Question regarding the Douay-Rheims Bible

[totodilefan]

Hello to all!

I’m planning on using the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Version of the Holy Bible. It is said that it was translated from the Clementine Latin Vulgate, which is based on St. Jerome’s translation of the scriptures to Latin; but at the same time, “it was diligently conferred with the Hebrew and Greek text.”

So does the latter mean that although it was translated from the Vulgate, it was still consulted and compared with the Hebrew, Greek (especially the Septuagint), and other languages’ texts from their respective manuscripts?

Thanks!

 

[Hishumbleservan]

That is a really good question! I’m surprised no one has answered you yet!

I wish I had an answer for you but I’m just starting my journey with the D-R as well.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

As a general principle, when you translate from one language to another there will be many words which have more than one meaning in the target language (English in this case), and it would be a judgement call as to which one best represents the original. That’s where Greek and Hebrew can keep the translator on track when creating an English version from the Latin. It would be foolish to not consult the original languages in those cases.

Of course, there is some content which is preserved in the Latin which is no longer found in existing Hebrew or Greek manuscripts today, but existed in the manuscripts of the second century, and which were still available to St. Jerome who spared no expense to collect the best available manuscripts at the time. That’s what makes the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims Bible so valuable.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The simple answer is yes! Latin is not as precise a language as the Greek, which much of the New Testament, and the Septuagint was written in. Therefore when the ORIGINAL translators (Mostly the Biblical scholar and priest Gregory Martin --who was proficient in Latin, Greek and Hebrew,) translated the Latin Vulgate (an unknown version at this time, yet amazingly close to the Clementine) the Hebrew and Greek would need to be consulted to be certain of the “sense” of the Latin.

When Bishop Challoner revised this translation in the mid 18th century, he referred to the Clementine Vulgate and the original Douay Rheims Bible. As far as I am aware, he was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, although he may have had some proficiency in them. Some also suppose he referred to the King James Bible as well, for English renderings, (which are from the “original” languages. But only if it improved the clarity of the translation.

That is why the D/R Bible is still so revered even today. It is a good literal translation of the Latin Vulgate in classical English.

 

[Novocastrian]

When Bishop Challoner revised this translation in the mid 18th century, he referred to the Clementine Vulgate and the original Douay Rheims Bible. As far as I am aware, he was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, although he may have had some proficiency in them. Some also suppose he referred to the King James Bible as well, for English renderings, (which are from the “original” languages. But only if it improved the clarity of the translation.

There is a good chance too, though I do not know if it has ever been proven, that the translators of the Authorised Version consulted the New Testament of the DR version. The AV was made in a similar way, by comparing existing English translations (Wycliffe, Tyndale, various ‘official’ Bibles from Henry VIII onwards, the Geneva Bible and the DR) with the ancient manuscripts (i.e. the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, the LXX and the Textus Receptus of the NT. I do not know if they used the Vulgate, but the translators will have been exposed to the Vulgate at some point in their education.).