The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#64
(12-18-2010, 10:38 AM)Melkite Wrote:
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.

Reread what I cited:  "without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint "  In other words, they did not comment directly on the Hebrew or Septuagint, and considering they allowed them to be used still, one can assume they believed there were no errors.

The Jews were apostate, but they knew the Hebrew and scrupulously kept their Scriptures intact - and good Jews still do; they don't monkey with the Word of God.  Their errors are not in their Scriptures, but how they read them.

Another thing to remember is he had multiple sources and could compare them for consensus, etc.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-20-2010, 12:19 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)