The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

[Manfred]

…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

In this, thou hast spoken rightly.

Leland Ryken, an evangelical Protestant, says essentially the same thing in his articles extolling the virtues of a literal translation. I happen to like Ryken, since he does NOT think the Non-Inspiring Version (NIV) is a decent translation; instead, he upheld use of the RSV, and was part of the translating team for the ESV.

 

[Manfred]

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.

Dude,

The Church never actually used the D-R in its liturgy. Before Vatican II, when all we had was the Latin Mass, the D-R could have been used when the Epistle and Gospel was proclaimed to the people. (The Epistle and Gospel were also read or sung at Mass in Latin - the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate, that is.)

After Vatican II, three versions were authorized for use in English-speaking countries: the Jerusalem Bible (1966), the RSV-CE (1965-66), and the NAB (1970). Now, in the USA, thanks to our beloved shepherds, only the Revised NAB is allowed at Mass. Why not either of the other two? Simple: NOT INVENTED HERE! The JB and RSV-CE are still used elsewhere in the English-speaking world, Deo gratias.

Why not get both an RSV-CE and a D-R? I would suggest the first edition of the RSV-CE (Ignatius, Scepter Press, Oxford), as opposed to the second, which, to me, is a "work-in-progress. It does conform in a very few places to Liturgiam Authenticam, but not enough to make a difference.

The RSV-CE is in the so-called “Tyndale- King James tradition”; dignified, not dumbed down, and NO inclusive language. Then, once you’ve read through the RSV-CE, you can tackle the D-R. Between the two, you have all the accuracy there is to “see through” to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

 

[Manfred]

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.

Work on what was to become the Nova Vulgata began around 1917, and was nowhere near completion (1979) when Divino Afflante Spiritu was issued (1943).

 

[Cranch]

Before Vatican II, when all we had was the Latin Mass, the D-R could have been used when the Epistle and Gospel was proclaimed to the people. (The Epistle and Gospel were also read or sung at Mass in Latin - the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate, that is.)

I would cast the above thought into the present tense, as the D-R is what is usually found in Latin-English hand missals and is still typically heard from the pulpit at Traditional Latin Masses when the readings are also proclaimed in English.

 

[dadude]

Dude,

The Church never actually used the D-R in its liturgy. Before Vatican II, when all we had was the Latin Mass, the D-R could have been used when the Epistle and Gospel was proclaimed to the people. (The Epistle and Gospel were also read or sung at Mass in Latin - the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate, that is.)

After Vatican II, three versions were authorized for use in English-speaking countries: the Jerusalem Bible (1966), the RSV-CE (1965-66), and the NAB (1970). Now, in the USA, thanks to our beloved shepherds, only the Revised NAB is allowed at Mass. Why not either of the other two? Simple: NOT INVENTED HERE! The JB and RSV-CE are still used elsewhere in the English-speaking world, Deo gratias.

Why not get both an RSV-CE and a D-R? I would suggest the first edition of the RSV-CE (Ignatius, Scepter Press, Oxford), as opposed to the second, which, to me, is a "work-in-progress. It does conform in a very few places to Liturgiam Authenticam, but not enough to make a difference.

The RSV-CE is in the so-called “Tyndale- King James tradition”; dignified, not dumbed down, and NO inclusive language. Then, once you’ve read through the RSV-CE, you can tackle the D-R. Between the two, you have all the accuracy there is to “see through” to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Manfred Thanks for the great explanation well done.

 

[Manfred]

I would cast the above thought into the present tense, as the D-R is what is usually found in Latin-English hand missals and is still typically heard from the pulpit at Traditional Latin Masses when the readings are also proclaimed in English.

You are correct, for the most part, Cranch. My St Joseph Daily Missal from the early 1960s used the Confraternity translations of the NT from 1941 and what was then available for the OT (Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach).

As for what is done these days when the TLM is celebrated, I wouldn’t know, since it would probably require a Council of Trent II to get one on my area.

 

[lak611]

You are correct, for the most part, Cranch. My St Joseph Daily Missal from the early 1960s used the Confraternity translations of the NT from 1941 and what was then available for the OT (Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach).

As for what is done these days when the TLM is celebrated, I wouldn’t know, since it would probably require a Council of Trent II to get one on my area.

I have been to TLM at two different parishes. One used the D-R. The other used the RNAB.

 

[Manfred]

I have been to TLM at two different parishes. One used the D-R. The other used the RNAB.

It’s too bad that the only Bible the latter parish has is an RNAB. Mind you, there is no lectionary per se for the TLM, but there would be a book containing the vernacular Epistle and Gospel readings. It could be that a book of this type is no longer available (or that it didn’t survive some post-Vatican II purge of pre-Conciliar books), and that the priest felt the only version allowed for use in the US was the RNAB. But I believe that is only true for the NO, not the TLM. No one asked me officially or otherwise, but I don’t think “modern” translations, i.e., NAB, RNAB, JB, NJB, are appropriate for a TLM. I’m on the fence re the RSV-CE, but would definitely favor the D-R, since the Gospels thereof are not all that alien to our hearing.

 

[NMJenny]

Dadude, if you are considering a DR bible (which is my first choice), I urge you to take a look at the Haydock version. It is expensive but the notes are priceless–from the early Church fathers, among others, and often taking up more than half of the page!!

This version runs over $100 in most places, but there is one Catholic publisher which has a beautiful edition for about $40 less than anywhere else. Check it out at allcatholicbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ACB&Product_Code=iNRx01&Category_Code=

 

[Cranch]

No one asked me officially or otherwise, but I don’t think “modern” translations, i.e., NAB, RNAB, JB, NJB, are appropriate for a TLM. I’m on the fence re the RSV-CE, but would definitely favor the D-R, since the Gospels thereof are not all that alien to our hearing.

I agree the Douay-Rheims should be favored for an English translation of scripture in the TLM. Why? Because it is itself exactly what is required: an English translation of and from the Latin Vulgate*.*

 

[dadude]

Dadude, if you are considering a DR bible (which is my first choice), I urge you to take a look at the Haydock version. It is expensive but the notes are priceless–from the early Church fathers, among others, and often taking up more than half of the page!!

This version runs over $100 in most places, but there is one Catholic publisher which has a beautiful edition for about $40 less than anywhere else. Check it out at allcatholicbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ACB&Product_Code=iNRx01&Category_Code=

Jenny, thanks for the suggestion. I am a poor student without much money and I am looking for something in a bit smaller form factor. But thanks for the suggestion, if I fall in love with the Douay Rheims I will most certainly consider the Haydock commentary.

 

[Manfred]

Jenny, thanks for the suggestion. I am a poor student without much money and I am looking for something in a bit smaller form factor. But thanks for the suggestion, if I fall in love with the Douay Rheims I will most certainly consider the Haydock commentary.

A soft- or even a hard-cover copy of the D-R, though used, can usually be found from online used book dealers; that’s how I got mine. While it certainly would not have Haydock’s commentary, those of Challoner, which ARE included, are quite good in/of themselves.

 

[lak611]

Jenny, thanks for the suggestion. I am a poor student without much money and I am looking for something in a bit smaller form factor. But thanks for the suggestion, if I fall in love with the Douay Rheims I will most certainly consider the Haydock commentary.

Here’s the Haydock Commentary for free on-line.

 

[NMJenny]

Jenny, thanks for the suggestion. I am a poor student without much money and I am looking for something in a bit smaller form factor. But thanks for the suggestion, if I fall in love with the Douay Rheims I will most certainly consider the Haydock commentary.

You can only do so much at a time, and I’ve been the “poor student” myself–now I guess I’d qualify as a “poor senior”. By all means get yourself a less expensive version of the DR for now, and start a special “Haydock” fund for the future…

 

[lak611]

You can only do so much at a time, and I’ve been the “poor student” myself–now I guess I’d qualify as a “poor senior”. By all means get yourself a less expensive version of the DR for now, and start a special “Haydock” fund for the future…

You can get any D-R. The Haydock Commentary is available for free online here.