Why is the Douay–Rheims Bible better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Armor_of_Light

Guest
I had never seen a Douay-Rheims bible before a couple of months ago, when choosing readings for my dads funeral.
I don’t understand why it is thought to be so much better (by some) than a bible written in a more coherent fashion. Catholic bible of course! But really, If I didn’t already know some of the passages, then I would not have gotten much out of such old language. Why is it superior?

Thanks
 
It is not superior.
Some here believe that it is, but that is really a matter of opinion.

IMHO, the best Bible is the one you are going to read!! 😃

I prefer the NAB. I have the original 1970 edition and the new edition that came out last year, as that is what the US uses in the lectionary.
 
It is derived from Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which was the first time that the entirety of the scriptures were translated into a single language.
 
The DR is one of the most literal too, being translated meticulously from the Vulgate.

However that being so, I think it’s all down to preference! There is nothing wrong with liking the NAB or RSV-CE, or the Jerusalem Bible!

The DR is my favourite because I love archaic language 😃 And, because it’s just the most traditional version that’s available, but I also use the RSV-CE, and if it wasn’t for the inclusive language, the NRSV-CE would be my go-to, other than the DR (an Knox, occasionally).

I like to refer to the Good News Catholic Edition as well, just to see how they translated it as, because it’s known for it’s odd translation (and horrid use of inclusive language).

ALSO! The DR uses NO inclusive language, which is a major plus for me. I hate inclusive language.

But as I said, there’s nothing wrong with using another translation, and it’s a personal opinion. As long as the translation is approved by the Church
 
I think it is its origin, not its style. I’m told its the most accurate English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the only translation declared to be infallible by the Church. I don’t mind the archaic language. I mean, its a translation of an ancient one.
 
I once read an article claiming that the Douay-Rheims is the best and most accurate Catholic translation of the Bible. They seemed to claim that since it was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate that it is superior to other translations.

That said, I have a question. Are the readings at Mass from the NAB or the NABRE?
 
Armor_of_Light said:
I had never seen a Douay-Rheims bible before a couple of months ago, when choosing readings for my dads funeral.
Click to expand...
Condolences for your loss, and prayers for your departed father.

I think you don’t get to choose a translation to be used at Mass. You may choose the readings, but not the Bible that they come from.
 
Holly3278 said:
I once read an article claiming that the Douay-Rheims is the best and most accurate Catholic translation of the Bible. They seemed to claim that since it was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate that it is superior to other translations.

That said, I have a question. Are the readings at Mass from the NAB or the NABRE?
Click to expand...
Since the NAB-RE just came out, and the Lectionary for the US has not yet been updated, at least to my knowledge, I would think that they are still from the earlier addition.

I have not heard that a new lectionary for the US is in the works,
has anyone else?
 
Rich_C said:
I think it is its origin, not its style. I’m told its the most accurate English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the only translation declared to be infallible by the Church. I don’t mind the archaic language. I mean, its a translation of an ancient one.
Click to expand...
The Vulgate is not infallible :confused:. It’s just the official bible of the Latin Church.
The only infallible translation is the LXX. 😃
 
Rich_C said:
I think it is its origin, not its style. I’m told its the most accurate English translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the only translation declared to be infallible by the Church. I don’t mind the archaic language. I mean, its a translation of an ancient one.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I would call any translation infallible. It may seem literal and sound good to the ears but it’s certainly not “mistake”-proof, especially when many meanings have changed in the English language. However, if it’s imprimatured, that should be good enough for a Anglophone Catholic to read.
 
Splagchnizomai said:
Condolences for your loss, and prayers for your departed father. I think you don’t get to choose a translation to be used at Mass. You may choose the readings, but not the Bible that they come from.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the prayers friend!
He was a good man, very wise.

I was just cross referencing the readings I had picked with the Douay ones. I found his old 1941 copy in the book case that night and was remembering him fondly. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
I’m not sure I would call any translation infallible. It may seem literal and sound good to the ears but it’s certainly not “mistake”-proof, especially when many meanings have changed in the English language. However, if it’s imprimatured, that should be good enough for a Anglophone Catholic to read.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn’t mean the DR was infallible, I meant the Vulgate.
 
Armor_of_Light said:
I had never seen a Douay-Rheims bible before a couple of months ago, when choosing readings for my dads funeral.
I don’t understand why it is thought to be so much better (by some) than a bible written in a more coherent fashion. Catholic bible of course! But really, If I didn’t already know some of the passages, then I would not have gotten much out of such old language. Why is it superior?

Thanks
Click to expand...
It’s not.
 
Wisely said:
The Vulgate is not infallible :confused:. It’s just the official bible of the Latin Church.
The only infallible translation is the LXX. 😃
Click to expand...
Ah, I see I may have misunderstand what the council declared, although Pope Pius XII declared the Vulgate free from any error in faith and morals.

I don’t think the Church ever declared the LXX to be infallible. Do you mean inspired? Being “inspired” is a much higher level of authenticity than being “infallible.”
 
I’m a RSV-CE (Second Edition) guy myself, but I can see why people prefer the DR.
 
Rich_C said:
Ah, I see I may have misunderstand what the council declared, although Pope Pius XII declared the Vulgate free from any error in faith and morals.

I don’t think the Church ever declared the LXX to be infallible. Do you mean inspired? Being “inspired” is a much higher level of authenticity than being “infallible.”
Click to expand...
LXX is Latin for “70” which is often used to represent the Greek Septuagint. This translation is very popular in the Orthodox Church. Since the poster you are responding to is Orthodox, I think you are on the receiving end of a good-natured jab, at the expense of the Catholic Church.
 
Holly3278 said:
I once read an article claiming that the Douay-Rheims is the best and most accurate Catholic translation of the Bible. They seemed to claim that since it was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate that it is superior to other translations.
Click to expand...
I think we could then ask “superior in what sense?”. I would argue that the DR is superior when it comes to (as much as is possible when changing languages) focusing on accuracy and making sure that as little as possible is either lost or gained from the mere wording. So, for instance, when arguing with one of my protestant friends and he references a bible quote, I always (in addition to checking the context) check the DR to make sure it actually says what he seems to think it does.

But if you are just reading for devotional reasons, or to learn stuff without focusing on such specifics (ie “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” vs “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck”), than it becomes a matter of preference. I still prefer the DR because for me the more old fashioned language underscores the importance of what is being said - which I freely admit is somewhat silly since the Apostles almost certainly spoke normally for the time, but it’s engrained into my mind now. But if your goal is just to read without having to worry about mental translations and “what did he just say” occasionally (although you do, eventually, get used to it), then there is no reason not to use a bible that uses more modern language.
 
jwinch2 said:
LXX is Latin for “70” which is often used to represent the Greek Septuagint. This translation is very popular in the Orthodox Church. Since the poster you are responding to is Orthodox, I think you are on the receiving end of a good-natured jab, at the expense of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I know about the LXX, thanks. But I didn’t see he was Orthodox; that explains the smiley face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top