E
Epistemes
Guest
There appear to be some hardcore Douay-Rheims Onlyists on this forum. I, personally, don’t own a copy of the Douay-Rheims because I find the language confusing, and I have found certain verses to be rendered incorrectly. For example, 2 Sam. 21:19 is rendered as
And there was again war with the Philistines at God; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-orregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (RSV-CE Ign. 2ed.)
*There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. *(NASB)
*Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. *(NRSV)
and yet Douay-Rheims has it translated as
And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
I find the Douay-Rheims translation troubling because the original Hebrew in no way coincides with what is written. There was no “third battle”; instead, the Hebrew word** עוֹד** (ode) which Strong lists as meaning
*properly *iteration *or *continuance; used only adverbially (with or without preposition), again, repeatedly, still, more:—again, X all life long, at all, besides, but, else, further (-more), henceforth, (any) longer, (any) more (-over), X once, since, (be) still, when, (good, the) while (having being), (as, because, whether, while) yet (within).
Also, I’m not exactly sure from where Douay-Rheims renders “an embroiderer of Bethlehem” since that is nowhere written in the original Hebrew.
All of this makes me rather suspicious of using the Douay-Rheims, plus I also recently found this article pertaining to more character flaws within Douay-Rheims. I, personally, have not yet read the documents Liturgiam Authenticam, nor Divino Afflante Spiritu, but it something I plan on doing this weekend, in order to better solidify my own judgment concerning Bible translations.
However, I’ve recently been reading some threads concerned with an in-depth criticism of the RSV-CE, which also has its flaws, of course, but none as grave as the one example I’ve listed above. I now own two copies of the RSV-CE, the Compact Oxford/Scepter edition and the Second Catholic Edition issued by Ignatius Press (which I reluctantly purchased while I wait for the Reader’s Version of the Oxford/Scepter edition). I, personally, find the RSV-CE editions as closer renderings to the original languages…which, from the gist of some Douay-Rheims Onlyists, is a naughty thing to even consider! In fact, it puzzles me to think that we, as Catholics, would not want our texts to be modeled as closely as possible to the original languages for apologetics purposes in order to prevent non-Catholics and non-Christians from claiming the Bible is corrupted, and that our multitude of inadequate translations only serves to emphasize such a point. [In fact, I was slightly embarassed to read about the inter-translational wars between Douay-Rheims and KJVersionists!]
So, please, someone explain to me: Why Douay-Rheims? Why trust a translation of a translation? Why not a text that is devoted to preserving the meaning of the original languages?
And there was again war with the Philistines at God; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-orregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (RSV-CE Ign. 2ed.)
*There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. *(NASB)
*Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. *(NRSV)
and yet Douay-Rheims has it translated as
And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
I find the Douay-Rheims translation troubling because the original Hebrew in no way coincides with what is written. There was no “third battle”; instead, the Hebrew word** עוֹד** (ode) which Strong lists as meaning
*properly *iteration *or *continuance; used only adverbially (with or without preposition), again, repeatedly, still, more:—again, X all life long, at all, besides, but, else, further (-more), henceforth, (any) longer, (any) more (-over), X once, since, (be) still, when, (good, the) while (having being), (as, because, whether, while) yet (within).
Also, I’m not exactly sure from where Douay-Rheims renders “an embroiderer of Bethlehem” since that is nowhere written in the original Hebrew.
All of this makes me rather suspicious of using the Douay-Rheims, plus I also recently found this article pertaining to more character flaws within Douay-Rheims. I, personally, have not yet read the documents Liturgiam Authenticam, nor Divino Afflante Spiritu, but it something I plan on doing this weekend, in order to better solidify my own judgment concerning Bible translations.
However, I’ve recently been reading some threads concerned with an in-depth criticism of the RSV-CE, which also has its flaws, of course, but none as grave as the one example I’ve listed above. I now own two copies of the RSV-CE, the Compact Oxford/Scepter edition and the Second Catholic Edition issued by Ignatius Press (which I reluctantly purchased while I wait for the Reader’s Version of the Oxford/Scepter edition). I, personally, find the RSV-CE editions as closer renderings to the original languages…which, from the gist of some Douay-Rheims Onlyists, is a naughty thing to even consider! In fact, it puzzles me to think that we, as Catholics, would not want our texts to be modeled as closely as possible to the original languages for apologetics purposes in order to prevent non-Catholics and non-Christians from claiming the Bible is corrupted, and that our multitude of inadequate translations only serves to emphasize such a point. [In fact, I was slightly embarassed to read about the inter-translational wars between Douay-Rheims and KJVersionists!]
So, please, someone explain to me: Why Douay-Rheims? Why trust a translation of a translation? Why not a text that is devoted to preserving the meaning of the original languages?