"Pretending they're not slaves..."

Up until this point, I thought the ESV was a literal translation. I guess they use dynamic equivalence too.

#4

So the children of Israel are no longer "slaves in Egypt" but "servants in Egypt"? And we are not, in Romans, "slaves to sin" but "servants of sin"?

I'm gobsmacked. The mind boggles.

Shameful. Nine men need to repent of sitting in judgment on the Spirit of God. And probably twelve. God deliver us from these Pharisees of our age who love the prominent places, the greetings in the marketplace and the appellation "teacher," but who never lift a finger to help the perishing of our age who die precisely because they find it irredeemably offensive to be a slave of the Lord. Sad to think that a revision of a revision that was initially intended to maintain the offense of masculine markers in Scripture has come to this. David Bayly

In the 2001 ESV version one example of the word "Slave" is in Mt. 20:27 "and whoever would be first among you must be your slave". I wonder if the new revision will change this to "and whoever would be first among you must be your *servant*"? Is every use of the word "slave" now going to be changed to "servant"? Great....

We have several copies of the ESV version at our home. I need to ask my dear husband if he would buy a NASB Bible for me for my birthday in a few months. And we'll keep our old ESV's. We have no interest in buying their latest "update".

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar". Prov. 30:5-6

Blessings,
Nancy Wilson

I've had the esv on my iphone for a while now, simply because it was 1) free, and 2) the best bible app I've come across.

I'm deleting it.

Murray Harris was known as a very careful reader of the New Testament. He was bothered enough about the substitution of "servant" for "slave" that he wrote a whole book about it: "Slave of Christ."

While we're at it, can we change the word "sin" to "mistake?" I actually heard a funeral sermon in which the priest actually referred to sins as mistakes, and talked about taking a "nip of Holy Water" while visiting the bereaved family. I am not sure I've ever been so disgusted in a sermon unless it was the time when a woman pastor (save that for another discussion) was preaching that God was lonely and that he created man for companionship. In that same church, another pastor, in fencing the Table (if it could be called that) amounted to "if, on the whole, you agree that Christ's coming to earth was a good thing, you're invited to the Table." Didn't mean to get off on a tangent, but you see where this ultimately goes. So, may I now exhort you to go and make mistakes no more!

In total disgust,
Carole

I'm going to play the devils advocate for a moment, but that doesn't mean I don't understand you're concern Tim.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand linguistics and have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but it sounds to me not that they're trying to change the meaning of the Bible, but trying to use words that will best bring to mind in the modern reader, what the original reader would have thought of.

The passage in question is not the whole Bible, but just 1 Corinthians 7:21-23. If you read 23 with a modern understanding of slave as one who, as a Christian, has been captured into slavery, you may understand from it that you have sinned. In reality, it is telling you not to sell yourself into slavery if you are a Christian (which was common to pay off debt) because you are already a slave to Christ. Not that being captured into slavery is a sin.

It's a matter of public understanding of a word. 100 years ago words in the Bible could easily have been translated as 'Gay'. Today, that word carries a completely different meaning. Do we not 'update' the Bible because it's the inerrant word of God? Or do we 'update' it so that the general reader can understand the original. The English language is a constantly evolving thing and if a word in English comes to mean something different or something closer to a meaning in the Greek and Hebrew, should we not change our Bible translation?

We should not expect people to study the Bible in order to understand it, to study what the word 'slave' would have meant to the original readers. Otherwise we should expect people to study Greek and Hebrew and just read the original. Or like the Church used to do, keep it in Latin so only the learned could understand.

So, that's the counter-argument. What I really think? I do not know enough about slavery in 0 to 100 AD to know whether our current understanding of the word matches or radically differs from the original understanding, and whether 'Bond-Servant' is a better translation. I am very wary of people making changes to the Bible, but also realise that the entire Bible that I read is man's translation. I am reliant upon men like those in the clip for much of my theology, whether I like it or not. I have only ever met Wayne Grudem, and that just briefly, but I believe him to be a man of God, concerned with the accuracy of Bible translation and aware of the great responsibility he has for the people who read the ESV translation. Instead of accusing him, I will pray for him.

But all that's irrelevant really. I've been memorizing the NIV since I was a kid so I'm sticking with it.

1)
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Cor. 6:19, 20)

Sure sounds like God owns us.

2)
"But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (Romans 6:17, 18)

We were slaves of sin. And you can't go from being a "slave" of sin to being a "servant" of righteousness. It doesn't make sense, if indeed God bought us with a price.

3)
"For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave." (1 Cor. 7:22)

Paul is being pastoral here. Those who were slaves should consider themselves free in Christ, and those who were free, should consider themselves Christ's slaves. In a country where we are so free to do whatever we please, and where we pride ourselves on our destruction of slavery, it sounds like we need to be told that we are Christ's slaves.

Plus, Paul uses a beautiful antithesis here that is completely vitiated by changing the word "slave" to "servant." If you change to "servant" here, then actual real bona fide slaves are no longer offered the same freedom that was previously promised in God's word. You can't pander to our modern sensitivities without also undercutting the promises to those who are actually oppressed by slavery!

Slavery is a painful thing to hear about, and these men are tickling ears (and eyes?) in order to push it under the rug, as if it doesn't exist. They're salving the consciences of rich white American Christians who have no concept of slavery - those who more than anyone else need to hear about it.

In my copy of the ESV Study Bible (2008), 1 Cor. 7:21 has a superscript 1 after the word "slave." The note at the bottom indicates the Greek is "bondslave." Right next to that is a note 2, referenced down from the word "brother" in v.24. Note 2 reads, "Or 'brothers and sisters.'" Does it follow, then, that as note 1 in due time (apparently) goes from a note at the bottom of the page to the approved translation, will note 2 also ascend from the bottom of the page to the approved translation? Or, has it? I don't know.

With regard to note 1, is there another Greek word that could be used to distinguish a "bondslave" from a regular "slave"? Not that I'm aware of.

Yep, I'm accusing Tim. But I think he already knows he lacks gentleness in his approach to shepherding. I would rather not see posts like this, but know that he has contacted the editors with his concerns. If there is the need to publicly reproach someone and warn the flock from them, then do so in a way that will not turn unbelieving readers away.

@Alex
Yes, God does own those He has redeemed. I'm not refuting that, and neither are the editors of the ESV. A bond-slave/bond-servant is still owned.

@Abram
Bond-servant isn't too helpful a term no. But at least a reader will know they don't know it's meaning. Realising a lack of understanding is better than thinking you understand and being way off track. Especially when it comes to theology and identity in Christ.

No. I counsel love of a brother as well as protection of the sheep.

I have the gall because I am an adopted son of the Most High God and I believe that Tim is often wrong in his methods (not his theology I would add, though there may be some minor points we differ on). Should I not point these times out? If I believe someone to be in the wrong, a shepherd included, should I not try and correct them?

Daniel, I'll admit that I am more likely to be wrong than Tim is (so if he is your pastor follow his advice, not mine). He is a wiser man than I, with many more years of training and experience. But exactly the same can be said of Wayne Grudem. I am caught between two fathers in the faith whom I respect and look up to. Do I take sides? If so, whom do I believe?

>>Is every use of the word "slave" now going to be changed to "servant"?

No, they are doing this gradually. Words indicating the ownership of men will be removed from Scripture at about the same rate as words indicating the federal headship of Adam (male inclusives such as 'adam' and 'adelphoi'). As mentioned above, footnotes often show you where the decay is setting in.

>>it sounds to me not that they're trying to change the meaning of the Bible, but trying to use words that will best bring to mind in the modern reader, what the original reader would have thought of.

Actually, not. Here are the money quotes.

Those opposed to removing the Greek 'doulos' from their English text say: "It you look at the dictionaries, it's quite clear that the person is owned... I think we're getting confused and reluctant to use the word 'slave' because we think that because there is the word 'slaves,' that the Old Testament approves of slavery. And I think it's very much better to say that the Old Testament is trying to improve the life of slaves, rather than pretending they're not slaves."

Wayne then argues in favor of removing the Greek 'doulos' from their English text because: "The word 'slave' has irredeemably negative associatons and connotations."

Wayne then follows his foundational reason for deleting God's word with a bunch of stuff like slavery wasn't racial way back then.

But all the stuff amounts to nothing more than feathers in the air in an effort to obscure the central fact of slavery's "irredeemably negative associations and connotations." And until wise men see this ordering principle of modern Bible mistranslation, they won't understand anything about the Bible business. Scholars flown around the world and paid to produce new Bible products have great motivation to...

What?

To produce new Bible products.

And what is the main concern with language in our age?

It's to avoid offense. The postmodern man is effeminate and demands that language be used that doesn't hurt anyone. Thus we see that modern Bible translations' reason to exist is their bowldering the Word of God at the crunch points of political correctness, at the places where the postmodern's hypersensitivity demands that he find the language a "safe place."

Thus one of the men in this clip has argued with me, personally, that "almost all modern scholars" believe the Gospel of John's use of 'Ioudaioi' should be translated "Jewish leaders." And note that we live in a post-Holocaust world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as anti-Semitic.

Thus another of the men in this clip has argued with me and the other men who wrote and adopted the Colorado Springs Guidelines on the use of the male inclusive in Bible translation that 'adelphoi' (Greek 'brothers' used all over the Epistles) should be translated "brothers and sisters." In other words, he opposed God's use of 'adelphoi' as a male inclusive in English translations. And note that we live in a feminist world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of women who have been oppressed by patriarchs across all ages."

Thus all of these men in this clip have continued to gag God's words 'grawdeiv muyouv' in 1Timothy 4:7. They replace it with nothing. It's simply gone. Here the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to command Pastor Timothy to have nothing to do with "old women's tales." But that command is removed from the ESV. And note that we live in a feminist world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of women who have been oppressed by patriarchs across all ages."

Thus all of these men in this clip have continued to gag God's word 'malakoi' in 1Corinthians 6:9. They replace it with nothing. It's simly gone. Here the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to warn the Christians in Corinth that catamites (male call-boys or the effeminate partner in sodomitic copulation) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And note that we live in a sodomitic world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of gays who have been oppressed by Christian bigots across all ages."

Thus these men in this clip have voted to gag God's words 'doulos' in multiple places. They replace ownership with wages. In many places across Scripture the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture's authors to use the word 'slave,' but these men paid by Wheaton's Crossway Publishers remove it. And note that we live in a pluralistic and diverse culture in which every educated man is deathly afraid of doing anything at all that could ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cause others to think that he or his Bible product is to the slightest degree "racist."

We could go on, but I grow weary. As I've pointed out before, there is great consistency in the direction of all Bible products today, including the latest revision of the New International Version, the latest revision of the Living Bible (the New Living Translation), and the latest revision of the Revised Standard Version (the English Standard Version). All owners of copyright on Bible products today are paying academics to pedal hard to keep ahead of charges of anti-Semitism, patriarchy, homophobia, and racism.

So no, the point of updated products is not to communicate accurately the offensive and insensitive and negative and direct and manly and insightful and wise and highly charged things that the Holy Spirit has said in His Word. Rather, the point is to keep the men paid to produce these Bible products from appearing insensitive or unenlighted or backward or uneducated or hickish or redneckish or Deliverancish or benighted or uncultured or American or antebellum or uncontextualized or unmissional or unGospel-centered or graceless or ham-fisted or primitive or impolite or dimwitted or catachrestic or obtuse or cretinous (w/thanks to the Apostle Paul) or imbecilic or nescient or insufficiently progressive.

The best explanation of these bowdlerizations of the Word of God is not a concern for accuracy, but scholars' phobia of being thought insufficiently progressive.

Love,

I have had a quick look through the changes. A few observations:

1) 'slave' has been changed to 'bond-servant' in the NT, not to 'servant'. In one instance 'servant' was also changed to 'bond-servant'.

2) 'slave to sin' still remains though.

3) 'house of bondage' has been changed to 'house of slavery' in a few places in the OT.

4) 'hired servant' becomes 'hired worker' in a number of places in the OT.

5) 'men' has been changed to 'people' in a few places, such as 1Cor16:18 which now reads 'Give recognition to such *people*' and Mark 8:24 'I see *people*, but they look like trees, walking'.

6) There is a curious change from 'men' to 'man' in some places. Luke 18:37 changes from 'what is impossible with men is possible with God' to 'what is impossible with man is possible with God'. I think that is more 'inclusive' yet still retains a male marker. (Thought: our culture is more unhappy with women being represented by 'men' than by women being represented by 'man').

7) Conversely, 'them' and 'their' in Dan 7:27 have been changed to 'his' and 'him'.

8) 1Chron 16:13 has changed '*sons* of Jacob' to '*children* of Jacob'.

9) 1Cor14:13 now has some more gender specific language, they have changed 'one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret' to 'one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret'.

10) John 10:26 has changed from 'you do not believe because you are not part of my flock' to 'you do not believe because you are not among my sheep'. I think that is a bit of a softening.

For a complete list of the changes see here:
http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

There is an interesting discussion in the comments section when this was posted at Justin Taylor's blog a while back:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/11/07/the-esv-translation-committee-debates-the-translation-of-slave/?comments#comments

Isaac,

You say both Tim and Wayne are fathers in the faith to you. I assume this means that both men have spiritually dealt with you as fathers in faith, personally exhorting and rebuking you in areas of strength, weakness and sin as Scripture calls spiritual fathers to do.

If this is not the case, then you should acknowledge it. And if one of the two has dealt with you as a father in the faith while the other has not, and you speak critically of the one who has dealt with you, you should also acknowledge this. It has an immense bearing on your objectivity in the kind of judgments you've made here.

So please, a bit of your personal history with the two men before saying more so that we can judge your objectivity.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly

The KJV also has "servant". Cannot the contrast between servant and freedman give the correct meaning?

If I heard the video correctly, the new term is not "servant," but "bondservant." That is either a synonym for slave or it is meaningless. It has no currency in contemporary English, so the net result is to render Scripture, at that point, incomprehensible. They would rather be obscure than offensive. I wonder what they plan to do with skandalon in 1 Cor 1:23.

Unless I've missed it (more and more likely as I transition from autumn to winter), no one has noted the very ~existence~ of this video, or the implications of this video's production in the first place.

The notations at You-Tube are useless. The video is posted by David B. Hardwick, and we're given no information on his identity (other than his name) and what can be gleaned by looking at his other videos (he likes bicycles). Is he an employee of Tyndale House? Crossway? To be employed by Crossway instead of, say, by Walgreen's Pharmacy ... well, we can see that this would make some difference in our assessment of the video, right?

So, we're left with the video as it sits there at You-Tube, to make whatever inferences we may from it.

Obviously, it was deliberately produced. The variety of camera angles, the deliberately performed editing on the far greater mass of recorded material, the setup shots at the beginning and the prayer at the end — all these and other details shows that the entire discussion from beginning to end was a performance. Every man in the room knows he is being recorded and that his words, his facial expressions, whatever in his emtions is allowed to show on his face, will be preserved. I'd bet a bundle that every man in that room signed a release of property rights to the producer of the video.

And, though I can make shrewd guesses, I'd really like to KNOW who is the producer/owner of this video. Can Hardwick be so well connected that he alone is the owner of the video? If so, Crossway needs to hire him before he's snapped up by someone at Zondervan, or the B&H Publishing Group. Or, is Hardwick employed by the BBC, as Justin Taylor at the Gospel Coalition says?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/11/07/the-esv-tran...

At any rate, every man in that room knows that he is, in a real sense, communicating to a potentially large audience, whom he wishes to persuade. Does anyone actually believe that any man there was thinking ~only~ of his fellows around the table as he set forth his arguments? If you do, we need to talk about a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn. You-Tube's stats say those who have viewed this video number 9,758 as I write this. And, I have a little trouble thinking this video was produced solely for a You-Tube generated audience. Does anyone know if this video has been deployed in marketing media by Crossway?

In light of the ~performance characteristics~ of this video, what do we say to Pr. Tim's public, internet-distributed rebuke of this committee's discussion and decision? Indeed, Pr. Tim indicates that before this blog post, he has engaged Lane Dennis at Crossway and Wayne Grudem on this and similar issues relating to the ESV's multi-phase revisions of the RSV. And here is a video which simply MUST be parsed as compelling evidence from the Evangelical Curia that the Evangelical Pontifical Commission for the Propogation of Demonstrably Accurate English Translations of Scripture via the Multi-phase Revision of the Revised Standard Version has rendered its verdict: "doulos" should not be translated with the English word "slave," but rather with some other locution that does not carry the deplorable semantic baggage now hanging from the world "slave."

Puh-leeeeeeeeze.

The day is coming when the men who voted with the majority in this scandalous video will fall down at Pr. Tim's feet and confess they were toadies, cowards, and false teachers, as well as hard-hearted toward the ~loving~ pleas, admonitions, and rebukes of their brothers who warned them ardently of their error.

These men are NOT merely academics squirrelled away in the quiet rooms of some Cambridge seminar room. No, they are shouting from the highest rooftops of the evangelical world that reasonable Christians should let evangelical popes be true and God a liar.