Sarx doesn't mean "flesh"?

5. The one-meaning fallacy. At times we encounter the view that every appearance of a Hebrew or Greek term should be translated by the same English word. This of course is closely related to the root fallacy described previously (see pp. 84–87).
...[after a few comments, Osborne continues]...
Louw uses the excellent example of sarx, “flesh,” a word often translated literally in the versions (1982:39–40). However, note the following widely different semantic uses: Matthew 24:22, “no flesh will be saved” (no person); John 1:14, “the Word became flesh” (became a human being); Romans 9:8, “children of the flesh” (children of natural birth); Hebrews 5:7, “days of his flesh” (his earthly life); Romans 8:13, “live according to the flesh” (sinful nature); Jude 7, “went after strange flesh” (sexual immorality). The point is obvious: the English term flesh cannot adequately express all these divergent connotations, and a translation would be wrong to use “flesh” in all these instances. As Louw concludes, “one can never say what sarx means, but only what it means in this or that context” (pp. 39–40).
Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006). 90.

This argument gives the impression of being thoughtful and well-considered, judicious and even-handed. But is it? If sarx does mean flesh (and it does), how is it possible that it means all of these other things in Greek that "flesh" can't mean? Or is the well-considered argument in fact over-wrought? Is Louw (and are linguists and Bible scholars in general) guilty of being too cute and too wise by half? Are the suggested English translations offered above really improvements to a simple, straight-forward translation as "flesh"? I contend they are not.

The fact that sarx may be used in a literal sense in one place and a figurative sense in another does not mean that it doesn't really mean "flesh" in both cases, just as "flesh" can also be used in a literal and figurative sense. What I'm saying is this...both the bolded statement and the underlined statement in the above quote are simply false. Although the intention behind Osborne's comments may be directed toward a concept that deserves close attention, his and Louw's points are, as I said earlier, over-wrought. And just like when you wiggle a wire back and forth too much, it will come loose in your hand, so with this argument. While the "senses" of the uses of sarx may indeed accord with Louw's various summations in parentheses, those variations of sense DO NOT mean that they invalidate the use of "flesh" as an alternative, nor do they displace "flesh" as the best choice for the meaning of sarx in each case.

In fact, aside from the weakness of the case Osborne and Louw make here, there is another pressing factor which they and nearly all other exegetes and hermeneuticists routinely overlook--the prophetic aspect of the use of sarx AS flesh in each of these contexts. I'm not saying the connotations they proffer are all wrong. However, I am saying the conclusions they draw are wrong, which insist that the variations in connotations they put forward REQUIRE the usage of some word other than "flesh" to either adequately, or even more, properly translate sarx.

Simply put, nothing is gained and much is lost by insisting that "flesh" just isn't good enough to get the job done in the face of the (as Osborne and Louw imagine it) "intimidating plethora of various connotations" that one can perceive in the various uses of sarx. Even if one accepts their connotations as stated, "flesh" nevertheless REMAINS the very best choice for translating sarx in each of the instances that Louw and Osborne broach.

That, anyway, is my take. I see this sort of thing all the time in these hermeneutics-focused resources. Whether it be Osborne, Carson, or any of the dozens of others who write on this topic, this kind of over-reaching is common place.

I am firmly convinced that this insistence on translating according to connotation rather than denotation is one of the prime reasons (among many) for the continuing efficacy of the "sealed book"/"famine of the word"/"strong delusion" condition that persists in Biblical hermeneutics.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

This sort of critique belongs as a review of the resource. There's space on resource descriptions pages for such reviews (and follow-up comments from others if they want to defend the book from your critique).

Critiquing resources on the forums is always fraught with peril.

MJ. Smith

Or is the well-considered argument in fact over-wrought? Is Louw (and are linguists and Bible scholars in general) guilty of being too cute and too wise by half? Are the suggested English translations offered above really improvements to a simple, straight-forward translation as "flesh"? I contend they are not.

Guess what ... what you contend is not a relevant proposition in determining the truth value to answer your question.[:P][;)] However, may I suggest that different people have different interests and knowledge. For individuals who have a particular interest/knowledge in semantics and theory of meaning, it may be very valuable. To someone interested in sociology or history rather than linguistics, it would range somewhere between incomprehensible, irrelevant and "over-wrought". Thus, the appropriate truth-value, monosyllabic answer to your question does not exist. The disyllabic answer "depends" does.[8-|]

Obviously, more Logos resources on logic, semantics and argumentation are needed so you can search and find the answer to your question yourself. Want a bibliography?

Josh

In fact, aside from the weakness of the case Osborne and Louw make here, there is another pressing factor which they and nearly all other exegetes and hermeneuticists routinely overlook--the prophetic aspect of the use of sarx AS flesh in each of these contexts.

Somehow I think this is the real issue you actually have. You have a personal bias for a particular interpretation of the text.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483261#Comment_483261

Guess what ... what you contend is not a relevant proposition in determining the truth value to answer your question. However, may I suggest that different people have different interests and knowledge. For individuals who have a particular interest/knowledge in semantics and theory of meaning, it may be very valuable. To someone interested in sociology or history rather than linguistics, it would range somewhere between incomprehensible, irrelevant and "over-wrought". Thus, the appropriate truth-value, monosyllabic answer to your question does not exist. The disyllabic answer "depends" does.

Obviously, more Logos resources on logic, semantics and argumentation are needed so you can search and find the answer to your question yourself. Want a bibliography?

Peace, Martha! Wouldn't mind looking at a bibliography if you have a short one handy sometime ... *smile* I have a lot to learn yet over against ... "What is Truth?" eh???

Blair Laird

I believe the point being made by Osborne, is the same point made by other hermeneutic teachers. Context defines terms, not dictionaries.. The context will tell you if the word is being used figuratively, or literally. This is the reason we have different types of translations (word for word) (dynamic equivalent) and (thought for thought).

Appreciate the post...

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483273#Comment_483273

Here is a quote from the last part of that section

"This is an extremely important linguistic principle, for it forces us once again to the semantic field and the context as the two factors in determining the meaning of a term."

Osborne, G. R. (2006). The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed., p. 91). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483268#Comment_483268

In fact, aside from the weakness of the case Osborne and Louw make here, there is another pressing factor which they and nearly all other exegetes and hermeneuticists routinely overlook--the prophetic aspect of the use of sarx AS flesh in each of these contexts.

Somehow I think this is the real issue you actually have. You have a personal bias for a particular interpretation of the text.

Well, no...it isn't "the real issue"...it is "part" of the issue, just like I said.

I could give dozens of examples where modern translations hopelessly obscure prophetic connections for the imagined sake of "clarity in English". The bolded phrase of Louw IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. The word "flesh" DOES adequately express all of the appropriate meanings in the verses Louw quotes. The "divergent connotations" he references are never so unexpected that "flesh" just isn't up to the task of conveying the proper concept. The assertion is at best a fabrication...at worst, a lie. It certainly doesn't help his case that he seems to deliberately use a thesaurus to come up with his "divergent connotations" for flesh--he could easily use "human" for each of the first two examples he gives, "humanity" for the second pair, and "human weakness" for the last two. Even so, "flesh" succinctly encapsulates all of these concepts in a most accurate fashion. From a theological point-of-view, no other term or collection of terms gives proper justice to the concepts that are in play with these verses.

As for having a "bias for a particular interpretation of the text", you are quite correct, since I deliberately choose to interpret the Book according to the way YHWH and Yeishuu`a have determined to be correct. Rev. 19:10

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483261#Comment_483261

Or is the well-considered argument in fact over-wrought? Is Louw (and are linguists and Bible scholars in general) guilty of being too cute and too wise by half? Are the suggested English translations offered above really improvements to a simple, straight-forward translation as "flesh"? I contend they are not.

Guess what ... what you contend is not a relevant proposition in determining the truth value to answer your question. However, may I suggest that different people have different interests and knowledge. For individuals who have a particular interest/knowledge in semantics and theory of meaning, it may be very valuable. To someone interested in sociology or history rather than linguistics, it would range somewhere between incomprehensible, irrelevant and "over-wrought". Thus, the appropriate truth-value, monosyllabic answer to your question does not exist. The disyllabic answer "depends" does.

Obviously, more Logos resources on logic, semantics and argumentation are needed so you can search and find the answer to your question yourself. Want a bibliography?

MJ, I hope you don't kick your tail-sniffing hound when your knee jerks like that...the poor thing clearly needs a break. That said...I really have no clue what you are attempting to say with your oh-so-vague comments. Everything I said is entirely relevant to the point I was making. Your comments, on the other hand, define "over-wrought".

Including my college text from one of the top professors in critical thinking in the country, and others too numerous to count, I have all the resources on logic, semantics, and argumentation anyone would ever need...thank you.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483259#Comment_483259

This sort of critique belongs as a review of the resource. There's space on resource descriptions pages for such reviews (and follow-up comments from others if they want to defend the book from your critique).

Critiquing resources on the forums is always fraught with peril.

My OP is much less a critique than it is a beacon for people to consider. Most of the Logos resources that propose to teach us "how" to engage the resources we typically purchase from Logos are, in my view, guilty of miscasting the issues they propose to clarify. I think that is a topic that is well worth contemplating, even if most folks would rather take shots at me rather than discuss the implications.

I find it rather interesting that Osborne quotes the exact same segment of James Barr's book that D. A. Carson quotes in Exegetical Fallacies regarding the common Hebrew root for the words "war" and "bread", in which he insists that it is absurd on its face that any semantic commonality for those two words could exist. As the link in my OP shows, I provide a steady stream of evidence that establishes the incontrovertible existence of precisely that which Barr says is impossibly absurd--the semantic link showing that both "war" and "bread/food" are related to the concept of the struggle for survival, and are linked on numerous occasions in the Bible in spite of Barr's scoffing.

The willingness of scholars (whom I have seen lauded uncritically on this forum) to essentially parrot comments of the "cavalier dismissal" variety (which Carson both identifies as a fallacy and then haply participates in) without taking the time to determine their validity should be of great concern to forum participants and Logos customers in general. The apparent incapacity to acknowledge even the slight possibility that said scholars may not be flawless in their assertions is simultaneously disturbing and unsurprising. It shows that the failings of Logos authors are eagerly followed and practiced by those who voraciously consume their offerings.

elnwood

The point is obvious: the English term flesh cannot adequately express all these divergent connotations, and a translation would be wrong to use “flesh” in all these instances.

I agree with Osbourne. Anyone who has studied multiple languages in depth knows that you rarely have perfect one-to-one correspondence between an term in one language and a term in another. You cannot expect to translate every Greek word to the same English word every time. No translation does this.

A biblical word study on σάρξ produces the following translations in these "essentially literal" versions:
NASB: flesh/fleshy, life, body, mankind, fellow countrymen, man, nation, this life, bodily, bodily condition (and more)
ESV: flesh, body/bodies, earthly, human being, human, another, Jews, physical, natural, worldly standards (and more)
NKJV: flesh/fleshly, carnal/carnally, the flesh, bodies, physical, human

My good friend Dave Brunn just published a book called One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? He served as a missionary and Bible translator in PNG, and his book is excellent. The main point of his book is that even the "essentially literal" translations often don't translate word-for-word, and there are even many instances where the "dynamic translations" will translate more literally than the "essentially literal" ones.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Many-Versions-Translations/dp/0830827153

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483312#Comment_483312

My OP is much less a critique than it is a beacon for people to consider.

If so, is it not outside the Guidelines of the forums which point toward the use of the software rather than the debate of methodology?

even if most folks would rather take shots at me rather than discuss the implications

Discussing the implications is, again, outside the scope of the forums. However, it has been my personal observation that when I feel my point has not been heard, it is usually a matter of how I presented the point.

D. A. Carson quotes in Exegetical Fallacies

I, too, find D.A. Carson using fallacies in this book and jokingly suggest that he thinks they are fallacies only in exegesis not in everyday thought. However, the forums are not the place for me to state what I think of particular passages in particular books unless there is something I want help figuring out how to use Logos to support or demolish the passage as in the thread of Carson's comment on Jesus' comparative speaking on heaven vs hell.

The apparent incapacity to acknowledge even the slight possibility that said scholars may not be flawless in their assertions is simultaneously disturbing and unsurprising. It shows that the failings of Logos authors are eagerly followed and practiced by those who voraciously consume their offerings.

This is an example of how your use of language can generate a reflexive defensive response rather than encouraging a reader to consider your main point. This does not correspond to my experience of the forum subset of Logos users. I am often surprised at how narrow and unconsidered some users' knowledge is on some topics. That Is true whether I agree or disagree with them. I am often surprised at how broad and well considered some users' knowledge is on some topics. This is also true whether I agree or disagree with them. When you make statements that don't match my experience, whether I intend it or not you have already biased me to discount your argument. The same thing happens when you use language I consider abusive towards your readers. That is not shots directed at you - it is human nature that applies to all discussions. Or, if you prefer, the cultural response to "Argumentum ad Hominem".

Yes, I have fun presenting an image of one who chides gently with logic. It's nearly 50 years since a professor first teased me about my mind working in logical models and truth tables. I proceeded to spend my academic and professional careers using that attribute while applying it to a large range to topics. My current passion is in the application of the insights from natural language processing to Bible study. One thing NLP has gained us is the ability to gather enough data about language (in this case Biblical language) to ask questions at a level of detail that we could not reasonably study from hand-compiled lists of limited data. This is a major change for textual criticism and semantics. As in any expansion of knowledge, there will be over-generalizations, errors, major breakthroughs and minor revisions. There will be sloppy language that results in misunderstandings of what is intended.

As for your Barr/Carson example, I would suggest three things for consideration in understanding Barr's intended point:

note the number of caveats in his statement
question how close (measured by a standard node measure) a semantic web relationship needs to be for the tie in meaning to be semantic in the "common root" sense of the context
consider other sources of intertwined meaning such as structuralist approaches or connotational semantics

Since you say you have a collection of books on logic, may I suggest that you add Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Meaning by Richard Larson and Gabriel Segal. Unfortunately, it is a book that must be approached front to back as it takes a very technical field and makes it approachable to the average reader by step-by-step addition of rules resolving particular difficulties.

Eric Weiss

5. The one-meaning fallacy. At times we encounter the view that every appearance of a Hebrew or Greek term should be translated by the same English word. This of course is closely related to the root fallacy described previously (see pp. 84–87).

...[after a few comments, Osborne continues]...

Louw uses the excellent example of sarx, “flesh,” a word often translated literally in the versions (1982:39–40). However, note the following widely different semantic uses: Matthew 24:22, “no flesh will be saved” (no person); John 1:14, “the Word became flesh” (became a human being); Romans 9:8, “children of the flesh” (children of natural birth); Hebrews 5:7, “days of his flesh” (his earthly life); Romans 8:13, “live according to the flesh” (sinful nature); Jude 7, “went after strange flesh” (sexual immorality). The point is obvious: the English term flesh cannot adequately express all these divergent connotations, and a translation would be wrong to use “flesh” in all these instances. As Louw concludes, “one can never say what sarx means, but only what it means in this or that context” (pp. 39–40).

Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006). 90.

My thoughts for translations like these is to use a superscript letter or number or * after, e.g., "person" (Matthew 24:22) and have a corresponding footnote that reads:

Grk. σάρξ (sarx), usually glossed as "flesh"

But I tend to agree with these translation choices, for translation is about how to best make the intended meaning most comprehensible to the modern reader. E.g., "to live according to the flesh" seems to me to be Biblish or Christianese and not modern English. No one I know talks about living in the flesh except Bible Christians. One shouldn't have to educate people in Biblish or Christianese as a prelude or adjunct to them being able to read or understand the Bible in their modern English language. The kind of footnote I suggest would let people know where a possibly theologically significant or important Greek or Hebrew word hasn't been translated by its most common gloss.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483441#Comment_483441

Anyone else want to volunteer for a new hole, before I begin? Don't be bashful...30 is as easy as 3 is as easy as 300.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/483420#Comment_483420

I agree with Osbourne. Anyone who has studied multiple languages in depth knows that you rarely have perfect one-to-one correspondence between an term in one language and a term in another. You cannot expect to translate every Greek word to the same English word every time. No translation does this.

Yes. It appears David believes that the English word 'flesh' is a perfect equivalent for the Greek word 'sarx'.