FAMILY PLOTS: BURYING SLAVES DEEP IN HISTORICAL GROUND
äºBiblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Jennifer Glancy in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Despite the anthropological identification of slavery as an anti-kinship structure, some New Testament scholars have attempted to "kin-ify" the relations between slaveholders and slaves, that is, to interpret slavery as a fictive kinship structure. Commentators on Acts of the Apostles, for example, are likely to accept the patriarchal or matriarchal right of householders to enforce decisions concerning the cultic practices of household slaves. By suggesting that the Spirit responds to the invitations of slaveholders, household by patriarchal household, Acts treats enslaved members of households as dependent bodies subjected to the intellectual and spiritual authority of slaveholders. By accepting uncritically Luke's portrait of the growth of the church, household by patriarchal household, commentators unwittingly buy into a family plot that legitimates the slaveholder's preferred vision of the household. Drawing on sources as disparate as Egyptian papyri of the Roman era and personal family history, this article challenges attempts to subsume relationships of slavery within the warm circle of the family. At the same time, the article warns against sentimental depictions of maternal and other family ties. In the first century as in the twenty-first century, the family could be a locus of exploitation and alienation. The natal alienation at the heart of the ancient slave experience is ultimately intertwined with the forms of alienation inherent within families themselves. It is not that relations of slavery are warmer than we might expect, but rather that relations between even the closest of kin can be more exploitative than we want to admit.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 292 | 53 | 7 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 67 | 8 | 1 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 122 | 20 | 2 |
FAMILY PLOTS: BURYING SLAVES DEEP IN HISTORICAL GROUND
äºBiblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Jennifer Glancy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Despite the anthropological identification of slavery as an anti-kinship structure, some New Testament scholars have attempted to "kin-ify" the relations between slaveholders and slaves, that is, to interpret slavery as a fictive kinship structure. Commentators on Acts of the Apostles, for example, are likely to accept the patriarchal or matriarchal right of householders to enforce decisions concerning the cultic practices of household slaves. By suggesting that the Spirit responds to the invitations of slaveholders, household by patriarchal household, Acts treats enslaved members of households as dependent bodies subjected to the intellectual and spiritual authority of slaveholders. By accepting uncritically Luke's portrait of the growth of the church, household by patriarchal household, commentators unwittingly buy into a family plot that legitimates the slaveholder's preferred vision of the household. Drawing on sources as disparate as Egyptian papyri of the Roman era and personal family history, this article challenges attempts to subsume relationships of slavery within the warm circle of the family. At the same time, the article warns against sentimental depictions of maternal and other family ties. In the first century as in the twenty-first century, the family could be a locus of exploitation and alienation. The natal alienation at the heart of the ancient slave experience is ultimately intertwined with the forms of alienation inherent within families themselves. It is not that relations of slavery are warmer than we might expect, but rather that relations between even the closest of kin can be more exploitative than we want to admit.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 292 | 53 | 7 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 67 | 8 | 1 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 122 | 20 | 2 |
