Professor thompson ok, remember how we were talking about proslavery views. But especially talking about how they use the bible. Picking up on the last one as a way to talk about something that is going to happen in the africanamerican experience, especially as they read to read the bible themselves. The conflated story, the mark of cain, the curse of ham. We did not talk about, because the reader does not pull those text together the tower of babel is often used to talk about what you have different races of people. So, i am adding that one in. It is an example of a way you can understand difference, the different races that exist. This is a whole code for households, women and children but included in that is slaves. Included in that, slaves being obedient to their masters. The first pass a job timothy is the person the first passage of timothy is the same. How to be a good slave. And then there is a code for how to treat slaves. In the argument, if slavery is being talked about, it is clearly being defended, right . If god did not want slavery to exist, slavery would have been moved or condemned. They would also use this as an example. We talked about this in a thin way on monday. I wanted to come back for what we are doing next. In this letter, paul has a slave who has come to him, run away from his master. It is a great way in a lot of ways cussed the slave is taking stuff from the master. The slave has run away, has come to paul. Paul writes a letter back and sends it with him back to the slaveholder. Often the way this letter is used is to say paul had seen slavery as morally reprehensible if the slave runs to you just keep him, right . Dont send them back to the slave owner. What happens in the text is interesting. If you go to verse 15, i want you to hear this. Paul writes, perhaps this is the reason he separated from you for a while the idea of running away so that you might have him back forever. Verse 16 says, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, that how much more to you . The reason i want you to Pay Attention to those two versus, how you read the text has to do with how you are experiencing this issue of slavery. If you are a slaveholder, you might put more emphasis on, so that you may have him back forever. But if you are a slave, what you might hear is this part no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother. See how that one passage can actually work in two different direct shins except the person two Different Directions, except the person doing the interpreting things the other direction is not right. The slave owner says this clearly says that slavery should exist. Paul sends the slave back to the slaveholder. Clearly slavery is not morally reprehensible. Generally speaking, slaves will not use this text as a defense right . But i wanted you to hear that not as a slave. More than a slave. A beloved brother, right . This passage, this text has the ability to work in two Different Directions. I am highlighting this point. You read it for class on monday. I am not going to read the whole thing. What i want you to Pay Attention to are the highlights. De biwows reasoning would be perfectly fair if the bible taught nothing about the subject of slavery. Abolitionists were arguing that the bible called it morally reprehensible, but they argued it not from a biblical perspective. The rider, an anonymous rider says the bible does have some to say about slavery. This idea of production from general principle is an important interpretive move. So, heres how you would do this. If you are making a general argument about morally slavery might be morally reprehensible more than a slave in the text. Make sense . What youre pointing to is it does not say slavery says you should get rid of it. But paul makes an argument bigger right . No longer as a slave. He is a brother. He is an equal. So, by the way, slaves will argue, no, that is not what is stated. The reason that is important is slaves became part of a process within the evangelical movement for why reading matter. So, we are when to talk about it. Some of it you already know. Im refreshing your memory. And i am pulling forward a little bit. So, early on in the 18th century, slave owners have an uncomfortable relationship with evangelical christianity. You somehow christen them as babies. Generally, talk about them as having a born again experience. It means that you have a social standing. You are given equality with your slave masters. So they would have a hard time with christianity, or at least the idea that their slaves could participate in the evangelical movement. Either way evangelicalism puts a strain on christianity. In culpeper, virginia, you have slaves being able to bring their slave masters up on charges. They had violated them, done harm to them, asked them to work on the sabbath, which would be a good charge to bring forward being asked to work on the sabbath, the sabbath is the dale of day of rest. Evangelicalism allows them to stand on either equal footing. That is the direct link. The indirect one is coming. At most in the 19th century and it is about the power of reading. Lots of focus on literacy. If a book matters, youve got to be able to read it. If the word is inspired, the word is of god, its important work and you have to be able to read it. The reason i use inspired, the holy spirit is actually helping the reader understand. What happens in the evangelical move, who has control over what the bible says . The reader. Because the reader is being inspired by god through the holy spirit. This use of literacy, the ability to read matter. It caused great strain for southerners, in particular when slaves were able to read the text and interpret it for themselves, which is why during the 19th century you are going to see a whole series of laws for bidding slaves from learning how to read. That is connected. The reason you want to keep slaves from being able to read is they might be able to, one, understand the idea of freedom but also in this particular case, they could interpret the bible. We talked about this before. Exodus becomes a prime example of this. Slave owners in the 19th century to come uncomfortable with the book. Exit is 21 sets exit usodus 21 except slaves saw a much Bigger Picture. The Bigger Picture is that a group of slaves, people anointed by god, called out by god, aren slaved by an oppressive master. God calls out a leader. The leader comes to the master, requiring that the slave be set free, and the slaves are instructed to take from their age and neighbors remember the golden calf . They are taking it. Right . And so, they end up out in the wilderness and god apparently has chosen slaves to side with. Why this is a problem . This is a deductive argument. You read it in big terms, big story, big narrative, and you understand this. Me as a slave. The work can only the justified in two Different Directions. The reason the production argument is going to be important is we are going to turn to galatians, the letter to the galatians, and am going to spend some time talking to you about the way in which one particular verse is going to become important for the abolition movement. Remember, i told you particularly in the American South, if you want to win an argument using the bible, what have you got to be able to do . You got to be able to read it, but youve got to be able to line up your text. The number of text. If i have more texts to talk about slavery, and you do not, who wins the argument . I do. Or whoever is talking about slavery. This is the passage i want you to take a look at. In galatians Chapter Three verses 27 and 28. Read all of this. I will talk more about galatians broadly. There is no longer jew or greek, there is no longer slave or free there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in christs jesus. So, here is an argument for why slavery might be morally reprehensible. In christ, there is no longer slave or free. It appears that paul is arguing the status that we share jew greek, slave free, even more profound male, female, all disappear under this baptism. So, if you want to work from a position of a deductive argument , you can fold into this one part of one passage. Im going to talk a little bit more about galatians. This is what you would have done in the new testament class. I want you to see the context for why that verse matters. In the letters to the galatians you have this turned quickly to chapter 1 paul an apostle sent neither by Human Commission nor human authority, but through jesus christ, god the father, and all the members of gods family who are with me in the corpus of paul letters this is an ugly opening. He is angry with them. On the surface you cant really tell that. If you were to read one of the other letters, particularly the church at philippi, he spends a lot of time talking about how much he loves them, right . There is this long opening. In this letter, he goes to the chase, and he says, i have been sent by no human authority. Jesus and god, period. Why does that matter . You will get a hint of this if you look at the beginning of the chapter i pointed you to Chapter Three. It begins with you foolish relations. There is actually a cuss word right there. What he is saying is the galatians have been caught in an interesting struggle between jews who want christians to become jews, and paul, who if you look at his letter, argues that is not the case at all. No one is required to become age jew in order to become a christian. The church at galatia apparently have some people who have come and heard from these judaizers and they question pauls authority. After that, how does he establishes authority . God sent me. Not a flourishing opening. Letterwriting is a genre. Hes going to follow the genre. Hes going to open it, but hes going to open it in a very direct manner. He is opening up about the idea the weight i and which way in which fiath operates. Way in which faith operates. Why . Because people are attacking his authority using barriers. He is pushing the idea in which faith moves us in a direction in part Holding Together this idea of unity. So when you get to verses 26 tray 7 26, 28, 27 excuse me, he is building to this moment where he can make the claim there is no longer slave or free. Slaveholder will not want that verse being repeated. Or and this is likely the case he slaveholder will say this is not the slavery he is talking about. The important part for you is, that is an interpretive move. The interpreter, the person making the interpretation is reading the text and making it makes sense to the world they think they already understand. So, the slaves may read the text and say, this is an example. Under christ, we are all equal. Early evangelicals made that same argument. By the middle of the 19th century, that argument was no longer being made, so it was a way of changing the way the text was being understood. De bow this is whats article is trying to argue again. This is what de bows article is trying to argue again. Slaveholders are arguing you cannot do that. This is a version of the word of god. If you make an argument in general principle of something that is not being stated, then you have done harm to the text. Slaves generally had a different experience, and they are different experience suggested they were going to read the text differently from their slaveholder masters. So, im going to give you a brief history. Its a brief history august the about the way in which christianity and slave life has been argued about or argued over. For the middle of the 20th century, for the most part historians have argued that slaves simply took on the forms of christianity they encountered. When they encounter the baptists they took on the baptist form. When they encountered methodists they took on the methodist form. Slaves played no role in the faith they would develop. In the mid20th century, sociologist, more than historian , a guy named herz noia argued that slaves brought significant religious life out of africa into the slave experience, and if you Pay Attention you will see that they were adapting making changes, even if scholars had not noticed. So in the middle of the 20th century, there had been a move in the direction of arguing for slaves rights, and having this religious life herskovitz argues this is all of the americas and the caribbean islands. For the most part, we now talk about ways in which this is a dialectic or a conversation between those experiences, the religious experiences that came out of west africa, and how they formed the slave culture where they are located. So today you would have people who will still argue forcibly that slaves did not take on a form of christianity at all. They just mimicked it. Or they took it on so much that they had the extreme argument. They had become much more comfortable with the scenario that it was adaptability. People take on different characteristics and they ship them to their own purposes and means. I will give you an example. This idea of hand. There are examples of slaves who will mimic slaveowners. The whole thing. Slaves should be good and submissive slaves. There are slaves to say that. There are narrative essays written stories that have come out. I will tell you one about john jasper. The idea that slaves embodied all of this, he did not shape any part of it. However, there is a possibility of the molding and you have to Pay Attention to the people individually and how they are doing this. And i will give you an example of how a text can be read in two different ways even if their experiences the same. Here is the point. Slaves do not have all of the same experiences across the board. So, john jasper. I will give you some Background Information on him. He is a preacher in the areas west of richmond, virginia. He is a slave. But he becomes famous or notorious one or the other as a funeral preacher. So, in the middle of the 19th century, there is an adaptation that is going on. You were able to move between plantations fairly easily up through about 1830. You could move from one plantation to another. You might have to fill up paperwork while you are doing it , but you have that ability, you could move from place to place. Jasper grows up in that sort of world and that changes when more restrictions are placed on him. He becomes an important funeral preacher. If you ever encounter him most of you wont he is noted because he preaches to white audiences. That is a big deal. So, an example of why slavery is not a bad thing is you have a slave preacher who preaches to white audiences and in good evangelical mode, he apparently had the ability to slay people. He could preach and they would fall out. They were moved by the spirit. Here are of that revival language we have in using . And his favorite passage was out of revelations chapter six verses one and two. Then i saw the lamb opened one of the seven seals and i heard one of the four living creatures call out as with a voice of thunder, come. I looked and i saw there was a white horse. A bow was given to him and he came out conquering and to conquer. Here the text seems fairly straightforward. This is revelations. We talked about this. Different periods used revelations in different ways. He was essentially preaching a funeral sermon based on the idea of resurrection. What happens when the kingdom comes. Jasper appears to have been very comfortable within the slave system. Here is what is interesting about him. He lived into the 20th century 1901. You can actually trace out his life into out of slavery into a pre. And his into a preperiod and post reconstruction period. He will have a deferential response to slaveowners. Often saying things like, without slavery i would not having counted the gospel of jesus christ. This works. Historians would often talk about that as a mimicking. He just takes on what the slave owner and has argued for and therefore has no role to play in the space that he is shaped by. If that is the dos ill slave the other one is a rebellious slave, and that is if that is a docile slave, the other one is a rebellious slave, and that is not turner. Net turner is a slave preacher in virginia. In the 1820s and 1830s, he has free reign in a Little County in the southeast called southhampton, virginia, and he is able to move around between plantations and in this ability he pulls together a group of slaves to agree to throw off their slaveowners. They are going to rise up in rebellion. But he also is an evangelical preacher, and so, we spent the last several weeks talking about revivalism and the use of vision and why those are important, in part to get you to turner. What turner argued is god through the holy spirit had given him a vision about what life should be like and it wasnt slavery. In fact, the vision was take up arms, kill slave owners. In particular in virginia. So, when not turner read revelations 6 12, he saw something different. Take a look at the text again. What is he emphasizing if he is going to talk about rebellion . Take a look at it. What does it what is the emphasis on here . Here the conquer work might actually be him, right . You take on the order to conquer and kill. See how this can go . One passage can go in Different Directions east on how you are reading the text. In fact, turner has this very large vision about the way in which an uprising will occur. It is not out of the question. Haiti has already had a revolution. There is now a black state, a former slave states of the shores of the united states, and so the idea that a Slave Society could rise up and throw off its slave masters was clearly a possibility right now. I am going to be careful for a moment to talk about this as rebellion. It is in fact an act of rebellion. They do rise up. They get roughly 75 people the counselor different. It is one of the most fascinating moments in history how when he supposedly confessed it was a white man, a lawyer who wrote down the confession, so its not clear that it is turners confession some much is someone else right thing writing for him. The numbers are that about 70 people participate in the rebellion. They do in fact killed turners slave master, his wife, and children. They go to a neighboring plantation and do the exact same thing. All told, it is under 20 people who are killed. The effect of the net turner rebellion is longterm. The remainder of the antebellum period this rebellion stamps the American South and i will point out why that matters. The first thing that happens is slave features have greater restrictions placed on them. What happened, if you have the ability to move from radiation to what might you be able to do from plantation to plantation, what m