Abstract
Readers of the Bible in Afrikaans are privileged to have access to a variety of Afrikaans Bibles that are translated on the basis of a variety of translation philosophies. The two latest additions to the array of Afrikaans translations appeared in 2014, namely the DV (Direkte Vertaling) and the ASV (Afrikaans Standaard Vertaling). Both the DV and the ASV claim to be “direct translations” of the New Testament which try to stay as close as possible to the source text while aiming to make meaningful use of the receptor language. This type of translation aims to retain the metaphorical or idiomatic expressions and the structure of the source texts as far as possible while trying to convey these in fluent, idiomatic Afrikaans.
The translation philosophies, namely word for word, direct, functionally equivalent and paraphrase, represent, in this order, a progressive moving away from a focus on the source text (word for word) to a focus on the receptor language (paraphrase). However, these translation philosophies cannot exist in watertight categories and involve a measure of overlap. Whereas the meaning of a word-for-word translation can be obscure, a paraphrastic translation can be focused so much on the receptor language that it can be anachronistic, or it can send the reader in the wrong direction with regard to the original meaning of the text. Any translation thus has to position itself somewhere on a continuum from a focus on the source text to a focus on the receptor language.
Another factor that influences translation is the fact that there are approximately 5 000 Greek lexemes in the New Testament that are used in about 25 000 meanings. The lexeme σάρξ is especially difficult to translate, as it can be applied in a variety of meanings. This article aims to evaluate the translation of the lexemes σάρξ, σαρκικός and σάρκινος in the DV and the ASV, (1) in respect of the translation philosophy that these translations utilise in comparison with those of other translations that use similar or related philosophies, and (2) by discussing the translation of these lexemes in respect of the theological interpretation in the various contexts in which they occur. In this discussion the focus will be on those instances where the DV and the ASV translate σάρξ as “sinful nature”.
The main domains of meaning in which σάρξ is used in the New Testament (based mainly on Bauer et al. 2000 and Louw and Nida 1988) are the following (from basic/literal to extended/figurative): (1) physical flesh, (2) the human body, (3) a human being, (4) of human or earthly descent, (5) nation, (6) earthly life, (7) physical human nature and (8) psychological human nature. Another meaning claimed for σάρξ is that it points to someone’s “sinful nature”. However, this meaning is not well supported by Bauer et al. 2000 or Louw and Nida (1988). This article specifically focuses on those instances where the DV and the ASV translate σάρξ as “sinful nature”. The lexeme σαρκικός can denote that which is human, material or physical, natural or worldly. Similarly, σάρκινος can point to that which is human, natural or worldly (based on Bauer et al. 2000 and Louw and Nida 1988).
All eight of the above meanings of σάρξ are represented in the ASV. The same applies to the DV, except for the fourth meaning (human/earthly descent). Apart from the meaning “natural”, both the ASV and the DV utilise all meanings of σαρκικός and σάρκινος. In the ASV and especially the DV, functional equivalents are used to translate σάρξ, σαρκικός and σάρκινος. It is noteworthy that the DV often translates σάρξ as “sinful nature”, in much the same way that the NAV (1983 Afrikaans translation) and the NIV3 (third, 1984 edition of the New International Version) do. The ASV, however, translates σάρξ as “flesh” in most of these instances.
The more important question is whether “sinful nature” is a legitimate translation of σάρξ at all. There is a difference of opinion on how to translate σάρξ in this kind of extended meaning, which occurs especially in the Pauline corpus. In this regard the salvation-historical use of σάρξ can already be derived from its first occurrence in Paul’s letter to the Romans. In Bible translations there exists a tendency to move away from the idea of the two “natures” of Jesus (σάρξ and πνεῦμα) in 1:3–4, to two phases of salvation history. In this regard the NIV4 (fourth, 2011 edition of the New International Version) changed the translation “human nature” of the NIV3 to “earthly life” (1:3). The Spirit-flesh contrast in Romans 1:3–4 would then reveal the heart of Paul’s gospel (1:2), namely the two phases of Jesus’ ministry: his birth and work as Son of David in the old era (flesh) and in the new era, which was inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection by the Spirit. Where the ASV keeps the original “flesh”, the DV translates Rom. 1:3 as “as human being”, which lies closer to the two natures view.
A passage where the two phases of salvation history are especially evident is Rom. 7:5–6. The ὅτε (“then”) in verse 5 is contrasted with the νυνί (“now”) in verse 6, thus constituting a contrast between two eschatological and salvation-historical eras and realities. In this understanding σάρξ (v. 5) points to a way of existence before or outside Christ, on the pre-Christ, pre-Spirit side of eschatological realities, which does not belong to the believer’s present. Similarly, πνεῦμα (v. 6) denotes a way of existence and eschatological reality in Christ, where God’s Spirit replaces observance of the Law. The Spirit is the essential element of the New Covenant. Flesh thus points to a way of existence under the Law, sin and death (Rom. 3:9, 19–20; 5:12–13, 20–21; 6:14–15; 7:4–5, 8), whereas the Spirit signifies a way of existence of the new life and the new position of righteousness in Christ (Rom. 7:6; 8:2–4, 6, 10–11, 13; Gal. 5:5; 6:8). In the context of Rom. 7:5–6 it is thus unlikely that σάρξ points to the sinfulness or sinful nature of human beings, contra the NAV and the DV. Even the NIV4 translates σάρξ as “the realm of the flesh” (v. 5) where the NIV3 has “sinful nature”. This salvation-historical contrast between flesh and Spirit is in all probability carried over to Rom. 8:1–16. Rom. 8:9 (“you are not in the flesh”) in particular points to the old existence before or outside Christ.
The same salvation-historical contrast between flesh and Spirit can be derived from Gal. 5:16–25, where the Spirit that desires against the flesh can be understood as a supra-individual struggle between two realities pertaining to two salvation-historical eras. Being under the Law (5:18) corresponds to an existence prior to Christ (4:5) and prior to the “coming” of faith (3:23–25). The “works of the flesh” (5:19–21) are characteristic of a life that is deprived of the inheritance of God’s kingdom (5:21). Someone in Christ is therefore someone who crucified the flesh (5:24), being dead to the former existence (2:19). Eternal life is the end result of sowing in the Spirit, which is contrasted with corruption as the end result of sowing in the flesh (6:8). Although pertaining to the moral dynamics of fallen humanity, the eschatologically old existence can also be derived from Eph. 2:3. There σάρξ points to the natural inclinations of the whole person who opposes God’s will, rather than to someone’s sinful nature as an anthropological idea.
As a second layer of meaning, the Spirit-flesh contrast, can also denote a contrast of two mutually exclusive identities. In this extended application, flesh could denote the identity of someone before or outside Christ, where identity is marked by external identity markers such as the observance of the Law, circumcision and ethnicity. In contrast, Spirit can denote the identity of someone whose spirit bears witness with God’s Spirit that he or she is a child of God (Rom. 7:5–6; 8:1–16; Gal. 5:5, 13, 16–25; 6:8; Eph. 2:3). In John 3:5–6, “flesh” points to the natural human ability and identity, whereas “the Spirit” refers to the divine origin of identity.
The study concludes that in instances where the ASV and the DV translate σάρξ as the anthropological translation “sinful nature” (and the DV’s translation of σαρκικός in Rom. 7:14), the eschatological and salvation-historical connotations as well as the connotations of identity are obscured or lost. The translation “sinful nature” actually lies closer to the Hellenistic idea of a higher nature (spirit) and lower nature (flesh), which should be avoided. In the light of the study it is a question what the function and definition of a direct translation are. If σάρξ, σαρκικός and σάρκινος are translated with functional equivalents, the idea of a direct translation might be misleading to the general public, especially if the expectation is created that a direct translation would bring the reader much closer to the source text. If the translations discussed above can be considered as representative of the translation philosophy of the ASV and the DV, it is recommended that these translations more explicitly position themselves within the spectrum of functional equivalence. It is nevertheless recommended that the ASV and especially the DV translate σάρξ as “flesh” instead of “sinful nature” where appropriate. This will enable the reader to decide from the context what the meaning of σάρξ is, rather than for the reader possibly to be pointed in the wrong direction.
Keywords: direct translation, dynamic equivalent, flesh, functional equivalent, New Testament, σάρξ, sinful nature, translation
The post An evaluation of the translation of σάρξ (flesh) in the Direkte Vertaling (Direct Translation) and the Afrikaanse Standaard Vertaling (Afrikaans Standard Translation) of the New Testament appeared first on LitNet.