Is the Douay Rheims truly the best translation?

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

swampboy

Guest
I have not seen much posted on the DR lately, so this post may be timely. I just read the publication “Which Bible Should You Read” by Thomas Nelson. He makes a really good argument for use of the DR over other translations, if one were to only compare how translations measure up relative to the Vulgate. So I guess the question that enters my mind is how accurate is the Vulgate relative to the original languages? Mr. Nelson indicates that the Vulgate is the mst accurate because it was based on older manuscripts no longer available. How true is all this? I like the DR–I have the Haydock–but I find it hard to read. Is it worth all the trouble?
 
Ya know, I like what Billy Graham had to say about Bibles: The best one is the one you’ll read.

I’ve got several translations, and among them I like DR the least. To me, it’s just kind of a chore.

Now I’m no authority, but I figure that any authorized translation will do, and the rest is personal preference. If there are questions of interpretation–this versus that–I’ll see what Tradition and the Magisterium have to say; I’m willing to take their word for it.

Have fun,
–Scott

P.S. If later, the DR grows on you…well, you’re allowed to change your mind.
 
srlucado said:
Ya know, I like what Billy Graham had to say about Bibles: The best one is the one you’ll read.

I’ve got several translations, and among them I like DR the least. To me, it’s just kind of a chore.

Now I’m no authority, but I figure that any authorized translation will do, and the rest is personal preference. If there are questions of interpretation–this versus that–I’ll see what Tradition and the Magisterium have to say; I’m willing to take their word for it.

Have fun,
–Scott

P.S. If later, the DR grows on you…well, you’re allowed to change your mind.
Click to expand...
I agree that the DR is a chore to read…I have had a few copies…I sold one and kept the Haydock for the notes. But I find it real hard to read, especially with the differently named books and unfamiliar names that are used throughout. I always get hung up on accuracy…I really like the JB but there are so many non-traditional choices for certain well known phrases/words that I wonder if it is accurate at all–but maybe some of the others ar wrong and the JB is right:shrug:. The Confraternity is pretty good, as is the RSV…but both lack the completeness of the JB, with no real notes to speak of or extensive cross-refs… and all three are antiquated at this point, and lack extensive resources like concordances, etc. (except for the new RSV concordance). I do not know what the answer is…too bad the Protestant versions area missing those books;)
 
I like reading from the D-R, and use it periodically for comparison, but it is not my main translation. I like the RSV-2CE and I am looking forward to the new ‘Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament’ (RSV-2CE) that is coming out in June. That will contain Catholic notes and cross references. Then one day maybe they will come out with a complete bible.
 
swampboy said:
I agree that the DR is a chore to read…I have had a few copies…I sold one and kept the Haydock for the notes. But I find it real hard to read, especially with the differently named books and unfamiliar names that are used throughout. I always get hung up on accuracy…I really like the JB but there are so many non-traditional choices for certain well known phrases/words that I wonder if it is accurate at all–but maybe some of the others ar wrong and the JB is right:shrug:. The Confraternity is pretty good, as is the RSV…but both lack the completeness of the JB, with no real notes to speak of or extensive cross-refs… and all three are antiquated at this point, and lack extensive resources like concordances, etc. (except for the new RSV concordance). I do not know what the answer is…too bad the Protestant versions area missing those books;)
Click to expand...
You might find Donald Senior’s Catholic Study Bible helpful. It has lots of notes that I’ve found quite informative. It’s a NAB, which suits me just fine.

–Scott
 
srlucado said:
You might find Donald Senior’s Catholic Study Bible helpful. It has lots of notes that I’ve found quite informative. It’s a NAB, which suits me just fine.

–Scott
Click to expand...
Great!!! Yet another bible to buy!! Never heard of it…does it still retain the original NAB notes or are the notes all new?
 
I have a DR, a RSV-CE, and a NA Bible.

When I am teaching my grandchildren about something that is in the Bible I do not use the DR – but will read from the other two.
 
I love the DR & KJV because I love the English language.
I guess if you don’t like great literature you are not going to appreciate the great literary merit of those translations.
I don’t use the DR as a study bible though. For that I have gone with the Jerusalem bible. Not so elegant but an easier read.
 
srlucado said:
Ya know, I like what Billy Graham had to say about Bibles: The best one is the one you’ll read.
Click to expand...
That’s a great quote!

I like the King James because of its literary associations. The DR, on the other hand, always feels odd to me for the reasons others have mentioned. But of course the King James is not Catholic.

Right now, I’m using the Ignatius Bible, which suits me fine. When I want a real change of pace, I sometimes read the Catholic Living Bible. I also have some volumes of the Navarre Bible, which of course are great for the commentary.

.
 
I find the English in the D/R to be embarrassingly bad in many, many places, especially in the Psalms.

DaveBj
 
DaveBj said:
I find the English in the D/R to be embarrassingly bad in many, many places, especially in the Psalms.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
You didn’t give examples, but are you sure it isn’t just archaic? Personallly, I kind of like the archaic language in it.
 
I have the Douay-Rhems Bible with Bishop Challoner revisions & love it. Modern translations might be easier to read, but I enjoy the literature also.
 
I have a DR stored away in my all weather go-bag. The wording never bothered me, as I like Shakespeare. The different names for some of the OT books do jar me. I go and pull it out, when I’m unsatisfied with other translations. I read from the NAB. For study, I have the Oxford The Complete Parallel BIBLE, with side by side translations from the NRSV, REB, NAB and NJB. By the time I finish reading the four different translations of the same scripture, I have a good idea as to the gist of it.

Since I converted from So. Baptist, I keep a KJV for old time’s sake and also a NAB. I seldom refer to those, but they’re good to have.

I also have the Catholic Good News Bible and the Catholic Today’s English Version, but those were to read the notes in them, to gain insight into different cultures mentioned in the notes.
 
Thanks all for the (name removed by moderator)ut. However, my initial inquiry still remains unanswered…is the Douay-Rheims more accurate than newer translations that are based on original languages rather than the Vulgate which is based on older manuscripts? The Nelson booklet puts forth a rather convincing argument that the DR is more accurate than even the RSV that is used in scholarly circles. So, does anyone know if this is true?
 
swampboy said:
Thanks all for the (name removed by moderator)ut. However, my initial inquiry still remains unanswered…is the Douay-Rheims more accurate than newer translations that are based on original languages rather than the Vulgate which is based on older manuscripts? The Nelson booklet puts forth a rather convincing argument that the DR is more accurate than even the RSV that is used in scholarly circles. So, does anyone know if this is true?
Click to expand...
Here is another defense of the Douay-Rheims as the most reliable translation of the bible, when compared to modern translations.

drbo.org/preface.htm
 
**how accurate is the Vulgate relative to the original languages? **

Most verses have no significant differences in meaning between the Latin Vulgate and the Hebrew or Greek, and very few if any doctrinal differences. The Latin Scriptural tradition has benefited through the centuries by editing and correction according to the Hebrew and Greek, so the accuracy of the Vulgate is high.

Mr. Nelson indicates that the Vulgate is the mst accurate because it was based on older manuscripts no longer available. How true is all this?

In the early Church, Christians began to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts into Latin; they undoubtedly had manuscripts that are not available today. But the age of a manuscript does not impy accuracy. The main reason that the Vulgate is accurate is usage. The Vulgate has been used by the Living Tradition of the Church for many centuries. This is the reason that the Council of Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Church.

I like the DR–I have the Haydock–but I find it hard to read. Is it worth all the trouble?

The original Douai Rhemes Bible is a useful resource (but also difficult to read). There are many different editions of the Challoner revision of the Douai (which is what you are referring to).

My own translation of the Clementine Vulgate is here: CPDV
along with my light edit of the Latin Vulgate, and a few rare Latin Bibles that I’ve scanned and placed online.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You didn’t give examples, but are you sure it isn’t just archaic? Personallly, I kind of like the archaic language in it.
Click to expand...
Just letting you know I’m not blowing you off; will post examples when I have time, which is not tonight. I do archaic language; I was raised on the KJV.

DaveBj
 
swampboy,
I am not a big fan of translations that maintain archaic pronouns and such; thy, thou, thee, thine, whilst, wast, doest(?)… thou gettest mine idea? Some cite clarity as an advantage to retaining their inclusion against the ambivalent you-singular/you-plural of modern english. Most of the time the notes will point out this difference so it’s not really an issue.

For me modern english is difficult enough!

PeterK
 
PeterK said:
swampboy,
I am not a big fan of translations that maintain archaic pronouns and such; thy, thou, thee, thine, whilst, wast, doest(?)… thou gettest mine idea? Some cite clarity as an advantage to retaining their inclusion against the ambivalent you-singular/you-plural of modern english. Most of the time the notes will point out this difference so it’s not really an issue.

For me modern english is difficult enough!

PeterK
Click to expand...
haha…i agree…i have a hard enough time with modern english as well…i like the sound of the archaic translations as they seem more dignified…i also like the Confraternity bible quite a bit which does retain the old english style…but i find it a chore to read bibles that have such language. But I feel as if the older translations are better as they were not liberalized like some of the newer ones–as the Nelson book points out. However, I wonder sometimes if it is worth the aggravation…the Jerusalem Bible reads nice and easy and gets the point across…but it seems as if something is missing and I am not sure if I trust the translation all the time; whereas the DR has stood the test of time…very difficult decision…but I get the sense that I am not the only one facing this battle 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top