www.byzcath.org

In another thread the discussion touched on inclusive language in translations. I thought I�d revisit the issue in a new thread since at least one Forum member seemed to misunderstand my position on this issue. I�d like to restate my position and invite others to comment, either on the points I have made or by providing their own thoughts on these issues.

Generally speaking, I support the idea of accurately translating the Divine Services from Slavonic into elegant, modern English. This means as literal a translation as is possible. Words like �he�, �she�, �man� and �woman� should be translated as he�, �she�, �man� and �woman� and not with terms that obscure the original meaning. This also means that if the original language did not use these terms such terms should not be used in the translation. For two specific examples, I would reject the translation of �loves mankind� into �loves all of us� because it is inaccurate and introduces ambiguity where there was none in the earlier translation and none in the original. I would also reject the various troparia translations which literally state that Christ �became man� and seem to be now translating it as �became mortal� because such a translation is inaccurate (Christ was a man and not a cat!).

After I posted earlier I remembered that a friend of mine who is a Roman Catholic priest spoke of a growing effort among Roman Catholics to replace the RNAB used in the new Roman Catholic Lectionary with one based upon either the RSV or the �English Standard Version�. The �English Standard Version� is an update to the �Revised Standard Version�. I love the RSV and use it for my personal Bible reading (and usually for the scripture quotes at the top of the Forum). But I have started looking at the ESV and find it to be a very interesting update to the RSV. When I checked out the translation principles at www.esv.org [esv.org] I found a few very interesting things. First, like the D-R, the KJV and the RSV, it is an attempt at a literal translation (rather than the �dynamic translation� of the NAB). Second, it is very faithful to the original on matters of inclusive language (that is, not embracing it nor looking to add exclusive language).

The home page of this translation can be found at www.esv.org. [esv.org.] Those interested can explore the links. Under �Translation Details� there are a number of links were exploring (with regards to translation styles). For the purpose of this discussion I found the following to be interesting:

The translators seem to be providing a literal translation of the original. This means using �man� where the original uses it but not using it where the original does not use it. Through the use of footnotes it seems to attempt to educate people who might be offended by the original language why it means what it means.

I only discovered this edition of the Bible several weeks ago. Their website does not indicate the possibility of a Catholic edition. I have formed no conclusions about it other than it is worth looking at (especially since there are apparently some Roman Catholics who are asking for it to be used for their lectionary).

Your thoughts?

Amen.

From the NCR

"In addition, since allowable instances of inclusivity are restricted to "horizontal" language, all "vertical" references--those to God and Christ--must be maintained in unambiguously male form. On the other hand, it was agreed that the Greek words anthropos and adelphos as well as the Hebrew word h'adam may be translated in an inclusive sense.

Anthropos and adelphos are quite common words in the New Testament. Sr. Dianne Bergant, a professor of Biblical studies at Chicago Theological Union, explained that anthropos literally means human being and has no specifically male connotation, while adelphos literally means "brother," though often used by Paul in contexts that include both sexes.

Bergant said the two appear (in singular or plural form) some 80 times in the gospels and have hitherto been generally translated as man or men. The two words are found some 50 times in the Acts of the Apostles, she noted, and are also common in St. Paul's epistles when referring to all human beings.

The Hebrew h'adam, which may now be translated inclusively, appears more than 600 times in the Old Testament, she said, and was commonly rendered as man.

Under the principles, where the NAB translates the Book of Wisdom 2:23 as "For God formed man [anthropos] to be imperishable," it will apparently be permissible to substitute a more generic phrase, such as "For God formed humans ..."

Similarly, where the NAB Gospel of Mark, 8:36, quotes Jesus saying, "For what does it profit a man [anthropos] to gain the whole world ...?", the new lectionary may use a term such as human being or person.

The word aner, which literally means a male person, must be translated as man, according to the agreement with the Vatican, but it appears rarely--only about nine times in the gospels--according to Bergant."

Full article at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n27_v33/ai_19415715

Another article:
http://studentorg.cua.edu/cbib/princes.htm

And while I am playing playing devil's advocate in these inclusive language battles I would like to go on the record by stating I think it would be great if the all the Greek Catholic jurisdictions in the US produce a single Gospel book and Epistle Book based on the RSV-Catholic Edition corrected by the Byzantine Text where needed. Why the RSV? It is a good translation, is already approved, and is used by some Orthodox so they could perhaps use it as well.

Fr. Deacon Lance

But the term �man� is an inclusive term and not specifically male!

And Paul used �brother� as �an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century� (to quote the ESV website).

I do agree with Father Lance. I�d love to see a common edition of the Gospel Book and the Epistle Book prepared in the RSV-CE. I�d go one step further and ask that all direct scriptural references in the Divine Services be kept as close to the RSV-CE as is possible. But then I�d go one step even further than that and see if maybe it�s time to bring all Byzantine jurisdictions together to create a single translation of all the Divine Service books in English. Ultimately, of course, who ever creates the best translation will find it used in the long run, regardless of jurisdiction.

Just my two cents as an average, run-of-the-mill member of the laity, which afterall, according to Eastern Christianity, the laity is one of the four pillars of Church government. At least that is what is says in my Orthodox Study Bible. Hmmmm.

Vertical inclusive language: Ah...no!

Horizontal inclusive language: Definitely think there are a few instances where it should be incorporated. Specifically, substituting "mankind" with "humankind," and substituting "holy fathers" with "holy fathers and mothers" or "holy forebearers."

If by literal you mean word-by-word substitution, then this idea will inevitably fall into opposition to accurate translation. If the Bible were only literature then there would be no question - all manners of speaking that are connected to the time and place and culture should be faithfully embedded in the translation: they are all part of the literature. One wouldn't De-Russianize Tolstoy, even if not doing so requires a little extra study with the reading.

But the Bible is not just history, it is scripture. ISTM the very idea of an accurate translation is different in this context: it should say to us in this time and place and culture as precisely as possible what is said to people of that time and place and culture.

I think this is the crux of the underlying disagreement. Some people think that the medium - the language, literary style, and the embedded culture - is an integral part of the message. To suggest otherwise, has even been taken as suggesting that Paul was "wrong" to use the medium he did. Others just see this entire objective differently.

Perhaps I should have said, "Amen, brother!"

You wrote:

I would also reject the various troparia translations which literally state that Christ �became man� and seem to be now translating it as �became mortal� because such a translation is inaccurate (Christ was a man and not a cat!).

After I reread your post, I did a quick search on "mortal" in the New Testament (RSV). I could not find a single instance where it says that He became mortal.

It would seem strange to me that "became man" is translated by "became mortal." It is strange because, besides the obvious thing which you point out, i.e., "he became a man not a cat," it also leads one to think that the Immortal One changed natures. He became mortal seems to indicate a total transformation of nature which smacks of Arianism or could certainly lead one to conclude that the Word was transformed into a creature. We do say that he became man, i.e. the Immortal One took on human nature. This may seem impossible to some because mortality appears to come from our very nature [absolutely speaking and not simply our fallen nature]. But if Jesus Christ came to restore man's nature and transform it, we must and do believe, that our mortality is a result of the fall, not something which is intrinsic to it, which cannot be corrected. It seems, therefore, better to stick with the transparent translation.

Do you have the exact translation of the troparia to which you refer?

This desire to be politically correct can often lead to being theologically incorrect.

Some friends and I were having a conversation about bible translations some time ago and the tangled web of inclusive language reared it's head. Specifically, my friend was recommending the TNIV, an inclusive language/updated version of the NIV translation.

In this particular translation, they "inclusivized" Psalm 34:19-20 "righteous man" into a plural "them". None of "their" bones will be broken. This removes the typological reading of the psalm that the specified "righteous man" is Christ. We know with certainty that this is the proper reading of this Psalm because in John's Gospel, Jn 19:31-36, the crucifixion is shown as a fulfillment of this verse. They switch "them/man" between the psalm and the Gospel even and add their own inconsistency to the translation!

My main complaint with inclusive language is that it often obscures the typlogical readings that were once obvious but now seem invalid due to plurality of persons (Christ is not many, but one!) or of ambiguous gender (Christ is a man).

But then, I also made a resolution after this particular conversation to learn the original languages so that I don't have to worry about the translator's theological views getting placed into Scripture. This is rather evident when the NIV decides to translate paradosis (orally transmitted traditions) as "tradition" when the context indicates something negative, such as in Mt. 15, but render it as "teaching" when it is spoken of positively, such as in 2 Thess. That would be the Reformed traditions(!) and their distrust of Sacred Tradition coming through to the reader.

I prefer RSV:CE, myself, but I think there are enough resources in the modern world to start learning the original languages. If most of Europe knows at least two languages, and our Jewish friends have been handing on Hebrew for millenia, it seems Americans can learn one or two things about another language besides English!

My 2 cents.

Quote:

Anthropos and adelphos are quite common words in the New Testament. Sr. Dianne Bergant, a professor of Biblical studies at Chicago Theological Union, explained that anthropos literally means human being and has no specifically male connotation

The article, The Ambiguity of Anthropos, suggests that Sr. Bergant may be wrong.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.html

Here is an excerpt from that article:

"The idea that "man" is somehow unsuitable as an equivalent for anthropos because it has this ambiguity is therefore completely wrong-headed, because anthropos has the very same kind of ambiguity in Greek as does the word "man" in English. Sometimes it includes both sexes, sometimes it refers specifically to males, as opposed to females. If there is any question about the sense in any given instance we must examine the context.

The usage of anthropos indicates that it has not only a specific masculine sense in certain contexts, but also that a Greek-speaking person of the apostolic era would presume that anyone who is called an anthropos is male. This may be seen in the following examples from the New Testament:

Matthew 19:5 "Therefore shall an anthropos leave his father and mother, and hold fast to his wife." (also in Ephesians 5:31)
Matthew 19:10 "If such is the case of an anthropos with his wife, it is better not to marry."
I Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for an anthropos not to touch a woman."

Obviously in these places one cannot maintain that anthropos is a strictly gender-neutral word, such as the English word "person." Even if such a gender-neutral word existed in Greek, the authors would not have used it in these contexts, any more than we would say, "it is good for a human being not to touch a woman." "

The KJV and the RSV (which is an update to the KJV) are both what the Bible scholars call �word-by-word� substitutions, so maybe you have a different definition? The KJV had great influence upon the English language and will probably always be considered one of the greatest works in the English language. It is certainly not a failure. Likewise, the RSV (which uses English that is closer to us today) is not a failure but a great success.

A translation should clearly show the original text and let the reader see the original meaning within the original context as best as is possible. One must account for grammar, of course. But one must accept that it was presented in context and must be understood in that original context.

When one uses what the bible scholars call �dynamic equivalence� (like the NAB or NIV) one places the text in the mind of the translators and they re-render it according their understanding. That�s not an accurate way to go about it. The Bible does speak freshly to each generation but from the context from which it was originally given.

I agree that the language, literary style, and the embedded culture are not part of the message. But they are the medium through which the Bible was given to us. To change that medium is to change the Bible.

I guess I'm glad to be in the Latin Church since this fight has been going on for the past 40+ years and is aobut to be resolved for us.

The late Pope John Paul II has established that the Scripture translations we are to use must be compared to the Nova Vulgata Latin translation--a revision of St. Jerome's work. So where there is ambiguity in the Greek or Hebrew texts or where the words are not easily passed into English, we go back to the language which has so influenced our own: Latin.

It's also interesting that we are now being told that only standard English as it was used prior to the fight for feminist language is the only vehicle that can accurately carry the truths of the Faith that has been received. That idea is at the root of the overhaul of the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) recently taken. It's also at the root of the Vatican body, Vox Clara, which was formed to take a second look at ICEL's work now and in the future. It was the reason that Rome completely rejected the translation of the Roman Missal that the English-speaking bishops spent so many years and so many dollars trying to revise and have approved for use. So the whole endeavor was a colossal waste of time, energy, and money.

I can only say that I am sympathetic to those of you who are being subjected to this problem. We've had stilted language and problems with this area for many years. And it's done nothing but divide. None of it has enhanced prayer at all.

It's also interesting that there is a standard English translation of our Liturgy of the Hours. It's approved for many of the English-speaking countries in the world, BUT IS NOT APPROVED for official use in the United States. It's also interesting that the feminist revision of the NAB (1986) was never approved (or given the "recognitio") by Rome, though our bishops have had it printed with the letters of approval that accompanied the original 1970 non-feminist version, giving the impression--though false--that it, too, was approved. Got to wonder, don't we?

The whole problem here is that people tend to pray in ways that are not analogous to the ways in which we communicate every day. Familiarity in prayer has a lot to be said for it. And the tinkering with the language of prayer often has the effect of turning people away. I'm familiar with many of the problems that these fights have had in the houses of some of our religious orders--the members in so many case have stopped praying together and the feeling of brotherhood or sisterhood is gone--something that has helped to empty the houses of people. Believe it or not, our young people are not drawn to a life of warfare over words. They also seem to be acutely aware of the fact that when one is afraid to say anything out of fear of being "politically incorrect" they tend to just stay away. That's not healthy for the Church. If we can't express the truths of the Faith, we can't evangelize the next generation and we risk losing this pearl of great price that we have.

In Christ,

BOB

BTW, we had a lectionary that was based on the RSV Bible. It was used in some parts of the country until the most recent version was approved and given to us on a temporary basis. That temporary permission has now passed, but the bishops have not been able to come up with something to substitute for it. That's why there is a call in some places for permission to go back to the lectionary based on the RSV.

What's the difference between the RSV-CE and the Oxford University Press RSV (Ecumenical Version)?
What makes the Catholic Edition "Catholic"?

I know this isn't right just from previous discussions of "ages of ages".

One could similarly say that to render it in English is to change the Bible. I would suggest that the message is the scripture, and anything beyond that approaches biblioatry.