T
Tyuiop411
Guest
What do you think of the Douay-Rheims version. Do you hate it or love it if so why? And why is it experiencing a resurgence in popularity?
- Status
R
rciadan
Guest
I love it! I think the resurgency is because so many are rediscovering it and understanding that it is actually translated from sources much closer to the originals (from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which was translated from origional language copies that were only one to two hundred years from the time of Christ on Earth. He was also fluent in all the biblical languages, as they were spoken and written during the time that Jesus walked on the planet, not 1500 years later) than the modern translations. I also believe it is because it is the most accurate translation (English) available. I also like that Genesis 3:15 is translated as per the traditional Catholic statues of Mary crushing the head of the serpent. I have found so many instances where the modern translations are almost diametrically opposed to Catholic Tradition. The DR nowhere does this! It is also the version that was in use by the Church for over 300 years with the only “revision” being the Challoner, which was merely to update the language (not any of the meanings). I could go on, but this is a start. For more information, go to
drbo.org
and check out some of what you find there.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I love it because it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. I think it needs to be revised so we can have it in up to date English. I’m not sure about a “resurgence in popularity”, but I do know that many Catholics are sick and tired of liberal footnotes and poor translations, which makes the DR more attractive.
S
saskatoon
Guest
I like it. I like that it does not have inclusive language. I like that it has more traditional English (thy,thou,etc…) it is tougher to follow but at the same time much more eloquent. I have read the NAB (tried) and it is almost too simplified and I didn’t like all the footnotes. I’ve been reading the DR and I really feel as though I am reading the Bible and not a watered down version. I don’t know about it gaining popularity again, but one can hope that it does. 
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Many people are not aware that the D/R is one of the “former translations” that the KJV translators “diligently compared and revised” in their own work.
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
The Douay-Rheims is one of the best, if not the best, translations of Holy Writ into English. It is beautifully translated. Many modern translators don’t understand that the beauty of the finished product is a very important element of translation. Also, the notes are orthodox, something not found in most modern translations and editions, even those with imprimaturs. I would reccomend this translation to everyone because you can read it without being at all apprehensive.
J
Jesus_123
Guest
- The Holy :bible1: Bible (Douay Rheims Version, Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) . . . was first translated . . . *word for word *. . . from the Latin in 1609 . . . and then revised in 1752 . . . to make it more readable in English phrasing . . . it was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such . . . and . . . insofar as I know . . . it is still the official English Catholic Bible . . . the original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and that St. Jerome translated it settles the choice of Bibles for me . . . ** Pope Pius XII stated that the Douay Rheims was “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” **. . . St. Jerome . . . pray for us . . . **thank You Lord ! **
I just trust in St. Jerome and Pope Pius XII . . . *and have found the depth and holiness of St. Jerome’s holy work as a translator . . . truly wonderful . . . *
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
E
erikd
Guest
Two points on this issue. First, the Duoay-Rheims is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which to this day is still the only officially authorized Bible by the Holy See. One point of clarification that should be made here is that although the latin Vulgate is seen as the official Bible of the Catholic Church (thus making the Douay Rheims the English version equivalent) the USCCB has allowed the use of the NAB in the Sacred Liturgy, the Holy See has disallowed the use of the Psalter (Psalms) from the NAB in the Sacred Liturgy. However, that being said, the Vatican’s own website, when prompted for an English version Bible, takes you to the New American Bible. So, not all of it is allowed in our liturgy though the Holy See seems to refer to it when prompted for a Bible. Nevertheless, the Vulgate is still the official Bible of the Catholic Church.
Second, it is the translation of the Vulgate which was originally compiled at the end of the fourth century by St. Jerome. Although this translation has been re-worked over several centuries, we have to assume that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts to which present day translators have no accessibility. This, in itself, makes it a worthwhile copy thus making the English equivalent, the Douay Rheims, a very valuable and potentially very old document.
As far as why it is seeing a resurgency, I can only speculate and say that it is because informed Catholics want to have the Bible that most closely resembles what would have been found in the Churches 1000+ years ago (in Latin of course). With the growth of apologetics within the Catholic media, many Catholics are growing within their faith and wanting the faith of the Church Fathers. Again this is just pure speculation on my part.
God Bless
E
erikd
Guest
By the way: I see in your profile it states that you are “soon to be Catholic.” How is your journey so far and is there anything that a life long Catholic can help with? RCIA can be great or it can be murder, depending on how it is set up. Hope it’s all going good, I’ll be praying for you through your journey.
God Bless
R
rciadan
Guest
Look for a Douay-Confronternity version. There are a lot of copies out there that can be found in the thrift stores. It was promulgated during the forties and fifties. It is a more modern English, yet translated using the DR and St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I have found about 7 or 8 copies at the St. Martin DePorres stores, where they would not even sell them because they are bibles. They gave them to me!
M
Manfred
Guest
The Vulgate that is the “official” Bible of the Church today is actually the Nova Vulgata, released in 1979. Modern critical scholarship went into this particular version.
The D-R is based on the Clementine Vulgate; see link below.
vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
It is just simply accurate
J
Jesus_123
Guest
- To clarify a bit re the Nova Vulgata translation . . . and the Holy See’s point of view re same . . . which Biblical work is actually a "work in progress" . . . at this point . . . It is NOT considered to be a "definitive" translation of the Holy Bible . . . but . . . rather . . . has been approved to be used liturgically . . . as an "auxiliary tool" . . . as clarified in the below portions of a letter of instruction re same from Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez . . .
The English Douay Rhiems translation is based on St. Jerome’s Latin translation . . . ***and is a marvelous holy work greatly blessed of God ***. . . and has been determined to be free of error re faith and morals **by Pope Pius XII **. . . *Relying on St. Jerome and Pope Pius XII . . . you can’t go wrong . . . *
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Wonderful Counselor+
. . . Sweet Holy Spirit of our God+
. . . thank you Wonderful Counselor+
. . . Sweet Holy Spirit of our God+
M
Manfred
Guest
Interesting!The English Douay Rhiems translation is based on St. Jerome’s Latin translation . . . ***and is a marvelous holy work greatly blessed of God ***. . . and has been determined to be free of error re faith and morals **by Pope Pius XII **. . . *Relying on St. Jerome and Pope Pius XII . . . you can’t go wrong . . . *
- To clarify a bit re the Nova Vulgata translation . . . and the Holy See’s point of view re same . . . which Biblical work is actually a "work in progress" . . . at this point . . . It is NOT considered to be a "definitive" translation of the Holy Bible . . . but . . . rather . . . has been approved to be used liturgically . . . as an "auxiliary tool" . . . as clarified in the below portions of a letter of instruction re same from Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez . . .
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Wonderful Counselor+
. . . Sweet Holy Spirit of our God+
If it can rightfully be admitted that the Nova Vulgata is a “work-in-progress”, then how much more so the RSV-2CE?
0
007
Guest
First of all, If you can read and speak Latin fluently, I believe that the original Latin Vulgate Bible is the best Catholic Bible anyone could read.
However, I’m not 100% comfortable with the Douay-Rheims because it’s a translation of a translation. It is translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to Latin Vulgate, and then finally to English. If you’ve ever played a game of telephone, you would understand why I’m not 100% comfortable with it.
On the other hand (As it was pointed out to me in another thread), there are parts of the original Hebrew text that are long gone now which have been translated to Latin Vulgate and Greek before they disappeared. In those instances, I believe the Latin Vulgate version should be superior since it is the Catholic translation and interpretation at the time, and in either case, both would be a translation of a translation regardless.
For this reason alone, I understand why the Douay-Rheims should always remain important to Catholics.
0
007
Guest
I had some concerns about Douay-Rheims because it’s a translation of a translation. It is translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to Latin Vulgate, and then finally to English. On the other hand, Pope Pius XII has deemed the Douay-Rheims as being a perfect translation from the Latin Vulgate to English, so my concerns are most likely misplaced.
Moreover, as it was pointed out to me in another thread, there are parts of the original Hebrew text that are long gone now which have been translated to Latin Vulgate and Greek before they disappeared. In those instances, I believe the Latin Vulgate version should be superior since it is the Catholic translation and interpretation at the time, and in either case, both would be a translation of a translation regardless.
For this reason alone, I understand why the Douay-Rheims should always remain important to Catholics.
I do hope that a modernized English Douay-Rheims is in the works (I haven’t checked).
Moreover, as it was pointed out to me in another thread, there are parts of the original Hebrew text that are long gone now which have been translated to Latin Vulgate and Greek before they disappeared. In those instances, I believe the Latin Vulgate version should be superior since it is the Catholic translation and interpretation at the time, and in either case, both would be a translation of a translation regardless.
For this reason alone, I understand why the Douay-Rheims should always remain important to Catholics.
I do hope that a modernized English Douay-Rheims is in the works (I haven’t checked).
C
CalCatholic
Guest
I’ve heard a couple of people say that they believe that the RSV-2CE is a work in progress, but nobody mentions what still needs to be done. I believe Ignatius Press accomplished what they set out to do, to offer another version of the RSV-CE for Catholics like me that don’t care for the ‘thees and thous’, they did not replace the RSV-CE, that is still available for people who do prefer them.
M
Manfred
Guest
Why a “work-in-progress”? Because it doesn’t fully correct what needs correcting. A few examples:
Liturgiam Authenticam indicated “Amen, amen, I say to you…” is the way many of Jesus’ declarations should be introduced, as opposed to “Truly, truly, I say to you…”
Luke 1:34 - “How can this be, since I have no husband?” HORRIBLE rendering!!! Better: “How shall this be done, since I know not man?”
In two places in Hebrews, Jesus is referred to as a “pioneer” in the RSV-CE. (Think Americans in covered wagons heading West.) Why not “author”?
“The two shall become one.” Er, what happened to the word “flesh” at the end of the sentence?
In 1 Cor 9:5, why not “… a woman, a sister…”, as the Greek has it?
OK?
So it seems the RSV-2CE’s two biggest claims to fame are that it took out the thee/thou/thine form (big whoop!) and it is used in a Lectionary in ONE small nation. Gee, I’m impressed. (Not.)
O
Omyo12
Guest
By modernize, how about just update the text into modern English?
- Status