Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’ (part 3)

‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’ (part 3)

Last updated on: July 14, 2021 at 4:57 pm by Fred Clark

‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’ (part 3) 2021-07-14T16:57:27-04:00 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.

So we’ve been looking at this Salon interview with Samuel Perry — “When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC.” Perry describes how the ESV scholars have been translating the word “slavery” out of the Bible and argues that this seems to be an attempt to solve the “apologetics problem” caused by the presence of several texts that have a long history of use by enslavers. The ESV’s recent search-and-replace substitution, he says, is not mainly due to an attempt to prevent others from using scripture to defend injustice, but due to an attempt to defend the reputation of the Bible after centuries in which such passages have been infamously exploited in defense of atrocities.

I think Perry makes a strong case that this choice to substitute the odd word “bondservant” for “slave” has been primarily a defensive effort to “avoid charges that the Bible is socially regressive and condones oppressive relationships and is socially or culturally backward.” But I also think that’s incomplete.

What we also have here, I think, is a clumsy attempt to separate biblical “literalism” and it’s illiterate anti-hermeneutic of concordance-ism from the origins of those concepts as tools designed to defend the white-supremacist chattel slavery of the antebellum South.

People like ESV general editor Wayne Grudem are so thoroughly ingrained in this approach of concordance-ism that they instinctively rely on concordance-ist efforts to defend it. After centuries of insisting that the best way to understand “what the Bible says” about slavery is to look up every occurrence of the literal word “slavery,” they cannot imagine any way of avoiding a pro-slavery interpretation of the Bible that does not also involve looking up every occurrence of that same literal word and then replacing it with a different word.

This is not how translation is supposed to work because this is not how reading is supposed to work.

Grudem et. al. are the heirs and defenders of a white hermeneutic that was created explicitly to allow white Christians to treat the Bible as an authoritative and unambiguously pro-slavery text. This is the root and the cause and the design of everything espoused as “literalism” or “inerrancy” — the multi-generational work of reducing scripture to concordance-derived clobber texts that could serve as trump cards in theological arguments among white people about slavery. This was the paramount and preoccupying argument in white American Christianity for centuries and it still, today, shapes the boundaries of America’s Protestant denominations.

Throughout those centuries, the minority faction of antislavery white Christians repeatedly argued that the forms of slavery found throughout the ancient world were drastically different from the race-based, cradle-to-grave chattel slavery practiced in America (see part 1).

This minority of antislavery Christians argued, in other words, that the Bible could only be understood by reading it in context — both in the sense of the context of the world and culture in which it was written, and in the sense of refusing to allow clobber-texts to be excised from what the abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard described as “the whole scope of the Bible.” The argument against this from the pro-slavery majority of white American Christianity was to shout “literalism” and “inerrancy.” “Slavery” means “slavery.” Chapter and verse. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Etc.

Grudem and the ESV translators are trying to keep that literalist, clobber-texting approach without it leading them to the conclusions it was designed to conclude. They’re trying to employ the proslavery white-supremacist hermeneutic of their human-trafficking forefathers while somehow avoiding the perception that they, too, are defending slavery and white supremacy. They’ve approached this impossible task by trying to appropriate one of the same arguments that their forefathers rejected for hundreds of years — but they have done so clumsily because their saturation in concordance-ist literalism still prevents them from understanding that argument. They cannot fathom or tolerate the notion that the Bible read in its ancient cultural context might mean something very different from what a culture-bound literalism would suggest. Nor can they agree with the notion — as one abolitionist put it — that “the Golden Rule is sufficient.”

So all they’re left with is literally changing the literal text of the clobber-texts.

Perry calls this rewriting “Bible modification” and sees it as a strategy for addressing the “historical, reputational problem” that comes from having spent centuries using the Bible to defend morally depraved atrocities:

There is a record of evangelical Christians using the Bible to condone and defend slavery as an institution, because it is obviously there and it’s easy to do, given that the New Testament authors didn’t condemn it in any way, and in many ways enabled and justified it as an institution,. That was readily used by pro-slavery advocates in the antebellum South, and under Jim Crow for issues like segregation. Even up to the late 1990s, Bob Jones University was citing biblical references for segregation or prohibiting interracial dating on campus.

Bible modification is a way that you can clean that up by saying, “You know what? These people were obviously misinterpreting scripture, because it’s right there. Look, it doesn’t say ‘slave,’ it says, ‘bondservant’!” You can point back at this group of conservative Christians in the past as people who misunderstood the Bible, rather than reading it in the plain language like we have it now. That is very important in this evangelical culture of biblicism: They want to interpret the Bible in plain language, and to be able to do that you have to adjust the language, to make it conform to exactly what you want to say.

Rewriting the literal text of the Bible to change its meaning seems like it would be anathema to people so loudly proclaiming their belief in its “inerrancy,” but this is something their enslavers’ hermeneutic leads them to do quite a bit.

The link there is to a 2012 post discussing the deliberate mistranslation of Exodus 21:22-25 in an effort to create an anti-abortion clobber-text from a passage that, in the original text and context, undermines any attempt to claim biblical justification for abortion-is-murder-ism.

This is why it’s frustrating to me when Perry says, “I haven’t detected any instances of Bible modification that are ‘pro-life’ angles.” I have. Anti-abortionist Bible modification has already happened. Most of our English translations post-Happy Meal have rewritten Exodus 21 to create an abortion-is-murder clobber-text out of a passage that says very much the opposite in the original language.

Perry goes on to say:

There are obviously instances in the Old Testament where you can argue that Yahweh formally commands [abortion], and you get this obviously selective reading of key texts. From there, I think it’s a pretty small step to, “OK, how do we how we get rid of these problematic verses? How do we make these verses conform?”

If I were to pay attention to where I think those changes might pop up, it would be passages where God in the Old Testament formally commands the wiping out of Canaanites, the putting to death of women with children or of young children. Those are particularly problematic, given the pro-life leanings of evangelicals.

Anti-abortionist white evangelicals haven’t yet recognized any need for “Bible modification” with such passages because their concordance-ism prevents them from realizing those passages might have anything to say about the subject.

Go to Bible Gateway and search for the word “abortion” and you won’t find any results instructing you to turn to Numbers 5 or to any of the passages commanding the slaughter of Canaanite infants. Concordance-ism hides such passages and such thoughts because it was designed to hide them. It was designed to obscure our understanding of texts and contexts, and to obscure even the fact of its obscuring.

To repeat myself:

That illiterate premise is a feature, not a bug. That’s what biblicism is for. That is how and why it was invented, adopted, and ultimately required for white evangelical American Christians.

Because slavery. See, if you read the Bible, the trajectory and its conclusion is unmistakable. But if you instead “look it up” in the Bible — turning to the entry for “slavery” in a concordance — you can compile a list of abstracted clobber-texts that can be weaponized as an “authoritative” defense of the opposite conclusion. It’s quite effective. That concordance search for “slavery,” after all, won’t ever turn up any of that “loose the bonds of injustice” and “break every yoke” business. Nor will it show you how Jesus made such a passage the mission statement for his ministry. Nor will it remind you of the freaking title of the second book of the Bible.

And whether consciously or unconsciously, it’s quite easy to tailor the terms of your concordance search to ensure that you get only the result you’re looking for while avoiding anything that would challenge, question or contradict your prior conclusions. (Make sure you do your word search for “slavery” rather than for “liberation” or “oppression” or “injustice.”) Biblicism — concordance-ism — thus allows you to seek and find whatever it is you want to say and then to claim you’re not the one saying it, but that God’s Word is saying it, and therefore it is incontrovertible.

Previous Post

July 13, 2021

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

Next Post

July 14, 2021 Passing the hat

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

Who was healed from leprosy after obeying Elisha's command to wash in the Jordan?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jeroboam Jehu Hazael Naaman