CCF #6

[post]

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." [Matthew 26:27-28, NAB]

It is difficult to see how the Fathers at Trent could have thought 'that Jesus, in using the word "many", was speaking not of those for whom he shed his blood.' Reading the passage from the Roman Catechism quoted by BillMc, it does not seem that that is what the Fathers are saying; rather, they are saying that in one sense Jesus shed His blood for all men, and in another sense He shed His Blood merely for many, and it is in that latter sense that He was speaking at the Last Supper. I am glad we can agree that there's no argument about the meaning of the Latin pro multis; the argument appears to be over whether pro multis belongs in the Latin Mass.

When you say

Giving effect to the meaning of the words may not give best effect to the meaning that those original words were meant to convey.

do you mean the original words of the Mass, or the original words spoken by Jesus at the last supper? I do not believe there is a conflict, but some might. If one believed there was such a discrepancy, then there would be some justification in restoring the actual words of Christ, but then it wouldn't be so much a matter of translating the Mass as of fixing it.

It does seem astonishing that someone would be foolish enough to publicly allege that Aramaic lacks a word to mean "all", but Professor Joachim Jeremias, on page 179 of his book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus wrote:

While ‘many’ in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to ‘all’, and therefore has the exclusive sense (‘many, but not all’), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (‘the whole, comprising many individuals’). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for ‘all’.

Read that last sentence again. It is hard to believe a well-respected scholar could write such a thing, but Dr. Jeremias did.

Still more remarkably, the year after Dr. Jeremias's book was published (1967), the ICEL published a booklet referencing his work. On pages 34-5 of “The Roman Canon in English Translation”, one finds:

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for ‘all’. The word rabbim or ‘multitude’ 'thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense i.e. ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’. Cf. J. Jerermias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus

It appears that it is the claims of Professor Jeremias that provided the foundation for the change from "for many" to "for all".

I looked up the verses in Isaiah 53 you mentioned; we have the same problem here as in Matthew and Mark. It is far from clear that rabbim in verses 11 and 12 should be taken to mean "all", and, in fact, it is consistently translated as "many" in all versions of the Bible that I have checked. A web page mentioned earlier, http://www.familybible.org/Glossary/Q-R.htm, provides a definition for rabbim: "many". Note: not "all", not even with the qualifier "who are many".

You mentioned the Greek phrase oi polloi, "the many", and I agree, it can suggest people in general. Your ealier post and another by theresepio cite passages in Romans 5 where there "the many" appears twice. I think we can agree in both verses, the first instances of "the many" imply people in general. I have my doubts about the meaning of the second instance of "the many" in each verse. But even if every time the phrase "the many" appeared in the Bible, it meant everyone, that would still have no bearing on the meaning of Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where the phrase "the many" does not appear. Those verses only have the word "many", without the definite article in front.

If there is an ambiguity in the meaning of saggi'in, both Matthew and Mark chose to use simply the word "many" by itself, rather than "the many", which could have implied everyone. As Philip Goddard writes in his excellent article:

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks No, I don't think that passage from Matthew answers the question. If we understand the "for many" as indicating that Jesus did not shed his blood for the goats, but only for the sheep, then we may be led to believe (as someone has implied elsewhere on this thread) that Christ's sacrifice is not offered to all, but only to those who are already saved. And this clearly contradicts the orthodox and scriptural belief that Jesus died for all. The fathers at Trent were concerned to address this paradox. They said that Jesus, in using the word "many", was speaking not of those for whom he shed his blood, but of those who would be materially helped by it (i.e. those that did not reject his grace). This to my mind rules out any specious distinction between the "all" for whom Jesus died, and the "many" for whom Jesus shed his precious blood. I respect this point of view, but regard it as an over-simplification of the task of liturgical language. Giving effect to the meaning of the words may not give best effect to the meaning that those original words were meant to convey. I may, but I don't. Further back in this same thread I referred to a passage in Isaiah 53 (see 3 October) which has been cited by scholars as being part of the evidence, now it seems gaining wide acceptance, that the use of "many" to mean "all" was a common semitic idiom. (This is the first time I have ever heard the allegation that Aramaic lacked a word to mean "all". This seems so basic a mistake that I wonder that anyone would be foolish enough to make it in public, knowing for sure that one would instantly lose credibility the moment the mistake was pointed out.) The existence of this semitic idiom makes it unsafe to hold that semitic speakers, using the word "many", necessarily intend to exclude the sense "all". Importantly, the Hebrew rabbim is held to mean "the all - who are many". There is no word in English, Latin or Greek that does this justice, although "polloi" does come close, owing to the meaning of the phrase "hoi polloi" with the definite article. The point is that in English, "many" and "all" are opposed, whereas this is not true of Hebrew. The very fact that this thread seems to be making so much of the distinction is itself abundant testimony to this opposition. So we have, it seems to me, two significant facts. First, the fathers at Trent acknowledged that there was an unacceptable interpretation of the words "for many". They made it explicit that although Jesus did in fact die for all, in the words of institution he was speaking of the fruits of the passion. In making this explanation, they were admitting that the words "for many" could be misunderstood. Second, recent scholarship has established that in semitic idiom, words meaning "many" do not contradict "all" in the way that they do in some modern languages, including English. This scholarship was not available to the fathers at Trent. Therefore, it may be that Jesus was not in fact speaking at all of the "fruits of the passion", but rather that he was speaking about the atonement tout court, using a common semitic idiom. In the circumstances, the Church is perfectly within its rights to authorize a translation that gives effect to what Jesus actually said, and which gives less ground for the misunderstanding that Jesus died (or shed his blood) not for all men, but only for the elect.