Why the Douay-Rheims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rciadan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manfred said:
colliric,

I can’t agree that the Vg was copied for all those centuries and came out error-free. Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu doesn’t agree, either.
  1. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.
  2. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices”–so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church–“should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.”[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries."
Click to expand...
I agree with the pope’s second comments, and the fact that it was the church which presided over the copying of the Vulgate is why I believe it was so well preserved for the same reasons the pope mentions. Because all the popes who used the Vulgate presided over it’s copying and preservation. That is more than enough for me to believe it is the same one written by St Jerome exactly.

His textual criticism comments can be applied to the Vulgate itself too, so I naturally trust this church which always held that position(their attacks on Tyndale and the like are evidence enough), perfectly preserved the vulgate and purged it of copy errors when it discovered them.

Also if you’ll notice the pope does not disagree that the Vulgate was perfectly preserved at all. He is instead referring to the original language versions of the Bible rather specifically in the second half. I am inclined to agree as many of those books are under the care of the Jewish people. He is also repeating specifically the same opinion on translation that the church has always had over the Vulgate and Sacred scriptures… which once again is why I’ll go ahead and trust the church’s self-done preservation of the Vulgate.

Divino Afflante Spiritu does not change the Status of the Vulgate as the official bible of the Latin Rite, it does however allow catholics to look into other translations of the bible and use/compair them to the Vulgate, i don’t disagree with that at all, even though I will be inclined to use the DR word for word translation of the Vulgate.

The Pope is making a personal statement when he says he prefers modern bibles and modern translation, as he did not decide to change the status of the Vulgate, so not agreeing with him here isn’t exactly heresy… 🙂
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Tell me something: what would be so difficult about coming up with a New Douay Rheims that corrected all the “Obvious” mistranslations and also included Americanized spellings instead of Latin spellings and modern verse numbering?

I believe such a translation would sell like hotcakes.

Of course the difficult part would be the “Obvious” mistranslations part.

If those “Obvious” changes were confined to renderings found in the Nova Vulgata would most conservative Catholics be grudgingly satisfied?

How accurate could a Bible like that be?
Click to expand...
They started on a translation just as you describe in the first half of this century; but, only got as far as the NT and, I think, the Psalms. I am referring to the Confronternity Version that came out during the forties and fifties. It is an excellent copy. I have three or four that I have found. I would recommend it and would love to see the OT completed as well. I don’t think it will happen though for the same reason it did not happen then. The Vulgate was immediately deserted for the novelty of these “original texts” that were suddenly available. It seems that all these “original texts” are held in such high esteem over the vulgate that a translation made in the same manner as the Confronternity is all but impossible.
 
“All the popes who used the Vulgate presided over it’s copying and preservation.” Not exactly; for if this were so, then why are there literally hundreds of Vg mss which differ from each other?

Another poster - on this thread, I believe - remarked that John Paul II did not grant the Nova Vulgata “official” status since it was felt that further textual evidence might “correct” even the NV.
 
Getting back to the purpose of this thread, I’d like to call attention to the Apocalypse, chapter one verse five. In the DR it states,

  1. ]And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and* washed** us from our sins in his own blood,
    NAB uses a different verb;
    5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the
    firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To
    him who loves us and has **freed **us * from our sins by his blood,

    I much prefer “washed” as opposed to “freed”.
 
rciadan said:
Getting back to the purpose of this thread, I’d like to call attention to the Apocalypse, chapter one verse five. In the DR it states,

  1. ]And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and* washed** us from our sins in his own blood,
    NAB uses a different verb;
    5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the
    firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To
    him who loves us and has **freed **us * from our sins by his blood,

    I much prefer “washed” as opposed to “freed”.
Click to expand...

  1. That just sounds like an older rendering of the verse. The KJV renders it similarly. “Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,”
 
lak611 said:
That just sounds like an older rendering of the verse. The KJV renders it similarly. “Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,”
Click to expand...
yes but why did they change it to freed? a modern veriation perhaps should have read “Cleaned” not “Freed” which louses the metaphor St Paul may have intended to put across.
 
colliric said:
yes but why did they change it to freed? a modern veriation perhaps should have read “Cleaned” not “Freed” which louses the metaphor St Paul may have intended to put across.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here. The D-R and KJV seem to have gotten this translation right.
 
I believe that some of the people here could translate the Vulgate much like the Confraternity Version was translated and come out with a great bible.

If non biblical scholars can do that–why is it that biblical scholars don’t do that?

Are there no Catholic biblical scholars in the world that value the Vulgate?

Are there no Catholic biblical scholars in the world that could produce an updated Douay Rheims without inclusive language and corrections only where they were indicated by the Nova Vulgata?

Are there no Catholic biblical scholars in the world that could do so with Americanized spellings and taking out archaic language without substituting Banality?

I just don’t understand why Catholics have such a lousy choice of Bibles.

Is the NAB, The Jersualem Bible, and the tinkering projects of the RSV-CE and the NRSV the best that Catholic Biblical scholars can come up with?

The Catholic Church OWNS most of the ancient manuscripts and has people fluent in ancient biblical languages.

Catholics deserve better.

It almost seems like the unspoken message is either know Latin and read the Nova Vulgata or don’t know Latin and have to suffer with an inaccurate Catholic Bible.

Why aren’t their better choices?
 
Another sampling:
In the Apocalypse, 1:13. The NAB states,
13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of
man, * wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his

as does the RSV.

The DR, I think, is much better because Jesus never called Himself “a son of man”. Rather He referred to Himself as “The Son of Man”, as does the DR, and I might add the KJV.

The DR–

  1. *]And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
 
I would only say, in favor of the Douay, and especially the Latin Vulgate on which it was based, is
that Saint Jerome, in translating the Vulgate,
had access to many ancient biblical manuscripts in the original languages, which manuscripts are lost to us today.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
 
And another from the Arpacolypse. Chapter 2, verse 7 states in the NAB, 7 " ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says
to the churches. To the victor * I will give the right to eat
from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’

Wheras the DR is more correct in my opinion when it is said,

  1. ]He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I* will give to eat of** the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.
    I do not consider eating of the tree of life a “right” but more of a priviledge granted by Christ. I think the DR is much more indicative of such a concept.

    BTW - The RSV agrees with the Douay on this one, as does the KJV. The NIV does not, and goes the way of the NAB.

    I believe this one word insertion creates an erroneous concept of how it is a Christian is able to eat of the tree of Life. Just a thought.
 
Could someone tell me why the Douay Rheims translation has the extra part included (“nor let me go”). I noticed this recently. thanks

RSV
[67] “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
[68] and if I ask you, you will not answer.
[69] But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
[70] And they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
[71] And they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.” (RSV Bible)

Douay Rheims
Ch 22:68 **And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. **(newadvent.org)

Sorry if this been brought up here already. Im too lazy to check all the posts.
 
MH84 said:
Could someone tell me why the Douay Rheims translation has the extra part included (“nor let me go”). I noticed this recently. thanks

RSV
[67] “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
[68] and if I ask you, you will not answer.
[69] But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
[70] And they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
[71] And they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.” (RSV Bible)

Douay Rheims
Ch 22:68 **And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. **(newadvent.org)

Sorry if this been brought up here already. Im too lazy to check all the posts.
Click to expand...
It’s in the Vulgate(“mihi(I) neque(Neither/not) dimittetis(set free)”), which of cause is the bible the Douay Rheims directly put into English. The KJV also has “nor let me go” too.
 
MH84 said:
Could someone tell me why the Douay Rheims translation has the extra part included
Click to expand...
When comparing the Douay Rheims Translation to modern translations (and mistranslations) it would be more accurate to ask “why this in the Douay Rheims and missing from the JB/RSV/etc” 😉
 
My wife found this verse when we were at Mass yesterday, It was in the readings for the Acsension, which had been moved to Sunday.

In the NAB as used at Mass, it says;

22 And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as
head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, * the fullness of the one who fills
all things in every way.

while the DR is thus;
  1. And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church,
  2. Which is his body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.
    She mainly found that verse 23 bothered her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top