Douay-Rheims Bible vs N.A.B.

  • Thread starter Thread starter KC_Davis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry-Jet said:
Will they be able to unbutcher the Psalms and Genesis?
Click to expand...
First of all, they aren’t revising the Psalms. As for the rest, who knows what has been happening? It seems that they are keeping it completely secret. FYI, it was originally supposed to come out by the end of THIS year.

Some people hope that they learned their lessons with the inclusive language and won’t make that same mistake again. Some people don’t have as much faith. I keep thinking to myself that they will make it all inclusive language just so that they can continue to push that issue, and so it’ll finally all match up…
 
mmortal03 said:
Some people hope that they learned their lessons with the inclusive language and won’t make that same mistake again. Some people don’t have as much faith. I keep thinking to myself that they will make it all inclusive language just so that they can continue to push that issue, and so it’ll finally all match up…
Click to expand...
On this we definitely are in agreement, O us of little faith.
 
I’ve been using the Bible out of Ignatius Press, which is RSV, but not the old style of English (the, thou, thine). No gender inclusiveness or dumbed-down English.
 
mmortal03 said:
“The Codex Fuldensis, from around 545, is an earlier surviving manuscript that is based on the Vulgate, however the gospels are an edited version of the Diatessaron” - wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Dear Mmortal,
you are falling into the trap of believing accepted wisdom without question. The ‘Diatessaron’ in the CF is far more than an edited version of the Diatessaron witnessed by Ephrem Syrus. Not only has the sequence of its sections been grossly altered, (coarse weaving), but the way in which the synoptic fragments are assembled, (fine weaving), is very different. Further, there are sections in the Diatessaron which are missing from the ‘Diatessaron’, and vice versa.
Victor gave it the name ‘Diapente’, meaning ‘from five’, whereas ‘Diatessaron’ means from four.
Clearly it is derived from the Diatessaron, but it is NOT just a re-edited version: it stands in its own right as a fresh, and new compilation.
So the general historical opinion is that the Gospels of this text were taken from the Diatessaron, as you have described it, however, the rest (the Old Testament) was taken from a version of the Vulgate. There you go.
Click to expand...
Careful with that broad brush!
I have already warned you that I find the general historical opinion to be of doubtful value, for when these texts were compared, the comparison could only be done in Latin, between a dubious Arabic derivitive , and the CF Gospel, as prior to my work, no English translation of the CF Gospel existed.
As for the OT, the CF is a NT Vulgate, it contains ABSOLUTELY no OT section. What it does contain besides the Gospel is a selection of Epistles which closely match the ones we know, with also one to the Laodacians.
So I do not go with your argument.
Please humour me to the extent of accepting that I have been down ALL these roads, and found them wanting.
Based on what I have read online, that assumption is incorrect, because it has been shown that the OT and NT portions of the CF came from two distinct sources. The similarities that you have found in the New Testament do not correspond to the Old Testament, and if they do, not for the same reasons. The Old Testament portion of that document came directly from the Vulgate, and not from an earlier source document that both Jerome and the CF used. The Gospels of it ARE reported to be how you describe.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing the Vulgate with the CF, (Codex Fuldensis). The CF has no OT.
I am confused by this reply.
 
Lux_et_veritas said:
I’ve been using the Bible out of Ignatius Press, which is RSV, but not the old style of English (the, thou, thine). No gender inclusiveness or dumbed-down English.
Click to expand...
Dear Lux,
It is a very sad thing that the second person singular set of pronouns have fallen into dissuse in modern English.
The lack adds obscurity to any translation, and it would be better reversed. The archaic conjugations, ‘whoso sitteth’ would be adequately represented by ‘whoso sits’, but ‘you shall not kill’ has a different meaning to ‘thou shalt not kill’. The latter is a personal message to one person, the former is an open general impersonal statement.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear Lux,
It is a very sad thing that the second person singular set of pronouns have fallen into dissuse in modern English.
The lack adds obscurity to any translation, and it would be better reversed. The archaic conjugations, ‘whoso sitteth’ would be adequately represented by ‘whoso sits’, but ‘you shall not kill’ has a different meaning to ‘thou shalt not kill’. The latter is a personal message to one person, the former is an open general impersonal statement.
Click to expand...
Voco,

Now THIS I understand, and wholeheartedly agree that it makes the singular/plural aspect of the second person pronoun “you” unambiguous.

A great “proof test” is the following from Luke 22:

RSV:

22:31. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

22:32. but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Rheims-Challoner:

22:31. And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.

22:32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
 
mmortal03 said:
To the original poster, here is a great article written by Jimmy Akin regarding Douay-Rheims-only-ism: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4300&longdesc
Click to expand...
mmortal,

This could have been a superb article had Jimmy Akin made an attempt to cite specific verses where the D-R did indeed have some infelicitous renderings, as well as where the RSV-CE (Catholic Answers’ preferred text) was spot on, but, alas, he didn’t.

I even wrote to the publisher of the Adoremus Bulletin (www.adoremus.org) in search of a rebuttal to TAN’s “Which Bible Should You Read?”, particularly one which explained the preference for, and use of, the RSV-CE by Adoremus, Catholic Answers, those who translate Vatican documents into English; I was told to read the Preface to the RSV-CE!
Um, yeah, OK.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear Mmortal,
you are falling into the trap of believing accepted wisdom without question. The ‘Diatessaron’ in the CF is far more than an edited version of the Diatessaron witnessed by Ephrem Syrus. Not only has the sequence of its sections been grossly altered, (coarse weaving), but the way in which the synoptic fragments are assembled, (fine weaving), is very different. Further, there are sections in the Diatessaron which are missing from the ‘Diatessaron’, and vice versa.
Victor gave it the name ‘Diapente’, meaning ‘from five’, whereas ‘Diatessaron’ means from four.
Clearly it is derived from the Diatessaron, but it is NOT just a re-edited version: it stands in its own right as a fresh, and new compilation.

Careful with that broad brush!
I have already warned you that I find the general historical opinion to be of doubtful value, for when these texts were compared, the comparison could only be done in Latin, between a dubious Arabic derivitive , and the CF Gospel, as prior to my work, no English translation of the CF Gospel existed.
As for the OT, the CF is a NT Vulgate, it contains ABSOLUTELY no OT section. What it does contain besides the Gospel is a selection of Epistles which closely match the ones we know, with also one to the Laodacians.
So I do not go with your argument.
Please humour me to the extent of accepting that I have been down ALL these roads, and found them wanting.

You seem to be confusing the Vulgate with the CF, (Codex Fuldensis). The CF has no OT.
I am confused by this reply.
Click to expand...
You are right. I re-read everything and was making my own assumption about the logic behind your argument. I was assuming that the CF had an OT portion because you were using it within your argument to say that Jerome’s Vulgate was based on the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. Since the New Testament generally has no Hebrew originals except for Matthew, I was assuming you had to be talking about the Old Testament all along. So would you clarify that? How does the CF have anything to do with proving that the Old Testament of the Vulgate is more similar to the Septuagint than the Masoretic Texts?
 
Voco proTatiano: for all of us unlearned people out here who may not understand exactly what your beef is let me ask you this:

If it were up to you to decide the most accurate rendering of the scriptures–what mix of the scriptures that we currently have would make for the best overall complete translation?

I do not know exactly what Jerome had and what he didn’t have and how good a job he did in keeping some things, changing some things and not using either this source or that source.

Do you think that the Catholic Churrch could improve to a significant degree on Jerome’s efforts?

I don’t know the answer to that but I pray that the Catholic Church will always encourage biblical scholarship that would strive for improving the text to the most perfect representation of what the Holy Spirit inspiried the writers to say.

Do you think that is happening today? If not why not? And if not what do you think should be done about it?
 
mmortal03 said:
You are right. I re-read everything and was making my own assumption about the logic behind your argument. I was assuming that the CF had an OT portion because you were using it within your argument to say that Jerome’s Vulgate was based on the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. Since the New Testament generally has no Hebrew originals except for Matthew, I was assuming you had to be talking about the Old Testament all along. So would you clarify that? How does the CF have anything to do with proving that the Old Testament of the Vulgate is more similar to the Septuagint than the Masoretic Texts?
Click to expand...
Dear Mmortal,
I may be out of order, but having been drawn to the conclusion that for the Gospels, at least, Jerome virtually copied the VL of, I presume Carthage, with only the tiniest of alterations to improve correspondance with the Greek, which he, mistakenly, I believe, represented a version nearer the original, I assumed, that he would have used a similar procedure with the existing OT, which was based on the 70, and lightly edit that, referring to the Hebrew, in the same way that he edited the Gospels using the Greek.
There would have been, I am convinced, a strong motivation to present the new Vulgate as an updated and corrected version of the Boble known and loved by the people, rather than producing an opus de novo. The Anglican Church went thtough a harsh self examination when the new prayer book was issued. There was much complaining and petitioning to keep the old, and many uses of the old are still used.
I have no evidence concerning the OT. This is purely conjecture based on the treatment of the Gospels as I see it.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Voco proTatiano: for all of us unlearned people out here who may not understand exactly what your beef is let me ask you this:
Click to expand...
No Jerry, I have no beef. I’m just looking for the truth. The Codex Fuldensis seems to be showing me that the Carthaginian Vetus Latina Gospels were extant in St Jerome’s time, and he used them as a basis for his Gospels. Thus we have a connection to Gospels as they were in AD200. If we can use the Codex Fuldensis Gospel to reverse the alterations that St Jerome made on the false, I believe, assumption, that the Greek of the day was nearer the original than the Carthaginian Latin, then that might be a worthwhile aim.
If it were up to you to decide the most accurate rendering of the scriptures–what mix of the scriptures that we currently have would make for the best overall complete translation?
Click to expand...
See above.
I do not know exactly what Jerome had and what he didn’t have and how good a job he did in keeping some things, changing some things and not using either this source or that source.
Click to expand...
See above.
Do you think that the Catholic Churrch could improve to a significant degree on Jerome’s efforts?
Click to expand...
See above.
I don’t know the answer to that but I pray that the Catholic Church will always encourage biblical scholarship that would strive for improving the text to the most perfect representation of what the Holy Spirit inspiried the writers to say.
Click to expand...
Do you think that is happening today? If not why not? And if not what do you think should be done about it?
Click to expand...
I hope so
 
This thread has taken a few detours with its posts on the Codex Fuldensis and the Diatesseron. But, to promote a fuller appreciation of the Vulgate - I refer to the Clementine, not the Nova Vulgata, and certainly not the Stuttgart - I offer the following from two respected sources, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE).
  • from the Cath. Encyc. article "Versions of the Bible:
Jerome set himself to the task A.D. 390 and in A.D. 405 completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanonical Books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. To these were added his revision of the Old Latin, or Gallican, Psalter, the New Testament, revised from the Old Latin with the aid of the original Greek, and the remaining deuterocanonical books, and portions of Esther, and Daniel, just as they existed in the Itala.
  • from ISBE article “The Vulgate”:
In conclusion, the present Vulgate, as Westcott remarks, is a composite of elements belonging to every period and form of the Latin version, including (1) the unrevised Old Latin (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch); (2) the Old Latin corrected from the Septuagint (Psalter); (3) Jerome’s free translation from the original (Tobit and Judith); (4) Jerome’s translation from the original (the Old Testament except the Psalter); (5) the Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels); and (6) the Old Latin cursorily revised (the rest of the New Testament).
 
Dear Manfred,
(5) the Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels);
Click to expand...
You actually picked this up from an authoritative source? If so, that is the best news I have read in the past 3 years, for it confirms my conjecture:
That the CF Gospel was not ‘Vulgatized’ post Jerome, and indeed could be, for the most part, a pure witness to 2nd century VL Gospels, which thus could only be those of Carthage.

It also makes my work useful to historians who wish to identify that text which St Jerome copied from VL in toto, and hints at what he might have changed. The Gospels I can witness to so sar are Matthew, about 85%, and John, about the same, in verse count, untouched.
What is indicated from the CF is that the order of pericopes in Matthew and John was very different from what we now see.
 
Just as a disappointing update, the preliminary reports show that we were probably mislead about the contents of the Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bible Reader’s Version, so please ignore my previous comments about the Reader’s version and take them to refer only to the Compact Version.

It looks like the Reader’s Version may turn out to be the Ignatius First Edition with a new binding and some very small number of changes. We haven’t been able to exhaustively verify what its contents are yet (I don’t have a copy yet), but it doesn’t look to be as excellent as its Compact cousin. Please refer to here for the latest: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1788075 .
 
I read somewhere that Catholic Truth Society Douai-Rheims Bibles published in the 50s and 60s in Great Brittain differed slightly from Douai-Rheims-Challoner and Douai-Rheims- Challoner-Haydock Bibles published in the United States in the 20th century.

Is this true? Were any improvements made?

I guess what I’m really asking is what is the MOST IMPROVED Douai-Rheims Bible of all times–not counting the Confraternity Bible?

I think of the Haydock editions of the Douai-Rheims-Challoner Bibles as being SLIGHTLY improved because they sometimes use Dr. Troy’s variants and sometimes have minor changes in spelling such as Sinai for Sina.

In the 1930s Carey revised the New Testemant of the Douai-Rheims—I’ve never read it–I don’t know if it was an improvement or not–or if he used the Challoner revision of the Old Testament or not–that’s why I asked about the Catholic Truth Society Douay-Rheims Bible of the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top