Thanks for looking those up. I wish everyone would take the time to do so when references are given.
But this is where one's interpretation may inadvertently mislead. Very many Christians (including the NIV translators) believe that Paul's "old man" means "myself before I was saved," and the "new man" means "myself after I got saved." This interpretation is taken for granted even by the ESV and NASB translators! No hint is given, in these translations, that this is a controversial interpretation, and no opportunity is given, in their translations, for the reader to question this assumption.Steve, I looked up the passages: Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22 and Col 3:9 where the NIV renders "ανθρωπος" as "self", where as the AV and the NKJV render it as "man". I believe that "man" is a misleading translation. For it suggests an adult, male human being. The English word "anthropology" is derived from it. When one studies "anthropology" one's study is not limited to adult males. It is the study of "man" in an inclusive sense. But this isn't clear that this sense is meant from these passages. I think "ανθρωπος" should be translated as "person", and thus "the old person" in these passages. "Self" is closer in meaning to "person" than is "man" (as it is usually understood). Both the ESV and the NASB translated the word as "self".
I believe that the "old man" and the "new man" are in fact referring to adult males (anthropoi). Adam is the "old man"; Christ is the "new man," and both are adult males. I am not "the new man," nor is any version of me "the new man." The "new man" is the corporate Christ (see Ephesians 2:15; Col.3:10-11), while the "old man" is the corporate body of Adam. Since the word anthropos (like the English word "man") can either mean "man" or "humanity," I think the word "man" is the only appropriate translation, and that the word "self" is misleading.
The body of Christ is Christ—"the new man" and "the new humanity." Those in Adam are "the old humanity," the body of "the old man" Adam—also called (strangely) "the body of sin" (compare Rom.6:6 with Rom.5:12, 15, 17). The "old man" and the "new man" are not two different versions of "myself" (i.e., "the old self," and "the new self"). They are two humanities—that which is in Adam and that which is in Christ, respectively.
The term "old man" appears in three places (Rom.6:6; Eph.4:22; Col.3:9). Likewise, the term "new man" appears three times (Eph.2:15; 4:24; Col.3:10). This is distinctively pauline terminology, and should be interpreted consistently in all four contexts where Paul uses it. The translations that favor "old self" and "new self" do so inconsistently. They deviate from their pattern at Ephesians 2:15, which all translate as "new man" (except for the NIV and NLT, which, with equal validity, translate "a new humanity" and "a new people," respectively) Why do they deviate here? Because "man" is clearly the correct meaning in Eph.2:15, and, by extrapolation, in the other instances, as well.
I agree with this entire paragraph. I agree that Paul means "sinful nature" here, but it is disputable, and translators should not conceal that fact. "Flesh" (Gr. sarx) has numerous possible uses in the New Testament, and the paraphrase does not allow the reader to know that one might reach a different conclusion as to its use here (which one would be entitled to do, in my opinion).However, in Romans 7:18,25, the ESV and the NASB translate "σαρξ" as "flesh" and not as "sinful nature" as does the NIV. I do think that "flesh" in this case does refer to the sinful nature as opposed to the physical flesh. Nevertheless, since "σαρξ" means "flesh", I think it should be so translated, and let people decide for themselves its application.