ENSLAVED TO AN ARTIFICE
A STUDY INTO THE TRUTH BEHIND THE TITLE OF DEFERENCE,
‘SLAVE/SERVANT’, AS USED IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST BEFORE THE TIME OF
ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
Edward J. Bridge
Macquarie University
Within the fields of Ancient History and Biblical Studies, the question of why people
throughout the Ancient Near East (ANE) designated themselves as “slave” or “servant”
in titles and other inscriptions, and in written communication to others poses a dilemma
for scholarship because of the practice of slavery in recent times, particularly in
antebellum USA, and because of the Greco-Roman heritage of Western scholarship. In
the latter issue is the view, promoted by ancient Greco-Roman elites, that slaves were less
than human (Aristotle, in Garnsey 15, 23, 31-32, 108-113, 119, 122; Wiedemann 61-64).
Added to this is the endless debate by scholars as to whether anyone in antiquity had a
positive view of slavery. This debate arises because of the presence of the imperial slaves
from Augustus’ time onwards (familia Caesaris) (the uniquely Roman system of granting
freedmen and freedwomen the status of being Roman and sometimes citizenship), and
the presence of what is termed “managerial slaves”, that is, slaves who had significant
responsibility in a wealthy master’s household and who could often acquire significant
assets and own other slaves (Weidemann 161-164; c.f. Osiek and Balch 81; Osiek 176;
Bartchy 65-73). The result is that historians are divided as to whether people in GrecoRoman societies viewed slavery as an essentially negative institution, or could entertain
some positive connotations of the system. 1 Biblical scholars tend to follow the historians,
because of their dependency on such scholars for studies into the societies of the biblical
times. 2 The result is that scholars from many fields of study tend to view a priori slavery
in antiquity in either mostly positive terms or in mostly negative terms.
1 Compare the somewhat negative views in Weidemann 1981; Vogt 27, 120; and the somewhat positive
view in Westermann 1941: 470; 1943: 9-10, 16. Horsley (32-58) is highly critical of the practice of slavery in antiquity
and considers Weidemann and Vogt to be positive about slavery in antiquity.
2 For positive views on Greco-Roman slavery, see Bartchy 1973: 47, 70, 77-78; 1992: 65-73 (more positive
again); and Martin 1990: 2-48. For negative views, the articles in Semeia 83/84 1998, all of which follow Patterson
Slavery and Social Death.
Humanity 2008
1
Consequently, just in the historical study of the practice of slavery in antiquity,
even when scholars attempt to find the historical “truth” of the system or reconstruct it,
they are already interpreting what they find through the “artifice” of some viewpoint or
interpretative strategy. This affects the use of “servant/slave” language in the ANE in
titles and in the designation of one’s self in relation to others, because any given scholar
already has a connotation on the meaning of the terms for “slave/servant” before they
study the ancient texts and inscriptions.
THE USE OF SLAVERY TERMS IN TEXTS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM
THE ANE
With respect to the ANE, Plato and Aristotle made negative comments that non-Greeks
were enslaved to their despotic rulers (Plato 1930-1935 [1:472-473]; Aristotle, in Garnsey
118). Plato (1926: 1:221,223 [3.693.a.5-7]; 1930-1935: 1:493 [5.469.c.2]) gave some
rationale for this: he felt that nations subject to the Persians lived in misery and that the
Greeks feared wholesale enslavement to the Persians. Plato and Aristotle’s comments no
doubt reflect a sense of cultural superiority, but the way the peoples of the ANE used
servile terms to indicate status and in relation to their gods, would no doubt add to their
view. “Greeks always found it difficult to express the hierarchy of dependence in oriental
kingdoms” (Weidemann 42).
The frequent use of servile terms in titles and in relation to their gods in many
ANE societies (including the ancient Hebrews) is now well attested. The terms are found
in correspondence, on documents, on seal inscriptions, on tomb inscriptions,
monuments, and in a variety of contexts in the Hebrew Bible. With regard to seal
inscriptions, in the Yale University collection of Babylonian cylinder seals (Hallo 440-462)
alone, 102 have servile terms in their inscriptions. Of these, “servant of a king/ruler”
occurs 22 times and “servant of a deity/deities” occurs 46 times. Of the “servant of a
king/ruler” seal inscriptions, five are titles of very high status people; for example, Šu-Sin
the great king, king of Ur, king of the four heavenly quarters, A’a-kalla governor of Umma (is) your
servant [Ur III period, approx 2100-2000 BCE] (Hallo 453). 3 In similar fashion to the
Babylonian seal titles, some Hebrew seal inscriptions found in Palestine also have the title,
‘slave/servant’ of so and so. Three examples are (Avigad “Contribution of Hebrew Seals”
197-206): (belonging) to ’Elishama‘, servant (‘ebed) of the king; (belonging) to Miqnêyaw servant
(‘ebed) of Yahweh, and (belonging) to Shelimoth maidservant (’amah) of Elnathan the governor.
Seals connote status. They are used to sign documents, to buy or sell, to prove
identity and to prove status. Obviously, Athenian Greeks would find the use of “servant”
for these purposes hard to understand because of their “artifice” of the democratic ideals
(for elite men!). But what status do seal inscriptions with servile terms connote for lesser
status people, especially women who designated themselves as “servants” of someone,
such as Shelimoth did? It is difficult for scholars to conceive that a female “servant”,
even of a governor, could have status. Obviously this is a scholarly artifice! This is
3 Hallo does not deal with any cuneiform texts that the seals may have accompanied, but indicates
awareness that in some texts, ‘servant of so-and-so’ titles occur (Hallo 1981: 456).
2
Eddie Bridge, “Enslaved to an Artifice”
because of factors such as: the predominately patriarchal nature of most ANE societies;
the presence of only four inscriptions from Palestine that use the term ’amah (see Davies
et al. 73, 140, 253); only one seal inscription in the Yale University Babylonian Seal
collection that has a woman as the “servant” of someone (Hallo 545-6, 549); c.f. Avigad
13); the widespread ANE custom of women being sold as slave wives (Mendelsohn 50;
Avigad 12; Bakir 95, 98 [inferred only for Egypt]; and Brown et al. 712-15 for Genesis
20:17; 21:12; 23:12 and Judges 9:18; 19:19); the Egyptian preference for female slaves
(Bakir 15-16, 65); and the retaining of the term GEMÉ (literally, “female slave”) in the
titles on Mesopotamian seals of women in contrast to the use of ÌR in male titles instead
of nita or eri(d) (Mendelsohn 34). On this last matter, some scholars make comments such
as: many of Babylonian/Akkadian seals with women as “servant of a deity” titles are
“votive seals”. That is, they were created as part of an offering to a deity and express the
female worshipper’s self-abasement before the deity (e.g. Avigad Bullae 13, fn.22). 4 One
then has to ask about many of the seals of men who called themselves “servant of a
deity”. Scholars acknowledge that “worshippers often of course speak of themselves as
‘slaves’ of the deity being adored”, helped by such texts as the Dingir.sa.dib.ba Incantations
I.72-79 (Lambert 299, 279), in which a worshipper, in an extreme state, described himself
as a “slave” to the deity amongst a number of other images. Ultimately, scholars can only
assume that Shelimoth’s title indicates status rather than prove it, partly because the seal
was found in a setting that suggested an official archive (Avigad Bullae 13, 30-31). In
support of this conclusion is the portrayal of women in the Hebrew Scriptures: women
could have significant status and influence, even though uncommon (see, e.g. Judges 4-5
[Deborah, a significant leader]; 2 Kings 22:14-20 and Ezek 13:17-23 [prophetesses]; 2
Kings 11 [Athaliah, a queen]).
A second text type that can imply status for the use of servile terms for selfdeference is inscriptions on monuments. This occurs in tomb paintings in Egypt,
particularly from the Middle Kingdom Period onwards. One inscription of an apparently
high official reads: I am the one who grinds corn for Osiris and (I am) the servant (ḥm) of Nut …
(Bakir 33). This official was either part of a temple staff, or was engaged in funerary
services for a high status person, in which the deceased was seen as having merged with
the god Osiris and/or Nut. Titles that use the term mr(t) are common, and the Egyptian
kings would also use servile terms of themselves in relation to the gods (Bakir 25-33).
Why did peoples, including rulers, in many of the ANE societies use servile terms
in their titles? Chattel slavery was certainly practiced across the whole of the ANE, but it
appears that slaves made up only a small percentage of the population in most societies,
with most slaves being state slaves (e.g. for building projects) or temple slaves
(Mendelsohn 12, 92-99; Snell Life in the ANE 119; Dandamaev 269-271; Bakir 1-9, 100;
c.f. Baker 24). Despite some evidence of concern about slaves’ behaviour, Snell (Life in
the ANE 45, 123) suggests that during the Babylonian and Persian periods in
Mesopotamia (626-322 BCE), “the status of being a slave bore little stigma”; however,
4
Avigad does not provide proof. He simply asserts this.
Humanity 2008
3
outside of slavery, there were many other forms of non-free labour systems in the ANE,
to which most of the lower classes were subject periodically (Snell Life in the ANE 70, 79,
123; Mendelsohn 98-99; Diakonoff; Callender 69-71). Ancient Israelites were sometimes
subjected to corvee labour (1 Kings 9:15-22; 12:18; 15:22; and Nehemiah 3). Non-free
labour was the norm in Egypt (Bakir 1-9). This can affirm that, at least for Egypt, being a
“servant” of someone was a common experience. Consequently, from both the Egyptian
and Mesopotamian situations, the use of servile terms in titles and self-deference can be
expected.
The other situation that may lie behind the wide use of servile terms in the ANE
for titles and self-designations is the nature of leadership in the societies of the ANE.
Absolute monarchy was certainly practiced in parts of the ANE, especially in Egypt with
its system of the god-king (Frankfort 52-53, 60, 251; Grayson 205; Dandamaev 253;
Smith 24). 5 Plato’s comments reflect something of the reality. However, there were
some checks, such as religion (the kings were “servants” of the gods [Frankfort 10, 55-59,
240-258; Gurney 121; Baines 27-28), 6 legal precedent (custom and ideals of social justice)
(Frankfort 58; Dandamaev 253; Lambert 57, 60, 65, 69-70; Day 86-87),7 and the nobility
(Dandamaev 253-255; Lambert 67; also Jeremiah 38:1-5 and 2 Chronicles 24:17). Despite
Grayson and Frankfort’s descriptions of the bureaucracies of Assyria and Egypt
respectively, they do not discuss how authority was practiced. It is likely that the
autocratic rule of the king was replicated in the bureaucracy since most officials in Egypt
and Sumer/Akkad were related to the royal house, and patronage (which included
bribery) was the norm in Assyria (Grayson 199-206; Frankfort 52-53; Hallo and Simpson:
57), 8 and the kings surrounded themselves with nobility and officials to distance
themselves as “sacral” persons from the population (Baines 26). The consequence is that
everyone was a “servant” of whoever was in immediate authority over them. As scholars
discuss what this might have meant in practice, the “artifices” of their assumptions start
to emerge. For example, Garnsey (238), a Greco-Roman historian, writes that “everyone
was a slave in Persia apart from the king, everyone in Egypt apart from the Pharaoh”, and
Finley (145-164), another Greco-Roman historian, comments that the ANE was “a world
without free men”. Garnsey writes his comment from the contrast of ancient Greek
society ideals of freedom, and Finley writes his comment from the contrast of Western
ideals of freedom. Bakir would back up Garnsey’s comment about the “lack” of freedom
in Egypt, but Mendelsohn’s work would counter Garnsey’s comment about Persia and
Finley’s generalised comment about the ANE. The problem here is the definition of
freedom: Athenian Greeks (elite) and Westerners think of freedom as self-autonomy and
However, Baines 1998: 16-53 questions whether the Egyptian king was seen as a god.
Mesopotamian and Egyptian understandings of divine legitimisation of the king differs; however in both
places, the king was understood to be subject to the demands of the gods. In a number of Mesopotamia societies,
for example, the king was ‘re-elected’ by the gods, performed in the ritual of the New Year’s festival; see Frankfort
1948: 313-333 (detail) and Smith 1958: 29-30 (summary).
7 Most scholars note the issue whether the ideals were put into practice!
8 At the time of writing, I have not been able to access McGuire and Briggs 1991.
5
6
4
Eddie Bridge, “Enslaved to an Artifice”
political self-determination, whereas most of the ancient world would more likely think of
“freedom” as “someone [who] is at home somewhere and has the right to be there”
(Gerhardsson 4; c.f. Blunck 1:715). All of the scholars just mentioned assume the reader
will know what they mean by “free”. This problem is discussed from a cultural
anthropological perspective in Malina (1978) and from an ANE text perspective in Snell
(2001).
Given that most people in the ANE were a “servant” of whoever was in authority
over them, their designation of themselves as a “servant” would not necessarily connote a
demeaning status. It may connote the opposite—high status—as, for example, a
“servant” of the king would in fact have considerable status, particularly when on the
king’s business. This is proven by the “servant of the king” titles by lesser rulers in
Mesopotamia already noted above, and in an Egyptian painting in which a “servant” of a
king does obeisance to the king and is next portrayed as having been exalted by the king,
shown by his peers carrying him on his shoulders (Keel 350-352). Even Greeks and
Romans, despite their generally negative view of slaves, recognised that the social position
of slaves could vary. 9
The use of servile terms for status is also found in ancient correspondence from
the ANE. The custom occurred in Egypt, from the Middle Kingdom period onwards,
and was used in at least one letter by Amenḥotep IV (Bakir 18, 20). Many official letters
from Assyria show the custom (see Grayson 207); 10 e.g. To the king our lord, your servants
Balasi (and) Nabu-ahe-erba: Greetings to the king our lord. May Nabu and Marduk bless the king
our lord … (Frankfort 254, from Pfeiffer: 187). Letters (written on fragments of pottery,
called ostraca) by ancient Israelites and found at Arad and Lachish also show the custom.
For example, the letter, Lachish 2 (seventh century BCE) reads:
To my lord, Ya’ush: May YHWH cause my lord to hear tidings of peace now, today, this very day. Who is
your servant, a (mere) dog, that my lord has remembered his [se]rvant? May YHWH quickly bring my … a
word that you did not know. (Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 306)
The Meṣad Ḥashavyahu or Yavneh Yam letter, from the same period, in which a plaintiff
appeals to an official about the confiscation of his cloak by his work supervisor, starts:
May my lord, the officer, hear the word of his servant. As for your servant, your servant was harvesting at
Ḥazar-asam… (Davies et al. 76-77; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 358-359)
It is important to note that the author of the Meṣad Ḥashavyahu letter is a person of low
status, whereas Lachish 2 was written by an official.
The custom was continued by later Jews who were part of a military garrison in
Upper Egypt on the island of Elephantine, and involved people of various statuses. A
now-unknown author addressed a letter with: To my lords Jedaniah, Mauziah, Uriah, and the
garrison, [yo]ur servant […]. … To my lords Jedaniah (and) Mauziah [your] s[ervant …] (Cowley
An attempt to chart this is given by Alfödy (1988: 146) in which flexibility in social position is shown
rather than simply putting all slaves in one social strata. See also (within the field of biblical studies) Bartchy ‘Slavery’
1992: 66, 70-71; Lyall 1970: 78-79; Osiek 1992: 175-176; de Vos 1995: 294-295.
10 The terms are ‘my lord’ (bēlī) and ‘your servant’ (uradka).
9
Humanity 2008
5
37; late C5 BCE). Mauziah, one of the leaders, started a letter with: To my lords Jedaniah,
Uriah and the priests of YHW the God, Mattan son of Jashobiah and Neriah son of […], your servant
Mauziah … (Cowley 38; late C5 BCE). Jedaniah, another of the leaders, started a letter to
the Persian appointed governor in Judea with: To our lo[rd] Bagohi governor of Judah, your
servants Jedaniah and his colleagues the priests who are in Elephantine the fortress … (Cowley 30; 407
BCE) (Porten ed. 80-81, 83, 90). Of significance is the second citation: Mauziah’s use of
“servant” for self-deference among the group of leaders. It might be that Jedaniah is the
leader of the Jewish community, given his spokesperson’s role in the requests to the
governors in Palestine (Cowley 30, 31, 33) and his name at the top of the list of
addressees in Cowley 21 and 37 (Porten ed. 1976: 79-101). This can account for
Mauziah’s deference, but that Mauziah is closely associated with Jedaniah is shown in
Cowley 33, unless the variant in spelling the name indicates a different person. 11
However, in other letters, for example the Passover Letter (Cowley 21), the familial term
“brother” is used (Kraeling 61; Porten ed. 78-79; Hanson). This indicates that “servant”
(‘ebed) is a synonym in meaning to “brother”, showing that “servant” is a term of
politeness, which can be swapped for other terms.
This actually happens in the Hebrew letter, Arad 40 (either late eighth century or
early sixth century BCE): Your sons, Gemar[iah] and Nehemiah, gree[t] Malchiah. I bless [you by
YHW]H. And now, your [se]rvant …(Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 69-70; Aharoni et al. 71-72). 12
But the term that parallels “servant” is “son”, a term that also denotes junior or lesser
status to the recipient. Therefore “servant” remains a term of deference to superiors or to
people who have authority (c.f. Lachish 2; Meṣad Ḥashavyahu). 13 However, there is no
connotation of servile status by the use of “servant” (or “son”). Arad 40 indicates the
authors have complied with their superior’s instructions, but in some of the Lachish
letters (Lachish 2, Lachish 3, Lachish 5 and Lachish 6 – see Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 305-306,
309, 320, 322-323; Davies et al. 1-4), the senders, always the junior to the recipient,
criticise some action their senior did that they thought was inappropriate and would
impugn their status of loyal subordinates. For example, the Lachish 5 reads:
May [YHWH] cause my [lor]d to hear [a report of pea]ce and good tidings [now, today, this very day]. Who
is your servant, a mere dog, that you [sen]t to [your] servant the [letters t]hu[s]? Your servant has returned the
letters to my lord. May YHWH cause you to see the harvest in prosperity today. Is it to your servant that
Tobiah will <br>ing grain for the king?
The action criticised was the author being given letters not meant to be sent to him. The
point with respect to “servant” is that self-deference using “servant” (‘ebed) does not
imply servile submissiveness, although loyalty to the superior is indicated.
11 There is a problem with the spelling of Mauziah. In Cowley 37 and 38, the name is spelt ‫ ;מעוזיה‬in
Cowley 33 it is ‫ מעוזי‬and coupled with ‘son of Nathan’; and in Cowley 28, the name is ‫מחסיה‬, also designated as ‘son
of Nathan’ (Porten 1976: 80-83, 101, 29-30). But in Kraeling 4, the spelling is ‫מעוזיה‬, with the designation, ‘son of
Nathan’ (Porten 1976: 47), and with the occupation of ‘the scribe’.
12 Aharoni argues for a late eighth century dating for Arad 40; Dobbs-Allsopp et al for the early sixth
century.
13 Aharoni et al 1981: 71-72 (both terms); c.f. Dobbs-Allsopp et al 2005: 58 (for the term ‘servant’ alone).
6
Eddie Bridge, “Enslaved to an Artifice”
Similar occurs in the six Assyrian official letters cited in Frankfort (253-255). In
these letters, various priests and soothsayers who designate themselves as “servants”
(uradka) to the king of Assyria claim the right to direct him on matters of determining the
will of the gods. One letter reads (Frankfort 1948: 254):
To the king our lord, your servants Balasi (and) Nabu-ahe-erba: Greetings to the king our
lord. May Nabu and Marduk bless the king our lord.
The king our lord is gracious. A day has gone by since the king began fasting and has not
eaten a morsal. “Until when?” is his enquiry. Today the king should eat no food, the king
is a beggar. At the beginning of the month the moon will be seen. (The king says:) “Release
me! Have I not waited (long enough)? It is the beginning of the month. I want to eat food,
I want to drink wine!” Now, is Jupiter the moon? Later, for a whole year, the king may
ask for food. We have pondered the matter and we have prescribed. We have written
accordingly to the king.
In effect, they criticise the king, their superior, for his desire to end a period of fasting
quickly. The king cannot hurry a religious ritual: he “appears as a true slave of the ritual”
(Frankfort 254). That is, “servant” is not a title that indicates servile submissiveness.
Despite their deference to the king, the priests maintain their authority to direct the king
on matters of religious ritual, which as scholars point out, is part of their obedience to the
king (Frankfort 253-255; Smith 30, 47).
The Lachish, Arad and the Assyrian letters cited in Frankfort have the one thing in
common: “servant” was a polite metaphor (“artifice”) used in reference to a superior. In
a similar fashion, the term “lord” in the Lachish and Arad letters is freed from its meaning
of “ruler, a person of the nobility” to become simply a title of respect. Ultimately, the
term “servant” is used to replace the first person personal pronoun, “I”. This is in
contrast with the use of “servant” in the seals, where status is the focus (the right to own,
to witness, to buy and sell, to prove identity, and to prove status even if it is derived status
such as an official of a ruler).
The varied situations in the Hebrew Bible in which the metaphorical use of
“slave/servant” (‘ebed [m],’amah[f]) is found are in keeping with the use of “servant” in the
letters just discussed. It is used of significant people (“the servant of Yahweh” – e.g.
David [Psalm 89], Abraham [Psalm 105:6], Moses [Deuteronomy 34:5], prophets
[Jeremiah 44:4]); by worshippers in the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 119 [many times]; Psalm 86:2,
4, 16); in Genesis 33 of Jacob before his brother and equal, Esau; and for low status
people before a high status person (e.g. Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2-3 [’amah]; Ziba to King
David in 2 Samuel 9 [‘ebed]). In the Books of 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings, officials,
courtiers and ordinary people are often described as “servants” of the king, and soldiers
as “servants” of their leader. Subjugated peoples to Israel are also described as “serving”
the Israelite king (e.g. 2 Samuel 8:2, 6, 14; Psalm 18:44; 2 Kings 24:1). 14 Except for
subjugated peoples, the common idea in this use of “servant” is “deference”. Lesser
14 For lists and discussions on the uses of ‘ebed and ’amah in the Hebrew Bible, see Brown et al 1979: 712715; Zimmerli and Jeremias 1965: 11-36; See also, for Genesis-Deuteronomy, Haas 2003: 778-783.
Humanity 2008
7
status persons are narrated as using the title, “your servant”, as a polite, deferential
replacement for “I”. The biblical narrators themselves used “servant” as a cover-all term
for anyone of lesser status to the (usually high profile) character in focus at the time of
use.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the metaphoric use of servile terms by people in the ANE for titles and
self-designation to others is simply an “artifice” of politeness. In this use, the meaning of
the terms has moved from the literal meaning, “slave”, to denote status. The status is
real, emphasised by the seal inscriptions, but derived through loyalty, emphasised by
ancient letters. Yet, in the latter, servile submissiveness is not connoted: “servant” has
become a polite metaphor for the first person personal pronoun “I”, a use found in many
contexts of the metaphorical use of “servant” in the Hebrew Bible.
It is concluded that the self-designation, “slave/servant” is a metaphoric artifice
used by people in the ANE to claim status before a higher power by means of the
connotation that they are obedient to that higher power.
8
Eddie Bridge, “Enslaved to an Artifice”
WORKS CITED
Alfödy, G. The Social History of Rome, Trans. D. Braund & F. Pollock. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Aharoni, Y. et al. Arad inscriptions Trans. Judith Ben-Or. Ed. & rev. Anson F. Rainey.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981.
Avigad, N. Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive Qedem 4, Monographs of the
Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1976.
—
“The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Religion and
Society” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Eds P.D.
Miller Jr, P.D. Hanson, S.D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. 195-208.
Baines, J. “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context” King and
Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceeding of the Oxford Old Testament
Seminar, JSOTSS 270. Ed. J. Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. 1653.
Baker, H.D. “Degrees of Freedom: slavery in mid-first Millennium BC Babylonia.” World
Archaeology 33, (2001): 18-26.
Bakir, A.E-M. Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt, ASALE Supp 18, Cairo: De L’Institut Français
D’Archéologie Orientale, 1952.
Bartchy, S.S. “Mallon chrēsai: first-century slavery and the interpretation of 1 Corinthians
7:21” SBLDS 11. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature 1973.
—
“Slavery (Greco-Roman)” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, Eds D.N. Freedman et al..
New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell 1992. 65-73.
Blunck, J. “Freedom” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, Ed. C.
Brown. Carlisle : Paternoster, 1986. 715-721.
Brown, F., Driver, S.R., Briggs, C.A., Gesenius, W. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew-English Lexicon, Peabody: Hendrickson 1979 [1907].
Callender, D.E. Jr. “Servants of God(s) and Servants of Kings in Israel and the Ancient
Near East” Semeia 83/84, (1998): 67-83.
Dandamaev, M.A. “Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy” The Cambridge Ancient History
Volume vol III, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 252-275.
Davies, G.I., assisted by Bockmuehl, M.N.A., deLacy, D.R., Poulter, A.J. Ancient Hebrew
Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Day, J., “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy” King and Messiah in Israel
and the Ancient Near East: Proceeding of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOTSS 270
Ed. J. Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. 72-90.
de Vos, C.S. “The Significance of the Change from οι̉κος to οι̉κία in Luke’s Account of
the Philippian gaoler (Acts 16:30-4)” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 292-296.
Diakonoff, I.M. (ed.) Ancient History: Non-slave Labor in Antiquity (Ancient Near East),
Edinburgh: International Economic History Association, 1978.
Humanity 2008
9
Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., Roberts, J.J.M., Seow, C.L., Whitaker, R.E. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts
from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance, New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005.
Finley, M.I. “Was Greek Civilisation based on Slave Labour?” Historica 8, 145-164. Repr
in: Finley, M.I. (ed) 1974, Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversy, Heffer
Cambridge, 1959. 53-73.
Frankfort, H. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of
Society and Nature Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
Garnsey, P. Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Gerhardsson, B. “Eleutheria (‘Freedom’) in the Bible” Scripture: Meaning and Method: Essays
Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hansen. Ed. B.P. Thompson. Hull: Hull University Press,
1987. 3-23.
Grayson, A.K. “Assyrian Civilisation” The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.III, Part 2,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991: 194-228.
Gurney, O.R. “Hittite Kingship” Myth, Ritual and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of
Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel Ed. S.H. Hook. Oxford: Clarendon,
1958. 105-121.
Haas, C.H. “Slave, Slavery” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch Eds T.D. Alexander &
D.W. Baker. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 2003. 778-783.
Hallo, W.W. “Seal Inscriptions” Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, ed.
B. Buchanan, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. 440-462.
Hallo, W.W., Simpson, W.K. The Ancient Near East: A History, New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, n.d..
Hanson, K.C., A Passover Letter,
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/passover.html viewed 14
February 2008.
Horsley, R.A. “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and their Reluctant Recognition
by Modern Scholars” Semeia 83/84, (1998): 19-66.
Keel, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of
Psalms Trans. T.J. Hallett. New York: Seabury Press, 1978.
Kraeling, E.M. Brooklyn Museum Aramaic papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from
the Jewish Colony at Elephantine New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Lambert, W.G. “Dingir.sa.dib.ba Incantations”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 33, (1974):
267-270, 272-322.
—
“Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia” King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near
East: Proceeding of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. JSOTSS 270. Ed. J. Day.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. 53-70.
Lyall, F. “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul: The Slave and the Freedman” New
Testament Studies 17 (1970): 73-79.
Malina, Bruce J. “Freedom: a Theological Inquiry into the Dimensions of a Symbol”
Biblical Theological Bulletin 8, (1978): 62-75.
10
Eddie Bridge, “Enslaved to an Artifice”
Martin, D.B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1990.
McGuire, G., Briggs, R.D. (eds) Organisation of Power: Aspects of bureaucracy in the Ancient
Near East Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisations 46, Chicago: Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago, 1991.
Mendelsohn, I. Slavery in the Ancient Near East New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.
Osiek C. “Slavery in the Second Testament World” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22, (1992):
174-179.
Osiek, C., Balch, D.L. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches
Louisville: The Family, Religion and Culture, Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Plato Laws: with an English Translation Loeb Classical Library (2 vols). Trans. R. Bury.
London: Heinemann, 1926.
—
The Republic: with an English Translation Loeb Classical Library (2 vols). Trans. P.
Shorey. Cambridge: Heinemann, Harvard University, 1930-1935.
Porten, B. (ed. and trans.), Jews of Elephantine and Arameans on Syene: Aramaic Texts with
Translations Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1976
—
Semeia 83/84, 1998.
Smith, S. “The Practice of Kingship in Early Semitic Kingdoms” Myth, Ritual, and Kingship:
Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel Ed.
S.H. Hooke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. 22-73.
Snell, D.C. Life in the Ancient Near East 3100-332 B.C.E. New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 1997.
—
Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East Brill, Leiden: Culture & History of the
ANE, 2001.
Vogt, J. Ancient slavery and the ideal of man Trans. T. Wiedemann. Oxford: Blackwell,
Oxford, 1974 [1972].
Westermann, W.L. “Athenaeus and the Slaves of Athens” Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology Supp. Vol., 1941, 451-470. Repr in: Studies in Ancient Society Ed. Finley,
M.I.. London; Boston: Routledge, K. Paul, 1974. 73-92.
—
“Slavery and the Elements of Freedom in Ancient Greece” Quarterly Bulletin of the
Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, Jan (1943):1-16. . Repr in: Studies in
Ancient Society Ed. Finley, M.I.. London; Boston: Routledge, K. Paul, 1974. 17-32.
Wiedemann, T.E.J. Greek and Roman Slavery: A Source Book London; Baltimore: Routledge;
John Hopkins University Press, 1981.
Zimmerli, W., Jeremias, J. The Servant of God SBT. Transs, H. Knight, J. Jeremias and
others. London: Student Christian Movement.
Humanity 2008
11