I'm posting this in the RDL forum because it pertains to the changes in the translation of the Creed.

Also, I'm asking the question "Did the Son (Jesus) become a human being?" within the domain of theological and dogmatic language, and the context of a part of a post in another thread:



Also, is "became a human being" what is conveyed by "became Man" (gender neutral) as opposed to "became a Man"?

Asked another way: We say in the Creed that Jesus is ομοούσιον τώ Πατρί, homoousion tō Father; is it also correct to say Jesus is homoousion tō Adam or homoousion tō Man?


Dn. Anthony

The Son is one in essence with the Father from all eternity. He became one in essence with humanity at the Incarnation. I do not think it is theologically accurate to say that he became a man or human being. The Son was a pre-existent hypostasis/person who fully assumed a human nature (body, soul, operation, and will) but not a human hypostasis. Otherwise there would be two hypostases/persons in Christ, as Nestorius falsely taught.

So the Symbol of Faith (i.e. the Creed) should be translated "and became man" (or for those who reject traditional English usage, "and became human"). It should not be translated "and became a man" (or "and became a human being"). The feminist/inclusive language should not be an issue here. That's another subject.

Fr David Straut

As with Fr Serge, I appreciate the spirit of Fr. David's posts. And in this instance, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Putting the English adjective "a" in front of man/human does imply the existence of a second person ... which is heresy.

Thanks, Fr. David, for another excellent post.

Thank you for this reply. Some further considerations and comments (kind of thinking "out loud", incomplete thoughts, etc.):



Yes, as in the creed: " Jesus is ομοούσιον τώ Πατρί, homoousion tō Father."



So, Jesus is homoousion tō Adam or homoousion tō Man?



Here I would offer a distinction between translating or formulating the Creed and just making a general statement. So, I'm thinking, saying Jesus became a man is ok (though it could be misinterpreted) but that it is not an accurate statement of what the creed is saying.



Yes. I found it interesting that I gravitated to the Chalcedonian vocabulary also when considering my post. The formulation of the Creed was, of course, prior to Chalcedon.



I'm ok with "and became man" because for me man denotes personhood, specifically one person, Adam, who is also "representative" of all. The understanding is that the divine person, the Son, assumed a human nature. My concern with "and became human" is that I see it as a comment on nature alone, not person, and so it is not as a statement as full as what the creed is actually saying.

But, apart from the creed, is saying "The Son (Jesus) became human" equivalent to saying "The Son (Jesus) assumed a human nature"?




Certainly not in the creed. As I said before, I'm suggesting that the statement "Jesus became a man" could be ok. And the very question of the thread is "Did the Son (Jesus) become a human being?"



Yes. This is in fact why I started the topic as a new thread.


Also, a general disclaimer here: though I may ask a lot of questions in response to a post (as above) they are asked in general of the forum, and should not be construed as argumentative or trying to put the poster on the spot.

Dn. Anthony

Certainly the Incarnate Son of God became one in essence with Adam, with Eve, with the Prophet Moses, with His Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother, with Fr Deacon Anthony, and with me. In short with all men, with each human being, with all that have a human hypostasis/person.

'Adam' means 'man,' does it not? When we say 'Adam,' we can mean the First-Created man, or all his descendants collectively. Just as 'man' in traditional Engish can mean an individual human being or the species of human beings, so to speak.

Fr David

Fr. Deacon Anthony,

Is that not the point? Christ assumed a human nature (physis) not a human personhood (hypostasis).

I understand the theological comparison between Adam and Christ (new Adam) but I don't think it can be assumed the Fathers had this particular facet in mind when writing the Creed.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I will not add a translation observation. The translation is fine as it is, and the dogmatic truth is indeed that Jesus, Son and Word of God is one person, the divine second person of the Holy Trinity. But as was once said "speaking about God can be dangerous." Jesus remains truly one hypostais, but incarnate in the complete human nature. Therefore, all those antecedents to human personhood - identity (Jewish male); free will, "personality," apply to Jesus as well as to a human person. He is not less of a "person," as acting within human history and society, than any "human person." He can, therefore, serve as the model for our own "human personhood." Sometimes, I get the feeling that people are speaking of Jesus as the divine being rattling around in a human body and soul, much in the Appollinarian sense. In that senses, he would not, therefore, not a model for us, e.g Vladimir Lossky rejected the "imitation of Christ" spiritual model. (Though I accept V. Lossky's insights about Byzantine spirituality. Irenee Hausherr wrote an excellent article about the imitation of Christ, "L'imitation de Jesus-Christ dans la spiritualite byzantine.") Rather, all that is assumed is saved, and, hence, also, our "human personalities," in the sense of all of those components of human nature that give us a "personality."

It seems to me that to say Jesus "became a human being", you might be interpreted as denying that He is a Divine Person who took on human nature. One could interpret the term "became a human being" (or "became a man") as Jesus ridding Himself of His Divine Nature in order to take on an exclusively human nature. This discussion illustrates the truth behind the admonition of Liturgicam Authenticam against dabbling with such language because of the theological confusion which might arise. Out with all of this feminist language! In my book, Our Lord Jesus Christ is the LOVER OF MANKIND!

In Christ,
Dn.Robert

What translation is that?

The Son of God became "man," and not "a man."

If I may summarize:

There is no problem with the creed having "became man"; the creed does not say "became a man."


Also, even outside the text of the creed, "became a man" is held to be suspect or wrong. Here, is the problem the "a" or "became," e.g. what about the statement The Son of God was a man?

I agree "a man" might be confusing and deter from the truth of Jesus being fully divine and fully man.

Always good to read an orthodox scholar on the issue to refute the sophistry:

SILK PURSES AND SOW'S EARS
"INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE" COMES TO MASS [Divine Liturgy]

by Paul V. Mankowski, S.J.


Paul V. Mankowski, S.J., teaches Hebrew at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. His essays have appeared frequently in First Things and elsewhere, and he is a contributor to The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language and the Worship of God [Ignatius Press, San Francisco, ed. H.
Hitchcock].

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SILKPURS.TXT

As indicated in the initial post, I'm hoping to find an authoritative reference giving the proposed formulations. The creed has the language homoousion tō Patri. Was the parallel, homoousion tō anthrōpō, "one in essence" with Man, meaning "one in essence with Adam, with Eve ..." also actually used? Why then the need for the nature (physis) distinctions of Chalcedon if one can just directly say, Jesus is homoousion tō anthrōpō, avoiding the divisions that resulted from the nature/person vocabulary of Chalcedon?

Dn. Anthony

Fr. Deacon Lance, thank you for the post. Yes, this is so in the language of Chalcedon. My concern is that while saying "The Son (Jesus) assumed a human nature" is understood as explicitly limited to a nature, "The Son (Jesus) became human" is not sufficiently explicit and could be taken as referring to the person.




I don't know but, since it is biblical, why not?

Dn. Anthony

And yet, when Christ stood before Pilate, a man and a God in fact stood before him. And Pilate spoke truly when he said, "Ecce homo", which is correctly translated, "Behold the Man."

Although some, in a false spirit of equality, may be tempted to translate the Creed, "for us humans...became human," this seems to be too abstract and far less incarnational--ie, Christ had real flesh and real bones--indeed he was a truly a man. And again, earlier in the Creed the believer professes his belief in the "Son of God." Man cannot ignore, therefore, that the Word became flesh as a male, as the son of Mary and the Son of God. He was a man and yet in Him he encompasses all mankind, just like the first man, from whom all mankind, including Eve, came forth.

It certainly cannot be said that the Fathers who drafted the Creed thought of Christ as if in some scifi movie observing a strange looking creature and exclaiming, "Look, it's human!" No doubt what is clear is that Christ was a real man, "the Son of Man," not the "Son of Human". As Liturgicam Authenticam reminds us,



The word, "human," does not convey the same interplay between the individual and the universal, because it refers too abstractly to the universal without the concrete meaning conveyed by the term "man".

In reading another current thread related to this one, I referred back here and realized I neglected (forgot) to post the source that I had in mind but couldn't place. The language I recalled in part is found in the Symbol of Chalcedon, link. Striking, in particular, is the parallel phrasing using homoousios (but see the interpretation in the note which, however, is not part of the text of the Symbol itself):

As the new thread shows ( link ) there can still be questions about what is conveyed in the English by "human being".