Is the DRV a reliable text?

  • Thread starter Thread starter silverwings_88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

silverwings_88

Guest
My Scripture Study leader implicitly seemed to give the air of disappointment when I announced that I had bought a DRV instead of an RSV-CE which he seems to laud.

He tells me that it is better for one to buy the most modern Bible because we have newer and “better” texts to translate the Bible, pertaining to, for an example, the Qumran scrolls and any other piece of Biblical text unearthed after the DRV’s translation.

However, because of the Bible problem in Canada (RSV-CE being supposedly the best, while NRSV is the liturgical Bible of Canada, and the NAB for the majority of the population), I adore the DRV for its tradition, its language, and the renderings of the text without the watered-down language.

He actually thought that for me, the older language gave a sense of holiness, which is far from the Truth to me!

Am I wrong in using the DRV for analytical basic study of the Sacred Scripture, or is it fine to using it, being aware of the limitations of St. Jerome and of the texts used?
 
40.png
silverwings_88:
He tells me that it is better for one to buy the most modern Bible because we have newer and “better” texts to translate the Bible, pertaining to, for an example, the Qumran scrolls and any other piece of Biblical text unearthed after the DRV’s translation… Am I wrong in using the DRV for analytical basic study of the Sacred Scripture, or is it fine to using it, being aware of the limitations of St. Jerome and of the texts used?
Click to expand...
From a literary, rather than a denominational perspective, he is correct inasmuch as modern translations are generally better representations in English of what the original texts said.

Having said that, no translation is ever going to be perfect, because no two languages are exactly alike. I would suggest that you choose whatsoever version you prefer, and always remember that it is merely an English translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek translation of the original in the heart of the writer.

(This is not a Catholic recommendation, however.)
 
40.png
silverwings_88:
My Scripture Study leader implicitly seemed to give the air of disappointment when I announced that I had bought a DRV instead of an RSV-CE which he seems to laud.

He tells me that it is better for one to buy the most modern Bible because we have newer and “better” texts to translate the Bible, pertaining to, for an example, the Qumran scrolls and any other piece of Biblical text unearthed after the DRV’s translation.

However, because of the Bible problem in Canada (RSV-CE being supposedly the best, while NRSV is the liturgical Bible of Canada, and the NAB for the majority of the population), I adore the DRV for its tradition, its language, and the renderings of the text without the watered-down language.

He actually thought that for me, the older language gave a sense of holiness, which is far from the Truth to me!

Am I wrong in using the DRV for analytical basic study of the Sacred Scripture, or is it fine to using it, being aware of the limitations of St. Jerome and of the texts used?
Click to expand...
I prefer the Douay-Rheims myself. I use it frequently:) Since Iam
traditional, I only like the Douay-Rheims. I do not think you are wrong in using it for basic study, but to clarify that, and get accurate information, ask a priest. That is your best option. 🙂
 
40.png
silverwings_88:
Am I wrong in using the DRV for analytical basic study of the Sacred Scripture, or is it fine to using it, being aware of the limitations of St. Jerome and of the texts used?
Click to expand...
You aren’t wrong to use it – it is a perfectly good Bible for personal study, and the Haydock notes (if your’s has them) are very helpful.

Where you would be wrong is if you (or anyone) insisted on any one translation as the definitive one for settling a dispute on what a text means. As a previous poster pointed out, no translation is perfect, and only the original autographs are inerrant. The Church, through the special charism given her by the Lord, has the final say on any interpretation of Scripture.

Having said this, I’m somewhat surprised your group leader would have such a poor reaction to this. While it is sometimes helpful to all be working out of the same translation while in a group study, it isn’t always necessary. In fact, having an alternative approved translation sometimes if helpful to the group for bring out the nuances in the original languages that using a single translation can lack.
 
Where as I love the beautiful language and prose of the DRV, I also confirm that the leader was correct in his comments about it. If the Bible Study is meant to be scholarly, exploring details of the scriptures, then the DRV may not be ideal. The texts it translated from orginally weren’t the greatest. The more modern bibles reflect great advances in both the understanding of the ancient languages, and older texts to translate from.

That having been said, of course, not all new translations are particularly god. However, the leader’s recommnedation of a RSV-CE is generally recognized as good for intensive Catholic bible study. It is the version used in Vatican documents.

Josh
 
Thank you for your responses; there are about 7 people in our small Scripture Study group, and only I use the DRV whilst everyone else uses the classic NAB and our United Church convert uses her little KJV which has been worn.

I guess that I may be too picky or what not, knowing that money is tight with me, and with the Novus Ordo translation being on the way, I want to wait until it is good that I may buy an RSV-CE, preferrably pocket-sized.

Inasmuch as I have fallen in love with the eloquence of the DRV, I guess conformity to the modern translations of the age is the only way to truly appease my group leader; otherwise, he seems to mention about how I use my DRV…

Thank you!
 
I can tell you that the Douay is word-for-word from the Latin Vulgate. Now, the newer translations may well have other advantages, but my decision to go with the DRV for study was based in no small part on the fact that, not only do I like the way it reads, but I am delighted that it is so close to the Latin…I can actually compare the Latin without going online to find it, just by checking the DRV…
 
40.png
silverwings_88:
Thank you for your responses; there are about 7 people in our small Scripture Study group, and only I use the DRV whilst everyone else uses the classic NAB and our United Church convert uses her little KJV which has been worn.

I guess that I may be too picky or what not, knowing that money is tight with me, and with the Novus Ordo translation being on the way, I want to wait until it is good that I may buy an RSV-CE, preferrably pocket-sized.

Inasmuch as I have fallen in love with the eloquence of the DRV, I guess conformity to the modern translations of the age is the only way to truly appease my group leader; otherwise, he seems to mention about how I use my DRV…

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Anyone using the NAB has no room to criticize you for using the Douay Rheims.

I strongly disagree the the “modern” versions are superior the Douay, especially the NIV, NKJV, or any other Protestant translation. All Protestant translations are going to suffer from a bias.

The DR is, IMHO, a superior version for study than the NAB. If for no other reason, the study notes that all the NAB bibles I’ve seen make comments that seem to be down right heretical.

While I personally prefer the DR I also enjoy the RSV.
 
It may be something as simple as wishing everyone had the exact same version so it’s easier to follow on when people are reading verses. I have been involved in that scenario, it can be a tad confusing.
 
Dear silverwings_88,

So the RSV-CE is supposed to be the bible version of choice per your Scripture Study leader?

See my posts under “Nova Vulgata” for some less than stellar renderings in the highly-vaunted RSV-CE, especially Luke 1:34.

While I don’t particularly like the Psalms in the DRV (the Vulgate included Jerome’s translation from the Greek instead of from the Hebrew), the rest of the Old Testament and the whole New Testament are superb for adhering close to the “originals”. It renders Hebraisms (or Semiticisms) word-for-word, and not as “dynamic equivalents”.

Hold on (tightly) to your DRV!

God bless!
 
sigh Yes, he vaunts the RSV-CE, but uses the NRSV because it’s the liturgical Bible of Canada.

The only thing that deters me in the DRV translation, is of course, the Greek Psalms, but also the numbering of some of the deuterocanonicals, and I can not correspond with others on a particular verse, say, in Sirach.

But other than that, I appreciate how it is a direct translation of the Vulgate, and how it keeps the idioms respective to the languages translated from the originals via the Latin Vulgate, and that I trust Saint Jerome’s biblical scholarship ;).

Thanks again for your contribution, and I’m definitely will always use it, till death will we part! 😃
40.png
Manfred:
Dear silverwings_88,

So the RSV-CE is supposed to be the bible version of choice per your Scripture Study leader?

See my posts under “Nova Vulgata” for some less than stellar renderings in the highly-vaunted RSV-CE, especially Luke 1:34.

While I don’t particularly like the Psalms in the DRV (the Vulgate included Jerome’s translation from the Greek instead of from the Hebrew), the rest of the Old Testament and the whole New Testament are superb for adhering close to the “originals”. It renders Hebraisms (or Semiticisms) word-for-word, and not as “dynamic equivalents”.

Hold on (tightly) to your DRV!

God bless!
Click to expand...
 
Dear silverwings_88:

I’m still undecided as to which Psalter to use as my preferred version. The RSV-CE does use the “thee/thou/thine” form which I like, but I do have a problem with Psalm 45:6 and also Ps. 139:14. I think the original (1970) NAB version is much better, and is the version we still use in the Liturgy in the USA, Deo gratias. I’m currently reading through the JB’s Psalter; it is very smooth, but lacks the reverence of the DRV or the RSV-CE.

As for Sirach: the RSV-CE states clearly in its Introduction that “the Greek underlying the RSV is better than the rescension underlying the Latin.” You do believe that - don’t you? 😉

And then there’s Tobias: the RSV text omits many details of the story; e.g., the background of the receipt torn in two that Tobias the elder gives to Tobias the younger before the latter embarks on his journey; no mention of the dog who also went on that journey. Check the DRV’s footnotes re the dog. If I had a tail it would certainly be wagging after reading the DRV’s comments!

The RSV’s deutero-canonicals were translated by people who for the most part may not even have believed that these books were inspired!

The JB would be a decent translation if it weren’t so loaded with paraphrastic renderings. And the NJB, though somewhat less paraphrastic than its predecessor, got all wrapped up with incorporating gender-inclusive language. Pity.

Now I have a question for you: for English-speaking Catholics, where are the “fruits” of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu?
 
I agree with bigdawg’s comments about the awful study notes in the NAB. I think the Bishops should pull this bible from the shelf of every Catholic bookstore, have it re-done with ORTHODOX study notes, and reissued. Until then, the NAB is a menace because of it’s study notes.

The RSV-CE is a great version to read (so is the Jerusalem Bible IMHO).

And yes, I too have a Douay-Rheims and I LOVE this venerable old translation. I also find the Douay to be easier to read than the King James Version.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
 
Try these on for size; maybe someone at Ignatius Press is reading and paying attention.

Texts of the RSV-CE and Some Suggested Corrections

Genesis 12:3 text “and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves”; footnote “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 18:18 text “and all the nations of the earth shall bless
themselves by him”; footnote “in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 22:18 text “and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 26:4 text “and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 28:14 text “and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves”; footnote “be blessed”

Genesis 9:20 text “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard” better “Noah began to till the soil and planted a vineyard”

Exodus 3:14 text “I AM WHO I AM”; better “I AM WHO AM”

Tobit 13:18 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Psalm 45:6-9

text “[6] Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness above your fellows;
[8] your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

better “[6] Thy throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
Thy royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness.
Therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows;
[8] thy robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make thee glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among thy ladies of honor;
at thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

Psalm 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 112:1; 113:1,9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1,21; 146:1,10; 147:20; 148:1,14; 149:1,9; 150:1,6 text “Praise the LORD!”; better “Alleluia!”

Proverbs 5:19 text “affection” better “breasts”

Isaiah 7:14 text “young woman”; footnote “virgin”

Throughout all four Gospels text “Truly, I say to you” or “Truly,
truly, I say to you”; better “Amen, I say to you” or Amen, amen I say to you"

Matthew 5:32 text “unchastity”; better “fornication”

Matthew 16:18 text “powers of death”; footnote “gates of Hades”; better “gates of hell”

Matthew 16:26 text “life”; better “soul”

Matthew 19:5 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 19:6 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 16:9 text “unchastity”; better “fornication”

Matthew 20:15 text “Or do you begrudge my generosity?” footnote “Or is your eye evil because I am good?”

Luke 1:34 text “How can this be, since I have no husband?”; better “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

John 2:4 text “what have you to do with me?”; better “what to you and to me?”

John 19:5 text “Here is the man!”; better “Behold, the man!”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “the immoral”; Explanatory Notes “fornicators”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “homosexuals”; Explanatory Notes “effeminate nor sodomites”

1 Corinthians 6:16 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

1 Corinthians 7:9 text “cannot”; better “do not”

1 Corinthians 9:5 text “wife”; footnote “woman, sister”

Hebrews 2:10 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Hebrews 12:2 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Revelation 3:15 text “I will spew you out of my mouth.”; better “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Revelation 19:1,3,4,6 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”
 
I re-number my DRV as I go…Just a little pencilled in # that tells me what the verse is in other versions…

I actually started to read the Jerusalem Bible just in the past few weeks & put it down & went back to what I get the most out of…It was just hard for me to read anyhting else. (I grew up on the KJV in the Methodist tradition; I love the beautiful language of the older translations…
And, (as I briefly mentioned in my previous post here), I am no end of happy to have a Bible that is close enough to the Vulgate, that I have no need to put down the Bible, push the cat off my lap, & go searching on line for the Latin to compare it to another English version. I have seen enough to know that the Vulgate is beautifully & accurately represented in the DRV.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto3:
I agree with bigdawg’s comments about the awful study notes in the NAB. I think the Bishops should pull this bible from the shelf of every Catholic bookstore, have it re-done with ORTHODOX study notes, and reissued. Until then, the NAB is a menace because of it’s study notes.

The RSV-CE is a great version to read (so is the Jerusalem Bible IMHO).

And yes, I too have a Douay-Rheims and I LOVE this venerable old translation. I also find the Douay to be easier to read than the King James Version.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
Click to expand...
I read KJV as long as I can understand and it doesn’t contradict Catholic teachings. switch to DRB in times of error or difficulty

I never like those modern styles of writing in Bible.
 
If by DRV you mean the most commonly available, Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Version, then it both is and isn’t a reliable text. It is a reliable text in the sense that it is a reliable translation of the Latin Vulgate, which remains the “juridically authentic” Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

However:
  1. It does not well represent the authentic text of St. Jerome’s original Vulgate, which over centuries of manuscript copying came to be adulterated with many earlier Latin versions, to the extent that over 8000 differing manuscripts came to be extant. The Neo-Vulgate, still available only in Latin to my knowledge, better approximates the original.
  2. Over the past 150 years the true science of textual criticism has advanced exponentially, augmented by the discovery of many ancient manuscripts - of which the Qumran Scrolls are just a few. To arrive at the best possible biblical translation, we must use not just the Latin, but the ancient Greek Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine text-types, the Syriac and Coptic readings, etc. Just as one example, we now know that the “Trinitarian comma” of I John 5:7 (the three heavenly witnesses) is not the original text.
This being said, I use the DRV for daily reading, supplemented by Greek and Latin texts with critical apparati. The RSVCE just doesn’t cut it for me - I don’t feel that any English version on the market is worthwhile, but that the DRV is the best possible choice among many English evils…
 
40.png
tjmiller:
If by DRV you mean the most commonly available, Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Version, then it both is and isn’t a reliable text. It is a reliable text in the sense that it is a reliable translation of the Latin Vulgate, which remains the “juridically authentic” Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

However:
  1. It does not well represent the authentic text of St. Jerome’s original Vulgate, which over centuries of manuscript copying came to be adulterated with many earlier Latin versions, to the extent that over 8000 differing manuscripts came to be extant. The Neo-Vulgate, still available only in Latin to my knowledge, better approximates the original.
  2. Over the past 150 years the true science of textual criticism has advanced exponentially, augmented by the discovery of many ancient manuscripts - of which the Qumran Scrolls are just a few. To arrive at the best possible biblical translation, we must use not just the Latin, but the ancient Greek Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine text-types, the Syriac and Coptic readings, etc. Just as one example, we now know that the “Trinitarian comma” of I John 5:7 (the three heavenly witnesses) is not the original text.
This being said, I use the DRV for daily reading, supplemented by Greek and Latin texts with critical apparati. The RSVCE just doesn’t cut it for me - I don’t feel that any English version on the market is worthwhile, but that the DRV is the best possible choice among many English evils…
Click to expand...
But this is so sad, really.

Most of us realize that the Clementine Vulgate, from which the DRV was translated, is not the “pure” Jerome text because of adulterations inherent in copying and re-copying. And, again, most of us realize that “modern” biblical scholarship, in accord with the provisions of Divino Afflante Spiritu to search out more accurately the intended meaning, is the way to go.

But when we consider what Catholic biblical scholarship to date has to show for it, we find:
  • the RSV-CE being the most traditional and reverent but with inherent Protestant biases which still come though;
  • the NAB (1970): you call that a NT?
  • RNAB (1986+): gender-neutered and still not literal enough;
  • JB (1966): too paraphrastic;
  • NJB (1985): less paraphrastic than its predecessor but too awkwardly inclusive;
See why we need a reliable English translation of the Nova Vulgata? And until we get one, there remains the reliable DRV.
 
There are many more learned posters here than me. I like the DRV for its style.

I would suggest that for practical reasons, all the participants of a small discussion group might be better off with the same translation – and that should be one that gives the best advantage to the participants to understand it.

Any organized bible study group should be able to provide a copy of the Bible to anyone who participates.

I can’t imagine that differences in translation (among Catholic translations) would make a serious difference if there is a thorough discussion.

I hope you get a lot out of your bible study.
 
Yes, my Scripture Study group is a bit varied with Bibles, as I have said earlier. Four members use the NAB, our leader uses the NRSV - CE (it’s the liturgical Bible of Canada), I use the DRV, and one other who was a former United uses her mini-KJV.

I had the same criticisms that manfred had given, especially when I’m stil concerned with the controversiality of the NAB footnotes and dry translation (one of my Catholic friends complained about the language being too dry) and that it is an American Bible.

The RSV-CE is alright as a translation, but it is a treasure to find in my place as a Bible. I’m also concerned with the translation because it is originally a Protestant work, and I’m sure that the Catholic communities should provide a better Bible not having to stem from a Protestant translation.

I’m just wondering though with the DRV especially certain renderings in the Psalms and the Song of Songs… why is it that the Hebrew Psalms, Song of Songs, Tobit, etc. are used more than the Greek, despite the matters of age? I would assume that the Greek Tobit would have the little dog detail and that Catholics as our spiritual ancestors had did, would still mainly follow the Greek OT.

I would be concerned because I have compared Tobit from the DRV and modern translations, and I have heard that when Jerome translated the Vulgate in which the DRV was based upon, he translated the texts of Tobit and Judith quickly and thus many details seem to be also missing. This would mean bible-switching if we were to look at those books in particular…

Tobit 6 is completely different, especially to the end to each other… wouldn’t this lower the reliability of that book since all other modern translations have more detail in these stories than in the DRV?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top