"born of the Father before all ages"

[ProVobis]

My Polish is very rusty, but doesn’t zrodzony translate directly to English most commonly as “begotten” or “originated”? Looks like they may have done it better justice in Polish.

You mean as opposed to “urodzony”? But now that you mention it “originated” might be better. (I don’t know if “begotten” is translatable into anything anymore.)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You mean as opposed to “urodzony”? But now that you mention it “originated” might be better. (I don’t know if “begotten” is translatable into anything anymore.)

Exactly! You gotta love the Slavic languages sometimes!

English challenges us in that many words (“born” included) have multiple usages and meanings.

Translators sometimes are compelled to use dynamic translation, and often do in liturgical work to add a poetic element to the text. As the word “begotten” had already been used, it is possible that “born” was selected for the next line of the Creed as it can also mean “derived or originated from”. Can’t say for certain …

Polish makes the distinction (between physical birth and derivation) with two similar words - urodzony vs. zrodzony.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One of the prayers we have in the Byzantine Rite (not sure if its a Tropar, but likely) is we say that Christ is “born of a mother without a father, and begotten of the Father without a mother”. Liturgically, there is a distinction between born and begotten.

Another reason I do not agree with replacing “begotten” with “born” in the Creed. But anyway, we won’t use that version of the Creed. So no worries on our end, for now at least.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW,

born
O.E. boren, alt. pp. of beran (see bear (v.)). Distinction between born and borne is 17c. Born-again (adj.), of Christians, is from 1961, based on John iii:3. Used in fig. (non-religious) sense from 1977.

begotten
late 14c., pp. adjective from beget.

beget (v.)
O.E. begietan “to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize” (class V strong verb, p.t. begeat, pp. begeaton), from be- + get (q.v.). Sense of “to procreate” is from c.1200. Related to O.H.G. pigezzan, Goth. bigitan “to get, obtain.” Related: Begot; begotten.
only

Neither “born” nor “begotten” is morphed/cognated from the Latin “natus” and therefore they are, at best, educated guesses as to the modern meaning of “natus.”

 

[markomalley]

I have a trouble with the word “born”. Because those who are not well catechized will fall victim to the anti-Catholic rhetoric from neo-Arians who claim Christ was not eternal but rather created by God the Father at some point in time. While “begotten” may be archaic to most, its a less common word that cannot be spun to mean something else. And its a catechetical opportunity for people to learn what it means.

You can see a lot of the product of catechesis right in this thread.

Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.

Talks about His eternal nature and that He was with the Father from before the beginning of the ages.It also speaks to the fact that he was “generated” (gigno)…as opposed to proceeding (procedo)

Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.

Talks about His fleshy nature. Note that the verb used is incarno not gigno.

That is one thing I particularly LOVE about the corrected translation: it translates the above:

“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man”

vice “born of the Virgin Mary”

When going through the corrected translation with my CCD class, showing those lines really helped my 7th Graders grasp the hypostatic union (no, I have never used that term with them) better than they have ever been able to grasp it before. I really saw the light come on with the vast majority of the class.

 

[ProVobis]

“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man”

Okay, then why not HUman, which would be more politically and perhaps more theologically correct in this context?

And isn’t human morphed from homo? Certainly looks that way. Just saying.

 

[DebChris]

Okay, then why not HUman, which would be more politically and perhaps more theologically correct in this context?

Incarnate already implies the human nature of Jesus as He took on flesh.

 

[ProVobis]

Incarnate already implies the human nature of Jesus as He took on flesh.

Yes it does. Incarnate has the “carn-” root which implies/connotes something of a flesh/carnal nature. Markomalley already told us that.