Rejoinder on Pro Multis

A reader of this blog e-mailed me a response to the arguments which I posted on behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" in the new English Missal. I did not really understand what the other blogger was trying to say but it seems it ended with an "ad hominem" argument which sort of discredits the validity of what I quoted simply because of the prestige of Fr. Chupungco.

I will not go down to that level. Rather, I would bring out the following more objective arguments in behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" to "for many."

Allow me to quote Matthew 26:28: "for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins." Next is the translation of Mark 14:24: "and he said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many.'" Where did I get these translations? I got them from the "New Testament Confraternity Version: a Revision of the Challoner-Rheims version edited by Catholic Scholars under the patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine".

The New American Bible, which is the Scriptural source of the English Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." The same New American Bible has this translation of Mark 14:24: "He said to them, 'This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many.'"

The Magandang Balita Bibliya, which is the Scriptural source of the Tagalog Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "Sapagkat ito ang dugo ng tipan, ang aking dugo na mabubuhos dahil sa marami, sa ikapagpapatawad ng mga kasalanan." The same Magandang Balita Bibliya has this translation of Mark 14:24: "Sinabi niya, 'Ito ang aking dugo ng tipan, ang dugong mabubuhos dahil sa marami.'"

These are new translations which, surprisingly, translated "pro multis" to "in behalf of many" and "dahil sa marami." My question is: why did these Scripture scholars insist on translating "pro multis" to "in behalf of many"?

To insist on the argument that it is preferable to translate "pro multis" to "for all" simply because a prestigious liturgist like Fr. Chupungco has spoken is simply an "ad hominem" argument. If Fr. Chupungco is an authority in liturgical matters, I suppose we should also acknowledge the expertise of the bible translators in the field of Scriptural studies. If the basis of the "Institution Narrative" is the Holy Writ, why should the translation in the missal be different from the translation in the Scripture?

I find it very uncomfortable that when I celebrate the Mass of Corpus Christi during the Year B cycle, I read the gospel according to St. Mark which says "in behalf of many" only to say it differently at the institution narrative as "for all." I say two different things in the same celebration of the Mass!!!

I do not mean to be disrespectful to my teacher Fr. Chupungco but even in spite of his prestige, I still beg to differ. I hope that Fr. Chupungco does not get mad at me. He should be proud of me instead because he knows that I don't easily accept things that he said. At least, he knows that I am using my grey matter...I am thinking!