So I must confess that I’ve not been particularly kind toward the ESV (English Standard Version).
Well, after reading a passage in James Dunn’s The Theology of Paul the Apostle, I was compelled to praise the ESV’s consistent translation of sarx as “flesh”:
Flesh for Paul was neither unspiritual nor sinful. The term simply indicated and characterized the weakness of a humanity constituted as flesh and always vulnerable to the manipulation of its desires and needs as flesh…. A much more satisfactory rule of translation would be to recognize that sarx is an important technical and linking term in Paul’s letters and is therefore best translated consistently by the same term, “flesh.” (p. 70, emphasis mine)
And even Fee and Strauss, after citing various renderings of sarx in our English Bibles, had to agree on “flesh”:
Because the English lexeme “flesh” has—through the centuries of use—become for Christian readers a technical term with most of the same connotations as Greek sarx, translations produced for Christian readers may choose to retain this term (How to Choose a Translation for All It’s Worth, p. 60, emphasis mine).
And of all the recent English Bible translations, the ESV appears to be the most consistent in its rendering of the Greek sarx as “flesh,” even when such is not required (see 2 Cor. 4:11; 5:16; 10:2-4; Gal. 2:20; 3:3; Col. 1:22).
So don’t be surprised if I switched to a more “fleshy” English Bible.
Earlier this Fall when I began to really dive in and study the Word I gave a lot of though to which translation(s) to use as my go to for study. I read many blogs and even read Ron Rhodes’ fairly OBJECTIVE “Complete Guide to Bible Translations”. His rather emphatic suggestion that one should study/read from at least one literal AND at least one dynamic translation really stuck with me.
So I knew I was going to pick two. I quickly realized that all of the main translations all have good qualities to them, so it came down to the “gut” test. The gut test quickly led me to the ESV and the NLT. I love them both and to be quite honest I couldn’t imagine doing my study with only one of them. They compliment each other so well!! I also check out a few other translations to keep my mind open, because as I said they all have their good qualities!
As I have stated before I don’t quite understand the rather heated debates that occur about ANY of the translations. I have enjoyed and dare I say been enlightened by almost all of them. I can’t quite dig on The Message, not because it is a paraphrase but because I think the English is stilted and awkward. But who knows God may choose to make The Message be the one that passes the “gut” test for someone else!
Tomg,
Choosing a main English Bible can indeed be a struggle (God knows I had mine!). The TNIV would have approached perfection, at least for me, if it had rendered sarx “flesh.”
Now I’m wavering.
I have actually been thinking of buying a TNIV and making it an additional choice for study to the two I mentioned before. I have enjoyed reading it online. I just wonder if having three main choices is getting to the point of overkill or not. I want to make sure I stay focused on the Word itself and not get distracted by always feeling the need to buy a “new” translation or dictionary or whatever.
But then again the TNIV would fit very nicely right in the middle (literally and figuratively!) of the ESV and NLT for when I study.
Tomg,
The TNIV has been discontinued by Zondervan in preparation for NIV 2011. Too much politics and so on. So I recommend reading it online instead of buying one, unless you plan to make it your main text.
HCSB uses “flesh” in most of these examples, but not all, and when a different translation is used, there is a footnote on “flesh.” Good enough for me. The awkward English in the ESV is too much for me to make me switch.
Nothingman,
Yes, I’ve noticed the same in the HCSB but not as much (for example, 2 Cor. 5:16; 10:2-4).
I’m not switching at all. Just love reading me some “flesh” as opposed to “sinful nature.” Yes, the ESV is quite awkward. HCSB is a far better read.
Although I’ve tried to go back to the HCSB and ESV as my primary translations, I find myself time and again returning to the TNIV. I find that it works really well in tandem with the NASB in study. The TNIV is formal enough that I generally don’t need to consult elsewhere, but in the cases where I wonder what a more formal rendering would be, the NASB generally sheds the most helpful light on things. I’ve also used the ESV in tandem with TNIV, but I’ve found that there’s not generally as much contrast between those two as between the NASB and TNIV, so the benefit of using multiple translations is not as significant. If I’m going to use a formal translation as a study supplement, I want the *most* formal translation (excluding incomprehensible ones like Young’s Literal Translation), not simply an “essentially literal” one.
I agree that “flesh” would generally be better for “sarx.” It has a long history of technical usage in Christian theology, and in many contexts it seems preferable to preserve the interpretive possibilities. I was just reading 1 Cor. 5:5 this morning and stumbled over the TNIV’s “for the destruction of the sinful nature.” That may be what Paul intended, but I’d like to see a greater range of interpretive options. I know Moo has said “sarx” is up for discussion in the updated NIV, so we can hope
That said, I don’t imagine myself moving from the TNIV anytime soon (at least until 2011).
Funny, I like the fact that flesh isn’t used and prefer a translation along the lines of the TNIV.
Tim,
As I was doing this post, I was actually thinking how cool it would be for the NIV 2011 to go “flesh” instead of “sinful nature.” In fact, I wanted to end the post on that note.
Well, I’m glad it’s up for discussion.
Regarding readability and great balance, the TNIV is it for me, esp. in Paul. But that “flesh” is needed, at least for me. Ha!
Jerry B,
You’re alone. Even pro-TNIV Fee and Strauss have somewhat conceded.
TC-
I still retaining “flesh” for sarx is taking the easy way out because this technical term is so ensconced in Christian theology and has thus engendered so much misunderstanding that in order to dislodge the wrong meanings and connotations of sarx means that translators should render it in ways that communicate exegetical intent.
Scott,
It seems the easy way out, but even you have acknowledge its technical import.
When a Dunn has conceded, who am I to challenge.
TC, I’ve been thinking on this one too and blogged on it last week. I came across the same quote from Dunn (and found it quite striking) albeit in an article written by Doug Moo (who interestingly, prefers ‘flesh’ to ‘sinful nature’ too).
If you’re interested it’s at:
http://restlessandreforming.blogspot.com/2009/11/sarx-flesh-or-sinful-nature.html
I definitely suffer from bible translation schizophrenia!
Nick,
Thanks for the link. Nice article. Your conclusion is a bit puzzling though.
It was deliberately vague. I’m unsure as to what I think on the matter; I feel the weight of both sides of the argument. Probably with Dunn’s conclusions more.
Nick,
Thanks for the follow up. Yeah, Dunn makes a lot of sense, esp. when you read more of what he has to say on sarx.
What about the NRSV? You get all the goodness of the TNIV plus some ‘flesh’.
TC,
Long live “flesh” and the ESV!
Kyle,
I grant “flesh” but ESV, hmm…
It’s ok, TC, I’m sure he meant “HCSB.”
Nick,
The NRSV is quite good but too archaic in a lot of places. The NET or HCSB would be better.
TC, I was going to suggest HCSB but others already have. I don’t know if flesh is the best word to use, easy for us who grew up with this usage, but to new generations does it clearly communicate?
Robert,
Even Fee and Strauss, pro-TNIV, a Bible that was marketed to 18-34 age group, conceded on “flesh.”
It’s just one of those terms.