More modern sounding Douey Rheims Version?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James924
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James924

Guest
I’m told that in the 1700s or 1800s there was a “modernized” revision or “less antiquated” revision to the Douey Rheims. Is this true and if so, what’s it called?

Thanks
 
Douay-Rheims Challoner Version

In 1582, the The Douay-Rheims (New Testament) was first printed. Then during the years 1749-1752, the English was revised and footnotes were added by Bishop Richard Challoner.

drbo.org/about.htm
 
James924 said:
I’m told that in the 1700s or 1800s there was a “modernized” revision or “less antiquated” revision to the Douey Rheims. Is this true and if so, what’s it called? Thanks
Click to expand...
The original 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate was revised by Richard Challoner in the mid-1700s, and it is this revision that is now known as the Douay-Rheims that you typically find in print.
 
When I go to biblegateway it shows something called the Douay Rheims “American Edition” of 1899. Does anyone know what that is? Is it a protestant revision or something?
 
James924 said:
When I go to biblegateway it shows something called the Douay Rheims “American Edition” of 1899. Does anyone know what that is? Is it a protestant revision or something?
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, it is the same as the usual DR that you can get in print, such as the one published by TAN. It’s not a Protestant revision.
 
James924 said:
I’m told that in the 1700s or 1800s there was a “modernized” revision or “less antiquated” revision to the Douey Rheims. Is this true and if so, what’s it called?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Well, the original Rheims New Testament was printed in 1582, with the Douai Old Testament following in 1609. Simply put, it was a very wooden, literalistic translation of the Latin into English (you can read it online here).

As the others pointed out, the translation was ‘revised’ by Bishop Richard Challoner between 1749 and 1752. revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version (himself being a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, and thus familiar with its style) whose translators had themselves borrowed from the original Rheims NT of 1582. The use of the Rheims New Testament by the translators of the King James Bible is discussed below. Challoner not only addressed the odd prose and much of the Latinisms, but produced a version which, while still called the Douay-Rheims, was little like the original. At the same time he aimed for improved readability and comprehensibility, rephrasing obscure and obsolete terms and construction; and in the process, consistently removing ambiguities of meaning that the original version had striven to retain.
 
Not quite the 1700s and 1800s but there is the Confraternity New Testament and Knox Bible.

I like the Confraternity New Testament, I’ve been reading it this year. There is a small pocket version divided into daily sections, it ends up being about a page and a half a day.
 
Does anyone know how much change there was in the Douay Rheims Challoner bible in the Catholic Truth Society editions that were published in Great Brittain in the 50s and the 60s?

I have heard that they made minor revisions but they might have only had to do with spellings?

Does anyone know?
 
I’ve included the link for the Baronius Press edition of the D-R, the most beautiful Bible I’ve ever possessed!:heaven:

It has the additional advantage of being Smyth-sewn, so it should outlast it’s owner!😃

baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=44

Baronius bind all their Bibles in this way. The page to which the link will take you is most informative. Don’t let the price put you off. In this case, you really do get what you pay for (and some!).
 
All you have to do is replace “shew” with “show”, “thy” with “your”, etc. …

People find it hard, but it seems pretty easy to read for me. 🙂
 
GloriousOrder said:
All you have to do is replace “shew” with “show”, “thy” with “your”, etc. …

People find it hard, but it seems pretty easy to read for me. 🙂
Click to expand...
No thats not my issue. The old testament is quite a bit more than “shew” vs “Show.” For instance I came across the word “phase” and kept seeing it over and over…no idea what it meant. Turns out its the word both for the passover lamb AND passover itself, depending on context. Thats a bit harder to figure out than shew and show.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top