Why the Douay-Rheims?

[rciadan]

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.

One example of this is in the Heximiron, by St. Basil. In this exerpt from Homily 2 he states, "
And the evening and the morning were one day.(4) Why does Scripture say “**one **day the first
day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been
more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day,” it is
from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they
contain." (*Words in **Bold *by me for emphasis.)

The Douay is the only version that I find the “first day” referred to as “one day” rather than “the first day”. Of course St. Basil, as we can see tells us why this is so. If we read his commentary in conjunction with any other version, St. Basil the Great, one of only 33 Doctors of the Church, comes off looking like an idiot!

Understood as written in the Douay we also see (as explained by St. Basil) where time began. This explains so much about the material world, about time and space, and about how the six day creation can be so: and yet, with any other version all this is out the window and St. Basil becomes “Basil the Bumbler”…

Any other examples out there?

 

[Crumpy]

(For those of us less “up” on this, the D/R bible is here:

drbo.org/

which can be searched to find the scripture in question, which indeed says “one day.”

I’m not sure where the OP finds St. Basil, if that homily is available on-line.

There’s two questions in the OP – 1) differences between versions and 2) is Basil a “bumbler”? I’ll be watching to get the answer to that. )

 

[Cranch]

Luke 1:34-

D-R:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall** this be done**, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

NAB:34 But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” 35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

It can be argued that in the D-R, Mary is not expressing doubt in the angel’s message but is inquiring how this miracle will come to pass. The NAB rendering seems to show a doubting Mary. It is interesting to note the use of “will” in the NAB verse 35 for the D-R’s “shall”. If you substitute “will” for “shall” in the D-R verse 34 you see the affirming nature of Mary’s question: “How will this be done…”

 

[Cranch]

Luke 1:28-

D-R:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
NAB:28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Speaks for itself.

 

[mmortal03]

Luke 1:34-

D-R:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall** this be done**, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

NAB:34 But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” 35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

It can be argued that in the D-R, Mary is not expressing doubt in the angel’s message but is inquiring how this miracle will come to pass. The NAB rendering seems to show a doubting Mary. It is interesting to note the use of “will” in the NAB verse 35 for the D-R’s “shall”. If you substitute “will” for “shall” in the D-R verse 34 you see the affirming nature of Mary’s question: “How will this be done…”

I’ve read all about this before, and maybe it is obvious, but why again does it matter whether or not Mary’s initial reaction was to doubt the angel’s message? I mean, there are two ways to look at it, one, you have never seen an angel, so if you see one, you might as well believe whatever seemingly crazy thing they say without questioning it (you are already experiencing something pretty out of the ordinary), or two, you ask real questions, because you are initially skeptical of something so supernatural happening to you. I really don’t think it would be a sin to ask how it could happen, if that is what people are getting at.

Edit: Oh, I remember now, it is because the Church teaches that Mary, unlike Zachary earlier in Luke chap. 1, did not doubt the angel’s words.

Wait, but still, why is this so crucial that the Church needs to teach it? And where is it written that the Church teaches this, specifically?

 

[rciadan]

(For those of us less “up” on this, the D/R bible is here:

drbo.org/

which can be searched to find the scripture in question, which indeed says “one day.”

I’m not sure where the OP finds St. Basil, if that homily is available on-line.

There’s two questions in the OP – 1) differences between versions and 2) is Basil a “bumbler”? I’ll be watching to get the answer to that. )

I will address the “two questions” in reverse order.
2.) I am not asking if St. Basil is a “bumbler”. I am saying that all the modern translations make him seem so **if **you believe they are translated properly.

1.) This is the only question I am asking. But, I am only asking for differences as regard specifically between the Douay-Rheims and other, modern versions,

*BTW - *St. Basil’s Hexamirion can be found within the collection of writings know as the “ECF” or the “Early Church Fathers”, of which he is one. This collection can be readily found and downloaded for free off the internet from various sources. The entire collection is worth it’s wieght in gold, even if it was all written on hard copy, single-sided!

 

[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 7:8-9

D-R: But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

RSV: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

From the footnote in the D-R:

“If they do not contain”… This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

 

[psalm90]

With respect to the OP, Basil would never come off as an “idiot” and I don’t know why that idea is interjected into what might be an interesting conversation here.

Perhaps Basil was aware, as I am by looking at my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, that the word rendered in that verse of Genesis as “first” has several meanings, one of which is “one.” “One” makes sense in the context of the verse itself. “First” makes sense in the context of the verses which follow.

That, you might say, is the science of it. I think we need to “lighten up” quite a bit on translations and critical comparisons, because anybody who does translating seriously, can tell you that it isn’t always possible to translate things into, say, our age and frame of reference and convey everything that was expressed in the original.

The modern comparison would be computer programming languages. They just work differently. A language that includes support for “objects” is just different from one that does not. You have to work a lot harder in the latter to achieve what can be done simpler and more elegantly in the former. In computer programming languages, as time goes by, often that support is added, so that the languages converge somewhat. Its just a simple point here, that exact translations are difficult, because the exact words don’t always exist in both the ancient and modern language.

Elsewhere in this forum on scripture, there are conversations about the Greek of the NT, because while it contains some nice Greek ideas that a Greek-speaking audience would understand, those ideas would be hard to express in what we believe to have been the original Aramaic, whose manuscripts we no longer have. Now, THAT is far spookier to me than the examples so far in this thread, no offense intended.

To a schmuck like me, the word “one” fits there, also. It’s logical to me that is the sense of the word in that context.

I like the latter example of the words in describing the Annunciation. I think this discussion itself clears up what may have been intended in the original. Mary was surely not saying to the angel, “you’ve got to be kidding” or “you’ve got the wrong virgin, pal.”

 

[Cranch]

I’ve read all about this before, and maybe it is obvious, but why again does it matter whether or not Mary’s initial reaction was to doubt the angel’s message? I mean, there are two ways to look at it, one, you have never seen an angel, so if you see one, you might as well believe whatever seemingly crazy thing they say without questioning it (you are already experiencing something pretty out of the ordinary), or two, you ask real questions, because you are initially skeptical of something so supernatural happening to you. I really don’t think it would be a sin to ask how it could happen, if that is what people are getting at.

Edit: Oh, I remember now, it is because the Church teaches that Mary, unlike Zachary earlier in Luke chap. 1, did not doubt the angel’s words.

Wait, but still, why is this so crucial that the Church needs to teach it? And where is it written that the Church teaches this, specifically?

From the CCC:**506 **Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."Note 168 here references Lumen Gentium, para. 63:63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.

Short answer: I believe the Church holds Mary to be the model and paragon of faith in and obedience to God. Maybe it’s good to have someone who never doubted to intercede for us.

 

[rciadan]

quote=psalm90;2159809]With respect to the OP, Basil would never come off as an “idiot” and I don’t know why that idea is interjected into what might be an interesting conversation here.

The reason I interjected that I idea is becuause St. Basil is quite aware of the similarities and, more important I think, the deffierences between “First” and “One” and** specifically argues **as to why “One” is the proper word to use in this context.

Perhaps Basil was aware, as I am by looking at my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, that the word rendered in that verse of Genesis as “first” has several meanings, one of which is “one.” “One” makes sense in the context of the verse itself. “First” makes sense in the context of the verses which follow.

Yes, it is evident that he is aware and chose to argue as to why “one” is the proper usage in this context and as to why the other is not the proper contextual usage here. The modern translations are in effect saying otherwise.

That, you might say, is the science of it. I think we need to “lighten up” quite a bit on translations and critical comparisons, because anybody who does translating seriously, can tell you that it isn’t always possible to translate things into, say, our age and frame of reference and convey everything that was expressed in the original.

We are talking about the Written Word of God! If it is not possible to convey everything that was expressed in the original, as St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did, then don’t try: just stick to the Vulgate!!!

The modern comparison would be computer programming languages. They just work differently. A language that includes support for “objects” is just different from one that does not. You have to work a lot harder in the latter to achieve what can be done simpler and more elegantly in the former. In computer programming languages, as time goes by, often that support is added, so that the languages converge somewhat. Its just a simple point here, that exact translations are difficult, because the exact words don’t always exist in both the ancient and modern language.

I disagree, with respect. We are dealing with God’s Holy written Word (not computer programming) and I *don’t *take changes lightly. We are not dealing with “lost texts”. We are talking about St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which we still have in its original form.

To a schmuck like me, the word “one” fits there, also. It’s logical to me that is the sense of the word in that context.

Amazingly enough, in the end we agree…

 

[rciadan]

Let’s look at another. In Genesis 3:1 the NAB text is as follows:

1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the
animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the
woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the
trees in the garden?”

And the Douay-Rheims:

1. 
   *]Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
   (**Bold **is my doing to add emphasis)
   
   Notice that the two are asking completely different questions! I look at that as a major change in translation!
   In the NAB, Satan is apparently trying to see if Eve knows what God’s command is concerning the fruit.
   IN the DR, it can be seen that he already know she knows and is seeking to see if she understands the commandment. I think this is extremely important and that the modern translations totally miss this.

 

[mmortal03]

We are not dealing with “lost texts”. We are talking about St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which we still have in its original form.

This is incorrect. St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is not extant. We have various differing copies of the Vulgate that came later, but we do not have the original by any means.

 

[psalm90]

Notice that the two are asking completely different questions! I look at that as a major change in translation!
In the NAB, Satan is apparently trying to see if Eve knows what God’s command is concerning the fruit.
IN the DR, it can be seen that he already know she knows and is seeking to see if she understands the commandment. I think this is extremely important and that the modern translations totally miss this.

Again, my schmuck-level understanding rises to the surface here.

I notice that Eve answers both questions in the following verses, so there might be some validity to both forms of the question. My KJV follows the NAB form of the question, although it does so with different wording.

Without having the Latin Vulgate in front of me, you may have a point that the Vulgate has modified the question. I studied Latin in high school, and I think Latin is adequate to distinguish those two questions.

As a possible insight, I have to tell you about a topic I discussed with my Baptist friend who is a grad of the Chicago Moody Bible Institute. He studied Hebrew which led him to an interesting insight on Gen 3:9. For some reason, I had referred him to this verse, and he went to work on it. At the end of the verse, God is saying “Where are you?”

Well he did his Hebrew thing on the verse and came up with something interesting. He said that the Hebrew has some interesting meaning to it, and God is really asking, “Where are you, and I don’t expect you to answer like you would have before”

Trusting in his translation and my experiencing many other similar situations in the area of comparing translations, you really have to have some capability with the original, not just the two translations of interest.

(just because it’s handy for me) Jer 2:7 says “I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof”

I just started reading the English Collected Works of St. John of the Cross. He has a version of this verse which goes something like this “I brought you to Mt. Carmel to eat the fruit and everything good that is there.” St. John is a “Carmelite” priest and there are bunches of Carmelite orders, etc. Mt. Carmel is an allusion to spiritual union with God.

I think translations are tricky business and we need to keep our eyes on the translations. That’s the point here.

 

[Cranch]

Let’s look at another. In Genesis 3:1 the NAB text is as follows:

1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the
animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the
woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the
trees in the garden?”

And the Douay-Rheims:

1. 
   *]Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
   (**Bold **is my doing to add emphasis)
   
   Notice that the two are asking completely different questions! I look at that as a major change in translation!
   In the NAB, Satan is apparently trying to see if Eve knows what God’s command is concerning the fruit.
   IN the DR, it can be seen that he already know she knows and is seeking to see if she understands the commandment. I think this is extremely important and that the modern translations totally miss this.

1. 
   I think the D-R’s unique use of “paradise” here instead of garden is also worth noting. It is wonderfully indicative of God’s creation before the fall of man.

 

[rciadan]

This is incorrect. St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is not extant. We have various differing copies of the Vulgate that came later, but we do not have the original by any means.

I did not say we have “the original transcript”. I said “in its original form”. From its first copy it was copied so many times and there have been so many thousands of copies made that it has been fairly simple to compare and to weed out false copies. True, aithful copies are available through the Church.
Also, as you say about the Vulgate, so much more true for any extant copies of the “original language texts” of which there were always fewer copies and they were hard to find even in St. Jeromes day! How is it you’ll so readily put your confidence in what you are translating form today?
But, we digress from the point of this thread, which is to discern differnces and to see if result in any apparent changes in meaning.

 

[rciadan]

I think the D-R’s unique use of “paradise” here instead of garden is also worth noting. It is wonderfully indicative of God’s creation before the fall of man.

I prefer “paradise”. It moves the imagination and conveys not just an image, but a “feeling” or concept as well…

 

[rciadan]

Let’s look at another. In Genesis 3:1 the NAB text is as follows:

1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the
animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the
woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the
trees in the garden?”

And the Douay-Rheims:

1. 
   *]Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
   (**Bold **is my doing to add emphasis)
   
   Notice that the two are asking completely different questions! I look at that as a major change in translation!
   In the NAB, Satan is apparently trying to see if Eve knows what God’s command is concerning the fruit.
   IN the DR, it can be seen that he already know she knows and is seeking to see if she understands the commandment. I think this is extremely important and that the modern translations totally miss this.

1. 
   It strikes me that another reason this is an important difference is because, the DR has her directly responding to the question Satan has asked her, rather than arriving at the statement about dying “in passing”. As can be seen in verse 5, Satan already had his answer ready for her. He meant to lead Eve to make the point about dying, so he could respond! It is much easier to see Satan’s deception, as alluded ot in the first verse, in the Douay. His whole point was to convince Eve that God did not really have her best interest at heart, but was instead protecting His own interest, so to speak. This is all much clearer in the DR, while not so, I think, in other translations.

 

[rciadan]

Here is another, I think, major difference, in verse 6 of chapter 3.

The NAB;
and she also gave some to
her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The KJV is similar to this.

The Douay:
and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.

There is no inference to her husband actually being in her presence at the time she has this encounter with Satan in the DR. The NAB has inserted the phrase, “who was with her” into the text. I also notice that this insertion is not in the RSV, for instance.

This difference changes the dynamics of what went down on the fateful day…

 

[Valke2]

For what its worth, all my Jewish Bibles have “one day”, not “the first day”.

Rashi has this to say:

According to the sequence of the language of the chapter, it should have been written, “the first day,” as it is written regarding the other days, “second, third, fourth.” Why did Scripture write “one”? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, was the only one in His world, for the angels were not created until the second day. **

 

[colliric]

John 1:12

“But as many as recieved him, he gave them power to be made the sons of god”

All other bible translations use the word “become”, despite the fact that the literal translation of the word “genesthai” is “To be made” which is subsiquently how it was translated by Jerome into Latin using “Fieri”. We don’t choose to “become” followers of god… He makes us so.
Matthew 16:19

“and the gates of hell, shall not prevail against it”

Most other bibles use “Hades” to translate “Hadou”, however the DR bible gets it right because Hadou’s original literal meaning is actually “House of the lord of the underword”(which was of cause the greek god Hades, this word therefore got “nicknamed” into “Hades”)… Notice how well it slots right in there after “gates”… this was clearly the original meaning of the passage, therefore “Hell” is the only right translation because Jesus was talking about the place of eternal damnation where Satan is… not Hades or “the underworld”. The KJV also got this passage right.
Matthew 26:50

“Friend, **whereto **art thou come?”

The only translation that bothers to translate the original greek in it’s unchanged form. Jesus was asking Judas a poignant question about the state of mind that he has arrived at, when Judas denies his own conscience and God in order to get a measly amount of money. Jesus was asking him why he had fallen so low as to betray God.
This ads strongly to later on when Judas tries to get the pharisees to take their money back.

Modern bibles tend to turn this into “Friend, do what you are here for!”(NAB) which turns a poignant question into an imperitive statement.
1 Corinthians 16:14

“Let all your things be done in charity”

“Agape” means “Brotherly Love, the love of god”… It is not the normal “love” between man and woman, but is a love of society and a love of God. In english “Brotherly love, the love of god” is defined by a diffrent word than just “love”. E.g In Latin the word for love between a man and woman is amor, However in latin, the word for the love of God and the love of society is Charitas… Guess which word that equals in english… the same one it obviously inspired.
Matthew 24:28

“Wheresoever **the body **shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together”

Not corpse, not vultures… but Body and Eagles. Corpus and aquilae(latin for Body and eagles), ptoma and Aetoi(body and eagles)

At the end of time, when Jesus comes again, and Mass is scarce…“Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together”.