Gabriel referred to somebody else's argument about translating the usual references to the Virgin Mary in Orthodox liturgy. For those unfamiliar, the Greek title most often used to refer to her is "Theotokos" (Θεοτόκος), which roughly glosses as "She who gave birth to the one who is God", if you'll forgive my glossing it as though it were Sanskrit. Most other languages translate this title. Slavonic says "Bogoroditsa", for instance (Богородица). A lot of English Orthodox texts are translated from the Slavonic, so we have the absurd situation of translating from the Slavonic, which was translated from the Greek, not into the target language, but back into Greek. I find it slightly more absurd than using antiquated second person pronouns. Gabriel then goes on to say that he never uses the term when talking with non-Orthodox and rarely even when talking with Orthodox (unless explicitly discussing the third ecumenical council). I find this wise and tactful, because most people have a hard enough time understanding the nonsense we are talking about without our assuming that they know all these crazy big words we're using.
Which brings us to the topic of our conversation. Most people have no idea what the hell other people are talking about, religiously, if they are not a part of your bizarre little religious subculture. This has become more apparent over the last year, since my wife, for some odd reason, has a lot of Protestant friends, and they use common everyday words as though they are imbued with some special meaning that I cannot pretend to decipher and they have all these nonsensical debates which mean literally nothing to me. And they all pretend like they should mean something to me just because the words they are using are all English (imagine if they weren't and they were using hideously outdated German or French).
Of course, this extends beyond religious spheres. Any little coterie is bound to have manners of speaking that become pregnant with meaning, but when outsiders are introduced to them, their reaction is, "You say that as if it should mean something to me, but it doesn't." And, even more insidiously, conformance to these manners of speaking by those inducted can become a substitute for actual understanding. Leaning on the obscure words of others rather than, you know, realizing what you're saying. This isn't too bad if you're just working it out for yourself, but if you're trying to have any influence on other people, I recommend figuring out what you mean before you say it and trying to translate it into something somebody else can understand. This usually means using English words.
As a matter of policy, I pretend not to understand people who don't unless it's clear we know what we're doing. That's part of the motivation behind my post about words that cause me to tune out: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or at least we may not agree about it.
12 comments:
Not the first time I've heard the argument, leading me to the question: Well, yes, but how do we discuss these specialized matters without specialized language? If we speak only plain English, we use a lot more words than if we use our various theological codewords, and we confuse persons accustomed to the specialized language. This is not unique to religious matters, of course. The fiancee throws around "arbitrary" and "abstract" to mean, sometimes, the very opposite of what you or I use them to mean. Layman's terms just aren't suitable for some situations.
And of course, there's the appeal of using specialized language - it makes one feel erudite, included, what-have-you. Even though one might not actually know what one means. Should we define our terms as they appear in every philosophical conversation we have? Yes. But we won't.
You obviously cannot get too specialized without using specialized language. However, I would say that, if you're talking to an "outsider", perhaps you are having the wrong conversation if you have to use specialized language that you cannot explain. It assumes a common ground which isn't there but which is a prerequisite for the conversation.
So what does this have to say about your use of the nice little French word, "coterie"? I had to look that one up.
I suppose it boils down to linguistic register. Higher registers of communication can tolerate more specialized terms. Even most Protestant theologians are aware of the term "Theotokos." Or take any other loan word not in everyday use by the majority of people, well, like "cotorie." One must have a specialized knowledge of French, or be widely read enough to have encountered it and bothered to look it up.
Sometimes, when people use too high of a register, I tend to tune them out. I know people do that to me all the time.
Less about register, more about jargon. Coterie is a higher register, "Theotokos" is jargon and possibly higher register. Hick Protestants or middle class Protestants both are incomprehensible, and it's not because they're speaking in a different social setting (ie, more formally) or because we have different social classes. In short, it's more dialect than diatype. I suppose, at first glance, the issue of "Theotokos" could be either and are probably both at times, but my digressions are definitely dialectical: using common, everyday words imbued with some separate special meaning I do not know but which they assume I do, then "outside" vs "inside", etc.
just curious, what do you suggest replacing it with? Outside of Theotokos, mary seems the only prevalent appelation and it's not carrying the same role entirely (or clarity, given the abundance of marys).
"Mother of God".
....but it's so complicated with those spaces in it.
OK, so I was thinking I had conceded and come to your way of thinking. (not that this is of great consequence) but then in the course of unrelated ramblings I started to think about the Peshita, and I realized that arbitrary retention of foreign (particularly greek) words is a very traditional and somewhat orthodox thing. Whenever Jesus discusses the Law, it's aramaic so you'd expect either the still common Hebrew "Torah" or the more common aramaic Oraithah, but what you get is "Namousah" which is an obvious aramaicized "Nomos" from the Greek. this tradition's older than english, friend.
I know it's a pretty old tradition to not translate some terms. I mean, y'know, "Christ", that doesn't get translated from the Greek in most languages. But "Theotokos" has been translated in every other liturgical language and you don't lose anything by saying "Mother of God" as you possibly would by saying "Anointed". Also, there was one Christian tradition in Syriac, pretty much, and they'd all be using the same text: not so in English. If there were, in English, it had a long tradition of saying, "Mother of God" before we Orthodox popped on the Anglo scene.
Ah, I am sorry I missed this one...hmm...I concur.
Post a Comment