The original texts, in many cases, are either missing or no longer exist. However, I would suggest the Septuagint as a useful substitution, and many of those manuscripts have been well-preserved … after all, Jesus and the apostles used it. Why shouldn’t we?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’.
I think we are arguing the same thing here. The Septuagint is what we as Catholics have in our Bibles today.The original texts, in many cases, are either missing or no longer exist. However, I would suggest the Septuagint as a useful substitution, and many of those manuscripts have been well-preserved … after all, Jesus and the apostles used it. Why shouldn’t we?
Not really … quite frequently, wording from the Septuagint is replaced with wording from a Masoretic text.I think we are arguing the same thing here. The Septuagint is what we as Catholics have in our Bibles today.
Not in the Vulgate/DR, IIRC.Not really … quite frequently, wording from the Septuagint is replaced with wording from a Masoretic text.
Not really … quite frequently, wording from the Septuagint is replaced with wording from a Masoretic text.
The Vulgate Old Testament was translated by St. Jerome from the Hebrew, not the Greek Septuagint. And although the Masoretic Text post-dates Jerome by several centuries, it is supposedly in substantial agreement with the Hebrew text from before Jerome’s day. The Greek Septuagint is even older, but only its additions to Esther were used as a basis by Jerome for the Vulgate. Some of the Deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate were retained as is by Jerome from the earlier Old Latin versions and these were originally translated from the Septuagint before Jerome.Not in the Vulgate/DR, IIRC.
We can surmise many reasons why Jerome would have used only a small percentage of manuscripts, ranging from inaccessibility, his subjective recognition of quality, to even crazier far-fetched notions like having only these particular manuscripts which he used show up magically on his doorstep with a note attached reading “Love, God.” Yes, we can surmise many reasons why, but we can at least confidently say that he did, in truth, use less than what scholars are using today. Sure, there are advantages to Jerome’s method – and for this effort on my part, I’m not saying the Vulgate or DR is intrinsically garbage, but to the contrary, it is amazing what was achieved with such scant resource – but modern methods of the literary criticisms are able to, from what I have read and seen, construct an extremely accurate and reliable text. Scholarship in this field has excelled to such a level that even non-Christians are beginning to believe we’re reaching the text as originally read by the Fathers. I’m not going to say that some words are translated better in one than the other, but taken as a whole, in my opinion, the overall quality of contemporary translations (in terms of readability, precision, and adherence to authenticity) is hands down better.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.
I have two questions. In your last statement, you were referring to the NAB, correct? I have found the footnotes and commentaries to be very disturbing. It seems as though the commentaries are calling all of the supernatural things that happened in the OT legends. I believe the story of the Great Flood, and the parting of the Red Sea, and even Jonah and the Whale. I believe that the Eternal Holy God, the Holy Trinity is capable of doing whatever He chooses. He created the world. He can do whatever He wants to do with it. He created the laws of nature. If He knows that something miraculous is called for, who are we mere mortals to decide that God cannot do that.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.
I actually wasn’t referring to the NAB. I was referring to the ‘bibles’ put forth by people like Wycliff, Tyndale, and Luther. Inclusive language is not something that I personally enjoy, but if it is approved by a council of bishops as licit then it is fine for personal reading. I am much more in favor of the DR which is why I wrote on this thread.I have two questions. In your last statement, you were referring to the NAB, correct? I have found the footnotes and commentaries to be very disturbing. It seems as though the commentaries are calling all of the supernatural things that happened in the OT legends. I believe the story of the Great Flood, and the parting of the Red Sea, and even Jonah and the Whale. I believe that the Eternal Holy God, the Holy Trinity is capable of doing whatever He chooses. He created the world. He can do whatever He wants to do with it. He created the laws of nature. If He knows that something miraculous is called for, who are we mere mortals to decide that God cannot do that.
But that is what I found when reading the NAB.
Second question. How is it that the RSV-CE translation is an accurate translation if it is gender inclusive? To me, anyone who would be so offended by calling a male person “he” and a female version “she” and most of all, referring to God as “He”, would not be so careful to get it all correct. Am I wrong? I am not a Bible scholar…wish I was…, but I believe that I can identify something wrong when I read it.
Cheer up my friend,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.
Go to bookfinder.com, as I did seven years ago this very month. Put “douay rheims bible” as the title, and press Begin Search. I found the TAN softcover still shrink-wrapped with no defects for less than $25, and that’s with shipping and handling. But I refuse to mark up any edition of any bible.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.
technically, it’s a modified version of the NAB that’s used at Mass … and I think that this is done by the authority of the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) … search me as to why, there are at least 3 other English-language Catholic versions that are better than the NAB.I have a question, and I am not sure that this thread is the correct place to ask it, so feel free to guide me as you see fit.
When, why and by whose authority is it mandatory for the NAB to be the official Bible that is used at the Mass?
One of the things I like most about the D-R is its use of traditional Latin Vulgate imagery and language. For example, “shadow of death” instead of “deep darkness”; “seed” instead of “descendant”; “horn” instead of “power”; “Alleluia” instead of “Praise the Lord”; “mercy” instead of “steadfast love”; “know” instead of “have relations with”; “begot” instead of “was the father of”.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
SFH,One of the things I like most about the D-R is its use of traditional Latin Vulgate imagery and language. For example, “shadow of death” instead of “deep darkness”; “seed” instead of “descendant”; “horn” instead of “power”; “Alleluia” instead of “Praise the Lord”; “mercy” instead of “steadfast love”; “know” instead of “have relations with”; “begot” instead of “was the father of”.
The RSVCE Second Edition is too sloppy for me (including the mistyped title pages). It inconsistently translates “steadfast love” into “mercy” (especially in the Psalms). It removes “lo” and substitutes “behold”. It removes “babe” and substitutes “baby”. It removes “*ss” and substitutes “donkey”. Ostensibly, the changes were made to remove archaic language. But then, it replaces “cup” with “chalice” and adds “thees” and “thous” to the Angelic Greeting. I’m not sure why “lo” is considered more archaic than “behold” or why the use of “babe” in poetic sections of the Bible is considered archaic. I think it reflects poor judgment on the part of the editors and makes me question their judgment on other passages.
Sometimes the RSVCE Second Edition follows the Nova Vulgata (primarily in the portions of the Bible that made it into the Lectionary), but most of the time it retains the RSV textual criticism (see Sirach). Again, questionable judgment. Plus, the New Testament doesn’t even follow Liturgiam Authenticam like it claims. “Amen, amen,” is translated “Truly, truly”. “Raca” is translated “insult his brother”. The Parable of the Ten Virgins becomes the Parable of the Ten Maidens. And to top it off, it uses the 1946 RSV NT instead of the 1970 RSV NT so it reads “Here is the man” instead of “Behold the man”.
The Bible is too important of a book to go with a shaky translation like the RSVCE Second Edition. For now, the best alternative is the Douay-Rhems (although it has a multitude of its own problems and could really benefit from a revision to make the text conform to the Nova Vulgata).
It’s used in Matthew 6 in the Lord’s Prayer, rendered there as “give us this day our supersubstantial bread”.WOW what is this “Supersubstantial bread” ??? Please do tell!! I’ve never seen this before ~ I have a DR bible and I love it but I haven’t read it as much as I should. So what does this “Supersubstantial bread” mean???
Widely-held cynical view: guess which church body holds the copyright to - and derives revenue from - the RNAB, modified or not?technically, it’s a modified version of the NAB that’s used at Mass … and I think that this is done by the authority of the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) … search me as to why, there are at least 3 other English-language Catholic versions that are better than the NAB.
Okay, this is great. But can you elaborate further. If " Amen, amen" is translated into “Truly, truly” what does it mean. Translate “Raca” for me, please. And give me so much more. I am so hungry for it.One of the things I like most about the D-R is its use of traditional Latin Vulgate imagery and language. For example, “shadow of death” instead of “deep darkness”; “seed” instead of “descendant”; “horn” instead of “power”; “Alleluia” instead of “Praise the Lord”; “mercy” instead of “steadfast love”; “know” instead of “have relations with”; “begot” instead of “was the father of”.
The RSVCE Second Edition is too sloppy for me (including the mistyped title pages). It inconsistently translates “steadfast love” into “mercy” (especially in the Psalms). It removes “lo” and substitutes “behold”. It removes “babe” and substitutes “baby”. It removes “*ss” and substitutes “donkey”. Ostensibly, the changes were made to remove archaic language. But then, it replaces “cup” with “chalice” and adds “thees” and “thous” to the Angelic Greeting. I’m not sure why “lo” is considered more archaic than “behold” or why the use of “babe” in poetic sections of the Bible is considered archaic. I think it reflects poor judgment on the part of the editors and makes me question their judgment on other passages.
Sometimes the RSVCE Second Edition follows the Nova Vulgata (primarily in the portions of the Bible that made it into the Lectionary), but most of the time it retains the RSV textual criticism (see Sirach). Again, questionable judgment. Plus, the New Testament doesn’t even follow Liturgiam Authenticam like it claims. “Amen, amen,” is translated “Truly, truly”. “Raca” is translated “insult his brother”. The Parable of the Ten Virgins becomes the Parable of the Ten Maidens. And to top it off, it uses the 1946 RSV NT instead of the 1970 RSV NT so it reads “Here is the man” instead of “Behold the man”.
The Bible is too important of a book to go with a shaky translation like the RSVCE Second Edition. For now, the best alternative is the Douay-Rhems (although it has a multitude of its own problems and could really benefit from a revision to make the text conform to the Nova Vulgata).