Church fathers' use of "man" and "mankind"

[Audrey Sophia]

Hello!

Are there any Eastern Orthodox Christians in here with knowledge of the Greek language that the Eastern church fathers wrote in? I have been regularly reading the church fathers for a personal project I am working on. I often see the words "man" and "mankind" in these English translations of the fathers. From the contexts, it seems that the Greek probably means "human" and "humankind" in most cases. Should I assume this?

Is there a good resource online where the Eastern church fathers can be read in the Greek so that I can scan them for the specific Greek word to see whether they meant both males and females; humankind?

When I am summarizing church fathers for my project, I'd prefer to be gender inclusive in those cases where that's what the church fathers intended.

Thanks!!

 

[HTacianas]

Hello!

Are there any Eastern Orthodox Christians in here with knowledge of the Greek language that the Eastern church fathers wrote in? I have been regularly reading the church fathers for a personal project I am working on. I often see the words "man" and "mankind" in these English translations of the fathers. From the contexts, it seems that the Greek probably means "human" and "humankind" in most cases. Should I assume this?

Is there a good resource online where the Eastern church fathers can be read in the Greek so that I can scan them for the specific Greek word to see whether they meant both males and females; humankind?

When I am summarizing church fathers for my project, I'd prefer to be gender inclusive in those cases where that's what the church fathers intended.

Thanks!!

"Man" and "mankind" among the writings of the Church fathers means "humankind". It's no different than the use of the term in modern times. The only thing I am aware of in Church history that distinguishes men from women is the Didascalia and Apostolic Constitutions that specify "commandments for men" and "commandments for women". They pertain mainly to modesty and manner of dress and behavior for both men and women and even they are the same for both.

 

[Audrey Sophia]

Man" and "mankind" among the writings of the Church fathers means "humankind".

Thank you so much for clearing this up!! I really appreciate it. Do you know why the English translations say "man" and "mankind" then?

 

[HTacianas]

Thank you so much for clearing this up!! I really appreciate it. Do you know why the English translations say "man" and "mankind" then?

It's just custom and usage of the term. We often speak of "modern man" and "early man" but it does not exclude women. See the varying dictionary definitions for "man". It's synonymous with "human".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you so much for clearing this up!! I really appreciate it. Do you know why the English translations say "man" and "mankind" then?

probably similar to how we also say God and Godhead in English as well

 

[Not David]

In Germanic languages 'man' and 'mankind' is neutral and applies equally to male and female. These words are inherently 'gender inclusive' despite what certain ignorant postmoderns would claim.

Humankind, and also contextually human, is a redundancy and a violation of the language.

It is the same in Spanish.

 

[rusmeister]

This only became a problem in English because of Western feminism, which would require an entire separate thread to unpack the confused and mixed ideas people hold of it, and to make everything clear. In other languages that I know much about, it’s not an issue at all.

 

[Chesterton]

Thank you so much for clearing this up!! I really appreciate it. Do you know why the English translations say "man" and "mankind" then?

Going all the way back to Old English, man/mann has meant a "human being, person (male or female)" (from Etymonline.com). Other versions of man have meant the same in many other Western European languages. In Yiddish, a mensch can be a man or a woman.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Going all the way back to Old English, man/mann has meant a "human being, person (male or female)" (from Etymonline.com). Other versions of man have meant the same in many other Western European languages. In Yiddish, a mensch can be a man or a woman.

that’s interesting

 

[rusmeister]

When I am summarizing church fathers for my project, I'd prefer to be gender inclusive in those cases where that's what the church fathers intended.

Thanks!!

As a professional language guy, I’d note that “gender inclusive” is a term NEVER used in Orthodox history; it was invented the day before yesterday (as the word “gender” was itself subverted little over 30 years ago), and the term is actually bad from a philosophical standpoint, because, setting aside the falsehood and confusion that now exists between what “gender” is and what “sex” is, the unspoken assumption is that both sexes ought to be included in everything, something we have never held. The Church has always held men and women to be ontologically equal, and that neither sex is superior in any way before God. Priests must be male, but the greatest human that is not God is female. We have always seen the sexes as different from each other, and that there are some things that each sex must necessarily be excluded from. If women must be excluded from being priests, men must be excluded from bearing children. (Though madmen* are now promoting the overthrow of both the one exclusion and the other.) Being “inclusive” is not a virtue; the question must always be asked, who are they proposing to include in what, and is that actually good or bad? Sometimes exclusion is the virtue at hand. One who is inclusive in regards to wild mushrooms in one’s soup will soon learn the mistake of that cheery philosophy, though the discovery may be fatal.

*(which, of course, includes women)

When you get that the words “sex” and “gender” have themselves been falsified, and that most of the language we have been taught to use around sex is full of lies, the truth becomes clear. It is hard, though, to resist the influence of society, the media, and the schools (by which I mean all institutional education), and requires a clear understanding of what is true about language, and how language shapes our conception of what is true, rightly or wrongly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I’d note that “gender inclusive” is a term NEVER used in Orthodox history

yep, and it’s really meaningless

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I saw the other day that "Non-binary" in Spanish is either No-binaria (feminine) and No-binario (masculine). I thought that was ironic.

There are many languages that have masculine and feminine differences, Japanese being one of them.

 

[rusmeister]

I saw the other day that "Non-binary" in Spanish is either No-binaria (feminine) and No-binario (masculine). I thought that was ironic.

There are many languages that have masculine and feminine differences, Japanese being one of them.

Feminists would be outraged at the Russian past tense, which requires that the verb be denoted by a suffix indicating the sex of the subject. A man did (DYEH-lal) something, while a woman did (DYEH-lal-a) something.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Feminists would be outraged at the Russian past tense, which requires that the verb be denoted by a suffix indicating the sex of the subject. A man did (DYEH-lal) something, while a woman did (DYEH-lal-a) something.

The modern attempt to police language (words) is interesting. It's the inversion of Creation in that God used His Word to create the universe, Cosmos from Chaos, and now people are attempting to undo God's creation first by undoing language (words), Chaos from Cosmos.