I think the test is really whether Paul expected his readers to understand in advance what he meant by sarx. If he didn’t, but intended his meaning to be understood from the context, then I guess we can use a word intended to be understood from the context – although we need to make sure we have translated the context accurately and clearly (and we also need people to read that context, not to read verses or short passages out of context). Alternatively, if this was a dead metaphor or a technical term which Paul expected his audience to be familiar with already, then we need to render his term in a way that the audience for the translation is familiar with already – and as your pastor realises “flesh” is not such a rendering even in an ESV-using church.

My own suspicion is that sarx was more of a technical term than a “vivid metaphor”, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

I realize this is separate from the question of communicative accuracy. If a majority of the target audience will not understand ‘flesh’, it might be a poor translation anyway. )My pastor is currently preaching a sermon on Romans 8, and since the church uses the ESV, he has to keep stressing that ‘flesh’ means more than it seems in English. He keeps reminding the congregation that it means ‘sinful nature’.

So the second question is, if sarx is a metaphor, is it possible to translate it literally and still convey the same meaning? In other words, is the metaphorical meaning Greek speakers would have thought of for sarx the same as the metaphorical meaning English speakers think of for ‘flesh’?

The biggest problem with using “body” is that Paul makes a subtle but clear distinction between “flesh” and “body,” especially in 1 Corinthians 15. Your breakdown of the three aspects of the soul is surely right, though, and the “flesh” is simply associated with the “appetite” part of the soul (the “id,” as it were). I still think the average English reader can get that out of “flesh” just as well as any other term.

Thanks, Doyle. We’ll take that as a compliment. We really do try to raise legitimate translation issues on this blog. And we encourage civil discussion about them. There are translation solutions which can do justice to the forms and meanings of the original biblical texts as well as the forms of translation languages such as English. As Scot McKnight is blogging (see my lastest post about his series), there may not be a single “right” solution. There may be a variety of solutions, often with advantages and sometimes disadvantages for each one.