A
Air_Force_1
Guest
Why does there appear to be such a difference between the English language used in these two translations? After all, they were translated only two years apart?
- Status
Z
ZDHayden
Guest
The most common Douay-Rheims version today, the Challoner, was published a century after the original date of publication. The original D-R had a highly latinate vocabulary, so was simplified by Bishop Challoner. Another reason is that the D-R is based nearly word-for-word on St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (Clementine version).
On a personal note: I was raised on the KJV, and so am familiar with it, but the D-R I find gorgeous.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Very good topic! Recently, I purchased a Douay-Rheims Bible and I echo your sentiments.
I love the strong poetry of each chapter and verse. It gives one a sense of connection with our Blessed ancestors.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.
A
Air_Force_1
Guest
I too find it very beautiful and different in a good way. It’s almost like the King James was the everyday english translation and the Douay Rehiems was the “proper” english translation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
C
colmcille1
Guest
I can’t correct you on that one, Air Force 1, but I can certainly agree with where you are coming from. Further, I am somewhat turned off by the gender-neutral Bibles. When I compare chapter and verse of the latter with the Douay-Rheims it’s as if the “new” version is a weak and watery edition of the full-bodied wine of Douay-Rheims!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.
N
nboos
Guest
This is my third attempt to communicate with folks at Catholic Forum, and I hope that this time I get through. (I’m still rusty on computers).
Here’s what I’ve read on the subject:
The Rheims-Douay Version was the first translation of the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church. It was published in 1609-1610.
The KJV was commissioned by James I of England who was a religious man interested in Bible translations - he had translated some psalms and attempted to paraphrase Revelation. A total of 54 biblical scholars worked on the translation - the basic source was Tyndale (80% of the final translation of the books Tyndale had himself translated was Tyndale) but Latin, Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts that were available were used.
The KJV was published in 1611 but the publishers had to fight for 40 years for it to be accepted - eventually it won the love of the people and clergy. At first the KJV included the Apocrypha - later in 1629 the Apocrypha was removed because that made the book smaller and cheaper and thus the book would sell better.
I do not know the names of the 54 translators, but it is suggested that among others, William Shakespeare might have been one. Of course, if he and others of his ilk were involved, we should expect language of the very highest calibre.
One “shred of evidence” which has been suggested is Ps. 46:9-10, which reads:
9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
According to a Professor (I’ve forgotten his name) in Nova Scotia, the original wording on these verses in the KJV was: “he breaketh the bow and shaketh the spear . . . . . Be still and know that I am Will . . . .” both being allusions to the name of the great man, who, as were them all, supposedly required to remain anonymous.
if this were so, is it any wonder that the language of the KJV reads so nicely.
BTW, can anyone confirm for me whether the translators of the KJV were required to remain anonymous?
NB
Here’s what I’ve read on the subject:
The Rheims-Douay Version was the first translation of the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church. It was published in 1609-1610.
The KJV was commissioned by James I of England who was a religious man interested in Bible translations - he had translated some psalms and attempted to paraphrase Revelation. A total of 54 biblical scholars worked on the translation - the basic source was Tyndale (80% of the final translation of the books Tyndale had himself translated was Tyndale) but Latin, Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts that were available were used.
The KJV was published in 1611 but the publishers had to fight for 40 years for it to be accepted - eventually it won the love of the people and clergy. At first the KJV included the Apocrypha - later in 1629 the Apocrypha was removed because that made the book smaller and cheaper and thus the book would sell better.
I do not know the names of the 54 translators, but it is suggested that among others, William Shakespeare might have been one. Of course, if he and others of his ilk were involved, we should expect language of the very highest calibre.
One “shred of evidence” which has been suggested is Ps. 46:9-10, which reads:
9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
According to a Professor (I’ve forgotten his name) in Nova Scotia, the original wording on these verses in the KJV was: “he breaketh the bow and shaketh the spear . . . . . Be still and know that I am Will . . . .” both being allusions to the name of the great man, who, as were them all, supposedly required to remain anonymous.
if this were so, is it any wonder that the language of the KJV reads so nicely.
BTW, can anyone confirm for me whether the translators of the KJV were required to remain anonymous?
NB
C
Crossbackbob
Guest
Oh how conveniently we forget the true and documented history. So we forget history and call King James a “religious man”? King James commissioned the 54 “Bible Scholars” or Scribes to translate the Bible mainly to keep them as occupied as possible and to divert their attention off of his immoral life style and male companions.
One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King’s bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland.
James’s sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant.
In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship was a sexual one. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!” If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers’ “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left.
“I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else,” James announced to his councilors, “and more than you who are here assembled.” He compared his love for the earl to Jesus’s affection for the “beloved disciple” John. “Jesus Christ did the same,” the king said, “and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative offices.
One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King’s bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland.
James’s sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant.
In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship was a sexual one. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!” If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers’ “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left.
“I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else,” James announced to his councilors, “and more than you who are here assembled.” He compared his love for the earl to Jesus’s affection for the “beloved disciple” John. “Jesus Christ did the same,” the king said, “and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative offices.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Air Force 1 and Crossback Bob,
You two wrote: *Force: I too find it * very beautiful and different in a good way. It’s almost like the King James was the everyday English translation and the Douay Rheims-Challoner] was the “proper” English translation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Both versions are very true to their ancient language undertexts, the A.V. to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the D.-R.-C. Version very largely to the Clementine Latin Vulgate. Both undertexts have had a role in God’s providential preservation of the Bible’s text(s). I use both. While I prefer to cite Scripture from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible when I write, other times from the R.S.V. Second Catholic Edition, or the old Confraternity Version (with the 1941 New Testament), there are times when the renderings of the A.V. are so extraordinarily better that I’ll cite them, anyway; I always specify from what version I quote, to avoid any doubt on readers’ part. What I have in my memory, however, and thus in my heart, is almost always the A.V.! It is only rarely that the A.V. reflects a Protestant bias; the A.V. translators were rigourously faithful in their translation, which tended to “head off at the pass” bias of any kind.
The translators of the A.V. were not homosexual, nor did they show a pro-gay bias in their renditions, so the matter of King James’ homosexualtiy or bisexuality is really a moot point, since he sponsored the translation, rather than took part in it, apart from some very broad initial guidelines.
When there is some doubt about the way the A.V. translates, I have the D.-R.-C. always close at hand, too, to counter-verify. I thank God for both of these truly magisterial translations of the Holy Scriptures, as well as for the occasional (and always subordinate) usefulness of the two other, more recent Catholic versions that I have mentioned above!
Pax, Jerry Parker*
You two wrote: *Force: I too find it * very beautiful and different in a good way. It’s almost like the King James was the everyday English translation and the Douay Rheims-Challoner] was the “proper” English translation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Bob:* One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King’s bisexuality…
It no longer is necessary to be so worried about a fondness for the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible. The American bishops have given it approval for use by Catholics (all the more so, one would presume, when the A.V.'s Old Testament “Apocrypha” is included in the edition). A lot of us converts were raised on the A.V. Bible; the Bible verses that I know by memory are mostly in the wording of the A.V., some occasionally in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (D.-R.-C.) or the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.).Both versions are very true to their ancient language undertexts, the A.V. to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the D.-R.-C. Version very largely to the Clementine Latin Vulgate. Both undertexts have had a role in God’s providential preservation of the Bible’s text(s). I use both. While I prefer to cite Scripture from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible when I write, other times from the R.S.V. Second Catholic Edition, or the old Confraternity Version (with the 1941 New Testament), there are times when the renderings of the A.V. are so extraordinarily better that I’ll cite them, anyway; I always specify from what version I quote, to avoid any doubt on readers’ part. What I have in my memory, however, and thus in my heart, is almost always the A.V.! It is only rarely that the A.V. reflects a Protestant bias; the A.V. translators were rigourously faithful in their translation, which tended to “head off at the pass” bias of any kind.
The translators of the A.V. were not homosexual, nor did they show a pro-gay bias in their renditions, so the matter of King James’ homosexualtiy or bisexuality is really a moot point, since he sponsored the translation, rather than took part in it, apart from some very broad initial guidelines.
When there is some doubt about the way the A.V. translates, I have the D.-R.-C. always close at hand, too, to counter-verify. I thank God for both of these truly magisterial translations of the Holy Scriptures, as well as for the occasional (and always subordinate) usefulness of the two other, more recent Catholic versions that I have mentioned above!
Pax, Jerry Parker*
S
SCiZ
Guest
I did a cursory search of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and found only the following list (of which the KJAV is NOT listed as approved).
usccb.org/doctrine/subcommittee.shtml
Can you provide a source for you statement?
Thanks & God bless!
C
Crossbackbob
Guest
Jerry,
Thank you for your response. I am not saying that the KJV of the Bible is somehow tainted as the result of the bi-sexual lifestyle of King James. I am simply saying to refer to this man as a “religious man” is probably not quite an accurate portrayal. Not judging, just pointing out that we should not look upon this man as a religious “Saint”, he was only a man who obviously not only did not understand our Creators position of considering homosexual, bisexual, promiscuous, lustful lifestyles an abomination, since he never repented from that lifestyle. Let’s not elevate King James to anymore than what he actually was.
I am a Catholic convert myself and have read the King James version my entirel life with no issues. I was raised Baptist. I am not one to take a stand on Douay Rehiems only. I’ve actually found the King James version to be much more accurate in it’s translation than many of the “easy read” or “instructional” Bibles on the market today. Sometimes the true message gets lost in the interpretation, depending on which version out there you read. We are warned in scripture to be aware of those who try to change and twist God’s Word. Sometimes we get bent around issues and we fail to understand and live the life we are called to as believers as in Mark 14:17-20. I believe these verses are the same in both Douay Rehiems and the King James versions.
Thank you for your response. I am not saying that the KJV of the Bible is somehow tainted as the result of the bi-sexual lifestyle of King James. I am simply saying to refer to this man as a “religious man” is probably not quite an accurate portrayal. Not judging, just pointing out that we should not look upon this man as a religious “Saint”, he was only a man who obviously not only did not understand our Creators position of considering homosexual, bisexual, promiscuous, lustful lifestyles an abomination, since he never repented from that lifestyle. Let’s not elevate King James to anymore than what he actually was.
I am a Catholic convert myself and have read the King James version my entirel life with no issues. I was raised Baptist. I am not one to take a stand on Douay Rehiems only. I’ve actually found the King James version to be much more accurate in it’s translation than many of the “easy read” or “instructional” Bibles on the market today. Sometimes the true message gets lost in the interpretation, depending on which version out there you read. We are warned in scripture to be aware of those who try to change and twist God’s Word. Sometimes we get bent around issues and we fail to understand and live the life we are called to as believers as in Mark 14:17-20. I believe these verses are the same in both Douay Rehiems and the King James versions.
S
SJackson
Guest
Does anyone know where one can buy the Douay–Rheims in large print?
Thank you.
Thank you.
J
JackQ
Guest
It no longer is necessary to be so worried about a fondness for the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible. The American bishops have given it approval for use by Catholics (all the more so, one would presume, when the A.V.'s Old Testament “Apocrypha” is included in the edition).
What is your source for this statement? At the USCCB website there is a list of approved Bible translations, and I’ve never seen the King James version on it.
What is your source for this statement? At the USCCB website there is a list of approved Bible translations, and I’ve never seen the King James version on it.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Hi SJackson,Does anyone know where one can buy the Douay–Rheims in large print?
Thank you.
I am from Ireland and I recently bought the pocket-sized version of the Douay-Rheims Bible in a religious bookshop called Veritas. I know that they do stock the standard-sized version of the D-R (and sometimes I wish I had opted for that as the print on the one I have
is tiny!)
I’m not sure if they provide a mailing service but my guess is that they do as they are an excellent booksellers. Hope this helps!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.
P
PJM
Guest
The DR retains it’s orginal English while th KJ has seen many revisions and updates.
One can look at modern Catholic bibles and see similar efforts at making them more “user friendly.”
Love and prayers,
Pat.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Sciz,
**We wrote: *Jerry: *It no longer is necessary to be so worried about a fondness for the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible. The American bishops have given it approval for use by Catholics (all the more so, one would presume, when the A.V.'s Old Testament “Apocrypha” is included in the edition). …
Sciz: I did a cursory search of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and found only the following list (of which the KJAV is NOT listed as approved).
usccb.org/doctrine/subcommittee.shtml
Pax, Jerry Parker
**We wrote: *Jerry: *It no longer is necessary to be so worried about a fondness for the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible. The American bishops have given it approval for use by Catholics (all the more so, one would presume, when the A.V.'s Old Testament “Apocrypha” is included in the edition). …
Sciz: I did a cursory search of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and found only the following list (of which the KJAV is NOT listed as approved).
usccb.org/doctrine/subcommittee.shtml
Can you provide a source for you statement?**
How vexing! I had trouble, too, tracking this information down. I distinctly recall reading about this USCCB approval, but I cannot recall where. I have an hunch that it was on one of the fora of C.A., one dealing with Bible versions (of which there are numerous such fora) that this was mentioned, but it is difficult to formulate a successful interrogation for a question like this; C.A.'s own search engine, too, is not useful for complex searches. Anyhow, I am not imagining this; I really did read it, and I admit that I should have made a note of the source. The American bishops have authorised all sorts of dubious flotsam and jetsam of translations of the Bible and Scripture portions, so their credibility is not exactly very great regarding discernment of the true worth of such translations! But it was good sense to authorise the Authorised Version (K.J.V.) Bible!Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Crossback Bob,
**You wrote (in response to one of my own postings): ** *Thank you for your response. I am not saying that the KJV of the Bible is somehow tainted as the result of the bi-sexual lifestyle of King James. I am simply saying to refer to this man as a “religious man” is probably not quite an accurate portrayal. Not judging, just pointing out that we should not look upon this man as a religious “Saint”, he was only a man who obviously not only did not understand our Creators position of considering homosexual, bisexual, promiscuous, lustful lifestyles an abomination, since he never repented from that lifestyle. Let’s not elevate King James to anymore than what he actually was.
Yes, the A.V. Bible is neutral, accurately translating without bias, rather than slanting things in a particular theological direction as looser Protestant/sectarian versions (such as the execrable N.I.V.) constantly do. There are some very infrequent traces of Protestant understandings in the renderings, but these really are quite rare. At any rate, a Catholic reader of the A.V. Bible (with its “Apocrypha” included in the edition that he has) should have the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version at hand, too.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote (in response to one of my own postings): ** *Thank you for your response. I am not saying that the KJV of the Bible is somehow tainted as the result of the bi-sexual lifestyle of King James. I am simply saying to refer to this man as a “religious man” is probably not quite an accurate portrayal. Not judging, just pointing out that we should not look upon this man as a religious “Saint”, he was only a man who obviously not only did not understand our Creators position of considering homosexual, bisexual, promiscuous, lustful lifestyles an abomination, since he never repented from that lifestyle. Let’s not elevate King James to anymore than what he actually was.
I am a Catholic convert myself and have read the King James version my entirel life with no issues. I was raised Baptist. I am not one to take a stand on Douay Rehiems only. I’ve actually found the King James version to be much more accurate in it’s translation than many of the “easy read” or “instructional” Bibles on the market today. Sometimes the true message gets lost in the interpretation, depending on which version out there you read. We are warned in scripture to be aware of those who try to change and twist God’s Word. Sometimes we get bent around issues and we fail to understand and live the life we are called to as believers as in Mark 14:17-20. I believe these verses are the same in both Douay Rehiems and the King James versions. *
Your words are full of good, sound sense! It is pointless to portray a character so full of quirks and faults, homosexual ones included, as King James I of England (being also James VI of Scotland) as some kind of saintly figure! The A.V./K.J.V. Bible’s merits have nothing to do with James I’s good points or peccadillos (or worse).Yes, the A.V. Bible is neutral, accurately translating without bias, rather than slanting things in a particular theological direction as looser Protestant/sectarian versions (such as the execrable N.I.V.) constantly do. There are some very infrequent traces of Protestant understandings in the renderings, but these really are quite rare. At any rate, a Catholic reader of the A.V. Bible (with its “Apocrypha” included in the edition that he has) should have the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version at hand, too.
Pax, Jerry Parker
P
patrick457
Guest
Well actually, the New Testament was published in 1582 during a temporary migration of the English College (originally based at Douai) to Rheims. The Douai Old Testament was only published in 1609-10, and the 28-year publishing delay was actually because of lack of funds.
And there’s actually a whole lot of difference between the translating styles of the (original, not the Challoner) Douai-Rheims and the King James version. From wikipedia:
The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The Vulgate was largely created due to the efforts of Saint Jerome (345–420), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent. While the Catholic scholars “conferred” with the Hebrew and Greek originals, as well as with “other editions in diuerse languages,” their avowed purpose was to translate from the Latin Vulgate, for reasons of accuracy as stated in their Preface, but which also tended to produce, in places, stilted syntax and Latinisms. The following short passage (Ephesians 3:6–12), is a fair example, admittedly without updating the spelling conventions then in use:
The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things: that the manifold wisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JESUS our Lord. In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.
Elsewhere, however, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525; though the base text for the Rheims translators appears to be the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in 1538. Furthermore, the translators are especially accurate in their rendition of the definite article from Greek to English, and in their recognition of subtle distinctions of the Greek past tense, neither of which are well represented in the Vulgate Latin. Consequently, the Rheims New Testament is much less of a new version, and owes rather more to the original languages, than the translators admit in their preface. Where the Rheims translators depart from the Coverdale text, they frequently adopt readings found in the Wycliff bible; as this version had been translated from the Vulgate; and had been widely used by English Catholic churchmen unaware of its Lollard origins.
…]
In their decision consistently to apply latinate language, rather than everyday English, to render religious terminology, the Rheims–Douay translators continued a tradition established by Thomas More and Stephen Gardiner in their criticisms of the biblical translations of William Tyndale. Gardiner indeed had himself applied these principles in 1535 to produce a heavily revised version, which unfortunately has not survived, of Tyndale’s translations of the Gospels of Luke and John. More and Gardiner had argued that Latin terms were more precise in meaning than their English equivalents, and consequently should be retained in Englished form in order to avoid ambiguity. David Norton observes, however, that the Rheims–Douay version extends the principle much further. In the preface to the Rheims New Testament the translators criticise the Geneva Bible for their policy of striving always for a rendering of the biblical text in clear and understandable English:
…we presume not in hard places to modifie the speaches or phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word, and point for point, for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.
This adds to More and Gardiner the opposite argument, that previous versions in standard English had improperly imputed clear meanings for obscure passages in the Greek source text; where the Latin Vulgate had often tended to rather render the Greek literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions. In effect the Rheims translators argue, that where the source text is ambiguous or obscure, then a faithful English translation should also be ambiguous or obscure, with the various options for understanding the text discussed in a marginal note.
Elsewhere, however, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525; though the base text for the Rheims translators appears to be the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in 1538. Furthermore, the translators are especially accurate in their rendition of the definite article from Greek to English, and in their recognition of subtle distinctions of the Greek past tense, neither of which are well represented in the Vulgate Latin. Consequently, the Rheims New Testament is much less of a new version, and owes rather more to the original languages, than the translators admit in their preface. Where the Rheims translators depart from the Coverdale text, they frequently adopt readings found in the Wycliff bible; as this version had been translated from the Vulgate; and had been widely used by English Catholic churchmen unaware of its Lollard origins.
…]
In their decision consistently to apply latinate language, rather than everyday English, to render religious terminology, the Rheims–Douay translators continued a tradition established by Thomas More and Stephen Gardiner in their criticisms of the biblical translations of William Tyndale. Gardiner indeed had himself applied these principles in 1535 to produce a heavily revised version, which unfortunately has not survived, of Tyndale’s translations of the Gospels of Luke and John. More and Gardiner had argued that Latin terms were more precise in meaning than their English equivalents, and consequently should be retained in Englished form in order to avoid ambiguity. David Norton observes, however, that the Rheims–Douay version extends the principle much further. In the preface to the Rheims New Testament the translators criticise the Geneva Bible for their policy of striving always for a rendering of the biblical text in clear and understandable English:
…we presume not in hard places to modifie the speaches or phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word, and point for point, for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.
This adds to More and Gardiner the opposite argument, that previous versions in standard English had improperly imputed clear meanings for obscure passages in the Greek source text; where the Latin Vulgate had often tended to rather render the Greek literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions. In effect the Rheims translators argue, that where the source text is ambiguous or obscure, then a faithful English translation should also be ambiguous or obscure, with the various options for understanding the text discussed in a marginal note.
This was actually one of the criticisms that was levelled upon the DR when it first came out. Critics said that the Catholic Church has finally been forced by the circumstances to make a vernacular translation of their own but made it as difficult as possible to understand the text!
The Rheims NT was one of the versions consulted by the translators of the King James Version - the Douai OT appearing too late. It is distinguished from previous English Protestant versions by a greater tendency to employ Latinate vocabulary, and the translators were able to find many such terms (for example: emulation Romans 11:14) in the Rheims NT. Consequently, a number of the latinisms of the Douai-Rheims, through their use in the King James Bible, have entered standard literary English.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually, Bishop Challoner’s work steps on the fine line between ‘revision’ and ‘a new translation of its own’. Challoner’s revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version (himself being a convert from Protestantism, and thus familiar with its style) whose translators had themselves borrowed from the original Rheims NT of 1582. Challoner not only addressed the odd prose and much of the Latinisms, but produced a version which, while still called the Douai-Rheims, was little like the original. At the same time he aimed for improved readability and comprehensibility, rephrasing obscure and obsolete terms and construction; and in the process, consistently removing ambiguities of meaning that the original Rheims-Douai version had striven to retain.
Challoner issued a NT in 1749, and followed this with an edition of the whole Bible in 1750, making some 200 further changes to the New Testament. He issued a further version of the NT in 1752, in which differed in about 2,000 readings from the 1750 edition, and which remained the base text for further editions of the bible in Challoner’s lifetime. In all three editions the extensive notes and commentary of the 1582/1610 original were drastically reduced, resulting in a compact one-volume edition of the Bible, which contributed greatly to its popularity. Gone also was the longer paragraph formatting of the text; instead, the text was broken up so that each verse was its own paragraph. The three Apocrypha (the Prayer of Manasses, 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras), which had been placed in an appendix to the second volume of the OT, were dropped. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his 1750 OT with very few changes. Challoner’s 1752 NT was, however, extensively further revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810, for the most part adjusting the text away from agreement with that of the King James Bible; and these various Dublin versions are the source of many, but not all, Challoner versions printed in the United States in the 19th Century. Editions of the Challoner Bible printed in England sometimes follow one or another of the revised Dublin New Testament texts; but more often tend to follow Challoner’s earlier editions of 1749 and 1750 (as do most 20th century printings, and on-line versions of the Douai-Rheims circulating on the internet).
P
patrick457
Guest
Here’s a little comparison between the original 1582 Rheims NT and the Challoner NT (Philippians 2:5-11 and Revelation 5:6-14):
† For this thinke in your ſelues, vvhich alſo in Christ IESVS, † vvho vvhen he vvas in the forme of God, thought it no robberie, him ſelf to be equal to God, † but he exinanited him ſelf, taking the forme of a ſeruant, made into the ſimilitude of men, and in ſhape found as man. † He humbled him ſelf, made obediēt vnto death: euen the death of the croſſe. † For the vvhich thing God alſo hath exalted him, and hath giuen him a name which is aboue al names: † that in the name of IESVS euery knee bovve of the celeſtials, terreſtrials, and infernals: † and euery tongue cōfeſſe that our Lord IESVS Chriſt is in the glorie of God the Father. +
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: 11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
======
† And I ſavv, and behold in the middes of the throne and of the foure beaſtes and in the middes of the ſeniors, a Lambe ſtanding as it were ſlaine, hauing ſeuen hornes & ſeuen eies: vvhich are the ſeuen ſpirites of God, ſent into al the earth. † And he came, and receiued the booke out of the right hand of him that ſate in the throne. † And vvhen he had opened the booke, the foure beaſtes and the foure and tvventie ſeniors fel before the Lambe, hauing euery one harpes, and golden vials ful of odours, which are the praiers of ſainctes: † and they ſang a nevv canticle, ſaying, Thou art vvorthie o Lord to take the booke, and to open the ſeales thereof: because thou vvast ſlaine, and haſt redeemed vs to God in thy bloud out of euery tribe and tonge and people and nation, † and haſt made vs to our God a kingdom and prieſtes, and vve shal reigne vpon the earth.
† And I looked, and heard the voice of many Angels round about the throne, and of the beaſtes & of the seniors: and the number of them vvas thouſandes of thouſandes, † ſaying vvith a loud voice, The Lambe that vvas ſlaine, is vvorthie to receiue povver, and diuinitie, and vvisedom, & strength, and honour, and glorie, and benediction. † And euery creature that is in heauen, and vpon the earth, and vnder the earth, and that are in the ſea, and that are therein: al did I heare saying, To him that ſitteth on the throne, & to the Lambe, benediction and honour and glorie and povver for euer and euer. † And the foure beaſtes ſaid, Amen. And the foure and tvventie ſeniors fel on their faces: and adored him that liueth for euer and euer.
6 And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. 8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints: 9 And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10 And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands, 12 Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction. 13 And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. 14 And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever.
† For this thinke in your ſelues, vvhich alſo in Christ IESVS, † vvho vvhen he vvas in the forme of God, thought it no robberie, him ſelf to be equal to God, † but he exinanited him ſelf, taking the forme of a ſeruant, made into the ſimilitude of men, and in ſhape found as man. † He humbled him ſelf, made obediēt vnto death: euen the death of the croſſe. † For the vvhich thing God alſo hath exalted him, and hath giuen him a name which is aboue al names: † that in the name of IESVS euery knee bovve of the celeſtials, terreſtrials, and infernals: † and euery tongue cōfeſſe that our Lord IESVS Chriſt is in the glorie of God the Father. +
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: 11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
======
† And I ſavv, and behold in the middes of the throne and of the foure beaſtes and in the middes of the ſeniors, a Lambe ſtanding as it were ſlaine, hauing ſeuen hornes & ſeuen eies: vvhich are the ſeuen ſpirites of God, ſent into al the earth. † And he came, and receiued the booke out of the right hand of him that ſate in the throne. † And vvhen he had opened the booke, the foure beaſtes and the foure and tvventie ſeniors fel before the Lambe, hauing euery one harpes, and golden vials ful of odours, which are the praiers of ſainctes: † and they ſang a nevv canticle, ſaying, Thou art vvorthie o Lord to take the booke, and to open the ſeales thereof: because thou vvast ſlaine, and haſt redeemed vs to God in thy bloud out of euery tribe and tonge and people and nation, † and haſt made vs to our God a kingdom and prieſtes, and vve shal reigne vpon the earth.
† And I looked, and heard the voice of many Angels round about the throne, and of the beaſtes & of the seniors: and the number of them vvas thouſandes of thouſandes, † ſaying vvith a loud voice, The Lambe that vvas ſlaine, is vvorthie to receiue povver, and diuinitie, and vvisedom, & strength, and honour, and glorie, and benediction. † And euery creature that is in heauen, and vpon the earth, and vnder the earth, and that are in the ſea, and that are therein: al did I heare saying, To him that ſitteth on the throne, & to the Lambe, benediction and honour and glorie and povver for euer and euer. † And the foure beaſtes ſaid, Amen. And the foure and tvventie ſeniors fel on their faces: and adored him that liueth for euer and euer.
6 And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. 8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints: 9 And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10 And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands, 12 Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction. 13 And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. 14 And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Patrick 457,
What and excellent couple of postings you just made about the pre-Challoner text of the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible. Although I have some knowledge of that, I learned a lot from what you just wrote.
Congratulations, dude!
Pax, Jerry Parker
What and excellent couple of postings you just made about the pre-Challoner text of the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible. Although I have some knowledge of that, I learned a lot from what you just wrote.
Congratulations, dude!
Pax, Jerry Parker
- Status