Should I order or not?

[Marysgirl]

I am planning on ordering the Haydock DR next week and then I came across this post on another site. It is a priest explaining about the different translations. Now I’m wondering if his opinion of the DR will be a common one in the church. I thought I had finally found the one Bible that I didn’t have to worry about. What are your thoughts. Unless I misread the post he seemed to discourage the DR and encouraged all the modern Bibles.

oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/messages/41/21376.html

 

[mtr01]

With all due respect to the priest who wrote that article, I would still not hesitate to get your Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible.

Personally I don’t buy the “we now have better insight into the ancient languages” argument. What logical reason is there to assume that current scholars, 2000 years removed from the writing of the texts, have better insight than St. Jerome (only 400 years removed). Further, while we may have discovered “new” ancient texts, who’s to say that Jerome didn’t have them at his disposal…or that he didn’t have access to better manuscripts than anything we have today? I also find a hint of arrogance in this position, which basically reduces to “well, he lived 1600 years ago, he couldn’t possibly be as smart as we are today”. Nonsense.

Many people today are biased towards the textual criticism biblical scholarship prevalent today. It certainly is a useful tool, but in many current Bibles, the use of the technique has gone unchecked, resulting in many almost heretical footnotes in current bibles (as well as insistence on the “q” source, and the denial of apostolic authorship of the Gospels). You won’t find this in the Douay.

Remember, the Vulgate was declared free of moral and doctrinal error by Trent, and reiterated by Pius XII in *Divino Afflante Spiritu. *

As far as the comment abbout erroneous translation of words (horn on Moses, etc.) the opposite is also present. Take Rev 22:14, for instance. From the Douay:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city.

Makes perfect sense, right?

Well let’s look at the NAB:

14 Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city 9 through its gates.

RSV:

14] Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

NJB:

14Blessed are those who will have washed their robes clean, so that they will have the right to feed on the tree of life and can come through the gates into the city.

and NIV for good measure:

14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

As another poster pointed out, these modern translations make it seem like all we have to do is make a trip to the laundromat to have the right to the tree of life. It is the Vulgate and Douay which have the correct translation, for after all, washing in the blood of the lamb means something completely different.

Now, if all these modern translations are so superior, why do they all leave out that most important phrase? Again, I stress that you cannot go wrong with the Haydock Bible. I would use other Bibles as well to get as much a perspective as possible (I also have a NAB, RSV-CE, KJV and even a Good News Bible.) However, don’t be swayed by the arguments that the Vulgate or Douay are inaccurate (after all it is the Bible of many many saints - I don’t think it led tham astray!)

 

[Verbum]

I would never buy the DR (a translation fo a translation), but I am not satisfied with any English translation. If you read French, buy La Bible de Jérusalem.

The Good News Bible,Catholic edition, would be an excellent choice for devotional reading.

Verbum

 

[BayCityRickL]

Hmmm.

I have an electronic version of the King James Version, which renders Rev 22:14 as

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

This is a big leap in translation. I don’t know what the Greek literally says, so I don’t know about the metaphor of “washing” and then whether in the laundromat or with the blood of Christ.

How does one “wash ones robes in the blood of Christ” except by “doing his commandments”?

I’d like to have a copy of the Bible where there are genuine translator’s notes, and then an explanation if some paraphrasing has been done, to convey the sense of the original. At present, I frequently refer to the KJV and to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to get close to the Greek.

A quick look at the KJV here doesn’t settle which metaphor is being used in the original.

 

[awalt]

Somebody asked for the Greek New Testament?

14 μακαριοι οι ποιουντες τας εντολας αυτου ινα εσται η εξουσια αυτων επι το ξυλον της ζωης και τοις πυλωσιν εισελθωσιν εις την πολιν

 

[Pug]

BayCityRickL:

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

This is a big leap in translation. I don’t know what the Greek literally says, so I don’t know about the metaphor of “washing” and then whether in the laundromat or with the blood of Christ.

Okay, remember that they come up with “the” Greek version by compiling a bunch of stuff together, so it could be that one Greek source says one thing and another one says another (that is the case here). Some older sources includes the Greek for “commandments” and others include the washing thing. The current Greek version has pluno/plunontes (wash) there. It is not a case of a loose translation problem. It is a source text problem.

 

[rwoehmke]

No matter what source is used Jeromes Latin Vulgate or the Greek texts, one is still stuck with the fact that the English language is a living language and that even British English and American English are different in some pronunciations, spelling and idioms. The DR being an older translation may well not carry the same meaning as a more modern one. Any translation is an approximation that is why the different English language bibles based on the same Greek or Latin texts are not exactly the same.Just look at all the weeping and gnashing of teeth that takes place over the translation of the Latin Masses into English.
The King James Version is written in a form of English that was already changing when it was completed. A trite example of the problem of living changing language is the change in common meaning of the word “gay” from light heartedness to meaning a homosexual orientation.

 

[Holly3278]

awalt:

Somebody asked for the Greek New Testament?

14 μακαριοιοιποιουντεςταςεντολαςαυτουιναεσταιη εξουσιααυτωνεπιτοξυλοντηςζωηςκαιτοιςπυλωσιν εισελθωσινειςτηνπολιν

What does that say when translated into English?

 

[romano]

Marysgirl:

I am planning on ordering the Haydock DR next week and then I came across this post on another site. It is a priest explaining about the different translations. Now I’m wondering if his opinion of the DR will be a common one in the church. I thought I had finally found the one Bible that I didn’t have to worry about. What are your thoughts. Unless I misread the post he seemed to discourage the DR and encouraged all the modern Bibles.

oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/messages/41/21376.html

Dear Marysgirl:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" – Matthew 7:15.

Forget him and his ‘opinion.’ You don’t know what sort of agenda he may be pursuing. The modern world is drowning in a tsunami of lies, distortions, half-truths, and just plain idiocy. And priests are not always what they are supposed to be.

The Haydock is old. That means it’s safe. And the notes are FABULOUS! That’s because in those days, unlike today, folks weren’t afraid to tell the truth. I say go for it!