Is there a theological problem with Inclusive language?

[EB4304]

Sometimes the inclusive language can be a bit too abstract. For example, the noun ‘man’ can refer to adult male human, but it’s also a collective noun representing all of mankind. It’s a nice, concrete noun. But when you replace it with ‘humanity’, you pick an abstract noun over a concrete one. I just have a bit of an issue with messing with grammar because of prior sins of men against women. Saying “humanity” instead of “Man” is not the way to atone for discrimination, in my opinion. And I don’t think that traditional grammar was used as a conspiracy against women, but I’m no expert.

Part of the problem could also be that English lacks gender for nouns, so it appears like too many things are masculine. But anyone correct me if I’m mistaken.

 

[Nita]

Sometimes the inclusive language can be a bit too abstract. For example, the noun ‘man’ can refer to adult male human, but it’s also a collective noun representing all of mankind. It’s a nice, concrete noun. But when you replace it with ‘humanity’, you pick an abstract noun over a concrete one. I just have a bit of an issue with messing with grammar because of prior sins of men against women. Saying “humanity” instead of “Man” is not the way to atone for discrimination, in my opinion. And I don’t think that traditional grammar was used as a conspiracy against women, but I’m no expert.

.

I get very embarrassed for (not “of”!!) my gender nowadays. I do not recall ever being exposed to male discrimination against females that even compares to the current female discrimination against males.

Nita

 

[Ron_Conte]

Neither of these sources precludes gender-neutral terminology when applied to the human race as a whole.

6/3. Thus, the word “man” in English should as a rule translate adam and anthropos, since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

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.

These have apparently been superseded in the Vatican’s approval of the Canadian lectionary, which does have inclusive language:

The documents you cite are much older, 1997 and 2001. The Canadian lectionary approval happened just this past fall.

The documents I cited apply universally. If the Holy See grants an exception in a particular case, the universal rule is not thereby voided.

 

[Brendan]

Anthropos is people/human. cf. Anthropology
Aner is male/man/husband
So they can’t both be translated man. That can’t be right can it.

Man doesn’t really mean ‘humanity in general’ as its primary meaning does it? To most it means ‘an adult human male.’)

Your premise is rather interesting. You claim that the word "man’ cannot be used in a sense other than describing a human adult male, because that is it’s primary sense.

But the word ‘human’ is also both an adjective and a noun. As a noun, it refers to a member of the species homo sapiens, as a adjective, it refers to having chararistics common to homo sapeiens.

( and as a side note, your Bible reference also carried a similar dual meaning word “Humanity”. It is a adjective that refers to the act of being human, and as a noun that refers to the a Liberal Arts or Philosophic Discipline.)

So your premise that the term ‘man’ can only be effectively translated using its primary sence, rather that as a plural noun refering to all members of species homo sapiens.

( FYI, ‘Man’ is also a transitive verb, meaning ‘to occupy’ such as 'Man your Battlestations" - should Royal Navy Captains use more inclusive language as well and tell sailors to “Occupy their Battlestations” )

 

[Jennifer_J]

When we start changing Man to people/humanity etc we loose some of the poetry, imagery and sense of many Bible passages:
Matthew 4:18-19
<<As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen.
19
He said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” >>

I’ve heard it read at MASS as “fishers of people” WHAT? You totally lose what Jesus is saying to the FISHERMEN.

And don’t get me started on the inclusive language in hymns, which usually rend them awkward at best and unsingable at worst (Good Christain “Friends”, Rejoice, etc).

I’m sometimes embarrassed to be female, because these changes are all our fault–we’ve become victims to language!

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I get very embarrassed for (not “of”!!) my gender nowadays. I do not recall ever being exposed to male discrimination against females that even compares to the current female discrimination against males.

Nita

That may, depending on your age, be because of what women did before you that lessened this sort of thing. I know I benefited from those women. And let me remind you…this years Wimbleton champion was the first women in the history of the tournament to FINALLY be paid equal to the male winner. And the wage gap still exits. So the work is not yet done.

But I know what you mean. I too am often embarassed by members of my own gender nowadays.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m sometimes embarrassed to be female, because these changes are all our fault–we’ve become victims to language!

God bless,
Jennifer

Oh gosh, now we are to be guilty of this as well? Yes I too am embarassed by my gender once again. Our fault? oh gosh have you been taken in.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Oh gosh, now we are to be guilty of this as well? Yes I too am embarassed by my gender once again. Our fault? oh gosh have you been taken in.

I haven’t been taken in by anything. I do know that this gender inclusive thing didn’t happen until recently with the crying of “the Church hates women!” which is proven by the use of the word “man”. I’m tired of it, to be honest. I’m grateful for all the women who fought for equality. This has nothing to do with equality. It’s about language and its structure.

Jennifer

 

[juliamajor]

i think whatever is truer to the manuscripts- that being said I dont see it as a big deal- it’s just like thees and thou’s to me- insignificant. Canada C uses NRSV. I don’t believe that makes Canada the Sodom and Gomorrah of the CC !

 

[juliamajor]

6/3. Thus, the word “man” in English should as a rule translate adam and anthropos, since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

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.

The documents I cited apply universally. If the Holy See grants an exception in a particular case, the universal rule is not thereby voided.

There are no true 'original 'texts. most ancient texts don’t even come close to the assumed time the originals were written.

 

[porthos11]

i think whatever is truer to the manuscripts- that being said I dont see it as a big deal- it’s just like thees and thou’s to me- insignificant. Canada C uses NRSV. I don’t believe that makes Canada the Sodom and Gomorrah of the CC !

It’s not???

 

[Manfred]

6/3. Thus, the word “man” in English should as a rule translate adam and anthropos, since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

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.

The documents I cited apply universally. If the Holy See grants an exception in a particular case, the universal rule is not thereby voided.

It still blows my mind how the holy See could have approved of the NRSV just recently in light of the simple fact that said version doesn’t at all conform to the guidelines of Liturgiam Authenticam. :banghead:

 

[juliamajor]

It’s not???

Only to those who make it so

 

[TheMese]

( and as a side note, your Bible reference also carried a similar dual meaning word “Humanity”. It is a adjective that refers to the act of being human, and as a noun that refers to the a Liberal Arts or Philosophic Discipline.)

I’ll point out a little anomaly now. I’ve had the chance to have a look the the Protestant ‘Today’s NIV’ which has created an absolute furore in the evangelical world concering it’s inclusive language. It’s detractors are calling it the NIV’s ‘twisted sister’.

I’ve seen both the U.S. text and the British Text, that is the Anglicized Edition.

The U.S. version has ‘humankind’ and the Brit version ‘humanity.’ Perhaps someone could guess why this is.

As you know the NIV is the world’s top selling bible and has been criticised for various anti-Catholic verses. On thing that quite interesting about the TNIV is that some of the bias has actually gone. Maybe I’ll do a thread on this.

1984 NIV 1Co 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

2005 TNIV 1Co 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

 

[awalt]

The documents I cited apply universally. If the Holy See grants an exception in a particular case, the universal rule is not thereby voided.

I didn’t see where they granted approval of the Canadian lectionary as an exception to these documents. The approval has been reported as such. Have you seen anything that stated this was an exception?

 

[dacoobob]

There are no true 'original 'texts. most ancient texts don’t even come close to the assumed time the originals were written.

By “original text” he means the original wording, not the physical original manuscripts.