www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy WHY THE SILENCE?

The Holy See has announced that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. All translations, therefore, must be as faithful as possible to that original. The Slavonic text is quite faithful to the Greek, as might be expected, given its core place in the evangelization of the Slavic peoples.

Aramis is correct that every translation betrays the original to some degree. But the version presented in the RDL commits high treason. Obedience is one thing, but defense of the indefensible is something else.

Aramis,

The point here is that they didn't translate the word at all. The job of the translator is to translate.

That I don’t speak Greek is nor more an acceptable excuse to take ‘men,’ out of the creed than it would be a biblical translator to take out ‘man,’ whenever the Greek anthropos appeared in the text. If, for instance Mat 25:31 were translated, “When the Son of comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory,” would that be okay since I don’t speak Greek? Since the majority of the faithful do not speak the original languages it is incumbent upon the translators to be as faithful as possible to the text.
We ask of our hierarchs no more than that they give us what they (and we) have received (1 Cor 15:3). The RDL fails in this small task. Further, there was no need to translate the Greek of the creed into English because it had already been done. In other words, they didn’t need to reinvent the wheel – just presenting the agreed upon translation of the phrase would have been sufficient. Since they didn’t we are left to ask why not? There is no theological or liturgical reason since other Churches still employ it. The only possible reason for it is the liberal philosophy of political correctness. PC is a deadly philosophy. We, the faithful, have asked our hierarchs for a loaf of bread, and they have given us a stone (Mat 7:9). We are the Charlie Brown amongst the Churches. “What did you get Charlie Brown?” “I got a rock.”

I would be very interested to know which document from the Holy See gave primacy to the Greek text of the Creed. Can you give a reference?

From The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Greek and Latin Traditions, issued by the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity (January 1996), which can be found here. [web.archive.org]

Many times, the word count is going to change drastically in translation. Some words do not translate well; others can safely be omitted in translations due to their meaning being nothing but clarification as to which connotation in the original language, but in the target language, that connotation is already subsumed by the word used in translating.

The creed as traditionally translated by the Roman Catholic Church has major issues, to wit, the greek uses a term which explicitly and implicitly means only "flowing from a source" while the latin use Credo uses procedit, which simply means coming from but lacks source. Procedit should have had a clarifying word added (my latin is too weak to know which one), in order to ensure similarity of meaning.

All credal translations suffer from this; the omission of anthropos is a problem; the replacement with mankind is appropriate, but humankind is both more accurate and more literal.

Aramis,

My wife has been a professional linguist and translator for three decades. She knows a bad translation when she sees one. The RDL version of the Creed is an example of "dynamic equivalence", as opposed to "word-for-word" translation. The problem with dynamic equivalence is the translator gets to impose his understanding of what the text means, removing all discretion from the reader. In fact, badly done (as in the case of the RDL and the NAB), dynamic equivalence can quickly degenerate into paraphrase.

The danger of word-for-word translation is excessive literalism that results in a stilted and potentially incomprehensible text, which is why the good translator is governed by the principle, "as literal as possible, as loose as necessary". Translation is an art form, and the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission was not staffed by artists.

P.S.: "Humankind" is an awkward neologism. The human race is nicely accommodated by the perfectly good English word "mankind". If my wife and daughters don't object, why do you?

Because too many people in my generation and younger understand mankind as the contrary of womankind. Humankind does not.

Neologism or not, it's the best fit to anthropos. And, considering its age to be at least 70 years, linguistically, it no longer truly is a neologism.

It is neither; just saying it is doesn't make it so. Human/humankind really falls quite short; Mankind/man does the job, especially where the one must stand for the many. So why impose a square wheel when a round one is already in place? Consider these few examples for a bumpy ride through scripture:

Psalm 144:3 O LORD, what is human that You regard him, or the son of human that You think of him?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make human according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion...

Exodus 33:20 "But," God said, "you cannot see my face; for human shall not see me and live."

Mark 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not human put asunder."

Mark 2:28 so the Son of human is lord even of the sabbath."

Then they understand incorrectly. Your generation is deluding itself and needs to be educated. The cure is to learn the language rather than insisting it be altered to accommodate your misconceptions. Humankind is an old word -- "Date: 1594" (link [merriam-webster.com]). It just wasn't used much, I'd say, for good reason. Mankind/Man is encountered routinely in current movies, adds, newscasts, etc., and wouldn't be used in those instances if it were not understood. The objection that it is not understood is either a conveniently repeated myth or a serious indictment of contemporary education.

I am sorry that so many of your generation and younger have received such an inferior education. I will instruct my children not to be so contemptuous of those who use "humankind" from now on. I will explain it is not their fault--they were victimized by teachers's unions, feminists and media outlets.

I'm sorry, but the fact that "mankind" or "man" is now being replaced by "humankind" or other equivalents, does not make ones education inferior or wrong.

The American language and the understanding and use of it is evolving.

Language is always evolving. But in this case we need to consider that much of this change is not natural, but driven. There is a whole group of people (secular feminists who are definitely not Christians) who are trying to erase understanding of any innate differences between men and women. Gender neutral everything is part of that effort. Such a radical and anti-Christian effort must be opposed.

Further, the Church has a responsibility to lead. After it appeared the King James Bible radically changed the English language for the good, in a sense Christianizing it. What we have with the RDL is (unintentionally and surely well meaning) the Church leading the people further into secularism. If the Church feels that the language is lacking then it has the responsibility to identify potential fixes (new words, or redefined words) and to introduce them. But really there is nothing wrong with Standard English, and it is a matter of education, and educating correctly (i.e., don't leave it up to the public schools to program your kids to think that secularism is normal and preferred and Christianity abnormal and to be avoided).

Finally, the Ruthenian Church just didn't replace "man" with "human" (as Star Trekki as that sounds). It removed an important word from the Creed and changed its meaning, and changed the meaning of a number of terms in the Liturgy (chasing after secular feminists rather than God, and rejecting several Vatican directives).

Matthew 9:6, Gender Neutral Bible: "But that you may know that the Son of Human has authority on earth to forgive sins”—h/she then said to the paralytic—'Rise, pick up your bed and go home.'"

Son of human? How silly does that sound? I guess that is another example of "Pittsburgese" along with "yuns"?

Yeah, it does.

John--language changes, regardless of whether it is driven by a need--example: to clarify an ambiguous term or create a word for a new object or idea; or through natural means, such as a contraction or regional variants. It still is change. Neither of these ways of changing a language is bad are they?

I assume that you know these "secular feminists who are definitely not Christians" and what is in their hearts? It's a new one on me that anyone is trying to erase innate differences between women and men. Can you give an example? How is it anti-Christian to use "humankind, humanity, mortal(s), person, people," in place of "mankind, men, or man" where it means all humanity and not just males?

The Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible "Christianized" English? English was unChristian before 1611? What was the change that the KJV gave to English that it didn't have before this version was published? Interesting that you give so much weight to a Protestant work.

Today's New International Version of the Bible, which definitely has been rendered in gender neutral language gives Matthew 9:6 thusly:

6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home."

Can you give me a link to the "Gender Neutral Bible" you quoted? I Googled* it, and couldn't find such an edition. I also Googled* rules for Standard English and couldn't find any. How can something be standard when there are no rules to define it as such?

And finally, I know what the schools are teaching my children, I am an involved parent. They're being taught and they're learning, not being programmed. They do have reason, intellect, understanding, and thoughts of their own, which I hope that they continue to develop as they mature. But thanks for the parenting advice.

*Just in case that new word is unknown:
"The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006, and to the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006."