douay-rheims

As a lover of the Sacred Scriptures, what does one think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I love the poeticness of it, and one day, I would love to own a hardcover copy of the version. Is it worth it? Or should I stick to just the modern ones, (which I think the NAB is quite an unpoetic translation) like the NAB or the NJB? Is the DRV sufficient for scripture study for accuracy?

The DR is worth it. Get a well-bound copy. It’s language is indeed beautiful and poetic but really archaic.

I suggest you supplement it with the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem Bible, since there have been advances in Scripture scholarship, and they are more suited for study. The NJB uses inclusive language, which always raises a red flag.

Put the NAB as your second-last choice, and the NRSV last, the former due to bad inclusive language in the Psalms and bad notes all throughout, and the latter for heavy inclusive language all throughout.

[quote=silverwings_88]As a lover of the Sacred Scriptures, what does one think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I love the poeticness of it, and one day, I would love to own a hardcover copy of the version. Is it worth it? Or should I stick to just the modern ones, (which I think the NAB is quite an unpoetic translation) like the NAB or the NJB? Is the DRV sufficient for scripture study for accuracy?
[/quote]

[quote=silverwings_88]As a lover of the Sacred Scriptures, what does one think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I love the poeticness of it, and one day, I would love to own a hardcover copy of the version. Is it worth it? Or should I stick to just the modern ones, (which I think the NAB is quite an unpoetic translation) like the NAB or the NJB? Is the DRV sufficient for scripture study for accuracy?
[/quote]

Hard back or leather, by all means…I love it too.
These guys have a nice one in leather too.

baroniuspress.com/

Baronius Press Ltd
249 High Street,
Glasgow,
G4 0QR
United Kingdom

Telephone: 00 44 870 112 3865

(1-888-422-3765)

Use the DRV if that is what you are comfortable with. Let’s face it. If you want to do serious biblical studies you will take Greek and Hebrew anyway.

For those taking bible study courses at the parish level, the real factor isn’t so much the translation, but the notes and commentaries that are used. (The primary commentary should be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, btw.) RSV-CE (as stated above) and the DRV have good notes.

I have the DRV with a wonderful commentary compiled by Fr. George Leo Haydock…I love it…course sometimes I need my magnifying glass…

DOUAY-RHEIMS ROCKS!:thumbsup:

Hi Silver,

DR isn’t really poetic; it’s just old.

Verbum

[quote=Verbum]Hi Silver,

DR isn’t really poetic; it’s just old.

Verbum
[/quote]

ouch!

me too is guess…:frowning:

[quote=Annunciata]I have the DRV with a wonderful commentary compiled by Fr. George Leo Haydock…I love it…course sometimes I need my magnifying glass…
[/quote]

Ditto on the loving it…and ditto on the magnifying glass :nerd:

Have you read this? Bible Translations Guide

Scott

I have the $99.00 two volume set. The commentaries are volunous and great, many written by Bishops.

I like it because it gaets back as close to the Vulgate as we can get. Ity is the real deal!

What is the benfit of getting as close to the Vulgate as possible? Isn’t the Vulgate only a translation of the original text into Latin? Does this make Douay-rheims a translations of a translation? Doesn’t that make it mroe prone to error, because each translation changes the meaning slightly? Please forgive me if I offend, I am not trying to condemen a version, but trying to understand why people value it, and my understanding may be very, very inaccurate. I am far from inerrant myself.

Is the Revised Standard Version a translation of the original languages into English or the vulgate into English? I think the Jerusalem version is also a translation of a translations (the original laguages translated into French and then into English).

True, the New Jerusalem Bible uses inclusive language, but I thought it was a translation into English from the original languages (with occasional references to the French notes, when questions arose in the interpretation). I have not seen the New Jerusalem Bible refer to God in the feminine anywhere but only as God, and the Our Father is the Our Father.

Why does the US Catholic Church prefer to use the New American Bible translation over the Revised Standard version, when critics argue that the Revised version ahs a truer sense of teh meaning, and a thread on here indicated that the New American version read at mass is not that which is distributed in book stores, but a special version modified to correct the problems it experienced in translation.

[quote=Verbum]Hi Silver,

DR isn’t really poetic; it’s just old.

Verbum
[/quote]

Really? I read parts of it, and I love the poeticness of the language. Rather, it is not the actual words chosen that appeal to me, but their archaic verb forms and wording that makes me appreciate it. It’s similarities with the KJV are striking, and it’s the closest I have to a translation I really like. With comparison to some pieces of scripture, there are some words chosen that I prefer in the DRV to the KJV (along with the inclusion of the deautorcanonicals), but I do say that the KJV has a better sense of poetry. The problems with the KJV are the certain pieces of text which don’t seem to appear with the other bibles, such as the “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever.” and other such ‘additives.’ Another factor in preventing me from using the KJV (with the apocrypha) is that the amount of people who believe that it is the truly authoritative english translation.

I’m reading Exodus right now from my sold NJB, and it’s so much more exciting to read it from the DRV rather than the NJB or even the NAB! Then again, it is merely my preference.

[quote=Théodred]Use the DRV if that is what you are comfortable with. Let’s face it. If you want to do serious biblical studies you will take Greek and Hebrew anyway.

For those taking bible study courses at the parish level, the real factor isn’t so much the translation, but the notes and commentaries that are used. (The primary commentary should be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, btw.) RSV-CE (as stated above) and the DRV have good notes.
[/quote]

Well, I was wondering if the DRV sufficient for scripture study in catholic theology rather than devotional reading.

Saying that, is it okay to study using the KJV with apocrypha?

Buy it NOW. Throw everything else out.

Hi Silverwing,

it’s the closest I have to a translation I really like

De gustibus non est disputandum (On taste, there can be no discussion)

As you say, it’s archaic, and if you find that poetic, so be it. (N.B.: Archaic means old).

However, I find little virtue in that. The New Testament in particular was originally written in the colloquial language spoken around the Mediterranean. Nothing poetic about it. Straight off the cuff talk.

Verbum

[quote=Verbum]Hi Silver,

DR isn’t really poetic; it’s just old.

Verbum
[/quote]

Seeing that Volume 1 of Haydock’s edition of the Challoner revision of the D-R Bible of 1582-1609 first came out in 1812, and Volume 2 in 1814. The notes in it are usually from even older sources. (And some are very argumentative :slight_smile: The notes in the 1899 Bible are a mere handful of those in Haydock.)

Which is one reason why it is good for edifying ideas and devotional ideas here and there, but not always quite so good for finding what the texts actually mean. ##

[quote=silverwings_88]Really? I read parts of it, and I love the poeticness of the language. Rather, it is not the actual words chosen that appeal to me, but their archaic verb forms and wording that makes me appreciate it. It’s similarities with the KJV are striking, and it’s the closest I have to a translation I really like. With comparison to some pieces of scripture, there are some words chosen that I prefer in the DRV to the KJV (along with the inclusion of the deautorcanonicals), but I do say that the KJV has a better sense of poetry. The problems with the KJV are the certain pieces of text which don’t seem to appear with the other bibles, such as the “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever.” and other such ‘additives.’ Another factor in preventing me from using the KJV (with the apocrypha) is that the amount of people who believe that it is the truly authoritative english translation.

I’m reading Exodus right now from my sold NJB, and it’s so much more exciting to read it from the DRV rather than the NJB or even the NAB! Then again, it is merely my preference.
[/quote]

Bishop Challoner, who modernised and revised the Douay-Reims Bible, was a convert from Presbyterianism. Which may explain the similarity of tone between the Challoner revision and the Authorised Version (aka the KJV).

I love my Authorised Version :slight_smile: ##

[quote=Scott Waddell]Have you read this? Bible Translations Guide
Scott
[/quote]

Basically that site seemed to recommend the Ignatian Bible, and had little helpful analysis of other Catholic editions, aside from Douay-Rheims. I wish it spent more time describing the translation process behind each edition, and more objectively weighed the pros and cons of the Catholic editions. I could care less about the King James version.

The edition they recommend has terrible font (difficult to read) and no space to write on the margins. It also seemed to have no notes. I know there is at least one member of this forum who likes a lack of notes, but I like prefaces with details about the time frame of the writings and background information, and I like to see scriptural references to allusions where the topic is addressed before.

Yes, one day I would like to have this information ingrained, but it is a big book, or rather many books, and I still working on it. I do have books about the, so I could conceivably run around an look up things that I question, but that interrupts my flow of thought.

[quote=silverwings_88]Well, I was wondering if the DRV sufficient for scripture study in catholic theology
[/quote]

What do you mean by “scripture study in Catholic theology”?

If you are referring to graduate level studies in theology (MA, PhD), one should already have a working knowledge of at least one classical language, and should be learning a second (preferably Latin and Greek). (Yes, even dogmatic theology and moral theology grad students should as well.) With knowledge of Greek one would be using the actual Greek texts (Hort and Westcott, Alexandrian, Scrivener, the Byzantine Majority, LXX, etc.), and one would occasionally refer to various translations for comparison purposes only. At this level, then, contemporary translations are of very little importance.

If what you mean by “scripture study in Catholic theology” is undergraduate work or MDiv work, the rule of thumb is to use the translation that your profs use. It might not be the best of translations or the one you are comfortable with, but it makes it easier to follow along, [size=2]and everyone knows that what college profs really want is to hear students regurgitate the prof’s own ideas and opinions (and the facts as long as they don’t get in the way). No prof I know of (undergraduate or graduate) wanted us to refer to any of the notes in our bibles, and pointed us in the direction of the commentaries and scholars they wanted us to use in our research. The political answer is to give your prof whatever he or she wants; you will have plenty of time to disagree with your profs once you have the grade and your degree.

If you are referring to directed independent study outside of a formal academic environment (which is where the vast majority of us are probably at), and your Greek skills are rusty or non-existent, then it is best to concentrate not so much on the translation, as on the notes that accompany whatever translation you decide to use. I have a very low regard for the notes in the NAB. There is no such thing as KJV with Catholic friendly notes. I’m not familiar with NJB notes, though most people here think they are excellent. I’m a big fan of the notes in the RSV-CE Ignatius Bible, and the notes in the Haydock DRV. It’s always a good idea to have more than one translation around with various notes so you can compare them (i.e. Ignatius RSV-CE with Haydock DRV).

The best commentary I’ve ever used is A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, edited by Orchard, 1953. Unfortunately this commentary is out of print, so you have to go to booksellers to find a used copy. Unfortunately the booksellers know that this commentary is sought after, so they ask for a lot. One was bequeathed to me, so in a way I was fortunate. Aside from this commentary, I’ve yet to find one that worth the money (and this includes the NJBC). Really, the best thing to do is to read as many articles and buy as many books as you can by Fr. William Most.

[quote=silverwings_88]Saying that, is it okay to study using the KJV with apocrypha?
[/quote]

Like I said that would depend on what you mean by scripture study for Catholic theology. At the independent study or parish-bible-study-group level, I don’t see anything wrong with using the KJV if that is what one is used to using. Yes, there are some very well publicized mistranslations (i.e. Joseph’s “multi-colored” tunic), but what modern translation doesn’t have mistranslations? Being aware of these problems can be sufficient for some people who just can’t get used to another modern translation. The biggest problem with the KJV isn’t necessarily the translation, but the notes, and I’m not aware of any KJV with Catholic friendly notes. (Though I wouldn’t say that the NAB, the bible that most American Catholics use, has Catholic friendly notes, either.) Using the Scofield Reference Bible would be totally unproductive.

I own and often use a KJV. This is the translation that my Evangelical/Fundamentalist friends and family know (and have memorized). It’s easier for me to speak to them using the same language, so to speak. I just wish I could find a KJV without any notes and plenty of margin space. (For that matter, I wish I could find any modern translation without notes and lots of margin space.)[/size]

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.