[quote="patg, post:12, topic:288111"]
All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the* Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels*, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".
Taking this into account, statements like *"We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" *are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.
As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
While we do not have original mss and the gospels are probably secondhand in source, most of the NT books are the epistles (mostly from Paul), which is exactly the part that most people have inclusive language issues with, not the gospels.
The Biblical Commission's statements does not concern the epistles specifically.