Loading...I’ve been talking about Paul’s view of slavery, in light of the book of Philemon; this seems to be a good time to talk about a very big issue connected with translating the New Testament from Greek into English. It may seem fairly straightforward, but in fact it is incredibly thorny: what English word is best to use for the Greek word that refers to a person who is owned by another and compelled (on every level) to do what the owner requires? It’s “slave,” right? How can it be complicated? Let me put it in a bigger picture.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Should We Keep “Slaves” in the New Testament?
July 6, 2025
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
56 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is it further complicated by the difference between a Hebrew slave who could leave in the 7th year and a chattel slave who couldn’t? The latter is surely more akin to the transatlantic slavery although I agree it wasnt race based.
Is the same word used in the Greek for both types?
The Greek word DOULOS is used of any kind of person who was owned by another. (In both the Greek OT and NT)
It may not have been American slavery, but read Exodus 21. Owners could keep the slave’s children, beat the slaves as long as you don’t kill them, and daughters could be sold as slaves, whose owners would then have sex with them (Ex.21:10) probably in hope of birthing more slaves, which of course could be kept or sold for profit. What a lovely system! I realize the nuances of language are challenging, but I feel like the NCC is just whitewashing what the Bible says.
FWIW, owning another Homo Sapiens as property is perhaps not a good thing.
I recently took notice of the authors use of the word ἀνθρώπων in Revelation. In that he only uses ἀνθρώπων to refer to things on planet earth exclusively. In your book Armageddon, it appears to me that you are using humans (English) interchangeably with the greek words he uses for elders, nations, peoples, “slaves” etc. The issue I am having a problem with is that in rev 21 it he says “The tent of God is with ἀνθρώπων.”What is your view on how this could be possible if the new Jerusalem has came down from heaven already, and given that John only uses the word ἀνθρώπων in Revelation to refer to things on earth only?
The apocalypse of weeks in Enoch lines up with Jesus genealogy in Luke, & the one in Daniel lines up with Matthew’s where he = 62.
Jesus fulfilled both, this is why the genealogies are in NT.
Each of the weeks of Enoch correspond to a 7th son, every 7 generations: Enoch, Shelah, Abraham (21st), down to Jesus who is the 78th in Luke, making him 70 generations after Enoch, and lining his generation up with the 10th week in Enoch, when sin is forgiven in heaven.
Luke shows that the apocalypse of Enoch ended with Jesus and his coming brought about the judgement of the angels that sinned. Then revelation takes place in the 3 days he is in hell and we see those elders begin to bow to Jesus after he took the scroll/ledger from the carnelian (red ) judge.
Daniel lines up with Matthew: Enoch is 7th, and Jesus is 62nd, lining him up with the prophecy in Daniel (anointed one will be cut off; abomination that makes desolate set up).
Take the holy of holies 20×20×20 cubits and divide it by 12 (the # of spiritual authorities) and you get 666. The mark is man’s heart under the influence of…
Makes me wonder what other words or phrases the admin overruled and changed in the NRSVue. Are you aware of any others as egregious as this?
Bart, Do you have an opinion on taking a contextualized approach in deciding how to translate doulos? For example, it seems more appropriate, given the comparison Paul makes in Gal. 3:28 with a “free person” (NABRE), to translate it as “slave.” But in Mk. 10:43-5, “servant” might better convey some (at least defensible) connotations of Jesus’ admonition?
Very interesting account of the votes on “servant” and “slave”. I have always strongly objected to “servant” for doulos, because a servant — no matter how downtrodden — has the option of quitting, of leaving that master to try to find a better one. A slave does not. Granted, in many societies at many times servants had very few good options, but the basic premise remained: A servant was hired to fill a particular position, and could resign from that position. A slave was a piece of property, no more able to “resign” than any other piece of property.
Aristotle’s definition of a slave as an “animated tool” comes to mind. Most tools (e.g., a plow) are inanimate and therefore cannot respond to orders to work on their own. A slave is a tool that can respond to orders. It has always seemed odd to me that Aristotle would come up with that blood-chilling definition in a society in which any person could be enslaved if their city was conquered, so any human could at any moment become an “animated tool” — but that’s what he said.
One more thought on doulos — I think it’s worth noting that Mary’s response to the annunciation (in Luke) is to say Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου: ‘Behold the [female] slave of the lord’. A few years ago I read an article (unfortunately I cannot remember the author or journal; senior moment . . . ) pointing out that in slave societies, a young female slave can be , and often was, impregnated at her master’s will and has no possibility of refusal. The article suggested that this is the underlying image Mary is drawing on, as an indication of her complete subordination. The King James translation “Behold the handmaid of the Lord” doesn’t get that across at all; nor do translations using “servant.”
Lets also not forget that the seven year rule for a fellow Hebrew slave can be overturned because if the slave is given a wife by the master, and shall we put to like this…. he enjoys her company….. he can relinquish his Hebrew (non chattel status) and declare, “I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”
EXOD 21 5-6
Seems like “enslaved servant” would solve it.
Ugh. I knew the ESV had made this change, but it’s disappointing to see the NRSVue go down the same path. The politics behind such changes are depressing obvious.
duolos in the NT is just anyone who has a master or a lord and obeys their commands. It can be voluntary or involuntary. As Paul says in Romans 6:16
“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”
My understanding is what made the NCC queasy were passages like Paul’s intro to Romans where he describes himself as “a DOULOS of Christ Jesus”, effectively creating a category where slavery is portrayed positively, offending modern sensibilities convinced Christianity always led the effort to overturn the “peculiar institution”.
Not germane but we’ve had the “Revised” Standard Version. Then the “Newly” Revised Standard Version. Now we have an “Updated” Edition. What will they call the next iteration do you suppose?
Why not simply retain the Greek word doulos in Bible translations?
Translators could preserve the term doulos instead of rendering it as “servant” or “slave,” and then provide a footnote or glossary entry explaining its meaning and cultural context. This approach invites readers to wrestle with the original language’s nuance and better grasp the layered implications of the term.
I am curious to know how much influence the National Council of Churches had in the final wording of the NRSVue. A criticism of the NIV translation is that it is decidedly evangelical in some areas. DId the same thing happen with the NRSVue and the NCC?
I’m afraid I don’t know. THe NCC leadership tends to be mainstream Christian, not conservative evangelical, but I don’t know what it’s other involvements were in the translation. And I was ssurprised by this one, because it was hands off for the NRSV itself (I worked with them when I was preparing the translation for publication)
Dr. Ehrman, what reference would you recommend if someone really wanted to understand the institution of slavery as practiced in the ancient world?
Given that translating from Greek to English is a huge problem, then it should also be a huge problem translating from Aramaic into Greek. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, how accurately does the Q material, written in Greek, reflect the actual Aramaic sayings and teachings of the historical Jesus?
And, how much of the Q material do scholars think actually reflects the teachings of the historical Jesus?
Bart wrote: “For a very long time I’ve been interested in the question of how to translate ancient texts, such as the Greek New Testament, into modern languages.”
This reminds me of a question I’ve been meaning to ask. Which translation of the Bible would you recommend for those of us who are old enough to have learned grammatically correct English instead of politically correct English, and who find politically correct English jarring?
I still thing the New Revised STandard Version is the way to go. It does use inclusive language, but only when a term is being used in reference to men and women both. For “men” they use men and “women” women, etc.
The modern Greek word, douleia, means work or job. It is derived from doulos.
English is pretty good at adopting words from other languages. Perhaps “doulos” should be one of them?
Myself, I wouldn’t mind if we adopted the four Greek words for ‘love’, and perhaps a few from other languages as well. In English the word ‘love’ can get quite confusing. It can mean anything from the love of peanut butter to the love of one’s partner to the love of God.
Is there such a thing as employers and employees in the New Testament or first-century Mediterranean culture?
I read that there are people of different ranks in the armies, there are people who have different professions, there are slaves and slave holders, but is there any such thing as employers and employees?
Perhaps I haven’t read the NT closely enough, but I can’t remember anything that stands out as employers and employees.
Zebedee the fisherman, father of James and John, had “hired men” working for him.
Perhaps the situation of people being employed or hired by others was somewhat common?
Yes, if it’s true that he had hired men, then he was employing them. (It wouldn’t mean, of course, that he was “running a major business” the way we think of usually today in our context).
There are also the verses which are metaphorical, but where God hires people at different times during a day, some work a full day, others only work part of the day, others only work for a very short part of the day, but God pays them all the same wages.
The verses are metaphoric, but they show that people understood the concept of hiring people for wages.
How much who is working for whom and under what conditions, and who is working for themselves, also under what conditions, is another question.
Helen, no-one is saying that there wasn’t gainful employment at the time?
You are somehow equating being a hired hand with being a slave.
Does God set out the specific rules for owning another human being as property for life in LEV 25:44-46? ….yes.
Does God set out the different rules for Hebrew male and female slaves in Exodus 21? …. yes
Does God set the rules how, even for an indentured Hebrew slave, he can become the permanent property of the master and then who’s children can also be passed down to the masters children?….. yes.
Equating or comparing owning other human beings as property, to a Tekton, is simply not comparable.
jbickle,
I’m sorry, but you are making one fierce and horrid assumption about what I am saying here.
I was just trying to remember if there were employee-employer relations between people in the 1st century.
I was not comparing them to slavery At All.
What was the meaning of the Greek word “slaves” in Aramaic? How did Jesus use the definition?
All languages that speak of slaves differentiate them from “servants.” A slave in all languages refers to a person who is owned by another and required to do what is demanded.
Bart re your post today – the often used apologist claim is that the slave was not a slave in the colloquial sense we know from the 19th century African transatlantic understanding, but rather a softer “bondservant” – is there any justification of that delineation within the Aramaic/Koine text in either the OT/NT?
No. the words meant “slave” in the sense of a human owned by another bound to do what was required.
Helen, there is a huge difference between hired people and slaves – One you can choose jobs and if you dont like it, leave!
If you were a Hebrew slave and male* (only) you could leave in the 7th year or in the case of chattel slaves, you could NEVER leave, any children you had became possessions of the master to be passed onto his own children as property.
*Dont forget that even for male Hebrew slaves, if the master gave him a wife and lets just say he enjoys her company, he can publicly say he doesnt want to leave her at the end of the 6th year, have an awl put through his ear, and thus relinquish his Hebrew slave status and like chattel slaves, can never leave.
Helen , Barts topic was “should we keep slaves in the NT”
It seems to me you are pivoting/obfuscating to – where there any people employed during the period? which frankly is a bit irrelevant to the topic as no-one disputes it.
The real question is ….do the NT scriptures/Jesus/Paul ETC ever condemn the practice – my assertion is that they dont , in fact it’s the other way around, it’s more a case of “slaves obey your masters , even the cruel ones” etc
If I am wrong do let me know.