From an article at Salon.com —

<<When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC
<<How a Bible edition aimed at right-wing evangelicals has quietly scrubbed references to slavery and "the Jews"

<<Your paper examines how a recent Bible translation was successively revised to tone down and ultimately erase language supporting slavery and antisemitism — in effect, to make the Bible more "politically correct," more in tune with contemporary moral sensibilities, although those doing so would surely object to that characterization. How would you characterize their work?

<<It's a fascinating story. All Bible translations have to navigate these waters, so the English Standard Version is really just an example of it, and they're kind of a fascinating example because they have marketed themselves as an essentially literal translation that resists the PC push. The general editor, Wayne Grudem, had for years denounced contemporary Bible translations, like the New International Version, for doing those kinds of things: becoming PC, changing the language to conform to modern sensibilities, that kind of thing, especially with regard to gender.

<<So for years they have said, "Hey, we're not going to translate certain things in a gender-neutral fashion, because we want to be as literal as possible, and if you like that it's capitulating to the feminist PC culture." So ESV has marketed themselves as a very popular evangelical translation that is used most faithfully by complementarian Protestant Christians for that reason: because it's conservative and because it's supposed to be literal.

<<But at the same time, the fact that that the "slave" language in the New Testament is so obvious creates a real apologetics problem, because of all this talk about "slaves obeying your masters," and how slaves should subject themselves not only to good masters but bad masters, and how slaves should stay in the station of life where they were called. It creates this really ugly impression of the New Testament, and especially Paul advocating for slavery.

<<So what you can see in the English Standard Version is that with each successive wave, from the 2001 revision of the Revised Standard Version to the 2011 revision and then finally in 2016, our most recent revision, was that they started by introducing a footnote in 2001 to the "slave" word, and then in 2011 they replace the slave word and put it in a footnote, and then they said, "We're going to call this a bondservant. So it's different from a slave."

https://www.salon.com/2021/07/10/when-evangelical-snowflakes-censor-the-bible-the-english-standard-version-goes-pc/

<<So they're changing the text on one hand, while pretending to be more faithful on the other?

<<Yes. What I write about this in this article is an example of the way evangelical Bibles try to do both things. On the one hand they're trying to appeal to people within their community, and to say, "Hey, we interpret the Bible faithfully and consistently," but at the same time there also trying to translate such that they can avoid charges that the Bible is socially regressive and condones oppressive relationships and is socially or culturally backward. So this is kind of an example of that.



Sort of like the Book of Mormon, right?

Funny coincidence to see this reference in your post. I was just looking up a scripture for a friend and always pay attention to which translation is being quoted. I came across the ESV version of the scripture in question and had to look it up to see what ESV stands for.

Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking post. Language can definitely be massaged. At least for now they still indicate such in footnotes. Wait for the day when they dispense with those, to save space or something, they'll say. That will be when it really gets scary.

I'm afraid it's getting to be a lost art - checking one's sources. But even more necessary now to do so. If you want to avoid the gigantic echo chamber that seems to swallow people up unawares. And then chaos ensues.

If you've ever studied a foreign language, then you know that translation and interpretation can be tricky businesses. Often a literal translation doesn't work well because it doesn't convey the correct meaning. A good example of that would be figures of speech. If you try to translate "She's in a pickle" literally, a speaker of another language might be left scratching his or her head.

When I was in college 40+ years ago, my "Jesus and the New Testament" professor was a stickler for accuracy in Bible translation, which did not always mean a literal translation for the above reasons. The NIV was a recommended interpretation on his list of bibles. There was one other that he liked as well. Of course, there have been other translations since then.

I use the NIV, summer. I do cross-check certain things though. As much as you can trust any translation, or even the written word altogether, because as you say, connotation and interpretation also come into play. I use history sources as well if I'm really intent on finding accurate information.

Reformed Egyptian must have been a boring language. Too bad an angel stole Joseph’s homework, or modern Egyptologists could check his accuracy. Just because the BoA is an impudent fraud doesn’t mean the BOM is.

...Was Joseph Smith trying to be politically correct (PC) when he "correctly translated" the Bible to show that Jesus and Satan were *really* brothers?

Naaaw! Can't be. But I got some friends who'd sure love to know...