Why do publishers give so much pride in RSV-CE and NABRE but not the Douay-Rheims

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize the Jerusalem Bie and the subsequent New Jerusalem are translations from French?
 
ThomasMT said:
I have accepted that if I want a DR in an heirloom worthy presentation, I’ll have to get it rebound by a 3rd party. Even getting so much as a well coated, un-marred edge gilding can be challenging.
Click to expand...
Truly no offense, but I think “heirloom Bibles” can pose a problem, as they can be - or perceived to be - so fancy and decorative that they are seen as ornamental and untouchable, save perhaps for the recording of family milestones if such pages are provided. We discussed this at our parish during the recent “Sunday of the Word of God,” when it became clear that fancy “family Bibles “ were never actually read for the most part.
 
Hand-me-down’s are excellent gifts for birthdays, baptism anniversaries, etc… My grandfather gave me his Book of Common Prayer that he received at his ordination in the CofE which had his name engraved on the cover. However, what he did in particular, was get a small gold-plate with my name on it and placed it below his engraving. I still use the thing.

OP, it is my personal opinion that publishers do not pride themselves so much on the DR mainly because it never was an overly-wide used translation in the English world to begin with. Many Catholic families did not have a Bible, because they usually had prayerbooks and missals with readings in them - translations of the gospel and the epistles, lessons, and psalms that would be read during the Mass in Latin. On the other hand, the KJV for example, spread with the spread of the Anglican missions and Protestants who adopted its use from the Anglicans, and throughout the English speaking world, Protestants being a “sola scriptura” ecclesial community, rely more heavily on the bible than Catholics. We have the deposit of faith wholly - fully, tradition, intellect, scripture, and the writings of the saints and Church fathers.

However since study of the Bible has become more popular amongst lay Catholics, a version that is both accurate AND easy to read, one that won’t lead a layman into a false interpretation, will naturally be more desirable and wherever there is a demand there is a supply. Don’t ever be ashamed of loving the DR, I know I love it far more than anything besides the Knox translation.
 
tafan2 said:
You do realize the Jerusalem Bie and the subsequent New Jerusalem are translations from French?
Click to expand...
That’s not correct. The Jerusalem Bible was indeed a translation from the French, and some of the translators had no knowledge of the original languages. The New Jerusalem Bible and Revised New Jerusalem Bible, on the other hand, were translated from the original languages.
Tis_Bearself said:
If they were involved with certain Protestant churches, or are scholars of religion, they may know about the KJV. Many cradle Catholics have never read a KJV. Some Protestants and many non-Catholics who were not raised strongly Protestant have also never read it.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. I had never thought of the KJV as something exclusively associated with people with a strongly Protestant background. My father liked us to read the KJV because he appreciated its literary qualities and felt that it was an important part of our cultural heritage.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
I had never thought of the KJV as something exclusively associated with people with a strongly Protestant background.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what your background is, but my family was predominantly Irish Catholic and there is no way in heck they would have had an English Protestant Bible in the house when I was growing up. My mother was also under the impression that it was a sin to possess or read a non-Catholic Bible. I believe whatever version of the Baltimore Catechism she was taught from said that. Obviously we are more ecumenical today, but a couple years ago I mentioned that I kept my deceased father-in-law’s KJV family Bible as a memento of him and someone on this forum insisted that the Catechism of St. Piux X or some similarly old Catechism required that I destroy that at once or give it to my priest.

I know as a very young child (like 4 or 5) I wanted this cheap little children’s book about Jesus that I saw in the grocery store. It was just an ordinary story about Jesus with the sorts of pictures in it you’d expect to put in a book for kids around age 4-7. It was called “The Beloved Son”. My mother didn’t want to buy it for me because she saw in the front it was based on the KJV. I didn’t understand this as a tiny child and said it’s a book about Jesus, how can it be bad? In the end she bought it but she was always leery of it and when I asked her to read it to me she would usually suggest a different book.
 
Last edited:
That really is interesting. Thank you for sharing your experiences. I honestly would not have realized that some Catholics feel so strongly about using Protestant editions of the Bible. My background is admittedly unusual for a cradle Catholic. My mother is African American, which is in itself unusual in the Catholic Church in the US (I believe about 3 percent of US Catholics are now African American). As far as she has been able to verify, her ancestors have all been Catholic since around the end of the Civil War. My father’s family, on the other hand, are predominantly English. His grandparents were converts on both sides, one set from the Episcopal Church, the other set from the Methodist Church.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
That’s not correct. The Jerusalem Bible was indeed a translation from the French, and some of the translators had no knowledge of the original languages. The New Jerusalem Bible and Revised New Jerusalem Bible, on the other hand, were translated from the original languages.
Click to expand...
You should edit and correct the Wikipedia page.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
KJV as something exclusively associated with people with a strongly Protestant background
Click to expand...
The impetus for the KJV was due to Puritan objections over some “Papist” content in the Bishops’ Bible which was in use prior to the KJV.

It’s interesting to note that most Anglicans/Episcopalians would have (and continue to be) somewhat unfamiliar with the KJV Psalms: the Book of Common Prayer (and its successors) have always used the psalter translated by Miles Coverdale, whose Great Bible was the authorised translation for the CoE prior to the Bishops’ Bible.
 
Mother Angelica has endorsed RSV-CE, Fr. Mark Goring has endorsed NABRE. Is there any Catholic influencer that has endorsed the Douay-Rheims?
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
Some say the DR is the Catholic equivalent of the King James. That idea is laughable.

The DR does not hold a candle to the King James Bible. The King James is beautiful English. The DR is Latin pretending to be English.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by “equivalent.” If by “equivalent” you mean equivalent in literary quality, absolutely not. If by “equivalent” you mean “was translated around the same time and for centuries was regarded as the standard English translation,” then yes.
 
ThomasMT said:
Besides, there is arguably an unparalleled beauty in old English. Acquired taste I suppose.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Douay-Reims is in Early Modern English, not Old English. For a comparison between the two, let’s look at Matthew 1:1.

Early Modern English (Douay-Reims):
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

Old English (Wessex Gospels):
Her is on eneorisse bóc Hælendes Cristes, Dauides suna, Abrahames suna.

It’s not uncommon for people to incorrectly refer to Early Modern English as Old English, but they’re quite different.
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is, from my understanding, the only actual translation Jerome did was of the Old Testament. All Jerome did with the New Testament was edit the already-existing Latin translations of the Gospels; he didn’t translate them. Further, he did not do this for the rest of the New Testament; the other books were edited/translated by different (and unknown) people.

I suppose someone can say that Jerome at least was responsible for the Old Testament. The problem is, the Latin Vulgate that is used nowadays has shifted from the original. We can see a good number of changes in modern editions compared to the early manuscripts of it.

So asserting someone should put their faith in St. Jerome as the reason for defending the Douay-Rheims seems dubious, as not only did he have limited influence on the Latin Vulgate version of the New Testament, the Latin Vulgate that formed the basis of the Douay-Rheims differed from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome’s time anyway.
 
I a certain that it has been mentioned, but the Douay-Rheims has long been in the public domain - thus anyone may reprint sell it. The RSV and NAB exist, in part, to generate operating funds (if not a profit), for their publishers - therefore, must be promoted.

It’s all part of human nature.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
I surmise that most people want a Bible translated in more comprehensible contemporary English.
Click to expand...
yes…

And - there’s some ‘translations’ - such as inclusive language which are unwelcomed by some…

And. it’s not the translation (of original per se) which are the bottom line…
it’s the Interpretation from God’s Holy Spirit - realized in Faith - which counts.

I prefer the paragraphical form - rather than constant separation of verses
for that latter - hinders understanding - by breaking up the context - for me…

I often read books like intended - from beginning to end.

And - PRAYERFULLY - again - allowing The Author GOD to be with one…
_
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top