Douay-Rheims Bible

[Cranch]

I don’t know about this. Cardinal Newman reviewed the Challoner Douay-Rheims and wrote that it was basically a new translation of the Bible, as compared to the original Douay-Rheims.

For those who are not aware of this, the Douay-Rheims bibles that are sold by 99% of suppliers are actually Challoner revisions of the Douay-Rheims.

The challoner revision made only minor changes and still doesn’t take away any doctrine.

The original Douay-Rheims was written in Early Modern English. Challoner’s version comes a century and a half (or more) later and is much more modern:

Ephesians 3:6-12, The Rheims New Testament:

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 unsearchable 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.

Ephesians 3:6-12, The Challoner D-R revision:

That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel Of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power. To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Of course the gap widens when you compare today’s presentation of Challoner’s revision with the original D-R as it was printed then. In addition to the early spelling conventions, typography without a “w” and instances where “f” served as an “s” really make it fun:

Hebrews 1:1-2, The Rheims New Testament:

Diversely and many vvaies in times paft God fpeaking to the fathers in the prophets: laft of al in thefe daies hath fpoken to vs in his Sonne, vvhom he hath appointed heire of al, by vvhom he made alfo the vvorldes.

Hebrews 1:1-2, The Challoner D-R revision:

God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, In these days, hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

There seem to be some common misunderstandings about both the historic Douay-Rheims, Douay-Rheims-Challoner, and Authorised “King James” version Bibles in some postings.

The Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version never attained the kind of near conformity in wording of editions across the years of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.). The A.V. Bible did benefit from its “Crown Copyright” protection from having to endure the ravages that unauthorised and bold revisions, or other changes to wording, inflicted upon other versions. The small variants which do exist in the texts of the A.V. as the university presses of Cambridge and Oxford in England (and in Scotland of the few publishers there licensed by the Crown to publish the A.V. there) are so superficial as to require rather a lot of effort to detect. They derive from various officially-sanctioned revisions, to matters only of minute detail, to the A.V. that the two leading British universities undertook, with Royal approval, in the 17th and 18th centuries. These licensed university publishers in the United Kingdom often printed the A.V. for the Bible societies, as well (and often even for the Bible societies abroad).

The most grievous variance is the increasingly frequent omission over the years of the A.V.'s Apocrypha (and, yes, the deutero-canonical books are an authentic part of the A.V.!), due to unrelenting pressures from the “dissenters” (or “non-conformists”) of Britain’s various non-Anglican Protestant denominations and sects, and especially due to early opposition to its inclusion in Bibles printed or distributed by the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society in Britain (representing many non-Anglican Protestant groups as well as the more Apocrypha-friendly Church of England) and by some Bible societies elsewhere. This policy of the various Bible societies to exclude the Apocrypha has waned in recent decades regarding the A.V. and other translations which they publish or distribute, although the T.B.S. still excludes the Apocrypha from editions printed for distribution under its auspices.

The Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version never profited from a Crown Copyright, the license reserved in the United Kingdom for the A.V. as the Crown’s official Bible, the British Crown itself being by law Anglican and hence moderately Protestant. Even editors and publishers abroad in non-Commonwealth countries have tended to respect the textual integrity of the A.V.; most American editions of the A.V., even though the A.V.'s Crown Copyright is not binding in the U.S., have tended to display variants only in spelling, paragraphing, extent or content of alternate readings in the marginal notes, presence or absence of “St.” or “Saint” in the titles of the various books as attributed to their various authors of the New Testament, brief summaries in italics or in small print at the start of chapters, and other such surface matters.

I have editions of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible as published in the U.S.of A. by various firms and as published by the Catholic Truth Society in the U.K., which all have divergences in the wording which are fairly minor, but far more numerous and easily detectable than the tiny variants which occur in various editions of the the A.V. Apparently the degree to which editors chose to follow Challoner’s revisions, so elegantly worded, to the wording of the Douay-Rheims Version varies from one edition to another of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. That is, perhaps, somewhat regrettable, but such minor divergences in editions of it should not deny the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible the status that it so richly deserves as the foremost of Roman Catholic Bible versions in English.

I think that anyone who takes the effort to scrutinise the wording of the Douay-Rheims Bible in its pre-Challoner form will notice the considerable differences immediately! I first became aware of this in consulting the portion for the original Douay-Rheims Version as found in the Octapla New Testament (published to mark the appearance of the Revised Standard Version), a publication which included eight versions that either had preceded or followed the A.V. and which led before 1611 to the A.V.'s wording or which revised the A.V. after 1611, leading to the R.S.V. One truly appeciates Bp. Richard Challoner’s contribution to the Douay-Rheims Bible when one struggles with the cautiously well-intended but crude and excessively pedantic literalism which was the approach of the original Douay-Rheims Bible’s translation teams (one for the O.T., another for the N.T.) who together rendered the Bible from the Clementine Latin Vulgate into English for Anglophone Roman Catholics. It is Bp. Challoner’s magnificently literary recasting of the Douay-Rheims Bible that has assured its ability to endure over the centuries since Challoner revised it. Certainly it is incontestable that Bp. Challoner chose to incorporate much wording which echoes that of the A.V., but not indiscriminately, and, let one emphasise, to the great improvement of the Douay-Rheims Bible’s readability and literary elegance.

So, long live the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version of the Holy Bible in all of its glory, whatever one thinks of the relatively minor variants in which it has existed over the years! Despite what its detractors state, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version remains the best and most faithful, the most wholely and beautifully Catholic, of all Bibles in English.

Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have editions of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible as published in the U.S.of A. by various firms and as published by the Catholic Truth Society in the U.K., which all have divergences in the wording which are fairly minor, but far more numerous and easily detectable than the tiny variants which occur in various editions of the the A.V. Apparently the degree to which editors chose to follow Challoner’s revisions, so elegantly worded, to the wording of the Douay-Rheims Version varies from one edition to another of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. That is, perhaps, somewhat regrettable

I would only like to expound a little on Jerry’s comment above. Most of his post is highly accurate, and even enlightening.

Bishop Challoner himself, produced 3 major variations of his NT. The one of 1749, 1750, and 1752. The one in 1752 was rather a comprehensive redraft. The OT of 1750 always remained largely unrevised by Challoner, or later editors. The 1752 edition of the NT was extremely popular in the late 18th century, was often reprinted, and was used as a basis by some other “editors” that made further changes or revisions. After 1800, the 1749 edition was ascendant, and was either reprinted, or used as the basis for new editors. So that by the end of the 19th century, there is a very complex history of the Challoner Bible with its various lineages.

If one cares to take the time, one can learn where various editions originated and which Challoner version they follow.

Two important bibliographers are Henry Cotton, a somewhat adversarial bibliographer, an Anglican, whose bibliography is scanned and online here:
books.google.com/books?id=ipJAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=John+Cousturier&source=web&ots=cxl5BOGJPm&sig=NhrnmeXEY4f9F9YY80l_YgvHF6w&hl=en#PPP5,M1

Also Father Hugh Pope’s book ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE published in 1952. This book is superior to Cotton’s in that it is much newer and so brings the Catholic editions of the Bible up to recent times.

 

[tobinatorstark]

good points taken

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

Thanks for your reply, guy! It helps all of us better to understand how the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible’s text has varied from one edition to another, knowing, as you provide the information (of which I was partially aware, though I did not go into such detail in my own posting to which you replied so helpfully) about the various texts that Bp. Richard Challoner himself provided and how they variously affected the divergences in later editions of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

I shall have to follow up on those books on the subject by Hugh Pope and Henry Cotton which you mention, as I hope that others who consult Catholic Answers’ Forum also will do!

The matter of fidelity (whether to the Hebrew, Septuagint Greek, or Clementine Latin Vulgate of the O.T. and to the Byzantine Greek, Peshitta Aramaic, and Clementine Vulgate texts of the N.T.) is so much more important than most Christians realise; there is a relentless attempt to undermine the best texts in these languages and to produce translations that are too free in their renderings or corrupted from liberal influences of various kinds. Not “any Bible” soever will do for the conscientious, right-believing Christian reader!

God bless you and long may the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version hold sway among Bible-believing Catholic Christians!

Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You’re very welcome Jerry! At the risk of wearing out my welcome, I can add a little more to your comment:

One truly appeciates Bp. Richard Challoner’s contribution to the Douay-Rheims Bible when one struggles with the cautiously well-intended but crude and excessively pedantic literalism which was the approach of the original Douay-Rheims Bible’s translation teams (one for the O.T., another for the N.T.) who together rendered the Bible from the Clementine Latin Vulgate into English for Anglophone Roman Catholics. It is Bp. Challoner’s magnificently literary recasting of the Douay-Rheims Bible that has assured its ability to endure over the centuries since Challoner revised it.

In fact the Clementine edition of the Vulgate was not ready when Gregory Martin translated the Bible, with the aid of Richard Bristow, Wm. Reynolds, and Cardinal Wm. Allen at Douay. It (the Sixtine and the Clementine Vulgate which followed) wasn’t published until the 1590s. By this time the whole DR bible was already translated for some time. It was Bishop Challoner himself that made use of the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.

No one knows for sure which Vugate text was used by the Rhemists, but it is generally acknowledged to be an amazingly accurate one, as so much of it has withstood the light of modern textual criticism. Of course the Rhemists were Greek scholars as well, and enlightened their Vulgate with the underlying Greek at all times.

If one can find the Hugh Pope book, he will be well rewarded with many just appraisals of the DR. For example, the often cited “crude and overly-literal” translation is revealed to be overstated and exaggerated. Even the Protestant bibles, contemporary with the DR were filled with awkward phrases and dubious wording which hindered intelligibility. Many times the DR’s literal interpretation aided intelligibility, or lent power and majesty to the text, and was often adopted by the KJV, as many DR votaries know.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

Again, how helpful your comments are! I would have thought to check on the date of the Clementine Vulgate and thus to have avoided that error, but I suppose that I had Bp. Challoner’s revision so in mind, which was based on the Clementine Latin Vulgate, that I made the unfortunate slip, which, fortunately, you caught!

I suppose that one’s assessment of the grace, or relative lack of it, of style by the original Douay and Rheims translation teams, will vary from one reader to another. Certainly, compared to Bp. Challoner’s limip and elegant English, the prose of the original Douay-Rheims translators seems quite deficient, from a stylistic standpoint. I really have seen their prose (admittedly only for the New Testament), however, as I have it in that Octapla which I mentioned, so I am not merely parroting what others have had to say on the matter. Anyhow, judgments about literary style and worth are subjective questions to at least some degree, so one should express them moderately. I do want eventually to obtain the complete Douay-Rheims Bible in its original (pre-Challoner) form; being so utterly literal in its rendering, it would be a good help to reading the Latin Vulgate, which I do attempt to do from time to time.

In fact, I try to have as many texts of the Bible in Latin as possible and also as many Bible translations from Latin as I can find and can afford to purchase. For example, I have a modern-spelling edition of John Wycliffe’s translation of the New Testament from the Latin, an edition little known. Here is an ISBD transcription of the bibliographic citation for it:

The Lollard New Testament : being the Wickliffite translation, of ca. 1380 A.D. / as revised by John Purvey & others, ca. 1388-l398 ; [edited] by Stephen P. Westcott [in] a modern spelling edition, with introduction & glossaries. – Fairfax, Va. : Xulon Press, 2002. – ISBN: 1-591602-42-4, available from: Xulon Press, 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 800, Fairfax, VA. 22030, tel. no. 1-866-929-2665.

I obtained this unusual item not because I venerate some pre-Reformation errorist (and his fellow Lollards who helped to imrpove Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible from Latin), but because I have such an high esteem for St. Jerome’s Latin Bible (and for the Old Latin Bible, as well), that I like to have various translations of it to help me, with my dimming Latin abilities, to understand the Latin text(s). One other Latin New Testament item that I have longed for is Erasmus’ own Latin translation of the New Testament, but it seems quite elusive to find apart from the antiquarian market, at prices that I cannot (as a retired person) afford, for an edition from the Renaissance.

Again, thanks much, and may God bless you, Sir!

Jerry Parker

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Challoner edition was influenced by the KJV, but does not rely upon it, neither moderately nor heavily.

Challoner relied heavily upon the original Douai Rhemes edition.

The Dr. Peters edition of the original Douai is an excellent reference. I own all four printed volumes. The annotations are very useful, and the text is an invaluable resource.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I suppose that one’s assessment of the grace, or relative lack of it, of style by the original Douay and Rheims translation teams, will vary from one reader to another. Certainly, compared to Bp. Challoner’s limip and elegant English, the prose of the original Douay-Rheims translators seems quite deficient, from a stylistic standpoint.

That’s right Jerry. I have no disagreement with you there. But there is such a constant deprecation of the old DR for being crude and unintelligible, that it has grown out of all proportion today.

The post-reformation English Catholics were so glad to have their own authorized edition, which was basically unassailable translation-wise, and certainly smooth enough to their own ears even if some strange words were introduced into the text here and there. Words that today have entered into the English language like Alleluia, and Amen. Yet it had become frozen in the past by the early 18th century, due to it’s lack of reprintings, unlike the KJV as you have already said.

The KJV was constantly being updated and tweaked, and surprisingly enough, brought more into line with the DR as time progressed.

It’s hard to believe, but the DR in its entirety was not published for more than 100 yrs! -From 1635 until 1750.

By the time Challoner published his revisions, the KJV was very close to the sense of DR, and was for this reason a good translation for him to consult for some phrases that had become so familiar to the English ear.

But I am just trying to underscore the accuracy and truth of your own statements.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The Challoner edition was influenced by the KJV, but does not rely upon it, neither moderately nor heavily.

Challoner relied heavily upon the original Douai Rhemes edition.

The Dr. Peters edition of the original Douai is an excellent reference. I own all four printed volumes. The annotations are very useful, and the text is an invaluable resource.

I’d like to see a sample of one of Dr. Peters’ pages of transliteration. I couldn’t find any such sample on his website. Does he reprint the original notes (transliterated) or his own, or both?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi again, Ambrose SJ,

Many thanks for these very interesting comments! I never had noticed that the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) Bible, in the course of undergoing its several tiny revisions, had gotten closer to the Douay-Rheims Version than it had been when first published in 1611. This really intrigues me, i.e. to know the details of this rapprochement of the two translations. I appreciate having this pointed out to me (and to others, on this Forum)!

I have come across some anti-Challoner-revision comments here and there, but it would seem to me, knowing (as you point out) that the Douay-Rheims Version was out-of-print for so long before Bp. Richard Challoner produced the first of his magnificently lovely revisions of it, that all of us should consider outselves very indebted to what that saintly and learned bishop did to ensure that the Douay-Rheims Bible, in his revision of it, survived and flourished, in the face of the considerable competition of the full A.V. (i.e. with “Apocrypha”) for Christian readers’ attention, on whichever side of the Reformantion and Counter-Reformation divide they fell.

It seems to me that one does not have “to take sides” for or against either the original Douay-Rheims Version or the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. They both fulfil particular needs, the original Douay-Rheims as a very literal translation that helps one to read the Latin Vulgate Bible, and the Douay-Rheims-Challner as a Bible for devotional and liturgical use, as well as for study in its own right. I do long to obtain a published text of the original Douay-Rheims Bible, but the editions of it that are available cost quite dear, difficult to manage for purchase on the Canadian and American combined and harmonised retirement pensions for which I am eligible.

I read, about a year or so ago, a biography of Mgr. Ronald Knox. (Years ago, in late adolescence, during my military service in the U.S. Navy, I had read Knox’ complete translation of the Bible and I always have cherished it since that time.) I was taken aback by learning of Knox’ low and condescending view of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version of the Holy Bible. Knox, an ecclesiastical figure and scholar whom I deeply admire, felt impelled to produce his own translation (which does have much literary grace) in order to provide a more readable and literate Bible translation for Roman Catholics than what Challoner had provided, Knox’ own also based largely on the Clementine Latin Vulgate. In that biography, there were quotes of Knox’ translations of the Bible and of Roman Catholic prayers, to show how supposedly superior Knox’ renditions from Latin to English were compared to what had been standard before his work of new translation of them attained publication, but, frankly, it seemed to me that such comparisons really do not show superiority of Knox over his predecessors in terms of beauty and style (and, regarding Knox’ translation of the Bible, one does note its lack of precision in rendering, however beautifully, the biblical texts, due to Knox’ resort, just a wee bit too often, to paraphrase where that technic is not needed).

One should be glad to have the translation work both of Knox and of his predecessors, even as one should be happly to have, as Bible translation into English, both the original Douay-Rheims and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bibles. Most of all, anyone who exchanges the Challoner Bible (or Knox’, for that matter) for the uttlery banal New American Version Bible, and the later English renderings of ICEL for those English texts of the litrugy which had been published immediately in the wake of Vatican II, has made a swap that impoverishes the spirit and, to say the least of it, makes for one very poor bargain! It can be a chore to endure going to Mass when one’s ears are assaulted with the barbarisms of ICEL prayers and N.A.B. alike! (I realise that grace and beauty are not everything, but I do feel that, as well as “the beauty of holiness”, there is such a thing as “the holiness of chaste beauty”!)

Do not be hesitent to keep up this dialogue, dear Sir, for I, at least, am benefitting greatly from your insights and knowledge, as I suspect that other readers of Catholic Answers forum are, too!

Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

One work that may interest you Jerry is Thomas Ward’s “Errata to the Protestant Bible” first printed in 1688, reprinted again in 1737, 1807 and 1810. In it, Ward enumerates most of the objections originally found in Gregory Martin’s little companion book to the 1582 edition of the DR NT called: A DISCOVERIE OF THE MANIFOLD CORRVPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTVRES BY THE HERETIKES OF OUR DAIES. An abridgement of this work was included in the 1600, and 1633 editions of the DR NT.

Ward’s book is divided somewhat into introductory matter and followed by a table (which makes up about 2/3rds of this quarto volume) under the various headings that Protestants would have slanted their KJV Bible. I.E. The Sacrifice of the Mass, the Priesthood, certain Sacraments, worshipping images, praying to saints, and all of the usual differences.

The table is lined with columns showing how the DR bible, the pre-KJV bibles and the current (1688 KJV Bible) had key verses and terms translated. The final column was marked either “corrected” or whatever the continued mis-translation was favoring the Protestant doctrine. In a very great number of cases, the KJV is marked as corrected even in 1688!

On the page opposite each table page is a greater explanation of what the problems or difficulties are with the KJV translation, as well as an explanation of why the DR Bible’s translation remains more accurate.

It would be interesting to compare this list in Ward’s Errata, to the present day KJV and the NAB. It would probably make our hair stand on end!

BTW Jerry, here’s an Erasmus NT reasonably priced: lulu.com/content/731315

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

“Cool!” (that’s what someone younger would cry out in glee)

Thanks so much for the link to Lulu, which makes so many small press books available, including Erasmus’ Greet and Latin New Testament (from the original 3rd edition of it). The cost was steeper for me perhaps than it would be for you, due to the excessively high s/h fee for a Canadian order. I checked on Amazon Canada’s WWW site, in case one could obtain it from this Canadian supplier with much lower mailing fee, but Amazon.ca does not handle the item. So, I just ordered it a moment ago, Lulu’s high s/h rate and all! I have longed to have Erasmus’ Latin N.T. translation for such a long, long time, that I must thank you very profusely for leading me to a source from which I could order it at a price reasonable for the item itself! What a good (and very well-informed) guy you are!

I should get back seriously to reading Latin, which I learned with such fear and trembling (and good marks) from a team of Jesuit priests so long ago (mid-1960s in California), then with a semi-private lay tutor (a Jewish-Italian convert to the R.C. Church) shortly after, in New Jersey c/o the Paulists.

Now if only I could order the individual remaining volumes of the old Confraternity O.T. which Guild published as the translations of portions of the C.C.D.'s original O.T. appeared. I found them on Amazon.com, but the suppliers who have the two volumes that I need will not fill an order from our Dominion of Canada! Oh, well, eventually…

Believe it or not, I have Thomas Ward’s “Errata to the Protestant Bible”! I came across it (in an edition published in rather large oblong format) years ago, at a very modest cost, too; at the moment it still is in one of the boxes of books which I have not unpacked yet since my move from Montréal to Rouyn-Noranda, but it is here snug and safe in one of the rooms of my house. I have used it now and then over the years. Yeah, it is an eye-opener! It would be most interesting to see the book by Gregory Martin which you cite! You most assuredly are right that the N.A.B., despite its appearance under R.C. auspices, would raise the ire of War or Martin! I wish that they, or the acidic-tongued Ronald Knox, or their staunch likes over the years, were here nowadays to give them a figurative pistol-whipping with their tongues!

By the way, I discovered today, while navigating Indigo-Chapters-Indigos Canadian WWW site, that the excellent and conservative revision (though not so thorough-going an one as I might wish) of the R.S.V., the English Standard Version, has announced a soon-to-be published full E.S.V. Bible with “Apocrypha”! Good news for those who insist on having a Bible in modern English (and the E.S.V.'s English style is exceedingly fine and sharply calibrated to convey subtle nuance).

Keep up the information and help! What a joy it is to hear from you!

The Spirit of Catholicism is abundantly LIFE-affirming!

Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Isn’t the ESV just a RSV translation polished to be more palatable to conservative Protestants?

I do wonder how they go about publishing the deuteros.

What translation do they try to imitate when translating them?

Maybe I’m being too critical–anytime the deuterocanonicals are published it is a good thing–you never know when a Protestant may read them for the first time and then go check out the Catholic faith!

I don’t like the RSV or the ESV but the ESV may be slightly better.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Isn’t the ESV just a RSV translation polished to be more palatable to conservative Protestants?

I do wonder how they go about publishing the deuteros.

What translation do they try to imitate when translating them?

Maybe I’m being too critical–anytime the deuterocanonicals are published it is a good thing–you never know when a Protestant may read them for the first time and then go check out the Catholic faith!

I don’t like the RSV or the ESV but the ESV may be slightly better.

I agree with you. From what I have heard that the ESV is coming out with a Bible with the Duetrocanonicals. It sill isn’t good enough for me. Protestant Bibles that try to Catholicize doesn’t tickle my fancy. I still don’t know why English translations of the Latin Vulgate were exceptable for centuries and now everyone is interested in “original” texts found almost 200 years ago that may or may be as old as they say they are. I remain faithful to the Latin Vulgate (Clementine Edition) and Douay-Rheims. Although I do like read something other on occasion the protestant turned Catholic translations turn me off completely.

 

[Manfred]

By the way, I discovered today, while navigating Indigo-Chapters-Indigos Canadian WWW site, that the excellent and conservative revision (though not so thorough-going an one as I might wish) of the R.S.V., the English Standard Version, has announced a soon-to-be published full E.S.V. Bible with “Apocrypha”! Good news for those who insist on having a Bible in modern English (and the E.S.V.'s English style is exceedingly fine and sharply calibrated to convey subtle nuance).

Jerry et al,

Before we all go off half-cocked on the ESV w/Apocrypha, I’d like to bring your attention to the criticisms, particularly, in this 2002 article:

christiancourier.com/articles/591-the-english-standard-version

I’d also like to alter my earlier stance re the ESV: unless a Catholic biblical society actually edits the ESV w/Apoc for Catholic use, as was done for the 1965-66 RSV-CE by the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain, I wouldn’t be so anxious to embrace it. The NRSV supposedly also has a “Catholic edition”; many of us would regard this is a forgery, as nothing was done to it by any Catholic group.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jerry-Jet,

Well, I know what you mean about the English Standard Version. Certainly it stands no more chance of displacing the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version Bible in our affections than any other Protestant or Roman Catholic version that has appeared since 1969.

However, I think that the E.S.V. is more than just another tired retread of the R.S.V. Bible. The reworking of the text is marvellously lucid in style, surpassing the best of its model (which is more than I can say for the N.R.S.V.!). Just try reading the Wisdom books of the O.T. to see what I mean! This excellence must have entailed quite considerable and conscientious work on the part of the revisors. Where the R.S.V. had been clear, the E.S.V. is crystal-clear. There was an attempt to correct some of the nastiest translational marks of the worst and most biassed kind of liberalism which had so sadly marred the R.S.V. and N.R.S.V. I only wish that the E.S.V.'s editors had eliminated all, or at least far more, of such blotches.

I was very surprised to learn of the impending edition of the E.S.V. with the deutero-canonical writings. I had assumed that the E.S.V. would end up being the strict pasture of Neo-Evangelicals and worse, who do not deserve something so good as it, as the tawdry and highly paraphrastic New International Version has been their polluted feed and water for so long now (and which surely never will come to include the “Apocrypha” for its market of sectaries).

When I get the E.S.V. with “Apocrypha”, I intend to sit down with it and compared it minutely with the R.S.V.-2nd C.E.

Usually Bible versions are worsened in revision. The E.S.V. and the R.S.V.-C.E. seem to be bucking this trend!

Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How do Protestant bible translations stand up to the Douay Rheims Challoner when it comes to the deuterocanonical books?

Does the Nova Vulgata vary alot from the Clementine Vulgate?

Did St. Jerome spend alot of time in translating the dueterocanonical books?

Is there much variation between the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew when it comes to those texts?

I prefer the Vulgate and the Douay Rehims as translations but even St. Jerome translated the Psalms a third time because he thought that the accuracy of the Psalms could be improved.

I’m not against the Vulgate being improved–I just don’t think that no one has done so yet–maybe the Nova Vulgata has some improvements–but many people think it has more minuses than pluses.

It seems like you see more variance in the Psalms than any other part of the bible–sometimes it is hard to know how to translatedsome obscure passages.

Alot of people were upset with how St. Jerome translated the bible when he did.

They were used to the Psalms being a certain way–yes there were even people defending that particular Latin scriptural tradition even back then!

It may never happen but I wish beyond Latin for the Latin Rite that the Holy See would make a translation of what THEY THOUGHT the bible said taking into account original language texts.

I think if such a thing ever happend that there wouldn’t be much divergence from Latin–but in some minor detail that there could be some improvements.

I guess what I really crave is to know is what discoveries of ancient language texts mightactualy yield a better biblical text.

I wish someone from the Holy See could tell us.

I’d trust them before I would anyone else.

Since the Douay Rheims is in the public domain wouldn’t it be nice if someone would just give us a better Douay Rheims?

It wouldn’t have to have radical changes–give us Anglicanized names and number the verses differently.

There are slight minor differences between Challoner’s translation of the New Testament and some Haydock’s versions of the New Testament.

I think that English has changed sligthly since Challoner and it would be possible to have very minor changes of it in style without doing damage to the Latin scriptural tradition.

One bible that I have laways wanted to read is the Carey Revision of the New Testament written in the 1930s. I’ve always wondered if it varied much from the Douay Rheims Challoner?

I once say it for sale on the internet but they watned $276. I think it’s rarity might be why it costs so much as it was printed in Belgium.

I don’t agree with all of Knox’s bible and prefer the Douay Rheims to his–but some parts of his translation are good.

While I put the Douay Rheims at the top–I’d still take a Knox bible over the NAB or the Jerusalem bible.

I think there is a protestant translation of the bible called the Amplified Bible.

I think Knox amplifies a little bit on the biblical text–it’s not an accurate translation of the bible–but it is useful when studying the bible because you get a Catholic for the most part viewpoint and it makes somethings that are hard to understand crystal clear.

For that matter I wish someone would publish an improved Douay Rheims with a good comentary. Haydock is not perfect–maybe something on the lines of A Catholic Ciommentary on Scripture that was writen in the 50s or failing that maybe a slightly updated version of Haydock’s commentary.

Does anyone know if there are many Douy Rheims versions of the bible published with Christ’s words in red? I know for the most part Catholic bibles don’t follow that practice–but I don’t see anything wrong with it–there are a few Catholic bibles with Christ’s words in Red–why not a brand new updated Douay Rehims that also followed that practice?

Add some great maps–art from the great masters–papal encyclicals about the bible–indented tabs so you could easily get to the different books of the bible quickly and have high quality leather for the cover?

Also what about a self-pronouncing version?

And how about LARGE PRINT so it would be easier to read?

The Catholic Church has the finest art in the world–we as Catholics should be able to buy beautiful bibles that in their construction are fine and use the best paper and highest quality of ink available.

 

[Canto]

I’d like to see a sample of one of Dr. Peters’ pages of transliteration. I couldn’t find any such sample on his website. Does he reprint the original notes (transliterated) or his own, or both?

I have pdfs of his work. He got a copy and typed it up every word of it, footnotes, sidenotes, introductions, Biblica text, tables etc.

Printing was not all that advanced back then and from a few scans of one of the old printings I have seen very hard to read. So it’s nice to have it fresh.

Furthermore he modernises the spelling - though he does NOT change any words.

i.e. Haille fulle of grace becomes Hail full of grace. That’s all.

Is it the most readable bible, probably not. But I so admire it’s accuracy and that they corrected the Latin if need be to the Greek and Hebrew. Basically it seems the Latin was a base text as the Bishop’s bible was for the King James version.

No English translation (yet) is perfect in literary quality as far as I’m concerned, so I may as well go with something very accuracte that has stood time’s test.

Yes we owe a GREAT DEBT to Bishop Challoner but I love the original - and in modern spelling!

 

[Canto]

The following link has the Ward book for those interested. You can freely download it as a text file or PDF. I think it has columns so PDF might be best.

Thomas Ward: Errata to the Protestant Bible
archive.org/details/erratatotheprote00warduoft