Why "Brothers and Sisters"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carl_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
NOTE: I think Fratres actually translates to both “brothers” and “brethren” in English.

I think the problem is that in American English, “brethren” isn’t as precise as it is in British English

From dictionary.com

brethren
plural noun
  1. **fellow members. **
  2. Archaic. brothers.
British Dictionary definitions for brethren
plural noun
  1. (archaic) a plural of brother
  2. fellow members of a religion, sect, society, etc
Click to expand...
Yes, fratres is brothers, brethren. Fratres is the typical incipit for readings from the Epistles of St. Paul.
 
otjm said:
phil19034;12668922:
NOTE: I think Fratres actually translates to both “brothers” and “brethren” in English.
Click to expand...
Then, pray tell, what does sorores translate as?

As convention, fratres was translated as inclusive of both men and women; but in Latin, it is not inclusive.

Go back to the Greek; sadly we don’t have the epistles in their native language - Aramaic.
Click to expand...
No, the native (if by that you mean original) language of the epistles is Greek.
 
phil19034 said:
NOTE: I think Fratres actually translates to both “brothers” and “brethren” in English.
Click to expand...
This is from Cassell’s Latin dictionary:

frater, -tris, a brother

Lit. fratres gemini - twin-brothers, Cicero; *fratres gemelli *, Ovid; germanus - own brother, Cicero; fratres (like αδελφοι), brothers and sisters, Tacitus; sometimes also a cousin: Cicero, Ovid, Tacitus; or a brother-in-law: Liv.
 
porthos11 said:
It’s a Lectionary practice, and is a long-entrenched custom. The traditional openings were:

Lessons (OT historical readings, Acts of the Apostles): In diebus illis: (in those days)
Lessons from prophets: Haec dicit Dominus Deus: (thus says the Lord God)
Epistles of St. Paul (NT letters): Fratres: (brothers)
Other epistles (John, James, Peter, etc.): Carissimi: (dearly beloved [plural])
Epistles to single people (Timothy, Titus, Philemon): Carissime (dearly beloved [singular])
Gospels: In illo tempore: (at that time)
Click to expand...
Okay. But I don’t think that every reading from, say, one of Paul’s letters, begins at the beginning salutation of the letter, which I presume is given only once. If the reading begins somewhere in the middle of the letter, why begin with a salutation not in the original text? Why not just give the reading?
 
porthos11 said:
No, the native (if by that you mean original) language of the epistles is Greek.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of that. But while I am not sure about Luke, the others spoke Aramaic, it would seem, as their first language; thus if they were to write in Greek, there would be one step of translation, unless they were fluent in both. And moving from Aramaic to Greek might give some clues.

a language which does not distinguish between brothers and sisters, and cousins, (as Aramaic does not), might find some interesting statements in a second language that might.
 
JimG said:
Okay. But I don’t think that every reading from, say, one of Paul’s letters, begins at the beginning salutation of the letter, which I presume is given only once. If the reading begins somewhere in the middle of the letter, why begin with a salutation not in the original text? Why not just give the reading?
Click to expand...
Well that’s a good point. I see that the daily reading from January 20, 2015 is taken from Hebrews. And in the Lectionary it begins:
Brothers and Sisters…

🤷
 
otjm said:
I am well aware of that. But while I am not sure about Luke, the others spoke Aramaic, it would seem, as their first language; thus if they were to write in Greek, there would be one step of translation, unless they were fluent in both. And moving from Aramaic to Greek might give some clues.

a language which does not distinguish between brothers and sisters, and cousins, (as Aramaic does not), might find some interesting statements in a second language that might.
Click to expand...
Right. When I studied Koine Greek with a Biblical language professor that used to teach in a well known seminary…he kept referring to the “Greek sense” of texts. He kept insisting that literal translations don’t exactly reflect the meaning…that we always had to research the “sense” of the word that the Greeks used.
 
otjm said:
I am well aware of that. But while I am not sure about Luke, the others spoke Aramaic, it would seem, as their first language; thus if they were to write in Greek, there would be one step of translation, unless they were fluent in both. And moving from Aramaic to Greek might give some clues.

a language which does not distinguish between brothers and sisters, and cousins, (as Aramaic does not), might find some interesting statements in a second language that might.
Click to expand...
Well, it might be more helpful if we had the originals. But we don’t.

And even if it all had been in English, we might still be having an argument along the same lines today. As I pointed out in my last post, each writer has his own style and meaning. And we know no one writer wrote the entire New Testament.
 
JimG said:
Okay. But I don’t think that every reading from, say, one of Paul’s letters, begins at the beginning salutation of the letter, which I presume is given only once. If the reading begins somewhere in the middle of the letter, why begin with a salutation not in the original text? Why not just give the reading?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose it could be rendered like this in the Lectionary:

Beloved,
(…)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ…
 
JimG said:
Okay. But I don’t think that every reading from, say, one of Paul’s letters, begins at the beginning salutation of the letter, which I presume is given only once. If the reading begins somewhere in the middle of the letter, why begin with a salutation not in the original text? Why not just give the reading?
Click to expand...
It’s always the way it’s been. The incipit is stated, and then the Biblical text begins. If anything, it’s custom.
 
Phemie said:
Well, I suppose it could be rendered like this in the Lectionary:

Beloved,
(…)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ…
Click to expand...
Maybe my memory fails me, but I seem to remember a time when readings taken from other than the start of an epistle just started out something like this: "A reading from the letter of Paul to the Ephesians. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for that is what is expected of you. …etc.” [Eph 6-1]

I don’t see that every reading needs to start out as if it were the beginning of a letter.
 
phil19034 said:
I think it’s ridiculous that people do not understand that “Brethern” means “Brothers and Sisters”
Click to expand...
If that’s what the word means, then saying “Brothers and Sisters” should be exactly equivalent, should it not? Why complain about that version?

Usagi
 
Phemie said:
Oh, no, my dear. Francophones, at least in Canada are rabid when it comes to this. Witness how we’ve gone from
“Société des Acadiens du Nouveau Brunswick” to “Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau Brunswick” – “changed to better represent the entire Acadian population.” Say what???

“L’Association des enseignants francophones du Nouveau Brunswick” to “L’Association des enseignants et des enseignantes francophones du Nouveau Brunswick”

“Fédération canadienne des enseignants” to “Fédération canadienne des enseignantes et des enseignants”
Click to expand...
Ou la la!

😃
 
Usagi said:
If that’s what the word means, then saying “Brothers and Sisters” should be exactly equivalent, should it not? Why complain about that version?

Usagi
Click to expand...
Because there is an on-going attempt by certain segments of society to change the language so they can win the debate.:sad_yes:

brethren [not brethern nor bretheren] - plural noun
  1. fellow members.
  2. Archaic. brothers.
    – dictionary.com
 
asia53 said:
Same here. I’m a Reader, I read exactly what is printed in the Lectionary.
Click to expand...
Yes. I listened (more closely than usual!) the other day to the readings. The second reading started with “brothers and sisters.” So it’s in the Lectionary. I still wonder why the Lectionary reading does not just match the scripture from which it is taken. Obviously every few verses of scripture do not repeat “brothers and sisters!” It seems it should only be in the Lectionary when the actual scripture reading begins that way (i.e., at the beginning of an epistle). But hey, I didn’t compile the Lectionary.
 
You’ve all raised my curiosity because I never actually paid attention before.

So I looked in my 1966 St. Joseph hand missal and sure enough (just as porthos11 stated) there (with a few exceptions) were all of the introductory phrases.

I haven’t gone through the whole missal 😃 but I have seen the following:
  • Brethren:
  • Beloved:
  • In Those Days,
  • At That Time,
  • ***Thus Says the Lord God:
Of course that still doesn’t answer the question of whether or not “Brothers and Sisters” is an appropriate alternative to “Brethren”.
 
JimG said:
Yes. I listened (more closely than usual!) the other day to the readings. The second reading started with “brothers and sisters.” So it’s in the Lectionary. I still wonder why the Lectionary reading does not just match the scripture from which it is taken. Obviously every few verses of scripture do not repeat “brothers and sisters!” It seems it should only be in the Lectionary when the actual scripture reading begins that way (i.e., at the beginning of an epistle). But hey, I didn’t compile the Lectionary.
Click to expand...
Because “brothers and sisters:” is a itself a Lectionary text, not a Scriptural one. The Church has the authority to add any introductions, incipits, conclusions and acclamations to the Lectionary as she sees fit. And given that as I already said, opening incipits for Lessons are a long-standing custom in the Roman Rite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top