Pros and Cons of the Douay Rheims

[patrick457]

Another thing I appreciate about the DRB is that since the Bible is GOD’S Love letter to mankind I feel that something with archaic and reverent language (such as “thee” and “thou”) is more dignified and conductive to prayer, because it denotes an air of reverence. I also like the fact that this sort of english is “dead”. The “thees” and “thous” are not going to change. However the english language progresses and more slang is introduced into the vocabulary, the language that I am using right now will be deemed “archaic” in 50+ years. Imagine that the versions of Scripture that we think “modern” at this time such as the NABRV, NAB, NRSV etc., will all be old fashioned in 50 years

I think that in those days, the (what will be then very old) English of these same versions will, in their turn, be considered ‘reverent’. I mean, the same thing happened with the KJV and the DR.

 

[patrick457]

Trvia: the Challoner actually gets its more poetic style from the KJV (as Bishop Challoner was himself an Anglican convert). So the process goes full circle: the translators of the KJV had themselves borrowed from the original Rheims New Testament of 1582, and now Challoner is borrowing from the KJV. See for example Ephesians 3:6-12:

Rheims: † The Gentils to be coheires & concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ IESVS by the Gospel: † vvhereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is giuen me according to the operation of his povver. † To me the least of al the sainctes is giuen this grace, among the Gentils to euangelize the vnsearcheable riches of Christ, † and to illuminate al men vvhat is the dispensatiō of the sacrament hidden from vvorldes in God, vvho created al things: † that the manifold vvisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, † according to the prefinitiō of worldes, vvhich he made in Christ IESVS our Lord. † In vvhom vve haue affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.

KJV (1611): That the Gentiles should be fellow heires, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the Gospel: whereof I was made a Minister, according to the gift of the grace of God giuen vnto mee, by the effectuall working of his power. Unto mee, who am lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace giuen, that I should preach among the Gentiles the vnsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mysterie, which from the beginning of the world, hath bene hid in God, who created all things by Iesus Christ: to the intent that now vnto the principalities and powers in heauenly places, might be knowen by the church, the manifold wisedome of God, according to the eternall purpose which he purposed in Christ Iesus our Lord: in whom we haue boldnesse and accesse, with confidence, by the faith of him.

Challoner: That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power. To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, according to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

 

[mymamamary]

Trvia: the Challoner actually gets its more poetic style from the KJV (as Bishop Challoner was himself an Anglican convert). So the process goes full circle: the translators of the KJV had themselves borrowed from the original Rheims New Testament of 1582, and now Challoner is borrowing from the KJV. See for example Ephesians 3:6-12:

Rheims: † The Gentils to be coheires & concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ IESVS by the Gospel: † vvhereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is giuen me according to the operation of his povver. † To me the least of al the sainctes is giuen this grace, among the Gentils to euangelize the vnsearcheable riches of Christ, † and to illuminate al men vvhat is the dispensatiō of the sacrament hidden from vvorldes in God, vvho created al things: † that the manifold vvisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, † according to the prefinitiō of worldes, vvhich he made in Christ IESVS our Lord. † In vvhom vve haue affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.

KJV (1611): That the Gentiles should be fellow heires, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the Gospel: whereof I was made a Minister, according to the gift of the grace of God giuen vnto mee, by the effectuall working of his power. Unto mee, who am lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace giuen, that I should preach among the Gentiles the vnsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mysterie, which from the beginning of the world, hath bene hid in God, who created all things by Iesus Christ: to the intent that now vnto the principalities and powers in heauenly places, might be knowen by the church, the manifold wisedome of God, according to the eternall purpose which he purposed in Christ Iesus our Lord: in whom we haue boldnesse and accesse, with confidence, by the faith of him.

Challoner: That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power. To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, according to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

**I’ve heard that before too. I heard that the KJV borrowed from the original DR, and then the Douay-Rheims-Challoner borrowed from the KJV. Hence the reason a lot of verses are very similar or the same. I do like the distinction between the KJV of the Last Supper and the DR version of the Last Supper. I like that the DR kept the “Catholic” connotation to it by saying “He took the CHALICE”, whereas the KJV being Protestant says “He took the CUP”. Not a lot of difference, certainly not theologically, but I enjoy hearing the words of Consecration as I hear them in Sacred Scripture. I feel it ties whole idea of Bible and Liturgy together quite well. **

 

[mymamamary]

I think that in those days, the (what will be then very old) English of these same versions will, in their turn, be considered ‘reverent’. I mean, the same thing happened with the KJV and the DR.

**It’s already happening. A lot of Catholics (thankfully) are making the switch from their versions to the DR. Even my Confessor gives the DR primacy of place for His reading choices.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Douay Rheims Onlyism kind of person. I like the RSV-CE, RSV-CE 2nd edition, Jerusalem Bible, and I will read the NAB if I have to, but I just respect the DR as the cream of the crop. I’d love to buy the haydock commentary one (If I wanted to buy the two Bibles I wanted, I’d be forking over something like $200 ) someday.**

 

[Gorgias]

I knew you’re talking about the Challoner version. The original DR was very Latinate and very literal, at times to the point of being stilted and wooden. Which some might find off-putting, but which I actually like.

Patrick,

How does the DR stack up in terms of manuscript scholarship that has been done since the DR (original or Challoner) was published?

Blessings,

G.

 

[edward_george]

Patrick,

How does the DR stack up in terms of manuscript scholarship that has been done since the DR (original or Challoner) was published?

Blessings,

G.

While I’m not one to say that older necessarily doesn’t equal good, I will say that there has been considerable scholarship done in the ages since both the Douay and the Challoner revision–consider that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1948, centuries after the revision was made. Also consider that other major manuscript finds have occurred, giving us further source material to compare texts for translation. The Douay and subsequent revisions are certainly very lovely and were probably the best of their time, but I tend to favor the RSV and NABRE for scholarly work since they’re based on more recent scholarship.

-ACEGC

 

[Phyllo]

**It’s already happening. A lot of Catholics (thankfully) are making the switch from their versions to the DR. Even my Confessor gives the DR primacy of place for His reading choices.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Douay Rheims Onlyism kind of person. I like the RSV-CE, RSV-CE 2nd edition, Jerusalem Bible, and I will read the NAB if I have to, but I just respect the DR as the cream of the crop. I’d love to buy the haydock commentary one (If I wanted to buy the two Bibles I wanted, I’d be forking over something like $200 ) someday.**

I am of the same opinion. I love my Jerusalem Bible and I have the bibles you mention. When I started really studying my bible I started with the Jerusalem so consequently I have a lot of notes and thoughts that I penciled in the margins. Knowing what I know now I would have started with the DR. I have the Haydock commentary and use it a lot. What would be the second Bible you would buy? I am just curious. Thanks

 

[StudentMI]

**It’s already happening. A lot of Catholics (thankfully) are making the switch from their versions to the DR. Even my Confessor gives the DR primacy of place for His reading choices.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Douay Rheims Onlyism kind of person. I like the RSV-CE, RSV-CE 2nd edition, Jerusalem Bible, and I will read the NAB if I have to, but I just respect the DR as the cream of the crop. I’d love to buy the haydock commentary one (If I wanted to buy the two Bibles I wanted, I’d be forking over something like $200 ) someday.**

The Haydock Commentary is available here.

veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock

 

[Ridgerunner]

I like the “thees” and “thous” because they once had meaning in ordinary English. It was the English “intimate” or “familiar” form of “you”, much as the French “tu” is the intimate form of “vous” and the German “du” is the intimate form of “sie”. An amusing recollection in my study of French long ago is a sentence in the conversation book when an aspiring student of French addresses a French woman with “tu”. Her response was “Ne me tutoi pas!” (in other words, do not use the intimate form of address with me. I don’t know you sufficiently well.)

So their usage is not without meaning. But since the thread has progressed this far and nobody has said the above, one wonders whether something of which we should be aware is slipping through the cracks. Personally, if I could restore “thee” and “thou” to common usage, I would do so with alacrity.

And so, in prayers, have we let something go that mattered? Saying “Thee” and “Thou” to God is not the same as saying “You”, or at least it wasn’t. They do not impart the same relationship.

I’m always a little uncertain about more modern translations because they are conscious efforts to bring biblical language to a more colloquial (and national) level, and one has to wonder just how much might have been lost in the change. One has to wonder a bit about the skill level of the modern translators as well. Are they really “getting it” fully?

And, of course, a good deal of the bible is poetry. Poetry of any sort almost always seems “stilted”, but that doesn’t mean it’s incomprehensible. To the extent it is prose, it’s prose of a particular sort. The Old Testament to a large degree and the New Testament to a lesser, but still significant degree, were oral accounts, meant to be memorized and recounted orally. Consequently, they had “memory aids” in them, rather like Greek epics do. Perhaps we don’t need that anymore, but again, one wonders what might get missed when that’s no longer thought important.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Haydock Commentary is available here.

veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock

One notices that God addresses Adam and Ever as “thee” or “thou” both before and after they sin, while Satan addresses them with “you”.

 

[mymamamary]

I am of the same opinion. I love my Jerusalem Bible and I have the bibles you mention. When I started really studying my bible I started with the Jerusalem so consequently I have a lot of notes and thoughts that I penciled in the margins. Knowing what I know now I would have started with the DR. I have the Haydock commentary and use it a lot. What would be the second Bible you would buy? I am just curious. Thanks

**
RSV-CE or the RSV-CE 2nd edition. Both are wonderful as well. Dr. Scott Hahn uses the RSV-CE apparently, and it is a descendent of the KJV (Which is apparent when one reads the verses and compares it with the KJV)**

 

[irenaeuslyons]

A con of the Douay Rheims is that it sometimes uses stilted english. This is usually because they chose being faithful to the latin over the beauty of the translated verse when it was in conflict. Other than that I think it is a wonderful translation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Douay Rheims Challoner of 1750 English is easier to understand than 1611 King James English.

I think if the archaic English of the Douay Rheims Challoner was polished up that it would make a great version of the bible.

Currently I posses and read the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–Confraternity New Testament–and New English Translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

The bible text has a copyright of 1949.

You can find these combination bibles on ebay.

If you just want a Douay Rheims they do make red letter editions of them.

 

[epan]

Choosing a preferred Bible is rather like Protestantism. Every translation has a point of view resulting from the context, personal, historic, cultural, educational, religious, etc… of the translators. This is one area where Muslims and Jews have it right, compared to Christians. They go to the original text, as much as possible.

 

[Phyllo]

**
RSV-CE or the RSV-CE 2nd edition. Both are wonderful as well. Dr. Scott Hahn uses the RSV-CE apparently, and it is a descendent of the KJV (Which is apparent when one reads the verses and compares it with the KJV)**

I have these and also the RSV-CE that Scott Hahn wrote the commentary on. It is just the NT though. Have you tried the site St. Paul’s Center?
salvationhistory.com/

They have several audio classes. I just finished one on Romans and have started one on St. John’s gospel. They are free and very meaty. I think you will enjoy them.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Choosing a preferred Bible is rather like Protestantism. Every translation has a point of view resulting from the context, personal, historic, cultural, educational, religious, etc… of the translators. This is one area where Muslims and Jews have it right, compared to Christians. They go to the original text, as much as possible.

I don’t think that’s a fair statement. A Good translation will not impose “a point of view.” This is exactly what the D/R was trying to correct in the pre-King James Bibles. As far as original texts go, NO ONE has those. All we have are much later translations or transcriptions, which could be susceptible to “points of view” as well.

 

[Brigid34]

I like the “thees” and “thous” because they once had meaning in ordinary English. It was the English “intimate” or “familiar” form of “you”, much as the French “tu” is the intimate form of “vous” and the German “du” is the intimate form of “sie”. An amusing recollection in my study of French long ago is a sentence in the conversation book when an aspiring student of French addresses a French woman with “tu”. Her response was “Ne me tutoi pas!” (in other words, do not use the intimate form of address with me. I don’t know you sufficiently well.)

So their usage is not without meaning. But since the thread has progressed this far and nobody has said the above, one wonders whether something of which we should be aware is slipping through the cracks. Personally, if I could restore “thee” and “thou” to common usage, I would do so with alacrity.

And so, in prayers, have we let something go that mattered? Saying “Thee” and “Thou” to God is not the same as saying “You”, or at least it wasn’t. They do not impart the same relationship.

I’m always a little uncertain about more modern translations because they are conscious efforts to bring biblical language to a more colloquial (and national) level, and one has to wonder just how much might have been lost in the change. One has to wonder a bit about the skill level of the modern translators as well. Are they really “getting it” fully?

And, of course, a good deal of the bible is poetry. Poetry of any sort almost always seems “stilted”, but that doesn’t mean it’s incomprehensible. To the extent it is prose, it’s prose of a particular sort. The Old Testament to a large degree and the New Testament to a lesser, but still significant degree, were oral accounts, meant to be memorized and recounted orally. Consequently, they had “memory aids” in them, rather like Greek epics do. Perhaps we don’t need that anymore, but again, one wonders what might get missed when that’s no longer thought important.

 

[PJM]

=mymamamary;10772666]**Dear Brothers and Sisters in the SACRED HEART!

I’ve been thinking about using the Douay Rheims for meditation. Here’s why:

1. I love the “archaic” language. I know that the “Thees” and “Thous” to some are puffy and irritating. To me, Scripture becomes more grand with it. I love visualizing the scene and Our LORD pronouncing the Gospel with force and love, the “thees” and “thous” help me to do that all the more, and it sounds more reverent.

1. I know some wll argue that this is not a good study Bible. However that would make me wonder why. I know almost everyone will claim the archaic language. However, thats a nice bonus, because now in addition to actually studying it, I now have to look up the words and have thus added an extra word to my vocabulary

1. It sounds more poetic and grand, sorta like answer #1

What does everyone else on this forum think about the venerable DRB? **

I LOVE IT

And I quote it very often.

drbo.org/

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Tous_Logous]

I don’t have the original DRB in 17th century Early Modern English. However, I have two of the Challoner revisions of the DRB. I know that Challoner was obviously influenced from the KJV (as I take it, he was a convert from Protestantism). I don’t prefer any one translation over another (currently) but I try to stick to using Catholic Bibles; EX. I’m currently using the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, CEV: Catholic Edition, and New Catholic Version of the Psalms, all of which are “Catholic” translations. I’m "trying out’ the NASB (yes I know, a Protestant translation) and I’m finding it too difficult to understand because of its “literal” English.

With regards to the DRB though, I’m not a big fan of “thee’s” and “thou’s” even if they can easily be distinctive compared to singular and plural “you.” That being said, if I like the translation itself I can tolerate it (I tolerate, after all, the inclusive language in the CEV). I don’t find the Challoner DRB as complicated as the KJV. I also don’t think the Bible needs to have poetic English language to keep the attention of the reader; the NT was written in “common” (Koine) Greek afterall. Even the “Vulgate” stands for “commonly used.” The NCV Psalms, for example, are written in plain English yet I can feel the raw emotion and anguish of Psalm 22 despite this.

Pros to the DRB for me: Well, it’s a Catholic translation. And despite the fact I like things to be translated from Greek and Hebrew, I love the fact that the Church went directly from the Latin Vulgate. I love Latin (would love even more to learn it!) and it’s a shame many non-Catholic translations do not use the Latin Vulgate in addition to the Hebrew and Greek texts. I also like the fact that the Challoner DRB uses “Apocalypse” instead of “Revelation” and “Isaias” instead of “Isaiah.”

Here’s what I would love the Church to do: make a new English translation for the Catholic Church which uses the Latin Vulgate as the primary text (or perhaps, only text). Make it understandable yet still approachable by all Catholics. Tone down the poetic/absolutely literal verse translations but still use the Latin Vulgate names (Apocalypse, Isaias, etc.). Also, do NOT use inclusive language. We are long due, I think, for a Modern English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

 

[mccorm45]

Anyone consider the Knox Bible?