Douay-Rheims Bible

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, D-R fans,

It looks as though my contributions, notably those which discuss the English Standard Version (E.S.V.), to appear soon with “Apocrypha” (i.e. with the deutero-canonical writings of the full Roman Catholic and Lutheran canon-with-deutero-canon, plus the 3 writings included in the full Clementine Latin Vulgate’s appendix, which form part of the Anglican deutero-canon or “Apocrypha”) have stirred up interest. Good!

Regarding most of our guarded approval for some modern English-language versions which have appeared since 1969, I think that most of us would admit that we only make concessions to the claims of the better of them in order to throw a sop to those stubborn believers who clamour adamantly to have the Bible in contemporary English. I do not let that factor affect my own choices and preferences. The best Bibles in English are those with varying states of Tudor-Stuart English, the Douay-Rheims and Douay-Rheims-Challoner versions, which are Catholic translations, and the Authorised “King James” Version (with its “Apocrypha”), which is an Anglican-Protestant translation. The only more-or-less fully satisfactory modern Bible is the recently published Orthodox Study Bible (which I have mentioned elsewhere, for those who wish to know more of it), an Eastern Orthodox study Bible translating anew the Septuagint O.T. with the N.T. in the New King James Version.

Yeah, one does hope that the E.S.V. will come out, as the R.S.V. did earlier, with a “Catholic Edition”. However, the provision of an edition with the “Apocrypha” is a big and important step forward. This translation, despite its shortcomings (as mentioned in article on Manfred’s link, in some assessments by the Trinitarian Bible Society, and elsewhere), is superior to the R.S.V. and much superior to the N.R.S.V. It is a good thing to press for a truly Catholic Edition of the E.S.V., in the process, for once, rectifying ALL of its remainly flaws which are hold-overs from the R.S.V.'s various Protestant, and yes, Catholic editions.

So, we tentatively endorse also the least offensive of the modern versions: the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible (ignoring their lousy notes), the R.S.V.-C.E. (& 2nd C.E.), the Knox Bible (and I agree, too, that it is insufficiently exact to merit full trust), and perhaps another two or three. All of us, though, to some degree, at least, loathe and abominate the N.A.B. (tolerable but no more than that), the “Good News” (T.E.V.) Bible’s C.E., and others like them, which also happen to be too paraphrastic in renderings and too ugly in English style ever to merit much of any affection.

I agree that the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version could use some minor improvements, but I so strongly distrust modern revisors, who so often betray us, that I am reluctant, in these faithless times, to see it turned over to ruthless revisors with “their own agenda”. Better it is to wait until less evil times come along (if ever they do) to undertake such a work. Matters which are purely editorial in outward ways, e.g. providing editions with such helps as large-size print, tabs to locate books of the Bible more readily, renaming books with titles to replace unfamiliar hold-overs from those in the Vulgate, double numbering of the Psalms, and suchlike are okay, maybe even such minimal changes as to supply more familiar person and place names in the text, too, but NOTHING BEYOND such changes within the text, for now! Better than seeing unwanted or questionable changes in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, even if some of them are neutral, while OTHERS are not, I would prefer to leave the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version just as it is.

The presence of deutero-canonical books alone is not the dividing line between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The Protestant versions of the Reformation included them, but with the deutero-canonical writings placed in the literary ghetto of an Apocrypha section, between the O.T. and N.T., or at the end. Bibles that lack the deutero-canonical books altogether are not Protestant (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed-Presbyterian), but rather sectarian (Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Campbellite, Neo-Evangelical, etc.)

I did some verse-by-verse comparisons of the Nova Vulgata with the Clementine Vulgate, and I found the results between these Latin versions to be disturbing. There are quite significant differences, even if one needs to look closely to find them. My own tentative conclusion is that the editors of the Nova Vulgata have attempted to reconcile the Vulgate with the Masoretic Hebrew text for the O.T. and with the “Critical Text” (Westcott-Hort, U.B.S., Nestle-Aland) of the N.T. There seems to be no respect for the witness to the text of the Bible that the Latin tradition (Old Latin as well as Vulgate) provides.

The Nova Vulgata seems determined to attempt to abolish the Western witness to the Bible’s textual transmission, especially in adopting even the most pernicious of Liberal Protestantising variants (from minority Greek text readings) in the N.T. Fie on it! Maybe the Clementine Vulgate is not perfect, but it has a lot more integrity as truly a Bible of the Latin Church than the Nova Vulgata does! The same problem exists with attempts to revise the Clementine text as applies to such revisions to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version: revisors in these sad times do not merit our trust! Let us wait patiently for less feckless and reckless times to come, when revisors would work within limited and orthodox parameters with no “fudging”.

I could reply to other points that have been brought up, but I do not want to try the patience of those who read this Forum, to “pontificate” on matters about which several of you are far more qualified than I am to comment, or to exceed space limit, either.

God bless our beloved Clementine Latin Vulgate and its lovely and faith English rendering, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible!

Jerry Parker

 

[Canto]

I did some verse-by-verse comparisons of the Nova Vulgata with the Clementine Vulgate, and I found the results between these Latin versions to be disturbing. There are quite significant differences, even if one needs to look closely to find them.

Interesting post Jerry,

This Nova ‘verses’ Clementine thing really interests me. Are you able to list a few examples off the top of your head of differences that really stand out?

Thanks, Canto

 

[tobinatorstark]

I did some verse-by-verse comparisons of the Nova Vulgata with the Clementine Vulgate, and I found the results between these Latin versions to be disturbing. There are quite significant differences, even if one needs to look closely to find them. My own tentative conclusion is that the editors of the Nova Vulgata have attempted to reconcile the Vulgate with the Masoretic Hebrew text for the O.T. and with the “Critical Text” (Westcott-Hort, U.B.S., Nestle-Aland) of the N.T. There seems to be no respect for the witness to the text of the Bible that the Latin tradition (Old Latin as well as Vulgate) provides. .

God bless our beloved Clementine Latin Vulgate and its lovely and faith English rendering, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible!

Jerry Parker

I agree with you on side by side comparison of the Clementine edition and the Nova Vulgata. Luke 1:28 is one of them. The Nova Vulgata seems to cheap too be Catholic just like the RSV-CE

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Canto and Tobinatorstark,

Thanks for having read what I wrote and having felt motivated to reply. Yes, Canto, I could reply to your question, i.e. to provide examples of passages where the Nova Vulgata and the Clementine Vulgate diverge, when the Nova tends towards straitjacketing the Latin to conform with the minority “critical” text Greek readings which vary from the Clementine Vulgate as well as from the Byzantine Greek text (with which the Vulgate frequently, but not always, agrees). What is needed, if anything besides the Clementine Vulgate, is a critical edition of the Vulgate that respects the historic LATIN TRANSMISSION of the N.T. in the Western Church, not one that forces the Latin Bible into conformity with the Egyptian Alexandrian Text.

I prepared a short document about these divergences and one publication acknowledged it, without publishing it in full. Since my move from Montréal to Rouyn-Noranda (both cities here in Québec), I have not yet found all of the binders of my manuscripts, including the one with that text that I wrote. Perhaps Tobinatorstark could mention more divergences than the one in the message also replying to my posting. (St. Luke 1:28 does not seem to me to be much of an example of the real problems with the Nova Vulgata.)

Anyway, this is a serious matter. The Spanish edition(s), very nice and elegantly printed ones, of the Clementine Vulgate already have been going out of print, as someone mentioned earlier on one of the Catholic Answers fora; it frustrates me that I cannot replace my water-damaged copy of the handy and attractive edition (despite its typo errors) which Editorial Católica, Madrid, published in 1985 as a volume in the series “Biblioteca autores cristanos”. Fortunately, I have bulkier editions from the past of the Vulgate, more scholarly editions published in France (which even include the Clementine Vulgate’s often omitted appendices which have the three writings included in the Anglican Apocrypha, but omitted entirely in most Roman Catholic and Lutheran Bibles).

There must a concerted effort to insist that the Clementine Latin Vulgate remain available and, for traditionalists, normative, until something less excentric, and twisted in its bias, than the Nova Vulgata comes along. By the way, there are cases of verses distorted or omitted (except in dismissive notes) which even appallingly which affect Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. There are plenty which really can raise the hair! So, go to it, Tobinatorstark and others out there, many of you more learned and far better Latinists than I am!

Pax vobiscum!

Jerry

 

[Manfred]

It is a good thing to press for a truly Catholic Edition of the E.S.V., in the process, for once, rectifying ALL of its remaining flaws which are hold-overs from the R.S.V.'s various Protestant, and yes, Catholic editions.

---

I agree that the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version could use some minor improvements, but I so strongly distrust modern revisors, who so often betray us, that I am reluctant, in these faithless times, to see it turned over to ruthless revisors with “their own agenda”. Better it is to wait until less evil times come along (if ever they do) to undertake such a work. Matters which are purely editorial in outward ways, e.g. providing editions with such helps as large-size print, tabs to locate books of the Bible more readily, renaming books with titles to replace unfamiliar hold-overs from those in the Vulgate, double numbering of the Psalms, and suchlike are okay, maybe even such minimal changes as to supply more familiar person and place names in the text, too, but NOTHING BEYOND such changes within the text, for now! Better than seeing unwanted or questionable changes in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, even if some of them are neutral, while OTHERS are not, I would prefer to leave the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version just as it is.

Re an “ESV-CE”: many of us have contributed a ton of verses where we felt the RSV-CE needed to be corrected to conform to what we feel is our de facto standard, viz, the Douay-Rheims. The probability that any group working on an “ESV-CE” would even know about this CAF thread is pretty miniscule.

Re the D-R’s being left “as is”: we’re all mature adults here, we’re not really in the dark as to which book “Paralipomenon” refers, or that “Ezechias” and “Hezekiah” refer to the same person; in short - given the bozos who have translated many of the modern versions we have of late, I don’t care to entrust to anyone a revision of the classic D-R.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Manfred, so good to read your words, always carefully considered and wise!

I agree with you entirely! I really do not see real need for even any of the slight adjustments to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version that I have mentioned, mostly echoing what other Forum contributors brought up. However, such changes, not being substantive in nature, would not bother me. The problem always, when change in versions begins, is that those carrying out revision gets restless to push for more, then more, and then altogether too, too much change. Then we have to look for Bibles on the “second hand” book market, to avoid what, alas, has been changing in those new and altered editions. So, let’s just leave the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible as it is, O.T. titles and names, even Psalm numberings, and all; it has enough variants already, from those which have derived from Bp. Richard Challoner’s own recensions of his version, as sorted out, mixed and matched, published and printed in D.-R. editions of the past in Britain, North America, and elswhere.

Of course, I do not assume that potential revisors who undertake refining the R.S.V.-C.E. (or any eventual formation of an E.S.V.-C.E.) will take heed of our “tonnes” of suggestions for “tonnes” of verses to render differently, as vetted in sources such as the Fora of Catholic Answers, but some folks who read Catholic Answers’ Fora may have influence elsewhere. These ideas will not all necessarily (if we are lucky) be left parked forever at the kerb before those august Halls of Influence. When “word gets around” it does so on many fronts, humble ones like C.A.F. as well as others of more exalted stature and influence.

And let us pray, in our devotions, now and then, for the purity of God’s Holy Word printed in these times, when it is so impiously mauled and mangled! The Holy Ghost Who is the Author of God’s imperishable Word can influence and even change the hard hearts of translators and revisors, as He did in the long-receding past when humbler and learned scholars trembled with pious fear at any possibility of misrepresenting God’s revelation to man as they were conveying it through their labours.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

I agree with you entirely! I really do not see real need for even any of the slight adjustments to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version that I have mentioned, mostly echoing what other Forum contributors brought up. However, such changes, not being substantive in nature, would not bother me. The problem always, when change in versions begins, is that those carrying out revision gets restless to push for more, then more, and then altogether too, too much change. Then we have to look for Bibles on the “second hand” book market, to avoid what, alas, has been changing in those new and altered editions. So, let’s just leave the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible as it is, O.T. titles and names, even Psalm numberings, and all; it has enough variants already, from those which have derived from Bp. Richard Challoner’s own recensions of his version, as sorted out, mixed and matched, published and printed in D.-R. editions of the past in Britain, North America, and elswhere.

// i agree with you…i have one bible that i compared to the previous version that my mother has and it had changes…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuty X,

Well, you have learned, as we all at this Forum have learned, too (and yet many others simply must learn, eventually, for the good of their own immortal souls), that the word “Bible” even when conjoined with the word “Catholic” on a title page or cover, in these sad times, is no guarantee that the contents of a copyrighted book product will be want the Holy Ghost conveyed to the sacred authors of old!

Long and ever may the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version prevail in English-speaking Christendom!

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

Jehuty X,

Well, you have learned, as we all at this Forum have learned, too (and yet many others simply must learn, eventually, for the good of their own immortal souls), that the word “Bible” even when conjoined with the word “Catholic” on a title page or cover, in these sad times, is no guarantee that the contents of a copyrighted book product will be want the Holy Ghost conveyed to the sacred authors of old!

Long and ever may the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version prevail in English-speaking Christendom!

Jerry Parker

// that is one reason why (meaning about revision changes) i ordered the douay-rheims bible and “sagrada biblia por felix torres amat” who translated the latin vulgate into castillian…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I agree that the Douay Rheims Bible is the best bible available.

I don’t agree that it is impossible to MINUTELY improve it.

I would agree that the herd of “scholars” involved with any of the recent attempts at translating the bible couldn’t do it.

St. Jerome thought that the Psalms could be improved–he translated it a third time from the Hebrew.

Now who knows more about the accuracy of the Psalms–St. Jerome or the people who published the Clementine Vulgate?

Agree or disagree with the following statement: St. Jerome was qualified to MINUTELY improve the translation of the Psalms?

Agree or disagree with the following statement: St. Jerome was qualified to IMPROVE the Latin scriptural tradition of his time?

Agree or disagree with the following statement: It was a good thing that the Bishop of Rome commissioned St. Jerome to IMPROVE that Latin scriptural tradition?

Agree or disagree with the following statement: It was a good thing that St. Jerome consulted original language texts that were not Latin when he IMPROVED that Latin scriptural tradition?

I’ll agree with the proposition that most all current biblical translators are not St. Jeromes.

I disagree that it is God’s will that St. Jerome’s IMPROVEMENT of the Latin scriptural tradition is the last and final IMPROVEMENT of the Latin scriptural tradition.

I disagree that further IMPROVEMENT of the Latin scriptural tradition can not be made with original language texts.

If people here of such lowly stature see how it could be improved–don’t tell me that on all of planet Earth that there isn’t at least one Catholic translator appreciative of the Latin scriptural tradition that couldn’t do it!

As far as I know God has raised saints who were theologians and doctors of the church–there hasn’t been another St. Thomas Aquinas but theology has progressed.

There won’t be another St. Jerome but I believe that biblical translation will progress.

The same type of people who love
the Latin scriptural tradition–for good reason—are like other people who loved the Old Latin scriptural tradition and rent their clothes in horror when St. Jerome improved that tradition.

Minutely improve the Vulgate or minutely improve the Douay Rheims–publish it tomorrow–and I guarantee you that the world will not end.

It might not be accepted. It might be forgotten. It might not be used in the church’s liturgy. It might have dust on it.

But someone–somewhere will discover it–read it–and have a better understanding of God’s word because of it.

And something tells me that in heaven St. Jerome will smile!

 

[KingAlfred]

Despite the fact I’m now desperately short on time, already have way too many Bibles, and have invested hundreds of man-hours in studying and highlighting a Protestant Bible I started using years ago, I’m going to purchase a DR, and start the laborious task of converting it into my primary Bible. What could more ‘Catholic’ than a Counter-Reformation Bible? Praise God.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuty X,

Thanks so much for mentioning the Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Católico, translated by Felix Torres Amat! I once had come across what I think was this very same translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible into Spanish and have had since then a frustrating time trying to locate it again, to order it. It is available for a price on Amazon.ca (our Canadian Amazon WWW site) that is amazingly less expensive than what Amazon.com (the U.S. Amazon WWW site) requires to obtain it, so I ordered it immediately. Spanish is an exceedingly precise language, with so often even less grammatical ambiguity than characterises Latin (due to Latin’s case endings having to bear too large a burden that is better done by prepositions, as in Spanish, among other languages, and also due to the precision of Castillian Spanish’s specificity, never fudged, for the second person, familiar and formal, in conjugating verbs) and it certainly is a lot easier to read Spanish than to read Latin when such grammatical precision is needed to study a passage closely with grammar as a prime factor in understanding meaning.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

Jehuty X,

Thanks so much for mentioning the Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Católico, translated by Felix Torres Amat! I once had come across what I think was this very same translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible into Spanish and have had since then a frustrating time trying to locate it again, to order it. It is available for a price on Amazon.ca (our Canadian Amazon WWW site) that is amazingly less expensive than what Amazon.com (the U.S. Amazon WWW site) requires to obtain it, so I ordered it immediately. Spanish is an exceedingly precise language, with so often even less grammatical ambiguity than characterises Latin (due to Latin’s case endings having to bear too large a burden that is better done by prepositions, as in Spanish, among other languages, and also due to the precision of Castillian Spanish’s specificity, never fudged, for the second person, familiar and formal, in conjugating verbs) and it certainly is a lot easier to read Spanish than to read Latin when such grammatical precision is needed to study a passage closely with grammar as a prime factor in understanding meaning.

Jerry Parker

// your welcome…

// i must say that it is hard to find…my mother had the family bible version of it for many years and i had no clue until recently…it is in pure castillian and it is beautiful…i did some comparisons with the latin vulgate and all i can say is if you want to get close to the latin vulgate without having to learn latin, then get the sagrada biblia by felix torres amat… (for those who do not know, castillian is a dialect of latin)

// oh … stampley is publishing it… www.stampley.com

// there is one thing i must mention which bothered me is that even though bishop felix torres amat was catholic, he uses “Jehovah” to render God’s holy divine name…it is “NOT” used in text; only used in certain introductions and in the dictionary…the reason is because it is in the Real Academia Española dictionary (Yahveh is not) and if i remember correctly he was a member of the Real Academia Española…i have to check my mother’s family bible…

// oh and i am very happy that you’ve ordered it…i hope you will enjoy it…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuti X,

I assume that this Spanish translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible must be available from more than one publisher. You mention Stampley (and thanks for the link to that firm’s WWW site), and what I found on www.amazon.ca is an edition published by Panamericana Editorial which Amazon.ca indicates as having appeared in January 1999. Well, that is a good thing; more sources for its availability may get this Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Católico, translated by Felix Torres Amat, into more folks’ hands.

I’ll try to remember to look into this matter of using God’s name, Jehovah, when my copy of the translation arrives. One should not worry that “Jehovah” is too redolent of the J.W. cult’s use of it, in case that is the reason that it bothers you. This form of the Holy Name goes back long, long before the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult ever existed.

The precision and lack of ambiguity of Spanish as a language in many ways surpasses what is necessary to convey the Latin Vulgate’s meaning fully. It is good to have a rendering of the Latin Vulgate into a language that has such an ample margin of potential accuracy from which a skilled translator can profit.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

Jehuti X,

I assume that this Spanish translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible must be available from more than one publisher. You mention Stampley (and thanks for the link to that firm’s WWW site), and what I found on www.amazon.ca is an edition published by Panamericana Editorial which Amazon.ca indicates as having appeared in January 1999. Well, that is a good thing; more sources for its availability may get this Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Católico, translated by Felix Torres Amat, into more folks’ hands.

I’ll try to remember to look into this matter of using God’s name, Jehovah, when my copy of the translation arrives. One should not worry that “Jehovah” is too redolent of the J.W. cult’s use of it, in case that is the reason that it bothers you. This form of the Holy Name goes back long, long before the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult ever existed.

The precision and lack of ambiguity of Spanish as a language in many ways surpasses what is necessary to convey the Latin Vulgate’s meaning fully. It is good to have a rendering of the Latin Vulgate into a language that has such an ample margin of potential accuracy from which a skilled translator can profit.

Jerry Parker

// funny thing i got my bibles (douay-rheims & sagrada biblia) today… lol … i have not checked them out yet…

// i was not aware that there was another publisher, thanks for mentioning it…i have been searching once i’ve read about it and did not find it until recently when i saw my mother’s family bible (released by stampley) and i checked stampley out…wow she had it since like the 80’s and it’s still in good condition…

// as for Jehovah bothering me, it goes way back to protestants…lol

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuty X,

How cherished is the Bible that one’s parent owned. I have my Protestant step-father’s A.V. (K.J.V. without its Apocrypha) and my paternal grandmother’s R.S.V. large-print Bible (without the R.S.V.'s Apocrypha, either), and the wear to both volumes was from their own personal use of the Holy Scriptures, making them all the more dear to me in their dog-eared state. Your mother was using superior versions specifically Catholic, though, and that is a memory to cherish, too!

The use of “Jehovah” is not wrong, just a bit gauche-sounding. The Protestant American Standard Version (1901) used “Jehovah”,so often, as the Jerusalem Bible uses the even more irksome “Yahweh”, that one could roar with irritation when reading either! Using LORD (all in caps) or something like “The Eternal” makes for readings that sound more like real English without the intrusion of something more-or-less merely transliterated from Hebrew.

Jerry

 

[Jehuty_X]

Jehuty X,

How cherished is the Bible that one’s parent owned. I have my Protestant step-father’s A.V. (K.J.V. without its Apocrypha) and my paternal grandmother’s R.S.V. large-print Bible (without the R.S.V.'s Apocrypha, either), and the wear to both volumes was from their own personal use of the Holy Scriptures, making them all the more dear to me in their dog-eared state. Your mother was using superior versions specifically Catholic, though, and that is a memory to cherish, too!

// wow…yes is it cherished…i was when i saw my mom’s family bible and i opened it and found “felix torres amat and that it was translated from the latin vulgate into castillian”…oh and bishop felix torres amat was a member of the Real Academia Española… rae.es/
// funny thing is my mom had no clue that it was translated from the latin vulgate until i told her…

The use of “Jehovah” is not wrong, just a bit gauche-sounding. The Protestant American Standard Version (1901) used “Jehovah”,so often, as the Jerusalem Bible uses the even more irksome “Yahweh”, that one could roar with irritation when reading either! Using LORD (all in caps) or something like “The Eternal” makes for readings that sound more like real English without the intrusion of something more-or-less merely transliterated from Hebrew.

Jerry

// i love it when the bible uses God’s holy divine name “Yahveh/YHVH”…why? well think of it like how a child wants to know his/hers parents real name…i was actually like that asking if God has a name and finally i was told…
// what bothers me a little is why is it being used starting from genesis instead of starting from exodus as how God reveals it??? for me it’s more of a surprise once revealed in exodus than from genesis…that’s just me…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuti X,

Well, whether and how frequently “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” is used in a translation, unless a liberal translator has some devious intention, is something than can vary. This matter of frequency of use of those forms of the Sacred Name is not usually all that important to me in evaluating a translation into whatever language. Sometimes, though, when two forms of God’s Name are used together in a passage it is desirable that a translation include “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” as one of them (if such be one of the appellations of deity), for clarity’s sake, e.g. “Jehovah Lord”, “Jehovah God”, or suchlike.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

Just a word here to follow up the matter of the edition of Desiderius Erasmus’ Latin translation of the New Testament (N.T.) which that great humanist included in the important 3rd edition (1522) of his Greek and Latin N.T. I received the volume from Lulu, the distributor (www.lulu.com)), today. Lulu does seem to be the source from lwhich to acquire this and the other Bibles and portions thereof which the small publisher, on its WWW site (www.bibles.org.uk) prints and reprints. Among many other quite important biblical texts, in addition to many that are important among original-language and ancient early versions, which one can obtain from Bibles.org, are the standard and faithful Scriptures in Slavic languages, which the United Bible Societies have been trying to displace by publishing and distributing their own alternative, new, biassed and modernist translations based upon “critical texts” from corrupt manuscripts that include the minority readings so favourable to “liberal” and heretical claims.

Although, of course, Erasmus’ Latin translation of the N.T. is uniquely his own, it is good to be able to have it. If the Nova Vulgata elects to distort the Latin Bible’s N.T. by forcing it to conform to the Greek “critical” (minority) text, why should one object to a N.T. in Latin that conforms to the Ecclesiastical (Byzantine) Greek, the same text type, “Textus Receptus” (T.R.), as that of Erasmus’ own edition of the N.T.‘s Greek text? (For those Roman Catholics who may be unduly suspicious of editions of the T.R. from humanist, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant scholarship, a reprint of the the famous Roman Catholic exemplar of the T.R., the “Complutensian Polyglot” (vol. 2, as reprinted, for the N.T., of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, of which vol. 1 is for the Old Testament), also is available from Bible.org.uk via Lulu. Of course, the Latin Vulgate (in a form that conforms overall to the Clementine Vulgate) and the “Old Latin” Bibles are primary as textual witnesses to the historic Latin-language stream of manuscript transmission of the N.T., but there always is place for a Latin translation of such elegance and faithfulness on its own terms as that of Erasmus. It will require some time for me to assess just how much Erasmus’ Latin indeed does correspond to the Textus Receptus Greek, since both the Greek and the Latin texts in the 1522 edition lack chapter and verse numberings, impeding any quick spot-checking of critical passages).

This edition which I obtained (as your own earlier message had led me to it) of Erasmus’ 1522 Greek and Latin N.T. is a photoreprograhic reprint edition, without an ISBN (i.e., international standard book number) indicated in or on it. It binds within the strong covers of an heavy and glossy paper stock, the pages being affixed by a strongly adhesive glue (without thread binding reinforcement), what essentially is a photocopy of the original edition. There is no separate reprint title page (just the photoreproduction of the original 1522 t.p.), not even “end papers” before and after the first and last printed pages. The ISBD citation for the reprint itself thus would have to be that from data on the front and back covers:

Erasmus’ Greek-Latin New Testament, 1522 / Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1522. – [London] : Bibles.org.uk, [200-?]. – [68], 562 p.)

The photographic contrast is dark, probably to assure no loss of any dimmer detail in the original, givng the pages a grey hue, but readability is good. The Latin text is in Roman script, not in “Gothic” letters (i.e., in Frakturschrift); some of the letters are formed in an older style than current Roman script, but that does not impede readability since it is easy to adjust to these now slightly archaic niceties.

Long may the Latin Bible, especially the Clementine Vulgate, upon which Bp. Richard Challoner’s text of the Douay-Rheims Version is based, endure! May the Clementine Vulgate and such other texts as that of Erasmus, faithful to the transmission of the N.T. in the historic Church of West and East, endure and prevail!

Jerry Parker

 

[KingAlfred]

That’s it – I’m purchasing a D-R Bible, which will be perhaps my 20th Bible. Bottom-line: I want a COUNTER-REFORMATION Bible. Fighting the Reformation was one of the most glorious spiritual wars ever fought, in the history of Western Man. Git’r done. :knight1: