Another look at the Slave Bible
In my original blog
about the Slave Bible yesterday, I expressed muted outrage at the role of the
Anglican Bishop of London and his involvement in commissioning the book. Beilby Porteus, the
Bishop of London from 1787 to his death in 1809 was a rather different person
than I portrayed in my first assessment of the situation.
Blog - The Slave Bible
History would suggest,
the bishop was the first in authority to challenge the Anglican Church’s stance
on slavery in a concerted campaign that lasted almost three decades. He was an
abolitionist who stated his case in sermons and in the House of Lords, long
before the cause became popular.
The bishop was an
abolitionist
In his advocacy, he
was concerned about the plight of about 300 slaves on the Codrington
Plantations in Barbados that was bequeathed to the Church of England in the
early 18th Century and was overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury
and a committee of Church of England bishops.
From the time he was
Bishop of Chester through when he was translated to the bishopric of London,
Bishop Porteus worked with slavery abolitionists, and much was made of the fact
that disease and maltreatment led to the death of about 40% of the slaves
within three years of their arrival that the slave cohort needed constant
replenishment from West Africa.
Besides these myriad
issues, the bishop was desirous of proselytising the slaves and this must have
informed his decision to commission an abridged bible for the slaves of the British
West-Indies, as one of the most passionate advocates for the cause of the
slaves, he by default assumed responsibility for their spiritual welfare. I can
conclude from this reading of history that Bishop Beilby Porteus was neither
malevolent nor evil.
Between the marketing
and the product
A careful reading of
what pertains to the content of the Slave
Bible requires nuance over the sensational reductive view that essential parts
of bible history were expunged. We can attribute this view to the publicity
machinery of The
Museum of the Bible (MOTB), which has had its share of controversy and
scandal in terms of the provenance and integrity of exhibit acquired for
display at the museum.
An academic
assessment of the assertion of the MOTB would suggest a variance from the
reality. The writer purports an exaggeration by the MOTB when in fact the book
does contain verses of liberation as much as some pertaining to slavery were
left out. Though the compendium leaves out the book of Revelation, it is not
bereft of eschatological hope expressed in other epistles of Apostle Paul. [The Revealer:
The “Slave Bible” is Not What You Think]
It would appear
Bishop Porteus is both misrepresented and vilified by the MOTB to whatever ends
of widening the participation of visitors to the museum beyond its evangelical roots.
As I can only offer commentary on the reported events and observations along
with not having access to the said Slave Bible to verify any of the claims, my
only shocking discovery is to learn that such a book existed, the circumstances
around which the book was published are quite different and open to debate.
Where history leaves
us
It is obvious from
the onset that the bishop met with both deaf ears and opposition to his
abolition quest, as Founder of the Society for the Conversion and Religious
Instruction and Education of the Negro Slaves, “envisioned a collection that
expanded beyond biblical texts and included liturgy for public worship.” It is
questionable whether the result achieved that aim.
However, while
certain abridged versions of the bible available today as excerpts of the Psalms,
Proverbs, or mainly the New Testament of the Gideon bibles found in the bedroom
drawers of international hotel chains have not suffered the manipulation and
cannibalisation of the Slave Bible, the motive in its origin seems both honest
and malign to our reading today.
What cannot be
disputed is the Anglican Church of England was integral, participatory, and a
beneficiary of the evils of the slave trade and slavery.
