A: leave as is; the 1965 translators have been precise here, but sometimes elsewhere they translate it using gracious and e.g. loving and kind.
see also note 24d
accurate translation "good" and "Love (Man) Mankind"
Man vs. Mankind -- a tough call.
Against changing Lover of (Man) Mankind to:
loving -- incomplete
lover of us all -- inaccurate
lover of all -- inaccurate
lover of humanity -- incorrect (cf. lover of deity instead of lover of God)
lover of humankind ("hu-" is unnecessary unless trying to placate an agenda)
Son of Humankind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations
The Byzantine Forum- Jesus, Son of HUMANkind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations
CINEAST Archives- Re- translation
Note: Although this is only addressed to the Roman Church, its caution can not in any way be considered rite specific, especially as it specifically addresses this point:
30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word ’adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.
Email: Dn. Anthony to Fr. David Petras, May 2005
Basically, I’ve always thought we had the best translation already: Lover of
fix what’s not broken. Man would work too, but Mankind reinforces the totality. No need for
Humankind if Mankind already does the job: it adds nothing but an extra syllable and sounds
worse. Definitely not Lover of Humanity (the quality not the thing/person as in I love deity
rather than I love God), or worse Lover of us all. Mankind gives the right emphasis designating
the corporate person that is loved: Adam=anthropos: Jesus, the New Adam, who loves the Old,
even becoming anthropos Himself. Mankind keeps the proper word link (anthropos) that runs
through the Creed and the first chapters of Genesis. My view on this is not new; here’s what I
wrote on cineast in 1997.
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*.
To the above, which was a second question I had raised in an email to him, Fr, David Petras responded (the above was part of an email I sent him; I use this with his permission):
Your second question relates to the range of meanings in different languages. I have said this before, though Conservatives deny this shrilly, "Man," and "Men" in English has an ambiguous referrent in English, while in Greek "anthropos" always refers to "human being" and "human beings." The most accurate translation in English, for example, for the Creed, is" for the sake of human beings he became a human being." This, of course, would cause conservatives, neo-conservatives, and probably even some liberals, to go ballistic. Many would simply walk out. How, then, do we translate "anthropos." An Orthodox Commission - to show that not all Orthodox are opposed to considerations of modern language - proposed "for you are a kind and loving God." This translation was rejected by SCOBA, though I'm not aware of the reasons. So today there are two schools - let's just not change anything, "Man" and "Mankind" are just fine (though in the present linguistic cultural situation in which we live and over which we do not exercise ultimate control - or ANY control, for that matter) finds this ambiguous. Many have walked out of the Church because of this. The new translation does contain some horizontal inclusive language. Whether or not it's as "elegant" as the older language, I don't know. The Gospels were actually not written in that "elegant" of a Greek, because the message was more important, and I think the message is more important here, also. So I would defend this. We really ought to say clearly what we mean, and I actually believe that Christ died on the Cross to save women as well as men. Of course, the Conservatives will claim even more will walk out if we make the change, even the very modest and limited horizontal inclusive language that was accepted.
He notes "though in the present linguistic cultural situation in which we live and over which we do not exercise ultimate control - or ANY control, for that matter) finds this ambiguous." I share his frustration. But the solution is not to have the tail wag the dog. It's OUR liturgy, not the radical feminists.
Father also states:
in Greek "anthropos" always refers to "human being" and "human beings." The most accurate translation in English, for example, for the Creed, is" for the sake of human beings he became a human being."
However, consider in Scripture, e.g.
Restricted to adult males man, husband Mt 19:5, 10; 1 Cor 7:1; meaning Son, see Mt 10:35, also Ephesians 5:31 quoting Genesis 2:24
NAB Matthew 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
RSV Matthew 19:5 and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
NRS Matthew 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
KJV Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
NKJ Matthew 19:5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
NAB 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"
RSV 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
NRS 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman."
KJV 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
NAB Matthew 10:35 For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
RSV Matthew 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
NRS Matthew 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
KJV Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
NKJ Matthew 10:35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
YLT Matthew 10:35 for I came to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,