The day before Justin Taylor posted about Eric Metaxes’ children’s book on Squanto, the Coalition blogger referenced an explanation about forthcoming changes in translations for the English Standard Version. The biblical words for slave — ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek) have been particularly vexing to the Committee responsible revising the ESV. Taylor cites the Committee’s explanation for their current dilemma:
A particular difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in the modern world. Such is the case in the translation of ‘ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek), terms which are often rendered “slave.” These terms, however, actually cover a range of relationships that require a range of renderings—either “slave,” “bondservant,” or “servant”—depending on the context. Further, the word “slave” currently carries associations with the often brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery in nineteenth-century America. For this reason, the ESV translation of the words ‘ebed and doulos has been undertaken with particular attention to their meaning in each specific context. Thus in Old Testament times, one might enter slavery either voluntarily (e.g., to escape poverty or to pay off a debt) or involuntarily (e.g., by birth, by being captured in battle, or by judicial sentence). Protection for all in servitude in ancient Israel was provided by the Mosaic Law. In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, as someone bound to serve his master for a specific (usually lengthy) period of time, but also as someone who might nevertheless own property, achieve social advancement, and even be released or purchase his freedom. The ESV usage thus seeks to express the nuance of meaning in each context. Where absolute ownership by a master is in view (as in Romans 6), “slave” is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, “bondservant” is used (as in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John 4:51), “servant” is preferred. Footnotes are generally provided to identify the Hebrew or Greek and the range of meaning that these terms may carry in each case.
The juxtaposition of the post about Squanto and this one about slavery were indeed vexing if not arresting. In the case of a Turkey-stuffed happy ending for Squanto and the Pilgrims, Taylor and the Co-Allies who read him were willing to overlook the enormities of Europeans’ treatment of native Americans, slavery (based on abduction), and death of a native-American village. But in the case of the nineteenth-century U.S. slavery, the Co-Allies cannot prevent the knowledge of white Americans’ treatment of African-American slaves from tarnishing these evangelicals’ reading of Holy Writ. I would have thought that the same stomach that could overlook Squato’s difficult life (not to mention his native American relatives’ lives for centuries to come) might also understand that the biblical references to slavery were part of narrative that resulted in an even happier ending — namely, the redemption of the world through Christ.
In other words, the sensitivity to questions of race and ethnicity at the Gospel Coaltion — if Taylor’s blog is any indication — appears to be selective bordering on arbitrary.
Just as troubling about this post and the translation committee’s discomfort over slavery is what this group of scholars do with the Bible not only when they translate but when they teach, interpret, and preach. After all, slavery in the Old Testament may be different from nineteenth-century American practices — I have no doubt that it was. But it was not any more pleasant or even rational (in the modernizing sense). If Abraham can “go into” his “servant,” Hagar for the sake of fulfilling the covenant God had just made with him, I am not sure that Old Testament saints were any more noble or inspired than Thomas Jefferson dallying with Sally Hemmings. And if just after Israel receives the very tablets containing the Decalogue, God instructs the Israelites through Moses, “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do,” (Exod. 21:7), I am not sure that nineteenth-century masters were any more patriarchal than Old Testament patriarchs who sold their daughters into slavery.
The point here is not to bring the Bible down to the level of the antebellum South or to mock evangelicals who feel uncomfortable with the way humans beings treat each other — whether in nineteenth-century Alabama or the eleventh-century (BC) Ancient Near East. Confessionalists and pietists both get uncomfortable with slavery or other expressions of man’s inhumanity to man. Instead, the point is to avoid whitewashing the biblical text for the sake of contemporary race relations. The level of morality among the Old Testament saints was truly low (though I’d hasten to add that contemporary saints are not necessarily more virtuous). But if you read the Bible not for moral heroes or exemplary villains but as the story of God saving moral misfits, then you know that the Bible is not given either as blueprint or justification for contemporary social relations. But if nineteenth-century slavery looms as the most dehumanizing instance of masters’ treatment of servants and if biblical servants are simply forerunners of Squanto, then the most troubling and most glorious features of the Bible will surely be missed.
Old Life 
Native North Americans are the most overlooked and forgotten people. They have never had and still do not have a voice in the public square – and no one seems to care. It is shameful. In the part of North America I grew up in, Newfoundland, there was a bounty on the native population at one point. They are now extinct. So, I am not surprised that the mistreatment of Squanto is ignored, perhaps not even known. I often think of natives when the debate about sending illegals back to their countries of origins comes up. What if the native population in the 17th century onward had had an immigration policy? We of western European extraction can all trace our roots to illegal immigrants who happened to have greater fire power.
LikeLike
Nice category, Hart.
LikeLike
Yeah, Deege, our last president might have dubbed you an “oversighter”.
LikeLike
This kind of queasiness with the Biblical record reminds me of how often my liberal Profs at a mainline seminary would scoff at the “barbaric” Old Testament because it did not fit with their skewed understanding of the Love of God.
LikeLike
My ethnicity is Scots Irish and American Indian and nothing gets me more angry then when white men try to reduce us to tree hugging longhaired hippies running around the woods loving everyone. We were take your hair, torture you until your screams had nightmares, warriors. We do not consider ourselves victims, so put your white guilt away. My grandparents told me many stories of warriors and hunters and nothing of victimhood (my grandfather was a great warrior in WWII). Our people controlled most of the southeastern US at one time. We conquered weaker tribes and enslaved others (including Africans). The white side of my family was to poor to own much of anything for a long time. Yes, the Europeans did evil things and so did we. When you try to reduce us to victim status you make us less then human. Without God’s grace we are just as evil as any other human being.
LikeLike
John, what you are saying makes perfect sense. Families don’t sit around talking about vicitmized ancestors, they talk about ancestors of accomplishment and spirit. I suppose you are suggesting that we avoid hero/victim narratives of history, and, instead tell a more complicated story of fallen men on both sides? What is your assessment of the fairly typical Thanksgiving narrative?
LikeLike
John,
You’ve gotta understand that white people don’t even know how white they act. I realize that this blogfight between the gospel coalition and DGH looks very strange to nonwhites who are unaccustomed to pissing on their history and ancestors, but this is another variation on a theme you may see frequently in the media. Whites like to use the term “racist” to gain leverage over other whites. Another variation on this theme is to move Leftward of those in power so you can gain some form of power yourself, since the Left is in power and power is therfore gained by moving Left of the Left. One time-tested way of doing this is by denouncing those in power as being racists.
If I extrapolate current demographic trends in this country properly, you will soon no longer have to hear these arguments. For instance, who today has heard of the Rhodesians? Who today knows anything about the demographics of Los Angeles county over the past 30 years? I guess those things don’t matter because those people were racists.
LikeLike
DGH,
I guess I see two things here at play that seem a bit difficult to detangle. First, the admirable inclination for better precision in bible translation, as ebed and doulos often have wider semantic ranges than we see in conservative translations. And second, a seemingly guilt-motivation to ensure that race language in Scripture isn’t unduly abrasive, which arises from 21st century sectarian (Evangelical) concerns.
But, the desire for better treatment for biblical semantics is a glaring need for modern translations, and may ruffle feathers amongst evangelicals, and indeed has (e.g. TNIV, or the new NIV), when translations trying to interpret semantics across millenia of linguistic development. Progressive evangelicals, and even conservatives such as DA Carson and Mark Strauss were called to task over “messing with” the gender language of Scripture in TNIV and the newer NIV. Irrespective of where one lands on the issue, translation always presupposes a good deal of interpretation and can be imprecise at certain points. The NRSV took heat on the nature of alma (virgin) in Isa. 7:14, since this was already a contentious issue, but what was often overlooked was the semantic range of the term, and how it develops over time in the intertestamental lit, all the way into Matthew’s use to establish the virgin birth of Christ. Even those of us who uphold the virgin birth have to allow for the fact that language and terms evolve in meaning over time.
So if the ESV translation committe, and Crossway, which is so heavily in cahoots with TGC want to aim for more precise modern rendering of ancient Hebrew and Greek grammar and syntax, I applaud them, but that is quite a knife’s edge to traverse, since there is more than simply race and gender that has to be considered as we translate scripture. Then the publishing houses are also forced on the horns of a dilemma of their own making – they must create marketable translations, ones that the bible-purchasing public will bone up for, ask Zondervan how that has gone for them, as most of their improvements on the venerable NIV have completely fallen flat.
This to say, what seems silly is to have an issue-driven philosophy of translation. The best translations in the English tradition from the KGV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, and even the more recent ESV had a quality that enabled both relevance and durability that enables these translations to endure for at least a generation or two, and they were simply trying to translate the original languages into the modern vernacular, with obvious differences in method. But to my knowledge these weren’t driven over one or two contemporary concerns that can end up creating imbalances in the translation. There will always be both contemporary issues that make understanding the Bible in any tongue difficult, and vice versa there will always be issues within the world of Scripture that don’t jive with contemporary sensibilities, this problem is resolved through competent teaching, not acquiescence, or over-sensitivity at the translational level.
LikeLike
Michael, you got my point exactly. All peoples are complicated (it’s that total depravity/common grace thing). I don’t think we should even lump all Native Americans together, like they all believed the same things. I was talking with someone today about when we were children and some men would dress up in headdress that would be more appropriate to a plains tribe. But, that is what the tourist expected an “Indian” to wear.
As far as the typical Thanksgiving narrative, again to simplistic. We give thanks to God for using flawed Englishmen to bring God’s Word to the “New World”.
Walt, you are so right when you say some discussions seem strange viewed through a different lens. I remember listening to a group of ministers discussing good works, or what they thought were good works, and thinking they could only be talking like that because they were all privileged white men living in the USA. I guess the lesson here is everyone brings their own prejudices to a discussion, including myself.
I thank you for your understanding.
LikeLike
What Keller and Piper need is some black co-writers.
Jemar Tisby–“The Benedict Option takes a running leap over the black church and lands on another continent in another millennium. Dreher goes back 1,500 years to find the Rule of St. Benedict when he could have gazed back over the past 400 years and looked across the street to the black church for guidance. According to a recent post on social media, apparently Dreher didn’t feel he had the “moral authority” to talk about the black church. That’s probably true, but it’s not difficult to gain information about the black church. He could have asked black Christians for input during the editorial process. He could have spent time reading the dozens of books about the black church America. Or he could have even had a co-author write it with him. Instead, he just leaves out the black church.”
https://www.raanetwork.org/10847-2/
LikeLike
Jemar Tisby–“The reality for many white believers is that Christians of color may provide inspiring stories of resistance and are certainly nice to have on display in the congregation, but they are not a true source of wisdom for the white church. To some white Christians, the faith traditions of racial minorities may offer great aesthetics like preaching or musical style, but they don’t have the legitimacy to lead the way into the future. The constant refusal to learn from the black church can only be termed ecclesiastical arrogance. The ecclesiastical arrogance of the white church toward the black church has been on display ever since Africans were deposited in North America as chattel.”
https://justacurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2017/04/i-play-43-race-cards.html
LikeLike
I think it’s much safer for Jarvis Williams to stop talking about particular atonement and instead now give the finger to white churches. But his accusations have created in me some questions about black churches. Does anybody at the Reformed African network know any black church where the people are interested in taking vows not to vote, not to participate in Satan’s democratic sacrament?
Or is it the case that I as a white male always had the vote, and thus always had in my power the duty and ability to attempt to make the Noahic kingdom (no god or worship in that covenant!) run toward the correct direction in history?.
Why complain about not being invited to a party you did not want to attend in the first place?
Benedict would not allow me to listen to John Coltrane or watch the Simpsons on TV.
Benedict would think I needed long periods in which I did not read what’s on the Reformed African blog.
Benedict would command me to be silent and not talk, and not even write comments on the internet
Benedict would suggest that I define being humble as not having so much self-esteem.
But why should I take the sacrament from a white man like Benedict. I can read the Bible for myself.
Seminary Credit
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
sbts-logo
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
mbts-seal-stroke-gray-cmyk
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
http://2017.thegospelcoalition.org/
LikeLike