The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

[japhy]

porthos11;2779518:

The DR, like it or not, contains “The apple is red” while still remaining doctrinally accurate.

Can you site a specific example?

Here’s an example that I’m confounded by: 1 Cor 15:51. Compare these four:
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (RSV)

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, (NAB)

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (KJV)

Ecce mysterium vobis dico: Non omnes quidem dormiemus, sed omnes immutabimur, (BNV)
with these two:
Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. (DR)

Ecce mysterium vobis dico: Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes inmutabimur, (LV)
They are saying the exact same thing. One says we shall not all “sleep” (die) but we shall all “change” (be given glorified bodies). The other says we shall all “rise again” (the resurrection?), but we shall not all “be changed”. How do we let these two translations exist side-by-side?

We believe Jesus will “judge the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1; 1 Pet 4:5). Does this mean those judging (i.e. determining) who lives eternally and who dies eternally, or does this mean the judgment of those who are still alive and those who have died? If it means the former, then “we shall not all sleep” makes no sense; if it means the latter, then “we shall not all sleep” makes sense. Paul is writing about temporal death here, followed by the resurrection.

We also believe all of us – those bound for Heaven and those bound for Hell – will have intrinsically changed bodies at the Resurrection. Bodies that last for eternity, that are free from natural corruption. Thus, “we shall all be changed”.

BUT we can support the DR and LV translation! We all shall be raised from the earth (whether living or dead), but we shall not all be changed in the same way: the resurrected and glorified body of one in Heaven won’t be the same as the resurrected body of one in Hell.

The problem remains, though: we have two very different translations! The theological exegesis behind them requires determining whether Paul was speaking about all faithful Christians or all people in general, among other things.

 

[Cranch]

The RSV-CE is here:

geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/eng_bible_index.html

Thanks Joel

Thank you, Joel! I bookmarked your link.

After seeing this link, I did a little checking against mmortal03’s excellent RSV comparison table here. So far, the site above appears to me to be the 1971 RSV and not the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. The one exception to this conclusion found thus far is the web site’s use of “Hail, full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s an example that I’m confounded by: 1 Cor 15:51. Compare these four:
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (RSV)

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, (NAB)

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (KJV)

Ecce mysterium vobis dico: Non omnes quidem dormiemus, sed omnes immutabimur, (BNV)
with these two:
Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. (DR)

Ecce mysterium vobis dico: Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes inmutabimur, (LV)

That absolutely HORRIFIES me. Obviously the copy of the vulgate that the council of trent has was more accurate than the ones we have today. Since the Holy Spirit approved it, it must not have had this error in it.

So if we don’t have the vulgate from the council of trent anymore, might as well go back to original sources.

 

[japhy]

That absolutely HORRIFIES me. Obviously the copy of the vulgate that the council of trent has was more accurate than the ones we have today. Since the Holy Spirit approved it, it must not have had this error in it.

So if we don’t have the vulgate from the council of trent anymore, might as well go back to original sources.

May I ask which you are considering the error? The DR rendering or the RSV rendering?

The reason I found this is because a lot of ECF references to 1 Cor 15:51 use the LV text I’ve shown above (which corresponds to the DV).

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

After seeing this link, I did a little checking against mmortal03’s excellent RSV comparison table here. So far, the site above appears to me to be the 1971 RSV and not the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. The one exception to this conclusion found thus far is the web site’s use of “Hail, full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

You got me doing some spot-checking of my own while i have downtime here, this site *does *seem to match the CE corrections found here, maybe someone copied the 1971 text and made their own corrections.

 

[porthos11]

Can you site a specific example?

1 Cor 15:51 has already been cited. I would also cite Gen 3:15 (contrary to the Vulgate and the LXX) and the Johannine Comma (not cited in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts prior to the 15th century), neither of which are doctrinally incorrect, but also do not fit the best texts. I’m also not happy with “Our Lord” renderings where the originals have “The Lord”.

So yes, the Vulgate may be free of doctrinal error. But it is not free of linguistic error. I would rather choose the linguistic accuracy of the RSV. And the accusations against the RSV posted by certain people here are easily addressed on both linguistic and doctrinal grounds. I’ve already posted many times the proper explanation and context of “presence” vs. “person” in the Greek, so I won’t address it again.

As for proving the superiority of the RSV over the DR, I won’t fall for that silly challenge. I’ll only submit this: the Holy See uses the RSV for the Catechism and all official CDF documents in English. Pope Benedict uses the RSV in his writings in English. These endorsements speak volumes over the opinions of any poster on these forums.

 

[Cranch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranch

Thanks for finding more CE verse matches. I think you may be right about how this web site version was created. As a result I do not believe it is reliable. For example here is how the web site renders Romans 9.5:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. * Amen.
This apparently matches the 1971 RSV. However, the Ignatius RSV-CE (based on the 1962 RSV), the Ignatius RSV-2CE (based on the 1966 RSV-CE) and Oxford Press RSV-CE (based on the 1971 RSV) all render—according to mmortal03’s chart—the middle of the passage this way:
…Christ, who is God over all…
In other words, the web site in question doesn’t seem to match any published RSV-CE.

 

[SyCarl]

Any version that relies on the Septuagint for its OT (Douay-Rheims), is using earlier sources than one that uses the Masoretic Text (King James).

Jerome translated from the Hebrew. He may have used the Septuagint for the deutrocanonicals.

 

[Manfred]

Thanks for finding more CE verse matches. I think you may be right about how this web site version was created. As a result I do not believe it is reliable. For example here is how the web site renders Romans 9.5:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. * Amen.
This apparently matches the 1971 RSV. However, the Ignatius RSV-CE (based on the 1962 RSV), the Ignatius RSV-2CE (based on the 1966 RSV-CE) and Oxford Press RSV-CE (based on the 1971 RSV) all render—according to mmortal03’s chart—the middle of the passage this way:
…Christ, who is God over all…
In other words, the web site in question doesn’t seem to match any published RSV-CE.

I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

 

[lak611]

After seeing this link, I did a little checking against mmortal03’s excellent RSV comparison table here. So far, the site above appears to me to be the 1971 RSV and not the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. The one exception to this conclusion found thus far is the web site’s use of “Hail, full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

I checked it out too. It is not the RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE.

I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

True. There was a site I came across that claimed to have the NJB, but the text that is on-line does not match any of the text in print. It is a hybrid of something else.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

Yeah got it! Thanks for the heads up

 

[japhy]

True. There was a site I came across that claimed to have the NJB, but the text that is on-line does not match any of the text in print. It is a hybrid of something else.

This one: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/

It says it’s the “New Jerusalem Bible with Apocrypha” on Genesis through 2 Samuel, but 1 Kings through the end of the O.T. (with the exception of Psalms and Proverbs) all say “Revised Standard Version” at the top. And it doesn’t actually have any “apocrypha” (or deuterocanon) included. The entirety of the N.T. says “New Jerusalem Bible” at the top of each page.

 

[richardwy]

So let us compare the two Catholic Bible Translations.

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

What the pros and cos.

On the Gravitas and Beauty scale, the Douay wins walking away.

On the Precedent scale, the Douay wins again.

On the Accuracy scale, I don’t know. I don’t know ancient languages. However, 400 years of use seems to make the matter moot. The winner, Douay again.

On the scale of Ease of Reading, the Douay loses big time.

On the Utility scale of being a Defender of Catholic doctine and morals, the Douay wins as some in this thread have pointed out and cited an example or two.

I’m convinced the world becomes more wicked and people more ignorant and lazy as time goes by.

ANYTHING licit that would help stem the tide gets my vote.

I have a NAB which I don’t use for study or devotional reading Bought it during RCIA because that’s the translation I saw everyone else using.

I have 2 Douays: the 1 volume Bible published by Baronius and the 2 volume 1859 Douay copy that includes many explnatory notes and glosses compiled by George Haydock that gives the reader what Saints and Doctors of the Church had to say. It is so cool to read what they said, bled, and died for. It’s also wonderful to read Biblical helps without worrying that they smack of modernism. It’s really great!

The beef with the Douay that I read most often is “it’s hard to read,” or “it’s too hard to read.”

Is anyone else just sick at heart about all whines of that ilk? School is too hard, life is too hard, work is too hard, being Catholic is too hard, being me is too hard. Bah! I’ve a belly full!

God met me where I was when I was in the gutter. He brought me to a higher place. The Douay does not use the language I use at work or home either. AND the language of home and work has NOT much going for it. It’s usually inaccurate and very imprecise. It’s usually lazy and sloppy too.

I’m glad the Douay elevates my heart, soul, and mind as I read and contemplate God’s word.

Where, when, and how did this “right where you live” thing grain such creedence and power? Sure does pander to “self” for want a better word. Bushwa I say!

God leading the Jews out of Egypt, and someone sells them the “right where you live” line of claptrap. “The cloud is too big, the glory too bright, the manna too stale, the quails too tough!” “I want some leeks, onions, garlic and fleshpots!!”

 

[lak611]

This one: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/

It says it’s the “New Jerusalem Bible with Apocrypha” on Genesis through 2 Samuel, but 1 Kings through the end of the O.T. (with the exception of Psalms and Proverbs) all say “Revised Standard Version” at the top. And it doesn’t actually have any “apocrypha” (or deuterocanon) included. The entirety of the N.T. says “New Jerusalem Bible” at the top of each page.

It is not the NJB. I own the NJB. The text on the website does not match the text of the NJB. Also, the NJB does not mention “apocrypha”. The NJB is a Catholic Bible. There are no “apocrypha” in Catholic Bibles.

 

[Mattjolley]

I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

I Take it that this site is hosting a copy of the NJB that isnt really the NJB too? catholic.org/bible/
Or have I found the actual NJB online? Hope it helps either way, be it legit or useless:thumbsup:

 

[japhy]

I Take it that this site is hosting a copy of the NJB that isnt really the NJB too? catholic.org/bible/
Or have I found the actual NJB online? Hope it helps either way, be it legit or useless:thumbsup:

It’s missing 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, and Baruch, as well as the additions to Esther and Daniel. Why is catholic.org’s online Bible expurgated?

 

[Augustine]

Honestly, after asking about the same question elsewhere, I think that I’ll try to avoid the Bible in English.

I really pity American Catholics. On one hand, with almost half of the Protestants in the world being Americans, Catholics are tempted by an elusive “original text” and “original language”, usually at the expense of Catholic teaching. On the other hand, America is the birth place of political correctness, i.e., Marx’s class-struggle in culture.

I’m sticking to the NAB because it’s unfortunately the official text of the Mass and to my JB in Portuguese because it was translated almost totally by Catholic scholars. At least I won’t find idioms literally translated almost to the point of ridicule.

 

[Jehanne_Darc]

The beef with the Douay that I read most often is “it’s hard to read,” or “it’s too hard to read.”

Is anyone else just sick at heart about all whines of that ilk? School is too hard, life is too hard, work is too hard, being Catholic is too hard, being me is too hard. Bah! I’ve a belly full!

God met me where I was when I was in the gutter. He brought me to a higher place. The Douay does not use the language I use at work or home either. AND the language of home and work has NOT much going for it. It’s usually inaccurate and very imprecise. It’s usually lazy and sloppy too.

I’m glad the Douay elevates my heart, soul, and mind as I read and contemplate God’s word.

Where, when, and how did this “right where you live” thing grain such creedence and power? Sure does pander to “self” for want a better word. Bushwa I say!

God leading the Jews out of Egypt, and someone sells them the “right where you live” line of claptrap. “The cloud is too big, the glory too bright, the manna too stale, the quails too tough!” “I want some leeks, onions, garlic and fleshpots!!”

Very good!!! Hurrah!! I still don’t know which bible is best. Probably none without the Chruch teaching, but your earnest lively little speech certainly hit home. The last paragraph is excellent .I think I may post it on my fridge as a little reminder of my resolve to not complain.

 

[dadude]

First I would like to point you all to this great explaination of why the Douay Rheims is the best. tanbooks.com/audio/wbsyr.pdf

Secondly Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, this means the Vulgate is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”

 

[EphelDuath]

And an article against the Douay-Rheims: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp