Pros and Cons of the Douay Rheims

[mymamamary]

Anyone consider the Knox Bible?

**I’d love a copy of the Knox Bible someday. I recommend the Confraternity New Testament to anyone who is looking at a Knox Bible (especially from Baronius press) but is a little offset by the money. The Confraternity edition is almost like the Knox. It removes most of the archaic language, but retains the formal “thees and thous” so that it is not bland. The Knox bible from what I hear, is VERY poetic. Hence the reason I want a copy someday. **

 

[StudentMI]

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

Something similar happens in two French translations I’ve come across. Satan addresses Eve as vous, the formal and unfamiliar way. God addresses them as tu, the familiar way friends and family address each other.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I love the fact that the Church went directly from the Latin Vulgate.

Actually not, if you take the formal title of the 1582 Rheims seriously (emphasis added)

THE NEVV TESTAMENT OF IESVS CHRIST, TRANSLATED FAITHFVLLY INTO ENGLISH out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages: Vvith Argvments of bookes and chapters, Annotations, and other necessarie helpes, for the better vnderstanding of the text, and specially for the discouerie of the Corrvptions of diuers late translations, and for cleering the Controversies in religion, of these daies: In the English College of Rhemes

and the formal title of the 1609 Douay (emphasis added):

THE HOLIE BIBLE FAITHFVLLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, OVT OF THE AVTHENTICAL LATIN. Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greeke, and other Editions in diuers languages. With Argvments of the Bookes, and Chapters: Annotations: Tables: and other helpes, for better vnderstanding of the text: for discouerie of Corrvptions in some late translations: and for clearing Controversies in Religion. By the English College of Doway

The Douay-Rheims edition that almost everyone uses, of course, is Challoner’s revision, which also has a similar title (emphasis added):

THE HOLY BIBLE Translated from the LATIN VULGAT: Diligently compared With the Hebrew, Greek, and other Editions in divers Languages. And first published by The English College at Doway, Anno 1609. Newly revised, and corrected, according to the Clementin Edition of the Scriptures. WITH ANNOTATIONS for clearing up the principal Difficulties of Holy Writ

But, in fact, Challoner’s revision made extensive use of the King James Version, a fact acknowledged in Bernard Ward’s 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article:

The changes introduced by [Challoner] were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published”. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [King James] Version…

If you want to read the Latin Bible, I’m afraid you’ll have to learn Latin – there is no “pure” translation of it into English.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually not, if you take the formal title of the 1582 Rheims seriously (emphasis added)

and the formal title of the 1609 Douay (emphasis added):

The Douay-Rheims edition that almost everyone uses, of course, is Challoner’s revision, which also has a similar title (emphasis added):

But, in fact, Challoner’s revision made extensive use of the King James Version, a fact acknowledged in Bernard Ward’s 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article:

If you want to read the Latin Bible, I’m afraid you’ll have to learn Latin – there is no “pure” translation of it into English.

Actually that’s not true. The original D/R bible is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Some think it is too slavishly literal. We don’t know which Vulgate they used, since the updated Clementine version was still not ready. We do know however that is was an extremely accurate version, as it agrees with the Clementine in a remarkable way.

When the translator says “conferred with the Greek and Hebrew” it is not because he is following those texts. It is to arrive at the proper sense of the Latin, since the Latin does not use articles, which can subtly change the sense of a passage. So the Greek and Hebrew were consulted to arrive at the correct English translation of the Latin.

The Challoner revision does use some King James language, but not all that much. It is remarkable for how closely it actually DOES follow the original D/R. The pendulum swings back and forth on this topic. But anyone that is familiar with the D/R will see that Challoner was more concerned with updating the language overall. He wasn’t setting out to give Catholics their own KJV. However, there are many instances when the KJV does have a felicitous turn of phrase when compared to the original D/R.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Actually that’s not true. The original D/R bible is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Some think it is too slavishly literal. We don’t know which Vulgate they used, since the updated Clementine version was still not ready. We do know however that is was an extremely accurate version, as it agrees with the Clementine in a remarkable way.

When the translator says “conferred with the Greek and Hebrew” it is not because he is following those texts. It is to arrive at the proper sense of the Latin, since the Latin does not use articles, which can subtly change the sense of a passage. So the Greek and Hebrew were consulted to arrive at the correct English translation of the Latin.

The Challoner revision does use some King James language, but not all that much. It is remarkable for how closely it actually DOES follow the original D/R. The pendulum swings back and forth on this topic. But anyone that is familiar with the D/R will see that Challoner was more concerned with updating the language overall. He wasn’t setting out to give Catholics their own KJV. However, there are many instances when the KJV does have a felicitous turn of phrase when compared to the original D/R.

Excellent post! I have been comparing the original Douay with Challoners, and Challoner did an excellent job keeping it faithful to the original. Why people have failed to give Challoner the benefit of the doubt and not assume that he was trying to make the Douay more like the KJV is beyond me. While Challoner did revise it to his day and time, those updates probably did resemble some parts of the KJV that was influence by the Douay-Rheims of 1609.

Great points also about how the translators used the Greek and Hebrew to understand the Latin better due to the lack of articles in the Latin language. You clarified some things that people need to consider, because many read articles that mislead them to assume the negative.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I love Cardinal Newman and his works have blessed me over the years, but that comment by him is something that I feel is unfortunate and not completely accurate. I wonder if that quote by him that is used in that article is a quote from him before or after his conversion into the Church. If its before his conversion then I would not be using that quote unless I also pointed out that it was before conversion. I would hate for people to quote me from my pre-Catholic days as being something that I believed now.

 

[october_baby]

…very interesting…

 

[Bible_Reader]

If you read the beginning of the 1582 Rheims Bible, you will find an extensive discussion of its translation philosophy (as well as a highly polemical argument against Protestant translations.) You may be interested to learn the Rheims goes far beyond simply checking the Greek for articles, but in fact, even gives Greek readings in marginal notes of the Bible.

The quote by Newman was not an idle quote, but part of an extended analysis he did of Catholic English Bibles; you can find the complete work here. He backs up his judgments with careful word-by-word analysis of several passages,

It was published in July 1859 in a Catholic journal (The Rambler) more than a decade after Newman’s conversion.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I love Cardinal Newman and his works have blessed me over the years, but that comment by him is something that I feel is unfortunate and not completely accurate. I wonder if that quote by him that is used in that article is a quote from him before or after his conversion into the Church. If its before his conversion then I would not be using that quote unless I also pointed out that it was before conversion. I would hate for people to quote me from my pre-Catholic days as being something that I believed now.

What quote do you mean?

The quote posted by Bible Reader is actually a quote from the Catholic Encyc. which in turn is quoting Cardinal Wiseman and John Henry Newman.

Regarding Newman’s article about the Bible translations into English, it should be borne in mind that he is basing his judgement on that of the Protestant Cotton, who published a book on Catholic Bibles in English in 1855. Newman finds that Cotton is sadly bigoted, and his bigotry surfaces often enough. However, since no Catholic ever attempted such a Bible catalog/comparison, Cotton’s was the best place to start. Newman points out certain mistakes Cotton makes, and validates some of his comments.

Newman meant his comment about Challoner’s version to be virtually a new translation as an encomium and approbation of his work. IOW, it was SUCH a thorough job of updating the D/R that is WAS virtually a new translation.

Now about the comments that Challoner was adapting the D/R to follow the KJV: Newman says this is really impossible, since the KJV follows the Greek and D/R (including Challoner’s new version) follows the Vulgate. However, there are many phrases which appear to favor the language of the KJV over the D/R. But understand that The KJV was under CONSTANT revision all the way through Challoner’s time. Therefore it reflected the MOST CORRECT English usage that was current at the time. The D/R on the other hand jumped from Elizabethan English straight to Samuel Johnson’s English in just one revision. NATURALLY the new Challoner revision will APPEAR to be following the KJV, when in fact, it is just the best way to turn the phrase in mid-18th century English. If you notice in the article, the similarities are very superficial. A couple of words transposed, or a similar word used in place of an older obsolete word.

Newman notices that Challoner sides with the D/R when the Vulgate demands it (as opposed to the Greek text.)

Lastly, Newman selected several texts at random, and tried to verify Cotton’s judgement either pro or con. IOW, Newman acknowledges that the Challoner version will NECESSARILY BE SIMILAR to the D/R, since they are both translated from the Vulgate. So these are the exceptions that prove the rule so to speak.