Differences in Texts of Douay Rheims Versions

[rocketrob]

Like many on these forums, I enjoy consulting the Douay Rheims version of the bible along with more modern translations. Many passages have come alive for me by doing this.

Originally, I was able to get a nice Baronius Press version which was sold at a reduced rate as having a flaw in the binding or cover (something I’ve never found, by the way). It contains the text from the John Murphy Company 1899 edition under the Imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons.

Some time later, I was able to get the Haydock version with all of the great commentary notes due to a gift certificate. It contains the 1859 edition of the Haydock bible published by Edward Dunigan and Brother.

As I’ve been studying, I’ve noted differences in the text here and there…nothing major, but places where re-wording obviously took place in the 40 years between these two editions.

Obviously, you can’t beat the commentary in the Haydock bible, but I’m wondering if the actual text in either version is considered superior versus the other.

(Or, in other words, would I be giving up anything significant by holding on to my Haydock bible and letting go of my Baronius Press version.)

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[tobinatorstark]

hm. Could give some references in the changes of text? I love the Douay-Rheims. I too have a Baronius Press Douay-Rheims. I do not currently have the Haydock but I often use the Haydock Bible Commentary found online. I don’t know that you would be gaining much or losing much. I have gotten the most out the Douay-Rheims in general. If you feel it in your heart that something in text hinders of what is actually being said and the other doesn’t I would consider using that version over the other. I would like to have the Haydock to go along with the Challoner. I just can’t bring myself to read the NAB, RSV-CE and other modern Bibles since I started reading the Douay-Rheims. I do however like the Confraternity Edition and Ronald Knox Translation. It is nice to know someone is concerned about the text of the translation or translations in general. Today’s NAB in Luke 1:28 omits Blessed are thou among women, whereas the older editions of the NAB had Blessed are thou among women. I feel it is a key in that verse. My Douay-Rheims Challoner has it and I feel comfortable using it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Haydock differs from Challoner in minor ways in the New Testament–if anything in those small number of instances Haydock is closer to the Vulgate and Challoner is closer to the KJV.

To get even closer to the Vulgate get the Confraternity New Testament That way you’ll also get English style that is closer to today’s language.

The Haydock and the Challoner Old Testaments are almost identical–but Haydock spells Sinai while Challoner spells Sini.

Cardinal Neuman wrote about all the small variations of texts in Challoner and Haydock and Troy bibles.

There were many different editions–the differences in texts didn’t amount to much difference theologicaly.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Haydock differs from Challoner in minor ways in the New Testament–if anything in those small number of instances Haydock is closer to the Vulgate and Challoner is closer to the KJV.

To get even closer to the Vulgate get the Confraternity New Testament That way you’ll also get English style that is closer to today’s language.

The Haydock and the Challoner Old Testaments are almost identical–but Haydock spells Sinai while Challoner spells Sini.

 

[Manfred]

To get even closer to the Vulgate get the Confraternity New Testament That way you’ll also get English style that is closer to today’s language.

The Haydock and the Challoner Old Testaments are almost identical–but Haydock spells Sinai while Challoner spells Sini.

Cardinal Neuman wrote about all the small variations of texts in Challoner and Haydock and Troy bibles.

Jerry,

I, for one, do have a couple of problems with the Confraternity NT, and you should know that it was the version from which I heard the Gospels read at Mass in the pre-Vatican II days, and also used in my high school religion classes. But here’s my concern:

In John 2:4, the Vulgate has , "Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?

In the D-R-C, it is rendered literally as, “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?”

But in the Confraternity, it becomes, “Woman, what wouldst thou have me do?”

1 Timothy 6:10 in D-R-C: “For the desire of money is the root of all evils”

In the Confraternity, “Covetousness is the root of all evils”

While arguably the Confraternity in almost all places is easier to read than the Rheims-Challoner, it does stray from being a very literal translation of the Vulgate. And Knox strays even further.

BTW - Challoner renders “Sinai” as “Sina”.

 

[rocketrob]

Haydock differs from Challoner in minor ways in the New Testament–if anything in those small number of instances Haydock is closer to the Vulgate and Challoner is closer to the KJV.

The Haydock bible mentions in its preface that it is modified from the Challoner revision. The Baronius Press version of the John Murphy Company publication does not. Therefore, is the Baronius Press version of the 1899 John Murphy bible the Challoner revision?

hm. Could give some references in the changes of text?

Again, I have not noticed any changes that would necessarily imply a difference in theology. However, here is an example from Matthew 5:21-26:

Baronius Press (John Murphy Company 1899 edition)

21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; 24 Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. 25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

Haydock Bible (1859 edition)

21You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill, shall be liable to the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be liable to the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore, if thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then come and offer thy gift. 25 Agree with thy adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence, till thou pay the last farthing.

rocketrob

 

[Slayer]

You guys might want to check out this site: www.realdouayrheims.com

It talks about how the Challoner and Haydock translations are not true Douay Rheims.

By the way, I just recently posted this in my thread at the traditional forum.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I see no reason why both can’t be read. They are almost identical in textual matters and doctrinal matters.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: Which do you think is more accurate–the Confraternity or the Haydock?

 

[Manfred]

Manfred: Which do you think is more accurate–the Confraternity or the Haydock?

Jerry,

I, too, have read Cardinal Newman’s analysis

(newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html)

of the differences in the various Douay-Rheims editions, and it’s enough to make one’s head spin. Let’s see, there were strictly British editions, some Irish editions, Haydock’s and Henrick’s in the USA, and a few dozen others in between these.

My TAN edition is the 1899 edition with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore. While I can access Haydock’s Commentary online, I can’t do the same for the text itself, so I’m afraid I cannot comment on his edition, which seems to predate the Cardinal Gibbons TAN edition. However,

IF you have access to Haydock’s biblical text,

AND

IF it agrees with the renderings I cited from my Rheims-Challoner for John 2:4 and 1 Timothy 6:10, as opposed to what’s in the Confraternity,

THEN I’d have to say the Haydock is preferable to the Confraternity for its fidelity to the Latin.

But, yes, the Confraternity is still more readable than either Haydock or Henrick.

Thanks for asking.

 

[rocketrob]

Jerry,
But here’s my concern:

In John 2:4, the Vulgate has , "Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?

In the D-R-C, it is rendered literally as, “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?”

But in the Confraternity, it becomes, “Woman, what wouldst thou have me do?”

1 Timothy 6:10 in D-R-C: “For the desire of money is the root of all evils”

In the Confraternity, “Covetousness is the root of all evils”

While arguably the Confraternity in almost all places is easier to read than the Rheims-Challoner, it does stray from being a very literal translation of the Vulgate. And Knox strays even further.

Jerry,

I, too, have read Cardinal Newman’s analysis

(newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html)

of the differences in the various Douay-Rheims editions, and it’s enough to make one’s head spin. Let’s see, there were strictly British editions, some Irish editions, Haydock’s and Henrick’s in the USA, and a few dozen others in between these.

IF you have access to Haydock’s biblical text,

AND

IF it agrees with the renderings I cited from my Rheims-Challoner for John 2:4 and 1 Timothy 6:10, as opposed to what’s in the Confraternity,

THEN I’d have to say the Haydock is preferable to the Confraternity for its fidelity to the Latin.

Manfred,
The Haydock bible has the following:

John 2:4 - “Woman, what is it to me and to thee?”

1 Tim 6:10 - “For covetousness is the root of all evils…”
However, “the love of money” is acknowledged in the commentary notes.

How’s that for being right down the middle of the road?

Thanks for the link to the analysis that was mentioned…I’ll have to check it out.

Can you confirm that the 1899 Gibbons version is the Challoner revision for me? That’s the same text as the Baronius Press edition.

I guess I’m starting to realize that there are more than just language updates between this 1899 edition and the Haydock bible from 1859. I was trying to cut down on the number of bibles I have, but perhaps I shouldn’t be too hasty in giving away my Baronius Press.

rocketrob

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Anyone know if love of money or covetousness is a more literal rendering of the Vulgate?

Anyone know if love of money or covetousness is a more literal rendering of most Greek texts?

 

[rocketrob]

Anyone know if love of money or covetousness is a more literal rendering of the Vulgate?

Anyone know if love of money or covetousness is a more literal rendering of most Greek texts?

The Haydock commentary says that ‘love of money’ is from the Greek:

Ver. 10. The root of all evils is covetousness,[6] or the love of money, as it is in the Greek; a covetous man being ready to sacrifice his soul for money. (Witham)…

 

[Manfred]

Manfred,
Can you confirm that the 1899 Gibbons version is the Challoner revision for me? That’s the same text as the Baronius Press edition.

I guess I’m starting to realize that there are more than just language updates between this 1899 edition and the Haydock bible from 1859. I was trying to cut down on the number of bibles I have, but perhaps I shouldn’t be too hasty in giving away my Baronius Press.

rocketrob

Rob,

I would surmise from Newman’s article that an edition of the Douay-Rheims from 1752 onward that has any of Challoner’s revisions is a Challoner edition. In other words, I don’t see how there can ever be one, uh, “standard” Challoner edition. In fact, it’s still not crystal-clear to me whether the 1899 Gibbons edition includes the updates of Abp. Kenrick circa 1859.

Others could perhaps verify whether your Baronius Press and my TAN editions are that of the 1899 Gibbons.

Apparently, tracking the various editions of the RSV is simpler than trying to ascertain which Douay-Rheims-Challoner is which!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Like many on these forums, I enjoy consulting the Douay Rheims version of the bible along with more modern translations. Many passages have come alive for me by doing this.

Originally, I was able to get a nice Baronius Press version which was sold at a reduced rate as having a flaw in the binding or cover (something I’ve never found, by the way). It contains the text from the John Murphy Company 1899 edition under the Imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons.

Some time later, I was able to get the Haydock version with all of the great commentary notes due to a gift certificate. It contains the 1859 edition of the Haydock bible published by Edward Dunigan and Brother.

As I’ve been studying, I’ve noted differences in the text here and there…nothing major, but places where re-wording obviously took place in the 40 years between these two editions.

Obviously, you can’t beat the commentary in the Haydock bible, but I’m wondering if the actual text in either version is considered superior versus the other.

(Or, in other words, would I be giving up anything significant by holding on to my Haydock bible and letting go of my Baronius Press version.)

Sincerely,
rocketrob

It isn’t the D-R - it is related to it; but it is also* related to* the Vulgate: & nobody would call it that.​

The Haydock Bible people on CAF know of is an edition of the Haydock Bible of 1812-14, which was printed in Manchester, & is an edition of the Challoner revision of the D-R. The 1812 Haydock has thousands of notes.

The text of the Challoner Bible came to the US in two textual traditions: an English, & an Irish. To confuse things, readings found in one can also be found the other: they intermingled at some point, which from what I’ve read on the matter makes disentangling the two very difficult.

There are also the Challoner Bibles of the English CTS, in tiny print; & the reprints (not very good ones; they are very indistinctly printed at times) of the 1899 USA edition approved by Cardinal Gibbons. In England & Wales the Challoner Bible, or parts of it, was allowed for use in prayer-books, yet there seems not to have been a single standard edition of the text.

 

[jblake]

Anyone know if love of money or covetousness is a more literal rendering of the Vulgate?

(1Ti 6:10 NAB-A) For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

(1Ti 6:10 NA26) ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία, ἧς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς.

(1Ti 6:10 Lamsa NT) For the love of money is the root of all evil: and there are some men who have coveted it and have thereby erred from the faith, they have brought to themselves many sorrows.

(1Ti 6:10 MAS+ (CrossWalk)) For the loveG5365 of moneyG5365 is a rootG4491 of allG3956 sorts of evilG2556 , and someG5100 by longingG3713 for it have wanderedG635 awayG635 from the faithG4102 and piercedG4044 themselvesG1438 with manyG4183 griefsG3601 .

(1Ti 6:10 Translit) riza gar panton ton kakon estin e filarguria, os tines oregomenoi apeplanethesan apo tos pisteos kai eautous periepeiran odunais pollais.

(1Ti 6:10 AOV) Want die geldgierigheid is ‘n wortel van alle euwels; en omdat sommige dit begeer, het hulle afgedwaal van die geloof en hulleself met baie smarte deurboor.

(1Ti 6:10 Peshitta) ܥܩܪܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܟܘܠܗܝܢ ܒܝܫܬܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܪܚܡܬ ܟܤܦܐ ܘܐܝܬ ܐܢܫܐ ܕܐܬܪܓܪܓܘ ܠܗ ܘܡܢ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܛܥܘ ܘܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܐܥܠܘ ܠܕܐܘܢܐ ܤܓܝܐܐ ܀

(1Ti 6:10 Peshita X) EQRA DYN DKWLHYN BY$TA AYTYH RXMT KSPA WAYT AN$A DATRGRGW LH WMN HYMNWTA JEW WNP$HWN AELW LDAWNA SGYAA ;

1Ti 6:10 LZhZhs) 因为贪财即是万恶之根；有人一心要贪财，就受迷离背了信仰，拿许多伤痛刺透了自己。

(1Ti 6:10 Complete Apostles’ Bible) For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which some by aspiring have strayed away from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

(1Ti 6:10 Sahidic C NT ) ΤΝΟΥΝΕ ΓΑΡ ΜΠΕΘΟΟΥ ΝΙΜ ΤΕ ΤΜΝΤΜΑΙϨΟΜΝΤ ΤΑΙ ΕΤΕΡΕ ϨΟΙΝΕ ΜΕ ΜΜΟС ΑΥΠΛΑΝΑ ΕΒΟΛ ϨΝ ΤΠΙСΤΙС. ΑΥШ ΑΥΤΑΑΥ ΕϨΡΑΙ ΕϨΕΝϢСΝϨΗΤ ΕΝΑϢШΟΥ.

(1Ti 6:10 NS-T) tnoune gar mpeqoou nim te tmntmaiHomnt tai etere Hoine me mmos auplana ebol Hn tpistis. auw autaau eHrai eHenSsnHht enaSwou.

(1Ti 6:10 G-EOB1904) A.Tim-6-11 Su de/, w)= a)/nqrwpe tou= Qeou=, tau=ta feu=ge: di/wke de dikaiosu/nhn, eu)se/beian, pi/stin, a)ga/phn, u(pomonh/n, pr#o/thta.

(1Ti 6:10 Esperanto D-2) ?ar la amo al mono estas radiko de ?ia malbono; celante al tio, kelkaj forvagis de la fido kaj sin trapikis per multaj mal?ojoj.

(1Ti 6:10 Jer (F)) Car la racine de tous les maux, c’est l’amour de l’argent. Pour s’y être livrés, certains se sont égarés loin de la foi et se sont transpercé l’âme de tourments sans nombre.

(1Ti 6:10 GNT-WH+) ριζαG4491 N-NSF γαρG1063 CONJ παντωνG3956 A-GPN τωνG3588 T-GPN κακωνG2556 A-GPN εστινG2076 V-PXI-3S ηG3588 T-NSF φιλαργυριαG5365 N-NSF ηςG3739 R-GSF τινεςG5100 X-NPM ορεγομενοιG3713 V-PMP-NPM απεπλανηθησανG635 V-API-3P αποG575 PREP τηςG3588 T-GSF πιστεωςG4102 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ εαυτουςG1438 F-3APM περιεπειρανG4044 V-AAI-3P οδυναιςG3601 N-DPF πολλαιςG4183

(1Ti 6:10 G-NT-TR (Steph)+) ριζα the root 4491 N-NSF γαρ For 1063 CONJ παντων of all 3956 A-GPN των the 3588 T-GPN κακων evil 2556 A-GPN εστιν is 2076 V-PXI-3S η the 3588 T-NSF φιλαργυρια love of money 5365 N-NSF ης which 3739 R-GSF τινες while some 5100 X-NPM ορεγομενοι coveted after 3713 V-PMP-NPM απεπλανηθησαν they have erred 635 V-API-3P απο from 575 PREP της 3588 T-GSF πιστεως faith 4102 N-GSF και and 2532 CONJ εαυτους 1438 F-3APM περιεπειραν pierced themselves through 4044 V-AAI-3P οδυναις sorrows 3601 N-DPF πολλαις with many. 4183 A-DPF

(1Ti 6:10 TGNT+) ῥίζα 4491 [N-NSF ] γὰρ 1063 [CONJ ] πάντων 3956 [A-GPN ] τῶν 3588 [T-GPN ] κακῶν 2556 [A-GPN ] ἐστιν 1510 [V-PAI-3S ] ἡ 3588 [T-NSF ] φιλαργυρία, 5365 [N-NSF ] ἧς 3739 [R-GSF ] τινες 5100 [X-NPM ] ὀρεγόμενοι 3713 [V-PMP-NPM ] ἀπεπλανήθησαν 635 [V-API-3P ] ἀπὸ 575 [PREP ] τῆς 3588 [T-GSF ] πίστεως 4102 [N-GSF ] καὶ 2532 [CONJ ] ἑαυτοὺς 1438 [F-3APM ] περιέπειραν 4044 [V-AAI-3P ] ὀδύναις 3601 [N-DPF ] πολλαῖς. 4183 [A-DPF ]

(1Ti 6:10 WulfilaGothic) [A] waurts allaize ubilaize ist faihugeiro, þizozei sumai gairnjandans afairzidai waurþun af galaubeinai jas~sik silbans gaþiwaidedun sairam managaim.

** waurts allaize ubilaize ist faihugei_o, þizozei sumai gairnjandans afairzidai waurþun af galaubeinai jah sik silbans gaþiwaidedun sairam managaim.

(1Ti 6:10 IntEspWH+) ριζα G4491:N-NSF raiz γαρ G1063:CONJ porque παντων G3956:A-GPN de todas των G3588:T-GPN las κακων G2556:A-GPN malas (cosas) εστιν G1510:V-PAI-3S es η G3588:T-NSF el φιλαργυρια G5365:N-NSF cariño a (la) plata ης G3739:R-GSF de cual τινες G5100:X-NPM algunos ορεγομενοι G3713:V-PMP-NPM extendiéndose hacia adelante απεπλανηθησαν G635:V-API-3P fueron inducidos a error απο G575REP desde της G3588:T-GSF la πιστεως G4102:N-GSF confianza και G2532:CONJ y εαυτους G1438:F-3APM a sí mismos περιεπειραν G4044:V-AAI-3P agujerearon alrededor οδυναις G3601:N-DPF a dolores πολλαις G4183:A-DPF muchos

(xhosa: 10) Kuba ukuthanda imali yingcambu yeento zonke ezimbi: abathe abathile, ngokuzolulela kuko, balahlekana nokholo, bazibhodloza ngobuhlungu obuninzi

Vulgate: 10 in operibus bonis testimonium habens si filios educavit si hospitio recepit si sanctorum pedes lavit si tribulationem patientibus subministravit si omne opus bonum subsecuta est

Looks like money is the dominant translation/word used.

xan

jonathon**

 

[SFH]

Like many on these forums, I enjoy consulting the Douay Rheims version of the bible along with more modern translations. Many passages have come alive for me by doing this.

Originally, I was able to get a nice Baronius Press version which was sold at a reduced rate as having a flaw in the binding or cover (something I’ve never found, by the way). It contains the text from the John Murphy Company 1899 edition under the Imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons.

Some time later, I was able to get the Haydock version with all of the great commentary notes due to a gift certificate. It contains the 1859 edition of the Haydock bible published by Edward Dunigan and Brother.

As I’ve been studying, I’ve noted differences in the text here and there…nothing major, but places where re-wording obviously took place in the 40 years between these two editions.

Obviously, you can’t beat the commentary in the Haydock bible, but I’m wondering if the actual text in either version is considered superior versus the other.

(Or, in other words, would I be giving up anything significant by holding on to my Haydock bible and letting go of my Baronius Press version.)

Sincerely,
rocketrob

In my humble opinion, the Haydock is clearly the better edition – compare the Gloria in excelsis in St. Luke’s Gospel. I prefer “host” over “army.”