Why We Love The Douay-Rheims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mattjolley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mattjolley

Guest
Forgive me if there is already a topic like this, but I thought it’d be nice to concentrate on the positives of one of our translations, since so many are a little too hasty to bash ones like the NAB. I must admit that I don’t have any experience with this as I’m English, so am not familiar with the NAB, although I have read a lot of posts on its problems.

Anyhow, let’s see why so many of us love the D-R so much. Quotes or personal experiences of the D-R would be cool, too. I hope this won’t turn into another NAB bashing post! I just want to see a nice discussion about one of our most beautiful translations/versions.

Matt
 
Hi Matt,

I think DR is a poor attempt. Its pseudo-archaism and latin tranliterrations is most annoying. Sorry.

Verbum
 
I have an RSVC and a NAB and like them both. I use the internet for a handy comparison from these translations to the D-R version. In my opinion one is not better than the other just different and we are lucky to have several “good” translation.

I do enjoy the old, classic, archaic, whatever one chooses to call it language of the D-R.

I just ordered a D-R through the local catholic shop last week, was putting it off because of cost, but hey if I can eat lunch out, buy magazines and other books; I think I can spare the money for something most important right 🙂

Peace & Blessings,
Bro. Michael Christian , OSF
 
Among my many versions of Bibles, I have the Haydock Douay-Rheimes and also one copyrighted in 1914. I love the beautiful, poetic language, and the very Catholic words–note Luke 1:28 "And the angel being come in said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women. Not the whimpy “Hail, highly favored one” that the NAB has.

BTW, did you know that the Douay-Rheimes was actually published just before the King James Version?
 
AMDGtoo said:
Among my many versions of Bibles, I have the Haydock Douay-Rheimes and also one copyrighted in 1914. I love the beautiful, poetic language, and the very Catholic words–note Luke 1:28 "And the angel being come in said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women. Not the whimpy “Hail, highly favored one” that the NAB has.

BTW, did you know that the Douay-Rheimes was actually published just before the King James Version?
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you…on all counts. While I have a new NAB, I find that I lean toward the D-R when really reading in depth, mainly because it is done in the older poetic and clear language. There is nothing “hip” about it…its concise and clear. The online version with built in search is here for quick reference: drbo.org/ 😃
 
That’s exactly why I love the DR, (dont get me wrong My favourite version of scripture is actually the original Jerusalem Bible, but the DR comes a close second) it has classic language in the same vein as the King James, and makes scripture leap off the page as God’s Holy Word, which some translations often fail to do in the modern age of gender inclusiveness (NRSV I’m looking STRAIGHT at you!😛 )

As a sidenote, has anyone heard of Henry Wansbrough? Well in his introduction to the NRSV Catholic Edition here in the UK, he basically says it is sad that any reservations people have against the NRSV stem from there stance of being against gender inclusiveness. How can a devout catholic write this? Is he debasing himself to no more than an NRSV salesman? Someone as educted as he should know where the Vatican stands on gender-inclusiveness and why they prefer not to use the NRSV in official documents. Anyway, back to original topic, I realise I’ve just contradicted my OP about not dissing other versions, I apologise!
 
Trent declared that the Vulgate was free from error on faith and morals and could be used in all disputations.

No non-vulgate translation can say that.

The Douay Rheims is far from perfect but it is not doctrinally in error on faith or morals.

I prefer the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Haydock Old Testament and English translations of the Psalms from the Psalter of Pope Pius XII.

None of these translations are perfect–but they are all superior to non-Vulgate based translations that do contain errors in doctrtinal matters.

What would really be nice would be an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Better still would be a Catholic English translation of the bible-- approved by the Holy See–by scholars selected by the Holy See–that used the best reliable original language texts–and when it found better renderings than those in the Vulgate–proceeded to select alternative renderings than the ones that the Vulgate–that were in line with Catholic teaching of the magisterium over the centuiries–not doctrinally in error–and with all changes approved by the Pope himself…

Such a bible does not exist.
 
Verbum said:
Hi Matt,

I think DR is a poor attempt. Its pseudo-archaism and latin tranliterrations is most annoying. Sorry.

Verbum
Click to expand...
“A poor attempt” at what? Political correctness? Mushy renderings? You bet!!!

It is NOT pseudo-archaic; it is contemporaneous with the mid-18th century.

As for those “annoying” Latin transliterations: many of the doctrinal terms we use today, e.g., justification, propitiation, sanctification, sure enough came from the Latin, but, hey, you know what? even the King James translators thought they were good enough.

Do me a favor: read the Book of Tobit in the RSV-CE, then compare it with the Book of Tobias in the D-R. Let me know which one reads like it was translated by someone who accepts this book as inspired Scripture, and which reads like something translated from an “accepted” base text.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Trent declared that the Vulgate was free from error on faith and morals and could be used in all disputations.

No non-vulgate translation can say that.

The Douay Rheims is far from perfect but it is not doctrinally in error on faith or morals.

I prefer the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Haydock Old Testament and English translations of the Psalms from the Psalter of Pope Pius XII.

None of these translations are perfect–but they are all superior to non-Vulgate based translations that do contain errors in doctrtinal matters.

What would really be nice would be an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Better still would be a Catholic English translation of the bible-- approved by the Holy See–by scholars selected by the Holy See–that used the best reliable original language texts–and when it found better renderings than those in the Vulgate–proceeded to select alternative renderings than the ones that the Vulgate–that were in line with Catholic teaching of the magisterium over the centuiries–not doctrinally in error–and with all changes approved by the Pope himself…

Such a bible does not exist.
Click to expand...
While this is indeed true, have you tried the translation by Ronald Knox, particularly the New Testament?
 
For me the Douay-Rheims inspired me to read deeper and get a better understanding than the NAB did. Nothing against the NAB but the Douay-Rheims made me want to get more involved with understanding the scripture
 
I have only owned a Douay-Rheims bible for a couple of months. I will never go back to owning any other. The language is beautiful and having studied Latin for some time does the best job of conveying the depth of meaning to the text. An example would be,

"76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: 77 To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins: 78 Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high hath visited us: 79 To enlighten them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death: to direct our feet into the way of peace. "

This language is so outstanding and clear as to what the author was conveying. Christ is not to be “a light” to those that sit in darkness, but he is to “enlighten”. What a huge difference this word makes to the rendering of the verses meaning! I love it…
 
DR is beautiful. I simultaneously use a modern version to grasp some of the more challenging grammer. Many of the expressions and words in the DR add a new dimension of beauty.
 
Mattjolley said:
Forgive me if there is already a topic like this, but I thought it’d be nice to concentrate on the positives of one of our translations, since so many are a little too hasty to bash ones like the NAB. I must admit that I don’t have any experience with this as I’m English, so am not familiar with the NAB, although I have read a lot of posts on its problems.

Anyhow, let’s see why so many of us love the D-R so much. Quotes or personal experiences of the D-R would be cool, too. I hope this won’t turn into another NAB bashing post! I just want to see a nice discussion about one of our most beautiful translations/versions.

Matt
Click to expand...
I think the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition is the best English version currently available to Catholics. The DR relies too much on the Latin Vulgate which (while nothing in the matter of faith or morals is wrong in) may or may not have some textual errors (especially in some of the deuterocanonical books, which Jerome did not consider canonical and therefore might not have done well … I think he translated Tobit in one day … ). Also, the language is a bit on the archaic side. I honestly would prefer a translation of the Septuagint for Catholics into English along with the New Testament, but that’s just not what translators do.

However, the RSV I think gives a good translation of the Old Testament considering that there are, for many of the books, so many various texts to consider, and the New Testament is good as well. I have to say that I do not like the NAB as much, simply because it makes the Bible too modernized. Should the Bible’s language be understandable? Absolutely! But should the meaning of the text watered down so that the multitudes can understand it? (i.e. the NAB has almost the opposite problem of the DR in regards to language). I don’t think so. Probably the worst example of this is in the passage on the Annunciation:

Luke 1:28 DR - “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Luke 1:28 NAB - "And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one. The Lord is with you.’ "

Luke 1:28 RSV - "And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.’ "

The RSV also has a footnote stating that “favored one” is a possible translation of the Greek of this verse. However, I think “full of grace” more accurately portrays the very deep Greek word of “kecharitomene” … whereas the “favored one” is more vague and more watered down. However, while the DR expresses the verse in a non-watered-down fashion, the language is extremely archaic and the RSV says, practically, the same thing while preserving the effect of the language.

Now, do I have a problem with people using the NAB? No … it’s certainly a valid translation, even if it is a little watered down in some areas. I do wish the USCCB would approve the RSV for use in the liturgy (and not just for personal studies). However, that’s not my decision to make.
 
RSV-2CE used to be my favorite translation, but now it is definately the Douay-Rheims.

Here are some of my favorite verses:
D-R, Book of Tobias Chapter 8:
3 Then the angel Raphael took the devil, and bound him in the desert of upper Egypt. 4 Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. 5 For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.6 So they both arose, and prayed earnestly both together that health might be given them, 7 And Tobias said: Lord God of our father, may the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains, and the rivers, and all thy creatures that are in them, bless thee. 8 Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper. 9 And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever. 10 Sara also said: Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us, and let us grow old both together in health.

Part of the prayer in here by Tobias isn’t in other translations.

Also the Translation of the Lord’s Prayer
Matthew 6:
9 Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

11Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
 
Why is it that some Catholics prefer to read Protestant renderings of the RSV that are doctrinally in error?

Do they crave readability so much that they are willing to put up with error?

Would those same people tolerate the same amount of imprecision in doctrine by the magisterium?

The last time I checked the Holy See could have chosen Protestant renderings in the Nova Vulgata and refused to do so.

Any chance that maybe the Holy See knows what it is doing and is Catholic and doesn’t vouch as truth Protestant scriptural renderings at odds with the deposit of the faith?

Check back with me when the Protestant RSV says “Supersubstantial bread” and don’t tell me that supersubstantial has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Eucharist!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Why is it that some Catholics prefer to read Protestant renderings of the RSV that are doctrinally in error?

Do they crave readability so much that they are willing to put up with error?

Would those same people tolerate the same amount of imprecision in doctrine by the magisterium?

The last time I checked the Holy See could have chosen Protestant renderings in the Nova Vulgata and refused to do so.

Any chance that maybe the Holy See knows what it is doing and is Catholic and doesn’t vouch as truth Protestant scriptural renderings at odds with the deposit of the faith?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by Protestant renderings of the RSV? The Church approved the 2nd Catholic Edition of the RSV…
 
Approve to be read and approval of all renderings in the text are two different things.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Approve to be read and approval of all renderings in the text are two different things.
Click to expand...
from my title page, “With ecclesiastical approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” … therefore I see no reason not to use it. It is, as I stated early, not watered down (as the New American Bible is) and not archaic as the Douay is.
 
The same group of Catholic bishops “approved” the NAB translation of the Psalms that was rejected because of inclusive language.

What was that approval worth?

Did their approval of the NAB Psalms renderings equate to truth in translation of the Psalms or vouchsafing that all renderings were absolute truth? The Holy See didn’t think so.

The Nova Vulgata which is the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church included "Supersubstantial’ in the Our Father and was “approved” by the Holy See.

Think that maybe just maybe that “approval” is worth more than the RSV’s?

Simple question of truth: Did the Holy Spirit inspire the gospel writer to convey “Supersubstantial” or not?

St. Jerome thought so.

The Vulgate prayed by the church included it until the Nova Vulgata and the Nova Vulgata didn’t change it.

Think maybe the church’s witness of the scriptue for that many years is worth more?

I believe the Holy Spirit wished to convey “Supersubstantial”.

Do you?

I’m sure the Protestants who translated it hate the idea and the approval of the RSV is not approval of that textual decision.

Don’t you think we should care about “supersubstantial”?

Point blank answer this: which translation Would Satan favor more–a bible with “supersubstantial” or a bible without it?

The RSV doesn’t include it.
 
I like the Douay-Rheims because this part is very clear to me :
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. Genesis 3:15
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top