I’ve been chatting with a sociologist friend of mine about coming up with a reasonably good survey system to explore the range of meaning of “flesh” and a few other important Bible-translation-relevant words. Hopefully we can get this off the ground soon and I can provide some data.

I’ll look forward to seeing the results. (One of my biggest frustrations with social science is the pattern of: “I’ve asked a few of my friends and based on what they said I’ve drawn a conclusion about all of humanity.”)

I’ve been chatting with a sociologist friend of mine about coming up with a reasonably good survey system to explore the range of meaning of “flesh” and a few other important Bible-translation-relevant words. Hopefully we can get this off the ground soon and I can provide some data.

Surely the NYT put quotes round “weak flesh” to indicate that they were quoting the Italian newspaper, presumably giving a literal translation of the Italian idiom “carne debole”. [...] I don’t think this is an example of “flesh” being in general use in English.

I’m almost sure it’s a quote. (I tried to find the article on Il Giornale‘s website by searching for “carne debole” this morning, and I couldn’t find it. Anyone?) But even so, the editors of the NYT seem to have assumed that people would know it doesn’t just mean “flesh,” and I do think that in certain phrases “flesh” has connotations of impropriety.

In any case, the meaning here would not be anything like what Paul meant by the term, which related to sinful tendencies in general and not only to sexual sin. I don’t think anyone would understand these priests’ “weak flesh” as anything to do with greed or laziness.

Worse, it would be a little bit like what Paul meant, so readers in English think they know what’s going on when they don’t. That’s one more reason not to translate sarx as “flesh.”