ESV 2011 changes

What's that about? Why am I the last person who should be arguing for proper translation philosophy?
I'd say I have as much right as you do.

 

(I just love how responses start with a pejorative, condescending nature from these self-proclaimed experts, telling others they can't <implied> comprehend) Quite an unChristian attitude.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, nor do you see your compromise. Does that work?

You're right, I'm not following your train of thought, nor any other mans train of thought.

What's this "we" are not changing, are you on the committee?

Re-read what I stated and get a grip. No one needs to soften what God said due to culture, including you.

Clearly you're in error. Yes, you're arguing for a Bible that best fits the culture, and to do so, changes Gods Word, as not to offend. I'm certain God is giving you all a thumbsup for stepping in and making sure you soften His true Words, whew, a close one!!!!!

Is that what God wants us to do, change His Word in a way, so it "best fits" the culture? Not at all. Pragmatism at its apex.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. This is not an error. Translation is fluid and ever-changing to keep up with the changing culture. Language is the same.

When it comes to the word doulos, the historical concept is someone who was paid to work off a debt or was too poor to pay taxes and make a living. Thus, it was a bonded servitude. It was not slavery which is forced service w/ no pay and no benefits. I am not even arguing the USA connotation on slavery. That's no the issue. What is the issue is that "slave" does not represent the historical situation of the occupation of "doulos." Thus this is not a compromise, this is accuracy. If you can't see that, if you can't recognize that I am arguing for history and proper semantic connotation, then you need to step back and grasp the issue.

Now I will say this, "slave" is a valid translation of "doulos," but in the same respect "bondservant" is also valid. There is no such thing as a 1:1 equivalency between translations-not in grammar and certainly not in lexical meanings. This is why I don't advocate a formal equivalency translation. So the historical setting and language of the original text must be taken into account AS WELL AS modern day meanings of the receptor language. In this case, doulose is best understood by the phrase "bondservant" since that implies what douloi were - paid help.

 

I said that b/c you called "doulos" a translation when in fact it is the word of the original language. You are arguing for a translation of "doulos" which I think is valid but not correct here. Thus you are demonstrating that you are not capable to discuss with much measure of data or knowledge toward the discipline of translation and linguistics. As to rights for having a proper translation philosophy, I'm not sure what you think gives one more rights than another in that regard, but if it is linguistics, Greek grammar and syntax, and Bible training, then I have that. This is not to sound pompous, it is just the truth of my situation.

 

That's part of the problem, douloi were not typically owned. They were hired to pay a debt. Thus "slave" does not communicate that biblical truth which you want to argue for.

 

Please watch. Others smarter than me think doulos should rightly be translated as slave instead of servant.



John MacArthur - slave- part 2


John MacArthur - slave - part 3

 

I understand the criticism and appreciate the resovle to get the translation right.

One of my challenges to anyone saying that a more nuanced version isn't better would be to check the best contemporary scholarship on the matter right now. There are a lot of good thoughts as to why bondservant is a better translation. This is tot just for sociological reasons either, but for reasonable theological reasons too.

I'd challenge anyone on this board to go and read the scholarship. Get BDAG and read up in Kittels. Go and check the available articles and monographs. You'll find it is a harder decision that it seems.

Translation is a dynamic process, especially with an acursed language like English.

I would challenge annsi's contrast between bondservant and slave because it lacks historical accuracy and nuance. It is a good start but needs refinement. Macarthur's handling is not complete and lacks substantive work in the history of interpretation for my tastes.

Good translation takes into account many variables in a moving language. This is one of them.

 

Nobody here is arguing that it be translated as "servant", but instead "bondservant".

 

Hmmm. . .I wonder how THE "Dictionary-Exemplar" defines bondservant.

 

More of the same...

You need to learn how to talk to people like a Christian and a man.

Lose your pejoratives and your condescending attitude. You're above no one on the BB.

 

Dude, you have some thin skin. I am not meaning offense by it. And you have similar posts, so don't be too self-righteous. Saying that I need to talk like a Christian and a man is to imply that I am neither. That is pejorative. I guess I come from a family and culture where you can say stuff like that and not mean offense by it nor be offended either. Forgive me for offending you. It was not meant to be hurtful. I am just trying to challenge dogmatic thinking of those who need to appreciate the fuller picture.

 

Dude?

Nope. Not implying that you aren't either, I'm stating that you're not acting like either.

Look, there is no need for your superior attitude, and condescension. No one is under you, and this thing you have with others not understanding you is ridiculous.

No thin skin here, learn to take some correction and learn how to treat people. If calling you on that means to you I have thin skin then sobeit.

My position about the change to the ESV stands. I am glad I didn't get one, as they've just changed it. I will however probably get one at some point.

 

I went back and read my posts and you are correct that I called doulos a translation. But I didn't mean to say that. I just wrote my sentence wrong. I know doulos is the Greek word, not a translation. It still translates "slave" in English.

Well it certainly sounds pompous. I didn't just pull this idea of doulos/slave out of thin air (or out of my ignorance either). Other more learned people confirm that doulos is the Greek word for slave. There are several other Greek words that mean servant.


An interesting point (to me anyway) is that I just recently began reading the HCSB and until this topic came up yesterday, I was not aware that this particular version uses the word slave where the Greek is doulos, unlike any other version I have used. Another reason to like it IMO.

 

Just trying to make this light-hearted again.

I understand that. And I'm stating that where I'm from, it would be considered neither. But if you recall back, you used similar language. I called you out on it last post, and you have not apologized. At least I asked for forgiveness.

I really do apologize for communicating superiority on my part and condescension on my part. This is genuine. I am coming off the way I do b/c it is wrong to be dogmatic on translation when it is such a fluid and changing process.

In the same vein, you should learn to open your mind and at least consider the evidence since what has been presented before you is objective and historical whereas your arguments against have been based on passion and subjectivity. Also, I would reiterate that you used the pejorative in a previous post. If we are talking about masculinity, then perhaps you should man up and fess up. This is my way of giving "some correction." "But I aint mad atcha."

 

I figured you made a simple mistake, but that still demonstrates that you either have not thought about this as much (and thus missed a simple misstatement) or you are too lazy to change your post. I doubt it is the latter, so I am only left to believe the former.

Now, "slave" is one correct gloss for the word doulos, I'm not denying that. But I am also not arguing for a gloss of "servant" either. That is the 2nd time you have leveled that as our argument, and we haven never used the term. We are saying that "bondservant" is also a viable gloss and in this case connotes a more correct meaning of the word doulos than "slave" since slavery in the modern era (at least the last 300 years) has been the kind that is very dissimilar to the kind of slavery in ancient times. This is my central point in that "bondservant" does a more accurate job of communicating what a doulos was in ancient times. And to flat say that "it still translates 'slave' in English" is too narrow and dogmatic on a field that is very open and often ambiguous. At the least you should recognize that there is not a 1:1 equivalency of word meanings between ancient Greek and modern US English.

Forgive me for the pompous sound. But there is no other way to list credentials w/out sounding pompous. If you have a suggestion for me to list my credentials w/out sounding like a pompous _____ (enter word), please share w/ me so I do not make the same mistake again. However, if I have studied these areas, I would say that I am more of an authority (hate the term but I can't think of a better one right now) on this issue than many here. Does that make me out and out right? CERTAINLY NOT. But I feel pretty confident that "bondservant" is just as correct if not more accurate than "slave" in this case. That is not an educated guess. That is just a reasoned deduction of the historical and lexical evidence.

I like the Holman translation as well in most places. I am not opposed to "slave" either in that at times, I believe that term does communicate what the authors were trying to communicate. But to use 1 English word all the time for the same Greek word is to miss the point of translation--to communicate the meaning of the original text rather than display the wording of the original text (which is what an interlinear is for). Meanings of the same word change depending on the author, historical situation, and context.

 

The really cool thing about the Greek language in which the NT was written is that it is a dead language and therefore does not change. Our language changes, but not the Greek. But even though English words change over time, many words have not changed. There is no other English word that means slave that I'm aware of. Of course, as you say, I have no knowledge of linguistics. :tongue3:
A slave does the will of his master. A slave is owned by his master. Does this describe our relationship to Christ? We are not just Christ's "servants". He has bought us with His blood. We are to do His will, not our own.
1 Cor.
19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body[c] and in your spirit, which are God’s.


I did an online search of the English word slave translated back to the Greek and there is only one Greek word for slave and that is doulos. There are several Greek words for servant, none of which mean slave. There is a difference. And if the Greek word doulos in the NT means slave, then that is how it should read in English. Servant does not have the same impact and is actually a mis-translation.

 

Except our knowledge of Greek changes.

Too true, which is why we need to allow for our English words to match the meaning of the original language when the receptor language has nuances in one word that is not communicated in another word.

Didn't say that, but.... oh I'm just gonna stop so my foot-shaped mouth won't get me into any more trouble.

I would argue that in one way or another, all words change over time b/c societal norms change over time. Situation arise and fall. Slavery is a good example. But your statement "there is no other English word that means slave" misses the point b/c doulos has a nuance that the English word "slave" does not in our modern use of the word and understanding of slavery.

The theology fits, I'm not denying that. Nor have I been denying that "slave" is wrong for doulos (matches denotation). What I am saying is that "slave" in our modern notion does not match the connotation of doulos. I also said that at times, "slave" may be better depending on the history, context, and author. But to flat say that doulos must always mean "slave" is far too narrow and is linguistically false.

AMY... NNE HERE IS ARGUING FOR A MEANING OF "SERVANT" FOR THE WORD DOULOS! This is the 3rd time now you have leveled this "accusation" or whatever. We are saying that "bondservant" is an accurate description of the douloi occupation. If you did an online search that recognizes the proper meaning of "bondservant," then you would get the same result--"bondservant" back translated into Greek is doulos. So a bondservant is one who is not owned necessarily, but works to pay a debt or is too poor to make a living and therefore works for food and shelter (ancient welfare). This was the ancient notion of slavery, not so much what we think of today, although that existed as well (i.e. Spartans and their slaves).

 

An excellent clarification.:thumbsup:

 

Where are you getting that? Go back to Exodus 21.

5 "But if the slave declares: 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man, ' 6 his master is to bring him to the judges [c] and then bring him to the door or doorpost. His master must pierce his ear with an awl, and he will serve his master for life.


This is a bondslave, or as you call it "bondservant". This is the biblical use of the term. They are not "paying a debt". They have willingly placed themselves as a slave for life. This is how Paul, James, John and Jude referred to themselves.