The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#34
(12-18-2010, 07:43 AM)QuisUtDeus 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?

It is free of doctrinal error, not translation errors.  He corrected errors mainly in the Old Latin, which was the Latin version of Scripture before the Vulgate.  The Old Latin, for example, didn't translate directly from the Hebrew for the OT.

He knew of errors based on scholarship, living in the Holy Lands, talking to Rabbis, etc.

CE has a good article on versions of the Bible and a few paragraphs on the Vulgate:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Quote:Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals.

Ok, so was trent saying that the vulgate was error free and just remained silent on the septuagint and hebrew version, or was it saying that the vulgate alone contains no theological errors?  If the latter, how would St. Jerome have kept theological errors out, even with having studied in the holy land, since at the time the jews were already apostate?  I still don't understand how he could have made a theologically error free translation without having a theologically error free source to translate from.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Melkite - 12-18-2010, 10:38 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)