The new douay rheims transalation - your thoughts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Canto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Canto

Guest
Catholic Apologetics International are planing on releasing a new douay rheims bible. They are I believe, updating the grammer and syntax into modern English and correcting it where necessary.

catholicintl.com/products/books.htm

They did have the release date as April 08 but it seems to have been pushed back or maybe canned all together (hope not).

This sounds like a great idea to me. While I do have a soft spot for the orig Jersualem Bible (beautifully rendered), I have always cherished my Douay Rheims for it’s word for word literal qualities and all the Catholic (i.e. biblical) terms like grace (not favour), virgin (not young woman), chalice (not cup), doctrine (not teaching) etc etc.

The ye old english I find annoying though some of it is rather poetic, verily mayest you know (or something like that) for example. Furthemore some verse don’t flow as they should and there are a lot of ‘and’s’. And Mary… And the angel said … And…

To have the douay rheims in mod english and corrected in light of legitimate modern scholarship and made more readalble sounds to me like the perfect idea. Sure you could start a fresh from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, but are you going to get anything more accurate or better? If the ground work has been done, why not use it to speed up the process so all Catholics can have a literal Bible with all the Catholic and Christological references intact.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this 🙂
 
I think it is a wonderful idea, almost necessary as far as I am concerned. I have no problems reading the Old English, but it is inconvenient for a lot of people. Maybe this will be a good chance to break away from the NAB. And hopefully the opportunity for Catholic scholarship to be redeemed from the NAB footnotes to something more orthodox minded!
 
I just stumbled across an article that claimed they are having trouble getting an imprimatur from the US Bishop’s. I think becuase it is a translation of a translation, but isn’t the LXX and hasn’t the Church approved NRSV-CE updated the RSV which updated the ASV which updated the King James which updated the Bishop’s Bible… :rolleyes:

Not that I’m sugesting anything impropper, but are they worried people will give the NAB the flick for this one??? :eek:

I agree that it will redeem Catholic schoalrship! Is there a Cathoic (not Protestant RSV-CE) Bible in English that is strictly a literal translation aside from the Douay Rheims? 😦

Come on Bishops. 👍
 
I thought for some time that a revision of the DR would be great, I just hope they don’t blow it by a bunch of heterdoxy.
I just stumbled across an article that claimed they are having trouble getting an imprimatur from the US Bishop’s. I think becuase it is a translation of a translation, but isn’t the LXX and hasn’t the Church approved NRSV-CE updated the RSV which updated the ASV which updated the King James which updated the Bishop’s Bible…
Click to expand...
It would not be a translation of a translation, but a revision, which is a big difference. Just about every version goes through revisions. But if they are having trouble getting the imprimatur then maybe there is a good reason, such as needing more improvements.
Not that I’m sugesting anything impropper, but are they worried people will give the NAB the flick for this one???
Click to expand...
They should worry! The biggest complaint I have with the NAB is the footnotes and introductions. The tranalation itself is great in some places and bad in others, but I can live with it.
 
The Confraternity version of the Douay Rheims translation is very good. But it could benefit from a more contemporary translation also. This will be an interesting project. Some of the older vocabulary is still very good because it gives a sense of history and reverence in the language – so I hope the modern version isn’t too bland (like ICEL texts).
 
I just stumbled across an article that claimed they are having trouble getting an imprimatur from the US Bishop’s. I think becuase it is a translation of a translation,
Click to expand...
I doubt if they will ever get the US Bishop’s (in aggregate) to agree on anything, most especially a competing translation to their own NAB. But why could they not get the approval of any one Bishop or STD in good standing? That should be sufficient I would think. :confused:
 
Canto said:
I just stumbled across an article that claimed they are having trouble getting an imprimatur from the US Bishop’s. I think becuase it is a translation of a translation, but isn’t the LXX and hasn’t the Church approved NRSV-CE updated the RSV which updated the ASV which updated the King James which updated the Bishop’s Bible… :rolleyes:

Not that I’m sugesting anything impropper, but are they worried people will give the NAB the flick for this one??? :eek:

I agree that it will redeem Catholic schoalrship! Is there a Cathoic (not Protestant RSV-CE) Bible in English that is strictly a literal translation aside from the Douay Rheims? 😦

Come on Bishops. 👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Vatican has approved the NRSV for liturgical use. In fact,I believe it was specifically not approved. I realize that it is used in Canada but that involved a bit of trickery from what I’ve read.

Gary
 
A new Douay Rheims would be great but could be criticized.

What would be harder to criticize would be an accurate translation of the Nova Vulgata!

I’d be happy with either.

Right now I believe Confraternity New Testamernt–Douay Rheims Old Testament–and one of the post Challoner–pre olinger English translation of the Psalms based on the new Latin text of pope Pius XII–that is as close to accurate as one can presently get in a bible!

We in the English speaking world desperately need the nova Vulgata in English! It would revolutionize catholic teaching in the United States! That’s why some with agendas fear it!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
We in the English speaking world desperately need the nova Vulgata in English! It would revolutionize catholic teaching in the United States! That’s why some with agendas fear it!
Click to expand...
Please explain this to me. Why would a translation from the Vulgate be better than a accurate translation from the original languages, something which I believe we are in desperate need of? Why translate a translation when we can go to the original languages? I understand that the Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church but, if it is accurate, then it should also match an accurate translation from the Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.

I’m not looking to start a fight. I’m just trying to understand your perspective.

Gary
 
There are ZILLIONS of original language texts.

The Vulgate does not err on matters of faith or morals. Who says so? The Ecumenical Council of Trent.

Any bible that never errs on matters of faith and morals is superior to any other bible that might be superior in matters that do not relate to faith or morals or doctrine.

Can the Vulgate be improved? Of course.

Can it be improved on matters of faith or morals or doctrine? No.

Can ALL other translations of the bible be improved on matters of faith or morals or doctrine? Yes.

The Nova Vulgata is the Catholic Church’s attempt at improving the Vulgate–in fact the bible should always be improved.

The reason that NONE of the Protestant translations of the bible are as good as the Vulgate is that they SELECT those original language variants that back their non-Catholic and error plagued view of doctrine.

The reason that the NAB, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and NRSV aren’t as good as the Vulgate is that they too err in matters of Catholic doctrine.

Does that mean that there is no value to bibles other than the Vulgate–no–it does though mean that they can’t be used in any disputations about God’s word–the Vulgate can be used in such disputations because the Ecumenical Council of Trent said so!

The Catholic Church has no problem with improving the accuracy of the Bible by consulting original language texts.

It does have a problem with people who will select variants of the original language texts and come up with translations that do not square with Catholic doctrine.

That’s why anyone who would Improve the bible with ancient original language texts should do so in the context of the “doctrinally without error” witness of the Vulgate and the Catholic Church’s teaching of the deposit of the faith over the centuries.

You don’t get that with Protestant scholars or liberal Catholic scholars.

Take the Nova Vulgata for example–some people familiar with other previous versions of the Vulgate might not be happy with it but it has been established as the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.

Does that mean that it is perfect? No–no bible is-- but since it was based on the Vulgate and did not change the Vulgate on doctrinal matters one could trust the Catholic Church’s production of it.

The same could be said for the Confraternity New Testament–as it was based on the Vulgate it did not fall prey to doctrinal error.

Is it perfect? No. Is it doctrinally without error? As long as it doesn’t differ form the Vulgate on doctrinal matters the answers is yes.

Look there will never be a perfect bible but there can be bibles without doctrinal error. None of them will depart from the Vulgate on docrinal issues.

A perfect English translation of the Nova Vulgata would do that–but the NAB lovers and the RSV lovers would hate that superiority–they are the ones who would fear such a bible and will do all they can to make sure that it never happens!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
There are ZILLIONS of original language texts.

The Vulgate does not err on matters of faith or morals. Who says so? The Ecumenical Council of Trent.

Any bible that never errs on matters of faith and morals is superior to any other bible that might be superior in matters that do not relate to faith or morals or doctrine.

Can the Vulgate be improved? Of course.

Can it be improved on matters of faith or morals or doctrine? No.

Can ALL other translations of the bible be improved on matters of faith or morals or doctrine? Yes.

The Nova Vulgata is the Catholic Church’s attempt at improving the Vulgate–in fact the bible should always be improved.

The reason that NONE of the Protestant translations of the bible are as good as the Vulgate is that they SELECT those original language variants that back their non-Catholic and error plagued view of doctrine.

The reason that the NAB, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and NRSV aren’t as good as the Vulgate is that they too err in matters of Catholic doctrine.

Does that mean that there is no value to bibles other than the Vulgate–no–it does though mean that they can’t be used in any disputations about God’s word–the Vulgate can be used in such disputations because the Ecumenical Council of Trent said so!

The Catholic Church has no problem with improving the accuracy of the Bible by consulting original language texts.

It does have a problem with people who will select variants of the original language texts and come up with translations that do not square with Catholic doctrine.

That’s why anyone who would Improve the bible with ancient original language texts should do so in the context of the “doctrinally without error” witness of the Vulgate and the Catholic Church’s teaching of the deposit of the faith over the centuries.

You don’t get that with Protestant scholars or liberal Catholic scholars.

Take the Nova Vulgata for example–some people familiar with other previous versions of the Vulgate might not be happy with it but it has been established as the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.

Does that mean that it is perfect? No–no bible is-- but since it was based on the Vulgate and did not change the Vulgate on doctrinal matters one could trust the Catholic Church’s production of it.

The same could be said for the Confraternity New Testament–as it was based on the Vulgate it did not fall prey to doctrinal error.

Is it perfect? No. Is it doctrinally without error? As long as it doesn’t differ form the Vulgate on doctrinal matters the answers is yes.

Look there will never be a perfect bible but there can be bibles without doctrinal error. None of them will depart from the Vulgate on docrinal issues.

A perfect English translation of the Nova Vulgata would do that–but the NAB lovers and the RSV lovers would hate that superiority–they are the ones who would fear such a bible and will do all they can to make sure that it never happens!
Click to expand...
First, let me say that I have no problem with your statement that the Vulgate is without doctrinal error according to Trent. However, if the Vulgate gets changed, then it is no longer the document about which Trent said that. In theory, and I’m not saying this has happened, doctrinal errors could be - or might have been - introduced into the Vulgate after Trent.

However, you stated that all other translations have doctrinal errors. That is quite a charge considering you did not bother to substantiate the statement. If you are going to make such a statement, it is incumbent on you to back it up. Otherwise you come off as the Catholic equivalent of the KJV-only Protestants.

You also seem to imply that the only way we can be certain that a translation is accurate is if it was made from the Vulgate. If I understand you properly, I would like to see the evidence for this statement also.

Gary
 
That would be great. I like the archaic version of the Douay-Rheims Challoner Version, but its hard to read and I have to keep stopping on very “ancient” words to see how they fit in the sentence.

A Question:
Are the footnotes part of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Some of the footnotes in the NAB seem to have some conflict when dealing with the Greek word(s) used in a certain passage.

Thanks and God Bless!
 
garysibio said:
First, let me say that I have no problem with your statement that the Vulgate is without doctrinal error according to Trent. However, if the Vulgate gets changed, then it is no longer the document about which Trent said that. In theory, and I’m not saying this has happened, doctrinal errors could be - or might have been - introduced into the Vulgate after Trent.

However, you stated that all other translations have doctrinal errors. That is quite a charge considering you did not bother to substantiate the statement. If you are going to make such a statement, it is incumbent on you to back it up. Otherwise you come off as the Catholic equivalent of the KJV-only Protestants.

You also seem to imply that the only way we can be certain that a translation is accurate is if it was made from the Vulgate. If I understand you properly, I would like to see the evidence for this statement also.

Gary
Click to expand...
Watch out. He’s going to bring up the 2 Corinthians 2:10 “problem” which had been addressed umpteen times already.
 
I think its a great idea! I look forward to seeing this new Douay-Rheims translation once it is published. 🙂
 
As a relativly young catholic (of 4 years conversion). I am looking for a new Bible as my original NAB got caught in a fllod and though still readable is wet on the bottom spine corner, and even tho’ it was originally wet about 2.5 years ago, it seems to suck water out of the air. I look at all the different Catholic Bibles and I get so confused. Also there is the added not really a problem, but concern because I am hoping to become a NUN in the next month or so.

PLEASE HELP!!!
:nun1:

:bible1:
 
:

Not that I’m sugesting anything improper, but are they worried people will give the NAB the flick for this one??? :eek:

…

As a lector, I must say that I would be happy if the Church WOULD flip the NAB.
 
Corinthians 2:10 isn’t the only problem.

"Repentance versus “Do penance” is a doctrinal problem.

Hold fast to the “teachings” instead of the 'traditions" is a doctrinal problem.

“Shall inherit eternal life” versus “may inherit eternal ife” is a doctrinal problem.

"Anyone who says that Jesus IS not come in the flesh’ versus “IS coming in the flesh” is a doctrinal problem.

“Supersubstantial bread” versus "daily bread: in Matthew in the Our Father is a doctrinal problem.

Tell me something: If God’s word is perfect why would anyone countenance translations that contain all of these doctrinal errors?
 
I have heard that the New Vulgate is very good – but I haven’t read it and I’m not expert enough to know for sure.

I like the Msgr. Knox translation (from the original languages), although it has some odd phrasing at times (it seems odd as compared to the traditional English translations).
 
Marilynclssc said:
As a relativly young catholic (of 4 years conversion). I am looking for a new Bible as my original NAB got caught in a fllod and though still readable is wet on the bottom spine corner, and even tho’ it was originally wet about 2.5 years ago, it seems to suck water out of the air. I look at all the different Catholic Bibles and I get so confused. Also there is the added not really a problem, but concern because I am hoping to become a NUN in the next month or so.

PLEASE HELP!!!
:nun1:

:bible1:
Click to expand...
Ignatius Press recently revised the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition. You can get it on Amazon.Com by searching for ‘Ignatius Bible’. Although not perfect, I consider it to be the best English version available today. It is certainly much better than the NAB.

There are a couple of new versions in the works but they will not likely be available this year.

Gary
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Corinthians 2:10 isn’t the only problem.

"Repentance versus “Do penance” is a doctrinal problem.

Hold fast to the “teachings” instead of the 'traditions" is a doctrinal problem.

“Shall inherit eternal life” versus “may inherit eternal ife” is a doctrinal problem.

"Anyone who says that Jesus IS not come in the flesh’ versus “IS coming in the flesh” is a doctrinal problem.

“Supersubstantial bread” versus "daily bread: in Matthew in the Our Father is a doctrinal problem.

Tell me something: If God’s word is perfect why would anyone countenance translations that contain all of these doctrinal errors?
Click to expand...
Please be more specific. I have no idea wich translations and verses you are referring to.

You do need to review Catholic teaching on the Bible. The only perfect Scripture are the autoscripts, the manuscripts whiched the human authors actually wrote. No copy or translation, including the Vulgate, is perfect.

Gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top