Douay-Rheims Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter landon13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first bible I had was the Douay, when I was saved. Good bible, but has some errors. KJV also has some errors, but you just need to be aware of them.

I also like to refer to the vulgate at times, but my Latin is rusty.

I stay with the KJV for devotional reading, because the words were specifically chosen to reflect the inspired Greek text and not to translate the ideas for you which is really giving me their interpretation. This is what the modern versions admit that they do. If I could read and fully understand the original Greek and Hebrew, that would be the best. Second best is the version that stays closest to God’s original words. That is still the KJV.
 
eazyduzit said:
The first bible I had was the Douay, when I was saved. Good bible, but has some errors. KJV also has some errors, but you just need to be aware of them.
Click to expand...
Could you point me towards a source for the errors in the DR? I want to maybe print that out just so I can be aware.
 
I was just looking online. The Baronius Press website is “Sold Out” of the pocket sized black Douay-Rheims. Can anyone point me toward where I can purchase a similar DR in size or if anyone has one of these or similar that they would be willing to part with? I’m looking for a more personal size Bible, not as much a huge tome to carry everywhere
 
I favour the King James Version. Though I understand the DR is similar, I don’t especially find the need to buy another Bible, especially a fairly hard to obtain one, just because the KJV comes from a protestant source. There are websites (e.g. Bible Gateway) where you can find various different translations and I will sometimes use the RSVCE, which is what we use at Mass in the Ordinariate. I don’t get on well with very modern translations which seem to water down the meaning of the words in many places.
 
peter26 said:
I favour the King James Version. Though I understand the DR is similar, I don’t especially find the need to buy another Bible, especially a fairly hard to obtain one, just because the KJV comes from a protestant source. There are websites (e.g. Bible Gateway) where you can find various different translations and I will sometimes use the RSVCE, which is what we use at Mass in the Ordinariate. I don’t get on well with very modern translations which seem to water down the meaning of the words in many places.
Click to expand...
Oh, that is an interesting aspect to this. Are you able to speak to the norms for other faithful within the Ordinariate? Is there a general preference for a specific translation, and is there a general opinion regarding the DR, the NAB and the RSV-CE?
 
As far as I know, all three Ordinariates use the RSVCE. It was chosen I believe because it is the same family as the KJV. I know its also my priest’s preferred version. The NAB isn’t used a lot in Britain, the standard Mass translation outside of the Ordinariate is the Jerusalem Bible, which is not a great version (case in point, look up the Beatitudes in the Jerusalem Bible and in say the RSV or the DR). We are buying some RSVs soon so we can have physical Bibles at Mass to follow and I’m planning to moot the idea that they could be used for some sort of Bible study as well. I guess the response will show how much everyone likes the RSV.
 
peter26 said:
As far as I know, all three Ordinariates use the RSVCE. It was chosen I believe because it is the same family as the KJV. I know its also my priest’s preferred version. The NAB isn’t used a lot in Britain, the standard Mass translation outside of the Ordinariate is the Jerusalem Bible, which is not a great version (case in point, look up the Beatitudes in the Jerusalem Bible and in say the RSV or the DR). We are buying some RSVs soon so we can have physical Bibles at Mass to follow and I’m planning to moot the idea that they could be used for some sort of Bible study as well. I guess the response will show how much everyone likes the RSV.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, thanks for the info! As a former Methodist I like to keep up with the ordinariate as I am distantly related to it (and technically eligible for membership :D) but I do not know as much about it as I wish I did, I’ve been to Mass just once, prior to the new Missal. I’m eying that as a possibility for my family when they eventually convert. Great to see that the RSV is popular, since United Methodists use the NRSV, and I’ve been gently nudging my parents to use the RSV (I assume they would use the non-Catholic version) at home to avoid inclusive language, and they’re warming up to that idea. My dad grew up with the KJV before becoming Methodist.
 
eazyduzit said:
I also like to refer to the vulgate at times, but my Latin is rusty.
Click to expand...
No one’s Latin is as good as their English, not at the same speed anyway. The translators at best used a scholarly guess at the translations. The dictionaries aren’t infallible. Maybe the ideal is to have a side-by-side Latin-English or Greek-English and try to follow the derivation into the vernacular. There’s at least one of these available on the Kindle.
 
ProVobis said:
No one’s Latin is as good as their English, not at the same speed anyway. The translators at best used a scholarly guess at the translations. The dictionaries aren’t infallible. Maybe the ideal is to have a side-by-side Latin-English or Greek-English and try to follow the derivation into the vernacular. There’s at least one of these available on the Kindle.
Click to expand...
I have a side-by-side Douay-Rheims and Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible that is very useful. I also am not fluent in Latin by any means, but this and the Latin Mass have helped me out. I got mine from Baronius Press.
 
LordHaveMercy said:
Could you point me towards a source for the errors in the DR? I want to maybe print that out just so I can be aware.
Click to expand...
I don’t know a source, but it shares many with the KJV. The missing article “the” in Rev. 7:14 led the CC and the Reform Churches into amillennialism . (one example)
 
eazyduzit said:
I don’t know a source, but it shares many with the KJV. The missing article “the” in Rev. 7:14 led the CC and the Reform Churches into amillennialism . (one example)
Click to expand...
Oh, I just saw that you are Pentecostal and are saying that the DR has doctrinal errors, not translation errors. The Catholic Church attaches the theological note of “safe” to the statement “That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after the Antichrist” and the censure of “unsafe/temerarious” to contradictory propositions. A translation that leads the reader into amillennialism would be a good thing for a Catholic reader. I see this differs from the Pentecostal tradition, and understand why a Pentecostal reader would be concerned about a translation like this one. Thanks for your response, friend!
 
eazyduzit said:
Second best is the version that stays closest to God’s original words. That is still the KJV.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you.

Mark 1:2

KJV says - As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The Greek says - καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου

The Latin says - Sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui præparabit viam tuam ante te.

Knox translation - It is written in the prophecy of Isaias, Behold, I am sending before thee that angel of mine who is to prepare thy way for thy coming

Knox footnote - [1] vv. 2-3: The second half of this prophecy is taken from Is. 40.3; the first half is not from Isaias but from Malachy (3.1). St Jerome suggests that St Mark may have been using a catena of Old Testament prophecies, in which these two passages came together, and treated them as one, giving a reference only to the more important one.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
I only use the Douay-Rheims Bible because of its strict accuracy in regards to translation from the Vulgate, and I am quite fond of the language. I sometimes will reference the Vulgate as well as the Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Saint Jerome, in translating the Vulgate have access to ancient manuscripts that no longer exist?
 
Anthony2112 said:
Didn’t Saint Jerome, in translating the Vulgate have access to ancient manuscripts that no longer exist?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is precisely why his Vulgate is so valuable, as is the Vetus Latina.

It’s also true that we today have access to more manuscripts that he did not have, despite the difference in centuries.
 
porthos11 said:
Yes. This is precisely why his Vulgate is so valuable, as is the Vetus Latina.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out. I have yet to hear the origins of this document, which was supposedly the basis of Jerome’s Vulgate.
 
porthos11 said:
Yes. This is precisely why his Vulgate is so valuable, as is the Vetus Latina.

It’s also true that we today have access to more manuscripts that he did not have, despite the difference in centuries.
Click to expand...
I would not know of any way to prove this for sure, but my gut tells me the manuscripts he had were in much better shape than the manuscripts we have. We’re stuck using the Masoretic text from the middle ages, while he had access to ancient texts. He might have access to texts from the time of Samuel. The texts we have for Samuel are somewhat unreliable.

I love my DR bibles.
 
Anthony2112 said:
I would not know of any way to prove this for sure, but my gut tells me the manuscripts he had were in much better shape than the manuscripts we have. We’re stuck using the Masoretic text from the middle ages, while he had access to ancient texts. He might have access to texts from the time of Samuel. The texts we have for Samuel are somewhat unreliable.

I love my DR bibles.
Click to expand...
Critical studies have shown that for the most part, and in the essentials, the Masoretic text is accurate and reliable, but as you correctly cite, has suffered in transmission in some sections. This is where other ancient-language authorities come in to help reconstruct what was likely the original text. It is perfectly fine to reference the Vulgate alongside other ancient sources such as the LXX and the Syriac.

Jerome’s Vulgate is not the gold-standard in Biblical source texts, not the least reason for which is that it’s in a target language: Latin. That’s already a problem because as with any target language, something is lost in the translation. Translate that further to English, such as with the DR and Knox, and we’re twice removed from the original.

I would rather have a reliable critical text as the source base. We have tons of sources from which to reconstruct and update the critical texts, so I believe we’re in good shape today, even better than Jerome was (he didn’t even translate everything. Some books are simply carried over from the Vetus Latina).

But again, I uphold the value of the Vulgate as the Vulgate. This thread was primarily about the DR, and it is the DR I dislike.
 
ProVobis said:
No one’s Latin is as good as their English, not at the same speed anyway. The translators at best used a scholarly guess at the translations. The dictionaries aren’t infallible. Maybe the ideal is to have a side-by-side Latin-English or Greek-English and try to follow the derivation into the vernacular. There’s at least one of these available on the Kindle.
Click to expand...
I use a side/by/side Latin and English version, on Kindle. I took Latin back in the 1960s and now I am tutoring in it. This is a handy way of brushing up my Latin, and getting some Scripture in.

I like the Navarre Bible. I really don’t like the New American, or worse revised New American, or Jerusalem Bible. Especially the updated versions are limited by political correctness.

I don’t agree it is a problem having a Bible translated via Latin. Early on in Christianity Latin became the dominant language for many centuries, widely used in its “fixed” form by scholars until fairly modern times. Unlike other languages it did not evolve. My understanding is that even scholars translating directly from Greek and Hebrew do consult the Latin for that reason. The Douay may preserve some good points because of the Latin continuity, that are lost because of discontinuity or evolution of other languages.
 
porthos11 said:
Critical studies have shown that for the most part, and in the essentials, the Masoretic text is accurate and reliable, but as you correctly cite, has suffered in transmission in some sections. This is where other ancient-language authorities come in to help reconstruct what was likely the original text. It is perfectly fine to reference the Vulgate alongside other ancient sources such as the LXX and the Syriac.

Jerome’s Vulgate is not the gold-standard in Biblical source texts, not the least reason for which is that it’s in a target language: Latin. That’s already a problem because as with any target language, something is lost in the translation. Translate that further to English, such as with the DR and Knox, and we’re twice removed from the original.

I would rather have a reliable critical text as the source base. We have tons of sources from which to reconstruct and update the critical texts, so I believe we’re in good shape today, even better than Jerome was (he didn’t even translate everything. Some books are simply carried over from the Vetus Latina).

But again, I uphold the value of the Vulgate as the Vulgate. This thread was primarily about the DR, and it is the DR I dislike.
Click to expand...
Oh I am not advocating using the DR over a accurate modern translation, but it’s good as a reference. Unless we learn latin, the Vulgate is inaccessible, and I do believe the DR is a very accurate translation of the Vulgate.

Having said that, Bishop Richard Challoner revised the Douay and changed some of the latin tenses, so we really don’t have the original DR Text. I have a PDF scan of the original which is useful which I am going to link here. I will also link a very large scan of the Haydock Bible which has great commentary and notes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top