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]

That deal was limited to Israelite slaves. According to the O.T., non-Israelites could become permanent slaves which were inheritable property....

That is interesting claim, because by what the Bible tells, even slaves should have been circumcised, which I have understood means they would become Israelites.

He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."
Gen. 17:13-14

... I'm not sure if this was the case in N.T. times. While the N.T. obviously refers to slaves, I don't recall any specific rules governing slavery in the N.T. I assume that practicing Jews would still be following the O.T. law.

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

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

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.

[1213]

... So, if "slave" means that "the person is without freedom," does that only apply to those without any freedom at all? Must they be chained? In your mind, what's the difference between a slave, bondservant, and servant? If we agree that a "slave" means perpetual involuntary servitude, under what circumstances was a "bondservant" or "servant" allowed to terminate their "employment" and what was the practical effect on things like quality of life?

I really don’t know well it. However, in Bible people are expected to be righteous and love their neighbor as themselves. I believe, if that is understood correctly, no righteous person would oppress anyone. And in that case, servant/slave/bondservant should have been equal in my opinion (Maybe bond James bondservant is higher, after all, he would be the servant of Queen of England). Servant would serve his master and his householder would give good payment, food and place to live and treat the servant well, and the servant would serve well, because of that. But, at some point people have become corrupted and evil and not loyal to God and His commandments and begun to treat people poorly.

Because there are punishments for treating “slave” wrongly, I think it could not have been very involuntary. There is not much ways to prevent person to leave, if you can’t use violence. But on the other hand, I think for example all people who must pay taxes, are really slaves for the one who collects the taxes, if they are involuntary. Basically, people could escape it, but it is practically not very easy. Same could have ben in ancient times also, they could leave, but it would have been in practice so difficult that not many would have done that, which is why violence is not necessary.

[Tcg]

That deal was limited to Israelite slaves. According to the O.T., non-Israelites could become permanent slaves which were inheritable property....

That is interesting claim, because by what the Bible tells, even slaves should have been circumcised, which I have understood means they would become Israelites.

It's straightforward and exceedingly clear:

Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

There are absolutely no exceptions made for circumcision.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

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.

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.

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.

[brunumb]

He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."
Gen. 17:13-14

Frankly, this is where I completely lose it. I cannot take seriously an omni-everything deity who strikes deals with people based on the presence or absence of their penis tips.

[otseng]

To be sure, there were different forms of slavery (like debt slavery), but these distinctions didn't include the slave having personal rights while under dominion.

I would agree with doulos and slaves both lacking personal rights and they were considered another's property.

If we agree that a "slave" means perpetual involuntary servitude,

Here is where I believe our disagreement lies on the word slave. We might consider slavery now to be perpetual involuntary servitude, but doulos could also include a temporary and voluntary servitude.

As the ESV preface states:

In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, someone in the Roman Empire officially bound under contract to serve his master for seven years (except for those in Caesar’s household in Rome who were contracted for fourteen years). When the contract expired, the person was freed, given his wage that had been saved by the master, and officially declared a freedman.

https://www.esv.org/preface

The problem is the idea that the living God and his inspired representatives, with their presumably broader and farther-seeing view of humanity, would accept it as a matter of course.

I might have a controversial view on this, but I do not view slavery in itself to be morally evil. Since I do not believe it to be morally evil, I have no problem with the Bible or God not having a commandment against it.

From what I do remember, it seems that it would be essentially impossible to produce a word for word literal translation. There of course may be translations I'm not aware of that do so.

Aside from creating an interlinear Bible, yes, it'd be impossible to produce a word for word literal translation. But, even with an interlinear, one has to choose what English word to use, which most likely would not convey the full meaning of the original word.

As a side project, I'm trying to teach myself Greek (as well as Hebrew). To help do that, I'm embarking on creating my own translation that attempts to address the limitations of translating words into English. So, instead of using English words, I'm transliterating the key words. So, Matt 10:24 would be "The mathētēs is not above didaskalos, nor the doulos above his kyrios."

[Tcg]

Aside from creating an interlinear Bible, yes, it'd be impossible to produce a word for word literal translation. But, even with an interlinear, one has to choose what English word to use, which most likely would not convey the full meaning of the original word.

As a side project, I'm trying to teach myself Greek (as well as Hebrew). To help do that, I'm embarking on creating my own translation that attempts to address the limitations of translating words into English. So, instead of using English words, I'm transliterating the key words. So, Matt 10:24 would be "The mathētēs is not above didaskalos, nor the doulos above his kyrios."

That sounds like a fruitful project. Are you using primarily online resources or are there some modern grammars you prefer?

In college we had small vocabulary cards that had the Greek word on one side and English on the other. We'd punch holes in one end and use a binder clip a hold the cards for the words we were working on memorizing. You could spot the Greek students because they'd clip this packet to a belt loop to keep them handy for study during any free moment. It worked. As I said I haven't kept current, but there are many words I still recognize from those cards. Doulos is one of those, but of course a little card wasn't large enough to display much more than one English equivalent.


Tcg

[otseng]

That sounds like a fruitful project. Are you using primarily online resources or are there some modern grammars you prefer?

I used to use Blue Letter Bible. Now, thanks to Difflugia, I use UniqueBible.app. The great thing is it is open source and so I'm able to customize it to what I want in a Bible study program. I've even customized it so it can power a website. My translation is available at transliteralbible.com. I'm currently working on James and hopefully I'll be done with the NT by the end of the year. After that, I'll start on the OT.

[Difflugia]

As the ESV preface states:

In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, someone in the Roman Empire officially bound under contract to serve his master for seven years (except for those in Caesar’s household in Rome who were contracted for fourteen years). When the contract expired, the person was freed, given his wage that had been saved by the master, and officially declared a freedman.

https://www.esv.org/preface

I've been looking for a primary source for this. A Google search finds other people referencing the ESV preface, but no other sources. I found an old article by Daniel B. Wallace with the claim:

Cicero noted that a slave could usually be set free within seven years; in any case, under Roman law a slave would normally be set free by age 30.

Wallace cites no primary source (at least in that short article), but he's apparently referring to this line of Cicero's Eighth Philippic speech, in which Cicero advocates for a war:

In truth, O conscript fathers, now we have begun to entertain hopes of liberty again, after a period of six years, during which we have been deprived of it, having endured slavery longer than prudent and industrious prisoners usually do, what watchfulness, what anxiety, what exertions ought we to shrink from, for the sake of delivering the Roman people?

Henrik Mouritsen says of this in The Freedman in the Roman World (p. 137):

The statement has been taken as evidence that slaves could expect to be freed after just six years of service. But it has also been pointed out that Cicero’s sexennium was determined by the historical context of the speech, which traced the ‘enslavement of the Roman people’ back to the outbreak of the civil war in January – precisely six years earlier. Moreover, a closer reading further qualifies the statement, for, in line with the Roman ideal of selective manumission, the captivi who could expect their freedom were the ‘frugi et diligentes’, i.e. those who had earned it through hard work and dedication.

A few pages later (p. 139),

Many other sources imply that manumission was considered neither universal nor automatic. For example, Seneca tells the story how he met his slave Felicio, the son of the bailiff and once Seneca’s pet slave, delicium, but now grown old. Despite his favoured position and early closeness to the master he had never been freed and now worked as doorkeeper at the country estate. To Seneca the encounter merely inspired a meditation on old age and gave no cause for regret.

Aside from this, I've found nothing indicating "contracts" for either seven or fourteen years.

If anyone can find such a source, I'd like to know about it.

[1213]

He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."
Gen. 17:13-14

Frankly, this is where I completely lose it. I cannot take seriously an omni-everything deity who strikes deals with people based on the presence or absence of their penis tips.

I would probably also do so, if that would be the only teaching there is. It would be interesting to know, why was that the thing God required. I don’t know at the moment, but, I believe God has good reason for everything He does.