Ship of Fools: It's all in the Context

Thread: It's all in the Context Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025807

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There have been several times recently when I've turned up to church to hear the Scripture Lessons read out and wondered what's going on. I'm not sure if it's the fault of the particular translation or whether the Lectionary has readings starting in a different place now, but there are so many which begin: 'And they said to them....' and such like.

Who said what to whom? Where is the passage set and what caused those particular circumstances? Far too much use of 'he' 'she' 'they' and it all gets rather too confused.

I'm interested to know whether other churches have a particular policy on making such confusing readings more clear - whether there is some sort of introduction to each reading (it only happens in my church at '9 Lessons and Carols'), or whether readings are perused in advance to replace some of the theys and thems with actual names. That doesn't happen as a thought-out policy in our church, but Mr. C. when he's down to read does some background research and changes the wording to let everyone know who is speaking. 'And he said to them' gets changed to 'And Jesus said to the disciples' - so at least we all know.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

One of my (many) difficulties with the previous régime at S Vartan's was that they did just this. However, as I follow the readings in the Greek New Testament, I found that his clarity-intended introductions and amplifications were frequently mistakes (about 1 out of 5). It is better that the reader either provide us with a few extra verses leading in or the preacher make a point of clarifying in their sermon.

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

Or that the readings are read out of a lectionary book that already has the necessary changes made; in theory, at least, the editors of such volumes have checked their work.

The trick there can be finding one that doesn't go overboard with the emendations; I have a set of all three years of the RCL, but from different editors/publishers, and one of the years, I think year B, kind of goes on an inclusive-language kick, including changing "Kingdom of God" to "Dominion of God." But if you can find one that only makes the minimum number of changes necessary to avoid confusion, those books are a wonderful thing. They also really help if the readings omit verses.

[ 13. April 2013, 12:33: Message edited by: Kayarecee ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The RC Lectionary (at least in English) either inserts introductions or makes explicit the subject and indirect object. So, for instance, it would add "And Jesus said," before picking up part of the sermon on the mount part way through, say. There is also an opportunity in the priest's introduction to the mass to clarify the context of certain readings. I don't see this done much, but I think it could often be more helpful than waiting until preaching to do it, as people will have the context in their head's while they're hearing the reading.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Don't read in public direct from the Bible, but from a prepared lectionary or printed piece of paper. In that way, the problem should be remedied.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The RC Lectionary (at least in English) either inserts introductions or makes explicit the subject and indirect object. So, for instance, it would add "And Jesus said," before picking up part of the sermon on the mount part way through, say. There is also an opportunity in the priest's introduction to the mass to clarify the context of certain readings. I don't see this done much, but I think it could often be more helpful than waiting until preaching to do it, as people will have the context in their head's while they're hearing the reading.

True, including the common In illo tempore: Dixit Iesus ad discipulis suis...(At that time: Jesus said to His disciples...)

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

One of the challenges for translators is that many sentences* begin with the greek word και. This is (roughly) the equivalent of 'and' but is often a linking word to continue the narrative. In trying to remain true to the greek text, you do end up with some slightly odd english in places.

I have known preachers use this dangling tension to set the context for the reading before diving in to exposition on the specific text.

(* yes, I know that the sentence structure is somewhat guesswork as there are no full stops)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
....I have a set of all three years of the RCL, but from different editors/publishers, and one of the years, I think year B, kind of goes on an inclusive-language kick, including changing "Kingdom of God" to "Dominion of God." ...

This is the (slightly old-fashioned?) Canadian edition, I suppose.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The idea of prepared Lectionaries is new to me, as far as I know, in our church, the passages are always read from the Bible. That is certainly worth a thought if it makes the meaning clearer.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

In our church all the readings (including Psalm) and the collect are all together on one printed sheet (actually the notice sheet!). I like this because it makes links between the readings clearer, as well as making the context of the readings more obvious.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

One solution best avoided was that which I experienced in a rather toxic parish 25 years ago (I was an assistant and only there briefly) where the readers introduced the readings with the Real™ sermon because clearly the Vicar was an Evil And Nasty Heretic. [Mad]

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

Jade - We used to do this. We have just stopped on several counts. Chiefly saving paper and encouraging people to take a pew bible and be familiar enough with the sequence to find the passage - which should also give the diligent an opportunity to see the context of before and after.

Incidentally, on the local Course of Christian Studies (basic theology for the laity) they make you read whole Gospels and epistles in a single sitting so that you can see the full narrative rather than the chopped up sections of the lectionary.

Zappa - I thought it was the role of the intercessor to contradict and undermine every point the preacher had just made. [Mad]

[ 14. April 2013, 21:40: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Jade - We used to do this. We have just stopped on several counts. Chiefly saving paper and encouraging people to take a pew bible and be familiar enough with the sequence to find the passage - which should also give the diligent an opportunity to see the context of before and after.

Incidentally, on the local Course of Christian Studies (basic theology for the laity) they make you read whole Gospels and epistles in a single sitting so that you can see the full narrative rather than the chopped up sections of the lectionary.

Zappa - I thought it was the role of the intercessor to contradict and undermine every point the preacher had just made.

We don't actually have pew Bibles! I think since we would print a notice sheet anyway, we may as well use the back of it for the readings.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I will generally change the 'he' to 'Jesus' or whoever is speaking where the context is not clear. It is slightly naughty, but it promotes a more intelligent understanding of the lectionary.

PD

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm interested to know whether other churches have a particular policy on making such confusing readings more clear - whether there is some sort of introduction to each reading (it only happens in my church at '9 Lessons and Carols'), or whether readings are perused in advance to replace some of the theys and thems with actual names. That doesn't happen as a thought-out policy in our church, but Mr. C. when he's down to read does some background research and changes the wording to let everyone know who is speaking. 'And he said to them' gets changed to 'And Jesus said to the disciples' - so at least we all know.

There's no obvious policy like that at our church, we just read straight from the enormous and heavy Bible resting on the lectern. Like Mr C, when it's my turn to do the readings I will read them in advance - it means I'm less likely to stumble over any odd names in the OT reading, but also it allows me to add an introductory short sentence for context if needed.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I will generally change the 'he' to 'Jesus' or whoever is speaking where the context is not clear. It is slightly naughty, but it promotes a more intelligent understanding of the lectionary.

PD

What is naughty about promoting an intelligent understanding?

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I did meet someone, my Greek teacher at the time as it happens, that we'd say "the Word of the Lord" after something that had been in any way edited. I didn't have the heart to point out to her that translating is a pretty major form of editing in its own right.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

This thread is one of those situations when if somebody really cares that much about it, s/he should probably create a little cheat sheet with introductory phrases and reading terminations to put by the pulpit Bible. Otherwise, one keeps one's mouth shut.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Like Mr C, when it's my turn to do the readings I will read them in advance - it means I'm less likely to stumble over any odd names in the OT reading, but also it allows me to add an introductory short sentence for context if needed.

Props to you for reading them in advance. Few do.

I just threw out a c. 1980s book of introductory sentences for the scripture readings, so clearly people in the 1980s at least were concerned. (We switched to the RCL since, and use a lectionary book that contains the necessary intros.)

[ 15. April 2013, 23:18: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I did meet someone, my Greek teacher at the time as it happens, who was scandalized that we'd say "the Word of the Lord" after something that had been in any way edited. I didn't have the heart to point out to her that translating is a pretty major form of editing in its own right.

Put back in the three words that for some reason didn't make it from my head to the keyboard. Sentence should make more sense now!

Takes all sorts to make a world...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Here we are. Common Worship main volume, page 539, para 3 "When a reading begins with a personal pronoun, the reader may substitute the appropriate noun."

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
I have a set of all three years of the RCL, but from different editors/publishers, and one of the years, I think year B, kind of goes on an inclusive-language kick, including changing "Kingdom of God" to "Dominion of God."

I'm not sure that this is about inclusive language. After all, Dom is no less masculine than King.

This seems to be an attempt at a more accurate rendering of Vasileia. Dominion seems to lend itself to the sense of "reign" more than kingdom, which has stronger connotations of geographical territory.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Here we are. Common Worship main volume, page 539, para 3 "When a reading begins with a personal pronoun, the reader may substitute the appropriate noun."

Marvellous - they think of everything!

People must be very good readers if they don't need to read through / rehearse the lessons in advance (or else enjoy the scary 'thrill' of winging it! [Eek!]

)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

In my heart I think I am a very good reader, but I always practice the reading first, so I know where to put the emphasis and the significant pauses. And I know the reading well enough to be able to look up for the significant bits and elsewhere and look at the congregation.

Years ago I was at a parish televised service and the reader was a stylish old retired actress who'd been at RADA in the 30s.

The old dear had on her very best hat, she'd learnt the reading by heart, and the wonderful old ham never looked at the book once. I can never hear "Rejoice in the Lord always" without thinking of her plummy tones. Marvellous.

And if readers and celebrants can do without their heads in written texts, the congregation can do the same.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
I have a set of all three years of the RCL, but from different editors/publishers, and one of the years, I think year B, kind of goes on an inclusive-language kick, including changing "Kingdom of God" to "Dominion of God."
I'm not sure that this is about inclusive language. After all, Dom is no less masculine than King.

Is it not? Don't both Dominus and Domina exist? Do we not have Dominatrices (well, available if we want them [Biased]

)

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

You learn to wing it by winging it. Best one is when I had all of two seconds notice. The minister looked at me and I walked up. I was on standby as the minister was not sure if someone would come*. I had not seen the reading, I did not know the reading and it was dramatised (i.e. three readers).

Jengie

*The reader had come but had not registered they were reading.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I suppose the ability to be able to read off the cuff in an emergency is a wonderful thing. But to deliberately do it like that, when you know in advance you are to read, smacks of laziness and lack of respect for the Scripture and for the listeners. Many bible readings are very complicated and the meaning obscure. So any help you can give by reading clearly, with helpful emphasis, and good pronunciation of names, etc. is well worth doing.

It is also possible to buy small booklets which give correct pronunciation of common Bible names, which helps provide consistency, and helps listeners to make connections with other passages and stories where they have heard the same names mentioned.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Oh I'd far rather properly prepare, but that means a good couple of hours to do so. A properly done reading is as good as a sermon but doing it properly takes time and effort. So often the readings are only given to the reader at such short notice that they have to do without proper preparation. Clergy I am looking at you.

Jengie

Posted by earrings (# 13306) on :

We give a short introduction to most readings which tries to explain a little of the context (without becoming a sermonette) normally the preacher does these as the reader comes to the lectern. The idea is not to repeat all of what the reading is going to say but enable people to listen to it with some understanding.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
People must be very good readers if they don't need to read through / rehearse the lessons in advance (or else enjoy the scary 'thrill' of winging it! )

Or just plain lazy. [Paranoid]

Sadly, it's easy to spot who prepares and who doesn't.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Oh I'd far rather properly prepare, but that means a good couple of hours to do so.....Jengie

Really? For a reading? A couple of hours?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes Albertus

A couple of hours.

Firstly sort out what the reading means. That means reading it in several versions, check with the commentaries and so on. You need to have the sense in your brain before the next part. This is the stage to check pronunciations etc

Secondly learn it, not quite to the level where you can recite it by heart but to the level where you can look up from the Bible and at the congregation without coming to a stumbling halt. That takes me an hour usually.

[optional] Actually lay out the reading to give you hints, for instance spaces for pauses, different coloured ink for different speakers and so on. A difficult Pauline passage can make a lot more sense if laid our as if it was poetry rather than prose. [/optional]

Thirdly rehearse it, that is read it through several times until you are starting to put sense into the words.

Fourthly have a go reading from the microphone before the service so you know how you sound and are not thrown by acoustics.

So yes it takes people a couple of hours to prepare a passage properly and just reading it through once is not the same.

Jengie

[ 18. April 2013, 11:59: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'm not being funny (as we say in South London when we're about to start a fight) but once you get beyiond pronouncing the names properly, getting a sense of the rhythm of the piece, and being able to read it without your nose deep in the book (or Book) - all of which takes a little time but not two hours, certainly not for the length of reading that you'll normally find in the RCL- does all that really make that much of a difference to the hearers' understanding, do you think?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

That's what jengie does so good on her. What is obvious is the majority of readers who haven't bothered to spend ten minutes doing what Albertus suggests.

As for funny names, my view is that as long as they are pronounced convincingly and consistently that is all that matters.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Quite a lot of difference. Its all about communication after all.

Firstly to get that you need to know what you are communicating and actually to have thought about it rather than just thought it is the words on the page. That means time dwelling with the passage.

Secondly you need to actually try and engage with the people you are reading with, being able to look up occasionally not only helps projection but feeds to the congregation that you are actually aware of them as listeners. Knowing it well enough that you can pay attention to how rather than to solely what you are projecting is also important. People who are speaking too quietly are unlikely to speak louder if they are concentrating on what word comes next. Equally in similar circumstances people who are gabbling are unlikely to slow down.

Thirdly it means the expression you use aids rather than hinders the listener in hearing the passage. Your job is only just started when people can hear the words clearly, no emphasis or worse still emphasis wrongly placed can lead people not hearing the meaning.

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm sure all of us here would totally agree with you.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, good on you Jengie for doing it like that, but I'm still not convinced that two hours is necessary.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I admit I tend to wing readings, but I'm often congratulated on how well I read. I'm not convinced 2 hours prep would make much difference. I do look up from my reading and try and get some life into it. That said I did learn Isaiah 58 to declaim at one alternative type service, but that style would probably be out of place at Mass.

Also I have several years of reading at weekday MP and EP which are good practice for coping with anything. I've stepped in to fill failures to appear and been asked as entering Mass (late).

Carys

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Some of the most powerful scripture readings I've ever heard have been those learnt off by heart - mind you it probably also helped that the person reading them was an actor. There was a sense of immediacy, of actually being there where the action was taking place.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

There are no such problems in the 1662 Lectionary, but that has been more or less banned.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Any chance of expanding on that for the uninitiated?

Does the 1662 lectionary give longer passages that start earlier in the text to give the context? If so, how much earlier? Mark, for example, has a habit of starting each part of his story with a phrase like "after which Jesus said/did" ... do you need the previous part of the story to set the context? When you have a long discourse, eg: the Sermon on the Mount or some parts of Johns Gospel, does the 1662 Lectionary start at the beginning of that discourse just so we get the "Jesus said" in there?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
... encouraging people to take a pew bible and be familiar enough with the sequence to find the passage - which should also give the diligent an opportunity to see the context of before and after.

That seems like the best way to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
There are no such problems in the 1662 Lectionary, but that has been more or less banned.

Yeah, that's why they print it every year in the same booklet as the CW and RCL lectionaries [Disappointed]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
One of the challenges for translators is that many sentences* begin with the greek word και.

One thing that's come to annoy me is when people quote the word "for" at the beginning of a verse in isolation from what preceded it, as in, "For God so loved . . .". There's nothing divinely inspred about the verse divisions--you can just say "God so loved . . ."!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
One thing that's come to annoy me is when people quote the word "for" at the beginning of a verse in isolation from what preceded it, as in, "For God so loved . . .". There's nothing divinely inspred about the verse divisions--you can just say "God so loved . . ."!

Bet you hate having to listen to Handel's 'Messiah' then!

For unto us a child is born....
(from Isaiah 9:6)

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

With 'for' it's not just a question of verse divisions: in the instance you quoted gar (='for') would be the second word in that sentence, not the first. Greek word order is "Thus for loved the God the world." So, skipping the 'for' isn't a matter of starting a word later, but of skipping over a word in the middle of your passage.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I suspect we use the same sheet as Jade Constable's church i.e. that produced by the Redemptorists for C of E or RCC lections (we use the Anglican version, of course.... [Biased]

. As Jade says, you get all three readings, the Psalm, the Collect and the Post-communion prayer, and space for your weekly notices on t'other side.

Ours are copied and put in church during the preceding week, so that readers can pick one up and go off to practice......and we urge people to take them home after the relevant Sunday Mass, so as to have the readings to hand for private prayer and meditation during the week.

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Any chance of expanding on that for the uninitiated?

Does the 1662 lectionary give longer passages that start earlier in the text to give the context? If so, how much earlier? Mark, for example, has a habit of starting each part of his story with a phrase like "after which Jesus said/did" ... do you need the previous part of the story to set the context? When you have a long discourse, eg: the Sermon on the Mount or some parts of Johns Gospel, does the 1662 Lectionary start at the beginning of that discourse just so we get the "Jesus said" in there?

1662 had huge chunks, whole chapters and followed whole books sequentially - not even a break for special readings on Christmas Day.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

My 1828 edition of the BCP lists a chapter of the OT and a chapter of the NT to be read every day at Morning and Evening Prayer.

/slight tangent alert/

Now I come to think of it, the C of E Common Worship lections seem to be rather more substantial chunks of Scripture than those for the equivalent Sunday in the RCC. Is this so, or is it just my imagination?

Ian J

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
There are no such problems in the 1662 Lectionary, but that has been more or less banned.
Yeah, that's why they print it every year in the same booklet as the CW and RCL lectionaries

Quite. In fact, we use it for Mattins and Evensong at my place.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so - we use BCP Matins on Saturdays and Sundays, and once a month at Evensong. The readings are taken from the standard C of E lectionary, which lists CW and BCP separately.

I think Indifferently must be living in a slightly skewed alternative multiverse, where the BCP has, indeed, been banned.......

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
My 1828 edition of the BCP lists a chapter of the OT and a chapter of the NT to be read every day at Morning and Evening Prayer.

/slight tangent alert/

Now I come to think of it, the C of E Common Worship lections seem to be rather more substantial chunks of Scripture than those for the equivalent Sunday in the RCC. Is this so, or is it just my imagination?

Ian J

Not your imagination. The Roman Missal has short-ish pieces - and even shorter if you omit parts in brackets that sometimes appear.

The C of E, being mainly middle class, thinks we can tolerate longer readings.

I am not so sure.

If I were the boss, I'd follow the RCC.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I suspect we use the same sheet as Jade Constable's church i.e. that produced by the Redemptorists for C of E or RCC lections (we use the Anglican version, of course.... . As Jade says, you get all three readings, the Psalm, the Collect and the Post-communion prayer, and space for your weekly notices on t'other side.

Ours are copied and put in church during the preceding week, so that readers can pick one up and go off to practice......and we urge people to take them home after the relevant Sunday Mass, so as to have the readings to hand for private prayer and meditation during the week.

Ian J.

It is indeed the same! Having been to churches with various arrangements, I like this the best.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

You say middle class. I say textually literate and not simply wanting to force a single conclusion down the neck of its flock. Let's call the whole thing off......

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Any chance of expanding on that for the uninitiated?

Does the 1662 lectionary give longer passages that start earlier in the text to give the context? If so, how much earlier? Mark, for example, has a habit of starting each part of his story with a phrase like "after which Jesus said/did" ... do you need the previous part of the story to set the context? When you have a long discourse, eg: the Sermon on the Mount or some parts of Johns Gospel, does the 1662 Lectionary start at the beginning of that discourse just so we get the "Jesus said" in there?
1662 had huge chunks, whole chapters and followed whole books sequentially - not even a break for special readings on Christmas Day.

Relevant:

quote:
The scriptures were not to be read in little chunks. A proper diet needs a mix of .foods for wholesome development. Thus Cranmer insisted that not merely parts, .but the whole of the scriptures was to be used. (Anyone who follows his lectionary will soon find that to be the case; only genealogies are omitted.) This
reveals a profound, catholic consciousness of the importance of the whole story of God's dealings. Only then could the parts of scripture be appreciated properly, even if many were "too high" for the simple.

Deep Engagement Fresh Discovery: Report of the Anglican Communion “Bible in the Life of the Church” Project

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0