The Rhemish translation

[Ron_Conte]

I’m currently reading through a book on the original Douai-Rheims translation. Very interesting reading if you are interested in Catholic Bible translation. The whole of the ‘Douay’ Bible was actually translated at Rheims, but the OT was published late (due to lack of funds, primarily) and published at Douay, hence the name.

It seems that most of the translation work was done by Gregory Martin, a Catholic scholar who was in France because of the severe persecution of Catholics in England at the time. He was assisted by Cardinal Allen, Richard Bristow, and William Reynolds.

The puritans were rather vicious in attacking the translation. Most of their attacks were rhetorical, and without even a pretense of presenting a scholarly or reasoned argument. It is even said that priests caught with a copy of the Rhemish translation were imprisoned and tortured.

The translation itself is very literal, yet still thoughtful in its choice of words. But it is the annotations that accompany the translation that caused the greatest outrage among reformers. The annotations refute Protestantism and varies errors and heresies, and they support a decidedly Catholic understanding of the text.

The translators and annotators of the Rhemish translation would be appaulled at the annotations commonly found in many modern day Catholic Bibles.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The translators and annotators of the Rhemish translation would be appaulled at the annotations commonly found in many modern day Catholic Bibles.

Please don’t stop there, Ron, what annotations are you referring to ???

Robert

 

[Epistemes]

Please don’t stop there, Ron, what annotations are you referring to ???

He’s referring to the footnotes and introductory passages in the NAB. Many Traditionalists (note: those who specifically read the Douay-Rheims-Challoner translation) are convinced these footnotes and annotations are “heretical” and teach information contrary to the Magisterium.

Ben Douglass wrote the manifesto of all manifestoes against the NAB and its footnotes for Catholic Apologetics International, but I see that it is no longer available (unless I’m overlooking it). Jimmy Akin has attempted a more moderate apologetic here.

 

[EphelDuath]

He’s referring to the footnotes and introductory passages in the NAB. Many Traditionalists (note: those who specifically read the Douay-Rheims-Challoner translation) are convinced these footnotes and annotations are “heretical” and teach information contrary to the Magisterium.

Almost everybody hates the NAB footnotes. The difference is that traditionalists don’t tolerate it while liberal Catholics usually just brush it off.