www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology horizontal gender inclusive language in the Liturgy

Ah this draws the issue nicely. What does one consider to be the teaching? Is it the theology and soteriology spoken in an idiom effective at the time, albeit arguably anachronistic now? Is a teaching about a worldview, to be held as fastly as the faith itself, in which daughters are of lesser dignity? Etc.

Is as been said, here, that one cannot really understand Byzantine Christianity without knowing Greek. Not just the words, but the manner of philosophy, the concepts and categories. Maybe this also applies to Paul. And maybe the Newman passage could be construed in this way.

I disagree with such a perspective, I think that the fundamental teaching can and should be done without in words and ideas immediate rather than anachronistic (even though, at another level, it is interesting to try to "get into" their heads - in the same manner that one approaches foreign cultures or ancient ones in museum.) The words are important for their meaning, not as some kind of talisman.

Would you correct Paul?, or do you make straw men only to beat them!

Are you certain what the deposit is in all its intricacies and therefore know Paul's meaning in Galatians to translate "sons" as "children? Or do you know the meaning of the Fathers in the Creed to leave out men in "for us men?" (Those who argue that anthropos simply means human being, are mistaken or aren't being honest.)

Seems to me that those who desire these new innovations must state authoritatively that they do know. If not, then better let Paul and the Fathers speak for themselves and follow Paul's admonition which was as true then as it is today: "Do not conform yourselves to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind."

The only place that I have seen the mind of the Church expressed on this particular translation issue, is in Liturgiam Authenticum and it is quite clear. The solution is not catachresis, but it is catechesis.

Huh? I might get your question if you would you answer mine about the content of the teaching.

I am not certain on any of these points which is why I have proposed almost nothing. Talk about straw men! And if you read my posts you will see specifically that I do not propose leaving out "for us men". But prefer "for man" specifically to emphasize the anthropolicigal point.

Now please tell me how certain you are about claiming others as being dishonest. That, I think, you must be absolutely certain about - otherwise your judgment is rash.

I have no idea what authority you think you have to delineate the terms of discussion, but your admonition is wasted on me; you should be giving to those working on texts. In any case, there is an obvious problem with your suggestion. Paul wrote nothing in English. So we are faced with the problem of translation, and as English evolves with revision of translation. (I am assuming of course that you don't think that the quotation above means stick to the Greek not English.) ISTM that your words hint that the very act of doing/revising tranlation is tainted. I disagree. We need to address the fundamental issues of what is a good translation - about which we may disagree - and not simply conjure suspicions about those whose perspectives are different than yours. You might consider accepting that there are good and reasonble who might see this matter differently than you.

I think that you have misread LA; it is far more nuanced on these points that you are - in fact it demands nuance and very specifically objects to translation o n auto-pilot. And with your use of "catachresis" you again make an assert what ought to be being discussed.

I am not certain of the intricacies of the content of the deposit of the faith and therefore I am certain that Newman's admonition is correct. Hence, I am against revisions which are set forth as mere translations. I would just like good translations. That is possible even though there may be some differences of opinion, see, e.g. the article on Galatians regarding rendering tekne as, "minors," rather than, "children." However, leaving out men is not a good translation, just like brothers and sisters is not a good translation for adelphoi.

I do not say others were dishonest. I said they were mistaken, or dishonest, because anthropos, like the English word, man, means a male. Anthropos, like man, can also mean male and female. Some, like Valerie Karras, assert that it only means a human being. A survey of its usage in Scripture and secular Greek literature shows that that assertion is incorrect.

Show me where I have misread LA on this particular issue. There is nothing nuanced there about this issue:

"When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation."

Why must I consider accepting that there are good reasons for seeing this particular matter differently when I haven't come across one yet? But I'm still listening...

For reasons which are not entirely clear to me, the discussion is reminding me of the debate at VAtican II on Latin vs. vernacular languages. Many of the vernacularists were able to speak nearly flawless Ciceronian Latin while making their points in favor of the vernacular, while Cardinal Spellman and others, demanding that Latin should be retained unchanged, spoke the most execrable version of that classical language, to the point of being incomprehensible.

This time, however, the shoe appears to be on the other foot. Those arguing against so-called "horizontally inclusive" language seem, on the whole, to write better English than those arguing in favor of this particular innovation. Somewhere in all this there is probably a lesson to be learned.

Incognitus

That statement is clearly nuanced, first of all, by the introductory clause. It means that in some situations that "anthropos" should certainly be rendered "man", but that in others, that might not be the best translation. It also leaves open the question of the what to if the target language doesn't have the "property", i.e., the same layers of meaning.

In the case of the Creed, I have said that IMO that the poetry, theology, and soteriology all point to: for man, He became man. Personally, I am not so happy wth "men" because the generic use of "men" vs "man" is more limited and less clear. And FWIW I find totally unconvincing the idea that this quote from LA applies to the Bratije before the epistle, or that every adelphos should be rendered as male in English.

Overall, I don't have a position on "horizontal gender inclusive language in the liturgy". I haven't been able, on this thread, to eke out an idea of what motivates those who do. I think that the important task is good translation and language used should service this task.

Anghela this is where we who use more British English depart from our north American brethen. I will wait for the translation. Hence the different translations of English language service books for different countries. I compared the Roman Brevary texts with the American and it is very different from the one approved for use in Australia and the UK. I must admit the other English text approved for use in England itself was an improvement on the main text approved for use in the UK.