Priest calls translation of "pro multis" to "for many" a "heresy"!
#31
(11-30-2010, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:23 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

We don't have the text that Christ used at the Last Supper in Aramaic, though. All we have is the Greek "περὶ πολλῶν." Having formally studied ancient Greek, I can tell you that πολύς means many, not all. If you don't believe me, you can consult the Liddle and Scott Greek lexicon, a standard among those studying classics today. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polu%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon

You're missing what I'm saying.  The words were for many.  In syriac, for many was a euphemism for for all.  Like a thousand years was a euphemism for forever.

I think you really mean idiom because euphemism means to make something sound better than it is...

You're missing the point that maybe He actually said "for many" and not as the idiom, and that was reflected accurately in the Greek.  When I say "that's sick" I can mean it literally, or I can mean the idiom that "it's interesting and fascinating".  We don't know because we don't have the NT in Aramaic.

Besides that, even if it was the idiom as you claim, it was translated literally.  Don't you think the words of consecration should be literally His words and not some translator's whim?


Reply
#32
(11-30-2010, 07:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent's explanation of the distinction made by the employment of the phrase "pro multis" and the connotation of that phrase as opposed to the connotation of the phrase "for all":

"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 have 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine."

Thanks, INPEFESS. That was what I was referring to.
Reply
#33
(12-01-2010, 04:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:23 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

We don't have the text that Christ used at the Last Supper in Aramaic, though. All we have is the Greek "περὶ πολλῶν." Having formally studied ancient Greek, I can tell you that πολύς means many, not all. If you don't believe me, you can consult the Liddle and Scott Greek lexicon, a standard among those studying classics today. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polu%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon

You're missing what I'm saying.  The words were for many.  In syriac, for many was a euphemism for for all.  Like a thousand years was a euphemism for forever.

I think you really mean idiom because euphemism means to make something sound better than it is...

You're missing the point that maybe He actually said "for many" and not as the idiom, and that was reflected accurately in the Greek.  When I say "that's sick" I can mean it literally, or I can mean the idiom that "it's interesting and fascinating".  We don't know because we don't have the NT in Aramaic.

Besides that, even if it was the idiom as you claim, it was translated literally.  Don't you think the words of consecration should be literally His words and not some translator's whim?

I see your point but there has to be some kind of continuity with cultural usage.  Literal meanings of idiomae(?) Aside (thanks for the correction) by that reasoning we could also interpret Jesus to have been saying we literally need to climb through the eye of a needle before we can enter heaven.  Or, more realistically, maybe the thousand years of revelation really is a thousand year period and chiliasm shouldn't have been condemned.
Reply
#34
(12-01-2010, 08:23 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 04:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:23 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

We don't have the text that Christ used at the Last Supper in Aramaic, though. All we have is the Greek "περὶ πολλῶν." Having formally studied ancient Greek, I can tell you that πολύς means many, not all. If you don't believe me, you can consult the Liddle and Scott Greek lexicon, a standard among those studying classics today. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polu%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon

You're missing what I'm saying.  The words were for many.  In syriac, for many was a euphemism for for all.  Like a thousand years was a euphemism for forever.

I think you really mean idiom because euphemism means to make something sound better than it is...

You're missing the point that maybe He actually said "for many" and not as the idiom, and that was reflected accurately in the Greek.  When I say "that's sick" I can mean it literally, or I can mean the idiom that "it's interesting and fascinating".  We don't know because we don't have the NT in Aramaic.

Besides that, even if it was the idiom as you claim, it was translated literally.  Don't you think the words of consecration should be literally His words and not some translator's whim?

I see your point but there has to be some kind of continuity with cultural usage.  Literal meanings of idiomae(?) Aside (thanks for the correction) by that reasoning we could also interpret Jesus to have been saying we literally need to climb through the eye of a needle before we can enter heaven.  Or, more realistically, maybe the thousand years of revelation really is a thousand year period and chiliasm shouldn't have been condemned.

Or perhaps when Christ said: "This is my body...this is my blood" it was also an idiom who shouldn't haven been translated literally. You see, all interpretations are possible when one abandons the sure guidance of the Church.
Reply
#35
(12-01-2010, 10:26 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 08:23 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 04:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:23 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

We don't have the text that Christ used at the Last Supper in Aramaic, though. All we have is the Greek "περὶ πολλῶν." Having formally studied ancient Greek, I can tell you that πολύς means many, not all. If you don't believe me, you can consult the Liddle and Scott Greek lexicon, a standard among those studying classics today. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polu%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon

You're missing what I'm saying.  The words were for many.  In syriac, for many was a euphemism for for all.  Like a thousand years was a euphemism for forever.

I think you really mean idiom because euphemism means to make something sound better than it is...

You're missing the point that maybe He actually said "for many" and not as the idiom, and that was reflected accurately in the Greek.  When I say "that's sick" I can mean it literally, or I can mean the idiom that "it's interesting and fascinating".  We don't know because we don't have the NT in Aramaic.

Besides that, even if it was the idiom as you claim, it was translated literally.  Don't you think the words of consecration should be literally His words and not some translator's whim?

I see your point but there has to be some kind of continuity with cultural usage.  Literal meanings of idiomae(?) Aside (thanks for the correction) by that reasoning we could also interpret Jesus to have been saying we literally need to climb through the eye of a needle before we can enter heaven.  Or, more realistically, maybe the thousand years of revelation really is a thousand year period and chiliasm shouldn't have been condemned.

Or perhaps when Christ said: "This is my body...this is my blood" it was also an idiom who shouldn't haven been translated literally. You see, all interpretations are possible when one abandons the sure guidance of the Church.

IAWTC
Reply
#36
What if this pastor who think that "for many" is "heretical english" will start to avoid this heresy by avoding Missal translations at all and starting to celebrate in latin ? At least the Canon ?
Reply
#37
(12-01-2010, 07:04 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent's explanation of the distinction made by the employment of the phrase "pro multis" and the connotation of that phrase as opposed to the connotation of the phrase "for all":

"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 have 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine."

Thanks, INPEFESS. That was what I was referring to.

You're welcome. It seems to explain the distinction between the connotations conveyed by the words quite thoroughly.
Reply
#38
(12-01-2010, 01:14 PM)Fortunatus Wrote: What if this pastor who think that "for many" is "heretical english" will start to avoid this heresy by avoding Missal translations at all and starting to celebrate in latin ? At least the Canon ?

:laughing: I doubt he'd do that!
Reply
#39
(11-30-2010, 09:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:23 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

We don't have the text that Christ used at the Last Supper in Aramaic, though. All we have is the Greek "περὶ πολλῶν." Having formally studied ancient Greek, I can tell you that πολύς means many, not all. If you don't believe me, you can consult the Liddle and Scott Greek lexicon, a standard among those studying classics today. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=polu%2Fs&la=greek#lexicon

You're missing what I'm saying.  The words were for many.  In syriac, for many was a euphemism for for all.  Like a thousand years was a euphemism for forever.

No, you're going down the wrong road with your erroneous speculations.  The people (Disciples) who heard the words in Aramaic or Syriac or whatever language it was, and who therefore knew exactly what Jesus was expressing in  the perfect context, and who later, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost Himself, recorded the works in Greek, did NOT write "for all"---they wrote "for many."  Even someone who is not guided by the Holy Ghost knows enough to translate the meanings of expression, like euphemisms or sayings, when a literal translation is contradictory or nonsensical.  There is a saying in Spanish that "hay gato encerrado...", which literally means "there's a cat locked up...."  But do you know what the even means if it is directly translated?  No, because probably the best way to translate that to English is "there's something fishy going on in here..."  Likewise, if you translates "there's something fishy going on here" literally to Spanish, they would have no clue what you were talking about. 

But nevermind all of that, because the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, and so what they recorded on the matter is accurate.  To say that Jesus "really said 'for all'" is to deny the words of the Gospel and to assume that the earliest Christians "didn't really know" that Jesus mean "for all," but you, who happen to know about the euphemisms used by Christ almost 2,000 years ago, do (somehow) know.  Surely, you must know that you are making statements, like declaring "for many was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and it meant "for all"", that you cannot back up and which contradict the inspired words of the Disciples in recording what Jesus did that day.  Also, as this other person points out, he has studied Greek, and the original Greek record the words are "for many."  Not "for all."  I also like the other posters explanation of Jesus' suffering in the garden of olives.
Reply
#40
(11-30-2010, 07:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 12:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: Actually, to translate it as "for all" is correct.  "For many" was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and meant "for all."  The latin translation kept the original wording but the meaning was forgotten.

Here is the Catechism of the Council of Trent's explanation of the distinction made by the employment of the phrase "pro multis" and the connotation of that phrase as opposed to the connotation of the phrase "for all":

"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 have 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine."

There's no arguing with the Roman Catechism, is there?!  :laughing:

;)  [translation: I agree.]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)