The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-18-2010, 01:19 AM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 07:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 06:46 PM)ripmarcel Wrote: If my memory serves, there is only one translation of the Holy Bible that has been proclaimed by the Church to be free of error, and that is the Latin Vulgate.

So, when the error-free Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and the Jewish Old Testament, did St. Jerome correctly translate the errors from the LXX into the Vulgate, or did he correct the errors in the Septuagint before translating?  If he changed the errors, how did he know they were errors to begin with?

Decree of the Council of Trent :

"Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published."

Seems to me, then, that the use of "for all," cannot be attributed in any way to Scripture, and thus is contrary to the "true sense" of that holy book and the "unanimous teaching"  of the fathers of Trent.  To be blunt, I'd say that "for all" was made up from the proverbial thin air.

So, do you have an answer to the question I actually asked?  I wasn't challenging the veracity of the vulgate.  I was simply thinking logically.  The vulgate can only be inerrant if its source, the lxx, is likewise inerrant.  Yet, if Rome is saying that the vulgate is the only inerrant translation, how then did it escape the errors contained in the lxx?

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Melkite - 12-18-2010, 02:18 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)