By the way, if you use the great Bible feature at NewAdvent.org, they have the Douay-Rheims English version there for the English.
Here are seven reasons why I have come to appreciate Douay-Rheims Bible (hereafter = DRB):
7. The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages.
6. Saint Jerome had access to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are now lost. Hence the Vulgate preserves readings deemed as important by Saint Jerome, but not necessarily known by today's scholars. The DRB preserves these readings. Plus, Jerome was fluent in both Greek and Latin, and was trained by Hebrew speaking rabbis. None of these facts are true of today's scholars - even the best of them. I can read Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but I don't trust myself to give the right nuances.
5. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome is the Bible used by almost all the great Latin Doctors of the Church. The DRB brings us into touch with this great tradition.
4. The Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate as authoritative and the DRB preserves its readings. The Council of Trent decreed: "Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).
3. The old Latin Vulgate is truly an inerrant translation - a rare thing!. Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu that the Vulgate is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals." The DRB follows these readings.
2. Modern translations often reproduce faulty translations. Take, for example, the RSVCE version of Matthew 16:26:
26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life (Greek: ψυχὴν)? Or what shall a man give in return for his life (ψυχῆς)?Here the RSVCE doesn't rightly translate pysche as "soul" but as "life." This different wording downplays the reality of losing one's soul and going to Hell. However, the DRB gets it correct because it follows Saint Jerome's literalism:
26 For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? Matthew 16:26 (D-R)1. There are many passages in the Vulgate that are NOT contained in Catholic Bible versions like the RSVCE and NAB. This came as a big surprise to me. For example, take this famous passage used in the old Mass for the Blessed Virgin Mary (Salve Sancta Parens):
Sirach 24:23–31 (DRB)
23 As the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odour: and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches.
24 I am the Mother of Fair Love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope.
25 In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.
26 Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits.
27 For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb.
28 My memory is unto everlasting generations.
29 They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst.
30 He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin.
31 They that explain me shall have life everlasting.
Compare this to the corresponding translation in RSVCE:
Sirach 24:17–22 (RSVCE)
17 Like a vine I caused loveliness to bud,
and my blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit.
19 “Come to me, you who desire me,
and eat your fill of my produce.
20 For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey,
and my inheritance sweeter than the honeycomb.
21 Those who eat me will hunger for more,
and those who drink me will thirst for more.
22 Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame,
and those who work with my help will not sin.”
I'm sorry, but the RSVCE is not even close - and it omits much! The reference to "Mother of Fair Love" is totally lacking as are many other elements. The readings in the DRB are in the canonical Vulgate...but not in the RSVCE. That's a problem, especially when you consider these words from the Council of Trent:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema (Session 4).To clarify, I'm not promoting DRB exclusivism, but I am saying that the DRB holds a privileged place in English translations and we shouldn't cast it aside. Every Catholic should have a copy of the DRB - especially if you employ the old Vulgate - a worthy practice.
11 COMMENTS : please leave a comment by clicking here:
Taylor,
Have you seen Brother Stephen's post made the other day?
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-heavyweights-lower-boom-on-new.html
There were also different editions of the Vulgate published. I believe that the Douay Rheims is based on the Clementine vulgate of 1592. However, there are variants in the text depending on which Vulgate edition you reference. Personally, I prefer the Nova Vulgata, which Liturgiam Authenticam sets out as the primary point of reference as concerns translation today:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
There are elements of the Nova Vulgata that aren't as poetic as is seen in some of the Vulgate editions, but it appears to reflect more accurate scholarship. I own the Nestle-Aland Nova Vulgata text with critical apparatus, allowing me to reconstruct the variant Vulgate texts, depending on the particular Vulgate edition, in addition to having the current approved text.
I like the DRB as well, but for the Psalter, you just can't beat the language of Miles Coverdale.
Also, the KJV is a good translation if it includes the Deuterocanonicals. It flows better when reading than the DRB.
True the Coverdale Psalter (the one in the Book of Common Prayer) is
awesome!
ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor
My two favoite Bible editions are the Father Haydock Douay Rheims for its excellent commentary and the old Confreternity of Christian Doctrine for its excellent prose.
But I would add that I am one of those who believe that reading the entire Bible, especially the Old Testiment, is advisable only for the truely spiritually and morally mature. Some passages, no matter how expressed, are just troublesome. One has to believe that they result from a particular idiom of expression once common but which has long been out of vogue. The passage above is one of those in my opinion. Though I hold the Blessed Mother in the highest regard. For the same reason I have never been able to appreciate the Canticle of Canticles. For the same reason I have always been troubled by Christ's discourse on the Eucharist. One has to have a little sympathy for His listeners. And to be honest, I have yet to hear or read a satisfactory discussion on it. St. Augustine comes close but still leaves me wanting more clarification. And this is why I have never advised everyone to read the Bible without a wise and truely spiritual moderator or guide. This is why Catholics have never been known as experts on Scripture.
Tay,
If you like the Douay-Rheims version so much, I hope you're pronouncing it correctly down there in Dallas. I like the Do-way Reems version, too, but in French (Douay is in Belgium, Rheims is in France) pronounce is Dway-Raa. Clear, right?
We must break the stranglehold of the New American translation on the Liturgy. But the Bishops perfer their copyright royalties to faithful translations.
I agree perfectly,the DRB is the best version.I also noticed that there are also verses completely omitted ,such as Job 20:18 which says <span> He shall be punished for all that he did, and yet shall not be consumed: according to the multitude of his devices so also shall he suffer.When a verse like this is omitted, and also altered it is not possible to establish the right interpretation during study since it will have to be verified with Hebrew meanings and also use strong's concordance. When I meditated on Job 20:18:22 it was vital to use the DRB. </span>
Fred,
I agree wholeheartedly.
A friend once told me what he thought of the NAB, he called it the <span>N</span>ot <span>A B</span>ible version.
Besides, the DRB gives us, in Matthew's rendering of the Lord's Prayer, "give us this day our supersubstantial bread", which is a literal rendering of the Latin which is a literal rendering of the Greek. Not "daily" bread, which makes it pretty clear Christ was talking about the Eucharist.
All post concillior bibles are of lucifer. No doubt.
Post a Comment