The Unbound God

Slavery and the Formation of Early Christian Thought

Chris L. de Wet

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315513034
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia antica

This volume examines the prevalence, function, and socio-political effects of slavery discourse in the major theological formulations of the late third to early fifth centuries AD, arguably the most formative period of early Christian doctrine. The question the book poses is this: in what way did the Christian theologians of the third, fourth, and early fifth centuries appropriate the discourse of slavery in their theological formulations, and what could the effect of this appropriation have been for actual physical slaves? This fascinating study is crucial reading for anyone with an interest in early Christianity or Late Antiquity, and slavery more generally.

1
Introducing Early Christian Doulology

Slavery to God, doulological classifications, and early Christian identity

When Selenos and Lysimachos had taken their seat on the tribunal,

they gave orders that Febronia be fetched.

They brought her in,

with her hands tied

and the heavy iron collar around her neck ….

Lysimachos addressed her,

“Tell me, young girl, what are you, slave or freeborn?”

Febronia replied, “Slave.”

“Whose slave are you, then?” asked Lysimachos.

“Christ’s,” said Febronia.

The Life of Febronia 21

Slavery, its context and discourse

Slavery (Greek: douleia; Latin: servitus; Syriac: ^cabdūtā; Coptic: m^enth^emhal or m^entk^yawon) was a principal social institution in the ancient Mediterranean. In its most basic sense, enslavement occurs when a subject is seized, often violently, thereby falling under the absolute dominion of another and often becoming the human property of another. The slave is expected to follow every command of the master. The owner of a slave is entitled to the fruits of the slave’s labor without remunerating the slave. Ancient slaves were also open to various forms of physical, including sexual, manipulation and abuse. The basis of a person’s social identity was whether such a person was freeborn, an ex-slave (that is, manumitted), or a slave. The persistence of slavery in late antiquity is well attested, and it is accepted that Roman slavery—the dispensation of slavery that concerns early Christianity—did not slowly decline and transform into medieval serfdom.¹ In Greek, the most common word for “slave” is doulos, usually referring to a male slave, and doulē, for a female slave. The closest equivalent in Latin is servus (a male slave) or serva (female slave); at times, famulus is also used. In Coptic the common equivalent of doulos is h^emhal (but also k^yawon, and bōk, for a male slave, and bōki, for a female slave). Syriac uses ^cabdā, derived from the Hebrew word for slave, namely ^cebed, but also wasqā. The Greek word oiketēs usually refers to a domestic slave,² while andrapodon often referred to an enslaved war captive.³ The Latin collective noun familia refers to the household slaves, and verna denotes a home-born slave. Furthermore, the Greek term pais and the Latin term puer, both meaning “boy,” were often used to refer to slaves. Finally, Jennifer Glancy makes a very important observation in her classic study on slavery in early Christianity, reminding us that slaves are also referred to, in Greek, as sōmata, or “bodies.”⁴

Ancient slavery and early Christianity: basic characteristics

The supply of slaves came from natural slave reproduction (a child born from a slave mother shared the mother’s status), from war captives or persons who were kidnapped, infant exposure, and self-sale or selling one’s children because of debt. The price of a slave depended on the slave’s gender, age, ethnicity, physical appearance and ability, education, and skills.⁵ Types of slave labor ranged from the basest of tasks, such as sewerage management, to the running of a villa-estate, and even service in the high Roman administration. While race and ethnicity did not structure ancient slavery in the same way as they do modern slavery, based on skin color, factors of race and ethnicity were also not totally absent from the discourse, especially when it came to foreign war captives. Plato, for example, tells masters to avoid having many slaves of the same ethnicity and language laboring together, since their ethnic solidarity could lead to rebellion.⁶ Roman agronomists such as Varro followed this advice.⁷ Aristotle, moreover, believed that “barbarians” (non-Greeks) and slaves “are of the same nature.”⁸

On the one hand, then, the enslaved subject receives a measure of monetary worth, but is at the same time stripped of all social worth or honor. Rights of citizenship are lost, and in many cases all bonds of kinship and claims to a homeland are negated—yet, the slave often becomes part of a new household and “family.” So, while Orlando Patterson’s definition of slavery as natal alienation is accurate,⁹ one needs to understand that natal alienation often presents itself in the guise of natal association: that is, calling slaves brothers, sisters, and children—a strategy quite common in early Christian writings. But such claims to natal association rarely implied the dissolution of the oppressive bond between the slave and the master.¹⁰ In Christian thought the natality of slaves is somewhat paradoxical. While all are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ—born of God and children of God, according to the Gospel of John, chapter 3—conversion to Christianity rarely implied manumission if one was a slave.

The slave is in the first instance a possession, one that can be sold or traded. In Roman law slavery was administered under the legislation of property, and slaves were seen as res mancipi, and therefore fungible.¹¹Res mancipi was a category of property that could be transferred from one party to another only by means of a cause (for instance, a sale or a gift) and only after a formal act of conveyance, the mancipatio. The other category of property, res nec mancipi, did not require the same formalities of transfer. The main difference is therefore the mode of transference. These two distinctions, however, were abolished in the time of Justinian.¹²

But Roman authors often stressed the humanness of slaves, and this recognition of humanness opened up further possibilities for oppression and subjugation—a human being experiences hunger, so food can be used as an incentive for labor and obedience. Humans have a need for companionship and intimacy, which means that sexual intercourse, the possibility of concubinage, and having offspring may be used to oppress and manipulate a slave. Acknowledging a slave’s humanity did not imply that less oppressive acts of domination were used against the slave; rather, it meant that a slave was dominated as fungible property and as a human being. Slavery was legislated not only under laws of property. There are laws from Constantine that view slaves more in terms of their humanity and personhood than as property. For example, in Constantinian law, the separation of enslaved family members was not supposed to occur in the process of sale.¹³ We should also not consider the distinction between the slave as property and the humanity of a slave as an ontological dichotomy. In many cases, slavery is essentially seen as the power and dominion that one person has over another.¹⁴

If we turn to early Christianity, we find no evidence that the early Christians wholly rejected slavery. The household codes of the New Testament testify to the presence of slaves in Christian households,¹⁵ and the codes advise Christian slaveholders not to treat their slaves harshly or unjustly (although what this exactly means remains unclear). In fact, slaves are told to show the same obedience and respect to their masters as they would show to God.¹⁶ As Christianity progressed through the centuries, domestic slavery remained a common occurrence in Christian households and the church fathers provided detailed guidelines on how to manage and educate one’s slaves.¹⁷

Slaves took part in Christian domestic rituals such as scripture reading, prayer, fasting, and the singing of psalms, and also attended church gatherings. In late antiquity slaves were included in processions, vigils, and various other religious festivities.¹⁸ Slaves were baptized, like most other converts. In Gal. 3:28, which may be one of the earliest Christian baptismal formulae, it reads that in Christ there is “no longer slave or free”—however, status distinctions between slaves and free remained in the early Christian communities. Slaves occupied leadership positions in the earliest Christian communities,¹⁹ and there is also later evidence that slaves were ordained as clergy, with the condition that they are manumitted before being ordained. It is likely that two of the early bishops of Rome, Pius and Callixtus, were former slaves. However, it should also be noted that the ordination of slaves was a highly contested matter in the late antique church.²⁰

Christian slaveholders were responsible for teaching their slaves virtue, although slaveholders are often reminded that they can learn lessons in virtue from their slaves.²¹ The sexual vulnerability and exploitation of slaves were, however, a “moral conundrum” for the early Christians.²² What the limits of obedience were for slaves who faced the threat of fornication, and possible exclusion from the church, is very difficult to determine.²³ Slave marriages (contubernia) did receive recognition in the early church, but the permission of the master was still a prerequisite. Basil of Caesarea, for example, condemned as fornication the “secret” marriage of slave women.²⁴Slaves were expected to adhere to the standards of Christian sexual morality. They had to exhibit modesty and discipline (sōphrosynē). John Chrysostom states that it is reasonable and praiseworthy for slaves to pursue a life of virginity—of course, this was still subject to the sanction of the master. Chrysostom also admonished those appointed over slaves not to sexually abuse them.²⁵

As with most ancient slaveholders, Christian masters manumitted their slaves under proper circumstances. In fact, one of the most contested New Testament verses about slavery and manumission is 1 Cor. 7:21. In 1 Cor. 7:21a, Paul assures slaves not to be concerned about their current social disposition. After this, in 1 Cor. 7:21b, Paul says that if slaves can become free they must “rather use [it]” (the Greek reads: mallon chrēsai). The problem with this latter part of the verse is that the object of the final clause in 7:21b is omitted—a brachylogy. It is therefore not clear whether Paul wants slaves to “use” their enslavement or the chance to be manumitted. Scott Bartchy has argued that the missing object should be interpreted as slavery,²⁶ while J. Albert Harrill proposes, more convincingly in my opinion, that Paul encourages slaves to make use of the opportunity for manumission.²⁷ Most importantly, Harrill has shown that the manumission of slaves should not be seen as a liberal stance within slaveholding. Manumission was a conservative practice that sustained slavery. Thus, when early Christians encourage the manumission of slaves—which is not the same as the abolition of slavery—it shoul...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introducing early Christian doulology: slavery to God, doulological classifications, and early Christian identity
• 2 Savior or slave?: Philippians 2:6–11 and the problem of slavery in Origen’s Christology
• 3 Emancipating the Spirit: slavery and early Christian pneumatology in Eunomius and Basil of Caesarea
• 4 The curse of Ham (Gen. 9:18–27): slavery, sin, and punishment in John Chrysostom, Augustine, and the Cave of Treasures
• 5 Conclusion: the unbound God
• Primary sources
• Secondary sources
• Index