Daniel 9:26 Douay Rheims

[Weareyoung]

The Douay Rheims bible reads this for Daniel 9:26

And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation.

Why can’t I find the clause “and the people that shall deny him shall not be his” in any other translation I’ve looked at?

New International version:

After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

King James Version

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

English Standard Version

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

New American Bible

After the sixty-two weeks an anointed one* shall be cut downwith no one to help him. And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
His end shall come in a flood; until the end of the war, which is decreed, there will be desolation.

Revised Standard Version

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[a] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I will look it up later but my first guess is that it is a Septuagint reading, Theodotian was the version that the Church basically adopted.

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and it is well know in Biblical scholar circles that some of the Latin text manuscripts **St. Jerome **used in his translation are no longer in existence.

Always keep in mind that the Latin Vulgate Bible is the Catholic Church’s Official Bible . . . none of other translations mentioned in the original post came along until centuries after St. Jerome’s work and the Douay Rheims English translation . . .

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . .

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[Timothysis]

Many hold the Douay Rheims version of the Bible to be immaculate but it is far from that. If that many texts are in conflict with the DR version, then I suspect that it is the DR that is less than accurate.

 

[sousley]

I will look it up later but my first guess is that it is a Septuagint reading, Theodotian was the version that the Church basically adopted.

This. St. Jerome’s commentary on Daniel says that this clause is not found in the Hebrew.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Daniels 70 weeks. Welcome to the most botched up section of of text translated in the Old Testament. Why? Because …

1. 
   *]… the Jews wanted to obfuscate the count down to Christ.
   *]… the Church wanted to poke the Jews in the eye.
   *]… end time ‘prophets’ wanted it to say more than it did.
   *]… theologians didn’t comprehend the magnitude of the atonement. (v. 24)
   
   Puleeese somebody, give us a decent translation of Daniel 9:24-27. :bible1:

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This. St. Jerome’s commentary on Daniel says that this clause is not found in the Hebrew.

I don’t see it in the Septuagint either.

 

[sousley]

I don’t see it in the Septuagint either.

My understanding is Theodotian. A footnote in my Jerome’s commentary on Titus says Theodotian’s translation is essentially a revision of the LXX, harmonized with the Hebrew text. His version was written during the reign of Commondus (180-192) and occupied the 6th column of Origen’s* Hexpla*.

 

[Todd977]

In my A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, on page 638, refers to phrase, “and the people that shall deny him shall not be his,” in Daniel 9:26 as “a paraphrase of a two-word elliptical and obscure Hebrew phrase which literally means, ‘and shall have naught.’”

 

[sousley]

In my A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, on page 638, refers to phrase, “and the people that shall deny him shall not be his,” in Daniel 9:26 as “a paraphrase of a two-word elliptical and obscure Hebrew phrase which literally means, ‘and shall have naught.’”

Thanks, that’s helpful.

 

[COPLAND_3]

According to Haydock it appears to be a variant reading found among some of the Vulgate manuscripts. I don’t have a critical edition of the Septuagint but I imagine that the same is the case among Septuagint manuscripts.