The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

[Arnobius]

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?

the actual NJB does have those books, No idea why their version does not.

 

[dadude]

As we see St. Jerome was a very great translator. We must note that St. Jerome was a man of great faith and translated word for word. Rather than some modern-day translation which includes interpretations of meaning by the translators, rather than translations of the words.

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s not true at all. If you translated each passage word-for-word, you would end up with a lot of absurdities due to the language barrier. You also miss cultural meanings that can only be understood by a loose translation of a phrase.

 

[Manfred]

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.”

dadude,

Let me thank you on behalf of so many of us who missed this online copy of this wonderful booklet. I’ve had a paper copy since 2001, given me by a colleague at work a few days before he retired. I’ve read it through from cover-to-cover more than once. It inspired me to purchase a copy of, and read, the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible.

For a while this booklet was online on the TAN web site, but got pulled off - or so it seemed - so TAN could make money by selling the booklet. I’m happy to have this electronic copy once again; this time I’ll back it up so that I’ll have it around for copying/pasting some of Mr Nelson’s arguments in favor of the D-R.

One thing he has more or less in common with evangelical Protestant scholar Leland Ryken of the ESV translation team is his unqualified support of a literal translation of the Bible that does not “translate out” multiple meanings in the text, and that renders the text “as is”, without trying to “adapt” it to the readers’ sensibilities or intelligence levels.

Thanks, again. :tiphat:

 

[lak611]

One thing he has more or less in common with evangelical Protestant scholar Leland Ryken of the ESV translation team is his unqualified support of a literal translation of the Bible that does not “translate out” multiple meanings in the text, and that renders the text “as is”, without trying to “adapt” it to the readers’ sensibilities or intelligence levels.

Thanks, again. :tiphat:

I have the ESV. What do you think is the possiblity of the ESV including the Deuterocanonicals?

 

[St_Aloysius]

The RSV-CE uses archaic language, as well… So the RSV-2CE would be most advisable: It is both accurate and readable. The Douay-Rheims is fairly accurate as well, however its readability, especially to peeps my age, is what deprives it of any practicality.

IMHO, however, the NRSV-CE is better than both for liturgical use because it is more accurate than the RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE and is more readable, too. If the Vatican would like to see less inclusive and vertical language (the RNAB is honestly worse at times on the former issue), then that’s a small thing to change. But it’s just generally regarded as a better translation, despite all the bad press it gets around here.

MHO, anyway.

 

[lak611]

The RSV-CE uses archaic language, as well… So the RSV-2CE would be most advisable: It is both accurate and readable. The Douay-Rheims is fairly accurate as well, however its readability, especially to peeps my age, is what deprives it of any practicality.

IMHO, however, the NRSV-CE is better than both for liturgical use because it is more accurate than the RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE and is more readable, too. If the Vatican would like to see less inclusive and vertical language (the RNAB is honestly worse at times on the former issue), then that’s a small thing to change. But it’s just generally regarded as a better translation, despite all the bad press it gets around here.

MHO, anyway.

Both the RNAB and NRSV are full of inclusive language. The RNAB Psalms were rejected by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy due to the inclusive language.

 

[japhy]

The RSV-CE uses archaic language, as well… So the RSV-2CE would be most advisable: It is both accurate and readable.

I agree the 2CE fixes some of the accuracy issues, but I’m curious what the problem is with “archaic language”. Are people still hung up on "thee"s and "thou"s?

Don’t we still pray “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name…” and “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…”? It also might be more accurate to use “archaic” pronouns for God, if the original languages used such words to differentiate…

 

[lak611]

I agree the 2CE fixes some of the accuracy issues, but I’m curious what the problem is with “archaic language”. Are people still hung up on "thee"s and "thou"s?

Don’t we still pray “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name…” and “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…”? It also might be more accurate to use “archaic” pronouns for God, if the original languages used such words to differentiate…

This site explains the differences between usage of the archaic personal pronouns.

Here is another site explaining the archaic personal pronouns.

 

[Arnobius]

I agree the 2CE fixes some of the accuracy issues, but I’m curious what the problem is with “archaic language”. Are people still hung up on "thee"s and "thou"s?

Don’t we still pray “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name…” and “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…”? It also might be more accurate to use “archaic” pronouns for God, if the original languages used such words to differentiate…

We do need to recognize there is nothing especially holy about the archaic forms. They are not found in Greek, Hebrew or Latin, but because they were used in translations of the time, they worked their way into becoming small “t” traditions.

That being said, any modernization of the language needs to express accurately the meaning of the words and not “dumb them down” as cringeworthy versions like the CEV, NLT and Good News Bible tend to do

 

[dadude]

Alright Guys,
Now I’m really trying to decide on what bible I should buy. I currently use the NAB which as many of you have said it is absolutely terrible. So I’m looking to purchase either the Douay Rheims or RSV-CE. This thread has been totally useless to me, it’s full of people’s opinions and maybe some fact but deciphering fact or opinion is very very frustrating.

So first question. Why did the catholic church abandon the Douay Rheims in the Liturgy?

Secondly, Why does the church not use the RSV-CE if it is a much better translation.

If I do go with the Douay-Rheims I am going to buy it from Barronius Press, if I decide to go with the RSV-CE where do you suggest I buy it from?

So give it to me as straight forward as possible if you read the RSV-CE over the D-R because you don’t like the old English I don’t care. I am trying to find the absolute best translation of the current translations available.

Thanks.

 

[lak611]

Alright Guys,
Now I’m really trying to decide on what bible I should buy. I currently use the NAB which as many of you have said it is absolutely terrible. So I’m looking to purchase either the Douay Rheims or RSV-CE. This thread has been totally useless to me, it’s full of people’s opinions and maybe some fact but deciphering fact or opinion is very very frustrating.

So first question. Why did the catholic church abandon the Douay Rheims in the Liturgy?

Secondly, Why does the church not use the RSV-CE if it is a much better translation.

If I do go with the Douay-Rheims I am going to buy it from Barronius Press, if I decide to go with the RSV-CE where do you suggest I buy it from?

So give it to me as straight forward as possible if you read the RSV-CE over the D-R because you don’t like the old English I don’t care. I am trying to find the absolute best translation of the current translations available.

Thanks.

Perhaps this article will help you.

 

[dadude]

Thanks for the link to the article. I really liked these lines here.

In the end, there may not be a need to select only one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.

So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.

So I am now possibly considering buying the Douay Rheims now then an RSV-CE at a later time.

Please if anyone else has any thoughts on this issue please feel free. I haven’t totally made a decision yet.

 

[juliamajor]

Alright Guys,
Now I’m really trying to decide on what bible I should buy. I currently use the NAB which as many of you have said it is absolutely terrible. So I’m looking to purchase either the Douay Rheims or RSV-CE. This thread has been totally useless to me, it’s full of people’s opinions and maybe some fact but deciphering fact or opinion is very very frustrating.

So first question. Why did the catholic church abandon the Douay Rheims in the Liturgy?

Secondly, Why does the church not use the RSV-CE if it is a much better translation.

If I do go with the Douay-Rheims I am going to buy it from Barronius Press, if I decide to go with the RSV-CE where do you suggest I buy it from?

So give it to me as straight forward as possible if you read the RSV-CE over the D-R because you don’t like the old English I don’t care. I am trying to find the absolute best translation of the current translations available.

Thanks.

If you want to go by scholarship alone I suggest RSV ce- no politics here just nice smooth translation (not Perfect) but no translation is and is WIDELY used Biblical Scholars-Scott Hahn for one uses it as does the Navarre Bible, Sacra Pagina all good solid Catholics!!! Get a Study Bible Preferably- I have Oxford Annotated- which is great-Or Navarre Bible- solid orthodox notes.I don’t rely on the notes as my students do -I use other commentaries.I Do hope it helps! (My main concern in my bible is readability and accuracy- really don’t care if it’s catholic or not as long as the Deuteros are contained but you might have different criteria) And by all means pick it up and read a few chapters.Which of the two are you most comfortable with? Then damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

 

[dadude]

If I were to go with the RSV should I get the first edition (RSV-CE) or the second? (RSV-2CE)

 

[Augustine]

I agree the 2CE fixes some of the accuracy issues, but I’m curious what the problem is with “archaic language”. Are people still hung up on "thee"s and "thou"s?

As a foreigner, archaic English is almost another language for me. I was taught only modern English and all around me only speak and write modern English…

So, yes, archaic English poses a language barrier to me.

 

[Augustine]

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.”

I believe that he menat the Nova Vulgata, not the old one on which the DR is based, which was not the most correct translation in certain passages.

I guess that the best thing is to resort to a Latin grammar and enjoy the Nova Vulgata online.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I think with all the threads and all the articles on which is the best bible; you ought to be able to make up your own mind. I am about to get an Ignatius Bible and I have an NAB and a Jerusalem Bible at home and often link to an online version of the DR. Really it’s up to you. I think the folks in this thread as well as others have given out good information without having to make up your mind for you.

 

[juliamajor]

If I were to go with the RSV should I get the first edition (RSV-CE) or the second? (RSV-2CE)

I have a first RSV CE- it has a little more of “thees and Thous” not like KJV though ,and2nd has less archaic language. It is really personal preference- .nothing theological or of any importance to worry about.

 

[Manfred]

I have the ESV. What do you think is the possiblity of the ESV including the Deuterocanonicals?

In an article which favored literal translation over dynamic equivalence, the author thought that an ESV with Apocrypha was indeed possible, but felt the Catholic Church would never accept or approve such a translation since it would be the work of Protestants. He said there was mention of this on the ESV’s own web site. I didn’t find mention of this myself. Either he was mistaken, or the ESV committee withdrew consideration of such an endeavor so as not to inflame evangelicals at whom the ESV is targeted.

Obviously this poor schmuck has never heard of the RSV-CE nor is he aware that the NRSV is used in the Canadian Lectionary. (Oh, wait - I wish I’d never known the latter to be true, either. )