The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

[Joel_Tunnah]

Actually, the NAB psalms are not used in the 4-volume LOTH. The Grail Psalms from 1963 are used.

These are so stylistically similar to the NAB that I just assumed they were the same. As poetry, they are equally terrible.

 

[tacitus]

how about vulgate-onlyism… i have been through this translation mess myself. personaly the douay-rheims i read. its not that hard realy and it is superior. but still i decided to just study as i am now doing latin and the vulgate. its refreshing and it makes perfect sense. the manipulation of language to suite modernist errors and progressive political bull in regards to sacred scripture is i believe very offending and insulting to revalation. times change with the wind like yesterdays fashion so it only makes sense to have the vulgate inyour right hand and the douay-rheims in your left. inclusive language sounds a bit to close to exclusive language ie changing and manipulating what is rwritten to shackle tradion. by controling language we control thought. so to end this long rant.
vulgat-onlysim has my vote. and no there is no such monster as douay-reimism unless your speaking of those who dont fall for the latest fad-ism.
hope this found you well.

 

[demerzel85]

So, this may be a tangent, but, what’s wrong with the NRSV? (the New Revised Standard Version as opposed to the Revised Standard Version) Why is it not an approved Catholic Bible?

Depends on what you mean by approved. In terms of free from error, only one Bible version is dogmatically declared as such. That is the Latin Vulgate. So short of learning Latin, the means by which one read a version that is free from error is to read a faithful translation of the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t advocate Douay Rheims onlyism.

I do however advocate No translation that is not doctrinally superior to the Vulgate is worth reading ism!

When you say doctrinally superior… are you suggesting that even if a particular translation is less likely to be accurate, that if it helps explain catholic theology better than a more accurate translation, that you would prefer the ‘doctrinally superior’ translation?

Or are you saying that you think the DR is both doctrinally superior AND more accurate?

 

[lak611]

When you say doctrinally superior… are you suggesting that even if a particular translation is less likely to be accurate, that if it helps explain catholic theology better than a more accurate translation, that you would prefer the ‘doctrinally superior’ translation?

Or are you saying that you think the DR is both doctrinally superior AND more accurate?

Since we, as Catholics, do not derive all of our doctrine from Scripture anyway, I prefer an accurate Bible translation even if it does not explain Catholic theology. I’ll go to the Magisterium for my explanations of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Since we, as Catholics, do not derive all of our doctrine from Scripture anyway, I prefer an accurate Bible translation even if it does not explain Catholic theology. I’ll go to the Magisterium for my explanations of Catholic doctrine.

I heard someone said, you can live without the Bible as long as you a Church. Since the Church did pretty well without the Bible during the first 10-20 yrs of Christianity.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? I 100% believe in the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Why is it impossible for that same magisterium to exercise leadership in providing the Catholic faithful with what THEY think is the most accurate translation possible of the Bible as approved by the Holy See?

I mean aren’t they more qualified to do that than anyone else?

And who can dispute Vulgate superiority?

I believe not in Douay Rheims Onlyism as polished by Challoner because it does tend to much into the direction of the King James Version.

For that reaon Haydock bibles which sometimes use Dr.Troy’s renderings are slightly better but the amount of instances is very small.

See a doctrinally accurate Catholic bible should 99.9% of the time as literally as is possible rely on the Vulgate.

If there are some instances where there is No Doubt that an original language text is superior to the Vulgate then of course that text should be used.

And who should decide such things–Not biblical Scholars–but the magisterium of the Catholic Church and it should be reviewed by the Holy See!

And don’t tell me that the Holy See is too busy to be involved with God’s word–that is ridiculous–they are the only ones who are qualified to speak on it!

It isn’t impossible to 99.9% of the time to as literally as possible use the Vulgate–determine what the best Vulgate version is–avoid inclusive language–avoid archaic English words–use English instead of Roman spellings–avoid heretical footnotes–avoid Protestantisms–use ancient language texts when there is No Doubt that they are superior to the Vulgate–run the whole mauscript by the Holy See and the magisterium–print the entire bible–and then match the Liturgy to that bible Exactly!

Then like the Gideons place that bible with a New Catechism that would also use the exact words of that bible in as many places as possible!

And then why not have the Cathlic Church puiblish its own Official Commentary on the scriptures?

Do all of that and also make sure that there is a continuing Pontifical Biblical commission that periodically–say every 10 years–would consider further changes to that bible if new discoveries or biblical scholarship warranted such action.

Alas we do not live in a perfect world like that.

The least oneorous treanslation in my opinion currently available from a doctrinal stand point is a Confraternity-Douay bible with one of those versions of the Psalms from the early 50s that were translated into English from the Latin but weren’t the Douay Psalms or the Olinger Psalms.

In other words pretty accurate and decent sounding–if any of the scriptures should be more stylistic or poetic it should be the Psalms.

I just think people should know that the RSV is a Protestant Bible and the NAB is horrid. The New Jerusalem bible and the NRSV use too much inclusive language and have other problems.

A douay Rhiems Challoner Haydock Bible is not perfect by any means–my response is why not improve it? Why not have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata–if you think the Nova Vulgata is an improvement over the Vulgate used in the douay Rheims?

Are there any TLM lovers who are also biblical scholars in the world? I bet they could do a decent job at giving us a Catholic accurate translation.

Maybe other Catholic biblical scholars could as well.

Just don’t give us anymore Protestant inclusive language liberal Vulgate hating translations.

Catholics deserve better than that!

And for the last ime don’'t bring out the trite lame argument that other translations are approved or are used in the Liturgy.

So what?! Shouldn’t the Catholic Church always be concerned with providing the world the most perfect and accurate bible possible?

Just because any of those translation are approved or are used in the Liturgy does not mean that they are the most accurate perfect translations of the bible that the catholic church is capable of producing!

That isn’t Sola Scripturist–that is Catholic magisterium is the bestest at giving us God’s word at its most perfect!

Shouldn’t everyone want that?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why would anyone in this day and age want to translate from a translation rather than from the original texts? What’s so great about the vulgate?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What’s so great about 10 zillion ancient texts if the way you choose the rendering from them only reflects a particular group of bilical scholar’s Non Magisterial viewpoint?

That’s the mess we have now!

Trent knew better–why are people today so much smarter than the Ecumenical Council of Trent?

The Holy Spirit aided that Council. Was the Holy Spirit dumb back then? Has the Holy Spirit changed?

Vulgate onlyism is not what the church taught–but Vulgate rejectionism Is what Satan teaches!

Get an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church to declare that other translations of the bible can be used in “All Disputations” and then maybe I’ll buy Selectivist original language arguments to mask Protestant liberal inclusive language doctrinally inferior agendas!

You won’t see that happen! I’m not that dumb! The Catholic Church isn’t that dumb! Why should it be?

 

[tacitus]

well the best thing about the vulgate is its vulgure–haaaa. no realy i think the wise man two post before in an amazing post summed up everyhting i could possibly add. well done.

 

[tacitus]

um that was three post before—well done

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Why would anyone in this day and age want to translate from a translation rather than from the original texts?

Because often the “original texts” don’t exist anymore. Such is the case with the greek Septuagint. The hebrew texts that this was translated from are long gone.

The “original hebrew text” you hear about so often from modern translators is the corrupt Masoretic Text from the 10th century.

 

[Mattjolley]

Do that many people really find the Challoner that hard to read? I even have a modern-spelling version of the pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims, and both read just fine to me (In fact, in many cases the older DR seems clearer than than the Challoner). I hope I’m not coming across like a jerk, but I’m seriously asking - where’s the confusion?

In all honesty, when I came back to the faith, I wanted a proper bible. So i found out about the Douay from internet reading, and I grabbed it with both hands, following the many claims that it is the one true catholic bible in print, and so forth. However, I often struggle with it, I mean, some of the phrases make me suddenly stop in my reading and lose my train of thought, heres a for instance, Philemon 1:20 in the DR reads as:

“Refresh my bowels in the Lord”

whilst the RSV CE has “Refresh my heart in Christ”

Now, I may be being picky, but for somebody reading this in the 21st century, we have an entirely different use of the word bowels. So whilst it might have been used to describe the depths of somebody or something in the past, (I.E. ‘Bowels of the Earth’) now it reads as a body part, or that Paul is having a heavenly toilet experience.

And it just plain puts me off the task of reading my scripture. Many passages just dumbfound me, and make almost no sense whatsoever too. I find this quite sad because I have tried to stick with the DR and I have wanted to like it. I guess I just want more accessible scripture.

Many other phrases, or passages in the Douay Rheims, along with my above example, cause me to stop reading and ponder what meaning the word used to have. (Another example that springs to mind it the use of ‘meats’ to describe foodstuffs of all kinds) Some of the phrases, such as ‘meats’ arent that bad overall, but others really do wrench my mind from studying the scripture and its meaning, to studying the language.

Now I stick with the Jerusalem Bible or the RSV CE, unless I feel like reading the Douay, which I do, now and again.

 

[bilop]

Why would anyone in this day and age want to translate from a translation rather than from the original texts? What’s so great about the vulgate?

St. Jerome had access to the original texts, we no longer do. Also, he was closer in time and better able to interpret the Greek language of the NT Era. The Vulgate is actually older than many of the “original” texts referenced by modern scholars.

Also, the Vulgate was declared free of doctrinal error by a Church Council (Trent). No other Bible can say that.

God Bless

 

[Mattjolley]

Also, the Vulgate was declared free of doctrinal error by a Church Council (Trent). No other Bible can say that.

God Bless

I have to say, this is why I think many feel so close to the DR, as it is a translation of the Vulgate, therefore as free from error, as any translated bible could be. I just want to say, my previous post was not so much a bashing of the DR itself, as to the struggles I have reading it.

Whilst some parts of it make you stop and contemplate the deep spiritual meaning, some just can throw you a little with their old language, and it just takes me a bit longer to process the passage. Thats all I was trying to get at. I still love it in its own way, and do try to read it often amongst my other translations.

It certainly has no counterpart in catholic bibles, as others like the NJB and RSV CE are a lot easier to read, and the meaning of most passages in them isnt as veiled or muddled with old style langauage. Yet still the DR holds firm as it is as close we will get to an error-free catholic bible, i feel, for years to come

So yeah, I wasnt bashing the DR as such, sorry to rant!

Matt

 

[Brendan]

Why would anyone in this day and age want to translate from a translation rather than from the original texts? What’s so great about the vulgate?

Because no one has the original texts. All we have are copies, and the Vulgate is among the oldest of those.

 

[Manfred]

These are so stylistically similar to the NAB that I just assumed they were the same. As poetry, they are equally terrible.

Careful!

The Psalms in the 1970 NAB (the non-inclusive version) and the 1963 Grail Psalter are not terrible.

It’s those in the 1991 NAB (inclusive version) and in the NRSV that are.

 

[porthos11]

It certainly has no counterpart in catholic bibles, as others like the NJB and RSV CE are a lot easier to read, and the meaning of most passages in them isnt as veiled or muddled with old style langauage. Yet still the DR holds firm as it is as close we will get to an error-free catholic bible, i feel, for years to come

So yeah, I wasnt bashing the DR as such, sorry to rant!

Matt

A Bible can be full of errors and yet still free of doctrinal error.

As Akin would put it, if I translate “La manzana es verde” as “The apple is red”, then I have not committed a doctrinal or moral error.

However, that is a severe translation error. The proper translation is “The apple is green.”

The DR, like it or not, contains “The apple is red” while still remaining doctrinally accurate. That, however, is not good enough for me. I not only pray the Bible, I also study it, and I cannot study the Bible with linguistic and textual inaccuracies.

I again submit my position. If a Bible is free of linguistic errors, it will automatically be free of doctrinal error as well, no matter how uncomfortable it may make some of us.

That’s why I neither use nor like the DR, except for cross-referencing.

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

I not only pray the Bible, I also study it, and I cannot study the Bible with linguistic and textual inaccuracies.

I again submit my position. If a Bible is free of linguistic errors, it will automatically be free of doctrinal error as well, no matter how uncomfortable it may make some of us.

While I’ve never been a DR-only guy (though it *is *my personal preference), I have to say that’s probably the best articulated argument I’ve ever read against “free from doctrinal error” being the only test applied to our bibles.

However, the argument that still keeps me with vulgate-based bibles as my “trusted” version as opposed to just my favorite is that Jerome had access to much earlier texts, generations earlier than the numerous scribal errors & emendations that have made a critical text so necessary. Here’s hoping for the day we have billions of dollars to throw at a massive excavation project to track down the autographs

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

The DR, like it or not, contains “The apple is red”…

Can you site a specific example?