‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’: Concordance-ism and the ESV (part 1)

Last updated on: July 12, 2021 at 7:17 pm by Fred Clark

‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’: Concordance-ism and the ESV (part 1) 2021-07-12T19:17:19-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

[Leonard] Bacon and those who like him wanted both to preserve traditional biblical authority and to oppose slavery still had one more argument to advance. They could concede that the Bible never did in fact condemn slavery per se, but they could also contend that, when properly interpreted, Scripture did condemn the kind of slavery practiced in the American South. With a substantial history behind it, this was an argument of some subtlety, and one that Bacon himself, along with a sizable number of other earnest Bible believers, tried to make in the years before war broke out.

That’s from Mark Noll’s terrific book The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, and Noll goes on to offer five pages of examples of abolitionist white Christians making this argument. These anti-slavery arguments forcefully detailed the many ways that America’s practice of race-based, lifelong chattel slavery and the trading of humans as property differed greatly from the forms of slavery practiced in the ancient world, whether by the Hebrew patriarchs or by the pagans of the Roman Empire. Yes, they argued, the laws of Moses and the letters of Paul allowed and commended what is properly translated into English as “slavery,” but the practices those words described in those ancient contexts were nothing like the brutal form of the practice that bore the name here in America.

In an endnote to this section, Noll writes that:

From my viewpoint as a Christian believer at the start of the 21st Century, these antislavery arguments offered the most promising way of using the Bible during the interpretive battles of the mid-19th Century. But given the historical situations outlined in this book, it is also fairly easy to show why such arguments carried relatively little weight in the United States of that period.

It makes sense that Noll, a historian, finds the argument based on historical context most compelling. And he’s right that it’s a very strong argument, because it’s true. The “peculiar institution” of American slavery was more brutal, more oppressive, and more dehumanizing than the various forms of slavery practiced in the ancient world. The thing called slavery from which Fredrick Douglass escaped was a very different and much worse thing than the thing called slavery from which Onesimus escaped, and you don’t need to be a biblical scholar like Leonard Bacon or a historian like Noll to appreciate the difference.

Race-based, lifelong, American-style chattel slavery was a monstrosity. You can find some approximate parallels to such a system in the Bible, but they’re uniformly described as deserving — and receiving — extreme punishment.

Philadelphia police search Gary Heidnik’s basement in 1987. When you think of American slavery, think of Gary Heidnik. Think of 10,000 Gary Heidniks, all sanctioned by the Constitution and blessed by the church.

But there’s also another reason that Noll finds this historical context argument “the most promising way to use the Bible.” It’s because he is himself a white American evangelical Christian. He is therefore, like Leonard Bacon, committed “to preserve traditional biblical authority” and to what he takes that phrase to mean. And as a white American evangelical Christian — even now in the 21st Century — what he understands that phrase to mean is precisely the same thing that white American evangelical Christians understood it to mean in the 19th Century when they recited the clobber-texts that, in their eyes, conclusively and authoritatively put the Bible and God on the side of the enslavers.

You can see this throughout The Civil War as a Theological Crisis in the multitude of examples Noll compiles of 19th-century white Christians arguing over whether the Bible was proslavery or antislavery. The proslavery side dominated those arguments, perceiving and portraying their anti-slavery opponents as having gone squishy on “traditional biblical authority.” Noll seems sympathetic to this claim. See, for example, his description of a debate between the abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard and the “gradual, voluntary emancipationist” (i.e., defender of the status quo) Nathaniel Rice:

Although this debate is worthy studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the antislavery argument. As Rice methodically tied Blanchard in knots over how to interpret the proslavery implications of specific texts, Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.” Early on in the debate, Blanchard’s exasperation with Rice’s attention to particular passages led him to utter a particularly revealing statement of his own reasoning: “Abolitionists take their stand upon the New Testament doctrine of the natural equity of man. The one-bloodism of human kind [from Acts 17:26]: — and upon those great principles of human rights, drawn from the New Testament, and announced in the American Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men have natural and inalienable rights to person, property and the pursuit of happiness.” Blanchard’s linkage between themes from Scripture and tropes from American republicanism was repeated regularly by abolitionists. But this use of the Bible almost never found support in the South and only rarely among Northern moderates and conservatives. In general, it was a use that suffered particular difficulties when, as in the ground rules laid down for Blanchard and Rice in their Cincinnati debate, disputants pledged themselves in good Protestant fashion to base what they said on the Bible as their only authoritative source.

Rice’s approach — the clobber-texting citation of specific texts excised from their context — is accepted as a theologically “conservative” commitment to “traditional biblical authority.” Blanchard’s reliance on “broad principles” and “the whole scope of the Bible” and his willingness to consider reasoned arguments from sources beyond the chapter-and-verse citation of clobber-texts was perceived as a deviation from that “conservative” appreciation for “traditional biblical authority.”

For the most part, Noll does not himself characterize Blanchard’s approach or that of other “Golden Rule” abolitionists as a “liberal” rejection of this supposedly “traditional” clobber-texting understanding of biblical authority. He hints at that a bit, but mostly just points out that such an approach was incapable of persuading those who cast themselves as more “conservative” and more devoutly dedicated to “biblical authority.” That’s accurate, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Because clobber-texting concordance-ism costumed as sola scriptura really is not a “traditional” understanding of biblical authority. It is, rather, a creation of white slave-owning Christianity — an innovation that would be unrecognizable to any Christian prior to the 16th Century. It was far too recent a development to be called “traditional” and far too radical a departure from prior practice to be called “conservative.”

Given that white American evangelicals still, today, regard this clobber-texting concordance-ism developed to defend slavery as a more “conservative” form of “traditional biblical authority,” well, “it is also fairly easy to show” why arguments based on the historical context of the Bible carry “relatively little weight in the United States of this period.”

Which brings us to a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, recent discussion of the strange evolution of a recent English translation intended to present the most “conservative” approach to “traditional biblical authority”: “When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC.”

There’s a great deal to be said about this story and the ESV’s awkward attempts to employ concordance-ism as a means to fix the ugly pro-slavery implications that it was originally designed to produce. But before we get into all of that, we first needed to talk about Leonard Bacon and the other 19th-century abolitionists who — correctly — argued that American slavery was not identical or even analogous to the slavery of the ancient world described in the ancient texts of the Bible. That’s a bit of historical context that needed to be established before we could dive into the ESV translators’ attempts to deal with historical context by erasing it via what Samuel Perry calls “Bible modification.”

Previous Post

July 8, 2021

Stairways circle back to where you've been

Next Post

July 13, 2021 'For you were [redacted] in Egypt' (part 2)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Jesus do at the wedding in Cana?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fed the guests Healed a sick child Turned water into wine Walked on water