www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Translations of the Creed in the Syriac Catholic Church

Just did a line-by-line comparison of this translation and, except for the deletion of "men," it is exactly the same one used in the Latin Church. It's ICEL's version from the 1974 Roman Missal.

Thought I felt a little deja-vu.

BOB

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. No one could accuse the Syriac Catholic Church of being unduly influenced by modern feminist agendas. Let me rephrase that -- it would be hard for me to imagine someone honestly thinking that the Syriac Catholic Church is on a feminist road-map to feminist heresy (you have to know something about the Syriac Catholic Church and its adherence to tradition to understand how absurd that kind of objection would be) -- so therefore it is quite possible that the translation "for us ..." is the best translation and not an indication of some "feminist" take-over of the Ruthenian Church.

Even after LA the Vatican approved the Corrected Revised NAB lectionary which still has some inclusive language and the American Latin Bihsops have sent to to Rome for apporval of their revised Missal which also has "for us". If this gets approval, and at this point I see it as 50/50 chance if they got to keep inclusive language in the Lectionary, people who kept harping about LA are going to appear unsupported in their criticisms. On the other hand they may be vindicated, but if inclusive language survived LA in the Lectionary I think it has a good chance in the Missal.

In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this issue for the Latin Church in Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

I thought the USCCB was the one refusing to print the Corrected Revised NAB as a Bible because while they had to accept the corrections for Lectionary use they weren't going to allow the corrections into the Bible for general use.

Maybe unsupported is the wrong word. As I see it, if LA is cited as the reason why men should'nt be dropped and then the Pope who gives LA its authority and has the right to interpret it approves dropping men, then it appears Cardinal Estevez and other haves wrongly interpreted LA, as far as the Creed is concerned.

Holy Orthodox keeps looking better everyday.

cineast post

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 13:10:46 EDT
From: "Anthony J. Kotlar"
Subject: Re: translation

In the latest issue of the magazine *Touchstone*, a faculty member of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology writes a letter defending their translation of the Divine Liturgy, and the translators, from the criticisms voiced in a previous article. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to look up the article (although I was in a library), but if I remember correctly, it was by one of the magazine's editors, Fr. Reardon. Also, I had myself been mulling over the Holy Cross translation, especially since the posts by Daniel Joseph and Stephen (above).

What is the consequence of "dropping" or "altering" a word in translation? Is it good if it is done to be "gender neutral" or "politically correct"? Does it correct a gender bias in our language, or does it "correct" an invented bias that was never there to begin with? Does it, only too often, produce poor theology in bad prose?

Generally, I don't like to see words just go away. The Greek of the Creed could have said *for us*, but it says, literally, *on account of us (the) men=human beings*; that is, *di' humas tous anthropous*. *anthropous*, masculine accusative plural, has gender like *men*, but the Greek has the sense of *human beings* who are either just male or male and female collectively. This was also the customary understanding of the English *for us men*, meaning, *for us human beings*.

The reason I don't like to see words dropped is that, for me, they break links to other references, spawned by these words, in scripture and the liturgy. One of my occasional pastimes is following a word "link". I don't claim this is done in any rigorous way either linguistically, theologically, or exegetically; it's done more in the sense of casual browsing and meditating. A very common and general word, like *anthropos*=man, would, for example, have a great many profound and also mundane "links".

In the case of the creed itself, it seems that a certain closure is lost when the word *men* is dropped and a link is broken. That is, the phrase reads: "Who for us MEN (anthropous) and for our salvation came down out of the heavens and was enfleshed out of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and BECAME MAN (enanthropesanta). Thus we profess in the creed that Jesus, who consistently referred to Himself as the *Son of MAN*, "for us MEN...BECAME MAN."

Of course, the "link" is still there in the original Greek even if not explicitly in the English translation. But, even prior to Daniel Joseph's post, I had been disappointed by another rendering in the Holy Cross translation (which, by the way, in other aspects I think is very good). It involves a word/phrase that I consider one of the most beautiful in the liturgy (in the Ruthenian translation) and which seems to have been virtually obliterated, or so absorbed into other words in the Holy Cross translation, that it is almost unrecognizable. For me, it is a one word prayer and, coincidentally, it is "linked" to the missing *anthropous* of the creed. That word, which is often present in prayers addressed to Jesus in the liturgy, is *philanthropos* -- Christ our God, the one true and great "philanthropist," so beautifully proclaimed (but not in the Holy Cross translation) as the *lover of MANKIND*.

Tony Kotlar

I see the but let me say that my first encounter with the dropping of men/Mankind involved a translation by Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary. For the record, I include below (since it and its archives are no longer active) my post to the old cineast list. Note the date -- coming up to the 10th anniversary!

Dn. Anthony

cineast post

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 13:10:46 EDT
From: "Anthony J. Kotlar"
Subject: Re: translation

In the latest issue of the magazine *Touchstone*, a faculty member of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology writes a letter defending their translation of the Divine Liturgy, and the translators, from the criticisms voiced in a previous article. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to look up the article (although I was in a library), but if I remember correctly, it was by one of the magazine's editors, Fr. Reardon. Also, I had myself been mulling over the Holy Cross translation, especially since the posts by Daniel Joseph and Stephen (above).

What is the consequence of "dropping" or "altering" a word in translation? Is it good if it is done to be "gender neutral" or "politically correct"? Does it correct a gender bias in our language, or does it "correct" an invented bias that was never there to begin with? Does it, only too often, produce poor theology in bad prose?

Generally, I don't like to see words just go away. The Greek of the Creed could have said *for us*, but it says, literally, *on account of us (the) men=human beings*; that is, *di' humas tous anthropous*. *anthropous*, masculine accusative plural, has gender like *men*, but the Greek has the sense of *human beings* who are either just male or male and female collectively. This was also the customary understanding of the English *for us men*, meaning, *for us human beings*.

The reason I don't like to see words dropped is that, for me, they break links to other references, spawned by these words, in scripture and the liturgy. One of my occasional pastimes is following a word "link". I don't claim this is done in any rigorous way either linguistically, theologically, or exegetically; it's done more in the sense of casual browsing and meditating. A very common and general word, like *anthropos*=man, would, for example, have a great many profound and also mundane "links".

In the case of the creed itself, it seems that a certain closure is lost when the word *men* is dropped and a link is broken. That is, the phrase reads: "Who for us MEN (anthropous) and for our salvation came down out of the heavens and was enfleshed out of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and BECAME MAN (enanthropesanta). Thus we profess in the creed that Jesus, who consistently referred to Himself as the *Son of MAN*, "for us MEN...BECAME MAN."

Of course, the "link" is still there in the original Greek even if not explicitly in the English translation. But, even prior to Daniel Joseph's post, I had been disappointed by another rendering in the Holy Cross translation (which, by the way, in other aspects I think is very good). It involves a word/phrase that I consider one of the most beautiful in the liturgy (in the Ruthenian translation) and which seems to have been virtually obliterated, or so absorbed into other words in the Holy Cross translation, that it is almost unrecognizable. For me, it is a one word prayer and, coincidentally, it is "linked" to the missing *anthropous* of the creed. That word, which is often present in prayers addressed to Jesus in the liturgy, is *philanthropos* -- Christ our God, the one true and great "philanthropist," so beautifully proclaimed (but not in the Holy Cross translation) as the *lover of MANKIND*.

Tony Kotlar

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. No one could accuse the Syriac Catholic Church of being unduly influenced by modern feminist agendas. Let me rephrase that -- it would be hard for me to imagine someone honestly thinking that the Syriac Catholic Church is on a feminist road-map to feminist heresy (you have to know something about the Syriac Catholic Church and its adherence to tradition to understand how absurd that kind of objection would be) -- so therefore it is quite possible that the translation "for us ..." is the best translation and not an indication of some "feminist" take-over of the Ruthenian Church.