I never said it did. And based on opinions of trusted sources, it is probably the only “literary translation” that I think that I would personally use, if I were so inclined. The point of that post was to clarify that it was not a DR-C itself.That does not, in itself, make it a bad translation. Many words do not have an exact translation into another language.
Knox did not use the term dynamic translation, he called it a literary translation. I think he did quite a good job.
Compare this to the excellent New Jerusalem Bible, which is sadly not widely known here in the US, but is my preferred Bible for personal reading:But without thy counsel I would do nothing: that thy good deed might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season from thee that thou mightest receive him again for ever: Not now as a servant, but instead of a servant, a most dear brother, especially to me. But how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord? (Philemon 14–16)
However, as others have said, bookbinding is a highly skilled craft, so it should not be difficult to find somebody, perhaps quite locally, who would be able to personalize any Bible according to your particular requirements.However, I did not want to do anything without your consent; it would have been forcing your act of kindness, which should be spontaneous. I suppose you have been deprived of Onesimus for a time, merely so that you could have him back for ever, no longer as a slave, but something much better than a slave, a dear brother; especially dear to me, but how much more to you, both on the natural plane and in the Lord.
A lot of people like the Douay-Rheims just fine, which is why Baronius sells many versions of it and you can also buy it at any Bible store. I’m not sure why you tagged me in this post anyway. I don’t have a problem with the Douay, don’t have any problem finding a Douay to read (it’s online all over the place) or buy, and don’t care if other people like the Douay or not. I’m really not interested in what Bibles people like or don’t like, to each his or her own.I think the issue is simply that the Douay–Rheims Bible is not a particularly useful Bible for most people to own, except for literary or historical interest.
That would be an opinion, one that would be argued against by more people than simply those interested in literary or historical context.I think the issue is simply that the Douay–Rheims Bible is not a particularly useful Bible for most people to own, except for literary or historical interest.
It’s not a work of Shakespeare, or a work of Dante… it doesn’t demand near as much literacy as those who would discourage us from it would have us think. I was surprised by how accessible it was when I ignored the naysayers and decided to read it myself. The original Douay Rheims, on the other hand… there your point may apply. Besides, there is arguably an unparalleled beauty in old English. Acquired taste I suppose.It also makes sense that modern readers would prefer contemporary English over 16th-/17th-century English (and not even particularly lucid 16th-/17th-century English at that).
Yea… I’ll put my faith in St. Jerome… a devout, faithful aesthetic… surely guided by the Holy Ghost, with access to manuscripts that there are today no traces of. Why translation of a translation is justified. I would trust one of his significant mistakes over an insignificant mistake by a contemporary scholar.Surely most readers would find it more useful to have a translation made from the best editions of the texts in the original languages, rather than a translation made from another translation and without the benefit of the past 400 years’ scholarship
I would happily tell a devout Protestant that there are better translations of the Bible than the KJV. That is to say, there are more accurate translations based on better critical editions of the original texts. More recent translations are also invariably easier to understand. The KJV was first published 409 years ago. The English language has changed in some significant ways since then and meanings that would have been clear in 1611 may now be obscure. The difference is that the KJV remains a landmark work in the history of the English language and English literature.Yea… I’ll put my faith in St. Jerome… a devout, faithful aesthetic… surely guided by the Holy Ghost, with access to manuscripts that there are today no traces of. Why translation of a translation is justified. I would trust one of his significant mistakes over an insignificant mistake by a contemporary scholar.
Telling a devout catholic that the DR is insignificant and antiquated is like telling a devout protestant the same about the KJV. Good luck with the latter!
If you want to get as close as possible to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts in their most authentic editions, there are better Bibles than the Douay–Rheims. Clearly some Catholics feel an emotional attachment to the Douay–Rheims, and that is fine.That would be an opinion, one that would be argued against by more people than simply those interested in literary or historical context.
I don’t completely agree, but you make very good points. The original manuscripts people your are often from the same period or later than St Jerome. He most certainly had access to ones that were more original and complete. And modern scholarship gets things wrong and right.Yea… I’ll put my faith in St. Jerome… a devout, faithful aesthetic… surely guided by the Holy Ghost, with access to manuscripts that there are today no traces of. Why translation of a translation is justified. I would trust one of his significant mistakes over an insignificant mistake by a contemporary scholar.
The New Revised Standard Version, Revised New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible Revised Edition.What editions do you mean?
They may be familiar with something like the language of the Douay–Rheims through a familiarity with the King James Version.If they are under a certain age and not a traditionalist, they’ll have never heard a Bible that sounds like Douay-Rheims.