I'm a nominal Catholic who actually worked for the Daughters of St. Paul back in the late 1990s-early 2000s. They're an order of nuns whose charism is to spread the gospel through the communications media. I've seen a few of their older books, but I've never seen that particular NT before. So great score! The Douay-Rheims, as it's usually called, is basically to the U.S. Catholic community what the King James is to Protestants: the old hoary chestnut dragged out by traditionalists who don't like the modern language of newer Bibles. When the D-R was largely discontinued in the mid-20th century, as Dan said, it was largely replaced around 1970 by the New American Bible, an updated, modern translation from the original languages. Those who still didn't like the modern language of the NAB (now called the NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition, since it's undergone a few revisions) nowadays mostly use reprints of the D-R, or they use the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE), the ancestral, Catholic version of the scholarly version that Dan promotes here: the NRSV-UE (New Revised Standard Version - Updated Edition). I hope this adds some further context to Dan's great explanation.
@@johnburn8031 That it is. But if you use a Protestant Bible to evangelize a Catholic they can shut you out for that - it a lot harder if you use one of THEIRS.
@@fnjesusfreak but, Catholics tend to be more reasonable and far less belligerent. I can only recall having one real argument with a Catholic online and I used the Bible she was quoting. I forget which one. As for American Evangelical Christians, it doesn't matter which version I use, they just say I am misinterpreting it. So, I use a Catholic version to be annoying on purpose. Especially, when dealing with KJV only Christians. BTW, I'm using Evangelical as shorthand for all the extremist Protestants.
When this fellow mentioned "recovering certain objects" in his professional life, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that he's an ER doc who's frequently had to dislodge objects that people have shoved up their backsides
The Confraternity NT is quite beautifully done. It’s a shame they didn’t the rest of the Old Testament, but rather had to shift gears in the middle due to Divino afflante Spiritu. I personally think it’s important to have a Douay Rheims on hand. Although the mentioned shift in source texts changed, I find it very hard to (at times) favor the Septuigint base. For this reason, I prefer to use both the DR(C) and RSV(2ce) for personal reading. Kind of the best of both worlds there from my Catholic point of view, of course.
The Confraternity NT was published in 1941. Between 1943 and 1970, elements of the Challoner OT were gradually replaced by what evolved into the New American Bible, which was finally published in full in 1970 with a new translation of the NT.
Possibly a confusing use of the term 'Apocrypha'? Didn't Challoner retain most of what Protestants call 'The Apocrypha' (but which Roman Catholics call 'Deuterocanonical' books) ... but perhaps leave out just 3 things that Roman Catholics might call 'Apocrypha'?
Challoner did NOT omit the "Apocrypha", a term frequently used by non-Catholics to refer to what we call the "Deutero-Canonical" books. The Deutero-Canonical books are: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees (or Maccabees), plus the additions to Daniel. The "Apocrypha" consists of what I listed PLUS several more books accepted by Orthodox Christians, but not by Catholics.
Dan's definitely one to use "Hebrew Bible" in general discussions. In narrow, Christian contexts like this, the Catholic Term Old Testament is more accurate.
@@Tmanaz480 Dan can use whatever words he wants on his channel, but the antinomian implication of the term is offensive. Still better than John 8:44 though.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 While this is resulting in a fascinating dive into vernacular differences between scholars and laypeople, could you complete the gap between usage of "Hebrew bible" and "antinomian" being offensive?
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing Old Testament is an antinomian term. Logically, perhaps, since traditional Christian doctrine rejects the continuing obligation to observe all of the Torah's eternal Divine commandments as such, both those which are for Jews and those which are for Gentiles.
I would assume that it had something to do with the suppression of Roman Catholicism in England after the reformation. Printing Catholic texts was probably verboten…the crown liked keeping its religious monopoly.
I'm a nominal Catholic who actually worked for the Daughters of St. Paul back in the late 1990s-early 2000s. They're an order of nuns whose charism is to spread the gospel through the communications media. I've seen a few of their older books, but I've never seen that particular NT before. So great score!
The Douay-Rheims, as it's usually called, is basically to the U.S. Catholic community what the King James is to Protestants: the old hoary chestnut dragged out by traditionalists who don't like the modern language of newer Bibles. When the D-R was largely discontinued in the mid-20th century, as Dan said, it was largely replaced around 1970 by the New American Bible, an updated, modern translation from the original languages. Those who still didn't like the modern language of the NAB (now called the NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition, since it's undergone a few revisions) nowadays mostly use reprints of the D-R, or they use the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE), the ancestral, Catholic version of the scholarly version that Dan promotes here: the NRSV-UE (New Revised Standard Version - Updated Edition).
I hope this adds some further context to Dan's great explanation.
Love seeing this kind of video providing context to someone already on the right track
When dealing with American Evangelical Christians online, I love deliberately using the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. 😂😂😂
Which is actually a Challoner.
@@fnjesusfreak I suppose, but it's still fun to see them cry, "but that's a Catholic Bible!"
@@johnburn8031 That it is. But if you use a Protestant Bible to evangelize a Catholic they can shut you out for that - it a lot harder if you use one of THEIRS.
@@fnjesusfreak but, Catholics tend to be more reasonable and far less belligerent.
I can only recall having one real argument with a Catholic online and I used the Bible she was quoting. I forget which one.
As for American Evangelical Christians, it doesn't matter which version I use, they just say I am misinterpreting it. So, I use a Catholic version to be annoying on purpose. Especially, when dealing with KJV only Christians.
BTW, I'm using Evangelical as shorthand for all the extremist Protestants.
@@johnburn8031 Well, Evangelical Protestants ARE the extreme types. I'm right on the line between Evangelical and Mainline myself.
On the whole, nicely done; thank you.
When this fellow mentioned "recovering certain objects" in his professional life, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that he's an ER doc who's frequently had to dislodge objects that people have shoved up their backsides
If that was the backstory of it, then I think someone might have stored the whole biblical story back in their holy hole for us to find later 😉🤣🤣🤣
I liked the translation of Job 40 and 41 in Douay - Rheims 1899, I have it in a box, somewhere.
This kind of support and data dissemination is the best use of the Internet. Great stuff!
First 🎉 thank you for your content Dan ❤️🔥
Love this!
The Confraternity NT is quite beautifully done. It’s a shame they didn’t the rest of the Old Testament, but rather had to shift gears in the middle due to Divino afflante Spiritu.
I personally think it’s important to have a Douay Rheims on hand. Although the mentioned shift in source texts changed, I find it very hard to (at times) favor the Septuigint base. For this reason, I prefer to use both the DR(C) and RSV(2ce) for personal reading. Kind of the best of both worlds there from my Catholic point of view, of course.
Thank you.
That was a fun one
The Bible reminds me of DC comics before they realized how convoluted things got and tried to "reboot" everything with Crisis of Infinite Earths.
The Confraternity NT was published in 1941. Between 1943 and 1970, elements of the Challoner OT were gradually replaced by what evolved into the New American Bible, which was finally published in full in 1970 with a new translation of the NT.
Possibly a confusing use of the term 'Apocrypha'? Didn't Challoner retain most of what Protestants call 'The Apocrypha' (but which Roman Catholics call 'Deuterocanonical' books) ... but perhaps leave out just 3 things that Roman Catholics might call 'Apocrypha'?
Challoner did NOT omit the "Apocrypha", a term frequently used by non-Catholics to refer to what we call the "Deutero-Canonical" books. The Deutero-Canonical books are: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees (or Maccabees), plus the additions to Daniel. The "Apocrypha" consists of what I listed PLUS several more books accepted by Orthodox Christians, but not by Catholics.
Dan got a fresh fade.
If you use the term Old Testament on Jewish forums, it is automatically changed to Tanach.
Dan's definitely one to use "Hebrew Bible" in general discussions. In narrow, Christian contexts like this, the Catholic Term Old Testament is more accurate.
@@Tmanaz480 Dan can use whatever words he wants on his channel, but the antinomian implication of the term is offensive. Still better than John 8:44 though.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 While this is resulting in a fascinating dive into vernacular differences between scholars and laypeople, could you complete the gap between usage of "Hebrew bible" and "antinomian" being offensive?
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing Old Testament is an antinomian term. Logically, perhaps, since traditional Christian doctrine rejects the continuing obligation to observe all of the Torah's eternal Divine commandments as such, both those which are for Jews and those which are for Gentiles.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 What about john 4:22?
Anyone know why these English translations were coming out of France?
I'm guessing the poor English Catholics only had the Bishops Bible.
I believe the printing press was not in England yet. William Caxton introduced the printing press in the late 16th century.
I would assume that it had something to do with the suppression of Roman Catholicism in England after the reformation. Printing Catholic texts was probably verboten…the crown liked keeping its religious monopoly.
@@daviydviljoen9318Caxton’s press predates the Douay-Rheims Bible by about a hundred years..
@@DKHolbrook11 Right, it was late 15th century, not 16th.
First!
Six hundred and first !!!
Pease don't says the 'm' in Reims.
Sorry, but that's the proper way to say it in English.
Yep Reims is pronounced \ʁɛ̃s\ with a nasal vowel instead of \ʁɛns\. Dan’s trying to the uvular r, gotta go all the way and get the nasals
Also Douai is just \dwɛ\
The English Catholic refugees in Douai and Rheims were not native French speakers, and may have mispronounced the place names any which way.