Why the Douay-Rheims?

[mmortal03]

But they didn’t have our manuscripts today, did they? What they used was the Vulgate and what they produced was the Douay-Rheims.

Thanks for the newsflash. You are completely missing or sidestepping my point regarding translation methodology. More on that below.

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.

We need to clarify the difference between mistranslation and source error here. Mistranslations can shed some minor light on a the translation methodologies of a text, but source errors can’t. We need to make sure that we clarify which is the bigger problem in the DR.

Even mistranslations in specific spots should not speak for an entire text’s accuracy or translation goals, and that is what you are doing, throwing out an entire translation by saying that individual errors must therefore somehow abound throughout.

We must differentiate between inaccuracies caused by specific spots in the manuscripts that were used (the Vulgate in this case), which could have definitely thrown them off at those particular spots, versus entire procedural translation methodologies causing misrepresentation of the message. I argue that certain liberal translation goals and even certain good intentioned modernizing of the language in more recent English translations have, directly and inadvertently, caused systematic problems throughout certain recent texts. The translation goals and methodologies need to better account for transferring linguistic, symbolic, and metaphorical nuances that are present in the other languages over into English.

We should be choosing the overall translation methods that produce the least amount of watering down of the original message, and, yes, don’t get me wrong, we should also be trying to produce translations containing the least amount of errors as possible. I am all for accuracy, and for correcting the transient instances of errors that have been found in the Vulgate, and therefore, in the Douay Rheims.

But for people to use the occasions of errors found in the Douay Rheims to dismiss it as so flawed, without seeing what the Douay Rheims can provide in literary style, metaphor, and substance and how it more successfully transferred much of this over to the English language, compared to many of the more modern translations, is just as one-sided.

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.

At those points where it supports Church teaching and shows Mary’s role, and matches the Vulgate, etc, yes, it SHOULD be compared to the Hebrew or Greek. But don’t knock the DR because of the looney DR-onlyists, please.

And don’t forget the Magisterium’s role in all of this. The Bible doesn’t just interpret itself, and you are bordering very close on a Protestant sola Scriptura line of thinking with some of what you said.

Yes, if we could somehow produce a flawless Bible translation from sources that have been determined to be lacking error, and if Catholicism is the one true faith, then it should confirm all that is Catholic doctrine.

However, the reality is that you can’t translate into another language without having a good bit of external context for what the writers were getting at. Interpretation and translation unfortunately have to go hand in hand somewhat, and we can’t really determine what is an error of translation (not error of source) without comparing it to something, whether it be a linguistic, stylistic, or a tradition issue .

We can determine statistically and with modern textual science the most probable and accurate source texts, but as far as translating those once we have produced them, it seems to me that a mistranslation can only be defined as being of a linguistic error or misrepresentation, a removal of important symbolism and nuance, or a traditional/doctrinal incompatibility.

Finally, with your apparent referencing of the RSV-CE, who is condemning it? Most people here have pointed out certain errors in it, and passages that could be worded more accurately, but generally, it is a favorite translation here on the board.

 

[rciadan]

porthos11;2175423]The best critical editions we have are judged by critical science to be the closest and best attest to the originals.

Providentissinus Deus has a few things to say about “critical science”, and I quote “There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone.” and “…this matter of internal evidences is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences” (Pope Leo XIII)

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

This is a false statement as there are no extant copies more sancient than what he had

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.

I have shown you what Pope Leo XII thought of the “science” of criticism.

 

[porthos11]

Providentissinus Deus has a few things to say about “critical science”, and I quote “There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone.” and “…this matter of internal evidences is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences” (Pope Leo XIII)This is a false statement as there are no extant copies more sancient than what he had

No longer, but we have since discovered ancient fragments that only serve to support or correct the best copies we have.

I have shown you what Pope Leo XII thought of the “science” of criticism.

And I have shown what Pope Pius XII has said regarding textual criticism. So shall we have a Leo vs. Pius boxing match? DAS does not endorse the flawed criticism condemned by Leo XIII, which is why I am not a fan of Raymond Brown. Proper criticism takes into consideration all extant manuscripts and traditions, not just internal evidence, which is what DAS encourages and supports, not Brown-style criticism.

As for mmortal’s remarks regarding the DR’s contributions to English style, well, I’ll have to say that I’m not a fan of the DR’s English either; I prefer the KJV’s English over it. And you’d be surprised how virulent some posters here can be in dissing the RSV.

Look, I’m not a DR basher. I have never been. I have been content to leave DR-lovers alone, without having to like the DR itself. I don’t reject it or the Vulgate, but I don’t accept them as the best representations of Scripture today.

As for the RSV, I’ll let the Church’s use of that translation be my best backing.

 

[Talmida]

With regard to the claim that older translations had access to better sources:

It’s not just ancient Biblical manuscripts that matter. I was amazed to learn how modern discoveries can change translations.

Here’s an example:

Say Jerome looks at the book of Genesis and sees this line:

“And he saw in his sleep a WORD-X standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven: the angels also of God ascending and descending by it;” (Gen 28:12)

Jerome doesn’t know what WORD-X means. It’s not found in ANY other place in the Bible. In Jerome’s day, nobody has spoken Hebrew for about 500 years – it’s a dead language, so much so that the rabbis are worried that pronunciation will be lost and are thinking about adding vowel marks to the Sacred text (Hebrew is a consonants-only language).

So what does Jerome do? He looks at context. What could stand on earth, touch heaven, and have angels ascending and descending on it. Jerome assumes that WORD-X means “ladder”. No problem, that’s how translation is done. It makes perfect sense.

But what if in 1975, an archaeologist finds a bunch of papyrus in Egypt – lists and receipts, or maybe a ship’s inventory. And on that papyrus, we see in Hebrew and Egyptian that WORD-X was imported from Israel and planted and grown for its great height. Well maybe we start to think that WORD-X means Tree, or a certain variety of Tree.

Then people would look to the agricultural historians to see which trees grew in Palestine and were exported to Egypt when Genesis was written. Which varieties would the authors have been familiar with.

The paleobotanists contribute too. They find no new trees, but do come across a variety of bean famous for its height and strength. Other scientists (anthropologists, maybe?) contribute fragments of a Babylonian folktale about a boy who climbs a WORD-X to fight a giant and steal a goose.

The linguists look at all this evidence and think, hey! Maybe WORD-X does NOT mean “ladder” maybe it means “beanstalk”.

So the next time the Bible is translated, the evidence found in 1975 is used, and Jacob’s Beanstalk is the subject of the dream. A footnote remarks “once thought to read ‘ladder’”.

---

Just a fairy tale to amuse, but it shows why it’s not only the original documents that are important. Fragments are important. Scientific discovery is important. Anything written at the same time of any of the books of the Bible is important because of the light it sheds on the culture. Anything written in the same language is important – even if it’s grocery lists or inventories. Inscriptions on stones, markings uncovered beneath other writing (through X-ray), all these things and more contribute to our knowledge of Biblical languages

It’s not just about original documents.

If you find a scroll that was written in 1050 AD, but was copied from a 250 AD copy, it would likely be MORE accurate than a scroll written in 350 AD that was copied from one in 325 AD, which was copied from one in 320 AD, if you see what I mean.

The ancient sources are very important, as are the ancient translations like the Septuagint.

They’re just not the ONLY sources available to us anymore. And if you want the best translation, I think using all available information is the best way to get it.

If I may say so, as a new member here, I’m really enjoying the level of discussion on this thread, and learning a lot.

 

[colliric]

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”.

“why are you here” is still a mistanslation, The literal Greek is in fact “Friend, where to(this is how it is worded exactly) have you come?”(DR/Vulgate, which is funny enough still the most accurate word for word translation: “Whereto art thou come?”). Jesus is not asking “why are you here” but is in fact saying “where have you gone?”… which insinuates something compleatly diffrent.

He is asking about Judas’s state of mind that he would sink so low to deliver the son of man to people who want only to kill him. He does not ask “why”, he asks “Where”, insinuating a question about Judas’s Sanity and openness to evil temptation/Sin rather than just about Judas’s morals(which is what “Why” insinuates).

 

[colliric]

With regard to the claim that older translations had access to better sources:
It’s not just ancient Biblical manuscripts that matter. I was amazed to learn how modern discoveries can change translations.
.

Yes, but there is also the opposing and valid arguement that St Jerome in fact had more and far closer manuscripts to work from simply because he lived far closer the time of writing than we do today. Copies of the biblical texts much closer to the original texts then some of the ones we have today, which he had and translated from in fact have been lost to the sands of time. He simply lived closer to the date and had biblical texts which were closer to the original ones than the ones we have today because more complete manuscripts in fact existed in his day than in ours.

He did not use the Septuagint to translate the old testament because he wanted his bible to be translated as much as it was possibly from the original hebrew(I think Psalms is the only exception, That was done from the Septuagint) and it is rather disrespectful to assume that he did, when history tells us he refused to use it(except for Psalms) and in fact used the original Hebrew.

His translations did not rely on “fragments” but on full existant manuscripts which have now been totally lost. He was also alot closer to the actual cultural contexts than we are now. We have to look back much furtherer than He did, and surprisingly that puts us at the bigger disadvantage, as it should.

Your arguement also about something copied in 1070AD from a 250AD manuscript is rather not correct. Full manuscripts copied frequently will funny enough actually provide for less errors, because most manuscripts will say one thing, while the one with the error will say something else that is easy to see is error in comparison with other manuscripts.

If however, we take your example, what if the 1070AD manuscript which is the only one, had an error in it? How would we know it is an error if we don’t have any copies of the previous work? We wouldn’t…

And that is why for hundreds of years people thought that Herod the great died in 4BC, when in fact earlier recently found copys of Josephus’ antiquities have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the copy made in the 16th century which for many years was the main one, had a grievous error and in fact should read 1BC? Scrolls copied many years after are always likely to be less bulletproof than ones copied far closer to the original writing and copied frequently.

Jerome lived when there was many more existant bible copys and completed his bible less than 300 years after the books were finished written with Apocalpyse.

 

[lanceg]

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”.

While it is true that the DRV often has mistakes, they usually do not negatively impact doctrine in the way that translations and commentary found in the NAB do. The DRV is a safer bible for Catholics than the NAB.

 

[lanceg]

Yes, but there is also the opposing and valid arguement that St Jerome in fact had more and far closer manuscripts to work from simply because he lived far closer the time of writing than we do today. Copies of the biblical texts much closer to the original texts then some of the ones we have today, which he had and translated from in fact have been lost to the sands of time. He simply lived closer to the date and had biblical texts which were closer to the original ones than the ones we have today because more complete manuscripts in fact existed in his day than in ours.

He did not use the Septuagint to translate the old testament because he wanted his bible to be translated as much as it was possibly from the original hebrew(I think Psalms is the only exception, That was done from the Septuagint) and it is rather disrespectful to assume that he did, when history tells us he refused to use it(except for Psalms) and in fact used the original Hebrew.

His translations did not rely on “fragments” but on full existant manuscripts which have now been totally lost. He was also alot closer to the actual cultural contexts than we are now. We have to look back much furtherer than He did, and surprisingly that puts us at the bigger disadvantage, as it should.

Your arguement also about something copied in 1070AD from a 250AD manuscript is rather not correct. Full manuscripts copied frequently will funny enough actually provide for less errors, because most manuscripts will say one thing, while the one with the error will say something else that is easy to see is error in comparison with other manuscripts.

If however, we take your example, what if the 1070AD manuscript which is the only one, had an error in it? How would we know it is an error if we don’t have any copies of the previous work? We wouldn’t…

And that is why for hundreds of years people thought that Herod the great died in 4BC, when in fact earlier recently found copys of Josephus’ antiquities have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the copy made in the 16th century which for many years was the main one, had a grievous error and in fact should read 1BC? Scrolls copied many years after are always likely to be less bulletproof than ones copied far closer to the original writing and copied frequently.

Jerome lived when there was many more existant bible copys and completed his bible less than 300 years after the books were finished written with Apocalpyse.

Amen! Well said!

 

[rciadan]

I’ve never had a problem with anyone liking or preferring the DR,

It sure seems as if you do! This thread was started so those who prefer the DR can compare the differences between the Dr and other versions and say why they like the Dr. Yes , it was started as a “pro DR” thread! You immediately jumped in and started to attack it and try to prove that it is inherently flawed to the poiint of being useless. If you can’t stand to see people prefer the DR, why do you use so much of your time on this thread telling everyone how much better the NAB and the RSV are? Or are you just looking for a quarrel?

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.

We are leaving you alone! Tis you who came onto this DR thread! If you don’t like it here there are 42,000 other threads you could be on. I think you **don’t **recognize the rights of others and in fact feel threatened by anything resempling Tradition. I think the only way you can lend credibility to these modern translations is to try to rip apart the one english translation that has been in use for 350 years.(Catholic Church)

 

[lak611]

It sure seems as if you do! This thread was started so those who prefer the DR can compare the differences between the Dr and other versions and say why they like the Dr. Yes , it was started as a “pro DR” thread! You immediately jumped in and started to attack it and try to prove that it is inherently flawed to the poiint of being useless. If you can’t stand to see people prefer the DR, why do you use so much of your time on this thread telling everyone how much better the NAB and the RSV are? Or are you just looking for a quarrel?

We are leaving you alone! Tis you who came onto this DR thread! If you don’t like it here there are 42,000 other threads you could be on. I think you **don’t **recognize the rights of others and in fact feel threatened by anything resempling Tradition. I think the only way you can lend credibility to these modern translations is to try to rip apart the one english translation that has been in use for 350 years.(Catholic Church)

Douay-Rheims onlyism is the Catholic version of KJV-onlyism with Protestants.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

porthos11: Who exactly gets to pick what the best original language manuscripts are?

It’s not Protestant scholars who have Already contaminated the Bible.

I have no problem with the best original language manuscrpits being used.

They never have been used in Protestant editions!

And when push comes to shove–Yes–the Catholic Church gets to make the final decsion. Does that bother you?

I’m not a Douay Rheims onlyist. I am a Catholic Church onlyist.

I’ll never make an apology for that!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So for all you people out there who fancy yourselves as superior because you are not a Douay Rheims onlyist:

Are you at least a Catholic Church onlyist?

When there is a dispute about what the beast original text is are you going to tell me that the Catholic Church’s juridicial stance on the Latin Vulgate whould play No Part in discerning what the best original language text would be?

Are you going to tell me that the Catholic Church’s witness of the truth of the scriptures carries no weight against any self proclaimed Protestant biblical scholar who would pick different original language texta from which to make the translation?

If you are then just say that the Protestants can Write it anyway they want to–I say no–I don’t apologize for that!

And I’ll never apologize for pointing out the fact that the RSV does contain doctrinal error!

Satan would never tell anyone that–I will!

 

[porthos11]

We are leaving you alone! Tis you who came onto this DR thread! If you don’t like it here there are 42,000 other threads you could be on. I think you **don’t **recognize the rights of others and in fact feel threatened by anything resempling Tradition

This is an absolutely false statement. Where I live I am fighting an uphill battle for orthodoxy and tradition, especially in the liturgy. I love Catholic tradition and have suffered for it, so don’t you dare question my orthodoxy or my loyalty to tradition.

I think the only way you can lend credibility to these modern translations is to try to rip apart the one english translation that has been in use for 350 years.(Catholic Church)

I do no such thing. I just don’t put the DR on a pedestal. It’s not my wish to rip apart the DR; it’s too venerable for that.

No matter. I have made my points and I have cited my examples. Sorry to disrupt your thread and for any offense; this is my last post on the subject.

 

[Manfred]

the problem here is not chiefly the modernly available “critical editions” at all, but the way that these have been modernly translated into English.

This is really the heart of the matter, now, isn’t it?

For which is better:
a slavishly-literal translation of a single text type, complete with its accumulated transmission errors, OR
a less-than-rigid translation of original-language texts derived from the best critical scholarship of many ancient sources?

 

[colliric]

This is really the heart of the matter, now, isn’t it?

For which is better:
a slavishly-literal translation of a single text type, complete with its accumulated transmission errors, OR
a less-than-rigid translation of original-language texts derived from the best critical scholarship of many ancient sources?

I do not agree with that completely. it is actually:
a slavishly-literal translation of a definitive single text type which was initially translated into Latin from original-Language Texts much closer to the writing date and context in which the books were written and preserved for 1600 years unalderated because of slavishly literal copying and translating of it by the Catholic Church which used it as the official bible of the Latin Rite for more than 1600 years(and counting).

OR
a less-than-rigid translation of original-language texts derived from the best critical scholarship, of today which is more than 1600 years later, of many ancient sources.

 

[mmortal03]

"rciadan:

It sure seems as if you do! This thread was started so those who prefer the DR can compare the differences between the Dr and other versions and say why they like the Dr. Yes , it was started as a “pro DR” thread! You immediately jumped in and started to attack it and try to prove that it is inherently flawed to the poiint of being useless. If you can’t stand to see people prefer the DR, why do you use so much of your time on this thread telling everyone how much better the NAB and the RSV are? Or are you just looking for a quarrel?

We are leaving you alone! Tis you who came onto this DR thread! If you don’t like it here there are 42,000 other threads you could be on. I think you don’t recognize the rights of others and in fact feel threatened by anything resempling Tradition. I think the only way you can lend credibility to these modern translations is to try to rip apart the one english translation that has been in use for 350 years.(Catholic Church)

Douay-Rheims onlyism is the Catholic version of KJV-onlyism with Protestants.

And your quoting of rciadan there has what to do with that?

 

[rciadan]

Douay-Rheims onlyism is the Catholic version of KJV-onlyism with Protestants.

I am not a DR onlyist, BTW. I have virtually every translation you can think of on my shelf; but, yes the DR is my favorite. It did not used to be. As an athiest coming into the faith, the first bible I picked up was the NAB because it was the version proclaimed at Mass. I used it for years and anyone who knows me will tell you I studied it intensly. I also studied the ECF and I found that my NAB, RSV, etc did not match the quotes from the ECF and that made it almost impossible to find verses. I happened upon a digital copy of the DR and all of a sudden, there thy were! For a few years, I only used the DR to reference when reading the ECF because, for the most part I found the style of english hard to understand. But as I read I began to see differences that , in my opinion, changed the meanings of many passages completely. I also found passages that were only in the DR that ECF’s were obviously referring to as scripture!. So to make the story shorter, I can read any bible and discuss alomost any version if desired, but; yes I like the DR best and I am in no way ashamed of that fact. I that makes you want to label me as a DR onlyist, this so be and I give God the glory for having led me to the Truth.
I have been to other threads and discussed scripture and I do not fault them for using the versions they do. I even give away copies of the NAB to people because I know the DR is difficult for many to read.

I started this thread becuase I thought it would be nice to compare some of these findings with the findings of others who prefer the DR. I did not intend to be here defending my Church given right to read and to use the DR and to quote and yes, even to preach from it in public.

I would suggest that rather than me being a Dr onlyist, so many other are DR neverist!

 

[colliric]

I would suggest that rather than me being a Dr onlyist, so many other are DR neverist!

I come from a different background . I was a protestant for 9 years from 1992 to 2002, when I left school I gave up going to church as I had attenended christian schools my whole life. I am very greatfull to God, because I got a good Religious education, first 3 years was at Catholic primary school until grade 3 when I was sent to a High Church Anglican Private School instead. I am very proud of my education…

I had for this period of my life, The Good News Edition(protestant version), and I still use this bible in order to understand hard passages in the traditional translations(although I switched it to “Catholic edition” while I was still protestant, simply because I wanted to read the “Apocrypha” for myself). However in 2005 when I suddenly became interested in Church again after a really strange thing happened to me while I was Door to Door knocking for a Sales Job(I’ll save the story for another compleatly diffrent thread).

I asked my parents if they knew where I could go a church, any christian church(I honestly believe God has presented all the options to me through his spirit, before he showed me which one was real and which one really does follow the commandments) and went to a pentacostal church.

I looked into getting a bible and reading it again, and I was given the NKJV by the gideons. I kept it, I liked it. I did not take to the bible that most of the Church had as I thought Eugene Petersen’s “The Message” is a terrible way of translating the bible, by reading personal interpretation into the text. No, I did not like this and my reaction was to get a copy of the NKJV and read it. I took to it alot, and decided to go back one more to the KJV. So I got that and read most of it. I also wanted to get a modern bible to compare to, so I rebought the GNB(Got the Catholic version delibratly) and also got the NIV Archelogical Study Bible.

My like for the NIV lasted about 20 minutes in total before I put it down never to pick it back up off my shelf again. I really enjoyed re -reading some parts of the GNB, as it was the bible I had as a kid. But the NIV gave me the same feeling I had whenever “The message” was read out, even though I didn’t really know why.

So the KJV which was really poetic and beautifully prosed became my bible of choice very very quickly. In fact doing research into it’s history as a translation helped my transistion into wanting to become Catholic. Once again it was the same reason why I went and got GNB:CE, I wanted to read the full version of the KJV with the Apocrypha in it, it seemed lacking without those books included(simply as a literary work, not as a spiritual thing). I wanted the full version.

I didn’t bother with it though, seeing as in the meantime I decided to become catholic anyway, reading the GNB:CE Deuterocanon a little bit is what helped change my mind… Combined with consistant weekly journeys to the Catholic Bookshop (which I always passed on foot on the way to church) when i would promise myself “I will only read a little and have a look around” and always walked out having spent $40 -$50(AUD) anyway, and hearing lots of anti-catholic diatrides in the pentacostal church that made me want to see the opposite side of things. Seriously some of the stuff my pastor said about more traditionalist christians was quite hateful really, now that I look back on it. As I was brought up in a high church Anglican environment where I learned about the Spiritual “Heaven and Hell” and my “immortal Soul” it really got on my nerves the pentecostal anti-Christendom teaching did, considering I did retain my belief in “Heaven and Hell” and my “immortal Soul”(Boy, Why didn’t I become Catholic earlier??).

Anyway back to bible translations. I wanted a Catholic version, another one that was older to compliment my GNB which I already had, so I wanted to get the Vulgate, original latin and an English translation. The DR covers the second one, and one day I’d like to get a copy of the Latin(and learn a little bit of the language), although actually I’d like to get the Nova Vulgata, because the DR seems good enough an English translation of the original.

I’m not a DR onlyist, I like comparing it with my GNB, and occasionally ripping out the KJV and NKJV to compare that too. I’ve been thinking of getting perhaps 1 more bible translation… but I have’nt felt that as nessecery just yet, Nova Vulgata will be good so I’ll get that definatly.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

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?

 

[Manfred]

I do not agree with that completely. it is actually:
a slavishly-literal translation of a definitive single text type which was initially translated into Latin from original-Language Texts much closer to the writing date and context in which the books were written and preserved for 1600 years unalderated because of slavishly literal copying and translating of it by the Catholic Church which used it as the official bible of the Latin Rite for more than 1600 years(and counting).

OR
a less-than-rigid translation of original-language texts derived from the best critical scholarship, of today which is more than 1600 years later, of many ancient sources.

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."