Whats peoples opion here of the Classic Douay Rheims Bible? I just got a copy yesterday I like it just fine I can get around the thous and thines but it’s the odd spelling of some names that I find difficult and the different numbered Psalms.
if you like the “King’s English” Shakespearean sound of the King James (authorized version) you will like DRC (Douay Rheims Challoner), and also the Revised Standard Version (Catholic edition containing deuterocanononicals). If your copy does not have a history of this edition in the front, pick up the NAB for the history of English translations of the Bible, which is excellent. DRC was translated from Latin vulgate first into French, and then into English, which is why it retains the French type names and spellings, and sometimes sentence structure (Spanish bibles still have names spelt this way). D-R was revised by Bishop Challoner, which the version used by all English speaking Catholics until 20th century.
I just made this note in another post a couple of days ago, on a thread with good info in bible versions, please look it up.
When first English translations were made the verses were not numbered, so numbering systems developed somewhat differently. One psalm (119? can’t remember) is split in two in one version, which alters the psalm numbers.
I like the Challoner revision of the D-R. He brings the language firmly into modern English (at the time of the D-R, AV, and Shakespeare, the transition from Middle English was not quite complete, and there are many archaicism in the two translations of Bible). Challoner corrects the archaicims, compares with the Greek (the Vulgate was translated from the original languages), and notes divergances in the reading, as well as has some interesting notes, but these are not so many as to distract (as is the case i find with modern editions, and that detracts form the Word itself, though fine for scholarly work), and yet retaines key (now) archaic uses, such as the second person singular personal and conjugated verbs that aide in clarity of the text (modern fromal English is way to ambiguous in this area to be useful in theological texts and translations of sacred texts-plus it makes for better poesy IMNSHO).
The difference in numbering of the Psalms stems from different recensions of Psalters-Catholics and Orthodox use the Septuagint Psalter (though Jerome used the recension that would become the one used in the Masoretic texts, it was quickly replaced by a Latin translation of the Septuagint). Protestants and Jews use the Masorectic recension, and Syrians use a third recension called the Peshitta, which is numbered similarly to the Septuagint save around Ps 115-116, and has 5 or 6 additional Psalms. Where the divergence of numbering occurs between the Masorete and Greek texts is at Psalm 9 & 10, where they are considered two in the former, but (correctly) one in the latter.
The more I get used to the writing style the more I love it.
I have had copies of D-R Challoner all my life, but I don’t use it for study. My first copy I believe had a Confraternity New Testament, although the one I have now is not.
I quote from it sometimes and give it a quick lookover on occasion, but my main working bible is of another translation.
John 8 in the Chanoller version has Jesus saying two persons (he and God, the Father) are needed (I can’t remember for what, particularly), whereas, I think, the Douay-Rheims says two men. Which is it? Is it “vir” or “homo” in the Vulgate? What was it for the Jews then? If it is the former, that would imply that, though God is not a male anthropomorphically, it could be that human men got a bigger chunk of His dominant traits. Either that or it would be that it was decided before his birth in this world the son would refer to the Father as Father because how could one explain having two mothers? . Of course the male at the head of families and businesses maybe what we practiced here since Adam and Eve because God is more of a Father type as we know fathers–that’s why it works down here.
That is not for me to figure out because I never could. I hope I did not offend Him by these imainings–I hope I did not scandalize anyoneI will leave that strictly in the domain of imagination not to be confused with real possibilities as valid as anyone else’s because it’s a mystery, and I will leave the truth that God is Father (because Jesus instructed us to call him that and because the Church says so) to the Church and its 2000 year old teachings. The Holy Spirit has one mouthpiece and let’s all recognize it as the Church through its bishops’ collective or through the Pope himself if need be.
In any case, translations are so tricky and sometimes abused–especially when converted to modern ways of speaking. So many Bibles are part of some ecumenical cooperation; the Vulgate is not and not only that, it is written by a Bible genius who lived a lot closer to when these Biblical things happened. I trust St Jerome over modern Biblical scholars. The Douay-Rheims’s old fashioned version of speech is closer to the original Vulgate, I think, and was not written anytime near this period of liberalism and false ecumenism.
I really hope the one who likes the King James version is not Catholic. I hear the Navarre and RSV Catholic edition Bibles are the best Bibles since Vatican 2.