‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’ (part 2)

Last updated on: July 13, 2021 at 8:07 pm by Fred Clark

‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’ (part 2) 2021-07-13T20:07:59-04:00 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.

The scholars working on the English Standard Version of the Bible were fiercely committed to producing a strictly literal translation. So whenever the ancient writers used the Hebrew or Greek words denoting “slave,” the ESV translators used that English word.

The problem, though, is that the connotations of that word for a 21st-century American reader would be very different than they would have been for a Bronze Age or first-century writer. For contemporary English-language readers, the word “slave” had acquired a monstrous host of additional meaning from centuries of American-style slavery — meaning that would not have been intended by the ancient writers or understood by their intended readers. A strictly literal translation could therefore be misleading. Contemporary readers might see the word “slave” and think of someone like Levar Burton in Roots even though the passage was meant to describe someone more like Zero Mostel in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

Yesterday we discussed 19th-century abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard so here, belatedly, is a picture of his far prettier namesake, Orlando Jonathan Blanchard Bloom.

That’s not to say that the form of slavery in the Roman Empire was a “funny thing.” It was oppressive, cruel, dehumanizing, and unjust. But it was also not as oppressive, cruel, dehumanizing, and unjust as the race-based, brutal, lifelong chattel slavery practiced in America. It’s injustice was different in both form and degree. That difference matters to any reader who hopes to understand the ancient texts of scripture that address the various forms of slavery practiced in the ancient world.

The ESV translators thus were confronted with the same situation described by Leonard Bacon and a host of other 19th-century abolitionist Christians who — as we discussed in the previous post — argued, repeatedly, that it was inaccurate and immoral to equate American-style slavery with whatever the biblical writers had in mind when they used the word we translate into “slave.”

Initially, the ESV attempted to address this with a footnote warning readers not to project the connotations of American-style slavery to passages about slavery in the ancient world. The footnote suggested thinking of these ancient slaves, perhaps, as “bondservants” — an odd, archaic word that I suppose attempts to convey that slaves in the ancient world were a bit more servant-like in their status than the people enslaved by white Americans, but were still in bondage, and not free, hired servants.

But a lot of readers don’t read the footnotes. They stick to the holy writ of the main text — the part that the ESV’s intended audience of American evangelicals regards as inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. So eventually the ESV shifted to using the word “bondservant” in the text of the translation, with the footnote explaining the translators’ choice. And then, a few years later, they got rid of the footnote entirely.

Samuel Perry describes this change, emphasizing that it’s a major departure from the ESV’s commitment to a strictly verbatim literalism. That’s worth emphasizing because, as he says, the ESV translators have, for years, condemned other translations for what they’ve characterized as a dangerously liberal accommodation to worldly culture for straying from such absolute literalism:

They have marketed themselves as an essentially literal translation that resists the PC push. The general editor, Wayne Grudem, had for years denounced contemporary Bible translations, like the New International Version, for doing those kinds of things: becoming [“politically correct”], changing the language to conform to modern sensibilities, that kind of thing, especially with regard to gender.

So for years they have said, “Hey, we’re not going to translate certain things in a gender-neutral fashion, because we want to be as literal as possible, and if you like that it’s capitulating to the feminist PC culture.” So ESV has marketed themselves as a very popular evangelical translation that is used most faithfully by complementarian Protestant Christians for that reason: because it’s conservative and because it’s supposed to be literal.

But at the same time, the fact that that the “slave” language in the New Testament is so obvious creates a real apologetics problem, because of all this talk about “slaves obeying your masters,” and how slaves should subject themselves not only to good masters but bad masters, and how slaves should stay in the station of life where they were called. It creates this really ugly impression of the New Testament, and especially Paul advocating for slavery.

So what you can see in the English Standard Version is that with each successive wave, from the 2001 revision of the Revised Standard Version to the 2011 revision and then finally in 2016, our most recent revision, was that they started by introducing a footnote in 2001 to the “slave” word, and then in 2011 they replace the slave word and put it in a footnote, and then they said, “We’re going to call this a bondservant. So it’s different from a slave.”

By 2016 they didn’t use slave language at all. If you read that translation you would have no idea that the original translation — and I think the most appropriate translation — would be “slave.” All you see is this kind of Christian-used churchy word “bondservant,” which you never hear outside of a biblical reference. Nobody knows what that means, but it’s a way that the English Standard Version and other Bibles like it can kind of say, “Hey, these are slaves, but they’re not real, real slaves. They’re not really bad slaves like we think of in the antebellum South, like chattel slavery. It’s something different.”

In Perry’s description, the change in the ESV was less concerned with clarifying the meaning of the text than it was with defending the perception of the text. Perry calls this an “apologetics problem,” which is a nice way of saying a public relations problem.*

It would be one thing if Leonard Bacon had produced an antebellum “bondservant” translation to combat Christian appeals to biblical support for slavery. That might have been understood as unambiguously intended to prevent the use of the Bible as a tool of oppression. But after more than 150 years of reluctant, begrudging white Christian resistance to legal equality, and from vocal proponents of a partisan faith committed to rejecting the Reconstruction Amendments, it seems clear that Perry is correct to view this belated shutting of the barn door as less concerned with opposing injustice than with defending the reputation and alleged innocent righteousness of self-proclaimed “biblical” Christians.

It seems less like an effort to clarify the meaning of the Bible and more like an effort to defend it’s reputation — and thereby to defend our own.

* That may seem uncharitable, but Perry has receipts to back up his skeptical take. The ESV translators, for one thing, weren’t bound by any strict commitment to literalism when they altered the language of the Revised Standard Version to make it more conservative in terms of gender roles. “They actually made gender language more complementarian, more about men’s and women’s roles,” he notes.

And then, more conclusively, there’s the ESV project’s abiding concern with “political correctness.” What does that mean? The only thing it ever means, which is nothing, substantially. The phrase “politically correct” (or, more recently, “woke”) is not used to convey meaning, or to name or describe a particular thing, or to articulate and communicate any specific idea. It is, rather, a tribal signifier. That is it’s only meaning and function. It is a secret handshake indicating one’s proud membership in the international brotherhood of disingenuous assholes.

When someone unironically uses the words “politically correct” or “PC,” or speaks menacingly of the threat of “wokeness,” there is no reason to merely suspect that they might be acting in bad faith. They have confirmed that they are. You’re not being uncharitable or unduly suspicious when you’re holding their signed confession.

This is also why I’m not a fan of Paul Rosenberg’s ironic appropriation of this language in his title and introduction to this interview with Perry: “When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC.” That’s intended to highlight the apparent hypocrisy of the defiantly “politically incorrect” ESV marketers, but I’m not sure hypocrisy is an applicable category. It’s less a matter of a double-standard than it is of a lack of any good-faith standards at all. (See also: McConnell, Mitch.)

Previous Post

July 12, 2021

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

Next Post

July 14, 2021 'For you were [redacted] in Egypt' (part 3)

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

How many people were added to the church on the day of Pentecost?

Select your answer to see how you score.

About 10,000 About 5,000 About 1,000 About 3,000