Different Douay-Rheims Bibles and their revisions

[Tous_Logous]

I recently purchased a Douay Rheims Bible from a secondhand store and I am wondering about the differences between the different Douay versions.

Both of the Douay Bibles I have were printed in the 50’s by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Both are described as a “New Catholic” version/edition.

The first Douay Bible I have claims the following: That the first 8 books of the OT have a new translation, and the Psalms have a new translation from the New Latin Version (Bible?). The NT is a revision of the Challoner-Rheims version.

The second Douay Bible I bought from the secondhand store claims the following: The OT is the first version translated at Douay in 1609. The NT is a revision of the Challoner-Rheims version. (I’m curious too, because the individual Psalms in this version have Latin titles)

I’m assuming that the NT is the same for both of these Bibles. The second Bible’s OT appears to have more archaic-sounding English and odd syntax (In Genesis I already see Genesis 1:3 as “Be light made” instead of “Let there be light”), so I can see this being the original translation from 1609.

I guess the question is, why so many different revisions of this particular translation? I find it odd that the OT is roughly kept the same as it was for 4 centuries, but the NT was (at the time) updated to modern scholarship. And even then, Bishop Challoner revised it in the 18th century. But why do these Douay Bibles include so many different revisions, and even then you only have the NT updated, but not so much the OT?

I’m also wondering why the first 8 books of the OT were revised, but never getting a full revision of the OT? Also, why does one part of the Bible include the Challoner revision but the OT doesn’t?

I would just think that if you want to do a revision of the Douay Rheims Bible, why not do a full revision or even an entirely new English translation from the Latin text (with no use of archaic-sounding English)?

 

[COPLAND_3]

My guess is that new Bible manuscripts and a surge in manuscript discoveries probably played a huge part. The demand for an English translation of the Vulgate or even a revision of the DR became less as textual criticism and critical texts became the standard. In my opinion I think the abandonment of the DR and continuous revisions is so unfortunate. I would absolutely be thrilled if there was a newly revised version of the DR. I attempted it but its something that needs a team of likeminded people fully devoted to the project.

As for all the partial revisions are probably because as they worked on revising they probably saw the demand for it dwindle as the demand for and the growing field of textual criticism grow so much that they probably just quit.

 

[COPLAND_3]

By the way, when doing such a work on that level, professionals are needed and that takes money, which requires payroll. All these things are considered when weighing out the risks because it also has to be something that a publisher would be willing to commit to. And that would be hard to do when those publishers have all these versions based upon critical texts. YOu and I can see the value of a revised DR, but unfortunatley publishers don’t.

 

[Rivers23]

I have a PDF document of the original DR Bible from the 16th century. I don’t know, it’s said that it’s the most literal translation of the Latin vulgate so I decided to read it. I’m generally reserved about the countless revisions.

 

[MichaelBtucs]

I have one of the most currently published Douay-Rheims version; Published 2009 by the St. Benedict’s Press, as it is a re-type setted from the original, as in modern re-type setting tools, but language not changed, and it is easier to read today, I can read and understand most of the Douay-Rheims more than I can the Catholic NAB revised edition of the Bible. I still use both Bibles for cross-referencing.

 

[CalCatholic]

I recently purchased a Douay Rheims Bible from a secondhand store and I am wondering about the differences between the different Douay versions.

Both of the Douay Bibles I have were printed in the 50’s by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Both are described as a “New Catholic” version/edition.

The first Douay Bible I have claims the following: That the first 8 books of the OT have a new translation, and the Psalms have a new translation from the New Latin Version (Bible?). The NT is a revision of the Challoner-Rheims version.

The second Douay Bible I bought from the secondhand store claims the following: The OT is the first version translated at Douay in 1609. The NT is a revision of the Challoner-Rheims version. (I’m curious too, because the individual Psalms in this version have Latin titles)

I’m assuming that the NT is the same for both of these Bibles. The second Bible’s OT appears to have more archaic-sounding English and odd syntax (In Genesis I already see Genesis 1:3 as “Be light made” instead of “Let there be light”), so I can see this being the original translation from 1609.

I guess the question is, why so many different revisions of this particular translation? I find it odd that the OT is roughly kept the same as it was for 4 centuries, but the NT was (at the time) updated to modern scholarship. And even then, Bishop Challoner revised it in the 18th century. But why do these Douay Bibles include so many different revisions, and even then you only have the NT updated, but not so much the OT?

I’m also wondering why the first 8 books of the OT were revised, but never getting a full revision of the OT? Also, why does one part of the Bible include the Challoner revision but the OT doesn’t?

I would just think that if you want to do a revision of the Douay Rheims Bible, why not do a full revision or even an entirely new English translation from the Latin text (with no use of archaic-sounding English)?

What you have is called the ‘Douay-Confraternity version’. This was a transition that started in the 1940’s (I believe?) and continued until the late 1960’s and then the project was dropped before 1970, when the first version of the NAB was published.

I have three versions of this Bible; a 1950 Family Bible which has the Douay OT, the Psalms that were used in the 1970 NAB (and currently still used in the Liturgy) and the Confraternity NT, second is a 1953 Bible that has the first eight books of the OT in the Confraternity version and the remainder in the Douay version and the Psalms that were translated from the Latin (approved by Pius XII) and the Confraternity NT. The third (also 1953) is the same as the second but it has the Confraternity Psalms (used in the 1970 NAB). It’s confusing!

 

[po18guy]

What you have is called the ‘Douay-Confraternity version’. This was a transition that started in the 1940’s (I believe?) and continued until the late 1960’s and then the project was dropped before 1970, when the first version of the NAB was published.

I have three versions of this Bible; a 1950 Family Bible which has the Douay OT, the Psalms that were used in the 1970 NAB (and currently still used in the Liturgy) and the Confraternity NT, second is a 1953 Bible that has the first eight books of the OT in the Confraternity version and the remainder in the Douay version and the Psalms that were translated from the Latin (approved by Pius XII) and the Confraternity NT. The third (also 1953) is the same as the second but it has the Confraternity Psalms (used in the 1970 NAB). It’s confusing!

Yes! The Confraternity bible is by far my favorite. It was a work in progress from 1941-1969, but was essentially killed off when the NAB was adopted. A terrible shame, as it has a superior NT and the OT ended up being very similar to what the NAB used.

However, and this is huge: the book introductions and footnotes are solid and confidence-inspiring - not at all like the modernism that crept into the NAB. In the confraternity NT, for example, Mary is still “full of grace”, her soul still “magnifies the Lord”, Paul still forgave sins “in the person of Christ” and the word “hell” actually appears several times in it. None of this may be said for either the NAB or the NAB/RE.

I for one, would be delighted if the Confraternity were re-printed in its finished form (the NT is available from Scepter Publishers in pocket size).

 

[po18guy]

I have one of the most currently published Douay-Rheims version; Published 2009 by the St. Benedict’s Press, as it is a re-type setted from the original, as in modern re-type setting tools, but language not changed, and it is easier to read today, I can read and understand most of the Douay-Rheims more than I can the Catholic NAB revised edition of the Bible. I still use both Bibles for cross-referencing.

A word of caution for those looking for revisions of the D-R: There is a protestantized, 66 book version being sold as “The New Douai-Rheims Bible.” I would not accept one if it were given to me. 7 books have been stripped out of it and there is no way of knowing how God’s word has been otherwise violated by those with an obvious agenda.

amazon.com/The-New-Douai-Rheims-Bible/dp/B006VZENL0

 

[MichaelBtucs]

A word of caution for those looking for revisions of the D-R: There is a protestantized, 66 book version being sold as “The New Douai-Rheims Bible.” I would not accept one if it were given to me. 7 books have been stripped out of it and there is no way of knowing how God’s word has been otherwise violated by those with an obvious agenda.

amazon.com/The-New-Douai-Rheims-Bible/dp/B006VZENL0

That’s not the one published by St. Benedict’s Press, and the one I have has all the books that is contained in the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant 66 books versions. I will not touch a Protestantized Douay-Rheims version.

 

[po18guy]

That’s not the one published by St. Benedict’s Press, and the one I have has all the books that is contained in the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant 66 books versions. I will not touch a Protestantized Douay-Rheims version.

Amen! As far as I know, that is the only bastardized version that exists. Yet, think of the evil spirit that motivated those who sought intentionally to violate an iconic and exclusively Catholic document.

 

[Tous_Logous]

A word of caution for those looking for revisions of the D-R: There is a protestantized, 66 book version being sold as “The New Douai-Rheims Bible.” I would not accept one if it were given to me. 7 books have been stripped out of it and there is no way of knowing how God’s word has been otherwise violated by those with an obvious agenda.

amazon.com/The-New-Douai-Rheims-Bible/dp/B006VZENL0

That’s interesting. I always assumed that the Douay-Rheims was strictly a Catholic translation and that only Catholics used it. Seems pretty pointless to strip out all the deuterocanonical books and the Catholic notes (assuming the Catholic notes have been stripped out). Then you’re stuck with something similar to the KJV even if that Douay translation is superior.

 

[po18guy]

That’s interesting. I always assumed that the Douay-Rheims was strictly a Catholic translation and that only Catholics used it. Seems pretty pointless to strip out all the deuterocanonical books and the Catholic notes (assuming the Catholic notes have been stripped out). Then you’re stuck with something similar to the KJV even if that Douay translation is superior.

Which road was it that is paved with good intentions?