I was recently at a talk where the speaker, more than once, referred to their (and our) “sin nature”.
The Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures are far from systematic or univocal. People can try to draw something systematic out of this collection of texts (and, further, from the traditions that follow). And then they use this “essence of” as a lens on the texts, and can read stuff back into the text that wasn’t there. People who are monolingual exacerbate this, not really personally aware of issues involved in translating (recently someone critiqued a translation point I was making with “that’s not translation, that’s interpretation” – my response: “ALL translation is interpretation!”)
The words “sin nature” appear to originate from an NIV mistranslation of σάρξ (sarx). And, I remind you, NIV is not a single translation; they keep changing it (1973, 1978, 1984, 2011…) without changing the name of the translation (unlike, e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue).
NIV in 1978 translated Romans 7:18
For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
This (mis)translation appears also in The Living Bible (1971) and the New Living Translation (1996, 2004, 2015). This 1971 date – which I discovered late in the research for this post – may indicate that that is the source of the term. Others, commenting, may be able to shed light on this, even pointing to an earlier source.
People who think that a word in one language can simply be translated consistently to the same word in another language are… monolingual! Anyone who speaks more than one language reasonably well knows that translation is fraught. Word “A” in language 1 can be translated into language 2 differently, as one word, as a phrase, etc depending on context, idiom, etc.
So σάρξ (sarx) is used 149 times in the New Testament with a very wide range of meanings. σάρξ can be translated as “flesh” (what covers the body of a creature, and the edible flesh of a fruit). But it can also refer to the whole body. It is used for “kindred”. It can refer, more metaphorically, to the source of “animalistic desires” (like lust), immoral thoughts and desires. It can be used in a more dualistic sense as that which contrasts with “spiritual”…
NIV 1984 translated σάρξ as “sinful nature” 20 times. By NIV 2011, that translation had abandoned 18 of these mistranslations, leaving just Romans 7:18 & 24. [NIV 2011 had already used “flesh” for σάρξ in 1 Cor 15:50]. We can have some sympathy for NIV 2011’s seeking to not present σάρξ as teaching that our human body is somehow evil, sinful – but in doing so there was quite a cost.
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Duke University, Mark Goodacre, said that the mistranslation of σάρξ as “sinful nature” makes NIV “unusable as a translation for teaching Paul“.
Tom Holland says something similar:
The translators of most English versions try to help their readers understand the term “flesh” by rendering it in ways they think appropriate. This seems reasonable, but, unfortunately, the translations often contradict the contexts in which the term is found. To translate flesh as “sinful nature” (as in the Romans passage under consideration) does not normally convey what Paul was writing but, instead, misrepresents him on a vitally important issue.
Romans: The Divine Marriage, Volume 1 Chapters 1-8: A Biblical Theological Commentary
A “sin nature” encourages imaging sin as something rather than a twisting, corruption of the good.
Having a “sin nature” as a sort of constitutional part of our humanity endangers the understanding of Jesus being fully human as. If we seek to maintain Jesus as being sinless, then we cannot have our shared humanity as being inherently sinful! Otherwise, we give the impression that we humans have σάρξ as a component or compartment, and that somehow this is an aspect that is missing from Jesus’ humanity.
I have come across the bizarre teaching that this “sin nature” is passed down through male sperm, so that Jesus’ “virgin birth allowed Him to enter our world while bypassing the curse passed down from Adam“!!!
On the other hand, some people will miss the physicality of σάρξ in “sinful nature”, imaging it as a sort of bad little devil encouraging us to be naughty rather than seeing this as something like the effect of human sinfulness in our body.
Furthermore, speaking of a “sin nature” can give the impression that this evil, this wrong that I do is not really my fault – it is my “sin nature” doing that…
Critiquing the concept of a “sin nature” is not, thereby, abandoning the model of Original Sin or concupiscence. But I have already recently pointed to other models for looking at evil and sin.
he human person is made up of various compartments, one of which is sarx, whereas the biblical writers’ point is that humans can choose to yield themselves to a variety of influences or powers, one of which is the sin-producing sarx.
Judaism has a concept of יֵצֶר הַרַע, (yetzer hara) from Genesis 6:5; 8:21 ( יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע, yetzer lev-ha-adam ra): “The Lord saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.” In this Talmudic understanding, we are born with both a good and an evil inclination.
Do follow:
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
