel. de Vaux, Roland, McGraw-Hill, 1965.two vols.

· [AILCC] Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, John H. Walton, Zondervan: 1989.

· [AL] Ancient Literacy, William V. Harris, Harvard:1989.

· [AM] Ancient Mesopotamia, Leo Oppenheim-completed by Erica Reiner, Univ.Chicago: 1977 (2nd ed).

· [ANET] Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament, with supplement. James B. Pritchard. PrincetonUP:1969 (3rd ed)

· [ANL] Archeology and Langauge: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Colin Renfreq, Cambridge: 1987.

· [ANT] The Archeology of the New Testament-The Life of Jesus and the Beginnings of the Early Church, Jack Finegan, Princeton: 1992 (revised edition)

· [AOOT] Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Kitchen, K.A. ,Intervarsity Press, 1966.

· [AOTI] Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (2nd ed), by John Goldingay, IVP:1990.

· [AP:CBW] Can a Bishop be Wrong?--Ten Scholars Challenge John Shelby Spong, Peter C. Moore (ed.), Morehouse:1998.

· [AP:IDFB] In Defense of the Faith: Biblical Answers to Challenging Questions, Dave Hunt, Harvest House:1996.

· [ART] Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, Solomon Schechter, Jewish Lights: 1909/1993.

· [ATNT] The Text of the New Testament, Aland and Aland, Eerdmans/EJ Brill: 1989 (2nd ed).

· [ATRD] As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History, Jo-Ann Shelton, Oxford: 1988.

· [BABY] Babylon, Joan Oates, Thames and Hudson: 1986 (rev.ed.)

· [BAFCSALS] The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Ancient Literary Setting, Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke (eds.), Eerdmans: 1993.

· [BAFCSDS] The Book of Acts in its First Century Settting: Diaspora Setting, by Irina Levinskaya, Eerdmans/Paternoster:1996 (vol 5 in the series)

· [BAFCSGR] The Book of Acts in its First Century Settting, vol 2: Graeco-Roman Setting, David W. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds. Eerdmans: 1994.

· [BAFCSP] The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Vol 4--Palestinian Setting, ed. R. Bauchkham, Eerdmans: 1995, 526pp.

· [BAFCSPRC] The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Paul in Roman Custody, Brian Rapske, Eerdmans:1994.

· [BAM] Berossos and Manetho: Introduced and Translated--Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Gerhard Verbrugghe and Wichersham, U.Mich: 1996.

· [BAW] Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11, Kikawada and Quinn, Ignatius: 1985.

· [BBC] The Bible Background Commentary-NT. Keener, Craig. S. , IVP, 1993.

· [BCANON] The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, IVP: 1988.

· [BEALE] The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, G. K. Beale (ed.), Baker:1994.

· [BEAP] Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Longenecker, Richard. , Eerdmans Publishing, 1975.

· [BFC] Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism, Paul R. House (ed.), Eisenbrauns: 1992.

· [BHDL] Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, Robert D. Bergen (ed.), Summer Institute of Linguistics: 1994.

· [BIAI] Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Michael Fishbane, Oxford: 1985.

· [BKC] Bible Knowledge Commentary, Kenneth L. Barker, Eugene H. Merrill, and Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint (eds). Victory Books.

· [BLOM] The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, IVP: 1987.

· [BM] The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E. Brown, Doubleday: 1993.

· [BNTH] New Testament History. Bruce, F.F., Anchor, 1972.

· [BPM] Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesuss, Richard Horsley and John Hanson, Harper & Row: 1985.

· [BQI] Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke's Use of Matthew, Allan J. McNichol (ed), Trinity: 1996. (International Institute for Gospel Studies).

· [BREC] Books and Readers in the Early Church, Harry Y. Gamble, Yale: 1995

· [BSNT] Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, Barnett, IVP: 1990.

· [BTE] The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church, T.A. Robinson, Edwin Mellen: 1988.

· [BTM] Before the Muses--An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (2 vols), Benjamin R. Foster, CDL Press:1996.

· [BTT] The Trinity, Edward Henry Bickersteth, Kregel: 1994. Reprint of 19th century work.

· [BVS] The Bible, Violence, and The Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence, James G. Williams, HarperCollins: 1991.

· [CAE] Constantine and Eusebius, Timothy D. Barnes, Harvard: 1981.

· [CAM] Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, Michael Roaf, Facts of File: 1990.

· [CAP] Christianity and Paganism, 350-750, J. N. Hillgarth (ed.), Univ of Penn Press: 1986.

· [CASA] Cambridge Annotated Study Apocrypha, Howard Clark Kee (ed.), Cambridge: 1989.

· [CBGR] Civilization before Greece and Rome, H.W.F. Saggs, Yale:1989.

· [CER] The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, John Hale, Simon and Schuster: 1993.

· [CFMH] The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, U of Ca: 1990.

· [CH:DECB] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot (ed), Hendrickson:1998.

· [CH:JCW] John Calvin and the Will: A Critique and Corrective, Dewey J. Hoitenga, Jr., Baker:1997.

· [ChRE] Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, Chris Scarre, Thames and Hudson: 1995.

· [CKC] Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, Jerry Vardaman and Edwin Yamauchi, eds. Eisenbrauns:1989.

· [CKC2] Chronos, Kairos, Christos II, E. Jerry Vardaman (ed), Mercer UPress: 1998.

· [CMM] An Introduction to the New Testament. Carson, D.A.; Moo, Douglas; and Morris, Leon. , Zondervan, 1992.

· [COMFORT] Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament by Philip Wesley Comfort, Baker: 1992.

· [COTTD] Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, trans. R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford: 1987.

· [COWA1] Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (2 vols), Robert W. Ehrich (ed)., Univ of Chicago: 1992.

· [COWA2] Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (2 vols), Robert W. Ehrich (ed)., Univ of Chicago: 1992.

· [CP] The Chronicle of the Pharoahs, Peter A Clayton, Thames and Hudson:1994

· [CR:NLBC] The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Lester & Bohlin, Probe Books: 1989.

· [CRCST] Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian & Secular Tradition, George A. Kennedy, Univ. of N.Carolina: 1980.

· [CRE] Christianizing the Roman Empire A.D. 100-400, Ramsay MacMullen, Yale:1984.

· [CRJ] Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development, Hershel Shanks (ed.), Biblical Archeology Society: 1992.

· [CRST] The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Robert Wilken, Yale: 1984.

· [Crux] Crucifixion, Martin Hengel, Fortress: 1977.

· [CS:AM] Animal Minds. Griffin, Donald R., Univ of Chicago, 1992.

· [CS:AWU] Are We Unique?, James Trefil, Wiley:1997.

· [CS:BR] Brain Repair, Stein, Brailowsky, and Will, Oxford: 1995.

· [CS:CCS] The Chemistry of Conscious States: How the Brain changes its Mind by J. Allan Hobson. Little/Brown: 1994,292pp.

· [CS:CD] Cognitive Development (3rd ed), by J. H. Flavell, P.H. Miller, and S. A. Miller, Prentice Hall:1993.

· [CS:CE] Conscious Experience, Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Schoningh: 1995.

· [CS:CEden] Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett. BackBay Books: 1991, 500pp.

· [CS:CMSM] Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps. Jensine Andresen and Robert Forman (eds). ImprintAcademic:2000

· [CS:CRA] Consciousness Research Abstracts, Imprint Academic.

· [CS:DEERHB] Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain by Antonio Damasio. Grosset/Putnam: 1994,310+pp.

· [CS:DM] Deconstructing the Mind, Stephen P. Stich, Oxford: 1996.

· [CS:DPSOBB] Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior by Scott Kelso. Bradford (MIT), 1995.

· [CS:EL] Goodbye, Descatres: The End of Logic and the Search for a New Cosmology of the Mind. Keith Devlin. John Wiley: 1997.

· [CS:EVM] Evolving the Mind: On the Nature of Matter and the Origin of Consciousness, A.G. Cairns-Smith, Cambridge: 1996.

· [CS:HBT] How Brains Think, William H. Calvin, BasicBooks:1996.

· [CS:HSCB] How the Self Controls its Brain, John C. Eccles, Springer-Verlag: 1994.

· [CS:IOSD] Immortality: The Other Side of Death, Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Nelson:1992.

· [CS:JCM] Journeys to the Centers of the Mind--Toward a Science of Consciousness, Susan Greenfield, Freeman: 1995.

· [CS:JCSxx] The Journal of Consciousness Studies, cited by vol:issue, pps.

· [CS:KOM] Kinds of Minds: Towards and Understanding of Consciousness, Daniel Dennett, Basic Books/Harper: 1996.

· [CS:MBB] Memory, Brain, and Belief. Daniel Schacter and Elaine Scarry (eds). Harvard:2000.

· [CS:MCM] Minds, Causes, and Mechanisms: A Case Against Physicalism. Josep E. Corbi and Josep L. Prades. Blackwell: 2000.

· [CS:MD] Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past. Daniel Schacter (ed). Harvard:1995.

· [CS:MI] The Making of Intelligence. Ken Richardson. Columbia:2000.

· [CS:MMQM] Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Henry P. Stapp, Springer-Verlag: 1993, 248pp.

· [CS:OOSSE] The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution, S. A. Kauffman, Oxford: 1993.

· [CS:PBP] Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry: Blaming the Body. Colin Ross and Alvin Pam. WileyInterscience:1995.

· [CS:PC4V] Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Eric L Johnson and Stanton L Jones (eds). IVP:2000.

· [CS:PSS] Pain: The Science of Suffering. Patrick Wall. Columbia:2000.

· [CS:PSYLIN] Psycholinguistics by Michael Garman. Cambridge: 1990, 500+pp.

· [CS:PTEF] Psychology through the Eyes of Faith. David Myers & Malcolm Jeeves. Harper/Collins:1987.

· [CS:SAC] Scientific Approaches to Consciousness, J. D. Cohen and J. W. Schooler (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Asso: 1997 (Carnegie Mellon Symposia on Cognition).

· [CS:SMpen] Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing of Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose. Oxford: 1994,450+pp.

· [CS:SS] The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of language and the brain, Terrance W. Deacon, Norton:1997.

· [CS:SSM] The Seven Sins of Memory--How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Daniel L. Schacter. Houghton/Mifflin:2001.

· [CS:TCM] The Conscious Mind--In search of a Fundamental Theory, David J. Chalmers, Oxford:1996.

· [CS:TCN] The Cognitive Neurosciences ed. by Michael Gazzaniga. MIT: 1995, 1447pp.

· [CS:TEB] The Emotional Brain, Joseph LeDoux, Simon & Schuster:1996.

· [CS:TIC] Thinking in Complexity, K. Mainzer, Springer-Verlag: 1994.

· [CS:TMB] The Modular Brain by Richard Restak. Scribners, 1994.

· [CS:TNM] The Nature of Mind by David M. Rosenthal. Oxford: 1991, 642pp.

· [CS:TOM] Theories of the Mind. Priest, Stephen, Houghton-Mifflin, 1991.

· [CS:TPC] Ten Problems of Consciousness--A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind, Michael Tye, MIT/Bradford: 1995.

· [CS:TRM] The Rediscovery of the Mind by John Searle. MIT: 1992, 270pp.

· [CS:TSC] Toward a Science of Consciousness, Hameroff/Kaszniak/Scott (eds.), Bradford/MIT: 1996.

· [CS:TSOC] The Science of Consciousness, Max Velmans (eds.), Routledge:1996.

· [CS:TSP] The Story of Psychology by Moron Hunt. Anchor: 1993, 760pp.

· [CS:UM] The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation. John Horgan. The Free Press:1999.

· [CS:WEW] When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals. Jeffrey Masson and Susan McCarthy. Dell:1995.

· [CS:WGWGA] Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. Andrew Newburg, E. D'Aguili, and V. Rause. Ballantine:2001.

· [CS:WIK] What Infants Know: The New Cognitive Science of Early Development, by Jacques Mehler and Emmanuel Dupoux (trans. Patsy Southgate), Blackwell:1990/1994(tr).

· [CS] Caesars and Saints--The Rise of the Christian State, Stewart Perowne, Barnes&Nobles: 1962.

· [CSSG] Cynic Sage or Son of God?, Gregory Boyd, Bridgepoint: 1995.

· [CTEC] The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Penguin: 1993 (2nd rev).

· [CTM] Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, R. Travers Herford, KTAV: 1903.

· [DABL] Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature, Walter Bodine (ed.), Scholars Press: 1995.

· [Daube] The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, David Daube, Hendrickson:1956 (reprint).

· [DAW] Discipleship in the Ancient World and the Gospel of Matthew, Michael J. Wilkins, Baker: 1995 (2nd rev of original by Brill: 1988).

· [DDD] Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.). Brill:1995.

· [DGNT] The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament, F.F. Bruce, Eerdmans: 1977 (2nd ed.).

· [DJE] Did Jesus Exist?, G. A. Wells, Pemberton:1986 (rev. ed.)

· [DJEC] The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity, John Carroll ad Joel Green, Hendrickson: 1995.

· [DLIOT] An Introduction to the Old Testament, Dillard and Longman III, Zondervan: 1994.

· [DM] The Death of the Messiah, Raymond E. Brown, Doubleday: 1994, 2 vols.

· [DNTT] : Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, eds. Zond.

· [DSCH] The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe, MorningStar: 1995.

· [DSG] Documents for the Study of the Gospels, Cartlidge and Dungan (eds.), Fortress: 1994 (2nd ed).

· [DSIG] Difficult Sayings in the Gospels: Jesus' Use of Overstatement and Hyperbole., Robert H. Stein. Baker: 1985.

· [DSSMTOT] Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament, Harold Scanlin, Tyndale:1993.

· [DSST] The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, James VanderKam, Eerdmans:1994.

· [DSSTQTE] The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, Florentino Martinez, Brill: 1996 (2nd ed.).

· [DTX] A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, Judaica Press: 1971. (of Hebrew/Aramaic)

· [EAL] Egypt, the Aegen, and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC, W. Vivian Davies and Louise Schofield (eds.), British Museum Press:1995.

· [EAMH] Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, Wesleyan: 1975.

· [EBC] The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., Vol I. Zondervan, 1979.

· [EBD] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, Zondervan: 1982.

· [EBE] Encyclopedia Britannica (Electronic edition on CD).

· [EBI] Early Biblical Interpretation, Kugel and Greer, Westminster:

· [EBLA0] Ebla: A New Look at History, Giovanni Pettinato, John Hopkins:1991.

· [EBLA1] Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language (Vol 1), Gordon/Rendsburg/Winter (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1987.

· [EBLA2] Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language (Vol 2), Gordon/Rendsburg (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1990.

· [EBLA3] Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language (Vol 3), Gordon/Rendsburg/Winter (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1992.

· [EBLA4] Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language (Vol 4), Gordon/Rendsburg (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 2002.

· [ECB] Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. James DG Dunn and John Robertson (eds). Eerdmans:2003. (1 vol).

· [ECH] The Earliest Christian Heretics: Readings from their Opponents, eds. Arland Hultgren and Stgeven Haggmark, Fortress: 1996.

· [ECIAT] Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Donald B. Redford, Princeton:1992.

· [EDNT] Exegetical Dict. of the NT (Balz and Schneider)

· [EE] Easter Enigma--Are the Resurrection accounts in conflict? 2nd. ed., John Wenham, Baker: 1992.

· [EEE] Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. E.E. Ellis, Eerdmans, 1978.

· [EFT] The Evidence for Jesus, James D.G. Dunn, Westminster: 1985.

· [EGG] Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, George Hart, Routledge:1986.

· [EHANE] The Early History of the Ancient Near East: 9000-2000 B.C., Hans J. Nissen, Univ.Chicago: 1988.

· [EHHC] Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, ed. Tom Dowley, Eerd: 1977.

· [EJ] The Evidence for Jesus, R.T. France, Hodder and Stoughton: 1986.

· [EMMT] Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Philip Comfort, Tyndale: 1990.

· [EPIANE] Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, Frederick Greenspahn, ed. NYU: 1991.

· [EPMM] Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities in Jewish History, Marc Saperstein, ed. New York Univ: 1992.

· [FBI] Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, Dockery, Mathews, Sloan (eds.), Broadman&Holman: 1994.

· [FCBC] The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Lee M. McDonald, Hendrickson:1995 (revised ed.)

· [FJC] From Jesus to Christ, Paula Fredriksen, Yale:1988.

· [FMM] From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Cohen, Westminster: 1987.

· [FRC] The Rise of Christianity by W.H.C. Frend, Fortress: 1984. pp1022.

· [FTT] From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism, Lawrence H. Schiffman, KTAV:1991.

· [FUC] The First Urban Christians, Wayne A. Meeks, Yale:1983.

· [GAG] The Gospel and the Gospels, Peter Stuhlmacher, ed. Eerdmans: 1991.

· [GAJ] The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton. Oxford, 1989.

· [GAJ2] The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed). Graham Stanton. Oxford:2002

· [GANE] The Ancient Near EastCyrus H. Gordon, Norton: 1965.

· [GASC] Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, Westminster: 1988.

· [GASCT] God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East, by Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Zondervan:1995.

· [GLA] The Galilee in Late Antiquity, Lee Levine (ed.), Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1992.

· [GNT] Gnosticism and the New Testament, by Pheme Perkins, Fortress: 1993.

· [GNTI] New Testament Introduction. Guthrie, Donald., Intervarsity Press, 1970.

· [GNTT] New Testament Theology. Guthrie, Donald., Intervarsity Press, 1981.

· [GP] The Gnostic Paul--Gnostic Exegesis on the Pauline Letters, Elaine Pagels, Trinity Press: 1975

· [GP1] Gospel Perspectives, volumes I, II, III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983.

· [GP2] Gospel Perspectives, volumes I, II, III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983

· [GP3] Gospel Perspectives, volumes I, II, III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983

· [GPX] Gospel Parallels, Burton Throckmorton, Nelson: 1992 (5th ed.)

· [GRH] Greek and Roman Historians--Information and Misinformation, Michael Grant, Routledge: 1995.

· [GS] The Gnostic Scriptures, trans. and annots. by Bentley Layton, Doubleday: 1987.

· [GTQ] Gospel Truth? by Graham Stanton, Trinity Press: 1995.

· [HAD] The Historian and Detective: Essays on Evidence, Robin W. Winks (ed.), Harper: 1969.

· [HALOT] Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Koeher, Baumgartner, and Stamm. Brill.

· [HAME] Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edward Peters (ed.), Univ. of Penn: 1980.

· [HAMM] Historigraphy--Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Ernst Breisach, Univ.Chicago: 1994 (2nd ed).

· [HAP] The History of Ancient Palestine by G.W. Ahlstrom. Fortress: 1993, 990pp.

· [HAWH] The Harper Atlas of World History , Pierre Vidal-Naquet (ed.), Harper: 1992 (rev. ed.)

· [HCNT] Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, Boring, Berger, Colpe (eds.), Abingdon:1995.

· [HCSB] HarperCollins Study Bible with Apocrypha, Wayne Meeks (gen. ed.) with Society of Biblical Lit., HarperCollins: 1993.

· [HDT] Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Gary Beckman, Scholars Press:1996.

· [HEA] A History of Education in Antiquity, H. I. Marrou, Univ.Wisconsin: 1956.

· [Hermeneia] Hermeneia--Commentaries on Biblical/ExtraBiblical books. Fortress.

· [HFJ] The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders, Penguin: 1993.

· [HG] The History of Gnosticism, Giovanni Filoramo, Blackwell: 1990.

· [HI:2000] Two Thousand Years Ago: The World at the Time of Jesus. Charles Frazee. Eerdmans:2002.

· [HI:2PIH] Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Alan Segal. Brill:2002.

· [HI:AACD] Ancient Astronomy and Celestrial Divination. N.M. Swerdlow (ed). MIT:1999.

· [HI:AACSC] After the Apostles: Christianity in the Second Century. Walter Wagner, Fortress:1994.

· [HI:AB] Africa and the Bible. Edwin Yamauchi. Baker:2004.

· [HI:ABI] Archaeology: A Brief Introduction, Brian Fagan, Longman:1997 (6th ed).

· [HI:ABJ] The Atlas of Biblical Jerusalem. Dan Bahat. CartaIsrael:1994.

· [HI:AC] Ancient Civilizations, Christopher Scarre and Brian Fagan, Longman:1997.

· [HI:ACAEE] Angelmorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Charles Gieschen. Brill:1998.

· [HI:ACIT] Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein. Johns Hopkins:1998.

· [HI:ACLCAR] The Ancient City: Life in Classical Athens & Rome. Peter Connolly and Hazel Dodge. Oxford:1998.

· [HI:AGFF] Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds.). Oxford:2000.

· [HI:AGLS] Ancient Greek Literature and Society. Charles Rowan Beye. Cornell:1987 (2nd rev).

· [HI:AHGL] A History of Greek Literature, Albin Lesky (trans. by de Heer and J. Willis), Hackett:1963/66.

· [HI:AHI] Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions?Corpus and Concordance. G I Davies. Cambridge:1991.

· [HI:AHKTA] Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches. Neville Morley. Routledge:2000.

· [HI:AHMU2] Ancient History in a Modern University: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity, and Beyond (vol 2), T. W. Hillard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E.V. Nixon, and A. M. Nobbs (eds), Macquarie/Eerdmans:1998.

· [HI:AI] Ancient Iraq. George Roux. Penguin:1992 (3rd ed).

· [HI:AJCO] Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation. George Nickelsberg. Fortress:2003.

· [HI:ALC] Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New Translations, Russell and Winterbottom (eds), Oxford:1972.

· [HI:ALM] Ainoi, Logoi, Muthoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature. Gert-Jan van Dijk. Brill:1997.

· [HI:AMC] Ancient Mystery Cults. Walter Burkert. Harvard:1987.

· [HI:AMCEC] The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, Johannes Tromp, Brill:1993

· [HI:AMCPLS] Art as a Means of Communication in Pre-Literate Societies. Dan Eban (ed.). IsraelMuseum:1990.

· [HI:AMH] Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human. Dexter E. Callender, Jr. Eisenbrauns:2000.

· [HI:ANAB] The Ancient Novel and Beyond. Stelios Panayotakis, Maaike Zimmerman, and Wyste Keulen (eds). Brill:2003.

· [HI:APGTET] The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Michael W. Holmes (ed). Baker:1992.

· [HI:ARAB] Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2 vols. Daniel Luckenbill. Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD:1989 (reprint of 1926)

· [HI:ARC] The Ancient Roman City, John Stambaugh, Johns Hopkins:1988

· [HI:ARE] The Archaeology of the Roman Economy, Kevin Greene, UC Press:1986.

· [HI:AREPJC] Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Eds: Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, Simon Price, Christopher Rowland. Oxford:1999.

· [HI:ASHL] The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Thomas E. Levy (ed), Facts on File:1995.

· [HI:ASM] Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia?a Contextual Approach. Chikako Watanabe. Institut fur Oreintalistik der Universitat Wien:2002.

· [HI:ASR] Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, Catherine Cameron and Steve Tomka (eds), Cambridge:1993.

· [HI:ATAH] Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, John Marincola, CambridgeUpress:1997.

· [HI:ATG] Alexander the Great. Robin Lane Fox. Penguin:1973.

· [HI:ATMP] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, Colin Renfrew, Thames and Hudson:1996 (2nd ed).

· [HI:AUA] Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. Walter Aufrecht, Neil Mirau, and Steven Gauley (eds). JSOTS/Sheffield:1997.

· [HI:AVSI] Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, Paul Bahm, Oxford:1996

· [HI:AWH] Arguing with Historians: Essays on the Historical and the Unhistorical. Richard Nelson Current. Wesleyan UP:1987.

· [HI:BA] Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience, Frank M. Snowden Jr., Belknap/Harvard:1970.

· [HI:BEFCC] Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Frances Young, CambridgeUPress:1997.

· [HI:BFOB] Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Michael Stone and Theodore Bergen (eds). Trinity:1998.

· [HI:BGBH] The Birth of God: The Bible and the Historian. Jean Bottero. PennState:2000.

· [HI:BHS] The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy and Design, Ada Yardeni, Carta Jerusalem:1997.

· [HI:BJP] Between Jesus and Paul. Martin Hengel. Fortress:1983.

· [HI:BLFAG] The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece, Margalit Finkelberg, Oxford:1998.

· [HI:BOC] The Birth of the Codex, Roberts and Skeat, Oxford:1983.

· [HI:BOJ] The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (eds). WJK:2001.

· [HI:BPEUIB] Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon (eds.). Brill:1998.

· [HI:BQ] Bible and Quran: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality. John Reeves (ed). SBL:2003.

· [HI:BW1] Before Writing, Volume 1: From Counting to Cuneiform. Denise Schmandt-Besserat. UTexas:1992.

· [HI:CACD] The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, Peter L'Huillier, St. Vladimir's:1996.

· [HI:CAJI] Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions. Joseph Park. MohrSiebeck:2000.

· [HI:CAT2] The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Dietrich, Loretz, Sanmartin. Ugarit-Verlag:1995 (2nd ed).

· [HI:CAW] Chronology of the Ancient World, E.J. Bickerman, Cornell:1980 (2nd rev).

· [HI:CCEC] Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Martin Hengel and C.K. Barrett, Donald Hagner (ed). Trinity:1999.

· [HI:CCFJ] The Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus: Study Edition (2 vols). Karl Heinrich Rengstorf (ed). Brill:2002.

· [HI:CD] The Canon Debate. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders(eds). Hendrickson:2002.

· [HI:CEC] Children in the Early Church: Children in the Ancient World, the New Testament and the Early Church. W. A. Strange. Paternoster:1996.

· [HI:CFEC] Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today. Richard Longenecker (ed). Hendrickson:2002.

· [HI:CGEC] Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church. Ronald Kydd. Hendrickson:1984.

· [HI:CGLCE] The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (5 vols), James Robinson (gen.ed), Brill:2000.

· [HI:CIAB15] Christiansin Asia before 1500. Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. Umichigan:1999.

· [HI:CityAI] The City in Ancient Israel, Volkmar Fritz, Sheffield Academic:1995.

· [HI:CLC] Classical Literary Criticism, D.A. Russell and Michael Winterbottom (eds). Oxford:1989.

· [HI:CM3] Classical Myth (3rd ed). Barry Powell. PrenticeHall:2001.

· [HI:CMTCOB] Classic Midrash: Tannaitic Commentaries on the Bible. Reuven Hammer (trans/ed). Paulist:1995.

· [HI:CMW] The Creation of Man and Women: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Gerard Luttikhuizen (ed). Brill:2000.

· [HI:CMY6] Classical Mythology (6th ed), Mark Morford and Robert Lenardon. Longman:1999.

· [HI:CNJS] The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times. Raphael Patai. Princeton:1998.

· [HI:COBW] Cities of the Biblical World: An Introduction to the Archaeology, Geography, and History of Biblical Sites, Lamoine DeVries, Hendrickson:1997.

· [HI:COCCL] The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, Howatson & Chilvers (eds), Oxford:1993.

· [HI:Comet44] The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games, John T. Ramsey and A. Lewis Licht, Scholars:1997.

· [HI:CP48C] Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997.

· [HI:CSLman] Comparative Semitic Linguistics--A Manual. Patrick Bennett. Eisenbrauns:1998.

· [HI:CTBSAW] Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. John G. Gager. Oxford:1992.

· [HI:CTH] Companion to Historiography. Michael Bentley (ed). Routledge:1997.

· [HI:DAH] Disease and History, Cartwright and Biddiss, Barnes&Nobles:1972.

· [HI:DAS] The Development of the Arabic Scripts. Beatrice Gruendler. Harvard:1993.

· [HI:DCH] The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Volume III). David J. A. Clines (ed), Sheffield Academic:1996.

· [HI:DFG] Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Daniel Boyarin. Stanford:1999.

· [HI:DFRC] Decline and Fall of the Roman City. JHWG Liebeschuetz. Oxford:2001.

· [HI:DGBM] Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?: An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination. Paul Veyne (trans. By Paula Wissing). UChicago:1983/1988t.

· [HI:DictJBP] Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period. Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green (eds.). Hendrickson:1996.

· [HI:DictNTB] Dictionary of New Testament Background. Craig Evans and Stanley Porter (eds). IVP:2000. [Fourth in the Dictionary series]

· [HI:DID] The Didache: A Commentary, Kurt Niederwimmer (Linda Maloney, trans.), Fortress:1998.

· [HI:DLAG] Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks. Robert Garland. Greenwood:1998.

· [HI:DLAR] Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Jerome Carcopino. Yale:2003 (2nd ed).

· [HI:DOD] The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought, Neil Gillman, Jewish Lights Publishing:1997.

· [HI:DRE] The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Lily Ross Taylor. Scholars:1931.

· [HI:DRR] Dictionary of Roman Religions. Lesley Adkins and Roy Adkins. Oxford:1996.

· [HI:DSFC] Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Kenneth S. Sacks. Princeton:1990.

· [HI:DSS50A] The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 1). Peter Flint and James Vanderkam (eds.). Brill:1998.

· [HI:DSS50B] The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 2). Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (eds). Brill:1999.

· [HI:DSSB] The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. Harper:1999. (English translation of the biblical texts of the DSS. Has 'pierced' for Ps 22, by the way...)

· [HI:DSSOB] The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eugene Ulrich. Eerdmans/Brill:1999.

· [HI:DSSSE] The Dead Sea Scrolls?Study Edition. Martinez and Tigchelaar (eds). Brill/Eerdmans:1997/98 (2 vols).

· [HI:EAR] Education in Ancient Rome, Stanley F. Bonner, UCalPress:1977.

· [HI:ECF] Early Christian Fathers. Cyril C. Richardson (ed.). Macmillan:1970.

· [HI:ECOW] Early Civilizations of the Old World: The Formative Histories of Egypt, The Levant, Mesopotamia, India and China. Charles Keith Maisels. Routledge:1999.

· [HI:EDF] Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of Historical Apocalypses. Stephen Breck Reid. Bibal:1989.

· [HI:EDSS] Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols). Lawrence Shiffman and James VanderKam (eds). Oxford:2000.

· [HI:EFHWAE] The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. M. L. West. Clarendon/Oxford:10997.

· [HI:EGAT] Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. James C. VanderKam. CBQMonograph Series: 1984.

· [HI:EGM1] Early Greek Mythography Volulme 1: Text and Introduction. Robert L. Fowler. Oxford:2000.

· [HI:EJ] Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus. Frederick J. Murphy. Hendrickson:2002.

· [HI:EJL2TP] Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period, Larry R. Helyer, IVP:2002.

· [HI:ELAE] Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt. Lionel Casson. JohnsHopkins:2001 (Rev Ed).

· [HI:ELAM] Everyday in Ancient Mesopotamia. Jean Bottero (Antonia Nevill, trans). JohnsHopkins:1992/2001.

· [HI:ELAR] Everyday Life in Ancient Rome. Lionel Casson. Johns Hopkins:1998 (rev. ed.)

· [HI:EMDSS] Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Craig Evans and Peter Flint (eds). Eerdmans:1997.

· [HI:EMPI] Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople. N.J.E. Austin and N. B. Rankov. Routledge:1995.

· [HI:ERP] The Economy of Roman Palestine, Ze'ev Safrai, Routledge:1994. (Only applies to the period AFTER the destruction of the 2nd Temple.)

· [HI:EUSY] Eusebius--The Church History. Paul Maier (trans/annots). Kregel:1999.

· [HI:FAASHI] From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation. A. B. Bosworth. Oxford:1988.

· [HI:FAHNJ] Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. G. W. Bowersock. Ucal:1994.

· [HI:FARNP] The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Beryl Rawson (ed). Cornell:1986.

· [HI:FCC] The First Christian Centuries--Perspectives on the Early Church. Paul McKechnie. IVP:2001.

· [HI:FCCDWS] Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. Anthony Grafton. Princeton:1990.

· [HI:FD] The Fate of the Dead: Studies in the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Richard Baukham. Brill:1998.

· [HI:FDM] The Forgotten Desert Mothers. Laura Swan. Paulist:2001.

· [HI:FFANE] Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. Daniel Snell. Brill:2001.

· [HI:FFHPGR] The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. Adrienne Mayor. Princeton:2000.

· [HI:FG] The Faces of the Goddess. Lotte Motz. Oxford:1997.

· [HI:FH] The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds, Alan E. Bernstein, Cornell:1993.

· [HI:FHJA2] Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Volume 2 Poets. Carl Holladay. Scholars:1989.

· [HI:FIB] Family in the Bible: Exploring Customs, Culture, and Context. Richard Hess and M Daniel Carroll R (eds). Baker:2003.

· [HI:FJTC3] Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (vol 3). Louis Feldman (trans and comm.) and Steve Mason (ed). Brill:2000.

· [HI:FJTC9] Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (vol 9), Louis Feldman (trans and comm.) and Steve Mason (ed). Brill:2001.

· [HI:FMR] From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. Richard Buxton (ed). Oxford:1999.

· [HI:FRSHM] From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier. Cornell:2001.

· [HI:GAB3] The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism & Early Christianity, Daniel C. Harlow, Brill:1996

· [HI:GBH] Greece Before Homer: Ancient Chronology and Mythology. John Forsdyke. Norton:1964.

· [HI:GBPLA] Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. Tomas Hagg and Philip Rousseau (eds). UCal:2000.

· [HI:GFAGH] Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323BCE to 135CE: A Study of Second Temple Judaism, Sean Freyne, T&T Clark:1980

· [HI:GFL] Greek Fictional Letters. CDN Costa (ed). Oxford:2001.

· [HI:GGOE] The Goddessess and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images. Marija Gimbutas. Ucal:1982 (rev.ed).

· [HI:Ginz] The Legends of the Jews (multivols), Louis Ginzberg, John Hopkins paperbacks of JPS editions:1966.

· [HI:GLAA] Greek Literature--An Anthology, Michael Grant, Penguin:1990.

· [HI:GLAJJ] Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3vols), Menahem Stern, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities:1980.

· [HI:GLGSLA] Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Robert Kaster. Ucalifornia:1988.

· [HI:GLLPT] Guardian of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. Kim Haines-Eitzen. Oxford:2000.

· [HI:GMM] Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod. Charles Penglase. Routledge:1994.

· [HI:GN] The Gods of the Nations--Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Daniel Block. Baker:2000 (2nd ed)

· [HI:GRM] Greek and Roman Maps, O.A. W. Dilke, JohnsHopkins:1985.

· [HI:GRN] Greek and Roman Necromancy. Daniel Ogden. Princeton:2001.

· [HI:GUGOAR] Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome: A life course approach. Mary Harlow and Ray Laurence. Routledge:2002.

· [HI:HAF] Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age. Peter G. Bietenholz. Brill:1994.

· [HI:HAI8] History and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture. TP Wiseman. UExeter: 1994.

· [HI:HANEL] A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.

· [HI:HAW] The Horse in the Ancient World. Ann Hyland. Sutton:2003.

· [HI:HBB] Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Margalit Finkelberg and Guy Stroumsa (eds). Brill:2003.

· [HI:HBC] Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, Hendrickson:1998 (Rev.ed.)

· [HI:HBIAP] A History of Biblical Interpretation Volume 1: The Ancient Period. Alan Hauser and Duane Watson (eds). Eerdmans:2003.

· [HI:HCA] A History of Christianity in Asia: Volume I, Beginnings to 1500, Samuel Hugh Moffett, Orbis:1998 (2nd rev).

· [HI:HCRC] Health Care and the Rise of Christianity. Hector Avalos. Hendrickson:1999.

· [HI:HCW] Historiography in the Cuneiform World. Abusch, Beaulieu, Huehnergard, Machinist, Steinkeller (eds). CDL:2001.

· [HI:HF] Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World. J. M. Bremer, Th. P. J. van den Hout, R. Peters (eds.). Amsterdam UP:1994.

· [HI:HGLF2] History of the Graeco-Latin Fable II: The Fable during the Roman Empire & in the Middle Ages. Francisco Rodriguez Adrados (Leslie A. Ray, trans.). Brill:2000.

· [HI:HGLF3] History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, volume 3: Inventory and Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable. F R Adrados. Brill:2003.

· [HI:HHL] A History of the Hebrew Language, Angel Saenz-Badillos (trans. by John Elwolde), Cambridge:1993.

· [HI:HHMBI] Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, Donald McKim (ed), IVP:1998.

· [HI:HHRVEC] Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church. Craig C. Hill. Fortress:1992.

· [HI:HIHL] Hellenism in the Holy Land. John Collins and Gregory Sterling (eds). NotreDame:2001.

· [HI:HIMink] Historical Understanding. Louis O. Mink. Cornell:1987.

· [HI:HJAELC] The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Gary R. Habermas. College Press:1996. (Good discussion on the modern theories of mythicism, the new gnosticism, Jesus Seminar, etc.)

· [HI:HLAG] Handbook to Life in Ancient Greece, Lesley Adkins and Roy Adkins, Facts on File:1997.

· [HI:HLAR] Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, Lesley Adkins and Roy Adkins, FactsOnFile:1994.

· [HI:HLL] Hippocratic Lives and Legends. Jody Rubin Pinault. Brill:1992.

· [HI:HOS] History of the Samaritans. Nathan Schur. Peter Lang:1992 (rev.ed).

· [HI:HRC] Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529 (2 vols). Frank Trombley. Brill:2001 (2nd ed).

· [HI:HSJ] Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words Attributed to Jesus Outside the Four Gospels. William Morrice. Hendrickson:1997.

· [HI:HSQCPL] Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters, Timothy Lim, Oxford:1997.

· [HI:HTG] Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Jon D. Mikalson. UNC/Chapel Hill:1991.

· [HI:HTNNAR] Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Robert Lamberton. Ucalifornia:1986.

· [HI:HWST] Holy Writings, Sacred Test: The Canon in Early Christianity. John Barton. Westminster John Knox:1997.

· [HI:IAW] Isis in the Ancient World, R. E. Witt, JohnsHopkins:1971.

· [HI:IF] Interpretations of the Flood. Martinez and Luttikhuizen (eds). Brill:1999.

· [HI:IGCG] Information Gathering in Classical Greece. Frank S. Russell. UMich:1999.

· [HI:IGRTR] Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations. Alison Sharrock and Helen Morales (eds). OUP:2000.

· [HI:IHSJL] An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law. N.S. Hecht, B.S. Jackson, S. M. Passamaneck, D. Piatello, and A.M. Rabello (eds). Oxford:1996.

· [HI:IIBP] Israel in the Biblical Period: Institutions, Festivals, Ceremonies, Rituals. J Alberto Soggin. T&TClark: 2000.

· [HI:IIW] It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, DA Carson and H.G.M. Williamson, Cambridge:1988.

· [HI:IJS] Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 bce to 640 ce. Seth Schwartz. Princeton:2001.

· [HI:INTGRP] The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. John Granger Cook. Hendrickson:2002.

· [HI:IPAJ] Interpreting the Past: Ancient Jewelry. Jack Ogden. BritishMuseum:1992.

· [HI:IRL] Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. Jacob Neusner. ABRL/Doubleday:1994.

· [HI:ISAA] Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine, Peter Garnsey, CambridgeUpress:1996.

· [HI:ISGM] In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele. Lynn Roller. Ucalifornia:1999.

· [HI:IST] In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Oskar Skarsaune. IVP:2002.

· [HI:ITM2] Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, H.L. Strack and Gunter Stemberger, Fortress:1992.

· [HI:IWSTH] Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Tal Ilan. Hendrickson:1999.

· [HI:JAGR] The Jews among the Greeks & Romans:A Diaspora Sourcebook. Margaret K. Williams. Johns Hopskins:1998.

· [HI:Jb4J] Judaism before Jesus: The Events and Ideas that Shaped the New Testament World. Anthony Tomasino. IVP:2003.

· [HI:JCFCR] Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (eds.). Eerdmans:1998.

· [HI:JCPAS] Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period. Steven Fine (ed). Routledge:1999.

· [HI:Jeru] Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period. Lee Levine. JPS:2002.

· [HI:JFCCE] Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. George Foot Moore. (reprints of 1927/1930 vols). Hendrickson.

· [HI:JGA] The Jews in the Greek Age, Elias J. Bickerman, Harvard:1988.

· [HI:JILA1] Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol 1. Jacob Neusner (ed). Brill:2001.

· [HI:JJX] Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. John Painter. Fortress:1997.

· [HI:JLFMM] Jewish Law from Moses to the Mishnah: From bible to torah. Jacob Neusner. HiramCollege:1999.

· [HI:JMA] Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Michael L Satlow. Princeton:2001.

· [HI:JNAW] The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Lawrence M Wills. Cornell:1995.

· [HI:JONT] Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Robert E. Van Voorst. Eerdmans:2000. (Very balanced treatment.)

· [HI:JP] Jesus the Pharisee. Harvey Falk. Wipf and Stock/Paulist:1985.

· [HI:JPCA] The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity from Alexander to Bar Kochba, John H. Hayes and Sara R. Mandell, WJK:1998.

· [HI:JPFC] The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. S. Safai and M. Stern (eds.). Fortress:1974.

· [HI:JPH] Josephus & the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum. Gottfried Mader. Brill:2000.

· [HI:JRCM] The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Newman, Davila, and Lewis (eds). Brill:1999.

· [HI:JRJ] Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Richard Bauckham. T&TClark:1990.

· [HI:JSGRP12] Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period: Summary and Conclusions, volume 12. Erwin R. Goodenough. Pantheon:1965.

· [HI:JSS53] Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, William Bellinger, Jr', and William Farmer (eds), Trinity Press:1998.

· [HI:JSZ] John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. R. Alan Culpepper. Fortress:1994/2000,

· [HI:JTANS] The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook, C.T.R. Hayward, Routledge:1996.

· [HI:JTOT] Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, and the Matthean Community, Samel Byrskog, Almqvist & Wiksell Intl (Stockholm): 1994.

· [HI:JURR] The Jews under Roman Rule, From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. E. Mary Smallwood. Brill:2001.

· [HI:JWSTP] Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Michael E. Stone (ed.), Fortress:1984.

· [HI:KDAW] Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. Christopher Jones. Harvard/Cambridge:1999.

· [HI:LAE] Light from the Ancient East. Adolf Deissman. Hendrickson:1927. (old work, still constantly cited).

· [HI:LANE] Labor in the Ancient Near East. Marvin Powell (ed). American Oriental Society:1987.

· [HI:LBI] Life in Biblical Israel. Philip King and Lawrence Stager. WJK:2001.

· [HI:LCANE] Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East. Averbeck, Chavalas, Weisberg (eds). CDL:2003.

· [HI:LCCAI] Labor, Crafts and Commerce in Ancient Israel. Moshe Aberbach, Magnes: 1994.

· [HI:LDSU] The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Piotr Michalowski. Eisenbrauns:1989.

· [HI:LEAP] Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, Jack Pastor, Routledge:1997

· [HI:LFAW] Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Christopher Gill and T.P. Wiseman (eds). Utexas:1993.

· [HI:LG] The Living Goddesses. Marija Gimbutas, with Miriam Robbins Dexter. Ucal:1999.

· [HI:LGRW] Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective. Oliver Taplin (ed). Oxford:2000.

· [HI:LJC] Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Larry Hurtado. Eerdmans:2003.

· [HI:LKA] Legends of the Kings of Akkade--The Texts. Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Eisenbrauns:1997.

· [HI:LLAH] Latin Literature-A History, Gian Biagio Conte (trans. By JB Solodow), John Hopkins:1994 ed.

· [HI:LLAR] Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. J.P.V.D. Balsdon. Phoenix:1969.

· [HI:LLR] Law and Life of Rome, 90 BC-AD 212. J. A. Crook. Cornell:1967.

· [HI:LM] The Lost Messiah: In Search of the Mystical Rabbi Sabbatai Sevi. John Freely. Overlook:2001.

· [HI:LPIAW] Literary and Power in the Ancient World, Alan K. Bowman and Gref Woolf (eds.), Cambridge:1994.

· [HI:LRR] Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Denis Feeney. Cambridge:1988.

· [HI:LXXACS] The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon. Martin Hengel (Mark Biddle, trans). T&TClark:2002.

· [HI:LXXC] The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Brill:2000.

· [HI:M2N] The Mishnah: A New Translation. Jacob Neusner. Yale:1988.

· [HI:MAIAC] Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Dennis MacDonald (ed). TrinityPress:2001.

· [HI:MAintro] Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination. Ulla Koch-Westenholz. UCopenhagen/Museum Tuscalanum Press: 1995.

· [HI:MATT25] The Least of My Brothers--Matthew 25:31-46 A History of Interpretation. Sherman Gray. SBL:1989.

· [HI:MB4H] Mesopotamia Before History. Petr Charvat. Routledge:2002.

· [HI:MB4J] The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Israel Knohl. Ucal:2000.

· [HI:MC] Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Martin Goodman. Oxford:1994.

· [HI:MCP1] The Mishnah in Contemporary Perspective (part One). Alan Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner (eds). Brill:2002.

· [HI:MDAPS] Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Ann Jeffers. Brill:1996.

· [HI:MFBW] Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Ken Campbell (ed). IVP:2003.

· [HI:MGRA] Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the study of New Testament Miracle Stories, Wendy Cotter, Routledge:1999

· [HI:MIAW] Magic in the Ancient World, Fritz Graf (Franklin Philip, trans.), Harvard:1997.

· [HI:Mikra] Mikra:Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Martin Jan Mulder (ed.), Fortress:1990.

· [HI:MJ] The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. Chilton, Evans, Neusner (eds). Brill:2002.

· [HI:MJCA] Miracles in Jewish and Christian Antiquity. John Cavadini (ed). NotreDame:1999.

· [HI:MKN] The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins & Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Matthais Herze. Brill:1999.

· [HI:MND] Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity. Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie. Routledge:2002.

· [HI:MOT] Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes. David C. Rubin. Oxford:1995.

· [HI:MPEC] Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity. Hans-Josef Klauck. T&T Clark:2000.

· [HI:MRE] Magic, Reason, and Experience: Studies on the Origins and Development of Greek Science. G.E.R.Lloyd. Cambridge(1979) and Hackett:1999.

· [HI:MRW] Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians. Naomi Janowitz. Routledge:2001.

· [HI:MSFERG] Mishnah and the Social Formation of the Early Rabbinic Guild: A Socio-Rhetorical Approach. Jack N. Lightstone. Wilfred Laurier UP:2002

· [HI:MWG] Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook. Daniel Ogden. OUP:2002.

· [HI:NAW] The Novel in the Ancient World. Gareth Schmeling (ed). Brill:2003 (Rev.ed).

· [HI:NEAR] Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Suzanne Richard (ed). EisenBrauns:2003.

· [HI:NJBC] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Roland Murphy. Prentice Hall:1990.

· [HI:NKTN] The Nations that Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes toward Other Religions. Robert Goldenberg. NYU:1998.

· [HI:Nomad] Nomad: A Year in the Life of a Qashqa'i Tribesman in Iran. Lois Beck. Ucal:1991.

· [HI:NSG] News and Society in the Greek Polis, Sian Lewis, UNCPress;1996.

· [HI:OAGHL] Oxford Archaeological Guides: The Holy Land. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. Oxford:1998 (4th ed)

· [HI:OEANE] The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Eric M. Meyers (ed). Oxford:1007 (5 vols).

· [HI:OGOM] One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World. Barbara Nevling Porter (ed). Casco Bay Assyriological Institute:2000.

· [HI:OHCC] Oxford History of the Christian Church: The Church in Ancient Society from Galilee to Gregory the Great. Henry Chadwick. OUP:2001.

· [HI:OMMU] The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. David Ulansey. Oxford:1989.

· [HI:ONT] The Old and New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, James Charlesworth and Walter Weaver (eds.), Trinity Press;1993.

· [HI:OOHBANE] Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Donald J. Wood. Baker:1998.

· [HI:ORT354] On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Michelle Renee Salzman. Ucalifornia:1990.

· [HI:OUT] On Unbelievable Tales: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. Jacob Stern. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers:1996.

· [HI:OWC] Oxen, Women, or Citizens? Slaves in the System of the Mishnah. Paul Flesher. Scholars:1988.

· [HI:PAEJ] Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. John R. Levison. Sheffield:1988.

· [HI:PAG] Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World. Jonathan Goldstein. Anchor/Doubleday:2002.

· [HI:PAP] Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Scott Noegel (ed). CDL:2000.

· [HI:PAPY] Papyrus, Parkinson and Quirke, Utexas:1995.

· [HI:PCAW] Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World. Michal Dayagi-Mendels. IsraelMuseum:1993.

· [HI:PCJJB] Pharaoh's Counselors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition. Scholars:1983.

· [HI:PE] Passover and Easter: Origin and History to the Modern Times. Paul Bradshaw and Lawrence Hoffman (eds). NotreDame:1999.

· [HI:PEAPE] Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Lewis R. Donelson. Mohr:1986.

· [HI:PEBI] The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, James Charlesworth and Craig Evans (eds.), Sheffield/JSOT:1993.

· [HI:PFLST] Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus, Rebecca Gray, Oxford:1993.

· [HI:PGPR] The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East, Javier Teixidor, Princeton:1977.

· [HI:PGRW] Paul in the Greco-Roman World?a Handbook. J Paul Sampley (ed). Trinity:2003.

· [HI:Phlegon] Phlegon of Tralles' Book of Marvels. William Hansen. Exeter:1996.

· [HI:PIGR] Prayer in Greek Religion. Simon Pulleyn. Oxford:1997.

· [HI:PLLRE] Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, Peter Brown, Brandeis:2002.

· [HI:PLRAI] Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Moshe Weinfeld. Brill:2004.

· [HI:PMLA] Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (eds.). Oxford:1999.

· [HI:Porneia] Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity. Aline Rousselle. Blackwell:1983/88.

· [HI:PPAPLDSS] Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone (eds.). Brill:1999.

· [HI:PPHI] Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Helen Bond. Cambridge:1998.

· [HI:PPP] Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC-70AD. James McLaren. JSOT:1991.

· [HI:PPS] The Past in Prehistoric Societies. Richard Bradley. Routledge:2002.

· [HI:PQ] The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, Ben Witherington III, IVP:1998.

· [HI:PRACA] Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. James P. Sickinger. Univ of N.Carolina Press:1999.

· [HI:PRE] The Provinces of the Roman Empire, Theodor Mommsen, Barnes & Nobles:1996 (reprint of 1909 ed).

· [HI:PSBE] The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, S. Lowy, Brill:1977.

· [HI:PTRE] Paganism in the Roman Empire. Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1981.

· [HI:PW] The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. Giuseppe Visicato. CDL:2000.

· [HI:QCM] The Quest for Context & Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, Craig Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon (eds), Brill:1997.

· [HI:RA] Rabbinic Authority, Michael S. Berger, OxfordUP:1998.

· [HI:RACU] Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Dennis Pardee. SBL:2002.

· [HI:RAG] Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Simon Price. Cambridge:1999.

· [HI:RBF] Recycling Biblical Figures. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.). Deo (Leiden):1999.

· [HI:RDGRW] Religious Diversity in the Graeco-Roman World--A survey of recent Scholarship. Dan Cohn-Sherbok and John Court (eds). Sheffield:2001.

· [HI:RFCW] Readings from the First-Century World, Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough (eds.), Baker:1998.

· [HI:RH] The Roman Historians. Ronald Mellor. Routledge:1999.

· [HI:RHM] Roman Historical Myths: The Regal Period in Augustan Literature. Matthew Fox. Oxford:1996.

· [HI:RIA] The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. Graham Webster, U.Oklahoma: 1979 (3rd ed).

· [HI:RIA2] Representations in Archaeology. Jean-Claude Gardin and C.S. Peebles (eds). IndianaUP:1992.

· [HI:RIASV] Rape in Antiquity: Sexual Violence in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Deacy, Pierce, and Arafat (eds). Duckworth:2002.

· [HI:RISM] Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Alexander Samely. Oxford:2002.

· [HI:RITC] Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World, David Landes, Barnes & Nobles:1983.

· [HI:RL] Roman Letters: History from a Personal Point of View, Finley Hooper and matthew Schwarz. WayneState:1991.

· [HI:RLAP] Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice. Richard Valantasis (ed). Priceton:2000.

· [HI:RLCCA] Roman Literary Culture from Cicero to Apuleius. Elaine Fantham. Johns Hopkins:1996.

· [HI:RPANE] Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Adele Berlin (ed). UMaryland:1996.

· [HI:RR1] The Religions of Rome: Volume I-a History, Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Cambridge:1998.

· [HI:RR2] The Religions of Rome: Volume 2, A Sourcebook. Mary Beard, John North, Simon Price. Cambridge:1998.

· [HI:RRJ] Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezediel to Daniel. Gabriele Boccaccini. Eerdmans:2002.

· [HI:RSR] Religions of the Silk Road. Richard Foltz. St. Martin's Griffin:1999.

· [HI:RTA] Romanization in the Time of Augustus. Ramsay Macmullen. Yale:2000.

· [HI:RTFU] Religious Texts from Ugarit. N. Wyatt. Sheffield:2002(2nd Ed).

· [HI:RTP] Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet, J. T. Hooker (intro), UnivCal:1990.

· [HI:RWITJ] Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Alan Millard. NYU:2000.

· [HI:RWRW] Roman Wives, Roman Widows?The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Bruce Winter. Eerdmans:2003.

· [HI:S4ELANE] Slumu IV: Everyday Life in Ancient Near East. Julia Zablocka and Stefan Zawadzki (eds). Poznan:1993.

· [HI:Sages] The Literature of the Sages: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, Shmuel Safrai (ed), Fortress:1987.

· [HI:SASAR] Slavery and Society at Rome, Keith Bradley, Cambridge:1994.

· [HI:SASQ50] The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, Stanley Porter and Craig Evans (eds), Sheffield Academic:1997.

· [HI:SBED] Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. Gay L Byron. Routledge:2002.

· [HI:SBP] Sinuhe, the Bible, and the Patriarchs. Miroslav Barta. SETOUT:2003.

· [HI:SDANEL] Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law. Raymond Westbrook and Richard Jasnow (eds). Brill:2001.

· [HI:SECT] The Spirit of Early Christian Thought. Robert Wilken. Yale:2003.

· [HI:Sema] The Tractate 'Mourning' (Semahot). Dov Zlotnick. Yale:1966.

· [HI:SHC] The Shepherd of Hermas-A Commentary. Carolyn Osiek. Fortress:1999.

· [HI:SIM] Squatters in Moab. Koot van Wyk. LouisHester:1993.

· [HI:SJRB] Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible. Louis H. Feldman. Brill:1998.

· [HI:SLOCG] Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammer. Edward Lipinski. Peeters:2001 (2nd ed).

· [HI:SP2P] The Significance of Parallels between 2 Peter and other Early Christian Literature. Michael J Gilmour. SBL:2002.

· [HI:SPRL] The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, Shaye Cohen (ed), Brown Judaic Studies:2000.

· [HI:SRESAW] Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. Steven Fine (ed), Oxford:1996.

· [HI:SRRW] Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B.C.-70 B.C. Keith R. Bradley. Indiana UP:1989.

· [HI:SSAI] The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. S. Bendor. Simor:1996.

· [HI:SSCHS] Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Philip R. Davies. WJK:1998.

· [HI:SSGTGLL] Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Clarendon/Oxford:1991 (3rd ed).

· [HI:SSI] Seals and Seal Impressions. William Hallo and Irene Winter (eds). CDL:2001.

· [HI:SSK] Skywatchers, Shamans, and Kings: Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power, E.C. Krupp, Wiley:1997.

· [HI:SWFC] The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in honor of Wayne A. Meeks. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough (eds). Fortress:1995.

· [HI:T12] The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, M. de Jonge, Brill:1978.

· [HI:TABTHC] The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, D.R.G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (eds.), JSOT:1994.

· [HI:TAE] The Ancient Economy. Walter Scheidel and Sitta von Reden (eds). Routledge:2002.

· [HI:TBOC] The Breakout--The Origins of Civilization. Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed). Harvard/Peabody:2000.

· [HI:TCAW] The Camel and the Wheel, Richard W. Bulliet, Columbia:1990 (orig. ed. 1975).

· [HI:TCRE] The Cults of the Roman Empire. Robert Turcan. Blackwell:1996.

· [HI:TCRR] The Classical Roman Reader, Kenneth J. Atchity (ed), Henry Holt:1997.

· [HI:TCULXX] The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Emanuel Tov, Simor: 1997 (2nd ed)

· [HI:Test] Testimoney. Yaakov Meshorer. IsraelMuseum:2000.

· [HI:TG] The Greeks, Jean-Pierre Vernant (ed), UchicagoPress:1995.

· [HI:TGAR] The Gods of Ancient Rome. Robert Turcan. Routledge:2001.

· [HI:TGH] The Greek Historians, T.J. Luce, Routledge:1997.

· [HI:TISAR] Transformation of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions. Jan Assmann and Guy Stroumsa (eds). Brill:1999.

· [HI:TJ] The Topical Josephus: Historical Accounts that Shed light on the Bible. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. Zondervan:1992.

· [HI:TJC] The Jerusalem Cathedra (vol 1). Lee Levine (ed). WayneState:1981.

· [HI:TK] The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans. Robert Anderson and Terry Giles. Hendrickson:2002.

· [HI:TLA] The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Satterthwaite, Hess, and G. Wenham (eds.), Paternoster:1995.

· [HI:TNIA] The Novel in Antiquity, Tomas Hagg, UCpress:1980/1983

· [HI:TOBX] Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the start of the Common Era, James L. Kugel, Harvard:1998.

· [HI:TOS] The Timetables of Science, Hellemans and Bunch, Touchstone: 1991 (2nd ed)

· [HI:Tosef] The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction. Jacob Neusner. Hendrickson:2002 (2 vols)

· [HI:TR] The Romans, Andrea Giardina (ed), UchicagoPress:1993.

· [HI:TTAW] Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians. H. Gregory Snyder. Routledge:2000.

· [HI:TTHT] 'Time and Times and Half a Time': Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras, Ida Frohlich (trans. Bea Vidacs), Sheffield:1996.

· [HI:UNP] Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Simon Parker (ed). SBL:1997.

· [HI:UNQ] The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Marco De Odorico. Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project:1995.

· [HI:UONTCR] The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. Donald A. Hagner, Brill:1973.

· [HI:URC] Ugarit, Religion, and Culture. Wyatt, Watson, and Lloyd (eds). Ugarit-Verlag:1996.

· [HI:WAA] The World Atlas of Archeology. Nick Constable. LyonsPress:2000.

· [HI:WAH] Writing Ancient History. Nelville Morley. Cornell:1999.

· [HI:WAL] The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Roger Woodward (ed). CUP:2004.

· [HI:WAW] Warfare in the Ancient World, John Hackett (ed), Facts on File:1989.

· [HI:WAYSL] Why are You Silent, Lord? Roman Garrison. Sheffield:2000.

· [HI:WCO] Women and Christian Origins. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D'Angelo (eds.). Oxford:1999.

· [HI:WLCAT2] Word -List of the Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Dietrich and Loretz (eds). Ugarit-Verlag:1996 (2nd ed).

· [HI:WRSI] Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Craig Broyles and Craig Evans (eds). Brill:1997 (2vols).

· [HI:WSAS] Writing: The Story of Alphabets and Scripts, Georges Jean, Harry Abrams: 1992.

· [HI:WWH] Wit and the Writing of History: The Rhetoric of Historiography in Imperial Rome. Paul Plass. UWisc:1988.

· [HJ] The Historical Jesus--a Sheffield Reader, Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds. Sheffield: 1995.

· [HJP] A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Emil Schurer (6 vols), Hendrickson: 1995, (reprinted from T&T Clark: 1890)

· [HLWW] History of Libraries in the Western World, Michael H. Harris, Scarecrow:1995.

· [HM] Hittite Myths, Harry Hoffner, Jr., Scholars Press: 1990.

· [HPL] A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium ed. Paul Veyne (trans. A. Goldhammer), Belknap-Harvard: 1987.

· [HPW] The History and Power of Writing by Henri-Jean Martin (trans. Lydia Cochrane), Univ. of Chicago: 1994.

· [HR] History of Rome, Michael Grant, Prentice-Hall:1978.

· [HSC] Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centurs B.C. , George Sarton, Dover: 1959.

· [HSNT] Hard Sayings in the New Testament by Peter H. Davids, IVP:1991.

· [HSOBX] Hard Sayings of the Bible, Kaiser/Davids/Bruce/Brauch, IVP:1996.

· [HSOJ] Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce, IVP:1983.

· [HSOT] Hard Sayings in the Old Testament by W.C. Kaiser, Jr., IVP:1988.

· [IB] The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Controversy in Quantum Physics, David Wick, Birkhauser: 1995.

· [ICGSL] An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Sabatino Moscati (ed), Otto Harrassowitz: 1980.

· [IES] I Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment, Randal A. Argall, Scholars Press: 1995.

· [IJT] Images of Jesus Today, James Charlesworth and Walter Weaver (eds.), Trinity Press: 1994.

· [INT:PMRS] The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement, James H. Charlesworth, Scholars Press:1981.

· [INT] Introduction to the New Testament-Revised and Enlarged English Edition, Werner Georg Kummel, Abingdon:1973.

· [INTR] Is the New Testament Reliable? Barnett, Paul. , Intervarsity Press, 1986.

· [IOTTC] Introduction to Old Testament Theology--A Canonical Approach, John Sailhammer, Zondervan: 1995.

· [ISAI] In Search of 'Ancient Israel', Philip R. Davies, JSOT:1992.

· [ISBE] International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed), Eerdmans:1979.

· [ISI] "I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994.

· [JAAC] Jesus in an Age of Controversy, Douglas Groothuis, Harvest House: 1996.

· [Jacobs] A Guide to the Study of Greco-Roman and Jewish and Christian History and Literature, P. W. Jacobs, University Press of America: 1994.

· [JAG] Judaic Approaches to the Gospels, Bruce Chilton, Scholars Press: 1994.

· [JAGNT] Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Murray Harris, Baker: 1992.

· [JCS:xx] The Journal of Consciousness Studies, cited by vol:issue, pps.

· [JCW] The Jewish and Christian World: 200bc to AD200, A.R.C. Leaney, Cambridge: 1984.

· [JE] Jesus, Craig A. Evans, Baker: 1992. (A bibliography of current Jesus research.)

· [JJ] Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, Fortress: 1973, pp.284.

· [JJPT] Jesus and the Jews: The Pharisaic Tradition in John, Alan Watson, Univ. of Georgia: 1995.

· [JLBBM] Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, George W.E. Nickelsburg, Fortress:1981.

· [JNT] Josephus and the New Testament, by Steve Mason, Hendrickson: 1992.

· [JNT2] Josephus and the New Testament. Steve Mason. Hendrickson:2003 (2nd ed).

· [JNTC] The Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications: 1992.

· [JosephusNew] The New Complete Works of Josephus (rev/expanded). Whiston and Paul Maier. Kregel:1999.

· [JOT] Jesus and the Old Testament. France, R.T. , Intervarsity Press, 1971.

· [JPB] Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66CE, E.P. Sanders, SCM: 1992, 595p.

· [JPECT] The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), by Jaroslav Pelikan, Univ of Chicago: 1971.

· [JPSOT] JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (2nd ed). JPS:1999.

· [JPStorah] The JPS Torah Commentary (5vols). Nahum Sarna (gen ed). JPS:1989.

· [JREC] Jewish Responses to Early Christians, by Claudia Setzer, Fortress: 1994.

· [JSOTGP1] Gospel Perspectives, volumes I. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983.

· [JSOTGP2] Gospel Perspectives, volumes II Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983.

· [JSOTGP3] Gospel Perspectives, volumes III. Edited by R.T. France and David Wenham. JSOT: 1980-1983.

· [JTJ] Jews in the Time of Jesus--an Introduction, Stephen Wylen, Paulist Press: 1996.

· [JTLTA] The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, Gedaliah Alon, Magnes Press-Hebrew University: 1984.

· [JTM] Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Neusner, Green, Frerichs (eds.), Cambridge: 1987.

· [JUF] Jesus Under Fire--Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus., Wilkins and Moreland (eds), Zondervan: 1995.

· [JVG] Jesus and the Victory of God, by N.T. Wright, Fortress:1996.

· [KD] Keil & Delitzch commentaries on the OT.

· [KJOT] Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, C. J. Wright, IVP: 1992.

· [KOC] The Origins of Christianity, Howard Clark Kee, Prentice Hall: 1973.

· [Kramer] Mythologies of the Ancient WorldS.N. Kramer, Doubleday: 1961.

· [KTJM] Knowing the Truth about Jesus the Messiah, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Harvest House:1996.

· [LANTH] Luke-Acts & New Testament Historiography, Joel Green and Michael McKeever, Baker: 1994. (A biblio on the subject.)

· [LCMAM] Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Martha T. Roth, Scholars Press:1995.

· [LE] The Linguistics Encyclopedia, Kirsten Malmkjaer (ed.), Routledge: 1991.

· [LHC] A History of Christianity, by Kenneth Latourette, Harper & Row: 1975 (2vols)

· [LIB] The Language and Imagery of the Bible, G.B. Caird, Westminster:1980.

· [LOF] Living on the Fringe--The Archeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Israel Finkelstein, Sheffield Academic:1995.

· [LPJG] The Past of Jesus in the Gospels, Eugene Lemcio, Cambridge: 1991.

· [LS:LBI] Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Peter Cotterell & Max Turner. IVP:1989.

· [LS:MAT] Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony, ed., Cambridge: 1993 (2nd ed), 678p.

· [LS:SL] Sociolinguistics, Bernard Spolsky, Oxford:1998.

· [LSAC] Legacy-the Search for Ancient Cultures by Michael Wood. Sterling (NY), 1994.

· [LSNTG] Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications, by David Alan Black, Baker:1995 (2nd ed.)

· [LTJM] The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Hendrickson:1993.

· [MCMF] Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations, D.T. Potts, Cornell: 1997.

· [ME] The Medieval Experience:300-1400, by Jill Claster, NYU Press: 1982.

· [MEOT] Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, Joachim Becker, T&T Clark: 1977.

· [MGX] Mikraoth Gedoloth: Books of the Bible. Rabbi Rosenberg (gen.ed.). Judaica Press (24+ vols).

· [MHSNT] More Hard Sayings of the New Testament, Peter H. Davids, IVP: 1991.

· [MJ] A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, John P. Meier, Doubleday: 1991

· [MJJT] Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300BCE to 200CE, Boccaccini, Fortress: 1991

· [MM] Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World by Jack Finegan. Baker: 1989, 320+pp.

· [MMA] The Mind of the Middle Ages, by F.B. Artz, Univ. of Chicago: 1980.

· [MNT] The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon., Patzia, IVP: 1995.

· [MSECT] Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition , Gerd Theissen, T&T Clark: 1983

· [MTJL] The Messiah Texts--Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years, Raphael Patai, Wayne State: 1979.

· [MTNT3] The Text of the New Testament--Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger, Oxford 1992 (3rd ed).

· [MWR] Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, Jean Bottero, Univ of Chicago:1992.

· [NBD3] New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition. I Howard Marshall, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer, D.J. Wiseman. IVP:1996.

· [NC] What is Narrative Criticism?, Mark Allen Powell, Fortress: 1990.

· [NDIEC3] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (volume 3). G.H.R. Horsley, Ancient History Documentary Centre, Macquarie University:1983.

· [NDIEC4] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (volume 4). G.H.R. Horsley, Ancient History Documentary Centre, Macquarie University:1987.

· [NDIEC5] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (volume 5). G.H.R. Horsley, Ancient History Documentary Centre, Macquarie University:1989.

· [NDIEC7] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol 7., S.R. Llewelyn and R.A. Kearsley, MacquarieU: 1994.

· [NDIEC8] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (volume 8). S.R. Llewelyn, Ancient History Documentary Centre, Macquarie University:1997.

· [NDIEC9] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 9: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. S R Llewelyn (ed). Eerdmans:2002.

· [NHAAC] The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology, John North, Norton:1995.

· [NHAGR] The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Charles W. Fornara, Univ. of Calif Press: 1983.

· [NHH] New Horizons in Hermeneutics, Anthony C. Thiselton, Zondervan: 1992.

· [NHL] The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. James M. Robinson, HarperCollins: 1988 (3rd ed.)

· [NHTB] Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index, Craig Evans/ Robert Webb/ Richard Wiebe (eds.), E.J. Brill: 1993

· [NIB] New Interpreters Bible (Abindgon, CD version 2002).

· [NICNT] : New International Commentary on the New Testament

· [NICOT] : New International Commentary on the Old Testament

· [NIDNTT] : New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, eds. Zond.

· [NIDOTTE] : New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, William A. VanGemeren (gen.ed.). Zondervan:1997+ (5 vols)

· [NIEBF] Nelson's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Facts, eds. Packer, Tenney, White. Thomas Nelson: 1995 (2nd ed)

· [NIGTC:1Cor] The New International Greek Testament Commentary: the First Epistle to the Corintians. Anthony C. Thiselton. Eerdmans/Paternoster:2000.

· [NS:AAA] Anthropomorhpism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Robert Mitchell, Nicholas Thompson, H Lyn Miles (eds.). SUNY:1997.

· [NS:AWB] Animals without Backbones. R. Buchsbaum, M. Buchsbaum, J. Pearse, V. Pearse. Uchicago:1987 (3rd ed.)

· [NS:BPS] The Biology Problem Solver. M. Fogiel. REA:1998.

· [NS:BTEF] Biology through the Eyes of Faith, Richard T. Wright. HarperCollins:1989.

· [NS:BX] Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl. St. Martins:1999.

· [NS:CAASO] A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. Dean L Overman. Rowman and Littlefield:1997.

· [NS:CERCN] Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. Eric Chaisson. Harvard:2001.

· [NS:DAD] Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Thomas Woodward. Baker:2003.

· [NS:DBB] Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Michael J. Behe. Touchstone:1996. (by a professor of biochem)

· [NS:DLO] The Diversity of Living Organisms. R.S.K. Barnes (ed). Cambridge/Blackwells:1998.

· [NS:ECA] Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.

· [NS:EI] The Ecology of Insects: Concepts and Application. Martin Speight, Mark Hunter, and Allan Watt. Blackwell:1999.

· [NS:FC] Fractals and Chaos: Simplified for the Life Sciences. Larry Liebovitch. Oxford:1998.

· [NS:GGG] Genes, Genesis, and God: Values and their Origins in Natural and Human History, Holmes Rolston III, Cambridge:1999.

· [NS:GPL] Genes, People, and Languages. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. North Point Press:2000.

· [NS:HLCS] How the Leopard Changed His Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. Brian Goodwin. Scribner:1994.

· [NS:Hole] The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything. K.C. Cole. Harcourt:2001.

· [NS:IBWI] In the Beginning was Information. Werner Gitt. Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V.:1997. (information science approach to the origin of life)

· [NS:IMM] In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Ian T. Taylor. TFE Publishing: 1991, Toronto (3rd ed.)

· [NS:IRH] Induced Responses to Herbivory. Richard Karban and Ian T. Baldwin. UChicagoPress:1997.

· [NS:MITECS] The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Robert Wilson and Frank Keil (eds). MIT:1999.

· [NS:NBC] Not by Chance!--Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Lee Spetner. Judaica Press:1997. (by a biophysicist...E. Simon (prof. of biology at Purdue: "certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read")...information vs. randomness approach)

· [NS:ND] Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology reveal Purpose in the Universe. Michael J. Denton. Free Press:1998. (MD, PhD, research fellow in human molecular genetics)

· [NS:PHE] Principles of Human Evolution--A Core Textbook. Roger Lewin. Blackwell Science:1998 (rev.ed.).

· [NS:PM] The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science. Steven Mithen. Thames and Hudson:1009.

· [NS:QE] Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life, Johnjoe McFadden, Norton:2000.

· [NS:REEORT] Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Pascal Boyer. Basic Books:2001.

· [NS:RHLP] The Red Hourglass: Lives of the Predators. Gordon Grice. Dell:1998.

· [NS:SAT] Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starligth in a Young Universe. D. Russell Humphreys. Master Books:1994.

· [NS:SEDU] Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. Ignatius:2000.

· [NS:SI] Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. William Dembski and James Kushiner (eds). Baker/Brazos:2001.

· [NS:SLCPB] Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology. Ricard Sole and Brian Goodwin. BasicBooks:2000.

· [NS:SOB] Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Biology (2nd ed). George Fried and George Hademenos. Schaum's:1999.

· [NS:TBH] The Book of Nothing--Vacuums, Voids, and the Lastest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe. John D. Barrow. Pantheon:2000.

· [NS:TBW] The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins. Norton:1996.

· [NS:TC] The Carnivores. R.F.Ewer. Cornell:1973.

· [NS:TEFC] The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. Niles Eldredge. Freeman:2000.

· [NS:THX] The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Richard Lewontin. Harvard:2000.

· [NS:TME] The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory. Robert J. Richards. UChicago:1992.

· [NS:TMM] The Meme Machine. Susan Blackmore. Oxford:1999. (forward and recc. by R. Dawkins...has a chapter on religion as memplex)

· [NS:TSG] The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins. Oxford:1989.

· [NS:VD] Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Christian de Duve. BasicBooks:1995.

· [NS:WCD] When Cells Die: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Apoptosis and Programmed Cell Death. Lockshin, Zakeri, and Tilly (eds.). Wiley-Liss:1998

· [NT:1GF2] One Gospel from Two: Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke. Peabody/Cope/McNicol (eds). Trinity:2002.

· [NT:7CAGAC] The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Greco-Asian Culture. Roland H. Worth, Jr. Paulist:1999.

· [NT:7CARC] The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture. Roland H. Worth, Jr. Paulist:1999.

· [NT:AAJ] Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds). Brill:1999.

· [NT:ACL] Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Michael Gorman. Eerdmans:2004.

· [NT:ACM] Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith (eds.), 1994.

· [NT:AGJ] Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence. Johnathan Reed. Trinity:2000.

· [NT:AHOC] A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, Ralph Martin, IVP:1997(3rd ed).

· [NT:AOSSC] Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique, David Neville, Mercer:1994.

· [NT:APM] A Preface to Mark: Notes of the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings, Christopher Bryan, Oxford:1993.

· [NT:ASMG] Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. Maurice Casey. Cambridge:1998.

· [NT:BASHH] The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Colin Helmer, Eisenbrauns:1989.

· [NT:BEAP2] Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2nd Ed). Richard N. Longenecker. Eerdmans/Regent:1999.

· [NT:CALC] Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Harold Hoehner, Zondervan:1977

· [NT:CAQ] The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Mark Goodacre. Trinity:2002.

· [NT:CITM1] Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. James Dunn. Eerdmans:2003.

· [NT:CNC] A Challenge to the New Perspective: Revisiting Paul's Doctrine of Justification. Peter Stuhlmacher. IVP:2001.

· [NT:COJ] The Christology of Jesus, Ben Witherington III, Fortress:1990.

· [NT:CRP] The City in Roman Palestine, Daniel Sperber, Oxford:1998.

· [NT:CTENTM] The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett (eds.). Baker:1999.

· [NT:CTT] The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford:1987.

· [NT:DictJG] Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Joel Green, Scot McKnight, I Howard Marshall (eds.), IVP:1992.

· [NT:DictLNT] Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Development. Ralph Martin and Peter Davids (eds.), IVP:1997.

· [NT:DictPL] Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, Daniel G. Reid (eds.), IVP:1993.

· [NT:DLPTC] Daily Life in Palestine at the Time of Christ. Henri Daniel-Rops. Phoenix:1961/62.

· [NT:DNTE] Dictionary of New Testament Exegesis

· [NT:DTWW] Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century. F Gerald Downing. Sheffield:2000.

· [NT:DYNR] Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Bruce Norman Fisk. Sheffield:2001.

· [NT:ECHJ] Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism, T&T Clark:1996.

· [NT:EITS] Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election, Robert Shank, Bethany:1970/1989.

· [NT:GAC] The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Richard Bauckham (ed), Eerdmans:1998.

· [NT:GAJC] The Gospel according the John, by D.A. Carson, Eerdmans:1991.

· [NT:GECNT] The Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament (NIV). Kohlenberger III, Goodrick and Swanson, Zondervan:1997.

· [NT:GMPIT] The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, including the Demotic Spells, Hans Deiter Betz (ed.), UChicago:1992 (vol 1, 2nd ed).

· [NT:GMSRC] The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Ben Witherington III. Eerdmans:2001.

· [NT:HCJF] The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History, C. Stephen Evans, Oxford:1996.

· [NT:HEGM] The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. Dennis R. MacDonald. Yale:2000.

· [NT:HJFCC] The Hellenization of Judea in the First Century After Christ, Martin Hengel, SCM/Trinity:1989.

· [NT:HPKP] Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. David A. deSilva. IVP:2000.

· [NT:HRI] Hellenistic Religions--An Introduction. Luther H. Martin. Oxford:1987.

· [NT:HROJG] The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel--Issues and Commentary. Craig L. Blomberg. IVP:2001.

· [NT:HWSPP] Hearing the Story: the Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel, Richard Horsley, WJK:2001.

· [NT:IDWAG] In Dialog with Another Gospel? The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke. Mark Matson. SBL:2001.

· [NT:IP] Index Patristicus, Goodspeed, Hendrickson:1993.

· [NT:ITSP] Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, Eta Linnemann, Baker:1992.

· [NT:JBJ] James, Brother of Jesus. Pierre-Antoine Bernheim. SCM:1996/7.

· [NT:JCJM] The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles. Eric Eve. 2002.

· [NT:JFHD] Jesus and the Fundamentalism of His Day. William Loader. Eerdmans:2001.

· [NT:JGIS] Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, Craig L. Blomberg, Broadman & Holman:1997.

· [NT:JH01] Judaism and Hellenistic: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, Martin Hengel, Fortress:1974 (Note: there is a later edition of this in the 90's that is out of print.)

· [NT:JHC] Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Craig Evans, Brill:1995. (Excellent book. Situates Jesus squarely in His Jewish (as opposed to Cynic) setting. $163, but a killer. Covers all the messianic passages from Qumran.)

· [NT:JJCO] James the Just and Christian Origins. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.). Brill:1999.

· [NT:JLH] Jesus and the Logic of History, Paul Barnett, Eerdmans: 1997.

· [NT:JMD] Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, T&T Clark:1996.

· [NT:JMOJPG] The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. Harmony:1999.

· [NT:JMW] Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study, Graham H. Twelftree, IVP:1999.

· [NT:JRFF] Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (eds). IVP:2000.

· [NT:JRS] Jesus Reads Scripture?The Function of Jesus' Use of Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels. Emerson Powery. Brill:2003.

· [NT:JSPP] Jesus the Seer--The Progress of Prophecy. Ben Witherington III. Hendrikson:1999.

· [NT:JTHPUP] Jesus the Healer: Paradigm or Unique Phenomenon, Keith Warrington, Paternoster:2000.

· [NT:L7C] The Letters to the Seven Churches, Updated Edition, W. M. Ramsey (edited by Mark W. Wilson), Hendrickson:1994.

· [NT:LFD] Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, Richard Longnecker (ed.), Eerdmans:1998.

· [NT:LGQ] The Lost Gospel Q, Borg (consulting ed.), Ulysses Press: 1996.

· [NT:LTG] The Living Text of the Gospels, D.C. Parker, CambridgeUPress:1997.

· [NT:LTJN] Living in the Time of Jesus of Nazareth. Peter Connolly. Steimatzky:1983.

· [NT:MEC] Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific studies of the New Testament in its Context. Philip Esler (ed). Routledge:1995.

· [NT:MMMNTT] Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in New Testament Times. Howard Clark Kee. Cambridge:1986.

· [NT:MNTD] The Making of the New Testament Documents. E.E. Ellis. Brill:1999. (major reappraisal of gospel formation theories--looks good so far)

· [NT:NDIEC6] New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol 6., Llewelyn and Kearsley, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre/Macquarie Univ: 1992.

· [NT:NJC] Nazarene Jewish Christianity--from the End of the New Testament Period until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, Ray Pritz, Magnes Press:1988.

· [NT:NTDOTT] New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes, by F.F. Bruce, Eerdmans:1968.

· [NT:NTWICA] The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Bruce J. Malina. WJK:1993 (rev.ed).

· [NT:OMMCCD] The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Dwight Peterson. Brill:2000.

· [NT:P] Paul, by E.P. Sanders, Oxford:1991.

· [NT:PACL] Paul: A Critical Life, by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor OP, Oxford:1996.

· [NT:PAH] Paul and Hellenism, by Hyam Maccoby, SCM/Trinity:1991.

· [NT:PAL] Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach, by Frank Thielman, IVP:1994.

· [NT:PAP] Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark. Brenda Deen Schildgen. WayneState:1999.

· [NT:PATJ] Paul and the Jews. Andrew Das. Hendrickson:2003.

· [NT:PBDA] Paul between Damascus and Antioch, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WJK:1997

· [NT:PBJHD] Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed). WJK:2001.

· [NT:PCP] The Pre-Christian Paul, Martin Hengel, SCM/Trinity:1991.

· [NT:PEC] Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, David E. Aune, Eerdmans:1983.

· [NT:PIC] Paul's Idea of Community?The Early House Churches in their Cultural Setting. Robert Banks. Hendrickson:1994 (rev.ed)

· [NT:PITJ] Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. KC Hanson and Douglas Oakman. Fortress:1998.

· [NT:PJJAD] Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds. Kent Yinger. Cambridge:1999.

· [NT:PJT] Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, Brad H. Young, Hendrickson:1997.

· [NT:PLW] Paul the Letter Writer. M Luther Stirewalt, Jr. Eerdmans:2003.

· [NT:PM2W] Paul: A Man of Two Worlds. CJ den Heyer. Trinity:1998.

· [NT:PML] Paul and the Mosaic Law. James G. Dunn (ed). Eerdmans:1994.

· [NT:PNP] Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel. Seyoon Kim. Eerdmans:2002.

· [NT:PONP] Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and his Critics. Shephen Westerholm. Eerdmans:2004.

· [NT:PP] Pauline Parallels, Fred Francis and J. Paul Sampley, Fortress:1984 (2nd ed).

· [NT:RCJ] The Ruling Class of Judea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70, Martin Goodman, CambridgeUpress:1987.

· [NT:RJIB] Rabbi Jesus--An Intimate Biography. Bruce Chilton. Image/DoubleDay:2000.

· [NT:RNTTC] Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. David Alan Black (ed). Baker:202.

· [NT:RPMC] Religious Propaganda & Missionary Competition in the New Testament World, Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, & and Angela Standhartinger (eds), Brill:1994. (Well over half of it is in German.)

· [NT:RSP] Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. David Alan Black and David R Beck (eds). Baker:2001.

· [NT:SEC] Studies in Early Christology. Martin Hengel, T&T Clark: 1995.

· [NT:SHHS] Story as History, History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Samuel Byrskog. Brill:2002

· [NT:SSCGJ] Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh. Fortress:1998.

· [NT:SSCSG] Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh. Fortress:1992.

· [NT:SSSK] Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus. Donald Harman Akenson. Oxford:2000.

· [NT:TMP] The Midrashic Process, Irving Jacobs, Cambridge:1995.

· [NT:TSH] The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Arthur Bellinzoni, Jr (ed.). Mercer UP:1985. (Out of print, but one of the most thorough and balanced discussion I had seen on this.)

· [NT:TSOQ] The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, John Kloppenborg (ed.), Fortress: 1994.

· [NT:WIB] Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5. Simon J. Gathercole. Eerdmans:2002.

· [NT:WSPRS] What Saint Paul Really Said--Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, by N.T. Wright, Eerdmans:1997.

· [NT:Z] The Zealots, Martin Hengel (trans. David Smith), T&T Clark:1989.

· [NTA] New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed) and R. McL. Wilson (trans.), Westminster/John Knox:1991 (2 vols)

· [NTB] The New Testament Background, C.K.Barrett (ed), Harper Collins: 1987.

· [NTCI] New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, eds. D.A. Black and D.S. Dockery. Zondv: 1991, 600+pp.

· [NTD] The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans: 1943.

· [NTF] New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students--Vol.1: The Four Gospels, Ralph P. Martin, Eerdmans: 1975.

· [NTLE] The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Aune, David E., Westminster, 1987.

· [NTPG] The New Testament and the People of God, N. T. Wright, Fortress: 1992.

· [NTSE] The New Testament in its Social Environment, Stambaugh and Balch, Westminster: 1986.

· [NTTJ] New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Gospel of John, by D. Moody Smith, Cambridge: 1995.

· [NWNTI] Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, Craig Evans, Hendrickson: 1992.

· [OB] The Origin of the Bible, P.W. Comfort (ed.), Tyndale: 1992.

· [OCS] The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, B.D. Ehrman, Oxford: 1993.

· [OT:9C] The Nine Commandments: Uncovering the Hidden Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible. David Noel Freedman. Doubleday:2000.

· [OT:AAI] The Archeology of Ancient Israel, Amnon ben-Tor (ed.), Yale:1992.

· [OT:ABC] Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. A. K. Grayson. Eisenbrauns:1975/2000.

· [OT:ACUP] Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Ze'ev Herzog. TelAviv:1997.

· [OT:AEBA] The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Erik Hornung. Cornell:1999.

· [OT:AEOT] Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, John D. Currid, Baker:1997.

· [OT:AHBSF] Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard. Eisenbrauns:1999 reprint of 1969 OUP.

· [OT:AHT] The History of Tyre (Revised Edition). H.J. Katzenstein, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Beer Sheeva:1997. (Only covers up to 539 BCE)

· [OT:ALANE] Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500-300 BC, Olof Pedersen, CDL Press: 1998.

· [OT:ALB2] Archaeology of the Land of the Bible Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 BCE), Ephraim Stern, AnchorBible/Doubleday:2001.

· [OT:ALTB] Archaeology and the Land of the Bible, Amihai Mazar, Doubleday:1992 (Anchor Bible series)

· [OT:ANCANE] Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. Biblical Institute Press:1980.

· [OT:ANE3K] The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330bc, Amelie Kuhrt , Routledge:1995 (2 vols.)

· [OT:ANSCIG] Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1-22:19. T. Desmond Alexander. Paternoster:1997. (Decides that existing Source-Critical /JEDP theories are contra-indicated by the data...)

· [OT:AOT] Archaeology and the Old Testament, Alfred J. Hoerth, Baker:1998.

· [OT:AP] State Archives of Assyria, volume IX: Assyrian Prophecies. Simo Parpola. Helsinki UP:1997.

· [OT:AS] The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Lowell Handy (ed). Brill:1997.

· [OT:ASM] Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Hermann Hunger and David Pingree. Brill:1999.

· [OT:BAIW] The Bible as It Was, James L. Kugel, Harvard:1997.

· [OT:BANE] The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg, Norton:1997 (4th ed).

· [OT:BANER] The Bible and the Ancient Near East?Collected Essays. J J M Roberts (ed). Eisenbrauns:2002.

· [OT:BBC1] The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy, John H. Walton & Victor Matthews, IVP:1997.

· [OT:BBCALL] The IVP Bible Background Commentary--Old Testament. Walton, Matthews, & Chalvalas. IVP:2000. [Outstanding.]

· [OT:BDCR1] The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (Vol One). John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (eds.). Brill:2001.

· [OT:BDCR2] The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (Vol 2). John Collins and Peter Flint (eds). Brill:2002.

· [OT:BHI] A Biblical History of Israel. Provan, Long, Longman III. WJK:2003.

· [OT:BOT] Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9-14. Mark Boda and Michael Floyd (eds). JSOT:2003.

· [OT:CAANEB] Creation Accounts in the Ancient New East and in the Bible. Richard J. Clifford. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series:1994.

· [OT:CANE] Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Jack M. Sasson (ed.). Hendrickson:1995 (4vols)

· [OT:CCAE] Canaan and Canaanite in Ancient Egypt. Alessandra Nibbi. (Self):1989.

· [OT:CEANE] The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient New East. Marten Stol and Sven P. Vleeming (eds.). Brill:1998.

· [OT:CIANE] Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Guy Bunnens (ed). Peeters Press, Louvain: 1996.

· [OT:CityAM] The Ancient Mesopotamian City, Marc Van De Mieroop, Oxford-Clarendon: 1997.

· [OT:CKIJ] TheChronology of the Kings of Israel & Judah, Gerson Galil, Brill:1996.

· [OT:CMHE] Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Frank Moore Cross. Harvard:1973.

· [OT:COTK] Chronicle of the Old Testament Kings. John Rogerson. Thames and Hudson:1999.

· [OT:CRLTU] Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. G. del Olmo Lete (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson). CDL Press:1999.

· [OT:CSME] Creation Stories of the Middle East. Ewa Wasilewska. Jessica Kingsley:2000.

· [OT:CSP] Chronicles and its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts. Eds: John Endres, William Millar, John B. Burns. Glazier/Liturgical: 1998.

· [OT:CTWH] Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. Marc van de Mieroop. Routledge:1999.

· [OT:DAAE] Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, John H. Taylor, UChicago:2001.

· [OT:DESB] Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia. R Campbell Thompson. Kessinger: 1903 (reprnt)

· [OT:DictOT5] Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (eds). IVP:2003.

· [OT:DLAM] Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat. Greenwood Press:1998.

· [OT:DOTE] Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Willem A. VanGeren (gen. Ed.), Zond:1997 (5 vols).

· [OT:EEE] Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, E.S. Frerichs and L.H. Lesko (eds), Eisenbrauns:1997.

· [OT:EIAI] Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, James L. Crenshaw, Doubleday: 1998.

· [OT:EML] Early Mesopotamian Law. Russ VerSteeg. Carolina Academic:2000.

· [OT:ESK] Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta. Herman Vanstiphout. SBL:2003.

· [OT:ETHB] The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Adrian Schenker (ed). SBL:2003.

· [OT:EXR] Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 15-21 and 19:1-9. Peter Enns. SBL:1997.

· [OT:FAA] Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study. Tremper Longman III. Eisenbrauns:1991.

· [OT:FAI] Families in Ancient Israel, L.G. Perdue, Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, Carol Meyers, WJK:1997.

· [OT:FBM] The Five Books of Moses, Everett Fox (trans), Schocken: 1995.

· [OT:FBTJ] From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-Prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. David Marcus. SBL:1995.

· [OT:FHiero] Fascinating Hieroglythics: Discovering, Decoding, and Understanding the Ancient Art, Christian Jaq, Sterling:1996.

· [OT:FRIB] Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel. Karel van der Toorn. Brill:1996.

· [OT:FSN] The Final Sack of Nineveh. John Malcolm Russell. Yale:1998.

· [OT:GA] Gilgamesh and Akka. Dina Katz. Styz:1993.

· [OT:GCDSS] Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls, James H Charlesworth, WJK:1991.

· [OT:GGIG] Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger. Fortress:1998.

· [OT:GOE] The Gods of Egypt. Claude Traunecker. Cornell:2001.

· [OT:HAE] A History of Ancient Egypt. Nicolas Grimal. Barnes&Noble/Blackwell:1994.

· [OT:HAILXX] Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint, Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance. Takamitsu Muraoka, Baker:1998.

· [OT:HHWAI] History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography. Tomoo Ishida. Brill:1999.

· [OT:HIBAJW] A History of Israel from the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Broadman and Holman: 1998.

· [OT:HLAE] Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, Rosalie David, FactsonFile:1998.

· [OT:HLBT] Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, Ze'ev Falk, Eisenbrauns:2001(2nd ed).

· [OT:HLTTG] Hammurabi's Laws: Text, Translation and Glossary. M. E. J. Richardson. SheffieldAcademic:2000.

· [OT:HP] Hittite Prayers. Itamar Singer. SBL:2002.

· [OT:HPI] A History of Prophecy in Israel, Joseph Blenkinsopp, WJK:1996 (revised and enlarged edition).

· [OT:HVS] Hebrew Verse Structure. M. O'Connor, Eisenbrauns:1980/97. [the standard work]

· [OT:I] The Israelites, B.S.J. Isserlin, Thames and Hudson:1998.

· [OT:IA] Introduction to the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. David deSilva. Baker:2002.

· [OT:IBHS] An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor, Eisenbrauns:1990.

· [OT:ICWS] The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer. Jean-Jaques Glassner. JohnsHopkins:2000/2003 (trans)

· [OT:IIE] Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, James K. Hoffmeier, Oxford: 1997.

· [OT:ILAN] Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative. James Bruckner. Sheffield/JSOT:2001

· [OT:ILANE] Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East. Jiri Prosecky (ed.). Oriental Institute (Prague):1998.

· [OT:INW] The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources. Dina Katz. CDL:2003.

· [OT:IPIWR] Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. David J.A. Clines. JSOT/Sheffield:1995.

· [OT:IRI] The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6-12. Archibald van Wieringen. Brill:1998.

· [OT:ISH] Insearch of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, John Van Seters, Eisenbrauns: 1997.

· [OT:ISL] Introduction to the Semitic Langauges: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches, Gotthelf Bergstrasser (trans. and notes. By Peter T. Daniels), Eisenbrauns:1983 (original text in 1928)

· [OT:ITUVD] Influences and Traditions Underlying the Vision of Daniel 7:2-14--the Research History from the End of the 19th Century to the Present, Jurg Eggler, UFribourg:2000.

· [OT:IVI] Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Johannes de Moor (ed). Brill:1998.

· [OT:JRSP] Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives. A. Graeme Auld. T&T Clark:1998.

· [OT:KH] The Kingdom of the Hittites. Trevor Bryce. Clarndon/Oxford:1998.

· [OT:KP] Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Eugene Merrill. Baker:1987/96.

· [OT:LABS] State Archives of Assyria, Vol X: Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Simo Parpola. Helsinki UP:1993.

· [OT:LAE] Letters from Ancient Egypt, Edward Wente, ScholarsPress:1990.

· [OT:LAL] Leviticus as Literature. Mary Douglas. Oxford:1999.

· [OT:LEM] Letters from Early Mesopotamia, Piotr Michalowski, ScholarsPress:1993.

· [OT:LIANE] Life in the Ancient Near East, 3100-332 BCE, Daniel C. Snell, Yale:1997.

· [OT:LLIB] Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible?Leviticus 18-20. Calum Carmichel. Cornell:1997.

· [OT:LPKEA] Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Steven Cole and Peter Machinist (eds). HelsinkiUP:1998.

· [OT:MAB] Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Mark Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger. Baker:2002.

· [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988.

· [OT:MIC] Mesopotamia?The Invention of the City. Gwendolyn Leick. Penguin:2001.

· [OT:MM] Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Stephanie Dalley. Oxford:1989.

· [OT:MPHB1] Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis (vol 1). J. P. Fokkelman. Van Gorcum:1998.

· [OT:NAZE] Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic. Robert Best. Enlil Press:1999.

· [OT:NSBG] New Studies in Bereshit Genesis. Nehama Leibowitz & Aryeh Newman (trans). Haomanim Press/Eliner Library (Israel): n.d.

· [OT:ORNEI] The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Walter Burkert. Harvard:1992.

· [OT:OROT] On the Reliability of the Old Testament. K A Kitchen. Eerdmans:2003.

· [OT:OTDATRR] The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. IVP:2001.

· [OT:OTOT] The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, R.W.L. Moberly, Fortress:1992.

· [OT:OTPFOC] Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon, by Ronald E. Clements, WJK:1996.

· [OT:OWWW] Oral World and Written Word, Susan Niditch, WJK:1996.

· [OT:PAB] Persia and the Bible, Edwin Yamauchi, Baker:1990/1996.

· [OT:PAI] Priesthood in Ancient Israel. William Millar. Chalice:2001.

· [OT:PIT] The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca 1000-730 bce. Carl Ehrlich. Brill:1996.

· [OT:PPANE] Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Martti Nissinen. SBL:2003.

· [OT:PPC] Peoples of the Past--Canaanites. Jonathan N. Tubb. Univ. of Oklahoma Press:1998.

· [OT:ProvSIBI] Proverbs 1-9: A Study in Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Scott Harris. SBL:1995.

· [OT:PRSA] A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Benjamin D. Sommer. Standford:1998.

· [OT:PSIB] Political Satire in the Bible, Ze'ev Weisman, SBL:1998.

· [OT:PTLTR] Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, K. A. Kitchen, Aris and Philips: 1982.

· [OT:PW] The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, Maria Eugenia Aubet (trans. Mary Turton), CambridgeUpress:1993.

· [OT:PWVDM] Pharaoh's Workers: The Villagers of Deir El Medina, Lenard Lesko (ed), Cornell:1994.

· [OT:RBE] A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. Joel S Burnett. SBL:2001.

· [OT:RFT] Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah. SBL:1997.

· [OT:RIAM] Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, Jean Bottero, Uchicago:2001.

· [OT:RSOT] Reading Scripture in the Old Testament. G. J. Venema. Brill:2004.

· [OT:RST] Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. Kristin De Troyer. SBL:2003.

· [OT:RTL] Reading the Lines: A Fresh Look at the Hebrew Bible. Pamela Tamarkin Reis. Hendrickson:2002.

· [OT:SAAS7] State Archives of Assyria Studies Volume VII: References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, Martti Nissinen, Helsinki:1998.

· [OT:SAAS9] State Archives of Assyria Studies Volume IX: Assyrian Prophecies, Simo Parpola, Helsinki:1997.

· [OT:SATROTE] Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically, Gordon J. Wenham, TTClark:2000.

· [OT:SATS] Sumer and the Sumerians. Harriet Crawford. Cambridge:1991.

· [OT:SBEG] State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, volume I: The Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Simo Parpola. Helsinki UP:1997. (Cuneiform only-NO translation!)

· [OT:SBL] Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Gershon Brin (Jonathan Chipman, trans). Sheffield:1994.

· [OT:SEML] Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature. Gwendolyn Leick. Routledge:1994.

· [OT:SHB] Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, Francis Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1986.

· [OT:SQVP] The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Richard L. Schultz. JSOTS:1999.

· [OT:SSMJ] Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach, David Jamieson-Drake, Almond Press:1991.

· [OT:SWAI] Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin. Hendrickson:1993.

· [OT:SWHP] Social World of the Hebrew Prophets. Victor Matthews. Hendrickson:2001.

· [OT:TAE] Temples of Ancient Egypt, Byron E. Shafer (ed.), Cornell:1997

· [OT:TCHB] Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, Fortress:1992.

· [OT:TCHB2] Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed). Emanuel Tov. Fortress:2001.

· [OT:TCHW] Torah and the Chronicler's History Work. Judson Shaver. SBL:1989.

· [OT:TE] The Egyptians, Sergio Donadoni (ed), Uchicago:1997.

· [OT:TIPE] The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, K.A. Kitchen, Aris&Philips: 1986, London.

· [OT:TPI] The Prophecy of Isaiah, J. Alec. Motyer, IVP:1993.

· [OT:TT] A Test of Time, David Rohl, Arrow/Random:1995.

· [OT:UEGT] Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Susan Ackerman. Eisenbrauns:2001.

· [OT:VG] The Vengeance of God, H.G.L. Peels, Brill:1995.

· [OT:WBCMPS] War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Lawrence H. Keeley. Oxford:1996.

· [OT:WDBWK] What did the Biblical Writers Know & When did they Know it?, William G. Dever, Eerdmans:2001.

· [OT:WHAE] Wit and Humor in Ancient Egypt. Patrick Houlihan. Rubicon:2001.

· [OT:WSIANEP] Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael Floyd (eds), SBL:2000.

· [OTEC] The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, E. Earle Ellis, Baker: 1991.

· [OTP] The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols), Charlesworth (ed), Doubleday: 1983.

· [OTPs] Old Testament Parallels, Matthews and Benjamin, Paulist: 1991, 276.

· [OWC] Old World Civilizations--the Rise of Cities and States, Goran Burenhult, gen. ed. Harper/American Museum of Natural History: 1994.

· [PAC] Pagans and Christians, Robin Lane Fox, HarperCollins: 1986.

· [PAK] Pharoahs and Kings, David Rohl, Crown: 1995.

· [PANE1] The Ancient Near East, Vol I: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Pritchard, Princeton: 1958..

· [PANE2] The Ancient Near East, Vol II: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Pritchard, Princeton: 1975.

· [Pauly] Brill's New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Cancik/Scheider (ed. Germam) and Christine Salazar/David Orton (ed. English). Brill:2002 and on-going.

· [PC] Paul the Convert, Alan F. Segal, Yale: 1990.

· [PCE] The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Livingston, Herbert G., Baker, 1974.

· [PCSue] Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars, Penguin Classics.

· [PCTAIR] Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome, Penguin Classics.

· [PCTTH} Tacitus: The Histories, Penguin Classics.

· [PE] Prophets and Emporors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius, David Potter, Harvard: 1994.

· [PFJFC] Paul--Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?, David Wenham, Eerdmans: 1995.

· [PH:APJ] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Michael Martin. Temple:1990.

· [PH:ATMS] Animals and Their Moral Standing, Stephen R.L. Clark, Routledge:1997.

· [PH:Audi2] Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Routledge:1998.

· [PH:CGBT] Can God be Trusted? Faith and the Challenge of Evil. John G. Stackhouse, Jr.Oxford:1998.

· [PH:CPRE] Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology. Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman (eds). Oxford:1992.

· [PH:DDW] Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflection on the Claim that God Speaks, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Cambridge:1995.

· [PH:DNNHE] Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil. Lyall Watson. Harper:1995.

· [PH:EAE] The Evidential Argument from Evil. Daniel Howard-Snyder. IndianaUP:1996.

· [PH:EBIV] Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous, W. Jay Wood, IVP:1998. (In the Contours of Christian Philosophy series)

· [PH:EG] Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Paul Heim. Oxford:1988.(Defends the logical coherence of a God "outside of" time.)

· [PH:FAR] Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds), NotreDame:1983.

· [PH:FWPS] Free Will--A Philosophical Study. Laura Waddell Ekstrom. Westview/Perseus:2000.

· [PH:GAE] God and Evil: An Introduction to the Issues. Michael L. Peterson. Westview:1998. (An excellent technical book on the POE in its various forms.)

· [PH:GN] Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Frans De Waal, Harvard:1996. (Fascinating--field documentation of social cooperation in higher primates.)

· [PH:GTE] God the Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World. Patrick Glynn. Forum/Prima:1997/99.

· [PH:HEGG] Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Marilyn McCord Adams. Cornell:1999.

· [PH:IEE] Issues in Evolutionary Ethics, Paul Thompson (ed.), SUNY:1995.

· [PH:ONN] Objectivity is Not Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History. Thomas Haskell. JohnsHopkins:1998.

· [PH:OV] The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation, Matt Ridley, Viking:1996.

· [PH:POER] The Problem of Evil (Oxford Readings in Philosophy). Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (eds.). Oxford:1990.

· [PH:POP] The Problem of Pain. C.S. Lewis. Simon/Schuster:1962

· [PH:PTE] Probability and Theistic Explanation. Robert Prevost. Oxford:1990.

· [PH:PVI] Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies. David T. Koyzis. IVP:2003.

· [PH:RHW] Reason for the Hope Within. Michael Murray (ed.). Eerdmans:1999. (Absolutely the best book I have read on philosophical apologetics ever! EVERY Christian college student should read this book carefully.)

· [PH:RMPG] Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God. C. Stephen Evans. Eerdmans/IVP:1996.

· [PH:TCPPP] Truth or Consequences: The Promise and Perils of Postmoderism, Millard J. Erickson, IVP:2001.

· [PH:TEE] The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics, Paul Lawrence Farber, UCpress:1994. (Excellent survey of the history of evolutionary ethics.)

· [PH:VE] Virute Ethics: A Critical Reader, Daniel Statman (ed.), EdinburghUpress:1997.

· [PH:WAFF] Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief. Ruth A. Tucker. IVP:2002.

· [PJC] On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Arnaldo Momigliano, Wesleyan Univ. Press: 1987.

· [PLG] The Preface to Luke's Gospel--Literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1, Loveday Alexander, Cambridge: 1993.

· [PLW] Paul the Letter-Writer, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, The Liturgical Press: 1995.

· [PM] Parallel Myths, J.F. Bieflein, Ballantine: 1994.

· [PMT] Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Culture, Gene Edward Veith, jr., Crossway: 1994.

· [POTT] Peoples of Old Testament Times D. J. Wiseman, ed. Oxford: 1973.

· [POTW] Peoples of the Old Testament World; Hoerth, Mattingly, Yamauchi (eds.), Baker: 1994.

· [PPDS] Priest, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, by Lester Grabbe, Trinity Press: 1995.

· [PREC] Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, Stephen Benko, Indiana University Press: 1984.

· [PRRE] Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire, Penguin Classics: 1979.

· [PS:AHU] At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Stuart Kauffman, Oxford: 1995.

· [PS:CAMW] Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Ferris, Timothy, Anchor, 1988.

· [PS:DAC] A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar. Cambridge:2000.

· [PS:ES] The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, John Horgan, Addison-Wesley: 1996.

· [PS:IB] The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Controversy in Quantum Physics, David Wick, Birkhauser: 1995.

· [PS:ID] Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, IVP:1999.

· [PS:IQM] The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Roland Omnes. Princeton: 1994, 550pp.

· [PS:IRPL] Inventing Reality: Physics as Language by Bruce Gregory, Wiley Science: 1990 (229pp).

· [PS:MD] Maxwell's Demon: Why Warmth Disperses and Time Passes, Hans Christian von Baeyer, Random:1998.

· [PS:MT] The Mathematical Tourist (updated), Ivars Peterson, WH Freeman:1998.

· [PS:NLU] The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind. Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos. Oxford:1999.

· [PS:PB] Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern Scientific Beliefs. Howard Margolis. UChicago:1993.

· [PS:SKSR] Schroedinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, John Gibbon, Little/Brown: 1995.

· [PS:TES] The Edges of Science. Morris, Richard, Simon-Schuster, 1990.

· [PS:TIC] Thinking in Complexity, K. Mainzer, Springer-Verlag: 1994.

· [PS:TMM] The Matter Myth, Paul Davies and John Gribbin, Touchstone:1992.

· [PsC] Pseudonymity and Canon, David G. Meade, Mohr (Siebeck): 1986 (Tubingen)

· [PTS] The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, Robert P. Gordon (ed.), Eisenbrauns: 1995.

· [PUT] Philosophy for Understanding Theology, Diogenes Allen, John Knox:1985.

· [Q:Haleem] The Qur'an: A New Translation by MAS Abdel Haleem. Oxford:2004.

· [RAMBAN] Ramban/Nachmanides' Commentary on the Torah. Rabbi Chavel (trans). Shilo:1976 (5 vols).

· [RC] Rhetorcial Criticism, Phyllis Trible, Fortress: 1994.

· [REF:BB] Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages. John Kaltner and Steven L McKenzie (eds). SBL:2002.

· [REF:DSSC1] The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume One, Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Parts 1 and 2). Martin Abegg et. al. Brill:2003.

· [REF:EBP] Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and their Fulfillment, J. Barton Payne, Baker:1973.

· [RF] Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig, Crossway Books:1994.

· [RFC] Reasonable Faith, Winfried Corduan, Broadman&Holman:1993.

· [RG] The Redaction of Genesis, Gary A. Rendsburg, Eisenbraus:1986.

· [RI] Risen Indeed--Making Sense of the Resurrection, Stephen T. Davis, Eerdmans: 1993.

· [RJJ] The Religion of Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, Fortress: 1993.

· [RKH] Introduction to the Old Testament. Harrison, R.K. , Eerdmans Publishing, 1969.

· [RLRS] Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament, A.N. Sherwin-White, Oxford: 1963, reprinted Baker: 1992.

· [RMML] Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke by John Wenham, IVP: 1992.

· [RNC] The Rise of Normative Christianity, Arland J. Hultgren, Fortress: 1994.

· [RNE] The Roman Near East: 31BC - AD337, Fergus Millar, Harvard: 1993.

· [ROC] The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, Rodney Stark, Princeton: 1996.

· [RPWAH] Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History, Roger S. Bagnall, Routledge: 1995.

· [RRB] Reason and Religious Belief by Peterson, Hasker, Reichenback, and Basinger, Oxford: 1991.

· [RRE] The Religions of the Roman Empire, John Ferguson, Cornell:1970.

· [RS] Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Stephen G. Wilson, Fortress: 1995.

· [RTG] ReThinking Genesis, Duane Garrett, Baker: 1991.

· [RW] The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, William McNeill, Univ. of Chicago:1991.

· [SAI] The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, John Gammie and Leo Perdue (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1990.

· [SC] The Supremacy of Christ, Ajith Fernando, Crossway: 1995.

· [SC2] Scripture in Context II: More essays on the Comparative Method, Willaim Hallo, James Moyer and Leo Perdue (eds.), Eisenbrauns:1983.

· [SCAP] The Synagoges and Churches of Ancient Palestine, Leslie Hoppe, The Liturgical Press: 1994.

· [Schaff] History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, AP&A, 3 vols.

· [SDFML] Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend , Maria Leach (ed.), HarperRow: 1972.

· [SHJ] Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans, eds. Brill: 1994.

· [SOC:CPSE] Coercive Power in Social Exchange, Linda D. Molm, Cambridge:1997

· [Soden] The Ancient Orient by Wolfram von Soden (translated by Schley), Eerd: 1994.

· [SPI] The Synoptic Problem--An Introduction, Robert Stein, Baker: 1987.

· [SPP] Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel, Joseph Blenkinsopp, WJKP:1995.

· [SS] The Scepter and the Star--The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, John J. Collins, Doubleday: 1995.

· [ST:CI] Characters of the Inquisition. William Thomas Walsh. Tan:1940.

· [ST:CIEJS] Coversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Norman Roth. UWisconsin:2002.

· [ST:FI] Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition. Simon Whitechapel. Creation:2003.

· [ST:I] Inquisition. Edward Peters. UCal:1988.

· [ST:MS] The Marranos of Spain. B. Netanyahu. Cornell:1999 (3rd Ed).

· [ST:OIFCS] The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. B. Netanyahu. NewYorkReview:2001 (2nd Ed).

· [ST:SIHR] The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Henry Kamen. Yale:1997.

· [ST:TDRRS] Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Michael Satlow. Scholars:1995.

· [ST:TSI] The Spanish Inquisition. Cecil Roth. Norton:1964.

· [ST:WII] Women in the Inquisition: Spain and the New World. Mary Giles (ed). JohnsHopkins:1999.

· [STB] Sacrifice in the Bible, Roger Beckwith and Martin J. Selman, eds. Baker/Paternoster: 1995.

· [STOT] The School Tradition of the Old Testament, E.W. Heaton, Oxford: 1994.

· [Sumer] The Sumerians, C. Leonard Wooley, Norton:1965.

· [SWWRT] The Sages: The World and Wisdom of the Rabbis of the Talmud., Ephraim E. Urbach. Harvard: 1975, trns. 1987.

· [TAM] The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook, Marvin Meyer (ed.), HarperCollins:1987.

· [TANT] The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M.R. James, J. K. Elliott's, (Oxford: 1993)

· [TAPA] Through the Ages in Palestinian Archeology, Walter E. Rast, Trinity Press: 1992.

· [TAW] Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World, Chris Scarre, Dorling Kindersley: 1993.

· [TC] Textual Criticism--Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, McCarter (Jr), Fortress: 1986. pp.94.

· [TCQ] Three Crucial Questions about Jesus, Murray J. Harris, Baker: 1994.

· [TCS1] The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., Brill: 1997.

· [TCS2] The Context of Scripture, vol 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Hallo and Younger (eds.). Brill:2000.

· [TCS3] The Context of Scripture, vol 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Hallo and Younger (eds.). Brill:2002.

· [TDNT] Theological Dict. of the NT (Kittel)

· [TDNTlittle] Theological Dict. Of the NT, Abridged (the "little Kittel")

· [TDOT] Theological Dict. of the OT

· [TEOM] To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (eds.), WJKP: 1993.

· [TFH] The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, Baruch Halpern, Penn State: 1988.

· [TH:ALPD] Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness. Stephen Noll. IVP:1998.

· [TH:BHP] The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Robert Gagnon. Abingdon:2001.

· [TH:BMR] Black Man's Regligion: Can Christianity be Afrocentric? Glenn Usry and Craig S. Keener, IVP:1996]

· [TH:DBF] Defending Black Faith: Answers to Tough Questions about African-American Christianity. IVP:1997.

· [TH:DDECT] A Different Death: Euthanasia & the Christian Tradition. Edward J. Larson & Darrel W. Amundsen. IVP:1998.

· [TH:DF4V] Divine Foreknowledge--Four Views. James Bielby and Paul Eddy (eds), IVP:2001.

· [TH:DW] Diverse Worship: African-American, Caribbean & Hispanic Perspectives. Pedrite U. Mayard-Reid. IVP:2000.

· [TH:EB] The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World. Robert Garland. Cornell:1995.

· [TH:EC] The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy. Timothy Willis. SBL:2001.

· [TH:EP] Election and Predestination: Keys to a Clearer Understanding. Samuel Fisk. Wipf and Stock:1997.

· [TH:FTC2] The Fire that Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality (rev.ed). Edward William Fudge. Paternoster:1994.

· [TH:GAT4V] God and Time--Four Views. Gregory Ganssle (ed). IVP:2001.

· [TH:HB2V] Homosexuality and the Bible--Two Views. Dan Via and Robert Gagnon. Fortress:2003.

· [TH:Heaven] Heaven--the Logic of Eternal Joy. Jerry Walls. Oxford:2002.

· [TH:HFG] The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. Gerald Schroeder. FreePress:2001.

· [TH:HHLHQ] Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question. David Powys. Paternoster:1997.

· [TH:HLD] Hell: The Logic of Damnation. Jerry L. Walls. UofNotreDame:1992.

· [TH:HX] Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. IVP:2000.

· [TH:IMBDSS] Israel's Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Richard Hess and M Daniel Carroll R (eds). Baker:2003.

· [TH:IML] Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel. Harold Bennett. Eerdmans:2002.

· [TH:JMCC] Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. William Horbury. SCM:1998.

· [TH:JSB] The Jewish Study Bible. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds). JPS/Oxford:2004.

· [TH:NCP] The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election. William W. Klein. Academie/Zondervan:1990.

· [TH:NDET] New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, David Dockery (ed), IVP:1998.

· [TH:PDPP] Powers of Darkness: Principalities & Powers in Paul's Letters. Clinton Arnold. IVP:1992.

· [TH:PDREPG] The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Cornell:1988.

· [TH:PHTOT] Preaching Hard Texts of the Old Testament. Elizabeth Achtemeier. Hendrickson:1998.

· [TH:POFHX] Portraits of Freedom: 14 People Who Came out of Homosexuality, Bob Davies and Lela Gilbert, IVP:2001.

· [TH:QFT] The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Quetions. F. Leroy Forlines. RandallHouse:2001.

· [TH:SGA] The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts--Divine Purity and Power. Craig S. Keener. Hendrickson:1997.

· [TH:SSTHR] Self and Self-Transformation in the History of Religions. David Shulman and Guy Stroumsa (eds). Oxford:2002.

· [TH:SWH] Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. William Webb. IVP:2001.

· [TH:TCFA] The Case for Angels. Peter Williams. Paternoster:2002.

· [TH:TCS] The Clarity of Scripture. James Callahan. IVP:2001.

· [TH:TGWR] The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, IVP:1998. (outstanding explication, and partial defense of the "openness of God" movement)

· [TH:TKTP] To Kill and Take Possession: Law, Morality, and Society in Biblical Stories. Daniel Friedman. Eerdmans:2002.

· [TH:TMC] The Torah?A Modern Commentary. W. Gunther Plaut (ed). Union of Hebrew Congregations:1981.

· [TH:TNH] The Nature of Hell. The Evangelical Alliance. ACUTE:2000.

· [TH:TVH] Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson. IVP:2000.

· [TH:TWB] Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Antti Laato and Johannes de Moor (eds). Brill:2003.

· [TH:TWF] The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church. Timothy Bradshaw (ed). Eerdmans:2003 (2nd ed).

· [TH:WINC] Why I am Not a Calvinist. Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell. IVP:2004.

· [TH:WWA] Wrestling with Angels. Kevin Sullivan. Brill:2004.

· [TJL] The Jesus Legend, G.A. Wells, Open Court: 1996.

· [TJQ] The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, Ben Witherington III, IVP: 1995.

· [TK] Two Kingdoms: The Church and Culture through the Ages, Clouse, Pierard, and Yamauchi, Moody:1993.

· [TLNT] Theological Lexicon of the New Testament by Ceslas Spicq and translated by James D. Ernest. Hendrikson: 1982, trans 1994. 3 vols.

· [TM] The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, James Charlesworth (ed.), Fortress: 1992.

· [TMOT] The Messiah in the Old Testament, Walter Kaiser, Jr., Zondervan: 1995, 256p.

· [TNTCR] The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, Ehrman and Holmes, eds., Eerdmans: 1995.

· [TOB] The Other Bible, Willis Barnstone (ed.), Harper-Collins: 1984.

· [TOH] The Timetables of History (3rd ed), Berhard Grun, Touchstone/Simon-Schuster: 1991.

· [TRCRE] Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire, M.P. Charlesworth, Ares:1926(2).

· [TRKW] Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth, Carsten Peter Thiede, Trinity Press: 1995.

· [TS] The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Cohen, Snell, Wiesberg (eds.), CDL Press:1993.

· [TTC] The Twelve Caesars, Michael Grant, Barnes&Nobles: 1975.

· [TTT] Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, John C. Reeves (ed.), Scholars Press: 1994.

· [TWOT] Theological Wordbook of the OT (Waltke et. al)

· [TYPOS] Typos, by Goppelt.

· [UDNT] Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, James D.G. Dunn, Trinity/SCM: 1990 (2nd ed).

· [UDWJ] Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Bivin and Blizzard, Destiny Image: 1994 (2nd ed).

· [UG] The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Evan Powell, Symposium Books: 1994.

· [VAI] Vital Apologetic Issues, Roy Zuck (ed.), Kregel:1995.

· [VL] The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora, Univ. of Calif: 1987.

· [WAG] What are the Gospels: A comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, Richard A. Burridge, Cambridge: 1992.

· [WaltkeGen] Genesis-A Commentary. Bruce Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks. Zondervan:2001

· [WBC] Word Biblical Commentary (multivols)

· [WF] A Witness Forever: Ancient Isrrael's Perception of Literature and the Resultant Hebrew Bible, Isaac Rabinowitz, CDL Press: 1993.

· [WOTT] Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions, Donn F. Morgan, John Knox: 1981.

· [WR:3GS] Three Faiths, One God: The Formative Faith and Practice of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Neusner, Chilton, William Graham. Brill:2002.

· [WR:AAS] Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia. Julian Baldick. NYUP:2000.

· [WR:AI] Answering Islam, Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Baker: 1993.

· [WR:AJOJ] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections. Michael L. Brown. Baker:2000. (first in a trilogy, good detail and depth).

· [WR:AJOJ2] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections. Michael L. Brown. Baker:2000.

· [WR:AJOJ3] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections. Michael L Brown. Baker:2003.

· [WR:ARMI] Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Paul G. Hiebert, Baker:1994.

· [WR:AW] The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture, Stephen Batchelor, Parallax:1994.

· [WR:BAQ] The Bible and the Quran. Jacques Jomier. Ignatius:1959 (trans. 1964)

· [WR:BGPM] Buber on God and the Perfect Man. Pamela Vermes. Scholars:1980.

· [WR:BIG] Buddhism--an Introduction and a Guide, Christmas Humphrey, Penguin: 1962 (3rd ed.)

· [WR:BL] Buddist Logic, F. Stcherbatsky, Dover: 1930 (vol 1).

· [WR:BS] Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze, Penguin:1959.

· [WR:CACR] Christianity and Comparative Religion, JND Anderson, IVP: 1970.

· [WR:CAIC] Christianity and Imperial Culture: Chinese Christian Apologetics in the Seventeenth century and their Latin Patristic Equivalent. Xiaochao Wang. Brill:1998.

· [WR:CCCC] Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally Hesselgrave, David J.,. Zond., 1978.

· [WR:CELWR] Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions. Gerald R. McDermott. IVP:2000.

· [WR:CFOF] Christian Faith and Other Faiths by Stephen Neill, IVP:1984.

· [WR:CGWR] The Compact Guide to World Religions, Dean C. Halverson (gen. ed.), Bethany: 1996.

· [WR:CM] Comparative Mythology. Jaan Puhvel. Johns Hopkins:1987.

· [WR:CSWR] A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: Virtuosos, Priests, and Popular Religion. Stephen Sharot. NYU:2001.

· [WR:CTTQ] Companion to the Quran, by William Montgomery Watt, Oneworld:1967/1994.

· [WR:CWR] Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (rev.ed.), Sir Norman Anderson, IVP:1984.

· [WR:DAMY] A Dictionary of Asian Mythology. David Leeming. 2001.

· [WR:DBF] Divided by Faith--Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Michael Emerson and Christian Smith. Oxford:2000.

· [WR:DCM] A Dictionary of Creation Myths. David Adams Leeming and Margaret Adams Leeming. OxfordUP:1994.

· [WR:DWM] A Dictionary of World Myth. Peter Bently (ed). FactsonFile:1995.

· [WR:EG] The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. Louis Fischer (ed). Vintage:1962.

· [WR:Eliade] The Eliade Guide to World Religions, by Mircea Eliade and Ioan P. Couliano, HarperCollins: 1991.

· [WR:EncycBud] Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2 vols). Robert Buswell (ed). MacMillan:2004.

· [WR:EQ] Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. Jame Dammen McAuliffe (ed). Brill:2001 and on-going.

· [WR:ESW] Essential Sacred Writings from Around the World, by Mircea Eliade, HarperCollins:1967.

· [WR:FIC] Faiths in Conflict? Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World. Vinoth Ramachandra. IVP:1999.

· [WR:GAB] Gandhi--An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Mahadev Desai (trans). Beacon:1957.

· [WR:GAITM] The Gods of Asia: Image, Text, and Meaning. T.S. Maxwell. Oxford:1997.

· [WR:GB] The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer, Macmillian:1922.

· [WR:GBMD] Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh. Prometheus:2004.

· [WR:GCQ] A Guide to the Contents of the Quran, by Faruq Sherif, Garnet:1995.

· [WR:GEML] Good and Evil in Myth & Legend, Anthony Mercatante, Barnes & Nobles:1978.

· [WR:GG] The Global God: Multicultural Evangelical Views of God, Aida Besancon Spencer and William David Spencer (eds.), Baker:1998.

· [WR:Goyim] Goyin: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta. Gary Porton. Scholars:1988.

· [WR:GP] Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Stanley Wolpert. Oxford:2001.

· [WR:GRHS] Gandhi's Religion: A Homespun Shawl. JTF Jordens. Macmillian/St. Martins:1998.

· [WR:HBP] A History of Buddhist Philosophy, David Kalupahana, Univ. of Hawaii: 1992.

· [WR:HI] A History of India: Volume One, Romila Thapar, Penguin:1966.

· [WR:HIS] The History of Islam. Robert Payne. Barnes&Noble:1959.

· [WR:HM] Hero Myths. Robert A. Segal (ed). Blackwell:2000.

· [WR:HPI] A History of Philosophy in Islam, T.J. de Boer, Dover: 1903.

· [WR:HRI1] A History of Religious Ideas: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries, Mircea Eliade (Willard R. Trask, trans.), UChicagoPress: 1978.

· [WR:HRI2] A History of Religious Ideas: From Gautama Buddha to the Triumph of Christianity, Mircea Eliade (Willard R. Trask, trans.), UChicagoPress: 1982.

· [WR:HRI3] A History of Religious Ideas: From Muhammad to the Age of Reforms, Mircea Eliade (Alf Hiltebeitel, Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, trans.), UChicagoPress:1985.

· [WR:IB] Introducing Buddha, Jane Hope and Borin Van Loon, Totam:1995.

· [WR:IBS] Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. Ronald Segal. Farrar, Stratus and Girox:2001.

· [WR:II2] An Introduction to Islam (Second Edition). David Waines. Cambridge:2003.

· [WR:ISM] In Search of Muhammed, Clinton Bennett, Cassell:1998. (good critical analysis of the sources of M's life)

· [WR:JIQ] Jesus in the Qur'an, Geoffrey Parrinder, Oneworld: 1995.

· [WR:LBLH] The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Edward J. Thomas. Dover:1949.

· [WR:LI] Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. IBM Warraq (ed). Prometheus:2003.

· [WR:LOT] The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised. Marc Shapiro. Littman:2004.

· [WR:MBTP] Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, by Karen Armstrong, Harper:1992.

· [WR:MC] Messianic Christology. Arnold G Fruchtenbaum. Ariel Ministries:1998.

· [WR:MJ] The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Tarif Khalidi (trans/ed). Harvard/Cambridge:2001.

· [WR:MLES] Muhammad:His Life based on the Earliest Sources. Martin Lings. Inner Traditions International:1983. (Good discussion of the various Christian/Jewish influences on the life of the "pre-Islamic" Muhammad.)

· [WR:MNNA] The Mythology of Native North America, David Leeming and Jake Page, UoklahomaPress:1998.

· [WR:MOI] Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, by F.E. Peters, SUNY:1994.

· [WR:MPOR] Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions: A Historical Survey. Jacques Waardenburg (ed). OUP:1999.

· [WR:MYB] Mythologies. Yves Bonnefoy (ed) and Wendy Boniger (trans). UChicago:1991 (2 vols).

· [WR:NAMBW] The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview: Conflict and Dialogue. John P. Newport. Eerdmans:1998. (Excellent, 600page interaction with all facets of New Age movements. Very detailed and thorough.)

· [WR:NF] Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions, Winfried Corduan, IVP:1998. (Corduan is clearly one of the most lucid, fair, and helpful writers in the fields of apologetics, religious studies, and philosophy of religion.)

· [WR:NII] A New Introduction to Islam. Daniel Brown. Blackwell:2004.

· [WR:OK] The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, Ibn Warraq (ed.), Prometheus:1998.

· [WR:OR] Our Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), HarperCollins: 1993.

· [WR:PM] The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian's Perspective on Islam and Christianity. Chawkat Moucarry. IVP:2001

· [WR:QR] The Quiet Revolution: The Story of a Living Faith around the World, Robin Keeley (ed.), Eerdmans:1985.

· [WR:Ramban] Ramban-Nachmanides Commentary on the Torah. Charles Chavel (trans/annot). Shilo:1973-1976,1999 (5 vols).

· [WR:Rashi] Rashi, The Torah--The Sapirstein Edition. Herczeg (trans/annot). Mesorah:1995f (5 vols)

· [WR:RICQ] Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers, Mohammed Arkoun (trans. Robert D. Lee), Westview:1994.

· [WR:ROP] Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammed as Religious Founders. David Noel Freedman and Michael McClymond (eds). Eerdmans:2001.

· [WR:RT] Religions and the Truth by Hendrik M. Vroom, Eerd: 1989.

· [WR:SAI] Shamanism: An Introduction. Margaret Stutley. Routledge:2003.

· [WR:SC] The Supremacy of Christ, Ajith Fernando, Crossway: 1995.

· [WR:Sigal] The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity, Gerald Sigal, KTAV: 1981.

· [WR:SIJT1] Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions. William Brinner and Stephen Ricks (eds). Scholars:1986.

· [WR:SIJT2] Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions 2. William Brinner and Stephen Ricks (eds). Scholars:1989.

· [WR:SOQ] The Sources of the Qur'an--A Critical Review of the Authorship Theories, Hamza Njozi, World Assembly of Muslim Youth: 1991.

· [WR:SOTP] Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World. Serge Trifkovic. Regina Orthodox Press:2002.

· [WR:STM] Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence. Bruce Lawrence. Princeton:1998.

· [WR:SW] Sacred Writings--A Guide to the Literature of Religions, Gunter Lanczkowski, Harper: 1961.

· [WR:TB] The Teaching of the Buddha,Buddhist Promoting Foundation: 1966.

· [WR:TEH] The Epic Hero. Dean A. Miller. Johns Hopkins:2000.

· [WR:TF] A Tapestry of Faith: The Common Threads between Christianity and World Religions. Winfried Coruan. IVP:2002.

· [WR:TM] The Monotheists:Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition (two vols). F. E. Peters. Princeton:2003.

· [WR:TNSP] The Theology of Nahmanides Systematically Presented. David Novak. Scholars:1992.

· [WR:TQK] The Quran, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan (trans.), Olive Branch Press:1997.

· [WR:TQS] The Quran, M.H.Shakir (trans.), Tahrike Tarsile Quran, Inc:1993 (8th ed).

· [WR:UI] Unveiling Islam. Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner. Kregel:2002.

· [WR:WATNH] What About Those Who have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. John Sanders (ed). IVP:1995.

· [WR:WBR] What's Bothering Rashi? A Guide to In-Depth Analysis of his Torah Commentary. Avigdor Bonchek. Feldheim:1997-2002 (5vols).

· [WR:WCBS] Who can be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. Terrance Tiessen. IVP:2004.

· [WR:WTB] The World of Tibetian Buddhism, The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), Wisdom Pubs: 1995.

· [WR:WTBT] What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula, Grove:1974 (2nd ed.)

· [WR:WWNCM] Who's Who in Non-Classical Mythology, Egerton Sykes with new material by Alan Kendall, Oxford: 1952, 1993.

· [WR:YIA] Yahweh in Africa: Essays on Africa and the Old Testament. Knut Holter. PeterLang:2000.

· [WR:ZIH] Zoroaster in History, Gherardo Gnoli, Bibliotheca Persica:2000.

· [WS:AHTO] A History of their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present (vol 1), Bonnie Anderson and Judith Zinssser, Harper&Row:1988.

· [WS:AHW] A History of Women: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Pauline Schmitt Pantel (ed). Belknap/Harvard:1992.

· [WS:AST] An Anthology of Sacred Texts by and about Women, Serinity Young (ed.), Crossroad: 1995.

· [WS:ATW] Apology to Women: Christian Images of the Female Sex, Ann Brown,IVP: 1991.

· [WS:AWB] All the Women of the Biblee, Edith Deen, HarperCollins:1955.

· [WS:DWCH] A Dictionary of Women in Church History, Mary L. Hammack, 1984.

· [WS:EWEC] Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, volume 1, Carroll Osburn (eds), College Press: 1993.

· [WS:FAB] Feminism and the Bible, Mardi Keyes, IVP: 1995.

· [WS:GNG] Gender & Grace, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, IVP: 1990.

· [WS:GW] Gospel Women: Studies in the Named Women in the Gospels. Richard Bauckham. Eerdmans:2002.

· [WS:GWCGR] Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. Matthew Dillon. Routledge:2002.

· [WS:ISNW] I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2.11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, Baker: 1992.

· [WS:IWBC] The IVP Women's Bible Commentary. C.C. Kroeger and Mary J. Evans. IVP:2002.

· [WS:JWGRP] Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, Tal Ilan, Hendrickson:1995.

· [WS:MWC] Men and Women in the Church. Sarah Sumner. IVP:2003.

· [WS:PPW] Praying with Passionate Women: Mystics, Martyrs, and Mentors, Bridget Mary Meehan, Crossroad: 1995.

· [WS:SGANE] Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East (2 vols). Simo Parpola and RM Whiting (eds). Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project:2002.

· [WS:TCP] The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner, Oxford:1986.

· [WS:TSOS] Their Stories, Our Stories--Women of the Bible, Rose Sallberg Kam, Continuum: 1995.

· [WS:UWAT] Uppity Women of Ancient Times, Vicki Leon, Conari Press (Berkeley): 1995.

· [WS:WAB] Women, Authority, and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson (ed.), IVP: 1986.

· [WS:WAP] Women in Ancient Persia (559-331 BC) , Maria Brosius, Clarendon-Oxford:1996.

· [WS:WB] The Woman's Bible, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Northeastern Univ. Press:1895.

· [WS:WBC] The Womens Bible Commentary, Carol A. Newsom and Sharon Ringe (eds.), WJK:1992.

· [WS:WCSEC] Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts. James Malcolm Arlandson. Hendrickson:1997.

· [WS:WIB] Woman in the Bible by Mary J. Evans, IVP:1983.

· [WS:WIC] Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo, IVP:1995.

· [WS:WIM] Women in Ministry--Four Views, Bonnidell and Robert Clouse (eds.), IVP:1989.

· [WS:WIP] Women in Prehistory, Margaret Ehrenberg, Univ. of Oklahoma:1989.

· [WS:WLAS] Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Bernadette Brooten. Scholars:1982.

· [WS:WLGR] Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A sourcebook in translation, Mary Lefkowitz and Maureen Fant(eds.), John Hopkins: 1992 (2nd ed).

· [WS:WLT] "Women Like This"--New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Graeco-Roman World, Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), Scholars Press: 1991.

· [WS:WRGRW] Women's Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Ross Shepard Kraemer. Oxford:2004.

· [WS:WUI] Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Hennie Marsman. Brill:2003.

· [WS:WWR] Women in World Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), SUNY:1987.

· [WS:WWWP] When Women were Priests by Karen Jo Torijesen, HarperCollins: 1995.

· [WTOT] The Text of the Old Testament, Ernst Wurthwein, Eerdmans: 1994 (2nd ed).

· [WWJ] Who was Jesus?, N.T. Wright, Eerdmans:1992.

· [WWRJ] The Wisdom and Wit of Rabbi Jesus, William Phipps, Westminster/John Knox: 1993.

· [X:JATCH] Jesus and the Constraints of History: Bampton Lectures 1980, A. E. Harvey, Duckworth:1982

· [X:NS:HADPE] How about Demons?:Possession and exorcism in the modern world. Felicitas Goodman. IndianaUpress:1988.

· [X:TH:BDUFE] But Deliver us From Evil: An introduction to the demonic dimension in pastoral care. John Richards. London, Dartman, Longman and Todd:1974.

· [X:TH:CTETN] Christ Triumphant: Exorcism then and now. Graham Twelftree. Hodder and Stoughton:1985.

· [X:TH:DPDOI] Deliverance: Psychic Disturbances and Occult Involvement. Michael Perry (ed). SPCK:1987.

· [X:TH:DPMHAT] Demonic Possession: a medical, historical, anthropological, and theological symposium. John Warwick Montgomery (ed). Bethany:1976.

· [X02:JCDMSG] Jesus Christ--Divine Man or Son of God?James R. Brady. University Press of America:1992.

· [X02:JSOTGP6] Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, Vol 6. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (eds.). JSOTpress:1986.

· [X02:TAMMT] Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretive Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Barry Blackburn. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991. (revision of Ph.D thesis of 1986 for Univ. of Aberdeen]

· [X03:ERCL] Early Rabbinic Civil Law and the Social History of Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Baba' Mesi'a. Hayim Lapin. ScholarsPress:1995.

· [X03:IPM] The Iron Pillar Mishnah: Redaction. Form, and Intent. Dov Zlotnick. KTAV:1988.

· [X03:JLFJM] Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. E.P. Sanders. SCM/Trinity:1990.

· [X03:JLFJM2] Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E.P. Sanders. Jacob Neusner. ScholarsPress:1993.

· [X03:NTMSRHS New Testament Miracle Stories in the Religious-Historical Setting: A Religionsgeschichliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective, Wehner Kahl, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

· [X04:MECW] Miracle in the early Christian World: A study in sociohistorical method. Howard Clark Kee. Yale:1983.

· [X04:PCCM] Pagan-Christian conflict over miracle in the second century. Harold Remus. Patristic:1983.

· [XBI:1MACC] First Maccabees (intro). John Bartlett. Sheffield:1998.

· [XBI:2ESDRAS] 2 Esdras (intro). Bruce Longenecker. Sheffield:1995.

· [XBI:4MACC] Fourth Maccabees (intro). David de Silva. Sheffield:1998.

· [XBI:AdamEve] The Life of Adam and Eve, and Related Literature (intro). Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp. Sheffield:1997.

· [XBI:AscIsa] The Ascension of Isaiah (intro). Jonathan Knight. Sheffield:1995.

· [XBI:JosAsen] Joseph and Aseneth (intro). Edith Humphrey. Sheffield:2000.

· [XBI:Jubilees] The Book of Jubilees (intro). James VanderKam. Sheffield:2001.

· [XBI:Sirach] Sirach (intro). Richard Coggins. Sheffield:1998.

· [XBI:TobJud] Tobit and Judith (intro). Benedikt Otzen. Sheffield:2002.

· [XBI:WisSol] Wisdom of Solomon (Study Guide). Lester Grabbe. TTClark:1997.

· [XL] Extinct Languages. J. Friedrich, Dorset, 1957.

· [ZIBBC] Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (4 vols). Clinton Arnold (ed). Zondervan:2002.

· [ZPEB] Zondervan Pictorial Ency. of the Bible 1986.