The Douay Rheims Version

[colliric]

Hello,

I hope someone can help me.

I have a document contains all OT and NT and it is DRV, and I am planning to write an online application to search verse from this document. Is this version good for Catholics to use?

Many thanks!

I think the Challoner version is fine, it is an updating of the original version of the DR, but it’s quite worthy.

It’s kind of like the “New King James Version” is to the original KJV. So perhaps it should be widely called “Challoner Douay Rheims Version”, but it’s quite good and it’s the bible i’m reading at the moment. This edition of the DR was crafted to be more readable and although it is a revision of the Rheims version, takes the poetry of the KJV into consideration.

It’s much better than most modern versions of the bible simply because it’s a poetic faithful translation of the Vulgate. It has some fantastic Study notes at the bottom of each page. Short yet encompassing study notes.

 

[Sixtus]

RN ROBERT

The Douai-Rheims was the original English language Catholic Bible… I think it is more accurate in some places compared to later translations.

I will say AMEN to that

 

[Manfred]

I own three Douay-Rheims versions:

1. The Challoner (by Baronius)
2. The Haydock version
3. The REAL Douay-Rheims

go here for the version that is version that is faithful to the Latin Vulgate - realdouayrheims.com/

Will someone kindly explain to us why the so-called “real” Douay-Rheims is regarded as so superior? Last I checked, it might as well have been in another language, and one would be better off reading the Clementine Vulgate itself - in Latin, of course.

 

[Alexius]

I think the Challoner version is fine, it is an updating of the original version of the DR, but it’s quite worthy.

It’s kind of like the “New King James Version” is to the original KJV. So perhaps it should be widely called “Challoner Douay Rheims Version”, but it’s quite good and it’s the bible i’m reading at the moment. This edition of the DR was crafted to be more readable and although it is a revision of the Rheims version, takes the poetry of the KJV into consideration.

It’s much better than most modern versions of the bible simply because it’s a poetic faithful translation of the Vulgate. It has some fantastic Study notes at the bottom of each page. Short yet encompassing study notes.

Yes, the Challoner-Rheims version is my favourite! I took my great grand uncle’s CR Bible after he passed away. I was still a Protestant then…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[colliric]

Will someone kindly explain to us why the so-called “real” Douay-Rheims is regarded as so superior? Last I checked, it might as well have been in another language, and one would be better off reading the Clementine Vulgate itself - in Latin, of course.

The Challoner version was arguably a merge of the original Douay-Rheims and the KJV. Some people surely would consider this a compromise of sorts. But I don’t.

 

[mmortal03]

The Challoner version was arguably a merge of the original Douay-Rheims and the KJV. Some people surely would consider this a compromise of sorts. But I don’t.

I wouldn’t either, considering that a Catholic did the “merging”. It isn’t like he blindly picked passages from the KJV and threw them in.

 

[Epistemes]

Will someone kindly explain to us why the so-called “real” Douay-Rheims is regarded as so superior? Last I checked, it might as well have been in another language, and one would be better off reading the Clementine Vulgate itself - in Latin, of course.

I often wonder the same about the “real” Challoner-Rheims version.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Challoner had a few different editions published and later other people published some of his editions with minor changes of their own.

I prefer Haydock’s variations but others hafter Haydock revised Challoner, too. Bishop Kenrick did–I’ve never read any of his version and in the 1930s Carey revised the New Testament.

Which just goes to beg the question–why not a futher revision of the Douay Rheims Challoner, now?

All one would have to do is get rid of Archaic language and some Latinisms and spellings, don’t throw in inclusive language, and if the Douay Rheims Challoner had a really eggregious error change it if it was in conformity with the original languages and with the Nova Vulgata.

Now a Bible like that wouldn’t please everyone–it wouldn’t be perfect–but it would be a real great bible.

I hope before I die that someone will try to do that with the Douay Rheims and someone will also try to do that with the Nova Vulgata. Is it an impossible dream?

I’ve about come to the conclusion that if I really want to know what the Bible says that I’m going to have to at least learn Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

English speaking Catholics of the world deserve better.

 

[rciadan]

Which just goes to beg the question–why not a futher revision of the Douay Rheims Challoner, now?

All one would have to do is get rid of Archaic language and some Latinisms and spellings, don’t throw in inclusive language, and if the Douay Rheims Challoner had a really eggregious error change it if it was in conformity with the original languages and with the Nova Vulgata.

Now a Bible like that wouldn’t please everyone–it wouldn’t be perfect–but it would be a real great bible.

I hope before I die that someone will try to do that with the Douay Rheims and someone will also try to do that with the Nova Vulgata. Is it an impossible dream?

I’ve about come to the conclusion that if I really want to know what the Bible says that I’m going to have to at least learn Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

English speaking Catholics of the world deserve better.

They started to do just that in the 1940’s with the Contronternity Version. You should find yourself a copy. They only got as far as the New Testament and the Psalms and never did the Old T becuase Vatican II happened and encouraged translations from “the origional text’s”. My daughter prefers it because it does not have the thees and thous. It reads much like the NAB; but is much better becuase it is directly from the Latin Vulgate, (St. Jeromes). Try ii, you may like it.

 

[thistle]

I own three Douay-Rheims versions:

1. The Challoner (by Baronius)
2. The Haydock version
3. The REAL Douay-Rheims

go here for the version that is version that is faithful to the Latin Vulgate - realdouayrheims.com/

I read the link you kindly gave us but I’m still confused as to why the “real D-R” is the one we should use and not the Haydock or Challoner version which the site author is scathing about.

Also, a lot is made of the “real” one being faithful to St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. However in other threads biblical scholars posting seem to agree that the original Douay and Rheims were translated from the Clementine Vulgate and not St Jerome’s as there were no longer any copies of St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in existence by the time the Douay and the Rheims were done.
For myself I don’t know but do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[catholic2]

well the online version is in my signature

Just want to encourage DRV fans to go to website… drbo.org/about.htm
Well put together. Thanks beckers.

 

[Manfred]

They started to do just that in the 1940’s with the Contronternity Version. You should find yourself a copy. They only got as far as the New Testament and the Psalms and never did the Old T becuase Vatican II happened and encouraged translations from “the origional text’s”. My daughter prefers it because it does not have the thees and thous. It reads much like the NAB; but is much better becuase it is directly from the Latin Vulgate, (St. Jeromes). Try ii, you may like it.

I believe it is the “Confraternity Version” to which you refer.

The NT was indeed translated from the best available mss of the Vulgate, but it retained “traditional” biblical language; viz, “behold”, along with “thee/thou/thine”. It was published in 1941, just before the US entered WWII.

Work then began on a translation of the OT from the Vg as well, but was halted, not because of Vatican II, but because of Pope Pius XII’s “Divino Afflante Spiritu” in 1943. From that point translation was undertaken from the original languages, not the Vg.

The OT appeared in four volumes:

Vol 1, 1952: Genesis to Ruth;
Vol II, 1955: Job to Sirach (this inclided the Psalms);
Vol III, 1961: The Prophets;
Vol IV, 1969: Samuel to Maccabees.

In the mid-60s, the Mass had begun to be celebrated in the vernacular, and so an edition of the NT was translated from the Greek, and Genesis (originally released in 1952) was RE-translated.

The above became The New American Bible of 1970. Until 1998, it was the basis of THE lectionary for Mass in the US (although use of the RSV-CE and 1966 Jerusalem Bible were also permitted).

As far as that 1941 Confraternity NT: it DOES read smoother than the Rheims-Challoner NT, but the latter’s reproduction of the Greek (via the Vg) is superior.

I own a 1941 CV NT, as well as a 1970 NAB, and, of course, a D-R-Challoner. The latter exceeds the others in accuracy and beauty.

Manfred

 

[rciadan]

I believe it is the “Confraternity Version” to which you refer.

Forgive my typo…
The NT was indeed translated from the best available mss of the Vulgate, but it retained “traditional” biblical language; viz, “behold”, along with “thee/thou/thine”. It was published in 1941, just before the US entered WWII.

Work then began on a translation of the OT from the Vg as well, but was halted, not because of Vatican II, but because of Pope Pius XII’s “Divino Afflante Spiritu” in 1943. From that point translation was undertaken from the original languages, not the Vg.

In fact I have been looking for others who are interested in bible study using the Challoner DR as their primary text. Even though we have Latin Mass at our Church every Sunday, I still can not seem to find anyone interested. What I seem to find are two extremes: those who are staunch “pre-V II” who only want to talk about how Rome is now in apostacy, and those who don’t believe we should have bible study as Catholic.