"people" Vs "men" In The Current English Translation O

[LouisvilleFan]

The Archdiocese of Louisville's newspaper features a priest's Q&A column to which a question was asked this week about why the revised translation of the Roman Missal changed the translation of the Latin [i]homo[/i] in the Gloria to [i]people[/i], as in "peace to people of good will," yet in the Nicene Creed the same [i]homo[/i] remains [i]men[/i], as in "for us men and for our salvation." The writer proceeded to ask a fair question: What was the reason for keeping "men" in one instance, but "people" in the other?

The priest, being a good politician (for this is what it means to be pastoral), managed to write seven paragraphs without answering this question. His remarks close with giving the so-called "pastoral" example of another priest who replaces the word "men" in the Creed with a pause to allow the congregation to say whatever the ... they want. Isn't that grand? It's one thing for the secular newspaper to attack the Faith, but here we have our own diocesan publication recommending that we omit words from the Creed at will. Wasn't there an Augustinian monk in the 15th century who had a similar idea?

It's one thing to be liturgially lazy, allowing laypeople to say the words of consecration and such non-sense, but messing with the Creed is messing with the core of our Faith. Ask St. Athanasias. So in preparing a letter to the editor (not a Catholic, by the way) and the Archbishop about this matter, I'm curious as the actual reason for translating [i]homo[/i] differently in the two instances?

I'm going to research it, but it's a fairly obscure matter so thought it worth asking here just in case anyone has some insight. Thanks!

[AccountDeleted]

I hate the 'gender neutral' interpretation of documents. I dislike 'people' instead of men (and I am a woman) and I absolutely loathe the replacement of 'human' for the word 'man' when speaking of Our Lord, Jesus. The first time I heard this, I cringed inside, as if he had come to earth as some sort of neutral non-male creature. He was a MAN! He was true GOD and true MAN. *shudder*.

I agree with you completely but the only solution I see is to attend Mass in the Latin! I am really surprised that they did this with the new translation though.

[beatitude]

I thought it might have been a poetic decision. 'Peace to people of good will' seems to flow better in English, due to the number of syllables. I do not like gender-neutral language either, but this translation doesn't seem so jarring or out of place as other examples, and I doubt that the word was chosen for this reason. To me it seems that they were trying to balance accuracy with the style and grace of the prayer. Grace is part of a good translation too - it's very difficult to replicate the elegance of the original Latin.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1326601952' post='2369403']
I hate the 'gender neutral' interpretation of documents. I dislike 'people' instead of men (and I am a woman) and I absolutely loathe the replacement of 'human' for the word 'man' when speaking of Our Lord, Jesus. The first time I heard this, I cringed inside, as if he had come to earth as some sort of neutral non-male creature. He was a MAN! He was true GOD and true MAN. *shudder*.
[/quote]

Are you referring to the Creed? The revised translation still says "for us men" and "became man." That's why the writer of this letter is miffed.

[LouisvilleFan]

Turns out I should've first fact-checked the priest's response to the lady's question. When he says the same word [i]homo[/i] is used in both the Gloria and the Creed, he means both words share the same root word, [i]homo[/i]. The Gloria says "homnibus" and the Creed says "homines." Those don't look like the same word to me.

I haven't found anything answering this question directly, but I agree it's probably to maintain poetic flow. "Peace of people of good will" flows well and I think the p's make it easier to sing/chant than "men," which lacks any hard consonant sounds. For the Creed, I noticed today the alliteration between "men" and "became man." Seems the choice of "men" over "people" helps to draw the connection in a poetic way that God became one of us, and it is essential to believe the Jesus specifically became a man, so the wording is about emphasizing Jesus' gender.

Probably answered my own question, but more thoughts are welcome

[Byzantine]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1326689000' post='2369885']
Turns out I should've first fact-checked the priest's response to the lady's question. When he says the same word [i]homo[/i] is used in both the Gloria and the Creed, he means both words share the same root word, [i]homo[/i]. The Gloria says "homnibus" and the Creed says "homines." Those don't look like the same word to me.
[/quote]

Latin's nouns are declined. The word "hominibus" is here either in the dative or ablative case (probably dative given the context); while the word "homines" is in the nominative case. They could both be said to be the same word, [i]homo[/i], but the word [i]homo[/i] changes depending on its use in the sentence. You only actually use [i]homo[/i] when it is the subject of the sentence (and when it's singular; the plural is "homines", when it is a predicate nominative or something, certain other points, or when you are speaking to a man in general. Like, I suppose, "C'mon man, let's get outta here 'cuz the zombies are chasing us!" At any other times [i]homo[/i] will change depending on its function in the sentence.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Byzantine

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Byzantine' timestamp='1326728391' post='2369963']
Latin's nouns are declined. The word "hominibus" is here either in the dative or ablative case (probably dative given the context); while the word "homines" is in the nominative case. They could both be said to be the same word, [i]homo[/i], but the word [i]homo[/i] changes depending on its use in the sentence. You only actually use [i]homo[/i] when it is the subject of the sentence (and when it's singular; the plural is "homines", when it is a predicate nominative or something, certain other points, or when you are speaking to a man in general. Like, I suppose, "C'mon man, let's get outta here 'cuz the zombies are chasing us!" At any other times [i]homo[/i] will change depending on its function in the sentence.
[/quote]

I see... afterwards I had a feeling something like this could be the case, so I didn't make a point about it in the letter. Best to stick with what I know: that changing the Creed ain't razzle dazzle. It's rare that our diocese newspaper publishes anything worth reading, but this is definitely a low point.

Edited January 17, 2012 by LouisvilleFan

[Basilisa Marie]

Um, yeah. Crazy person here. I actually like the use of "people" instead of "men" in most English translations.

This isn't really messing with the Creed. We're not talking about Homoousious. We're talking about a translation of a word that, in fairly archaic English, refers to both sexes. I don't understand why it's such a big deal to use "people" instead of "men" when you're talking about many people, including men and women. I mean, yes, I totally understand always using "Man" for Christ - duh, he's male. And I [i]think [/i]I sort of understand the argument for using "men" because it create a nice parallel to "became man." But does anyone know why it's specifically "for us [i]men [/i]and for our salvation..." and why "for us and for our salvation" would be such a terrible thing? I know that the Latin has "man" in there...but doesn't it mean the same thing as "us"? I'm partly asking because I've run into quite a few young women who don't understand why we use "men" in this way to mean both sexes when "human" means the same thing.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative. I really don't get it.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

My opinion may be wrong but i was told that in ancient hebrew the word men in hebrew meant mankind,people...man and women so to speak. But i assume as fr pakawa has taught me, it is possible this word can be used 3 ways, often single hebrew words(some/most/half[i don't know]) can be used as the masculine or the feminine or in this sense i was taught for this men is neutral....so there it is whether one uses men or people in accordance with ancient hebrew it means the same thing. Thats what i think and feel of the matter anyhow. oh and understanding i'm a dumdum and just throwing in my 2 cents,and possibly not explaining my beliefs and heart in it's fullness through words.

God bless you all.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Kia ora]

homo means human being, person, man. Not man as in a member of the male gender, but man as in [i]mankind[/i] which refers to both man and woman.

But we don't really use this definition of man a lot in daily life. Maybe 'hey man' is the exception, cause I say it to both women and men. Translating homo as people is more in keeping with everyday use of English. In fact it'd be entirely fair to change the English translation of the Nicene Creed to reflect this, except people just aren't motivated to change what isn't really broken.

[Aloysius]

this is all the fault of linguistic engineers who decided it was bad to use "man" generically to refer to all human beings, and ever since there's been a gaping hole where there used to be a simple poetic way to talk about humanity. the precise connotations of words give poetry to language, and we've lost it here because quite simply, there is no good replacement for what "man" used to mean in the generic human sense. the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that led them to try to alter our culture by screwing up our language is largely discredited anyway these days, go figure. turns out that using "man" in the generic sense doesn't make you any more or less sexist. but now we have a jumbled mess in the language to deal with, ruining great poetic moments where we could use a nice powerful word like "man" and turning it into a controversy. I just don't think there's a good replacement word for it.

humans is too clinical IMO... for one, it is the nounification of what ought to be an adjective (human being), but for another, it simply doesn't express the connotation that "man" always had. it gives this connotation of describing the species in relation to other species, not the wonderful spiritual and material reality of man. "human" is to "man" what "animal" is to "beast"... it just doesn't work poeticaly.

person/people... well that doesn't do it either IMO. "person" and "people" don't mean "human" and "humans" nor "man" and "men", when we talk about a person we're talking about a very particular part of the human being. a human being (man) is a person, a human being is also a great many other things, a body, a soul, an animated lump of clay that will return to dust. personhood is a distinct concept from humanity and mankind. there are Three Persons in One God, and only one of those Persons became Man.

ultimately, in the translation, I should think that the gender-neutral english police got their way in one instance but did not get their way in another instance.

as to whether we should skip "homines" in the translation and just say "for us and for our salvation", I don't think that's good. I think we need a word to describe what we are, "for us men, He became man." it's a powerful image, and if we must capitulate to the politically correct terminology and say "for us humans... He became man" then so be it, I'd choke that down, but it is important to the creed that we reference who we are and why it is significant that Christ became man. in terms of the PC words that could be used there, I'd prefer humans rather than people, because it's important to note that He was incarnating, taking on flesh, taking on everything about humanity. He was already a person, He didn't become a person for us (He made us persons because He made us in His image), He became human for us, He became man. so it's for us humans at the very least, but it's much more poetic to say for us men.

I guess the issue of personhood in the Trinity could be a reason why they chose to stick with "with us men" there, because it really wouldn't make sense to say "for us people", "for us humans" could've made sense, but I'm glad there was someone in the ICEL strong enough to keep us from that kind of mess.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327017282' post='2371675']
this is all the fault of linguistic engineers who decided it was bad to use "man" generically to refer to all human beings, and ever since there's been a gaping hole where there used to be a simple poetic way to talk about humanity. [/quote] I don't think it was the fault of anyone really. Languages just change.

Originally man meant a human being. Gender didn't come into it. But the meaning changed, probably reflecting the patriarchal nature of the society. By 1000 AD, man and its plural men started to refer to the adult male. While we do still use that old definition, you can't dispute that it's now a marginal definition. If the Declaration of Independence was rewritten into standard English as taught in schools today, it wouldn't say 'all men are born equal', it would say 'all mankind is born equal'. That's why a [i]men's[/i] rights movement exists, and obviously it advocates for the men and not all humans. In modern English, to get that original meaning back, we usually compound the word. So man-kind and man-slaughter.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327017282' post='2371675']
as to whether we should skip "homines" in the translation and just say "for us and for our salvation", I don't think that's good. I think we need a word to describe what we are, "for us men, He became man." it's a powerful image, and if we must capitulate to the politically correct terminology and say "for us humans... He became man" then so be it, I'd choke that down, but it is important to the creed that we reference who we are and why it is significant that Christ became man. [/quote] Uh...why not say 'for us humans, He became human'?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Kia ora

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327017282' post='2371675']
person/people... well that doesn't do it either IMO. "person" and "people" don't mean "human" and "humans" nor "man" and "men", when we talk about a person we're talking about a very particular part of the human being. a human being (man) is a person, a human being is also a great many other things, a body, a soul, an animated lump of clay that will return to dust. personhood is a distinct concept from humanity and mankind. there are Three Persons in One God, and only one of those Persons became Man.

ultimately, in the translation, I should think that the gender-neutral english police got their way in one instance but did not get their way in another instance.[/quote]

Not so sure that the Gloria fell victim to gender-neutrality (and I don't think gender-neutrality is a bad thing in most situations, but Scripture and the Creed are not "most situations"). The passage in Luke also says "people of good will," and if the Father, Holy Spirit, and heavenly hosts are all praising Christ, then "people" is the best word to use since we're talking about a lot of people who aren't human.


[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1327062807' post='2371950']
Uh...why not say 'for us humans, He became human'?
[/quote]

It's essential to believe that Christ became a man (not a woman), so that definitely doesn't work. I think the only alternative that works theologically is "for us humans... he became man," but that makes it sound like Jesus came down in a spaceship. "For humanity... he became man" is straying a bit far from the Latin text, and you lose the first person identification that you have by saying "us men."

I'm sure there are some rock solid theologians handling all this translation stuff, but give credit first to the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine the Nicene Creed, being our regular statement of faith established by the authority of an ecumenical council, is protected from error.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1327120852' post='2372503']
I'm sure there are some rock solid theologians handling all this translation stuff, but give credit first to the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine the Nicene Creed, being our regular statement of faith established by the authority of an ecumenical council, is protected from error.
[/quote]
You can't imagine that the Nicene Creed is protected from error?

In any case, the Nicene Creed wasn't written in English, and I honestly don't see the issue with omitting "men". It is not central to the meaning, and since it is not being used in the sense of "those with a Y chromosome", it is not slighting to masculinity nor does it bolster femininity to omit it.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1327120852' post='2372503']
It's essential to believe that Christ became a man (not a woman), so that definitely doesn't work. I think the only alternative that works theologically is "for us humans... he became man," but that makes it sound like Jesus came down in a spaceship. "For humanity... he became man" is straying a bit far from the Latin text, and you lose the first person identification that you have by saying "us men."

I'm sure there are some rock solid theologians handling all this translation stuff, but give credit first to the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine the Nicene Creed, being our regular statement of faith established by the authority of an ecumenical council, is protected from error.
[/quote]

I agree it is essential to acknowledge that Jesus was incarnated as male. It's just a historical fact that Jesus was male. But the Nicene Creed in Latin or Greek doesn't say Jesus became an adult man. It literally says that Jesus became a human being.

et homo factus est = and he was made into a human being.
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα = and he took the nature of a human being.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Kia ora