Posted on 05/23/2022 7:34:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A new Spanish version of the Roman Catholic Bible is ditching the word "man" for "person."
The Jerusalem Bible from publishing house Desclée de Brouwer updated the word used for "man" ("hombre") to "person" ("persona") in its latest Spanish edition.
The move changes the iconic call of Jesus to His disciples to become "fishers of men" in Matthew 4:19 to the more gender-neutral "fishers of persons."
In Greek, the word for "man" is "anthropos," which is used more than 500 times in the New Testament, including multiple instances where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of Man."
Published in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible is an English translation of the Catholic Bible. In addition to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, it includes seven additional books considered extra-biblical books outside of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the Latin Vulgate, the Jerusalem Bible was based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts when its first edition was published in French in 1956 and continues to do so.
Javier Gogeaskoetxea, the managing director of the Desclée De Brouwer publishing house, told Catholic News Agency the change was precipitated by "fidelity to the original text" and not by any social pressure or trend.
According to Gogeaskoetxea, the decision came from the Jerusalem Biblical and Archaeological School and not the publisher. The school is linked to the Dominicans, an order of the Catholic Church.
"If I were to put 'man,'" he said, "we would be lacking in fidelity to the original text because the Greek word is neither man nor woman.
"I understand that there is an attempt to 'polemicize' by attributing 'inclusive' language to the translation. But nothing is further from reality; the reason is fidelity to the original text," he added.
Gogeaskoetxea said the original Greek text does not include gender for "anthropos," so the translation should also reflect a lack of gender with either "person or human being."
One Spanish priest took to Twitter to refute the new translation.
Father Jesús Silva, whose bio reads "priest writer" and Patristic Theology grad, said the "translation as 'people' has its problems."
"What people was Jesus referring to: human, angelic or divine? Well, in the text, thus translated, it is not excluded that Jesus is calling the disciples to evangelize the angels or God himself," Silva wrote.
Silva said that since "human persons" is a relatively vague term. Thus, to "avoid misunderstandings that occur with words like 'person,' 'human being' or 'human earthling,' and adopting the principle of economy of language, we could translate the word 'anthropos' as 'man,' which includes all of the above."
Another priest, Fr. Antonio María Domenech Guillén with the Diocese of Cuenca, appeared to agree with Silva's assessment.
Cuenca wrote: "It doesn't seem right to me, but I think it has the importance that we give it. If we read Holy Scripture every day, we would have realized long ago that the Jerusalem Bible translation is not the best option."
After its English translation was completely updated in 1985, the Jerusalem Bible — now known as the New Jerusalem Bible — has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the U.S.
In English it’s a pun.
Fishermen to fishers of men.
What’s the original Greek?
In Spanish fishermen is pescadores.
How do they say “fishers of men”? Pescadores de hombres?
Well, then we shouldn’t be translating it either, because translation always changes meanings, loses meanings, and introduces (spurious) new ones.
---SNIP---
Gogeaskoetxea said the original Greek text does not include gender for "anthropos," so the translation should also reflect a lack of gender with either "person or human being."
So, is Jesus now the "Son of a Person"?
Except that mankind is anthropótita. But even if you switch to latin, there is no way you get the man out of human. The whole thing is a fools errand. Man and men can historically and gramatically be used for both man and women as a group, and whatever 50 different genders you want to include.
...then it’s no longer a Catholic edition.
And are they gonna take every masculine form of words english, Greek and Hebrew and change them too?
Me too! Thx
The seven “extra” books of the Old Testament are considered part of the Bible not only by Catholics, but by all Christians other than Protestants, as far as I know...definitely by the Eastern Orthodox churches and by the Coptic Church and Ethiopian church.
On the face of it, I don’t have a problem with this, as the Bible was obviously written to all mankind, not just men. (It’s hard to believe there are still neanderthals who think women are not to be included in Bible interpretation, but unfortunately, there are). However, since this may, instead of making THAT point, be an effort to make the Bible “woke”, I would object to THAT goal.
Angels are NOT persons; they are created beings. Satan and his demonic host are, of which I’m sure you are aware, the same class of beings. The word “persons”, refers only to human beings.
Obviously, Jesus was a sexist, and the Bible verse MUST be changed to "the Child of Person."
Maybe even "of Personx."
Regards,
What we are dealing with here is the person Jesus Who is The Father God's Begotten-in-male-DNA-flesh Human Son, implanted as an embryo into the womb of Mary of Nazareth as His surrogate host mother, maturing through her pregnance and emerging as a fully-formed infant through her birth canal as would be for any surrogate birth, done innumerable times through advanced technology in out day.
His essence is both Deity and humanity. alive today in Heaven.
Son of (Hu)Man, Son of God.
Except for the originals, some of which were verbals, ALL translations could be construed as changing the words. Obviously, “not changing one word”, has to do with the original MEANING and intent of the original writers. To those who insist the KJV is the only true translation, I would remind them that there were many translations BEFORE the KJV. No translation is perfect, but when studying the Word, I use a concordance, such as Strong’s, That tells me the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew.
Yeah that happens
A "person," in metaphysics, is "an individual substance of a rational nature".
That's why the creed says "who for us men", instead of "who for us persons". The latter construction would imply that Jesus became incarnate to save angels as well as men.
Maybe in Catholicism, but not in Scripture. Read the first chapter of Hebrews, in which angels are called ministering spirits, lower case s. Often they took the form of men, and were referred to as such, as in Genesis ch. 18, but that did not make them men. In fact, in the next chapter they were referred to as Angels.
In Genesis chapter 3, Satan took the form of a serpent, and the Bible refers to him there, as more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. But, correct me if I’m wrong, nowhere does the Bible refer to angels, fallen or otherwise, as persons.
[Angels are angelic persons. Human beings are human persons. The three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are Divine Persons.]
Exactly. Though I’d probably say “Angels are angelic beings.”
All orthodox Protestants would be on my side in this, because they believe in the Nicaea and the other early ecumenical councils, which depend on (the correct use of) this terminology.
Read the first chapter of Hebrews, in which angels are called ministering spirits, lower case s. Often they took the form of men, and were referred to as such, as in Genesis ch. 18, but that did not make them men.
You're not following what I'm saying, because you're equating "person" with "human being". All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings. The Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, but not a human being in any sense. Angels (fallen angels included) are beings of pure spirit. They are persons ("individual substances of a rational nature"), but not human and therefore not human persons. They are angelic persons.
But, correct me if I’m wrong, nowhere does the Bible refer to angels, fallen or otherwise, as persons.
It doesn't have to. Are angels rational by nature (i.e., intelligent, self-aware, etc.?). Yes they are. Are they individual substances, in the sense that one angel is not just a part of a bigger whole, but is an individual by himself? Yes they are. Then they meet the definition.
Oh, good grief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.