God Didn't Say That

9 Comments »

1. (First of all, I should note that the link to my article on sarx is actually http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/the-sinful-nature-translation-dilemma-and-the-upcoming-niv-revision/ — the link listed above is dead.)

   A couple things:

   1) I’m not sure Doug is right by saying that sarx means “the human condition in its fallenness,” so much as it is a straightforward way of referencing desires originating in from natural bodily drives. That is the metaphor in Greek outside the New Testament, and it seems to be the way Paul uses it.

   [digression] This hits on a pet peeve of mine: too many times “New Testament Greek” is treated as though it’s a special language in itself. Part of this is due to many (most?) NT scholars having only been trained in “New Testament Greek,” essentially learning one body of Greek literature.

   But NT Greek is only making use of the Greek language as it was spoken in that day and in those locales. All sorts of problems result from trying to understand what words mean based on their NT use alone. Words like charis and sarx had rich histories and ingrained metaphoric systems long before the NT was written. Those authors were simply using the language and metaphors available to them. [/digression]

   2) I think the biblical/Greek metaphor is still more or less active in English for the word “flesh,” largely due to the dominance of the KJV. The sexual connotation of the word (a major component of its current use) stems from the word’s metaphoric connection both with desire and the body. I don’t think translating “flesh” loses meaning simply because English speakers tend to connect that “flesh” with sexual desires more than other desires. In fact, I think the English usage is probably the result of the NT using “flesh” more in sexual contexts than in other contexts, when the word is used of specific situations. Sarx itself often had a sexual tint in Greek, anyway.

   The bottom line is that I don’t think the metaphoric systems are substantially different between the Greek “sarx” and the English “flesh.” I do think that the concept of a fallen human nature is a different concept altogether, but I don’t think that notion is present in Paul at all—that’s an Augustinian notion, not a Pauline one. That’s why I think it’s critical to translate it “flesh”—restricting the metaphor to its connection with bodily desire as is the case in the New Testament rather than forcing the reader to read the New Testament (Paul especially) through Augustinian eyes.

   Comment by Jason A. Staples | October 29, 2009 | Reply

   • Well said.

     Comment by WoundedEgo | January 25, 2010 | Reply

2. One more thing: Are we really to think that sarx meant “the human condition in its fallenness” in pre-Christian Greek culture? Seriously?

   This is an important question to ask, because it gets to the heart of the metaphoric capital the author is drawing upon. And isn’t the goal of translation to communicate the author’s concepts in as close to a corresponding conceptual framework as possible?

   Comment by Jason A. Staples | October 29, 2009 | Reply

3. Jason:

   1) I’m not sure Doug is right by saying that sarx means “the human condition in its fallenness,” so much as it is a straightforward way of referencing desires originating in from natural bodily drives. That is the metaphor in Greek outside the New Testament, and it seems to be the way Paul uses it.

   As it happens, I agree with you, but I also recognize that Doug Moo knows considerably more about it than I do.

   [digression] This hits on a pet peeve of mine: too many times “New Testament Greek” is treated as though it’s a special language in itself.

   In part I think it is, but only in part. I think that too often NT scholars only know about NT Greek, so they can’t incorporate the bigger picture. Equally, many Greek scholars either don’t know about the culture(s) that produced the NT or don’t talk to the NT scholars.

   The bottom line is that I don’t think the metaphoric systems are substantially different between the Greek “sarx” and the English “flesh.”

   I think they are probably more different than they seem, because our natural inclination is so superimpose our modern system on the ancient words when we read them. Then, having read them through our modern eyes, we mistakenly conclude that (NT) Greek is closer to English than it really is.

   (BTW, I fixed the link in the main post.)

   Comment by Joel H. | October 29, 2009 | Reply

4. I completely agree with the causes for the divide in Greek; I was trained in a classics department, and, as a whole, those scholars had little to no interaction with NT Greek. And since most NT scholars are trained at seminaries, they have little to no exposure to any other Greek. I’m planning on doing a post on some of the problems caused by this situation soon.

   I also agree with you that the differences are “probably more different than they seem” for the reasons you mention, but at the same time my case is that these terms specifically (thanks in large part to the KJV’s impact on the English language) are close enough that it’s not outside the reader’s capacity for comprehension.

   That being the case, I think it’s better to translate it “flesh” than to translate it with a concept completely foreign to the source text (i.e. “sinful nature” or “fallen nature”). In other words, it’s better to have a pretty close metaphor (though not necessarily an exact parallel) than one that completely distorts the meaning.

   Comment by Jason A. Staples | October 29, 2009 | Reply

   • While I agree that the KJV’s use of flesh makes the biblical understanding within a reader’s grasp, it will not be the first thing that springs to mind. As such, perhaps translating as flesh would be appropriate if we include a disclaimer about the biblical meaning of flesh.

     I have a policy of consulting my Septuagint lexicon even when studying books of the New Testament. It helps to see if a word is a neologism, such as katapetasma, simply to note the word’s history. Plus, one’s understanding of anachoreo in Matthew 2 is heightened when you understand that the word was first used of Moses’ flight from Pharaoh (see also Tobit 1).

     At the very least, people need some exposure to the Septuagint. Jonah is a great starting point (thought ch 2 is a bit out of whack).

     Comment by Gary Simmons | November 5, 2009 | Reply

5. (Oh, and thanks for fixing the link. My apologies for having moved some things around the last month or so.)

   Comment by Jason A. Staples | October 29, 2009 | Reply

6. Is seeing the word “flesh” in both the old and new testament as referring to human motives for actions a key way for interpretting it’s various meanings? Is it’s primary use in regard to ethics and morality that which brings conviction of imperfection in regard to ones understanding of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Is the seems the “daily death” the Apostle Paul referred to a daily reminder of a necessary conscious act in the life of a believer? What does it mean when Paul wrote that “flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God?” What is the new body that can inherit the Kingdom of God and what is the metaphoric meaning of the kingdom in his word choice?

   Comment by Broadheart | January 25, 2010 | Reply

7. That Paul was using metaphor at all by using the word SARX is not my opinion, since he clearly uses it in parallel with the term “members”:

   Romans 7:23 But I see another law **in my members**, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of **sin which is in my members**.

   This, of course, lends a Muslim kind of spin to this:

   Mark 9:
   43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

   On the other hand, Paul seems to be creating an obvious *fiction* rather than a literal accounting, since he *personifies* sin as an “evil alien” that lives in one’s members, in one’s soft tissue. He is describing the plight of the Jew in reference to the law using literary device such as:

   7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known [Mister] sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But [Mister] sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law [Mister] sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, [Mister] sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For [Mister] sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But [Mister] sin, that it [he] might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that [Mister] sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
   14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under [as a slave to Mister] sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but [Mister] sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but [Mister] sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of [Mister] sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of [Mister] sin.

   I think that the figures of being “sold into slavery” and “taking advantage” tip us off that he is using personification and we have to take all of this a bit with a grain of salt.

   Still, the SARX is part of the “members” where Mr. Sin lives, and not a “sinful nature” or any such thing.

   Comment by WoundedEgo | January 25, 2010 | Reply

« Previous | Next »

Site info

God Didn't Say That
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.