ESV 2011 changes

You are off by 1,500 years. Slavery during the Roman period, especially in Palestine, was a bit different. One could be put into slavery for not paying the Roman taxes. In that case, a ransom price had to be paid to be redeemed from that slavery. A more common practice was to hire yourself out as a slave/bondservant or whatever to pay off debts (and avoid prison) or to scrape by a living.

Here is a good illustration of douloi in the gospel accounts:

Mat 18:23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
Mat 18:24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.'
Mat 18:27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.'
Mat 18:29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'
Mat 18:30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place.
Mat 18:32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
Mat 18:33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'
Mat 18:34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.

Observations:

• There were douloi working for the king/master who were not yet "owned" by the king. This shows the diversity of the word doulos in that it can refer to servants as well as slaves.
  
• The master clearly paid them, thus they had debts to pay (advances in pay). At the most, they borrowed money implying that they were not owned but had possessions of their own.
  
• The servant who could not pay his debt could be sold into the extreme form of slavery where they would be owned as property to pay the debt. But the term doulos was used before this, before they were owned as property. (The ISV translates v. 25 "Because he couldn't pay, his master ordered him, his wife, his children, and everything that he owned to be sold so that payment could be made." This implies that it was the possessions were sold not the people. They do this based on historical and grammatical reasons.)
  
• These servants were doing this because of debts they had accrued. It was their method to pay them off w/out going to prison.
  
• Failure to pay your debt could result in being sent to prison in order to pay your debt (redemption from prison).
  
• Debts could be removed (forgiven) at the discretion of the lender.

 

The text in Exodus was written almost 1500 years prior to the events in the New Testament.

The type of slavery, the socio-political conditions around it, and the nature of the Roman or Hellenistic use of the institution are mightily different from that of the time of the Exodus.

Frankly, you can't compare the Exodus type of slavery to the 'ebed to the New Testament use of dulous. The two concepts are separated by 1500 years and massive cultural shifts.

This is a teachable point because not everything in the Bible is to be translated the same. Certainly some concepts and words are able to be translated commonly, but some exceptions occur. This is one of them.

There are any number of excellent works that draw this out, though the very good ones you might not have access as they are in journals and edited volumes theologians consult (it would unnecessarily expensive to track them down.)

The term slave in the context of the Exodus narrative has terrifically different implications than it does in post-exilic literature and even more so in the second Temple Judaistic literature. It is hard to consider them terms that can be universally translated slave. The biblical texts don't even allow for that. There is nuance there.

 

lol...we hit publish at the exact same moment!

 

My challenge still stands for anyone intereted. Go get BDAG, Spiq, Kittel, etc and the best monographs and journal articles and research the development of the term and how it is best understood by scholars today.

This isn't a minor issue that has been simply glossed over for convenience sake, it is complicated and has gone through rigorous academic review. The abiding scholarly work signals bondservant is preferred to slave in most NT occurrence.

If you desire to truly challenge this go and do the study then report back. Its a fun expedition during your Christmas break!

 

hahaha

Here is another example of doulos not being the kind of slave that some are wanting.

In the prodigal son story, doulos is used interchangeably w/ misthios which specifically means a hired worker. Doulos, being more general and having a wider range of meanings, was also used to refer to the same people. For example:

Luk 15:19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants [misthios]."'

then

Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants [doulos], 'Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.

 

Would this be an example of a need for a "functional equivalency" word for the Greek ?


As we could take the literal meaning into the English, yet based upon that connotation to us, would not really be getting the gist of what God had intended us to know!

 

Have the meanings of doulos, slave, and bondservant really changed that much in last decade?

Have they changed at all since the ESV was first published?

 

The key word is not "servant" but rather, "bond" which indicates a servant under some sort of arrangement other than free will. In the first century persons were made slaves or bond servants by (generally) two different means. One was that they were captured in battle and made slaves or servants of their captors. The second was that they could indenture themselves to a master (way more common) so as to procure for themselves sustenance and a roof over their heads.

Of note, most biblical scholars believe that Luke (a physician) was a doulos and not a free man.

 

And yet the word bondservant appears zero times in the ESV. I guess the translators weren't as smart as whoever you're referring to.

 

In one sentence you say it was not free will and then in another you say it was free will. Which is it?


*Interesting tidbit about Luke. I've never heard that.

 

Is it so difficult for you to understand that some persons were MADE slaves and that others CHOSE to be slaves, and that there were actually two different classes of persons who WERE slaves?

You are reading back into scriptural history a more modern sense of slavery, where individuals were taken against their will and forced to move to some foreign land where they served under masters. That was not the true ancient picture of slavery at all, and in fact, that sort of slavery was rather an aberration and contrast from historical slavery (though certainly not all -- we humans have a large capacity for evil and we are not above reducing certain members of our race into mere animals for the good pleasure of others who wield power).

 

Well, the good news is that you have now proven both Calvinism and Arminianism to be correct. :laugh::laugh:

 

i've done nothing of the kind, and you are now guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. :love2:

Not every use of the word "choose" has to be surrounded with a conversation about Calvinism you know.

 

I was only kidding you. Trying to lighten the conversation. :1_grouphug:

Besides, I don't know anything about the fallacy of equivocation so you win the debate! :laugh:

 

I sort of figured the same... Hence the hug!

Equivocation is when one takes words that, in context, are used for one application or usage, then apply them to a totally different one.

Happens often, especially around here where people just key in on some word that sets their teeth on edge. We could have some fun with the concept, such as, "I run to the door." Or "Your stocking has a run." So, is does your stocking have feet that run, or does the word run have more than one usage? :smilewinkgrin:

You did that with choose in the sense of the Calvinistic debate when I was speaking of personal choice that had nothing to do with soteriology.

 

Not at all. Literal translation does not mean that semantic ranges of words are not considered.

 

agree with you on that, but am curious to just how we would translate a word vested with different meanings into another language, in order to avoid be technically correct is what the original meaning/intent was, but that would be lost IF used into another language the literal 'same word?"

 

YOu have an explanation in mind? That might help understand what you are saying.

 

Maybe the better example is the nuanced Greek view of the English term love. Its kinda doing what he's asking in reverse, but it might work.