Text Of The New Icel Translation

[cappie]

This has appeared on the internet:

[url="http://www.finigan.freeuk.com/NewICEL.pdf"]http://www.finigan.freeuk.com/NewICEL.pdf[/url]

(Of course, this is not necessarily the final official text and there may still be quibbles about a word here or there.)


[url="http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-icel-first-reactions.html"]http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogs...-reactions.html[/url]

Edited April 14, 2007 by cappie

[Akalyte]

lemme guess, another "english" translation? lol

[Totus Tuus]

Thanks, Cappie! I've been waiting for this

[Sojourner]

Man ... it wasn't that long ago I learned the current one.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

There's still some inclusive language.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1242792' date='Apr 14 2007, 09:31 AM']There's still some inclusive language. [/quote]
Yes, the translators did use some inclusive language. The creed -- for example -- should read as follows: "For us men and for our salvation . . ."; but sadly the translators have simply decide not to translate the word "anthropos," because they (and perhaps the bishops as well) do not like to use the generic word "man" in English. As a side note, some Eastern Orthodox Christians may wonder why the word "anthropos," which does appear in the original Greek text of the creed, was dropped, while the word "filioque," which does not appear on the original creed, is still there. Interestingly, the translators also decided to replace the generic use of the word "men" in the [i]Gloria[/i], opting instead for the modern inclusive language use the word "people," which originally meant a group of individuals who constitute a community, but which is now employed in order to avoid the generic use of the word "man / men" in English.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242871' date='Apr 14 2007, 01:57 PM']Yes, the translators did use some inclusive language. The creed -- for example -- should read as follows: "For us men and for our salvation . . ."; but sadly the translators have simply decide not to translate the word "anthropos," because they (and perhaps the bishops as well) do not like to use the generic word "man" in English. As a side note, some Eastern Orthodox Christians may wonder why the word "anthropos," which does appear in the original Greek text of the creed, was dropped, while the word "filioque," which does not appear on the original creed, is still there. Interestingly, the translators also decided to replace the generic use of the word "men" in the [i]Gloria[/i], opting instead for the modern inclusive language use the word "people," which originally meant a group of individuals who constitute a community, but which is now employed in order to avoid the generic use of the word "man / men" in English.[/quote]

While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the liturgy as it stands, one must point out that English (like any other language) is not inherently stable. The meaning and usage of "men" is changing, so that its use as a generic word is becoming the minority usage.

Folks, languages change. Cultures change. One can keep the phrasing of one's message inviolate, but then one runs the risk of their message becoming indecipherable.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242878' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:05 PM']While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the liturgy as it stands, one must point out that English (like any other language) is not inherently stable. The meaning and usage of "men" is changing, so that its use as a generic word is becoming the minority usage.

Folks, languages change. Cultures change. One can keep the phrasing of one's message inviolate, but then one runs the risk of their message becoming indecipherable.[/quote]
While it is true that languages and cultures change, the Church often does not see the reason behind those chances as good, and so she waits them out, resisting, and eventually acknowledges as good those changes which turned out well and continues to reject those changes which turned out badly. Personally, I'm not a huge stickler (for pastoral reasons) when it comes to saying "people" instead of "man" (although I do think it is sad that some see the need to make such a change), but I am very shocked when the inclusive language begins to undermine our theology. For instance, there are certain Psalms in which the New American Bible (language inclusive) translates "he" as "God," and thus misses the point that the psalm had multiple levels: Abraham, David, the Father, Jesus, by making the "he" out to be nothing more than a reference to God alone.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242878' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:05 AM']While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the liturgy as it stands, one must point out that English (like any other language) is not inherently stable. The meaning and usage of "men" is changing, so that its use as a generic word is becoming the minority usage.

Folks, languages change. Cultures change. One can keep the phrasing of one's message inviolate, but then one runs the risk of their message becoming indecipherable.[/quote]
The language used in the liturgy should be "traditional," and not cutting edge. Liturgy is not about being contemporary; instead, it is about transcending the contemporary world by bring us into contact with the past events of salvation history, while also rendering present the eschatological kingdom. Liturgy is about Tradition, i.e., the "passing on" ([i]paradosis[/i]) of what the Church already believes. It is not about recreating the Church's faith with each new generation. Besides, there is a traditional sacral form of English, and it should be used.

Finally, I would simply point out that the generic term "man / men" is Christologically important, because Jesus Christ is the One Man in whom all men become sons of God. In other words, all men are configured to the only-begotten Son of God, becoming sons in the Son. The generic use of the term "man / men" involves Christ's assumption of human nature, because all men are mystically present in the One Man, and to avoid the use of the masculine generic term "man" ultimately obscures that fact.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The langauge of the liturgy should not be changed or manipulated in order to reflect modern sensibilities; instead, if there is something that is unclear to a certain group (e.g., liberal ideologues who support the manipulation of language for an egalitarian end), it should be explained to them in the homily.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242892' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:20 PM']Finally, I would simply add that the generic term "man / men" is Christologically important, because Jesus Christ is the One Man in whom all men become sons of God. In other words, all men are configured to the only-begotten Son of God, becoming sons in the Son. The generic use of the term "man / men" involves Christ's assumption of human nature, that is, all men are mystically present in the One Man, and to avoid the use of the masculine generic term ultimately obscures that fact.[/quote]

Good point.

[Apotheoun]

The socalled "inclusive language" or "gender neutral language" movement has Christological implications that cannot be accepted as orthodox. Christ is both one and many, i.e., He is one man and many men, and this fact cannot be obscured by translations that fail to express fully the Church's faith.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242892' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:20 PM']The language use in the liturgy should be "traditional," and not cutting edge. Liturgy is not about being contemporary, but is in fact about transcending the contemporary world by bring us into contact with the past events of salvation history, while also rendering present the eschatological kingdom.[/quote]

I'm not referring to "contemporary" or "cutting edge," but to fundamental comprehension. Languages change, and once they change past a certain point, comprehension is lost.

[quote]Besides, there is a traditional sacral form of English, and it should be used.[/quote]Any tradition that fossilizes runs the risk of irrelevance.

[quote]Finally, I would simply point out that the generic term "man / men" is Christologically important, because Jesus Christ is the One Man in whom all men become sons of God. In other words, all men are configured to the only-begotten Son of God, becoming sons in the Son. The generic use of the term "man / men" involves Christ's assumption of human nature, that is, all men are mystically present in the One Man, and to avoid the use of the masculine generic term "man" ultimately obscures that fact.[/quote]

Todd, in modern understanding, the language you just used excludes women from salvation. Now, I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that is the ultimate result.

[quote]P.S. - The langauge of the liturgy should not be changed or manipulated in order to reflect modern sensibilities; instead, if there is something that is unclear to a certain group (e.g., liberal ideologues who support the manipulation of language for an egalitarian end), it should be explained to them in the homily.[/quote]

It's not "modern sensibilities" or "manipulation of language," Todd--languages are not fixed.

[Resurrexi]

Wow, the translation is till a piece of carp, but at least it somewhat resembles the Latin now.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242892' date='Apr 14 2007, 01:20 PM']The language used in the liturgy should be "traditional," and not cutting edge. Liturgy is not about being contemporary; instead, it is about transcending the contemporary world by bring us into contact with the past events of salvation history, while also rendering present the eschatological kingdom. Liturgy is about Tradition, i.e., the "passing on" ([i]paradosis[/i]) of what the Church already believes. It is not about recreating the Church's faith with each new generation. Besides, there is a traditional sacral form of English, and it should be used.

Finally, I would simply point out that the generic term "man / men" is Christologically important, because Jesus Christ is the One Man in whom all men become sons of God. In other words, all men are configured to the only-begotten Son of God, becoming sons in the Son. The generic use of the term "man / men" involves Christ's assumption of human nature, because all men are mystically present in the One Man, and to avoid the use of the masculine generic term "man" ultimately obscures that fact.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The langauge of the liturgy should not be changed or manipulated in order to reflect modern sensibilities; instead, if there is something that is unclear to a certain group (e.g., liberal ideologues who support the manipulation of language for an egalitarian end), it should be explained to them in the homily.[/quote]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Apotheoun]

First, you have not proven your assertion that the generic use of "man / men" is a minority position. You have simply asserted it to be so.

Second, the Christological and Soteriological doctrine of the Church is tied up with the generic masculine, because Christ is not simply a concrete male individual; instead, His assumption of human nature is universal and not merely particular. Thus, the "inclusive language" ideology has Monophysite tendencies, and as such it cannot be accepted by the Church.

Third, liturgical languages are "traditional" in nature, that is, they do not absorb uncritically linguistic changes that may occur in a culture.

Fourth, there is no evidence that the English language is actually changing in the manner that you assert. All through my college career I used the generic masculine and no one ever questioned what I meant when I used it (and I went to a very liberal school for my undergrad degrees - SFSU).

Finally, the Church's prayer is fixed theologically, and is not based upon cultural norms that may be prevalent at any given time.