|
0 members (),
597
guests, and
103
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,670
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33 |
You know, there have been gender neutral changes which haven't been confronted, why is that? For example, in the beatitudes compared below are the old and the new:
OLD: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
NEW: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Christ is amongst us,
Fr Deacon Paul I do not know for it is not so. See this post, for instance, at Re: One year Anniversary of RDL is approaching and passim: I'm still waiting for Fr. David to explain why inclusive language was needed. Are the Orthodox wrong for not using it?  I hope not. It ain't gonna happen. If it really was about theology then the good Father would have answered my question from almost a year ago about using *childrern* instead of *sons* of God in the Beatitudes. As Prof. Thompson has correctly noted above, the RDL for the beatitudes is just using the current NAB translation of the bible: hence "children of God". Given the avowed use of PC-correct gender language in the RDL, this NAB translation fits in nicely. For those who have a problem with the RDL implementation of PC-correct gender language, finding the same in the NAB - a translation of sacred scripture, the inerrant word of God in text - expands the depth of the problem significantly. Fr. David correctly notes: I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy. Is there a theology of sonship in the liturgy? In the beatitudes? In Matthew's Gospel? In scripture? If yes, then "children of God" for "uioi theou" is reprehensible. One finds, for instance, also in the same NAB Gal.4:4&7 that "God sent his Son ( uios) ... so you are a ... [drum roll] ... child ( uios)." What? I think not. God sent his Son that we might become sons. We are all "Filii in Filio," sons in the Son as Emil Mersch popularized it so well. But somehow the translator is allowed to slap the hand of God who writes "uios (son)" but has it "corrected" to child (To what purpose, "child" makes no sense in Gal 4:7 passim?). And the result robs theology of its content, and is the literary equivalent of turning gold into lead. Dn. Anthony With the present understanding, for those missing the point (and they appear at times to be legion), the Trinity is not Father, child, and Holy Spirit nor Father, sons and daughters, and Holy Spirit. The nifty, relevant, hip translation of uioi theou (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) as children of God mocks theology and the Trinity and belittles Mankind and soteriology.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Unfortunately for your argument, the phrase "children of God" in the translation of Mt. 5:9 is also used in the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims NT (1582) and Msgr. Ronald Knox's The Holy Bible Translated From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek (1944). I don't see either espousing a "relevant, hip" new translation, and devoutly hope that neither was belittling Mankind and soteriology.
And lest there be confusion: the 1970 NAB as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church has the following translation for Galatians 4:5:
"God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to deliver from the law those who were subjected to it, so the we might receive our status as adopted sons."
On the one hand, the translation of the Beatitudes was certainly not driven by current politics; and the text you cited from Galatians is not in fact in the translation our bishops chose to use.
Jeff Mierzejewski
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33 |
Unfortunately for your argument, the phrase "children of God" in the translation of Mt. 5:9 is also used in the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims NT (1582) and Msgr. Ronald Knox's The Holy Bible Translated From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek (1944). I don't see either espousing a "relevant, hip" new translation, and devoutly hope that neither was belittling Mankind and soteriology. Your non sequitur here, I think, is from failing to give my comment a close reading with your resulting eisegesis. I am aware of the translations you mention. In another thread, Re: Open Question to Father David Petras I posted: I am all in favor of translating Scripture as it is not as what I think it should be. As Father David rightly points out in John 1:12 children is the word in Greek: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God (tekna theou) ; 13* who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. I don't want to change children to sons. I do want to reflect on why tekna theou here and uios elsewhere. Yes, exactly! John's Gospel (even the whole Johanine canon) is very exclusive in using the word Son/uios theologically as applied only to Jesus. John tells us that is his purpose: RSV John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Ironically, Douay-Rheims (DR) and King James (KJ) both have "sons of God" for the tekna theou of John 1:12. (Recall they had Matt 5:9 as "children of God" for uioi theou). If there is an indication in John of a theology of sonship as noted in Galatians, I think it may be found in John 12:36. Consider the significance of Jesus, who has said of Himself (John 8:12; 9:5) "I am the light of the world," also saying: RSV John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light (uioi photos). When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them. DR, KJ, NRSV and NAB have here "children of light." In short, while I think there may be much to learn from the experts, they have a duty to be faithful to the text lest we get not the gospel truth but the gospel of Fr so and so or of Bishop so and so. Amen. Dn. Anthony Why were the old translations so inconsistent? I don't know. Do they fall within the scope of my "anathema"? Probably not, they having been written in the past; I specifically wrote (emphasis added here)" With the present understanding, for those missing the point (and they appear at times to be legion), the Trinity is not Father, child, and Holy Spirit nor Father, sons and daughters, and Holy Spirit." Do you disagree with this? Also, they having been written in the past, I would presume their purpose was not to produce a "nifty, relevant, hip translation of uioi theou (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) as children of God," though I maintain their translations, as I have noted, are inconsistent, sometimes backwards, and thus wanting consistency and an achievable accuracy. In a way, their inconsistency exonerates them in this matter; there is obviously no agenda behind their translation. There is no such inconsistency in what has driven the RDL and, unfortunately, agenda screams from its pages. Given the avowed inclusive language thrust of the RDL and even as attested in these forums, do you not perceive the "nifty, relevant, hip" aspect of that endeavor? And if that is the case as I must conclude, it, even though short of being machinations -- I say again -- it "mocks theology and the Trinity and belittles Mankind and soteriology." And lest there be confusion: the 1970 NAB as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church has the following translation for Galatians 4:5:
"God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to deliver from the law those who were subjected to it, so the we might receive our status as adopted sons." I applaud this use and translation and have written on it at some length some 12 years ago. I don't see why there should "be confusion," at least from what I wrote. I'm just being consistent. Do you know what the same 1970 NAB has for Mat 5:9? It has "... sons of God." Why wasn't this then used in the RDL if it is, as you correctly say, "as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church"? On the one hand, the translation of the Beatitudes was certainly not driven by current politics; and the text you cited from Galatians is not in fact in the translation our bishops chose to use.
Jeff Mierzejewski Again, bother to read carefully what I have actually written. By your own words, our bishops had approved and there is in use, the Lectionary using the 1970 NAB with a consistent translation Mat and Gal. using "sons." Now comes the 2007 RDL and the Mat. translation is changed from the consistent 1970 NAB. Why? What I wrote -- read the post -- was about the current NAB of which I said "Given the avowed use of PC-correct gender language in the RDL, this NAB translation fits in nicely." Is that not so? If there's confusion I'd say its from using these different translations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
There is no such inconsistency in what has driven the RDL and, unfortunately, agenda screams from its pages. There is no doubt about that.
|
|
|
|
|
