Douay Rheims


#1

Is the Douay Rheims bible a good translation to read and pray?


#2

The first time I read the Bible the whole way through, it was the Douay-Rheims. :thumbsup: I find that the prose is beautiful (though I’ve studied a lot of literature from that time period so I am partial to the sound of it and find it fairly easy to understand.)

It’s a legitimate Catholic translation. It does kind of depend on what you want. If you want a “closer” translation to contemporary English, the Revised Standard Version is also good.

But the DR is just so beautiful! :love::


#3

Any version you’ll actually read is a good one.
I like NRSV myself.
God bless.


#4

Sure. It’s an approved and venerable translation having been used for over 400 years.

That said, I highly dislike it.


#5

The Douay-Rheims is a direct and faithful translation from the Latin Vulgate which Pius XII declared absolutely free from all errors in faith and morals in Divino Aflante Spiritu in 1943. Therefore you can be assured that it is a sound translation suitable for any Catholic. The style may seem archaic, but in my opinion, this lends to its charm. The Douay-Rheims translation will always hold a special place in Catholic Tradition because of its faithfulness to the Vulgate.


#6

I like the D-R with the Haydock Commentary.


#7

I find the Haydock Commentary to be polemic at times.

The original Douay Rheims translation itself is almost unreadable in places. It sometimes seems to have hardly been translated from Latin at all. Many of the words were “englished” version of the original Latin.

What most people think of as the Douay Rheims is the Challoner revision. Few realize that much of the Challoner revision is based on the King James Version which was checked against the Vulgate and adjusted as needed. The Challoner revision still uses the name Douay Rheims.

Having said all that, I don’t like it. That’s just my opinion. The RSV-CE is still my favorite.

-Tim-


#8

Polemical ???

At least it does not go against the faith as the NAB translation below does
Luke 1:34 NAB
“But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

Notes for verse 20 read “When Mary asks a similar question in Luke 1:34, unlike Zechariah who was punished for his doubt, she, in spite of her doubt, is praised

End Quote.

Mary did not doubt the validity of the angel’s words. Gabriel is a good angel. A true messenger.

The DR Bible is the answer for our times in regards to marriage and how the devil controls some of them. See chapter 6

defendingthebride.com/bb/tobit.html

drbo.org/

haydock1859.tripod.com/

.


#9

The D/R bible is unquestionably safe and profitable for Catholics to read, especially with the Haydock notes. However if I wanted a modern Bible, I would use the RSV-CE.

Catholic parishes who have Bible study programs usually prefer the RSV-CE to the NAB.

Remember, the NAB is NOT allowed to be used in the Liturgy (nor the NABRE) Only a special unpublished version which was approved by the Vatican can be used in the American Church’s liturgy (sadly for us Americans.) No other English speaking country has this problem. :frowning:


#10

I hope it’s OK to ask a kind of off-topic question: I really don’t want to start a whole new thread on this. :slight_smile:

But how is “Challoner” pronounced? I’ve only ever seen the name in text. :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

Not sure what it is in common usage, but in French it would be

sholl own ay


#12

I don’t like the Haydock much either, but well, to be fair, it is a product of its time. People were generally more candid and polemical in those days. Heck, the original DR’s notes are more pointedly anti-Protestant. (But then again, the footnotes in Protestant translations in those days were also polemically anti-Catholic, so it’s really both sides doing the same tactic.)

The original Douay Rheims translation itself is almost unreadable in places. It sometimes seems to have hardly been translated from Latin at all. Many of the words were “englished” version of the original Latin.

The original translators worked under the principle that they must translate the text as mechanically literal as possible, “for fear of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.” If the original text is unclear or ambiguous, the ambiguity must be carried over into the translation.

The translators followed the principle expressed by writers like St. Thomas More or Stephen Gardiner who criticized Tyndale’s translation. (Sort of ironic, because the translators were also influenced by Tyndale.) Contra Tyndale’s style of trying to translate the original text into pure English, More and Gardiner argued that Latin terms were more precise in meaning than their English equivalents, and consequently should be retained in Englished form to avoid ambiguity.

Oh yeah, I should add that many of those “englished” Latin words were actually new by the time the original translations came out; they hadn’t existed in English before, and a few of them haven’t seen wide use since (‘prevarication’). Imagine reading a Bible filled with all these newly-invented words. It’s almost really like reading A Clockwork Orange with all the Nadsat slang. :smiley: (But then again, educated literate people in those days - the ones who’ll be reading the translation - have an advantage over us because they actually learned Latin. So it’s totally an unfamiliar territory.)

What most people think of as the Douay Rheims is the Challoner revision. Few realize that much of the Challoner revision is based on the King James Version which was checked against the Vulgate and adjusted as needed. The Challoner revision still uses the name Douay Rheims.

Yep. Bishop Challoner was a convert from the CofE and thus, was familiar with the KJV. He made the language closer to the KJV, dropping the hard Latin words along the way.


#13

I’ve always pronounced it as written: ‘CHA-loh-NER’. But then again, I’m not a native English speaker. :stuck_out_tongue:


#14

I am the OP . Thank you for the many comments. I have recently bought a new copy of this Bible.

'prevarication ’ is a part of my normal vocabulary :slight_smile:


#15

I have always pronounced it to rhyme with challenger. I know some English book dealers, and that is how they pronounced it. :slight_smile:

Patrick: "I don’t like the Haydock much either, but well, to be fair, it is a product of its time. People were generally more candid and polemical in those days. "

Yes, that is true. However, this IS a subforum of the Apologetics forum, so IMHO, it doesn’t hurt to be familiar with old Catholic apologetics. There are many reasons for this. But basically, the same accusations are made by Protestants today, that were made centuries ago. So the same rebuttals work. :wink:

American Catholics, generally speaking, are way too ignorant of other religions and their teachings, not to mention their own Catholic doctrines, and the foundations for them. That is why American Catholics are SUCH AN EASY TARGET for the evangelicals. :frowning:


#16

I have the Douay-Rheims (Challoner revision) because I felt like it was a safe bet.

I don’t like the modern translations that replace the word “evil” with “bad” (seems to reduce all sin to the level of kindergarten shenanigans) and have footnotes full of caveats that sound as if they are intended to make the contents of the Bible more acceptable to atheists. I find that really disrespectful.

Now the footnotes in the Challoner revision I find to be very useful, because a lot of them refute typical Protestant readings of the Bible, which is great if you’re coming from a Protestant background and need to be re-taught.

And there’s a lovely leather-bound edition with gold-edged pages on the market, which feels so reverent.

EDIT: Oops, I see the OP has already made a decision. I guess I’ll just leave this here for reference.


#17

Thank you! Now I can mention it to other people in person and feel edumacated. :thumbsup:


#18

Polemical arguments can help Catholics understand what their own faith tradition teaches and why the Protestant accusations are false.

In no way was it polemical the way Martin Luther’s Bible and tracts were.

I will try to publish more on that when I get time.

You have to understand that the English Language was still evolving during this time period. It did not have adequate English words. The word “Evangelization” and “Evangelist” are some of these words that “ were “englished” version of the original Latin.”

Well, you should have pointed out that The King James Version was based to some extent on the Douay Rheims[INDENT]Quotes found in KJV Derived From The Catholic Douay Rheims

http://web.archive.org/web/20061212225010/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/douaykjv.htm

[/INDENT]As the English language became more standardized with the invention of Printing with movable type and the popularity and publication of the KJV it would have only made sense for the Challoner revision to make use of the words and phrases that became popularized with the KJV and carefully cross check it with the Vulgate for accuracy.

Today, the average Catholic does not know apologetics or the polemical arguments for or against it, and as a consequence he does not know his own Catholic faith or why he should not join the neighboring Protestant community other than that is not his family’s tradition. This is so sad because many times his Catholic ancestors sacrificed so much to pass on the true faith to the subsequent generation.

I don’t understand why so many posts only tell half the truth.

.


#19

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.