Re: doulos

From: Harold R. Holmyard III (hholmyard@ont.com)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 10:30:20 EDT


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


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