data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8b930/8b930324237bb4b08158bef00c6947f0bf238257" alt="Kindle app logo image"
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Slavery in Early Christianity Paperback – September 15, 2006
This is the first paperback edition of the enlighteningOxford University hardcover published in 2002.
Glancy here situates early Christian slavery in its broadercultural setting, arguing that modern scholars haveconsistently underestimated the pervasive impact ofslavery on the institutional structures, ideologies, andpractices of the early churches - and upon the bodiesof the enslaved. Her careful attention to the bodilyexperience of subjection and violation that constitutedslavery makes this an indispensable book for anyoneinterested in slavery in early Christianity. Includes specialchapters on Jesus and Paul.
- Print length216 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherFortress Press
- Publication dateSeptember 15, 2006
- Dimensions6.14 x 0.49 x 9.21 inches
- ISBN-109780800637897
- ISBN-13978-0800637897
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Jennifer A. Glancy is The Rev. Kevin G. O'Connell, S.J., Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Humanities at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York. A 2018 fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, she has published three books and dozens of scholarly articles and chapters on the cultural history of early Christianity, corporeality, women's history in antiquity, and comparative studies of slavery.
Product details
- ASIN : 0800637895
- Publisher : Fortress Press; 1st edition (September 15, 2006)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 216 pages
- ISBN-10 : 9780800637897
- ISBN-13 : 978-0800637897
- Item Weight : 12.8 ounces
- Dimensions : 6.14 x 0.49 x 9.21 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,411 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,544 in New Testament Criticism & Interpretation
- #144,213 in History (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f499/2f499573b2f1cb77ac46d4259a828e843be0762d" alt="Jennifer A. Glancy"
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book readable and well-written. They appreciate the author's clear writing style and excellent footnotes. The book provides an insightful analysis of slavery in ancient Rome and early Christianity. Readers say the book opens their eyes to the issue of slavery in ancient Rome.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book readable and well-written. They appreciate the clear, concise writing style and excellent footnotes. The author's research is well-researched, and the footnotes are helpful.
"This book is a great read. Well researched and not "narrative " driven" Read more
"Haven't finished this book, yet but I find the author's style to be lucid, her book well-researched and she pulls it all together to make it..." Read more
"...It is well written and provides an excellent literature review. Great read." Read more
"...Also, the footnotes are excellent. The chapter on Paul's letters was particularly interesting...." Read more
Customers appreciate the book's research quality. They find it well-researched, insightful, and informative. The author provides a well-organized analysis of early Christians. Overall, readers describe the book as interesting and readable.
"This book is a great read. Well researched and not "narrative " driven" Read more
"...this book, yet but I find the author's style to be lucid, her book well-researched and she pulls it all together to make it understandable to the..." Read more
"...It is well written and provides an excellent literature review. Great read." Read more
"...Jennifer A. Glancy has provided an insightful analysis of the way the early Christians understood, reacted to, and dwelt with slavery in the Greco-..." Read more
Customers find the book informative about slavery in ancient Rome and early Christianity. It provides a context for the institution of slavery and its use in various settings.
"...One gets a picture of that time and the institution of slavery in context, and she explains how she arrived at her conclusions...." Read more
"This book has opened my eyes to the issue of slavery in ancient Rome and the ways the slave trope was used in the New Testament...." Read more
"This is a wonderful book about slavery in early Christianity. The chapters are well organized and informative...." Read more
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on March 13, 2024This book is a great read. Well researched and not "narrative " driven
- Reviewed in the United States on July 30, 2014Haven't finished this book, yet but I find the author's style to be lucid, her book well-researched and she pulls it all together to make it understandable to the layperson. One gets a picture of that time and the institution of slavery in context, and she explains how she arrived at her conclusions. A very interesting and readable book.
- Reviewed in the United States on July 5, 2018This book has opened my eyes to the issue of slavery in ancient Rome and the ways the slave trope was used in the New Testament. It is well written and provides an excellent literature review. Great read.
- Reviewed in the United States on February 25, 2016This is a wonderful book about slavery in early Christianity. The chapters are well organized and informative. Jennifer A. Glancy has provided an insightful analysis of the way the early Christians understood, reacted to, and dwelt with slavery in the Greco-Roman world. Also, the footnotes are excellent. The chapter on Paul's letters was particularly interesting. The only criticism I have of this book is the small font size.
- Reviewed in the United States on September 29, 2017This book contains excellent mining of a broad spectrum of sources about slavery in the New Testament era described in clear language. Unfortunately, the author’s analysis of that material includes logical errors, self-contradictions, and appeals to the authority of scholars who do not represent mainstream historical study. As a result, she draws unsubstantiated (or even self-contradictory) conclusions about how our knowledge of Roman Empire slavery should affect our interpretation of the New Testament.
A few examples of the author’s errors:
1. In her discussion of Epictetus (esp. on pp. 30-34), she interprets him as saying that slaves should not question the justice of abuses inflicted on them by their masters: “Epictetus insisted that people should not try to change the circumstances in which they found themselves but should accept their situation as given by Zeus” (p. 33). But this is not his point. Epictetus argues that we have responsibility only for what we control, so a slave is morally responsible for the things he can choose (e.g., how he responds to a cruel master) but not for things he cannot choose (e.g., to magically abolish all slavery). Thus, whether a slave serves, or flees, or participates in a rebellion all are options that depend on the moral rightness of the specific situation.
2. She similarly misinterprets Paul in Galatians as supporting slavery, when a more consistent interpretation has Paul telling slaves to do the best they can to follow God within the circumstances they do not control. In addition, on p. 37 she discusses at length the Greek word somation (“little body”) and the abuses of child slavery as part of her criticism of Paul’s ideas in Galatians, only to state, “Paul does not use the word somation in Galatians.”
3. She argues in several places that slaves (especially slave prostitutes) would not have been accepted in the early Christian church because of their inability to maintain the sexual purity guidelines required by Paul. For example, on p. 67 she says, “Paul’s insistence on the fundamental incompatibility between the body of prostitution and the body of Christ [in 1 Cor 6:12-20] seems to leave even those prostitutes who were enslaved beyond the boundaries of Christian community.” But this is inconsistent with the Biblical idea that God knows all the inner thoughts and outer circumstances of all people and always judges them with justice, and thus God would not condemn someone for something they cannot control. Glancy argues that Paul in 1 Cor 6:12-20 only discusses those who visit prostitutes because Paul would not consider prostitutes to be Christians, but it is more consistent with Paul’s other writings that he is focused on the morality of those who have the realistic power of choice. And after all, there would be no prostitutes if no one wanted to visit them.
4. Her chapter on Jesus’ use of slavery in the Gospels (pp. 102-129) contains frustrating errors and contradictions on nearly every page. The most important, high-level erroneous theme of her analysis is to examine the cruelty of slavery and wonder what implications this has for the Gospel’s understanding of God. But this is to invert theology: The God described by Jesus has created and continually sustains everything in the Universe. Thus, God rightfully is the owner (and thus “lord” and “master”) of all people and all things. And as a God of love, service, and self-sacrifice, he is always a “good master.” It is we humans who have created a slavery that is a perverted copy of God’s benevolence.
5. On p. 140 she writes, “scholars generally (but not unanimously) dispute Paul’s personal authorship of” Colossians, but she gives no references to such scholars. By contrast, Curtis Vaughan in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (1981) gives a thorough summary of the origins of such disputes and the reasons why scholars no longer accept them as justified.
I do not know of any other book at such a reasonable price that summarizes so much useful source material about slavery in New Testament times, so perhaps this book might be useful in a seminary library where most readers may have sufficient background to read it critically. But I could not recommend this book to a general reader.
- Reviewed in the United States on August 8, 2014Thank you
- Reviewed in the United States on February 8, 2025An interesting review of slavery in earlier “church” history (just because it claims to be church doesn’t mean it really is). I think her writing style could have more clarity; and her writing style is somewhat haughty, which may not be unusual for academic works. Glancy does have useful explanations of New Testament slavery verses (see below). Frequently, one gets the impression she is undermining or neutralizing the church as she goes through the centuries how the “church” handled slavery, but eventually she does point out it conflicts with the New Testament. I noticed several cases where she does not mention obvious conflicts with “church” history and the New Testament; “church” history is simply portrayed as “Christian” even though it would conflict with the New Testament. I consider the early church to be first and second century, but the book goes into the fifth century, as well (pages 105, 118, 133, etc; 2002, pages 71, 79, 90). This “expanded” edition has 18 new pages added on the ends (that’s some expansion!); political “correctness” nonsense is also propounded there (see below). As far as the main premise of the book – that slavery continued in the early centuries of church history, there’s a key distinction that she misses; more about it below. And, there are examples in the New Testament where churches did not live up to the demands of Jesus and the apostles; for example, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 that addressed Jewish converts imposing old law portions onto gentile converts. Immorality is reported in the Corinthian church, 1 Cor. 5:1. And, Jesus seems to challenge the slaveholding mentality by ordering foot washing – the work of slaves – to His followers; essentially saying be slaves to one another. Apostle Paul mentions not holding one as a slave anymore but as a brother (John 13:14-5; Philemon 16). A case can be made that “church” history did not conform.
And, Glancy seems to use the common assumption that if a figure or State claims to be Christian, then that means it really is Christian, or is conforming to the Bible – painting with a broad brush. Yet, many today would consider much of “church” history to be heretical or out of line with apostolic teaching. She mentions Chrysostom writing about church members who harbored runaway slaves for their own use, but she does not point out the obvious that in itself is dishonest, equivalent to theft or greed (were they trying to help the escapee, or just use the extra service for themself?): “John Chrysostom explicitly called on Christians to ensure that slaves remain with their legal owners … In his first homily on Philemon, he drew this conclusion: ‘.. Paul .. was unwilling to detain Onesimus … For if the servant is so excellent, he ought by all means to continue in that service’ … Chrysostom urged Christians to return slaves to their legal owners even when they might personally benefit from the services of the fugitive slave … Chrysostom stands firmly with the mainstream of the ancient church in enforcing the broader cultural insistence on the control of bodies ..” (pages 134-5; 2002, pages 90-1). But, Glancy does not mention the obvious, again – Paul encouraged the owner to free the slave Onesimus: “.. that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave – a beloved brother ..” (Philemon 15, 16) (NKJV). She does not mention here that abolition was not so much an issue, even with the enslaved, as it is today, either. Hezser notes that, “Paul recommends the fugitive slave’s release .. But the other view, that fugitive slaves should remain enslaved, is found in early Christianity as well .. Chrysostom urged fellow-Christians to make sure that slaves remained enslaved” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005 Oxford University Press, page 270; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.). Glancy also mentions without protest: “Christianity .. was eventually recognized as the official religion of the [Roman] Empire” (page 1; 2002, page 3). But, that is different from the Bible, which does not portray the church as an earthly kingdom or theocracy (“Christian empire”). The New Testament church did not have national laws or control of the government, and theology was not forced onto others by the State military. Believers could serve/lead government, but it was not a theocracy that imposed theology by the State power. Conversion was by persuasion (Acts 13:43, 46), and the apostle’s writings were to guide the church, policed by local elders in the churches (not civil law). Jesus did not establish an earthly kingdom: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20-1). “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight..’ ” (John 18:36).
Unfortunately, Glancy misses what I consider to be the chief distinction on this matter, so I give the book a failing grade. With some examples included (see below), she fails to emphasize that ancient slaves were likely not abolitionist, which is unthinkable today. Critics miss this point, as well, and likely don’t ask if the slaves were abolitionist – they simply take the modern abolition view of slavery and impose it onto the ancient, and fail to consider: what about ancient culture? There was no demand for abolition by their slaves. She agrees at the top of page 223 that, “No abolition movement existed in antiquity” (cf. 2002, page 150). That is a profound point that needs to be explored more. Certain Roman laws/figures can be found that were abolitionist, but in general the ancient cultures welcomed slavery, even among the enslaved! There appears to be no abolitionist movements then like American slavery had. This is a huge difference from the modern view of slavery. I consider this the chief example of where critics miss it – demanding abolition on a culture when it wasn’t welcome even by slaves; the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at slavery in the Bible and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. They basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick) We like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved (their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). She writes on page 118 (2020, pages 79-80): “.. a former slave who had become a bishop .. wrote a letter excoriating a local ruler for stealing and selling massive numbers of Christians into slavery … Patrick, bishop of Ireland in the early fifth century .. was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Ireland .. for six years before he made his escape. Years later, in a letter to a British king, Coroticus, he described himself … Patrick’s letter holds special interest as a rare document from a former slave commenting on the evils of slavery, but he did not condemn the institution of slavery itself.”
Glancy does point out that Roman slave revolts were not about abolition, but then she discounts the notion (page 206; cf. 2002, page 139 top half). However, that is the direction the Bible points to, as well, which she does not point out. The problem the slaves objected to was the misconduct of certain owners, not the existence of slavery (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus did not call for abolition). Mosaic law treats slavery as a vice law, and debt was frowned upon, but debt-slavery could be used to pay a debt. Notice Exodus 12:44, 51 gives a new Passover law for future slaves in Israel on the day of the Exodus from Egypt (cf. 20:10). The type of slavery Israel was under in Egypt is described as “cruel slavery” (Exo. 6:9) (NKJV), suggesting non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture. They were fleeing an abusive owner, not abolishing slavery. On their return to Israel/Judah after exile they brought their slaves with them, including slaves for the Temple (Ezra 2:1, 43, 65, 70; Lev. 22:11). Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Generally, American slaves were abolitionist. (see my 1-star review for “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?,” second edition 2023, by Joshua Bowen – and my 2-star review for the first edition 2020)
“During this period, virtually no one was calling for the abolition of slavery. In fact, when slaves became free and acquired means, they often bought other slaves for their own use. Rome had repressed three earlier massive slave revolts, ending in bloodbaths without freedom; the purpose of even these revolts was to provide a critical mass of resistance against the slaves’ oppressors, but not to abolish slavery in principle [1 Kings 12:4]. Even if someone wanted to abolish slavery in principle, such an issue would be addressed in a philosophic treatise, not in a letter giving advice to slaves” ( - NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, 2017, page 2142).
Interestingly, in the new Afterword she points out a distinction between American slavery and the Bible: “.. ancient slavery was not racialized in the way that American slavery would be ..” (page 236). There is scant reference to the differences between US and Bible slavery throughout the book. But, she would not even point out the chief cultural difference, again, that ancient slaves were generally not abolitionist, while American slaves were generally abolitionist. I consider the chief legal difference to be that certain US State slave laws allow brutality, while OT law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). She does not point that out, either.
Critics may point to Glancy’s work and say the church/Bible is false because it used slavery. Or, look at “church” history, it was always for slavery. But, Glancy is careful to point out: “.. commentators have noted the everydayness of the images Jesus uses in his parables: fishnets, leaven, weeds. As with these other metaphoric fields, the language of slavery in the parables participates in the everydayness of life in the first century … Because so many of Jesus’ sayings preserved in Luke and Matthew feature the figure of the slave, they create the impression that Jesus’ audience was as familiar with the world of slaveholding and enslavement as with the worlds of farming and fishing … Jesus relied on the figure of the slave in his discourse not because the trope of slavery was part of his philosophical or rhetorical inheritance, but because slaves were ubiquitous in the world in which he lived … Christian literature is not unique in its reliance on slavery as metaphor. For example, Stoic literature often figures the individual as a slave to passions and emotions ..” (pages 159, 191, 267-8; 2002, pages 107, 129, 172). “Jesus twice tells his followers that ‘the slave is not above the master’ [John 13:16; 15:20] … Jesus first says that slaves are not greater than their master after he has washed their feet and instructed them that they are to wash one anothers’ feet. Washing feet was one of the tasks consistently associated with slaves. This context thus enforces the sentiment known from Mark: the disciples are to be slaves to one another” (pages 157-8; 2002, page 106). “.. ‘whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant [diakonos], and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave [doulos] of all ..’ [Mark 10:43-4] Jesus’ interpretation of leadership as service and the leader as a slave is an innovation that shapes Christian tradition ..” (pages 156-7; 2002, pages 105-6).
And, “When great Babylon falls, writes John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation [18:11-13], all the rich merchants of the earth will mourn it. Their grief will emanate from their loss of trade .. from gold to linen .. from olive oil to sheep – to the bodies and souls of human beings. The list thus culminates with a reference to the human merchandise from which traders throughout the Roman Empire profited. By emphasizing that not only bodies but also souls were for sale, John implicitly condemned the practice of trading in human flesh. The slave trade disrupted human lives … Like other ancient sources, early Christian writings do not challenge the system of slavery itself. Nonetheless, like many other ancient sources, several New Testament texts recognize the evils of the slave trade … in 1 Corinthians 7:21, Paul encourages slaves to embrace opportunities for manumission” (pages 127, 142; 2002, pages 85-6, 96).
Does 1 Peter 2:18-25 endorse slavery? It reads in part, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh … one endures grief, suffering wrongfully … Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps .. who Himself bore our sins in His own body .. by whose stripes you were healed.” Glancy notes that, “.. 1 Peter does not identify servile subordination with the will of God nor of Christ. Rather, 1 Peter links the bodily violations to which slaves were subject with the bodily violations of Jesus in his passion and death. The author of 1 Peter invites slaves to contemplate the wounds of Jesus in order to give them strength to endure their own wounds … Moreover, since the author of 1 Peter enjoins the entire community to endure suffering in a Christlike manner [2:13-16; 3:9, 14, 16-18], enslaved Christians whose bodies absorb unwarranted abuse serve as a model for the entire Christian community to emulate … ‘Their conformity to the suffering Christ, therefore, is meant to be comfort and encouragement in suffering that they are powerless to avoid, not a legitimation of the oppression of slavery’ … No abolition movement existed in antiquity. Slaves did not have legitimate channels for working to redress wrongs against them. As we have seen, increasingly coercive oppression was the likely consequence of slave rebellions or other obvious affronts to slaveholding authority … The advice that 1 Peter delivers to enslaved Christians parallels the advice that 1 Peter delivers to the entire congregation. For slaveholders in any historical epoch to cite this text to foster the submission of their slaves is therefore egregious, since the author implies that the slaveholders’ treatment of their slaves is unjust and will ultimately be judged harshly by God … The argument of 1 Peter is distinctive. Slaves rather than slaveholders are assimilated to Christ. This identification is written on the bodies of slaves, whose bruises liken them to Jesus. The effect of the advice in the various epistles may be similar: slaves are to submit docilely to slaveholders. Nonetheless, .. 1 Peter offers grounds for condemning the system of slavery by inviting comparisons between the abuse of slaves and the passion of Jesus” (pages 221-3; 2002, pages 149-50).
She writes elsewhere, “To say that Jesus relies on the patterns of slaveholding in his parables does not mean Jesus therefore approves of those patterns of behavior. Nevertheless, he does not explicitly repudiate those behaviors … the gospel Jesus proclaims is incompatible with slaveholding values … in the hours before Jesus’ betrayal, he washed his disciples’ feet and instructed them that they must likewise serve one another [John 13:14-5] .. Foot washing was a chore assigned to one of the least regarded slaves in a household, a role often played by women. The Fourth Gospel thus depicts a Jesus who defied the hierarchical and gender norms of his day .. a challenge to the slaveholding ethos … By calling on his followers, whether they were slaves, freedpersons, impoverished freeborn persons, or even members of slaveholding families, to become slaves of all, Jesus emptied that ethos of its power … From the first century to the twenty-first, the church has failed to live up to the radical demands of the gospel. The demands of the gospel are still radical. Directed toward slaveholders in the first century, directed toward CEO’s in the twenty-first century, Jesus’ words dare listeners: Be slaves to one another. Become the slave of all … Jesus emptied of its force the mentality of slaveholding and thus the ethos of slavery” ( - Slavery as Moral Problem, 2011, pages 23-5; by Jennifer Glancy, Ph.D.).
As far as comparing to the 1st edition, the words are larger in this expanded edition, so the page numbers will not match even though the main content is the same. Page xi reads, “.. contains a new Afterword by Jennifer … The original body of Slavery in Early Christianity .. is reproduced here without changes.” It also has a 4-page Foreword added. Her new Afterword, which is 10 pages plus 4 footnote pages (18 pages is not much of an expansion!), is loaded with political “correctness” jargon – she propounds racial distinction there for the researchers; merit does not get emphasized, but rather what the researchers look like seems to be what matters. She writes, “An older colleague asked about my research. Like me, he was white … Like other feminist and womanist biblical scholars, I was also committed to rethinking Christian history ..” (pages 235-6); “As a white American Christian, however, I .. was tempered by some unease. Was a white scholar who had enjoyed a comfortable upbringing the ‘right’ person to write ..” (page 237); “I know that speaking openly about race – in our churches and in society – is an important way to begin” (page 244). This seems unnecessary and distractive from the subject for anti-race people like me – either you can do the job or you can’t; it doesn’t matter what nature made you look like, it’s what is inside that counts! There is to be unity in the church – Galatians 3:28. Glancy seems to be using skin color to segregate humans, but she doesn’t explain why skin color has to be used (or should). Why not use eye color or hair color to segregate humans? There are multiple ways to determine one’s race, and it doesn’t always involve color.
End of review.
- Reviewed in the United States on March 4, 2016Revealing!
Top reviews from other countries
- ColinReviewed in the United Kingdom on May 15, 2020
3.0 out of 5 stars Important research but incomplete and unbalanced as a thesis
Glancy’s overall approach is to see how slaves were treated as depersonalised bodies in antiquity, and her extensive research is the key advantage of this book, especially what she gleans from papyri excavated in Egypt, from which she extrapolates an empire-wide view. It’s where she uses this as an interpretative control for early Christianity that her thesis stands or falls, and it is problematic in its scope and results.
Her key texts, Jesus’ parables and the Pauline corpus, originate at a complex intersection of influences of Torah, ANE culture, localised customs (for example the Essenes), progressive philosophy (for example Pilo), and and Greco-Roman chattel slavery. That is not the impression one gets from Glancy’s book, which makes little or no reference to some of these (no reference at all to the anti-slavery views of the Essenes and Philo), but a heavy preponderance of extrapolating meaning from Greco-Roman chattel slavery, sometimes filtered through the eyes of the lived experience of north American chattel slavery, which projects onto early Christianity a dark shadow that could have been better illuminated at the intersection referred to above. This results in her work being incomplete and unbalanced in its treatment of Jesus and Paul. There is no mention of how the Dead Sea Scrolls community nodded towards Torah in its express prohibition on Jews and Jewish proselytes being sold to Gentiles. Whereas humanitarian aspects of Torah that give personal agency to slaves would have formed part of the thought-world of Jesus and Paul and their messianic expectations, Glancy barely treats this factor. The absence of the voices of the Essenes and Philo – whose lifetimes overlap with Jesus and Paul – is particularly problematic. Similarly, the absence of an appreciation of the beliefs reflected in the gospels in a messianic Jubilee and a general resurrection of all humanity distorts some of her conclusions.
Glancy’s aim is to see how slaves were treated as depersonalised bodies in antiquity, especially in early Christianity, and Greco-Roman chattel slavery provides an excellent lens to do so, but the lens is not well used when it is blinkered to the complexity of the intersection within which Jesus and Paul were teaching. As a result, sometimes in referring to slaves as “bodies”, Glancy risks depersonalising them herself, even dehumanizing them, in instances where some cultures in antiquity were possibly not doing so. Those blinkers also persist in grouping the teachings of Jesus and Paul without adequate qualification under the banner of “Christianity” – terms that neither of them ever used – rather than as streams in the diverse world of first century Jewish cultures. Where she is more more entitled to use the term Christianity, that is in the field of patristics, her survey of the extant literature is unexpectedly brief.
This is a book that should be read by students of early Christianity, but probably not as an introduction to slavery in the world of the early church, and other perspectives are needed to balance her views. For a considered response exposing some flaws in her book, see Karin B. Neutel, *A Cosmopolitan Ideal: Paul's Declaration 'Neither Jew Nor Greek, Neither Slave Nor Free, Nor Male and Female' in the Context of First-Century Thought.* T&T Clark, 2015.