[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