Vulgate Textual Traditions

[AmbroseSJ]

Many factors complicate analysis of the modifications that the Douay-Rheims Version has undergone over the past four centuries. The most significant is the doctrinal conservatism of the Catholic Church.

This sort of intro immediately sets off alarms in my head. Already the writer/editor has presumed from on high to relegate the Catholic Church’s doctrine to the politically conservative right.

Owing to both the primacy of Jerome’s Vulgate (another inadequate label, since Jerome hardly produced the Latin text by himself), recognized at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and the desire of the Church to exert some control over access to scripture, the translation of the Bible into vernacular tongues was discouraged.

Repeating the old Protestant mantras as if they are scholarly…

Conservatism demanded the Church’s approbation and made revision difficult.

False. Penal laws and impoverishing of the Catholic laity made revision difficult or impossible.

This confusing (and confused) climate has misled modern readers into believing precisely what the editors and translators of English Catholic Bibles from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century wanted them to think: a single standard English translation of the Bible existed, and the reader in question was holding a copy of it.

False. For hundreds of years, the Douay/Rheims WAS the only Catholic Bible available in English. Remember Protestant Bibles were lacking 7 books, and in many places the KJV DID actually translate in favor of Protestant tenets.

The literary superiority of the King James Version is worth bearing in mind, because Challoner (whose schoolboy nickname, we are told, was Book) revised the Douay-Rheims text primarily on the basis of literary sensibilities. His version significantly departs from the Douay-Rheims when that text is most stilted, and not infrequently in such instances, Challoner’s revision closely matches the sense or wording (or both) of the King James Bible.

Although the writer/editior felt compelled to award the laurel to the KJV (no surprise there), he is correct in the way a broken clock is correct twice a day.

My advice is to beware of “literary” appraisals of the D/R, especially by Harvard.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

My advice is to beware of “literary” appraisals of the D/R, especially by Harvard.

Interestingly, I find some phrasings of the Original Douay-Rheims now sound more “modern” than the KJV or Challoner’s Revisions, I was nothing this the other day when reading through a couple of Psalms in the ODR and elsewhere where the term “malignant” is used instead of “evil-doers.” I’m aware this constitutes picking and choosing

Psalm 25:4-5 (ODR)
I have not sitten with the council of vanity, and with them that doe unjust things I will not enter in.
I have hated the church of the malignant, and with the impious I will not sitte.

Psalm 25:4-5(CDR)
I have not sat with the council of vanity; neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things.
I have hated the congregation of the malignant, and with the wicked I will not sit.

(Psalm 26:4-5 in KJV)

I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers.
I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and will not sit with the wicked.

CDR has the better sounding reading of 25:4, but ODR has the better sounding reading for 25:5. Overall KJV 26:4 is the worst of these deliberately chosen selection with its use of the now very-archaic sounding terms “dissemblers” and “evil-doers.” (And of course, I acknowledge, that one could easily find a passage where the reverse was true: the KJV sounds the best and the ODR sounds the worst).

Overall, the Original Douay-Rheims is by far the best version of this particular Psalm (compare ODR use of “Destroy not my soul” to CDR: “Take not away my soul” KJV “gather not my soul” etc.

Anyway, the point I’m trying but failing to make is that one reason for this is that the phrase “Church of the malignant”, sound the most “modern” of three examples above, due to changes in English usage. But apparently, in Challoner’s time, the phrase sounded poorly to the ear so he felt the need to change it. Perhaps a case of: everything old is new again (eventually).​

With respect to the Dumberton Oaks passage, I was most interesting in confirmation of my belief that Bishop Challoner didn’t do a lot of comparing and contrasting with the Sixtus-Clementine Vulgate. I tend to think the same of the Douay Old Testament (we have again conferred this English translation and conformed it to the most perfect Latin edition: note the preface is careful not to articulate exactly which edition they consider to be the most perfect Latin edition).

As my long initial post indicates, I don’t wrestle with questions of whether somewhere there is an older “better” version of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Syriac book in some cave somewhere, not only because I’m not equipped with the skills to wrestle with the question, but also because, even if I were equipped, I don’t agree with the philosophy behind that question. I wrestle with the question of how do you identify whether or not a translation or version is inspired by the Holy Ghost or not. The only criteria I’ve been able to come up with is time: what happens to the translation over a very long period of time (centuries), does it continue mostly as-is, does it continue to inspire others (despite any imperfections), all of which applies to the Jerome Vulgate and to an extant to the DR (and as noted above also the Septuagint), with the major caveat that the DR has mainly continued as the DR with Challoner revisions. Which is the crux of my problem: Challoner’s revisions are most often based on the KJV text, so was I right to judge the CDR as probably non-inspired, save for that part that is DR, or am I thinking too rigidly? And that the Holy Ghost can and will use anything to further its purpose, even a Protestant translation (along the lines of God furthering his purpose through the pagan Cyrus the Great). It’s probably unanswerable, but I mention it only in case there is some Catholic teaching/comment by one of the Doctors of the Church on the issue that I’m unaware of and one of the forum members can point me towards.

Best

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Challoner’s revisions are most often based on the KJV text, so was I right to judge the CDR as probably non-inspired, save for that part that is DR, or am I thinking too rigidly?

Personally, I think Challoner’s revisions breathed new life into the venerable D/R translation. Otherwise it would have been revised by someone else.

John Henry Newman was on the verge of re-translating the Sacred Text in the mid-19th c. when the American Bishop Francis Kenrick, of Phil. put up a fuss about his own translation being currently in the works. (One that was published over many years and never went into a second printing.) That squashed Newman’s project effectively.

But of all the Challoner revisions we read, we rarely read HIS own revisions! The Irish were busy “fixing” his translation, and it is those Irish repairs that largely pass for Challoner revisions!

Even here in the US, (in the 19th c.) there were priests busy fixing the Irish repaired texts. Some of the repairs were to correct missed phrases (as was mentioned in an earlier post.) But many of them were alternate word/phrase choices.

So the only REAL way to know what Challoner wrote is to obtain one of his revisions from 1750-1752.

But in my personal opinion, none of the fixes and repairs did anything to remove the underlying inspiration of the Sacred Text itself.

As you have shown yourself, different translators often bring something interesting and inspiring to their work. That is why, as SO often stated here in this forum, it is very helpful to have several different translations at hand, for they all have something to offer. (I am speaking only of approved Catholic editions.)

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Personally, I think Challoner’s revisions breathed new life into the venerable D/R translation. Otherwise it would have been revised by someone else.

I’m sure you’re right, but I do love and find very insightful, the original DR annotations.

So the only REAL way to know what Challoner wrote is to obtain one of his revisions from 1750-1752.

Maybe someday…

As you have shown yourself, different translators often bring something interesting and inspiring to their work. That is why, as SO often stated here in this forum, it is very helpful to have several different translations at hand, for they all have something to offer. (I am speaking only of approved Catholic editions.)

I’m not sure I 100% agree with this. I’d love to re-learn the tiny bit of Latin I used to know and then add sufficiently to that so I could read (albeit slowly and dictionary in hand) the odd verse or two from the Jerome or Clementine Vulgate, but my real reason for wanting to learn ecclesiastical Latin isn’t to read the Vulgate, it’s to read sections of commentaries by Doctors and Fathers of the Church (most of which are in Latin, too late for me to learn Greek to read Origen and the early fathers in their original Greek). As between a second translation and commentaries, I think the commentaries are more important to bring something interesting and inspiring to the verse - though perhaps I’m biased because I am not particularly fond of any of the modern translations I can read, can’t read Latin (or Greek) so can’t read the new Vulgate or originals, and thus basing my opinion on a limited selection of translations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m sure you’re right, but I do love and find very insightful, the original DR annotations.

If you like those, you should like the Haydock notes that accompanied the Vulgate bible of the 19th c. Catholic Treasures has a new printing which is well received by reviewers on Amazon.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

If you like those, you should like the Haydock notes that accompanied the Vulgate bible of the 19th c.

Yes, I do like the Haydock notes, I think they’re a useful addition to the original Douay-Rheims interlinear notes and annotations (even with the differences between ODR and Challoner-Haydock DR), though in one or two instances I’ve found they are in some disagreement that is not related to a textual changes (Gen. 3:15 and one other that I didn’t write down), for Gen 3:15, at least, I thought the ODR annotation was the more profound. I have the 1883 Haydock Bible archive.org pdfs but was planning to get a hardcopy next year (I don’t like seeing the digital watermark from the crazy people who put the pdfs up). I actually was unaware of this reprint version and had just planned on purchasing one from ebay, I’ll have to reconsider that decision.

Of course the dream is (after a few years of Latin ) a facsimile of the 1603 Venice Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria or other similar facsimile.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Of course the dream is (after a few years of Latin ) a facsimile of the 1603 Venice Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria or other similar facsimile.

Did you know that the Glossa is being translated into English by a member here?

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Did you know that the Glossa is being translated into English by a member here?

Yes, I’ve seen some of his posts. Copeland 3? However, while I am sure I’ll reference some of their translations (especially when I first start out on the glossa myself) this is a case where I’d prefer a facsimile of a readable “original”. Latin is something that I (and I’m sure most everybody else on this forum) can, if I (we) put in the effort to learn, and it is, at least in my case, something I think I should learn. And learning is always easier when you combine the textbook with an activity that you are self-motivated to pursue.

There is an existing facsimile of the 1408 Strassburg Vulgate and Glossa but I’ve looked at jpegs and does it look difficult to read. I recognize that continual use of it would make it significantly easier to read, thank God for the adaptability of the pattern-recognition mechanisms in our brain, so if that’s my only option then I’ll will take it and say Thank You. However, the 1603 Venice Vulgate and Glossa on archive.org and the lollard site is quite readable as-is. I have no idea which is the “better” of the two (or even whether that is an appropriate question to ask). My understanding, and perhaps you can correct me here, is that there were a number of variations with the main glossa essentially the same, but that each individual editor/publisher would add his own gloss as well.

Regards