Douay–Rheims vs. RSV-CE


#1

I currently have an NAB Bible, and the amount of changes have been made are shocking! How is it even considered a literal translation?

I am leaning towards the Douay–Rheims Version, mainly because I want the TRUE Word of God, and the DRV is the closest English translation of the Latin Vulgate, but others have advised me that the RSV-CE is also good.

What are your opinions?


#2

I use the RSVCE because in my study of the Bible, time and time again I’ve found it is the most accurate, if not the most literal in many places, of all the versions available to Catholics. I also find the language elegant, but not formal, and easy to memorize. After 20 or so using it, it’s like an old friend. :slight_smile:

I don’t mind the DR (and sometimes I prefer how it translates certain passages over the RSV, especially when the RSV shows it’s Protestant roots). However, for an everyday Bible, it’s just too hard for me to parse the archaic language and unfamiliar rendering of biblical names and places when reading the DR.


#3

[quote="Fidelis, post:2, topic:343366"]
I use the RSVCE because in my study of the Bible, time and time again I've found it is the most accurate, if not the most literal in many places, of all the versions available to Catholics. I also find the language elegant, but not formal, and easy to memorize. After 20 or so using it, it's like an old friend. :)

I don't mind the DR (and sometimes I prefer how it translates certain passages over the RSV, especially when the RSV shows it's Protestant roots). However, for an everyday Bible, it's just too hard for me to parse the archaic language and unfamiliar rendering of biblical names and places when reading the DR.

[/quote]

What Protestant roots, and should they worry me?


#4

I have and use both. The RSV has the mixed blessing of more recent biblical scholarship. It is generally easier to read, but then you get phrases like "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el" (Is. 7:14; cf. Mt. 1:23).


#5

I use both RSV-CE & D-RV.


#6

Is the Wycliffe Bible any good? It's important to me to read a Bible that is free from revisionism. This is similar to why many Protestants will only read the KJV. I've also heard that a KJV-CE exists.


#7

You should read all of them and others that you haven’t listed, learn Greek, go back to the original manuscripts and re-translate from scratch… while you’re at it, you should go back and check if there are some other books that were left out even though they might have been inspired.

If you get tens of thousands of experts to help you, and hold thousands of meetings to confer or discuss you can choose each best verse’s translation and you can be sure then that you have the TRUE word of god in about 2000 years.

Let me know when you get your translation complete and I’ll get thousands of other experts to review your work and criticize how you came to your conclusions, and then they will propose better wordings and you can argue with them, too.

Did I leave out a step?


#8

I personally use, and highly recommend, the Douay-Rheims version, which is not only written beautifully but has 3 & 4 Esdras in the appendix which Pope Clement (cant remember which one) had included. So I would say go D-R :)


#9

The original RSV translation was primarily done mainly by Protestant scholars with some Catholic scholars also participating. From the beginning it was meant to be an ecumenical Bible that both Protestants and Catholics could use together. However, there were some translation choices that were made that could be seen as reflecting a slight Protestant bias (like using “righteousness” instead of where the DR might use “justice”, saying “hail, highly favored one” in Luke 1:28 instead of “full of grace”).

When the RSV Catholic Edition came out, it revised out of some of the problematic translation choices for other, still legitimate, choices more in line with the Catholic understanding. With the publication of the RSV Second Revised Edition, even more Catholic friendly revisions were done. So have no fear: it is a completely Catholic Bible which is used by most serious Catholic Bible students and devotional readers.


#10

[quote="FreakyLocz14, post:6, topic:343366"]
Is the Wycliffe Bible any good? It's important to me to read a Bible that is free from revisionism. This is similar to why many Protestants will only read the KJV. I've also heard that a KJV-CE exists.

[/quote]

The D-R is a better English version than the KJV and was published before by about three years or so..


#11

[quote="FreakyLocz14, post:6, topic:343366"]
Is the Wycliffe Bible any good?

[/quote]

The only Wycliffe Bible I know of is the heretical 14th century bible that, even if it were still available, was so bad that even today's Protestants wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

It's important to me to read a Bible that is free from revisionism. This is similar to why many Protestants will only read the KJV.

It is mostly the unintellectual types of Protestants that are "King James-onlyists" and almost consider the KJV as an inspired translation ("If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"). The KJV, in fact, while it may have a certain beauty of language, is nonetheless an inaccurate translation as it is based on inferior manuscripts compared to what we now have.

I've also heard that a KJV-CE exists

.Not to my knowledge. Even if it were, you'd be stuck with the KJV translation which unquestionably has a Protestant bias and, as I mentioned, was based on out of date scholarship.


#12

I have both, and use both.

But for every day reading, I like the RSV-2CE- I have the Ignatius Bible Version

If you are looking to do a bible study with your bible, I recommend Scott Hahn's Bible study that uses the RSV-2CE.

Here is just a sample: leafletonline.com/DANIEL-IGNATIUS-CATHOLIC-STUDY-BIBLE/productinfo/27901/#.Um4VVCTFYUs


#13

[quote="FreakyLocz14, post:6, topic:343366"]
Is the Wycliffe Bible any good? It's important to me to read a Bible that is free from revisionism. This is similar to why many Protestants will only read the KJV. I've also heard that a KJV-CE exists.

[/quote]

Not really. Get the DRB if you like that and run with, but I have and use both that and the RSV-CE2 and love 'em both.

The NAB is no worse or better than the NIV or most of the others that are out there. Sometimes the notes are not very good, but no one saidf they were inspired anyway. :shrug:

Steer clear of any n-C versions that do not include the Deuterocanonical books.


#14

[quote="Fidelis, post:11, topic:343366"]
It is mostly the unintellectual types of Protestants that are "King James-onlyists" and almost consider the KJV as an inspired translation ("If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"). The KJV, in fact, while it may have a certain beauty of language, is nonetheless an inaccurate translation as it is based on inferior manuscripts compared to what we now have.
.Not to my knowledge. Even if it were, you'd be stuck with the KJV translation which unquestionably has a Protestant bias and, as I mentioned, was based on out of date scholarship.

[/quote]

[quote="Church_Militant, post:13, topic:343366"]
Not really. Get the DRB if you like that and run with, but I have and use both that and the RSV-CE2 and love 'em both.

The NAB is no worse or better than the NIV or most of the others that are out there. Sometimes the notes are not very good, but no one saidf they were inspired anyway. :shrug:

Steer clear of any n-C versions that do not include the Deuterocanonical books.

[/quote]

The original 1611 KJV included the deuterocanonical books.


#15

I started with the RSV-CE and may get a DRV later. I also have an NAB which I do not use, but since it was gifted in my RCIA class, I take it in the event we need it during out meetings. From what I have been told and read, for an everyday bible, the RSV-CE is a good choice and for a more in-depth serious study, the DRV.

I hope this helps.


#16

I have a NRSV-CE and a New Jerusalem Bible. I like the NJB, but it's really a gigantic book which means it's kind of a pain to carry around. It also has some little biddy print, and I like large print in my Bibles.


#17

[quote="Michael57, post:5, topic:343366"]
I use both RSV-CE & D-RV.

[/quote]

This ^^^

Why does it have to be DR vs RSV vs NAB. I have all three and use them interchangeably.

The NAB is not "shocking" to anyone who studies scripture and in many places is a better translation than the RSV.

-Tim-


#18

I think sometimes, as non-academic members of the laity, we worry too much about “translations” of Bibles, specifically those approved by the Church.

More than the translation of language by scholars who work on these published works, we should be more concerned with how we translate the word from the page to our actions in our daily living.

Whether the Mother of God was greeted by Gabriel as “full of grace” or “favored one” does not change my desire to venerated or my deep appreciation of the blessed virgin!


#19

Just a clarification, Clement VIII placed 3 and 4 Esdras in an appendix “lest they perish entirely,” but did not teach that they were canonical. The Latin Church has never taught definitively that they are canonical, although they appear in the canon for some Orthodox Churches.

-ACEGC


#20

Yep, and they weren’t removed until the mid 1800s by some Bible society that used it as a cost cutting measure. :rolleyes:

Read side by side, the KJB and the DRB are hard to tell apart because of that same period English. The DRB actually came out a couple of years ahead of the other.

The main problem for the KJV is that it’s generally loaded with bad notes that are full of errors and in some cases anti-Catholic stuff. They also moved the Dcs out of their proper places.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.