The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
I started a thread in the Liturgy and Sacraments about which translation would you prefer if the Bishops in the US decided to change the Lectionary. One of the selections was the RSV Bible, the RSV-CE Bible, the NAB. I left out the Douay Rheims because I feel it doesn’t appeal the Catholics, particularly the young Catholics who have a strong faith.

I do like the poetic language in the Douay Rheims Bible, but I don’t see its would be good if it was used in the Lectionary. Besides, Catholic Answers even recommends RSV-CE Bible since its easy to follow through.

So let us compare the two Catholic Bible Translations.

Douay Rheims Catholic Bible vs. the RSV-CE Catholic Bible.

What the pros and cos.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I started a thread in the Liturgy and Sacraments about which translation would you prefer if the Bishops in the US decided to change the Lectionary. One of the selections was the RSV Bible, the RSV-CE Bible, the NAB. I left out the Douay Rheims because I feel it doesn’t appeal the Catholics, particularly the young Catholics who have a strong faith.

I do like the poetic language in the Douay Rheims Bible, but I don’t see its would be good if it was used in the Lectionary. Besides, Catholic Answers even recommends RSV-CE Bible since its easy to follow through.

So let us compare the two Catholic Bible Translations.

Douay Rheims Catholic Bible vs. the RSV-CE Catholic Bible.

What the pros and cos.
Click to expand...
You may have noticed that there is a thread in this very Forum, entitled “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”. It’s rather long, despite losses incurred during the CAF server crash of 2006. All the translations you mentioned, D-R, RSV-CE, NAB, are discussed to some extent.
 
I’m just going to focus on the poetic.

Let’s look at Psalm 23 in the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, and KJV:

Ps 23, RSV-CE

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want; 2 he makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters; 3 he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies; thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Ps 23, DR - Challoner Revision

1 The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing. 2 He hath set me in a place of pasture. He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment: 3 He hath converted my soul. He hath led me on the paths of justice, for his own name’s sake. 4 For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for thou art with me. Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted me. 5 Thou hast prepared a table before me against them that afflict me. Thou hast anointed my head with oil; and my chalice which inebriateth me, how goodly is it! 6 And thy mercy will follow me all the days of my life. And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto length of days.

Ps 23, KJV

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Now let’s be honest here - in this psalm at least, the RSV and DR aren’t going to win any poetry slams.
The DR has a strange shift of tense in verse 4, and verse 5 is incoherent. Both lines in verse 6 starting with “And” breaks up any rhythm. “Unto length of days”? No further comment needed.

The RSV, in keeping with its mission of turning everything into baby food, reduces the KJV’s cadence and syllable count accordingly. Verse 2 starts with a string of 7 unbroken syllables; try to say this line without falling asleep. Thou is retained, but Yea is not, much to the detriment of verse 4, Even though I, which is a little jarring here. Overflows instead of runneth over. Zzzzz…

The King James has a wonderful immediacy, earthiness, and rhythm that the others lack. The DR is a great bible theologically, but the translation is pretty bad as poetry in places like the psalms. Simply using elizabethan english does not make something poetic.

Joel
 
What’s more important–that the bible be theologically accurate when it comes to doctrine and truth–or that it sound poetic and have great style?
 
I noticed something the RSV-CE is missing books.

It’s missing 3rd Kings, 4th Kings, First Book Of Paralipomenon, and Second Book of Paralipomenon.

drbo.org/
 
Nevermind I find the error. It was naming of the Books.

1 Samuel (1 Kings): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
2 Samuel (2 Kings): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
1 Kings (3 Kings): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
2 Kings (4 Kings): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
2 Chronicles (2 Paralipomenon):

I didn’t know back in the day, 1 Samuel was 1 Kings, 2 Samuel as 2 King, then 1 Kings (3 Kings), and 2 Kings (4 Kings)

1 and 2 Chronicles were formerly know as Paralipomenon…
 
Well, if I was Emporer of all the U.S. Bishops I’d pick the New Revised Standard Version, because it’s my favorite to read. But that’s just me. 🤷
 
Here’s an idea: How about having the Holy See translate the Nova Vulgata into English while consulting ancient original language texts that it deemed accurate and use those exact same words and Bible in the Liturgy?

Would that be too Catholic and not RSV Protestant enough?
 
It is harder to read because it uses archaic words but the real reason many don’t like it is that it isn’t Protestant, liberal, and it doesn’t use inclusive language.

In other words many can’t take the truth of the Vulgate and won’t listen to the Catholic Church which teaches that it doesn’t err in matters of faith or doctrine and they don’t want the translation that Trent said could be use in ALL disputations!

See they think they’re smarter than Trent and that whatever Non doctrinal improvements can be made in other translations outweigh the doctrinal accuracy of the Vulgate!

And for all who I’m sure will be incensed by my categorization I issue them this one challenge:

Prove how any other translation is doctrinally superior to the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata and I will forever shut up!

That case cannot be made!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
It is harder to read because it uses archaic words but the real reason many don’t like it is that it isn’t Protestant, liberal, and it doesn’t use inclusive language. And for all who I’m sure will be incensed by my categorization I issue them this one challenge:

…

Prove how any other translation is doctrinally superior to the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata and I will forever shut up!

That case cannot be made!
Click to expand...
It ain’t all about doctrine. The D-R is 400 years old, right? We’re talking Shakespeare language, right?

Well sir, that ain’t how we talk in my house.

I’m all in favor of studying Shakespeare and other old stuff in school. Completely in favor of it. I endorse it. But when it comes to personal Bible reading WE SHOULD NOT BE STRUGGLING. And 400-year-old language makes me struggle. I have an MS and a JD and I took honors English in both high school and college, but I struggle with Shakespeare. The meaning of “evangelism” is that every person should have the Bible available in the language that he speaks at home. You should NOT put a barrier between me and God’s word, between my children and God’s word, between my wife and God’s word, between my neighbors and God’s word. Evangelism = put it in my language.

If you say that there is no modern translation of equivalent doctrinal purity, then I’ll say that your church leaders have failed in their duty of evangelism. That’s that. Put the burden on their back. It’s their job direct from God Himself to give me a Bible in my language, in addition to the beautiful language of Shakespeare. (Shakespeare is beautiful, for real.)
 
scottm said:
But when it comes to personal Bible reading WE SHOULD NOT BE STRUGGLING. And 400-year-old language makes me struggle. I have an MS and a JD and I took honors English in both high school and college, but I struggle with Shakespeare. The meaning of “evangelism” is that every person should have the Bible available in the language that he speaks at home. You should NOT put a barrier between me and God’s word, between my children and God’s word, between my wife and God’s word, between my neighbors and God’s word. Evangelism = put it in my language.
Click to expand...
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?🤷
 
TheOneTrueFred said:
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?🤷
Click to expand...
I only know one person who uses it. I see the NAB a lot. If it works for you, great. That’s all that matters. Really, that’s all that matters to me.
 
Since when are a “theologically accurate”, and stylistically rich translation mutually exclusive? You just need the right people to pull them off.

Remember, the Psalms were written as poetry. Here’s what happens when you eviscerate style for the sake of producing a bible aimed at those with a 4th grade reading level:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.
2 In green pastures you let me graze; to safe waters you lead me; 3 you restore my strength. You guide me along the right path for the sake of your name.
4 Even when I walk through a dark valley, I fear no harm for you are at my side; your rod and staff give me courage.
5 You set a table before me as my enemies watch; You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
6 Only goodness and love will pursue me all the days of my life; I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.

That’s the NAB. The same text is used in the four volume Liturgy of the Hours. It’s great for insomnia. As for being more “immediate”, direct, and understandable - the English is so unmemorable, I can’t even recall what verse 2 said by the time I get to verse 4.
 
Why is it that high school kids can read Shakespeare and get an “A” in English but the Bible which is vital for our very souls is impossible to read?

Well I’ll tell you this–I think if it meant Heaven or Hell that I could muster up enough brains to read it and understand it!

But of course people are right–the Bible shouldn’t have archaic language.

But why is it that we don’t see an updated version of the Vulgate that people could understand in English?

Why couldn’t we see something like the Confraternity Version of the New Testament and the Old Testament without archaic language–close to the Vulgate–easily understandable and also making use of ancient language texts that might be more accurate than the Vulgate and done b:

Catholics who didn’t believe in Inclusive language, liberalism, or Protestantism?

Well the question answers itself!

And why do we still not have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata for the critics of St. Jerome?

What would be wrong with a bible like that?

I’ll tell you what would be wrong with it–it wouldn’t have Inclusive language–liberal or Protestant mistranlations–and once everyone saw how great it was they wouldn’t read the NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE or NRSV which all in one way or another Are those things and are without a dout Doctrinally inferior to the Vulgate!

It’s not a matter of style–correcting the Vulgate–or using ancient language texts–it’s about Inclusive language, liberalism, and Protestant agendas!

And the fact that some in the USCCB fight tooth and nail to include every smidgin of Inclusive language possible over the objections of the Holy See is a disgrace!

The fact that the litrugry doesn’t perfectly match a bible that Catholics can buy is a disgrace!

The fact is that Catholics deserve a decent bible and they never get one.

Why is that?

Why is it beyond the capability of the Catholic Church to translate the bible better than any group of Protestants can?

I don’t understand that?

Can anyone explain that to me?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
It is harder to read because it uses archaic words but the real reason many don’t like it is that it isn’t Protestant, liberal, and it doesn’t use inclusive language.

In other words many can’t take the truth of the Vulgate and won’t listen to the Catholic Church which teaches that it doesn’t err in matters of faith or doctrine and they don’t want the translation that Trent said could be use in ALL disputations!

See they think they’re smarter than Trent and that whatever Non doctrinal improvements can be made in other translations outweigh the doctrinal accuracy of the Vulgate!

And for all who I’m sure will be incensed by my categorization I issue them this one challenge:

Prove how any other translation is doctrinally superior to the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata and I will forever shut up!

That case cannot be made!
Click to expand...
I have a copy of Douay Rheims and it takes me to longer to read than the RSV-CE Bible.

I do think there needs to be a new English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

I think RSV-CE currently can be easily read compared with DR. I don’t think just because one doesn’t prefer the DR doesn’t mean they are against Trent. You are only generalizing.
 
In the Douay Rheims Paul grants the Incestuous Corinthain in 2 Corinthians 2:10 absolution “In the Person of Christ”.

In the RSV-CE he forgives the man in the presence of Christ.

That is a Profound Doctrinal difference that is real!

Catholics believe that priests act in the person of Christ and Protestants don’t!

Why should Catholics read a translation from a bunch of Protestants that chose Not to believe that Paul acted in the Person of Christ?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
In the Douay Rheims Paul grants the Incestuous Corinthain in 2 Corinthians 2:10 absolution “In the Person of Christ”.

In the RSV-CE he forgives the man in the presence of Christ.

That is a Profound Doctrinal difference that is real!
Click to expand...
Catholics believe that priests act in the person of Christ and Protestants don’t!
Click to expand...
Relax. So do. I believe a priest act in the person of Christ. The translation in the presence of Christ doesn’t negates that. Even Jesus said to Faustina;

"Come with faith to the feet of My representative. I Myself am waiting there for you. I am only hidden by the priest… (1602).

So the translation of RSV-CE

“Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.”

It doesn’t take away Persona Christi. Jesus said it himself. I am there waiting for you. In other words, his presence is there hidden in the priest.
Why should Catholics read a translation from a bunch of Protestants that chose Not to believe that Paul acted in the Person of Christ?
Click to expand...
Tell me why the Vatican itself uses the RSV-CE for their liturgy? I heard that they do. Correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Tell me why the Vatican itself uses the RSV-CE for their liturgy? I heard that they do. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
Manny,

According to Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, author of “A Catholic Guide to the Bible” (available FREE from the Catholic Home Study Service), they used the RSV-CE as well as NRSV-CE in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I’m not sure about the liturgy.

edit: most importantly, we’re not sola scriptura Christians. The Catholic Church teaches that when we’re in confession, the priest acts in persona Christi, regardless of what some translation of scripture could be interpreted to mean. Furthermore, all of these translations, regardless of whatever potential problems they may contain, are approved for use by Catholics. They may be criticized for a variety of reasons (particuarly in the case of the NAB, literary style, especially in the Psalms), but our bishops have determined that they’re acceptable for use by individual Catholics. That’s enough for me.
 
djrakowski said:
Manny,

According to Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, author of “A Catholic Guide to the Bible” (available FREE from the Catholic Home Study Service), they used the RSV-CE as well as NRSV-CE in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I’m not sure about the liturgy.

edit: most importantly, we’re not sola scriptura Christians. The Catholic Church teaches that when we’re in confession, the priest acts in persona Christi, regardless of what some translation of scripture could be interpreted to mean. Furthermore, all of these translations, regardless of whatever potential problems they may contain, are approved for use by Catholics. They may be criticized for a variety of reasons (particuarly in the case of the NAB, literary style, especially in the Psalms), but our bishops have determined that they’re acceptable for use by individual Catholics. That’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
Thanks God we aren’t Sola Scripturist. I think DR Onylism is very borderline Sola Scripturist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top