The ESV, slavery, and translation choices

[Difflugia]

I just read a fascinating article, When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC. The article is an interview with sociologist Samuel Perry discussing translation choices made by the ESV. Perry contrasts the fluidity with which the ESV translates words related to slavery ("slave," "bondservant," and "servant" depending on context) and antisemitism ("Jews," "Jewish leaders," and "religious leaders," particulary in John's Gospel), while contrasting it with its refusal to do the same with things like gender, as translations like the NRSV and NIV have done. The reason this is important to the ESV is that Crossway nonetheless represents the ESV as being "essentially literal" and "transparent to the original text."

I guess there were a few things in the article that I found surprising and I'm hoping for a broad discussion of some of those things, but to start off, my questions for debate are these:

Is the ESV's handling of the Greek doulos by alternately translating it as "slave," "bondservant," and "servant" based on context appropriate for a "literal" translation?

Leaving aside other translation issues of these two, would the inclusive gender language of the NIV and NRSV be appropriate for a "literal" translation like the ESV?

If your answers to the above are different, why?

For additional context, I recommend reading the Preface to the ESV, in particular the description of the five "specialized terms" that get fluid translations. The explanation for doulos is the third paragraph.

[1213]

NT says about slaves:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luke 4:18-19

That phrase is "to send the oppressed in deliverance." I suppose you can interpret that as applying to slaves, but "the oppressed" aren't equated with slaves anywhere else.

If slaves are not oppressed, I suppose it is not bad situation then.

Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don't be entangled again with a yoke of bondage (=condition of slavery).
Gal. 5:1

Paul's speaking metaphorically of being enslaved by sin. Christ frees Christians from spiritual slavery, but not regular old involuntary servitude.

Can you support your interpretation by the Bible?

This is one reason why it is sad to see that USA, the land of liberty, is being destroyed by evil regime that is against freedom of people and the US constitution that is the best in the world.

That guy's gone. We have a new one now.

Sorry, I think Biden’s regime still rules, all though it appears Biden is just some kind of puppet for collectivist oligarchs.

[Difflugia]

If slaves are not oppressed, I suppose it is not bad situation then.

We have plenty of evidence that by any modern standard, slaves were oppressed. We have little evidence that the author of Luke (or any other New Testament author) meant slaves when they said "the oppressed." If what the author meant is unimportant, then you can read that as "slaves" if you want to, but then it only works as a personal justification, not as evidence to anybody else.

Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don't be entangled again with a yoke of bondage (=condition of slavery).
Gal. 5:1

Paul's speaking metaphorically of being enslaved by sin. Christ frees Christians from spiritual slavery, but not regular old involuntary servitude.

Can you support your interpretation by the Bible?

That's what starts in Galatians 3 and goes through chapter 4. Your verse in 5:1 is the punchline.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Even though the heirs to the Abrahamic promise were metaphorically in the same position as a slave, the redemption of Christ removes one from metaphorical bondage to the status of a free heir.

Sorry, I think Biden’s regime still rules, all though it appears Biden is just some kind of puppet for collectivist oligarchs.

Whatever you say.

[1213]

...
Even though the heirs to the Abrahamic promise were metaphorically in the same position as a slave, the redemption of Christ removes one from metaphorical bondage to the status of a free heir...

Sorry, I still think it means all kind of slavery.