Comments on: The TNIV, sarx and the inclinations of the human heart

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:07:11 +0000

Thanks, Peter. I was just trying to resolve the meaning behind hamartia as the translation for "sin",when most of the definitions I saw earlier had to do with character flaws or "missing the mark", though I now see that was specifically related to Classical Greek, rather than Koine.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:06:15 +0000

Well, as for what is more literal, the whole point of literal translation is that each Greek term is rendered consistently (at least for each sense of the word) by a standard and generally agreed English (etc) equivalent. The standard equivalent of hamartia is "sin". Of course this word has picked up a lot of theological baggage. But if it is not the best rendering here, that is a problem with the literal translation method, not with how I translated. I think I would say that sin is more than a character flaw, and (despite the misleading etymology) more than missing the mark. But perhaps I am simply reading into the text too much of my own theology. Paul talks a lot about hamartia elsewhere in Romans, and that is the best place to look to find out what he means by the term in this verse. Sorry, I don't know of any online sources for criticism of GNB/TEV, but Google should be your friend. There is a review from a conservative viewpoint here but no mention of this specific issue.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:51:08 +0000

Thanks for the correction, Peter – I do appreciate it. Though wouldn’t an even more literal translation be “flesh of flaws” or “flawed flesh” (if you allow a grammatical switch)? Sin then being a theological term for “character flaw”. With the overall sense being “our human flesh causes us to miss the mark” – that is, our inclinations and natural tendencies lead us astray from God.

And I like the example from the GNB/TEV – do you recall or know offhand if any of the criticism was published and is accessible today? I’d be curious to read more on what the specific reactions were.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:16:27 +0000

ElShaddai, “There’s still a “sinful nature” stuck in the middle of that passage” for the very good reason that the word “sin” is explicit in the Greek text here. The Greek wording is sarkos hamartias, literally “flesh of sin”. You have lost that in your adapted translation by changing TNIV’s accurate “in the likeness of sinful humanity” to “in a human body”.

The Good News Bible (aka TEV) was criticised a lot by evangelicals for making the kinds of changes which you want, and which I think I would support. I like its rendering of these verses, from my 1976 British edition (newer editions may be more gender accurate):

3 What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature, to do away with sin. 4 God did this so that the righteous demands of the Law might be fully satisfied in us who live according to the Spirit, and not according to human nature.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:45:22 +0000

Thanks for providing that, Tim. There’s still a “sinful nature” stuck in the middle of that passage, but I do like “human weakness” – that is along the lines of the inclinations or intent of the heart.

The “old nature” is an improvement on the NEB’s “lower nature”, though it’s ambiguous as to whether our weak nature has been replaced by the Spirit or overcome by the Spirit.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:41:43 +0000

Thank you, Esteban – I just can’t read Romans 7-8 without thinking about that Genesis 8:21 verse…

By: Tim Chesterton

Tim Chesterton — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:35:48 +0000

REB has the following:

‘What the law could not do, because human weakness robbed it of all potency, God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful nature and to deal with sin, he has passed judgement against sin within that very nature, so that the commandment of the law may find fulfilment in us, whose conduct is no longer controlled by the old nature, but by the Spirit’.

By: Esteban Vázquez

Esteban Vázquez — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:07 +0000

Oh, I like this! I like it very much. You should suggest this to the CBT; it’s a vast improvement over the intolerable “sinful nature” bit.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:01:31 +0000

Yes, there is the whole argument to generically render it as “flesh”. I was trying to stay within the TNIV’s ballpark, which, as far as I know, doesn’t include that option.

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:55:20 +0000

Honestly I like the literal renderings like the NRSV:
“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin,* he condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

The dichotomy here is flesh vs. spirit. God’s incarnation, the law, sin. Part of the message is we are defective and Jesus has a form like our sin (flesh) which is subject to death.

If you want to be less literal Gaus does a good job: “To make up for the impotence of the law, the place where it was weakened by the flesh, God sent His own son in the flesh likeness of our sin and then sentenced sin in person to die for our sins, so that the stipulations of the Law might be fulfilled for you who go by its spirit without going by it physically.”

But the whole analogy is lost without making flesh intrinsically sinful. That is what Paul is saying here.