The translator into English of the famous German book, Wesen des Christentums (1841) by Ludwig Feuerbach was George Eliot (= Marian Evans) and she entitled it, The Essence of Christianity (1854).
Here is one small part of this brilliant woman's choice translation:
"What is virtue, the excellence of man as man? Manhood. Of man as woman? Womanhood. But man exists only as man and woman. The strength, the healthiness of man, consists, therefore, in this: that as a woman he be truly woman, as man, truly man." (page 91)
Oh that we could say today with this Victorian feminist -- "that as a woman he be truly woman" - and not be found guilty of a major crime against humanity!
We recall that certain stigmatized words (by liturgists and biblical translators) such as "man" and mankind" do have feminine equivalents (woman, womankind), BUT whereas the feminine has traditionally been used to DISTINGUISH, and to EXCLUDE the male counterpart, the masculine has traditionally been taken as always INCLUDING the female.
Then can we bowdlerize virtually all hymns written before 1970?
Think of John Henry Newman's
Manhood taken by the Son.
And I trust and hope most fully
In that manhood crucified.
And:
O generous love, that he who smote
In man for man the foe
The double agony in man
For man should undergo.
Or Wesley:
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus our Immanuel.
Born that man no more may die!
How can we change these and keep any purpose in the verses?
I close with the Creed:
Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven.
If we leave out "men" we change the doctrine of the Creed!
Dr Peter Toon August 5, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment