P
ProVobis
Guest
You counted 144,000? You don’t mean THE 144,000, did you?Just divide 144,000 by 6 billion – 0.0024%. Good luck my friend!
Either way, good thing they relaxed the fasting requirements.
- Status
Either way, good thing they relaxed the fasting requirements.
R
runningdude
Guest
“for the multitudes” was the English solution that I came up with as well. Saying in English what the Latins said in Latin or the Greeks said in Greek is difficult. I think that for “the multitudes” catches more of the nuances that were brought up than “for many”.
For instance “the multitudes” saved by Christ’s sacrifice, verses the “few” saved by the Temple sacrifices. It captures the the meaning that so many more are saved by accepting and working with Christ, and implies this salvation is offered to all, but that some still have chosen to not accept it.
Also, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “multitudes” specifically refers to people unlike “many” which refers to a bunch of anything. Christ didn’t come to save just anything
P
ProVobis
Guest
Interesting point. But He said (in two gospels) “pro vobis et pro multis.” In that context I would think He meant “for you and for many like you.” I’m just taking an educated guess, though.Also, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “multitudes” specifically refers to people unlike “many” which refers to a bunch of anything. Christ didn’t come to save just anything
R
roadsend
Guest
I believe that you are correct about using a different construction. Pro multitudine for example.Yes, that’s what I was trying to say
One could also use a weak or a strong demonstrative such as pro eis multis or pro illis multis.
The fact that the Latin uses pro multis makes it pretty clear that it should be translated for many not for the many.
The fact that it has been translated *for all * has grated badly on the sensus Catholicus of a heck of a lot of us for many, many years.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Exactly. I’m sure St. Jerome wouldn’t have consolidated the original Hebrew, Greek, and other languages into the Latin Vulgate if he had thought the Latin had any defects in conveying and preserving the truth.
Besides, Latin has a few advantages over the English when it comes to emphasis, reference, and unchanging meaning.
P
Phemie
Guest
Unlike the US version, the Canadian version of the 1975 GIRM (which remains in effect in Canada until the third edition of the Roman Missal is promulgated next year) addressed the question of ‘for all’ vs ‘for many’ and said this:
"The variant involved is fully justified:** a.** According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by* pro multis* has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of St. Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discvoer what he bought. The price is Christ’s blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; thsoe who say that they are so important that ithas been giving for them alone are proud.” (Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5) b. the teaching fo the Catechism is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.
R
roadsend
Guest
Sounds to me like a rather clumsy attempt to rationalize a defective ICEL translation.
The pro multis in the Vulgate is a translation of the original Greek polloi (in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, not the Aramaic.
The pro multis in the Vulgate is a translation of the original Greek polloi (in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, not the Aramaic.
There are really TWO controversies here.
The first is over which word, many or all, is most appropriate.
The second concerns why one word is or is not more appropriate than the other.
The second (of my) stated controversies is whether the word choice is a matter of translation or a matter of doctrine. I think it’s pretty clear that for many is a better literal translation of pro multis than is for all. The big question is about the theology/doctrine of the choice of words.
Even people who think many should be the word choice for the English translation hold that Christ died for all. In other words, some believe that many should be used in the sense of being unlimited compared to what was possible before Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.
Others hold to the idea that many is used because it implies something less than all is a possibility.
And then there is the further question: If someone is not saved/going to be saved, then does that have implications as to whether or not Christ died for him? In other words, could an unsaved person be one of the *many *for whom Christ shed his blood to save?
The first is over which word, many or all, is most appropriate.
The second concerns why one word is or is not more appropriate than the other.
The second (of my) stated controversies is whether the word choice is a matter of translation or a matter of doctrine. I think it’s pretty clear that for many is a better literal translation of pro multis than is for all. The big question is about the theology/doctrine of the choice of words.
Even people who think many should be the word choice for the English translation hold that Christ died for all. In other words, some believe that many should be used in the sense of being unlimited compared to what was possible before Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.
Others hold to the idea that many is used because it implies something less than all is a possibility.
And then there is the further question: If someone is not saved/going to be saved, then does that have implications as to whether or not Christ died for him? In other words, could an unsaved person be one of the *many *for whom Christ shed his blood to save?
C
crazzeto
Guest
@SMHW,
At least it is my opinion that Christ did indeed die even for the one(s) who choose not to accept his salivation and are lost. Not died for them in the sense that they’ll be saved anyway and brought to heaven kicking and screaming (obviously this won’t happen, they’ll receive the terrible judgment they choose). Rather, died for them in the sense of giving them the oppertunity of salivation, the oppertunity to accept the hope of salviation in Christ.
One is free, regardless to not accept Christ. Even though he died for you.
At least it is my opinion that Christ did indeed die even for the one(s) who choose not to accept his salivation and are lost. Not died for them in the sense that they’ll be saved anyway and brought to heaven kicking and screaming (obviously this won’t happen, they’ll receive the terrible judgment they choose). Rather, died for them in the sense of giving them the oppertunity of salivation, the oppertunity to accept the hope of salviation in Christ.
One is free, regardless to not accept Christ. Even though he died for you.
That is also my belief. I believe Christ shed his blood FOR ALL.
But I am in favor of using FOR MANY in liturgy because it is a more faithful translation and has biblical roots going back to the Old Testament. (I did not think FOR ALL was a bad thought for thought translation. )
R
roadsend
Guest
It is pretty clear to me that a translation should follow what the original actually says, not what the translator thinks it should have said.
I’m not sure translators necessarily think that text should have said something else when it was written down.
But some English translators think it better that text should be translated into modern word usage rather than using “figures of speech” from the time the Bible was written down. Obviously translators argue over what is a “figure of speech” and what should be taken literally.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is there a single version of the Bible that has “for you and for all”? So why go against Scripture and attribute such poor rhetoric to Christ at the same time? (The “for you” part is superfluous in this translation.)
C
crazzeto
Guest
Hey as a lay person I’ll take whatever the magisterium gives us lol
But I do appriciate having a better/more literal translation of the liturgy. The deeper I go in my faith, the more I want to experience the traditonal faith. Maybe one of these days I’ll find the courage to go to the Latin Mass at the Cathedral.You’ll have to forgive me but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make? Are you suggesting that our up and coming English translation should get rid of “for you”? Or should we get rid of English altogether? Or are you saying that comparisons against the Bible texts are specious? Or something else?
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227:
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used,as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”
The bolding is my emphasis…
God Bless
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used,as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”
The bolding is my emphasis…
God Bless
R
roadsend
Guest
Wow!
Not only sloppy translation, but also sloppy theology.
How could ICEL have screwed up so badly?
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
It is beyond me… But the new theology seems to go along the universal salvation line that many Catholics embrace today.
God Bless
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
“For all” is a bad translation, both literally and “thought for thought”. Even “thought for thought” translations consistently quote our Lord as saying “many”, not “all”, see, for example, the translation of Matthew 26:28 in the Contemporary English Version, the God’s Word Translation, the Good News Bible, or the New Living Translation.
manygift1spirit
New member
Earlier in this thread I asked if the translation “for the many” might be appropriate for pro multis. While I recognize this forum for the type of source it is, the general feel was that it was not. Now in hindsight, I realize independently that my proposal had another problem.
The English expression “the many” is itself idiomatic. This would not likely be translated into any derivative of “many” in another language; rather it would be rendered as something akin to “masses” or (my best guess) something akin to a plural form of the French on. So I recognize that my original question was likely in the negative.
Thanks for all the discussion. I appreciated it.
The English expression “the many” is itself idiomatic. This would not likely be translated into any derivative of “many” in another language; rather it would be rendered as something akin to “masses” or (my best guess) something akin to a plural form of the French on. So I recognize that my original question was likely in the negative.
Thanks for all the discussion. I appreciated it.
- Status