Re: doulos

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 11:46:28 EDT


<x-charset iso-8859-1>In view of the earnest claim set forward by Thomas Bond this morning and
Charles Skallerud's restatement of the same assertion (I think that's what
he was doing) that DOULOS ought consistently to be translated as slave
rather than servant in the NT, I want to second Harold's statement below
(which I think important enough not to clip parts of in order to make this
message shorter) and restate my own earlier sense that it is important to
nuance the usages of DOULOS in the NT, particularly in view of the OT
traditional notion that the Exodus experience liberated Israel from
involuntary bondage to Pharaoh for voluntary service of YHWH. Probably the
BDB reference which Harold cites below for varied usage, especially in
oriental contexts, should be taken to heart here. It seems to me that
implicit obedience to authoritative direction of a KURIOS is central to any
usage of DOULOS in the NT, there is nevertheless a difference between the
status of a chattel slave whose obedience is involuntary and that of a
grateful voluntary servant of a master who has liberated and redeemed one
from the more deadly state of enslavement to sin and futility. I don't
think this is a simple matter, to be sure. We may well say that when Paul
in Romans 12 says to his audience, PARAKALW OUN hUMAS, ADELFOI, DIA TWN
OIKTIRMWN TOU QEOU PARASTHSAI TA SWMATA hUMWN QUSIAN ZWSAN hAGIAN EUARESTON
TWi QEWi, THN LOGIKHN LATREIAN hUMWN, he is in one sense urging them to
"become chattels" (PARASTHSAI TA SWMATA hUMWN) to surrender their
selves/bodies to be the property of the KURIOS. Yet he does so DIA TWN
OIKTIRMWN TOU QEOU, which I think is rather far removed from the arbitrary
authority of a slave-master. And what is it that we are told in Phil 2:6-7
that Jesus, when he EKENWSEN hEAUTON, was assuming the shape/form/status of
a DOULOS (MORFHN DOULOU LABWN). Are we to understand that Jesus thus became
a chattel-slave? Perhaps so, yet to me it has always seemed that in his
obedience to God Jesus was always aware that he had the option to disobey
and that the authority of his KURIOS was not arbitrary.

One other passage at least deserves consideration also, which I give in
Mark's form because I still think that's the original form in the GNT: Mk
10:42-45 KAI PROSKALESAMENOS AUTOUS hO IHSOUS LEGEI AUTOIS: OIDATE hOTI hOI
DOKOUNTES ARCEIN TWN EQNWN KATAKURIEUOUSIN AUTWN KAI hOI MEGALOI AUTWN
KATEXOUSIAZOUSIN AUTWN. OUC hOUTWS DE ESTIN EN hUMIN, ALL' hOS AN QELHi
MEGAS GENESQAI EN hUMIN ESTAI hUMWN DIAKONOS, KAI hOS AN QELHi EN HUMIN
EINAI PRWTOS ESTAI PANTWN DOULOS. KAI GAR hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU OUK HLQEN
DIAKONHQHNAI ALLA DIAKONHSAI KAI DOUNAI THN YUCHN AUTOU LUTRON ANTI
POLLWN.

One remarkable feature of this brief sequence is that DOULOS seems to be
used in precisely the same sense as DIAKONOS and the key verb seems to be
DIAKONEW rather than DOULEUW. No doubt some will want to say here too that
whenever there's a different word in the Greek, some different sense must
be intended; while I'll grant that is SOMETIMES true, I think it is
dangerous to assume that it must ALWAYS be true. In the LXX we sometimes
find DOULOS and DOULEIA, and we sometimes find PAIS, which has all the
range of meanings that French garÁon and English "boy" have had in
different social contexts. It is PAIS, I think, that is the standard word
in the "Suffering Servant" poems of Second Isaiah.

In sum then, I plead once more for a more nuanced appreciation of the
usages of DOULOS in the GNT than supposing that we must always think in
terms of chattel slavery when we see the word.

At 9:30 AM -0500 4/14/00, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
>Dear Thomas,
> You quote and query:
>
>>As a practice with worldwide
>>acceptance, slavery must have had different connotations than at present.
>
>I'm not sure what this is driving at.
>
> Thomas, I am not a researcher in this area. But we are talking about
>translating with use of a term ("slave") that is opprobrious in connotation
>in a world which has outlawed slavery for well over a century. And even
>when legal in the Western world did not lifelong slavery apply to a
>somewhat narrow range of people (usually non-European)?
> In the ancient world anyone could become a slave. Perhaps slavery
>became harsher in the Roman Empire because of the Empire's power. But it
>was a condition that anyone could face. And the institution had existed
>from time immemorial. Doubtless the terms DOULOS and (EBED had a range of
>connotation. For DOULOS has, according to BAG, a figurative use, an
>oriental use with regard to a king's officials, and a wider use with regard
>to any kind of dependence. BAG observes that it especially applied to the
>relationship of men with God.
> (EBED can, according to BDB, refer to "slave, servant." It also applied
>to subjects of a chief, vassal kings, tributary nations, officers of the
>king, ambassadors, soldiers of an army, officers of an army, worshippers of
>God as servants, angels, ancient worthies in relationship to God (Abraham,
>Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Job, David, etc.), and prophets. It applied to the
>nation of Israel. It was used in polite address of equals or superiors. The
>Semitic term could not have been totally demeaning, for Babylonians as well
>as Israelites used (EBED or a cognate in proper names, particularly with
>respect to the gods.
> Paul used the term DOULOS in a tradition reaching far back in
>Scripture, one with lofty connotations of service to God. Although DOULOS
>did mean "slave," in the Septuagint it took on all the connotations
>associated with the Hebrew (EBED, as Carl Conrad has already mentioned. It
>could be a title of honor in the OT.
> Jesus said in John 15:14-15:
>
>You are my friends, if you do the things which I command you. No longer do
>I call you DOULOUS; for the DOULOS does not know not what his lord does:
>but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father,
>I have made known unto you.
>
>A contrast between DOULOS and "friend" occurs in other literature, to which
>the lexicons point, but Jesus' comparison suggests an underlying sense to
>DOULOS of "servant" more than "slave." The difference between DOULOS and
>friend is not obedience, for the friend must obey (v. 14). The difference
>is not living conditions; Jesus here does not mention freeing the DOULOUS.
>Jesus need not distinguish between enforced and willing service because
>many Israelites served God voluntarily (Israel was a servant by covenant).
>The difference is between a servant's blind obedience and a friend's
>knowing obedience.
> Over thousands of years a word can pick up many connotations, and it
>seems that these words DOULOS and (EBED carried a number of connotations
>not really present in the modern perception of the word "slave." This is
>what I was suggesting in saying that DOULOS must have had different
>connotations than does the word "slave" today.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

-- 

Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics/Washington University One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

</x-charset>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:05 EDT