[B-Greek] Col. 2:11 Going beyond grammar?
Yancy W Smith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 14 18:53:04 EDT 2009
Iver referred to the EN hWi of the following passage in a way that
clarified the tortuous logic of the translations in most of the Nida
tradition. However, now I am more sure than ever that his suggested
translation cannot be correct. The text:
11 εν ω και περιετμηθητε περιτομη
αχειροποιητω εν τη απεκδυσει του
σωματος της σαρκος εν τη περιτομη του
χριστου
EN hWi KAI PERITMHQHTE PERITOMHi ACEIROPOIHTWi APEKDUSEI TOU SWMATOS
THS SARKOS EN THi PERITOMH TOU CRISTOU
Iver argues:
>> However, you also mentioned Col 2:11 where NIV says: "In him you
>> were also circumcised.." That does not communicate the intended
>> meaning at all, and here I do not like the GNB: "In union with
>> Christ you were circumcised." Here, too, I think it goes towards
>> "by means of Christ", but "Christ" is often used as a metonym, and
>> what this metonym refers to, can only be understood from context.
>> Sometimes it is by means of what Christ has done, other times it is
>> by means of what God has done through Christ, and other times it is
>> by means of what we have done in response to what Christ did. I
>> would say that this is the intended sense here. When we came to
>> believe in Christ, we were spiritually circumcised "in the heart".
>> So, in this case, something like the NLT would be my choice: "When
>> you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physi
>> cal
>> procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision..." In our
>> Danish version we said: "Through your faith in Christ..."
>
However, it is not at all clear how, on this reading, how "APEKDUSEI
TOU SWMATOS THS SARKOS" refers to the believer's circumcision at all.
Rather, the verse appears to refer to two metaphorical circumcisions:
that of Christ and that of believers and this phrase refers to the
first non literal "circumcision," i. e., the death and resurrection of
Christ himself in which his weak, human body was violently "stripped
off" and he was reclothed with spiritual power, with a tranformed
body. The implication of such a total transformation contrasts
unfavorably with the partial, bit of flesh removed in literal
circumcision. That this is accomplished "in union with Christ" and not
performed by Christ makes sense of the connection with baptism in the
succeeding verse. In this case the image of Christ is similar to what
Paul describes as "a live giving Spirit" in Romans. So, "in union with
Christ" here makes much more sense of the phrase, an classic instance
of Paul's Christ mysticism. The translation as given in the NLT is a
midrashic transformation with very little connection to what the text
actually says. Unfortunately, it goes so far beyond grammar that it
invents an intrusive image of Christ like a Rabbi (?) performing
circumcisions. How does that fit in with the imagery of death, burial
and resurrection?
Elizabeth's "direct translation" is far superior. The only thing worse
than an unnatural translation is a clear, but wrong one.
Yancy Smith
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list