Why does it number some chapters differently (i.e Psalm 23 - “The Lord is my Shepherd” is now Psalm 22) and why does number some verses differently (i.e 1 Cor 6:9 is now 1 Cor 6:10)
The chapter/verse divisions used almost uniformly today were adopted relatively late, particularly in the 16th century explosion of scriptural study by both Catholics and Protestants. The Latin Vulgate predates all of this and so it doesn’t exactly match up with what later scholars adopted. The text is all the same, just divided differently. If I recall correctly, a couple long psalms are divided and a couple short ones are combined in comparison to the standard format. But again, the text is all the same.
Is it true that usually traditionalists love it, and why?
I suspect because it is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which for the pre-Vatican II Mass was the source for all the readings at Mass. However, the DR is NOT taken solely from the Vulgate, but as the title page declares is “Diligently Compared with the Hebrew, Greek and Other Editions in Diverse Languages.”
To make a long story short, one of the big projects of Renaissance Humanism was to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek sources, rather than simply accept St Jerome’s 5th century Latin translation as 100% accurate. So Erasmus famously edited and published a Greek New Testament based off available manuscripts, while Cardinal Cisneros in Spain published the Polyglot Bible which printed St Jerome’s Vulgate in parallel text with the original Hebrew and Greek for comparison. The scholars of the English Colleges in Douai and Reims did the same when translating the Bible into English. They took the Vulgate as the basis, and followed its structure, but consulted the original texts to make sure the translation is pure.
I understand that most Catholic Bibles translate 1 John 5:7 as “the spirit, water, and the blood” as being one. A lot of Protestants translate that verse as “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” I understand that most Catholic Bibles don’t translate it like that because it wasn’t in the original Greek and it was a later addition. So why does the Douay-Rheims translate it that way?
This is a perfect illustration of the above. The Greek text compiled by Erasmus, the so-called “Textus Receptus” (Received Text) was actually a compilation of later Greek manuscripts and so had several scribal errors/additions not found in earlier texts. The Protestant Bibles of the Reformation era (King James, Lutherbibel, Reina-Valera, etc) all follow this text and thus incorporate these additions into their translation. Another classic instance is the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 where the late Greek manuscripts of the Textus Receptus include the doxology “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever.”
St. Jerome, working in the 5th century, naturally had access to the oldest Greek manuscripts which we lack today, and so did not include any of these later additions in his Latin. The translators of the D-R however, following the Greek of the Textus Receptus as they “dilligently compared” it with the Vulgate, noticed the discrepancy and added the Trinity to 1 John 5:7.
Since the 16th century, we have gained access to many more Greek manuscripts, many of which are older than the Textus Receptus and which lack those late scribal errors/additions. Thus, now even modern Protestant translations like the NRSV or NIV omit the naming of the Trinity from 1 John 5:7, as well as the final doxology from Matthew 6:13. So we see in that instance St. Jerome was right and closer to the oldest Greek.
Why does it translate “love” as “charity” in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and why does it translate “the Lord is my Shepherd” as the “the Lord ruleth me”?
English is lame in that we only have the word “Love” that is supposed to serve all sorts of different purposes. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, a clear distinction was made between different types of “love.” The work the Apostle Paul wrote is αγαπη (“agape”) which specifically denotes a non-romantic, brotherly, and compassionate love. St. Jerome of course appreciated the distinction and translated it with the corresponding Latin term for the same type of love: caritas. The translators of the D-R have a clear tendency to use Latin-based English words whenever available and so rendered it “charity.”
As for the Psalm 22, the translators again were just literally following Jerome who begins the psalm with “Dominus reget me” (The Lord rules me). I have no knowledge of Hebrew, so I can’t help you beyond that…
Enjoy the world of philology!
(I’ve already set a claim for the lost and found but still). I’m going to ask a few questions about the Douay-Rheims. (Just for the record I am NOT a DR-onlyist, I just like the translation)
