"We cannot defend saying only 'Brothers,' when reading St. Paul at Mass"

[Maximian]

This is an example of the advantages of a dead language.

 

[PennyinCanada]

While I find it annoying when things like this come up, like Christ, the Lover of Mankind, is changed to Christ who loves us all, this would not be the hill I would pick to battle on.

 

[edward_george1]

If I’m going to read Scripture, I’m going to read Scripture, not what someone thinks Scripture should have said if it had been written in our generation.

Do you read scripture in translation or in the original languages? If you’re reading it in translation, then you’re reading what someone thinks scripture would have said if it had been written in our generation. Translating anything involves adapting it to the historical and linguistic situation in which one is working. So long as this doesn’t distort or attempt to change the essential meaning, there’s nothing wrong with that. We do it all the time.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[ThomasMT]

Respectfully,

If you’re reading it in translation, then you’re reading what someone thinks scripture would have said if it had been written in our generation.

Such patronizing renderings serve little interest outside of political correctness. While there may be instances where dynamic translations are necessary, liberal overuse is simply disingenuous.

Do you read scripture in translation or in the original languages?

There does exist the middle ground of a “literal” translation.

 

[edward_george1]

Oh I find bad translations problematic too. I’m not defending political correctness. I just don’t happen to find “I read scripture and not what someone now says scripture is” to be a helpful principle.

I don’t think I defended political correctness in the slightest in what I said.

 

[ThomasMT]

Fair enough… please excuse my presumption.

 

[edward_george1]

All is forgiven.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Such patronizing renderings serve little interest outside of political correctness

So you think that saying “brothers and sisters” is patronizing and politically correct?

I would say it’s a cultural adaptation to our time and place. There seem to be plenty of cultural influences and norms in St. Paul’s writing that, when read today, seem ridiculous to us.

Maybe there are still patriarchal societies today in southwest Asia that prefer to have the rendering say “brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters”. Depends on the culture I suppose.

 

[Xarto]

I was wondering about that as it’s not in the Jerusalem Bible based lectionary we use.

SECOND READING

A reading from the first letter of St Paul to the Corinthians 10:16-17
There is only one loaf means that, though there are many of us, we form a single body

The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is a communion with the body of Christ. The fact that there is only one loaf means that, though there are many of us, we form a single body because we all have a share in this one loaf.

The Word of the Lord.

 

[MNathaniel]

Do you disagree with your priest that Paul was referring to everyone, rather than just men?
Remember, Paul did not say the English word “Brothers”. It’s a translation. Your priest feels he can do a better job of translating than say, King James. I see not problem with it if we all agree that is actually what Paul meant. If you really do disagree, and you think Paul only was talking to the men, then yes you should question your priest’s translation.

I don’t think the issue here is whether any of us personally agrees or disagrees about “what Paul meant”. I think the key point is that the choices about specific words used in Liturgical setting are constrained at a level higher than individual priests. No individual priest (however clever and academically learned) gets to “pencil in” words to the Bible without approval from a higher qualified authority in the Church structure.

If the Danish translation needs to be officially changed from “brothers” to “sisters and brothers”, there’s an appropriate channel for that to go through. The question here is whether appropriate channels were gone through in this case and the current approved Danish translation includes the equivalent language “sisters and brothers” (and the priest just didn’t want to waste money on the new updated formally-approved text, so chose to pencil in the latest changes instead) or whether the local priest tried to ‘skip past’ appropriate channels to insert his own personal view of what the ‘best’ translation is. (Again, even if we all agree with him about what the best translation is, that’s not the point.)

Process matters, and it seems to me like that’s what the OP is concerned about here: whether her priest had proper authority to tell her to read his pencilled-in alteration to the Danish scripture translation, or whether the priest did not have this authority and the currently approved Danish text does not include this updated language.

 

[ThomasMT]

Altering what it actually says, when anyone with a spec of education already knows what it means is indeed patronizing IMO. It also has the potential to breed suspicion, as one can’t help but to wonder what other artistic liberties have been taken… or going back to the OP’s example, if Church fathers were indeed sexist given our reluctance to own our traditions. As if the literal translation of holy scripture is something to be ashamed of… something to hide.

If a passage causes discomfort let us educate. Otherwise authenticity is diminished.

I would say it’s a cultural adaptation to our time and place.

In doing so, it eliminates perspective on the culture of that time and place. Some may argue a “dumbing down” effect.

Not a discussion worth getting worked up over on a Sunday, just my perspective. Have a good one.

 

[JimG]

I wonder if St. Paul ever used the salutation “brothers abd sisters” in his life. Personally I think “bretheren” or “dearly beloved” or even “Carissime” works better. But thankfully, I don’t write lectionaries.

The English speaking world’s obsession with “inclusive” language has always puzzled me because I don’t think there was anything “exclusive” about it previously.

I think that when John Donne wrote the poem “No Man Is An Island,” he did not think that some women are. The generic term “man” was an inclusive term. It was language activists who managed to change it, making writing and speaking somewhat more awkward.

 

[BartholomewB]

Here, you can replace “brothers and sisters” with brethren. Which is generally what my pastor does.

There’s a technical difficulty here. “Brethren” is simply an archaic plural of brother, and the meaning is exactly the same as “brothers”. The complaint that is lodged against “brothers,” that it is sexist and excludes our sisters, applies just as much to “brethren.”

 

[DaveBj]

If you’re reading it in translation, then you’re reading what someone thinks scripture would have said if it had been written in our generation.

I was a professional translator, so I sort of have a clue about what goes on in the process. However, to cite one example already mentioned above, when the original says simply “brothers,” but what one has been given to read says, “sisters and brothers,” we have gone beyond the bounds of translation and have entered the territory of “this is what I think it should say, so we can all be politically correct.”

D

 

[DaveBj]

There’s a technical difficulty here. “Brethren” is simply an archaic plural of brother, and the meaning is exactly the same as “brothers”. The complaint that is lodged against “brothers,” that it is sexist and excludes our sisters, applies just as much to “brethren.”

There are times when “brethren” refers to male siblings, and there are times when the word is used as a term of address to refer to all spiritual siblings. Similarly, there are times when “man” refers to the male of the species, and there are times when the word refers to any individual human, regardless of gender. If someone is unable to tell the difference from context, then perhaps there has been something left out of his/her education.

In any case, none of this really matters to me personally; I have chosen not to become a reader, so I am never going to be confronted with choosing between what Scripture actually says and what someone in authority wishes it had said.

D

 

[edward_george1]

However, to cite one example already mentioned above, when the original says simply “brothers,” but what one has been given to read says, “sisters and brothers,”

Oh yeah, that’s obviously a problem, not only for linguistic reasons, but liturgical ones as well. If the text doesn’t say “sisters and brothers,” the reader shouldn’t read it as “sisters and brothers.”

 

[BartholomewB]

My point exactly! Whatever “brothers” means, “brethren” means the same

 

[Adamek]

Do you read scripture in translation or in the original languages? If you’re reading it in translation, then you’re reading what someone thinks scripture would have said if it had been written in our generation. Translating anything involves adapting it to the historical and linguistic situation in which one is working. So long as this doesn’t distort or attempt to change the essential meaning, there’s nothing wrong with that. We do it all the time.

This is perfectly logical and makes a lot of sense. It does, however, open doors to potentially surprising developments. I can easily imagine some progressive preacher using more inclusive language; After “sisters and brothers” there would be temptation to add all the gender fluid individuals who are now excluded from the brother/sister combination.

 

[edward_george1]

First off, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that anyone would add in all the “gender fluid” variations because of the reasoning I’m employing, namely that we translate things all the time.

Second off, I’m not defending using politically correct formulations. Read my other comments on this. My position is that 1) we should read what the liturgical texts say to read, and not add to or take away from them and 2) we should have well translated liturgical texts.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

. As if the literal translation of holy scripture is something to be ashamed of… something to hide.

If a passage causes discomfort let us educate. Otherwise authenticity is diminished.

It’s a greeting that’s not even part of the scripture verses that are part of the reading. I don’t even know why it’s there.

But the fact remains that if it is an addition to the scripture verses then the purpose of it is a greeting to the listening audience in which there are women. Not to difficult to understand.

. It also has the potential to breed suspicion,

You seem to be nurturing your own.