What are your thought on this translation of the bible?

I believe you should qualify that with the words “in the Roman Rite”.

I never heard of the Clementine Vulgate till today, so I looked it up. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. [6] To reinforce this declaration, the council commissioned the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions produced during the Renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text did not appear until 1590. It was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) and known as the Sistine Vulgate. It was based on the edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected to agree with the Greek, but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors. It was soon replaced by a new edition by Clement VIII (1592–1605) who immediately ordered corrections and revisions to be made. This new revised version was based more on the Hentenian edition. It is called today the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, or simply the Clementine, although it is Sixtus’ name which appears on the title page. Clement published three printings of this edition, in 1592, 1593 and 1598.

The article also says: “Before the publication of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Vulgate was the source text used for many translations of the Bible into vernacular languages. In English, the interlinear translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as other Old English Bible translations, the translation of John Wycliffe, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Confraternity Bible, and Ronald Knox’s translation were all made from the Vulgate.”

I thought the RSV Catholic Edition could be used in liturgy? Not sure where I got that.:confused:

From what I’ve read, according the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the NAB is the approved version.

Here’s a factoid for ya. The D-R New Testament predated the KJV by a couple of decades. When Lancelot Andrewes and the boys set out to translate the NT from Greek (rather than the Latin that the D-R was translated from), they consulted the D-R translation. Then, in the late 1700s, when bishop Challoner revised the D-R, he consulted the KJV. The Scripture scholars were like space scientists during the cold war. They were talking to each other and sharing notes despite the political uproar going on over their heads.

That said, I prefer the RSV, CE to other translations because it stays as close to the original languages as it can in English.

Great information, Mercygate! Thank you!

I have always used the NIV for Bible Studies but I have recently started using the NRSV.

God Bless!

It may be in other English speaking nations, but not the US.

http://images.simplesiteonline.com/1675/Biblecartoon.gif

Can anyone help me??:wink:

Good thing I’m not drinking coffee at the keyboard! :rotfl: :rotfl:

:yup: I have it, and it is excellent. As far as my Latin will take me, I find it is an exceptional translation.
For a modern version that is also very literal, I like the RSV-CE. But I prefer the DR (Challoner) to any other translation.

The DR is my favorite version of the Bible–especially with the wonderful notes by Father Haydock…:thumbsup:

I’m with you Zooey! :thumbsup:

More facts: The last “Real” Douay-Rheims was published in 1633-1635 It was printed in 3 quarto volumes very nearly matching exactly in size the original editions of 1582-1609. That makes it only the second edition printed complete, in that format, but the last as well. The NT was illustrated with 8 lovely full page copperplate engravings, making it the only illustrated version as well. It was printed in Rouen, France under license from King Louis XIII, for export to England by Iohn Coustvrier. A high definition picture from my collection is linked below:

emblemagic.com/Apicturehost/Bible/DSC_0595.jpg

No further Catholic Bibles were printed in English until 1718 when the Rev. Dr. Nary of Ireland issued his own Vulgate translation of the NT. It is in the language of Alexander Pope, and Jonathan Swift, and presumably a wonderful translation, but rarely encountered, and NEVER reprinted.

In the 1730’s Dr. Witham published a reprint of the NT updated from the DR, and then in 1738, (Rev.) Dr. Challoner along with the Rev. Blythe (a Carmelite Priest) issued a magnificent folio volume reprint/update of the D/R NT with new renditions of the copperplates used in the 1633 NT. With this much experience under his belt, he (now Bishop Challoner) in 1749 proceeded to not only update, but in effect, newly translate the entire Bible (which had still not been done since 1635!)

Below is a high definition link to a page from the 2nd revision of the 1749 edition of the NT done in 1752. It again revised rather heavily the 1749 edition in very many places. By the time Fr. Haydock’s Bible appeared, there was a return to favor of the 1749 edition, and it is basically that edition that continued to be printed in the various incarnations of Dr. Haydocks’s Bible and Dr. Husenbeth’s abridged version.

The Confraternity edition of the NT that appeared in the '30s was basically the D/R-Challoner text updated. But then the whole OT was retranslated from scratch, which is the basis for our modern NAB, after which they again re-translated the NT, but not using the Vulgate or the D/R.

[emblemagic.com/Apicturehost/Bible/DRcomp 003.jpg](“http://emblemagic.com/Apicturehost/Bible/DRcomp 003.jpg”)

Best English Bible, period. I own one and it is main translation. I also use a couple of others. I fully recommend the Douay-Rheims

As others have rightly told you, the Douay-Rheims, Challoner revision, is a very literal translation of the Sixto-Clementine Latin Vulgate, diligently compared with the “original tongues”. Unfortunately, many Catholics today eschew it because it’s not directly from the “original languages”, and it probably reminds them of pre-Vatican II times. It is more solidly Catholic than the New American Bible that we in the USA are stuck with for our Liturgy.

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the NIV are both translations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek using modern text-critical scholarship.

The JB is Catholic but not noted for its fidelity to the source texts; its choice of renderings are highly innovative and non-traditional. Still, it is used in the Lectionary in many English-speaking nations, but not the USA.

As for the the NIV: it has an unabashed evangelical Protestant slant. I have far more respect for the (Protestant) New American Standard than I do the NIV.

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.