Douay-Rheims is confusing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion is that any well read, literate person can understand the DR with ease. That means someone that can read and understand Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope, Goldsmith, Thoreau, Whitman, Hawthorne, Poe, and any of our older literary masters, would have no trouble whatsoever with Challoner’s version of the DR, and should even be able to read the original DR with little difficulty.

Are these authors even read in the schools anymore? That is my question. :confused:
Are these authors even read in the schools anymore? That is my question. :confused:
Sadly the fact being is that many Catholics today are persuaded and told that the Douay Rheims Bible is extinct or stay away from it.

Personally; I could not do without the Douay Rheims Bible.
No other Catholic Bible come close in comparison in my humble judgment.
The older the Douay Rheims Bible the better. Love it.

Is the Douay Rheims still used in seminaries and schools of theology ?
That I suppose would depend on the level of educative orthodoxy in the recognizance of the catechist and catholic individual.

I have dreamed of living the rest of my life in the Vatican Archives in study.
But Knowledge without Love amounts to nothingness.
 
Please help me then, old faithful DR scholors. Do all versions of DR omit Revelations, or just the 2008 Baronius Press 4th impression. Was Revelations a separate book like when the DR was first written i.e. Old Testament and then the New Testament.
Apocalypse is the Greek word for Revelation.

So the Vulgate uses the name Apocalypse but its the same book…
 
Apocalypse is the Greek word for Revelation.

So the Vulgate uses the name Apocalypse but its the same book…
Very true. Also 1 and 2 Chronicles go by their Greek title Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah is 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 and 2 Samuel are 1 and 2 Kings with 1 and 2 Kings being 3 and 4 kings.
 
Very true. Also 1 and 2 Chronicles go by their Greek title Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah is 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 and 2 Samuel are 1 and 2 Kings with 1 and 2 Kings being 3 and 4 kings.
What do you make of Ronald Conte’s Catholic Public Domain Version?

Would you recommend it?

The CPDV is to the D-R what the NKJV is to the KJV, a re-translation of the same text in modern English using the original as a guide

(I wish Ron Conte would release it in a single volume :()
 
I’m not a D-R scholar, but as far as I know they should all include the Book of Revelation but under the name of ‘The Apocalypse of Saint John the Apostle’ or something similar.
Yes. After going back to my DR, I contacted my Mother and explained that very thing. Thank you for answering.
 
this is kind of weird in Douay Rheims: Proverbs 30

1 The words of Gatherer the son of Vomiter. The vision which the man spoke with whom God is, and who being strengthened by God, abiding with him, said:

Here it is in NAB

Proverbs 30 (New American Standard Bible)

Proverbs 30
The Words of Agur
1The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the oracle. The man declares to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ucal:

Are these the same people, and why so much difference in the names?
 
Apocalypse is the Greek word for Revelation.

So the Vulgate uses the name Apocalypse but its the same book…
Yes. After going back to my DR, I contacted my Mother and explained that very thing. Thank you for answering.
 
this is kind of weird in Douay Rheims: Proverbs 30

1 The words of Gatherer the son of Vomiter. The vision which the man spoke with whom God is, and who being strengthened by God, abiding with him, said:

Here it is in NAB

Proverbs 30 (New American Standard Bible)

Proverbs 30
The Words of Agur
1The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the oracle. The man declares to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ucal:

Are these the same people, and why so much difference in the names?
Bishop Richard Challoner:
1 “Gatherer”… Or, as it is in the Latin, Congregans the son of Vomens. The Latin interpreter has given us in this place the signification of the Hebrew names, instead of the names themselves, which are in the Hebrew, Agur the son of Jakeh. But whether this Agur be the same person as Solomon, as many think, or a different person, whose doctrine was adopted by Solomon, and inserted among his parables or proverbs, is uncertain.
So the Douay-Rheims gives the meaning of the names instead of a transliteration

This is similar to Ecclesiastes 1:1

NAB

1 The words of David’s son, Qoheleth, king in Jerusalem:

RSV
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

Also, the Douay-Rheims is translated from the Vulgate which itself was translated from the Hebrew but heavily influenced by the Old Latin and LXX

Modern Bibles are translated from the Hebrew which minor influences from LXX and Vulgate
 
What do you make of Ronald Conte’s Catholic Public Domain Version?

Would you recommend it?

The CPDV is to the D-R what the NKJV is to the KJV, a re-translation of the same text in modern English using the original as a guide

(I wish Ron Conte would release it in a single volume :()
The CPDV is good, but it lacks one thing. There is no Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest or Imprimatur. These are official declarations that the Church gives on printed material. Nor is there an approval from a Bishops Committee like the USCCB. I give a lot of credit to Ron for his outstanding work, but no official church approval is a walk on the dangerous side. Also the Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest and Imprimatur doesn’t mean that is error free in all moral and doctrinal issues, but does guarantee that the material is safe for Catholics. The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible that is declared from moral and doctrinal err. I wouldn’t go far as to say that the NKJV used the same texts as the KJV. There are some major differences between the two.
 
The CPDV is good, but it lacks one thing. There is no Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest or Imprimatur. These are official declarations that the Church gives on printed material. Nor is there an approval from a Bishops Committee like the USCCB. I give a lot of credit to Ron for his outstanding work, but no official church approval is a walk on the dangerous side. Also the Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest and Imprimatur doesn’t mean that is error free in all moral and doctrinal issues, but does guarantee that the material is safe for Catholics. The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible that is declared from moral and doctrinal err. I wouldn’t go far as to say that the NKJV used the same texts as the KJV. There are some major differences between the two.
Also the Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest and Imprimatur doesn’t mean that is error free in all moral and doctrinal issues, but does guarantee that the material is safe for Catholics.
I would have to conclude that some strong discernment when choosing to purchase Catholic books with the Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest and Imprimatur especially more so in liberalized modern times. As you mentioned it
doesn’t mean that is error free in all moral and doctrinal issues
. I’m usually very guarded when choosing Modern Catholic books today with the Church loosely accrediting the inked Nihil Obstat, Imprini Potest and Imprimatur seen in many Catholic books today. Of course their are spiritual classics from Tan publishing you trustingly rely on as well a number of other Catholic publishers worthy of esteem.
 
What do you make of Ronald Conte’s Catholic Public Domain Version?

Would you recommend it?

The CPDV is to the D-R what the NKJV is to the KJV, a re-translation of the same text in modern English using the original as a guide

(I wish Ron Conte would release it in a single volume :()
The main problem I have with his translation is that it is completely unrecognized by any ecclesiastical authority. Never mind the Imprimatur, nihil obstat etc; there should be some sort of recommendations from some members of the magisterium for so important a work as a translation of the Bible. Otherwise, it is nothing more than some internet guy putting up an internet translation of the Vulgate.

Ronald Knox, for example was commissioned by the UK hierarchy to translate the Vulgate back in the 30’s. His translation had the approval of that hierarchy, as well as the Imprimatur of the American Archbishop of N.Y. Cardinal Spellman. It was thoroughly reviewed and known of by the magisterium.

Without any sort of recommendation, I would think Ron Conte’s translation would be of primary interest to other Latin Scholars, that might review and weigh it’s benefits and faults.

Once we have some professional, competent Catholic opinions on the value and worth of this translation, then I believe it might be more appropriate for general reading. Otherwise, I can’t imagine why there is any need for another Vulgate translation, when the Challoner bible is already on line and available for free, and is also public domain. The argument might be raised that the Challoner version is too difficult to read for some. In that case, those persons particularly should take the utmost care in trusting the text of an unknown translator.

I mean no slight to the work Ron put into his translation, but it needs to be properly evaluated before it is given any general Catholic acceptance.
 
Greetings Epistemes:)
I tried reading the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians last night, and I really didn’t understand it.

That’s all I have to say. 🙂
The Douay-Rheims is based on the Clementine Vulgate which was originally pursued to replaced the problematic Vulgate that Jerome had translated.

By his graces, his servant, Nic:)
 
AmbroseSJ is not insinuating that if one doesn’t prefer the Douay-Rheims that they are illiterate. He is however applying the factor that those who are familiar with Elizabethan literature should have a better grasp on the Douay-Rheims. However the Douay isn’t the only translation available out there. The like of the Haydock Bible Commentary was design to help understand the scripture better and one should take that into consideration if they having trouble with the Douay-Rheims.
I know this post is a few months old but I noticed a reference in this string about the “Haydock Bible Commentary”. Is this approved by the church? If not, what is out there, approved by the church, that would help to translate the “Douay-Rheims” Bible?
 
I have copies of DR and KJ- don’t use either in study.The language DOES get in my way.Read whatever translation you get the most out of. If it is unclear it serves not purpose to you and clarifies nothing. I personally think a parallel Bible can help you get the most out of scripture . What is unclear in one translation can be made crystal clear in another. Or you can use one translation to verify another.Or use a commentary. Collegeville is good as well as the Ignatius bible study. the come in individual books which are text and commentary- what’s good is they are very affordable.Good Hunting;)
This is how I feel as well. I generally read the Bible each day. I read through it over time, each morning. My favorite thing to do is read a book in the DR, and then re-read the same book using the RSV. I feel I get a lot out of it this way.
 
I know this post is a few months old but I noticed a reference in this string about the “Haydock Bible Commentary”. Is this approved by the church? If not, what is out there, approved by the church, that would help to translate the “Douay-Rheims” Bible?
Yes. It contains Douay-Rheims text as well as the commentary. It does bear a Imprimatur I believe. I bought one for my sister for her wedding. Beautiful Bible
 
I know this post is a few months old but I noticed a reference in this string about the “Haydock Bible Commentary”. Is this approved by the church? If not, what is out there, approved by the church, that would help to translate the “Douay-Rheims” Bible?
The Haydock Commentary is a fruit of the labors of Fr. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849), scion of one of the oldest English Recusant families (he was, in fact, born in Cottam at Lancashire, the heart of Catholic resistance to the Penal Laws). Fr. Haydock took his text from the Challoner-MacMahon revision of the DR, but added a substantially extended commentary. This commentary was partly original and partly compiled from Patristic writings and the writings of Bible scholars in his day - one of whom was Dom Antoine Augustin Calmet OSB, who authored the ground-breaking Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament (“Literal Commentary on All the Books of the Old and New Testament”). I say ground-breaking because his work was the very first Biblical commentary to devote itself solely on the literal meaning of the passage, as opposed to the allegorical or moral meaning, which made it a hit among both Catholic and Protestant audiences.

Protestants in Haydock’s day often used the Bible as a weapon against Catholics (and some people still do today!); Fr. Haydock helped Catholics to launch a counteroffensive against it.

George’s brother, Thomas, was the Bible’s publisher. Production began in 1811 and was completed in 1814, in a large, folio edition. As were many editions of the Bible at the time, Haydock’s was published and sold by subscription, a few leaves at a time. Subscribers would accumulate the sets of leaves over the years and ultimately have the completed Bible bound. Different copies have general title pages dated 1811, 1812, or 1813, showing variously Thomas Haydock’s Manchester or Dublin locations. Given the enormous scope of annotating the entire Bible, Father Haydock was unable to maintain his brother’s demanding production schedule in addition to his pastoral duties at Ugthorpe. Therefore, another Douay alumnus, Fr. Benedict Rayment (1764-1842), was called on for assistance. He and a group of colleagues compiled the New Testament portion of the commentary.

There was contemporary criticism that haste in preparation of the commentary resulted in some errors. However, given the spartan resources available for Catholic publishing in England at the time, the Haydock Bible must be considered a remarkable achievement. English Catholics enthusiastically welcomed this impressive volume that symbolized a reinvigorated Catholicism on the verge of winning its long fight to repeal the Penal Laws. At least 1,500 copies of the first edition were sold.

Still, despite successful sales, this expensively produced edition was a financial loss to Fr. George’s brother Thomas, whose enthusiasm for publishing Catholic books far exceeded his business acumen, and to Fr. George, who personally subsidized the project. Despite this, an undismayed Thomas took on several partners and managed to produce an octavo edition in 1822-1824. The very first American edition was published in 1823-1825 by Irish immigrant Eugene Cummiskey of Philadelphia; it remains, to this day, the only folio Catholic Bible ever published in America.

In 1874-1878, two converts from the Oxford Movement, Frs. Frederick Oakeley (1802-1880) and Thomas Law (1836-1904) thoroughly revised the commentary to incorporate advances in Biblical scholarship since Haydock’s time in Virtue and Company Limited’s edition of the Haydock Bible. Beginning with this edition, title pages to the New Testament sections incorrectly credit Father Haydock with the New Testament commentary. Since the names of Father Rayment and his associates were never mentioned, even in the earliest editions, their contribution was forgotten over the years.

As an aside, as a news for everyone here: the Haydock Commentary would reach its bicentennial in 2011! I guess that would be a good time to celebrate the achievements of Frs. Haydock and Rayment, Thomas Haydock, and all those who contributed to the Haydock Bible and Commentary, helping and spiritually nourishing generations of English-speaking Catholics by their works, would it not? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top