Douay Rheims

  • Thread starter Thread starter scoobydoo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scoobydoo

Guest
How many editions are there? What are the differences between them?
Someone claims that a certain printing of the King James Bible is the standard text. He calls his edition the Pure Cambridge Edition and has a 12 point checklist plus one to see if it’s the PCE or not. His website is www.bibleprotector.com. He lists the various editions of the KJB that were used throughout history including comparisons of differences between the London or Westminster as I call it, Oxford and Cambridge.The question is who has a list of all the various Douay Rheims editions and collect the variations between them to arrive at the Pure Douay Rheims or pick an edition of it that is standard. Another thing to do is get a Douay Rheims Bible and mark places where ever there are differences between them. Give the Protestants a run for their money on this point. The 1899 seems to be th standard now.
 
scoobydoo said:
How many editions are there? What are the differences between them?
Someone claims that a certain printing of the King James Bible is the standard text. He calls his edition the Pure Cambridge Edition and has a 12 point checklist plus one to see if it’s the PCE or not. His website is www.bibleprotector.com. He lists the various editions of the KJB that were used throughout history including comparisons of differences between the London or Westminster as I call it, Oxford and Cambridge.The question is who has a list of all the various Douay Rheims editions and collect the variations between them to arrive at the Pure Douay Rheims or pick an edition of it that is standard. Another thing to do is get a Douay Rheims Bible and mark places where ever there are differences between them. Give the Protestants a run for their money on this point. The 1899 seems to be th standard now.
Click to expand...
I had a dinner get together with a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and he stated the King James Bible was the most accurate. He said when the translation was made they used the same critiques as the Jews used in compiling the Torah. I didn’t have the sources or knowledge to argue that the Douay Rheims was the most accurate. Any help with the posters question would be great.
 
michaelmas said:
I had a dinner get together with a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and he stated the King James Bible was the most accurate. He said when the translation was made they used the same critiques as the Jews used in compiling the Torah. I didn’t have the sources or knowledge to argue that the Douay Rheims was the most accurate. Any help with the posters question would be great.
Click to expand...
IMHO no translation is the “most accurate.” BTW, why not ask him first what exactly were the methods the Hebrews used in compiling the Torah (I assume you mean just the five books of Moses here rather than the full Hebrew canon - the Tanakh)?
 
scoobydoo said:
How many editions are there? What are the differences between them?
Someone claims that a certain printing of the King James Bible is the standard text. He calls his edition the Pure Cambridge Edition and has a 12 point checklist plus one to see if it’s the PCE or not. His website is www.bibleprotector.com. He lists the various editions of the KJB that were used throughout history including comparisons of differences between the London or Westminster as I call it, Oxford and Cambridge.The question is who has a list of all the various Douay Rheims editions and collect the variations between them to arrive at the Pure Douay Rheims or pick an edition of it that is standard. Another thing to do is get a Douay Rheims Bible and mark places where ever there are differences between them. Give the Protestants a run for their money on this point. The 1899 seems to be th standard now.
Click to expand...
You have to consider the fact that the 1582 Rheims NT and 1609-10 Douai OT was ‘revised’ by bishop Richard Challoner between 1749 and 1752: his version is actually somewhere in between a revision and a totally new version of its own, tending to take as its base text the KJV rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine Vulgate.
 
patrick457 said:
You have to consider the fact that the 1582 Rheims NT and 1609-10 Douai OT was ‘revised’ by bishop Richard Challoner between 1749 and 1752: his version is actually somewhere in between a revision and a totally new version of its own, tending to take as its base text the KJV rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine Vulgate.
Click to expand...
Its my understanding the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate translation! The
Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay A.D. 1609, The New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D.1582! The New Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate! And the Old Testament was diligently compared to the Hebrew, and Greek Translations!😃
 
40.png
scoobydoo:
The question is who has a list of all the various Douay Rheims editions and collect the variations between them to arrive at the Pure Douay Rheims or pick an edition of it that is standard. Another thing to do is get a Douay Rheims Bible and mark places where ever there are differences between them. Give the Protestants a run for their money on this point. The 1899 seems to be th standard now.
Click to expand...
First of all, a comprehensive list has already been compiled. By a Protestant no less! Written and edited in 1855 by Henry Cotton called Rhemes and Doway: an attempt to show what has been done by Roman Catholics for the Diffusion of Holy Scriptures in English. This is the standard scholarly work which would not be surpassed until Fr. Pope’s 1952 book English Versions of the Bible. Which builds upon Cotton’s work.

The important thing to remember when comparing the KJV with the D/R Bible is that the former was the “Authorized” edition. Therefore it was constantly being updated down through the centuries. The latter, on the other hand, was outlawed and the printing and even the possession of this Bible would bring to bear the penal laws of England, which in early times was a capital offense. So it was not updated with any regularity. The D/R Bibles from 1582 to 1635 were all word for word exact reprints except for some slight changes in orthography and arrangement of additional matter. In fact almost 100 years elapsed before the 1633/35 edition would be updated in 1730 by Dr. Witham. In the 1750’s Dr. Challoner began issuing his hugely popular editions. There were other Catholic Vulgate translations into English as well. Dr. Cornelius Nary issued one in 1718, and there was Dr. Geddes translation of the 1790’s, Bishop Kenrick of Baltimore’s translation in the 1850’s, and lastly Fr. Ronald Knox’s translation from the 1940’s. 🙂
 
patrick457 said:
IMHO no translation is the “most accurate.” …
Click to expand...
I agree. Translation is an art, and “accuracy” can take many different forms. For example, is it more accurate to stick closely to the original language, even if it’s misleading to modern English readers, or to provide an English equivalent that captures the author’s intention but strays from his phrasing? Either option could be viewed as “more accurate,” depending on one’s goals.
 
Timothysis said:
Which means that it is basically a translation of a translation. How does that insure accuracy?
Click to expand...
Man cannot ensure accuracy in any translation, even from original directly to English. The Holy Spirit can preserve the word when it is approached faithfully and with diligence. If the Latin Vulgate was guided by the Holy Spirit, then it’s faithful to the Word of God; to translate from it is to translate from the Word of God. The Word is still alive, and still guiding it’s church.
 
bmullins said:
If the Latin Vulgate was guided by the Holy Spirit, then it’s faithful to the Word of God; to translate from it is to translate from the Word of God. .
Click to expand...
That is a big “if.” Why should St. Jerome’s translation be more divinely inspired than any other translation? At the end of the day it is still simply a translation of a translation.
 
scoobydoo said:
How many editions are there? What are the differences between them?
Someone claims that a certain printing of the King James Bible is the standard text. He calls his edition the Pure Cambridge Edition and has a 12 point checklist plus one to see if it’s the PCE or not. His website is www.bibleprotector.com. He lists the various editions of the KJB that were used throughout history including comparisons of differences between the London or Westminster as I call it, Oxford and Cambridge.The question is who has a list of all the various Douay Rheims editions and collect the variations between them to arrive at the Pure Douay Rheims or pick an edition of it that is standard. Another thing to do is get a Douay Rheims Bible and mark places where ever there are differences between them. Give the Protestants a run for their money on this point. The 1899 seems to be th standard now.
Click to expand...
The one by Saint Benedict Press is good. It’s got a beautiful and amazingly soft leather cover, plus, Jesus’ words are in red. I don’t think there is a difference in the texts, though. If anyone said it uses the KJV as a guide, they don’t know much, since the Douay Rheims was in fact published two years before the KJV was.
 
Timothysis said:
That is a big “if.” Why should St. Jerome’s translation be more divinely inspired than any other translation? At the end of the day it is still simply a translation of a translation.
Click to expand...
It’s not such a big “if.” St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to make this translation for the Latin Church. I think there is every reason to believe that SAINT Jerome’s translation was guided with assistance from the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Vulgate was declared the canonical translation for the Latin Church.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
It’s not such a big “if.” St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to make this translation for the Latin Church. I think there is every reason to believe that SAINT Jerome’s translation was guided with assistance from the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Vulgate was declared the canonical translation for the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
Interesting, then, that the revision of the Vulgate has been going on for quite some time. If SAINT Jerome was assisted by the Holy Spirit, then why the need for revision at all?
 
Timothysis said:
Interesting, then, that the revision of the Vulgate has been going on for quite some time. If SAINT Jerome was assisted by the Holy Spirit, then why the need for revision at all?
Click to expand...
My dad assist me with the car. He tells me to put the wrench here and turn it, use this tool here and do that. He tells me what to do and I try to do it, but sometimes I make minor mistakes. That doesn’t mean the car doesn’t get fixed or that the message he gave me is lost, but when he comes back and show someone else that this could be better tightened or this could be cleaned a bit more… he isn’t saying my work isn’t good, but that it could be better.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
It’s not such a big “if.” St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to make this translation for the Latin Church. I think there is every reason to believe that SAINT Jerome’s translation was guided with assistance from the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Vulgate was declared the canonical translation for the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
There are various stories behind this. There had been an older (Vetus Latina) Latin Bible (or at least the New Testament) which was of very poor quality which St. Jerome attempted to fix by using his knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and the other languages, and using whatever resources he could muster at his time.

The Church also Christianized the codified Latin language, which was quickly becoming vulgarized into Vulgar Latin by the illiterates of that time. For example, Cicero spoke as an orator but “oratio” became prayer. In the same way “Deus” became the Trinitarian Supreme Being, not some pagan god. The codifed Latin language has to this day preserved its inflections and meanings of that time.

Because Latin is highly inflected (endings determine usage) language among other reasons it is difficult to translate into a language without inflections, such as English. (Slavic languages preserve some of these inflections.) Articles and auxilary verbs have to be added, and nouns have to be placed strategically to capture whatever nuance they can. What makes it even more difficult is that political (“inclusive language”) and philosophical barriers may limit the freedom of the translator. And unless cognates/morphisms are used to translate word-for-word, the best one can hope for is an educated guess as to the meaning. For example, does “natus” mean “born” or “begotten” or something else?

Fascinating the business of translations. 🙂
 
Timothysis said:
Interesting, then, that the revision of the Vulgate has been going on for quite some time. If SAINT Jerome was assisted by the Holy Spirit, then why the need for revision at all?
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to imply that St. Jerome’s translation was good for all time. Just that his translation was probably guided by the Holy Spirit for the reasons I mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top