Douay Rheims questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter ljubim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

ljubim

Guest
I am looking into buying a cheap DR bible and I’m a bit confused, is the one edited by Bp. Challoner the standard? Or are there a few slightly different versions, or does this just refer to commentary?

I’m making the switch because I have a NAB and previously used a NRSV (or something like that :D) but the other day there was a reading at the TLM, one of my favorites, and what the DR says is 100% different than how I remember it in my old bibles!!! It’s almost frightening that so much can get lost in translation! I want the real deal, no “loose interpretation” and I would rather put my faith in the DR.

Thanks for the help, I greatly appreciate it!
 
ljubim said:
I am looking into buying a cheap DR bible and I’m a bit confused, is the one edited by Bp. Challoner the standard? Or are there a few slightly different versions, or does this just refer to commentary?

I’m making the switch because I have a NAB and previously used a NRSV (or something like that :D) but the other day there was a reading at the TLM, one of my favorites, and what the DR says is 100% different than how I remember it in my old bibles!!! It’s almost frightening that so much can get lost in translation! I want the real deal, no “loose interpretation” and I would rather put my faith in the DR.

Thanks for the help, I greatly appreciate it!
Click to expand...
Challoner’s acceptable – I doubt you could find a pre-Challoner DR, and it would be highly inferior both textually and in terms of the scholarship even if you could. I don’t even know if Challoner’s exact edition is still printed, I’d imagine they’ve all had some editing done.

BTW, if what is in the DR is actually “100% different” than in other standard Bibles reflecting more recently available sources and more modern scholarship, then the DR is most likely wrong, unfortunately. Make sure you don’t fall into the trap that the King James Only crowd does and think that some translation is divinely guided! 😃
 
The DR is not the first choice for accuracy. There are many archaic words and phrases that are sometimes almost incomprehensible. My favorite is where Jesus ordered that the stone be moved from Lazarus’ tomb, and the people reply “….but surely he stinketh.”

You must also keep in mind that the current DR is a revision of a translation of a translation (greek and hebrew, into latin and then into Elizabethan english) and that biblical studies have come a long way since then. Still, some of it is very poetic and beautiful, though often times clumsy and not very literary.
 
Timothysis said:
The DR is not the first choice for accuracy. There are many archaic words and phrases that are sometimes almost incomprehensible. My favorite is where Jesus ordered that the stone be moved from Lazarus’ tomb, and the people reply “….but surely he stinketh.”

You must also keep in mind that the current DR is a revision of a translation of a translation (greek and hebrew, into latin and then into Elizabethan english) and that biblical studies have come a long way since then. Still, some of it is very poetic and beautiful, though often times clumsy and not very literary.
Click to expand...
This is true, that it was originally a translation of a translation, but I think that at least since Challoner’s substantial revision (1750s-ish?) it has been brought into significantly closer agreement with the Greek and Hebrew.
 
The DR is a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate of the Church and is far superior to the modern bibles.

Challoner edition is fine, its teh standard pretty much.

The Haydock version has much more in depth commentary if you can find one but they are rare now and also more expensive.
 
If you don’t have the ability or desire to learn another language, consider purchasing a copy of the 1841 English Hexapla Parallel New Testament, which contains 6 different translations of the New Testament, one of which is the Rheims:

greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/hexapla-1841.html

An edition of the original Douay-Rheims has been edited that translates the Old English into modern day English, transliterated by a Dr. William Von Peters:

stores.lulu.com/rheims

There are also facsimile reproductions of the original Douay-Rheims in Old English available at Lulu.com.

stores.lulu.com/maximusscriptorius

Nevertheless, the best way to learn the Bible is in the original Hebrew and Greek. Art Scroll, a Jewish publishing house, has an interlinear edition of the Hebrew-English Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers):

artscroll.com/Products/INC1H.html

Art Scroll has patented this system of interlinear reading, and it is used to help English-speaking Jews to learn Hebrew. The commentary, while thoroughly Jewish, is excellent.

The National Jewish Outreach Program in New York offers a crash course in Hebrew, and there are several online resources to learn Hebrew as well:

njop.org/html/hebrew.html

You can buy the Douay-Rheims Haydock Bible here - Great resource:

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/5456
 
Timothysis said:
The DR is not the first choice for accuracy. There are many archaic words and phrases that are sometimes almost incomprehensible. My favorite is where Jesus ordered that the stone be moved from Lazarus’ tomb, and the people reply “….but surely he stinketh.”

You must also keep in mind that the current DR is a revision of a translation of a translation (greek and hebrew, into latin and then into Elizabethan english) and that biblical studies have come a long way since then. Still, some of it is very poetic and beautiful, though often times clumsy and not very literary.
Click to expand...
**i disagree!

“but surely he stinketh” is the most accurate translation!
**
Sancta Maria, mater Dei, Orra Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
The DR is a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate of the Church and is far superior to the modern bibles.

Challoner edition is fine, its teh standard pretty much.

The Haydock version has much more in depth commentary if you can find one but they are rare now and also more expensive.
Click to expand...
LOL, great, I guess if we apply the same principles of translation to the texts of the Latin Mass then we would have a “perfect translation” and we’d never have to worry about translation issues again! 👍

Er, not so much, actually. 😦 Besides, as Tim said, a translation of a translation, as the DR is at heart, is hardly the best of all possibilities. Jerome was a very capable translator, but basing your view of the Bible on an English interpretation of Jerome’s interpretation of the sources he had available to him in the 300s is not where you want to head if you’re looking for “perfection” (as though there were any such thing in translations). Just look at the differences between the Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata – the Vulgate is definitely a venerable text, and cannot be called wrong in any way, but it hardly represents the best of modern textual and linguistic techniques in Latin translation. Now consider that Liturgiam Authenticam makes the Nova Vulgata “the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.” Any translation of Jerome’s old translation is going to have the problems associated with double translation and with lack of access to modernly-discovered sources of Biblical text. There’s a reason the Holy See no longer considers Jerome’s Latin the normative Latin version, and for much the same reasons the DR cannot be considered a definitive English version.

Personally, I like the DR a lot: I like the Elizabethan English, and weighed against modern Biblical scholarship I find it thoroughly competent, especially for more casual reading rather than deep word-for-word analysis. But fetishizing it as “perfect” would just make you look like a fundamentalist – and also like someone who doesn’t know too much about the history of translating the Bible, but is fanatically committed to proclaiming the “truth” they think they know … well, I guess that’s the same thing as being a fundamentalist).
 
Mark77 said:
**i disagree!

“but surely he stinketh” is the most accurate translation!**
Click to expand...
LOL, and that’s the problem with not thinking for yourself. Unless you’re getting your translations from somewhere other than the Douay-Rheims Bible, which actually has:

[BIBLEDRB]John 11:39[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Jerome had access to sources we don’t even have available anymore and he did his translation at a time when the languages of the bible where still spoken, he also understood the scriptures as the early Christians understood them, as such I will take his translation over modern translations anytime.

Modern man’s arrogance in thinking everything in our time is superior to what the ancients did is a mistake.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Jerome had access to sources we don’t even have available anymore and he did his translation at a time when the languages of the bible where still spoken, he also understood the scriptures as the early Christians understood them, as such I will take his translation over modern translations anytime.

Modern man’s arrogance in thinking everything in our time is superior to what the ancients did is a mistake.
Click to expand...
Advocatus, thank you for the best post yet in this topic. Job well done.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Jerome had access to sources we don’t even have available anymore and he did his translation at a time when the languages of the bible where still spoken, he also understood the scriptures as the early Christians understood them, as such I will take his translation over modern translations anytime.

Modern man’s arrogance in thinking everything in our time is superior to what the ancients did is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to make you mad, I guess I hit a nerve here. Then you probably won’t like finding out that, in truth, we don’t actually have Jerome’s text, we have scribe-copied codices, of which no complete version exists from earlier than about a third of a millennium after Jerome’s lifetime. For comparison’s sake, that would be as though we had to base our knowledge of Shakespeare’s texts on a version handwritten by some unknown person in 1940.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Jerome had access to sources we don’t even have available anymore and he did his translation at a time when the languages of the bible where still spoken, he also understood the scriptures as the early Christians understood them, as such I will take his translation over modern translations anytime.
Click to expand...
And this is a nice thought, but in reality we live at least 50 years closer to the time of George Washington than Jerome lived to the time of the Apostles. That’s not exactly next-door neighbors, historically speaking.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Jerome had access to sources we don’t even have available anymore and he did his translation at a time when the languages of the bible where still spoken, he also understood the scriptures as the early Christians understood them, as such I will take his translation over modern translations anytime.

Modern man’s arrogance in thinking everything in our time is superior to what the ancients did is a mistake.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, St. Jerome often conferred with St. Augustine about the most precise Latin translation of the text(s).

The Vulgate is given special place by the Council of Trent and Pope Leo XIII, as well.
 
I have the Haydock commentary version and I would highly recommend it. Worth every penny!

I would suggest not getting rid any modern translations you have. I’ve found my New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB (from the missals I have) to be very helpful. The older language in the Douay can be a bit difficult at times and it’s nice to have a modern translation to help me get a better sense of what I’m reading in the Douay.
 
MarkThompson said:
I didn’t mean to make you mad, I guess I hit a nerve here. Then you probably won’t like finding out that, in truth, we don’t actually have Jerome’s text, we have scribe-copied codices, of which no complete version exists from earlier than about a third of a millennium after Jerome’s lifetime. For comparison’s sake, that would be as though we had to base our knowledge of Shakespeare’s texts on a version handwritten by some unknown person in 1940.
Click to expand...
M_T,
If all Scripture is God-breathed and entrusted to the Church, then I’m sure the Holy Spirit is able to keep the inerrant Truth intact despite your (quite common) objections. : )

PAB
 
pataburd said:
M_T,
If all Scripture is God-breathed and entrusted to the Church, then I’m sure the Holy Spirit is able to keep the inerrant Truth intact despite your (quite common) objections. : )

PAB
Click to expand...
I agree – for the most part. I think it’s perfectly possible that next year we might find a manuscript of the Gospels from Apostolic times. I don’t think the Holy Spirit would have allowed moral truths to get lost through scrivener’s errors and the desuetude of time, but I would not consider it a challenge to our faith if a modern discovery of an ancient text altered our understanding of certain words or phrases, of particular historical events recorded in the Bible, that sort of thing. Frankly, it would be great if such a discovery wound up resolving difficulties (probably errors) in the Biblical text like the Theudas problem. I wouldn’t shed a tear over seeing issues like that cleared up.
 
According to papal teaching (re: Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV - Spiritus Paracletus, Pius XII - Divino Afflante Spiritu), historical facts–when the text is written to convey them–are given inerrantly. So we would not expect “alteration” [contradiction] in such texts, even given newly discovered sources.

Leo XIII, I think, condemned the proposition that scriptural inerrancy was restricted only to matters of faith and morals. (I’ll look for the citation and post later.)

And I think that in those instances when new/additional sources have been discovered, the historical accuracy of Sacred Scripture has been confirmed, not denied.
 
Wow, lots of responses! :eek:

This pretty much answers all my questions 🙂 Right now the cheapest Haydock one I can find is at this site where they do really inexpensive scans of old/rare books and will reprint them for you. Otherwise the Haydock is over one hundred dollars!!! Not reasonable at the moment. And thanks Floresco, I’ll keep that in mind if this doesn’t work out 🙂

I know a lot of you know Latin so can you help me out here? Here’s one of those absolutely different phrases I found between the NAB and the DR. The way the DR has it makes a LOT more sense when we look at it as a metaphor between God and His people/Jews. Here it is:

NAB: I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, Do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own time.
NRSV: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the wild does: do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!
[BIBLEDRB]Song of Songs 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]
Vulgate: Adiuro vos filiæ Ierusalem per capreas, cervosque camporum, ne suscitetis, neque evigilare faciatis dilectam donec ipsa velit.

Isn’t the Latin saying she, not it, in regards to the beloved? In the modern versions it reads like a call to abstinence, but in the older ones it actually is in line with the metaphor. This was one of my many favorite verses, and I am appalled that the modern translations inserted a completely new meaning into it. (please somebody correct me if I’m mixing this up)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top