Old Self / New Self?

The New Testament was written in Greek. The many English Bibles are translations offered by a variety of individuals or groups of Bible scholars. Some, perhaps, have their own agenda, but to be fair, the primary intention is to present a more readable and understandable translation, but sometimes the zeal and ingenious originality of the translators only succeeds in distorting the text.

I recall in 1995 interviewing on the radio program Issues etc. one of the members of God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. The purpose was to promote their new translation of the Bible they called God's Word. The translation team was composed of members of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Their objective was to create a "natural equivalent translation." For their purpose, the interview didn't go very well. I discovered that they had changed the concept of being justified by faith to having God's approval by faith. Were they assuming that the level of intelligence of the average reader could not handle the word justification?  In addition, all of the nuances of the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith went beyond the mere notion of being approved by God. So much to the chagrin of my guest, whose intention it was to promote the new translation, I voiced my objection. I thought they had minimized the chief doctrine of our faith. 

Being born in 1940, I grew up with the King James Version of the Bible. I memorized all my catechism Bible verses according to the King James. For my confirmation, my God-mother gifted me the 1948 Revised Standard Version. The primary issue with this RSV was the translation of almah in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" as opposed to the King James "virgin." There was some linguistic support for the change. Since that time a veritable plethora of new English translations have appeared on the scene. The two most popular being the New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV).

I am not one of the "King James only" advocates who claims that the "Textus Receptus" is the only inspired Greek text. I do prefer the "Majority Text" and believe that earlier manuscript evidence should be given the greater weight. Much has been discovered since the time of Erasmus resulting in some major changes to the King James Version, especially John 7:53-8:11; the ending of the Gospel of Mark: and the famous Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one." Erasmus, in his Greek text, did not include this verse in his first two editions, but succumbing to pressure from the Church authorities who believed that the Latin Vulgate should not be changed, included it in his 1522 third edition with a footnote. In his 1545 German Bible, Martin Luther used the first two editions of Erasmus Greek text and did not include the verse. The verse was included in the 1611 King James Version. While it is true that some of the early church fathers seemed to be aware of the text, the early Greek manuscripts did not include it.

I believe modern English translations of the Bible are necessary since we no longer speak the Elizabethan tongue of the 1611 King James Version. The exception being "don't mess with the Lord's Prayer," and for some, "read the Christmas Story according to the King James Version." But there is a difference between modernizing the language and distorting the truths the language is intended to communicate. New Testament translations should be true to the Greek text from which they are derived. In my opinion, the "biggest sin" of Bible translators is changing a concept by using words and definitions which have absolutely no basis in the Greek text and are apparently employed for the purpose of achieving cultural relevance. For example:

The New King James Version translates Romans 6:6 in this manner. I have underlined the controverted phrase:

"...knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."

The Greek for "our old man" is παλαιος ημων ανθρωπος. The word palaios comes from the root palai which means "long ago" or "old." Of course, anthropos means "man." So Paul is speaking of "our man from long ago" or the "old man." Who is "our man from long ago?"

In order to understand this phrase, you must consider the context. Context is everything. In Romans 5, the apostle is speaking about two men. Note what Paul is saying in verses 17-19:

For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Obviously, the one man, the "man from long ago" is Adam and the new man is Christ.  Here is how Martin Luther defined the significance of Baptism: 

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

This is how the New International Version translates Romans 6:6:

 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with that we should no longer be slaves to sin.

And here is the English Standard Version:

We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin 

The ESV adds a footnote indicating that the word "self" is actually "man" in the Greek..

On two other occasions, the Apostle speaks of both the "old man" and the "new man." Here are the references. The first text is from the New King James Version (NKJV), the second from the New International Version (NIV) and the third from the English Standard Version (ESV). Note that in each case the ESV does add the footnote.

Colossians 3:9-10:

NKJV: Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

NIV:  Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

ESV: Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self[d] with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Ephesians 4:22-24:

NKJV: Put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

NIV: Put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

ESV: Put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

First of all, it is not possible for the words "old man" (τον παλαιον ανθρωπον) and "new man" (τον καινον ανθρωπον) to be translated from the Greek text to mean "old self" and "new self." The theology of the Apostle Paul is consistent. The "old man" is Adam, and the "new man" is Christ. In Romans 13:14, the Apostle tells us to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ." 

So the question is, why would the translators of the NIV and ESV use concepts that define the nature of sanctification for which there is absolutely no warrant in the original Greek text? Allow me to hazard a guess:

Beginning somewhere in the 1960's a new school of psychology called Humanistic Psychology, championed primarily by Carl Rogers, was rapidly replacing the worn-out notions of Freud and the dehumanizing of Behaviorism. After all, no one wants to be seen as a repressed sexual pervert or compared with Pavlov's drooling dogs. Rogers proposed the notion that a person’s self-concept determines his behavior. Legitimate therapeutic improvement occurs only when the individual changes his own self-concept. Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs culminating in what he called self-actualization. In around 1970, Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California opened their School of Psychology. The stated purpose of the school was the integration of humanistic psychology and Christian theology. Everything revolved around the concept of "the self." The New Testament of the New International Version was first copyrighted in 1973. So, in answer to the question, I can only conclude that the translators of both the NIV and ESV exchanged an accurate rendering of the Greek text for the pursuit of cultural relevance. 

Is it fair for me to accuse the biblical scholars and linguists, who spent years preparing the English text, of borrowing concepts from secular psychology instead of presenting the clear Greek text in their translation of the Word of God? I do believe this is a very serious accusation. It is a distortion of the Word of God or "adding to" the Word of God." If anyone can show me, apart from the concepts of psychology, that the "old self" and "new self" are legitimate translations for the old man Adam and the new man Christ I will gladly recant my accusation and stand corrected.

I question whether there is any place within the Christian discourse for a positive view of "the self" concept. Is it not "the self" that drives the human dilemma and underlines the root sin of human pride?  When Jesus told his disciples in Luke 9:23: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me," what was he referring to? Self-denial is not merely giving up ice cream for Lent but is the very denial of self itself.  Martin Luther spoke of “coming out of yourself and away from yourself” by passing judgment on self by viewing self through the eyes of God leading to self-accusation. He referred to the lovers of self who had a high view of themselves as the "philauti." In his classic volume Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes:

The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object.... But there must be a giving up of the self.  You must throw it away blindly so to speak.  Christ will indeed give you a real personality; but you must not go to him for the sake of that.  As long as your own personality is what you are bothering about, you are not going to Him at all.  The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, [New York: Harper Collins, 1982] pp. 125, 190.)

When the Apostle Paul teaches us to put off the "old man" and put on the "new Man" he is defining the sanctification process. Living each day we should be mindful of what actions, attitudes, thoughts, words and deeds are products of the old self-centered sinful nature, the old Adam that dwells within us, and, as Luther says, by daily contrition and repentance, put on the Lord Jesus Christ. So that we might clearly identify the difference, the Apostle lists for us the works of the old man, the sinful flesh, and the fruit of the Spirit, that which is a part of the new Man, our Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 5:19-23). There are terms the Apostle Paul uses that are synonymous: old man, old Adam, flesh and new man, Christ, and Spirit. There is no place for "old self" and "new self.."