Why the Douay-Rheims?

[porthos11]

The Douay-Rheims:

1. 
   ]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:* she** shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
   Let’s look at the NAB:
   
   5 *I will put enmity between you and the woman,
   and between your offspring and hers;
   He will strike at your head,
   while you strike at his heel."
   
   KJV:
   
   And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;** it** shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
   
   I will let these three speak for themselves, while asking, which one is in agreement with centuries of Catholic Tradition?

1. 
   In this case, it is the NAB (the RSV also uses “he”) that best renders the passage, and jives nicely with Catholic tradition. Every Christian knows that it is Christ who defeats the serpent; our Lady also does so but indirectly, and that is Church teaching.
   
   Again, I don’t care how nicely the DR supports Catholic tradition; “she” in Gen 3:15 is not a doctrinal error but it is a translation error. I would rather work off a more difficult or seemingly contradictory translation for as long as it is accurate.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Satan had his choice would he rather us read hypothetically a bible with many translation errors and no doctrinal errors or a bible with many doctrinal errors and no “translation” errors–at least as regarded the 'best" old manuscripts that “modern” bilbical scholarship would say we have?

When the modern translations will fix the doctrinal errors then I’ll endorse them–until then the Douay Rheims with its “Translation” errors and lack of Doctrinal error is what everyone should endorse in a bible!

Doesn’t everyone want a bible that has no Doctrinal errors?

Isn’t that more important than translation errors of lesser doctrinal importance?

 

[Cranch]

Another is “she” will crush the serpent’s head. It’s not a doctrinal error, yet it remains an inaccurate translation. The original has “he”. I don’t like the DR based on this verse alone, even though it is used to point to our Lady’s role, which I do accept wholeheartedly. The proper translation is “he”; “it” is also somewhat acceptable.

I don’t care how uncomfortable a translation is with regards to “not supporting Catholic doctrine”. For as long as a translation is faithful to the best original language editions, I will pick that one over the DR or KJV.

Let me affirm that I am no expert, but this type of stuff fascinates me.

It is my understanding that Jerome’s Hebraic source documents are no more; and any “original” texts we have are centuries more recent than what he used. He most likely had a copy of the Septuagint older than anything extant today also. If true (please correct me if this is untrue. Honestly—I’m not being rhetorical), why elevate this later material to the be-all-and-end-all of accuracy? Wouldn’t it have had just that much more opportunity to become corrupted through copying compared with Jerome’s sources? Also, isn’t Jerome’s reputation as a translator well-deserved? Why charge him with error involving something as simple as “he”, “she” or “it”?

 

[porthos11]

Let me affirm that I am no expert, but this type of stuff fascinates me.

It is my understanding that Jerome’s Hebraic source documents are no more; and any “original” texts we have are centuries more recent than what he used. He most likely had a copy of the Septuagint older than anything extant today also. If true (please correct me if this is untrue. Honestly—I’m not being rhetorical), why elevate this later material to the be-all-and-end-all of accuracy? Wouldn’t it have had just that much more opportunity to become corrupted through copying compared with Jerome’s sources? Also, isn’t Jerome’s reputation as a translator well-deserved? Why charge him with error involving something as simple as “he”, “she” or “it”?

The best critical editions we have are judged by critical science to be the closest and best attest to the originals. People love to cite that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts we don’t have today, but the truth is also that we have access to MORE manuscripts he didn’t have then, some of which are more ancient than what he had (e.g. DSS). Moreover, other ancient manuscripts in other languages (e.g. Syriac, LXX) serve to provide confirmation or correction of the original Hebrew of the OT.

Which reminds me: the LXX has “he” in Gen 3:15. Only the Latin has “she” and is clearly a departure from the Hebrew and Greek LXX.

So yes, we do have access to better manuscripts today, and the science of criticism has advanced very well that we are confident of what the originals most likely said. That’s why Divino Afflante Spiritu endorses work from the original languages in light of these scientific advances.

 

[porthos11]

If Satan had his choice would he rather us read hypothetically a bible with many translation errors and no doctrinal errors or a bible with many doctrinal errors and no “translation” errors–at least as regarded the 'best" old manuscripts that “modern” bilbical scholarship would say we have?

When the modern translations will fix the doctrinal errors then I’ll endorse them–until then the Douay Rheims with its “Translation” errors and lack of Doctrinal error is what everyone should endorse in a bible!

Doesn’t everyone want a bible that has no Doctrinal errors?

Isn’t that more important than translation errors of lesser doctrinal importance?

A Bible that has no translation errors by default will never have any doctrinal errors.

I will not choose doctrinal correctness in a Bible at the expense of mistranslations. That’s intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

 

[porthos11]

If Satan had his choice would he rather us read hypothetically a bible with many translation errors and no doctrinal errors or a bible with many doctrinal errors and no “translation” errors–at least as regarded the 'best" old manuscripts that “modern” bilbical scholarship would say we have?

By rejecting the “best” manuscripts of the original languages we have today, you are going against Pope Pius XII and Divino Afflante Spiritu, which acknowleges the accuracy of modern critical editions and explicitly commanded, under the pain of the stigma of levity and sloth, that scholars work from them as well, even to correct the venerable Vulgate.

So yes, indeed, the Pope did and does approve of the “modern” critical editions you hate so much.

 

[colliric]

It is indeed in Divino Afflante Spiritu, where the Pope (paragraph 15) attaches the “stigma of levity and sloth” to those scholars who do not exert effort to work from the original languages.

Paragraph 21. Working from the original languages does not detract from the authenticity of the Vulgate, free from doctrinal and moral error. Moreover, the Vulgate is only “official” for the Latin Church. Every educated Catholic knows there are more Catholics than the Latin Church.

The Vulgate may not have moral or doctrinal error, and probably neither does the DR. But they do have TRANSLATION errors, and that means they are no longer as close as possible to the best critical texts. Therefore, the DR is not suitable for me as a study Bible.
**
Just take the “horns” example posted earlier. We know what Jerome meant. But “horns” is NOT a synonym for “rays of light.” “Horns” is therefore a TRANSLATION error, although not a moral or doctrinal one.**

Another is “she” will crush the serpent’s head. It’s not a doctrinal error, yet it remains an inaccurate translation. The original has “he”. I don’t like the DR based on this verse alone, even though it is used to point to our Lady’s role, which I do accept wholeheartedly. The proper translation is “he”; “it” is also somewhat acceptable.

I don’t care how uncomfortable a translation is with regards to “not supporting Catholic doctrine”. For as long as a translation is faithful to the best original language editions, I will pick that one over the DR or KJV. For as long as a translation remains faithful to the originals, it will always be reconcilable with Catholic teaching. For me, the Catholic Bible most closely matching the originals is still the RSV-CE, followed by the New American Bible (except for those blasted Psalms). Yes, the RSV has its quirks, but the DR has more translation quirks which I just can’t stand, right there with the KJV.

No, the proper translation is either one of “He”(Christian bibles mostly), “She”(Vulgate), “it”(KJV) or “They”(Jewish translation) as the word which translates as all 4 of them is the same word. As I said before christian scholars tend to favor the first one rather delibratly, while Jewish scholars when translating into english from their own language will use “They”.

You might not like it, but “She” can also be used rightfully in that passage because in Hebrew HUW means “He” or “She” or “it” or “they”.

Also as I said if one understands Jerome’s usage of “horns” to mean dual rays of light, there is no problem with reading that understanding the context and coming to the same conclusion that someone reading the RSV will… after all Holy Ghost is not and never has been a mistranslation of the Hebrew for Holy Spirit, although some people would think it is now because it is archaic and the context is generally not understood. Ghost means “manifesting Spirit”, it did then and it still does now. Hence “Holy Ghost” is still a valid rendering of the same thing as “Holy Spirit”… the same thing with “horned”.

 

[colliric]

A Bible that has no translation errors by default will never have any doctrinal errors.

I will not choose doctrinal correctness in a Bible at the expense of mistranslations. That’s intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

We then welcome to douay rheims onlyism… The only bible which correctly render what Jesus said to Judas in Greek when they came to arrest him. All the others, except possibly the KJV, do not do that… so by your own rules, better rule out the good majority of other bibles which delibratly mistranslate it into “friend, do what you came here to do” when it is supposed to be “friend, where have you come to?”.

Also Genesthai means, “to be made”… not “Become”

so welcome to douay rheims onlyism…

 

[Manfred]

Please use this thread to show instances where you have noticed differences between the Douay-Rheims and the modern translations of scripture (big or small) that, in your opinion, have altered the likely interpretation of a passage.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 still troubles me.

• from the venerable D-R:

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.

• from the RSV:

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

I’ve not found a satisfactory reckoning of the above differences between what is in Jerome’s Vulgate and vernacular translations based on it, and what is in “the Greek” and vernacular translations based on it.

 

[porthos11]

No, the proper translation is either one of “He”(Christian bibles mostly), “She”(Vulgate), “it”(KJV) or “They”(Jewish translation) as the word which translates as all 4 of them is the same word. As I said before christian scholars tend to favor the first one rather delibratly, while Jewish scholars when translating into english from their own language will use “They”.

You might not like it, but “She” can also be used rightfully in that passage because in Hebrew HUW means “He” or “She” or “it” or “they”.

You are correct with the “they” in fact, it is more accurate, since “offspring” is collective. But later understanding attached a messianic aspect to it, and it seems to be reflected in the LXX, which has “autos/autou” which is masculine singular (“he/his”)…

So yes, the Hebrew is actually more unclear, but the LXX witnesses to the “he” interpretation.

That said, I still don’t like “she/her” in the DR’s Gen 3:15. The pronoun “huw” is still closer to the term “offspring” than “woman” in the sentence. I would rather have “he/his” or “they/their” as more reflective of the more ancient renderings.

Also as I said if one understands Jerome’s usage of “horns” to mean dual rays of light, there is no problem with reading that understanding the context and coming to the same conclusion that someone reading the RSV will… after all Holy Ghost is not and never has been a mistranslation of the Hebrew for Holy Spirit, although some people would think it is now because it is archaic and the context is generally not understood. Ghost means “manifesting Spirit”, it did then and it still does now. Hence “Holy Ghost” is still a valid rendering of the same thing as “Holy Spirit”… the same thing with “horned”.

Difference. “Horn” has never been an English synonym for “ray”. “Ghost” however has always been a synonym for “spirit.”

Yes, I do understand what St. Jerome meant. But it’s still linguistically wrong.

 

[porthos11]

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 still troubles me.

• from the venerable D-R:

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.

• from the RSV:

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

I’ve not found a satisfactory reckoning of the above differences between what is in Jerome’s Vulgate and vernacular translations based on it, and what is in “the Greek” and vernacular translations based on it.

Try to look up NA27 or UBS4 and confirm. I don’t have my GNT with me right now.

 

[porthos11]

We then welcome to douay rheims onlyism… The only bible which correctly render what Jesus said to Judas in Greek when they came to arrest him. All the others, except possibly the KJV, do not do that… so by your own rules, better rule out the good majority of other bibles which delibratly mistranslate it into “friend, do what you came here to do” when it is supposed to be “friend, where have you come to?”.

Also Genesthai means, “to be made”… not “Become”

so welcome to douay rheims onlyism…

Yes, the same Bible that includes the Comma Johannenum which shouldn’t be there, translates “epiousios” (daily, essential, required) as “supersubstantial” rather than “daily” (our Liturgies use “quotidianum”, “daily” departing from the Vg) and declares confidently that Saul was one year old when he became king.

And yes, genesthai (ginomai) can indeed mean “become” or “to be” (i.e. come into existence) depending on context.

As for Judas’ kiss, in Matthew we have “Friend, why are you here?” (RSV) still in keeping with eph’ ho pareimi, not “Do what you have come for”.

 

[Manfred]

Try to look up NA27 or UBS4 and confirm. I don’t have my GNT with me right now.

studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1+cor+15%3A51-52&section=9&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

OK, I did; so, now what?

What I mean is there is probably many old commentaries that support the Vulgate reading and make sense of it, just as there are commentaries on the Greek-based translation that support and make sense of it.

But other than a footnote in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, “the Vulgate rendering is clearly wrong”, there is still no reckoning of this difference.

 

[porthos11]

studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1+cor+15%3A51-52&section=9&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

OK, I did; so, now what?

What I mean is there is probably many old commentaries that support the Vulgate reading and make sense of it, just as there are commentaries on the Greek-based translation that support and make sense of it.

But other than a footnote in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, “the Vulgate rendering is clearly wrong”, there is still no reckoning of this difference.

I’ll try to look it up in the Greek, but if I find differences, then I go with the Greek and not the Latin.

 

[lak611]

We then welcome to douay rheims onlyism… The only bible which correctly render what Jesus said to Judas in Greek when they came to arrest him. All the others, except possibly the KJV, do not do that… so by your own rules, better rule out the good majority of other bibles which delibratly mistranslate it into “friend, do what you came here to do” when it is supposed to be “friend, where have you come to?”.

Also Genesthai means, “to be made”… not “Become”

so welcome to douay rheims onlyism…

Please see this article by Jimmy Akin about “Douay-Rheims onlyism”. catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

 

[mmortal03]

A Bible that has no translation errors by default will never have any doctrinal errors.

I will not choose doctrinal correctness in a Bible at the expense of mistranslations. That’s intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

By rejecting the “best” manuscripts of the original languages we have today, you are going against Pope Pius XII and Divino Afflante Spiritu, which acknowleges the accuracy of modern critical editions and explicitly commanded, under the pain of the stigma of levity and sloth, that scholars work from them as well, even to correct the venerable Vulgate.

So yes, indeed, the Pope did and does approve of the “modern” critical editions you hate so much.

We then welcome to douay rheims onlyism… The only bible which correctly render what Jesus said to Judas in Greek when they came to arrest him. All the others, except possibly the KJV, do not do that… so by your own rules, better rule out the good majority of other bibles which delibratly mistranslate it into “friend, do what you came here to do” when it is supposed to be “friend, where have you come to?”.

Also Genesthai means, “to be made”… not “Become”

so welcome to douay rheims onlyism…

I think the point is being completely missed by you guys. I don’t think he is arguing for DR-onlyism. Further, the problem here is not chiefly the modernly available “critical editions” at all, but the way that these have been modernly translated into English. The point is that if you gave the translators then at Douay and Rheims what we now have today to refer to, they would have produced a more accurate translation than any of the modern English translations. Modern English biblical scholarship has produced quite flawed translations doctrinally. They DO have mistranslations, just like the DR, so then you have to look at which mistranslations are more problematic.

 

[porthos11]

I think the point is being completely missed by you guys. I don’t think he is arguing for DR-onlyism. Further, the problem here is not the modernly available “critical editions” but the way that these have been modernly translated into English. The point is that if you gave the translators then at Douay and Rheims what we now have today to refer to, they would have produced a more accurate translation than any of the modern English translations. Modern English biblical scholarship has produced quite flawed translations doctrinally. They DO have mistranslations, just like the DR, so then you have to look at which ones are more problematic.

But they didn’t have our manuscripts today, did they? What they used was the Vulgate and what they produced was the Douay-Rheims. Yes, modern versions DO have mistranslations; there is not a single version that doesn’t. The question is which has more blatant mistranslations, and I still think the DR does.

I’ve never had a problem with anyone liking or preferring the DR, but all I see here when people extol it are constant references as to how “it supports Church teaching” and “how it shows Mary’s role” etc. etc. or “how it matches the Vulgate” but never against the Hebrew or Greek. And then they proceed to bash other translations never mind its use by the most respected of scholars, and even the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of the Holy See. They even bring Satan’s name into the picture, just like KJV-only fundamentalists.

Sorry, but no. I recognize the advances made in textual science and I will pick the RSV-CE over the Douay as the more faithful to the originals. The RSV is not perfect, but it has less mistranslations than the DR.

I do not like the DR. However, I do recognize the right of those who still prefer to read the DR for whatever reason, and I’m glad to leave them alone if only they will do the same for us non-DR lovers.

 

[rciadan]

porthos11;2172744]It is indeed in Divino Afflante Spiritu, where the Pope (paragraph 15) attaches the “stigma of levity and sloth” to those scholars who do not exert effort to work from the original languages.

This is a sly bit of quotation, Porthos. You make it seem as if the encyclical is instructing scholars to disregard the Vulgate in favor of these other texts. The first sentence in paragraph 20 states, “Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.” Divino Afflante Spiritu does indeed have the phase “stigma of levitty and sloth” in it; but not in the context you portray. The full sentence is, “Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth.” (emphasis mine) You make it seem that Pope Pius XII was saying that scholars should only use the “original langauage texts” when he is only saying that it would be unwise to disregard them altogether. This has not been done. But I also think that the biblcial scholar who so readily disregards the Latin vulgate merely because thier interpretaion of one of these texts deffers is guilty of the same stigma.

BTW, this is all off thread. The Douay-Rheims “as the Church herself testifies and affirms” “may be quoted safely and without fear or error in faith disputations, in lectures and in preaching”. Any Catholic has the right to prefer the DR, and I am not disputing your right to prefer another version. This thread was started so that I, and others who have the same preference, could compile examples of the differences between the DR and the other versions and explore thier possible significance to how we interpret them.
We are not guilty in any way of the stigma you seem to imply upon us. Rather, we are doing just as Divino Affante Spiiritu instructed to the best of our ability. And excuse me when I don’t readily trust the “criticism” of the sources that hail these original language text and are so ready to throw out the Latin Vulgate in thier favor when it seems that the majority of them are not of the Catholic Faith. Just as we have let Architects who have no belief in the Real Presence design churches where the tabernacle cannot be found, it seems to me that we are letting scholars who have no belief in Catholic Doctrines design bibles for us where Mary, the Communion of Saints, and yes, in many instance, where even the Mass, can no longer be found.!

 

[porthos11]

This is a sly bit of quotation, Porthos. You make it seem as if the encyclical is instructing scholars to disregard the Vulgate in favor of these other texts.

That was not my intention, and no I didn’t state that DAS commanded the dropping of the Vulgate. Nevertheless, the stigma is indeed there for Biblical scholars who refuse to learn the original languages.

Pope Pius XII was saying that scholars should only use the “original langauage texts” when he is only saying that it would be unwise to disregard them altogether. This has not been done. But I also think that the biblcial scholar who so readily disregards the Latin vulgate merely because thier interpretaion of one of these texts deffers is guilty of the same stigma.

Again, I said no such thing, and neither did I mean that the Vulgate was to be disregarded.

BTW, this is all off thread. The Douay-Rheims “as the Church herself testifies and affirms” “may be quoted safely and without fear or error in faith disputations, in lectures and in preaching”. Any Catholic has the right to prefer the DR, and I am not disputing your right to prefer another version. This thread was started so that I, and others who have the same preference, could compile examples of the differences between the DR and the other versions and explore thier possible significance to how we interpret them.

Good you don’t dispute my right to not use the DR just as I don’t dispute anyone’s right to use the DR. What I do dispute is the bad attitude exhibited by many DR-lovers towards those who prefer to work off more recent versions.

We are not guilty in any way of the stigma you seem to imply upon us. Rather, we are doing just as Divino Affante Spiiritu instructed to the best of our ability. And excuse me when I don’t readily trust the “criticism” of the sources that hail these original language text and are so ready to throw out the Latin Vulgate in thier favor when it seems that the majority of them are not of the Catholic Faith.

I implied no guilt on anyone. I don’t assume you’re a Biblical scholar tasked with making a translation, so naturally, the Pope isn’t talking about you. Anyway, disregarding the Vulgate is a mistake which is just as bad as disregarding the best critical editions available today. But as I said, I don’t care about how “Catholic” a translation sounds. I just want it to be accurate.

Just as we have let Architects who have no belief in the Real Presence desin church where the tabernacle cannot be found, it seems to me that we are letting scholars who have no belief in Catholic Doctrines design bibles for us where Mary, the Communion of Saints, and yes, in many instance, where even the Mass, can no longer be found.!

Which will never be a problem for as long as those non-Catholics translate using proper linguistic principles. The moment bias creeps in, we get such masterpieces like the New World Translation. But even a well-translated Protestant edition works well with Catholic doctrine, so I need not fear an honest Protestant translation. As I said, a linguistically accurate translation will always be doctrinally accurate automatically. The reverse isn’t true. It’s important for be to have my Bibles properly translated and doctrinally accurate. The DR is only doctrinally accurate, which isn’t good enough for me.

I don’t need to slant the translation to find Mary or the communion of saints. Just translate properly what the originals say, and they will just pop out.

 

[rciadan]

Talmida;2169204]
Hmmm. Do you really think Moses had horns? See Exodus 34:29

No, or course not and that is not the meaning of the passage and the true meaning of the passage can be discerned and a concept that is awesome can be found in the reading as it is in the DR. BTW, you don’t really believe that Mathew 24:28, which is speaking about the second coming of Christ is properly translated when it is declared that “28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will
gather.” do you?? I cannot interpret that in any edifying way. It refers ot the glorified Christ as “the corpse” and the Saints as “vultures”, and in my opinion is a disgusting translation.

As for the infallible declaration – not everything that we think is infallible really IS infallible.

But all that Our Holy Mother the Church officialy defines as infallible is, in fact, so.

Mother Church was well served by JPII was she not? And he said we can be more fully served by the Neo-Vulgate

Time will tell us how well seved the Church was by JPII. He was popular, but, popularity does not necessarily equate to good leadership; but that is another thread altogether.