flesh (human nature)

Click here to view graphically

The Greek that is often translated as “flesh” in English (when referring to the lower human nature) can, according to Nida (1947, p. 153) “very rarely be literally translated into another language. ‘My meat’ or ‘my muscle’ does not make sense in most languages.” He then gives a catalog of almost 30 questions to determine a correct translation for that term.

Accordingly, the translations are very varied:

The Toraja-Sa’dan translation uses a variety of terms for the translation of the same Greek term (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight)

  • A form of kale tolinona or “corporeal” is for instance used in Romans 9:5 or Colossians 1:22 (and also in Genesis 6:3 and Exodus 30:32)
  • A form of mentolinona or “the human” is for instance used in Matthew 16:17 or John 1:14
  • Phrases that include pa’kalean or “bodiliness” (also: “human shape”) are for instance used in Romans 6:6 or 1 Peter 2:11 (as well as in Isa 52:14, Isa 53:2, and Lamentations 4:7

(Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 207ff. )

See also spirit / flesh, old self, and flesh (John 1:14).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Rom. 7:14)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the writer of the letter and the readers).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

sin

The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark.” Likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.” Loma has (for certain types of sin) “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”) or Navajo uses “that which is off to the side.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida). In Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is kasalan, which originally meant “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and has shifted its meaning in the context of the Bible to “transgression of God’s commandments.” (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. ).

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Kaingang, the translation is “break God’s word” and in Sandawe the original meaning of the Greek term (see above) is perfectly reflected with “miss the mark.” (Source: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (Romans 7:14)

Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 7:14:

  • Uma: “We know, relatives, the Lord’s Law is definitely good because it is from the Holy Spirit. But I here, I am just a weak human, for I am enslaved by sin.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “We (dual) know that the law is from God. But I am just a human being and I am always sinning, that’s why it is as if I am the slave of my sin.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “We (incl.) know that the Law is good because it was given by the Holy Spirit. But as for me, since I obey the desires of my body I have become like a slave to evil desires.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “We know that the law is good because it comes from God’s Spirit. But I, I am just a person who easily sins. It’s as if I have been sold as a slave of sin.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “We know that concerning the law, it all is the good word which is given by God. But we being only people, have our hearts grabbed by sin.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

law

The Greek that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (wsource: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
.

Translation commentary on Romans 7:14

Throughout this entire section (vv. 14-25) Paul uses familiar Jewish terminology when he speaks of the two impulses, the good and the evil, which are constantly struggling for supremacy over man. He introduces his discussion with a general principle with which all his readers will agree: we know that the Law is spiritual.

In some languages there seems to be no term more difficult to translate adequately than spiritual. In some contexts it applies to the work of the Holy Spirit. In others it relates primarily to man’s spirit, and in still others it seems to be so general as to suggest merely something of “divine origin.” In this particular context the most satisfactory equivalent is, in some languages, “the Law is for our spirits but I am just a body” or “… I am a person with a body,” in other words, a physical being. One may also translate, in some languages, “the Law concerns our spirits.” However, in this particular context in which the emphasis of spiritual is in contrast with mortal man (or “a person of flesh”), it is probably better to relate “spiritual” to God but not specifically to the Holy Spirit. For that reason some translators employ the expression “the Law is from God” or “the Law relates to God.”

On the other hand, Paul contrasts himself with the nature of the Law: I am mortal man, sold as a slave to sin. The word rendered mortal man by the Good News Translation is obviously used in contrast with the word spiritual. But there is a question as to the exact contrast that is intended, and the problem is intensified by the observation that Paul uses “flesh” in at least two senses in his writings (mortal man actually translates an adjective made from the noun “flesh”). Sometimes “flesh” is used to describe human existence in its frailty, whereas at other times it is used to describe human nature in its sinful rebellion against God. Most translations evidently take the adjective translated mortal man in the latter sense, and so render the word either by “carnal” (Revised Standard Version, Phillips), “unspiritual” (New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible), or “weak flesh” (New American Bible). An American Translation* (“the Law is spiritual, but I am physical”) takes “flesh” in the same sense as the Good News Translation, that is, as a description of the physical aspect of human life apart from any evil connotations. So many translators understand this word to have overtones of evil in the present context because of its connection with what follows: sold as a slave to sin. However, this is not a necessary conclusion. It is equally acceptable to understand Paul to be speaking of himself as a mortal man, that is, a man who is exposed to all of the temptations that can come to one because he is a physical being, and who has now come under the power of sin.

The final phrase sold as a slave to sin is difficult to render in languages which cannot employ a passive without indicating agent, and in this type of context one certainly would not want to say “God sold me as a slave to sin” or “I sold myself as a slave to sin.” Under such circumstances it is better to omit the concept of sold rather than to employ a rendering which would be wrongly understood. One may therefore simply translate as “I am a slave to sin” in the sense of “I am a slave who obeys sin” or “I have become like a slave, obedient to sin.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .