www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The relevant sociological evidence

Actually, if you consult the original Greek, St. Paul does not say "all men." The Greek reads τοις πασιν γεγονα παντα ... The word which we are discussing, which is variously translated as "men" and "people" in English versions, is thus not in the original.

This, of course, wondrously illustrates my point. Translators make decisions about how best to communicate the meaning of the original. It is not revising Scripture to discuss the best way to translate Scripture in the modern world. Unless we want to adopt the logic of the pious Muslim who argues that every translation of the Quran distorts (revises) its meaning, we certainly must accept the fact that to change a translation is not the same as making a revision.

I would imagine that the verse in question is translated in different ways by the English Bibles which have received the Imprimatur. One (the NAB) uses the word "man". I would imagine the NJB uses a different word (probably "people" or "everyone" (I do not have a copy of the NJB with me at this point.)

I checked the Greek text and you are correct that anthropos is not there. Neither is any word which suggests "people" either. However, it appears that the text is "all things to all--though of course Paul is referring to men, not cows or horses or angels. The New Jerusalem (1966 ed) uses "men" as well. The World English Bible also uses men.

The translator's duty is to make the original text transparent. The translations in the three texts which I reviewed (even the World English Bible which is sensitive to "inclusive langauge") uses men so I will have to ask, "Why?" I would conjecture that becoming "all things to all people" means something different than "all things to all men". I think that is because Paul is not necessarily speaking about "peoples." Even though to Jews he becomes a Jew and to those outside the law he becomes as one outside the law (this would of course includes various peoples--Greeks, Romans, barbarians), he also states: "To the weak he becomes weak" and the "weak" would not be identified as a "people," as, eg, "the weak-kneed people." Certainly he doesn't say, "to women I become a woman" for that would be impossible.

I would therefore include the addition of the word "people" a revision because it does not make the original text transparent.

The Creed of course uses "anthropos," and that is not being translated, it is therefore, a revision.

Though I am not certain, it appears that "panta" must be the masculine accusative singular form because it is the direct object of the sentence. Hence the better translation might be "all things to all men," not, "all things to all" which could imply horses or cows etc.

Has anyone noticed that Rome has condemned inclusive language because it is theologically wrong?

Has anyone noticed that the Protestant Churches that have embraced inclusive language are all empty?

Why are we watering down our theology to make it accepted to liberal academia?

Should not we be teaching them the Truth of Jesus Christ and teaching them the correct definitions of "man" and "mankind"?

Why are our bishops embracing the world instead of following the teaching set forth by Rome?

Actually we conform ourselves to the Church we do not conform ourselves to the World.

This is one reason I homeschool. I don't give a rats rear end that the schools teach mankind only means man. They are teaching something wrong at that point.

1 Th 5:21,

What a wonderful name you have!

While I am not necessarily arguing for or against any translation of the word "anthropos" in the Creed, I do want to suggest that the question of how best to translate this is debated among scholars with no agenda other than that of the scholar's agenda to pursue their own scholarship (try to translate that into another language ).

I also want to point out that many English translations of the Nicene Creed have translated the phrase in question in different ways. As many have pointed out, the older translations use the word "men". Most modern translations consider translating the word "anthropoi" to be lexically unnecessary in English because its sense is included in the word "us".

Other notes:

One published text of the Nicene Creed for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America translates the phrase in question "for us and for our salvation" (see http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7062.asp). Another published text of the GOA translates the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" (see http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed.asp).

The Armenian version of the Nicene Creed that I have seen translates the Creed as "for us humanity and for our salvation."

I also thought you might like to see the scholarly notes of a translation project underwritten by the Internet Christian Library at www.iclnet.org/. [iclnet.org] The scholar writes:

* For us and for our salvation

The older translation has, "for us men." Now, while English has in common current usage the one word "man" to do duty both for
gender-inclusive ("human") and for gender-specific ("male"), Latin has "homo, homin-" for gender-inclusive and "vir" for
gender-specific, while Greek has "anthropos" for gender-inclusive
and "aner, andro-" for gender-specific. I have been arguing for a gender-inclusive use of "man", and the revival of the older word "were" (as in "werewolf" and "weregild") in the gender-specific sense. But so far I have had but scant success.)

Dear PrJ,

Scholarship is always "agenda driven", even if the scholars don't know it. There's no viewpoint from nowhere.

Concerning this: "Most modern translations consider translating the word "anthropoi" to be lexically unnecessary in English because its sense is included in the word "us"."

If the dogs playing poker in the famous painting were to say to the schnauzer "Go get some beer for us," would that be an improper use?

If not, then it is clear that the sense of the word "anthropoi" is not included in the word "us."

Pardon the tortured example, but I trust you get my point? "Us" does not equal "us men."

Unfortunately, unlike Latin or Church Slavonic, English is a living language and continues to grow and change. For better or for worse! Modern American English usage has been moving to more neutral terms when it wants to speak of both genders, or all of humanity at once, for some time. It's how we speak and what we hear everyday, so in trying to come up with a new translation in modern American English, it's difficult.

Was there an agenda in the translators heads? I don't know.
Were there other choices? Yes there were.
Were those choices necessarily better? Maybe, maybe not.
Would I rather see "us men" in the Creed? Yes. I feel that it just sounds better and has nothing theological to do with it. That is my opinion.

BUT...men/humanity is understood when we say "for us and for our salvation." Not even a stranger who has never heard the creed before, coming in to a church for the first time will think: "For us WHO?"

I don't think that in that context, leaving it out is heresy. Leaving out the word "man" when we say "and he became man" would be heresy. Or for that matter changing "man" to "human" would be teetering on the brink as well.

It's done folks, for better or for worse.

John K

Hey John,

Go get some beer for us.

Do I mean beer "for all humanity?"

Were the Church fathers unfamiliar with the word "us?" why didn't they just use it? Poor benighted souls.

The fact is, they chose the worst of the alternatives. I don't know why, but rather than substitute some other term for anthropos, they chose to drop it.

P-A, that is a very good point. But also, the creed was originally composed in Greek. This translation is trying to be in modern American English.

It's touchy I know, I'm just trying to make sense of it and not make a fire out of it.

John

Go get some beer for us...Were the Church fathers unfamiliar with the word "us?"

I see a bud-lite commercial in that somewhere, the late gatherings after a long day's work at Nicea...

"Gender roles are changing"! and "the world has changed, and the "text", the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed."

Father David has stated the matter very clearly, it is not about the 'best' way to accurately translate the text of the creed.

It is about the changing gender roles in our world, and about adapting the text of the creed to accomodate this!

I find this position scandalous and distressing.

Yes, there is gender confusion in the modern world, there is homosexual activism, and those who hate 'men' and the word 'man'. There are those who want to attack the English language, because of their prejudices, demanding that we be 'sensitive' to their activism and agenda.

But let us recognize this for what it is.

It a foolish agenda. It is another creed. It is nonsense.

Nick

This reflects the greater problem. We are to be in the world, but not of it.

Can you "baptize" modern America, the culture of death, the way the Church appeared to "baptize" Greek culture? In his Regensburg lecture, the Pope addressed why Greek culture and Christianity were compatable --- both were based on logos. We know THE LOGOS became man.

Modern culture, formed by modern philosophical ideas-- particularly a false egalitarianism, is anti-logos. You can't baptize a corpse or the culture of death.

lm,

Thank you. The point exactly.

Nick