Why We Love The Douay-Rheims

[Mattjolley]

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.

That the Holy Father uses the RSV in his writings is good enough for me, as much as I love the D-R, I can also appreciate the RSVCE aswell as other Catholic Bible versions.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is ok to use what isn’t in error from other translations but if you’ll read the pope’s encyclical on hope you’ll see where he comments that the current translations do not convey the truth as well as the Vulgate does.

In most instances I have no problem with the newer translations.

In a small number I do.

That is why it is best not to rely on any one translation of the bible–but when a “Disputation” arises as the Ecumenical Council of Trent states–the Vulgate could be used in “all disputations”.

In those instances I will rely on the Ecumenical Council of Trent–guided by the Holy Spirit in its teaching authority–and choose the Vulgate rendering!

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

What do you mean by Protestant renderings of the RSV? The Church approved the 2nd Catholic Edition of the RSV…

Maybe he’s referring to the NRSV, which is not approved for Catholic use.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Mattjolley]

I thought it was, in Canada? My edition of the Catholic NRSV has an Imprimatur.

 

[tassitus]

RSV-2CE used to be my favorite translation, but now it is definately the Douay-Rheims…

I think the Douay-Rheims is my favorite translation as well - certainly one I would have a hard time ever questioning.

Problem is, my one Douay-Rheims is the hardcover leather version put out by Baronius Press in 2005. I just CANNOT bring myself to even write in the margins…

So, I usually reach for the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE), which is now pretty scribbled up. Guess I should be on the lookout for an older Douay-Rheims that could take some margin notes.

Or break down and markup the Baronius Press?

 

[ragincajunjoe]

I think the Douay-Rheims is my favorite translation as well - certainly one I would have a hard time ever questioning.

Problem is, my one Douay-Rheims is the hardcover leather version put out by Baronius Press in 2005. I just CANNOT bring myself to even write in the margins…

So, I usually reach for the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE), which is now pretty scribbled up. Guess I should be on the lookout for an older Douay-Rheims that could take some margin notes.

Or break down and markup the Baronius Press?

i dont mark in my Bibles at all … lol … if i absolutely have to, I write a note in my version on the computer.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I cannot right now pay the price for the DR version. I first came across it last week at a friend’s house. I picked it up and started reading it. It hit me HARD that this is a much stronger translation. By stronger I mean that the words have so much more meaning and truth. The other translations seem so watered down. For instance, in the NAB it says “highly favored one”, and the DR says “Full of grace”. There is the world of difference between those two translations.
Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Using the analogy of a glass of water, She is not just half full, she is not even 3/4 or 2/3 full of grace, She is TOTALLY full of grace. There is no room at all for anything in Her which is not grace.
That is a far cry from “highly favored one”. That makes it sound like the Holy Trinity has favorites, and Mary was His favorite. I was very hurt by gradeschool teachers who had favorites.
Does that make any sense to you all?

Anyway, if it is not selfish of me to ask, please pray that God sees fit to help me find the money for the DR translation.

 

[Cranch]

Anyway, if it is not selfish of me to ask, please pray that God sees fit to help me find the money for the DR translation.

You could start with a paperback D-R New Testament available new on ebay (under $15.00 including shipping) or Amazon (under $18.00). Read the whole Douay-Rheims bible here for free.

 

[ragincajunjoe]

I cannot right now pay the price for the DR version. I first came across it last week at a friend’s house. I picked it up and started reading it. It hit me HARD that this is a much stronger translation. By stronger I mean that the words have so much more meaning and truth. The other translations seem so watered down. For instance, in the NAB it says “highly favored one”, and the DR says “Full of grace”. There is the world of difference between those two translations.
Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Using the analogy of a glass of water, She is not just half full, she is not even 3/4 or 2/3 full of grace, She is TOTALLY full of grace. There is no room at all for anything in Her which is not grace.
That is a far cry from “highly favored one”. That makes it sound like the Holy Trinity has favorites, and Mary was His favorite. I was very hurt by gradeschool teachers who had favorites.
Does that make any sense to you all?

Anyway, if it is not selfish of me to ask, please pray that God sees fit to help me find the money for the DR translation.

also, you can download e-sword (a largely Protestant program) and then download the Douay-Rheims version.

Also, it can be accessed in its entirety here:

biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=63#booklist

 

[Epistemes]

I really find the whole argument that Trent declared the Vulgate to be free from error in respect to faith and morals to be seriously lacking in terms of weight regarding why the average Catholic ought to rely on the DR, primarily for the reason that such reasoning blows Trent’s declaration out of proportion and insinuates reasons not orginally entailed by the 16th century bishops; nor do I find the argument convincing that one or two men are able to translate a text better than a committee whose skill is the translation and universal interpretation of a text; and, finally, it’s pathetic to see a group of Catholics frightened to the core of a little something called “ecumenism,” which is reached by mutuality, a sharing of common principles, and an attempt to breach the insults which history has caused. In other words, the RSV-CE, the NRSV-CE, and even the NAB teach the fundamental facts that Jesus was born of the Virgin, preached for three years, was crucifed, was buried, and rose again on the third day in order to be exalted by the Father. Nothing could be more essential in any Bible.

 

[Bwsherman]

I really find the whole argument that Trent declared the Vulgate to be free from error in respect to faith and morals to be seriously lacking in terms of weight regarding why the average Catholic ought to rely on the DR, primarily for the reason that such reasoning blows Trent’s declaration out of proportion and insinuates reasons not orginally entailed by the 16th century bishops; nor do I find the argument convincing that one or two men are able to translate a text better than a committee whose skill is the translation and universal interpretation of a text; and, finally, it’s pathetic to see a group of Catholics frightened to the core of a little something called “ecumenism,” which is reached by mutuality, a sharing of common principles, and an attempt to breach the insults which history has caused. In other words, the RSV-CE, the NRSV-CE, and even the NAB teach the fundamental facts that Jesus was born of the Virgin, preached for three years, was crucifed, was buried, and rose again on the third day in order to be exalted by the Father. Nothing could be more essential in any Bible.

I am not sure how aware you are about the development of the Vulgate, nevertheless, St. Jerome put twenty years of his life eventually going blind translating the best know copies of the original manuscripts to produce the Latin Vulgate. This task being accomplished in the fourth century. If it were not for the work of St. Jerome, you would have no other ‘versions’ available. The DR of course being a direct translation of the Vulgate provides for all Christians the most accurate portrayal of what the authors original intent was. St. Thomas Aquinas says that, “all other sense of scripture come from the literal”. When you read “highly favored one” for instance, the literal understanding of that differs greatly from “full of grace” as St. Luke intended it to be. This thread has no fear ecumenism. It is about relaying the best understanding of scripture possible with the guidance of the Church. If you look into the timeframe of the council of Trent, there were numerous illicit copies of scripture available. The council was making sure thatHer children would not be lead astray by the incorrect translations and purposively misleading footnotes and commentaries directly attacking the Church.

 

[bilop]

This is all I need:

NSRV

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’* 29But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ 34Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’* 35The angel said to her, ‘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 holy; he will be called Son of God.

and THIS is the Douay-Rheims:

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 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.

I’ll stick with St. Jerome ANY DAY.

God Bless

 

[Epistemes]

I am not sure how aware you are about the development of the Vulgate, nevertheless, St. Jerome put twenty years of his life eventually going blind translating the best know copies of the original manuscripts to produce the Latin Vulgate. This task being accomplished in the fourth century. If it were not for the work of St. Jerome, you would have no other ‘versions’ available. The DR of course being a direct translation of the Vulgate provides for all Christians the most accurate portrayal of what the authors original intent was. St. Thomas Aquinas says that, “all other sense of scripture come from the literal”. When you read “highly favored one” for instance, the literal understanding of that differs greatly from “full of grace” as St. Luke intended it to be. This thread has no fear ecumenism. It is about relaying the best understanding of scripture possible with the guidance of the Church. If you look into the timeframe of the council of Trent, there were numerous illicit copies of scripture available. The council was making sure thatHer children would not be lead astray by the incorrect translations and purposively misleading footnotes and commentaries directly attacking the Church.

• The assertion that there would be no other versions of the Bible available had Jerome not been commissioned to produce the Vulgate is like asserting that the October Revolution would not have occurred if Lenin were absent, or that psychoanalysis would have never been developed without Freud. It is, at best, an ambiguous and anachronistic statement.
• You are correct in asserting that the council of Trent had in its best interests to authorize a single version of the Bible in order to combat other, spurious copies which dissidents, apostates, Reformers, and heretics were reading from; but the bishops did not have knowledge of textual, formal, nor any kind of criticism which many biblical scholars today have in order to piece together the most authentic Bible based upon many more manuscripts than Jerome. What Jerome may have had in quality, todays’ scholars have in quantity. And, to much chagrin of some, today’s biblical scholars do not attempt to alter (or, synchronize) the death of Judas from Matthew to Acts.
• Whether “highly favoured one” or “full of grace,” how any other text chooses to translate the greeting to Mary, such a translation hardly affects my personal faith (or morals) since it is upon faith that I believe in her Immaculate Conception. If a person cannot effectively argue (or believe) in Mary’s Immaculate Conception without a committee translating one word to their liking, then perhaps there needs to be some time spent in personal reflection on this mystery and why it is even a mystery at all.

 

[Bwsherman]

• The assertion that there would be no other versions of the Bible available had Jerome not been commissioned to produce the Vulgate is like asserting that the October Revolution would not have occurred if Lenin were absent, or that psychoanalysis would have never been developed without Freud. It is, at best, an ambiguous and anachronistic statement.
• You are correct in asserting that the council of Trent had in its best interests to authorize a single version of the Bible in order to combat other, spurious copies which dissidents, apostates, Reformers, and heretics were reading from; but the bishops did not have knowledge of textual, formal, nor any kind of criticism which many biblical scholars today have in order to piece together the most authentic Bible based upon many more manuscripts than Jerome. What Jerome may have had in quality, todays’ scholars have in quantity. And, to much chagrin of some, today’s biblical scholars do not attempt to alter (or, synchronize) the death of Judas from Matthew to Acts.
• Whether “highly favoured one” or “full of grace,” how any other text chooses to translate the greeting to Mary, such a translation hardly affects my personal faith (or morals) since it is upon faith that I believe in her Immaculate Conception. If a person cannot effectively argue (or believe) in Mary’s Immaculate Conception without a committee translating one word to their liking, then perhaps there needs to be some time spent in personal reflection on this mystery and why it is even a mystery at all.

The reality that we face is that God utilized St. Jerome to bring about the Vulgate. Now whether or not others would have attempted this is a somewhat moot point because the facts are the facts. As far as everything else that you said, I really have no argument. I do not believe that a single verse can be utilized to reveal the sacramentality of the Immaculate conception. However, my point was that the translation of the text does affect the manner in which the literal interpretation is ascertained. I would also be interested how you conclude that many more manuscripts are now available as opposed to when St. Jerome was working.

 

[Epistemes]

The reality that we face is that God utilized St. Jerome to bring about the Vulgate. Now whether or not others would have attempted this is a somewhat moot point because the facts are the facts. As far as everything else that you said, I really have no argument. I do not believe that a single verse can be utilized to reveal the sacramentality of the Immaculate conception. However, my point was that the translation of the text does affect the manner in which the literal interpretation is ascertained. I would also be interested how you conclude that many more manuscripts are now available as opposed to when St. Jerome was working.

I cannot definitively state that there are more original manuscripts available today than during Jerome’s time, but I think it can be said fairly confidently that Jerome utilized what was available to him, even though many many more manuscripts were likely available. In other words, Jerome based his translation on a small percentage of manuscripts; whereas, today, scholars today have the luxury of studying manuscripts dating back to the 4th century in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Slavic, etc. In that sense, the number of available and utilized manuscripts would seem to outnumber those utilized by Jerome.

 

[Cranch]

I really find the whole argument that Trent declared the Vulgate to be free from error in respect to faith and morals to be seriously lacking in terms of weight regarding why the average Catholic ought to rely on the DR, primarily for the reason that such reasoning blows Trent’s declaration out of proportion and insinuates reasons not orginally entailed by the 16th century bishops; nor do I find the argument convincing that one or two men are able to translate a text better than a committee whose skill is the translation and universal interpretation of a text; and, finally, it’s pathetic to see a group of Catholics frightened to the core of a little something called “ecumenism,” which is reached by mutuality, a sharing of common principles, and an attempt to breach the insults which history has caused. In other words, the RSV-CE, the NRSV-CE, and even the NAB teach the fundamental facts that Jesus was born of the Virgin, preached for three years, was crucifed, was buried, and rose again on the third day in order to be exalted by the Father. Nothing could be more essential in any Bible.

So you have a problem with Catholics relying on the Church’s solemn teaching that the Vulgate is error-free in faith and morals because of a supposed possibility that “average” Catholics might extend this assurance beyond faith and morals? And yet recent English translations are fine so long as they transmit the bare basics of Christianity? You really are a fan of ecumenism, because let’s face it: it is the lowest common denominator—nothing more than an acknowledgment of what we already agree on. Anything more moves towards conversion. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes, or maybe in this case, in the lack thereof.

Reading your comment on committees, I can’t figure out if you haven’t been on enough committees to know better, or you’ve been on so many that you actually think they work. Seriously though, what do you mean by the phrase “universal interpretation” of a text?

 

[ragincajunjoe]

The reality that we face is that God utilized St. Jerome to bring about the Vulgate. Now whether or not others would have attempted this is a somewhat moot point because the facts are the facts. As far as everything else that you said, I really have no argument. I do not believe that a single verse can be utilized to reveal the sacramentality of the Immaculate conception. However, my point was that the translation of the text does affect the manner in which the literal interpretation is ascertained. I would also be interested how you conclude that many more manuscripts are now available as opposed to when St. Jerome was working.

St. Jerome’s translation of many of the books of the Bible, I will admit, is far superior to many translations of the Bible, including those in use by the Church today. However, he did only spend one night translating the Book of Tobit, and frankly, one night on a book is not a worthy amount of time for any translation of the importance of Sacred Scripture (except for maybe something like the book of Obadiah, the 2nd and 3rd letters of St. John, and the letter of St. Jude, which are, truth be told, quite short.) Of course, Jerome did not consider the deuterocanon to be part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture … so his translations of all of the deuterocanonical books are suspect, in my humble opinion. Also, Trent declared that the Vulgate was free of error in the matter of faith and morals … not textual error. Furthermore, nobody (except Our Lord and Our Lady) was perfect, and even St. Jerome could have made a mistake, here and there.

For more information, here’s a link I got from Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Yet again, I do encourage the use of the Douay-Rheims for study of Scripture … but it certainly should not be the only version used. Neither should the Vulgate be the only version used. If you’re going to stick to one version, you need to stick to the original text. Otherwise, you need to (quite often) study many versions. The Ignatius RSV-2CE is my preferred version but I know that it is not really the best … but it is good for devotional work and it is good for apologetics and it is good for study as well (though, yet again, I emphasize the point that it is NOT the best).

 

[Bwsherman]

I cannot definitively state that there are more original manuscripts available today than during Jerome’s time, but I think it can be said fairly confidently that Jerome utilized what was available to him, even though many many more manuscripts were likely available. In other words, Jerome based his translation on a small percentage of manuscripts; whereas, today, scholars today have the luxury of studying manuscripts dating back to the 4th century in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Slavic, etc. In that sense, the number of available and utilized manuscripts would seem to outnumber those utilized by Jerome.

Think out logically what you are saying. St. Jerome only utilized a small percentage of the manuscripts available to him. Why do you suppose he did that? Because they were the best manuscripts. Why would he want to utilize a manuscript that was not as good as another? It does not make sense to me and I am certain that I am far less intelligent then St. Jerome.

 

[bilop]

I cannot definitively state that there are more original manuscripts available today than during Jerome’s time, but I think it can be said fairly confidently that Jerome utilized what was available to him, even though many many more manuscripts were likely available. In other words, Jerome based his translation on a small percentage of manuscripts; whereas, today, scholars today have the luxury of studying manuscripts dating back to the 4th century in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Slavic, etc. In that sense, the number of available and utilized manuscripts would seem to outnumber those utilized by Jerome.

Remember, St. Jerome had access to MANY manuscripts that are no longer extant.

He certainly had MANY manuscripts that dated from the 2nd and 3rd centuries and were MUCH closer to the original than what current scholars have.

Plus, his knowledge of Biblical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were likely MUCH better than today’s scholars, being only 300-350 years removed from that time, rather than 2000.

God Bless

 

[Bwsherman]

St. Jerome’s translation of many of the books of the Bible, I will admit, is far superior to many translations of the Bible, including those in use by the Church today. However, he did only spend one night translating the Book of Tobit, and frankly, one night on a book is not a worthy amount of time for any translation of the importance of Sacred Scripture (except for maybe something like the book of Obadiah, the 2nd and 3rd letters of St. John, and the letter of St. Jude, which are, truth be told, quite short.) Of course, Jerome did not consider the deuterocanon to be part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture … so his translations of all of the deuterocanonical books are suspect, in my humble opinion. Also, Trent declared that the Vulgate was free of error in the matter of faith and morals … not textual error. Furthermore, nobody (except Our Lord and Our Lady) was perfect, and even St. Jerome could have made a mistake, here and there.

For more information, here’s a link I got from Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Yet again, I do encourage the use of the Douay-Rheims for study of Scripture … but it certainly should not be the only version used. Neither should the Vulgate be the only version used. If you’re going to stick to one version, you need to stick to the original text. Otherwise, you need to (quite often) study many versions. The Ignatius RSV-2CE is my preferred version but I know that it is not really the best … but it is good for devotional work and it is good for apologetics and it is good for study as well (though, yet again, I emphasize the point that it is NOT the best).

I agree that St. Jerome was not perfect. He probably made many mistakes in his life, but I do believe that the work done through him was meant for the benefit of the entire Church. As far as the amount of time spent translating, I am no expert in the field and I will have to rely on St. Jerome. You do bring up an interesting point though. You state that if one is going to stick to one version, that version not being the Vulgate as approved by the council of Trent, it should be the original text. I would have to ask: where are the original manuscripts that held the text? There is a book by Bishop Henry Graham, Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church, in it he goes to show the development or history of the bible utilizing numerous resources including protestant. He was himself a convert from Presbyterianism.

My point, however, is not to say that other approved versions of the scriptures are less valuable then the Douay-Rheims, but the title of this thread is ‘Why we love the Douay-Rheims’.