Is the Douay-Rheims the Best Translation?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 січ 2025
- Support the Apostolate and join the patron family: / meaningofcatholic
Buy our books at Our Lady of Victory Press: meaningofcatho...
***
The Meaning of Catholic is a lay apostolate. meaningofcatho.... Content is managed by founder Timothy S. Flanders.
Our Lady of Victory Press: meaningofcatho...
Terror of Demons book by @kennedyhall: meaningofcatho...
Podcast: meaningofcatho...
Podcast on Apple: podcasts.apple...
Bitchute: www.bitchute.c...
FREE book for patrons: meaningofcatho...
Print copy at Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Website: meaningofcatho...
Twitter, Parler and Gab: @meaningofcath
Sp3rn: sp3rn.com/comm...
***
OTHER RESOURCES:
Duties of your state in life: meaningofcatho...
A Basic Rule of Life: meaningofcatho...
Prayer: meaningofcatho...
Spiritual Reading: meaningofcatho...
Moral Theology resources: meaningofcatho...
***
Music: "Pangue Lingua" and “In Paradisum" by Highlander Scholastic's Cantorum (used with permission) www.amazon.com...
Schola Cantorum of St. Gregory Academy: gregorythegrea...
Sacred Art “Our Lady of Guadalupe,” and “Pieta” by Gwyneth Thompson Briggs (used with permission) gwyneththompso...
gt...
Other Sacred Art is in the public domain
Is the Douay-Rheims the Best Translation? Yes.
I am trying to find the original DR not the Challoner version. Any ideas? I have read the annotations from the original online and they are by far superior in terms of explaining the cathechism of the Church.
I’ve really enjoyed my Ignatius RSV, but I recently purchased a Benedict Press Douay and I must say it’s super cool! The Bible translation game is new to me, but so far I’ve found having options has made reading scripture fun and has helped me commit to it. Blessings from NYC
Hey brother! Glad to hear that. In our lay sodality (meaningofcatholic.com/2022/03/01/fellowship-st-anthony/) many of us are following the annual Bible reader plan found in my book: www.amazon.com/Introduction-Holy-Bible-Traditional-Catholics/dp/0578624265
Why can’t we get good quality cheap bibles? One big thing I noticed coming from a Protestant background is the poverty of Catholic Bible publications. It’s like no one knows what is standard in the Bible publishing world or cares about making a beautiful product.
True
The Good News Translation is like $10 on Amazon
@@TruLuan that is not a catholic bible.
Benedict press made my Bible. Great product in my opinion
Problem is that there are hardly any Catholic bibles in nice printings. DR, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, ect. don't have any premium bindings. The ESV-CE has a nice one from Cambridge but it is basically just the ESV with deuterocanon, which is fine but the same quality ESV from Crossway is like 1/2 the price. I'm settled on a nice Cambridge KJV with Apocrypha for now. I wish someone would print a nicer version of the DRC than the usual, which is basically just a scan of the 1899 edition. In the end the Challoner Douay-Rheims that everyone is using today is more of an updated KJV than an updated Douay-Rheims anyway. (edit: I see you mention this)
I like the RSV - CE II translation.
Thank you for laying out these clear explanations. May God reward you.
I enjoy a lot reading the introduction. Vulgate and Septuagint are the best.
Informative. You have a lot of knowledge and enthusiasm for this subject matter.
RSV "Catholic Edition" comes from the protestants, and is then modified here and there. I would take the Knox version over the RSV, and of course the Douay above all other English translations, and St. Jerome's Vulgata over everything. There is something about it that is almost inexplicable, except in the light of how it was the only official translation for more than 1500 years, and is written in a sacred language.
The RSV-CE is the English translation used by the Vatican. Oh, how I dislike trads who feel they are more Catholic than the Pope🙄
The Confraternity Version NT completed in 1941 and the OT finally completed in 1969 with previous OT books in bits and pieces is a faithful translation from the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Challoner with some new annotation. The abominable NAB unfortunately superseded the Confraternity version in 1970 confusedly published under the auspices of the CCD. Confraternity of Christine Doctrine also. The Confraternity was after the NAB no longer published and fell out of favor. A complete OT confraternity version is rare.
@@duke927 The Confraternity version does not follow the Vulgate. Its translators took into account Pius XII's wish that Bibles be translated "from the original". This is quite problematic. If you know Latin, and read the Confraternity version, you can readily see that it does not follow the Vulgate, which the Douay Reims-Challoner does scrupulously. We are not fortunate in the English speaking world to have an updated English translation of the Vulgate, like French speakers have in the Glaire translation from the early 20th century. The Knox translation was supposed to be a translation of the Vulgate, but certainly isn't. Knox relied on "dynamic translation". It is a highly literary Bible written in exquisite English, and is dependable, but that is all.
If the Douay-Rheims is best, why does the Church use the RSV in the Catechism?
@@dorianlelongI don’t know Latin well, but I do know about the history of English translations of the Bible. The original Douay-Rheims bible scrupulously follows the Vulgate. Bishop Challoner actually stayed close, but did make some corrections where he consulted the Greek and Hebrew, and even the KJV. The Confraternity version did the same. Honestly, if I ranked them, it would be Douay-Rheims Challoner, followed by the Confraternity version, followed by the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. The original Douay is readable for us moderns and fantastic for scripture study, but I don’t think it’s great for spiritual reading. The Challoner version is top notch for spiritual reading though. I think the Confraternity version is a good balance of the two.
What do you think about the Didache Bible RSV? The notes with the commentaries with the CCC
Not familiar, but I would prefer the RSV 2CE
It actually is the RSV-2CE that is used for the text of the Didache Bible. I don't have it either but it seems quite useful.
wonderful commentary. I learned a lot. Many thanks,
You're welcome! Please support the apostolate: meaningofcatholic.com/register/
You can now get the original one on amazon that goes back to the 1582 and 1610...its not the Chall 1700s translation. Thank u Jesus and Semper Virginis. Its the one put out by St. Benedict Press with the 1899 imprimatur.
Really…no revisions of challoner there ??
@@binyamin3716 not comparable as its a seperate and distinct translation...and not nessisary. Not to mention that was not of the same magnitude or dedication as the original Douay Rheims effort.
Agreed, the original Douay-Rheims also has a bunch of very useful notes, commentaries, and other valuable elements that were not retained in the Challoner revision.
@@-GodIsMyJudge- a more accurate and older translation than the KJV
I would disagree with the Nova Vulgata being better in terms of the text-critical mindset. If we use the Comma Johanneum as a perfect example: in the Anglo and German-speaking world, it is rather en vogue to treat the verse as an interpolation. However, in my Spanish Vulgate translation, the footnotes say that this is authentic, but was removed in many manuscripts during the time of the Arian crisis - specifically to reject the Divinity of Christ.
Thus, I trust still St. Jerome and the Council of Trent.
As for the RSV: stopped using it, since it misses some verses - as most protestant Bibles - and does not use Ipsa in Genesis 3:15. When it comes to that verse, I trust Our Lady more than so-called exegetical experts.
I prefer Jerome's original New Testament from 450ish AD. The Comma Johanneum is not in it.
I'm saddened by the Dogmatic Latin mindset being presented here. The Comma Johanneum is by all means an interpolation, and guess what, the earliest Latin manuscripts that we have of Jerome's Vulgate do not have the addition. It's of Spanish-Latin origin. Not even those advocates of the Majority Text and their mindset of keeping as many disputed verses there are in the KJV in the text of the Bible as possible think that the Johannine Comma is Scripture. The Decree of Trent says 'old Vulgate, as read by the Church everywhere...' (or something akin to that). So it's saying that the original Vulgate of Jerome has the authority that the Holy Council prescribes to it in the full Decree, not the Douay-Rheims or the later Latin manuscripts upon which it's based. Those are, by my knowledge, not under this decree. And this is why I lose it sometimes when people really don't want the truth but rather want their version of the truth. Have you researched the topic of Genesis 3:15 and the crushing of the serpent's head? If memory serves, I watched a Pints with Aquinas podcast with Fr Christian Kappas and William Albrecht titled '*Every* Objection to Mary Answered'. There, quite coincidentally, they talk about the question of 'her' or 'him' crushing the head of the serpent, and that a recent study quite clearly found out that for Jerome, it was 'he' crushing the head of the serpent. Jerome rebukes you. Please forgive me if some of the things I've mentioned are inaccuracies, I've written as much as my memory recalls of the info.
What about Genesis 3 15?
Who crushes the head?
I always believed it was the blessed Virgin.
I coincidentally learnt a while ago watching a Pints with Aquinas podcast with Fr Christian Kappas and William Albrecht titled '*Every* Objection to Mary Answered'. There's a lot, and I mean a lot, of good info about the Blessed Virgin talked about. For example, I learnt that Mary was most likely 12-14 years old as in the Protoevangelium of James and that this age quite prophetically holds up with the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 and the full meaning of 'almah' (virgin {who is also *young*}). But coming back to the point, I learnt in the video that a study was conducted regarding Jerome's view on 'her' or 'him' crushing the head of the serpent, and that study quite clearly found out that the Douay-Rheims mistranslated Jerome's original rendering which was 'him'.
TLDR: It's 'him' crushing the head of the serpent in Genesis for Jerome, and the DR misrepresents Jerome's translation of the passage.
What about the Coptic Text? I know there was a couple different types that have been found. It and Hebrew was found. That’s went to Greek and Latin. Is this correct?
I use the cpdv. It was made using Latin sources but it is easier to read than the douay rheims
Ronald L Conte Jr. Is the translator of the CPDV. His commentary on the translation and its placement in the public domain is interesting. He basically said he could not get the nihil obstat and the imprimatur today as the language in his translation is not “inclusive” so the CPDV has neither. But he stated he used the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Challoner as a guide for his rendering. He also has a side by side Vulgate/CPDV online which I use often. It is hard to find hard copies of the CODV but they are out there. Enjoy. I like the CPDV too:)
Two Questions:
1. Why can we not have an English Translation, whether it be NSRV, NABRE, NCB that has only the essential commentary (i.e. original Greek/Hebrew words when required) and extensive biblical cross referencing?
a. I do not want a bible that has half or more of most of the pages taken up with commentary. But, I can not find a Catholic bible in English (apart from the ESV-CE and the Douay-Rheims) without all this commentary.
i. I love the ESV-CE but it has it’s own issues
1. Protestant and drawn, mostly, from the Masoretic text line
2. So little biblical cross references as to be all but non-exsistant
2. Douay-Rheims…Why can we not get an official Catholic update to this translation (going back to the Greek if possible and the Vulgate when/as required)?
a. The language of the Douay-Rheims is archaic and not approachable. At times, it is obvious that the word selection is no longer proper, if it ever was.
b. The NABRE, NSRV, NCB and ESV-CE are all based on the Masoretic text line. As Catholics, I thought our bible was the Vulgate, which is based, largely, on the Septuagint text line. So, in order to use a bible that doesn’t use clunky, archaic language and at times blatantly poor word choices for the modern age, we are forced to rely on translations largely sourced from the Masoretic text line.
I would look for a compact bible or one marked "readers edition". That usually does away with most footnotes. Some copyright owners actually require that the translation be published with the footnotes. I think that's the case with the NAB but I'm not sure. You may like the Knox bible which is a newer translation of Vulgate but I don't think it's a formal equivalence translation.
Also my Ignatius RSV2CE bible has pretty limited notes and will reference differences between the masoretic and septuagint text. I'm no expert so I have no idea how thorough it is.
Do you think Challoner was trying to avoid confusion by using the meaning of "anointed one" vs "christs"? In the same way of avoiding confusion in using moshiach vs Moshiach vs messiah vs Messiah when the text is talking about simply an anointed person verses the actual Messiah?
1899 DRC>Knox>RSV2CE
Those are the three main Bibles that I use.
Since I am in the Ordinariate, I also appreciate the KJV and the Coverdale Psalter - both are used in our Liturgy and are very beautiful. I would love to see a KJVCE for the Ordinariates.
I'd also take issue with saying that DRC/KJV/Knox use 'archaic' language. I'd say that they use Sacral English.
RSV2CE is the best colloquial language translation. Most others are awful.
If you think the earlier and more obscure the Bible translation is, the more sacred it is (of the abracadabra type), then get the first English Bible translated by the Catholic priest John Wycliffe, called the Wycliffe Bible.
Take what is good. Discard what is not good.
All the chapter headings in the Old Testament Douay Rheims Bible Challoner edition explains explicitly if it’s a prophecy about Christ or the New Testament Church. And the footnotes are amazing all over the place, look at (Isaiah 10:27) about Divine Mercy or Unction of the Holy Spirit (1John 2:20) or (psalm 3) a prophecy about the passion of Christ or about the Eucharist (Matt 6:11) and an amazing Table of References teaching us how to defend the faith, where we can find purgatory and about the sacraments and the priesthood and so on. Did you read the notes on (psalm 67) Exurgat deus or (psalm 68) Salve me fac, beautiful and powerful, but the rsv teaches you nothing like that. How can you replace the Douay Rheims with the Nab or the Nabre or the New Jerusalem bible or RSV which comes from the Asv which came from the kjv which for me is better than an rsv2ce which gives us only half of the Sacred “Angelic Salutation” in (Luke 1:28), and also leaves out half of Jesus’ response to the devil in (Luke 4:3) where he tells the devil that man cannot live on bread alone but by every word of God and many more? But the RSV has just says that man cannot live by bread alone, that’s it. They leave out the part about the word of God. Just a few thoughts because I read the Douay Rheims and I’ve read all the rest and I think the devil has tricked the church into watered down versions. We need bibles to carry around with us wherever we go but Catholic Bibles are big bulky hardback this and hardback that. We need to be like our Protestant brothers and sisters and make decent bibles. And how about a “Douay Rheims Revised edition” 2022? 🙏👍🙌✝️☝️
Best thing is to buy the baronius press English Latin bible learn Latin and understand it with the English texts given in the Bible …tge exact Jerome vulgate is available in taschen a fascimile gutenberg bible …which was mentioned in the baronius bible itself (1454 facsimile )
Amazon Germany: 450 Euros
Rip me . I got the ignatius one.
What about the new Catholic english translations approved, one out of India and the other out of the Phillipines? Both better than the RSV2CE I think as far as translation goes...
I think you're talking about the ESV-CE. There seems to be no reason to prefer that over the RSV-2CE, especially because of the quite dogmatic usage of the Masoretic Text in the OT and going with its reading even when it's quite disputed and unclear. The updations in general are great, but once you see the RSV text before the updations they really don't make that much of a difference. The choice of 'expiation' in the RSV instead of the traditional translation 'propitiation' seems a good thing in terms of translation. And there is basis for the son in Psalm 2 to not be capitalized in the RSV-2CE because historically that was used for the anointing of kings in the Davidic line. It's not that big of a deal. Though I would appreciate a RSV-3CE, going back to the Vulgate renderings even more, and making use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint to their fullest extent (in comparison with the Masoretic Text, of course). All in all, RSV-2CE is preferred for the traditional renderings (and with more use of the Septuagint), though as I've said, sometimes these renderings are replaced with new interpretations of the original text (almost ALWAYS never in contradiction with what the traditional rendering was, and is of good faith).
Yes.
Yes
We could use a better translation of the Vulgate than the Douay-Rheims Challoner. For all the hype it gets among traditionalists the English is clumsy in a lot of places and there are a lot of passages where it could do a better job lifting the heart and it doesn't. Why don't some Latinists start working on at least the Gospels?
Saint Jerome's Vulgate New Testament is a far better witness to the original Greek than a couple of fourth century Greek manuscripts dug up out of the ground. After all Jerome was working in the fourth century and he had the whole Roman Empire at his disposal and one suspects that he had a multitude of Greek manuscripts available to him that had been copied much closer in time to the Apostles than anything that we've got. I trust what he thought was in the original Greek more than modern scholars who are overly influenced by ideology and are therefore always eager to cut things out and confuse the text.
Agreed.
Try the Knox edition.
In 1936 the Bishops of England and Wales asked Msgr. Ronald Knox to translate the Vulgate into modern English, and he spent nine years on this task, also writing a book, "On Englishing the Bible", to explain his methods.
Knox was a convert to the faith, a renowned author, teacher, retreat master, radio broadcaster.
Originally ordained in the Church of England and from a very religious family, his father was the Anglican Bishop of Manchester, so he was very familiar with the KJV.
This Bible is published by Baronius Press of London, and includes a forward by Scott Hahn.
I also recommend that you google:
Vulgate-Douay-Rheims-Knox Bible side by side
You can see all three translations at once.
Very helpful.
@@alhilford2345 I possess that very Baronius Press edition of which you speak and the forward by Scott Hahn contains Monsignor Knox's wonderful quote about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church where he says that "those on the Barque of Peter with queasy stomachs should stay clear of the engine room." I think of that every time I see something stupid come out of Rome. But I am not the greatest fan of that good priest's translation. Knox was too in love in some places with some of the ideas in biblical scholarship that were celebrated during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and have since been shown to be false.
What we need to do now is to breathe new life into the Vulgate. It needs a new English translation done by people who trust it. It is the only version of the Scriptures that has been directly handed down to us from the ancient world through the centuries under the care of the Catholic Church and people need to be exposed to both to it and to the work of Saint Jerome because they destroy a lot of the stupid myths that have been spread over the last century: like the dumb idea that the people of the ancient world thought the Gospels were anonymous compositions until one day four hundred years later the evil and lying Catholic Church rewrote the story and slapped the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John on them which is what the vast majority of people now been trained to think, even more than a few people in the pews at Mass on Sunday and sadly more than a few priests.
@@TheMeaningofCatholic , Mr. Flanders, have you encountered the von Peters updating of the original DR? I think it’s online under Real Douay Rheims. Ive been intrigued by it, as it preserves the syntax and root word choices (e.g., Christos) of the original, just updating the illegible elements of Early Modern English.
I mention it because that effort seems to address the most salient objections you’ve raised in your book and this video to the Challoner DR. In fact, to the Real DR’s credit, it even includes the studious notes that were part of the original (another, unmentioned strike against the Challoner), which are really helpful to understand the traditional interpretation and respond to claims of the Revolters.
Pax Christi
There are no original greek or hebrew manuscripts. You keep seeing that referenced in modern bible notes. The vulgate drew from manuscripts that are no longer extant. The original non-Challoner DR all the way.
Tim, I'm trying to learn latin prayers (thanks to you). I just want to seek help, is REGNUM pronounced as reYNYum? or as it is spelled? How about hora? ora?
It depends on your country of origin! There’s no right way because Latin is not spoken. However, the Italian way is the standard. So reYNYum and Hora
@@TheMeaningofCatholic Ecclesiastical Latin has a standard pronunciation, after all it was spoken in the Mass and Divine Office around the world until the middle 1960s
Do your best to learn the vowels properly: they are pronounced much more explicitly and more clearly than in English and once you get that part down your Latin will start to sound beautiful and very musical or that was my experience at least.
@@erics7992 but everyone spoke it and prayed it with their own vernacular accent. You can even hear this in Polyphony recordings from Spain.
@@TheMeaningofCatholic Pax Christi. Italian, much like Spanish (my first language), tends to pronounce letters as they are (What You Read Is What You Say). Given their roots in Latin, and both requiring this full pronounciation, I’d say it as Reg-num.
In Spanish, Free-standing Hs are silent. So I’d say: Ora for both Hora and Ora. I suppose I’m confirming Mr. Flanders’ point. 😅
I do not believe the Ephesians verse is simply "politically incorrect". It is more of an issue the we, as modern people, do not live in a culture where it is acceptable to beat your wife into submission as it was in the culture that produced Saint Paul. The culture that produced Saint Paul regarded women as property whose rights came through their male overseers.
Couple of questions/comments:
(1) Why doesn’t the original Vulgate of St. Jerome still reign as the most true rendering of the Bible? How can anything improve on the Jerome’s exhaustive review of best available Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic of his time?
(2) Every change of Jerome‘s Vulgate can’t be as reliable and should be viewed with suspicion in my opinion, including so-called discoveries of new texts;
(3) Latin was widely used in the Holy Land at time of Jesus’ death (John 19:20) and shouldn’t be treated as a lesser language than Hebrew and Greek. This is especially since there is no record or almost no record of the original Hebrew. Masoretic Hebrew is a concocted, ridiculous language of esoteric dots and dashes over Hebrew letters created at least 10 centuries after Christ by a mysterious group called Masoretes. Doesn’t pass the smell test for me. And, the Masoretic version of the Old Testament was rolled out en masse historically about the same time as the King James Version with both the Hebrews and Protestants agreeing to leave the same books out of the OT. Again, doesn’t pass the smell test. This is all Tower of Babel stuff. New languages to confuse, distort, water down, and attack the Word.
(3) My biggest questions after viewing the video are - what changes were made to the original Vulgate after the Council of Trent; and is the standard Latin Vulgate that I see online: (a) Jerome’s Vulgate; (b) the Council of Trent modified version of Jerome’s Vulgate; or (c) a New Vulgate which incorporates so-called “discoveries” in the last couple of centuries? Thank you. Ave Maria. Viva Christo Rey!
1. Jerome actually deviates from the text of the liturgy, removes important variants and relied on the Hebrew of his day, so it’s a bit more complicated. I’ll answer more Qs when I have more time
In other words, Jerome was incorporating the “discoveries” of his own time, and that was controversial.
2. This is false, based on Jerome’s own method, and the method the Church has followed since. Why do you assert this?
3. Masoretic was not concocted as you say, but has great value, given certain conditions. It is one of the Hebrew manuscript traditions which the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm is very ancient in certain places, like Isaias
The standard vulgate you see online is not Jerome’s but the Clementine Vulgate, the one codified after Trent. The Douay-Rheims actually departs from this is certain areas.
Mark 16 is the word of the living God!
Is there any advantage for those of us who speak spanish and english in terms of the translations we could read? For instance, instead of this english version, is there any spanish version that would be even better?
God bless
Sorry I don’t know Spanish well enough to answer your question. -Flanders
Douay-Rheims-onlyism is the Catholic version of KJV-onlyism.
Agreed.
A translation of a translation ? Makes no sense
All "bibles" are hundreds of times copied copies of copies. All original letters likely disappeared before the Apostle John died - and his letters maybe a few years after that. Look up the durability of ancient papyrus.
The best translation IS THE ORIGINAL GREEK DON'T BE FOOLED
Hello Anon: I discuss this all in my book: a.co/d/4XfMQH0
How can the original be a translation at the same time?
Extremely many translation errors, it is not the Theotokos who will break the serpent's head, but Jesus. The Vulgate has many errors, slowly wake up from your ignorance!
I would be doubtful of anything coming from Ignatius Press, after reading this from Guadalupe Associates, which I think owns it: "Ignatius Press began publishing Catholic books in 1978, beginning with translations of European authors such as Hans Urs von Balthsar, Joseph Ratzinger, Henri de Lubac, Louis Bouyer, Adrienne von Speyr." Most, or all, very doubtful, theologians indeed, some plainly heretical.
Hello E Lo thank you for your comment. I have read many good works from Ignatius, so I question your critique. Have you thoroughly studied those theologians’ works that you say are plainly heretical?
@@TheMeaningofCatholic So a little heresy in the mix does not hurt, I guess. I do not understand you, guys. Von Balthasar is not a heretic, then? I guess you have embraced the hermeneutic of continuity.
From all that I can tell, Ratzinger, Von Balthasar, and De Lubac express views which appear erroneous or heretical. However, I have not sufficiently studied them to give them a fair evaluation. Have you brother?
@@TheMeaningofCatholic Thank you. No. I have not. I judge as a simple Catholic without a clear Authority over my own head, as all of us. If it seems heretical and produces error and disaster it does not come from God.
Yes I agree there are serious issues. It’s just complicated because there are issues on the “trad” side of things too.
Intro hymn is awful!
I just read the Greek and Hebrew bibles. I don’t like any English bibles. If you read the Bible in English you’re not reading the real scriptures.
I don’t think God would’ve made these English translations so widely available, or have made English the most popular language in the world, if he didn’t want to deliver us his word and offer salvation for humanity..