|
1 members (Roman),
585
guests, and
98
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,670
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Paragraph 32 of LA states: 32. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered "classics" in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage. Inclusive language just might be part of a politcial or idiealogical program or a passing fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 489 |
The problem with "Lover of Mankind" is that, unlike, say, "Lover of man", it really refers to the collective much more than to the individual. I have actually heard someone say, "Well, God may love mankind, but <personal tragedy> shows he doesn't care about me."
(This is adverted to in C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet, where one character is asked why, if he is devoted to mankind, he is willing to murder one of his fellow travellers. The answer is that he does not care about men; he cares about Man in the abstract.)
"Lover of man" or "Man-befriending God" more clearly indicates that God loves each man, and by extension, all men (including, naturally, women and children). But neither is very felicitous in English. It may be that "Lover of mankind" is the best we have, but is does not capture all the facets of the Greek or Slavonic. Jeff, you are correct about some people believing God loves in the collective but not necessarily the personal. I actually argued with a friend who didn't believe that God loved her. She said she could find nothing Biblical to prove it. "God so loved the world ..." did nothing for her, nor did "Neither pray I only for these but for those that come after." However, personally, I would not see "Lover of man" as both collective and individual. To me, it resonates the same as "Lover of mankind," i.e., collective only. "Lover of everyone" and "Lover of all people" are both collective and individual, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for either. The former sounds "mushy" to me, and I wouldn't want to sing the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Sophia,
Oddly enough, "Lover of man" DOES sound to me like it covers both cases - and come to think of it, all the individuals who have said, as you do, that is is collective only, were women (and none of those were feminists). Maybe I was wrong in assuming that they were exceptions, and that men and women heard the phrase the same way.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
Last edited by ByzKat; 01/13/07 09:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
To clarify - all the individuals who have told ME (in discussing this over the past year or so) that the phrase "Lover of man" is collective only, were women. I didn't mean to speak more generally than that.
Jeff
Last edited by ByzKat; 01/13/07 11:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
