The Christian Scriptures recognise the force and application of the
command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s man-servant, nor his
maid-servant,” as applicable to slaves at the time of the apostles; and
that the act of “coveting,” extended into action, becomes “stealing,”
the property named in the command. “Now the end of the command is
charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned: from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain
jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what
they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if
a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a
righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly, and for
sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers
of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile
themselves with mankind, for _men-stealers_, (ἀνδραποδισταῖς
_andrapodistais_, _slave-stealers_,) for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed
to my trust.” 1 _Tim._ i. 5–11.
It may be well remembered that the preceding third verse of this chapter
beseeches Timothy to still abide at Ephesus, that he may charge some
that they teach no other doctrine, &c.
The word _andrapodistais_, of the original Greek text, here translated
_men-stealers_, means the stealing, or enticing away from the possession
and ownership of their masters, their slaves. St. Paul speaks of it as a
part of the law,—speaks of the offence as one well known, and as too
well known to be a part of the law to require any explanation. When we
come to know that that act of the mind called _coveting_, indulged to
action, becomes stealing,—that the crime in action includes the crime in
mind,—we may readily perceive what particular law is referred to. Is it
difficult to decide that property, which the law forbids us to covet, it
also forbids us to steal, even if “thou shalt not steal” had not
preceded?
The idea stealing was expressed by the Greeks by the word κλέπτο,
_klepto_, but the idea _stealing slaves_ was expressed by the word in
the text. The formation is ἀνὴρ, _a man_, ποῦς, _a foot_, and signifies
the condition of slavery, as a man bound by the foot. A whole class of
words of this formation, all including the idea of slavery, were in use
by the Greeks, and found in their authors. When used to express the
substantive, the idea of slavery is associated with the idea of some
change of position or ownership; hence its use in this instance. The
thing stolen involves the idea of a change of position, possession, &c.
Yet in many instances it may be difficult to perceive this distinction,
it rather appearing to have been often used as a synonyme of _doulos_,
both as a verb and substantive.
In the 8th section of the 4th book of the Cyropædia, Xenophon uses this
word to mean a slave, the quality growing out of the imputed change in
the condition of the soldier, thus: Ὡς ὁ τοῦτο ποιῶν οὐκέτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν,
ἀλλὰ σκευοφόρος, καὶ ἔξεστι τῷ βουλομένω ἤδε χρῆσθαι τούτῳ ὡς ἀνδραπόδῳ.
Which Ashley translates, “And as he that does this can no longer be
reckoned a man, but a mere bearer of baggage, so any one that will is
free to use him as a slave.” The Romans so understood this word. In the
translation of Xenophon into Latin by Amelburnus, we find this passage:
“Nam qui hoc facit non miles et vir est, sed sarcinarius calo; quem uti
mancipium tractare cuivis licet;” nor can it be said that this learned
man misunderstood his Greek, for we have before us the critical
translations of Oxford and Cambridge, in which the sentence reads, “Nam
qui hoc facit, non amplius vir est et miles, sed sarcinarius calo, atque
hoc adeò uti mancipium licet.” They have made no change as to this word,
nor as to the sense of the sentence.
Xenophon uses this word also in the 14th section of the 8th book, to
mean slaves, and in the same passage with δοῦλος, the adjective sense
existing in the presumed unwillingness in the slaves to seek freedom, on
the account of their happiness being probably better secured in a state
of _slavery_ to Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it
entire:
Ὃυς δ’ αὖ κατεσκεύαζεν εἰς τὸ _δουλεύειν_, τούτους οὔτε μελετᾷν τῶν
ἐλευθερίων πόνων οὐδένα παρώρμα, οὔτε ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι ἐπέτρεπεν·
ἐπεμελεῖτο δ’ ὅπως μήποτε ἄσιτοι μήτε ἄποτοι ποτὲ ἔσοιντο, ἐλευθερίων
ἕνεκα μελετημάτων. Καὶ γὰρ ὁπόταν ἐλαύνοιεν τὰ θηρία τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν εἰς
τὰ πεδία, φέρεσθαι σίτον εἰς θήραν τούτοις ἐπέτρεπε, τῶν δὲ ἐλευθέρων
οὐδενί. Καὶ ὁπότε πορεία εἴη, ἤγεν αὐτους πρὸς τὰ ὑδατα ὕσπερ τὰ
ὑποζύγια. Καὶ ὁπότε δὲ ὥρα εἴη ἀρίστου, ἀνέμενεν αὐτοὺς ἔστ’ ἂν φάγοιέν
τι, ὡς μὴ βουλιμιῷεν· ὥστε καὶ οὗτοι αὐτὸν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄριστοι, πατέρα
ἐκαλουν, ὅτι ἐπεμέλετο αὐτῶν ὅπως ἀναυφιλόγως ἀεὶ _ἀνδράποδα_
διατελοῖεν.
Which may be translated thus: “But in rearing up his _slaves_, he never
permitted them to practise the employment of the free, nor allowed them
the possession of arms, but took care that they would never be without
their meat and drink for the sake of the practices of the free; for when
with their horses they drove out the wild beasts into the plains, he
allowed meat and drink to be carried for the use of these people during
the hunt, but not for the free; and when he was upon a march, he led
them to water, as he did the beasts of burden; and when the time for
dinner came, he waited till they had eaten something, that they might
not be distressed with hunger; so that these people, as likewise the
more elevated, called him their father; so he was careful, beyond a
doubt, that they would always remain his _slaves_,” _ἀνδράποδα_,
_slaves_, _i. e._ they would have no desire to change their situation.
Amelburnus translates it thus: “Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos
nec ad labores ullos liberales excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat:
studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel
cibo vel potu carerent. Permittebat enim _servis_, quoties equitibus
feras in campos adigerent, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent;
ingenuorum verò nemini. Quando item faciundum erat iter, ad aquas eos,
perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Quum prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos
donec aliquid comedissent, ne furcilla sive fames acrior eos affligeret.
Quo fiebat ut, non aliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrum _patrem_
appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio _mancipia_
manerent.”
The Oxford translation, which was published in 1737, has perhaps made
the Latin more classical, but has strictly adhered to the same meaning
of the words δουλεύειν and ἀνδράποδα. We give their version also, that
the curious may compare, and have no doubt about this matter. It reads
thus:
“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad se in laboribus ullis
liberalibus exercendos excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat. Studiosèque
dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel
potu carerent. Etenim his permittebat, ut cibum ad venationem secum
sumerent, ingenuorum verò nemini: quando item faciendum erat iter, ad
aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Et cùm prandii tempus erat,
expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent ne fames ingens eos invaderet;
quo fiebat ut etiam hi, non aliter ac optimates, Cyrum patrem
appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio _mancipia_
manerent.”
We deem it proper to add a word concerning the use of this term,
especially as some, who claim to be learned divines, also claim that
Paul by its use totally forbid slavery. See _Barnes, on Slavery_, p.
355. He says? “‘The law is made for _manstealers_,’ ἀνδραποδισταῖς, 1
_Tim._ i. 9, 10. The meaning of this word has been before considered. It
needs only to be remarked here, that the _essential_ idea of the term is
_that of converting a freeman into a slave_. Thus Passon defines the
word ἀνδραπόδισμος, _andrapodismos_: Verwandlung eines freyen Mannes in
einen Sklaven, besonders durch Varkauf, Unterjochung, U.S.W.: a changing
of a freeman into a slave, especially by traffic, subjection, &c. Now,
somehow this ‘conversion of a freeman into a slave,’ the sin forbidden
in the passage before us, occurs essentially in the case of every one
who ever becomes a slave.”
We know not why Mr. Barnes chose to go to a Dutch dictionary for his
quotation, since he might have found the true signification in that of
any schoolboy.
But we think it a singular argument that, because _andrapodismos_ means
the making or selling a slave, _andrapodistais_ means the exact same
thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word is
_slave_, _slavery_, &c. If I wish to say “stealing a slave,” I use one
form of it; if “selling a slave,” another, and so on; but the stealing a
_freeman_ with the view to make _him a slave_ was not expressed by this
word, or any form of it. The Greeks used the term _anthropokleptais_,
but the legal reduction of a man to slavery was quite a different
matter. St. Paul’s animadversion comprehended the idea of slavery and
stealing,—what? a freeman, or a slave? Had it been a freeman that
occupied the objective case, it is presumable that his language would
have had some analogy to that used in the Septuagint, _Deut._ xxiv. 7.
This word, or some form of it, is of most frequent occurrence in the
Greek authors. We need quote but a few passages to show their use of the
term, whether it included the idea of a freeman, or only that of a
slave. Thucydides, Leipsic edition, 1829:
Οἱ δ’ Αθηναῖοι οὔτε τἄλλα ὑπηκουον, οὔτε τὸ ψήφισμα καθῄρουν,
ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπ’ ἐργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς, καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου,
καὶ _ἀνδραπόδων_ ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων.
“But the Athenians listened to none of these demands, nor would revoke
the decree, but reproached the Megarians for tilling land that was
sacred, land not marked out for culture, and for giving shelter to
runaway slaves.”
Vol. ii. p. 138. Αἱ δέ νῆες περίεπλευταν, τα ἀνδράποδα ἀγοῦσαι.
“But the vessels came back along the coast, on board of which were the
_slaves_.”
Idem. Καὶ τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἀπεδόσαν.
“And here they offered the _slaves_ for sale.”
P. 118. Ἀνδράποδα Ὑκκαρικὰ—“Hyccarian _slaves_.”
P. 201. Καὶ ἀνδράποδων πλέον ἢ δύο μυριαδες ηὐτομοληκέσαν.
“And more than twenty thousand slaves had deserted.”
P. 314. Καὶ σκεύη μὲν καὶ ἀνδράποδα ἀρπαγὴν ποιησάμενος, τοὺς δὲ
ἐλευθέρους πάλιν κατοικίσας, ἐπ’ Ἄβυδον ἦλθε.
“He gave up all the effects and slaves to pillage, and after
establishing such as were free people in their old habitations, he went
against Abydos.”
The instances of the use of this word are so frequent that we know not
whether more of them should not be given; but may we not presume that
those who read the language have some knowledge of the matter? and we
therefore ask them to relieve us from that burden. We think it no hazard
to maintain the fact that ἀνδραποδίζω, its _cognates_ and _derivatives_,
both _nouns_ and _adjectives_, are never used in the Greek language
unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the
idea _stealing_, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not
associated with the idea “_man_,” but “_slave_,” and that he used the
term ἀνδραποδισταῖς, _andrapodistais_, to express the idea
“slave-stealers.”
------------------