Douay Rheims issues

[_L]

I have recently purchased a copy of the Douay Rheims Bible, and although I love it for its very poetic language, I have to say I am a bit unsure of using it as a study Bible for just a couple of reasons as I have discovered.

The first issue being in Genesis 3:15 where the DR translation says…

[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

But in the original Hebrew, the pro noun used where I highlighted it red is he, not she. Where it says her the second time, it should actually say the “the heel” rather than her heel.

I read an article on this site, which can be found here: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709chap.asp

which also says that it does use he in the original Hebrew rather than she, and the usage of she is most likely a copyists error.

But regardless of pro noun used; both are correct; however I still am a little bit disconcerted since I have been “Bible hunting” for the best translation, and as of now I am not ecstatic about the DR. I find the RSV-CE 2nd edition to be the best.

Another translation issue I have is in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 [specifically the part in red]

[51] Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?

Again this seems to be an error. By changed St. Paul is referring to receiving a glorified body at the second coming of Christ, and this translation says that we shall not all be changed. But in the original Greek, it says that we shall all be changed. I assume this is another copyist error, but it concerns me that something like this hasn’t been corrected or addressed, I’m just very confused on all of this.

 

[Canto]

I have recently purchased a copy of the Douay Rheims Bible, and although I love it for its very poetic language, I have to say I am a bit unsure of using it as a study Bible for just a couple of reasons as I have discovered.

The 1582 original has a zillion references to the Church father’s. The Haydock version has some of the best notes of any Bible. I love the Douay, preferably the original though for readability, the Confraternity Version is better.

The first issue being in Genesis 3:15

My understanding…

-The Hebrew is neither masculine nor feminine, though it is singular
-It refers back to the previous i.e. either the woman (singular) or her seed (plural)
-Thus for this and many other reasons, she is a valid translation

Another translation issue I have is in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55

Some Greek manuscripts and the Clementine Vulgate read this way, most I believe don’t.

HAYDOCK: Ver. 51. We shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed.[3] This is the reading of the Latin Vulgate, and of some Greek manuscripts, and the sense is, that all both good and bad shall rise, but only the elect to the happy change of a glorified body.

The reading in most Greek copies at present is, we shall not all sleep, (i.e. die) but we shall be all changed: so also read St. Chrysostom: and St. Jerome found it in many manuscripts from which divers, especially of the Greek interpreters, thought that such as should be found living at the day of judgment should not die, but the bodies of the elect (of whom St. Paul here speaks) should be changed to a happy state of immortality.

This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment. Some expound the Greek only to signify, that all shall not sleep, i.e. shall not remain for any time in the grave, as others who die are accustomed to do. (Witham)

 

[croix_de_fer]

I have recently purchased a copy of the Douay Rheims Bible, and although I love it for its very poetic language, I have to say I am a bit unsure of using it as a study Bible for just a couple of reasons as I have discovered.

The first issue being in Genesis 3:15 where the DR translation says…

[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

But in the original Hebrew, the pro noun used where I highlighted it red is he, not she. Where it says her the second time, it should actually say the “the heel” rather than her heel.

I read an article on this site, which can be found here: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709chap.asp

which also says that it does use he in the original Hebrew rather than she, and the usage of she is most likely a copyists error.

But regardless of pro noun used; both are correct; however I still am a little bit disconcerted since I have been “Bible hunting” for the best translation, and as of now I am not ecstatic about the DR. I find the RSV-CE 2nd edition to be the best.

Douay Rheims IS the original translation to English from Vulgate from ORIGINAL Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There is no error with the Douay Rheims Bible. The original Hebrew IS “she” and “her”. The other Catholic Bibles are in error when they use masculine and neutral pronouns in this verse. It’s a shame there are Catholic sources that purport the lie or mistake that the particular Douay Rheims Genesis 3:15 verse is translated wrong. Even more than a shame it is pathetic.

 

[DaveBj]

Douay Rheims IS the original translation to English from Vulgate from ORIGINAL Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There is no error with the Douay Rheims Bible. The original Hebrew IS “she” and “her”. The other Catholic Bibles are in error when they use masculine and neutral pronouns in this verse. It’s a shame there are Catholic sources that purport the lie or mistake that the particular Douay Rheims Genesis 3:15 verse is translated wrong. Even more than a shame it is pathetic.

You are mistaken. The Hebrew pronoun is hu’, which is masculine, referring either to “seed” (a masculine noun) or to the future male Messiah himself.

Unfortunately, I can’t find my Septuagint right now; somebody else will have to check that.

DaveBj

 

[Canto]

You are mistaken. The Hebrew pronoun is hu’, which is masculine, referring either to “seed” (a masculine noun) or to the future male Messiah himself.

King James: it
Strongs: he, she, it
Transliteration: hu or hi
The seed (zera) can be plural as the NASB concordance shows

 

[DaveBj]

King James: it
Strongs: he, she, it
Transliteration: hu or hi
The seed (zera) can be plural as the NASB concordance shows

*Hu *and *hi *are considered two forms of the same word, just like on and ona in Russian. Hu, used in the verse in question, is masculine. Period.

Zera can be translated as singular or plural, depending on the context, but grammatically it is masculine singular, and the rules of agreement governing Hebrew verbs, adjectives, and pronouns require masculine singular. I forgot to mention that the Hebrew verb translated “shall bruise” is also masculine singular, in agreement with hu. Any way you look at, it’s “he.”

DaveBj

 

[croix_de_fer]

*Hu *and *hi *are considered two forms of the same word, just like on and ona in Russian. Hu, used in the verse in question, is masculine. Period.

Zera can be translated as singular or plural, depending on the context, but grammatically it is masculine singular, and the rules of agreement governing Hebrew verbs, adjectives, and pronouns require masculine singular. I forgot to mention that the Hebrew verb translated “shall bruise” is also masculine singular, in agreement with hu. Any way you look at, it’s “he.”

DaveBj

*//"You are mistaken. The Hebrew pronoun is hu’, which is masculine, referring either to “seed” (a masculine noun) or to the future male Messiah himself.

Unfortunately, I can’t find my Septuagint right now; somebody else will have to check that."//*

Septuagint does not prove anything. The Douay Rheims is the first and original English translation of the Bible which was approved by the Catholic Church. The use of feminine pronouns was in the original Hebrew in Genesis 3:15 . People that purport the pronouns were masculine base it off speculation of errors. Then they just change it to masculine and/or neutral pronouns (in later Catholic Bibles and protestant bibles) because it is easier to interpret the verse. But if they were steadfast in their faith and actually understood the verse then they would know the true verse includes feminine pronouns:

“Thee” is the serpent (Satan) and the “woman” is Mary. “Her seed” is Christ and “thy seed” is the evil and works born from Satan. “She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” is Christ defeats Satan and saves us after Mary accepts the Fathers will and plan for her to bear His Son - our Savior. In other words, the enmities between thee (Satan) and the woman (Mary) is the diametrical opposition between Satan (a fallen angel whom denied God; a seducer and corrupter) and Mary (“kecharitomene” original Greek text meaning “full of grace” as exclaimed by the Angel Gabriel; a woman completely humble, obedient and loving to God); and again, “she” (Mary) crushing the head of the serpent (Satan) is Mary accepting God’s will and plan for her to bring Christ into the world to save us. Only Christ saves us but Mary chose to accept the Father’s will for her to bear Christ. Mary does nothing but lead people to Christ… her only interest and role is to lead people to Christ as she is full of the Holy Spirit and cannot do any wrong. Satan hates Mary because she is “full of grace” and does only the will of God.

//“Hu and hi are considered two forms of the same word, just like on and ona in Russian.”//

You are wrong here too. “On” is “He” in Russian; “Ona” is “She” in Russian. Both are pronouns with a distinct gender difference. I took Russian language.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have recently purchased a copy of the Douay Rheims Bible, and although I love it for its very poetic language, I have to say I am a bit unsure of using it as a study Bible for just a couple of reasons as I have discovered.

The first issue being in Genesis 3:15 where the DR translation says…

[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

But in the original Hebrew, the pro noun used where I highlighted it red is he, not she. Where it says her the second time, it should actually say the “the heel” rather than her heel.

I read an article on this site, which can be found here: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709chap.asp

which also says that it does use he in the original Hebrew rather than she, and the usage of she is most likely a copyists error.

But regardless of pro noun used; both are correct; however I still am a little bit disconcerted since I have been “Bible hunting” for the best translation, and as of now I am not ecstatic about the DR. I find the RSV-CE 2nd edition to be the best.

Another translation issue I have is in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 [specifically the part in red]

[51] Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?

Again this seems to be an error. By changed St. Paul is referring to receiving a glorified body at the second coming of Christ, and this translation says that we shall not all be changed. But in the original Greek, it says that we shall all be changed. I assume this is another copyist error, but it concerns me that something like this hasn’t been corrected or addressed, I’m just very confused on all of this.

There are no translations of the Bible that do not have translation issues, translations decisions that could reasonably have been made differently. The translation decisions that you refer to are not so cut and dried. There are reasons for both possible translation choices.

The Latin does indeed say not all will be changed. And this makes sense in that the Resurrection is for the just and the unjust, but only the just will receive glorified incorruptable bodies. The Latin text is perhaps often a witness to Greek manuscripts no longer extant.

The Greek text also makes sense, with reference to the just, for at the time of the Resurrection, those who are still alive do not immediately die and rise, but they are given the benefits of the Resurrection, being changed to have glorified bodies, without dying. So all the just are given glorified bodies, but not all the just die.

The text from Genesis can be taken to refer to Christ, but also to Mary. Having different manuscript traditions allows for a multiplicity of true meanings.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have recently purchased a copy of the Douay Rheims Bible, and although I love it for its very poetic language, I have to say I am a bit unsure of using it as a study Bible for just a couple of reasons as I have discovered.

Certainly if you find the DR edifying for reading for its poetic language, you should do so. But as a serious study Bible, it would be best to find something else or you’ll eventually become very frustrated, particularly with the Old Testament. The DR is based on the Vulgate, which in many places is not a very good translation of the underlying Hebrew text, so you’re just beginning to scratch the surface here. Two quick examples from Genesis 2, since you’re looking at the creation story: גן does not equate to “paradisus”; מות תמות does not equate to “morte morieris”. One can see what the Vulgate was trying to do, but the translation is just not correct.

 

[DaveBj]

Septuagint does not prove anything.

It would provide evidence as to the masculine or feminine pronoun in Gen. 3:15

“Thee” is the serpent (Satan) and the “woman” is Mary. “Her seed” is Christ and “thy seed” is the evil and works born from Satan. “She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” is Christ defeats Satan and saves us after Mary accepts the Fathers will and plan for her to bear His Son - our Savior. In other words, the enmities between thee (Satan) and the woman (Mary) is the diametrical opposition between Satan (a fallen angel whom denied God; a seducer and corrupter) and Mary (“kecharitomene” original Greek text meaning “full of grace” as exclaimed by the Angel Gabriel; a woman completely humble, obedient and loving to God); and again, “she” (Mary) crushing the head of the serpent (Satan) is Mary accepting God’s will and plan for her to bring Christ into the world to save us. Only Christ saves us but Mary chose to accept the Father’s will for her to bear Christ. Mary does nothing but lead people to Christ… her only interest and role is to lead people to Christ as she is full of the Holy Spirit and cannot do any wrong. Satan hates Mary because she is “full of grace” and does only the will of God.

Nice words, but they don’t change the fact that the Hebrew pronoun in Gen. 3:15 is hu, the masculine, not hi, the feminine.

//“Hu and hi are considered two forms of the same word, just like on and ona in Russian.”//

You are wrong here too. “On” is “He” in Russian; “Ona” is “She” in Russian. Both are pronouns with a distinct gender difference. I took Russian language.

Ochen’ khorosho. Then you should know the difference between masculine pronouns (like the one in Gen. 3:15) and feminine pronouns (like the one that’s not in Gen. 3:15, except for the possessive suffix of “her seed.”

You are still mistaken.

DaveBj

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Nice words, but they don’t change the fact that the Hebrew pronoun in Gen. 3:15 is hu, the masculine, not hi, the feminine.

DaveBj

Actually, in Biblical Hebrew, the pronouns “he” and “she” are often spelled the exact same way in the consonantal text–the only difference being the vowel pointing, which came along much later than the Vulgate. I think this is probably what Canto probably means in his post, but I can’t tell for sure.

But which pronoun is being used is almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP is essentially asking about the form of the verb derived from “to bruise”–is it “he will bruise you”? or “she will bruise you”? תשופך or ישופך

(It’s interesting that the Vulgate translates the EXACT same verb as “crush” (contero) in one place in the sentence and then “lie in wait” (insidior) later in the same sentence. Nowhere that I know of does שוף mean “to lie in wait”.)

The verb clearly is masculine (“he”) in the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and this is not one of those things that are commonly subject to scribal error. There is no attestation of this verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Septuagint has “he”. Seems like it should be “he.” Someone that has the latest critical edition of the Hebrew Bible may be able to say more. It’s too expensive for me.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Douay Rheims IS the original translation to English from Vulgate from ORIGINAL Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There is no error with the Douay Rheims Bible. The original Hebrew IS “she” and “her”. The other Catholic Bibles are in error when they use masculine and neutral pronouns in this verse. It’s a shame there are Catholic sources that purport the lie or mistake that the particular Douay Rheims Genesis 3:15 verse is translated wrong. Even more than a shame it is pathetic.

The Douay Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome translated the original languages into Latin. Catholic scholars at Doauy and Rheims translated the Latin into English. In the 18th century Bishop Richard Challoner revised the DR. The version we have access to is the Challoner revision. There are translational errors in all versions of the scripture. I have 3 DR bibles and like them all but to say they are not Latinate in their verbiage would be an error.

 

[DaveBj]

But which pronoun is being used is almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP is essentially asking about the form of the verb derived from “to bruise”–is it “he will bruise you”? or “she will bruise you”? תשופך or ישופך

As I mentioned in #6, it is the masculine form, the second of the two forms that you cite, the one beginning with the letter yod. Yod is the prefix for masculine singular present tense; tau for feminine. Sister language Arabic is the same, in that regard.

DaveBj

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As I mentioned in #6, it is the masculine form, the second of the two forms that you cite, the one beginning with the letter yod. Yod is the prefix for masculine singular present tense; tau for feminine. Sister language Arabic is the same, in that regard.

DaveBj

I think you mean the imperfect.

 

[bkayw]

Eve was the first to accept the temptations of the snake. Believing that no evil had come to Eve, Adam followed her into sin (contraception and abortion by women & men today). Together, Eve and Adam broke their connection with God and they ushered in bodily death.

In reverse of Eve’s action, salvation history would be restarted through a woman, full of the same grace given to Adam and Eve, and she (Mary) would be the ark who would carry in Jesus, humanity’s salvation from eternal death.

 

[croix_de_fer]

The Douay Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome translated the original languages into Latin. Catholic scholars at Doauy and Rheims translated the Latin into English. In the 18th century Bishop Richard Challoner revised the DR. The version we have access to is the Challoner revision. There are translational errors in all versions of the scripture. I have 3 DR bibles and like them all but to say they are not Latinate in their verbiage would be an error.

I never said it was not Latinate in verbiage. Nevertheless the Douay Rheims is the most accurate translation to English than any bible (Catholic or protestant). It seems you people are basing your claims on speculation and revisionism of scripture because it fits an easier interpretation. Where is the direct evidence that Genesis 3:15 did NOT use “she”, “her”, “crush” and “lie in wait for her heel”?

 

[JRRTFAN]

I never said it was not Latinate in verbiage. Nevertheless the Douay Rheims is the most accurate translation to English than any bible (Catholic or protestant). It seems you people are basing your claims on speculation and revisionism of scripture because it fits an easier interpretation. Where is the direct evidence that Genesis 3:15 did NOT use “she”, “her”, “crush” and “lie in wait for her heel”?

Here’s what it says:

15: kai <2532> {AND} ecqran <2189> {HATRED} qhsw <5087> {I WILL PUT} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} sou <1473> {YOU} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} thV <3588> {THE} gunaikoV <1135> {WOMAN} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} tou <3588> {THE} spermatoV <4690> {SEED} sou <1473> {YOU} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} tou <3588> {THE} spermatoV <4690> {SEED} authV <1473> {IT} autoV <1473> {HE} sou <1473> {YOU} thrhsei <5083> {WILL KEEP} kefalhn <2776> {HEAD} kai <2532> {AND} su <1473> {ARE YOU} thrhseiV <5083> {WILL GIVE HEED TO} autou <1473> {OF IT} pternan <4418> {HEEL}

 

[croix_de_fer]

Here’s what it says:

15: kai <2532> {AND} ecqran <2189> {HATRED} qhsw <5087> {I WILL PUT} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} sou <1473> {YOU} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} thV <3588> {THE} gunaikoV <1135> {WOMAN} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} tou <3588> {THE} spermatoV <4690> {SEED} sou <1473> {YOU} kai <2532> {AND} ana <303> {WORTH UP TO} meson <3319> {THE MIDST} tou <3588> {THE} spermatoV <4690> {SEED} authV <1473> {IT} autoV <1473> {HE} sou <1473> {YOU} thrhsei <5083> {WILL KEEP} kefalhn <2776> {HEAD} kai <2532> {AND} su <1473> {ARE YOU} thrhseiV <5083> {WILL GIVE HEED TO} autou <1473> {OF IT} pternan <4418> {HEEL}

This tells me nothing. I’ll try to seek the expertise of somebody that is unbiased and proficient in Hebrew.

 

[GerardMajella]

Here’s the Orthodox Jewish translation of the verse in question:

“…I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.” (Emphasis added)

This translation comes from the Stone Edition of the Chumash, p. 17. According to Chizkuni, as the instigator of the eating of the forbidden fruit, the serpent was first cursed, then Eve, and finally Adam (p. 17, v. 14 commentary, Stone Edition of the Chumash).

For the verse, “He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel”, the Jewish Sages derive that the serpent seduces the Jew to trample the commandments with his heel, and the Jew can prevail by using his head, meaning the study of Torah (Midrash HaNe’elam).

 

[DaveBj]

I think you mean the imperfect.

You are correct. As much as I’ve been immersed in sister language Arabic, you would have thought that I would have gotten at least that right

DaveBj