www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Revision of Novus Ordo in America

Non-catholic Bible??? It's Orthodox published for goodness sake! Like it would be polemic with that phrase?

David, Christ is Risen!

Your reference above I guess would have to again decide on whose translation you are refering to. In most of the Orthodox translations into English of the Divine Liturgy (and for that matter most other services) the line is "Peace be unto all".

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+
(who generally stays away from discussions regarding translations of liturgical texts)

In my Byzantine Catholic parish, it's "Peace be to all".

Dear Father Anthony,

I believe these words ('all' and 'many') are
being debated in the context of: "this is the cup of my blood, which will be shed for you and for ALL"...

Regards,
Alice

Dear Alice, Christ is Risen!

I stand corrected.

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+
(Now you know why I do not participate in discussions on liturgical text translations)

Just one more thing I'd like to add to this "pro multi/for many/all" debate.

The usual argument is that the words "for all" are an incorrect translation because before the Novus Ordo, the words were translated "for many". They're referring to the English translation which was available in the Missals.

However - those Missals were for private use. They were not official liturgical translations. The translation "for many" was never the "official" translation, because the Mass was never "officially" translated into English.

Once the Mass was translated into English - officially - the Church made the decision to use the phrase "for all". So "for all" is the only official Church translation of the Latin words "pro multis".

While it might be true that for many is a correct translation of the text. There is the implication that all is implied. As my Bishop who was a scripture scholar maintained. And who btw always said for many when he said Mass in English. However,Christ died for "all" not for the "many", as the Calvinist error maintains!
Stephanos I

"Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all" from the Byzantine Liturgy.
Stephanos I

Dear Stephanos - that phrase centers around a verbal, which should be translated "offering", not "we offer".

The discussion regarding "for all" in the Institution Narrative concerns the accurate translation of the Latin "pro vobis et pro multis", which in turn is a translation of the Greek το υπερ ημων, και πολλων (my apologies for the lack of the diacritical marks; the e-mail program is not perfect). Latin-English dictionaries will confirm that "pro multis" means "for [the] many"; Greek-English dictionaries (and there is an unabrdiged Liddel and Scott right over my head, like the sword of Damocles, ready to brain me if I misquote it) will confirm that το υπερ ημων, και πολλων means "for you and for many". It is not a question of "what translation is official", but a question of "what translation is accurate" - and the answer to that question does not depend on any ecclesiastical "magisterium".

As to the red herring of "Peace unto all"; in that context this refers to all those who are assembled at that particular celebration - certainly including sinners (being a sinner who is accustomed to go to the Liturgy, I can hardly deny that!). But then, no one is denying that the Lord Jesus Christ shed His Precious Blood on the Cross for sinners.

Peace, y'all!

Incognitus

Of course "many" is the literal translation. Theologically and historically it does not make sense, in that Christ shed his blood for all, but ecclisiastically it does, sacramentally, Eucharistically it does in that only those in communion may drink from the cup.

What of the notation in the Orthodox bibile that there is a Semitic habit of language where "many" is linguistic metaphor for "all"? So that the literal Greek or Latin may not need to be read so literally after all and for all time?

Jerome does have something of reputation for making those kinds of literal translation decisions without benefit of notation, figuring that there were still enough people living who would know the meaning and be able to explain it.

Now please don't everyone pounce on me. I have no axe to grind here. I happen to be content to use either, both or none in the liturgy since I have some grasp of the theology and ecclisiology for either and both, y'all see what I mean don't you?

My question is -if- those who translated from original texts used the literal translation of a metaphor, what is to demand that in the 21st century we must make the same literal translation without even a footnote, which might be a good thing given the weight of this issue in some minds?

And frankly, given what we know now of Cajetan's propensity for twisting words and meanings in Aquinas, I doubt that I am commanded to agree that every word or thought in the acta of Trent that passed his muster is without flaw.

Eli

in defense of Alice: just because it is an Orthodox approved translation does not mean that it is necessarily invalid to cite it. what I mena is that we must go to the language Jesus used. he did not use Latin, English, or anything like that. He used Aramaic, a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, and if "many" is synonomous with "all", then so be it. of course, there is a question of paralells: if "all" is used elsewhere in the Prayer of Consecration, then it follows that "all" should be used, and the case with "many" is also to be remembered. the only record I have of what Jesus said is in my Greek NT, and unfortunately, I do not have that at hand to check. but even then Aramiac to Greek or any language to another language always has its problem of something getting lost.
Much Love,
Jonn

We do not have whatever the Lord Jesus Christ may have said in Aramaic at the Last Supper. Hence an attempt to reconstruct that text is, at best, an attempt. It was only in the 20th century that Joachim Jeremias advanced the hypothesis that in Aramaic "for many" means "for all" - and there are people who know Syro-Aramaic who are prepared to dispute it.

In any event, what we DO have is the Greek text of Matthew 26:28 which clearly reads το περι πολλων εκχυνομενον (again, my apologies for the lack of diacritical marks). And, as people have been clamourously pointing out for several decades, we also have the text of the Latin Mass, which clearly reads "pro vobis et pro multis effundetur".

It is the proper task of the translator to translate what is there, not to hypothesize what ought to be there. The latter task is for the commentator.

Incognitus

...and a wise man you are Father!! I think that I shall follow suit!

Regards,
Alice

Dear Alice,

Please don't do that! Why the very point that you offered led to a name in the 20th century who offered the explanation that is current in your Orthodox study bible, which is an excellent study bible, by the way.

So now we have another bit of information and the concession that it is the translators job to translate and the commentators job to comment.

That certainly does not rule out the use of "all" as an approved translation. Why? Because the translators "job" is often full of all kinds of decision points based upon timing, intent of the original author, context then, context now, intended audience, and so forth. So the translator often has to turn to the commentator to see what is what.

So far, what is what here is indeterminate and must be made by agreement as to what best expresses that liturgical moment and the message that the Church wants to offer to the people at that very moment. "Many" may best express the liturgical moment and "all" might be the message that is best for the people. How does one then choose? It appears the Church has chosen and thus the decision was a magisterial decision and not one of direct and literal translation.

I love this stuff. As long as it does not provoke schism for that is objectively sinful.

Eli

Fr Anthony,

I was only speaking of the Words of Instution, there the Divine Liturgy uses "for many" while the Roman Mass uses "for all".


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelites pre-novice