Is this Bible a good one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My personal opinion, the old English is distracting. I know some say it is more precise. It’s always been distracting to me.
 
My personal opinion, the old English is distracting. I know some say it is more precise. It’s always been distracting to me.
I can understand that. People say the same about the archaic language of Chaucer and Shakespeare, but after reading a few chapters, you get used to it, and you begin to see the beauty in it.
 
My personal opinion, the old English is distracting. I know some say it is more precise. It’s always been distracting to me.
I agree. And I say that as someone who grew up on the King James version. For some reason, I find the DR harder to read than the KJV. I much prefer the modern translations.
 
The answer is: it all depends. In this case, it all depends what you want to do with it.

The Douay is certainly lovely and historic. If it’s what you’ll read and enjoy, go for it. It’s great for devotional reading if you can handle the older English.

But as a translation, if you’re wanting to do serious textual study, it’s not preferable. It’s a translation of a translation, i.e. it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which itself was translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts available to Jerome, at least originally. This is to say nothing of the textual history of the Vulgate itself. You have to take into account as well that there have been many, many finds of manuscripts that have helped to fill out our understanding of many passages and how to best translate them. Chief among these finds is the Dead Sea Scrolls, in 1948, more than 3 centuries after the Douay was published. There’s also the Cairo Genizah, a lesser known, but still significant find. In both cases, as well as in other manuscripts and fragments discovered in the intervening centuries, there has been much to help make our translations more precise.

So the Douay is beautiful and is fine for devotional reading if that’s your cup of tea. But for textual accuracy for more scholarly purposes, the RSV is a better bet. It’s what I use when I want to know what the Greek and Hebrew say without having such at hand.

-Fr ACEGC
 
It is a matter of preference. My preference is for the RSVCE, but if you like that style of English, it is more than a good version.
 
Thank you all for your replies. I have a few bible translations but I really wanted to try out the Douay Rheims version and I’ll probably get an RSV at some point as well. Thanks again.
 
The Douay-Rheims is very good! It’s especially nice if you like more archaic language and you want to be steeped in history. The D-R is kinda like the Catholic version of the KJV. In fact, it’s actually a few years older than the King James Version.

I don’t have the St. Benedict Press edition (I have the one from Baronius Press), but I do have a St. Benedict Press NABRE, and it’s well-made and nice to read.
 
My niece has the St. Benedict press one. I got it for her for Christmas one year. It’s not my favourite version (that would be RSV first Catholic edition), but it is a good version, and historically quite important. I would like to get one (although it is fairly easy to find online). I tell people that convert to Catholicism from KJV Protestant backgrounds that this is what that should use if they prefer that style of English. Tim Staples seems to be quite fond of it.
 
I’ll pick up my Douay-Rheims and read some passages here and there. But for reading at length and entire chapters or books I read the RSVCE or RSV2CE
 
Last edited:
I’d say it is. But if it’s too hard to understand, cross-referencing with other Bibles may help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top