Douay-Rheims Alone?

[commenter]

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.

Thanks, your explanations are helpful. What is a “target language”? Why is Latin a target language, and what would not be a “target language”?

By the way, one reason I like the Douay is because at least some versions of it are clearly better prose - more endearing, memorable prose - than the Jerusalem or NAB, which look like they were spit out of a word processor. G K Chesterton was asked to compare the KJV with the RSV. He said the translators of the RSV seemed to have a better knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but the translators of the KJV had a better knowledge of the English language.

 

[andrewstx]

You know I converted away from KJV only fundamental sect. I barely understood a word.
When I came into the true Church it was NAB, and I am happy with that.
Now people are recommending the DR, it likely would be less understandable than the KJV.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks, your explanations are helpful. What is a “target language”? Why is Latin a target language, and what would not be a “target language”?

By the way, one reason I like the Douay is because at least some versions of it are clearly better prose - more endearing, memorable prose - than the Jerusalem or NAB, which look like they were spit out of a word processor. G K Chesterton was asked to compare the KJV with the RSV. He said the translators of the RSV seemed to have a better knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but the translators of the KJV had a better knowledge of the English language.

A target language is one that is translated to: in the case of the Vulgate, the Latin is the language translated to, so that is the target, rather than the source (which would be the Hebrew and Greek).

G.K. Chesternon died in 1936, one year before the RSV project commenced.

As for endearing, memorable prose, I find that in the KJV, not the DR. As I stated before, and speaking only for myself, I find the DR irritating to read.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

More than that if you factor in the time differential, loss of inflection, subjunctive, nuances, irregularities with the English language, etc. Translations into Latin could have very well been made by the Greeks themselves, as there was a need to preserve scripture.(I’m presuming that Latin wasn’t a vernacular to be messed with.) If we knew more about the origins of Vetus Latina, we could know how close the Latin and Greek really were in content, if not in nuance as well.

 

[Anthony2112]

I think the Vulgate is an outstanding and very accurate translation that had sources we don’t have today. In many instances I believe the Vulgate is more accurate than the Masoretic text.

 

[jmjZelie]

Hello all,

I have been thinking a lot lately about switching to using the Douay-Rheims Bible alone. So, I was curious, who all here uses just the DR as their main Bible for study and prayer? I know this would be a huge change from my current NIV usage, but my journey in tradition feels like its leading me to this.

Also, what version of the Douay-Rheims do you own?

Pax

I use the DR Bible nearly 100% of the time. Unless I am using a Children’s Bible for lessons for the children, I prefer it. In fact, many times I cannot find something in the Children’s Bibles (we use three different Catholic ones) and so I just read it to them from the DR. We spend quite a lot of time reading literature with very precise and elegant English prose, so the way the DR Bible reads is very pleasing and meditative. I like how it makes me slow down and practice verses, finding the pause points and the rhythm and it makes memorization work appealing.

 

[jmjZelie]

I mostly use the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition, but I often cross check passages with other Bible versions, including the DR. My DR is the Bishop Challoner revision put out by TAN Books some years ago.

My husband has a beautifully Bible in RSV-CE. It is hardbound, with gilding on it. Since we could not get it in the leatherette cover, I opted for the DR. I am so glad I did! But my husband really likes the RSV-CE.

 

[Anthony2112]

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)

This made me curious so I checked several Catholic translations and the article “the” is mostly used. So I checked the Latin Vulgate and it also uses the article “the.” The Vulgate was used to develop Roman Catholic Doctrine, not the DR version, so Its absence had little effect on Catholic Dogma. Roman Catholics just don’t believe in a 1000 year reign because (among other reasons)that would mean there would be three comings of Christ. The Bible only refers to two. I really don’t believe the DR translation had much to do with this.

 

[Louie1983]

Does on anyone have an opinion on Scripture: A practical commentary.

The author escapes me at the moment, however I find it quite helpful.