2 Cor 5:17 in the TNIV: Problem and Suggested Solution(s)
More than a decade ago, using the great Navigator Topical Memory System, I put to memory 2 Cor 5:17 in the NASB:
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ,
he is a new creature;
the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."
Recently I came across this verse in
the TNIV, which words 2 Cor 5:17 like this: "Therefore, if
anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone,
the new is here!" I have to admit that I'm less than
enthused over this rendering. In the effort to be gender-accurate,
I feel the translators may have inadvertently blurred the
connection between the person who is in Christ and that person
being a new creation.
The concept in 2 Cor 5: 17 is simple: the person in Christ
= a new creation. When I read the TNIV's "...if anyone is
in Christ, the new creation has come..." I wonder if if this
rendering is clear enough in expressing the idea that the person in
Christ IS a new creation?
Now, I should stop and be perfectly clear. If you've read my blog
in the past, you will know that I wholeheartedly endorse the TNIV
and feel that the controversy surrounding it is by and large a
controversy of misunderstanding. Also, as I have explained before,
I have no problem with gender-inclusiveness when handled
responsibly in contexts relating to both males and females.
Further, no translation is perfect, so if I find a particular verse
in which I don't care for the wording, it shouldn't be taken as a
reflection on the whole translation.
And most importantly, the current wording of 2 Cor 5:17 in
the TNIV accurately reflects the Greek New Testament:
ὥστε
εἴ τις ἐν
Χριστῷ,
καινὴ
κτίσις· τὰ
ἀρχαῖα
παρῆλθεν,
ἰδοὺ
γέγονεν
καινά·
What you'll notice back up in the NASB
is that "he is" is in italics because these words are not reflected
in the Greek, but certainly assumed. The Greek literally reads,
"Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, a new creation." In fact,
καινὴ
κτίσις ("new creation") is even
in the nominative case which in English is often placed at the
beginning of a sentence, but here is functioning as the apodosis to
the conditional phrase, ὥστε
εἴ τις ἐν
Χριστῷ ("if anyone is in Christ"). But
I still don't like it. I want the reader to be clear that if a
person is in Christ, then that person IS a new creation.
One thing I note, however, is that 2 Cor 5:17 is a rather difficult
verse to make reflect gender-accuracy. Look, for instance, at
attempts from other translations:
HCSB: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is
a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things
have come."
NLT1: "What this means is that those who become
Christians become new persons. They are not the same anymore, for
the old life is gone. A new life has begun!"
NLT2: "This means that anyone who belongs to
Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life
has begun!"
NRSV: "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new
creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has
become new!"
REB: "For anyone united to Christ, there is a new
creation: the old order has gone; a new order has already begun.
"
The use of "there is" in the HCSB, NRSV, and REB instead of the
traditional "he is" feels a bit awkward grammatically in my opinion
and although stronger than the TNIV, is still not as clear in the
equation as I want it to be. The NLT2 certainly seems to be an
improvement on the NLT1, although some will continue to prefer the
use of "creation" over "person" to emphasize the spiritual
transformation that God brings about when an individual finds
salvation in Christ.*
It is certainly no secret that after introducing a new version of
the Bible, often a modest revision will quietly be release sometime
afterwards. For instance, the NIV was completed in 1978, but the
version you would buy off the shelf today was actually published in
1984. And the ESV, first published in 2001 is gradually being replaced by a revised text over the
course of the next few months.
There are two solutions available to the TNIV translators if they
wanted to improve 2 Cor 5:17 for some possible modest revision in
the future. First, they could take a nod from the God's
Word Translation, which in my personal opinion offers the
BEST inclusive rendering of this verse I've seen:
"Whoever is a believer in Christ is a
new creation.
The old way of living has disappeared. A new way of living has come
into existence."
Obviously the TNIV Committee on Translation could render 2 Cor 5:17
similar to the GWT. However, when I first wrote this post, I noted
that the translators had one other means in their translational
tool belt, that frankly, I was surprised they did not use in this
verse. Now I know why.
As I mentioned above, personally, I don't have a problem with
gender-accurate translation when it's responsibly done. To me, this
is translation philosophy and not actually controversial at all.
Instead, in my opinion, the only truly controversial aspect of the
TNIV is its use of the so-called "singular they." Now, I'll admit that it's been
difficult for this former English major to come around on the use
of a plural pronoun like "they" to refer to a singular antecedent
as it's done in the TNIV's rendering of Rev 3:20,
"Here I am! I stand at the door and
knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in
and eat with them, and they with me."
But I'm coming around on it because I recognize our language is
changing. And now that I've trained my ear to listen for it, I hear
people from all walks of life and with all levels of education use
a singular they when they speak, even those who have
announced themselves opposed to the TNIV. Further, as it was
gently pointed out to me, the singular they
has recently become a topic of discussion in The
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002).
So I wondered why the TNIV translators didn't simply use a
singular they in this verse? Thus, the TNIV version of 2
Cor 5:7 could read:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ,
they are a new creation:
The old has gone, the new is here!"
To me, this seemed like the perfect solution. It's simple and it
makes the equation clear. Or does it? After reading a response in
the comments, I was reminded why translations are often best done
by committees and not sole individuals. The commenter pointed out
that my new rendering could just as easily be misread so that the
"they" might refer to a union of Christ and the believer together
becoming a new creation.
Now we could certainly speak of the union between Christ and
believers (Rom 6:3; Eph 2:6), which is part of what it means to be
"in Christ." However, that still misses Paul's designation of the
believer as a new creation and would almost be like saying, "the
one who is in Christ is in Christ." I now understand why the CBT
did not go with a singular they in this verse.
Going back to the drawing board, I want to revisit the rendering of
the GWT which, as I said, was the best inclusive reading of 2 Cor
5:17 I have read so far. Taking a nod from another translation is
nothing new. No translation is ever produced in a vacuum, and a
careful reader can often see when new renderings get picked up from
one translation and passed on to others. Therefore I would suggest
a second solution combining aspects of the phrasing in the GWT with
the simplicity of the TNIV:
"Whoever is in Christ is a
new creation:
The old is gone, the new is here!"
or
"Whoever is a believer in Christ is a new creation:
The old has gone, the new is here!"
Comments and alternative solutions are welcome.
*A separate issue entirely relates to the phrasing "in Christ," itself, and perhaps I may come back to this on another day. To be "in Christ" is a concept that occurs throughout the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings. This concept is essential for understanding the believer's relationship to the Messiah, and the believer's role in the Kingdom of God. One could question though whether or not a contemporary reader might misunderstand what it means to be IN Christ, or worse read that as locality rather than as union. The NLT2 attempts to overcome this misunderstanding by using the phrase, "belongs to Christ." While I like this rendering, I don't know if the REB doesn't communicate it better with "united to Christ."
I've changed my mind on this issue. See my follow-up post: "2 Cor 5:17 (TNIV) Revisited: I Recant."