As I mentioned in my post yesterday, the review committee of the 2011 edition of the ESV can be seen discussing how they translate terms to do with slavery (see here [edit - it is also available on YouTube]). Given their openness to the TV cameras, it would be interesting to know if they intend to publish their reasons for changes made. This is because the change on which they vote and agree at the end seems most surprising.
The vote is on how to translate doulos in 1 Cor 7:21-23. Almost all modern English Bibles, including previous editions of the ESV, translate this as slave. However, the committee decide to change this to ‘bondservant’ in the 2011 edition (see here). I find this a strange decision for a number of reasons:
- In 1 Cor 7:15, they have translated the cognate verb as ‘enslaved’. I think this is the right translation, but if they can stomach it here in relation to marriage (!), why not six verses later when the actual institution of slavery is in mind?
- In 1 Cor 12:12, they have translated douloi as ‘slaves’, probably because of the opposing eleutheroi. Yet we have this same combination of terms in 7:21.
- Bondservant is an archaic term which hardly makes the meaning plainer to the average reader.
- Although dictionaries suggest that ‘bondservant’ is synonymous with ‘slave’, as far as I know, it is not the same. The former represents so-called ‘debt slavery’ (or similar forms of bonded labour), while the latter is ‘chattel slavery’. In the former, the individual sells their labour whereas in the latter, they sell themselves (in neither case should this necessarily be taken to imply that it is the slave’s decision). This distinction can be seen in the Torah’s different approach to Hebrews and non-Hebrews who are enslaved, although the ESV there uses the term ‘slave’ for each. But by the 1st century CE, doulos had become the most common word to refer to a chattel slave. What evidence did the reviewers have that supported this different kind of slavery here?
I worry when I see translations of doulos other than ‘slave’, that we are hiding from the reader some of the hardness of the text and the reality of the ancient world. I’m not sure this is the intention here, and to be fair to the reviewers, the footnote says that doulos might refer to slaves, and refers the reader to a preface to which I do not have access. Perhaps all would become clear if I could read that. Moreover, in general, the ESV is an improvement on many versions since it regularly translates doulos as ‘slave’. This makes the review committee’s decision all the more surprising. If this is true elsewhere, why not here?
Wednesday, 21 September 2011 at 11:30 am
Ed,
Always good to meet a fellow Durham grad.
Thanks for your comments on this. I agree with you on many levels. I think they should leave “slave” as “slave”, esp in 1 Cor 7:21-23.
The whole use of Bond Servant, as you note, is problematic since it seems to mitigate the horror and violence of slavery and turns it more into a form of indentured servitude. This view of slavery was popularized by R.H. Barrow in the 1920′s and adopted uncritically by NT scholars ever since. Just yesterday I was looking at a recent commentary on Philemon that uses Barrow. I think that while we are uncomfortable with slavery language, the Bible is not. And as interpretors we must navigate the ancient world of the Bible with our own. Changing “slave” to “servant” or “bond servant” doesn’t do the job.
I posted some comments on the video and would be happy to hear your remarks. (http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/09/slavery-language-in-bible-how-should-it.html )
John
Wednesday, 21 September 2011 at 3:20 pm
Thanks John, that’s interesting to hear about Barrow’s work, as there have been so many changes in the scholarly understanding of slavery since then. I guess it’s a salutary lesson: what out-of-date views am I relying on in my interpretations? I follow your blog and the post has just popped up, so I look forward to reading it.
Ed.
Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 6:18 pm
I’ve not seen the discussion so probably comment at my peril. But like you, I think it odd to choose a word which probably has only the fuzziest of meanings to many folk — quite apart from the other issues you discuss.
Monday, 26 September 2011 at 5:27 pm
[...] in 1 Corinthians 7.”) Ed Kaneen has posted more helpful analyses here and here, calling into question the translation [...]
Monday, 3 October 2011 at 3:25 am
I agree with your comments on slave. The question I have, however, is why you chose to use the liberal dating method, rather than A.D.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011 at 9:44 am
Thanks John. I wouldn’t really put this as a liberal/evangelical debate, because Daniel Wallace, an evangelical, has a post about why we should use BCE/CE [http://bible.org/article/ad-or-ce], and so-called NT Wrong thinks we should stick with BC/AD [http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/use-ad-and-bc-out-with-ce-and-bce/]. In my case, though, I simply use the BCE/CE abbreviations because they have become pretty much the de facto standard in academic discussion in Biblical Studies (curiously, I don’t see them used to the same extent by Classicists). I cannot say that I like this, I agree with NT Wrong in part, but to not use them in an academic setting is to draw attention to it, and thereby detract from what you’re actually trying to communicate. In a church context, I would use BC/AD for the same reason, because I want people to hear what I am trying to say, rather than be distracted by my nomenclature. However, your comment indicates that this doesn’t always work! You may know that this has been a hot topic in the UK recently, as the BBC has been ‘accused’ of moving towards the use of BCE/CE. The Mayor of London, in typically colourful fashion, urges that whoever decreed this (and apparently, there is no decree) should be given a ‘figurative kick in the pants.’ [http://www.boris-johnson.com/ and scroll down]