Slaves and Slavery in the Matthean Parables

Author(s): Jennifer A. Glancy

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 67-90
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267969 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 00:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 119/1 (2000) 67-90

SLAVESAND SLAVERY
IN THE MATTHEANPARABLES

JENNIFER A. GLANCY
Le MoyneCollege,Syracuse,NY13214

An inscription from Puteoli details the job description of a manceps, a

public official whose duties included torturing and even executing slaves on
demand. Privatecitizens could hire the mancepsto conduct the desired torture
of their slaves; the manceps would supply the necessary equipment, sparing
slave owners the burden of accruinghardwareof that kind themselves.1Would
a first-centuryGalilean have been aware that such an apparatusof terror sup-
ported the slave system? In the Gospel of Matthew,Jesus tells the parable of
the unmerciful slave to emphasize to his hearers the harsh treatment they may
expect from their heavenly father if they fail to extend forgiveness to others
(Matt 18:23-35). In the parable'sdenouement the master turns the unmerciful
slave over to the torturers(toiS jpaoavitoai;) until he repaysthe funds he owes
his master (Matt 18:34). Jesus does not specifywhether these torturersare pub-
lic officials or part of the master'sretinue;2since the master is himself a king,
perhaps they are both. In either case, Jesus assumes that those who hear him
are familiarwith the idea that slave owners who want to punish their slaves can
call on the services of torturers,like the manceps of Puteoli.
Slaves and slavery are ubiquitous in writings from the ancient Mediter-
raneanworld;the image of the slave awaitingor lamentingpunishment is a con-
vention, even a cliche. Not surprisingly,then, allusionsto slaves and masters are

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the March 1998 Annual Meeting of the
Mid-AtlanticAAR/SBLin New Brunswick,New Jersey.I am gratefulto ProfessorMaryMacDonald
and the Le Moyne College Faculty Senate Committee on Research and Development for summer
research support.
1 The inscription seems to date from either the period of the late Republic or the reign of
Augustus. For further details, see M. I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York:
Viking, 1980) 95; K. R. Bradley, Slaves and Mastersin the Roman Empire:A Study in Social Con-
trol (Collection Latomus 185; Brussels:Latomus, 1984) 122.
2 In the Satyricon, for example, Trimalchiohas torturerson staff. Two men with whips stand
by to punish the seemingly inept cook (Petron. Sat. 49).
67

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

common in the Gospels, especially in the parables. Slaveryin the parablestypi-

cally functions metaphorically, representing the Christian's relationship to
God.3 Perhapsbecause of this theological displacement, New Testament schol-
ars have been slow to interrogatethe ideology of slaveryin the parables.4
New Testament scholars often turn to Greco-Roman sources for back-
ground to explain certain aspects of NT texts. To do so, however, is to assume
that the study of ancient history is somehow less problematic, less contingent
on interpretation, than biblical studies.5When classicists turn to the NT, they
consider it another source of evidence concerning life during the early empire.
Classicists preceded biblical scholars in widespread recognition that the ser-
vants of the parablesare in fact slaves, and that parabolicconstructionsof slaves
and slavery supply key evidence about first-century attitudes on chattel
slavery.6
In this article I restrictmy attention to the parablesfound in Matthew and
to the form in which Matthew recounts them.7This approachallows me to con-
sider in depth the ideology of slaveryin the writing of one early Christianthe-
ologian, the evangelist Matthew.8I follow this course in order to bypass, or at
least to forestall, the well-known difficulties of determining the authenticity of
Jesus' sayings. The moral complications posed by a set of parables that re-

3Christian literatureis not unique in its reliance on slaveryas metaphor. For example, Stoic
literatureoften figures the individualas slave to passions and emotions. The parallelbetween these
metaphoric uses of slavery is noted by P. Garnsey, Ideas of Slaveryfrom Aristotle to Augustine
(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996) 16.
4 See, however, D. B. Martin'sstudy of the ideological function of the language of slaveryin
the Pauline epistles (Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphorof Slavery in Pauline Christianity [New
Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1990]).
5 Like literaryscholars, biblical scholarsoften seek to "explain"texts with reference to a his-
torical background. In doing so, they assume that this background "context"-"'the historical
milieu'-has a concreteness and an accessibilitythat the work can never have, as if it were easier to
perceive the reality of a past world put together from a thousand historicaldocuments than it is to
probe the depths of a single literarywork that is present to the critic studyingit. But the presumed
concreteness and accessibilityof historicalmilieux, these contexts of the texts that literary[and bib-
lical] scholars study, are themselves products of the fictive capability of the historians who have
studied those contexts" (H. White, Tropicsof Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism [Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1978] 89).
6 I discuss the exchange between J. Vogt and M. I. Finley concerning the laudabilityof the
parabolicfaithful slave in Section IV, "TheIdeal of the Faithful Slave."
7The context of this study is therefore researchon the "parablesof the Gospels,"rather than
research on the "parables of Jesus." For a summary of these distinctive approaches, see M. A.
Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979) 18-23.
8 The
approach of this article is ideological. I attempt a "symptomatic"reading, to adopt L.
Althusser'sterm (L. Althusserand E. Balibar,Reading Capital [London:Verso, 1970] esp. 25-30).
For a relevant discussion of the deployment of Althusseriannotions of ideology in research on the
ancient world, see V. Hunter, "Constructingthe Body of the Citizen: CorporalPunishment in Clas-
sical Athens,"Echos du Monde Classique/ClassicalViews 36, n.s. 11 (1992) 271-91.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 69

inscribe ancient assumptions about slavery exacerbate the familiar pitfalls

scholars confront in reconstructingJesus' sayings. Matthew'sparabolic repre-
sentation of slaves--especially their managerialresponsibilities and their vul-
nerabilityto corporalpunishment-is consistent with other representationsof
slaves in Roman society.9 Indeed, we have already encountered an uncanny
resemblance between the manceps of Puteoli and the torturerswho stand by in
the parable of the unmerciful slave, ready to impress a message of divine
vengeance on the body of a slave.

I. PreviousStudies of the Slave Parables

Two key studies of the slave or servant parables are Bernard Brandon
Scott'streatment of the servantparablesin Hear Then the Parable, and an arti-
cle by MaryAnn Beavis entitled "AncientSlaveryas an InterpretiveContext for
the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust
Steward(Luke 16:1-8)."1o
Scott situates parabolicmaster-servantrelationshipsin the anthropologi-
cal rubric of patron-client relationships,which were pervasive and pivotal in
the Roman world.11In Scott'sown words, a patron-client relationshipis "vol-
untary,"and "[s]olidarity is strong, and bonds extend beyond legal to even
extralegal requirements."12 Indeed, anthropologists consider the voluntary
nature of patron-client connections a core analyticcharacteristicof such rela-
tionships.13Nowhere does Scott justify his inclusion of master-slave relations

9 I rely here on the helpful formulationof an anonymousreferee atJBL.

10Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable:A
Commentaryon the Parablesof Jesus
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); MaryAnn Beavis, "AncientSlaveryas an Interpretive Context for
the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke
16:1-8)," JBL 111 (1992) 37-54. Of limited relevance for the present article are John Dominic
Crossan'sseminal studies of the servantparables("TheServantParablesof Jesus,"Semeia 1 [1974]
17-62; In Parables:The Challengeof the HistoricalJesus [New York:Harper & Row, 1973]).
11A recent trend in
parable scholarshipthat claims to situate the parables in the context of
first-centuryrealities nonetheless overlooksor minimizes the relevance of the institutionof slavery.
W. R. Herzog, for example, asks:"Whatif the parablesof Jesus were neither theological nor moral
stories but political and economic ones? What if the concern of the parableswas not the reign of
God but the reigning systems of oppression that dominated Palestine in the time of Jesus?"Curi-
ously, Herzog omits the institutionof slaveryfrom his catalogueof systems of oppression in the first
century (Parablesas SubversiveSpeech:Jesus as Pedagogueof the Oppressed[Louisville:Westmin-
ster/John Knox, 1994] 7). See also J. D. Hester, "Socio-RhetoricalCriticismand the Parableof the
Tenants,"JSNT45 (1992) 27-57; C. W. Hedrick,Parablesas Poetic Fictions:The Creative Voice of
Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). These studies attempt to interpret Jesus' parables
removed from the theological constraints of the Gospels. At some point, scholars who seek to
reconstructJesus'parablesmust come to terms with their pervasivereliance on the trope of slavery.
12Scott, Hear Thenthe Parable,205.
3 S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, "Patron-ClientRelationsas a Mode of StructuringSocial
Exchange,"ComparativeStudiesin Society and History 22 (1980) 47-72.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

in the patron-client rubric.14Although indisputably crucial to Roman social

relations, the patron-client relation is an unsuitable category for analysis of
slavery.The standardtreatment of patron-client relationsin the early empire is
RichardSaller'sPersonalPatronageUnderthe EarlyEmpire.15He excludes
from his study patronage of freedpersons "on the ground that, in being subject
to legal regulation, it differed fundamentally from voluntary associations
between freeborn men."'16Still less is the rubric of patronage an appropriate
basis for the investigation of involuntary,legally regulated slavery.7 Despite
certain similarities (e.g., the asymmetry of power relations), a slave is not a
client, and an owner is not a patron.18By collapsing master-slave relations into
patron-client relations Scott distortsthe parabolicrepresentationof slavery.19
Unlike earlier treatments of slavery in the parables, Beavis'swork takes
advantage of recent developments among classicists in the study of ancient
slavery.20Nonetheless, her conclusions about the social functions of the para-
bles gloss over a number of difficulties in the parabolicrepresentationof slaves.
For example, additional responsibility rather than manumission is the typical
reward of the faithful parabolic slave. Beavis regards this reward as an "edify-
ing"and "distinctive"element of the parables.21However, the notion that faith-
ful slaves should welcome added duties rather than freedom does not subvert
hierarchicalvalues, but reinforces them.22Beavis also asserts that the parables

14 In response to Scott, Beavis rightly objects that "the translation of 8oiXo; as 'servant'
rather than 'slave' or 'bondsperson'downplaysthe servile status of the parabolicactors and, in cer-
tain instances, leads to interpretations that do not fully comprehend the probable response of
ancient audiences to the parables."However, she concedes to Scott that "thepatron-client relation
was the backbone of Greco-Roman society, and it neatly subsumes all the NT parables of inequal-
ity"(Beavis, "AncientSlavery,"40).
15R. Sailer,PersonalPatronage Underthe Early Empire (Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press, 1982).
16Ibid., vii.
17 I thank Professor Richard Saller for responding to my query on this point. Private corre-
spondence, December 10, 1997.
18 Sailer acknowledges, for example, that a slave or freedperson could perform a beneficium,
a kindness or favor, for an owner (or former owner). However, he recognizes this possibility as he
catalogues instances of beneficium outside the parametersof patron-client relations. For example,
Saller writes, "A new husband, having been given his wife's virginity, was said to be beneficio
obstrictus"(Saller, PersonalPatronage, 17-18, 24).
19I return to the relevance of the patron-client rubricin Section III, "ManagerialSlaves."
20
In other areas of biblical studies scholars have begun to draw on the recent flowering of
research on slavery in the field of classics. See, e.g., J. M. G. Barclay, "Paul, Philemon, and the
Dilemma of ChristianSlave-Ownership,"NTS 37 (1991) 161-86; J. A. Harrill,The Manumissionof
Slaves in Early Christianity (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995); J. A. Glancy, "The Mistress-Slave
Dialectic: Readings of Three LXX Narratives,"JSOT72 (1996) 71-87; eadem, "Obstaclesto Slaves'
Participationin the CorinthianChurch,"JBL117 (1998) 481-501.
21 Beavis, "Ancient
Slavery,"43, 54.
22 I return to Beavis'streatment of this theme in Section IV, "The Ideal of the Faithful Slave."

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 71

are distinctive in portrayingslaves "as moral agents, capable of making ethical

choices over and above simple obedience to their masters (e.g., the unmerciful
servant, the barren fig tree)-a status seldom accorded to slaves in other
ancient literature."23But the literature that Beavis cites, from Plautus to the
Life of Aesop, consistently portrays slaves as moral agents, albeit ones who
make bad as well as good moral choices. As Seneca argues, "Virtuecloses the
door to no man; it is open to all, admits all, invites all, the freeborn and the
freedman, the slave and the king. It is possible for a slave to be just, it is pos-
....
sible for him to be brave, it is possible for him to be magnanimous"(Sen. Ben.
3.18.2, 4).24 Despite Beavis's claim, recognition of the moral capabilities of
slaves does not distinguish the parables from other ancient writings. Beavis
concludes: "The slave parables, then, do not directly attack the institution of
slavery,but their tendency to dignifythe role of the slave and to suggest that the
slave owner identify with his/her human propertymight have been perceived as
radicalsocial teaching by ancient audiences."25I disagree. At least in Matthew,
the parabolicrepresentationof slaves and slaveryparticipatesin and reinscribes
the most basic and problematic elements of the ancient ideology of slavery.
Furthermore, acknowledgment of this vexed context is helpful in resolving
some persistent puzzles of parableinterpretation.

II. Slaves and Slaveryin MattheanParables

What assumptions about slaves and slavery are implicit in the Matthean
parables? In keeping with their laconic style, the parables supply few details
about the slaves they represent. The reader may nonetheless make some infer-
ences about the nature of their work. The slaves who approach the master in
the parable of the weeds and wheat (13:24-30) are agriculturalslaves. In the
parables of the wicked tenants (21:33-41) and the wedding banquet (22:1-10),
slaves serve as messengers or emissaries. Since the master expects the slaves in
the parable of the wicked tenants to returnwith the rent, it may also be that he
entrusts them with handling his funds. Although there are no clear indications
regardingthe work of the unmercifulslave (or the slave he abuses), the magni-
tude of his debt to his owner suggests that he is deeply involved in household
financial affairs (18:23-35). To lesser but still significant degrees the slaves in
the parable of the talents (25:14-36) serve as their master'sfinancial agents.
Finally, the master in the parable of the overseer (24:45-51) entrusts the
enslaved overseer with managing an importantpart of his property:his other
slaves. The assortment of work performed by these parabolic slaves is heavily

23Beavis, "Ancient
Slavery,"54.
24
Quotations from Seneca's De Beneficiis are from the translationby J. W. Basore, Seneca:
Moral Essays (LCL; Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1935/1964).
25Beavis, "AncientSlavery,"54.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
skewed toward managerialtasks. While it was not uncommon for slaves to fill
such roles, the majorityof slaves in the early empire labored at more onerous
tasks, ranging from mining to attending to their owners' bodily needs. None-
theless, those we are labeling as managerialslaves constituted the most visible
sector of slaves in Greco-Romansociety.
Managerial slaves worked in close proximity to their owners, who were
thus acutely aware of the quality of their work. Not surprisingly,the theme of
the faithful slave emerges in several of the parables,notablythe parablesof the
overseer and the talents. Both of these parablescontrastthe exemplarywork of
the faithful slave with the flawed work of the wicked slave.
Despite the relativelyprestigiouswork of these slaves, they are subject to
corporal punishment. The master of the unmerciful slave hands him over to
torturers,the wicked overseer is cut in half, and the slave entrusted with a sin-
gle talent is expelled into the outer darkness.The punishments of the overseer
and the slave entrusted with a single talent fuse the theme of corporalpunish-
ment of the slave with the Matthean leitmotif of punishment at the time of
judgment, "weeping and gnashing of teeth." All three parables are predicated
on the widespread trope of the slave as a body awaitingdiscipline, even (or per-
haps especially) when that slave has been a trusted manager.Other slaves in the
Matthean parables are also subject to corporal mistreatment. The unmerciful
slave seizes his fellow slave and imprisons him; the wicked overseer beats his
master's other slaves. Even the enslaved emissaries in the parables of the
wicked tenants and the wedding banquet meet physicalviolation to the point of
death, although the agents of that treatment are not their owners but the
owner's tenants and associates. The representation of the slave's body as the
locus of abuse is thus pervasivein the Mattheanparables,constituting the most
prominent aspect of Matthew'sideology of slavery.
The table on the followingpage offers an overview of the principalthemes
of Matthew'sparabolic representation of slaves, which we consider in greater
detail in succeeding sections.

III. ManagerialSlaves
How does the parabolic representation of managerial slaves affect our
understanding of the practice and ideology of slaveryin the first century? We
may read several of the Mattheanparablesas vignettes sketching the route that
slaves often took to increasing responsibilityand influence. The parable of the
overseer and the parable of the talents feature slaves whose competent or
exceptional discharge of managerial responsibilities brings them an enlarged
role in the management of the master'shousehold. The parableof the unmerci-
ful slave gestures towardthe heights that elite slaves could reach:the unmerci-
ful slave apparentlyhas access to his royalmaster'sresources, to the extent that
he eventually accrues a vast debt to his owner totaling ten thousand talents.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:SlavesandSlavery 73

Althoughmodem readersmayfindthese detailsof ancientslaverysurprising,

Matthewin no wayindicatesthattheseslavesareatypical.Rather,his parabolic
slavespersonifyfirst-century
stereotypesof managerial
slaves.

PrincipalThemesof Matthew's
ParabolicRepresentations
of Slaves

slaves
Managerial Faithfulslavel Slavebodyas site of
wickedslave abuse/discipline
Weedsandwheat
(13:24-30)

Unmercifulslave X X
(18:23-35)

Wickedtenants X X
(21:33-41)

Weddingbanquet X
(22:1-10)

Overseer X X X
(24:45-51)

Talents X X X
(25:14-30)

Do these parablestell slavesuccessstories,offeringevidencethatslavery

could serve as a positiverouteto advancementin the ancientworld?In one
sense we may respond affirmatively.The Mattheanparablesdepict slaves who
enhancetheirownpositionsbydiligentlypursuingtheirowners'interests.Atthe
same time, however, every Matthean parable that features a managerialslave
also highlights the vulnerabilityof such slaves to physical abuse. An elite slave
may eventually have sufficient access to his owner's estate to accrue an enor-
mousdebtof ten thousandtalents,but sucha high-placedslavestillknowsthat
his masterhasabsoluterightsoverhisbody,rightsthatincludethe prerogatives
of torturinghim or sellinghimandhis familyintoa harsherslavery.Parabolic
mastersdispleasedwiththe workof theirmanagerial slavescouldexpressthat
displeasureviaa rangeof bodilypunishmentsrangingfromdismemberment to
banishment(whichfirst-century readersmightassociatewithfamiliarexilesof
slavery,includingimprisonment or saleintodistantslavery).The masterin the
parableof the wickedtenantsassumesthathis tenantswillnot dareto treathis
son in the bloodymannerin whichtheyhavetreatedthe enslavedagentswho

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
function as his legal surrogates,hinting that managerialslaves worked in a cli-
mate of disrespect, even contempt, for their very humanity.
In Orlando Patterson'ssweeping survey of slavery around the world and
through the ages, he considers thefamilia Caesaris in the context of other cate-
gories of slaves who test the limits of what it means to be a slave: "Whatcould
an importantslave dispensatoresor freedmanprocuratorpossibly have in com-
mon with a rural slave or freedman?"26Well-placed slaves could accrue per-
sonal fortunes; because of their access to power they could develop extensive
spheres of influence. Patterson argues that despite these advantages, elite
slaves, including the enslaved members of the familia Caesaris and other
Roman managerialslaves, still fall within the limits of his definition of slavery:
"slaveryis thepermanent,violentdominationof natallyalienatedandgenerally
dishonored persons.""27In support of this contention Pattersonemphasizes that
regardless the influence and personal wealth an elite slave achieved, he (or,
of
more rarely,she) was still answerablewith his/her body:
We should be carefulnot to forget the most obviousadvantageof using
slaves:the factthattheycouldbe literallywhippedinto shape.We arelikely
to neglectthisin consideringthe elite slaves,sinceit is truethattheydidnot
have driversbehind them as they worked.Nonetheless,nakedforce did
apply.The slaveor freedmancouldnot onlybe movedaboutandusedwith-
out anyregardto his feelingson the matter,butin the eventthathe wasinef-
ficientandcorrupt,he couldbe punishedin the mostdegradingandpainful
mannerpossible.28
As evidence for the first-centurypractice and ideology of slavery,the Matthean
parables corroborate Patterson's analysis of the paradoxes of elite slavery.
Matthew does not depict slaves in the mines or the mills, or even cleaning up
their owners' wastes, onerous tasks common among first-century slaves.29
Nonetheless, his household stewardsand financialagents embody what may be
the most basic and pervasive reality of ancient slavery:the slave'sabsolute cor-
poral vulnerability.
The Matthean representationof the slave as a body to be used and abused
serves as counterevidence to the categorization of master-slave relationships

26O. Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A ComparativeStudy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1982) 299. Patterson relies on the standardtreatment of Roman imperial slaves
by P. R. C. Weaver (Familia Caesaris:A Social Study ofthe Emperor'sFreedmenand Slaves [Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1972]).
27Patterson,
Slavery, 13.
28Ibid., 303.
29
See, for example, Apuleius'sdescription of slaves treated like animalsin a mill (Met. 9.12),
or Juvenal'scasual reference to a slave's mundane task of scooping up dog refuse from a hallway
(Satires 14.65-67). See also K. Hopkins'svivid descriptionof domestic slaves as body slaves ("Novel
Evidence for Roman Slavery,"Past and Present 138 [1993] 3-27).

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 75

within the patron-client rubric.I have alreadycommented on Scott'sanalysisof

the so-called servantparablesin this context. However,the assumptionthat the
network of patron-client relations offers a satisfactorycontext for understand-
ing slavery--especially among the managerial elite-is influential in other
areas of NT studies as well. In his treatment of the ideology of slavery in the
Pauline epistles, for example, Dale Martin elides the differences between
patrons and slave owners, clients and slaves. After noting a number of similari-
ties between the upward mobility of managerialslaves and the mechanics of
Roman patronage,he asserts:
These examplesshowthatslavery,especiallyhigher-and middle-levelslav-
ery,was partof the widersocialstructureof patron-clientobligationsand
benefits.Anindividual'saccessto powerandsocialprogressdependedmore
than anythingelse on her or his connectionsto someonehigherup in the
socialpyramid.In thisregard,slaveswerein muchthe samesituationas free
people, exceptthat in their ownerthey had a built-inpatron.In orderto
understand the dynamicsof Greco-Roman slavery,therefore,we mustrecog-
nizethatit functionedwithinthe dynamicsof Greco-Roman patronage.30
Although Martin does not cite them, the Matthean parables would offer
support for his interpretationof first-centuryslavery,since they specify some of
the means by which elite slaves acquiredinfluence and resources. At the same
time, however, the Matthean parables clarify the limits of that interpretation.
In the parable of the talents, the faithful slaves may be proud to advance their
owner's interests, but they should certainlybe fearful of the punishment that
awaitsthem should they fail to do so. In the parableof the unmerciful slave, the
king may have helped the unmercifulslave to accrue a personal fortune, but the
king functions not as a patron but as a man with the power to hand his slave
over to torturers.The analogy between slaveryand the patron-client network
breaks down at the considerationof the slave as a body, in particulara body to
be disciplined, which indeed is the most consistent element in ancient repre-
sentations of slaves, includingthe Mattheanparables.31

30 Martin, Slavery, 25-26. Martin argues persuasively that for a small but visible sector of
elite, managerial slaves, the institution of slavery could serve as a conduit for a kind of upward
mobility. Nonetheless, to locate the relationshipsof these elite slaveswith their owners in the con-
text of patron-client networksdistortsour understandingsof the practice and ideology of slaveryin
the first century. Martin implies, for example, that patron-client networks and ideology explain
"lackof revolutionarysentiment and activityamong slaves."He then quotes J. D'Arms:"'fromthe
emperor on down, patron-client ties had an integrating effect, promoting cohesion vertically
between groups of differing rank and status, and inhibiting class-consciousness and horizontal
group action'" (Martin, Slavery, 29). This quotation, however, is D'Arms's summary of what he
labels R. Saller's"anthropologicalfunctionalism";neither Sailer nor D'Arms includes the enslaved
population in this vision of cohesiveness (J. H. D'Arms, review of Personal Patronage under the
Early Empire by R. Sailer, CP 81 [1986] 95-98, esp. 95).
31 As Bradleynotes, "Theimpressionis firm that physicalpunishments meted out to slaves
by

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
IV. The Idealof the FaithfulSlave
How does the parabolicthemeof the faithfulslaveaffectourunderstand-
ing the practiceandideologyof slaveryin the firstcentury?Jesusbeginsthe
of
parableof the overseerwitha relatedquestion:"Whothen is the faithfuland
wise slave,whomthe masterput in chargeof his household,to give themtheir
food at the appropriatetime?"(24:45).Fromthe outset,the faithfulslavehas
his owner'strust.32The slavemeritspraiseas faithfulsimplyby completinghis
duties,workingdiligentlyin his master'sabsence.Otherslavesappearin the
parable,receivingtheir rationsfromthe overseerand later sufferingabuse
fromthe wickedslave;althoughthe parabledoesnot suggestthattheyareneg-
ligentin theirduties,theirmasterdoes not singlethemout for faithfulness.In
the parableof the talents,the masteracknowledgestwo of his slaveswith the
phrase,"Welldone,goodandfaithfulslave"(25:21,23). Asin the parableof the
overseer,the masterentruststhem with propertyin his absence.In fact, the
masterentruststhem with considerableproperty,the respectivesumsof five
talents and two talents.Theiraccomplishmentsare greaterthan that of the
faithfuloverseer,sincethey go beyondsafeguarding theirmaster'spropertyto
doublethe sumswithwhichtheyareentrusted.Bothparablesseem to assume
thata faithfulslaveis one whooccupiesa managerial positionandhasmoreover
internalizedthe master'sintereststo the extentthat he willworkunsupervised
when his masteris away.Slavemoralityis inextricably identifiedwiththe mas-
ter'sinterests.In returnfortheirlabors,these faithfulslavesreceiveadditional
responsibility.The faithfuloverseerwill have oversightof his master'sentire
estate(24:47);the firsttwo slavesin the parableof the talentswillhavecareof
manyof theirmaster'saffairs(25:21,23). Eventheirrewardsforwardtheirmas-
ter'sconcerns.
We mightequallywell ask,who is the wickedslave?In the parableof the
overseer, the wicked slave abuses the property with which he has been
entrusted.He beatshis fellowslaves.It seems he openshis master'sstoresof
food and drinkto his gluttonousfriends(24:49).In the parableof the talents,
however,the wickedslave does not abusehis master'sproperty,but neither
doeshe workassiduouslyforhis master.Rather,he storesthe goodswithwhich
he has been entrusted,the singletalent(stilla considerablesum).Jesusdoes
notconsiderthe possibilitythatthe slave'smoraloptionsareseparablefromthe
master'sinterests.In bothparables,physicalabuseis the punishmentforharm-
ing, or even failingto increase,the master'sproperty.The wickedoverseeris
dismembered,andthe lucklessslavewitha singletalentis banishedto a place
of torment.

theirownerswereconsistentlybrutal,showedlittlechangeoverthe courseof time,andwere not

altered by any distinctions of status among the servile population as a whole" (Slaves, 137).
32 All the slaves in the parables seem to be male, as do all the owners.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 77

Considerationof the motifof the wickedslaveleadsto a furtherinsight

concerningthe idealof the faithfulslave.The thirdslavein the parableof the
talentsexplainsto his ownerthat he has buriedhis single talentbecausehis
masteris a harshman,whomhe fears.Althoughthe faithfulslavesdo notiden-
tify fear as a motivation,surelythey are awarethat vulnerabilityto physical
abuseis inherentin the situationof the slave.In the wordsof RichardSailer,
"thelot of badslaveswasto be beatenandthatof goodslaveswasto internalize
the constantthreatof a beating."33 By concludingwith examplesof wicked
slavesenduringcorporalpunishment,the parablesalludeto whatis probably
the strongestincentiveslaveshadforloyaltyto theirowners,thatis, the fearof
disciplinary retribution.4
JosephVogtcites the parablesas the culminationof his discussionof the
ideal of the faithfulslave:"Thistransformation of the faithfulslaveinto one
who does nothingparticularlyheroic, but merelyperformshis duties with
devotion,belongsnot to paganliteraturebutto the writingsof the earlyChris-
tians.... I referto the 6okoo ical ntoa6;."s For Vogt,the parabolic
dy•xay6;
enunciationof the idealof the faithfulslaveis whollypositive:"Allthatmatters
here is to recognizehow slaveshavebeen ennobledmerelyby becomingthe
symbolsof man'splacein the Kingdomof God."36 MosesI. Finleyoffersa cri-
tique of what he sees as romantic
Vogt's distortion of the faithfulslave:"Not
will
everyone rankthe creationof honourableanddecentservantsas one of the
higher goals of humanity,or accommodationto enslavement as a moral
virtue.""37Vogtand Finleyboth acknowledgethat the parabolicideal of the
faithfulslaveis significantforunderstanding the ideologyof slaveryin the early
empire.Vogt, however, construesthe parabolicelevationof servilefidelityas
confirmation of a nobleideal,whereasFinleyinsiststhatsucha construalcloaks
the exploitativenatureof exchangesbetweenmasterandslave.
Beavisassertsthat"theparablesaredistinctivein thatthe rewardoffered
to faithfulslavesis not manumission butmoretrustandresponsibility." 38How-
ever,manyslaveownersdid increasethe responsibilities of faithfulslaves,long
beforemanumitting them(andnoteveryfaithfulslaverealizedhis orherhopes

33 R. Sailer,"Corporal
Punishment, andObediencein the RomanHousehold,"
Authority, in
Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (ed. B. Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991)
144-65.
34JosephVogtnotesthatin severalplaysPlautuswritesspeechesforfaithfulslavesin which
theydiscussboththe attributes
of a goodslaveandtheirmotivation
forfidelity,notablyfearof pun-
ishment(AncientSlaveryandthe Idealof Man[Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1975]
131).
35Ibid.,141-42.
36Ibid.,145.
37Finley, Ancient Slavery, 122.
38Beavis,"Ancient 54.
Slavery,"

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

for manumission).39Most well known are the slaves of the family of Caesar,
whose increasing responsibilities also brought them increasing social influ-
ence.40 Furthermore, the Augustanreforms required slaves to reach the age of
thirty before they could be legally manumitted;numerous acts of faithful ser-
vice would necessarily precede the typical act of manumission. Ancient audi-
ences would thus realize that not every dutiful act (e.g., safeguardinga master's
property in his absence) merited instantaneousmanumission.
While ancient literatureincludes frequent allusionsto the manumissionof
faithful slaves, not every literary report of servile fidelity culminates in the
slave's manumission. In fact, three compendia of reports of faithful slaves
barely mention the potential for manumission.Seneca'sDe Beneficiis offers an
extended treatment of the exchange of favors between masters and slaves
(3.17-28). Although Seneca relates many stories of servile loyalty,only two con-
clude with the manumissionof the faithfulslave. In one of these stories, a slave
helps Rufus, his master,with a plan to appease Augustus Caesar,whom he has
offended. The plan is successful, and Rufus insists to Caesar that in order to
convince others of his restorationto Caesar'sgraces, Caesar should give him a
substantialgift. Caesar accedes to Rufus'srequest. Seneca concludes the story
with the announcement of the slave'smanumission:"Yetit was not a gratuitous
act-Caesar had paid the price of his liberty!"(3:27). Valerius Maximus and
Appian also compile accounts of servile loyalty (with some repetition among
these accounts); however, neither mentions a single instance where a master
accords a slave freedom for even heroic service (Val.Max. 6.8.1-7; App. BCiv.
4.26, 43-48). All three authors feature a number of tales where servile fidelity
costs a slave his life as he protects his master from death or dishonor.Valerius
Maximus specifies the reward of one such faithful slave. During the time of
unrest following the civil wars, a slave helped his master escape from the house
and then took the master'splace in bed, where soldiers killed him. His reward?
A monument that his master erected in his memory (Val.Max. 6.8.6).
A final tale from Valerius Maximus offers a sobering perspective on the
faithful slave.41Antius Restio had a slave whom he had punished repeatedly,
keeping him in chains, even brandinghis forehead.42Nonetheless, when Antius
came under the proscriptionof the triumvirs,the slave engineered his escape.
At one point, when soldiers pursued them, the slave built a fire and found a
hapless old man whom he threw on the fire. The slave told the soldiers that the

39 On the widespread notion that manumission is the fitting reward for faithful slaves
(although not for every dutiful act) and the divergence of that ideal from practice, see T. E. J.
Wiedemann, "The Regularityof Manumissionat Rome,"Classical Quarterly35 (1985) 162-75.
40Weaver, Familia.
41See also the version of the tale in App. BCiv. 4.43.
42 Or
perhaps the forehead of the slave was tattooed. See C. P. Jones, "STIGMA:Tattooing
and Brandingin Graeco-RomanAntiquity,"JRS77 (1987) 139-55.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 79

burningmanwashis master,AntiusRestio,andthathe hadthrownhimon the

fire on accountof his cruelty.The soldiersbelievedthe account,at least long
enoughforthe slaveto bringAntiusto safety(Val.Max.6.8.7).Evenin the case
of a harshmaster,ancientauthorsadmiredandapplaudedactsof heroicloyalty
by a slave.Perhapswe arenot so farfromthe Mattheanversionof the parable
of the talents,where a masteracknowledgedto be harshpraisesthe perfor-
manceof his faithfulslavesin increasinghiswealth.
Bothin practiceandin literaturemanyfaithfulslavesachievedmanumis-
sion;both in practiceand in literature,manyfaithfulslavesdid not achieve
manumission. The parabolicrewardof the faithfulslave-additionalresponsi-
bilityratherthanfreedom-is neitherdistinctivenorcountercultural. In order
to assuresmoothfunctioningof their households,mastersrelied on skillful
slaves.In turn,as theyundertookincreasingresponsibility, slavesoftenaccrued
personal funds and even personal influence.Such rewards were a strongposi-
tive incentiveto fidelity.On the otherhand,ever-presentthreatsof corporal
punishmentor sale into a harsherslaverywere perhapsstrongerincentives
drivingslavesto workdiligentlyon behalfof theirowners'interests.To a large
extent,the faithfulslaveis a by-productof the fearof corporalpunishment.43

V. The EnslavedBodyas the Siteof Discipline

Overall,how do the Mattheanparablesaffectour understandingof the
practiceandideologyof slaveryin the firstcentury?Againandagain,the para-
bles emphasizethe liabilityof the slave,as a body,to abuseandpunishment.
The agricultural slavesof the parableof the weedsandwheatescapethiscycle
of violence. However,everyother Mattheanparablethat featuresslavesin
either centralor supportingrolesdescribesthe physicalviolationof at least
some of thoseslaves.As in the playsof Plautus,the parablesof Matthewseem
to definea slaveas "onewho getswhipped"; the tropeof the beatenslaveis an
almostobsessiveconcern,in Matthewas in Plautus.4
So pervasiveis thisthemethatwe mayattemptseveraltaxonomiesof the
parabolicabuseof slaves.Wemayfirstcategorizethe parablesaccordingto the
agentsof abuse.The slaveowneris responsibleforphysicalabusein the guise
of disciplinein threeparables(the unmercifulslave,the overseer,andthe tal-

43 In the parables,rewardand punishment of faithfuland feckless slaves appearto be natural

consequences of the slave's actions, divertingattention from the master'scontrol of the situation.
This constructionrecalls a speech of Phaniscus,an enslaved characterin Plautus'splay Mostellaria:
'The master, I maintain,/ Reacts in the way his servants most want him to: / If they're good, he
behaves, / If they act wicked, he turns into a fiend"(lines 1114-17) (trans.P. Bovie, Mostellaria,in
Plautus:The Comedies [4 vols; ed. D. R. Slavittand P. Bovie; Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1995] 3.374).
44 See Erich Segal, Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1968) 140.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

ents). In two parables,slavesenactabuseagainstotherslaves.The unmerciful

slave seizes and tries to choke a fellow slave, and then imprisonshim; the
wickedoverseerbeatshis fellowslavesin the absenceof his master.
In the two parablesthat featureenslavedemissaries,those outside the
householdare responsiblefor the abuse.On two occasionsthe wickedtenants
beat and then kill the slavessent to collectthe rent.Apparently,the vineyard
owneraccountsforthistreatmenton the basisof the servilestatusof the emis-
saries, since he anticipatesthat the tenants will treat his son with greater
respect(21:37).In the parableof the weddingbanquetthe invitedgueststreat
the enslavedmessengerswith disrespect(i03ptoav),and ultimatelykill them
(22:6).Thesefinalexamplespointto the generaldishonoraccordedto slavesin
the first century:not only were slavesvulnerableto abuse fromwithin the
household,but they had few protectionsagainstotherswho soughtto harm
them. Sucha findingis consistentwith otherancientliterature,where slaves
areroutinelysubjectto maltreatment froma varietyof persons.
Two incidents from The GoldenAss serve as illustrations.Photis tells
Lucius of an incident in which her mistresssent her to a barber'sshop to
retrievea man'shairto use in sorcery.Whenthe barbersawher there,he felt
free to grabher roughlyandsearchher personfor snippetsof hair(Apul.Met.
3.16). In a later, complex tale of adultery,a slave owner named Barbarus
entrustshis slave Myrmexwith the protectionof his wife'schastitywhen he
leaves on a journey.Instead, Myrmexabets a man named Philesitherusin
arranginga liaisonwith the wife. Barbarusreturnsfromthe trip to find the
otherman'sslippersunderhis bed, andblamesMyrmexforthe breachof secu-
rity.Barbarusordersthe otherslavesto put Myrmexin chains,and they lead
him to the forum.WhenPhilesitherussees Myrmexthere,he remembersthe
slippersandimprovises.He approachesMyrmexandbeatshim, accusinghim
of stealinghis slippersfromthe bath.As a result,Barbarusbelievesthathe was
mistakento suspectadulteryand releasesMyrmex.Whatis relevantfor the
presentdiscussionis thatBarbarus,the slaveowner,findsnothingunusualin a
strangeraccostingandbeatinghis own slave(Apul.Met.9.17-21).45As in the
parablesof the weddingbanquetandthe wickedtenants,slavesseem to have
little protectionagainstanyonewho accoststhem. One mightalso recallthe
scene of Jesus'arrest:all fourcanonicalGospelsidentifythe manwhoseear is
cut off as a 58olo;, the slaveof the highpriest(Matt26:51;Mark14:47;Luke
22:50;John18:10).
A secondtaxonomyclassifiesthe kindsof abuseslavesendurein the para-
bles. Slavesareseized(icpazioaq,18:28;Xap6vrE;, 21:35;Kpa~ioavre;,22:6),

45 Roman law treats violence

against a slave as an insult to the owner. Moreover, violence
against a free person merits harsherlegal penalties than violence againsta slave. Ulpian even stipu-
lates that slaves involved in the meanest tasks have no legal protection from random violence or
insults. See book 47 of the Digest of ustinian, especially Dig. 47.10.15.44.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy: Slaves and Slavery 81

imprisoned (18:30); treated with dishonor (iof3ptoav,22:6), beaten (H6Etpav,

21:35; tnxrEtv, 24:49), cut in pieces 24:51), handed over to tor-
(&8torogitoet,
turers (tap•0oKev ab'rov toi; jpaoavtorai;, 18:34), consigned to a place of
"weeping and gnashingof teeth" (24:51;25:30), killed (21:35;22:6), and stoned
(21:35). Although most of these instances of abuse occur as disciplinaryaction,
in the two parableswhere slaves are killed (the parablesof the wicked tenants
and the wedding banquet) the violent encounters take place outside of the mas-
ter's household, as slaves perform duties required of them.46 This list of the
injuries to slave'sbodies is evidence of first-centuryfamiliaritywith the travails
of enslaved life; however,it does not reallyadd to our knowledge of the kinds of
abuse slaves anticipated.In fact, this catalogueseems almost tame compared to
other Greco-Roman references to the kinds of punishments routinely meted
out to slaves. Erich Segal summarizesthe varieties of abuse threatened against
slaves in the comedies of Plautus:
Besidesthe countlessreferencesto the standardwhippinginstrumentslike
virgae(rods)andstimuli(goads),his comediesdisplaya vocabularyof tor-
tures.... Plautusmentionsanastounding numberof torturedevices,includ-
ing iron chains,hot tar, burning clothes, restrainingcollars,the rack,the
pillory,andthe mill.The factthathis bondsmen areso frequentlyreferredto
as verbero("flogworthy"), mastigia("whip-worthy"), andfurcifer("gallows
bird")is an additionalreminderof whatretributionusuallyawaitsa misbe-
havingslave.47
Although Plautus enumerates an unusual number of torture devices and prac-
tices,48consideration of other Greco-Romansources only increases our aware-
ness of the disturbing arrayof disciplinarydevices available to slave owners:
spiked whips, hot irons, torture, and variousmeans of execution.49Shockingto
modern readers, Matthew'sinventoryof the abuses to which slaves were sub-
ject is easily within the mainstreamof ancient literature.
What is Matthew'sattitude towardthe abuse of slaves?The maltreatment

46Although the Matthean

parablesdo not depict slave owners killing (or even threatening to
kill) their slaves, in many instances slave owners did exercise capitalpowers over their human chat-
tel, often for the purpose of maintainingorder in the household. See, for example, Tacitus, who
remarkson ways that German treatment of slaves differs from Roman treatment of slaves:"If they
[slavesin Germanhouseholds] are killed, it is not usuallyto preserve strict discipline, but in a fit of
fury, like an enemy" (Germ., 25 in Tacitus:Dialogus, Agricola, Germania [trans.M. Hutton; LCL;
Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1914/1946] 299).
47Segal, RomanLaughter, 138.
48 One might also note that the humor of Plautus'scomedies revolves around slaves who nar-

rowly but consistently avoid threatened abuse, whereas Mattheanslaves never escape such punish-
ments. See Segal, RomanLaughter;and H. Parker,"CruciallyFunny or Tranio on the Couch: The
Servus Callidus and Jokes about Torture,"TAPA119 (1989) 233-46.
49See T. P. Wiseman, Catullusand His World:A Reappraisal(Cambridge:Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1985) 5-6; Sailer,"CorporalPunishment."

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
of slaves has a negative valence in the parables of the wicked tenants and the
wedding banquet, where outsiders attack enslaved emissaries. In both para-
bles, however, the insult can be construed to be primarily against the slave
owner rather than the slaves. In the parable of the wedding banquet, the mur-
der of the slaves excites the king'sanger (22:7); Matthew does not specify, how-
ever, whether the king is angryat the loss of human life or the affrontto him. In
the parable of the wicked tenants, the vineyardowner reacts with anger, not to
the repeated murder of his slaves but to the murder of his son (21:41). In the
parables of the unmerciful slave and the overseer, violent treatment of slaves
committed by slaves is negatively evaluated. In the three slave parableswhere
the relation of the slave owner to slaves symbolizes the relation of God to
humans, the disciplinaryaction suffered by the slaves symbolizes torments of
an afterlife, punishment in conjunctionwith ultimatejudgment on one's actions
in this world.50Matthew's appropriationof the image of the master ordering
the punishment of his slaves as a metaphor for divine justice does not necessar-
ily imply that Matthew condones customaryfirst-centurypractices of disciplin-
ing slaves. Nonetheless, his inscription of this image assumes and participates
in the normalcy of such terror in slaves' lives. The Matthean parables liken
divine punishment to a slave owner's punishment of his (or, presumably,her)
slaves. Unless we are to assume that Matthew considers divine punishment to
be disproportionateto the demerits of those who suffer it, by analogy,we can-
not presume that Matthew supposes the punishments slave owners commonly
visit on their slaves to be excessive.
In the context of Matthew 24-25, the parablesof the overseer and the tal-
ents caution readers about what they may expect if they do not live up to the
demands of Jesus' message. Slaves in the ancient Mediterranean world lived
with the constant pressure of knowing their liability to sudden and sometimes
arbitrarypunishments, at the whim of their owners; the punishments of the
wicked overseer and the slave with a single talent (too frightened of his master's
acknowledged violence to act) remind readers of their liabilityto divinely man-
dated penalties. This message is even explicit in the parable of the unmerciful
slave, which concludes with a warning to the community: "Thus my heavenly

50 Others in the ancient world also inferred from contemporary disciplinarypractices that
after death a person might undergo a range of tortures for deeds committed in this life. Lucretius
mocks this very attitude as the speculation of fools: "Butin this life there is fear of punishment for
evil deeds, fear as notorious as the deeds are notorious, and atonement for crime, prison, and the
horrible casting down from the Rock, stripes, torturers,condemned cell, pitch, red-hot plates, fire-
brands: and even if these are absent, yet the guilty conscience ... applies the goad and scorches
itself with whips, and meanwhile sees not where can be the end to its miseries or the final limit to its
punishment, and fears at the same time that all this may become heavier after death" (Lucr.
3.1014-22) (Lucretius: De Rerum Natura [trans. W. H. Rouse; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1924-47] 241).

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 83

fatherwillalsodo to you,unlesseveryone of youforgivesyourbrotheror sister

fromyourhearts"(18:35).Consciousness of disciplinary
realitiesproducesthe
faithfulslave,of a divinemasteras of a humanmaster.
Punishmentof slavesin antiquitywastypicallya publicaffair,so thatother
slavescouldabsorblessonswitheveryblowto the bodyof the slavebeingdisci-
plined.51Matthew's rehearsalof the slaveparablespublicizesthe torturesasso-
ciated with divinewrath.They have a pedagogicalfunction,instructingthe
faithfulby makinganexampleof otherswhowerenotfaithful.52 Whatlessonsis
the readerto takefromthese parables?Slaves'exposureto the imminenceof
abuseremindedthem incessantlyof theirstatusas slaves,while emphasizing
the powerof the slaveowner.The slaveparablesteachthe readerthatthe sta-
tus of humansin the divineeconomyis thatof slaves;-5they alsoconstructan
imageof Godthatstressesdivineomnipotence.54
Like Matthew,otherGreco-Roman writersseem to acceptslaveryas part
of the naturalorderof the world.55UnlikeMatthew,however,some writers
expressabhorrenceof the excessesof disciplinethatslavesdailyendured,call-
ing attentionto the disproportion betweenthe minoroffensesof slavesandthe
extremenatureof the punishmentsthey receive. Seneca,for example,asks,
"WhatrighthaveI to makemyslaveatoneby stripesandmanaclesfortoo loud
a reply,too rebelliousa look, a mutteringof somethingthat I do not quite
hear?"(Sen.De Ira 3.24). Martialcommentson the disparitybetweeninfrac-
tionandpenaltyin anepigram:"Yousaythatthe hareis underdone,andcallfor
a whip/ Youprefer,Rufus,cuttingupyourcookratherthanyourhare"(Martial

51 The tale we have alreadyconsidered from The Golden Ass, where Barbarusleads
Myrmex
to the forum, assumes that the corporalpunishment of slaves is a common public spectacle.
Livy
narrates a tale in which a slave owner drives his yoke-wearingslave through the circus,
scourging
the slave as he goes, and bystandersfind nothing amiss (Livy2.36.1). Suetonius describes
Augustus
ordering an actor named Hylas to be publicly scourged in the atrium of his own home (Suet. Aug.
45.4).
52 See M. Foucault's discussion of torture as a
"liturgyof punishment."As he writes, "public
torture and execution must be spectacular"(Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison [New
York:Vintage Books, 1979] 33-34). I am arguingthat the Mattheanparablesenact such a
spectacu-
lar liturgy.
53 V. Hunter concludes that in the Athenian context "[t]he slave ... must know himself: he
must recognize his statusas a slave. Surelyit is this recognitionthat corporalpunishment aimed to
instill, whether by the whip or through the stigmataof the tattooer"(PolicingAthens: Social Con-
trol in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 B.C. [Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress, 1994] 182).
M
Foucault writes: "The public execution did not re-establishjustice; it reactivatedpower"
(Discipline, 49). Hunter writes that the purpose of flogging in Athens extended beyond retaliation
and deterrence: "Where slaves are concerned, domination-the assertion of a master's total con-
trol-is also involved"(PolicingAthens, 181).
55 So common was cruelty to slaves in the Roman world that Tacitus could pinpoint the

uniqueness of the Germanic approachto slaveryby noting that, among Germans, "to beat a slave
and coerce him with hardlabour and imprisonmentis rare"(Tac. Germ. 25).

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

Epigrams 3.94).56 Juvenal expects his readers to resonate with the implied
rebuke in his description of a matronwho calmly dresses herself while ordering
vicious floggings of her slaves for such crimes as failing to meet the expectations
of the mistress for her coiffeur (JuvenalSatires 6.474-501).
In the parable of the talents, the slave with a single talent incurs his
owner's wrath because of an offense related to property: he has failed to
increase his owner'swealth. The punishment he receives, however, is corporal:
he is thrown into a place of darkness. Although this is a Matthean image of
judgment at the end-time, it also evokes the darknessof prison cells that slave
owners maintainedin their repertoire of disciplinaryapparatuses.As M. I. Fin-
ley contends: "One fundamentaldistinctionthrough much of antiquitywas that
corporal punishment, public or private, was restricted to slaves. Demosthenes
said with a flourish (22.55) that the greatest difference between the slave and
the free man is that the former 'is answerablewith his body for all offenses."'57
Sailer argues that, although Roman fathershad the right to inflict corporalpun-
ishment on their children, they rarelydid so, precisely because such treatment
was understood to be suitable for slaves and not for free persons: "(1) the
Romans attached symbolic meaning to whippings, (2) the whip was used to
make distinctions in the public sphere between free and subject, and (3) the
distinction between free and subject carried over into the household in the
administrationof corporalpunishment."58Quintiliansupports his position that
free children should never be beaten with the observationthat "flogging... is a
disgraceful form of punishment and fit only for slaves" (Quint. Inst. 1.3.13-
14).59 In the Greco-Roman world, the most pervasive image associated with
slaverywas that of a body being beaten; in turn, ancient readerswould associate
representations of beaten bodies with slaves. Thus, as Matthew turns repeat-
edly to the figure of the slave at disciplinarymoments, he reinforces a stereo-
type ubiquitous in antiquity. The evidence from the Matthean parables
underscores impressions from other Greco-Roman literature concerning the
practice and ideology of first-centuryslavery.60

5"Martial:Epigrams (trans.W. C. A. Ker; LCL; Cambridge, MA; HarvardUniversityPress,

1919/1968) 223.
57Finley, Ancient Slavery, 93.
58 Sailer, "CorporalPunishment," 151. Hunter makes a parallel argument with respect to
Athenian slavery:"Thewhip, in particular,set the slave apart,being symbolic of his or her degrada-
tion. Nude and broken, the one who was whipped became a loathsome spectacle, all honor and
integrity gone" (Hunter, Policing Athens, 181).
59The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (trans. H. E. Butler; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress, 1921/1953) 59.
60I omit exegetical discussions of the parablesof the weeds and wheat (13:24-30), the wed-
ding banquet (22:1-10), and the overseer (24:45-51). I do not think considerationof the context of
ancient agrarianslaveryhelps explain any debated elements of the parableof the weeds and wheat.
I have made a few remarksrelevant to the parable of the wedding banquet in my discussion of the

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 85

VI. Three MattheanParablesin the Context

of First-CenturySlavery
Slave(18:23-35)
TheUnmerciful
The enormity of the debt owed by the slave to his royalowner in the para-
ble of the unmerciful slave presents a problem to contemporaryNT scholars,
who are suspicious of the representationof a slave involvedin financialdealings
of such magnitude. MartinusDe Boer responds to this perceived difficulty by
arguingthat Matthew is responsible for inflatinga debt of ten thousand denarii
to the fantasticsum of ten thousandtalents (or one hundred million denarii).61
Nonetheless, accordingto Matthew'srenditionof the parable,the 6ouXoqowes
his royal master the substantialfortune of ten thousandtalents.
A common response to this perceived anomalyis to claim that in the para-
ble of the unmerciful servant, 65o0Xodesignates not a slave but a high-placed
court official.62 Joachim Jeremias suggests that the 5ou3Xoq is a "satrap."63
J.D. M. Derrett insists that the unmercifulservantis a "minister"of the king."
In Herzog'swords, the 5o"Xoqis an "importantretainer":"The high retainers
were the survivors of the endless court intrigues by which they sought their
advancement and the advancementof their clients at the expense of their com-

vulnerability of slaves to physical abuse even from those outside the owner's household. With
respect to the parable of the overseer, knowledge of the brutality of punishments suffered by
ancient slaves is a crucialargumentagainstviewing the punishmentof the wicked overseer either as
exaggeratedor as symbolic of exile from the community.This point has alreadybeen clearly articu-
lated; see F. W. Beare, The Gospelaccording to Matthew:Translation,Introductionand Commen-
tary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 479; Beavis, "AncientSlavery,"42; W. D. Davies and
D. C. Allison, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the Gospel accordingto Saint Matthew (3
vols.; ICC; Edinburgh:T & T Clark,1986-97) 3.390.
61 M. C. De Boer, "Ten Thousand Talents? Matthew'sInterpretationand Redaction of the
Parableof the UnforgivingServant(Matt 18:23-35),"CBQ 50 (1988) 214-32.
62 Davies and Allisonvacillate.If we are to read the debt as ten thousandtalents,
they believe
the parable must involve a king and his minister, perhaps a satrap;if we are to read the parable in
terms of a smaller debt, they would find a master and slave plausible characters (Critical and
ExegeticalCommentary,2.797). Nonetheless, the parableas Matthewtells it does involve the enor-
mous sum often thousandtalents, and it does describe the parabolicfigures as master and slave.
63 Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of esus (New York:Scribner, 1954) 210. Jeremias notes
that ov&0ouXotrefers to high-placed Palestinian officials in 2 Esdras 4-6 (p. 212). He does not,
however, cite other uses of 5ofio; to justify his assumptionthat the term may refer to free court
officials ratherthan to slaves.
64 "Douloi means ministers"(J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament[London: Darton,

Longman, & Todd, 1970] 33 n. 1). Scott, who perceives the indebted servantto be heavilyinvolved
in tax farming, assumes that Derrett is correct in his explication of details of this parable (Hear
Then the Parable, 270). Commentatorsstill rely on Derrett's monumental volume. Although Der-
rett treats slaveryin the context of specific parables,slaveryas a categorydoes not merit an entry in
the index. Throughout the volume Derrett drawson later Jewish and Islamic law and even makes
reference to the practices of India. He does not, however, consider the practice and ideology of
slaveryin the early Roman Empire, nor does he drawon Romanlaw regardingslaves and slavery.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

petitors. It was a cutthroat world constructed around competing pyramids of

patron-client loyalties."65Despite these scholars' resistance to admitting that
the 5ol0uoqis in fact a slave, the managersof royal funds were often slaves who
had the opportunity of amassing their own fortunes, which they frequently
used to purchase both their own freedom and the freedom of family members.
A slave entrusted with ten thousand talents was certainly a member of an elite
cadre; nonetheless, as we have seen, thefamilia Caesaris included significant
numbers of slaves who advancedto such posts. The size of the debt, then, does
not justify identifying the as anythingother than a slave.66
Once we acknowledge 8o0,oq
that the unmerciful 80o oq is in fact a slave, we are
able to see a number of other parabolicdetails more clearly.The king is not sell-
ing a free man and his free family members into slavery, in order to pay a
debt;67rather, as a slave owner, he plans to sell his human chattel (both the
unmerciful slave and his presumably enslaved family members) to another
owner.68Some commentators have suggested that the sale of family members
as well as the debtor into slavery indicates that the king must be a Gentile;69
however, if the family members as well as the are the king'sproperty,
6o0,Xo
the debate does not arise. Finally, although Scott argues that consigning the
unmerciful slave to torturersis implausible ("defamiliarizing")and excessive,70
this detail confirms that the translationof 6ol-oS as "slave"is accurate:here as

65Herzog, Parables, 136. In a footnote, however, Herzog at least notes that the identification
of a 85o60Xo as an official is disputed (p. 271 n. 3).
66Beavis comments
briefly on this point ("AncientSlavery,"40-41).
67 So E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975)
377-78; H. B. Green, The Gospel according to Matthew (New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1987)
166; Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary,2.799; D. J. Harrington,The Gospel
of Matthew (SacPag 1; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991) 270; D. E. Garland, Reading
Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York:Crossroad,
1993) 194.
68 Beare seems uncertain about whether to translate 5oiXoqas "slave":"Ifthe defaulting offi-
cial is a slave already,how can he be punished by being sold to a different master? Of course, if he
is conceived as a high provincialgovernor,a kind of viceroy, he may be called a 'slave'only by way of
convention" (Gospel, 382). Beare overlooks, however, several ways that a master could punish a
slave by sale (although the master's intent here is recouping his losses rather than punishment).
First, the slave and his family could be sold to different owners so that they would never see each
other again. Second, the slave could be sold into a harsh form of punishment, such as work in the
mines.
69 Schweizer, Good News, 377-78; Green, Gospel, 166; Harrington, Gospel, 270; D. R. A.
Hare, Matthew (Louisville:John Knox, 1993) 217.
70 Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 277. Others argue that since torture (against free persons)
was supposedly illegal by the laws of Israel, the king is surely a Gentile. See Schweizer, Good News,
378; Beare, Gospel, 383. Still others argue that the purpose of the torture is to extract information
about what the unmerciful servanthas done with the king's assets. However, they do not point out
that such torture for the purpose of extracting information was far more commonly practiced
against slaves than against free persons. See Jeremias, Parables, 212-13; Derrett, Law, 46-47;
Green, Gospel, 166.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy: Slaves and Slavery 87

elsewhere in the Matthean parables, vulnerabilityto corporal punishment is

the most characteristicelement of the representationof slaves. Far from being
aberrant, Matthew'sdepiction of the liability of the unmerciful slave to disci-
plinary measures ranging from sale to torture is consonant with other first-
century references to the practice and ideology of slavery.71
Perhaps surprisingly to modern readers, the unmerciful slave does not
extend to his fellow slave the graciousnesshis master extends to him. The crass
parvenu slave or freedman, however, is a stereotype in Roman literature. The
Epicurean excesses of Petronius'sfreedman Trimalchio, for example, can be
matched only by his excesses of cruelty to his own slaves. Within the literary
conventions of the early empire, the inclemency of the unmerciful slave is
deplorable, but not unexpected.

The WickedTenants(21:33-41)
In the parable of the wicked tenants, slaves serve as emissaries whose
work on behalf of their masters leads to brutality and death. Whether the
servile status of the emissaries is relevant is not alwaysclear to commentators.
As we have noted, John Dominic Crossan classifies the parable of the wicked
tenants as a servantparablebecause of the conflict between the landowner and
the tenants, but does not acknowledge that the landowner'sagents are them-
selves of subordinatesocial status. Herzog points to social and economic ten-
sion in the parable between the marginalizedtenant farmers and the vineyard
owner. Of the slaves he writes:"Becausethe tenants cannot get at the protected
elite, they turn their aggressiveimpulses on the aristocrats'bureaucraticagents.
The treatment the agents receive at the hands of the tenants is simply one of
the liabilitiesof their job."72He does not specify whether he sees the identifica-
tion of the agents as slaves as a contributionof the parable'scanonical forms, or
an original element of Jesus' parable. In order to argue that the tenants act as
oppressed persons rising against a powerful and wealthy opponent, Herzog
must ignore the inconvenient descriptionof the owner'sagents as slaves.73
Derrett, however, insists that the servile status of the emissaries is crucial

71 I do not think that identificationof the 8oiXo; as a slave resolves all

questions about the
details of this parable. For example, the sale of even a highly placed slave, his family, and other
assets seems unlikely to recover ten thousand talents for the king. However, this problem is in no
way ameliorated by denying or minimizing the servile status of the unmerciful one, since it seems
equally unlikely that the king could recover such extensive financial losses through the sale of a
minister, his family, and his assets.
72Herzog, Parables, 106.
73 J. D. Hester also offers a reading of the parable of the wicked tenants that stresses the

political and economic implications of a dispute between a wealthy landowner and tenants who
have presumablybeen dispossessed of their own land. Hester vacillatesbetween references to the
vineyardowner's servantsand his slaves and never addressesthe politicalor economic implications
of violence againstslaves ("Socio-RhetoricalCriticism").

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
to the parableof the wickedtenants:"Note65oio;, not agentor steward.It is
unfortunatethatin New Testamentparablesthiswordis foundbothin its pri-
maryand ... in its secondarymeaningof 'dependant.'In thiscaseit musthave
its primarymeaning,for otherwisethe sendingof the son loses some of its
force."74 of the slave'sbodyto all mannersof abuseis, after
The vulnerability
all, a hallmarkof ancienttreatmentsof slavery.Certainlythe violenceexperi-
enced by these agentsis extreme;nonetheless,a propertyownercouldreason-
ablyanticipatethatthe tenantswouldrespectthe personof his son,a free man,
despitetheirpreviousaggressiontowardhis slaves.75
TheTalents(25:14-30)
As with the parableof the unmercifulslave,some commentatorsdebate
whetherthe 5oiXotof Matthew's parableof the talentsareindeedslaves.Der-
rettinsists:"Theservantsarenotslaves.Buttheyaredependants."76 He contin-
ues to suggestthat the "servants,as usuallyin the East,were quasi-relatives,
even quasi-sons."77 Becausetheseservantsengagein substantialfinancialdeal-
ings, Derrett concludes thattheyare freedmenor the equivalent.H. Benedict
Greenconcurs.78Matthew'sterminology,however,is not ambiguous;the ser-
vantsare5oiXot,slaves.Moreover,aswe haveseen, managerialslavesin large
Romanhouseholdscouldbe responsibleformanagingsubstantialfortunes;as a
matterof course,wealthylandownerstrustedslavesto administertheirestates
andfinances.79 In no wayarethe slavesin the parableof the talentsanomalous.
In the parableof the overseer,the wickedslaveis vicious,abusinghis fel-
low slavesfor no statedreason.In the parableof the talents,the thirdslaveis
calledwickednot on the basisof viciousnessbut of indolence.80 The slaveand
his owner,however,offer different assessmentsof his inaction. The slave
focuseson the harshnessof the master,citingfearas the reasonforhisparalysis
(v.25). Accordingto the master,however,the slave'sinactionprovesthathe is
bothlazyandwicked.81 On the otherhand,bothmasterandslaveacknowledge
that the masterexactsdifficultstandards,reapingwherehe does not sow and
gatheringwherehe does not scatter.The masterdoes not explicitlyrepeatthe

74Derrett, Law, 296.

75Pace Beare, who writes, "The verisimilitude disappears,however, when we hear that the
owner's only reaction to the brutalitywith which his first emissaries are treated is to send others;
and it becomes still less credible when he follows up the second catastrophe by sending his own
son" (Gospel, 427).
76Derrett, Law, 18.
77Ibid., 19.
78Green, Gospel, 205.
79Davies and Allison, Criticaland Exegetical Commentary,3.405.
80Schweizer, Good News, 472.
81 Differing estimates of the slave's inaction noted by Beare, Gospel, 490; Harrington,
Gospel, 353; Hare, Matthew, 287.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Glancy:Slavesand Slavery 89

slave'sdescriptionof him as harsh,but neitherdoes the parablechallengethis

verdict.82In fact,modernsensibilitiesarelikelyto shrinkfromanendorsement
of the master'sgraspingandpunitivenature.83
As the masterordersthe punishmentof the haplessthirdslave,he refers
to himwithan adjectivethatpinpointsthe natureof his failing.He is d&Xpeiov:
useless,worthless,unprofitable.Thatis, he has failedto turna profitfor his
masteron the talentwithwhichhe hadbeen entrusted.By expressingthe final
verdicton the slavein termsof propertyvalues,Matthew'srenditionof the
parableof the talentsunderscoresa commondenominator of ancientdiscourse
on slavery.

VII. ConcludingRemarks
The Mattheanparablesfocuson managerial slaves,a visibleandinfluen-
tial minorityamongthe enslavedpopulation.They promotethe view that a
slave'smoralpurposeis to advancethe interestsof his or her owner.Whilethe
parablesdepictslaveswho accrueconsiderableinfluence,the mostprominent
andconsistentaspectof the parabolicconstruction of slaveryis an emphasison
the vulnerability
of the enslavedbodyto violence,notablyto brutaldisciplinary
practices.The Mattheanparablesthusreinforceotherevidenceconcerningthe
practiceandideologyof slaveryin the Greco-Roman world,especiallyduring
the earlyempire.
At the sametime, attentionto the contextof Greco-Roman slaveryhelps
clarifysome disputedelementsin the parables.Perhapsmoststrikingly, com-
mentatorshavefoundit difficultto believethatslavescouldoccupypositionsof
powerandinfluenceas theydo in the parablesof the unmercifulslaveandthe
talents;recognitionof the extensiveRomanrelianceon elite managerial slaves
resolvesthisdilemma.
The presentarticledoes not exhaustthe studyof slavesandslaveryin the
Mattheanparables.For example,I have not explicitlyaddressedthe social
functionsof the Mattheanslaveparables.Beavisconcludesthatthe tendencyof
the parables"todignifythe roleof the slaveandto suggestthatthe slaveowner
identifywith his/herhumanpropertymighthave been perceivedas radical
social teaching by ancient audiences."84As I have argued, however, the

82Hare, Matthew, 287.

83 Implied by Beare, Gospel, 486. In recognition of this problem, R. T. Fortna suggests
reconstructingJesus'parableso that it ends with a rebuke of the third slave to the master ("Reading
Jesus' Parables of the Talents Through Underclass Eyes," Foundations and Facets Forum 8, 3-4
[September-December 1992] 211-28).
84 I am not convinced that even an audience comprised exclusively of slave owners would
find the parabolicinvitationto identify with slaves to be a radicalsocial teaching. Beavis assertsthat
the "kindof role reversaldescribed in Luke 12:35-38 and Jesus'other sayingsabout masterstaking
on the role of slaves are quite unlike the comic inversions of Plautus and Aesop." However, she
does not explain the nature of that difference, or why the parabolic reversalwould be especially

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
Matthean parables rely on and reiterate conventional views of slavery. More-
over, Beavis does not askwhether those ancient audiences were primarilyslave,
free, or a mixture thereof. NT scholars have not established (or indeed, really
considered) the balance between slave and free members in the Matthean
community.Investigationof the social functions of the Mattheanslave parables
should proceed in tandem with more general research on the positions of
slaves, freed persons, and freeborn persons, including slave owners, in the
Matthean community itself.
Readers of Matthew recognize the disciplined flesh of parabolicslaves as
an antitype, a model to avoid. Curiously,however, Matthew features another
torturedbody as a model to emulate, the battered and crucified body of Jesus.85
Jesus himself calls his followers to be willing to endure the sufferings of the
cross (Matt 16:24). In a peculiar way, the corporalpunishment of disobedient
slaves in the Matthean parables foreshadows the broken body of Jesus:
ridiculed, beaten, executed.86A final, counter-lineof inquiryinto the Matthean
ideology of slavery would ask whether the crucifixion of Jesus prompts us to
reconsider our interpretations of the slaves whose representations prefigure
the Gospel'sclimactic scenes of torture.87

startlingto ancient slave owners. There are other instances in ancient literaturewhere readers must
imagine what it is like to be treated as a slave, for example, in the perils of the heroines of Greek
romances. There is no particularreason, though, to see these as instances of radicalsocial teaching.
On this question I remain ambivalent;furtherwork remainsto be done (Beavis, "AncientSlavery,"
53-54).
s5 J. Perkins highlights the anomaly of
Christianidentification with the suffering body (The
Suffering Self. Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era [New York:Rout-
ledge, 1995]).
8 As S. Moore writes in his haunting discussion of the physical agony of Jesus, "The central

symbol of Christianityis the figure of a tortured man" ("Torture:The Divine Butcher," in God's
Gym: Divine Male Bodies of the Bible [New York:Routledge, 1996] 3-34, esp. 4).
871 draw the reader'sattention to severalworks that appeared after I completed work on this
article: I. A. H. Combes, The Metaphorof Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church: From the
New Testament to the Beginning of the Fifth Century (JSNTSup 156; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1998); on faithful slaves in Roman exemplumliterature, H. Parker,"LoyalSlaves and
LoyalWifes,"in S. R. Joshel and S. Murnaghan,Womenand Slaves in Greco-RomanCulture (New
York:Routledge, 1998); T. S. de Bruyn,"Flogginga Son: The Emergence of the paterflagellans in
Latin ChristianDiscourse,"Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 249-90.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:11:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions